Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1 (2008), 3135. Copyright 2008 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

1754-9426/08

COMMENTARIES

Been There, Bottled That: Are State and Behavioral Work Engagement New and Useful Construct Wines?
DANIEL A. NEWMAN Texas A&M University DAVID A. HARRISON Pennsylvania State University

Macey and Schneider (2008) have provided an informative treatise on the psychological construct of employee engagement. We believe their conceptual work is a thoughtprovoking exemplar of how intuitive constructs (such as engagement) can begin to be legitimized for the academic audience, hopefully strengthening communication between scientists and practitioners. They attempt to specify the meaning of the popu` lar concept vis-a-vis more long-standing constructs of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement, positive affect and affectivity, and proactive and citizenship behavior. The engagement label is summarily applied to describe psychological states, traits, and behaviors. Much effort is spent parsing among established constructs with regard to their partial conceptual overlap with the newer label. We offer three reactions to Macey and Schneiders paper. First, because employee engagement comprises no new conceptual content, but rather a blend of old content, it is
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Daniel A. Newman. E-mail: d5n@tamu.edu Address: 249 Psychology Building, College Station, TX 77843-4235 Daniel A. Newman, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University; David A. Harrison, Department of Management & Organization, Pennsylvania State University.

most appropriately specied as a higher order latent construct. Second, the utility of a state engagement construct depends upon evidence for its discriminant validity from related higher order constructs, namely overall job attitude. Third, the term engagement even as typically used by practitioners and laypersonscan be parsimoniously conceptualized as a second-order factor of widely studied work behaviors, including focal job performance, withdrawal behavior, and citizenship behavior. That term and construct have already been forwarded and explicated in prior work, including a meta-analytic summary of attitudebehavior relationships involving more than 500 original studies (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006). This previous work supported a broad attitude engagement model that unified several individual-level constructs in both the predictor and the criterion spaces and offered an alternative view on employee engagement, suggesting that (a) engagement should be distinguished from job attitudes and (b) engagement can be both intuitively and parsimoniously modeled as a higher order behavioral construct. Is Engagement a New Construct? We laud the general goal of coalescing ideas and evidence into abstractions that can 31

32

D.A. Newman and D.A. Harrison

enhance explanation and prediction in organizations. The employee engagement concept does not constitute new content but rather offers a particular blend of older, familiar constructs. Macey and Schneider summarize, The state engagement construct we have presented to this point in the review is thus a new blend of old wines with distinct characteristics and feel (p. 10). They clarify, for example, that engagement overlaps conceptually with affective and energic/arousal components of job satisfaction but not with contentment and satiation. Indeed, their Propositions 111 all focus on specifying components of established organizational constructs that should overlap with employee engagement. Carrying the idea of blending old wines one step further, we have mapped out conceptual overlaps between engagement and wellknown measures in Table 1. As seen in Table 1, almost every item from an engagement scale endorsed by Macey and Schneider (i.e., the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale of Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003) is paralleled by a nearly identical item from a well-known measure of job satisfaction, job involvement, positive affect, or organizational commitment. What can we conclude from Table 1? We agree with Macey and Schneiders above quote that state engagement constitutes a new blend of old wines, but we disagree that the blend has distinct characteristics and feel. Indeed, the themes of employee vigor/energy, dedication, and absorption are veritable classics within organization science, and a relabeling of reshuffled items does not necessarily add conceptual or phenomenological clarity. The most parsimonious way to model collections of items from well-established, overlapping constructs is to acknowledge their higher order factor structure. That is, when several familiar constructs are moderately or strongly correlated, and their constitutive denitions share substantive content, it can be useful to specify and empirically test for the presence of a latent, common general factor that may underlie the collection or composite (e.g., Judge, Erez, Bono, &

Thoresen, 2002). Thus, even without new content, it is still possible to specify a novel construct as a general, higher order factor. Engagement may be such a construct. State Engagement as a Redundant Higher Order Construct We have proposed an alternative theoretical viewpoint on the overlaps among familiar work attitude constructs (Harrison et al., 2006). Specifically, covariation among job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job involvement reflects a higher order job attitude construct, and this construct holds great empirical utility for predicting individual work behavior. It is our position thatalthough liking for, attachment to, and absorption in ones work role may have some conceptual distinctionsthe overwhelming empirical evidence supports a single, underlying attitude construct (or an A-factor), representing a broad and fundamental evaluation of ones work experiences. Various instantiations of this general evaluation load with strong convergent validity (e.g., job satisfaction and organizational commitment load at .9 and .7, respectively; Harrison et al., 2006; andalthough not enough data were available to include in that investigationwe speculated that job involvement would also substantially load on the second-order factor; p. 320). Although we acknowledge that literally hundreds of combinations of existing job attitude items might be cobbled together under new labels and that such parcels of items will likely exhibit high Cronbachs alpha estimates of reliability, we firmly believe that such composites will offer little explanatory validity for broad behavioral outcomes beyond the overarching, general attitude construct. In this context, we forward that Macey and Schneiders conceptualization of state engagement as a construct that derives content from job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement, and positive affect (Table 1) has little scientific utility relative to what is already part of the applied psychological lexicon. State engagement is redundant with the established, higher order

Been there, bottled that

33

Table 1. Redundancy of work engagement items with items from well-known instruments
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003) I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose. (Dedication 1) I am enthusiastic about my job. (Dedication 2) Similar item from a long-established scale Organizational commitment (OCS; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993): This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. Job satisfaction (OJS; Brayfield & Rothe, 1951): Most days I am enthusiastic about my work. Job affect (JAS; Burke, Brief, George, Roberson, & Webster, 1989): enthusiastic Positive affect (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988): enthusiastic Positive affect (PANAS; Watson et al.): inspired Organizational commitment (OCQ; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979): This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance. Organizational commitment (OCQ; Mowday et al.): I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization. No similar item Job involvement (JIS; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965): For me, mornings at work really fly by. Job involvement (JIS; Lodahl & Kejner): I live, eat, and breathe my job. Job satisfaction (OJS; Brayfield & Rothe): I find real enjoyment in my work; I feel that I am happier in my work than most other people. Work involvement (WIQ; Kanungo, 1982): I like to be absorbed in my job most of the time. Job involvement (JIS; Lodahl & Kejner): I am very much involved personally in my work. Job involvement (JIQ; Kanungo): Most of my interests are centered around my job. Job involvement (JIQ; Kanungo): I usually feel detached from my job.a Job affect (JAS; Burke et al.): active, excited, enthusiastic, peppy, elated, jittery Positive affect (PANAS; Watson et al.): excited, enthusiastic, alert, attentive, jittery, active Job affect (JAS; Burke et al.): strong, active, excited, enthusiastic, peppy, elated, jittery Positive affect (PANAS; Watson et al.): strong, excited, enthusiastic, alert, attentive, jittery, active Job involvement (JIS; Lodahl & Kejner): Quite often I feel like staying home from work instead of coming ina; I usually show up for work a little early, to get things ready; Sometimes I lie awake at night thinking ahead to the next days work; I live, eat, and breathe my job; Ill stay overtime to finish a job, even if Im not paid for it; I would probably keep working even if I didnt need the money. (continued)

My job inspires me. (Dedication 3)

I am proud of the work that I do. (Dedication 4) To me, my job is challenging. (Dedication 5) Time flies when I am working. (Absorption 1) When I am working, I forget everything else around me. (Absorption 2) I feel happy when I am working intensely. (Absorption 3) I am immersed in my work. (Absorption 4) I get carried away when I am working. (Absorption 5)

It is difficult to detach myself from my job. (Absorption 6) At my work, I feel bursting with energy. (Vigor 1)

At my job, I feel strong and vigorous. (Vigor 2)

When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work. (Vigor 3)

34 Table 1. (continued) Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003) I can continue working for very long periods at a time. (Vigor 4)

D.A. Newman and D.A. Harrison

Similar item from a long-established scale Job involvement (JIS; Lodahl & Kejner): Ill stay overtime to finish a job, even if Im not paid for it; I usually show up for work a little early, to get things ready; I live, eat, and breathe my job. Positive affect (PANAS; Watson et al.): strong, determined Job affect (JAS; Burke et al.): strong Organizational commitment (OCQ; Mowday et al.): I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful; It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave this organizationa; Theres not much to be gained by sticking with this organization indefinitelya.

At my job, I am very resilient, mentally. (Vigor 5) At my work, I always persevere, even when things do not go well. (Vigor 6)

Reverse scored. OCS organizational commitment scale; OJS overall job satisfaction scale; JAS job affect scale: PANAS positive and negative affect schedule; OCQ organizational commitment questionnaire; JIS job involvement scale; WIQ work involvement questionnaire; JIQ job involvement questionnaire.

job attitude construct. Furthermore, we contend that when practitioners and laypersons speak of engagement, they are more focused on work behavior, not work-related attitudes (as discussed below). Behavioral Engagement as a Nonredundant Higher Order Construct Is there any place for a concept of employee engagement within industrialorganizational psychology? We suggest that a natural specification of engagementand one that aligns more directly with the practitioner viewpoint on engagementis that employee engagement is the behavioral provision of personal resourcestime and energyinto ones work role, and it can be specified as the higher order construct indicated by dependable covariation among several, valued work behaviors (Harrison et al., 2006). That is, in a similar manner to the practitioners, we propose that engagement can be inferred directly from the positive manifold of work rolesupportive behaviors. As Macey and Schneider note, many HR consultants avoid defining the term, instead referring only to its

positive consequences (p. 4). To us, engagement is theoretically specified as the latent concept (defined above) that mutually drives these positive behavioral consequences. For the sake of better alignment between practitioner usage of the engagement term on the one hand and decades of relevant quantitative organizational research on the other hand, we propose that the label engagement can be applied meaningfully to the higher order construct underlying the covariation among job performance, citizenship behavior, and withdrawal (e.g., Would a practitioner consider an employee to be engaged in the absence of such behavior?). (This conceptualization is also consistent with an English dictionary denition of engagement, as the act of engaging . . . or more informatively, the condition of being in gear; American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2007). That is, practitioners are focused on using the term engagement in a manner nearly synonymous with bottom-line behavioral results, while at the same time organizational scholars are beginning to appreciate just such a behavioral construct (Viswesvaran, Schmidt, & Ones, 2005). If the question is

Been there, bottled that

35

Which constructs from the organizational literature can most fruitfully be associated with what practitioners are calling engagement?, then the answer is that engagement can be thought of as synonymous with the higher order behavioral construct. By defining engagement in this way, we avoid the logical tautology of confounding the concept with its antecedents (i.e., positive job attitudes and personality traits lead to employee engagement; they are not identical to it). We also note that our denition of engagement as a higher order behavioral construct fundamentally differs from Macey and Schneiders notion of behavioral engagement in that Macey and Schneider deliberately attempt to exclude focal work role behavior, In other words, average task performance does not (typically) define engagement; coming to work on time does not (typically) define engagement; and doing what ones boss expects one to do does not (typically) define engagement (p. 18). In our view (Harrison et al., 2006), the conceptual content that is shared by attendance, doing ones job well, and being a good citizen is precisely what it means to be engaged (or to be in gear) at work. In summary, we believe that Macey and Schneiders conceptual piece exemplies a vital process in which academics attempt to bridge between practitioners usage of labels that convey meaning to an organizational audience (honoring practitioners intimacy with organizational phenomena) and the decades of empirical evidence on closely related constructs collected by social scientists. We differ from Macey and Schneider on two points: (a) we believe that the notion of state engagement adds nothing beyond the higher order overall job attitude construct and (b) we believe that employee engagement can be intuitively and parsimoniously understood as the behavioral provision of time and energy into ones work role, specied as the shared var-

iance among job performance, withdrawal, and citizenship behavior.

References
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.). Retrieved July 30, 2007, from Dictionary.com Web site: http://dictionary.reference. com/browse/engagement Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307311. Burke, M. J., Brief, A. P., George, J. M., Roberson, L., & Webster, J. (1989). Measuring affect at work: Confirmatory analyses of competing mood structures with conceptual linkage to cortical regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 10911102. Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305325. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693710. Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341349. Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 2433. Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 330. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538551. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224247. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Test manual for the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Unpublished manuscript, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Retrieved from www.schaufeli.com. Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general factor in ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 108131. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 10631070.