HR1
sar234
2.pptxEngagement – Academic Perspectives 1
Kahn (1990) & his interpreters
Shuck’s ‘engagement’ taxonomy
Shuck (2011) systematic review of the academic definitions of engagement
213 publications
4 approaches to defining ‘engagement’
Needs-Satisfying approach (Kahn, 1990),
Burnout-Antithesis approach (Maslach et al, 1997; Schaufeli et al., 2002),
Satisfaction-Engagement approach (Harter et al., 2002) and
Multidimensional approach (Saks, 2006)
NB these are Shuck’s names for the approaches
2
Agenda for today
Introduce key academic research and concepts
Introduce Kahn’s (1990) research
Introduce research based on Kahn
May et al. (2004)
Rich et al. (2010)
3
Kahn (1990)
“grounded theory” study of (a) camp teachers, and (b) architecture firm employees
Identified
“personal engagement” and “personal disengagement”
A continuum of responses
Determined by “meaningfulness”, “psychological safety” and “availability”
Kahn’s overall model
(Kahn 1992, p.340)
Kahn (1990)
“personal engagement”:
“the simultaneous employment = (using your skills) and expression of a person’s “preferred self” in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional), and active, full role performances.” (p. 700)
6
Kahn – being personally engaged
“I like showing kids the ocean because I really believe that if we don't teach the kids and take care of the kids, the whole planet is going to hell in a handbasket. It's something I enjoy, so I enjoy sharing it with people. If I can take one kid out of the whole camp and turn him onto diving, the ocean, that kind of stuff, and if he goes on and turns others on, then I think I've done my job.”
(scuba diving instructor, Kahn 1987 41)
7
Kahn (1990)
“personal disengagement”:
“is the simultaneous withdrawal and defense of a person’s preferred self in behaviors that promote a lack of connections, physical, cognitive, and emotional absence, and passive, in-complete role performances.” (p.701)
8
Kahn – being personally disengaged
[When I] had to give a scuba lecture to the kids, and was told exactly what material to cover and in what order, and was not allowed to use the videos I had brought to show them, not just tell them, about the material. … the lecture was very mechanical, and I couldn't help how cynical it sounded (even to me). It was mindless, I was running on empty, and it just wasn't connecting with the kids. I was just going through the motions, not interacting with the kids, not smiling. (Kahn 87, 41).
(scuba diving instructor, Kahn 1987 41)
9
Kahn (1990)
“personal engagement” – when employees feel able to act in accordance with personal values at the same time as performing their work roles
“personal disengagement” – when employees only feel able to perform their role (not acting in accordance with personal values)
He focused on the psychological conditions under which individuals engage and disengage at work
10
Kahn (1990) – Meaningfulness psychological contract
It concerns the feeling of receiving a physical, cognitive or emotional reward from doing the work
Employees feel valued
Their efforts are being acknowledged and they find a meaning in their work
Kahn (1990) - Meaningfulness
Meaningfulness leads to engagement
It relates to three dimensions:
Task characteristics (challenging, clearly outlined, autonomy)
Role characteristics (identities & status)
Work interactions (relationship with co-workers and clients, contribution)
Kahn (1990) – Psychological Safety
The emotional or psychological support an employer or a company provides the employee with
Freedom in expressing ideas
Rules and norms within the organisation
Trust and respect
Kahn (1990) – “Availability”
It takes place when employees have at their disposal all the necessary physical, emotional and psychological resources
It concerns how available individuals feel in order to engage themselves in their work and performance (as distinct from non-work interests)
Kahn (1990) – Factors influencing psychological availability
Physical & emotional energy to perform with greater enthusiasm
Security/insecurity within the company
Personal lives
Kahn’s overall model
(Kahn 1992, p.340)
May et al. (2004)
May et al 2004
operationalized Kahn’s model
Measured “psychological engagement” i.e. “cognitive, emotional and physical engagement” (p. 21)
measured the antecedents of personal engagement
Measurement – May et al. (2004)
Cognitive
Performing my job is so absorbing that I forget about everything else.
I often think about other things when performing my job. (reverse score)
I am rarely distracted when performing my job.
Time passes quickly when I perform my job.
Emotional
I really put my heart into my job.
I get excited when I perform well on my job.
I often feel emotionally detached from my job. (r)
My own feelings are affected by how well I perform my job.
Physical
I exert a lot of energy performing my job.
I stay until the job is done.
I avoid working overtime whenever possible. (r)
I take work home to do.
I avoid working too hard. (r)
May et al 2004. p. 28
May et al. (2004)
May et al
Confirmed their interpretation of Kahn’s model
Extended it with some new variables
Found ‘meaningfulness’ to be the most important determinant of “engagement
Only 4 studies have been identified that make use of this scale with results showing that meaningfulness has the strongest relationship with engagement followed by availability & then safety (Rapti 2016)
Rich et al. (2010)
“Job engagement is best described as a multidimensional motivational concept reflecting the simultaneous investment of an individual’s physical, cognitive, and emotional energy in active, full work performance.” (619)
Note the change of terms from Kahn
Rich et al. (2010)
Interpreted Kahn (1990) in terms of three kinds of ‘engagement’
Cognitive engagement
Affective (emotional) engagement
Physical engagement
Operationalized a measure by adapting existing scales
Rich et al. (2010)
Physical engagement - Brown & Leigh’s (1996), measure of work intensity
Affective engagement - Russell & Barrett’s (1999) study on core affect
Cognitive engagement - Rothbard’s (2001) scale of engagement
Measurement – Rich et al. (2010)
Physical engagement
I work with intensity on my job
I exert my full effort to my job
I devote a lot of energy to my job
I try my hardest to perform well on my job
I strive as hard as I can to complete my job
I exert a lot of energy on my job
Emotional engagement
I am enthusiastic in my job
I feel energetic at my job
I am interested in my job
I am proud of my job
I feel positive about my job
I am excited about my job
Cognitive engagement
At work, my mind is focused on my job
At work, I pay a lot of attention to my job
At work, I focus a great deal of attention on my job
At work, I am absorbed by my job
At work, I concentrate on my job
At work, I devote a lot of attention to my job
Rich et al. (2010) model
This is an edited representation of Rich et al’s diagram omitting links between the three sets of causal variables (on the left) and three of the four sets of outcome variables (on the right) to focus only on job engagement as an outcome. All coefficients are statistically significant.
It shows good support for their interpretation of Kahn’s model. Their results do not replicate those of May et al. – of particular interest here is that meaningfulness ( In some respects their measures appear to be better.
Interpretation – a unit increase in any of the variable on the left will produce a unit * coefficient increase in Job engagement (i.e. increase value congruence by 1; job engagement will increase by .35).
25
Rich et al. (2010)
“job engagement” is predicted by:
Value congruence
Perceived organizational support
Core self-evaluations
Which Rich et al interpreted as equivalent to Kahn’s meaningfulness, psychological safety, and availability
Case study – University cleaners
Are the cleaners “engaged”? (Your response should begin: “It depends …”).
What steps would you advise managers to take to maintain or improve existing levels of “engagement”?
Conclusions
Different terms and phrases
Personal engagement personal disengagement; job engagement; engagement
Developments in research
Varied interpretations of research and concepts
No firm conclusions.
Reading material - References
Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K. and Fletcher, L., 2017. The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), pp.31-53.
Kahn, W. A. 1990. ‘Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work’. Academy of Management Journal 33, no. 4 692–724.
Kahn, W.A., 1992. To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human relations, 45(4), pp.321-349.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E., Leiter, M.P., Schaufeli, W.B. and Schwab, R.L., 1997. Maslach burnout inventory 3rd edition, in Zalaquett, C.P. and Wood, R.J., 1997. Evaluating stress. Scarecrow Press.
May, D. R, R. L Gilson, and L. M Harter. 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, no. 1 11–37.
Rapti, A 2016, 'Employee Psychological Ownership and Work Engagement: An Extension of the JD-R Model', Ph.D., University of Bath.
Rich, B. L, J. A Lepine, and E. R Crawford. 2010. ‘Job Engagement: Antecedents and Effects on Job Performance’. The Academy of Management Journal, 53, no. 3 617–35.
Saks, A.M., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of managerial psychology, 21(7), pp.600-619.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V. and Bakker, A.B., 2002. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3(1), pp.71-92.
Shuck, B., 2011. Integrative literature review: four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: an integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), pp.304-328.
See also: Saks, A.M. and Gruman, J.A., 2014. What do we really know about employee engagement?. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), pp.155-182 for a more recent review.
