Unfortunately, these relationships are weak: the performance differences are too small to be able to observe in day-to-day activity and would need to be measured to be detected. However, some research does show a causal relationship, with work engagement predicting both task performance and contextual performance, or contributing to the organisation beyond one’s core job. The great majority of studies show correlation but not causation. More broadly, other studies show that positive relationships between aspects of employee engagement and other business metrics, including customer satisfaction, productivity, innovation, staff retention, efficiency and health and safety performance. For organisations, research has repeatedly shown that measures of engagement go together with higher performance. Most definitions of engagement describe employees who are healthier, happier, more fulfilled or more motivated. Organisational commitment: feeling attached to the organisation and dedicated to their work.įeeling engaged is evidently good for workers. Organisational identification: the alignment between how an employee sees themself and how they see their organisation. Motivation: how workers guide their efforts to achieve goals, including intrinsic motivation (enjoying work for its own sake) and extrinsic motivation (working to get a reward). This allows a broad strategic focus, alongside precision on priority concerns.įocus on specific and well-established definitions, such as the Utrecht work on engagement (see above).Ī broad employee engagement strategy might focus on: Treat employee engagement as a psychological state and an umbrella term to describe a broad area of people strategy, and refer to narrower concepts – such as work engagement or organisational commitment – to be more specific when needed. We recommend that employers take one of two approaches: Vague or overly broad definitions hamper effective action, as it’s unclear what the problem or opportunity is, or what should be done.
#DEFINTION OF ENGAGEX HOW TO#
Employers can shape their view of engagement to suit their context or strategy.īut the lack of consensus on what engagement is has led to many different ways to gauge it and inconsistent advice on how to achieve it. In being a ‘broad church’, engagement is an umbrella term to describe a multifaceted focus of people management. Some HR practitioners seem content with this situation. However, it’s also faced considerable criticism, not least because of the lack of agreement on what it is. It’s become part of management practice to an extent that other concepts, such as high-performance working, have not. Is employee engagement a useful concept?Ī sustained focus on employee engagement over the last decade or so has been key in getting progressive people management practices firmly onto employers’ agendas. It examines in more detail what employee engagement is, how to measure it, its outcomes and drivers. Read more in our latest research Employee engagement: an evidence review which draws on the best available evidence to answer practical questions to help people professionals understand employee engagement. While this approach is narrow, it aligns with the best research on engagement, so is likely to lead to effective decision making.
For example, the 2009 MacLeod Review found over 50 definitions! One of the earliest is Kahn's which focuses on how people ‘express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally’ as they interact with their jobs. There’s no common understanding of employee engagement.