The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2051-6614.htm

Employee engagement:
a sceptical analysis

Employee
engagement

David Guest
Department of Management, Kings College London, London, UK

141

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review the debates and evidence about employee
engagement to assess its prospects of becoming a mainstream part of management activity in the long
term. It sets out an agenda for policy and practice designed to increase its chances of sustainability.
Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on a review of the research and analytic
literature. It outlines the origins, reasons for growth of popularity, main forms and evidence about the
antecedents and impact of employee engagement. It draws a distinction between work engagement
and organizational engagement. For the former it outlines a research agenda; for the latter, it presents
an extensive critique and an agenda to address the issues raised.
Findings A distinction is highlighted between work engagement with its concern to improve
employee well-being and organizational engagement with its focus on organizational performance.
It is shown that these two approaches operate in different worlds and that this reflects a neglect of an
evidence-based approach to management of employees since work engagement has much the stronger
evidence base.
Research limitations/implications As a review and analysis, the paper is inevitably selective
and limited by space restrictions. However, it argues that while work engagement is now well-established
among the academic community as a valid and useful construct, the same cannot be said for organizational
engagement which lacks clear definition, measurement, high-quality evidence and clear policy implications.
The paper therefore sets out a policy agenda and outlines how some of the shortcomings might
be addressed.
Practical implications The paper highlights the need for a viable and integrated engagement
strategy if organizational engagement is to thrive in the future and sets out the core elements of such
an approach.
Originality/value The paper highlights the distinction between the two separate engagement
worlds of work and organizational engagement and also highlights their different core aims.
The problems with organizational engagement are analysed and a new agenda to improve its prospects of
impact is outlined.
Keywords Well-being, Organizational performance, Work engagement, Organizational engagement,
Edvidence-based management
Paper type Literature review

Introduction
From time to time new ideas or concepts emerge that capture the attention of policy
makers, managers and academics. Some have a sound theoretical and empirical base;
others rely more on effective marketing, often by consultancy organizations. Some can
best be described as short-lived management fads; others become established as a part
of management. Over the years, these concepts have included T-groups, the
managerial grid, in search of excellence, quality circles, process re-engineering and,
more recently, employee engagement. The prevalence of such fads and fashions has
spawned its own sub-discipline that seeks to understand how and why these concepts
emerge and what impact they have (see, e.g. Abrahamson, 1991; Gibson and Tesone,
2001). It is too soon to tell whether employee engagement will eventually come to be
viewed as a passing management fad or an established part of management practice.
However, the aim of this paper is to review its status and distinctive features with the

Journal of Organizational
Effectiveness: People and
Performance
Vol. 1 No. 2, 2014
pp. 141-156
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2051-6614
DOI 10.1108/JOEPP-04-2014-0017

JOEPP
1,2

142

aim of assessing its potential longevity. The title of the paper provides a clue to the core
stance of the central argument.
The structure of the paper is as follows. A first section briefly outlines the nature of
employee engagement, drawing a distinction between work and organizational
engagement and offering some explanations for its popularity. This is followed by
a brief review of the evidence about work engagement, highlighting areas that would
benefit from further research. The next section analyses organizational engagement,
highlighting a number of concerns. A final section sets out a brief operational agenda
listing policies and practices that might help to increase the likelihood that
organizational engagement has an impact.
The origins and growth of interest in employee engagement
It is generally acknowledged that Kahn (1990) presented the first academic paper about
employee engagement. It offered employee engagement as a new approach to employee
motivation, outlining what Kahn described as a behavioural perspective based on three
dimensions of physical, emotional and cognitive engagement. It did not initially attract
a great deal of attention. From a different perspective, some experts on workplace
stress and in particular burnout began to consider the opposite end of the continuum,
which they described as employee engagement (Maslach et al., 2001). They viewed this
as an attitudinal state comprising three sub-dimensions of vigour, dedication and
absorption. The concept was further developed and, importantly, a measure of
attitudinal engagement was designed and validated by a team at Utrecht University
(Schaufeli et al., 2002). The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) measure has been
extensively used in many countries as the concept of employee engagement, aided by
the presence of this measure, has attracted increasing academic attention.
In parallel with the growth of academic interest in employee engagement,
consultants also began to market the concept, together with their own engagement
measures. The Gallup Organization was at the forefront of this activity. Their
engagement survey, the Gallup Q12 (Harter et al., 2002), was statistically rather than
conceptually derived leading to a problem in defining this version of organizational
engagement. However, by providing evidence to show an association between a higher
score on this measure and indicators of higher organizational performance, it had an
immediate attraction for organizations. Several other consultancies that used standard
survey instruments rapidly developed and marketed their own engagement measures.
In the UK, interest in employee engagement was given a boost in 2008 when
a government minister, Lord Mandelson, set up the MacLeod Review to explore the
potential of employee engagement to improve UK productivity and competitiveness.
The MacLeod Report, published in 2009, strongly supported the concept. The report
was subsequently endorsed by Prime Minister Cameron and by a sizeable group
of leading industrialists and a Task Force was set up to promote an engagement
movement under the banner of Engage for Success.
There is no doubt that employee engagement has attracted a great deal of attention
in academic circles and in work organizations, suggesting that the development
and application of engagement over more than a decade has been a success. However,
a distinctive feature of employee engagement is that work engagement and
organizational engagement seem to exist in two parallel and rather separate worlds,
those of academia and industry. In a context where evidence-based management is
increasingly advocated (Rousseau, 2012) the apparent failure of the large body of
academic work to influence organizational thinking and practice is puzzling. One aim

of this paper will be to explore why this has occurred and what its implications are for
academic research and management practice.
The rapid growth of interest in engagement in both academic and organizational
circles raises questions about why it has risen to prominence. Schaufeli (2014) explains
the popularity of work engagement by drawing on two influences. One is the
individualization of work, reflecting also a decline in collective activity. The second
is the growth of interest among psychologists in general, including work and
organizational psychologists and also wider western society in positive psychology.
One manifestation of this is the expansion of research on happiness which has now
also become a focus of a regular national survey in the UK following an initiative
by the Prime Minister. Engagement fits into this stream of positive psychology,
particularly where it focuses on the association between work engagement and
employee well-being.
A further influence that Schaufeli identifies, and one that begins to explain its
popularity in organizations, is the emphasis in business strategy on resource-based
views of the organization (Barney, 1991) where human resources are increasingly seen
as the key resources to leverage competitive advantage. To achieve this, organizations
are encouraged to pursue strategic human resource management (HRM) to leverage
their human capital; and employee engagement fits comfortably within this
perspective. Consultants can claim considerable credit for the effective marketing of
engagement. First, they have presented evidence of a strong association between
engagement and organizational performance. Second, they have drawn attention to an
engagement deficit which serves both to create anxiety and to hold out that promise
that if it can be addressed, then employee performance should improve.
The analysis of the reasons for the interest in engagement highlights an important
distinction, highlighted previously by Saks (2006) among others, between the focus
of work engagement and organizational engagement. Work engagement has, as its
main outcome, a concern for employee well-being. It is a psychological theory reflecting
what Schaufeli describes as the individualizing tendency in societies, and it operates at
the individual level of analysis. In contrast, organizational engagement is primarily
concerned with improving organizational performance. This is reflected in the UK
governments interest and in the argument that higher engagement is associated
with higher profits. With a focus on improving well-being, it is easy to understand why
employees might be interested in work engagement. But why should they have any
interest in organizational engagement? This is one of the issues, that is explored in the
following pages.
An assessment of work engagement
As noted above, the first paper on employee engagement was written by Kahn in 1990
and focused on what he termed behavioural engagement reflecting his interest in
developing more operational concepts and ways of measuring motivation at work.
He continued to write about the concept and defined employee engagement as the
employment and expression of a persons preferred self in task behaviors that
promote connections to work and to others, personal presence (physical, cognitive
and emotional) and active full performance (Kahn, 1990, p. 700). Although quite
extensively cited, Kahns ideas did not initially generate significant research. However,
a number of researchers have developed scales based on his concept of engagement
(see, e.g. May et al., 2004; Saks, 2006). A more recent study by Rich et al. (2010) adopted
Kahns conceptual framework and developed a scale to test its validity, maintaining

Employee
engagement

143

JOEPP
1,2

144

Kahns distinction between physical, emotional and cognitive engagement. They found
that the three dimensions were empirically distinct but could be combined into a single
measure. In their study among fire crew they found that value congruence, perceived
organizational support and a positive core self-evaluation served as significant
antecedents. Higher engagement was associated with higher supervisor-rated job
performance and organizational citizenship behaviour. An important claim was that
this measure of engagement was a more powerful mediator than other established
concepts such as involvement, intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. Unfortunately,
there has not yet been much further published work using the new scale and an initial
review by Peccei (2013) suggests problems with scale and in particular the measure of
the emotional dimension.
Whereas Kahn proposed what he described as a behavioural model of employee
engagement, in Europe, a team led by Schaufeli at Utrecht University developed an
attitudinal construct of work engagement based on the job demands resources model
(Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). They defined work engagement as A positive, fulfilling
work-related state of mind that is characterised by vigour, dedication and aborption
(Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). Vigour is defined as high levels of energy and mental
resilience [y] willingness to invest effort in ones work and persistence even in the face
of difficulties; dedication is a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride
and challenge; and absorption is described as being fully concentrated and deeply
engrossed in ones work (Schaufeli et al., 2002, pp. 74-75). It can be noted that there is
some considerable overlap with Kahns definition, more particularly with respect
to the definition of resilience. Because the UWES, developed by this group, has been
widely used to measure attitudinal employee engagement, most of the research and
the reviews of evidence about employee engagement reported by academics
are predominantly based on this measure. Reflecting this, we will use the term
work engagement.
In evaluating the status of the concept of work engagement, a number of concerns
have been discussed in the literature. A first issue concerns the antecedents and
consequences of work engagement. These can be considered by reviewing the outcome
of the various meta-analyses and systematic reviews of the research. There have been
several relevant reviews of the evidence about the antecedents and consequences of
employee engagement. In the meta-analyses by Christian et al. (2011), Crawford et al.
(2010) and Halbesleben (2010) both antecedents and consequences of engagement are
considered. A number of subsequent reviews have also considered the evidence
alongside a range of additional issues (see, e.g. Albrecht, 2010; Bakker et al., 2011;
Peccei, 2013; Truss et al., 2014). From a somewhat different perspective, Macey and
Schneider (2008) analysed the meanings of engagement, differentiating between what
they termed trait, state and behavioural engagement, a key implication of trait
perspectives being that not everyone will be equally enthusiastic about being engaged.
The review by Peccei (2013) is particularly useful in drawing together the findings
of the meta-analyses. He found that they cover a wide range of antecedents and a
narrower set of outcomes. Utilizing the job demands resources model, he divides the
antecedents into resources, demands and individual factors. This provides 29
antecedents that have been explored and this almost certainly under-estimates the full
range of factors that have been considered. However much the most frequently
explored antecedents are job control/autonomy and social/perceived organizational
support. Given the popularity of these resources it is interesting to note that his
review of the meta-analyses reveals that other factors are more strongly associated

with engagement. The strongest associations, with corrected correlations above 0.50,
are with job variety, work-role fit and task significance and, highest of all, self-efficacy.
These are followed, with corrected correlations above 0.40, by opportunities for
development, a proactive personality, optimism, trait positive affectivity and
conscientiousness. Only then, with a corrected correlation of 0.39, do we see job
control/autonomy enter the list. The demands generally have a much weaker, albeit
predictably negative association with engagement. This analysis reinforces the
importance of features of work roles and in particular the influence of what Macey
and Schneider referred to as trait engagement, suggesting that some employees have
personal characteristics that pre-dispose them to be more likely to report higher levels
of engagement. This has potentially important policy implications since it suggests
that a focus on selection may be just as important as a focus on job design. And while
it does not lead us to reject the job demands resources model, it places a question
mark over its primacy as an explanation for variations in levels of engagement.
Pecceis analysis of the outcomes of engagement considered task performance,
contextual performance, health and intention to quit. His analysis shows a strong
association between engagement and task performance (0.43), a modest association
with contextual performance (0.33) and weak associations with health (0.20) and
intention to quit ( 0.26). The great majority of studies are cross-sectional raising the
usual issues of causality; nevertheless, the results from the meta-analyses confirm
an association between employee engagement and task performance that lies at the
heart of much of the organizational interest in engagement.
Several further issues arise from the reviews of the research on work engagement.
These include the stability of engagement, factors influencing changes in engagement
and the relevant weight of different background factors and antecedents when
considered in isolation or in combination. There are also issues concerning the
appropriate level of engagement and whether there may be a curvilinear relationship
whereby too much engagement may become damaging, notably with respect to its
impact on health and work-life balance. All these issues are beginning to be considered.
The stability of engagement is a relevant concern because the definitions, with their
focus on vigour and absorption suggest potentially considerable demands on energy.
Kahn (see Kahn and Heaphy, 2014) has questioned the assumption that engagement
should be viewed as a persistent high-energy activity. This issue has been explored
through the use of diary studies (see, e.g. Xanthopoulou et al., 2009) which confirm
that the levels of engagement do vary over the working day. Further research is
needed to determine whether this is equally valid for both attitudinal and behavioural
engagement.
As noted, most of the reported studies of employee engagement are cross-sectional.
This leaves open the question of causality. Apart from short-term diary studies, and
a small number of reported studies with two- or three-wave collections of data (see, e.g.
Halbesleben et al., 2009) there have been few longitudinal studies that help to address
this issue, and in particular, an absence of theory-based intervention studies that seek
to alter engagement levels and test the effects. This is an area where further research is
urgently needed.
The question of which antecedents are most likely to enhance engagement is
relevant for determining the best way to intervene in any change programme.
We noted that the most widely studied antecedents are job control/autonomy and
social/organizational support. These are typically viewed as the key resources present
to varying degrees in organizations. Yet variety, task significance, job-role fit and

Employee
engagement

145

JOEPP
1,2

146

development opportunities have stronger associations with work engagement. These

findings are in line with the broader tradition of job redesign and notably the job
characteristics model of Hackman and Oldham (1980), suggesting that what you
are given control over matters greatly and doing meaningful work that offers variety
and development opportunities is perhaps where more emphasis should be placed.
Crawford et al. (2010) argue that we need to distinguish between challenging demands
and hindrance demands. In short, we need to move beyond or at least extend the
job demands resources model for a fuller understanding of the antecedents
of engagement.
One of the concerns that arises increasingly with respect to processes designed to
enhance motivation and involvement is whether they can be taken too far. Although
engagement was initially developed as the opposite of burnout, is it possible to
experience burnout as a result of too much engagement? Alternatively, is it likely that
high levels of task-related engagement will result in sacrifice of work-life balance
and neglect of other work commitments? Researchers have begun to explore the
dark side of engagement (Bakker, 2010). Halbesleben et al. (2009) found that
engagement was associated with interference with life outside work, although this was
moderated by conscientiousness. High levels of work engagement may also affect
recovery times (Sonnentag, 2011).
In all this, we are assuming that engagement is a valid independent concept.
A number of studies have explored its discriminant validity. In his meta-analysis,
Halbesleben (2010) considered whether the choice of measure made any difference to
the results of the various studies and he concluded that it did not. This is a convenient
finding for the use of meta-analysis but it raises some challenging questions about the
specificity of the concept if different measures with rather different conceptual bases
arrive at the same results. It suggests a certain lack of specificity of the concept.
Newman et al. (2010) are sceptical about whether engagement is an independent
variable. They argue for the presence of what they term an A Factor, comprising job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, employee involvement and engagement.
They provide some empirical evidence to show that there is a high level of common
variance across these concepts and that by using the integrated A Factor, a higher
level of variance in outcomes can be explained. In contrast, Christian et al. (2011) in
their meta-analysis, found that engagement explained some unique variance. Much
depends on judgement about how much overlap or how much unique variance is
useful. However, these different results highlight a need for further research using
a combination of potentially related variables to improve our understanding of the
unique contribution of engagement.
A major stream of research on work engagement had its roots the study of burnout
and engagement was initially considered as the opposite of burnout (Maslach et al,
2001). However, subsequent research sought to demonstrate that rather than view it
as the opposite end of a continuum, work engagement was better viewed as an
independent construct (Schaufeli et al., 2008). This issue was explored in a further
meta-analysis reported by Cole et al. (2012) who found that once a measure of burnout
was entered into a regression, a measure of engagement added little or no added
variance in a dependent variable. In short, from varying perspectives, the
independence of the work engagement construct remains open to question. On the
other hand, when used as an independent variable, for example in a context where
burnout is not a relevant focus of attention, the evidence from the meta-analyses cited
earlier indicates that it is associated with a number of specific outcomes.

In summary, work engagement has rapidly become established as a major focus of

academic research with an established measure and impressive evidence about its
antecedents and consequences. However, several concerns have been identified and
a number of topics for further research have been outlined. Several are already the
focus of research and as a result we can expect to see further refinements and
developments in work engagement.
Organizational employee engagement
What I term organizational employee engagement is distinct from work engagement
in its broader focus on engagement with the organization and organizational goals.
There is a particular contrast with the work engagement approach associated with
the Utrecht group whose main focus is on employee well-being and health-related
outcomes. Instead, the focus is much more firmly directed towards organizational
performance and the contribution employees can make to this if they are fully engaged.
However, this was not readily apparent in its initial development, which, as noted
earlier, is generally traced back to the work of the Gallup Organization. Statistical
analysis of what was essentially an extensive measure of job satisfaction was able to
reduce a long measure down to 12 key items that become known initially as the Gallup
12. As Harter et al. (2002) note, the Gallup 12 explain a great deal of the variance in
what is defined as overall job satisfaction. We refer to them as measures of employee
engagement to differentiate these actionable work-group-level facets from the more
general theoretical construct of job satisfaction. The key step was to demonstrate
an association between higher scores on the Gallup 12 and measures of organizational
performance. Furthermore, the analysis was conducted at the group, unit or
organizational level offering an association with performance indicators that senior
managers are likely to consider highly relevant. It is good to focus on possible
antecedents of job satisfaction. However, there have been decades of research on the
relationship between job satisfaction, motivation and performance and although there
is persistent evidence of a clear association (see, e.g. Judge et al., 2001; Schneider et al.,
2003), the direction of causality is unclear. Therefore, the underlying assumption that
higher scores on the Gallup 12 will lead to higher job satisfaction which in turn will
lead to higher organizational performance is open to question.
A further potential problem with this analysis can be found in the associated
definition of employee engagement as an individuals involvement and satisfaction
with as well as enthusiasm for work (Harter et al., 2002). This goes beyond a narrow
view of job satisfaction and is what Macey and Schneider (2008) define as a state
definition of engagement. While it is broader than job satisfaction, it differs from
the implication of the previous quote asserting that employee engagement,
as measured by the Gallup 12, is concerned with actionable work-group-level facets.
For some this may not be a problem. For example, Shuck (2011) in his review of different
approaches to employee engagement, simply calls this a satisfaction-engagement
approach. Nevertheless, it leaves something of a conceptual muddle. This is reinforced
by the absence of any coherent conceptual explanation for the items that form
the Gallup 12. Although the survey items may point to some potential
antecedents of job satisfaction, there is no theoretical basis comparable to the job
demands resources model to help to explain and justify the potential policy levers.
However, this has not stopped organizations from enthusiastically using the Gallup 12
measure and as engagement attracted more attention, several other consultancies
developed their own proprietary measures of engagement and marketed them

Employee
engagement

147

JOEPP
1,2

148

on the same basis as Gallup, namely the association between higher scores on
the measure and higher organizational performance, and the need to address the
engagement deficit.
The marketing of the concept of organizational engagement, in the UK in particular,
has been greatly boosted by government interest. Both by setting up the review and by
endorsing its findings as well as supporting further action to develop organizational
engagement, the UK government has helped to promote senior management interest in
employee engagement. By 2012, surveys showed that it was at the top of the agendas
of HR managers (Clinton and Woollard, 2012). However, it remained uncertain
what engagement was and, partly as a consequence, what organizations had to do to
enhance engagement. For example, the MacLeod Review received over 50 definitions of
engagement, reflecting the uncertainties and ambiguities surrounding the concept.
In the MacLeod Report, four levers for enhancing engagement were identified.
These were leadership from the top to promote engagement, engaging managers
to apply engagement, integrity, which reflects the values of consistent application of
engagement and voice, which is a mechanism to involve and communicate with
employees. The follow-up Engage for Success movement in the UK, led by David
MacLeod and Nita Clarke, the joint authors of the initial report, has energetically
promoted engagement. They have done this through conferences, setting up networks,
setting up and populating a web page and supporting research. A large number of
case studies of organizations that claim to have successfully applied engagement have
been presented and publicized. As Sparrow (2014) has argued, they are involved in
presenting what he describes as a strategic narrative with the main aim of marketing
engagement to important stakeholders.
Despite the apparent success of organizational employee engagement in attracting
considerable attention and despite the enthusiastic marketing by both the Engage for
Success team and the consultancies who offer to undertake engagement surveys, there
are a range of fundamental problems with this approach to engagement that need to be
addressed if it is to have the impact that its advocates hope to see. Below we outline
some of these as a basis for a policy agenda designed to take the topic forward.
A first problem for organizational engagement is establishing what it is.
The Gallup-based definition offered by Harter et al (2002) is an extension of job satisfaction.
The many definitions offered to the MacLeod Review range widely but are often highly
subjective and lack any basis for measurement or action. One of the most common
was, in effect a non-definition: you know it when you see it (MacLeod and Clarke,
2009, p. 7). One of the more interesting definitions has been provided by the UK
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), the professional body for
HR managers. They suggested that employee engagement is a combination of
commitment to the organisation and its values and a willingness to help out colleagues
(organisational citizenship). It goes beyond job satisfaction and is not simply
motivation. Engagement is something the employee has to offer: it cannot be required
as part of the employment contract (CIPD 2012). This is distinctly different from
many other definitions in that it implies that engagement is a combination of two
established and widely researched topics on which there is extensive evidence about
antecedents and consequences. It also emphasizes the importance of exchange.
One note of caution is that it combines what Macey and Schneider describe as a state
concept (commitment) and a behaviour (organizational citizenship). This is largely
avoided in the definition the MacLeod Review eventually agreed upon which defines
engagement as a workplace approach designed to ensure that employees are

committed to their organisations goals and values, motivated to contribute to

organisational success, and are able, at the same time to enhance their own well-being
(MacLeod and Clarke, 2009, p. 9) (I should declare an interest since this was a definition
that I proposed to the Review). Again this definition addresses well-established
concepts for which there is good research evidence about antecedents and therefore
potential policy levers. It also emphasizes the importance of exchange by indicating
the need to pursue the dual goals of organizational success and employee well-being.
Therefore, although it does not explicitly specify the antecedents, it provides a basis
for policy development and testing. Some combination of these two overlapping
definitions is therefore a useful starting point for developing policy about
organizational engagement.
A second problem with organizational engagement concerns its measurement.
The main measures of work engagement are firmly based within theoretical
frameworks. The same cannot be said about measures of organizational engagement.
In addition to the Gallup measure, other consultants such as Aon-Hewitt, Hay, Kenexa
and Towers Watson have all developed their own measures. These may well be very
useful measures and they may be associated with organizational performance but the
underlying basis for item inclusion is rarely made explicit. Furthermore, the plethora
of survey measures without any basis for a comparative analysis of their effectiveness
of the sort we see with the meta-analyses of work engagement scales, makes any
evaluation of their relative value impossible to achieve. While a comparative statistical
analysis might be helpful, it would be difficult to establish whether any difference in
outcomes was the result of the quality of the measure or the underlying theory on
which the measure is based, even if we assume that such a theory exists.
Allied to the issue of measurement, a third problem for organizational engagement
is the quality of the evidence that engagement pays off. Almost all the evidence
provided by consultants uses variations in scores on their engagement scales as the
independent variable and various measures of performance, usually financial
performance, as the dependent variable. As with the research on job satisfaction,
a correlation is found. Indeed, it almost does not seem to matter which engagement
measure is used. While this evidence may be convincing to managers, it has not
generally been subject to academic scrutiny and critical analysis. The same holds true
for some of the evidence cited in the MacLeod Report which claimed to show that
changes in engagement scores are associated with changes in financial indicators,
typically when comparing branches of the same organization. While these may well be
valid results, what is missing is any indication of why the scores change, reflecting the
lack of theory about the determinants of engagement.
In an attempt to nail the evidence, the Engage for Success Task Force
commissioned a review of the evidence about the impact of engagement (Rayton et al.,
2012). This concluded that there was convincing and robust evidence that engagement
delivers strong bottom line benefits to organizations. Unfortunately, the report
fails to define engagement, provides no indication about how engagement is best
measured, cites studies which cover related topics such as job satisfaction and
commitment, suggesting that it overlaps very heavily with existing concepts, is
unclear about the antecedents and accepts sometimes uncritically, claims by
large commercial organizations about the link between engagement and financial
outcomes. Therefore, what on the surface may appear a convincing case about
the benefits of organizational employee engagement, largely disintegrates on
closer inspection.

Employee
engagement

149

JOEPP
1,2

150

A fourth problem with the general approach to organizational engagement is the

implicit assumption that employees want to be engaged. Indeed, in some of the writing
there is almost a normative assumption that they ought to be engaged. What is termed
the engagement deficit is viewed as an organizational problem. This deficit may
be largely a function of a statistical artefact; some employees inevitably have to be in
the bottom third. However, it remains unclear why people want to be engaged
with their organization. One important initial factor to consider is the presence of
persisting individual differences what Macey and Schneider (2008) describe as trait
engagement. They suggest that individual differences in characteristics such as
proactivity and conscientiousness will influence the desire to become engaged.
The research on work engagement supports the view that these and other personal
characteristics such as self-efficacy are important antecedents of work engagement.
Second, employees may have differing orientations to work (Blackburn and Mann,
1979). For example, those who adopt an instrumental view of work will see it as
a means to an end. They will do a fair days work for a fair days pay but they do not
seek any further involvement with the organization and feel no obligation to be
engaged. Likewise those who give priority to work-life balance may explicitly seek to
minimize their engagement with the organization. From a rather different perspective,
there may be competing commitments and those who accept a pluralist view of
organizational life may feel that their obligation is to the union or workers interests
that are seen as distinct from those of their employing organization (Angle and Perry,
1986). The reluctance to become engaged may possibly be overcome if employees can
see some benefit for themselves in engagement. This leads to the fifth problem with
organizational engagement.
A number of approaches to organizational engagement focus on the benefits to
the organization of having engaged employees but offer employees nothing in return.
This problem has been analysed by Keenoy (2014) who cites, as one example the
definition of engagement offered by Kenexa as the extent to which employees are
motivated to contribute to organizational success. It involves how willing an employee
is to apply discretionary effort to accomplishing tasks important to the achievement
of organizational goals (Keenoy, 2014, p. 205). This might seem to overlap with the
CIPD definition in some respects but it singularly lacks any sense of reciprocity or
benefit for employees. Arguably, any approach that seeks to promote employee
engagement must offer employees reasons to be engaged. Social exchange theory
(Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2004; Saks, 2006) lies at the heart of much of
organizational behaviour and provides a framework within which to consider how an
organizational engagement policy might be developed. It is based on the norm of
reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) whereby if an employee is offered something
positive, they will feel obliged to reciprocate. Therefore, we can hypothesize that a
supportive organizational climate which promotes fairness and trust and ensures
that the promises inherent in the psychological contract are kept is likely to be
reciprocated with higher levels of commitment, motivation, task and contextual
performance (Guest, 2004). It is therefore likely to be essential in any approach to
organizational employee engagement that a unitarist perspective, whereby employee
goals are assumed to be synonymous with organizational goals, is avoided and instead,
aspects of a mutual exchange are emphasized. Employees must benefit from
engagement in what they, rather than the organization, perceive to be worthwhile.
As Purcell (2014) among others has argued, a strong employee voice can help to
achieve this.

A sixth problem with organizational engagement is that it is unclear what you need
to do to enhance engagement. For many organizations, one suspects that doing
engagement means employing a consultant to conduct an attitude survey and then
considering the implications of some form of benchmarking of the results. The
MacLeod Report offered four main approaches to leveraging engagement, the implicit
assumption being that all four needed to be addressed. These were briefly outlined
above and they address leadership, management, values and voice. Leadership and
values should be closely integrated to create a climate for engagement while line
managers have to practice engagement and voice provides an opportunity for
employees to comment on and get involved in engagement processes. There is
a general coherence to this approach but it is presented, perhaps inevitably, at a level of
generality where it omits most of the specifics of what the policies and practices
to promote engagement look like. It therefore provides no operational guidance.
Furthermore, closer inspection suggests that these areas of activity might be viewed
rather superficially in organizations. For example the Engage for Success Task Force
supported two studies exploring the role of voice (IPA/Tomorrows Company, 2012a, b).
These revealed that the predominant form of voice was downward communication
and there was generally very limited scope for any form of upward influence (see
Guest, 2014, for a fuller account). In summary, it is not clear what organizations need to
do to promote engagement.
A final concern about organizational employee engagement is its almost total neglect
of the research on work engagement. Although work engagement research is typically
conducted at the individual level and therefore cannot convincingly be linked to financial
outcomes, the evidence cited previously shows consistent associations with task
and contextual performance which are likely to be antecedents of employee-based
performance improvement at the organizational level. Unlike organizational
engagement, there are clear definitions, established measures, strong underlying
theory, clear evidence about antecedents and consequences and a strong evidence base
that demonstrates mutual gains for the organization and its employees. In the context
of the increasing advocacy of an evidence-based approach to policy (Rousseau, 2102),
it is both puzzling and disappointing that this strong evidence is largely ignored by
organizations. Possible explanations include the failure of the academic voice to be heard
above the voices of consultants, the lack of interest in individual-level issues, the absence
of any attempt to link work engagement to financial outcomes and a disinterest in
evidence. Whatever the reasons, a central argument of this paper has been that employee
engagement lives in two very different worlds, with different discourses and these
separate existences are a loss to both engagement communities but more particularly to
those who would wish to promote organizational employee engagement.
Towards an agenda for more effective organizational employee engagement
Given all the problems with organizational engagement, one recommendation might
be to give up on it. But the interest in the general topic and the anxieties about an
engagement deficit and the need to improve productivity and competitiveness
in economies such as the UK suggest that it may be better to create an agenda to
promote a more effective form of organizational engagement. The final main section
of this paper therefore presents the outline of a policy agenda for the promotion of
engagement. Any such agenda will need to adopt a multi-level approach. It can also
build on some of the antecedents of work engagement since Saks (2006) among others
has suggested there is an overlaps between antecedents of work and organizational

Employee
engagement

151

JOEPP
1,2

152

engagement. Insofar as engagement is concerned with generating motivation,

commitment, citizenship behaviour and enhanced well-being as well as higher
performance, another good starting point is to include some of the known antecedents
of these concepts. A wider set of HR policies will then be needed to provide further
support. This still begs the questions of definition and measurement. I would propose
that the MacLeod definition of engagement provides a useful starting point.
Any attempt to measure levels of engagement should then accept that if the concept
comprises a set of state or attitude variables, and can also be reflected in behavioural
outcomes, measurement should use established work engagement scales such as the
UWES (though see Fletcher and Robinson, 2014, for a review of possible measures).
Furthermore, when turning the focus on outcomes such a commitment and citizenship
behaviour, which in some cases are also viewed as components of organizational
engagement, well-established measures are readily available.
An effective approach to employee engagement requires a sophisticated system of
measurement and evaluation to increase the likelihood that the benefits of achievement
will be realized. While a core element will be a measure of the level of engagement
as reported by employees, to understand the level in a given unit, it will also be
necessary to measure whether the practices designed to enhance engagement are in
place, whether they are implemented and therefore actually experienced by employees,
and whether they are valued by employees. It will also be necessary to measure
unit level outcomes. Some of the core practices that may help to enhance engagement
are set out very briefly below in the form of an engagement agenda. All can be
supported by strong research evidence.
The engagement agenda:
(1)

Select staff with a propensity for engagement. If we accept that there are likely
to be individual differences in the propensity to become engaged, then it is
sensible to use engagement propensity as a selection criterion. This
might mean the use of personality measures such a conscientiousness,
proactivity and optimism. These have all been associated with work
engagement and this is likely to be an important conduit to organizational
engagement, so it is sensible to give some weight to these variables.

(2)

Train staff for engagement. The values of the organization, if they genuinely
support engagement, should be promoted in a variety of ways. They should be
communicated as part of realistic job previews for potential staff and reinforced
in the socialization of newly appointed staff. Efforts should also be made to
promote self-efficacy through careful feedback, guidance and coaching since
this has been demonstrated to be a strong antecedent of work engagement.

(3)

Invest in human capital and employability. Training will also need to ensure
that employees possess the competence to display engaged behaviour. This
will require an investment in human capital and skill enhancement. This also
gives confidence to employees by helping to ensure that they have marketable
skills and will enhance the sense of reciprocity encouraging employees to give
something back to the organization.

(4)

(Re)-Design jobs to maximize employee autonomy, challenge, variety, skill

utilization and scope for learning and development. This is a core component
of the theory underpinning work engagement. However, in our review,
we argued that it is necessary to focus on a rather broader model of work design

than that implied by the job demands resources theory. Particular emphasis
needs to be placed on skill utilization and opportunities for learning. This will
again bring benefits to employees, providing for an element of exchange.
It will be important to avoid work overload, given the risk that successful
work engagement results in the kind of absorption that reflects a form of
over-commitment, and this may extend to organizational engagement.

Employee
engagement

(5)

Provide strong organizational support. The core model underpinning work

engagement views support from the organizational culture and systems and
from supervisors as an essential resource and there is extensive research to
show that supportive leadership acts as an antecedent to engagement.

153

(6)

Reward and promote managers using their ability to engage employees as a key
criterion. A key challenge in ensuring engagement is the active enactment
of engagement activities by line managers. In effect this means that they
need to be at least as much employee-centred as task-centred. One way of
ensuring this is to ensure that evidence of active support for engagement,
is a criterion for promotion and, as part of a balanced scorecard, when
rewarding managers.

(7)

Ensure fairness of treatment and trust in management, using a range of voice

mechanisms to achieve this. There is extensive evidence that fairness and
trust are key factors in ensuring a positive psychological contract and in
generating the kind of exchange relationship where employee are more likely
to demonstrate willingness of become engaged.

(8)

Ensure extensive and effective two-way communication. The evidence on

voice reveals that there can be extensive downward communication
associated with engagement. Realistic voice requires extensive scope for
upward communication, particularly direct communication concerning work
and workplace issues. Effective representative upward communication can
also help to develop a sense of trust in engagement processes.

(9)

Create a context that reinforces job security and flexible working. Employees are
more likely to display attitudes and behaviour associated with engagement if
they can do so within a safe environment with respect to their future
employment and in a context where there is a positive management approach to
providing the kind of flexibility with respect to issues such as part-time working
that attract a positive reciprocal response from employees.

(10)

Adopt a strategic human resource strategy that reflects the values of

engagement and recognizes that need to integrate the components of an
engagement system outlined above. Effective engagement is likely to
depend upon the kind of organizational culture that is perceived by employees
to ensure that espoused engagement values become actual practice. This
means that it will not be enough to address the list of agenda items listed
above in isolation. They need to be part of an integrated engagement strategy
and engagement system if they are to have a chance of succeeding.

It is no accident that the list above bears considerable similarities to high commitment
or high involvement models of HRM (Boxall and Macky, 2009). This is because the core
features of engagement and the outcomes sought overlap to a considerable extent with
this approach to HRM. There is, of course, a considerable body of evidence showing an

JOEPP
1,2

154

association between the presence of more HR practices and organizational

performance (see, e.g. Combs et al., 2006). On this basis, we can argue that the kind
of integrated agenda for an engagement system also has a strong expectation of
positive outcomes. Like HRM, it will require strong organizational support from the top
leadership team so that, like a strong HR system (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004) it is
possible to demonstrate a strong engagement system. Purcell has argued that
engagement is a much more straightforward and easy to grasp concept than an HR
system. This may well be true at one level, in that everyone has some idea, however
vague, about what is meant by engagement. However, part of the argument presented
here, is that if it is to succeed in having an impact, organizational engagement needs
to become more like an HR system. There may be a risk that greater complexity scares
off some managers; but this will be a risk worth taking.
References
Abrahamson, E. (1991), Managerial fads and fashions: the diffusion and rejection of
innovations, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 586-612.
Albrecht, S. (Ed.) (2010), Handbook of Employee Engagement, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Angle, H. and Perry, J. (1986), Dual commitment labor-management climates, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 31-50.
Bakker, A. (2010), Engagement and job crafting: engaged employee create their own great
places to work, in Albrecht, S. (Ed.), Handbook of Employee Engagement, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, pp. 229-244.
Bakker, A., Albrecht, S. and Leiter, M. (2011), Key questions regarding work engagement,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-28.
Bakker, A. and Demerouti, E. (2007), The job-demands resources model: state of the art,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.
Barney, J. (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Blackburn, R. and Mann, M. (1979), The Working Class in the Labour Market, Macmillan, London.
Bowen, D. and Ostroff, C. (2004), Understanding HRM-performance linkages: the role of the
strength of the HR system, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 203-221.
Boxall, P. and Macky, K. (2009), Research and theory on high performance work systems:
progressing the high involvement work stream, Human Resource Management Journal,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 3-23.
Christian, M., Garza, A. and Slaughter, J. (2011), Work engagement: a quantitative review and
test of its relations with task and contextual performance, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64
No. 1, pp. 89-136.
Clinton, M. and Woollard, S. (2012), Facing Continuing Uncertainty: The State of HR, Kings
College and Speechly Bircham, London.
Cole, M., Walter, F., Bedeian, A. and OBoyle, E. (2012), Job burnout and employee engagement:
a meta-analytic examination of concept proliferation, Journal of Management, Vol. 38
No. 5, pp. 1550-1581.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A. and Ketchen, D. (2006), How much do high-performance work
practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 501-528.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. and Conway, N. (2004), The employment relationship through the lens of social
exchange, in Coyle-Shapiro, J., Shore, L., Taylor, S. and Tetrick, L. (Eds), The Employment
Relationship: Examining Psychological and Contextual Perspectives, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, pp. 5-28.

Crawford, E., LePine, J. and Rich, B. (2010), Linking job demands and resources to employee
engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 5, pp. 834-848.
Fletcher, L. and Robinson, D. (2014), Measuring and understanding engagement, in Truss, C.
et al. (Eds), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, Routledge, London, pp. 273-290.
Gibson, J. and Tesone, B. (2001), Management fads: emergence, evolution and implications for
managers, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 122-133.
Gouldner, A. (1960), The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-178.
Guest, D. (2004), The psychology of the employment relationship: an analysis based on the
psychological contract, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 541-555.
Guest, D. (2014), Voice and employee engagement, in Johnstone, S. and Ackers, P. (Eds), Finding a
Voice: New Perspectives on Employment Relations, Oxford University Press, Oxford, in press.
Hackman, R. and Oldham, G. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Halbesleben, J. (2010), A meta-analysis of work engagement: relationships with burnout,
demands, resources, and consequences, in Bakker, A. and Leiter M. (Eds), Work
Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press,
New York, NY, pp. 102-117.
Halbesleben, J., Harvey, J. and Bolino, M. (2009), Too engaged? A conservation of resources view
of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 6, pp. 1452-1465.
Harter, J., Schmidt, F. and Hayes, T. (2002), Business-unit-level relationship between employee
satisfaction, employee engagement and business outcomes: a meta-analysis, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 268-279.
IPA/Tomorrows Company (2012a), Rethinking Voice: Survey of Employers About Employee Voice,
Involvement and Participation Association, London.
IPA/Tomorrows Company (2012b), Releasing Voice for Sustainable Business Success,
Involvement and Participation Association, London.
Judge, T., Thorsen, C., Bono, J. and Patton, G. (2001), The job satisfaction job performance
relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 127 No. 3,
pp. 376-407.
Kahn, W. (1990), Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.
Kahn, W. and Heaphy, E. (2014), Relational contexts of personal engagement at work, in Truss, C.
et al. (Eds), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, Routledge, London, pp. 82-96.
Keenoy, T. (2014), Engagement: a murmuration of objects?, in Truss, K. et al. (Eds), Employee
Engagement in Theory and Practice, Routledge, London, pp. 197-220.
Macey, W. and Schneider, B. (2008), The meaning of employee engagement, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-30.
MacLeod, D. and Clarke, N. (2009), Engaging for Success: Enhancing Performance Through
Employee Engagement, Department of Business, Skills and Innovation, London.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. and Leiter, M. (2001), Job burnout, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 397-422.
May, D., Gilson, R. and Harter, L. (2004), The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety
and availability and engagement of the human spirit at work, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 11-37.
Newman, D., Joseph, D. and Hulin, C. (2010), Job attitudes and employee engagement:
considering the attitude A-factor, in Albrecht, S. (Ed.), Handbook of Employee
Engagement, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 43-61.

Employee
engagement

155

JOEPP
1,2

156

Peccei, R. (2013), Engagement at work: an evidence-based review, in Bach, S. and Edwards, M.

(Eds), Managing Human Resources, 5th ed., Wiley, Chichester, pp. 336-363.
Purcell, J. (2014), Employee voice and engagement, in Truss, C. et al. (Eds), Employee
Engagement in Theory and Practice, Routledge, London, pp. 236-249.
Rayton, B., Dodge, T. and DAnaleze, G. (2012), The Evidence: Employee Engagement Task Force
Nailing the Evidence Workgroup, Engage for Success, London.
Rich, B., Lepine, J. and Crawford, E. (2010), Job engagement: antecedents and effects on
performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635.
Rousseau, D. (Ed.) (2012), The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Management, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Saks, A. (2006), Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619.
Schneider, B., Hanges, P., Smith, B. and Salvaggio, A. (2003), Which comes first: employee
attitudes or organizational financial and market performance?, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 836-851.
Schaufeli, W. (2014), What is engagement?, in Truss, C. et al. (Eds), Employee Engagement in
Theory and Practice, Routledge, London, pp. 15-35.
Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A. (2002), The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Schaufeli, W., Taris, T. and Van Rhenen, W. (2008), Workaholism, burnout and engagement:
three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being?, Applied Psychology:
An International Review, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 173-203.
Shuck, B. (2011), Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: an integrative literature
review, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 304-328.
Sonnentag, S. (2011), Research on work engagement is well and alive, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 29-38.
Sparrow, P.R. (2014), Strategic HRM and Employee Engagement, in Truss, K., Alfes, K.,
Delbridge, R., Shantz, A. and Soane, E. (Eds), Employee Engagement in Theory and
Practice, Routledge, London, pp. 99-115.
Truss, C., Delbridge, R., Alfes, K., Shantz, A. and Soane, E. (Eds) (2014), Employee Engagement in
Theory and Practice, Routledge, London.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W. (2009), Work engagement and
financial returns: a diary study on the role of job and personal resources, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 183-2000.
Further reading
Bakker, A. and Leiter, M. (Eds) (2010), Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and
Research, Psychology Press, New York, NY.
George, J. (2010), More engagement is not necessarily better: the benefits of fluctuating levels
of engagement, in Albrecht, S. (Ed.), Handbook of Employee Engagement, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, pp. 253-263.
Corresponding author
Professor David Guest can be contacted at: david.guest@kcl.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints