Employee Engagement and Employee Wellbeing-Does anyone care? Implications for HRD.
Sally D Rumbles
University of Portsmouth UK
Sally.Rumbles@port.ac.uk
Abstract:
Purpose: This paper aims to explore the relationship between employee engagement and
employee wellbeing, considers who is responsible for facilitating activities that can aid
organizations in better engaging their employees at work as well as discussing the
implications for HRD.
Design/Methodology/Approach: A mixed methods approach was adopted with the results of
an electronic survey used as a basis for in depth semi structured interviews that asked
questions around the issues of employee engagement, wellbeing and the role of HR and line
managers.
Findings: The research findings demonstrate a link between levels of employee engagement
and the wellbeing of employees and point to the pivotal role of line managers in facilitating
this process, but few companies invest in either wellbeing initiatives or wellbeing training for
their managers.
Research Limitations/implications: The interview sample size was small, the survey
findings had only limited statistical significance and respondents were all in managerial or
HR management roles that indicate that it would be of value to interview and survey a wider
cohort of employees.
Practical implications: Implications for HRD intervention and practices are discussed.
Originality/Value: The question of who is responsible for facilitating employee engagement
as well as the role of the HRD professional in managing employee engagement and
promoting wellbeing has not been fully explored. Recommendations for HRD professionals
to improve employee engagement and wellbeing are given.
Keywords: Human Resource Development, Employee engagement, Employee Wellbeing,
Paper Type: research paper
Introduction
Ever since Kahn (1990) first defined the concept, there has been widespread interest and an
ever growing body of research into employee engagement from both academics and HR
practitioners. Research into engagement has demonstrated that it is linked to an array of
positive outcomes (and disengagement negative outcomes) at both the individual and
organizational level (Bakker, Albrecht and Leiter, 2011; Halbesleben, 2011). Indeed as Shuck
and Wollard (2010) observe “the positive outcomes attributed to employee engagement are
exactly what most organisations are seeking: employees who are more productive, profitable,
safer, healthier, less likely to turnover, less likely to be absent, and more willing to engage in
discretionary efforts” (p90). Thus it is not surprising that employee engagement is seen as a
priority for many organisations, yet a plethora of studies demonstrate that the fully engaged
employee is a rarity and the majority of employees are not engaged at work (Blessings White,
2011; Gallup, 2013; Rayton, 2012 and Kennoy, 2014). Furthermore, too much emphasis has
been placed on measuring engagement at the expense of related constructs such as wellbeing
that might help in understanding the role of engagement in fostering positive workplace
behaviours and outputs (Parker and Griffin, 2011) or to understanding the evolving experiences
of engagement and disengagement (Sambrook, Jones and Doloriet, 2013).
Recent research into employee wellbeing has demonstrated that there is a positive link between
it and employee engagement which may aid our understanding of employee engagement and
how to facilitate it. (Albrecht, 2012; Keller and Price, 2011; Robertson and Cooper, 2010).
Engaged employees experience wellbeing related positive emotions such as joy and enthusiasm
(Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker 2002). Kossek, Kalliath and Kalliath (2012)
comment that “in healthy work environments employees feel engaged in their jobs and also
their home lives.” (p738). Conversely poor workforce engagement can be detrimental to
organizations because of the ensuing decrease or impairment in employee wellbeing and
productivity (Shuck and Reio 2014; Christian, Garza and Slaughter 2011). Indeed Juniper
(2012) suggests that wellbeing drives engagement and yet Rees and Rumbles (2012) found that
whilst there was an awareness of the need to engage employees there was a general lack of
concern for employee wellbeing in organisations.
A further consideration is who should take responsibility for engagement and wellbeing, with
some researchers (Kossek et al, 2012; Baptiste, 2008) firmly placing the responsibility for
wellbeing with the line manager arguing high performance caring cultures facilitate
engagement. Yet in many organisations the responsibility for driving engagement rests with
the HR function which is often focused on aligning HR strategy to business strategy, looking
upwards and seeking to manage and reward ‘talent’ (Holbeche 2014). Furthermore, Rees and
Rumbles (2012) found that few organisations were taking any responsibility for employee
wellbeing as well as not assigning responsibility to HR or line managers beyond compliance
with health and safety legislation.
The relationship between employee engagement, employee wellbeing and who is responsible
for them is explored further in this paper. It proceeds by assessing the literature on employee
engagement, wellbeing and who is responsible thus identifying the motivation for this research
contribution. It then details the research methodology and presents the findings by assessing
the perceived relationship between these variables. It concludes by evaluating and interpreting
the findings in the wider context and specifically the implications for HRD as well as making
recommendations for further research.
Employee Engagement
Kahn originally defined employee engagement as a unique and important motivational
concept: “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement,
people employee and express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during role
performances” (1990, 694). This conceptualization represents engagement as a multi-faceted
concept with clear links to performance, yet a quarter of a century later and despite the
widespread interest in engagement it remains a very elusive and poorly defined concept
(Keenoy 2014).
Macleod and Clarke (2009) found over 50 different definitions of the construct and as Kahn
originally implies there is considerable overlap between engagement and other psychological
terms, such as job satisfaction, commitment and motivation. Indeed Macey and Schneider
(2008) concluded that employee engagement is a messy construct that has variously been
articulated as a psychological state (e.g., involvement commitment or attachment), a
performance construct (e.g., involvement, commitment or attachment) and/or disposition (i.e.,
a trait). Maslach (2011) makes the distinction between “work engagement” and “employee
engagement” but the terms are used interchangeably and like other psychological terms it is
easier to recognise in practice than it is to define (Schaufeli 2013). Truss (2014, p1) nicely
sums up the difference between the two stating that employee engagement ‘is an approach
taken by organisations to manage their workforce”….whereas work engagement is… “a
psychological state experienced by employees in the performance of their work; ‘doing
engagement’, rather than being engaged”.
The danger for employers in doing engagement, is that employees, particularly highly skilled
knowledge workers, are becoming more sceptical of “best practice” HRM led interventions
that can result in situations where the employer is seemingly “doing the right thing” but
employees, whilst committed to their work, are uncommitted, disengaged and even angry
towards the organisation. (Cushen and Thompson 2012). They further observed that HR and
directors looked to apportion blame on poor implementation by managers rather than
questioning their overall approach and policies. Most employees saw these as a “damaging
vanity project that painted an excessively flattering picture of the organisation, enabling top
management to avoid employees” (p87).
Indeed, HRM approaches that seek to assess the state of engagement so that they can then do
something with it fail then to appreciate individual motives or the more subtle discretionary
self-orientated aspects of employee engagement which are at the heart of Kahn’s original
definition. “The experience of employee engagement at the personal level and the regard for
Kahn’s approach to both the concept and future research remains under examined”
(Sambrook, Jones and Doloriert 2014, p176). Shuck and Rose (2013) also sound a note of a
caution in researching engagement from the outcomes perspective as it doesn’t take into
account the intended situational context or the individual employee’s interpretation of
meaning and purpose in their work that would facilitate engagement. They propose
“engagement and performance are secondary consequence to work that is interpreted as
meaningful and purpose-driven and ultimately, work that stimulates the engagement of the
condition”. As a result “engagement cannot be demanded, artificially created or inflated”
(p343). Employers choose to work towards engaging employees but at the same time
employees must decide how much effort they themselves will offer the employer. So as
Valentin (2014) argues employee engagement seeks to create the worker who loves his or her
job feels emotionally committed to the organisation and contributes discretionary effort but
for the organisation it is primarily sought for the benefit of the organisation and not the
individual employee.
Understanding the profile of engagement in organisations through measuring engagement
with an employee survey is often recommended by both practitioners and academics as the
most appropriate way to manage employee engagement (Macleod and Clark, 2009; Towers
Perrin, 2012). Yet, as already noted, the number of employees who are engaged remains low
and “the discrepancy between the perceived importance of engagement and the level of
engagement that exists in organizations today” (Czarnowsky, 2008, p.4) is of concern
because measurement alone fails to explain why employees are disengaged, how engagement
can be generated and how it can impact positively on other desirably outcomes such as
performance and wellbeing (Sambrook et al, 2014) thus giving the practitioner little insight as
to how to engage employees.
How organisations can foster employee engagement is central to some research particularly
the role of managers and leaders. Engaging leaders support adaptability, experimentation,
learning and innovation (Alimo-Metcalfe, Alban- Metcalfe, Bradley, Mariathasan and Samele
2008). Oswick (2014) comments that rather than assuming that employee engagement is
something that can be directly managed, it is better to think of it as something that can be
encouraged and enabled that is to say whilst it is an “intrinsic” factor it can be influenced and
shaped by “extrinsic” factors such as the behaviour of line managers and HRD interventions.
Employee Engagement and HRD
The relationship between employee engagement and HRD is gaining widespread interest
because support for learning training and development forms a key part of practices claimed
to facilitate engagement. Formal training and development interventions such as coaching
and mentoring, management and professional development programmes and opportunities to
develop skills are all cited as important antecedents to employee engagement (Czarnowsky,
2008; Valentin, 2014) and Gebauer and Lowman(2008) observe that some management
training courses are being tailored to increase levels of engagement amongst direct reports.
Shuck and Wollard (2010) are one of the first groups of researchers to examine engagement
from an HRD perspective and define it as “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional,
and behavioural state directed towards desired organisational outcomes” (p103). However,
they observe that no model exists for understanding how HRD practice can influence the
development of employee engagement and that there is a short window of opportunity for
HRD to take a leading role in fostering engagement. Conceptualisation, they further argue is
critical as problem solving and solutions can only come from common language and
understanding of what engagement is, it must be therefore be practical and usable. Thus we
need consider how best to create the right conditions to foster engagement and wellbeing and
consider how HRD professionals can develop agreed understanding in order to design
learning and training interventions that could facilitate the process.
Employee Wellbeing:
Conceptualising wellbeing is equally problematic, with how it should be defined (or spelt) still
remaining largely unresolved (Dodge, Daly, Huyton and Sanders, 2012) which “has given rise
to blurred and overly broad definitions of wellbeing” (Forgeard, Jayawickreme, Kem and
Seligman, 2011, p81). Early definitions of wellbeing are concerned with optimal psychological
functioning and entail the perception of engagement with existential challenges of life, such as
pursuing meaningful goals, growing and developing as a person and establishing quality
relationships with others (Keyes, Shmotkin and Ryff 2002). Other researchers (Cropanzano
and Wright, 2001; Daniels, 2000; Kahn and Juster, 2002; Warr, 2002) reflect that wellbeing
has often been narrowly operationalised as job satisfaction and thus wellbeing has traditionally
been studied mainly in terms of employee’s satisfaction with their jobs.
Cropanzano and Wright (2001) recognise that wellbeing is a multidimensional concept that
could capture the subtleties in experience of work. Job satisfaction, occupational stress burnout
and work engagement are important dimension of the affective work related wellbeing of
employees and these concepts have considerable overlap. Seligman (2011) concurs that
wellbeing is multidimensional and states it is about positive emotion, engagement, meaning,
positive relationships and accomplishment, and argues that, in addition to engagement, positive
emotion, relationships, meaning and achievement are core constituents of psychological
wellbeing. Pruyne (2012, p4) states that wellbeing is “a positive state in which the individual
is able to function at or near their optimal level, whether defined and measured in terms of
physical, mental or social functioning, with significant implications for the individual, their
family and community, the organization and society at large”. Most recently Salanova, Del
Linano, Llorens and Schaufeli (2014) have attempted to define wellbeing by identifying four
different wellbeing types, relaxed, work engaged, workaholic and burned out that can be
influenced by other variables such as energy, pleasure and challenge that could provide the
framework for practical interventions to enhance wellbeing as well as clearer links to employee
engagement.
Despite the problems with conceptualization academics argue (Albrecht 2012; Cartwright and
Holmes, 2006; Wright and Cropanzano 2007) that “employee wellbeing remains fundamental
to the study of work and a primary consideration for how organizations can achieve competitive
advantage and sustainable ethical practices” (Albrecht 2012:840). People spend a significant
proportion of their lives at work, thus changes in their work environment can have profound
influence on their health and wellbeing and consequentially on the job, organisational
performance and firm competitive advantage (Cartwright and Holmes 2006; Kalliath and
Kalliath 2012).
According to Fairhurst and O’Connor (2010) wellbeing is important because an employee’s
level of wellbeing can sustain or erode their level of engagement. In their research on behalf
of Towers Watson they found that employee wellbeing affects engagement in a unique way.
When they are aligned, true sustainable engagement is achieved, but when one is strong and
the other is weak then the outcomes (complacent or chronic disengagement and burnout for
example) are at odds with the organisations goals.
Bevan (2010) concurs and whilst he
believes that the relationship between employee health, employee commitment and
engagement is multifaceted, research evidence suggests that a two-way possibly selfreinforcing relationship exists between the two concepts: healthy employees are more engaged
and engaged employees are healthier. Consequently, fostering a work culture that is mindful
of the importance of work-life balance, employee growth and development, health and safety,
and employee engagement can be the key to achieving sustainable employee wellbeing and
organisational performance (Grawitch, Gottschalk and Munz, 2006).
One of the perceived benefits of employee engagement is the link to performance and research
has shown that the relationship is positive (Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees, and Gatenby 2010;
Albrecht 2010; Gatenby, Alfes, Rees, Soane, and Truss, 2009; Macleod and Clarke, 2009;
Rich, Lepine and Crawford,2010; Robertson, Birch and Cooper, 2012 and Truss, Soane,
Edwards, Wisdom, Croll, and Burnett, 2006). Research also shows a link between employee
wellbeing and performance (Donald, Taylor, Johnson, Cooper, Cartwright and Robertson,
2005; Harter, Schmidt, and Keyes, 2003; Linley, Maltby, Wood, Osbourne and Hurling, 2009;
Rich et al 2010; Wright and Cropanzano, 2000).
Thus fostering employee wellbeing is important in not only generating engagement but also an
important contributor to productivity. In fact, Robertson and Cooper (2010) found that the link
to productivity doubles when the measure of engagement is combined with a measure of
employee wellbeing. They subsequently conclude that if organizations ignore employee
wellbeing then they will limit the benefits of any employee engagement interventions
(Robertson et al 2012). Avey, Luthans, Smith and Palmer (2010) concur and comment that the
role of psychological wellbeing in causing, rather than simply predicting variance in
productivity is worthy of further exploration. Individuals whose psychological wellbeing is
higher behave differently and display better psychological resources; they are more optimistic,
more resilient in the face of setbacks and have a stronger belief in their own ability to cope.
Increased engagement and productivity is only one of several positive outcomes resulting from
fostering employee wellbeing. Indeed, Schaufeli (2012) suggests that a promising area of
immediate exploration is the identification of the central elements within a workplace climate
that foster the development of engagement and stimulate wellbeing. Psychological research has
demonstrated links between engagement and wider health and wellbeing, in particular selfrated health and workability and psychological wellbeing (Demerouti Bakker, De Jorge, Jansen
and Schaufeli, 2001; Hakanen, Bakker and Schaufeli, 2006; Wefald, 2008; Shirom, 2010;
Brunnetto, Teo, Shacklock and Farr-Wharton 2012) as well as to other health related constructs
such as burnout (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Schaufeli, Bakker and Van Rhenen, 2009).
Other research demonstrates lower stress levels, absenteeism and sickness rates when staff
report high levels of engagement (AON Hewitt 2012, Soane, Shantz, Alfes, Truss, Rees,
Gatenby, 2013).
Practitioner research has also demonstrated links between engagement and wellbeing. Engage
for Success, for example, found that engaged employees with high wellbeing were (35%) more
attached to their organisations than those with lower wellbeing. Towers Watson found that the
top driver of engagement was the extent to which employees believed that their senior
management had a sincere interest in their wellbeing (Juniper 2012). Yet a 2014 poll by
Investors in People found that 54% of British full time employees feel their employer does not
care about their health and wellbeing as long as they get the job done (Rayton 2014) and the
Chartered institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD 2014a) Megatrends survey reported
that 41% of UK employees felt under excessive pressure at least once or twice a week and for
13% this was every day.
Baptiste (2008) found that HRM practices can significantly impact on employee wellbeing at
work as well as management behaviour in the form of support and development of trust
promoted wellbeing in employees. The CIPD (2014a) concurs adding that how people are
managed matters a lot, but also notes that a sense of having to work hard was not necessarily
damaging to employee wellbeing, providing that there was not a sense of excessive pressure.
The challenge for employers is to manage in such a way as to optimise positive benefits such
as productivity and minimise the risks, such as stress. Bevan (2010) supports this argument
noting that employers who adopt measures to promote and support health and wellbeing are
reaping benefits in terms of improved productivity, commitment and attendance. Committed
employees are more likely to identify with the values of their organisation, be proud to work
for it, tend to work harder, have lower sickness absence rates and are less likely to resign. Yet
many UK employers still saw employee wellbeing as the responsibility of the workers
themselves.
Who is responsible for employee engagement and wellbeing in organisations?
Whilst the relationship between leadership behaviours and engagement has been well
researched (see for example Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees and Gatenby, 2013; Jenkins and
Delbridge, 2013 and Soane, 2014) who takes responsibility for wellbeing and engagement in
organizations, as well as how it can be generated is an area that is less widely researched.
Albrecht (2012) argues that organizations need to create open, supportive and fair
organizational and team cultures in order to motivate and engage employees, but many
researchers do not specify who should be responsible for facilitating the process.
Sanders and Frenkel (2011) argue that the responsibility is shared. Ressiner and Pagan (2013)
support this view and comment that generating employee engagement is far from
straightforward and employees have an active role to participate in engagement activities,
suggesting a shared responsibility. Conversely, Blau (2006) points to the role of the line
manager arguing that clear direction and support from line managers is fundamental in
facilitating the process. Where there is perceived support from supervisors and employee trust
in managers, then employees will reciprocate and respond with positive work attitudes through
increased motivation and commitment that can lead to enhanced performance and engagement.
Wollard and Shuck (2011) noted that there is an absence of studies specifically focused on the
role of HRM practices and Keegan and Francis (2010) suggest that in striving for strategic
alignment, HR professionals are neglecting their traditional role of upholding the duty of care
to employees. Indeed, research by Rees and Rumbles (2012) suggests that the HR function is
increasingly seen as ‘uncaring’ by employees’, and question whether duty of care is the
responsibility of the HR function.
Kossek et al (2012) point to the role of managers and argue that designing the workplace to
promote employee wellbeing must be coupled with a high performing caring culture, arguing
that using the “stick and not the carrot” impedes wellbeing and engagement, and productivity
can only be enhanced when people are happily engaged at work. Baptiste (2008) also points
to the pivotal role of management in facilitating employee engagement. She argues that
employee wellbeing should be pursued as a business case, as wellbeing can contribute to
people’s overall sense of happiness that is likely to be translated into positive behaviour.
Delivery and implementation of HR practices is the fundamental responsibility of line
managers to ensure that perceptions of support, trust, fairness and consistency are maintained
amongst workers.
The body of research into employee engagement is ever growing but we still do not know very
much about who takes responsibility for it or the relationship between engagement and
wellbeing. Based on the literature and previous research, this study sets out to explore the
relationship between employee engagement and wellbeing further and seeks to address the
question of who is perceived to be responsible for the processes. Three research questions were
formulated, namely; what is the link between engagement and wellbeing? Who is responsible
for it? and What is the perception of the role of the HR function in the process?
Research and method
Quantitative data was collected through an electronic survey that was distributed to contacts
from local businesses on the university database. The questions were formulated from previous
research findings and the literature on wellbeing and engagement and were compiled using a
five point Likert scale in order to establish respondent’s perceptions to 17 statements
surrounding HR’s role in their organization, wellbeing and employee engagement. In total 115
responses from a wide range of organisations were received to the e-survey with 32% from the
Public sector, 58% from the Private sector and 10% from the third sector (charity or not for
profit). The respondents were mainly working in managerial functions with a third working in
HR roles.
Qualitative data was collected through both free hand comments in the electronic survey and
through in-depth semi-structured interviews that allowed for exploration of the patterns,
relationships and interplay between engagement, wellbeing and the role of HR and line
management. Ten interviews were conducted with 6 HR managers and 4 line managers
representing all 3 sectors of business based in and around Portsmouth. Participants were all
respondents to the e-survey who had indicated they were willing to be interviewed. The
interviews typically lasted 40 minutes and were audio recorded, transcribed and fed back to
interviewees to check and amend if necessary.
Analysis and discussion of findings
The survey results were analyzed using Chi square tests and cross-tabulation which were
applied to all 17 variables using a two-tailed test. The results obtained present a mixed picture
with some correlations found between variables but most were not significant.

HR is responsible for engagement and wellbeing yielded invalid results when a chi
squared test was applied (χ² = 2.161).

Line Managers are responsible for engagement and wellbeing yielded an invalid
response (χ² = 2.727)

HR is perceived to be uncaring yielded both valid and significant (p = 0.026)
results, emphasizing that HR was viewed primarily as administrative and
transactional HR.
Further analysis suggests that this perception was most
significant where the HR function did not operate the Business Partner model.
The interview data was manually coded and analysed using a thematic approach. Four
themes were derived/emerged from the analysis of the qualitative data.

Link between engagement and wellbeing

Responsibility for engagement and wellbeing

Perceptions of HR in relation to engagement and wellbeing

Measurement and monitoring
The results of both the quantitative and qualitative analysis will be discussed around these
four themes.
Link between Engagement and Wellbeing
The quantitative survey data did not demonstrate a statistically significant link between
employee wellbeing and engagement but the qualitative comments as illustrated below give a
strong indication that the survey respondents see a link between the two concepts.
“We believe that if employees are fit, well and engaged, we see an increase in discretionary
effort. Employees are more likely to be aligned to the organization’s objectives and strive in
achievement of them” (Survey respondent 110).
The interviewees concur stating that they saw a strong correlation between the two concepts
in that they thought that you could not successfully engage employees without considering
their wellbeing (see Albrecht, 2012; Cartwright and Holmes 2006; Wright and Cropanzano,
2007).
“How can I hope to engage my staff to better performance if I don’t care about their
welfare?”(Interviewee 9 manager)
And another explained how she saw the relationship
“ I guess it’s a building block isn’t it: you have to have people who are in the right frame of
mind to be engaged and for an employer to accept that an employee has to have a good work
life balance and be healthy mentally and physically in order to do a good job. And if that’s
valuable to an employer to see that then the employees will see that’s a good thing and
therefore adds to engagement.”(Interviewee 4 HR)
The key role of line managers (rather than HR) in facilitating engagement and wellbeing was
stressed with interviewees reporting that managers need to spend a considerable amount of
time and effort in engaging their employees with their work, departmental activities and
ultimately the values and goals of the organization, whilst being mindful of their health and
wellbeing. Issues such as work life balance and stress were mentioned with regard to this area
of questioning but all interviewees reported that employee wellbeing (apart from sickness
absence) was not measured at organizational level and there was limited evidence of
organizational interventions on wellbeing.
Yet previous research concludes that failure to
address wellbeing at organizational level can be counter-productive (Cartwright and Cooper,
2009; Kalliath et al 2010; Quick and Tetrick, 2010).
Who is responsible for engagement and wellbeing?
In terms of who is responsible for engagement and wellbeing the e-survey produced mixed
findings with neither of the research propositions being supported (HR is responsible and line
managers are responsible). The qualitative comments may explain this result with several
respondents stating that that this was a shared responsibility between line managers and HR.
The interviews confirmed this but significantly the interviewees saw this as shared between
management, HR and employees themselves. With senior management and HR providing
guidance and direction, particularly with regard to organizational focus and goals that line
managers then translate into specific activities within their department.
“the senior managers have to champion it, and …HR should monitor it, but I think it’s
everybody’s responsibility, well not responsibility, but I think everybody should want to be
engaged because it actually makes for a better working environment doesn’t it, it makes a
better place to work”, (Interviewee 2 HR)
“HR can’t solve everyone’s problems they (employees) have to take responsibility for
themselves. Also it’s the line manager’s responsibility to flag it up and ask for help…. to keep
an open dialogue” (Interviewee 1 HR)
These findings indicate that employee’s as well as the organization have an active role in
generating employee engagement and wellbeing concurring with previous research (Blau 2006;
Sanders and Frenkel, 2011).
Line management were also seen to be pivotal to the process, a role that they did not necessarily
accept, interviewee 2 again, stated several managers had questioned the purpose of engagement
activities
“A lot of managers have said why are we doing that? All we want is people to turn up and get
on with their job” (Interviewee 2 HR)
This aligns with Kossek et al’s (2012) argument that the first step is in changing management
attitudes that employee engagement is their responsibility because people are more productive
when they are happily engaged in meaningful work. Caesens et al (2014) concur as their study
showed supervisor support contributes more strongly to work engagement that other sources
of work related social support.
The HR practitioners who were interviewed all felt that in their organizations most line
managers and employees see engagement as a HR responsibility.
However, their own
perceptions of their involvement were described as HR activities that assisted managers in
embedding engagement and wellbeing into everyday management practices. (Alfes, Shantz,
Truss, and Soane, 2012; Hope-Hailey, Searle, Dietz, Abbotson, Robinson, McCartney and
Wright, 2012). This was also supported by the survey data with the majority of survey
respondents stating that they sort HR advice on employee engagement and wellbeing matters
and that the perception of responsibility was changing.
“It is generally thought that HR has responsibility but this is slowly changing to managers
taking responsibility for staff and staff taking responsibility for themselves” (Survey
respondent 15)
With regard to wellbeing only, the interviewees felt that employee’s must take ownership of
their wellbeing. This was also reflected in the e-survey comments.
“We actively promote employee engagement and wellbeing and state that it is everyone’s
responsibilities, including the employees themselves”. (Survey respondent 110)
At organizational level the responsibility was seen as creating ‘a caring culture’ (Kossek et al
2012) and developing initiatives to promote wellbeing at work. However, there was only
limited evidence that wellbeing activities were taking place and respondents from both the
survey and the interviews reported that wellbeing was not on the agenda in their organization.
Perceptions of HR’s role in the process
This was the only finding from the survey that proved to be statistically significant and valid
using Chi squared tests, but this confirmed that the HR function was seen as uncaring and
viewed primarily as administrative and transactional. Survey respondent 55 (manager in the
public sector) sums this up as:
“There is a perception we operate the Ulrich Business Partner model (use of Business partner
in job title) but none of the other practices are used. We still have old fashioned
bureaucratic/hierarchical systems that are essentially remote and administrative in nature.”
The need for strong HR leadership and the need to for HR to take a more active role were also
highlighted.
“Those organisations’ that have an educated, pragmatic, participatory HR leader often have
better employee morale. This is a squeeze zone position and requires a skilled leader to manage
it. Like quality the head of the business needs to believe that this function is adding value to
their business.” (Survey respondent 43 manager)
And
“Our HR doesn't do enough for employee training, employability or wellbeing!” (Survey
respondent 43 manager)
In considering the perceptions of HR, the interviews explored why certain perceptions of the
HR role existed. The HR interviewees all saw their role in terms of “championing” employees,
but accepted that this might not be the view of the organization, whilst the line managers
described their HR function as reactive, administrative transactional and remote, supporting
the findings from the e-survey. All interviewees identified the key role HR has to play in
facilitating engagement. High visibility in terms of “walking the floor” and approachability
“showing concern for employees” in their opinion helps to facilitate engagement and
commitment because employees feel that the organization as represented by the HR function
cares about their wellbeing. Interviewee 2 (HR) stated that whilst she personally had taken
action to be more approachable the function as a whole was seen as remote and uncaring,
demonstrating the difference between HR intentions and perceived practices ( Wright and
Nishii, 2006; Khilji and Wang, 2006).
“The HR function and senior management is too remote in my organization and this is having
a negative effect on employee well-being and engagement…. And our managing director sees
HR as an administration function”. (Interviewee 2 HR)
In other studies HR’s remoteness and structural isolation contributed to their failure to
realistically assess why employees’ were not engaged, blaming it on a combination of an
employee’s flawed sense of entitlement and poor implementation by line managers. HR’s gaze
is firmly upwards (Cushen and Thompson, 2012) and HR personnel are “gradually
disappearing from the shop floor’ Francis and Keegan” (2006:244).
Interviewees also identified lack of training and guidance with regard to employee engagement
with respondents stating that they had received little or no management training in the last 2
years and were just expected by their organization to get on with the job.
Measurement and Monitoring of engagement and well-being
The theme of measurement emerged from the data arising from questioning regarding how do
you know your employees are engaged? This line of questioning elicited a mixed response.
Some were formally measuring engagement through surveys such as ‘the great place to work’
survey and staff satisfaction surveys, analysing the results and putting in place action plans,
others reported that engagement was on the agenda in their organization but was not formally
measured. Of these all but one reported that engagement levels were measured informally and
their organization was considering formal measurement, what was less clear though was why,
with some reporting that this was because informal measures suggest that employees are
disengaged or unhappy and the others purely as a response to what other organizations were
doing.
Employee wellbeing is not being measured at organizational level. Related measures of
sickness absence and turnover only are measured but this was not linked to general levels of
employee wellbeing. Line Managers were aware of their requirement for duty of care but this
was seen as being because of health and safety requirements rather than general consideration
of employee wellbeing. An interesting comment was made by one manager in an organization
where they were actively promoting engagement and wellbeing but had no policies
“ if you have to write a policy for it it’s not happening, engagement is not something you write
on a document and do, engagement is your culture and the way you live, think and breadth and
react to somebody and talk to people” (Interviewee 8 manager)
This suggests that previous research findings (Rees and Rumbles, 2012) on the “empty shell”
of HR policies could be correct and that HR driven policies on engagement and wellbeing are
ineffective unless they are actively driven by line management.
Generating engagement and well-being
Four themes emerged with regard to how to facilitate engagement and wellbeing, culture,
values, communication and trust. Creating an organizational culture that lays out the vision
and the values for engagement and wellbeing was seen to be the starting point and then
embedding this into organizational practice. All interviewees either reported their organization
had or was developing a corporate vision and values and this translated into reported statements
of employees’ reactions to the corporate vision and values such as
“I am really proud to work for the company” (Interviewee 10 manager)
And “I work in a fabulous team, it’s a fabulous service, I love this organization.” (Interviewee
9 manager)
The importance of values was stressed:
“We have a very strong set of values, and those set of values we always say it’s a bit like a stick
of rock and if you open us up inside those values are written inside every single one of us. And
it’s not a set of values that we kind of write and stick in the draw and forget about, every
member of staff every day of the week, lives thinks breathes, those values; and it’s what binds
us together in a way.” (Interviewee 8 manager)
And another explained that they had a “high touch ethos” of helping each other to better
performance
“if someone comes to you and it’s not your job you don’t say , ‘oh that’s not my job’ you say,
‘you need to speak to this person let me introduce you to them’ or, you know just to kind of
keep people moving in the right way and being as helpful as possible. And that also fits into
the culture we have here” (Interviewee 1 HR)
Communicating the vision and values was seen as important but “employee voice” in all it
manifestations was seen as fundamental to good communications and engagement and
wellbeing activities. (See Robertson et al, 2012). The pivotal role of the line manager was
stressed in generating engagement, with communication being the main vehicle for
organizational engagement activities (see Bakker et al, 2011). The 10 interviewees came from
diverse organizations and successful communication practices differed between organizations
based on contextual factors. (See Reissner and Pagan 2013).
The other dimension of enhancing engagement and wellbeing that was identified by the
interviewees was the development of trust and empowerment (see Hope Hailey et al 2012).
Empowering employees and trusting them to perform was identified as paramount in
developing not only good relations with staff but also in getting them more engaged in their
work.
Finally we return to the critical role of line managers in facilitating engagement. All the
interviewees reported that organizational level activities, such as policies are only effective if
they are translated into positive actions by line managers. The interview data suggests that this
is about good management practice, honesty, good communication, developing trust and
empowering staff that can make the difference between happy, healthy and engaged employees
who want to perform well in their role.
“If you have happy healthy employees they provide better customer service then there’s often
better bottom line profit” (Interviewee 1 HR)
However, Sparrow (2014, p4) argues that “employees will need to be persuaded that
engagement has something in it for them – so we need to show more clearly that engagement
also improves individual health, stress and wellbeing”. Whilst more research evidence is
needed he believes that the drivers of engagement are line managers. Here HRD can contribute
in providing appropriate learning and development interventions to give line managers the
appropriate skills to take on this role.
Limitations of the findings:
Despite receiving 115 responses to the e-survey, opportunities to demonstrate statistical
significance were limited. The survey and interview respondents were from managerial or HR
roles and thus our results are limited by the perceptions of these groups. Alfes et al (2007) point
to the problems of rating of HR practices by HR practitioners and managers. Feedback from
other types of employees was not gathered and this may prove to be a lucrative area for future
research as Conway and Monks (2009) point out there is an absence of employee attitudes in
research as opposed to management despite their impact on the organisation.
Whilst providing an opportunity for rich data collect the small sample size for the interviews
limits our ability to draw firm conclusions and consider in depth the wider implications from
the research.
Implications for HR/HRD
The need for effective learning and development interventions in fostering employee
engagement and wellbeing has been highlighted by a number of researchers but it is only
recently that researchers have considered engagement in the context of HRD (Shuck and
Wollard, 2010) and opportunities for employee learning have been considered as antecedents
of engagement (Czarnowsky, 2008). However, Mitchell (2010) highlights the fact that less
than twenty per cent of managers have received training in how to engage and bring out the
best in their people. Gebauer and Lowman (2008) comment that the lack of training and
development of managers is a potential barrier to engaging employees and the HRD function
can contribute in this area. Organisations should therefore train their supervisors to be
supportive in their role of directing, evaluating and coaching subordinates as well as having
regular meetings with their subordinates (Caesens, Stinglhamber and Luypaert 2014).
Fairlie (2011) also considers the wider benefits to both managers and employees of effective
learning and development interventions, arguing that levels of engagement can be both
passively and actively increased by developing talent.
He further argues that HRD
professionals should support managers and employees in changing their mindsets about their
jobs to assist them in finding meaning in their work as well as assisting them in redesigning
work activities to increase engagement and achievement of long term career goals. Taris,
Schaufeli, Shimazu and Leiter (2010) agree and posit that providing supervisors with effective
training might help to raise employees’ awareness of the meaning aim and relevance of their
work thus helping them to be work engaged rather than overworked “workaholics”.
When we consider employee wellbeing, whilst research into wellbeing identifies that provision
of wellbeing programmes could address some of the attitudinal aspects of employee
engagement and wellbeing (Cooper and Robertson, 2011) most wellbeing programmes and
initiatives are limited to health and safety training. Yet as this research demonstrates wellbeing
is seen as key to a better engaged and more productive workforce but most organisations do
little to train their managers (Young and Bhaumik, 2011).
Learning and development is not limited to the classroom, indeed the as the CIPD (2014b)
annual learning and development survey demonstrates the majority of training takes place onthe-job. Spreitzer and Porath (2012) identify that on-going learning at work is fundamental to
creating sustainable performance. They believe that learning is a vital component to achieving
satisfied, productive and engaged employees and organisations need to create opportunities for
employees to learn and develop by fostering practices that encourage both individual and
organisational learning. Keller and Price (2011) agree stating that “healthy organisations” do
not merely learn to adjust themselves to their current context or challenges that lie just ahead;
they create a capacity to learn and change over time.
Wilson (2005) identified the need for the HRD function to think more strategically, aligning
HRD policy, plans, procedures and evaluation to the organisation’s vision, goals and strategies.
There is no doubt that many organisations see the need to address employee engagement and
wellbeing as a strategic imperative but as Shuck and Wollard (2010) point out in order to
implement strategic interventions organisations want to know not only “who is running the
fastest and who is running the slowest but what separates them and why.”(106) Hence
investigating individual employee engagement is critical for HRD. Oswick (2015) agrees,
stating that attempts to manage employee engagement collectively is likely to achieve the same
fate as HRD interventions aimed at managing organizational culture. Rather than attempting
to directly act on employee engagement and wellbeing, we should work on developing the
antecedents for engagement such as HR policies management practice etc.
Shuck et al (2011) suggest conducting a needs analysis in order to better understand and build
on environmental and personal factors that assist in shaping strategy. They emphasise the
critical role of line managers in developing engagement and suggest organisations could work
to improve and build managers’ skills set through careful recruitment and development
processes.
Conclusion and Future research
Too many people go to work every day actively disengaged from their work (Harter et al,
2002). It is critical then that HR/HRD practices are shaped to enable employees to find
meaning and purpose in their work. But as Keeble-Ramsey and Armitage (2014) note too much
focus has been placed on management attitudes to employee engagement as opposed to
employees, yet the employee is at the heart of engagement. In developing a framework for
future research the attitudes of employees needs to be considered in order to develop HRD
interventions that will assist in facilitating engagement and wellbeing. However, engagement
does not occur by simply setting up of single training events arranged to encourage
relationships, work-life balance or focus on career development (De Mello, Widermuth and
Pauken, 2008) it requires a well rounded approach that assesses individual, group and
organisational needs.
Businesses are coming to terms with the reality that employee
engagement requires more than the minimum effort, engagement brings people to life,
unleashing their talents and delivering measurable improved performance but it needs to be
nurtured and facilitated through management and HRD practices.
References:
Albrecht, S.L. (2012) The influence of job, team and organizational level resources on
employee well-being, engagement, commitment and extra-role performance, International
Journal of Manpower Vol. 33 No. 7, 2012 pp. 840-853.
Albrecht, S.L. (2010) Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research
and Practice, Edward Elgar Publishers Cheltenham
Alfes, K., Truss, C., Rees, C. and Gatenby, M (2013) The Relationship Between Line
Manager Behavior, Perceived HRM Practices, and Individual Performance: Examining the
Mediating Role of Engagement. Human Resource Management. Nov/Dec2013, Vol. 52 Issue
6, pp. 839-859.
Alfes, K. Shantz, A.D. Truss, C. and Soane, E.C. (2012) The link between perceived human
resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: a moderated
mediation model. The International Journal of Human Resource Management pp.1-22
Alfes, K. Truss, C. Soane, E. Rees, C. and Gatenby, M. (2010) “Creating an Engaged
Workforce.” Wimbledon: CIPD
Alimo-Metcalfe, B., Alban-Metcalfe, j., Bradley, M., Mariathasan, J., and Samele, C. (2008)
The impact of Engaging Leadership on Performance, Attitudes to Work and Wellbeing at
Work: A Longitudinal Study Journal of Health and Organisational Management 22 (6): pp.
586-598.
AON Hewitt (2012) Trends in Global Engagemtn 2012 retrieved from
http://www.aon.com/attachments/humancapitalconsulting/2012_TrendsInGlobalEngagement_Final_v11.pdf
Arrowsmith, J., and Parker, J. (2013) Analytic Auto Ethnography Journal of Contemporary
ethnography, Vol. 24 No. 14, pp. 2692-2712.
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., Smith, R. M. and Palmer, N. F. (2010) Impact of positive
psychological capital on employee well-being over time. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol 15(1), Jan 2010, pp.17-28
Bakker, A.B., Albrecht, S.L., & Leiter, M.P, (2011) Key questions regarding work
engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(10) pp. 4-28.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. (2008), Towards a model of work engagement, Career
Development International, Vol. 13 No.3, pp.209-23.
Baptiste, N.R. (2008) Tightening the link between employee well-being at work and
performance: A new dimension for HRM. Management Decision, 46 (2) pp. 284-309.
Bevan, S. (2010) The Business Case for Employees Health and Wellbeing The Work
Foundation, London UK
Blau, P.M. (2006) Exchange and Power in Social Life Wiley Publishers, New York, NY.
Blessings White (2011) Employee engagement report 2011: Beyond the numbers: A practical
approach for individuals, managers, and executives. Retrieved from
http://www.blessingwhite.com/content/reports/BlessingWhite_2011_EE_report.pdf
Brunetto, Y, Teo, STT, Shacklock, K, & Farr-Wharton, R 2012, Emotional intelligence, job
satisfaction, well-being and engagement: explaining organisational commitment and turnover
intentions in policing, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 428-441.
Caesens, G., Stinglhamber, F., and Luypaert, G. (2014) The impact of work engagement and
workaholism on well-being Career Development International, Vol. 19 iss7 pp. 813-835
Cartwright, S., Cooper, C.L. (2009), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Well-Being,
Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cartwright S., Holmes N. (2006), The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining
employee engagement and reducing cynicism, Human Resource Management Review, 16: pp.
199-208.
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2014a) Megatrends: The trends shaping
work and working lives. Are we working harder than ever? CIPD London
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2014b) Annual Learning and
Development Survey CIPD London
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), Work Engagement, A Quantitative
Review and Test of its Relation with Task and Contextual Performance Personnel
Psychology, 64, pp. 89–136.
Conway, E. and Monks, K. (2009) Unravelling the complexities of high commitment: an
employee-level analysis Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp.140-158.
Cooper, C. and Robertson, I. (2011) Wellbeing, Productivity and happiness at work. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Cropanzano, R. & Wright, T.A. (2001). When a “happy” worker is really a “productive”
worker: A review and further refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53(3), pp.182–199
Cushen, J., and Thompson, P. (2012) Doing the right thing? HRM and the angry knowledge
worker. New Technology, Work and Employment 27.2 pp.79- 92.
Czarnowsky, M. (2008) Learning’s Role in Employee Engagement: An ASTD Research
Study, American Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, V.A.
Daniels, K. (2000). Measures of five aspects of affective well-being at work. Human
Relations, 53(2), pp. 275–294.
De Mello, C., Wildermuth, S. and Pauken, P. (2008) A perfect match:decoding employee
engagement – Part II: engaging jobs and individuals, Industrial and Commercial Training,
Vol. 40 no.4 pp. 206-210.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., De Jonge, J., Jansen, P.P.M., and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001)
Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian
Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 27, pp. 279-286.
Dodge, R., Daly, A.P., Huyton, J., and Sanders, L.D. (2012) The challenge of defining
wellbeing, International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(3), pp. 22-235.
Donald, I., Taylor, P., Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Robertson, S. (2005), Work
environments, stress and productivity: an examination using ASSET, International Journal of
Stress Management, Vol. 12 pp. 409-23
Fairhurst, D., and O’Connor J. (2010) Employee Well-Being:Taking Engagement and
Performance to the Next Level. Towers Watson Retrieved from www.Towerswatson.com
Fairlie, P. (2011), Meaningful Work, Employee Engagement, and other key employee
outcomes: Implications for Human Resource Development. Advances in Developing Human
Resources 13(4) pp. 508-525.
Francis, H., and Keegan, A. (2006) The changing face of HRM: in search of balance Human
Resource Management Journal Volume 16, Issue 3, pp. 231–249
Forgeard, M. J. C., Jayawickreme, E., Kern, M. & Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Doing the right
thing: Measuring wellbeing for public policy. International Journal of Wellbeing, 1(1), pp.
79–106.
Gallup (2013) The State of the Global Workplace: Employee Engagement Insights for
Business leaders Retrieved from
http://www.ihrim.org/Pubonline/Wire/Dec13/GlobalWorkplaceReport_2013.pdf
Gatenby, M. Alfes, K. Rees, C. Soane, E. and Truss, C. (2009) Employee Engagement in
Context. Wimbledon: CIPD
Gebauer, J and Lowman, D. (2008) “Closing the engagement gap: How great companies
unlock employee potential for superior results.” New York: Penguin Group
Grawitch, M., Gottschalk, M., Munz, D. (2006), The path to a healthy workplace: a critical
review linking healthy workplace practices, employee well-being and organizational
improvements, Consulting Psychology Journal, Vol. 58 No.3, pp. 129-47
Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B., and Schaufeli, W.B., (2006) Burnout and work engagement
among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, pp. 495-513.
Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2010), A meta-analysis of work engagement: relationships with burnout,
demands, resources and consequences, in Bakker, A.B., Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Work
Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, New York,
NY, pp. 102-17.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., Hayes, T.L. (2002), Business unit level outcomes between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement and business outcomes: a meta-analysis,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 pp. 268-79.
Holbeche (2014) Is it right to expect employees to be permanently engaged? in D Robinson
and J. Gifford (eds), The Future of Engagement Thought Piece Collection, Engage for
Success Peer-Reviewed Thought Leadership Series, London: Engage for Success. Retrived
from http://www.engageforsuccess.org/future-employee-engagement
Hope-Hailey V., Searle R., Dietz G., Abbotson S., Robinson V., McCartney C., Wright B.
(2012) Sustainable Business Performance: Where has all the trust gone? CIPD: London.
Jenkins, S., and Delbridge, R. (2013) Context matters: examining ‘soft’ and ‘hard’
approaches to employee engagement in two workplaces. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 24:14 pp. 2670-2691
Juniper, B. (2012) Employee engagemetn versus employee wellbeing Occupational Health
Issue:1 April 2012, RBI
Kahn, W. (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal 33:pp. 692-724
Kahn, R.L. & Juster, F.T. (2002). Well-being: Concepts and measures. Journal of Social
Issues, 58(4), pp. 627–644
Kalliath,T., and Kalliath, P. (2012) Changing work environments and employee wellbeing: an
introduction. International Journal of Manpower, vol.33. No7. pp. 729-737
Keeble- Ramsey, D., and Armitage, A. (2014) HRD challenges when faced by disengaged
UK workers Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 26 Iss: 3/4, pp. 217 - 231
Keegan, A. and Francis, H. (2010) Practitioner talk: The Changing textscape of HRM and
emergence of HR business partnership The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, vol. 21, No. 6 May 2010, pp. 873-898.
Keenoy, T. (2014) Employee engagement: a murmuration of objects? In Truss, C.,
Delbridge,R., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., and Soanne, E. (eds), Employee Engagement in Theory
and Practice, Abingdon: Routledge.
Keller S., and Price C. (2011), Organizational health: The Ultimate competitive advantage.
McKinsey Quarterly on line, June 2011 Retrieved from http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com.
Keyes, C.L.M, Shmotkin, D., and Ryff, C.D., (2002) Optimizing Wellbeing: The Empirical
Encounter of Two Traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.86. No.2,
pp. 1007-1022
Khilji , S.E. and Wang, X. (2006) ‘”Intended” and “Implemented” HRM: The missing
linchpin in Strategic Human Resource Management Research, International Journal of
Human Resource Management (17) pp. 1171-1189.
Kossek, E.E., Kalliath, T., Kalliath, P. (2012) Achieving employee wellbeing in a changing
work environment: An expert commentary on current scholarship, International Journal of
Manpower Vol, 33 No. 7, 2012 pp. 738-753
Linley, P.A., Maltby, J., Wood, A.M., Osborne, G., Hurling, R. (2009), Measuring happiness:
the higher order factor structure of subjective and psychological well-being measures
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 47 No.8, pp. 878-84.
Macey, W.H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K., Young, S.A. (2009), Employee Engagement: Tools
for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage, Wiley, Malden, MA,
MacLeod, D. and Clarke, N. (2009) Engaging for Success: enhancing performance through
employee engagement. A report to Government: Office of Public Sector Information
Maslach, C. (2011) Engagement research: some thoughts from a burnout perspective.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 20:1: pp. 47-52.
Mitchell, N. (2010), Employee Engagement: The Rules of Engagement. The Training
Foundation; Coventry: England.
Oswick, C. (2015) Guest Editorial: Engaging with Employee Enagement in HRD Theory and
Practice Human Resource Development Review 2015, Vol 14 (1) pp. 8-16.
Parker, S. and Griffin, M. (2011) Understanding Active Psychological States: Embedding
Engagement in a Wider Nomological Net and Closer Attention to Performance. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 20: pp. 60-67.
Pruyne, E. (2012) Corporate investment in employee well-being: the emergent strategic
imperative, Published by Nuffield Health (Nuffieldhealth.com/corporate-well-being).
Quick, J.C., Tetrick, L.E. (2010), Handbook of occupational health psychology American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 2nd ed
Rayton, B (2014) Employee Engagement, Why does it matter? Engage for Success. London.
Retrieved from http://www.engageforsuccess.org/future-employee-engagement
Rees, R. G., Rumbles S. D. (2012), Continuous organizational changes: exploring burnout at
the organizational level, International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change
Management: 11(3): pp. 1-16.
Reissner, S., and Pagan, V. (2013) Generating employee engagement in a public- private
partnership: management communication activities and employee experiences. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24:14, pp. 2741-2759.
Rich, B.L. Lepine, J.A and Crawford, E.R. (2010) Job engagement antecedents and effects on
job performance. Academy of Management Journal 53: 3: pp. 617-635
Robertson, I.T. Birch, A. J. and Cooper, C. L. (2012) Job and work attitudes, engagement and
employee performance: Where does psychological well-being fit in? Leadership and
Organization Journal 33:3:pp.224-232
Robertson, I.T., Cooper, C.L. (2010), Full engagement: the integration of employee
engagement and psychological well-being Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 25 No.4, pp. 324-36.
Salanova, M., Del Linano, M., Llorens, S., and Schaufeli, W.B (2014) Engaged, Workaholic,
Burned-Out or Just 9-5? Toward a Typology of Employee Well-being Stress Health 30.
pp.71-81
Sambrook, S.A., Jones, N., and Doloriert, C. (2014) Employee engagement and
autoethnography: being and studying self. Journal of Workplace Learning Vol. 2 Iss ¾
pp.172-187
Sanders, K., and Frenkel, S. (2011) HR-Line Management Relations: Characteristics and
Effects‘ International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, pp. 1611-1667
Schaufeli, W.B. (2013). What is engagement?. In Truss, C., Delbridge,R., Alfes, K., Shantz,
A., and Soanne, E. (eds), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, Abingdon:
Routledge.
Schaufeli, W.B. (2012) Work Engagement. What do we know and where do we go?
Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology 14(1) pp. 3-10
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 Behavior, 30, 893-917
Schaufeli, W.B. Salanova, M. Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002) The
measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor-analytic
approach. Journal of Happiness Studies: 3: pp. 71-92
Seligman M.P.E. (2011), How to build resilience Harvard Business Review 1/4/2011: 100106, and Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being. Free Press
Shirom, A. (2010), Feeling energetic at work: on vigor's antecedents in Bakker, A.B., Leiter,
M.P. (Eds), Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Practice, Psychology
Press, New York, NY, pp. 69-84
Shuck, B.M., and Reio, T.G. Jr (2014) Employee Engagement and Well-Being: A
Moderation Model and Implications for Practice Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies pp. 21:43
Shuck, B., and Rose K., (2013) Reframing Employee Engagement Within the Context of
Meaning and Purpose: Implications for HRD Advances in Developing Human Resources 15
(4) pp. 341-355.
Shuck, B.M., Rocco, T.S., and Albornoz, C.A. (2010) Exploring employee engagement form
the employee perspective: implications for HRD Journal of European Industrial Training
Vol. 35 Iss 4. 2011 pp. 300-325.
Shuck, B., and Wollard, K. (2010)’Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of
the Foundations Human Resource Development Review 9 (1) pp. 89-110
Soane, E. (2014) Leadership and Employee Engagement. In Truss, C., Delbridge,R., Alfes,
K., Shantz, A., and Soanne, E. (eds), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice,
Abingdon: Routledge.
Soane, E., Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., Rees, C., Gatenby, M. (2013) The Association of
Meaningfulness, Well-Being, and Engagement with Absenteeism: A Moderated Mediation
Model, Human Resource Management. May/Jun2013, Vol. 52 Issue 3, pp. 441-456.
Sparrow, P. (2014) Are we now mature enough to ask the harder questions, “the engaged
with what?“ challenge in Robinson, D., and Gifford, J. (eds), The Future of Engagment
Thought Piece Collection, Engage for Succes Peer-Reviewed Thought Leadership Series,
London: Engage for Success. Retrived from http://www.engageforsuccess.org/futureemployee-engagement
Spreitzer, G. and Porath, C. (2012) Creating Sustainable Performance, Harvard Business
Review: January-February 2012.
Taris, T.W., Schaufeli, W.B., Shimazu, A. and Leiter, M.P. (2010) The push and pull of
work: the differences between workaholism and work engagement. In Bakker, A.B. and
Leiter, M.P. (eds) Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research,
Psychology Press, New York, NY, pp. 39-53
Towers Perrin (2012) Employee surveys retrieved from
www.towerswatson.com/services/Employe-Surveys
Truss, K. (2014) The future of research in employee engagement in Robinson, D. and
Gifford, J. (eds), The Future of Engagment Thought Piece Collection, Engage for Succes
Peer-Reviewed Thought Leadership Series, London: Engage for Success. Retrived from
http://www.engageforsuccess.org/future-employee-engagement
Truss, C. Soane, E. Edwards, C. Wisdom, K. Croll, A. and Burnett, J. (2006) Working Life:
employee attitudes and engagement. London: CIPD
Valentin, C. (2014) The extra mile deconstructed: a critical and discourse perspective on
employee engagement and HRD, Human Resource Development International 2014 Vol. 17,
No. 4, pp. 475-490.
Warr, P. (2002). The study of well-being, behaviour and attitudes. In P. Warr (Ed.). Psychology
at work. London: Penguin Books, pp. 1–25
Wefald, A .J. (2008) An examination of job engagement, transformational leadership and
related psychological constructs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University,
Manhattan, KS
Wilson, J.P. (2005), Human Resource Development 2nd edition. Kogan Page
Wollard, K., and Shuck, B. (2011) Antecedents of employee engagement: A structured
review of literature Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, pp. 429-446.
Wright, T.A., Cropanzano, R. (2007), The happy/productive worker thesis revisited, in
Martocchio, J. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, Vol. 26 pp. 269-313
Wright, P. and Nishii, L. (2006). Strategic Human Resource Management and Organizational
Behaviour: Integrating Multiple Levels of Analysis, Working Paper 06-05, CAHRS, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY
Young, V. and Bhaumik, C. (2011) Health and Wellbeing at work: a survey of employers.
Department for Work and Pensions: Research Report No 750