Overall, the contribution of management scholars to the study of engagement has primarily focused on organisational case studies and the development of models of engagement for particular organisations. The contribution from this area can therefore be considered fairly limited compared with other contributions to the field, particularly as it is often focused on improving organisational productivity. Indeed, one commentator noted that whilst there have been many contributions to engagement literature, the theoretical outputs have been limited, leaving practitioner contributions as the most prevalent (Saks 2006). Nevertheless, as engagement is mainly applied to organisations, the implications for management practitioners are significant and it is relevant to commence the discussion on engagement by considering the scholarly input into engagement by researchers in the field of management.
It is evident in the management research arena that there has been little agreement on the definitions of engagement. For example, in a recent issue of ‘HR in Practice’ (Bretherton et al. 2006), produced by The Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training
(ACIRRT), the lack of consensus around engagement definitions was reported: ‘there is currently no universally agreed definition for an ‘engaged employee’ (Bretherton et al. 2006, p. 1). Nevertheless, most definitions according to the report encompass the matching of individual to organisational values: ‘engagement occurs when there is a positive alignment between business values and employee values’ (Bretherton et al. 2006, p.1). This has been confirmed in case study evidence which indicates that to engage employees, they need an understanding and commitment to organisational goals and values (Greenfield 2004). These ideas do not encompass the state of engagement per se but rather what it means to be engaged and, in particular, what it means to the organisation. For instance, Greenfield (2004) suggested that if everyone in the organisation is heading in the same direction towards the same goals and representing the organisation’s work value, then significant benefits will be produced.
Taking a different management approach, Haudan and MacLean (2002) defined engagement using words that included: being captivated and enthralled. They related the sensation of being engaged to being immersed in riveting dinner conversation or watching an exciting soccer game. In their conceptualisation, engaged employees are so focused that the task has their undivided attention and they are unaware of time. This concept is also referred to as ‘absorption’ (Goffman 1961; Kahn 1990, 1992; Rothbard 2001; Schaufeli et al. 2002) and has been identified as having total absorption in a task. Absorption has been likened to the idea of flow (the state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter, Csikszentmihayli 2002). This is discussed further in Sections 2.3.2.2, in the context of positive psychology. The illustration of engaged employees depicted by Haudan and MacLean (2002) of being in a totally absorbed state also reflects the transitory nature of the idea of engagement: that the task has one’s undivided attention for the space of a particular event, for example: the work task or the soccer match. In this sense, the author’s present ideas of engagement that is different from the other management contributions as they view it as a state of being.
Alternatively, Saks (2006) approaches engagement from a social exchange perspective. The definition of engagement provided by Saks (2006) is derived from Kahn’s (1990 earlier idea of psychological presence. Saks (2006) used social exchange theory to investigate engagement. Social exchange theory predicts that as relationships develop, a sense of loyalty emerges along with an enhancement of trust and commitment (Blau, P 1964). Using this as the basis for his investigation, Saks (2006) developed his own measures of work and organisational engagement that reflected psychological presence at work. Both of the scales measured only one construct each. The scale was consistent with Gallup (Buckingham & Coffman 1999) research that measured only degrees of engagement but was at odds with other engagement scales and conceptualisations of engagement which have been reflected as multiple constructs (Kahn 1990;
1992; Langelaan et al. 2006; Leiter & Maslach 2000; May et al. 2004; Rothbard 2001; Schaufeli et al. 2002). In developing his concept of engagement, Saks (2006) incorporated ideas of meaningfulness (degree of meaning derived from the job), safety (psychologically safe to employ the self at work) and availability (psychologically available, detached from other things in life, to employ the self at work) and used the idea of psychological presence at work, similar to the research approach used by May et al. (2004) in his depiction of engagement. Whilst his contribution to the field has been prominent, Saks (2006) agreed that there is no consensual definition of engagement available in the current research domain. An additional approach is that taken by Bamber et al. (2009) where engagement is put forward as the commitment and control within organisations and the relationship with the unions leading to the subsequent effectiveness of various worldwide airlines.
The other main contribution by management scholars on engagement has been the work on disengagement (this taken up in Section 2.3.2.1). Greenfield (2004) argued that disengagement is caused by a conflict of values at work. In this situation the goals of the organisation are not aligned with the organisational plans and this can cause conflicts with personal values of employees. This phenomenon is referred to as the ‘façades of conformity’ and suggests that there is a semblance of conformity without real employee connection (Hewlin 2003). When this happens employees are likely to become disengaged or ‘disconnected’ as Greenfield (2004, p14) described it. Façades of conformity occur when employees appear as though they embrace the values of the organisation when they actually do not and this is the point at which disengagement can occur. In management terms, this situation can stem from either not knowing what to do or how the job relates to the overall organisation. Secondly, it may stem from lack of communication of the organisation’s values and how they relate to everyday functioning. Thirdly, it arises when organisational values do not fit with the personal values of the employee. As a consequence Hewlin (2003) noted that there can be both psychological and emotional effects. This phenomenon drives some of the management research on engagement because the alignment between employee values and those of the organisation to be engaged at work is of key importance to the productive effort of the organisation.
Despite the limited contribution of management scholars it is evident that their work begins to paint a picture of the variety and breadth of the types of definitions found for engagement. In an attempt to highlight the consistencies between their contributions (in order to create a more unified definition) it was found that some of contributions use engagement to explain greater organisational effectiveness and others to align engagement between the individual and organisation’s values and goals (RQ1). In addition the general lack of consistency is evident in contributions which have described engagement as a state, which would in effect predetermine
certain outcomes for the organisation. The next section explores the contribution from the psychology scholars.