Launching the dynamic employee engagement framework: towards a better understanding of the phenomenon
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2021-0338 |
| Published date | 24 October 2022 |
| Date | 24 October 2022 |
| Pages | 421-436 |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Industrial/labour relations,Employment law |
| Author | Amanda S. Davis,Beatrice I.J.M. Van der Heijden |
Launching the dynamic
employee engagement framework:
towards a better understanding
of the phenomenon
Amanda S. Davis
Business School, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK, and
Beatrice I.J.M. Van der Heijden
Institute for Management Research, Radboud University,
Nijmegen, The Netherlands;
Faculty of Management, Open Universiteit, Heerlen, The Netherlands;
Department of Marketing, Innovation and Organisation, Ghent University,
Ghent, Belgium;
Hubei Business School, Hubei University, Wuhan, China and
Kingston Business School, Kingston University, London, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The dynamic employee engagement framework visually delineates employee engagement from its
antecedents and responds to the debates regarding how employee engagement is positioned within the
academic literature.
Design/methodology/approach –A narrative literature review was conducted.
Findings –The new framework visually demonstrates the impact of contextual changes on employee
engagement. Additionally, it positions employee engagement as a psychological state (psychological presence)
and as a behaviour.
Research limitations/implications –The new framework promotes the study of behavioural engagement
when the incorporation of context and/or multiple voices is required. Accordingly, studying behavioural
engagement may help scholars understand more about the dynamics of employee engagement within and
across different settings, reduce the reliance on self-reported studies and help bridge the employee engagement
academic and practitioner discourses.
Practical implications –Human resource management/development practitioners and line managers may
use the new structured framework in several ways to help them foster employee engagement.
Originality/value –The new framework extends five integrated employee engagement models by
incorporating the macro and micro external context, and repositioning trust and feedback. In doing so, it more
accurately conveys diagrammatically the dynamic nature of employee engagement following significant
contextual changes. It also visually separates out the antecedents to employee engagement thus respecting
construct boundaries and positions employee engagement as a multi-dimensional construct comprised of
psychological state (psychological presence) and behaviouralengagement. Building on this, we also argue that
double-loop learning is an example of behavioural engagement.
Keywords Employee engagement, Dynamic employee engagement framework, Psychological state
engagement, Psychological presence, Behavioural engagement
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Despite the interest in employee engagement, there remains a lack of universal agreement
regarding its definition (Bailey et al., 2017;Lee et al., 2017;Shuck et al., 2017). While many
academic authors (e.g. Christian et al., 2011;Shuck et al., 2017;Gunasekara and Zheng, 2019)
initially referred to Kahn’s (1990, p. 694) seminal paper on personal engagement defined as
“people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during role
Dynamic
employee
engagement
framework
421
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0142-5455.htm
Received 3 August 2021
Revised 18 April 2022
21 August 2022
Accepted 30 September 2022
Employee Relations: The
International Journal
Vol. 45 No. 2, 2023
pp. 421-436
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-08-2021-0338
performances”, they then tended to focus on psychological state engagement which is
“a positive work-related psychological state characterized by a genuine willingness to contribute
to organizational success”(Albrecht, 2010, p. 5). Also, many of the psychological state
engagement studies are based on work engagement (e.g. Schaufeli et al., 2002;Christian et al.,
2011;Gunasekara and Zheng, 2019), defined as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind
that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption”(Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74).
Conversely, Saks (2006, p. 602), drawing on Kahn (1990), adopted a behavioural definition
whereby employee engagement is “adistinct and unique construct that consists of cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral components that are associated with individual role performance”.
Whereas, practitioners often consider engagement to be the organisation’s efforts to foster
employee engagement (Truss, 2014). Gifford and Young (2021) though consider this to be an
antecedent to engagement. Additionally, engagement has been defined as a process (Shuck
et al., 2017;Sambrook, 2021) or as an umbrella construct (Gifford and Young, 2021;Sambrook,
2021). Altogether, engagement has been positioned in the academic literature in multiple
ways and is based on different meanings, thus limiting our understanding (Bailey et al., 2017;
Shuck et al., 2017).
As definitionalconvergence has notbeen achieved in over 30 years of researchingemployee
engagement, perhaps due to the over-reliance on quantitative studies (Fletcher et al., 2020;
Sambrook, 2021), Sambrook (2021) considers that we have reached Hirsch and Levin’s (1999)
finallife cycle stage of “constructcollapse”for employeeengagement, and thatthe way forward
in relation todefining employee engagementis to agree to disagree. However, onlya couple of
years earlier, also within the human resource development (HRD) literature, Kwon and Park
(2019)concluded that employeeengagement is in the initialstages of becoming a formaltheory.
So, whether youconsider divergence is best, or thatwe should continue to define the construct
more precisely, as the definitions in use have different meanings, we feel there is merit in
returning to earlier work on employee engagementto propose a multi-dimensional definition
which synthesisesKa hn’s (1990)an d Saks’s(2006)earlier definitions.
Moreover, in response to Kahn (1990), we demonstrate how contextual complexity may
impact employee engagement, by further refining established integrated models (such as
Kahn (1992),Macey and Schneider (2008),Wildermuth (2010),Davis (2019),Sambrook (2021))
and respecting construct boundaries.
Consequently, our first objective is to visually demonstrate the impact of macro and micro
external antecedents on employee engagement by introducing our dynamic employee
engagement framework. This extends previous integrated models (mentioned above). Our new
framework also meets our second objective by justifyingwhy we consider employee engagement
to be a multi-dimensional construct comprised of both a psychological state and a behaviour,
which may attract interest from both scholars and practitioners to help bridge the separate
discourses. Crucially, to address our final objective, we argue that double-loop learning, where
employees challenge existing practices, is an example of behavioural engagement. This is
important because not only does it involve cognitive, emotional, physical and potentially social
engagement, but it is also helpful to organisations today (which will be explained later). To the
best of our knowledge, we are the first to explicitly highlight this since it was implied by Kahn
(1990,1992,2010).
After justifying the methodology used, our new framework, which describes the factors
impacting employee engagement, will be presented and consideration will be given to how it
extends previous integrated models to deal with the first objective. Employee engagement is
incorporated into the centre of the framework, and this construct will be examined to address
the second objective. In doing so, this also responds to the third objective where we argue that
double-loop learning is an example of behavioural engagement. The contribution to
knowledge will then be identified and discussed before highlighting the scholarship and
practical implications, and conclusions.
ER
45,2
422
To continue reading
Request your trial