research on employee engagement

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  

10k 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

Reactions towards organizational change: a systematic literature review

Work engagement and employee satisfaction in the practice of sustainable human resource management – based on the study of Polish employees

The four-day work week: a chronological, systematic review of the academic literature

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

Low-wage workers saw big pay jumps after the pandemic. Get the latest from the ADP Research Institute’s Data Lab.

The Definitive Series: Employee Engagement | 2020

This research describes what research and practitioner communities have learned about employee engagement over the last three decades.

The Definitive Series: Employee Engagement

This report summarizes all available research from both the academic and practitioner communities so that organizations can build their engagement efforts on the best possible intelligence.

Executive Summary

Top 10 Conclusions: The Definitive Series on Employee Engagement

Slides: Everything You Need to Know About Employee Engagement Webcast

Infographic

Engagement is Closely Linked to Sales Performance

Key Insights

We look forward to staying connected and sharing our latest research and discoveries about the world of work.

Stay Connected

We will send you an email with our latest research and discoveries about the world of work as they are published. Enter your email and be the first to learn what we've discovered.

By clicking the button below, you acknowledge that you have read our Privacy Statement and agree to our Terms of Use .

Your privacy is assured.

Stay up to date with Today at Work

• Employee Success Platform Improve engagement, inspire performance, and build a magnetic culture.
• Engagement Survey
• Lifecycle Surveys
• Pulse Surveys
• Action Planning
• Recognition
• Talent Reviews
• Succession Planning
• Expert-Informed AI
• Seamless Integrations
• Award-Winning Service
• Robust Analytics
• Scale Employee Success with AI
• Drive Employee Retention
• Identify and Develop Top Talent
• Build High Performing Teams
• Increase Strategic Alignment
• Manage Remote Teams
• Improve Employee Engagement
• Customer Success Stories
• Customer Experience
• Customer Advisory Board
• Not Another Employee Engagement Trends Report
• Everyone Owns Employee Success
• Employee Success ROI Calculator
• Employee Retention Quiz
• Ebooks & Templates
• Leadership Team
• Partnerships
• Best Places to Work
• Request a Demo

What is Employee Engagement? What, Why, and How to Improve It

Employee engagement affects almost every aspect of your organization. Read more to understand this important metric and how to improve it moving forward. 

Improve engagement today with our simple action planning guide.

Table of contents, what is employee engagement, why is employee engagement important, what are the top drivers of employee engagement, who drives employee engagement, why the majority of employee engagement efforts fall short, what is an employee engagement model, employee engagement best practices, measuring employee engagement: how to start, tools for effective employee engagement, how to create an employee engagement action plan, choosing the right employee engagement software.

Employee engagement affects just about every important aspect of your business , including:

• Profitability
• Customer experience
• Employee turnover
• Team dynamics
• ...and much more! 

It’s been shown that employees who feel connected to their organization work harder, stay longer, and motivate others to do the same. Plus, research shows that 92% of business executives believe engaged employees perform better, boosting the success of their teams and the outcomes of their organizations. So, it’s clear that understanding what drives employee engagement is key to success.

There's a lot of information out there about how to improve employee engagement—some credible, some not. Quantum Workplace has been in the business of employee success for more than 20 years. Through our employee engagement research, we keep a constant pulse on what's changing with employee engagement, employee impact, and workplace culture. In this comprehensive guide, we’ll hone in on a clear understanding of what employee engagement is, while making the business case for its value in your company—and then discuss tangible ways you can improve your employee engagement strategy.

Employee engagement is a key indicator of a healthy and thriving workplace, where employees feel valued, involved, and connected to their roles and the company at large. With over 20 years in the employee engagement space, here’s how we define it...

Employee engagement definition

Employee engagement is the strength of the mental and emotional connection employees feel toward the organization that they work for, their team, and their work. 

It's about how emotionally invested employees are in their work and the organization's goals. Engaged employees typically display a high degree of commitment, are more productive, and contribute positively to the company culture. They're not just working for a paycheck or the next promotion, but are genuinely interested in their work and motivated to contribute to the organization's success. 

When doing research on employee listening , we found that employee engagement hinges on three factor and three corresponding questions:

• Work engagement : How connected am I to the work I’m doing?
• Team engagement : How connected do I feel to my immediate coworkers?
• Organizational engagement: How connected am I to the organization as a whole?

When looking at these three pillars of engagement holistically, you’ll have a better understanding of engagement levels in your organization.

What are the levels of employee engagement?

Employee engagement measures how employees feel about their organization. Based on their perceptions of their workplace, employees are categorized into four main groups:

Highly engaged employees

Highly engaged employees hold very favorable opinions of their place of work. These "brand advocates" speak highly of their company to family and friends. They encourage other employees around them to do their best. When Quantum Workplace worked with Harvard Business Review to survey 984 business executives, 81% of them strongly agreed that highly engaged employees perform better and are more productive than employees with average or low engagement. 

Moderately engaged employees

Moderately engaged employees see their organization in a moderately favorable light. They like their company, but something about the organization, their team, or their job that holds them back from full engagement. These employees are less likely to ask for more responsibilities and may underperform. 

Barely engaged employees

Barely engaged employees feel indifferent toward their place of employment. They usually lack motivation for their position and will only do as much as they can to get by—sometimes less. Barely engaged employees may be researching other jobs and are a high turnover risk.

Disengaged employees

Disengaged employees have a negative opinion of their place of work. They are disconnected from the mission, goals, and future of the organization. They lack commitment to their position and responsibilities. It’s important to understand how to handle disengaged employees so that their negative perceptions don’t impact the productivity of employees around them.

What doesn’t define employee engagement

Employee engagement is often used interchangeably with similar concepts like happiness, satisfaction, or wellbeing––but there are some clear differences among these concepts that are important to understand:

Employee engagement is not employee happiness

Some leaders may wonder how to keep employees happy . While important, happiness is not the same as engagement. It says nothing about how invested employees are in the company, nor how hard they’re working on behalf of the organization’s mission. Happiness is a short-term, rapidly changing measurement. For example, an employee may feel temporary happiness from a raise and then sink back into disengagement. Employee engagement is a deep, long-term connection to the organization.

Employee engagement is not employee satisfaction

Employee satisfaction can only be measured at surface level. An employee who is satisfied may not be engaged. Generally speaking, satisfied employees will not take steps to go above and beyond. They usually stick around, but they aren’t driven to go the extra mile. Engaged employees are productive, while satisfied employees tend to coast through their work and experience.

Employee engagement is not employee wellbeing

Employee wellbeing evaluates many areas of an employee’s life, such as how well they cope with stress or if they’re fulfilling their potential. Providing resources to increase employee wellbeing can increase employee engagement. Employee engagement focuses on an employee’s connection with their company—not on their own wellbeing.

Recognizing the importance of their workforce, the most successful companies understand that their people are their greatest asset. Why is employee engagement important? Because when employees are motivated and engaged , it unlocks their potential, increases productivity, and fuels sustainable business growth.

In recent years, there's been a growing emphasis on employee engagement. While the majority of executives acknowledge that engaged employees perform better , only about half report seeing a positive return on investment from their engagement initiatives and just 37% of executives say employee engagement is a high priority for their organization. 

To bridge this gap, it’s crucial for organizations to grasp the core principles of employee engagement. Understanding what drives engagement and how to effectively measure it is essential. This knowledge is key to cultivating a work environment where engagement not only exists but also significantly contributes to the company’s success.

The business case for employee engagement

Talent-minded organizations know that their people are their greatest lever for business success. And 92% of executives believe that engaged employees perform better . This is just one of many employee engagement statistics that prove the value of employee engagement in an organization.

How employee engagement impacts organizational success and performance

When employees are engaged, discretionary effort goes up. Employees want to go above and beyond the basic requirements of their job. When leaders and managers channel that energy and effort in the right direction, employee engagement impacts a host of business outcomes. Win-win.

Benefits of employee engagement

Let’s understand the above a bit better by diving further into each of the key benefits of employee engagement . 

• Increased employee productivity : Research shows engaged employees are 17% more productive than their peers. They’re more likely to work diligently and expend discretionary effort in their jobs.
• Higher employee retention : Engaged employees don’t have a reason to look elsewhere for work. Engaged employees turn over less often because they know they will be recognized for their contributions, see opportunities for professional growth and career development, and understand when organizational change happens and why. These three pillars enable employees to connect to the present and the future.
• Increased customer satisfaction : 72% of executives strongly agree that organizations with highly engaged employees have happy customers . Engaged employees care deeply about their jobs, and thus, customers.
• Lower absenteeism : When employees are committed to your mission, they’re going to show up. Highly engaged workplaces see 41% lower absenteeism .
• Better employee health : Engaged employees are less likely to be obese , less likely to suffer from chronic disease, more likely to eat healthier, and more likely to exercise. Having healthier employees positively impacts your bottom line because employees remain in better physical health and can show up to work fully present. 
• Decreased workplace injury : Employees are more aware of their surroundings and can focus on the task at hand. Research has shown that 70% fewer safety incidents occur in highly engaged workplaces.
• Greater trust in leadership : Engaged employees believe that senior leaders of their organization demonstrate integrity and are doing their best to drive future success. They also feel valued and like their opinions matter to higher ups. 
• Stronger employer brand : Employees become vocal advocates and recommend your workplace, which is crucially important in an aggressive talent market.

Why employee engagement alone can’t solve all organizational issues

Employee engagement is crucial for a productive workplace, but it's not a standalone solution for all organizational challenges. A comprehensive approach that includes employee experience, performance management, and a solid talent strategy is essential. Here’s why:

• Employee experience : Employee experience extends beyond engagement, encompassing every interaction from recruitment to exit. It shapes overall satisfaction and, in turn, influences engagement levels. A positive experience can boost engagement, but focusing only on engagement overlooks other crucial aspects of the employee journey.
• Performance management : Performance management is also critical. A solid performance management approach ensures that employees are not just engaged but also growing and contributing meaningfully. 
• Talent strategy : A holistic talent strategy aligns workforce capabilities with organizational objectives. It covers talent acquisition, retention, employee development , and planning. While engagement is a component, a broader talent strategy ensures no opportunities are missed, and workforce gaps are addressed.

Overall, while employee engagement is incredibly important, it should be part of a broader strategy.

Employee engagement drivers are items that have a large impact on employee engagement outcomes. They are the items you should take action on when driving employee engagement . All drivers will impact engagement—the key is to identify and act on the drivers that will make the biggest difference in your organization. And implement strategic employee engagement activities that support those drivers.

Here are the top 10 drivers of employee engagement:

• My job allows me to utilize my strengths.
• I trust our senior leaders to lead the company to future success.
• I believe this organization will be successful in the future.
• I find my job interesting and challenging.
• The senior leaders of this organization value people as their most important resource.
• My opinions seem to count at work.
• If I contribute to the organization’s success, I know I will be recognized.
• I see professional growth and career development opportunities for myself here.
• The senior leaders of this organization demonstrate integrity.
• I have the information I need to do my job well.

Three key themes emerge from the top employee engagement drivers 

From this list, there are a few key themes that are powerful indicators of employee engagement. They describe what is core to connection and engagement in your workplace.

Theme #1: Motivating work

Employees want their jobs to be challenging. They want to own tasks that use their strengths and have access to opportunities to develop in their roles and career. It’s important for organizational leaders and HR teams to match talent to roles that supply these aspects of an engaging job.

Theme #2: Inspiring teams and leaders

Leadership and team relationships are extremely important for engagement. Employees want to work for leaders and teams that put people first, value employee contributions, and show integrity.

Theme #3: Commitment to organization

Employees want to work for organizations that have a strategy built for success. They want to believe that they can contribute to that success in their role. Individuals want to successfully contribute to winning teams and organizations. 

The top eight trends affecting employee engagement 

It's not only imperative to observe employee engagement trends, but to use that data to design employee success strategies that work for your specific organization. The top employee engagement trends for 2024 include:

1. Magnetic culture: the "big stay" is here

2. Magnetic culture: you can't get by with mediocre culture

3. Employee experience: employees expect post-survey action

4. Employee experience: engagement is key to employee retention and performance

5. Performance & impact: employees want to drive organizational success

6. Performance & impact: managers matter but don't feel supported

7. Emerging intelligence: organizations still aren't ready for AI

8. Emerging intelligence: change isn't the problem - how you manage it is

The truth is, everyone owns employee engagement.

Every person in your organization has an impact on the quality of relationships they build, their approach to teamwork, and general attitudes they bring to the workplace. Here is a breakdown of employee engagement roles .

The role of leadership in employee engagement

Organizational leaders are employee engagement advocates. They are the influential campaigners and top promoters of an engaged culture. Leadership buy-in is critical when it comes to employee engagement. Depend on leaders to:

• Model good behaviors
• Cast a vision and strategy for engagement
• Support and prioritize investment in engagement initiatives
• Communicate with care

The role of HR in employee engagement

HR teams play a critical role in the organization by aligning leaders, managers, and employees on a path forward with employee engagement. Strategy is turned into action and they own the “how” behind the employee engagement strategy. To do this, it’s crucial that HR professionals:

• Prioritize alignment and accountability of strategy actions
• Choose the right implementation tools and processes
• Support and develop managers and teams

The role of managers in employee engagement

Managers interact with employees more than anyone else. They must create an environment where every individual can thrive and truly be engaged, while also championing the organization’s success. A manager's role in employee engagement includes:

• Build good relationships with each employee
• Serve as a trusted sounding board for employee feedback and suggestions
• Act on team results
• Drive organizational priorities
• Help employees develop and grow through engagement-driving behaviors

The role of employees in employee engagement 

When we said everyone had a role to play, we meant all employees. Employees are the organization’s voices on the front lines and your main line of sight into the employee experience. Rely on employees to:

• Provide honest, candid feedback
• Brainstorm new and creative solutions that address their concerns
• Hold up their end of the bargain when it comes to team commitments

Employee engagement initiatives often fail due to three primary reasons:

1. Lack of a credible employee engagement model.

Many organizations struggle with engagement efforts because they don't use a credible or scientifically-backed model to uncover what truly drives engagement. Understanding the deeper meaning behind employee behaviors and sentiments is crucial, and will uncover obstacles and opportunities that are helping or hindering employee success overall. By working off of a model that goes beyond surface-level metrics to unravel the genuine factors influencing employee engagement, you’ll gain deeper insights that will help tailor your organization’s strategies to your unique employee-base.

2. Challenges in taking action on employee feedback.

Another common pitfall is the complexity and difficulty of translating engagement insights into tangible actions. Many companies utilize surveys to uncover what the employee experience looks like at their organization, and find straightforward ways to act on the information. However, just 35% of employees say their organization is effective at post-survey action. If you act on engagement survey results, you’ll build trust with employees and show them that you’re listening––but we understand that this takes actionable insights. Finding a software partner that can uncover those for you through action-oriented surveying is vital. 

3. Not partnering with the right employee engagement software.

A significant aspect of successful engagement efforts is choosing the right software partner. The ideal partner should offer reliable, robust, user-friendly, and collaborative software that makes HR professionals’ lives easier while also providing valuable insights that drive employee engagement and retention.

An employee engagement model offers a stable and systematic method to assess and enhance engagement levels. This framework assists in clearly identifying the elements that both promote and impede engagement within an organization. It enables businesses to pinpoint and understand the various factors currently impacting employee engagement.

Why is an employee engagement model important?

A good employee engagement model helps you measure how engaged your employees are, guiding you in understanding, analyzing, and improving engagement. Using a proven, science-backed model means you can focus on what really matters from your employee feedback, separating signals for action from employee feedback noise. This helps you make your workplace better without wasting time or money on initiatives that don’t work.

Employee engagement model examples

A few exemplary employee engagement models from other organizations include:

Aon Hewitt’s Engagement Model 

Aon Hewitt’s model focuses on four key dimensions of engagement:  

• Say: employees’ willingness to speak positively about the organization 
• Stay: employees’ intention to remain with the organization 
• Strive: employees’ willingness to put in extra effort 
• Share: employees’ inclination to advocate for their company as a great place to work 

Gallup’s Q12 Engagement Model  

Gallup’s Q12 model consists of 12 survey questions that assess different aspects of employee engagement. The questions cover topics such as clear expectations, recognition, development opportunities, and the presence of a best friend at work.  

Deloitte Employee Engagement Model  

Deloitte’s model leverages five engagement-driving elements, including: 

• Meaningful work: autonomy, select to fit, small & empowered teams, time for slack 
• Hands-on management: clear & transparent goals, coaching, manager development, modern performance management 
• Positive work environment: flexibility, humanism, recognition, DEI 
• Growth opportunity: training & support, mobility, learning culture 
• Trust in leadership: mission & purpose, investment in people, transparency, inspiration

The Quantum Workplace employee engagement model

Quantum Workplace has helped organizations design, build, and scale employee engagement strategies and surveys by using our e9 employee engagement model . This scientifically-backed model is well-researched and highly effective at helping organizations drive employee engagement using actionable insights.

In the modern workplace, employee engagement is so much more than a survey. Here are a few employee engagement best practices to help you maximize your efforts. These employee engagement ideas will make all the difference in the employee experience. 

Reaffirm areas of strength.

Yes, there is always room to improve. But don’t be afraid to highlight your strengths as well. Celebrate engagement wins and socialize successes with current and prospective employees. When employees see meaningful action and improvement, they’re more likely to be engaged.

Tie engagement efforts to business outcomes.

Make engagement a strategy, not an activity..

If you want to move the needle on engagement, it must be a continuous strategy—not a one-off project you set and forget. When engagement is only addressed every once and awhile, employees don’t feel heard or supported, and managers don’t take it seriously. If you listen to your employee and prioritize engagement throughout the year, you’ll see greater engagement and a better return on the investment of your time, energy, and dollars.

Before you can improve employee engagement, you have to know where you stand. How do you measure employee engagement ? One of the most accurate and efficient ways to gain understanding is with employee surveys.

3 approaches to measuring culture and engagement

As you grow understanding of the employee lifecycle , you’ll also want to uncover group and demographic dynamics that are impacting employee engagement. Use the following culture and engagement methods to do just that:

• Organization-wide : Use a company-wide engagement survey to establish a baseline. This will give you a 30,000-foot view of strengths and opportunities. You’ll have a benchmark for groups and teams within your organization, as well as future engagement surveys.
• Within groups and teams : Once you have organizational data, you can slice and dice it to understand nuances in engagement across teams , groups, and demographics. Identify areas where you need to dig deeper and deploy tactics to help you get that information like employee focus groups and pulse surveys.
• Among individuals : Surveys shouldn’t be the only tool in your toolbox for measuring employee engagement. Use one-on-one meetings, feedback, recognition and more to understand engagement at the individual level. Your managers play a critical role in this effort.

Developing a measurement strategy

After having a better understanding of who the survey will reach, you must identify an end goal. Decide on the impact you want the survey to have, and then work backward from there. Ask yourself:

• Who will be accountable for following up on these results?
• Who will be acting on these results?
• What does that action look like?

Engaging your talent is key to employee, team, and business success. Help your leaders focus on what matters, your managers become better coaches, and your employees do their best work with the right employee engagement tools .

What do employee engagement surveys help with?

Employee engagement surveys play a crucial role in understanding and enhancing the workplace environment. Here's how they help:

• Measuring employee sentiment
• Identifying strengths and weaknesses
• Improving communications
• Facilitating strategic planning
• Enhancing employee retention
• Boosting productivity
• Promoting a positive work environment
• Benchmarking performance
• Tailoring development programs
• Predicting future trends

Why employee engagement survey design matters

The design of an employee engagement survey plays a crucial role in understanding and improving workplace dynamics. A well-designed survey does more than gather data; it provides actionable insights and fosters a culture of continuous improvement. Here are the key elements that make for an effective survey design:

• Science/Research-Backed Questions : The strength of any survey lies in its questions. Using research-backed questions ensures that each query is purposeful and actionable. This approach helps organizations understand the specific drivers of engagement within their workforce and what steps can be taken to enhance it.
• Measurement Scale : A standard measurement or agreement scale is a vital tool for improving the quality of survey data. 
• Integrated, Open-Ended Questions : While structured questions are essential, open-ended questions bring a different dimension to the survey. They allow employees to provide more detailed feedback and share specific examples. This qualitative data can be invaluable in understanding the nuances of employee sentiment and identifying areas for actionable improvement.

3 valuable surveys to administer to measure employee engagement

• Employee engagement surveys

A comprehensive employee engagement survey helps leaders understand engagement at the organizational level. These surveys should include questions that are scientifically proven to measure employee engagement.

Pulse surveys

Pulse surveys are designed to help organizations gather real-time feedback on any topic at any time. This is especially important during times of transition—such as acquisitions and mergers, mission or focus changes, and executive or management changes.

Employee lifecycle surveys

Employee lifecycle surveys allow you to collect feedback from employees during key moments in their tenure at your organization . Examples include:

• New Hire Survey : What do new hires think of your onboarding process? What was their perception at the 30-, 60-, and 180-day marks? What’s their outlook on the future? With the right questions, you can gain the insight that helps you engage new hires now and in the future. 
• Stay Survey: Why are employees still working at your company? What could drive them to leave? What can be done to prevent it? Questions like these help prevent unwanted talent loss by keeping tenured employees engaged . 
• Exit Survey : Why did an employee leave your organization? How did the turnover impact remaining employees? What can you do to prevent others from leaving? The insight you'll gain from exit surveys will help you be more strategic in your engagement initiatives.  

Employee engagement questions you can ask for each audience

When designing employee engagement surveys, it's important to target different levels within the organization. Here's how you can approach each audience:

Organization-wide

• Overall, how satisfied are you with your experience at our company?
• Do you feel aligned with the company's core values and mission?
• How likely are you to recommend our company as a great place to work?

Within Groups and Teams

• How effectively does your team collaborate on projects?
• Do you feel your team's contributions are valued by the organization?
• Can you give an example of effective communication within your team?

Among Individuals

• Do you feel your individual work aligns with the company's goals?
• How adequately are your skills and talents being utilized in your current role?
• Can you share an instance where you felt personally valued and recognized for your contributions?

What to do with your employee engagement survey results

Effectively utilizing survey results is crucial but often challenging due to common barriers. To overcome these, you need straightforward strategies for responding to employee feedback. This means having a plan for communication and action.

Your employee engagement communication strategy helps your organization continually evaluate, discuss, and adjust how you are approaching the employee experience. When you make engagement a topic of ongoing discussion, it becomes a sustainable, business-driving part of your culture.

Action planning shouldn't be overwhelming or limited to HR––it's about fostering a culture of active listening and meaningful response across the organization. Key challenges of action planning include:

• Limited time, resources, and prioritization
• Lack of leader and manager buy-in
• Poor communication.

Address these by scheduling time for analysis, discussion, and planning, ensuring leaders and managers are invested in the process, and maintaining clear communication throughout.

To simplify and take action on your survey results , we encourage you to:

• Be Brave : Don't get stuck on the scores. Focus on using feedback to progress, not achieving perfection.
• Make it Human : Remember the people behind the data. Use the information to understand and improve the employee experience.
• Share the Load : Involve everyone in the organization. Leaders and managers should facilitate team-level discussions and commitments.
• Do the Next Right Thing : Start with small, manageable improvements. Encourage leaders to focus on one key area for development.
• Lean on Tools : Utilize tools that simplify collecting feedback, analyzing results, and acting on insights. Your process should be efficient and not overly burdensome for your team.

Remember, the goal is continuous improvement to enhance employee experience and overall engagement.

Creating an effective employee engagement action plan is a vital step in transforming workplace dynamics. It's where you turn insights into impactful actions. At the core of this plan, you'll identify and discuss the key drivers of engagement within your organization. 

Understanding what motivates and connects your employees to their work allows you to focus on areas that matter most. The next step is to commit to changes that promise the most significant impact. This means selecting strategies that resonate with your team's unique needs and culture. Finally, accountability is crucial. Your action plan should include clear responsibilities and checkpoints to ensure that everyone, from leadership to front-line employees, is actively participating in and accountable for enhancing employee engagement. 

This comprehensive approach ensures your engagement strategies are not just well-intentioned ideas, but catalysts for real, positive change in your organization.

6 steps to create an effective employee engagement action plan

Here are the six steps we recommend to create a solid employee engagement action plan:

1. Review survey results

Once your survey results come in, take some time to dig in. Look for strengths and opportunities for improvement and pay attention to any themes and patterns in the results. Encourage managers to review results with their teams.

2. Choose focus areas

After reviewing the data, decide on 2-3 key focus areas to explore further. Prioritize focus areas based on the level of impact of that driver and how much effort it will take to move the needle.

3. Brainstorm solutions

Next, create focus groups and assign them to each target area for further discussion and brainstorming. Focus groups should discuss the data, identify possible challenges, and brainstorm solutions. Then, translate employee engagement ideas into takeaways.

4. Make commitments

Once you’ve settled on key takeaways and actions, it’s time to build out your action plan. Be sure to include commitments, owners, timelines, and measurable goals. By clearly outlining these areas, you can ensure your plan won’t fall through the cracks.

5. Communicate progress

The work isn’t done once you’ve developed your action plan. As the weeks and months go by, be sure to follow up on progress. You’ll want to keep these commitments top of mind throughout the year in order to drive the most impact.

6. Invest in helpful technology

Having the right software and partner organization will drive your action plan forward by providing actionable insights, real-time data, tools that make your life easier, and more. 

Other valuable tools for promoting employee engagement

When your employees succeed, your business succeeds. Your teams need systems and tools––like great software ––that motivate employees to do their best work and empower managers as coaches.

We've been hearing "the future of the workplace is digital" for years—and that time is here. 61% of CEOs say their business will be more digital in the future and 50% of HR professionals expect to invest more money in technology this year. To be successful at employee engagement, you need the right employee engagement platform .

Make your employee’s voices heard, uncover helpful data, and arm yourself with the information to make strong decisions by using the following software checklist:

• Start with the business problem: Make sure you have a solid understanding of the business problem(s) you're trying to solve before you consider investing in employee engagement software. Your tech should align with your key strategic HR objectives—and those objectives should support the goals of your business.
• Involve the right stakeholders at the right time : Implementing an employee engagement platform is a big change. Make change easier by getting participation and buy-in from the right stakeholders early on in your process. Who is invested in the problem you're trying to solve? Who will play a part in the success or failure of your employee engagement program? Who are your advocates and resistors?
• Understand time to ROI : Employee engagement software is a big investment of time, finances, and energy. Your leaders will want to see a strong business case, so you'll need to plan for that during your process. Be clear about what you're trying to achieve and tie everything back to meaningful business outcomes.
• Ensure you have a collaborative success partner : While a software is helpful, the people behind that software who listen to you, hear your feedback, and help you make the most of the tool are key. Prioritize working with an engagement software team that prioritizes you. The right partner will help you uncover the meaning behind your survey data, ensure everyone at your organization can take action on those insights, and partner with you to make those actions come to fruition. 

Now that you know what employee engagement is, why it’s important, and how you can make a difference – it’s time to get to work. If you’re looking for an employee engagement software that can support your strategy, learn about what makes Quantum Workplace stand out from the crowd.

Published March 2, 2021 | Written By Kristin Ryba

Related Content

Not Another Employee Engagement Trends Report 2024

Calculate the ROI of employee engagement

How to Design an Easy and Effective Employee Engagement Action Plan

Everyone owns employee experience

[Webinar] 5 Corners You Shouldn’t Cut in Your Post-Survey Action

Quick links.

• Performance

Subscribe to Our Blog

View more resources on Employee Engagement

What to Look for in an Employee Success Platform

4 minute read

12 minute read

20 Retention Ideas for Your Talent Retention Strategy

6 minute read

• All Resources
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Terms of Service

• Book a Speaker

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus convallis sem tellus, vitae egestas felis vestibule ut.

Error message details.

Reuse Permissions

Request permission to republish or redistribute SHRM content and materials.

Employee Engagement Falls to Lowest Point in Over a Decade

Engagement down among Gen Z, remote workers

Employee engagement in the U.S. has dropped to its lowest level since 2013, according to the latest Gallup polling.

By the end of 2023, 33 percent of U.S. employees reported being highly engaged in their work and workplaces, but the most recent polling from February 2024 reveals a slide, with engagement dropping 3 percentage points to 30 percent. The decline represents 4.8 million fewer employees who are highly engaged at work.

The record high for engaged employees was recorded in 2020 at 36 percent, and although the latest figures are down compared to that peak, the current level is the same as or higher than any reading between 2000 and 2013.

“We found U.S. employees were increasingly detached from their employers, with the workforce reporting less role clarity, lower satisfaction with their organizations, and less connection to their companies’ mission or purpose,” said Jim Harter, chief scientist, workplace for Gallup. “Employees were also less likely to feel someone at work cares about them.”

Gallup used a random sample of 18,708 U.S. adults working full time or part time.

Employees Are Looking for More

Carly Holm, founder and CEO of Humani HR, a management and HR consulting firm in Nashville, said falling engagement is a big topic among her clients.

“I’m not surprised at all,” she said. “The world of work has changed so dramatically in the last few years. People are spending so much more time on screens than actually interacting with other people. I believe that decreased human interaction has led to a decrease in employee engagement.”

Meghan Stettler, director of the O.C. Tanner Institute in Salt Lake City, also found the Gallup results unsurprising and said that the root of the issue goes deeper than employee engagement. “Engagement measures discretionary effort or motivation. It does not predict job performance,” she said. “Do people put in the effort and get work done while being unhappy or dissatisfied? You bet.”

Stettler added that despite employers’ best intentions and significant investment to raise employee engagement over the years, it is a metric that has not moved, an assertion supported by Gallup polling.

“I think many employees are not simply looking to be engaged, they are yearning for people-centric workplace cultures that will allow them to create meaningful and fulfilling experiences,” she said. “What appears to be an engagement or motivational issue is really a cry for finding fulfillment at work.”  

According to Stettler, employee fulfillment is derived from fundamental psychological needs that include:

• Community, connection, and belonging.
• A sense of purpose.
• Personal growth and demonstration of mastery.
• Flexibility and autonomy over the way work is done. 

“Disengagement is felt strongest among employees who don’t perceive they have the level of flexibility and autonomy in their work that they want and people who are expecting more than just a transactional relationship with their organization,” she said.

Gallup found that the drop in employee engagement was most pronounced in:

• Employees under age 35, particularly from Generation Z.
• Employees who could do their jobs remotely but who work exclusively onsite.
• Employees who are fully remote.

Recommendations for Employers

Harter said that Gallup has studied organizations with high engagement levels and found that they tended to have created hybrid working environments that fit their cultures, expressed clear overall expectations for employees, and provided managers with training and support.

“They have effective onboarding programs for new employees and holistic and multidimensional approaches to well-being, offering a range of services and resources,” he added.

“Employee engagement takes effort, whether you’re fully remote or in the office, and it’s the responsibility of managers and leadership to make sure employees are engaged,” Holm said. 

She advised managers to mindfully check in on their remote employees, to ask about their work, and to inquire if they are feeling fulfilled and connected to the work.  

“Employees want more than just a paycheck,” she said. “Especially the younger generations want to be making an impact. That doesn’t mean saving the world, but figuring out and emphasizing how the organization gives back to the community and serves its mission.”

Holm added that people thrive on social interaction. “It’s a tricky time for employers regarding RTO [return to office],” she said. “But ensuring some kind of flexibility is the way of the future. Working with colleagues in the office leads to a stronger connection and higher engagement. Having the flexibility to work from home and autonomy in the way you work will also lead to higher engagement.”

Stettler recommended managers redesign one-on-one meetings away from the standard updates on work progress toward discussing how employees’ work is tied to the organization’s purpose, how they are delivering on making a difference, and how their passions and skill sets could be better utilized, as well as clearly mapping growth opportunities and celebrating their accomplishments.

“Use recognition to showcase how employees are uniquely contributing to business outcomes,” she said. “When you celebrate someone’s unique identity, that boosts their sense of belonging.”            

Related Content

A 4-Day Workweek? AI-Fueled Efficiencies Could Make It Happen

The proliferation of artificial intelligence in the workplace, and the ensuing expected increase in productivity and efficiency, could help usher in the four-day workweek, some experts predict.

How One Company Uses Digital Tools to Boost Employee Well-Being

Learn how Marsh McLennan successfully boosts staff well-being with digital tools, improving productivity and work satisfaction for more than 20,000 employees.

Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace

​An organization run by AI is not a futuristic concept. Such technology is already a part of many workplaces and will continue to shape the labor market and HR. Here's how employers and employees can successfully manage generative AI and other AI-powered systems.

HR Daily Newsletter

New, trends and analysis, as well as breaking news alerts, to help HR professionals do their jobs better each business day.

Success title

Success caption

Workplace Psychology Lab

The Science of Employee Engagement: Key Insights for HR Professionals

Join us for an exclusive virtual seminar hosted by the Organizational Psychology Laboratory at the University of Michigan, where we’ll unveil groundbreaking research on employee engagement. Discover how factors such as job autonomy, feedback mechanisms, and organizational culture influence employee satisfaction and commitment. Gain actionable strategies for boosting engagement and retention in your organization. Reserve your spot today!

• 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

Research: When Employees Identify with Their Company, They’re Less Likely to Recognize Gender Discrimination

• Jamie L. Gloor,
• Tyler Okimoto,
• Brooke Gazdag,
• Michelle Ryan

Beware the “not here” bias.

Identifying as an organizational member — or feeling a strong sense of attachment to the organization — is generally a positive thing for employees and employers. But our research on workplace incivility and mistreatment shows that it can also shape when — and if — employees recognize and respond to subtle forms of discrimination against women at work. Evidence shows that leaders, as well as employees, play a key role in identifying and remedying gender discrimination in all its forms. If the goal is to proactively address gender discrimination in the workplace and encourage leaders and workers to remove their rose-colored glasses, this article offers a few suggestions.

You’re in the elevator of your office building. The doors open and two coworkers — one male and one female — enter the elevator in a heated debate. The female employee is trying to explain an issue on a project she’s leading, but the male employee interrupts her: “ Geez, I’ve heard enough of you and your opinions!” The woman falls silent, clearly upset and shaken by the comment.

• JG Jamie L. Gloor is a Swiss National Science Foundation professor of Leadership & Diversity Science at the University of St.Gallen in Switzerland. Her research, teaching, and speaking focus on diversity and inclusion, leadership, humor, and sustainability to craft more equitable, enjoyable, and productive workplaces with positive impact.
• TO Tyler Okimoto is a professor of management and academic dean within the faculty of Business, Economics, and Law at the University of Queensland. His research aims to understand the factors that bias employee judgments and lead to discrimination at work, and how organizations can work through biased viewpoints to promote consensus and a greater sense of fairness.

Xinxin Li is an associate professor of management at the Antai College of Economics and Management at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Her research focuses on DEI, business ethics, and emotions at work.

• BG Brooke Gazdag is an associate professor and academic director of executive education at the Kühne Logistics University in Hamburg, Germany. Through her research and teaching, she seeks to improve employees’ experience at work through leadership, negotiations, and diversity and inclusion.

Michelle Ryan is a professor of social and organizational psychology and the director of the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at The Australian National University. Her work centers on understanding the psychological processes underlying workplace gender inequality, and designing and implementing innovative and evidence-based interventions to increase gender equality.

Partner Center

• HR + Payroll Software

Talent Acquisition

• Talent Management
• Workforce Management

Benefits Administration

Payroll Software

Hr software, expense management software, recruiting software, automated talent sourcing, onboarding software, talent development, career management software, paycor paths, learning management system, pulse surveys, compensation planning, time + attendance software, scheduling software, benefits advisor, aca reporting software, workers’ compensation, compliance overview, payroll / business tax credits, workforce benefits, regulatory compliance, data & security.

HCM for Leaders and Frontline Managers

Leaders: Find and Hire Top Talent

Employee Talent Management for Leaders

Workforce Management for Leaders

Streamlined Benefits Admin for Leaders

Simplify Compliance Management With Paycor

• By Industry

Professional Services

Manufacturing, restaurants, 1-49 employees, 50-1000 employees, 1000+ employees.

TRANSFORM FRONTLINE MANAGERS INTO EFFECTIVE LEADERS

Apps & tech partners, retirement services, franchisor opportunities, private equity, guides + white papers, case studies, hr glossary.

Perspectives+

News + press, sponsorships, ai guiding principles.

DE&I AT PAYCOR

Plans + pricing, take a guided tour, watch a demo, solution finder, call us today:.

Exclusive Access to Select Products

How hr can promote corporate wellness programs.

Last Updated: May 9, 2024 | Read Time: 9 min

One-Minute Takeaway

• Over 50% of U.S. companies offer wellness programs as a benefit.
• These programs support employees’ physical, mental, and social well-being.
• Wellness programs boost engagement by up to 89%.

Corporate wellness programs are getting more and more popular. Today, over 50% of U.S. businesses offer these benefits to employees ( Zipdo ). This growing trend speaks to a shift in how many employers view their teams. Workers are far more than cogs in a machine – instead, business leaders are starting to see them as valuable assets. As a result, HR departments have more resources to invest in employee well-being.

Wellness programs can supplement more traditional benefits to boost job satisfaction. Unlike health insurance, which covers medical care, wellness benefits help employees build healthy habits before anything goes wrong. And wellness isn’t just physical – it also refers to mental, emotional, and even social needs.

What is a Corporate Wellness Program?

A corporate wellness program is a collection of resources or activities designed to promote employee well-being. These programs go beyond traditional healthcare benefits by creating a more widespread culture of wellness.

Every wellness program looks a little different, but many of them include:

Physical Wellness:

• Gym memberships or fitness class subscriptions
• On-site fitness workout facilities or classes
• Ergonomic assessments
• Equipment stipends so employees can purchase health trackers (like Fitbits), standing desks, noise-canceling headphones, and similar
• Healthy snacks and beverages for on-site workers
• In-office wellness events, like having a massage therapist come in for the day
• Company-wide wellness challenges, like drinking water or getting 10k steps a day

Mental and Emotional Wellness:

• A PTO allowance for mental health days
• Meditation or mindfulness app subscriptions
• Stress management workshops
• Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) that connect employees with resources like counseling or childcare

Social Wellness:

• Flexible scheduling so employees can attend therapy or doctor’s appointments or keep family commitments
• Community volunteer days

Tailoring the Program to Your Workforce

Every team has different needs. A team of web developers could all work at different times of day, logging in whenever they’re ready to focus – but that wouldn’t work in a restaurant or a hospital. And employees’ needs change over time.

HR should put systems in place to learn about what employees want, so you can offer the right benefits for them. For example, you could run regular employee surveys to gather more information. This comprehensive approach can boost engagement and keep your wellness program relevant. A successful program should go beyond benefits and create an evolving culture of well-being.

Building a Culture of Wellness

Wellness activities and subscriptions are a great place to start, but with a little strategic planning, HR can take employee well-being to the next level. To start off, why not train your managers to be wellness champions? You can use a learning management system to give them the skills they need to support their teams. Tools like Paycor Paths allow leaders to customize the subjects they focus on, like time management or communication.

Middle managers can also promote cultural norms within the workplace, like using up PTO or taking breaks between meetings. Encourage them to lead by example, letting employees know they sometimes take breaks. It might sound surprising, but a healthy work/life balance can improve business results. Dennis P. Stolle, JD, PhD, explains, “When workers are suffering from burnout, their productivity drops, and they may become less innovative and more likely to make errors. If this spreads throughout an organization, it can have a serious negative impact on productivity, service quality, and the bottom line” ( American Psychological Association ).

The Tangible Benefits of a Corporate Wellness Program

These initiatives have wide-ranging benefits, including significant ROI. For one thing, wellness programs boost employee engagement and job satisfaction by up to 89% ( LinkedIn ). That can reduce turnover, saving money you’d otherwise spend on recruiting and onboarding new talent. Happy workers are more likely to invest their time and energy in your company, which drives innovation.

Better still, wellness programs noticeably improve your workers’ health. They reduce employee absenteeism by 14-19%, and most employers also see a reduction in healthcare costs ( Zippia ). Instead of spending time, money, and emotional energy on expensive medical care, your team can invest in their well-being by just showing up to work.

Building a Compliant and Inclusive Wellness Program

To design a wellness program that accounts for your team’s needs, you’ll need to collect information from them. However, asking many questions about their health can sometimes be a compliance issue. Fortunately, there are several ways to solve this problem:

• Anonymous surveys or polls
• Measuring participation in wellness benefits
• Open-ended questions about what would improve their work/life balance
• Analyzing KPIs like absenteeism rates and aggregate healthcare claims data

Your program should also be fair and accessible to all employees. Consider factors like disabilities, religious beliefs, and work schedules. For instance, you could provide healthy snacks that cater to various dietary requirements. Inclusive policies can boost program participation and foster a sense of belonging.

Wellness benefits will change over time to keep up with your employees’ needs. Whenever that happens, make sure to update your team right away. HR should also update the employee handbook with your latest company policies.

How Paycor Helps

Paycor’s tools help HR leaders connect with their teams. Paycor Pulse Surveys collect valuable data anonymously, so you can learn what they need and still promote psychological safety. Benefits administration software streamlines open enrollment, so you’ll have time to implement a comprehensive wellness program.

An effective program should account for your company’s unique needs. Paycor’s customizable solutions empower leaders to support diverse teams and work toward long-term success.

Related Resources

Read Time: 9 min

New DOL Overtime Rule: FAQs

The DOL made changes to the overtime threshold in April 2024. See the details of what employers should be aware of, here.

Read Time: 11 min

How To Calculate Overtime Pay

Overtime pay can be a complex issue. Let’s dive into some key factors to remember when calculating overtime pay for your eligible employees.

Read Time: 8 min

Exempt vs. Non-Exempt Employees. What’s the Big Difference?

Misclassifying employees can result in enormous financial consequences for a business. Understand the difference in exempt and non-exempt employees.

martech,martech conference,martech advisor,martech stack,martech today

MarTech Interview with Jesse Murray, Head of Employee Experience at Rightpoint

Jesse, can you briefly share your background and how you became the head of employee experience at Rightpoint? For my career I’ve had a focus on driving engagement and efficiency for customers using innovative technologies. I joined Rightpoint 12 years ago in the role of General Manager for our new at the time Detroit office and was responsible for driving the growth of that unit for over 7 years. My core passion though has always been driving better and more innovative employee experiences and I took that on as my sole focus in 2020 with a focus both externally for our customers and more recently internally focused as well for Rightpoint.

Could you give an overview of internal communication strategies that can help elevate the employee experience? Personalization, engagement and omnichannel a. Personalization – Employees want to read with and engage on content that has personal relevance. Ensuring the messages reach the right people at the right time is critical.

b. Engagement – communication does not mean broadcasting content to people, it involves driving conversations and engagement with content and encouraging active participation. The most successful communication programs encourage that conversation and engagement.

c. Omnichannel – Consumption and conversations need to reach employees when and where is easiest for them and varies by job and preference. Ensuring your message can reach employees where makes most sense for them ensures higher readership and engagement.

How does structured internal communication positively impact employee experiences and what lessons can other organisations learn? Better, Not More, Communications One of the most common employee feedback items we’ll often get from our customer research and across employee engagement surveys is “better” communication. In many of these instances there has been a misinterpretation of volume of messaging as better when what employees mean is relevance. Communications strategies built on the structure of differentrole needs, clarity on relevance and contextual impact ensure not just readership of the message, but understanding as well.

What innovative tools or approaches are vital to keeping internal communication effective in the evolving modern workspace? I struggle to call this innovative persay, but starting any effort with an understanding of employee needs and motivations has been the number one predictor of success in our experience. Beyond that, understanding how to reach employees across a complex technology landscape in the tools and manners that work best for them removes friction for the employee. Creating an environment both technologically and culturally where engaging with content through social sharing and related solutions has and continues to be key to creating a modern workspace.

I’ll also call out the expectations difference for an intranet and workspace here. A workspace, as noted right in the name, must be a place where an employee can work, not just consume. Work needs differ by employee and integrating work dashboards and activities alongside personally relevant communications can drive both higher engagement and higher productivity.

How does better internal communications impact other areas of the organisation, like the experiences offered to customers? Modern businesses are constantly changing and evolving, some large but many small and persistent, which can be difficult to keep up with for employees also trying to be productive in their role. Just as critical though is ensuring employees are fully aligned and equipped to support those changes. Ensuring roles that are more directly customer facing (e.g. leadership, sales, service and similar) are equipped with the most timely and accurate information is imperative to their success as employees but moreso the success and engagement with customers themselves. Selling the wrong SKU or at the wrong price, not resolving a customer inquiry accurately, sharing the wrong brand message are all moments that create lower engagement and lower satisfaction with customers, or when done right, generate customer advocacy and brand loyalty.

I’ll also highlight the natural connection between Corporate Communications and Human Resources in our most successful customers. Employee engagement is a critical measure for HR both for ensuring an engaged and productive workforce but also in ensuring a more stable workforce through better talent attraction and retention. Effective communication is key to ensuring employees are equipped with the right information to be effective and happy in their jobs.

What challenges do organisations face when implementing internal communication strategies and how do you help address them? Leadership Value – communications leaders will often struggle to get the investment to create an adequately employee centric communications strategy due to a lack of understanding or buy-in on the broader benefits of effective and engaging communications. Modern workspaces and intranets are often the vehicles through which employee personas, journeys and job analysis are done, as a base need to ensure a personalised communications experience. In what we refer to as Return on Total Experience (ROTX), demonstrating the value driven across the employee lifecycle in measurable impact to productivity, customer satisfaction, engagement, attrition and costs is critical to creating leadership buy-in.

Technology centricity – One frustratingly persistent challenge is alignment of technology before employee needs, resulting in decisions made for reasons other than fit for purpose. This of course happens for many reasons; needing to realise added value from existing investments, overselling by the existing technology vendor or internal sponsor, lack of supporting employee research to identify needs, siloed organisational structures preventing collaboration and many more. Conversely, always selecting a best of breed solution can create a disjointed and difficult to navigate employee experience. Measuring technology decisions by the impact and value to the employee experience can help create less friction and ultimately higher adoption.

How can organisations balance innovation and the adoption of new technology with ensuring functionality and accessibility for employees? Technology and innovation absent understanding of impact on and motivation of employees is at the root of lost value. Understanding how these new innovations will impact employees, what the value is to them and to the organisation and creating a culture that supports this evolution are key actions that can be taken. When selecting a new technology or innovation on existing investments, give weight to what opportunities exist to integrate into the existing ecosystem and consider whether the change increases or reduces friction.

How can organisations embrace integrated touchpoints to humanise the workplace? What impact does this have? Prioritising the moments of collaboration between two people is a key strategy in aligning value to the moments that have the most opportunity. These moments are when technology has the most purpose but also needs to be seen the least. As an example, recent Microsoft research shows both leaders and employees are excited at the opportunity AI has to transform their companies and jobs. As great as the opportunity for transformation may be with AI innovations, employees need to be equipped with more than just new technology, they need skills and mindsets which focus on creating exceptional customer outcomes and driving innovative ideas. This mindset shift includes reimagining what it means to measure success, redefining the relationships of manager and employee and reassessing the accountability for lifetime learning.

How can organisations prioritise their employee experience initiatives and ensure their investments are achieving the right goals? Consider the Total Experience and the role which Employee Experience drives value to customer and product experiences. Ensuring alignment between company initiatives requires an understanding of the overall journey and most critically where these journeys intersect. Most critically, to drive value requires a measurement framework to express the impact of one part of the organisation on another which we call return on total experience (ROTX). A simple example of this concept is being able to measure the impact of employee productivity and engagement on customer revenue and NPS.

Jesse, what advice would you offer to organisations seeking to get started with enhancing their employee experience based on your experience? I’ll offer the same thing we recommend when we’re partnering with our customers. Start by understanding employee feedback, engaging in interviews and observations and collecting data around employee outcomes and metrics. Most customers I speak to have a wealth of employee feedback and working data in silos and we’ve found great success in grounding employee experience discussions with deep understanding of the current employee experience.

For more such updates, follow us on Google News Martech News

Jesse Murray, Head of Employee Experience at Rightpoint