Master’s Thesis
Mona Taipale 2016
Lappeenranta University of Technology School of Business and Management Knowledge Management and Leadership Master´s Thesis 2016
Taipale Mona
Employee engagement in temporary problem-solving teams
1. Supervisor/Examiner: Professor Kirsimarja Blomqvist 2. Examiner: P.D. Researcher Jukka-Pekka Bergman
ABSTRACT
Author: Taipale, Mona
Title: Employee engagement in temporary problem-solving teams
Faculty: LUT School of Business and Management
Major: Knowledge management
Year: 2016
Master´s thesis: 79 pages, 2 figures, 1 table, 2 appendices Examiners: Professor Kirsimarja Blomqvist
P. D. Researcher Jukka-Pekka Bergman
Key words: employee engagement, temporary teams, co-creation, freelance economy
The objective of this study is to understand the meaning of the concept employee engagement and its historical evolution in academic literature, and to apply the concept in the new work context, freelance economy. My goal is to find out what employee engagement means for today´s professionals working in temporary problem-solving teams. The study is qualitative by nature. As data, I use twelve semi-structured interviews gathered in one case company that hires experts to temporary projects. The data were analyzed qualitatively using Gioia-method, an approach to inductive concept development.
According to the results, the experts were highly engaged to their work and strongly committed to their tasks. Organizational engagement as such was not found, but engagement to the leaders of the case company was strong. Shared values and trust among team members, together with good management and leadership, enhanced engagement. Also certain personal traits fostered engagement. These were curiosity and willingness to learn, self-efficacy, openness, proactiveness, and ambitiousness. Employee engagement may be enhanced through transformational leadership practices, especially by building trust and by creating safe atmosphere. Also taking employees´ personal values and personal traits into account is essential.
TIIVISTELMÄ
Tekijä: Taipale, Mona
Tutkielman nimi: Employee engagement in temporary problem-solving teams
Tiedekunta: LUT School of Business and Management Pääaine: Tietojohtaminen
Vuosi: 2016
Pro gradu -tutkielma: 79 sivua, 2 kuvaa, 1 taulukko, 2 liitettä Tarkastajat: Professori Kirsimarja Blomqvist
Tutkijatohtori Jukka-Pekka Bergman
Asiasanat: employee engagement, tilapäiset tiimit, yhteiskehittely, freelance-talous
Tämän tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on ymmärtää employee engagement -käsitteen historiaa ja kehittymistä akateemisessa kirjallisuudessa. Käsitteelle ei ole selkeää suomennosta, työhön sitoutumisen ohella se sisältää intohimon työtä kohtaan.
Tutkimuksen tavoitteena on pohtia käsitettä uuden työn kontekstissa, freelance- taloudessa. Haluan selvittää, mitä employee engagement tarkoittaa väliaikaisissa ongelmanratkaisutiimeissä työskenteleville asiantuntijoille. Tutkimus on kvalitatiivinen. Tutkimusaineistona on 12 puolistrukturoitua haastattelua, jotka on kerätty kohdeyrityksessä. Aineisto on analysoitu Gioia-metodia käyttäen.
Tutkimustulokset osoittivat, että asiantuntijoiden engagement kohdistui työn sisältöihin, työtehtäviin ja kohdeyrityksen johtajiin, ei niinkään organisaatioon.
Yhteiset arvot, luottamus tiimin jäsenten välillä ja selkeät työ- ja johtamiskäytännöt lisäsivät tiimiin kohdistuvaa engagementia. Myös persoonallisuudella oli merkitystä, erityisesti uteliaisuus ja halu oppia, minä-pystyvyys, avoimuus, oma- aloitteisuus ja kunnianhimo vahvistivat engagementia. Sitä voidaan vahvistaa edelleen transformationaalisen johtamisen keinoin, erityisesti rakentamalla luottamusta tiimin jäsenten kesken sekä luomalla turvallinen työilmapiiri. Keskeistä on myös henkilökohtaisten arvojen ja persoonallisuuspiirteiden huomioon ottaminen.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Writing this thesis was rewarding and challenging at the same time. I warmly thank my supervisor professor Kirsimarja Blomqvist for all the support, guidance and encouragement during the research process. I also thank P. D. Researcher Jukka- Pekka Bergman for sharp comments, and the case company for sharing information and showing interest in the study.
Special thanks to my family, my husband Mikko, who has always been there to support me, and my lovely children Lauri, Helmi and Ilmari. I also thank my parents and parents in-law for all the help during the studying process.
During the research process, I received a lot of support from my fellow students.
We had deep discussions on working life in general and more specifically on employee engagement. We shared articles, ideas, and even a working room for some time. The power and pressure of the group was crucial in pushing me forwards. Special thanks for Ilona, whose support and sense of humor always lifted me up when struggling with timetables and thesis-related angst.
Finally, I want to thank the museums of Lappeenranta for supporting my studying process, and Eevi ja Eemil Tanninen´s fund for the grant that enabled my study leave.
Mona Taipale 30.11.2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ... 7
1.1 Context of the study ... 7
1.2 Key concepts ... 9
1.2.1 Employee engagement ... 9
1.2.2 Employee motivation ... 11
1.2.3 Work engagement ... 12
1.2.4 Organizational commitment ... 13
1.2.5 Job satisfaction ... 14
1.2.6. Job involvement ... 15
1.2.7. Conclusion of key concepts ... 16
1.3 Research aims and questions ... 18
1.4 Structure of the study ... 18
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT – EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT 1990-2015 ... 20
2.1 Employee engagement as personal engagement ... 21
2.2 Employee engagement as antithesis to burnout ... 22
2.3 Employee engagement and job satisfaction ... 24
2.4. Employee engagement as multidimensional concept ... 24
2.5 Employee engagement in a nutshell ... 26
3 TEMPORARY FORMS OF ORGANIZING WORK ... 33
3.1 Project-based organizations ... 34
3.2 Team-based organizations ... 35
3.3 Freelance economy ... 37
4 RESEARCH METHODS ... 39
4.1 Description of the research process and chosen methods ... 39
4.2 Data collection ... 40
4.3 Data analysis via Gioia-method ... 42
5 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS... 44
5.1 Description of the Case Company ... 44
5.2 Engagement in project process ... 46
5.3 Team engagement ... 48
5.3.1 Shared values ... 49
5.3.2 Trust ... 51
5.3.3 Management and leadership ... 53
5.4 Personal traits ... 55
6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ... 60
6.1. Employee engagement in the new work context ... 60
6.2 Supporting employee engagement (managerial implications) ... 63
6.3 Theoretical implications and suggestions for future research ... 66
6.4 Limitations of the research... 67
6.5. Reliability and validity of the research ... 67
REFERENCES... 70
APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: Interview questions APPENDIX 2: Data structure TABLES Table 1. Employee engagement concept development in literature ... 29
FIGURES Figure 1. Nomological overlap model of employee engagement... 17
Figure 2. Diamond model of employee engagement ... 64
1 INTRODUCTION
“Three masons were working at chipping chunks of granite from large blocks.
When asked about what they were doing, the first mason said: “I´m hammering rock”. The second mason said: “I´m molding this block of rock so that it can be used with others to construct a wall”. The third man looked up and said: “I´m building a cathedral”.
1.1 Context of the study
Working life has changed rapidly during the last decades. Change drivers such as digitalization and globalization have affected the nature of work, the structures of organizations, and the ways of working all over the world. When preparing to the ongoing transition in the world of work, to the rapid changes in the market, and to customers' growing demands many organizations reorganize their structures and ways of working. Even the biggest and the most traditional organizations are moving from stable organizational environments and vertical organizational structures to continuously changing modern organizations and more flat and horizontal organizational structures.
The evolution in the nature of organizations and in the world of work in general has driven the companies to organize work more often on a project basis (Pemsel et al. 2014, 1416). Projects are often realized by different type of teams. Teams may include members from one organization or they may expand outside organizational boundaries. Some teams are temporary and ad hoc by nature, intended to solve a special problem or to fulfil a certain task. Digitalization enables also virtual teams that work without temporal and spatial boundaries.
In the middle of these fundamental changes, the traditional model of lifetime employment is getting too rigid (Hoffman et al. 2015, 5). It seems clear that in the near future there will be more distributed organizations based on teams and
networking, and professionals will be working in different projects for several employers. In these cases, the professionals work like freelancers sharing their expertise with various employers. In freelance economy, the relationship between employee and employer is different from what it used to be, and the expectations of both parties differ from those of the past (Robertson-Smith & Markwick 2009, 3).
Since lifetime employment with one employer is neither guaranteed nor expected anymore, employees in every sector continuously need to develop themselves, learn new skills and adapt to lifelong learning processes. Popular trends in today´s working life are working outside the office, absence of the superior in daily work, ability for active learning and renewal, multiculturalism, co-creation, and ability to tolerate incompleteness (Ala-Kivimäki 2016). A lot is required from employees today, and more has to be done with fewer people.
The personality of an employee seems to matter more than ever before, especially his or her psychological capabilities such as adaptation, perspective taking, personal initiative, self-control and communication skills (Schaufeli 2014, 16).
Detailed job descriptions are giving way to job crafting where employees´
strengths and goals are communicated to the employer who supports them by recrafting their jobs within the boundaries of the employer´s desired performance outcomes (French 2009, 556).
When first planning a thesis over a year ago, the organization I work for was in the middle of organizational change. During the change process, we, the employees were asked to share our ideas concerning the future of the organization and its form, and these ideas were taken into account when reorganizing the functions in the organization. Thus, we were all involved in the change process. The change was planned and realized carefully, and it took more than a year from starting the planning to the realization of the new organizational structure. I found this way of conducting change to be challenging and slow, but a good way to shape the structure of our organization and to engage employees to it. Later, when I was offered a possibility to take part of a research project at the university concerning new ways of organizing work, I got interested immediately.
My main interest is employee engagement. What is employee engagement today and where is it directed to? In this thesis, I will first describe how the concept and meaning of employee engagement has developed and changed throughout the years. After that, I will find out what employee engagement means for today´s professionals working in temporary problem-solving teams in one case organization. In the end, I will discuss the means through which employee engagement may be supported by the management.
This thesis is a part of InnoSpringCATCH research project the focus of which is in new forms of organizing work, cooperation and value co-creation, enabled by globalization and digitalization. The research project is funded by TEKES, Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) and partner companies.
1.2 Key concepts
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).
1.3 Research aims and questions
The first aim of this research is to understand the meaning of the concept employee engagement and its historical evolution in academic literature throughout the years. This aim will be reached by a profound literature review. The second aim is to apply the concept in the context of freelance economy. I seek to find out what employee engagement means for the experts working in temporary problem-solving teams. This aim is achieved by analyzing and interpreting twelve interviews of the experts working in temporary ad hoc teams solving complicated problems in the different projects of one case organization. Finally, the third aim is to discuss how employee engagement may be supported and enhanced by the management of an organization that hires experts for short-time projects.
My research questions are:
1. How has employee engagement been defined in previous research?
2. What does employee engagement mean for the case company experts working in temporary problem-solving teams?
3. How can employee engagement be supported by the management?
1.4 Structure of the study
The focus of this thesis is on employee engagement in temporary problem-solving teams. In chapter 1 I introduced the background of the subject and discussed the concept of employee engagement and the related concepts employee motivation, work engagement, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and job involvement. In addition, I presented my research aims, research questions, and the structure of the study.
In chapter 2 I will discuss the evolution of the main concept, employee engagement, through a literature review. I will present the different definitions of the concept starting from the first academic definition by William Kahn in 1990 until
today. Hence, in chapter 2 I will answer my first research question, how employee engagement has been defined in recent research. I will also introduce a table of the development of the construct during the last 26 years.
In chapter 3 I will present the new work context including project-based organizations, team-based organizations, and freelance economy, to be able to discuss employee engagement under the present working life circumstances. In chapter 4 I will describe my research process and the chosen research methods, the form of data collection and Gioia-method which I use in my data analysis.
In chapter 5 I will answer my second research question, what does employee engagement mean for the case company experts working in temporary problem- solving teams. I will first present the case company and the analysis of the data collected from the experts working for the company. After that, I will describe the findings of the data concerning engagement.
In chapter 6 I will discuss the results and answer my third research question, how can employee engagement be supported by the management. I will also conclude the results of the study, discuss theoretical and managerial implications, limitations, reliability, and the validity of the research.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT – EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT 1990-2015
In this chapter, I will present different research approaches to employee engagement starting from the first definition by William Kahn in 1990 and coming up to this day. Engagement literature is relatively new and most articles have been written during the past ten years. Some of them are so new they have not even been cited many times yet. In the academic literature the concept was first referred to as job or work engagement. Only during the last five years has employee engagement appeared as the dominant construct. Meanwhile the definitions of the related concepts have also altered and changed, which makes opening and defining of the concept challenging.
During the recent years, the interest in employee engagement and human resource management in general has increased tremendously. One reason for that is the research that shows employee engagement to be the key to organizational success. Employee engagement is thus desirable from the organization point of view. However, shifting from one job and organization to another has never been easier than today, and the latest reports show deepening disengagement among the employees to the employers, raising the question of how organizations can engage employees, and can they. (Saks & Gruman 2014, 156).
Employee engagement is a current topic also in academic research, especially in organizational sciences and human resource management. Human resource consultants often bring up the positive outcomes of employee engagement to the employees themselves and to their organizations. The latter include for instance employee commitment and loyalty to the organization. However, the consultant literature often lacks academic rigor and scrutiny (Shuck & Wollard 2009, 133).
2.1 Employee engagement as personal engagement
In academic literature employee engagement was first referred to by William Kahn, researcher in organizational behavior, in 1990. Kahn was influenced by sociology, and his emphasis was on personal engagement at work and the roles people play in their lives. In his groundbreaking ethnographic study he interviewed summer camp counsellors and members of an architecture firm about their moments of engagement and disengagement at work. Kahn identified three psychological conditions necessary for engagement: meaningfulness, safety, and availability.
According to Kahn these three conditions shape how people inhabit their roles at work. He defined meaningfulness as the positive sense of return on investments of self in role performance, safety as the ability to show one’s self without fear or negative consequences to self-image, status, or career, and availability as the sense of possessing the physical, emotional, and psychological resources necessary. (Kahn 1990, 705.)
Kahn defined engagement as the harnessing of organization members' selves to their work roles. According to Kahn, engaged people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances (Kahn 1990, 694). In his further research, Kahn defines engagement to be static but dynamic, changeable and psychological state linking employees to their organizations. He also proposes that employees choose to invest when they feel they can make a difference, change minds and directions, add value or join with something larger than themselves (Kahn, 2010). Like Maslow in his well-known theory the Hierarchy of Needs (1944), Kahn also sees that people need self- expression and self-employment in their working lives as a matter of course (Kular et al. 2008, 4).
Three years after Kahn, Schmidt et al. (1993) defined engagement as “employee's involvement with, commitment to, and satisfaction with work”. Employee engagement was seen as a part of employee retention (e.g. Pandey & Shine 2013). This definition integrated the constructs of job satisfaction and organizational commitment to the concept.
Kahn’s theory was not empirically tested until 2004 when May, Gilson and Harter found that meaningfulness, safety, and availability were significantly related to engagement. Of the three conditions, meaningfulness was found to have the strongest relation to employee engagement outcomes. Job enrichment and work role fit were positively linked to psychological meaningfulness. Rewarding co- worker and supportive supervisor were positive predictors of safety, while adherence to co-worker norms and self-consciousness were negative predictors.
Availability was positively related to resources and negatively related to participation in outside activities. May et al. see employee engagement as related to emotional experiences and well-being. (May et al. 2004, 11.)
Kahn´s research may be categorized as needs-satisfying. In their article Antecedents to Employee Engagement: A Structured Review of the Literature, Wollard and Shuck (2011) searched through the relevant literature about employee engagement on human resource management, psychology, and management databases. They found 213 publications from which they identified four approaches to define employee engagement. These were needs-satisfying, burnout-antithesis, satisfaction-engagement and multidimensional approach.
According to needs-satisfying approaches such as Kahn´s, employees are positive about their work being meaningful, their workplace being safe and having the sufficient resources available (Wollard & Shuck 2011).
2.2 Employee engagement as antithesis to burnout
Kahn´s research on the subject was dominant for more than ten years. In 2001, Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter provided another theoretical framework for employee engagement, which, according to Wollard and Shuck, was to be called the burnout antithesis approach. Maslach et al. proposed that employee engagement is the positive antithesis to burnout. According to them, the dimensions of burnout are exhaustion, inefficacy and cynicism whereas employee engagement is characterized by energy, involvement and efficacy (Maslach et al.
2001, 403).
According to this approach, the factors leading to either burnout or engagement are workload, control, rewards, recognition, community, social support, perceived fairness and values (Maslach et al. 2001). The approach suggests that engagement mediates the relationship between the work-life factors, work attitudes, and stress-related health outcomes (Saks & Gruman 2014, 161).
Matches are seen as leading to engagement and health outcomes. These findings are supported by May et al. (2004) in what comes to meaningful and valued work being associated with engagement (Kular et al. 2008, 5).
Alternatively, employee engagement can be seen as a distinct concept negatively related to burnout. This view makes employee engagement a concept of its own, a positive, fulfilling and work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption. From the three characteristics, vigor refers to high energy level and mental elasticity while working, willingness to make efforts in one’s job, ability to stay alert, and persistence when facing difficulties. Dedication refers to strong involvement in work, enthusiasm and inspiration, and reckoning one´s work significant and something to be proud of. Finally, absorption refers to a pleasing state of immersion in work, where time passes quickly and detaching oneself from work is challenging. (Schaufeli et al. 2002; Schaufeli 2014.)
Bakker and Demerouti (2007) also base their theory, Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, on burnout literature. JD-R model divides working conditions to job demands and job resources. According to the model, burnout can develop either as a result of high job demands that lead to exhaustion or because a lack of job resources that lead to withdrawal behavior or disengagement from work. Job demands include for instance work overload, job insecurity and role ambiguity. In turn, job resources include for instance role clarity, task significance and autonomy (Bakker & Demerouti 2007). Most research on employee engagement is based on JD-R model (Saks & Gruman 2014, 163).
2.3 Employee engagement and job satisfaction
The third approach, satisfaction-engagement approach as Wollard and Shuck named it, was suggested by Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002). In this approach employee engagement is defined as “an individual´s involvement and satisfaction as well as enthusiasm for work” (Harter et al. 2002, 269). This definition added satisfaction to the construct and measured engagement on business unit level, altering the way engagement had previously been viewed. The satisfaction- engagement approach was the first approach to link employee engagement and business unit outcomes. (Schaufeli 2014, 19.)
In their research, Harter et al. investigated 7939 business units in 36 companies across multiple fields of industry. Before that, employee engagement had never been looked at business unit level. Harter et al. were the first to find the positive relationship between employee engagement and business outcomes such as customer satisfaction turnover, safety, productivity, and profitability (Harter et al.
2002, 268). By the time the research was conducted, Harter worked for Gallup organization, and the satisfaction-engagement approach is used in Qallup´s well- known Q12 employee engagement survey. Q12 is a management tool for improving job satisfaction of the employees.
2.4. Employee engagement as multidimensional concept
The fourth, multidimensional approach to the concept was given by Alan M. Saks in his study Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement (2006).
Saks defines employee engagement as “a distinct and unique construct consisting of cognitive, emotional and behavioral components associated with individual role performance” (Saks 2006, 602). This definition combined previous literature by proposing that employee engagement was developed from cognitive (Kahn 1990;
Maslach et al. 2001), emotional (Kahn 1990; Harter et al. 2002), and behavioral components (Maslach et al. 2001; Harter et al. 2002). (Shuck & Wollard 2009, 136.)
Like Kahn, Saks also focused on role performance at work but broadened Kahn´s definition on employee engagement including both work and organizational engagement to the concept. Before Saks, the research had focused primarily on engagement at individual level. Saks found the two forms of engagement to be related but distinct constructs that have to do with employees’ attitudes, intentions, and behaviors (Saks 2006, 613). According to Saks, the concepts seem to have different antecedents and consequences. His research was the first to specifically conceptualize and test antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.
He developed a 6-item scale to measure job engagement and another 6-item scale to measure organizational engagement.
In his later research with Jamie A. Gruman (2011), Saks refers to Kahn saying that the resources needed to experience the psychological conditions for engagement (meaningfulness, safety, and availability) are job design, coaching, social support, leadership and training (Gruman & Saks 2011, 129). Saks proposes that focusing on these antecedents may enhance employee engagement in organizations.
According to Saks, engaged employees often have a positive emotional connection with their work and are likely to show attention and absorption in their work.
Hence, Saks connects the previous academic theories and practitioner literature.
As background, he uses the social exchange theory according to which the relationships evolve into mutual, trusting and loyal commitments over time when the parties abide by certain rules that involve reciprocity. Thus, employee engagement may be seen as a two-way relationship between employer and employee. (Kumar & Pansari 2014.)
Kumar and Pansari (2014) defined employee engagement as a multidimensional construct comprising all the different facets of the attitudes and behaviors of employees towards the organization. They propose a framework in which employee engagement consists of employee satisfaction, employee identification, employee commitment and employee loyalty. Together these dimensions of employee engagement lead to better employee performance. The framework
shows the importance of internal customers of the organization and helps to optimize its key resource, the employees. According to Kumar and Pansari, implementing effective ways to maximize employee engagement leads to maximizing the returns from customers. (Kumar & Pansari 2014.)
2.5 Employee engagement in a nutshell
The presented four approaches all stress different dimensions of employee engagement; the needs-satisfying approach the relation of employee engagement with role performance, the burnout-antithesis approach the positive nature of employee engagement in terms of employee well-being, the satisfaction- engagement approach the relation of employee engagement with resourceful jobs and the multidimensional approach its relation with the job and the organization (Schaufeli 2014, 19).
After having studied the evolution of the concept, Shuck and Wollard (2010) define employee engagement as “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state directed towards desired organizational outcomes” (Shuck &
Wollard 2010, 103). According to the scholars, engagement is often discussed as behavioral outcome and little attention is given to the antecedents that may drive the cognitive and emotional states of engagement, which may lead to the behavior that is seen as engagement (Wollard & Shuck 2011, 434). In their research, the scholars focused on antecedents to employee engagement by a structured literature review. As a result, 42 antecedents were grouped by application at the individual and organizational level (Wollard et Shuck 2011, 429).
In turn, in their literature review on the construct Macey and Schneider (2008) conclude that employee engagement has either been looked at attitudinally or behaviorally; as psychological state engagement (what it is), behavioral engagement (behaviors it produces) or trait engagement (attitude towards work) (Macey & Schneider 2008, 6). Of the three facets, each can be further divided into several aspects of engagement.
Macey and Schneider stress the importance of psychological state engagement to engagement. Psychological state engagement includes feelings like energy, absorption, satisfaction, involvement, commitment, attachment, enthusiasm, and empowerment (Macey & Schneider 2008, 6). Behavioral engagement is regarded as observable behavior in the work context including e.g. extra role behavior, organizational citizenship behavior, proactive and/or personal initiative, and role expansion (Macey & Schneider 2008, 14). Behavioral engagement also affects state engagement and is a moderator between trait and state engagement. Finally, trait engagement consists of positive views of life and work, proactive or autotelic personality, trait positive affect, and conscientiousness. It may be an orientation to experience the world in a particular way. According to the scholars, trait engagement is reflected in state engagement and these together lead to behavioral engagement. Thus, psychological state engagement is seen as an antecedent of behavioral engagement (Macey & Schneider 2008, 5).
Macey and Schneider propose that employee engagement possesses a few origins of both attitudinal and behavioral variety. They define employee engagement as “a desirable condition that has an organizational purpose and connotes involvement, commitment, passion, enthusiasm, focused effort, and energy" (Macey & Schneider 2008, 4). The nature of work (work attributes, variety, challenge, and autonomy) and the nature of leadership (especially transformational leadership) are seen as affecting engagement. Leadership has an indirect effect on behavioral engagement through the creation of trust (Macey &
Schneider 2008, 6).
To conclude, the majority of the research on employee engagement so far is located in the field of psychology and conducted within a positivistic paradigm using quantitative methods. Common to different definitions is that employee engagement is seen as including employee’s passion and commitment to his or her job and at some point to his or her organization. Employee engagement is not transactional, and it is seen as an internal state of being that includes emotion, behaviors, relationships, and a connection between the employee and the organization.
Despite the several studies and research, there is a lack of agreement of the concept employee engagement. Comparing the different definitions is not easy as each definition is made using different measures (Kular et al. 2008, 18). Finding a generally accepted definition would be important to be able to study, measure and manage employee engagement. According to Schaufeli there is an emerging consensus that employee engagement is a psychological state experienced by employees in relation to their work. It is sufficiently distinct from other, similar constructs and regarded as worthy of investigation in its own right (Schaufeli 2014, 9). Employee engagement has different antecedents and consequences than the related concepts such as satisfaction, commitment and involvement, and is something beyond them. Employee engagement is investing one´s hands, head and heart in the performance, it´s passion for work (Rich et al. 2010). The development of the concept is presented in table 1 below.
