Employee engagement in the new work context

The evolution of the concept of employee engagement was introduced in chapter 2. Earlier definitions generally assume that when talking about work, there is always an employee and an employer, and a relationship between them where the former is subordinate to the latter. It is also supposed, that employees work permanently for their employers unless something special comes up. In the new work context this is not always the case. People feel free, and even a need, to change jobs every now and then. Also freelancing is increasing. More often, professionals are able to decide who to work with, when, where, and under what circumstances and rules. In these cases, the professional is the one who decides what to share, and how to use his or her skills, not the employer. Hence, the employee - employer setup has changed from that of the past, sometimes even turned upside down. There are more changes to come as traditional employers disappear, and working life becomes even more fragmented.

Employee engagement is often seen as consisting of work engagement and organizational engagement. Work engagement refers to one´s personal engagement to work, whereas organizational engagement refers to the relationship between the employee and the organization he or she works for.

According to Schaufeli et al. (2002b), the dimensions of personal work engagement are vigor, dedication and absorption, which were all found it the data.

According to Schaufeli and Bakker (2004), vigor implies for instance high levels of

energy and willingness to invest effort at work. Kahn (2010) argues that employees choose to invest when they feel they can make a difference, and join something larger than themselves. This study supports Kahn´s findings showing that in the projects of the case organization, the experts had chosen to invest effort because they wanted to create green and clean technology solutions that would benefit cities, regions, countries, and the whole world.

Alongside vigor, the experts were strongly dedicated to their work. I find that dedication has similarities with vocation. Both concepts refer to strong involvement in working, sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge (Schaufeli & Bakker 2004). All these elements were present in the data and affected positively to team members´ engagement at work. The third dimension of work engagement, absorption, refers to immersion and feelings of competence.

Self-efficacy, sense of confidence and competence, was one of the personal traits the experts had in common. Thus, the findings of this study support the results of Schaufeli et al. concerning work engagement.

The findings of this study showed, that most experts were truly engaged to their work. However, organizational engagement as such was not found in the data. All experts worked for other organizations and projects, too, so they were not oriented to one single employer, organization or project. Also the nature of the case organization as a project-based startup with flat organizational structure may have affected the engagement of the experts. The case organization mediates expertise and works mainly virtually. All experts worked temporarily for the case organization, some just for one project. Thus, the relationship with the organization may have been loose even though commitment to projects was strong.

However, the experts were highly engaged to the founders of the company, who were also the leaders of the projects in most cases. Organization-related engagement was thus very much personalized to them. According to the experts, the founders of the company were trustworthy, and they had created an atmosphere where the experts felt safe. Psychological safety is a belief that one will not be punished or humiliated when telling about his or her ideas, asking

questions, bringing out concerns, or making mistakes. In this case, the leaders, through their way of leading, had succeeded in encouraging reflection, removing the fear of failure and creating a culture of experimenting. These are all important in order to share ideas with others in a team. Psychological safety is also one of the conditions Kahn (1990) defined necessary for personal engagement at work.

The other two conditions are meaningful work and availability, the latter in a sense of possessing the physical, emotional, and psychological resources necessary for working. According to Kahn, these three conditions form the basis of personal engagement. I find Kahn´s definition still relevant today when talking about personal engagement at work.

Strong team engagement was not found in the data. The experts shared green and social values that increased trust (reliance) inside teams. Shared values and trust did increase commitment to teams, but according to the findings of this study, the experts were still more engaged to the aims of the projects, their own tasks, personal development and expertise, than the team. In this case, tasks were in line with the personal values of the experts, which clearly fostered engagement.

Project teams were ad hoc type and projects were quite short, lasting from some weeks to some months. I suppose stronger team engagement would have taken more time, as human relationships evolve into mutual, trusting and loyal over time (e.g. Gruman & Saks 2011). Also reciprocity is needed.

In an ideal situation, teams are empowered by shared values and common goals.

According to Kirkman and Rosen (1999), empowered teams are productive and proactive, have high levels of customer service, job satisfaction, and organizational and team commitment. The dimensions of empowerment in teams are potency, meaningfulness, autonomy, and impact. These dimensions were mostly present in teams, so empowerment was possible, but didn´t always happen. As a result of good team management, some teams were more productive and proactive than others.

According to the findings of this study, the concept of employee engagement needs to be redefined in the new work context, where the role of traditional employers diminishes and freelance type of working increases. Of the components of employee engagement, work engagement is needed in order to successfully accomplish jobs and solve complicated problems. However, organizational engagement is not as relevant as it was before, and it cannot be expected or required anymore. I presume that in the future, engagement of employees, whether they were subordinates, entrepreneurs or freelancers, will be more and more focused on the task, and the task has to be in accordance to the personal values of the employee. This means that in the future, employee engagement might consist of work engagement and value-related task engagement.

Employees choose to engage when their tasks are relevant and meet their personal interests and values.