research objectives employee engagement

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The impact of engaging leadership on employee engagement and team effectiveness: A longitudinal, multi-level study on the mediating role of personal- and team resources

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Education Studies, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Research Unit Occupational & Organizational Psychology and Professional Learning, KU Leuven, Belgium, Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

• Greta Mazzetti, 
• Wilmar B. Schaufeli

• Published: June 29, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433
• Reader Comments

Most research on the effect of leadership behavior on employees’ well-being and organizational outcomes is based on leadership frameworks that are not rooted in sound psychological theories of motivation and are limited to either an individual or organizational levels of analysis. The current paper investigates whether individual and team resources explain the impact of engaging leadership on work engagement and team effectiveness, respectively. Data were collected at two time points on N = 1,048 employees nested within 90 work teams. The Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling results revealed that personal resources (i.e., optimism, resiliency, self-efficacy, and flexibility) partially mediated the impact of T1 individual perceptions of engaging leadership on T2 work engagement. Furthermore, joint perceptions of engaging leadership among team members at T1 resulted in greater team effectiveness at T2. This association was fully mediated by team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making). Moreover, team resources had a significant cross-level effect on individual levels of engagement. In practical terms, training and supporting leaders who inspire, strengthen, and connect their subordinates could significantly improve employees’ motivation and involvement and enable teams to pursue their common goals successfully.

Citation: Mazzetti G, Schaufeli WB (2022) The impact of engaging leadership on employee engagement and team effectiveness: A longitudinal, multi-level study on the mediating role of personal- and team resources. PLoS ONE 17(6): e0269433. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433

Editor: Ender Senel, Mugla Sitki Kocman University: Mugla Sitki Kocman Universitesi, TURKEY

Received: December 29, 2021; Accepted: May 23, 2022; Published: June 29, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Mazzetti, Schaufeli. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data that support the findings of this study are available on Open Science Framework (OSF) website at the following link: https://osf.io/yfwgt/?view_only=c838730fd7694a0ba32882c666e9f973 . DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YFWGT .

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Multiple studies suggest that work engagement, which is defined as a positive, work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption [ 1 ], is related to extremely positive outcomes, particularly in terms of employees’ well-being and job performance (for a narrative overview see [ 2 ]; for a meta-analysis see [ 3 ]).

Therefore, when work engagement is arguably beneficial for employees and organizations alike, the million-dollar question (quite literally, by the way) is: how can work engagement be increased? Schaufeli [ 4 ] has argued that operational leadership is critical for enhancing follower’s work engagement. Based on the logic of the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model [ 5 ], he reasoned that team leaders may (or may not) monitor, manage, and allocate job demands and resources to increase their follower’s levels of work engagement. In doing so, team leaders boost the motivational process that is postulated in the JD-R model. This process assumes that job resources and challenging job demands are inherently motivating and will lead to a positive, affective-motivational state of fulfillment in employees known as work engagement.

The current study focuses on a specific leadership style, dubbed engaging leadership and rooted in Self-Determination Theory (SDT) [ 6 ]. Engaging leaders inspire, strengthen, and connect their followers, thereby satisfying their basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, respectively. In line with the motivational process of the JD-R model, cross-sectional evidence suggests that engaging leaders increase job resources [ 7 ] and personal resources [ 8 ], which, in their turn, are positively associated with work engagement. So far, the evidence for this mediation is exclusively based on cross-sectional studies. Hence, the first objective of our paper is to confirm the mediation effect of resources using a longitudinal design.

Scholars have emphasized that “the study of leadership is inherently multilevel in nature” (p. 4) [ 9 ]. This statement implies that, in addition to the individual level, the team level of analysis should also be included when investigating the impact of engaging leadership.

The current study makes two notable contributions to the literature. First, it investigates the impact, over time, of a novel, specific leadership style (i.e., engaging leadership) on team- and individual outcomes (i.e., team effectiveness and work engagement). Second, it investigates the mediating role of team resources and personal resources in an attempt to explain the impact of leadership on these outcomes. The research model, which is described in greater detail below, is displayed in Fig 1 .

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.g001

Leadership and work engagement

Leadership is defined as the way in which particular individuals–leaders–purposefully influence other individuals–their followers–to obtain defined outcomes [ 10 ].

A systematic narrative review identified twenty articles on leadership and work engagement [ 11 ] and showed that work engagement is positively associated with various person-centered leadership styles. The most pervasively used framework was transformational leadership, whereas authentic, ethical, and charismatic leadership was used much less. The authors conclude that "most of the reviewed studies were consistent in arguing that leadership is significantly correlated with and is affecting employee’s work engagement directly or via mediation” (p. 18) [ 11 ]. Moreover, they also conclude that research findings and inferences on leadership and engagement remain narrowly focused and inconclusive due to the lack of longitudinal designs addressing this issue. A recent meta-analysis [ 12 ] identified 69 studies and found substantial positive relationships of work engagement with ethical (k = 9; ρ = .58), transformational (k = 36; ρ = .46) and servant leadership (k = 3; ρ = .43), and somewhat less strong associations with authentic (k = 17; ρ = .38) and empowering leadership (k = 4; ρ = .35). Besides, job resources (e.g., job autonomy, social support), organizational resources (e.g., organizational identification, trust), and personal resources (self-efficacy, creativity) mediated the effect of leadership on work engagement. Although transformational leadership is arguably the most popular leadership concept of the last decades [ 13 ], the validity of its conceptual definition has been heavily criticized, even to the extent that some authors suggest getting “back to the drawing board” [ 14 ]. It should be noted that three main criticisms are voiced: (1) the theoretical definition of the transformational leadership dimensions is meager (i.e., how are the four dimensions selected and how do they combine?); (2) no causal model is specified (i.e., how is each dimension related to mediating processes and outcomes?); (3) the most frequently used measurement tools are invalid (i.e., they fail to reproduce the dimensional structure and do not show empirical distinctiveness from other leadership concepts). Hence, it could be argued that the transformational leadership framework is not very well suited for exploring the impact of leadership on work engagement.

Schaufeli [ 7 ] introduced the concept of engaging leadership , which is firmly rooted in Self-Determination Theory. According to Deci and Ryan [ 6 ], three innate psychological needs are essential ‘nutrients’ for individuals to function optimally, also at the workplace: the needs for autonomy (i.e., feeling in control), competence (i.e., feeling effective), and relatedness (i.e., feeling loved and cared for). Moreover, SDT posits that employees are likely to be engaged (i.e., internalize their tasks and show high degrees of energy, concentration, and persistence) to the degree that their needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are satisfied [ 15 ]. This is in line with Bormann and Rowold [ 16 ]. Based on a systematic review on construct proliferation in leadership research, these authors recommended that leadership concepts should use SDT because this motivational theory allows a more parsimonious description of the mechanisms underlying leadership behaviors. These authors posited that the core of "narrow" leadership constructs "bases on a single pillar" (p. 163), and therefore predict narrow outcomes. In contrast to broad leadership constructs, the concept of engaging leadership is narrow because it focuses on leadership behaviors to explicitly promote work engagement.

Schaufeli [ 7 ] reasoned that leaders, who are instrumental in satisfying their followers’ basic needs, are likely to increase their engagement levels. More specifically, engaging leaders are supposed to: (1) inspire (e.g., by enthusing their followers for their vision and plans, and by making them feel that they contribute to something important); (2) strengthen (e.g., by granting their followers freedom and responsibility, and by delegating tasks); and (3) connect (e.g., by encouraging collaboration and by promoting a high team spirit among their followers). Hence, by inspiring, strengthening, and connecting their followers, leaders stimulate the fulfillment of their follower’s basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, respectively, which, in turn, will foster work engagement.

The underlying mechanisms of the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement are a major focus of research, as the construct of engaging leadership was built upon the identification of the leadership behaviors that are capable of stimulating positive outcomes by satisfying needs. The literature on engaging leadership provides empirical evidence for its indirect impact on followers’ engagement by fulfilling followers’ basic needs. This finding is consistent across occupational sectors and cultural contexts [ 17 – 19 ]. Further, the observation of a partial mediation effect for need satisfaction suggests the presence of a direct relationship between engaging leadership and engagement [ 20 , 21 ]. In their behaviors, engaging leaders are likely to improve their job characteristics to the point of stimulating greater engagement among their employees. This assumption has been corroborated by a recent longitudinal study that delved deeper into the association between engaging leadership and needs satisfaction [ 22 ]. That study found that the relationship between engaging leadership and basic needs satisfaction is mediated by enhanced levels of job resources (among them were improved feedback and skill use and better person-job fit). The fulfilment of those needs, in turn, resulted in higher levels of work engagement. Therefore, perceived job resources seem to play a crucial role in the causal relationship between engaging leadership and basic needs satisfaction. This evidence found support in a later two-wave full panel design with a 1-year time lag, where engaging leadership promoted employees’ perception of autonomy and social support from colleagues [ 23 ]. In addition, a recent study by Van Tuin and colleagues [ 24 ] revealed that engaging leadership is associated with increased perceptions of intrinsic organizational values (e.g., providing a contribution to organizational and personal development) and satisfaction of the need for autonomy which, in turn, may boost employees’ level of engagement.

A recent study investigated the ways in which engaging leadership could boost the effects of human resource (HR) practices for promoting employees’ psychological, physical, and social well-being over time [ 25 ]. Teams led by an engaging leader reported higher levels of happiness at work and trust in leadership, combined with lower levels of burnout than their colleagues who were led by poorly engaging leaders. Happiness and trust played a key role in improving team member performance. These findings indicate that engaged leaders provide a thoughtful implementation of HR practices focused on promoting employee well-being, being constantly driven by their employees’ flourishing.

Another line of studies may reveal the causality between engaging leadership and work-related outcomes. A multilevel longitudinal study provided cross-level and team-level effects of engaging leadership [ 26 ]. Engaging leadership at T1 explained team learning, innovation, and individual performance through increased teamwork engagement at T2. Interventions targeting engaging leadership created positive work outcomes for leaders (e.g., autonomy satisfaction and intrinsic motivation) and decreased employee absenteeism [ 27 ]. However, cross-lagged longitudinal analyses indicate that employees’ current level of work engagement predicts their leaders’ level of engaging leadership rather than the other way around [ 23 ]. These findings imply that the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement cannot be narrowed to a simple unidirectional causal relationship but rather exhibits a dynamic nature, where engaging leadership and work engagement mutually influence each other. The dynamic nature of engaging leadership has also been investigated through a diary study. The results suggest that employees enacted job crafting strategies more frequently on days when leaders were more successful in satisfying their need for connectivity [ 28 ]. Hence, leaders who satisfy the need for connectedness among their followers will not only encourage higher levels of engagement among their followers but also an increased ability to proactively adapt tasks to their interests and preferences.

Since transformational leadership is currently the most frequently studied leadership style, a summary of the similarities and differences in the proposed new conceptualization of leadership proposed (i.e., engaging leadership) must be provided.

A key difference between transformational and engaging leadership originates from their foundation. Whereas transformational leadership is primarily a change-oriented style, engaging leadership encourages employees’ well-being through the promotion of supportive relationships and is defined as a relationship-oriented leadership style [ 29 ].

Further similarities entail the combination of behaviors meant to foster employees’ well-being and growth. Transformational leaders act as role models admired and emulated by followers (idealized influence), encourage a reconsideration of prevailing assumptions and work practices to promote stronger innovation (intellectual stimulation), identify and build on the unique characteristics and strengths of each follower (individualized consideration), and provides a stimulating view of the future and meaning of their work (inspirational motivation) [ 30 ]. A considerable resemblance involves the dimensions of inspirational motivation and inspiring, which are, respectively, included in transformational and engaging leadership. They both entail recognizing the leader as a guiding light to a specific mission and vision, where individual inputs are credited as essential ingredients in achieving the shared goal. Thus, they both fulfill the individual need for meaningfulness. In a similar vein, transformational and engaged leaders are both committed to promote followers’ growth in terms of innovation and creativity. In other words, the intellectual stimulation offered by transformational leadership and the strengthening component of engaging leadership are both aimed at meeting the need for competence among followers.

Alternatively, it is also possible to detect decisive differences between the dimensions underlying these leadership styles. Transformational leadership entails the provision of personal mentorship (i.e., individualized consideration), while engaging leadership is primarily focused on enhancing the interdependence and cohesion among team members (i.e., team consideration). Furthermore, engaging leadership disregards the notion of idealized influence covered by transformational leadership: an engaging leader is not merely identified as a model whose behavior is admired and mirrored, but rather proactively meets followers’ need for autonomy through the allocation of tasks and responsibilities.

Empirical results lent further support to the distinctiveness between transformational and engaging leadership. The analysis of the factor structure of both constructs revealed that measures of engaging and transformational leadership load on separate dimensions instead of being explained by a single latent factor [ 31 ]. More recently, additional research findings pointed out that engaging and transformational leadership independently account for comparable portions of variance in work engagement [ 32 ]. However, this does not alter the fact that a certain overlap exists between both leadership concepts; thus, it is not surprising that a consistent, positive relationship is found between transformational leadership and work engagement [ 11 ].

In sum: a positive link appears to exist between person-centered leadership styles and work engagement. Moreover, this relationship seems to be mediated by (job and personal) resources. However, virtually all studies used cross-sectional designs, and the causal direction remains unclear. We followed the call to go back to the drawing board by choosing an alternative, deductive approach by introducing the theory-grounded concept of engaging leadership and investigate its impact on individual and team outcomes (see Fig 1 ).

Engaging leadership, personal resources, and employee engagement (individual level)

Serrano and Reichard [ 33 ], who posit that leaders may pursue four pathways to increase their follower’s work engagement: (1) design meaningful and motivating work; (2) support and coach their employees; (3 ) facilitate rewarding and supportive coworker relations, and (4) enhancing personal resources. In the present study, we focus on the fourth pathway. Accordingly, a cross-sectional study using structural equation modeling [ 8 ] showed that psychological capital (i.e., self-efficacy, optimism, resiliency, and flexibility) fully mediated the relationship between perceived engaging leadership and follower’s work engagement. Consistent with findings on job resources, this study indicated that personal resources also mediate the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement. In a nutshel, when employees feel autonomous, competent, and connected to their colleagues, their own personal resources benefit, and this fuels their level of engagement.

In the current study, we use the same conceptualization of psychological capital (PsyCap) as Schaufeli [ 7 , 8 ], which slightly differs from the original concept. Originally, PsyCap was defined as a higher-order construct that is based on the shared commonalities of four first-order personal resources: “(1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success” (p. 10) [ 34 ]. Instead of hope, flexibility is included; that is, the capability of employees to adapt to new, different, and changing requirements at work. Previous research showed a high correlation ( r > .70) between hope and optimism, thus increasing the risk of multicollinearity [ 35 ]. This strong relationship points at conceptual overlap: hope is defined as the perception that goals can be set and achieved, whereas optimism is the belief that one will experience good outcomes. Hence, trust in achieving goals (hope) implies optimism. Additionally, hope includes "when necessary, redirecting paths to goals", which refers to flexibility. Finally, in organizational practice, the flexibility of employees is considered an essential resource because organizations are continuously changing, which requires permanent adaption and hence employee flexibility. In short, there are psychometric, conceptual, and pragmatic arguments for replacing hope by flexibility.

According to Luthans and colleagues [ 36 ], PsyCap is a state-like resource representing an employee’s motivational propensity and perseverance towards goals. PsyCap is malleable and open to development, thus it can be enhanced through positive leadership [ 37 ]. Indeed, it was found that transformational leadership enhances PsyCap, which, in turn, increases in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior [ 38 ]. In a similar vein, PsyCap mediates the relationships between authentic leadership and employee’s creative behavior [ 39 ].

We argue that engaging leadership may promote PsyCap as well. After all, by inspiring followers with a clear, powerful and compelling vision, engaging leaders: (1) create the belief in their ability to perform tasks that tie in with that vision successfully, thereby fostering follower’s self-efficacy ; (2) generate a positive appraisal of the future, thereby fostering follower’s optimism ; (3) trigger the ability to bounce back from adversity because a favorable future is within reach, thereby fostering follower’s resiliency ; (4) set goals and induce the belief that these can be achieved, if necessary by redirecting paths to those goals, thereby fostering follower’s flexibility [ 38 ].

Furthermore, engaging leaders strengthen their followers and unleash their potential by setting challenging goals. This helps to build followers’ confidence in task-specific skills, thereby increasing their self-efficacy levels, mainly via mastery experiences that occur after challenging goals have been achieved [ 40 ]. Setting high-performance expectations also elevates follower’s sense of self-worth, thereby leading to a positive appraisal of their current and future circumstances (i.e., optimism ). Moreover, a strengthening leader acts as a powerful contextual resource that augments followers’ self-confidence and, hence, increases their ability to bounce back from adversity (i.e., resiliency ) and adapt to changing requirements at work (i.e., flexibility ).

Finally, by connecting their followers, engaging leaders promote good interpersonal relationships and build a supportive team climate characterized by collaboration and psychological safety. Connecting leaders also foster commitment to team goals by inducing a sense of purpose, which energizes team members to contribute toward the same, shared goal. This means that in tightly knit, supportive and collaborative teams, followers: (1) experience positive emotions when team goals are met, which, in turn, fosters their level of self-efficacy [ 40 ]; (2) feel valued and acknowledged by others, which increases their self-worth and promotes a positive and optimistic outlook; (3) can draw upon their colleagues for help and support, which enables to face problems and adversities with resiliency ; (4) can use the abilities, skills, and knowledge of their teammates to adapt to changing job and team requirements (i.e., flexibility ).

In sum, when perceived as such by followers, engaging leadership acts as a sturdy contextual condition that enhances their PsyCap. We continue to argue that, in its turn, high levels of PsyCap are predictive for work engagement; or in other words, PsyCap mediates the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement.

How to explain the relationship between PsyCap and work engagement? Sweetman and Luthans [ 41 ] presented a conceptual model, which relates PsyCap to work engagement through positive emotions. They argue that all four elements of PsyCap may have a direct and state-like relationship with each of the three dimensions of work engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption). Furthermore, an upward spiral of PsyCap and work engagement may be a source of positive emotion and subsequently broaden an employee’s growth mindset, leading to higher energy and engagement [ 42 , 43 ]. In short, PsyCap prompts and maintains a motivational process that leads to higher work engagement and may ultimately result in positive outcomes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment [ 44 ].

Psychological capital is a valuable resource to individuals [ 45 ] that fosters work engagement, as demonstrated in past research [ 46 ]. Hence, following the reasoning above, we formulate the following hypothesis:

• Hypothesis 1: Psychological capital (self-efficacy , optimism , resiliency , and flexibility) mediates the relationship between T1 employee’s perceptions of engaging leadership and T2 work engagement .

Engaging leadership, team resources, and work team effectiveness (team level)

So far, we focused on individual-level mediation, but an equivalent mediation process is expected at the aggregated team level as well. We assume that leaders display a comparable leadership style toward the entire team, resulting in a similar relationship with each of the team members. This model of leader-follower interactions is known as the average leadership style (ALS) [ 47 ]. This means that homogeneous leader-follower interactions exist within teams, but relationships of leaders with followers may differ between teams. The relationships between leadership and team effectiveness might be based on an analogous, team-based ALS-approach as well [ 48 ]. Following this lead, we posit that team members share their perceptions of engaging leadership, while this shared perception differs across teams. Moreover, we assume that these shared perceptions are positively related to team effectiveness.

An essential role for leaders is to build team resources, which motivate team members and enable them to perform. Indeed, the influence of leader behaviors on team mediators and outcomes has been extensively documented [ 49 , 50 ].

Most studies use the heuristic input-process-output (IPO) framework [ 51 ] to explain the relationship between leadership (input) and team effectiveness (output), whereby the intermediate processes describe how team inputs are transformed into outputs. It is widely acknowledged that two types of team processes play a significant role: “taskwork” (i.e., functions that team members must perform to achieve the team’s task) and “teamwork” (i.e., the interaction between team members, necessary to achieve the team’s task). Taskwork is encouraged by task-oriented leadership behaviors that focus on task accomplishment. In contrast, teamwork is encouraged by person-oriented leadership behaviors that focus on developing team members and promoting interactions between them [ 49 ]. The current paper focuses on teamwork and person-oriented (i.e., engaging) leadership.

Collectively, team resources such as performance feedback, trust in management, communication between team members, and participation in decision-making constitute a supportive team climate that is conducive for employee growth and development, and hence fosters team effectiveness, as well as individual work engagement. This also meshes with Serrano and Reichard [ 33 ], who argue that for employees to flourish, leaders should design meaningful and motivating work (e.g., through feedback and participation in decision making) and facilitate rewarding and supportive coworker relations (e.g., through communication and trust in management).

To date, engaging leadership has not been studied at the team level and concerning team resources and team effectiveness. How should the association between engaging leadership and team resources be conceived? By strengthening, engaging leaders provide their team members with performance feedback; by inspiring, they grant their team members participate in decision making; and by connecting, they foster communication between team members and install trust. Please note that team resources refer to shared, individual perceptions of team members, which are indicated by within-team consensus. Therefore, taken as a whole, the team-level resources that are included in the present study constitute a supportive team climate that is characterized by receiving feedback, trust in management, communication amongst team members, and participating in decision-making. We have seen above that engaging leaders foster team resources, but how are these resources, in their turn, related to team effectiveness?

The multi-goal, multi-level model of feedback effects of DeShon and colleagues [ 52 ] posits that individual and team regulatory processes govern the allocation of effort invested in achieving individual and team goals, resulting in individual and team effectiveness. We posit that the shared experience of receiving the team leader’s feedback prompts team members to invest efforts in achieving team tasks, presumably through team regulatory processes, as postulated in the multi-goal, multi-level model.

Trust has been defined as: “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other party will perform a particular action to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (p. 712) [ 53 ]. Using a multilevel mediation model, Braun and colleagues [ 54 ] showed that trust mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and performance at the team level. They reasoned that transformational leaders take into account a team member’s needs, goals, and interests, making them more willing to be vulnerable to their supervisor. This would apply even more for engaging leaders, which is defined in terms of satisfying basic follower’s needs. It is plausible that a team’s shared trust in its leader enhances the trust of team members in each other. That means that team members interact and communicate trustfully and rely on each other’s abilities, which, in turn, is conducive for team effectiveness [ 55 ].

Communication is a crucial element of effective teamwork [ 56 ]. Team members must exchange information to ascertain other members’ competence and intentions, and they must engage in communication to develop a strategy and plan their work. Several studies have shown that effectively gathering and exchanging information is essential for team effectiveness [ 57 , 58 ]. Furthermore, participation in decision-making is defined as joint decision-making [ 59 ] and involves sharing influence between team leaders and team members. By participating in decision-making, team members create work situations that are more favorable to their effectiveness. Team members utilize participating in decision-making for achieving what they desire for themselves and their team. Generally speaking, shared mental models are defined as organized knowledge structures that allow employees to interact successfully with their environment, and therefore lead to superior team performance [ 60 ]. That is, team members with a shared mental model about decision-making are ‘in sync’ and will easily coordinate their actions, whereas the absence of a shared mental model will result in process loss and ineffective team processes.

Taken together and based on the previous reasoning, we formulate the second hypothesis as follows:

• Hypothesis 2: Team resources (performance feedback , trust in management , team communication , and participation in decision-making) mediate the relationship between T1 team member’s shared perceptions of engaging leadership and T2 team effectiveness .

Engaging leadership, team resources, and work engagement (cross-level)

Engaging leaders build team resources (see above). Or put differently, the team member’s shared perceptions of engaging leadership are positively related to team resources. Besides, we also assume that these team resources positively impact work engagement at the individual level. A plethora of research has shown that various job resources are positively related to work engagement, including feedback, trust, communication, and participation in decision- making (for a narrative overview see [ 61 ]; for a meta-analysis see [ 62 , 63 ]). Most research that found this positive relationship between job resources and work engagement used the Job-Demands Resources model [ 5 ] that assumes that job resources are inherently motivating because they enhance personal growth and development and are instrumental in achieving work goals. Typically, these resources are assessed as perceived by the individual employee. Yet, as we have seen above, perceptions of resources might also be shared amongst team members. It is plausible that these shared resources, which collectively constitute a supportive, collaborative team climate, positively impact employee’s individual work engagement. Teams that receive feedback, have trust in management, whose members amply interact and communicate, and participate in decision-making are likely to produce work engagement. This reasoning agrees with Schaufeli [ 64 ], who showed that organizational growth climate is positively associated with work engagement, also after controlling for personality. When employee growth is deemed relevant by the organization this is likely to translate, via engaging leaders, into a supportive team environment, which provides feedback, trust, communication, and participative decision-making. Hence, we formulate:

• Hypothesis 3: Team resources (performance feedback , trust in management , team communication , and participation in decision-making) mediate the relationship between team shared perceptions of engaging leadership at T1 and individual team member’s work engagement at T2 .

Sample and procedure

In collaboration with the HR department, data were collected among all employees of a business unit of a large Dutch public service agency. This agency is responsible for the administration of unemployment benefits and work incapacitation claims, as well as for the rehabilitation and return to work of unemployed and incapacitated employees. A one-year time-lagged design was applied to minimize the likelihood of common method variance effects and to explore causal relationships among the study variables [ 65 ]. The questionnaire included a cover letter reporting the aims and contents of the study. The letter also stated that participation in the study was completely voluntary, and that one can withdraw from the study at any time without having to give explanations and without this involving any disadvantage or prejudice. Participants’ consent was concluded by conduct, through ticking the consent checkbox as a prerequisite to access the questionnaire. This research was conducted in 2015, thus before the publication of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and complied with the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. Thus, ethics approval was not compulsory, as per applicable institutional and national Dutch guidelines. Additionally, the current study did not involve any treatment, medical diagnostics, or procedures generating psychological or social discomfort among participants.

In the first survey at Time 1 ( N = 2,304; response rate 63%), employees were asked about their socio-demographic background, engaging leadership, team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making), team effectiveness, personal resources (i.e., resiliency, optimism, and flexibility), and work engagement. At Time 2 ( N = 2,183; response rate 51%), participants filled out the same survey, which included an additional self-efficacy scale. At both measurement points, participants received an email from the HR department containing a link that allowed them to fill out the online survey. This introductory email provided background information about the study’s general aim and guaranteed that participants’ responses would be treated confidentiality. A sample of N = 1,048 employees filled out the questionnaire twice, with an interval of one year between T1 and T2.

The estimation of multilevel models with at least 50 teams of at least 5 members per group is strongly recommended to avoid underestimating standard errors and variances for random effects [ 66 , 67 ]. Therefore, participants being part of teams with less than 5 employees were excluded from the analyses. Accordingly, the data of 1,048 participants, who completed both questionnaires, could be linked and constitute the current study sample. Employees were nested within 90 work teams, with an average of 13.7 ( SD = 5.72) employees per team. Slightly more women (51.8%) as men were included (48.2%), the average age of the sample was 49.70 years ( SD = 7.46), and the mean organization tenure was 12.02 years ( SD = 9.56).

All measures described below were rated using five-point scales that either ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), or from never (1) to always (5). The internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α) of the measures are displayed on the diagonal of Table 2 .

Engaging Leadership was measured using a scale developed by Schaufeli [ 64 ] including nine items. This questionnaire contains three subscales of three items each: Inspiring, Strengthening, and Connecting. Sample items are: “My supervisor is able to enthuse others for his/her plans” (inspiring); “My supervisor delegates tasks and responsibilities” (strengthening); and “My supervisor encourages team members to cooperate” (connecting).

Individual-level measures.

Optimism was measured with three items from the Optimism scale of the PsyCap Questionnaire developed by Luthans and colleagues [ 36 ], which is aimed at assessing employees’ expectations about future success at work because of a positive view of their job. A sample item is: “I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job”.

Resiliency was assessed using three items from the Resiliency scale of the PsyCap Questionnaire [ 36 ]. These items refer to employees’ beliefs about their ability to recover from uncertainty and failure and to react successfully to setbacks that can occur at work. A sample item is: "I usually take stressful things at work in stride”.

Self-efficacy referred to the perceived capability to efficiently plan and implement courses of action required to attain a specific work goal and was measured using three items from Mazzetti, Schaufeli, and Guglielmi [ 68 ]. A sample item is: "At work, I reach my goal even when unexpected situations arise".

Flexibility refers to the individual ability to adapt to changes in the workplace and to modify one’s schedules and plans to meet job requirements. It was assessed by using three items: "If the job requires, I am willing to change my schedule”; “I do not have problems changing the way I work” and “I adapt easily to changes at work”.

Work engagement was assessed using a three-item scale developed by Schaufeli and colleagues [ 69 ]. This ultra-short version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale has similar psychometric properties as the nine-item version. A sample item is: "At my work, I feel bursting with energy”.

Team-level measures.

Performance feedback was assessed by the three-item scale from the Questionnaire on the Experience and Evaluation of Work (QEEW) [ 70 ]. A sample item is: “Do you get enough information about the result of your work?”.

Trust in Management of team members was assessed using two items from Schaufeli [ 7 ]: “I trust the way my organization is managed”, and “I have confidence in my immediate supervisor”. Following the recommendations from Eisinga and colleagues [ 71 ] we computed the Spearman-Brown coefficient, since it represents the most appropriate reliability coefficient for a two-item scale ( r s = .43, p < .001).

Communication , meaning the perception of an efficient and prompt circulation of information at the team level was measured using the three-item Communication scale taken from the QEEW [ 70 ]. A sample item is: "I am sufficiently informed about the developments within my team”.

Participation in decision-making was measured by a single item (i.e., “Can you participate in decision making about work-related issues?”) from the QEEW [ 70 ].

Team effectiveness . The team-level criterion variable was assessed with a three-item scale [ 8 ]. A sample item is: “Do you cooperate effectively with others in your team?”.

In order to check for systematic dropout, the social-demographic background, as well as the scores on the study variables were compared of those employees in the panel who filled out the questionnaire twice at T1 and T2 ( N = 1,142) and those who dropped out and filled out the questionnaire only once at T1 ( N = 1,161). It appeared that compared to the group who dropped out, the panel group was slightly younger (t (2301) = -2.21; p < .05) and had less organizational tenure (t (2301) = -4.05; p < .001). No gender differences were observed between both groups (χ 2 = .88; n . s .). A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) that included all study variables revealed a significant between-groups effect: F (12,2291) = 3.54, p < .001. Subsequent univariate tests showed that compared to the dropouts, the panel group scored higher on inspiring (F (1,2302) = 14.90, p < .001), strengthening (F (1,2302) = 9.39, p < .01), and connecting leadership (F (1,2302) = 14.90, p < .05), as well as on optimism (F (1,2302) = 5.59, p < .05), flexibility (F (1,2302) = 12.56, p < .001), work engagement (F (1,2302) = 9.16, p < .05), performance feedback (F (1,2302) = 11.68, p < .01), and participation in decision making (F (1,2302) = 8.83, p < .05). No significant differences were found for resiliency, trust in management, communication, and team effectiveness.

It seems that, taken together, the panel group is slightly younger and less tenured, and scores more favorable than the dropouts on most study variables. However, the differences between both groups are relatively small and vary between 0 and .13 on a 5-point scale. Therefore, it is not likely that systematic dropout has influenced the results of the current study.

Control variables.

At the individual level, we controlled for the potential confounding effects of gender, age, and tenure by including these variables as covariates in our analyses. More specifically, the impact of age was controlled for because previous research suggested that older employees report higher levels of personal resources [ 72 ] and work engagement [ 73 ]. Gender was also included as a control variable because previous research suggested that compared to women, men score lower on work engagement [ 74 ] and higher on personal resources, such as optimism and self-efficacy [ 75 ]. Finally, previous investigations also revealed that job tenure may affect employees’ level and stability of work engagement, with tenured employees reporting higher and more stable levels of work engagement compared to newcomers [ 76 ]. Besides, Barbier and colleagues [ 77 ] suggested that job tenure might affect employees’ personal resources (i.e., self-esteem and optimism). Considering this empirical evidence, job tenure was also included as a covariate in our model.

Data aggregation.

Our research model includes the three dimensions of engaging leadership (i.e., inspiring, strengthening, and connecting) three team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication and participation in decision-making), and one outcome (i.e., team effectiveness) at the team level of analysis. To check the reliability and validity of aggregated scores at the team level, four indices were computed [ 78 ]: (1) ICC [1] , which indicates the proportion of variance in ratings due to team membership; (2) ICC [2] , representing the reliability of between-groups differences; (3) r wg(j) , that measures the level of agreement within work teams; (4) deff , that measures the effect of independence violations on the estimation of standard errors through the formula 1+(average cluster size-1)*ICC [ 79 ]. Generally speaking, values greater than .05 for ICC [1] [ 80 ] and .40 for ICC [2] [ 81 ] an r wg(j) higher than .70, and a deff- index exceeding 2 are considered a prerequisite for aggregating data [ 78 ]. Moreover, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to explore whether participants’ scores on the Level 2 constructs differed significantly among work teams. The results of the aggregation tests are displayed in Table 1 . Taken together, these results justify the aggregation of the team-level variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.t001

Strategy of analysis

To test our hypotheses, a multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) was tested using the Mplus 7 statistical modeling software [ 82 ]. The application of this procedure allows the inclusion of latent variables that take measurement errors into account and permits the simultaneous estimation of mediation effects at the individual and team levels; therefore, it is superior to stepwise approaches [ 83 ]. As suggested by Zhang and colleagues [ 84 ], predictors at the individual level (i.e., engaging leadership dimensions and personal resources) were team-mean centered using a centering within context – CWC approach [ 85 ]. This procedure was aimed at preventing the confounding effect of mediation within and between work teams. In other words, predictors at the individual level for subject i were centered around the mean of the cluster j to which case i belongs (i.e., predictor ij —M predictor j ). Accordingly, the latent engaging leadership factor at within-level was indicated by the CWC means of the three dimensions of engaging leadership (i.e., inspiring cwc , strengthening cwc , and connecting cwc ) at T1. In a similar vein, personal resources were included as a latent variable indicated by the observed levels of optimism cwc , reisliency cwc , self-efficacy cwc , and flexibility cwc at T2. Finally, T2 work engagement was included as an observed variable equal to the mean score of the corresponding scale. As previously stated, gender, age, and organizational tenure were included as covariates at the individual level of the MSEM model.

At the team level, the latent measure of engaging leadership at T1 was assessed through the observed scores on the three dimensions of inspiring, strengthening, and connecting leadership. T2 team resources were modeled as a single latent factor indicated by the observed scores on performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making. The observed mean score on T2 team effectiveness was modeled as the team level criterion variable.

At the individual level, the mediation was tested by considering path a , from T1 individual perceptions of engaging leadership (X) to T2 personal resources (M) and path b , from T2 personal resources to T2 work engagement (Y), controlling for X → Y. At the team level, the same procedure was applied considering path c , linking team perceptions of T1 engaging leadership (X) and T2 team resources (M) and path d , from T2 team resources to T2 team effectiveness (Y).

The individual and team-level perceptions of engaging leadership were assessed at T1. In contrast, the mediating variables (i.e., psychological capital and team resources), and the outcomes (i.e., work engagement and team effectiveness) were measured at T2.

Preliminary analysis

Before testing our hypotheses, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using the maximum likelihood method of estimation using the software package AMOS 21.0 [ 86 ]. This preliminary analysis was aimed at assessing redundancy between the constructs under investigation. For the team level, engaging leadership was included as a latent factor indicated by the observed team levels of inspiring, strengthening, and connecting leadership dimensions. The measured performance feedback levels indicated the latent team resources factor, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making. Team effectiveness, assessed as a criterion variable at the team level, was indicated by a single corresponding item. At the individual level, the group-mean centered scores on inspiring, strengthening, and connecting dimensions were considered indicators of the latent engaging leadership factor. Besides, optimism, resiliency, self-efficacy, and flexibility were included as indicators for the single personal resources latent factor; the observed average score on work engagement was used for assessing the corresponding latent variable. The model fit was assessed by considering the comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) ≥ .95, Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .06, and Standardized Root-Mean-Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .08 [ 87 , 88 ]. According to these criteria, the hypothesized measurement model showed a good fit to the data, with χ 2 (91) = 465.09, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .06, and SRMR = .03. Moreover, all indicators showed significant factor loadings on their respective latent factors ( p < .001) with λ values ranging from .51 to .95, thus exceeding the commonly accepted criterion of .50 [ 89 ]. Hence, these results support the assumption that the study variables were non-redundant and adequately distinct from each other.

Model testing

The means, standard deviations, correlations, and internal consistencies for all study variables are displayed in Table 2 . As expected, the constructs under investigation showed significant relationships in the hypothesized direction.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.t002

The hypothesized MSEM showed a good fit to data: χ 2 (60) = 155.38, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = 0.03 (within teams) and .08 (between teams). As displayed in Fig 2 , at the individual level the three indicators of engaging leadership loaded significantly on their intended latent factor, with λ = .83 ( p = .000, 95% CI = [.79, .87]) for inspiring, λ = .77 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.73, .81]) for strengthening, and λ = .81 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.78, .85]) for connecting. Similarly, the standardized factor loadings for the indicators of personal resources were all significant as well: λ = .74 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.68, .79]) for optimism, λ = .68 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.63, .72]) for resiliency λ = .68 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.62, .74]) for self-efficacy, and λ = .64 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.59, .69]) for flexibility.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.g002

The direct relationship between T1 engaging leadership and T2 work engagement was significant β = .16 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.10, .22]). Moreover, results indicated that engaging leadership at T1 had a positive impact on personal resources at T2: γ = .27 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.18, .37]). T2 personal resources, in turn, were positively associated with T2 work engagement: β = .55 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.49, .62]). The estimated indirect effect of T1 engaging leadership on T2 work engagement via personal resources (i.e., a*b) was statistically significant: B (SE) = .19 (.04), p < .001, 95% CI [.11, .27]. Hence, personal resources (i.e., optimism, resiliency, self-efficacy, and flexibility) at T2 partially mediated the impact of T1 engaging leadership on employees’ engagement within work teams at T2. These findings provide partial support for Hypothesis 1 . Among the covariates included at the individual level, only gender and age showed a significant association with work engagement, with γ = -.10 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [-.15, -.05]) and γ = .10 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.04, .16]), respectively.

At the team level, all factor loadings for the three indicators of engaging leadership on their corresponding latent variable were significant: λ = .95 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.93, .99]) for inspiring, λ = .86 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.80, .91]) for strengthening, and λ = .94 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.90, .97]) for connecting. Additionally, the observed measure of each team resource loaded significantly on its intended latent variable: λ = .69 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.56, .82]) for performance feedback, λ = .86 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.78, .94]) for trust in management, λ = .89 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.81, .97]) for communication, and λ = .71 ( p = .000, 95% CI = [.60, .82]) for participation in decision-making. Moreover, engaging leadership at T1 had a nonsignificant direct impact on team effectiveness at T2, with β = -.06 ( p = .641, 95% CI = [-.30, .19]). In contrast, team perception of engaging leadership at T1 had a positive impact on team resources at T2: γ = .59 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.42, .75]). Team resources at T2 were, in turn, positively related to T2 team effectiveness, β = .38 ( p = .003, 95% CI = [.13, .62]). These results suggest full mediation and were supported by the estimation of the indirect effect of T1 engaging leadership on T2 team effectiveness via team resources at T2 (i.e., c*d): B (SE) = .18 (.07), p = .013, 95% CI [.04, .32]. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was fully supported.

Hence, in the current study team resources at T2 (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making) fully mediated the effect of T1 engaging leadership on T2 team effectiveness across different work teams. Moreover, T2 team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, team communication, and participation in decision-making) showed a significant cross-level effect on T2 individual team member’s level of engagement: β = .57 (p < .001, 195% CI = [.27, .87]). This result provided evidence for Hypothesis 3 .

The current study aimed to explore the role of individual and collective perceptions of engaging leadership in predicting team effectivity and work engagement. To this purpose, we developed a two-level research model using a two time-point design.

Main results

At the individual level, the obtained results suggest that psychological capital (i.e., the combination of self-efficacy, optimism, resiliency, and flexibility) partly mediated the longitudinal relationship between employees’ perceptions of engaging leadership and their levels of work engagement. In other words, team leaders perceived as inspiring, strengthening, and connecting could enhance their followers’ engagement directly and indirectly through an increase in psychological capital. Thus, engaging leaders could make their followers feel more optimistic, resilient, self-efficacious, and flexible. At the team level, a shared perception of engaging leadership was associated with a greater pool of team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making), which contribute to define an open and supportive team climate that is conducive for employee growth and development. In their turn, these collective resources were positively related to the perceived effectiveness of work teams.

Hence, team resources at the team level fully mediated the relationship between engaging leadership and team effectiveness. That means that teams in which the leader is considered to be inspiring, strengthening, and connecting can draw upon more team resources, and could feel, in turn, more effective. Simultaneously, a significant cross-level mediation effect was found for team resources, meaning that they mediate the relationship between engaging leadership at team level and individual level work engagement. In other words, teams with engaging leaders are not only more effective at the team level, but they also report higher levels of work engagement among their members. These leaders create a team climate that fosters employee growth and development by providing performance feedback, installing trust, and stimulating communication and participation in decision-making.

Three different contributions.

Thus, three major conclusions can be drawn for the current study, which signifies its contribution to the literature. First, engaging leadership can be considered an individual-level construct (i.e., the perception of particular leadership behaviors by individual followers) and a collective, team-level construct (i.e., the shared perception of specific leadership behaviors among team members). As far as the latter is concerned, our results support the notion of an average leadership style (ALS) [ 47 ]; namely, that homogeneous leader-follower interactions exist within teams, but relationships of leaders with followers differ between teams.

Secondly, Individual-level engaging leadership predicts individual work engagement through increasing follower’s PsyCap. Previous research suggested a positive relationship between person-focused leadership styles and follower’s work engagement, albeit that virtually all studies were cross-sectional in nature (for an overview see [ 11 , 33 ]). Our study added longitudinal evidence for that relationship and hinted at an underlying psychological process by suggesting that psychological capital might play a mediating role. As such, the current study corroborates and extends a previous cross-sectional study that obtained similar results [ 8 ]. However, it should be noted that the present study used a slightly different operationalization of PsyCap as is usually employed [ 36 ]. In addition to the three core elements of optimism, resiliency, and self-efficacy, flexibility instead of hope was used as a constituting fourth element of PsyCap. The reason was that hope and optimism overlap both theoretically as well as empirically [ 35 ] and that flexibility–defined as the ability to readapt, divert from unsuccessful paths, and tackle unpredictable conditions that hinder employees’ goal attainment [ 8 ]–was deemed particularly relevant for public service agencies that are plagued by red tape. Our results indicate that engaging leaders strengthen followers’ sense of proficiency when developing a task-specific skill to reach challenging objectives (i.e., self-efficacy). They also encourage a favorable appraisal of the prevailing conditions and future goal achievement (i.e., optimism).

Furthermore, they enhance subordinates’ abilities to recover from failures and move beyond setbacks effectively (i.e., resiliency) through supporting an increased aptitude for adaption to unfamiliar work circumstances (i.e., flexibility). These results corroborate the assumption that leaders who inspire, strengthen, and connect their followers provide a stimulating work environment that enhances employees’ personal resources. In their turn, elevated levels of PsyCap mobilize employees’ energy and intrinsic motivation to perform, expressed by a high level of work engagement. This result concurs with previous evidence that PsyCap can be framed as a critical component of the motivational process of the JD-R model, namely as a mediator of the relationship between contextual resources (i.e., engaging leadership) and work engagement [ 46 ]. However, this mediation was only partial because a direct effect of engaging leadership on follower’s work engagement was also observed in the current study. This evidence is not surprising since previous research showed that other mediating factors (which were not included in the present study) played a role in explaining the relationship between leadership and work engagement. Among them, innovative work behaviors, meaningful work, role clarity, positive emotions, identification with the organization, and psychological ownership [ 11 ]. Thus, increasing their follower’s PsyCap is not the whole story as far as the impact of engaging leadership is concerned. It is likely that engaging leaders also impact these alternative mediating factors. If this is the case, this might explain why the additional variance in follower’s work engagement is explained by engaging leadership, as indicated by the direct effect.

Thirdly, team-level engaging leadership predicts work engagement of individual team members and team effectiveness through increasing team resources. An earlier cross-sectional study found that engaging leadership, as perceived by their followers, showed an indirect, positive effect on their work engagement level through an increase in job resources [ 7 ]. However, in that study, engaging leadership and job resources, including performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making, were assessed at the individual and not at the aggregated team level. This means that the current study corroborates previous findings at the aggregated team level, using a longitudinal design. It is important to note that employees’ level of work engagement not only depends on individual-level processes (through the increase in PsyCap) but also on collective processes (trough the rise in team resources). Finally, our findings concur with research on team climate, showing that leaders who endorse supportive relations between team members and create an open, empowering team climate enable employees to succeed [ 33 ]. Simultaneously, a team climate like that is also likely to foster personal growth and development, which, in turn, translates into greater work engagement [ 63 ].

Practical implications

Our study shows that engaging leadership matters, and therefore organizations are well-advised to stimulate their managers to lead by the principles of engaging leadership. To that end, organizations may implement leadership development programs [ 90 ], leadership coaching [ 91 ], or leadership workshops [ 92 ]. Previous research has shown that leadership behaviors are malleable and subject to change using professional training [ 93 – 95 ]. Furthermore, leaders may want to establish and promote an open and trusting team climate in which employees feel free to express their needs and preferences [ 96 , 97 ].

Accordingly, our study shows that this climate is conducive not only for work engagement but also for team effectiveness. Finally, our results also suggest that psychological capital is positively associated with work engagement, so that it would make sense to increase this personal resource, mainly because PsyCap is state-like and open to development through instructional programs [ 45 ]. For instance, a short PsyCap Intervention (PCI) has been developed by Luthans and colleagues, which is also available as a web-based version for employees [ 98 ]. PCI focuses on: (a) acquiring and modifying self–efficacy beliefs; (b) developing realistic, constructive, and accurate beliefs; (c) designing goals, pathway generation, and strategies for overcoming obstacles; and (d) identifying risk factors, and positively influencing processes.

Strengths, limitations, and directions for future research

A significant strength of the current study is its design that combines a multilevel investigation of engaging leadership with mediating processes at the individual and team levels. This is in line with the claim that leadership research suffers from a lack of theoretical and empirical differentiation between levels of analysis [ 99 ]. However, leadership is an inherently multilevel construct in nature [ 9 ]. Although the current findings shed light on the role of the emergent construct of engaging leadership, both regarding individuals and teams, an exciting venue for future research involves exploring its predictive validity in comparison with traditional leadership models. This concurrent validation would adhere to the recommendations accompanying the introduction of new leadership constructs in the face of the risk of construct proliferation [ 16 ].

A further strength of the current study is its large sample size, including 1,048 employees nested within 90 work teams. Moreover, data were collected at two time points with a one-year time lag that was considered long enough for the effects of engaging leadership to occur. In contrast with widespread cross-sectional studies that sometimes draw unjustified conclusions on the corollaries of leadership [ 100 ], the current research relied on a longitudinal design to better understand the consequences of engaging leadership at the individual and team level of analysis. According to our results, engaging leadership indeed shows a positive effect across time on outcomes at the individual (i.e., work engagement) and team level (i.e., team effectiveness).

Along with its strengths, the current study also has some limitations that should be acknowledged. The main weakness of the current study lies in the homogeneity of the sample, which consisted of employees working in a Dutch public service agency. This specific work setting prevents us from generalizing the findings of our research with other occupational groups. However, focusing on an organization where most activities are conducted in teams permits independent but simultaneous assessment of the impact of (engaging) leadership on the perceived pool of resources among teams and workers, as suggested by current trends in leadership literature [ 101 , 102 ].

Furthermore, the collection of data at different time points overcomes the inherent weakness of a cross-sectional design, yet a design including at least three data waves would have provided superior support for the hypothesized mediated relationships. Based on within-group diary studies [ 103 , 104 ], it can, on the one hand, be argued that leadership might impact the team and personal resources within a much shorter time frame. On the other hand, work engagement represents a persistent psychological state that is not susceptible to sudden changes in the short term [ 1 ]. Thus, the chosen one-year time lag can be considered reasonable for a between-group study to detect the impact of engaging leadership accurately. This impact needs some time to unfold. An additional limitation of this study entails measuring individual and team resources with only a few items. Nevertheless, all scales had an internal consistency value that met the threshold of .65 [ 105 ] with an average Cronbach’s alpha value equal to .81.

Concluding remark

Despite the novelty of the construct, the emerging research on engaging leadership suggests the potential value of a theoretically sound leadership model that could foster followers’ engagement. While earlier findings showed that engaging leadership is positively associated with the employee’s level of engagement [ 7 , 8 ], the current study suggested that engaging leadership could predict work engagement and team effectiveness. More specifically, being exposed to a leader who inspires, strengthens and connects team members may foster a shared perception of greater availability of team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making), as well as greater psychological capital (i.e., self-efficacy, optimism, resilience, and flexibility). Hence, engaging leadership could play a significant role in the processes leading to work engagement at both the team and the individual levels.

Supporting information

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.s001

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 13. Antonakis J., Day D.V. Leadership: Past present and future. In, Antonakis J. & Day D.V.(Eds.), The nature of leadership (3rd. Ed.) London: Sage. 2017; 3–28.
• 15. Deci E.L., Ryan R.M. Self-determination theory. In Van Lange P.A.M., Kruglanski A.W., & Higgins E.T.(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology. London: Sage. 2012; 416–436. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n21 .
• 17. Erasmus, A. (2018). Investigating the relationships between engaging leadership, need satisfaction, work engagement and workplace boredom within the South African mining industry (Doctoral dissertation, North-West University).
• 21. Robijn, W. (2021). “Taking care of the team member is taking care of the team: a team conflict perspective on engaging leadership,” in: Leadership and Work Engagement: A Conflict Management Perspective, ed W. Robijn (Unpublished PhD) (Belgium: KU Leuven), 79–107.
• 30. Bass B.M., Riggio R.E. Transformational leadership. In Transformational leadership . 2nd ed. Psychology Press Ltd., 2006.
• 31. Smith, D.J. (2018). The Importance of Self-Determined Leadership in Building Respectful Workplace. (Unpublished PhD thesis), University of Southern Queensland, Australia.
• 34. Luthans F., Youssef C.M., Avolio B.J. Psychological capital: Investing and developing positive organizational behaviour. In Nelson D & Cooper C. L.(Eds.), Positive organizational behaviour. London: Sage. 2007; pp. 9–24.
• 40. Bandura A. Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In Locke E. (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior. Oxford: Blackwell. 2000; pp. 120–136.
• 41. Sweetman D., Luthans F. The power of positive psychology: Psychological capital and work engagement. In Bakker A.B. & Leiter M. P. (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press. 2010; pp. 44–68.
• 42. Fredrickson B.L. Positive emotions broaden and build. In Devine P., & Plant A. (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (ed., Vol. 47). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 2013; pp. 1–54.
• 48. Bass B.M. Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press; 1985.
• 51. McGrath J.E. Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1964.
• 61. Schaufeli W.B. What is engagement? In Employee engagement in theory and practice. Routledge. London: Routledge. 2013; pp. 29–49.
• 66. Hox J.J. Multilevel analyses: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2002.
• 67. Hox J.J. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge; 2010.
• 78. Bliese P.D. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein K. J. & Kozlowski S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2000, pp. 349–381.
• 79. Muthén B., Satorra A. Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. In Marsden P. V. (Ed.), Sociological methodology. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association; 1995, pp. 264–316. https://doi.org/10.2307/271070
• 82. Muthén B.O., Muthén L.K. Mplus version 7 [Computer Programme]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 2012.
• 86. Arbuckle J.L. Amos (Version 21.0). Chicago: IBM SPSS; 2015.
• 87. Brown T. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2006.
• 89. Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis. Uppersaddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hal Hall; 2006.
• 92. Segers J., De Prins P., Brouwers S. Leadership and engagement: A brief review of the literature, a proposed model, and practical implications. In Albrecht S. L. (Ed.), New horizons in management. Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2010, pp. 149–158.
• 105. DeVellis R.F. Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). London: Sage publications; 2016.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How Companies Can Improve Employee Engagement Right Now

• Daniel Stein,
• Nick Hobson,
• Jon M. Jachimowicz,
• Ashley Whillans

Start by connecting what people do to what they care about.

A year and a half into the pandemic, employees’ mental “surge capacity” is likely diminished. Managers must take proactive steps to increase employee engagement, or risk losing their workforce. Engaged employees perform better, experience less burnout, and stay in organizations longer. The authors created this Employee Engagement Checklist: a distilled, research-based resource that practitioners can execute on during this critical period of renewed uncertainty. Use this checklist to boost employee engagement by helping them connect what they do to what they care about, making the work itself less stressful and more enjoyable, and rewarding them with additional time off, in addition to financial incentives.

As the world stumbles toward a Covid-19 recovery, experts warn of a surge of voluntary employee departures, dubbed the “Great Resignation.” For instance, one study estimates that 55% of people in the workforce in August 2021 intend to look for a new job in the next 12 months. To counteract the incoming wave of employee turnover, organizations — more than ever — need to focus on cultivating employee engagement .

• DS Daniel Stein is a fifth-year doctoral student in the Management of Organizations (MORS) Group at UC Berkeley, Haas School of Business. He conducts research on groups and teams, focusing on commitment to one’s group. He studies commitment across multiple levels, ranging from teams to organizations.
• NH Nick Hobson is chief scientist and director of labs for  Emotive Technologies , a behavioral technology think tank that brings together leading academic researchers, technologists, and business strategists in order to create and share knowledge. A PhD-trained behavioral scientist and adjunct lecturer at the University of Toronto, Nick’s research and client practice specializes in employee experience (EX) and the influence of behavioral science as a tool for business success.
• Jon M. Jachimowicz is an assistant professor in the Organizational Behavior Unit at the Harvard Business School. He received his PhD in management from Columbia Business School. He studies how people pursue their passion for work, how they perceive passion in others, and how leaders and organizations seek to manage for passion.
• Ashley Whillans is an assistant professor in the negotiations, organizations, and markets unit at the Harvard Business School School and teaches the “Negotiations” and “Motivation and Incentives” courses to MBA students and executives. Her research focuses on the role of noncash rewards on engagement and the links between time, money, and happiness. She is the author of Time Smart: How to Reclaim Your Time & Live a Happier Life (Harvard Business Review, 2020).

Partner Center

• Book a Speaker

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus convallis sem tellus, vitae egestas felis vestibule ut.

Error message details.

Reuse Permissions

Request permission to republish or redistribute SHRM content and materials.

Developing and Sustaining Employee Engagement

Overview Business Case What Employee Engagement Is—and Is Not What Drives Employee Engagement? The Roles of HR and Management How to Develop and Sustain Employee Engagement Communications Metrics Global Issues

The term employee engagement relates to the level of an employee's commitment and connection to an organization. Employee engagement has emerged as a critical driver of business success in today's competitive marketplace. High levels of engagement promote retention of talent, foster customer loyalty and improve organizational performance and stakeholder value.

This article discusses:

• The business case in support of employee engagement initiatives.
• The nature and drivers of employee engagement.
• The roles of HR and management in engaging employees.
• Guidelines for developing effective employee engagement initiatives and engagement surveys.
• HR practices that can increase engagement.
• Communications opportunities and methods for engaging employees.
• Global issues related to employee engagement.

Business Case

Executives from around the world say that enhancing employee engagement is one of their top five global business strategies. Not only does engagement have the potential to significantly affect employee retention, productivity and loyalty, it is also a key link to customer satisfaction, company reputation and overall stakeholder value. Increasingly, organizations are turning to HR to set the agenda for employee engagement and commitment to establish a competitive advantage.

Most executives already understand that employee engagement directly affects an organization's financial health and profitability. According to Gallup, just 33 percent of American workers are engaged by their jobs. Fifty-two percent say they're "just showing up," and 17 percent describe themselves as "actively disengaged" 1 ; therefore, most employers have a lot of work to do to unlock the full potential of their workforce.  

Engagement and productivity can be affected by social cohesion, feeling supported by one's supervisor, information sharing, common goals and vision, communication, and trust. Employees want to feel valued and respected; they want to know that their work is meaningful and their ideas are heard. Highly engaged employees are more productive and committed to the organizations in which they work.  See Rules of Engagement .

Business Results of Engagement

What employee engagement is—and is not.

Researchers and consulting firms have developed varied definitions of employee engagement. They have also created categories to describe and distinguish differing levels of worker engagement. Although the concepts of employee engagement and job satisfaction are somewhat interrelated, they are not synonymous. Job satisfaction has more to do with whether the employee is personally happy than with whether the employee is actively involved in advancing organizational goals.

Employee engagement definitions

Definitions of employee engagement range from the brief and concise to the descriptive and detailed. Many of these definitions emphasize some aspect of an employee's commitment to the organization or the positive behaviors an engaged employee exhibits. Examples of employee engagement definitions include:

Quantum Workplace – Employee engagement is the strength of the mental and emotional connection employees feel toward their places of work.

Gallup – Engaged employees as those who are involved in, enthusiastic about and committed to their work and workplace.

Willis Towers Watson – Engagement is employees' willingness and ability to contribute to company success.

Aon Hewitt – Employee engagement is "the level of an employee's psychological investment in their organization."

What differentiates engaged and disengaged workers?

Organizations that conduct research on employee engagement categorize employees based on the employee's level of engagement, but they have used different terminology in doing so. For example, engaged and less than fully engaged employees have been described as follows:

• Gallup distinguishes between employees who are "actively engaged" (loyal and productive), "not engaged" (average performers) and "actively disengaged" (ROAD warriors, or "retired on active duty").
• Sibson Consulting differentiates "engaged" employees (those who know what to do and want to do it) from "disengaged" employees (those who don't know what to do and don't want to do it), "enthusiasts" (those who want to do the work but don't know how to do it) and "renegades" (those who know what to do but do not want to do it).

Disengaged workers feel no real connection to their jobs and tend to do the bare minimum. Disengagement may show itself in a number of common ways, including a sudden 9-to-5 time clock mentality, an unwillingness to participate in social events outside the office or a tendency to fox hole oneself apart from peers. It becomes most noticeable when someone who's normally outgoing and enthusiastic seems to fall by the wayside and has nothing positive to contribute. They may resent their jobs, tend to gripe to co-workers and drag down office morale.

Behaviors of engaged and disengaged employees:

How does employee engagement differ from job satisfaction?

The terms engagement and job satisfaction are often used interchangeably. However, research has revealed that although there is some overlap in the drivers of engagement and satisfaction, there are also key differences in the components that determine each.

Some experts define engagement in terms of employees' feelings and behavior. Engaged employees might report feeling focused and intensely involved in the work they do. They are enthusiastic and have a sense of urgency. Engaged behavior is persistent, proactive and adaptive in ways that expand the job roles as necessary. Engaged employees go beyond job descriptions in, for example, service delivery or innovation. Whereas engaged employees feel focused with a sense of urgency and concentrate on how they approach what they do, satisfied employees, in contrast, feel pleasant, content and gratified. The level of employee job satisfaction in an organization often relates to factors over which the organization has control (such as pay, benefits and job security), whereas engagement levels are largely in direct control or significantly influenced by the employee's manager (through job assignments, trust, recognition, day-to-day communications, etc.).

Researchers at Kenexa High Performance Institute looked at 840,000 responses on employee engagement from companies in the U.S. and Britain and found that after two years in a job, 57 percent of the respondents were disengaged.

See  Miserable Modern Workers: Why Are They So Unhappy?

What Drives Employee Engagement?

Extensive research has been conducted to determine the factors that influence employee engagement levels. The research has indicated that there are both organizational drivers and managerial drivers.

Pay Fairness Perception Beats Higher Pay for Improving Employee Engagement

Coach to Your Team's Strengths to Improve Employee Engagement

In today's digital age, less person-to-person interaction and increasing on-demand technology from chats and texts to social media updates and news feeds may be eroding employee engagement.

Organizational drivers

Some of the research identifies organization wide drivers of employee engagement.

Quantum Workplace (the research firm behind the "Best Places to Work" programs in more than 47 metro areas) has identified six drivers of employee engagement that have the greatest impact:

• The leaders of their organization are committed to making it a great place to work.
• Trust in the leaders of the organization to set the right course.
• Belief that the organization will be successful in the future.
• Understanding of how I fit into the organization's future plans.
• The leaders of the organization value people as their most important resource.
• The organization makes investments to make employees more successful.

Management drivers

Employee engagement increases dramatically when the daily experiences of employees include positive relationships with their direct supervisors or managers. Behaviors of an employee's direct supervisors that have been correlated with employee engagement include:

• The Gallup "Q12," which are 12 core elements that link strongly to key business outcomes. These elements relate to what the employee gets (e.g., clear expectations, resources), what the employee gives (e.g., the employee's individual contributions), whether the individual fits in the organization (e.g., based on the company mission and co-workers) and whether the employee has the opportunity to grow (e.g., by getting feedback about work and opportunities to learn). 
• Employees enjoy a good relationship with their supervisor.
• Employees have the necessary equipment to do the job well.
• Employees have authority necessary to accomplish their job well.
• Employees have freedom to make work decisions.

The Roles of HR and Management

Employee engagement is influenced by many factors—from workplace culture, organizational communication and managerial styles to trust and respect, leadership, and company reputation. In combination and individually, HR professionals and managers play important roles in ensuring the success of the organization's employee engagement initiatives.

The role of HR

To foster a culture of engagement, HR should lead the way in the design, measurement and evaluation of proactive workplace policies and practices that help attract and retain talent with skills and competencies necessary for growth and sustainability.   

The role of managers

Middle managers play a key role in employee engagement, creating a respectful and trusting relationship with their direct reports, communicating company values, and setting expectations for the day-to-day business of any organization.

Studies show that people leave managers, not companies, and ensuring managers are actively participating in and managing employee engagement is paramount. See  Employee Engagement Issues? Use These 10 Tips to Get Managers Engaged .

But middle managers need to be empowered by being given larger responsibilities, trained for their expanded roles and more involved in strategic decisions. If an organization's executives and HR professionals want to hold managers accountable for the engagement levels, they should:

• Make sure that managers and employees have the tools to do their jobs correctly.
• Periodically assign managers larger, more exciting roles.
• Give managers appropriate authority.
• Accelerate leadership development efforts.
• Ask managers to convey the corporate mission and vision and to help transform the organization.

According to a 2017 Dale Carnegie study, "Just 26% of leaders surveyed say that [employee engagement] is a very important part of what they think about, plan, and do every day. Another 42% say they work on it frequently, and the rest only occasionally, rarely or never." 

How to Develop and Sustain Employee Engagement

To increase employee engagement levels, employers should give careful thought to the design of engagement initiatives.

General guidelines

As HR professionals consider adopting or modifying practices or initiatives to increase employee engagement, they should:

• Make sound investments. The organization should consider the strategic implications of various HR practices and determine which are more important and merit greater investment to enhance engagement levels.
• Develop a compelling business case. HR professionals should be able to demonstrate how these investments have led to positive, measurable business outcomes for the organization or other businesses.
• Consider unintended consequences. When evaluating alternatives for redesigning HR practices to foster employee engagement, think about the likely impact of the revised policies. Are there potentially unintended, unfavorable consequences that may occur based on the impact of that change on employees in different circumstances and life situations?
• Base investment decisions on sound data. Employee engagement should be measured annually. Survey items should be linked to the organization's key performance measures, such as profitability, productivity, quality, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. Outcomes of employee engagement research should include the identification of the highest-impact engagement levers and survey items that differentiate top-performing business units from less successful units.
• Create an "engagement culture." This can be done by communicating the value of engagement in the mission statement and executive communications, ensuring that business units implement their engagement action plans, monitoring progress, adjusting strategies and plans as needed, and recognizing and celebrating progress and results.

HR practices

HR practices have a significant impact on employee engagement. The following practices can increase employee engagement:

• Job enrichment. Incorporate meaning, variety, autonomy and co-worker respect into jobs and tasks so that employees view their role more broadly and become more willing to take on duties beyond their job description.
• Recruiting. Target applicants who are likely to view their work as interesting and challenging. Encourage those who are not suited for particular work to opt out of the process.
• Selection. Choose candidates who are most likely to perform job duties well, make voluntary contributions and avoid improper conduct.
• Training and development. Provide orientation to create understanding about how the job contributes to the organization. Offer skill development training to increase job performance, satisfaction and self-efficacy.
• Strategic compensation. Use pay-for-performance programs to focus employees' attention on incentivized behaviors. Adopt competency-based pay to encourage acquisition of knowledge and skills and enhance employee performance.
• Performance management. Set challenging goals that align with the organization's strategic objectives, provide feedback, and recognize accomplishments and extra voluntary contributions.

See  How to Improve the Engagement and Retention of Young Hourly Workers .

Communications

Targeted communication initiatives can enable managers and HR professionals to stay on top of employee engagement issues, get ongoing feedback from employees and anticipate changing needs of workgroups. Managers and HR professionals should take advantage of opportunities to engage employees and should use varied communication methods to do so. See  Fixing Poor Engagement Starts with Understanding Its Cause .

Communication opportunities

Employers have numerous opportunities for "engageable moments," when they can motivate and provide direction for employees. Watson Wyatt's WorkUSA report identified the following formal and informal "engageable moment" opportunities: 4

Formal opportunities include:

• Recruitment; onboarding.
• Performance reviews.
• Goal setting.
• Communications by senior leaders.
• Employee surveys.

Informal opportunities include :

• Career development discussions.
• Ongoing performance feedback.
• Recognition programs.
• Company social events.
• Personal crises.

Communication methods

The size, composition and expected reaction of the target group of employees should dictate the type of communication used for engagement activities. Some of the communication methods HR professionals and managers can use include:

• "Keeping in touch." Ongoing communications with workgroups can occur through regular weekly or biweekly meetings, ideally with 10-15 employees in each meeting. In this forum, issues can be aired or ideas can be discussed to gain immediate feedback. Another component of keeping in touch is one-on-one meetings with an employee who is targeted for superior performance, identified for performance improvement or randomly chosen from the workgroup.
• Remote communication. Different technologies allow managers and HR professionals to maintain contact, including:
• Employee listening platforms where HR can survey workers, gather comments and suggestions, conduct exit interviews, etc.
• Social media and mobile app resources to discuss issues, share ideas, conduct surveys and vote on issues.
• Blogs that routinely inform and update employees on new initiatives and allow employee responses to be recorded and openly available.
• Videoconferencing and teleconferencing.
• E-mailed newsletters.

Many organizations conduct workforce surveys to measure levels of employee engagement within the organization and to analyze the relationships between employee engagement and key business outcomes. The results of such surveys can identify which engagement initiatives are achieving desired goals. Surveys can be helpful in gauging levels of employee engagement, but employers need to realize that employee engagement surveys differ from other employee surveys.

For the best results, employers should create an overall engagement strategy that goes beyond simply measuring engagement scores. Ideally, an employee engagement strategy should be created before an engagement survey is administered. An effective plan will detail these five components:

• How the strategy will be communicated.
• How action areas will be identified.
• What measurable outcomes will be used to evaluate progress.
• What specific actions will be taken to address the survey results.
• How the engagement strategy will be sustained over time.

Unique aspects of employee engagement surveys

Employee engagement surveys have a different focus than other types of employee surveys. While employee opinion and satisfaction surveys measure workers' views, attitudes and perceptions of their organization, and an employee culture survey measures employees' points of view to assess whether they align with the organization or its departments, engagement surveys measure employees' commitment, motivation, sense of purpose and passion for their work and the organization. See  Employee Engagement Surveys: Why Do Workers Distrust Them? and Carefully Craft the Employee Engagement Survey .

Creating engagement surveys

When developing employee engagement surveys, organizations should consider the following guidelines:

• Include questions that could be asked every year or more frequently. This will provide a base line for management of employee engagement.
• Keep language neutral or positive. For example, ask, "Is our line-to-staff ratio correct for a company our size?" instead of "Are there too many staff for a company our size?" Avoid negatively worded items.
• Focus on behaviors. Good questions probe supervisors' and employees' everyday behaviors and relate those behaviors to customer service whenever possible.
• Beware of loaded and uninformative questions. For example, questions such as "Do you look forward to going to work on Mondays?" elicit a "no" response easily, even from engaged workers.
• Keep the survey length reasonable. Overly long surveys reduce participation rates and may result in skewed responses because participants check answers just to finish the survey as quickly as possible.
• If you work with a vendor that comes to you with a "standard" list of questions, consider tailoring questions to reflect your organizational needs.
• Consider what you're saying about the organization's values in issuing the questionnaire. Question selection is critical because it tells employees what the organization cares enough to ask about.
• Ask for a few written comments. Some organizations include open-ended questions, where employees can write comments at the end of surveys, to identify themes they might not have covered in the survey and might want to address in the future.
• Consider doing more than one type of survey, each with different questions, frequencies and audiences. For example, "pulse" surveys are brief, more-frequent surveys that address specific issues or are given to specific segments of the workforce, and they can take place between annual surveys. Or conduct different surveys for company leaders and employees, or in different business units or specific countries.

Employee Engagement Platforms: More than Feedback Tools

A New World of Tools for Measuring Employee Engagement

Measuring the ROI of Employee Engagement

Using engagement surveys

After an employee engagement survey has been administered, survey data should be reviewed in aggregate and broken down for each business unit to allow individual managers to make changes that will truly affect engagement levels. Some experts also advocate having line managers communicate survey results to their own employees and create action plans to respond to survey recommendations. In addition, the organization may require that all employees have engagement objectives in their performance reviews so that engagement goals are developed both from the top down and from the bottom up.

Common missteps that organizations make with engagement surveys are failing to gain senior management commitment to act on survey results and failing to use focus groups to delve into the root of negative scores or comments. To avoid those mistakes, organizations should:

• Have management communicate to employees that the survey is an organizational, not a public relations, initiative.
• Consider creating a survey committee to instill broad buy-in.
• Create feedback or focus groups to determine the level of significance of specific items mentioned in the survey.
• Involve the entire management team in the action-planning process to ensure that changes are made based on employee feedback.
• Group open-ended survey comments by theme and categorize them at the workgroup level to ensure confidentiality of survey feedback.

See Using AI and Data to Improve Employee Engagement and How Generative AI Is Transforming Engagement Surveys .

Global Issues

The factors that drive employees to be engaged in their work vary not only from country to country but also by industry sector and within companies. Consequently, organizations that are expanding globally need to be aware of what engages their workforce in different global locations. See  How to Fix Declining Global Productivity.

In looking to engage employees globally, employers should:

• View global HR decisions in the context of national culture.
• Use valid research—not stereotypes—to align HR practices for a local population with actual employee attitudes and perceptions.
• Remember that the norm for engagement varies widely from country to country, making it critical to consult data on national norms to interpret employee surveys correctly.
• Realize that the elements that create engagement also create the employment brand.
• Understand that how the organization conducts its work reflects its organizational culture.

1 Gallup, Inc. (2017). State of the American Workplace. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/reports/199961/7.aspx

2 Quantum Workplace. (2012). The Six Forces Driving Engagement. Retrieved from http://marketing.quantumworkplace.com/hubfs/Website/Resources/PDFs/The-Six-Forces-Driving-Engagement.pdf?hsCtaTracking=6da0f455-5d8e-42c4-a801-3f89c17a2d86|ae58ac43-c084-4278-9853-b4b92f5ef030

3 Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc. (2018). Employee Engagement: It's Time to Go 'All-In'. Retrieved from https://www.dalecarnegie.com/en/resources/employee-engagement-making-engagement-a-daily-priority-for-leaders/thank-you

4 Hastings, R. (2009, March 4). The "what" and "why" of employee engagement. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employee-relations/pages/whatandwhy.aspx

Related Articles

A 4-Day Workweek? AI-Fueled Efficiencies Could Make It Happen

The proliferation of artificial intelligence in the workplace, and the ensuing expected increase in productivity and efficiency, could help usher in the four-day workweek, some experts predict.

How One Company Uses Digital Tools to Boost Employee Well-Being

Learn how Marsh McLennan successfully boosts staff well-being with digital tools, improving productivity and work satisfaction for more than 20,000 employees.

Employers Want New Grads with AI Experience, Knowledge

A vast majority of U.S. professionals say students entering the workforce should have experience using AI and be prepared to use it in the workplace, and they expect higher education to play a critical role in that preparation.

HR Daily Newsletter

New, trends and analysis, as well as breaking news alerts, to help HR professionals do their jobs better each business day.

Success title

Success caption

Employee Engagement as Human Motivation: Implications for Theory, Methods, and Practice

• Regular Article
• Published: 28 December 2022
• Volume 57 , pages 1223–1255, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• J. David Pincus   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3523-2912 1 , 2  

10k Accesses

9 Citations

13 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The central theoretical construct in human resource management today is employee engagement. Despite its centrality, clear theoretical and operational definitions are few and far between, with most treatments failing to separate causes from effects, psychological variables from organizational variables, and internal from external mechanisms. This paper argues for a more sophisticated approach to the engagement concept, grounding it in the vast psychological literature on human motivation. Herein lies the contribution of our paper; we argue that the apparent diversity of operational definitions employed by academics and practitioners can be understood as tentative attempts to draw ever nearer to key motivational concepts, but never quite get there. We review the leading definitions of employee engagement in the literature and find that they are reducible to a core set of human motives, each backed by full literatures of their own, which populate a comprehensive model of twelve human motivations. We propose that there is substantial value in adopting a comprehensive motivational taxonomy over current approaches, which have the effect of “snowballing” ever more constructs adopted from a variety of fields and theoretical traditions. We consider the impact of rooting engagement concepts in existing motivational constructs for each of the following: (a) theory, especially the development of engagement systems; (b) methods, including the value of applying a comprehensive, structural approach; and (c) practice, where we emphasize the practical advantages of clear operational definitions.

Similar content being viewed by others

Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations

Reactions towards organizational change: a systematic literature review

Theory of Human Motivation—Abraham Maslow

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Despite the centrality of the employee engagement concept, clear theoretical and operational definitions are few and far between, with most treatments failing to separate causes from effects, psychological variables from organizational variables, and internal from external mechanisms. This paper argues for a more sophisticated approach to the engagement concept, grounding it in the vast psychological literature on human motivation.

The Current State of Theory

In social science research, it is always good practice to try to distinguish causes and effects in theoretical models, resulting in testable propositions. Much of the theoretical work of both academics and practitioners Footnote 1 in the domain of employee engagement has unfortunately neglected this fundamental step, instead adopting a list generation approach, enumerating all the exogenous and endogenous variables that could, should, or might be expected to co-occur with engagement. This approach has returned long lists of items with little regard for separating causes from effects, psychological variables from organizational variables, states from traits, and the cognitive from the emotional from the behavioral. In a literature review, Kular et al., ( 2008 ) concluded that despite the “great deal of interest in engagement, there is also a good deal of confusion. At present, there is no consistency in definition, with engagement having been operationalized and measured in many disparate ways.” Nearly a decade later in a subsequent literature review, Dewing & McCormack ( 2015 ) observe that “it is a challenge to find much substance or a clear definition for the concept of engagement… Further, it is unclear how the construct relates to other existing similar concepts…” (p. 2). As suggested by these, and indeed virtually all authors on this subject, the term employee engagement has remained stubbornly muddled, conflated, and confused, a victim of entangled, conflated pseudo-definitions that overlap heavily with related but distinct concepts such as job engagement, work engagement, organizational engagement, intellectual-social-affective engagement, and collective organizational engagement (Albrecht, 2010 ). In this way, the academic and practitioner literatures have been subjected to a kind of “snowballing effect” as authors apply different theoretical models bringing with them a host of new constructs, while also applying ever more synonyms for existing constructs (for examples, see list of keywords used in literature review below).

The need for conceptual clarity is particularly acute for the concept of engagement. By one account, few business concepts have resonated as strongly as has employee engagement (Schneider et al., 2009 ). This strong and growing interest is confirmed by Google Trends (accessed August 28, 2020), which shows a steady upward trend in Google searches involving the phrase “employee engagement” beginning in April 2004 (their earliest data) at an index of 0, increasing to an index of 100 in July 2020 (indicating the strongest search volume to date). It is important to note that, despite the obvious relevance of the engagement concept to employee emotional wellness, this upward trend in interest pre-dates the current COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, studies have found significant linkages between employee engagement and physical and mental health (Harter et al., 2003 ; Porath et al., 2012 ; Sonnentag, 2003 ; Spreitzer et al., 2005 ). In light of this trend, providing a clear definition of employee engagement isn’t just a good idea for developing theory and measurement, it may be important for improving public health.

Although no universally accepted definition of employee engagement exists, Shuck ( 2011 ) has extensively reviewed the literature and identified four dominant research streams: Kahn’s ( 1990 ) need-satisfying approach, Maslach et al.’s ( 2001 ) burnout-antithesis approach, Harter et al.’s ( 2002 ) satisfaction-engagement approach, and Saks’ ( 2006 ) multidimensional approach. These four streams are derived from entirely different research traditions: organizational behavior (Kahn), social psychology (Maslach), commercial polling (Harter), and human resource management (Saks) and, accordingly, can be thought of as four descriptions made by the proverbial men around the elephant, each absolutely correct in his description, but none able to adequately describe the holistic essence of the phenomenon. In the spirit of crowdsourcing, we will keep track of every postulated component and subcomponent described by each tradition before attempting to apply an overarching model to encompass them all.

Epistemological Foundations

We now make a very short digression into epistemology, noting only that the dominant models of employee engagement all seem to tacitly assume the operation of the Stimulus → Organism → Response (S-O-R) model, which has been the dominant assumption in psychology since the close of the behaviorist era. In this formulation, external, environmental stimuli are perceived and acted upon in the brain of the individual organism, which mediates and causes observable behavior; accordingly, this is known as the mediation model and provides a scaffolding to separate causes from effects at two stages: external causes of internal effects and internal causes of behavioral effects. This presupposes asymmetrical relations between causes and effects (i.e., effects don’t cause causes) and should provide clear guidance for determining the role of different variables in the chain of causation by asking questions such as “Is X an external, environmental stimulus, a psychological response, or a behavioral outcome?” and “Does X cause Y or vice-versa?” But, as we will show, this has often not been the case in the employee engagement literature. Footnote 2

Do Engagement Concepts Refer to Stimulus, Organism, or Response?

Key constructs related to employee engagement have a nasty habit of showing up in different S-O-R roles at different times. For example, autonomy is part of the definition of engagement proposed by Maslach et al. ( 2001 ), but it is also an antecedent condition in the Hackman & Oldham ( 1980 ) system employed by Kahn ( 1990 ). Autonomy also shows up as an antecedent in discussion of role breadth (Morgeson et al., 2005 ), and again as an outcome in extra-role behavior or role-expansion (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004 ). It is unclear whether a behavioral intention like taking charge is a cause of engagement, a marker of engagement, or a consequence of engagement.

The same pattern is observed with regard to the construct of psychological presence . One the one hand, Kahn ( 1990 ) defines engagement itself as a harnessing of the self within the work role. On the other hand, the construct of organizational commitment , defined in a seminal paper as an outcome variable (Saks, 2006 ), is defined by the projection of the self into the organization (e.g., “Working at my organization has a great deal of personal meaning to me”; “I feel personally attached to my work organization”). We are left to wonder if projecting one’s self into one’s work is a cause of engagement, an indicator of engagement, or an outcome of engagement.

Again we see this pattern with regard to the key constructs of perceived organizational support (POS) and perceived supervisor support (PSS), which are identified as antecedent conditions (Saks, 2006 ). POS and PSS have been shown to be statistically related to measures of psychological safety , as well as to job characteristics of openness, being encouraged to try new things, and enjoying a supportive relationship with supervisor and colleagues (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004 ), resulting in the outcome of having “high quality relationships.” But this begs the question of what types of variables these really are: Is perceived safety not a response to antecedent conditions? Are POS and PSS themselves not psychological feeling states evoked by conditions? As such, we would argue that these constructs play multiple roles and defy being hard-coded into any one phase of the S-O-R process; it might be more accurate to think about them as multiple feedback loops. The example of perceived caring by the employer , a form of POS, is no trivial matter: As reported by Saks ( 2006 ), “demonstrating caring and support” is far and away the biggest predictor of both job and organizational engagement. But it’s not clear if perceived caring is part of the psychological response that defines engagement itself, or if it should be considered an antecedent condition, or even an outcome.

Unfortunately, this sort of conceptual “slipperiness” (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ) affects nearly every construct in the employee engagement literature: Is task variety purely an antecedent condition (an attribute of an environmental stimulus), or does task variety necessitate absorption (a definition of engagement; mediator variable) on the part of the employee in order to successfully perform the role, and by so doing, does it necessarily induce role expansion (a behavioral outcome variable)? Footnote 3 In this light, it is easy to see how the slipperiness of constructs permits them to migrate back and forth in status from stimulus to psychological mediator to behavioral outcome.

Despite valiant past attempts to categorize these constructs as one of the three elements in the S-O-R model, it is our contention that a more fruitful approach might be found in allowing for multiple causal relations and feedback loops beyond the rigid S-O-R assumption. As we will argue below, the vast majority of engagement constructs can be considered to act as psychological mediators, specifically, motivations , which direct the organism to seek out certain kinds of stimuli (S), generate emotional experiences (O), and prepare the body for response (R).

Motivations are inherently dynamic , that is, they pertain to striving for change over time from current conditions to an improved future state. Because of this dynamism, we suggest that a better model than S-O-R may be found in Maruyama’s ( 1963 ) Second Cybernetics model of deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes. In contrast to standard thermostat-like cybernetic systems that characterize most homeostatic systems, using negative feedback loops to keep conditions within certain bounds, deviation-amplifying processes push conditions toward increasing rates of change (e.g., a crack in the sidewalk fills with water; it freezes causing the crack to expand, which then holds more water, causing further expansion, and so on). Motives become actualized within the context of particular workplaces; the resulting direction of change is a function of mutually causal interactions between initial predispositions, e.g., the worker grew up in a success-oriented family vs. in an egalitarian commune, and work conditions that amplify certain types of needs, e.g., a sales department that closely tracks and rewards individual achievement vs. a non-profit with a culture of communalism. These interactions and their feedback loops naturally spawn increasing rates of change, which can either deepen a worker’s commitment to their organization or drive them out. Our contention is that deviation-amplification is an important underlying force that impels microgenesis from starting conditions to strivings for change, and from foundational forms of motivation (e.g., the need for safety or autonomy) to higher, decentralized forms of motivation (e.g., the need for esteem or higher purpose).

Do Engagement Concepts Refer to Affect, Cognition, or Behavior?

A very similar and related problem plagues attempts to separate constructs as primarily cognitive, emotional, or behavioral. The dominant definitions of employee engagement have gone to great pains to explicitly state that this construct is a cognitive, emotional, and behavioral complex. Commitment to the organization, for example, is defined as having both intellectual and emotional components (Baumruk, 2004 ; Richman, 2006 ; Shaw, 2005 ). Psychological presence is defined as being present cognitively, emotionally, and physically (Kahn, 1990 ). The authors of the popular Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) have defined engagement as a “persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state” (p. 74; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ). These approaches pays lip service to this distinction but essentially finesse the problem. By fudging and blurring any real distinctions between the affective, cognitive, and conative, researchers are left without critical guidance for developing valid and reliable measures. Macey & Schneider ( 2008 ) express concern particularly about the inability of current measures to address the emotional component, which they see as essential to the distinctive definition of employee engagement.

Certain components of engagement have been identified as primarily cognitive, e.g., attention , which is defined as both cognitive availability and time spent thinking about role (Rothbard, 2001 ). In UWES terms, absorption , being intensely engrossed in one’s role (Rothbard, 2001 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ) seems like a primarily cognitive construct, whereas vigor (full of energy) seems more behavioral. The final component of UWES, dedication , seems primarily grounded in cognition with shades of affect (e.g., “I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose”; “My job inspires me”; “My job is challenging”).

Just like the difficulties in establishing their S-O-R designations, these concepts defy easy classification as thoughts, feelings, or actions. Mirroring the consensus definition of the attitude construct in social psychology as having components of affect, cognition, and behavior (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996 ), we contend that the vast majority of these constructs imply thoughts, actions, and feelings, with a particular emphasis on the latter (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ). As demonstrated below, the concept of motivation , like attitude , can encompass this triad.

Literature Review

In accordance with Templier and Paré ( 2018 ), a literature review of the theory development type was conducted consistent with the six-step process outlined by these authors: (1) problem formulation, (2) literature search, (3) screening for inclusion, (4) quality assessment, (5) data extraction, and (6) data analysis and interpretation, as follows:

(1) The primary goal of this review is to identify theoretical systems that purport to define the components of employee engagement. (2) The literature search was performed using multiple, iterative search strategies beginning with consultation of the Web of Science and Google Scholar search engines, using combination of keywords drawn from definitions of engagement such as “engagement,” “motivation,” “striving,” “involvement,” “persistence,” “commitment,” “absorption,” “dedication,” “vigor,” “performance,” “citizenship,” “identification,” in conjunction with the object of these descriptors: “employee,” “worker,” “work,” “task,” “job,” “team,” “group,” “organization,” etc. As relevant papers were identified, the list of search terms was updated to include additional terms. Further, backward and forward searches on relevant papers permitted the discovery of additional materials. (3) The searches described above resulted in millions of publications of multiple types, which were further screened for inclusion. Screening criteria focused on the presence of a comprehensive model of engagement, whether viewed through the lens of management, psychology, human resources, or assessment. Additionally, results were screened for the availability of a complete set of assessment items that corresponded to each comprehensive model. These screens reduced the set to roughly 40 publications. (4) At this point, the full set of publications were reviewed for quality and relevance, resulting in additional forward and backward searching, which revealed a final set of conceptual models that conformed to the above requirements. (5) The specific elements of each model were extracted into a table for direct comparison (Tables  3 – 5 ).

(6) The analysis and implications are presented below.

The analysis resulted in the identification of 102 concepts (Table  4 ) and 120 individual assessment items (Table  5 ) referenced in the seminal and review papers on employee engagement. The concepts range widely across multiple dimensions that have been identified in past reviews, namely, antecedent conditions; indicators of engagement itself (cognitions, emotions, behaviors); observable outcomes of engagement; traits; and higher order qualities of engagement (e.g., persistence over time). These 102 concepts also vary broadly in terms of their content, encompassing job characteristics (e.g., variety, challenge, enrichment); individual traits (e.g., conscientiousness, autotelic personality, locus of control); intrapsychic concerns related to the self (e.g., psychological safety, authenticity, opportunities for personal growth); relations with the material world of work (e.g., autonomy, absorption, opportunity to meaningfully contribute); social cognitions, emotions, and motivations (e.g., sense of belonging, demonstrations of caring, opportunities for recognition); and concerns with higher-order, abstract principles (e.g., justice, values, purpose).

Emergent Points of Consensus

Since several literature reviews and meta-analyses of this literature have been conducted recently, we will not repeat the cataloguing of papers by commonalities here. Instead, we will use the points of consensus as a starting point for our main contention, which is that employee engagement is best conceived as human motivation, and that the various constructs proposed all neatly fit into a structured taxonomy of human motivation.

Across the papers reviewed, several points of consensus emerge:

Engagement is primarily considered to be an individual -level, not group-level, construct; as such, group level effects are the aggregated result of individual results (Shuck et al., 2017 ; Shuck, Adelson, & Reio, 2016; Shuck & Wollard, 2010 ).

Engagement is a latent psychological variable and therefore can be estimated but never directly observed, having the effect of re-classifying all so-called behavioral engagement constructs as outcomes (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Macey et al., 2009 )

Engagement acts primarily as a mediator variable between antecedents (e.g., job characteristics, work conditions, etc.) and outcomes (e.g., intention to quit, productivity, performance; Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Christian et al., 2011 ; Shuck, 2011 ; Rich et al., 2010 ; Bakker & Bal, 2010 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Macey et al., 2009 ; Saks, 2006 ; Hakanen et al., 2006 ; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004 ).

Engagement is primarily conceived of as a state rather than a trait (Shuck et al., 2017 ; Christian et al., 2011 ; Saks & Gruman, 2014 ).

Engagement is a multi-dimensional construct (“a complex nomological network”, Macey & Schneider, 2008 ) that includes cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions, but is primarily considered affective (Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Soane et al., 2012 ; Christian et al., 2011 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Macey et al., 2009 ; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ; Kahn, 1990 ).

Engagement is primarily conceived of as an affectively-charged goal-directed state, which is typically referred to as motivation in the psychological literature, and is explicitly labeled as motivation in many seminal works (Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Soane et al., 2012 ; Crawford et al., 2010 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Macey et al., 2009 ; Meyer & Gagné, 2008 ; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007 , 2017 , 2018 ; Bakker et al., 2016 ; Bakker & Sanz-Vergel, 2013 ; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ; Kahn, 1990 ).

Repeated calls have been made to address the problem of non-parsimonious construct proliferation, and for conceptual development to address questions of nomological validity in the hopes of identifying a “super-engagement construct” that can integrate the disparate and growing collection of constructs (Albrecht, 2010 ;  Shuck et al., 2017 ; Cole et al., 2012 ; Shuck, 2011 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ;  Macey et al., 2009 ).

Why Motivation?

It’s no coincidence that the major definitions of the employee engagement construct, despite their widely ranging theoretical origins, happen to fall perfectly in line with the definition of motivation, given by Pincus ( 2004 ) as an individual-level, unobservable state of emotion or desire operating on the will and, as a psychological mediator, causing it to act . We contend that this is because the concept of engagement is identical to the concept of motivation, albeit applied to a particular area of application, i.e., one’s work. The goal of this paper is to suggest that a conceptual model already exists that can accommodate all of these concepts, and that splitting hairs over which aspects of which concepts are antecedents, mediators, or consequences, is much like trying to parse out which are cognitions, emotions, or behavioral inclinations. From a motivational perspective, these concepts each have facets in all of these readout channels, i.e., a single motivational construct, say the need for belonging , can be fostered by certain conditions, can become a salient need, is experienced both affectively and cognitively, and can be behaviorally expressed.

In their seminal review article, Macey & Schneider ( 2008 ) explicitly describe employee engagement as a form of motivation , and report the widespread usage of synonyms for motivation in the literature including an “illusive force that motivates employees” (Wellins & Concelman, 2005 ) and a “high internal motivational state” (Colbert et al., 2004 ). Shuck’s ( 2011 ) integrative literature review offers a very similar definition of employee engagement “as a positive psychological state of motivation with behavioral manifestations.” (p. 2). Macey & Schneider ( 2008 ) make an intriguing statement that explicitly supports our contention:

“Some readers may feel that there are clear hints of ‘motivation’ in what we have just written and wonder to themselves why we are not saying that this (employee engagement) is motivation. The answer is that the construct of motivation is itself a hypothetical construct with considerable ambiguity surrounding it. Were we to introduce it here, it might further confound the issues so we leave the chore of integrating engagement with ‘motivation’ to others.” (p. 4).

Suffice it to say, we accept this challenge. In surveying the literature, the attributes that consistently define the concept of employee engagement equally define motivation. Motivation is the meta-theory the field has been calling for (Table  1 ).

A leading comprehensive theory of motivation is Buck’s ( 1985 ) PRIME Theory, an acronym for Primary Motivational and Emotional Systems. The key premise is that motivation is a state of pent-up potential energy that, when actualized, is “read out” through cognitive, emotional, and behavioral systems. In this model, each of these three readouts have distinct functions: the function of syncretic cognition is to provide the opportunity for conscious self-regulation; emotional expression serves to spontaneously communicate what one is feeling to others, which supports social coordination; and physical responses serve the need for adaptive behavior. The consensus view of engagement follows this same exact pattern of cognition (e.g., enthusiastic thinking), emotion (e.g., felt pleasantness), and behavior (e.g., physical activation).

The dominant perspective on the origin of motivations, echoed by Buck ( 1985 ) and Damasio ( 2012 ), is that they are essentially mechanisms of homeostasis, keeping the organism within set bounds of desirable operation. Motivational and emotional processes are activated within individuals via stereotyped action patterns, which have existed long before evolution designed conscious minds. In Damasio’s view, humans have minds for the purpose of sensing changes in our physiological states both internally and externally, and consciousness exists to provide us flexibility in how to respond to our environments. In this view, higher-order motivations (e.g., to feel free, included, cared for, fair, etc.) are built up (ontogenetically, phylogenetically, and microgenetically) from the neural substrates of unconscious, physiological needs on a continuum that begins with the physiologically-grounded (e.g., feeling safe) and extending up to those that are increasingly influenced and shaped by culture (e.g., feeling respected, successful, ethical, self-actualized, and having a life purpose). As motives become more culturally mediated (i.e., developing socio-historically), they are also increasingly subject to cultural prescription of appropriate avenues for their fulfillment. As suggested by Vygotsky ( 1978 ) and Leont’ev ( 1978 ), the microgenesis of personality and self-concept, as amalgamations of sets of needs and need-traits, is heavily determined by the social environments provided by caregivers, family, school, etc.

Consistent with the operation of all four of Vygotsky’s levels of human development, it is through the experience of deficiencies that development proceeds. Accordingly, we would expect hierarchical progress in motivation to typically occur in response to negative motivation, at least initially; over time, the role of positive aspirations would gain more prominence. As noted by cultural psychologists, negative and positive motivations tend to work together in a complementary fashion (Valsiner, 2014 , 2019 , 2021 ). Boredom, as an example of a negative motivational nudge, initiates stimulation seeking and desire for flow experiences; in this view, a certain degree of boredom is necessary to spark creativity and innovation (Boesch, 1998 ).

Applying a Taxonomy of Human Motivation to Engagement Constructs

Recently, a unified model of human motivation has been introduced to describe the types of emotional needs that impel humans to take action (Pincus, 2022 ). It was necessary to develop this model because, surprisingly, despite a plethora of mini-theories of motivation (e.g., Need for Achievement, Need for Affiliation, Terror Management Theory, Flow Theory, etc.), no comprehensive model of human motivation yet existed in the psychology literature. Maslow’s need hierarchy makes strides toward being more comprehensive, yet his focus on high achieving individuals led him to neglect many key motivations recognized in the literature, such as the need for Nurturance identified by Bowlby and Harlow, McClelland’s Need for Achievement and Need for Power, Erickson’s Identity Formation motive, and Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow Theory, among others.

To address this need, we began with the premise that motivation activates and directs behavior toward goals in four fundamental domains of life: the intrapsychic (inner-directed, focused on the self), the instrumental (outer-directed, focused on the material world of work and play), the interpersonal (socially-directed), and the spiritual (directed toward adherence with transcendent and eternal principles). These four domains of motivational focus have been identified by multiple systems of thought (Pincus, 2022 ) including developmental psychology (e.g., James, Maslow, and Kohlberg), sports psychology, social psychology & philosophy of religion, and by the five major world religions. We followed the premise of four fundamental motivational domains with a typology of three possible levels of motivational fulfillment. Following the work of Fromm ( 2013 ) and Rand ( 1993 ), we proposed that these four domains of fulfillment cross three states of existence: a foundational level of forward-looking expectations ( being ), an intermediate level of experiences in the moment ( doing ), and an advanced level of backward-looking outcomes ( having ). Footnote 4 Crossing the four life domains with the three modes of existence results in a periodic table-style matrix that is arguably comprehensive since there are no additional fundamental domains of life or modes of existence. This matrix is presented below as Table  2 , along with the resulting distributions of concepts and assessment items (Table  3 ) analyzed as part of the literature review.

As suggested above, the columns of the model organize the motivational concepts in terms of the location of the desired change (change in feelings about the self; change in feelings about action in the material world, change in feelings about social relationships and social interactions; and change in feelings about relationships with transcendental, ethereal principles) and the rows of this table organize motivational concepts according to the types of change toward which a particular motivational force is striving (change in expectations for the future, change in real time experiences of the present, and change in retrospective evaluation of outcomes from life choices and activities). Each motivational concept in the matrix has both positive (aspiration-linked) and negative (frustration-linked) emotional forms—reflecting the push and pull of emotional energies that move people to take action in life. Footnote 5 Motivational energy is typically fueled by both positive “pull” and negative “push” forces for the same need; for example, a worker who feels disempowered strives to rid himself or herself of this feeling (negative), typically by seeking greater autonomy (positive). In this way, positive and negative motivational forces should be seen as complementary , not as zero-sum tradeoffs.

Another important postulate of this model, like that of Maslow’s need hierarchy, is that progress within any of the life domains requires the successful satisfaction of more basic needs before the next level becomes salient, e.g., before one can be concerned with living up to their full potential, they must already have achieved feelings of safety and authenticity. In our extensive review of the motivational literature, over 100 distinct motivational concepts (i.e., needs or drives) were identified; all fit within one of these twelve categories of motivation, supporting our contention that the matrix is comprehensive.

Although we have displayed the matrix as a flat table for the purposes of publication, we prefer a three-dimensional pyramidal structure to reinforce the notion that humans must start from the basic motivations within each of the four domains before ascending to the salience of higher motivations; consequently, progressively fewer humans attain the higher levels with each domain, shrinking their relative sizes toward the top as visually represented by a pyramid. Another important theoretical concept that is reinforced by a pyramid heuristic is the fact that the Self is proposed to be antipodal to the Social, and the Spiritual is proposed to be antipodal to the Material; we will return to this point later as it has implications for hypothesis generation.

Presuming that most readers are not yet familiar with this model, we will give a brief introduction to the twelve motives of this matrix, and relate certain key concepts from the employee engagement literature to each. In all, 77 of the 102 concepts identified in the literature review found homes in this matrix. The remaining 25 were primarily personality traits (i.e., ambitiousness, autotelic personality, confidence, conscientiousness, determination, exchange ideology, hardiness, initiative, locus of control, optimism, proactivity, self-efficacy, self-esteem/self-worth, trait positive affect). These were excluded on the basis that the consensus view holds that the engagement construct is a state , not a trait. Job characteristics were similarly excluded because they are not psychological states (i.e., feedback from task and others, job and task characteristics, job enrichment, job demands, physical presence, and turnover intention). Finally, meta-characteristics that encompass multiple sub-dimensions were excluded because they are merely category labels whose subcomponents have already been included (i.e., personal resources, job resources, job satisfaction, motivation, and persistent/pervasive affective-cognitive state).

Motives of the Self

Safety and Anxiety. At the most basic level, there is a human need to feel safe and secure. This means feeling safe and assured in the face of challenges. When safety motivation is operating there is a desire to gain the basic sense that one has the confidence, protection, and comfort to successfully grow as a person. The need for “peace of mind” captures the spirit of this motive. At least twelve major theories of motivation include a need for safety as a core motive (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

Fittingly, the very first academic paper that described the phenomenon of employee engagement by Kahn ( 1990 ) lists psychological safety as one of the three pillars of engagement. In their review of the literature, Saks & Gruman ( 2014 ) suggest that Kahn’s need for safety is indeed the most fundamental requirement for engagement, which they describe as “important and necessary for all types of engagement” to develop (p. 175). Additional engagement constructs that speak to this need include the need for physical health (Saks, 2006 ; Sonnentag, 2003 ) and trust (Saks, 2006 ; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005 ).

Authenticity and Conformity. At the next level, pertaining to experiences with and of the self, comes the human need to feel able to express one’s distinctive individuality in the face of pressures to conformity. This is the desire to gain the sense that one is different in a good way, and to use this difference to successfully take action toward desired results. “Know thyself” captures the spirit of this motive. At least nine major theories of motivation include a need for authenticity as a core motive (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

The essence of Kahn’s ( 1990 ) engagement construct is that true engagement requires the “holistic investment of the entire self” (p. 97), i.e., their full, true, and complete selves, to one’s work role. That the need for authenticity is built atop fulfilled needs for psychological safety seems logical and fitting. Additional engagement constructs that speak to this need include the need for authenticity (Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Rich et al., 2010 ; Christian et al., 2011 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; May et al., 2004 ; Kahn, 1990 ), emotional presence (Kahn, 1990 ), personal identification (Cole et al., 2012 ; Christian et al., 2011 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Bono & Judge, 2003 ; Kahn, 1990 ; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986 ), projection of the self into work & organization (Christian et al., 2011 ; Saks, 2006 ; Kahn, 1990 ), and role fit, i.e., the degree of match between the authentic self and one’s job and organization (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ).

Fulfilling Potential and Failure to Thrive. At the highest level of attainment in the domain of the Self we find the need for self-actualization, the need to feel as though one is progressing toward fulfilling their personal potential as a human. This is the desire to gain the sense that one has the skill and mastery to successfully become one’s “best self.” The expression, “Be all that you can be,” captures the spirit of this motive. At least eleven major theories of motivation include a striving toward one’s full potential as a core motive (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

This motive has found full expression in the recent literature on thriving at work (Spreitzer et al., 2005 ; van der Walt, 2018 ), which is defined as a “sense of progress, or forward movement, in one’s self-development” (p. 4). Several related constructs in the engagement literature speak to this need for personal growth and mastery including strivings for extra role behavior (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004 ), role expansion (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Morgeson et al., 2005 ), mastery, learning, development and personal growth (Crawford et al., 2010 ), opportunities for growth & development (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Harter et al., 2002 ), as well as desires to innovate (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ). The construct of initiative (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Frese & Fay, 2001 ), when applied within the domain of the Self, may fuel all of these strivings.

Motives of the Material Domain

Autonomy and Disempowerment. At the most basic level of the Material domain, the area of life most directly associated with work, is the need for autonomy, defined as the need to feel authorized, capable and competent in the face of challenge. Autonomy is the desire to gain the basic sense that one has the ability, resources, and authority to successfully take action toward a desired result. The expression, “You can do it,” captures the spirit of this motive. At least seven major theories of motivation include a striving for autonomy, including terms such as self-determination, empowerment, and self-efficacy (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

A variety of engagement-related constructs explicitly focus on the need for autonomy (Soane et al., 2012 ; Meyer & Gagné, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ). Other related psychological concepts include competence (Soane et al., 2012 ; Meyer & Gagné, 2008 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Spreitzer, 1995 ), control (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Spreitzer, 1995 ), empowerment (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ), personal discretion/agency (Kahn, 1990 ), and self-determination (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Meyer & Gagné, 2008 ). We would also classify personal resources in this category, such as positive anticipation of future behavior and mental and physical resilience. There is a set of antecedent conditions that can help make these strivings successful including resource availability (Shuck, 2011 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ; Harter et al., 2002 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ) and sustainable workload (Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ), among other task characteristics.

Immersion and Boredom. At the intermediate, experiential level of the Material domain, we find the need for immersion, the striving to feel fully focused and engaged in the moment. This desire to lose one’s self in activity, in a state of total awareness, absorption, and flow, plays a particularly prominent role in definitions of engagement. The expression, “Being in the zone,” captures the essence of this motive. No less than thirteen major systems of motivation include this motive (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

Of all the motives discussed herein, immersion is the motive most densely populated by engagement constructs, representing roughly one-quarter of the 102 identified in the literature review. Chief among these is absorption (Kahn, 1990 ; Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Rothbard, 2001 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ; Hooker & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003 ), one of the three pillars of the dominant Schaufeli-Bakker UWES paradigm and a hallmark of Kahn’s ( 1990 ) concept of engagement. As pointed out by Saks & Gruman ( 2014 ), “if there is one common component across all definitions of engagement, it is the notion of being absorbed in one’s work and role” (p. 166). Unsurprisingly, then, there are many different terms used to describe this construct and these tend toward either cognitive, emotional, or behavioral descriptors.

The cognitive forms of this state include attention (Rothbard, 2001 ; Kahn, 1990 ), psychological availability (Kahn, 1990 ), cognitive presence (Kahn, 1990 ; Christian et al., 2011 ), experiential quality of doing work (Kahn, 1990 ), focused effort (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ), and job involvement (Christian et al., 2011 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; May et al., 2004 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ). The affective forms of this state draw a variety of labels including passion (Zigarmi et al., 2009 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Wellins & Concelman, 2005 ), enjoyment (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Rothbard & Edwards, 2003 ), happiness (Schaufeli et al., 2002 ), energy or energetic state (Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008, 2017 , 2018 ; Maslach & Leiter, 2008 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ), enthusiasm (Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008, 2017 , 2018 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Harter et al., 2003 , 2002 ), and positive affect (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Sonnentag, 2003 ; Kahn, 1990 ). The behavioral descriptors of this state include efficacy (Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Maslach & Leiter, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ), productivity (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Harter et al., 2002 ), vigor (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Shirom, 2003 ; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ), and the display of discretionary effort (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Frank et al., 2004 ; Mowday et al., 1982 ). As predicted by Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow Theory (2003), antecedent stimulus conditions that help elicit this state include an optimal level of challenge (Shuck, 2011 ; Brown & Leigh, 1996 ; Hackman & Oldham, 1980 ).

Success and Failure . At the highest level of attainment in the Material domain we find successful accomplishment, the striving to feel a sense of achievement as a result of one’s effort. This motive represents the desire to contribute to and be victorious in attaining desired results and to experience material rewards as a result. The expression, “In it to win it,” captures the spirit of this motive. At least seven major psychological theories of motivation include this motive (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

Within the engagement literature, this motive tends to be relegated to the status of evaluative outcome variable, as job performance (Saks, 2006 ; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004 ) or individual performance (Christian, et al., 2011 ; Alfes et al., 2010 ; Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009 ). Nevertheless, several key papers include either the striving to make important contributions (Shuck, 2011 ; Brown & Leigh, 1996 ; Hackman & Oldham, 1980 ) or the striving to have impact (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Spreitzer, 1995 ), both of which are well aligned with this need.

Motives of the Social Domain

Inclusion and Exclusion. At the foundational level of the social sphere is the need for acceptance and inclusion that permits the establishment of social bonds. Inclusion means feeling socially accepted, connected, and integrated, the desire to gain the basic sense that one belongs and can develop social attachments and friendships. The expression, “We are family,” captures this spirit. At least nine major motivational systems include this motive, which has been similarly labeled the need for affiliation, sociability, belonging, or social contact (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

Within the engagement literature, this motive figures prominently, with increased attention from the UK-based research group of Bailey (Truss), Soane, Madden, Alfes, & Fletcher, who have raised its profile substantially by naming it one of the three pillars of their Intellectual-Social-Affective (ISA) engagement concept (Bailey et al., 2015 ; Bailey et al., 2017 ; Soane et al., 2012 ). Although this is a new level of prominence for the construct, it has been a part of the engagement literature for many years, showing up as belonging (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Meyer & Allen, 1997 ; Mowday et al., 1982 ), high quality relationships (Saks, 2006 ), the ability to show warmth to others (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Shirom, 2003 ), and social relatedness (Soane et al., 2012 ; Shuck & Wollard, 2010 ; Meyer & Gagné, 2008 ; Kahn, 1990 ).

Caring and Uncaring. At the intermediate, experiential level of the Social triad comes the experience of feeling cared for by one’s employer, supervisor, or colleagues. Caring means feeling able to give and receive (appropriate) love, nurturance, and support, the desire to feel emotional nourishment, empathy, devotion, and experience mutual gratitude. The expression “Sharing is caring” aptly captures its essence. At least eight major motivational systems include this motive, which has been similarly labeled the need for nurturance, intimacy, succorance, attachment, or parental love (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

Feeling cared for is an especially important construct within the engagement literature due to its predictive power; Saks ( 2006 ) reports that perceived organizational support is far and away the top predictor of engagement with the organization and is tied for first place with job characteristics as the top predictor of job engagement. This construct goes by many names including caring, concern, and support (Saks, 2006 ; Kahn, 1992), community & social support (Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ), manager support (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Harter et al., 2002 ), perceived organizational support (Saks, 2006 ; Rhodes et al., 2001), perceived supervisor support (Saks, 2006 ; Rhodes et al., 2001), social support (Saks, 2006 ; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ), and supportive supervisors & management (Shuck, 2011 ; Brown & Leigh, 1996 ; Hackman & Oldham, 1980 ).

Recognition and Indifference. At the pinnacle of the Social triad is the need for social recognition. Recognition means feeling that one has achieved a social status of being admired, respected, and esteemed, typically as a resident expert in some skill or ability in the context of work. This motive represents the desire to gain social acknowledgement that one has been successful in a socially significant pursuit. The expression, “Hats off to you,” captures the spirit of this motive. At least eight major motivational systems include this motive, which has been similarly labeled the needs for esteem, honor, or egoistic prosocial motivation (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

Surprisingly, the need for recognition barely registers in the engagement literature with only two constructs matching this description. Significantly, however, the few times this concept surfaces, it appears in seminal papers (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ), suggesting that recognition needs should be seriously considered as components of engagement. The first of these is the rewards & recognition construct (Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ), specifically the recognition component; the reward construct would generally be classified with the successful accomplishment motive by motivational theorists. The other construct is that of the need for pride (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Mowday et al., 1982 ), the desire for a kind of social “badge value” or caché associated with prominent, successful organizations.

Motives of the Spiritual Domain

Fairness and Injustice. At the basic level of the Spiritual triad is the need for justice and fairness, the need to feel that one’s organization acts in an honest, unbiased, impartial, even-handed and transparent manner. In practice, this means the employees strive to feel the basic sense that good is rewarded, bad is punished, and that gain goes to those most deserving of it. The spirit of this motive is captured by the expression, “If you want peace, work for justice.” We note parenthetically that the importance of this motive has recently been dramatically underscored by the Black Lives Matter movement and perceived corporate responses to COVID-19. We suggest that to the extent that needs for justice have not been incorporated into engagement constructs, it has been an oversight that should be corrected. This motive appears in many motivational systems, particularly those focusing on moral development in children (e.g., Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, Lerner’s just world hypothesis, Bloom’s roots of good and evil, etc.; Pincus 2022 ).

Here, again, is an example of a need that has received scant notice in the engagement literature, but when it is mentioned, it is in some of the most significant papers in the body of work (Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ; Colquitt et al., 2001 ). Both Saks ( 2006 ) and Maslach et al. ( 2001 ) identify the important role of perceived fairness, and procedural and distributive fairness as antecedent conditions for fostering engagement. Saks ( 2006 ) assesses the power of a host of variables in predicting both job engagement and organization engagement; of these, procedural justice is one of only two significant predictors of organizational engagement.

Ethics and Wrongdoing. At the intermediate, experiential level comes the need to feel that one and one’s organization behaves in an ethical manner, consistent with normative moral values. This is the striving to feel that one’s actions, and those of one’s organization, are in accordance with a set of moral principles, universal values, or at the very least, accepted standard business practices, applied to the business in which you are engaged. This is the desire to feel that one’s and one’s organization act in accordance with principled best practices and the highest ethical standards, something that is universally preached in corporate values statements but too often ignored in practice. The essence of this need is captured by the expression, “Do the right thing.” This motive similarly appears in motivational systems that focus on moral development including those of Kohlberg, Batson, Staub, and even Kant (Pincus, 2022 ).

Ethical motivation receives a great deal of attention in the engagement literature, in the form of the many constructs devoted to reciprocity, obligation, duty, loyalty, and the like. At the individual level, this adherence to principle includes the sense of personal dedication and duty toward the organization. Chief among these may be the concept of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) directed to other individuals or to the organization (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Lee & Allen, 2002 ), organizational commitment behavior (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Robinson et al., 2004 ; Rhoades et al., 2001 ), emotional and intellectual commitment to the organization (Saks, 2006 ; Baumruk, 2004 ; Richman, 2006 ; Shaw, 2005 ; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986 ), mutual commitments (Saks, 2006 ; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005 ), dedication (Shuck, 2011 ; Thomas, 2007 ; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ), loyalty (Saks, 2006 ; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005 ), and values (Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ). Because these constructs have nearly all been defined in terms of observable behaviors, as a group they have tended to be categorized as outcomes or consequences of engagement rather than engagement itself, which misses the point of their motivational status. When an employee experiences ethical strivings (as motivation), they may tilt toward demonstrating observable citizenship behaviors (as part of the readout of that motivation), but it is important to recognize the motivation itself as the cause of that behavior.

Higher Purpose and Materialism. At the peak of the Spiritual domain stands the noblest and rarest of the motives, the need to feel as though one is serving a higher purpose or calling through one’s effort. Higher purpose means having a more meaningful reason to live, work, and exist than satisfying material needs. This is the desire to transcend the ordinary limitations of everyday life toward a higher, even spiritual, purpose. An expression that captures its essence is, “Those who have a why to live can bear almost any how .” An impressive collection of motivational theorists explicitly include a form of higher purpose or transcendental motivation in their systems including Staub, Kohlberg, and Maslow (Pincus, 2022 ).

Similar to the ethical motivation, the need for higher purpose is very well established in the engagement literature with extensive references to the construct of the meaningfulness of work, both in one’s work and at one’s work (Kahn, 1990 ; Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; James et al., 2011 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003 ; Meyer & Allen, 1997 ; Brown & Leigh, 1996 ; Spreitzer, 1995 ). Of particular note is research focused explicitly on spiritual needs and their relationship to employee engagement (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2010 ; Houghton et al., 2016 ; Milliman et al., 2018 ; Saks, 2011 ; van der Walt, 2018 ). These spiritual needs have been described as a need for meaning and purpose, awareness of life, connectedness, experience of sacredness, personal reflection and growth, health and inner peace, and compassion (van der Walt, 2018 ). Closely related constructs include organizational purpose (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ), sense of purpose (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ), transformational leadership, which is thought of as a catalyst for meaning and purpose (Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Bakker et al., 2011; Christian et al., 2011 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ), and adaptive behavior, which represents individual strivings in support of the organization’s purpose (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ).

Implications for Theory

The persistent problem of adequately defining employee engagement is well documented (Shuck et al., 2017 ; Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ). As perceptively noted by Macey & Schneider ( 2008 ), trying to separate antecedents and consequences from an ill-defined mediating construct is, at best, a “slippery” business (p. 10). By failing to embed the phenomena of engagement within a clear theoretical model, the field has suffered from concept proliferation, as indicated by the more than 100 identified herein. This is a failure of parsimony, but more fundamentally, it is a failure to clearly state the essential character of the phenomenon itself. Across the literature there are precious few citations of the psychological literature on motivation, which is extensive. It is telling that Kahn ( 1990 ), in the paper that first defined this construct, employs Maslow’s ( 1970 ) need hierarchy as one of its primary foundations. Despite the grounding of the original concept in motivation theory, the only consistent acknowledgements to the psychological literature involve passing references to self-concordance theory (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999 ) and self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ).

One of the most significant benefits to theory development of our proposition is to embed the vast array of engagement concepts within a structure that is logical and arguably comprehensive, as there are no known additional domains of human life or modes of existence (Fromm, 2013 ; Rand, 1993 ). Knowing these limits directly addresses the call to end concept proliferation (Cole et al., 2012 ), since any new construct proposed will necessarily have a “home” among similar constructs.

Another important benefit is immediately obvious from our analysis of Tables  3 and 4 as one can immediately see the degree of conceptual overlap, and distinctiveness, between different theoretical streams. As noted, fully one quarter of the concepts, and nearly two in five assessment items, identified relate to the motivational construct of immersion , suggesting that this is the most defining characteristic of employee engagement. By the same token, underrepresented concepts can also be clearly identified, e.g., safety , authenticity, recognition , justice , and included in future research.

Another key feature of our model is the requirement that each motivation must be capable of operating as either a striving toward positive aspiration (i.e., promotion) or away from negative frustration (i.e., prevention). Explicitly recognizing the polarity of motives within each cell supports further logical organization of proposed facilitative or inhibitory concepts, and, indeed, suggests that future research assess each of the twelve motives in terms of promotion needs and prevention needs.

However, we believe the greatest contribution to theory development is the establishment of a general theory of employee engagement that is composed of every possible human motivation (Pincus, 2022 ). Our model of human motivation takes the form of a pyramid formed by four sides representing four life domains: the Self, the Material, the Social, and the Spiritual. By placing these domains as opposing pairs, Self and Social, and Material and Spiritual, via a visual metaphor of distance, we are suggesting strong linkages between adjacent domains (e.g., Self – Spiritual – Social), and weak linkages for antipodal domains, for which there exists strong theoretical (Kohlberg and Power, 1981 ; Staub, 2005 ) and empirical support (Mahoney, et al., 2005 ).

A next frontier for research will be to describe the manner in which discrete motivations (both positive and negative) interact with each other to spark developmental progression both at the individual level and at the level of the organization. Our pyramidal model posits that such progress necessarily moves individuals and organizations in the direction of transcendence of categorical boundaries, with the ultimate goal of unifying all twelve motivations, i.e., what gives me security also provides justice for others, what gives me a sense of achievement also brings honor to the organization, what gives me a sense of authenticity also brings me a sense of purpose, etc.

Implications for Methods

In the words of Shuck et al. ( 2017 ), “the lack of engagement measures that are both academically grounded as well as practically useful, …complicates the ability of researchers to answer scholarly inquiry around questions of nomological validity and structural stability matched with practical usability” (p. 15). A symptom of flawed measures, the products of flawed theories, is the failure to garner empirical support for tested hypotheses, and the literature is rife with examples. Shuck ( 2011 ) cites Rich et al.’s ( 2010 ) finding that one operationalization of engagement failed to explain any variance in outcomes beyond that explained by intrinsic motivation, job involvement, and job satisfaction, suggesting that this concept and its operationalization was incomplete and “in need of theory building.” Similarly, Shuck ( 2010 ) found that Kahn’s definition of engagement failed to predict unique variance in outcomes, whereas a set of non-engagement variables were successful in explaining variance.

In the same spirit, Macey & Schneider ( 2008 ) called for a fundamental re-thinking of the approach to measurement. In their view, an adequate measurement technique is needed that can validly and reliably measure the motivational-emotional content of these constructs while minimizing rational filtering of response. In the words of Macey & Schneider ( 2008 ):

“The results from survey data are used to infer that reports of these conditions signify engagement, but the state of engagement itself is not assessed.” (p. 7). And current measures “do not directly tap engagement. Such measures require an inferential leap to engagement rather than assessing engagement itself.” (p. 8).

“Some measures…used to infer engagement are not affective in nature at all and frequently do not connote or even apply to a sense of energy…” (p. 10). “Measures of psychological states that are devoid of direct and explicit indicators of affective and energetic feeling are not measures of state engagement in whole or part.” (p. 12).

“The conclusion from these articles is to focus the measurement on the construct of interest; if engagement is the target, ensure that the measure maps the content of the construct.” (p. 26).

We couldn’t agree more, and our proposed reconceptualization of employee engagement has clear implications for advancing measurement. If employee engagement is indeed a motivational-emotional construct, then attempting to assess it using verbal and numerical assessment items is immediately problematic because such measures require rational, analytical thought on the part of the respondent. Entire research streams have evolved in the decades since Kahn ( 1990 ) specifically to work around the problems of assessing emotional and experiential constructs. These include a variety of so-called “System 1” techniques, named for Daniel Kahneman’s ( 2011 ) distinction between the brain’s fast, intuitive system (System 1) and the slower, rational system (System 2). These measurement systems are designed to bypass rational, cognitive filters, so that researchers can directly access motivational-emotional states, and include neurological imaging and electrical techniques (e.g., fMRI, EEG), physiological techniques (e.g., facial electromyography, facial coding, electro-dermal response, pupillary dilation, eye tracking, heart rate, blood pressure, respiration), and indirect measures of motivational-emotional meaning (e.g., Implicit Association Test, Affective Priming, Image-based Techniques). We urge scholars to move beyond cognitively-biased “paper and pencil” surveys when attempting to measure this motivational-emotional construct.

Implications for Practice

Much of contemporary employee engagement theory has little to offer the current day practitioner due to the lack of coherent theory and, accordingly, the weak ability of measures derived from these theories to explain variance in important outcomes. By grounding the many concepts attendant to this construct within a unified theory of human motivation, the task of understanding and communicating its essence is greatly simplified. This alone should be very helpful to practitioners who must somehow explain what their models measure and why.

Beyond its heuristic value, a unified model of human motivation provides a series of testable hypotheses, which can illuminate the specific relationships between each of the twelve motives (and their promotion and prevention faces) and external conditions that are under the employer’s control, outcomes that are important to the client, and with each other that together give meaning to interventions within a particular cultural context. Knowing which of the twelve complementary motives are most salient within a particular cultural milieu can assist the organization and workers to address work-related issues contextually, situationally, and adaptively. The cultural meaning of negative emotional needs is especially important to understand: The drive to avoid failure would have an entirely different meaning in a learning culture that not only tolerates failure, but actively encourages it, as opposed to a culture where “failure is not an option.” By aligning motivational interventions with the deep currents of cultural context, such interventions can take on meanings that are harmonious and adaptive, not incongruent, or inappropriate. Footnote 6

Finally, in the words of social psychologist Kurt Lewin, “there is nothing so practical as a good theory.” The many challenges to the defensibility of the engagement construct can easily create points of friction for practitioners who have curious clients. Adopting a structured, holistic model with face validity should hold clear advantages for all parties by providing a common language and framework to house their concepts and items.

In summary, this paper responds to repeated, urgent calls for integration of the diverse and proliferating concepts related to employee engagement. The subject of employee engagement is garnering unprecedented popularity (Shuck, 2011 ; Google Trends, 2020). Even in the best case, the current state of affairs means that theoretical disconnects slow progress in the field; in worse cases, it means that vast quantities of money and time are being directed to efforts that are poorly understood, leading to dangerous levels of waste that run the risk of poisoning the HRD field against a potentially valuable, even essential, concept.

As a final example of the utility of our model, we return to one of the many laments over the state of engagement theory and measurement. Shuck ( 2011 ) gives a series of examples of assessment items from different scales derived from multiple theoretical and measurement traditions that are seemingly impossible to reconcile within a single conceptual system:

“…Treated (as if they) were impersonal objects” ( Uncaring ).

“I can be myself at work” ( Authenticity ).

“I am prepared to fully devote myself to performing my job duties” ( Ethics ).

“I am bursting with energy” ( Immersion ).

These are widely disparate items, to be sure. However, as indicated in the parentheses, our model easily accommodates all of these perspectives, mini-theories, and concept within a single model, providing a kind of “unified field theory” of employee engagement. We contend that the secret to unlocking a meta-theory to encompass all of these perspectives, and all of the dimensions they propose, has always been hidden in plain sight within the very first descriptions of employee engagement.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article (and its supplementary information files). Original source materials are available from the author by request.

An array of theoretical and measurement systems have been proposed by human resources consulting practitioners for the employee engagement construct (Pincus, 2020 ). Zigarmi et al. ( 2009 ) clearly differentiate between increasingly divergent practitioner and academic approaches to conceptualizing, defining, and operationalizing employee engagement. A burgeoning volume of measures and concepts has been growing rapidly from the “bottom-up” through the efforts of practitioners having the effect of widening the gap over time between academic concepts with psychometrically validated measures and unsystematic pragmatic approaches. Although the practitioner perspective is valuable, and our general conclusions and suggestions extend equally to them, for the purposes of the current paper we limit our focus to peer-reviewed academic systems.

This is quite apart from other basic problems of determining causation in social science in the absence of longitudinal and experimental research designs.

To further complicate matters, direct perception theorists might suggest that antecedents aren’t always “ordinary” stimuli, i.e., neutral objects, but are often special stimuli with inherent affordance values, i.e., stimuli that by their very nature afford certain kinds of interactions, the way a comfortable chair affords “sitability.” In this view, an antecedent like task variety could afford (induce) task and role expansion, for example.

Aristotle proposed the same three-level delineation between states of existence: potentiality (having potential), energy or potentiality-as-such (motion that makes use of that latent potential), and actuality (the finished product). The classic example of this distinction involves the building of a house. The building materials could be used to build a house or they could be used to build some other structure; this is their state of potentiality, what Aristotle called “the buildable.“ The motion of building the house brings the materials toward the goal of actualization as a house but is an intermediate step in the process; this is the state of energy or potentiality-as-such. When the house is finished, the building materials are in a state of actualization.

Since it is logically possible for an employee to be motivated by either the positive aspiration for a motive or to avoid the negative frustration of the same motive, or both, or neither, we make no prediction about the expected relationships between positive and negative manifestations, and propose instead that they tend to operate in a complementary manner.

In a learning organization, failure-avoidant workers might be encouraged to use successive approximation or test-and-learn as more appropriate, culturally-consistent goals.

Albrecht, S. L. (2010). Handbook of Employee Engagement: perspectives, issues, Research and Practice . Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Book   Google Scholar  

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

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 , 19 , 31–53.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., Fletcher, L., Robinson, D., Holmes, J., Buzzeo, J., & Currie, G. (2015b). Evaluating the evidence on employee engagement and its potential benefits to NHS staff: a narrative synthesis of the literature. Health Services Delivery Research , 3 , 1–424.

Bakker, A. B., & Bal, P. M. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2010), 83, 189–206.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job Demands-Resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 22 (3), 309–328.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. - Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 22 (3), 273–285.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2018). Multiple levels in job demands-resources theory: implications for employee well-being and performance. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being (e-handbook) . Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers.

Google Scholar  

Bakker, A. B., Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., & Vergel, S. (2016). A. I. Modelling job crafting behaviours: Implications for work engagement. - Human Relations, 2016, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 169–189.

Bakker, A. B., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2013). Weekly work engagement and flourishing: The role of hindrance and challenge job demands. - Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2013, Vol 83, No. 3, pp 397–409.

Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2009). The crossover of daily work engagement: test of an actor–partner interdependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology , 94 (6), 1562–1571. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017525 .

Baumruk, R. (2004). The Missing link: The role of employee engagement in business success, Report of Hewitt Associates/Michael Treacy study, Workspan, 47, 48–52.

Boesch, E. E. (1998). Sehnsucht: Von der Suche nach Glück und Sinn [Longing: on the search of joy and meaning] (1st ed.). Bern: Huber.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal , 46 (5), 554–571.

Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of applied psychology , 81 (4), 358–368.

Buck, R. (1985). Prime theory: an integrated view of motivation and emotion. Psychological review , 92 (3), 389–413.

Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work Engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology , 64 , 89–136.

Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of applied psychology , 89 (4), 599.

Cole, M. S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A. G., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2012). Job burnout and employee engagement: a meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation. Journal of Management , 38 , 1550–1581.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of applied psychology , 86 (3), 425–445.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., & Conway, N. (2004). The employment relationship through the lens of social exchange. The employment relationship: examining psychological and contextual perspectives, 5–28.

Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of applied psychology , 95 (5), 834.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. Journal of management , 31 (6), 874–900.

Damasio, A. (2012). Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain. Vintage.

Dewing, J., & McCormack, B. (2015). Engagement: a critique of the concept and its application to person-centred care.International Practice Development Journal, 5.

Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). 4. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in organizational behavior, 23, 133–187.

Forbes, D. L. (2011). Toward a unified model of human motivation. Review of general psychology , 15 (2), 85–98.

Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R. P., & Taylor, C. R. (2004). The race for talent: retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century. Human resource planning , 27 (3), 12–25.

Fromm, E. (2013). To have or to be? . A&C Black.

Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2010). The science of workplace spirituality. Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance , 2 , 3–26.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology , 43 , 495–513.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology , 87 (2), 268.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies.

Hooker, C., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Flow, creativity, and shared leadership. Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, 217–234.

Houghton, J. D., Neck, C. P., & Krishnakumar, S. (2016). The what, why, and how of spirituality in the workplace revisited: a 14-year update and extension. Journal of Management Spirituality & Religion , 13 (3), 177–205.

James, J. B., McKechnie, S., & Swanberg, J. (2011). Predicting employee engagement in an age-diverse retail workforce. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 32 (2), 173–196.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of management journal , 33 (4), 692–724.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . Macmillan.

Kohlberg, L., & Power, C. (1981). Moral development, religious thinking, and the question of a seventh stage. In L. Kohlberg (Ed.), Essays on moral development: volume one. The philosophy of moral development (pp. 311–372). New York: Harper & Row.

Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E., & Truss, K. (2008). Employee engagement: A literature review. Kingston Business School, Kingston University Working Paper Series No 19, ISBN No. 1-872058-39-6/978-1-872058-39-9/9781872058399.

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: the role of affect and cognitions. Journal of applied psychology , 87 (1), 131.

Leontʹev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 1 (1), 3–30.

Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. (2009). Employee Engagement: tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage . Malden, WA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Jewell, T., Magyar, G. M., Tarakeshwar, N., & Phillips, R. (2005). A higher purpose: the sanctification of strivings in a community sample. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion , 15 (3), 239–262.

Maruyama, M. (1963). The second Cybernetics: deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes. American Scientist , 5 (2), 164–179.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). The truth about burnout: how organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it . John Wiley & Sons.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of psychology , 52 (1), 397–422.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (L. Carr, Ed.).

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology , 77 (1), 11–37.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: theory, research, and application . Sage.

Meyer, J. P., & Gagné, M. (2008). Employee engagement from a self-determination theory perspective. Industrial and organizational psychology , 1 (1), 60–62.

Milliman, J., Gatling, A., & Kim, J. S. (2018). The effect of workplace spirituality on hospitality employee engagement, intention to stay, and service delivery. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management , 35 , 56–65.

Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K., & Hemingway, M. A. (2005). The importance of job autonomy, cognitive ability, and job-related skill for predicting role breadth and job performance. Journal of applied psychology , 90 (2), 399–406.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of applied psychology , 71 (3), 492–499.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches . Westview Press.

Pincus, J. (2004). The consequences of unmet needs: the evolving role of motivation in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review , 3 (4), 375–387.

Pincus, J. D. (2020). Employee Engagement as Motivation: practitioner models. Advance Preprint . https://doi.org/10.31124/advance.13270571.v1 .

Pincus, J. D. (2022). Theoretical and empirical foundations for a Unified pyramid of human motivation (pp. 1–26). Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science.

Porath, C. L., Spreitzer, G. M., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at work: toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 33 (2), 250–275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.756 .

Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline, 309, 327.

Rand, Y. (1993). Modes of existence (MoE): to be, to have, to do: cognitive and motivational aspects. International Association for Cognitive Education . Israel: Nof Ginosar.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 (5), 825–836. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825 .

Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal , 53 , 617–635. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988 .

Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how you can create it. Workspan , 49 (1), 36–39.

Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The Drivers of Employee Engagement . UK: Institute for Employment Studies. IES Report 408.

Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative science quarterly , 46 (4), 655–684.

Rothbard, N. P., & Edwards, J. R. (2003). Investment in work and family roles: a test of identity and utilitarian motives. Personnel Psychology , 56 (3), 699–729.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist , 55 (1), 68.

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.Journal of managerial psychology,600–619.

Saks, A. M. (2011). Workplace spirituality and employee engagement. Journal of Management Spirituality & Religion , 8 (4), 317–340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2011.630170 .

Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement? Human resource development quarterly , 25 (2), 155–182.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies , 3 (1), 71–92.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior , 25 (3), 293–315.

Schneider, B., Macey, W. H., Barbera, K. M., & Martin, N. (2009). Driving customer satisfaction and financial success through employee engagement. People and Strategy , 32 (2), 22.

Shaw, K. (2005). An engagement strategy process for communicators. Strategic Communication Management , 9 (3), 26–29.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: the self-concordance model. Journal of personality and social psychology , 76 (3), 482–497.

Shirom, A. (2003). Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigor and the study of positive affect in organizations. Research in organizational stress and well-being , 3 , 135–165.

Shuck, B. (2011). Integrative literature review: four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: an integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review , 10 (3), 304–328.

Shuck, B., Adelson, J. L., & Reio, T. G. Jr. (2017). The employee engagement scale: initial evidence for construct validity and implications for theory and practice. Human Resource Management , 56 (6), 953–977.

Shuck, B., Osam, K., Zigarmi, D., & Nimon, K. (2017). Definitional and conceptual muddling: identifying the positionality of employee engagement and defining the construct. Human Resource Development Review , 16 (3), 263–293.

Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: a seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review , 9 , 89–110. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309353560 .

Soane, E., Truss, C., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2012). Development and application of a new measure of employee engagement: the ISA Engagement Scale. Human resource development international , 15 (5), 529–547.

Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of applied psychology , 88 (3), 518.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal , 38 (5), 1442–1465.

Spreitzer, G. M., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science , 16 (5), 537–549.

Staub, E. (2005). The Roots of Goodness: The Fulfillment of Basic Human Needs and the Development of Caring, Helping and Nonaggression, Inclusive Caring, Moral Courage, Active Bystandership, and Altruism Born of Suffering. In G. Carlo & C. P. Edwards (Eds.), Vol. 51 of the Nebraska Symposium on motivation. Moral motivation through the life span (pp. 33–72). Lincoln, NE, US: University of Nebraska Press.

Templier, M., & Paré, G. (2018). Transparency in literature reviews: an assessment of reporting practices across review types and genres in top IS journals. European Journal of Information Systems , 27 (5), 503–550.

Thomas, C. H. (2007, August). A new measurement scale for employee engagement: Scale development, pilot test, and replication. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2007, No. 1, pp. 1–6). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.

Valsiner, J. (2014). An invitation to cultural psychology . Los Angeles: SAGE.

Valsiner, J. (2019). Ornamented lives. Advances in cultural psychology . Charlotte, NC: IAP.

Valsiner, J. (2021). General human psychology. Theory and history in the human and social sciences . Springer.

van der Walt, F. (2018). Workplace spirituality, work engagement and thriving at work. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology , 44 (1), 1–10.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wellins, R., & Concelman, J. (2005). Creating a culture for engagement. Workforce Performance Solutions , 4 (1), 1–4.

Zigarmi, D., Nimon, K., Houson, D., Witt, D., & Diehl, J. (2009). Beyond engagement: toward a framework and operational definition for employee work passion. Human Resource Development Review , 8 (3), 300–326.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Employee Benefit Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA

J. David Pincus

Leading Indicator Systems, One Franklin Street, Boston, MA, 02110, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. David Pincus .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

There are no conflicts of interests which need to be disclosed.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Pincus, J.D. Employee Engagement as Human Motivation: Implications for Theory, Methods, and Practice. Integr. psych. behav. 57 , 1223–1255 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09737-w

Download citation

Accepted : 25 November 2022

Published : 28 December 2022

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09737-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Employee engagement
• Employee motivation
• Employee emotion
• Spirituality
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Employee engagement practices during COVID‐19 lockdown

Nisha chanana.

1 Swami Devi Dyal Institute of Management Studies, Swami Devi Dyal Group of Professional Institutions, Panchkula, Haryana India

2 PCJ School of Management, Maharaja Agrasen University, Solan, Himachal Pradesh India

In the present business situation during the COVID‐19 pandemic, employee engagement has become one of the utmost prominent primacies for human resource managers and practitioners in organizations due to lockdown. The paper is to determine the engagement of employees by various companies during coronavirus pandemic. Organizations nowadays are constantly developing innovative and effective means to engage the employees during this tough time. This paper is a conceptual paper that is based on various research papers, articles, blogs, online newspapers, and reports of World Health Organization. During this pandemic situation, organizations are evolving many engagement activities like online family engagement practices, virtual learning and development, online team building activities, webinars with industry experts, online conduct weekly alignment sessions, team meet‐ups over video conference for lunch, short online game sessions, virtual challenges and competitions, online courses, appreciation sessions, communication exercises, live sessions for new‐skill training, online counseling sessions, recognition and acknowledgment session, webinars dealing with anxiety and stress, providing online guidance for exercise and meditation, social interactions in a virtual office, classrooms training modules digitally, e‐learning modules, and many more creative learning sessions. Work‐from‐home regime engagement activities are very fruitful for employees as well as for organizations. Those organizations doing these kinds of engagement activities for their employees are learning new skills and developing themselves. Employees are feeling committed to the organization and stay motivated during this tough time of COVID‐19 pandemic.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. employee engagement.

Today, the business setup is changing in relation to the global pandemic of COVID‐19. Human resource managers are persistently evolving innovative, creative, and effective ways to engage the employees in a healthier way during this difficult time. Employee engagement is a workplace attitude that is ensuing all adherents of an organization to give of their excellence every day, committed toward their organization's goals and values. Organizations always remember that employees who are well engaged in an organization will lead to productivity in the place of work, and this generates a higher customer satisfaction and, absolutely, developments in sales and profit in the company.

The major challenge in theoretical literature is when we discuss the term “engagement” because there is a lack of a general definition of employee engagement. (Kahn,  1990 ) described in his study that engagement indicates physiological and physical existence of executing an organizational role. Psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability are the three constructs that help engagement to develop in an organization. Further study suggests that in engagement, individuals employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally in their role performances. The cognitive facet is associated with beliefs of leaders, employees, and working environments. The emotional facet means employees positive or negative attitude toward the organization and the leaders. Physical facet means the physical force devoted in order to accomplish an organizational role. Kahn's model is tested by May, Gilson, and Harter ( 2004 ) and the result showed that meaningfulness, safety, and availability of psychological condition are positively associated with engagement. Schaufeli, Martinez, Pinto, Salanova, and Bakker ( 2002 ) develop the term job engagement and explained job engagement as a positive and a work‐related state of mind, and it is considered by strength, dedication, and absorption. This study explained employee engagement as the individual's involvement, satisfaction, and enthusiasm for work (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes,  2002 ). This study suggests that engagement is closest to job involvement, well‐being, and emotions (May et al.,  2004 ). Employee engagement comprises two important facets, that is, job engagement and organization engagement (Saks,  2006 ). An engaged employee always does care about their effort, work, and performance, and employees want to feel that their work, efforts, and performance could make a difference. Employee engagement is usually understood as an inner state of mind, that is, physically, emotionally, and mentally, that binds together the commitment, satisfaction, and work effort in an employee.

Engaged employees support the organization to attain its mission, execute its strategy, and generate significant business results. Employee engagement can be enhanced by different HR practices comprising job design, recruitment, selection, compensation, training, and performance management (Vance,  2006 ). Organizations that support employee engagement, intelligently manage talent, and communicate with employees honestly, accurately, and at the right time will ride the current market turbulence and be successful in the future (Robison,  2009 ). Organizations and employees are both dependent on each other to fulfill their goals and objectives. Employee engagement should not be a one‐time implementation, but it should be integrated into the culture of the company. Career development prospects, encouragement, communication, recognition, the flexibility of employee's hours, fair pay structure, transparent and open work environment, and participation in decision‐making are the factors contributing to employee engagement at the workplace (Patro,  2013 ). To improve the purpose of effective employee engagement, six C's parameters are essential, that is, clarity, confidence, convey, connect, credibility, and career. An engaged employee is attentive about their work and about the performance of the company, and they always desire to feel that their determinations and hard work could make a difference. Engaged employees lead to productivity in the workplace, and this generates higher customer satisfaction and positive rises in sales and also profit in the organizations. Confidence and communication among both employees and organizations are also essential. This unification between the enterprise and the employee is a necessity as both are able to best in performance (Sarangi & Nayak,  2016 ). Employee engagement is built on belief, reliability, commitment, and communication between an organization and its adherents. Organizations can increase engagement by enhancing employee decision‐making, commitment, and transparency from senior leadership. Employee engagement is the level of enthusiasm and commitment an employee feels toward his/her job (Chandani, Mehta, Mall, & Khokhar, 2016 ). Employee engagement is an approach that proliferates the chances of business achievement, subsidizing to organizational and individual performance, productivity, and well‐being of employees.

1.2. COVID‐19 lockdown

The severe respiratory disease recently appeared in Wuhan (Hubei province), China. Epidemiological examinations have suggested that the epidemic was related to a seafood market in Wuhan, China (Fan et al.,  2020 ). COVID‐19 is a pandemic that has already reached 5,934,936 confirmed cases globally, with at least 367,166 deaths as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO) as of May 31, 2020. In the European region, the total number of confirmed cases is 2,142,547 and 180,085 deaths reported. In regions of the Americas, confirmed cases are 2,743,793 and 157,702 deaths confirmed. In Eastern Mediterranean region, total number of confirmed cases is 505,001 and 12,353 deaths reported. In the Western Pacific region, it is 181,665 confirmed cases and 7,028 deaths reported. In South‐East Asia region, confirmed cases are 260,579, and deaths are reported as 7,431. African region reported 100,610 confirmed cases and 2,554 deaths. World Health Organization risk assessment report states that COVID‐19 is very high risk at the global level (World Health Organization,  2020a ). Those people who are living with NCDs (noncommunicable diseases) are more susceptible to becoming seriously ill or dying from COVID‐19 (World Health Organization,  2020b ).

World Health Organization also provides some recommendations and advice for the public. According to WHO, maximum persons infected with the COVID‐19 virus will experience mild to moderate respiratory illness and convalesce without requiring any special treatment. Those people who are old and individuals who have medical problems like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and chronic respiratory disease are more likely to develop severe illness. According to WHO guidelines, individuals should protect themselves and others from COVID‐19 infection by washing their hands or using an alcohol‐based rub frequently. According to the report of WHO (World Health Organization,  2020c ), the COVID‐19 virus spreads primarily through droplets of saliva or discharge from the nose when an infected person coughs or sneezes. According to the research, there is no effective vaccine or approved drug treatment against COVID‐19 developed. In this situation, most of the countries go for lockdown, so that spread of COVID‐19 will break soon. Several countries have also closed borders to avoid international travelers from spreading the virus (Ghosh, Brindisi, Shahabi, Mackenzie, & Andrew,  2020 ). According to Business Insider (Kaplan, Frias, & Mefall‐Johnsen,  2020 ), most of the countries are executing measures to slow the spread of the COVID‐19, from national quarantines to school closures.

Most of the countries are applying some form of restriction to the public like lockdown, social distancing, and wearing a face mask when you step out of your home. As per the need of the hour, most of the organizations started working online and initiated a work‐from‐home (WFH) regime. Due to lockdown, most of the organizations provide the facility to their employees to work from home. But work from home is difficult for employees as they do not feel the organizational climate at home, as lack of concentration due to frequent invasion of family members; work–life conflict arise due to this. Even they do not have proper equipment and tools (computer, mouse, printers, scanners, headphones, webcam, internet connection, and dedicated workspace—a quiet place to work). Most of the employees feel stressed due to rising cases of COVID‐19 in the world. They are not sure about their job security and also about their salary. Due to these problems, employees could not concentrate/focus on their work, so there is a need for employee engagement. The prime responsibility of the organization is to take care of their employees' well‐being and engage them properly. Those employees who are engaged well are giving 100% result. Leaders should provide some motivational talk lectures, boost their morale, and provide security and open environment so employees can raise their voice if they are having some issues. Leaders can use multimedia for communication. There should be transparent policy, so employees do not feel stress about their job and engage in their job well mannered.

1.3. Review of literature

Robison ( 2009 ) suggested on how to manage in turbulent times and keep employees focused and engaged in times of change. Some tips are given by the author like tell employees what organization expects from them, make sure employees have the right materials and equipment, give employees the opportunity to do what they do best, do not forget to give recognition, let your employees know you care about them, and always keep encouraging their development. Employee engagement can be used as a mediator to develop the attitudes, intention, and behavior of employees to an improved work performance (Andrew & Sofian,  2012 ; Saks,  2006 ). Andrew and Saudah ( 2012 ) concluded that employee engagement can be utilized as a mediator to enhance the behavior, intention, and attitudes of employees toward a better work performance. Basquille ( 2013 ) recommended that managers should be supported by the executive to provide development assistance, career support, and recognition. These factors enhance employee engagement effectively. Patro ( 2013 ) revealed that companies have to provide their employees the freedom to make their work interesting and forming an environment for having an engaged work life. Further study suggests that employee engagement should be a continuous process of learning, improvement, and action. Therefore, organizations today should actively look forward to fulfilling employee's expectations and generate an impact on the performance of the employee, which directly marks the organization's performance.

Bedarkar and Pandita ( 2014 ) projected an integrated model of employee engagement. The study result has shown that leadership, communication, and work–life balance are the key drivers of employee engagement. Groups, presence perceived, ease of use, and reputation of Facebook functions are the four factors that significantly contribute towards employee engagement (Abd Latib, Bolong, & Ghazali,  2014 ). Jalal ( 2016 ) study outcomes directed that employee engagement has a significant positive effect on organizational commitment and also found employee engagement as an important determinant of organizational commitment. The finding of the study suggests that the more employees are engaged in the workplace, high will be their commitment toward the organization or institution. Lee et al. ( 2016 ) study outcomes suggest that it is a challenge for HR professionals to keep present employees engaged with their jobs. Results revealed that workers are moderately engaged, meaning some may be detached from their current roles or fearful of losing their jobs. Job satisfaction is a significant driver of work engagement. Garg, Dar, and Mishra ( 2017 ) result revealed that there is a positive relationship between job satisfaction and work engagement. Further analysis showed that employee job satisfaction leads to employee engagement. Employee engagement link to financial performance comprising revenue growth, profit margins, shareholder return, and operating income is almost three times greater than organizations with disengaged personnel. It also elaborates that higher employee engagement level results in lower absenteeism and job stress and better well‐being and health. Further research shows that employee engagement has an effect on a company's bottom line and is sturdily linked to business performance (Saks,  2017 ). Engagement of employees results in business profits like cost and time savings if an organization provides a strong corporate culture in which personnel feel important and supported by the organization. Management trusts in employees, slightly flatter hierarchies, and leaders acting as role models increase the level of employee engagement (Sievert & Scholz,  2017 ). Internal communication satisfaction and employee engagement both are intercorrelated concept and the antecedent. Further study suggests asignificant role of internal communication satisfaction in high employee engagement (Verčič & Vokić,  2017 ). Engaged employees have emotional association with their work as well as their organization. Engaged employees always trust in the leaders of the organization. Hence, engaged employees are more dedicated and committed toward their work as well as organization.

Engaged personnel are always optimistic, keep good interpersonal rapport with each other, and also show high level of performance in the organization (Jena, Pradhan, & Panigrahy,  2018 ). Tiwari and Lenka ( 2019 ) revealed that functional, economic, and psychological benefits upsurge employees' level of engagement. Results indicate that internal corporate communication, perceived communication satisfaction, knowledge sharing, continuous learning, and intrapreneurship were positively associated with employee engagement. This paper found that if organizations invested in their human resources and building complete human resource management (HRM) system in their organization, it produces an engaged personnel, and, in return, organizations improve their performance (Tensay & Singh,  2020 ). Employees those dispositional happiness experience at higher level always practice higher levels of employee engagement (Barreiro & Treglown,  2020 ). Employee engagement is critical for an organization to retain their valued employees. It is very essential for an organization to do effective utilization of human resources in an organization. Without employee engagement, an organization cannot survive for a lengthy period.

1.4. Rationale of the study

The maximum of the nations is in lockdown due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. In this difficult situation, work‐from‐home regime is implemented by most of the organizations. But work‐from‐home regime is challenging for employees as well as for organizations during this difficult situation. Due to this problem, companies need to engage their employees in refined ways with the help of various employee engagement practices. This paper is to determine the various creative and innovative ways of employee engagement, so that employees can easily do work from home and stay committed, satisfied, and motivated during this pandemic situation.

1.5. Objective of the study

To determine the employee engagement practices during COVID‐19 lockdown.

1.6. Research methodology

This paper is a conceptual paper based on secondary data. Conceptual articles get organized manifold varying streams of content to provide some new understanding (Chermack & Passmore,  2005 ). The data collected derived from secondary research carried out by various researchers and groups. In the course of investigation, most data present in research papers, articles, blogs, and online newspapers provided insights into the concepts and practices of employee engagement related to COVID‐19 and tough times. COVID‐19 data are collected from the reports of World Health Organization. A methodical and wide literature review was conducted related to employee engagement literatures. The integrative literature review is a unique form of research that creates new understanding and knowledge about the topic reviewed (Torraco,  2005 ). Literature reviews purpose is to précis the present form of literature linked to certain phenomenon (Chermack & Passmore,  2005 ). Employee engagement is very essential for all the organizations during this COVID‐19 pandemic situation. In a lockdown, employee engagement practices keep them motivated, committed, satisfied, and contented in this tough time.

1.7. Employee engagement is important during tough times

According to the American Management Association, engagement levels can be improved, even throughout the tough periods, if companies take care and make the right decisions at the right time. According to the study, higher engagement levels are linked to improved productivity and a healthier bottom line. In good times or bad, worker engagement should be a top priority of organizations (Vickers,  2019 ). According to The Guardian , employee engagement helps to increase strong positive attitudes among people toward their work and their organization in difficult times. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship are the factors that play a major role to make up employee engagement. According to the newspaper, when employee engagement is high, organizations do better. To enhance employee engagement in difficult times, organizations should make more efforts toward the employees so that employees feel that their organization is genuinely interested in them (Robertson,  2012 ). According to Groove Management Blog (Formato,  2014 ), leadership needs to be more visible in tough times than at any other time. If organizations want their employees be engaged, then leaders should take responsibility and motivate them to achieve your future promise. Effective communication plan influences the employees to engage in their work and accomplish their objectives in difficult times. According to the blog, employee engagement is so critical in difficult times and only leadership can do wonders through employee engagement via an effective communication plan. Personnel wants to get their message through multiple channels, and the best practice is to release the information via multimedia. Deal, Stawiski, and Gentry ( 2010 ) revealed that during the tough time, additional benefit packages and fair and comparable pay structures should be given to their employees to keep them engaged and motivated. Organizations also provide employees all the tools and resources so that they can accomplish their job effectively. To keep engagement high among employees, managers should provide effective feedback and direction to their subordinates from time to time. Masson ( 2009 ) suggested that leaders should effectively communicate to employees toward their career growth, so that employees trust that development processes are fair and equitable. Supervisors should be transparent and to help employees identify their developmental needs and also enhance their skills during tough times. DVV media HR group limited (2018) article states some actionable tips for employee engagement during tough times. The most important is strengthening employee engagement. Others tips are: leaders have the responsibility for being role models during tough times, integrate employee feedback into your company culture, communicate clearly and consistently, support your managers, and keep motivation high with rewards and recognition.

Jones and Kober ( 2019 ) explained some strategies related to how to achieve superior employee engagement in difficult times and higher business results. These strategies are:

• Stay centered on your core values—it encourages employee engagement in difficult times.
• Explicitly support your employee—so they remain motivated during tough times.
• Solicit employee feedback—ask employees to freely share information, both frustrations and ideas for developments in a productive way.
• Communicate upfront with employees—leaders should communicate openly and honestly, so employees perform more effectively.
• Commit to your employee's employment—so employees should be committed to your organization.

Matkin ( 2016 ) mentioned that vision should be clear and concise and should be properly communicated to the employees, so they can get direction during tough times. In an organization, there should be open‐door policies; this kind of platform gives employees a voice. Organizations should be fully transparent with their employees; this kind of transparency builds trust among the employees toward the organization during difficult times. Article published in Nature (Fan et al.,  2020 ) stated five tips to help support employees working from home. These are:

• Create a healthy workspace—encourage workers to create a healthy workspace at home. Encourage employees to work ergonomically from home as best they can and review their work‐at‐home setup.
• Maintain a routine—encourage employees to stick to a routine and to maintain boundaries between their “work” time and “home” time.
• Do not forget to be social—communication with colleagues is a great stress reliever. An organization should set up a session for fun activities that would normally take place in the office.
• Encourage well‐being practices—organizations should care about their employee's well‐being; it can help reduce absenteeism, boost engagement, and performance.
• Invest in technology—communication tools such as instant messaging and video and voice calling platforms can help to keep teams connected. It is important to invest in a recognition platform that allows employees to send and receive recognition.

1.8. Employee engagement practices during the COVID ‐19 lockdown

As organizations develop various engagement practices to implement full‐time remote work policies due to COVID‐19, here are some practices to keep your employees engaged in their jobs work‐from‐home regime.

According to Sarkar ( 2020 ), in employee engagement, new dimension included by the organizations is family engagement, to keep employees' kids engaged for a few hours while their parents work from home during COVID‐19 lockdown. Organizations that are doing these practices are Genpact, Accenture, Deloitte, AMD, and Hinduja Global Solutions. Talukar ( 2020 ) article suggested five tips for practicing employee engagement during the COVID‐19 pandemic. These are: build a much stronger communication regime with your remote teams, do not forget to cheer them up with instant appreciation, loosen up and ensure flexibility, create a virtual community with all your employees, and host online team building activities. Goswami ( 2020 ) article is about engaging downtime employees during the lockdown period. Manufacturing companies, like CEAT, SAR, and Aditya Birla are elevating the downtime of employees. Through learning and development, companies keep the workforce engaged during the lockdown. Some companies provide TED Talks, webinars with industry experts, books, e‐learning, and self‐developed contents to their employees. Some companies also motivate their employees during the pandemic time and try to assuage their fears to ensure they stay positive. CEAT hired fitness trainers to keep the downtime employees and their families motivated through podcasts and live calls. Dutta ( 2020 ) article explains about the digital learning programs to upgrade the skills of employees during the lockdown. By developing learning opportunities, providing various resources for incessant professional growth, and keeping employees engaged during this tough period, organizations can empower digital personnel ready for the future. Singh ( 2020a ) mentioned that organizations must focus on employee engagement during COVID‐19 outbreak. According to the article, when employees have significant work and organizations continuously provide growth opportunities to them, then they feel motivated and committed toward their organization. Engaging remote employees generate a culture of openness in which employees can get new ideas. Engagement programs raise employees' inquisitiveness and help in bringing out the inventive and creative side of the workforce. So, it becomes necessary for companies to take effective employee engagement measures during tough times.

Goyal, Trivedi, Nandwani, Changulani, and Lokhandwala ( 2020 ) suggested and explained various ways to increase employee engagement during the lockdown. These are: conduct weekly alignment session, team meet‐ups, entire team gathers over video conference for lunch, short online game session, virtual challenges and competitions, 5 min of informal talk, shared content such as TED Talks, books, online courses, brainstorming focus, aha, apology and appreciation session, communication exercise, ditch a task, map of alignment, and emphasize results over timelines. Singh ( 2020b ) discussed the various issues of employees they are facing during this tough time. This article suggested that businesses must understand the stress levels of personnel during this difficult time; there should be an open environment and proper communication channels where personnel can come forward to discuss the issues they are dealing with. Most of the businesses are organizing contests, challenges, and hackathons for their workforces. Companies are regularly examining the well‐being of employees and offering solutions that support a healthy work–life balance. During this time, companies focus on the learning and development of their employees. Most of the organizations are introducing webinars and live sessions for new‐skill training to online counseling sessions helping employees to stay safe and healthy at home. Anand ( 2020 ) revealed that lockdown has caused huge disruption in the world as billions of people are self‐isolating in homes. This article suggested four tips for better employee engagement during the lockdown. Build solid communication channels like messaging platforms, video conferencing, and email. Appreciation, recognition, and acknowledgment of employees are necessary during this tough time. Employees will need to take time off to make meals, play with their kids, and perform household chores, so keep things flexible. Businesses should plan meetings in the virtual world with their employees.

Nair ( 2020 ) explored that many employee engagement programs are run by Capgemini during this difficult time. Capgemini introduces structured employee engagement programs like constant communication with employees through video messages from the company's leadership, creating and maintaining social networks in virtual communities, creating a sense of belonging, arranged counseling service for employees, conducting webinars dealing with anxiety and stress, sharing best practices of maintaining health and hygiene and also provide guidance for exercise and Meditation. Bhardwaj ( 2020 ) discussed the steps taken by Cars24 to ensure maximum employee engagement and raise a sense of belongingness with the company. Various activities are conducted by the Cars24 including challenges like sharing a picture with your pet, a selfie with the family, fun awards, and “Know Your Leaders” where the employees were quizzed about their general knowledge of the leaders, mental fitness and meditations online classes, a hidden talent show, virtual karaoke challenge, a virtual campfire challenge, fostering team spirit, video calls, and various online group challenges to boost employee morale and engagement.

Brunswick group (Metts,  2020 ) mentioned that companies need to develop employee engagement and communication plans to keep morale high and help their people stay connected with each other. Communications to employees should be regular and frequent, allow weekly all‐employee video conferences or conference calls, remind colleagues to take extra precautions on potential data breaches and other cyber‐security issues, and encourage employees to share work–from‐home experience and tips—what do they find challenging and how to stay focused and productive. Fallon ( 2020 ) elaborates the team engagement during coronavirus pandemic. Article explains some ways to keep employees engaged like keep people updated through transparent communication, prepare powerful presentations, and get everyone on video. Leaders lead by example with a good remote work setup, avoid micromanaging, maintain friendly social interactions in the virtual office, and get employee feedback on how they are feeling. Hasan ( 2020 ) explained the various ways companies are serving employees in response to COVID‐19. Amway is on‐going with the increments, promotions, and recognition as per previous plans. The company has planned virtual engagement programs like external webinars to learn new skills and also announced employee's medical‐claim plans that will cover treatment costs for COVID‐19. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages has launched a virtual employee engagement program that seeks to involve employee's colleagues and their family members online for their physical and mental wellness. McDonald's India has adopted many of its classrooms training modules digitally and introduced e‐learning modules, quizzes, master classes by managers, and many more creative learning sessions, which employees can access on their phone while in quarantine at home. ITC Hotels has rolled a number of e‐learning courses targeted at specific roles and levels through primary channels of E‐learning to provide an opportunity for self‐learning which can be accentuated through anytime app‐based hosting. Clix Capital is also hosting live e‐sessions on its learning platform.

Various companies are doing employee engagement practices in a very innovative and creative manner to keep their employees satisfied and committed toward the organization. It is very essential to do employee engagement practices during this difficult time of the pandemic.

2. CONCLUSION

Engaging employees has become very essential in today's pandemic situation due to COVID‐19. Thinking of seizing the top position devoid of the support of your employees would surely be a dream in this current situation of lockdown. Organizations know very well that engaged employees are the key to success in this tough time. That is why businesses must look forward to keeping their employees satisfied and motivated through the engagement of employees during pandemic circumstances. Under the current situation, establishing employee engagement measures with the help of technology is essential for the growth of the organizations. Many companies nowadays are developing numerous employee engagement practices like virtual team meet‐ups, virtual learning and development, conducting weekly alignment online session, webinars with industry experts, and also webinars for anxiety and stress, online team building activities, online family engagement practices, brainstorming, apology, and appreciation online session, shared content such as TED Talks, online books, online courses, live sessions for new‐skill training, online communication exercise, online sharing best practices of maintaining health and hygiene, digital classrooms training modules, e‐learning modules, online guidance for exercise and meditation, online recognition and acknowledgment of employees, online employee feedback, short online game session, virtual challenges and competitions, 5 minutes of informal talk, entire team gathers over video conference for lunch, online counseling sessions, and social interactions in the virtual office. These kinds of engagement practices boost the morale of the employees and employees feel motivated and committed towards the organization in this pandemic situation due to coronavirus.

2.1. Further implications

All the organizations should adopt innovative and creative employee engagement practices during this tough time of pandemic COVID‐19 to keep employees motivated, stimulated, committed, satisfied, and blissful in this tough time. Work‐from‐home regime is nowadays very essential; it would be successful only with the help of online practices. Organizations should be implementing an online practice approach to stay in the competition during this difficult time. Virtual relations should be crucial for companies to enhance the engagement of employees. Engaged employees always achieve objectives very smoothly. Management also look into how to engage employees in order to be able to encourage a positive organization culture. Organizations also need to be able to recognize the various facets that motivate and derive employee engagement in organizations.

Biographies

Dr. Nisha Chanana is an Assistant Professor (Head of the Department) of Swami Devi Dyal Institute of Management Studies, Swami Devi Dyal Group of Professional Institutions, affiliated to Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, Haryana. She received her Ph.D. from the University School of Management, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra in 2015. Her current research interests include Organizational Behaviour, Recent HR practices, Organizational Change and Development, Training and Development, and Strategic HRM.

Dr. Sangeeta is an Assistant Professor of Management at Maharaja Agrasen University, Baddi‐ Himachal Pradesh. She received her Ph.D. from the University School of Management, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra in 2016. Her current research interests include Stock market volatility, Banking, General Economics and HR practices.

Chanana N, Sangeeta. Employee engagement practices during COVID‐19 lockdown . J Public Affairs . 2021; 21 :e2508. 10.1002/pa.2508 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Abd Latib, L. , Bolong, J. , & Ghazali, A. H. A. (2014). Facebook usage and functionality as the predictive factors in contributing towards employee engagement . Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences , 155 , 289–294. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.294 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anand, A. (2020, April 25). Coronavirus outbreak: 4 tips for better employee engagement during lockdown. India Today . Retrieved from https://www.indiatoday.in/education‐today/featurephilia/story/coronavirus‐outbreak‐4‐tips‐for‐better‐employee‐engagement‐during‐lockdown‐1670844‐2020‐04‐25
• Andrew, O. C. , & Sofian, S. (2012). Individual factors and work outcomes of employee engagement . Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences , 40 , 498–508. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.222 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andrew, O. C. , & Saudah, S. (2012). Individual factors and work outcomes of employee engagement. The 2012 international conference on Asia Pacific Business Innovation & Technology Management, Pattaya, Thailand . Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences , 40 , 498–508. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.222 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barreiro, C. A. , & Treglown, L. (2020). What makes an engaged employee? A facet‐level approach to trait emotional intelligence as a predictor of employee engagement . Personality and Individual Differences , 159 , 109892. 10.1016/j.paid.2020.109892 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Basquille, M. (2013). In this recession , has engagement remained high?–Research within an Irish financial company . (Unpublished dissertation). National College of Ireland. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/45382349.pdf
• Bedarkar, M. , & Pandita, D. (2014). A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting employee performance . Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences , 133 , 106–115. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.174 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhardwaj, D. (2020). CARS24 is raising the bar of employee engagement as they work from home. CARS24 . Retrieved from https://www.cars24.com/blog/cars24-is-raising-the-bar-with-their-work-from-home-initiative/
• Chandani, A. , Mehta, M. , Mall, A. , & Khokhar, V. (2016). Employee engagement: A review paper on factors affecting employee engagement . Indian Journal of Science and Technology , 9 ( 15 ), 1–7. 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i15/92145 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chermack, T. J. , & Passmore, D. L. (2005). Using journals and databases in research . Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of Inquiry , 1 , 401–418. San Francisco, CA: Berrett‐Koehler Publishers, Inc. http://www.kharazmi‐statistics.ir/Uploads/Public/book/research%20in%20organization.pdf#page=420 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Deal, J. J. , Stawiski, S. , & Gentry, W. A. (2010). Employee engagement : Has it Been a Bull Market? QuickView Leadership Series . A Center for Creative Leadership Report Sponsored by Booz Allen Hamilton. Retrieved from http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/EmployeeEngagement.pdf
• Dutta, K. (2020, April 08). Employee engagement‐how remote learning can help organizations keep employees engaged during lockdown. People Matters . https://www.peoplematters.in/article/employee-engagement/how-remote-learning-can-help-organizations-keep-employees-engaged-during-lockdown-25233
• Fallon, N. (2020, March 19). Managing from home? Here's how to keep your team engaged during coronavirus. U . S . Chamber of Commerce . Retrieved from https://www.uschamber.com/co/run/human‐resources/keeping‐remote‐employees‐engaged
• Fan, W. , Zhao, S. , Bin, Y. , Chen, Y.‐M. , Wang, W. , Song, Z.‐G. , & Yi, H. (2020). A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China . Nature , 579 , 265–269. 10.1038/s41586-020-2008-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Formato, B. (2014, April 15). Why employee engagement is so critical during tough times . Groove Management Blog . Retrieved from https://www.groovemanagement.com/blog/why‐employee‐engagement‐is‐so‐critical‐during‐tough‐times
• Garg, K. , Dar, I. A. , & Mishra, M. (2017). Job satisfaction and work engagement: A study using private sector Bank managers . Sage Publications: Advances in Developing Human Resources. , 20 ( 1 ), 58–71. 10.1177/1523422317742987 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghosh, A. K. , Brindisi, M. , Shahabi, D. , Mackenzie, E. C. , & Andrew, D. M. (2020). Drug development and medicinal chemistry efforts toward SARS‐coronavirus and Covid‐19 therapeutics . Chemistry Europe: European Chemical Societies Publishing , 15 , 907–932. 10.1002/cmdc.202000223 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goswami, A. (2020, March 31). Lockdown: Engaging downtime employees is equally important. HR Katha . Retrieved from https://www.hrkatha.com/employee-engagement/lockdown-engaging-downtime-employees-is-equally-important/
• Goyal, M. , Trivedi, D. , Nandwani, R. , Changulani, V. & Lokhandwala, T. (2020, April 10). Ways to increase employee engagement during lockdown. Stratefix . https://stratefix.com/ways-to-increase-employee-engagement-during-lockdown/
• Harter, J. K. , Schmidt, F. L. , & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business‐unit‐level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta‐analysis . Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 ( 2 ), 268–279. 10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.268 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hasan, A. (2020, April 13). How companies are helping employees in response to COVID‐19. People Matters . Retrieved from https://www.peoplemattersglobal.com/article/c-suite/how-companies-are-helping-employees-in-response-to-covid-19-25301
• Jalal, H. (2016). Testing the effects of employee engagement, work environment, and organizational learning on organizational commitment. 5th international conference on leadership, technology, innovation and business management . Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences , 229 , 289–297. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.139 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jena, L. K. , Pradhan, S. , & Panigrahy, N. P. (2018). Pursuit of organisational trust: Role of employee engagement, psychological well‐being and transformational leadership . Asia Pacific Management Review , 23 ( 3 ), 227–234. 10.1016/j.apmrv.2017.11.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones, M. D. & Kober, J. J. (2019). Employee engagement in difficult times. World Class Benchmarking . http://worldclassbenchmarking.com/employee-engagement-in-difficult-times/
• Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work . Academy of Management Journal , 33 ( 4 ), 692–724. 10.2307/256287 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaplan, J. , Frias, L. , & Mefall‐Johnsen, M. (2020, July 11). Business Insider India . Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/a‐third‐of‐the‐global‐population‐is‐on‐coronavirus‐lockdown‐x2014‐hereaposs‐our‐constantly‐updated‐list‐of‐countries‐and‐restrictions/slidelist/75208623.cms
• Lee, C. , Alonso, A. , Esen, E. , Coombs, J. , Mulvey, T. , Victor, J. , & Ng, H. (2016). Employee job satisfaction and engagement : Revitalizing a changing workforce . Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/Documents/2016-Employee-Job-Satisfaction-and-Engagement-Report.pdf
• Masson, M. (2009, May 6). Employee engagement in tough times. Workforce . com . https://www.workforce.com/news/employee-engagement-in-tough-times-part-two
• Matkin, J. (2016, December 19). Keeping employees engaged during tough times. LinkedIn . Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/keeping-employees-engaged-during-tough-times-jo-matkin/
• May, D. R. , Gilson, R. L. , & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 77 ( 1 ), 11–37. 10.1348/096317904322915892 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Metts, R. (2020, February 10). Employee engagement during the coronavirus. Brunswick . https://www.brunswickgroup.com/employee-engagement-during-the-coronavirus-i15224/
• Nair, A. (2020, April 10). Capgemini launches employee engagement programmes to help beat coronavirus stress . The Hindu . Retrieved from https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/capgemini-launches-employee-engagement-programmes-to-help-beat-coronavirus-stress/article31310564.ece
• Patro, C. S. (2013). The impact of employee engagement on organization's productivity . 2nd international conference on Manageing human resources at the workplace , December 13–14. ISBN: 978‐81‐922146‐5‐8.
• Robertson, I. (2012, May 3). The importance of employee engagement in difficult times. The Guardian . Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/public‐leaders‐network/2012/may/03/importance‐employee‐engagement‐difficult‐times
• Robison, J. (2009, February 19). Building engagement in this economic crisis. Gallup Business Journal . Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/115213/building-engagement-economic-crisis.aspx
• Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement . Journal of Managerial Psychology , 21 , 600–619. 10.1108/02683940610690169 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saks, A. M. (2017). Translating employee engagement research into practice . Organizational Dynamics , 46 ( 2 ), 76–86. 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarangi, P. , & Nayak, B. (2016). Employee engagement and its impact on organizational success–A study in manufacturing company, India . IOSR Journal of Business and Management , 18 ( 4 ), 52–57. 10.9790/487X-1804015257 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarkar, B. (2020, April 09). Companies roll out initiatives to keep employees kids engaged at home. The Econimic Times . Retrieved from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/companies-roll-out-initiatives-to-keep-employees-kids-engaged-at-home/articleshow/75058556.cms?from=mdr
• Schaufeli, W. B. , Martinez, I. M. , Pinto, A. M. , Salanova, M. , & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross‐national study . Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology , 33 ( 5 ), 464–481. 10.1177/0022022102033005003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sievert, H. , & Scholz, C. (2017). Engaging employees in (at least partly) disengaged companies. Results of an interview survey within about 500 German corporations on the growing importance of digital engagement via internal social media . Public Relations Review , 43 ( 5 ), 894–903. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.06.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh, M. (2020a, March 31). How to keep work from home employees engaged and productive. Marcer Mettl . Retrieved from https://blog.mettl.com/talent-hub/remote-workers-engagement-productivity
• Singh, P. (2020b, April 26). COVID‐19: The evolution of employee engagement. Business world . Retrieved from http://bwpeople.businessworld.in/article/COVID‐19‐The‐Evolution‐Of‐Employee‐Engagement/26‐04‐2020‐190293/
• Talukar, A. D. (2020, April 09). 5 tips for practicing employee engagement amidst the covid‐19 pandemic. Business 2 Community . Retrieved from https://www.business2community.com/human‐resources/5‐tips‐for‐practicing‐employee‐engagement‐amidst‐the‐covid‐19‐pandemic‐02300396
• Tensay, A. T. , & Singh, M. (2020). The nexus between HRM, employee engagement and organizational performance of federal public service organizations in Ethiopia . Heliyon , 6 ( 6 ), e04094. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04094 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tiwari, B. , & Lenka, U. (2019). Employee engagement: A study of survivors in Indian IT/ITES sector . IIMB Management Review. 10.1016/j.iimb.2019.10.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples . Human Resource Development Review , 4 ( 3 ), 356–367. 10.1177/1534484305278283 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vance, R. J. (2006). Employee engagement and commitment (pp. 1–53). Alexandria, Virginia: SHRM Foundation; Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/foundation/ourwork/initiatives/resources-from-past-initiatives/Documents/Employee%20Engagement%20and%20Commitment.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Verčič, A. T. , & Vokić, N. P. (2017). Engaging employees through internal communication . Public Relations Review , 43 ( 5 ), 885–893. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vickers, M. (2019, January 24). Boosting worker engagement in tough times. American Management Association . Retrieved from https://www.amanet.org/articles/boosting‐worker‐engagement‐in‐tough‐times/
• World Health Organization . (2020a). Situation Report‐101, Coronovirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) . Retrieved from https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200430-sitrep-101-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=2ba4e093_2
• World Health Organization . (2020b). Situation Report‐132, Coronovirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) . Retrieved from https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200531-covid-19-sitrep-132.pdf?sfvrsn=d9c2eaef_2
• World Health Organization . (2020c). Coronovirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) outbreak . Retrieved from https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_1

  Vantage Rewards

A people first rewards and recognition platform to elevate company culture.

  Vantage Pulse

An eNPS-based pulse survey tool that empowers HRs to manage the workforce better.

  Vantage Perks

A corporate discounts platform with a plethora of exclusive deals and offers from global brands.

  Vantage Fit

A gamified corporate wellness platform that keeps the workforce ‘Fit’ and rewards them for it.

  Vantage Gifting

An all-in-one corporate gifting solution to delight your employees on every occasion & make them feel valued.

  AIR e Consultation

AIR e program consultation to design and implement an authentic and impactful rewards and recognition program.

  Vantage Onboarding

Customizable and budget-friendly joining kits to create a sense of belonging and make new hires feel at home

  Integration

Seamless integration with your existing HCM/HRIS platform and chat tools.

  Product Updates

Check out all the new stuff we are adding to our products to constantly improve them for better experience.

   Blog

  Influencers Podcast

  Guides & eBooks

  Webinars

  Industry Reports

  AIR e Framework

 Vantage Rewards

 Vantage Perks

 Vantage Pulse

 Vantage Fit

 Vantage Gifting

An all-in-one corporate gifting solution to delight your employees on every occasion & make them feel valued.

 AIR e Consultation

 Vantage Onboarding

   Blogue

6 Objectives of Employee Engagement

The first thought that crossed my mind while I was planning to write this blog is an experience I had with a technology company. This experience made me a loyal customer and helped me understand why they became huge and so successful in their domain.

I was planning to buy a smartphone from the company's e-commerce site. My budget was tight, and luckily, the product was available at a reasonable price. I checked in after a few days, but to my surprise, the price was hiked to a point where I could not afford it anymore. I was disappointed.

I immediately called their customer support and expressed my concern. They amicably listened to me and explained their protocols and why they can’t lower the price. To compensate, they offered me a gift card. I was overwhelmed not because of their sweet gesture but the way they care about their customer’s happiness.

Now when I look back, It helps me gather the following insights on employee engagement.

The employees working in the company are engaged, which reflects in their actions.

Since employees are happy , they try to give the same experience to their customers.

Employees are more engaged because they consistently empower, motivate, and engage their workforce and align them with their goals and objectives.

Take care of your employees, and they will take care of your business.

This experience helped me realize that the company is doing something right when it comes to employee engagement. The benefits of having an engaged workforce became quite apparent.

And Ashish Banka , Head - People Evangelist at Cradlewise, has highlighted one of the important factors that influence employee engagement.

Employee engagement is a critical aspect of human resources and a continuous journey that allows employees to commit to their responsibilities. However, one of the most important factors influencing employee engagement is the level of appreciation shown to employees. I learned this through my 16-year journey and the experience I've gained. It is preferable to connect with your employees physically, mentally, and emotionally. And, as the world changes, the emphasis has shifted to how mental and physical health affects employee engagement.

But to engage the employees, it is vital to master the art of employee engagement . And you cannot do plan engagement activities without understanding the objectives of employee engagement first. And so, this is the topic I am going to discuss today: the objectives of employee engagement.

Here are the 6 Objectives of Employee Engagement

1. align employees with the organization’s goals and values:.

Every organization has unique sets of goals and values. Aligning employees with company goals and values gives them a clear perspective of what the company wants to achieve. Employees thus have a better sense of teamwork and are less likely to leave the organization. They remain more engaged since they have a clear picture of how their efforts will translate into the organization's growth.

How do you do it?

Define the primary goals and have a proper plan chart to execute them.

Hold a meeting to explain the goals and have a Q&A session to bring more insights to the table.

Communicate with the employees and keep them updated on the progress.

2. Employee Productivity:

Productive employees give more than they take. They understand business objectives well by actively participating in almost all organizational affairs, working hard on every task, and contributing to business outcomes.

With time employees stop bringing their enthusiasm to their workplace. The monotony of their work or unhealthy work culture may often lead to low employee satisfaction and diminish their passion for work. Even though the reasons can vary from person to person, the repercussions companies face for employee unproductivity are the same.

3. Enhance Employees’ Sense of Well-being:

The sense of well-being is psychological. And people experience a good sense of well-being when they have better relationships, freedom, personal growth, and a sense of purpose and meaning in life.

Employees with a good sense of well-being are engaged and satisfied in their jobs and empower others with their positivity and enthusiasm.

Support your employees and always help them in need. Actively listen to them, communicate more to understand their state of mind, and try knowing anything is bothering them or diminishing their well-being.

4. Improve Workplace Conditions that Drive Engagement:

By workplace conditions, I mean the work environment , internal communication , teamwork , respect, and healthy relationships in the workplace. All of these aspects collectively drive productivity and engagement. And this is why it is critical to improving these aspects.

Conduct employee engagement surveys to get a clear picture and then start working on the area which needs immediate attention. For example, the survey reveals that the employees are not happy about the communication in the organization and often are misinformed, or their opinions and views don't reach the top authorities. In this case, make sure you build a culture or a communication platform that helps address these issues.

When you give your employees an excellent working experience and take care of their needs, it helps improve productivity and the organization's overall growth.

5. Understand the Attitudes of Your Employees:

A workplace consists of diverse mindsets, and often, they have their way of completing their tasks. Therefore, it's a manager’s job to understand this aspect and delegate work to employees according to their core strengths and interests. Give them flexibility if they need it. If someone asks for flexible work hours to balance their work-life, try considering it.

If working around your employees' attitudes gives you more productivity and employee engagement, then consider it as your best bet.

6. Employee Motivation:

Employee motivation is one of the most substantial aspects of employee engagement. Motivated employees tend to perform better and are more productive in their jobs. Motivated employees feel a sense of commitment to the organization’s goals and objectives. They can lead to increased productivity and allow an organization to achieve higher levels of output. In contrast, demotivated employees spent most of the working hours surfing the internet for fun or looking for other job opportunities.

Employee motivation can be increased by positive communication in the workplace, acknowledging individual contributions, and rewarding them for the same.

Often a hostile work environment also diminishes employee motivation. Management can, therefore, conduct surveys to know this aspect better and take immediate action to resolve the issue.

Recommended Read: Best Employee Engagement Software for Employee Surveys, Wellness, Recognition, and more

To map the road to employee engagement, it is critical to get employee engagement objectives right. Your cake would remain half-baked if you do not know the goals of employee engagement and build engagement strategies for the sake of it. Therefore, hold your rope tight if you want to win the tug of war.

Comment in the box below if you have some more insights on the same.

This article is written by Braja Deepon Roy . He works as a Content Creator and Digital Marketer at Vantage Circle . He actively participates in the growth of corporate culture and keeps himself updated in this space. For any related queries, contact [email protected]

We safeguard your personal information in accordance with our Privacy Policy

You might also like

Employee empowerment in 2024: definition, benefits, tips, examples, 13 company retreat ideas to re-energize your employees, 10 key strategies you need to know to enhance employee experience management.

50k+ Downloads by HR professionals across the globe!

The Ultimate Guide to Employee Rewards and Recognition

5k+ Downloads by HR professionals across the Globe!

• Open access
• Published: 27 February 2024

Effects of employee engagement on organizational performance: case of public universities in Ethiopia

• Dawit Udessa Gede   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2032-016X 1 &
• Admassu Tesso Huluka   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1946-0977 2  

Future Business Journal volume  10 , Article number:  32 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

3808 Accesses

2 Citations

Metrics details

The objective of this research is to examine the impact of Employee Engagement on Organizational Performance within Public Universities in Ethiopia. It aims to explore the relationship between employee engagement and the overall performance of these institutions, specifically focusing on public universities. By providing significant insights and recommendations, this research will contribute towards the development of strategies that can enhance employee engagement and improve the overall performance of Ethiopian public universities. The study utilized both quantitative and qualitative approaches, employing descriptive and explanatory research designs. To gather data, three Ethiopian universities were selected based on their establishment date, and a random selection technique was used to include 365 personnel in the sample. Descriptive statistical tools like mean and standard deviation were employed, while structural equation models were utilized for confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis. The study's findings indicate that vigor, dedication, and absorption all have a significant and favorable impact on organizational performance in higher education. The study findings also indicate that the performance of study institutions differs based on the extent of employee involvement. This research introduces a fresh perspective of the relationship between employee engagement and organizational performance by concentrating specifically on the context of public universities in Ethiopia. This sheds light on the distinctive dynamics and obstacles encountered by these institutions. Furthermore, the study adds to the current body of knowledge by exploring the relationship between employee engagement and organizational performance, offering valuable insights and suggestions to enhance performance in the setting of Ethiopian public universities.

Introduction

In today's rapidly evolving business landscape, organizations are increasingly recognizing the pivotal role that employee engagement plays in driving sustainable success and achieving competitive advantage [ 45 ]. Employee engagement refers to the emotional commitment and active involvement of employees towards their work, organization, and its goals, while organizational performance represents the overall effectiveness, productivity, and success of the organization [ 50 ]. For this research, the concept of employee engagement pertains to the emotional and psychological bond that exists between an employee and their work, organization, as well as its objectives. On the other hand, organizational performance measures the extent to which an organization successfully attains its intended goals and desired outcomes. Over the past decades, extensive research has been conducted to understand the dynamics of employee engagement and its impact on organizational outcomes. Zada and Ismael [ 58 ] concluded that organizations with highly engaged employees tend to experience lower turnover rates, reduced absenteeism, and enhanced employee retention. They suggested further that Engaged employees are more likely to be motivated, satisfied, and committed to their work, resulting in increased loyalty towards the organization. According to Kurniawati and Raharja [ 21 ] higher levels of employee engagement are associated with improved customer satisfaction and loyalty, as engaged employees are more likely to deliver exceptional customer service and foster strong customer relationships. There is evidence to suggest that engaged employees are more innovative, creative, and willing to go above and beyond their job requirements, leading to higher levels of productivity and organizational performance [ 22 , 23 ]. Despite the wealth of existing research, there are still gaps in our understanding of employee engagement and its consequences for organizational performance. To address these gaps, further exploration of the underlying mechanisms and specific impacts is necessary. This will enable organizations to develop tailored strategies and create an environment that fosters engagement, ultimately leading to improved performance outcomes.

Extensive studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between employee engagement and the overall performance of organizations [ 14 , 21 , 22 ]. However, there are still several gaps and areas that require further investigation. According to Lemon and Macklin [ 39 ], the process of establishing a causal link between employee engagement and organizational performance is intricate and influenced by various contextual elements specific to different institutions. These factors have often been overlooked or neglected in previous studies [ 8 ] which can be termed as contextual or situational gaps. The relationship between engagement and performance can vary across industries, organizations, and contexts [ 3 ]. Factors such as organizational culture, leadership style, job characteristics, and industry dynamics can influence the strength and direction of this relationship [ 10 ]. Consequently, a standardized relationship may not uniformly apply to all organizational settings [ 1 , 15 ]. Moreover, while research suggests a positive association between employee engagement and organizational performance, it is challenging to determine whether engagement leads to performance improvements or if high-performing employees are more likely to be engaged [ 44 ]. Other factors, such as job satisfaction, motivation, and organizational support, can also influence both engagement and performance [ 26 ]. There are also geographical and population gaps in developing countries like Ethiopia where no sufficient investigation has been undertaken about employee engagement level and effects on organizational performance [ 36 ]. Almost all empirical evidences about employee engagement and effects from western and from industry developed countries. In Ethiopia, even though different scholars attempted to study about employee engagement and effects on organizational performance [ 13 , 16 , 17 , 30 , 52 ]. Rate of engaged employees have not been yet explored and identified. But there is only study conducted by Yallew [ 57 ] on higher education in Ethiopia recent development and challenges. The author found out that low level of motivation and engagement of academic staff in Ethiopian universities. As a consequence of the situation, academic staff in university tends to migrate to other sectors of the economy for the search of better opportunities and working condition [ 57 ]. The focus of that study is only on identification of reason for disengagement of higher educational staff. It not included in turn effects on organizational performance.

Moreover, the evidences from Ethiopian higher educational institutions show that government aspiration to increase the quality of the overall system through quality enhancement of graduates and research output backed by different guidelines and rules, loosen lecturer engagement [5, 23]. Specifically, guidelines during Covid-19 pandemic affects educational delivery system and forced it to online and distance learning, which in turn negatively affects engagement level of the lecturers. Top challenging issue of online teaching is decline in lecturer moral that lead to low engagement level as the consequences of covid-19 pandemic [ 53 ].

Hence, this study was to provide fresh contextual understanding within the field of management literature specifically related to Ethiopian higher educational institutions, where such evidence has not yet been documented. The main focus of this research was to employ a combination of condensed viewpoints derived from various theories in order to address and bridge the current gaps in knowledge. Specifically, the theories employed include the Job Demands-Resources Model, Self-Determination Theory, Job Characteristics Theory, and Kahn's Engagement Theory. These theoretical frameworks provide distinct and valuable understandings of the relationship between employee engagement and organizational performance [ 55 ]. They highlight the importance of job attributes, social interactions, psychological requirements, and positive emotional states in fostering engagement and improving performance results.

Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to examine the impact of employee engagement on the performance of Ethiopian public universities. It is worth noting that this particular area has been overlooked and lacks previous research on the subject matter. The outcomes of this investigation hold great value for the field of management and theory as they shed light on employee engagement practices and their direct influence on the overall performance of universities in Ethiopia.

Literature review

Theoretical framework and hypothesis, theoretical review.

Theoretical perspectives and arguments were utilized to explore the association between employee engagement and organizational performance. Various theories, including the Job Demands-Resources Model, Self-Determination Theory, Job Characteristics Theory, and Kahn's Engagement Theory, were employed to examine the impact of employee engagement on organizational performance.

Job Demands-Resources Model This model suggests that engagement is influenced by job demands (such as workload and time pressure) and job resources (such as autonomy, social support, and opportunities for growth). Engaged employees perceive their job resources as sufficient to meet the demands, leading to positive outcomes such as increased job satisfaction, motivation, and performance [ 20 , 33 , 42 ]. According to the JD-R model, work engagement is shaped by the equilibrium achieved between the demands and resources present in a job [ 42 ]. This equilibrium ultimately manifests as vigor, dedication, and absorption, which can be considered as dimensions of employee engagement [ 25 ].

The Self-Determination Theory (SDT) revolves around the inherent drive and psychological requirements of individuals [ 5 ]. When it comes to involvement, SDT proposes that the levels of devotion and engagement can be understood through the fulfillment of psychological needs such as autonomy, competence, and relatedness [ 56 ]. If employees perceive a sense of independence in their work, feel skilled and accomplished, and enjoy positive social interactions and connections, they are more inclined to exhibit dedication and complete absorption in their assigned tasks [ 18 ].

Job Characteristics Theory This theory argues that certain job characteristics influence engagement and performance [ 2 ]. According to this theory view, key job characteristics include skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback [ 37 ]. Engaged employees are more likely to experience meaningful and challenging work, leading to higher levels of performance and satisfaction [ 24 ]. The Job Characteristics Model places great emphasis on the significance of particular job characteristics in promoting employee engagement. Vigor, dedication, and absorption are regarded as the end results of meaningful and stimulating work [ 32 ]. According to this model, there are five essential job characteristics such as skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback that have an impact on individuals' psychological states, ultimately influencing their level of engagement [ 2 ].

Kahn's Engagement Theory, developed by William A. Kahn, provides a comprehensive framework for understanding employee engagement [ 46 ]. According to Kahn, engagement is a psychological state that occurs when individuals bring their full selves, both physically and emotionally, to their work roles [ 29 ]. It goes beyond mere job satisfaction and involves a deep sense of connection, fulfillment, and involvement in one's work. Kahn, provides a framework for understanding employee engagement and its dimensions, including vigor, dedication, and absorption [ 19 ]. According to Kahn, employee engagement is a state of "psychological presence" in which individuals bring their full selves, both physically and cognitively, to their work roles. Within this theory, vigor, dedication, and absorption are key components of engagement [ 43 ]. These theories provide different perspectives on the underlying mechanisms and factors that contribute to vigor, dedication, and absorption within the broader context of employee engagement.

The theories reviewed here above are essentially provide a foundation for organizing knowledge, explaining phenomena, generating hypotheses, making predictions, integrating findings, and guiding practical applications of this research. From this theoretical basis that researchers enabled to formulate hypothesis. They help us to identify study variables, specify the expected relationships between them, and generate testable predictions.

After reviewing the theoretical framework discussed above, we have formulated a set of study hypotheses to establish a clear focus and guide the design and analysis of our research. These hypotheses are as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Vigor exerts a statistically significant influence on organizational performance. Hypothesis 2: Dedication exerts a statistically significant influence on organizational performance. Hypothesis 3: Absorption exerts a statistically significant influence on organizational performance.

Empirical literature review

Several researchers have conducted extensive research on the impacts of employee engagement on organizational performance and have indicated a statistically significant positive correlation [ 11 , 19 , 31 , 35 , 47 , 49 ]. However, the concept of engagement remains perplexing, and its relationship with organizational performance is intricate and multifaceted.

Researchers have proposed that despite the intricate nature of the relationship between employee engagement and organizational performance, there are positive and substantial effects of employee engagement on performance. Gupta and Sharma [ 19 ] concluded in his study on impact of employee engagement on performance that when employees are engaged, they are more likely to be motivated, committed, and satisfied with their work, which can lead to several positive outcomes. He posit further that engaged employees are more focused, proactive, and willing to exert extra effort, leading to higher levels of productivity and efficiency. According to Ikon and Chika [ 31 ] research findings engaged employees are driven to achieve their goals and contribute to the organization's success. They suggested further that engaged employees are willing to go beyond their job descriptions, share ideas, and take risks, leading to improved problem-solving, process improvement, and innovation within the organization.

However, measuring and defining employee engagement can be a daunting task due to its intricate and multi-dimensional nature [ 12 , 54 ]. Moreover, the relationship between engagement and performance can differ depending on the industry, organizations, and situations, which restricts the ability to apply findings universally [ 6 ]. Additionally, maintaining consistently high levels of employee engagement in the long run is challenging for companies. It is crucial to identify and overcome any potential obstacles or difficulties that may hinder the maintenance and improvement of engagement levels [ 48 ].

In a recent study exploring employee engagement, Lopez-Zafra et al. [ 40 ] uncovered significant benefits of enthusiasm and energy, commonly referred to as vigor, on organizational performance. Their research specifically examined the role of vigor at work as a mediator in this relationship. Additionally Corbeanu and Iliescu [ 8 ] conducted a separate investigation and similarly established the positive impact of vigor on organizational performance. Kurniawati and Raharja [ 21 ] conducted a comprehensive review of existing literature to investigate the various factors that affect the effect of employee engagement on the performance of organizations. Study aimed to gain insights into the relationship between employee engagement and organizational performance by thoroughly analyzing relevant research articles published in reputable journals between 2010 and 2022. The findings strongly indicated a substantial relationship between employee engagement and organizational performance, supported by a p value of less than 0.01. These results suggest that higher levels of employee engagement are linked to enhanced organizational performance. Jaya and Ariyanto [ 32 ] conducted a study aiming to examine the impact of vigor, dedication, and absorption on the performance of employees at PT Garuda Indonesia Cargo. The findings of their research revealed that vigor, dedication, and absorption positively and significantly influence employee performance. However, it is important to acknowledge that this study has certain limitations. These limitations include a small sample size, limited context as it focused solely on the sector head office, and an undisclosed data collection period. To improve the reliability and applicability of the obtained results, it is recommended that future research be conducted using larger and more diverse samples. Additionally, employing longitudinal designs and considering additional variables would contribute to enhancing the strength and generalizability of the findings.

Methodology and materials

The study utilized both quantitative and quantitative research methodology with an explanatory design to explore the relationship between independent variables and dependent variables. A cross-sectional survey design was implemented for this purpose. The Ethiopian public universities were chosen for examination based on the assumption that they are relevant institutions for this study. Conducting thorough investigations to explore the impact of employee engagement on the performance of public universities in Ethiopia carries great importance. These institutions have the potential to serve as vital sources for skilled personnel, thereby playing a pivotal role in driving economic transformation and national development. This research is essential in order to enhance the overall effectiveness of these organizations, foster the well-being and satisfaction of employees, enhance student outcomes, contribute to the development of the nation, and provide valid information for making decisions based on evidence.

In order to select the universities to be included in the study, three public universities in Ethiopia were chosen based on their reputation and level of achievement. Among the universities in the south direction, Hawasa University was found to meet the criteria of being a first-generation university as well as a research university, and thus it was selected for the study. Similarly, Wolaita Sodo University meets the requirements of a second-generation and applied university and has been chosen accordingly. Moreover, Bule Hora University has been selected as a third-generation and comprehensive university. According to the human resource records of these three universities, the combined population of university staff amounts to 19,470 individuals, out of which 17,875 were specifically considered based on their employment status. The target population for this study comprised permanent employees working at the sampled universities, excluding expatriate staff and temporary employees.

The instance being examined is a component of the chosen and analyzed target populations, which is done to make inferences about the overall population [ 38 ]. Due to the substantial size of the target population, it is recommended to utilize Cochran's [ 7 ] formula to determine the necessary sample size. To calculate the required sample size, the maximum variability is considered to be 50% ( p  = 0.5), and a confidence level of 95% is chosen with a precision of ± 5%. The calculations for the sample size are as follows: p  = 0.5, thus q = 1 − 0.5 = 0.5; e = 0.05; z = 1.96.

The given formula can be expressed as follows: no = (z 2 pq)/e 2 , where no represents the sample size, z is the critical value chosen for the desired confidence level, p is the estimated proportion of a specific attribute present in the population, q is equal to 1 minus p, and e denotes the desired level of precision. By substituting the given values, we obtain: no = ((1.96) 2 (0.5) (0.5))/(0.05) 2  = 384.

According to Cochran, if the population is finite and the sample size exceeds 5% of the population (which is 894 in this case), a slight adjustment to the sample size is necessary. Cochran [ 7 ] proposed a correction formula to calculate the final sample size in such scenarios. The formula is as follows: n = no/(1 + ((n o -1))/N), where n represents the adjusted sample size, N is the population size, and no is the initial sample size. Applying this formula, we find: n = 384/(1 + ((384 − 1))/17,875) = 376.

Finally, we have distributed the sample size of 376 among three universities using the probability proportion to size (PPS) method. A total of 376 individuals were chosen to represent a sample group from three different universities. The selection process ensured that the sample size from each university was proportional to the overall population of that university. To achieve this, the method of proportional quota sampling was employed, taking into consideration the four essential aspects of the universities: good governance, teaching and learning, research, and community services. In line with this approach, 25% of the sample quota was allocated to administrative staff, while the remaining 75% was assigned to academic staff. To randomly select the sample group from each university, a simple random sampling technique utilizing a random number table was implemented. This method ensured an equal opportunity for all university staff within their respective quota to be included in the sample group.

The data collection process involved using a 5-point Likert scale and open-ended questions. The utilization of a Likert scale is preferred due to its ability to minimize the influence of respondents' opinions being solely based on one or two aspects of the situation. In order to ensure clarity and ease of comprehension for both survey administrators and respondents, the Likert scale used for this study comprised of five-point scale questions. The selection of sample sizes in each university was then conducted in a manner that maintained a proportional rate. The survey data was gathered in English as all the participants were university staff who possess the proficiency to comprehend and respond in English. It is worth noting that English serves as the primary instructional language in Ethiopian Universities. Hence, there is no necessity to translate the data collection questions into local languages. The survey was conducted within 4 months from December 2021 to March 2022. The survey questions utilized to gather the data were examined to determine the pattern of responses provided by participants (unidimensionality) through item-to-rest correlation. All of the survey items utilized for data collection exhibited item-to-rest correlation coefficients surpassing 0.3, which is deemed an acceptable threshold according to the general guideline. The content validity of the instruments was assessed through rigorous peer review, involving soliciting feedback from experienced researchers and esteemed professors, and subsequently obtained their approval. A structural equation model was employed to analyze the data through confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis models. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to measure model fitness by checking data validity and reliability and testing model goodness of fit. Whereas, the path analysis model was used to examine the relation between constructs. Qualitative data was used as evidence for quantitative results in the discussion section and used for triangulation.

In order to ensure legality and social acceptability, researchers obtain consent from the top management of the university. They also clarify the objective and significance of the study to the deans, directors, departments, and offices included in the sample frame. All participants are informed that the collected data will be used solely for academic research purposes, and their consent is obtained. It is emphasized to the participants that they are under no obligation to answer the questions unless they willingly choose to do so. Once the data collection process is completed, the information is double-checked with the relevant authority to enhance their confidence in the provided information and to ensure the overall acceptability of the research findings.

Data analysis and presentation

In this section, we will focus on the examination and representation of the original data obtained from respondents through written and interview questionnaires. We proposed a sample size of 376 and distributed the questionnaires accordingly. Out of the distributed questionnaires, we were able to collect 365, with 11 questionnaires remaining unreturned. Therefore, the response rate of the distributed questionnaires was approximately 97%, indicating a significantly high rate of response that is adequate for further data analysis.

A comparative analysis on the implementation of concepts across educational institutions

Descriptive analysis was employed to depict the fundamental attributes of the study's primary variables, from which research data was gathered. Additionally, it was utilized to elucidate the level of practical implementation of the study's concepts within the relevant institutions. The average mean of participants' responses was used to determine the application level. A higher average mean was assumed to signify a commendable application of the issue being investigated, while a lower average mean indicated a lower level of application. The values presented in Table  1 below provide a concise summary of the comparative analysis results among the various institutions involved in the study.

The data presented in Table  1 demonstrates the level of implementation of the study's concepts, which ranged from low to satisfactory. The average mean of the participants' responses indicated that the variables of the study fell between 2.60 and 3.48, with variations observed among the universities involved in the study. Employee engagement levels were found to range from 2.6 to 3.2, while organizational performance spanned from 2.95 to 3.48. The measurement of employee engagement considered three parameters: vigor, dedication, and absorption. The responses of the participants exhibited a consistent level of variability across all variables, with a standard deviation ranging from 0.54 to 0.64. This suggests that there was relatively little variation in the participants' responses. Additionally, the overall average mean of the study institutions indicates that organizational performance is directly influenced by employee engagement.

Measurement model

Employee engagement construct

To evaluate the degree of employee engagement as a predictor of organizational performance, three specific aspects were considered: Vigor, Dedication, and Absorption. The items used for this assessment underwent thorough tests to ensure their validity and reliability, as demonstrated in Table  2 below. The values presented in Table  2 indicate that all items possess Cronbach's alpha values greater than 0.83, which signifies a high level of internal consistency among the items. Additionally, all items exhibited factor loadings above or equal to the minimum requirement of 0.7, with average variance extracted values exceeding 0.60. These findings serve as evidence for the presence of both composite reliability and convergent validity. Furthermore, the correlation values between each variable are significantly lower than the square root values of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct. Similarly, the squared values of the correlations between constructs are also considerably below the AVE values for each construct. This confirms that the construct possesses discriminant validity, thereby establishing its appropriateness.

In summary, the values presented in Table  2 provide a comprehensive overview of the measurement aspects related to the employee engagement construct. These values were obtained through confirmatory factor analysis, which serves as a robust method for testing both validity and reliability.

Assessments of model fitness for employee engagement construct

The RMSEA value for this particular model is 0.066, which falls within the range of close fit, as a value below 0.08 is considered to indicate a good fit according to Cudeck et al. [ 9 ] and Steiger [ 51 ]. Additionally, the precision of the RMSEA estimate can be assessed through the point estimate, which represents the lower boundary of the confidence interval. In this case, the lower bound of the model is 0.046, which is below the suggested close fit value of 0.05 according to MacCallum et al. [ 41 ]. Consequently, the model is considered to be a close fit for the given data.

Another measure of model fit is the Standardized Mean Square Residual (SRMR), which provides an overall assessment based on squared residuals. In this model, the SRMR value is 0.028, which is lower than the minimum cutoff points suggested by the rule of thumb proposed by Hu et al. [ 28 ]. Furthermore, the comparative fit index is used to evaluate the fitness of the model of interest in comparison to a baseline model. The CFI and TLI are two comparative fit indexes, with values of 0.975 and 0.963, respectively, for this particular model. Both of these values exceed the minimum cutoff point of 0.95, as suggested by Kaplan [ 34 ]. Therefore, the model is considered to be the best fit based on both absolute and comparative fit indexes.

The Table  3 below displays the summary results of the model goodness-of-fit test for the employee engagement construct.

Organizational performance construct

The results of the assessment of construct validity and reliability revealed that all the items used to measure concepts are suitable. The data presented in Table  4 below demonstrate that all items have Cronbach's alpha values exceeding 0.89, which indicates a high level of internal consistency among the items. Additionally, the factor loadings of all items were above or equal to the minimum required level, with average variance extracted values surpassing 0.50. These findings indicate the presence of composite reliability and convergent validity.

Furthermore, the correlation values between each variable are significantly lower than the square root values of the average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct. Similarly, the squared values of the correlation between constructs are also considerably below the AVE values of each construct. As a result, it can be concluded that the construct exhibits discriminant validity.

The figures presented in Table  4 provide a comprehensive summary of the confirmatory factor analysis conducted.

Assessments of model fitness for organizational performance construct

The model's fitness was evaluated using descriptive fit indices, which compared the sample covariance matrix to the model's expected covariance matrix. The RMSEA value for this model is 0.018, falling within the acceptable range of less than 0.05, which is considered the best fit. According to Hu and Bentler [ 27 ], a value below 0.06 is recommended as a cutoff criterion, making this model acceptable. Additionally, the SRMR value for this model is 0.028, which is lower than the minimum cut points typically used as a rule of thumb and indicates a good fit for the data [ 28 ].

The comparative fit indexes (CFI: 0.998, TLI: 0.997) also suggest a good fit for the model when compared to the data. Table  5 provides a summary of the goodness-of-fit indices for the organizational performance construct.

Structural model and hypothesis testing

The aim of this study was to evaluate the overall fitness of the structural model. To accomplish this, we utilized the same goodness of fit indices that were employed in the measurement model. Additionally, we examined the estimated parameters to ensure their statistical significance. Below, Fig.  1 illustrates the conceptual relationship between the latent construct and its respective indicators.

The RMSEA value for this particular model is 0.068, which falls within the acceptable range of less than 0.08. This level of fit is considered adequate based on the suggestions of Cudeck et al. [ 9 ] and Steiger [ 51 ]. Additionally, the precision of the RMSEA estimate can be assessed through the point estimate, which helps evaluate the model fitness. MacCallum et al. [ 41 ] proposed that for a close fit, the lower boundary (left side) of the confidence interval should be less than 0.05, and for an exact fit, it should contain zero. In this case, the lower bound of the model is 0.034, which aligns with the suggested close fit value of 0.05. Therefore, the model demonstrates a close fit for the given data. The SRMR value for the model is 0.036, which is lower than the minimum cut points suggested by Hu et al. [ 28 ]. This indicates a good fit of the model for the data. The comparative index (CFI) value for this study is 0.982, which is a good indicator of comparative fit and surpasses the minimum cut points. Additionally, the TLI value is 0.966, exceeding the minimum acceptable level of 0.90 and indicating a comparative fitness of the model. Hence, the model is considered the best fit in terms of both absolute and comparative indexes. The overall coefficient of determination (CD) for the model is 0.973. Since the CD value is approaching 1, it further confirms that the model is the best fit for the data. In summary, the table below presents the values of the goodness-of-fit test for the structural model (Table  6 ).

Path analysis

The degree to which the model fits the theoretical one in path analysis is assessed by considering the collective impact of all exogenous variables on the endogenous variables, known as R 2 . In path analysis, the R 2 value represents the coefficient of determination, also known as the association index. This value serves as a scale to measure the magnitude of the combined effect of all exogenous variables on the endogenous variables simultaneously. Figure  2 illustrates the causal relationship between the explanatory variables and the predicted variable.

The data presented in Table  7 indicates that there is a significant relationship between the exogenous variable (employee engagement) and the endogenous variable (organizational performance). All three parameters used to measure employee engagement (Vigor, Dedication, and Absorption) significantly contribute to the variability in the dependent variable of the study. The model fits the data well, with a value of 82% representing the magnitude of the effect of the exogenous variable on the endogenous variable. The coefficient of determination (R 2 ) in the model is 0.8212, which indicates the proportion of the organizational performance's variation that can be explained by employee engagement. According to the association index, approximately 0.18 percent of the variability in organizational performance is attributed to factors not included in the model. The summarized results of the path analysis can be found in Table  7 below.

Summary of hypothesis testing

The assessment result of the hypothesis formulated for this study was presented as follows.

Hypothesis 1: Vigor exerts a statistically significant influence on organizational performance.

The variable have a p value of 0.000, indicating their significant impact. The regression coefficients are 0.19, which is much lower than the 5% significance level. As a result, we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis proposed by the researcher. Consequently, vigor has a noteworthy and direct influence on organizational performance. In this context, the regression coefficient signifies that a one standard deviation increase in vigor results in a 0.19 standard deviation improvement in organizational performance, assuming all other variables remain constant.

Hypothesis 2: Dedication exerts a statistically significant influence on organizational performance.

The importance of the variable has been determined to have a p value of 0.002, along with regression coefficients of 0.12, which is considerably lower than the 5% significance level. As a result, the null hypothesis is rejected, and the alternative hypothesis, proposed by the researcher, is accepted. Consequently, it can be concluded that employee dedication has a significant and direct impact on organizational performance. In this context, it can be inferred that a one standard deviation increase in employee dedication leads to a corresponding 0.12 standard deviation improvement in organizational performance, assuming all other variables remain constant.

Hypothesis 3: Absorption exerts a statistically significant influence on organizational performance.

The variable has a significance ( p ) value of 0.001, indicating a strong statistical relationship. The regression coefficients, which measure the strength of this relationship, are 0.16. This value is significantly lower than the 5% level of significance, providing evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis proposed by the researcher. Consequently, employee absorption plays a crucial role in influencing organizational performance.

To further understand the impact of this relationship, we can interpret the regression coefficient for the variable. A one standard deviation increase in employee absorption is associated with a 0.16 standard deviation improvement in organizational performance, assuming all other variables remain constant. This suggests that enhancing employee absorption can lead to notable enhancements in organizational performance.

Summary of findings and discussions

The primary objective of this study is to explore the impact of employee engagement on the performance of Ethiopian universities. To achieve this, a combination of qualitative and quantitative data was gathered from a sample of three selected universities. The quantitative data was analyzed using stata14 software, while the qualitative information was utilized for corroborating the findings obtained through questionnaires. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were employed during the analysis process.

The descriptive analysis of the study indicates that the application levels of the variables under investigation in the respective institutions were moderately implemented, although there were variations among the institutions. The descriptive analysis of these variables reveals that in the institution where employee engagement is low, the organizational performance is also lower compared to institutions where employee engagement is relatively higher, and vice versa. This characteristic of application implies the presence of cause-and-effect relationships between the variables. All three variables used to examine the influence of employee engagement on organizational performance exhibit strong and significant correlations and effects. The results from both the confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis demonstrate that the models are statistically appropriate for the given data. The study focuses on employee engagement, specifically exploring the variables of vigor, dedication, and absorption. These variables demonstrate noteworthy correlations and effects, which are consistent with the findings of investigation by Jaya and Ariyanto [ 32 ]. While the study of Jaya and Ariyanto provides insights into the relationship between vigor, dedication, absorption, and employee performance in the context of PT Garuda Indonesia Cargo, its limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings and applying them to other settings. The paper has limitations include a small sample size, limited context as it focused solely on the sector head office, and an undisclosed data collection period.

The outcomes of this research fulfill the assumption of the AMO theory, which suggests that enhancing the ability, motivation, and opportunity of employees to participate in the organizational interests is beneficial. This aligns with the concept of employee engagement. Moreover, it is in line with the findings of Nabhan and Munajat [ 23 ], whose findings suggest that work engagement and organizational commitment strengthen the influence of organizational identification and Islamic work ethic on job performance. The findings underscore the significance of being actively involved in one's work and having a strong sense of dedication towards the organization for enhancing job performance. However, it is important to acknowledge that the results have certain limitations due to factors such as the size of the sample, contextual elements, and missing variables. To enhance the validity of these findings and gain a deeper understanding of the topic, future researchers are encouraged to employ larger and more diverse samples, utilize longitudinal designs, and consider incorporating additional variables. By doing so, the findings can be strengthened, leading to a more comprehensive and reliable understanding of the subject matter. Furthermore, it substantiates the findings established by Mansor et al. [ 22 ], who conducted a thorough examination and established a noteworthy correlation between employee engagement and organizational performance. However, the outcomes are constrained due to the exclusive use of closed questionnaires, the narrow concentration on private companies, and the recommendation for additional research to overcome these limitations and gain a more extensive understanding of the factors that impact employee engagement and the strategies that effectively promote it. Consequently, the present study endeavored to tackle at least one or more of the constraints proposed by each analyzed study.

Furthermore, the study explored the respondents' perspectives, emotions, and attitudes regarding the implementation level of study concepts, as well as its impact on organizational performance. In order to accomplish this, quantitative data was utilized and analyzed. The purpose of the inquiry was to evaluate the outlook and understanding of university employees regarding their level of engagement with their respective institutions. The combined and condensed outcomes derived from the participants' qualitative feedback indicate that the level of employee engagement in higher education is moderately satisfactory, despite considerable differences among the institutions under study. To provide further insight, the following statement from one of the respondents is presented.

From a logical standpoint, there exists a positive correlation between employee engagement and organizational performance. At present, the engagement level of academic staff falls within the medium range, and its impact can be observed through the quality of education and the competence of students in the business market.

The findings presented here bear resemblance to the results obtained through descriptive statistics, which are summarized in Table  1 . In the table, it is observed that the average figure for men is 2.98, with a standard deviation of 0.64. This figure provides a cumulative overview of the responses obtained from all three university staff members. When examining the comparative descriptive summary, it becomes evident that there is a significant degree of variability among the different institutions in terms of employee engagement levels. Similarly, the qualitative descriptions provided by the respondents also highlight this variability. At an extreme level, the views expressed by the respondents regarding employee engagement levels differ greatly between the two institutions under study. In one university, the majority of respondents reported low levels of employee engagement, whereas in another university, respondents stated that employee engagement levels were high. However, when considering the cumulative responses from all three universities, it can be concluded that there is a somewhat moderate level of employee engagement present, despite the variability observed among the different institutions.

Conclusion, implication and limitation

Conclusion and implication.

The study findings reveal that employee engagement dimensions such as vigor, dedication, and absorption have a notable and favorable impact on the performance of organizations in higher education. Additionally, the research highlights that the level of employee involvement affects the performance of institutions differently. This study aims to bridge the gaps in understanding the dynamics of employee engagement and its consequences on organizational performance. It emphasizes the importance of exploring contextual elements and specific influences that shape the relationship between engagement and performance. Factors like organizational culture, leadership style, job characteristics, and industry dynamics play a role in shaping this relationship. By focusing on the distinct dynamics and challenges faced by public universities in Ethiopia, this study contributes to the existing knowledge in this field. It offers valuable insights and recommendations to enhance performance in the higher education sector. The research underlines the significance of tailored strategies and cultivating an environment that promotes employee engagement to improve performance outcomes. Furthermore, it sheds light on the importance of employee engagement in driving organizational performance and underscores the need for further studies and interventions within the context of Ethiopian public universities. Although there may be certain limitations to this article, as suggested in the limitations and suggestions for future research, it still contributes to the existing literature by emphasizing the significance of employee engagement in Ethiopian public universities. It lays the groundwork for future research and provides practical implications for managers and leaders aiming to enhance organizational performance through employee engagement initiatives.

The study makes a significant contribution to the management literature by combining various theoretical frameworks, including the Job Demands-Resources Model, Self-Determination Theory, Job Characteristics Theory, and Kahn's Engagement Theory. This integration offers a comprehensive comprehension of the connection between employee engagement and organizational performance. The study's results underscore the significance of particular aspects of employee engagement, specifically vigor, dedication, and absorption, in influencing organizational performance within the higher education sector. These findings emphasize the necessity for further research to delve more deeply into these dimensions and their effects on performance outcomes.

The research offers valuable insights for managers and leaders in public universities in Ethiopia, shedding light on the importance of nurturing employee engagement to enhance organizational performance. Managers should prioritize the implementation of strategies that cultivate enthusiasm, commitment, and absorption among their workforce. The study suggests that organizations should establish a work environment that is supportive and positive, fostering employee engagement. This can be accomplished by providing opportunities for professional growth, promoting a healthy work-life balance, and acknowledging and rewarding employee contributions. In essence, the study presents actionable implications for managers and leaders in public universities, underlining the significance of employee engagement in driving organizational performance. By adopting approaches to fortify employee engagement, organizations can enhance productivity, retention rates, and overall success.

Limitation and suggestion for future researchers

The research conducted on the impact of employee engagement on the performance of public universities in Ethiopia offers valuable insights and suggestions. However, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations of the study, including the presence of potential confounding variables. The study employed a cross-sectional design, which restricts the ability to establish a causal relationship between employee engagement and organizational performance. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of this relationship, future research should employ longitudinal designs. Additionally, it should be noted that the sample size of 365 personnel from three selected universities may not accurately represent the entire population of public universities in Ethiopia. Hence, caution should be exercised when generalizing the findings. Furthermore, the study primarily focused on the dimensions of vigor, dedication, and absorption as indicators of employee engagement. It did not extensively examine other dimensions or factors that could potentially influence engagement and performance, such as job satisfaction, motivation, and organizational support. To enhance the findings, future research should thoroughly explore these additional dimensions and factors. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that the study solely relied on self-reported data, which may be susceptible to common method bias and social desirability bias. To strengthen the findings, future research could incorporate multiple data sources and objective measures. Lastly, the study did not extensively explore the potential influence of external factors, such as economic conditions or government policies, on employee engagement and organizational performance. These external factors could act as important confounding variables and should be taken into account in future studies.

Abbreviations

Employee engagement

Organizational performance

Quality in services

Quality in research output

Abdelwahed NAA, Doghan MAA (2023) Developing employee productivity and performance through work engagement and organizational factors in an educational society. Societies 13(3):65

Article   Google Scholar  

Adiarani PG (2019) The effects of job characteristics on work engagement. Russ J Agric Socio-Econ Sci 85(1):475–479

Google Scholar  

Akter H, Sentosa I, Hizam SM, Ahmed W, Akter A (2021) Finding the contextual gap towards employee engagement in financial sector: a review study. arXiv:2106.06436

Anyalor M, Nwali AC, Agbionu UC (2018) Employee engagement and performance of lecturers in Nigerian tertiary institutions. J Educ Entrep 5(2):69–87

Bakker AB, Van Woerkom M (2017) Flow at work: a self-determination perspective. Occup Health Sci 1:47–65

Boccoli G, Gastaldi L, Corso M (2023) The evolution of employee engagement: towards a social and contextual construct for balancing individual performance and wellbeing dynamically. Int J Manag Rev 25(1):75–98

Cochran WG (1977) Sampling techniques. John Wiley & Sons

Corbeanu A, Iliescu D (2023) The link between work engagement and job performance. J Pers Psychol

Cudeck R, Klebe KJ, Henly SJ (1993) A simple Gauss-Newton procedure for covariance structure analysis with high-level computer languages. Psychometrika 58:211–232

Davis AS, Van der Heijden BI (2023) Launching the dynamic employee engagement framework: towards a better understanding of the phenomenon. Empl Relat Int J 45(2):421–436

Diko TK, Saxena S (2023) Antecedents and outcome of employee engagement: empirical study of Ethiopian public higher education institutions. SN Bus Econ 3(8):159

Dundon T, Wilkinson A, Ackers P (2023) Mapping employee involvement and participation in institutional context: Mick Marchington’s applied pluralist contributions to human resource management research methods, theory and policy. Hum Resour Manag J 33(3):551–563

Esayas E (2019) Factors that determine employee engagement (the case of commercial bank of Ethiopia). Addis Ababa University

Etim UI, Nneji OV (2023) Employee engagement strategies on organizational performance. BW Acad J, pp 14–14.

Fletcher L, Bailey C, Alfes K, Madden A (2020) Mind the context gap: a critical review of engagement within the public sector and an agenda for future research. Int J Hum Resour Manag 31(1):6–46

Gede DU, Huluka AT (2023) The impact of strategic alignment on organizational performance: the case of Ethiopian universities. Cogent Bus Manag 10(2):2247873

Getachew W (2016) The relationship between rewards system and employee engagement: a case study of commercial bank of Ethiopia–credit management. A project work . Addis Ababa University

Goodboy AK, Martin MM, Bolkan S (2020) Workplace bullying and work engagement: a self-determination model. J Interpers Violence 35(21–22):4686–4708

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gupta N, Sharma V (2018) The comparative analysis of employee engagement measures: a theoretical perspective. Int J Manag Pract 11(1):42–68

Hakanen JJ, Roodt G (2010) Using the job demands-resources model to predict engagement: analysing a conceptual model. Work Engagem Handb Essent Theory Res 2(1):85–101

Kurniawati NI, Raharja E (2022) The influence of employee engagement on organizational performance: a systematic review. WSEAS Trans Bus Econ

Mansor FA, Jusoh YHM, Hashim MZ, Muhammad N, Omar SNZ (2023) Employee engagement and organizational performance. Int J Account 8(50):69–80

Nabhan F, Munajat M (2023) The role of work engagement and organizational commitment in improving job performance. Cogent Bus Manage 10(2):2235819

Han S-H, Sung M, Suh B (2021) Linking meaningfulness to work outcomes through job characteristics and work engagement. Hum Resour Dev Int 24(1):3–22

Helmi AF, Widhiarso W, Marvianto RD, Priwati AR, Mustari MA, Artikasari YV (2020) The fourth dimensions of the job demands-resources (JD-R) model of work engagement in Indonesian context. Jurnal Psikologi 47(3):206–219

Hidayat WGPA (2023) The influence of employee engagement, work environment and job characteristics on job satisfaction and performance. JEMSI (Jurnal Ekonomi, Manajemen, dan Akuntansi) 9(4):1652–1659

Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multi J 6(1):1–55

Hu ERDING, Tontonoz P, Spiegelman BM (1995) Transdifferentiation of myoblasts by the adipogenic transcription factors PPAR gamma and C/EBP alpha. Proc Nat Acad Sci 92(21):9856–9860

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Huang SY, Huang C-H, Chang T-W (2022) A new concept of work engagement theory in cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, and physical engagement. Front Psychol 12:663440

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ijigu AW (2015) The effect of selected human resource management practices on employees’ job satisfaction in Ethiopian public banks. EMAJ Emerg Markets J 5(1):1–16

Ikon M, Chika C (2017) Employee engagement and performance of selected private universities in Delta state, Nigeria. Glob J Hum Resour Manag 5(5):42–53

Jaya LHS, Ariyanto E (2021) The effect of vigor, dedication and absorption on the employee performance of PT Garuda Indonesia Cargo. Eur J Bus Manag Res 6(4):311–316

Jo Y (2023) The job demands-resource model and performance: the mediating role of employee engagement. Front Psychol 14

Kaplan F (2000) Art, science and art therapy: repainting the picture. Jessica Kingsley Publishers

Kassahun ZW, Raman MS (2021) Antecedents of employees work engagement: a study on an Ethiopian universities in case of Amhara regional state. Revista Geintec-Gestao Inovacao E Tecnologias 11(4):4426–4439

Knies E, Boselie P, Gould-Williams J, Vandenabeele W (2017) Strategic human resource management and public sector performance: context matters. Taylor & Francis, Routledge

Krishnan R, Ismail S, Ismail I, Muhammed RN, Muthusamy G, Kanchymalay K (2015) Employee work engagement: understanding the role of job characteristics and employee characteristics. J Appl Environ Biol Sci 4(10):58–67

Kumar P (2018) Development of a conceptual framework: a pragmatic approach to employee engagement. Indian J Commer Manage Stud 10(1):01–12

Lemon LL, Macklin C (2021) Enriching employee engagement using complexity theory. Public Relat Inquiry 10(2):221–236

Lopez-Zafra E, Pulido-Martos M, Cortés-Denia D (2022) Vigor at work mediates the effect of transformational and authentic leadership on engagement. Sci Rep 12(1):17127

MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM (1996) Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods 1(2):130

Mazzetti G, Robledo E, Vignoli M, Topa G, Guglielmi D, Schaufeli WB (2023) Work engagement: a meta-analysis using the job demands-resources model. Psychol Rep 126(3):1069–1107

Nimon K, Shuck B (2020) Work engagement and burnout: testing the theoretical continuums of identification and energy. Hum Resour Dev Q 31(3):301–318

Nkansah D, Gyimah R, Sarpong DA-A, Annan JK (2023) Nexus between employee engagement and job performance: a study of MSMEs in Ghana during COVID-19: the moderating roles of job demand and job resources. Jindal J Bus Res 22786821231188026

Sakthimala B, Deepalakshmi G (2023) Employment engagement a review of current research and its implications. In: A theoretical framework. Multidisciplinary handbook of social exclusion research, p 126

Schneider B, Yost AB, Kropp A, Kind C, Lam H (2018) Workforce engagement: what it is, what drives it, and why it matters for organizational performance. J Organ Behav 39(4):462–480

Seddikin NSM, Burhanuddin MN, Osman Z (2023) Antecedents of employees’ engagement in Malaysian private higher education. Int J Econ Bus Manag Stud 10(2):51–62

Shiju K, Buhukya S, Sharma A, Sachdeva V, Sharma M (2023) Analyzing the relationship between employee engagement and job performance. Tuijin Jishu/J Propuls Technol 44(4):1627–1635

Shirina S, Sharma R, Agarwal RN, Sao A (2022) Factors affecting employee engagement in higher education institution-an empirical study in NCR. J Inf Optim Sci 43(7):1779–1800

Shrestha R (2019) Employee engagement and organizational performance of public enterprises in Nepal. Int Res J Manage Sci 4(1):118–138

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Steiger JH (1990) Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. Multivar Behav Res 25(2):173–180

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Tensay AT, Singh M (2020) The nexus between HRM, employee engagement and organizational performance of federal public service organizations in Ethiopia. Heliyon 6(6):e04094

Tirri K (2023) The moral teacher in global transition: the 2022 Kohlberg Memorial Lecture. J Moral Educ 52(3):261–274

Toth I, Heinänen S, Kianto A (2023) Disentangling the elements of PsyCap as drivers for work, organization and social engagement in knowledge-intensive work. Pers Rev 52(7):1936–1952

Truss C, Shantz A, Soane E, Alfes K, Delbridge R (2013) Employee engagement, organisational performance and individual well-being: exploring the evidence, developing the theory, vol 24. Taylor & Francis, Routledge, pp 2657–2669

Woerner D (2018) Employee work engagement: to what extent does self-determination theory (SDT) provide a theoretical explanation of employee levels of work engagement in idaho higher education . Idaho State University

Yallew A (2020) Higher education in Ethiopia: recent developments and challenges.

Zada R, Ismael DS (2023) A study on employee engagement and its impact on organizational effectiveness among IT companies in Iraq. Tikrit J Adm Econ Sci. 19(64 part 2)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Management College of Business and Economics, Bule Hora University, Bule Hora, Ethiopia

Dawit Udessa Gede

Department of Development Management, College of Finance, Management and Development, Ethiopian Civil Service University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Admassu Tesso Huluka

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dawit Udessa Gede .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Scale questions

Please circle number of your choice corresponding to the option that identifies your level of agreement on the true feeling you have on a five point scale ranging from extreme dis agreement to extreme agreement (1 to 5) where, 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neutral 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree.

Open ended Questions

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gede, D.U., Huluka, A.T. Effects of employee engagement on organizational performance: case of public universities in Ethiopia. Futur Bus J 10 , 32 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00315-7

Download citation

Received : 31 August 2023

Accepted : 08 February 2024

Published : 27 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00315-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Performance

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Workforce

Top 10 Employee Engagement Survey Tools

Employee engagement has emerged as a critical factor influencing organizational success. Engaged employees are more productive, innovative, and committed to their work, improving performance and business outcomes. Organizations rely on Employee Engagement Survey Tools to gather actionable insights into their workforce’s sentiments, foster a culture of engagement, and drive continuous improvement. 

In this blog, we’ll explore 10 top Employee Engagement Survey Tools that empower organizations to leverage data-driven insights for enhancing employee engagement and organizational effectiveness.

What are Employee Engagement Survey Tools?

Employee Engagement Survey Tools are software solutions designed to facilitate collecting, analyzing, and acting on employee feedback regarding their experiences, satisfaction levels, and engagement within the organization. 

These tools typically offer a range of survey templates, customizable questionnaires, and analytics dashboards to help businesses gather actionable insights into their workforce’s sentiments.

These tools serve as a conduit for organizations to systematically gather employee feedback on various aspects of their job, workplace environment, relationships with colleagues and supervisors, career development opportunities, and overall employee satisfaction.

By leveraging these tools, companies can gain valuable insights into the factors influencing employee engagement and identify areas for improvement.

Features of Employee Engagement Survey Tools

Employee Engagement Survey Tools offer a range of features designed to streamline the process of gathering, analyzing, and acting upon employee feedback. Here are some key features commonly found in these tools: 

• Survey Customization: These tools provide flexible options for creating surveys tailored to specific organizational needs. Users can customize questionnaires to address various aspects of the best employee engagement software, such as job satisfaction, organizational culture, communication, and work-life balance.
• Anonymous Feedback: Ensuring anonymity encourages employees to provide honest feedback without fear of repercussions. This feature promotes transparency and trust in the survey process, leading to more accurate insights. 
• Multiple Survey Distribution Channels: Employee Engagement Survey Tools offer various distribution channels, including email, intranet, mobile apps, and social media platforms. This enables organizations to reach employees across different locations and departments, maximizing participation rates.
• Real-time Reporting and Analytics: Advanced reporting features allow real-time access to survey results and analytics dashboards. Users can track key metrics, identify trends, and visualize data to gain actionable insights into employee engagement levels.
• Benchmarking and Comparative Analysis: Some tools offer benchmarking capabilities, allowing organizations to compare their survey results against industry benchmarks or previous survey data. This helps identify areas of strength that need improvement relative to peers or past performance.
• Action Planning Tools: These tools often include features for developing action plans based on survey findings. They guide prioritizing initiatives, setting goals, and assigning responsibilities to address identified areas of concern and improve employee engagement.
• Integration with HR Systems: Integration with existing HR systems, such as employee databases or performance management software, streamlines data collection and analysis processes. This ensures that survey data is securely managed and easily accessible to HR professionals and other stakeholders.
• Feedback Loop Closure: Effective Employee Engagement Survey Tools facilitate a feedback loop closure by enabling organizations to communicate survey results, action plans, and progress updates to employees. This demonstrates a commitment to listening to employee feedback and implementing meaningful changes based on their input.

Here are ten top employee engagement survey tools for 2024, known for their features, ease of use, and ability to provide actionable insights:

1. QuestionPro Workforce 

QuestionPro Workforce is a great employee survey tool designed to help organizations gather, analyze, and act upon employee feedback effectively. QuestionPro Workforce empowers businesses to enhance workplace dynamics and drive organizational success with customizable survey templates, real-time analytics, and action-planning tools.

• Customizable survey templates
• Real-time analytics and reporting
• Action planning guidance
• Integration with HR systems
• Responsive customer support 

Pros:  

• Intuitive interface
• Advanced analytics
• Robust action planning features

Cons:  

• Pricing may be higher for larger organizations

Price: Paid pricing starts at $99 per user /per month.

2. SurveyMonkey

SurveyMonkey is a popular online survey platform offering various survey solutions, including employee engagement surveys. With its user-friendly interface and customizable survey templates, SurveyMonkey enables organizations to gather valuable insights into employee sentiment and satisfaction.

• Data analysis tools
• Integration with other business tools
• Mobile-friendly surveys
• Easy to use
• Extensive features
• Affordable pricing plans
• Limited advanced analytics capabilities

Price: Pricing starts at Team Advantage $25/user/month, Starting at 3 users, billed annually.

3. SurveySparrow

SurveySparrow is a modern tool known for its conversational interface and engaging survey experience. With features like pulse surveys and automated workflows, SurveySparrow helps organizations collect employee feedback efficiently and effectively.

• Conversational surveys
• Pulse surveys
• Automated workflows
• Multi-channel distribution
• User-friendly interface
• Engaging survey experience
• Automation features

Cons: 

• Limited customization options for surveys

Price: Pricing starts at $19 per month.

4. Qualtrics

Qualtrics is an enterprise-level survey platform that offers advanced survey solutions for employee engagement, customer experience, and market research. Its powerful analytics and reporting capabilities, Qualtrics enables organizations to gain deep insights into employee feedback and drive meaningful change.

• Advanced survey design tools
• Powerful analytics and reporting
• Integration with enterprise systems
• Action planning and follow-up tools

Pros: 

• Advanced features
• Robust analytics
• Enterprise-level support
• Higher pricing for enterprise plans

Price: Pricing is available upon request.

5. Culture Amp

Culture Amp is an employee feedback and analytics platform designed to help organizations build a better workplace culture. With features like engagement surveys, performance reviews, and 360-degree feedback, Culture Amp provides actionable insights to drive organizational change.

• Engagement surveys
• Performance reviews
• 360-degree feedback
• Action planning tools
• Focus on workplace culture
• Actionable insights
• Higher pricing for additional features

6. Trakstar

Trakstar is a performance management software that includes employee engagement survey features. With its easy-to-use interface and customizable survey templates, Trakstar enables organizations to measure and improve employee engagement effectively.

• Performance management tools
• Analytics and reporting
• Action planning features
• Integration with performance management
• Limited advanced survey features

Price: Pricing is available upon request. 

7. Officevibe

Officevibe is one of the best employee engagement platforms. It offers pulse surveys, feedback tools, and actionable insights to help organizations improve employee engagement and retention. Officevibe’s simple and intuitive interface makes it easy for teams to gather feedback and take action.

• Feedback tools
• Employee recognition features
• Simple interface
• Pulse survey capabilities
• Employee recognition tools
• Limited customization options

Price: Pricing starts at $3.50 per user per month.

Lattice is a people management platform that includes employee engagement survey features. With its customizable survey templates and integrated performance management tools, Lattice helps organizations build stronger, more engaged teams.

• Continuous feedback features
• Continuous feedback capabilities

9. WorkTango

WorkTango is an employee feedback platform that offers pulse surveys, engagement surveys, and feedback tools to help organizations measure and improve employee engagement. By focusing on actionable insights and continuous feedback, WorkTango enables organizations to drive positive change.

• Focus on actionable insights

10. Motivosity

Motivosity is an employee recognition and employee engagement platform with survey features to gather employee feedback. By focusing on recognition and appreciation, motivation helps organizations foster a positive and engaged workplace culture.

• Feedback features
• Focus on employee recognition
• Engagement survey capabilities

Price: Pricing starts at $2 per user per month.

Benefits of Using Employee Engagement Survey Tools

Using Employee Engagement Survey Tools offers many benefits for organizations that cultivate a positive and productive workplace environment. Here are some key advantages:

• Insightful Feedback: Employee Engagement Survey Tools provide a structured platform for gathering employee feedback. This enables organizations to gain valuable insights into the factors influencing employee engagement, satisfaction, and overall workplace experience.
• Identifying Areas for Improvement: By collecting data on various aspects of the employee experience, such as communication, leadership, work-life balance, and career development, organizations can pinpoint areas that require attention and improvement.
• Enhanced Communication: Regular employee surveys demonstrate a commitment to listening to feedback and foster open communication between employees and management. This encourages transparency, trust, and collaboration within the organization. 
• Boosting Morale and Engagement: Employees who feel heard and valued are likelier to be engaged and motivated in their work. Employee Engagement Survey Tools provide a platform for employees to voice their opinions, concerns, and suggestions, thereby increasing morale and commitment to the organization.
• Data-Driven Decision Making: Survey data collected through employee survey tools offers valuable insights to inform strategic decision-making processes. Organizations can use this data to prioritize initiatives, allocate resources effectively, and implement targeted interventions to improve employee engagement and satisfaction.
• Enhanced Employee Retention: Engaged employees are likelier to stay with an organization long-term. By actively soliciting feedback and addressing areas of concern, organizations can create a positive workplace culture that fosters loyalty and reduces turnover rates.
• Improved Performance and Productivity: Research has shown that engaged employees are more productive, innovative, and customer-focused. By investing in employee engagement initiatives guided by survey data, organizations can drive performance improvements and achieve better business outcomes.
• Competitive Advantage: Organizations with high employee engagement enjoy a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Engaged employees are likelier to deliver exceptional customer service, drive innovation, and contribute to overall organizational success, positioning the company culture as an employer of choice.

Can QuestionPro Workforce Be the Best Employee Engagement Survey Tool?

Determining the “best” Employee Engagement Survey Tool depends on various factors, including your organization’s specific needs and objectives, budget constraints, and the features and capabilities offered by the tool. However, QuestionPro Workforce stands out as a strong contender for several reasons:

1. Comprehensive Features

QuestionPro Workforce offers many features tailored specifically for employee engagement surveys. From customizable survey templates to real-time analytics and action planning tools, it provides everything organizations need to gather, analyze, and act upon employee feedback effectively.

2. Ease of Use

The platform boasts an intuitive interface that makes survey creation, distribution, and analysis accessible for users of all skill levels. This ensures organizations can quickly launch surveys and derive actionable insights without extensive training or technical expertise.

3. Advanced Analytics

QuestionPro Workforce provides robust analytics capabilities, including real-time reporting, data visualization, and benchmarking features. These tools empower organizations to identify trends, track key metrics, and compare results against industry benchmarks, enabling data-driven decision-making.

4. Action Planning Guidance

One of QuestionPro Workforce’s standout features is its action planning tools, which guide the development and implementation of action plans based on survey findings. These tools help organizations translate survey data into concrete initiatives to improve employee engagement and effectiveness.

5. Integration Options

QuestionPro Workforce integrates with other HR systems and tools, such as employee databases and performance management software. This ensures that survey data is securely managed and easily integrated into existing workflows, enhancing efficiency and data integrity.

6. Customer Support

QuestionPro is known for its responsive customer support team, providing assistance and guidance to users throughout the survey process. This ensures that organizations receive the support they need to maximize the platform’s value and address any challenges or questions.

Conclusion 

Employee Engagement Survey Tools are vital for organizations that nurture a thriving workplace environment. By harnessing the power of employee feedback, these tools enable businesses to identify areas for improvement, strengthen employee morale, and ultimately drive performance and success. 

As companies continue to recognize employee engagement as a strategic imperative, investing in the powerful capabilities of robust survey tools like QuestionPro Workforce can open doors to sustained growth, innovation, and a competitive advantage in today’s dynamic business landscape.

QuestionPro Workforce offers many compelling features, and organizations must evaluate their specific requirements and conduct thorough research to determine whether they align with their needs and objectives. 

Ultimately, the “best” Employee Engagement Survey Tool is the one that best meets the organization’s unique needs and goals, and QuestionPro Workforce is undoubtedly worth considering in that evaluation process.

BOOK A DEMO         LEARN MORE

MORE LIKE THIS

I Am Disconnected – Tuesday CX Thoughts

May 21, 2024

20 Best Customer Success Tools of 2024

May 20, 2024

AI-Based Services Buying Guide for Market Research (based on ESOMAR’s 20 Questions) 

Data Information vs Insight: Essential differences

May 14, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence