research articles on employee engagement

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How Companies Can Improve Employee Engagement Right Now

• Daniel Stein,
• Nick Hobson,
• Jon M. Jachimowicz,
• Ashley Whillans

Start by connecting what people do to what they care about.

A year and a half into the pandemic, employees’ mental “surge capacity” is likely diminished. Managers must take proactive steps to increase employee engagement, or risk losing their workforce. Engaged employees perform better, experience less burnout, and stay in organizations longer. The authors created this Employee Engagement Checklist: a distilled, research-based resource that practitioners can execute on during this critical period of renewed uncertainty. Use this checklist to boost employee engagement by helping them connect what they do to what they care about, making the work itself less stressful and more enjoyable, and rewarding them with additional time off, in addition to financial incentives.

As the world stumbles toward a Covid-19 recovery, experts warn of a surge of voluntary employee departures, dubbed the “Great Resignation.” For instance, one study estimates that 55% of people in the workforce in August 2021 intend to look for a new job in the next 12 months. To counteract the incoming wave of employee turnover, organizations — more than ever — need to focus on cultivating employee engagement .

• DS Daniel Stein is a fifth-year doctoral student in the Management of Organizations (MORS) Group at UC Berkeley, Haas School of Business. He conducts research on groups and teams, focusing on commitment to one’s group. He studies commitment across multiple levels, ranging from teams to organizations.
• NH Nick Hobson is chief scientist and director of labs for  Emotive Technologies , a behavioral technology think tank that brings together leading academic researchers, technologists, and business strategists in order to create and share knowledge. A PhD-trained behavioral scientist and adjunct lecturer at the University of Toronto, Nick’s research and client practice specializes in employee experience (EX) and the influence of behavioral science as a tool for business success.
• Jon M. Jachimowicz is an assistant professor in the Organizational Behavior Unit at the Harvard Business School. He received his PhD in management from Columbia Business School. He studies how people pursue their passion for work, how they perceive passion in others, and how leaders and organizations seek to manage for passion.
• Ashley Whillans is an assistant professor in the negotiations, organizations, and markets unit at the Harvard Business School School and teaches the “Negotiations” and “Motivation and Incentives” courses to MBA students and executives. Her research focuses on the role of noncash rewards on engagement and the links between time, money, and happiness. She is the author of Time Smart: How to Reclaim Your Time & Live a Happier Life (Harvard Business Review, 2020).

Partner Center

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The impact of engaging leadership on employee engagement and team effectiveness: A longitudinal, multi-level study on the mediating role of personal- and team resources

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Education Studies, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Research Unit Occupational & Organizational Psychology and Professional Learning, KU Leuven, Belgium, Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

• Greta Mazzetti, 
• Wilmar B. Schaufeli

• Published: June 29, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433
• Reader Comments

Most research on the effect of leadership behavior on employees’ well-being and organizational outcomes is based on leadership frameworks that are not rooted in sound psychological theories of motivation and are limited to either an individual or organizational levels of analysis. The current paper investigates whether individual and team resources explain the impact of engaging leadership on work engagement and team effectiveness, respectively. Data were collected at two time points on N = 1,048 employees nested within 90 work teams. The Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling results revealed that personal resources (i.e., optimism, resiliency, self-efficacy, and flexibility) partially mediated the impact of T1 individual perceptions of engaging leadership on T2 work engagement. Furthermore, joint perceptions of engaging leadership among team members at T1 resulted in greater team effectiveness at T2. This association was fully mediated by team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making). Moreover, team resources had a significant cross-level effect on individual levels of engagement. In practical terms, training and supporting leaders who inspire, strengthen, and connect their subordinates could significantly improve employees’ motivation and involvement and enable teams to pursue their common goals successfully.

Citation: Mazzetti G, Schaufeli WB (2022) The impact of engaging leadership on employee engagement and team effectiveness: A longitudinal, multi-level study on the mediating role of personal- and team resources. PLoS ONE 17(6): e0269433. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433

Editor: Ender Senel, Mugla Sitki Kocman University: Mugla Sitki Kocman Universitesi, TURKEY

Received: December 29, 2021; Accepted: May 23, 2022; Published: June 29, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Mazzetti, Schaufeli. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data that support the findings of this study are available on Open Science Framework (OSF) website at the following link: https://osf.io/yfwgt/?view_only=c838730fd7694a0ba32882c666e9f973 . DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YFWGT .

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Multiple studies suggest that work engagement, which is defined as a positive, work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption [ 1 ], is related to extremely positive outcomes, particularly in terms of employees’ well-being and job performance (for a narrative overview see [ 2 ]; for a meta-analysis see [ 3 ]).

Therefore, when work engagement is arguably beneficial for employees and organizations alike, the million-dollar question (quite literally, by the way) is: how can work engagement be increased? Schaufeli [ 4 ] has argued that operational leadership is critical for enhancing follower’s work engagement. Based on the logic of the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model [ 5 ], he reasoned that team leaders may (or may not) monitor, manage, and allocate job demands and resources to increase their follower’s levels of work engagement. In doing so, team leaders boost the motivational process that is postulated in the JD-R model. This process assumes that job resources and challenging job demands are inherently motivating and will lead to a positive, affective-motivational state of fulfillment in employees known as work engagement.

The current study focuses on a specific leadership style, dubbed engaging leadership and rooted in Self-Determination Theory (SDT) [ 6 ]. Engaging leaders inspire, strengthen, and connect their followers, thereby satisfying their basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, respectively. In line with the motivational process of the JD-R model, cross-sectional evidence suggests that engaging leaders increase job resources [ 7 ] and personal resources [ 8 ], which, in their turn, are positively associated with work engagement. So far, the evidence for this mediation is exclusively based on cross-sectional studies. Hence, the first objective of our paper is to confirm the mediation effect of resources using a longitudinal design.

Scholars have emphasized that “the study of leadership is inherently multilevel in nature” (p. 4) [ 9 ]. This statement implies that, in addition to the individual level, the team level of analysis should also be included when investigating the impact of engaging leadership.

The current study makes two notable contributions to the literature. First, it investigates the impact, over time, of a novel, specific leadership style (i.e., engaging leadership) on team- and individual outcomes (i.e., team effectiveness and work engagement). Second, it investigates the mediating role of team resources and personal resources in an attempt to explain the impact of leadership on these outcomes. The research model, which is described in greater detail below, is displayed in Fig 1 .

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.g001

Leadership and work engagement

Leadership is defined as the way in which particular individuals–leaders–purposefully influence other individuals–their followers–to obtain defined outcomes [ 10 ].

A systematic narrative review identified twenty articles on leadership and work engagement [ 11 ] and showed that work engagement is positively associated with various person-centered leadership styles. The most pervasively used framework was transformational leadership, whereas authentic, ethical, and charismatic leadership was used much less. The authors conclude that "most of the reviewed studies were consistent in arguing that leadership is significantly correlated with and is affecting employee’s work engagement directly or via mediation” (p. 18) [ 11 ]. Moreover, they also conclude that research findings and inferences on leadership and engagement remain narrowly focused and inconclusive due to the lack of longitudinal designs addressing this issue. A recent meta-analysis [ 12 ] identified 69 studies and found substantial positive relationships of work engagement with ethical (k = 9; ρ = .58), transformational (k = 36; ρ = .46) and servant leadership (k = 3; ρ = .43), and somewhat less strong associations with authentic (k = 17; ρ = .38) and empowering leadership (k = 4; ρ = .35). Besides, job resources (e.g., job autonomy, social support), organizational resources (e.g., organizational identification, trust), and personal resources (self-efficacy, creativity) mediated the effect of leadership on work engagement. Although transformational leadership is arguably the most popular leadership concept of the last decades [ 13 ], the validity of its conceptual definition has been heavily criticized, even to the extent that some authors suggest getting “back to the drawing board” [ 14 ]. It should be noted that three main criticisms are voiced: (1) the theoretical definition of the transformational leadership dimensions is meager (i.e., how are the four dimensions selected and how do they combine?); (2) no causal model is specified (i.e., how is each dimension related to mediating processes and outcomes?); (3) the most frequently used measurement tools are invalid (i.e., they fail to reproduce the dimensional structure and do not show empirical distinctiveness from other leadership concepts). Hence, it could be argued that the transformational leadership framework is not very well suited for exploring the impact of leadership on work engagement.

Schaufeli [ 7 ] introduced the concept of engaging leadership , which is firmly rooted in Self-Determination Theory. According to Deci and Ryan [ 6 ], three innate psychological needs are essential ‘nutrients’ for individuals to function optimally, also at the workplace: the needs for autonomy (i.e., feeling in control), competence (i.e., feeling effective), and relatedness (i.e., feeling loved and cared for). Moreover, SDT posits that employees are likely to be engaged (i.e., internalize their tasks and show high degrees of energy, concentration, and persistence) to the degree that their needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are satisfied [ 15 ]. This is in line with Bormann and Rowold [ 16 ]. Based on a systematic review on construct proliferation in leadership research, these authors recommended that leadership concepts should use SDT because this motivational theory allows a more parsimonious description of the mechanisms underlying leadership behaviors. These authors posited that the core of "narrow" leadership constructs "bases on a single pillar" (p. 163), and therefore predict narrow outcomes. In contrast to broad leadership constructs, the concept of engaging leadership is narrow because it focuses on leadership behaviors to explicitly promote work engagement.

Schaufeli [ 7 ] reasoned that leaders, who are instrumental in satisfying their followers’ basic needs, are likely to increase their engagement levels. More specifically, engaging leaders are supposed to: (1) inspire (e.g., by enthusing their followers for their vision and plans, and by making them feel that they contribute to something important); (2) strengthen (e.g., by granting their followers freedom and responsibility, and by delegating tasks); and (3) connect (e.g., by encouraging collaboration and by promoting a high team spirit among their followers). Hence, by inspiring, strengthening, and connecting their followers, leaders stimulate the fulfillment of their follower’s basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, respectively, which, in turn, will foster work engagement.

The underlying mechanisms of the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement are a major focus of research, as the construct of engaging leadership was built upon the identification of the leadership behaviors that are capable of stimulating positive outcomes by satisfying needs. The literature on engaging leadership provides empirical evidence for its indirect impact on followers’ engagement by fulfilling followers’ basic needs. This finding is consistent across occupational sectors and cultural contexts [ 17 – 19 ]. Further, the observation of a partial mediation effect for need satisfaction suggests the presence of a direct relationship between engaging leadership and engagement [ 20 , 21 ]. In their behaviors, engaging leaders are likely to improve their job characteristics to the point of stimulating greater engagement among their employees. This assumption has been corroborated by a recent longitudinal study that delved deeper into the association between engaging leadership and needs satisfaction [ 22 ]. That study found that the relationship between engaging leadership and basic needs satisfaction is mediated by enhanced levels of job resources (among them were improved feedback and skill use and better person-job fit). The fulfilment of those needs, in turn, resulted in higher levels of work engagement. Therefore, perceived job resources seem to play a crucial role in the causal relationship between engaging leadership and basic needs satisfaction. This evidence found support in a later two-wave full panel design with a 1-year time lag, where engaging leadership promoted employees’ perception of autonomy and social support from colleagues [ 23 ]. In addition, a recent study by Van Tuin and colleagues [ 24 ] revealed that engaging leadership is associated with increased perceptions of intrinsic organizational values (e.g., providing a contribution to organizational and personal development) and satisfaction of the need for autonomy which, in turn, may boost employees’ level of engagement.

A recent study investigated the ways in which engaging leadership could boost the effects of human resource (HR) practices for promoting employees’ psychological, physical, and social well-being over time [ 25 ]. Teams led by an engaging leader reported higher levels of happiness at work and trust in leadership, combined with lower levels of burnout than their colleagues who were led by poorly engaging leaders. Happiness and trust played a key role in improving team member performance. These findings indicate that engaged leaders provide a thoughtful implementation of HR practices focused on promoting employee well-being, being constantly driven by their employees’ flourishing.

Another line of studies may reveal the causality between engaging leadership and work-related outcomes. A multilevel longitudinal study provided cross-level and team-level effects of engaging leadership [ 26 ]. Engaging leadership at T1 explained team learning, innovation, and individual performance through increased teamwork engagement at T2. Interventions targeting engaging leadership created positive work outcomes for leaders (e.g., autonomy satisfaction and intrinsic motivation) and decreased employee absenteeism [ 27 ]. However, cross-lagged longitudinal analyses indicate that employees’ current level of work engagement predicts their leaders’ level of engaging leadership rather than the other way around [ 23 ]. These findings imply that the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement cannot be narrowed to a simple unidirectional causal relationship but rather exhibits a dynamic nature, where engaging leadership and work engagement mutually influence each other. The dynamic nature of engaging leadership has also been investigated through a diary study. The results suggest that employees enacted job crafting strategies more frequently on days when leaders were more successful in satisfying their need for connectivity [ 28 ]. Hence, leaders who satisfy the need for connectedness among their followers will not only encourage higher levels of engagement among their followers but also an increased ability to proactively adapt tasks to their interests and preferences.

Since transformational leadership is currently the most frequently studied leadership style, a summary of the similarities and differences in the proposed new conceptualization of leadership proposed (i.e., engaging leadership) must be provided.

A key difference between transformational and engaging leadership originates from their foundation. Whereas transformational leadership is primarily a change-oriented style, engaging leadership encourages employees’ well-being through the promotion of supportive relationships and is defined as a relationship-oriented leadership style [ 29 ].

Further similarities entail the combination of behaviors meant to foster employees’ well-being and growth. Transformational leaders act as role models admired and emulated by followers (idealized influence), encourage a reconsideration of prevailing assumptions and work practices to promote stronger innovation (intellectual stimulation), identify and build on the unique characteristics and strengths of each follower (individualized consideration), and provides a stimulating view of the future and meaning of their work (inspirational motivation) [ 30 ]. A considerable resemblance involves the dimensions of inspirational motivation and inspiring, which are, respectively, included in transformational and engaging leadership. They both entail recognizing the leader as a guiding light to a specific mission and vision, where individual inputs are credited as essential ingredients in achieving the shared goal. Thus, they both fulfill the individual need for meaningfulness. In a similar vein, transformational and engaged leaders are both committed to promote followers’ growth in terms of innovation and creativity. In other words, the intellectual stimulation offered by transformational leadership and the strengthening component of engaging leadership are both aimed at meeting the need for competence among followers.

Alternatively, it is also possible to detect decisive differences between the dimensions underlying these leadership styles. Transformational leadership entails the provision of personal mentorship (i.e., individualized consideration), while engaging leadership is primarily focused on enhancing the interdependence and cohesion among team members (i.e., team consideration). Furthermore, engaging leadership disregards the notion of idealized influence covered by transformational leadership: an engaging leader is not merely identified as a model whose behavior is admired and mirrored, but rather proactively meets followers’ need for autonomy through the allocation of tasks and responsibilities.

Empirical results lent further support to the distinctiveness between transformational and engaging leadership. The analysis of the factor structure of both constructs revealed that measures of engaging and transformational leadership load on separate dimensions instead of being explained by a single latent factor [ 31 ]. More recently, additional research findings pointed out that engaging and transformational leadership independently account for comparable portions of variance in work engagement [ 32 ]. However, this does not alter the fact that a certain overlap exists between both leadership concepts; thus, it is not surprising that a consistent, positive relationship is found between transformational leadership and work engagement [ 11 ].

In sum: a positive link appears to exist between person-centered leadership styles and work engagement. Moreover, this relationship seems to be mediated by (job and personal) resources. However, virtually all studies used cross-sectional designs, and the causal direction remains unclear. We followed the call to go back to the drawing board by choosing an alternative, deductive approach by introducing the theory-grounded concept of engaging leadership and investigate its impact on individual and team outcomes (see Fig 1 ).

Engaging leadership, personal resources, and employee engagement (individual level)

Serrano and Reichard [ 33 ], who posit that leaders may pursue four pathways to increase their follower’s work engagement: (1) design meaningful and motivating work; (2) support and coach their employees; (3 ) facilitate rewarding and supportive coworker relations, and (4) enhancing personal resources. In the present study, we focus on the fourth pathway. Accordingly, a cross-sectional study using structural equation modeling [ 8 ] showed that psychological capital (i.e., self-efficacy, optimism, resiliency, and flexibility) fully mediated the relationship between perceived engaging leadership and follower’s work engagement. Consistent with findings on job resources, this study indicated that personal resources also mediate the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement. In a nutshel, when employees feel autonomous, competent, and connected to their colleagues, their own personal resources benefit, and this fuels their level of engagement.

In the current study, we use the same conceptualization of psychological capital (PsyCap) as Schaufeli [ 7 , 8 ], which slightly differs from the original concept. Originally, PsyCap was defined as a higher-order construct that is based on the shared commonalities of four first-order personal resources: “(1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success” (p. 10) [ 34 ]. Instead of hope, flexibility is included; that is, the capability of employees to adapt to new, different, and changing requirements at work. Previous research showed a high correlation ( r > .70) between hope and optimism, thus increasing the risk of multicollinearity [ 35 ]. This strong relationship points at conceptual overlap: hope is defined as the perception that goals can be set and achieved, whereas optimism is the belief that one will experience good outcomes. Hence, trust in achieving goals (hope) implies optimism. Additionally, hope includes "when necessary, redirecting paths to goals", which refers to flexibility. Finally, in organizational practice, the flexibility of employees is considered an essential resource because organizations are continuously changing, which requires permanent adaption and hence employee flexibility. In short, there are psychometric, conceptual, and pragmatic arguments for replacing hope by flexibility.

According to Luthans and colleagues [ 36 ], PsyCap is a state-like resource representing an employee’s motivational propensity and perseverance towards goals. PsyCap is malleable and open to development, thus it can be enhanced through positive leadership [ 37 ]. Indeed, it was found that transformational leadership enhances PsyCap, which, in turn, increases in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior [ 38 ]. In a similar vein, PsyCap mediates the relationships between authentic leadership and employee’s creative behavior [ 39 ].

We argue that engaging leadership may promote PsyCap as well. After all, by inspiring followers with a clear, powerful and compelling vision, engaging leaders: (1) create the belief in their ability to perform tasks that tie in with that vision successfully, thereby fostering follower’s self-efficacy ; (2) generate a positive appraisal of the future, thereby fostering follower’s optimism ; (3) trigger the ability to bounce back from adversity because a favorable future is within reach, thereby fostering follower’s resiliency ; (4) set goals and induce the belief that these can be achieved, if necessary by redirecting paths to those goals, thereby fostering follower’s flexibility [ 38 ].

Furthermore, engaging leaders strengthen their followers and unleash their potential by setting challenging goals. This helps to build followers’ confidence in task-specific skills, thereby increasing their self-efficacy levels, mainly via mastery experiences that occur after challenging goals have been achieved [ 40 ]. Setting high-performance expectations also elevates follower’s sense of self-worth, thereby leading to a positive appraisal of their current and future circumstances (i.e., optimism ). Moreover, a strengthening leader acts as a powerful contextual resource that augments followers’ self-confidence and, hence, increases their ability to bounce back from adversity (i.e., resiliency ) and adapt to changing requirements at work (i.e., flexibility ).

Finally, by connecting their followers, engaging leaders promote good interpersonal relationships and build a supportive team climate characterized by collaboration and psychological safety. Connecting leaders also foster commitment to team goals by inducing a sense of purpose, which energizes team members to contribute toward the same, shared goal. This means that in tightly knit, supportive and collaborative teams, followers: (1) experience positive emotions when team goals are met, which, in turn, fosters their level of self-efficacy [ 40 ]; (2) feel valued and acknowledged by others, which increases their self-worth and promotes a positive and optimistic outlook; (3) can draw upon their colleagues for help and support, which enables to face problems and adversities with resiliency ; (4) can use the abilities, skills, and knowledge of their teammates to adapt to changing job and team requirements (i.e., flexibility ).

In sum, when perceived as such by followers, engaging leadership acts as a sturdy contextual condition that enhances their PsyCap. We continue to argue that, in its turn, high levels of PsyCap are predictive for work engagement; or in other words, PsyCap mediates the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement.

How to explain the relationship between PsyCap and work engagement? Sweetman and Luthans [ 41 ] presented a conceptual model, which relates PsyCap to work engagement through positive emotions. They argue that all four elements of PsyCap may have a direct and state-like relationship with each of the three dimensions of work engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption). Furthermore, an upward spiral of PsyCap and work engagement may be a source of positive emotion and subsequently broaden an employee’s growth mindset, leading to higher energy and engagement [ 42 , 43 ]. In short, PsyCap prompts and maintains a motivational process that leads to higher work engagement and may ultimately result in positive outcomes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment [ 44 ].

Psychological capital is a valuable resource to individuals [ 45 ] that fosters work engagement, as demonstrated in past research [ 46 ]. Hence, following the reasoning above, we formulate the following hypothesis:

• Hypothesis 1: Psychological capital (self-efficacy , optimism , resiliency , and flexibility) mediates the relationship between T1 employee’s perceptions of engaging leadership and T2 work engagement .

Engaging leadership, team resources, and work team effectiveness (team level)

So far, we focused on individual-level mediation, but an equivalent mediation process is expected at the aggregated team level as well. We assume that leaders display a comparable leadership style toward the entire team, resulting in a similar relationship with each of the team members. This model of leader-follower interactions is known as the average leadership style (ALS) [ 47 ]. This means that homogeneous leader-follower interactions exist within teams, but relationships of leaders with followers may differ between teams. The relationships between leadership and team effectiveness might be based on an analogous, team-based ALS-approach as well [ 48 ]. Following this lead, we posit that team members share their perceptions of engaging leadership, while this shared perception differs across teams. Moreover, we assume that these shared perceptions are positively related to team effectiveness.

An essential role for leaders is to build team resources, which motivate team members and enable them to perform. Indeed, the influence of leader behaviors on team mediators and outcomes has been extensively documented [ 49 , 50 ].

Most studies use the heuristic input-process-output (IPO) framework [ 51 ] to explain the relationship between leadership (input) and team effectiveness (output), whereby the intermediate processes describe how team inputs are transformed into outputs. It is widely acknowledged that two types of team processes play a significant role: “taskwork” (i.e., functions that team members must perform to achieve the team’s task) and “teamwork” (i.e., the interaction between team members, necessary to achieve the team’s task). Taskwork is encouraged by task-oriented leadership behaviors that focus on task accomplishment. In contrast, teamwork is encouraged by person-oriented leadership behaviors that focus on developing team members and promoting interactions between them [ 49 ]. The current paper focuses on teamwork and person-oriented (i.e., engaging) leadership.

Collectively, team resources such as performance feedback, trust in management, communication between team members, and participation in decision-making constitute a supportive team climate that is conducive for employee growth and development, and hence fosters team effectiveness, as well as individual work engagement. This also meshes with Serrano and Reichard [ 33 ], who argue that for employees to flourish, leaders should design meaningful and motivating work (e.g., through feedback and participation in decision making) and facilitate rewarding and supportive coworker relations (e.g., through communication and trust in management).

To date, engaging leadership has not been studied at the team level and concerning team resources and team effectiveness. How should the association between engaging leadership and team resources be conceived? By strengthening, engaging leaders provide their team members with performance feedback; by inspiring, they grant their team members participate in decision making; and by connecting, they foster communication between team members and install trust. Please note that team resources refer to shared, individual perceptions of team members, which are indicated by within-team consensus. Therefore, taken as a whole, the team-level resources that are included in the present study constitute a supportive team climate that is characterized by receiving feedback, trust in management, communication amongst team members, and participating in decision-making. We have seen above that engaging leaders foster team resources, but how are these resources, in their turn, related to team effectiveness?

The multi-goal, multi-level model of feedback effects of DeShon and colleagues [ 52 ] posits that individual and team regulatory processes govern the allocation of effort invested in achieving individual and team goals, resulting in individual and team effectiveness. We posit that the shared experience of receiving the team leader’s feedback prompts team members to invest efforts in achieving team tasks, presumably through team regulatory processes, as postulated in the multi-goal, multi-level model.

Trust has been defined as: “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other party will perform a particular action to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (p. 712) [ 53 ]. Using a multilevel mediation model, Braun and colleagues [ 54 ] showed that trust mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and performance at the team level. They reasoned that transformational leaders take into account a team member’s needs, goals, and interests, making them more willing to be vulnerable to their supervisor. This would apply even more for engaging leaders, which is defined in terms of satisfying basic follower’s needs. It is plausible that a team’s shared trust in its leader enhances the trust of team members in each other. That means that team members interact and communicate trustfully and rely on each other’s abilities, which, in turn, is conducive for team effectiveness [ 55 ].

Communication is a crucial element of effective teamwork [ 56 ]. Team members must exchange information to ascertain other members’ competence and intentions, and they must engage in communication to develop a strategy and plan their work. Several studies have shown that effectively gathering and exchanging information is essential for team effectiveness [ 57 , 58 ]. Furthermore, participation in decision-making is defined as joint decision-making [ 59 ] and involves sharing influence between team leaders and team members. By participating in decision-making, team members create work situations that are more favorable to their effectiveness. Team members utilize participating in decision-making for achieving what they desire for themselves and their team. Generally speaking, shared mental models are defined as organized knowledge structures that allow employees to interact successfully with their environment, and therefore lead to superior team performance [ 60 ]. That is, team members with a shared mental model about decision-making are ‘in sync’ and will easily coordinate their actions, whereas the absence of a shared mental model will result in process loss and ineffective team processes.

Taken together and based on the previous reasoning, we formulate the second hypothesis as follows:

• Hypothesis 2: Team resources (performance feedback , trust in management , team communication , and participation in decision-making) mediate the relationship between T1 team member’s shared perceptions of engaging leadership and T2 team effectiveness .

Engaging leadership, team resources, and work engagement (cross-level)

Engaging leaders build team resources (see above). Or put differently, the team member’s shared perceptions of engaging leadership are positively related to team resources. Besides, we also assume that these team resources positively impact work engagement at the individual level. A plethora of research has shown that various job resources are positively related to work engagement, including feedback, trust, communication, and participation in decision- making (for a narrative overview see [ 61 ]; for a meta-analysis see [ 62 , 63 ]). Most research that found this positive relationship between job resources and work engagement used the Job-Demands Resources model [ 5 ] that assumes that job resources are inherently motivating because they enhance personal growth and development and are instrumental in achieving work goals. Typically, these resources are assessed as perceived by the individual employee. Yet, as we have seen above, perceptions of resources might also be shared amongst team members. It is plausible that these shared resources, which collectively constitute a supportive, collaborative team climate, positively impact employee’s individual work engagement. Teams that receive feedback, have trust in management, whose members amply interact and communicate, and participate in decision-making are likely to produce work engagement. This reasoning agrees with Schaufeli [ 64 ], who showed that organizational growth climate is positively associated with work engagement, also after controlling for personality. When employee growth is deemed relevant by the organization this is likely to translate, via engaging leaders, into a supportive team environment, which provides feedback, trust, communication, and participative decision-making. Hence, we formulate:

• Hypothesis 3: Team resources (performance feedback , trust in management , team communication , and participation in decision-making) mediate the relationship between team shared perceptions of engaging leadership at T1 and individual team member’s work engagement at T2 .

Sample and procedure

In collaboration with the HR department, data were collected among all employees of a business unit of a large Dutch public service agency. This agency is responsible for the administration of unemployment benefits and work incapacitation claims, as well as for the rehabilitation and return to work of unemployed and incapacitated employees. A one-year time-lagged design was applied to minimize the likelihood of common method variance effects and to explore causal relationships among the study variables [ 65 ]. The questionnaire included a cover letter reporting the aims and contents of the study. The letter also stated that participation in the study was completely voluntary, and that one can withdraw from the study at any time without having to give explanations and without this involving any disadvantage or prejudice. Participants’ consent was concluded by conduct, through ticking the consent checkbox as a prerequisite to access the questionnaire. This research was conducted in 2015, thus before the publication of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and complied with the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. Thus, ethics approval was not compulsory, as per applicable institutional and national Dutch guidelines. Additionally, the current study did not involve any treatment, medical diagnostics, or procedures generating psychological or social discomfort among participants.

In the first survey at Time 1 ( N = 2,304; response rate 63%), employees were asked about their socio-demographic background, engaging leadership, team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making), team effectiveness, personal resources (i.e., resiliency, optimism, and flexibility), and work engagement. At Time 2 ( N = 2,183; response rate 51%), participants filled out the same survey, which included an additional self-efficacy scale. At both measurement points, participants received an email from the HR department containing a link that allowed them to fill out the online survey. This introductory email provided background information about the study’s general aim and guaranteed that participants’ responses would be treated confidentiality. A sample of N = 1,048 employees filled out the questionnaire twice, with an interval of one year between T1 and T2.

The estimation of multilevel models with at least 50 teams of at least 5 members per group is strongly recommended to avoid underestimating standard errors and variances for random effects [ 66 , 67 ]. Therefore, participants being part of teams with less than 5 employees were excluded from the analyses. Accordingly, the data of 1,048 participants, who completed both questionnaires, could be linked and constitute the current study sample. Employees were nested within 90 work teams, with an average of 13.7 ( SD = 5.72) employees per team. Slightly more women (51.8%) as men were included (48.2%), the average age of the sample was 49.70 years ( SD = 7.46), and the mean organization tenure was 12.02 years ( SD = 9.56).

All measures described below were rated using five-point scales that either ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), or from never (1) to always (5). The internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α) of the measures are displayed on the diagonal of Table 2 .

Engaging Leadership was measured using a scale developed by Schaufeli [ 64 ] including nine items. This questionnaire contains three subscales of three items each: Inspiring, Strengthening, and Connecting. Sample items are: “My supervisor is able to enthuse others for his/her plans” (inspiring); “My supervisor delegates tasks and responsibilities” (strengthening); and “My supervisor encourages team members to cooperate” (connecting).

Individual-level measures.

Optimism was measured with three items from the Optimism scale of the PsyCap Questionnaire developed by Luthans and colleagues [ 36 ], which is aimed at assessing employees’ expectations about future success at work because of a positive view of their job. A sample item is: “I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job”.

Resiliency was assessed using three items from the Resiliency scale of the PsyCap Questionnaire [ 36 ]. These items refer to employees’ beliefs about their ability to recover from uncertainty and failure and to react successfully to setbacks that can occur at work. A sample item is: "I usually take stressful things at work in stride”.

Self-efficacy referred to the perceived capability to efficiently plan and implement courses of action required to attain a specific work goal and was measured using three items from Mazzetti, Schaufeli, and Guglielmi [ 68 ]. A sample item is: "At work, I reach my goal even when unexpected situations arise".

Flexibility refers to the individual ability to adapt to changes in the workplace and to modify one’s schedules and plans to meet job requirements. It was assessed by using three items: "If the job requires, I am willing to change my schedule”; “I do not have problems changing the way I work” and “I adapt easily to changes at work”.

Work engagement was assessed using a three-item scale developed by Schaufeli and colleagues [ 69 ]. This ultra-short version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale has similar psychometric properties as the nine-item version. A sample item is: "At my work, I feel bursting with energy”.

Team-level measures.

Performance feedback was assessed by the three-item scale from the Questionnaire on the Experience and Evaluation of Work (QEEW) [ 70 ]. A sample item is: “Do you get enough information about the result of your work?”.

Trust in Management of team members was assessed using two items from Schaufeli [ 7 ]: “I trust the way my organization is managed”, and “I have confidence in my immediate supervisor”. Following the recommendations from Eisinga and colleagues [ 71 ] we computed the Spearman-Brown coefficient, since it represents the most appropriate reliability coefficient for a two-item scale ( r s = .43, p < .001).

Communication , meaning the perception of an efficient and prompt circulation of information at the team level was measured using the three-item Communication scale taken from the QEEW [ 70 ]. A sample item is: "I am sufficiently informed about the developments within my team”.

Participation in decision-making was measured by a single item (i.e., “Can you participate in decision making about work-related issues?”) from the QEEW [ 70 ].

Team effectiveness . The team-level criterion variable was assessed with a three-item scale [ 8 ]. A sample item is: “Do you cooperate effectively with others in your team?”.

In order to check for systematic dropout, the social-demographic background, as well as the scores on the study variables were compared of those employees in the panel who filled out the questionnaire twice at T1 and T2 ( N = 1,142) and those who dropped out and filled out the questionnaire only once at T1 ( N = 1,161). It appeared that compared to the group who dropped out, the panel group was slightly younger (t (2301) = -2.21; p < .05) and had less organizational tenure (t (2301) = -4.05; p < .001). No gender differences were observed between both groups (χ 2 = .88; n . s .). A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) that included all study variables revealed a significant between-groups effect: F (12,2291) = 3.54, p < .001. Subsequent univariate tests showed that compared to the dropouts, the panel group scored higher on inspiring (F (1,2302) = 14.90, p < .001), strengthening (F (1,2302) = 9.39, p < .01), and connecting leadership (F (1,2302) = 14.90, p < .05), as well as on optimism (F (1,2302) = 5.59, p < .05), flexibility (F (1,2302) = 12.56, p < .001), work engagement (F (1,2302) = 9.16, p < .05), performance feedback (F (1,2302) = 11.68, p < .01), and participation in decision making (F (1,2302) = 8.83, p < .05). No significant differences were found for resiliency, trust in management, communication, and team effectiveness.

It seems that, taken together, the panel group is slightly younger and less tenured, and scores more favorable than the dropouts on most study variables. However, the differences between both groups are relatively small and vary between 0 and .13 on a 5-point scale. Therefore, it is not likely that systematic dropout has influenced the results of the current study.

Control variables.

At the individual level, we controlled for the potential confounding effects of gender, age, and tenure by including these variables as covariates in our analyses. More specifically, the impact of age was controlled for because previous research suggested that older employees report higher levels of personal resources [ 72 ] and work engagement [ 73 ]. Gender was also included as a control variable because previous research suggested that compared to women, men score lower on work engagement [ 74 ] and higher on personal resources, such as optimism and self-efficacy [ 75 ]. Finally, previous investigations also revealed that job tenure may affect employees’ level and stability of work engagement, with tenured employees reporting higher and more stable levels of work engagement compared to newcomers [ 76 ]. Besides, Barbier and colleagues [ 77 ] suggested that job tenure might affect employees’ personal resources (i.e., self-esteem and optimism). Considering this empirical evidence, job tenure was also included as a covariate in our model.

Data aggregation.

Our research model includes the three dimensions of engaging leadership (i.e., inspiring, strengthening, and connecting) three team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication and participation in decision-making), and one outcome (i.e., team effectiveness) at the team level of analysis. To check the reliability and validity of aggregated scores at the team level, four indices were computed [ 78 ]: (1) ICC [1] , which indicates the proportion of variance in ratings due to team membership; (2) ICC [2] , representing the reliability of between-groups differences; (3) r wg(j) , that measures the level of agreement within work teams; (4) deff , that measures the effect of independence violations on the estimation of standard errors through the formula 1+(average cluster size-1)*ICC [ 79 ]. Generally speaking, values greater than .05 for ICC [1] [ 80 ] and .40 for ICC [2] [ 81 ] an r wg(j) higher than .70, and a deff- index exceeding 2 are considered a prerequisite for aggregating data [ 78 ]. Moreover, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to explore whether participants’ scores on the Level 2 constructs differed significantly among work teams. The results of the aggregation tests are displayed in Table 1 . Taken together, these results justify the aggregation of the team-level variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.t001

Strategy of analysis

To test our hypotheses, a multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) was tested using the Mplus 7 statistical modeling software [ 82 ]. The application of this procedure allows the inclusion of latent variables that take measurement errors into account and permits the simultaneous estimation of mediation effects at the individual and team levels; therefore, it is superior to stepwise approaches [ 83 ]. As suggested by Zhang and colleagues [ 84 ], predictors at the individual level (i.e., engaging leadership dimensions and personal resources) were team-mean centered using a centering within context – CWC approach [ 85 ]. This procedure was aimed at preventing the confounding effect of mediation within and between work teams. In other words, predictors at the individual level for subject i were centered around the mean of the cluster j to which case i belongs (i.e., predictor ij —M predictor j ). Accordingly, the latent engaging leadership factor at within-level was indicated by the CWC means of the three dimensions of engaging leadership (i.e., inspiring cwc , strengthening cwc , and connecting cwc ) at T1. In a similar vein, personal resources were included as a latent variable indicated by the observed levels of optimism cwc , reisliency cwc , self-efficacy cwc , and flexibility cwc at T2. Finally, T2 work engagement was included as an observed variable equal to the mean score of the corresponding scale. As previously stated, gender, age, and organizational tenure were included as covariates at the individual level of the MSEM model.

At the team level, the latent measure of engaging leadership at T1 was assessed through the observed scores on the three dimensions of inspiring, strengthening, and connecting leadership. T2 team resources were modeled as a single latent factor indicated by the observed scores on performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making. The observed mean score on T2 team effectiveness was modeled as the team level criterion variable.

At the individual level, the mediation was tested by considering path a , from T1 individual perceptions of engaging leadership (X) to T2 personal resources (M) and path b , from T2 personal resources to T2 work engagement (Y), controlling for X → Y. At the team level, the same procedure was applied considering path c , linking team perceptions of T1 engaging leadership (X) and T2 team resources (M) and path d , from T2 team resources to T2 team effectiveness (Y).

The individual and team-level perceptions of engaging leadership were assessed at T1. In contrast, the mediating variables (i.e., psychological capital and team resources), and the outcomes (i.e., work engagement and team effectiveness) were measured at T2.

Preliminary analysis

Before testing our hypotheses, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using the maximum likelihood method of estimation using the software package AMOS 21.0 [ 86 ]. This preliminary analysis was aimed at assessing redundancy between the constructs under investigation. For the team level, engaging leadership was included as a latent factor indicated by the observed team levels of inspiring, strengthening, and connecting leadership dimensions. The measured performance feedback levels indicated the latent team resources factor, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making. Team effectiveness, assessed as a criterion variable at the team level, was indicated by a single corresponding item. At the individual level, the group-mean centered scores on inspiring, strengthening, and connecting dimensions were considered indicators of the latent engaging leadership factor. Besides, optimism, resiliency, self-efficacy, and flexibility were included as indicators for the single personal resources latent factor; the observed average score on work engagement was used for assessing the corresponding latent variable. The model fit was assessed by considering the comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) ≥ .95, Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .06, and Standardized Root-Mean-Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .08 [ 87 , 88 ]. According to these criteria, the hypothesized measurement model showed a good fit to the data, with χ 2 (91) = 465.09, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .06, and SRMR = .03. Moreover, all indicators showed significant factor loadings on their respective latent factors ( p < .001) with λ values ranging from .51 to .95, thus exceeding the commonly accepted criterion of .50 [ 89 ]. Hence, these results support the assumption that the study variables were non-redundant and adequately distinct from each other.

Model testing

The means, standard deviations, correlations, and internal consistencies for all study variables are displayed in Table 2 . As expected, the constructs under investigation showed significant relationships in the hypothesized direction.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.t002

The hypothesized MSEM showed a good fit to data: χ 2 (60) = 155.38, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = 0.03 (within teams) and .08 (between teams). As displayed in Fig 2 , at the individual level the three indicators of engaging leadership loaded significantly on their intended latent factor, with λ = .83 ( p = .000, 95% CI = [.79, .87]) for inspiring, λ = .77 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.73, .81]) for strengthening, and λ = .81 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.78, .85]) for connecting. Similarly, the standardized factor loadings for the indicators of personal resources were all significant as well: λ = .74 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.68, .79]) for optimism, λ = .68 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.63, .72]) for resiliency λ = .68 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.62, .74]) for self-efficacy, and λ = .64 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.59, .69]) for flexibility.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.g002

The direct relationship between T1 engaging leadership and T2 work engagement was significant β = .16 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.10, .22]). Moreover, results indicated that engaging leadership at T1 had a positive impact on personal resources at T2: γ = .27 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.18, .37]). T2 personal resources, in turn, were positively associated with T2 work engagement: β = .55 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.49, .62]). The estimated indirect effect of T1 engaging leadership on T2 work engagement via personal resources (i.e., a*b) was statistically significant: B (SE) = .19 (.04), p < .001, 95% CI [.11, .27]. Hence, personal resources (i.e., optimism, resiliency, self-efficacy, and flexibility) at T2 partially mediated the impact of T1 engaging leadership on employees’ engagement within work teams at T2. These findings provide partial support for Hypothesis 1 . Among the covariates included at the individual level, only gender and age showed a significant association with work engagement, with γ = -.10 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [-.15, -.05]) and γ = .10 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.04, .16]), respectively.

At the team level, all factor loadings for the three indicators of engaging leadership on their corresponding latent variable were significant: λ = .95 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.93, .99]) for inspiring, λ = .86 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.80, .91]) for strengthening, and λ = .94 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.90, .97]) for connecting. Additionally, the observed measure of each team resource loaded significantly on its intended latent variable: λ = .69 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.56, .82]) for performance feedback, λ = .86 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.78, .94]) for trust in management, λ = .89 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.81, .97]) for communication, and λ = .71 ( p = .000, 95% CI = [.60, .82]) for participation in decision-making. Moreover, engaging leadership at T1 had a nonsignificant direct impact on team effectiveness at T2, with β = -.06 ( p = .641, 95% CI = [-.30, .19]). In contrast, team perception of engaging leadership at T1 had a positive impact on team resources at T2: γ = .59 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.42, .75]). Team resources at T2 were, in turn, positively related to T2 team effectiveness, β = .38 ( p = .003, 95% CI = [.13, .62]). These results suggest full mediation and were supported by the estimation of the indirect effect of T1 engaging leadership on T2 team effectiveness via team resources at T2 (i.e., c*d): B (SE) = .18 (.07), p = .013, 95% CI [.04, .32]. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was fully supported.

Hence, in the current study team resources at T2 (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making) fully mediated the effect of T1 engaging leadership on T2 team effectiveness across different work teams. Moreover, T2 team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, team communication, and participation in decision-making) showed a significant cross-level effect on T2 individual team member’s level of engagement: β = .57 (p < .001, 195% CI = [.27, .87]). This result provided evidence for Hypothesis 3 .

The current study aimed to explore the role of individual and collective perceptions of engaging leadership in predicting team effectivity and work engagement. To this purpose, we developed a two-level research model using a two time-point design.

Main results

At the individual level, the obtained results suggest that psychological capital (i.e., the combination of self-efficacy, optimism, resiliency, and flexibility) partly mediated the longitudinal relationship between employees’ perceptions of engaging leadership and their levels of work engagement. In other words, team leaders perceived as inspiring, strengthening, and connecting could enhance their followers’ engagement directly and indirectly through an increase in psychological capital. Thus, engaging leaders could make their followers feel more optimistic, resilient, self-efficacious, and flexible. At the team level, a shared perception of engaging leadership was associated with a greater pool of team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making), which contribute to define an open and supportive team climate that is conducive for employee growth and development. In their turn, these collective resources were positively related to the perceived effectiveness of work teams.

Hence, team resources at the team level fully mediated the relationship between engaging leadership and team effectiveness. That means that teams in which the leader is considered to be inspiring, strengthening, and connecting can draw upon more team resources, and could feel, in turn, more effective. Simultaneously, a significant cross-level mediation effect was found for team resources, meaning that they mediate the relationship between engaging leadership at team level and individual level work engagement. In other words, teams with engaging leaders are not only more effective at the team level, but they also report higher levels of work engagement among their members. These leaders create a team climate that fosters employee growth and development by providing performance feedback, installing trust, and stimulating communication and participation in decision-making.

Three different contributions.

Thus, three major conclusions can be drawn for the current study, which signifies its contribution to the literature. First, engaging leadership can be considered an individual-level construct (i.e., the perception of particular leadership behaviors by individual followers) and a collective, team-level construct (i.e., the shared perception of specific leadership behaviors among team members). As far as the latter is concerned, our results support the notion of an average leadership style (ALS) [ 47 ]; namely, that homogeneous leader-follower interactions exist within teams, but relationships of leaders with followers differ between teams.

Secondly, Individual-level engaging leadership predicts individual work engagement through increasing follower’s PsyCap. Previous research suggested a positive relationship between person-focused leadership styles and follower’s work engagement, albeit that virtually all studies were cross-sectional in nature (for an overview see [ 11 , 33 ]). Our study added longitudinal evidence for that relationship and hinted at an underlying psychological process by suggesting that psychological capital might play a mediating role. As such, the current study corroborates and extends a previous cross-sectional study that obtained similar results [ 8 ]. However, it should be noted that the present study used a slightly different operationalization of PsyCap as is usually employed [ 36 ]. In addition to the three core elements of optimism, resiliency, and self-efficacy, flexibility instead of hope was used as a constituting fourth element of PsyCap. The reason was that hope and optimism overlap both theoretically as well as empirically [ 35 ] and that flexibility–defined as the ability to readapt, divert from unsuccessful paths, and tackle unpredictable conditions that hinder employees’ goal attainment [ 8 ]–was deemed particularly relevant for public service agencies that are plagued by red tape. Our results indicate that engaging leaders strengthen followers’ sense of proficiency when developing a task-specific skill to reach challenging objectives (i.e., self-efficacy). They also encourage a favorable appraisal of the prevailing conditions and future goal achievement (i.e., optimism).

Furthermore, they enhance subordinates’ abilities to recover from failures and move beyond setbacks effectively (i.e., resiliency) through supporting an increased aptitude for adaption to unfamiliar work circumstances (i.e., flexibility). These results corroborate the assumption that leaders who inspire, strengthen, and connect their followers provide a stimulating work environment that enhances employees’ personal resources. In their turn, elevated levels of PsyCap mobilize employees’ energy and intrinsic motivation to perform, expressed by a high level of work engagement. This result concurs with previous evidence that PsyCap can be framed as a critical component of the motivational process of the JD-R model, namely as a mediator of the relationship between contextual resources (i.e., engaging leadership) and work engagement [ 46 ]. However, this mediation was only partial because a direct effect of engaging leadership on follower’s work engagement was also observed in the current study. This evidence is not surprising since previous research showed that other mediating factors (which were not included in the present study) played a role in explaining the relationship between leadership and work engagement. Among them, innovative work behaviors, meaningful work, role clarity, positive emotions, identification with the organization, and psychological ownership [ 11 ]. Thus, increasing their follower’s PsyCap is not the whole story as far as the impact of engaging leadership is concerned. It is likely that engaging leaders also impact these alternative mediating factors. If this is the case, this might explain why the additional variance in follower’s work engagement is explained by engaging leadership, as indicated by the direct effect.

Thirdly, team-level engaging leadership predicts work engagement of individual team members and team effectiveness through increasing team resources. An earlier cross-sectional study found that engaging leadership, as perceived by their followers, showed an indirect, positive effect on their work engagement level through an increase in job resources [ 7 ]. However, in that study, engaging leadership and job resources, including performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making, were assessed at the individual and not at the aggregated team level. This means that the current study corroborates previous findings at the aggregated team level, using a longitudinal design. It is important to note that employees’ level of work engagement not only depends on individual-level processes (through the increase in PsyCap) but also on collective processes (trough the rise in team resources). Finally, our findings concur with research on team climate, showing that leaders who endorse supportive relations between team members and create an open, empowering team climate enable employees to succeed [ 33 ]. Simultaneously, a team climate like that is also likely to foster personal growth and development, which, in turn, translates into greater work engagement [ 63 ].

Practical implications

Our study shows that engaging leadership matters, and therefore organizations are well-advised to stimulate their managers to lead by the principles of engaging leadership. To that end, organizations may implement leadership development programs [ 90 ], leadership coaching [ 91 ], or leadership workshops [ 92 ]. Previous research has shown that leadership behaviors are malleable and subject to change using professional training [ 93 – 95 ]. Furthermore, leaders may want to establish and promote an open and trusting team climate in which employees feel free to express their needs and preferences [ 96 , 97 ].

Accordingly, our study shows that this climate is conducive not only for work engagement but also for team effectiveness. Finally, our results also suggest that psychological capital is positively associated with work engagement, so that it would make sense to increase this personal resource, mainly because PsyCap is state-like and open to development through instructional programs [ 45 ]. For instance, a short PsyCap Intervention (PCI) has been developed by Luthans and colleagues, which is also available as a web-based version for employees [ 98 ]. PCI focuses on: (a) acquiring and modifying self–efficacy beliefs; (b) developing realistic, constructive, and accurate beliefs; (c) designing goals, pathway generation, and strategies for overcoming obstacles; and (d) identifying risk factors, and positively influencing processes.

Strengths, limitations, and directions for future research

A significant strength of the current study is its design that combines a multilevel investigation of engaging leadership with mediating processes at the individual and team levels. This is in line with the claim that leadership research suffers from a lack of theoretical and empirical differentiation between levels of analysis [ 99 ]. However, leadership is an inherently multilevel construct in nature [ 9 ]. Although the current findings shed light on the role of the emergent construct of engaging leadership, both regarding individuals and teams, an exciting venue for future research involves exploring its predictive validity in comparison with traditional leadership models. This concurrent validation would adhere to the recommendations accompanying the introduction of new leadership constructs in the face of the risk of construct proliferation [ 16 ].

A further strength of the current study is its large sample size, including 1,048 employees nested within 90 work teams. Moreover, data were collected at two time points with a one-year time lag that was considered long enough for the effects of engaging leadership to occur. In contrast with widespread cross-sectional studies that sometimes draw unjustified conclusions on the corollaries of leadership [ 100 ], the current research relied on a longitudinal design to better understand the consequences of engaging leadership at the individual and team level of analysis. According to our results, engaging leadership indeed shows a positive effect across time on outcomes at the individual (i.e., work engagement) and team level (i.e., team effectiveness).

Along with its strengths, the current study also has some limitations that should be acknowledged. The main weakness of the current study lies in the homogeneity of the sample, which consisted of employees working in a Dutch public service agency. This specific work setting prevents us from generalizing the findings of our research with other occupational groups. However, focusing on an organization where most activities are conducted in teams permits independent but simultaneous assessment of the impact of (engaging) leadership on the perceived pool of resources among teams and workers, as suggested by current trends in leadership literature [ 101 , 102 ].

Furthermore, the collection of data at different time points overcomes the inherent weakness of a cross-sectional design, yet a design including at least three data waves would have provided superior support for the hypothesized mediated relationships. Based on within-group diary studies [ 103 , 104 ], it can, on the one hand, be argued that leadership might impact the team and personal resources within a much shorter time frame. On the other hand, work engagement represents a persistent psychological state that is not susceptible to sudden changes in the short term [ 1 ]. Thus, the chosen one-year time lag can be considered reasonable for a between-group study to detect the impact of engaging leadership accurately. This impact needs some time to unfold. An additional limitation of this study entails measuring individual and team resources with only a few items. Nevertheless, all scales had an internal consistency value that met the threshold of .65 [ 105 ] with an average Cronbach’s alpha value equal to .81.

Concluding remark

Despite the novelty of the construct, the emerging research on engaging leadership suggests the potential value of a theoretically sound leadership model that could foster followers’ engagement. While earlier findings showed that engaging leadership is positively associated with the employee’s level of engagement [ 7 , 8 ], the current study suggested that engaging leadership could predict work engagement and team effectiveness. More specifically, being exposed to a leader who inspires, strengthens and connects team members may foster a shared perception of greater availability of team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making), as well as greater psychological capital (i.e., self-efficacy, optimism, resilience, and flexibility). Hence, engaging leadership could play a significant role in the processes leading to work engagement at both the team and the individual levels.

Supporting information

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.s001

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 13. Antonakis J., Day D.V. Leadership: Past present and future. In, Antonakis J. & Day D.V.(Eds.), The nature of leadership (3rd. Ed.) London: Sage. 2017; 3–28.
• 15. Deci E.L., Ryan R.M. Self-determination theory. In Van Lange P.A.M., Kruglanski A.W., & Higgins E.T.(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology. London: Sage. 2012; 416–436. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n21 .
• 17. Erasmus, A. (2018). Investigating the relationships between engaging leadership, need satisfaction, work engagement and workplace boredom within the South African mining industry (Doctoral dissertation, North-West University).
• 21. Robijn, W. (2021). “Taking care of the team member is taking care of the team: a team conflict perspective on engaging leadership,” in: Leadership and Work Engagement: A Conflict Management Perspective, ed W. Robijn (Unpublished PhD) (Belgium: KU Leuven), 79–107.
• 30. Bass B.M., Riggio R.E. Transformational leadership. In Transformational leadership . 2nd ed. Psychology Press Ltd., 2006.
• 31. Smith, D.J. (2018). The Importance of Self-Determined Leadership in Building Respectful Workplace. (Unpublished PhD thesis), University of Southern Queensland, Australia.
• 34. Luthans F., Youssef C.M., Avolio B.J. Psychological capital: Investing and developing positive organizational behaviour. In Nelson D & Cooper C. L.(Eds.), Positive organizational behaviour. London: Sage. 2007; pp. 9–24.
• 40. Bandura A. Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In Locke E. (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior. Oxford: Blackwell. 2000; pp. 120–136.
• 41. Sweetman D., Luthans F. The power of positive psychology: Psychological capital and work engagement. In Bakker A.B. & Leiter M. P. (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press. 2010; pp. 44–68.
• 42. Fredrickson B.L. Positive emotions broaden and build. In Devine P., & Plant A. (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (ed., Vol. 47). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 2013; pp. 1–54.
• 48. Bass B.M. Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press; 1985.
• 51. McGrath J.E. Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1964.
• 61. Schaufeli W.B. What is engagement? In Employee engagement in theory and practice. Routledge. London: Routledge. 2013; pp. 29–49.
• 66. Hox J.J. Multilevel analyses: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2002.
• 67. Hox J.J. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge; 2010.
• 78. Bliese P.D. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein K. J. & Kozlowski S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2000, pp. 349–381.
• 79. Muthén B., Satorra A. Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. In Marsden P. V. (Ed.), Sociological methodology. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association; 1995, pp. 264–316. https://doi.org/10.2307/271070
• 82. Muthén B.O., Muthén L.K. Mplus version 7 [Computer Programme]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 2012.
• 86. Arbuckle J.L. Amos (Version 21.0). Chicago: IBM SPSS; 2015.
• 87. Brown T. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2006.
• 89. Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis. Uppersaddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hal Hall; 2006.
• 92. Segers J., De Prins P., Brouwers S. Leadership and engagement: A brief review of the literature, a proposed model, and practical implications. In Albrecht S. L. (Ed.), New horizons in management. Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2010, pp. 149–158.
• 105. DeVellis R.F. Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). London: Sage publications; 2016.

Employee Engagement as Human Motivation: Implications for Theory, Methods, and Practice

• Regular Article
• Published: 28 December 2022
• Volume 57 , pages 1223–1255, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• J. David Pincus   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3523-2912 1 , 2  

9465 Accesses

8 Citations

13 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The central theoretical construct in human resource management today is employee engagement. Despite its centrality, clear theoretical and operational definitions are few and far between, with most treatments failing to separate causes from effects, psychological variables from organizational variables, and internal from external mechanisms. This paper argues for a more sophisticated approach to the engagement concept, grounding it in the vast psychological literature on human motivation. Herein lies the contribution of our paper; we argue that the apparent diversity of operational definitions employed by academics and practitioners can be understood as tentative attempts to draw ever nearer to key motivational concepts, but never quite get there. We review the leading definitions of employee engagement in the literature and find that they are reducible to a core set of human motives, each backed by full literatures of their own, which populate a comprehensive model of twelve human motivations. We propose that there is substantial value in adopting a comprehensive motivational taxonomy over current approaches, which have the effect of “snowballing” ever more constructs adopted from a variety of fields and theoretical traditions. We consider the impact of rooting engagement concepts in existing motivational constructs for each of the following: (a) theory, especially the development of engagement systems; (b) methods, including the value of applying a comprehensive, structural approach; and (c) practice, where we emphasize the practical advantages of clear operational definitions.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Engagement Catalyst Initiative: How One Global Organization Activates and Energizes Employee Engagement

Employee Engagement Concepts, Constructs and Strategies: A Systematic Review of Literature

Driving Employee Engagement in Today’s Dynamic Workplace: A Literature Review

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Despite the centrality of the employee engagement concept, clear theoretical and operational definitions are few and far between, with most treatments failing to separate causes from effects, psychological variables from organizational variables, and internal from external mechanisms. This paper argues for a more sophisticated approach to the engagement concept, grounding it in the vast psychological literature on human motivation.

The Current State of Theory

In social science research, it is always good practice to try to distinguish causes and effects in theoretical models, resulting in testable propositions. Much of the theoretical work of both academics and practitioners Footnote 1 in the domain of employee engagement has unfortunately neglected this fundamental step, instead adopting a list generation approach, enumerating all the exogenous and endogenous variables that could, should, or might be expected to co-occur with engagement. This approach has returned long lists of items with little regard for separating causes from effects, psychological variables from organizational variables, states from traits, and the cognitive from the emotional from the behavioral. In a literature review, Kular et al., ( 2008 ) concluded that despite the “great deal of interest in engagement, there is also a good deal of confusion. At present, there is no consistency in definition, with engagement having been operationalized and measured in many disparate ways.” Nearly a decade later in a subsequent literature review, Dewing & McCormack ( 2015 ) observe that “it is a challenge to find much substance or a clear definition for the concept of engagement… Further, it is unclear how the construct relates to other existing similar concepts…” (p. 2). As suggested by these, and indeed virtually all authors on this subject, the term employee engagement has remained stubbornly muddled, conflated, and confused, a victim of entangled, conflated pseudo-definitions that overlap heavily with related but distinct concepts such as job engagement, work engagement, organizational engagement, intellectual-social-affective engagement, and collective organizational engagement (Albrecht, 2010 ). In this way, the academic and practitioner literatures have been subjected to a kind of “snowballing effect” as authors apply different theoretical models bringing with them a host of new constructs, while also applying ever more synonyms for existing constructs (for examples, see list of keywords used in literature review below).

The need for conceptual clarity is particularly acute for the concept of engagement. By one account, few business concepts have resonated as strongly as has employee engagement (Schneider et al., 2009 ). This strong and growing interest is confirmed by Google Trends (accessed August 28, 2020), which shows a steady upward trend in Google searches involving the phrase “employee engagement” beginning in April 2004 (their earliest data) at an index of 0, increasing to an index of 100 in July 2020 (indicating the strongest search volume to date). It is important to note that, despite the obvious relevance of the engagement concept to employee emotional wellness, this upward trend in interest pre-dates the current COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, studies have found significant linkages between employee engagement and physical and mental health (Harter et al., 2003 ; Porath et al., 2012 ; Sonnentag, 2003 ; Spreitzer et al., 2005 ). In light of this trend, providing a clear definition of employee engagement isn’t just a good idea for developing theory and measurement, it may be important for improving public health.

Although no universally accepted definition of employee engagement exists, Shuck ( 2011 ) has extensively reviewed the literature and identified four dominant research streams: Kahn’s ( 1990 ) need-satisfying approach, Maslach et al.’s ( 2001 ) burnout-antithesis approach, Harter et al.’s ( 2002 ) satisfaction-engagement approach, and Saks’ ( 2006 ) multidimensional approach. These four streams are derived from entirely different research traditions: organizational behavior (Kahn), social psychology (Maslach), commercial polling (Harter), and human resource management (Saks) and, accordingly, can be thought of as four descriptions made by the proverbial men around the elephant, each absolutely correct in his description, but none able to adequately describe the holistic essence of the phenomenon. In the spirit of crowdsourcing, we will keep track of every postulated component and subcomponent described by each tradition before attempting to apply an overarching model to encompass them all.

Epistemological Foundations

We now make a very short digression into epistemology, noting only that the dominant models of employee engagement all seem to tacitly assume the operation of the Stimulus → Organism → Response (S-O-R) model, which has been the dominant assumption in psychology since the close of the behaviorist era. In this formulation, external, environmental stimuli are perceived and acted upon in the brain of the individual organism, which mediates and causes observable behavior; accordingly, this is known as the mediation model and provides a scaffolding to separate causes from effects at two stages: external causes of internal effects and internal causes of behavioral effects. This presupposes asymmetrical relations between causes and effects (i.e., effects don’t cause causes) and should provide clear guidance for determining the role of different variables in the chain of causation by asking questions such as “Is X an external, environmental stimulus, a psychological response, or a behavioral outcome?” and “Does X cause Y or vice-versa?” But, as we will show, this has often not been the case in the employee engagement literature. Footnote 2

Do Engagement Concepts Refer to Stimulus, Organism, or Response?

Key constructs related to employee engagement have a nasty habit of showing up in different S-O-R roles at different times. For example, autonomy is part of the definition of engagement proposed by Maslach et al. ( 2001 ), but it is also an antecedent condition in the Hackman & Oldham ( 1980 ) system employed by Kahn ( 1990 ). Autonomy also shows up as an antecedent in discussion of role breadth (Morgeson et al., 2005 ), and again as an outcome in extra-role behavior or role-expansion (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004 ). It is unclear whether a behavioral intention like taking charge is a cause of engagement, a marker of engagement, or a consequence of engagement.

The same pattern is observed with regard to the construct of psychological presence . One the one hand, Kahn ( 1990 ) defines engagement itself as a harnessing of the self within the work role. On the other hand, the construct of organizational commitment , defined in a seminal paper as an outcome variable (Saks, 2006 ), is defined by the projection of the self into the organization (e.g., “Working at my organization has a great deal of personal meaning to me”; “I feel personally attached to my work organization”). We are left to wonder if projecting one’s self into one’s work is a cause of engagement, an indicator of engagement, or an outcome of engagement.

Again we see this pattern with regard to the key constructs of perceived organizational support (POS) and perceived supervisor support (PSS), which are identified as antecedent conditions (Saks, 2006 ). POS and PSS have been shown to be statistically related to measures of psychological safety , as well as to job characteristics of openness, being encouraged to try new things, and enjoying a supportive relationship with supervisor and colleagues (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004 ), resulting in the outcome of having “high quality relationships.” But this begs the question of what types of variables these really are: Is perceived safety not a response to antecedent conditions? Are POS and PSS themselves not psychological feeling states evoked by conditions? As such, we would argue that these constructs play multiple roles and defy being hard-coded into any one phase of the S-O-R process; it might be more accurate to think about them as multiple feedback loops. The example of perceived caring by the employer , a form of POS, is no trivial matter: As reported by Saks ( 2006 ), “demonstrating caring and support” is far and away the biggest predictor of both job and organizational engagement. But it’s not clear if perceived caring is part of the psychological response that defines engagement itself, or if it should be considered an antecedent condition, or even an outcome.

Unfortunately, this sort of conceptual “slipperiness” (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ) affects nearly every construct in the employee engagement literature: Is task variety purely an antecedent condition (an attribute of an environmental stimulus), or does task variety necessitate absorption (a definition of engagement; mediator variable) on the part of the employee in order to successfully perform the role, and by so doing, does it necessarily induce role expansion (a behavioral outcome variable)? Footnote 3 In this light, it is easy to see how the slipperiness of constructs permits them to migrate back and forth in status from stimulus to psychological mediator to behavioral outcome.

Despite valiant past attempts to categorize these constructs as one of the three elements in the S-O-R model, it is our contention that a more fruitful approach might be found in allowing for multiple causal relations and feedback loops beyond the rigid S-O-R assumption. As we will argue below, the vast majority of engagement constructs can be considered to act as psychological mediators, specifically, motivations , which direct the organism to seek out certain kinds of stimuli (S), generate emotional experiences (O), and prepare the body for response (R).

Motivations are inherently dynamic , that is, they pertain to striving for change over time from current conditions to an improved future state. Because of this dynamism, we suggest that a better model than S-O-R may be found in Maruyama’s ( 1963 ) Second Cybernetics model of deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes. In contrast to standard thermostat-like cybernetic systems that characterize most homeostatic systems, using negative feedback loops to keep conditions within certain bounds, deviation-amplifying processes push conditions toward increasing rates of change (e.g., a crack in the sidewalk fills with water; it freezes causing the crack to expand, which then holds more water, causing further expansion, and so on). Motives become actualized within the context of particular workplaces; the resulting direction of change is a function of mutually causal interactions between initial predispositions, e.g., the worker grew up in a success-oriented family vs. in an egalitarian commune, and work conditions that amplify certain types of needs, e.g., a sales department that closely tracks and rewards individual achievement vs. a non-profit with a culture of communalism. These interactions and their feedback loops naturally spawn increasing rates of change, which can either deepen a worker’s commitment to their organization or drive them out. Our contention is that deviation-amplification is an important underlying force that impels microgenesis from starting conditions to strivings for change, and from foundational forms of motivation (e.g., the need for safety or autonomy) to higher, decentralized forms of motivation (e.g., the need for esteem or higher purpose).

Do Engagement Concepts Refer to Affect, Cognition, or Behavior?

A very similar and related problem plagues attempts to separate constructs as primarily cognitive, emotional, or behavioral. The dominant definitions of employee engagement have gone to great pains to explicitly state that this construct is a cognitive, emotional, and behavioral complex. Commitment to the organization, for example, is defined as having both intellectual and emotional components (Baumruk, 2004 ; Richman, 2006 ; Shaw, 2005 ). Psychological presence is defined as being present cognitively, emotionally, and physically (Kahn, 1990 ). The authors of the popular Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) have defined engagement as a “persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state” (p. 74; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ). These approaches pays lip service to this distinction but essentially finesse the problem. By fudging and blurring any real distinctions between the affective, cognitive, and conative, researchers are left without critical guidance for developing valid and reliable measures. Macey & Schneider ( 2008 ) express concern particularly about the inability of current measures to address the emotional component, which they see as essential to the distinctive definition of employee engagement.

Certain components of engagement have been identified as primarily cognitive, e.g., attention , which is defined as both cognitive availability and time spent thinking about role (Rothbard, 2001 ). In UWES terms, absorption , being intensely engrossed in one’s role (Rothbard, 2001 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ) seems like a primarily cognitive construct, whereas vigor (full of energy) seems more behavioral. The final component of UWES, dedication , seems primarily grounded in cognition with shades of affect (e.g., “I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose”; “My job inspires me”; “My job is challenging”).

Just like the difficulties in establishing their S-O-R designations, these concepts defy easy classification as thoughts, feelings, or actions. Mirroring the consensus definition of the attitude construct in social psychology as having components of affect, cognition, and behavior (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996 ), we contend that the vast majority of these constructs imply thoughts, actions, and feelings, with a particular emphasis on the latter (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ). As demonstrated below, the concept of motivation , like attitude , can encompass this triad.

Literature Review

In accordance with Templier and Paré ( 2018 ), a literature review of the theory development type was conducted consistent with the six-step process outlined by these authors: (1) problem formulation, (2) literature search, (3) screening for inclusion, (4) quality assessment, (5) data extraction, and (6) data analysis and interpretation, as follows:

(1) The primary goal of this review is to identify theoretical systems that purport to define the components of employee engagement. (2) The literature search was performed using multiple, iterative search strategies beginning with consultation of the Web of Science and Google Scholar search engines, using combination of keywords drawn from definitions of engagement such as “engagement,” “motivation,” “striving,” “involvement,” “persistence,” “commitment,” “absorption,” “dedication,” “vigor,” “performance,” “citizenship,” “identification,” in conjunction with the object of these descriptors: “employee,” “worker,” “work,” “task,” “job,” “team,” “group,” “organization,” etc. As relevant papers were identified, the list of search terms was updated to include additional terms. Further, backward and forward searches on relevant papers permitted the discovery of additional materials. (3) The searches described above resulted in millions of publications of multiple types, which were further screened for inclusion. Screening criteria focused on the presence of a comprehensive model of engagement, whether viewed through the lens of management, psychology, human resources, or assessment. Additionally, results were screened for the availability of a complete set of assessment items that corresponded to each comprehensive model. These screens reduced the set to roughly 40 publications. (4) At this point, the full set of publications were reviewed for quality and relevance, resulting in additional forward and backward searching, which revealed a final set of conceptual models that conformed to the above requirements. (5) The specific elements of each model were extracted into a table for direct comparison (Tables  3 – 5 ).

(6) The analysis and implications are presented below.

The analysis resulted in the identification of 102 concepts (Table  4 ) and 120 individual assessment items (Table  5 ) referenced in the seminal and review papers on employee engagement. The concepts range widely across multiple dimensions that have been identified in past reviews, namely, antecedent conditions; indicators of engagement itself (cognitions, emotions, behaviors); observable outcomes of engagement; traits; and higher order qualities of engagement (e.g., persistence over time). These 102 concepts also vary broadly in terms of their content, encompassing job characteristics (e.g., variety, challenge, enrichment); individual traits (e.g., conscientiousness, autotelic personality, locus of control); intrapsychic concerns related to the self (e.g., psychological safety, authenticity, opportunities for personal growth); relations with the material world of work (e.g., autonomy, absorption, opportunity to meaningfully contribute); social cognitions, emotions, and motivations (e.g., sense of belonging, demonstrations of caring, opportunities for recognition); and concerns with higher-order, abstract principles (e.g., justice, values, purpose).

Emergent Points of Consensus

Since several literature reviews and meta-analyses of this literature have been conducted recently, we will not repeat the cataloguing of papers by commonalities here. Instead, we will use the points of consensus as a starting point for our main contention, which is that employee engagement is best conceived as human motivation, and that the various constructs proposed all neatly fit into a structured taxonomy of human motivation.

Across the papers reviewed, several points of consensus emerge:

Engagement is primarily considered to be an individual -level, not group-level, construct; as such, group level effects are the aggregated result of individual results (Shuck et al., 2017 ; Shuck, Adelson, & Reio, 2016; Shuck & Wollard, 2010 ).

Engagement is a latent psychological variable and therefore can be estimated but never directly observed, having the effect of re-classifying all so-called behavioral engagement constructs as outcomes (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Macey et al., 2009 )

Engagement acts primarily as a mediator variable between antecedents (e.g., job characteristics, work conditions, etc.) and outcomes (e.g., intention to quit, productivity, performance; Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Christian et al., 2011 ; Shuck, 2011 ; Rich et al., 2010 ; Bakker & Bal, 2010 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Macey et al., 2009 ; Saks, 2006 ; Hakanen et al., 2006 ; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004 ).

Engagement is primarily conceived of as a state rather than a trait (Shuck et al., 2017 ; Christian et al., 2011 ; Saks & Gruman, 2014 ).

Engagement is a multi-dimensional construct (“a complex nomological network”, Macey & Schneider, 2008 ) that includes cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions, but is primarily considered affective (Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Soane et al., 2012 ; Christian et al., 2011 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Macey et al., 2009 ; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ; Kahn, 1990 ).

Engagement is primarily conceived of as an affectively-charged goal-directed state, which is typically referred to as motivation in the psychological literature, and is explicitly labeled as motivation in many seminal works (Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Soane et al., 2012 ; Crawford et al., 2010 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Macey et al., 2009 ; Meyer & Gagné, 2008 ; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007 , 2017 , 2018 ; Bakker et al., 2016 ; Bakker & Sanz-Vergel, 2013 ; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ; Kahn, 1990 ).

Repeated calls have been made to address the problem of non-parsimonious construct proliferation, and for conceptual development to address questions of nomological validity in the hopes of identifying a “super-engagement construct” that can integrate the disparate and growing collection of constructs (Albrecht, 2010 ;  Shuck et al., 2017 ; Cole et al., 2012 ; Shuck, 2011 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ;  Macey et al., 2009 ).

Why Motivation?

It’s no coincidence that the major definitions of the employee engagement construct, despite their widely ranging theoretical origins, happen to fall perfectly in line with the definition of motivation, given by Pincus ( 2004 ) as an individual-level, unobservable state of emotion or desire operating on the will and, as a psychological mediator, causing it to act . We contend that this is because the concept of engagement is identical to the concept of motivation, albeit applied to a particular area of application, i.e., one’s work. The goal of this paper is to suggest that a conceptual model already exists that can accommodate all of these concepts, and that splitting hairs over which aspects of which concepts are antecedents, mediators, or consequences, is much like trying to parse out which are cognitions, emotions, or behavioral inclinations. From a motivational perspective, these concepts each have facets in all of these readout channels, i.e., a single motivational construct, say the need for belonging , can be fostered by certain conditions, can become a salient need, is experienced both affectively and cognitively, and can be behaviorally expressed.

In their seminal review article, Macey & Schneider ( 2008 ) explicitly describe employee engagement as a form of motivation , and report the widespread usage of synonyms for motivation in the literature including an “illusive force that motivates employees” (Wellins & Concelman, 2005 ) and a “high internal motivational state” (Colbert et al., 2004 ). Shuck’s ( 2011 ) integrative literature review offers a very similar definition of employee engagement “as a positive psychological state of motivation with behavioral manifestations.” (p. 2). Macey & Schneider ( 2008 ) make an intriguing statement that explicitly supports our contention:

“Some readers may feel that there are clear hints of ‘motivation’ in what we have just written and wonder to themselves why we are not saying that this (employee engagement) is motivation. The answer is that the construct of motivation is itself a hypothetical construct with considerable ambiguity surrounding it. Were we to introduce it here, it might further confound the issues so we leave the chore of integrating engagement with ‘motivation’ to others.” (p. 4).

Suffice it to say, we accept this challenge. In surveying the literature, the attributes that consistently define the concept of employee engagement equally define motivation. Motivation is the meta-theory the field has been calling for (Table  1 ).

A leading comprehensive theory of motivation is Buck’s ( 1985 ) PRIME Theory, an acronym for Primary Motivational and Emotional Systems. The key premise is that motivation is a state of pent-up potential energy that, when actualized, is “read out” through cognitive, emotional, and behavioral systems. In this model, each of these three readouts have distinct functions: the function of syncretic cognition is to provide the opportunity for conscious self-regulation; emotional expression serves to spontaneously communicate what one is feeling to others, which supports social coordination; and physical responses serve the need for adaptive behavior. The consensus view of engagement follows this same exact pattern of cognition (e.g., enthusiastic thinking), emotion (e.g., felt pleasantness), and behavior (e.g., physical activation).

The dominant perspective on the origin of motivations, echoed by Buck ( 1985 ) and Damasio ( 2012 ), is that they are essentially mechanisms of homeostasis, keeping the organism within set bounds of desirable operation. Motivational and emotional processes are activated within individuals via stereotyped action patterns, which have existed long before evolution designed conscious minds. In Damasio’s view, humans have minds for the purpose of sensing changes in our physiological states both internally and externally, and consciousness exists to provide us flexibility in how to respond to our environments. In this view, higher-order motivations (e.g., to feel free, included, cared for, fair, etc.) are built up (ontogenetically, phylogenetically, and microgenetically) from the neural substrates of unconscious, physiological needs on a continuum that begins with the physiologically-grounded (e.g., feeling safe) and extending up to those that are increasingly influenced and shaped by culture (e.g., feeling respected, successful, ethical, self-actualized, and having a life purpose). As motives become more culturally mediated (i.e., developing socio-historically), they are also increasingly subject to cultural prescription of appropriate avenues for their fulfillment. As suggested by Vygotsky ( 1978 ) and Leont’ev ( 1978 ), the microgenesis of personality and self-concept, as amalgamations of sets of needs and need-traits, is heavily determined by the social environments provided by caregivers, family, school, etc.

Consistent with the operation of all four of Vygotsky’s levels of human development, it is through the experience of deficiencies that development proceeds. Accordingly, we would expect hierarchical progress in motivation to typically occur in response to negative motivation, at least initially; over time, the role of positive aspirations would gain more prominence. As noted by cultural psychologists, negative and positive motivations tend to work together in a complementary fashion (Valsiner, 2014 , 2019 , 2021 ). Boredom, as an example of a negative motivational nudge, initiates stimulation seeking and desire for flow experiences; in this view, a certain degree of boredom is necessary to spark creativity and innovation (Boesch, 1998 ).

Applying a Taxonomy of Human Motivation to Engagement Constructs

Recently, a unified model of human motivation has been introduced to describe the types of emotional needs that impel humans to take action (Pincus, 2022 ). It was necessary to develop this model because, surprisingly, despite a plethora of mini-theories of motivation (e.g., Need for Achievement, Need for Affiliation, Terror Management Theory, Flow Theory, etc.), no comprehensive model of human motivation yet existed in the psychology literature. Maslow’s need hierarchy makes strides toward being more comprehensive, yet his focus on high achieving individuals led him to neglect many key motivations recognized in the literature, such as the need for Nurturance identified by Bowlby and Harlow, McClelland’s Need for Achievement and Need for Power, Erickson’s Identity Formation motive, and Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow Theory, among others.

To address this need, we began with the premise that motivation activates and directs behavior toward goals in four fundamental domains of life: the intrapsychic (inner-directed, focused on the self), the instrumental (outer-directed, focused on the material world of work and play), the interpersonal (socially-directed), and the spiritual (directed toward adherence with transcendent and eternal principles). These four domains of motivational focus have been identified by multiple systems of thought (Pincus, 2022 ) including developmental psychology (e.g., James, Maslow, and Kohlberg), sports psychology, social psychology & philosophy of religion, and by the five major world religions. We followed the premise of four fundamental motivational domains with a typology of three possible levels of motivational fulfillment. Following the work of Fromm ( 2013 ) and Rand ( 1993 ), we proposed that these four domains of fulfillment cross three states of existence: a foundational level of forward-looking expectations ( being ), an intermediate level of experiences in the moment ( doing ), and an advanced level of backward-looking outcomes ( having ). Footnote 4 Crossing the four life domains with the three modes of existence results in a periodic table-style matrix that is arguably comprehensive since there are no additional fundamental domains of life or modes of existence. This matrix is presented below as Table  2 , along with the resulting distributions of concepts and assessment items (Table  3 ) analyzed as part of the literature review.

As suggested above, the columns of the model organize the motivational concepts in terms of the location of the desired change (change in feelings about the self; change in feelings about action in the material world, change in feelings about social relationships and social interactions; and change in feelings about relationships with transcendental, ethereal principles) and the rows of this table organize motivational concepts according to the types of change toward which a particular motivational force is striving (change in expectations for the future, change in real time experiences of the present, and change in retrospective evaluation of outcomes from life choices and activities). Each motivational concept in the matrix has both positive (aspiration-linked) and negative (frustration-linked) emotional forms—reflecting the push and pull of emotional energies that move people to take action in life. Footnote 5 Motivational energy is typically fueled by both positive “pull” and negative “push” forces for the same need; for example, a worker who feels disempowered strives to rid himself or herself of this feeling (negative), typically by seeking greater autonomy (positive). In this way, positive and negative motivational forces should be seen as complementary , not as zero-sum tradeoffs.

Another important postulate of this model, like that of Maslow’s need hierarchy, is that progress within any of the life domains requires the successful satisfaction of more basic needs before the next level becomes salient, e.g., before one can be concerned with living up to their full potential, they must already have achieved feelings of safety and authenticity. In our extensive review of the motivational literature, over 100 distinct motivational concepts (i.e., needs or drives) were identified; all fit within one of these twelve categories of motivation, supporting our contention that the matrix is comprehensive.

Although we have displayed the matrix as a flat table for the purposes of publication, we prefer a three-dimensional pyramidal structure to reinforce the notion that humans must start from the basic motivations within each of the four domains before ascending to the salience of higher motivations; consequently, progressively fewer humans attain the higher levels with each domain, shrinking their relative sizes toward the top as visually represented by a pyramid. Another important theoretical concept that is reinforced by a pyramid heuristic is the fact that the Self is proposed to be antipodal to the Social, and the Spiritual is proposed to be antipodal to the Material; we will return to this point later as it has implications for hypothesis generation.

Presuming that most readers are not yet familiar with this model, we will give a brief introduction to the twelve motives of this matrix, and relate certain key concepts from the employee engagement literature to each. In all, 77 of the 102 concepts identified in the literature review found homes in this matrix. The remaining 25 were primarily personality traits (i.e., ambitiousness, autotelic personality, confidence, conscientiousness, determination, exchange ideology, hardiness, initiative, locus of control, optimism, proactivity, self-efficacy, self-esteem/self-worth, trait positive affect). These were excluded on the basis that the consensus view holds that the engagement construct is a state , not a trait. Job characteristics were similarly excluded because they are not psychological states (i.e., feedback from task and others, job and task characteristics, job enrichment, job demands, physical presence, and turnover intention). Finally, meta-characteristics that encompass multiple sub-dimensions were excluded because they are merely category labels whose subcomponents have already been included (i.e., personal resources, job resources, job satisfaction, motivation, and persistent/pervasive affective-cognitive state).

Motives of the Self

Safety and Anxiety. At the most basic level, there is a human need to feel safe and secure. This means feeling safe and assured in the face of challenges. When safety motivation is operating there is a desire to gain the basic sense that one has the confidence, protection, and comfort to successfully grow as a person. The need for “peace of mind” captures the spirit of this motive. At least twelve major theories of motivation include a need for safety as a core motive (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

Fittingly, the very first academic paper that described the phenomenon of employee engagement by Kahn ( 1990 ) lists psychological safety as one of the three pillars of engagement. In their review of the literature, Saks & Gruman ( 2014 ) suggest that Kahn’s need for safety is indeed the most fundamental requirement for engagement, which they describe as “important and necessary for all types of engagement” to develop (p. 175). Additional engagement constructs that speak to this need include the need for physical health (Saks, 2006 ; Sonnentag, 2003 ) and trust (Saks, 2006 ; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005 ).

Authenticity and Conformity. At the next level, pertaining to experiences with and of the self, comes the human need to feel able to express one’s distinctive individuality in the face of pressures to conformity. This is the desire to gain the sense that one is different in a good way, and to use this difference to successfully take action toward desired results. “Know thyself” captures the spirit of this motive. At least nine major theories of motivation include a need for authenticity as a core motive (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

The essence of Kahn’s ( 1990 ) engagement construct is that true engagement requires the “holistic investment of the entire self” (p. 97), i.e., their full, true, and complete selves, to one’s work role. That the need for authenticity is built atop fulfilled needs for psychological safety seems logical and fitting. Additional engagement constructs that speak to this need include the need for authenticity (Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Rich et al., 2010 ; Christian et al., 2011 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; May et al., 2004 ; Kahn, 1990 ), emotional presence (Kahn, 1990 ), personal identification (Cole et al., 2012 ; Christian et al., 2011 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Bono & Judge, 2003 ; Kahn, 1990 ; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986 ), projection of the self into work & organization (Christian et al., 2011 ; Saks, 2006 ; Kahn, 1990 ), and role fit, i.e., the degree of match between the authentic self and one’s job and organization (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ).

Fulfilling Potential and Failure to Thrive. At the highest level of attainment in the domain of the Self we find the need for self-actualization, the need to feel as though one is progressing toward fulfilling their personal potential as a human. This is the desire to gain the sense that one has the skill and mastery to successfully become one’s “best self.” The expression, “Be all that you can be,” captures the spirit of this motive. At least eleven major theories of motivation include a striving toward one’s full potential as a core motive (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

This motive has found full expression in the recent literature on thriving at work (Spreitzer et al., 2005 ; van der Walt, 2018 ), which is defined as a “sense of progress, or forward movement, in one’s self-development” (p. 4). Several related constructs in the engagement literature speak to this need for personal growth and mastery including strivings for extra role behavior (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004 ), role expansion (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Morgeson et al., 2005 ), mastery, learning, development and personal growth (Crawford et al., 2010 ), opportunities for growth & development (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Harter et al., 2002 ), as well as desires to innovate (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ). The construct of initiative (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Frese & Fay, 2001 ), when applied within the domain of the Self, may fuel all of these strivings.

Motives of the Material Domain

Autonomy and Disempowerment. At the most basic level of the Material domain, the area of life most directly associated with work, is the need for autonomy, defined as the need to feel authorized, capable and competent in the face of challenge. Autonomy is the desire to gain the basic sense that one has the ability, resources, and authority to successfully take action toward a desired result. The expression, “You can do it,” captures the spirit of this motive. At least seven major theories of motivation include a striving for autonomy, including terms such as self-determination, empowerment, and self-efficacy (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

A variety of engagement-related constructs explicitly focus on the need for autonomy (Soane et al., 2012 ; Meyer & Gagné, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ). Other related psychological concepts include competence (Soane et al., 2012 ; Meyer & Gagné, 2008 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Spreitzer, 1995 ), control (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Spreitzer, 1995 ), empowerment (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ), personal discretion/agency (Kahn, 1990 ), and self-determination (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Meyer & Gagné, 2008 ). We would also classify personal resources in this category, such as positive anticipation of future behavior and mental and physical resilience. There is a set of antecedent conditions that can help make these strivings successful including resource availability (Shuck, 2011 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ; Harter et al., 2002 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ) and sustainable workload (Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ), among other task characteristics.

Immersion and Boredom. At the intermediate, experiential level of the Material domain, we find the need for immersion, the striving to feel fully focused and engaged in the moment. This desire to lose one’s self in activity, in a state of total awareness, absorption, and flow, plays a particularly prominent role in definitions of engagement. The expression, “Being in the zone,” captures the essence of this motive. No less than thirteen major systems of motivation include this motive (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

Of all the motives discussed herein, immersion is the motive most densely populated by engagement constructs, representing roughly one-quarter of the 102 identified in the literature review. Chief among these is absorption (Kahn, 1990 ; Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Rothbard, 2001 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ; Hooker & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003 ), one of the three pillars of the dominant Schaufeli-Bakker UWES paradigm and a hallmark of Kahn’s ( 1990 ) concept of engagement. As pointed out by Saks & Gruman ( 2014 ), “if there is one common component across all definitions of engagement, it is the notion of being absorbed in one’s work and role” (p. 166). Unsurprisingly, then, there are many different terms used to describe this construct and these tend toward either cognitive, emotional, or behavioral descriptors.

The cognitive forms of this state include attention (Rothbard, 2001 ; Kahn, 1990 ), psychological availability (Kahn, 1990 ), cognitive presence (Kahn, 1990 ; Christian et al., 2011 ), experiential quality of doing work (Kahn, 1990 ), focused effort (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ), and job involvement (Christian et al., 2011 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; May et al., 2004 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ). The affective forms of this state draw a variety of labels including passion (Zigarmi et al., 2009 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Wellins & Concelman, 2005 ), enjoyment (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Rothbard & Edwards, 2003 ), happiness (Schaufeli et al., 2002 ), energy or energetic state (Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008, 2017 , 2018 ; Maslach & Leiter, 2008 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ), enthusiasm (Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008, 2017 , 2018 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Harter et al., 2003 , 2002 ), and positive affect (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Sonnentag, 2003 ; Kahn, 1990 ). The behavioral descriptors of this state include efficacy (Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Maslach & Leiter, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ), productivity (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Harter et al., 2002 ), vigor (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Shirom, 2003 ; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ), and the display of discretionary effort (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Frank et al., 2004 ; Mowday et al., 1982 ). As predicted by Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow Theory (2003), antecedent stimulus conditions that help elicit this state include an optimal level of challenge (Shuck, 2011 ; Brown & Leigh, 1996 ; Hackman & Oldham, 1980 ).

Success and Failure . At the highest level of attainment in the Material domain we find successful accomplishment, the striving to feel a sense of achievement as a result of one’s effort. This motive represents the desire to contribute to and be victorious in attaining desired results and to experience material rewards as a result. The expression, “In it to win it,” captures the spirit of this motive. At least seven major psychological theories of motivation include this motive (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

Within the engagement literature, this motive tends to be relegated to the status of evaluative outcome variable, as job performance (Saks, 2006 ; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004 ) or individual performance (Christian, et al., 2011 ; Alfes et al., 2010 ; Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009 ). Nevertheless, several key papers include either the striving to make important contributions (Shuck, 2011 ; Brown & Leigh, 1996 ; Hackman & Oldham, 1980 ) or the striving to have impact (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Spreitzer, 1995 ), both of which are well aligned with this need.

Motives of the Social Domain

Inclusion and Exclusion. At the foundational level of the social sphere is the need for acceptance and inclusion that permits the establishment of social bonds. Inclusion means feeling socially accepted, connected, and integrated, the desire to gain the basic sense that one belongs and can develop social attachments and friendships. The expression, “We are family,” captures this spirit. At least nine major motivational systems include this motive, which has been similarly labeled the need for affiliation, sociability, belonging, or social contact (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

Within the engagement literature, this motive figures prominently, with increased attention from the UK-based research group of Bailey (Truss), Soane, Madden, Alfes, & Fletcher, who have raised its profile substantially by naming it one of the three pillars of their Intellectual-Social-Affective (ISA) engagement concept (Bailey et al., 2015 ; Bailey et al., 2017 ; Soane et al., 2012 ). Although this is a new level of prominence for the construct, it has been a part of the engagement literature for many years, showing up as belonging (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Meyer & Allen, 1997 ; Mowday et al., 1982 ), high quality relationships (Saks, 2006 ), the ability to show warmth to others (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Shirom, 2003 ), and social relatedness (Soane et al., 2012 ; Shuck & Wollard, 2010 ; Meyer & Gagné, 2008 ; Kahn, 1990 ).

Caring and Uncaring. At the intermediate, experiential level of the Social triad comes the experience of feeling cared for by one’s employer, supervisor, or colleagues. Caring means feeling able to give and receive (appropriate) love, nurturance, and support, the desire to feel emotional nourishment, empathy, devotion, and experience mutual gratitude. The expression “Sharing is caring” aptly captures its essence. At least eight major motivational systems include this motive, which has been similarly labeled the need for nurturance, intimacy, succorance, attachment, or parental love (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

Feeling cared for is an especially important construct within the engagement literature due to its predictive power; Saks ( 2006 ) reports that perceived organizational support is far and away the top predictor of engagement with the organization and is tied for first place with job characteristics as the top predictor of job engagement. This construct goes by many names including caring, concern, and support (Saks, 2006 ; Kahn, 1992), community & social support (Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ), manager support (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Harter et al., 2002 ), perceived organizational support (Saks, 2006 ; Rhodes et al., 2001), perceived supervisor support (Saks, 2006 ; Rhodes et al., 2001), social support (Saks, 2006 ; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ), and supportive supervisors & management (Shuck, 2011 ; Brown & Leigh, 1996 ; Hackman & Oldham, 1980 ).

Recognition and Indifference. At the pinnacle of the Social triad is the need for social recognition. Recognition means feeling that one has achieved a social status of being admired, respected, and esteemed, typically as a resident expert in some skill or ability in the context of work. This motive represents the desire to gain social acknowledgement that one has been successful in a socially significant pursuit. The expression, “Hats off to you,” captures the spirit of this motive. At least eight major motivational systems include this motive, which has been similarly labeled the needs for esteem, honor, or egoistic prosocial motivation (Forbes, 2011 ; Pincus, 2022 ).

Surprisingly, the need for recognition barely registers in the engagement literature with only two constructs matching this description. Significantly, however, the few times this concept surfaces, it appears in seminal papers (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ), suggesting that recognition needs should be seriously considered as components of engagement. The first of these is the rewards & recognition construct (Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ), specifically the recognition component; the reward construct would generally be classified with the successful accomplishment motive by motivational theorists. The other construct is that of the need for pride (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Mowday et al., 1982 ), the desire for a kind of social “badge value” or caché associated with prominent, successful organizations.

Motives of the Spiritual Domain

Fairness and Injustice. At the basic level of the Spiritual triad is the need for justice and fairness, the need to feel that one’s organization acts in an honest, unbiased, impartial, even-handed and transparent manner. In practice, this means the employees strive to feel the basic sense that good is rewarded, bad is punished, and that gain goes to those most deserving of it. The spirit of this motive is captured by the expression, “If you want peace, work for justice.” We note parenthetically that the importance of this motive has recently been dramatically underscored by the Black Lives Matter movement and perceived corporate responses to COVID-19. We suggest that to the extent that needs for justice have not been incorporated into engagement constructs, it has been an oversight that should be corrected. This motive appears in many motivational systems, particularly those focusing on moral development in children (e.g., Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, Lerner’s just world hypothesis, Bloom’s roots of good and evil, etc.; Pincus 2022 ).

Here, again, is an example of a need that has received scant notice in the engagement literature, but when it is mentioned, it is in some of the most significant papers in the body of work (Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ; Colquitt et al., 2001 ). Both Saks ( 2006 ) and Maslach et al. ( 2001 ) identify the important role of perceived fairness, and procedural and distributive fairness as antecedent conditions for fostering engagement. Saks ( 2006 ) assesses the power of a host of variables in predicting both job engagement and organization engagement; of these, procedural justice is one of only two significant predictors of organizational engagement.

Ethics and Wrongdoing. At the intermediate, experiential level comes the need to feel that one and one’s organization behaves in an ethical manner, consistent with normative moral values. This is the striving to feel that one’s actions, and those of one’s organization, are in accordance with a set of moral principles, universal values, or at the very least, accepted standard business practices, applied to the business in which you are engaged. This is the desire to feel that one’s and one’s organization act in accordance with principled best practices and the highest ethical standards, something that is universally preached in corporate values statements but too often ignored in practice. The essence of this need is captured by the expression, “Do the right thing.” This motive similarly appears in motivational systems that focus on moral development including those of Kohlberg, Batson, Staub, and even Kant (Pincus, 2022 ).

Ethical motivation receives a great deal of attention in the engagement literature, in the form of the many constructs devoted to reciprocity, obligation, duty, loyalty, and the like. At the individual level, this adherence to principle includes the sense of personal dedication and duty toward the organization. Chief among these may be the concept of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) directed to other individuals or to the organization (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Lee & Allen, 2002 ), organizational commitment behavior (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Saks, 2006 ; Robinson et al., 2004 ; Rhoades et al., 2001 ), emotional and intellectual commitment to the organization (Saks, 2006 ; Baumruk, 2004 ; Richman, 2006 ; Shaw, 2005 ; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986 ), mutual commitments (Saks, 2006 ; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005 ), dedication (Shuck, 2011 ; Thomas, 2007 ; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ), loyalty (Saks, 2006 ; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005 ), and values (Saks, 2006 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ). Because these constructs have nearly all been defined in terms of observable behaviors, as a group they have tended to be categorized as outcomes or consequences of engagement rather than engagement itself, which misses the point of their motivational status. When an employee experiences ethical strivings (as motivation), they may tilt toward demonstrating observable citizenship behaviors (as part of the readout of that motivation), but it is important to recognize the motivation itself as the cause of that behavior.

Higher Purpose and Materialism. At the peak of the Spiritual domain stands the noblest and rarest of the motives, the need to feel as though one is serving a higher purpose or calling through one’s effort. Higher purpose means having a more meaningful reason to live, work, and exist than satisfying material needs. This is the desire to transcend the ordinary limitations of everyday life toward a higher, even spiritual, purpose. An expression that captures its essence is, “Those who have a why to live can bear almost any how .” An impressive collection of motivational theorists explicitly include a form of higher purpose or transcendental motivation in their systems including Staub, Kohlberg, and Maslow (Pincus, 2022 ).

Similar to the ethical motivation, the need for higher purpose is very well established in the engagement literature with extensive references to the construct of the meaningfulness of work, both in one’s work and at one’s work (Kahn, 1990 ; Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; James et al., 2011 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003 ; Meyer & Allen, 1997 ; Brown & Leigh, 1996 ; Spreitzer, 1995 ). Of particular note is research focused explicitly on spiritual needs and their relationship to employee engagement (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2010 ; Houghton et al., 2016 ; Milliman et al., 2018 ; Saks, 2011 ; van der Walt, 2018 ). These spiritual needs have been described as a need for meaning and purpose, awareness of life, connectedness, experience of sacredness, personal reflection and growth, health and inner peace, and compassion (van der Walt, 2018 ). Closely related constructs include organizational purpose (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ), sense of purpose (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ), transformational leadership, which is thought of as a catalyst for meaning and purpose (Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Bakker et al., 2011; Christian et al., 2011 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ), and adaptive behavior, which represents individual strivings in support of the organization’s purpose (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ).

Implications for Theory

The persistent problem of adequately defining employee engagement is well documented (Shuck et al., 2017 ; Saks & Gruman, 2014 ; Macey & Schneider, 2008 ). As perceptively noted by Macey & Schneider ( 2008 ), trying to separate antecedents and consequences from an ill-defined mediating construct is, at best, a “slippery” business (p. 10). By failing to embed the phenomena of engagement within a clear theoretical model, the field has suffered from concept proliferation, as indicated by the more than 100 identified herein. This is a failure of parsimony, but more fundamentally, it is a failure to clearly state the essential character of the phenomenon itself. Across the literature there are precious few citations of the psychological literature on motivation, which is extensive. It is telling that Kahn ( 1990 ), in the paper that first defined this construct, employs Maslow’s ( 1970 ) need hierarchy as one of its primary foundations. Despite the grounding of the original concept in motivation theory, the only consistent acknowledgements to the psychological literature involve passing references to self-concordance theory (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999 ) and self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ).

One of the most significant benefits to theory development of our proposition is to embed the vast array of engagement concepts within a structure that is logical and arguably comprehensive, as there are no known additional domains of human life or modes of existence (Fromm, 2013 ; Rand, 1993 ). Knowing these limits directly addresses the call to end concept proliferation (Cole et al., 2012 ), since any new construct proposed will necessarily have a “home” among similar constructs.

Another important benefit is immediately obvious from our analysis of Tables  3 and 4 as one can immediately see the degree of conceptual overlap, and distinctiveness, between different theoretical streams. As noted, fully one quarter of the concepts, and nearly two in five assessment items, identified relate to the motivational construct of immersion , suggesting that this is the most defining characteristic of employee engagement. By the same token, underrepresented concepts can also be clearly identified, e.g., safety , authenticity, recognition , justice , and included in future research.

Another key feature of our model is the requirement that each motivation must be capable of operating as either a striving toward positive aspiration (i.e., promotion) or away from negative frustration (i.e., prevention). Explicitly recognizing the polarity of motives within each cell supports further logical organization of proposed facilitative or inhibitory concepts, and, indeed, suggests that future research assess each of the twelve motives in terms of promotion needs and prevention needs.

However, we believe the greatest contribution to theory development is the establishment of a general theory of employee engagement that is composed of every possible human motivation (Pincus, 2022 ). Our model of human motivation takes the form of a pyramid formed by four sides representing four life domains: the Self, the Material, the Social, and the Spiritual. By placing these domains as opposing pairs, Self and Social, and Material and Spiritual, via a visual metaphor of distance, we are suggesting strong linkages between adjacent domains (e.g., Self – Spiritual – Social), and weak linkages for antipodal domains, for which there exists strong theoretical (Kohlberg and Power, 1981 ; Staub, 2005 ) and empirical support (Mahoney, et al., 2005 ).

A next frontier for research will be to describe the manner in which discrete motivations (both positive and negative) interact with each other to spark developmental progression both at the individual level and at the level of the organization. Our pyramidal model posits that such progress necessarily moves individuals and organizations in the direction of transcendence of categorical boundaries, with the ultimate goal of unifying all twelve motivations, i.e., what gives me security also provides justice for others, what gives me a sense of achievement also brings honor to the organization, what gives me a sense of authenticity also brings me a sense of purpose, etc.

Implications for Methods

In the words of Shuck et al. ( 2017 ), “the lack of engagement measures that are both academically grounded as well as practically useful, …complicates the ability of researchers to answer scholarly inquiry around questions of nomological validity and structural stability matched with practical usability” (p. 15). A symptom of flawed measures, the products of flawed theories, is the failure to garner empirical support for tested hypotheses, and the literature is rife with examples. Shuck ( 2011 ) cites Rich et al.’s ( 2010 ) finding that one operationalization of engagement failed to explain any variance in outcomes beyond that explained by intrinsic motivation, job involvement, and job satisfaction, suggesting that this concept and its operationalization was incomplete and “in need of theory building.” Similarly, Shuck ( 2010 ) found that Kahn’s definition of engagement failed to predict unique variance in outcomes, whereas a set of non-engagement variables were successful in explaining variance.

In the same spirit, Macey & Schneider ( 2008 ) called for a fundamental re-thinking of the approach to measurement. In their view, an adequate measurement technique is needed that can validly and reliably measure the motivational-emotional content of these constructs while minimizing rational filtering of response. In the words of Macey & Schneider ( 2008 ):

“The results from survey data are used to infer that reports of these conditions signify engagement, but the state of engagement itself is not assessed.” (p. 7). And current measures “do not directly tap engagement. Such measures require an inferential leap to engagement rather than assessing engagement itself.” (p. 8).

“Some measures…used to infer engagement are not affective in nature at all and frequently do not connote or even apply to a sense of energy…” (p. 10). “Measures of psychological states that are devoid of direct and explicit indicators of affective and energetic feeling are not measures of state engagement in whole or part.” (p. 12).

“The conclusion from these articles is to focus the measurement on the construct of interest; if engagement is the target, ensure that the measure maps the content of the construct.” (p. 26).

We couldn’t agree more, and our proposed reconceptualization of employee engagement has clear implications for advancing measurement. If employee engagement is indeed a motivational-emotional construct, then attempting to assess it using verbal and numerical assessment items is immediately problematic because such measures require rational, analytical thought on the part of the respondent. Entire research streams have evolved in the decades since Kahn ( 1990 ) specifically to work around the problems of assessing emotional and experiential constructs. These include a variety of so-called “System 1” techniques, named for Daniel Kahneman’s ( 2011 ) distinction between the brain’s fast, intuitive system (System 1) and the slower, rational system (System 2). These measurement systems are designed to bypass rational, cognitive filters, so that researchers can directly access motivational-emotional states, and include neurological imaging and electrical techniques (e.g., fMRI, EEG), physiological techniques (e.g., facial electromyography, facial coding, electro-dermal response, pupillary dilation, eye tracking, heart rate, blood pressure, respiration), and indirect measures of motivational-emotional meaning (e.g., Implicit Association Test, Affective Priming, Image-based Techniques). We urge scholars to move beyond cognitively-biased “paper and pencil” surveys when attempting to measure this motivational-emotional construct.

Implications for Practice

Much of contemporary employee engagement theory has little to offer the current day practitioner due to the lack of coherent theory and, accordingly, the weak ability of measures derived from these theories to explain variance in important outcomes. By grounding the many concepts attendant to this construct within a unified theory of human motivation, the task of understanding and communicating its essence is greatly simplified. This alone should be very helpful to practitioners who must somehow explain what their models measure and why.

Beyond its heuristic value, a unified model of human motivation provides a series of testable hypotheses, which can illuminate the specific relationships between each of the twelve motives (and their promotion and prevention faces) and external conditions that are under the employer’s control, outcomes that are important to the client, and with each other that together give meaning to interventions within a particular cultural context. Knowing which of the twelve complementary motives are most salient within a particular cultural milieu can assist the organization and workers to address work-related issues contextually, situationally, and adaptively. The cultural meaning of negative emotional needs is especially important to understand: The drive to avoid failure would have an entirely different meaning in a learning culture that not only tolerates failure, but actively encourages it, as opposed to a culture where “failure is not an option.” By aligning motivational interventions with the deep currents of cultural context, such interventions can take on meanings that are harmonious and adaptive, not incongruent, or inappropriate. Footnote 6

Finally, in the words of social psychologist Kurt Lewin, “there is nothing so practical as a good theory.” The many challenges to the defensibility of the engagement construct can easily create points of friction for practitioners who have curious clients. Adopting a structured, holistic model with face validity should hold clear advantages for all parties by providing a common language and framework to house their concepts and items.

In summary, this paper responds to repeated, urgent calls for integration of the diverse and proliferating concepts related to employee engagement. The subject of employee engagement is garnering unprecedented popularity (Shuck, 2011 ; Google Trends, 2020). Even in the best case, the current state of affairs means that theoretical disconnects slow progress in the field; in worse cases, it means that vast quantities of money and time are being directed to efforts that are poorly understood, leading to dangerous levels of waste that run the risk of poisoning the HRD field against a potentially valuable, even essential, concept.

As a final example of the utility of our model, we return to one of the many laments over the state of engagement theory and measurement. Shuck ( 2011 ) gives a series of examples of assessment items from different scales derived from multiple theoretical and measurement traditions that are seemingly impossible to reconcile within a single conceptual system:

“…Treated (as if they) were impersonal objects” ( Uncaring ).

“I can be myself at work” ( Authenticity ).

“I am prepared to fully devote myself to performing my job duties” ( Ethics ).

“I am bursting with energy” ( Immersion ).

These are widely disparate items, to be sure. However, as indicated in the parentheses, our model easily accommodates all of these perspectives, mini-theories, and concept within a single model, providing a kind of “unified field theory” of employee engagement. We contend that the secret to unlocking a meta-theory to encompass all of these perspectives, and all of the dimensions they propose, has always been hidden in plain sight within the very first descriptions of employee engagement.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article (and its supplementary information files). Original source materials are available from the author by request.

An array of theoretical and measurement systems have been proposed by human resources consulting practitioners for the employee engagement construct (Pincus, 2020 ). Zigarmi et al. ( 2009 ) clearly differentiate between increasingly divergent practitioner and academic approaches to conceptualizing, defining, and operationalizing employee engagement. A burgeoning volume of measures and concepts has been growing rapidly from the “bottom-up” through the efforts of practitioners having the effect of widening the gap over time between academic concepts with psychometrically validated measures and unsystematic pragmatic approaches. Although the practitioner perspective is valuable, and our general conclusions and suggestions extend equally to them, for the purposes of the current paper we limit our focus to peer-reviewed academic systems.

This is quite apart from other basic problems of determining causation in social science in the absence of longitudinal and experimental research designs.

To further complicate matters, direct perception theorists might suggest that antecedents aren’t always “ordinary” stimuli, i.e., neutral objects, but are often special stimuli with inherent affordance values, i.e., stimuli that by their very nature afford certain kinds of interactions, the way a comfortable chair affords “sitability.” In this view, an antecedent like task variety could afford (induce) task and role expansion, for example.

Aristotle proposed the same three-level delineation between states of existence: potentiality (having potential), energy or potentiality-as-such (motion that makes use of that latent potential), and actuality (the finished product). The classic example of this distinction involves the building of a house. The building materials could be used to build a house or they could be used to build some other structure; this is their state of potentiality, what Aristotle called “the buildable.“ The motion of building the house brings the materials toward the goal of actualization as a house but is an intermediate step in the process; this is the state of energy or potentiality-as-such. When the house is finished, the building materials are in a state of actualization.

Since it is logically possible for an employee to be motivated by either the positive aspiration for a motive or to avoid the negative frustration of the same motive, or both, or neither, we make no prediction about the expected relationships between positive and negative manifestations, and propose instead that they tend to operate in a complementary manner.

In a learning organization, failure-avoidant workers might be encouraged to use successive approximation or test-and-learn as more appropriate, culturally-consistent goals.

Albrecht, S. L. (2010). Handbook of Employee Engagement: perspectives, issues, Research and Practice . Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Book   Google Scholar  

Alfes, K., Truss, C., Soane, E., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2010). Creating an engaged workforce :. findings from the Kingston employee engagement consortium project.

Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2017). The meaning, Antecedents and Outcomes of Employee Engagement: a narrative synthesis. International Journal of Management Reviews , 19 , 31–53.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., Fletcher, L., Robinson, D., Holmes, J., Buzzeo, J., & Currie, G. (2015b). Evaluating the evidence on employee engagement and its potential benefits to NHS staff: a narrative synthesis of the literature. Health Services Delivery Research , 3 , 1–424.

Bakker, A. B., & Bal, P. M. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2010), 83, 189–206.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job Demands-Resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 22 (3), 309–328.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. - Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 22 (3), 273–285.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2018). Multiple levels in job demands-resources theory: implications for employee well-being and performance. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being (e-handbook) . Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers.

Google Scholar  

Bakker, A. B., Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., & Vergel, S. (2016). A. I. Modelling job crafting behaviours: Implications for work engagement. - Human Relations, 2016, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 169–189.

Bakker, A. B., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2013). Weekly work engagement and flourishing: The role of hindrance and challenge job demands. - Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2013, Vol 83, No. 3, pp 397–409.

Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2009). The crossover of daily work engagement: test of an actor–partner interdependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology , 94 (6), 1562–1571. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017525 .

Baumruk, R. (2004). The Missing link: The role of employee engagement in business success, Report of Hewitt Associates/Michael Treacy study, Workspan, 47, 48–52.

Boesch, E. E. (1998). Sehnsucht: Von der Suche nach Glück und Sinn [Longing: on the search of joy and meaning] (1st ed.). Bern: Huber.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal , 46 (5), 554–571.

Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of applied psychology , 81 (4), 358–368.

Buck, R. (1985). Prime theory: an integrated view of motivation and emotion. Psychological review , 92 (3), 389–413.

Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work Engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology , 64 , 89–136.

Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of applied psychology , 89 (4), 599.

Cole, M. S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A. G., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2012). Job burnout and employee engagement: a meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation. Journal of Management , 38 , 1550–1581.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of applied psychology , 86 (3), 425–445.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., & Conway, N. (2004). The employment relationship through the lens of social exchange. The employment relationship: examining psychological and contextual perspectives, 5–28.

Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of applied psychology , 95 (5), 834.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. Journal of management , 31 (6), 874–900.

Damasio, A. (2012). Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain. Vintage.

Dewing, J., & McCormack, B. (2015). Engagement: a critique of the concept and its application to person-centred care.International Practice Development Journal, 5.

Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). 4. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in organizational behavior, 23, 133–187.

Forbes, D. L. (2011). Toward a unified model of human motivation. Review of general psychology , 15 (2), 85–98.

Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R. P., & Taylor, C. R. (2004). The race for talent: retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century. Human resource planning , 27 (3), 12–25.

Fromm, E. (2013). To have or to be? . A&C Black.

Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2010). The science of workplace spirituality. Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance , 2 , 3–26.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology , 43 , 495–513.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology , 87 (2), 268.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies.

Hooker, C., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Flow, creativity, and shared leadership. Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, 217–234.

Houghton, J. D., Neck, C. P., & Krishnakumar, S. (2016). The what, why, and how of spirituality in the workplace revisited: a 14-year update and extension. Journal of Management Spirituality & Religion , 13 (3), 177–205.

James, J. B., McKechnie, S., & Swanberg, J. (2011). Predicting employee engagement in an age-diverse retail workforce. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 32 (2), 173–196.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of management journal , 33 (4), 692–724.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . Macmillan.

Kohlberg, L., & Power, C. (1981). Moral development, religious thinking, and the question of a seventh stage. In L. Kohlberg (Ed.), Essays on moral development: volume one. The philosophy of moral development (pp. 311–372). New York: Harper & Row.

Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E., & Truss, K. (2008). Employee engagement: A literature review. Kingston Business School, Kingston University Working Paper Series No 19, ISBN No. 1-872058-39-6/978-1-872058-39-9/9781872058399.

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: the role of affect and cognitions. Journal of applied psychology , 87 (1), 131.

Leontʹev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 1 (1), 3–30.

Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. (2009). Employee Engagement: tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage . Malden, WA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Jewell, T., Magyar, G. M., Tarakeshwar, N., & Phillips, R. (2005). A higher purpose: the sanctification of strivings in a community sample. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion , 15 (3), 239–262.

Maruyama, M. (1963). The second Cybernetics: deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes. American Scientist , 5 (2), 164–179.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). The truth about burnout: how organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it . John Wiley & Sons.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of psychology , 52 (1), 397–422.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (L. Carr, Ed.).

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology , 77 (1), 11–37.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: theory, research, and application . Sage.

Meyer, J. P., & Gagné, M. (2008). Employee engagement from a self-determination theory perspective. Industrial and organizational psychology , 1 (1), 60–62.

Milliman, J., Gatling, A., & Kim, J. S. (2018). The effect of workplace spirituality on hospitality employee engagement, intention to stay, and service delivery. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management , 35 , 56–65.

Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K., & Hemingway, M. A. (2005). The importance of job autonomy, cognitive ability, and job-related skill for predicting role breadth and job performance. Journal of applied psychology , 90 (2), 399–406.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of applied psychology , 71 (3), 492–499.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches . Westview Press.

Pincus, J. (2004). The consequences of unmet needs: the evolving role of motivation in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review , 3 (4), 375–387.

Pincus, J. D. (2020). Employee Engagement as Motivation: practitioner models. Advance Preprint . https://doi.org/10.31124/advance.13270571.v1 .

Pincus, J. D. (2022). Theoretical and empirical foundations for a Unified pyramid of human motivation (pp. 1–26). Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science.

Porath, C. L., Spreitzer, G. M., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at work: toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 33 (2), 250–275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.756 .

Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline, 309, 327.

Rand, Y. (1993). Modes of existence (MoE): to be, to have, to do: cognitive and motivational aspects. International Association for Cognitive Education . Israel: Nof Ginosar.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 (5), 825–836. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825 .

Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal , 53 , 617–635. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988 .

Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how you can create it. Workspan , 49 (1), 36–39.

Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The Drivers of Employee Engagement . UK: Institute for Employment Studies. IES Report 408.

Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative science quarterly , 46 (4), 655–684.

Rothbard, N. P., & Edwards, J. R. (2003). Investment in work and family roles: a test of identity and utilitarian motives. Personnel Psychology , 56 (3), 699–729.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist , 55 (1), 68.

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.Journal of managerial psychology,600–619.

Saks, A. M. (2011). Workplace spirituality and employee engagement. Journal of Management Spirituality & Religion , 8 (4), 317–340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2011.630170 .

Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement? Human resource development quarterly , 25 (2), 155–182.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies , 3 (1), 71–92.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior , 25 (3), 293–315.

Schneider, B., Macey, W. H., Barbera, K. M., & Martin, N. (2009). Driving customer satisfaction and financial success through employee engagement. People and Strategy , 32 (2), 22.

Shaw, K. (2005). An engagement strategy process for communicators. Strategic Communication Management , 9 (3), 26–29.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: the self-concordance model. Journal of personality and social psychology , 76 (3), 482–497.

Shirom, A. (2003). Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigor and the study of positive affect in organizations. Research in organizational stress and well-being , 3 , 135–165.

Shuck, B. (2011). Integrative literature review: four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: an integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review , 10 (3), 304–328.

Shuck, B., Adelson, J. L., & Reio, T. G. Jr. (2017). The employee engagement scale: initial evidence for construct validity and implications for theory and practice. Human Resource Management , 56 (6), 953–977.

Shuck, B., Osam, K., Zigarmi, D., & Nimon, K. (2017). Definitional and conceptual muddling: identifying the positionality of employee engagement and defining the construct. Human Resource Development Review , 16 (3), 263–293.

Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: a seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review , 9 , 89–110. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309353560 .

Soane, E., Truss, C., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2012). Development and application of a new measure of employee engagement: the ISA Engagement Scale. Human resource development international , 15 (5), 529–547.

Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of applied psychology , 88 (3), 518.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal , 38 (5), 1442–1465.

Spreitzer, G. M., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science , 16 (5), 537–549.

Staub, E. (2005). The Roots of Goodness: The Fulfillment of Basic Human Needs and the Development of Caring, Helping and Nonaggression, Inclusive Caring, Moral Courage, Active Bystandership, and Altruism Born of Suffering. In G. Carlo & C. P. Edwards (Eds.), Vol. 51 of the Nebraska Symposium on motivation. Moral motivation through the life span (pp. 33–72). Lincoln, NE, US: University of Nebraska Press.

Templier, M., & Paré, G. (2018). Transparency in literature reviews: an assessment of reporting practices across review types and genres in top IS journals. European Journal of Information Systems , 27 (5), 503–550.

Thomas, C. H. (2007, August). A new measurement scale for employee engagement: Scale development, pilot test, and replication. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2007, No. 1, pp. 1–6). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.

Valsiner, J. (2014). An invitation to cultural psychology . Los Angeles: SAGE.

Valsiner, J. (2019). Ornamented lives. Advances in cultural psychology . Charlotte, NC: IAP.

Valsiner, J. (2021). General human psychology. Theory and history in the human and social sciences . Springer.

van der Walt, F. (2018). Workplace spirituality, work engagement and thriving at work. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology , 44 (1), 1–10.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wellins, R., & Concelman, J. (2005). Creating a culture for engagement. Workforce Performance Solutions , 4 (1), 1–4.

Zigarmi, D., Nimon, K., Houson, D., Witt, D., & Diehl, J. (2009). Beyond engagement: toward a framework and operational definition for employee work passion. Human Resource Development Review , 8 (3), 300–326.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Employee Benefit Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA

J. David Pincus

Leading Indicator Systems, One Franklin Street, Boston, MA, 02110, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. David Pincus .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

There are no conflicts of interests which need to be disclosed.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Pincus, J.D. Employee Engagement as Human Motivation: Implications for Theory, Methods, and Practice. Integr. psych. behav. 57 , 1223–1255 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09737-w

Download citation

Accepted : 25 November 2022

Published : 28 December 2022

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09737-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Employee engagement
• Employee motivation
• Employee emotion
• Spirituality
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Work engagement among public employees: antecedents and consequences.

• 1 College of Business, Gachon University, Seongnam, South Korea
• 2 College of Global Business, Korea University, Sejong City, South Korea

This study is an investigation of the relationships among job meaningfulness, work engagement, and performance, including testing for a possible mediation effect of work engagement on the relationship between job meaningfulness and performance. We examine task interdependence as a boundary condition that facilitates employee engagement using two-stage multiple-source respondent data drawn from a sample of 183 Uzbek employees from public organizations and their 47 supervisors to test the hypotheses. The research findings confirm a positive association between job meaningfulness and engagement and the relationship between work engagement and performance. Mediation analysis using bootstrapping indicated that work engagement explained the influence of meaningfulness on performance. Furthermore, task interdependence negatively moderated the relationship between meaningfulness and engagement. This study responds to calls for researchers to identify the key and situational drivers of work engagement as well as examine the importance of meaningfulness in the public sector. It also increases the external validity of the findings by examining the relationship between engagement and performance in a non-Western context, namely, Islamic Uzbekistan. Despite the limitations of this research, the empirical findings contribute to the growing body of research on work engagement and meaningfulness in public organizations.

Introduction

In the contemporary world, an increasing number of organizations have been striving to become more sustainable because sustainability is viewed as indispensable for organizations’ competitive advantage in the marketplace ( Di Fabio, 2017 ). Thus, the topic of organizational sustainability has received a great deal of interest from both business and academia over the past two decades ( Spreitzer et al., 2012 ; Florea et al., 2013 ). To achieve sustainable development, organizations need to consider environmental, economic, and human dimensions in a comprehensive and enduring way ( Hart and Milstein, 2003 ; Spreitzer et al., 2012 ; Florea et al., 2013 ). Although all three dimensions hold pivotal importance to long-term organizational success, the human dimension is often given less attention than the environmental and economic dimensions of organizational sustainability. The human dimension encompasses improving social health and employee well-being, and as such, employee work engagement could be a core component of the human dimension of organizational sustainability ( Spreitzer et al., 2012 ; Florea et al., 2013 ; Kim et al., 2016 ). In Uzbekistan, psychology researchers have recently been criticized for focusing on physical illness to the exclusion of mental wellness ( Ernazarov, 2020 ; Abdulhaevna, 2021 ). Researchers have suggested that organizations look at optimal functioning and the roles of positive mental state such as work engagement and supportive connections in promoting well-being; the latter is understood to be the primary focus of psychology of sustainability and sustainable development ( Shimazu et al., 2010 ).

Employee work engagement is defined as a “positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” ( Schaufeli et al., 2002a , b , p. 74). Kahn (1990) conceptualized engagement as “harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles” and stated that in engagement, “people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (p. 694). Demerouti et al. (2010) emphasized the benefits of work engagement for individuals and for organizations because the way individuals accomplish their work and fulfill their tasks depends on the extent to which they are engaged in their work. Rich et al. (2010) described engaged employees as more attentive and focused on their responsibilities than less engaged employees, as emotionally connected to their role tasks, and as more enthusiastic workers, and other researchers suggested that because engaged employees are also active in social activities and hobbies outside work ( Schaufeli et al., 2001 ), positive effects of work engagement spill over into private life and vice versa ( Grzywacz and Marks, 2000 ), which in turn leads to improved individual and group performance.

Because engaged employees possess energetic and affective connections with their work activities, see themselves as capable of dealing with job demands, and transfer their engagement to others at work ( Bakker, 2009 ; Demerouti et al., 2010 ), they are more likely to contribute to sustainable individual and organizational development while promoting a healthy workplace ( Bakker et al., 2011 ). It is crucial for organizations to sense the true essence of work engagement, especially in the public sector, to better identify its drivers ( Mostafa and Abed El-Motalib, 2020 ). The government in Uzbekistan sees state employees as one of the main assets in promoting public sector reform ( Ergashev, 2006 ), and thus, government employees’ work attitudes are of the utmost importance to administrators there ( Ergashev, 2006 ). The form of ownership is the main distinctive point between state and private organizations in Uzbekistan. Specifically, the government controls and operates public sector organizations, whereas the state has no stake in private sector organizations ( Ergashev, 2006 ). Public organizations are vulnerable to political constraints, which lead to frequent changes in policy. Their goals are pursued through political processes rather than by individual managers as in private organizations ( Ernazarov, 2020 ). Another characteristic of public organizations is that they usually have more formal decision-making procedures, and another way they differ from the private sectors is that these organizations have few rivals in providing services such as in education and health ( Ernazarov, 2020 ; Abdulhaevna, 2021 ). Although research on work engagement is flourishing, public administration scholars have given very limited attention to the antecedents of work engagement in public organizations ( Andrews and Mostafa, 2019 ; Mostafa and Abed El-Motalib, 2020 ). Because disengaged employees are costly to public organizations ( Mostafa and Abed El-Motalib, 2020 ), identifying the drivers of work engagement in that sector is important ( Mostafa and Abed El-Motalib, 2020 ). Recent researchers have reported ethical leadership to be a key driver of work engagement in government organizations ( Mostafa and Abed El-Motalib, 2020 ), and we propose another in this study: job meaningfulness. We suggest job meaningfulness as an underlying cause of work engagement in public organizations, and we define it as referring to the extent to which employees find their work significant and valuable ( Ahonen et al., 2018 ). Steger and Dik (2009) observed that employees find meaning in their jobs when they clearly understand their abilities, what is expected of them, and how to successfully function in their work environments. We assume that when employees view their work as important, place higher value on work, and feel that they contribute to society through their work, they will be enthusiastic about their work, have high energy, and be so often immersed in their jobs that time flies for them.

Perry and Hondeghem (2008) argued that many employees choose to work in the public sector in anticipation of doing meaningful work and contributing to society. Hence, studying job meaningfulness is quite important in public settings ( Tummers and Knies, 2013 ). Tummers and Knies (2013) claim that few researchers have analyzed the importance of job meaningfulness for work outcomes in public organizations specifically. Thus, filling this gap in the literature, we investigated the significant role of job meaningfulness in facilitating public sector employees’ work engagement. Moreover, Shuck et al. (2011) asserted that despite the significant role of employee engagement in work settings, there remains a shortage of academic research on situational drivers of work engagement. Responding to this call, in this study, we tested task interdependence (i.e., the extent to which individuals depend on one another to accomplish their jobs; Pinjani and Palvia, 2013 ) as a boundary condition on the relationship between job meaningfulness and engagement.

Several researchers have examined the direct effects of meaningfulness ( Wang and Xu, 2019 ) and task interdependence ( Lee et al., 2018 ) on employee engagement, but to date, none has investigated whether these two factors interact to influence employees’ work engagement. Therefore, for this study, we examined the interaction effect of job meaningfulness and task interdependence on engagement. We suggest that task interdependence at work will be more salient in promoting engagement among employees who fail to find their jobs meaningful, whereas employees who perceive high meaningfulness might not feel it necessary to work together with coworkers to invest extra effort in their work.

We also postulate the positive relationship between employee engagement and performance in this study. Engaged employees invest their emotional, cognitive, and physical energies in their work to achieve superior performance ( Demerouti et al., 2010 ; Rich et al., 2010 ), and we argue that employees who are energetic, absorbed in, and dedicated to their work will exhibit high performance. Indeed, findings from many studies confirmed a significant relationship between employee engagement and performance ( Schaufeli et al., 2006a , b ; Bakker and Bal, 2010 ; Buil et al., 2019 ). However, researchers have mostly conducted these studies in the engagement-performance domain in Western countries, and data are insufficient from non-Western contexts ( Kim, 2017 ; Ismail et al., 2019 ). Based on this limitation, we tested the positive relationship between employee engagement and performance in a non-Western context, specifically, in Islamic Uzbekistan.

Uzbekistan is a country where Muslims are a sizable majority ( Ro’i, 2015 ). In Islam, work is one way to worship God ( Marzband et al., 2016 ), and Muslims tend to believe they will be held accountable for their work-related attitudes and performances ( Rehman, 2010 ). Consequently, Muslims tend to conduct their work lives with honesty and dignity. Indeed, predominantly Islamic cultures value dedication to work as a virtue ( Yousef, 2000 ; Akdere et al., 2006 ). Furthermore, Uzbekistan has a collectivistic culture that emphasizes group binding and mutual obligations among individual group members ( Ernazarov, 2020 ). Organizations in such cultures tend to be extended families, and organization-employee relationships are not limited to the terms of employment contracts; rather, organizations expect their employees to go beyond their formal job descriptions ( Hu et al., 2014 ). In contrast, Western countries are more individualistic, and independence, autonomy, and self-esteem are highly encouraged.

There exist quid pro quo relationships between Western organizations and their members; employees are expected to fulfill their contractual obligations and to perform their work as specified in their job descriptions ( Hu et al., 2014 ). Workers in Uzbekistan tend to be driven by an extrinsic motivation for social approval, precisely to fulfill the expectations of work team and organization, whereas Western employees work hard because they tend to be driven by individually oriented motivations in expectation of fulfilling their needs for personal growth ( Hu et al., 2014 ). By extending the research in a new context, we here establish the external validity of this relationship. Although engagement is deemed practically vital, little attention has been given to how the elements of Kahn’s psychological conditions theory contribute to employee work engagement followed by work output ( Christian et al., 2011 ; Rothbard and Patil, 2011 ). Applying Kahn’s theory (1990, 1992) as a theoretical framework, we investigated the relationships among job meaningfulness, engagement, task interdependence, and performance.

According to Kahn’s theory (1990, 1992), meaningfulness describes how valuable a work goal is in relation to an individual’s own standards. Employees who have faith that a given work role activity is personally meaningful are likely to fully immerse themselves in it. Engaged individuals experience high connectivity with their work tasks and strive toward task-related goals that are intertwined with their in-role definitions and scripts; they also make extra efforts to resolve job-related problems, which in return leads to high job performance ( Christian et al., 2011 ; Al-dalahmeh et al., 2018 ). Thus, this study is the first examination of engagement as a mediator in the relationship between job meaningfulness and performance. Meanwhile, supportive, trustworthy coworker relationships produce high work engagement as well ( Kahn, 1990 ), and task interdependence generates positive coworker relationships ( Lee et al., 2018 ). When employees fail to experience meaning in their work, highly interdependent workers provide each other with information, advice, help, and resources, which serve to amplify their work-related attitudes and behaviors ( Kim and Oh, 2020 ).

This study makes several contributions to the literature. First, we respond to calls for attention to the key drivers of work engagement and work outcomes of job meaningfulness in public organizations by studying the influence of job meaningfulness on employee engagement in the Uzbek public sector. We also respond to another call for attention to the potentially varying situational drivers of work engagement ( Shuck et al., 2011 ) by testing the function of task interdependence as a moderating factor in the relationship between job meaningfulness and work engagement. We examine task interdependence as a possible boundary condition that increases the importance of job meaningfulness for work engagement, postulating that the power of job meaningfulness to positively affect work engagement is stronger for employees with low task interdependence and weaker for those with high interdependence.

Second, we aimed with to analyze the direct links between engagement and performance in a non-Western context, namely, in Uzbekistan. By doing so, we validated the previously known relationships between the study variables in a new context. Replication studies play an important role in the social sciences ( King, 2011 ). Study findings should be continuously revalidated in new work contexts to provide evidence of their generalizability ( Mackey and Porte, 2012 ). Third, we anticipated with this study that the extent to which employees value their work as meaningful will play an important role in facilitating job performance through work engagement. Researchers have separately tested the relationships between job meaningfulness and work engagement ( Demirtas et al., 2017 ; Mostafa and Abed El-Motalib, 2020 ) and between work engagement and performance ( Buil et al., 2019 ; Ismail et al., 2019 ), but for this study, we integrated three constructs in one model. With the model, we examined work engagement as an intermediary mechanism through which employees’ perceptions of job meaningfulness affect performance. Above all, the propositions of Kahn’s model have rarely undergone empirical scrutiny ( Christian et al., 2011 ), and here, we apply Kahn’s theory to better explain the relationships between study variables, which will contribute to this line of research. The proposed research model is depicted in Figure 1 . The article is structured as follows. First, we discuss the direct relationships among study variables, followed by giving overviews of the mediating role of work engagement in the relationship between meaningfulness and performance and of the moderating role of task interdependence on the relationship between meaningfulness and engagement in the literature review. Following that, we describe the research methodology and present the results of ordinary least squares regression-based analysis and bootstrapping. Finally, we discuss the implications of the study’s findings for both theory and practice.

Figure 1. Framework of research model.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Job meaningfulness and work engagement.

Arnold et al. (2007) described meaningful work as “finding the purpose in work that is greater than the extrinsic outcome of the work” (p. 195). Job meaningfulness relates to the extent to which an individual employee derives positive meaning from work ( Ahonen et al., 2018 ), and it involves the fit between work and different domains of the self (i.e., values, beliefs, and norms) ( Rosso et al., 2010 ). Kim and Beehr (2018) consider that employees experience meaningful jobs when they integrate their efforts with the organizational goals and provide valued services or goods that help their coworkers and their organizations to develop.

Job meaningfulness has been indicated to have three dimensions: significance, broader purpose, and self-realization ( Martela and Pessi, 2018 ), where self-realization refers to fulfilling needs, desires, and motivations associated with self-actualization; self-actualization refers to the extent to which employees are able to realize and express themselves through their work. Finding broader purpose of work is related to the belief that the work contributes to the greater good rather than to personal gain and makes the world a better place. Significance is germane to the intrinsic value people find in their work or assign to their work.

Work engagement refers to high personal investment in one’s work role and includes the characteristics of being energized, cognitively vigilant, and willing to invest extra effort to achieve goals ( Sonnentag et al., 2010 ). Research interest in work engagement has increased in recent decades; currently, it is an extremely relevant and meaningful area of inquiry ( Karatepe and Karadas, 2015 ). Work engagement is a construct comprises three dimensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption ( Schaufeli et al., 2002b ). Schaufeli et al. (2002b) define vigor as expressions of high energy and motivation at work and dedication as indicating an employee’s perceptions of the meaning of work; dedication entails a sense of pride in the job and its challenges. Finally, absorption refers to the degree to which an employee is focused on and happily engrossed in work; absorbed workers are unaware of the passage of time and find it difficult to detach themselves from their tasks ( Schaufeli et al., 2002b ).

Several researchers have underpinned the importance of work engagement in organizational development ( Demerouti et al., 2010 ; Kim and Park, 2017 ). Although organizations have tremendous interest in engaged workers, there has been only very limited attention on studying the antecedents of work engagement in public sector organizations ( Andrews and Mostafa, 2019 ; Mostafa and Abed El-Motalib, 2020 ). Therefore, in this study, we propose job meaningfulness as an indispensable driver of work engagement in public organizations.

Meaningfulness is an important job resource ( Fairlie, 2011 ) that might crucially influence work engagement ( Ahmed et al., 2019 ). Kahn (1990) posited job meaningfulness as a critical psychological condition of engagement. According to Kahn’s psychological conditions theory (1990, 1992), employees drive their personal energies into role behaviors (self-employment) and display the self within the role (self-expression) when three psychological conditions are met: psychological safety, meaningfulness, and availability. According to the theory, employees ask themselves three questions: (1) To what extend is my job meaningful enough to bring myself into this performance? (2) How safe is it to do so? (3) How available am I to do so? The answers to these questions tend to dictate the levels of personal engagement. Kahn (1990 , 1992) explained that when employees believe their work is worthwhile and meaningful enough to add value and significance to accomplishments at work, they bring their physical, cognitive, and emotional selves into this work, exhibiting engagement.

Meaningfulness is believed to satisfy psychological needs for purposefulness and belongingness, which further promotes work engagement ( Wang and Xu, 2019 ). Researchers have consistently linked job meaningfulness to increased work motivation, which leads to higher work engagement ( Aryee et al., 2012 ). In addition, people who report having meaningful work are motivated to invest more of themselves in their work role (i.e., engagement) because they feel that in doing so, they will be better able to protect and enhance their well-being ( Fletcher, 2019 ). Macey et al. (2011) argued that “[p]eople come to work for pay but get engaged at work because the work they do is meaningful” (p. 69). In line with this, the perception of job meaningfulness “fuels the motivation to make a prosocial difference that in turn increases effort and persistence” ( Sonnentag, 2017 , p. 15). Indeed, researchers have associated job meaningfulness with career variables that reflect dedication to one’s career and a passion to put in extra effort ( Steger et al., 2012 ). When employees perceive their work as meaningful, they are more energized and ready to sacrifice their time in pursuit of their careers ( Bunderson and Thompson, 2009 ).

In support of the positive relationship between job meaningfulness and work engagement, Stairs and Galpin (2010) found that employees working in jobs that they perceive as personally meaningful tend to be more engaged than those who are not. Indeed, growing evidence demonstrates a positive association between job meaningfulness and work engagement ( Aryee et al., 2012 ; Demirtas et al., 2017 ; Fletcher, 2019 ; Mostafa and Abed El-Motalib, 2020 ). Based on these findings, we postulate the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Job meaningfulness positively relates to work engagement.

Work Engagement and Performance

The effects of work engagement on job performance as a predictor have been an increasing topic of academic study ( Demerouti et al., 2010 ). Demerouti et al. (2010) and Kim and Park (2020) highlighted many advantages to employee engagement. Engaged employees exhibit high energy and strong mental resilience, and they tend to voluntarily invest considerable effort in their assigned tasks. Moreover, highly engaged employees tend to have a sense of their work’s significance and challenges, and they express enthusiasm and pride in their work, thus enhancing their performance. Although the concept of engagement is popular, and the number of studies in the engagement-performance domain is increasing ( Demerouti et al., 2010 ), the subject has not received adequate research attention in non-Western contexts ( Ismail et al., 2019 ). Based on this limitation, we aimed with this study to test the direct link between employee engagement and performance in a non-Western, Muslim context, namely, Uzbekistan.

Kahn (1990 , 1992) posited work engagement as a psychological state of mind whereby people are attentive, connected, integrated, and focused in their role performance and stated that employees’ “being there” gives them access to their considerable energies and talents in fulfilling work-related tasks and goals. Many studies have shown a significantly positive relationship between employee engagement and performance ( Ismail et al., 2019 ; Zheng et al., 2020 ). Kahn (1990 , 1992) further stated that work engagement refers to a psychological connection with performing work tasks rather than attitudes toward the job itself. Engaged individuals approach tasks with a sense of self-investment, energy, and passion, which should translate into higher in-role and extra-role performance ( Kahn, 1990 , 1992 ). Moreover, engaged employees are excited about their work ( Bakker, 2009 ), and enthusiastic employees are positively driven to perform better at work.

Bakker (2009) determined that because engaged employees experience positive emotions (e.g., happiness, joy, enthusiasm), possess psychological and physical health, create their own job and personal resources (e.g., support from others), and are willing to transfer their engagement to others, they perform better than do non-engaged workers. Recent researchers have also found that engaged employees are full of energy and have abundant resources ( Demerouti et al., 2015 ; Scafuri Kovalchuk et al., 2019 ), and employees who use these resources to cope with job demands have better job performance ( Bakker et al., 2011 ). Similarly, Rich et al. (2010) established that cognitive, emotional, and physical resources are indispensable to employees’ abilities to contribute to organizational goals. In line with this finding, employees who are energized and dedicated to their work have higher intrinsic motivation because their psychological needs (i.e., autonomy and competence) are being satisfied ( Wu and Lee, 2020 ); this satisfaction then further facilitates increased work output. Employees who are partial about their work ( Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004 ) strive to improve their work and establish better work environments ( Bakker, 2011 ). That is why work engagement is such a strong influence on organizational performance; it has been empirically associated with job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and knowledge sharing ( Dajani and Zaki, 2015 ; Bailey et al., 2017 ; Al-dalahmeh et al., 2018 ; Orgambídez et al., 2019 ; Yan et al., 2019 ; Wu and Lee, 2020 ).

Schaufeli et al. (2006b) conducted two studies on the relationship between work engagement and job performance. Schaufeli et al. (2006b) conducted a cross-sectional study on a large and heterogeneous sample of Dutch employees and identified positive associations between work engagement and in-role performance ( r = 0.37), extra-role performance ( r = 0.32), and innovativeness ( r = 0.37). Schaufeli et al. (2002a) had previously studied the influence of work engagement in the education context in a group of Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese students; the authors found that work engagement was an antecedent of academic performance. Bakker and Bal (2010) noted that work engagement had a positive influence on job performance in the finding that supervisors rated engaged employees highly on in-role and extra-role performance; engaged employees performed well and were willing to engage in discretionary behavior. Considering the above-described findings, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Work engagement positively relates to employee performance.

Work Engagement as a Mediator in the Relationship Between Job Meaningfulness and Performance

The above discussion, in which we examine the constructs separately and demonstrate relationships between job meaningfulness and work engagement on the one hand and between work engagement and job performance on the other, implies that work engagement plays a mediating role between job meaningfulness and performance. Based on Kahn’s psychological theory (1990, 1992), we argue that a sense that work is meaningful induces employees to put their personal energies into role behaviors; they demonstrate the self within the role, which then intensifies their work-related attitudes (i.e., work engagement), thereby improving employee work outcomes, particularly job performance. Engaged employees are more attentive and focused on responsibilities, are committed to the tasks pertaining to their roles, and work with greater enthusiasm ( Rich et al., 2010 ; Wang and Xu, 2019 ).

As individuals find deep meaning in their work, they make substantial investments in their work, place high esteem on the assets they have invested, perceive a strong fit between themselves and their jobs, and experience purpose in their work ( Spreitzer, 1995 ). As a result, individuals who find their work to be highly meaningful feel a deeper sense of engagement ( Aryee et al., 2012 ), which, in turn, yields maximum job performance ( Bakker and Bal, 2010 ). Researchers have also found that performing meaningful work makes employment richer, more satisfying, and more productive ( Steger et al., 2013 ). Research on the dimensions of empowerment has shown meaningfulness to be the strongest predictor of employee work outcomes ( Liden et al., 2000 ).

We also believe that employees who have already assigned intrinsic value to their jobs find their work worth doing, feel enthusiasm toward addressing potential issues and problems at work, and are highly engaged in integrating different perspectives to come up with innovative ideas for increasing their output ( Walumbwa et al., 2019 ). Moreover, when employees feel that their work makes a great contribution to others, they are more committed and give more of their energy to work, which in turn enhances their work output ( Pradhan and Pradhan, 2016 ; Al-dalahmeh et al., 2018 ). Byrne (2014) determined that when employees feel they are contributing to their work units and organizations through their work, they will be physically and emotionally adept at ensuring that their customers are satisfied, happy, and provided with the highest quality of service. Job meaningfulness allows employees to realize their idealized selves ( Demerouti et al., 2015 ) and satisfies their personal needs ( Martela et al., 2018 ), and this in turn strengthens their motivation to work ( Oh and Roh, 2019 ; Shellhouse et al., 2019 ). Employees then feel greater job satisfaction ( Qi et al., 2020 ) and identify more closely with their organizations ( Mostafa and Abed El-Motalib, 2020 ), which thus enhances their work performance ( Inuwa, 2016 ; Yuen et al., 2018 ; Miao et al., 2019 ). Accordingly, the following hypothesis is derived:

Hypothesis 3 : Work engagement mediates the relationship between job meaningfulness and performance.

Task Interdependence as an Interacting Variable in the Relationship Between Job Meaningfulness and Work Engagement

In this study, we suggest that job meaningfulness and task interdependence have an interactive effect on work engagement. Specifically, for employees, finding their work meaningful has a strong influence on work engagement when task interdependence is low, where task interdependence refers to the extent to which employees must work together to complete their jobs ( Pinjani and Palvia, 2013 ). Because task interdependence is likely to be linked with relational energy provided by social interactions in groups that enhance task and role capacity ( Lee et al., 2017 ), employees in environments with low task interdependence must perform and complete their tasks individually, which hinders cooperation and group cohesion and decreases employees’ confidence and motivation; this in turn is followed by less work engagement ( Rothbard and Patil, 2011 ).

In that case, employees who feel meaning in their work are more likely to weather the absence of task interdependence to drive work engagement in employees. Because employees with a strong sense of job meaningfulness have high positive energy for work, are willing to learn in anticipation of personal growth, and are highly likely to make large contributions to their organizations by fully engaging with their work ( Ghadi et al., 2013 ), these employees might not need task interdependence to be fully engaged in work. The role of interdependence might not be as important to them as it is for employees who lack job meaningfulness.

In contrast, employees on highly interdependent teams interact more and in turn establish close relationships ( Lee et al., 2017 ; Kipkosgei et al., 2020 ). Kahn found rewarding interactions with coworkers to be the foundation for increased work engagement ( Kahn, 1990 ; Rothbard and Patil, 2011 ). A negotiable relationship tends to drive personal energies into role behaviors and demonstrate the self within the roles ( Kahn, 1990 , 1992 ), and social characteristics tend to reveal resilience and security in employees ( Christian et al., 2011 ; Rothbard and Patil, 2011 ). Study findings confirm that supportive coworker relationships play a considerable part in employees’ work engagement ( Gullahorn, 1952 ; Loehr et al., 2005 ) and performance ( Khusanova et al., 2019 ; Opoku et al., 2019 ). Employees with harmonious relationships with their coworkers tend to feel more secure about sharing their true selves with others at work, which tends to strengthen attachments in work settings ( Avery et al., 2007 ). Thus, employees working interdependently fulfill their need for relatedness which in turn enhances their work engagement ( Lee et al., 2017 ).

Kahn (1990 , 1992) placed much emphasis on psychological experiences of work and work contexts that shape how people present and absent their selves during task performance. Thus, the absence of one condition such as meaningfulness might hinder employees from exposing the “self” at work ( Kahn, 1992 ). We maintain that task interdependence as a situational factor can substitute the effect of meaningfulness on work engagement. Our assumption is that an interdependent work environment where individuals depend on one another to implement tasks is more likely to foster camaraderie and better relationships among coworkers and thereby produce more positive responses and energies at work. This, in turn, will drive employees’ increased attachment to their work.

We believe that when employees fail to find meaning in work, an interdependent working environment obtains the desired levels of employee work engagement. Task interdependence exerts a similar effect on engagement to that of meaningfulness and thereby replaces it. Considering the above-described findings, we postulate the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Task interdependence has an interaction effect on the relationship between job meaningfulness and work engagement such that the relationship is stronger when task interdependence is low than when it is high.

Materials and Methods

Sample and procedure.

For this study’s survey, we recruited employees from Uzbek public sector organizations using convenience sampling. The organizations operated in diverse industries: education, utilities, finance, and construction. Before the survey, organization managers were emailed a letter of request regarding the study and its purposes to obtain permission to conduct the survey along with the supervisor’s letter confirming the confidentiality of all collected data. After permission was granted, research assistants distributed the questionnaires to the prospective respondents, explained the purpose of the study, and informed them that all their responses would be private and confidential. The respondents were asked to carefully read each statement on the questionnaire and give truthful responses, and all were instructed to seal and return their completed questionnaires using the return envelopes provided. Using the employee identification lists provided by the human resources departments, the research assistants coded the questionnaires to match the employees to their supervisors. The sample consisted of school and vocational college teachers (50%), employees of utility organizations (22%), an architecture firm (21%), and a national bank (7%).

Because of the possibility of common method bias ( Podsakoff et al., 2012 ), we administered the survey in two stages to two groups of respondents: employees and supervisors. In Stage 1, we collected data from the employees regarding individual job meaningfulness, work engagement, task interdependence, and personal characteristics. In Stage 2, we asked the 47 supervisors to evaluate their employees’ job performance. Altogether, we distributed 307 questionnaires and obtained 183 valid questionnaires in response (response rate: 60%). Among the focal employee respondents, 60% were female, and the average age was 33.39 ( SD = 8.27). Most of the sample (30%) was between 25 and 30 years old, followed by the 31- to 36-year-old group at 27%. The employee respondents’ mean organizational tenure was 5.88 years ( SD = 4.79), and 47% of respondents had a bachelor’s degree, whereas 32% of the subjects had a lyceum or vocational college degree. Table 1 presents a summary of the sample description.

Table 1. Survey respondents’ personal characteristics.

All questionnaire items were rated on five-point Likert-type scales that ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree . We translated questions written in English into Uzbek and Russian using standard translation and back translation ( Brislin, 1980 ) to ensure the reliability and validity of the research instrument (all of the questionnaire items are listed in the Appendix ).

Job Meaningfulness

We employed Spreitzer (1995) three-item scale of job meaningfulness to assess the extent to which the employee respondents found meaning in their jobs (α = 0.78; sample item: “The work I do is very important to me”). The three items measuring job meaningfulness had factor loadings ranging from 0.67 to 0.76.

Work Engagement

We measured the employee respondents’ work engagement using Schaufeli et al. (2006a) nine-item scale (α = 0.90; sample item: “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”). The nine items’ factor loadings ranged from 0.54 to 0.80.

Task Interdependence

We used Campion et al.’s (1993) three-item scale (α = 0.70) to measure the employee respondents’ task interdependence (sample item: “I cannot accomplish my tasks without information or materials from other members of my team.” The factor loading values ranged from 0.53 to 0.63.

Job Performance

The supervisor respondents rated the employee respondents’ job performances using the three-item scale (α = 0.82) developed by MacKenzie et al. (1993 ; sample item: “This employee is one of my best agents”). The three items measuring job performance had factor loadings ranging from 0.71 to 0.76.

Personal Characteristics

The employee respondents provided information about age, gender, educational attainment, and current organizational tenure.

Control Variables

Researchers found a positive relationship between employees’ work experience, gender, and work-related attitudes and behaviors ( Ismail et al., 2019 ; Opoku et al., 2020 ). In addition, highly educated employees were more likely than their less educated counterparts to effectively contribute to work-related activities and demonstrate better performance ( Wulandari, 2017 ). Therefore, we included the employee respondents’ gender, educational attainment, and organizational tenure as control variables in the analyses. Age and organizational tenure were measured in years, and the following were the options for educational attainment: upper-secondary school, 3-year college or lyceum, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and PhD. For gender, 0 = male and 1 = female.

Analytical Approach

We conducted all analyses using STATA 14.2 statistical software. Before testing the hypotheses, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis to examine the distinctiveness of the study variables and generated chi-square statistics and the RMSEA, CFI, and TLI goodness-of-fit indices. To test the hypothesized direct relationships and interaction effects, we performed a series of stepwise regression analyses. First, we regressed the set of control variables (gender, educational attainment, and organizational tenure) on work engagement (Step 1). We added job meaningfulness and task interdependence as independent variables in Step 2, and in Step 3, we included the interaction term between job meaningfulness and task interdependence. We then regressed the control variables on job performance (Step 4), followed by job meaningfulness, work engagement, and task interdependence (Step 5).

To create the interaction term, we mean-centered job meaningfulness and task interdependence before creating the product term. We tested the statistical significance of the indirect effect of job meaningfulness on job performance through work engagement using bootstrapped resampling procedure of 5,000 bootstrapped resamples. Bootstrapping is a computationally intensive method involving repeated sampling from the data set and estimating the indirect effect in each resampled data set ( Preacher and Hayes, 2008 ). Under most circumstances, bootstrapping is the most powerful and reasonable approach to generating confidence limits for specific indirect effects. We calculated 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) to determine whether the proposed mediating variable, work engagement, helped explain the relationship between job meaningfulness and performance ( Preacher and Hayes, 2008 ). In this study, we obtained the 95% CI of the indirect effect with 5000 bootstrapped resamples. There is a significant indirect effect through the mediator between dependent and independent variables if the 95% CI does not contain zero. We also performed structural equation modeling (SEM) to test all of the hypothetical relationships as an additional check.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations between variables and indicates that work engagement was significantly correlated with job meaningfulness and job performance. There was also a significant correlation between gender and job performance. Before running regression analyses, we checked for any possible multicollinearity threats in our data. Table 2 shows that the correlation coefficients between the predictor variables were below the recommended cut point of 0.70 ( Ismail et al., 2019 ). Moreover, we calculated a variance inflation factor (VIF) for every variable, including the interaction terms, and all VIFs were smaller than 10 ( Chatterjee and Hadi, 2015 ), indicating no multicollinearity.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between variables.

Measurement Model

Table 3 presents the model fit statistics of the measurement models. As shown, the baseline four-factor model (χ 2 = 170.125, df = 124; RMSEA = 0.05; CFI = 0.97, and TLI = 0.96) was a better fit than the three-, two-, and one-factor models, providing evidence of the construct distinctiveness of job meaningfulness, work engagement, task interdependence, and job performance.

Table 3. Chi-square difference tests among alternative measurement models.

Hypotheses Testing

To test Hypotheses 1 and 2 relating to engagement and performance as outcome variables, we performed stepwise regression analysis. We entered the control variables in Model 1 ( Table 4 ), which explained 3% of the variance in work engagement. Model 2 (40% of the variance in work engagement) involved testing the first hypothesis, which postulated a positive relationship between job meaningfulness and work engagement. The Model 2 findings ( Table 4 ) indicate that the employee respondents’ perceptions of job meaningfulness were positively and significantly related to their work engagement ( b = 0.62, SE = 0.10, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 1. Model 4, which included the control variables, explained 5% of the variance in predicting employee performance, whereas Model 5 with 11% of the variance demonstrated the second hypothesis results. In Hypothesis 2, we assumed that employees’ perceptions of work engagement would be positively associated with job performance, and the regression results (Model 5, Table 4 ) demonstrate support for the hypothesis 2 ( b = 0.26, SE = 0.09, p < 0.01).

Table 4. Hierarchical multiple regression results for work engagement and job performance.

To assess Hypothesis 3, we tested the indirect effect of job meaningfulness on job performance via work engagement using bootstrapped mediation with 5,000 repeated resamples and percentile bootstrapped CIs. The results presented in Table 5 confirm the indirect effect of job meaningfulness on job performance through work engagement ( b = 0.17, SE = 0.06; 95% CI = [0.06, 0.31]), as indicated by the fact that no CIs equaled zero. This finding supports Hypothesis 3.

Table 5. Mediating effect of work engagement.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that task interdependence moderated the relationship between job meaningfulness and work engagement such that the relationship was stronger for employees with low task interdependence. The results shown in Model 3 ( Table 4 ) support Hypothesis 4 based on the significant interaction effect between job meaningfulness and task interdependence ( b = −0.30, SE = 0.13, p < 0.05). To further interpret the interaction effect, we conducted a simple slope analysis following Aiken and West (1991) . Figure 2 shows the moderation effect of task interdependence on the relationship between job meaningfulness and work engagement, which demonstrates that job meaningfulness was related to work engagement. The slope decreased by a larger margin from low to high, that is, from b = 0.79 to b = 0.39; meanwhile, whereas the statistical significance decreased from p < 0.001 at low task interdependence to p < 0.05 at high interdependence. These results provide evidence of the interaction effect, thus supporting Hypothesis 4.

Figure 2. Interaction effect between job meaningfulness and task interdependence for employee work engagement.

As an additional test, we performed to SEM examine direct, indirect, and moderation effects. The results presented in Table 6 confirmed all of our hypotheses.

Table 6. Results of mediation and moderation tests for structural models.

In this study, employing Kahn’s psychological conditions theory (1990, 1992), we sought to investigate the relationships among job meaningfulness, engagement, and performance. We also tested task interdependence as a boundary condition that would promote employee engagement. In line with prior research ( Mostafa and Abed El-Motalib, 2020 ), the study findings revealed that job meaningfulness is positively related to work engagement, confirming job meaningfulness as a “necessary prerequisite” for work engagement ( Albrecht, 2013 , p. 243), meaning that employees who find their work significant and worthwhile are more likely to be absorbed and dedicated ( Demirtas et al., 2017 ). Nearly all studies on work engagement have been conducted in Western countries, most notably North America and Western Europe, and there has been insufficient replication of data in non-Western contexts ( Kim, 2017 ; Ismail et al., 2019 ); for instance, Buil et al. (2019) found a direct relationship between employee engagement and performance among hotel employees in Spain. In one of the few examinations of this link within a non-Western context, Mostafa and Abed El-Motalib (2020) provided similar results among employees of an Egyptian public hospital. Consistent with these preceding studies, our study with a sample of employees from Uzbek public organizations confirmed and contributed to the generalizability of the work engagement-employee performance link in the public sector. Moreover, we elucidated the positive impact of job meaningfulness on employee performance through the potential mediating role of work engagement, meaning that individuals who believe their jobs offer intrinsic consider their work worth doing, feel excitement about addressing work-related issues and problems, and are highly driven to integrate different perspectives to come up with innovative ideas, which tends to guarantee enhanced work output ( Walumbwa et al., 2019 ). Our study findings have also confirmed the moderating role of task interdependence on the relationship between meaningfulness and engagement. Specifically, we found that task interdependence assumed greater importance for employees who failed to find their jobs sufficiently meaningful to engage in their work, whereas employees who already found their jobs meaningful might not have required task interdependence to invest extra effort in their jobs.

Theoretical Contributions

This study contributes to the literature in a number of ways. Most importantly, we framed our study in the context of testing Kahn’s psychological conditions (1990, 1992), which has not received much attention in empirical studies.

There have been recent calls for research on determining a potential antecedent of work engagement in public organizations ( Andrews and Mostafa, 2019 ; Mostafa and Abed El-Motalib, 2020 ). Meanwhile, because job meaningfulness plays a critical role in most employees’ choice of public organizations to work for, public administration scholars have urged that the importance of meaningfulness in this sector be analyzed as well ( Tummers and Knies, 2013 ). With this study, we sought to address these calls by examining job meaningfulness as a key driver of work engagement in an Uzbek public setting.

Shuck et al. (2011) also reported on the lack of research on situational drivers of work engagement. Filling this gap in the academic literature, we proposed task interdependence as a boundary condition that facilitates employee engagement and empirically confirmed its moderating role in the relationship between job meaningfulness and engagement; specifically, task interdependence compensated for low meaningfulness or acted as a substitute. We also addressed calls for more research on the relationship between work engagement and employee performance in a non-Western context. Moreover, previous researchers had separately examined the relationship between job meaningfulness and engagement ( Demirtas et al., 2017 ; Mostafa and Abed El-Motalib, 2020 ) and that between engagement and performance ( Buil et al., 2019 ; Ismail et al., 2019 ). In this study, we integrated three constructs in one model to test work engagement as a mediating variable through which employees’ perceptions of job meaningfulness affect performance. Finally, based on earlier findings that most studies on the influence of engagement on performance are conducted in Western countries ( Kim, 2017 ; Ismail et al., 2019 ), we analyzed the data from a sample of public organization employees in Uzbekistan. The study’s findings make an important contribution to work engagement by increasing the international breadth of empirical research findings on the engagement-performance link.

Practical Implications

Public administration practitioners have acknowledged that engagement and commitment are motivational tools to improve civil servants’ and public service outcomes in the face of political constraints that lead to frequent changes in policy, declining growth in investment, and cost-cutting initiatives ( Burke and El-Kot, 2010 ; Ancarani et al., 2018 ).

The results of our study have several practical implications for managers and their organizations. Because the study findings suggest that increasing job meaningfulness will increase employee engagement in their work, which in turn improves work performance, it is crucial that public sector organizations stimulate employees’ sense of job meaningfulness. This can be achieved through approaches such as (1) drawing employees’ attention to tasks that encourage them to realize themselves; (2) involving employees in making decisions that make their work more impactful and useful to others, including in redesigning jobs; (3) and developing social connections between employees and public sector clients ( Jo et al., 2018 ; Martela and Pessi, 2018 ).

Furthermore, the study results suggest that task interdependence can encourage work engagement. Managers can assign tasks that require employees to work interdependently to increase employee engagement, especially when routine tasks might engender low job meaningfulness. Organizations can cope with low meaningfulness by creating high interdependence and vice versa.

In addition, managers could employ high-quality leader-worker relationships to enhance employee engagement ( Ancarani et al., 2018 ). Unlike other restrictions in the public sector, leader-member exchange (LMX) is within the control of managers. Supervisors who engage in high-quality LMX give their employees more of their time, more direct information, more emotional support, and more intrinsic rewards such as empowerment ( Ancarani et al., 2018 ). In turn, employees feel motivated to work harder to benefit the manager in reciprocation ( Gouldner, 1960 ). Leaders who promote high-quality leader-worker relationships provide psychological safety that encourages employees to find their work environments safe spaces to express their true selves and actively engage their interest in work tasks ( May et al., 2004 ). Moreover, employees who are parts of high-quality LMX are more optimistic and self-efficacious, and such beliefs are considered to be important predictors of employee engagement ( Ancarani et al., 2018 ).

Finally, public organizations are highly encouraged to create friendly atmospheres where employees support one another. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) established the importance of coworkers’ supportive relationships as a significant work resource for achieving goals and work engagement. Employees with harmonious coworker relationships feel more secure about sharing their true selves with others at work, which tends to strengthen engagement in work settings ( Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004 ).

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies

This study has several limitations that should be addressed in future research. Initially, although we attempted to reduce common method bias ( Podsakoff et al., 2012 ) using the two-stage approach and by separating the ratings of the employees and the supervisors by 3 weeks, we did collect the data on job meaningfulness (independent variable), task interdependence (moderator), and work engagement (mediator) at the same time, and thus the data remained susceptible to common method bias.

With our study, we empirically demonstrated that job meaningfulness is positively associated with engagement; however, the effect size was not especially high, which suggests that other factors might have an impact on employees’ levels of engagement in public organizations. Thus, public administration scholars might focus on identifying other antecedents of work engagement in this sector. Moreover, we asked supervisors to evaluate their employees’ job performance (i.e., subjective job evaluation), which served as a boundary condition of the study. The study results should be generalized with caution because they might not be applicable in the context of objective job evaluations. Another study limitation concerns the study sample size ( n = 183). Although the sample size was considered reasonable for regression analysis ( Ismail et al., 2019 ), we suggest that the study be replicated with a larger sample size. Replication should also consider cultural differences, which we avoided with this study involving Muslim respondents. Finally, our sample was homogeneous in terms of mode of employment in that all survey respondents were full-time employees. We assume that the research findings might differ if data are included for part-time workers.

For this study, based on Kahn’s theory, we examined the role of job meaningfulness in employee performance via work engagement. We hypothesized and empirically showed that meaningfulness was significantly associated with work engagement and that work engagement was positively related to performance in public organizations. We further found that work engagement had a mediating influence that explained the relationship between job meaningfulness and job performance. We also with this study identified another situational driver (i.e., task interdependence) that maintains employee engagement. Despite the potential limitations of this study, these findings contribute to the growing body of research on work engagement and meaningfulness in the public sector.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because “This is because not all authors consented to the disclosure of survey data.” Requests to access the datasets should be directed to S-WK, [email protected] .

Author Contributions

RK is the principal researcher and prepared the first draft of the article. S-WK supervised the study and refined the draft into a publishable article. In addition to motivating the publication of this article, SBC added valuable theoretical and methodological insights based on his knowledge and expertise regarding the topic. All authors have read and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The authors are deeply grateful to Opoku Mavis Ayemang because OMA helped to refine the manuscript by providing critical feedback.

Abdulhaevna, K. M. (2021). Public organizations in Uzbekistan–in the interests of the state and people. Turk. J. Comput. Math. Educ. 12, 3402–3406.

Google Scholar

Ahmed, U., Majid, A., Al-Aali, L., and Mozammel, S. (2019). Can meaningful work really moderate the relationship between supervisor support, coworker support and work Engagement? Manag. Sci. Lett. 9, 229–242. doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2018.11.016

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahonen, E. Q., Fujishiro, K., Cunningham, T., and Flynn, M. (2018). Work as an inclusive part of population health inequities research and prevention. Am. J. Public Health 108, 306–311. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.304214

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aiken, L. S., and West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park: Sage Publications Inc.

Akdere, M., Russ-Eft, D., and Eft, N. (2006). The Islamic worldview of adult learning in the workplace: surrendering to God. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resourc. 8, 355–363. doi: 10.1177/1523422306288428

Albrecht, S. L. (2013). “Work engagement and the positive power of meaningful work,” in Advances in Positive Organizational Psychology , ed. A. B. Bakker (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited), 237–260. doi: 10.1108/S2046-410X(2013)0000001013

Al-dalahmeh, M., Khalaf, R., and Obeidat, B. (2018). The effect of employee engagement on organizational performance via the mediating role of job satisfaction: the case of IT employees in Jordanian banking sector. Mod. Appl. Sci. 12, 17–43. doi: 10.5539/mas.v12n6p17

Ancarani, A., Di Mauro, C., Giammanco, M. D., and Giammanco, G. (2018). Work engagement in public hospitals: a social exchange approach. Int. Rev. Public Adm. 23, 1–19. doi: 10.1080/12294659.2017.1412046

Andrews, R., and Mostafa, A. M. S. (2019). Organizational goal ambiguity and senior public managers’ engagement: does organizational social capital make a difference? Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 85, 377–395. doi: 10.1177/0020852317701824

Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., and McKee, M. C. (2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: the mediating role of meaningful work. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 12:193. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.193

Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Zhou, Q., and Hartnell, C. A. (2012). Transformational leadership, innovative behavior, and task performance: test of mediation and moderation processes. Hum. Perf. 25, 1–25. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2011.631648

Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., and Wilson, D. C. (2007). Engaging the aging workforce: the relationship between perceived age similarity, satisfaction with coworkers, and employee engagement. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:1542. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1542

Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., and Fletcher, L. (2017). The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: a narrative synthesis. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 19, 31–53. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12077

Bakker, A. B. (2009). “Building engagement in the workplace,” in The Peak Performing Organization , eds R. J. Burke and C. L. Cooper (Milton Park: Routledge), 50–72. doi: 10.4324/9780203971611.ch3

Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20, 265–269. doi: 10.1177/0963721411414534

Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., and Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 20, 4–28. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2010.485352

Bakker, A. B., and Bal, M. P. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: a study among starting teachers. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 83, 189–206. doi: 10.1348/096317909X402596

Brislin, R. W. (1980). “Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials,” in Methodology , eds H. C. Triandis and J. W. Berry (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon), 389–444.

Buil, I., Martínez, E., and Matute, J. (2019). Transformational leadership and employee performance: the role of identification, engagement and proactive personality. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 77, 64–75. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.014

Bunderson, J. S., and Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Adm. Sci. Q. 54, 32–57. doi: 10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.32

Burke, R. J., and El-Kot, G. (2010). Work engagement among managers and professionals in Egypt: potential antecedents and consequences. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Stud. 1, 42–60. doi: 10.1108/20400701011028158

Byrne, Z. S. (2014). Understanding Employee Engagement: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203385944

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., and Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Pers. Psychol. 46, 823–847. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x

Chatterjee, S., and Hadi, A. S. (2015). Regression Analysis by Example. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., and Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Pers. Psychol. 64, 89–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x

Dajani, D., and Zaki, M. A. (2015). The impact of employee engagement on job performance and organisational commitment in the Egyptian banking sector. J. Bus. Manag. Sci. 3, 138–147.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., and Gevers, J. M. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: the role of work engagement and flourishing. J. Vocat. Behav. 91, 87–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.001

Demerouti, E., Cropanzano, R., Bakker, A., and Leiter, M. (2010). “From thought to action: employee work engagement and job performance,” in Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory Research , eds A. B. Bakker and M. P. Leiter (Hove: Psychology Press), 147–163.

Demirtas, O., Hannah, S. T., Gok, K., Arslan, A., and Capar, N. (2017). The moderated influence of ethical leadership, via meaningful work, on followers’ engagement, organizational identification, and envy. J. Bus. Ethics 145, 183–199. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2907-7

Di Fabio, A. (2017). The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development for well-being in organizations. Front. Psychol. 8:1534. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01534

Ergashev, B. (2006). Public administration reform in Uzbekistan. Probl. Econ. Transit. 48, 32–82. doi: 10.2753/PET1061-1991481202

Ernazarov, D. (2020). Analysis of the policy of the republic of Uzbekistan regarding international non-governmental organization. J. Polit. Sci. Int. Relat. 3, 9–15. doi: 10.11648/j.jpsir.20200301.12

Fairlie, P. (2011). Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key employee outcomes: implications for human resource development. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resourc. 13, 508–525. doi: 10.1177/1523422311431679

Fletcher, L. (2019). How can personal development lead to increased engagement?. The roles of meaningfulness and perceived line manager relations. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 30, 1203–1226. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1184177

Florea, L., Cheung, Y. H., and Herndon, N. C. (2013). For all good reasons: role of values in organizational sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 114, 393–408. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1355-x

Ghadi, M. Y., Fernando, M., and Caputi, P. (2013). Transformational leadership and work engagement: the mediating effect of meaning in work. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 34, 532–550. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-10-2011-0110

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 25, 161–178. doi: 10.2307/2092623

Grzywacz, J. G., and Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: an ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 5:111. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.111

Gullahorn, J. T. (1952). Distance and friendship as factors in the gross interaction matrix. Sociometry 15, 123–134. doi: 10.2307/2785450

Hart, S. L., and Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Acad. Manag. Persp. 17, 56–67. doi: 10.5465/ame.2003.10025194

Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W., Taris, T., Hessen, D., Hakanen, J., Salanova, N., et al. (2014). East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet: work engagement and workaholism across Eastern and Western cultures. J. Behav. Soc. Sci. 1, 6–24.

Inuwa, M. (2016). Job satisfaction and employee performance: an empirical approach. Millenn. Univ. J. 1, 90–103.

Ismail, H. N., Iqbal, A., and Nasr, L. (2019). Employee engagement and job performance in Lebanon: the mediating role of creativity. Int. J. Prod. Perf. Manag. 68, 506–523. doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-02-2018-0052

Jo, S. J., Bae, E. G., Kim, H. S., Kim, D. Y., Lee, M. Y., Rhee, S. S., et al. (2018). Models for HRD Practice: Career Development. Seoul: Parkyoungsa Book Publishing.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag. J. 33, 692–724. doi: 10.5465/256287

Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: psychological presence at work. Hum. Relat. 45, 321–349. doi: 10.1177/001872679204500402

Karatepe, O. M., and Karadas, G. (2015). Do psychological capital and work engagement foster frontline employees’ satisfaction? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 27, 1254–1278. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-01-2014-0028

Khusanova, R., Choi, S. B., and Kang, S. W. (2019). Sustainable workplace: the moderating role of office design on the relationship between psychological empowerment and organizational citizenship behaviour in Uzbekistan. Sustainability 11:7024. doi: 10.3390/su11247024

Kim, W., and Park, Y. (2020). Organizational support and adaptive performance: the revolving srtuctural relatioships between job crafting, worek engagement, and adaptige perfromance. Sustainability 12:4872. doi: 10.3390/su12124872

Kim, C. D., and Oh, S. J. (2020). Impact of employee’s gratitude disposition on organizational citizenship behavior: focus on multi-mediated effects of perceived organizational support and job satisfaction. J. Korea Cont. Assoc. 20, 686–701.

Kim, M., and Beehr, T. A. (2018). Organization-based self-esteem and meaningful work mediate effects of empowering leadership on employee behaviors and well-being. J. Leaders. Organ. Stud. 25, 385–398. doi: 10.1177/1548051818762337

Kim, W. (2017). Examining mediation effects of work engagement among job resources, job performance, and turnover intention. Perf. Improv. Q. 29, 407–425. doi: 10.1002/piq.21235

Kim, W., Khan, G. F., Wood, J., and Mahmood, M. T. (2016). Employee engagement for sustainable organizations: keyword analysis using social network analysis and burst detection approach. Sustainability 8:631. doi: 10.3390/su8070631

Kim, W., and Park, J. (2017). Examining structural relationships between work engagement, organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior for sustainable organizations. Sustainability 9:205. doi: 10.3390/su9020205

King, G. (2011). Ensuring the data-rich future of the social sciences. Science 331, 719–721. doi: 10.1126/science.1197872

Kipkosgei, F., Son, S. Y., and Kang, S. W. (2020). Coworker trust and knowledge sharing among public sector employees in Kenya. Inter. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:2009. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17062009

Lee, S. H., Shin, Y., and Baek, S. I. (2017). Task characteristics and work engagement: exploring effects of role ambiguity and ICT presenteeism. Sustainability 9:1855. doi: 10.3390/su9101855

Lee, S. H., Shin, Y., and Kim, M. (2018). Why work meaningfulness alone is not enough: the role of social identification and task interdependence as facilitative boundary conditions. Curr. Psychol. 40, 1031–1047. doi: 10.1007/s12144-018-0027-0

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., and Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 85:407. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.407

Loehr, J., Loehr, J. E., and Schwartz, T. (2005). The Power of Full Engagement: Managing Energy, not Time, is The Key to High Performance and Personal Renewal. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. doi: 10.1007/978-3-8349-9251-2_17

Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., and Young, S. A. (2011). Employee Engagement: Tools for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., and Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. J. Mark. 57, 70–80. doi: 10.1177/002224299305700105

Mackey, A., and Porte, G. (2012). Why (or why not), when and how to replicate research. Replic. Res. Appl. Ling. 2146, 21–46.

Martela, F., and Pessi, A. B. (2018). Significant work is about self-realization and broader purpose: defining the key dimensions of meaningful work. Front. Psychol. 9:363. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00363

Martela, F., Ryan, R. M., and Steger, M. F. (2018). Meaningfulness as satisfaction of autonomy, competence, relatedness, and beneficence: comparing the four satisfactions and positive affect as predictors of meaning in life. J. Happiness Stud. 19, 1261–1282. doi: 10.1007/s10902-017-9869-7

Marzband, R., Hosseini, S. H., and Hamzehgardeshi, Z. (2016). A concept analysis of spiritual care based on Islamic sources. Religions 7:61. doi: 10.3390/rel7060061

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., and Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 77, 11–37. doi: 10.1348/096317904322915892

Miao, Q., Eva, N., Newman, A., and Schwarz, G. (2019). Public service motivation and performance: the role of organizational identification. Public Money Manag. 39, 77–85. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2018.1556004

Mostafa, A. M. S., and Abed El-Motalib, E. A. (2020). Ethical leadership, work meaningfulness, and work engagement in the public sector. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 40, 112–131. doi: 10.1177/0734371X18790628

Oh, S., and Roh, S. C. (2019). A moderated mediation model of self-concept clarity, transformational leadership, perceived work meaningfulness, and work motivation. Front. Psychol. 10:1756. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01756

Opoku, M. A., Choi, S. B., and Kang, S. W. (2019). Servant leadership and innovative behaviour: an empirical analysis of Ghana’s manufacturing sector. Sustainability 11:6273. doi: 10.3390/su11226273

Opoku, M. A., Choi, S. B., and Kang, S. W. (2020). Psychological safety in ghana: empirical analyses of antecedents and consequences. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:214. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17010214

Orgambídez, A., Borrego, Y., and Vázquez-Aguado, O. (2019). Self-efficacy and organizational commitment among Spanish nurses: the role of work engagement. Int. Nurs. Rev. 66, 381–388. doi: 10.1111/inr.12526

Perry, J. L., and Hondeghem, A. (2008). Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Pinjani, P., and Palvia, P. (2013). Trust and knowledge sharing in diverse global virtual teams. Inf. Manag. 50, 144–153. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2012.10.002

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63, 539–569. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Pradhan, S., and Pradhan, R. K. (2016). Transformational leadership and job outcomes: the mediating role of meaningful work. Glob. Bus. Rev. 17(3. Suppl), 173S–185S. doi: 10.1177/0972150916631211

Preacher, K. J., and Hayes, F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 40, 879–891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Qi, L., Wei, X., Li, Y., Liu, B., and Xu, Z. (2020). The influence of mistreatment by patients on job satisfaction and turnover intention among Chinese nurses: a three-wave survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:1256. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17041256

Rehman, K. U. (2010). The Concept of Labor in Islam . Bloomington, IND: Xlibris Corporation.

Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., and Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 617–635. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.51468988

Ro’i, Y. (2015). The USSR and the Muslim World: Issues in Domestic and Foreign Policy. Milton Park: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/978315681306

Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., and Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: a theoretical integration and review. Res. Organ. Behav. 30, 91–127. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001

Rothbard, N. P., and Patil, S. V. (2011). Being There: Work Engagement and Positive Organizational Scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.013.0005

Scafuri Kovalchuk, L., Buono, C., Ingusci, E., Maiorano, F., De Carlo, E., Madaro, A., et al. (2019). Can work engagement be a resource for reducing workaholism’s undesirable outcomes? A multiple mediating model including moderated mediation analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16:1402. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081402

Schaufeli, W., Taris, T., Le Blanc, P., Peeters, M., Bakker, A., and De Jonge, J. (2001). Maakt arbeid gezond. Op Zoek Naar Bevlogen Werknemer 2001, 422–428.

Schaufeli, W. B., and Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. J. Organ. Behav. 25, 293–315. doi: 10.1002/job.248

Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., and Bakker, A. B. (2002a). Burnout and engagement in university students: a cross-national study. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 33, 464–481. doi: 10.1177/0022022102033005003

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., and Bakker, A. B. (2002b). The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 3, 71–92. doi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., and Salanova, M. (2006a). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educ. Psychol. Measure. 66, 701–716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471

Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., and Bakker, A. B. (2006b). “Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde: on the differences between work engagement and workaholism,” in Research Companion to Working Time Work Addiction , ed. R. J. Burke (Cheltenham: Elgar), 193–217.

Shellhouse, J., Carter, H. S., and Benge, M. P. (2019). Enhancing motivation through work meaningfulness. EDIS 2019, 235–238. doi: 10.32473/edis-wc330-2019

Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W. B., Miyanaka, D., and Iwata, N. (2010). Why Japanese workers show low work engagement: an item response theory analysis of the Utrecht work engagement scale. Biopsychosocial Med. 4, 1–6. doi: 10.1186/1751-0759-4-17

Shuck, B., Reio, T. G. Jr., and Rocco, T. S. (2011). Employee engagement: an examination of antecedent and outcome variables. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 14, 427–445. doi: 10.1080/13678868.2011.601587

Sonnentag, S. (2017). A task-level perspective on work engagement: a new approach that helps to differentiate the concepts of engagement and burnout. Burn. Res. 5, 12–20. doi: 10.1016/j.burn.2017.04.001

Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., and Demerouti, E. (2010). “Not all days are created equal: the concept of state work engagement,” in Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research , eds A. B. Bakker and M. P. Leiter (Hove: Psychology Press), 25–38.

Spreitzer, G., Porath, C. L., and Gibson, C. B. (2012). Toward human sustainability: how to enable more thriving at work. Organ. Dyn. 41, 155–162. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.01.009

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Acad. Manag. J. 38, 1442–1465. doi: 10.5465/256865

Stairs, M., and Galpin, M. (2010). Positive Engagement: From Employee Engagement to Workplace Happiness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195335446.013.0013

Steger, M. F., and Dik, B. J. (2009). If one is looking for meaning in life, does it help to find meaning in work? Appl. Psychol. Heal. Well-Being 1, 303–320. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01018.x

Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., and Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: the work and meaning inventory (WAMI). J. Career Assess. 20, 322–337. doi: 10.1177/1069072711436160

Steger, M. F., Littman-Ovadia, H., Miller, M., Menger, L., and Rothmann, S. (2013). Engaging in work even when it is meaningless: positive affective disposition and meaningful work interact in relation to work engagement. J. Career Assess. 21, 348–361. doi: 10.1177/1069072712471517

Tummers, L. G., and Knies, K. (2013). Leadership and meaningful work in the public sector. Public Administration Review 73, 859–868. doi: 10.1111/puar.12138

Walumbwa, F. O., Hsu, I. C., Wu, C., Misati, E., and Christensen-Salem, A. (2019). Employee service performance and collective turnover: examining the influence of initiating structure leadership, service climate and meaningfulness. Hum. Relat. 72, 1131–1153. doi: 10.1177/0018726718790649

Wang, Z., and Xu, H. (2019). When and for whom ethical leadership is more effective in eliciting work meaningfulness and positive attitudes: the moderating roles of core self-evaluation and perceived organizational support. J. Bus. Ethics 156, 919–940. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3563-x

Wu, W. L., and Lee, Y. C. (2020). Do work engagement and transformational leadership facilitate knowledge sharing?. a perspective of conservation of resources theory. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal. 17:2615. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17072615

Wulandari, A. (2017). Influence of education and work experience on work motivation and job performance at branch office of bank j trust bank surabaya. Spirit Soc. J. 1, 1–20. doi: 10.29138/scj.v1i1.364

Yan, X., Su, J., Wen, Z., and Luo, Z. (2019). The role of work engagement on the relationship between personality and job satisfaction in chinese nurses. Curr. Psychol. 38, 873–878. doi: 10.1007/s12144-017-9667-8

Yousef, D. A. (2000). The Islamic work ethic as a mediator of the relationship between locus of control, role conflict and role ambiguity: a study in an Islamic country setting. J. Manag. Psychol. 15, 283–302. doi: 10.1108/02683940010330966

Yuen, K. F., Loh, H. S., Zhou, Q., and Wong, Y. D. (2018). Determinants of job satisfaction and performance of seafarers. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 110, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2018.02.006

Zheng, Y., Graham, L., Epitropaki, O., and Snape, E. (2020). Service leadership, work engagement, and service performance: the moderating role of leader skills. Group Organ. Manag. 45, 43–74. doi: 10.1177/1059601119851978

Job Meaningfulness (α = 0.78) ( Spreitzer, 1995 )

1. The work I do is very important to me.

2. My job activities are personally meaningful to me.

3. The work I do is meaningful to me.

Work Engagement (α = 0.90) ( Schaufeli et al., 2006a )

1. At my work, I feel bursting with energy.

2. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.

3. At my job I feel strong and vigorous.

4. I am proud of the work that I do.

5. I am enthusiastic about my job.

6. My job inspires me.

7. I get carried away when I am working.

8. I feel happy when I am working intensely.

9. I am immersed in my work.

Task Interdependence (α = 0.70) ( Campion et al., 1993 )

1. I cannot accomplish my tasks without information or materials from other members of my team.

2. Other members of my team depend on me for information or materials needed to perform their tasks.

3. Within my team, jobs performed by team members are related to one another.

Job Performance (α = 0.82) ( MacKenzie et al., 1993 )

1. This employee is one of my best agents.

2. All things considered, this employee is outstanding.

3. All things considered, this employee performs his/her job the way I like to see it performed.

Keywords : job meaningfulness, work engagement, task interdependence, employee work performance, public sector

Citation: Khusanova R, Kang S-W and Choi SB (2021) Work Engagement Among Public Employees: Antecedents and Consequences. Front. Psychol. 12:684495. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.684495

Received: 23 March 2021; Accepted: 20 September 2021; Published: 22 October 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Khusanova, Kang and Choi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Seung-Wan Kang, [email protected] ; Suk Bong Choi, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Open access
• Published: 18 April 2024

Relationship between resilience at work, work engagement and job satisfaction among engineers: a cross-sectional study

• Bassma Abdelhadi Ibrahim 1 &
• Sarah Mohamed Hussein 1  

BMC Public Health volume  24 , Article number:  1077 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

186 Accesses

Metrics details

Workplace challenges can negatively affect employees and the organization. Resilience improves work-related outcomes like engagement, satisfaction, and performance. Gaps exist in studying resilience at work, particularly in relation to engagement and satisfaction. Therefore, this study aims to investigate relationship between Resilience at Work, Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction among engineers in an Egyptian Oil and Gas Company.

It was a cross-sectional study. The target population was the engineers who are working in Egyptian Oil and Gas Company. The study was performed on 100 engineers. Participants were enrolled by simple random sampling technique via an online questionnaire. The study was conducted from May 2023 to the end of September 2023. The data were collected in the duration of June to August 2023. Data was obtained through a structured and personally accomplished questionnaire, which was disseminated electronically via email. The questionnaire comprises of personal information, work experience, a Resilience at Work scale consisting of 20 items, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale with nine items to evaluate work engagement, and the 20-item Short-Form Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire was utilized to determine employee satisfaction. The bivariate analysis employed independent samples t-test and Mann-Whitney U test. The associations between scores were measured by Spearman rho correlation. Simple linear and multiple linear regressions were used to predict work engagement and job satisfaction.

A statistically strong positive correlation was observed among all the aspects of work engagement, including vigor, absorption, and dedication. This study demonstrated a significant correlation between resilience and work engagement ( r  = 0.356, p  < 0.05). There was a strong correlation between resilience and job satisfaction ( r  = 0.608, p  < 0.05). A significant moderate correlation was determined between job satisfaction and work engagement ( r  = 0.396, p  < 0.05). Both gender with a female coefficient of -15.517, and resilience with a coefficient of 0.235 significantly predicted work engagement. Whereas, the significant predictors of job satisfaction were resilience (β = 0.294), and work engagement (β = 0.283).

Conclusions

Resilience greatly affects work engagement and job satisfaction. Thus, organizations need to promote resilience in employees to create a positive work environment and increase productivity.

Peer Review reports

Resilience has become an essential element in the success and well-being of employees in today’s fast-paced and demanding work environment. This is especially evident in high-pressure industries like oil and gas sector. Most oil and gas industry workers experience various stressful conditions and encounter numerous challenges and pressures in their daily work, impacting their health [ 1 , 2 , 3 ].

The Oil and Gas industry is widely recognized for its challenging and hazardous work environment in terms of safety and occupational risks. Consequently, employees in this field especially engineers frequently encounter intricate obstacles such as working under immense pressure, complying with strict safety protocols, meeting tight project timelines, and keeping up with evolving technologies and market dynamics. An Egyptian survey conducted on a group of 409 workers in the oil and gas industry showed that the work environment had a high level of psychosocial hazards, as well as mild levels of anxiety and moderate levels of depression and stress [ 4 ]. Similar studies in Nigeria and Iran also found high levels of occupational stress among employees in the Oil and Gas industry [ 5 , 6 ]. One important factor that has been found to be crucial to deal with these challenges and stress is the development of resilience and positive psychological well-being among employees. This is necessary to ensure operational efficiency, safety, and overall wellness for professionals in the industry.

Resilience is commonly referred to as the ability to recover from adversity, conflict, or failure. It can also apply to positive events, progress, and increased responsibilities. So, resilient employees have better awareness and ability to be more flexible, improvise, and adjust quickly to change [ 2 ]. Resilience has a positive impact on work outcomes like engagement, satisfaction, and performance [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Resilient personnel could create a problem-solving pattern that allows them to contribute best to their workplace. Also, resilient individuals are successful in dealing with workplace adversity, producing persistent and favorable work attitudes leading to engagement [ 10 ].

Work engagement is a state of mind that involves concentration, energy, and enthusiasm in one’s work. It is described as being vigorous, dedicated, and absorbed. It is beneficial for both individuals and organizations as it promotes motivation and commitment [ 10 , 11 ]. In Indonesia, a study conducted among 205 respondents working as merchandisers in Fast Moving Consumer Goods field under outsourcing companies demonstrated a positive association between employee resilience and work engagement ( r  = 0.346, p  < 0.01). The findings showed that employees who possess high resilience levels tend to exhibit greater work engagement [ 12 ]. Another study by Aggarwal (2022) unveiled a significant correlation between resilience and work engagement among employees ( r  = 0.024, p  < 0.05) suggesting that resilience and work engagement are interrelated and have a mutual impact on each other [ 13 ]..

Furthermore, resilience not only serves as a protective factor, but it can also influence employee job satisfaction. Job satisfaction can be defined as a positive feeling about one’s job as an outcome of an individual’s perception and evaluation of his work. Its level is closely associated with employee motivation and productivity [ 14 ]. An Iranian study conducted among employees of an Iranian petrochemical company revealed that the level of employees’ job satisfaction was moderate [ 6 ]. Also, a research conducted by Bernard (2021) aimed to investigate the connections between resilience, job satisfaction, and anticipated turnover among chief nursing officers throughout the United States and found a significant link between resilience and job satisfaction, with a positive correlation coefficient of 0.28 [ 15 ].

While there is existing literature on resilience, work engagement, and job satisfaction in various industries, there is a significant research gap in specifically addressing these constructs within the unique context of the oil and gas industry. Furthermore, in this context understanding engineers’ resilience, work engagement, and job satisfaction as well the factors that contribute to them is essential for maintaining a highly skilled and motivated workforce [ 2 ]. So, this study aims to investigate the complex relation between resilience, work engagement, and job satisfaction among engineers working in the oil and gas company with core concerns revolving around understanding how resilience affects work engagement and job satisfaction, and how these relationships manifest within this organizational setting. This study holds significant implications for both organizational leaders and employees. By gaining insights into the interplay of these constructs, organizations can develop targeted interventions and strategies to enhance employee well-being and performance, leading to a more resilient and satisfied workforce. The subsequent sections of this research will begin by the methodological approach employed in this study. Following this, the findings and their implications will be discussed, concluding with recommendations for future research and practical applications.

Study design

It was a cross-sectional study to examine the relation between workplace resilience, work engagement and job satisfaction. The study was conducted from May 2023 to the end of September 2023. The data were collected in the duration of June to August 2023.

The study was carried out on engineers working in an Egyptian Oil and Gas Company. Among the 3,000 employees working in the Egyptian Oil and Gas Company, 500 were engineers.

Inclusion criteria

Both males and females with the job title “engineer” and who graduated from the faculties of Engineering, Science, and Computers and Information were eligible to participate in the study.

Exclusion criteria

New engineers hired for less than a year, part-time engineers were excluded from the population.

Sample size

G*Power 3.1.9.7 software calculated sample size using exact test family, two tails, and the α error was determined at 0.05 and power = 0.80, r = correlation ρ H1 was determined twice based on correlation between resilience at work and job satisfaction ( r  = 0.28) [ 15 ],, and correlation between resilience and work engagement ( r  = 0.346) [ 12 , 16 ].

After estimation of the sample size for each outcome, the largest sample size = 97 participants. We added 10% of the sample size to adjust for non-response, so the sample size was raised into108 participants. The questionnaire was sent to those engineers, only 100 engineers responded and agreed to participate in the study which covers the required sample. So, the final recruited number of participants were 100 engineers, which represents 92.5% response rate.

Sampling technique

Engineers were recruited into the study by simple random sampling. A sampling frame of all eligible engineers was formulated by contacting the human resources department. By random generator of SPSS software program version 22, the authors selected the chosen engineers. Through the technology information department, the authors received the email addresses of the engineers. The authors sent invitations to the chosen engineers including the titles of the study, its purpose researchers’ contact information, and informed consent. By accepting the informed consent, the respondents took part in the research.

Tool of data collection

We gathered data by using a well-structured and self-administered questionnaire. The structure of the study consisted of four distinct sections. Three tools used to assess resilience, work engagement and job satisfaction are valid and reliable tools [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. The initial section encompassed personal data, while the second section evaluated resilience by using the Resilience at Work (RAW) scale created by Winwood et al. (2013) [ 17 ]. This scale consisted of 20 items and employed a seven-point Likert scale for rating. The scores on the scale ranged from 1, indicating strong disagreement, to 7, indicating strong agreement. It is reliable instrument as the calculated Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94.

The third section explored work engagement, utilizing the nine-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) established by Schaufeli et al. (2006) [ 18 ]. This scale encompassed the three aspects of work engagement: vigor, absorption, and dedication. The scoring of responses is done on a 6-point Likert scale that ranges from ‘0’ (never) to ‘6’ (always), with a reliability coefficient of α = 0.96. Lastly, the assessment of job satisfaction involved the utilization of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (twenty-item Short-Form) (MSQ). The items on this scale were rated on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating very dissatisfied and 5 indicating very satisfied. Item responses were aggregated to create a total score, where lower scores indicated lower levels of job satisfaction [ 19 ]. The MSQ is a reliable questionnaire whereas the calculated Cronbach’s alpha for MSQ was 0.91.

The original questionnaire in English was bidirectionally “back–back” translated into Arabic. The English-to-Arabic translation was first done by a bilingual translator. Face validity of the Arabic translated version was tested whereas it was reviewed by another bilingual translator for accuracy. Discrepancies resolved through discussion. The questionnaire was back-translated from Arabic to English by a third translator. Adjustments are made to ensure meaning is preserved. A pilot study was carried out on 10 engineers to test the questionnaire to ensure language clarity and feasibility. Data from the pilot study was excluded from the final analysis. After performing any modification in the question’s language according to the pilot participants’ response. The final form of the translated questionnaire was distributed. It was an online Google form survey that was sent to the employees through their emails. The researchers will obtain the participants’ informed consent before starting to fill out the questionnaire.

Data management

The SPSS software program version 22 was utilized for data entry and statistical analysis. Qualitative variables were described in frequency and percentage form. While quantitative variables were summarized in the form of mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range). The normality of continuous data was tested by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The bivariate analysis employed independent samples t-test and Mann-Whitney U test. The associations between resilience, work engagement and job satisfaction scores were measured by Spearman rho correlation. Simple linear and multiple linear regressions were used to predict work engagement and job satisfaction. A significance level of p -value less than 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.

This work has been carried out on 100 engineers working in Egyptian Oil and Gas Company. Table  1 displays the participants’ characteristics. Most were male (87%) and married (87%), had a university education (88%), and lived in urban areas (88%). The average work experience was 14.34 ± 5.93 years. Table  1 also shows the scores for resilience, work engagement, and job satisfaction: 109.25 ± 18.97, 39.82 ± 12.41, and 79.53 ± 11.67, respectively. The scores for vigor, absorption, and dedication were 12.88 ± 4.14, and 13.40 ± 4.38, 13.54 ± 4.50, respectively.

As seen in Fig.  1 , the median resilience score was 113.00 and the interquartile range (IQR) was 21.75. While the median work engagement score was 43.00 and the IQR was 20.75. However, the job satisfaction median and IQR were 80.00 and 14.75; respectively.

Box-and-whisker plot of resilience, work engagement, and job satisfaction scores ( n  = 100)

Table  2 summarizes the relation between the sociodemographic characteristics and the 3 parameters of the study. By using Mann-Whitney U test, the only significant factor was the gender for work engagement, whereas the work engagement was significantly higher among males 41.95 (11.54) than females 25. 54 (8.00).

As shown in Table  3 , there were significant correlations observed between resilience, work engagement, job satisfaction, and the subscales of work engagement such as vigor, dedication, and absorption. The correlation between resilience and work engagement was found to be significantly positive with a moderate correlation coefficient of rho = 0.356. Similarly, the correlation between work engagement and job satisfaction was also significant with a correlation coefficient of rho = 0.396. Furthermore, there was a strong correlation observed between resilience and job satisfaction (rho = 0.608). Additionally, all the subscales of work engagement showed a significant positive strong correlation.

Table  4 demonstrates the significant predictors of work engagement by simple linear and multiple linear regressions as follows: gender, (female coefficient = -16.416, 95% CI= -23.00 - -9.83, -15.517, 95% CI=-21.597 - -9.436; respectively), resilience (coefficient = 0.254, 95% CI = 0.133–0.375, 0.235, 95% CI= -21.597- -9.436; respectively).

With regards to job satisfaction predictors, as seen in Table  5 , resilience and work engagement were significant predictors, resilience coefficient by univariate analysis was 0.366, 95% CI = 0.266–0.465, and by multivariate regression was 0.294, 95% CI = 0.192–0.395. Moreover, the coefficients of work engagement were 0.457, 95% CI = 0.293–0.622 and 0.283, 95% CI = 0.128–0.438 by univariate and by multivariate analyses respectively.

Engineers in oil and gas industry may face high pressures at work due to ongoing global change, economic recession, and work intensification.These pressures can negatively impact their psychological and physical health, as well as their engagement at work. In this study, we aimed to examine the relation between resilience, work engagement, and job satisfaction among engineers working in an Egyptian gas and oil company.

This study therefore set out in a sample of 100 engineers. The mean age was 39.02 ± 6.92 years. The male gender constituted the majority (87%) of the sample population, while an equal proportion of the sample (87%) were reported to be married, and the sample’s educational attainment was a university education (88%). The mean duration of employment was 14.34 ± 5.93.

Resilience refers to individuals’ ability to effectively handle significant change, adversity, or risk by raising the threshold at which stress arousal occurs [ 20 , 21 ]. Based on the present study, the mean resilience score among the surveyed engineers was 109.25 ± 18.97. This indicates that, on average, the engineers in our study demonstrated a relatively high level of resilience. In contrast, an Ethiopian study examining burnout and resilience levels among healthcare professionals reported a lower mean resilience score compared to our study’s engineers, with a score of 78.36 ± 17.78 [ 22 ]. The difference can be explained by various factors. These factors include differences in the sampled populations, like the specific industry or qualifications of the engineers and the challenges faced by health professionals. Cultural and contextual factors, such as societal norms and work environments, may also have affected resilience levels differently in the two groups. Additionally, Chen et al. (2017) conducted a study on Canadian construction workers and found that higher resilience scores were linked to better stress management abilities at work [ 23 ].

Work engagement is made up of three dimensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption. Employees who are engaged demonstrate a high level of energy and mental resilience, and they willingly put in a significant amount of effort into their assigned tasks. Additionally, they express enthusiasm and take pride in their work [ 24 ]. In our study, the mean work engagement score among engineers was 39.82 ± 12.41. While, the mean job satisfaction score was 79.53 ± 11.67. Regarding, dimensions of work engagement, the most obvious finding was that vigor was strongly linked to both absorption and dedication ( r  = 0.835, 0.865, p  < 0.05), respectively. Also, a strong correlation was observed between dedication and absorption ( r  = 0.885, p  < 0.05). A similar finding has been identified by Abd Elhamed and Hessuin, (2022) who reported a significantly strong positive correlation between all features of work engagement vigor, dedication, and absorption [ 25 ].

Another important finding was the presence of a statistically significant and moderate correlation between resilience and work engagement ( r  = 0.356, p  < 0.05). The multivariate analysis further revealed that resilience significantly predicted work engagement, as indicated by the coefficient value (B = 0.235), indicating that engineers with higher levels of resilience were more likely to experience higher levels of work engagement. It is worth mentioning that vigor, absorption, and dedication exhibited significant correlations with resilience ( r  = 0.393, r  = 0.286, r  = 0.296, p  < 0.05), respectively. This can be clarified by referring to the conservation of resources theory (COR) which focuses on resources and suggests that individuals are motivated to protect and develop their personal resources in order to flourish and deal with stress. Individuals with high levels of personal resources are more likely to show resilience [ 26 ]. As a result, resilient individuals are better prepared to handle job demands and setbacks, preserving their resources and maintaining high levels of work engagement. Additionally, resilience can positively affect work engagement as they allow employees to maintain positive attitudes and create conditions that facilitate achieving goals, also enable individuals to appraise themselves and adapt to their environment effectively [ 10 ]. This association was confirmed in a study of German healthcare professionals, showing a significant link between resilience and work engagement [ 27 ]. Similarly, in a study conducted on 106 South African call center employees, Simons and Buitendach provided evidence of a statistically significant strong correlation between work engagement and resilience ( r  = 0.82, p  ≤ 0.01). In relation to the subscales of work engagement, They found a statistically significant correlation between vigor and resilience ( r  = 0.48, p  ≤ 0.01). A statistically significant link was also observed between dedication and resilience ( r  = 0.33, p  ≤ 0.01), while absorption showed a similar statistically significant correlation with resilience ( r  = 0.34; p  ≤ 0.01) [ 28 ]. In previous studies conducted by Malik and Garg (2018) focusing on Indian employees in the Information technology sector, as well as Abd Elhamed and Hessuin (2022) examining Egyptian nurses, a noteworthy correlation between work engagement and resilience was observed [ 2 , 25 ].

Contemporary evidence indicates that a significant relationship can be observed between resilience and work happiness, job satisfaction, job performance, and organizational commitment [ 21 , 29 , 30 ]. Interestingly, we also noticed a strong correlation ( r  = 0.608, p  < 0.05) between resilience and job satisfaction. This implies that as resilience is enhanced, job satisfaction also increases. It is worth noting that also resilience emerged as a significant predictor of job satisfaction (B = 0.294).

One potential reason is that resilience enables the maintenance of effective performance and the ability to deal with challenges. Additionally, it promotes the fulfillment of developmental objectives and is related to mental well-being and overall wellness. Accordingly, highly resilient people have good self-esteem and health and can handle work challenges well, leading to increased efficiency, productivity, and eventually job satisfaction. The relationship could also be clarified using the job demands-resources (JD-R) model. In this model, job characteristics are divided into job demands and resources. Job demands, such as workplace adversity and demands, along with job resources, like resilience, can predict a range of positive and negative job-related outcomes, including burnout and job satisfaction, as well as personal outcomes such as health and well-being [ 31 ]. Piotrowski et al. (2022) have employed a similar design to examine resilience, occupational stress, and job satisfaction among nurses and midwives in Poland during the Covid-19 pandemic. According to their findings, there is an average correlation between job satisfaction and resilience ( r  = 0.30, p  < 0.01). In addition, their study has identified resilience as a statistically significant predictor of job satisfaction (coefficient = 0.17, p  < 0.001) [ 14 ]. Similarly, Srivastava and Madan (2020) have investigated the relationship between resilience and career satisfaction among middle-level managers in private banks in India. They have discovered a significant association between resilience and job satisfaction (B = 0.22, p  < 0.01) [ 9 ]. Kim et al. (2011), Rahmawati (2013), Hudgins (2016), and Ghandi et al. (2017) have all found evidence to support the notion that there is a significant correlation between job satisfaction and resilience. These researchers have reported correlation coefficients of 0.380, 0.366, 0.51, and 0.56, respectively, all of which are statistically significant at p  < 0.05 [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ]. Comparably, research conducted in Singapore revealed a strong correlation between resilience and the level of job satisfaction experienced by psychiatric nurses (B = 0.109, p  = 0.003) [ 36 ]. The varying degrees of correlations could be partly related to the nature of the job as well as different tools used to assess job satisfaction and resilience.

This study’s findings further indicated a significant moderate association between job satisfaction and work engagement ( r  = 0.396, p  < 0.05). In this study, vigor, dedication, and absorption had significantly moderate correlation with job satisfaction ( r  = 0.416, r  = 0.341, r  = 0.322, p  < 0.05), respectively. It is worth noting that work engagement was a significant predictor of job satisfaction (B = 0.283). This implies that engineers who were more involved in their work expressed greater levels of satisfaction with their job. Consequently, these findings highlight the significance of work engagement as a crucial factor in determining job satisfaction. A likely explanation for this might be that work engagement contributes to a sense of accomplishment, experience of personal growth and job enrichment as well as perceiving work as rewarding and meaningful, resulting in job satisfaction. Similarly, job satisfaction enhances motivation, commitment, and enthusiasm toward work, creating a positive environment. It leads to increased work engagement and a sense of belonging. Together, job satisfaction and work engagement create a positive cycle. Our findings align with the work done by Jenaro et al. (2011), which concluded that vigor and dedication were significantly linked to job satisfaction [ 37 ]. Similarly, a study in Turkey revealed that work engagement of certified public accountants is positively relate with job satisfaction demonstrating that employee’s higher resilience and work engagement were more satisfied with their job [ 38 ]. In line with the findings, a study by Ge et al. (2021) on Chinese healthcare workers also discovered that work engagement and job satisfaction are correlated ( r  = 0.525, p  < 0.01) [ 39 ].

Clearly, it is evident that comparable trends have been identified in numerous sectors in numerous research studies which have demonstrated a positive correlation between resilience, work engagement, and job satisfaction across various occupations. This suggests that these factors play a crucial role in overall job satisfaction and well-being. Moreover, despite the diverse demands and stressors faced by different professions, the overarching theme of the significance of resilience and work engagement in improving job satisfaction remains constant.

Regarding the relationship of sociodemographic and work-related characteristics with resilience, work engagement, and job satisfaction, this study showed that gender specifically being male was significantly associated with higher mean work engagement ( p  < 0.05). Additionally, in this study, the multivariate analysis revealed that among demographic and work-related variables only gender was a significant predictor of work engagement (female coefficient =-15.517). Males may seem more engaged at work for various reasons. Stereotypes and biases linking engineering to masculinity may deter women from pursuing careers in this field. Consequently, there may be fewer female engineers and potentially lower engagement levels among those who do enter the field. Furthermore, Societal expectations and traditional gender roles can hinder women from balancing work and family responsibilities, making it harder for them to fully engage in their careers.

However, this study has been unable to demonstrate associations between other sociodemographic, work-related characteristics, resilience, work engagement, and job satisfaction. The reason for this is not clear but it might be explained in this way; sociodemographic data (e.g., age, gender, education) and work duration may shed some light on individuals’ experiences, but they do not fully determine job satisfaction, resilience, or work engagement. Also, multiple factors, including the nature of the work, work-life balance, relationships with colleagues and supervisors, growth opportunities, and personal characteristics (e.g., psychological factors, emotional intelligence), can influence job satisfaction, resilience, as well as work engagement [ 40 ].

The objective of our research was to examine the relationship between resilience, work engagement, and job satisfaction among engineers in an Oil and Gas company. By investigating these relationships, we aimed to provide insights into the factors that contribute to engineers’ job satisfaction within this specific industry context. Our findings successfully addressed this objective and shed light on the interplay between resilience, work engagement, and job satisfaction among engineers. Therefore, the results of our study have important implications for occupational psychology. Our research provides evidence of the relationship between resilience, work engagement, and job satisfaction, which improves our understanding of these concepts. The findings also emphasize the significance of resilience and work engagement in boosting job satisfaction for engineers. Accordingly, it is crucial to the Oil and Gas sector which is a high-pressure industry to implement strategies to support and enhance these factors among its employees by offering opportunities for growth, and creating a supportive work environment.

Study limitations

While this study sheds light on the link between resilience, work engagement, as well as job satisfaction, several limitations should be acknowledged. Firstly, this study utilized a cross-sectional survey design, which makes it challenging to establish causal relationships among the variables. To address this issue, future research should employ longitudinal designs to examine the temporal relationships between these variables. Secondly, the study was performed within a specific oil and gas company, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other organizations within the industry or to engineers in different sectors. Further research should explore these relationships in diverse companies and industries to provide a broader understanding of the associations between resilience, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Thirdly, the data were gathered through self-report measures, which may introduce information bias. Future research could incorporate objective measures or multiple sources of data to enhance the validity of the findings.

In conclusion, our study highlights the positive associations between resilience, work engagement, and job satisfaction among engineers within an Oil and Gas company with resilience was a significant predictive factor of both work engagement and job satisfaction. Additionally, this study indicates a significant positive correlation between work engagement and job satisfaction, highlighting the crucial role of resilience and work engagement in fostering job satisfaction among employees.

Recommendations

Overall, this research strengthens the idea that organizations particularly in the Oil and Gas sector should prioritize initiatives and programs that focus on improving the resilience of their staff members. This can involve providing resources for stress management, workshops or training to enhance resilience, and promoting a culture that values emotional well-being and personal growth. Furthermore, it is recommended that companies actively promote work-life balance in order to assist employees in building and sustaining resilience and engagement at work, with a particular emphasis on female workers. In the future. Longitudinal studies could be conducted to examine the causal relationships between resilience, work engagement, and job satisfaction among engineers in the Oil and Gas industry. Moreover, qualitative research could be employed to delve into the specific mechanisms and factors that contribute to resilience and work engagement within this particular industry. Lastly, it would be beneficial to examine the effects of organizational interventions and support systems on resilience, work engagement, and job satisfaction in order to develop evidence-based practices and policies.

Data availability

The datasets utilized and/or analyzed in the present study can be accessed by reaching out to the corresponding author through a reasonable inquiry.

Abbreviations

Resilience at Work

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire

Standard Deviation

Interquartile Range

King DD, Newman A, Luthans F. Not if, but when we need resilience in the workplace. J Organ Behav. 2016;37(5):782–6.

Article   Google Scholar  

Malik P, Garg P. Psychometric testing of the Resilience at Work Scale using Indian Sample. Vikalpa. 2018;43(2):77–91.

Frank I. Effect of Occupational Stress on Health of Workers in the Oil & Gas Industry in Nigeria. Int J Sci Eng Res [Internet]. 2018;9(3). http://www.ijser.org .

Gadalla H, Helal H, Nofal A. Impact of the Offshore Oil and Gas Working Environment on the Mental Health and Safety Behaviour of Workers. AIN J. 2024;47(1).

Frank I. Occupational Stress and Risk Factors in the Oil and Gas Industry in Port-Harcourt. Int J Sci Eng Res [Internet]. 2018;9(2). http://www.ijser.org .

Hoboubi N, Choobineh A, Kamari Ghanavati F, Keshavarzi S, Akbar Hosseini A. The impact of job stress and job satisfaction on Workforce Productivity in an Iranian Petrochemical Industry. Saf Health Work. 2017;8(1):67–71.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Geldenhuys M, Łaba K, Venter CM. Meaningful work, work engagement and organisational commitment. SA J Industrial Psychol. 2014;40(1).

Meintjes A, Hofmeyr K. The impact of resilience and perceived organisational support on employee engagement in a competitive sales environment. SA J Hum Resource Manage. 2018;16.

Srivastava S, Madan P. The relationship between resilience and career satisfaction: Trust, political skills and organizational identification as moderators. Australian J Career Dev. 2020;29(1):44–53.

Chikobvu P, Harunavamwe M. The influence of emotional intelligence and resilience on work engagement amongst nurses in public hospitals. SA J Industrial Psychol. 2022;48.

Bonner L. A survey of work engagement and psychological capital levels _ British Journal of nursing. Br J Nurs. 2016;25(15):865–71.

Wiroko EP, Sugiharti D. Gratitude and work engagement: the mediating role of employee resilience. INSPIRA: Indonesian J Psychol Res. 2022;3(2):38–50.

Google Scholar  

Aggarwal V. Resilience and Work Engagement among Employees. The International Journal of Indian Psychology [Internet]. 2022;10(3):1879–95. https://www.ijip.in .

Piotrowski A, Sygit-Kowalkowska E, Boe O, Rawat S, Resilience. Occupational stress, job satisfaction, and intention to leave the Organization among nurses and midwives during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(11).

Bernard N. The relationships between Resilience, Job satisfaction, and anticipated turnover in CNOs. Nurse Lead [Internet]. 2021;101–7. Available from: www.nurseleader.com.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A, Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. (2016). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Journal of Materials and Environmental Science. 2007;7(10):3759–66.

Winwood PC, Colon R, McEwen K. A practical measure of Workplace Resilience: developing the Resilience at Work Scale. J Occup Environ Med. 2013;55(10):1205–12.

Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006;66(4):701–16.

Martins H, Proença T. Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire: psychometric properties and validation in a population of Portuguese hospital workers. Investigação e Intervenção em Recursos Humanos; 2014.

Julie Chavez. Contributions of employee resilience, self-efficacy, and number of years on the job to safety climate scores in manufacturing facilities. Capella University; 2022.

Smith KJ, Emerson DJ, Boster CR, Everly GS. Resilience as a coping strategy for reducing auditor turnover intentions. Acc Res J. 2020;33(3):483–98.

Gelaw YM, Hanoch K, Adini B. Burnout and resilience at work among health professionals serving in tertiary hospitals, in Ethiopia. Front Public Health. 2023;11.

Chen Y, McCabe B, Hyatt D. Impact of individual resilience and safety climate on safety performance and psychological stress of construction workers: a case study of the Ontario construction industry. J Saf Res. 2017;61:167–76.

Khusanova R, Kang SW, Choi SB. Work Engagement among Public employees: antecedents and consequences. Front Psychol. 2021;12.

Mohamed Abd Elhamed S, Hassan Hessuin R. Effect of Resilience on Work Engagement under Authentic Leadership. Egyptian Journal of Health Care [Internet]. 2022;13(3):1158–68. https://ejhc.journals.ekb.eg/article_257891.html .

Prayag G, Muskat B, Dassanayake C. Leading for Resilience: fostering employee and Organizational Resilience in Tourism firms. J Travel Res. 2024;63(3):659–80.

Mache S, Vitzthum K, Wanke E, Groneberg DA, Klapp BF, Danzer G. Exploring the impact of resilience, self-efficacy, optimism and organizational resources on work engagement. Work. 2014;47(4).

Simons JC, Buitendach JH. Psychological capital, work engagement and organisational commitment amongst call centre employees in South Africa. SA J Industrial Psychol. 2013;39(2 SPL).

Walpita YN, Arambepola C. High resilience leads to better work performance in nurses: evidence from South Asia. J Nurs Manag. 2020;28(2):342–50.

Mayfield PL, Gage Hurd D. An examination of resilience and job satisfaction among police officers. Capella University; 2019.

Marsh HW, Dicke T, Riley P, Parker PD, Guo J, Basarkod G, et al. School principals’ mental health and well-being under threat: a longitudinal analysis of workplace demands, resources, burnout, and well-being. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2023;15(3):999–1027.

Kim BN, Oh HS, Park YS. A study of nurses’ resilience, occupational stress and satisfaction. Korean J Occup Health Nurs. 2011;20(1):14–23.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Rahmawati SW. Employee Resiliencies and Job Satisfaction [Internet]. Vol. 2, Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology. 2013. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301677953 .

Hudgins TA. Resilience, job satisfaction and anticipated turnover in nurse leaders. J Nurs Manag. 2016;24(1).

Ghandi P, Hejazi E, Ghandi N. A study on the relationship between resilience and turnover intention: with an emphasis on the mediating roles of job satisfaction and job stress. Bulletin de la Société Royale des Sciences de Liège; 2017.

Zheng Z, Gangaram P, Xie H, Chua S, Ong SBC, Koh SE. Job satisfaction and resilience in psychiatric nurses: a study at the Institute of Mental Health, Singapore. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2017;26(6):612–9.

Jenaro C, Flores N, Orgaz MB, Cruz M. Vigour and dedication in nursing professionals: towards a better understanding of work engagement. J Adv Nurs [Internet]. 2011;67(4):865–75. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05526.x .

Yakın M, Erdil O. Relationships Between Self-Efficacy and Work Engagement and the Effects on Job Satisfaction: A Survey on Certified Public Accountants. Procedia Soc Behav Sci [Internet]. 2012;58:370–8. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877042812044758 .

Ge J, He J, Liu Y, Zhang J, Pan J, Zhang X et al. Effects of effort-reward imbalance, job satisfaction, and work engagement on self-rated health among healthcare workers. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1).

Kašpárková L, Vaculík M, Procházka J, Schaufeli WB. Why resilient workers perform better: the roles of job satisfaction and work engagement. J Workplace Behav Health. 2018;33(1).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

The authors did not receive any financial support from any agency.

Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Public Health, Community Medicine, Environmental Medicine, and Occupational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt

Bassma Abdelhadi Ibrahim & Sarah Mohamed Hussein

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors, BAI and SMH, actively participate in the selection of the topic, formulation of the research proposal, and collection of data. SMH takes charge of analyzing the data and composing the results, while BAI assumes responsibility for writing the discussion. The manuscript is a collaborative effort between both authors, who diligently work together to ensure its quality. Furthermore, they thoroughly review and give their approval to the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bassma Abdelhadi Ibrahim .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study received approval from the Research Ethics Committee of Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University approval No. 5363# on 22/6/2023. The participants agreed on the ethical consent before starting to fill out the survey. The ethical consent agreement was a required section before the questions. The informed consent described the aim of the study, purpose of research, researchers’ information, and voluntary participation. Questionnaires were anonymous to ensure confidentiality of data.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ibrahim, B.A., Hussein, S.M. Relationship between resilience at work, work engagement and job satisfaction among engineers: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 24 , 1077 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18507-9

Download citation

Received : 07 October 2023

Accepted : 02 April 2024

Published : 18 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18507-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Work engagement
• Job satisfaction

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

More From Forbes

The new rules for increasing engagement at work.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Engagement is low, but it's possible to bring it up.

Engagement has hit an 11-year low, especially among the youngest workers and those who work remote or hybrid.

It’s a critical metric and one that leaders and organizations pay close attention to—for good reason. It’s correlated with greater productivity, retention, customer service, safety, quality of work and profitability.

But engagement is also linked with better experiences for people. When employees are engaged, they tend to be healthier and have higher levels of esteem, fulfillment and happiness.

Engagement is good for business, but it’s also good for people.

Sobering Stats

The specifics of the data are sobering. In fact, only 30% of people say they’re highly engaged, and 17% say they’re actively disengaged—a low of 11 years. That’s a ratio of almost two to one: For every two people who are engaged, there is one person who is actively disengaged, according to Gallup .

Those under 35 are most affected—with Gen Zs (age 27 or younger) even more greatly impacted. Those who work away from their colleagues—remote or hybrid—are also hit hardest, based on the Gallup data.

As the landscape of work shifts—with new patterns about where, when and how people are working—engagement can be more of a challenge. Employee demands and expectations have risen, and leaders must shift their approaches as well—creating more intentional experiences while driving results and navigating high levels of emotional labor.

Billionaire Mark Cuban Issues Post Halving Bitcoin Warning Amid Unprecedented Crypto Fee Price Chaos

Aew dynasty 2024 results winners and grades as swerve makes history, who is david pecker why he s testifying against trump in hush money trial.

Proximity is important for engagement.

New Rules for Engagement

In addition to the classical ways to affect engagement, from creating the conditions for learning and growth to meaningful relationships, there are some new rules for engagement as well.

1. Proximity

Proximity is a key way to drive greater engagement and it is especially important today, with hybrid and remote work. Proximity is when people feel close, known and familiar. And proximity can be both literal and figurative.

You have proximity to the person you sit next to regularly when you’re in the office, but you can also have a sense of proximity with the colleague you’re on video calls with regularly or with whom you’re in close email contact.

We have a cognitive bias toward familiarity and tend to be more accepting of people (and art, music and food) that are more familiar. We also have a cognitive bias toward recency—in which we tend to keep people (and things and events) more top of mind when they happen more frequently or recently.

In addition, we tend to follow through on work and be more responsive to people we know and feel close to (either literally or figuratively).

All of this affects engagement. When we’re connected with colleagues, get to know them and understand how our work connects with theirs—and how they’re relying on us—we will be more engaged.

You can enhance people’s senses of proximity by setting clear guidelines about when they should be in the office and—even more importantly—communicate why. Facilitate the process of coordinating when people will be in, based on whom they work most closely with. For example, certain departments may want to agree on core hours for office work.

Build team relationships and perceived proximity by organizing social time together, but also creating affinity groups where people have common interests and can support each other. Give people meaningful work that demands they collaborate. Protect time at the beginning or end of meetings to check in or check out with personal moments to connect and get to know each other beyond the project plan.

2. Presence and Attention

In inspiring engagement, presence and attention are also primary strategies. With everything coming at us and our always-on environments, attention is the most scarce resource. When you’re undistracted during an interaction, it drives positive relationships, motivation and engagement.

In addition, when leaders are present and accessible, they build trust. And when people are present together, they are likely to pick up on each other’s energy and be more productive, according to research published in the Journal of Labor Economics .

In addition, productivity tends to positively affect engagement and satisfaction, according to research published by the Association for Psychological Science . And engagement in turn drives greater satisfaction and productivity. The three experiences—productivity, satisfaction and engagement—reinforce each other.

Tune into employees and pay attention to how they’re showing up. Check in, ask questions and listen to how they’re doing. When employees reach out, respond quickly and thoroughly. And connect them with resources when they need support beyond what you can provide.

3. Performance

Another way to drive engagement is to create the conditions for great performance. People will engage when they are energized by what they do, and when they have clear expectations. In addition, employees will experience more engagement when work is aligned with their current skills, but also with challenges which stretch their capabilities.

Interestingly, in the Gallup study, there were some top-performing companies that had an average of 70% of their employees who were engaged—more than seven times the average across the U.S. One of their strategies was to combine flexibility with accountability, and give people coaching to support their performance.

In fact, when organizations offer more flexibility, they perform better, and when they offer greater choice and control they do as well. But this must be combined with accountability, because people want to know their skills matter and that companies are counting on their deliverables and contribution.

Supporting employees' wellbeing drives engagement.

In a list of important elements for engagement, pizza may seem superficial at best and flippant at worst. But it actually matters more than you might think—especially when it is part of a broader approach to embedding practices and norms that support wellbeing.

Academic research has proven that when people eat together, they build community, increase trust, enhance feelings that life is worthwhile and expand happiness and satisfaction—and all of this fosters engagement. People feel trusting toward their colleagues and positively obligated to them. And they feel motivated to give their best.

The top-performing organizations in the Gallup data also provided multiple services and resources to support wellbeing.

People tend to behave based on reciprocity. When we receive, our instinct is to return. As a result, when organizations provide for experiences and wellbeing, they energize people to provide their best efforts, in turn. Of course, organizations should offer the best for people because it’s just the right thing to do—but it’s also related to engagement and performance because of our human preference for reciprocity.

Create the conditions for wellbeing by providing food (including pizza!) and offering places with daylight, views and natural elements as well as places for privacy, collaboration, learning, socializing and rejuvenating. Provide benefits which offer all kinds of choices for a variety of needs and priorities. And consider wellness programs—from mediation to financial planning.

Purpose is a gold standard for engagement—so perhaps it’s the least novel strategy here—but it is significant. When people feel a sense of purpose, it translates into all kinds of payoffs from productivity to wellbeing.

The benefits of purpose are striking.

• With greater purpose, people engage more deeply and companies who articulate their purpose more clearly, see greater growth, global expansion, successful product launches and successful transformation efforts, according to research published in Harvard Business Review .
• In addition, when leaders behave with purpose—sharing a vision, committing to stakeholders and demonstrating strong morals—employees are able to engage and they are happier and more productive, according to research conducted by the University of Sussex .
• In addition, with a greater sense of purpose, people have lower levels of cardiovascular disease and greater longevity, according to a study published in Psychosomatic Medicine .
• In addition, people experience less loneliness and make healthier lifestyle choices, according to research at the University of Pennsylvania . When people have higher levels of physical, cognitive and emotional wellbeing, they can engage and contribute for their own benefit (esteem, fulfillment) and the organization’s benefit.

Create purpose by reinforcing a bigger picture and clarifying how each employee’s contribution is making a unique contribution to it. And be sure purpose is about people. Beyond committing to financial targets, what will get people out of bed in the morning is knowing how their efforts make a real difference for others.

Enhancing Engagement

Engagement requires all kinds of intentional investments in people—and considering the holistic experience from proximity, presence and performance to pizza and purpose—will make a meaningful difference in the outcomes that result.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Full Culture First Global agenda out now! Explore all sessions and start planning your experience today. See the agenda →

• Sales (US): +1 415 636 8011
• Sales (UK): +44 20 3744 2922
• Sales (AU): +61 3 7035 1005

Last updated April 22, 2024

An eco-work ethic? How sustainability influences employee engagement

• Share article via Email Share article via Email
• Share article on LinkedIn Share article on LinkedIn
• Share article on Twitter Share article on Twitter
• Share article on Facebook Share article on Facebook

Earth Day shines a temporary spotlight on social impact and sustainability, but as concerns about climate change and environmental issues intensify, these concepts are becoming increasingly important to company culture all year long. The growing focus on sustainability is partially driven by employee demand – and it affects where today's talent chooses to work.

A 2023 Deloitte survey of nearly 23,000 employees found “55% of respondents reporting that they research brands’ environmental impact and policies before accepting a job, and more than 40% reporting that they already have, or plan to, change jobs due to climate concerns.” Those are big numbers. If job candidates are taking environmental policies into account before accepting a role, companies ought to take the matter seriously.

At Culture Amp, we do take environmentalism seriously – both internally and externally. In fact, we’re releasing our Net Zero plan .

In this article, we’ll dive into the relationship between sustainability and employee engagement and share how we demonstrate our genuine commitment to social impact.

First, let’s look at the research.

We set out to see if survey responses to questions on sustainability and social impact translate to actual behavior. Specifically, do companies that focus on sustainability have more highly engaged employees?

Setting science-based targets creates a modest 2% bump in engagement

We looked at data from 109 Culture Amp customers who are taking action on climate change by setting science-based targets . Across responses from 243,235 employees, we found a small but meaningful difference: These companies are 2% points higher on engagement than a control group (matched by industry, region, company size, employee tenure, and employee age). The largest impact is on employee commitment, with employees at companies with science-based targets being 4% points more likely to see themselves working there in two years’ time. This boost in commitment suggests a direct link between environmental action and workplace loyalty.

Unsurprisingly, the mere act of setting targets pales in comparison to the impact of perceived authenticity in a company's environmental efforts. Employees look internally for evidence of greenwashing – “the act or practice of making a product, policy, activity, etc. appear to be more environmentally friendly or less environmentally damaging than it really is." And it turns out that employees’ antenna for greenwashing influences how engaged they are at the company.

While setting targets is good, having a genuine commitment is better

Employees at companies deemed genuinely committed to sustainability reported a substantial 16% increase in engagement levels. This effect was consistent across demographics, with only slight variations among different age groups, highlighting the universal appeal of genuine sustainability commitments. Given that this data stems from over 1000 companies and nearly 400,000 employees worldwide, we’re taking it with more than a grain of salt.

When employees perceive their company to have a genuine commitment to sustainability, they are far more motivated to go above and beyond, more committed to staying in the long and short term, and more enthusiastic about the company overall.

These findings reflect a broader trend, says Ella McKinley, Sustainability Lead:

“Employees are wise to greenwashing and want to see real action over surface-level commitments. What we’re seeing is employees holding companies to an increasingly high standard on sustainability. They want to see real action and leaders who are authentically invested in making a difference.”

Commitment to sustainability matters to people of all age groups

The connection between sustainability and engagement does not appear to be generational. Looking at the differences by age, we expected to see Gen Z employees most motivated by a genuine commitment to sustainability and social impact. While that was the case, their responses were not significantly different from those of Millennials. Employees of all ages saw a boost in engagement if the company was genuinely committed, but those over 65 had the smallest boost.

These findings are not surprising to Andrew Davies, the CEO of B Lab Australia & Aotearoa New Zealand. He says,

“ As employees expect more meaningful action on sustainability from their employers, B Corp Certification differentiates leading companies that are transparent and accountable for the impact they have on people, planet, and communities. Certified B Corps go beyond sustainable products and pledges, using the B Impact Assessment framework to measure, manage and improve their holistic impact across every area from governance to customers, workers, communities and the environment. This research from Culture Amp reflects what we have known for a long time, that setting targets is just the beginning, and that companies need to be genuinely committed to continuous improvement. ”

That said, companies who are surveying their employees about social impact and sustainability are likely ahead of the game.

Three-quarters of companies don’t know how employees perceive their sustainability commitment

While the data shows that employees’ perceptions of a company’s sustainability commitment are important, most organizations are not asking for this information.

Globally, across Culture Amp’s 6500+ customers, only 27% of surveys include the question “[Company]'s commitment to social responsibility (e.g. community support, sustainability, etc.) is genuine.” And we see regional differences:

• 37% of Australian employees are asked
• 26% in UK and Germany
• 28% in the US

Companies whose work is closely tied to climate change or its impact are most likely to ask about employees’ perceptions of their climate commitment. This includes construction and heavy industry, manufacturing, and logistics and transport. While tech companies are often seen as progressive and forward-looking, they are least likely to ask about commitment to sustainability and social impact.

As we synthesize these insights, several themes emerge. Firstly, the data underscores the importance of authenticity in sustainability efforts. Employees are not just looking for token gestures but meaningful actions that reflect a deep-seated commitment to sustainability.

Secondly, industries’ role in shaping the sustainability conversation highlights the potential for cross-sector learning and collaboration. The proactive stance of the construction industry, in particular, suggests that sectors traditionally not associated with environmental leadership can, in fact, spearhead significant change.

Moving from insight to action on sustainability

How do we move from insight to action? The answer lies in taking a holistic approach that integrates genuine commitment with strategic communication and tailored engagement strategies. Companies must ask themselves tough questions about the authenticity of their sustainability efforts and seek feedback from their most valuable asset: their employees.

How can companies convince their employees that their commitment is genuine? What might they do to improve employee engagement through social impact?

Carmen Wong, Board Chair for Culture Amp’s ERG focused on sustainability, shares her take:

“ It comes down to having a really clear mission, being transparent in what you do, leading by example from the top, and giving back to the community (ie, partnering with a non-profit, donating, etc.).”

She goes on to highlight that bringing like-minded people together may not be enough. She says,

“It’s one thing to simply have a space for folks to come together and talk about such topics; it’s another thing to see leaders really support this initiative, show up to events, and talk about the importance of having a Net Zero plan.”

For Carmen, the icing on the cake comes from leaders who openly talk about and sponsor personal or company-wide sustainability efforts. She adds:

“It was really great to see our Exec Sponsor, Will Werhane, share with us how he commits to a more green lifestyle and how he educates his family. This not only shows that he supports our cause as an ERG, but through these genuine conversations, we understood where he stood with regards to the climate crisis and how he was showing up as a father, a husband, and a senior leader .”

Consider organizing team service days

If your company is looking to take one low-effort, high-impact action to demonstrate a greater commitment to environmental efforts, our data points to team service days.

Companies that implemented team service days – giving employees a day off once per quarter to volunteer – improved 15% points on “[Company]'s commitment to social responsibility (e.g. community support, sustainability, etc.) is genuine.” Agreement rose from 67% prior to implementing to 82% after.

In this era of heightened environmental consciousness, the path forward for organizations is clear. Beyond mere compliance or marketing strategies, a deep, genuine commitment to sustainability can transform workplace dynamics, drive engagement, and position companies as leaders in the global effort to forge a sustainable future.

What drives engagement at your organization?

Understand your employees better with Culture Amp’s flexible survey templates, industry-leading insights, and proven action plans.

Heather Walker

Senior People Scientist, Culture Amp

Fresia Jackson

Lead Research People Scientist, Culture Amp

What’s next

Launching our Net Zero Plan

Decoding success metrics: Understanding OKRs vs KPIs

The transformative power of employee resource groups in driving DEI

Build a world-class employee experience today

For full functionality of this site it is necessary to enable JavaScript. Here are the instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your web browser.

Your browser is out of date. Our website is built to provide a faster, more engaging experience. Your browser may not support all of our features. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge or contact your network administrator.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Majority of workers who quit a job in 2021 cite low pay, no opportunities for advancement, feeling disrespected

The COVID-19 pandemic set off nearly unprecedented churn in the U.S. labor market. Widespread job losses in the early months of the pandemic gave way to tight labor markets in 2021, driven in part by what’s come to be known as the Great Resignation . The nation’s “quit rate” reached a 20-year high last November.

A new Pew Research Center survey finds that low pay, a lack of opportunities for advancement and feeling disrespected at work are the top reasons why Americans quit their jobs last year. The survey also finds that those who quit and are now employed elsewhere are more likely than not to say their current job has better pay, more opportunities for advancement and more work-life balance and flexibility.

Majorities of workers who quit a job in 2021 say low pay (63%), no opportunities for advancement (63%) and feeling disrespected at work (57%) were reasons why they quit, according to the Feb. 7-13 survey. At least a third say each of these were major reasons why they left.  

Roughly half say child care issues were a reason they quit a job (48% among those with a child younger than 18 in the household). A similar share point to a lack of flexibility to choose when they put in their hours (45%) or not having good benefits such as health insurance and paid time off (43%). Roughly a quarter say each of these was a major reason.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to better understand the experiences of Americans who quit a job in 2021. This analysis is based on 6,627 non-retired U.S. adults, including 965 who say they left a job by choice last year. The data was collected as a part of a larger survey conducted Feb. 7-13, 2022. Everyone who took part is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology.

About four-in-ten adults who quit a job last year (39%) say a reason was that they were working too many hours, while three-in-ten cite working too few hours. About a third (35%) cite wanting to relocate to a different area, while relatively few (18%) cite their employer requiring a COVID-19 vaccine as a reason.

When asked separately whether their reasons for quitting a job were related to the coronavirus outbreak, 31% say they were. Those without a four-year college degree (34%) are more likely than those with a bachelor’s degree or more education (21%) to say the pandemic played a role in their decision.

For the most part, men and women offer similar reasons for having quit a job in the past year. But there are significant differences by educational attainment.

Among adults who quit a job in 2021, those without a four-year college degree are more likely than those with at least a bachelor’s degree to point to several reasons. These include not having enough flexibility to decide when they put in their hours (49% of non-college graduates vs. 34% of college graduates), having to work too few hours (35% vs. 17%) and their employer requiring a COVID-19 vaccine (21% vs. 8%).

There are also notable differences by race and ethnicity. Non-White adults who quit a job last year are more likely than their White counterparts to say the reasons include not having enough flexibility (52% vs. 38%), wanting to relocate to a different area (41% vs. 30%), working too few hours (37% vs. 24%) or their employer requiring that they have a COVID-19 vaccine (27% vs. 10%). The non-White category includes those who identify as Black, Asian, Hispanic, some other race or multiple races. These groups could not be analyzed separately due to sample size limitations.

Many of those who switched jobs see improvements

A majority of those who quit a job in 2021 and are not retired say they are now employed, either full-time (55%) or part-time (23%). Of those, 61% say it was at least somewhat easy for them to find their current job, with 33% saying it was very easy. One-in-five say it was very or somewhat difficult, and 19% say it was neither easy nor difficult.

For the most part, workers who quit a job last year and are now employed somewhere else see their current work situation as an improvement over their most recent job. At least half of these workers say that compared with their last job, they are now earning more money (56%), have more opportunities for advancement (53%), have an easier time balancing work and family responsibilities (53%) and have more flexibility to choose when they put in their work hours (50%).

Still, sizable shares say things are either worse or unchanged in these areas compared with their last job. Fewer than half of workers who quit a job last year (42%) say they now have better benefits, such as health insurance and paid time off, while a similar share (36%) says it’s about the same. About one-in-five (22%) now say their current benefits are worse than at their last job.

College graduates are more likely than those with less education to say that compared with their last job, they are now earning more (66% vs. 51%) and have more opportunities for advancement (63% vs. 49%). In turn, those with less education are more likely than college graduates to say they are earning less in their current job (27% vs. 16%) and that they have fewer opportunities for advancement (18% vs. 9%).

Employed men and women who quit a job in 2021 offer similar assessments of how their current job compares with their last one. One notable exception is when it comes to balancing work and family responsibilities: Six-in-ten men say their current job makes it easier for them to balance work and family – higher than the share of women who say the same (48%).

Some 53% of employed adults who quit a job in 2021 say they have changed their field of work or occupation at some point in the past year. Workers younger than age 30 and those without a postgraduate degree are especially likely to say they have made this type of change.

Younger adults and those with lower incomes were more likely to quit a job in 2021

Overall, about one-in-five non-retired U.S. adults (19%) – including similar shares of men (18%) and women (20%) – say they quit a job at some point in 2021, meaning they left by choice and not because they were fired, laid off or because a temporary job had ended.

Adults younger than 30 are far more likely than older adults to have voluntarily left their job last year: 37% of young adults say they did this, compared with 17% of those ages 30 to 49, 9% of those ages 50 to 64 and 5% of those ages 65 and older.

Experiences also vary by income, education, race and ethnicity. About a quarter of adults with lower incomes (24%) say they quit a job in 2021, compared with 18% of middle-income adults and 11% of those with upper incomes.

Across educational attainment, those with a postgraduate degree are the least likely to say they quit a job at some point in 2021: 13% say this, compared with 17% of those with a bachelor’s degree, 20% of those with some college and 22% of those with a high school diploma or less education.  

About a quarter of non-retired Hispanic and Asian adults (24% each) report quitting a job last year; 18% of Black adults and 17% of White adults say the same.

Note: Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology.

• Business & Workplace
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• COVID-19 & the Economy
• Income & Wages

A look at small businesses in the U.S.

Majorities of adults see decline of union membership as bad for the u.s. and working people, a look at black-owned businesses in the u.s., from businesses and banks to colleges and churches: americans’ views of u.s. institutions, 2023 saw some of the biggest, hardest-fought labor disputes in recent decades, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Employee engagement practices during COVID‐19 lockdown

Nisha chanana.

1 Swami Devi Dyal Institute of Management Studies, Swami Devi Dyal Group of Professional Institutions, Panchkula, Haryana India

2 PCJ School of Management, Maharaja Agrasen University, Solan, Himachal Pradesh India

In the present business situation during the COVID‐19 pandemic, employee engagement has become one of the utmost prominent primacies for human resource managers and practitioners in organizations due to lockdown. The paper is to determine the engagement of employees by various companies during coronavirus pandemic. Organizations nowadays are constantly developing innovative and effective means to engage the employees during this tough time. This paper is a conceptual paper that is based on various research papers, articles, blogs, online newspapers, and reports of World Health Organization. During this pandemic situation, organizations are evolving many engagement activities like online family engagement practices, virtual learning and development, online team building activities, webinars with industry experts, online conduct weekly alignment sessions, team meet‐ups over video conference for lunch, short online game sessions, virtual challenges and competitions, online courses, appreciation sessions, communication exercises, live sessions for new‐skill training, online counseling sessions, recognition and acknowledgment session, webinars dealing with anxiety and stress, providing online guidance for exercise and meditation, social interactions in a virtual office, classrooms training modules digitally, e‐learning modules, and many more creative learning sessions. Work‐from‐home regime engagement activities are very fruitful for employees as well as for organizations. Those organizations doing these kinds of engagement activities for their employees are learning new skills and developing themselves. Employees are feeling committed to the organization and stay motivated during this tough time of COVID‐19 pandemic.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. employee engagement.

Today, the business setup is changing in relation to the global pandemic of COVID‐19. Human resource managers are persistently evolving innovative, creative, and effective ways to engage the employees in a healthier way during this difficult time. Employee engagement is a workplace attitude that is ensuing all adherents of an organization to give of their excellence every day, committed toward their organization's goals and values. Organizations always remember that employees who are well engaged in an organization will lead to productivity in the place of work, and this generates a higher customer satisfaction and, absolutely, developments in sales and profit in the company.

The major challenge in theoretical literature is when we discuss the term “engagement” because there is a lack of a general definition of employee engagement. (Kahn,  1990 ) described in his study that engagement indicates physiological and physical existence of executing an organizational role. Psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability are the three constructs that help engagement to develop in an organization. Further study suggests that in engagement, individuals employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally in their role performances. The cognitive facet is associated with beliefs of leaders, employees, and working environments. The emotional facet means employees positive or negative attitude toward the organization and the leaders. Physical facet means the physical force devoted in order to accomplish an organizational role. Kahn's model is tested by May, Gilson, and Harter ( 2004 ) and the result showed that meaningfulness, safety, and availability of psychological condition are positively associated with engagement. Schaufeli, Martinez, Pinto, Salanova, and Bakker ( 2002 ) develop the term job engagement and explained job engagement as a positive and a work‐related state of mind, and it is considered by strength, dedication, and absorption. This study explained employee engagement as the individual's involvement, satisfaction, and enthusiasm for work (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes,  2002 ). This study suggests that engagement is closest to job involvement, well‐being, and emotions (May et al.,  2004 ). Employee engagement comprises two important facets, that is, job engagement and organization engagement (Saks,  2006 ). An engaged employee always does care about their effort, work, and performance, and employees want to feel that their work, efforts, and performance could make a difference. Employee engagement is usually understood as an inner state of mind, that is, physically, emotionally, and mentally, that binds together the commitment, satisfaction, and work effort in an employee.

Engaged employees support the organization to attain its mission, execute its strategy, and generate significant business results. Employee engagement can be enhanced by different HR practices comprising job design, recruitment, selection, compensation, training, and performance management (Vance,  2006 ). Organizations that support employee engagement, intelligently manage talent, and communicate with employees honestly, accurately, and at the right time will ride the current market turbulence and be successful in the future (Robison,  2009 ). Organizations and employees are both dependent on each other to fulfill their goals and objectives. Employee engagement should not be a one‐time implementation, but it should be integrated into the culture of the company. Career development prospects, encouragement, communication, recognition, the flexibility of employee's hours, fair pay structure, transparent and open work environment, and participation in decision‐making are the factors contributing to employee engagement at the workplace (Patro,  2013 ). To improve the purpose of effective employee engagement, six C's parameters are essential, that is, clarity, confidence, convey, connect, credibility, and career. An engaged employee is attentive about their work and about the performance of the company, and they always desire to feel that their determinations and hard work could make a difference. Engaged employees lead to productivity in the workplace, and this generates higher customer satisfaction and positive rises in sales and also profit in the organizations. Confidence and communication among both employees and organizations are also essential. This unification between the enterprise and the employee is a necessity as both are able to best in performance (Sarangi & Nayak,  2016 ). Employee engagement is built on belief, reliability, commitment, and communication between an organization and its adherents. Organizations can increase engagement by enhancing employee decision‐making, commitment, and transparency from senior leadership. Employee engagement is the level of enthusiasm and commitment an employee feels toward his/her job (Chandani, Mehta, Mall, & Khokhar, 2016 ). Employee engagement is an approach that proliferates the chances of business achievement, subsidizing to organizational and individual performance, productivity, and well‐being of employees.

1.2. COVID‐19 lockdown

The severe respiratory disease recently appeared in Wuhan (Hubei province), China. Epidemiological examinations have suggested that the epidemic was related to a seafood market in Wuhan, China (Fan et al.,  2020 ). COVID‐19 is a pandemic that has already reached 5,934,936 confirmed cases globally, with at least 367,166 deaths as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO) as of May 31, 2020. In the European region, the total number of confirmed cases is 2,142,547 and 180,085 deaths reported. In regions of the Americas, confirmed cases are 2,743,793 and 157,702 deaths confirmed. In Eastern Mediterranean region, total number of confirmed cases is 505,001 and 12,353 deaths reported. In the Western Pacific region, it is 181,665 confirmed cases and 7,028 deaths reported. In South‐East Asia region, confirmed cases are 260,579, and deaths are reported as 7,431. African region reported 100,610 confirmed cases and 2,554 deaths. World Health Organization risk assessment report states that COVID‐19 is very high risk at the global level (World Health Organization,  2020a ). Those people who are living with NCDs (noncommunicable diseases) are more susceptible to becoming seriously ill or dying from COVID‐19 (World Health Organization,  2020b ).

World Health Organization also provides some recommendations and advice for the public. According to WHO, maximum persons infected with the COVID‐19 virus will experience mild to moderate respiratory illness and convalesce without requiring any special treatment. Those people who are old and individuals who have medical problems like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and chronic respiratory disease are more likely to develop severe illness. According to WHO guidelines, individuals should protect themselves and others from COVID‐19 infection by washing their hands or using an alcohol‐based rub frequently. According to the report of WHO (World Health Organization,  2020c ), the COVID‐19 virus spreads primarily through droplets of saliva or discharge from the nose when an infected person coughs or sneezes. According to the research, there is no effective vaccine or approved drug treatment against COVID‐19 developed. In this situation, most of the countries go for lockdown, so that spread of COVID‐19 will break soon. Several countries have also closed borders to avoid international travelers from spreading the virus (Ghosh, Brindisi, Shahabi, Mackenzie, & Andrew,  2020 ). According to Business Insider (Kaplan, Frias, & Mefall‐Johnsen,  2020 ), most of the countries are executing measures to slow the spread of the COVID‐19, from national quarantines to school closures.

Most of the countries are applying some form of restriction to the public like lockdown, social distancing, and wearing a face mask when you step out of your home. As per the need of the hour, most of the organizations started working online and initiated a work‐from‐home (WFH) regime. Due to lockdown, most of the organizations provide the facility to their employees to work from home. But work from home is difficult for employees as they do not feel the organizational climate at home, as lack of concentration due to frequent invasion of family members; work–life conflict arise due to this. Even they do not have proper equipment and tools (computer, mouse, printers, scanners, headphones, webcam, internet connection, and dedicated workspace—a quiet place to work). Most of the employees feel stressed due to rising cases of COVID‐19 in the world. They are not sure about their job security and also about their salary. Due to these problems, employees could not concentrate/focus on their work, so there is a need for employee engagement. The prime responsibility of the organization is to take care of their employees' well‐being and engage them properly. Those employees who are engaged well are giving 100% result. Leaders should provide some motivational talk lectures, boost their morale, and provide security and open environment so employees can raise their voice if they are having some issues. Leaders can use multimedia for communication. There should be transparent policy, so employees do not feel stress about their job and engage in their job well mannered.

1.3. Review of literature

Robison ( 2009 ) suggested on how to manage in turbulent times and keep employees focused and engaged in times of change. Some tips are given by the author like tell employees what organization expects from them, make sure employees have the right materials and equipment, give employees the opportunity to do what they do best, do not forget to give recognition, let your employees know you care about them, and always keep encouraging their development. Employee engagement can be used as a mediator to develop the attitudes, intention, and behavior of employees to an improved work performance (Andrew & Sofian,  2012 ; Saks,  2006 ). Andrew and Saudah ( 2012 ) concluded that employee engagement can be utilized as a mediator to enhance the behavior, intention, and attitudes of employees toward a better work performance. Basquille ( 2013 ) recommended that managers should be supported by the executive to provide development assistance, career support, and recognition. These factors enhance employee engagement effectively. Patro ( 2013 ) revealed that companies have to provide their employees the freedom to make their work interesting and forming an environment for having an engaged work life. Further study suggests that employee engagement should be a continuous process of learning, improvement, and action. Therefore, organizations today should actively look forward to fulfilling employee's expectations and generate an impact on the performance of the employee, which directly marks the organization's performance.

Bedarkar and Pandita ( 2014 ) projected an integrated model of employee engagement. The study result has shown that leadership, communication, and work–life balance are the key drivers of employee engagement. Groups, presence perceived, ease of use, and reputation of Facebook functions are the four factors that significantly contribute towards employee engagement (Abd Latib, Bolong, & Ghazali,  2014 ). Jalal ( 2016 ) study outcomes directed that employee engagement has a significant positive effect on organizational commitment and also found employee engagement as an important determinant of organizational commitment. The finding of the study suggests that the more employees are engaged in the workplace, high will be their commitment toward the organization or institution. Lee et al. ( 2016 ) study outcomes suggest that it is a challenge for HR professionals to keep present employees engaged with their jobs. Results revealed that workers are moderately engaged, meaning some may be detached from their current roles or fearful of losing their jobs. Job satisfaction is a significant driver of work engagement. Garg, Dar, and Mishra ( 2017 ) result revealed that there is a positive relationship between job satisfaction and work engagement. Further analysis showed that employee job satisfaction leads to employee engagement. Employee engagement link to financial performance comprising revenue growth, profit margins, shareholder return, and operating income is almost three times greater than organizations with disengaged personnel. It also elaborates that higher employee engagement level results in lower absenteeism and job stress and better well‐being and health. Further research shows that employee engagement has an effect on a company's bottom line and is sturdily linked to business performance (Saks,  2017 ). Engagement of employees results in business profits like cost and time savings if an organization provides a strong corporate culture in which personnel feel important and supported by the organization. Management trusts in employees, slightly flatter hierarchies, and leaders acting as role models increase the level of employee engagement (Sievert & Scholz,  2017 ). Internal communication satisfaction and employee engagement both are intercorrelated concept and the antecedent. Further study suggests asignificant role of internal communication satisfaction in high employee engagement (Verčič & Vokić,  2017 ). Engaged employees have emotional association with their work as well as their organization. Engaged employees always trust in the leaders of the organization. Hence, engaged employees are more dedicated and committed toward their work as well as organization.

Engaged personnel are always optimistic, keep good interpersonal rapport with each other, and also show high level of performance in the organization (Jena, Pradhan, & Panigrahy,  2018 ). Tiwari and Lenka ( 2019 ) revealed that functional, economic, and psychological benefits upsurge employees' level of engagement. Results indicate that internal corporate communication, perceived communication satisfaction, knowledge sharing, continuous learning, and intrapreneurship were positively associated with employee engagement. This paper found that if organizations invested in their human resources and building complete human resource management (HRM) system in their organization, it produces an engaged personnel, and, in return, organizations improve their performance (Tensay & Singh,  2020 ). Employees those dispositional happiness experience at higher level always practice higher levels of employee engagement (Barreiro & Treglown,  2020 ). Employee engagement is critical for an organization to retain their valued employees. It is very essential for an organization to do effective utilization of human resources in an organization. Without employee engagement, an organization cannot survive for a lengthy period.

1.4. Rationale of the study

The maximum of the nations is in lockdown due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. In this difficult situation, work‐from‐home regime is implemented by most of the organizations. But work‐from‐home regime is challenging for employees as well as for organizations during this difficult situation. Due to this problem, companies need to engage their employees in refined ways with the help of various employee engagement practices. This paper is to determine the various creative and innovative ways of employee engagement, so that employees can easily do work from home and stay committed, satisfied, and motivated during this pandemic situation.

1.5. Objective of the study

To determine the employee engagement practices during COVID‐19 lockdown.

1.6. Research methodology

This paper is a conceptual paper based on secondary data. Conceptual articles get organized manifold varying streams of content to provide some new understanding (Chermack & Passmore,  2005 ). The data collected derived from secondary research carried out by various researchers and groups. In the course of investigation, most data present in research papers, articles, blogs, and online newspapers provided insights into the concepts and practices of employee engagement related to COVID‐19 and tough times. COVID‐19 data are collected from the reports of World Health Organization. A methodical and wide literature review was conducted related to employee engagement literatures. The integrative literature review is a unique form of research that creates new understanding and knowledge about the topic reviewed (Torraco,  2005 ). Literature reviews purpose is to précis the present form of literature linked to certain phenomenon (Chermack & Passmore,  2005 ). Employee engagement is very essential for all the organizations during this COVID‐19 pandemic situation. In a lockdown, employee engagement practices keep them motivated, committed, satisfied, and contented in this tough time.

1.7. Employee engagement is important during tough times

According to the American Management Association, engagement levels can be improved, even throughout the tough periods, if companies take care and make the right decisions at the right time. According to the study, higher engagement levels are linked to improved productivity and a healthier bottom line. In good times or bad, worker engagement should be a top priority of organizations (Vickers,  2019 ). According to The Guardian , employee engagement helps to increase strong positive attitudes among people toward their work and their organization in difficult times. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship are the factors that play a major role to make up employee engagement. According to the newspaper, when employee engagement is high, organizations do better. To enhance employee engagement in difficult times, organizations should make more efforts toward the employees so that employees feel that their organization is genuinely interested in them (Robertson,  2012 ). According to Groove Management Blog (Formato,  2014 ), leadership needs to be more visible in tough times than at any other time. If organizations want their employees be engaged, then leaders should take responsibility and motivate them to achieve your future promise. Effective communication plan influences the employees to engage in their work and accomplish their objectives in difficult times. According to the blog, employee engagement is so critical in difficult times and only leadership can do wonders through employee engagement via an effective communication plan. Personnel wants to get their message through multiple channels, and the best practice is to release the information via multimedia. Deal, Stawiski, and Gentry ( 2010 ) revealed that during the tough time, additional benefit packages and fair and comparable pay structures should be given to their employees to keep them engaged and motivated. Organizations also provide employees all the tools and resources so that they can accomplish their job effectively. To keep engagement high among employees, managers should provide effective feedback and direction to their subordinates from time to time. Masson ( 2009 ) suggested that leaders should effectively communicate to employees toward their career growth, so that employees trust that development processes are fair and equitable. Supervisors should be transparent and to help employees identify their developmental needs and also enhance their skills during tough times. DVV media HR group limited (2018) article states some actionable tips for employee engagement during tough times. The most important is strengthening employee engagement. Others tips are: leaders have the responsibility for being role models during tough times, integrate employee feedback into your company culture, communicate clearly and consistently, support your managers, and keep motivation high with rewards and recognition.

Jones and Kober ( 2019 ) explained some strategies related to how to achieve superior employee engagement in difficult times and higher business results. These strategies are:

• Stay centered on your core values—it encourages employee engagement in difficult times.
• Explicitly support your employee—so they remain motivated during tough times.
• Solicit employee feedback—ask employees to freely share information, both frustrations and ideas for developments in a productive way.
• Communicate upfront with employees—leaders should communicate openly and honestly, so employees perform more effectively.
• Commit to your employee's employment—so employees should be committed to your organization.

Matkin ( 2016 ) mentioned that vision should be clear and concise and should be properly communicated to the employees, so they can get direction during tough times. In an organization, there should be open‐door policies; this kind of platform gives employees a voice. Organizations should be fully transparent with their employees; this kind of transparency builds trust among the employees toward the organization during difficult times. Article published in Nature (Fan et al.,  2020 ) stated five tips to help support employees working from home. These are:

• Create a healthy workspace—encourage workers to create a healthy workspace at home. Encourage employees to work ergonomically from home as best they can and review their work‐at‐home setup.
• Maintain a routine—encourage employees to stick to a routine and to maintain boundaries between their “work” time and “home” time.
• Do not forget to be social—communication with colleagues is a great stress reliever. An organization should set up a session for fun activities that would normally take place in the office.
• Encourage well‐being practices—organizations should care about their employee's well‐being; it can help reduce absenteeism, boost engagement, and performance.
• Invest in technology—communication tools such as instant messaging and video and voice calling platforms can help to keep teams connected. It is important to invest in a recognition platform that allows employees to send and receive recognition.

1.8. Employee engagement practices during the COVID ‐19 lockdown

As organizations develop various engagement practices to implement full‐time remote work policies due to COVID‐19, here are some practices to keep your employees engaged in their jobs work‐from‐home regime.

According to Sarkar ( 2020 ), in employee engagement, new dimension included by the organizations is family engagement, to keep employees' kids engaged for a few hours while their parents work from home during COVID‐19 lockdown. Organizations that are doing these practices are Genpact, Accenture, Deloitte, AMD, and Hinduja Global Solutions. Talukar ( 2020 ) article suggested five tips for practicing employee engagement during the COVID‐19 pandemic. These are: build a much stronger communication regime with your remote teams, do not forget to cheer them up with instant appreciation, loosen up and ensure flexibility, create a virtual community with all your employees, and host online team building activities. Goswami ( 2020 ) article is about engaging downtime employees during the lockdown period. Manufacturing companies, like CEAT, SAR, and Aditya Birla are elevating the downtime of employees. Through learning and development, companies keep the workforce engaged during the lockdown. Some companies provide TED Talks, webinars with industry experts, books, e‐learning, and self‐developed contents to their employees. Some companies also motivate their employees during the pandemic time and try to assuage their fears to ensure they stay positive. CEAT hired fitness trainers to keep the downtime employees and their families motivated through podcasts and live calls. Dutta ( 2020 ) article explains about the digital learning programs to upgrade the skills of employees during the lockdown. By developing learning opportunities, providing various resources for incessant professional growth, and keeping employees engaged during this tough period, organizations can empower digital personnel ready for the future. Singh ( 2020a ) mentioned that organizations must focus on employee engagement during COVID‐19 outbreak. According to the article, when employees have significant work and organizations continuously provide growth opportunities to them, then they feel motivated and committed toward their organization. Engaging remote employees generate a culture of openness in which employees can get new ideas. Engagement programs raise employees' inquisitiveness and help in bringing out the inventive and creative side of the workforce. So, it becomes necessary for companies to take effective employee engagement measures during tough times.

Goyal, Trivedi, Nandwani, Changulani, and Lokhandwala ( 2020 ) suggested and explained various ways to increase employee engagement during the lockdown. These are: conduct weekly alignment session, team meet‐ups, entire team gathers over video conference for lunch, short online game session, virtual challenges and competitions, 5 min of informal talk, shared content such as TED Talks, books, online courses, brainstorming focus, aha, apology and appreciation session, communication exercise, ditch a task, map of alignment, and emphasize results over timelines. Singh ( 2020b ) discussed the various issues of employees they are facing during this tough time. This article suggested that businesses must understand the stress levels of personnel during this difficult time; there should be an open environment and proper communication channels where personnel can come forward to discuss the issues they are dealing with. Most of the businesses are organizing contests, challenges, and hackathons for their workforces. Companies are regularly examining the well‐being of employees and offering solutions that support a healthy work–life balance. During this time, companies focus on the learning and development of their employees. Most of the organizations are introducing webinars and live sessions for new‐skill training to online counseling sessions helping employees to stay safe and healthy at home. Anand ( 2020 ) revealed that lockdown has caused huge disruption in the world as billions of people are self‐isolating in homes. This article suggested four tips for better employee engagement during the lockdown. Build solid communication channels like messaging platforms, video conferencing, and email. Appreciation, recognition, and acknowledgment of employees are necessary during this tough time. Employees will need to take time off to make meals, play with their kids, and perform household chores, so keep things flexible. Businesses should plan meetings in the virtual world with their employees.

Nair ( 2020 ) explored that many employee engagement programs are run by Capgemini during this difficult time. Capgemini introduces structured employee engagement programs like constant communication with employees through video messages from the company's leadership, creating and maintaining social networks in virtual communities, creating a sense of belonging, arranged counseling service for employees, conducting webinars dealing with anxiety and stress, sharing best practices of maintaining health and hygiene and also provide guidance for exercise and Meditation. Bhardwaj ( 2020 ) discussed the steps taken by Cars24 to ensure maximum employee engagement and raise a sense of belongingness with the company. Various activities are conducted by the Cars24 including challenges like sharing a picture with your pet, a selfie with the family, fun awards, and “Know Your Leaders” where the employees were quizzed about their general knowledge of the leaders, mental fitness and meditations online classes, a hidden talent show, virtual karaoke challenge, a virtual campfire challenge, fostering team spirit, video calls, and various online group challenges to boost employee morale and engagement.

Brunswick group (Metts,  2020 ) mentioned that companies need to develop employee engagement and communication plans to keep morale high and help their people stay connected with each other. Communications to employees should be regular and frequent, allow weekly all‐employee video conferences or conference calls, remind colleagues to take extra precautions on potential data breaches and other cyber‐security issues, and encourage employees to share work–from‐home experience and tips—what do they find challenging and how to stay focused and productive. Fallon ( 2020 ) elaborates the team engagement during coronavirus pandemic. Article explains some ways to keep employees engaged like keep people updated through transparent communication, prepare powerful presentations, and get everyone on video. Leaders lead by example with a good remote work setup, avoid micromanaging, maintain friendly social interactions in the virtual office, and get employee feedback on how they are feeling. Hasan ( 2020 ) explained the various ways companies are serving employees in response to COVID‐19. Amway is on‐going with the increments, promotions, and recognition as per previous plans. The company has planned virtual engagement programs like external webinars to learn new skills and also announced employee's medical‐claim plans that will cover treatment costs for COVID‐19. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages has launched a virtual employee engagement program that seeks to involve employee's colleagues and their family members online for their physical and mental wellness. McDonald's India has adopted many of its classrooms training modules digitally and introduced e‐learning modules, quizzes, master classes by managers, and many more creative learning sessions, which employees can access on their phone while in quarantine at home. ITC Hotels has rolled a number of e‐learning courses targeted at specific roles and levels through primary channels of E‐learning to provide an opportunity for self‐learning which can be accentuated through anytime app‐based hosting. Clix Capital is also hosting live e‐sessions on its learning platform.

Various companies are doing employee engagement practices in a very innovative and creative manner to keep their employees satisfied and committed toward the organization. It is very essential to do employee engagement practices during this difficult time of the pandemic.

2. CONCLUSION

Engaging employees has become very essential in today's pandemic situation due to COVID‐19. Thinking of seizing the top position devoid of the support of your employees would surely be a dream in this current situation of lockdown. Organizations know very well that engaged employees are the key to success in this tough time. That is why businesses must look forward to keeping their employees satisfied and motivated through the engagement of employees during pandemic circumstances. Under the current situation, establishing employee engagement measures with the help of technology is essential for the growth of the organizations. Many companies nowadays are developing numerous employee engagement practices like virtual team meet‐ups, virtual learning and development, conducting weekly alignment online session, webinars with industry experts, and also webinars for anxiety and stress, online team building activities, online family engagement practices, brainstorming, apology, and appreciation online session, shared content such as TED Talks, online books, online courses, live sessions for new‐skill training, online communication exercise, online sharing best practices of maintaining health and hygiene, digital classrooms training modules, e‐learning modules, online guidance for exercise and meditation, online recognition and acknowledgment of employees, online employee feedback, short online game session, virtual challenges and competitions, 5 minutes of informal talk, entire team gathers over video conference for lunch, online counseling sessions, and social interactions in the virtual office. These kinds of engagement practices boost the morale of the employees and employees feel motivated and committed towards the organization in this pandemic situation due to coronavirus.

2.1. Further implications

All the organizations should adopt innovative and creative employee engagement practices during this tough time of pandemic COVID‐19 to keep employees motivated, stimulated, committed, satisfied, and blissful in this tough time. Work‐from‐home regime is nowadays very essential; it would be successful only with the help of online practices. Organizations should be implementing an online practice approach to stay in the competition during this difficult time. Virtual relations should be crucial for companies to enhance the engagement of employees. Engaged employees always achieve objectives very smoothly. Management also look into how to engage employees in order to be able to encourage a positive organization culture. Organizations also need to be able to recognize the various facets that motivate and derive employee engagement in organizations.

Biographies

Dr. Nisha Chanana is an Assistant Professor (Head of the Department) of Swami Devi Dyal Institute of Management Studies, Swami Devi Dyal Group of Professional Institutions, affiliated to Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, Haryana. She received her Ph.D. from the University School of Management, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra in 2015. Her current research interests include Organizational Behaviour, Recent HR practices, Organizational Change and Development, Training and Development, and Strategic HRM.

Dr. Sangeeta is an Assistant Professor of Management at Maharaja Agrasen University, Baddi‐ Himachal Pradesh. She received her Ph.D. from the University School of Management, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra in 2016. Her current research interests include Stock market volatility, Banking, General Economics and HR practices.

Chanana N, Sangeeta. Employee engagement practices during COVID‐19 lockdown . J Public Affairs . 2021; 21 :e2508. 10.1002/pa.2508 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Abd Latib, L. , Bolong, J. , & Ghazali, A. H. A. (2014). Facebook usage and functionality as the predictive factors in contributing towards employee engagement . Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences , 155 , 289–294. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.294 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anand, A. (2020, April 25). Coronavirus outbreak: 4 tips for better employee engagement during lockdown. India Today . Retrieved from https://www.indiatoday.in/education‐today/featurephilia/story/coronavirus‐outbreak‐4‐tips‐for‐better‐employee‐engagement‐during‐lockdown‐1670844‐2020‐04‐25
• Andrew, O. C. , & Sofian, S. (2012). Individual factors and work outcomes of employee engagement . Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences , 40 , 498–508. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.222 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andrew, O. C. , & Saudah, S. (2012). Individual factors and work outcomes of employee engagement. The 2012 international conference on Asia Pacific Business Innovation & Technology Management, Pattaya, Thailand . Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences , 40 , 498–508. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.222 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barreiro, C. A. , & Treglown, L. (2020). What makes an engaged employee? A facet‐level approach to trait emotional intelligence as a predictor of employee engagement . Personality and Individual Differences , 159 , 109892. 10.1016/j.paid.2020.109892 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Basquille, M. (2013). In this recession , has engagement remained high?–Research within an Irish financial company . (Unpublished dissertation). National College of Ireland. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/45382349.pdf
• Bedarkar, M. , & Pandita, D. (2014). A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting employee performance . Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences , 133 , 106–115. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.174 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhardwaj, D. (2020). CARS24 is raising the bar of employee engagement as they work from home. CARS24 . Retrieved from https://www.cars24.com/blog/cars24-is-raising-the-bar-with-their-work-from-home-initiative/
• Chandani, A. , Mehta, M. , Mall, A. , & Khokhar, V. (2016). Employee engagement: A review paper on factors affecting employee engagement . Indian Journal of Science and Technology , 9 ( 15 ), 1–7. 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i15/92145 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chermack, T. J. , & Passmore, D. L. (2005). Using journals and databases in research . Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of Inquiry , 1 , 401–418. San Francisco, CA: Berrett‐Koehler Publishers, Inc. http://www.kharazmi‐statistics.ir/Uploads/Public/book/research%20in%20organization.pdf#page=420 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Deal, J. J. , Stawiski, S. , & Gentry, W. A. (2010). Employee engagement : Has it Been a Bull Market? QuickView Leadership Series . A Center for Creative Leadership Report Sponsored by Booz Allen Hamilton. Retrieved from http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/EmployeeEngagement.pdf
• Dutta, K. (2020, April 08). Employee engagement‐how remote learning can help organizations keep employees engaged during lockdown. People Matters . https://www.peoplematters.in/article/employee-engagement/how-remote-learning-can-help-organizations-keep-employees-engaged-during-lockdown-25233
• Fallon, N. (2020, March 19). Managing from home? Here's how to keep your team engaged during coronavirus. U . S . Chamber of Commerce . Retrieved from https://www.uschamber.com/co/run/human‐resources/keeping‐remote‐employees‐engaged
• Fan, W. , Zhao, S. , Bin, Y. , Chen, Y.‐M. , Wang, W. , Song, Z.‐G. , & Yi, H. (2020). A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China . Nature , 579 , 265–269. 10.1038/s41586-020-2008-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Formato, B. (2014, April 15). Why employee engagement is so critical during tough times . Groove Management Blog . Retrieved from https://www.groovemanagement.com/blog/why‐employee‐engagement‐is‐so‐critical‐during‐tough‐times
• Garg, K. , Dar, I. A. , & Mishra, M. (2017). Job satisfaction and work engagement: A study using private sector Bank managers . Sage Publications: Advances in Developing Human Resources. , 20 ( 1 ), 58–71. 10.1177/1523422317742987 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghosh, A. K. , Brindisi, M. , Shahabi, D. , Mackenzie, E. C. , & Andrew, D. M. (2020). Drug development and medicinal chemistry efforts toward SARS‐coronavirus and Covid‐19 therapeutics . Chemistry Europe: European Chemical Societies Publishing , 15 , 907–932. 10.1002/cmdc.202000223 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goswami, A. (2020, March 31). Lockdown: Engaging downtime employees is equally important. HR Katha . Retrieved from https://www.hrkatha.com/employee-engagement/lockdown-engaging-downtime-employees-is-equally-important/
• Goyal, M. , Trivedi, D. , Nandwani, R. , Changulani, V. & Lokhandwala, T. (2020, April 10). Ways to increase employee engagement during lockdown. Stratefix . https://stratefix.com/ways-to-increase-employee-engagement-during-lockdown/
• Harter, J. K. , Schmidt, F. L. , & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business‐unit‐level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta‐analysis . Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 ( 2 ), 268–279. 10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.268 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hasan, A. (2020, April 13). How companies are helping employees in response to COVID‐19. People Matters . Retrieved from https://www.peoplemattersglobal.com/article/c-suite/how-companies-are-helping-employees-in-response-to-covid-19-25301
• Jalal, H. (2016). Testing the effects of employee engagement, work environment, and organizational learning on organizational commitment. 5th international conference on leadership, technology, innovation and business management . Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences , 229 , 289–297. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.139 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jena, L. K. , Pradhan, S. , & Panigrahy, N. P. (2018). Pursuit of organisational trust: Role of employee engagement, psychological well‐being and transformational leadership . Asia Pacific Management Review , 23 ( 3 ), 227–234. 10.1016/j.apmrv.2017.11.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones, M. D. & Kober, J. J. (2019). Employee engagement in difficult times. World Class Benchmarking . http://worldclassbenchmarking.com/employee-engagement-in-difficult-times/
• Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work . Academy of Management Journal , 33 ( 4 ), 692–724. 10.2307/256287 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaplan, J. , Frias, L. , & Mefall‐Johnsen, M. (2020, July 11). Business Insider India . Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/a‐third‐of‐the‐global‐population‐is‐on‐coronavirus‐lockdown‐x2014‐hereaposs‐our‐constantly‐updated‐list‐of‐countries‐and‐restrictions/slidelist/75208623.cms
• Lee, C. , Alonso, A. , Esen, E. , Coombs, J. , Mulvey, T. , Victor, J. , & Ng, H. (2016). Employee job satisfaction and engagement : Revitalizing a changing workforce . Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/Documents/2016-Employee-Job-Satisfaction-and-Engagement-Report.pdf
• Masson, M. (2009, May 6). Employee engagement in tough times. Workforce . com . https://www.workforce.com/news/employee-engagement-in-tough-times-part-two
• Matkin, J. (2016, December 19). Keeping employees engaged during tough times. LinkedIn . Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/keeping-employees-engaged-during-tough-times-jo-matkin/
• May, D. R. , Gilson, R. L. , & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 77 ( 1 ), 11–37. 10.1348/096317904322915892 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Metts, R. (2020, February 10). Employee engagement during the coronavirus. Brunswick . https://www.brunswickgroup.com/employee-engagement-during-the-coronavirus-i15224/
• Nair, A. (2020, April 10). Capgemini launches employee engagement programmes to help beat coronavirus stress . The Hindu . Retrieved from https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/capgemini-launches-employee-engagement-programmes-to-help-beat-coronavirus-stress/article31310564.ece
• Patro, C. S. (2013). The impact of employee engagement on organization's productivity . 2nd international conference on Manageing human resources at the workplace , December 13–14. ISBN: 978‐81‐922146‐5‐8.
• Robertson, I. (2012, May 3). The importance of employee engagement in difficult times. The Guardian . Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/public‐leaders‐network/2012/may/03/importance‐employee‐engagement‐difficult‐times
• Robison, J. (2009, February 19). Building engagement in this economic crisis. Gallup Business Journal . Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/115213/building-engagement-economic-crisis.aspx
• Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement . Journal of Managerial Psychology , 21 , 600–619. 10.1108/02683940610690169 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saks, A. M. (2017). Translating employee engagement research into practice . Organizational Dynamics , 46 ( 2 ), 76–86. 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarangi, P. , & Nayak, B. (2016). Employee engagement and its impact on organizational success–A study in manufacturing company, India . IOSR Journal of Business and Management , 18 ( 4 ), 52–57. 10.9790/487X-1804015257 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarkar, B. (2020, April 09). Companies roll out initiatives to keep employees kids engaged at home. The Econimic Times . Retrieved from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/companies-roll-out-initiatives-to-keep-employees-kids-engaged-at-home/articleshow/75058556.cms?from=mdr
• Schaufeli, W. B. , Martinez, I. M. , Pinto, A. M. , Salanova, M. , & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross‐national study . Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology , 33 ( 5 ), 464–481. 10.1177/0022022102033005003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sievert, H. , & Scholz, C. (2017). Engaging employees in (at least partly) disengaged companies. Results of an interview survey within about 500 German corporations on the growing importance of digital engagement via internal social media . Public Relations Review , 43 ( 5 ), 894–903. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.06.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh, M. (2020a, March 31). How to keep work from home employees engaged and productive. Marcer Mettl . Retrieved from https://blog.mettl.com/talent-hub/remote-workers-engagement-productivity
• Singh, P. (2020b, April 26). COVID‐19: The evolution of employee engagement. Business world . Retrieved from http://bwpeople.businessworld.in/article/COVID‐19‐The‐Evolution‐Of‐Employee‐Engagement/26‐04‐2020‐190293/
• Talukar, A. D. (2020, April 09). 5 tips for practicing employee engagement amidst the covid‐19 pandemic. Business 2 Community . Retrieved from https://www.business2community.com/human‐resources/5‐tips‐for‐practicing‐employee‐engagement‐amidst‐the‐covid‐19‐pandemic‐02300396
• Tensay, A. T. , & Singh, M. (2020). The nexus between HRM, employee engagement and organizational performance of federal public service organizations in Ethiopia . Heliyon , 6 ( 6 ), e04094. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04094 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tiwari, B. , & Lenka, U. (2019). Employee engagement: A study of survivors in Indian IT/ITES sector . IIMB Management Review. 10.1016/j.iimb.2019.10.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples . Human Resource Development Review , 4 ( 3 ), 356–367. 10.1177/1534484305278283 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vance, R. J. (2006). Employee engagement and commitment (pp. 1–53). Alexandria, Virginia: SHRM Foundation; Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/foundation/ourwork/initiatives/resources-from-past-initiatives/Documents/Employee%20Engagement%20and%20Commitment.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Verčič, A. T. , & Vokić, N. P. (2017). Engaging employees through internal communication . Public Relations Review , 43 ( 5 ), 885–893. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vickers, M. (2019, January 24). Boosting worker engagement in tough times. American Management Association . Retrieved from https://www.amanet.org/articles/boosting‐worker‐engagement‐in‐tough‐times/
• World Health Organization . (2020a). Situation Report‐101, Coronovirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) . Retrieved from https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200430-sitrep-101-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=2ba4e093_2
• World Health Organization . (2020b). Situation Report‐132, Coronovirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) . Retrieved from https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200531-covid-19-sitrep-132.pdf?sfvrsn=d9c2eaef_2
• World Health Organization . (2020c). Coronovirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) outbreak . Retrieved from https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_1