employee engagement research topics

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How Companies Can Improve Employee Engagement Right Now

• Daniel Stein,
• Nick Hobson,
• Jon M. Jachimowicz,
• Ashley Whillans

Start by connecting what people do to what they care about.

A year and a half into the pandemic, employees’ mental “surge capacity” is likely diminished. Managers must take proactive steps to increase employee engagement, or risk losing their workforce. Engaged employees perform better, experience less burnout, and stay in organizations longer. The authors created this Employee Engagement Checklist: a distilled, research-based resource that practitioners can execute on during this critical period of renewed uncertainty. Use this checklist to boost employee engagement by helping them connect what they do to what they care about, making the work itself less stressful and more enjoyable, and rewarding them with additional time off, in addition to financial incentives.

As the world stumbles toward a Covid-19 recovery, experts warn of a surge of voluntary employee departures, dubbed the “Great Resignation.” For instance, one study estimates that 55% of people in the workforce in August 2021 intend to look for a new job in the next 12 months. To counteract the incoming wave of employee turnover, organizations — more than ever — need to focus on cultivating employee engagement .

• DS Daniel Stein is a fifth-year doctoral student in the Management of Organizations (MORS) Group at UC Berkeley, Haas School of Business. He conducts research on groups and teams, focusing on commitment to one’s group. He studies commitment across multiple levels, ranging from teams to organizations.
• NH Nick Hobson is chief scientist and director of labs for  Emotive Technologies , a behavioral technology think tank that brings together leading academic researchers, technologists, and business strategists in order to create and share knowledge. A PhD-trained behavioral scientist and adjunct lecturer at the University of Toronto, Nick’s research and client practice specializes in employee experience (EX) and the influence of behavioral science as a tool for business success.
• Jon M. Jachimowicz is an assistant professor in the Organizational Behavior Unit at the Harvard Business School. He received his PhD in management from Columbia Business School. He studies how people pursue their passion for work, how they perceive passion in others, and how leaders and organizations seek to manage for passion.
• Ashley Whillans is an assistant professor in the negotiations, organizations, and markets unit at the Harvard Business School School and teaches the “Negotiations” and “Motivation and Incentives” courses to MBA students and executives. Her research focuses on the role of noncash rewards on engagement and the links between time, money, and happiness. She is the author of Time Smart: How to Reclaim Your Time & Live a Happier Life (Harvard Business Review, 2020).

Partner Center

The Definitive Series: Employee Engagement | 2020

This research describes what research and practitioner communities have learned about employee engagement over the last three decades.

The Definitive Series: Employee Engagement

This report summarizes all available research from both the academic and practitioner communities so that organizations can build their engagement efforts on the best possible intelligence.

Executive Summary

Top 10 Conclusions: The Definitive Series on Employee Engagement

Slides: Everything You Need to Know About Employee Engagement Webcast

Infographic

Engagement is Closely Linked to Sales Performance

Key Insights

We look forward to staying connected and sharing our latest research and discoveries about the world of work.

Stay Connected

We will send you an email with our latest research and discoveries about the world of work as they are published. Enter your email and be the first to learn what we've discovered.

By clicking the button below, you acknowledge that you have read our Privacy Statement and agree to our Terms of Use .

Your privacy is assured.

Stay up to date with Today at Work

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley-Blackwell Online Open

Building work engagement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions

Caroline knight.

1 Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield Management School, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK

Malcolm Patterson

Jeremy dawson, associated data.

Low work engagement may contribute towards decreased well‐being and work performance. Evaluating, boosting and sustaining work engagement are therefore of interest to many organisations. However, the evidence on which to base interventions has not yet been synthesised. A systematic review with meta‐analysis was conducted to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of work engagement interventions. A systematic literature search identified controlled workplace interventions employing a validated measure of work engagement. Most used the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). Studies containing the relevant quantitative data underwent random‐effects meta‐analyses. Results were assessed for homogeneity, systematic sampling error, publication bias and quality. Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria and were categorised into four types of interventions: (i) personal resource building; (ii) job resource building; (iii) leadership training; and (iv) health promotion. The overall effect on work engagement was small, but positive, k  = 14, Hedges g  = 0.29, 95%‐CI = 0.12–0.46. Moderator analyses revealed a significant result for intervention style, with a medium to large effect for group interventions. Heterogeneity between the studies was high, and the success of implementation varied. More studies are needed, and researchers are encouraged to collaborate closely with organisations to design interventions appropriate to individual contexts and settings, and include evaluations of intervention implementation. © 2016 The Authors. Journal of Organizational Behavior published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

Work engagement is currently a popular topic within many organisations, given its association with employee well‐being and performance (e.g. Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011 ; Halbesleben, 2010 ). Evaluating, boosting and sustaining work engagement are therefore a prime concern of many organisations, and many studies have investigated the possible antecedents and consequences of engagement (e.g. Halbesleben, 2010 ; Crawford, LePine, & Rich, 2010 ), leading researchers to consider the field sufficiently well developed to warrant the development and testing of work engagement interventions (e.g. Leiter & Maslach, 2010 ). However, the evidence on which to base interventions is limited, although a variety of intervention studies are emerging (Biggs, Brough, & Barbour, 2014 ; Ouweneel, Le Blanc, & Schaufeli, 2013 ). No study has yet assessed the effectiveness of these interventions; however, it is hoped that doing so will stimulate debate and direct future research and practice. The aim of this study is therefore to conduct a narrative systematic review and meta‐analysis of the evidence for the effectiveness of controlled work engagement interventions.

Work engagement

Kahn ( 1990 ) originally pioneered the concept of employee engagement, proposing that engaged employees are physically, cognitively and emotionally involved in their work roles, and experience a sense of meaning (reward for investing in role performance), psychological safety (a sense of trust and security at work) and availability (a sense of having the physical and psychological resources necessary for the job). Saks ( 2006 ) developed this view by distinguishing between job and organisational engagement to reflect the different roles of employees. Maslach and Leiter ( 1997 ) approached engagement from the field of burnout, characterising it in terms of high energy, involvement and efficacy, the polar opposite of burnout (exhaustion, cynicism and inefficacy), and therefore measurable using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach & Jackson, 1981 ). Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez‐Roma, and Bakker ( 2002 ) refuted this, arguing that while engagement is the positive antipode to burnout, it is a separate, distinct concept, and therefore cannot be measured on a burnout scale. They defined work engagement as a state of mind characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002 ), and developed the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) to measure it. Vigour refers to high energy and mental resilience while working, dedication to being intensely involved in work tasks and experiencing an associated sense of significance, enthusiasm, and challenge, and absorption to a state of full concentration on work and positive engrossment in it.

Schaufeli et al. ( 2002 ) view of engagement as a distinct concept from burnout was contested by Cole, Walter, Bedeian, and O'Boyle ( 2012 ), who found in their meta‐analysis, involving 50 independent samples, that burnout and engagement were highly correlated, similarly associated with correlates, and that controlling for burnout reduced the effect sizes of engagement substantially. They concluded that whether burnout and engagement can be viewed as separate dimensions was questionable.

Further academic (e.g. Crawford et al., 2010 ; May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004 ), and lay and practitioner (e.g. MacLeod & Clarke, 2009 ; Robertson‐Smith & Markwick, 2009 ) definitions and measures of engagement exist, and scholars have also questioned the existence of engagement, arguing that it is redundant with other, established job attitudes such as job satisfaction, organisational commitment and job involvement (for a good review, see Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; see also Byrne, Peters, & Weston, 2016 ; Christian et al., 2011 ). Questions have also arisen over the factorial validity of the UWES, with some studies suggesting that a three‐factor model is superior to a one factor, unidimensional model (e.g. Bakker & Demerouti, 2008 ; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006 ), and others suggesting that the three factor structure is ambiguous (e.g. Sonnentag, 2003 ), or that the models are equivalent (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006 ). The field is clearly divided over the meaning of engagement and how best to measure it. Nevertheless, Schaufeli et al. ( 2002 ) perspective appears to be the most popular and well researched to date (Hakanan & Roodt, 2010 ), and tends to underlie engagement interventions.

The key model underlying Schaufeli et al. ( 2002 ) perspective is the Job Demands–Resources model (JD‐R; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008 ; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007 ). This proposes that work engagement is driven, either independently or together, by both job and personal resources. Job resources refer to physical, social or organisational aspects of the job (e.g. feedback, social support, development opportunities) that can reduce job demands (e.g. workload, emotional and cognitive demands), help employees to achieve work goals, and stimulate personal learning and development. Personal resources refer to ‘positive self‐evaluations that are linked to resiliency and refer to individuals' sense of their ability to control and impact upon their environment successfully’ (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008 p.5). These include self‐esteem, self‐efficacy, resilience and optimism. The motivating potential of job and personal resources are proposed to lead to positive individual and organisational outcomes such as work engagement, well‐being and performance, whereas few resources and high work demands are proposed to lead to poor health outcomes, such as burnout, stress and depression, as well as turnover, sickness absence and poor performance. This model has been supported by numerous studies (e.g. Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009 ; Hakanen, Bakker, & Demerouti, 2005 ; Simbula, Guglielmi, & Schaufeli, 2011 ), including meta‐analyses (Crawford et al., 2010 ; Halbesleben, 2010 ; Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Hofmann, 2011 ), all of which have served to advance the model and work engagement theory.

Bakker and Demerouti ( 2007 ) posit that four specific processes underlie the motivational potential of job and personal resources. These are: (i) broaden‐and‐build theory (Fredrickson, 2001 ), which proposes that positive emotions enable employees to increase their personal resources by widening the spectrum of thoughts and actions that come to mind; (ii) the experience of better health, which is proposed to enable employees to focus all their resources on the job; (iii) job crafting, which refers to employees creating their own opportunities and resources; and (iv) emotional contagion theory, which suggests that employees transfer engagement to others, indirectly improving team engagement and performance (Bakker, Van Emmerik & Euwema, 2006 , 2009 ). According to Bakker ( 2011 ), these processes create a positive gain spiral of engagement over time.

Work engagement interventions

We are currently aware of no other reviews of work engagement interventions. An initial scoping review, however, revealed the emergence of several interventions since 2010. Almost all of these adopted Schaufeli et al. ( 2002 ) conceptualisation of work engagement, although large heterogeneity between the studies was revealed in terms of research design, participant characteristics, content, duration and the organisation's location and industry. Whether studies measured overall work engagement, or one or other of the three sub‐components, also varied, which has implications for the ability to group studies together for a meta‐analysis. We identified four types of intervention : (i) personal resource building interventions; (ii) job resource building interventions; (iii) leadership training interventions; and (iv) health promoting interventions.

Personal resource building interventions focus on increasing individuals' self‐perceived positive attributes and strengths, often by developing self‐efficacy, resilience or optimism (e.g. Ouweneel et al., 2013 ; Vuori, Toppinen‐Tanner, & Mutanen, 2012 ). Employees with high levels of personal resources are thought to positively appraise their ability to meet their work demands, believe in good outcomes and believe they can satisfy their needs by engaging fully in their organisational roles. In accordance with the Job Demands–Resources Model (JD‐R; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007 ), personal resources may directly or indirectly lead to work engagement, in the latter case by buffering against the negative effects of perceived job demands. The results of personal resource building interventions on work engagement have been mixed. For example, Ouweneel et al. ( 2013 ) observed a positive, significant effect for those who were initially low in engagement only, whereas Calitz ( 2010 ) observed positive, significant effects for both engagement sub‐components measured, vigour and dedication, and Sodani, Yadigari, Shfia‐Abadi, and Mohammadi ( 2011 ) found significant effects of all three sub‐components. Others found no effects at all, however (e.g. Chen, Westman, & Eden, 2009 ; Vuori et al., 2012 ).

Job resource building interventions focus on increasing resources in the work environment such as autonomy, social support and feedback (e.g. Naruse et al., 2014 ), and are predicted to lead to work engagement, well‐being and performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008 ). According to the motivational process underlying the JD‐R Model, job resources intrinsically motivate employees by stimulating growth, learning and development, satisfying basic human needs for autonomy, relatedness and competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000 ), or extrinsically motivate employees by providing the means by which work goals can be accomplished. Furthermore, Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 2002 ) suggests that employees will seek to retain and increase resources they value; hence, those with more resources are less likely to experience resource loss and more likely to seek further resources. The initial scoping review suggested that job resource building interventions on work engagement have so far failed to find any significant effects; however, studies have demonstrated positive, non‐significant, increases in work engagement (e.g. Naruse et al., 2014 ), or its sub‐components (e.g. Cifre, Salanova, & Rodriguez‐Sanchez, 2011 ).

Leadership training interventions involve knowledge and skill building workshops for managers and measure work engagement in their direct employees (e.g. Rigotti et al., 2014 ). The assumption is that increasing the knowledge and skills of managers will increase employees' perceived sense of job resources, motivating them to engage in their work according to the motivational hypothesis of the JD‐R Model. Results of leadership interventions on work engagement have been mixed. For example, Biggs et al. ( 2014 ) found positive, significant effects on work engagement when their intervention was mediated by employees' perceptions of work–culture support and strategic alignment, whereas Rigotti et al. ( 2014 ) found a borderline significant effect in their German study but no effect in their Swedish study, despite implementing very similar interventions in both locations. These results point to the potential importance of context, and tailoring interventions to individual circumstances and organisational needs (Briner & Walshe, 2015 ; Nielsen, Taris, & Cox, 2010 ).

Health promoting interventions encourage employees to adopt and sustain healthier lifestyles and reduce and manage stress. For example, the physiological effects of exercise may increase well‐being and work engagement and reduce stress, burnout, poor mental health, sickness absenteeism, and presenteeism (Strijk, Proper, Van Mechelen, & Van der Beek, 2013 ). The positive emotions which can follow exercise may widen individuals' range of thoughts and actions in accordance with broaden‐and‐build theory (Fredrickson, 2001 ), and enable personal resources to be built. Mindfulness training may work similarly, by increasing resilience and self‐esteem through increased non‐judgemental acceptance of thoughts, feelings and bodily sensations (Van Berkel, Boot, Proper, Bongers, & Van der Beek, 2014 ). Again, health promoting interventions have demonstrated mixed results with regards to work engagement. For example, while some have revealed no effects (e.g. Hengel, Blatter, Joling, van der Beek, & Bongers, 2012 ; Van Berkel et al., 2014 ), one observed a small but significant effect at both three and six months (Imamura et al., 2015 ), and one observed significant effects on the vigour sub‐component for a group which was highly compliant with a yoga programme (Strijk et al., 2013 ).

Two of the studies reported above demonstrated significant effects on a subgroup. Ouweneel et al. ( 2013 ) results suggest that it may be worth targeting interventions towards those who are most in need of them, that is, those who report low engagement scores. This is in keeping with recommendations to assess the need for interventions prior to implementing them (e.g. Briner & Walshe, 2015 ). Strijk et al.'s ( 2013 ) results suggest that the successful implementation of interventions, including the compliance of participants, may be crucial to their effectiveness. This indicates that determining the readiness to change of organisations and participants is important, as advocated by Nielsen, Randall, Holten, and González ( 2010 ). They highlight that without the strong support of senior management and a perceived need for change by participants, change is unlikely to occur. For a deeper discussion of issues concerning the planning, implementation and evaluation of intervention studies, which is beyond the scope of this paper, see Briner and Walshe ( 2015 ), or Nielsen, Randall et al. ( 2010 ).

The steady emergence of a number of work engagement interventions, and the mixed results which these have demonstrated, suggests that a review assessing the effectiveness of interventions is timely. Such a review would help direct future research and contribute towards the developing evidence‐base. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of controlled work engagement interventions by conducting a systematic search of the literature and statistically meta‐analysing the results of those which are able to be included (see Method for inclusion criteria). The first question addressed by this review is therefore as follows:

Given the variety of interventions emerging, and the different mechanisms by which each is purported to increase work engagement, it is possible that intervention effectiveness will be moderated by intervention type. A recent meta‐analysis in the related field of burnout found that cognitive behavioural techniques were more effective for decreasing exhaustion (a sub‐component of burnout) than other types of intervention (Maricuţoiu, Sava, & Butta, 2016 ). Another review also found significant differences in the effectiveness of different types of interventions in reducing stress, with cognitive‐behavioural programmes demonstrating the largest effect (Richardson & Rothstein, 2008 ). The following question will therefore also be explored:

Search strategy

An extensive systematic literature search was conducted between May 2014 and May 2015, in relevant databases, in accordance with current standards outlined in The Cochrane Collaboration's (Higgins & Green, 2011 ) guidelines for systematic reviews. This revealed 726 hits overall. Published studies were identified through searching MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Unpublished studies were identified through searching Proquest Digital Dissertations and Theses (PDD), Trove and Thesis Canada Portal, key repositories for Master's and PhD dissertations which cover the UK, Australia and Canada, respectively.

Search strategies were developed for each database specifically, to accommodate variation in the search methods employed by each one (see Supplemental file 1 ). Key terms included ‘work engagement’, ‘intervention’, ‘group’, ‘individual’, ‘online’ and ‘web’. Manual searches of relevant books (e.g. Albrecht, 2010 ; Bakker & Leiter, 2010 ), and key author websites (e.g., Schaufeli, Bakker) were also conducted.

Criteria for inclusion

Each study was required to meet the following criteria to be included in the meta‐analyses: (i) report a controlled intervention (any intervention with some form of control, comparison or referent group, whether randomised or non‐randomised, equivalent or non‐equivalent, waiting‐list or non‐waiting‐list) conducted with employees of an organisation, whether group based, individual or online; (ii) contain a measure of engagement with evidence of reliability and validity; and (iii) contain a pre and post measure of engagement for both the control/referent and intervention groups, and all other necessary results required to conduct a meta‐analysis (see statistical procedures). In order to capture as many interventions as possible, no restriction was placed on the conceptualisation of engagement adopted or engagement measure used. In reality, only one study was included which had not used the UWES (Aikens et al., 2014 ), and similar to the UWES, this measure incorporated a cognitive, emotional and behavioural component. Although an unintended consequence, this allowed the included studies to be synthesised more meaningfully than if various conceptualisations and measures of engagement had been used.

Following the systematic search, duplicates were removed and the remaining titles and abstracts screened for inclusion. The full texts of articles passing this initial screening were obtained and authors contacted for access or more information where necessary. Consequently, 20 studies, represented by 27 articles, were included in the meta‐analyses. The vast majority of excluded studies were not controlled intervention studies or did not measure engagement (Figure  1 ).

A flow diagram of the systematic literature search results, indicating databases searched, number of hits and reasons for study exclusion

Coding of the studies

Characteristics of the studies were double coded by one of the authors and an independent researcher working in a related field, according to a specially developed coding guide (see Supplemental file 2 ). Demographic information extracted were participant numbers and the mean participant age and gender distribution at baseline. Study characteristics included the author details and document date, type of document found (published article, thesis, or grey literature), country of intervention location, the industry of the organisation, whether it was public (owned, controlled and funded by the government) or private, the core components of the intervention (e.g. workshops, coaching, assignments), intervention type (as defined in the introduction) and intervention style (whether or not the intervention was group or individually orientated, a combined group and individual intervention, or conducted purely online). Other particulars included intervention duration, design (e.g. number of groups, presence of randomisation, presence of a control/referent group), measure of work engagement used, response rates, attrition rates, outcomes (i.e. results for which overall work engagement, vigour, dedication and absorption were reported), whether or not results were adjusted for covariates such as age and gender, and key conclusions. Factors highlighted by authors which may have affected the implementation and success of the intervention were also noted, such as lack of participation, mergers, redundancies and economic adversity. These were intended to inform a discussion of the results and provide deeper insight into the results obtained.

Categories were generated for intervention type and style based on the themes emerging from the data itself, and took into consideration the differences and similarities between the interventions. For example, when assessing a study for intervention type, particular attention was paid to how authors portrayed the aims of their interventions, as well as to the characteristics of interventions. For instance, if an author primarily focused discussion on vitality and health (e.g. Strijk et al., 2013 ), and the intervention was presented as a health promotion programme, the intervention was classified as such. If an author primarily focused discussion on personal resources such as self‐esteem (e.g. Ouweneel et al., 2013 ) and presented their intervention as one to build personal resources, the intervention was classified as a resource building intervention.

The agreement rate between the two coders was assessed using Cohen's Kappa (Cohen, 1960 ), which indicates the percentage agreement over and above agreement expected by chance. Values lie between −1.00 and +1.00, with 0 indicating chance agreement, +1.00, perfect agreement, and −1.00, perfect disagreement. Values between 0.40 and 0.59 suggest fair agreement, 0.60–0.74, good agreement and >0.75, excellent agreement (Orwin, 1994 ). All of the agreement rates were above 0.60, except for one, which was 0.44 (for intervention style). Many were above 0.75 and approached 100%. All differences were resolved by discussion and consultation with a third expert where necessary (another author). Following this process, consensus rates reached 100% for every single piece of data extracted.

Statistical procedure

The meta‐analyses were computed using the statistical package, Comprehensive Meta‐Analysis (Borenstein, Hedges', Higgins, & Rothstein, 2011 ). Standardised differences in means (Hedges g ) and their 95% confidence intervals were computed for each study. Hedges g expresses the difference between the control and intervention group means, divided by their pooled standard deviations. A positive value indicates that the intervention had a positive effect on work engagement, with values between 0.3 and 0.5 representing a medium effect (Cohen, 1988 ). Hedges g was computed using pre‐post intervention means, their respective standard deviations ( SD ) and pre‐post correlations. Where pre‐post correlations were unavailable, a conservative estimate ( r  = 0.7) was adopted in accordance with Rosenthal ( 1991 ) recommendation and previous meta‐analyses in related fields (e.g. Khoury et al., 2013 ). In the absence of means and SD s, alternative statistics such as F or p values were sought. Where necessary, the corresponding author was contacted to obtain the required results.

The mean effect size for a group of studies was calculated by pooling individual study effect sizes according to a random effects approach. This approach assumes that studies come from different populations with different average effect sizes and is appropriate when studies are not identical (Field & Gillett, 2010 ), as in the present study where studies vary according to factors such as occupational setting, nationality and intervention type. Results were statistically assessed for heterogeneity using the chi‐squared statistic, Cochran's Q , and I 2 . I 2 is not affected by low statistical power, and a value of 25% suggests that heterogeneity is low, 50%, that it is moderate, and 75%, that it is high (Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, & Altman, 2003 ). High heterogeneity within a group of studies suggests the presence of moderators. To explore the impact of potential moderators on the results, the average effect size for each level of a moderator (e.g. for all four intervention types) was computed and the Q statistic was calculated. A significant difference between the effect sizes for each group indicates the presence of a moderator. Results were also assessed for systematic sampling error, sensitivity analyses and publication bias, via Rosenthal's ( 1991 ) Fail‐Safe N and Duval and Tweedie's ( 2000 ) Trim and Fill method.

The quality of the studies was assessed using ‘Risk of Bias’ tool which assesses studies as ‘low risk’, ‘unclear risk’ or ‘high risk’ according to five criteria: (i) selection bias; (ii) allocation concealment; (iii) performance bias; (iv) detection bias; and (v) attrition bias (Higgins, Altman, & Sterne, 2011 ). In general terms, a study is rated as ‘high risk’ on a criterion if there is evidence of bias which is likely to substantially affect the results or conclusions drawn (Higgins et al., 2011 ). For example, an intervention study claiming to be randomised is rated at low risk of selection bias if the authors have described a random method of allocating participants to the intervention (e.g. using a computerised random number generator, coin tossing, throwing dice), at high risk if a non‐random method has been used (e.g. using odd and even dates of birth, or the availability or location of the participant), and at unclear risk if there is insufficient information to make a judgement. A study rated as ‘high risk’ in at least one of the areas is given an assessment of ‘high risk’ overall. Each study was again double coded, and initial Cohen's Kappa agreement rates reached 0.52 or above, with two reaching 100% (for assessments of performance bias, that is, whether blinding of participants and personnel occurred, and overall summary judgements). Again, all discrepancies were resolved by discussion, resulting in 100% agreement for all risk of bias judgements.

We acknowledge that assessing the quality of studies based on five criteria only is arguably limiting, and omits an assessment of how well the intervention was implemented and adhered to. These factors can have a large impact on the effectiveness of interventions and have led some researchers to strongly promote their inclusion in the evaluation of organisational interventions as a matter of course (see Briner & Walshe, 2015 ; Nielsen, Randall, et al., 2010 ). However, their discussion here is beyond the scope of this paper. In addition, given the focus in this study on controlled interventions, the quantitative nature of a meta‐analysis and The Cochrane Collaboration's guidelines which have been followed throughout, we consider the ‘Risk of Bias’ tool to be an appropriate means for providing a snapshot of study quality and enabling the results to be compared with meta‐analyses following a similar protocol. It was also not possible to conduct a meta‐analytic moderator analysis based on quality criteria, because of the inconsistent and limited number of studies which reported such data. For example, eight studies did not report a drop‐out rate, and where rates had been reported, five reported a single, exact value, three reported a value per group (intervention and control) and two reported a value for the control group only. Conducting a moderator analysis on this data would therefore involve excluding nearly 50% of the studies and making several assumptions about the data available, rendering the results highly dubious at best.

Demographics

Double coding of all 20 included studies revealed that 14 examined the effect of an intervention on overall work engagement between baseline (Time 1; T1) and post‐intervention (Time 2; T2) or between baseline and follow‐up (Time 3; T3). These formed the basis of the core meta‐analysis investigating the overall effect of interventions on work engagement ( N  = 3692). Ten measured vigour ( N  = 1501), nine measured dedication ( N  = 946) and six measured absorption ( N  = 732). Study sample sizes ranged between 45 (Carter, 2008 ) and 612 (Vuori et al., 2012 ). The gender distribution between samples varied considerably (~25% –96% male for those studies which provided this data, k  = 15), as did participant age at baseline (~27–61 years).

Four of the fourteen studies included in the core meta‐analysis focused on interventions to increase personal resources, two focused on increasing job resources, four focused on health promotion and four focused on leadership training (Table  1 ). Two of these studies conducted an intervention entirely online, one conducted a face‐to‐face, individual intervention, eight conducted group based interventions and three employed both group‐based and individual strategies. Four of the 14 were conducted in public organisations, five in private organisations and five did not provide this data. Eight of the 14 studies were randomised and five employed the intention‐to‐treat principle. Finally, nine were published journal articles, three were unpublished doctoral dissertations and one was a report which detailed two of the included studies. Please see Table  1 for an overview of the characteristics of each of the studies.

Summary of the core characteristics of the twenty included studies in the meta‐analyses.

Overall effectiveness of work engagement interventions

The meta‐analysis revealed a small, positive, but reliable effect on work engagement (Hedges g  = 0.29, 95%‐CI = 0.12–0.46), vigour (Hedges g  = 0.95, 95%‐CI = 0.49–1.41), dedication (Hedges g  = 0.75, 95%‐CI = 0.36–1.14) and absorption (Hedges g  = 0.78, 95%‐CI = 0.33–1.22, Table  2 ). The sustainability of these effects is unclear, with work engagement and vigour demonstrating larger effects immediately post‐intervention than at follow‐up, and dedication and absorption demonstrating the opposite (Table  3 ). It was not possible to statistically investigate whether significant differences existed between subgroups because of the non‐independence of studies included in each. As expected, the heterogeneity between the studies was large for all the analyses (Tables  2 and 3 ). To investigate the effect of time further, meta‐regression, treating time as a continuous predictor, was conducted on studies measuring overall work engagement. Results revealed no moderation effect, suggesting that the effect size of interventions did not vary according to the duration between study measurements ( k  = 13, n  = 3,652, β  ≤ 0.01, SE ≤ 0.01, p  = 0.85).

Meta‐analytic results for the effects of interventions on work engagement, vigour, dedication and absorption.

Notes . K  = number of studies included in the analysis; n (con) = number of participants in the control group; n (int) = number of participants in the intervention group; g  = average effect size according to Hedges' g ; SE  = standard error of the average effect size; 95%‐CI, LL‐UL  = the minimum and maximum limits of the 95% confidence interval; Q  = statistical test used for the estimation of heterogeneity; I 2  = proportion of effect size variance that can be attributed to moderator variables (%).

Meta‐analytic results for the effects of interventions on work engagement, vigour, dedication and absorption, at post‐intervention (T2) and follow‐up (T3).

Notes . k  = number of studies included in the analysis; n (con) = number of participants in the control group; n (int) = number of participants in the intervention group; g  = average effect size according to Hedges' g ; SE  = standard error of the average effect size; 95%‐CI, LL‐UL  = the minimum and maximum limits of the 95% confidence interval; Q  = statistical test used for the estimation of heterogeneity; I 2  = proportion of effect size variance that can be attributed to moderator variables; T2 = length of time between the pre‐ and post‐intervention measure; T3 = length of time between the pre‐intervention measure and a further, follow‐up measure (following the post‐intervention measure), for those studies which collected this data.

Intervention type as a moderator of intervention effectiveness

To determine whether intervention type is associated with intervention effectiveness, the Q test, based on analysis of variance (Borenstein, Hedges', Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ), and assuming that intervention effect varies randomly between studies, was used to identify significant differences between groups. No significant differences in effect size were observed between intervention types on work engagement, Q (3) = 3.18, p  = 0.36 (Table  4 ), indicating that intervention type is not a moderator. Study variance within subgroups was still large, therefore further moderator analyses were conducted (Table  4 ). These moderator variables were investigated based on their inclusion in meta‐analyses in related fields (e.g. intervention style and design, Maricuţoiu et al., 2016 ) and observed differences in study characteristics (e.g. organisation type, time between measurement points). A statistically significant difference between subgroups was observed for intervention style, Q (3) = 10.89, p  = 0.01, with medium to large positive effects for group interventions (Hedges g  = 0.51, 95%‐CI, 0.12–0.90, p  = 0.01). Given that the ‘individual’ category contained only one study (Naruse et al., 2014 ), limiting the conclusions that can be drawn, a sensitivity analysis was conducted with this study removed. This reduced the significance to borderline, Q (3) = 4.641, p  = 0.10. Further studies are needed within the ‘individual’ category to clarify these results. Non‐statistically significant differences between subgroups were observed for all other moderators (private versus public organisations, randomised versus non‐randomised, and adjusted for covariates such as age and gender versus not adjusted; results available on request), although all of the effects observed were positive and reliable. According to these results, there were no significant moderators of work engagement interventions, only a borderline significant moderator of intervention style. It should be noted, however, that the limited number of studies in subgroups may have resulted in power too low to detect an effect, decreasing the robustness of the results.

Results of moderator analyses investigating the effect of differences in intervention study and methodological characteristics on work engagement.

Notes . k  = number of studies included in the analysis; n (con) = number of participants in the control group; n (int) = number of participants in the intervention group; g  = average effect size according to Hedges' g ; SE  = standard error of the average effect size; 95%‐CI, LL‐UL  = the minimum and maximum limits of the 95% confidence interval; Q  = statistical test used for the estimation of heterogeneity; I 2  = proportion of effect size variance that can be attributed to moderator variables (%).

Publication bias was not detected, (Rosenthal's ( 1991 ) Fail‐Safe N  = 127), and Duval and Tweedie's ( 2000 ) Trim and Fill method suggested that three studies would need to fall on the right hand side of the mean effect size to make a funnel plot symmetric. Assuming a random effects model, the new imputed mean effect size would be, Hedges g  = 0.40, 95%‐CI = 0.22–0.57 (previously, Hedges' g  = 0.29, 95%‐CI = 0.12–0.46). These results suggest that the effect size estimates from the observed studies were unbiassed and robust. However, the quality assessment using The Cochrane Collaboration's (2011) ‘Risk of Bias’ tool revealed all studies to be at high risk of bias. This should be taken into account when interpreting the results.

The effectiveness of work engagement interventions

This study aimed to address two research questions: (i) whether work engagement interventions are effective; and (ii) whether intervention type is associated with intervention effectiveness. The systematic literature search revealed 20 papers which met the inclusion criteria and could be included in the meta‐analyses. The meta‐analytic results demonstrated a positive, small, significant, effect on work engagement and each of its three sub‐components, vigour, dedication and absorption. This suggests that interventions aimed at increasing resources in the work environment and improving well‐being can improve employees' work engagement, in accordance with the JD‐R model. This effect was observed across a range of countries, organisational settings, industries and participant characteristics, suggesting generalisability and thus the benefit of work engagement interventions to organisations globally.

The slightly larger positive effects observed for the sub‐components compared to overall work engagement may reflect previous results which suggest that the psychometric properties of a three‐factor model are superior to those of a unidimensional, one factor model (Schaufeli et al., 2006 ). This raises further questions over the meaning of engagement and how best to operationalise it, and could suggest that it is more effective to direct interventions at increasing one or other of the sub‐components rather than overall work engagement. Analysing the effectiveness of different aspects of these interventions (e.g. skills sessions, coaching, homework) could take work engagement research further still, and contribute to an evidence‐based discussion of how and why interventions work.

Meta‐analysis revealed ambiguous results regarding the sustainability of effects, with stronger effects for vigour immediately post‐intervention than at follow‐up, and the opposite being true for dedication and absorption. Meta‐regression, however, did not reveal a significant effect of time on studies measuring overall work engagement. These results could suggest lasting effects of interventions and are not dissimilar from results found by other studies in related areas which have investigated the effect of intervention duration on outcomes. For example, Maricuţoiu et al. ( 2016 ) investigated the effectiveness of controlled interventions on employees' burnout and found that average effect sizes were similar across different measurement time points. More studies are needed, however, which measure work engagement and its sub‐components at various points following interventions, to clarify these results.

A moderator analysis did not reveal a significant effect of intervention type on the effectiveness of work engagement interventions, meaning that we cannot reject the null hypothesis of no difference between intervention types. This suggests that success is not affected by the focus of the intervention. This could be because of indirect effects on job and personal resources, as well as well‐being. For example, an intervention designed to directly increase personal resources could accordingly increase an individual's sense of self‐esteem, competence and experience of positive emotions, broadening the number and type of thoughts and actions that come to mind, in accordance with broaden‐and‐build theory (Fredrickson, 2001 ). This could in turn lead to individuals searching out opportunities, crafting their own jobs and increasing their job resources and sense of well‐being.

Alternatively, the lack of effects observed for intervention type may have been because of the high heterogeneity between the studies within each subgroup. This has been observed in meta‐analyses in related areas (e.g. Richardson & Rothstein, 2008 ) and prevents a meaningful comparison between the interventions or generalisation of the results. It also suggests that other factors may explain the results and account for why a significant effect of intervention type was not found. In particular, included studies varied in terms of design and content; thus, it is impossible to determine whether the results observed were because of these, or indeed other, variables not measured by the interventions. Furthermore, poor intervention implementation may have decreased the ability of meta‐analyses to detect an effect. A general discussion about this follows shortly.

To explore the high level of heterogeneity between studies further, another moderator analysis involving intervention style was conducted, which revealed a significant effect with a medium to strong positive effect for group interventions. This result was reduced to borderline significance when the ‘individual’ category, containing a single study, was removed. Further studies are needed which have been conducted on a one‐to‐one, individual basis in order to increase the robustness of the results and draw conclusions about the effect of intervention style for improving work engagement. Nevertheless, these results suggest that intervention style may be a more important moderator than intervention type, and with further studies, more differences may be discovered which build on them.

A possible explanation for the strength of the effect for group interventions is that they effectively influence certain work engagement antecedents, such as social support and influence in decision‐making. In accordance with the JD‐R model, an increase in these resources could boost work engagement and protect against negative outcomes such as burnout and stress. Research which has investigated the effectiveness of group interventions to manage stress offers support for this explanation. For example, Nielsen, Randall, and Albertsen ( 2007 ) found that employees who were able to work together to influence and decide the content of stress management interventions reported increased job satisfaction and improved working conditions and behavioural stress symptoms. Furthermore, Park et al. ( 2004 ) found that a group, problem‐solving intervention was positively related to organisational social climate and interactions with colleagues and supervisors, and a systematic review found that 11 group, organisational‐level occupational health interventions (eight of which were controlled) were associated with positive outcomes, out of a total of 18 studies (Egan et al., 2007 ).

The studies discussed above suggest that participating in a group intervention, with the opportunity to talk to colleagues, develop personal relations and work skills, and voice an opinion, enables individuals to increase job resources such as social support and influence in decision‐making, leading to positive outcomes. Because the JD‐R model predicts that increases in such resources activate the motivational pathway, it follows that group interventions which focus on increasing these resources should lead to increased work engagement and well‐being in participants. Nielsen ( 2013 ) applies Social Identity Theory (SIT) to explain how group interventions may enhance participants' resources. Nielsen proposes that individuals participating in a group intervention build a sense of identity with their group. Being a member of this in‐group provides individuals with the opportunity to work with others towards a common goal, such as improving an aspect of the work environment or solving a particular work‐related problem. This could increase the job resource, social support (Nielsen, 2013 ), as well as enabling individuals' needs for a sense of belonging, purpose and meaning to be met, positively affecting well‐being (Haslam, Jetten, Postmes, & Haslam, 2009 ) and work engagement. Group interventions may therefore be a productive focus for future work engagement interventions, and we encourage further research to further understand the effectiveness of group interventions.

Further meta‐analytic moderator and sensitivity analyses revealed no statistically significant differences between groups for organisation type (private vs public), study design (randomised vs non‐randomised) or degree of statistical control (results adjusted for covariates vs not adjusted). These results suggest that the effectiveness of work engagement interventions may be generalized across private and public organisations, and are not affected by whether studies are randomised or not. This latter conclusion supports a growing body of evidence which suggests moving away from applying the traditional ‘gold standard’ randomised controlled design in all settings and circumstances towards an assessment of the most appropriate design for the individual context of the study (e.g. Briner & Walshe, 2015 ; Nielsen, Taris and Cox, 2010 ). Proponents of this view suggest applying appropriate referent groups, whether randomised or not.

Limitations

There were a number of limitations to this study. The first pertains to the low sample size of studies included in the moderator analyses, reducing the power of the analyses and limiting the extent to which conclusions can be drawn. However, small numbers are not unusual in organisational psychology research (e.g. Maricuţoiu et al., 2016 ; Richardson & Rothstein, 2008 ), and sensitivity analyses did not indicate biassed results. The second is the potential for bias because of misclassification of studies. Most studies contained a number of different intervention components and involved a number of different styles of delivery (Table  1 ). Erroneous judgements could therefore have been made; however, each study was double coded by an independent researcher according to a detailed coding guide (see Supplemental file 2 ), and agreement reached 100% for every piece of data extracted, limiting this possibility.

Third, the intervention studies which our search revealed almost exclusively relied on studies measuring engagement using the UWES. This does not reflect the fractured nature of the field regarding the meaning and measurement of engagement, but it does reflect the dominance of the measure. Its dominance, however, does not make it the ‘best’ measure, and its validity and reliability have most recently been questioned by Byrne et al. ( 2016 ), who found that the UWES overlaps with other job attitudes such as stress, job performance, organisational commitment and burnout. Its dominance in our study could potentially be viewed as an advantage, as results were able to be more meaningfully synthesised and interpreted than if a plethora of different measures and definitions of engagement had been analysed together. Fourth, it is possible that regression to the mean explains the significant moderator effect of intervention style. Therefore, scores on work engagement for those in group interventions may have been further from the average population score pre‐intervention, and nearer to the population mean post‐intervention. The difference between these scores in comparison to those for the other subgroups may have led to the significant subgroup effect observed.

Fifth, meta‐analyses are not able to control for differences in how well interventions are implemented and attended by participants who are motivated to take part. Nielsen et al. ( 2007 ) analysed data from 11 stress management interventions and found that participants' perceptions of interventions (i.e. whether participants considered the intervention of high quality and able to bring about sustained change) were related to intervention outcomes such as job satisfaction, changes in working conditions and behavioural stress symptoms. This indicates the importance of intervention implementation and participant buy‐in to the overall success of interventions. Poor intervention implementation may therefore account for the small overall effect observed for work engagement interventions. Some work engagement intervention studies provided information which supports this. For example, Strijk et al. ( 2013 ) found that significant positive effects were observed for those who achieved above average attendance at sessions, and Coffeng et al. ( 2014 ) noted that if compliance had been higher, their intervention may have been more effective. Problems cited by individual studies included difficulty scheduling workshops because of the geographical distance between participant teams (Rigotti et al., 2014 ), lack of time (e.g. Rigotti et al., 2014 ; Strijk et al., 2013 ), lack of support from managers (e.g. Rigotti et al., 2014 ; Strijk et al., 2013 ), inconvenient location or timing of interventions (e.g. Strijk et al., 2013 ), relocation of participants (Rigotti et al., 2014 ) and sickness absence (e.g. Hengel et al., 2012 ; Strijk et al., 2013 ).

In relation to study implementation, several studies also reported adverse factors which were beyond the control of the researchers and could not have been predicted, but which may have impacted the results. These included organisational restructuring (e.g. Rigotti et al., 2014 ; Van Berkel et al., 2014 ), a proposed corporate merger (Carter, 2008 ), economic downturn and job insecurity (e.g. Carter, 2008 ; Hengel et al., 2012 ), redundancy (Aikens et al., 2014 ), a pay restructure (Kmiec, 2010 ) and a plant fire which affected the number of hours of physical labour that employees were working (Kmiec, 2010 ). Although few studies overall thoroughly assessed implementation ( k  = 3), it seems plausible that an intervention which was delivered as planned, was well attended, and actively engaged and motivated participants would be more successful. Indeed, several researchers promote the inclusion of an implementation evaluation as a matter of course in order to go beyond simply stating whether or not an intervention was effective, and discover the reasons for why and how an intervention was effective (e.g. Briner & Walshe, 2015 ; Nielsen, Taris and Cox, 2010 ). Including such evaluations is one way of taking work engagement intervention research forward.

Finally, in relation to implementation, the variable and sometimes poor response and attrition rates (18–94% and 5–88%, respectively) affected the degree to which results could be generalized. Indeed, some studies found demographic or outcome differences between those who dropped out and those who did not (e.g. Ouweneel et al., 2013 ; Vuori et al., 2012 ), suggesting bias. Additionally, some of the sample sizes were small (e.g. Angelo & Chambel, 2013 ; Rickard et al., 2012 ), possibly resulting in statistical power too low to detect an effect. Many of the issues with implementation cited here could be somewhat mitigated by a pre‐assessment of the organisation's suitability for an intervention and the readiness to change of participants (Briner & Walshe, 2015 ; Nielsen, Randall, et al., 2010 ). Furthermore, carefully planning and nurturing researcher–organisation relations is likely to be essential in order to pave the way for more successfully implemented interventions.

Implications for future research and practice

This is the first systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of controlled interventions to increase work engagement and thus contributes uniquely to the developing evidence‐base. In particular, it details the development of a novel taxonomy of work engagement interventions which researchers can use to develop streams of research in this area. Importantly, this taxonomy can be built upon as the field progresses and could help identify further factors which moderate the effectiveness of interventions, and are thus important for building work engagement. In this way, this review engages conversation around how and why interventions work, and stimulates the advancement of work engagement theory.

This review also highlights the need for more work engagement interventions, and tentatively suggests that group interventions could be an effective way of taking work engagement intervention research forward. Furthermore, it supports the argument that the success of researcher–organisation relationships is crucial to intervention implementation, with lack of support from top management being cited by several participants as to why they were unable or unmotivated to take part. Researchers would therefore be advised to carefully negotiate and manage relationships with their partner organisation(s) throughout the intervention process. Finally, our research supports the view that including a detailed evaluation of the success of intervention implementation would go some way towards furthering understanding of how and why interventions work and we would urge researchers to conduct one as a matter of course.

Three conclusions can be drawn from these results. First, the meta‐analysis demonstrated that interventions to increase work engagement in organisations may be effective. Second, the tentatively significant meta‐analytic moderator analysis for intervention style demonstrated a medium to large effect of group interventions, suggesting the benefit of working in groups for increasing resources, work engagement and well‐being. Developing group interventions could therefore be an effective way of taking work engagement intervention research forward. Third, all the analyses indicated large heterogeneity, suggesting other important moderators and subgroups. However, at present, the small number of studies precludes an investigation of these; hence, it is impossible at this stage to meaningfully compare interventions and determine which characteristics may be more or less important for their success. It is hoped that the results from this first meta‐analysis of work engagement interventions will stimulate discussion amongst academics and practitioners and help to inform the direction of future research and practice aimed at building and sustaining work engagement.

Supporting information

Supplemental file 1. Database search strategies for systematically identifying work engagement interventions

Supplemental file 2. Coding guide for coding work engagement intervention studies

Biographies

Caroline Knight is a doctoral student researching the effects of work engagement interventions. She is particularly interested in the relationship between work engagement and wellbeing, and the design, development, implementation and evaluation of interventions. Caroline obtained her MSc Research Methods in Psychology degree with distinction from the University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK, in 2011.

Malcolm Patterson is an Assistant Professor at the Management School, University of Sheffield, UK. He is interested in relationships between organisational culture, work conditions, employee affect and behaviour. He has published in, for example, Academy of Management Journal, Personnel Psychology and Journal of Applied Psychology.

Jeremy Dawson is Professor of Health Management at the University of Sheffield. His research focuses on team working, workplace diversity and management practices in healthcare linking to employee engagement, well‐being and quality of patient care. He also researches methodological issues, including interpretation of interaction effects and measurement of group diversity.

Knight, C. , Patterson, M. , and Dawson, J. (2017) Building work engagement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions . J. Organiz. Behav. , 38 : 792–812. doi: 10.1002/job.2167 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• * References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta‐analyses. Rigotti and colleagues (2014) paper consisted of two independent samples and was hence counted as two studies. This means that only 19 references in total are asterisked below, although 20 independent studies were included in the meta‐analyses.
• * Aikens, K. A. , Astin, J. , Pelletier, K. R. , Levanovich, K. , Baase, C. M. , Park, Y. Y. , et al. (2014). Mindfulness goes to work impact of an online workplace intervention . Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 56 ( 7 ), 721–731. doi: 10.1097/jom.0000000000000209 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Albrecht, S. L. (2010). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• * Angelo, R. P. , & Chambel, M. J. (2013). An intervention with firefighters to promote psychological occupational health according to the Job Demands–Resources Model . Revista De Psicologia Social , 28 ( 2 ), 197–210. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arksey, H. , & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework . International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 8 ( 1 ), 19–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence‐based model of work engagement . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 20 ( 4 ), 265–269. doi: 10.1177/0963721411414534 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker, A. B. , & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands‐resources model: State of the art . Journal of Managerial Psychology , 22 ( 3 ), 309–328. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker, A. B. , & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement . Career Development International , 13 ( 3 ), 209–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker, A. B. , & Leiter, M. P. (2010). Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research . Hoboken: Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker, A. B. , Van Emmerik, H. , & Euwema, M. C. (2006). Crossover of burnout and engagement in work teams . Work and Occupations , 33 ( 4 ), 464–489. doi: 10.1177/0730888406291310 . [ Google Scholar ]
• * Biggs, A. J. (2011). A longitudinal evaluation of strain, work engagement, and intervention strategies to address the health of high‐risk employees . Griffith University. [ Google Scholar ]
• * Biggs, A. , Brough, P. , & Barbour, J. P. (2014). Enhancing work‐related attitudes and work engagement: A quasi‐experimental study of the impact of an organizational intervention . International Journal of Stress Management , 21 ( 1 ), 43–68. doi: 10.1037/a0034508 [ Google Scholar ]
• Borenstein, M. , Hedges', L. , Higgins, J. , & Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduction to meta‐analysis . Chichester, UK: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Borenstein, M. , Hedges', L. , Higgins, J. , & Rothstein, H. (2011). Comprehensive meta‐analysis (Version 2.2.064) . Englewood, NJ: Biostat. [ Google Scholar ]
• Briner, R. B. , & Walshe, N. D. (2015). An evidence‐based approach to improving the quality of resource‐oriented well‐being interventions at work . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 88 , 563–586. doi: 10.1111/joop.12133 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Byrne, Z. S. , Peters, J. M. , & Weston, J. W. (2016). The struggle with employee engagement: Measures and construct clarification using five samples . Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/apl0000124 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Calitz, T. M. (2010). An empowerment programme to regain positive work engagement for social workers in the North West Province . (PhD), Potchefstroom Campus of the North‐West University, South Africa
• * Carter, R. (2008). Improving employee engagement and performance: Self‐efficacy based intervention . Sydney: Macquarie University, Graduate School of Management. [ Google Scholar ]
• * Chen, S. S. , Westman, M. , & Eden, D. (2009). Impact of enhanced resources on anticipatory stress and adjustment to new information technology: A field‐experimental test of conservation of resources theory . Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 14 ( 3 ), 219–230. doi: 10.1037/a0015282 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Christian, M. S. , Garza, A. S. , & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance . Personnel Psychology , 64 ( 1 ), 89–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x . [ Google Scholar ]
• * Cifre, E. , Salanova, M. , & Rodriguez‐Sanchez, A. M. (2011). Dancing between theory and practice: Enhancing work engagement through work stress intervention . Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries , 21 ( 3 ), 269–286. doi: 10.1002/hfm.20232 . [ Google Scholar ]
• * Coffeng, J. K. , Hendriksen, I. J. , Duijts, S. F. , Twisk, J. W. , Van Mechelen, W. , & Boot, C. R. (2014). Effectiveness of a combined social and physical environmental intervention on presenteeism, absenteeism, work performance, and work engagement in office employees . Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 56 ( 3 ), 258–265. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales . Educational and Psychological Measurement , 20 , 37–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole, M. S. , Walter, F. , Bedeian, A. G. , & O'Boyle, E. H. (2012). Job burnout and employee engagement a meta‐analytic examination of construct proliferation . Journal of Management , 38 ( 5 ), 1550–1581. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crawford, E. R. , LePine, J. A. , & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta‐analytic test . American Psychological Association , 95 ( 5 ), 834–848. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci, E. L. , & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self‐determination of behavior . Psychological Inquiry , 11 ( 4 ), 227–268. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Duval, S. , & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel‐plot‐based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta‐analysis . Biometrics , 56 ( 2 ), 455–463. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2676988 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Egan, M. , Bambra, C. , Thomas, S. , Petticrew, M. , Whitehead, M. , & Thomson, H. (2007). The psychosocial and health effects 1. A systematic review of organisational‐level interventions that aim to increase employee control. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health , 61 ( 11 ), 945–954. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.054965 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Field, A. P. , & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta‐analysis . British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology , 63 ( 3 ), 665–694. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher, L. D. , Dixon, D. O. , Herson, J. , Frankowski, R. K. , Hearron, M. S. , & Peace, K. E. (1990). Intention to treat in clinical trials In Peace K. E. (Ed.), Statistical issues in drug research and development (pp. 331–350). New York: Marcel Dekker. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology—The broaden‐and‐build theory of positive emotions . American Psychologist , 56 ( 3 ), 218–226. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.56.3.218 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hakanan, J. J. , & Roodt, G. (2010). Using the job demands‐resources model to predict engagement: Analysing a conceptual model In Bakker A. B., & Leiter M. P. (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and practice (pp. 85–101). Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hakanen, J. J. , Bakker, A. B. , & Demerouti, E. (2005). How dentists cope with their job demands and stay engaged: The moderating role of job resources . European Journal of Oral Sciences , 113 ( 6 ), 479–487. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2005.00250.x . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halbesleben, J. 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 (pp. 102–117). Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hallberg, U. E. , & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist , 11 ( 2 ), 119–127. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haslam, S. A. , Jetten, J. , Postmes, T. , & Haslam, C. (2009). Social identity, health and well‐being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology . Applied Psychology. An International Review , 58 ( 1 ), 1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• * Hengel, K. M. , Blatter, B. M. , Joling, C. I. , van der Beek, A., J. , & Bongers, P. M. (2012). Effectiveness of an intervention at construction worksites on work engagement, social support, physical workload, and need for recovery: results from a cluster randomized controlled trial . BMC Public Health , 12. doi: 10.1186/1471‐2458‐12‐1008 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins, J. P. T. , Altman, D. G. , & Sterne, J. A. C. (2011). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies In Higgins J. P. T., & Green S. (Eds), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011) . Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org. : The Cochrane Collaboration. [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins, J. P. , & Green, S. (Eds), (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011) . Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org . Chichester: Wiley‐Blackwell. [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins, J. P. , Thompson, S. G. , Deeks, J. J. , & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses . British Medical Journal , 327 ( 7414 ), 557–560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation . Review of General Psychology , 6 ( 4 ), 307–324. doi: 10.1037//1089-2680.6.4.307 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Imamura, K. , Kawakami, N. , Furukawa, T. A. , Matsuyama, Y. , Shimazu, A. , Umanodan, R. , et al. (2015). Effects of an internet‐based cognitive behavioral therapy intervention on improving work engagement and other work‐related outcomes: An analysis of secondary outcomes of a randomized controlled trial . Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 57 ( 5 ), 578–584. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson, B. T. , & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Quantitative synthesis of social psychological research In Reis H. T., & Judd C. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 496–528). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work . The Academy of Management Journal , 33 ( 4 ), 692–724. [ Google Scholar ]
• Khoury, B. , Lecomte, T. , Fortin, G. , Masse, M. , Therien, T. , Bouchard, V. , … S. G. H. (2013). Mindfulness‐based therapy: A comprehensive meta‐analysis . Clinical Psychology Review , 33 ( 6 ), 763–771. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.05.005 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Kmiec, J. J., Jr. (2010). A study of the effectiveness of a pilot training program in an organizational setting: An intervention for work engagement . (3416289), The University of Southern Mississippi, Ann Arbor. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I database.
• Leiter, M. P. , & Maslach, C. (2010). Building engagement: The design and evaluation of interventions In Bakker A. B., & Leiter P. (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 164–180). Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Levac, D. , Colquhoun, H. , & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology . Implementation Science , 5 ( 1 ), 1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macey, W. H. , & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement . Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 1 ( 1 ), 3–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• MacLeod, D. , & Clarke, N. (2009). Engaging for success: Enhancing performance through employee engagement: a report to government . London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maricuţoiu, L. P. , Sava, F. A. , & Butta, O. (2016). The effectiveness of controlled interventions on employees' burnout: A meta‐analysis . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 89 , 1–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslach, C. , & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout . Journal of Organisational Behavior , 2 ( 2 ), 99–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslach, C. , & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it . San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• May, D. R. , Gilson, R. L. , & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 77 , 11–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mays, N. , Roberts, E. , & Popay, J. (2001). Synthesising research evidence In Fulop N., Allen P., Clarke A., & Black N. (Eds.), Studying the organisation and delivery of health services: Research methods . London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nahrgang, J. D. , Morgeson, F. P. , & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Safety at work: A meta‐analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes . Journal of Applied Psychology , 96 ( 1 ), 71–94. doi: 10.1037/a0021484 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Naruse, T. , Taguchi, A. , Kuwahara, Y. , Nagata, S. , Sakai, M. , Watai, I. , et al. (2014). The effect of skill mix in non‐nursing assistants on work engagements among home visiting nurses in Japan . Journal of Nursing Management . doi: 10.1111/jonm.12167 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen, K. (2013). Review article: How can we make organizational interventions work? Employees and line managers as actively crafting interventions . Human Relations , 66 ( 8 ), 1029–1050. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen, K. , Randall, R. , & Albertsen, K. (2007). Participants' appraisals of process issues and the effects of stress management interventions . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 28 ( 6 ), 793–810. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen, K. , Randall, R. , Holten, A.‐L. , & González, E. R. (2010). Conducting organizational‐level occupational health interventions: What works? Work & Stress , 24 ( 3 ), 234–259. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2010.515393 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen, K. , Taris, T. W. , & Cox, T. (2010). The future of organizational interventions: Addressing the challenges of today's organizations . Work & Stress , 24 ( 3 ), 219–233. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2010.519176 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Orwin, R. G. (1994). Evaluating coding decisions In Cooper H., & Hedges L. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis . New York: Russell Sage Foundation. [ Google Scholar ]
• * Ouweneel, E. , Le Blanc, P. M. , & Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). Do‐it‐yourself: An online positive psychology intervention to promote positive emotions, self‐efficacy, and engagement at work . Career Development International , 18 ( 2 ), 173–195. doi: 10.1108/CDI-10-2012-0102 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Park, K.‐O. , Schaffer, B. S. , Griffin‐Blake, C. S. , Dejoy, D. , Wilson, M. G. , & Vandenberg, R. J. (2004). Effectiveness of a healthy work organization intervention: Ethnic group differences . Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 46 , 623–633. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richardson, K. M. , & Rothstein, H. R. (2008). Effects of occupational stress management intervention programs: A meta‐analysis . Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 13 ( 1 ), 69–93. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.13.1.69 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rickard, G. , Lenthall, S. , Dollard, M. , Opie, T. , Knight, S. , Dunn, S. , et al. (2012). Organisational intervention to reduce occupational stress and turnover in hospital nurses in the Northern Territory, Australia . Collegian , 19 ( 4 ), 211–221. doi: 10.1016/j.colegn.2012.07.001 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Rigotti, T. , Otto, K. , Mohr, G. , Holstad, T. , Stempel, C. , Isaksson, K. , … Perko K. (2014). Rewarding & sustainable health‐promoting leadership . Re‐Su‐Lead Consortium Report . Received from the authors 09.09.14. University of Liepzig, Germany
• Robertson‐Smith, G. , & Markwick, C. (2009). Employee engagement: A review of current thinking . Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta‐analytic procedures for social research . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement . Journal of Managerial Psychology , 21 ( 7 ), 600–619. doi: 10.1108/02683940610690169 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli, W. B. , Bakker, A. B. , & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire—A cross‐national study . Educational and Psychological Measurement , 66 ( 4 ), 701–716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli, W. B. , Salanova, M. , Gonzalez‐Roma, V. , & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach . Journal of Happiness Studies , 3 , 71–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simbula, S. , Guglielmi, D. , & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). A three‐wave study of job resources, self‐efficacy, and work engagement among Italian schoolteachers . European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 20 ( 3 ), 285–304. doi: 10.1080/13594320903513916 . [ Google Scholar ]
• * Sodani, M. , Yadigari, E. , Shfia‐Abadi, A. , & Mohammadi, K. (2011). Effectiveness of group‐based creativity acquisition on job self‐efficacy in a welfare organization in Iran In F. Tao (Ed.),. Social Science and Humanity , 5 , 34–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work . Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 , 518–528. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Strijk, J. E. , Proper, K. I. , Van Mechelen, W. , & Van der Beek, A. J. (2013). Effectiveness of a worksite lifestyle intervention on vitality, work engagement, productivity, and sick leave: Results of a randomized controlled trial . Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health , 39 ( 1 ), 66–75. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Van Berkel, J. , Boot, C. R. L. , Proper, K. I. , Bongers, P. M. , & Van der Beek, A. J. (2014). Effectiveness of a worksite mindfulness‐based multi‐component intervention on lifestyle behaviors . International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity , 11 . doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-11-9 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Vuori, J. , Toppinen‐Tanner, S. , & Mutanen, P. (2012). Effects of resource‐building group intervention on career management and mental health in work organizations: Randomized controlled field trial . Journal of Applied Psychology , 97 ( 2 ), 273–286. doi: 10.1037/a0025584 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xanthopoulou, D. , Bakker, A. B. , Demerouti, E. , & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 82 ( 1 ), 183–200. doi: 10.1348/096317908x285633 . [ Google Scholar ]

• Book a Speaker

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus convallis sem tellus, vitae egestas felis vestibule ut.

Error message details.

Reuse Permissions

Request permission to republish or redistribute SHRM content and materials.

Developing and Sustaining Employee Engagement

Overview Business Case What Employee Engagement Is—and Is Not What Drives Employee Engagement? The Roles of HR and Management How to Develop and Sustain Employee Engagement Communications Metrics Global Issues

The term employee engagement relates to the level of an employee's commitment and connection to an organization. Employee engagement has emerged as a critical driver of business success in today's competitive marketplace. High levels of engagement promote retention of talent, foster customer loyalty and improve organizational performance and stakeholder value.

This article discusses:

• The business case in support of employee engagement initiatives.
• The nature and drivers of employee engagement.
• The roles of HR and management in engaging employees.
• Guidelines for developing effective employee engagement initiatives and engagement surveys.
• HR practices that can increase engagement.
• Communications opportunities and methods for engaging employees.
• Global issues related to employee engagement.

Business Case

Executives from around the world say that enhancing employee engagement is one of their top five global business strategies. Not only does engagement have the potential to significantly affect employee retention, productivity and loyalty, it is also a key link to customer satisfaction, company reputation and overall stakeholder value. Increasingly, organizations are turning to HR to set the agenda for employee engagement and commitment to establish a competitive advantage.

Most executives already understand that employee engagement directly affects an organization's financial health and profitability. According to Gallup, just 33 percent of American workers are engaged by their jobs. Fifty-two percent say they're "just showing up," and 17 percent describe themselves as "actively disengaged" 1 ; therefore, most employers have a lot of work to do to unlock the full potential of their workforce.  

Engagement and productivity can be affected by social cohesion, feeling supported by one's supervisor, information sharing, common goals and vision, communication, and trust. Employees want to feel valued and respected; they want to know that their work is meaningful and their ideas are heard. Highly engaged employees are more productive and committed to the organizations in which they work.  See Rules of Engagement .

Business Results of Engagement

What employee engagement is—and is not.

Researchers and consulting firms have developed varied definitions of employee engagement. They have also created categories to describe and distinguish differing levels of worker engagement. Although the concepts of employee engagement and job satisfaction are somewhat interrelated, they are not synonymous. Job satisfaction has more to do with whether the employee is personally happy than with whether the employee is actively involved in advancing organizational goals.

Employee engagement definitions

Definitions of employee engagement range from the brief and concise to the descriptive and detailed. Many of these definitions emphasize some aspect of an employee's commitment to the organization or the positive behaviors an engaged employee exhibits. Examples of employee engagement definitions include:

Quantum Workplace – Employee engagement is the strength of the mental and emotional connection employees feel toward their places of work.

Gallup – Engaged employees as those who are involved in, enthusiastic about and committed to their work and workplace.

Willis Towers Watson – Engagement is employees' willingness and ability to contribute to company success.

Aon Hewitt – Employee engagement is "the level of an employee's psychological investment in their organization."

What differentiates engaged and disengaged workers?

Organizations that conduct research on employee engagement categorize employees based on the employee's level of engagement, but they have used different terminology in doing so. For example, engaged and less than fully engaged employees have been described as follows:

• Gallup distinguishes between employees who are "actively engaged" (loyal and productive), "not engaged" (average performers) and "actively disengaged" (ROAD warriors, or "retired on active duty").
• Sibson Consulting differentiates "engaged" employees (those who know what to do and want to do it) from "disengaged" employees (those who don't know what to do and don't want to do it), "enthusiasts" (those who want to do the work but don't know how to do it) and "renegades" (those who know what to do but do not want to do it).

Disengaged workers feel no real connection to their jobs and tend to do the bare minimum. Disengagement may show itself in a number of common ways, including a sudden 9-to-5 time clock mentality, an unwillingness to participate in social events outside the office or a tendency to fox hole oneself apart from peers. It becomes most noticeable when someone who's normally outgoing and enthusiastic seems to fall by the wayside and has nothing positive to contribute. They may resent their jobs, tend to gripe to co-workers and drag down office morale.

Behaviors of engaged and disengaged employees:

How does employee engagement differ from job satisfaction?

The terms engagement and job satisfaction are often used interchangeably. However, research has revealed that although there is some overlap in the drivers of engagement and satisfaction, there are also key differences in the components that determine each.

Some experts define engagement in terms of employees' feelings and behavior. Engaged employees might report feeling focused and intensely involved in the work they do. They are enthusiastic and have a sense of urgency. Engaged behavior is persistent, proactive and adaptive in ways that expand the job roles as necessary. Engaged employees go beyond job descriptions in, for example, service delivery or innovation. Whereas engaged employees feel focused with a sense of urgency and concentrate on how they approach what they do, satisfied employees, in contrast, feel pleasant, content and gratified. The level of employee job satisfaction in an organization often relates to factors over which the organization has control (such as pay, benefits and job security), whereas engagement levels are largely in direct control or significantly influenced by the employee's manager (through job assignments, trust, recognition, day-to-day communications, etc.).

Researchers at Kenexa High Performance Institute looked at 840,000 responses on employee engagement from companies in the U.S. and Britain and found that after two years in a job, 57 percent of the respondents were disengaged.

See  Miserable Modern Workers: Why Are They So Unhappy?

What Drives Employee Engagement?

Extensive research has been conducted to determine the factors that influence employee engagement levels. The research has indicated that there are both organizational drivers and managerial drivers.

Pay Fairness Perception Beats Higher Pay for Improving Employee Engagement

Coach to Your Team's Strengths to Improve Employee Engagement

In today's digital age, less person-to-person interaction and increasing on-demand technology from chats and texts to social media updates and news feeds may be eroding employee engagement.

Organizational drivers

Some of the research identifies organization wide drivers of employee engagement.

Quantum Workplace (the research firm behind the "Best Places to Work" programs in more than 47 metro areas) has identified six drivers of employee engagement that have the greatest impact:

• The leaders of their organization are committed to making it a great place to work.
• Trust in the leaders of the organization to set the right course.
• Belief that the organization will be successful in the future.
• Understanding of how I fit into the organization's future plans.
• The leaders of the organization value people as their most important resource.
• The organization makes investments to make employees more successful.

Management drivers

Employee engagement increases dramatically when the daily experiences of employees include positive relationships with their direct supervisors or managers. Behaviors of an employee's direct supervisors that have been correlated with employee engagement include:

• The Gallup "Q12," which are 12 core elements that link strongly to key business outcomes. These elements relate to what the employee gets (e.g., clear expectations, resources), what the employee gives (e.g., the employee's individual contributions), whether the individual fits in the organization (e.g., based on the company mission and co-workers) and whether the employee has the opportunity to grow (e.g., by getting feedback about work and opportunities to learn). 
• Employees enjoy a good relationship with their supervisor.
• Employees have the necessary equipment to do the job well.
• Employees have authority necessary to accomplish their job well.
• Employees have freedom to make work decisions.

The Roles of HR and Management

Employee engagement is influenced by many factors—from workplace culture, organizational communication and managerial styles to trust and respect, leadership, and company reputation. In combination and individually, HR professionals and managers play important roles in ensuring the success of the organization's employee engagement initiatives.

The role of HR

To foster a culture of engagement, HR should lead the way in the design, measurement and evaluation of proactive workplace policies and practices that help attract and retain talent with skills and competencies necessary for growth and sustainability.   

The role of managers

Middle managers play a key role in employee engagement, creating a respectful and trusting relationship with their direct reports, communicating company values, and setting expectations for the day-to-day business of any organization.

Studies show that people leave managers, not companies, and ensuring managers are actively participating in and managing employee engagement is paramount. See  Employee Engagement Issues? Use These 10 Tips to Get Managers Engaged .

But middle managers need to be empowered by being given larger responsibilities, trained for their expanded roles and more involved in strategic decisions. If an organization's executives and HR professionals want to hold managers accountable for the engagement levels, they should:

• Make sure that managers and employees have the tools to do their jobs correctly.
• Periodically assign managers larger, more exciting roles.
• Give managers appropriate authority.
• Accelerate leadership development efforts.
• Ask managers to convey the corporate mission and vision and to help transform the organization.

According to a 2017 Dale Carnegie study, "Just 26% of leaders surveyed say that [employee engagement] is a very important part of what they think about, plan, and do every day. Another 42% say they work on it frequently, and the rest only occasionally, rarely or never." 

How to Develop and Sustain Employee Engagement

To increase employee engagement levels, employers should give careful thought to the design of engagement initiatives.

General guidelines

As HR professionals consider adopting or modifying practices or initiatives to increase employee engagement, they should:

• Make sound investments. The organization should consider the strategic implications of various HR practices and determine which are more important and merit greater investment to enhance engagement levels.
• Develop a compelling business case. HR professionals should be able to demonstrate how these investments have led to positive, measurable business outcomes for the organization or other businesses.
• Consider unintended consequences. When evaluating alternatives for redesigning HR practices to foster employee engagement, think about the likely impact of the revised policies. Are there potentially unintended, unfavorable consequences that may occur based on the impact of that change on employees in different circumstances and life situations?
• Base investment decisions on sound data. Employee engagement should be measured annually. Survey items should be linked to the organization's key performance measures, such as profitability, productivity, quality, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. Outcomes of employee engagement research should include the identification of the highest-impact engagement levers and survey items that differentiate top-performing business units from less successful units.
• Create an "engagement culture." This can be done by communicating the value of engagement in the mission statement and executive communications, ensuring that business units implement their engagement action plans, monitoring progress, adjusting strategies and plans as needed, and recognizing and celebrating progress and results.

HR practices

HR practices have a significant impact on employee engagement. The following practices can increase employee engagement:

• Job enrichment. Incorporate meaning, variety, autonomy and co-worker respect into jobs and tasks so that employees view their role more broadly and become more willing to take on duties beyond their job description.
• Recruiting. Target applicants who are likely to view their work as interesting and challenging. Encourage those who are not suited for particular work to opt out of the process.
• Selection. Choose candidates who are most likely to perform job duties well, make voluntary contributions and avoid improper conduct.
• Training and development. Provide orientation to create understanding about how the job contributes to the organization. Offer skill development training to increase job performance, satisfaction and self-efficacy.
• Strategic compensation. Use pay-for-performance programs to focus employees' attention on incentivized behaviors. Adopt competency-based pay to encourage acquisition of knowledge and skills and enhance employee performance.
• Performance management. Set challenging goals that align with the organization's strategic objectives, provide feedback, and recognize accomplishments and extra voluntary contributions.

See  How to Improve the Engagement and Retention of Young Hourly Workers .

Communications

Targeted communication initiatives can enable managers and HR professionals to stay on top of employee engagement issues, get ongoing feedback from employees and anticipate changing needs of workgroups. Managers and HR professionals should take advantage of opportunities to engage employees and should use varied communication methods to do so. See  Fixing Poor Engagement Starts with Understanding Its Cause .

Communication opportunities

Employers have numerous opportunities for "engageable moments," when they can motivate and provide direction for employees. Watson Wyatt's WorkUSA report identified the following formal and informal "engageable moment" opportunities: 4

Formal opportunities include:

• Recruitment; onboarding.
• Performance reviews.
• Goal setting.
• Communications by senior leaders.
• Employee surveys.

Informal opportunities include :

• Career development discussions.
• Ongoing performance feedback.
• Recognition programs.
• Company social events.
• Personal crises.

Communication methods

The size, composition and expected reaction of the target group of employees should dictate the type of communication used for engagement activities. Some of the communication methods HR professionals and managers can use include:

• "Keeping in touch." Ongoing communications with workgroups can occur through regular weekly or biweekly meetings, ideally with 10-15 employees in each meeting. In this forum, issues can be aired or ideas can be discussed to gain immediate feedback. Another component of keeping in touch is one-on-one meetings with an employee who is targeted for superior performance, identified for performance improvement or randomly chosen from the workgroup.
• Remote communication. Different technologies allow managers and HR professionals to maintain contact, including:
• Employee listening platforms where HR can survey workers, gather comments and suggestions, conduct exit interviews, etc.
• Social media and mobile app resources to discuss issues, share ideas, conduct surveys and vote on issues.
• Blogs that routinely inform and update employees on new initiatives and allow employee responses to be recorded and openly available.
• Videoconferencing and teleconferencing.
• E-mailed newsletters.

Many organizations conduct workforce surveys to measure levels of employee engagement within the organization and to analyze the relationships between employee engagement and key business outcomes. The results of such surveys can identify which engagement initiatives are achieving desired goals. Surveys can be helpful in gauging levels of employee engagement, but employers need to realize that employee engagement surveys differ from other employee surveys.

For the best results, employers should create an overall engagement strategy that goes beyond simply measuring engagement scores. Ideally, an employee engagement strategy should be created before an engagement survey is administered. An effective plan will detail these five components:

• How the strategy will be communicated.
• How action areas will be identified.
• What measurable outcomes will be used to evaluate progress.
• What specific actions will be taken to address the survey results.
• How the engagement strategy will be sustained over time.

Unique aspects of employee engagement surveys

Employee engagement surveys have a different focus than other types of employee surveys. While employee opinion and satisfaction surveys measure workers' views, attitudes and perceptions of their organization, and an employee culture survey measures employees' points of view to assess whether they align with the organization or its departments, engagement surveys measure employees' commitment, motivation, sense of purpose and passion for their work and the organization. See  Employee Engagement Surveys: Why Do Workers Distrust Them? and Carefully Craft the Employee Engagement Survey .

Creating engagement surveys

When developing employee engagement surveys, organizations should consider the following guidelines:

• Include questions that could be asked every year or more frequently. This will provide a base line for management of employee engagement.
• Keep language neutral or positive. For example, ask, "Is our line-to-staff ratio correct for a company our size?" instead of "Are there too many staff for a company our size?" Avoid negatively worded items.
• Focus on behaviors. Good questions probe supervisors' and employees' everyday behaviors and relate those behaviors to customer service whenever possible.
• Beware of loaded and uninformative questions. For example, questions such as "Do you look forward to going to work on Mondays?" elicit a "no" response easily, even from engaged workers.
• Keep the survey length reasonable. Overly long surveys reduce participation rates and may result in skewed responses because participants check answers just to finish the survey as quickly as possible.
• If you work with a vendor that comes to you with a "standard" list of questions, consider tailoring questions to reflect your organizational needs.
• Consider what you're saying about the organization's values in issuing the questionnaire. Question selection is critical because it tells employees what the organization cares enough to ask about.
• Ask for a few written comments. Some organizations include open-ended questions, where employees can write comments at the end of surveys, to identify themes they might not have covered in the survey and might want to address in the future.
• Consider doing more than one type of survey, each with different questions, frequencies and audiences. For example, "pulse" surveys are brief, more-frequent surveys that address specific issues or are given to specific segments of the workforce, and they can take place between annual surveys. Or conduct different surveys for company leaders and employees, or in different business units or specific countries.

Employee Engagement Platforms: More than Feedback Tools

A New World of Tools for Measuring Employee Engagement

Measuring the ROI of Employee Engagement

Using engagement surveys

After an employee engagement survey has been administered, survey data should be reviewed in aggregate and broken down for each business unit to allow individual managers to make changes that will truly affect engagement levels. Some experts also advocate having line managers communicate survey results to their own employees and create action plans to respond to survey recommendations. In addition, the organization may require that all employees have engagement objectives in their performance reviews so that engagement goals are developed both from the top down and from the bottom up.

Common missteps that organizations make with engagement surveys are failing to gain senior management commitment to act on survey results and failing to use focus groups to delve into the root of negative scores or comments. To avoid those mistakes, organizations should:

• Have management communicate to employees that the survey is an organizational, not a public relations, initiative.
• Consider creating a survey committee to instill broad buy-in.
• Create feedback or focus groups to determine the level of significance of specific items mentioned in the survey.
• Involve the entire management team in the action-planning process to ensure that changes are made based on employee feedback.
• Group open-ended survey comments by theme and categorize them at the workgroup level to ensure confidentiality of survey feedback.

See Using AI and Data to Improve Employee Engagement and How Generative AI Is Transforming Engagement Surveys .

Global Issues

The factors that drive employees to be engaged in their work vary not only from country to country but also by industry sector and within companies. Consequently, organizations that are expanding globally need to be aware of what engages their workforce in different global locations. See  How to Fix Declining Global Productivity.

In looking to engage employees globally, employers should:

• View global HR decisions in the context of national culture.
• Use valid research—not stereotypes—to align HR practices for a local population with actual employee attitudes and perceptions.
• Remember that the norm for engagement varies widely from country to country, making it critical to consult data on national norms to interpret employee surveys correctly.
• Realize that the elements that create engagement also create the employment brand.
• Understand that how the organization conducts its work reflects its organizational culture.

1 Gallup, Inc. (2017). State of the American Workplace. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/reports/199961/7.aspx

2 Quantum Workplace. (2012). The Six Forces Driving Engagement. Retrieved from http://marketing.quantumworkplace.com/hubfs/Website/Resources/PDFs/The-Six-Forces-Driving-Engagement.pdf?hsCtaTracking=6da0f455-5d8e-42c4-a801-3f89c17a2d86|ae58ac43-c084-4278-9853-b4b92f5ef030

3 Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc. (2018). Employee Engagement: It's Time to Go 'All-In'. Retrieved from https://www.dalecarnegie.com/en/resources/employee-engagement-making-engagement-a-daily-priority-for-leaders/thank-you

4 Hastings, R. (2009, March 4). The "what" and "why" of employee engagement. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employee-relations/pages/whatandwhy.aspx

Related Articles

Rising Demand for Workforce AI Skills Leads to Calls for Upskilling

As artificial intelligence technology continues to develop, the demand for workers with the ability to work alongside and manage AI systems will increase. This means that workers who are not able to adapt and learn these new skills will be left behind in the job market.

Employers Want New Grads with AI Experience, Knowledge

A vast majority of U.S. professionals say students entering the workforce should have experience using AI and be prepared to use it in the workplace, and they expect higher education to play a critical role in that preparation.

The Pros and Cons of ‘Dry’ Promotions

Hr daily newsletter.

New, trends and analysis, as well as breaking news alerts, to help HR professionals do their jobs better each business day.

Success title

Success caption

Smart. Open. Grounded. Inventive. Read our Ideas Made to Matter.

Which program is right for you?

Through intellectual rigor and experiential learning, this full-time, two-year MBA program develops leaders who make a difference in the world.

A rigorous, hands-on program that prepares adaptive problem solvers for premier finance careers.

A 12-month program focused on applying the tools of modern data science, optimization and machine learning to solve real-world business problems.

Earn your MBA and SM in engineering with this transformative two-year program.

Combine an international MBA with a deep dive into management science. A special opportunity for partner and affiliate schools only.

A doctoral program that produces outstanding scholars who are leading in their fields of research.

Bring a business perspective to your technical and quantitative expertise with a bachelor’s degree in management, business analytics, or finance.

A joint program for mid-career professionals that integrates engineering and systems thinking. Earn your master’s degree in engineering and management.

An interdisciplinary program that combines engineering, management, and design, leading to a master’s degree in engineering and management.

Executive Programs

A full-time MBA program for mid-career leaders eager to dedicate one year of discovery for a lifetime of impact.

This 20-month MBA program equips experienced executives to enhance their impact on their organizations and the world.

Non-degree programs for senior executives and high-potential managers.

A non-degree, customizable program for mid-career professionals.

Credit: jotily / iStock

Organizational Culture

New MIT Sloan research on the job performance effects of the ebbs and flows of employee engagement

MIT Sloan Office of Communications

Oct 17, 2023

Surprisingly, being neurotic buffers against performance decrements

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., October 17, 2023 —  Against the backdrop of the “great resignation” and “quiet quitting,” employee engagement has become a central focus for many organizations.

But in the rush to embrace new engagement tools and strategies, are managers overlooking the simple facts of human inconsistency? 

Yes, says  Basima Tewfik ,  an assistant professor of work and organization studies at  MIT Sloan School of Management . In her  new research  published in the  Journal of Applied Psychology,  she and her co-authors explore how individuals’ levels of  engagement variability —how consistently or inconsistently they engage in their jobs—impact performance. Their paper also highlights a finding that may be surprising to laypeople: higher levels of emotional instability, also known as neuroticism, can buffer the negative effects of inconsistent engagement. 

Human nature at work

Employee engagement has been a central focus of management theory for decades, credited with positively impacting  everything from customer experience to profitability growth . However, most studies have looked at either employees’ general engagement over time or their engagement within the context of specific tasks in the moment. According to Tewfik, these approaches paint only a partial picture of the relationship between engagement and job performance. “The reality is, many of us ebb and flow in how engaged we are at work, no matter an organization’s work engagement efforts,” she says. “Given this fact of life, it is important to understand when and why this may be problematic, and when it may not be.”

To understand the impact of these ebbs and flows, or “engagement variability,” Tewfik and her research team ran three studies: a field study of 160 Army and Air Force ROTC cadets; an online, cross-industry experiment measuring the behavioral performance of 600 full-time employees; and a two-week, cross-industry field study involving 152 employees and their supervisors. 

The studies supported Tewfik and her colleagues’ predictions: Levels of engagement variability differ significantly between individuals and increased variability can have negative performance implications, even if average engagement remains the same. That’s likely because inconsistent engagement makes it harder to develop efficiencies in the application of one’s cognitive, physical, and emotional resources that can improve performance.  

But there’s good news–at least for the neurotics among us. 

“Inconsistent engagement at work is generally bad for your job performance. But if you’re also neurotic, inconsistent engagement may not be so bad,” explains Tewfik. “Being neurotic buffers against any performance decrements that may come from inconsistent engagement.”

In fact, employees who were lower in emotional stability (i.e., neuroticism) were able to maintain the same performance levels regardless of whether they were low or high in engagement variability. That’s because individuals with lower emotional stability are more accustomed to shifting their resources in an inconsistent manner—a useful skill in the context of engagement variability. These findings add to a growing body of literature on the functional benefits of neuroticism. For example, prior research has shown that individuals perceived as neurotic were rated as contributing more than expected to group tasks. 

The three studies also explored the explanatory role of “flow,” a state in which what one is doing is so rooted in habit that it is almost automatic. Tewfik and her colleagues theorized that inconsistent engagement may not be bad for performance for those who are more neurotic because these employees are still able to get in flow.

Setting realistic goals for engagement

Although Tewfik and her colleagues did not examine the exact causes of engagement variability, there are likely a number of factors that may matter, from an employee's personality to demands an employee faces outside of work.

“A lot of the narrative these days is around trying to get employees to invest more of themselves in their jobs to extract higher performance,” says Tewfik. “But this may not be a healthy approach. Sometimes, you just can’t give more of yourself to your job. You’re depleted.”

Given this reality, it may be more effective for managers to encourage consistency than complete commitment. 

“Consistent engagement offers a parallel, potentially healthier avenue,” says Tewfik. “If you can only give half of yourself to work, giving that half consistently is better for performance than fully investing yourself on some days and not at all on others.” 

Playing to employees’ strengths

Based on this research, managers might conclude that the ideal hire would have low engagement variability and high emotional stability. Tewfik says that would be a mistake. 

“Our research finds that there may be upsides to being inconsistently engaged at work, and there may be bright sides to being neurotic.” 

For example, there is reason to believe that greater engagement variability may support creativity, since unwavering concentration on a problem blocks ideation. 

“Focusing on hiring those who are low in engagement variability or who are emotionally stable may mean you miss out on other ideal work outcomes,” concludes Tewfik. “ If you want to capture these benefits, you need a workforce that is diverse both in terms of their engagement variability and their neuroticism.” 

About the MIT Sloan School of Management

The MIT Sloan School of Management is where smart, independent leaders come together to solve problems, create new organizations, and improve the world. Learn more at  mitsloan.mit.edu .

Related Articles

104 Employee Engagement Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best employee engagement topic ideas & essay examples, 🎓 good research topics about employee engagement, ⭐ simple & easy employee engagement essay titles, ❓ research questions on employee engagement.

• McDonald’s Company: Employee Engagement It would be beneficial to analyze ideas of scholars to get a better understanding of the subject matter, and gained knowledge can be applied to McDonald’s to determine the effectiveness of approaches that are used […]
• The Impact of the Current Onboarding Process on Employee Engagement at the Hospital The adaptation of employees to the peculiarities of the work process is a critical criterion that reflects the effectiveness of management and the sustainability of measures taken to involve and retain professional employees. We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
• Employee Engagement in Google The proposed research will examine whether the engagement strategy motivates employees to stay longer at the company. The HR managers may be interested to know how the firm’s engagement strategy addresses the diverse needs of […]
• Effects of Leadership on Employee Engagement Research proves that there is a distinctive link between the choice of a leadership strategy and the levels of engagement that employees show in the workplace.
• Holiday Snacks Employee Engagement The nature of the relationship between a company and its employees defines the level of workers’ satisfaction and the performance of the organization.
• Improving Employee Engagement and Productivity The first significant privilege of employee engagement is its ability to enhance the job satisfaction and productivity of the workforce, which was confirmed by a literature review by Barik and Kochar.
• Employee Engagement and Retention: Sustainability Topic For this semester, the author would like to explore the topics of employee engagement and retention. The author hopes to learn more about the concepts of employee engagement and retention throughout the semester.
• Employee Loyalty and Engagement in the UAE Public Sector The background elucidates the need to improve performance in the public sector due to the high rate of development in the United Arab Emirates, which is relevant to the research study.
• Organizational Success: Effective Employee Engagement After the research background, the authors clearly state the core purpose as strategies for employee engagement and their strengths and limitations and a brief overview of the paper.
• Employee Engagement: How to Increase It? The problem of having engaged employees has become very crucial to firms and according to a recent Gallup study on employee engagement, about 54 percent of employees in the United States are not engaged and […]
• Comparison of Employee Engagement Models Based on this information, one of the critical characteristics of Kahn’s model is that it considers both engagement and disengagement. In particular, the model posits that personal engagement is determined by psychological meaningfulness, safety and […]
• “The Impact of Employee Engagement on Job Performance” by Maha Ahmed Zaki Dajani The work under the investigation outlines the importance of the acquisition of additional knowledge about the issue regarding the waves of ongoing recession and resource scarcity battles in the Middle Eastern region and Egypt.
• Increasing Employee Engagement by Developing a Learning Culture For this purpose, the development of a suitable learning culture is necessary, and the leadership of a particular organization is to do everything possible so that subordinates could have an opportunity to assess the range […]
• Organizational Effectiveness & Employee Engagement The purpose of this paper is to summarize and discuss the article by Kataria, Rastogi, and Garg on the topic of organizational effectiveness.
• Employee Disengagement and Human Resource Management He had been selected among more than ten candidates after three stages of the hiring process and was proud of how he had done at the interview.J.D.was promised a lot of freedom in terms of […]
• Human Resource Development and Employee Engagement in India This study attempts to analyze the relationship that exists between different aspects of human resource development and the levels of employee engagement in an organization.
• Middle Management Employee Engagement To discuss the topic of employee engagement and middle management, it is vital to understand the global trends in the field.
• Company’s Vision for Employee Engagement The purpose of Lavoie’s article is to provide three recommendations on how to motivate and involve employees with the help of a company’s vision.
• Employee Engagement and Positive Corporate Outcomes EE is explained as a level of dedication of the worker to his/ her company and its values. Thus, it is vital to thoroughly consider the ways of EE and implement these strategies in the […]
• Employee Engagement: Theory and Practice The domain of employee engagement is still in development and does not have a common core, which can add to ambiguity and present challenges for the researcher.
• Employee Engagement: Important Issue in HR Studies Importantly, workforce engagement leads to greater rates of employee satisfaction, for the workers who feel energetic, vigorous, confident, and interested in their tasks will have higher rates of satisfaction with their job.
• Employee Engagement: Principles and Concepts As for physical aspects of the employee engagement, these refer to the willingness of a worker to make physical efforts while doing their work.
• Employee Engagement and Positive Workplace Behavior The given strategy aims to achieve and maintain the highest level of employee motivation and workers’ devotion to the well-being of their company. The inductive process and a narrative synthesis of evidence will be employed […]
• Employee Engagement, Empowerment, and Motivation Additionally, employees have a feeling of the importance of their jobs, and they are aware of the importance attached to the value of their ideas and opinions and usually engage in extra responsibilities.
• Employee Engagement and Its Aspects Hence, the researchers note that, despite the lack of unity in the experts’ opinion, the major part of the analyzed sources implies that engagement stands for the positive outcomes that employees might potentially bring in […]
• Employee Engagement: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development According to the existing definition, the phenomenon of the corporate citizenship can be rendered as the employee’s loyalty to the company and acceptance of its values and ethical stance.
• Employee Engagement and Performance Correlation Studies indicate that the engaged workforce is one of the sources that generate competitive advantage to the firm. The general conclusion from these studies is that the employees’ engagement leads to increased satisfaction and commitment, […]
• Employee Relations in Practice: Disciplinary, Grievance and Engagement Notable to mention is that, employees and work teams can be helpful when it comes to shaping and Setting up flexible proper guidelines at all costs to ensure the success of FWA program is attained.
• Involvement and Engagement of Employees at Coca Cola Great Britain In the proposed research, the author will attempt to showcase the strategies that Coca Cola Great Britain has put in place to promote involvement and engagement of its employees.
• Managerial Implications of Employee Engagement A lot of research has been done with regards to employee engagement, ranging from issues regarding advantages of raising the level of employee engagement as well as the means of improving employee engagement.
• Job Performance and Employee Engagement The literature exploring employee engagement can be divided into three groups: works investigating the meaning of employee engagement, works investigating the importance and impact of employee engagement, and works discovering the characteristics crucial to promoting […]
• Drivers of Employee Engagement This objective is split into smaller objectives that are as follows: To investigate whether quality of work is a driver for employee engagement To investigate whether tangible rewards affect employee engagement To examine the relationship […]
• Implications of Employee Engagement Thus, the existing interpretations of this notion can be grouped in two categories: 1) the definitions that describe engagement as an indicator or a measurement of a person’s attitude and 2) the definitions that view […]
• A Critical Examination of the Managerial Implications of Employee Engagement On the other hand, Mani carries out a study to determine the level of worker engagement among the employees at the executive level and notes in the concluding statement that the level of employee engagement […]
• Maslow’s Theory and Expectancy Theory: Employee Engagement
• Work-Life Balance and Employee Engagement
• Cash Flow, Employee Engagement, and Customer Satisfaction
• Construct Overlap Between Employee Engagement and Job Satisfaction: A Function of Semantic Equivalence
• The Link Between Employee Engagement and Financial Performance
• Process Intervention Method: Employee Engagement
• Competing Through Employee Engagement
• Managerial Implications of Employee Engagement
• Sustainable Talent Management and Employee Engagement
• Culture and Employee Engagement: The Fruitful Investment
• Employee Engagement and Communication at the Workplace
• The Issue of Employee Engagement That Will Be Affecting the Future of Work
• Employee Engagement and Commitment Action Plan
• Leadership Behavior and Employee Engagement
• Family Involvement, Employee Engagement, and Employee Performance in Enterprising Family Firms
• Charismatic Leadership and Work Ethics on Employee Engagement
• Knowledge Sharing and Implications to Employee Engagement
• Human Resource Management and Employee Engagement
• The Relationship Between Employee Engagement and Organizational Performance
• Boost Employee Engagement Through Technology
• Transformational Leadership: Employee Engagement and Psychological Attachment Management
• Communication Styles and Employee Engagement
• Improving Employee Engagement and Operational Efficiency Management System
• Employee Engagement, Career Development, and Employee Retention
• Payroll Management Process and Employee Engagement
• Employee Engagement and Affective Organizational Commitment: Mediating Role of Employee Voice Among Service Sector Employees
• Psychological Empowerment and Employee Behaviors: Employee Engagement
• Organizational Cronyism and Lower Employee Performance
• Employee Engagement: The Key to Better Performance
• Workplace Aggression and Organizational Effectiveness: The Mediating Role of Employee Engagement
• Critical Thinking Skills, Emotional Intelligence, and Employee Engagement
• Mediating Role of Employee Engagement and Role of Islamic Work Ethics
• Organizational Commitment, Employee Engagement, and Organizational Success
• Relationship Between Strategic Management, Employee Engagement on Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty
• Employee Engagement and Business Performance
• Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Engagement
• Empowered Leadership, Relations, and Employee Outcomes
• Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement: Enabling Employees to Employ More of Their Whole Selves at Work
• Employee Motivation and Employee Engagement
• Professional Development and Increasing Employee Engagement for Long-Term Success
• What Are the Key Principles of Employee Engagement?
• Which Are the Employee Engagement Components?
• What Is Through Technology to Improve Employee Engagement?
• How Is Labor Ethics Applied in Employee Engagement Policy?
• How Does Toxic Workplace Environment Effect the Employee Engagement?
• Why Has Employee Engagement Now Become So Critical?
• Why Is Employee Engagement So Important?
• What Critical Elements Can Improve Employee Engagement?
• What Are the Managerial Implications of Employee Engagement?
• Is Emotional Intelligence Important in Employee Engagement?
• Why Employee Engagement Is Key to Company Success?
• How Does Employee Engagement Affect Business Performance?
• What Is the Employee Engagement and Commitment Action Plan?
• How Does Employee Inclusion Affect Employee Engagement?
• How Important Is Employee Engagement to Organizations?
• How Does Employee Engagement Affect Work Efficiency?
• What Are the Methods of Measuring Employee Engagement?
• How Does Employee Engagement Affect Employee Morale?
• How Can We Increase Employee Engagement?
• What Are Strong Employee Engagement Skills?
• What Is the Most Important Factor in Employee Engagement?
• Employee Engagement: How to Maintain Work-Life Balance?
• What Are the Reasons for Criticizing Employee Engagement?
• How Software Is Used to Market Employee Engagement?
• Is It Necessary to Improve the Employee Engagement Process?
• How Do You Promote Employee Engagement?
• What Are the Steps of the Employee Engagement Cycle?
• How to Improve Recruiting Through Employee Engagement Data?
• Why Employee Engagement Concerns Every Aspect of Human Resources?
• What Is the Relationship Between Talent Management and Employee Engagement?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 27). 104 Employee Engagement Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/employee-engagement-essay-topics/

"104 Employee Engagement Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 27 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/employee-engagement-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '104 Employee Engagement Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 27 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "104 Employee Engagement Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/employee-engagement-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "104 Employee Engagement Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/employee-engagement-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "104 Employee Engagement Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/employee-engagement-essay-topics/.

• Employee Motivation Questions
• Motivation Research Ideas
• Talent Management Questions
• Open Innovation Titles
• Employee Benefits Paper Topics
• Work-Life Balance Essay Titles
• Career Development Topics
• Cultural Competence Research Topics
• Nonprofit Organizations Paper Topics
• Problem Solving Essay Ideas
• Service Learning Essay Titles
• Social Entrepreneurship Ideas
• Performance Management Ideas
• Work Environment Research Topics
• HRM Research Ideas

What Is Employee Engagement and How Do You Improve It?

• Employee Engagement Definition
• Why Is Employee Engagement Important?
• Whose Job Is Employee Engagement?
• What Are the Drivers of Employee Engagement?
• Improving Employee Engagement Strategies
• Measuring Employee Engagement: Gallup's Questions
• The Employee Engagement Model
• Employee Engagement Examples: The 3 Types of Employees You Have
• How to Improve Employee Engagement: Team Engagement Ideas
• Improving Employee Engagement Begins Here

01 Employee Engagement Definition

Gallup defines employee engagement as the involvement and enthusiasm of employees in their work and workplace.

Employee engagement helps you measure and manage employees' perspectives on the crucial elements of your workplace culture.

You can find out if your employees are actively engaged with their work or simply putting in their time. You can discover if your team building activities and human resources practices influence positive business outcomes or if there's room to grow.

And with the right approach , you can learn how to improve your employees' connection to their work and your company.

02 Why Is Employee Engagement Important?

Employees make decisions and take actions every day that can affect your workforce and organization.

The way your company treats employees and how employees treat one another can positively affect their actions -- or can place your organization at risk.

Based on decades of employee engagement research , Gallup knows that engaged employees produce better business outcomes than other employees -- across industry, company size, and nationality, and in good economic times and bad.

But only 23% of employees worldwide and 32% in the U.S. fall in the "engaged" category.

So, what can companies do better to engage employees?

When companies use Gallup's Q 12® as a framework to improve employee engagement -- one that executives support as a primary management strategy -- they yield clear and better results.

Asking, "Why is employee engagement important?" is a vital question for leaders to consider. Because without employee engagement, there's no team engagement, making it more difficult to improve business outcomes.

When Gallup analyzed the differences in performance among business/work units, the benefits of employee engagement were clear. When comparing employee engagement levels, Gallup found that top- and bottom-quartile business units and teams had the following differences in business outcomes* :

*The above figures are median percent differences across companies in Gallup's database. High-turnover organizations are those with more than 40% annualized turnover. Low-turnover organizations are those with 40% or lower annualized turnover.

03 Whose Job Is Employee Engagement?

70% of the variance in team engagement is determined solely by the manager.

Employee engagement should be a manager's primary role responsibility.

Managers are in charge of ensuring that employees know what work needs to be done, supporting and advocating for them when necessary, and explaining how their work connects to organizational success.

To succeed in that responsibility, managers need to be equipped to have ongoing coaching conversations with employees .

Unfortunately, most managers don't know how to make frequent conversations meaningful, so their actions are more likely to be interpreted as micromanaging without providing the right tools and direction.

So, it's not enough for leaders to simply tell managers to own engagement and coach their teams.

Leaders must:

• redefine managers' roles and expectations
• provide the training tools, resources and development that managers need to coach and meet those expectations
• create evaluation practices that help managers accurately measure performance, hold employees accountable and coach to the future

04 What Are the Drivers of Employee Engagement?

One of the most common mistakes companies make is to approach engagement as a sporadic exercise in making their employees feel happy -- usually around the time when a survey is coming up.

It's true that we describe engaged employees as "enthusiastic." And employee engagement surveys play a big role in measuring staff engagement . But it's not that simple .

These are the key drivers of employee engagement:

development

a caring manager

ongoing conversations

a focus on strengths

Employees need more than a fleeting warm-fuzzy feeling and a good paycheck (even if it helps them respond positively on employee engagement survey questions) to invest in their work and achieve more for your company.

People want purpose and meaning from their work. They want to be known for what makes them unique. This is what drives employee engagement.

And they want relationships, particularly with a manager who can coach them to the next level. This is who drives employee engagement.

One of Gallup's biggest discoveries: the manager or team leader alone accounts for 70% of the variance in team engagement.

05 Improving Employee Engagement Strategies

Nearly 80% of employees worldwide are still not engaged or are actively disengaged at work, despite more effort from companies.

The greatest cause of a workplace engagement program's failure is this: Employee engagement is widely considered "an HR thing."

It is not owned by leaders, expected of managers nor understood by front-line employees .

The result is that some organizations believe they have exhausted "engagement" as a performance lever before they truly explore its full potential to change their business.

These leaders consistently experience low engagement, or they plateau and eventually decline -- despite repeated attempts to boost scores. Other times, they have high engagement numbers, but their business results tell a different story.

At a loss for explanations, leaders may blame the tool, the measurement, the philosophy or environmental factors that they believe make their problems unique.

But, the apparent failure of employee engagement efforts is likely because of how organizations implement workplace employee engagement programs . Some common mistakes:

Too complicated.

Leaders make engagement metrics far too complicated by focusing on predictors that are often outside managers' control and typically don't relate to meeting employees' core psychological needs at work.

Incorrect employee engagement metrics.

They use a low-bar "percent favorable" metric that inflates scores and creates blind spots, resulting in the appearance of high engagement without strong business outcomes.

Overuse of surveys.

They overuse pulse surveys to get immediate feedback and rarely take action on the results.

In contrast, leaders who have integrated engagement into their corporate strategy using the framework we outline in the next section on this page see significant gains year after year.

06 Measuring Employee Engagement: Gallup's Questions

Gallup has identified 12 elements of employee engagement that predict high team performance. These 12 elements make up our Q 12 survey.

Managers can take charge of engagement by asking and evaluating their employees' responses to these 12 employee engagement questions to create a structure for their interactions with employees -- casual conversations, meeting agendas, performance evaluations and team goal setting.

We've been measuring and reporting employee engagement trends for years and have used the 12 elements to determine how involved and enthusiastic employees are in their work and workplace.

The 12 Elements

Some of the 12 elements might seem simple. But Gallup's employee engagement research has found that only a small percentage of employees strongly agree their employer or manager delivers on them.

Here are three employee engagement ideas to help managers approach each element:

Q01. I know what is expected of me at work.

Helping employees understand what their organization, leaders and manager expect from them requires more than someone telling them what to do. The most effective managers define and discuss each employee's explicit and implicit expectations. They paint a picture of outstanding performance and help employees recognize how their work leads to the success of their coworkers, their business area and the entire organization.

Learn more about the Q 12 items.

Q02. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right.

"Materials and equipment" is not just a checklist of tools. It includes both tangible and intangible resources -- office supplies, software, knowledge sharing and permissions, to name a few -- that employees need to do their job. The most effective managers don't assume what their team needs. They ask for and listen to their employees' needs and advocate for them when necessary. They also find ways to make the most of their team's ingenuity and talents when they cannot fully fund requests.

Q03. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.

When people get to do what they do best every day at work, the organizations they work for get a boost in employee attraction, engagement and retention. Successful managers get to know their employees as individuals and give them opportunities to apply the best of their natural selves -- their talents. They talk to each employee about their unique value and make adjustments to align work, when possible, with team members' talents. The best managers know where their employees excel and position them so that they are engaged and provide maximum value to the organization.

Increasing Employee Engagement Post-Survey

An engagement survey is only the first step to motivating employees. If you implement a survey with no follow-up, engagement will likely decrease.

To gain positive momentum and increase engagement , you must ask for feedback, do something about it and continually share results.

Using employee engagement software is a great place to start. Many engagement platforms offer helpful action items and advice for leaders and managers looking to increase team engagement. Using these resources can help build accountability.

Back to Top .

07 The Employee Engagement Model

There are four levels in the employee engagement model.

This four-level hierarchy is based on four types of employees' performance development needs:

Meeting the needs in the three foundational levels creates an environment of trust and support that enables managers and employees to get the most out of the top level -- personal growth.

These levels provide a road map for managers to motivate and develop their team members and improve the team members' performance , with each one building on the previous.

The levels do not represent phases. Managers do not "finish" the first level and then move on to the second level. They must ensure that employees know what is expected of them and have the right materials and equipment to do their work while meeting needs on the second, third and fourth levels.

With their team members, managers should identify needs and obstacles on an ongoing basis and ideally take action before challenges inhibit their employees' performance.

Interested in using our Q 12 survey? Learn more about our employee engagement platform, Gallup Access, here.

08 Employee Engagement Examples: The 3 Types of Employees You Have

The 3 Personas of Engagement

Engaged employees are highly involved in and enthusiastic about their work and workplace. They are psychological "owners," drive high performance and innovation, and move the organization forward.

Example: An employee who logs in for a few hours longer to get a project over the finish line or who spends more time on the phone with a client who needs help -- because they're committed to their organization's "client first" values. They build up their coworkers and have strong relationships within the organization.

Not Engaged

Not engaged employees are psychologically unattached to their work and company. Because their engagement needs are not being fully met, they're putting time -- but not energy or passion -- into their work.

Example: An employee who completes their work but is fueled by duty rather than passion or personal interest. This employee may prefer to fly under the radar and might back down from more intense or high-profile work.

Actively Disengaged

Actively disengaged employees aren't just unhappy at work -- they are resentful that their needs aren't being met and are acting out their unhappiness. Every day, these workers potentially undermine what their engaged coworkers accomplish.

Example: This employee spends their time talking negatively about coworkers, current projects, leaders, etc. They may be searching for other employment opportunities in their spare time and do not plan to stay at their current job much longer.

09 How to Improve Employee Engagement: Team Engagement Ideas

There are no quick fixes when it comes to human relationships. Simple employee engagement activities won't transform your culture.

But since the value of the Q 12 items is in helping managers and teams start conversations and approach workforce engagement issues authentically and meaningfully, there are lots of ideas in the framework to help you build your team up.

For example:

Addressing Diversity and Inclusion

A new manager has inherited a low-performing team with diverse ages , genders, cultures and personalities. After a few months of private conversations and tense team meetings, she can tell that a lack of cooperation and disunity are at the heart of the team's lack of collaboration and low performance outcomes.

Addressing Hybrid Work

For hybrid work to be effective long term, we must consider the real benefits and risks . Push yourself to look beyond management practices that worked when people were mostly on-site or are simply more comfortable because they're familiar. Instead, assess how you can modify those practices to align with your commitment to hybrid and remote workers.

Engagement areas for manager action:

Q04 Receiving frequent recognition:

Make recognition a regular agenda item to demonstrate appreciation for individuals' different contributions to the team and organization. Metrics and methods of tracking excellence should transcend location. If teams are working flexibly, managers have to understand performance management and culture in a flexible way.

Q05 Someone cares about me:

Ask employees: What would make you feel like a valued team member? Individualize the approach to leading team members based on how they say they want to be treated.

Q07 My opinions count:

Become an advocate for employees' ideas. Solicit them during meetings and take action on them.

10 Improving Employee Engagement Begins Here

Partner with Gallup to bring the best out of your employees.

For Departments and Organizations Learn about our employee engagement solutions and customized plans for organizations . Connect with a Gallup expert to talk through your employee engagement goals, access to our platform -- Gallup Access (home to the Q 12 survey) -- and discover how a partnership with us could look.

We recommend this option for departments in organizations with more than 100 employees.

For Smaller Teams and Organizations Purchase a one-time Q 12 survey . Get limited access to our platform for 12 months.

We recommend this option for teams and organizations with fewer than 100 employees.

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

Employees →

• 09 Apr 2024

Why Work Rituals Bring Teams Together and Create More Meaning

From weekly lunch dates with colleagues to bedtime stories with children, we often rely on rituals to relax and bond with others. While it may feel awkward to introduce teambuilding rituals in the workplace, the truth is, the practices improve performance, says Michael Norton in his book The Ritual Effect.

• 02 Apr 2024
• Research & Ideas

Employees Out Sick? Inside One Company's Creative Approach to Staying Productive

Regular absenteeism can hobble output and even bring down a business. But fostering a collaborative culture that brings managers together can help companies weather surges of sick days and no-shows. Research by Jorge Tamayo shows how.

• 15 Mar 2024

Let's Talk: Why It's Time to Stop Avoiding Taboo Topics at Work

Few people enjoy talking about succession plans, performance problems, and pay, but sometimes you must. Christina Wing offers five rules for navigating thorny conversations in the workplace, and makes the case for tackling even sensitive topics, like age, health, and politics.

• 04 Mar 2024
• What Do You Think?

Do People Want to Work Anymore?

Surveys indicate that US employee engagement and job satisfaction are down. To what degree are attitudes toward work to blame? asks James Heskett. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 27 Feb 2024

Why Companies Should Share Their DEI Data (Even When It’s Unflattering)

Companies that make their workforce demographics public earn consumer goodwill, even if the numbers show limited progress on diversity, says research by Ryan Buell, Maya Balakrishnan, and Jimin Nam. How can brands make transparency a differentiator?

• 23 Jan 2024

How to Keep Employees Productive: Support Caregivers

Three-quarters of US employees are balancing caregiving with their careers. If companies could prevent five of them from quitting, they could save $200,000. Joseph Fuller offers a seven-point plan for supporting the sandwich generation and beyond.

• 02 Jan 2024

10 Trends to Watch in 2024

Employees may seek new approaches to balance, even as leaders consider whether to bring more teams back to offices or make hybrid work even more flexible. These are just a few trends that Harvard Business School faculty members will be following during a year when staffing, climate, and inclusion will likely remain top of mind.

• 14 Nov 2023

The Network Effect: Why Companies Should Care About Employees’ LinkedIn Connections

What do Honeywell, IBM, and Pfizer have in common? Employees with strong professional networks. A study of 2 billion employee relationships on LinkedIn probes the power of such connections—and potential benefits for companies. Research by Frank Nagle.

• 03 Oct 2023

Layoffs Can Be Bad Business: 5 Strategies to Consider Before Cutting Staff

Many companies are quick to reduce headcount when economic headwinds appear, but they risk weakening their businesses. A case study by Sandra Sucher explores the hidden costs of layoffs.

• 14 Sep 2023

Working Moms Are Mostly Thriving Again. Can We Finally Achieve Gender Parity?

The pandemic didn't destroy the workplace advancements moms had achieved. However, not all of the positive changes forced by the crisis and remote work have stuck, says research by Kathleen McGinn and Alexandra Feldberg.

• 28 Aug 2023

How Workplace Wellness Programs Can Give Employees the Energy Boost They Need

At a time when many workers are struggling with mental health issues, workplace wellness programs need to go beyond providing gym discounts and start offering employees tailored solutions that improve their physical and emotional well-being, says Hise Gibson.

• 08 Aug 2023

The Rise of Employee Analytics: Productivity Dream or Micromanagement Nightmare?

"People analytics"—using employee data to make management decisions—could soon transform the workplace and hiring, but implementation will be critical, says Jeffrey Polzer. After all, do managers really need to know about employees' every keystroke?

• 24 Jul 2023

Part-Time Employees Want More Hours. Can Companies Tap This ‘Hidden’ Talent Pool?

Businesses need more staff and employees need more work, so what's standing in the way? A report by Joseph Fuller and colleagues shows how algorithms and inflexibility prevent companies from accessing valuable talent in a long-term shortage.

• 17 Jul 2023

Money Isn’t Everything: The Dos and Don’ts of Motivating Employees

Dangling bonuses to checked-out employees might only be a Band-Aid solution. Brian Hall shares four research-based incentive strategies—and three perils to avoid—for leaders trying to engage the post-pandemic workforce.

• 16 May 2023

How KKR Got More by Giving Ownership to the Factory Floor: ‘My Kids Are Going to College!’

KKR turned around a struggling door company and sold it for 10 times its investment—giving factory workers a life-changing cut of the returns. A case study by Ethan Rouen and Dennis Campbell offers lessons for companies trying to instill an owner's mindset in employees.

• 27 Feb 2023

How One Late Employee Can Hurt Your Business: Data from 25 Million Timecards

Employees who clock in a few minutes late—or not at all—often dampen sales and productivity, says a study of 100,000 workers by Ananth Raman and Caleb Kwon. What can managers do to address chronic tardiness and absenteeism?

• 21 Feb 2023

Are Your Employees Passing Up Incentives? Try Promoting the Programs More

Employees who bow out of a company's wellness program or retirement savings plan might not know these perks exist. Leslie John offers advice for motivating workers to participate in incentive programs.

• 17 Jan 2023
• In Practice

8 Trends to Watch in 2023

Quiet quitting. Inflation. The economy. This year could bring challenges for executives and entrepreneurs, but there might also be opportunities for focused leaders to gain advantage, say Harvard Business School faculty members.

• 05 Dec 2022

5 Companies Where Employees Move Up the Ladder Fast

IBM, Southwest Airlines, and other companies proactively help workers advance their careers to try to retain them, says research by Joseph Fuller. The findings show just how important an employer can be to future salary and job prospects.

• 29 Nov 2022
• Cold Call Podcast

How Will Gamers and Investors Respond to Microsoft’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard?

In January 2022, Microsoft announced its acquisition of the video game company Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion. The deal would make Microsoft the world’s third largest video game company, but it also exposes the company to several risks. First, the all-cash deal would require Microsoft to use a large portion of its cash reserves. Second, the acquisition was announced as Activision Blizzard faced gender pay disparity and sexual harassment allegations. That opened Microsoft up to potential reputational damage, employee turnover, and lost sales. Do the potential benefits of the acquisition outweigh the risks for Microsoft and its shareholders? Harvard Business School associate professor Joseph Pacelli discusses the ongoing controversies around the merger and how gamers and investors have responded in the case, “Call of Fiduciary Duty: Microsoft Acquires Activision Blizzard.”

Here's What Industry Insiders Say About 10 Employee Engagement Research And Statistics

High employee engagement will lead to high productivity, better job satisfaction, higher revenue, and more sales and profits.

When your employees are active and engaged in the working environment, they’ll feel happier and will also try to achieve the company’s goals. In this article, you will know about the top 10 employee engagement research topics and statistics that can help you to manage your employees better.

So, read all the information and stats to have a better understanding of employee engagement.

Top Research and Studies Resulted In Workplace

1. 36% of the Employees Stay Engaged in their Workplaces

According to the Gallup reports , employee engagement research papers, around 51% of employees are very disengaged and silent in their workplace. They don’t want or even show interest in communicating with their colleagues or managers. On the other hand, 13% of the employees stay “actively disengaged”. It means that they feel pretty miserable and bored at work and also spread negativity to other employees.

On the other hand, 13% of the employees stay “actively disengaged”. It means that they feel pretty miserable and bored at work and also spread negativity to other employees. 

However, 36% of the employees stay engaged in their workplaces and this number is too low to bring proper profit to the company. 

Further reports show in 2017, around 85% of the employees were found disengaged and unmotivated in their workplaces. This percentage dropped by 10% in 2019. 

Although, it’s quite a surprise that the employee engagement percentage didn’t drop since the pandemic. It means many companies have been working on their employee engagement programs to reflect better employee engagement in the workplace. 

2. 21% of the Profit Increases with Powerful Employee Engagement

Further, Gallup’s research of employee engagement reports states that the companies that have a powerful workforce achieved 21% higher profit. These companies also have 17% higher productivity than those companies that have disengaged employees and workforce. The reasons are pretty simple, as the employees who are engaged and motivated tend to perform better and are also very dedicated to their companies.

The reasons are pretty simple, as the employees who are engaged and motivated tend to perform better and are also very dedicated to their companies. 

Therefore, these companies tend to bring in more profit and higher revenues. 

3. Employee Disengagement Puts the U.S. Economy to a Downfall of $450-550 Billion Every Year

Several research conducted on employee engagement found that $450-$550 billion are lost each year because of disengaged workers. The vital reasons for these are lower responsibility sense, lack of effective motivation, missed deadlines, and poor team management. It has been estimated that an employee with a salary of $10,000 can cost a company around $3,400 due to lack of productivity.

The reason is disengaged employees tend to leave the company at some point, and the employer has to reinvest in hiring and training again. Therefore, the company faces loss every time an employee quits or leaves their job.    

4. Unnecessary Virtual Meetings Make 38% of the Remote Employees Feel  Worn Out

According to recent studies , the majority of remote employees show signs of exhaustion when they regularly participate in virtual meetings.

38% of remote employees reported being weary, while 30% reported feeling immense pressure due to these regular virtual meetings. 

Maintaining contact with your remote employees is necessary, however, frequent virtual meetings may disturb their productivity and workflow. This can even demotivate and even exhaust them. 

This can also put them under stress and a lot of pressure. So, if these virtual meetings are essential then try to keep them once a week or best twice a month. This will allow you to stay updated and also keep your employees less stressed.  

5. 65% of the Employees Want More Precisely Defined Responsibilities

When employees are aware of their responsibilities, they perform better. Establishing an employee’s job and responsibilities, as well as their contribution to the larger picture, will help retain employees for extended periods of time.

In recent studies, it has been shown that 65% of the employees stay more active and motivated when they are well aware of their responsibilities ( source ). 

This allows them to take actions on their own and even develop a positive attitude to accomplish the job.  

6. 85% of the Workers Stay Motivated When the Internal Communications is Powerful and Effective

Effective internal communications encourage 85% of employees to increase their engagement levels at work ( source ).

When managers regularly communicate with the employees, it allows them to be more comfortable with their managers and even tend to share the same vision of achieving the best results. 

Therefore, as a manager, it’s pretty important for you to maximize your internal communication skills if you want to bring the best out of your team.  

If you are not open with your team members then you simply can’t expect them to have the same vision and mission of bringing the best outcomes. 

So, be on the same page as your employees to have a better and productive work balance.  

7. Only 16% of the Companies Make Use of Technology to Monitor Their Employees’ Engagement

Only 16% of businesses and companies use technology to assess employee progress and engagement ( source ). 

These technologies monitor employees’ progression of how many hours they work, when and the number of breaks they take, and many more.

When you operate a remote work environment, one of your primary responsibilities should be to track employee performance and engagement. If you maintain it well, you can bring success to both your company and your employees.

There is software like Time Doctor that monitors your employees’ working time, engagement, and many more. 

8. Recognition can Motivate 37% of the Employees and Make Them More Dedicated and Productive

According to a study on “ top performance motivators ,” personal acknowledgment or recognition is the most motivating factor for around 37% of employees.

In a recent employee engagement survey and the modern workplace, 84% of highly engaged employees received acknowledgment the last time they went the extra mile at work. Not surprisingly, just 25% of actively disengaged employees received recognition for their efforts.

When you publicly or privately praise your team members’ good work, you create the road for their improved performance, and when you demonstrate your appreciation for their efforts, you increase their engagement and productivity.

9. 33% of the Employees Leave the Company Due to Lack of Challenges

Around 33% of employees leave their jobs due to boredom or for new challenges ( source ). They are constantly on the lookout for new chances for professional development, which pushes them to continue learning and improving at what they do.

That is why managers and human resource experts should make integrating new challenges and variations in daily activities a primary priority. 

Providing continuous chances for employees to learn and improve is critical for increasing employee engagement and retention.

Opportunities for professional development are also critical for firm success since they enhance employee experience and aid in the development of skills and competencies.

10. 70% of the Employees Fail to Achieve Proper Engagement Due to Poor Managing Qualities of the Managers

For years, there has been the slogan “workers don’t leave organizations; they leave their managers”. 70% of employees failing to achieve the right kind of engagement due to managerial failures proves the point ( source ). 

So, it’s unsurprising that employee success is directly related to a manager’s management ability. 

If managers can lead their teams from the front, then they can easily make their team members be more productive and well-organized.  

Moreover, engaged employees perform better and inspire their teammates to do the same. When this occurs, teams become more engaged, which results in increased success.

Bottom Line

Enhancing employee engagement is essential for business success. Nothing will stand in your way of accomplishing your goals if you create a healthy work atmosphere where employees can improve daily and get recognition for their efforts.

The employees who stay motivated and have regular and effective communication with their managers tend to perform better and stay more productive at work. This will not only benefit the employees but will also improve your company.

So, start implementing these tactics for employee engagement now, and you’ll see an increase in your company’s profitability in no time.

Recognize Newsletter

Stay on-top of the latest in HR news, resources, tips, and technology. Receive free expert HR tips & special offers.

• Employee Success Platform Improve engagement, inspire performance, and build a magnetic culture.
• Engagement Survey
• Lifecycle Surveys
• Pulse Surveys
• Action Planning
• Recognition
• Talent Reviews
• Succession Planning
• Expert-Informed AI
• Seamless Integrations
• Award-Winning Service
• Robust Analytics
• Scale Employee Success with AI
• Drive Employee Retention
• Identify and Develop Top Talent
• Build High Performing Teams
• Increase Strategic Alignment
• Manage Remote Teams
• Improve Employee Engagement
• Customer Success Stories
• Customer Experience
• Customer Advisory Board

Not Another Employee Engagement Trends Report

• Everyone Owns Employee Success
• Employee Success ROI Calculator
• Employee Retention Quiz
• Ebooks & Templates
• Leadership Team
• Partnerships
• Best Places to Work
• Request a Demo

50 Employee Engagement Ideas to Seriously Boost Engagement

In this article, uncover top employee engagement ideas to inspire your employees and foster a dynamic workplace culture. Looking to amplify engagement with meaningful action?

Improve engagement today with our simple action planning guide

1. Create an engaging onboarding experience.

Employees begin forming perceptions of your workplace from day one. It's up to everyone to jump start employee engagement. While leaders have increased opportunity to take the action that increases engagement, everyone should be held accountable. Leaders and employees alike should:

• Help new employees feel welcome
• Help employees get access to resources 
• Communicate expectations clearly
• Introduce new employees to other team members

It also doesn't hurt to plan a few fun activities for new hires. Consider organizing a happy hour or starting a new hire club. If new hires are remote, consider how you'll adjust their onboarding . A positive first impression will go a long way.

2. Spice up the work environment.

The everyday 9-to-5 slog can wear on employees. Prevent this from happening by peppering in some different opportunities. Schedule walking meetings to re-energize and get some fresh air. Allow employees the continued flexibility to work from home and/or remote. Have your next 1-on-1 meeting at their favorite restaurant or coffee shop. If you’re an employee, consider offering up your suggestions to make the work environment more exciting. 

3. Celebrate people (not just their work).

Your employees are much more than their accomplishments at work. Take every opportunity to celebrate your employees and teammates and their accomplishments outside of work. Bring cupcakes for an employee's birthday. Showcase community awards they receive. Buy them a graduation present. Your employees are so much more than employees—and recognizing that will go a long way.

4. Do a strengths assessment.

Help employees learn about themselves and grow with a strengths assessment. Understand who they are and what they're good at—and put that knowledge to good use! You'll be able to better engage and develop employees and maximize their potential. 

As an employee, try suggesting that everyone on your team takes a strengths assessment as a bonding activity. This can help you better understand your colleagues strengths and weaknesses to collaborate better. 

5. Be a motivating coach, not a managing boss.

Ditch the boss mentality. Your employees don't want to be bossed around—they want to be advised, coached, and nurtured.

Our research shows that manager coaching can drastically impact employee engagement and performance. This study shows 85% of highly disengaged employees say they don't receive enough coaching from their manager. Organizations with employees who receive frequent and effective coaching improve business results by 21 percent. 

As an employee, ask for feedback more frequently if you are feeling disengaged from a lack of coaching. Don’t forget to thank your manager for their input and stay eager to grow and learn. 

6. Ask employees to write their own job description.

Give your employees ownership of their role by asking them to define it. This gives employees a clear definition of their roles and responsibilities. But it also encourages them to embrace and run with their role. Instead of telling them what to do, allow them to create their part—to an extent, of course.

As an employee, make sure you take accountability for your role. Communicate what you like and dislike about your duties. Highlight what comes easier to you and what is more of a challenge. By doing this, you put yourself in the driver’s seat to shape your responsibilities. 

7. Ask employees for advice.

Each of your employees has unique strengths that can help both managers and employees alike. When you leaders ask their team for help or feedback , they are acknowledging employee strengths and showing appreciation.

Ask them to proofread your big executive presentation or help you find areas to cut expenses. See what they think of your latest team engagement initiatives. Or ask them for advice on how to tackle your next strategy planning meeting.

Consulting your employees will show you respect their opinions—and help you make crowd-pleasing decisions.

As an employee, ask for feedback from your teammates that aligns with their strengths. Just like you appreciate your manager asking for your feedback, your teammates will too.

8. Encourage individuality.

When employees can bring their whole, authentic selves to work, they tend to feel more engaged. Ask them about their personal lives and uncover what drives them.

Simply learning about their favorite football team or preferred way to unwind on the weekends can really help employees open up. Engagement falls when employees are assumed to be identical drones. Encourage their personalities to shine.

9. Make sure they're not overworking.

Recommend a work schedule that gives employees ample free time to spend with family and friends. Let them know you value their work and respect their personal time as well. Making an effort to show you care can go a long way toward making employees feel valued, appreciated, and help them avoid burnout .

10. Get out of the office and have fun!

Socializing outside of work is an effective way to increase employee engagement at work. Team-building can lead to stronger working relationships, effective communication, and increased job satisfaction.

Think company holiday parties, summer happy hours, or team lunches. Make it a priority to spend quality time with teammates out of the office. It will help relationships blossom and will bring your workplace together.

11. Give new hires a culture coach.

Assign new employees a buddy from another group or department to show them the ropes. This gives employees a chance to get to know coworkers outside of their immediate work group. It can also help boost cross-team communication down the road.

A culture coach can help answer questions that employees might not feel comfortable asking their managers.

12. Take advantage of failures.

When employees and leaders make bad decisions or mistakes, they have a prime opportunity to build trust . Showing authenticity and vulnerability is the best approach. Ignoring failures or, even worse, passing the blame, hurts trust. Don't gloss over these moments and hurry to find new solutions. Use them as opportunities to show you're human.

13. Provide flexible work hours and locations.

Your employees aren't children. If you hired good people, you have to trust them to get their job done. Research shows that remote work increases engagement and boosts productivity. When your employees have the freedom to work where and how they need to, they feel trusted and respected. But make sure you're providing your workforce with the resources and support they need to be successful working remotely .

If you don’t have the right resources as an employee, speak up. Communicate your desired work environment to avoid burnout and achieve peak performance. 

14. Throw going-away parties for exiting employees.

Turnover is never fun or easy, but you can add some joy by celebrating an employee leaving for a new job. This allows coworkers to say their final goodbyes and ensures you're not burning any bridges. It also shows remaining employees that your organization values them and their hard work.

15. Support volunteer programs.

Is there a cause your workplace is passionate about? Encourage employees to volunteer , even if that time comes during the workday. This helps employees feel like they're making a difference, which boosts morale. It's also an opportunity for new bonds to form and for relationships to strengthen.

16. Create a feedback-safe environment.

Employees need to feel safe. They need to know that if they give feedback they won’t face negative repercussions.

This starts with building trusting relationships and a culture of feedback . Different employees will have different comfort levels with both giving and receiving feedback. It’s important to be respectful and not force it. Use emotional intelligence to gauge whether a person is ready to give or receive feedback—and if you can’t tell, ask. 

Don’t hesitate to communicate your comfort level with feedback as an employee. If you are seeking more feedback, speak up. 

17. Ask employees how they prefer to be recognized.

Recognition is critical to employee engagement, in fact when employees believe they will be recognized, they are 2.7x more likely to be highly engaged . But each employee is different. Take the time to understand how your employees and teammates prefer recognition .

Some employees prefer public recognition. Others shy from the spotlight and might prefer a private message or a thank-you card. Discovering each colleagues preferred method will help you give the most impactful recognition.

18. Find your champions.

When an employee goes above and beyond or does great work, be sure to call out their success. This pumps up the employee while giving the rest of the office a chance to see what strong output looks like. It motivates others to step up their game. And when teammates consistently do this, a culture of recognition is built, actively boosting engagement. 

19. Make space for socializing.

Create areas where employees are encouraged to take a quick break and interact. A lunch room, ping pong table, basketball hoop, or bank of couches all provide areas for a quick break to recharge. And if employees are remote, consider creating virtual rooms so employees can interact at the "coffee station" or in the "cafeteria" throughout the day.

20. Create feedback traditions.

Culture is made up of shared traditions, habits, artifacts, and language. Look for opportunities to create shared experiences around giving and receiving feedback.

At Quantum Workplace, all employees take part in our annual QW Voices survey and focus groups. Every month, managers meet with their employees for monthly GOOD lunches. These meetings are used to discuss performance and development.

Traditions like these make feedback much more than an initiative. It's part of our company culture.

21. Let software do the heavy lifting.

HR has a lot on their plate without the added burden of survey administration and reporting. Employee engagement software can help you spend less time administrating and more time driving positive change. By working with an employee engagement survey partner , you'll have the added benefits of confidentiality, efficiency, survey design expertise, and robust analytics.

22. Address the results quickly.

You should commit to sharing employee survey results with the entire organization as soon as you can make sense of them. Send a "thanks for participating" email within 24 hours. Then send a much more detailed announcement with overview results within 30 days.

23. Get everyone involved.

All employees should be invited to be a part of the post-survey employee engagement action planning process. Action shouldn't rest solely on the shoulders of leaders and managers.  

24. Ask for feedback on your survey initiative.

When your next survey rolls around, be sure to gather feedback on how the first one went. Here are some items you can include to gauge effectiveness:

• Senior leadership is committed to responding to the results of this survey.
• My manager shared the results of the last survey with our team.
• Our team developed action plans to address issues raised by the last survey's results.
• I noticed positive change as a result of the last survey.

25. Get buy-in.

Buy-in starts with leadership, but that’s not where it ends. Managers and employees are also critical to a successful employee engagement strategy. To drive buy-in, start with the benefit. How will the program benefit leaders? Managers? Employees? Customize your message and always be selling.

26. Train your people.

You can’t expect employees to figure out a new engagement strategy on their own. If you’re introducing a new survey tool or process, be sure to train employees and managers.

27. Make sure you’re actually measuring engagement.

You might be using surveys to collect feedback, but that doesn't mean you're actually measuring engagement . Your survey methods need to be research-backed and proven effective.

28. Keep the survey focused on employee engagement.

Carefully select your employee engagement survey questions around what matters most. Focus on actionable survey items that are directly related to engagement, such as career development, manager effectiveness, and team dynamics. Don't survey on every topic under the sun. The last thing you want is for "survey fatigue" to disengage employees.

29. Communicate, communicate, communicate.

Communication is critical to successful implementation and adoption of performance tools. Employees need to understand the what, where, when, why, and how. Communicate before, during, and after the launch of each tool or feature. And if you think you’ve communicated enough, you probably haven’t.

30. Insist on a single solution.

Choose an employee engagement platform that allows employees to access everything they need in one place. This will decrease hassle and increase usage. 

31. Integrate with your HRIS.

Performance management software can carry a huge administrative burden. Make things easier by finding a software that integrates with your existing HRIS.

32. Extend your voice.

Employees should see and feel your employer brand in all your workplace technology. This will extend the reach of your engagement efforts and reinforce your identity.

33. Make information more accessible.

Make sure employees have easy access to the information they need, such as benefits or career development. Use chat as a safe place for employees to ask questions, get answers, and schedule time to talk more if needed.

34. Clearly articulate professional development paths.

Professional development opportunities are essential for engaging and retaining employees. Make sure that what you're offering is meaningful and effective to the employees who are using them. It should be easy for employees to access information about any opportunities available to them.  

35. Re-evaluate how you select managers.

Managers are typically promoted based on performance. But they need soft skills to coach, invest in, develop, and maximize their teams. Shift your focus to selecting managers based on these types of skills. Managers are key to driving employee engagement .

36. Make them move.

Something as simple as your office layout could impact employees. Think: what are the routes my employees take every day? Bathroom, coffee pot, and water cooler are the big three. Get employees out of their routine and into more chance encounters. Chance encounters increase organizational familiarity and grease the wheels for more organic and creative conversations.

37. Take advantage of video conferencing as much as possible.

Use video conferencing and screen sharing to help remote employees stay engaged in meetings. Encourage employees to use video calls for one-on-one conversations as well. This helps team members foster deeper connections and better relationships.

38. Foster social interaction.

Get your remote workers out of their pajamas and into the office. Encourage them to hop into a co-working space every now and then. These environments are ideal for improving work mentality, fostering innovation, and more. Your normal team-building activities should also include remote team members.

39. Pay for a visit.

Pay for your remote employees to visit your home office several times a year. This will cement relationships that are built over the computer and phone.

40. Be accessible.

Managers and employees need to have face-to-face interactions. How can you invest in different shifts? Especially those who don't usually get the benefit of visible time with managers?

41. Host lunches with leadership.

In companies with employees working varied shifts, it can be hard for everyone to see and hear consistent messages. Invite employees to have lunch with leadership. Activities like these increase transparency and communication.

42. Connect your survey data to your turnover data.

Link your engagement survey data to turnover data . Identify items that differ the most between your termed and non-termed employees. If you notice trends among certain groups, schedule focus groups to dive deeper into those differences.

43. Keep in touch.

Maintain a good relationship with termed employees. Consider meeting a couple of times a year to catch up. This will do wonders to boost employer brand. It also shows current employees that you value them outside of the employment.

44. Clearly define values and recognize employees for them.

All employees should have a clear understanding of your values and how they come to life. Reinforce these values by recognizing employees when they exhibit them.  

45. Position change management as an ongoing process.

Change management isn’t a ‘point-in-time’ activity that you do once and cross off the list. Make it clear to employees that this will be an organizational journey.

46. Create traditions.

Culture is made up of shared traditions, habits, artifacts, and language. Look for opportunities and activities to create shared experiences around giving and receiving feedback.

47. Don't tolerate poor performance.

An organization is only as strong as its weakest link. Don't let poor performers drag down other employees. Help your managers implement continuous performance strategies so they can identify and manage performance issues early.

48. Set the tone from the top.

Like any element that you want to make part of your organizational culture, it starts at the top. Leaders must model giving and receiving feedback well. And they must do it on a regular basis.

49. Highlight decisions made based on feedback.

When you make a decision or change based on someone’s feedback, let them know. Don’t only focus on communicating the decision or change; focus on the why. “Why did we do this? Because of your feedback.”

50. Commit to a vision.

Who quits their high school basketball team in the middle of the state playoff game? You’d be hard-pressed to find a single example. Why? Because their vision is staring them straight in the face. They might win, they might lose, but you better believe they’re going to stay around until it’s over. To keep employees around, set a clear vision for individual impact and organizational success.

Published January 13, 2022 | Written By Natalie Wickham

Related Content

How to Design an Easy and Effective Employee Engagement Action Plan

Building Your Employee Listening Strategy

200 employee engagement ideas

Quick links.

• Performance
• Employee Engagement Survey

Subscribe to Our Blog

View more resources on Employee Engagement

6 Employee Engagement Ideas that Drive Innovation

4 minute read

Employee Engagement Case Study: How Seacoast Bank Mobilizes Teams to Drive Engagement

Fun Employee Engagement Ideas for National Boss's Day

3 minute read

• All Resources
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Terms of Service

• Join our email list
• Post an article

How can we help you?

35 creative employee engagement activities and ideas.

How Does Employee Engagement Increase Motivation?

There is an inseparable bond between engagement and motivation. On one side of the coin, we have disengaged employees who tend to be unmotivated to do their work, and on the other, unmotivated team members who are disengaged from their roles and overall company objectives. Autonomy and determination are the two main pillars of motivation, making one's work enjoyable and entertaining. On the other hand, engagement is closely connected to job complexity and how enthused and challenged employees feel about their day-to-day responsibilities. Maintaining a thriving foundation among all these factors can be daunting, which is why companies must think of unique employee engagement activities to capture everyone's interest.

Strategies To Sustain Employee Engagement

Employee engagement is a never-ending journey, and the effort to sustain it can never stop. The first step is to create clear job descriptions and set expectations and other performance indicators from the beginning. Provide an example of what a role looks like and give certain autonomy so people can prioritize tasks based on urgency. All these aspects require open, constant, and transparent communication. It's the foundation for fostering trust, loyalty, and inclusion across every team. Arrange regular meetings, inform employees of company decisions, and encourage the exchange of feedback and dialogue. Such strategies show that you genuinely care about someone's work and well-being. Offer your support whether employees are facing an obstacle or not. Additionally, companies must make acknowledgment a norm so that people feel valued and appreciated for their hard work. Finally, development opportunities assist employees in improving themselves and achieving even higher results.

35 Fun Activities And Ideas To Increase Employee Engagement

1. workplace parties.

Most companies throw parties throughout the year, whether it's for Halloween, Christmas, or anniversaries. Organizing two events yearly is enough to show appreciation to your staff and invite them to relax and enjoy themselves. However, ensure that you make these events inclusive and allow each person to take their families, significant others, and friends with them.

2. Employee Competitions

Games and competitions are great activities for employee engagement since they build a sense of camaraderie. For example, you can invite everyone to a "bake-off," where they bring something they prepared at home, and everyone has a taste and chooses their winner.

3. Sporting Events

A wonderful employee engagement activity would be to organize a friendly basketball, soccer, or baseball match and invite all employees to participate. If this is a big expense, you may opt for something different. Many cities organize marathons, so you can encourage everyone to participate and join the run as a team.

4. Bar Nights

Companies whose entire workforces share a location may arrange drinks once a week. This is a great opportunity for everyone to bond in a relaxed setting. You may opt for lunch or dinner if part of the team prefers not to drink.

During spring, you may arrange a barbeque or picnic for your workforce out in nature or at your company's terrace, if that's available. Such a fun employee engagement activity will help everyone feel refreshed and avoid work-related headaches.

6. Appreciation Programs

Simply handing an Employee of the Month award isn't enough to recognize every member of your team. Ensure that you keep track of each person's achievements and find small ways to acknowledge them. A simple card and discount at a local store is enough to show your appreciation.

7. Coffee Breaks

Whether your teams are on location or remote, you can encourage small coffee breaks as a simple and quick employee engagement activity. You may designate a lounge at the office so people can go for a few minutes and decompress.

8. Cultural Events

Not every employee shares the same background. So, make it a goal to celebrate different cultures. For example, ask employees to bring traditional foods to the office and share unique stories and traditions. As a result, everyone feels included instead of being left on the margins.

9. Collaborative Music Playlist

Ask your employees to pick their favorite songs and create a playlist that everyone can access. Choose one or two genres of music or let everyone pick completely different styles that best suit their preferences.

10. Company Updates

This may not be an activity for employee engagement, but it's an initiative that highlights each week's news, success stories, and individual milestones. In these updates, which can be sent out as emails, organizations may even include the refreshed music playlist based on new song additions.

11. New Hire Buddy

Some companies assign an experienced employee for every new hire as their guide within the company. The "buddy" shows new team members the office, explains how things operate, and may even go on lunches together to bond.

12. Local Guides

Not everyone may be familiar with the location of your company, especially people from out of town. Prepare a guide and suggest employee engagement activities. These outings can be weekly or monthly, from visiting local museums to supporting local businesses.

13. Theme Days

How about asking everyone to come to work wearing their favorite color from top to bottom? Different themes create a more relaxed and entertaining atmosphere. Don't wait until the holidays to dress according to a theme.

14. Internal Promotions

If a manager leaves your company, don't hire a new one. Promote an existing employee to the position and make it evident you value and reward hard work. Therefore, everyone will try to improve and reach higher positions.

15. Hackathons

Brainstorming sessions allow everyone to share their thoughts and bounce ideas off others. Such a practice can create necessary changes around the office and even lead to art installations that become the center of attention.

16. Suggestion Boxes

Not everyone is confident enough to express their feedback verbally. So, an old-fashioned suggestion box helps employees stay anonymous while still sharing their viewpoints. Make sure you pay attention to it and take suggestions into serious consideration.

17. Employee Surveys

This measurable employee engagement activity provides statistics regarding job roles, satisfaction levels, and happiness with leadership. These surveys can be distributed weekly, monthly, or annually.

18. Pet-Friendly Offices

Employees should feel free to take their pets with them on certain days. So, designate an appropriately equipped pet room where people can leave them while they're busy or allow them to keep them next to their desks.

19. Office Game Rooms

Ping-pong tables, video game consoles, and darts are all great employee engagement activities that help everyone decompress for a few minutes while bonding with their colleagues. You can also add bean bags and comfortable couches to the mix.

20. Sabbaticals

Extended periods outside of work allow people to explore hobbies and interests and focus on their overall well-being. You may provide this benefit for employees who have been with you for over two years.

21. Flexibility

Some days may be harder than others, and people's personal lives should be a priority. Allow your team members to work flexible hours on these days and take a half day off. The more balanced they are at home, the more engaged they'll be at work.

22. Podcasts

Podcasts are amazing for shining light on each professional and their unique story. Invite different people on each episode and share insights regarding their journeys. Maybe this is a great time for your company to properly introduce itself to its workforce.

23. Dress-Down Days

Dressing in formal outfits every single day can be exhausting. So, arrange one day every week or month where people can dress according to their style instead of the company dress code. Quite a few companies have incorporated Casual Fridays in their strategies.

24. Lunch And Learn

Smaller companies seem to love the idea of gathering everyone for an hour-long lunch while watching a webinar or listening to an expert talking. The more relaxed everyone is, the more they participate and care about a subject.

25. Team Goods

This idea may be quite pricey, but if your budget allows it, give out free company merch to your team. From a coffee mug to a hoodie they can wear outside and a tote bag they can go shopping with, everyone feels like part of a cohesive team.

26. Field Day

How about you give everyone a Friday off and take them on a field trip somewhere nearby? Colleagues can play games, get to know each other better, and relax instead of worrying about clients and responsibilities.

27. "Random News" Channel

On top of the usual work-related communication channels, create one where everyone can share random, funny stories. It can be anything from satirical videos to cute animal videos and memes.

28. Volunteering

How great would it be if your team visited a forest and planted a few trees or cooked and distributed food to those in need? Such employee engagement activities bring everyone closer and create a common purpose.

29. Send Treats By Mail

You don't need a reason to send a mystery treat box to your employees, but maybe you want to celebrate their anniversary or wish them a happy new year through a box filled with delicacies.

30. Q&A Sessions

Being transparent means answering every question people may have. Through these sessions, you get to understand everyone's concerns and struggles and offer answers. If possible, Q&A sessions should happen regularly through web conferencing software for easier access.

31. Set Goals

Each employee must be aware of their short-term and long-term goals to work with a specific purpose in mind. Confusion is your company's biggest enemy, while clarity drives great results and corporate success.

32. Well-Being Programs

Work-related stress seriously impacts employees' overall health, and professionals often need breaks. By offering perks like gym memberships, free doctor's appointments, or healthy snacks, you can show appreciation for everyone's contributions.

33. Forgive Mistakes

Mistakes are often costly, but no one ever went through life without making one. Forgive employees, offer them honest and thoughtful feedback, ask for their perspective, and give them a chance to improve.

34. Send Digital Gift Cards

When your entire team has achieved massive milestones and company goals, send out gift cards so they can splurge a bit. Or you may implement this as a monthly or annual bonus for grocery shopping.

35. Training And Coaching

Onboarding should be an ongoing process, where employees are provided with a coach and continuous training opportunities. This way, you show that you care about their development and value their progress.

Final Thoughts

Keeping your employees and managers engaged means that they are trustworthy and perform at the top of their abilities every single day. Career development opportunities may not always be enough. This is where creative ideas and employee engagement activities come into play, offering a more relaxed approach. As a result, your company stands out and attracts top talent thanks to the reputation and brand image you've built.

• 11 Employee Engagement Ideas To Boost Productivity
• 8 Employee Engagement Strategies That Actually Work
• What Is Employee Engagement And How Do You Improve It?
• Your Guide To Elevating Employee Engagement In A Hybrid Workplace
• The Good, The Bad, And The Boring Of L&D: 6 Employee Engagement Mistakes That Every Company Should Avoid

tnAchieves coaching supports low-income students’ post-secondary persistence at Tennessee community colleges

Media inquiries.

• 615-322-6397 Email

Latest Stories

• Shinn leads new study of cash payments and peer support to reduce homelessness
• CLASS OF 2024: Emily Gaven builds team bonds, on and off the lacrosse field
• Limited Submission Opportunity: First Horizon Foundation Grants for Good

Apr 8, 2024, 8:52 AM

First-year college students who receive coaching through the tnAchieves program are more likely to persist into their second year, according to new analysis from the Tennessee Education Research Alliance (TERA) in collaboration with tnAchieves and the State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE).

tnAchieves is a non-profit partner of the Tennessee Promise program, a public initiative to increase college access and completion by providing funding and mentoring for recent Tennessee high school graduates enrolled in community or technical colleges. tnAchieves delivers targeted coaching to Tennessee Promise scholars to help them navigate enrollment processes, comply with scholarship requirements, overcome academic setbacks, and persist through degree completion.

Three key findings emerge from the research:

• Students with greatest financial need receive majority of coaching support: Students from the 2018 to 2020 graduation cohorts with no expected family contribution (EFC) received the most support. That said, as the program has expanded to include more students, students with $0 EFC represented a reduced proportion of those receiving coaching in each successive year, decreasing from 90 percent to 71 percent to 60 percent. In 2021, these students accounted for just under 50 percent of students served by coaching. This shift in financial need corresponds with changing demographics. The proportion and number of Black students and proportion of first-generation students served by tnAchieves has fallen since 2018, while white students have represented and increasing share of tnAchieves cohorts.
• Coaches connect with students between five and six times a year: However, the average number of attempts to contact students and connections made have decreased over time. Most connections occurred through text message and phone calls, but virtual meetings became more prevalent with the 2020 graduation cohort, reflecting common practices during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Coached students persist through college at higher rates: Students who receive tnAchieves coaching are more likely to persist into their second year of college than otherwise similar students who do not receive coaching. In fact, a coach’s attempts at reaching a student, even if they didn’t make a connection, were positively correlated with increased persistence, as just seeing a missed phone call from a coach may have been enough to motivate the student. Each successful coaching connection is associated with a 2.3 percentage-point increase in first-year persistence rates.

Overall, the tnAchieves coaching program has led to positive outcomes for student participants. Coaching substantially increases postsecondary persistence. To further improve the program, the researchers recommend increasing recruitment and outreach to low-income, first-generation, and non-white students to help restore representation of traditionally underserved groups. The researchers also recommend identifying strategies for establishing and increasing coaching connections with students, such as randomizing hard-to-reach students to different strategies and tracking connection success rates for each.

Keep Reading

Enhance your coaching skills with HR ELE’s Coaching Lab 

Enhance your coaching skills with HR ELE’s Coaching Lab

Enhance your coaching skills with HR Employee Learning and Engagement’s Coaching Lab

Explore story topics.

• Education and Psychology
• Ideas In Action
• Ideas in Action Featured
• Peabody College
• peabody-home
• Tennessee Education Research Alliance