Introduction
Employee engagement has become an essential topic of study in human resources research over the past decades. Saks and Gruman (2014) explain that the increased interest in employee engagement is primarily due to its alleged association with performance, organisational success and competitive advantage. Indeed, many studies confirm the vital role of employee engagement in the organisation.
According to Bailey et al. (2017), engagement correlates with morale, task performance and organisational performance. Other scholars point to the positive relationship between employee engagement and innovation, intention to stay and individual well-being (Alfes et al. 2010). High engagement levels are also crucial for employers willing to attract talent and develop their brand since an improved employer brand is among the benefits of employee engagement (Davis 2018). In this context, improving employee engagement can help organisations to create a high-performing workforce that would help them to succeed.
However, to elevate employee engagement levels, managers must understand the nature of this concept and its relationship with individual and organisational variables. This prompts the study of various employee engagement models, which seek to explain engagement in multiple contexts. William Kahn developed the most well-known engagement model in 1990. Based on an extensive study of engagement in the workplace, Kahn (1990) proposed a model of personal engagement, where engagement results from a combination of psychological conditions, including meaningfulness, safety and availability.
Later, various researchers attempted to revise and improve Kahn’s model to make it more applicable in real life. In particular, Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010) made some crucial adjustments to Khan’s (1990) model in order to present their interpretation of employee engagement. These researchers focused on the relationship between engagement and other organisational factors. The model resulting from their research explains the relationships between a variety of characteristics, including employee engagement, value congruence, perceived organisational support, job satisfaction, job involvement and others (Rich, Lepine & Crawford 2010). Both models are currently applied in business management research and practice.
The present paper aims to compare and critically evaluate the two engagement models proposed by Kahn (1990) and Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010). In order to do that, the author will review the key characteristics of each model and the related research, as well as the quality of evidence supporting the models. In the context of this report, the word ‘engagement’ is used to refer to employee engagement as a whole, regardless of the specific professional area or industry.
Additionally, based on research, it is assumed that engagement is connected to other organisational factors, and thus changes from one organisation to another. Overall, the paper will provide an evaluation of the two models based on research and their practical applications.
Kahn’s (1990) Model
Key Characteristics
Kahn’s (1990) model of engagement focuses on two core concepts: personal engagement and personal disengagement. The researcher defines personal engagement as “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s ‘preferred self’ in task behaviours that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence (physical, cognitive and emotional), and active, full role performances” (Kahn 1990, p. 700).
Personal disengagement, on the contrary, refers to the withdrawal from and defence of a person’s preferred self in behaviours that impair connections (Kahn 1990). Disengagement is characterised by passive role performance and physical, cognitive and emotional absence of a person (Khan 1990). Based on this information, one of the critical characteristics of Kahn’s model is that it considers both engagement and disengagement. This distinguishes it from other theories that focus on engagement solely, including the model by Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010).
Another characteristic of Kahn’s model is that it explores the antecedents of personal engagement or disengagement. In particular, the model posits that personal engagement is determined by psychological meaningfulness, safety and availability (Kahn 1990). Each of these concepts, in turn, is influenced by various individual and organisational factors. For instance, psychological availability depends on the person’s physical energy, emotional energy and insecurity (Kahn 1990). Psychological safety, in turn, is based on interpersonal relationships, group and intergroup dynamics, management style and organisational norms (Kahn 1990).
Finally, psychological meaningfulness is determined by role characteristics, task characteristics and work interactions (Khan 1990). Hence, this model can be used to map organisational and individual influences on engagement and develop plans for improving the antecedents of personal engagement, thus improving employee engagement throughout the organisation.
Related Research
Over the years, there were hundreds of studies attempting to apply Kahn’s (1990) model in management practice and research. Some of the research was devoted to understanding the concept of employee engagement in greater depth. For example, Macey and Schneider (2008) appraised Kahn’s (1990) work along with other famous paper on the topic to research the nature of employee engagement and proposed to distinguish different states of engagement, including psychological, behavioural and task engagement. However, most studies sought to apply Kahn’s model to examine the influence of engagement on other organisational outcomes.
One of the most significant topics in related research is the connection between employee engagement and performance. Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) conducted a meta-analysis of employee satisfaction, engagement and business outcomes and found that there was a significant relationship between unit-level engagement and performance. Similarly, Christian, Garza and Slaughter (2011) discovered that employee engagement improved task performance and conceptual performance by mediating the influence of other organisational factors, including leadership, feedback and autonomy.
Many studies used employee engagement in their conceptual framework while examining other factors influencing organisational outcomes. For instance, Dutton, Dukerich and Harquail (1994) used Kahn’s research to model the connection between organisational image and identification with the organisation. Baer and Frese (2003) also applied the model to determine the characteristics of organisational climates that promote psychological safety and innovation. Among the more recent studies, there was a tendency to use employee engagement as part of competitive efforts and service improvements (Albrecht et al. 2015; Chandler & Lusch 2015; Dessart, Veloutsou & Morgan-Thomas 2015). Overall, Kahn’s (1990) work had a significant contribution to further research in employee engagement and management as a whole.
Critical Evaluation
The model of employee engagement was developed by Kahn (1990) based on two qualitative studies of organisations. The first organisation was a summer camp, and the second one was an architectural firm. The methodology used by Kahn (1990) fits into the grounded theory framework. This means that qualitative information obtained from both samples has been used as a foundation for the theoretical model. The trustworthiness of the grounded theory method is rooted in the inductive-deductive cycle applied to produce a grounded theory (Cooney 2011). From this viewpoint, Kahn’s (1990) model appears to be reliable since it is based on the objective and logical evaluation of information.
It is also possible to assess the model by reviewing case studies where it was applied. There have been multiple case studies based on Kahn’s (1990) model, although the results were mixed. For example, Zamin Abbas et al. (2014) applied the model in a case study of HR managers and found that it explained many phenomena related to engagement, but did not account for individual emotional differences sufficiently.
Lewis, Thomas and Al-Amin (2016) successfully applied the model in a pharmaceutical company but proposed a clarification of engagement drivers to support the practical application. On the whole, the evidence from case studies suggests that Kahn’s (1990) model is viable, but may need adjustment in specific organisational contexts to achieve the desired effect.
Rich, Lepine and Crawford’s (2010) Model
Key Characteristics
The model by Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010) is primarily based on the work of Khan (1990), although it has a few distinguishing characteristics. First of all, the model examined employee engagement in a broader context. Specifically, the model shows how to value congruence, perceived organisational support and core self-evaluations influence task performance and organisational citizenship behaviours through job engagement, job involvement, job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation (Rich, Lepine & Crawford 2010). The scope of the model enables connecting engagement to other practical management concepts. Secondly, the researchers clarified the different types of engagement introduced by Kahn (1990) and related them to other individual and organisational variables. Due to these features, this model is more practical in its application than Kahn’s (1990) model.
Related Research
Similarly to Kahn’s (1990) paper, the work of Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010) has been widely used in research. Most of the studies related to the model focused either on engagement or on other concepts that are part of the model. For example, Anitha (2014) and Christian, Garza and Slaughter (2011) focused on engagement and its influence on performance. Other researchers considered engagement as part of the framework to address individual barriers to performance, such as burnout (Cole et al. 2012; Nahrgang, Morgeso & Hofmann 2011).
A lot of articles focused on summarising and evaluating contemporary approaches to employee engagement also considered the model (Schaufeli 2013; Shuck 2011). All in all, the impact of this model on research is comparable to that of Kahn’s (1990) work, meaning that the model contributed to the study of employee engagement and related concepts in management.
Critical Evaluation
In contrast with Kahn (1990), Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010) used a quantitative methodology with a sample size of 245 full-time firefighters and their supervisors. The methods used by researchers involved both self-reported answers and evaluations by supervisors, thus providing more objective information on performance (Rich, Lepine & Crawford 2010). The instruments chosen for the study were evaluated for validity and reliability; non-original tools used in other studies were also applied.
The methodology of the study as a whole is more reliable than the one used by Kahn (1990) since it employed proven instruments and collected quantitative data. The data analysis methods are chosen by the researchers also supported the goal of the study by allowing identifying the relationships and their strength.
While it would have been useful to judge the model by evaluating its application in various case studies, few studies employed this model specifically. Most of the studies based on the model included modifications or focused on variables other than employee engagement. However, a recent case study by ĆantaĆ et al. (2018) applied the model and instruments used by Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010) to evaluate the relationship between corporate reputation and physical, emotional and cognitive engagement. The application of the model enabled the researchers to account for other drivers of engagement and achieve the intended results. This suggests that the scope of the model and its reliability allows for its application in research, although the evidence of practical applicability is lacking.
Conclusions
Based on the analysis, both models have important advantages and disadvantages that affect their application in research and practice. Kahn’s (1990) was instrumental in introducing the concept of employee engagement and mapping out the possible drivers of it. This model has given rise to numerous research studies that refined the model further and deepened the understanding of the concept of employee engagement and its relationship to other factors.
However, the model remains rather vague since it does not provide practical solutions for increasing employee engagement. While the model can be applied in practice by managers, it has to be tailored to the context and needs of a particular organisation. Additionally, the reliance on qualitative data, although necessary for building a grounded theory, impacts the overall reliability of the information provided by Kahn (1990).
In contrast, the methodology used by Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010) is reliable and provides objective data on the relationship between engagement and other organisational factors. This model also had a prominent influence on further research, particularly with respect to studies mapping the drivers and antecedents of engagement. While the second model does not focus on solutions, it can be applied for measuring the current situation in a particular company and identifying gaps that could affect employee engagement. All in all, both models have important implications for researchers and managers alike, but the differences in methodology and scope of the models affect how they can be applied in research and practice.
Reference List
Albrecht, SL, Bakker, AB, Gruman, JA, Macey, WH & Saks, AM 2015, âEmployee engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantageâ, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 7â35.
Alfes, K, Truss, C, Soane, EC, Rees, C & Gatenby, M 2010, Creating an engaged workforce: findings from the Kingston employee engagement consortium project, CIPD, London.
Anitha, J, 2014, âDeterminants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performanceâ, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 308-323.
Baer, M, & Frese, M 2003, âInnovation is not enough: climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performanceâ, Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 45-68.
Bailey, C, Madden, A, Alfes, K & Fletcher, L 2017, âThe meaning, antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: a narrative synthesisâ, International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 31-53.
Chandler, JD & Lusch, RF 2015, âService systems: a broadened framework and research agenda on value propositions, engagement, and service experienceâ, Journal of Service Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 6-22.
Christian, MS, Garza, AS & Slaughter, JE, 2011, âWork engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performanceâ, Personnel Psychology, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 89-136.
Cooney, A 2011, âRigour and grounded theoryâ, Nurse Researcher, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 17-22.
Cole, MS, Walter, F, Bedeian, AG & OâBoyle, EH 2012, âJob burnout and employee engagement: A meta-analytic examination of construct proliferationâ, Journal of Management, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 1550-1581.
Dessart, L, Veloutsou, C & Morgan-Thomas, A 2015, âConsumer engagement in online brand communities: a social media perspectiveâ, Journal of Product & Brand Management, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 28-42.
Dutton, JE, Dukerich, JM & Harquail, CV 1994, âOrganizational images and member identificationâ, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 239-263.
Harter, JK, Schmidt, FL & Hayes, TL 2002, âBusiness-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysisâ, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 268-279.
Kahn, WA 1990, âPsychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at workâ, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 692-724.
Lewis, A, Thomas, B & Al-Amin, M 2016, âEmployee engagement in the pharmaceuticals sector in Bangladesh: a case study of a pharmaceuticals companyâ, International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 332-357.
Macey, WH & Schneider, B 2008, âThe meaning of employee engagementâ, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3-30.
Nahrgang, JD, Morgeson, FP & Hofmann, DA 2011, âSafety at work: a meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomesâ, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 71-94.
Rich, BL, Lepine, JA & Crawford, ER 2010, âJob engagement: antecedents and effects on job performanceâ, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 617-635.
Saks, AM & Gruman, JA 2014, âWhat do we really know about employee engagement?â, Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 155-182.
ĆantaĆ, F, Ăzer, Ă, Saygili, M & Ăzkan, Ć 2018, âThe effect of corporate reputation on work engagement: a case study in a public hospitalâ, International Journal of Healthcare Management. Web.
Shuck, B 2011, âFour emerging perspectives of employee engagement: an integrative literature reviewâ, Human Resource Development Review, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 304-328.
Zamin Abbas, R, Sohaib Murad, H, Yazdani, N & Asghar, A 2014, âExtending âKahn’s model of personal engagement and disengagement at workâ with reference to existential attributes: a case study of HR managers in Pakistanâ, International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 2-31.