New Employee Orientation / Socialization 300 words

A theoretical model of the antecedents and outcomes of

employee engagement Dubin’s method

Sowath Rana, Alexandre Ardichvili and Oleksandr Tkachenko Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development, University of Minnesota,

Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a theoretical model that links the major antecedents, outcomes, and moderators of employee engagement.

Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses the first part of Dubin’s two-part, eight-step theory-building methodology, and builds on existing research and empirical studies on engagement. In particular, the following five steps of the Dubin’s methodology are addressed in this study: units (or concepts) of the theory, laws of interaction among the units, boundaries of the theory, system states of the theory, and propositions of the theory.

Findings – The proposed theoretical model of employee engagement identifies job design and characteristics, supervisor and co-worker relationships, workplace environment, and HRD practices as the major antecedents to employee engagement. The paper also proposes that job demands and individual characteristics act as moderators to the relationships between job design and characteristics, supervisor and co-worker relationships, workplace environment, and employee engagement. Finally, it is proposed that employee engagement is related to three major organizational outcomes: job performance, turnover intention (inverse relationship), and organizational citizenship behavior.

Originality/value – This paper addresses the paucity of structured literature on the antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement and presents a comprehensive, holistic model that offers a logical ground on which empirical indicators and hypotheses could be further identified and tested to verify the theory.

Keywords Employee engagement, Human resource development, Work engagement, Dubin’s method, Theoretical model

Paper type Conceptual paper

Employee engagement is a relatively new but extremely popular concept in the field of Human Resource Development. Such strong interest is driven by claims that organizations looking to leverage employee engagement could ultimately observe significant positive impact on bottom-line results (Macey and Schneider, 2008). For instance, the notion of engagement has been claimed to predict both individual employee outcomes and organizational level success and financial performance (Macey and Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006; Shuck and Reio, 2011).

Despite the recognized importance of engagement (Kim et al., 2012; Macey et al., 2009; Shuck and Wollard, 2010), there appears to be a lack of consensus over the antecedents and outcomes of the construct. In addition, while many empirical, theoretical, and conceptual articles have examined various aspects of the phenomenon

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1366-5626.htm

Dubin’s method

249

Received 2 September 2013 Revised 5 February 2014

Accepted 5 February 2014

Journal of Workplace Learning Vol. 26 No. 3/4, 2014

pp. 249-266 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1366-5626 DOI 10.1108/JWL-09-2013-0063

of employee engagement, we could not identify any extant studies that link the antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of engagement in one holistic model. Using the first part of Robert Dubin’s (1978) two-part, eight-step theory-building methodology, this paper builds on existing research and empirical studies and attempts to provide a comprehensive, holistic theoretical model that links the major antecedents, outcomes, and moderators of employee engagement.

Dubin’s quantitative theory-building methodology was chosen because it is widely regarded as one of the most comprehensive theory-building methods and it has been successfully used in HRD and related fields (e.g. Chermack, 2004; Lynham and Chermack, 2006). The method requires the researcher to construct a theoretical model that is informed by logically connected conceptual ideas, and involves transforming such a model into testable hypotheses (Dubin, 1978). This eight-step theory-building method can be divided into two parts. Part one includes the development of the following elements of the theory: units (or concepts) of the theory, laws of interaction among the units, boundaries of the theory, system states of the theory, and propositions of the theory. Part two includes the development of empirical indicators and hypotheses, and testing (Lynham, 2002a).

This paper identifies job design and characteristics, supervisor and co-worker relationships, workplace environment, and HRD practices as the major antecedents to employee engagement. We also propose that job demands and individual characteristics serve as important moderators to the relationships between job design and characteristics, supervisor and co-worker relationships, workplace environment, HRD practices, and employee engagement. Employee engagement, in return, plays a salient role in enhancing employees’ job performance and organizational citizenship behavior as well as in reducing turnover intention. Taking into account these organizational factors, we have derived a number of propositions for further empirical testing on the topic.

We believe that this study can make a contribution to the literature on engagement and that its findings will offer important implications for both HRD researchers and practitioners. It provides a comprehensive, logically derived theoretical framework of the antecedents and outcomes of engagement that can be used in empirical studies on the topic. This paper starts by providing a brief overview of the concept of employee engagement, its emergence in the organizational literature, and some of its most common definitions. It then addresses the first five steps of the Dubin’s theory-building methodology in an attempt to formulate a comprehensive theoretical model of engagement. It is important to note that we are not seeking to provide a structured literature review on the topic; instead, our literature review is embedded in the discussions of the history and overview of engagement and is employed throughout the process of developing the theory itself. To wit, each of the five phases of the theory building process entails identifying and examining existing relevant research that undergirds our claims and provides basis for our framework. This paper concludes with recommendations for future research and empirical testing of this theoretical model as well as suggestions for managers and HRD practitioners.

Background and definitions: employee engagement Employee engagement has become a topic of immense interest in the organizational and HRD literature in recent years. It is often recognized that engagement is predictive

JWL 26,3/4

250

of employee outcomes, success, and financial performance of organizations (Macey et al., 2009; Saks, 2006). At the same time, however, survey research reveals low levels of engagement in many countries (Gallup, 2013; Robertson and Cooper, 2010). Findings from a recent Gallup survey suggested that at present, only 13 percent of employees around the globe are engaged on their job and that disengaged workers continue to outnumber their engaged counterparts at a rate of nearly 2 to 1 (Gallup, 2013). In the US, for instance, 52 percent of employees in the workforce are reportedly disengaged and 18 percent are actively disengaged in their jobs. Similarly, 68 percent of Chinese workers are reported to be disengaged in their work (Gallup, 2013).

The concept of engagement began to surface in the organizational and business literature around two decades ago (Simpson, 2009) and has attracted a lot of attention from HRD scholars in recent years (e.g. Kim et al., 2012; Rurkkhum and Bartlett, 2012; Shuck and Wollard, 2010; Soane et al., 2012; Wollard and Shuck, 2011). Schaufeli et al. (2008) posited that work engagement emerged from burnout research as an attempt to examine not only employee “unwell-being” but also “well-being” (p. 176). Unlike those who experience burnout, engaged employees are energetic and connected with their work activities and feel they are capable of accomplishing those tasks (Schaufeli et al., 2008). Kahn (1990), one of the first scholars to study engagement, defined what he termed personal engagement as the “harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performance” (p. 694). In the HRD literature, Shuck and Wollard (2010) defined engagement as “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state directed toward desired organi-zational outcomes” (p. 103).

Perhaps the most widely cited definition of engagement (Albrecht, 2010) is that provided by Schaufeli et al. (2002), who defined engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p. 74; emphasis added). Vigor refers to high levels of energy and psychological resilience while working, willingness to invest effort in a task, and persistence in difficult times. Dedication is described as having a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge, whereas absorption can be considered as “flow” – a state of optimal experience – which is long-term and is characterized by a “pervasive and persistent state of mind” (Schaufeli et al., 2002).

These definitions suggest that engaged employees are committed, dedicated, and invested in their work roles cognitively, psychologically, and behaviorally. Taking into account the low levels of engagement among employees in different countries, it is clear that engagement matters and that more research is needed to advance our understanding of the major factors impacting employee engagement is needed.

Dubin’s method: an overview Dubin’s (1978) theory-building method is widely recognized as one of the most comprehensive theory-building methods in applied fields such as management, marketing, and human resource development (Ardichvili et al., 2003; Chermack, 2004; Lynham, 2002a). We selected Dubin’s method over other approaches – such as Lynham’s (2002b) General Method and Van de Ven’s (2007) Diamond Model – for a number of reasons. First, we approached this theory-building effort from a purely quantitative, deductive perspective. Although there is no doubt that Lynham’s and

Dubin’s method

251

Van de Ven’s methods do not preclude quantitative or deductive research, we believe that Dubin’s approach offers the clearest roadmap in this regard. In such a deductive theory-building approach, the theory is first formulated as a hypothesis based on the use of logic as well as prior knowledge about the constructs (Holton and Lowe, 2007). The theory is proposed as a “representation of the reality . . . subjected to testing to determine if it accurately portrays reality” (Holton and Lowe, 2007, p. 302). This procedure is closely aligned with our theory-building effort, in which we formulate hypotheses describing relationships between variables that have been derived from our review of existing research and propose an actual testing of the model. Second, we felt that Dubin’s approach is the most structured, detailed, and comprehensive method available. As Storberg-Walker (2003) argued, because Dubin’s method appears to be more of a “traditional, linear, empirically based method,” it offers a very clear blueprint for theorists (p. 218).

Dubin’s (1978) method can be divided into two parts: the theoretical part and the research operation part. Successful completion of the first part results in a conceptual framework of the theory whereas the second part results in an “empirically verified and trustworthy theory” (p. 244). Figure 1 represents the proposed theoretical framework in which we have delineated the units, laws of interaction, boundaries, system states, and propositions of the theory.

Step 1: Units of a theoretical model of employee engagement The units of a theory refer to the concepts, basic ideas, or building blocks that make up the theory (Dubin, 1978). The units are the “things out of which the theory is built”

Figure 1. A theoretical model of the antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement

JWL 26,3/4

252

(Dubin, 1976, p. 26) or the raw conceptual framework on which the theory is based (Lynham, 2002a). According to Dubin (1978), in principle there are no restrictions on the selection of the units that make up a theory. Such flexibility in determining these units enables the researcher-theorist to have complete control of this stage of the theory-building process (Chermack, 2004).

In determining the units to be included in the model, we conducted an extensive literature review on the topic. Given the widely-recognized positive relationships between engagement and other organizational variables, it is not surprising that we were able to uncover a number of articles that explored the concept of engagement and its constituent elements. However, there does not seem to be a consensus among scholars as to what specific factors pave the way for developing highly engaged employees. For instance, Wollard and Shuck (2011) identified a staggering 42 engagement antecedents either evidenced by empirical research or proposed by scholars. The antecedents that have been identified are scattered throughout the literature (Wollard and Shuck, 2011); thus, it would be practically impossible for us to discuss each one in-depth.

Dubin (1978) noted that the selection of the units of the theory is at the discretion of the researcher-theorist. After examining the relevant literature on engagement, we selected the following nine variables, which we believe provide the most complete understanding of the antecedents and outcomes of the construct and which can constitute a comprehensive, holistic model of engagement. We built on the foundational theories and models of engagement – Kahn’s (1990) psychological conditions of engagement, the Job Demands-Resources model (e.g. Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004), and Macey and Schneider’s (2008) framework – as well as other prominent studies and frameworks. We selected the variables that have been widely discussed and investigated in the literature, that we believe capture the most important components of the antecedents, outcomes, and moderators of engagement, and that when combined, would provide a holistic theoretical model of engagement. The antecedent variables (units) are: job design and characteristics, supervisor and co-worker relationships, workplace environment, and HRD practices. We also propose that job demands and individual characteristics act as moderators between the relationships between the four antecedents and engagement. Finally, we propose that employee engagement is related to three major organizational outcomes: job performance, turnover intentions (inverse relationship), and organizational citizenship behavior. The following section discusses each of the nine units of analysis and rationale for selecting them in greater depth.

Job design and job characteristics Kahn’s (1990) qualitative study on engagement and disengagement is one of the most cited works in the current literature. Kahn (1990) proposed three main psychological conditions that influenced people’s engagement and disengagement at work: psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and psychological availability. The dimension of psychological meaningfulness can be understood as one’s feeling of being “worthwhile, useful, and valuable” (p. 704) – that their work is not taken for granted. According to Kahn (1990), this meaningfulness psychological condition is highly influenced by the task characteristics of a person’s work, which include challenging work and clearly identified, creative, and autonomous role.

Dubin’s method

253

Meaningfulness is also shaped by the formal positions that a person holds – positions that offer “attractive identities,” self-image, status, and reputation (p. 705).

Building on Kahn’s (1990) study, May et al. (2004) examined the determinants of the three psychological conditions described previously. Findings suggested that all three conditions were positively related to engagement with meaningfulness displaying the strongest positive relation. The authors also found that job enrichment and work-role fit were positively related to psychological meaningfulness. Because meaningfulness has been shown to relate to many significant attitudinal outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation) and behavioral outcomes (e.g. performance and absenteeism), May et al. (2004) suggested that meaningfulness plays an important role in engaging workers and that managers should seek to enhance meaningfulness through effective job design.

Fairlie’s (2011) study compared a number of meaningful work characteristics to other work characteristics as correlates and predictors of employee engagement. Results suggested that these meaningful characteristics had the strongest correlations with multiple employee outcomes and that they accounted for a substantive amount of variation in employee engagement. Work characteristics that were categorized as meaningful included: self-actualizing work (referring to a job that enables the individual to fulfill their potential and become a “fully function” person), work that is perceived to have a strong social impact (the extent to which one’s job matters in the society; legacy), a job that allows one to fulfill their life goals and values, a job that offers a sense of accomplishment, and work that instigates one’s belief in achieving their highest career goals within their organization (Fairlie, 2011).

A person’s job also needs to be designed in such a way that provides adequate compensation, rewards, and recognition to the individual (Fairlie, 2011; Saks, 2006). Employees need to have a sense of return on their investment before they are willing to engage in their work (Saks, 2006). In testing a model of engagement through surveying 102 employees in a variety of jobs and organizations, Saks (2006) found that job characteristics, such as rewards and recognitions, were predictive of engagement, further illustrating the significance of job design on one’s engagement level. In addition, Fleck and Inceoglu (2010) proposed a model of engagement in which the two key drivers of engagement – person-job and person-organization fit – are highly influenced by job characteristics such as challenging duties and responsibilities, competition, career ambition, and support. Job autonomy, a key facet of job design and characteristics, is also a critical element of employee engagement (Albrecht, 2010; Gagné and Bhave, 2011). Furthermore, when employees are encouraged to participate in decision-making, they tend to be more engaged, invest more effort in their work, and feel less strain (Gagné and Bhave, 2011). Finally, Crawford et al. (2014) echoed these thoughts and identified job challenge, autonomy, task variety, feedback, rewards and recognition, and development opportunities as key antecedents to stimulating engagement.

Supervisor and co-worker relationships Kahn (1990) maintained that one’s psychological safety – referring to their sense of being able to show and do things without fear of losing reputation, status, or career – is vastly influenced by their interpersonal relationships, group and intergroup dynamics, as well as management style and process. This psychological condition of safety, in return, enhances the employee’s engagement level. May et al. (2004) also

JWL 26,3/4

254

found that supportive co-worker and supervisor relations were positively linked to psychological safety and engagement. According to Kahn (1990), psychological safety can be enhanced when an employee’s interpersonal relationships with their peers and supervisors are supportive and trustworthy. There should be an environment of flexibility, in which employees are encouraged to “try and perhaps to fail without fearing the consequences” (p. 708). Employees should be allowed to voice their ideas and encouraged to feel that the criticisms that they may face are “constructive rather than destructive” (p. 708).

In a similar vein, studies by Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) as well as Schaufeli et al. (2009) provided empirical support for the relationships between engagement and social support from co-workers and supervisors. Co-worker social support is also a significant component of Bakker et al.’s (2006) dedication-vigor-absorption model of work engagement. The authors argued that team members’ interactions “facilitated feelings of energy and enthusiasm in individual members, independent of the demands and resources” they were able to obtain (pp. 482-3). Finally, Shuck et al.’s (2010) study of employee perspectives also pointed to the significance of relationship development on engagement.

Workplace environment Consisting of colleagues and supervisors, organizational policies and procedures, physical resources, and other intangible elements such as supportive work climate and perceived levels of safety, the workplace environment is integral to having engaged employees (Shuck et al., 2010). Employees need to be provided with adequate physical, psychological, social, and organizational resources that enable them to reduce their job demands, to function effectively in their work role, and to stimulate their own personal development (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). In addition, findings from a study by Shuck et al. (2010) offer support for the importance of positive workplace climate. They recommended that managers create a workplace climate that is positive, empowering, safe, and meaningful for employees. Finally, Saks’ (2006) study indicated that perceived organizational support predicts both job and organization engagement. One reason that might explain this positive relationship is the norm of reciprocity, which refers to the extent to which employees are likely to respond to the support and care from the organization through trying to perform well on their duties and responsibilities at work.

While we would be the first to acknowledge that various overlapping elements are apparent between this workplace environment category and supervisor and co-worker relationships as discussed previously, we would like to emphasize the interaction that takes place between the individuals and the environment, which is composed of elements other than mere human relationships. To that end, Schaufeli and Salanova’s (2010) notion of the “contagious” nature of engagement presents a fitting rationale (p. 394). Organizational and team members, they argued, may also feel engaged as “they converge emotionally with the engagement” of their peers (p. 394). Engagement could be considered a “collective phenomenon,” which tends to spread from individual to another (p. 394).

HRD practices Referring to the activity or process of improving organizational performance through developing human knowledge, expertise, productivity, and satisfaction (McLean and

Dubin’s method

255

McLean, 2001), Human resource development (HRD) is increasingly being recognized as pivotal to organizational functioning and effectiveness (Swanson and Holton, 2009; Vince, 2003). HRD practices cover a wide variety of issues, including employee training and development, career development, knowledge management and organizational change and quality improvement, to name a few. Strong evidence of the positive relationship between learning opportunities and the development of employee’s engagement has also been noted (Shuck et al., 2010). Organizations that are committed to and encourage various types of learning at work, including formal and informal training and development opportunities, can significantly impact the levels of engagement of their employees (Shuck et al., 2010). Schaufeli and Salanova (2010) pointed out that career development programs and work training programs specifically directed at personal growth and development could be used to foster work engagement among employees. Individual employees need to continuously develop their knowledge, skills, and talents in order to increase their employability and remain competitive in the current labor market (Schaufeli and Salanova, 2010). Thus, the engagement levels of employees are likely to remain high provided that they are able to keep developing themselves throughout their careers (Schaufeli and Salanova, 2010).

Shuck and Rocco (2014) presented a number of strategies for enhancing employee engagement through the use of HRD practices, specifically workplace learning, organization development, and career development interventions. The authors posited that employee engagement could be augmented through workplace learning programs, particularly individual employee development and management training programs (Shuck and Rocco, 2014). In terms of organization development, organizations could benefit from collecting, analyzing, and utilizing employee engagement data “progressively for both economic and systems gain” (p. 120), developing effective communication strategies, and promoting employee accountability. Finally, career development – a key component of HRD – is also instrumental in engaging employees. Organizations should embark on “having conversations” with their employees about the issues that are central to their careers such as career progression, competency building, and talent development (Shuck and Rocco, 2014, p. 124).

Based on the literature, it is conceivable, then, that an employee’s perceptions of such HRD practices at their organizations could have an impact on their engagement. Thus, in this paper we propose that HRD practices, including training and development opportunities, career development opportunities, and other relevant employee development programs, can be an important antecedent to employee engagement.

Employee engagement Our theoretical model centers around the antecedents and consequences of employee engagement; needless to say, engagement itself is a critical unit of analysis of the model. Whereas the diverse literature on engagement discusses the topic in terms of traits, state, and behavior, further adding to the ambiguity of the construct (Macey and Schneider, 2008), we use the term employee engagement to refer to employees’ cognitive, emotional, and physical state that is influenced by certain antecedents (as discussed throughout the paper). Kahn (1990) proposed that three main psychological conditions affect engagement. Similarly, Schaufeli et al. (2002) identified engagement

JWL 26,3/4

256

as a “positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind” characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (p. 74). This physical, cognitive, and emotional state of engagement translates into favorable outcomes such that when engaged, employees express themselves cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally (Fleck and Inceoglu, 2010; Kahn, 1990; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Wollard and Shuck, 2011).

Performance Broadly defined, performance can be viewed as “the valued productive output of a system in the form of goods or services” (Swanson and Holton, 2009, p. 98). A significant amount of research has indicated that engaged employees tend to outperform their disengaged counterparts (Fleck and Inceoglu, 2010; May et al., 2004; Saks, 2006; Shuck and Reio, 2011). May et al. (2004) argued the condition of psychological meaningfulness (Kahn, 1990), a key antecedent to employee engagement, has been linked to not only attitudinal outcomes (such as satisfaction, motivation, and turnover cognitions) but also to many behavioral outcomes such as performance and absenteeism (May et al., 2004). Saks (2006) suggested that engaged employees are more committed, satisfied, and productive. Also, Fleck and Inceoglu (2010) posited that engaged people are more attached to their work roles and are “absorbed by enacting it” (p. 35). When engaged, people invest a lot of their energy into performing these roles (Fleck and Inceoglu, 2010).

In their review of empirical literature on the relationship between work engagement and performance, Kim et al. (2012) found that existing research confirms direct and/or indirect positive effects of work engagement on employee performance within organization. The 20 studies reviewed by scholars employed various characteristics of performance, with the majority considering in-role performance, which is referred to activities related to formal role requirements of employees, and/or extra role activities, which do not include formal role requirements “but are viewed as promoting organizational effectiveness” (Kim et al., 2012, p. 5).

Turnover intention Turnover intention refers to an individual’s subjective consideration of the probability that they will quit their organization in the near future (Carmeli and Weisberg, 2006). An employee’s turnover intention can be a powerful predictor of their future behavior (Carmeli and Weisberg, 2006). Results from Shuck et al.’s (2010) correlational study revealed that employees who reported higher levels of engagement were more likely to report lower levels of intention to turnover. Similarly, Soane et al. (2012) found that employee engagement explained a relatively moderate amount of variance (R 2 ¼ 24 percent) in employee turnover intentions. Turnover intention is of great relevance to HRD practitioners and is a common outcome measure (Soane et al., 2012; Shuck et al., 2010), and as such, we have also incorporated it in our engagement model.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is defined as individual discretionary behavior that is not “directly or explicitly recognized” by the organization’s reward system but overall, contributes to the effective functioning of that organization (Organ, 1988, p. 4). This “good solider syndrome” (Organ, 1997, p. 87) ranges from offering help to a co-worker with their tasks to exhibiting extra-role behaviors, all of which, in

Dubin’s method

257

aggregate, promote organizational effective functioning. In their study of a sample of non-managerial employees, Rurkkhum and Bartlett (2012) found support for positive relationships between engagement and “every component” of OCB, making reference to altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue (p. 164). In addition, Soane et al. (2012) proposed that OCBs are a potential outcome of engagement because engaged employees tend to have a positive affect and are motivated to exhibit “beneficial” behaviors (p. 536). Their study, along with that of Rich et al. (2010), provide empirical evidence that suggests that there is a positive relationship between engagement and OCB. Because OCB is an important organizational construct and its positive relationship with employee engagement has been empirically validated, we have also included this outcome as a unit of analysis of our model.

Job demands Scholars adopting the Job Demand-Resources approach to understanding engagement typically maintain that job demands have an effect on the strength of the relationships between job resources (e.g. autonomy, feedback, and support) and engagement (Albrecht, 2010; Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Job demands refer to the physical, psychological, social, or organizational factors that require “sustained physical and/or psychological” effort on the employees’ part and therefore are thought to be associated with certain physiological or psychological costs (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004, p. 296). Nahrgang et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analytic test and found that job demands hindered an “employee’s progress towards engagement” (p. 85). Also, Bakker et al. (2006) contended that job demands, such as emotional overload and high expectations, may be powerful predictors of burnout.

Schaufeli et al. (2009) conducted a longitudinal survey and discovered that changes in job demands predicted future burnout and work engagement. Although job demands are not necessarily negative, they may develop into “stressors” if they require that the employees invest too much effort and if trying to meet those demands is associated with negative outcomes such as anxiety, burnout, or even depression (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004, p. 296). Job demands, therefore, are used in this paper to refer to such organizational aspects as work overload (physical) or peer pressure (emotional). It is through this lens that we delineated job demands as a factor that moderates the relationships between engagement and job design and characteristics, supervisor and co-worker relationships, and HRD practices.

Individual characteristics Our literature review also suggested individual characteristics could be a moderator to the relationships between the aforementioned antecedents and employee engagement. Kahn (1990) maintained that individual differences can shape people’s dispositions in terms of personally engaging or disengaging in all or some of their task performances. There is little doubt that individuals hold certain assumptions about their work and have different personal characteristics that result in different behavioral outcomes (Reeve, 2001, as cited in Shuck et al., 2010). Therefore, these characteristics could be “very powerful” in impacting their level of engagement at work (Shuck et al., 2010, p. 318).

JWL 26,3/4

258

Macey and Schneider (2008) proposed that employees’ proactive personality, conscientiousness, autotelic personality (the ability to inject flow and enthusiasm in an activity, and to do things for their own sakes rather than for specific rewards or gains), and trait positive affect could lead to the development of higher levels of engagement. Shuck et al. (2010)) argued that the drive for self-actualization (Maslow’s highest hierarchical need) also parallels the concept of employee engagement. More specifically, when there exists a drive for self-fulfillment – “a deep need for internal, emotional satisfaction that all human beings long for” (p. 303) – employees strive to reach their full potential by being engaged. In a similar vein, Fleck and Inceoglu (2010) maintained that personal dispositions, such as self-efficacy, high achievement orientation, and proactivity, could also have an influence on how people approach their job as well as how likely they are to engage or disengage in their task performances. Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) examined the relationships between individual self-efficacy, organizational-based self-esteem, and optimism and found that engaged employees tend to have a higher level of self-efficacy. Results from their study also suggested that engaged workers are likely to be more optimistic and believe they can satisfy their needs by performing well in their roles. Additionally, Bakker and Demerouti (2008) proposed that engaged workers possess personal resources, such as optimism, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and resilience, that enable them to positively “impact on their environment” and become successful in their careers (p. 214). For these reasons, we propose that individual characteristics, such as proactivity, optimism, conscientiousness, and self-efficacy, serve as an important moderator in our proposed model.

Step 2: Laws of interaction in the theoretical model of employee engagement The laws of interaction in a theory refer to the relationships among the units (or concepts) of that theory (Dubin, 1978). The laws of interaction exemplify how changes in one or more units of the theory impact the other units. Dubin (1978) delineated three types of laws of interaction: categoric, sequential, and determinant.

Categoric laws suggest that the values of a unit of a theory are related to the values of another unit of the theory (Dubin, 1978). This type of law indicates that there is “a greater-than-chance probability that the units are related” (Dubin, 1978, p. 98). Dubin (1978) maintained that categoric laws of interaction are probably the most common in the social and behavioral sciences. Sequential laws of interaction are laws that always incorporate a “time dimension”, which is used to “order the relationship among two or more units” (Dubin, 1978, p. 101). Finally, a determinant law of interaction is one that “associates determinate values of one unit with determinate values of another unit” (Dubin, 1978, p. 106).

Dubin (1978) elected parsimony as the criteria for assessing the laws of interaction in a theoretical model. Parsimony could be achieved by minimizing the complexity and number of laws necessary to linking the relationships between the units of the model (Chermack, 2004). Our proposed theoretical model of the antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement is comprised of the following laws of interaction. It is important to note that a statement of interaction or relationship does not imply causality (Dubin, 1978).

Dubin’s method

259

Categoric laws

(1) There is a greater-than-chance probability that job design and characteristics, supervisor and co-worker relationships, workplace environment, HRD practices, job demands, and individual characteristics are associated with employee engagement.

(2) There is interaction between employee engagement and employee job performance, turnover intention, and organizational citizenship behavior.

Sequential laws

(3) Job design and characteristics, supervisor and co-worker relationships, workplace environment, HRD practices, job demands, and individual characteristics, parallel, or precede employee engagement.

(4) Employee engagement parallels, or precedes employee job performance, turnover intentions, and organizational citizenship behavior.

Step 3: The boundaries of a theoretical model of employee engagement Dubin (1978) maintained that in order for a theoretical model to be able to represent an “empirical system,” it has to have boundaries that correspond to that system (p. 125). The boundaries of a model outline the domains within which the model is expected to apply (Dubin, 1978); in other words, they establish the “real-world limits of the theory” (Lynham, 2002a, p. 253).

It should be noted that the boundaries of a theory, open or closed, are determined “not by empirical data but through the use of logic” (Lynham, 2002a, p. 253). It is the role of the researcher-theorist to use logical reasoning to identify these boundaries. In line with this, we identified two boundaries, one closed and one open, for our theoretical model of engagement. The closed boundary refers to the overall domain in which the employee engagement system is expected to apply. It is the legally defined, human populated system in which organizations reside. The open boundary exists within this closed boundary and refers to the organizational and contextual environment whereby employee engagement, its antecedents, and its consequences take place. This open boundary would mean that the organizational system interacts with and is influenced by its external environment (social, political, technological, and economic).

Step 4: System states of a theoretical model of employee engagement A system state, referring to the “state of the system as a whole,” may be defined by three features: “all units of the system have characteristic values, the characteristic values of all units are determinant, and the constellation of unit values persists through time” (Dubin, 1978, p. 144). Dubin (1978) also identified three criteria of system states, namely, inclusiveness (all the units of the system are included in the system state), having determinant values (all units have measureable values and are distinctive or unique), and persistence (the state of the system persists through a period of time).

In line with this, our theoretical model satisfies all three requirements because it includes all the critical units of the system and these units have characteristic values (at least the units that have been identified as important in the existing literature on

JWL 26,3/4

260

engagement), there is no overlap in values between the units (i.e. each unit can be assigned a distinctive value), and the proposed relationships between the units persist overtime.

According to Dubin (1978), system states are designated by examining the laws of interaction. A system characterized by a categoric law of interaction often has the following format: “if . . . , then . . . under conditions of . . . ” (p. 152). Using this logic, we employed a (0, 1) coding and identified the following system states for our model:

(1) If job design and characteristics, supervisor and co-worker relationships, workplace environment, HRD practices, individual characteristics, and job demands exist in the system, then employee engagement transitions from 0 to 1 under the conditions that these units are used, encouraged, supported, and alleviated in such a way that is aligned with the enhancement of employee engagement.

(2) If employee engagement is present in the system, then job performance, turnover intentions, and organizational citizenship behavior shift from 0 to 1 under the conditions that employee engagement is fostered to a high level.

Step 5: Propositions of a theoretical model of employee engagement A proposition is a “truth statement about a model when the model is fully specified in its units, laws of interaction, boundary, and system states” (Dubin, 1978, p. 160). Dubin (1978) cautioned that truth here should be “kept clear of its metaphysical connotations” and may be thought of as equivalent to “logical consequence” (p. 160; emphasis in original). Propositions concern the ways in which the model are applied and are subject to empirical testing. We formulated eight sets of propositions from our theoretical model of the antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement:

P1. Job design and characteristics are associated with employee engagement.

P2a. Supervisor relationships are related to high levels of employee engagement.

P2b. Co-worker relationships are related to high levels of employee engagement.

P3. Workplace environment, such as adequate physical resources, safety, supportive workplace climate, and collectively engaged workplace, is positively associated with employee engagement.

P4. Employee perceptions of HRD practices are associated with employee engagement.

P5a. The relationship between job design and characteristics and employee engagement is moderated by individual characteristics.

P5b. The relationship between supervisor and co-worker relationships and employee engagement is moderated by individual characteristics.

P5c. The relationship between workplace environment and employee engagement is moderated by individual characteristics.

P5d. The relationship between HRD practices and employee engagement is moderated by individual characteristics.

Dubin’s method

261

P6a. The relationship between job design and characteristics and employee engagement is moderated by job demands.

P6b. The relationship between supervisor and co-worker relationships and employee engagement is moderated by job demands.

P6c. The relationship between workplace environment and employee engagement is moderated by job demands.

P6d. The relationship between HRD practices and employee engagement is moderated by job demands.

P7. Employee engagement is positively related to job performance.

P8. Employee engagement is inversely related to employee turnover intention.

P9. Employee engagement is positively related to employee organizational citizenship behavior.

Conclusions and implications The importance of engagement has been widely discussed in both academic and practitioner literature. Given the claimed benefits associated with having a highly-engaged workforce, organizations are rigorously exploring ways and introducing initiatives whereby they could develop and enhance the levels of engagement of their employees.

In this paper, we developed a theoretical model of the antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement. This article specified the units of the model, laws of interaction, boundaries, system states, and propositions derived from the model (see Figure 1). The significance of this article is that it offers a logical ground on which empirical indicators and hypotheses could be identified and tested so as to verify the theory.

It would be logical, then, to propose that future work should entail the use of the next three phases of Dubin’s (1978) methodology, namely identifying empirical indicators of the key terms, constructing hypotheses, and the actual testing of the theoretical model. We expect that the completion of these next steps would result in an “empirically verified and trustworthy” model (Lynham, 2002a, p. 243). In addition to testing the whole model, given the model complexity, researchers may also consider conducting a number of studies that examine aspects of the model. Whether testing the whole model or its parts, such methods as advanced statistical modeling techniques and experimental design may serve the purpose well. At the same time, given the increasingly complex nature of the work environment, cross-sectional studies may also shed light in terms of which variables have more influence in some contexts and are perhaps less salient in others.

As far as HRD practice is concerned, it is our hope that the model may contribute to organizational leaders’ efforts in understanding and embracing engagement. The model outlined in Figure 1 suggests that employee engagement may be a product of many factors. Given that not all proposed variables may be uniformly applicable to all organizations, the value of our model is that it offers numerous possible variables that could be used by organizational leaders as potential leverage points depending on their organizational contexts.

JWL 26,3/4

262

We believe that the proposed model may serve as a sound roadmap towards creating a more engaged work force in organizations as it addresses the key antecedents of employee engagement. In particular, to foster employee engagement, organizational leaders may consider creating a workplace that is supportive, empowering, safe, and meaningful for employees. Likewise, existing job designs may be reviewed to minimize cognitive, emotional, and physical tension among employees (May et al., 2004). Also, organizational practices may be set in place to shed light protect overloading employees with work that demands high cognitive processing labor, or require them to perform extensive emotional labor without having breaks (May et al., 2004). Developing a supportive and trusting work environment may be another item on the leaders’ agenda. This may be achieved through encouraging employees to solve work-related problems on their own, develop new skills, and participate in the decision-making process, and treating employees fairly (May et al., 2004).

Another practical implication of the model is that managers may consider providing employees with resources and benefits that would instigate a reciprocity norm among them. When employees feel the need to give back to the organization, they are more likely to have a higher level of engagement. In addition, because different things are perceived as important by different employees, a one-size-fits-all approach to engagement might not be the most effective. To increase engagement, managers may aim to better understand their individual employees’ needs and align the resources and social support with their needs. Also, as it can be drawn from the model, development employee engagement is a long-term and on-going process that requires constant interactions and communication (Saks, 2006). If organizational leaders are seriously committed to foster employee engagement in their organizations, engagement needs to be considered as a part of broad organizational and cultural strategy and involve all levels of the organization’s hierarchy (Saks, 2006). In closing, we hope that that our theoretical model would contribute to addressing the paucity of structured literature on the antecedents and outcomes of engagement, and that it will provoke reactions and discussions from scholars and practitioners alike on this fascinating topic of employee engagement.

References

Albrecht, S.L. (2010), Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research, and Practice, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA.

Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. and Ray, S. (2003), “A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 105-123.

Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2008), “Towards a model of work engagement”, Career Development International, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 209-223.

Bakker, A.B., van Emmerik, I.H. and Euwema, M.C. (2006), “Crossover of burnout and engagement in work teams”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 464-489.

Carmeli, A. and Weisberg, J. (2006), “Exploring turnover intentions among three professional groups of employees”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 191-206.

Chermack, T. (2004), “A theoretical model of scenario planning”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 301-325.

Dubin’s method

263

Crawford, E.R., Rich, B.L., Buckman, B. and Bergeron, J. (2014), “The antecedents and drivers of employee engagement”, in Truss, C., Delbridge, R., Alfes, K., Shantz, A. and Soane, E. (Eds), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 57-81.

Dubin, R. (1976), “Theory building in applied areas”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 17-39.

Dubin, R. (1978), Theory Building, Rev. ed., Free Press, New York, NY.

Fairlie, P. (2011), “Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key employee outcomes: implications for human resource development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 508-525.

Fleck, S. and Inceoglu, I. (2010), “A comprehensive framework for understanding and predicting engagement”, in Albrecht, S.L. (Ed.), Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research, and Practice, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 31-61.

Gagné, M. and Bhave, D. (2011), “Autonomy in the workplace: an essential ingredient to employee engagement and well-being in every culture”, in Chirkov, V.I., Ryan, R.M. and Sheldon, K.M. (Eds), Human Autonomy in Cross-cultural Context: Perspectives on the Psychology of Agency, Freedom, and Well-being, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 163-187.

Gallup (2013), State of the Global Workplace: Employee Engagement Insights for Business Leaders Worldwide, Gallup, Washington, DC.

Holton, E.F. and Lowe, J.S. (2007), “Toward a general research process for using Dubin’s theory building model”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 297-320.

Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.

Kim, W., Kolb, J.A. and Kim, T. (2012), “The relationship between work engagement and performance: a review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 1-29.

Lynham, S. (2002a), “Quantitative research and theory building: Dubin’s method”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 4, pp. 242-276.

Lynham, S.A. (2002b), “The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 221-241.

Lynham, S.A. and Chermack, T.J. (2006), “Responsible leadership for performance: a theoretical model and hypotheses”, Journal of Leadership & Organizaitonal Studies, Vol. 12 No. 9, pp. 73-88.

McLean, G.N. and McLean, L. (2001), “If we can’t define HRD in one country, how can we define it in an international context?”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 313-326.

Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee engagement”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-30.

Macey, W.H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K.M. and Young, S.A. (2009), Employee Engagement: Tools for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004), “The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 11-37.

Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F.P. and Hofmann, D.A. (2011), “Safety at work: a meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 1, pp. 71-94.

Organ, D. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

JWL 26,3/4

264

Organ, D. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behaviors: its construct clean up time”, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 85-97.

Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635.

Robertson, I.T. and Cooper, C.L. (2010), “Full engagement: the integration of employee engagement and psychological well-being”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 324-336.

Rurkkhum, S. and Bartlett, K.R. (2012), “The relationship between employee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour in Thailand”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 157-174.

Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619.

Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 293-315.

Schaufeli, W.B. and Salanova, M. (2010), “How to improve work engagement?”, in Albrecht, S.L. (Ed.), Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 399-415.

Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gnzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of engagement and burnout: a confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 71-92.

Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and Van Rhenen, W. (2008), “Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being?”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 173-203.

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Van Rhenen, W. (2009), “How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 893-917.

Shuck, B. and Reio, T.G. (2011), “The employee engagement landscape and HRD: how do we link theory and scholarship to current practice?”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 419-428.

Shuck, B. and Rocco, T.S. (2014), “Human resource development and employee engagement”, in Truss, C., Delbridge, R., Alfes, K., Shantz, A. and Soane, E. (Eds), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 116-130.

Shuck, B. and Wollard, K. (2010), “Employee engagement and HRD: a seminal review of the foundations”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 89-110.

Shuck, B., Rocco, T.S. and Albornoz, C.A. (2010), “Exploring employee engagement from the employee perspective: implications for HRD”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 300-325.

Simpson, M.R. (2009), “Engagement at work: a review of the literature”, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 1012-1024.

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 engagement scale”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 529-547.

Storberg-Walker, J. (2003), “Comparison of the Dubin, Lynham, and Van de Ven theory-building research methods and implications for HRD”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 211-222.

Dubin’s method

265

Swanson, R.A. and Holton, E.F. (2009), Foundations of Human Resource Development, 2nd ed., Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.

Van de Ven, A.H. (2007), Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Vince, R. (2003), “The future practice of HRD”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 559-563.

Wollard, K.K. and Shuck, B. (2011), “Antecedents to employee engagement: a structured review of the literature”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 429-446.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2007), “The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 121-141.

Corresponding author Sowath Rana can be contacted at: [email protected]

JWL 26,3/4

266

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.