The struggle with employee engagement: Measures and construct clarification using five samples.

Abstract

Among scholarly researchers, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) is a popular scale for assessing employee or work engagement. However, challenges to the scale's validity have raised major concerns about the measurement and conceptualization of engagement as a construct. Across 4 field samples, we examined 2 measures of engagement, the UWES and the Job Engagement Scale (JES), in both factor structure and patterns of relationships with theoretically hypothesized antecedents and consequences. In a fifth field sample, we examined the construct-level relationships between engagement and related variables, while controlling for sources of measurement error (i.e., item-specific factor, scale-specific factor, random response, and transient). By examining 2 measures, each derived from different theoretical bases, we provide unique insight into the measurement and construct of engagement. Our results show that, although correlated, the JES and UWES are not interchangeable. The UWES, more so than the JES, assesses engagement with overlap from other job attitudes, requiring improvement in the measurement of engagement. We offer guidance as to when to use each measure. Furthermore, by isolating the construct versus measurement of engagement relative to burnout, commitment, stress, and psychological meaningfulness and availability, we determined (a) the engagement construct is not the same as the opposite of burnout, warranting a reevaluation of the opposite-of-burnout conceptualization of engagement; and (b) psychological meaningfulness and engagement are highly correlated and likely reciprocally related, necessitating a modification to the self-role-expression conceptualization of engagement. (PsycINFO Database Record

Psychometric Properties of the Job Engagement Scale: A Cross-Country Analysis

“…First, in line with earlier research showing internal consistency reliability of the JES ranged from 0.88 to 0.96 (e.g., Alfes et al, 2012;Basit & Arshad, 2016;Byrne et al, 2016;Chen et al, 2014;He et al, 2013;Rich et al, 2010;Shuck et al, 2014), the JES in the present study showed excellent internal consistency reliabilities well above the cutoff criteria of 0.70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) for both Pakistan (α = 0.97) and Malaysia (α = 0.95).…”

“…For instance, Saks and Gruman (2014) in their literature review have noted that as compared to Schaufeli et al (2002)'s view, Kahn's (1990) definition of engagement is relatively precise and grounded better in theory. In a similar vein, Byrne et al (2016) have examined the measures of engagement across five field samples and found that both the UWES and JES showed strong correlation but were not interchangeable. The authors concluded that because these scales measure different aspects of engagement, the UWES is more suitable in applied settings and the JES should be preferred in research settings.…”

“…Earlier studies utilizing the JES on Western samples have shown good psychometric properties of this scale and supported its three-factor structure (e.g., Alfes, Shantz, Truss, & Soane, 2012;Basit & Arshad, 2016;Byrne, Peters, & Weston, 2016;Chen, Yen, & Tsai, 2014;He, Zhu, & Zheng, 2014;Rich et al, 2010;Shuck, Twyford, Reio, & Shuck, 2014). However, application of the JES in Asia is relatively limited.…”

Advancing Theory with Review Articles

“…Construct clarity is critical not only for building new theory (Suddaby, 2010) but also for developing measures, measurements and manipulations of constructs (Byrne et al, 2016), as well as for comparing, aggregating and replicating empirical studies (Fisher and Aguinis, 2017;Le et al, 2010). Therefore, a review can contribute to and advance theory by clarifying a construct.…”

The Everyday Experiences of Personal Role Engagement: What Matters Most?

“…This focus on stability and self-employment has been criticized, particularly by HRD and management scholars, as being less substantial and less meaningful than personal role engagement (Cole, Walter, Bedeian, & O ' Boyle, 2012 ;Fletcher, 2016 ;Saks & Gruman, 2014 ). This is because work engagement seems to (a) overlap too much with the concept and construct of burnout and other work attitudes, whereas personal role engagement is considered a more distinct motivational concept (Byrne, Peters, & Weston, 2016 ;Cole et al, 2012 ;Saks & Gruman, 2014 ); (b) focus more narrowly on transactional elements of work activities more so than personal role engagement, which focuses on a broader set of situationally and organizationally embedded elements of work roles (Bargagliotti, 2012 ;Fletcher, 2016 ); and (c) neglect to fully incorporate the role of personal agency and authenticity of self-expression, whereas personal role engagement emphasizes both employment and expression of the self (Kahn & Heaphy, 2014 ;Saks & Gruman, 2014 ).…”