Employee Engagement From aSelf-Determination TheoryPerspective

JOHN P. MEYERThe University of Western Ontario

MARYLENE GAGNEConcordia University

Macey and Schneider (2008) draw on numer-ous theories to explain what engagement isand how it is similar to and different fromrelated constructs in the organizationalbehavior literature. As a result, we now havea better understanding of some of the key‘‘components’’ of engagement. What appearsto be missing, however, is a strong unifyingtheory to guide research and practice. Webelieve that such a theory exists in the formof self-determination theory (SDT; Deci &Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and its var-ious corollaries, self-concordance theory(SCT; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999), hierarchicaltheory (Vallerand, 1997), and passion theory(Vallerand et al., 2003). Although Macey andSchneider acknowledged the relevance ofSDT and SCT, we believe that much greateruse of these theories could be made to justifyand extend their conceptual model.

Self-Determination Theory

SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985) proposes two over-arching forms of motivation. Intrinsic moti-

vation refers to doing an activity for its ownsake out of enjoyment and interest. Extrinsicmotivation refers to doing an activity forinstrumental reasons. Although extrinsicmotivation is arguably predominant in awork context, it too can take different forms.According to SDT, extrinsic motivation canreflect a desire to gain rewards or avoid pun-ishment (external regulation), boost one’sego or avoid feelings of guilt (introjection),attain a valued personal goal (identification),or express one’s sense of self (integration).Identification and integration involve a highlevel of volition and, along with intrinsicmotivation, are considered forms of autono-mous regulation. External regulation andintrojection involve more external influenceand less authenticity and are consideredforms of controlled regulation. Autonomousregulation, which is also at the heart ofSheldon’s concept of self-concordance andVallerand’s characterization of harmoniouspassion, has been demonstrated to lead tohigher levels of performance, persistence,initiative, and creativity (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

The concept of autonomous regulationoverlaps considerably with Macey andSchneider’s conceptualization of state en-gagement. Moreover, the behavioral outcomesfound to be associated with autonomous reg-ulation correspond with what they describedas behavioral engagement. In contrast to

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to John P. Meyer. E-mail: meyer@uwo.ca

Address: Department of Psychology, The Universityof Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2

John P. Meyer, Department of Psychology, TheUniversity of Western Ontario; Marylene Gagne,Department of Management, John Molson School ofBusiness, Concordia University.

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1 (2008), 60–62.Copyright ª 2008 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1754-9426/08

60

recent conceptualizations of engagement,however, SDT has been in place for over30 years, has been well tested in both labo-ratory and field research, and has served asa guide for training and interventions ina variety of contexts. Although much of theresearch has taken place outside of the work-place, there has been sufficient applicationin a work context to attest to its relevance(Gagne & Deci, 2005). Thus, SDT is a theorythat we believe can bring together existingconceptualizations and serve as a guide forfuture research. The following are a fewexamples of its potential contributions.

Underlying psychological mechanisms. Ifwe are to truly understand how engagementdevelops, we need more than a list of poten-tial antecedents—we must be able to iden-tify and explain the underlying mechanisms.According to SDT, the key to autonomousregulation is satisfaction of basic psycholog-ical needs for competence, autonomy, andrelatedness. There is good evidence for theuniversality of these needs, and researchshows that lack of satisfaction leads topoorer performance and reduced physicaland psychological well-being (Ryan & Deci,2000). Moreover, need satisfaction is animportant mediator in the relation betweenenvironmental influences (e.g., job charac-teristics, leadership) and autonomous regu-lation (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Therefore, byidentifying key mechanisms, SDT can serveas a useful guide for the development of tar-geted intervention strategies.

What Is the Opposite

of Engagement?

Macey and Schneider note that there is someconfusion about whether the opposite ofengagement is lack of engagement or disen-gagement. SDT distinguishes autonomousregulation (engagement) from controlledmotivation and amotivation (i.e., with-drawal). Each can be measured individually,and these measures have been shown torelate differently to task-relevant behavior(Gagne & Deci, 2005). In addition, there isa third motivational state identified within

SDT that can also be contrasted with engage-ment—reactive autonomy. Koestner and Los-ier (1996) have shown that people sometimesreact to loss of autonomy by rebelling againstthe source of control. Thus, SDT helps toexplainnot onlyengagement but also thepsy-chological states and behavioral reactionsthat can result in the absence of engagement.

Expanding the Outcomes

of Engagement

Maceyand Schneider focus primarily on taskperformance and organizational effective-ness as outcomes of engagement. These areindeed important outcomes. However, SDTresearch has consistently demonstrated thatindividuals who are ‘‘engaged’’ in what theyare doing also experience greater physicaland psychological well-being than thosewho are amotivated or lack of personal con-trol (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The well-being ofemployees is important in its own right andalso has benefits for organizations in terms oflower absence rates and health insurancecosts.

Guiding Measurement

There is currently a lack of consensus regard-ing the measurement of engagement. Formany years, SDT has been used to guidethe measurement of engagement-relevantvariables (e.g., need satisfaction, motiva-tional states, psychological and behavioraloutcomes) in a variety of contexts (e.g., Ryan& Connell, 1989).Vallerand (1997)has shownthat motivational states can be operational-ized at varying levels of abstraction: global(i.e., dispositional), contextual (e.g., work,education), and situational (i.e., specificactivities). Consequently, SDT can readilybe applied in the development of measuresof the various facets of engagement identi-fied by Macey and Schneider (i.e., trait, state,behavior) as well as various foci of engage-ment (e.g., job, organization; Saks, 2006). Itcan also be applied across domains (e.g.,work, education, sport) to promote con-sistency in conceptualization and measure-ment and facilitate cross-fertilization.

SDT and engagement 61

Links to Broader

Theoretical Domains

We agree with Macey and Schneider thatengagement is distinguishable from generalwork motivation, commitment, job involve-ment, job satisfaction, and otherkey conceptsin the organizational behavior literature.However, we believe that the similaritiesand differences might be more clearly articu-lated by grounding the concept of engage-ment in SDT. For example, one of thereasons that Macey and Schneider viewedengagement as distinct from work motivationis that most theories of work motivation focusprimarily on intensity without much concernfor form.SDT, incontrast,offersamultidimen-sional conceptualization of work motivationthat allows one to differentiate forms of moti-vation (e.g., controlled vs. autonomous) andtheir implications for behavior (e.g., effectivein-role performance vs. the discretionary andatypical performance believed to character-ize behavioral engagement). Consequently,by grounding engagement in SDT, engage-ment can be embedded within motivationtheory where it intuitively belongs. As anadded benefit, engagement theory andresearch canbe informedby recent work link-ing SDTwith theories of commitment, leader-ship, identification, and job design (e.g.,Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004).

Limits to the Benefits

of Engagement

We share Macey and Schneider’s concernthat there is a potential for mismanagementof the engagement process (e.g., encourag-ing involvement at levels that encroach onfamily time or might be psychologically orphysically unhealthy). Another advantage ofSDT, therefore, is that it provides a theoreti-cal explanation for the consequences of mis-management. For example, efforts to buildengagement that threaten rather than satisfypsychological needs (e.g., by challengingemployees beyond their current level ofcompetence or requiring a commitment thatinterferes with relationships) should under-mine rather than create true engagement.Following SDT prescriptions in the design

of engagement interventions should help toavoid such problems.

Conclusions

As Macey and Schneider pointed out,‘‘engagement is a concept with a sparse anddiverse theoretical and empirically demon-strated nomological net’’ (p. 3). We believethat SDT (and related theories) can serve asa much needed unifying framework. Byadapting SDT as a guiding framework, ratherthan ‘‘slowly joining the fray,’’ as Maceyand Schneider (p. 3) suggested, academic re-searchers have an opportunity to leapfrogpractice to lead new developments inengagement theory, research, and practice.

References

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivationand self-determination in human behavior. NewYork: Plenum.

Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination the-ory and work motivation. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 26, 331–362.

Koestner, R., & Losier, G. (1996). Distinguishing reactiveversus reflective autonomy. Journal of Personality,64, 465–494.

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning ofemployee engagement. Industrial and Organiza-tional Psychology: Perspectives on Science andPractice, 1, 3–30.

Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004).Employee commitment and motivation: A concep-tual analysis and integrative model. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 89, 991–1007.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus ofcausality and internalization: Examining reasons foracting in two domains. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 57, 749–761.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determinationtheory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,social development, and well-being. American Psy-chologist, 55, 68–78.

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences ofemployee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psy-chology, 21, 600–619.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need-satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 76, 482–497.

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model ofintrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29,pp. 271–360). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner,R., Ratelle, C., Leonard, M. et al. (2003). Les passionsde l’ame: On obsessive and harmonious passion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,756–767.

62 J.P. Meyer and M. Gagne