If you have ever ‘gotten lost in your work,’ you know what it feels like to be engaged. But this just one form of engagement. You might also have worked on tasks that, while not particularly enjoyable, gave you a real feeling of accomplishment when completed. This, too, is a form of engagement. Indeed, looking back you may have realized what kept you going through the difficult periods was the belief that what you were doing was ‘worth the effort.’ Finally, you may also have witnessed engagement in others, or at least inferred they were engaged by their enthusiasm, level of energy and high rate of productivity.
So, we know engagement when we experience it, and we recognize it when we see it, but can we study it scientifically, and to what end? (Incidentally, we probably also know what it feels like to disengaged and have likely encountered it in others, but I’ll focus here on the positive.)
Let me begin with the question: To what end?
First, in order to invest in programs designed to foster engagement, organizations need to be convinced engagement matters. Will such investments pay off in terms of greater retention, job performance, innovation and overall organizational success? Will employees themselves benefit? Are there any downsides to engagement?
Second, organizations need to know what they can do to increase engagement. Is it a selection problem (getting the right people), a management problem (treating them right) or both?
But before we can take a scientific approach to answering any of these questions, we need to be more precise in defining what it is. Knowing it when we see it isn’t good enough; we have to be able to measure it so we can determine empirically how it relates to conditions in the workplace and desired outcomes.
Within the academic literature, one of the most widely accepted definitions of engagement was provided by Wilmar Schaufeli of Utrecht University and his colleagues: “A positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigour, dedication, and absorption.”
This definition served as the basis for the development of a multi-item survey instrument designed to measure employees’ level of engagement in their work. Engagement can also be measured more broadly with regard to the goals and values of the organization or work unit.
For example, my colleague Natalie Allen and I developed an instrument to measure employees’ commitment (a close cousin to engagement) to the organization. These measures have been subjected to rigorous psychometric evaluation to establish reliability and validity – in other words, we feel confident they provide an accurate reflection of the extent to which employees feel engaged in their work and committed to their organization.
These instruments have been used in a large body of research addressing the questions posed above: Does engagement matter and, if so, how can we get it?
This research has established a positive association between levels of engagement and work behavior; employees who are engaged in their work and committed to their organization are more likely to stay, absent less frequently and perform more effectively than those who are not. Where engagement often shows its strongest effects is on discretionary effort – a willingness to go above and beyond minimal requirements. Importantly, engagement also relates positively to employees’ own physical and psychological well-being.
If there is a downside to work engagement, it is the potential threat to work-life balance – the more time and energy individuals expend on work-related activities, the less they have available for other aspects of their lives. Although there is no strong evidence at that this is a common problem, it does not preclude the possibility for some individuals.
Given the potential win-win for employers and employees, the obvious question becomes: How do we get engagement?
Science has addressed this issue as well and has identified a number of conditions that must be met for individuals to feel fully engaged in their work. For example, they need to feel their contributions are important and appreciated, need to know what is expected of them and must have the resources needed to cope with the demands placed upon them. The extent to which these conditions are met will depend in large measure on the work climate.
There are a variety of things that organizations can do to create a ‘climate for engagement,’ including working with employees to establish clear and attainable objectives, providing frequent and constructive feedback, ensuring adequate training, communicating clearly and helping employees to achieve work-life balance.
The We Speak survey conducted at Western in November 2012 was built on this science and was designed to allow employees at Western to provide feedback on how engaged they feel and, importantly, share their perceptions of the climate at Western and within their work units. The survey provided a wealth of data and there will not be complete consensus on what’s working and what isn’t.
However, it is a valuable source of information to be used in setting priorities and guiding the next phase of the project – We Act.
Psychology professor John P. Meyer served as a consultant to Andrew Fuller and Jane Parkinson in the Learning and Development office throughout the We Speak process. He also directed graduate students in our Research Unit for Work and Productivity. These students were involved in the early stages of the process and, among other things, conducted searches for culture and engagement measures.