Employee engagement is a significant issue in both management theory and management practice. Nonetheless, there are still significant differences in definitions, theories, antecedents, and outcomes (Sun & Bunchapattanasakda, 2019). Research has confirmed that employee engagement is necessary for organisations' survival and growth (Uddin, et al., 2019). Employee engagement is the emotional relationship depicted with a positive attitude according to the organisation's values and goals (Sun & Bunchapattanasakda, 2019). It is voluntary, asserted employee behaviour that goes apart from job requirements (Uddin, et al., 2019).
Since the introduction of the term employee engagement in the 1990s by Kahn, many definitions have been introduced. The first definition of employee engagement by (Kahn, 1990) was related to personal engagement (Saks, 2019). (Kahn, 1990) addressed personal engagement as "the harnessing of organisation members' selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances"
(p.694). While Kahn defined employee disengagement as "the uncoupling of selves from work role; in disengagement, people withdraw and defend themselves physically, cognitively, or
55
emotionally during role performance" (Kahn, 1990, p. 694). Later, Schaufeli et al. (2002, p. 74) defined engagement "as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterised by vigour, dedication, and absorption". Vigour includes high energy and cognitive flexibility stages during the work; dedication states the strong involvement in one's work and the experience of a sense of meaning, enthusiasm, and challenge; finally, absorption specifies the employee's total concentration and captivation in their work (Saks, 2019). Consequently, this variety of definitions leads researchers to criticise engagement, describing it as "an Umbrella for whatever one wants it to be" (Schaufeli, 2013).
Shuck (2011) and Schaufeli (2013) categorised the employee engagement perspectives into four approaches: need-satisfaction, burnout-antithesis, satisfaction-engagement, and multi- dimensional.
In order to understand the mediation variable of employee engagement, the conceptualization of engagement is given. Since this variable has several definitions and several approaches that have defined engagement in different ways and through different dimensions, it is vital that the readers of the thesis are able to differentiate among the conceptualization to understand which type was used and how it impacts the explanation of the results, each approach has its perspective on employee engagement with specific definitions and measurements.
1) Need-Satisfaction Approach
Kahn (1990) first introduced this approach; it is essential but is not used widely in empirical research (Schaufeli, 2013). According to Kahn, engagement is being physically, emotionally, and cognitively engaged. These three aspects are affected by meaningfulness, safety, and availability (Shuck, 2011). Meaningfulness is a positive sense of return on investment of self.
Meaning adds value to work and receives feedback. For example, achieving goals related to an
56
excellent vision and mission might create the feeling of adding value and, consequently, being meaningful (Shuck, 2011). Safety means showing oneself without being afraid of negative consequences on either oneself or one status. Finally, availability is achieved if employee trusts their employer's availability and have the tools to achieve their work; they will feel safe (Shuck, 2011). Researchers such as Rich et al. ( 2010), May (2004), and Shuck & Wollard (2010) have used the Kahn approach previously; however, there is a scarcity of studies that used this approach.
2) Burnout-Antithesis Approach
The burnout-antithesis approach is based on occupational health psychology, and it is divided into two approaches (Sun & Bunchapattanasakda, (2019); Shuck et al., (2017); Schaufeli, (2013)). The one introduced by Maslach et al. (1997) indicates that engagement and burnout are the far ends of a continuum. At the same time, Schaufeli et al. (2002) suggested that engagement is a distinct concept that relates negatively to burnout and consists of three dimensions: vigour, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, 2013). Under this approach, engagements are assumed to be erased by burnout; consequently, what is supposed to be important becomes meaningless (Shuck, 2011).
3) Satisfaction-Engagement Approach
This approach was initially introduced by Harter et al. (2002) using a positive psychology framework. Under this approach, engagement is defined as "individual involvement and satisfaction with an enthusiasm for work" (Harter, et al., 2002, p. 269). Under this approach, the Gallup work engagement assessment is included. The satisfaction-engagement approach argues that engagement means satisfaction and involvement (Shuck, et al., 2017). It can be described through involvement, satisfaction and enthusiasm for work. An engaged employee
57
under this classification will be ready to devote themselves to work at any time while being happy and proud (Sun & Bunchapattanasakda, 2019). The problem with this approach is that engagement is positively correlated to satisfaction and involvement. Results show a 0.91 correlation; despite the correlation issue, researchers used this approach (Schaufeli, 2013).
4) Multidimensional Approach
Saks introduced this approach in 2009: employee engagement is a "multifaceted construct".
Under this classification, employee engagement is defined as a flexible application of emotions and behaviours (Sun & Bunchapattanasakda, 2019). The multidimensional approach developed by Saks is quite similar to Kahn's (1990) definition in that it explains engagement in terms of three dimensions: cognitive, emotional, and behavioural (Shuck, et al., 2017). Saks lengthened the previous two definitions Kahn, (1990) and Schaufeli et al., (2002) and made a distinction between two terms, job engagement and organisation engagement. Saks stated that employees have two attachments, one to their job and one to their organisations, which is multidimensional employee engagement (Saks, 2019). Under this approach, engagement combines cognitive, emotional and behavioural aspects.
Finally, a fifth classification was found by (Sun & Bunchapattanasakda, 2019), where employee engagement is seen as a dedicated willingness. Under this classification comes the definitions of Hewitt organisation and Towers organisations. Hewitt defines employee engagement as the willingness to "say", "stay," and "strive". It means engaged employees say positive descriptions about their organisation, and colleagues strongly hope to stay at their organisation and put their total effort into achieving company success. At the same time, Towers organisation define employee engagement as "the willingness and the ability of employees to help their organisation
58
succeed through rationales and sensuous" (Sun & Bunchapattanasakda, 2019, p. 65). Table (2) presents a summary of the five previous approaches.
TABLE 2:SUMMARY OF THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT APPROACHES
Approach Research Definition Dimensions
Need-Satisfaction Approach
(Kahn, 1990)
"The harnessing of organisation members' selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances"
(Kahn, 1990, p. 694).
Physical, emotional, and cognitive
Burnout-Antithesis Approach
(Maslach, et al., 1997) (Schaufeli, 2013)
"a persistent positive affective state.
Characterised by high levels of
activation and pleasure" (Maslach et al.
1997, p. 417).
"Positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterised by vigour, dedication, and absorption" (Schaufli et al., 2002, p. 74).
Vigour, dedication, and absorption
Satisfaction- Engagement Approach
(Harter, et al., 2002)
"individual’s involvement and
satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work" (Harter, et al., 2002, p. 417)
Involvement, satisfaction, and enthusiasm for work.
Multidimensional Approach
(Saks, 2019)
"A distinct and unique construct consisting of cognitive, emotional, and behavioural components . . . associated with individual role performance" (Saks, 2019, p. 602).
Cognitive, emotional, and behavioural
As was noticed from the previous engagement approaches, and as was noticed by previous research, there are a few similarities between engagement approaches used by both Kahn (1990) and Schaufeli et al. (2002). Both agreed that engagement involves physical (vigour), emotional (dedication) and cognitive (absorption) aspects. Additionally, Saks's definition is very similar to Kahn's. Moreover, it was described as an extension of both Kahn and Schaufeli et al. works ( (Schaufeli, 2013); (Shuck, 2011). Employee engagement was found to be affected by many
59
factors. For instance, Sugianingrat et al. (2019) found that fairness, power-sharing, people- oriented organisation behaviour, and sustainability concerns affect employee engagement dimensions of vigour, dedication, and absorption. Moreover, employee engagement positively affects team performance in organisational contexts (Uddin, et al., 2019).
Sun & Bunchapattanasakda (2019) categorised the factors that affect employee engagement into organisational, job, and individual factors. Employee engagement was proven to positively affect employee performance, profitability, customer satisfaction, and retention, leading to overall organisation success (Sugianingrat, et al., 2019). Saks (2019) created an employee engagement framework that states the predecessors and successors of employee engagement;
his framework was modified from one he created back in 2006. The new framework is presented in Figure (6).
Antecedents
Job characteristics
Perceived organization support
Perceived supervisor support
Rewards and recognitions
Procedural justice
Fit perception
Leadership
Opportunities for learning and development
Job demand
Dispositional characteristics
Personal resources
Employee Engagement
Consequences
Job Satisfaction
Organizational Commitment
Intention to quit
Organizational citizenship Behavior
Task Performance
Extra –role Performance
Health and Well-being
Stress and Strain
Burnout
FIGURE 6EMPLOYEEENGAGEMENTANTECEDENTSANDCONSEQUENCESSOURCE(SAKS,2019, P.32)
60
2.3.1 Engagement Dimensions
In this research need-satisfaction approach suggested by Kahn (1990) will be adopted.
According to this approach, engagement has three dimensions physical, emotional, and cognitive engagement.
2.3.1.1 Physical Engagement
Physical engagement is putting effort into one's job (Ongore, 2014). It is related to the physical aspect of engagement and can be defined as exerting energy of employees to complete their work (Kular, 2008). Khan (2019) summarised physical energies as the substantial involvement of employee energy toward specific activities, ranging from laziness to active involvement.
2.3.1.2 Emotional Engagement
Emotional engagement can be defined as "a positive affective reaction to one's job" (Ongore, 2014, p. 1316). This type of engagement concerns employees' thoughts, feelings, and ideas regarding their job ( (Khan, 2019); (Ongore, 2014)). In summary, emotional engagement relates to employee feelings and attitudes about their jobs, organisations or managers and whether they are positive or negative (Kular, 2008). Employees with high emotional engagement feel enthusiasm, pride, and recognition (Khan, 2019).
2.3.1.3 Cognitive Engagement
Cognitive engagement is attention to and absorption in the job (Ongore, 2014). (Khan, 2019) describes cognitive engagement as employees' intense focus on their job tasks, leading to complete absorption and resistance to disturbances. Cognitive engagement concerns the
61
employee's belief about their organisation (Kular, 2008). Employees with high cognitive engagement focus on their job and can easily ignore distractions (Khan, 2019).
Cognitive engagement is believed to be the primary function in becoming engaged since it is related to employees' rational and unique experiences and perspectives of their work (Joo, et al., 2017).