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

net/publication/264814556

Fostering employee engagement in organisations: A conceptual framework

Article  in  International Journal of Management Practice · January 2014

DOI: 10.1504/IJMP.2014.061476

CITATIONS READS

2 1,435

1 author:

Kaushik Mukerjee
National Institute Of Bank Management
13 PUBLICATIONS   62 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kaushik Mukerjee on 23 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

160 Int. J. Management Practice, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2014

Fostering employee engagement in organisations:

a conceptual framework

Kaushik Mukerjee
SIBM Pune,
Symbiosis International University,
Symbiosis Knowledge Village, Lavale, Mulshi,
Pune 412115, India
Email: kaushikmukerjee@sibmpune.edu.in
Email: kaushikmukerjee@gmail.com

Abstract: In recent times, the importance of employee engagement has been

well acknowledged, but the understanding of the factors that impact
engagement needs deeper study. This paper focuses on the existing literature
on employee engagement and the engagement practices in leading
organisations. Through the use of suitable concepts and practices, a conceptual
framework has been developed that can help foster employee engagement in
organisations. This paper brings into focus suitable propositions that need to be
managed to enhance employee satisfaction and commitment. It also brings
forth relevant propositions that organisations should consider to develop
employee motivation and advocacy. The paper concludes that employee
engagement can be fostered in organisations by focusing on the propositions
given in the conceptual framework.

Keywords: employee engagement; culture; organisational performance; high

performance; employee satisfaction; employee commitment; employee
motivation; employee advocacy.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Mukerjee, K. (2014)

‘Fostering employee engagement in organisations: a conceptual framework’,
Int. J. Management Practice, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.160–176.

Biographical note: Kaushik Mukerjee is a Professor at Symbiosis Institute of

Business Management (SIBM Pune), India. He did his Doctoral studies in
Management at Pune University’s Department of Management. He has about
20 years of experience in industry and academics. He has published 11 books,
over 50 articles and papers and more than 100 case studies. His papers have
been published in international journals like Journal of Business Strategy
(Emerald) and Ivey Business Journal. He is also a Doctoral Guide at Symbiosis
International University (SIU) and a Member of the Academic Council as well
as the Board of Studies at SIU.

1 Introduction

Employee engagement has gained in importance in recent times. It has been pointed out
that until the last decade the focus of organisations was on employee satisfaction,
whereas in this decade organisations have been taking employee engagement in great

Copyright © 2014 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Fostering employee engagement in organisations 161

earnest (Van Rooy et al., 2011). While employee satisfaction involved the feelings of
individuals with regard to the work, environment, pay, colleagues, etc. (Judge et al.,
2001), the aspect of employee engagement is more behavioural and serves as an indicator
of performance contributions that include trait, state and behavioural elements (Macey
and Schneider, 2008). It has been found that engagement has a significant impact on a
number of business outcomes, including customer satisfaction, productivity, profit,
employee turnover and accidents (Harter et al., 2002). Research undertaken through
causal investigations has indicated that engagement may have an indirect impact on
profit through customer service (Simon et al., 2009). Therefore, it is quite evident that
employee engagement should be taken seriously by organisations.
On the other hand, it has also been found that organisations have been losing their
potential profits owing to the lack of employee engagement. It has been found in a poll
undertaken by Gallup that a majority of employees merely show up at work and do ‘what
is expected and nothing more’. It has been reported that the cost to American companies
is about $300 billion in lost productivity apart from destroying customer relationships
(Fleming et al., 2005).
However, though many organisations have understood and accepted the importance
of employee engagement, it has been a challenge for them to get employees engaged.
The role of leaders has been questioned with reference to fostering of employee
engagement in organisations. Researchers have commented:
“Senior executives routinely undermine creativity, productivity, and
commitment by damaging the inner work lives of their employees in four
avoidable ways. As a senior executive, you may think you know what Job
Number 1 is: developing a killer strategy. In fact, this is only Job 1a. You have
a second, equally important task. Call it Job 1b: enabling the ongoing
engagement and everyday progress of the people in the trenches of your
organisation who strive to execute that strategy” (Amabile and Kramer, 2012,
p.124).
This paper aims at the development of suitable propositions on employee engagement
taking into account the various aspects of employee engagement and the practices in
organisations. These propositions would be used to create a conceptual framework that
will help foster employee engagement.

2 Literature review

The concept of employee engagement perhaps has its roots in the Organisational
Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) concept. The five types of discretionary behaviour on the
part of employees have been designated as altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship,
courtesy and civic virtue (Organ, 1988). Research undertaken by Bolino and Turnley
(2003) has shown that factors like job satisfaction, transformative and supportive
leadership, interesting work and job involvement, organisational support, trust, etc.,
promote citizenship behaviour among employees. Organisations expect employees to
exhibit OCB that would contribute to the goals of the organisation by contributing to the
social and psychological environment in the organisation (Rotundo and Sackett, 2002).
Research has been undertaken to show that better employee engagement will lead to
better OCB of employees (Podsakoff et al., 2009).
162 K. Mukerjee

2.1 Definition of employee engagement

There have been various definitions of employee engagement offered by different
researchers. Employee engagement has been termed as an emotional and intellectual
commitment to the organisation by employees (Baumruk, 2004). If we consider the
aspect of discretionary effort of employees from the point of view of OCB discussed
above, then engagement is the employee’s sense of purpose and focused energy that is
evident to others through the display of personal initiative, adaptability, effort and
persistence directed towards the organisation’s goals (Macey et al., 2009). Employee
engagement has also been referred to as the illusive force that motivates employees to
higher levels of performance (Wellins and Concelman, 2005). The definition of
employee engagement for the purpose of this paper takes the view that an engaged
employee would approach tasks associated with a job with a sense of self-investment,
energy and passion, and these would lead to higher levels of in-role and extra-role
performance (Christian et al., 2011). This paper will focus on the various stages that
enable employee engagement in organisations by taking into account the relevant
theories and practices in organisations.

2.2 Theories on employee engagement

Employee engagement been referred to as the amount of discretionary effort exhibited by
employees in their jobs (Frank et al., 2004). The characteristics that represent
engagement have been mentioned as energy, involvement and efficacy. It has been
inferred that these are the exact opposites of the three burnout dimensions of exhaustion,
cynicism and inefficacy. Engagement has been associated with various aspects like a
sustainable workload, feelings of choice and control, appropriate recognition and reward,
a supportive work community, fairness and justice, and meaningful and valued work
(Maslach et al., 2001).
It has been mentioned that the three strongest drivers of ‘feelings of engagement’
include the feeling that there is full utilisation of one’s skills and abilities; seeing a link
between one’s work and the objectives of the company; and being encouraged to
innovate (Schneider et al., 2009). Notably, a study by the Gallup Organisation found that
the most profitable work units of companies have people doing what they do best, with
people they like and with a strong psychological sense of ownership for the outcomes of
their work (Harter, 1999).
However, in reality, creating engagement among employees has not been easy for
organisations. The role of managers has been the target of researchers with regard to
fostering of engagement among employees. Researchers have commented:
“Managers at all levels routinely – and unwittingly – undermine the
meaningfulness of work for their direct subordinates through everyday words
and actions. These include dismissing the importance of subordinates’ work or
ideas, destroying a sense of ownership by switching people off project teams
before work is finalised, shifting goals so frequently that people despair that
their work will ever see the light of day, and neglecting to keep subordinates up
to date on changing priorities for customers” (Amabile and Kramer, 2012,
p.124).
 Fostering employee engagement in organisations 163

Therefore, it is expected that managers will minimise job demands that can cause burnout
and disengagement (e.g. role conflict, role ambiguity) and provide job resources (e.g. job
control, opportunities for development, task variety, feedback, social support) that can
facilitate the experience of meaningfulness, safety and availability (Crawford et al.,
2010).

2.3 Dimensions of employee engagement

Kahn (1990) undertook research on engagement and has developed the three dimensions
of employee engagement. The psychological conditions of employees can be interpreted
in terms of the three dimensions of employee engagement: emotional, cognitive and
physical. The research undertaken by Kahn explains that emotional engagement is a state
wherein the employee is very involved emotionally with his/her work, while cognitive
engagement is a state where employees focus hard while they are at work and physical
engagement is the state where employees are willing to go the extra mile for the sake of
the organisation. According to Kahn, the aspects that shaped the dimensions of
engagement include meaningfulness, safety and availability. The meaningfulness of the
work to be undertaken can decide whether the employee will be engaged or not. In
addition to that, the aspect of safety is concerned with the presence of a social system that
employees would find as non-threatening and predictable. Lastly, the aspect of
availability is concerned with the resources available to the employee to engage after
having overcome all the distractions at the workplace.

2.4 Factors associated with employee engagement

The factors associated with employee engagement have been studied by various
researchers. Halbesleben (2010) has pointed out the importance of organisational climate
as an antecedent, while Xanthopoulou et al. (2009) identified team atmosphere as a
strong influence for ensuring engagement. On the other hand, job resources and job-
related variables (such as autonomy, job feedback, skill utilisation, supervisor support
and opportunities for career development) have been pointed out as factors for
engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2009). Apart from these factors, Richardson and West
(2010) have highlighted the importance of a supportive organisational context that
supports team-based working and ensures alignment of teams with the organisational
values to facilitate employee engagement.
The aspect of psychological safety has also been highlighted. When employees feel
that they can perform their roles without fear of damage to self-image, status or career,
they would experience psychological safety. It is associated with reliable, predictable
social environments that have clear boundaries of acceptable conduct in which people
feel safe to risk self-expression (Saks and Gruman, 2011). This is a key aspect that
ensures employees regard the organisation as a place that will enable them to work
without fear. The four factors that influence psychological safety have been found to be
interpersonal relationships, group and inter-group dynamics, management style and
norms (Kahn, 1990). The role played by the senior management is of great importance in
this regard. Aspects like role clarity and transparency with respect to organisational
164 K. Mukerjee

communication need to be managed well by senior management. Senior management

communication and open, effective communication strategies are recognised as having a
crucial role in the development of positive employee engagement (Bakker et al., 2011).
The impact of various factors that are responsible for employee engagement has been
researched. Bakker and Demerouti (2007) studied engaged employees and found that
factors like autonomy, feedback and supervisory coaching were useful for enhancing the
engagement of employees. In another significant research conducted by Bakker and
Demerouti (2008), the use of job resources like career development and role clarity (apart
from the factors given from their previous research) was found to motivate employees
and enhance their commitment. It can be argued that these factors help in employee
engagement as well.

2.5 Practices fostering employee engagement

Global organisations like Coca-Cola have been attaching greater importance to employee
engagement and global engagement surveys of employees are being undertaken. These
data are linked with key business outcomes whereby the engagement scores can be
correlated with important financial measures (Emerald, 2011).
A KPMG study on employee engagement quotes various studies that have
highlighted some noteworthy issues. While 70% of employees indicate they have a good
understanding of how to meet customer needs, only 17% of non-engaged employees
seem to have similar capabilities. On the aspect of employee exits, the study points out
that engaged employees are 87% less likely to exit the organisation compared with
disengaged employees. Most notably, 78% of engaged employees recommend their
company’s products or services, whereas in the case of disengaged employees it is only
13% (KPMG, 2012).
The reports on employee engagement initiatives undertaken at various companies
also corroborate the findings of the studies mentioned above. The construction-
equipment maker Caterpillar has found that employee engagement has led to financial
gains. The engagement initiatives at Caterpillar has resulted in reduced employee
turnover and lesser absenteeism and reduced overtime for workers at a European plant.
This has helped the company make significant savings. In Caterpillar’s Asia Pacific
plant, the engagement initiatives led to a substantial increase in output (Vance, 2006).
Apart from financial gains, companies have reported other benefits as well. At the
beverage company of MolsonCoors, it was found that engaged employees were five
times less likely than non-engaged employees to have a safety incident and seven times
less likely to have a lost-time safety incident. When computed in financial terms, it was
found that the average cost of a safety incident for an engaged employee was
significantly lesser when compared with the average for a non-engaged employee
(Crabtree, 2005). Lockwood (2007) has used these illustrations to explain the strategic
role of HR in leveraging competitive advantage in contemporary times.
It is necessary for organisations to get a good understanding of what employees are
seeking.
In the modern era, companies are faced with a deficit of good talent and the aspect of
compensation and rewards needs to be looked at from a new perspective. At Kia Motors’
UK facility, the removal of bonuses and fixed rate percentage increase in the basic pay of
 Fostering employee engagement in organisations 165

employees increased the engagement of employees. The company found that bonuses led
to a rather improper behaviour on the part of employees, whereby they took the short-
term view instead of keeping the long term in mind while working. At Kia Motors, after
gaining the support of the board, the organisation improved internal-communication
channels to build engagement (Emerald, 2010).
The aspect of mutually beneficial initiatives (between employees and the
organisation) has been highlighted by the fast food chain McDonald’s. The workplace
needs to have an environment of mutual respect and understanding between employee
and employer. While the employer needs to understand employees’ needs, it is also
important for the employee to understand and respect the needs of the organisation.
Suitable programmes need to be created to educate and inform employees about what the
organisation needs from them. These programmes must then be reinforced by accessible
and understandable measures which enable employees to see if these needs are being met
(Fairhurst, 2007).
Organisations need to ensure that employees are able to express their views and
feelings in a democratic manner and Google’s practices have been quite exemplary in
this regard. Google has used feedback and discussions through suitably created forums as
an important method to get employees engaged (Staff of Corporate Executive Board,
2009). It is essential to engender trust among employees in order to get them engaged. By
adopting practices that enhance the organisation’s transparency and uphold its ethics,
employee engagement can be fostered.
Organisations like Harrah’s have been developing a level of ownership with line
employees and coaching their leaders to model that culture across the business. They
believe in recruiting and hiring the right people and engaging them to think of ways to
drive new forms of revenue (Baker and Warga, 2010).
The involvement of employees with innovation has also been known to foster
employee engagement. 3M has been one of those organisations that believe in providing
its employees the right environment to support innovations. 3M believes in the ability of
its leaders to foster a work environment that builds trust with employees through open
communication. A conducive work environment helps promote both employee
engagement and innovation. 3M believes in ‘giving people room’ wherein they allow
their technical employees to take some time off from their routine work for pursuing
projects of their own choosing (3M, 2013).
By fostering Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices, organisations can
enhance employee engagement. A research undertaken by Hewitt Associates has
demonstrated that organisations with high employee engagement have a higher degree of
readiness to focus on CSR. A very high percentage of employees at organisations with
high engagement agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that they worked for an
employer that was socially and environmentally responsible (Skibola, 2011). Starbucks
has taken several initiatives to do its bit for CSR. For sourcing its coffee, Starbucks has
tied up with Conservation International and developed ethical sourcing guidelines that
help it purchase coffee that is responsibly grown and ethically traded. Further, Starbucks
directly works with farmers to develop responsible growing methods and invests in
farmer communities to ensure sustainable supply of coffee (Starbucks, 2013). When it
comes to CSR activities, organisations also do their bit by showing their concern for the
166 K. Mukerjee

environment. McDonald’s has launched the ‘We Make the Difference Challenge’ in
which teams comprising their employees can earn points based on energy conservation
and waste-reduction habits (McDonald’s, 2013).
Employee engagement is fostered when employees are able to see for themselves
how their work makes a difference to the world. Genentech (a drug discovery firm)
shows its employees videos of how people suffering from various diseases get cured
using drugs that are created by the firm. When employees are able to see how they are
making a difference, it gives them a ‘purpose’ that goes beyond the traditional role that
they play in the firm.
It should be noted that to foster employee engagement a number of relevant factors
need to be managed in tandem. The example of Mars, Incorporated can be cited to
illustrate employee engagement in practice. The diversity at the workplace with 38%
managers being women creates an egalitarian culture. The five principles (or values) of
Mars – quality, responsibility, mutuality, efficiency and freedom – creates bonding
among Mars employees across geographical and cultural boundaries. The fact that Mars,
Incorporated is a privately held company gives autonomy to employees to experiment
and the management the patience to train juniors since Mars is not subjected to the
whims of shareholders. Also, Mars provides lots of latitude for career advancement for
employees including investing in their formal education while continuing with their job.
These are some initiatives that help foster employee engagement at Mars (Kaplan, 2013).

3 Stages of employee engagement

This paper aims to uncover the relevant issues related with fostering employee
engagement in organisations. The research on employee engagement has established that
the stages are the following: (1) satisfied: employees enjoy the job but do not go beyond
the role that has been assigned to them; (2) committed: employees feel a sense of
belonging towards the organisation since they feel valued by the organisation and are
able to express their views openly; (3) motivated: employees contribute energetically and
is focused on making individual contributions; (4) advocate: employees contribute
discretionary effort by proactively seeking opportunities to serve the mission of the
organisation and also recommend the organisation as an employer (Sanchez and
McCauley, 2006).
Research has shown the importance of these various stages with respect to employee
engagement. It has been shown that employee involvement in decision-making and
information sharing results in job satisfaction (Mushipe, 2011). Empowerment of
employees can also help in enabling commitment and motivation. Empowerment
involves giving employees the autonomy to make decisions about how they go about
their daily activities (Haas, 2010). It has been mentioned that empowerment practices
decentralise power by involving employees in decision-making (Carless, 2004). This will
ensure that employees become more involved and exhibit greater sense of responsibility.
Surely, the level of engagement is bound to increase as a result of empowerment. The
role of managers also becomes critical when it comes to the aspect of empowerment of
 Fostering employee engagement in organisations 167

employees. Empowerment implies that people at the lower levels of organisations

sometimes know best: the leaders’ role should be to act as coach and/or mentor and
important decisions can be made at all levels of organisations (Robert et al., 2000).
The empowerment of employees needs to be coupled with promotion of teamwork.
The job of top management is to encourage collaboration and cooperation among middle
and lower level managers in decision-making while promoting team orientation
(Kandemir and Hult, 2005). Team orientation fosters interdependence among the
members and induces the individual members to make sacrifices for the sake of the teams
(Liden et al., 2006).
Proposition 1: Team orientation and empowerment of employees help enhance job
satisfaction.
Research undertaken by Long et al. (2011) has shown that employees monitor the
fairness prevalent in organisations where they work and when managers promote
fairness, it has a positive impact on job satisfaction. Empirical evidence has also shown
that ethical leadership leads to employees’ psychological well-being and job satisfaction
(Avey et al., 2012). It has also been shown that highly ethical leaders promote honest and
truthful relationships and care about the greater good of employees, the organisation and
society (Brown et al., 2005). This leads to the perception of openness and truthfulness on
the part of the employees (Cha and Edmondson, 2006).
Empirical evidence has also shown that job satisfaction is related with a negative
intent on the part of employees for leaving the organisation (Filipova, 2011). Also,
evidence has shown that the satisfaction of employees with respect to the pay they
received greatly influenced the commitment they had towards the organisation (Valentine
et al., 2011). The nature of attachment that employees have towards the organisation can
be gauged using suitable models (Johnson et al., 2010). The attachment that employees
have towards the organisation determines the rate of employee turnover and this has been
shown to be linked to the commitment and job involvement of employees (Hafer and
Martin, 2006).
Managers need to play their role in ensuring that employees carry the right
perceptions about the organisation. Specifically, a leadership that provides a supportive,
trusting environment allows employees to fully invest their energies into their work roles
(Xu and Thomas, 2011). It has been shown that supervisor behaviour had an incremental
impact on employee psychological well-being with supervisor behaviour contributing to
the prediction of psychiatric disturbance beyond age, health practices, support from other
people at work, support from home, stressful life events and stressful work events
(Gilbreath and Benson, 2004).
The impact of a supportive superior can be of immense benefit to an organisation.
Subordinates with a strong, high-quality relationship with immediate managers
experience psychological safety and provides the belief that the environment is safe to
take interpersonal risks (Spreitzer et al., 2010). This enhances the commitment shown by
the employees towards the organisation. When an immediate supervisor provides
opportunities for development, fair supervision, meaningful work and autonomy,
subordinates feel obliged to repay leaders with higher levels of organisational
commitment, citizenship behaviours (Bhal, 2006).
168 K. Mukerjee

Proposition 2: Supportive supervisor behaviour and ethical leadership help enhance job
satisfaction among employees.
Commitment of employees towards the organisation also has a significant impact on
engagement. This can be understood by taking into account the extent to which an
employee adopts organisational values and goals and identifies with them in fulfilling
their job responsibilities (Tanriverdi, 2008). It has been mentioned that organisational
commitment could be impacted by the values and organisational behaviours prevalent in
the workplace (Morrow, 1993).
Employees show commitment when they feel that the organisation is taking efforts at
developing their capabilities and competencies. Employee learning can happen when a
suitable environment is created in the organisation. This is possible by getting employees
to participate in multiple communities of practice both within and outside the
organisation. Also, by providing employees diversity in terms of suitable tasks and
providing help in enhancing their formal qualifications, the organisation can foster
learning (Fuller and Unwin, 2004).
Proposition 3: Employees are committed towards the organisation when they see that the
organisation is taking efforts in developing the capabilities and competencies of the
employees and providing them opportunities for learning.
The aspect of discretionary effort on the part of employees has been regarded as an
indicator of employee engagement. Social exchange theory suggests that workers who
feel valued and appreciated by the organisation reward the company with discretionary
effort in a form of quid pro quo (Eisenberger et al., 1986). In short, the theory supposes
that discretionary effort on the part of the organisation on behalf of the employee is likely
to beget discretionary effort on the part of the employee (Wayne et al., 1997). This
requires employees to be involved in their jobs. This involvement is the result of a
cognitive judgment about the need for satisfying abilities of the job and is tied to one’s
self-image. Engagement has to do with the manner in which individuals employ
themselves in the performance of their job. Furthermore, engagement involves the active
use of emotions and behaviours in addition to cognitions (May et al., 2004).
Proposition 4: Employee commitment can lead to employee motivation whereby they are
more involved with their jobs and offer discretionary effort by going beyond the role
allocated to them.
The involvement of employees in innovation or an activity that they perceive as
meaningful can enhance the engagement. This could even be a feeling of being rewarded
for making a worthy contribution to the cause of the organisation. It can be argued that
when employees feel good about work, it can lead to a willingness to experiment, leading
to the creation of new ideas and novel solutions such as innovative work behaviour.
The feeling of ‘meaningfulness’ is a powerful drive for employees in order to make
them turn into advocates whereby they begin extolling the virtues of the organisation
among their peer groups and even social media. Notably, psychological meaningfulness
is influenced by work characteristics, such as challenge and autonomy (Bakker and
Demerouti, 2007). Psychological meaningfulness can be achieved from task
characteristics that provide challenging work, variety, allow the use of different skills,
 Fostering employee engagement in organisations 169

personal discretion and the opportunity to make important contributions (Kahn, 1992).
Empirical studies have found that the effect of transformational leadership occurs by
raising the followers’ general belief in the higher purpose of one’s work (Sparks and
Schenk, 2001).
Proposition 5: When employees get involved with innovation and get a feeling of
‘meaningfulness’ from their work, it enhances their motivation and makes them
advocates for the organisation.

4 Conceptual framework

The propositions discussed in Section 3 have been used to create the conceptual
framework presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Fostering employee engagement: a conceptual framework discussion

FOSTERING EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT

MANAGING SATISFACTION MANAGING MOTIVATION AND

AND COMMITMENT
P1: Team orientation and
empowerment of employees helps
enhance job satisfaction
P2: Supportive supervisor behaviour
and ethical leadership helps to
enhance job satisfaction among
employees
P3: Employees are committed towards
the organization when they see that the
organization is taking efforts in
developing the capabilities and
competencies of the employees and
providing them opportunities for
learning
ADVOCACY
P4: Employee commitment can lead to
employee motivation whereby they are
more involved with their jobs and offer
discretionary effort by going beyond the
role allocated to them
P5: When employees get involved with
innovation and get a feeling of
‘meaningfulness’ from their work, it
enhances their motivation and makes
them advocates for the organization

5 Discussion

Organisations need to take suitable measures to foster employee engagement. Firstly,

employee empowerment can be initiated by organisations after mapping employees’
skills, competencies and attitudes. Thereafter, employees can be allocated suitable roles
170 K. Mukerjee

based on their aptitude. Further, by creating an inventory of competencies and sharing the
same with line managers, organisations can ensure a fit between employees and roles that
may arise owing to the new initiatives that are launched. The aspect of psychological
safety and mutual respect can be fostered by promoting egalitarian relationships in the
workplace and adopting a non-hierarchical approach. The organisation can be more
inclusive by promoting greater transparency and sharing information readily with various
stakeholders.
The confectionary company Mars displays the current data related to sales, earnings,
cash flow and factory efficiency on big flat screens visible to employees. The data
disclosure helps motivate employees and the transparency on the part of the company
builds employee engagement. Likewise, Google’s mentoring programme (wherein a
senior employee mentors new recruits) helps build inclusiveness and trust among the
newly recruited employees.
By promoting diversity and a multicultural workplace, inclusiveness can be fostered.
The aspect of alignment with organisational values and promotion of ethical practices
can be given the right impetus through suitable senior leadership behaviour wherein they
‘live the values’ of the organisation. At CISCO, the commitment to diversity can be
inferred from the policies practiced by the company. CISCO has 45% minorities and
25% women in its workforce.
Further, the impetus on ethical practices can be strengthened by creating suitable
policies that employees find trustworthy. The use of democratically elected ‘ethics
champions’ can be considered in addition to a whistleblower policy. Some companies
belonging to the Tata Group have initiated the practice of democratically electing ‘ethics
champions’ to represent groups of employees.
Internal communication channels need to be developed to capture the feelings
nurtured by employees with regard to organisational policies especially relating to roles,
rewards and promotions. The use of blogs and impromptu chat sessions with senior
managers can help in capturing the voice of employees. The information technology
company HCL Technologies used internal blogs to capture the voice of employees and
get first-hand understanding of the issues that were a bother for employees.
These measures should help manage job satisfaction and enhance the commitment of
employees.
Organisations need to take employee training and development more seriously
through well-structured training programmes that ensure the development of suitable
skills and behaviours among employees. Suitable tie-ups with academic institutions
and/or the creation of centres of learning inside the organisation can prove useful for
fostering training and development. By encouraging employees to take up diverse roles
through job rotations, the learning and cross-fertilisation of ideas can be given a fillip.
Suitable programmes can be launched whereby mentoring of junior managers can be
made one of the key roles to be played by senior managers. This will ensure quick
dissemination of tacit knowledge as well as enable employees to learn new things at a
faster pace. Companies like CISCO, IBM and John Deere have tied up with various
academic institutions to provide their employees suitable training programmes. Many of
these programmes actually lead up to diplomas in various disciplines like business
management.
 Fostering employee engagement in organisations 171

Organisations can foster employee engagement by promoting experimentation and

encouraging innovation. The empowerment of employees and an inclusive approach with
regard to ideas for innovation can provide the necessary impetus. The ‘beyond-role’
discretionary efforts of employees can be encouraged by launching suitable initiatives
like ‘wall of fame’ wherein these efforts are celebrated through stories. A non-cash
reward programme (such as a dinner invite with senior executives of the organisation)
can also prove useful. These measures would surely enhance the motivation levels of
employees and hopefully build advocacy. The other aspect of advocacy that companies
need to manage well is the use of social media websites. Employees spend considerable
time on professional networking websites such as LinkedIn. Organisations can have a
meaningful presence on networking websites that enables advocacy since employees
(including prospective and previous employees) can ‘follow’ the organisation on these
websites. Google has more than one and a half million followers on LinkedIn and this
can help the company get the benefit of employee advocacy.
Employee engagement can also be fostered by making the job more meaningful for
employees. By involving employees in major innovation projects that have far-reaching
impact on society, this aspect of meaningfulness can be created. The other way is to
involve employees in CSR activities, by creating opportunities for employees to
participate in social causes and contribute their skills and talents towards worthy
initiatives. These can provide a sense of ‘purpose’ for employees. Organisations can
promote such participation through tie-ups with charitable organisations involved in
social causes. Mars encourages employees to participate in social causes through
volunteering and it helps build greater employee engagement.
These initiatives can foster employee motivation and build employee advocacy.

6 Implications for further research

Managers and researchers need to take employee engagement initiatives more seriously
by devoting their efforts in tracking the impact on employees.
This paper highlights the issues on which special focus can be given to foster
employee engagement. The propositions presented in the conceptual framework can be
taken up by researchers and tested on employees in various organisations. Based on the
propositions, suitable hypotheses can be developed and tested by researchers. The
empirical results can be used to prepare a robust framework that can be used by managers
to foster engagement.
In fact, the stages of engagement mentioned in this paper can be studied individually
as well. Surely, the various aspects like employee satisfaction, commitment, motivation
and advocacy offers great scope for research and developing new insights.
The issues that can be focused upon for further research include team orientation and
empowerment of employees; study of supervisor behaviour and ethical practices in
organisations; organisational efforts towards building capabilities and competencies of
the employees; factors that contributed to the discretionary efforts on the part of
employees; and, finally, the initiatives taken by organisations that led to employee
advocacy.
172 K. Mukerjee

7 Conclusions

It is evident from the paper that while employee engagement holds out great promise for
organisations, it is imperative to plan for ensuring engagement by taking into account all
relevant aspects that impact employee satisfaction and commitment as well as employee
motivation and advocacy. In times to come as the hunt for talent becomes fiercer,
organisations will be compelled to ensure engagement of employees to drive
performance and sustain competitive advantage. The propositions developed in this paper
can help organisations foster employee engagement.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the Editor, Dr. Wang, for his patient approach during the submission of
this paper and also the anonymous reviewers whose suggestions for improvement of the
paper are gratefully acknowledged.

References
3M (2013) Employee engagement. Available online at: http://solutions.3m.com.cn/wps/portal/3M/
zh_CN/global/sustainability/our-people/employee-engagement/ (accessed on 26 February
2013).
Amabile, T. and Kramer, S. (2012) ‘How leaders kill meaning at work’, McKinsey Quarterly,
No. 1, pp.124–131.
Avey, J., Wernsing, T. and Palanski, M. (2012) ‘Exploring the process of ethical leadership: the
mediating role of employee voice and psychological ownership’, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 107, No. 1, pp.21–34.
Baker, B. and Warga, B. (2010) A Case Study on New Employee Engagement at Harrah’s
Entertainment, Aon Hewitt, Chicago, IL.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007) ‘The job demands-resources model: state of the art’,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.309–328.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2008) ‘Towards a model of work engagement’, Career
Development International, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.209–223.
Bakker, A.B., Albrecht, S.L. and Leiter, M.P. (2011) ‘Key questions regarding work engagement’,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.4–28.
Baumruk, R. (2004) ‘The missing link: the role of employee engagement in business success’,
Workspan, Vol. 47, pp.48–52.
Bhal, K. (2006) ‘LMX-citizenship behavior relationship: justice as a mediator’, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.107–117.
Bolino, M.C. and Turnley, W.H. (2003) ‘Going the extra mile: cultivating and managing employee
citizenship behaviour’, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.60–71.
Brown, M.E., Trevino, L.K. and Harrison, D.A. (2005) ‘Ethical leadership: a social learning
perspective for construct development and testing’, Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 97, No. 2, pp.117–134.
 Fostering employee engagement in organisations 173

Carless, S.A. (2004) ‘Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between
psychological climate and job satisfaction?’ Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 18,
No. 4, pp.405–425.
Cha, S. and Edmondson, A. (2006) ‘When values backfire: leadership, attribution, and
disenchantment in a values-driven organization’, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1,
pp.57–78.
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011) ‘Work engagement: a quantitative review a
test of its relations with task and contextual performance’, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64,
No. 1, pp.89–136.
Crabtree, S. (2005) ‘Engagement keeps the doctor away’, Gallup Management Journal. Available
online at: http://gmj.gallup.com (accessed on 26 February 2013).
Crawford, E.R., LePine, J.A. and Rich, B.L. (2010) ‘Linking job demands and resources to
employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test’, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 95, No. 5, pp.834–848.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986) ‘Perceived organizational
support’, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 71, No. 3, pp.500–507.
Emerald (2010) ‘Kia kisses goodbye to bonuses: strategy builds employee engagement at car
manufacturer’, Human Resource Management International Digest, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp.5–7.
Emerald (2011) ‘Interview with Robin Gee, Head of Employee Engagement for Coca-Cola
refreshments’, Development and Learning in Organizations, Vol. 25, No.3, pp.34–35.
Fairhurst, D. (2007) ‘A balanced model for sustainable workplace flexibility: the case of
McDonald’s’, Development and Learning in Organizations, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.16–19.
Filipova, A.A. (2011) ‘Relationships among ethical climates, perceived organizational support, and
intent-to-leave for licensed nurses in skilled nursing facilities’, Journal of Applied
Gerontology, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.44–66.
Fleming, J.H., Coffman, C. and Harter, J.K. (2005) ‘Manage your human sigma’, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 83, Nos. 7–8, pp.106–114.
Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P. and Taylor, C.R. (2004) ‘The race for talent: retaining and engaging
workers in the 21st century’, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.12–25.
Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. (2004) ‘Expansive learning environments: integrating organizational and
personal development’, in Rainbird, H., Fuller, A. and Munro, A. (Eds): Workplace Learning
in Context, Routledge, London, pp.126–144.
Gilbreath, B. and Benson, P.G. (2004) ‘The contribution of supervisor behaviour to employee
psychological well-being’, Work & Stress, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.255–266.
Haas, M.R. (2010) ‘The double-edged swords of autonomy and external knowledge: analyzing
team effectiveness in a multinational organization’, The Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 53, No. 5, pp.989–1008.
Hafer, J.C. and Martin, T.N. (2006) ‘Job involvement or affective commitment: a sensitivity
analysis study of apathetic employee mobility’, Journal of Behavioural and Applied
Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.2–19.
Halbesleben, J. (2010) ‘A meta-analysis of work engagement: relationships with burnout, demands,
resources and consequences’, in Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds): Work Engagement: A
Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, New York, pp.102–117.
Harter, J.K. (1999) ‘Appendix e: the meta analysis’, in Buckingham, M. and Coffman, C. (Eds):
First Break All the Rules, Simon and Schuster, New York.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002) ‘Business-unit level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis’,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 2, pp.268–279.
174 K. Mukerjee

Johnson, R.E., Chang, C.H. and Yang, L.Q. (2010) ‘Commitment and motivation at work: the
relevance of employee identity and regulatory focus’, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.226–245.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E. and Patton, G.K. (2001) ‘The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review’, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 127, No. 3, pp.376–407.
Kahn, W.A. (1990) ‘Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.692–724.
Kahn, W.A. (1992) ‘To be full there: psychological presence at work’, Human Relations, Vol. 45,
No. 4, pp.321–349.
Kandemir, D. and Hult, G.T.M. (2005) ‘A conceptualization of an organizational learning
culture in international joint ventures’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34, No. 5,
pp.430–439.
Kaplan, D.A. (2013) ‘Mars Incorporated: a pretty sweet place to work’, Fortune. Available online:
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/01/17/best-companies-mars/ (accessed on 26
February 2013).
KPMG (2012) The real value of engaged employees. Available online at: www.kpmg.co.uk
(accessed on 26 February 2013).
Liden, R.C., Kraimer, M.L. and Erdogan, B. (2006) ‘Justice and leader-member exchange: the
moderating role of organizational culture’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, No. 2,
pp.395–406.
Lockwood, N.R. (2007) ‘Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage: HR’s
strategic role’, HR Magazine, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp.1–11.
Long, C.P., Bendersky, C., and Morrill C. (2011) ‘Fairness monitoring: linking managerial controls
and fairness judgments in organizations’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54, No. 5,
pp.1045–1068.
Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008) ‘The meaning of employee engagement’, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.3–30.
Macey, W.H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K.M. and Young, S.A. (2009) Employee Engagement: Tools
for Analysis, Practice and Competitive Advantage, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Maslach, C., Schaufelli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001) ‘Job burnout’, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp.397–422.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004) ‘The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work’, Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp.11–37.
McDonald’s (2013) McDonald’s best practices. Available online at: http://bestpractices.
mcdonalds.com/sections/1/case_studies/323 (accessed on 26 February 2013).
Morrow, P.C. (1993) The Theory and Measurement of Work Commitment, JAI Press, Greenwich,
CT.
Mushipe, Z.J. (2011) ‘Employee empowerment and job satisfaction: a study of the employees in
the food manufacturing sector in Zimbabwe’, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary
Research in Business, Vol. 3, No. 8, pp.18–41.
Organ, D.W. (1988) Organisational Citizenship Behaviour: The Good Soldier Syndrome,
Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.E., Podsakoff, P.M. and Blume, B.D. (2009) ‘Individual and
organizational level consequences of organizational citizenship behavior: a meta-analysis’,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp.122–141.
Richardson, J. and West, M.A. (2010) ‘Engaged work teams’, in Albrecht, S.L. (Ed.): Handbook of
Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice, Edward Elgar
Publishers, Cheltenham, UK, pp.323–340.
 Fostering employee engagement in organisations 175

Robert, C., Probst, T.M., Martocchio, J.J., Drasgow, F. and Lawler, J.J. (2000) ‘Empowerment and
continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: predicting fit on the
basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 85, No. 5, pp.643–658.
Rotundo, M. and Sackett, P.R. (2002) ‘The relative importance of task, citizenship, and
counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: a policy-capturing
approach’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 1, pp.66–80.
Saks, A.M. and Gruman, J.A. (2011) ‘Manage employee engagement to manage performance’,
Industrial & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.204–207.
Sanchez, P. and McCauley, D. (2006) ‘Measuring and managing engagement in a cross-cultural
workforce: new insights for global companies’, Global Business & Organizational
Excellence, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.41–50.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Van Rhenen, W. (2009) ‘How changes in job demands and
resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism’, Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 30, No. 7, pp.893–917.
Schneider, B., Macey, W.H., Barbera, K.M. and Martin, N. (2009) ‘Driving customer satisfaction
and financial success through employee engagement’, People & Strategy, Vol. 32, No. 2,
pp.22–27.
Simon, D.H., Gomez, M.I., McLaughlin, E.W. and Wittink, D.R. (2009) ‘Employee attitudes,
customer satisfaction, and sales performance: assessing the linkages in US grocery stores’,
Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.27–41.
Skibola, N. (2011) ‘Setting employees free to do good’, Forbes. Available online at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/csr/2011/08/29/setting-employees-free-to-do-good/ (accessed on
26 February, 2013)
Sparks, J.R. and Schenk, J.A. (2001) ‘Explaining the effects of transformational leadership: an
investigation of the effects of higher-orders motives in multilevel marketing organizations’,
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp.849–869.
Spreitzer, G.M., Lam, C.F. and Fritz, C. (2010) ‘A meta-analysis of work engagement: relationship
with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences’, in Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds):
Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, New
York, pp.132–146.
Staff of Corporate Executive Board (2009) ‘Involve your employees’, Businessweek. Available
online at: http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/dec2009/ca20091211_675764.htm
(accessed on 26 February 2013)
Starbucks (2013) Ethical sourcing. Available online at: http://www.starbucks.in/responsibility/
sourcing (accessed on 26 February 2013).
Tanriverdi, H. (2008) ‘Workers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment: mediator variable
relationships of organizational commitment factors’, Journal of American Academy of
Business, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.152–163.
Valentine, S., Godkin, L., Fleischman, G.M. and Kidwell, R. (2011) ‘Corporate ethical values,
group creativity, job satisfaction and turnover intention: the impact of work context on work
response’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 98, No. 3, pp.353–372.
Van Rooy, D.L, Whitman, D.S., Hart, D. and Caleo, S. (2011) ‘Measuring employee engagement
during a financial downturn: business imperative or nuisance?’ Journal of Business &
Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.147–152.
Vance, R.J. (2006) Effective Practice Guidelines: Employee Engagement and Commitment, SHRM
Foundation, Alexandria, VA.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997) ‘Perceived organizational support and leader-
member exchange: a social exchange perspective’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40,
No. 1, pp.82–111.
 176 K. Mukerjee

Wellins, R. and Concelman, J. (2005) ‘Creating a culture for engagement’, Workforce Performance
Solutions. Available online at: www.WPSmag.com (accessed on 26 February 2013).
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009) ‘Work engagement
and financial returns: a diary study on the role of job and personal resources’, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp.183–200.
Xu, J. and Thomas, H.C. (2011) ‘How can leaders achieve high employee engagement?’
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp.399–416.

View publication stats