International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

A Study on Employee Engagement Models for Sustainability of

Organisation
1
Bhagyasree Padhi, 2Aruna Kumar Panda
1
Gandhi Engineering College, Bhubaneswar
2
International Society for Social Services (ISSS) Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar-7 (Odisha)

Abstract ; Out of several resources available to the
organizations, management of human resource, in general,
and keeping the employees engaged in the work place, in
particular, has become the most sensitive aspect that plays
a crucial role in the success or failure of the business today.
Dealing with employee engagement is nothing but handling
successfully the complex feelings, emotions and
psychological state of minds of the employees. While
engaged employees have a positive attitude and self-
commitment to deliver better outcomes for the success of
the organization; an imbalance in the ‘effort-reward’ or
‘work-life’ would essentially generate higher stress among
the employees that may result burnout and further staff-
turnover in the organization. In this study, attempts have Nineteen Century and became more prominent in the
been made to discuss the meaning and significance of the
employee engagement in the organization. Further, various
models related to employee engagement have been
discussed and the factors that keep the employees
motivated and engaged have been highlighted. The study
suggests that the management should be cautious enough
to take care of the employees in the way that they should
feel valued and involved in the work. The emotional and
psychological availability and a cordial relationship of theexpression of a person‟s preferred self in task
employees with their co-workers and supervisors should be
the essence of employee engagement.
Key Words :Employee engagement, Employee engagement
models, Drivers of employee engagement, Rewards and
recognitions, Community and social support, Fairness and
justice, Sustainable workload, Supportive work
community, Effort-reward imbalance, Work-life-work
imbalance, stress, Job burnout.
I. INTRODUCTION
Employees are the key component of every organization
as they are critical to its viability and the
competitiveness. Engaged employees are considered as
most valuable asset for every organization (Kumar and
Sia, 2012; Khan, 2013). High level of employee
engagement in domestic and global firms promotes
retention of talent, fosters customer loyalty, and
improves organizational performance and stakeholder‟s
value (Harter et al., 2002; Bates, 2004; Richman, 2006;
Lockwood, 2007; Molinaro and Weiss, 2008; Markos
and Sridevi, 2010). Engaged employees deliver better
outcome with a positive attitude towards the
organization and its values, which is important for its
________________________________________________________________________________________________
79
growth and development (Robinson et al., 2004; Saks,
2006). Thus communicating to the employees, making
them feel valued and inculcating a strong corporate
culture have been considered vital for the management
of every organization (Kontakos, 2007; Holwerda, 2007;
Sengupta and Ramadoss, 2010; Panda, 2011; Xu and
Thomas, 2011; Shuck and Herd, 2012).
II. UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT
Employee engagement was conceptualized during the
present era of turbo-globalism and hyper-competition,
keeping in mind the productivity and prosperity of both
the employees and the organizations, as a whole. In the
World of research, several postulates were formulated in
relation to employee engagement and definitions were
derived from various perspectives. Kahn (1990) viewed
„engagement‟ to be the simultaneous employment and
behaviours that promote connections to work and others,
personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional),
and active, full role performance. Further, Rothbard
(2001) explained it as the „psychological‟ presence
including attention, or cognitive availability of the
employee spending time in thinking about a role and his
intensity of focus on the role. It refers to a positive,
fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is
characterized by a personal involvement with
enthusiasm, vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli
et al., 2002; Harter et al., 2002). Essentially, it is a two-
way relationship between the employer and the
employees, where the employees are positively,
emotionally and intellectually committed to their
organization and its success, largely by providing
discretionary effort on a sustainable basis (Tower-Perrin,
2003; Hewitt Associates, 2004; Robinson et al., 2004).
On this context, Vaijayanthi et al., (2011) expressed
„employee engagement‟ as a measurable degree of an
employee‟s positive or negative emotional attachment to
his job, colleagues and organization which profoundly
influences his willingness to learn and perform at work.
Further, Mercer (2007) expressed it as a state of mind in
which employees feel a vested interest in the company‟s
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–4, 2015
 International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

success and are both willing and motivated to perform to
levels that exceed the stated job requirements. It is the
result of how employees feel about the work experience
– the organization, its leaders, the work and the work
environment. They must feel positive emotions toward
their work to be personally meaningful, consider their
work-load to be manageable, and have hope about the
future of their work (Nelson and Simmons, 2003).
III. EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT MODELS
While elaborating the concept of employee engagement,
researchers like Khan (1990), Maslach et al. (2001),
Robinson et al. (2004), Saks (2006) and Aon Hewitt
(2011) formulated different models that categorically
discussed about the various dimensions of employee
engagement. Those essentially highlighted about the
engaged employees, the environment and facilities that
keep them motivated and dedicated to work for a mutual
benefit while establishing a work-life balance in the day-
to-day schedule. On this context, a detail investigation
about these models have been made here and the
outcomes are hereunder-
1. Kahn’s Model
Kahn‟s model (1990) of employee engagement is
considered to be the oldest model of employee
engagement. His model emphasizes that there are three
psychological conditions that are associated with
personal engagement and disengagement of work:
meaningfulness, availability and safety (Refer: Figure-
1.1). For the purpose of his study, Kahn interviewed
summer camp counselors and organizational members
of an architectural firm about their moments of
engagement and disengagement at work. He found that,
workers were more engaged at work situations that
offered them more psychological meaningfulness and
psychological safety, and when they were
psychologically available.

Figure - 1.1
Kahn’s Model on Employee Engagement

2. Maslach, Schaufelli and Leiter Model like (i) sustainable workload (ii) feeling of choice and
control (iii) appropriate recognition and reward (iv) a
Another model of engagement comes from the research
supportive work community (v) fairness and justice, and
work of Maslach, Schaufelli and Leiter on “Job
(vi) meaningful and valued work (Refer: Figure-1.2). It
Burnout” in the year 2001. According to them, six areas
came to light that like burnout, engagement is expected
of work-life lead to burnout and engagement: (I) work
to mediate the link between the six work-life factors and
load (II) control (III) rewards and recognitions (IV)
various works out-comes. Further, they argued that job
community and social support (V) perceived fairness,
characteristics, especially feedback and autonomy, have
and (VI) values. In their model, they argued that job
been constantly related to burnout.
engagement is associated with various characteristics

________________________________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–4, 2015
80
 International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure- 1.2
Maslach, Schaufelli and Leiter Model on Job Burnout

3. Robinson, Perryman and Hayday Model engagement is a positive attitude held by the employees
towards the organization and its values. The model
The model developed by Robinson, Perryman and
further identified that an engaged employee is one who
Hayday (2004) (here after Robinson et al., 2004)
is aware of business context and works with colleagues
described engagement as a two-way relationship
to improve performance within the job to add value to
between the employer and employees (Hewitt
the organization. The model emphasizes, the
Associates, 2004). Their model was described in the
commitment of employees is possible when the
research work entitled “The drivers of employee
organization continues to focus on developing and
engagement”, where they suggested that employee
nurturing the employees (Refer: Figure-1.3)
Fig: 1.3
Robinson, Perryman and Hayday Model on Employee Engagement

4. Saks Model promotes employee engagement, and (iii) interaction

between employees at all levels. The researcher
A conceptual model was developed by Saks in the year
developed an evaluation process and showed the inter-
2006 in the context of his research work on
connection between three parameters: antecedents,
“Antecedents and Consequences of Employee
employee engagement and consequences (Refer: Figure-
Engagement” that focused on three basic aspects of
1.4). Factors like job satisfaction, training and
employee engagement: (i) the employees and their
development, reward and recognition, and assertive
psychological makeup and experience (ii) the ability of
relationship with peers and supervisors have been taken
the employer to create a conducive environment that
________________________________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–4, 2015
81
 International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

as antecedents that impact directly the state of of the evaluation process that can be evaluated with
engagement of employees that can be attributed to the customer satisfaction and enhanced performance
factors like commitment, ownership, satisfaction, measures.
participation etc. The „consequences‟ are the end result
Fig. 1.4
Saks Model on Employee Engagement

5. Aon Hewitt Model According to this model, engagement is an individual,

psychological and behavioral state and the behavior of
The Aon Hewitt model (2011) examines both the
the engaged employees demonstrates positive outcomes
individual state of engagement as well as the
in the business like customer satisfaction, increased
organizational antecedents. It states „engagement‟ as the
sales, and other positive extra role behaviours (Refer:
state of emotional and intellectual involvement that
Figure-1.5).
motivates employees to do their best work. The model
has a global validation supported by over 15 years of
research in the area of organizational psychology.
Figure-1.5
Aon Hewitt’s Engagement Behaviour Model

Further, according to this model, there are typically six
engagement drivers and twenty two organizational
antecedents attached to these drivers that lead to
individual‟s engagement in an organization (Refer:
Figure-1.6). The engagement drivers are identified as (i)
quality of life (ii) work (iii) people (iv) opportunities (v)
total rewards, and (vi) company practices. However,
apart from the people factor rests are resulting through
the people factor itself. Hence the people factor is the
most crucial element driving the rest of the factors.
Further, the model says that the engagement drivers are
interrelated, and they do not operate in isolation.

________________________________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–4, 2015
82
 International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure-1.6
Aon Hewitt’s Model of Employee Engagement

IV. CONCLUSION organizations sustainable is perhaps the biggest

challenge of this Millennium.
„Engagement‟ basically describes the conditions under
which people work (Macey and Schneider, 2008). It REFERENCES
reflects the positive emotional and intellectual
[1] Aon Hewitt (2011). “OCL Employee
connection of an employee with his work (Schaufeli et
Engagement Survey”. Results Presentation and
al., 2002). It is normative, affective and continuance
Action Planning Workshop held on 8 June.
commitment of an employee. If employees are engaged
Available at the library, OCL, Rajgangpur,
they are inspired to go above and beyond the call of duty
Orissa.
to meet organizational requirements. Further, they
reinforce and support the organization‟s culture and [2] Aon Hewitt (2015). “Aon Hewitt‟s Model of
values. Employee Engagement”. Research Report.
Available [online] at:
From the examination of various models, several
<file:///C:/Users/ANU/Downloads/2015-Aon-
propositions have also come to light that categorically
Hewitt-model-of-employee-engagement.pdf>
stated about the significance of engagement as a
[Accessed: 12 May, 2015].
corporate practice and the different parameters that
would keep the employees engaged, motivated and [3] Bates, S. (2004). “Getting Engaged”. HR
inspired, reduce turnover and improve well-being of the Magazine, 49(2): 44-51.
employees (Wright and Cropanzano, 2000; Taris et al.,
2004; Griffith, 2004; Michie and West, 2004; Macey [4] Griffith, J. (2004). “Relation of Principal
Transformational Leadership to School Staff Job
and Schneider, 2008; Robinson et al., 2004; Hakanen et
Satisfaction, Staff Turnover and School
al., 2008). However, measuring engagement has
Performance”. Journal of Educational
remained highly crucial for the fact that it deals with the
complex feelings, emotions and psychological state of Administration, 42(3): 333-356.
mind of the employees (Macey and Schneider, 2008). [5] Graber, A.C. (2014). “What is Employee
At the same time, the imbalance related to the „effort- Engagement in Three Words?”. Research Article.
reward‟ or „work-life‟ would generate stress that may Available [online] at:
result burnout, and further staff-turnover in the <http://organizationalmanagment.blogspot.in/201
organization. However, it is important to remember that 4/03/what-is-employee-engagement-in-
engagement and burnout are two different and opposite three.html> [Accessed: 20 June, 2015].
concepts. With the dynamic environment and the era of
hyper-competition, keeping the employees engaged and
________________________________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–4, 2015
83
 International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
[6] Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L. and Hayes, T. L. [16]
(2002). “Business-Unit-Level Relationship
between Employee Satisfaction, Employee
Engagement and Business Outcomes: A Organizations. International
Meta-Analysis”. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(2): 268-279.
[17]
[7] Hewitt Associates (2004). Employee Engagement
Higher at Double-Digit Growth Companies.
Research Brief. Hewitt Associates LLC.
[8] Holwerda, J. (2007). “Communicating for
Engagement”. In: Stepp, P.L. (2007). “Employee [18]
Engagement: What do We Really Know? What
do We Need to Know to Take Action?”. The
research report prepared for the Centre for
Advanced Human Resource Studies (CAHRS),
[19]
Spring sponsor meeting, May 20-23, Paris,
France.
[9] Hakanen, J.J., Schaufeli, W. and Ahola, K.,
(2008). “The Job Demands Resources model: A
Three-year Cross-lagged Study of Burnout,
Depression, Commitment and Work
Engagement”. Work and Stress, 22(3): 224-241.
[10] Hämmig, O, Brauchli, R. and Bauer, G.F. (2012).
“Effort-reward and work-life imbalance, general [20]
stress and burnout among employees of a large
public hospital in Switzerland”. Swiss Med
Wkly. 142: w13577. Available [online] at:
<http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2012-13577/>
[21]
[Accessed: 18 July, 2015].
[11] Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of
personal engagement and disengagement at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 33(4): 692-
724.
[12] Kontakos, A.M. (2007). “Seeing Clarity:
Employee Engagement and Line of Sight”. In: [22]
Stepp, P.L. (2007). “Employee Engagement:
What Do We Really Know? What Do We Need
to Know to Take Action?”. The research report
prepared for Centre for Advanced Human
Resource Studies (CAHRS), Spring sponsor
meeting, May 20-23, Paris, France.
[13] Khan, N. (2013). “Employee Engagement [23]
Drivers for Organizational Success”. Global
Journal of Management and Business Studies,
3(6): 675-680.
[14] Lockwood, N.R. (2007). “Leveraging Employee
Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR‟s
Strategic Role”. SHRM Research Quarterly,
March: 2-10. Available [online] at: [24]
<https://www.shrm.org/Research/Articles/Article
s/Documents/07MarResearchQuarterly.pdf>
[Accessed: 24 April 2015].
[15] Maslach, C., Schaufelli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P.
(2001). “Job Burnout”. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52 (1): 397-422. Rothbard, N.P. (2001). “Enriching or Depleting?
[25]
The Dynamics of Engagement in Work and
________________________________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–4, 2015
84
Michie, S. and West, M.A. (2004). “Managing
People and Performance: An Evidence Based
Framework applied to Health Service
Journal of
Management Reviews, 5-6(2): 91-111.
Mercer HR Consulting (2007). Exploring the
Global Drivers of Employee Engagement.
Research Article [online]. Available at:
<www.mercer.com/referencecontent.htm?idCont
ent=1281670> [Accessed: 24 April, 2015].
Macey, W. H. and Schneider, B. (2008). “The
Meaning of the Employee Engagement”.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology:
Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1(1): 3-30.
Molinaro, V. and Weiss, D. (2008). “Driving
Employee Engagement”. An excerpt of the book
by Molinaro, V. and Weiss, D. (2005). The
Leadership Gap: Developing Leaders for
Competitive Advantages. Wiley. Available
[online] at:
<http://www.docsrush.net/2816322/driving-
employee-engagement-banff-centre.html>
[Accessed: 16 June, 2015].
Markos, S. and Sridevi, M.S. (2010). “Employee
Engagement: The Key to Improving
Performance”. International Journal of Business
Management, 5(12): 89-96.
Morgan, C.A. (2015). “ Employee Satisfaction
Surveys: Measuring Staff Engagement”.
B2B International Publications. Beyond
Knowledge. Available [online] at:
<https://www.b2binternational.com/publications/
employee-satisfaction/> [Accessed: 14
June 2015].
Nelson, D. and Simmons, B. (2003), “Eustress:
An Elusive Construct and Engaging Pursuit”. In:
Perrewe, P.L. and Ganster, D.C. (Eds.) Emotional
and Physiological Processes and Positive
Intervention Strategies. Research in Occupational
Stress and Well-being, Emerald Group
Publishing Limited, 3: 265-322.
NHRD (2011). “Employee Engagement: A Road
Map for Optimising Performance and Driving
Commitment”. National HRD Network
Presentation. Available [online] at:
<http://www.slideshare.net/hrtalksblog/employee
-engagement-9147086> [Accessed: 12 June,
2015].
Panda, A.K. (2011). “Entrepreneurship under
Threat: A Case Study on Kich Group of
Companies, Rajkot, Gujarat (India)”. Small and
Medium-sized Enterprises and Entrepreneurship
(SMEE) Review, University of Regina, Canada,
4(1): 15-20.
 International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Family Roles”. Administrative Science HRD”. Human Resource Development Review,

Quarterly, 46(4): 655-84. 11(2): 156-181.
[26] Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. [33] Sohrabizadeh, S. and Sayfouri, N. (2014).
(2004). The Drivers of Employee Engagement. “Antecedents and Consequences of Work
Brighton (UK): Institute for Employment Engagement among Nurses”. Iranian Red
Studies. Crescent Medical Journal (IRCMJ), 16(11):
e16351. Available [online] at:
[27] Richman, A. (2006). “Everyone Wants an
<http://ircmj.com/16351.fulltext> [Accessed: 16
Engaged Workforce: How Can You Treat It?”.
July, 2015].
Work Span, 49(1): 36-39.
[34] Towers-Perrin (2003). “Working Today:
[28] Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma,
Understanding What Drives Employee
V. and Bakker, A. B. (2002). The Measurement
Engagement. Global Work force Study.
of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample
Stamford, CT:Author.
Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 3(1): 71-92. [35] Taris, T.W., Van Horn, J, Schaufeli, W.B and
Schreursp, J.G. (2004). “Inequity, Burnout and
[29] Saks, A.M. (2006). “Antecedents and
Psychological Withdrawal among Teachers: A
Consequences of Employee Engagement”.
Dynamic Exchange Model”. Anxiety, Stress, and
Journal of Managerial Psychology. Emerald
Coping, 17(1): 103-122.
Group Publishing Limited, 21(7): 600-619.
[36] Vaijayanthi, P. P., Shreenivasan, K. A. and
[30] Sengupta, D. and Ramadoss, S. (2010).
Prabhakaran, S. (2011). “Employee Engagement
Employee Engagement: Unlocking the Secrets to
Predictors: A Study at GE Power and Water”.
Nurturing a Productive Workforce. New Delhi
International Journal of Global Business, 4(2),
(India): Biztantra Publishers.
60-72.
[31] Kumar, R. and Sia, S.K. (2012). “Employee
[37] Wright, T. A. and Cropanzano, R. (2000).
Engagement: Explicating the Contribution of
“Psychological Well-being and Job Satisfaction
Work Environment”. Management and Labour
as Predictors of Job Performance”. Journal of
Studies. SAGE Publications, 37(1): 31-43.
Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1): 84–94.
[32] Shuck, B. and Herd, A.M. (2012). “Employee
[38] Xu, J. and Thomas, H. (2011). “How Can
Engagement and Leadership: Exploring the
Leaders Achieve High Employee Engagement?”.
Convergence of Two Frameworks and
Leadership and Organisational Development
Implications for Leadership Development in
Journal, 32(4): 399-416.



________________________________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–4, 2015
85