Employee engagement and performance: a systematic literature review

Term and definition	Author(s) of the definition	Research using the particular definition
Employee engagement is “a positive, fulfilling	Schaufeli et al	54 studies
work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigour, dedication, and absorption. Rather than a momentary and specific state, engagement refers to a more persistent and pervasive affective–cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behaviour”	[2002]	Akhtar et al., 2016; Alessandri et al., 2018; Ali et al., 2018; Bakker and Bal, 2010; Bakker et al., 2012; Bal and De Lange, 2015; Barnes and Collier, 2013; Castanheira, 2016; Cesário and Chambel, 2017; Chong and Lee, 2017; Chughtai and Buckley, 2011; Dijkhuizen et al., 2016; Eldor and Harpaz, 2016; Eldor, 2017; Farndale et al., 2014; Findikli, 2015; Fletcher, 2016; Freeney and Fellenz, 2013; Gordon and Demerouti, 2015; Gorgievski and Moriano, 2014; Gutermann et al., 2017; Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2008; Kapil and Rastogi, 2017; Karatepe, 2011; Karatepe and Aga, 2016; Karatepe and Olugbade, 2016; Kašpárková et al., 2018; Kataria et al., 2013; Khan and Malik, 2017; Kovjanic and Schuh, 2013; Lathabhavan et al., 2017; Lazauskaite-Zabielske et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2016; Lorente and Salanova, 2014; Maden, 2015; Mäkikangas et al., 2016; Menguc and Auh, 2013; Nazir et al.,2017; Nazli and Sheikh Khairudin, 2018; Park et al., 2017; Reijseger et al., 2017; Salanova and Agut, 2005; Schmitt et al., 2016; Shantz and Alfes, 2013; Shantz et al., 2016; Steffens and Haslam, 2014; Suan Choo, 2016; Tims and Bakker, 2013; Tims et al., 2015; Van Beek and Taris, 2014; Wang et al., 2015; Xanthopoulou and Bakker, 2008; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009; Yalabik and Popaitoon, 2013
Personal engagement is “the harnessing of	Kahn [1990]	5 studies
organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances”		Alfes and Truss, 2013; Badal and Harter, 2014; Kim and Koo, 2017; Rahman et al., 2017; Zhong et al., 2016
Job engagement is “the extent to which an	Saks [2006]	2 studies
individual is psychologically present in a work role”		Albdour and Altarawneh, 2014; Saks, 2006
Organizational engagement is “the extent to which an individual is psychologically present in his role as a member of an organization”
Work engagement is “a relatively enduring state	Christian et al	1 study
of mind referring to the simultaneous investment of personal energies in the experience or performance of work”	[2011]	Benn et al., 2015
Employee engagement “represents an	Myrden and	1 study
employee’s enthusiasm, passion and commitment to their work and to the organization, the willingness to invest themselves and expand their discretionary effort to help the employer succeed”	Kelloway [2015]	Myrden and Kelloway, 2015
Employee engagement is “a cognitive	Shuck and	1 study
emotional, and behavioural state directed toward desired organizational outcomes”	Wollard [2010]	Shuck and Zigarmi, 2015
Employee engagement is “the relative strength of an employee’s involvement in and enthusiasm about his or work”	Tritch [2003]	1 study Medlin et al., 2016

Scales used to quantify the level of employee engagement

Scale	Research using the particular scale
UWES-9 [Schaufeli et al., 2002]	47 studies
9 items rated on 7-point scale	Akhtar et al., 2016; Alessandri et al., 2018; Ali et al., 2018; Bakker and Bal
3 vigor items, 3 dedication items, and 3 absorption items	2010; Bakker et al., 2012; Bal and De Lange, 2015; Castanheira, 2016; Cesário and Chambel, 2017; Chughtai and Buckley, 2011; Dijkhuizen et al., 2016; Eldor and Harpaz, 2016; Eldor, 2017; Findikli, 2015; Fletcher, 2016; Freeney and Fellenz, 2013; Gordon and Demerouti, 2015; Gorgievski and Moriano, 2014; Gutermann et al., 2017; Kapil and Rastogi, 2017; Karatepe, 2011; Karatepe and Aga, 2016; Karatepe and Olugbade, 2016; Kašpárková et al., 2018; Kataria et al., 2013; Kovjanic and Schuh, 2013; Lathabhavan et al., 2017; Lorente and Salanova, 2014; Maden, 2015; Mäkikangas et al., 2016; Myrden and Kelloway, 2015; Nazir and Islam, 2017; Park et al., 2017; Rahman et al., 2017; Reijseger et al., 2017; Schmitt et al., 2016; Shantz and Alfes, 2013; Shantz et al., 2016; Shuck and Zigarmi, 20151; Steffens and Haslam, 2014; Suan Choo, 2016; Tims and Bakker, 2013; Tims et al., 2015; Van Beek and Taris, 2014; Wang et al., 2015; Xanthopoulou and Bakker, 20082; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009; Yalabik and Popaitoon, 2013
UWES-17 [Schaufeli et al., 2002]	10 studies
17 items rated on 7-point scale: 6 vigor items, 5 dedication items, and 6 absorption items	Barnes and Collier, 2013; Farndale et al., 20143; Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2008; Khan and Malik, 2017; Lazauskaite-Zabielske et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2016; Menguc and Auh, 2013; Nazli and Sheikh Khairudin, 2018; Salanova and Agut, 2005; Xanthopoulou and Bakker, 2008 General work engagement was assessed with the UWES-9 questionnaire, whereas state work engagement was measured with UWES-17.
Saks Engagement Scale [Saks, 2006]	5 studies
12 items rated on 5-point scale	Albdour and Altarawneh, 2014; Farndale et al., 2014 UWES-17 was applied in order to measure work (individual) engagement, whereas Saks Engagement Scale plus two additional self-designed items were used to measure organizational engagement. ; Kim and Koo, 2017;
6 job engagement items, and 6 organization	Saks, 2006; Suhartanto and Brien, 2018
engagement items
Gallup Workplace Audit (Q12) [Harter et al. 2002]	5 studies
12 items rated on 5-point scale	Badal and Harter, 2014; Chong and Lee, 2017; Dash and Muthyala, 2016;
12 employee perceptions of work characteristics	Medlin and Green, 2009; Medlin et al., 2016
items
Job Engagement Scale [Rich et al., 2010]	2 studies
18 items rated on 5-point scale	Shuck and Zigarmi, 20151; Zhong et al., 2016
6 physical engagement items, 6 emotional
engagement items, and 6 cognitive engagement items
ISA Engagement Scale [Soane et al. 2012]	1 study
9 items rated on 7-point scale	Alfes and Truss, 2013
3 intellectual engagement items, 3 social
engagement items, and 3 affective engagement items
JRA Employee Engagement Scale [JRA, 2007]	1 study
6 items rated on 5-point scale	Benn et al., 2015
2 cognitive engagement items, 2 emotional
engagement items, and 2 behavioral engagement items
Passion Scale [Vallerand et al., 2003]	1 study
14 items rated on 7-point scale	Shuck and Zigarmi, 2015 Shuck and Zigarmi [2015] used a multimeasure approach and applied three scales in order to measure employee engagement: UWES-9, Job Engagement Scale, and Passion Scale.
7 harmonious passion items, and 7 obsessive
passion items

Data sources used to quantify performance

Data source	Research studies using the particular data source
Self-reported	47 studies
questionnaire	Akhtar et al., 2016; Albdour and Altarawneh, 2014; Alfes and Truss, 2013; Ali et al., 2018; Anitha, 2014; Bal and De Lange, 2015; Barnes and Collier, 2013; Benn et al., 2015; Chong and Lee, 2017; Chughtai and Buckley, 2011; Dalal and Baysinger, 2012; Dash and Muthyala, 2016; Farndale et al., 2014; Findikli, 2015; Fletcher, 2016; Freeney and Fellenz, 2013; Gordon and Demerouti, 2015; Gorgievski and Moriano, 2014; Kapil and Rastogi, 2017; Karatepe and Olugbade, 2016; Kašpárková et al., 2018; Kataria et al., 2013; Khan and Malik, 2017; Kim and Koo, 2017; Lathabhavan et al., 2017; Lorente and Salanova, 2014; Maden, 2015; Mäkikangas et al., 2016; Medlin and Green, 2009; Medlin et al., 2016; Nazir and Islam, 2017; Nazli and Sheikh Khairudin, 2018; Park et al., 2017; Rahman et al., 2017; Reijseger et al., 2017; Saks, 2006; Shantz and Alfes, 2013; Shantz et al., 2016; Shuck and Zigarmi, 2015; Steffens and Haslam, 2014; Suan Choo, 2016; Suhartanto and Brien, 2018; Tims and Bakker, 2013; Tims et al., 2015; Van Beek and Taris, 2014; Xanthopoulou and Bakker, 2008; Zhong et al., 2016
Supervisors’	18 studies
evaluation	Alessandri et al., 2018; Bakker and Bal, 2010; Bakker et al., 2012; Castanheira, 2016; Cesário and Chambel, 2017; Eldor and Harpaz, 2016; Eldor, 2017; Gutermann et al., 2017; Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2008; Karatepe, 2011; Karatepe and Aga, 2016; Karatepe and Olugbade, 2016; Lazauskaite-Zabielske et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2016; Shantz and Alfes, 2013; Wang et al., 2015; Yalabik and Popaitoon, 2013; Zhong et al., 2016
Colleagues’	1 study
evaluation	Schmitt et al., 2016
Researcher evaluation	1 study
	Kovjanic and Schuh, 2013
Customers’	3 studies
evaluation	Menguc and Auh, 2013; Myrden and Kelloway, 2015; Salanova and Agut, 2005
Company financial	6 studies
data	Badal and Harter, 2014; Coco and Jamison, 2011; Dijkhuizen et al., 2016; Gorgievski and Moriano, 2014; Lin et al., 2016; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009

Geographical structure of the reviewed studies

Number	Country where the study was conducted	Number of research reports	Number	Country where the study was conducted	Number of research reports
1	USA	10	14	Turkey	2
2	The Netherlands	10	15	Republic of Korea	2
3	UK	6	16	Nigeria	2
4	India	6	17	Czech Republic	1
5	Pakistan	4	18	Lithuania	1
6	Spain	3	19	Finland	1
7	Canada	3	20	Italy	1
8	China	3	21	Greece	1
9	Malaysia	3	22	Cyprus	1
10	Germany	2	23	Indonesia	1
11	Republic of Ireland	2	24	Jordan	1
12	Portugal	2	25	Australia	1
13	Israel	2

Categorization of reviewed articles based on the type and level of analyzed performance

	Individual level	Team level	Organizational level
Process	61 studies	8 studies	1 study
performance	Akhtar et al., 2016; Albdour and Altarawneh, 2014; Alessandri et al., 2018; Alfes and Truss, 2013; Ali et al., 2018; Anitha, 2014; Bakker and Bal, 2010; Bakker et al., 2012; Bal and De Lange, 2015; Barnes and Collier, 2013; Castanheira, 2016; Cesário and Chambel, 2017; Chong and Lee, 2017; Chughtai and Buckley, 2011; Dalal and Baysinger, 2012; Dash and Muthyala, 2016; Eldor and Harpaz, 2016; Eldor, 2017; Farndale et al., 2014; Findikli, 2015; Fletcher, 2016; Freeney and Fellenz, 2013; Gordon and Demerouti, 2015; Gorgievski and Moriano, 2014; Gutermann et al., 2017; Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2008; Kapil and Rastogi, 2017; Karatepe, 2011; Karatepe and Aga, 2016; Karatepe and Olugbade, 2016; Kašpárková et al., 2018; Kataria et al., 2013; Khan and Malik, 2017; Kim and Koo, 2017; Kovjanic and Schuh, 2013; Lathabhavan et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2016; Lorente and Salanova, 2014; Maden, 2015; Medlin and Green, 2009; Medlin et al., 2016; Myrden and Kelloway, 2015; Nazir and Islam, 2017; Nazli and Sheikh Khairudin, 2018; Park et al., 2017; Rahman et al., 2017; Reijseger et al., 2017; Saks, 2006; Schmitt et al., 2016; Shantz and Alfes, 2013; Shantz et al., 2016; Shuck and Zigarmi, 2015; Suan Choo, 2016; Suhartanto and Brien, 2018; Tims and Bakker, 2013; Tims et al., 2015; Van Beek and Taris, 2014; Wang et al., 2015; Xanthopoulou and Bakker, 2008; Yalabik and Popaitoon, 2013; Zhong et al., 2016	Findikli, 2015; Freeney and Fellenz, 2013; Kataria et al., 2013; Mäkikangas et al., 2016; Menguc and Auh, 2013; Salanova and Agut, 2005;Steffens and Haslam, 2014; Tims and Bakker, 2013	Farndale et al., 2014
Outcome	4 studies	4 studies	3 studies
performance	Gorgievski and Moriano, 2014; Lazauskaite- Zabielske et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2016; Shantz et al., 2016	Coco and Jamison, 2011; Badal and Harter, 2014; Suhartanto and Brien, 2018; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009	Benn et al., 2015; Dijkhuizen et al., 2016; Gorgievski and Moriano, 2014

Subcategorization of reviewed articles based on type and level of analyzed performance

	Individual level	Team level	Organizational level
Process performance	61 studies	8 studies	1 study
Task performance	40 studies	7 studies	1 study
Contextual performance	45 studies	2 studies	1 study
Outcome performance	4 studies	4 studies	3 studies
Financial performance	2 studies	4 studies	2 studies
Nonfinancial performance	2 studies	2 studies	3 studies

Statistical modeling techniques applied to verify the association between employee engagement and performance

Statistical technique	Research studies using the particular technique
Structural equation	42 studies
modeling	Alessandri et al., 2018; Alfes and Truss, 2013; Ali et al., 2018; Anitha, 2014; Bakker et al., 2012; Barnes and Collier, 2013; Benn et al., 2015; Castanheira, 2016; Chughtai and Buckley, 2011; Coco and Jamison, 2011; Eldor, 2017; Findikli, 2015; Freeney and Fellenz, 2013; Gorgievski and Moriano, 2014; Gutermann et al., 2017; Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2008; Karatepe and Aga, 2016; Karatepe and Olugbade, 2016; Kašpárková et al., 2018; Kataria et al., 2013; Kim and Koo, 2017; Kovjanic and Schuh, 2013; Lathabhavan et al., 2017; Lazauskaite-Zabielske et al., 2018; Lorente and Salanova, 2014; Maden, 2015; Medlin and Green, 2009; Medlin et al., 2016; Myrden and Kelloway, 2015; Nazir and Islam, 2017; Nazli and Sheikh Khairudin, 2018; Park et al., 2017; Reijseger et al., 2017; Salanova and Agut, 2005; Shantz and Alfes, 2013; Shantz et al., 2016; Suan Choo, 2016; Suhartanto and Brien, 2018; Tims and Bakker, 2013; Tims et al., 2015; Van Beek and Taris, 2014; Yalabik and Popaitoon, 2013
Multilevel linear	25 studies
regression	Albdour and Altarawneh, 2014; Akhtar et al., 2016; Bakker and Bal, 2010; Bal and De Lange, 2015; Cesário and Chambel, 2017; Dalal and Baysinger, 2012; Dijkhuizen et al., 2016; Eldor and Harpaz, 2016; Badal and Harter, 2014; Fletcher, 2016; Gordon and Demerouti, 2015; Kapil and Rastogi, 2017; Karatepe, 2011; Khan and Malik, 2017; Lin et al., 2016; Mäkikangas et al., 2016; Menguc and Auh, 2013; Rahman et al., 2017; Saks, 2006; Schmitt et al., 2016; Steffens and Haslam, 2014; Wang et al., 2015; Xanthopoulou and Bakker, 2008; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009; Zhong et al., 2016
Bayesian methods	1 study
	Shuck and Zigarmi, 2015
Canonical	1 study
discriminant analysis	Dash and Muthyala, 2016
Pearson correlation	1 study
coefficient	Chong and Lee, 2017
t-Test	1 study
	Farndale et al., 2014

eISSN:: 2299-9701
Language:: English

Publication timeframe:: 4 times per year
Journal Subjects:: Business and Economics, Political Economics, Economic Theory, Systems and Structures, Business Management, Management Accounting, Financial Controlling, Cost Calculation, Investment

Journal RSS Feed

Employee engagement and performance: a systematic literature review

Article Category: Research Article

Published Online: Sep 30, 2018

Page range: 227 - 244

Received: Jul 05, 2018

Accepted: Sep 04, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ijme-2018-0018

Keywords
employee engagement, work engagement, process performance, outcome performance

© 2018 Błażej Motyka, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Figure 1

Terms and definitions of employee engagement adopted by various authors

Scales used to quantify the level of employee engagement

Data sources used to quantify performance

Geographical structure of the reviewed studies

Categorization of reviewed articles based on the type and level of analyzed performance

Subcategorization of reviewed articles based on type and level of analyzed performance

Statistical modeling techniques applied to verify the association between employee engagement and performance

Employee engagement and performance: a systematic literature review

Article Category: Research Article

Published Online: Sep 30, 2018

Page range: 227 - 244

Received: Jul 05, 2018

Accepted: Sep 04, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ijme-2018-0018

Keywordsemployee engagement, work engagement, process performance, outcome performance

© 2018 Błażej Motyka, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Figure 1

Terms and definitions of employee engagement adopted by various authors

Scales used to quantify the level of employee engagement

Data sources used to quantify performance

Geographical structure of the reviewed studies

Categorization of reviewed articles based on the type and level of analyzed performance

Subcategorization of reviewed articles based on type and level of analyzed performance

Statistical modeling techniques applied to verify the association between employee engagement and performance

Keywords
employee engagement, work engagement, process performance, outcome performance