The earlier sections of this chapter on the role of emotions and cognitions have all led to specific outcomes or responses and these were termed the individual engagement outcomes (section 4.1). The propositions take each of the individual engagement capabilities and the organisational characteristics to these engagement outcomes (section 4.1). In other words, when fully engaged, employees need to employ themselves physically, as well as emotionally and cognitively. An example provided by Kahn (1990, p. 701) from his case study where a participant ‘employed himself physically, darting about checking gear and leading the dive.’ This demonstrates and reinforces the link between being physically and behaviourally engaged. In addition the consultants also highlight a rational or behaviour engagement aspect (BSI- Consulting 2007; CLC 2004; Towers Perrin 2003). The transition and connecting from physical, behavioural and rational engagement dimensions was also discussed in section 4.1. This section explores the contention that each of the potential individual engagement outcomes together may represent have a common underlying construct. This will include a discussion on the constructs: affective commitment, job satisfaction, intention to quit, disengagement and exhaustion.
Many researchers consider organisational commitment an important aspect of engagement (Australian Public Service Commission 2006; CLC 2004; Hallberg & Schaufeli 2006; Macey & Schneider 2008; Robinson et al. 2004). This is often because affective commitment and engagement are used interchangeably in the literature and many of the contributions particularly that of the consultants support engagement as the degree of affective attachment to the
Intrinsic Motivation Cognitive Engagement Capabilities Job Involvement Dedication Absorption Attention
organisation (See sections 2.3.3. & 2.4.1.). Although many researchers identify its importance for engagement, there is still a lack of consensus regarding what role affective organisational commitment plays in engagement. For example Macey and Schneider (2008) propose that organisational commitment forms part of their state engagement and some consultants view commitment as part of the outcome of being engaged (BSI-Consulting 2007; CLC 2004; Robinson et al. 2004). As discussed in Chapter 2 (2.4.2), these terms are used synonymously; it is not the intention of this research to ignore this overwhelming contribution. This thesis contends that affective commitment is an important dimension to the individual engagement outcomes; however, it is believed that it does not explain engagement fully. The definitions encapsulating commitment are broad.
Porter et al. (1974) identified three components of commitment: employees’ acceptance of the organisation’s values and goals; their desire to exert extra effort for the benefit of the organisation; and their desire to remain with the organisation. This definition extends beyond loyalty to the organisation (which is a common variation made by other researchers). Reliance on organisational loyalty has been described as being a parsimonious or simplistic way of referring to commitment (Price & Mueller 1981; 1986). Instead, commitment has been described as encompassing ‘an active relationship with the organisation such that individuals are willing to give something of themselves in order to contribute to the organisation’s wellbeing’ (Mowday et al. 1979, p. 226). Consequently, the main body of commitment research uses Porter et al.’s (1974) definition or variations of this definition (Benson 1988; Bishop & Dow Scott 1996; Deery & Iverson 1998; Mowday et al.1979; Price & Mueller 1986). Allen and Meyer’s (1990) conceptualisation of commitment includes the concepts of affective commitment, continuance and normative commitment. They describe affective commitment as ‘an affective or emotional attachment to the organisation such that the strongly committed individual identifies with, is involved in, and enjoys membership in, the organisation’ (Allen & Meyer 1990, p.2). Affective commitment is seen as going beyond the call of duty, putting in the extra effort on behalf of the organisation. This is more closely related to Kahn’s (1990) conceptualisation of engagement (section 2.2)
Continuance commitment is the concept of staying with the organisation based upon the cost of not staying (Allen & Meyer 1990). Employees with continuance commitment see themselves as being long term members of the organisation. Normative commitment is seen as the feelings of loyalty and obligation to remain with the organisation. Clearly, the concepts of continuance and normative commitment are related given that those with greater loyalty will have the intention to remain with the organisation (Mueller, Wallace & Price 1992). Whilst there is a separate debate between typical psychological/ management/ sociological definitions with the more
economic based definition that focuses on the costs of staying with the organisation, the transactional relationship, this thesis limits itself to the idea of affective commitment. Measuring only affective commitment is common practice within the international research literature (Luthans et al. 2008; Reid et al. 2008). Engagement has been related to the affective attachment that employees have with their organisations (Macey & Schneider 2008; Saks 2006).
Another construct with outcome potential for engagement is job satisfaction. There is research evidence to suggest that commitment and job satisfaction are related concepts. Job satisfaction is the degree to which an employee is satisfied with the job (Brayfield & Rothe 1951). There is some research that has made the link between commitment and satisfaction and the correlations outlined in Table 4-3 demonstrate this association. According to an analysis of the causal relationship between the two by Currivan (1999), the relationship is purely spurious with no direct association. This is contrary to many other researchers who have tested the factors together as mediators (Lok & Crawford 2001) or together as dependant variables (Reid et al. 2008). The correlations are quiet high and they do suggest, even considering the various measures of commitment (affective and overall commitment) and job satisfaction, that there is a rather large effect between them (Cohen 1988). The largest of the effect sizes was between measures of affective commitment (Mowday et al. 1979) also called attitudinal commitment and overall job satisfaction. The reason that various measures of commitment and job satisfaction are being reported is due to the focus on correlational relationships only and to add further support to the relationship due to the breadth of measures for each. In a study by Allen and Meyer (1990) each of the components of commitment were measured, as well as the overall commitment measures. The authors found a strong correlation between the measure of affective commitment and the organisational commitment scale developed by Porter and et al. (1974) (r=0.83, p<0.05). The relationship between the two scales is quite strong and indicates a strong shared variance between the two (r²= 0.69). This provides further evidence of a strong relationship between affective commitment and job satisfaction and firmly establishes affective commitment as a distinct measure. More recently this relationship was reinforced by Luthans et al. (2008) with correlations ranging from 0.53- 0.67.
For Macey and Schneider (2008), in addition to their conceptualisation of state engagement incorporating commitment, it also incorporates job satisfaction which they highlight as an important dimension of engagement. They articulate that engagement should encompass affective satisfaction dimensions, incorporating enthusiasm, energy and an overall positive affective state to the job, drawing on a comparison to the UWES and the definition incorporating an affective / cognitive state (Schaufeli, Salanova et al. 2002). Essentially like
affective commitment, satisfaction is an attitude, but satisfaction reflects the feelings (affective state) about the job. This is consistent with the early ideas on satisfaction (Brayfield & Rothe 1951; Smith, Kendall & Hulin 1969). In addition, Harter et al. (2002; Harter et al. 2003) identified that engagement is essentially being satisfied and involved in the job. This has been measured by the Gallup Workplace Audit (GWA) (Buckingham & Coffman 1999) (see section 2.3.3.1). The GWA measure essentially identifies the ‘conditions under which people work’ for them to be satisfied but not the actual engagement state (or satisfaction) as a totality (Macey and Schneider 2008, p.7).
Other consultant groups have also made the link between engagement and job satisfaction (Seijts & Crim 2006; Towers Perrin 2003). The links from previous research identify job satisfaction as an important engagement outcome. So whilst affective commitment and job satisfaction are related to emotional dimensions they are dealt with in this thesis as outcome variables as is common practice within the literature (Luthans et al. Gaiduk, Gaiduk & Fields 2009; 2008; Reid et al. 2008). In summary, when engaged an employee is both satisfied and affectively committed. Job satisfaction and affective commitment are both important considerations for engagement, especially for the individual engagement outcomes. To be engaged it is considered an important dimension have an affective attachment with the organisation as well as be satisfied with the job and this is impacted by the cognitive and emotional engagement capabilities.
Table 4-3 Correlations of Variables of Individual Engagement Capabilities from Previous Studies
Affective
Commitment Job Satisfaction Disengagement Exhaustion Intention Quit to Affective Commitment 1 0.55a 0.68b Job Satisfaction 0.65c 0.79d 1 Disengagement - - 1 Exhaustion 0.36 (-0.21)e -0.22f 0.44g 1 Intention to Quit 0.67h -0.60i -0.66j - 0.23k 1
NOTE: a= Job satisfaction scale (Price & Mueller 1990) and overall commitment measure (OCQ) Brooke et al. (1988); b= Deery et al. (1994).
c= This correlation is an overall weighted correlation. Other correlation ranges 0.56-0.65 (Meyer et al. 2002); 0.51 (Sims & Kroeck 1994); d= (Reid et al. 2008)
e= Emotional Exhaustion (MBI-GI) Llorens et al. (2006).
f= Measure of Emotional Exhaustion (MBI-GI) and job satisfaction (Schaufeli et al. 2008)
g= Demerouti et al. (2003). Demerouti et al. (2001) r=0.39; Halbesleben & Demerouti (2005) range 0.16-0.34; Fritz & Sonnentag (2006) range 0.24-0.4.
h=This is a positive association because it is a measure of Intention to Stay with Organisation (Ko, Price & Mueller 1997); i= (Iverson & Buttigieg 1999).
j= Total job satisfaction (MSQ) (Sims & Kroeck 1994)
k= This correlation reflects turnover intentions and emotional exhaustion (MBS-GI) Schaufeli & Bakker (2004). Janessen et al. (1999) r=0.17
The other constructs that are considered an important individual engagement outcome are intention to quit (intention to remain, turnover intentions) and burnout. Intention to quit has been linked to both commitment (affective) and job satisfaction as a possible outcome of the two (Iverson & Buttigieg 1999; Ko, Price & Mueller 1997; Tett & Meyer 1993). In the organisational attachment literature quit intentions is placed at the opposite end of the continuum to affective commitment (Casper & Harris 2008; Gaiduk, Gaiduk & Fields 2009; Mano-Negrin 1998; Riketta & Dick 2005). As noted in Table 4-3 intention to quit has a strong relationship with both affective commitment and satisfaction (correlational range – 0.6-0.68 both positive and negative). According to Saks (2006) the consequences of what he terms job and organisational engagements are commitment, satisfaction and intention to leave. However, his measures do not necessarily reflect each of the engagement dimensions as proposed in this thesis. Although, the linkages between each of these factors is supported (Casper & Harris 2008; Lok & Crawford 2001; Sims & Kroeck 1994). As with commitment and satisfaction there are various measures and conceptual names for intention to quit including turnover intentions and intention to stay as positive approaches to the same idea. These can be measured using items such as: ‘I have an intention to remain with the organisation’ which would be opposite to asking an employee’s ‘intention to quit’, however, they are essentially the same idea, just the reverse scored. The definition of ‘intention to quit’ is the prospect of the continuance of the job into the future (Saks 2006). In the engagement arena, there are not many studies that link engagement with an intention to quit the organisation or an intention to remain.
A strong correlation between emotional exhaustion and intention to leave the organisation is evident in Table 4-3 (Janssen, De Jonge & Bakker 1999; Schaufeli & Bakker 2004). Emotional exhaustion is measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-GI) (Maslach 1982) which is a well developed burnout measure (section 2.2.3.2). Intention to quit the organisation as an individual engagement outcome is important because if employees were truly engaged, with the appropriate emotional and cognitive engagement capabilities then there should be no intention to leave the organisation because as they would be working to their ‘best’ and getting what they need to be psychologically present (see section 4.1.1.)
The other individual engagement outcome that is considered here to be important is burnout which was discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.2.3.2). In many studies engagement and burnout have been explicitly linked (Bosman, Rothmann & Buitendach 2005; Leiter & Maslach 2000; Maslach et al. 2001; Schaufeli, Martinez et al. 2002; Timms, Graham & Cottrell 2007). It has been argued that engagement is the exact anti-pole to burnout; however, this argument no longer is supported within the literature (Schaufeli et al. 2002). Maslach (1982; Maslach & Leiter 1997) suggests that burnout incorporates exhaustion, cynicism and lack of professional
efficacy. According to the measure MBI-GI which captures these concepts, if employees are not burnt out then they are engaged, so low scores on this measure indicates engagement. Schaufeli and Bakker (2001 cited in Schaufeli & Bakker 2004) argue that the ideas are linked but not the exact opposites. Another burnout conceptualisation that has more recently emerged is that proposed by Demerouti et al. (2001) where burnout comprises a measure of exhaustion and disengagement (Oldenberg Burnout Inventory, OLBI). A multi-trait multi-method analysis of both measures (MBI-GI and OLBI) has found that the measures of exhaustion both load on the same dimension, the cynicism and disengagement measures also load on the same dimension (Demerouti et al. 2003; Halbesleben & Demerouti 2005). Both conceptualisations have an exhaustion component and the difference between them exists in the emotional-only focus of the MBI-GI compared with exhaustion in the OLBI measure which covered emotional, cognitive and physical exhaustion (Demerouti et al. 2003; Halbesleben & Demerouti 2005). The breadth of the OLBI is thus much broader and captures a greater portion of burnout dimensions compared to the MBI-GI. And because the OLD-I captures a large portion of the burnout dimensions, this can also be suggested as not being the anti-pole of engagement (Schaufeli et al. 2002).
As part of the OLBI, disengagement is the ‘distancing [of] oneself from one’s work and experiencing negative attitudes to the work object, work content , or one’s work in general’ (Demerouti et al. 2003, p. 14). The disengagement questions encompass the willingness to remain within the organisation and the identification with the work, job and organisation (Bakker et al. 2004). This makes an explicit link between the factor of disengagement and intention to quit (remain) the organisation that has not previously been explored. Exhaustion (emotional MBI-GI) has been shown to be related to turnover intentions. However, as presented in Table 4-3 there is not a large effect size here, and with the consideration of a broader exhaustion conceptualisation (emotional, cognitive and physical) this effect size maybe increased. For example an employee’s intention to quit the organisation may be higher if he or she is exhausted in all three areas. The definition of exhaustion according to the OLBI is the emotional, cognitive and physical strain incurred from the prolonged intensity of the job (Demerouti et al. 2003). The effect size between disengagement and exhaustion is considered medium to large (r=0.24-0.44) (Cohen 1988). Although these constructs together are considered as a combined measure of burnout, they are considered as individual dimensions in this thesis because the effect size is not too high. There is significance for both of these dimensions in an engagement study because if burnout is the anti-pole of engagement, then disengagement and exhaustion become important dimensions. If employees have the individual engagement capabilities to be able to be engaged and be psychologically present then they will have low scores on the OLBI dimensions.
Many of the constructs identified as part of the individual engagement outcomes, have been tested as antecedents and outcomes of each other. For example the impact of job satisfaction on commitment (Elliott & Hall 1994), or commitment on satisfaction (Lok & Crawford 2001; Yoon & Thye 2002), and both job satisfaction and commitment on intention to quit the organisation (Allen & Meyer 1990; Iverson & Buttigieg 1999; Sims & Kroeck 1994). Within this thesis the sequential nature of these variables with the other is not the focus and as such the thesis is suggesting that there is a relationship between each of the constructs that subsumes the higher order construct of individual engagement outcomes.
The other two engagement constructs, disengagement and exhaustion, are thought to share variance with the other variables. But they have limited associations in the research to determine their relationship with the other primary factors. However, the purpose of the individual engagement outcomes is not to determine the temporal relations or the causal impacts between these primary factors but to link them to each other via the shared variance underlying all of them: individual engagement outcomes. It is suggested here that the constructs when measured at the same time, although they may be causal in their effects on each other, are related to a higher order construct. For example, research has shown the causal link between commitment on intention to quit the organisation (Allen & Meyer 1990; Iverson & Buttigieg 1999; Sims & Kroeck 1994). This thesis argues that a sense of affective commitment as well as an intention to quit will occur simultaneously according to the presence of a common underlying construct that links the two together.
This thesis is focused on the individual engagement outcomes as an outcome of the individual emotional and cognitive engagement capabilities. It is proposed that the individual engagement outcomes will have the properties of a higher order construct as represented by the individual responses of affective commitment, job satisfaction, intention to quit, exhaustion and disengagement. This proposed common underlying construct is presented in Figure 4-8. This leads to the next proposition;
Proposition Eleven: The individual engagement outcomes are a common underlying construct comprising the constructs of affective commitment, job satisfaction, intention to quit, exhaustion and disengagement.
Figure 4-8 Proposed Higher Order Construct – Individual Engagement Outcomes