Work Solutions*Only

Bailey_et_al-2017-International_Journal_of_Management_Reviews.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >****Work Solutions*****Only

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 19, 31–53 (2017) DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12077

The Meaning, Antecedents and Outcomes of Employee Engagement: A Narrative

Synthesis Catherine Bailey, Adrian Madden,1 Kerstin Alfes2 and Luke Fletcher3

Department of Business and Management, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9RH, UK, 1Faculty of Business, Department of Human Resources and Organisational Behaviour, University of Greenwich, Greenwich SE10

9LS, 2Department of Human Resource Studies, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5037 Tilburg, The Netherlands, and 3Brighton Business School, University of Brighton, Brighton BN2 4AT, UK

Corresponding author email: [email protected]

The claim that high levels of engagement can enhance organizational performance and individual well-being has not previously been tested through a systematic review of the evidence. To bring coherence to the diffuse body of literature on engagement, the authors conducted a systematic synthesis of narrative evidence involving 214 studies focused on the meaning, antecedents and outcomes of engagement. The authors iden- tified six distinct conceptualizations of engagement, with the field dominated by the Utrecht Group’s ‘work engagement’ construct and measure, and by the theorization of engagement within the ‘job demands–resources’ framework. Five groups of factors served as antecedents to engagement: psychological states; job design; leadership; orga- nizational and team factors; and organizational interventions. Engagement was found to be positively associated with individual morale, task performance, extra-role perfor- mance and organizational performance, and the evidence was most robust in relation to task performance. However, there was an over-reliance on quantitative, cross-sectional and self-report studies within the field, which limited claims of causality. To address controversies over the commonly used measures and concepts in the field and gaps in the evidence-base, the authors set out an agenda for future research that integrates emerg- ing critical sociological perspectives on engagement with the psychological perspectives that currently dominate the field.

Introduction

It is almost 25 years since Kahn (1990) published his seminal paper on ‘personal engagement’ with work, arguing that employees choose whether to in- vest themselves fully and authentically in their role on the basis of their experiences within the working environment. Since that time, interest in engagement

This paper is based on independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (Health Services and Delivery Research, 12/5004/01). The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health. The authors also acknowledge the guidance of Professor Graeme Currie in the conduct of the synthesis and the help of the Institute for Employment Studies.

has mushroomed, leading to the development of a be- wildering multiplicity of definitions, measures, con- ceptualizations and theories of engagement (Macey and Schneider 2008).1

1In carrying out this evidence synthesis, a large body of practitioner literature was also identified in which engage- ment is approached from a number of differing perspectives. Although this material reflected the extent of interest in engagement from the practitioner perspective, it did not meet the quality criteria for inclusion in the synthesis. However, separate analysis of this practitioner literature did reveal different interests in engagement, e.g. engagement with the employing organization, compared with the more psycho- logical focus identified in the academic literature. Analysis of this separate body of literature led to the production of a number of practitioner guides, which can be accessed via http://www.nhsemployers.org/case-studies-and-resources/ 2014/10/staff-engagement-review-of-practitioner-studies

32 C. Bailey et al.

Arguably, engagement has become one of the most significant concepts in the management field in re- cent years (Crawford et al. 2014), yet, to date, there has been no systematic review that brings together and synthesizes the evidence-base relating to engage- ment. This is concerning in light of the fact that, within the practitioner community, engagement has caught the interest of policy-makers and employers keen to find new ways of leveraging high levels of per- formance. Large numbers of consultancy firms now offer services such as employee engagement surveys, and there are widely cited case studies purporting to show how raised levels of engagement can lead to or- ganizational profitability and competitiveness. In the absence of a systematic review, it is uncertain whether this advice is appropriate.

To address these issues, the aim of this paper is to present the findings of a narrative evidence synthesis that focuses on the following three questions: (1) how has engagement been defined and theorized; (2) what antecedents are associated with engagement, and (3) what evidence is there that engagement is associated with employee morale and performance?

First, we explain the methodological approach adopted for the evidence synthesis. We then outline the findings relating to the meanings and definitions of engagement, and analyse the implications of these. Next, we summarize the theoretical frameworks used to ‘explain’ engagement within the literature. In the following sections, we report on the findings relating to the antecedents and outcomes of engagement. Fi- nally, we reflect on the state of engagement research and indicate directions for future study.

Research methods

This review used a narrative evidence synthesis method adopting the guidelines established by Briner and Denyer (2012), adhering to the principles of orga- nization, transparency, replicability, quality, credibil- ity and relevance. We followed the five steps outlined by Briner and Denyer (2012) of: planning; structured search; evaluating material against agreed eligibility criteria; analysis and thematic coding; and reporting. Narrative synthesis is regarded as an effective way to identify the story underpinning a disparate body of evidence by giving reviewers the flexibility to develop themes that bring coherence to that data (Briner and Denyer 2012; Popay et al. 2006). The topic of engage- ment is one that might be considered as now having reached a sufficient stage of maturity to warrant a

narrative review in order to synthesize the current evidence-base and provide a foundation for advanc- ing knowledge in the field (Jones and Gatrell 2014, p. 260).

Data collection

Using an open search approach, an initial scan of the literature produced 712,550 items from diverse sources. First, we developed an inclusive long string of relevant search terms drawn from different dis- ciplinary fields, which was then refined using the CIMO framework (Denyer and Tranfield 2009). This requires scrutiny of the research questions in relation to the Context in which evidence has been gathered; the Interventions being evaluated/tested; the Mech- anisms through which the intervention is expected to create outcomes, and the Outcomes themselves in terms of observable effects. Using this framework en- abled the production of a short search string that was piloted on three databases: Business Source Com- plete; International Bibliography for the Social Sci- ences; and Scopus. At this stage, we confined the search to items written in English and published after 1990, when Kahn’s article on engagement was pub- lished. The pilot search produced 5295 items.

We sought advice from experts, which led to a revision of the search string to ‘employee engage- ment’ OR ‘staff engagement’ OR ‘job engagement’ OR ‘organi* engagement’ OR ‘personal engage- ment’ OR ‘team engagement’ OR ‘psychological engagement’ OR ‘work* engagement OR medical engagement’, and narrowing the search to abstracts only. We included two further databases, Zetoc and Nexis, to minimize publication bias (Patterson et al. 2007). Our search strategy was enhanced by citation tracking, scanning reference lists, endnotes and footnotes for additional materials not identified by the databases, and tracking new publication alerts.

The structured search took place in October 2013, producing a total of 7932 items of literature from the five databases, which were imported into Refworks. Using the ‘close de-duplication’ function within Re- fworks reduced this number to 5771 items for the sifting stage of the review, along with three research monographs on engagement.

The abstracts were first sifted independently by two members of the research team using a pro forma that set out quality and relevance thresholds, using a bespoke database developed in Excel Professional Plus 2010. A kappa rating was calculated from the results of pilot sifts using all six reviewers from the

Employee Engagement 33

Figure 1. PRISMA-style flow of information through Stages 1–4 of the evidence synthesis

team. Only when a score of 0.75 was achieved, in- dicating ‘substantial agreement’ (Viera and Garrett 2005, p. 361) was each member of the team then randomly assigned an equal share of the 5771 items. Items were included for further analysis when they were published in peer-reviewed journals, in English, dated post-1990, involved the study of employees, or were theoretical items relevant to the definition of engagement. Where there was disagreement between the two reviewers, a third team member was involved. At this stage, 3121 items were excluded on the basis of being non-peer-reviewed or not relevant, and a fur- ther 2047 duplicates were removed, along with eight items not in the English language, leaving 603 items to be considered for data extraction.

The abstracts of each of these were reviewed again by two members of the project team using quality and relevance criteria agreed in advance in order to minimize selection bias (Briner and Denyer 2012).

Of these, 389 were excluded on grounds of quality or relevance. This left 214 items. The full text version of these items was sourced and downloaded into a shared Dropbox folder. A data extraction form was devised to record the evaluation of items, and each item was read in full by one team member, who completed the data extraction form.2 The data extraction forms were then checked for potential errors or bias by the lead author responsible for writing up each section of the evidence synthesis. A Prisma (‘preferred report- ing items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses’) flowchart (Figure 1) summarizes the evidence synthesis process (Liberati et al. 2009).

2Owing to the volume of data considered, we are unable to include full tables containing the extracted data in the text or in the supporting information. These are available from the authors on request.

34 C. Bailey et al.

Data analysis

The approach to synthesizing our data mirrors that suggested by Popay et al. (2006, pp. 11–16), who argue that a narrative synthesis should seek to explore the relationships in the extracted data within and between studies. Following Nijmeijer et al. (2014), we first analysed the key design characteristics of each study and the operationalization of the variables involved. Next, based on the research questions, we created factor clusters relating to each aspect of our synthesis and, within each of these, generated sub-clusters through thematic analysis. Of the 214 included items, 38 were conceptual, 172 contained empirical data, and four were meta-analyses. The meta-analyses were not subject to data extraction, but were used as a point of comparison.

Many of the 172 empirical items tested multiple variables, thus 89 were relevant to outcomes (morale N = 47; performance N = 42), while 155 were rel- evant to antecedents. Of the 47 studies relevant to morale, 39 used a cross-sectional survey approach; only seven used complex methods. We considered studies to be complex if they included either mul- tiple types of respondents or multiple measurement points, or both. Only one used a qualitative (case study) approach. None of the 42 studies relevant to performance used a qualitative methodology alone, although one did use a mixed methods approach; 21 used complex methods, including seven time-lagged studies, while four used diary studies. Of 155 stud- ies relevant to antecedents, 111 used cross-sectional approaches. Twenty-two studies were longitudinal or time-lagged studies, four were qualitative, and one used mixed methods.

The main geographic source of the empirical studies was the Netherlands, from which 25 items were included, followed by the USA (N = 18), Finland (N = 13), UK (N = 10), Australia (N = 9), Germany (N = 9) and Canada (N = 8). In total, research was conducted in 35 different countries.

Results: definitions and theories of engagement

A synthesis of the literature showed that definitions could be grouped under six main headings. See Tables S1 and S2 in the supporting information for more detail.3

3Owing to the volume of studies included, we are unable to include reference to each one in the text of the paper or in

Definitions: the evidence

Personal role engagement. Kahn (1990) viewed personal role engagement as the individual’s cog- nitive, emotional and physical expression of the authentic self at work. His definition has been operationalized in the form of quantitative personal engagement scales developed by May et al. (2004 N = 4), Rich et al. (2010 N = 3), Reio and Sanders- Reio (2011 N = 1) and Soane et al. (2012 N = 3).

Work task or job engagement. The second, and dominant, stream of research views engagement as an activated positive state of mind directed towards work tasks. This is founded on the notion of engagement as the opposite of burnout (the ‘burnout- antithesis’ approach; Shuck 2011). Building on this, the ‘Utrecht Group’ defined engagement as ‘a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind’ and proposed that an engaged employee has a strong sense of vigor towards, dedication to, and absorption in work activities’ (Schaufeli et al. 2002, p. 74). The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli et al. 2002) was found to be the most widely adopted measure (N = 148) and has been validated for use in several languages: 42 studies used the full 17-item version, 90 used the 9-item version, and the remainder between 5and 16 items; one item was a qualitative paper (Bakibinga et al. 2012).

Multidimensional engagement. Saks (2006, p. 602) defined engagement as ‘a distinct and unique con- struct consisting of cognitive, emotional and be- havioural components that are associated with in- dividual role performance’, distinguishing between job engagement and organizational engagement. Six papers used this measure, three used both job and or- ganization engagement scales, two used the job scale only, and one the organization scale only. Selmer et al. (2013) argued that engagement could be examined at the work group level and proposed a measure of work group engagement. One paper used this measure.

Engagement as a composite attitudinal and be- havioural construct. The fourth approach views engagement as a composite attitudinal and be- havioural construct. We included one measure, although we excluded a number of others for quality

the supporting information. A full list of all references iden- tified in the structured search is available from the authors on request.

Employee Engagement 35

reasons, notably lack of construct validity and reli- ability. Swanberg et al. (2011) adopted the Utrecht definition of engagement, but operationalized this through measures of cognitive and emotional engage- ment as well as behavioural engagement, thereby extending the notion of engagement beyond the strict boundaries of the construct proposed by the Utrecht Group, hence including it under this heading. This measure demonstrated appropriate psychometric properties, and therefore two papers were included.

Engagement as management practice. Recently, scholars within human resource management (HRM) have begun to consider engagement as a manage- ment practice, ‘doing engagement’ in contrast to ‘be- ing engaged’ (Truss et al. 2014). This is an emer- gent field of research that has to date consisted of qualitative case studies. For instance, Jenkins and Delbridge (2013) argue that strategies for managing employee engagement can take ‘soft’ developmental, or ‘hard’ performance-focused approaches. Contri- butions within this stream address longstanding de- bates within the HRM field concerning unitarist and pluralist perspectives on the employment relationship (Arrowsmith and Parker 2013) or theories of organi- zational communication (Reissner and Pagan 2013). Three studies adopted this perspective, but there is no overarching definition or conceptualization of en- gagement under this heading.

Self-engagement with performance. One measure (N = 1) was based on the notion of ‘self-engagement’, defined as the individual’s sense of responsibility for and commitment towards performance (Britt et al. 2005).

Definitions: analysis of the evidence

Our review uncovered six definitions of engage- ment and nine validated scales. The shift away from Kahn’s (1990) original social-psychological construct of ‘personal role engagement’ is notable. The pre- dominant definition is that of the Utrecht Group, whose multidimensional view of state engagement as ‘work engagement’ was adopted in 86% of studies.

Drawing on role theory (Goffman 1961) and job design theory (Hackman and Oldham 1980), Kahn (1990, p. 694) originally conceived engagement as ‘the harnessing of organization members’ (preferred) selves to their work roles’, and articulated it as a fluc- tuating experience alternating between full expres- sion (i.e. engagement) and withdrawal (i.e. disengage-

ment) of the self. He used a qualitative research de- sign that examined the behavioural manifestations of engagement within two different organizational con- texts. However, as Guest (2014) notes, Kahn’s (1990) study did not initially generate much follow-on re- search until over a decade later (i.e. May et al. 2004), when another view on engagement developed and flourished.

This alternative perspective emerged from the work of the Utrecht Group, who defined engagement as ‘a more persistent and pervasive affective–cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behaviour’ (Schaufeli et al. 2002, p. 74). Although they drew on Kahn’s (1990) theo- rizing, their concept of engagement differed funda- mentally with regard to its nature and role as a posi- tive psychological state. In contrast to Kahn (1990), who viewed engagement as a qualitative, behavioural and transitory experience that followed the ‘ebbs and flows’ of daily activities, the Utrecht Group saw en- gagement as a more stable and enduring attitudinal frame of mind that could be assessed through quanti- tative methods. This shift in focus reflects an impor- tant paradigmatic transition that has occurred within the management discipline more generally; that of the ‘psychologization’ of the employment relation- ship (Godard 2014).

What can be said about the current knowledge base on engagement in light of this? Although a large num- ber of studies have demonstrated the validity and reliability of the UWES over a wide range of set- tings (Schaufeli 2014), doubt nevertheless remains about the measure. It has been argued that there is no evidence of discriminant validity of the UWES compared with job satisfaction (Viljevac et al. 2012), and that the three-factor structure of the measure is not robust (Wefald et al. 2012). Goliath-Yarde and Roodt (2011) suggested that the measure may not be transferable internationally. Seppälä et al. (2009) showed that the 9-item UWES appeared to have more robust construct validity across occupational groups and greater time-invariance than the 17-item version. Wefald et al. (2012, p. 87) go so far as to state that: ‘the way engagement is typically measured may be inherently flawed . . . ’. While the majority of studies using the UWES reviewed in this paper have tended to combine the three facets into one higher-order con- struct, some studies have examined engagement at the facet level and found less consistent and more com- plex results. These complexities are lent support by a meta-analysis (Cole et al. 2012), which found that, of the three facets of the UWES, dedication was most

36 C. Bailey et al.

closely related to job satisfaction and commitment. In some cases, the originators of the definition and measure have themselves argued that absorption can be omitted from the measure. Salanova and Schaufeli (2008, p. 118) observed: ‘mounting evidence suggests that absorption, which is akin to the concept of flow . . . should be considered a consequence of work en- gagement, rather than one of its components . . . In contrast, vigor and dedication are considered the core dimensions of engagement.’

Others have questioned the focus of engagement. It has been proposed that engagement may be directed not only towards individual work tasks, it can be conceived as a collective, team-level experience (Salanova et al. 2005; Schaufeli and Salanova 2011). Insufficient studies have been conducted to date to draw any definitive conclusions on this point. It has also been suggested that engagement can be directed towards one’s employing organization (Saks 2006). This suggests intriguing possibilities about the status of the engagement construct that may be of particular interest to practitioners. It also parallels developments within the literature on commitment, which similarly suggests that individuals can expe- rience various forms of commitment in relation to a range of areas of working life (Meyer and Allen 1997).

Most of the scales within the perspective of engagement ‘as composite’ were developed by survey houses and consultancies and were excluded on quality grounds. As Wefald and Downey (2009) note, these measures are proprietary and are not available for external review. This is the perspective that is perhaps most akin to what many practitioners understand as ‘employee engagement’, since it encompasses a range of positive attitudes towards the organization, including satisfaction with managers, communication and resources (Swanberg et al. 2011). It remains the case that only a small minority of studies using this approach have been published in peer-reviewed journals, and most efforts to opera- tionalize engagement under this heading have failed to demonstrate its construct or discriminant validity (Guest 2014).

‘Engagement as management practice’ is a new and emerging area of interest (Truss et al. 2013) and, again, one that is of potentially considerable inter- est. This conceptualization of engagement is distinct from engagement as a psychological state, and lies more squarely within the established field of inter- est around involvement and participation. This area has so far yielded a very small number of qualitative

studies, yet offers rich potential for future develop- ment, bringing together the concerns of practitioners with the longstanding traditions of industrial relations scholars (Townsend et al. 2013).

Theoretical frameworks: the evidence

A wide range of theoretical frameworks have been used to ‘explain’ engagement. Sixty-five studies (38%) explained engagement in the context of the job demands–resources (JD-R) framework, includ- ing the majority of papers that used the UWES. The JD-R framework distinguishes between resources, in the form of either job-related resources or personal resources, and demands. Resources energize employ- ees and foster engagement, which, in turn, yields pos- itive outcomes such as high levels of well-being and performance (Schaufeli 2014, p. 26). Job demands require employees to expend additional effort which, over time, can cause exhaustion and lead to negative outcomes. Thus, the JD-R ‘explains’ engagement on the basis that, where employees have high levels of job-related and/or personal resources, they are more likely to be engaged with their work.

The second most widely used framework was so- cial exchange theory (SET), used in 26 studies. Ac- cording to SET, relationships between employees and employers are based on norms of reciprocity. Where employees feel that they are being treated well and valued by their employer, they are more likely to re- spond by exerting effort on behalf of the employer in the form of raised levels of engagement (Alfes et al. 2013a).

Conservation of resources theory is based on the premise that individuals seek to acquire and preserve valued resources, which can be personal, energetic, social or material resources (N = 14). Resource gain spirals occur when individuals are able to build on resources they already have, and resource loss spi- rals arise for those without access to strong resource pools. According to this view, the provision of re- sources may be particularly salient in raising engage- ment levels among those who are experiencing high levels of demand, since resources buffer their poten- tially negative effects (Bakker et al. 2007).

Broaden-and-build theory was used eight times. Fredrickson (2001) argues that engagement is more likely to occur when individuals experience positive rather than negative emotions, since these create the space for a broader range of thought–action reper- toires. Activated positive affect is important for stim- ulating action (Parker and Griffin 2011). Hence, those

Employee Engagement 37

drawing on broaden-and-build theory argue that indi- viduals who experience positive emotions are able to draw on a wider range of behavioural responses and are more likely to be engaged.

Seven studies referred explicitly to Kahn’s (1990) engagement theory, which is based on the premise that engagement is influenced by three antecedent psychological conditions: experienced meaningful- ness of work; psychological safety; and experienced availability. Kahn (1990) argues that these three con- ditions are influenced by the nature of the job, the social environment, personal resources and energy. This perspective draws on job characteristics theory (Hackman and Oldham 1976) and shows that some aspects of work design such as autonomy, feedback and task significance will generate the psychological conditions necessary for engagement. All the remain- ing theories or frameworks referred to in the studies were used in five papers or fewer.

However, these findings should be interpreted with some caution; in some cases, the theories were not made explicit in the paper. We coded 21 papers as ‘unspecified’ where no theory was mentioned, and it was not clear on reading the paper what the author’s intention was. In other cases, we have inferred the author’s intention based on available information. In many instances, authors referred to a range of differ- ent theories; for most of these, we have reported on the main theoretical frameworks only.

Theoretical frameworks: analysis of the evidence

Our analysis showed that the overriding theoretical framework used to ‘explain’ engagement as a psycho- logical state is the JD-R (Schaufeli 2014). However, doubt has been cast over its status as a theory. Bar- gagliotti (2012) argues that the JD-R is a transactional model that cannot explain behaviour and motivation in complex or adverse situations such as those dealing with medical emergencies. She states that the JD-R model ‘relegates the dedication of nurses, a distinguishing characteristic of the profession, to being a transactional commodity that occurs because someone else dispenses resources’ (Bargagliotti 2012, p. 1416). Further, the evidence that resources boost engagement and demands deplete engagement is by no means clear-cut. Studies have shown that demands can serve to either reduce or increase engagement, or have a neutral effect, suggesting that perhaps challenge and hindrance demands (i.e. de- mands that constitute a positive challenge vs demands that give rise to constraints) may work in different

ways that are not yet understood (Crawford et al. 2010; De Braine and Roodt 2011; Inoue et al. 2013).

The JD-R operates as a linear model that assumes individuals respond in rational ways to a limited range of aspects within their work setting and are driven purely to optimize their situation, but fails to take ac- count of heterogeneous, micro- and macro-level con- textual factors, interpersonal interactions and emo- tional or irrational responses. It fails to address issues of power and politics within the workplace, and the question of who controls the resources and demands experienced by workers (Fineman 2006). Further, the model fails to consider diversity factors. As Bani- hani et al. (2013) write, engagement may well be a gendered construct, with access to the antecedents of engagement potentially more readily available to men rather than women, and with the display of engagement-related behaviours potentially more in- tegral to the expression of masculinity than femi- ninity within the workplace. Consideration of these factors is beginning to emerge within the writing on engagement ‘as practice’, embedded within theories deriving from industrial relations and industrial so- ciological perspectives (Jenkins and Delbridge 2013; Keenoy 2014). However, engagement ‘as practice’ is far removed conceptually and empirically from en- gagement ‘as state’, and a reconciliation of the diver- gent viewpoints and perspectives of these two strands of research is some way off.

In sum, theorizing on engagement reflects its roots within positive psychology (Fineman 2006). Theo- ries developed to ‘explain’ engagement have largely been set at the level of the individual. Arguably, the introduction of additional theoretical insights from organizational sociological perspectives that reflect considerations of power and politics would further enrich our understanding of engagement.

Results: antecedents of engagement4

One hundred and fifty-five empirical studies included reference to the antecedents of engagement. Synthesis of the results showed that these could be grouped under five main headings.

4We excluded demographic and personality trait variables from the analysis, as these were not considered relevant as the basis for an organizational intervention aimed at raising en- gagement levels. However, following Nijmeijer et al. (2014), these were taken into account where appropriate when used as control variables in wider studies.

38 C. Bailey et al.

Individual psychological states

Fifty-two studies referred to psychological states, from which we present the key findings below. The cluster of attributes that received most attention was self-efficacy, resilience and personal resources, in other words, the positive perceptions that individu- als hold of their personal strength and ability, which were found to be positively associated with engage- ment (N = 11) (e.g. Del Libano et al. 2012; Heuven et al. 2006). Several involved complex methods; e.g. Ouweneel et al. (2012) found in a survey at two time points that personal resources at time 1 were associated with engagement levels at time 2. Stud- ies examining the mediating effects of psycholog- ical states demonstrated more mixed findings: e.g. Xanthopoulou et al. (2009) suggests that personal re- sources and engagement may be mutually reinforcing over time.

Six studies found a positive link between positive affect and optimism or, conversely, a negative link between negative mood and affect, with engagement (N = 6) (e.g. Balducci et al. 2011), although Bledow et al. (2011) in a diary study proposed on the basis of the affective shift model that negative affect, when followed by positive affect, can lead to engagement. Some researchers found limited evidence of a link between recovery/relaxation experiences or self-care and engagement (N = 4, e.g. Kühnel and Sonnentag 2011). Five of these studies involved complex meth- ods.

Three studies in each of the following areas showed a positive association with engagement: psychologi- cal empowerment (e.g. Mendes and Stander 2011); meaningfulness, safety and availability (e.g. Chen et al. 2011 in a four-wave survey); job satisfaction (e.g. Anaza and Rutherford 2012).5 Two studies found a negative link between burnout and engagement (e.g. Andreassen et al. 2007). Single studies have found positive links between the following factors and en- gagement: promotive psychological ownership; en- joyment of work; proactive personality; situational motivation; moral identity centrality; work central- ity; emotion recognition; achievement striving; ex- traversion; affective commitment; authentic function- ing; core self-evaluation. Although two studies (e.g. Mendes and Stander 2011) found that meaning in

5Job satisfaction has also been considered as an outcome of engagement, and the findings relating to this are reported in the following section.

work was associated with higher levels of engage- ment, Heuvel et al.’s (2009) findings contradicted this.

Experienced job-design-related factors

Sixty-five studies examined the association between aspects of job design and engagement. Twenty-six fo- cused on the link between job resources and engage- ment within the context of the JD-R (e.g. Bakker et al. 2007; Idris and Dollard 2011). A wide range of job resources have been examined, including supervisory support, colleague support, feedback and autonomy. All studies showed some degree of positive direct or mediated association between job resources and engagement, with the exception of Ouweneel et al. (2012), who found no significant association. Seven- teen of the studies used complex methods.

Fifteen studies examined the association between job demands and engagement. The results of these studies were inconclusive. Some found a positive as- sociation between demands and engagement (e.g. De Braine and Roodt 2011), others found no association (e.g. Gan and Gan 2013), and one found a curvilin- ear relationship (Sawang 2012). Inoue et al.’s (2013) two-stage study, which found that the association be- tween demands at time 1 and engagement at time 2 was attenuated after adjusting for baseline engage- ment, lends weight to the notion that there is no strong evidence-base to suggest that job demands are nega- tively associated with engagement.

Five studies found an association between auton- omy and engagement (e.g. Xanthopoulou et al. 2009), but Buys and Rothmann (2010) found no signifi- cant link. Three studies explored the link between job crafting and engagement; all found a positive link in mediated models (e.g. Bakker et al. 2012). Two studies in each of the following areas found a positive link with engagement: feedback (e.g. Menguc et al. 2013); job control (e.g. Swanberg et al. 2011); struc- tural empowerment (e.g. Spence Laschinger 2010); work–role fit (e.g. Kahn 1990). Positive associations were found between the following and engagement in single studies: opportunities for development; job enrichment; role clarity; job quality; work intensity; schedule satisfaction; feelings of doing the job well; the joy of working; task idiosyncratic deals; job con- trol and active coping. One study found a negative link between role conflict and engagement.

A few studies examined whether different forms of work were associated with higher or lower levels of engagement; Sardeshmukh et al. (2012) found a negative link between teleworking and engagement,

Employee Engagement 39

partially mediated by job demands and resources, while Brummelhuis et al. (2012) found a positive link between new ways of working (specifically, flex- ible working arrangements) and engagement with the link fully mediated by efficient and effective commu- nication. In a study of academics, Vera et al. (2010) showed that academics whose work consisted mainly of research experienced the highest levels of engage- ment, whereas those whose work focused on manage- ment were least engaged.

Perceived leadership and management

Thirty-six studies examined aspects of leadership or management behaviour. Generally, these studies con- cluded that there is a link between more positive forms of leadership and higher levels of engagement among employees. For example, eight studies found that su- pervisory support was linked to engagement, includ- ing two using complex methods (e.g. Karatepe 2012), although this was not replicated by Menguc et al. (2013).

A positive association between transformational leadership and engagement was found in five stud- ies (e.g. Tims et al. 2011); four found an association between trust in manager/leader and engagement, al- though all these studies were cross-sectional (e.g. Rees et al. 2013); and three found a link between authentic leadership and engagement (e.g. Wang and Hsieh 2013). In two studies, a positive association between leader–member exchange and engagement was found (e.g. Cheng et al. 2013, who examined supervisor–subordinate pairs) and a further two found that leader-empowering behaviour and engagement were associated (e.g. Van Schalkwyk et al. 2010). Single studies found links between the following and engagement: charismatic leadership; ethical leader- ship; and supervisory coaching. Two cross-sectional studies found negative links between negative aspects of leadership such as abusive supervision and engage- ment (e.g. Sulea et al. 2012).

Individual perceptions of organizational and team factors

Fifty-three studies covered a wide range of areas at the organizational and unit/team levels. We discuss the key findings from these below. Six studies, including one using complex methods, found that perceived or- ganizational support was associated with engagement (Rich et al. 2010). Mixed results were found with regard to the psychological contract; Agarwal and

Bhargava (2013) found contract breach to be associ- ated with low levels of engagement; Bal et al. (2013), in a survey at two time points, found no association; while Yeh (2012) found a positive link between rela- tional contracts and engagement, but a negative link between transactional contracts and engagement.

Three studies found that organizational identifica- tion was associated with engagement (e.g. He et al. 2013). A further three found a positive link between perceptions of HRM practices and engagement (e.g. Alfes et al. 2013a). Two found a positive link be- tween psychosocial safety climate and engagement (e.g. Hall et al. 2010) and a further two between ser- vice climate and engagement (e.g. Barnes and Collier 2013). Single studies reported positive links between engagement and a wide range of factors, including person–organization fit, value congruence, communi- cation, remuneration, organizational trust and voice. Broadly, these factors could all be classified as forms of positive organizational behaviour.

Nine studies found an association between as- pects of team-level engagement and support, e.g. cli- mate and communication, and individual-level en- gagement, suggesting that there may be a spillover of engagement among team members (e.g. Bakker et al. 2006; Karatepe 2012). Seven studies found a negative association between negative organizational experiences such as sexual harassment or interper- sonal conflict and engagement (e.g. Cogin and Fish 2009).

Organizational interventions or activities

Nine studies reported on individual responses to orga- nizational interventions, such as training and develop- ment programmes. Two studies from the ‘engagement as management practice’ perspective highlighted the complexities and ambiguities associated with en- gagement interventions (Jenkins and Delbridge 2013; Reissner and Pagan 2013). Several studies (N = 6) showed a positive link between individuals’ experi- ences of a range of interventions, including new ways of working, forum theatre training and mindfulness training and engagement (e.g. Brummelhuis et al. 2012; Carter et al. 2010), but one other study found no change in engagement levels following a workload intervention exercise (Rickard et al. 2012).

Antecedents: analysis of the evidence

Of the 155 studies that examined the antecedents of engagement, the largest number (65) focused on the

40 C. Bailey et al.

association between aspects of job design and en- gagement. Within this category, the majority focused on job demands or resources. This is not surprising, given the dominance of the JD-R framework in the theorization of engagement. The next most signifi- cant categories of antecedents were perceptions of organizational and team factors (53 studies), and psychological states (52). Thirty-six studies reported on the findings of studies relating to leadership and management, while only nine examined responses to organizational interventions aimed at raising engagement levels such as training or development programmes.

Overall, these studies suggest that positive antecedents, such as job resources, positive psycho- logical states and positive perceptions of leaders and organizations, are associated with higher levels of engagement, while negative antecedents, such as negative mood, hindrance demands, bullying, or abusive supervision, are associated with lower levels of engagement. Although the majority adopted cross-sectional, self-report measures (N = 111), there were a small number of studies using more complex methods that would permit the evaluation of causality, including 22 repeated measures studies. The strongest weight of evidence from these complex studies was in the area of job resources, where 17 studies found an association between various forms of resources and engagement. There was also some evidence that leadership and management styles are associated with engagement, for instance the study by Karatepe (2012), which used complex methods, and the study of the link between leader– member exchange and engagement, which involved supervisor–subordinate dyads (Cheng et al. 2013).

However, the evidence overall was mixed, and some studies did not yield findings that supported ex- pected relationships. For instance, Bal et al.’s (2013) survey at two time points found no link between psy- chological contract breach and engagement; several studies examining the link between job demands and engagement found that there may be a positive as- sociation between the two (e.g. De Braine and Roodt 2011).

In order to compare the impact of the different antecedents on engagement, we computed the effect sizes within each sub category. Specifically, we took the correlation coefficients reported in the studies for each antecedent measure, grouped all antecedent measures per sub-category and then computed the average correlation between each sub-category and engagement. Results showed that individual psycho-

logical states (0.35), perceived leadership and man- agement (0.34), individual perceptions of organiza- tional and team factors (0.33) and job resources (0.32) had a similarly strong impact on engagement. Orga- nizational interventions and activities had a slightly weaker impact on engagement (0.26). Job demands showed the lowest average correlation with engage- ment (−0.08). One explanation might be that both challenge and hindrance stressors were combined in one category, and research suggests that they might in fact have different effects on individual attitudes (Podsakoff et al. 2007). Our analyses showed very similar results if only antecedent measures from com- plex studies were included.6

Results: outcomes of engagement

We examined the outcomes of engagement under two main headings: performance and morale.

Performance

Forty-two studies examined the performance out- comes of engagement. Studies fell under two main sub-headings: higher-level performance outcomes, such as organizational or team performance; and in- dividual level outcomes, with the latter composed of three sub-sections: task performance; extra-role per- formance; and counterproductive performance.

Higher-level performance outcomes

The relationship between engagement and higher level performance outcomes was explored 13 times. The majority of reviewed studies showed a positive link between engagement and a variety of performance outcomes, such as team performance, customer loyalty and quality of care. For example, using aggregate data, Salanova et al. (2005) showed that work unit engagement was positively related to service climate, which in turn predicted customer- rated employee performance and, further, customer loyalty. Van Bogaert et al. (2013) showed that, after controlling for other factors, unit-level dedication and absorption (but not vigour) were positively related to nurse-reported quality of care by the interdisciplinary team. They did not find evidence of a relationship between any of the three engagement facets and

6Details are available from the authors upon request.

Employee Engagement 41

nurse-reported quality of care at the unit or at the shift levels.

Individual performance outcomes

In-role task performance is related to behaviours that are generally specified by the job description and contribute to the organization’s technical core (Bor- man and Motowidlo 1997), and studies included con- structs such as in-role performance, quality of care and service quality. All studies (N = 24) that focused on the relationship between engagement and various forms of task performance showed a positive rela- tionship (e.g. Leung et al. 2011; Steele et al. 2012; Yeh 2012). Of these, 12 used a third-party perfor- mance rating such as appraisal records or company performance data (e.g. Bakker et al. 2012; Bakker and Xanthopoulou 2013); for example, Yalabik et al. (2013) showed that engagement was positively related to job performance, as measured by performance ap- praisal ratings, and mediated the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. These findings reflect the results of Christian et al.’s (2011) meta- analysis, which demonstrated a positive relationship between engagement and task performance.

Extra-role performance is related to behaviours that support task performance by enhancing and maintaining the social and psychological environ- ment (Borman and Motowidlo 1997). We have included constructs such as citizenship behaviour, adaptability and innovative work behaviour. Nineteen studies explored the relationship between engage- ment and aspects of extra-role performance. Of these, nine found an association between engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour (e.g. Rich et al. 2010); seven found a link between engagement and innovative behaviour (e.g. Alfes et al. 2013b); several studies found a link between engagement and adap- tive service offering (Barnes and Collier 2013) and between engagement and knowledge sharing (Chen et al. 2011). Wong et al.’s (2010) research revealed that engagement was positively related to nurses’ voice behaviour. Some used complex methods such as supervisor ratings (N = 3; e.g. Bakker and Xanthopoulou 2013) or time-lagged research designs (N = 2), but the majority used cross-sectional, self- report methods. Nevertheless, these findings reiterate those of Christian et al.’s (2011) meta-analysis.

Two additional cross-sectional studies found a link between engagement and performance using a proxy measure of performance, namely learning goal orien- tation (Chughtai and Buckley 2009, 2011).

Counterproductive performance (or deviance be- haviours) is related to behaviours that harm the or- ganization and are an indication of an employee’s withdrawal behaviour (Robinson and Bennett 1995). Some studies (N = 3) found a negative association between engagement and forms of counterproductive behaviour (e.g. Den Hartog and Belschak 2012).

Morale

Forty-seven studies examined the morale outcomes of engagement under two headings: well-being and health perceptions; and work-related attitudes.

Wellbeing and health perceptions. Nine stud- ies found a link between engagement and gen- eral/psychological health, either through a positive association between engagement and positive health outcomes (e.g. Freeney and Fellenz 2013) or through a negative association between engagement and poor health outcomes (e.g. Hallberg and Schaufeli 2006). Some of these (e.g. Shimazu et al. 2012) used com- plex methods.

Five studies found that engagement was negatively associated with stress/burnout (e.g. Buys and Roth- mann 2010). A further five found links between di- mensions of engagement as measured by the UWES and dimensions of burnout, showing more mixed re- sults: e.g. Vera et al. (2010) found that vigour and ded- ication were negatively linked with four dimensions of burnout, but that absorption was only associated with two.

Four studies found a link between engagement and life satisfaction (e.g. Shimazu et al. 2012, which used a longitudinal design), although one found that only one of the UWES dimensions (dedication) was associated with life satisfaction (Extremera et al. 2012). A number of individual studies showed a positive link between engagement and work ability (Airila et al. 2012; Mache et al. 2013), positive affect (Sonnentag et al. 2008) and day-level recovery (Sonnentag et al. 2012). One qualitative investiga- tion found engagement as ‘practice’ pursued for instrumental reasons may be detrimental to morale (Jenkins and Delbridge 2013).

Work-related attitudes. Twenty-one studies found a relationship between engagement (as a holistic factor) and turnover intentions as an outcome (e.g. Agarwal et al. 2012; Soane et al. 2012). In addition, three stud- ies examined the relationship between dimensions of engagement and turnover intentions as an outcome,

42 C. Bailey et al.

showing mixed results. Mendes and Stander (2011) found that dedication, but not vigour and absorp- tion, was significantly (negatively) associated with turnover intentions, whereas Høigaard et al. (2012) found that absorption, but not vigour and dedication, was significantly (positively) associated with turnover intentions. Wefald et al. (2012) found that, when job satisfaction and organizational commitment were controlled for, neither the UWES nor Britt et al.’s (2006) measure of engagement explained any ad- ditional variance in turnover intentions. They con- clude that the relationship between engagement and turnover intentions is likely to be mediated by orga- nizational commitment and/or job satisfaction.

Nine studies reported a positive link between en- gagement (as a holistic factor) and organizational commitment (e.g. Hu and Schaufeli 2011). Wefald et al. (2012) found that the vigour and dedication components (but not absorption) of the UWES and the physical strength dimension of Shirom’s (2003) vigour construct were significantly (positively) asso- ciated with organizational commitment. Britt et al.’s (2006) measure of engagement was not significantly associated with organizational commitment.

Several studies (N = 8) examined the relationship between engagement (as a holistic factor) and job sat- isfaction as an outcome (e.g. Biswas and Bhatnagar 2013). All these found that engagement was posi- tively associated with job satisfaction. An important limitation of most of these studies, even those using multilevel/diary methods, is that they examined the relationship between engagement and organizational commitment and job satisfaction cross-sectionally. Hence, based on these studies, no firm conclusions can be made with regard to the temporal order of the variables. A notable exception is the study by Yalabik et al. (2013), which uses a cross-lagged design and suggests that organizational commitment and job satisfaction may act as an antecedent rather than outcomes of engagement. However, Cole et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analysis based on 50 samples and positioned organizational commitment and job satisfaction as outcome variables of engagement. Hence, evidence regarding the causal relationship between engagement and work attitudes is by no means clear-cut.

Three further studies examined the relationship be- tween the dimensions of work engagement as mea- sured by the UWES and job satisfaction. These showed mixed results, with unclear associations be- tween the engagement dimensions and satisfaction (Høigaard et al. 2012; Vera et al. 2010).

The outcomes of engagement: review

We classified performance outcomes as individual or higher level (e.g. team, unit, organizational). Individual outcomes were considered under the following headings: in-role performance; extra-role performance (e.g. citizenship behaviour); and coun- terproductive performance (e.g. deviant behaviours). Many studies examined more than one outcome variable.

Studies examining the relationship between en- gagement and higher-level performance at the unit, team or organizational level supported the notion that engagement is associated with performance; however, most studies used individual perceptions of perfor- mance outcomes rather than objective performance data, and only a small number of studies used third- party data such as customer ratings.

At the individual level, some studies looking at the link between engagement and in-role performance outcomes used self-reported performance data, which can be subject to error. Twelve studies used third-party performance ratings, such as co-workers, supervisors or customers to assess employees’ in-role performance. These studies used multiple informants, and often also other complex methods, such as longitudinal analysis or diary studies. All showed a consistent association between engagement and performance outcomes, either directly or as part of a mediated relationship. Thus, we can conclude that there is support for the association between en- gagement and individual task performance outcomes.

All studies focusing on extra-role performance found a link between engagement and these con- structs, including citizenship behaviour, innovative work behaviour, personal initiative, knowledge shar- ing and creativity. However, the majority of these were based on cross-sectional self-report data. No- tably, however, one study by Hakanen et al. (2008) conducted over three years and involving 2555 den- tists found a positive link between engagement at time 1 and personal initiative at time 2. A small number of studies found a negative link between engagement and counterproductive behaviour.

From the studies focusing on well-being and health perceptions, the most consistent finding was a positive association between engagement and life satisfaction. Engagement was consistently found to be negatively associated with burnout, although these studies were also mainly cross-sectional.

The most consistent finding to emerge from the studies on work-related attitudes was that engagement

Employee Engagement 43

is positively associated with organizational com- mitment, however most of these studies were cross- sectional. Engagement was found to be positively linked with job satisfaction (where this was treated as an outcome measure), although only one of these studies was longitudinal (e.g., Yalabik et al. 2013). Twenty-four studies found engagement to be nega- tively associated with turnover intentions, and four of these studies showed this association to be a mediated relationship (e.g. by commitment). Most studies were cross-sectional, although some used complex methods. It was noted that, in those investigations where engagement was broken down into different facets rather than treated as a higher-order factor, the associations became more complex and tenuous.

In order to compare the relative impact of en- gagement on each outcome variable, we followed the same procedure as described earlier and com- puted the average correlation between engagement and each outcome measure. Results showed that engagement was most strongly correlated with job satisfaction (0.57) and organizational commitment (0.52). There was also a moderate correlation be- tween engagement and turnover intentions (−0.38), in-role (0.36), extra-role (0.36) and counterproduc- tive (−0.32) performance. There was also a moderate correlation between engagement and stress/burnout (−0.32), whereas the correlations between engage- ment and general health (0.28) and life satisfaction (0.22) were slightly weaker. Similar relationships were found for analyses that included complex studies only, although the correlation between engagement and stress/burnout was weaker (−0.21), and no cor- relation could be computed between engagement and counterproductive performance, as no complex study investigated this relationship.

Discussion and conclusion Discussion

The aim of this narrative synthesis was to assemble for the first time the evidence to date concerning the definition and theorization of engagement, as well as its antecedents and outcomes in terms of morale and performance. The emerging picture from this analysis is one of complexity in relation to each of these areas.

We found that the way in which engagement has been conceptualized within the literature has diverged from Kahn’s (1990) original concept of personal role engagement. Even after excluding studies based on consultancy measures of engagement on quality

grounds, such as the Gallup Q12 (Harter et al. 2002), along with studies based on reverse-scoring the MBI (cf. Schaufeli and Salanova 2011), as many as six distinct conceptualizations still remained. As Truss et al. (2013, p. 2657) have remarked, engagement is a contested term that has been susceptible to ‘fixing, shrinking, stretching and bending’.

The field is nevertheless dominated by the per- spective of the Utrecht Group, whose UWES was used in 86% of studies included. By implication, the evidence-base on the antecedents and consequences of engagement is similarly dominated by this un- derstanding of the engagement construct. Despite its prevalence, and the volume of evidence base on the UWES, uncertainties remain over the construct valid- ity, reliability and the transferability of various forms of the measure across occupational groups and na- tional contexts (Seppälä et al. 2009; Wefald et al. 2012). This suggests that the evidence relating to en- gagement should be treated with some degree of cau- tion. The original conceptualization of engagement as personal role engagement (Kahn 1990) has not gained a similar foothold within the literature and, although a few studies have built on this perspective, the evidence-base remains limited. This is significant since, as Cole et al. (2012) have argued, personal role engagement may reflect a deeper and more holistic concept than work engagement.

The nascent interest in engagement ‘as manage- ment practice’ from within HRM and industrial rela- tions perspectives offers a very different view of en- gagement far removed from its original roots within the positive psychology movement (Jenkins and Del- bridge 2013; Keenoy 2014). These studies have thus far offered qualitative insights from a critical perspec- tive into the experience of employees on the receiving end of managers’ efforts to introduce programmes aimed at raising levels of engagement. In doing this, they address what Fineman (2006, p. 277) argues is the failure of positive psychologists to recognize ‘the social, economic and political conditions that contribute to and contain powerlessness in the work- place’. This perspective on engagement as practice highlights the limitations of the unitarist discourse that has characterized engagement studies to date, and starts to move the field towards an area of focus that is paradoxically of more interest to managers, namely, the success or otherwise of interventions aimed at raising levels of engagement among em- ployees, alongside employees’ subjective experience of these interventions. Only a small number of studies have thus far examined organizational interventions

44 C. Bailey et al.

or activities as potential antecedents of engagement, such as specific training and development courses or communication activities. Given the scarcity of stud- ies, their individualistic nature, methodological lim- itations and the range of interventions studied, it is difficult to draw any robust conclusions. The find- ings of three of these studies (Bishop 2013; Brum- melhuis et al. 2012; Carter et al. 2010) suggest that there is considerable potential for such interventions to affect engagement levels, and that there may be creative ways employers can seek to develop and en- hance engagement; disappointingly for practitioners, few studies have focused on this aspect.

In raising questions about identity, subjectivity and power in relation to engagement, a critical-theoretical perspective would also implicitly challenge the pre- vailing theoretical framework within the engagement domain, namely, the JD-R model. Under the JD-R model, engagement becomes a good bestowed by the individual in response to perceived and experienced benefits from the immediate environment. The crit- ical perspective would, however, broaden this out to highlight the power dynamics of the employment re- lationship as they pertain to engagement, an area that has received scant attention to date.

In this synthesis, to address our research questions, we have examined the antecedents of engagement separately from the outcomes, and we have further broken down and analysed separately the findings relating to each potential outcome and antecedent. However, it should be noted that the majority of the studies have in fact examined a range of antecedents and outcomes, and that in many instances both an- tecedents and outcomes have been examined within the same study. Engagement itself has been treated as an antecedent, mediator, moderator or outcome, depending on the focus of the study. It is beyond the scope of this synthesis to examine these holistic models in any detail, given their range and complex- ity. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind when considering the overall findings presented here that a main focus within the literature has been on exam- ining engagement as embedded within a broad net- work of factors. Of particular concern is the lack of agreement and precision over where engagement fits within the wider attitudinal conceptual space. Some studies (e.g. Biswas and Bhatnagar 2013) position engagement as an antecedent of other work-related attitudinal constructs, notably job satisfaction, orga- nizational (affective) commitment and job burnout, whereas others position engagement as an outcome of such constructs (e.g. Anaza and Rutherford 2012).

Additionally, a small number seem to consider these attitudes as occupying the same overarching concep- tual space as engagement and so control for the effects of these attitudes when investigating the association between engagement and other outcomes, such as job performance (e.g. Rich et al. 2010) or turnover inten- tions (e.g. Wefald et al. 2012). This divergence is per- haps symptomatic of the lack of an agreed definition and conceptualization of engagement, and highlights the need for convergence, as well as alignment be- tween theory and empiricism within the engagement domain. As there are a limited number of longitudinal or time-lagged studies that include other work-related attitudes, it is currently unclear how these constructs are causally related to engagement.

The general conclusion of this synthesis is that there is some evidence from our analysis of effect sizes in both complex and cross-sectional studies that engagement is associated most strongly with the out- comes of job satisfaction and organizational com- mitment, with a moderate level of correlation be- tween engagement and turnover intentions, in-role, extra-role and counterproductive performance and stress/burnout (negative association), and weaker as- sociations with general health and life satisfaction. However, some have proposed that engagement may have a potential ‘dark side’, as over-engaged work- ers may risk becoming burned out, which has not yet been resolved (Schaufeli and Salanova 2011) as in- sufficient studies have been conducted. Overall, this might suggest that engagement may have a more di- rect effect on motivation and performance rather than on health and well-being where there is the possibility of a curvilinear relationship, a proposition that would warrant further investigation.

In terms of antecedents, our analysis of average effect sizes in both cross-sectional and complex studies showed that individual psychological states, leadership and management, perceptions of organi- zational/team factors and job resources had broadly similar associations with engagement, whereas organizational interventions demonstrated a weaker association, and job demands had the weakest average level of correlation.

A number of limitations can be identified within the evidence-base. First, many studies are based on cross-sectional data collected at a single time point, which makes it difficult to be sure of the direction of causality. Cross-sectional studies do not take time lags between variables into account, as data on the an- tecedents, engagement and outcomes are collected at the same time point. This can lead to biased estimates

Employee Engagement 45

of the effects obtained for three reasons (Gollob and Reichardt 1987). First, the causal relationship between two variables, such as the effect of job re- sources on levels of engagement, takes time to unfold. Cross-sectional studies suggest, however, that these effects take place immediately. This is problematic from a logical perspective (Selig and Preacher 2009). Second, cross-sectional models fail to take into ac- count variables from previous time points, including the effect that a variable can have on itself. For exam- ple, an employee’s level of engagement today is likely to be influenced by previous levels of engagement. Third, cross-sectional studies do not specify the length of the time interval under study. This is prob- lematic, because the magnitude of an effect is likely to be different for different intervals. Effects between variables obtained from cross-sectional studies are thus correlational: they cannot be interpreted as causal relationships, and although they are related to each other, it is not possible to establish which variable is the cause and which variable is the effect.

There is also a reliance in the field on self-report data, which means that common method bias may be a factor influencing the findings of studies. Com- mon methods bias is a source of measurement error, which undermines the validity of the conclusions that researchers can draw about the relationships between different variables (Podsakoff et al. 2003). For exam- ple, if answers to two constructs are reported by the same person and/or via the same medium (such as a questionnaire), the correlations observed between these constructs might, at least partially, be due to a systematic error exerted through the use of the same rater and/or medium. Therefore, studies that use mul- tiple informants or objective data on performance out- comes may be more reliable in terms of pinpointing the real effects of engagement.

Second, owing to publishing norms within the social sciences, replication studies are almost non- existent; consequently, many relationships between antecedents, engagement and outcomes are exam- ined in single studies, and so a cumulative body of evidence has not been assembled to support or re- fute particular propositions. Third, the majority of research within the engagement field reviewed in this paper has focused on engagement as a psycholog- ical state and has not examined issues of most in- terest and relevance to practitioners, such as the im- pact of initiatives aimed at raising engagement levels. Fourth, the amount of variance in engagement levels that has been found in research studies is frequently very small, even when the variance is statistically

significant. Whether these differences in fact make a practical difference in an organizational setting is often unclear.

Finally, engagement has been defined and mea- sured in a variety of ways. Alongside the dominance of the Utrecht approach, a variety of other conceptu- alizations of engagement have emerged, which means that there is a lack of comparability, even in terms of what engagement is, that makes generalization difficult.

Implications for practice

This review has a number of implications for practice. Given that there is some evidence that higher levels of engagement are associated with positive outcomes for employers and individuals, there is some merit in considering strategies and approaches that would raise engagement levels. Studies on the antecedents of engagement suggest a broad range of relevant fac- tors at the individual, job, team and organizational levels that may affect engagement. These include job designs that allow for autonomy and feedback on per- formance, and that ensure workers have sufficient and appropriate resources, alongside positive, authentic leadership styles. Given that we found a range of positive psychological states are associated with en- gagement, employers might also want to consider in particular strategies aimed at enhancing individual resilience and personal resources alongside reducing instances of harmful behaviours, such as bullying and harassment.

Recommendations for future research

Despite the growing volume of research on engage- ment, our synthesis of evidence has highlighted a number of important gaps in knowledge. Out of 5771 items identified in our search, only 172 empirical studies met the quality threshold, suggesting that a great deal of what has been written about engagement could be described as incomplete or under-theorized, leaving considerable scope for further development of the field.

First, a significant gap remains in the definition and measurement of engagement, particularly in light of recent observations that the well-established UWES measure of engagement may have important limitations. The discriminant validity of engagement compared with other positive attitudinal states has also been questioned. Further studies within psy- chology that seek to compare existing measures of

46 C. Bailey et al.

engagement with one another, compare the relative significance of engagement and other attitudinal states, and that seek to develop and validate new mea- sures of engagement would help address this point.

There is a need for further longitudinal research that evaluates the comparative salience of a range of different antecedents to engagement; hitherto, stud- ies have focused on a relatively limited range of an- tecedents, and so there is a dearth of research that compares and contrasts the potential importance of a range of antecedents for the engagement levels of individuals. This would enable researchers to de- velop more nuanced recommendations for practition- ers, based on a greater understanding of the relative importance of the wide range of factors identified to date as being associated with engagement.

Further studies that focus on the emergent field of engagement ‘as management practice’ and, in par- ticular, longitudinal studies that examine the impact of initiatives aimed at enhancing engagement levels would also serve to develop the field. Thus far, very few studies have examined engagement interventions, such as training and development programmes specif- ically focused on raising engagement levels, which represents a significant gap in knowledge. It would be useful to gain further insights into which interven- tions have the most impact and under what conditions.

Studies that apply and contextualize the more generic frameworks around employee engagement to particular organizational settings, including more multi-method, qualitative or ethnographic research that enables deep insights to be generated into the con- textual aspects of engagement, would be welcome. To date, much of the literature has focused on testing psy- chological models, and there has been less interest in the setting within which the studies take place. How- ever, it may be that there are significant differences between industry sectors, job types or cultural settings that are relevant to understanding engagement.

Very little research within the engagement field has considered issues of diversity and equality. More re- search that investigates the antecedents and outcomes of engagement, as well as the experience of engage- ment, from the perspectives of employees from var- ious demographic backgrounds would be welcome, notably in light of Banihani et al.’s (2013) assertion that engagement may be gendered, and the possibility that engagement may vary across age groups.

Further studies that investigate engagement at dif- ferent levels – individual, work group/team and orga- nizational – would shed additional light on the expe- rience of engagement. Thus far, the vast majority of

research has been at the individual level, and has not considered how engagement levels within and across teams may vary, for example.

It would also be useful to know more about the locus of individuals’ engagement, for instance, are people engaged with their job, their work team, their organization or their profession? We found that only a small number of studies thus far have examined job vs organizational engagement, and there is scope to develop this line of research further.

Finally, our evidence synthesis has brought to light some significant variation in the way that engagement has been conceptualized as a management practice as opposed to a psychological state. These conceptual- izations are so far apart that they are in effect different phenomena. We would recommend that researchers address this important dichotomy with further stud- ies that clarify the meaning of engagement as a con- struct within the emergent HRM perspective. Some helpful clarification and consistency in terminology might emerge from this body of work. Building on this, critical investigations that address, for instance, the power relationships in the practice of engagement or that explore the collective aspects of engagement from an industrial relations viewpoint would add to understanding of how engagement fits within existing theories of the employment relationship.

Limitations

We conducted a systematic review of the evidence, but there are a number of potentially limiting factors that should be borne in mind. First, we restricted our search to items published in English. Second, owing to the volume of material returned, we were obliged to restrict our search terms, and so cannot therefore be sure to have captured all studies in areas related to engagement, although our search should have ensured that any studies with the word ‘engagement’ in the abstract or title were captured.

Third, we took the decision to omit from our synthesis any publications that did not meet our quality thresholds in terms of validity and reliability. In consequence, several studies published in peer- reviewed journals that used very broadly defined scales or scales lacking in construct or face validity to measure engagement were omitted (e.g. Zhu et al. 2009), which included papers referring to the Gallup Q12 measure (Harter et al. 2002). Also omitted were a number of papers that used partial scales to measure engagement: for instance, studies that were theorized using the Utrecht conceptualization of

Employee Engagement 47

engagement, but which used only one or two of the three scales (e.g. De Beer et al. 2012; Li et al. 2012), and those that measured engagement by reverse-scoring the Maslach Burnout Inventory (e.g. Setti and Argentero 2011). These decisions were taken on the basis of quality, but will have limited the scope of the evidence we considered. Including these additional scales would have widened the range of definitions and conceptualizations of engagement that were included.

Finally, we did not extend the scope of our search to include items relating to involvement and participation, although arguably these bear strong commonalities with engagement ‘as management practice’. We took this decision in part for pragmatic reasons, in that the number of items to be evaluated would have been so vast as to be unmanageable, as well as for theoretical reasons, because including these items would have stretched the notion of ‘engagement’ too widely. However, there is scope for future studies to evaluate these two bodies of work together.

Conclusions

In this synthesis, we have reported on the evidence accumulated in relation to the meaning, antecedents and consequences of engagement. This is the first narrative synthesis to have considered the body of ev- idence relating to engagement. In conclusion, despite the number of studies, there is in fact still very little about engagement that can be asserted with any de- gree of certainty; we do not really know what engage- ment means, how to measure it, what its outcomes are, or what drives up levels of engagement.

Although the Utrecht approach dominates the evidence-base, the literature is in fact fractured, with so many different meanings attached to engagement that it does not make sense at present to talk of en- gagement as one single construct. There is a tension between narrowing the definition of engagement so far that it becomes of limited interest and broaden- ing it too far so that it loses its distinctiveness that has not yet fully been resolved (Schaufeli 2014). The emergent critical perspective highlights the need to consider engagement within a wider organizational and political context (Jenkins and Delbridge 2013; Keenoy 2014). The sceptics’ view that engagement adds little or nothing to our understanding of work- place attitudes over and above more established con- structs, such as commitment and satisfaction, has not yet been fully disproved (Christian et al. 2011).

What can be said now, though, is that there is a body of evidence that lends some support to the view that high levels of engagement, when viewed as a multi-faceted psychological state, are beneficial for individuals and employers, and that aspects of what might be considered good management and leader- ship practice may serve to raise engagement levels.

In order to be sure that advice given to practition- ers is founded on best evidence, there is a signifi- cant need for further research on the topic. Despite this somewhat pessimistic conclusion, the topic of employee engagement continues to show significant promise as an area for research and practice. There is much scope for further research that seeks to de- velop and extend current conceptualizations and the- orizations of engagement through investigations that take greater account of the organizational and politi- cal contexts within which engagement is enacted and experienced.

While on the one hand, Purcell (2014, p. 251) rec- ommends that ‘it is best just to ignore work engage- ment’ in light of its acontextual and depoliticized ac- count of organizational life, and on the other, Keenoy (2014, p. 214) dismisses the practitioner version of employee engagement as ‘a multi-faceted holo- graphic facticity’, an alternative and perhaps more ambitious route forward would be to seek to com- bine the varying perspectives into an overarching multi-level engagement framework. Such a frame- work would combine a focus on employee attitudes derived from the psychological viewpoint, organiza- tional employment strategies and policies, and the cultural, structural and contextual factors pertinent to understanding the setting within which engagement is experienced. This would entail the kind of painstak- ing and time-consuming research combining longi- tudinal qualitative and quantitative methods that has hitherto been largely absent in the engagement arena, and would raise ontological and epistemological chal- lenges for researchers, but would at the same time enable significant advances in the field to take place.

Overview of developments since the structured search

A number of studies have been published since we conducted the structured search in October 2013. We repeated the search using the same search string fo- cusing on key journals in May 2015 and identified 28 relevant studies that reveal some development in the field. First, although the UWES measure and concep- tualization of engagement still appear to dominate,

48 C. Bailey et al.

two new engagement constructs have emerged: team work engagement (Costa et al. 2014); and collective organizational engagement (Barrick et al. 2015). These focus on how engagement may manifest at team and organizational levels, which is important, as it connects with broader debates around the practical utility of engagement. Much work is still needed to validate these constructs; particularly as both exhibit a unidimensional structure that jars with prior theorizing on engagement. Second, the JD-R model is still widely applied; however, this theory is being more deeply and critically examined (Kane-Frieder et al. 2014). Third, there seems to be a move towards more complex research designs and analyses, which will strengthen the validity of evidence and provide insight into the boundary conditions of engagement. However, the continued lack of qualitative and inter- vention studies is of ongoing concern. Despite this, there has been continued evidence that engagement is associated with higher levels of job performance (Bal and De Lange 2014; Kane-Frieder et al. 2014; Wang et al. 2014) as well as organizational-level perfor- mance (Barrick et al. 2015). Other studies have sup- ported the claim that work environmental factors may not have simple linear relationships with engagement, but, rather, these may be moderated by organizational factors such as organizational politics (Kane-Frieder et al. 2014) and organizational justice (Rayton and Yalabik 2014; Wang et al. 2014). Lastly, there is in- creasing evidence that HRM practices and leadership behaviours are important (Bal and De Lange 2014; Breevaart et al. 2014), although some have a negative impact and others have a positive impact, and these may exert interaction effects in their influence on engagement (Conway et al. 2015). In sum, these additional studies indicate that engagement research is entering into a more advanced, yet still uncertain, stage of theoretical and empirical development.

References Agarwal, U.A. and Bhargava, S. (2013). Effects of psycho-

logical contract breach on organizational outcomes: mod- erating role of tenure and educational levels. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 38, pp. 13–25.

Agarwal, U.A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S. and Bhargava, S. (2012). Linking LMX, innovative work behavior and turnover intentions: the mediating role of work engage- ment. Career Development International, 17, pp. 208–230.

Airila, A., Hakanen, J., Punakallio, A., Lusa, S. and Luukko- nen, R. (2012). Is work engagement related to work ability beyond working conditions and lifestyle factors?

International Archives of Occupational and Environmen- tal Health, 85, pp. 915–925.

Alfes, K., Shantz, A.D., Truss, C. and Soane, E.C. (2013a). The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behavior: a moder- ated mediation model. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, pp. 330–351.

Alfes, K., Truss, C., Soane, E.C., Rees, C. and Gatenby, M. (2013b). The relationship between line manager behavior, perceived HRM practices, and individual performance: examining the mediating role of engagement. Human Re- source Management, 52, pp. 839–859.

Anaza, N.A. and Rutherford, B.N. (2012). Developing our understanding of patronizing frontline employees. Man- aging Service Quality, 22, pp. 340–358.

Andreassen, C.S., Ursin, H. and Eriksen, H.R. (2007). The relationship between strong motivation to work, ‘worka- holism’, and health. Psychology and Health, 22, pp. 615– 629.

Arrowsmith, J. and Parker, J. (2013). The meaning of ‘em- ployee engagement’ for the values and roles of the HRM function. International Journal of Human Resource Man- agement, 24, pp. 2692–2712.

Bakibinga, P., Vinje, H.F. and Mittelmark, M.B. (2012). Self- tuning for job engagement: Ugandan nurses’ self-care strategies in coping with work stress. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 14, pp. 3–12.

Bakker, A.B. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2013). Creativity and charisma among female leaders: the role of resources and work engagement. International Journal of Human Re- source Management, 24, pp. 2760–2779.

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Brummelhuis, L.L.T. (2012). Work engagement, performance, and active learn- ing: the role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, pp. 555–564.

Bakker, A.B., Hakanen, J.J., Demerouti, E. and Xan- thopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, pp. 274–284.

Bakker, A.B., Van Emmerik, H. and Euwema, M.C. (2006). Crossover of burnout and engagement in work teams. Work and Occupations, 33, pp. 464–489.

Bal, P.M. and De Lange A.H. (2015). From flexibility hu- man resource management to employee engagement and perceived job performance across the lifespan: a multi- sample study. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 88, pp. 126–154.

Bal, P.M., Kooij, D.T.A.M. and De Jong, S.B. (2013). How do developmental and accommodative HRM enhance em- ployee engagement and commitment? The role of psycho- logical contract and SOC strategies. Journal of Manage- ment Studies, 50, pp. 545–572.

Balducci, C., Schaufeli, W. and Fraccaroli, F. (2011). The job demands–resources model and counterproductive work behavior: the role of job-related affect. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, pp. 467–496.

Employee Engagement 49

Banihani, M., Lewis, P. and Syed, J., (2013). Is work engage- ment gendered? Gender in Management: An International Journal, 28, pp. 400–423.

Bargagliotti, L.A. (2012). Work engagement in nursing: a concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68, pp. 1414–1428.

Barnes, D.C. and Collier, J.E. (2013). Investigating work en- gagement in the service environment. Journal of Services Marketing, 27; pp. 485–499.

Barrick, M.R., Thurgood, G.R., Smith, T.A. and Courtright, S.H. (2015). Collective organizational engagement: link- ing motivational antecedents, strategic implementation, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58, pp. 111–135.

Bishop, M. (2013). Work engagement of older registered nurses: the impact of a caring-based intervention. Journal of Nursing Management, 21, pp 941–949.

Biswas, S. and Bhatnagar, J. (2013). Mediator analysis of employee engagement: role of perceived organizational support, P-O fit, organizational commitment and job sat- isfaction. Vikalpa, 38, pp. 27–40.

Bledow, R., Schmitt, A., Frese, M. and Kühnel, J. (2011). The affective shift model of work engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, pp. 1246–1257.

Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance. The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, pp. 99–109.

Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. and Espevik, R. (2014). Daily transactional and trans- formational leadership and daily employee engagement. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 87, pp. 138–157.

Briner, R. and Denyer, D. (2012). Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and scholarship tool. In Rousseau, D. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidence- based Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 112–129.

Britt, T.W., Castro C.A. and Adler, A.B. (2005). Self- engagement, stressors, and health: a longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, pp. 1475– 1486.

Britt, T.W., Thomas, J.L. and Dawson, C.R. (2006). Self- engagement magnifies the relationship between qualitative overload and performance in a training setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, pp. 2100–2114.

Brummelhuis, L.L.T., Bakker, A.B., Hetland, J. and Keule- mans, L. (2012). Do new ways of working foster work engagement? Psicothema, 24, pp. 113–120.

Buys, C. and Rothmann, S. (2010). Burnout and engage- ment of reformed church ministers. SAJIP: South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36, pp. 1–11.

Carter, R., Nesbit, P. and Joy, M. (2010). Using theatre-based interventions to increase self-efficacy and engagement. In Albrecht, S. (ed.), Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 416–424.

Chen, Z.J., Zhang, X. and Vogel, D. (2011). Exploring the un- derlying processes between conflict and knowledge shar- ing: a work–engagement perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, pp. 1005–1033.

Cheng, J., Lu, K., Chang, Y. and Johnstone, S. (2013). Voice behavior and work engagement: the moderating role of supervisor-attributed motives. Asia Pacific Journal of Hu- man Resources, 51, pp. 81–102.

Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011). Work engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychol- ogy, 64, pp. 89–136.

Chughtai, A.A. and Buckley, F. (2009). Linking trust in the principal to school outcomes: the mediating role of orga- nizational identification and work engagement. Interna- tional Journal of Educational Management, 23, pp. 574– 589.

Chughtai, A.A. and Buckley, F. (2011). Work engagement: antecedents, the mediating role of learning goal orientation and job performance. Career Development International, 16, pp. 684–705.

Cogin, J.A. and Fish, A. (2009). An empirical investigation of sexual harassment and work engagement: surprising differences between men and women. Journal of Manage- ment and Organization, 15, pp. 47–61.

Cole, M.S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A.G. and O’Boyle, E.H. (2012). Job burnout and employee engagement: a meta- analytic examination of construct proliferation. Journal of Management, 38, pp. 1550–1581.

Conway, E., Fu, N. Monks, K. Alfes, K. and Bailey, C. (2015). Demands or resources? The relationship between hr prac- tices, employee engagement, and emotional exhaustion within a hybrid model of employment relations. Human Resource Management, doi: 10.1002/hrm.21691.

Costa, P., Passos A.M. and Bakker, A. (2014). Empirical validation of the team work engagement construct. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13, pp. 34–45.

Crawford, E.A., Rich, B.L., Buckman, B. and Bergeron, J. (2014). The antecedents and rivers of employee en- gagement. In Truss, C. et al. (eds), Employee En- gagement in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 57–81

Crawford, E.R., Lepine, J.A. and Rich, B.L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, pp. 834–848.

De Beer, L., Rothmann, S.J. and Pienaar, J. (2012). A con- firmatory investigation of a job demands–resources model using a categorical estimator. Psychological Reports, 111, pp. 528–544.

De Braine, R. and Roodt, G. (2011). The job demands– resources model as predictor of work identity and work engagement: a comparative analysis. SAJIP: South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37, pp. 52–62.

Del Libano, M., Llorens, S., Salanova, M. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2012). About the dark and bright sides of

50 C. Bailey et al.

self-efficacy: workaholism and work engagement. Span- ish Journal of Psychology, 15, pp. 688–701.

Den Hartog, D.N. and Belschak, F.D., 2012. Work engage- ment and Machiavellianism in the ethical leadership pro- cess. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, pp. 35–47.

Denyer, D and Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A. (eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London: Sage, pp. 671–689.

Extremera, N., Sanchez-Garca, M., Durn, M.A. and Rey, L. (2012). Examining the psychometric properties of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in two Spanish multi- occupational samples. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, pp. 105–110.

Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: consensus and coun- terpoints. Academy of Management Review, 31, pp. 270– 291.

Fredrickson, B.L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, pp. 218– 226.

Freeney, Y. and Fellenz, M.R. (2013). Work engagement as a key driver of quality of care: a study with midwives. Journal of Health, Organization and Management, 27, pp. 330–349.

Gan, T. and Gan, Y. (2013). Sequential development among dimensions of job burnout and engagement among IT em- ployees. Stress and Health, doi: 10.1002/smi.2502.

Godard, J. (2014). The psychologisation of employment re- lations. Human Resource Management Journal, 24, pp. 1–18.

Goliath-Yarde, L. and Roodt, G. (2011). Differential item functioning of the UWES-17 in South Africa. SAJIP: South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37, pp. 240–250.

Gollob, H.F. and Reichardt, C.S. (1987). Taking account of time lags in causal models. Child Development, 58, pp. 80–92.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Guest, D. (2014). Employee engagement: fashionable fad or long-term fixture? In Truss, C. et al. (eds), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, London: Routledge, pp. 221–235.

Hackman, J. and Oldham, G. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, pp. 250–279.

Hakanen, J., Schaufeli, W. and Ahola, K. (2008). The job demands–resources model: a three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work en- gagement. Work and Stress, 22, pp. 224–241.

Hall, G.B., Dollard, M.F. and Coward, J. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate: development of the PSC-12. International Journal of Stress Management, 17, pp. 353–383.

Hallberg, U.E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006). ‘Same same’ but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job

involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist, 11, pp. 119–127.

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

He, H., Zhu, W. and Zheng, X. (2013). Procedural justice and employee engagement: roles of organizational identi- fication and moral identity centrality. Journal of Business Ethics, doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1774-3.

Heuven, E., Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B. and Huisman, N. (2006). The role of self-efficacy in performing emotion work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, pp. 222–235.

Heuvel, M.V.D., Demerouti, E., Schreurs, B.H.J., Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009). Does meaning-making help during organizational change? Development and val- idation of a new scale. Career Development Journal, 14, pp. 508–533.

Høigaard, R., Giske, R. and Sundsli, K. (2012). Newly quali- fied teachers’ work engagement and teacher efficacy influ- ences on job satisfaction, burnout, and the intention to quit. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35, pp. 347–357.

Hu, Q. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2011). Job insecurity and re- muneration in Chinese family-owned business workers. Career Development International, 16, pp. 6–19.

Idris, M.A. and Dollard, M.F. (2011). Psychosocial safety climate, work conditions, and emotions in the workplace: a Malaysian population-based work stress study. Interna- tional Journal of Stress Management, 18, pp. 324–347.

Inoue, A., Kawakami, N., Tsuno, K., Shimazu, A., Tomioka, K. and Nakanishi, M. (2013). Job demands, job resources, and work engagement of Japanese employees: a prospec- tive cohort study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 86, pp. 441–449.

Jenkins, S. and Delbridge, R. (2013). Context matters: ex- amining ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ approaches to employee engage- ment in two workplaces. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, pp. 2670–2691.

Jones, O. and Gatrell, C. (2014). Editorial: the future of writ- ing and reviewing for IJMR. International Journal of Man- agement Reviews, 16, pp. 249–264.

Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal en- gagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 33, pp. 692–724.

Kane-Frieder, R. Hochwarter W. and Ferris, G. (2014). Terms of engagement: political boundaries of work engagement– work outcomes relationships. Human Relations, 67, pp. 357–382.

Karatepe, O.M. (2012). Job resources, work engagement, and hotel employee outcomes: a time-lagged analysis. Eco- nomic Research, 25, pp. 1127–1140.

Keenoy, T. (2014). Engagement: a murmuration of objects? In Truss, C. et al. (eds), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, London: Routledge, pp. 197–220.

Kühnel, J. and Sonnentag, S. (2011). How long do you benefit from vacation? A closer look at the fade-out of vacation

Employee Engagement 51

effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, pp. 125– 143.

Leung, A.S.M., Wu, L.Z., Chen, Y.Y. and Young, M.N. (2011). The impact of workplace ostracism in service or- ganizations. International Journal of Hospitality Manage- ment, 30, pp. 836–844.

Li, X, Sanders, K. and Frenkel, S. (2012). How leader– member exchange, work engagement and HRM consis- tently explain Chinese luxury hotel employees’ job perfor- mance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, pp. 1059–1066.

Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Clarke, M, Devereux, P.J., Klei- jnen J. and Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explana- tion and elaboration. BMJ (Online) 339, b2700, doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700.

Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of em- ployee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psy- chology, 1, pp. 3–30.

Mache, S., Danzer, G., Klapp, B.F. and Groneberg, D.A. (2013). Surgeons’ work ability and performance in surgi- cal care: relations between organisational predictors, work engagement and work ability. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery, 398, pp. 317–325.

May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004). The psy- chological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and avail- ability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, pp. 11–37.

Mendes, F. and Stander, M.W. (2011). Positive organi- sation: the role of leader behavior in work engage- ment and retention. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, doi:10.4102/sajip.v37i1.900.

Menguc, B., Auh, S., Fisher, M. and Haddad, A. (2013). To be engaged or not to be engaged: the antecedents and consequences of service employee engagement. Journal of Business Research, 66, pp. 2163–2170.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the Work- place. Theory, Research and Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nijmeijer, K.J., Fabbricotti, I.N. and Huijsman, R. (2014). Making franchising work: a framework based on a sys- tematic review. International Journal of Management Re- views, 16, pp. 62–83.

Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P.M. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2012). Don’t leave your heart at home: gain cycles of positive emotions, resources, and engagement at work. Career Development International, 17, pp. 537– 556.

Parker, S. and Griffin, M. (2011). Understanding active psychological states: embedding engagement in a wider nomological net and closer attention to performance. Eu- ropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, pp. 60–67.

Patterson, M., Rick, J., Wood, S., Carroll, C., Balain, S. and Booth, A. (2007). Review of the Validity and Reliability of Measures of Human Resource Management. Report for the NHS (SDO No. RM03/JH10/MP). Sheffield: Institute of Work Psychology.

Podsakoff, N.P., LePine, J.A. and LePine, M.A. (2007). Dif- ferential challenge stressor–hindrance stressor relation- ships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, pp. 438–454.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Jeong-Yeon, L. and Pod- sakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recom- mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, pp. 879–903.

Popay, J., Roberts, H, Sowden, A., Pettigrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N. Roen, K and Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Sys- tematic Reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Pro- gramme (ref H33250019). Version 1. Lancaster: NSSR.

Purcell, J. (2014). Disengaging from engagement. Human Resource Management Journal, 24, pp. 241–254.

Rayton, B.A. and Yalabik, Z.Y. (2014). Work engagement, psychological contract breach and job satisfaction. Inter- national Journal of Human Resource Management. 25, pp. 2382–2400.

Rees, C., Alfes, K. and Gatenby, M. (2013). Employee voice and engagement: connections and consequences. Interna- tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, pp. 2780–2798.

Reio, T.G. and Sanders-Reio, J. (2011). Thinking about work- place engagement: does supervisor and co-worker inci- vility really matter? Advances in Developing Human Re- sources, 13, pp. 462–478.

Reissner, S. and Pagan, V. (2013). Generating employee engagement in a public–private partnership: manage- ment communication activities and employee experiences. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, pp. 2741–2759.

Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010). Job en- gagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, pp. 617–635.

Rickard, G., Lenthall, S., Dollard, M., Opie, T., Knight, S., Dunn, S., Wakerman, J., Macleod, M., Seiler, J. and Brewster-Webb, D. (2012). Organisational intervention to reduce occupational stress and turnover in hospital nurses in the Northern Territory, Australia. Collegian, 19, pp. 211–221.

Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, pp. 555–572.

Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of em- ployee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, pp. 600–619.

Salanova, M. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008). A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job

52 C. Bailey et al.

resources and proactive behavior. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, pp. 116–131.

Salanova, M., Agut, S. and Peiró, J.M. (2005). Linking or- ganizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of ser- vice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, pp. 1217– 1227

Sardeshmukh, S.R., Sharma, D. and Golden, T.D. (2012). Impact of telework on exhaustion and job engagement: a job demands and job resources model. New Technology, Work and Employment, 27, pp. 193–207.

Sawang, S. (2012). Is there an inverted U-shaped relationship between job demands and work engagement: the moderat- ing role of social support? International Journal of Man- power, 33, pp. 178–186.

Schaufeli, W.B. (2014). What is engagement? In Truss, C. et al. (eds), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 15–35.

Schaufeli, W. and Salanova, M. (2011). Work engagement: on how to better catch a slippery concept. European Jour- nal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, pp. 39– 46.

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, pp. 71–92.

Selig, J. P. and Preacher, K. J. (2009). Mediation models for longitudinal data in developmental research. Research in Human Development, 6, pp. 144–164.

Selmer, J., Jonasson, C. and Lauring, J. (2013). Group con- flict and faculty engagement: is there a moderating effect of group trust? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35, pp. 95–109.

Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A. and Schaufeli, W. (2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: multi- sample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, pp. 459–481.

Setti, I. and Argentero, P. (2011). Organizational features of workplace and job engagement among Swiss health- care workers. Nursing and Health Sciences, 13, pp. 425– 432.

Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W.B., Kubota, K. and Kawakami, N. (2012). Do workaholism and work engagement predict employee well-being and performance in opposite direc- tions? Industrial Health, 50, pp. 316–321.

Shirom, A. (2003), Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigor and the study of positive affect in organizations. In Perrewe, P.L. and Ganster, D. C. (eds), Emotional and Physiological Processes and Positive Intervention Strate- gies (Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being, Vol- ume 3), Bingley: Emerald, pp. 135–164.

Shuck, B. (2011). Integrative literature review: four emerg- ing perspectives of employee engagement: an integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 10, pp. 304–328.

Soane, E., Truss, C., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Rees, C. and Gatenby, M. (2012). Development and application of a new measure of employee engagement: the ISA Engage- ment Scale. Human Resource Development International, 15, pp. 529–547.

Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E., Binnewies, C. and Scholl, A. (2008). Being engaged at work and detached at home: a week-level study on work engagement, psychological detachment, and affect. Work and Stress, 22, pp. 257– 276.

Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E.J., Demerouti, E. and Bakker, A.B. (2012). Reciprocal relations between recovery and work engagement: the moderating role of job stressors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, pp. 842–853.

Spence Laschinger, H.K. (2010). Staff nurse work engage- ment in Canadian hospital settings: the influence of work- place empowerment and six areas of worklife. In Albrecht, S. (ed.), Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspec- tives, Issues, Research and Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 309–322.

Steele, J.P., Rupayana, D.D., Mills, M.J., Smith, M.R., We- fald, A. and Downey, R.G. (2012). Relative importance and utility of positive worker states: a review and empiri- cal examination. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 146, pp. 617–650.

Sulea, C., Fischmann, G. and Filipescu, R. (2012). Conscien- tious, therefore engaged in work? Don’t take it for granted: the moderating role of workplace mistreatment. Psiholo- gia Resurselor Umane, 10, pp. 23–32.

Swanberg, J.E., McKechnie, S.P., Ojha, M.U. and James, J.B. (2011). Schedule control, supervisor support and work engagement: a winning combination for workers in hourly jobs? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, pp. 613– 624.

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2011). Do transformational leaders enhance their followers’ daily work engagement? Leadership Quarterly, 22, pp. 121– 131.

Townsend, K., Wilkinson, A. and Burgess, J. (2013). Routes to partial success: collaborative employment relations and employee engagement. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, pp. 915–930.

Truss, C., Alfes, K., Delbridge, R., Shantz, A. and Soane, E. (eds) (2014). Employee Engagement in Theory and Prac- tice. London: Routledge.

Truss, C., Soane, E., Shantz, A., Alfes, K. and Delbridge, R. (2013). Employee engagement, organisational perfor- mance and individual wellbeing: exploring the evidence, developing the theory. Editorial introduction to special issue. International Journal of Human Resource Manage- ment, 24, pp. 2657–2669.

Van Bogaert, P., Clarke, S., Willems, R. and Mondelaers, M. (2013). Staff engagement as a target for managing work environments in psychiatric hospitals: implications for workforce stability and quality of care. Journal of Clin- ical Nursing, 22, pp. 1717–1728.

Employee Engagement 53

Van Schalkwyk, S., Du Toit, D.H., Bothma, A.S. and Roth- mann, S. (2010). Job insecurity, leadership empowerment behavior, employee engagement and intention to leave in a petrochemical laboratory. South African Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, pp. 1–7.

Vera, M., Salanova, M. and Martin, B. (2010). University faculty and work-related well-being: the importance of the triple work profile. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8, pp. 581–602.

Viera, A.J. and Garrett, J.M. (2005). Understanding Inter- observer agreement: the kappa statistic. Family Medicine Research Series, 37, pp. 360–363.

Viljevac, A., Cooper-Thomas, H.D. and Saks, A.M. (2012). An investigation into the validity of two measures of work engagement. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, pp. 3692–3709.

Wang, D. and Hsieh, C. (2013). The effect of authentic leader- ship on employee trust and employee engagement. Social Behavior and Personality, 41, pp. 613–624.

Wefald, A.J. and Downey, R.G. (2009). Job engagement in organizations: fad, fashion, or folderol? Journal of Orga- nizational Behavior, 30, pp. 141–145.

Wefald, A.J., Mills, M.J., Smith, M.R. and Downey, R.G. (2012). A comparison of three job engagement measures: examining their factorial and criterion-related validity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 4, pp. 67– 90.

Wang, H-J., Lu, C-q and Siu, O-l, (2014). Job insecurity and job performance: the moderating role of organizational justice and the mediating role of work engagement. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, doi: org/10.1037/a0038330.

Wong, C.A., Laschinger, H.K.S. and Cummings, G.G. (2010). Authentic leadership and nurses’ voice behavior

and perceptions of care quality. Journal of Nursing Man- agement, 18, pp. 889–900.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, pp. 235–244.

Yalabik, Z.Y., Popaitoon, P., Chowne, J.A. and Rayton, B.A. (2013). Work engagement as a mediator between employee attitudes and outcomes. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, pp. 2799–2823.

Yeh, C.W. (2012). Relationships among service climate, psy- chological contract, work engagement and service per- formance. Journal of Air Transport Management, 25, pp. 67–70.

Zhu, W., Avolio, B.J. and Walumbwa, F.O. (2009). Moderat- ing role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group and Or- ganization Management, 35, pp. 590–619.

Supporting Information

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher’s website:

Table S1. Definitions and measures of engagement Table S2. Theoretical frameworks Table S3. The antecedents of engagement Table S4. The performance outcomes of engagement Table S5. The morale outcomes of engagement Table S6. Full reference list of evaluated items