Bridging the gap between research and practice of engagement: Towards a collaborative HRD

Abstract: “Engagement is about putting our real selves into work, not simply working hard.” While credited originally to Kahn (1990) in his pioneering work of exploring psychological conditions of personal engagement in the workplace, interest in employee/work engagement has gained momentum in many fields. As the discourse around employee engagement has continued to emerge as an interdisciplinary, intercultural, and interprofessional concept, one question remains to be further discussed in HRD: How can we advance collaboration between academics and practitioners to develop impactful HRD-based engagement interventions?
There is a gap between scholars’ and practitioners’ understanding of engagement (Fletcher et al., 2020; Shuck et al., 2013), as well as in the strategic positioning of HRD in developing an engaged workforce (Lee et al., 2017; Valentin, 2014). The problem has three core issues: (a) how to deal with the conceptual divergence of employee engagement: What we talk about when we talk about employee engagement? (b) how to fill the gap between academics and practitioners: How can we work together to foster employee engagement? and (c) how to define the role of HRD in developing employee engagement, and how HRD can contribute to the advancement of an engaged workforce while facing the challenge of divergence: Why and how can HRD make an impact?
In response to these important issues, one promising way to open the door for constructive dialogue is to identify common ground between scholars and practitioners by exploring conceptual commonalities and differences in the multiple definitions, theories, and frameworks of engagement. To analyze the conceptual commonalities and differences among multiple theories and frameworks of engagement, I adopted a semi-systematic review (Callahan, 2014; Snyder, 2019) as the method to compare the key assumptions and theoretical underpinnings of the perspectives. I used “engagement,” “work engagement,” “employee engagement,” and “human resource development” as the keywords to identify relevant literature. I searched multiple databases including Google Scholar, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) conference proceedings and journals. I also searched practitioner publications from the following sources: Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM), Association for Talent Development (ATD), Harvard Business Review, and HR consulting firm reports. In sum, 62 journal articles, books, book chapters, and professional reports were identified for further review.
The divergence and convergence within the engagement discourse were identified from the current literature. Academics tend to believe that engagement involves (a) a psychological state of employees, including cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement towards self-expression and self-employment, and (b) a socially contextualized process that reflects employees’ work experience, with numerous external and organizational influences that form the conditions of engagement. From this perspective, employees’ engagement is influenced by how they identify themselves in the workplace, how they perceive the organizational resources and demands, and the interactions between themselves and other organizational members. However, practitioners conceive engagement as (a) employees’ positive outcomes towards work and the organization, which is focused on the observed facets of the engagement, and (b) a strategic part of organizational alignment. Thus, engagement should be situated within a broad organizational strategy framework. In addition, the intention to better support organizational goals denotes the purpose of “doing” engagement for practitioners.
Although the disagreement that scholars and practitioners have in conceptualizing engagement is salient, there is emerging agreement about adopting a pluralistic/inclusive understanding of engagement and developing engagement using a contingency/contextualized approach. Both scholars and practitioners are beginning to realize the multidimensional nature of engagement. Academics and practitioners converge on the unique connotation of engagement, which should be differentiated from satisfaction, involvement, and commitment. Both parties also agree that the conditions for fostering engagement are context-dependent. To develop engagement in organizations, two general approaches are needed: supportive resource enrichment and positive workplace culture building. To help academics and practitioners work through the tensions, I argue that the following considerations of engagement should be recognized:
• For individuals, engagement is about putting their real self into their work role performance, and bringing their full cognitive, emotional, and behavioral energy to meet organizational goals.
• For organizations, developing engagement is not only about improving work performance, but also aligning the organizational goals with individual interests for mutual gains.
• To develop a sustainable engaged workforce, the organization must recognize the costs and benefits of engagement, as well as the wider context in which they are embedded.
• Engagement programs should be developed based on the aligned meaning and the purpose of engagement; it must be implemented and evaluated through a contingency approach that acknowledges the contextual influences.