Wilmar Schaufeli: Employee Engagement

Positive occupational healthThe challenge for the future

Wilmar SchaufeliUtrecht UniversityThe Netherlands

&University of Leuven

Belgium

Jorma Rantanen lecture, FIOH, 21 November 2014 - 1

The Low Countries Leuven Utrecht


City of Utrecht


City of Leuven



The traditional view• Disease• Disorder• Damage• Disability

Labor: Animal laborans• Effort• Strain• Sacrifice• Blood, sweat & tears• ‘In the sweat of thy face shalt

thou eat bread’ (Genesis 3:19)

The Janus-face of work

Opus: Homo faber• Creativity• Productivity• Challenge• Development• ‘In and through labor man

becomes man’ (Karl Marx)


“Positive Psychology is the scientific study of optimal humanfunctioning. It aims to discover and promote the factors thatallow individuals and communities to thrive”

Martin Seligman (1999)

It’s time for a change…..


Positive concepts

• Appreciative inquiry• Authentic leadership• Character strengths and

virtues• Courage• Emotional intelligence• Empowerment• Flourishing• Flow• Gratitude• Hope• Organizational

virtuousness

• Organizational spontaneity• Organization based self-

etsteem• Passion• Psychological capital• Resilience• Self-efficacy• Serving leadership• Spirituality• Spirit at work• Thriving• Transcendent behavior


Changes in the world of workFrom To

• Stability ● Continuous change

• Monoculture ● Diversity

• Vertical hierarchy ● Horizontal networks

• External supervision & control ● Self-control & empowerment

• Dependence on organization ● Accountability & employability

• Fixed schedules & work patterns ● Boundarylessness

• Physical demands ● Mental and emotional demands

• Individual work ● Team work

• Detailed job descriptions ● Job crafting


For modern organizations, mental capital is of increasing

importance. Therefore they do not need a merely ‘healthy’

workforce but a motivated workforce that is ‘engaged’.

‘Psychologization’


The emergence of engagement

• First used in the 1990’s in business contexts• Increase of importance of mental capital

• From 2000 onwards also in academia• Emergence of positive psychology


Engagement = business

• 2,030,000 hits (in 0.19 sec.)

• All major consultancy firms are involved


Engagement is on the rise…

Source: Google Scholar

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Work engagement Employee engagement


Num

ber

ofpu

blic

atio

ns


Why positive?

Scientific• To overcome the one-sided negative focus

• To challenge the notion of one-dimensionality

• To add explanatory power

Practical• To be in line with business developments

• To connect HRM and OH&S

Pragmatic• It is more appealing

• It is fun

What is engagement?Concept and measurement



Engagement in business

Employee engagement is usually defined in terms of:• Organizational commitment (affective – say and continuance - stay)

• Extra-role behavior (discretionary effort - strive)

: “Engaged employees consistently demonstrate three generalbehaviors. They: (1) Say – consistently speak positively about theorganization to co-workers, potential employees, and customers; (2)Stay – have an intense desire to be a member of the organization despiteopportunities to work elsewhere; (3) Strive – exert extra time, effort,and initiative to contribute to business success” (www.hewittassociates.com).


http://www.hewittassociates.com)./

Engagement in academia

“Work engagement is a positive, affective-motivational state offulfillment that is characterized by vigor, dedication, andabsorption” (p. 74).

Schaufeli et al. (2002)


Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)

• Vigor• “At my job I feel strong and vigorous”

• Dedication• “I am enthusiastic about my work”

• Absorption• “I get carried away by my work”

Available in 26 language versions from www.wilmarschaufeli.nlFinnish version: Seppälä et al. (2009)

Schaufeli et al. (2002, 2006)


http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/

What do we know?


Prevalence of engagement

Study Sample Engaged (%)

Gallup (2010) US 28%

Towers Perrin (2005) US 23%

Blessing White (2005) US 21%

Towers Perrin (2004) UKFranceGermany

14%14%23%

Gallup (2003) UKFranceGermany

19%12%12%

± 25%

± 15%


Demographics of engagement(N = 4,000 representative Dutch national sample)

• Weak positive relationship with age (r = .10)

• No systematic gender differences• Differences between professions:

Smulders (2006)

High in engagement:• entrepreneurs• teachers• managers• artists• farmers• sales persons• nurses

Low in engagement:• blue-collar workers

• food processing• printers

• police officers• ICT-workers• home care staff• retail workers


Development of engagement across time

• Engagement is relatively stable across time (Mauno et al., 2007; Seppälä et al.,

2009)

• Engagement and workaholism develop separately, job change

has positive effect (Mäkikangas et al., 2013)

• Vigor and exhaustion do not develop in tandem, but dedication

and cynicism do (Mäkikangas et al., 2012)

• Two profiles: Engaged and Exhausted-Workaholic (Innanen et al., 2014)


Engagement model in business

‘Linkage studies’

Engagementdrivers

Employeeengagement

Businessoutcomes


Drivers of engagement

• Trust and integrity of management

• Personal relationship with manager

• Co-workers and team (support, climate)

• Challenging job (autonomy, participation)

• Skill development

• Career opportunities

• Line-of-sight between individual and company performance

• Pride about the company

Source: Gibbons (2006), based on 12 studies using over 500,000 employees around the globe


Business outcomes (linkage studies)

• Sales performance at team level (Bates, 2004 Fleming et al. 2005)

• Customer service productivity (Conference Board, 2003)

• Customer satisfaction (Coco & Jamison, 2011)

• Company’s financial performance (Hewitt, 2004)

• Individual job performance (CLC, 2004)

• Customer’s discretionary purchases (Oakley, 2005)

• Retention and turnover (Towers Perrin, 2005)

For additional case studies see the report to the UK government of MacLeod & Clarke (2010). Engaging

for success: Enhancing performance through engagement.


Engaged vs. non-engaged units152 organizations; 32,394 business units; 955,905 employees

Gallup, 2010; See also Harter, Schmidt & Hayes, 2002

Absenteeism Safety incidents Quality (defects)

Customersatisfaction Productivity Profitability

- 37%

- 49%

- 60%

+12%+18% +16%


Academic studies

• Is engagement something specific?

• What are its antecedents and consequences

• How can it be explained?


Types of affective employee well-being

ACTIVATION

DEACTIVATION

PLEASUREDISPLEASURE

Adapted from Russell (2003)

SATISFIED

WORKADDICTED

BURNED-OUT

ENGAGED


Putting the taxomomy to the test

Salanova et al. (2014)


Engagement goes beyond job satisfaction

Correlation between engagement and satisfaction: .53 (k=4, N=9,712)

k N Satisfaction Engagement

Task performance 5 1175 .30 .39Contextual performance 4 1139 .24 .43

Christian, Garza & Slaughter (2011)


Antecedents

Job resources• Job control• Social support• Performance feedback• Opportunity to develop• Task variety• Responsibility• Transformational leadership• Value fit• Organizational justice

For reviews and meta-analyses see: Halbesleben (2010); Mauno et al. (2010); Crawford et al. 2010; Christian et al. (2011)

Challenge demands• Workload• Time urgency• Mental demands


Antecedents

Job resources• Job control (autonomy)

• Social support (co-workers and team)

• Performance feedback (line-of-sight)

• Opportunity to develop (career opportunities)

• Task variety (skill development)

• Responsibility (challenging job)

• Transformational leadership (personal relation with leader)

• Value fit (pride)

• Organizational justice (trust & integrity)

For reviews and meta-analyses see: Halbesleben (2010); Mauno et al. (2010); Crawford et al. 2010; Christian et al. (2011)

Challenge demands• Workload (challenging job)

• Time urgency (idem)

• Mental demands (idem)


• Emotional stability

• Extraversion

• Conscientiousness

• Optimism

• Self-confidence

• Achievement striving

• Adaptive perfectionism (i.e. personal standards)

Person characteristics

For reviews see: Simpson (2009), Schaufeli & Salanova (2008), Schaufeli & Taris (2012)


Individual outcomes

Physical• Reactivity of the HPA (Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal) –axis (Langelaan et al. 2006)

• Cardiac autonomic activity (Seppälä et al., 2012)

Mental• Low levels depression (Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012; Anxiety (Innstrand, 2012)

• Perceived physical/psychosomatic health (Schaufeli, Taris, van Rhenen, 2008)

• Sleep quality (Kubota et al., 20l1); Sleep hygiene (Barber et al., 2013)

Behavioral• Workability (Airila et al. 2012)

• Proactive behavior (Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008)


Organizational outcomes

• Quality of service as perceived by customers (Salanova et al. 2005, Fischer, 2012)

• Self-reported medical errors (Prins et al., 2009)

• Occup. injuries, adverse events, unsafe behaviors (Nährgang, 2011)

• Manager’s and co-worker’s rated job performance (Halbesleben & Wheeler,

2008)

• Innovativeness (Hakanen, Perhoniemi & Toppinen-Tanner, 2007)

• Frequency of sickness absenteeism (Schaufeli, Bakker & Van Rhenen, 2009)

• Financial return (Xantopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2008); Pay level (Hakkanen &

Koivumäki, 2014)


A model for work engagement

Jobresources

Challengedemands

Personal andorganizational

outcomesEngagement

Adapted from Bakker & Demerouti (2007, 2008)

Personalresources

Leadership


What we know…

• Work engagement differs from workaholism and job satisfaction

• Similar antecedents of work engagement are identified by business and

academic research

• Business research shows linkage with business outcomes

• Academic research shows links with person characteristics and individual

outcomes and – to a lesser degree – organizational outcomes

• A dynamic psychological motivation process seems to exist

• Leadership might play a crucial (indirect) role


How to improve engagement ?


Interventions

Treatmentà Preventionà‘Amplition’


Different levels (empirical evidence)

• Individual level• Gratefulness and kindness (Ouweneel, Le Blanc & Schaufeli, 2014)

• Mindfulness (Leroy, Anseel, Dimitrova & Sels, 2013)

• Job crafting training (Van den Heuvel, Demerouti & Peeters, 2012)

• Career management training (Vuori, Toppinen-Tanner & Mutanan, 2011)

• Team level• Manager led group meetings (Allen & Rogeslberg, 2013)

• Caring leadership (Bishop, 2013)

• Team redesign (Cifre, Salanova & Rodriguez, 2010)

• Team-level collaborative job crafting (McClelland, 2014)

• Organization level• Performance management (Mone et al., 2011)

• Leadership development (Biggs, Brough & Bardour, 2014)

For additional case studies see: MacLeod & Clarke Simpson (2010)


Key-factors for success (consultancy experience)

1. Systematic, stepwise approach

2. Combination of approaches

3. Participation

4. Communication

5. Commitment from top-management

6. Focus on operational leadership

There is neither a ‘silver bullet’ nor a ‘quick fix’


Work engagement…..

• … seems to be a unique construct

• … can be measured in a valid and reliable way

• ... is fostered by job and personal resources

• … has positive consequences for employee and organization

• … may be improved by interventions at different levels


Paljon kiitoksia mielenkiinnostanne!More information

Academic: www.wilmarschaufeli.nlConsultancy: www.3ihc.nl


http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/

http://www.3ihc.nl/

Health & Medicine

Wilmar Schaufeli: Employee Engagement