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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

JEIT
35,4

Exploring employee engagement

from the employee perspective:
implications for HRD

300

M. Brad Shuck
University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA

Received 19 February 2010

Revised 19 August 2010
Accepted 1 October 2010

Tonette S. Rocco
Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA, and

Carlos A. Albornoz
School of Business, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine an employees unique experience of being engaged
in their work.
Design/methodology/approach Following Yins case study design method, researchers collected
documents, conducted semi-structured interviews and recorded observations at a large multinational
service corporation ranked as one of the best places to work. Post data collection, content analysis is used
to interpret engagement efforts and experiences. Work by Kahn and Maslow are integrated as
conceptual frameworks.
Findings Post analysis, three themes emerged: relationship development and attachment to
co-workers, workplace climate and opportunities for learning. Findings highlighted the development of
relationships in the workplace, the importance of an employees direct manager and their role in shaping
organizational culture and the critical role of learning in an engaged employees interpretation of their
work. Scaffolding and discussion of an emergent model is provided.
Research limitations/implications Three propositions for human resource development (HRD)
research and practice are presented: first, environment and person interact to create engagement or
disengagement; second, an employees manager plays a critical role in developing engagement; and
third, personality can effect engagement, however, everyone can engage. An integrated model is
proposed as a synthesis of findings providing HRD researchers and practitioners opportunity to
re-examine current engagement efforts. Specific action steps are outlined to spur further theory building
and organizational practice.
Originality/value The objective of the emergent model is to provide researchers and practitioners a
new framework to consider, grounded in both early and contemporary theories of engagement.
The emergent model could serve as the basis for new strategies and structures related to engagement
development and could shed new light on how employees interpret the experience of engagement in
work. This research is the first known qualitative study of employee engagement in the HRD literature,
second only to the original qualitative research by Kahn.
Keywords Employee involvement, Human resource development, Qualitative research,
Organizational performance
Paper type Research paper
Journal of European Industrial
Training
Vol. 35 No. 4, 2011
pp. 300-325
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0590
DOI 10.1108/03090591111128306

Employee engagement has been defined as an individual employees cognitive,

emotional and behavioral state directed toward desired organizational outcomes (Shuck
and Wollard, 2010, p. 103). Employees who are engaged exhibit attentiveness and mental
absorption in their work (Saks, 2006) and display a deep, emotional connection toward

their workplace (Wagner and Harter, 2006; Kahn, 1990). States (2008) suggested that the
field of employee engagement is bourgeoning as companies pour resources into
developing a more engaged workforce. Many organizations believe that employee
engagement is a dominant source of competitive advantage and thus, have been drawn to
its reported ability to solve challenging organizational problems such as increasing
workplace performance and productivity amid widespread economic decline (Macey and
Schneider, 2008; Macey et al., 2009). Research has expanded this belief, suggesting that
organizations with high levels of employee engagement report positive organizational
outcomes; a small bright spot in an otherwise bleak financial forecast (Kular et al., 2008;
Harter et al., 2002; Shuck and Wollard, 2010).
For example, North Shore LIJ Health System recently invested $10 million into
training and development and encouraged employees to further their education in hopes
of raising engagement levels within their organization (States, 2008). As a result, the
company reported a one-year retention rate of 96 per cent, increased patient-satisfaction
scores, and record setting profits. At Johnson and Johnson, engagement has become a
part of the work culture as teams are provided real time feedback about how their work
enables their individual business units to meet their quarterly goals (States, 2008). Such
real-time communication programs help to create a positive, accountability-driven
workplace resulting in increased productivity levels, profit margins and levels of
engagement (Towers Perrin, 2007). Still further, after substantial efforts to increase
levels of engagement on factory floors, caterpillar, a large multi-national construction
equipment supplier and manufacturer, estimates the company saved $8.8 million in
turnover costs alone by increasing the proportion of engaged employees at one of their
European-based plants (Vance, 2006).
Although engaged employees have consistently been shown to be more productive
on most available organizational measures (Richman, 2006; Fleming and Asplund, 2007;
Wagner and Harter, 2006), it is conservatively estimated that , 30 per cent of the global
workforce is engaged (Harter et al., 2002, 2003; Saks, 2006; Wagner and Harter, 2006).
Moreover, , 20 per cent of employees report any level of confidence in their current
managers ability to engage them (Czarnowsky, 2008). Not surprising, employee
engagement is reported to be on a continued decline worldwide (Bates, 2004; Blessing
White, 2006).
The discrepancy between the perceived importance of engagement and the level of
engagement that exists in organizations today (Czarnowsky, 2008, p. 4) is cause for
major concern. This discrepancy, however, presents a significant opportunity for human
resource development (HRD) scholars and practitioners to develop research agendas and
practical strategies toward the forefront of this emerging concept. As organizational
leaders embrace employee engagement, they are increasingly turning toward HRD
professionals to develop and support strategies that facilitate engagement-encouraging
cultures (Vance, 2006). Unfortunately, HRD professionals are unlikely to find the
support they need as little academic research has investigated the experience of being
engaged (Kahn, 1990) or how engagement affects an employees experience of their
work, and ultimately their performance.
For example, well-cited studies from scholars such as Maslach et al. (2001), Saks
(2006) and Harter et al. (2002) conceptualized the concept of engagement as a positive
psychological construct but do not explore what engagement is from an employees
perspective. Further, both Macey and Schneider (2008) and Macey et al.s (2009) models

Exploring
employee
engagement
301

JEIT
35,4

302

provide a theorized structure for developing engagement but fall short of exploring how
workers might react to such structures. This gap overlooks an important facet of the
engagement experience: the individual employees unique experience of their
engagement. Unfortunately, the lack of research focused on an employees experience
of engagement as well as documented declining levels of engagement come at a time
when organizations across the globe are searching for strategies to engage their
workforce (Gebauer and Lowman, 2008; States, 2008).
The purpose of this case study was to explore how employees described the
experience of being engaged at work. Two research questions guided this study:
RQ1. How do employees describe the experience of being engaged?
RQ2. What factors contribute to the development of engagement?
We limit this study to the specific purpose of exploring the experience of employees with
the phenomenon of interest. First, a conceptual framework of employee engagement is
presented. Second, the method of data collection and analysis is detailed. Finally,
a discussion of findings and propositions for HRD scholars and practitioners bring this
paper to a close.
Conceptual framework
Kahns (1990) seminal grounded theory of engagement and disengagement posited that
employee engagement was the concurrent expression of ones preferred self and the
promotion of connections to others. Disengagement was posited to be the withdrawal of
oneself and of ones preferred behaviors, promoting a lack of overall connectedness,
emotional absence and passive behavior. The choice to express ones authentic self was
understood as the emotional, social and physical act of engagement (Shuck and Wollard,
2010). Humans become drawn into their work, physically and emotionally, in ways that
display how they experience work. Self expression underlies what researchers refer to
as creativity, the use of personal voice, emotional expression, authenticity,
non-defensive communication, playfulness, and ethical behavior (Kahn, 1990, p. 700).
Everyday, workers choose to express and employ their [authentic] selves [. . .] or
withdraw and defend their [authentic] selves at work (Kahn, 1990, p. 692).
According to Kahn (1990), domains important to understanding engagement and
disengagement at work were meaningfulness, safety and availability. Meaningfulness
was defined as the positive sense of return on investments of self in role performance
(Kahn, 1990, p. 705). Safety was defined as the ability to show ones self without fear or
negative consequences to self image, status, or career (Kahn, 1990, p. 705). Availability
was defined as the sense of possessing the physical, emotional, and psychological
resources necessary for the completion of work (Kahn, 1990, p. 705). Employee
engagement or employee disengagement developed to the degree these three constructs
could be fulfilled (Kahn, 1990). Kahns early work was heavily influenced by
motivational psychologists and sociologists of his time (Shuck and Wollard, 2010).
As a theoretical bridge linking Kahns (1990) early work on engagement and to
motivational theories, Maslows (1970) hierarchy of needs provides a straightforward
conceptual framework for understanding the importance of fulfilling basic human needs
and gives context to the conceptualization of employee engagement (Kahn, 1990).
The importance of Maslows motivation theory in relation to employee engagement can be
found in the structure of the theory as well as the definition of each basic need.

Structurally, in Maslows Hierarchy, needs are first arranged in order of potency

(Reeve, 2001). Second, the more foundational and critical to survival the need, the sooner it
appears in the hierarchy. Third, needs are filled sequentially from lowest to highest, thus
establishing a hierarchy of needs grouped into two categories, survival and growth. These
needs, individually listed as physiological, safety, belonging and love, esteem and
self-actualization needs are the basic needs of human beings. Physiological needs were
defined as the most potent of needs for human survival (Maslow, 1970) and found at the
bottom of the hierarchy. The safety need was defined as feeling protected, being free from
fear and/or having a feeling of control over ones life. Once the safety need is met an
individual is freed to engage. The belonging and love need was defined as the development
of relationships and affection. The esteem need is the desire for a stable, firmly based,
usually high evaluation of [the self], for self-respect, or self-esteem, and for the esteem of
others (Maslow, 1970, p. 45). Self-actualization was defined as the completion of activity
that intensely satisfies (Maslow, 1970). Finally, the drive to self-actualization parallels the
concept of employee engagement (Kahn, 1990) by conceptualizing the drive to ultimate self
fulfillment, a deep need for internal, emotional satisfaction that all humans long for;
employees long to become everything one is capable of becoming (Maslow, 1998, p. 3). For
employees who reach this level, work becomes a critical part of their identity (Kahn, 1990).
Herzbergs (1959) two-factor theory proposed that autonomy in being, recognition of
self and work, and meaningful understandings were factors that increased an
employees intrinsic willingness to engage in work (Herzberg, 1959, 1968; Latham and
Ernst, 2006). Herzberg (1968) proposed that intrinsic factors (i.e. the importance of
contribution, personal growth), rather than extrinsic factors (i.e. compensation,
company image) motivated employees to be engaged in their work, closely paralleling
Kahns (1990) domain of meaningfulness. Further, satisfaction of individual needs was
identified as an important component to engaging (Kahn, 1990) employees, however, an
understanding of individual needs was never fully explored.
In addition to Kahn (1990) and Maslows (1970) frameworks, recent scholars (Macey
and Schneider, 2008; Maslach, 1998; Maslach et al., 2001) have suggested that employees
may be predisposed to certain positive outlooks based on innate personality
characteristics (Macey and Schneider, 2008; Maslach et al., 2001). For example, Macey
and Schneider (2008) suggested that employees with a proactive personality, high level of
conscientiousness and trait positive affect could be more likely to be engaged in their work.
Moreover, Shraga (2007) and Shirom (2003, 2007) provided evidence suggesting a
significant relation between vigor toward work and the openness and extroversion factors
of the Big Five personality characteristics (i.e. neuroticism, extroversion, openness,
agreeableness and conscientiousness). While other researchers have suggested that
personality variables such as curiosity (Reio and Callahan, 2004; Reio et al., 2006),
optimism, self-efficacy (Macey and Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006), self-esteem and coping
style (Rothmann and Storm, 2003; Rothmann, 2003; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007) all play a
part in the development of work-oriented variables, no specific research has explored
personality characteristics and engagement (Maslach and Leiter, 2008), although relations
between the constructs remain ripe for investigation.
Method
In this study, the meaning participants gave to events that predated or coexisted with the
sense of being engaged as well as with the activities they performed at work constituted

Exploring
employee
engagement
303

JEIT
35,4

304

the phenomenon of interest, employee engagement. Through this research, we do not

pretend to reach generalizable conclusions about employee engagement; rather, we hope
to open reflection and dialogue, grounded in data that gives voice to a perspective not
often considered in the traditional employee engagement literature; the subjective
understanding of being engaged from an employees perspective. This study used the
single-case study design (Yin, 2003) to explore the phenomenon of being engaged in work.
This method recognizes subjective human construction of meaning through
interpretation yet permits some level of objectivity based on theory (Yin, 2003).
Further, this method takes a constructivists perspective to analyzing data, promoting
collaboration between the researcher and participant, and giving focus to the voice of the
participant (Crabtree and Miller, 1999). Using the case study design (Yin, 2003),
researchers are challenged to chose a location representative of their question and
undergo several forms of data collection that provide multiple streams of data for analysis
such as reviewing the current literature about the chosen location using a structured
process, making onsite observations and conducting interviews with employees.
The following sections describe the rationale for the chosen company, data collection,
analysis and presentation of themes.
The case for the company
A large multinational service corporation ranked by Forbes (2009) as one of the worlds
most admired companies and Business Weeks best places to launch a career
(hereafter known as the company) provided a critical case for examining the
development of employee engagement. Because of its ranking as one of the best
companies in the world at innovation, global competitiveness and managing its
workforce, it was thought that rich data about employee engagement could be obtained.
At the time of this study, no widely accepted measure of employee engagement was
included in any known best places to work study; notwithstanding the researchers
believed the company had promise of exemplifying the characteristics of an engaged
workforce based on the qualities it had been recognized as a best-practice leader for.
At the time of the study, the company employed more than 250,000 workers in
22 countries around the world. The study was conducted at a flagship location in
Miami-Dade County, Florida, where 61 per cent of the population was Hispanic
(US Department of Labor, 2010). Coincidentally, all participants in the study were
Hispanic.
Three streams of data were collected to provide insight into the company:
(1) document analysis in the form of a structured review of the literature (Fornes et al.,
2008) mentioning the company and any effort(s) to engage employees;
(2) semi-structured interviews with respondents currently working in the
company; and
(3) observations.
First a description of the literature will be discussed as the first step taken in the case study
design followed by a description of the semi-structured interviews and observations.
Document collection and analysis
Because, we were searching for document artifacts on a large, multinational company
and its efforts to engage its employees, it was thought that data sources with a focus

on business and psychology would produce the most fruitful results. To ensure inclusion
of a broad collection of data, the following databases were ultimately selected:
ABI/Inform, Business Full Text via Wilson Web, Business and Company Resource
Center, Business and Industry, PsycInfo and PsycArticles.
Establishing selection criteria. The company name and the terms employee
engagement and engagement were identified as search descriptors. To ensure articles
addressed the purpose of the study, documents were limited to those with the company
name and either the term employee engagement or engagement appearing anywhere
in the document text and published in the English language. A peer review filter was not
applied to ensure any document about the company and its efforts to engage its staff
would be captured. No time period was specifically selected.
A total of 103 records were generated (Table I). All articles containing the company
name and employee engagement or engagement were downloaded and read
completely. ABI/Inform produced five results for company name and employee
engagement and 20 results for company name and engagement, a total of 25 papers.
Business and Company Resource Center produced nine results for company name and
employee engagement and 66 results for company name and engagement; a total of
75 papers. Business and industry produced no results for company name and employee
engagement and three results for company name and engagement. Business Full Text
via Wilson Web, PsycInfo and PsycArticles produced no results. A total of 16 papers
were found to be duplicates and discarded.
Document analysis. The remaining 87 were reviewed for common themes. All articles
were printed, read and analyzed using content analysis (Boyatzis, 1998). Content
analysis is the process of sorting words into categories based on their congruence with
the construct of study (Burns and Grove, 2004). Thematic content analysis (Boyatzis,
1998) was used to examine underlying aspects of certain phenomena to identify themes
occurring within and across data streams.
A theme is defined as a concept or idea that emerges from data, unifying particular
findings in logical patterns (Biklen and Bogdan, 2007). Themes were allowed to emerge
from each article as they appeared to create a framework for making meaning of the data.
A total of 75 articles were related to contract engagement, business acquisition
engagement and merger engagement; these articles were discarded as not relevant
to this study. Two themes emerged from the remaining articles: recruitment practices
and management practices.

Database
ABI/inform
Business full text via Wilson web
Business and company resource center
Business and industry
PsycInfo
PsycArticles
Database and descriptor total
Grand total

Company name and

employee engagement
Hits

Company name
engagement
Hits

5
0
9
0
0
0
14

20
0
66
3
0
0
89
103

Exploring
employee
engagement
305

Table I.
Number of selected
articles by database
source and search
descriptors

JEIT
35,4

306

Recruitment practices. The theme recruitment practices focused on how the company
selected its employees through rigorous interview processes used to gauge the degree
potential employees matched desired job and personality related variables. This matching
process was believed to provide a level of good job fit between the applicant and the
company. Research has suggested that good job fit, defined as the degree to which a person
feels their personality and values fit with their current job and organization (Resick et al.,
2007) provide opportunities for the development of meaningful work (Kahn, 1990) as well
as creation of environments where employees feel psychologically and emotionally safe
and available (Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004). Reciprocally, poor job fit has been shown to
result in decreased productivity (Hoffman and Woehr, 2006; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005;
Verquer et al., 2003), decreased satisfaction (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) and increased levels
of turnover (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Resick et al., 2007; Verquer et al., 2003).
Management practices. The theme management practices focused on specific
behaviors reinforced as a part of the companys culture as well as learning and
development programs used to promote productive, open work environments. Specific,
identified behaviors included developing open lines of communication between
managers and employees, encouraging managers to provide clear expectations and
involving employees in decision-making processes when appropriate. Several studies
(Arakawa and Greenberg, 2007; Harter et al., 2002,2003; Macey and Schneider, 2008;
Saks, 2006) suggested that an employees direct manager plays an important role in the
development of engagement encouraging cultures; many managerial behaviors have the
potential to provide a sense of meaningful work, a safe area for employees to work and
communicate, as well as the necessary resources to complete work (Hackman and
Oldman, 1976; Kahn, 1990; Maslow, 1970). Conversely, poor management practices such
as creating an unfriendly or hostile workplace climate or having poor communication
skills have been shown to result in decreased satisfaction (Brown and Leigh, 1996) and
increased levels of turnover (Harter et al., 2002). Turnover or terminating employment is
operationalized as the ultimate act of disengagement.
Following Yin (2003), the emergent themes, recruitment practices and management
practices, were used to develop a connection between the conceptual framework for the
study (Kahn, 1990; Maslow, 1970) and the decision to use the company as a location for
understanding employee engagement. As a result of the document analysis, clear
connections developed between current practices occurring inside the company and
current research on employee engagement. As connections developed, themes were
used to inform pre-questionnaire construction for the semi-structured interviews as a
second step in the case study (Yin, 2003).
Interview and observation data collection and analysis
The following section details interview and observation data collection procedures and
analysis. First, information about the key informant is examined followed by
participants, observations, data analysis and integrity measures. Finally, a discussion of
themes concludes this section.
Key informant. A key informant is someone with whom researchers have an especially
good rapport and is particularly helpful, insightful, and in a position to assist with locating
participants (Biklen and Bogdan, 2007). The key informant in this study was a
non-hispanic, 41-year-old male who had worked in his current position for seven years.
Prior to assuming responsibility as the Director of Operations, the key informant

had worked for the company for eight years in various locations throughout the USA in
both front line and management-related positions bringing his total years of experience
with the company to 15. One of the researchers and the key informant were both service
providers at a similar third-party organization and had a professional relationship. This
relationship, built over the course of several informal conversations about the phenomenon
of interest, made it possible to interview participants using corporate facilities during work
time. The key informant was asked to select respondents who were excellent examples of
engaged employees. The respondents were examples of information-rich cases that
manifest the phenomenon of interest intensely (Patton, 1990, p. 171).
Participants. All names are pseudonyms used to preserve the confidentiality of our
participants. Jorge was a 28 years old, second generation Cuban-American male who had
been working in his current position for three months. Jorge was and had a bachelors
degree in business management. Maria was a 52-years-old female who had been in her
current position for ten years with no a college degree. Maria was originally from
Columbia, she moved to the USA when she was 11. Elsa was a 25-years-old female who
had been working in her current position for three years and currently working on a
bachelors degree in business administration. She was third generation
Peruvian-American.
The interviews were conducted face-to-face and lasted an average of 1-hour and
17 minutes. Interviews were conducted in English, however, one of the interviewers
interpreted difficult concepts for one participant whose first language was not English.
Interviews were transcribed verbatim and checked independently for accuracy by each
researcher.
The semi-structured interview method was used to ensure participants could share
information regarding their experience of engagement at work. A semi-structured
interview is defined as an open, loose and two-way research method that provides each
participant general questions in a similar topical format (Biklen and Bogdan, 2007;
Patton, 1990). In semi-structured interviews, the interviewer and interviewee are
conversational, rather than rigid and controlled. An interview guide was used to help the
interviewer focus on the agreed research topic (Rubin and Rubin, 2005) while providing
flexibility and openness. The guide was split into six general sections:
(1) understanding of expectations at work;
(2) general feelings about work;
(3) resources at work;
(4) hiring practices and the use of skills or talents at work;
(5) manager; and
(6) co-workers.
A follow-up interview was conducted with each participant an average of two weeks
following the initial interview for the purposes of fact checking and clarification. During
the follow up, no interview guide was used although participants shared more
information regarding his or her experience of engagement in their work. Additional
information was noted by each researcher in a field journal.
Observations. Using a positivistic approach (Mulhall, 2003), researchers recorded
observations about the workplace environment and organization to better understand
the context of the employee being interviewed. For example, researchers recorded

Exploring
employee
engagement
307

JEIT
35,4

308

observations about the environment of the workplace such as overt artifacts of policies and
procedures (i.e. signs, office memos, etc.) and cultural cues (i.e. uniform adherence,
interaction with co-workers, etc.). Notes were also recorded about observed interactions
between employees and their managers as well as information regarding tangible elements
of the environment (i.e. use and availability of resources, equipment and co-worker support)
when access was available. Observations were recorded twice for each participant: prior to
the start of the interview and post interview. All notes were kept in a field journal. Time, date
and location were noted on each set of notes.
Data analysis. Transcripts and notes from observations were read and coded by two
of the three researchers separately. First, the two researchers independently read each
transcript and the collection of journal notes while searching for patterns. Patterns were
identified with a code and defined using a separate notebook. After the first reading, one
researcher identified 26 categories and the second researcher identified 21. After
identifying categories, the researchers discussed categories in person and identified
similarities and differences between the two. It was determined that a second round of
readings would be completed with the researchers together in order to combine each list
and collapse categories into emergent themes. As a result of the second reading,
categories identified in the first round (26 and 21, respectively) were collapsed into
four themes.
The semi-structured interview guide, data analysis procedures, transcripts, notes,
categories and themes were presented to a peer group who reviewed the research design
and overall study. Feedback from this group was incorporated into each step of the
research process. For example, this group provided suggestions that improved the
semi-structured interview guide, question design and coding procedures.
Integrity measures. In addition to fact checking, two integrity measures were used to
check the accuracy of findings: peer debriefing and external auditor. Peer debriefing is
the practice of reviewing and asking questions of the interviewer so that the account
from each participant will resonate with more people than just the interviewer (Creswell,
2003). For this study, two of the three researchers served as peer debriefing partners for
one another. To accomplish this, after each interview, the researchers met to discuss the
interview and what the researcher had experienced. As peer debriefing occurred, each
researcher kept notes to reconstruct the interview and help the interview resonate with
the debriefing partner (Wengraf, 2001). Second, a third researcher was brought into the
research study as an external auditor. An external auditor reviews the entire project and
provides an assessment of the findings during the process of research or at the
conclusion of the research project (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). In this case, an external
auditor was used at the conclusion of the research project. To accomplish this,
the external auditor was presented the final product and asked to make an assessment of
the data and findings related to the data. Through these discussions the themes were
reduced to three.
Discussion of themes. The following section explores each of the three themes and the
important role it played in developing engagement with our participants. First, it feels
like home will be explored as an expression of the emotional connection and attachment
our participants had with their work and those they worked with. Second, dont mess
up will be explored as an expression of the work climate each participant experienced
while they were at work. Finally, I was happy [. . .] I was learning explores the
important role of learning in the development of engagement.

It feels like home. Characterized by the connections and relationships that employees
developed inside their place of work, this theme emerged as participants reflected on their
attachment to their work and those they worked with. All three participants expressed
developing significant connections with their co-workers, and two shared stories about
their connection with a manager, highlighting the important role of relationship
development in their experience (Arakawa and Greenberg, 2007; Saks, 2006). For example,
Maria shared that in her past experiences, she was just another number, just another line
chef or just another dishwasher for the crew. She was rarely asked her opinions or to
think about what she was doing. She was to work and get her job done, go home, come
back and clock in the next day. It was a job. Something she was disconnected from and felt
little commitment to. In a much different situation now, Maria shared the following about
her current experiences of work. They [my managers] make me feel like I am somebody.
Like I am not another number, like I am another employee, they make me feel like I am a
very important person to them. She went on to share that she was connected to her
co-workers and cared for them. They are like my family, she reflected.
In our interviews, the concept of family emerged as an influencing pattern in
the development of relationships at work for all of our participants. Some participants
saw their co-workers as an extension of their immediate family units. For example,
Elsa shared, I feel like these people are my family, I care a lot about them. It feels
like home for me. Still, Jorge shared, Its comfortable here, when I am at work it just
feels good. I can just be myself and get my work done. For Maria, the sense of family
became an emotional and affective component of her engagement with work:
When I get here everyday, no matter what I am doing, I always compare my place with my home.
No matter what kind of problem. When I am there [at home] and I am doing it, I forget about
everything. When I am here, I forget about my mom, my place, my kids, my problems, even
myself [. . .]. It is like I am spending my eight hours dreaming about things, how I can make this
better, how you can make nice things. Believe me, I never thought about [the] money [. . .] when I am
here, this is most important therapy that I have in my life, because no matter what kind of problems
I am having, when I park my car [to come to work], my problems go away. This is my home.

Environments that encourage and sustain relational elements are built on concepts such
as cooperation, support, trust, and partnerships (Kahn, 1990); these words were each
used by our participants in some way to describe the current climate of their workplace.
For example, Elsa shared that she trusted her coworkers and that she trusted that
they had her best interest in mind. Jorge went on to share that he felt supported by
his co workers and managers and that feeling trusted at work was really important
to him. On the other hand, employees who do not have these relationships, or who
work in climates where relationships are not supported can feel lonely and often are
disconnected, isolated and disengaged from their place of work. Relationships do not
develop in places were employees feel unsafe or where they are unable to be themselves
(Kahn, 1990). Relationships and feeling connected to their work significantly affected
our participants experience of their work.
Dont mess up. Characterized by how it felt to actually work for the organization, this
theme emerged as participants recalled events that defined specific experiences of work.
Early in our first interview, Jorge recalled a disengaging incident in an earlier job,
describing the climate at his previous employer as a cutthroat, aggressive environment.
His face winced with an uncomfortable, fear-like expression as he talked about the
challenges he faced there. When asked about how this type of environment affected

Exploring
employee
engagement
309

JEIT
35,4

310

his motivation and level of engagement as well as his life outside of work, Jorge shared the
following: Its awful, because I took work home with me. I take it all up here, so I mean, if
its bad at work, you take it home with you. When probed deeper, Jorge disclosed further
and compared his previous work environment to his current work environment:
I worked in some places where you get along with the person, but it is still work, you know.
Its I like you, but dont mess up, cause [. . .] you know, youll get fired. Its not like that here.

Climates that are supportive and that promote positive emotion broaden an employees
ability to think and momentarily build their available emotional and psychological
resources (Fredrickson, 1998). Such emotions have evolutionary roots and are linked to
the basic human needs all employees have when they are at work (Kahn, 1990; Maslow,
1970). Elsa shared, working here [at the Company], I want to work hard. I want to do
well. When asked why, she replied, I feel a sense of commitment to them. Employees,
who work in climates where they feel support from their employer, often manifested
through their manager, work harder and are more committed to organizational success
(Harter et al., 2002). Research on employee engagement suggests that the emotions of joy,
love, contentment and interest cut across workplace culture and boundaries, and
represents high emotional activity (Harter et al., 2003) that encourage the development of
engagement enhancing cultures and coincidently, more productive employees. Serving
as motivation to pursue desires, a positive workplace climate creates purpose, shaping
the context of learning experiences and plays a critical role in constructing meaning and
knowledge (Dirkx, 2001). On the other hand, negative emotions limit an employees
ability to be creative, solve problems, and work as a team; employees who experience
negative emotions at work for a prolonged period of time focus all available resources on
surviving each day. Survival, emotionally, socially and physically is at the core of
employee disengagement.
Jorge shared the following about a disengaging experience he had with a previous
manager. It was not that his manager held him accountable for doing something wrong,
but rather the negative climate that was perpetuated, in Jorges opinion, intentionally
by the manager:
Its awful. . . [you go] to work the next day having somebody have to be on top of you [. . .] they
dont care about you [. . .] they dont want you to mess up [. . .] and if you mess up, you are fired.

When asked about how it felt to work at her previous place of employment,
Maria quickly alluded to experiences when she had been talked down to and made to feel
as a lesser employee. I hated feeling like that. I felt like I could not ask questions, and like
nobody wanted to help me. I was lost. I wanted to quit. I hated that place. While each of
the participants enjoyed their current place of employment, it seemed easier for them to
recall negative experiences with previous employers. A negative workplace climate can
permeate the employees life both inside and outside of work and often stays in memory
for a prolonged period of time. While participants could not recall the exact words their
co-workers or manager had used with them, they never forget how the words made
them feel:
[Managers are] the ones that evaluate me, theyre the ones that, you know, demand that I do
a good job [. . .] I feel like they both have been unbelievable, so far. They have been good
[short pause], probably the best bosses that Ive had.

As evidenced by the thoughtful pause he took while speaking, Jorge chose the words to
describe the experience with his managers carefully. The mention of evaluation,
demand and an unbelievable manager may not traditionally be paired together. For
Jorge, this current management style allows for a feeling of safety, high expectations,
meaning and encouragement to keep learning.
I was happy [. . .] I was learning. Any opportunity our participants had for learning on
the job or in their work roles increased the development of engagement at work. Maria
shared stories regarding previous experiences working in several restaurants and large
hotels before her current position. She spoke of seeking challenges and opportunities to
learn and grow in her work. Maria expressed feeling something inside her that was hard
to capture in words. There is something inside of me, I want to keep going, I want to
learn more, I want to jump higher. I want to be challenged. After sharing this, she talked
about moving from company to company often in search of a challenging learning
environment, hoping to stretch her knowledge and continue growing.
Elsa also indicated a direct connection between opportunities for learning and her
motivation to work. She recalled looking for challenging experiences to keep her
occupied and in continuous development. I am a very quick learner, so I get bored really
fast if I dont have challenges, if something is not challenging, its boring. Probing
deeper, we asked if she could share a story about a learning opportunity she recently
experienced. Elsa shared an account about learning to work on a cash register for the
first time; she recited her story to us in a very confident tone. She felt like she could try
anything and liked the idea of being challenged daily at work. I had never worked on a
register in my life. I just figured it out. Let me do it.
Being new to the industry, Jorge needed someone who could help him learn about the
business. We asked Jorge about formal and informal expectations on the current job.
Jorge expressed that no one had explicitly shared any expectations with him, but that he
could see them in action everyday. Having no previous experience in the industry,
Jorges manager became the primary source of knowledge for his learning. When probed
deeper, Jorge shared that he could ask questions without negative consequences. Asking
questions was the way in which Jorge learned many of his role expectations, job
functions and deadlines:
Im not afraid to ask them a question, Im not. I mean, I ask it, they answer it. They talk fast
and want you to get it, but [. . .] they have been nothing but helpful. And nothing but a great
source of knowledge.

For Jorge, the supervisor became a teaching figure, developing the kind of relationship
that a student might develop with his major professor.
Moreover, our participants expressed learning more as an incidental experience rather
than an act they set out to accomplish every day. Incidental learning is defined as
ever-present unconscious learning (Marsick and Watkins, 1990). Maria walked us through
her promotions at an earlier company. She shared her experiences of working in the dish
room, next being moved to prep chef and finally, finding herself in the kitchen as an
assistant, but was never formally trained or asked to attend professional development to
gain the skills to continue advancing. Every time they kept moving me, they was like,
giving me some more money, more benefits, but by that time I did not even care about the
money, because I was happy because they were moving me and I was learning. For Elsa,
learning emerged as an important pattern in her motivation for coming to work

Exploring
employee
engagement
311

JEIT
35,4

and performing her best each day. Although unable to define the learning that was
occurring, when asked how she ranked the feeling of learning with other tangible artifacts
such as pay, Elsa shared that learning for her was the most important variable right now.
She saw her career aspiration of opening a business as primary motivation that enhanced
her motivation for work. For me right now, experience is more important than money,
because this is my career. I want all the experience I can get.

312
Discussion of findings
Resulting from our analysis of data, several important findings emerged. First, the
relationships and connections our participants developed at their place of work were
critically important to their overall experience of work. Jorge and Maria called those they
worked with a second family, while Elsa alluded to the significance her co-workers
played in her daily life. It was important to our participants to feel comfortable at work
and to know that those they worked with cared about them as human beings. The
emotions and feelings they expressed were internal, but were directed toward intangible
and tangible elements of their environment: the people, the work and the space in which
they completed their work. Each participants manager indirectly influenced the degree
to which they felt free to develop relations with their co-workers and their work,
blending our findings from the documents and interviews. Some managers in our
participants past did not allow relationships to develop while their current manager(s)
encouraged it. For example, Jorge shared that former managers maintained a cut throat,
aggressive environment that encouraged team members to compete instead of
collaborate. Moreover, Maria stated that she was just another number, never a team
member. Environments that are overly competitive and cold such as those described by
Jorge and Maria can discourage relationship development (Rath, 2006) often reducing
productivity, safety and innovation (Harter et al., 2002) in the long term.
The employee engagement literature has consistently pointed to the important role
managers play in shaping workplace climates (Arakawa and Greenberg, 2007;
Buckingham and Coffman, 1999; Harter et al., 2002; Luthans and Peterson, 2002; Wagner
and Harter, 2006) and the findings from this case study parallel that research stream. For
example, looking closer at Jorges experience, the role his managers played in his
engagement level with both his previous employers and his current employer is striking.
At one job, he described his manager as saying it [was] awful [. . .] they dont care about
you. Even his body language expressed negativity as he shared these words; he grew
tense and used shortened words to describe his experience. He expressed that he
wanted out, and eventually he did leave, voluntarily. At present, he described his current
manager as the best he ever had and goes further by describing the qualities that he
thinks are the best: rolling up his sleeves, evaluator and I am not afraid. Through
Jorges words, he shows us that he is supported, provided opportunities for learning, and
feels safe. Clearly Jorges current and former supervisors shaped the workplace climate
in which he performed his work. Maria and Elsa expressed similar dichotic situations
and contexts of disengagement and engagement with previous and current employers.
The climate created in the workplace was also an influencing factor in our
participants experience, but most often recalled as negative experiences that occurred in
the past. Influenced by both tangible and intangible elements, our participants shared
critical incidents where they felt disempowered, not valued and unsafe at their
place of work. Employees cannot disregard the need to feel safe in their place of work

(Kahn, 1990); a sense of safety often promotes a sense of meaningfulness and availability
in work as secondary indicators of engagement. Employees who do not feel safe in their
place of work become cognitively, emotionally and eventually physically paralyzed
(Kahn, 1990). Safety needs, such as feeling protected, being free from fear, having a
feeling of order and knowing ones limits, although not physically manifested, are potent
human needs (Maslow, 1970). An employee who feels disempowered, not valued and
unsafe may show up for work physically, but mentally and emotionally not be present.
Feeling safe contributes to feeling that you are a part of something bigger, such as a
family unit, an expression used by each of our participants.
As a reversal of their past experiences, our participants talked about the supportive
workplace climate they were experiencing in their current employment; documents about
current practices inside the company provided evidence of the parallel experience and
suggested participants were experiencing the intentional creation of a positive workplace
climate. For example, when Elsa mentioned that experience was more important than
money she was expressing the feeling of safety and support she had in her current
situation. This feeling of safety (i.e. ability to pay personal expenses, access to basic
resources such as food, water and clothes) must be present and psychological and
emotional resources (i.e. support from supervisor, feeling of belonging with co-workers)
must be available to make such bold statements about learning. At the company, there
was a clear focus on recruiting the best people possible and equipping managers with the
resources they needed to be successful. Without such resources, employees could reverse
this paradigm and place basic needs (i.e. compensation, security) as the overall most
important variable (Maslow, 1970). A manager who works with an employee to learn
reinforces the experience and value of work and strengthens the perception of safety,
broadening available psychological and emotional resources (Fredrickson, 1998) and
creating conditions for meaningful work to develop (Kahn, 1990).
Such experiences might be characterized as the development of a positive
psychological climate (Brown and Leigh, 1996). Psychological climate is defined as the
perception and interpretation of ones organizational environment in relation to an
employees well-being and has been operationalized as including flexible and supportive
management, role clarity, freedom of self-expression, a sense of contribution toward
organizational goals, adequate recognition and challenging work (Brown and Leigh,
1996). Employees who work in positive psychological climates are more productive and
fulfill desired organizational objectives (Brown and Leigh, 1996; Kahn, 1990; ONeill and
Arendt, 2008). While the feeling of family at work (Rath, 2006) and a positive
psychological climate emerged as important to fostering engagement at work, such
workplaces are hard to find and even harder to foster.
Additionally, evidence of learning played a role in the development of an employees
engagement with their work in both the document analysis as well as throughout the
interviews. While the importance of learning at work (Lee and Bruvold, 2003; Porter,
1990) was not a total surprise, the role incidental learning played into the experience of
engagement was. According to our participants, it was the chance to learn something new
every day, which kept them excited about what was happening at work. While articles
about company sponsored learning and development programs were included in our
analysis, our participants were drawn toward informal learning experiences as an innate
part of their personalities, paralleling work by Kahn (1990), Shraga (2007) and Shirom
(2003, 2007). This may not always be the case for every employee, but for our participants,

Exploring
employee
engagement
313

JEIT
35,4

314

learning as domain of engagement (i.e. availability; Kahn, 1990) helped translate work
into a motivating and engaging experience. Unique characteristics, beliefs and work
philosophies are ubiquitous among humans. Such characteristics could affect the
development of employee engagement (Macey and Schneider, 2008; Maslach et al., 2001),
although further research is needed to better understand such a relation.
Further, learning was foundational to the employee experience and occurred
instinctively throughout the course of our participants employment. The need for
learning at work parallels growth toward Maslows (1970) fourth need, the esteem need.
When employees feel that they are growing and learning, self-confidence and
self-achievement develop, resulting in confidence at work. Promotion of the authentic
self occurs as the safety of understanding ones workplace develops. The desire for
learning develops out of the fulfillment of preceding needs and encompasses the
meaningfulness, safety, availability constructs in Kahns (1990) conceptualization of
employee engagement. Through the fulfillment of this desire, an employee becomes
comfortable with the promotion of the real self rather than the pseudo-self.
Providing opportunities to learn such as those described by our three participants is a
critical component of an employees experience of work (Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995;
Lee and Bruvold, 2003). Organizations who have a high commitment to and encourage
various types of learning at work, significantly affect important organizational outcomes
such as turnover, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee engagement
(Huselid, 1995; Lee and Bruvold, 2003). Examples of learning activities include formal or
informal training and development opportunities, after-action meetings, focus groups
and ongoing team meetings. Providing such opportunities fulfills Maslows (1970) third
and fourth needs, respectively, belonging and love and esteem. As employees are
provided opportunities for learning, even informal learning, they make meaning of their
experiences in the context of their environment and feel as if their work is valued and
meaningful (Kahn, 1990). At its highest, when employees begin to develop new skills and
confidence, fulfillment of Maslows fifth need, self-actualization, begins. In this context,
employees engage in the achievement of work that intensely satisfies; organizations then
reap the benefits of an engaged employee (Kahn, 1990; Maslow, 1970). As a result,
organizations who invest in learning opportunities are more likely to have employees who
believe the climate is psychologically positive and relational in nature (Kahn, 1990),
resulting in increased engagement and reduced turnover (Harter et al., 2003).
Toward a model of employee engagement and disengagement
A model of employee engagement and disengagement emerged from our findings.
First, the model is comprised of two factors: the environment and the person. The
environment is a reflection of all items in the environment: the people in the environment,
the physical space of the environment, the climate of the environment and so on. The
person is a reflection of everything about the person: the emotions of the person, the
personality of the person, the physical traits, family and so on. Second, the elements that
compose either the environment or the person can be either positive or negative,
although as a result of our findings, we make no judgment about what is positive and
what is negative. These elements (i.e. the environment and the person) interact and
produce either engagement and/or disengagement. When they are positive, they interact
to produce engaged employees. When they are negative, they interact to produce
disengaged employees.

The environment
The environment is composed of both tangible and intangible elements. Tangible
elements were defined as items within the environment that are physically present. The
tangible elements included representations from our interviews such as relationships
with co-workers and supervisors as well as organizational procedures and processes
from our document analysis, observations and discussions with the key informant
during participant selection. Intangible elements were defined as items in the
environment that had no physical properties, but were pervasive. Intangibles included
verbal representations of the elements our participants shared with us during our
interview: trust, cooperation, being free from fear, community, attachment and learning.

Exploring
employee
engagement
315

The person
The person is composed of internal and external elements. External elements were
defined as items that affected the person but were manifested outside of the person and
visible to others. The external elements included a persons family or their health. The
internal elements are defined as items that affect the person and are inside of the person
such as feelings and emotions. Internal elements included verbal representations of
cognitive or affectual processes such as confidence, trust, motivation, feeling valued, a
desire to learn, ownership and the need for challenge.
The interactions
Figure 1 shows the influencing factors, their subcomponents and the interaction that occurs
between them. The model suggests that depending on how the person and the environment
interact, both engagement and disengagement could be a potential output. Further,
we suggest that no one factor singularly contributes to the creation of engagement or
disengagement at work. For example, a hostile workplace climate (i.e. an environmental
factor; Kahn, 1990) must be perceived as such by the employee (i.e. a personal factor;
Maslow, 1970). Further, a supportive management style (i.e. an environmental factor; Kahn,
1990) must be interpreted as supportive instead of overbearing, aggressive or smothering
Disengagement
Internal
characteristics

Intangible
elements

The person

The environment

Tangible
elements

External
characteristics
Engagement

Figure 1.
Emerging model
of engagement
and disengagement

JEIT
35,4

(i.e. all personal factors; Maslow, 1970). Thus, engagement or disengagement from our
participants perspective was a holistic experience perceived and then interpreted through
the lens of each individual based on their own experience, rationales and views of their
context. Thus, the development of engagement could be effected by a variety of variables,
however, should be examined as an individual state variable, not a behavioral pattern or
large-scale organizational variable.

316
Implications for HRD research and practice
Based on findings from our case study, data analysis and integration of the recent
employee engagement literature, we suggest the following three propositions as
implications for further development in HRD research and practice:
P1.

Environment and person interact to create engagement or disengagement.

Environment and person elements interact to create either an engaging or disengaging

organizational culture. The environment is composed of the people (colleagues and
supervisors) who work in the environment, organizational policies and procedures, the
structure of the organization, the physical layout of the workspace and intangible
elements such as trust, cooperation and perceived levels of safety. The person is
composed of an individual employees unique personality characteristics (Macey and
Schneider, 2008) such as a desire for challenge, openness to learning and worldview.
These factors converge during moments of work to contribute to the creation of an
organizations culture. Organizational culture is defined as an employees perception of
the policies, procedures and behaviors that support the organization (Patterson et al.,
2005). Further, organizational culture has been operationalized as including an
employees initiative and personality, direction and goals, an employees integration into
the company, management support, varying levels of control, organizational identity,
reward systems, conflict tolerance and an organizations communication patterns
(Robbins and Barnwell, 1994).
Many elements combine to create an organizations overall culture, some of which are
not fully captured in this model and some of which are challenging to pinpoint because of
the fluid nature of culture development (Gilley and Maycunich, 2000). What is clear from
our findings is that culture is constructed on a micro-level, developing from an employees
unique perspective during each fleeting interaction and is used on a macro-level to make
sense of the values, beliefs and standards of the organization (Macey et al., 2009). The way
an employee experiences and then interprets an organizations values, beliefs and
standards is the output of engagement or disengagement; culture provides clues to
employees on how to behave and what is acceptable.
As an implication for HRD research and practice, organizations could work to better
understand and build on environmental and personal factors by conducting varying
levels of needs analyses. A needs analysis systematically examines an organizations
strengths and weaknesses in order to identify and meet existing challenges and to make
improvements for the future (King and Stevahn, 2009). Needs analyses vary depending on
goals but they start by identifying the strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats of
an organization (Bryson, 2004) and then collecting data around areas of identified
influence and need. In terms of employee engagement, organizations can partner with
large-scale consulting firms such as Gallup, Towers Perrin or the Kingston Engagement
Consortium or build their own data collection scales using open source tools for analysis

such as those found in Saks (2006), Maslach et al. (2001), Thomas (2007), Macey et al.
(2009). Data could also be gathered qualitatively using focus groups. Focus groups could
also be coupled with employee survey data to provide thick-rich descriptions of employee
experiences. Data could then be used to inform modification, alteration and creation of
organizational policies and procedures that increase levels of trust and safety (Kahn, 1990)
as well as provide organization development where it has the largest impact.
Moreover, HRD strategies aimed at improving environmental and personal factors
should be specific to the goals and culture of each organization and unique to
information uncovered as a result of any kind of data analysis (Gilley and Maycunich,
2000). Examples of broad-level strategies might include enhancing communication
networks to be more open and transparent, encouraging managers to hold one-on-one
meetings that are driven by the employee not the manager, and the creation of processes
and procedures that encourage team projects, knowledge sharing and group
collaboration. Once an organization has data to inform their decision-making
processes and a strategy to address the data, the hard work of developing a culture
that encourages engagement can begin:
P2.

An employees manager plays a critical role in developing engagement.

Our findings and recent literature (Buckingham and Coffman, 1999; Harter et al., 2002,
2003; Luthans and Peterson, 2002; Shuck and Wollard, 2010) suggest that if the
organizational culture drives engagement, a manager drives the organizational culture.
A manager is one of the most, if not the most influential individuals in an employees
work-life (Arakawa and Greenberg, 2007). Consequently, his or her ability to influence
the development of engagement or disengagement is great. The demeanor, practical
knowledge and philosophy a manager has affect an employees perception of their
workplace (Kahn, 1990). Moreover, intangible elements such as the development of trust,
a feeling of value and the act of being listened to (Maslow, 1970) go along way in the
development of engagement or disengagement (Harter et al., 2003; Kahn, 1990). For
example, managers who focus aggressively on what employees do wrong create a
threatening environment where full engagement in work becomes risky, and could be
perceived as less safe (Buckingham and Coffman, 1999; Kahn, 1990). Constantly
focusing on what employees do wrong breaks down trust (Arakawa and Greenberg,
2007) and critical levels of motivation for individual employees (Maslow, 1970).
Likewise, managers who balance their feedback with an element of care (Kroth and
Keeler, 2009) create healthy and often more productive work environments (Rhoades
and Eisenberger, 2002). Environments where employees feel cared about and valued
translate into meaningful, safe environments where engagement can thrive
(Buckingham and Coffman, 1999).
As an implication for HRD research and practice, organizations could work to
improve and build on a managers skill set through careful recruitment (Hoffman and
Woehr, 2006; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Verquer et al., 2003) and development processes
(Maccoby, 2007). For example, selection processes could begin by having a conversation
with key stakeholders about what knowledge, skills and abilities a manager needs to be
successful inside the organization. While each management position will differ,
examples of characteristics to look for might include the following: collaborative
developer of mission, vision and organizational values; creator of a humanistic work
environment; developer of people, builder of capabilities; initiator of organization-wide

Exploring
employee
engagement
317

JEIT
35,4

318

communications; role model of emotional intelligence; utilizer of strategic data; risk

taker and change agent (Payne et al., 1998). In addition to these characteristics, selection
processes could be developed to attract talent who are not only willing to serve as
knowledgeable subject matter experts but who also have the ability to teach and explain
processes to employees and develop appropriate relationships with those they manage.
Moreover, these skills could be developed in managers (Hamel, 2007; Maccoby, 2007),
especially identified team members who have a high probability to be promoted to
management positions through management preparation programs and corporate
institutes. Unfortunately, managers are often promoted or hired into positions of
influence with little to no training on what their new management responsibilities mean
(Plakhotnik et al., 2011). Approaching the selection and development of managers
systemically reinforces development of a positive workplace climate (Brown and Leigh,
1996) and parallels implications for HRD research and practice from P1.
Finally, accountability is a robust way to build an engagement culture (Macey et al.,
2009). Accountability with employee engagement can be developed by linking
performance appraisals to data-driven metric systems that include equally weighted
measures of business performance and organizational culture performance. More
specifically, a managers performance appraisal could not only be linked to what they
accomplished, but also to how they accomplished it. For organizations who choose to use
engagement in this way, two pieces of communication take on greater importance:
(1) it must be communicated that the intended use of performance appraisals are to
be constructive, not destructive and should be used as one of the ways
engagement is developed, not the only way; and
(2) organizations must provide managers the resources and tools they will need to
improve low-level scores such as access to HRD professionals, training and
development or time away from day-to-day responsibilities to focus on getting
better (Harter et al., 2002).
Without a sincere focus on these directives, even well-intentioned organizations can turn
a developmental tool into a punishment tool:
P3.

Personality can effect engagement, however, everyone can engage.

Employees view work through their own unique lens. Each employee, based on a myriad
of life experiences, holds certain assumptions and has various personality characteristics
that result in displays of behaviors at work (Reeve, 2001). These characteristics can be
very powerful in the overall creation of engagement in work. No matter an employers
policy of leave it at the door, employees bring their whole selves to work.
Thus, employees are uniquely different. Engagement, however, is not for a select few
that have the right combination of personality characteristics and who are fortunate to
work for organizations that strive to develop engaging cultures. Although levers that
drive engagement may vary from organization and employee, engagement is theoretically
possible at every organization and with every employee. For example, Macey et al. (2009)
suggested three general requirements for engagement to develop in each employee:
(1) the capacity to engage;
(2) the motivation to engage; and
(3) and the freedom to engage.

The capacity to engage concerns motivation that naturally flows from a sense
of competence and autonomy and can be developed (Maslow, 1970). Employees need
to feel competent, valued and purposeful in their work and organizations contribute to
competence and autonomy development by informing employees of what is expected,
providing resources to complete work and following-up with focused and balanced
feedback (Buckingham and Coffman, 1999; Harter et al., 2002; Kahn, 1990; Wagner and
Harter, 2006). The motivation to engage concerns the communication of job roles
and responsibilities and the degree of challenge each job role provides (Macey et al., 2009;
Resick et al., 2007). Work is an engaging experience when job roles are interesting,
challenging and meaningful (Kahn, 1990), and provide autonomous decision-making
abilities in how work gets accomplished, not just what work gets done (Shuck and
Wollard, 2010). Organizations can contribute to motivation at work by helping
align employee values with organizational values through recruitment processes, focus
groups, team meetings and treating employees with respect (Kroth and Keeler, 2009).
The freedom to engage concerns the safety of the environment and the decision an
employee makes about their safety when taking certain actions (e.g. the decision
to engage; Kahn, 1990). Organizations can free employees to engage by organizationally
behaving in ways that lead to trust such as communicating with transparency,
demonstrating integrity and behaving consistently (Galford and Drapeau, 2003; Kroth
and Keeler, 2009; Macey et al., 2009). Trust, as an outgrowth of meaningful, safe and
available places of work, leads to the freedom to engage (Kahn, 1990).
As an implication for HRD research and practice, scholars and practitioners could
work to improve and build upon person factors by focusing on the first two propositions
and providing employees at all levels opportunities for learning and growth (Allen et al.,
2003). By focusing on the first two propositions, an organization:
(1) sets the foundation for a culture of engagement; and
(2) provides the tools and resources for an employees manager to support each
employees growth toward engagement.
As a result of creating environmental conditions for engagement to develop, a persons
last barrier is his or her own limitations. To help employees overcome their limitations,
organizations could focus on defining, attracting and retaining talent that has a good
degree of job fit as well as implementing stringent recruitment practices similar to those
used in our case location. Employees who experience a good degree of job fit are more
likely to be engaged with their work and are overall, more productive employees
(Resick et al., 2007).
As a final implication for practice, organizations could also develop learning and
development programs that are available to every level of the organization that focus on
strength development (Wagner and Harter, 2006), career development, self-awareness
and alignment with the organizations vision, mission and values. These programs,
however, require marketing strategies, strong planning and preparation and should be
grounded in the culture of the organization. Employees know the difference between
programs that are launched to fill a numbers gap in a HR climate survey and those that
are authentically designed to nurture the development of employees growth in the
organization. In these cases, the perception of intention matters.

Exploring
employee
engagement
319

JEIT
35,4

320

Concluding thoughts
In conclusion, it seems clear that no one step or process works to create engaged
employees across any organization, unit or team. It is a challenging and robust task;
however, a worthy organizational goal tied to increasing productivity and
organizational effectiveness (Shuck and Wollard, 2010). In this unstable, uncertain
environment, perhaps more than at any other time in recent history, engaging employees
has become a strategic imperative; one that will become a key source of competitive
advantage for organizations who develop a passionately committed employee base, not
because they are paid to be committed, but because they choose to be committed. We
believe that employees desire the experience of engagement and that they seek
opportunities for fulfillment and authentic self-expression in their life activities (Kahn,
1990; Maslow, 1970); our research findings suggest that for employees at our case
location, evidence supports this claim.
As for other organizations seeking the development of an engaged workforce, HRD
scholars, researchers and practitioners will be at the forefront of both the practical and
scholarly knowledge emerging around this topic of study. Organizations and HRD
professionals can work together as a first step in a new and engaging direction. This
research is the first known qualitative study of employee engagement in the HRD
literature and second overall to the original qualitative research study by Kahn (1990).
Meant to offer a starting point for research and practice, we hope findings from this
research open dialogue across organizational lines and provide a small window into the
important, yet underrepresented voices of those who work on the front lines of our
organizations everyday.

References
Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M. and Griffeth, R.W. (2003), The role of perceived organizational support
and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process, Journal of
Management, Vol. 29, pp. 99-118.
Arakawa, D. and Greenberg, M. (2007), Optimistic managers and the influence on productivity
and employee engagement in a technology organization: implications for coaching
psychologists, International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 78-89.
Arthur, J. (1994), Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and
turnover, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 670-87.
Bates, S. (2004), Getting engaged, HR Magazine, Vol. 49, pp. 44-51.
Biklen, S.K. and Bogdan, R.C. (2007), Qualitative Research for Education, 5th ed.,
Pearson, Syracuse, NY.
Blessing White (2006), Employee Engagement Report, Blessing White, Princeton, NJ.
Boyatzis, R. (1998), Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code
Development, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Brown, S. and Leigh, T. (1996), A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job
involvement, effort, and performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 4,
pp. 358-68.
Bryson, J.M. (2004), Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations:
A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement, 3rd ed., Wiley,
San Francisco, CA.

Buckingham, M. and Coffman, C. (1999), First, Break all the Rules: What the Worlds Greatest
Managers do Differently, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Burns, N. and Grove, S.K. (2004), Practice of Nursing Research: Conduct, Critique and Utilization,
5th ed., Saunders, Philadelphia, PA.
Crabtree, B. and Miller, W. (1999), Doing Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Sage, London.
Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Czarnowsky, M. (2008), Learnings Role in Employee Engagement: An ASTD Research Study,
American Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, VA.
Dirkx, J. (2001), The power of feelings: emotion, imagination, and the construction of meaning in
adult learning, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Vol. 89, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 63-72.
Fleming, J.H. and Asplund, J. (2007), Human Sigma, Gallup Press, New York, NY.
Fornes, S.L., Rocco, T.R. and Wollard, K.K. (2008), Workplace commitment: a conceptual model
developed from integrative review of the research, Human Resource Development Review,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 339-57.
Fredrickson, B.L. (1998), What good are positive emotions?, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 300-19.
Galford, R. and Drapeau, A. (2003), Trusted Leader: Bringing out the Best in your People and
Your Company, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Gebauer, J. and Lowman, D. (2008), Closing the Engagement Gap: How Great Companies Unlock
Employee Potential for Superior Results, Penguin Group, New York, NY.
Gilley, J. and Maycunich, A. (2000), Organizational Learning, Performance and Change, Perseus,
Cambridge, MA.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldman, G.R. (1976), Motivation through the design of work: test of a
theory, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, pp. 250-79.
Hamel, G. (2007), The Future of Management, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
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), Wellbeing the workplace and its relationship
to business outcomes: a review of the Gallup studies, in Keyes, C.L. and Haidt, J. (Eds),
Flourishing: The Positive Person and the Good Life, American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC, pp. 205-24.
Herzberg, F. (1959), The Motivation to Work, Wiley, New York, NY.
Herzberg, F. (1968), One more time: how do you motivate employees?, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 53-62.
Hoffman, B.J. and Woehr, D.J. (2006), A quantitative review of the relationship between
person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68,
pp. 389-99.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity and corporate financial performance, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 38, pp. 635-72.
Kahn, W. (1990), Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.

Exploring
employee
engagement
321

JEIT
35,4

322

King, J.A. and Stevahn, L. (2009), Needs Assessment Phase III: Taking Action for Change, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D. and Johnson, E.C. (2005), Consequences of individuals fit
at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and
person-supervisor fit, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 281-342.
Kroth, M. and Keeler, C. (2009), Caring as a managerial strategy, Human Resource Development
Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 506-31.
Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E. and Truss, K. (2008), Employee engagement:
a literature review, available at: http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/4192/1/19wempen.pdf
(accessed 12 November 2009).
Latham, G.P. and Ernst, C. (2006), Keys to motivating tomorrows workforce, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 16, pp. 181-98.
Lee, C.H. and Bruvold, N.T. (2003), Creating value for employees: investing in employee
development, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14,
pp. 981-1000.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Luthans, F. and Peterson, S.J. (2002), Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy:
implications for managerial effectiveness and development, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 376-87.
Maccoby, M. (2007), Leaders We Need, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), The meaning of employee engagement, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 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, Wiley, Malden, MA.
Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K. (1990), Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Maslach, C. (1998), A multidimensional theory of burnout, in Cooper, C.L. (Ed.), Theories of
Organizational Stress, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 68-85.
Maslach, C. and Leiter, M.P. (2008), Early predictors of job burnout and engagement, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 93, pp. 498-512.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), Job burnout, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 52, pp. 397-422.
Maslow, A. (1970), Motivation and Personality, 2nd ed., Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Maslow, A. (1998), Maslow on Management, Wiley, New York, NY.
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 Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 11-37.
Mulhall, A. (2003), In the field: notes on observation in qualitative research, Journal of
Advanced Nursing, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 306-13.
ONeill, B.S. and Arendt, L.A. (2008), Psychological climate and work attitudes: the importance of
telling the right story, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 14, pp. 353-70.
Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., Shackleton, V.J., Dawson, J.F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S.,
Robinson, D.L. and Wallace, A.M. (2005), Validating the organizational climate measure:
links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 379-408.
Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Payne, K., Cangemi, J.P., Fuqua, H. and Muhleakamp, R. (1998), Leadership and employee
empowerment: the foundation for organizational success and profit in the twenty-first
century, in Cangemi, J.P., Kowalski, C.J. and Khan, K.H. (Eds), Leadership Behavior,
University Press of America, Lantham, MD, pp. 119-30.
Plakhotnik, M., Rocco, T.S. and Roberts, N. (2011), Increasing retention and success of first-time
managers: a model of three integral processes for the transition to management, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 10, pp. 26-45.
Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rath, T. (2006), Vital friends, Gallup Press, New York, NY.
Reeve, G. (2001), Understanding Motivation and Emotion, Harcourt College, Fort Worth, TX.
Reio, T.G. and Callahan, J. (2004), Affect, curiosity, and socialization-related learning: a path
analysis of antecedents to job performance, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 18,
pp. 35-50.
Reio, T.G. Jr, Petrosko, J.M., Wiswell, A.K. and Thongsukmag, J. (2006), The measurement and
conceptualization of curiosity, Journal of Genetic Psychology, Vol. 167, pp. 117-35.
Resick, C.J., Baltes, B.B. and Shantz, C.W. (2007), Person-organization fit and work-related
attitudes and decisions: examining interactive effects with job fit and conscientiousness,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, pp. 1446-55.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), Perceived organizational support: a review of the
literature, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 698-714.
Richman, A. (2006), Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it?, Workspan,
Vol. 49, pp. 36-9.
Robbins, S.P. and Barnwell, N. (1994), Organization Theory in Australia, Prentice-Hall,
New York, NY.
Rothmann, S. (2003), Burnout and engagement: a South African perspective, South African
Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 16-25.
Rothmann, S. and Storm, K. (2003), Work engagement in the South African Police service,
paper presented at 11th European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Lisbon, Portugal, May.
Rubin, H.J. and Rubin, I.S. (2005), Qualitative Interviewing, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Saks, A.M. (2006), Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-19.
Shirom, A. (2003), Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigor and the study of positive
affect in organizations, in Ganster, D. and Perrewe, P.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational
Stress and Well-being, Vol. 3, JAI Press, Greenwich, CN, pp. 135-65.
Shirom, A. (2007), Explaining vigor: on the antecedents and consequences of vigor as a positive
affect at work, in Cooper, C.L. and Nelson, D. (Eds), Positive Organizational Behavior,
Sage, London, pp. 86-100.
Shraga, O. (2007), Vigor at work: its construct validity, and its relations with job satisfaction
and job characteristics: triangulating qualitative and quantitative methodologies,
unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
Shuck, B. and Wollard, K.K. (2010), Employee engagement and HRD: a seminal review of the
foundations, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 89-110.
States, A. (2008), The rage to engage, available at: www.time.com/time/magazine/article/
0,9171,1731893,00.html (accessed 5 June 2008).

Exploring
employee
engagement
323

JEIT
35,4

324

Thomas, C.H. (2007), A new measurement scale for employee engagement: scale development,
pilot test, and replication, Academy of Management 2007 Proceedings of the International
Conference, Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 1-6.
Towers Perrin (2007), Closing the engagement gap: a road map for driving superior business
performance, available at: www.biworldwide.com/info/pdf/Towers_Perrin_Global_
Workforce_Study.pdf (accessed 24 May 2009).
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010), Total employment and the labor
force (Household Survey data), available at: www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
(accessed 4 February 2010).
Vance, R.J. (2006), Employee Engagement and Commitment: A Guide to Understanding,
Measuring, and Increasing Engagement in your Organization, The SHRM Foundation,
Alexandria, VA.
Verquer, M.L., Beehr, T.A. and Wagner, S.H. (2003), A meta-analysis of relations between
person-organization fit and work attitudes, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63,
pp. 473-89.
Wagner, R. and Harter, J.K. (2006), 12: The Great Elements of Managing, Vol. 1, The Gallup
Organization, Washington, DC.
Wengraf, T. (2001), Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
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, pp. 121-41.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Further reading
Gallup (2010), The Gallup Q12, Gallup, Washington, DC.
Goleman, D. (2000), Leadership that gets results, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 2,
pp. 78-90.
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2008), The Leadership Practices Inventory, Wiley, San Francisco, CA.
Rocco, T., Stein, D. and Lee, C. (2003), An exploratory examination of the literature on age and
HRD policy development, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 155-80.
The Ken Blanchard Companies (2008), 2008 Corporate Issues Survey, The Ken Blanchard
Companies, Guildford.
About the authors
M. Brad Shuck is an Assistant Professor at the University of Louisville in the Workforce and
Human Education Program. Prior to his work at the University, Shuck worked with several
international corporations in the development of strategic engagement initiatives. His research
interests include understanding the conceptualization and drivers of employee engagement,
workplace culture development, the use of positive psychology in HRD and group emotional
intelligence. His work has appeared in scholarly publications such as Human Resource
Development Review, the International Journal of Small Business, the Journal of Genetic Psychology
and New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, among others.
M. Brad Shuck is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: brad.shuck@louisville.edu
Tonette S. Rocco, PhD is an Associate Professor in the Adult Education and Human Resource
Development Program, Florida International University. She is a Houle Scholar and a 2008
Kauffman Entrepreneurship Professor. Towards the employability-link model: current
employment transition to future employment perspectives published in Human Resource

Development Review with Jo Thijssen and Beatrice van der Heijden won the Elwood F. Holton,
III Research Excellence Award 2008. She is Co-editor of New Horizons in Adult Education and
Human Resource Development, an open source journal, Assistant Editor of Human Resource
Development Quarterly and Qualitative Methods Editor for Human Resource Development
International.
Carlos A. Albornoz is a Doctor Candidate in the Adult Education and Human Resource
Development program at Florida International University and currently an Associate Professor at
the business school of Universidad del Desarrollo in Santiago de Chile. He holds an MSc in
Management from FIU and an MSc in Psychology from the Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso,
Chile. Between 2002 and 2005, Professor Albornoz worked as an Associate Researcher in the
Industrial Engineering department of the University of Chile.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Exploring
employee
engagement
325

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