There’s no common understanding of employee engagement. For example, the 2009 MacLeod Review found over 50 definitions! One of the earliest is Kahn's, which focuses on how people ‘express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally’ as they interact with their jobs. This describes an internal state of being but one which relates closely to behaviour, such as discretionary effort or ‘going the extra mile’.
One thing that’s clear in academic literature is that employee engagement is seen as a psychological state experienced by employees. It should be seen as different from job quality, employee behaviour or management action.
However, some definitions are closer to job satisfaction. These relate to a number of aspects of organisational life and are typically used by consultancies. For example, Gallup’s Q12 questionnaire covers job clarity, job resources, work that plays to one’s strengths, recognition, social support and cohesion, personal development, employee voice, meaningfulness of work, and colleagues’ motivation. These measures may cause confusion as it becomes difficult to distinguish engagement from the other concepts.
A narrower, more specific view that we recommend is that of the Utrecht University group of occupational psychologists which defines ‘work engagement’ as a state of mind in which, rather than being burnt out, employees show:
- Vigour (energy, resilience and effort).
- Dedication (for example, enthusiasm, inspiration and pride).
- Absorption (concentration and being engrossed in one’s work).
While this approach is narrow, it aligns with the best research on engagement, so is likely to lead to effective decision making.
Read more in our latest research Employee engagement: an evidence review which draws on the best available evidence to answer practical questions to help people professionals understand employee engagement. It examines in more detail what employee engagement is, how to measure it, its outcomes and drivers.
Is employee engagement a useful concept?
A sustained focus on employee engagement over the last decade or so has been key in getting progressive people management practices firmly onto employers’ agendas. It’s become part of management practice to an extent that other concepts, such as high-performance working, have not.
However, it’s also faced considerable criticism, not least because of the lack of agreement on what it is. Some HR practitioners seem content with this situation. In being a ‘broad church’, engagement is an umbrella term to describe a multifaceted focus of people management. Employers can shape their view of engagement to suit their context or strategy.
But the lack of consensus on what engagement is has led to many different ways to gauge it and inconsistent advice on how to achieve it. Vague or overly broad definitions hamper effective action, as it’s unclear what the problem or opportunity is, or what should be done.
We recommend that employers take one of two approaches:
- Treat employee engagement as a psychological state and an umbrella term to describe a broad area of people strategy, and refer to narrower concepts – such as work engagement or organisational commitment – to be more specific when needed. This allows a broad strategic focus, alongside precision on priority concerns.
- Focus on specific and well-established definitions, such as the Utrecht work on engagement (see above).
A broad employee engagement strategy might focus on:
- Motivation: how workers guide their efforts to achieve goals, including intrinsic motivation (enjoying work for its own sake) and extrinsic motivation (working to get a reward).
- Organisational identification: the alignment between how an employee sees themself and how they see their organisation.
- Organisational commitment: feeling attached to the organisation and dedicated to their work.
