Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
WORK ENGAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE – A REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONS
Wan Nur Aswannah Wan Chik ψ
KDU College, P.J. Campus, Malaysia
______________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
Work engagement is a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigour,
dedication and absorption. Many have claimed that work engagement predicts employee outcomes,
organizational success and financial performance. However, there is a deepening disengagement among
employees today. The latest results of the Global Workforce Study 2008-09 found that four out of five
workers are disengaged. In addition, roughly half of all Americans in the workforce are not fully engaged
or they are disengaged leading to what has been referred to as an “engagement gap” costing US businesses
$300 billion a year in lost productivity . This paper aims to establish avenues for future research to
measure the engagement-gap in different job characteristics and organizations. It is a non-research paper
but the review will prove invaluable for academics wishing to enlarge on the concept especially in
Malaysia. There is still a huge potential for further research. It will review literature based on the study
as it began with Kahn (1990), Maslach et al (2001) and later Schaufeli et al (2002) and others up to the
present. The Job Demands-Resources Model which has been integrated into an overall model that links
work engagement and performance will be illustrated. This includes the validated instruments that measure
the state of engagement - the Utretch Work Engagement Scale, the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory, the
Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Gallup 12-Q; and other research that applied work engagement as
mediator.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Keywords: Organizational behaviour; Work engagement; Burnout.
JEL Classification Codes: M12.
1. Introduction
“Employees today care a lot about their work. They want to learn and grow. They want stability
and security. With the right opportunities and resources, they’ll commit to a career with a
company. They care deeply about work/life balance, but they are not, for the most part, slacking
off.”
Global Workforce Study, 2008-2009
The study conducted by Towers Perrin (2008) came to a positive conclusion about the situation of today’s
workforce. They found that organizational attributes like leadership, career and professional development,
and the kind of work culture and reputation a company creates play a significant role in shaping employees’
level of engagement and behaviour. But what is disturbing from this study is that the global workforce is
not engaged. This “engagement gap” poses a serious risk for employers because it is costing US business
$300 billion a year in lost of productivity (Bates, 2004; Johnson, 2004; Kowalski, 2003).
As we approach another evolution in managing human resources, organizations are finding it imperative to
rely on employee-centered management. Employees are regarded as human capital where value and
contribution have an impact on the bottom-line. Gone were the days that managers use fear, threat and
punishment in return for compliance. Modern organizations today focus on the management of employees
as human capital in the way that expectations are towards proactivity, initiative and empowerment. The
ψ
Corresponding author. Wan Nur Aswannah Bt Wan Chik. KDU College, Petaling Jaya Campus,
SS22/41, Damansara Jaya, 47400 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan. Corresponding author Email:
[email protected]
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
drive to cultivate engaged workers has never been greater for employees to feel energetic, dedicated and
absorbed in their work. Sustaining engaged employees would mean sustained high performance.
According to Ulrich (1997), who wrote in his seminal book Human Resources Champions:
“Employee contribution becomes a critical business because in trying to produce more output
with less employee input, companies have no choice but to try to engage not only the body but the
mind and soul of every employee (p.125)”.
Organizations expect their employees to be proactive and show initiative, collaborate smoothly with others,
take responsibility for their own professional development, and to be committed to high quality
performance standards (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008). But what can organizations do to attract and keep
creative, dedicated and thriving employees who make organizations flourish? Which working conditions
inspire employees to be engaged, give their best, go the extra mile, and persist in the face of difficulties?
This paper has been written to review the ideas evolving around the term “work engagement” and engaged
employees. The study of work engagement can be classified as positive organizational behaviour (POB).
The field of POB emerged from the recently proposed positive psychology approach. Positive psychology
studies the strengths and virtues that enable individuals and communities to thrive. Hence, POB
emphasizes the effective application of positive traits, states and behaviours of employees in organizations
(Luthans & Youssef, 2007). POB researchers are interested in peak performance in organizations and
examine the conditions under which employees thrive. And work engagement comes under this construct.
Most researches on engagement were undertaken in Netherlands, Greece, South Africa, Turkey, Finland,
and Australia as well as in India, Japan and China. Towers Perrin conducted its most recent survey among
nearly 90,000 employees in 18 countries. For Malaysia’s 800 employees surveyed, they found that one in
four Malaysian workers is engaged compared to one in five worldwide (Towers Perrin, 2008). Such data is
necessary in order to make Malaysia a more attractive destination for foreign direct investment besides
contributing positively to the company's business and financial performance (MIDA, 2008). This leaves a
lot of room for the application of this construct in different job characteristics and organizations to be
adapted in the Malaysian context.
2. What is work engagement?
Many of us may feel that there is no such thing as work engagement. How do we classify work
engagement or is work engagement similar to terms like commitment, involvement and satisfaction? This
review attempts to make comparisons of views on this topic and to eventually conceptualize the meaning of
the construct thus far. The views of Kahn (1990, 1992), Saks (2006, 2008), Schaufelli et al (2008) are
chronologized to understand how the term “engagement” evolved up to the present day.
The term “engagement” is rooted in role theory, in particular the work of Erving Goffman (1961). Role
theory studies the various roles individuals occupy in society, as well as the social expectations and
behavioural boundaries attributed to such roles (Baily and Yost, 2007). Goffman (1961) defined
engagement as the “spontaneous involvement in the role” and a “visible investment of attention and
muscular effort” (p.94). Later, William Kahn (1990) published findings from two qualitative studies, the
first on camp counselors and the second on members of an architectural firm. Kahn (1990) defined
engagement as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles” (p.694). The more of
ourselves we give to a role, Kahn claimed, the more exciting and comfortable is our performance. Kahn
suggested, however, that individuals could vary how much of themselves they assign to each role.
Other views are propounded by Schutte, Toppinen, Kalimo and Schaufeli (2000) who stated that
engagement is an energetic state in which the employee is dedicated to excellent performance at work and
is confident of his or her effectiveness. Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter (2001) also characterized
engagement by energy, involvement and efficacy. Interestingly however, Dr Schaufeli and his colleagues
who focused their study on work engagement carried out extensive study on the construct. Schaufeli,
Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker (2002) defined engagement “as a positive, fulfilling, work-related
state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption” (p.74). Vigor is characterized by
high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in one’s work,
and persistence even in the face of difficulties. Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one’s work,
305
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge. Absorption is
characterized by being full concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly
and one has difficulties with detaching oneself form work (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007).
Engagement can also be seen from another perspective. Accordingly to Saks (2006) engagement can be
found in a strong theoretical rationale in the social exchange theory (SET). He felt that in terms of Kahn’s
definition of engagement, employees feel obliged to bring themselves more deeply into their role
performances as repayment for the resources they receive from their organization. Thus, employees are
more likely to exchange their engagement for resources and benefits provided by their organization.
Saks (2006) later categorized the antecedents and consequences of employee engagement into two
dimensions: job and organization engagements. There is evidence that one’s degree of engagement
depends on the role in question (Rothbard, 2001). Thus it is possible that the antecedents and consequences
of engagement depend on the type of engagement (Figure 1).
Antecedents
Job characteristics
Perceived organizational
support
Perceived supervisor
support
Rewards and recognition
Procedural justice
Distributive justice
Employee
Engagement
Job engagement
Organization
engagement
Consequences
Job satisfaction
Organizational
commitment
Intention to quit
Organizational
citizenship behavior
Figure 1: A model of the antecedents and consequences of employee engagement
Source: Saks (2006) Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21,7.
The Australian Mines and Metals Association (AMMA) (2007), on the other hand, viewed the importance
of engagement to that of the work of organizational leaders. Engaged employees willingly work to the best
of their capability in the interests of the organization and are encouraged to do so through the leadership,
structure and systems of the organization. In this definition, the work of the leaders of the organization is
made explicit. The scope of work is substantial, consistent with the challenge of giving real effort to the
idea of employee engagement (AMMA, 2007).
Even though engagement brings both organizational and individual benefits, however, most US employees
are not engaged. Amongst all currently employed US workers, an estimated 25 percent are fully engaged,
50 percent not engaged, and 15 percent are actively disengaged (Branham, 2005). The difference between
“not engaged” and “disengaged” matters – actively disengaged employees are not only “dispassionate”.
Instead, they are disgruntled enough to undermine the work of their team members (Krueger and Killham,
2006). However, Loehr (2005) suggested that reasonably few employees would choose to be unhappy at
work.
We are all inclined to think that objective work conditions determine job contentment. For example,
someone with a dangerous and dirty job will obviously feel less engaged than a professional with a sunny
corner office. According to Gallup Management results, that view is no longer considered valid. Workers
experiencing the same lousy pay, intolerable noise, physical hardship, speed of production line and so forth
can manifest profound or exceptionally high engagement scores. It depends on how their managers strive
to build a strong foundation for better engagement (Thackray, 2001). This view is similar to that of
AMMA who emphasizes the essence of leadership to achieve higher levels of engagement.
We also need to highlight an important consideration made by Saks (2008). He reiterated that people
employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances during
306
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
engagement. Engagement means to be psychologically present when occupying and performing an
organizational role (Kahn, 1990). This does not mean that individuals do things outside their role
requirements. Rather, it has to do with the manner in which they do what they are supposed to do in a
particular role, not how they do things they are not required to do (Saks, 2008). Engagement is not about
being innovative or doing more and doing things differently. It is about how you do what you are supposed
to be doing. This is what makes engagement different from organizational commitment, job satisfaction,
job involvement and workaholism as discussed below.
3. Why is work engagement different?
Work engagement is distinct from other established constructs in organizational psychology, such as
organizational commitment, job satisfaction and job involvement (Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter, 2001).
Organizational commitment differs from engagement in that it refers to a person’s attitude and attachment
towards their organization. Engagement is not an attitude; it is the degree to which an individual is
attentive and absorbed in the performance of their roles. And while organizational citizenship behaviour
(OCB) involves voluntary and informal behaviours that can help co-workers and the organization, the focus
of engagement is one’s formal role performance rather than extra-role and voluntary behaviour (Saks
2006).
Engagement also differs from job involvement. According to May et al (2004), job involvement is the
result of a cognitive judgment about the need satisfying abilities of the job and is tied to one’s self-image.
Engagement has to do with how individuals employ themselves in the performance of their job.
Furthermore, engagement involves the active use of emotions and behaviours in addition to cognitions.
May et al (2004, p.12) also suggest that “engagement may be thought of as an antecedent to job
involvement in that individuals who experience deep engagement in their roles should come to identify
with their jobs.” (Saks 2006)
Workaholism and work engagement overlap as far as feelings of being absorbed in one’s work are
concerned. However, the underlying motivation of being completely immersed in one’s work differs. In
the case of engagement this motivation is intrinsic (work is fun), whereas in the case of workaholism it is
compulsive (being driven to work) (Schaufeli, Taris and van Rhenen, 2008).
According to researchers, work engagement can be applied under the positive organizational behaviour
(POB) or positive psychological construct (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi,
2000). Engagement (especially absorption) comes close to what has been called “flow” that represents a
state of optimal experience that is characterized by focused attention, a clear mind and body unison,
effortless concentration, complete control, loss of self-consciousness, distortion of time and intrinsic
enjoyment (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). It is interesting to note that rather than a momentary, specific
emotional state, engagement refers to a mood. It is a more persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive
state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual or behaviour (Schaufeli & Salanova,
2007).
Previous research has attempted to measure the relationship between work engagement with many other
constructs. Job Resources, Proactive Work Behaviour and Burnout have shown to have a positive
relationship to work engagement and are often conceptualized together. The following paragraphs will
illustrate the findings.
4. Work engagement and job resources
Work engagement can be approached from the viewpoint of the Job-Demand-Resource (JD-R) model
(Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001; Salanova et al, 2005; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Job
demands are physical, psychological, social or organizational features of the job that require physical
and/or psychological effort from an employee, and are consequently related to the physiological and/or
psychological costs (ie strain). Job resources, on the other hand, are physical, psychological, social or
organizational features of the job that are functional in achieving work goals, reduce job demands and the
physical and/or psychological costs associated with them, and stimulate personal growth and development
(eg Bakker et al, 2003, 2005; Demerouti et al, 2001; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). Previous studies have
consistently shown that job resources such as social support from colleagues and supervisors, performance
307
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
feedback, skill variety, autonomy, and learning opportunities are positively associated with work
engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). Resources are not only necessary
to deal with (high) job demands, but they also are important in their own right. Job resources are assumed
to play either an intrinsic motivational role because they foster employees’ growth, learning and
development, or an extrinsic motivation role because they are instrumental in achieving work goals (Bakker
& Demerouti, 2008).
Mental
Emotional
Physical
Job
Demands
Strain
Etc.
Organizational
Outcomes
Support
Autonomy
Job
Resources
Motivation
Feedback
Etc.
Figure 2: The Job Demands-Resources Model
Source: Bakker and Demerouti (2007) Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 3.
On a more general level, it was found that job resources are related to intrinsic work motivation (Jenssen,
De Jonge and Bakker 1999; Houkes, Jannsen, De Jonge and Nijhuis 2001). Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner
and Schaufeli (2001) successfully tested the Job Demand-Resources (JD-R) model (Figure 2) in a German
sample. The JD-R model posits that job demands (ie physical demands, time pressure, shift work) are
associated with exhaustion, whereas lacking job resources (ie performance feedback, job control,
participation in decision making, social support) are associated with disengagement. Hence, the absence of
job resources fosters disengagement, whereas the presence of job resources stimulates personal
development and increases work engagement (Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008).
Consistent with these notions about the motivational role of job resources, several studies have shown a
positive relationship between job resources and work engagement. For example, Schaufeli and Bakker
(2004) found evidence for a positive relationship between three job resources (performance feedback,
social support, and supervisory coaching) and work engagement (vigor, dedication and absorption) among
four different samples of Dutch employees. More specifically, they used structural equation modeling
analyses to show that job resources (not job demands) exclusively predicted engagement, and that
engagement is a mediator of the relationship between job resources and turnover intentions. The JD-R
model is also incorporated to apply work engagement as mediator to proactive work behaviour as
elaborated in the next section.
5. Work engagement and proactive work behaviour
Work engagement covers the basic dimensions of intrinsic motivation, which ensures goal oriented
behaviour and persistence in attaining objectives along with high levels of activation (ie vigour) as well as
feeling enthusiastic, identifying with and being proud of one’s job (ie dedication). Since work engagement
refers to high levels of energy, persistence, identification and goal-directness, it can be expected that high
levels of engagement increase proactive work behaviour in the sense of personal initiative. Proactive
308
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
employees show personal initiative and are action-oriented, goal-directed, seek new challenges, and are
persistent in the face of obstacles. Job resources (ie situation cues) have an indirect impact on proactivity
through work engagement, which is considered to be an indicator of intrinsic work motivation.
Vigour
Dedication
Control
Feedback
Job
resources
Work
engagement
Proactive
behaviour
Proactive
behaviour
Variety
Figure 3: Work engagement as mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour
Source: Salanova and Schaufeli (2008) The International Journal of HRM, 19, 1.
Salanova and Schaufeli (2008) suggest that instead of directly affecting proactive behaviour, job resources
indirectly affect proactivity via increasing levels of work engagement (Figure 3). Their findings suggest
that rather than considering proactivity as a personal disposition that is relatively stable across time and
across work situations (eg Bateman and Crant 1993; Parker 2000), it may also be considered a specific
work behaviour (ie in terms of personal initiative) that is related to perceived levels of job resources.
Practically speaking in terms of Human Resource Management, the former view calls for recruitment and
selection, whereas in the latter view proactivity may be fostered by an appropriate job (re)design; that is,
particularly by increasing or supplying additional job resources (Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008). But what
about relating work engagement to burnout?
6. Work engagement and burnout
Work engagement is assumed to represent the opposite of burnout. Burnout is a work-related stress
reaction that can be found among employees in a wide variety of occupations (Bakker, Demerouti &
Schaufeli, 2002; Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998). The syndrome is characterized by three related, but
empirically distinct, elements: namely exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced professional efficacy (Leiter &
Schaufeli, 1996; Maslach, Jackson & Leiter, 1996; Maslach & Leiter, 1997). Feelings of exhaustion or
energy depletion are generally considered a core symptom of the burnout syndrome (e.g. Shirom, 1989).
Cynicism refers to the development of negative, cynical attitudes toward work and the people with whom
one works (eg clients and colleagues). The third dimension of burnout, reduced professional efficacy refers
to the belief that one is no longer effective in fulfilling one’s job responsibilities. Thus, burned-out
individuals suffer from feelings of fatigue, behave indifferently toward their work and clients, and they
believe that their performance has suffered accordingly (Bakker, van Emmerick & Euwema, 2006).
Burnout researchers define engagement as the opposite or positive antithesis of burnout (Maslach et al,
2001). According to Maslach et al (2001), engagement is characterized by energy, involvement and
efficacy, the direct opposite of three burnout dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy. Research
on burnout and engagement has found that the core dimensions of burnout (exhaustion and cynicism) and
engagement (vigor and dedication) are opposites of each other (Gonzalez-Roma et al, 2006). Job Demands
and resources can also be controlled to experience a crossover phenomenon between burnout (ie
exhaustion, cynicism and reduced professional efficacy) and work engagement (vigor, dedication and
absorption) (Bakker, van Emmerick & Euwema, 2006).
309
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Burnout
Engagement
Exhaustion
Energy
Vigor
Cynicism
Identification
Dedication
Lack of
professional
efficacy
Absorption
Figure 4: The relationship between burnout and work engagement
Source: Schaufeli and Salanova (2007), Managing Social and Ethical Issues in Organizations, 135-177.
Two distinct positions exist on the exact nature of the relationship between engagement and burnout
(Figure 4). The first position views burnout as an erosion of engagement with the job. Maslach and Leiter
(1997) proposed that work engagement and burnout constitute the opposite poles of a continuum of work
related well-being. In this way, burnout constitutes the negative pole, and engagement the positive pole.
Given Maslach’s conceptualization of the three dimensions of burnout, this position assumes that
engagement represents the opposite of the three corresponding aspects of burnout, namely energy,
involvement and efficacy. Maslach and Leiter proposed that the opposite scoring pattern on the three
aspects of burnout implies engagement. By this rationale, low scores on the emotional exhaustion and
cynicism scales, combined with a high score on the professional efficacy scale, would suggest higher levels
of engagement (Lynch, 2007).
7. How is work engagement measured?
Several instruments have been applied by academics and practitioners to measure work engagement. The
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2003; Schaufeli et al, 2002) includes
items for the assessment of the three engagement dimensions included in Schaufeli et al’s (2002)
definition: vigor, dedication and absorption. The UWES has been validated in several countries, including
China (Yi-Wen and Yi-Qun, 2005), Finland (Hakanen, 2002), Greece (Xanthopoulou et al, n.d.), South
Africa (Storm and Rothmann, 2003), Spain (Schaufeli et al, 2002) and The Netherlands (Schaufeli and
Bakker, 2003; Schaufeli et al, 2002).
An alternative instrument for the assessment of work engagement is the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory
(OLBI) (Demerouti and Bakker, n.d.). This instrument has originally been developed to assess burnout, but
includes both positively and negatively phrased items, and hence, it can be used to assess work engagement
as well (Gonzalez-Roma et al, 2006). The OLBI includes two dimensions: one ranging from exhaustion to
vigor and a second ranging from cynicism to dedication. Researchers interested in assessing work
engagement with the OLBI can recode the negatively framed items (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008).
The most widely used and validated instrument for the measure of burnout is the Maslach Burnout
Inventory (MBI). Increasing interest in burnout among a broader range of professions saw the
development of a general version of the MBI (ie MBI-General Survey, or MBI-GS). According to Lynch
(2007), this version of the instrument conceptualized burnout in slightly broader terms, in that subscales
refer to aspects of the job beyond just the personal relationships that may be a part of the job. Thus, the
labels for the three subscales in the revised measure include exhaustion, cynicism and reduced professional
efficacy. While the MBI-GS uses slightly revised items and revised subscale labels, the overall dimensions
and structure of the measure remain the same as the original (Maslach et al, 2001).
Another instrument created by Gallup is a questionnaire which pinpointed 12 key employee expectations
that, when satisfied, form the foundation of strong feelings of engagement. The engagement index slots
people into one of three categories: 1) engaged employees – they work with passion and fee a profound
connection to their company. They drive innovation and move the organization forward; 2) not-engaged
310
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
employees – they are essentially “checked out”. They are sleepwalking through the work day. They are
putting in time, but not enough energy or passion into their work; and 3) actively disengaged employees –
they are not just unhappy at work; they are busy acting out their unhappiness. Every day, these workers
undermine what their engaged co-workers accomplish (Thackray, 2001). The Gallup method deploys a
feedback methodology for improving engagement by creating a factual base for discussion and debate of
the causes behind the numbers. It yields actionable input from staff and managers for changes in attitude,
conduct, policies and processes (Gallup Management Journal, 2001).
Towers Perrin (2008) conducted its most recent employee survey to determine employees’ engagement
levels based on questions that measure their connections to the organization across three dimensions: 1)
rational: how well employees understand their roles and responsibilities; 2) emotional: how much passion
and energy they bring to their work; and 3) motivational: how well they perform in their roles. Based on
statistical analysis, survey respondents are clustered into four groups: 1) engaged: those giving full
discretionary effort, with high scores on all three dimensions; 2) enrolled: the partly engaged, with higher
scores on the rational and motivational dimensions, but less connected emotionally; 3) disenchanted: the
partly disengaged, with lower scores on all three components of engagement, especially the emotional
connection; and 4) disengaged: those who have disconnected rationally, emotionally and motivationally.
The ability to analyse the findings by adapting any of the instruments above provide the results necessary to
conclude the engagement levels of employees for further action. In the long run, organizations are
interested to discover how this equates to performance. Hence, from the measurement of work
engagement, it was found that performance was the underlying consequence of high levels of work
engagement.
8. Work engagement and performance
The world's top-performing organizations understand that employee engagement is a force that drives
business outcomes and is a leading indicator of financial growth. Organizations that embraced employee
engagement fared better in terms of company focus, performance, staff retention, morale and, crucially,
profitability (Smythe, 2007). Beyond the dramatic difference engaged workgroups show in productivity,
profitability, safety incidents, and absenteeism, engaged organizations have 2.6 times the growth rate in
earnings per share (EPS) compared to organizations with lower engagement in the same industry (Robison,
2008). High levels of work engagement have been found to be predictors of a healthy service climate,
organizational citizenship behaviours, organizational serving behaviours and high employee performance
(Bakker et al, 2004; Salanova, Agut & Peiro, 2005). So when customers are scarce and money is tight,
closer attention to the customer, better management, and an emphasis on employee engagement can create
margins that will keep companies running. These strategies also make businesses more profitable and set
them up to take advantage of the economic upswing when it comes (Robison, 2008).
Recent research has shown that engaged employees often experience positive emotions (Schaufeli and Van
Rhenen, 2006), and this may be the reason why they are more productive. Happy people are sensitive to
opportunities at work, more outgoing and helpful to others, and more confident and optimistic (Cropanzano
and Wright, 2001). Engagement is positively related to health, and this would imply that engaged workers
are able to perform well.
One important reason why engaged workers are more productive may be their ability to create their own
resources. In comparison with non-engaged employees, engaged employees are better able to mobilize
their own job and personal resources that, in turn, fuel future engagement and so forth. In most
organizations, performance is the result of the combined effort of individual employees. It is therefore
conceivable that the crossover of engagement among members of the same work team increases
performance. If colleagues influence each other with their work engagement, they may perform better as a
team (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008).
The JD-R model of work engagement below (Figure 5) shows how this concept is applied. It is assumed
that job resources and personal resources independently or combined predict work engagement. Further,
job and personal resources particularly have a positive impact on engagement when job demands are high.
Work engagement, in turn, has a positive impact on job performance. Finally, employees who are engaged
311
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
and perform well are able to create their own resources, which then foster engagement again over time and
create a positive gain spiral.
Job Demands
Job Resources
-
Autonomy
Performance Feedback
Social Support
Supervisory Coaching
Etc.
-
Work Pressure
Emotional Demands
Mental Demands
Physical Demands
Etc.
Work Engagement
Performance
- Vigor
- Dedication
- Absorption
-
Personal Resources
-
In-role Performance
Extra-role Performance
Creativity
Financial Turnover
Etc.
Optimism
Self-efficacy
Resilience
Self-esteem
Etc.
Figure 5: The JD-R Model of Work Engagement
Source: Bakker and Demerouti (2008) Career Development International, 13, 3, 218.
In this model (Figure 5), employees who score high on optimism, self-efficacy, resilience and self-esteem
are well able to mobilize their job resources and generally are more engaged in their work (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2008). This equation then leads to performance.
9. Implications for organizations
The term “engagement” is useful, emotionally honest and authentic because of its links with commitment,
bonding and even affection. However, it is important to distinguish between the process of engaging
employees by helping them to love their jobs and to want to give their best to the jobs. Engaging
employees is important whatever the potential of the employee, but it is crucial for truly talented people
who are likely to have leadership potential either now or in the future (Woodruffe, 2006).
Organizations often assumed that replacing one employee with another was relatively easy. However, they
will soon find it hard to fill jobs with talented people. According to Rutledge (2006), the essence of
employee retention rests at the grassroots level with the relationship between managers and employees.
This relationship is fundamental to any initiative related to improved employee engagement in the
workplace. It is the single-most important element in an employee's overall employment experience.
Employees look to their managers for challenging work, recognition of their achievements and
opportunities to learn and grow on the job. Managers who fail to meet their employees' expectations will
lose their top talent to another firm. This view is consistent with that of AMMA and Gallup Management.
Work engagement may be considered as an essential positive element of employee health and well-being.
By building engagement, synergy is created between individual employees and the organization as a whole,
meaning the optimal outcomes for both occur. Schaufeli and Salanova (2007) elaborated that for engaged
employees, these outcomes might include:
312
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
(a)
positive job-related attitudes and a strong identification with one’s work;
(b)
good mental health, including positive emotions and a lower risk of burnout out;
(c)
good performance;
(d)
increased intrinsic resources; and
(e)
the acquisition of job resources and personal resources, particularly self-efficacy.
(Refer to JD-R Model of Work Engagement.-Figure 5)
Moreover, engagement is essential for today’s organizations, given the changes they are currently facing.
Therefore, the crucial question for organizations is how to increase levels of engagement among their
employees.
Human resource managers can do several things. Important starting point for any active policy is the
measurement of engagement and its drivers among all employees, for example by using the JD-R model.
On the basis of this assessment, it can be determined whether individual employees, teams, job positions, or
departments score low, average, or high on work engagement and its antecedents. Interventions should
then focus on both individuals (in the context of the organization) and the organization at large (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2008).
According to Towers Perrin (2008) the alarming figures of the recent survey indicated that organizations
must do something about the “enrolled” people – those described as capable but not fully committed. They
found that employees highlighted management and leadership ability as the underlying factor causing
disengagement. Managers were employing “hard” methods and were not looking into the interests of the
employees for them to exhibit engagement. Today’s employees are ready to perform and look forward to
forging a career with good organizations. But organizations must make themselves worthy for this
purpose.
One last implication is closing the engagement gap. Towers Perrin (2008) highlighted in their study that
closing the gap is what matters. They found that four out of five workers are not living up to their full
potential. They also found that employers are not harnessing the full power of their workforce and
achieving the performance lift that high engagement delivers. The reason why this is important is for two
reasons: 1) the global knowledge-based economy is dependent on people and their knowledge, skills,
energy and dedication; and 2) demographic trends suggest looming shortages of key skills across industries
and regions of the world. How then do we close the engagement gap? Towers Perrin (2008) advocated a
simple anecdote: 1) effective and engaged leadership; 2) alignment of workforce strategies with business
priorities and 3) workforce segmentation under the same microscope as customers. Closing the
engagement gap is essential to sustain high performance.
All humans exhibit both rational and emotional behaviour. In order to truly engage them, an organization
must reach out to them on both (Townsend & Gebhardt, 2008). The employees of virtually every
organization in the world refer to their place of work as “my company” when they are at home. Employers
benefit by having a flexible, committed and highly motivated pool of talent who have a strong sense of
purpose about their work (Smythe, 2007). Taking advantage of that natural feeling of ownership by
extending trust and empowerment to all employees and giving them the means to be engaged is in the best
interest of the employer, the employees, and their customers (Townsend & Gebhardt, 2008). It gives staff
a say in what will add value to the business and create an attractive and creative place to work (Smythe,
2007).
10. Conclusion
All managers should make work engagement their priority. Employees today are interested in their jobs
and their future. They want companies to show commitment towards their desire for consistent career
development. As being defined by Saks (2006) in his interpretation of Kahn (1990), being engaged in
one’s work is not doing things beyond their job description. Rather, it is an in-role requirement. Work
engagement as mediator does result in extra-role behaviours (that is organizational citizenship behaviours)
sought after by organizations. Towers Perrin (2008) survey also indicated that there is a worrying
percentage of workers who are capable but who are not engaged. Therefore, increasing the level of
engagement is what organizations seek to achieve.
313
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Work engagement has been proven to show sustainable increment in financial performance and
organizational capability. Even though it has been conceptualized differently by academics and
practitioners, they are attempting to portray engagement as a motivational element to spark an employee’s
enthusiasm towards their work duties. Schaufeli et al (2002) considers engagement as vigor, dedication
and absorption whilst Towers Perrin as rational, emotional and motivational. The instruments they use also
cover questionnaires that are essentially different but meet the same objective. Those questions attempt to
measure the level of engagement; the burnout method is used as a positive antithesis of engagement.
In whatever constructs or interpretations, engagement aims to benefit both workers and employers. If
organizations recognize that employees need to feel engaged in their work in order to increase
performance, it will be in their utmost interest to raise the engagement pole to higher limits. The
management of human resources has shifted towards the “people first” idea. Because people are targeted to
achieve competitive advantage and because they cannot be imitated, it should be the ultimatum of
organizations to sustain engaged employees at the same time sustaining high performance.
Malaysia is no exception towards the achievement of this ultimatum. Towers Perrin (2008) found that one
out of four Malaysian workers is engaged as opposed to the global one out of five. Malaysia is higher than
Singapore in terms of engagement levels and labour mobility. Hence, research in this discipline should be
encouraged as the importance of it is critical to continued foreign direct investments and avoidance of high
labour turnover. It is with this view that academics and practitioners alike should continue with their
efforts for future research in work engagement.
References
Australian Mines & Metals Association (2007), Employee Engagement – A lifetime of Opportunity,
AMMA
Website,
[Online,
available
at:
http://www.amma.org.au/home/publications/employeeengagement _a_lifetime_of_opportunity_sept2007.pdf.
(Accessed: 29 August 2008)
Bailey, J. & Yost, J. (2007) Encyclopedia of Sociology. New York: Macmillan.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti E., Taris, T., Schaufeli, W.B. & Schreurs, P. (2003) A multi-group analysis of the
Job Demands-Resources model in four home car organizations. International Journal of Stress
Management, 10, 16-38
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Euwema M.C. (2005) Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on
burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43, 83-104
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. (2008) Towards a model of work engagement, Career Development
International, 13, 3, 209-223
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2002) Validation of the Maslach Burnout Inventory –
General Survey: An Internet study. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 15,245-260
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. & Verbeke, W. (2004) Using the job demands-resources model to predict
burnout and performance, Human Resource Management, Spring 2004, 43, 1, 83-104
Bakker, A.B. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2008) Positive organizational behaviour: engaged employees in
flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 29, 147-54
Bakker, A.B., Van Emmerik, H. & Euwema, M.C. (2006) Crossover of Burnout and Engagement in Work
Teams. Work and Occupations, 33, 4, November, 464-489
Bateman, T.S. & Crant, J.M. (1993) The Proactive Component of Organizational Behaviour: A Measure
and Correlates. Journal Organizational Behaviour, 1, 103-118
Bates, S. (2004) Getting engaged. HR Magazine, 49, 2, 44-51
Branham, L. (2005) Are you engaged?. Leadership Excellence, 22, 12, 12
Cropanzano, R. & Wright, T.A. (2001) When a ‘happy’ worker is really a ‘productive’ worker: a review
and further refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 53, 182-99
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row
314
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Demerouti, E. & Bakker. A.B. (n.d.), The Oldenburg Burnout Inventory: a good alternative to measure
burnout (and engagement). In Halbesleben, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Stress and Burnout in Health
Care, Nova Science, New York, NY
Demerouti, E., Bakker. A.B., Nachreiner, F. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001a) The job demands-resources model
of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., De Jonge, J., Janssen, P.P.M. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001b) Burnout and
engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian Journal of Work,
Environment and Health, 27, 279-86
Goffman, E. (1961) Encounters. Penguin University Books, Harmondsworth.
Gonzales-Roma, V., Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Lloret, S. (2006) Burnout and work engagement:
independent factors or opposite poles?. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 62, 165-74
Hakanen, J. (2002) From burnout to job engagement – validation of the Finnish version of an instrument
for measuring job engagement (UWES) in an educational organization. Tyo ja Ihminen, 16, 42-58
Hobfall, S.E. & Shirom, A. (2000) Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress and
management in the workplace. In Golembiewski, R.T. (Ed.), Handbook of Organization
Behaviour, 2nd ed., Dekker, New York, NY, pp. 57-81
Houkes, I., Janssen, P.P., De Jonge, J. & Nijhuis, F.J. (2001) Work and Individual Determinants of Intrinsic
Work Motivation, Emotional Exhaustion, and Turnover Intention: A Multi-Sample Analysis.
International Journal of Stress management, 8, 257-283
Janssen, P.P.M., De Jonge, J. & Bakker A.B. (1999) Specific Determinants of Intrinsic Work Motivation,
Burnout and Turnover Intentions: A Study among Nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29,
1360-1369
Johnson, G. (2004) Otherwise engaged. Training, 41, 10, 4
Kahn, W.A. (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724
Kahn, W.A. (1992) To be full there: psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45, 321-49
Kowalski, B. (2003) The engagement gap. Training, 40, 4, 62
Krueger, J. & Killham, E. (2006) Why Dilbert is right. Gallup Management Journal Online, March 9
(accessed January 5, 2008, from Business Source Complete database). In Wildermuth C. &
Pauken, P.D. (2008), A perfect match: decoding employee engagement – Part I: Engaging cultures
and leaders, Industrial and Commercial Training, 40, 3, 122-128
Leiter, M.P. & Schaufeli, W.B. (1996) Consistency of the burnout construct across occupations. Anxiety,
Stress and Coping, 9, 229-243
Loehr, J. (2005) Become fully engaged. Leadership Excellence, 22, 2, 14
Luthans, F. & Youssef, C.M. (2007) Emerging positive organizational behaviour. Journal of Management,
33, 321-49
Lynch, J. (2007) Burnout and engagement in probationary police officers: A scoping paper, Australian Centre
for
Policing
Research,
ACPR
Scope
No.
1,
[Online,
available
at:
www.acpr.gov.au/pdf/ACPR_S1.pdf , accessed: 2 July 2008]
Malaysian Industrial Development Authority Website (2008) Towers Perrin Survey: Malaysia has more
engaged
employees,
[Online,
available
at:
http://www.mida.gov.my/en/view.php?cat=53&scat=2451 , accessed: 29 August 2008]
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 &
Organizational Psychology, 77, 11-37
Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E. & Leiter, M.P. (1996) Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual (3rd ed.), Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press
Maslach, C. & Leiter M.P. (1997) The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and
what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Maslach C., Schaufeli, W.B. & Leiter, M.P. (2001) The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety
and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, 77, 11-37
Parker, S.K. (2000) From Passive to Proactive Motivation: The Importance of Flexible Role Orientations
and Role Breadth Self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 447-469
315
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Robison, J. (2008) Amid job losses, All isn’t lost, Gallup Management Journal, 10 July 2008, [Online,
available
at:
http://gmj.gallup.com/content/108556/Amid-Job-Losses-All-Isnt-Lost.aspx,
accessed: 29 August 2008]
Rothbard, N.P. (2001) Enrichhing or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-84
Rutledge, T. (2006) Getting Engaged: The New Workplace Loyalty, Mattanie Press, [Online, available at:
http://www.fortner.com.my/Training_EmployeeEngagement.htm , Accessed: 29 August 2008]
Saks, A.M. (2006) Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21, 7, 600-619
Saks, A.M. (2008) The Meaning and Bleeding of Employee Engagement: How Muddy is the Water?.
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psycholoogy, 1 (2008), 40-43
Salanova, M. Agut, S. & Peiro, J.M. (2005) Linking organizational resources and work engagement to
employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 1217-27
Salanova, M. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2008) A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between
job resources and proactive behaviour. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 19, 1, January, 116-131
Schaufeli, W.B. & Bakker, A.B. (2003) UWES – Utrecht work engagement scale: test manual. Department
of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, available at: www.schaufeli.com
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 Behaviour, 25, 293-315
Schaufeli, W.B. & Enzmann, D. (1998) The burnout companion to study and practice: A critical analysis.
London: Taylor & Francis
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002) The measurement of
engagement and burnout and: a confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3,
71-92
Schaufeli, W. & Salanova, M. (2007) Work Engagement – An Emerging Psychological Concept and Its
Implications for Organizations. Managing Social and Ethical Issues in Organizations.
Information Age Publishing, pp. 135-177
Schaufeli, W.B., Tarris, T.W. & Van Rhenen, W. (2008) Workaholism, Burnout and Work Engagement:
Three of a Kind or Three Different Kinds of Employee Well-being?. Applied Pscyhology: An
International Review, 2008, 57, 2, 173-203
Schaufeli, W.B. & Van Rhenen, W. (2006) About the role of positive and negative emotions in managers’
well-being: A study using the Job-related Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS). Gerag &
Organisatie, 19, 323-344
Schutte, N., Toppinen, S., Kalimo, R. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2000) The factorial validity of the Maslach
Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS) across occupational groups and nations. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 53-66
Seligman, M.E.P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000) Positive psychology: An introduction. American
Psychologist, 55, 5-14
Shirom, A. (1989) Burnout in work organizations. In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International
review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 25-48), Chichester, England: John Wiley
Smythe, J. (2007) Employee engagement – its real essence. Human Resource Management International
Digest, 15, 7, 11-13
Storm, K. & Rothmann, S. (2003) A psychometric analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in the
South African Police Service. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29, 62-70
Thackray, J. (2001) Feedback for Real, Gallup Management Journal, March 2001. [Online,available at:
http://gmj.gallup.com/content/811/Feedback-Real.aspx , accessed: 29 August 2009]
Towers Perrin (2008) Closing the Engagement Gap: A Road Map for Driving Superior Business
Performance,
Global
Workforce
Study
2007-2008.
[Online,
available
at:
http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/howhtml.jsp?url=global/publications/gws/index.htm&country=gl
obal , accessed: 29 August 2008]
Towers Perrin (2008) Employee Engagement Underpins Business Transformation, Towers Perrin
International Survey Research, July 2008. [Online, available at: http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/
getwebcachedoc?country=gbr&webc=GBR/2008/200807/TP_ISR_July08.pdf,
accessed:
29
August 2008]
316
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Townsend, P. & Gebhardt, J. (2008) Employee engagement – completely, Human Resource International
Digest, 16, 3, 22-24
Ulrich, D. (1997) Human resource champions. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press
Wildermuth C. & Pauken, P.D. (2008) A perfect match: decoding employee engagement – Part I: Engaging
cultures and leaders. Industrial and Commercial Training, 40, 3, 122-128
Woodruffe, C. (2006) The Crucial Importance of Employee Engagement. Human Resource Management
International Digest, 14, 1, 3-5
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. & Kantas, A. (n.d.). The measurement of burnout and
engagement: a cross-cultural study comparing Greece and The Netherlands. New Review of Social
Psychology (in press)
Yi-Wen, Z. & Yi-Qun, C. (2005) The Chinese Version of the Utrecht work engagement scale: an
examination of reliability and validity. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13, 268-70
317