Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T15:45:50.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Engaged in Engagement: We Are Delighted We Did It

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

William H. Macey  and
Benjamin Schneider
William H. Macey*
Affiliation:
Valtera Corporation
Benjamin Schneider
Affiliation:
Valtera Corporation and University of Maryland
*
E-mail: wmacey@valtera.com, Address: Valtera Corporation, 1701 Golf Road, Suite 2-1100, Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We emphasize that science and practice issues are equally salient when pursuing thinking and research on employee engagement. We agree with much of what the commentaries have to say, especially that organizational competitive advantage is the relevant focus of engagement research and practice and that engagement is not a new construct but one that required clarification vis-a-vis existing constructs. We also agree that state engagement can be highly variable, that disengagement needs study, that negative situations can induce engagement behaviors, that engagement surveys should yield actionable data, and that people can be hired who are more likely to be engaged. We disagree with the idea that all employee attitudes are essentially equal and that existing conceptualizations of performance make engagement behavior a nonuseful construct.

Type
Response
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 76 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

William H. Macey, Valtera Corporation

**

Benjamin Schneider, Valtera Corporation and University of Maryland

References

Ashkanasy, N. M. (2007). From the editor: Evidence-based inquiry: Learning, and education: What are the pros and cons? Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6, 5–8.Google Scholar
Bruch, H., Cole, M., Vogel, B., & Menges, J. (in press). Linking productive organizational energy to firm performance and individuals’ satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior.Google Scholar
Burke, M. J. (2008). On the skilled aspect of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 70–71.Google Scholar
Courtney, H. (2001). 20/20 foresight, crafting strategy in an uncertain world. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Dalal, R. S., Brummel, B. J., Wee, S., & Thomas, L. L. (2008). Defining employee engagement for productive research and practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 52–55.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Frese, M. (2008). The word is out: We need an active performance concept for modern workplaces. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 67–69.Google Scholar
Graen, G. B. (2008). Enriched engagement through assistance to systems’ change: A proposal. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 74–75.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Neal, A. (2008). Is behavioral engagement a distinct and useful construct? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 48–51.Google Scholar
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006) How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 305–325.Google Scholar
Harter, J. K., & Schmidt, F. L. (2008). Conceptual verses empirical distinctions among constructs: Implications for discriminant validity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 36–39.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, R. R., & Thomas, C. H. (2008). Representations of trait engagement: Integration, additions, and mechanisms. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 63–66.Google Scholar
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 321–349.Google Scholar
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2006). Employee experiences and customer satisfaction: Toward a framework for survey design with a focus on service climate. In Kraut, A. I. (Ed.), Getting action from organizational surveys: New concepts, technologies and applications (pp. 53–75). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 3–30.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. (2005). The problem of measurement model mis-specification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 710–730.Google Scholar
Masson, R. C., Royal, M. A., Agnew, T. G., & Fine, S. (2008). Leveraging employee engagement: The practical implications. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 56–59.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. P., & Gagné, M. (2008). Employee engagement from a self-determination theory perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 60–62.Google Scholar
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 Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 31–35.Google Scholar
Pugh, D. S., & Dietz, J. (2008). Employee engagement at the organizational level of analysis. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 44–47.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Rynes, S. L. (2007). Editor’s forward: Tackling the “great divide” between research production and dissemination in human resources management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 985–987.Google Scholar
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600–619.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Schneider, B., Macey, W. H., Lee, W., & Young, S. A. (2007). Employee engagement: Fad, fashion and folderol—with some validity (Working paper). Rolling Meadows, IL: Valtera Corporation.Google Scholar
Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 150–163.Google Scholar
Vosburgh, R. M. (2008). State–trait returns! And one practitioner’s request. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 72–73.Google Scholar