This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln]

On: 11 April 2015, At: 11:01

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Human Resource Development

International
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhrd20

High-involvement work practices and

employee engagement
a
Sowath Rana
a
Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and
Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Published online: 16 Mar 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Sowath Rana (2015): High-involvement work practices and employee
engagement, Human Resource Development International, DOI: 10.1080/13678868.2014.1003698

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2014.1003698

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 11:01 11 April 2015
 Human Resource Development International, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2014.1003698

High-involvement work practices and employee engagement

Sowath Rana *

Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development, University of Minnesota,

Minneapolis, MN, USA
(Received 24 December 2014; accepted 29 December 2014)
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 11:01 11 April 2015

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationships between high involvement
work practices (HIWPs) and employee engagement. HIWPs consist of four main
attributes: (a) power – employees have the power to make decisions and/or to
participate in decision-making; (b) information – information is shared among employ-
ees; (c) reward – employees are rewarded for their good performance; and (d) knowl-
edge – employees are provided with the necessary training to do their work. This paper
investigates the connections between engagement and each of these practices, and
proposes a conceptual model that links these relationships. It starts by providing a brief
overview of HIWPs, followed by a discussion on the connections between HIWPs and
engagement, and a conclusion and discussion of implications for practice and research.
Keywords: high-involvement work practices; employee engagement; work engagement;
human resource practices

Employee engagement has become an increasingly popular concept among practitioners

and academics in various social science disciplines, including management, organizational
behavior, organizational psychology, and human resource development. Research on the
topic has increased exponentially since William Kahn first introduced the concept in his
foundational, grounded theory study two decades ago. As of January 2013, around 1600
articles had been published with the term ‘employee engagement’ or ‘work engagement’
in the title (Schaufeli 2014). Today, a quick search of either of these key terms in the titles
of publications in the Google Scholar database yields at least 2250 relevant results.
Engagement – defined as the ‘harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work
roles’ (Kahn 1990, 694) – has been known to be predictive of various organizational
outcomes including organizational citizenship behavior, discretionary effort, commitment,
financial performance, lower absenteeism, and employee retention (Macey and
Schneider 2008; Rana, Ardichvili, and Tkachenko 2014; Saks 2006; Stairs and
Galpin 2010; Wollard and Shuck 2011).
Existing research has indicated that engagement is vital to organizations in a number
of ways. Shuck and Reio (2011, 421) maintained that engaged employees ‘outperform
their disengaged counterparts on a number of organizational metrics’. Saks’ (2006) study
revealed that engagement was positively related to job satisfaction, organizational com-
mitment, and organizational citizenship behavior, and inversely related to turnover inten-
tion. Rich, LePine, and Crawford (2010, 617) posited that engagement offers ‘a more
comprehensive explanation of relationships with performance’ than do other well-known
concepts such as job involvement, job satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Similarly,
Wollard and Shuck (2011) delineated a number of positive outcomes associated with

*Email: ranax031@umn.edu

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

 2 S. Rana

having an engaged workforce, including organizational citizenship behavior, discretionary

effort, affective commitment, continuance commitment, and customer service. Given
these reported benefits, many organizations are examining ways in which to better
understand and embrace the concept, surveying their employees to find out what actions
they need to take, and developing initiatives and programs aimed at fostering engagement
in the workplace (Wollard and Shuck 2011).
Despite the lavish attention and effort directed toward research and practice vis-à-vis
engagement, survey research has consistently reported low levels of engagement and
heightening disengagement in many countries (Gallup 2013; Robertson and Cooper 2010;
Saks 2006; Saks and Gruman 2014). A recent Gallup survey found that only 13% of
employees across 142 countries worldwide are engaged at work. Moreover, ‘actively
disengaged workers’ – referring to those who ‘are negative and potentially hostile’ to their
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 11:01 11 April 2015

workplace – outnumber their engaged counterparts at a rate of nearly 2 to 1 (Gallup 2013,

6). In Australia and New Zealand, for example, 60% of employees are not engaged and
16% are actively disengaged on their job (Gallup 2013). In the United States, 52% of the
workforce are disengaged (Gallup 2013). This can be referred to as an ‘engagement gap’
and has been known to result in billions of dollars in lost productivity among US
businesses each year (Saks and Gruman 2014, 156).
As far as academic research is concerned, we are still far from having a full under-
standing of the theoretical underpinnings, meaning, and antecedents and consequences of
the construct (Saks and Gruman 2014; Truss et al. 2014; Wollard and Shuck 2011).
Needless to say, the disconnect between the academic community and the practitioner
domain as well as the inconsistencies in construct definitions, operationalizations, and
findings on engagement drivers and outcomes (Truss et al. 2014) would make it extremely
challenging for organizations, institutions, governmental units, consultants, and practi-
tioners to plan and implement engagement initiatives and strategies in the most efficient
and productive way.
The purpose of this Perspectives on Practice paper is to investigate the relationships
between a set of human resource practices – known as high-involvement work practices
(HIWPs) – and employee engagement. HIWPs can be understood as a bundle of practices
aimed at enhancing employees’ skills, motivation, information, and empowerment
(Guthrie 2001). HIWPs consist of four core components, sometimes referred to as
PIRK: (a) power, (b) information, (c) reward, and (d) knowledge. This paper examines
the connections between engagement and these practices and proposes a conceptual model
that links these relationships.
The significance of this paper is threefold. First, it seeks to investigate the effects of a
set of practices that have rarely been explored in the current literature on engagement.
Despite HIWPs being a relatively popular construct in management and organizational
behavior, it is puzzling that there is a paucity of research – both theoretical and empirical –
examining its impact on engagement. Second, from a practitioner’s standpoint, findings
from this study are expected to help managers, HRD professionals, organizations, and
other stakeholders seeking recommendations on specific practices that could lead to a
highly engaged workforce. Third, this paper provides theoretical groundwork for an
empirical test on the impact of these practices on engagement. It is hoped that this
conceptual work will serve as an impetus for future research on these two concepts.
This paper starts by providing an overview of HIWPs, followed by a discussion on the
connections between HIWPs and engagement, and a conclusion and discussion of impli-
cations for practice and research.
 Human Resource Development International 3

HIWPs: an overview
Over the past two decades, there has been a proliferation of research and practices
associated with participatory work systems (Butts et al. 2009). The popularity of these
systems can be thought of as a reflection of the changing nature of work in modern
societies, specifically the trend toward more ‘flatter’ organizational structures (Butts
et al. 2009, 122). One such participatory work system is high-involvement work practices
(HIWPs) – variously called ‘high involvement’, ‘high commitment’, ‘high performance’,
or ‘sophisticated’ (Guthrie, Spell, and Nyamori 2002, 185) – which refers to a set of
practices aimed at enhancing employees’ skills, motivation, information, and empower-
ment in order to gain competitive advantage (Guthrie 2001). This bundle of practices
seeks to foster employee involvement in decision making and problem solving, enhance
employee commitment, and ultimately increase firm performance (Guthrie, Spell, and
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 11:01 11 April 2015

Nyamori 2002; Pil and MacDuffie 1996).

HIWPs consist of four main attributes: (a) power – employees have the power to make
decisions and/or to participate in the decision-making process; (b) information – informa-
tion is shared among employees; (c) reward – employees are rewarded for their good
performance; and (d) knowledge – employees are provided with the necessary training to
do their work (Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford 1995). Existing research has shown that
when implemented together, these practices are associated with employee productivity
and firm performance (Benson, Young, and Lawler 2006). Also, it is argued that employ-
ees in organizations that encourage HIWPs will have more skills to perform their tasks
properly, more information on which to rely to make effective decisions, more authority to
decide what works best for the organization, and greater incentives to align individual
work with the organization’s goals (O’Neill et al. 2011). Furthermore, empirical evidence
has shown that HIWPs are positively related to various important organizational variables,
including job satisfaction, commitment, trust in management, lower fatigue and stress,
work–life balance, (Butts et al. 2009; Macky and Boxall 2008; Mohr and Zoghi 2008),
firm effectiveness, firm productivity, and employee retention (Benson, Young, and
Lawler 2006; Guthrie 2001; Guthrie, Spell, and Nyamori 2002). For instance,
Vandenberg, Richardson, and Eastman (1999) studied 3570 participants across 49 insur-
ance companies in the United States and Canada and found that HIWPs influenced
organizational effectiveness (in the form of return on equity and turnover) through
enhancing employee morale. Butts et al. (2009) found that, in their study of 21 retail
centers in the United States, HIWPs impacted organizational members’ job satisfaction,
job commitment, job performance, and job stress. In a study of 775 New Zealand
employees, Macky and Boxall (2008) found that HIWPs were positively associated
with job satisfaction, lowered stress and fatigue, and increased work–life balance. These
findings, therefore, suggest that HIWPs are indeed an important set of practices for
organizations in today’s competitive work environment.

Connections between HIWPs and engagement

It may be of interest to explicate the conceptual distinction between the terms ‘involve-
ment’ and ‘engagement’ used here in this paper. As mentioned, HIWPs refer to a set of
practices that seek to empower employees, which consists of power, information, reward,
and knowledge. Employee engagement, on the other hand, is the ‘harnessing of organiza-
tion members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express
themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performance’ (Kahn 1990,
 4 S. Rana

694). Engagement can also be defined as a fulfilling work-related state of mind char-
acterized by ‘vigor, dedication, and absorption’ (Schaufeli et al. 2002, 74). In the context
of this study, therefore, HIWPs can be thought of as an antecedent while engagement is
the outcome. In other words, this study seeks to understand whether the use of such
practices may result in organizational members being more engaged in their work. The
following section discusses the relationships between each of the four core HIWPs and
employee engagement. Figure 1 presents the conceptual model of this study.

Power
Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford (1995) maintained that the nature of work needs to move
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 11:01 11 April 2015

away from ‘traditional, control-oriented view’ to one that challenges employees to adapt
to the changing environment and empowers them to decide for themselves how their work
should be undertaken (as cited in Vandenberg, Richardson, and Eastman 1999, 307).
Power means that individuals are provided with the authority to make decisions that they
believe are important to their performance and to the quality of their working lives
(Konrad 2006). Power does not necessarily mean having the final authority and account-
ability for decisions and their consequences all the time; it can also mean being able to
provide input into the decisions made by peers (Konrad 2006). Vandenberg, Richardson,
and Eastman (1999) conceptualized power as having the authority to fulfill one’s job
responsibilities, having enough input in deciding how one can accomplish their work,
being encouraged to participate in decision-making processes, and having the freedom
over how one can go about doing their job.

Figure 1. High-involvement work practices (HIWPs) and employee engagement.

 Human Resource Development International 5

Engagement researchers have consistently emphasized the need to design jobs in a

way that empowers individuals in important decision-making processes. Kahn (1990)
posited that people experience meaningfulness – one of his three proposed psychological
conditions of engagement – when they feel worthwhile, useful, and valuable, and when
their work is not taken for granted. When people are able to ‘wield influence’, occupy
respected positions in their organization, and have a sense of autonomy, they experience
meaningfulness (Kahn 1990, 706). The underlying dimension of all these, according to
Kahn (1990, 706), is ‘power’ and what it can buy – ‘a sense of being valued, valuable,
and needed’. In essence, roles that enable people to have a sense of shaping the world
offer meaningfulness. Similarly, May, Gilson, and Harter (2004) argued that to enhance
engagement, it is vital for managers to encourage employees to solve work-related
problems and participate in decisions, use open communication, and show a sense of
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 11:01 11 April 2015

care for employees. Crawford et al. (2014, 59) maintained that autonomy, based on
Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) Job Characteristics Theory, can increase the meaning of
work because it ‘provides a sense of ownership and control over work outcomes’.
Employees need to be provided with a sense of autonomy, referring to the ‘freedom,
independence, and discretion’ provided to employees in scheduling their own work and
determining the best way to carry out their tasks (Crawford et al. 2014, 59). Based on
these findings, it is only conceivable that power can lead to employees being more
engaged.

Information
This HIWP component refers to the provision of information regarding organizational
mission, goals, policies, procedures, changes, reasons behind crucial company decisions,
company issues, (Macky and Boxall 2008) as well as the provision of data, including the
quantity and quality of business unit output, costs, revenues, profitability, and customer
satisfaction levels (Konrad 2006). In a high-involvement work environment, management
takes time to communicate to their employees the rationale behind crucial decisions,
strives to get the opinions and feelings of the organizational members, and stays informed
about the needs of employees (Vandenberg, Richardson, and Eastman 1999). Providing
employees with information on the various issues impacting their work enables the
managers and the organization to be more transparent, which is vital because ‘it helps
employees seek the link between their actions and the performance of the firm, thereby
enhancing the cognitive aspect of engagement’ (Konrad 2006, 2).
Kahn (1990) maintained that people can achieve the psychological safety condition of
engagement when they work in a trusting work environment and when they have an
understanding of the consequences of their behaviors. In such an environment, organiza-
tional boundaries, policies, procedures, and processes of change are clear, consistent, and
fully communicated to the members. Managers should strive to develop supportive,
trustworthy relations with their employees by using open communication and demonstrat-
ing a sense of care to them (May, Gilson, and Harter 2004). In addition, engagement can
be attained when people see the direct connection between what they do and organiza-
tional outcomes (Macey et al. 2009). Organizational members need to know what the
organization’s strategic priorities are and the reasons behind these priorities, and when the
organization aligns its processes, practices, and culture with the purpose of accomplishing
these goals (Macey et al. 2009).
 6 S. Rana

Reward
Incentive practices have long been shown to be associated with improving employee
attitudes and performance (Vandenberg, Richardson, and Eastman 1999). HIWP scholars
argue that employees should perceive that they are being rewarded for the effective use of
power, information, and knowledge (Vandenberg, Richardson, and Eastman 1999).
Reward can be both intrinsic and extrinsic and may include team incentives, profit
sharing, stock ownership, pay, promotion, praise, and recognition (Crawford
et al. 2014). Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford (1995) argued that providing rewards to
employees can ensure that they are involved in and care about the performance of the
organization. Similarly, Konrad (2006, 2) posited that reward is a ‘key element in the
high-involvement equation’ because it can ensure that employees use their power, infor-
mation, and knowledge for the benefit of the organization as a whole.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 11:01 11 April 2015

The engagement body of literature is filled with empirical findings that support the
significance of rewards and recognition. Kahn (1990) argued that rewards and recognition
should influence meaningfulness because they represent returns on the investment of time
and effort of an individual in their work. In a similar vein, Saks (2006) maintained that
employees need to have a sense of return on their investment before they are willing to
engage in their work; therefore, to increase engagement, a person’s job needs to be
designed so that employees feel they receive adequate compensation, rewards, and
recognition. According to Saks (2006, 614), managers should provide employees with
the benefits and resources ‘that will oblige them to reciprocate in kind with higher levels
of engagement’. Crawford, LePine, and Rich (2010) also found that rewards and recogni-
tion are significantly related to engagement. Similarly, in his study of 574 US and
Canadian employees, Fairlie (2011) found that both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards were
significantly correlated with engagement. These findings provide ample evidence to
suggest that the practice of rewarding employees for their performance is quintessential
in increasing their engagement.

Knowledge
Knowledge refers to employees’ skills and abilities and is different from information,
which refers to the data that employees use to make decisions or take actions
(Konrad 2006). To improve employees’ knowledge, organizations need to provide
employees with opportunities for training and development and learning (Vandenberg,
Richardson, and Eastman 1999). Knowledge makes up a major component of HIWPs
because in order to make important workplace decisions, it is imperative that employees
have the skills and abilities to weigh options, discuss alternatives, and arrive at the correct
decisions (Konrad 2006). It has also been argued that for involvement to succeed,
organizations need to invest in training and development programs to demonstrate that
they highly value and are committed to their employees (Vandenberg, Richardson, and
Eastman 1999).
Environment and resources that support learning and development have the potential
to significantly influence engagement (Shuck and Rocco 2014). These resources include
developing employees’ essential skills such as communication, supervision, coaching,
linking training to organizational goals, and management training (Shuck and
Rocco 2014). These opportunities for development ‘provide pathways for employee
growth and fulfillment, prepare employees for greater challenge, and expose employees
to alternative roles that have potentially greater fit with their preferred self-images’
 Human Resource Development International 7

(Crawford et al. 2014, 61). Schaufeli and Salanova (2010) also argued that career
development and work training initiatives that are specifically directed toward organiza-
tional members’ personal growth and development could significantly impact their
engagement levels. In their study of 207 employees in health care organizations, Shuck
et al. (2014) found that employees’ participation in HRD practices – such as mentoring
programs, leadership development initiatives, and learning opportunities – is significantly
related to their cognitive, behavioral, and emotional engagement levels. Bakker, Van
Emmerik, and Euwema (2006) also found that opportunities for development were
significantly related to engagement in a sample of 2229 Royal Dutch constabulary
officers. Sarti’s (2014) study of 167 caregivers in nine long-term care facilities in Italy
also revealed that greater learning opportunities for employees had direct effects on their
engagement. These findings clearly imply that an organization’s investment in improving
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 11:01 11 April 2015

members’ knowledge, skills, and abilities can significantly influence the levels of their
engagement.

Conclusion and implications

The purpose of this paper was to examine the connections between HIWPs and employee
engagement. I started by providing a brief overview of the literature on both HIWPs and
engagement and then discussed the relationship between each of the four PIRK compo-
nents of HIWPs – power, information, reward, and knowledge – and engagement.
As far as practice is concerned, it is hoped that this paper can provide managers, HRD
professionals, and organizations with a prescribed set of tools and strategies aimed at
developing employee engagement in the workplace. Existing research clearly suggests
that there are various connections between the use of HIWPs and the development of
engagement. For employees to be highly engaged, organizations need to provide them
with the authority to make decisions, voice ideas, and participate in important decision-
making activities. In addition, information as regards the important issues that affect the
organization as well as employees’ roles and responsibilities should be provided.
Employees should also be encouraged to participate in training and development pro-
grams and other learning initiatives that can enable them to further develop their compe-
tencies, skills, and abilities. Finally, there needs to be an effective reward system in place
– employees should be able to perceive that they are being appropriately rewarded for
their work effort and performance. The benefits of using HIWPs are ‘clearly desirable for
most practitioners’, and many organizations will likely find investment in these initiatives
‘worthwhile’ (Vandenberg, Richardson, and Eastman 1999, 328).
This paper also aims to contribute to the current body of research on engagement. It
provides a conceptual groundwork for an empirical test of the relationships between two
constructs that have been scarcely explored: HIWPs and engagement. Given the influ-
ence of engagement on many performance outcomes and the significance of the use of
HIWPs, this paper addresses a very important gap in the literature. Future research,
therefore, might seek to validate the significant relationships as proposed by this study
and examine the effects of each HIWP dimension on engagement more extensively.
Future studies could also examine the effectiveness of the use of these practices on
engagement in various organizational settings, such as private firms, small businesses,
government agencies, nonprofit organizations, as well as organizations in a non-Western
context.
 8 S. Rana

ORCID
Sowath Rana http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9312-4488

References
Bakker, A. B., H. Van Emmerik, and M. C. Euwema. 2006. “Crossover of Burnout and Engagement
in Work Teams.” Work and Occupations 33 (4): 464–489. doi:10.1177/0730888406291310.
Benson, G. S., S. M. Young, and E. E. Lawler III. 2006. “High-Involvement Work Practices and
Analysts’ Forecasts of Corporate Earnings.” Human Resource Management 45 (4): 519–537.
doi:10.1002/hrm.20130.
Butts, M. M., R. J. Vandenberg, D. M. DeJoy, B. S. Schaffer, and M. G. Wilson. 2009. “Individual
Reactions to High Involvement Work Processes: Investigating the Role of Empowerment and
Perceived Organizational Support.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 14 (2): 122–
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 11:01 11 April 2015

136. doi:10.1037/a0014114.
Crawford, E. R., J. A. LePine, and B. L. Rich. 2010. “Linking Job Demands and Resources to
Employee Engagement and Burnout: A Theoretical Extension and Meta-Analytic Test.” Journal
of Applied Psychology 95 (5): 834–848. doi:10.1037/a0019364.
Crawford, E. R., B. L. Rich, B. Buckman, and J. Bergeron. 2014. “The Antecedents and Drivers of
Employee Engagement.” In Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, edited by C. Truss,
R. Delbridge, K. Alfes, A. Shantz, and E. Soane, 57–81. New York: Routledge.
Fairlie, P. 2011. “Meaningful Work, Employee Engagement, and Other Key Employee Outcomes:
Implications for Human Resource Development.” Advances in Developing Human Resources
13 (4): 508–525. doi:10.1177/1523422311431679.
Gallup. 2013. State of the Global Workplace: Employee Engagement Insights for Business Leaders
Worldwide. Washington, DC: Gallup.
Guthrie, J. P. 2001. “High-Involvement Work Practices, Turnover, and Productivity: Evidence from
New Zealand.” Academy of Management Journal 44 (1): 180–190. doi:10.2307/3069345.
Guthrie, J. P., C. S. Spell, and R. O. Nyamori. 2002. “Correlates and Consequences of High
Involvement Work Practices: The Role of Competitive Strategy.” The International Journal of
Human Resource Management 13 (1): 183–197. doi:10.1080/09585190110085071.
Hackman, J. R., and G. R. Oldham. 1975. “Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.” Journal of
Applied Psychology 60 (2): 159–170. doi:10.1037/h0076546.
Kahn, W. A. 1990. “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at
Work.” Academy of Management Journal 33 (4): 692–724. doi:10.2307/256287.
Konrad, A. M. 2006. “Engaging Employees through High-Involvement Work Practices.” Ivy
Business Journal: 1–6.
Lawler, E. E., S. A. Mohrman, and G. E. Ledford. 1995. Creating High Performance Organizations:
Practices and Results of Employee Involvement and Quality Management in Fortune 1000
Companies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Macey, W. H., and B. Schneider. 2008. “The Meaning of Employee Engagement.” Industrial and
Organizational Psychology 1 (1): 3–30. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x.
Macey, W. H., B. Schneider, K. M. Barbera, and S. A. Young. 2009. Employee Engagement: Tools
for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Macky, K., and P. Boxall. 2008. “High-Involvement Work Processes, Work Intensification and
Employee Well-Being: A Study of New Zealand Worker Experiences.” Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources 46 (1): 38–55. doi:10.1177/1038411107086542.
May, D. R., R. L. Gilson, and L. M. Harter. 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 (1): 11–37. doi:10.1348/
096317904322915892.
Mohr, R. D., and C. Zoghi. 2008. “High-Involvement Work Design and Job Satisfaction.” Industrial
and Labor Relations Review 61 (3): 275–296.
O’Neill, O. A., D. C. Feldman, R. J. Vandenberg, D. M. DeJoy, and M. G. Wilson. 2011.
“Organizational Achievement Values, High-Involvement Work Practices, and Business Unit
Performance.” Human Resource Management 50 (4): 541–558. doi:10.1002/hrm.20437.
Pil, F. K., and J. P. MacDuffie. 1996. “The Adoption of High-Involvement Work Practices.”
Industrial Relations 35 (3): 423–455.
 Human Resource Development International 9

Rana, S., A. Ardichvili, and O. Tkachenko. 2014. “A Theoretical Model of the Antecedents and
Outcomes of Employee Engagement: Dubin’s Method.” Journal of Workplace Learning 26
(3/4): 249–266. doi:10.1108/JWL-09-2013-0063.
Rich, B. L., J. A. Lepine, and E. R. Crawford. 2010. “Job Engagement: Antecedents and Effects on
Job Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 53 (3): 617–635. doi:10.5465/
AMJ.2010.51468988.
Robertson, I. T., and C. L. Cooper. 2010. “Full Engagement: The Integration of Employee
Engagement and Psychological Well-Being.” Leadership & Organization Development
Journal 31 (4): 324–336. doi:10.1108/01437731011043348.
Saks, A. M. 2006. “Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement.” Journal of
Managerial Psychology 21 (7): 600–619. doi:10.1108/02683940610690169.
Saks, A. M., and J. A. Gruman. 2014. “What Do We Really Know about Employee Engagement?”
Human Resource Development Quarterly 25 (2): 155–182. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21187.
Sarti, D. 2014. “Job Resources as Antecedents of Engagement at Work: Evidence from a Long‐Term
Care Setting.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 25 (2): 213–237. doi:10.1002/
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 11:01 11 April 2015

hrdq.21189.
Schaufeli, W. B. 2014. “What Is Engagement?” In Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice,
edited by C. Truss, R. Delbridge, K. Alfes, A. Shantz, and E. Soane, 15–35. New York:
Routledge.
Schaufeli, W. B., and M. Salanova. 2010. “How to Improve Work Engagement?” In Handbook of
Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice, edited by S. L. Albrecht.
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Schaufeli, W. B., M. Salanova, V. González-romá, and A. B. Bakker. 2002. “The Measurement of
Engagement and Burnout: A Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach.” Journal of Happiness
Studies 3: 71–92. doi:10.1023/A:1015630930326.
Shuck, B., and T. G. Reio. 2011. “The Employee Engagement Landscape and HRD: How Do We
Link Theory and Scholarship to Current Practice?” Advances in Developing Human Resources
13 (4): 419–428. doi:10.1177/1523422311431153.
Shuck, B., and T. S. Rocco. 2014. “Human Resource Development and Employee Engagement.” In
Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, edited by C. Truss, R. Delbridge, K. Alfes,
A. Shantz, and E. Soane, 116–130. New York: Routledge.
Shuck, B., D. Twyford, T. G. Reio, and A. Shuck. 2014. “Human Resource Development Practices
and Employee Engagement: Examining the Connection with Employee Turnover Intentions.”
Human Resource Development Quarterly 25 (2): 239–270. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21190.
Stairs, M., and M. Galpin. 2010. “Positive Engagement: From Employee Engagement to Workplace
Happiness.” In Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work, edited by P. A. Linley, S.
Harrington, and N. Garcea 155–172, New York: Oxford University Press.
Truss, C., R. Delbridge, K. Alfes, A. Shantz, and E. Soane. 2014. Employee Engagement in Theory
and Practice. New York: Routledge.
Vandenberg, R. J., H. A. Richardson, and L. J. Eastman. 1999. “The Impact of High Involvement
Work Processes on Organizational Effectiveness: A Second-Order Latent Variable Approach.”
Group & Organization Management 24 (3): 300–339. doi:10.1177/1059601199243004.
Wollard, K. K., and B. Shuck. 2011. “Antecedents to Employee Engagement: A Structured Review
of the Literature.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 13 (4): 429–446.