1. Engagement, motivation and the
changing nature of the psychological
contract: A perspective on the evidence
Rob B Briner
CIPD / PPMA Private Public Service Debate – Manchester 08/11/12 1

2. Outline
 An evidence-based management perspective (not much
directly about changing nature of PC and motivation)
 The employee engagement explosion: What’s going on?
 Multiple meanings: Why it matters if “engagement” can
means anything vaguely related to employee feelings and
motivation
 Muddled measurement: What are engagement measures
really measuring and is it anything new or different?
 Management myths: On the enduring appeal of the
happy-productive worker fallacy
 An evidence-based management approach to engagement
(or anything)
2
2

3. What are your answers? And what is
your evidence?
1. Does engagement mean anything new or
different?
2. Can engagement be reliably measured or
assessed?
3. Does in general engagement predict
anything important?
4. Can engagement be improved or increased?
5. Does increasing engagement have any
effect?
3
3

4. The underlying logic of EBMgt
 Practitioners are faced with decisions
 All practitioners have limited knowledge
 Our ability to process information is limited
prone to biases
 Using techniques to gather more information,
evaluate its quality and relevance, and to
overcome such biases is likely to produce better
decision processes and outcomes
 All practitioners already use some evidence to
some extent – this is about using more of it
more effectively
4
4

5. What do we mean by evidence and
evidence-based?
 Evidence is any information that might be
relevant to making a decision
 No one type or kind of evidence is
necessarily better than another – depends on
question
 Legal evidence metaphor (witnesses,
statements, documents, forensic): Lots of
many types presented but all needs to be
judged for reliability and relevance
5
5

6. What is EBMgt?
 Evidence-based management is about
making decisions through the
conscientious, explicit, and judicious use
of four sources of information: (1)
practitioner expertise and judgment, (2)
evidence from the local context, (3) a critical
evaluation of the best available research
evidence, and (4) the perspectives of those
people who might be affected by the
decision. (Briner, Denyer, Rousseau, 2009)
6
6

7. What is evidence-based management?
7
7

8. What about gut and intuition?
 Gut and intuition is a form of evidence
 Arises when experts repeat the same or
similar decisions many, many (100s of) times
with immediate feedback from situation
about effectiveness
 Unconscious pattern recognition
 Not typical of organizational decisions
– Longer term
– Non-programmed
– Less simple or predictable outcomes 8
8

9. So what is the best evidence about
employee engagement?
 Depends on questions: Five key questions are
1. Does it mean anything new or different?
2. Can it be reliably measured or assessed?
3. Does in general it predict anything important?
4. Can it be improved or increased?
5. Does increasing it have any effect?
 For these questions the worst quality evidence
is: (a) Anecdotes; (b) Expert opinions; (c) Case
studies
 But these types of evidence may be extremely
useful for other types of questions
9
9

10. What evidence do you know about EE that is not
anecdotes, expert opinions, case studies…
 …and answers any of these questions?
1. Does it mean anything new or different?
2. Can it be reliably measured or assessed?
3. Does in general it predict anything important?
4. Can it be improved or increased?
5. Does increasing it have any effect?
 Nope, me neither (though some about 1 and 2)
 What might be better evidence?
– Independent studies (not vested interests – and there
are many)
– Longitudinal (before and after)
– Intervention studies
10
10

11. In other words…
…for the most important practical questions
about whether engagement is important, if it
can be increased, and if increasing it does
anything we have no publicly available high
quality evidence that I can find
11
11

12. Why do we need it? What else is driving
decisions?
 Biases in thinking and limitations of
information processing
 Power of management fads and fashions
 The roles of consultants
 Power, politics and careers
 What about due diligence, Corporate Social
Responsibility, etc? If you are not evidence-
based you’re not accountable or ethical
12
12

13. Error and biases in problem-solving and
decision-making
A bat and ball cost one pound and ten pence.
The bat costs a pound more than the ball. How
much does the ball cost?
13
13

14. Error and biases in problem-solving and
decision-making
In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch
doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover
the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to
cover half of the lake?
14
14

15. Error and biases in problem-solving and
decision-making – some examples
 Confirmation bias: Tendency to interpret and search for
information consistent with one’s prior beliefs
 Escalating commitment: Tendency to keep investing in a course of
action because considerable investment has already been made
even if the action is failing
 Availability heuristic: Tendency to overestimate likelihood of events
with greater availability in memory – “if you can think of it, it must
be important”
 Anchoring effect: Tendency to rely too heavily or over-emphasize
one piece of information (e.g., wine price lists, large reductions in
price)
 Framing effect: Drawing different conclusions from exactly the same
information presented in different ways (e.g., a ready meal that’s
“85% fat free” or “only 15% fat”)
 Meta-cognitive bias: The belief we are immune from such biases
15
15

16. Visual perceptions too: Some classic
optical illusions
16
16

17. 17
17

18. 18
18

19. 19
19

20. Management fads and fashions
 What are they?
 Some examples
 What do they do?
20
20

21. Management fashions (Carson et al,
2000) are interventions that are…
 subject to social contagion because they are novel
and perceived to be progressive, or preferable to
existing fashions or are perceived to be innovative,
rational, functional
 aimed at improving organizational performance
either materially or symbolically through image
enhancement
 motivated by a desire either to fix an existing
problem or capitalize on opportunities for
improvement
 considered to be of transitory value because,
despite some acceptance no systematic research
supporting their utility emerges
21
21

22. Examples
 Business process re-engineering
 Total quality management
 Quality circles
 Talent management
 Lean
 Outsourcing
 Employee Stock Ownership
22
22

23.  Pictures of book covers were here but
removed to reduce size of file
23
23

24. Article titles: Miller et al (2004)
 Stage 1 - Ascendancy: Total Quality: Wave of the
Future, Reengineering: It’s Totally Radical, Welcome
to the Revolution, The Promise of Reengineering,
How to Work Wonders, Completely.
 Stage 2 – Maturity: Reengineering: The Hot New
Managing Tool, The Reengineering Rage, Warning:
This Good Idea May Become a Fad, Reengineering:
Beyond the Buzzword.
 Stage 3 – Decline: Ten Reasons Why TQM
Doesn't Work, TQM: The Mystique, the Mistakes,
The Hocus-Pocus of Reengineering, Why TQM Fails
and What to Do About It.
24
24

25. How are fads a problem? (Donaldson &
Hilmer, 1998)
 “The main problem…is their lack of any solid
intellectual foundation. Implicit in each fad is
a cause effect statement that is rarely made
explicit and never properly supported.”
 “…management needs to evolve a sound
body of knowledge and clear language that
will assist members of the profession to
reason cogently. Faddism is the enemy of
this professionalism.”
25
25

26. 26
26

27. Following fads and fashions is a human
urge
 In retrospect can we identify management
fads?
 Why did we follow them?
– Dangers of best practice
– Dangers of benchmarking practices
 What happened to them?
 Kitchen equipment analogy…
27
27

28. 28
28

29. How to detect a management fad — eight
warning signs (Miller et al, 2004)
1. Simple, straightforward: A fad’s ideas are easy to communicate,
comprehend, and reduce to a small number of factors, dimensions, or
characteristics. Clear-cut distinctions, perfect contrasts, and ideal types
are proposed. Simple solutions are suggested.
2. Promising results: Fad auteurs are confidently didactic. There is no
false humility or hedging. Fads promise results such as greater control
and efficiency, more motivated and productive workers, more satisfied
customers, or some other valued result.
3. Universal: Fads propose solutions for everyone. Imparted truths are
said to apply to almost all organizations, functions, tasks, individuals, or
cultures. Fads claim enormous generality and universal relevance.
4. Step-down capability: Fads have the capacity to be implemented in
ritualistic and superficial ways. Recommendations can be implemented
quickly and easily, often without having much effect on organizational
practices. Recommendations involving large expenditures of resources or
substantial redistributions of power can be avoided.
29
29

30. How to detect a management fad — eight
warning signs (Miller et al, 2004)
5. In tune with zeitgeist: Fads resonate with the major trends or perceived
business problems of the day. Respond to challenges that are broadly felt
and openly discussed. Solutions are in tune with prevailing values.
6. Novel, not radical: Fads are novel, not radical. They question existing
assumptions, criticize widespread practices, and point to fresh new ways of
doing things. However, this novelty is not so much a new discovery as a
rediscovery and repackaging of older ideas, values, and approaches.
7. Legitimacy via gurus and star examples: Fads are supported by tales
of excellent companies and the status and prestige of gurus, not by solid
empirical evidence. Stories of corporate heroes and organizational
successes provide role models and suggest prestigious adherents, lending
an aura of legitimacy to the ideas being espoused.
8. Lively, entertaining: Fads are almost always presented in a way that can
be described as concrete, articulate, bold, memorable and upbeat. They are
filled with labels and buzzwords, lists and acronyms. Interesting anecdotes
and corporate war stories abound. Descriptions are vivid and extreme,
making fads fun to read about and listen to.
30
30

31. The role of consultants
 Translators of research evidence?
 Brokers or sellers of management fads and
fashions?
 External objective advisors?
 Repositories of experience and wisdom?
 Fresh pair of eyes
 Neutral advisors
 Change agents?
 Ways of justifying and externalizing unpopular
decisions?
31
31

32. Pfeffer & Sutton (2006)
 “…consultants and others who sell ideas and
techniques are always rewarded for getting
work, only sometimes rewarded for doing
good work, and hardly ever rewarded for
whether their advice actually enhances
performance.
 The incentives are often even more perverse
than that, because if a client company’s
problems are only partly solved that leads to
more work for the consulting firm.”
32
32

33. Power, politics and careers
 What are managers rewarded for?
– Doing what works? But very few evaluations
– Getting things done?
– Making things happen?
– Not rocking the boat?
– Working hard?
– Obeying orders?
– Solving problems?
– Meeting targets and goals? But who sets and why?
– Making their bosses look good?
 Do very senior people get there by being evidence-
based managers?
33
33

34. Huge incentives and punishments around
conventional thinking, fads, fashions
 And there we see the power of any big
managerial idea [fads]. It may be smart, like
quality, or stupid, like conglomeration. Either
way, if everybody's doing it, the pressure to do
it too is immense. If it turns out to be smart,
great. If it turns out to be stupid, well, you were
in good company and most likely ended up no
worse off than your competitors. Your
company's board consists mostly of CEOs who
were probably doing it at their companies. How
mad can they get?
34
34

35. Huge incentives and punishments around
conventional thinking, fads, fashions
 The true value of conventional management
wisdom [current fashion] is not that it's wise or
dumb, but that it's conventional. It makes one
of the hardest jobs in the world, managing an
organization, a little easier. By following it,
managers everywhere see a way to drag their
sorry behinds through another quarter without
getting fired. And isn't that, really, what it's all
about?
(Colvin, 2004, Fortune)
35
35

36. History shows we don’t sufficiently
question the powerful
 Many esteemed bodies, groups, individuals
whose views we take as fact and tend not to
question but they all get things very wrong
– Groups of professionals and professional bodies
– Individual experts
– People with titles, qualifications, letters after their
name
– Gurus, ‘thought leaders’
 All often have vested political and power
interests in adopting and maintaining a
position and asserting ‘facts’ 36
36

37. The employee engagement explosion:
What’s going on?
37
37

38. Some background and context
 Kahn (1990): Deployment of preferred self under conditions
of meaningfulness, safety, psychological availability
 Much practice activity (1999>): Gallup, Towers-Perrin,
SHRM, CIPD, UK & Scottish Government reviews
 Maslach et al (1997, 2001): Opposite of burnout with high
levels of activation and energy
 Bakker, Schaufeli et al (2002>): Work-related state of vigour,
dedication, absorption
 Much bandwagoning, grand-standing, soul-searching
 Broader social and political trends in positive psychology,
happiness agenda in politics
 Engagement side-steps politics and power (win-win)
38
38

39. Schaufeli & Bakker (2010)
 March 2008 and April 2012
4.15m 10,100
175,000 6,800
4.33m 16,900
254 116
391 145*
645 261 39
39

40. Number of Google searches by year
 Has satisfaction gone out of fashion to be
replaced by employee engagement?
40
40

41. 41
41

42. UK attitudes before and during the recession 2006
to 2010 from British Social Attitudes
 Have these increased, decreased or not
changed?
– Job insecurity?
– Changes in general happiness?
– Satisfaction with job?
– Satisfaction with work-life balance?
42
42

43. UK attitudes before and during the recession 2006
to 2010 from British Social Attitudes
 What’s happened to
– Job insecurity?
• The proportion of workers saying it is ”very true”
that their jobs are secure has fallen from 32% in
to 23%
– Changes in general happiness?
• Little change in happiness scores
– Satisfaction with job?
• Increase from 6.9 to 7.3 (out of 10)
– Satisfaction with work-life balance?
• Increase from 6.0 to 6.3 (out of 10)
43
43

44. Where are we now?
“Despite the proliferation in engagement related
research…we believe that the notion of work
engagement is at something of a crossroads.
Although one path might involve the ongoing
proliferation of relatively disconnected research
and practice using a diversity of models and
measures, we believe the time is now ripe to
agree some common ground, consolidate what we
know, and leverage from this firm foundation
additional research, which will redress
fundamental issues that still require resolution.”
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010)
44
44

45.  “Employee engagement is becoming a
popular term among human resource
management and development consultants,
internal communications practitioners, and
business conference presenters, but
questions persist regarding whether
engagement is just a passing fad.” (Shuck &
Wollard, 2010)
45
45

46.  “Although seemingly voluminous, most of the
existing literature is opinion, rather than
evidence-based scholarship.” (Shuck &
Wollard, 2010)
46
46

47. Old and new wines and bottles
 “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’.” (Macey &
Schneider, 2008)
47
47

48. Old and new wines and bottles
 “We agree with Macey and Schneider’s 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.” (Newman &
Harrison, 2008)
48
48

49. Old and new wines and bottles
 “We also argue that the question ‘‘is
engagement old wine in a new bottle?’’ is
done and dusted. There is enough empirical
evidence to debunk the notion that work
engagement is nothing more than a
repackaging of related constructs.” (Schaufeli
& Bakker, 2010)
49
49

50. Old and new wines and bottles
 “…it is time to put to bed the notion that
engagement is nothing more that some ‘‘old
wine—new bottle’’ conceptual cocktail
consisting of commitment, job satisfaction,
organizational citizenship behaviour, and
turnover intentions.” (Bakker et al, 2011)
50
50

51. Work engagement: what we don’t
know yet (Bakker et al, 2011)
1. How should we conceptualize engagement?
2. How should we best measure engagement?
3. Are there fluctuations in engagement across
the working week?
4. What is a ‘‘climate for engagement’’?
5. Can leaders influence follower engagement?
6. Is engagement contagious?
51
51

52. Work engagement: what we don’t
know yet (Bakker et al, 2011)
7. Do engaged employees conserve their own
work engagement?
8. Is there a dark side of engagement?
9. Is engagement related to health?
10.What are effective interventions for
engagement?
52
52

53. So what’s going on?
 Popular concept with at least two distinct
fields – psychology and HR/consultancy
 Very little good quality evidence
 Little agreement on definition
 Little agreement about whether it’s a new
idea or an old idea repackaged
 Numerous unanswered questions
53
53

54. Multiple meanings: Why it matters if
“engagement” can means anything
vaguely related to employee feelings
and motivation
54
54

55. 55
55

56. How many definitions? And does it
matter? (MacLeod & Clarke, 2009)
 “There is no one agreed definition of employee
engagement – during the course of this review
we have come across more than 50 definitions.”
 “… the concept of employee engagement needs
to be more clearly defined […] or it needs to be
abandoned.” (David Guest quoted in the review)
 “We have decided, however, that there is too
much momentum and indeed excellent work
being done under the banner of employee
engagement to abandon the term.”
56
56

57.  “This lack of continuity [in definition]
contributes to a deep misconception of the
complexities around the concept.” (Shuck
and Wollard, 2010)
 “if the meaning of engagement ‘‘bleeds’’ into
so many other more developed constructs,
then engagement just becomes an umbrella
term for whatever one wants it to be.” (Saks,
2008)
57
57

58. Some practice-oriented definitions
 Gallup: “The term employee engagement refers
to an individual’s involvement and satisfaction
with as well as enthusiasm for work”
 Development Dimensions International:
“Engagement has three dimensions: (1)
cognitive – belief in and support for the goals
and values of the organization; (2) affective –
sense of belonging, pride and attachment to the
organization; (3) behavioral – willingness to go
the extra mile, intention to stay with the
organization”
58
58

59. Some practice-oriented definitions
 Towers Perrin: “personal satisfaction and a
sense of inspiration and affirmation they get
from work and being a part of the
organization”
 Mercer: “Employee engagement – also called
‘commitment’ or ‘motivation’ – refers to a
psychological state where employees feel a
vested interest in the company’s success and
perform to a high standard that may exceed
the stated requirements of the job”
59
59

60. Some practice-oriented definitions
 Conference Board: ‘‘employee engagement is a
heightened emotional and intellectual
connection that an employee has for his/her job,
organisation, manager, or co‐workers that, in
turn, influences him/her to apply additional
discretionary effort to his/her work”
 Work Foundation: “employee engagement
describes employees’ emotional and intellectual
commitment to their organisation and its
success. Engaged employees experience a
compelling purpose and meaning in their work
and give of their discrete effort to advance the
organisation’s objectives.”
60
60

61. Some academic research-oriented
definitions
 “the simultaneous employment and expression of a
person’s ‘preferred self’ in task behaviors that
promote connections to work and to others,
personal presence, and active full role
performances.” (Kahn, 1990)
 The opposite of burnout: Energy rather than
exhaustion, involvement rather than cynicism and
efficacy rather than professional inefficacy (Maslach
& Leiter, 1997)
 “A distinct and unique construct that consists of
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components
that are associated with individual role
performance” (Saks, 2006)
61
61

62. Some academic research-oriented
definitions
 “a persistent, positive affective-motivational
state of fulfilment in employees that is
characterized by high levels of activation and
pleasure” (Maslach et al., 2001)
 “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of
mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication,
and absorption” (Schaufeli, et al, 2002)
 “an individual employee’s cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral state directed
toward desired organizational outcomes.”
(Shuck & Wollard, 2010)
62
62

63. Some general definitional issues
 The engagement of what? (e.g., cognition,
affect, behaviour)
 With what? (e.g., task, organization, role)
 Through what processes?
 Over what timescales? (e.g., milliseconds,
hours, months)
 With what effects? (e.g., task performance,
contextual performance, costs and benefits,
on whom or what?)
63
63

64. Some general definitional issues
 Many definitions combine and confuse cause (e.g.,
feelings, cognitions) with outcomes (performance,
extra mile)
 Engagement is thus defined as co-occurring positive
affect or attitudes and high levels of performance
 From this perspective it is completely circular to say
engagement is a cause of performance:
Engagement (positive feelings and high
performance) causes high performance?
 “…many HR consultants avoid defining the term,
instead referring only to its presumed positive
consequences.” (Macey & Schneider, 2008)
64
64

65. Why does it matter?
 From a research perspective if researchers are
using different definitions, measures and
meaning then there is no accumulation of
knowledge or understanding
 From a practice perspective measures and
interventions remain vague, unfocussed,
impossible to evaluate or compare across
organizations
 It remains an ‘all things to all people’
unchallengeable motherhood and apple pie
phenomenon
65
65

66. Muddled measurement: What are
engagement measures really
measuring and is it anything new or
different?
66
66

67. Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
(Schuafeli & Bakker, 2003)
1. At my work, I feel bursting with 9. I feel happy when I am working
energy. (VI1) intensely. (AB3)
2. I find the work that I do full of 10. I am proud of the work that I do.
meaning and purpose. (DE1) (DE4)
3. Time flies when I am working. 11. I am immersed in my work. (AB4)
(AB1)
12. I can continue working for very long
4. At my job, I feel strong and periods at a time. (VI4)
vigorous. (VI2)
13. To me, my job is challenging. (DE5)
5. I am enthusiastic about my job.
14. I get carried away when I am
(DE2)
working. (AB5)
6. When I am working, I forget
15. At my job, I am very resilient,
everything else around me. (AB2)
mentally. (VI5)
7. My job inspires me. (DE3)
16. It is difficult to detach myself from
8. When I get up in the morning, I feel my job. (AB6)
like going to work. (VI3)
17. At my work, I always persevere,
even when things do not go well.
(VI6) 67
67

68. Redundancy in work engagement items
(Newman & Harrison, 2008)
68
68

69. Redundancy in work engagement items
(Newman & Harrison, 2008)
69
69

70. Some other points about UWES
 Correlations with other measures (Schaufeli
& Bakker, 2010): Org. commitment (.45-
.55); Job involvement (.35); Job satisfaction
(?); Burnout (.40=.60)
70
70

71. Some other points about UWES
 Is it different from burnout? (Cole et al., 2011): “…the
more recently developed UWES may tap a well-known
construct (burnout - cynicism, exhaustion, inefficiency)
under a new label (engagement – absorption, dedication,
vigour).”
– - “…high correlations (…–.85 to –.79) suggest that
burnout-inefficacy is almost interchangeable with all three
constituent dimensions of engagement.”
– “…our analyses revealed that the dimensions underlying
burnout and engagement yielded highly similar (albeit
opposite) patterns of correlations with antecedent and
outcome correlates…”
– “…controlling for the burnout dimensions substantially
reduced the effect sizes associated with the dimensions
underlying engagement (seven of nine possible
relationships no longer reached statistical significance…”
71
71

72. Gallup Q12
1. Do you know what is expected of (coaching)
you at work? (role clarity)*
7. At work, do your opinions seem to
2. Do you have the materials and count? (voice)
equipment you need to do your
work right? (material resources) 8. Does the mission/purpose of your
company make you feel your job is
3. At work, do you have the important? (meaningfulness)
opportunity to do what you do best
every day? (opportunity for skill 9. Are your associates (fellow
development) employees) committed to doing
quality work? (quality culture)
4. In the last seven days, have you
received recognition or praise for 10. Do you have a best friend at work?
doing good work? (social support, (social support)
positive feedback) 11. In the last six months, has someone
5. Does your supervisor, or someone at work talked to you about your
at work, seem to care about you as progress? (feedback)
a person? (supervisor support) 12. In the last year, have you had
6. Is there someone at work who opportunities at work to learn and
encourages your development? grow? (learning opportunities)
*descriptors added by Schaufeli & Bakker (2010) 72
72

73. Some points about Q12
 .91 correlation at business unit level with job
satisfaction (Harter et al, 2002)
 .22 correlation with performance at business
unit level – same as job satisfaction (Harter
et al, 2002)
 > .8 correlation with org commitment and
UWES at individual level (Le et al., 2007)
73
73

74. 74
74

75.  “How can a concept so underdeveloped and
still emerging in scholarly research have so
little agreed-upon definition and have so few
validated measures yet so widely accepted in
application and practice as to be named the
keystone to business success?” (Shuck &
Reio, 2011)
75
75

76. Management myths: On the enduring
appeal of the happy-productive worker
fallacy
76
76

77. Job satisfaction does not cause job
performance?
 Nearly all (90%+) studies (including
engagement studies) are cross-sectional and
provide no evidence about causality
 These data show correlation around .20
(96% of variance in performance not
explained by job satisfaction)
 Longitudinal studies (controlling for
performance at Time 1) tend to show even
weaker associations and possible reverse
causality
77
77

78. Job satisfaction does not cause job
performance?
 Reverse causality? “Job satisfaction [was]
predicted by return on assets and earnings
per share more strongly than the reverse.”
(Schneider et al., 2003)
 Spurious correlation? Third variables affect
both satisfaction and performance.
 “…the satisfaction–performance relationship
is largely spurious…” much reduced or
disappears after controlling for personality,
self-esteem, etc (Bowling, 2007)
78
78

79. Feelings and performance
 Feeling good not necessarily good for
performance
 Feeling bad not necessarily bad for
performance
 It depends on:
– the specific feeling state
– the dynamics and combination of feeling states
– what kind of performance or behaviour
79
79

80. So why do people believe job satisfaction
(and engagement) causes performance?
 It’s neat and simple
 Attitude surveys simple managerial tool even though
generally attitudes poor predictors of behaviours
and difficult to change
 Seems to fit with daily observations (though
probably picking up flexibility and citizenship
behaviours rather than task performance) and
short-term level of analysis
 Satisfied workers more compliant and malleable
 Managers prefer to manage such workers
 Tells a win-win story which avoids power and
politics
80
80

81. Just how bad an idea is employee
engagement?
 It depends which idea of engagement
 What are bad ideas like?
– They are beyond criticism: Motherhood and
apple pie
– They inhibit rather than increase analysis
– They encourage a proliferation of multiple and
inconsistent definitions
– Claim great novelty when they aren’t that new
– Re-present ideas that have already been shown
to be more-or-less myths
81
81

82. So what to do in general?
 Continue to find out whether engagement is
anything new or distinct or actually predicts
performance
 Move away from a mechanical lever-pulling view
of engagement as cause of performance
 Even if engagement doesn’t predict performance
it may be a good thing – the business case
argument is morally bankrupt
 Be clear, precise and specific about what we’re
talking about – engagement sounds like
everything and anything to do with managing
people
82
82

83. An evidence-based management
approach to engagement (or anything)
 What exactly is the problem engagement is going to fix?
 How do you know it’s a problem?
– Internal evidence, stakeholders, management expertise
 How do you know that in principle engagement will fix the problem
– External (good quality) evidence (not expert opinion, anecdotes, star
case studies)
– Critical thinking and healthy scepticism
 If you know there’s a problem what other solutions may fix the
problem as well or more effectively or more cheaply
 There is often a bias to taking action and fixing the problem but
without understanding if there’s a problem and what it is
 Don’t be swayed by fads and fashions – do what is most likely to
work based by considering the best available evidence
83
83

84. So is engagement the answer?
 We simply don’t know
– The concept is questionable
– The measures questionable
– No good quality evidence that engagement can
be increased
– No good quality evidence that increasing
engagement
– But this may change as more evidence becomes
available (if its good quality – not anecdotes, star
case studies or expert opinion)
84
84

85. Thank you
Questions, thoughts, comments, criticisms?
r.b.briner@bath.ac.uk
85
85