Category: Employee Engagement

Executive Summary

The present research project is devoted to the investigation of employee engagement and its implications for organizational performance. The paper starts with the identification of research aims, objectives, and methods and continues with a short review of high-quality articles and reports. The evaluated evidence reveals that in order to increase job and organizational engagement, company leaders must strive to promote job satisfaction among staff members and motivate them through various means. The key findings substantiated the formulation of a few practical recommendations to improve work engagement focusing on employee empowerment, reward systems, career growth opportunities, and enhancement of workplace culture. The expected impacts of those recommendations on employee performance at distinct organizational levels are outlined in the conclusion.

Introduction

Employee engagement is a strategic approach to organizational improvement endeavors and the stimulation of desired organizational change. The given strategy aims to achieve and maintain the highest level of employee motivation and workers’ devotion to the well-being of their company (Agrawal 2015). It is considered that engaged employees show positive organizational behaviors and directly contribute to favorable organizational outcomes including increased productivity and profitability (Osborne and Hammoud 2017). Leadership and job design are traditionally considered the most important factors defining the motivation of personnel. However, to engage employees in work, the design of the workplace environment and reinforcement practices should be substantiated by an in-depth understanding of underlying psychological mechanisms and drivers of motivation.

Project Aim

The given research project is intended to provide practical recommendations aimed to increase employee engagement and consequently promote positive organizational behaviors and productivity in personnel.

Project Scope

By costing millions of dollars to organizations annually, disengaged employees pose a significant managerial problem. The given research project attempts to address this essential matter by providing such deliverables as evidence-based practice recommendations. The research will be based on the information retrieved from 11 scholarly sources. The project will be deemed successful in case both predictors and outcomes of employee engagement are identified. Consequently, the data can be implemented within one or a few particular organizational environments in a single case study or comparative control study.

Project Objectives

An expected project outcome is the demonstration of how various employee engagement practices can contribute to positive organizational performance and results. To attain this, the following objectives should be achieved:

1. collection and analysis of scholarly and professional evidence,
2. determination of final recommendations based on literature review findings, and
3. outlining of possible impacts on the organization due to the implementation of the proposed recommendations.

Project Limitations

The given project does not produce new empirical evidence, which could contribute to the field of knowledge. Additionally, the relatively small sample size is employed. A more comprehensive and systematic literature review could increase the credibility of findings and minimize the risk of result biasing.

Methodology

The inductive process and a narrative synthesis of evidence will be employed to analyze the patterns in the collected data. As a result, conclusions regarding different employee engagement practices and organizational outcomes will be made. Consequently, the practical recommendations will be formulated by using the deductive method. They will be derived directly from the evaluated evidence and reviewed theories. After the completion of the literature review, it will be possible to implement the generated findings in a case study research, using a sample of one organization. The given research design methodology can help evaluate organizational processes and experiences and, in this way, help deepen the understanding of different contexts defining employee engagement.

Secondary Data

Secondary data is associated with major methodological benefits such as cost and time efficiency. Moreover, it can largely contribute to the research project by helping generate new insights regarding the matter of interest. In this project, 11 high-quality, peer-reviewed, and professional sources will be located via credible online databases such as Science Direct, Emerald Insight, Google Scholar, ProQuest, and so on. Secondary data will be derived from recent publications, both quantitative and qualitative. The sources focused on the investigation of employee engagement, as well as job satisfaction, employee motivation, and positive organizational behavior will be considered eligible for inclusion. Sources published before 2013 will be excluded from the literature review.

Quantitative Data

Quantitative data will be retrieved from “Steelcase Global Report: Engagement and the Global Workplace.” It is a comprehensive study of employee engagement indicators conducted across 17 countries including the UAE. The total sample assessed by Steelcase (2018) comprised over 12,400 respondents. The sampling technique and sample size largely define the high credibility of the study findings. The report provides statistical information (percentages) on such aspects of employee engagement as workers’ level of control over workflows and processes, use of mobile technologies, workplace flexibility, and so on. In this way, these data substantially support the fulfillment of the purpose of the given research project.

Qualitative Data

Non-numerical information will be retrieved from some studies selected for the review. For instance, Osborne and Hammoud (2017) used personal interviews with experienced managers implementing employee engagement strategies to identify the prerequisites of employee motivation and commitment. For future research on employee engagement strategies, questionnaires aimed to collect employee and managers’ perceptions of different aspects of job satisfaction and motivation can be developed. During the design of the questionnaire form, the researcher will follow the major guidelines including transparency of intent, consistency of questions with the study objectives, the inclusion of sufficient answer options, and the use of information from previous research to substantiate interpretation of participants’ responses.

Literature Review

In their study, Osborne and Hammoud (2017) regard self-determination theory (SDT) as a foundation for employee engagement strategies. “Disengagement and personal engagement are related to the SDT in that an employee’s behavioral state is a key driver of motivation to demonstrating behavior at the professional and personal levels” (Osborne and Hammoud 2017, p. 52). From the given theoretical perspective, motivation is directly related to job satisfaction and personal emotional state: “when employees begin to withdraw and hide their identities, ideas, and feelings, they become disengaged and defensive, resulting in an adverse effect on work performance” (Osborne and Hammoud 2017, p. 52). For this reason, to engage employees in work, organizational leaders must address their motivation and attitudes.

Such work-related attitudes as job satisfaction are reactions to different elements of the organizational environment: relationships with colleagues, attributes of leader-member exchange, work flexibility, shared corporate values, etc. (Agrawal 2015; Baum & Kagan 2015). Karanika-Murray et al. (2015) state that a stronger and positive bond with a company is associated with increased employee engagement and organizational commitment. Additionally, greater job satisfaction may be a result of perceiving job duties and professional roles as meaningful and worthwhile (Hassan 2014). For this reason, two major components of employee engagement can be distinguished: job engagement and organization engagement. According to Agrawal (2015), the former occurs when a person enjoys his/her work processes and the latter − when he/she develops meaningful relationships with the company.

Distinct components of job satisfaction, an essential part of employee engagement, operate at different levels. For instance, Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory suggests that employees’ behaviors are driven by intrinsic factors (motivators), such as achievement and recognition, and extrinsic factors (workplace hygiene), such as rewards and job security (Damij et al. 2015). It is considered that hygienic needs, defined by physical and psycho-social conditions at the workplace, can only minimize dissatisfaction but unable to motivate employees directly, yet they can mediate performance by supporting job satisfaction (Damij et al. 2015). Conversely, motivational factors including achievement, recognition, work itself, professional growth, etc. are more important compared to the hygienic/external ones because they are sources of internal satisfaction, which leads to greater job commitment (Rahman et al. 2017; Hansen et al., 2016). Nevertheless, Kian et al. (2014) note that satisfaction with both internal and external factors may result in stronger and prolonged engagement in work.

Recent statistics reveal that only 13% of employees around the globe are highly engaged and satisfied (Steelcase 2018). The Engagement and the Global Workplace report also shows that the major prerequisites of employee engagement are work autonomy and flexibility, the level of technological advancement at the workplace, the overall work style (e.g., collaborative, individual, nomadic, etc.), as well as micro- and macro-cultural contexts (Steelcase 2018). The findings of the global survey are consistent with recent research findings on organizational behavior and employee engagement, which reveal that when the workplace is associated with numerous psychological hazards, such as job insecurity and work overload, employees are exposed to excess stress and tend to develop adverse psychological conditions and mindsets leading to dissatisfaction and poor performance (Hall et al. 2013).

Although the evidence provided in the reviewed sources is valid, most of them have one major limitation. The main gap identified in the studies is the inability to show how different factors of job satisfaction define employees’ behaviors and relationships with the workplace in different circumstances. For example, supporters of motivation-hygiene theory consider remuneration a less important factor in terms of employee engagement, yet many people see economic factors as essential to job satisfaction because they induce the feeling of sea security, a sense of personal reward, and opportunities for advancement (Stelzner and Schutte 2016). It means that the perception of workplace values can largely differ from one community and population group to another. For instance, Osborne and Hammoud (2017) state that while Millennials usually do not want to make personal sacrificareersr career and tend to value monetary compensation, Baby Boomers are more oriented towards processes within companies. Based on this, it is possible to say that the understanding of employees’ values and preferences is essential in the design of an appropriate engagement strategy. The assessment of demographic characteristics and personal values of workers can thus support the development of knowledge about the turnover trends in organizations.

Recommendations and Implementation Plan

The findings of the literature review revealed that in order to foster the positive organizational behavior and engagement, the management should strive to promote higher job satisfaction through the implementation of an effective motivation system that takes into account various needs and behavioral mechanisms. It is important to consider that workers become more engaged when their personal goals are aligned with the organizational objectives. In this way, the first recommendation will relate to an increase in employees’ functional and decision-making autonomy. By empowering employees, managers will be able to sustain the intrinsic motivation of subordinates. To achieve this, organizational restructuring and new workplace design, as well as the purchase of new mobile technologies, etc., may be required. Thus, this method may be associated with significant time and financial investments.

Secondly, the reward and reinforcement system should meet the basic needs of employees and must be designed in a way that allows consideration of individual contributions and expertise. When a person feels underpaid, he/she can decrease productivity to minimize costs. Conversely, a fair and adequate reward and benefits system can promote the sense of workplace security and, in this way, increase employees’ desire to work. The major pitfall of the method is that it may be insufficient to develop long-term employee-organization relationships with all staff members, especially those who seek meaning in their work.

Thirdly, for many people, continuous engagement in professional development and awareness of existing professional growth opportunities can result in greater job satisfaction and longer employment. Thus, employees must be provided with on-the-job training. Along with this, internal recruitment practices should be performed in the company. The given method produces advantages for both the organization and individuals as it helps reduce costs associated with external recruitment and provides an opportunity for employee’s self-realization and self-improvement. The disadvantage is that internal recruitment does not allow increasing workforce diversity. Moreover, if selection methods lack transparency, it may be a source of interpersonal conflicts within the company.

Lastly, it is essential to create a positive work environment in which employees would have good relationships with each other, and would feel respected. Ethical standards and policies including fair recruitment and transparent performance appraisal practices must be implemented within the organization. It will help reduce perceived inequity among workers. New values and standards can be communicated via the organizational knowledge management system (e.g., meetings, emails, etc.). Overall, the given recommendation can be regarded as the most comprehensive and basic approach among all the mentioned above.

Conclusion: Expected Impacts

According to Osborne and Hammoud (2017), “the rising level of disengaged employees can have a significant impact on an organization’s profit, ability to retain skilled employees, and employee citizenship” (p. 60). Conversely, the formulated strategic recommendations can have multiple favorable impacts on organizations. From the financial perspective, although many of the outlined methods can require initial investments (e.g., increase in wages), in the long run, they can contribute to an increase in revenues through productivity growth. The initiatives may also have a significant impact on employees. Baum and Kagan (2015) state that “satisfied workers perform better, have lower absenteeism and display higher motivation” (p. 213). Thus, it is possible to say that more empowered staff members, who feel valued and paid consistently with their efforts and are provided with a chance for professional and personal realization, will perceive the workplace as secure and, therefore, will be committed to the organization. Positive effects on employees will directly affect organizational processes, accelerating the realization of multiple projects, improving communication, and ensuring compliance with organizational goals. Additionally, in customer-oriented enterprises, greater employee engagement supported through adherence to the provided recommendations can contribute to the improvement of services, enhancing customer experiences, and developing their loyalty.

Reference List

Agrawal, S 2015, ‘Predictors of employee engagement: a public sector unit experience’, Strategic HR Review, vol. 14, no. 1/2.

Baum, A & Kagan, I 2015, ‘Job satisfaction and intent to leave among psychiatric nurses: closed versus open wards’, Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, vol. 29, pp. 213-216.

Damij, N, Levnajić, Z, Rejec Skrt, V & Suklan, J 2015, ‘What motivates us for work? Intricate web of factors beyond money and prestige’, PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1-13.

Hall, G, Dollard, M, Winefield, A, Dormann, C & Bakker, A 2013, ‘Psychosocial safety climate buffers effects of job demands on depression and positive organizational behaviors’, Anxiety, Stress & Coping, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 355-377.

Hansen, F, Smith, M & Hansen 2016, ‘Rewards and recognition in employee motivation’, Compensation & Benefits Review, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 64-72.

Hassan, S 2014, ‘Sources of professional employees’ job involvement: an empirical assessment in a government agency’, Review of Public Personnel Administration, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 356-378.

Karanika-Murray, M, Duncan, N, Pontes, H & Griffiths, M 2015, ‘Organizational identification, work engagement, and job satisfaction’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol., 30, no. 8, pp. 1019-1033.

Kian, T, Sivan, R & Wan Fauziah, Y 2014, ‘Job satisfaction and motivation: what are the difference among these two?’ European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 94-102.

Osborne, S & Hammoud, M 2017, ‘Effective employee engagement in the workplace’, International Journal of Applied Management and Technology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 50–67.

Rahman, K, Akhter, W & Khan, S 2017, ‘Factors affecting employee job satisfaction: a comparative study of conventional and Islamic insurance’, Cogent Business & Management, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1-15.

Steelcase 2018, Steelcase global report: engagement and the global workplace. Web.

Stelzner, S & Schutte, C 2016, ‘Employee flourishing strategic framework’, South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, vol. 27,no. 3, pp. 92-109.

Introduction

My friend J. D. was working as a project manager in an office for six months two years ago. Now, he remembers this experience with bitterness. In the beginning, he was eager to start a new job. He had been selected among more than ten candidates after three stages of the hiring process and was proud of how he had done at the interview. J. D. was promised a lot of freedom in terms of managing his projects and organizing the work of his team. Passionate about project management, he had been reading a lot and watching lectures online on the subject. He was well-prepared, looking forward, carrying many ideas about what he could bring to the work, and eager to start. Everything seemed well for the first month or so. Soon, the low season came, and the scarcity of projects made everyone in the office more or less disengaged. J. D. found himself in a situation where he would spend his entire working days just watching series on his laptop, and the rest of his colleagues did not do anything related to work either.

Main body

From the human resources management (HRM) perspective, J. D. was displaying employee disengagement. It was expressed in his cyberloafing, i.e. using Internet access at work for personal entertainment (Lim & Chen, 2012). Besides, J. D. says that, after two months of working in that office, he was significantly less willing to come to work on time in the morning or stay there until the end of the working day. For a few times, he skipped his work without really having to explain the absence to his supervisor because his supervisor did not seem to care much. At meetings, J. D. was bored. Tardiness, absences, and neglecting work functions are included in the notion of employee disengagement (Baker, 1999). For human resources managers, they signify issues of productivity, reliability, and commitment.

Solutions for J. D.’s case could be proposed within the HRM framework but should not be limited to it because HRM is not separate from other management actions (Roos, Fernström, & Pike, 2004). When asked about what the reasons for his disengagement were, J. D. replies that he experienced a lack of motivation. Even when he had enough projects to work on all day, he no longer felt inspired. Motivation comes from a purpose; humans who do not see the purpose or positive outcomes of their work perform worse (Lindley, 1984). Therefore, the measure that needed to be taken by the management was to show the employees how meaningful their work was. A low season is a challenge, but this is exactly when managers should enhance internal communication to keep the employees motivated. The combination of employee engagement and manager self-efficacy is proven to positively affect effectiveness (Luthans & Peterson, 2002). Finally, J. D.’s cyberloafing could be turned into something less harmful for the working process. Studies show that employees’ extensive use of the Internet at the workplace can be transformed into a contribution to productivity (Dery & MacCormick, 2012). To accomplish that, human resources managers should have encouraged employees to find and share information online that is relevant to their work.

Conclusion

In J. D.’s case, employee disengagement was due to the lack of motivation. To address this issue, human resources managers should have combined their efforts with those of other managers to convey to the employees the meaningfulness of their work and to engage them in work-related activities during the low season.

References

Baker, D. (1999). Strategic human resource management: Performance, alignment, management. Librarian Career Development, 7(5), 51-63.

Dery, K., & MacCormick, J. (2012). Engaged or just connected? Smartphones and employee engagement. Organizational Dynamics, 41(3), 194-201.

Lim, V., & Chen, D. (2012). Cyberloafing at the workplace: Gain or drain on work? Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(4), 343-353.

Lindley, C. (1984). Putting ”human” into human resource management. Public Personnel Management, 13(4), 501-510.

Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. (2002). Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy. Journal of Management Development, 21(5), 376-387.

Roos, G., Fernström, L., & Pike, S. (2004). Human resource management and business performance measurement. Measuring Business Excellence, 8(1), 28-37.

Introduction

Employee engagement has become an essential topic of study in human resources research over the past decades. Saks and Gruman (2014) explain that the increased interest in employee engagement is primarily due to its alleged association with performance, organisational success and competitive advantage. Indeed, many studies confirm the vital role of employee engagement in the organisation.

According to Bailey et al. (2017), engagement correlates with morale, task performance and organisational performance. Other scholars point to the positive relationship between employee engagement and innovation, intention to stay and individual well-being (Alfes et al. 2010). High engagement levels are also crucial for employers willing to attract talent and develop their brand since an improved employer brand is among the benefits of employee engagement (Davis 2018). In this context, improving employee engagement can help organisations to create a high-performing workforce that would help them to succeed.

However, to elevate employee engagement levels, managers must understand the nature of this concept and its relationship with individual and organisational variables. This prompts the study of various employee engagement models, which seek to explain engagement in multiple contexts. William Kahn developed the most well-known engagement model in 1990. Based on an extensive study of engagement in the workplace, Kahn (1990) proposed a model of personal engagement, where engagement results from a combination of psychological conditions, including meaningfulness, safety and availability.

Later, various researchers attempted to revise and improve Kahn’s model to make it more applicable in real life. In particular, Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010) made some crucial adjustments to Khan’s (1990) model in order to present their interpretation of employee engagement. These researchers focused on the relationship between engagement and other organisational factors. The model resulting from their research explains the relationships between a variety of characteristics, including employee engagement, value congruence, perceived organisational support, job satisfaction, job involvement and others (Rich, Lepine & Crawford 2010). Both models are currently applied in business management research and practice.

The present paper aims to compare and critically evaluate the two engagement models proposed by Kahn (1990) and Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010). In order to do that, the author will review the key characteristics of each model and the related research, as well as the quality of evidence supporting the models. In the context of this report, the word ‘engagement’ is used to refer to employee engagement as a whole, regardless of the specific professional area or industry.

Additionally, based on research, it is assumed that engagement is connected to other organisational factors, and thus changes from one organisation to another. Overall, the paper will provide an evaluation of the two models based on research and their practical applications.

Kahn’s (1990) Model

Key Characteristics

Kahn’s (1990) model of engagement focuses on two core concepts: personal engagement and personal disengagement. The researcher defines personal engagement as “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s ‘preferred self’ in task behaviours that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence (physical, cognitive and emotional), and active, full role performances” (Kahn 1990, p. 700).

Personal disengagement, on the contrary, refers to the withdrawal from and defence of a person’s preferred self in behaviours that impair connections (Kahn 1990). Disengagement is characterised by passive role performance and physical, cognitive and emotional absence of a person (Khan 1990). Based on this information, one of the critical characteristics of Kahn’s model is that it considers both engagement and disengagement. This distinguishes it from other theories that focus on engagement solely, including the model by Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010).

Another characteristic of Kahn’s model is that it explores the antecedents of personal engagement or disengagement. In particular, the model posits that personal engagement is determined by psychological meaningfulness, safety and availability (Kahn 1990). Each of these concepts, in turn, is influenced by various individual and organisational factors. For instance, psychological availability depends on the person’s physical energy, emotional energy and insecurity (Kahn 1990). Psychological safety, in turn, is based on interpersonal relationships, group and intergroup dynamics, management style and organisational norms (Kahn 1990).

Finally, psychological meaningfulness is determined by role characteristics, task characteristics and work interactions (Khan 1990). Hence, this model can be used to map organisational and individual influences on engagement and develop plans for improving the antecedents of personal engagement, thus improving employee engagement throughout the organisation.

Related Research

Over the years, there were hundreds of studies attempting to apply Kahn’s (1990) model in management practice and research. Some of the research was devoted to understanding the concept of employee engagement in greater depth. For example, Macey and Schneider (2008) appraised Kahn’s (1990) work along with other famous paper on the topic to research the nature of employee engagement and proposed to distinguish different states of engagement, including psychological, behavioural and task engagement. However, most studies sought to apply Kahn’s model to examine the influence of engagement on other organisational outcomes.

One of the most significant topics in related research is the connection between employee engagement and performance. Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) conducted a meta-analysis of employee satisfaction, engagement and business outcomes and found that there was a significant relationship between unit-level engagement and performance. Similarly, Christian, Garza and Slaughter (2011) discovered that employee engagement improved task performance and conceptual performance by mediating the influence of other organisational factors, including leadership, feedback and autonomy.

Many studies used employee engagement in their conceptual framework while examining other factors influencing organisational outcomes. For instance, Dutton, Dukerich and Harquail (1994) used Kahn’s research to model the connection between organisational image and identification with the organisation. Baer and Frese (2003) also applied the model to determine the characteristics of organisational climates that promote psychological safety and innovation. Among the more recent studies, there was a tendency to use employee engagement as part of competitive efforts and service improvements (Albrecht et al. 2015; Chandler & Lusch 2015; Dessart, Veloutsou & Morgan-Thomas 2015). Overall, Kahn’s (1990) work had a significant contribution to further research in employee engagement and management as a whole.

Critical Evaluation

The model of employee engagement was developed by Kahn (1990) based on two qualitative studies of organisations. The first organisation was a summer camp, and the second one was an architectural firm. The methodology used by Kahn (1990) fits into the grounded theory framework. This means that qualitative information obtained from both samples has been used as a foundation for the theoretical model. The trustworthiness of the grounded theory method is rooted in the inductive-deductive cycle applied to produce a grounded theory (Cooney 2011). From this viewpoint, Kahn’s (1990) model appears to be reliable since it is based on the objective and logical evaluation of information.

It is also possible to assess the model by reviewing case studies where it was applied. There have been multiple case studies based on Kahn’s (1990) model, although the results were mixed. For example, Zamin Abbas et al. (2014) applied the model in a case study of HR managers and found that it explained many phenomena related to engagement, but did not account for individual emotional differences sufficiently.

Lewis, Thomas and Al-Amin (2016) successfully applied the model in a pharmaceutical company but proposed a clarification of engagement drivers to support the practical application. On the whole, the evidence from case studies suggests that Kahn’s (1990) model is viable, but may need adjustment in specific organisational contexts to achieve the desired effect.

Rich, Lepine and Crawford’s (2010) Model

Key Characteristics

The model by Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010) is primarily based on the work of Khan (1990), although it has a few distinguishing characteristics. First of all, the model examined employee engagement in a broader context. Specifically, the model shows how to value congruence, perceived organisational support and core self-evaluations influence task performance and organisational citizenship behaviours through job engagement, job involvement, job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation (Rich, Lepine & Crawford 2010). The scope of the model enables connecting engagement to other practical management concepts. Secondly, the researchers clarified the different types of engagement introduced by Kahn (1990) and related them to other individual and organisational variables. Due to these features, this model is more practical in its application than Kahn’s (1990) model.

Related Research

Similarly to Kahn’s (1990) paper, the work of Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010) has been widely used in research. Most of the studies related to the model focused either on engagement or on other concepts that are part of the model. For example, Anitha (2014) and Christian, Garza and Slaughter (2011) focused on engagement and its influence on performance. Other researchers considered engagement as part of the framework to address individual barriers to performance, such as burnout (Cole et al. 2012; Nahrgang, Morgeso & Hofmann 2011).

A lot of articles focused on summarising and evaluating contemporary approaches to employee engagement also considered the model (Schaufeli 2013; Shuck 2011). All in all, the impact of this model on research is comparable to that of Kahn’s (1990) work, meaning that the model contributed to the study of employee engagement and related concepts in management.

Critical Evaluation

In contrast with Kahn (1990), Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010) used a quantitative methodology with a sample size of 245 full-time firefighters and their supervisors. The methods used by researchers involved both self-reported answers and evaluations by supervisors, thus providing more objective information on performance (Rich, Lepine & Crawford 2010). The instruments chosen for the study were evaluated for validity and reliability; non-original tools used in other studies were also applied.

The methodology of the study as a whole is more reliable than the one used by Kahn (1990) since it employed proven instruments and collected quantitative data. The data analysis methods are chosen by the researchers also supported the goal of the study by allowing identifying the relationships and their strength.

While it would have been useful to judge the model by evaluating its application in various case studies, few studies employed this model specifically. Most of the studies based on the model included modifications or focused on variables other than employee engagement. However, a recent case study by Şantaş et al. (2018) applied the model and instruments used by Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010) to evaluate the relationship between corporate reputation and physical, emotional and cognitive engagement. The application of the model enabled the researchers to account for other drivers of engagement and achieve the intended results. This suggests that the scope of the model and its reliability allows for its application in research, although the evidence of practical applicability is lacking.

Conclusions

Based on the analysis, both models have important advantages and disadvantages that affect their application in research and practice. Kahn’s (1990) was instrumental in introducing the concept of employee engagement and mapping out the possible drivers of it. This model has given rise to numerous research studies that refined the model further and deepened the understanding of the concept of employee engagement and its relationship to other factors.

However, the model remains rather vague since it does not provide practical solutions for increasing employee engagement. While the model can be applied in practice by managers, it has to be tailored to the context and needs of a particular organisation. Additionally, the reliance on qualitative data, although necessary for building a grounded theory, impacts the overall reliability of the information provided by Kahn (1990).

In contrast, the methodology used by Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010) is reliable and provides objective data on the relationship between engagement and other organisational factors. This model also had a prominent influence on further research, particularly with respect to studies mapping the drivers and antecedents of engagement. While the second model does not focus on solutions, it can be applied for measuring the current situation in a particular company and identifying gaps that could affect employee engagement. All in all, both models have important implications for researchers and managers alike, but the differences in methodology and scope of the models affect how they can be applied in research and practice.

Reference List

Albrecht, SL, Bakker, AB, Gruman, JA, Macey, WH & Saks, AM 2015, ‘Employee engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage’, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 7‐35.

Alfes, K, Truss, C, Soane, EC, Rees, C & Gatenby, M 2010, Creating an engaged workforce: findings from the Kingston employee engagement consortium project, CIPD, London.

Anitha, J, 2014, ‘Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 308-323.

Baer, M, & Frese, M 2003, ‘Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance’, Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 45-68.

Bailey, C, Madden, A, Alfes, K & Fletcher, L 2017, ‘The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: a narrative synthesis’, International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 31-53.

Chandler, JD & Lusch, RF 2015, ‘Service systems: a broadened framework and research agenda on value propositions, engagement, and service experience’, Journal of Service Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 6-22.

Christian, MS, Garza, AS & Slaughter, JE, 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.

Cooney, A 2011, ‘Rigour and grounded theory’, Nurse Researcher, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 17-22.

Cole, MS, Walter, F, Bedeian, AG & O’Boyle, EH 2012, ‘Job burnout and employee engagement: A meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation’, Journal of Management, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 1550-1581.

Dessart, L, Veloutsou, C & Morgan-Thomas, A 2015, ‘Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a social media perspective’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 28-42.

Dutton, JE, Dukerich, JM & Harquail, CV 1994, ‘Organizational images and member identification’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 239-263.

Harter, JK, Schmidt, FL & Hayes, TL 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.

Kahn, WA 1990, ‘Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 692-724.

Lewis, A, Thomas, B & Al-Amin, M 2016, ‘Employee engagement in the pharmaceuticals sector in Bangladesh: a case study of a pharmaceuticals company’, International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 332-357.

Macey, WH & Schneider, B 2008, ‘The meaning of employee engagement’, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3-30.

Nahrgang, JD, Morgeson, FP & Hofmann, DA 2011, ‘Safety at work: a meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 71-94.

Rich, BL, Lepine, JA & Crawford, ER 2010, ‘Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 617-635.

Saks, AM & Gruman, JA 2014, ‘What do we really know about employee engagement?’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 155-182.

Şantaş, F, Özer, Ö, Saygili, M & Özkan, Ş 2018, ‘The effect of corporate reputation on work engagement: a case study in a public hospital’, International Journal of Healthcare Management. Web.

Shuck, B 2011, ‘Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: an integrative literature review’, Human Resource Development Review, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 304-328.

Zamin Abbas, R, Sohaib Murad, H, Yazdani, N & Asghar, A 2014, ‘Extending “Kahn’s model of personal engagement and disengagement at work” with reference to existential attributes: a case study of HR managers in Pakistan’, International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 2-31.