The evolution of the employee

engagement concept:
communication implications
Mary Welch
Lancashire Business School, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to make a contribution to corporate communication theory by
considering the evolution of employee engagement and the role of communication in enhancing
employee engagement.
Design/methodology/approach Despite its importance for organisation leaders, there is
considerable confusion about the meaning of employee engagement. This paper aims to provide a
degree of clarity on the concept by identifying stages in its evolution and discussing its denition.
Findings Surprisingly, corporate communication literature has not yet adequately considered the
concept. This may be due to confusion concerning the concept, and to concerns about overlaps with
other constructs such as commitment. This paper tackles the gap in the literature with a proposed
model of the role of internal corporate communication in enhancing employee engagement.
Research limitations/implications The article discusses linkages between engagement and
communication which suggest research potential for the communication disciplines.
Practical implications There are practical implications of the model proposed here since it
encourages communicators to consider potential engagement effects of communication strategies and
tactics.
Social implications The paper encourages communicators to consider the communication needs
of employees.
Originality/value This conceptual paper provides an overview of employee engagement literature
with a novel contribution identifying evolutionary waves in the development of the concept.
It suggests a denition of organisation engagement as a dynamic, changeable psychological state
which links employees to their organisations, manifest in organisation member role performances
expressed physically, cognitively and emotionally, and inuenced by organisation-level internal
communication.
Keywords Job commitment, Communication management, Corporate communications,
Employee communications, Internal communications, Motivation
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Employee engagement is a matter of concern for leaders and managers in
organisations across the globe; they recognise it as a vital element affecting
organisational effectiveness, innovation and competitiveness. This concern is evident
in ndings of the Corporate Communication International survey of US chief corporate
communicator opinion on practices and trends. The survey identied employee
engagement as one of the three top trends facing organisations (Goodman et al., 2009).
In Europe, a UK Government-sponsored review (MacLeod and Clarke, 2009) found
employee engagement to be a cause for concern for leaders in private, public and
voluntary sector organisations. This paper aims to make a contribution by considering
the role of communication in enhancing employee engagement. Despite its importance
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm
CCIJ
16,4
328
Received May 2011
Accepted August 2011
Corporate Communications: An
International Journal
Vol. 16 No. 4, 2011
pp. 328-346
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1356-3289
DOI 10.1108/13563281111186968
for organisation leaders, there is considerable confusion about the meaning of
employee engagement. This leads to muddled understandings of the term within
organisations, for example, Balain and Sparrow (2009) report a survey which found
20 different models of engagement inside one single organisation. The term employee
engagement has its roots in academic work. However, it was largely a business and
consultancy issue in the 1990s. Now, the concept is attracting increasing attention from
academics, particularly from scholars in business and management, psychology,
and organisational behaviour disciplines. These sources have varying conceptions of
the term employee engagement, resulting in confusion in the literature. This paper
aims to provide a degree of clarity on the concept by identifying stages in its evolution
and discussing its denition.
Given global leadership concern about employee engagement, communication
professionals involved in internal communication management need an in-depth
understandingof the concept so that theycancraft strategies andtactics whichcontribute
to building engagement. Internal communication has been posited as an important factor
in the development of employment engagement. Surprisingly, corporate communication
literature has not yet adequately considered the concept. This may be due to confusion
concerning the concept, and to concerns about overlaps with other constructs. This paper
tackles the gap in the literature with a proposed model of the role of internal corporate
communication in enhancing employee engagement.
Article structure
The paper: rst, provides an overview of the evolution of the employee engagement
concept, discussing denitional approaches, and highlighting components of
engagement; second, it discusses issues arising from the review concerning the nature
of the concept, including its relationship with overlapping and related constructs such as
commitment and motivation; and nally, it develops a corporate communication
perspective of employee engagement.
The evolution of employee engagement
The notionof employee engagement has attractedconsiderable interest frombusiness and
consultancy rms since the 1990s and has more recently begun to attract wider academic
attention. Analysis of employee engagement literature has enabled the identication of
stages in the evolution of the employee engagement concept, conceptualised here as a
series of waves. The literature includes conceptual and empirical work (Kahn, 1990, 1992,
2010; Saks, 2006, 2008; Macey and Schneider, 2008a, b; Robinson et al., 2004, 2007;
Truss et al., 2006; Truss and Soane, 2010) and previous literature reviews on the topic
(Fawkes, 2007; Kular et al., 2008; Wefald and Downey, 2008; Shuck and Wollard, 2010;
Attridge, 2009). These waves are set out next along with a discussion of denitions,
and are summarised in Table I.
Pre-wave
The pre-wave era is characterised by recognition of the general need for employees to
engage with their work and organisations. For example, Katz and Kahn (1966, p. 388)
discuss employee behaviours needed to achieve organisational effectiveness,
including to: engage in occasional innovative and cooperative behavior beyond the
requirements of the role but in the service of organizational objectives. While they
The employee
engagement
concept
329
E
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
s
t
a
g
e
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
d
e

n
i
t
i
o
n
s
P
r
e
-
w
a
v
e
(
p
r
e
1
9
9
0
)
K
a
t
z
a
n
d
K
a
h
n
(
1
9
6
6
)
E
n
g
a
g
e
i
n
g
e
n
e
r
a
l

[
.
.
.
]
e
n
g
a
g
e
i
n
o
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
r
o
l
e
b
u
t
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
f
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s

(
p
.
3
8
8
)
W
a
v
e
1
(
1
9
9
0
-
1
9
9
9
)
K
a
h
n
(
1
9
9
0
,
1
9
9
2
)
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

[
.
.
.
]
t
h
e
h
a
r
n
e
s
s
i
n
g
o
f
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
e
m
b
e
r
s

s
e
l
v
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
w
o
r
k
r
o
l
e
s
;
i
n
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
p
e
o
p
l
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
a
n
d
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
t
h
e
m
s
e
l
v
e
s
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
l
y
,
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e
l
y
,
a
n
d
e
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
d
u
r
i
n
g
r
o
l
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

(
K
a
h
n
(
1
9
9
0
,
p
.
6
9
4
)
.
A
r
g
u
e
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
r
e
e
p
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
f
o
r
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
:
m
e
a
n
i
n
g
f
u
l
n
e
s
s
;
s
a
f
e
t
y
;
a
n
d
,
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
B
u
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m
a
n
d
C
o
f
f
m
a
n
(
1
9
9
9
)
a
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
A
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
w
h
o
c
o
u
l
d
a
n
s
w
e
r
y
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
1
2
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
G
a
l
l
u
p

s
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
W
a
v
e
2
(
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
5
)
M
a
s
l
a
c
h
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
1
)
J
o
b
b
u
r
n
o
u
t
/
j
o
b
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

[
.
.
.
]
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
e
d
b
y
e
n
e
r
g
y
,
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
e
f

c
a
c
y

t
h
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
o
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
h
r
e
e
b
u
r
n
o
u
t
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s

(
e
x
h
a
u
s
t
i
o
n
,
c
y
n
i
c
i
s
m
a
n
d
i
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
)
(
p
.
4
1
6
)
L
u
t
h
a
n
s
a
n
d
P
e
t
e
r
s
o
n
(
2
0
0
2
)
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
U
s
e
K
a
h
n

s
(
1
9
9
0
)
d
e

n
i
t
i
o
n
H
a
r
t
e
r
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
2
)
a
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
K
a
h
n

s
(
1
9
9
0
)
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
n
g
s
i
d
e
t
h
e
G
a
l
l
u
p
W
o
r
k
p
l
a
c
e
A
u
d
i
t
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
S
c
h
a
u
f
e
l
i
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
2
,
p
.
7
4
)
a
n
d
S
c
h
a
u
f
e
l
i
a
n
d
B
a
k
k
e
r
(
2
0
0
4
,
p
.
2
9
5
)
J
o
b
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

[
.
.
.
]
a
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
,
f
u
l

l
l
i
n
g
,
w
o
r
k
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
s
t
a
t
e
o
f
m
i
n
d
t
h
a
t
i
s
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
e
d
b
y
v
i
g
o
r
,
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
a
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n

(
p
.
7
4
)
M
a
y
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
4
)
W
o
r
k
a
n
d
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
t
e
s
t
K
a
h
n

s
(
1
9
9
0
)
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
H
e
w
i
t
t
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
L
L
C
(
2
0
0
4
)
a
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

[
.
.
.
]
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
e
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
a
r
e
e
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
l
l
e
c
t
u
a
l
l
y
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
g
r
o
u
p
,
a
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
b
y
t
h
r
e
e
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
:
S
a
y

T
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
l
y
s
p
e
a
k
s
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
l
y
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
i
n
t
o
c
o
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
a
n
d
r
e
f
e
r
s
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
n
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
;
S
t
a
y

T
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
h
a
s
a
n
i
n
t
e
n
s
e
d
e
s
i
r
e
t
o
b
e
a
m
e
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
,
d
e
s
p
i
t
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
w
o
r
k
e
l
s
e
w
h
e
r
e
;
a
n
d
,
S
t
r
i
v
e

T
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
e
x
e
r
t
s
e
x
t
r
a
e
f
f
o
r
t
a
n
d
e
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
t
h
a
t
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
t
o
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
s
u
c
c
e
s
s

(
p
.
2
)
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table I.
The evolution of
employee engagement
CCIJ
16,4
330
E
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
s
t
a
g
e
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
d
e

n
i
t
i
o
n
s
W
a
v
e
3
(
2
0
0
6
-
2
0
1
0
)
S
a
k
s
(
2
0
0
6
)
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
J
o
b
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
O
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
U
s
e
s
K
a
h
n

s
(
1
9
9
0
)
d
e

n
i
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
s
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
t
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
j
o
b
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
4
)
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

[
.
.
.
]
a
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
a
t
t
i
t
u
d
e
h
e
l
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
t
s
v
a
l
u
e
s
.
A
n
e
n
g
a
g
e
d
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
i
s
a
w
a
r
e
o
f
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
,
a
n
d
w
o
r
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
o
l
l
e
a
g
u
e
s
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
j
o
b
f
o
r
t
h
e
b
e
n
e

t
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
m
u
s
t
w
o
r
k
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
n
d
n
u
r
t
u
r
e
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
w
h
i
c
h
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
t
w
o
-
w
a
y
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
a
n
d
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e

(
p
.
i
x
)
T
r
u
s
s
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
6
)
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
U
s
e
K
a
h
n

s
(
1
9
9
0
)
d
e

n
i
t
i
o
n
,
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
a
s
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
s
e
d
b
y
M
a
y
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
4
)
F
l
e
m
i
n
g
a
n
d
A
s
p
l
u
n
d
(
2
0
0
7
)
a
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

T
h
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
t
h
e
h
e
a
d
s
,
h
e
a
r
t
s
,
a
n
d
s
o
u
l
s
o
f
y
o
u
r
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
t
o
i
n
s
t
i
l
a
n
i
n
t
r
i
n
s
i
c
d
e
s
i
r
e
a
n
d
p
a
s
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e

(
p
.
2
)
M
a
c
e
y
a
n
d
S
c
h
n
e
i
d
e
r
(
2
0
0
8
a
)
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

[
.
.
.
]
a
c
o
m
p
l
e
x
n
o
m
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
e
n
c
o
m
p
a
s
s
i
n
g
t
r
a
i
t
,
s
t
a
t
e
,
a
n
d
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
l
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
a
n
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
m
i
g
h
t
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
s
t
a
t
e
a
n
d
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
l
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

(
p
p
.
2
3
-
4
)
S
c
h
a
u
f
e
l
i
a
n
d
B
a
k
k
e
r
(
2
0
1
0
)
W
o
r
k
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

[
.
.
.
]
w
o
r
k
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
t
h
e
p
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
s
t
a
t
e
t
h
a
t
a
c
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
t
h
e
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
a
l
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
e
n
e
r
g
y

(
p
.
2
2
)
.
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
k
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
s
a
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
n
g
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
i
n
t
h
e
i
r
j
o
b
d
e
m
a
n
d
s
a
n
d
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
m
o
d
e
l
o
f
w
o
r
k
m
o
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
A
l
b
r
e
c
h
t
(
2
0
1
0
)
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

[
.
.
.
]
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
w
o
r
k
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
p
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
s
t
a
t
e
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
e
d
b
y
a
g
e
n
u
i
n
e
w
i
l
l
i
n
g
n
e
s
s
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
t
o
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
u
c
c
e
s
s

(
p
.
5
)
N
o
t
e
:
a
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
c
y
w
o
r
k
Table I.
The employee
engagement
concept
331
do not use the term employee engagement, their work recognises the need for
engagement and links it to organisational effectiveness.
Wave 1 (1990-1999)
The 1990s begin with early ripples of scientic work on engagement and the decade
closes with a ood of interest from practitioners. The wave begins in the 1990s with
academic work on personal engagement (Kahn, 1990, 1992). Kahn can be considered an
academic parent of the employee engagement movement, as his work has been
inuential, yet he does not use that term specically and his qualitative research is
concerned with personal engagement. Kahn (1990, p. 694) dened personal work
engagement as: the harnessing of organizational members selves to their work roles;
in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and
emotionally during role performance. He argued that three psychological engagement
conditions are necessary for an employee to bring themselves into their work role
performance. These determinants are: meaningfulness (work elements), safety (social
elements, including management style, process and organisational norms) and
availability (individual distractions).
The decade is characterised by the beginnings of practitioner interest and the term
employee engagement came into use, widely credited as being coined by consultancy
rm Gallup in 1999 (Endres and Mancheno-Smoak, 2008; Little and Little, 2006;
Schaufeli and Bakker, 2010). Gallups Buckingham and Coffman (1999) introduced the
term in their business book claiming that engaged employees drive customer loyalty
and that: The right people in the right roles with the right managers drive employee
engagement (p. 248). The brief mention of employee engagement in this book has been
described as causing an overnight sensation amongst business people (Shuck and
Wollard, 2010). Business interest in the concept prompted demand for and provision of
employee engagement consultancy services. Buckingham and Coffman (1999) dened
a fully engaged employee as one who could answer yes to all 12 questions on Gallups
workplace questionnaire.
Wave 2 (2000-2005)
The second wave is evident in work produced in the rst half of the 2000s. This wave
consisted of a surge of practitioner work, and a swell of interest from academics.
Consultancy rms linked high engagement to high business performance (Hewitt
Associates LLC, 2004). Gallups questionnaire is referred to as both the Gallup
Workplace Audit (GWA) (Harter et al., 2002) and the Q
12
employee engagement
questionnaire (Harter et al., 2003; Harter and Schmidt, 2008). Harter et al. (2002) initially
present the Gallup questionnaire as a 12-item measure of employee perceptions of work
characteristics with an additional question about overall satisfaction with the
organisation as a place to work. In later work, Harter et al. (2003) refer to the GWA/Q
12
questionnaire as a measure of a range of elements which together can be called
employee engagement. They dene employee engagement as a combination of
cognitive and emotional antecedent variables in the workplace. This omits Kahns
(1990) behavioural element represented by his physical engagement component.
Consultants, Hewitt Associates LLC (2004, p. 2) measured employee engagement
with an 18-item scale and dened it as: the state in which individuals are emotionally
and intellectually committed to the organization or group, as measured by three
CCIJ
16,4
332
primary behaviors: Say [. . .] stay [. . .] strive. Hewitt Associates emphasise the role
of engagement in business success and point to the need to allocate resources to
improve engagement levels and motivate talent to continually excel (p. 2). This view
of engagement focuses on behaviour and seems aligned with Kahns (1990) physical
dimension of engagement.
A key scientic development in this wave was the emergence of the positive
psychology movement which switched focus from negative consequences of attitudes
to work like job burnout, to positive drivers like engagement. The switch prompted the
appearance of academic work on engagement within this period (Maslach et al., 2001;
Harter et al., 2002; May et al., 2004).
Empirical academic work (Luthans and Peterson, 2002) used Kahns (1990)
denition of engagement and found a conceptual t between Gallups GWA and
Kahns (1990) qualitatively derived dimensions of engagement. Luthans and Peterson
argue that this established a theoretical grounding for employee engagement linked to
a way to operationalise and measure it through the GWA. Meanwhile, May et al. (2004)
tested Kahns (1990) qualitative model and supported his view that the psychological
conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability are positively related to
engagement.
While Kahns (1990) denition of engagement remained inuential in this period,
another inuential denition originated from Schaufeli and Bakker (2004). They
consider job engagement in the context of organisational behaviour and dened it as:
a positive, fullling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigour,
dedication, and absorption (p. 295). These two frequently cited denitions arguably
share a common focus on the manifestations of engagement: cognitive absorption;
emotional dedication; and, physical vigour.
Wave 2 is characterised by growing interest from professional bodies. The Institute
for Employment Studies published a report on employee engagement based on
research in the UK (Robinson et al., 2004). The report generated an inductive denition
of engagement via research with human resources professionals in 40 organisations.
Robinson et al. (2004) dened the concept as a positive employee attitude towards the
organisation and its values, involving awareness of business context, and work to
improve job and organisational effectiveness. They refer to Harter et al.s (2002)
citation of Kahns (1990) work on engagement, stress the two-way nature of employee
engagement, and emphasise that: the organisation must work to develop and nurture
engagement (p. ix).
Wave 3 (2006-2010)
The third wave evident in the second half of the decade, sees a surge of academic
interest which crests with the publication of two handbooks in 2010. In the forefront of
the third wave of employee engagement work, Saks (2006) considers the concept of
employee engagement and notes that it has had more attention in practitioner literature
than academic literature. Saks refers to Kahns (1990) denition, and concurs with
Kahns view of employee engagement as consisting of cognitive, emotional, and
behavioural components. He notes that engagement appears in the job burnout
literature (Maslach et al., 2001) as the positive antithesis to burnout. Saks extended the
employee engagement concept to encompass both job engagement and organisation
engagement. Sakss work is signicant because it tackles the question of the status
The employee
engagement
concept
333
of the concept. His work addressed fears that the concept was more of a buzzword than
a serious construct. Saks provides a convincing argument that positions engagement
as a scientic concept thus removing impediments to scholarly work. His endorsement
of the construct, and recognition of the surprising dearth of academic work on it,
inspired subsequent scientic endeavours.
Consultancy usage of the concept evolved in this period with the Gallup
Organizations denition of employee engagement (Fleming and Asplund, 2007, p. 2)
presented as: the ability to capture the heads, hearts, and souls of your employees to
instil an intrinsic desire and passion for excellence. This view adds a spiritual element
to Gallups established cognitive and emotional aspects of engagement.
Professional body work on employee engagement is evident in this wave as the
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD, 2006) produced a survey
report entitled How Engaged are British employees? The survey report was supported
by a full research report produced by a team of academics (Truss et al., 2006). Their
research refers to academic theory (Kahn, 1990; Luthans and Peterson, 2002; May et al.,
2004) and summarises understanding of employee engagement as a psychological
state, a passion for work (p. 2). They identify with Kahns (1990) three dimensions of
employee engagement: emotional engagement, being very involved emotionally with
ones work; cognitive engagement, focusing very hard while at work; and physical
engagement, being willing to go the extra mile for your employer (p. 2). This is
signicant, since it demonstrates that Kahns (1990) view of employee engagement
is operationalised in a major survey undertaken with 2,000 participants from across
Britain in July 2006.
Scientic interest intensied toward the end of the decade with the publication in
2008 of a special edition of a new scientic journal debating the concept of employee
engagement (Macey and Schneider, 2008a, b; Saks, 2008). In this period, literature
reviews were contributed from disciplines including human resources, workplace
behaviour and psychology (Kular et al., 2008; Shuck and Wollard, 2010; Attridge, 2009).
The third employee engagement wave crested with the publication of two engagement
handbooks in 2010, offering a wide range of contributions on work engagement
(Bakker and Leiter, 2010) and on employee engagement (Albrecht, 2010) from
psychology, business, and management academics and from practitioners. In the work
Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research (Bakker and Leiter, 2010),
Schaufeli and Bakker (2010, p. 22) position work engagement as a mediating variable
in their job demands and resources model of work motivation and engagement and
say: work engagement is the psychological state that accompanies the behavioural
investment of personal energy.
In Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice
(Albrecht, 2010), Kahn (2010) contributes a chapter on the essence of engagement in
which he summarises and discusses lessons from his 30-year involvement in the
engagement eld. He notes the enormous appeal of the concept andcontrasts its apparent
intuitive nature with its complexity. Kahn (1990) refers to his earlier work to describe the
engagement concept as when employees offer up different degrees and dimensions of
their selves according to some internal calculus that they consciously and unconsciously
make (p. 20). He contrasts this dynamic concept with traditional steady-state
motivation theory characterising employees as either motivated or not. Kahn reiterates
the determinants of engagement: meaningfulness, safety and availability.
CCIJ
16,4
334
His work emphasises that engagement is dynamic and subject to uctuation. This is
signicant for communication scholars and practitioners because it suggests that
engagement can be affected by management interventions such as internal
communication.
Table I summarises the evolution of interest in the employee engagement concept and
provides an overview of denitions associated with the three waves of interest. From
this, employee engagement can be understood as cognitive, emotional and physical role
performance characterised by absorption, dedication and vigour and dependent upon
the psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability. Adiscussion of
issues relating to communication follows.
Discussion
There are several issues arising fromthe evolution of the employee engagement concept
due to the debate, contention and confusion evident in the literature. To consider the role
of communication in enhancing employee engagement, three issues with implications
for communication research and practice are addressed next: the fundamental nature
of engagement; its overlap with other constructs such as organisational commitment;
and, its communication implications.
The fundamental nature of engagement
One communication-related aspect of the engagement debate concerns the
fundamental nature of engagement and whether it can be considered an attitude,
a psychological or motivational state, or a personality trait. Traits are relatively xed,
steady-state predisposed aspects of personality, while attitudes and psychological
states are more uid learned dispositions. The nature of engagement is a signicant
issue for corporate communicators since they are well-placed to inuence workplace
attitudes and stimulate employee motivation. While attitudes and states can be
inuenced by communication, traits are xed in comparison and may be less open to
communication interventions and inuence. Nonetheless, they need to be understood
by communicators concerned with serving diverse internal stakeholder groups as they
indicate a range of different personality traits and communication preferences.
Kahn (1990) presents engagement as a three-component construct inuencedbythree
psychological states. Robinson et al. (2004) dene the concept as a positive attitude.
Conversely, Saks (2006) argues that engagement is not an attitude but a psychological
state, while others (Sparrow and Balain, 2010) believe that engagement is an attitude.
Macey and Schneider (2008a) see engagement as a complex network encompassing trait,
state, and behavioural constructs. They reect on contentions in the literature and
integrate views on the nature of engagement with a denition that synthesises aspects of
the self (trait, state and behaviour) with situational aspects (organisational conditions):
a complex nomological network encompassing trait, state, and behavioral constructs,
as well as the work and organizational conditions that might facilitate state and
behavioral engagement (pp. 23-4). Kahn (2010) contrasts his conception of dynamic
engagement with steady-state (trait) views of motivation. He argues that xed
motivation theories overlook the conscious and unconscious calculations employees
make over time which inuence the degree of physical, cognitive and emotional effort
they expend. Kahn describes engagement as both delicate andfragile, andquite resilient.
So, Kahns view of engagement exhibits a mixture of attitudinal-type states together
The employee
engagement
concept
335
with more xed steady-state predisposition traits. This complex state and trait view
of engagement is useful for communicators since it highlights a need for employee
communication to understand and serve internal stakeholders core (trait)
communication needs, as well as surface (state and attitude) communication needs.
Moreover, internal communication represents one of the organisational conditions that
facilitate engagement.
Overlaps
One theme evident in the engagement literature, is the concern that employee
engagement might not be a distinct construct but simply a newlabel attached to an older
concept such as organisational commitment, repackaged as employee engagement.
Several writers (Kahn, 1990; Saks, 2006; Macey and Schneider, 2008a) tackle this
question and conclude that engagement (variously termed personal, job, work, or
employee engagement) is indeed as Saks (2006, p. 602) concludes, a:
[. . .] distinct and unique construct that consists of cognitive, emotional, and behavioural
components that are associated with individual role performance. Furthermore, engagement
is distinguishable from several related constructs, most notably organizational commitment,
organizational citizenship behaviour, and job involvement.
Academic writers have concluded that practitioner use of the term employee
engagement has been label-like, whereas academic attention has been on engagement
as a unique construct. As Schaufeli and Bakker (2010, p. 12) note:
[. . .] because in business and among consultants engagement is used as a novel, catchy label
that in fact covers traditional concepts, it has the appearance of being somewhat faddish.
However, the popularity of engagement in these circles signies that there is something to it.
Therefore, academic scholars have begun to dene and study work engagement as a unique
construct.
Albrecht (2010, p. 6) observes that the debate on this issue has not fully been resolved
but draws attention to a considerable body of theory and research which supports
engagement as a unique and distinct construct.
Distinctions between organisation engagement (Saks, 2006; Pugh and Dietz, 2008)
and organisation commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1997) are important for the discipline
of corporate communication. The discipline is especially concerned with communication
at organisation level. This section examines the two concepts, considers distinctions
between them, and notes implications for internal communication practice.
Organisation engagement. Saks (2006) builds on Kahns (1990) foundation to extend
the engagement concept to include organisation as well as job engagement, saying
engagement:
[. . .] reects the extent to which an individual is psychologically present in a particular
organizational role. The two most dominant roles for most organizational members are their
work role and their role as a member of an organization (p. 604).
His view of organisation engagement is implicit in his measure to asses participants
psychological presence in their organisations. The measure examines participants
views of their organisation membership, and the extent to which they are engaged
with the organisation. Organisation level antecedents of engagement are included
with a perceived organisational support antecedents of engagement scale
CCIJ
16,4
336
(Rhoades et al., 2001). A rewards and recognition item concerning public recognition
(employee of the month) is included, and this has direct implications for internal
communication practice. Employee rewards and recognition processes could be
included within the objectives of internal communication strategies to prompt activities
such as: employee reward events; recognition stories in internal communication
publications such as e-magazines and printed newsletters; and, intranet pages
recognising employee achievements.
The rationale for the organisation engagement concept includes its theoretical
usefulness, nomological network and practical utility (Pugh and Dietz, 2008). The
nomological network for engagement includes organisation-level antecedents (including
leadership communication) and consequences (organisational effectiveness), so as Pugh
and Dietz (2008) argue, it makes sense to consider the engagement construct at
organisation as well as individual level. Organisation job resources (e.g. training and
technology) affect engagement at individual and organisation level (Salanova et al., 2005).
Internal communicationcan be considered a resource at individual, teamand organisation
levels. Theorising engagement at organisation level enables consideration of shared
collective organisationvalues andcultures, andconsideration of the communication needs
of groups of employees such as the needs of employees with similar personalities.
From the discussion above, and building on Kahn (1990) and Saks (2006),
organisation engagement can be dened as a dynamic, changeable psychological state
which links employees to their organisations, manifest in organisation member role
performances expressed physically, cognitively and emotionally, and inuenced by
organisation-level internal communication.
Organisational commitment. Organisational commitment is characterised as a state
rather than an attitude, dened as: a psychological state that (a) characterizes the
employees relationship with the organization, and (b) has implications for the decision
to continue or discontinue membership in the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991,
p. 67); and, a psychological link between the employee and his or her organization that
makes it less likely that the employee will voluntarily leave the organization (Allen and
Meyer, 1996, p. 252). Meyer and Allen (1991) proposed a three-component measure of
organisational commitment which integrates three forms of commitment as components
rather than types of commitment: affective (attachment to the organisation); continuance
(perceivedcost of leaving); and, normative (obligation to remain). Their three-component
organisational commitment scale has been inuential in commitment measurement
research.
Distinctions. A number of writers (Kahn, 1990; Saks, 2006; Macey and Schneider,
2008a; Sparrow and Balain, 2010) argue that engagement is different to organisational
commitment and describe it as an antecedent, a facet or a variable component of
commitment. Meyer et al. (2010, p. 64) include organisational level engagement in their
denition of the concept:
[. . .] engagement is experienced as enthusiasm and self-involvement with a task or collective
(for example, organization), is fostered by a corresponding dispositional orientation and
facilitating climate, and manifests itself in proactive value-directed behavior.
They distinguish commitment from engagement and integrate the three-component
model of commitment into an engagement framework which depicts movement
between disengagement and full engagement with parallel shifts in commitment.
The employee
engagement
concept
337
This conception of the relationship between commitment and engagement echoes
Macey and Schneiders (2008a, p. 8) view that: organizational commitment is an
important facet of the state of engagement.
This section has highlighted distinctions in the denition and measurement of
commitment and engagement. It nds that the two constructs are unique, but related
as they are both positive work-related psychological states (Albrecht, 2010). Since,
engagement is (1) dened and (2) measured differently to commitment, it is logical to
recognise them as distinct constructs.
Communication and engagement
Pugh and Dietz (2008) suggest leadership as an antecedent of organisation engagement,
and organisational effectiveness as a consequence. The communication abilities of
leadership teams are recognised as important in driving engagement (Wiley et al., 2010).
Communication has been identied as an underlying factor associated with employee
engagement (Kahn, 1992). Likewise, MacLeodandClarke (2009) highlight communication
as a critical factor for enhancing performance through employee engagement. They argue
that good quality internal communication enhances engagement and emphasise that
employees need clear communication from senior management to understand how their
own roles t with the leadership vision. Unsurprisingly, they cite poor communication as
a barrier to engagement and a cause of disengagement. So there is scope for reection and
research on the impact of corporate communication on organisation engagement.
However, contributions from the public relations and corporate communication
disciplines are surprisingly sparse given that internal communication is an
organisational level intervention which can positively impact employee engagement.
Moreover, when engagement has been included in communication literature, it has
suffered from vague, undened treatment.
Treatment of engagement in communication literature. Despite the potential for
engagement-based communication research, corporate communication scholars are yet
to sufciently consider the employee engagement concept. The sections above highlight
a relatively rich academic literature on employee engagement, so it is surprising that this
literature is often overlooked in work relating to internal communication published in
corporate communication, public relations and communication management journals
(ONeil, 2008; Chong, 2007; Hewitt, 2006; Hardaker and Fill, 2005; Thomson and
Hecklers, 2000). These sources tend to use the term employee engagement in a
conversational way and some (Chong, 2007; Hardaker and Fill, 2005) refer to Thomson
and Hecklers (2000) work which uses the term as a synonym for employee buy-in.
Likewise, Dowling (2008, p. 188) refers to employee engagement as a self-referencing
amalgam emanating from a good image and resulting in self-condence, co-operation
with company policies, and corporate citizenship behaviours. The connection between
these views of employee engagement and academic-based conceptions discussed above,
are unclear. On the one hand, this demonstrates interest in the idea of employee
engagement and its association with internal communication; but on the other hand,
it exposes a limited conceptual underpinning. This is all the more surprising given that
in practice, some organisations treat the concept of engagement as an internal
communication strategy (Sparrow and Balain, 2010).
Engagement communication. Internal communication is part of the organisational
context in which engagement (or disengagement) occurs (Bakker et al., 2011).
CCIJ
16,4
338
Engagement is inuenced by internal communication, it is an organisational practice
with the potential to effectively convey the values of the organization to all employees,
and involve them with the goals of the organization. Such practices result in more
engaged employees (Bindl and Parker, 2010). Well-designed internal communication
programmes are an important factor for employee engagement (Papalexandris and
Galanaki, 2009). Senior management communication and open, effective
communication strategies are recognised as having a crucial role in the development
of positive employee engagement (Bakker et al., 2011). Senior management
communication has been conceptualised as internal corporate communication (Welch
and Jackson, 2007). It features in work by writers from a range of disciplines including
marketing (Fill, 2009; Buhler and Nufer, 2010; Vallaster and de Chernatony, 2006;
Prashantham, 2003; Gilly and Wolnbarger, 1998), public relations (Kazoleas and
Wright, 2001; Wilcox et al., 2003; Zerfass, 2008), applied communication (Dickson et al.,
2008), corporate communication (van Riel and Fombrun, 2007; Tourish, 1997; Ramsing,
2009) and human resources (McKenna and Beech, 2008). There is a long-running
conference track devoted to internal corporate communication in an annual
international conference (Conference on Corporate Communication, 2009, 2010, 2011).
Internal corporate communication can be viewed as one of the four dimensions of
internal communication along with internal line manager communication, internal
team communication, and internal project peer communication. Here, it is understood
as communication between an organisations strategic managers and its internal
stakeholders, designed to promote commitment to the organisation, a sense of
belonging to it, awareness of its changing environment and understanding of its
evolving aims (Welch and Jackson, 2007). Internal corporate communication involves
organisational practices designed to promote employee understanding of the goals of
the organisation and enable them to identify with the values of the organisation. Such
practices are recognised as key inuences for employee engagement (Bindl and Parker,
2010) since they enable internalisation of organisational values and involvement with
organisational goals, resulting in more engaged employees. Internal corporate
communication involves communication elements important for employee engagement
highlighted by MacLeod and Clarke (2009) including leadership vision, and enabling
staff to make sense of their own roles in that vision. Likewise, practitioners emphasise
the role of corporate communication in developing employee engagement:
[. . .] within the best performing organizations there is a cultural alignment between the
employees and the company, paired with a strategic alignment between activities and
company goals. These organizations use their corporate communication touchpoints to
reinforce their commitments to employees and customers (Gallup, 2010, p. 5).
Conceptual model
The discussion above leads to a view of one way the relationship between internal
communication and employee engagement can be conceptualised. Figure 1 shows
a communication orientated perspective of employee engagement. The model suggests
one way the concept can be viewed from a communication perspective and provides
a platform for future communication research.
This conceptual model illustrates the possible impact of communication on
employee engagement at an organisational level. Engagement is recognised as a
three-component construct comprising emotional, cognitive and physical dimensions
The employee
engagement
concept
339
(Kahn, 1990) associated with dedication, absorption and vigour (Schaufeli et al., 2002;
Schaufeli and Bakker (2004)). Kahns (1990) three psychological conditions necessary
for engagement (meaningfulness, safety and availability) are integrated into the model.
Commitment is associated with engagement and is affected by leadership
communication (Meyer et al., 2010), so the model integrates the constructs of
organisational commitment as an antecedent of engagement. It positions aspects of
leadership communication from senior managers in relation to employee engagement.
Communication is one form of employee psychological need which organisations have
to meet to maintain and develop employee engagement. Aspects of internal corporate
communication are positioned as mediating antecedent engagement variables on the
one hand (promoting commitment and a sense of belonging), and as communication
engagement outcomes on the other hand (awareness and understanding). The model
conceptualises innovation, competitiveness and organisational effectiveness as
organisational outcomes of employee engagement promoted by effective internal
corporate communication.
Conclusions
The conceptual model proposed in this paper provides a starting point for further
research and contributes to lling the gap in research on the role of senior leadership in
employee engagement (Albrecht, 2010). However, because the model takes an
organisation-level approach, it is limited to one important dimension of internal
communication, internal corporate communication. Clearly, the complexity of
communication inside organisations needs to be recognised with research on other
internal communication dimensions including line management, team peer and project
peer communication.
Figure 1.
The employee engagement
concept and internal
corporate communication:
a conceptual model
Physical
engagement:
Vigour
Behaviour
Emotional
engagement:
Dedication
Cognitive
engagement:
Absorption
Outcomes:
Innovation
Competitiveness
Organisational
effectiveness
Communication promoting:
- Commitment to the organisation
- A sense of belonging to the
organisation
Communication promoting:
- Awareness of changing organisation
environments
- Understanding of evolving organisation
goals
Senior management leadership
communication
Engagement
Communication
Meaningfulness
Availability Safety
Antecedents
CCIJ
16,4
340
This conceptual article provides an overview of employee engagement literature
with a novel contribution identifying evolutionary waves in the development of the
concept. It considers the nature of the concept and its overlaps with organisational
commitment. The article recognises that scholars have begun to consider engagement
at an organisation level as well as job level. It suggests a denition of organisation
engagement as a dynamic, changeable psychological state which links employees to
their organisations, manifest in organisation member role performances expressed
physically, cognitively and emotionally, and inuenced by organisation-level internal
communication.
The article notes a conspicuous dearth of contributions from corporate
communication and public relations disciplines and highlights foggy usage of the
term employee engagement in previous communication literature. It contributes a
model which conceptualises relationships between internal corporate communication
and dimensions of employee engagement. The model suggests one way the concept can
be viewed from a communication perspective and thus provides a platform for future
communication research. For example, rhetorical studies could be conducted to explore
the impact of corporate messages on engagement. Semiotic studies might consider the
impact of verbal and visual symbols on engagement. Additionally, further work could
consider how employee engagement is connected to other important constructs such as
organisational culture or organisational identity.
There are practical implications of the model as it encourages communicators to
consider potential engagement effects of communication strategies and tactics. For
example, the content of internal communication messages could be considered in terms
of potential impact on meaningfulness and engagement. Message strategy
development might include evaluation of the tone of communication. Tone could be
evaluated in relation to its possible impact on perceptions of safety, and its likelihood
of encouraging dialogue. Since engagement levels differ within workforces, the model
encourages communicators to consider the communication needs of employees with
varying levels of engagement. For example, a highly emotionally engaged employee
may have a greater need for information to validate an ongoing sense of belonging to
the organisation. Likewise, employees with high cognitive engagement may value
access to detailed material to facilitate their understanding of, and contributions to
organisational goals. Consequently, the model encourages practitioners to evaluate
employee communication needs from an engagement perspective. This could inuence
the design of internal communication evaluation instruments and audit questionnaires.
These practical implications have further consequences in regard to the skills,
education and continuing professional development of communicators.
The article discusses linkages between engagement and communication which
suggest further research potential for the communication disciplines. There is potential
for studies on the impact of internal communication on employee engagement at
internal corporate communication, line management, team peer and project peer levels.
This would benet practice by informing corporate communicators about
communication interventions to increase employee engagement. It would serve
employee interests by providing a focus on communications needed by internal
stakeholders to enable engagement. Such work could form an important fourth wave of
employee engagement research.
The employee
engagement
concept
341
References
Albrecht, S.L. (Ed.) (2010), Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research
and Practice, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1996), Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: an examination of construct validity, Journal of Vocational Behaviour,
Vol. 49, pp. 252-76.
Attridge, M. (2009), Measuring and managing employee work engagement: a review of the
research and business literature, Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 383-98.
Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds) (2010), Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and
Research, Psychology Press, Hove.
Bakker, A.B., Albrecht, S.L. and Leiter, M.P. (2011), Key questions regarding work
engagement, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 4-28.
Balain, S. and Sparrow, P. (2009), Engaged to perform: a new perspective on employee
engagement, Centre for Performance-led HR White Paper 09/04, Lancaster University
Management School, Lancaster.
Bindl, U.K. and Parker, S.K. (2010), Feeling good and performing well? Psychological
engagement and positive behaviors at work, in Albrecht, S.L. (Ed.), Handbook of
Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham.
Buckingham, M. and Coffman, C. (1999), First, Break All the Rules: What the Worlds Greatest
Managers Do Differently, The Gallup Organization, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Buhler, A. andNufer, G. (2010), RelationshipMarketinginSports, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Chong, M. (2007), The role of internal communication and training in infusing corporate values
and delivering brand promise: Singapore Airlines experience, Corporate Reputation
Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 201-12.
CIPD (2006), How Engaged are British Employees? Annual Survey Report 2006,
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, available at: www.cipd.co.uk
(accessed 18 December 2006).
Conference on Corporate Communication (2009), available at: www.corporatecomm.org/
conference.html (accessed 26 April 2011).
Conference on Corporate Communication (2010), available at: www.corporatecomm.org/
conference.html (accessed 26 April 2011).
Conference on Corporate Communication (2011), available at: www.corporatecomm.org/
conference.html (accessed 26 April 2011).
Dickson, D., Hargie, O. and Wilson, N. (2008), Communication, relationships, and religious
difference in the Northern Ireland workplace: a study of private and public sector
organizations, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 128-60.
Dowling, G. (2008), Creating better corporate reputations: an Australian perspective,
in Melewar, T.C. (Ed.), Facets of Corporate Identity, Communication and Reputation,
Routledge, Abingdon.
Endres, G.M. and Mancheno-Smoak, L. (2008), The human resource craze: human performance
improvement and employee engagement, Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 69-78.
Fawkes, J. (2007), Employee engagement a review of the literature, in Smythe, J. (Ed.),
The CEO: The Chief Engagement Ofcer, Gower, Aldershot.
CCIJ
16,4
342
Fill, C. (2009), Marketing Communications: Interactivity, Communities and Content, 5th ed.,
Pearson, Harlow.
Fleming, J.H. and Asplund, J. (2007), Where employee engagement happens, The Gallup
Management Journal, November, available at: http://gmj.gallup.com/content/102496/
Where-Employee-Engagement-Happens.aspx (accessed 25 February 2009).
Gallup (2010), Employee Engagement: Whats Your Engagement Ratio? Gallup Consulting,
Gallup, Washington, DC.
Gilly, M. and Wolnbarger, M. (1998), Advertisings internal audience, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 62, pp. 69-88.
Goodman, M.B., Genst, C., Cayo, D. and Ng, S.Y. (2009), CCI Corporate Communication Practices
and Trends Study 2009, Corporate Communication International, New York, NY.
Hardaker, S. and Fill, C. (2005), Corporate service brands: the intellectual and
emotional engagement of employees, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 365-76.
Harter, J.K. and Schmidt, F.L. (2008), Conceptual versus empirical distinctions among
constructs: implications for discriminant validity, Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 36-9.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), Business-unit level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 268-79.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Keyes, C.L.M. (2003), Well-being in the workplace and its
relationships to business outcomes: a review of the Gallup studies, in Keyes, C.L.M. and
Haidt, J. (Eds), Flourishing: The Positive Person and the Good Life, American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC.
Hewitt Associates LLC (2004), Research brief: employee engagement higher at double-digit
growth companies, available at: www.hewitt.com (accessed 10 March 2010).
Hewitt, P. (2006), Electronic mail and internal communication: a three factor model,
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 78-92.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.
Kahn, W.A. (1992), To be fully there: psychological presence at work, Human Relations, Vol. 45
No. 4, pp. 321-49.
Kahn, W.A. (2010), The essence of engagement, in Albrecht, S.L. (Ed.), Handbook of Employee
Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1966), The Social Psychology of Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Kazoleas, D. and Wright, A. (2001), Improving corporate and organizational communication:
a new look at developing and implementing the communication audit, in Heath, R.L. (Ed.),
Handbook of Public Relations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 471-8.
Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E. and Truss, K. (2008), Employee Engagement:
A Literature Review, Kingston Business School, Kingston University, London.
Little, B. and Little, P. (2006), Employee engagement: conceptual issues, Journal of
Organizational Culture, Communications and Conict, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 111-20.
Luthans, F. and Peterson, S.J. (2002), Employee engagement and manager self-efcacy:
implications for managerial effectiveness and development, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 376-87.
The employee
engagement
concept
343
McKenna, E. and Beech, N. (2008), Human Resource Management: A Concise Analysis, Pearson
Education, Harlow.
MacLeod, D. and Clarke, N. (2009), The MacLeod Review Engaging for Success: Enhancing
Performance though Employee Engagement, Department for Business Innovation and
Skills, London, Crown Copyright.
Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008a), Engaged in engagement: we are delighted we did it,
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 76-83.
Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008b), The meaning of employee engagement, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-30.
Maslach, C., Schaufelli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), Job burnout, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 52, pp. 397-422.
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 & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 11-37.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research an
Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Meyer, J.P., Gagne, M. and Parfyonova, N.M. (2010), Toward an evidence-based model
of engagement: what we can learn from motivation and commitment research,
in Albrecht, S.L. (Ed.), Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues,
Research and Practice, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
ONeil, J. (2008), Measuring the impact of employee communication on employee comprehension
and action: a case study of a major international rm, Public Relations Journal, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 1-17.
Papalexandris, N. and Galanaki, E. (2009), Leaderships impact on employee engagement:
differences among entrepreneurs and professional CEOs, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 365-85.
Prashantham, S. (2003), The internet and international marketing: a review, The Marketing
Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 403-18.
Pugh, S.D. and Dietz, J. (2008), Employee engagement at the organizational level of analysis,
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 44-7.
Ramsing, L. (2009), Project communication in a strategic internal perspective,
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 345-57.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), Affective commitment to the organization:
the contribution of perceived organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 86, pp. 825-36.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004), The Drivers of Employee Engagement,
Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2007), Engagement: The Continuing Story
(Summary), Institute for Employment Studies, available at: www.employment-studies.co.
uk/pubs/summary.php?id447 (accessed 21 April 2009).
Saks, A.M. (2006), Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-19.
Saks, A.M. (2008), The meaning and bleeding of employee engagement: how muddy is the
water?, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 40-3.
CCIJ
16,4
344
Salanova, M., Agut, S. and Peiro, J.M. (2005), Linking organizational resources and work
engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service
climate, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1217-77.
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 Bakker, A.B. (2010), Dening and measuring work engagement: bringing
clarity to the concept, in Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Work Engagement:
A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, Hove.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample conrmatory factor analytic approach, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Shuck, B. and Wollard, K. (2010), Employee engagement and HED: a seminal review of the
foundations, Human Resource Development Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 89-110.
Sparrow, P. and Balain, S. (2010), Engaging HR strategies: do the logics match the realities?,
in Albrecht, S.L. (Ed.), Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research
and Practice, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Thomson, K. and Hecker, L. (2000), Value-adding communication: innovation and employee
communication in internal marketing, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 48-58.
Tourish, D. (1997), Transforming internal corporate communications: the power of symbolic
gesture and barriers to change, Corporate Communications: An International Journal,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 109-16.
Truss, C. and Soane, E. (2010), Engaging the pole vaulters on your staff, Harvard Business
Review, March, p. 24.
Truss, C., Soane, E., Edwards, C., Wisdom, K., Croll, A. and Burnett, J. (2006), Working Life:
Employee Attitudes and Engagement 2006, Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development, London.
Vallaster, C. and de Chernatony, L. (2006), Internal brand building and structuration: the role of
leadership, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 761-84.
van Riel, C.B.M. and Fombrun, C. (2007), Essentials of Corporate Communication,
Routledge, London.
Wefald, A.J. and Downey, R.G. (2008), Job engagement in organizations: fad, fashion or
folderol?, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30, pp. 141-5.
Welch, M. and Jackson, P.R. (2007), Rethinking internal communication: a stakeholder approach,
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 177-98.
Wilcox, D., Cameron, G., Ault, P. and Agee, W. (2003), Public Relations Strategies and Tactics,
7th ed., Pearson Education, Boston, MA.
Wiley, J.W., Kowske, B.J. and Herman, A.E. (2010), Developing and validating a global model of
employee engagement, in Albrecht, S.L. (Ed.), Handbook of Employee Engagement:
Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Zerfass, A. (2008), Corporate communication revisited: integrating business strategy and
strategic communication, in Zerfass, A., van Ruler, B. and Sriramesh, K. (Eds), Relations
Research: European and International Perspectives and Innovations, VS Verlag fur
Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.
The employee
engagement
concept
345
About the author
Dr Mary Welch has a PhD in Internal Communication (Manchester Business School, 2008) an
MSc in Marketing (UMIST, 2000) and a BA Hons in Social Studies (University of Liverpool,
1991). Following a career in public relations and corporate communication management in
the not-for-prot and public sectors, she joined the University of Central Lancashire, Preston,
UK in 2001. She is a Senior Lecturer in the Lancashire Business School and leads the executive
part-time blended learning MA Strategic Communication course. Her research interests and
publications focus on internal communication and stakeholder relationship management.
Mary Welch can be contacted at: mwelch@uclan.ac.uk
CCIJ
16,4
346
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints