Questioning Work Engagement and Employee Engagement

Rauly Sijabat

Universitas PGRI Semarang

ABSTRACT: Research related to Work Engagement (WE) and Employee Engagement (EE) has been carried out by many previous researchers, both quantitative and qualitative studies. What is interesting about these studies is that some researchers do not sufficiently differentiate the concepts between work engagement and employee engagement, while other researchers use different terms between work engagement and employee engagement. However, not many studies have questioned whether the concepts of WE and EE are the same or different concepts. These findings prompted this study to conduct an in-depth literature review regarding the concepts of WE and EE and their measurements. The study was carried out using a Systematic Literature Review approach on various studies that researched WE and EE. The results of the literature review show that WE and EE are concepts that should be treated differently. Work engagement focuses on the energy employees devote to work. Meanwhile, employee engagement focuses on the energy devoted to work that has a positive contribution to achieving the organization’s vision and mission. The context of employee engagement is to promote innovative employee behavior towards their work that contributes to the organization’s vision and mission.

Keywords: work engagement, employee engagement

INTRODUCTION

Research on engagement is nothing new. This can be seen from the large number of empirical studies and literature reviews about engagement. For practical researchers and academics, engagement still has great interest to research because of its influence on various organizational factors such as increasing employee performance (Aryee et al. 2012), (Inamizu & Makishima, 2018), (Ali et al., 2020), extra role performance (Eldor & Vigoda-Gadot, 2017), innovative behavior (Bakker & Kim & Park, 2017) as well as a decrease in turnover intention (Kaur & Randhawa, 2021), employee absenteeism (Karatepe & Olugbade, 2016). Although these studies examine engagement, the terms used are different. Some studies use the term work engagement while other studies use the term employee engagement.

Table 1. Mapping Previous Research on Work Engagement and Employee Engagement

       Source: Extracted from various previous studies for this literature study, 2021

The use of the terms work engagement and employee engagement in previous studies is not clear. This raises the question of whether work engagement and employee engagement explain the same or different concepts. This literature review was conducted to answer curiosity regarding whether or not there is a difference between work engagement and employee engagement. Is it only limited to differences in the use of terms but refer to different concepts or do they have to be treated as different ideas or thoughts? In this research, a literature review was carried out to gain in-depth insight regarding the concepts, ideas and conditions that we wanted to convey.

RESEARCH METHOD

This research is qualitative research with a systematic literature review approach. This approach was chosen to gain a deep understanding of Work Engagement and Employee Engagement, whether the concepts are the same or different. There are 73 pieces of literature reviewed in this study as presented in the following table:

Table 2. Distribution of Work Engagement and Employee Engagement Literature

Source: Processed for this research, 2023

Literature Review Results

Research identifying work engagement as mapped in this literature study refers to the concept of engagement presented by (W. B. Schaufeli et al., 2002). To gain a deep understanding of work engagement and employee engagement, this study focuses on examining the indicators used to measure work engagement and employee engagement.

Several previous studies examining employee engagement have been reviewed in this literature study. From the results of this study, it can be seen that there are differences in measurements made on employee engagement. Studies (Farrukh et al., 2020), (Landells & Albrecht, 2019), (Kaur & Randhawa, 2021), (Albrecht et al., 2021), and (Nassani, 2021) Naasani, Alotaibi & Alothman (2021) measure employee engagement by adopting dimensions and items from The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). Other studies use different dimensions and items to measure employee engagement.

Studies conducted (Kahn, 1990), (May et al., 2004), (Shuck, Adelson, & Reio, 2017), (Afsar et al., 2020), (Sharma & Kumra, 2020), measure employee engagement by uses three dimensions which include cognitive, emotional and physical. Cognitive involvement refers to the intensity of mental energy expressed in employee work that is oriented towards achieving organizational goals. Emotional involvement refers to the intensity and willingness of employees to express their emotions in work that is oriented towards achieving organizational goals. Physical/behavioral involvement (physical/behavior) refers to the intensity of behavior to act in carrying out work that is oriented towards achieving organizational goals.

Cognitive Engagement (Cognitive Engagement)

1. I focus when working
2. I concentrate when working
3. I give work responsibilities a lot of attention
4. At work, I focus on my work

Emotional involvement (emotional engagement)

1. Working at this company contains many personal things that are meaningful to me
2. I have strong feelings about my work
3. I believe in the mission and goals of this company
4. I care about the future of this company

Behavioral engagement

1. I push myself to go above and beyond at my job
2. I am willing to work extra hours without being asked
3. I am able to exceed my expectations to make my team successful
4. I work harder in the hope of helping the company to succeed

The results of previous research mapping examined in this literature study, work engagement measurements were carried out by adopting measurements from The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) which consists of three dimensions, namely vigor, dedication, and absorption.

Table 3. Concept, Context and Measurement of Work Engagement in Previous Research

Source: Extracted from various previous studies for this literature study, 2023

The dimensions and items used to measure work engagement refer to the dimensions and items from The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) which was later revised to become The UWES-9 which was developed by Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova (2006).

Vigor

1. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work (The UWES-9)
2. At my work, I feel bursting with energy (The UWES-9)
3. At my work I always persevere, even when things do not go well.
4. I can continue working for very long periods at a time.
5. At my job, I am very resilient, mentally.
6. At my job I feel strong and vigorous (The UWES-9)

Dedication

1. To me, my job is challenging.
2. My job inspires me (The UWES-9)
3. I am enthusiastic about my job (The UWES-9)
4. I am proud on the work that I do (The UWES-9)
5. I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose.

Absorption

1. When I am working, I forget everything else around me.
2. Time flies when I am working.
3. I get carried away when I am working (The UWES-9)
4. It is difficult to detach myself from my job.
5. I am immersed in my work (The UWES-9)
6. I feel happy when I am working intensely (The UWES-9)

DISCUSSION

Based on the mapping results of previous studies that used the concepts of work engagement and employee engagement, most researchers implicitly assume that work engagement and employee engagement explain the same concept or thing. Each study does not provide an adequate explanation that shows the difference between work engagement and employee engagement. Even though the context used in each is different (not the same). This can be seen from the use of dimensions and items measuring work engagement and employee engagement, most of which refer to The UWES-9 developed by (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006).

Compared to work engagement, the understanding of employee engagement is more varied among several researchers (Nienaber & Martins, 2020), (Men et al., 2020), (Barreiro & Treglown, 2020), (Ali et al., 2020), (Afsar et al., 2020). In the workplace, work engagement is considered to have a more established measurement, such as the measurement on The UWES scale. Therefore, Shuck, Adelson, and Reio (2017) think that work engagement and employee engagement are engagement concepts that must be separated.

However, if we refer to (Shuck et al, 2017), work engagement and employee engagement are two concepts with different focuses and understandings. (W. Schaufeli et al., 2002) and Schaufeli et al (2006) define work engagement as individual or employee feelings about work while Shuck et al (2017) define employee engagement as individual or employee feelings towards work and also the organization. Furthermore, researchers need to consider in what context research on engagement is carried out. If the purpose of engagement is to promote innovative employee behavior, then the concept of employee engagement is more effective to research. This is because employee engagement encourages individuals or employees to devote their efforts not only to work but also to make positive contributions to achieving the organization’s vision and mission.

CONCLUSION

The differences between work engagement and employee engagement in previous research have not been explained adequately. This triggers the use of the same measurement approach between work engagement and employee engagement. However, from the results of literature studies that have been carried out, work engagement and employee engagement are two concepts that have different focuses and contexts. Employee engagement focuses on the outpouring of energy given by individuals or employees to their work or organization. Employee engagement is researched in the context of promoting innovative employee behavior towards their work which has a positive contribution to achieving the organization’s vision and mission.

REFERENCES

1. Albrecht, S. L., Green, C. R., & Marty, A. (2021). Meaningful Work , Job Resources , and Employee Engagement.
2. Afsar, B., Al-Ghazali, B., & Umrani, W. (2020). Corporate social responsibility, work meaningfulness, and employee engagement: The joint moderating effects of incremental moral belief and moral identity centrality. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(3), 1264–1278. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1882
3. Ahmed, U., Yong, I. S. C., Pahi, M. H., & Dakhan, S. A. (2021). Does meaningful work encompass support towards supervisory, worker and engagement relationship? International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-06-2020-0321
4. Aldrin, N., & Merdiaty, N. (2019). Effect of job crafting on work engagement with mindfulness as a m ed iator Effect of jhhhob crafting on work engagement with mindfulness as a mediator. Cogent Psychology, 6(01). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2019.1684421
5. Ali, H. Y., Asrar-ul-Haq, M., Amin, S., Noor, S., Haris-ul-Mahasbi, M., & Aslam, M. K. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and employee performance: The mediating role of employee engagement in the manufacturing sector of Pakistan. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(6), 2908–2919. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2011
6. Baghdadi, N. A., Farghaly Abd-EL Aliem, S. M., & Alsayed, S. K. (2021). The relationship between nurses’ job crafting behaviours and their work engagement. Journal of Nursing Management, 29(2), 214–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13141
7. Barreiro, C. A., & Treglown, L. (2020). What makes an engaged employee? A facet-level approach to trait emotional intelligence as a predictor of employee engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 159(September 2018), 109892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109892
8. Eldor, L., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2017). The nature of employee engagement: rethinking the employee–organization relationship. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(3), 526–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1180312
9. Emilisa, N., Yudhaputri, E. A., & Dewi, I. K. (2020). The Impact of Job Demands and Job Resources to Work Engagement and Job Stress Mediated by Job Crafting : A Study from Event Organizer ’ s Employees. 29(05), 558–566.
10. Fairlie, P. (2011). Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key employee outcomes: Implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 508–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311431679
11. Farrukh, M., Sajid, M., Lee, J. W. C., & Shahzad, I. A. (2020). The perception of corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: Examining the underlying mechanism. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 760–768. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1842
12. Hulshof, I. L., Demerouti, E., & Blanc, P. M. Le. (2020). Day-level job crafting and service-oriented task performance and work engagement. 25(4), 355–371. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-05-2019-0111
13. Inamizu, N., & Makishima, M. (2018). Job performance explains work engagement. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 17(4), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.7880/abas.0180712a
14. aratepe, O. M., & Eslamlou, A. (2017). Journal of Air Transport Management Outcomes of job crafting among fl ight attendants. Journal of Air Transport Management, 62, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.02.005
15. Karatepe, O. M., Rezapouraghdam, H., & Hassannia, R. (2020). Job insecurity, work engagement and their effects on hotel employees’ non-green and nonattendance behaviors. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87(April 2019), 102472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102472
16. Kooij, D. T. A. M., Nijssen, H., Bal, P. M., & van der Kruijssen, D. T. F. (2020). Crafting an interesting job: Stimulating an active role of older workers in enhancing their daily work engagement and job performance. Work, Aging and Retirement, 6(3), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waaa001
17. Landells, E. M., & Albrecht, S. L. (2019). Perceived organizational politics, engagement, and stress: The mediating influence of meaningful work. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(JULY), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01612
18. Letona-ibañez, O., Martinez-rodriguez, S., Ortiz-marques, N., Carrasco, M., & Amillano, A. (2021). Job Crafting and Work Engagement : The Mediating Role of Work Meaning.
19. Matsuo, M. (2019). Effect of learning goal orientation on work engagement through job crafting: A moderated mediation approach. Personnel Review, 48(1), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2017-0346
20. Men, L. R., O’Neil, J., & Ewing, M. (2020). Examining the effects of internal social media usage on employee engagement. Public Relations Review, 46(2), 101880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101880
21. Na-Nan, K., & Arunyaphum, A. (2021). Effect of employees’ work engagement and knowledge sharing as mediators of empowering leadership and innovative work behaviour. Industrial and Commercial Training, 53(4), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-08-2020-0100
22. Nassani, A. (2021). Examining the Impact of Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement as Mediators between Job Crafting and Turnover Intention in Saudi Companies Examining the Impact of Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement as Mediators between Job Crafting and Turnover In. May. https://doi.org/10.7176/EJBM/13-7-09
23. Ogbuanya, C., & Chukwuedo, O. (2017). Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.
24. Oprea, B., & Pa, L. (2020). Job Crafting and Intent to Leave : The Mediating Role of Meaningful Work and Engagement. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845320918666
25. Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2016). Crafting the Change : The Role of Employee Job Crafting Behaviors for Successful Organizational Change. XX(X), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315624961
26. Radic, A., Arjona-Fuentes, J. M., Ariza-Montes, A., Han, H., & Law, R. (2020). Job demands–job resources (JD-R) model, work engagement, and well-being of cruise ship employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 88(October 2019), 102518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102518
27. Rošková, E., & Faragová, L. (2020). Job Crafting , Work Engagement , Burnout : Mediating Role of Self- Efficacy. 62(2), 148–163.
28. Sánchez-Cardona, I., Vera, M., & Marrero-Centeno, J. (2021). Job resources and employees’ intention to stay: The mediating role of meaningful work and work engagement. Journal of Management and Organization, May. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2021.10
29. Van Wingerden, J., & Van Der Stoep, J. (2018). The motivational potential of meaningful work: Relationships with strengths use, work engagement, and performance. PLoS ONE, 13(6), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197599