Exploring Employee

7/27/2019 Exploring Employee

1/27

Journal of European Industrial TrainingEmerald Article: Exploring employee engagement from the employeeperspective: implications for HRD

M. Brad Shuck, Tonette S. Rocco, Carlos A. Albornoz

Article information:

To cite this document: M. Brad Shuck, Tonette S. Rocco, Carlos A. Albornoz, (2011),"Exploring employee engagement from the

mployee perspective: implications for HRD", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 35 Iss: 4 pp. 300 - 325

Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090591111128306

Downloaded on: 02-10-2012

References: This document contains references to 86 other documents

Citations: This document has been cited by 2 other documents

To copy this document: [email protected]

This document has been downloaded 6423 times since 2011. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

essica Xu, Helena Cooper Thomas, (2011),"How can leaders achieve high employee engagement?", Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, Vol. 32 Iss: 4 pp. 399 - 416

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731111134661

Alan M. Saks, (2006),"Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 Iss: 7 pp.

600 - 619

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169

Mary Welch, (2011),"The evolution of the employee engagement concept: communication implications", Corporate Communications:

nternational Journal, Vol. 16 Iss: 4 pp. 328 - 346

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563281111186968

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY

For Authors:

f you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.

nformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit

www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in


2/27

Exploring employee engagementfrom the employee perspective:

implications for HRDM. Brad Shuck

University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA

Tonette S. RoccoFlorida International University, Miami, Florida, USA, and

Carlos A. AlbornozSchool of Business, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine an employees uniqueexperience of being engagedin their work.

Design/methodology/approach Following Yins case study design method, researchers collecteddocuments, conducted semi-structured interviews and recorded observations at a large multinationalservice corporationrankedas one ofthe best placesto work.Postdatacollection,contentanalysis is usedto interpret engagement efforts and experiences. Work by Kahn and Maslow are integrated asconceptual frameworks.

Findings Post analysis, three themes emerged: relationship development and attachment to

co-workers, workplace climate and opportunities for learning. Findings highlighted the development ofrelationships in the workplace, the importance of an employeesdirect manager and theirrole in shapingorganizational culture and the critical role of learning in an engaged employees interpretation of theirwork. Scaffolding and discussion of an emergent model is provided.

Research limitations/implications Three propositions for human resource development (HRD)research and practice are presented: first, environment and person interact to create engagement ordisengagement; second, an employees manager plays a critical role in developing engagement; andthird, personality can effect engagement, however, everyone can engage. An integrated model isproposed as a synthesis of findings providing HRD researchers and practitioners opportunity tore-examinecurrent engagement efforts. Specific action stepsare outlined to spur further theory buildingand organizational practice.

Originality/value Theobjective of theemergentmodelis to provide researchers and practitioners anew framework to consider, grounded in both early and contemporary theories of engagement.The emergent model could serve as the basis for new strategies and structures related to engagementdevelopment and could shed new light on how employees interpret the experience of engagement inwork. This research is the first known qualitative study of employee engagement in the HRD literature,second only to the original qualitative research by Kahn.

Keywords Employee involvement, Human resource development, Qualitative research,Organizational performance

Paper type Research paper

Employee engagement has been defined as an individual employees cognitive,emotional and behavioral state directed toward desired organizational outcomes (Shuckand Wollard, 2010, p. 103). Employees who are engaged exhibit attentiveness and mentalabsorption in their work (Saks, 2006) and display a deep, emotional connection toward

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

JEIT35,4

300

Received 19 February 2010Revised 19 August 2010Accepted 1 October 2010

Journal of European IndustrialTrainingVol. 35 No. 4, 2011pp. 300-325q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0309-0590DOI 10.1108/03090591111128306


3/27

their workplace (Wagner and Harter, 2006; Kahn, 1990). States (2008) suggested that thefield of employee engagement is bourgeoning as companies pour resources intodeveloping a more engaged workforce. Many organizations believe that employeeengagement is a dominant source of competitive advantageand thus, have been drawn toits reported ability to solve challenging organizational problems such as increasingworkplace performance and productivity amid widespread economic decline (Macey andSchneider, 2008; Macey et al., 2009). Research has expanded this belief, suggesting thatorganizations with high levels of employee engagement report positive organizationaloutcomes; a small bright spot in an otherwise bleak financial forecast (Kular et al., 2008;Harter et al., 2002; Shuck and Wollard, 2010).

For example, North Shore LIJ Health System recently invested $10 million intotraining and development and encouraged employees to furthertheir education in hopesof raising engagement levels within their organization (States, 2008). As a result, thecompany reported a one-year retention rate of 96 per cent, increased patient-satisfactionscores, and record setting profits. At Johnson and Johnson, engagement has become apart of the work culture as teams are provided real time feedback about how their workenables their individual business units to meet their quarterly goals (States, 2008). Suchreal-time communication programs help to create a positive, accountability-drivenworkplace resulting in increased productivity levels, profit margins and levels ofengagement (Towers Perrin, 2007). Still further, after substantial efforts to increaselevels of engagement on factory floors, Caterpillar, a large multi-national constructionequipment supplier and manufacturer, estimates the company saved $8.8 million inturnover costs alone by increasing the proportion of engaged employees at one of their

European-based plants (Vance, 2006).Although engaged employees have consistently been shown to be more productiveon most available organizational measures (Richman, 2006; Fleming and Asplund, 2007;Wagner and Harter, 2006), it is conservatively estimated that,30 per cent of the globalworkforce is engaged (Harter et al., 2002, 2003; Saks, 2006; Wagner and Harter, 2006).Moreover, ,20 per cent of employees report any level of confidence in their currentmanagers ability to engage them (Czarnowsky, 2008). Not surprising, employeeengagement is reported to be on a continued decline worldwide (Bates, 2004; BlessingWhite, 2006).

The discrepancy between the perceived importance of engagement and the level ofengagement that exists in organizations today (Czarnowsky, 2008, p. 4) is cause formajor concern. This discrepancy, however, presents a significant opportunity forhumanresource development (HRD) scholars and practitionersto develop research agendas andpractical strategies toward the forefront of this emerging concept. As organizational

leaders embrace employee engagement, they are increasingly turning toward HRDprofessionals to develop and support strategies that facilitate engagement-encouragingcultures (Vance, 2006). Unfortunately, HRD professionals are unlikely to find thesupport they need as little academic research has investigated the experience of beingengaged (Kahn, 1990) or how engagement affects an employees experience of theirwork, and ultimately their performance.

For example, well-cited studies from scholars such as Maslach et al. (2001), Saks(2006) and Harter et al. (2002) conceptualized the concept of engagement as a positivepsychological construct but do not explore what engagement is from an employeesperspective. Further, both Macey and Schneider (2008) and Macey et al.s (2009) models

Exploringemployee

engagement

301


4/27


5/27

Structurally, in Maslows Hierarchy, needs are first arranged in order of potency(Reeve, 2001). Second, the more foundational and critical to survival the need, the sooner itappears in the hierarchy. Third, needs are filled sequentially from lowest to highest, thusestablishing a hierarchy of needs grouped into two categories, survival and growth. Theseneeds, individually listed as physiological, safety, belonging and love, esteem andself-actualization needs are the basic needs of human beings. Physiological needs weredefined as the most potent of needs for human survival (Maslow, 1970) and found at thebottom of the hierarchy. The safety need was defined as feeling protected, being free fromfear and/or having a feeling of control over ones life. Once the safety need is met anindividual is freed to engage. The belonging and love need was defined as the development

of relationships and affection. The esteem need is the desire for a stable, firmly based,usually high evaluation of [the self], for self-respect, or self-esteem, and for the esteem ofothers (Maslow, 1970, p. 45). Self-actualization was defined as the completion of activitythat intensely satisfies (Maslow, 1970). Finally, the drive to self-actualization parallels theconcept of employee engagement (Kahn, 1990) by conceptualizing the drive to ultimate selffulfillment, a deep need for internal, emotional satisfaction that all humans long for;employeeslong to become everything one is capable of becoming (Maslow, 1998, p. 3).Foremployees who reach this level, work becomes a critical part of their identity (Kahn, 1990).

Herzbergs (1959) two-factor theory proposed that autonomy in being, recognition ofself and work, and meaningful understandings were factors that increased anemployees intrinsic willingness to engage in work (Herzberg, 1959, 1968; Latham andErnst, 2006). Herzberg (1968) proposed that intrinsic factors (i.e. the importance ofcontribution, personal growth), rather than extrinsic factors (i.e. compensation,company image) motivated employees to be engaged in their work, closely parallelingKahns (1990) domain of meaningfulness. Further, satisfaction of individual needs wasidentified as an important component to engaging (Kahn, 1990) employees, however, anunderstanding of individual needs was never fully explored.

In addition to Kahn (1990) and Maslows (1970) frameworks, recent scholars (Maceyand Schneider, 2008; Maslach, 1998; Maslach et al., 2001) have suggested that employeesmay be predisposed to certain positive outlooks based on innate personalitycharacteristics (Macey and Schneider, 2008; Maslach et al., 2001). For example, Maceyand Schneider (2008) suggested that employees with a proactive personality, high level ofconscientiousness and trait positiveaffectcould be morelikelyto be engagedin their work.Moreover, Shraga (2007) and Shirom (2003, 2007) provided evidence suggesting asignificant relation between vigor toward workand the opennessand extroversion factorsof the Big Five personality characteristics (i.e. neuroticism, extroversion, openness,agreeableness and conscientiousness). While other researchers have suggested that

personality variables such as curiosity (Reio and Callahan, 2004; Reio et al., 2006),optimism, self-efficacy (Macey and Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006), self-esteem and copingstyle (Rothmann and Storm, 2003; Rothmann, 2003; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007) all play apart in the development of work-oriented variables, no specific research has exploredpersonality characteristics and engagement (Maslachand Leiter, 2008), although relationsbetween the constructs remain ripe for investigation.

MethodIn this study, the meaning participants gave to events that predated or coexisted with thesense of being engaged as well as with the activities they performed at work constituted

Exploringemployee

engagement

303


6/27

the phenomenon of interest, employee engagement. Through this research, we do notpretend to reach generalizable conclusions about employee engagement; rather, we hopeto open reflection and dialogue, grounded in data that gives voice to a perspective notoften considered in the traditional employee engagement literature; the subjectiveunderstanding of being engaged from an employees perspective. This study used thesingle-casestudydesign (Yin, 2003) to explore thephenomenon of being engaged in work.This method recognizes subjective human construction of meaning throughinterpretation yet permits some level of objectivity based on theory (Yin, 2003).Further, this method takes a constructivists perspective to analyzing data, promotingcollaboration between the researcher and participant, and giving focus to the voice of the

participant (Crabtree and Miller, 1999). Using the case study design (Yin, 2003),researchers are challenged to chose a location representative of their question andundergo several forms of data collection that provide multiple streams of data foranalysissuch as reviewing the current literature about the chosen location using a structuredprocess, making onsite observations and conducting interviews with employees.

The following sections describe the rationale for the chosen company, data collection,analysis and presentation of themes.

The case for the companyA large multinational service corporation ranked by Forbes (2009) as one of the worldsmost admired companies and Business Weeks best places to launch a career(hereafter known as the company) provided a critical case for examining thedevelopment of employee engagement. Because of its ranking as one of the bestcompanies in the world at innovation, global competitiveness and managing itsworkforce, it was thought that rich data about employee engagement could be obtained.At the time of this study, no widely accepted measure of employee engagement wasincluded in any known best places to work study; notwithstanding the researchersbelieved the company had promise of exemplifying the characteristics of an engagedworkforce based on the qualities it had been recognized as a best-practice leader for.

At the time of the study, the company employed more than 250,000 workers in22 countries around the world. The study was conducted at a flagship location inMiami-Dade County, Florida, where 61 per cent of the population was Hispanic(US Department of Labor, 2010). Coincidentally, all participants in the study wereHispanic.

Three streams of data were collected to provide insight into the company:

(1) document analysis in theform of a structured review of the literature (Fornes etal.,2008) mentioning the company and any effort(s) to engage employees;

(2) semi-structured interviews with respondents currently working in thecompany; and

(3) observations.

First a descriptionof theliterature will be discussed as thefirststeptaken in thecasestudydesign followed by a description of the semi-structured interviews and observations.

Document collection and analysisBecause, we were searching for document artifacts on a large, multinational companyand its efforts to engage its employees, it was thought that data sources with a focus

JEIT35,4

304


7/27

on business and psychology would producethe most fruitful results. To ensureinclusionof a broad collection of data, the following databases were ultimately selected:ABI/Inform, Business Full Text via Wilson Web, Business and Company ResourceCenter, Business and Industry, PsycInfo and PsycArticles.

Establishing selection criteria. The company name and the terms employeeengagement and engagement were identified as searchdescriptors. To ensurearticlesaddressed the purpose of the study, documents were limited to those with the companyname and eitherthe term employee engagement or engagement appearing anywherein the document text andpublishedin the English language. A peer review filter was notapplied to ensure any document about the company and its efforts to engage its staff

would be captured. No time period was specifically selected.A total of 103 records were generated (Table I). All articles containing the company

name and employee engagement or engagement were downloaded and readcompletely. ABI/Inform produced five results for company name and employeeengagement and 20 results for company name and engagement, a total of 25 papers.Business and Company Resource Center produced nine results for company name andemployee engagement and 66 results for company name and engagement; a total of75 papers. Business and industry produced no results for company name and employeeengagement and three results for company name and engagement. Business Full Textvia Wilson Web, PsycInfo and PsycArticles produced no results. A total of 16 paperswere found to be duplicates and discarded.

Document analysis. The remaining 87 were reviewed for common themes. All articleswere printed, read and analyzed using content analysis (Boyatzis, 1998). Contentanalysis is the process of sorting words into categories based on their congruence with

the construct of study (Burns and Grove, 2004). Thematic content analysis (Boyatzis,1998) was used to examine underlying aspects of certain phenomena to identify themesoccurring within and across data streams.

A theme is defined as a concept or idea that emerges from data, unifying particularfindings in logical patterns (Biklen and Bogdan, 2007). Themes were allowed to emergefrom each article as they appeared to create a framework formaking meaning of the data.A total of 75 articles were related to contract engagement, business acquisitionengagement and merger engagement; these articles were discarded as not relevantto this study. Two themes emerged from the remaining articles: recruitment practicesand management practices.

Company name and

employee engagement

Company name

engagementDatabase Hits Hits

ABI/inform 5 20Business full text via Wilson web 0 0Business and company resource center 9 66Business and industry 0 3PsycInfo 0 0PsycArticles 0 0Database and descriptor total 14 89Grand total 103

Table I.Number of selected

articles by databasesource and search

descriptors

Exploringemployee

engagement

305


8/27

Recruitment practices. The theme recruitment practices focused on how the companyselected its employees through rigorous interview processes used to gauge the degreepotential employees matched desired job and personalityrelated variables. This matchingprocess was believed to provide a level of good job fit between the applicant and thecompany. Research hassuggested that good jobfit, defined as the degree to which a personfeels their personality and values fit with their current job and organization (Resick et al.,2007) provide opportunities for the development of meaningful work (Kahn, 1990) as wellas creation of environments where employees feel psychologically and emotionally safeand available (Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004). Reciprocally, poor job fit has been shown toresult in decreased productivity (Hoffman and Woehr, 2006; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005;

Verquer etal., 2003), decreased satisfaction (Kristof-Brownetal., 2005) and increased levelsof turnover (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Resick et al., 2007; Verquer et al., 2003).

Management practices. The theme management practices focused on specificbehaviors reinforced as a part of the companys culture as well as learning anddevelopment programs used to promote productive, open work environments. Specific,identified behaviors included developing open lines of communication betweenmanagers and employees, encouraging managers to provide clear expectations andinvolving employees in decision-making processes when appropriate. Several studies(Arakawa and Greenberg, 2007; Harter et al., 2002,2003; Macey and Schneider, 2008;Saks, 2006) suggested that an employees direct manager plays an important role in thedevelopment of engagementencouraging cultures; manymanagerialbehaviors havethepotential to provide a sense of meaningful work, a safe area for employees to work andcommunicate, as well as the necessary resources to complete work (Hackman andOldman, 1976; Kahn, 1990; Maslow, 1970). Conversely, poormanagement practices suchas creating an unfriendly or hostile workplace climate or having poor communicationskills have been shown to result in decreased satisfaction (Brown and Leigh, 1996) andincreased levels of turnover (Harter et al., 2002). Turnover or terminating employment isoperationalized as the ultimate act of disengagement.

Following Yin (2003), the emergent themes, recruitment practices and managementpractices, were used to develop a connection between the conceptual framework for thestudy (Kahn, 1990; Maslow, 1970) and the decision to use the company as a location forunderstanding employee engagement. As a result of the document analysis, clearconnections developed between current practices occurring inside the company andcurrent research on employee engagement. As connections developed, themes wereused to inform pre-questionnaire construction for the semi-structured interviews as asecond step in the case study (Yin, 2003).

Interview and observation data collection and analysisThe following section details interview and observation data collection procedures andanalysis. First, information about the key informant is examined followed byparticipants, observations,data analysisand integrity measures.Finally, a discussionofthemes concludes this section.

Key informant. A key informant is someone with whom researchers have an especiallygood rapport and is particularly helpful, insightful,and in a positionto assist with locatingparticipants (Biklen and Bogdan, 2007). The key informant in this study was anon-hispanic, 41-year-old male who had worked in his current position for seven years.Prior to assuming responsibility as the Director of Operations, the key informant

JEIT35,4

306


9/27

had worked for the company for eight years in various locations throughout the USA inboth front line and management-related positions bringing his total years of experiencewith the company to 15. One of the researchers and the key informant were both serviceproviders at a similar third-party organization and had a professional relationship. Thisrelationship, built overthe course of several informalconversationsabout the phenomenonof interest, madeit possibleto interview participants using corporate facilities during worktime. The key informant was asked to select respondents who were excellent examples ofengaged employees. The respondents were examples of information-rich cases thatmanifest the phenomenon of interest intensely (Patton, 1990, p. 171).

Participants. All names are pseudonyms used to preserve the confidentiality of our

participants.Jorge wasa 28 years old,second generation Cuban-Americanmale who hadbeen working in his current position for three months. Jorge was and had a bachelorsdegree in business management. Maria was a 52-years-old female who had been in hercurrent position for ten years with no a college degree. Maria was originally fromColumbia, she moved to the USA when she was 11. Elsa was a 25-years-old female whohad been working in her current position for three years and currently working on abachelors degree in business administration. She was third generationPeruvian-American.

The interviews were conducted face-to-face and lasted an average of 1-hour and17 minutes. Interviews were conducted in English, however, one of the interviewersinterpreted difficult concepts for one participant whose first language was not English.Interviews were transcribed verbatim and checked independently for accuracy by eachresearcher.

The semi-structured interview method was used to ensure participants could shareinformation regarding their experience of engagement at work. A semi-structuredinterview is defined as an open, loose and two-way research method that provides eachparticipant general questions in a similar topical format (Biklen and Bogdan, 2007;Patton, 1990). In semi-structured interviews, the interviewer and interviewee areconversational, rather than rigid and controlled. An interviewguide was used to help theinterviewer focus on the agreed research topic (Rubin and Rubin, 2005) while providingflexibility and openness. The guide was split into six general sections:

(1) understanding of expectations at work;

(2) general feelings about work;

(3) resources at work;

(4) hiring practices and the use of skills or talents at work;

(5) manager; and

(6) co-workers.

A follow-up interview was conducted with each participant an average of two weeksfollowing the initial interview for the purposes of fact checking and clarification. Duringthe follow up, no interview guide was used although participants shared moreinformation regarding his or her experience of engagement in their work. Additionalinformation was noted by each researcher in a field journal.

Observations. Using a positivistic approach (Mulhall, 2003), researchers recordedobservations about the workplace environment and organization to better understandthe context of the employee being interviewed. For example, researchers recorded

Exploringemployee

engagement

307


10/27

observations about the environment of the workplace such as overt artifacts of policies andprocedures (i.e. signs, office memos, etc.) and cultural cues (i.e. uniform adherence,interaction with co-workers, etc.). Notes were also recorded about observed interactionsbetween employees and their managers as well as information regarding tangible elementsof the environment (i.e. use and availabilityof resources, equipmentand co-worker support)when access was available. Observations were recorded twice for each participant: prior tothestartof theinterview andpost interview. Allnoteswerekept in a field journal. Time, dateand location were noted on each set of notes.

Data analysis. Transcripts and notes from observations were read and coded by twoof the three researchers separately. First, the two researchers independently read eachtranscript and the collection of journal notes while searching for patterns. Patterns wereidentified with a code and defined using a separatenotebook. After the first reading, oneresearcher identified 26 categories and the second researcher identified 21. Afteridentifying categories, the researchers discussed categories in person and identifiedsimilarities and differences between the two. It was determined that a second round ofreadingswould be completed with the researchers together in order to combine each listand collapse categories into emergent themes. As a result of the second reading,categories identified in the first round (26 and 21, respectively) were collapsed intofour themes.

The semi-structured interview guide, data analysis procedures, transcripts, notes,categories and themes were presented to a peer group who reviewed the research designand overall study. Feedback from this group was incorporated into each step of theresearch process. For example, this group provided suggestions that improved the

semi-structured interview guide, question design and coding procedures.Integrity measures. In addition to fact checking, two integrity measures were used tocheck the accuracy of findings: peer debriefing and external auditor. Peer debriefing isthe practice of reviewing and asking questions of the interviewer so that the accountfrom each participant will resonate with more people than just the interviewer (Creswell,2003). For this study, two of the three researchers served as peer debriefing partners forone another. To accomplish this, after each interview, the researchers met to discuss theinterview and what the researcher had experienced. As peer debriefing occurred, eachresearcher kept notes to reconstruct the interview and help the interview resonate withthe debriefing partner (Wengraf, 2001). Second, a third researcher was brought into theresearch study as an external auditor. An external auditor reviews the entire project andprovides an assessment of the findings during the process of research or at theconclusion of the research project (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). In this case, an externalauditor was used at the conclusion of the research project. To accomplish this,

the external auditor was presented the finalproduct and asked to makean assessmentofthe data and findings related to the data. Through these discussions the themes werereduced to three.

Discussion of themes. The following sectionexplores each of the three themes andtheimportant role it played in developing engagement with our participants. First, it feelslike home will be explored as an expression of the emotional connection and attachmentour participants had with their work and those they worked with. Second, dont messup will be explored as an expression of the work climate each participant experiencedwhile they were at work. Finally, I was happy [ . . .] I was learning explores theimportant role of learning in the development of engagement.

JEIT35,4

308


11/27


12/27

hismotivation and level of engagement as well as hislife outside of work, Jorge shared thefollowing: Its awful, because I took work home with me. I take it all up here, so I mean, ifits bad at work, you take it home with you. When probed deeper, Jorge disclosed furtherand compared his previous work environment to his current work environment:

I worked in some places where you get along with the person, but it is still work, you know.Its I like you, but dont mess up, cause [. . .] you know, youll get fired. Its not like that here.

Climates that are supportive and that promote positive emotion broaden an employeesability to think and momentarily build their available emotional and psychologicalresources (Fredrickson, 1998). Such emotions have evolutionary roots and are linked tothe basic human needs all employees have when they are at work (Kahn, 1990; Maslow,1970). Elsa shared, working here [at the Company], I want to work hard. I want to dowell. When asked why, she replied, I feel a sense of commitment to them. Employees,who work in climates where they feel support from their employer, often manifestedthrough their manager, work harder and are more committed to organizational success(Harter etal., 2002). Research on employee engagement suggests that theemotions of joy,love, contentment and interest cut across workplace culture and boundaries, andrepresents high emotional activity (Harter et al., 2003) that encourage the development ofengagement enhancing cultures and coincidently, more productive employees. Servingas motivation to pursue desires, a positive workplace climate creates purpose, shapingthe context of learning experiences and plays a critical role in constructing meaning andknowledge (Dirkx, 2001). On the other hand, negative emotions limit an employeesability to be creative, solve problems, and work as a team; employees who experience

negative emotions at work for a prolonged period of time focus all available resources onsurviving each day. Survival, emotionally, socially and physically is at the core ofemployee disengagement.

Jorge shared the following about a disengaging experience he had with a previousmanager. It was not that his manager held him accountable for doing something wrong,but rather the negative climate that was perpetuated, in Jorges opinion, intentionallyby the manager:

Its awful. . . [you go] to work the next day having somebody have to be on top of you [. . .] theydont careabout you[. . .] theydontwant you tomessup [. . .] and ifyoumess up, you are fired.

When asked about how it felt to work at her previous place of employment,Mariaquickly alluded to experiences when she had been talked down to andmadeto feelasa lesseremployee. Ihated feeling likethat. I felt like I could notaskquestions, and likenobody wanted to help me. I was lost. I wanted to quit. I hated that place. While each of

the participants enjoyed their current place of employment, it seemed easier for them torecall negative experiences with previous employers. A negative workplace climate canpermeate the employees life both inside and outside of work and often stays in memoryfor a prolonged period of time. While participants could not recall the exact words theirco-workers or manager had used with them, they never forget how the words madethem feel:

[Managers are] the ones that evaluate me, theyre the ones that, you know, demand that I doa good job [. . .] I feel like they both have been unbelievable, so far. They have been good[short pause], probably the best bosses that Ive had.

JEIT35,4

310


13/27

As evidenced by the thoughtful pause he took while speaking, Jorge chose the words todescribe the experience with his managers carefully. The mention of evaluation,demand and an unbelievable manager may not traditionally be paired together. ForJorge, this current management style allows for a feeling of safety, high expectations,meaning and encouragement to keep learning.

Iwashappy[. . .] I was learning. Anyopportunity our participants had for learning onthe job or in their work roles increased the development of engagement at work. Mariashared stories regarding previous experiences working in several restaurants and largehotels before her current position. She spoke of seeking challenges and opportunities tolearn and grow in her work. Maria expressed feelingsomething inside her that was hardto capture in words. There is something inside of me, I want to keep going, I want tolearn more, I want to jump higher. I want to bechallenged. After sharingthis, she talkedabout moving from company to company often in search of a challenging learningenvironment, hoping to stretch her knowledge and continue growing.

Elsa also indicated a direct connection between opportunities for learning and hermotivation to work. She recalled looking for challenging experiences to keep heroccupied andin continuous development. I am a very quick learner, so I get bored reallyfast if I dont have challenges, if something is not challenging, its boring. Probingdeeper, we asked if she could share a story about a learning opportunity she recentlyexperienced. Elsa shared an account about learning to work on a cash register for thefirst time; she recited her story to us in a very confident tone. She felt like she could tryanything and liked the idea of being challenged daily at work. I had never worked on aregister in my life. I just figured it out. Let me do it.

Being new to the industry, Jorge needed someone who could help him learn about thebusiness. We asked Jorge about formal and informal expectations on the current job.Jorge expressed that no one had explicitly shared any expectations with him, but that hecould see them in action everyday. Having no previous experience in the industry,Jorges manager became the primary source of knowledge for his learning. When probeddeeper, Jorge shared that he could ask questions withoutnegative consequences. Askingquestions was the way in which Jorge learned many of his role expectations, jobfunctions and deadlines:

Im not afraid to ask them a question, Im not. I mean, I ask it, they answer it. They talk fastand want you to get it, but [. . .] they have been nothing but helpful. And nothing but a greatsource of knowledge.

For Jorge, the supervisor became a teaching figure, developing the kind of relationshipthat a student might develop with his major professor.

Moreover, our participants expressed learning more as an incidental experience ratherthan an act they set out to accomplish every day. Incidental learning is defined asever-present unconscious learning(Marsick and Watkins,1990). Maria walked us throughher promotions at an earlier company. She shared her experiences of working in the dishroom, next being moved to prep chef and finally, finding herself in the kitchen as anassistant, but was never formally trained or asked to attend professional development togain the skills to continue advancing. Every time they kept moving me, they was like,giving me some more money, more benefits, but by that time I did not even care about themoney, because I was happy because they were moving me and I waslearning. For Elsa,learning emerged as an important pattern in her motivation for coming to work

Exploringemployee

engagement

311


14/27

and performing her best each day. Although unable to define the learning that wasoccurring, when asked howshe ranked thefeelingof learningwith other tangible artifactssuch as pay, Elsa shared that learning for her was the most important variable right now.She saw her career aspiration of opening a business as primary motivation that enhancedher motivation for work. For me right now, experience is more important than money,because this is my career. I want all the experience I can get.

Discussion of findingsResulting from our analysis of data, several important findings emerged. First, the

relationships and connections our participants developed at their place of work werecriticallyimportant to their overall experience of work. Jorge and Maria called those theyworked with a second family, while Elsa alluded to the significance her co-workersplayed in her daily life. It was important to our participants to feel comfortable at workand to know that those they worked with cared about them as human beings. Theemotionsand feelings they expressed were internal, but were directed toward intangibleand tangible elements of their environment: the people, the work and the space in whichthey completed their work. Each participants manager indirectly influenced the degreeto which they felt free to develop relations with their co-workers and their work,blending our findings from the documents and interviews. Some managers in ourparticipants past did not allow relationships to develop while their current manager(s)encouraged it. For example, Jorge sharedthat former managers maintained a cut throat,aggressive environment that encouraged team members to compete instead ofcollaborate. Moreover, Maria stated that she was just another number, never a team

member. Environments that are overly competitive and cold such as those described byJorge and Maria can discourage relationship development (Rath, 2006) often reducingproductivity, safety and innovation (Harter et al., 2002) in the long term.

The employee engagement literature has consistently pointed to the important rolemanagers play in shaping workplace climates (Arakawa and Greenberg, 2007;Buckingham and Coffman,1999; Harter et al., 2002; Luthansand Peterson, 2002; Wagnerand Harter, 2006) and the findingsfrom thiscase study parallel thatresearch stream. Forexample, looking closer at Jorges experience, the role his managers played in hisengagementlevel with both hisprevious employers and his current employer is striking.At one job, he describedhis manager as saying it[was] awful [. . .] they dontcare aboutyou. Even his body language expressed negativity as he shared these words; he grewtense and used shortened words to describe his experience. He expressed that hewanted out, and eventually he did leave, voluntarily. At present, he described his currentmanager as the best he ever had and goes further by describing the qualities that he

thinks are the best: rolling up his sleeves, evaluator and I am not afraid. ThroughJorges words, he shows us that he is supported, provided opportunities for learning, andfeels safe. Clearly Jorges current and former supervisors shaped the workplace climatein which he performed his work. Maria and Elsa expressed similar dichotic situationsand contexts of disengagement and engagement with previous and current employers.

The climate created in the workplace was also an influencing factor in ourparticipants experience, but mostoften recalled as negative experiences thatoccurred inthe past. Influenced by both tangible and intangible elements, our participants sharedcritical incidents where they felt disempowered, not valued and unsafe at theirplace of work. Employees cannot disregard the need to feel safe in their place of work

JEIT35,4

312


15/27

(Kahn, 1990); a sense of safety often promotes a sense of meaningfulness and availabilityin work as secondary indicators of engagement. Employees who do not feel safe in theirplace of work become cognitively, emotionally and eventually physically paralyzed(Kahn, 1990). Safety needs, such as feeling protected, being free from fear, having afeelingof order and knowing ones limits, although not physically manifested, are potenthuman needs (Maslow, 1970). An employee who feels disempowered, not valued andunsafe may show up for work physically, but mentally and emotionally not be present.Feeling safe contributes to feeling that you are a part of something bigger, such as afamily unit, an expression used by each of our participants.

As a reversal of their past experiences, our participants talked about the supportiveworkplace climate they wereexperiencing in theircurrent employment; documents aboutcurrent practices inside the company provided evidence of the parallel experience andsuggested participants wereexperiencing the intentional creation of a positive workplaceclimate. For example, when Elsa mentioned that experience was more important thanmoney she was expressing the feeling of safety and support she had in her currentsituation. This feeling of safety (i.e. ability to pay personal expenses, access to basicresources such as food, water and clothes) must be present and psychological andemotional resources (i.e. support from supervisor, feeling of belonging with co-workers)must be available to make such bold statements about learning. At the company, therewas a clear focus on recruiting the best people possible and equipping managers with theresources they needed to be successful. Without such resources, employees could reversethis paradigm and place basic needs (i.e. compensation, security) as the overall mostimportant variable (Maslow, 1970). A manager who works with an employee to learn

reinforces the experience and value of work and strengthens the perception of safety,broadening available psychological and emotional resources (Fredrickson, 1998) andcreating conditions for meaningful work to develop (Kahn, 1990).

Such experiences might be characterized as the development of a positivepsychological climate (Brown and Leigh, 1996). Psychological climate is defined as theperception and interpretation of ones organizational environment in relation to anemployeeswell-being and has been operationalized as including flexibleand supportivemanagement, role clarity, freedom of self-expression, a sense of contribution towardorganizational goals, adequate recognition and challenging work (Brown and Leigh,1996). Employees who work in positive psychological climates are more productive andfulfill desired organizational objectives (Brown and Leigh, 1996; Kahn, 1990; ONeill andArendt, 2008). While the feeling of family at work (Rath, 2006) and a positivepsychological climate emerged as important to fostering engagement at work, suchworkplaces are hard to find and even harder to foster.

Additionally, evidence of learning played a role in the development of an employeesengagement with their work in both the document analysis as well as throughout theinterviews. While the importance of learning at work (Lee and Bruvold, 2003; Porter,1990) was not a total surprise, the role incidental learning played into the experience ofengagement was. Accordingto ourparticipants, it wasthe chanceto learn somethingnewevery day, which kept them excited about what was happening at work. While articlesabout company sponsored learning and development programs were included in ouranalysis, our participants were drawn toward informal learning experiences as an innatepart of their personalities, paralleling work by Kahn (1990), Shraga (2007) and Shirom(2003,2007).This may notalwaysbe thecase foreveryemployee, butfor ourparticipants,

Exploringemployee

engagement

313


16/27

learning as domain of engagement (i.e. availability; Kahn, 1990) helped translate workinto a motivating and engaging experience. Unique characteristics, beliefs and workphilosophies are ubiquitous among humans. Such characteristics could affect thedevelopment of employee engagement (Macey and Schneider, 2008; Maslach et al., 2001),although further research is needed to better understand such a relation.

Further, learning was foundational to the employee experience and occurredinstinctively throughout the course of our participants employment. The need forlearning at work parallels growth toward Maslows (1970) fourth need, the esteem need.When employees feel that they are growing and learning, self-confidence andself-achievement develop, resulting in confidence at work. Promotion of the authentic

self occurs as the safety of understanding ones workplace develops. The desire forlearning develops out of the fulfillment of preceding needs and encompasses themeaningfulness, safety, availability constructs in Kahns (1990) conceptualization ofemployee engagement. Through the fulfillment of this desire, an employee becomescomfortable with the promotion of the real self rather than the pseudo-self.

Providing opportunities to learn such as those described by our three participants is acritical component of an employees experience of work (Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995;Lee and Bruvold, 2003). Organizations who have a high commitment to and encouragevarious types of learning at work, significantly affect important organizational outcomessuchas turnover,organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee engagement(Huselid, 1995; Lee and Bruvold, 2003). Examples of learning activities include formal orinformal training and development opportunities, after-action meetings, focus groupsand ongoing team meetings. Providing such opportunities fulfills Maslows (1970) thirdand fourth needs, respectively, belonging and love and esteem. As employees areprovided opportunities for learning, even informal learning, they make meaning of theirexperiences in the context of their environment and feel as if their work is valued andmeaningful(Kahn, 1990). At its highest, when employeesbegin to develop new skills andconfidence, fulfillment of Maslows fifth need, self-actualization, begins. In this context,employees engage in the achievement of work that intensely satisfies; organizations thenreap the benefits of an engaged employee (Kahn, 1990; Maslow, 1970). As a result,organizations who invest in learning opportunities are more likely to have employeeswhobelieve the climate is psychologically positive and relational in nature (Kahn, 1990),resulting in increased engagement and reduced turnover (Harter et al., 2003).

Toward a model of employee engagement and disengagementA model of employee engagement and disengagement emerged from our findings.First, the model is comprised of two factors: the environment and the person. The

environment is a reflection of all items in theenvironment: thepeoplein the environment,the physical space of the environment, the climate of the environment and so on. Theperson is a reflection of everything about the person: the emotions of the person, thepersonality of the person, the physical traits, family and so on.Second, the elements thatcompose either the environment or the person can be either positive or negative,although as a result of our findings, we make no judgment about what is positive andwhat is negative. These elements (i.e. the environment and the person) interact andproduce either engagement and/or disengagement. When they are positive, they interactto produce engaged employees. When they are negative, they interact to producedisengaged employees.

JEIT35,4

314


17/27

The environmentThe environment is composed of both tangible and intangible elements. Tangibleelements were defined as items within the environment that are physically present. Thetangible elements included representations from our interviews such as relationshipswith co-workers and supervisors as well as organizational procedures and processesfrom our document analysis, observations and discussions with the key informantduring participant selection. Intangible elements were defined as items in theenvironment that had no physical properties, but were pervasive. Intangibles includedverbal representations of the elements our participants shared with us during ourinterview: trust, cooperation, being free from fear, community, attachment and learning.

The personThe person is composed of internal and external elements. External elements weredefined as items that affected the person but were manifested outside of the person andvisible to others. The external elements included a persons family or their health. Theinternal elements are defined as items that affect the person and are inside of the personsuch as feelings and emotions. Internal elements included verbal representations ofcognitive or affectual processes such as confidence, trust, motivation, feeling valued, adesire to learn, ownership and the need for challenge.

The interactionsFigure1 shows theinfluencingfactors, their subcomponents andtheinteraction thatoccursbetween them. Themodel suggests thatdepending on how the personand the environmentinteract, both engagement and disengagement could be a potential output. Further,

we suggest that no one factor singularly contributes to the creation of engagement ordisengagement at work. For example, a hostile workplace climate (i.e. an environmentalfactor; Kahn, 1990) must be perceived as such by the employee (i.e. a personal factor;Maslow, 1970). Further, a supportivemanagement style (i.e. an environmental factor;Kahn,1990) must be interpreted as supportive instead of overbearing, aggressive or smothering

Figure 1.Emerging model

of engagementand disengagement

Disengagement

Engagement

The person The environment

Internal

characteristics

External

characteristics

Intangible

elements

Tangible

elements

Exploringemployee

engagement

315


18/27

(i.e. all personal factors; Maslow, 1970). Thus, engagement or disengagement from ourparticipants perspective was a holistic experience perceived and then interpreted throughthe lens of each individual based on their own experience, rationales and views of theircontext. Thus, the development of engagement could be effected by a variety of variables,however, should be examined as an individual state variable, not a behavioral pattern orlarge-scale organizational variable.

Implications for HRD research and practiceBased on findings from our case study, data analysis and integration of the recent

employee engagement literature, we suggest the following three propositions asimplications for further development in HRD research and practice:

P1. Environment and person interact to create engagement or disengagement.

Environment and person elements interact to create either an engaging or disengagingorganizational culture. The environment is composed of the people (colleagues andsupervisors) who work in the environment, organizational policies and procedures, thestructure of the organization, the physical layout of the workspace and intangibleelements such as trust, cooperation and perceived levels of safety. The person iscomposed of an individual employees unique personality characteristics (Macey andSchneider, 2008) such as a desire for challenge, openness to learning and worldview.These factors converge during moments of work to contribute to the creation of anorganizations culture. Organizational culture is defined as an employees perception ofthe policies, procedures and behaviors that support the organization (Patterson et al.,

2005). Further, organizational culture has been operationalized as including anemployeesinitiative and personality, direction and goals, an employeesintegration intothe company, management support, varying levels of control, organizational identity,reward systems, conflict tolerance and an organizations communication patterns(Robbins and Barnwell, 1994).

Many elements combine to create an organizations overall culture, some of which arenot fully captured in this model and some of which are challenging to pinpoint because ofthe fluid nature of culture development (Gilley and Maycunich, 2000). What is clear fromourfindings is thatcultureis constructed on a micro-level,developing from an employeesunique perspective during each fleeting interaction and is used on a macro-level to makesense of thevalues, beliefs and standards of theorganization (Macey etal., 2009).The wayan employee experiences and then interprets an organizations values, beliefs andstandards is the output of engagement or disengagement; culture provides clues toemployees on how to behave and what is acceptable.

As an implication for HRD research and practice, organizations could work to betterunderstand and build on environmental and personal factors by conducting varyinglevels of needs analyses. A needs analysis systematically examines an organizationsstrengths and weaknesses in order to identify and meet existing challenges and to makeimprovementsfor thefuture (King andStevahn,2009). Needs analyses vary dependingongoals but they start by identifying the strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats ofan organization (Bryson, 2004) and then collecting data around areas of identifiedinfluence and need. In terms of employee engagement, organizations can partner withlarge-scale consulting firms such as Gallup, Towers Perrin or the Kingston EngagementConsortium or build their own data collection scales using open source tools for analysis

JEIT35,4

316


19/27

such as those found in Saks (2006), Maslach et al. (2001), Thomas (2007), Macey et al.(2009). Data could also be gathered qualitatively using focus groups. Focus groups couldalso be coupled with employee survey data to provide thick-rich descriptions of employeeexperiences. Data could then be used to inform modification, alteration and creation oforganizationalpolicies and procedures thatincreaselevels of trustand safety (Kahn, 1990)as well as provide organization development where it has the largest impact.

Moreover, HRD strategies aimed at improving environmental and personal factorsshould be specific to the goals and culture of each organization and unique toinformation uncovered as a result of any kind of data analysis (Gilley and Maycunich,2000). Examples of broad-level strategies might include enhancing communicationnetworks to be more open and transparent, encouraging managers to hold one-on-onemeetings that are driven by the employee not the manager, and the creation of processesand procedures that encourage team projects, knowledge sharing and groupcollaboration. Once an organization has data to inform their decision-makingprocesses and a strategy to address the data, the hard work of developing a culturethat encourages engagement can begin:

P2. An employees manager plays a critical role in developing engagement.

Our findings and recent literature (Buckingham and Coffman, 1999; Harter et al., 2002,2003; Luthans and Peterson, 2002; Shuck and Wollard, 2010) suggest that if theorganizational culture drives engagement, a manager drives the organizational culture.A manager is one of the most, if not the most influential individuals in an employeeswork-life (Arakawa and Greenberg, 2007). Consequently, his or her ability to influence

the development of engagement or disengagement is great. The demeanor, practicalknowledge and philosophy a manager has affect an employees perception of theirworkplace (Kahn, 1990). Moreover, intangible elements such as thedevelopment of trust,a feeling of value and the act of being listened to (Maslow, 1970) go along way in thedevelopment of engagement or disengagement (Harter et al., 2003; Kahn, 1990). Forexample, managers who focus aggressively on what employees do wrong create athreatening environment where full engagement in work becomes risky, and could beperceived as less safe (Buckingham and Coffman, 1999; Kahn, 1990). Constantlyfocusing on what employees do wrong breaks down trust (Arakawa and Greenberg,2007) and critical levels of motivation for individual employees (Maslow, 1970).Likewise, managers who balance their feedback with an element of care (Kroth andKeeler, 2009) create healthy and often more productive work environments (Rhoadesand Eisenberger, 2002). Environments where employees feel cared about and valuedtranslate into meaningful, safe environments where engagement can thrive

(Buckingham and Coffman, 1999).As an implication for HRD research and practice, organizations could work to

improve and build on a managers skill set through careful recruitment (Hoffman andWoehr, 2006; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Verquer et al., 2003) and development processes(Maccoby, 2007). For example, selection processes could begin by having a conversationwith key stakeholders about what knowledge, skills and abilities a manager needs to besuccessful inside the organization. While each management position will differ,examples of characteristics to look for might include the following: collaborativedeveloper of mission, vision and organizational values; creator of a humanistic workenvironment; developer of people, builder of capabilities; initiator of organization-wide

Exploringemployee

engagement

317


20/27

communications; role model of emotional intelligence; utilizer of strategic data; risktaker and change agent (Payne et al., 1998). In addition to these characteristics, selectionprocesses could be developed to attract talent who are not only willing to serve asknowledgeable subject matter experts but who also have the ability to teach and explainprocesses to employees and develop appropriate relationships with those they manage.Moreover, these skills could be developed in managers (Hamel, 2007; Maccoby, 2007),especially identified team members who have a high probability to be promoted tomanagement positions through management preparation programs and corporateinstitutes. Unfortunately, managers are often promoted or hired into positions ofinfluence with little to no training on what their new management responsibilities mean(Plakhotnik et al., 2011). Approaching the selection and development of managerssystemically reinforces development of a positive workplace climate (Brown and Leigh,1996) and parallels implications for HRD research and practice from P1.

Finally, accountability is a robust way to build an engagement culture (Macey et al.,2009). Accountability with employee engagement can be developed by linkingperformance appraisals to data-driven metric systems that include equally weightedmeasures of business performance and organizational culture performance. Morespecifically, a managers performance appraisal could not only be linked to what theyaccomplished, but also to how they accomplished it. For organizations who chooseto useengagement in this way, two pieces of communication take on greater importance:

(1) it must be communicated that the intended use of performance appraisals are tobe constructive, not destructive and should be used as one of the waysengagement is developed, not the only way; and

(2) organizations must provide managers the resources and tools they will need toimprove low-level scores such as access to HRD professionals, training anddevelopment or time away from day-to-day responsibilities to focus on gettingbetter (Harter et al., 2002).

Withouta sincere focus on these directives, even well-intentioned organizations can turna developmental tool into a punishment tool:

P3. Personality can effect engagement, however, everyone can engage.

Employeesview work through their own unique lens. Each employee, based on a myriadof life experiences, holds certain assumptions and has various personality characteristicsthat result in displays of behaviors at work (Reeve, 2001). These characteristics can bevery powerful in the overall creation of engagement in work. No matter an employerspolicy of leave it at the door, employees bring their whole selves to work.

Thus, employees are uniquely different. Engagement, however, is not for a select fewthat have the right combination of personality characteristics and who are fortunate towork for organizations that strive to develop engaging cultures. Although levers thatdrive engagement may vary fromorganizationand employee, engagement is theoreticallypossible at every organization and with every employee. For example, Macey et al. (2009)suggested three general requirements for engagement to develop in each employee:

(1) the capacity to engage;

(2) the motivation to engage; and

(3) and the freedom to engage.

JEIT35,4

318


21/27

The capacity to engage concerns motivation that naturally flows from a senseof competence and autonomy and can be developed (Maslow, 1970). Employees needto feel competent, valued and purposeful in their work and organizations contribute tocompetence and autonomy development by informing employees of what is expected,providing resources to complete work and following-up with focused and balancedfeedback (Buckingham and Coffman, 1999; Harter et al., 2002; Kahn, 1990; Wagner andHarter, 2006). The motivation to engage concerns the communication of job rolesand responsibilitiesand thedegree of challenge each job role provides (Macey et al., 2009;Resick et al., 2007). Work is an engaging experience when job roles are interesting,

challenging and meaningful (Kahn, 1990), and provide autonomous decision-makingabilities in how work gets accomplished, not just what work gets done (Shuck andWollard, 2010). Organizations can contribute to motivation at work by helpingalign employee values with organizational values through recruitment processes, focusgroups, team meetings and treating employees with respect (Kroth and Keeler, 2009).The freedom to engage concerns the safety of the environment and the decision anemployee makes about their safety when taking certain actions (e.g. the decisionto engage; Kahn, 1990). Organizations can free employees to engage by organizationallybehaving in ways that lead to trust such as communicating with transparency,demonstrating integrity and behaving consistently (Galford and Drapeau, 2003; Krothand Keeler, 2009; Macey et al., 2009). Trust, as an outgrowth of meaningful, safe andavailable places of work, leads to the freedom to engage (Kahn, 1990).

As an implication for HRD research and practice, scholars and practitioners couldwork to improveand build upon person factors by focusingon the first two propositionsand providing employees at all levels opportunities for learning and growth (Allen et al.,2003). By focusing on the first two propositions, an organization:

(1) sets the foundation for a culture of engagement; and

(2) provides the tools and resources for an employees manager to support eachemployees growth toward engagement.

As a result of creating environmental conditions for engagement to develop, a personslast barrier is his or her own limitations. To help employees overcome their limitations,organizations could focus on defining, attracting and retaining talent that has a gooddegree of job fit as well as implementing stringent recruitment practices similar to thoseused in our case location. Employees who experience a good degree of job fit are morelikely to be engaged with their work and are overall, more productive employees

(Resick et al., 2007).As a final implication for practice, organizations could also develop learning anddevelopment programs that are available to every level of the organization that focus onstrength development (Wagner and Harter, 2006), career development, self-awarenessand alignment with the organizations vision, mission and values. These programs,however, require marketing strategies, strong planning and preparation and should begrounded in the culture of the organization. Employees know the difference betweenprograms that are launched to fill a numbers gap in a HR climate survey and those thatare authentically designed to nurture the development of employees growth in theorganization. In these cases, the perception of intention matters.

Exploringemployee

engagement

319


22/27

Concluding thoughtsIn conclusion, it seems clear that no one step or process works to create engagedemployees across any organization, unit or team. It is a challenging and robust task;however, a worthy organizational goal tied to increasing productivity andorganizational effectiveness (Shuck and Wollard, 2010). In this unstable, uncertainenvironment, perhaps more thanat any other timein recenthistory, engaging employeeshas become a strategic imperative; one that will become a key source of competitiveadvantage for organizations who develop a passionately committed employee base, notbecause they are paid to be committed, but because they choose to be committed. Webelieve that employees desire the experience of engagement and that they seekopportunities for fulfillment and authentic self-expression in their life activities (Kahn,1990; Maslow, 1970); our research findings suggest that for employees at our caselocation, evidence supports this claim.

As for other organizations seeking the development of an engaged workforce, HRDscholars, researchers and practitioners will be at the forefront of both the practical andscholarly knowledge emerging around this topic of study. Organizations and HRDprofessionals can work together as a first step in a new and engaging direction. Thisresearch is the first known qualitative study of employee engagement in the HRDliterature and second overall to the original qualitative research study by Kahn (1990).Meant to offer a starting point for research and practice, we hope findings from thisresearch open dialogue across organizational lines and provide a small window into theimportant, yet underrepresented voices of those who work on the front lines of ourorganizations everyday.

References

Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M. and Griffeth, R.W. (2003), The role of perceived organizational supportand supportive human resource practices in the turnover process, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 29, pp. 99-118.

Arakawa, D. and Greenberg, M. (2007), Optimistic managers and the influence on productivityand employee engagement in a technology organization: implications for coachingpsychologists, International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 78-89.

Arthur, J. (1994), Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance andturnover, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 670-87.

Bates, S. (2004), Getting engaged, HR Magazine, Vol. 49, pp. 44-51.

Biklen, S.K. and Bogdan, R.C. (2007), Qualitative Research for Education, 5th e d. ,

Pearson, Syracuse, NY.Blessing White (2006), Employee Engagement Report, Blessing White, Princeton, NJ.

Boyatzis, R. (1998), Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and CodeDevelopment, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Brown, S. and Leigh, T. (1996), A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to jobinvolvement, effort, and performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 4,pp. 358-68.

Bryson, J.M. (2004), Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations:A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement, 3rd ed., Wiley,San Francisco, CA.

JEIT35,4

320


23/27

Buckingham, M. and Coffman, C. (1999), First, Break all the Rules: What the Worlds GreatestManagers do Differently, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.

Burns, N. and Grove, S.K. (2004), Practice of Nursing Research: Conduct, Critique and Utilization ,5th ed., Saunders, Philadelphia, PA.

Crabtree, B. and Miller, W. (1999), Doing Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Sage, London.

Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed MethodsApproaches, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Czarnowsky, M. (2008), Learnings Role in Employee Engagement: An ASTD Research Study,American Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, VA.

Dirkx, J. (2001), The power of feelings: emotion, imagination, and the construction of meaning inadult learning, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education , Vol. 89, Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA, pp. 63-72.

Fleming, J.H. and Asplund, J. (2007), Human Sigma, Gallup Press, New York, NY.

Fornes, S.L., Rocco, T.R. and Wollard, K.K. (2008), Workplace commitment: a conceptual modeldeveloped from integrative review of the research, Human Resource Development Review,Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 339-57.

Fredrickson, B.L. (1998), What good arepositive emotions?,Review of General Psychology,Vol.2No. 3, pp. 300-19.

Galford, R. and Drapeau, A. (2003), Trusted Leader: Bringing out the Best in your People andYour Company, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Gebauer, J. and Lowman, D. (2008), Closing the Engagement Gap: How Great Companies UnlockEmployee Potential for Superior Results, Penguin Group, New York, NY.

Gilley, J. and Maycunich, A. (2000), Organizational Learning, Performance and Change, Perseus,Cambridge, MA.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldman, G.R. (1976), Motivation through the design of work: test of atheory, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, pp. 250-79.

Hamel, G. (2007), The Future of Management, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), Business-unit-level relationship betweenemployee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 268-79.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Keyes, C.L.M. (2003), Wellbeing the workplace and itsrelationshipto business outcomes: a review of the Gallup studies, in Keyes, C.L. and Haidt, J. (Eds),Flourishing: The Positive Person and the Good Life , American Psychological Association,Washington, DC, pp. 205-24.

Herzberg, F. (1959), The Motivation to Work, Wiley, New York, NY.

Herzberg, F. (1968), One more time: how do you motivate employees?, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 53-62.

Hoffman, B.J. and Woehr, D.J. (2006), A quantitative review of the relationship betweenperson-organization fit and behavioral outcomes, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68,pp. 389-99.

Huselid, M.A. (1995), The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,productivity and corporate financial performance, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 38, pp. 635-72.

Kahn, W. (1990), Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement atwork, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.

Exploringemployee

engagement

321


24/27

King, J.A. and Stevahn, L. (2009), Needs Assessment Phase III: Taking Action for Change, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D. and Johnson, E.C. (2005), Consequences of individuals fitat work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, andperson-supervisor fit, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 281-342.

Kroth, M. and Keeler, C. (2009), Caring as a managerial strategy, Human Resource DevelopmentReview, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 506-31.

Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E. and Truss, K. (2008), Employee engagement:a literature review, available at: http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/4192/1/19wempen.pdf(accessed 12 November 2009).

Latham, G.P. and Ernst, C. (2006), Keys to motivating tomorrows workforce, Human ResourceManagement Review, Vol. 16, pp. 181-98.

Lee, C.H. and Bruvold, N.T. (2003), Creating value for employees: investing in employeedevelopment, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14,pp. 981-1000.

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Luthans, F. and Peterson, S.J. (2002), Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy:implications for managerial effectiveness and development, Journal of ManagementDevelopment, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 376-87.

Maccoby, M. (2007), Leaders We Need, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), The meaning of employee engagement, Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 3-30.

Macey, W.H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K.M. and Young, S.A. (2009), Employee Engagement:

Tools for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage , Wiley, Malden, MA.Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K. (1990), Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace,

Routledge, New York, NY.

Maslach, C. (1998), A multidimensional theory of burnout, in Cooper, C.L. (Ed.), Theories ofOrganizational Stress, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 68-85.

Maslach, C. and Leiter, M.P. (2008), Early predictors of job burnout and engagement, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 93, pp. 498-512.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), Job burnout, Annual Review of Psychology,Vol. 52, pp. 397-422.

Maslow, A. (1970), Motivation and Personality, 2nd ed., Harper and Row, New York, NY.

Maslow, A. (1998), Maslow on Management, Wiley, New York, NY.

May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004), The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,safety, and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work, Journal of

Occupational Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 11-37.Mulhall, A. (2003), In the field: notes on observation in qualitative research, Journal of

Advanced Nursing, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 306-13.

ONeill, B.S. and Arendt, L.A. (2008), Psychological climate and work attitudes: the importance oftelling the right story,Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 14, pp. 353-70.

Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., Shackleton, V.J., Dawson, J.F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S.,Robinson, D.L. and Wallace, A.M. (2005), Validating the organizational climate measure:links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 379-408.

Patton,M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and ResearchMethods, 2nded.,Sage, Newbury Park,CA.

JEIT35,4

322


25/27

Payne, K., Cangemi, J.P., Fuqua, H. and Muhleakamp, R. (1998), Leadership and employeeempowerment: the foundation for organizational success and profit in the twenty-firstcentury, in Cangemi, J.P., Kowalski, C.J. and Khan, K.H. (Eds), Leadership Behavior,University Press of America, Lantham, MD, pp. 119-30.

Plakhotnik, M., Rocco, T.S. and Roberts, N. (2011), Increasing retention and success of first-timemanagers: a model of three integral processes for the transition to management, HumanResource Development Review, Vol. 10, pp. 26-45.

Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Rath, T. (2006), Vital friends, Gallup Press, New York, NY.

Reeve, G. (2001), Understanding Motivation and Emotion, Harcourt College, Fort Worth, TX.Reio, T.G. and Callahan, J. (2004), Affect, curiosity, and socialization-related learning: a path

analysis of antecedents to job performance, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 18,pp. 35-50.

Reio, T.G. Jr, Petrosko, J.M., Wiswell, A.K. and Thongsukmag, J. (2006), The measurement andconceptualization of curiosity, Journal of Genetic Psychology, Vol. 167, pp. 117-35.

Resick, C.J., Baltes, B.B. and Shantz, C.W. (2007), Person-organization fit and work-relatedattitudes and decisions: examining interactive effects with job fit and conscientiousness,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, pp. 1446-55.

Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), Perceived organizational support: a review of theliterature, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 698-714.

Richman, A. (2006), Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it?, Workspan,Vol. 49, pp. 36-9.

Robbins, S.P. and Barnwell, N. (1994), Organization Theory in Australia, Prentice-Hall,New York, NY.

Rothmann, S. (2003), Burnout and engagement: a South African perspective, South AfricanJournal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 16-25.

Rothmann, S. and Storm, K. (2003), Work engagement in the South African Police service,paper presented at 11th European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology,Lisbon, Portugal, May.

Rubin, H.J. and Rubin, I.S. (2005), Qualitative Interviewing, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Saks, A.M. (2006), Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Journal ofManagerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-19.

Shirom, A. (2003), Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigor and the study of positiveaffect in organizations, in Ganster, D. and Perrewe, P.L. (Eds), Research in OrganizationalStress and Well-being, Vol. 3, JAI Press, Greenwich, CN, pp. 135-65.

Shirom, A. (2007), Explaining vigor: on the antecedents and consequences of vigor as a positiveaffect at work, in Cooper, C.L. and Nelson, D. (Eds), Positive Organizational Behavior,Sage, London, pp. 86-100.

Shraga, O. (2007), Vigor at work: its construct validity, and its relations with job satisfactionand job characteristics: triangulating qualitative and quantitative methodologies,unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

Shuck, B. and Wollard, K.K. (2010), Employee engagement and HRD: a seminal review of thefoundations, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 89-110.

States, A. (2008), The rage to engage, available at: www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1731893,00.html (accessed 5 June 2008).

Exploringemployee

engagement

323


26/27

Thomas, C.H. (2007), A new measurement scale for employee engagement: scale development,pilot test, and replication, Academy of Management 2007 Proceedings of the InternationalConference, Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 1-6.

Towers Perrin (2007), Closing the engagement gap: a road map for driving superior businessperformance, available at: www.biworldwide.com/info/pdf/Towers_Perrin_Global_Workforce_Study.pdf (accessed 24 May 2009).

US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010), Total employment and the laborforce (Household Survey data), available at: www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf(accessed 4 February 2010).

Vance, R.J. (2006), Employee Engagement and Commitment: A Guide to Understanding,

Measuring, and Increasing Engagement in your Organization, The SHRM Foundation,Alexandria, VA.

Verquer, M.L., Beehr, T.A. and Wagner, S.H. (2003), A meta-analysis of relations betweenperson-organization fit and work attitudes, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63,pp. 473-89.

Wagner, R. and Harter, J.K. (2006), 12: The Great Elements of Managing, Vol. 1, The GallupOrganization, Washington, DC.

Wengraf, T. (2001), Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2007), The role of personalresources in the job demands-resources model, International Journal of StressManagement, Vol. 14, pp. 121-41.

Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Further readingGallup (2010), The Gallup Q12, Gallup, Washington, DC.

Goleman, D. (2000), Leadership that gets results, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 2,pp. 78-90.

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2008), The Leadership Practices Inventory, Wiley, San Francisco, CA.

Rocco, T., Stein, D. and Lee, C. (2003), An exploratory examination of the literature on age andHRD policy development, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 155-80.

The Ken Blanchard Companies (2008), 2008 Corporate Issues Survey, The Ken BlanchardCompanies, Guildford.

About the authorsM. Brad Shuck is an Assistant Professor at the University of Louisville in the Workforce andHuman Education Program. Prior to his work at the University, Shuck worked with several

international corporations in the development of strategic engagement initiatives. His researchinterests include understanding the conceptualization and drivers of employee engagement,workplace culture development, the use of positive psychology in HRD and group emotionalintelligence. His work has appeared in scholarly publications such as Human ResourceDevelopment Review, theInternational Journal of Small Business, theJournal of Genetic Psychologyand New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, among others.M. Brad Shuck is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Tonette S. Rocco, PhD is an Associate Professor in the Adult Education and Human ResourceDevelopment Program, Florida International University. She is a Houle Scholar and a 2008Kauffman Entrepreneurship Professor. Towards the employability-link model: currentemployment transition to future employment perspectives published in Human Resource

JEIT35,4

324


27/27

Development Review with Jo Thijssen and Beatrice van der Heijden won the Elwood F. Holton,III Research Excellence Award 2008. She is Co-editor of New Horizons in Adult Education andHuman Resource Development, an open source journal, Assistant Editor of Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly and Qualitative Methods Editor for Human Resource DevelopmentInternational.

Carlos A. Albornoz is a Doctor Candidate in the Adult Education and Human ResourceDevelopment programat FloridaInternational University and currently an Associate Professor atthe business school of Universidad del Desarrollo in Santiago de Chile. He holds an MSc inManagement from FIU and an MSc in Psychology from the Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso,Chile. Between 2002 and 2005, Professor Albornoz worked as an Associate Researcher in theIndustrial Engineering department of the University of Chile.

Exploringemployee

engagement

325

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Exploring Employee

Documents

Transcript of Exploring Employee