The Meaning and Bleeding of Employee Engagement: How Muddy Is the Water?

By A. Saks. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2008

169 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Public Administration

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c4cd43c8cc1cced8231a9bf9b173f2103eb8ff79

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Public Administration

Citations in the corpus

RETRACTED: Psychological processes linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors (2010, background): “However, other researchers (e.g., Dalal, Brummel, Wee, & Thomas, 2008; Saks, 2008) disagree that conceptualizing engagement as discretionary effort or a form of in-role or extra-role behavior, state, or trait might be misleading and problematic.”
Integrative Literature Review: Four Emerging Perspectives of Employee Engagement: An Integrative Literature Review (2011, unknown): “Macey and Schneider’s conceptual work however has been met with some commentary resistance (Griffin, Parker, & Neal, 2008; Hirschfeld & Thomas, 2008; Newman & Harrison, 2008; Saks, 2008; Zigarmi et al., 2009) as well as support (Christian et al.”
The potential role of mindsets in unleashing employee engagement (2015, unknown): “Inadequate attentiveness can jeopardize safety, potentially leading to deadly accidents such as the crash of Comair Flight 5191 in August 2007 that killed 49 of the 50 people on board (Saks, 2008).”
Being There: Work Engagement and Positive Organizational Scholarship (2011, background): “In some research, this has been taken to mean that engagement leads people to do what they are supposed to do in their roles better (Kahn, 1992; Saks, 2008), whereas in other research, engagement has been thought to lead employees to engage in discretionary behaviors beyond what they are supposed…”
The nature of employee engagement: rethinking the employee–organization relationship (2017, unknown): “…other constructs related to the employee–organization relationship (e.g. Dalal, Brummel, Wee, & Thomas, 2008; Frese, 2008; Griffin, Parker, & Neal, 2008; Newman & Harrison, 2008; Saks, 2008; Schohat & Vigoda-Gadot, 2010) or simply a ‘new blend of old wines’ (Newman, Joseph, & Hulin, 2010, p. 45).”
Definitional and Conceptual Muddling: Identifying the Positionality of Employee Engagement and Defining the Construct (2017, background): “…perspective of engagement and expressed hesitation about the conceptualization of engagement as a quantifiable experience altogether (e.g., Griffin, Parker, & Neal, 2008; Hirschfeld & Thomas, 2008; Newman & Harrison, 2008; Newman et al., 2011; Pugh, Dietz, Brief, & Wiley, 2008; Saks, 2008).”
Workplace spirituality and employee engagement (2011, methodology): “In some cases it has been used as a kind of umbrella term that includes many things or even a repackaging of other constructs (Macey and Schneider 2008; Saks 2008).”