Leveraging Employee Engagement:The Practical Implications

REBECCA C. MASSON, MARK A. ROYAL, TOM G. AGNEW, AND SAUL FINEHay Group

The focus of this commentary is on the prac-tical significance of employee engagementfor organizational leaders.We examine whyemployee engagement has garnered somuch attention from managers and the diffi-culties associated with operationalizing theconstruct appropriately in applied settings.We also provide some suggestions for futuredirections in applied engagement research.

Why Engagement Matters

to Managers

Organizational researchers have long recog-nized that organizations cannot functionthrough purely contractual relationshipswith employees. The difficulty of specifyingcontracts covering all possible contingen-cies is a common explanation for the reli-ance on organizations, rather than markets,to carry out various activities (Williamson,1975). By tying employers and employeestogether in ongoing employment relation-ships, organizations are presumed to alignthe interests of individuals with those of thefirm such that employees can be counted onto act more frequently in ways that are con-sistent with corporate objectives.

In the early 20th century, Chester Barnard,EltonMayo, and others similarly emphasized

that organizations require cooperation fromemployees rather than mere compliance.Perfunctory adherence to minimal rolerequirements is likely to have dysfunctionalconsequences in most settings. Unionizedemployees who ‘‘work to rule’’ in contractdisputes, for instance, can quickly bringorganizations to their knees. As a conse-quence, fostering high (or even adequate)individual performance necessarily requiresattending to employees’ motivations as wellas their behaviors.

In our view, the engagement constructhas captured the attention of managers inso-far as it raises the notion of cooperation toa higher level, made all the more importantin the context of growing competitive pres-sures and more rapid change. Althoughcooperation is required and to some extent,expected of all employees, engagement, asMacey and Schneider (2008) point out,involves going above and beyond thetypical in-role performance. In that sense,engagement holds out to organizationalleaders the prospect of increasing productiv-ity (i.e., getting more output from a finite setof human capital resources). In an environ-ment of increasing global competition,where organizations are running ‘‘leaner’’and forced to domorewith less, tapping intothe discretionary effort offered by engagedemployees becomes all the more imperativefor success in the marketplace. In otherwords, state engagement, as Macey andSchneider define, is essential in competitiveenvironments in which margins are pres-sured and productivity is critical, insofar as

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Mark A. Royal. E-mail: mark.royal@haygroup.com

Address: Hay Group, 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite1250, Chicago, IL 60601

Rebecca C. Masson, Mark A. Royal, TomG. Agnew,and Saul Fine, Hay Group.

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1 (2008), 56–59.Copyright ª 2008 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1754-9426/08

56

it is associated with ‘‘feelings of persistence,vigor, energy, dedication, absorption, enthu-siasm, alertness, and pride’’ on the part ofemployees (p. 24).

Interest in engagement is also fostered bythe ever-increasing pace of change in mod-ern organizations. In fast-changing environ-ments, it becomes all the more difficult toprecisely specify roles and responsibilitiesacross a diverse set of jobs. To the extent thatemployees at all levels are likely to be facedmore frequently with unanticipated andambiguous decision-making situations,organizations have to count on employeesto act in ways consistent with organizationalobjectives based on their understanding of,and alignment with, organizational stand-ards, cultures, and values. In Macey andSchneider’s terms, the demands of changerequire higher levels of behavioral engage-ment from employees, insofar as behavioralunderstandings of engagement emphasizethe proactive direction of personal initiativeinways that are ‘‘adaptive’’ from theperspec-tive of the organization.

A final push for the modern emphasis onengagement in organizations comes fromemployees themselves. Although the per-sonality attributes that Macey and Schneiderdiscuss as contributing to trait engagement(e.g., positive affectivity, conscientiousness,proactive and autotelic personalities) maylead some employees to be more inclinedto evidence engagement in the workplace,the redefinition of the social contractsurrounding the employment relationshipin organizations across industries makes en-gagement amore pressing concern for manyindividuals. As the old loyalty-for-securitybargain has been cast aside, individuals andorganizations aremore tenuously connected.Whereas careers were once defined by thesteady movement over a period of timethrough a hierarchy of jobs in a single organi-zation, today individuals are increasinglycobbling together careers that involve a seriesof moves across organizational boundaries.In charge of their own work paths—and thedefinition of career success—more andmoreemployees are looking for environmentswhere they can be engaged and feel that they

are contributing in a positive way to some-thing larger than themselves.

Challenges in Operationalizing

Engagement in Applied Settings

For better or worse, we view definitions ofengagement used by consulting firms andhuman resources (HR) practitioners to bemore consistent than Macey and Schneideracknowledge. Generally speaking, consul-ting firms focused on employee engagementview the concept as encompassing, in somecombination, affective commitment (e.g.,pride in the organization, willingness to rec-ommend the organization as an employer),continuance commitment (e.g., intentions toremain with the organization), and discre-tionary effort (e.g., feeling inspired by theorganization, being willing to go aboveand beyond formal role requirements). Thus,whereas the academic literature as reviewedbyMaceyand Schneider generally referencesengagementwithwork and job roles, appliedframeworks tend instead to emphasize en-gagement with the organization.

Although among HR professionals andconsultants there tends to be broad concep-tual agreement as to what the concept ofemployee engagement entails, these practi-tioners generally do not agreewith respect tohow the concept should be operationalizedand measured. In looking across organiza-tions and the measures used to assessemployee engagement, one sees awide vari-ety of survey items and other metrics in use.In other words, although practitioners mayconcur on what employee engagement is,they are often measuring very differentthings. Some of these indicators may indeedcapture employee engagement. Others,however, most likely do not.

Accordingly, although further clarityregarding the concept and definition ofemployee engagement is likely to be usefulfrom a practitioner perspective, still moreimportant would be amore thorough debateregarding how to effectively operationalizethe concept. Because commonly held defi-nitions of engagement among practitionersare similar and relatively easy to understand,

Leveraging employee engagement 57

many HR specialists may be led to believethat operationalizing engagement should beequally straightforward. However, creatingpsychometrically sound measures of en-gagement is not an easy task, and many mea-sures created, although relatively reliable, arenot likely to be valid. The unfortunate conse-quence is that those chargedwithunderstand-ing and acting on employee engagementmetrics (e.g., through engagement-focusedemployee surveys) risk focusing limitedorganizational resources in areas wherethe impact on engagement is likely to besignificantly less than what it could orshould be. A particular challenge in oper-ationalizing employee engagement inapplied settings stems from the fact thatbecause a positive value is widely assignedto engagement by organizations and em-ployees alike (e.g., as a marker of a ‘‘good’’or ‘‘valuable’’ contributor), individual re-sponses to engagement-focused surveyquestions are likely to suffer from socialdesirability biases unless the items arecarefully constructed and tested.

Future Directions in Applied

Engagement Research

Despite the conceptual and measurementchallenges associated with leveraging theconcept of employee engagement, there isan increasing body of research available toconfirm the impact of employee attitudesgenerally, and employee engagement spe-cifically, on organizational performance.From the practitioner perspective, however,we would suggest two important futuredirections for engagement research. First,what are the consequences of a lack ofengagement? And second, are the individualand organizational outcomes resulting fromhigh levels of engagement always positive?

As Macey and Schneider note in passing,folk theories of engagement commonlyregard the concept as the opposite of disen-gagement (p. 4). Although much attentionhas been paid to defining and understandingwhat engagement entails in organizationsand its impact on individuals and organiza-tions, much less conceptual and operational

energy has been devoted to specifying whata lack of engagement involves. Is the oppo-site of engagement simply a lack of positiveenergy toward role tasks or the organizationitself? Or should the continuummore appro-priately be viewed as extending fromengagement to the absence of engagementto active disengagement, where employeesmay be investing effort in a deliberateattempt to undermine the organization andits objectives? Engagement measures cur-rently in use are not well suited to identifyemployeeswhomay be actively disengaged.And as a result, applied studies are not wellpositioned to determine the antecedentsand consequences of negative forms ofemployee motivation.

Similarly, because a positive value is typ-ically assigned to employee engagement, itis generally always regarded everywhere asa good thing for individuals and organiza-tions. But are there some circumstancesunder which high levels of engagementlead to negative outcomes? Britt (2003)has, for instance, explored the negativeconsequences of high levels of engagementwhere individuals face significant chal-lenges to getting their jobs done effectively.In a survey of U.S. Army rangers, Britt found,not surprisingly, that obstacles to high perfor-mance, such as work overload, resulted inlower levels of morale and job satisfaction.Notably, however, these effects were great-est for the most highly engaged soldiers.Indeed, ‘‘themost committed and personallyinvested rangers, the oneswho rankedwork-relevant values as the most important,ranked morale and job satisfaction lower inthe face of insurmountable impediments.Simply put, the rangers who cared mostabout their workwere the most demoralizedwhen they were thwarted from doing theirbest’’ (p. 16). Along with the negative con-sequences of a lack of support for the moti-vation of highly engaged individuals, Brittalso points to the likelihood of increasedturnover. ‘‘For these high performers,’’ heargues, ‘‘factors they can’t control—roleambiguity, inadequate resources, and over-work itself—can hinder their best work anddrive them to seek jobs elsewhere. The ones

58 R.C. Masson et al.

who stay behind may well be the ones whojust don’t care’’ (p. 17).

Conclusion

Macey and Schneider’s article is timely, asemployee engagement increasingly reso-nates with the business imperatives of orga-nizational leaders. As a relatively newconstruct, common frameworks for under-standingwhat engagement entails (andwhatit does not) are necessary to ensure that stud-ies of its antecedents and consequences arecomparable and complementary. To moni-tor and manage levels of engagement in the

workplace, however, practitioners wouldbenefit from better developed measures ofengagement and a more complete under-standing of its implications along the fullspectrum from active engagement to activedisengagement.

References

Britt, T. W. (2003, January). Black hawk down at work.Harvard Business Review, 81, 16–17.

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

Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies.New York: Free Press.

Leveraging employee engagement 59