Definitional and Conceptual Muddling: Identifying the Positionality of Employee Engagement and Defining the Construct

Abstract

Numerous entangled definitions, words, measurements, and frameworks have been proposed when referring to employee engagement, as well as other engagement typologies. Consequently, researchers have routinely drawn atheoretical conclusions about the meaning of employee engagement, limiting the applicability of employee engagement in theory building and practice. The focal point of our work was to detail an explicit definition of employee engagement and juxtapose our definition alongside several existing frameworks and definitions. First, we detail and position an operational definition of employee engagement ground in seminal literature. Second, we systematically examine the engagement literature, highlighting both dominant types of engagement and alternative typologies. Third, we conclude by making meaning for the human resource development field, distinguishing the use of employee engagement in the literature as an outcome, psychological state, and process, and synthesize our findings through a brief discussion of implications for research and practice.

Does Compassion Matter in Leadership? A Two‐Stage Sequential Equal Status Mixed Method Exploratory Study of Compassionate Leader Behavior and Connections to Performance in Human Resource Development

“…Identifying compassionate‐like behaviors is useful, however, further scrutiny is needed to cull out those behaviors specific to leaders. Existing frameworks for understanding human behavior, including Fredrickson's Broaden‐and‐Build theory (Fredrickson, ; Fredrickson & Branigan, ), Luthans' () notion of psychological capital, and the emerging area of employee engagement (Barrick, Thurgood, Smith, & Courtright, ; Shuck, Osam, Zigarmi, & Nimon, ), all highlight the benefit of developing supportive, humanistic places of work. Conversely, as pointed out by Rynes et al (), “there is plenty of evidence of the negative effects of contrasting behaviors such as neglect, incivility, derision, bullying, and abuse” (p. 505).…”

Reciprocity matters: Idiosyncratic deals to shape the psychological contract and foster employee engagement in times of austerity

“…Academic definitions of engagement are also divided on whether employee engagement is a trait (Macey & Schneider, 2008-although they consider engagement is a trait, state, and behavioral package), psychological state (Schaufeli et al, 2002), or a behavior (Alfes et al, 2010;Saks, 2006). The current HRD literature discussed here views Kahn's (1990) engagement definition as a process motivational state (Shuck et al, 2017). This view considers the physical/behavioral dimension of Kahn's (1990) definition to consist of "behavioral energy" and "intention" (p. 269) following the dynamic cognitive and emotional appraisal of work factors.…”

Happiness and healthiness: A replication study

“…One of the more popular approaches stemming from the interest in positive work environments has been the construct of employee engagement (Kim et al, ). Employee engagement is defined as a positive psychological state related to the work environment and research has routinely suggested that increased levels of engagement are related to positive organizational outcomes (Kim et al, 2013; Shuck, Osam, Zigarmi, & Nimon, ; Shuck & Wollard, ) such as job commitment (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, ; Shuck & Reio Jr, ), increased retention (Hableson, ), improved performance (Kim et al, ), and better financial returns (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, ).…”