<p>A few basic observations:</p>

<ul>
<li>Typical self-report measures of engagement and job satisfaction tend to be highly correlated (I'll try to find a reference later, but I think in the r =.7 range).</li>
<li>As with many organisational psychology terms that bridge the scientific-practitioner divide, engagement has been operationalised in a wide range of ways.</li>
<li><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/iops.2008.1.issue-1/issuetoc" rel="nofollow">Volume 1, Issue 1 of Industrial and Organizational Psychology</a> has a focal article and a large set of accompanying commentaries on the meaning of engagement and its value as a concept. See this <a href="http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=the%20meaning%20of%20employee%20engaagement&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=0CDoQFjAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.182.2845%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&amp;ei=9sQcT_yaBe-QiQfVnL3kCw&amp;usg=AFQjCNGznVxDg4hMtsGrBjpqtjvJkgLYCg&amp;sig2=S3vWaVrw3u4tZgd6BMeIFw" rel="nofollow">pdf of the focal article</a>.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-31T04:40:48.803Z
do these observations answer your question, or should they be edited in as further notes that are part of the question?
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-31T05:02:49.010Z
@ArtemKaznatcheev I guess they reflect a partial answer; I'd love to read a better or more comprehensive answer that anyone else might provide. I'll try to expand on them when I get the time.
Jeromy Anglim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-24T07:01:33.573Z
My quick read of Macy and Schneider is that research has meant 1-3 overlapping but possibly distinct things by *engagement*. "The meaning of employee engagement is ambiguous among both academic researchers and among practitioners
who use it in conversations with clients. We show that the term is used at different times to refer to psychological
states, traits, and behaviors as well as their antecedents and outcomes."
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-23T02:27:59.140Z
2012-01-23T02:27:59.140Z
Jeromy Anglim
<p>Broadly speaking, employee engagement consultancies would say employee satisfaction does not correlate with employee attachment (staying) or employee effort (striving). They would say employee engagement thus translates into the behaviours that benefit organisations financially, whereas employee satisfaction does not.</p>

<p>Here’s <a href="https://q12.gallup.com/help/en-us/Answers/164495" rel="nofollow noreferrer">how Gallup sees it</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Gallup research shows that both employee engagement and employee satisfaction relate to meaningful outcomes. However, satisfaction is a broad, attitudinal outcome, like organizational loyalty or pride. It is hard to act on, and some facets of satisfaction are irrelevant to performance. Engagement, on the other hand, predicts satisfaction, as well as many other concrete business outcomes.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-23T15:59:13.670Z
2019-04-23T21:27:07.940Z
2019-04-23T21:27:07.940Z
Nick H
<p>In my experience, employee engagement equates to:</p>

<ul>
<li>the willingness of the individual to expend discretionary effort to achieve goals,</li>
<li>the loyalty of the individual towards the employer, and</li>
<li>the willingness of the individual to creatively solve problems faced by the employer. </li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-03T03:36:01.793Z
2020-06-03T03:36:01.793Z
Tony Mobbs
<p>The concept of "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_engagement">employee engagement</a>" is popular in organisational consulting
settings. A quick <a href="http://www.google.com.au/search?gcx=c&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;client=ubuntu&amp;channel=cs&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;q=engagement%20survey">Google for "engagement survey"</a> will yield many results.
However, in some respects the concept often seems defined in terms of some combination of satisfaction, commitment, and motivation.</p>

<ul>
<li>Does the concept of employee engagement add anything new over and above satisfaction, commitment, and motivation?</li>
<li>To the extent that it does overlap with previous constructs, does it still have value?</li>
</ul>

<io-psychology><commitment>
Does the concept of employee engagement add anything over and above traditional concepts?
Jeromy Anglim
# Does the concept of employee engagement add anything over and above traditional concepts?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-01-20)

The concept of "[employee engagement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_engagement)" is popular in organisational consulting
settings. A quick [Google for "engagement survey"](http://www.google.com.au/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&client=ubuntu&channel=cs&ie=UTF-8&q=engagement%20survey) will yield many results.
However, in some respects the concept often seems defined in terms of some combination of satisfaction, commitment, and motivation.

* Does the concept of employee engagement add anything new over and above satisfaction, commitment, and motivation?
* To the extent that it does overlap with previous constructs, does it still have value?

**Tags:** io-psychology, commitment


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2012-01-23. Score: 3

A few basic observations:

* Typical self-report measures of engagement and job satisfaction tend to be highly correlated (I'll try to find a reference later, but I think in the r =.7 range).
* As with many organisational psychology terms that bridge the scientific-practitioner divide, engagement has been operationalised in a wide range of ways.
* [Volume 1, Issue 1 of Industrial and Organizational Psychology](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/iops.2008.1.issue-1/issuetoc) has a focal article and a large set of accompanying commentaries on the meaning of engagement and its value as a concept. See this [pdf of the focal article](http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the%20meaning%20of%20employee%20engaagement&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.182.2845%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=9sQcT_yaBe-QiQfVnL3kCw&usg=AFQjCNGznVxDg4hMtsGrBjpqtjvJkgLYCg&sig2=S3vWaVrw3u4tZgd6BMeIFw).

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: do these observations answer your question, or should they be edited in as further notes that are part of the question?  
> **username_0**: @ArtemKaznatcheev I guess they reflect a partial answer; I'd love to read a better or more comprehensive answer that anyone else might provide. I'll try to expand on them when I get the time.  
> **username_2**: My quick read of Macy and Schneider is that research has meant 1-3 overlapping but possibly distinct things by *engagement*. "The meaning of employee engagement is ambiguous among both academic researchers and among practitioners who use it in conversations with clients. We show that the term is used at different times to refer to psychological states, traits, and behaviors as well as their antecedents and outcomes."  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-04-23. Score: 1

Broadly speaking, employee engagement consultancies would say employee satisfaction does not correlate with employee attachment (staying) or employee effort (striving). They would say employee engagement thus translates into the behaviours that benefit organisations financially, whereas employee satisfaction does not.

Here’s [how Gallup sees it](https://q12.gallup.com/help/en-us/Answers/164495):

> Gallup research shows that both employee engagement and employee satisfaction relate to meaningful outcomes. However, satisfaction is a broad, attitudinal outcome, like organizational loyalty or pride. It is hard to act on, and some facets of satisfaction are irrelevant to performance. Engagement, on the other hand, predicts satisfaction, as well as many other concrete business outcomes.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2020-06-03. Score: 0

In my experience, employee engagement equates to:

* the willingness of the individual to expend discretionary effort to achieve goals,
* the loyalty of the individual towards the employer, and
* the willingness of the individual to creatively solve problems faced by the employer.


---

