What Really Is Employee Engagement? - Short Version

Employee engagement seems to be an area of intense interest these days. A quick search of the term on Google shows over 450 million results. Interest has been growing vigorously among organizational development practitioners over the past couple of decades. Gallup research indicates fewer than 15% of us are fully engaged, a good reason for all this interest in employee engagement. There is, however, a severe lack of understanding by most managers of what exactly employee engagement is and what it looks like. Without understanding the construct, it is very difficult to know what to do about it.

This is the first of a short series of posts that will look at the phenomenon of employee engagement. I will present an analysis of some of the current research, both academic and commercial, as well as some suggestions of what to do about employee engagement. I will also present some of my original research into the dynamic between employer and employee when it comes to highly engaged individuals.

Problem

The first problem with employee engagement is defining what it actually means. This includes a little about what it is not. Although everyone who works has some idea in their heads of what employee engagement is and how it affects production in their environment, defining employee engagement has proven to be difficult. Many have tried, but so far there is no universally accepted definition of the construct. As a primarily commercial concept, organizations seem to have assumed a link with job performance, employee well-being, and, hence, organizational success and competitive advantage. HR professionals look to employee engagement as the heart of many talent development initiatives. The problem is, this definition is a moving target, very difficult to conceive, let alone develop programs around that will tackle the issue.

Research

Recent research by Gallup suggests that more people are actively disengaged from their work (24%) than people who are fully engaged (less than 15%). Some research suggests that disengaged workers generate significantly less revenue than their fully engaged colleagues. This may be costing organizations hundreds of billions annually in lost productivity. These data suggest there is a reason to be concerned and interested in employee engagement. First, though, we need to define what engagement means.

Despite a couple of decades of popularity, employee engagement has not gained a clear, single definition. Definitions have wavered between theory and practice and from psychological construct to practical productivity tool. Some researchers question whether employee engagement actually exists as a unique concept or if it is simply the repackaging of currently accepted work-related constructs, or indeed, nothing more than a passing fad.

The beginnings of employee engagement

William Kahn coined the term in 1990. He defined “employee engagement” as “the harnessing of organization members' selves to their work roles…[in which] people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances.” Role performance is interpreted to mean formal role, and not voluntary or extra-role behavior. Kahn also spoke of both utilizing and displaying what he termed a “preferred self” that would encourage positive connections to both individuals in the organization and to the tasks required of the work. According to Kahn, engagement requires more than the accomplishment of tasks, but a full and active participation within the organization, including a full presence, physically, cognitively, and emotionally. In essence, engagement is an individual’s responsibility to invest his or her complete self in their applicable work roles. He spoke little of organizational performance.

Since Kahn’s initial definition of employee engagement, others have developed additional layers to the construct. Gallup likens engagement to an employees’ positive emotional attachment and commitment to the organization. Some researchers have called employee engagement a positive emotional state workers direct toward their organization, their coworkers, and their job tasks, characterized by being committed and fascinated by their work, showing vigor, dedication, and absorption. These positive feelings are believed to lead to feelings of fulfillment, dedication to their organizations, and higher productivity. Many see engaged employees as those who are cognitively aware of business needs and have a heightened desire to see their organization meet desired outcomes. Engagement in this sense seems to go beyond motivation. It appears to be something the employee offers freely to the organization and cannot be forced on employees. The employee has responsibility and control over their engagement.

Engagement and energy levels

Employee engagement is often discussed as a single state: either one is engaged or one is not. Kahn originally envisioned employee engagement as people expressing their full selves in role performance, while disengagement is the withdrawal of preferred dimensions of one’s self. Those who are disengaged in this sense are those who essentially sleepwalk their way through their day, showing up, doing some form of work, but not bringing their full selves. Another view, though, is to look at three levels of engagement: those who are engaged, those who are not engaged, and those who are actively disengaged. Those who are actively disengaged are those who go out of their way to disrupt their work and that of those around them. They can be toxic in a work environment.

Despite the various definitions of engagement, most researchers agree that engaged employees display high levels of energy toward the tasks they perform. Personal role engagement is full, deep, and immersive, displaying an authentic expression of ones’ preferred self, which takes a large amount of an individual’s energy. That opens up a third way to view engagement. In this view, engagement may be conceptualized as being on a continuum, understanding that one may not have the energy it takes to be fully engaged 100% of the time. This view opens the possibility that employees are aware of their position on the continuum at any point in time. This also opens the possibility for individuals to develop strategies to reengage for times when they wander out of full engagement. We will examine that possibility in a future post.

What employee engagement is not

Some researchers have questioned whether employee engagement is nothing more than a new name for job satisfaction, job involvement, or organizational commitment. Job satisfaction is really a state of fulfillment and does not elicit the levels of dedication to one’s work or the energetic expressions of behavior, cognition, and emotion, as does employee engagement. Job satisfaction may be a component of engagement, though job satisfaction is manifested as nothing more than a transactional relationship with the organization.

Engagement is also not the same as job involvement. Job involvement is a cognitive judgment of the need to satisfy task conditions and ties into self-image. Employee engagement is about individuals employing their full selves in their work performance.

Organizational commitment is an attitude toward an organization, rather than an employee’s total absorption in the performance of his or her primary roles. Commitment may be a part of engagement or may lead to engagement, but it is a completely different construct.

Finally, engagement is distinguished from workaholism and type-A behavior. Engaged workers are balanced in their efforts and lack a compulsive drive. Work is not an addiction. They work hard because they like it and not because they are driven by a strong inner urge they cannot resist.”

Three Suggestions

• My first suggestion is to develop an understanding of what employee engagement actually is and what it is not. For example, don’t waste time developing job satisfaction programs if you want to increase engagement. Not that job satisfaction doesn’t play a role. It does. But just understand what you are trying to affect. Many people are satisfied with their jobs even though they are not engaged, but the opposite is also true. Some employees are dissatisfied with their jobs, but their internal drive remains and they are fully engaged.

• Find a safe way to gauge the levels of engagement in your organization. Many of the common surveys are designed around the wrong constructs. I will address a few surveys in a later post that may come in handy for getting at the root of engagement in your organization. It’s important to understand what you are measuring and why.

• Finally, don’t despair, even if surveys suggest low levels of engagement. If Gallup is correct, less than 15% of employees worldwide are fully engaged. Lifting that number one or two percent can make a very big difference. It can also help you identify programs that work for your organization.

Conclusion

Employee Engagement appears to be an elusive construct that defies a single universal definition. Perhaps it is the “bottom-up” development of the construct that makes engagement unclear and opens it to misconceptions by the general practitioner population. Engagement is characterized as putting one’s full energy and passion into the accomplishment of work tasks, to the point of going beyond the call of duty. Employee engagement may be influenced by an organization’s culture, but it is really an individual construct and relies on individual decisions to be engaged. Engagement is not the same as job satisfaction. It is a high-order concept, supported by emotional, behavioral, and cognitive factors. If you intend to use the concept of employee engagement to develop programs to better engage your workforce, you need to first determine what you mean by engagement. Only after taking careful stock of your organization’s needs will a definition of employee engagement be meaningful and useful in creating workforce interventions that will develop better engagement. Don’t give up. Keep engaged in raising engagement.