Academic view vs. practicioners' view on EEngagement: how do YOU not get confused by this blurry concept?

[Ana-Maria Calin]

I'm trying to get the big picture here. See what engagement brings NEW to the scientific AND business world.
Why do we need engagement, when we have the constructs of satisfaction, commitment, involvment and motivation? Is engagement simply a big umbrella that coveres all these constructs? A catch-all concept? Old wine in a new bottle? I noticed more of you have this problem.
As an exercise, to understand the concept, concisely state YOUR oppininon on the differences between EE and the four constructs i mentioned before. I am a fan of order and clarity, and i feel there's no such thing when talking about Engagement.
I am a student, struggling to write my dissertation thesis on this subject, and i would really use the help of professionals like you :) I've already read a lot of studies and meta-analyses, but i would gladly know what practicioners have to say about this!

[David Zinger]

Ana-Maria:

This is a good question and I would expect confusion about engagement and other constructs. First off, and I know you know this, experience can be put into a multitude of categories so I think engagement keeps people thinking and acting on engagement, satisfaction, commitment, involvement, and motivation.

In some ways, I think the constructs are like venn diagrams that share much in common. And some defintions seem to proliferate to sell consulting or survey work!

Here is a random thought off the top of my head. If I am engaged I am probably also committed, involved, motivated and satisfied. I could have emotional commitment but not be engaged to do the work (probably not likely but possible). I can be satisfied with doing little therefore I would not be engaged, etc. Overall I would expect these terms to be fairly closely aligned.

I see engagement as both behavioral and emotional. The word that most closely fits for me is connection. Robust engagement implies strong connections to results, the organization, the internal community (leaders, managers, etc.), customers, strategic processes to get results, working roles, functions and tasks, energy, authentic happiness, and personal branding and development. And I see these connections as bidirectional with the "employee" both contributing and receiving from these various dimensions. (Okay, I've drawn a model for this but it was mostly for me to get a handle on it.) Of course, I realize this adds just about as much confusion as clarity and I now realize why I left academic rigor behind for practical (albeit) confusing applications.

Stay engaged,

David

P.S. I have always been partial to Richard Feynman's quotation: You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something. ~Richard Feynman, Educator & physicist (1918 - 1988)

[Ana-Maria Calin]

Hi David,

Thank you for youre insight. It is very precious to me knowing the position of established practitioners like yourself.

I do agree theory is definitely less important than the organization members' reality, and i don't intend to ever limit myself to knowing "the name of a bird" :)

Still, "buzz" words like engagement need substance to work. As a manager, i can’t say Engagement is my scope, if i don't have a pretty good idea WHAT that is, alongside it's antecedents and consequences. I would lose credibility and encounter cynicism. Beating about the bush works, but not always, and definitely not with everybody. But I'm not a manager. I'm just trying to be thorough :)

I very much appreciate your view on engagement as a connector. That is new to me and sheds a bit of light. Also, having you and, hopefully, also other practitioners tell me their views will help me legitimize my own opinions, not for the sake of my thesis, but for my own conviction.

I still encourage the network members to give a little thought to the subject of identifying the most important trait of engagement that differentiates it from the sea of information. Is it just because it is new, that consulting firms and motivational speakers work with it, is it because the financial crisis challenges the creativity of HR managers to come up with new, shiny stuff? Or is it because it objectively comes up with new methods and results?

Engaged in engagement,
Ana

[Dr. Scott Jeffrey]

Hi Ana-Maria,

Let me give you my take on it as an academic studying incentives.

To me, this is old wine in a new bottle. The construct of affective commitment really captures what I believe to be the latest "buzz" on engagement.

My understanding of the use of the word started with a scale developed and promoted (quite well), by Gallup on "employee engagement". To me, affective commitment, defined as the emotional attachment an employee feels towards their organization, captures engagement.

When an employee is affectively committed to their organization, they internalize the goals and values of the organization and actively work towards accomplishing those goals. They remain with the organization because they want to, not because they have to (financially).

There are indeed behaviors that flow from this commitment, often called "citizenship behaviors", with the definition I like as "those things you want employees to do but can't make them and can't fire them if they don't do it" (hat tip Dennis Organ).

I think that this covers David's idea of "connection".

I am not fond of "construct proliferation" but realize that engagement is now "the phrase" in the practitioner world.

Would you mind dropping me an email (I think my email is there) and give me some citations for the studies and meta-analyses you have read?

Thanks and good luck on the dissertation.

[Bob Gately]

Hello Ana-Maria:

"... See what engagement brings NEW to the scientific AND business world."

There is nothing new except the terms we use.

"Why do we need engagement, when we have the constructs of satisfaction, commitment, involvment and motivation?"

We need employee engagement because the four constructs you list are related to the employee. As long as we believe the employee is responsible for her own engagement we may well will miss achieving employee engagement other than by chance.

" Is engagement simply a big umbrella that coveres all these constructs?"

No.

"A catch-all concept?"

Yes to some and no to others

"Old wine in a new bottle?"

Quite often it seems to me employee engagement is another way of saying employee satisfaction.

Employee engagement is not something employers or their employees do.

Employee engagement is something employers get in return for doing all things well.

Our experience suggests that 20% of the workforce is engaged in their jobs.

Employee surveys don’t measure employee engagement but they might measure employee satisfaction.

We cannot measure employee engagement with an employee satisfaction survey.

Employee engagement and employee satisfaction are two different things.

Employee engagement is what we get when an employee is motivated by the job and is successful in the job and is well managed by the supervisor and paid fairly by management.

Employee satisfaction is what we get when we give employees things they want whether or not they are engaged by their jobs.

If we work to satisfy our employees, we may well decrease employee engagement because we will be focusing on the wrong things.

A few things to consider...

• Good employees who are successful and managed and paid well will be engaged even if not fully satisfied.

• Good employees who are successful but not managed well or paid well will not be engaged and will not be satisfied.

• Bad employees who are unsuccessful even though they are well managed and well paid will not be engaged even if fully satisfied.

Hiring for talent is the secret to creating an engaged workforce if effective management is in place. By the way, hiring for talent is the easy but effective management is hard, very hard for most managers. When we hire for talent we hire successful employees even if the managers prevent them from becoming engaged employees.

If we have effective management and we do not hire for talent, we may have some engaged employees but it will be by chance not by design.

Bob

[Bonnie Goren]

Hi Ana-Maria,

Personally, I think "employee engagement" is an overarching term that encompasses commitment, involvement and motivation. I believe it is old wine in a new bottle - but I don't know that's a bad thing. Giving leaders a way to communicate those combined concepts with one term can be powerful. I also believe that employee satisfaction is one of the factors that helps drive the other three.

However, I strongly believe that employee engagement is only half the story. I think we must look beyond engagement to enablement. Employees can be extremely engaged but lacking in what they need to perform at their best. Are the work processes efficient and effective? Do they have access to information and tools that they need? Are decisions that impact their work timely and communicated effectively? Are all impacted parties on the same page as to their goals? Etc.

I often think that while employee satisfaction and engagement is in the mind of leaders, they miss the part of the equation where someone might be committed, involved and motivated but still unable to perform at the top level possible. The environment in which performance is executed is as important as employees being engaged.

Good luck with your dissertation! Bonnie

[Tim Rutledge]

Allow me to weigh in on this. This is a good discussion that focusses on helping us to really understand what we're talking about when we address the topic of engagement.

I think we have new wine in an old bottle (!) The bottle is the old question of what makes employees tick. The wine is an enhancement of motivation, satisfaction, etc., and, I believe, an improvement. In my book 'Getting Engaged: The New Workplace Loyalty', Mattanie Press, Toronto, 2005, 2009 I define engagement as the state of being attracted ( I want to do this work), committed (I'm going to do this work professionally and to the best of my ability), and fascinated (I love doing this work! I can't believe they pay me to do this!). All three elements are needed for engagement.

I also posit two dimensions of engagement in workplaces. Macro-engagement is what organizations can do, by way of policies and processes, to create and sustain engaging employment experiences, not just jobs. Micro-engagement is what individual managers can do, whether the organization is being helpful or not.

The elements of engagement are not arcane, but rather well known. Let me suggest what they might be:

Communicate the big picture
Implement flexible working arrangements
Promote individual learning
Differentiate performances
Banish command and control
Recognize achievements
Listen
Coach
Compensate fairly

All easier said than done, but all doable.

A quick comment on engagement and generations in the workplace. There's been a lot written about the differences in the generations. When it comes to engagement, I'd like to suggest that the differences are few. Younger people are engaged by flexible working arrangements more than older people are, and they require more frequest feedback and recognition. That's it. If you look at my elements of engagement above, I think you'll otherwise see that any generation is engaged by their presence in the workplace.

Let's keep this discussion going.

[Chrisie Hamilton]

Hi Ana-Maria:

Like you I am also a graduate student trying to demystify the concept of employee engagement. When I first started my doctoral research I was completely obsessed by motivation and then I happened upon engagement which is quite the hot topic and closely tied to motivation theory.

I agree with all the “experts” that have posted their thoughts, and think that one of the main reasons engagement is so interesting is that it is a multilayered construct that consists of three core elements: cognitive, emotional and behavioral. The only way we can really shed some light employee engagement is to produce original research and validate all these theories we have. That’s my mission and I am working it in my organization because I am lucky enough to have the interest and support structure from my leadership. I’ve love to keep in touch and share our ideas while we are on this journey….

Good luck!

Chrisie

[Terrence Seamon]

Great discussion, Ana-Maria.

As I have said before, engagement is old wine in a new wineskin. And as Bonnie says, that is NOT a bad thing. In fact, it has ushered this critical topic (previously known in academic research as "organizational commitment") from the backseat to the forefront, where it should be.

Terry

PS - Be sure to mine some of the other discussions we have had here at the EE Network in the past 12 months on this same topic.

[Roger D. Spayer, SPHR]

Like Ana-Maria and Chrisie, I am also in the throes of a writing my disseration. While I think I understand most of the definitions of engagement, my focus is whether "engagement" can actually be trained-into individuals or whether it is truly an innate or socialized (from an early age) characteristic--either individuals have it or they don't and no T&D will make them engage. I do, however, believe that an organization can blunt the highly-engaged with bad strategic, operational and cultural practices. I am also of the opinion that engaged employees aren't necessarily the most satisfied.

Thanks to Tim for mentioning his book. I am also interested in any other seminal or recommended works that may contribute to my engagement knowledge base as I continue this research.

Best wishes and many thanks,

Roger

[Ana-Maria Calin]

Hey everyone!
First let me thank you for all your posts! This is precious material here 
@Scott
I agree that affective commitment is extremly close to engagement, if not the same. I was thinking the same thing. But now, as I have a clearer picture about it, I also believe what differenciates Eengagement from other constructs is first, as you also said, the emotional perspective on the aspect AND this discretionary effort we keep talking about, the fact that doing one’s job is not enough to be engaged, one needs to exeed their work role. These are the two details that keep me interested in I EEngegement as a unique concept.
I will drop you a message with what I read and what I should still read on the subject  Oh, and nice profile picture!!!
@Bob
Thank you for your thoughts.
@Bonnie
You have a very effective way of looking at Eengagement and I totally agree: it’s covers all those constructs, and that’s why it’s useful, to communicate all of them with one word! Yes, I never though about it that way!! But I have to say, enablement is in my oppinion also a part of engagement! When Kahn first conceptualized it (1990) he said employees ask themselves 3 questions before engaging in any task: How meaningful is it for me? How safe is it for me to do so? How available am i? So one of the dimensions of EE is availability, so he sais, which means an employee should posess all physical, mental and emotional resources needed for accomplishing his job. It is in the power of the manager to ensure at least the physical resources.
@Tim
Yes, if more people would realize EE works best at micro-level, I believe it would be easier to acchieve. It’s not enough to have an organisation that bothers to implement projects on EE, the managers are responsible for the actual phenomenon. In my oppinion, an employee will only feel engaged if he has a manager that he finds to be both competent AND similar to him (by similar, I mean same goals, same interestr, generally a similar human structure). I only have to think of all the teachers I met in my life: the most effective ones had strong knoledge in their field and could also relate to students in a personal way.
@Chrisie
Hi Chrisie!! I would gladly keep in touch and share this journey with you  Your view of a cognitive, emotional and behavioral engagement is what I found in the model of Macey and Schneider (2008), a model that I honestly thing is closest to reality. They say there’s such a thing as trait engagement, psychological state engagement and behavioral engagement. Their paper really helped me. I’ll write more, and we can exchange experience!! Wonderful!
@Terrence
Thank you for the feedback, glad to know the discussion helps 
@Roger
As I said to Chrisie, I’d be delighted to keep in touch!!! What you say about engagement being trained or not, well according to the model of Macey and Schneider, managers can influence big parts of the state engaegement and through creation of trust, the behavioral engaegement. Again, that paper was pretty helpful for me to put a bit of order in my mind, maybe we can talk about it sometime!
Thank you guys for all the input! I think what we’re doing here is really creative and helpful! Have a wonderful weekend, everyone! 

[Craig Althof]

It appears this post has gone somewhat dormant, but since I came on board just a couple of days ago I have to do make-up work!

Framing, for my own clarification, some of the academic language surrounding engagement…. studies and meta-analyses of the previously established constructs of satisfaction, commitment, involvement and motivation lead to the question of whether “engagement” brings anything new to the table. This is apparently a very hot topic for many practitioners-to-be doing a dissertation thesis.

Ana-Maria, one of the lucky souls doing her thesis on this plate of spaghetti, wrote “…’buzz’ words like engagement need substance to work.” And Dr. (Scott) J added a little later “I am not fond of “construct proliferation” but realize that engagement is now “the phrase” in the practitioner world.” I think these two comments come as close as we’ll get to hitting one of the key issues head-on.

I’m comfortable with engagement being an old wine in a new bottle. Maybe we need to market the same wine, for two different audiences, in two unique bottles? Image drives perception, determines acceptance.

Operations managers need plain talk, centered around results. They don’t live in the world of studies, constructs and dissertations. The quickest route to a manager’s stonewall is to espouse theory without substance. Managers have grown up with motivation theory et al, and for most managers even the basic stuff remains nothing but theory to them. As it is, when an organization development practitioner comes at an operations manager with talk of engagement, more often than not the whole thing comes off as nothing more than blue-sky, touchy-feely voodoo for which the manager has no interest.

For a couple of weeks now, I’ve been playing around with blogging my thoughts on engagement and other stuff, just to try to get my own hands around it (ouch! Thorny bugger…). That’s not a plug, no link from me here-just making the point that I am having a hard time agreeing with myself on this.

Ana-Maria’s post and the responses expose the core issue, and from what I’m gathering from ‘old-timer’ comments this is a repeat discussion, a never-ending quest. What is desperately needed, I think, is a common-sense interpretation of engagement that appeals to those people we practitioners serve. A meta operational definition of the word, but also broken down into a context that makes sense to the specific organization. Then, what specifically engagement is capable of delivering to the bottom line, and how you go about “engaging” people.

That’s our Holy Grail.

[Ana-Maria Calin]

Hi Craig!

Indeed a thorny bugger! :))

The figures and numbers related to engagement are yet extremly vague, therefore, like all other unmeasureables or, better said, things-that-may-help-but-we-dont-know-where-or-how-much-exactly-nor-how-to-make-it-more, hardly convinces any busy manager. That doesent mean i lost my motivation to read and learn more about EE, or to dig for psychological explanations, no. Just that i realise it's a matter of personal inclanation towards "touchy-feely voodoo" of managers, weather engagement is taken seriously or not :) And on the one that sells the "Engagement Project", of course :P

Apropos context that makes sense: personally, i got to agree with the model of Blessingwhite, that describes EE as the alignment of maximum contribution with maximum job satisfaction.

I would personally adapt it to the other theories and analysis and call it full engagement then, when emotional commitment meets activation. So an engaged employee brings his hands, head AND heart to work (dont remember where i read that but sound so good) AAAAAAAAND is offered support/challenge by his/her management.

I'd say that makes sense to an organisation who knows what a satisfied employee looks like, and who needs, expects and actually, let's face it, tries to manipulate (ok bad bad word :) ) employees into putting in EXTRA effort to reach the organisational goals... Oh, and if i learned anything during my studies, not only on EE, it's that the answer to most questions is that "it depends" (i.e. of the organisation type, employee profile etc.)

I doubt i brought anything new to the discussion, but i felt i HAD to respond to Craig, who's post totally and in any context made a great deal of sense :)

Still believing in legends ;P

Ana