The Individual Side of Employee Engagement A Research Study

By Dilbag Singh

1.   Introduction   The primary objective of every organization is to create value through the delivery of products

and services. The employees of the organization are central to this process of value creation.

They are the ones who utilize the capabilities embodied in their person in addition to the

provided resources so as to create the maximum value. Leveraging these resources, especially

the personal ones possessed by the employees result in optimal performance that greatly

affects the way teams and organization perform. Therefore, it becomes of primary interest for

managers and leaders alike to understand and facilitate the process by which the employees

are able to fully engage themselves towards the performance of their work.

One of the most recent and popular constructs for understanding this process is that of

“employee engagement”. It has emerged as a very popular term - not only in the HR

community, but also among other senior executives and board members. CXOs are embracing

evidence-based analysis showing how people-based strategies that improve employee

engagement clearly impact bottom-line results (Boudreau & Jesuthasan, 2011) (Gruman &

Saks, 2010) (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007) (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). Emerging

research indicates that people are truly an organization’s most valuable asset, and that

employee engagement is a key lever towards maximizing shareholder value.

However, despite its popularity, there remains a dearth of peer reviewed academic literature

on the subject. The literature also does not provide a clear definition of employee engagement

(Shuck & Wollard, 2010) (Markos & Sridevi, 2010). Nevertheless, various case studies and

results from research organizations as well as world of practice have established that there is a

strong linkage between employee engagement, performance and business impact.

Research shows that there are multiple factors that impact the level of employee engagement.

These factors are related to the employee, their managers, the leaders in the organization and

the organizational environment. The present study recognizes that the employee as a person is

at the center of the employee engagement construct. (S)he is the one who has to be engaged in

the job/work that is assigned. Therefore, this study makes an attempt to understand these

 human person-related factors that are crucial in engaging the employee, and how this

understanding can be deployed to increase the chances of engaging the employee.

2.   The  Definition  and  Meaning  of  Employee  Engagement        William A. Kahn was the one who first coined the term employee engagement in his Academy of

Management Journal article, “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and

Disengagement at Work” (Kahn, 1990). Kahn defined personal engagement as “the

simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s “preferred self” in task behaviors that

promote connections to work and to others, personal presence, and active full role

performances” (p. 700). According to Kahn the domains of meaningfulness, safety, and

availability were important to understand the phenomenon of engaged at work. Kahn defined

Meaningfulness was defined as the positive “sense of return on investments of self in role

performance” (p. 705). Safety was defined as the ability to show one’s self “with- out fear or

negative consequences to self image, status, or career” (p. 705). Availability was defined as the

“sense of possessing the physical, emotional, and psychological resources necessary” (p. 705)

for the completion of work.

Kahn’s conceptualization of personal engagement was one of the early literatures on

engagement till Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) pointed out that employee engagement

was the positive antithesis to burnout. They defined employee engagement as “a persistent

positive affective state characterized by high levels of activation and pleasure” (Maslach,

Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001).

According to the earliest practitioner’s reference, employee engagement was defined as an

“individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work” (Harter,

Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). This definition significantly altered the way engagement was seen

by adding the expectation of an individual’s satisfaction level. However, as per the most widely

used definition, work engagement is defined as “a positive, fulfilling, work related state of

mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli W. , Salanova,

González-Roma, & Bakker, 2002). Here Vigor is “a high level of energy and mental resilience

while working, willingness to one’s efforts in one’s work and persistence even in the face of

difficulties. Dedication is “Being strongly involved in one’s work and experiencing a sense of

significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge”. Absorption is “being fully

 concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work”.

The first academic research that made an attempt to specifically conceptualize and test

antecedents and consequences of employee engagement occurred in 2006 (Saks, 2006). Prior

to his work, practitioner literature was the only body of work connecting the drivers employee

engagement to its consequences. Saks defined employee engagement as “a distinct and unique

construct consisting of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components . . . associated with

individual role performance” (p. 602). He was able to make a connection between the early

theories of employee engagement, practitioner literature, and the academic community.

In 2006, SHRM commissioned a publication on employee engagement and commitment. But,

it could not provide a clear and concise definition of employee engagement. However, what it did

manage to do was to provide recognition to the construct of employee engagement as a

construct of value among the professional societies. Since the first SHRM publication, future

SHRM studies have developed further conceptualizations around the employee engagement

construct (Lockwood, 2007).

In the year 2008, the ASTD also commissioned a study in the area of employee engagement in

association with Dale Carnegie Training (Czarnowsky, 2008). The main aim of the study was

to understand the role of learning in the employee engagement construct, the first look into the

concept from an HRD perspective. ASTD defined engagement as “employees who are mentally

and emotionally invested in their work and in contributing to their employer’s success”

(Czarnowsky, 2008). The results of the study showed connections to the foundational work of

Kahn (1990) and Maslach et al. (2001) by creating meaningful work environments, providing

opportunities for learning and focusing on the experience of the employee.

Macey & Schneider (2008) proposed that employee engagement develops from (a) trait

engagement, (b) state engagement, and (c) behavioral engagement (Macey & Schneider,

2008). They defined Trait engagement as the “inclination or orientation to experience the world

from a particular vantage point”. Psychological state engagement was described as an antecedent

to behavioral engagement (encompassing the constructs of satisfaction, involvement,

commitment, and empowerment). Finally, behavioral engagement was construed in terms of

“discretionary effort”.

More recently, Shuck and Wollard (2011) have defined employee engagement as “an

individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state directed toward desired

organizational outcomes” (Shuck & Wollard, 2011)

 The above review of the existing literature provides the following insights about the

phenomenon of employee engagement:

1. There are a lot of factors that play a huge role in employee engagement such as job

demands, Job resources, co-workers, managers, leaders and organizational

environment.

2. It is a psychological process or an experiential state and the employee is central to it.

3. The engagement level of an employee can vary from time to time. At one end of the

scale is completely disengaged employee and the other end of scale is completely

engaged. The degree to which an employee is engaged at any point of tome can vary

between these two extremities.

3.  The  Need  for  Employee  Engagement      Research indicates that Employee Engagement is the key to organization's success and

competitiveness. Many scholars have claimed that engagement is pivotal for contemporary

organizations, given the kind of challenges they face in a dynamic global environment

(Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007). Macey et al. (2009) argue that organizations can gain

significant competitive advantage through employee engagement. They researched a sample of

65 firms in different industries, and found that the organizations scoring within the top 25% on

an engagement index had a greater return on assets (ROA), profitability, and more than

double the shareholder value compared to the bottom 25%. Employee engagement has also

been seen as a key driver of individual attitudes, behavior, and performance as well as

organizational performance, productivity, retention, financial performance, and even

shareholder return (Bates, 2004; Baumruk, 2004; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Richman,

2006). High levels of employee engagement lead to employees who are more productive,

profitable, safer, healthier, less likely to turnover, less likely to be absent, and more willing to

engage in discretionary efforts (Buchanan, 2004; Fleming & Asplund, 2007; The Gallup

Organization, 2001; Wagner & Harter, 2006).

Employee engagement is the result of a unique bond that produces remarkable financial

results for companies. According to Gallup research, the business units in the top quartile of

engagement have 12% higher customer advocacy, 18% higher productivity, and 12% higher

profitability than bottom-quartile business units (Robison, 2009). On the one hand, if the

increased employee engagement results in higher return the decline in engagement leads to

 significant loss of productivity. The bottom quartile of business units have 51% more inventory

shrinkage, 31% to 51% more employee turnover, and 62% more accidents than business units

in the top quartile (Robison, 2009).

According to a UK government study, branches of a leading multinational bank that displayed

an increase in levels of employee engagement had a 16% higher profit margin than those,

which had a decrease in employee engagement levels (Clarke & MacLeod, 2009). Another

study of 64 organizations by Kenexa reveals that the organizations with highly engaged

workforce achieve twice the annual net income to those with less engaged workforce (Kenexa,

2008). A similar study by Towers Perrin found that a 5% increase in employee engagement

leads to .7% increase in operating margin (Perrins, 2004). In a UK based fortune 500

manufacturing company, the turnover and absenteeism were respectively 14.5% and 8%

respectively whereas for highly engaged teams the turnover and absenteeism were 4.1% and

4.8% respectively (Wellins, Bernthal, & Phelps, 2005).

4.  The  Measurement  of  Employee  Engagement    

 In order to operationalize or enhance employee engagement, a measurement tool becomes

absolutely necessary. The earliest attempt to measure employee engagement was made by

Maslach and Leiter by assuming it to be an antipode of burnout (Maslach & Leiter, 1997).

Burnout and engagement constitute the opposite poles of a continuum of work related well

being - with burnout representing the negative pole and engagement the positive pole. The

definition of burnout by Maslach and Leiter (1997) included the terms of exhaustion, cynicism

and reduced professional efficacy. It followed that engagement is characterized by energy,

involvement and efficacy. The three aspects of engagement were the opposites of those of

burnout. Therefore, the low score on the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) – implied work

engagement. Therefore the low scores on the exhaustion and cynicism scales, and a high score

on the professional efficacy scale of the MBI is indicative of engagement (Maslach et al 1996).

In 2001, Schaufeli & Bakker, argued that the concepts of burnout and engagement were not

perfectly negatively correlated. That is, if an employee is not burned out, it does not mean that

(s)he is engaged - or vice versa. Additionally, the relationship between both the constructs

cannot be empirically studied when measured by the same instrument (Schaufeli & Bakker,

2004).

 Therefore, a seventeen item self-report questionnaire – called the Utrecht Work Engagement

Scale (UWES) – was developed. Each item was measured on a 7-point Likert scale. It was

based on the following definition of employee engagement: Engagement is a positive, fulfilling,

work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption

(Schaufeli W. , Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002). Based on the above definition,

the questionnaire included the three constituting aspects of work engagement: vigor, dedication,

and absorption.

Vigor was assessed by the six items that refer to high levels of energy and resilience, the willingness

to invest effort, not being easily fatigued, and persistence in the face of difficulties.

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

2. At my job, I feel strong and vigorous*

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

4. I can continue working for very long periods at a time

5. At my job, I am very resilient, mentally

6. At my work I always persevere, even when things do not go well

Dedication was assessed by five items that refer to deriving a sense of significance from one’s work,

feeling enthusiastic and proud about one’s job, and feeling inspired and challenged by it.

1. I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose

2. I am enthusiastic about my job*

3. My job inspires me*

4. I am proud on the work that I do*

5. To me, my job is challenging

Absorption was measured by six items that refer to being totally and happily immersed in one’s work

and having difficulties detaching oneself from it so that time passes quickly and one forgets

everything else that is around.

1. Time flies when I'm working

2. When I am working, I forget everything else around me

3. I feel happy when I am working intensely*

4. I am immersed in my work*

5. I get carried away when I’m working*

6. It is difficult to detach myself from my job

 A shorter version of UWES (UWES 9) was also created that constituted three items each for

each vigor, dedication and Absorption. These items are marked with asterisk (*) above.

The results of later studies showed that the UWES-17 had quite extended encouraging

psychometric properties, for example, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from 0.80 to

0.90, the factor loadings exceeded 0.70 and it yielded three factors valid model fit (Shimazu,

Schaufeli, Kosugi, Suzuki, & Nashiwa, 2008). Due to possessing considerable reliability and

validity features, the UWES-17 has been most extensively used in different types of

organizations around the world. It has also been translated to many languages (Seppälä,

Mauno, Feldt, Hakanen, & Kinnunen, 2009).

Another measurement tool used for employee engagement is designed and developed by the

Gallup Corporation. It is a self-report questionnaire consisting of 12 items. Each item is to be

rated on a scale of 1 to 5. The questionnaire is known as Q12. The first version of Q12 was

developed in 1990 and was named as (“The Gallup Workplace Audit” or GWA). The final

wording and order of Q12 was completed in 1998. Since then it has been administered to more

than 22 million employees in 189 different countries and 69 languages. Additionally, a series of

studies have been conducted examining the cross-cultural properties of the instrument (Harter

& Agrawal, 2011). The reliability, convergent validity, and criterion-related validity of Q12

have been extensively studied.

The 12 items of the Gallup Q12 are based on:

1. Expectations: Clarity of Expectations and outcomes from the Job

2. Materials and equipment: Availability of right materials and equipment for accomplishing the job.

3. Opportunity to do what I do best

4. Recognition for good work

5. Presence of somebody who cares about the employee.

6. Regular encouragement and development at work.

7. Opinions count: Recognition of opinions and inputs given by the employee.

8. Mission/Purpose: Clarity of mission and purpose of their work.

9. Commitment of colleagues towards quality work

10. Presence of best friend at work.

11. Discussion of the performance and feedback in a timely manner.

12. Opportunities to learn and grow.

 As a total instrument, the Q12 has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91. The meta-analytic convergent

validity of the equally weighted mean (or sum) of items Q01-Q12 (Grand Mean) to the

equally weighted mean (or sum) of additional items in longer surveys (measuring all known

facets of job satisfaction and engagement) is 0.91. This provides evidence that the Q12, as a

composite measure, captures the general factor in longer employee surveys. Individual items

correlate to their broader dimension true-score values, on average, at approximately 0.70

(Harter J. , Schmidt, Agrawal, & Plowman, 2013).

5.  Facilitating  Employee  Engagement      The various definitions of employee engagement discussed in this research paper describe it as

a psychological state wherein the employee is fully involved and engrossed in discharging the

job responsibilities. Much of the extant research is around the indicators or the behaviours

displayed while the employee is engaged. A little research has taken place on the key employee

centric drivers of engagement or the engagement process. In the present section, these

relatively less explored areas of employee engagement are discussed.

Kahn defined personal engagement, as “the simultaneous employment and expression of a

person’s preferred self in task behaviors.” Kahn explains the premise of preferred self as the

dimensions of people that given appropriate conditions, they prefer to use and express at their

job (Kahn W. , 1990). The application of these personal dimensions to job results in expression

of self, resulting in engagement. However, Kahn did not explain these personal dimensions in

detail. However, such an expression or involvement of self in work is explained by constructs

such as Flow (Csikszentmihalyi M. , 1982) and Intrinsic Motivation (Deci, 1975).

5.1   Intrinsic  Motivation    Intrinsic motivation is defined as a desire to perform an activity without any obvious external

rewards. Intrinsically motivated people simply enjoy the experience of the activity, or see it as

an opportunity to explore, learn, and actualize our potentials (Coon & Mitterer, 2010). The

underlying desire to engage in the behaviour or activity is driven by an interest or enjoyment

in the task itself. Such interest towards an activity is similar to the personal dimensions

mentioned in Kahn’s paper. As in the case of engaged employees, research also indicates that

people who engage in job related activities for intrinsic reasons are more satisfied with their

work and perform better (Bono & Judge, 2003).

Therefore, in order for an activity or task to be intrinsically motivating, it has to be in line with

 the passions and interests of a person. Such an alignment of the task and interests results in a

higher level of engagement.

5.2   Flow    In his paper, Kahn also included individual differences as the future direction of research in

work engagement. The individual differences are the reasons behind the individual’s

disposition towards engaging or not engaging in all or some of the activities related to the job

responsibilities (Kahn W. , 1990). These individual differences govern the degree to which a

person is engaged from being completely disengaged at one end and fully engaged at the other.

For example, an academic may be highly engaged in the research aspect of his/her job.

However, the level of engagement may be relatively lower when it comes to the teaching and

the service aspects of the job.

This differing degree of engagement in various activities related to the job role can be

explained by the construct of Flow (Csikszentmihalyi M. , 2002).

Mihaly describes the experience of flow as the optimal momentary experiences where the

challenges of the activities match with the skills possessed by the person. Additionally, the

likelihood of achieving a flow state increases when the challenges/difficulty level of activities

move beyond an average or above average level that requires higher-level skills

(Csikszentmihalyi M. , 2002). In the Flow state, people are found to exhibit the following

characteristics (Nakamura & Csikssentmihalyi, 2009):

1. Intense and focused concentration on what one is doing in the present moment.

2. Merging of Action and Awareness

3. Distortion of temporal experience (A sense that the time has passed faster than normal)

4. Experience of activity as intrinsically rewarding such that the end goal is just an excuse

for the process.

The flow state is also directly linked to optimal functioning and development. Schaufeli et al

(2002) defines employee engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work related state of mind that is

characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption.” The construct of “absorption” is explained

as being fully concentrated and engrossed in the work, similar to the characteristics number 1,

2 and 3 listed above. Experiencing absorption also provides intrinsic rewards that further

encourage persistence in an activity (Snyder, Lopez, & Pedrotti, 2011). Thereby, a direct

linkage between employee engagement and the construct of flow is showcased.

 5.3   Talent  as  a  Source  of  Flow    In their longitudinal researches conducted by Csikszentmihalyi et al (1993) on talented

teenagers, the researchers found that the commitment to a talent area at the age of 17 was

predicted by student’s identification of this talent area as the source of flow 4 years previously.

In another research, it was found that the students who experience flow in first part of a math

course performed better in the second half (Heine, 1996).

These longitudinal researches suggest that commitment, achievement and persistence

exhibited by teenagers were associated with their identification of a talent area as a source

flow, through their previous experiences of flow. Therefore, in order to enhance the level of

engagement in a person, an exploration is required for those areas of talent that facilitate flow

experiences. The person should then be entrusted with such task/job roles that require above

average deployment of the skills and talents. The pioneering work of Donald Clifton in the

area of individual strengths defines the talent areas as “naturally recurring patterns of thought,

feeling, or behaviour that can be productively applied.” “ These talents can be traced in life

experiences characterized by spontaneous reactions, yearnings, rapid learning, satisfaction and

timelessness” (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). Donald Clifton viewed these areas of talents are

the raw materials for strengths. The strength construct combines the area of talent with right

knowledge and skills and is defined as the ability to provide consistent and near perfect

performance in a specific task.

Another reference to the concept of talent is found in Herbert Shepard’s seminal article, “A

Path with a Heart”. Shepard has employed the term “genius” for the individual differences

mentioned by Kahn in his article. According to Shepard (1984), “genius” refers to those

personal talents that an individual would love to develop and use. These talents are the

“resources” that may be presently or potentially deployed in order to perform with, or deliver,

excellence. Such performance or activity is so fulfilling that if one also got paid to do them, it

would feel like a gift rather than compensation (Shepard, 1984).

5.4  The  Process  of  Identifying  Talents      The above discussion about the areas of interests, talents, strengths and genius addresses the

perspective provided by Kahn while proposing the future direction of research in the area of

employee engagement. As the inherent interests, talents and strengths possessed by the person

differ both in degree and variety; the above discussion explains the reason behind different

individuals demonstrating differing level of engagement towards the same job or its sub-

 components. Further, the degree to which the inherent interests, talents and strength are

employed in various job responsibilities dictates the reason behind the varying degrees of

engagement exhibited by the same individual while performing the job roles at different times.

Therefore, in order to enhance the level of engagement, the areas of inherent interests and

talents of an individual should be explored. Donald Clifton used semi-structured interviews to

identify these talents. The questions in these interviews were based the past success stories of

the interviewees (Snyder, Lopez, & Pedrotti, 2011). Similarly, Herbert Shepard (1984)

mentioned three sources of information that are helpful in discovery of “genius”:

1. The first source is “play”. Making a list of things that one enjoys doing and finding

common themes can provide insights about one’s talents.

2. The second source is “life history”. It entails recording in some detail the times in one’s

past life when the person was doing something very well and enjoying it very much.

What themes or patterns of strength, skill and activity pervade most of those times?

What were the sources of satisfaction therein?

3. The third source is feedback from others. Seeking answers to the following questions

can help in discovering genius”

Ø What do those who know you have to say about your strengths and talents?

Ø As the people who know you see it, what seems to excite, give you pleasure, engage you?.

This methodology of asking questions that help uncover the past success stories, is similar to

Appreciative Inquiry technique propounded by David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastava.

“Appreciative Inquiry deliberately seeks to discover people’s exceptionality – their unique gifts, strengths,

and qualities. It actively searches and recognizes people for their specialties – their essential contributions

and achievements. Its goal is to discover in all human beings the exceptional and the essential”.

(Cooperrider, 2001)

Appreciative Inquiry consists of a four-stage process: Discover, Dream, Design and Deploy.

During discover stage the focus is on identifying the core strengths of the individuals. The core

strengths are derived from the word appreciate which is “the act of recognizing the best in

people or the world around us” or “affirming past and present strengths, successes, and

potentials” (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). These factors are put together, called the positive

core, and are used as a base point for change. The Discovery part of AI is derived from the

word inquiry which is “the act of exploration and discovery” or to ask questions; to be open to

 seeing new potentials and possibilities” (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). Participants normally

take part in structured interviews or storytelling in order to isolate the factors that contribute

to optimal personal performance levels. These interviews are a systematic way of uncovering

what brings out the best in people.

The information generated by these questions can be analyzed to identify recurring themes or

patterns. These themes or pattern can then be further explored to discover or reaffirm the

inherent interests and talents of an individual. These areas of talents can then be aligned to the

activities involved in one’s job role to increase the level of work engagement.

6.  Conclusion   Employee engagement has generated a widespread interested among both academics and

practitioners over the last two and half decades. It is also widely accepted that employee

engagement is directly related to superior performance at individual, team and organizational

level. Multiple attempts have been made in first defining the construct and secondly to

measure the level of employee engagement. The researchers agree on the behaviours exhibited

and the psychological state of the engaged employee or person. The study also highlights two

of the most repeatedly instrument used by academics and practitioners to measure the level of

employee engagement. The discussion of the Intrinsic Motivation and Flow constructs

revealed that deployment of interest/talents/strengths of an individual is central to engaging

the employees. These areas of interest/talents/strengths can be identified by making the

individuals reflect on their past peak experiences using the Appreciative Inquiry technique.

Once properly identified, these interest/talent/strength areas can be aligned to the various

activities performed by individuals in their job roles leading to increased levels of employee

engagement.

Fully understanding the conceptual nature of the research and its finding, the author invites

further research by academics and practitioners to gather empirical evidence around the

positive correlation between deployment of interests/talents/strengths in job roles and

enhancement in employee engagement levels. Additional research should be conducted to

empirically test the efficacy of Appreciative Inquiry technique as a method to identify the

interests/talents/strengths of individuals.

 References

Bakker, & Bal. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83 (1), 189-206.

Bono, J., & Judge, T. (2003). Self Concordance at work: Towards Understanding the Motivational Effects of transformational Leaders. Academy of Management Journal , 46 (5), 554-571.

Boudreau, J., & Jesuthasan, R. (2011). Transformative HR: How Great Companies Use Evidence-Based Change for Sustainable Advantage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, L. (2007). Psychology of motivation. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. (2001). Now, Discover Your Strengths. London: Pocket Books.

Carasco-Saul, M., Woocheol, K., & Taesung, K. (2015). Leadership and Employee Engagement: Proposing Research Agendas Through a Review of Literature. Human Resource Development Review , 14 (1), 38-63.

Clarke, N., & MacLeod, D. (2009). Engaging for Success: Enhancing performance through employee engagement. Richmond, Surrey: UK Government.

Coon, D., & Mitterer, J. (2010). Introduction to psychology: Gateways to mind and behavior with concept maps. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Cooperrider, D.L. et. al. (Eds) , Lessons from the Field: Applying Appreciative Inquiry, Thin Book Publishing, 2001, page 12.

David Cooperrider and Diana Whitney, “What is Appreciative Inquiry?” A Positive Revolution in Change: Appreciative Inquiry, 01 May 2005, <http://appreciativeinquiry.cwru.edu/intro/whatisai.cfm>.

Csikszentmihalyi , M., Rathunde , K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented Teenagers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1982). Beyind Boredom and Anxiety. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). Flow. Croydon: Rider.

Czarnowsky, M. (2008). Learning’s role in employee engagement: An ASTD research study. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development.

Deci, E. (1975). Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2010). New Developments in Performance Management. Human Resource Management Review , 21 (2), 123-136.

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, 268-279.

Harter, J., & Agrawal, S. (2011). Cross-cultural analysis of Gallup’s Q12 employee engagement instrument. Omaha,NE: Gallup.

Harter, J., Schmidt, F., & Hayes, T. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology (87), 268-279.

Harter, J., Schmidt, F., Agrawal, S., & Plowman, S. (2013). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENGAGEMENT AT WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES 2012 Q12® META-ANALYSIS . Lincoln: Gallup.

Heine. (1996). Flow and Achievement in Mathematics. In C. Snyder, S. J. Lopez, & J. T. Pedrotti, Positive Psychology (p. 259). New Delhi: Sage Pulication.

Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal , 33, 692-794.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal (33), 692-724.

 Kenexa. (2008). The Impact of Employee Engagement. Kenexa Research Institute. Wayne, PA: Kenexa.

Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for a competitive advantage. SHRM Research Quarterly .

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

Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance. International Journal of Business and Management , 5 (12), 89-96.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. (1997). The Truth About Burnout. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Maslach, C., Jackson, S., & Leiter, M. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual (3rd edn.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W., & Leiter, M. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology (52), 397-422.

Nakamura, J., & Csikssentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow Theory and Research. In S. Lopez, & C. Snyder, Oxford handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 195-206). New York: Oxford University Press.

Perrins, T. (2004). Reconnecting with Employees: Quantifying the value of engaging your workforce. London: Tower Perrins.

Saks, A. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 21, 600-619.

Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2004, December -). UTRECHT WORK ENGAGEMENT SCALE. Retrieved March 26, 2015, from wilmarschaufeli.nl: http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/Test%20Manuals/Test_manual_UWES_English.pdf

Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki, Managing social and ethical issues in organizations (pp. 135-177). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

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

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

Schmidt, F. L., Harter, K. J., Killham, E. A., & Asplund, J. W. (2012). Resources. Retrieved 09 02, 2013, from Gallup: http://strengths.gallup.com/private/Resources/Q12Meta-Analysis_Flyer_GEN_08%2008_BP.pdf

Seppälä, Mauno, Feldt, Hakanen, & Kinnunen, T. (2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies , 10 (4), 459-481.

Shepard, H. (1984). On the realization of Human Potential: A path with a heart. In M. Arthur, L. Bailyn, D. Levenson, & H. Shepard, Working with Careers (pp. 25-46). New York: Columbia University School of Business.

Shimazu, Schaufeli, Kosugi, Suzuki, & Nashiwa, K. (2008). Work engagement in Japan: validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Applied Psychology , 57 (3), 510-523.

Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the Foundations. Human Resource Development Review , 9 (1), 89-110.

Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2011). Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the Foundations. Human Resource Development Review , 9, 89.

Snyder, C., Lopez, S. J., & Pedrotti, J. T. (2011). Positive Psychology. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Wellins, R. S., Bernthal, P., & Phelps, M. (2005). Employee Engagement: The key to realizing competitive advantage. Retrieved 09 02, 2013, from Development Dimensions International: http://www.wip.ddiworld.com/pdf/ddi_employeeengagement_mg.pdf

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 About The Author

Mr. Dilbag Singh brings ten years of rich, multi-faceted experience

in the areas of Operations and Human Resource Management in a

global milieu. During his assignments at IBM Daksh (2003 - 05),

Equinox Global Services (2005 - 06) and NIIT (2006 - 09), Dilbag

worked with stakeholders from US, Europe and Asia Pacific and won

numerous awards for his performance. As a Learning and Development expert at NIIT in

particular, Dilbag delighted all the stakeholders by designing and implementing

transformational learning solutions for a global electronics major.

Dilbag revels in employing strength-based, experiential processes for facilitating group

and organization development. His areas of passion include Team Effectiveness,

Supervisory Acumen, and Managerial Efficacy.

Dilbag holds a Bachelors degree in Commerce (2004) from Maharshi Dayanand

University, Rohtak, and has completed an MBA with a specialization in Human Resource

Management from Aston University, Birmingham and XLRI, Jamshedpur (2011).