Introduction
Engagement is an enormously appealing concept. We seem to intuitively understand what it means, and believe that it helps to explain something about how people are (or ought to be) at work. The problem, of course, is that many of us have diff erent understandings of what engagement is. We all believe that it is a good thing to be engaged, particularly in contrast to being disengaged, which suggests absence. But we are just not exactly sure what engagement really looks like, except that it involves people working hard and caring about what they are doing. This seems like a good thing, for individuals, their organizations and its customers, and the quality of the work that gets done. Beyond that, there is much divergence in terms of what, exactly, engagement is. This divergence makes it diffi cult for us to agree on how to get more people engaged at work.
I have been thinking about, researching, and helping people and organi- zations with engagement for almost thirty years. I developed the concept of engagement to explain what traditional studies of work motivation overlooked – namely, that employees off er up diff erent degrees and dimen- sions of their selves according to some internal calculus that they con- sciously and unconsciously make (Kahn, 1990). Traditional motivation studies implicitly assumed that workers were either on or they were off ; that is, based on external rewards and intrinsic factors, they were either motivated to work or not, and that this was a relatively steady state that they inhabited (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). I believed that workers are more complicated. Like actors, they make choices about how much of their real selves they bring into their role performances (Kahn, 1992). They might fully and truly express themselves, to the extent their role allows, or they might not at all, with degrees in between. I believed that, rather than label workers as “motivated” or not, these movements into or out of role performances could change a great deal as various conditions shifted. I developed the engagement concept to capture that process. And I set out to determine the conditions that led workers to engage or disengage to varying degrees. In this chapter I share some of what I have discovered and have since expanded upon.
We know engagement mostly by what people actually do. The most clearly observable behaviors that suggest engagement are people’s eff orts. We believe that people are engaged when we see them working hard, putting in eff ort, staying involved. They truly show up for their work. They remain focused on what they are doing. They strive to move their work ahead. They put energy into what they are doing (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
Yet engagement is not simply working hard. It is not simply about the vigor with which people work, their high levels of involvement. It is about putting ourselves – our real selves – into the work. This begins but does not end with eff ort. Our real selves show up when we say what we think and feel in the service of doing the work the best way that we know how. When we deeply care about what we are doing, and are committed to doing the best that we can, we feel compelled to speak rather than remain silent. We use our voices. This is part of engagement. It is what I referred to in 1990 when I initially defi ned engagement as the harnessing of peo- ple’s selves to their work (Kahn, 1990). The self is crucial here. When we are engaged, we express that self, rather than defend or withdraw it from view. Self- expression is a matter of voice (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). The accountant tells her supervisor that she does not feel comfortable using a certain fi nancial technique that seems to hide certain budgetary practices. The project manager tells a colleague that he is frustrated by the lack of communication across departments. The consultant tells a client that she feels like she is wasting her time and their money on a project that has no senior management support. These workers are expressing rather than hiding their thoughts and feelings.
When workers are present in their role performances, they also allow the full range of their senses to inform their work. They do not simply follow routines, which can require little of them other than simply showing up at work and putting in their time. They place their ideas, hunches and feelings at the disposal of the problems they are trying to solve. It matters that it is these specifi c individuals working on those problems. The line worker on the manufacturing fl oor senses that the wooden handles he creates on the lathe are smaller than usual in his hands. On a break he goes and checks the specifi cations on the machine, and discovers that the settings are wrong. The bank clerk senses something odd in the manner of someone making a large wire transfer, and takes an extra moment to examine paperwork that proves to be identity theft. These workers are bringing their full selves – a depth of awareness of which they may not even be fully aware – to bring to bear on their work.
So this is what engagement looks like. People are focused on their tasks. They stay with them. They show that they care about them. They
work hard to accomplish them as best they can. They bring all sorts of data – their thoughts, feelings, hunches, experiences – into play as they go about their work. They say what they think and feel insofar as it advances the work. They fully inhabit their roles, not just do their jobs. They do not need to do this in a showy way, designed to make others stop and applaud them. They are just very present in doing their work (Kahn, 1992).
Engagement is not a simple matter. It requires a depth of intensity and focus that cannot be constantly sustained. Workers need intervals, moments of absence, of being away. They need space in which to re- charge before their next engagements. Such moments are necessary. But they are not entirely suffi cient. People do not get engaged simply because they get enough breaks, like runners who train simply with intervals of running and resting. Engagement is a far more delicate phenomenon, trickier to create and sustain. My research involves understanding and helping to create the conditions that make it more likely that people will become and remain engaged in their work role performances. In my initial empirical work I identifi ed three psychological conditions that must be met to the satisfaction of employees (Kahn, 1990). People are more likely to engage when they feel that it is meaningful to do so, when they sense that it is safe to do so, and when they are available to do so. These three conditions, taken together, shape how much of their selves people bring into task performances. Since that initial work I have conducted action research focusing on how leaders and members actually create or undermine these conditions (Kahn, 1998, 2001, 2005). In this chapter I share those lessons, grouped into three general questions that people need to answer affi rma- tively for themselves if they are to engage.
Does it matter?
People engage when they feel that, on balance, it matters to do so. This is, of course, partly about self- interest. We are more likely to engage when it is in our interest to do so: we are more likely to get the dividends that we want by investing as much of ourselves as possible in some situation. So a basic strategy in engaging others is to help align their interests, such that they very much want to do that which is their job to do. There are other lessons here.
We use our voices when they are likely to be heard
At the heart of engagement is the use of the voice, as the instrument by which we say what we think and feel, question others, describe options and inventions, dialogue. We use our voice when we feel that our words matter – that they will make a diff erence, change minds and directions, add
value, join us with others in something larger than ourselves (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). When this is not the case, we use our voice less. Deaf ears make us mute. We hold our tongue. We nod and do others’ bidding. We disengage. The learning organization depends on the engaged voices of its members (Senge, 1990). Systems learn only when their members bring issues to one another’s attention. Processes change only because people engage, off ering data that requires the system to alter how it does its work. We can see this with any kind of mistakes that happen in organizations. People improve their practices by learning from near misses and errors – but only when members believe that their voice will be heard and their ideas valued. If not, they check out, shield themselves from blame, scape- goat others, and in other ways disengage. Organizational learning occurs only when people feel that their words matter.
We bring ourselves into roles that fi t who we wish to be and whose tasks and boundaries are quite clear
People are more likely to engage when it is perfectly clear what, exactly, their roles are, and they like what those roles allow them to express about themselves (Tyler, 1999). Organizational roles, like theatrical ones, allow people to express parts of their selves. Certain roles allow us to be smart, creative, organized, caring, attentive, zany. We are more likely to engage when the role matches what we wish to be. And the role has to be clearly understood, such that there are clear boundaries between what we are and are not supposed to be doing. People are more likely to disengage when it is not clear what their tasks or authority is, relative to others, and what decisions are theirs to make.
We invest ourselves in roles that reward us in currencies that we value Unavoidably, the meaning that we ascribe to our work is shaped by the rewards that we get from that work. Much organizational research over the years has explored the nature and impact of rewards on eff ort, motiva- tion, and job performance (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). We thus know a great deal. Workers need to feel that there is a clear and fair relation between the work that they do and the extrinsic rewards – money, promo- tions, status, visibility – that they get (Kerr, 1975). They need a sense of intrinsic reward from the work that they do, that is, that the work feels good to do and complete, that they are recognized and valued by others, that what they do makes a diff erence in ways that matter to them (Deci, 1975). They need to feel that the measurement systems by which they are evaluated provide clear, sensible, and justifi able feedback and lead to fair outcomes. When these dimensions are missing, it makes it diffi cult for people to see the meaning in what they do.
We allow ourselves to engage with others when we fi nd that our interactions matter
People can get meaning from the relationships that they create with one another at work. Our colleagues can help us get work done. They can off er personal support. They can provide mentoring. They can help us make sense of ambiguous situations. And they can help provide us with a sense of meaning. Our work lives matter to us more when we feel connected to others at work, and less when we feel isolated and alone (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003). Work has more meaning when we are joined with others – doing things together, spurring one another on, having fun, and learn- ing about ourselves in relation with others. It becomes meaningful as well when we are treated with a certain amount of dignity, respect and appre- ciation by others with whom we work – particularly by supervisors and other fi gures of authority (Kahn, 1992). Good working relations enable us to play off one another, such that working together is better – more creative, interesting, productive – than working alone. When we are lucky enough to have such relations, it makes it more likely that we will engage ourselves within them (Kahn, 1998).
We engage in the context of systems that we fi nd trustworthy, predictable, and sensible
People are more likely to engage when they have a clear sense of the direct relation between eff orts and outcomes. We need to see that reward systems make sense – that people are rewarded for the extra parts of their selves that they invest in their roles, or held accountable for going about their work on automatic pilot (Kerr, 1975). We need to see that people who engage themselves get the resources to enable their eff orts to matter, rather than a less obvious and more capricious system of resource allocation. Nothing creates cynicism more than our sense of injustice or outrage triggered by nonsensical rewards and outcomes (Senge, 1990). Leaders can be reluctant to truly reward excellence, and to hold others accountable for poor performance. Doing so weakens the possibility of engagement.
This fi rst set of lessons suggests that people need to feel as if they matter, that their contributions have meaning. Each of us is more or less con- stantly performing some fl eeting, pre- conscious calculus whose results lead us toward or away from truly engaging in the situations in which we fi nd ourselves. This fi rst set of lessons focused on one dimension of the calculus: how much we and others might gain through our engagements. The second set of lessons focuses on another dimension: how much we risk in doing so.
Is it possible?
People engage not only when it matters but when they feel that they can. This is partly about the sense that their voice will be absorbed, digested, and worked with in ways that are respectful and dignifi ed. To engage is to present others with the gift of our real selves, to stand vulnerable amidst them. If others are careful with such gifts, we off er them more, and more freely. If they drop them, ignore them, or do not know how to open and use them, we take them back. The possibility of our engagement is also a matter of our organizations. There are particular lessons here as well.
We bring ourselves into forums in which we can safely join with others to identify and solve problems
Organizational learning requires places in which people are brought together and asked to engage with one another, in order to identify and solve problems (Senge, 1990). Such forums must be safe (Kahn, 2001): organization members must know that they can say what they think and feel, show what they know and do not know, be creative and think “out of the box”, remain silent or jump around in excitement, or be whoever they are without penalty. Penalties come in diff erent shapes and packages. They can be formal, in job performance reviews and the like, or informal, with sideway glances from co- workers, silence, or laughter (Harvey, 1988). We know when forums are safe or not. We know when it feels okay to be ignorant or dramatic and when it does not. It is that sense – that in some settings we shall be okay no matter what, and in other settings we are too vulnerable – that defi nes what is and is not safe, and ultimately, whether we shall engage.
We engage ourselves in diffi cult situations when we can address them openly and together
Organizational life is fi lled with diffi cult situations. A key project loses funding. A leader suddenly leaves the organization. A product that has been under development fails key tests. These are diffi cult moments, not just for the individuals involved but for all of those who identify with the project or group. It shakes them up, distracts them. People can then engage only when they have the chance to clear themselves, emotion- ally, from the debris of their daily work or diffi cult episodes in their units (Kahn, 2005). This means that they have to address them openly, with others. Groups need to get together to talk about their work and fi gure out what to do. They need forums in which to address diffi cult issues with one another, but more, to create connectedness among them that allows them to face further diffi culties. That connectedness furthers engagement (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003).
We require healthy rules of engagement by which to manage our diff erences with others
When people engage at work, they are likely to come upon their diff er- ences with one another. Indeed, I would suggest that one hallmark of disengagement is the lack of expressed or observable diff erences (Harvey, 1988). When we go on automatic pilot, we do what we are told to do. We follow the routines in prescribed ways, just like the person to our left and to our right. We conform, without diff ering. When we engage, on the other hand, we do what we believe to be right. We say what we think and feel. We throw ourselves into and at our work, and perhaps into and at one another. We bump up against others. This can get messy. We can get into confl ict. How our diff erences with others get handled has a lot to do with the extent to which we continue to engage (Smith & Berg, 1987). Diff erent settings – units, divisions, organizations – have what I call “rules of engagement” that shape and constrain how diff erences and confl ict are dealt with. There are productive and unproductive rules. Productive rules, for example, include the following: diff erences are embraced as opportu- nities for learning and creativity, allowed to surface and if necessary, to develop into confl icts; confl icts are framed around tasks, not individuals; people hang on to shared goals and interests rather than positions; and people examine their diff erences with respect, concern about process, and a sense of perspective. Unproductive rules include these: diff erences and possible confl icts are avoided, ignored, smoothed over, suppressed, laughed away, or in other ways disappeared; it becomes more important to “get along” than to productively engage diff erences and potential con- fl icts; and diff erences are framed in terms of right/wrong thinking that shuts down creativity. Productive rules create the possibility for us to safely engage; the others do not.
We engage in the context of systems that do not lock us into certain