Employee Engagement Model

CHRIS MASON, PH.D.
MARCH 20, 2012
© CHRIS MASON – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
1
PULLING BACK THE CURTAIN:
Modeling the Motivational Process
Underlying Employee Engagement

Primary Arguments Research Contributions
Employee Engagement is a relevant concept.
Today, there is agreement on the factors related
to employee engagement; but significant
disagreement about how to define engagement.
Identifying sources of the confusion will set
the stage for a more useful engagement
definition.
Engagement is linked to work motivation.
Drawing on models of work motivation will
set the stage for a more useful engagement
model.
Identify the primary sources of confusion
surrounding engagement and summarize
current areas of agreement.
Describe and define two possible forms of
employee engagement.
Present a new theoretical model of the
employee engagement process drawing from
models of work motivation.
Empirically test components of the new
employee engagement model.
2
Research Overview
© 2012 – Chris Mason – All Rights Reserved

Extant Uses of the Engagement Concept
3
Within Employee Engagement Surveys:
Engagement surveys have been shown repeatedly to be effective predictors of job performance and other
important organizational outcomes (Harter & Schmidt, 2008; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Wellins, Bernthal, &
Phelps, 2005).
As a Predictor of Important Organizational Outcomes:
Gallup found median differences between top-quartile and bottom-quartile units (on engagement scores) of:
12% in customer ratings, 16% in profitability, 18% in productivity, 49% in safety incidents, 27% in shrink,
37% in absenteeism, and 60% in quality (Harter, Schmidt, Killham, & Agrawal, 2009).
As a Replacement for Job Satisfaction:
If there is agreement about the construct today, it resides in the axiom that engagement is not job satisfaction
(Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; 2002; Kahn, 1990; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter,
2001; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002) .

Pay & Benefits
Rewards & Recognition
Advancement Opportunities
Variety of Work Tasks
Meaningfulness of Work
Belief in Future of Organization
Belief in Org. Goals/Values
Communication
Goal Setting
Role Clarity
Informal Feedback / Coaching
Formal Performance Reviews
Leadership Vision
Leadership Support
Team Member Support
Availably of Tools & Resources
Physical Safety
Empowerment / Autonomy
Training & Development
Trust in Management
Discretionary
Effort
The “Black Box” of Employee Engagement
4
PerformanceE

Definitions of Engagement in the Literature
5
Term Used Definition (in quotes) or Summarization Source
Personal
Engagement
“Personal Engagement is the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s
‘preferred self’ in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, personal
presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional) and active, full performances” (p. 700).
(Kahn, 1990)
Job
Engagement
“An energetic state of involvement with personally fulfilling activities that enhance
one’s sense of professional efficacy” (p. 498)
(Maslach &
Leiter, 2008)
Role
Engagement
(Engagement) has two critical components – attention and absorption in a role – both of
which are motivational.”
(Rothbard, 2001)
Work
Engagement
“A positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind, characterized by vigor, dedication, and
absorption” (p. 74).
(Schaufeli et al.,
2002)
Employee
Engagement
Engagement is described as a meta construct combining Job satisfaction, Organizational
commitment, job involvement, and psychological empowerment.
(Macey &
Schneider, 2008)
Employee
Engagement
“Employee Engagement is the behavioral provision of personal resources – time and
energy – into one’s work role, and it can be specified as the higher order construct
indicated by dependable covariation among several, valued work behaviors” (p. 34).
(Newman &
Harrison, 2008)
Employee
Engagement
“State Engagement, with its strong affective component including positive affect, energy,
absorption, and passion, can be viewed as similar to the idea of collective mood or group
affective tone.”
(Pugh & Dietz,
2008)
Employee
Engagement
Engagement is a cognitive-affective construct involving the self-regulation of attention
directed toward work tasks; with considerable day-to-day, and hour-to-hour within
person variability in task absorption and energy.
(Dalal, Brummel,
Wee, & Thomas,
2008)
Employee
Engagement
“The employee engagement concept (is) some combination (of) affective commitment
(pride in the organization), continuance commitment (intentions to remain with the
organization), and discretionary effort” (p. 57).
(Masson, Royal,
Agnew, & Fine,
2008)

Applied Definitions of Engagement
6
Employee
Engagement
“An engaged workforce is one in which employees possess a strong sense of
organizational pride, proactively recommend their organization as a good place to
work and are committed to staying with their employer given their high level of overall
satisfaction” (p. 1).
Kenexa (Wiley,
2010)
Engagement “Engaged employees are psychologically committed to their work, go above and
beyond their basic job expectations, and want to play a key role in fulfilling the
mission of their organizations” (p. 1).
Gallup (Blizzard,
2004)
Employee
Engagement
“The extent to which people value, enjoy, and believe in what they do” (p. 1). DDI (Wellins ,
Bernthal, &
Phelps, 2005)
Engagement Engagement is defined as the degree of “employees’ willingness and ability to
contribute to company success.” Or as the “extent to which employees put discretionary
effort into their work, in the form of extra time, brainpower and energy” (p. 3).
Towers Perrin
(2003)
(now Towers
Watson)
Purposeful
Engagement
“The extent to which employees commit to something or someone in their
organization, how hard employees work, and how long they stay as a result of that
commitment” (p. 14).
Corporate
Leadership Council
(Ward, 2005)

Academic Engagement Measures
7
Measure Items Source
Ultrecht Work
Engagement Scale
Vigor
1.At work, I feel full of energy.
2.In my job, I feel strong and vigorous.
3.When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.
4.I can continue working for very long periods at a time.
5.In my job, I am mentally very resilient.
6.At work, I always persevere, even when things do not go well.
Dedication
1.I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose.
2.I am enthusiastic about my job.
3.My job inspires me.
4.I am proud of the work I do.
5.I find my job challenging.
Absorption
1.Time flies when I’m working.
2.When I am working, I forget everything else around me.
3.I feel happy when I am working intensely.
4.I am immersed in my work.
5.I get carried away when I’m working.
6. It is difficult to detach myself from my job.
(Salanova, Agut,
& Peiro, 2005)

Applied Engagement Measures
8
Measure Items Source
Kenexa
Engagement
Index
1. I am proud to tell people I work for my company.
2. Overall, I am extremely satisfied with my company as a place to work.
3. I would recommend this place to others as a good place to work.
4. I rarely think about looking for a new job with another company.
(Wiley,
2010)
Corporate
Leadership
Council (CLC)
Engagement
Index
1. I believe in what I do every day at work
2. I enjoy working with my team
3. When speaking to others, I speak highly of my supervisor
4. I am proud to work for my organization
5. The best way for me to develop my skills in my organization right now is to stay with my current team
6. The best way for me to advance in this organization is to stay with my current supervisor
7. The best way for me to advance my career is to stay with my current organization
8. My performance would suffer if I worked with any other team in my organization
(Ward,
2005)
Galup Q12TM
1. I know what is expected of me at work.
2. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right.
3. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.
4. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work.
5. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.
6. There is someone at work who encourages my development.
7. At work, my opinions seem to count.
8. The mission/purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important.
9. My associates (fellow employees) are committed to doing quality work.
10. I have a best friend at work.
11. In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress.
12. This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow.
(Avery et
al., 2007)

Source Key Question Options
Nature How should we operationalize engagement in
general as a psychological construct?
• Affect
• Behavior
• Cognition
Variability What is its expected within-person variability
of engagement?
• Mood (hours – days)
• State (weeks – months)
• Trait (years – lifetime)
Target With whom or what is the worker engaging? • Task
• Role
• Job
• Career
Level At what level of analysis does engagement
emerge and operate?
• Individual
• Team
• Department
• Company
4 Sources of the Confusion
9

An Analysis of Engagement Definitions
10

How long does engagement last?
11
Which of the following is an example of a worker
disengaging from his/her job?
A.A worker leaves the office for an hour-long lunch break.
B.A worker sets a frustrating task aside for a few hours and
plans to come back to it later.
C.A worker takes a week-long vacation in Maui.
D.A worker ceases to care about performing well in his job
and does the bare minimum to get by for several months.

Multiple forms of Employee Engagement
12
Task Engagement:
• Energy directed at completing a specific task.
• Moment-to-moment (minutes to hours)
• Tasks to task
• Results in task performance
Task Engagement:
• Energy directed at completing a specific task.
• Moment-to-moment (minutes to hours)
• Tasks to task
• Results in task performance
Job Engagement:
• Energy directed at sustaining job performance.
• Ongoing (weeks to years)
• Project to project
• Results in job performance
Job Engagement:
• Energy directed at sustaining job performance.
• Ongoing (weeks to years)
• Project to project
• Results in job performance

Linking Engagement to Work Motivation
13
Job
Engagement
“An energetic state of involvement with personally fulfilling activities that enhance one’s
sense of professional efficacy”
(Maslach &
Leiter, 2008)
Role
Engagement
(Engagement) has two critical components – attention and absorption in a role – both of
which are motivational.”
(Rothbard, 2001)
Work
Engagement
“A positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind, characterized by vigor, dedication, and
absorption”
(Schaufeli et al.,
2002)
Employee
Engagement
“Employee Engagement is the behavioral provision of personal resources – time and
energy – into one’s work role…”
(Newman &
Harrison, 2008)
Employee
Engagement
“State Engagement, with its strong affective component including positive affect, energy,
absorption, and passion…”
(Pugh & Dietz,
2008)
Employee
Engagement
Engagement is a cognitive-affective construct involving the self-regulation of attention
directed toward work tasks; with considerable day-to-day, and hour-to-hour within person
variability in task absorption and energy
(Dalal, Brummel,
Wee, & Thomas,
2008)
Engagement “Engaged employees are psychologically committed to their work, go above and beyond
their basic job expectations, and want to play a key role in fulfilling the mission of their
organizations”
Gallup (Blizzard,
2004)
Engagement Engagement is defined as the degree of “employees’ willingness and ability to contribute to
company success...”
Towers Perrin
(2003)
Work Motivation: A set of energetic forces that originate both within as
well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior and
to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration. (Pinder, 1998, p. 11)

New Employee Engagement Definitions
14
Task Engagement:
A short-term motivational process resulting in effort directed at
completing a task and characterized by a sense of energy,
dedication, and absorption.
Task Engagement:
A short-term motivational process resulting in effort directed at
completing a task and characterized by a sense of energy,
dedication, and absorption.
Job Engagement:
An ongoing cognitive-evaluative state of motivation to perform a
job and characterized by a continual willingness to expend effort
in the service of sustaining job performance.
Job Engagement:
An ongoing cognitive-evaluative state of motivation to perform a
job and characterized by a continual willingness to expend effort
in the service of sustaining job performance.

Contributions from Motivation Research
 VIE Theory (Vroom, 1964)
 Separating “Expectancy” from “Instrumentality.”
 Outlining the foundational components of motivation:
1) identify a valued outcome
2) identify actions that will obtain that outcome
3) believe one is capable of carrying out those actions
4) trust that environmental conditions will support his or her efforts
 Goal Setting Theory (Locke & Latham, 1990; 2002)
 Incorporating the concept of self-efficacy.
 The importance of feedback in sustaining motivation.
 Perceptual Control Theory (Powers, 1973; Carver & Scheier, 1998)
 The function of negative feedback loops.
 The concept of higher-order goals.
15

(1)
Do I want
to perform in
my job?
No
(2)
Can I identify
tasks
to do?
(3)
Do I believe I
can do those
tasks?
(4)
Then I am
motivated to try
to do the tasks.
Person
Work Environment
(5) Worker expends effort on tasks
(Task Engagement).
(6)
Did I completed
The tasks?
Yes
YesYes;
continue cycle
Why try again if I am not
able to be successful?
No, I was unable to
complete the tasks
Job
Engagement
Why try again if I do not
know if I am successful?
No, I did not receive
any feedback
Why would it be
worth the effort?
How can I try if I do
not know what to do?
No
No
Why try if I have no
chance of success ?
Conceptual Model of Job Engagement
Yes

(1)
Do I want
to perform in
my job?
(2)
Can I identify
tasks
to do?
(3)
Do I believe I
can do those
tasks?
(4)
Then I am
motivated to try
to do the tasks.
Person
Work Environment
(6)
Did I completed
The tasks?
Yes
YesYes;
continue cycle
Job
Engagement
Conceptual Model of Job Engagement
Yes
(2)
Task Goal
Identification
(1)
Goal Commitment
to Job Performance
(4)
Task Motivation
(5)
Task Engagement
(6)
Evaluation of
Goal Achievement
(3)
Task Efficacy
(5) Worker expends effort on tasks
(Task Engagement).

Full Theoretical Model of Job Engagement
Factor 3: Enablers
•Leadership Vision
•Leadership Support
•Team Member Support
•Physical Safety
•Trust in Management
•Psychological Safety
•Psychological Empowerment
• Availably of
Tools & Resources
• Training &
Development
Outcomes
-Job Satisfaction
-Job Performance
-Advocacy
-Customer Service
Person
Work Environment
Job
Engagement
Person
Work Environment
Factor 1: Incentives
•Pay & Benefits
•Advancement Opportunities
•Rewards & Recognition
•Job Characteristics
•Job Involvement
•Org. Commitment
•Meaningfulness of Work
•Belief in Future of Org.
•Belief in Org. Goals/Values
Input 1
Factor 2: Directives
•Communication
•Goal Setting
•Role Clarity
Input 2
(2)
Task Goal
Identification
(1)
Goal Commitment
to Job Performance
(4)
Task Motivation
(5)
Task Engagement
Input 4
(3)
Task Efficacy
(6)
Evaluation of
Goal Achievement
Input 3
Factor 4: Feedback
•Informal Feedback
•Performance Reviews

Research Study
19

Study Hypotheses
20

Research Method – Data Set
 22,448 engagement survey responses were collected during March of 2008 at a Fortune
500 company with employees located across the United States and Canada.
 Data Demographics:
 Sex
 55.3% were male
 44.7% were female
 Ethnicity
 65.2% White
 11.6% Hispanic/Latino
 10.2% Black/African American
 7.5% unknown
 4.2% Asian
 0.6% Two or More Races
 0.6% American Indian or Alaskan Native
 0.2% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
21
Age:
29.7% under age 25
27.2% between 25 and 35
7.4% over the age of 55

Research Method – Measures
 Incentives was measured by eight items (e.g., “I am proud to work for this company” ). Cronbach’s alpha for the scores on this
scale measured .88, n = 19150.
 Directives was measured by three items (e.g., “I feel well informed about what is expected in my job” ). Cronbach’s alpha on this
scale measured .84, n = 19150.
 Personal Enablers was measured by five items (e.g., “I have the training I need to do my job effectively” ). Cronbach’s alpha on
this scale measured .85, n = 19150.
 Managerial Enablers was measured by four items (e.g., “My manager treats me with respect and dignity” ). Cronbach’s alpha
for the scores on this scale measured .93, n = 19150.
 Team Enablers was measured by five items (e.g., “There is a strong sense of teamwork among the associates at this location”).
Cronbach’s alpha on this scale measured .89, n = 19150.
 Organizational Enablers was measured by five items (e.g., “This company is committed to providing equal opportunities for
all associates” ). Cronbach’s alpha on this scale measured .89, n = 19150.
 Feedback was measured by two items (e.g., “I understand how my performance has been evaluated” ). The Pearson R correlation
between these times was .73, n = 19150.
 Goal Commitment to Job Performance was measured by two items (e.g., “It is important to me to feel successful in my job” ).
These items were asked of a subset of the survey participants. The Pearson R correlation between these times was .46, n = 1158.
 Task Goal Identification was measured by three items (e.g., “My manager clearly communicates what is expected of me” ).
These items were only asked of a subset of the survey participants. Cronbach’s alpha on this scale measured .80, n = 875.
 Task Efficacy was measured by two items (e.g., “I feel I have what it takes to be successful in my job” ). These items were only
asked of a subset of the survey participants. The Pearson R correlation between these times was .60, n = 1660.
 Task Engagement was measured by three items (e.g., “I work hard for this company every day” ) These items were only asked
of a subset of the survey participants. Cronbach’s alpha on this scale measured .73, n = 1156.
 Job performance was measured using the employee’s most recent annual performance review provided by his or her manager.
Note: All items were self-report ratings on a 5-point Likert Scale ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.
22

Factor 3a: Personal Enablers
•Psychological Empowerment*
•Training & Development*
Factor 3b: Managerial Enablers
•Leadership Support*
•Trust in Management*
Factor 3c: Team Enablers
•Team Member Support*
Factor 3d: Org. Enablers
•Psychological Safety*
Test of Hypotheses 1a-1d using CFA
23
•Pay & Benefits
•Advancement Opportunities*
•Rewards & Recognition*
•Job Involvement*
•Org. Commitment*
•Communication*
•Goal Setting
•Role Clarity*
Factor 4: Feedback
•Performance Reviews*
Factor 3: Enablers
•Leadership Vision
•Leadership Support*
•Team Member Support*
•Physical Safety
•Trust in Management*
•Psychological Safety*
•Psychological Empowerment*
•Availably of Tools & Resources
• Training & Development*
1 Factor Model (1FM)
*measured in this study
Model χ2 df p GFI AGFI RMSEA ∆χ2 df
1FM 131536.21 434 .00 .63 .57 .15
4FM 108850.86 428 .00 .67 .62 .13 M1-M2=2685.35** 6
7FM 41522.33 413 .00 .86 .84 .07 M2-M3=67328.53** 15
Note. 1FM= Null Single Factor Model; 4FM= Proposed Four Factor Model; 7FM=Alternative Seven Factor Model; GFI = goodness-of-fit index (recommended
level >.90); AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index (recommended level > .90; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation (recommended level < .08);
∆χ2
= change in chi-square (**Indicates a statistically significant change at the .01 level).
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis using LISREL 8.80 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993)

Test of Hypotheses 2a-2d using SEM
24

Summary of Findings
Study Hypotheses Finding
Hypothesis 1a. “Incentives” Factor Supported
Hypothesis 1b. “Directives” Factor Supported
Hypothesis 1c. “Enablers” Factor Partially Supported
Hypothesis 1d. “Feedback” Factor Supported
Hypothesis 2a. Incentives  commitment to job performance  task engagement Partially Supported
Hypothesis 2b. Directives  task goal identification  task engagement Not Supported
Hypothesis 2c. Enablers  task efficacy  task engagement Supported
Hypothesis 2d. Feedback  task goal identification  task engagement Not Supported
Hypotheses 2a-2d (overall structure of the model) Tentative Support
25

•Pay & Benefits
•Job Involvement
•Org. Commitment
•Communication
•Goal Setting
•Role Clarity
Personal Enablers
•Training & Development
Managerial Enablers
Team Enablers
Org. Enablers
Factors 3a-3d:
Enablers
The “Black Box” of Employee Engagement
26
Performance
Factor 4: Feedback
•Pay & Benefits
•Job Involvement
•Org. Commitment
•Communication
•Goal Setting
•Role Clarity
•Training & Development
•Job Satisfaction
•Advocacy
E

Applied Views of The Model
27

Direction Enablers
Feedback
Incentives
4 Gears Powering the Engagement Engine4 Gears Powering the Engagement Engine
© 2014 – Chris Mason

An Applied Model of Job Engagement:
29
JobJob
EngagementEngagement
Direction
EnablersFeedback
Incentives• Pay & Benefits
• Advancement Opportunities
• Rewards & Recognition
• Variety of Work Tasks
• Meaningfulness of Work
• Belief in Future of Org.
• Belief in Org. Goals/Values
• Communication
• Goal Setting
• Role Clarity
• Informal Feedback
• Formal Performance Reviews
• Psychological Safety
• Empowerment / Autonomy
• Availably of Tools/Resources
• Training & Development
• Leadership Vision
• Leadership Support
• Team Member Support
• Physical Safety
• Trust in Management

Linking HR Processes to Job Engagement
30
JobJob
EngagementEngagement
Direction
EnablersFeedback
Incentives• Compensation
• Benefits Programs
• Bonus Programs
• Recognition Programs
• Career Development Tools
• Succession Planning
• Communications
• Goal Setting Process
• Job Descriptions
• Performance Management Process
• Coaching / Mentorship Programs
• 360 Degree Feedback
• Job Design
• Training Interventions
• Learning & Development Resources
• Safety Programs
• Associate Relations Initiatives
• Diversity & Inclusion Initiatives

Employee Engagement Model

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Employee Engagement Model

Semelhante a Employee Engagement Model (20)

Último

Último (20)

Employee Engagement Model

Notas do Editor