Research Paper

The International Journal of Human Resource
Management
ISSN: 0958-5192 (Print) 1466-4399 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20
The nature of employee engagement: rethinking

the employee–organization relationship
Liat Eldor & Eran Vigoda-Gadot
To cite this article: Liat Eldor & Eran Vigoda-Gadot (2016): The nature of employee
engagement: rethinking the employee–organization relationship, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1180312
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1180312
Published online: 19 May 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20
Download by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] Date: 20 May 2016, At: 08:05
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1180312
The nature of employee engagement: rethinking the

employee–organization relationship
Liat Eldor and Eran Vigoda-Gadot
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 08:05 20 May 2016
Research interest in the new concept of employee Employee engagement;

engagement has grown dramatically in recent years. work engagement;
Employee engagement represents a work-related state employee-organization
of mind characterized by feelings of vigor, fulfillment, relationship; psychological
empowerment;
enthusiasm, absorption and dedication. However, scholars psychological contract;
are still ambivalent about its theoretical contribution to discriminant validity
explaining the employee–organization relationship. The goal
of the study is to strengthen the theoretical foundation of the
employee engagement concept in light of this relationship.
We first compared employee engagement to other close
concepts such as psychological empowerment and
psychological contract. We then examined its contribution
to the explanation of work centrality over and above
psychological empowerment and psychological contract. Our
study is based on an interactive sample of 593 employees from
both private and public organizations in Israel. Our findings
demonstrate that employee engagement is distinct from
psychological empowerment and psychological contract and
has an incremental value for work centrality over and above
psychological empowerment and psychological contract.
Implications of our findings are discussed the light of the
employee–organization relationship.
Introduction
In recent years, following changes in the employee–organization relationship
in workplaces (Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007), we have witnessed a dramatic
growth of interest in the new concept of employee engagement. Scholars gener-
ally define employee engagement as an active, fulfilling and work-related state of
mind that includes a strong identification with the organization and self-expres-
sion (Albrecht, 2010a; Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011; Rothbard & Patil, 2010).
However, although researchers have made great strides in clarifying the meaning
of employee engagement over the past decade (e.g. Albrecht, 2010b; Bakker &
CONTACT Liat Eldor leldor@wharton.upenn.edu

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 L. Eldor and E. Vigoda-Gadot
Leiter, 2010a; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010; Shuck, 2011),
scholars are ambivalent as to whether employee engagement is distinct from other
constructs related to the employee–organization relationship (e.g. Dalal, Brummel,
Wee, & Thomas, 2008; Frese, 2008; Griffin, Parker, & Neal, 2008; Newman &
Harrison, 2008; Saks, 2008; Schohat & Vigoda-Gadot, 2010) or simply a ‘new blend
of old wines’ (Newman, Joseph, & Hulin, 2010, p. 45). Clearly, there remains room
for scholarly examination and exploration of the topic of employee engagement.
Scientific recognition of any new concept should be accompanied by rigorous
procedures to avoid any redundancy with already well-established concepts. Thus,
the new concept must demonstrate a relationship with close concepts in that field
and at the same time a lack of overlap with these concepts (Cook & Campbell,
1979; Schwab, 1980). To date, employee engagement has been distinguished from
workaholism and burnout (e.g. Gorgievski & Bakker, 2010; Schaufeli, Taris, & van
Rhenen, 2008), and from attitudes such as job satisfaction and organizational com-
mitment (e.g. Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006). In
addition, a recent study by Vigoda-Gadot, Eldor, and Schohat (2013) has indicated
that employee engagement is distinct from affective commitment and involvement
at work. However, scientific recognition of new constructs is a continuous process
(Schwab, 1980), and a significant void still remains with regard to the potential
overlap between employee engagement and other less traditional concepts such as
psychological empowerment and the psychological contract. Moreover, although
a greater understanding of the employee–organization relationship has been the
goal of human resource scholars for the past decade, it has mainly focused on this
relationship from the organization’s point of view (Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli,
1997). Such a focus raises the question of the limits of that perspective due to rapid
changes in the labor market, increasing competition and the desire to fulfill the
needs of employees (Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007).
This study extends the current thinking on the employee–organization rela-
tionship by examining the role of employee engagement in the formation of the
employee–organization relationship. With this goal in mind, we investigate the
recognition of the contribution of employee engagement to the employee–organ-
ization relationship relative to other concepts such as psychological empower-
ment and the psychological contract. This examination is important, because
employee engagement shares characteristics with psychological empowerment
as an active attitude and with the psychological contract as a mutual factor in the
employee–organization relationship (Macey & Schneider, 2008; see also the rec-
ommendation of Parker & Griffin, 2011). We also aim to demonstrate the added
value of employee engagement in predicting work centrality, over and above the
employee–organization relationship concepts of psychological empowerment and
the psychological contract. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to present
a framework that positions employee engagement as a potential key mechanism
explaining the relationship between employees and their organizations in the
contemporary organizational setting.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3
Theoretical background and hypotheses

The concept of employee engagement
Everyday connotations of engagement refer to involvement, passion, enthusiasm
and energy. Moreover, practitioners often define employee engagement in terms of
affective commitment, satisfaction and identification, thereby confusing different
constructs by ‘putting old wine in new bottles’ (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010, p. 12).
For example, one of the most widely cited pieces of practitioner literature is the
Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002) framework using the Gallup conceptualiza-
tion of engagement as an ‘individual’s involvement and satisfaction with, as well
as enthusiasm for work’ (Harter et al., 2002, p. 269). However, from a scientific
point of view, interest in employee engagement can be traced back to Kahn’s (1990)
seminal ethnographic work, which inspired much of the scientific research on

engagement (e.g. May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004; Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010;
Rothbard, 2001).
Kahn (1990) states that engagement is ‘the harnessing of organization mem-
bers’ selves to their work roles; by which they employ and express themselves
physically, emotionally, and cognitively during role’ (p. 694). He (1990, p. 700)
defined engagement in psychological terms as ‘the simultaneous employment and
expression of a person’s preferred self in task behaviors that promote connections
to work, personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional) and active full
performances’. The physical aspect of engagement concerns the physical energies
exerted by employees to accomplish organizationally valued behaviors at increased
levels of effort over extended periods of time. The emotional aspect deals with
how employees feel about their work and also deals with their investment of the
emotional energy needed to meet the emotional demands of their roles. Finally,
the cognitive aspect of engagement addresses employees’ mindfulness, vigilance
and attention to their work roles (Kahn, 1990, 1992). Thus, for Kahn, engage-
ment is best described as a multidimensional, motivational concept reflecting
the simultaneous expression of an employee’s physical, emotional and cognitive
energy in a work role. Kahn (1990, 1992) argues that work that is challenging,
clearly delineated, varied, creative and autonomous is most likely to be associated
with the experience of employee engagement. Building on Hackman and Oldham’s
(1980) job characteristics theory, Kahn (1990) suggests three direct psychological
conditions of meaningfulness, psychological safety and psychological availability
as influencing employees’ engagement (see May et al., 2004; Rich et al., 2010).
Rothbard (2001) draws on Kahn’s notion that engagement as a psychological
state, and defines engagement as ‘one’s psychological presence in or focus on
role activities’ (p. 656). She (2001) suggests that there are two critical compo-
nents involved in engagement: attention and absorption. Absorption refers to the
intensity of immersion that one experiences at work, being deeply engrossed and
not easily distracted by diversions. Attention refers to the cognitive resources,
including the concentration and psychic energy that an employee invests in work
(Rothbard, 2001). Rich et al. (2010) broadened Rothbard’s measure of engagement

and propose that engagement should be conceptualized and measured so that
there are three subcomponents: physical, emotional and cognitive. Their definition
includes Rothbard’s (2001) cognitive component and its two aspects of attention
and absorption. In addition, to measure the emotional component of engagement,
they draw on Russell and Barrett’s (1999) research about emotional states and use
Brown and Leigh’s (1996) measure of ‘work intensity’ to assess the physical aspect.
The growing scholarly interest in engagement was triggered in the late 1990s
after Maslach and Leiter (1997) used the term ‘burnout’ to describe engagement.
Therefore, the focus of much of the early engagement research was in response to
the notion of the opposite end of a continuum between engagement and burnout.
Maslach and Leiter (1997) define engagement in the Maslach Burnout Inventory
(MBI) as ‘a persistent positive affective state characterized by high levels of activa-

tion and pleasure’ (p. 417). They argue that whereas engagement is characterized
by vigor, involvement and efficacy these components are the direct opposites of the
three burnout dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism and ineffectiveness.
Five years later, Schaufeli, Salanova, González-romá, and Bakker (2002) exam-
ined the Maslach and Leiter (1997) framework using the MBI, and proposed an
expanded and slightly different taxonomy of employee engagement. Although
Schaufeli et al. (2002) agreed with the perception of engagement as the antithesis of
burnout, they defined and operationalized engagement as a distinct, independent
concept assumed to be negatively related to burnout. Accordingly, they defined
employee engagement as ‘… a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that
is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption’ (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74).
Vigor is characterized by the high energy and the willingness to invest effort in
one’s work. Dedication means being deeply involved in one’s work and experienc-
ing a sense of positive feelings about one’s job such as significance, enthusiasm,
inspiration and pride. The third component, absorption, involves complete con-
centration on one’s work to the point of experiencing time as passing quickly and
difficulty detaching oneself from work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli et al.,
2002; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). The root of the Schaufeli et al.’s (2002)
approach can be traced back to what has come to be known as ‘positive psychol-
ogy’, namely ‘… a change in the focus of psychology from preoccupation only with
repairing the worst things in life to also building positive qualities’ (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 5). This change led to a positive change of perspective
in organizational psychology, principally in the study of the characteristics of
employees’ thriving and well-being (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Luthans & Youssef,
2007). The Schaufeli et al. (2002) conceptualization and operationalization (i.e.
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale) of employee engagement has been the subject
of the greatest amount of scientific studies (Christian et al., 2011; Rich et al., 2010;
Shuck, 2011).
Saks (2006) also argued for a multidimensional perspective on employee
engagement. Saks (2006) defined engagement as ‘a unique construct of cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral components … associated with individual role perfor-

mance’ (p. 602). This definition includes previous frameworks by suggesting that
employee engagement develops from physical, emotional and cognitive dimen-
sions (i.e. Kahn, 1990; Schaufeli et al., 2002). According to Saks (2006), a stronger
theoretical rationale for explaining engagement can be found in social exchange
theory. He argues (2006) that one way for employees to repay their organization
is through their level of engagement. In other words, employees will choose to
engage themselves to varying degrees and in response to the resources they receive
from their organization.
A recent conceptual framework by Macey and Schneider (2008) offered a com-
prehensive taxonomy of employee engagement. Macey and Schneider (2008) doc-
umented employee engagement as ‘… a desirable condition, has an organizational
purpose, and connotes involvement, commitment, passion, enthusiasm, focused

effort and energy, so it has both attitudinal and behavioral components’ (p. 4), a
‘discretionary effort or a specific form of in-role or extra-role effort or behavior’
(p. 6) and the desire to go ‘beyond preserving the status quo, and instead focus
on initiating or fostering change in the sense of doing something more and/or
different’ (p. 24). These scholars proposed engagement as an aggregate, multi-
dimensional construct that contains three different types of engagement: trait
engagement, state engagement and behavioral engagement. Each of these com-
ponents is built on the previous one, eventually leading to complete engagement.
Previous studies have consistently shown that job resources facilitate employee
engagement. Consistent with Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, and Schaufeli’s
(2001) job demands–resources model, studies have indicated a positive rela-
tionship between job resources such as autonomy, job control, role fit, skills
variety, task identity, task significance, supervisor support and feedback and
employee engagement (for a meta-analysis, see Crawford, LePine, & Rich, 2010;
Halbesleben, 2010). The published scientific research on the possible consequences
of employee engagement has also multiplied in the past seven years. There is
increasing awareness that employee engagement is crucial to both employees’
performance and the success of the business or organization. Using resource the-
ories such as Fredrickson’s (2001, 2003) ‘broaden and build’ theory of positive
emotions and Hobfoll’s (1989) ‘conservation of resources’ theory, researchers have
linked engagement with organizational effectiveness. Their studies have demon-
strated that engagement is associated with higher levels of performance at both
the individual and the organizational level (see Albrecht, 2010a; Bakker & Bal,
2010; Demerouti & Cropanzano, 2010; Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008; Rich et al.,
2010; Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005; Xanthopoulou, Baker, Heuven, Demerouti,
& Schaufeli, 2008), quality service to customers, client loyalty and satisfaction
(Salanova et al., 2005) and financial returns (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti,
& Schaufeli, 2009). Thus, EE boosts the organization’s bottom line by giving it a
competitive advantage.
In order to establish a definitive definition of employee engagement, or at

least one that fits best with the factors that are noted in our literature review,
we identified three components of the concept about which most researchers
agree. The first component is the active, motivational nature of engagement that
is reflected in the persistent energy that engaged employees invest in their work
(e.g. Kahn’s (1990) conceptualization, Macey and Schneider’s (2008) conceptual
framework). The second component is the focus on the employee’s well-being
and self-fulfillment as the basis for a relationship of mutual engagement
(e.g. Schaufeli et al.’s (2002) definition, Maslach and Leiter’s (1997) conceptual
framework). The third component is the employee’s simultaneous expression of
the three dimensions of investment (e.g. Saks (2006) model; Schaufeli et al.’s (2002)
definition). Accordingly, we argue that employee engagement is an active, fulfilling
concept that reflects the simultaneous expression of multidimensional energies

– physical, affective and cognitive – that benefit organizations and employees.
We argue that focusing on engagement may offer organizations a competitive
advantage and benefit employees in terms of their personal flourishing and growth.
Thus, EE has the potential to broaden our view of the meaning of work and the
employee–organization relationship in the contemporary organizational setting.
Employee engagement and other employee–organization relationship

concepts
When introducing a new concept, methodologists require that they be carefully

constructed and attention be paid to their discriminant validity (Campbell &
Fiske, 1959; Schwab, 1980). Therefore, any new concept must demonstrate a rela-
tionship to the examined field, and simultaneously, a lack of overlap with similar
constructs (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Lee & Watson, 1995; Schwab, 1980). In light
of the growing theoretical and practical interest in the concepts related to the
employee–organization relationship such as psychological empowerment and the
psychological contract (Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007; Parker & Griffin, 2011), this
study investigates the degree to which these two concepts overlap or are discrete
entities, each of which makes a separate contribution to the employee–organiza-
tion relationship.
According to Greenberg and Baron (2003), the employee–organization relation-
ship concept includes ‘lasting feelings, beliefs, and behavioral tendencies toward
various aspects of the job itself, the setting in which the work is conducted, and/or
the people involved. Work related attitudes have a profound effect on the way we
perform but also on the quality of life we experience while at work’ (p. 146). We
argue that both psychological empowerment and the psychological contract fit this
definition, because the former deals with the employee’s perception of having an
impact on the work environment and the ability to perform well (Spreitzer, 1995;
Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), and the latter involves the employee’s perceptions and
beliefs about the reciprocal obligations between the employee and the organization
(Rousseau, 1989). Moreover, to make our investigation more rigorous, we have

chosen to focus specifically on similar concepts such as psychological empower-
ment and the psychological contract, because employee engagement shares char-
acteristics with both of these concepts. For example, employee engagement shares
the notion of active, motivated workers that is a feature of psychological empow-
erment as well as the concept of the mutually supportive employee–organization
relationship, which accords with the notion of the psychological contract (Macey
& Schneider, 2008; see also the recommendation of Parker & Griffin, 2011).
Assuming that employee engagement belongs to the conceptual framework
of the employee–organization relationship, we expect the relationship between
engagement and close concepts such as psychological empowerment and psy-
chological contract to resemble the relationships that exist within these variables
themselves. However, although there has been an increase in interest in employee–

organization relationship concepts in the past decade, there has not always been a
clear conceptual or methodological distinction between them (Harter & Schmidt,
2008; Rotter, 1990). Therefore, we also posit that employee engagement possesses
some additional unique value that is not conveyed by either psychological empow-
erment or psychological contract (Cook & Campbell, 1979).
The employee–organization relationship is an overarching term describing the
relationship between the employee and the organization, and includes micro-
attachments such as the concepts of employee engagement, psychological empow-
erment and the psychological contract (Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007; Shore
et al., 2004). There is consensus among scholars that the social exchange theory
(Blau, 1964) and the inducements–contributions model (March & Simon, 1958)
provide the theoretical foundation for understanding the employee–organiza-
tion relationship (Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007). In essence, three aspects are
fundamental to social exchange: relationship, reciprocity and exchange. In this
view, ‘the employee–organization relationship begins with one party bestowing a
benefit on the other. If the beneficiary reciprocates, a series of benefit exchanges
occur, creating feelings of mutual obligation between the parties’ (Coyle-Shapiro
& Shore, 2007, p. 167). Each party acts according to the norm that the other
party will reciprocate such actions, creating mutual obligations over time. The
inducements–contributions model (March & Simon, 1958) views the employ-
ment exchange as one in which the organization offers inducements in return
for employee activities that benefit the organization. Thus, the rules of exchange
involve reciprocity or repayment such that the actions of one party lead to a
response or actions by another party. Building on the inducements–contributions
model (March & Simon, 1958) and the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), Tsui
et al. (1997) proposed a two-dimensional prototype that identified four types of
employee–organization relationships. According to this model, employers face two
key choices when establishing a relationship with their employees: (1) choosing
the level of inducements and investments to offer employees, and (2) determin-
ing the level of contributions expected of employees. The intersection between
Degree of Activation Low Activation High Activation
Type of Direction
One-Sided Older Concepts Psychological
(e.g. Organizational Empowerment
Commitment)
Mutual Exchange
Psychological Employee
Contract Engagement
Figure 1. A two-dimensional view of micro-employee–organization relationship concepts.
these two dimensions forms the basis for two balanced exchanges (quasi-spot and
mutual investment) and two unbalanced exchanges (underinvestment and overin-
vestment) that together create four possible relationships. However, a significant
factor that is missing from this model is the employees’ perspective about this
relationship. Exploring this factor can add new insights into employment relation-
ships both in theory and practice (e.g. Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007; Hom et al.,
2009; Lepak & Shaw, 2008; Shaw, Gupta, & Delery, 2005; Shore, Coyle-Shapiro,
Chen, & Tetrick, 2009).
Therefore, based on the approaches to and theories about employee–organiza-
tion relationships mentioned above, we present a two-dimensional model of the
employee–organization relationship that reflects the employee’s point of view. This
model includes the degree of obligation that employees feel toward their employer
and the degree to which they feel they can influence this relationship. The first
factor refers to the direction of the relationship and obligations. Is it one-sided,
narrow and unbalanced, or is there a broad, mutual and reciprocal relationship
of obligations and contributions? Does this sense of obligation and willingness to
make a contribution arise mutually from employees and employers, or do employ-
ees depend entirely on incentives from the employer? The other factor is related
to the employees’ level of activation in the relationship. In other words, to what
degree do employees craft their relationship with their organization? What level
of energy is required from the employees in this relationship? These two factors
demonstrate the variability of the employee–organization relationship from the
employees’ perspective. Hence, each micro-concept of the employee–organization
relationship can be understood as a combination of the two dimensions of this
model, which is illustrated in Figure 1.
Using this typology of the employee–organization relationship, we position
employee engagement as a dynamic and dialectical relationship (Kahn, 1990) and
as ‘… positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor,
dedication, and absorption’ (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74), in the lower right-hand
quadrant of the model. We place engagement there because it resembles the high
level of employee activation (e.g. ‘At my work, I feel bursting with energy’) and the
mutual exchange orientation (e.g. ‘My job inspires me’; ‘My job is challenging’)
in the employee–organization relationship. This relies on previous arguments
developed by Kahn (1990, 1992) taken from motivation theories that employees
need self-expression, self-actualization and fulfillment in their work as a matter of

course. For Kahn (1990) self and role ‘exist in some dynamic, negotiable relation in
whom an employee both drives personal energies into role behavior (employment)
and displays the self within the role (self-expression)’ (p. 700). Kahn (1992) also
states that engagement ‘enables the depths of workers’ personal selves to come
forth in the service of their own growth and development and that of their organiza-
tions’ (p. 322). In this way, EE can be seen as an active process in which people pour
their personal energies into their work and express themselves through their work
(Kahn, 1990, 1992). Thus, the mutual and active relationship that lies at the heart
of engagement fulfills both the employees and their organizations (Kahn, 1990).
In addition, we position psychological empowerment, in the upper right-hand
quadrant of the figure. Psychological empowerment is a motivational construct
originating in an employee’s perception of having a choice in initiating and regu-

lating actions, having the ability to perform the job well, and being able to have an
impact on the environment of the job (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990;
for a comprehensive review of the concept see Maynard, Gilson, & Mathieu, 2012).
We chose to place psychological empowerment in this position because it reflects
the high level of initiating and ‘wishing to shape one’s work role and context’ (i.e.
the components of competence and self-determination, see Macey & Schneider,
2008, p. 10) and the one-sided orientation in the employee–organization rela-
tionship (i.e. the contributions from the employee side only, see Spreitzer, 1995).
Finally, we place psychological contract in the lower left-hand quadrant of the
figure. We chose to place psychological contract in this position because it resem-
bles the high level of mutual exchange orientation in the employee–organization
relationship and the low level of employee activation in shaping this relationship
(Rousseau, 1995, 2001). The concept of psychological contract was first defined
by Argyris (1960) to describe a tacit relationship between employees and their
organizations. Schein (1980) and Levinson, Price, Munden, Mandl, and Solley
(1962) incorporated the issue of reciprocity into the psychological contract and
emphasized the mutual obligations related to a psychological contract between the
employee and his or her organization (for a comprehensive review of the concept
see Conway & Briner, 2005). According to Rousseau (1989), ‘the psychological
contract is the employee’s perception of the reciprocal obligations existing with
their employer; as such, the employee has beliefs regarding the organization’s
obligations to them as well as their own obligations to the organization’ (in Shore
& Tetrick, 1994, p. 92). These reciprocal obligations underline the nature and
strength of the employee–organization relationship (Rousseau & Parks, 1993).
Note that, in the activation sense, psychological contract and engagement have
fundamental differences, in that engagement reflects the employee’s constant shap-
ing of the relationship, as opposed to psychological contract, which is closer to
the status quo.
In summation, employee engagement, psychological empowerment and psycho-
logical contract all refer to the body of knowledge about the employee–organization
relationship. Therefore, we assumed that they would share some similarities.

However, while psychological empowerment and psychological contract could
also be considered a pattern of the employee–organization relationship, they do
not exhibit a high level of employee activation and a mutual exchange relationship
simultaneously. We argue that this holistic pattern is evident in engagement, and
therefore, engagement may provide a better explanation of the contemporary
employee–organization relationship. Thus far, no empirical comparison has been
made between employee engagement and psychological empowerment or psy-
chological contract. Therefore, beyond the goal of the recognition of engagement
as a new employee–organization relationship concept, another goal is to examine
these interesting relationships. Based on the above, we suggest the following two
hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Employee engagement will be distinguished from psychological

empowerment and psychological contract.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Employee engagement will be positively related to psychological
Our literature review demonstrates that employee engagement is defined as the
harnessing of an employee’s full self in terms of physical, cognitive and emotional
investments in work, holistically and simultaneously (Kahn, 1990; Schaufeli et al.,
2002). In other words, in describing engagement as ‘fully there’ at work, Kahn’s
(1990) theory has, in fact, linked engaged employees to the centrality of work in
their lives (Kahn, 1992). Work centrality refers to the degree of importance that
work has in an employee’s life (MOW-International Research Team, 1987) and is
associated with other employee–organization relationship attachments includ-
ing psychological empowerment and psychological contract (e.g. Bal & Kooij,
2012; Diefendorff, Brown, Kamin, & Lord, 2002; Kalleberg & Mastekaasa, 2001;
Kanungo, 1982). As we noted earlier, psychological empowerment and psycholog-
ical contract offer explanations for the employee–organization relationship rooted
in perspectives that define the employee–organization relationship more narrowly
than does employee engagement. To be engaged is the reflection of a simultaneous
harnessing of an active and mutual employee–organization connection in a ‘full
and fully there’ manner (Kahn, 1992). Instead, psychological empowerment is
solely being actively connected to the organization, whereas psychological contract
is merely feeling mutual obligations. Therefore, while psychological empowerment
and psychological contract suggest that work centrality may be enhanced through
different functions of the employee–organization relationship, Kahn (1990) argued
that there is a unique employee–organization mechanism, which is embodied in
engagement that functions in a more holistic, consistent and connected man-
ner. For these reasons, we expect that employee engagement will provide a more
comprehensive explanation for employees’ work centrality than psychological
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Employee engagement will be positively related to work centrality
above and beyond psychological empowerment and psychological contract.
Method
Sample and procedure
The sample included 593 employees from heterogeneous organizations and pro-
fessional fields in Israel. Private sector employees returned 368 questionnaires,
and public sector employees returned 225 questionnaires. A variety of organi-
zations participated in this study, representing eight sub-sectors: Private sector
organizations included various fields such as hi-tech companies, medical and
pharmaceutical companies, cellular firms, banks, industrial firms, electronic tele-
communications, educational organizations and security companies; Public sector
organizations included governmental offices, local government municipalities,
public health agencies, public schools, police and other security agencies, tax
agencies, welfare agencies and governmental technology organizations.

These companies were of different sizes, with 20.1% of the sample comprised
of small companies, 28% medium size and 51.9% large companies. The employee
profiles of study participants were heterogeneous, encompassing a wide range of
ages, educational levels, seniority, positions and occupations. They included engi-
neers, technicians, accountants, industrial workers, chemists, economists, sales
and marketing representatives and administrators. Of the participating employees,
58.8% held a non-managerial role, and 41.2% held managerial positions at various
levels. Demographics of the sample show that the average age of the participants
was 37.38 (SD = 9.46). Of the respondents, 62.2% were men; 65.5% were married.
Over half of the respondents (57.5%) had a bachelor’s degree and the average
tenure in their current organization was 6.07 years (SD = 7.76).
The respondents were approached based on a database of a private employment
agency. We obtained permission to use the list and approach the target population
of 2400 employees. According to Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (2009), in order to
reduce the probability of sample error and to increase the representativeness of the
sample, the study’s target population must be defined accurately, and the survey
must be distributed to this specific population. Indeed, the database consisted of
employees from various professions, levels of seniority and organizations (e.g.
welfare, services, education, health, technology and finance), which presented the
target population of the study. Data were collected using electronic questionnaires
built specifically for the study. The researchers asked employees to participate in
the study on a voluntary basis and informed them that the survey was designed to
measure job attitudes. Participants were guaranteed full confidentiality and ano-
nymity, and were told that the collected information would be used for research
purposes only. Altogether, 593 useable questionnaires were used in our statistical
analysis, a return rate of 25%.
However, the response rate for an online questionnaire is usually lower than the
response rate to a traditional survey, which might result in a measurement error
(Dillman et al., 2009). We believe that our study minimized that possibility. First,
we pre-validated our questionnaire and the method of data collection through a
Table 1. Psychometrics characteristics of the main research variables.

Private sector (n = 368) Public sector (n = 225)
Variable Mean SD Mean SD N Items Scale
Employee engagement
Vigor 5.33 1.33 5.57 1.51 3 1–7
Dedication 4.75 1.62 5.16 1.51 3 1–7
Absorption 5.07 1.39 5.20 1.29 3 1–7
Psychological empowerment 3.78 .68 3.89 .58 12 1–5
Psychological contract 3.22 .89 3.40 .83 5 1–5
Work centrality 2.51 .90 2.72 .94 5 1–5
Note. N = 593.
pilot study of 113 respondents that yielded satisfactory results. Second, we ana-
lyzed a relatively heterogeneous sample and ensured a solid 25% response rate
(Dillman et al., 2009). Third, the research questionnaire was compatible with var-
ious different web browsers, and the instructions were clear and concise (Simsek
& Veiga, 2001).
Measures
Table 1 presents the psychometric characteristics of the main research variables.
Employee engagement
Employee engagement was assessed with the shorter version of the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale – UWES validated by Schaufeli et al. (2006) and relied on
Schaufeli et al.’s (2002) definition of employee engagement. The short scale includes
nine items and examines the three dimensions of vigor, dedication and absorption
using three items each. The UWES-9 has encouraging psychometric properties
(Schaufeli et al., 2006). Recent CFA studies have supported the theoretically based
correlated three-factor structure of UWES-9 and have repeatedly demonstrated
it to be a superior fit to the one-factor structure (Bakker et al., 2011; Hallberg &
Schaufeli, 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2006).The respondents were asked to rate their
answers across a seven-level frequency scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (every
day). Sample items include: ‘When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to
work’ (vigor), and reliability was .87; ‘To me, my job is challenging’ (dedication),
and reliability was .86; ‘Time flies when I’m working’ (absorption), and reliability
was .7.
Psychological empowerment
We used Spreitzer’s (1995) entire measure, which contains 12 items, 3 items for
each dimension: meaning, competence, self-determination and impact. However,
the results of a CFA in Spreitzer’s (1995) validation study demonstrated that the
four dimensions contribute to an overall construct of psychological empowerment.
The scale ranged from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Sample
item: ‘I am confident about my ability to do my job’ Reliability was .87.
Psychological contract
We measured this variable using five items from the scale of Kickul, Neuman,
Parker, and Finkl (2001). The participants were asked to rate on a scale ranging
from 1 (completely unfulfilled) to 5 (completely fulfilled) the degree to which the
organization fulfilled its promises with regard to sample items about opportunities
for promotion and advancement. Rousseau (1995, 2001) found these issues to
be the most common promises mentioned by employees during the recruitment
process. Reliability was .77.
Work centrality
We used five items from Kanungo’s (1982) scale. Respondents were asked to indi-
cate their agreement with the statements on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disa-
gree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample item: ‘The most important things that happen
to me involve my present job’. Note that work centrality can be measured in two
ways: (1) relative work centrality, which compares the importance of work to the
relative importance of other major areas of one’s life such as family, community
and religion (MOW-International Research Team, 1987); and (2) absolute work
centrality, which focuses on the importance of work to the employee with no
comparison to other major areas of one’s life. We decided to focus on the latter
approach because it is more appropriate to our field of research, the employee–
organization relationship. Reliability was .85.
Control variables. Given the previous research establishing the relationship

between work centrality and gender, age, education, seniority and type of
organization (e.g. Abramson & Inglehart, 1995; Sharabi & Harpaz, 2007;
Smola & Sutton, 2002), we controlled for these variables. Gender (0 = male,
1 = female) and type of organization (1 = private, 2 = public) were measured
with dichotomous variables; age, education and seniority were reported in years.
Data analysis
We used the AMOS software to conduct a CFA to examine whether employee
engagement, psychological empowerment and psychological contract are empir-
ically separate constructs (i.e. discriminant validity). To evaluate the extent to
which the specified model reproduced the underlying covariance matrix, we used
an established set of goodness-of-fit indices (i.e. χ², SRMR ≤ .07, RMSEA ≤ .07,
NFI ≥ 0 .90, and CFI ≥ 0 .90; Bentler, 1995, 1999; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Steiger,
2007). Inter-correlations were used to examine the convergent validity of employee
engagement regarding the body of knowledge about the employee–organiza-
tion relationship. However, prior to the CFA, we used an ANOVA to determine
whether there was a significant difference between the private and public sectors
with regard to the three employee–organization variables – employee engage-
ment, psychological empowerment and the psychological contract – that justified
conducting a CFA separately for each sector instead of conducting one CFA for
both sectors together. The ANOVA indicated significant differences between the
private and public sectors with regard to all three variables. The means of employee
engagement for public sector employees (5.34, SD = 1.19) were significantly higher
than those in the public sector (4.87, SD = 1.36), and F(1591) = 17.947; p ≤ .001.
The mean of psychological empowerment for public sector employees (3.89,
SD = .58) was significantly higher than in the private sector (3.78, SD = .68),
and F(1591) = 4.06; p ≤ .05. Similarly, the mean for the psychological contract
for public sector employees (3.40, SD = .83) was higher than in the public sector
(3.22, SD = .89), and F(1591) = 5.65; p ≤ .05. These findings supported our deci-
sion to conduct a separate CFA for each sector to determine whether employee
engagement, psychological empowerment and the psychological contract were
empirically separate constructs. Finally, we used a path analysis with maxi-

mum-likelihood method and a multiple hierarchical regression analysis to test
the incremental value of employee engagement in explaining work centrality, over
and above psychological empowerment and the psychological contract.
Findings
Table 2 presents the three CFA steps we carried out to examine H1, dealing with
the autonomous conceptual standing of employee engagement in both private and
public sector employees. We applied the CFA to the 368 private sector employees
(see Table 2), following a three-step process similar to that outlined by Hallberg
and Schaufeli (2006) and Vigoda-Gadot, Eldor, and Schohat (2013). In the first
step, we fit the data to a one-factor model (Model 1: general EOR) in which all
26 items of the three employee–organization relationship variables – employee
engagement (9 items), psychological empowerment (12 items) and the psycho-
logical contract (5 items) – were combined together and loaded on a single latent
EOR variable. If this model provided a good fit with the data, it would suggest that
employee engagement is not actually a unique factor. However, the results of this
model indicated a poor fit with the data, with {χ2 (299) = 3148.74, SRMR = .16,
RMSEA = .16, NFI = .54, CFI = .57}, implying that employee engagement is a
unique factor in the employee–organization relationship.
Therefore, we contrasted this one-factor general EOR model (i.e. the combined
26 items) with an alternative model consisting of five correlated factors (Model
2: five factors) that included the three sub-scales of employee engagement (vigor,
dedication and absorption), second-order latent psychological empowerment (for
previously CFA studies see Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011; Spreitzer, 1995) and
psychological contract. Results indicated that although Model 2 provided better
results than Model 1, it did not fit the data well and exhibited an insufficient fit with
the underlying covariance matrix {χ2 (289) = 2177.4, SRMR = .13, RMSEA = .13,
NFI = .69, CFI = .72}. Based previous studies (i.e. the high correlations between
the three factors of employee engagement, see Bakker et al., 2011; Bakker &
Table 2. Model fit for confirmatory factor analyses of employee–organization relationship (EOR) in the private sector and public sector.
Private sector (n = 368) Public sector (n = 225)

Structure χ2 df χ2/df SRMR RMSEA 90%CI NFI CFI χ2 df χ2/df SRMR RMSEA 90%CI NFI CFI
Mode l: One factor* 3148.7 299 10.5 .16 .16 (.16– .54 .57 1936.3 299 6.4 .11 .15 (.15– .50 .54
.17) .16)
Mode 2: Five fac- 2177.4 289 7.5 .13 .13 (.13– .69 .72 1327.2 289 4.5 .10 .12 (.11– .67 .70
tors** .14) .13)
Mode 3: Three 758.4 287 2.6 .06 .06 (.06– .93 .94 625.5 287 2.1 .07 .06 (.06– .92 .93
factors*** .07) .07)
Notes. N = 593.
*One factor, general EOR, employee engagement, psychological empowerment, psychological contract.
**Five factors: vigor, dedication, absorption, second-order structure psychological empowerment, psychological contract.
***Three factors, second-order structure employee engagement, second-order structure psychological empowerment, psychological contract; All χ2 values are p < .001.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
15
Table 3. Inter-correlations for employee engagement’s dimensions and for the main study vari-
ables.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
Employee engagement
Vigor (.87)
Dedication .77*** (.86)
Absorption .72*** .72*** (.70)
Psychological empowerment .58*** .62*** .51*** (.87)
Psychological contract .43 *** .52*** .38 *** .48 *** (.77)
Work centrality .40*** .50*** .51*** .37*** .23*** (.85)
Notes. N = 593; Cronbach’s α in parentheses.
***p ≤ .001.
Leiter, 2010b; Schaufeli et al., 2006), we considered it worthwhile to define

employee engagement explicitly as a latent construct (see also the recommendation

of LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). Therefore, we constructed an alternative model
in which we also treated employee engagement as a second-order latent construct.
This model (Model 3: three factors) fit the best with the data {χ2 (287) = 939.4,
SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .06, NFI = .93, CFI = .94}. All of these findings support
hypothesis 1.
To reconfirm our results, we again applied a CFA to the 225 public sector
employees (see also Table 2). These analyzes confirmed our previous asser-
tions and yielded quite similar results. Thus, with χ2 (287) = 625.5, SRMR = .07,
RMSEA = .06, NFI = .92 and CFI = .93, Model 3 (three factors) was a fairly good
fit with the data.
Table 3 presents the results of the inter-correlations between the three dimen-
sions of employee engagement (i.e. vigor, dedication, absorption) and both psy-
chological empowerment and psychological contract. As is evident, all three
dimensions of engagement were positively related to psychological empower-
ment and psychological contract at the .001 level. Vigor was positively related to
psychological empowerment (r = .58), and to psychological contract (r = .44);
dedication was positively related to psychology empowerment (r = .62), and to
psychological contract (r = .52); and absorption was positively related to psychol-
ogy empowerment (r = .51), and to psychological contract (r = .38). In order to
buttress our findings, we also examined the relationship between psychological
empowerment and psychological contract. This correlation (r = .48; p ≤ .001) was
positive and at a similar intensity to the correlations between the three dimensions
of employee engagement and the corresponding variables (.38 ≤ r ≤ .62; p ≤ .001).
These findings support hypothesis 2.
We took one more final step in the process of recognizing the contribution of
employee engagement. We posited that the three employee–organization relation-
ship concepts (psychological empowerment, psychological contract and employee
engagement) would each explain the variance of work centrality (predictive valid-
ity), while employee engagement would explain the variance in the dependent
variable (i.e. work centrality) over and above psychological empowerment and
Figure 2. Path coefficients for the effect of employee engagement and other employee–
organization relationship (EOR) variables on work centrality.
Note. Path values are standardized coefficients. *p < .05; **p < .01.
Table 4. Hierarchical regression analysis (standardized coefficients) for the effect of employee
engagement and other EOR variables on work centrality.
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
β (t) β (t) Β (t) β (t)
Gender .07 (1.85) .08* (2.03) .08* (2.13) .08* (2.25)
Age .08 (1.68) .01 (.38) .04 (.79) −.003 (−.06)
Education .12** (3.00) .09* (2.22) .09* (2.36) .06 (1.75)
Seniority .14** (2.77) .12* (2.35) .10 (1.94) .13** (2.73)
Type of sector .03 (.71) .03 (.79) .03 (.79) −.02 (−.49)
EOR variables
Psychological empowerment .30*** (7.72) .25*** (5.49) .03 (.62)
Psychological contract .11** (2.64) −.008 (−.17)
Employee engagement .47*** (9.90)
R² .08 .17 .18 .30
Adjusted R² .08 .16 .17 .29
F 11.27*** 20.27*** 18.55*** 31.13***
ΔR² – .09 .01 .12

Note. N = 593.
*p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001.
the psychological contract (discriminant validity). Figure 2 illustrates the path

coefficients for the effect of employee engagement and other employee–organi-
zation relationship variables on work centrality, and Table 4 presents the multiple
hierarchical regression analysis we carried out. An examination of the results of
the path analysis indicates that the proposed predictive validity model was fully
supported. As we assumed, the relationship between employee engagement and
work centrality (β = .47; p ≤ .01) was above and beyond the relationship with the
demographic and occupational variables (gender = .08; p ≤ .05, age = 08; p ≤ .05,
education = .06; n.s., seniority = −.06; n.s., organization type = .01; n.s.) and the
similar employee–organization relationship variables: psychological empower-
ment (β = .03; n.s.) and the psychological contract (β = .00; n.s.). Moreover, the
overall explained variance of work centrality was impressive. All of the variables in
the equation together contributed 29.3% to explaining the variance in the depend-
ent variable. To reconfirm our results, we also conducted a multiple hierarchical
regression analysis. The same variables were entered into the equation in five steps.
In step 1, we entered the demographic and occupational characteristics such as
gender, age, education, seniority and organization type, which contributed 8%
to the explained variance in work centrality. In the next steps, we examined the
contribution of the employee–organization relationship variables of psychological
empowerment, psychological contract and employee engagement to explaining the
variance in work centrality. The results indicate that psychological empowerment
(step 2) explained 9% of the variance. Psychological contract (step 3) added 1%,
whereas employee engagement (step 5) added 12% to the explanation of work
centrality. All of the variables in the equation together contributed 30% to explain-
ing the variance in work centrality variable. These findings support hypothesis 3.
Discussion and implications

In this study, we focused on the meaning of employee engagement, because we feel
it has a special bearing on improving our understanding of the employee–organi-
zation relationship and the meaning of work in today’s challenging organizational
setting. More than ever before, managers would agree that employees have a
critical impact on an organization’s innovation, flexibility, competitiveness and
success. In a constantly changing environment with increasing global competition,
organizations must be lean and achieve more with less (Masson, Royal, Agnew, &
Fine, 2008). Moreover, with the erosion of the old psychological contract of job
security, employees and organizations today are more tenuously intertwined than
before, thus making the employee–organization relationship a pressing concern.
Furthermore, today employees prefer to establish a different dialog with their

organization, seeking to satisfy their self-actualization and personal growth needs,
which play an increasingly important role in the employee–organization relation-
ship (Baruch, 2006; Hall, 2004). With every passing decade, the complexity of the
employee–organization relationship grows along with our understanding of its
essentiality for organizations to flourish. Employee engagement has recently been
introduced as a potentially optimal means of redefining the employee–organiza-
tion relationship (Albrecht, 2010a; Vigoda-Gadot, Eldor, & Schohat, 2013) because
it encapsulates the notion of a coherent expression of energies such as ‘feelings
of persistence, vigor, energy, dedication, absorption, enthusiasm, alertness, and
pride’ (Macey & Schneider, 2008, p. 24) into work. This quote from Macey and
Schneider (2008) reflects the desires of human resource practitioners and scholars
as they seek to decode the employee–organization relationship in the twenty-first
century. We argue that engagement as an active and fulfilling concept broadens
our view of the meaning of the employee–organization relationship in the con-
temporary organizational setting.
Theoretical implications
The most interesting finding of our study is that employee engagement is dis-
tinguished from both psychological empowerment and psychological contract
because engagement incorporates mutual exchange and active aspects simul-
taneously in a connected manner. In line with previous studies (e.g. Christian
et al., 2011; Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; Vigoda-Gadot, Eldor, & Schohat, 2013)
that have distinguished employee engagement from job satisfaction, organiza-
tional commitment and job involvement, the results of this study support the idea
that employee engagement is an important standalone motivational construct. In
contrast to previous research, this study focuses on less traditional work-related
concepts, aiming instead at rethinking the contemporary relationship between the
employee and his/her organization. Employee engagement concerns the degree
to which employees actively make the best use of their personal strengths to
perform role-related work (Kahn, 1990; Schaufeli et al., 2002). Thus, our empiri-
cal analysis supports our theory build of engagement, leading to a contemporary
relationship framework. The ongoing challenge is to examine engagement relative
to other employee–organization patterns and clarify the relationship between
these inter-related concepts. Moreover, with the increasing interest in and focus
on extra-role behavior concepts (Macey & Schneider, 2008), it is important to
keep a close eye on the parsimony of the conceptual characteristics, while also
making sure that extra-role behavior does not become an isolated area of research
with exclusive constructs applicable only to a small range of contexts. Following
closely upon this argument is the recommendation for future studies to examine
the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior, personal initiative
and engagement.
Another important finding of this study is the strong, positive relationship

between engagement and work centrality (β = .47, p ≤ .001). This link is signifi-
cant because previous studies have indicated the importance of the centrality of
work in employees’ worldview to enhancing their performance and outcomes
(Diefendorff et al., 2002; Kalleberg & Mastekaasa, 2001) and underscored the
negative relationship between work centrality and both absenteeism and turnover
(Kanungo, 1982). Furthermore, engagement made an additional 12% contribu-
tion to the explained variance in work centrality over and above the effects of
psychological empowerment (9%) and psychological contract (1%). This finding
indicates that work satisfies other essential needs apart from money and security,
such as self-fulfillment, individual well-being, challenge and meaning. This finding
also strengthens the argument that engagement is valuable and worthy of being
cultivated among employees.
Our study makes significant contributions to the meaning of the contemporary
employee–organization relationship. Employee engagement has the potential to
redefine the optimal employee–organization relationship. First, most employee–
organization relationship research has adopted the viewpoint of the organiza-
tion as the starting point and the employee perspective as an incidental benefit
(Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007; Shore, Porter, & Zahra, 2004). The emerging body
of study on positive organizational scholarship provides one lens through which
to reorient our view of the employee–organization relationship (Cameron, 2005;
Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Moreover, Wright (2003) maintained that the manage-
ment driven view must also include the employees’ fulfillment and well-being as a
core organizational goal that constitutes a win–win situation for both the organ-
ization and their employees. We argue that engagement represents a mutually
beneficial employee–organization relationship that sees the employee as a critical
party (Kahn, 1990; Schaufeli et al., 2002). Second, modern work is faster paced
in terms of changes and uncertainty, with less supervision, and greater pressure
on employees to update their own skills (Frese, 2008; Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999).
Accordingly, employees must take a more active role in the workplace, challeng-
ing the classical views about the employee–organization relationship (Ilgen &
Pulakos, 1999; Masson et al., 2008). We argue that engagement does the best job
of advancing such contemporary requirements. Engaged employees have high
levels of energy, are proactive and take responsibility, are enthusiastic and have
an enjoyable and effective connection with their work (Macey & Schneider, 2008;
Schaufeli et al., 2002). As Grant and Ashford (2008, p. 3) noted, ‘Employees do
not just let life happen to them. Rather, they try to affect, shape, curtail, expand,
and temper what happens in their lives’.
Practical implications
Our findings have are also significant for human resource practitioners since they
‘expect interpretations of the results, to be cast in terms of actionable implications’
(Macey & Schneider, 2008, p. 4). First, employees who are strongly engaged with
the organization are proactive, promote innovation and invest efforts in improving
the outcomes of their organization (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Harter et al., 2002;
Saks, 2006; Salanova et al., 2005). Thus, in the appraisal process, human resources
managers should also evaluate and take employees’ engagement into account.
Second, enhancing work centrality is an important goal of the human resources
department because it is positively related to work performance (e.g. Diefendorff
et al., 2002). Demonstrating the greater contribution of employee engagement
to the centrality of work in the employees’ worldview relative to other attitudes
may encourage human resources departments to create practices that enhance
engagement rather than focusing on various practices aimed at improving a vari-
ety of work attitudes Third, using the definition of engagement, which we have
demonstrated as being different from other concepts, human resource practition-
ers may be able to expand their methodologies for assessing the capabilities of
their employees. Moreover, they may be able to adapt their methodologies to the
demanding organizational reality by assessing employees’ initiative, enthusiasm
and absorption, or, in other words, their engagement.
Limitations
The limitations of our study should also be noted. First, our design was cross-
sectional rather than longitudinal, which precludes us from establishing either
causal directions or drawing conclusions about the stability of the relationships.
Second, the study was based on self-reports, meaning that the magnitude of the
study’s findings may have been biased due to common method variance or com-
mon source errors. However, these limitations are not as troublesome as one might
expect in such studies of recognition process. Third, while several potentially
overlapping concepts such as psychological empowerment and psychological con-
tract have been examined in this study, there may be scope in future research to
examine the potential overlap with other related concepts such as organizational
citizenship behavior and role of expansion.
Conclusion
On the basis of our study, we contend that employee engagement is a powerful
concept for researchers and practitioners precisely because it taps into a variety
of ideas about the meaning of the employee–organization relationship in our
complex organizational setting. Therefore, we believe that integrating the study of
engagement into the study of the employee–organization relationship will improve
our understanding about how employees function in the contemporary organiza-
tional sphere. Briskin (1998) argued, ‘To explore the challenge to the human soul
in organizations is to build a bridge between the world of personal and subjective
individual experience and the world of organizations that demands efficiency …
we must be willing to shift our viewpoint back and forth between what organiza-
tions want of people and what the contradictory nature of human needs, desires,
and experience’ (p. xii). From our perspective, engagement provides the key to
these mutual needs and thus, fits the challenging organizational reality. We hope
this study provides an agenda for moving forward and provides practical insights
that are of use to organizations.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Abramson, P. R., & Inglehart, R. (1995). Value change in global perspective. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Albrecht, S. L. (2010a). Employee engagement: 10 Key questions for research and practice. In
S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement (pp. 3–19). Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
Albrecht, S. L. (Ed.). (2010b). The handbook of employee engagement: Perspective, issues, research
and practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Argyris, C. (1960). Understanding organizational behavior. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 4–28.
Bakker, A. B., & Bal, M. P. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among
starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 189–206.
Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010a). Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and
research. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010b). Where to go from here: Integration and future research
on work engagement. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook
of essential theory and research (pp. 181–196). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees
in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 147–154.
Bal, P. M., & Kooij, D. (2012). The relations between work centrality, psychological contracts,
and job attitudes: The influence of age. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 20, 497–523.
Baruch, Y. (2006). Career development in organizations and beyond: Balancing traditional and
contemporary viewpoints. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 125–138.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Enciono, CA: Multivariance
Software.
Bentler, P. M. (1999). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
107, 238–246.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Briskin, A. (1998). The stirring of soul in the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship
to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology., 81, 358–368.
Cameron, K. S. (2005). Organizational effectiveness: Its demise and re-emergence through
positive organizational scholarship. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in
management: The process of theory development (pp. 304–330). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology,
64, 89–136.
Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analyses issues for
field setting. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., & Shore, L. M. (2007). The employee–organization relationship: Where
do we go from here? Human Resource Management Review, 17, 166–179.
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to
employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 95, 834–848.
Dalal, R. S., Brummel, B. J., Wee, S., & Thomas, L. L. (2008). Defining employee engagement
for productive research and practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 53–56.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.
Demerouti, E., & Cropanzano, R. (2010). From thought to action: Employee work engagement
and job performance. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook
Diefendorff, J. M., Brown, D. J., Kamin, A. M., & Lord, R. G. (2002). Examining the roles of
job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors and
job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 93–108.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode survey:
The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-
and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations. In
K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship:
Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 163–175). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Frese, M. (2008). The word is out: We need an active performance concept for modern
workplaces. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 67–69.
Gorgievski, M. J., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Passion for work: Work engagement versus
workaholism. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues,
research and practice (pp. 264–271). Gloucester: Edward Elgar.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.
Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2003). Behavior in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Neal, A. (2008). Is behavioral engagement a distinct and useful
construct? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 48–51.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with
burnout, demands, resources and consequences. In A. B. Bakker, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.),
Work engagement: Recent development in the theory and research (pp. 102–117). New York,
NY: Psychology Press.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of engagement and
embeddedness in predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work and Stress, 22,
242–256.
Hall, D. T. (2004). The protean career: A quarter century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
65, 1–13.
Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Same same but different? Can work engagement be
discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist,
11, 119–127.
Harter, J. K., & Schmidt, F. L. (2008). Conceptual Versus empirical distinctions among
constructs: implications for discriminant validity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
1, 36–39.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.
Hom, P. W., Tsui, A. S., Wu, J. B., Lee, T. W., Zhang, A. Y., Fu, P. P., & Li, L. (2009). Explaining
employment relationships with social exchange and job embeddedness. Journal of Applied
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). The changing nature of performance: Implications for
staffing, motivations, and development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45,
321–349.
Kalleberg, A. L., & Mastekaasa, A. (2001). Satisfied movers, committed stayers: The impact of
job mobility on work attitudes in Norway. Work and Occupations, 28, 183–209.
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Work alienation: An integration approach. New York, NY: Praeger.
Kickul, J. R., Neuman, G., Parker, C., & Finkl, J. (2001). Setting the score: The role of
organizational justice in the relationship between psychological contract breach and anti-
citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 13, 77–93.
Lee, A. C., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale
development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319.
Lepak, D. P., & Shaw, J. D. (2008). Strategic HRM in North America: Looking to the future.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 1486–1499.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational
citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 52–65.
Levinson, H., Price, C. R., Munden, K. J., Mandl, H. J., & Solley, C. M. (1962). Men, management,
and mental health. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of
Management, 33, 321–349.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal
stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Masson, R. C., Royal, M. A., Agnew, T. G., & Fine, S. (2008). Leveraging employee engagement:
The practical implications. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 56–59.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37.
Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Empowerment – fad or fab? A multilevel
review of the past two decades of research. Journal of Management, 38, 1231–1281.
MOW-International Research Team. (1987). The meaning of working. London: Academic Press.
Newman, D. A., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Been there, bottled that: Are state and behavioral
work engagement new and useful construct “wines”? Industrial and Organizational
Newman, D. A., Joseph, D. L., & Hulin, C. L. (2010). Job attitudes and employee engagement:
Considering the attitude “A-factor”. In S. Albrecht (Ed.), The handbook of employee
engagement: Perspectives, issues, research, and practice (pp. 43–61). Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
Parker, S. K., & Griffin, M. A. (2011). Understanding active psychological states: Embedding
engagement in a wider nomological net and closer attention to performance. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 60–67.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects
on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and
family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655–684.
Rothbard, N. P., & Patil, S. V. (2010). Being there: Work engagement and positive organizational
scholarship. In G. Spreitzer & K. Cameroon (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive
organizational scholarship (pp. 59–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a
variable. American Psychologist, 45, 489–493.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121–139.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Promises in action: Psychological contracts in organizations. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the
psychological contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 511–541.
Rousseau, D. M., & Parks, J. (1993). The psychological contracts of individuals and organizations.
In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 15, pp.
1–43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Russell, J. A., Barrett, L. F. (1999). Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other
things called emotion: Dissecting the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76, 805–819.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21, 600–619.
Saks, A. M. (2008). The meaning and bleeding of employee engagement: How muddy is the
water? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 40–43.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement
to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 90, 1217–1227.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
25, 293–315.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing
clarity to the concept. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with
a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
66, 701–716.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement
of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work
engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied
Schein, E. H. (1980). Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schohat, L. M., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2010). Employee engagement; Theoretical framework and
suggestions for empirical exploration. In S. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement
(pp. 98–107). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Curmmings (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3–43). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Seibert, S. F., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of
psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96, 981–1003.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.
Sharabi, M., & Harpaz, I. (2007). Changes in work centrality and other life areas in Israel: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Human Values, 13, 95–106.
Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. (2005). Alternative conceptualizations of the relationship
between voluntary turnover and organizational performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 50–68.
Shore, L. M., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., Chen, X. P., & Tetrick, L. E. (2009). Social exchange in
work settings: Content, process, and mixed models. Management and Organization Review,
5, 289–302.
Shore, L. M., Porter, L. W., & Zahra, S. A. (2004). Employer-oriented strategic approaches to
the employee–organization relationship (EOR). In J. Coyle-Shapiro, L. M. Shore, S. Taylor,
& L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual
perspectives (pp. 133–160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework
in the employment relationship. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Roesseau (Ed.), Trends in
organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 91–109). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Taylor, M. S., Coyle-Shapiro, J. M., Liden, R. C., McLean Parks, J., ...
Van Dyne, L. (2004). The employee–organization relationship: A timely concept in a period
of transition. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management
(Vol. 23, pp. 291–370). Oxford: Elsevier.
Shuck, B. (2011). Integrative literature review: Four emerging perspectives of employee
engagement: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 10,
304–328.
Simsek, Z., & Veiga, J. (2001). A primer on internet organizational surveys. Organizational
Research Methods, 4, 218–235.
Smola, W. K., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work
values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363–382.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological, empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,

measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.
Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural
equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 893–898.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An ‘interpretive’
model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666–681.
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the
employee–organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of
Management Journal, 40, 1089–1121.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., Eldor, L., & Schohat, L. M. (2013). Engage them to public service:
Conceptualization and empirical examination of employee engagement in public
administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 43, 518–538.
Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An idea whose time has truly come.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 437–442.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement
and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 82, 183–200.
Xanthopoulou, D., Baker, A. B., Heuven, E., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Working in
the sky: A diary study on work engagement among flight attendants. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 13, 345–356.

Research Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Research Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The International Journal of Human Resource

ISSN: 0958-5192 (Print) 1466-4399 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

The nature of employee engagement: rethinking

Liat Eldor & Eran Vigoda-Gadot

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1180312

Published online: 19 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

The nature of employee engagement: rethinking the

Research interest in the new concept of employee Employee engagement;

CONTACT Liat Eldor leldor@wharton.upenn.edu

Theoretical background and hypotheses

seminal ethnographic work, which inspired much of the scientific research on

(Rothbard, 2001). Rich et al. (2010) broadened Rothbard’s measure of engagement

(MBI) as ‘a persistent positive affective state characterized by high levels of activa-

emotional, and behavioral components … associated with individual role perfor-

purpose, and connotes involvement, commitment, passion, enthusiasm, focused

In order to establish a definitive definition of employee engagement, or at

concept that reflects the simultaneous expression of multidimensional energies

Employee engagement and other employee–organization relationship

When introducing a new concept, methodologists require that they be carefully

(Rousseau, 1989). Moreover, to make our investigation more rigorous, we have

themselves. However, although there has been an increase in interest in employee–

Degree of Activation Low Activation High Activation

Figure 1. A two-dimensional view of micro-employee–organization relationship concepts.

need self-expression, self-actualization and fulfillment in their work as a matter of

originating in an employee’s perception of having a choice in initiating and regu-

relationship. Therefore, we assumed that they would share some similarities.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Employee engagement will be distinguished from psychological

agencies, welfare agencies and governmental technology organizations.

Table 1. Psychometrics characteristics of the main research variables.

Table 1 presents the psychometric characteristics of the main research variables.

Control variables. Given the previous research establishing the relationship

empirically separate constructs. Finally, we used a path analysis with maxi-

Private sector (n = 368) Public sector (n = 225)

Leiter, 2010b; Schaufeli et al., 2006), we considered it worthwhile to define

employee engagement explicitly as a latent construct (see also the recommendation

ΔR² – .09 .01 .12

the psychological contract (discriminant validity). Figure 2 illustrates the path

Discussion and implications

Furthermore, today employees prefer to establish a different dialog with their

Another important finding of this study is the strong, positive relationship

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological, empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,

You might also like