In this subchapter, I will shortly discuss the concept employee engagement and the related concepts work engagement, employee motivation, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job involvement. The evolution of the concept of employee engagement will be further discussed in chapter 2.
1.2.1 Employee engagement
Employee engagement is a concept applied by both academics and practitioners.
Both parties have had a growing interest to the theme because it seems to enhance both individual well-being and organizational performance (Truss et al.
2014). There has been academic research on employee engagement since 1990 when William Kahn presented his theory of personal engagement and disengagement.
Employee engagement is often found to be one of the most important factors to improve productivity in organizational level. Engaged employees are more satisfied, productive and likely to stay with the organization than those not being
engaged. Engaged employees are willing to do extra work to help the organization to reach its goals (Baumruk 2006; Macey et al. 2009). Engaged employees are proud of their job and attached to their organization, investing themselves not only in their role, but in the organization as a whole. (Robertson-Smith & Markwick 2009, 5.)
Organizations with high engagement level often have low employee turnover. Also higher productivity, higher total shareholder returns, and better financial performance are reported. Otherwise equal, organizations with high employee engagement are often more profitable than those with lower employee engagement (Seijts & Crim 2006). Because of the various positive outcomes to the organization and the employee himself, employee engagement is seen as something desirable for the organizations. There is a huge potential of sustainable competitive advantage in employee engagement, and this potential is very hard to imitate.
Despite the positive outcomes of employee engagement to both employees and organizations, there is not a one clear and agreed definition of the concept so far.
Human resources professionals, consultants and other practitioners often bring up the positive consequences of employee engagement, but are not able to clearly define the concept (Macey & Schneider 2008). Academic definitions concentrate on different dimensions of the concept such as antecedents, different states of engagement, and the relationship between employee and employer. All parties agree that employee engagement is related to organizational outcomes; it is something that the employees give to benefit the organization.
The emergence and growing interest on employee engagement has also to do with the growing importance of human capital and psychological involvement of employees in business, and the increased scientific interest in positive psychology that focuses on personal growth (Schaufeli 2014, 17). Positive psychology is about individuals flourishing on many levels, such as biological, personal, relational, and cultural levels (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi 2000). Thus, employee engagement includes both personal and organizational factors.
1.2.2 Employee motivation
Motivation has been studied for decades and there are several definitions and theories related to it. Simply described, motivation is the answer to the question why we do what we do. One of the classic definitions for motivation is “the contemporary or immediate influence on direction, vigor, and persistence of action” (Atkinson 1964, 2).
Motivation theories are often classified into content and process theories. Content theories deal with the motivators the individuals have and focus on the factors within a person that energize, direct, sustain and stop behavior (Robbins 2000, 156). Content theories include for instance the classic theory by Abraham Maslow (1943), Hierarchy of Needs, which proposes that individuals strive to seek a higher need when lower needs are fulfilled (Maslow 1943, 390).
Another well-known content theory is the Two Factor Theory by Frederick Herzberg (1959). Herzberg added a new dimension to Maslow´s theory by presenting a two-factor model of motivation, which proposes that there are two kinds of factors that affect motivation; extrinsic hygiene factors such as salary and position, and intrinsic factors such as recognition and achievement. According to Herzberg, individuals look for higher-level psychological needs (intrinsic factors) to be content with their work and to strive for better performance. Intrinsic motivation is often seen as parallel to employee engagement. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction are seen as related but independent phenomena. (Herzberg et al. 1959.)
In turn, process theories describe and analyze the process how motivation occurs and how the behavior is energized, directed, sustained, and stopped. Process theories include e.g. the Goal Theory by Edwin Locke (1968) in which he argues that employees are motivated by clear goals and appropriate feedback. According to Locke, the tasks should be complex and the process of achieving a goal challenging enough to deepen the commitment to work. Working towards a set goal provides a major source of motivation to reach the goal, which, in turn, improves performance. (Locke 1968.)
Deci and Ryan (1985) present a self-determination theory proposing that people tend to be driven by a need to grow and gain fulfillment. Self-determination theory distinguishes between volitional and controlled behaviors. The former include the experience of freedom and autonomy, and the latter the experience of pressure and control. According to the theory, motivated behaviors vary in the degree to which they are self-determined versus controlled. Intrinsically motivated behaviors are performed out of interest and satisfy the innate psychological needs for competence and autonomy. The extent of extrinsically motivated behaviors varies in what comes to self-determination. Behaviors that are motivated extrinsically become more self-determined through internalization and integration. (Deci &
Ryan 1985; Deci & Ryan 2000, 65.)
To conclude, motivation is about an individual’s intensity, direction and persistence of effort towards attaining a goal. Intensity measures how hard a person strives towards a set goal. Direction of effort is consistent with the quality of aligning the motivated intensity towards the organization’s goals. Persistence of effort means staying with a task as long as it takes to achieve it. (Robbins & al. 2010, 140-141;
Toth 2015, 29.)
1.2.3 Work engagement
Schaufeli et al. (2002) define work engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, and work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption” (Schaufeli et al. 2002, 465). Of the three components, vigor and dedication are often seen as the core dimensions of work engagement. Vigor has similarities with intrinsic motivation, and dedication with job commitment. Absorption is seen as work-related and quite a persistent dimension. As a whole, work engagement is likely to remain relatively stable over time. (Mauno et al. 2006, 150-151; Schaufeli et al.
2002.)
There is also another way to define work engagement. According to Maslach and Leiter (1997), engagement is about energy, involvement and professional efficacy.
These dimensions are considered to be the opposites of burnout ones, such as exhaustion, cynicism and lack of professional efficacy (Maslach & Leiter 1997).
Thus, work engagement is seen as psychological state where work itself feels energizing and employees identify themselves with work. Work engaged employees are excited about their assignments and highly dedicated to the current task. According to Xanthopoulou & al. (2009), employees who are optimistic, have organization-based self-esteem and self-efficacy tend to experience work engagement (Xanthopoulou & al. 2009). Hence, work engagement has also to do with the personality of an employee and his or her personal resources. Work engagement has many positive outcomes both at individual and at organizational level. At individual level it affects personal growth and development, and at organizational level performance quality, for example (Bakker & Demerouti 2008).
Due to the lack of agreement of the concepts, work engagement and employee engagement are often used interchangeably. In this thesis, I use work engagement as a synonym for job engagement, which is part of a larger concept of employee engagement. Work engagement is about the employee´s relationship with his or her work/job. In turn, employee engagement includes both employee´s relationship with his or her work/job (work engagement) and with his or her organization (organizational commitment) (e.g. Maslach et al. 2001). However, some studies suggest that motivation does not always include the feeling of attachment to the organization (Robertson-Smith & Markwick 2009, 48).
1.2.4 Organizational commitment
Organizational commitment is about the degree of responsibility an employee feels towards the organization and its mission. Meyer and Allen (1991) propose a three-component model of commitment arguing that commitment has three different components each of them corresponding with different psychological states that characterize an employee's commitment to the organization. First state is affective
commitment that is the employee´s positive emotional attachment to the organization or the feeling of belonging. Affective commitment is positively associated with organizational citizenship behavior. If the cost of leaving the organization is seen as too high, the form of commitment is called continuance commitment. This state deals with the gains and losses in staying with the organization. Finally, normative commitment is a state where an employee feels that he or she has to stay with the organization for some reason. Normative commitment is like a moral obligation to focus on the job for its social or other value. (Meyer & Allen 1991.)
An employee may show high levels of organizational commitment when he or she shares the goals and values of the organization, is willing to make significant efforts on behalf of the organization, and wants to maintain membership in the organization (Mowday et al. 1979, 226). Debi S. Saini separates organizational commitment and employee engagement. According to Saini, commitment refers to employee´s satisfaction and identification with the organization. In turn, employee engagement goes a step further and involves employees making discretionary efforts towards attaining the goals of the organization (Saini 2007).
Alan Saks (2006) argues that organizational commitment differs from engagement in that it refers to a person’s attitude and attachment towards his or her organization, whereas engagement is not only an attitude but the degree to which an individual is attentive to his or her work, and absorbed in the performance of his or her role. The focus of engagement is on one’s formal role performance rather than extra-role and voluntary behavior. (Saks 2006; Saks & Gruman 2014, 158;
Kular et al. 2008, 3.)
1.2.5 Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is often seen as a reliable predictor of organizational commitment.
Shore and Martin (1989) propose that organizational commitment and job satisfaction relate differently to the same outcome variables. They also suggest
that job satisfaction and organizational commitment may not be completely distinct attitudes, but have some factors in common given the ability of these attitudes to account for distinct variance in the same work outcomes (Shore & Martin 1989, 634).
The most used definition of job satisfaction in organizational research is that of Locke´s (1976), describing job satisfaction as a positive emotional state that results from the good feedback of one's job or job experiences. According to Locke, the interest levels of dissatisfied employees towards work are low and the quality of work may diminish. From the organization point of view this causes time and money. (Locke 1976, 1304.) Lately, job satisfaction has been seen as including multidimensional psychological responses to one´s job, and that the responses have cognitive, affective and behavioral components (e.g. Judge &
Klinger 2007).
Job satisfaction is clearly a part of employee engagement but has little or no connection with performance. Job satisfaction is about the employee and his or her attitude towards his or her job (Christian et al. 2011, 95). Instead, engagement includes both personal satisfaction and organizational commitment. Because of the verified positive outcomes, many organizations have moved from employee satisfaction surveys to measuring employee engagement. However, the measures used in engagement and satisfaction surveys are so similar that it often causes confusion between the concepts.
1.2.6. Job involvement
Job involvement refers to the psychological and emotional extent to which someone participates in his or her work, profession and organization. Already in 1965, Lodahl and Kejner created a job involvement scale that has been used by organizations to measure the employee's level of satisfaction. According to Lodahl and Kejner, job involvement is partly learned and partly affected by organizational variables, especially interpersonal relationships. (Lodahl & Kejner 1965.)
In 1996, Brown proposed that job involvement is “a positive and relatively complete state of engagement regarding the core aspects of the job itself” (Brown 1996, 235). Macey and Schneider find that job involvement occupies the same conceptual space of engagement. In support of their argument, they cite the Harter et al. (2002) definition of engagement according to which “employee engagement refers to an individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work”. This definition encompasses both a state of satisfaction and involvement. (Macey & Schneider 2008; Harter et al. 2002, 269)
In their research, Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran (2005) suggest that job involvement is the degree to which a person psychologically relates to his or her job. This, in some operationalizations, is also a component of the engagement construct (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran 2005; Shuck et al. 2013).
1.2.7. Conclusion of key concepts
All the key concepts described above are quite vague and partly overlapping. A study by Christian et al. meta-analyzed over 90 engagement research studies concluding that engagement differs from job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job involvement (Christian et al. 2011). Shuck et al. (2013) have conceptually and context specifically explored the same constructs. They propose a nomological overlap model of employee engagement, job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. The constructs are empirically separable and discriminate from one another at structural, fundamental levels (Shuck et al. 2013, 23).
Figure 1. Nomological overlap model of employee engagement (Shuck et al. 2013)
The conversation around the key concepts is wide, rich and meandering, and the dimensions of the concepts keep changing over time. According to Macey and Schneider, the measures of engagement have mostly been composed of items representing one or more of the four different categories: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, psychological empowerment, and job involvement.
Their findings come close to those of Shuck et al. Macey and Schneider also argue that psychological factors have become stronger in engagement, and that there is an increasing emphasis on absorption, passion and affect, and a lessening emphasis on satisfaction, job involvement and organizational commitment (Macey & Schneider 2008).