Collective Organizational Engagement: Linking Motivational Antecedents, Strategic Implementation, and Firm Performance

Abstract

We present a comprehensive theory of collective organizational engagement, integrating engagement theory with the resource management model. We propose that engagement can be considered an organization-level construct influenced by motivationally focused organizational practices that represent firm-level resources. Specifically, we evaluate three distinct organizational practices as resources-motivating work design, human resource management practices, and CEO transformational leadership-that can facilitate perceptions that members of the organization are as a whole physically, cognitively, and emotionally invested at work. Our theory is grounded in the notion that, when used jointly, these organizational resources maximize each of the three underlying psychological conditions necessary for full engagement; namely, psychological meaningfulness, safety, and availability. The resource management model also underscores the value of top management team members implementing and monitoring progress on the firm's strategy as a means to enhance the effects of organizational resources on collective organizational engagement. We empirically test this theory in a sample of 83 firms, and provide evidence that collective organizational engagement mediates the relationship between the three organizational resources and firm performance. Furthermore, we find that strategic implementation positively moderates the relationship between the three organizational resources and collective organizational engagement. Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed.

Research Capability, Job Satisfaction, and a Multiple Approach of Competitiveness: A Conceptual Framework for University Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

“…This is in line with the argument that employee satisfaction and organisational performance are correlated and a strong relationship is expected between them (Ostroff, 1992). As empirically supported, motivating work design could positively affect organisational performance (Barrick, et al, 2015;Hijal-Moghrabi, et al, 2015). Moreover, Vermeeren et al (2014) found that job satisfaction positively affects organisational performance.…”

“…Barrick, Thurgood, Smith, & Courtright, 2015;Hijal-Moghrabi, Sabharwal, & Berman, 2015;Ostroff, 1992;Zutshi & Sohal, 2004;Vermeeren, Kuipers, & Steijn, 2014). Zutshi and Sohal (2004) found that involving employees in the planning of the environmental management systems benefitted the corporations in enhancing morale building within the corporation, and fulfilling the customer expectations due to considering employees as stakeholders.…”

Can formal innovation training improve group- and organizational-level innovativeness in a healthcare setting?

“…According to this study's measures, it seems most likely that the participant group's engagement or enthusiasm for innovation was contagious to the nonparticipant group. There is a body of organizational literature that supports the proposition that engagement is highly contagious and transferrable to other members of an organization (Barrick, Thurgood, Smith, & Courtright, 2015;Pugh, 2001). However, this current study did not have these express measures in place to measure this issue accurately.…”

Sustainability in SMEs: Top Management Teams Behavioral Integration as Source of Innovativeness

“…We collected our data at two points in time because a two-stage survey approach can provide superior quality data [68][69][70]. Furthermore, the potential common-method variance bias increases when using cross-sectional datasets and obtaining both dependent and independent measures from the same individuals [71][72][73].…”