Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
To cite this article: Sowath Rana (2015): High-involvement work practices and employee
engagement, Human Resource Development International, DOI: 10.1080/13678868.2014.1003698
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 11:01 11 April 2015
Human Resource Development International, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2014.1003698
The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationships between high involvement
work practices (HIWPs) and employee engagement. HIWPs consist of four main
attributes: (a) power – employees have the power to make decisions and/or to
participate in decision-making; (b) information – information is shared among employ-
ees; (c) reward – employees are rewarded for their good performance; and (d) knowl-
edge – employees are provided with the necessary training to do their work. This paper
investigates the connections between engagement and each of these practices, and
proposes a conceptual model that links these relationships. It starts by providing a brief
overview of HIWPs, followed by a discussion on the connections between HIWPs and
engagement, and a conclusion and discussion of implications for practice and research.
Keywords: high-involvement work practices; employee engagement; work engagement;
human resource practices
*Email: ranax031@umn.edu
HIWPs: an overview
Over the past two decades, there has been a proliferation of research and practices
associated with participatory work systems (Butts et al. 2009). The popularity of these
systems can be thought of as a reflection of the changing nature of work in modern
societies, specifically the trend toward more ‘flatter’ organizational structures (Butts
et al. 2009, 122). One such participatory work system is high-involvement work practices
(HIWPs) – variously called ‘high involvement’, ‘high commitment’, ‘high performance’,
or ‘sophisticated’ (Guthrie, Spell, and Nyamori 2002, 185) – which refers to a set of
practices aimed at enhancing employees’ skills, motivation, information, and empower-
ment in order to gain competitive advantage (Guthrie 2001). This bundle of practices
seeks to foster employee involvement in decision making and problem solving, enhance
employee commitment, and ultimately increase firm performance (Guthrie, Spell, and
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 11:01 11 April 2015
694). Engagement can also be defined as a fulfilling work-related state of mind char-
acterized by ‘vigor, dedication, and absorption’ (Schaufeli et al. 2002, 74). In the context
of this study, therefore, HIWPs can be thought of as an antecedent while engagement is
the outcome. In other words, this study seeks to understand whether the use of such
practices may result in organizational members being more engaged in their work. The
following section discusses the relationships between each of the four core HIWPs and
employee engagement. Figure 1 presents the conceptual model of this study.
Power
Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford (1995) maintained that the nature of work needs to move
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 11:01 11 April 2015
away from ‘traditional, control-oriented view’ to one that challenges employees to adapt
to the changing environment and empowers them to decide for themselves how their work
should be undertaken (as cited in Vandenberg, Richardson, and Eastman 1999, 307).
Power means that individuals are provided with the authority to make decisions that they
believe are important to their performance and to the quality of their working lives
(Konrad 2006). Power does not necessarily mean having the final authority and account-
ability for decisions and their consequences all the time; it can also mean being able to
provide input into the decisions made by peers (Konrad 2006). Vandenberg, Richardson,
and Eastman (1999) conceptualized power as having the authority to fulfill one’s job
responsibilities, having enough input in deciding how one can accomplish their work,
being encouraged to participate in decision-making processes, and having the freedom
over how one can go about doing their job.
care for employees. Crawford et al. (2014, 59) maintained that autonomy, based on
Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) Job Characteristics Theory, can increase the meaning of
work because it ‘provides a sense of ownership and control over work outcomes’.
Employees need to be provided with a sense of autonomy, referring to the ‘freedom,
independence, and discretion’ provided to employees in scheduling their own work and
determining the best way to carry out their tasks (Crawford et al. 2014, 59). Based on
these findings, it is only conceivable that power can lead to employees being more
engaged.
Information
This HIWP component refers to the provision of information regarding organizational
mission, goals, policies, procedures, changes, reasons behind crucial company decisions,
company issues, (Macky and Boxall 2008) as well as the provision of data, including the
quantity and quality of business unit output, costs, revenues, profitability, and customer
satisfaction levels (Konrad 2006). In a high-involvement work environment, management
takes time to communicate to their employees the rationale behind crucial decisions,
strives to get the opinions and feelings of the organizational members, and stays informed
about the needs of employees (Vandenberg, Richardson, and Eastman 1999). Providing
employees with information on the various issues impacting their work enables the
managers and the organization to be more transparent, which is vital because ‘it helps
employees seek the link between their actions and the performance of the firm, thereby
enhancing the cognitive aspect of engagement’ (Konrad 2006, 2).
Kahn (1990) maintained that people can achieve the psychological safety condition of
engagement when they work in a trusting work environment and when they have an
understanding of the consequences of their behaviors. In such an environment, organiza-
tional boundaries, policies, procedures, and processes of change are clear, consistent, and
fully communicated to the members. Managers should strive to develop supportive,
trustworthy relations with their employees by using open communication and demonstrat-
ing a sense of care to them (May, Gilson, and Harter 2004). In addition, engagement can
be attained when people see the direct connection between what they do and organiza-
tional outcomes (Macey et al. 2009). Organizational members need to know what the
organization’s strategic priorities are and the reasons behind these priorities, and when the
organization aligns its processes, practices, and culture with the purpose of accomplishing
these goals (Macey et al. 2009).
6 S. Rana
Reward
Incentive practices have long been shown to be associated with improving employee
attitudes and performance (Vandenberg, Richardson, and Eastman 1999). HIWP scholars
argue that employees should perceive that they are being rewarded for the effective use of
power, information, and knowledge (Vandenberg, Richardson, and Eastman 1999).
Reward can be both intrinsic and extrinsic and may include team incentives, profit
sharing, stock ownership, pay, promotion, praise, and recognition (Crawford
et al. 2014). Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford (1995) argued that providing rewards to
employees can ensure that they are involved in and care about the performance of the
organization. Similarly, Konrad (2006, 2) posited that reward is a ‘key element in the
high-involvement equation’ because it can ensure that employees use their power, infor-
mation, and knowledge for the benefit of the organization as a whole.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 11:01 11 April 2015
The engagement body of literature is filled with empirical findings that support the
significance of rewards and recognition. Kahn (1990) argued that rewards and recognition
should influence meaningfulness because they represent returns on the investment of time
and effort of an individual in their work. In a similar vein, Saks (2006) maintained that
employees need to have a sense of return on their investment before they are willing to
engage in their work; therefore, to increase engagement, a person’s job needs to be
designed so that employees feel they receive adequate compensation, rewards, and
recognition. According to Saks (2006, 614), managers should provide employees with
the benefits and resources ‘that will oblige them to reciprocate in kind with higher levels
of engagement’. Crawford, LePine, and Rich (2010) also found that rewards and recogni-
tion are significantly related to engagement. Similarly, in his study of 574 US and
Canadian employees, Fairlie (2011) found that both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards were
significantly correlated with engagement. These findings provide ample evidence to
suggest that the practice of rewarding employees for their performance is quintessential
in increasing their engagement.
Knowledge
Knowledge refers to employees’ skills and abilities and is different from information,
which refers to the data that employees use to make decisions or take actions
(Konrad 2006). To improve employees’ knowledge, organizations need to provide
employees with opportunities for training and development and learning (Vandenberg,
Richardson, and Eastman 1999). Knowledge makes up a major component of HIWPs
because in order to make important workplace decisions, it is imperative that employees
have the skills and abilities to weigh options, discuss alternatives, and arrive at the correct
decisions (Konrad 2006). It has also been argued that for involvement to succeed,
organizations need to invest in training and development programs to demonstrate that
they highly value and are committed to their employees (Vandenberg, Richardson, and
Eastman 1999).
Environment and resources that support learning and development have the potential
to significantly influence engagement (Shuck and Rocco 2014). These resources include
developing employees’ essential skills such as communication, supervision, coaching,
linking training to organizational goals, and management training (Shuck and
Rocco 2014). These opportunities for development ‘provide pathways for employee
growth and fulfillment, prepare employees for greater challenge, and expose employees
to alternative roles that have potentially greater fit with their preferred self-images’
Human Resource Development International 7
(Crawford et al. 2014, 61). Schaufeli and Salanova (2010) also argued that career
development and work training initiatives that are specifically directed toward organiza-
tional members’ personal growth and development could significantly impact their
engagement levels. In their study of 207 employees in health care organizations, Shuck
et al. (2014) found that employees’ participation in HRD practices – such as mentoring
programs, leadership development initiatives, and learning opportunities – is significantly
related to their cognitive, behavioral, and emotional engagement levels. Bakker, Van
Emmerik, and Euwema (2006) also found that opportunities for development were
significantly related to engagement in a sample of 2229 Royal Dutch constabulary
officers. Sarti’s (2014) study of 167 caregivers in nine long-term care facilities in Italy
also revealed that greater learning opportunities for employees had direct effects on their
engagement. These findings clearly imply that an organization’s investment in improving
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 11:01 11 April 2015
members’ knowledge, skills, and abilities can significantly influence the levels of their
engagement.
ORCID
Sowath Rana http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9312-4488
References
Bakker, A. B., H. Van Emmerik, and M. C. Euwema. 2006. “Crossover of Burnout and Engagement
in Work Teams.” Work and Occupations 33 (4): 464–489. doi:10.1177/0730888406291310.
Benson, G. S., S. M. Young, and E. E. Lawler III. 2006. “High-Involvement Work Practices and
Analysts’ Forecasts of Corporate Earnings.” Human Resource Management 45 (4): 519–537.
doi:10.1002/hrm.20130.
Butts, M. M., R. J. Vandenberg, D. M. DeJoy, B. S. Schaffer, and M. G. Wilson. 2009. “Individual
Reactions to High Involvement Work Processes: Investigating the Role of Empowerment and
Perceived Organizational Support.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 14 (2): 122–
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 11:01 11 April 2015
136. doi:10.1037/a0014114.
Crawford, E. R., J. A. LePine, and B. L. Rich. 2010. “Linking Job Demands and Resources to
Employee Engagement and Burnout: A Theoretical Extension and Meta-Analytic Test.” Journal
of Applied Psychology 95 (5): 834–848. doi:10.1037/a0019364.
Crawford, E. R., B. L. Rich, B. Buckman, and J. Bergeron. 2014. “The Antecedents and Drivers of
Employee Engagement.” In Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, edited by C. Truss,
R. Delbridge, K. Alfes, A. Shantz, and E. Soane, 57–81. New York: Routledge.
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. doi:10.1177/1523422311431679.
Gallup. 2013. State of the Global Workplace: Employee Engagement Insights for Business Leaders
Worldwide. Washington, DC: Gallup.
Guthrie, J. P. 2001. “High-Involvement Work Practices, Turnover, and Productivity: Evidence from
New Zealand.” Academy of Management Journal 44 (1): 180–190. doi:10.2307/3069345.
Guthrie, J. P., C. S. Spell, and R. O. Nyamori. 2002. “Correlates and Consequences of High
Involvement Work Practices: The Role of Competitive Strategy.” The International Journal of
Human Resource Management 13 (1): 183–197. doi:10.1080/09585190110085071.
Hackman, J. R., and G. R. Oldham. 1975. “Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.” Journal of
Applied Psychology 60 (2): 159–170. doi:10.1037/h0076546.
Kahn, W. A. 1990. “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at
Work.” Academy of Management Journal 33 (4): 692–724. doi:10.2307/256287.
Konrad, A. M. 2006. “Engaging Employees through High-Involvement Work Practices.” Ivy
Business Journal: 1–6.
Lawler, E. E., S. A. Mohrman, and G. E. Ledford. 1995. Creating High Performance Organizations:
Practices and Results of Employee Involvement and Quality Management in Fortune 1000
Companies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Macey, W. H., and B. Schneider. 2008. “The Meaning of Employee Engagement.” Industrial and
Organizational Psychology 1 (1): 3–30. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x.
Macey, W. H., B. Schneider, K. M. Barbera, and S. A. Young. 2009. Employee Engagement: Tools
for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Macky, K., and P. Boxall. 2008. “High-Involvement Work Processes, Work Intensification and
Employee Well-Being: A Study of New Zealand Worker Experiences.” Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources 46 (1): 38–55. doi:10.1177/1038411107086542.
May, D. R., R. L. Gilson, and L. M. Harter. 2004. “The Psychological Conditions of
Meaningfulness, Safety and Availability and the Engagement of the Human Spirit at Work.”
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 77 (1): 11–37. doi:10.1348/
096317904322915892.
Mohr, R. D., and C. Zoghi. 2008. “High-Involvement Work Design and Job Satisfaction.” Industrial
and Labor Relations Review 61 (3): 275–296.
O’Neill, O. A., D. C. Feldman, R. J. Vandenberg, D. M. DeJoy, and M. G. Wilson. 2011.
“Organizational Achievement Values, High-Involvement Work Practices, and Business Unit
Performance.” Human Resource Management 50 (4): 541–558. doi:10.1002/hrm.20437.
Pil, F. K., and J. P. MacDuffie. 1996. “The Adoption of High-Involvement Work Practices.”
Industrial Relations 35 (3): 423–455.
Human Resource Development International 9
Rana, S., A. Ardichvili, and O. Tkachenko. 2014. “A Theoretical Model of the Antecedents and
Outcomes of Employee Engagement: Dubin’s Method.” Journal of Workplace Learning 26
(3/4): 249–266. doi:10.1108/JWL-09-2013-0063.
Rich, B. L., J. A. Lepine, and E. R. Crawford. 2010. “Job Engagement: Antecedents and Effects on
Job Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 53 (3): 617–635. doi:10.5465/
AMJ.2010.51468988.
Robertson, I. T., and C. L. Cooper. 2010. “Full Engagement: The Integration of Employee
Engagement and Psychological Well-Being.” Leadership & Organization Development
Journal 31 (4): 324–336. doi:10.1108/01437731011043348.
Saks, A. M. 2006. “Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement.” Journal of
Managerial Psychology 21 (7): 600–619. doi:10.1108/02683940610690169.
Saks, A. M., and J. A. Gruman. 2014. “What Do We Really Know about Employee Engagement?”
Human Resource Development Quarterly 25 (2): 155–182. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21187.
Sarti, D. 2014. “Job Resources as Antecedents of Engagement at Work: Evidence from a Long‐Term
Care Setting.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 25 (2): 213–237. doi:10.1002/
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 11:01 11 April 2015
hrdq.21189.
Schaufeli, W. B. 2014. “What Is Engagement?” In Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice,
edited by C. Truss, R. Delbridge, K. Alfes, A. Shantz, and E. Soane, 15–35. New York:
Routledge.
Schaufeli, W. B., and M. Salanova. 2010. “How to Improve Work Engagement?” In Handbook of
Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice, edited by S. L. Albrecht.
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Schaufeli, W. B., M. Salanova, V. González-romá, and A. B. Bakker. 2002. “The Measurement of
Engagement and Burnout: A Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach.” Journal of Happiness
Studies 3: 71–92. doi:10.1023/A:1015630930326.
Shuck, B., and T. G. Reio. 2011. “The Employee Engagement Landscape and HRD: How Do We
Link Theory and Scholarship to Current Practice?” Advances in Developing Human Resources
13 (4): 419–428. doi:10.1177/1523422311431153.
Shuck, B., and T. S. Rocco. 2014. “Human Resource Development and Employee Engagement.” In
Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, edited by C. Truss, R. Delbridge, K. Alfes,
A. Shantz, and E. Soane, 116–130. New York: Routledge.
Shuck, B., D. Twyford, T. G. Reio, and A. Shuck. 2014. “Human Resource Development Practices
and Employee Engagement: Examining the Connection with Employee Turnover Intentions.”
Human Resource Development Quarterly 25 (2): 239–270. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21190.
Stairs, M., and M. Galpin. 2010. “Positive Engagement: From Employee Engagement to Workplace
Happiness.” In Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work, edited by P. A. Linley, S.
Harrington, and N. Garcea 155–172, New York: Oxford University Press.
Truss, C., R. Delbridge, K. Alfes, A. Shantz, and E. Soane. 2014. Employee Engagement in Theory
and Practice. New York: Routledge.
Vandenberg, R. J., H. A. Richardson, and L. J. Eastman. 1999. “The Impact of High Involvement
Work Processes on Organizational Effectiveness: A Second-Order Latent Variable Approach.”
Group & Organization Management 24 (3): 300–339. doi:10.1177/1059601199243004.
Wollard, K. K., and B. Shuck. 2011. “Antecedents to Employee Engagement: A Structured Review
of the Literature.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 13 (4): 429–446.