See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332781320

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Article · October 2018

CITATIONS READS

8 14,440

2 authors, including:

Nandini Borah
Don Bosco Institute of Management
25 PUBLICATIONS 47 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nandini Borah on 01 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Organisation & Human Behaviour
7 (4) 2018, 22-30
http://publishingindia.com/johb/

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A CRITICAL

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Nandini Borah*, Mukulesh Barua**

Abstract Though employee engagement has emerged as a major construct, there is substantial amount of ambiguity regarding its
conceptualization and measures. This paper makes an attempt to critically review the existing literature around the construct and identify
research gaps in the field for systematic empirical investigation in order to substantiate future studies. Review of literature was done in order
to examine the gaps in the current literature. Four major gaps were identified through the review. Also, a conceptual framework has been
developed which incorporates the identified gaps in research to conduct future empirical studies.

Keywords: Employee Engagement, Literature Review, Research Gaps

INTRODUCTION ●● to review key studies on drivers and consequences of

engagement and identify the research gaps in the light
Since the conceptualization of engagement by Kahn in the of the past studies;
year 1990, it has emerged as an important construct in the ●● to develop a conceptual framework based on the
academic and practitioner literature. This importance can identified research gaps for future empirical study.
be attributed to the fact that engagement is touted to be a
The review is presented in four sections: (a) methodology;
significant predictor of important organizational outcomes
(b) theoretical overview; (c) antecedents and consequences
such as productivity, profitability, satisfaction, as well as
of employee engagement; and (d) discussion and conclusion.
retention. However, the construct of employee engagement
is very vague and different researchers have defined and
measured the construct differently. As a result of this, the METHODOLOGY
construct of engagement is shrouded by a cloud of ambiguity.
Since different measures are being developed and used, For summarizing literature around the construct, literature
there is little consistency and consensus regarding what review method was adopted as it is an accepted strategy to
drives engagement and how engagement can be developed review a concept or a phenomenon (Chermack & Passmore,
or increased. This inconsistency often creates confusion 2005). Based on the purpose of the study, only scholarly
for managers and organizations to strategize engagement data sources were identified for the review. The studies
initiatives. The purpose of this paper is to review the construct selected for review and analysis were chosen by searching
of engagement and to systematically focus on drivers and specifically for the keyword ‘employee engagement’. Those
outcomes of engagement in order to find out the gaps in articles were selected where the term employee engagement
the existing body of knowledge on engagement. Lastly, the featured either in the title or in the abstract.
paper attempts to develop a conceptual framework on the A total of 159 articles were found which contained the
basis of which future empirical study may be conducted. search word ‘employee engagement’. In the next step,
abstract of these articles were reviewed and they were
OBJECTIVES sorted by relevance. Out of the total 159 articles, only 56
articles were found to be precisely associated with employee
The objectives of this paper are as follows: engagement. These articles were then read to ascertain

* Research Scholar, Assam Science and Technology University, Assam, India. Email: [email protected]
** Director and ONGC Chair Professor, Assam Institute of Management, Assam, India. Email: [email protected]
 Employee Engagement: A Critical Review of Literature 23

their relevance in making a contribution to the concept, Saks (2006) differentiates engagement into: job engagement
antecedents, and outcomes of employee engagement. Only (which is related to performing the specific task role) and
those studies were included which empirically assessed organizational engagement (which is related to performing
‘employee engagement’. Articles that focused on employee the role as a member of the organization).
engagement unrelated to its antecedents and consequences Finally, more recently, Shuck and Wollard (2010) defined
and/or did not assess the engagement construct itself were the concept of employee engagement in the context of
not included in the analysis of antecedents/outcomes of HRD field by systematically reviewing literature and
employee engagement. creating a working definition of engagement. According to
them, employee engagement is “an individual employee’s
THEORETICAL OVERVIEW cognitive, emotional, and behavioural state directed toward
desired organizational outcomes” (Shuck & Wollard, 2010).
First mention of employee engagement comes from Kahn’s Thus, in essence the idea of engagement is similar to Kahn in
(1990) conceptualization which appears in a journal article Shuck and Wollard’s definition. However, the construct itself
“Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and has been related to the overarching goals of the organization,
Disengagement at Work” of Academy of Management. Since unlike Saks’s (2006) conceptualization.
Kahn’s conceptualization, there have been several other What these conceptualizations share is the notion that
conceptualizations of engagement. Different authors have employee engagement reflects some kind of identification
defined engagement differently and this has added to the and alignment to the goals of the organization, and people’s
confusion surrounding the literature. The following section investment of personal energy and thus getting absorbed
discusses the important conceptualizations of engagement in in their respective work roles. Thematically, the construct
the academic and literatures and attempts to draw parallels of engagement revolves around the following main ideas:
among them. energy or vigor, awareness, and absorption. Kahn (1990)
Kahn (1990) conceptualized engagement in the starting provided the initial framework of the construct, which
point as “in engagement, people employ and express Schaufeli, Saks and Shuck and Wollard have built upon.
themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during
role performances”. Therefore, according to Kahn (1990), EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:
when people are in an engaged state they invest more of
themselves in their work roles. They work with more energy ANTECEDENTS AND
and enthusiasm. Kahn (1990) conceptualized engagement CONSEQUENCES
as a momentary state, which means that engagement
may fluctuate to some extent. Thus, engagement was This section reviews studies that have focused on
conceptualized initially not as a static construct but as a determining the drivers and outcomes of employee
dynamic construct. The next major conceptualization of engagement. Summaries of key study attributes are reported
engagement came in the form of positive psychology. in Table 1. These studies show some similarities, but
mostly differences, in how employee engagement has been
Schaufeli et al. (2002) defined engagement “as a positive conceptualized and measured. Sixteen out of twenty seven
fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized studies conceptualized engagement as a three-dimensional
by vigor, dedication and absorption”. When people are construct. These studies have adopted the three-dimensional
engaged, they become attached to their work roles and thus framework of engagement, where engagement is
get absorbed while enacting it. People, therefore, invest a characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption, proposed
significant amount of personal energy into performing their by Schaufeli et al. (2002). On the other hand, four studies
roles. Schaufeli et al. (2002) further add that “engagement have conceptualized engagement as a two-dimensional
is a more persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive construct composed of job engagement and organizational
state that is not focused on any particular object, event, engagement (Saks, 2006). Another three studies have viewed
individual or behaviour.” Therefore, unlike Kahn’s (1990) engagement as a one-dimensional construct. Abraham
conceptualization of engagement as a dynamic entity, (2012) used the Gallup’s model of engagement, while Gaan
Schaufeli et al. (2002) conceptualize engagement as static (2016) used the one-dimensional framework proposed by
construct that remains constant. Thomas (2007), who defined engagement as ‘a relatively
Additionally, Saks (2006) have also defined engagement stable state influenced by interactions of individuals and
as a distinct and unique construct. According to Saks their work environment’. Apart from this, four studies have
(2006), engagement consists of “cognitive, emotional and conceptualized engagement as satisfaction, commitment and
behavioural components that are associated with individual involved – which are already well established constructs in
role performance.” Definition proposed by Saks (2006) is the academic literature.
similar to Kahn’s (1990) definition of engagement. However,
24 Journal of Organisation & Human Behaviour Volume 7 Issue 4 October 2018

An examination of the existing literature shows that 2012; Freeney & Fellenz, 2013; Barnes & Collier, 2013;
researcher have mostly used job and organizational related Biswas & Bhatnagar, 2013; Gupta & Kumar, 2013; Rawal,
factors as drivers of engagement. Job characteristics, goal 2015; Gaan, 2016).
setting, autonomy, job resources, job fit, job crafting are
Additionally, studies have also focused on leadership as a
some of the most commonly assessed job related drivers of
driver of engagement (Papalexandris & Galanaki, 2009;
engagement by researchers (Saks, 2006; Medlin & Green
Chaurasia & Shukla, 2014; Breevaart, Bakker, Hetland,
Jr., 2009; Shuck, 2010; Bakker & Bal, 2010; Slatten &
Demerouti, Olsen, & Espevik, 2014). Papalexandris and
Mehmetoglu, 2011; Albrecht, 2012; Shantz, Alfes, Truss, &
Galanaki (2009) studied certain leadership attributes, viz.,
Soane, 2013; Biswas & Bhatnagar, 2013; Siddiqi, 2015).
mentoring skills, vision articulation, self-management, and
Also, researchers have also assessed organizational related inner balance, and found that being a good mentor and
factors such as organizational support, organizational articulating a vision were two most influential leadership
justice, feedback, learning opportunity, work-life balance, traits. Chaurasia and Shukla (2014) and Breevaart et al.
organizational resources, team work, organizational (2014) respectively assessed the influence of LMX and
identification, organizational culture and communication, transformational and transactional leadership styles. It was
social support, service climate (Saks, 2006; Bakker & Bal, found that employees’ high quality relationship with their
2010; Pati & Kumar 2010; Joshi & Sodhi, 2011; Albrecht, leaders and transformational leadership style is positively
2012; Anaza & Rutherford, 2012; Sarangi & Shrivastava, related to employee engagement.
Table 1: Summary of Studies Focusing on Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement

Employee
Paper/ Measure
engagement Method Antecedents Consequences Key findings
Article used
concept
Saks (2006) Two dimen- Multiple 11-item perceived organization- Job satisfaction, Perceived organizational
N=102 sional: job regression scale al support, job char- organizational support predicts both JE
engagement and analysis designed for acteristics, procedural commitment, and OE. Job characteristics
organizational the study justice, distributive intention to quit, predict JE; procedural justice
engagement justice, rewards and organizational predicts OE. JE and OE
recognition, perceived citizenship mediated the relationship
supervisor support behaviour between antecedents and job
satisfaction, organizational
commitment, intention to
quit and organizational citi-
zenship behaviour
Medlin Engagement Structural 4-itemBuck- Goal setting Optimism Goal setting positively
and Green - satisfaction equation ingham and impacts EE, and in turn EE
Jr. (2009) concept modeling Coffman positively impacts optimism
N=426 (1999) scale which in turn affects indi-
vidual performance
Papalexandris EE has been EFA, cor- Scale cre- Leadership skills: man- - Two leadership skills were
and Gala- conceptualized relation ated for the agement and mentoring found to be most influential:
naki (2009) as commitment, and linear study skills, articulation of being a good mentor and
N=51 CEOs effectiveness, regression vision, self management articulating a vision
N=30 employ- motivation and and inner balance, bet-
ees in every satisfaction ter collaboration with
company people, bureaucratic
style
Shuck (2010) Three-dimen- Correla- Modified Job fit, affective com- Discretionary Job fit, affective commitment
N=283 sional model tion and version of mitment, psychological effort, intention and psychological climate
of engagement hierarchical May et. al. climate to turnover were all significantly related
(Schaufeli et. al, regression (2004) scale to EE. Additionally, EE was
2002) significantly related to both
discretionary effort and
intention to turnover
Bakker and Three-dimen- Hierarchi- 9-item Autonomy, social Job performance Autonomy, exchange with
Bal(2010) sional model cal linear UWES support, performance the supervisor, opportunity
N=54 of engagement modeling (Schaufeli feedback, supervisory for development were posi-
(Schaufeli et. al, et.al., 2006) coaching and learning tively related to EE which in
2002) opportunity turn was positively related to
job performance
 Employee Engagement: A Critical Review of Literature 25

Employee
Paper/ Measure
engagement Method Antecedents Consequences Key findings
Article used
concept
Pati and Three-dimen- Regression UWES Self-efficacy, perceived - All the factors were found to
Kumar(2010) sional model (Schaufeli organizational support, drive EE
N=124 of engagement et. al., 2003) perceived supervisor
(Schaufeli et. al, support
2002)
Three-dimen- Partial least UWES Autonomy, role benefit, Innovative Perceptions of role benefit,
Slatten and sional model squares path (Schaufeli strategic attention behaviour autonomy, and strategic at-
Mehm- of engagement modeling et. al., 2003) tention were all significantly
etoglu (2011) (Schaufeli et. al, related to greater EE. EE was
N=279 2002) found to be closely linked to
innovative behaviour
Albrecht Three-dimen- Structural 9-item Employee empower- Affective com- Employee empowerment has
and An- sional model equation UWES ment mitment, turn- an impact on EE. EE on the
dreetta (2011) of engagement modeling (Schaufeli over intention other hand mediates the rela-
N=139 (Schaufeli et. al, et.al., 2006) tionship between employee
2002) empowerment and empower-
ing relationship and affective
commitment and turnover
intention
Joshi and EE conceptual- Regression Scale con- Work-life balance, job - All the factors were found to
Sodhi (2011) ized as organiza- structed for content, monetary ben- be drivers of EE
N=39,500 tional commit- the study efits, team orientation,
ment and job scope for advancement,
satisfaction top management-em-
ployee relations, union
management relations,
recognition and rewards
and welfare activities
Albrecht Job demands Structural 4-item scale Job resources, team re- Commitment, Organizational climate, team
(2012) -resources con- equation developed sources, organizational extra-role be- climate and job resources
N=3437 cept of engage- modeling for the resources haviour were positively associated
ment study with EE. EE was directly
associated with commitment
and extra-role performance
Anaza and Two dimen- Cross-sec- 5-item job Organizational iden- - Customer identification is an
Ruther- sional: job tional SEM engagement tification, employee- important contributing factor
ford (2012) engagement and analysis scale by customer identification, for job EE among front-
N=297 organizational Saks (2006) customer orientation line employees in service
engagement industries

Rurkkhum and Three-dimen- Hierarchi- 9-item - Organizational Results found support

Bartlett (2012) sional model cal multiple UWES citizenship for positive relationships
N=522 of engagement regression (Schaufeli behaviour between EE and every
(Schaufeli et. al, et.al., 2006) component of organiza-
2002) tional citizenship behaviour.
Relationship was found to
be strongest for civic virtue
component
Abraham One-dimen- Regression Gallup Q12 Job satisfaction - Nature of the job, superior’s
(2012) sional model of recognition of work, team
N=120 engagement spirit, cooperation between
departments, benefits, and
proper administration of
company policies contributed
to a moderate state of EE
Sarangi and Three-dimen- Regression UWES Organization culture - Organizational culture and
Shrivas- sional model (Schaufeli and communication communication were signifi-
tava (2012) of engagement et. al., 2003) cant predictors of EE
N=247 (Schaufeli et. al,
2002)
26 Journal of Organisation & Human Behaviour Volume 7 Issue 4 October 2018

Employee
Paper/ Measure
engagement Method Antecedents Consequences Key findings
Article used
concept
Freeney and Three-dimen- Structural 9-item Organizational support, Quality of care, EE emerged as a significant
Fellenz (2013) sional model equation UWES supervisor support, general health of partial mediator between
N=166 of engagement modeling (Schaufeli social support employees organizational and supervisor
(Schaufeli et. al, et.al., 2006) support and quality of care
2002) and as a significant predictor
of self-reported employee
health
Barnes and Three-dimen- Structural Schaufeli Service climate, job Adaptability, Service climate, job satisfac-
Collier (2013) sional model equation and Bakker satisfaction, affective career commit- tion, and effective commit-
N=401 of engagement modeling (2004) scale commitment ment ment influence EE. This sub-
(Schaufeli et. al, sequently impacts constructs
2002) such as career commitment
and adaptability
Shantz, Alfes, Three-dimen- Structural 9-item Autonomy, task variety, Task perfor- Employees who hold jobs
Truss and sional model equation UWES task significance, task mance, organi- that offer high levels of
Soane (2013) of engagement modeling (Schaufeli identity, feedback zational citizen- autonomy, task variety, task
N= 414 (Schaufeli et. al, et.al., 2006) ship behaviour, significance and feedback are
2002) deviance more highly engaged and in
consequence receive higher
performance ratings, enact
more citizenship behaviour
and engage in fewer deviant
behaviour
Biswas and Two dimen- Structural 11-item Perceived organiza- Organizational Findings revealed a positive
Bhatnagar sional: job equation Saks (2006) tional support, person- communication, relationship between per-
(2013) engagement and modeling scale organization fit job satisfaction ceived organizational support
N=246 organizational and person-organization
engagement fit with EE. Results also
revealed a strong relationship
between EE and communica-
tion and satisfaction
Gupta and EE was concep- Correla- Thomas Distributive justice, - Significant positive associa-
Kumar (2013) tualized as both tions and (2007) procedural justice, tion was found between dis-
N=120 one-dimensional hierarchical scale and interpersonal justice and tributive and informational
and three- regression Schaufeli et. informational justice justice dimensions and EE
dimensional analysis al. (2006)
construct scale
Chaurasia and Two dimen- Structural 11-item Leader-member Work role per- Individuals high psychologi-
Shukla (2014) sional: job equation Saks (2006) exchange (LMX), psy- formance cal capital and high quality
N=298 engagement and modeling scale chological capital relationship with their lead-
organizational ers is positively related to EE
engagement and performance of individu-
als in various work roles
Breevaart, Three-dimen- Multilevel State ver- Transformational - Respondents were more
Bakker, Het- sional model regression sion of leadership, transactional engaged on days their
land, Demer- of engagement UWES leadership, contingent leader showed more trans-
outi, Olsen & (Schaufeli et. al, (Schaufeli reward, active manage- formational leadership and
Espevik (2014) 2002) el.al., 2006) ment by exception provided contingent rewards.
N=61 Management by exception
was unrelated to EE
Handa and Three-dimen- Correlation UWES Conscientiousness, - Both conscientiousness and
Gulati (2014) sional model and regres- (Schaufeli extraversion extraversion emerged as
N=333 of engagement sion et. al., 2003) strong predictors of EE
(Schaufeli et. al,
2002)
 Employee Engagement: A Critical Review of Literature 27

Employee
Paper/ Measure
engagement Method Antecedents Consequences Key findings
Article used
concept
Rawal (2015) One-dimen- Logistic Scale con- Working environment, - Team coordination, organi-
N=400 sional model of regression structed for team coordination, zational support and working
engagement the study procedural justice, environment acted as strong
job characteristics, predictors of EE in public
supervisor support, sector insurance companies
organizational support, whereas in the private sector
incentives, motiva- only procedural justice is a
tion, enhancement and strong predictor
learning
Bal and Three-dimen- Regression Schaufeli Flexibility HRM Job performance Availability of flexibility
Lange (2015) sional model and Bakker practice HRM was positively related
N=695 of engagement (2004) scale to EE. However, use of flex-
(Schaufeli et. al, ibility HRM was not related
2002) to EE. EE mediated the rela-
tions between use and avail-
ability of flexibility HRM
with job performance
Siddiqi (2015) Three-dimen- Path analysis UWES Job crafting- structural Customer loy- Job crafting results in service
N=203 sional model (Schaufeli job resources, hindering alty, customer employee EE and desired
N=504 of engagement et. al., 2003) job demands, social job satisfaction customer outcomes
(Schaufeli et. al, resources, challenging
2002) job demands
Gaan (2016) One-dimen- Hierarchical 9-item scale Cultural dimensions: - Power distance has a nega-
N=295 sional model of regression by Thomas power distance, uncer- tive impact on EE. Values
engagement analysis (2007) tainty, human orienta- like collective individualism,
tion, collective individ- in-group collectivism, and
ualism, assertiveness, assertiveness have a positive
gender egalitarianism, impact on EE. The remain-
future orientation, per- ing five cultural dimensions
formance orientation showed an insignificant
relationship with EE
Anuradha, Three-dimen- Structural UWES Pro-social impact, af- Turnover inten- Perceived pro-social impact
Lakshmi sional model equation (Schaufeli fective commitment and tion and social worth are strong
and Ghu- of engagement modelling et. al., 2003) perceived social worth predictors of EE and EE in
man (2017) (Schaufeli et. al, turn predicts reduced turn-
N=137 2002) over intention
(Source: made by authors)
An assessment of consequences of engagement revealed between engagement and customer satisfaction and loyalty.
that most studies dealt with performance, satisfaction, Engagement therefore, promotes positive work behaviours
commitment, turnover intention, and the extra-role of employees and this in turn leads to higher organizational
behaviour of the employees (Saks, 2006; Shuck, 2010; effectiveness and higher productivity. Nonetheless, there is
Bakker & Bal, 2010; Albrecht & Andreetta, 2011; Albrecht, more consistency in the assessment of consequences as they
2012; Rurkkhum & Bartlett, 2012; Shantz, Alfes, Truss, are related to personal, job, as well as organizational factors.
& Soane, 2013; Biswas & Bhatnagar, 2013; Chaurasia &
Shukla, 2014; Bal & Lange, 2015; Anuradha, Lakshmi, & DISCUSSION
Ghuman, 2017). Studies have proved that higher levels of
engagement lead to higher job satisfaction of the employees, A review of literature around the construct of engagement
higher organizational commitment, better performance, and its antecedents and outcomes revealed certain conceptual
an improved extra-role behaviour and a reduced turnover and empirical gaps in literature.
intention. In addition to these commonly assessed factors,
Slatten and Mehmetoglu (2011), focused on employees’ Gap 1: There is a fundamental confusion regarding the
innovative behaviour at work and showed that engagement conceptualization of engagement.
promotes innovative behaviour of employees. Siddiqi (2015) It has been observed that the concept of engagement is
assessed customer satisfaction and loyalty as an outcome of shrouded in ambiguity not just regarding its conceptualization
engagement and a strong positive relationship was discovered
28 Journal of Organisation & Human Behaviour Volume 7 Issue 4 October 2018

but also with respect to its terminology. Kahn (1990) valuable insight.
posited the construct of ‘personal engagement’, whereas the
In order to accommodate the identified gaps in research and
Schaufeli et al. (2002) used the term ‘work engagement’.
conduct empirical studies, a conceptual model or framework
And still many other authors use the term ‘employee
was developed (Fig. 1). The conceptual framework takes three
engagement’. This multiplicity of terms creates confusion
factors in to consideration as drivers of engagement, namely,
in understanding the construct. Also, engagement has been
personal factors, job-related factors, and organizational
defined in different ways by different researchers (Saks,
factors. Personal factors include factors which are internal
2006) and somewhere these definitions resemble constructs
to the employee. Personal factors considered for the study
such as satisfaction, commitment, and involvement, which
are: self-efficacy and personality. Job-related factors
are already well defined in academic literature. Although,
include factors present in the job itself. Variables considered
Schaufeli et al. (2002) conceptualization seems to be the
under job-related factor include autonomy, feedback, role
most used conceptualization as well as measure, there is a lot factors, and organizational factors. Personal factors include factors which are internal to the
clarity, resource availability, opportunity for development,
of diversity in how studies have interpreted and measured the employee. Personal factors considered for the study are: self-efficacy and personality. Job-
and impact of technology. Lastly, factors present in the
construct of engagement. Thus, an amalgamation of several related factors include factors present in the job itself. Variables considered under job-related
organization are feedback,
termedroleasclarity,organizational
resource availability, factors
opportunity and
different constructs has diluted the concept of engagement. factor include autonomy, for
includes perceived organizational support, organizational
development, and impact of technology. Lastly, factors present in the organization are termed as
Gap 2: There is a dearth of studies which indicate linkage justice, service
organizational factors andclimate, and organizational
includes perceived authenticsupport, leadership.
organizational Thus,
justice,

or relationship between employee engagement and personal personal, job-related and organizational factors act
service climate, and authentic leadership. Thus, personal, job-related and organizational as
factors

characteristics. predictors of engagement. Organizational citizenship

act as predictors of engagement. Organizational citizenship behaviour, organizational
commitment, and intention to quit are expected to be the resulting behavioural outcomes of
behaviour, organizational commitment, and intention to quit
Out of the twenty seven studies reviewed, only two studies employee engagement.
are expected to be the resulting behavioural outcomes of
have focused on personal factors, namely, self-efficacy
employee engagement.
and two personality dimensions of conscientiousness and
extraversion as antecedents of engagement (Handa & Gulati, Personal factors
Self-efficacy
2014; Pati & Kumar, 2010). Thus, a review of the antecedent Personality
variables show that researchers have focused more on ‘what’
an employee does and ‘where’ does he work as determinants Job-related factors
Outcomes
Autonomy
of engagement without acknowledging much about ‘who’ Feedback Employee
Organizational
citizenship behaviour
Role clarity
the person is. Thus, further research is needed to identify the Resource availability
Engagement
Intention to quit
personal components of engagement or the personal bases of Opportunity for development
Impact of technology
Organizational
engagement at work with respect to the Indian context. commitment

Gap 3: There are no theoretical arguments which indicate Organizational factors

the impact of technology on engagement levels. Perceived organizational
support
Service climate
Although studies have assessed the impact of job Authentic leadership
characteristics and job demands and resources on employee
engagement, however, studies assessing the impact of
(Source: made by authors)
technology on jobs were not found. With advancement in Fig. 1: A Conceptual Model of Factors Affecting Employee Engagement and Its Outcomes
technology, our jobs have changed and it is imperative to Fig. 1: A Conceptual Model of Factors Affecting
(Source: made by authors)
understand how this changing nature of jobs might affect Employee Engagement and Its Outcomes
employee engagement.
Gap 4: There are no theoretical propositions which indicate CONCLUSION
the relationship between authentic leadership and employee
engagement. Employee engagement has dominated several discussion
forums and has made a place for itself as a critical but
Researchers (Papalexandris & Galanaki, 2009; Chaurasia controversial construct. This paper attempted to highlight
& Shukla, 2014; Breevaart, Bakker, Hetland, Demerouti, the gaps in the literature of the engagement construct.
Olsen, & Espevik, 2014) have assessed the impact of Four major gaps were identified and based on the gaps a
leadership on employee engagement. However, research conceptual framework with three broad factors, namely,
at the moment seems to be limited to transformational and personal factors, job-related factors, and organizational
transactional leadership styles. Studies investigating the factors, was developed which will be empirically tested in a
impact of authentic leadership on engagement levels were future study. This article, therefore, contributes to the general
not found. Thus, an examination of the relationship between body of knowledge on engagement and provides directions
authentic leadership and engagement may provide some for future academic research on the construct.
 Employee Engagement: A Critical Review of Literature 29

REFERENCES Gaan, N. (2016). Universal endorsement of values & impact

on employee engagement. Indian Journal of Industrial
Abraham, S. (2012). Job Satisfaction as an antecedent to em- Relations, 51(3).
ployee engagement. SIES Journal of Management, 8(2). Gupta, V., & Kumar, S. (2013). Impact of performance ap-
Albrecht, S. L. (2012). The influence of job, team and or- praisal justice on employee engagement: A study of Indian
ganizational level resources on employee well-being, en- professionals. Employee Relations, 35(1), 61–78.
gagement, commitment and extra-role performance: Test Handa, M., & Gulati, A. (2014). Employee engagement: Does
of a model. International Journal of Manpower, 33(7), individual personality matter. Journal of Management
840–853. Research, 14(1), 57.
Anaza, N. A., & Rutherford, B. (2012). How organization- Joshi, R. J., & Sodhi, J. S. (2011). Drivers of employee
al and employee-customer identification, and customer engagement in Indian organizations. Indian Journal of
orientation affect job engagement. Journal of Service Industrial Relations, 162–182.
Management, 23(5), 616–639.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal
Anuradha, M. V., Lakshmi, R. S., & Ghuman, S. (2017). engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of
An assessment of the influence of the psychological Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
consequences of task significance on employee engage-
ment and turnover intentions. South Asian Journal of Medlin, B., & Green Jr, K. W. (2009). Enhancing perfor-
Management, 24(3), 62–87. mance through goal setting, engagement, and opti-
mism. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(7),
Bakker, A. B., & Bal, M. P. (2010). Weekly work engage- 943–956.
ment and performance: A study among starting teach-
ers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Papalexandris, N., & Galanaki, E. (2009). Leadership’s
Psychology, 83(1), 189–206. impact on employee engagement: Differences among
entrepreneurs and professional CEOs. Leadership &
Bal, P. M., & De Lange, A. H. (2015). From flexibility human Organization Development Journal, 30(4), 365–385.
resource management to employee engagement and per-
ceived job performance across the lifespan: A multisam- Pati, S. P., & Kumar, P. (2010). Employee engagement: Role
ple study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational of self-efficacy, organizational support & supervisor sup-
Psychology, 88(1), 126–154. port. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 126–137.
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Rawal, S. (2015). Predictors of employee engagement in
Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014). Daily transactional public & private insurance companies. Indian Journal of
and transformational leadership and daily employee en- Industrial Relations, 51(2).
gagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Rurkkhum, S., & Bartlett, K. R. (2012). The relation-
Psychology, 87(1), 138–157. ship between employee engagement and organizational
Biswas, S., & Bhatnagar, J. (2013). Mediator analysis of citizenship behaviour in Thailand. Human Resource
employee engagement: role of perceived organizational Development International, 15(2), 157–174.
support, PO fit, organizational commitment and job satis- Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences
faction. Vikalpa, 38(1), 27-40. of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial
Chaurasia, S., & Shukla, A. (2014). Psychological capi- Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.
tal, LMX, employee engagement & work role perfor- Sarangi, S., & Srivastava, R. K. (2012). Impact of organiza-
mance. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, tional culture and communication on employee engage-
342–356. ment: An investigation of Indian private banks. South
Chermack, T. J., & Passmore, D. L. (2005). Using journals Asian Journal of Management, 19(3), 18.
and databases in research. Research in Organizations: Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., &
Foundations and Methods of Inquiry, 401–418. Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement
Barnes, D., & Collier, J. (2013). Investigating work engage- and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic
ment in the service environment. Journal of Services approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3(1), 71–92.
Marketing, 27(6), 485–499. Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., & Soane, E. (2013). The role
Freeney, Y., & Fellenz, M. R. (2013). Work engage- of employee engagement in the relationship between job
ment as a key driver of quality of care: A study with design and task performance, citizenship and deviant be-
midwives. Journal of Health Organization and haviours. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 27(3), 330–349. Management, 24(13), 2608–2627.
 30 Journal of Organisation & Human Behaviour Volume 7 Issue 4 October 2018

Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement Slåtten, T., & Mehmetoglu, M. (2011). Antecedents and
and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human effects of engaged frontline employees: A study from
Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89–110. the hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality: An
Shuck, M. B. (2010). Employee Engagement: An International Journal, 21(1), 88–107.
Examination of Antecedent and Outcome Variables. FIU Thomas, C. H. (2007, August). A new measurement scale for
Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 235. employee engagement: scale development, pilot test, and
Siddiqi, M. A. (2015). Employee innovative work behavior replication. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol.
and its roots in their work engagement: An Indian experi- 2007, No. 1, pp. 1–6). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of
ence. Pranjana, 18(2), 1. Management, 10510.

View publication stats