Professional Documents
Culture Documents
WILLIAM H. MACEY
Valtera Corporation
BENJAMIN SCHNEIDER
Valtera Corporation and University of Maryland
Abstract
The meaning of employee engagement is ambiguous among both academic researchers and among practitioners
who use it in conversations with clients. We show that the term is used at different times to refer to psychological
states, traits, and behaviors as well as their antecedents and outcomes. Drawing on diverse relevant literatures, we
offer a series of propositions about (a) psychological state engagement; (b) behavioral engagement; and (c) trait
engagement. In addition, we offer propositions regarding the effects of job attributes and leadership as main effects
on state and behavioral engagement and as moderators of the relationships among the 3 facets of engagement.
We conclude with thoughts about the measurement of the 3 facets of engagement and potential antecedents,
especially measurement via employee surveys.
3
4 W.H. Macey and B. Schneider
(Positive views of life and work) (Feelings of energy, absorption) (Extra-role behavior)
Trust
Work Attributes
Variety Transformational
Challenge Leadership
Autonomy
‘‘I feel I am able to contribute new ideas,’’ the job and the organization. Although com-
and ‘‘I feel able to show warmth to others.’’ prehensive with regard to state engagement,
Shirom argued, and we agree, that vigor is a significant omission involves feelings with
not equivalent to engagement behavior, regard to the involvement of the self: self-
with the feeling of vigor being a psychologi- esteem, self-efficacy, and self-identity.
cal state that, in combination with other pos- Kahn (1990), in an early and especially
itive affective states, can lead to engagement insightful exploration of engagement, spe-
behavior. cifically suggested that ‘‘People can use vary-
Shirom positioned vigor within the affect ing degrees of their selves, physically,
circumplex in a manner similar to though cognitively, and emotionally, in the roles
not perfectly aligned with PA: a mixture of they perform . . . the more people draw
moderate arousal and moderate pleasant- on their selves to perform their roles . . .
ness. Furthermore, his conceptualization of the more stirring are their performances’’
vigor is entirely consistent with the notion of (p. 692). This is highly similar to the defini-
engagement as a relatively enduring affec- tion of involvement provided by Brown
tive state as presented here. Of particular (1996) and cited earlier. Kahn defines per-
importance, he attributed the feeling of vigor sonal engagement as ‘‘harnessing’’ of the
directly to workplace characteristics, espe- individual self with the work role. As such,
cially the job itself. But it is useful to note engagement is a binding force, similar to
that, like Warr (1999), Shirom is explicitly commitment as defined by Meyer et al.
speaking about state engagement with (2004), although Kahn (1990) also refers to
regard to work rather than state engagement the expression of that self in task behavior.
as a generic or general psychological state. Thus, the experience of personal engage-
ment encompasses elements of both
Proposition 5: PA associated with the involvement and commitment as psycholog-
job and the work setting connoting or ical states and also a sense of personal iden-
explicitly indicating feelings of persis- tity in role behavior.
tence, vigor, energy, dedication, absorp- Kahn (1992) later elaborated on the con-
tion, enthusiasm, alertness, and pride cept of engagement by implicitly differenti-
occupies a central position in the con- ating the notion of psychological presence
ceptualization and measurement of state and engagement behavior. He suggested
engagement. Conversely, measures of that a true psychological presence at and
psychological states that are devoid of identity with work go beyond questions of
direct and explicit indicants of affective simple task motivation. Rather, true identity
and energic feeling are not measures of with work reflects an ‘‘authenticity’’ that
state engagement in whole or part. results in employees connecting with work
and addressing difficult issues (i.e., the
One can see in Proposition 5 a summary engagement behavior). It is from the experi-
of the role of job satisfaction, job involve- ence of being psychologically present in
ment, organizational commitment, and the work—that the work is a part of one’s
empowerment in understanding state identity—that employee development and
engagement. Additionally, however, there productivity follow. Such behavioral
are the required importance and centrality engagement follows because when psycho-
of the energic state and positive affectivity logically present, employees are attentive
that are central to the uniqueness of the state and focused, connected (including the con-
engagement construct. notation of absorption), and integrated. The
‘‘experience’’ of being integrated would
Engagement as involvement of the self. entail simultaneously drawing upon all of
In Proposition 5 and the prior discussion one’s skills, abilities, and other personal
and propositions, the affective feelings and resources in order to respond to the demands
energic states referred to are with respect to of a role. Kahn’s (1992) description of
Employee engagement 13
psychological presence clarifies the distinc- tions, it would seem important for measures
tion between the experiential state (psycho- of engagement to bound survey items in
logical presence) and personally engaging time—perhaps explicitly asking respondents
behaviors that may accompany that state. how often they have specific engagement
Thus, engagement as behavior, a topic we feelings and experiences and how long they
will move to shortly, is regarded as the man- persist to provide data on the possible
ifestation of presence, a psychological state. transient nature versus the durability of the
Building on Kahn’s view, Rothbard (2001, feelings.
p. 684) operationalized engagement through In both conceptualizations, engagement
self-reported attention (e.g., ‘‘I focus a great can be viewed as a causal antecedent of
deal of attention on my work.’’) and absorp- organizationally relevant behavior and out-
tion (e.g., ‘‘When I am working, I often lose comes. Distinguishing the short- and long-
track of time.’’). term characterizations of state engagement
serves to highlight the observation that either
Proposition 6: State engagement addi- the focus of engagement must be regarded as
tionally refers to the investment of the self varying in salience over time (if engagement
in the person’s work and the perceived is a relatively enduring mind-set; see Meyer
importance of work outcomes and orga- et al., 2004) or engagement itself varies.
nization membership to that person’s In either case, a comprehensive engagement
identity. model should provide a theoretical basis for
understanding intra-individual variance in
A note on the durability of state engage- engagement and/or engagement-related
ment. By definition, psychological states, outcomes. For example, Sonnentag (2003)
like engagement, have boundaries set in demonstrated that engagement (vigor,
time (Weiss & Kurek, 2003). Different per- absorption, and dedication) varies around
spectives of engagement as a psychological an average or ‘‘trait’’ level (trait here might
state might vary in the limits placed on these be better interpreted as a state with longer
boundaries but (a) time frames are rarely if term boundaries) and that significant varia-
ever explicitly referred to in perspectives tion in state engagement can be accounted
related to engagement like those we have for by off-work recovery opportunities. In
described here, and (b) the previous litera- a related vein, depletion theories of the ef-
tures referred to seem to implicitly assume fects of multiple-role obligations (Rothbard,
a relatively durable engagement state. Thus, 2001) suggest that there is a limited amount
we unfortunately do not yet have either ap- of energy people possess that they can share,
propriate conceptual boundaries or adequate suggesting in turn that engagement in some
operationalization of those boundaries. roles comes at the expense of engagement in
Within the notion of a ‘‘mind-set,’’ other roles. Such a view strongly implies
engagement can be considered a relatively considerable intra-individual variance. We
enduring state and one that serves to explain will not further consider state engagement
persistence as well as direction of job and in its transient form and will write in what
organizationally focused behavior. As such, follows under the assumption that state
individual measures of engagement should engagement is relatively durable over time,
be relatively stable, and intra-individual dif- with work and organizational conditions as
ferences would be considered a reflection of well as personal traits (all to be considered
measurement error. However, engagement soon) supporting this durability in time.
can also be represented as a temporary tran-
sient state. Here, engagement measures Summary: Engagement as state. We have
would be expected to fluctuate, representing now reviewed the many ways in which the
the daily ebb and flow of experiences in psychological state of engagement has been
response to the work environment or other conceptualized and measured. Although
aspects of personal life. Given these distinc- there is considerable variability in concepts
14 W.H. Macey and B. Schneider
and measures, there appears to be consider- in the work context. Clearly, the scope of
able agreement that engagement as a state engagement is something less than the entire
has a strong affective tone connoting, at domain of behavioral work performance
a minimum, high levels of involvement (pas- and thus begs the question as to how it differs
sion and absorption) in the work and the from any other form of performance-related
organization (pride and identity) as well as behavior. To this point, within the folk mean-
affective energy (enthusiasm and alertness) ing of the term, engagement implies some-
and a sense of self-presence in the work. thing special, extra, or at least atypical.
Existing measures of the more traditional Having said that, it is conceivable that an
concepts of satisfaction, job involvement, entire organization may have behaviorally
and organizational commitment frequently engaged employees with the frame of refer-
contain items referring to affect, energy, and ence being other organizations, and/or
identity. Therefore, we would expect that within an organization, some employees
measures designed to tap state engagement may be engaged more than others—with
more directly will correlate significantly other employees within the organization
with them. To be more precise, we would being the frame of reference.
expect correlations in the range of .50 among Thus, it is common to define employee
these measures but further hypothesize that engagement as putting forth ‘‘discretionary
if such measures are included with the one effort,’’ defined as extra time, brainpower,
designed to specifically tap state engagement and energy (Towers-Perrin, 2003), with the
as represented in Propositions 1–6, an obli- frame of reference implied but perhaps not
que factor analysis of the resultant items having been made explicit. Others refer to
would yield an engagement factor that ‘‘giving it their all’’ (Bernthal, 2004), and
included the more affective and energic items some combine effort with commitment in
and be distinguished from the other items. the definition (e.g., Corporate Executive
Importantly, we do not conceive of a mea- Board, 2004; Wellins & Concelman,
sure of state engagement to be necessarily 2005a) with similarly somewhat ambiguous
incomplete if any facet of engagement as frames of reference. A caution then is that the
described in Propositions 1–6 is missing. frame of reference for the measurement of
Rather, these facets as we have positioned engagement behaviors be specified.
them and as they have been characterized As to engagement behaviors reflecting
in the I–O literature should be regarded as ‘‘effort,’’ unfortunately effort has been an elu-
representative of the affective and energic sive and ill-defined construct in the litera-
aspect of state engagement. ture. Traditionally, effort has been regarded
We have carefully argued that the state of as comprising (a) duration, (b) intensity, and
engagement that results in and/or accompa- (c) direction (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976;
nies engagement behavior differs from that Kanfer, 1990). Campbell (1990) suggested
behavior. The separate focus on behavior is ‘‘demonstrating effort’’ as one of the dimen-
critical as it is key to the distinction between sions of a taxonomy of performance and
psychological outcomes that are personally defined the dimension as consistency of per-
relevant and those that are organizationally formance, maintaining work levels under
relevant. These organizational consequences adverse conditions, and in other ways,
obviously must emerge from the states being expending extra effort when required—all
reflected in engagement behaviors, the topic of which speak strongly to the issue of per-
to which we turn next. sistence. However, translating the notion of
extra effort into measurement terms has been
a challenge. Brown and Leigh (1996) found
Engagement as Behavior:
little guidance in the literature regarding
An Introduction
how to measure effort and wrote items to
Within our model, engagement can be reflect both time commitment (e.g., ‘‘Other
regarded as a directly observable behavior people know me by the long hours I keep,’’
Employee engagement 15
p. 367) and work intensity (e.g., ‘‘When I dence of construct validity of corresponding
work, I really exert myself to the fullest,’’ measures (Brown & Leigh, 1996). Second,
p. 367). Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) extra effort is an overly limiting view of
measured job dedication, a higher order engagement if it simply connotes doing
dimension of OCB, by gathering supervisory more of the same; what may be most impor-
ratings of employees putting in extra time tant is doing something different. Third,
and effort as well as demonstrating persis- ‘‘extra’’ or ‘‘atypical’’ implies a reference or
tence and initiative. standard that is generally left unspecified.
A construct related to effort is ‘‘role invest- Fourth, discretion in itself is a complex issue,
ment’’ (Lobel, 1991; Rothbard & Edwards, leading to ambiguous boundary conditions
2003), which is typically operationalized in on the meaning of engagement. However,
terms of time spent—again the issue of per- there is more here than simple persistence
sistence—performing specific activities. or responsiveness to the demands of the
Rothbard and Edwards demonstrated that moment. More specifically:
people are more likely to invest their time
in roles that are important to them in terms Proposition 7: Engagement behaviors
of their self-identity, even when the utilitar- include innovative behaviors, demon-
ian value of the investment is held constant. strations of initiative, proactively seeking
Thus, consistent with self-concordance the- opportunities to contribute, and going
ory (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999), people will- beyond what is, within specific frames of
ingly contribute their time when their roles reference, typically expected or required.
are consistent with their personal goals and
when they see themselves invested in their
Engagement as Extra-Role Behavior
role performance.
From our perspective, it is limiting to When we think of engagement behaviors
define engagement solely in terms of ‘‘extra this way, that is, in terms of the behaviors
effort,’’ that is, just doing more of what is that extend beyond typical or expected in-
usual. Kahn (1990), for example, suggested role performance, three major threads of
that those who are psychologically present research are relevant to this notion. These
bring more of themselves to their work, tran- include OCB and related variants (prosocial
scending typical boundaries in relating to behavior, contextual performance, and
others and thereby doing something differ- organizational spontaneity; see Organ, Pod-
ent and not just something more. Similarly, sakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006), role expansion
Brown (1996) suggested that involvement and the related constructs of proactive
might lead to both doing things ‘‘smarter’’ behavior (Crant, 2000), and personal initia-
and investing greater effort. Thus, highly tive (Frese & Fay, 2001).
engaged employees might exemplify behav- The reader may note that unlike the liter-
ior both qualitatively and quantitatively dif- ature addressing engagement as a psycho-
ferent from those less engaged. logical state, the relevant literatures we will
now discuss do not use the term engage-
Summary. The notion of extra effort is ment. However, it will become clear that
a compelling one in that it implies that these theoretical and research threads are
employees possess a reservoir of energy from directly applicable to our search for an
which they can draw should they so choose; engagement behavior definition, and we
organizations that learn how to harness this begin the discussion with OCB.
potential will likely enjoy distinct compe-
titive advantage. Nonetheless, defining Engagement as OCB. Early theoretical
engagement as ‘‘extra’’ or ‘‘discretionary’’ work on OCB emphasized the discretionary
effort presents a challenge for at least four nature of certain behaviors that were
reasons. First and most importantly, effort is regarded as essential to organizational suc-
not easily defined, and there is little evi- cess but not formally defined as part of the
16 W.H. Macey and B. Schneider
job and therefore not explicitly rewarded. specific frames of reference, goes beyond
More recently, conceptual problems have what is typically or normally displayed or
been discussed in the literature regarding expected and that attributions about
limiting discretion to extra-role behaviors, whether the behavior was discretionary or
and the working definition of OCB has been not are unnecessary. We acknowledge that
modified to include those behaviors that this places a conditional value on such
support or in some way enhance the social behaviors—they may be normal or typical
and psychological environment essential for in some circumstances (some groups and
individual task performance (Organ, 1997), a some companies), whereas the same behav-
term more closely aligned with the meaning ior may be unusual in other circumstances.
of contextual performance (LePine, Erez, & As we have noted earlier, ‘‘atypical’’ implies
Johnson, 2002). Although the dimensionality a frame of reference. That frame of reference
of OCB has recently been questioned, the may originate in a variety of ways; attempts
original behaviors comprising OCB can be here at greater precision are not useful.
conceptualized as falling into the larger For example, Meyer et al. (2004) sug-
themes of support for others, organizational gested that under circumstances where fail-
support, and conscientiousness (Borman, ure to perform a task as usual might be
2004; LePine et al., 2002). Note that the excused because of extraordinary condi-
behaviors falling within the latter category tions, otherwise in-role behaviors might be
imply doing ‘‘something extra,’’ a notion con- considered extra-role. This implies that cer-
sistent with a folk definition of employee tain conditions allow for freedom of choice
engagement (e.g., ‘‘going the extra mile’’) as to whether to engage in certain task
and distinct from the notion of simply raised behaviors; engagement, as in ‘‘doing some-
levels of job facet performance, functional thing extra,’’ would be considered doing
participation (Van Dyne, Graham, & Dien- what is normal when normal conditions do
esch, 1994), self-discipline (Van Scotter & not apply. However, defining engagement
Motowidlo, 1996), or generalized compli- behavior exclusively in such a manner
ance (LePine et al., 2002). would seem limiting in that it begs the ques-
One conceptual challenge in considering tion as to the frequency with which opportu-
OCB as engagement (i.e., as doing some- nities to demonstrate such behaviors arise.
thing extra) arises in addressing the issue of By way of summary, the ‘‘going beyond’’
whether employee engagement refers ex- label associated with the OCB construct is
clusively to going ‘‘above and beyond.’’ The an attractive one, and we use it as a basis for
significance of the issue resides in the obser- defining one facet of engaged behavior as
vation that the boundaries between in-role going beyond the ordinary, yielding:
and extra-role performance are weak at best.
Vey and Campbell (2004), for example, dem- Proposition 8: Engagement behavior
onstrated that certain forms of OCB (consci- includes actions that, given a specific
entiousness and courtesy) were more likely frame of reference, go beyond what is typ-
to be considered in-role by a panel of survey ical, usual, ordinary, and/or ordinarily
respondents with supervisory experience. expected.
Fundamentally, the conceptual issue is
whether the behavior of interest must be dis- We say that engagement behavior is
cretionary—the person made a choice to do inclusive of behaviors normally character-
it—to be considered an example of engaged ized as OCB, implying that there are other
behavior. This would require all behaviors to behaviors that reveal other facets of engage-
be evaluated for the degree to which they ment, and we turn to one of these, role
involved making a choice to do more, to expansion, next.
do something different, and so forth. We
conclude from an OCB perspective that Engagement as role expansion. Role
engaged behavior is a behavior that, given expansion is not a part of the OCB
Employee engagement 17
Summary. Behavioral engagement, like conditions under which they work. So,
state engagement, has numerous facets to although it is easy to state that people who
it. Behavioral engagement is simultaneously have passion for their work are more likely to
citizenship behavior (OCB), role expansion, engage in adaptive behaviors, it is more dif-
proactive behavior, and demonstrating per- ficult to state why some people have passion
sonal initiative, all strategically focused in for their work and others do not and why in
service of organizational objectives. Many some organizations passion characterizes
of the facets reviewed and comprising employees, whereas in other organizations
behavioral engagement contain the notion it does not.
of ‘‘going beyond the usual or typical’’ and, In what follows, we first consider the
as such, imply a frame of reference for such attributes of individuals that might yield state
judgments. Frames of reference can be other and behavioral engagement, including how
individuals, other groups/teams, and/or such individual attributes might interact with
other organizations so that the members conditions encountered in the workplace to
of groups and organizations can be said produce engagement. Then, we detail the
to demonstrate behavioral engagement. main issues that have been discussed as the
Behavioral engagement has to do with per- work conditions necessary for engagement
formances that are adaptive and innovative to exist.
and in that sense not usual or typical, and the
behavioral engagement construct as we
Engagement as a
have defined it has not been captured well
Dispositional Construct
by the individual constructs that comprise
our definition. To more fully understand Within our structure depicted in Figure 1,
these affective and behavioral dimensions engagement can be regarded as a disposi-
of engagement, it is useful to consider poten- tion, either as a personality characteristic
tial antecedents of these, and it is to such or more generally as a tendency to experi-
consideration we turn next. ence state affect over time. Additionally,
certain dispositional constructs have been
suggested as causal factors in proactive
Antecedents of State and
behavior, personal initiative, and the experi-
Behavioral Engagement
ence of ‘‘flow.’’ Four threads of research are
We have shown to this point that there are relevant to the notion of trait engagement,
a variety of ways to conceptualize and and we address each in turn.
measure both state and behavioral engage-
ment. This explication of the various con- PA as trait engagement. The conceptual
structs offers researchers frames from which similarity of PA markers to the meaning of
they can pursue additional work, for exam- engagement was highlighted earlier in our
ple, the relationships existing among the discussion of engagement as an affective
various kinds of adaptive behaviors and/or state. In fact, trait PA would be a precise def-
the various facets of state and behavioral inition of the engaged person (i.e., energetic,
engagement we have explicated. It also enthusiastic). PA as a trait, or enduring ten-
offers practitioners a conceptual founda- dency to experience PA as state, has been
tion on which to base decisions when con- broadly considered in the organizational
ducting engagement projects, especially behavior literature. Although PA has been
the design of the so-called engagement explored as a dispositional component of
surveys. job satisfaction, trait job satisfaction would
But neither state nor behavior engage- seemingly be more appropriately defined in
ment springs forth whole; both are obviously terms of the hedonic dimension of the affect
dependent for their existence on still more circumplex (Larsen, Diener, & Lucas, 2002).
variety, this time variety in the personal Specifically, satisfaction or well-being judg-
attributes of those who are engaged and the ments can be regarded as a function of
20 W.H. Macey and B. Schneider
pleasant affect experiences at work (Brief & entiousness and Extraversion (or trait PA in
Weiss, 2002). Big Five terms).
Our reading of this perspective suggests
that PA would be considered more an indi- Conscientiousness as trait engagement.
cator of trait engagement than trait satisfac- Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark, and Gold-
tion. Staw (2004) noted that items included berg (2005) investigated the hierarchical
in PANAS are weighted to include those with structure of conscientiousness as repre-
an activation component (e.g., enthusiastic sented in major personality questionnaires
and attentive) rather than evaluative in tone and identified the proactive aspects of
(i.e., happy, cheerful, pleased). A matter of conscientiousness to include both indus-
considerable confusion in the literature is triousness and order. The former would
that PA is associated with feelings of ‘‘enthu- be characterized by individuals who are
siasm and excitement and not with happi- ‘‘hard working, ambitious, confident, and
ness’’ (Huelsman, Furr, & Nemanick, 2003, resourceful’’ (p. 119). Viewed through a
p. 658). Again, within that theoretical frame- proactive lens, it would be expected that
work, satisfaction and engagement would conscientiousness would correlate with
be correlated but not equivalent. Trait measures of contextual performance, espe-
engagement (i.e., trait PA) would serve as cially generalized compliance as a facet of
a predisposition to frame organizational OCB, as was demonstrated in a meta-analysis
experiences and determine how the individ- by Organ and Ryan (1995).
ual behaves in response to those experiences
(Larsen et al., 2002; Weiss, 2002). Autotelic personality as trait engagement.
It is worth noting that our logic that trait The state of psychological engagement,
PA is more relevant to engagement than to encompassing the notion of ‘‘flow’’ or ‘‘being
satisfaction also suggests that state engage- present,’’ has also been investigated in rela-
ment would be a stronger correlate of what tion to the ‘‘autotelic’’ personality. The auto-
we have called adaptive behaviors than telic personality refers to people who engage
would job satisfaction. Thus, one of the cen- in activities for their own sake rather than for
tral accomplishments of researchers who specific gains or rewards. Csikszentmihalyi
study OCB and similar constructs was show- and his colleagues (see Nakamura &
ing that satisfaction is in fact related to Csikszentmihalyi, 2002, for a review) have
behavior. Our logic suggests that an even operationalized the autotelic personality in
stronger correlate of such adaptive behaviors terms of the Jackson Personality Research
would be measures of state engagement. Form factors of Sentience, Understanding,
Achievement, and Endurance, reasoning
Proactive personality as trait engagement. that autotelic individuals should be open
As indicated earlier, Crant (2000) suggested to new challenges, persist in challenging
that proactive behavior is a product of both tasks, and be ready to engage, factors that
dispositional and situational factors. Char- contribute to arriving at and maintaining
acterizing proactive personality as the gen- a state of flow.
eral tendency to create or influence the
work environment, Crant (1995) demon- Summary and partial integration. There
strated that this kind of personality is corre- are clear points of view suggesting that state
lated with sales success of real estate engagement and engagement behaviors are
professionals; other studies have indicated at least partially the result of dispositional
significant relationships between the proac- influences. More directly, research on PA,
tive personality and career success (Seibert, the proactive personality, conscientious-
Kramer, & Crant, 2001). Moreover, Crant ness, and the autotelic personality suggests
(1995) found that proactive personality that trait engagement can be construed as
accounted for variance in performance even a broad dispositional construct and that
after considering the effects of both Consci- the markers of that construct are entirely
Employee engagement 21
consistent with conventional definitions of (Kahn, 1990, 1992). For some (e.g., Erickson,
engagement (i.e., passion and activation). 2005), the attributes of tasks are still the key
Moreover, this view suggests that those more issue for promoting engagement. Not sur-
likely to experience feelings of engagement prisingly, reference is made to the job char-
and who demonstrate engagement behav- acteristics research program (Hackman &
iors are also more likely to choose the envi- Oldham, 1980) and work on the intrinsic
ronments that provide the opportunity to do nature of rewards (i.e., the intrinsic nature
so (e.g., Holland, 1997; Schneider, 1987; of tasks; Gagne & Deci, 2005) for specifica-
Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995). That tion of some of the issues that drive passion,
is, consistent with the interpretation of commitment, involvement, and so forth.
engagement as adaptive behavior, engaged Interestingly, although the task is central, it
employees both select and proactively work is the degree to which the person can imple-
to create the environment in which these ment his or her preferred self in the work that
behaviors will be encouraged and sup- is key—but certain characteristics of tasks
ported. Our proposition with regard to trait like autonomy, challenge, and variety seem
engagement is therefore offered as: to have main effects for most people.
In addition to the task itself, the condi-
Proposition 11: Trait engagement com- tions surrounding working have been a target
prises a number of interrelated facets, of practice and research. For example, in the
including trait positive affectivity, consci- Gallup research program (emerging from
entiousness, the proactive personality, many consulting projects; see Harter et al.,
and the autotelic personality. These all 2003), a series of 12 key work conditions
suggest the tendency to experience work was identified, which, when present, were
in positive, active, and energic ways and correlated with unit performance—the infer-
to behave adaptively (i.e., displaying ence being that when these work conditions
effort by going beyond what is necessary existed, employees demonstrated engage-
and initiating change to facilitate organi- ment behaviors that resulted in the improved
zationally relevant outcomes). unit performance. These conditions are very
diverse, referring among other conditions to
Importantly, as shown in Figure 1, we attributes of the work, the boss, the availabil-
conceptualize trait engagement as more ity of resources, coworkers, and career prog-
likely distal than proximal causes of engage- ress issues. Gallup researchers deduced,
ment behavior (Kanfer, 1990). George however, that there was an overriding issue,
(1991), for example, demonstrated that management and the degree to which man-
mood PA but not trait PA predicted prosocial agers made these things happen was key to
behavior. Frese and Fay (2001) similarly having a productive work unit. Having this
highlighted the distal impact of such person- insight resulted in an additional set of
ality variables on personal initiative behaviors research efforts to understand what differen-
and further suggested that such personality tiated effective and ineffective managers,
characteristics influence orientations and especially with regard to scores those man-
feelings (e.g., self-efficacy) and only then, in agers received on the 12 items when their
turn, behavior. Thus, it is likely that disposi- employees were surveyed. A central answer
tional engagement interacts with situational was the following: Effective managers are
factors to determine engagement state and/or those who get the work done with the people
behavior, and we turn to a consideration of they have, do not try to change them, and
those situational characteristics now. attempt to capitalize on the competencies
their people have, not what they, the man-
agers, wished they had (Buckingham &
The Situation and Engagement
Coffman, 1999).
Much of the early work on engagement What is clear from the Gallup research is
placed the task as central to engagement that units that score more highly on the 12
22 W.H. Macey and B. Schneider
items have superior performance in terms of trusting that the investment will be rewarded
productivity, customer satisfaction, reve- (intrinsically or extrinsically) in some mean-
nues, and turnover. However, the state and/ ingful way. The fundamental motivation for
or behavioral engagement that these 12 this may be instrumental based upon the
items result in is not clear. But research on norm of reciprocity (Coyle-Shapiro & Con-
transformational leadership helps under- way, 2005) or social identity (Moorman &
stand these relationships. Byrne, 2005). For example, Hui, Lee, and
The relevant literature on transforma- Rousseau (2004) found in a Chinese sample
tional leadership provides examples of of employed MBA students that instrumen-
engagement state and behavior that closely tality mediated the relationship between
align with conventional conceptualizations relational contract obligations and five forms
of engagement, including an investment of of OCB. As the authors suggested, this sup-
identity in the organization and work such ports the view that employees reciprocate on
that there is a sense of passion for work as the basis of an anticipated reward, whether
well as the capacity to think independently, concrete or abstract. This suggests that the
develop new ideas, and challenge conven- important distinction may be between those
tion when no longer relevant (e.g., Bass & demonstrated behaviors that are performed
Avolio, 1990; Dvir et al., 2002). Indeed, Dvir for more explicit and clearly defined contin-
et al. demonstrated that under transforma- gencies and those that are based on more
tional leadership conditions, soldiers will open-ended expectations, where some
engage in behaviors not in their personal degree of trust is implied and strict regulation
best interest, which the authors described of behavior is unnecessary.
as self-sacrifice. It logically follows from this line of rea-
soning that trust (in the organization, the
Proposition 12: State and behavioral leader, the manager, or the team) is essential
engagement are more likely under some to increasing the likelihood that engagement
conditions than others with the nature of behavior will be displayed. Trust becomes
the work people do and the leadership important even for intrinsically motivated
under which they work central to their behavior, as the conditions that contribute
choosing to be attitudinally and behavior- to the investment of self require what Kahn
ally engaged. (1990) identified as psychological safety.
This is the belief people have that they will
Some of the reasons why these condi- ‘‘not suffer for their personal engagement’’
tions seem to create state and behavioral (p. 708). One example of punishment for
engagement have now been made clear. extending oneself is ‘‘job creep,’’ where ‘‘dis-
Psychologically, it appears to follow that cretionary contributions (such as OCB)
when people have certain kinds of work to become viewed as in-role obligations by
do (e.g., the work has challenge, variety, supervisors and peers’’ (Van Dyne & Ellis,
and autonomy) and when they work under 2004, p. 184). Job creep does not yield trust,
certain kinds of managers (e.g., the manag- so it does not yield engagement behaviors.
ers make expectations clear, are fair, and A second example would be performing
recognize superior behavior), they feel above the norms of a group and then being
engaged and behave in adaptive and con- socially punished as a rate buster.
structive ways that produce results that
were perhaps unexpected. Note that the lit- Proposition 13: Feelings of trust mediate
erature on perceived organizational sup- the relationship between leadership
port would also be relevant here (Rhoades behavior and behavioral engagement
& Eisenberger, 2002). such that feelings of trust is the psycholog-
Central to the network of antecedent con- ical state between leader behavior and
ditions is trust. Engaged employees invest behavioral engagement. Thus, leaders
their energy, time, or personal resources, create trust in followers, and it is the trust
Employee engagement 23
followers experience that enables behav- presence as we noted earlier, clearly sug-
ioral engagement. gesting that such presence emerges as a func-
tion of the interaction of the person’s
attributes and the work he or she does.
Person–Environment Fit Issues and
There is strong evidence to indicate that
Engagement
the organization itself, especially its goals
Implicitly, the discussion of trait engagement and values, can also be a source of attach-
and the conditions under which state and ment and commitment that lead people to
behavioral engagement are more likely identify with the organization as a whole
leads to the thought that perhaps the traits and, in turn, to display adaptive behaviors
and the conditions interact, and we consider consistent with its long-term interests. Earlier
that issue now. For example, building on called ‘‘organizational identification’’ (cf. Hall
self-concordance theory (Sheldon & Elliot, & Schneider, 1973) and later identification-
1999), self-determination theory (Ryan & based commitment (O’Reilly & Chatman,
Deci, 2000), and self-concept–based theory 1986) and affective commitment (Meyer &
(Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), Bono and Allen, 1997), the key issue here is the fit of
Judge (2003) equated self-engagement with personal values to organizational values.
‘‘engagement with their work,’’ suggesting Organizational identification, then, is a spe-
that employees who see their work as con- cific form of organizational commitment in
sistent with their personal values will be that it implies identity fit or identity matching,
more engaged. This clearly infers the notion a key issue in definitions of what the engaged
of fit as the determinant rather than either the person might experience.
individual attribute or the environment We pursue this issue of fit in some detail
alone as causal. because it has not characterized the research
In the frameworks of self-concordance on engagement. In brief, engagement prac-
and self-determination theories, motivation tice and research might best be called
(and, by extension, work motivation) reflects ‘‘main effects’’ research—implying that if
a continuum ranging from complete external certain specific conditions are appropriately
motivation to complete internal or intrinsic altered, employee engagement will follow. It
motivation. When the goals of the organiza- may be more complex in that when a specific
tion (or leader) and the goals of the individ- combination of people and conditions
ual are entirely consistent, it follows that the exists, what results is more a product of the
level of employee state engagement will be two than a simple addition. That said, we
higher and that a variety of adaptive behav- offer the following by way of summary:
iors are likely to be displayed.
Kahn (1990, 1992) in particular saw the Proposition 14: Trait engagement inter-
interaction of the individual and the organi- acts with work and organizational condi-
zation as central to issues of both state and tions to produce state and behavioral
behavioral engagement. He noted that it is engagement. Alternatively, work condi-
when people can use their preferred selves in tions not only have a main effect on state
their work that they experience being and behavioral engagement, but they also
engaged by that work (state engagement) may moderate the relationships between
and also perform to their fullest capacities trait engagement and state engagement as
(behavioral engagement). Kahn did not iden- well as relationships between state and
tify the dimensions of self that might be pre- behavioral engagement (see Figure 1).
ferred, but he did indicate that these include
interests, values, and competencies. For
Summary Thoughts on the
Kahn, the work itself is the focus of engage-
Engagement Construct
ment, for it is the attributes of the work with
which the preferred self is seen as interact- The picture we have painted of engagement
ing; Kahn (1992) called this psychological comprises a complex nomological network
24 W.H. Macey and B. Schneider
encompassing trait, state, and behavioral is what executives wish to capture. This
constructs, as well as the work and organi- implies that survey questions directed at sat-
zational conditions that might facilitate state isfaction, whether global or facet, have a mis-
and behavioral engagement. Although placed emphasis. Questions such as ‘‘How
engagement may at best fit what Law, Wong, satisfied are you with the company you work
and Mobley (1998) described as a profile for?’’ do not measure engagement.
model of a multidimensional construct, we We proposed that behavioral engage-
see engagement as not only a set of con- ment follows from state engagement and fur-
structs but also a tightly integrated set, inter- ther that it is most broadly defined as
related in known ways, comprising clearly adaptive behavior. Adaptive behavior is
identifiable constructs with relationships to a useful concept for describing a range of
a common outcome. In what follows, first behaviors that support organizational effec-
we review our position as to why we believe tiveness. What is common is the fundamen-
that psychological engagement differs con- tal notion that engagement behaviors are
ceptually from other relevant constructs. We typically not prescribed and that they go
follow with specific conclusions and recom- beyond preserving the status quo and
mendations for research and practice. instead focus on initiating or fostering
We proposed that state engagement con- change in the sense of doing more and/or
cerns PA associated with the job and the something different. There are obvious refer-
work setting connoting or explicitly indicat- ences in our conceptualization of engage-
ing feelings of persistence, vigor, energy, ment behaviors to existing constructs such
dedication, absorption, enthusiasm, alert- as OCB and role expansion, but we had
ness, and pride. As such, state engagement a specific emphasis on proactive and per-
has components of organizational commit- sonal initiative kinds of behaviors, leading
ment, job involvement, and the positive to our use of the label ‘‘adaptive’’ to summa-
affectivity components of job satisfaction. rize our position.
Thus, we would predict that measures of We acknowledged that what is normal
state engagement and these older constructs task behavior under some circumstances,
would be significantly related. In addition to for example, everyday working conditions,
the positive feelings noted, state engagement may be seen as engaged behavior under
also includes the sense of self-identity peo- other circumstances, for example, during
ple have with the work they do; work is a part Katrina or other disasters and challenges.
of how they define themselves and that in So we finessed the specific behaviors that
which they are personally invested. characterize engaged behavior and assume
We focused extensively on which con- that under specific conditions there will be
ceptualizations of job satisfaction occupy agreement on what it is.
common conceptual space with state We proposed that trait engagement
engagement. In our view, state engagement comprises a number of interrelated per-
is characterized by feelings of passion, sonality attributes, including trait positive
energy, enthusiasm, and activation. This affectivity, conscientiousness, the proac-
reflects both the common folk wisdom tive personality, and the autotelic person-
of the concept and the markers used to ality. These all suggest the inclination to
reflect feelings of PA/high activation when experience work in positive, active, and
describing either trait or mood states (see energic ways and to behave adaptively in
Warr, 1999). Although correlated with en- displaying effort at going beyond what is
gagement, satisfaction is sufficiently charac- necessary and initiating change to facili-
terized by a sense of well-being and tate organizationally relevant outcomes.
pleasantness connoting at best moderate In these senses, trait engagement would
levels of activation or energy. It is the sense be a significant cause of and be directly
of energy and enthusiasm in engagement related to state engagement and indirectly
that makes the construct different, and this to behavioral engagement.
Employee engagement 25
operationalization correct. Most of the measure with which they had assessed work
engagement measures we have seen failed conditions but inferred engagement as noted
to get the conceptualization correct, so the earlier in discussion of the article of Harter
measures do not, if you will, measure up (for et al. (2002). This highlights the point that to
exceptions, see Salanova et al., 2005; some, the concepts are indeed interchange-
Schaufeli et al., 2002). Especially in the able. We agree with them that the unit of
world of practice, we have seen measures analysis in employee survey and behavior
of what we have called conditions for research and practice has been at the indi-
engagement labeled as measures of engage- vidual level of analysis and that it is time to
ment (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999), and add additional levels of analysis to the
many measures used for years as indicators research repertoire. The Gallup research
of employee opinions have been relabeled they reported is all at the unit level of analy-
as indicants of employee engagement. The sis; they and others (e.g., Schneider, White,
latter has been true especially with mea- & Paul, 1998) continued to show that such
sures of job satisfaction where there is little a change in the level of analysis reveals the
indication of affect, energy, passion, and usefulness of employee survey data to man-
so forth. As we noted earlier, any measure agers in terms with which they empathized.
that asks how satisfied an employee is with
conditions at or of work or asks about the
Conclusions
presence of particular conditions of or at
work is not a measure of any of the three In a world that is changing both in terms of
facets of the engagement construct we have the global nature of work and the aging of the
elucidated. workforce (Erickson, 2005), having engaged
In a recent edited volume, Kraut (2006) employees may be a key to competitive
presented a number of chapters that are advantage. This will be especially true if we
instructive with regard to the measurement can show how the engagement construct
of engagement. For example, Macey and produces effects at levels of analysis of con-
Schneider (2006) proposed that careful con- cern to management. As with all good
ceptualization of constructs precedes any things, the challenge of establishing the con-
operationalization, and they distinguish ditions for state and behavioral employee
among other things generic employee atti- engagement will be great. Once again, there
tudes (job satisfaction) and behavior (OCB) seems to be no silver bullet. The beauty of
from strategically focused attitudes (cus- this conclusion is that companies that get
tomer orientation) and behavior (customer- these conditions right will have accom-
focused engagement behaviors). Schiemann plished something that competitors will find
and Morgan (2006) carefully delineated in very difficult to imitate. It is easy to change
their article the issue of assessing strategi- price and product; it is another thing to
cally focused employee attitudes if the goal create a state and behaviorally engaged
is to provide information for use as a basis for workforce.
making change to achieve those goals. The
conclusion from these articles is to focus
References
the measurement on the construct of inter-
est; if engagement is the target, ensure that Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and devel-
opment in transformational leadership. European
the measure maps the content of the Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
construct. 8, 9–32.
In another chapter, Harter and Schmidt Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (1990). Transformational lead-
ership development: Manual for the Multifactor
(2006) used evidence they previously pre- Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consult-
sented as indicating engagement correlates ing Psychologist Press.
with unit performance and treated the data Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive
component of organizational behavior: A measure
as if they indicated job satisfaction correlates and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
with unit performance—which is the same 14, 103–118.
Employee engagement 27
Bernthal, P. (2004). Measuring employee engagement. Crant, J. M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and
Retrieved May 4, 2005, from www.ddiworld.com/ objective job performance among real estate agents.
pdf/ddi_MeasuringEmployeeEngagement_wp.pdf Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532–537.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations.
work: Toward understanding the motivational Journal of Management, 26, 435–462.
effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002).
Management Journal, 46, 554–571. Impact of transformational leadership on follower
Borman, W. C. (2004). The concept of organizational development and performance: A field experiment.
citizenship. Current Directions in Psychological Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744.
Science, 13, 238–241. Erickson, T. J. (2005). Testimony submitted before the
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, and Pensions, May 26.
307–311. Fleming, J. H., Coffman, C., & Harter, J. K. (2005). Man-
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational age your human sigma. Harvard Business Review,
behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review 83, 106–115.
of Psychology, 53, 279–307. Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative (PI): An
Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of orga- active performance concept for work in the 21st cen-
nizational research on job involvement. Psycholog- tury. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Sutton (Eds.), Research in
ical Bulletin, 120, 235–255. organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 133–187).
Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psy- Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
chological climate and its relationship to job Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996).
involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Personal initiative at work: Differences between East
Applied Psychology, 81, 358–368. and West Germany. Academy of Management Jour-
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all nal, 39, 37–63.
the rules. New York: Simon & Schuster. Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination the-
Burke. (2005). Employee engagement. Retrieved ory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational
May 4, 2005, from www.burke.com/EOS/prac_ Behavior, 26, 331–362.
EmployeeEngagement.htm George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of
prediction problem in industrial and organiza- Applied Psychology, 76, 299–307.
tional psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Gonzalez-Roma, V., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., &
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organi- Lloret, S. (2006). Burnout and work engagement:
zational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 687– Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of
732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Vocational Behavior, 68, 165–174.
Press. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. (1980). Work redesign.
Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard, R. D. (1976). Motivation Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
theory in industrial and organizational psychology. Hall, D. T., & Schneider, B. (1973). Correlates of orga-
In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and nizational identification as a function of career
organizational psychology (pp. 63–130). Chicago: pattern and organizational type. Administrative
Rand-McNally. Science Quarterly, 17, 340–350.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L., & Harter, J. K., & Schmidt, F. L. (2006). Connecting
Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of person- employee satisfaction to business unit performance.
ality and perceptions of the work situation on work- In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Getting action from organiza-
place deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, tional surveys (pp. 33–52). San Francisco: Jossey-
599–609. Bass.
Conte, J. M., Dean, M. A., Ringenbach, K. L., Moran, S. K., Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002).
& Landy, F. J. (2005). The relationship between work Business-unit-level relationship between employee
attitudes and job analysis ratings: Do rating scale satisfaction, employee engagement, and business
type and task discretion matter? Human Perfor- outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psy-
mance, 18, 1–21. chology, 87, 268–279.
Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2003).
construct of work commitment: Testing an inte- Well-being in the workplace and its relationship
grative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131, to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup
241–259. studies. In C. L. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing:
Corporate Executive Board. (2004). Driving perfor- The positive person and the good life (pp. 205–
mance and retention through employee engage- 224). Washington, DC: American Psychological
ment. Retrieved September 13, 2005, from www. Association.
corporateleadershipcouncil.com/Images/CLC/PDF/ Hewitt Associates LLC. (2005). Employee engagement.
CLC12KADBP.pdf Retrieved April 29, 2005, from http://was4.hewitt.com/
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., & Conway, N. (2005). Exchange hewitt/services/talent/subtalent/ee_engagement.htm
relationships: Examining psychological contracts Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A the-
and perceived organizational support. Journal of ory of vocational personalities and work environ-
Applied Psychology, 90, 774–781. ments. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004). Resources.
Exploring organizationally directed citizenship Huelsman, T. J., Furr, R. M., & Nemanick, R. C. (2003).
behavior: Reciprocity or ‘‘It’s my job?’’ Journal of Measurement of dispositional affect: Construct val-
Management Studies, 41, 85–106. idity and convergence with a circumplex model of
28 W.H. Macey and B. Schneider
affect. Educational and Psychological Measure- Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2006). Employee expe-
ment, 63, 655–673. riences and customer satisfaction: Toward a frame-
Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Psychologi- work for survey design with a focus on service
cal contract and organizational citizenship behavior climate. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Getting action from orga-
in China: Investigating generalizability and in- nizational surveys (pp. 53–75). San Francisco:
strumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, Jossey-Bass.
311–321. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job
Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). Employee per- burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–
formance in today’s organizations. In D. R. Ilgen & 422.
E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006).
performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical
and development (pp. 1–20). San Francisco: test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psy-
Jossey-Bass. chology, 91, 97–108.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of per- Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and
sonal engagement and disengagement at work. meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724. consequences of organizational commitment.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.
presence at work. Human Relations, 45, 321–349. May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial/orga- psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety
nizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. and availability and the engagement of the human
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organiza- spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organi-
tional psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 75–170). Palo zational Psychology, 77, 11–37.
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. McGregor, D. M. (1960). The human side of enterprise.
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work New York: McGraw-Hill.
involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the
341–349. workplace: Theory, research and application. Thou-
Kelley, T. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational mea- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
surements. New York: World Book. Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004).
Kraut, A. I. (Ed.). (2006). Getting action from organiza- Employee commitment and motivation: A concep-
tional surveys. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. tual analysis and integrative model. Journal of
Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Problems and promises Applied Psychology, 89, 991–1007.
with the circumplex model of emotion. Review of Miller, H. E., & Rosse, J. G. (2002). Emotional reserve
Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 25–59. and adaptation to job dissatisfaction. In J. M. Brett &
Larsen, R. J., Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2002). Emotion F. Drasgow (Eds.), The psychology of work: Theoret-
models, measures, and individual differences. In ically based empirical research (pp. 205–231).
R. G. Lord, R. J. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emo- Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
tions in the workplace (pp. 64–106). San Francisco: Moorman, R. H., & Byrne, Z. S. (2005). How does orga-
Jossey-Bass. nizational justice affect organizational citizenship
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward behavior? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.),
a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Acad- Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 355–380).
emy of Management Review, 23, 741–755. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K., & Hemingway,
nature and dimensionality of organizational citizen- M. A. (2005). The importance of job autonomy, cogni-
ship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. tive ability, and job-related skill for predicting role
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52–65. breadth and job performance. Journal of Applied
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooper- Psychology, 90, 399–406.
ative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at
performance: Evidence of differential relationships work: Extra-role efforts to initiate workplace change.
with Big Five personality characteristics and Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–419.
cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, Motowidlo, S. J. (2000). Some basic issues related to
86, 326–336. contextual performance and organizational citizen-
Lobel, S. A. (1991). Allocation of investment in work ship behavior in human resource manage-
and family roles: Alternative theories and implica- ment. Human Resource Management Review, 10,
tions for research. Academy of Management 115–126.
Review, 16, 507–521. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982).
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job Employee-organization linkages: The psychology
satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New
of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. York: Academic Press.
1297–1349). Chicago: Rand-McNally. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The con-
Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and cept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.),
measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105).
Psychology, 49, 24–33. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lubinski, D. (2004). Introduction to the special section O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1986). Organizational
on cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman’s commitment and psychological attachment: The
(1904) ‘‘‘general intelligence,’ objectively deter- effects of compliance, identification, and internali-
mined and measured.’’ Journal of Personality and zation of prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psy-
Social Psychology, 78, 96–111. chology, 71, 492–499.
Employee engagement 29
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behav- Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Per-
ior: It’s construct cleanup time. Human Perfor- sonnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.
mance, 10, 85–97. Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. A., & Smith, D. B. (1995).
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychol-
(2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its ogy, 48, 747–773.
nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking
Oaks, CA: Sage. service climate and customer perceptions of service
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic quality: Test of a causal model. Journal of Applied
review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of Psychology, 83, 150–163.
organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psy- Seibert, S. E., Kramer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What
chology, 48, 775–802. do proactive people do? A longitudinal model link-
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self- ing proactive personality and career success. Per-
efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other sonnel Psychology, 54, 845–874.
organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The
Psychology, 83, 835–852. motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A
Parker, S. K. (2003). Longitudinal effects of lean produc- self-concept based theory. Organization Science,
tion on employee outcomes and the mediating role 4, 577–594.
of work characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychol- Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need
ogy, 88, 620–634. satisfaction and longitudinal well-being: The self-
Parks, J. M., & Kidder, K. L. (1994). ‘‘Till death do us concordance model. Journal of Personality and
part.’’: Changing work relationships in the 1990s. Social Psychology, 76, 482–497.
In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends Shirom, A. (2003). Feeling vigorous at work? The
in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 111–136). construct of vigor and the study of positive affect in
Chichester, UK: Wiley. organizations. In D. Ganster & P. L. Perrewe (Eds.),
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, Research in organizational stress and well-being
K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Devel- (Vol. 3, pp. 135–165). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
opment of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 612–624. proactive behavior: A new look at the interface
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived orga- between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psy-
nizational support: A review of the literature. Journal chology, 88, 518–528.
of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in
Roberts, B. W., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Gold- the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and val-
berg, L. R. (2005). The structure of conscientious- idation. Academy of Management Journal, 38,
ness: An empirical investigation based on seven 1442–1465.
major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psy- Staw, B. M. (2004). The dispositional approach to job
chology, 58, 103–139. attitudes: An empirical and conceptual review. In
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The B. Schneider & D. B. Smith (Eds.), Personality and
dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. organizations (pp. 163–192). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655–684. Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R.,
Rothbard, N. P., & Edwards, J. R. (2003). Investment in & de Chermont, K. (2003). The affective under-
work and family roles: A test of identity and utilitar- pinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-
ian motives. Personnel Psychology, 56, 699–730. analytic review and integration. Psychological
Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of Bulletin, 129, 914–945.
positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, Towers-Perrin. (2003). Working today: Understanding
125, 3–30. what drives employee engagement. Stamford, CT:
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination Author.
theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, Van Dyne, L., & Ellis, J. B. (2004). Job creep: A reactance
social development, and well-being. American Psy- theory perspective on organizational citizenship
chologist, 55, 68–78. behavior as over-fulfillment of obligations. In J. A. M.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiro, J. M. (2005). Linking Coyle-Shapiro, L. M. Shore, M. S. Taylor, & L. E.
organizational resources and work engagement to Tetrick (Eds.), The employment relationship: Exam-
employee performance and customer loyalty: The ining psychological and contextual perspectives
mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psy- (pp. 181–205). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
chology, 90, 1217–1227. Press.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2006). The Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994).
measurement of work engagement with a short Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct
questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational redefinition, measurement, and validation. Acad-
and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716. emy of Management Journal, 37, 765–802.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interper-
Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engage- sonal facilitation and job dedication as separate fac-
ment and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor ets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied
analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, Psychology, 81, 525–531.
71–92. Vey, M. A., & Campbell, J. P. (2004). In-role or extra-role
Schiemann, W. A., & Morgan, B. S. (2006). Strategic organizational citizenship behavior: Which are we
surveys: Linking people to business strategy. In measuring? Human Performance, 17, 199–135.
A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Getting action from organizational Warr, P. (1999). Well-being and the workplace. In
surveys (pp. 76–101). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.),
30 W.H. Macey and B. Schneider
Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology ences. Human Resource Management Review, 12,
(pp. 392–412). New York: Russell-Sage. 173–194.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). De- Weiss, H. M., & Kurek, K. E. (2003). Dispositional influ-
velopment and validation of brief measures of ences on affective experiences at work. In M. R.
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality at work
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, (pp. 121–149). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
1063–1070. Wellins, R., & Concelman, J. (2005a). Creating a culture
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1999). Issues in the dimen- for engagement. Workforce Performance Solutions
sional structure of affect—Effects of descriptors, (www.wpsmag.com). Retrieved July 19, 2005, from
measurement error, and response formats: Com- www.ddiworld.com/pdf/wps_engagement_ar.pdf
ment on Russell and Carroll (1999). Psychological Wellins, R., & Concelman, J. (2005b). Personal engage-
Bulletin, 125, 601–610. ment: Driving growth at the see-level. Retrieved
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: April 29, 2005, from www.ddiworld.com/pdf/ddi_
Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experi- personalengagement_ar.pdf