Content uploaded by Olga Chapa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Olga Chapa on Feb 18, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Management History
The historical evolution of employee engagement and self-efficacy constructs: An
empirical examination in a non-western country
Grace K. Dagher Olga Chapa Nora Junaid
Article information:
To cite this document:
Grace K. Dagher Olga Chapa Nora Junaid , (2015),"The historical evolution of employee engagement
and self-efficacy constructs", Journal of Management History, Vol. 21 Iss 2 pp. 232 - 256
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMH-05-2014-0116
Downloaded on: 11 February 2016, At: 12:57 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 141 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 583 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Anitha J., (2014),"Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee
performance", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 Iss 3 pp.
308-323 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2013-0008
Alan M. Saks, (2006),"Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement", Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 Iss 7 pp. 600-619 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169
Sowath Rana, Alexandre Ardichvili, Oleksandr Tkachenko, (2014),"A theoretical model of the
antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: Dubin's method", Journal of Workplace
Learning, Vol. 26 Iss 3/4 pp. 249-266 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JWL-09-2013-0063
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:146575 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
The historical evolution of
employee engagement and
self-efcacy constructs
An empirical examination in a non-western
country
Grace K. Dagher
Management Studies Department, Business School,
Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon
Olga Chapa
School of Business Administration,
University of Houston Victoria, Victoria, Texas, USA, and
Nora Junaid
Bentley University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to highlight the historical roots of employee engagement and empirically
examine the inuence of self-efcacy on the three dimensions of employee engagement (vigor,
dedication and absorption).
Design/methodology/approach – A sample of 426 male and female respondents in the service
industry from Lebanon was surveyed using a multi-scale measure composed of 25 items. Regression
analysis was used to test the data for the hypothesized relationships between the variables.
Findings – History of management continues to be the backbone of the so-called modern concepts.
Although the term employee engagement was not used in scientic management or in the human
relations movement, the characteristics were incorporated in these early schools. The three factors of
employee engagement explained 78 per cent of the total variance of employee engagement construct
and were signicantly inuenced by self-efcacy.
Research limitations/implications – The rst limitation of this study is the self-reported data, and
the second limitation is the source from one industry (service), although different organizations were
incorporated. Caution is advised against generalizations of the ndings.
Practical implications – The results of this study provide insights for both researchers and
managers to better understand the relationship between three dimensions of employee engagement and
self-efcacy from a non-Western context. The belief in one’s own capabilities helps promote employee
engagement.
Social implications – Lebanon offers an interesting context; it is considered as the only Arab
country that provides an interaction between the Western and Middle Eastern countries.
Originality/value – This study aimed to trace the historical roots of employee engagement to the
early management schools. Moreover, studies similar to the present investigation exist; however, this is
the rst time that a non-Western Arab sample was used to examine the inuence of self-efcacy on the
three dimensions of employee engagement.
Keywords Engagement, Individual behavior
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1751-1348.htm
JMH
21,2
232
Journal of Management History
Vol. 21 No. 2, 2015
pp. 232-256
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1751-1348
DOI 10.1108/JMH-05-2014-0116
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
Introduction
Organizations seeking high levels of productivity have focused on human resources
activities, such as skill training, performance appraisal, compensation and career
development, which have been known to enhance and sustain their organizational
performance (Appelbaum and Hare, 1996;Combs and Skill, 2003). Today, the outcome of
the work gains characteristics from the job performer, and “modern work imposes more
demands on the self than before” (Varje et al., 2013, p. 50). During the past decade, the
literature has witnessed a great deal of interest in the notion of employee engagement
(Wollard and Shuck, 2011;Chalofsky, 2010;Robertson and Cooper, 2010), which has
been shown to be positively related to performance (Saks, 2006;Bakker and Demerouti,
2008;Xanthopoulou et al., 2009), and related to higher levels of affective commitment
(Shuck, 2011). An increase in the scholarly interest in the employee engagement
construct crossed many disciplines, such as management, psychology, health care and
human resource development (Shuck and Reio, 2011;Shuck et al., 2011;Christian et al.,
2011;Rich et al., 2010).
Extant literature on the concept of employee engagement can be traced to Kahn’s
(1990) article, based on psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Current research continues to highlight the advantages of
developing a highly engaged workforce, and thus, many organizations are turning to
enhancing levels of engagement within their inuence (Wollard and Shuck, 2011).
Employee engagement is a determined and wide affective-cognitive state, and engaged
employees are those who have a positive connection toward their work and feel effective
while performing their jobs (Burke et al., 2009). Highly engaged employees are so
involved and immersed in their jobs that they enjoy the challenge (Staples et al., 1999),
lose track of time while working (Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2006), expend more effort on the
job (Erickson, 2005), are intrinsically motivated (Deci and Ryan, 1985) and have stronger
organization commitment (Hakenen et al., 2006).
However, unless employees trust that they have the ability to accomplish what they
aim for, they have little encouragement to engage in activities with difculties, and
hence, the core motivators of performing a task have to be rooted in the deep belief that
one’s action would make a difference (Bandura, 1997,2006). Employees need to trust in
themselves and believe in their abilities to accomplish their goals and adjust to others’
expectations (Grachev and Rakitsky, 2013;Tams, 2008). The belief that an employee can
successfully perform the behavior necessary to yield a certain outcome is known as
self-efcacy (Bandura, 1977). Previous studies have indicated that self-efcacy is also
positively related to performance (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998;Judge et al., 2007).
Previous theoretical and empirical research on a relation between employee engagement
and self-efcacy beliefs (Schaufeli et al., 2001;Xanthopoulou et al., 2007) has not claried
how self-efcacy is related to each dimension of engagement, and how levels of
self-efcacy may vary as an employee is engaged on more dimensions. Moreover, most
of the studies were conducted in Western countries, and to our knowledge, no study has
cross-validated this relation in the Arab cultures/countries.
This study has two objectives: the rst objective is to provide a historical evolution of
employee engagement. We attempt to trace the characteristics of employee engagement
back to the early management thoughts by examining the historical work of Frederick
Taylor, Lillian Gilbreth, Mary Parker Follett and Elton Mayo. The second objective is to
empirically examine the relationship between the three dimensions of employee
233
Employee
engagement
and
self-efcacy
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
engagement and self-efcacy in a non-Western country. According to Evans et al. (2013),
incorporating non-Western insights adds value to the study of the management eld.
Literature review
Historical roots of employee engagement
The management discipline’s past explains its present state (Bedeian, 1998,p.9).
Examining and understanding the history of management thoughts believed to be the
source for current practices and terms aid in the understanding of the current theories
and their implications:
Management as an activity has always existed to make people’s desires through organized
effort. Management facilitates the efforts of people in organized groups and arises when people
seek to co-operate to achieve goals (Wren, 1972, pp. 11-12).
Prior to Kahn and others, employee engagement’s characteristics have been implied in
one way or another in the literature. Although we do not see the term in the literature at
the time, there are characteristics that can lead to an immersion in work. The work of
contributors to the management thoughts such as Frederick Taylor, Lillian Gilbreth,
Mary Parker Follett and Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne studies, among others, continue to
inuence today’s practices. An underlying foundation of each of their works is the idea
of integration, whether it is integration of worker, skill and efciency (Taylor);
integration of human effect (Gilbreth); integration of work, power and conict resolution
(Follett); and interpersonal relations and productivity (Mayo). The same can be said
about employee engagement, which promotes an integration of the individual through a
sense of satisfaction and by extension commitment to the company through continuous
improvement, a behavior which is reinforced through nancial rewards (for example),
thus increasing job satisfaction and the cycle repeats. Saks (2006) notes that engaged
employees display an emotional connection (emotion) while performing their duties and
responsibilities (behavioral) and will display a mental absorption (cognitive) while
performing these duties (Shuck and Wollard, 2009). These associations show that
employee engagement has been present, albeit in different situations, throughout
management history.
Frederick Taylor, the father of scientic management, was noted as the most
important pioneer (Wren and Hay, 1977;Heames and Breland, 2010). Frederick Taylor’s
thoughts and principles substantially continue to contribute and inuence today’s
business practices (Kemp, 2013). The scientic management not only has prepared the
way for the development of well-accepted practices (Boje and Winsor, 1993;Payne et al.,
2006;Wren, 1994;Wren and Bedeian, 2009) but also the implications of the scientic
management principles are incorporated in the post-modern management (Kemp, 2013).
Many have criticized Frederick Taylor for his concern about productivity and not caring
about the human element. Taylor’s scientic management was more than to improve the
business efciency, but it was also about effectively utilizing the resources of the
business including the human resource (Dent and Bozeman, 2014). Frederick Taylor’s
scientic management indicated that it is important to scientically study the motives
that inuence the human factor (Bedeian, 1998). Frederick Taylor’s scientic method
was created to increase productivity through employee engagement: cooperation,
harmony and combined intellectual work (Grachev and Rakitsky, 2013).
JMH
21,2
234
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
Today, Taylor’s ideas are still relevant for managers (Bedeian, 1998) and by
extension within the context of employee engagement. For example, a major principle of
employee engagement is to provide the employees clear expectations and feedback to
have employee engagement (Garber, 2007). Taylor’s approach stressed greater
employee willingness to perform and improve their skills by rewarding those
improvements, thus motivating the worker and increasing the willingness to
continuously improve (Schachter, 2010). Indeed, a major component of scientic
management is the standardization and specialization of skills, and the meaningfulness
is derived through the knowledge of the appropriate skills- and performance-related,
pay so that the workers would be induced to continuously improve their skills (Shuck
and Wollard, 2009):
All organization theories have in common that they heuristically – instrumentally,
methodically – invoke a model of human nature […] only heuristically organization members
are modeled as economic men: as self-interested agents who evaluate and choose a course of
action in relation to gains and losses that are signaled by incentive structures
(Wagner-Tsukamoto, 2008, pp. 351-352).
Taylor’s approach stressed that to accomplish this, adequate feedback was required, so
that the employee understood what was expected of him (Schachter, 2010). Another
example is meaningful work places. The American Society for Training and
Development, using data from 776 human resource executives, dened employee
engagement as employees both mentally and emotionally invested in their
organization’s success which further promotes the creation of meaningful work
environments (Shuck and Wollard, 2009). Contrary to most perceptions of Taylor’s
work, he actually stressed a systemic framework of training workers with the necessary
skills to perform their work duties, but supervisors could and should also create an
experience of employee engagement through more meaningful work and purpose
(Wagner-Tsukamoto, 2008).
One of Frederick Taylor’s followers, Lillian Gilbreth (rst lady of management),
highlighted the importance of the human element in the scientic management
movement (Greenwood et al., 1978;Varje et al., 2013). Lillian Gilbreth’s rst contribution
was to examine the human element through the time and motion study (Wren, 2005).
Lillian recognized that workers need to feel included in the decision-making, have sense
of job security and be interested in their work (Wren, 2005). Engaging employees was a
call from Lillian Gilbreth; the human factor advanced the scientic management and the
misperception of this school and served as a base for other works, such as Mary Parker
Follett and Elton Mayo and others to come.
Mary Parker Follett, one of the main contributors to the human relations movement,
implied that an individual achieves greater satisfaction through cooperation (Gibson
et al., 2013). Follett believed in a “power-with” relationship philosophy in which
employees and their leaders alike share power, such as contributory decision power
versus “power over” employees (Gibson et al., 2013). Employers and employees should
work together for a common purpose. Her introduction of conict as a tool, though an
understanding that there are three nalities in conict, a one-sided dominating outcome,
a compromise such that neither side wins and an outcome where both sides win through
integration, is still cited in the literature (Gibson et al., 2013). Crucial to her human
element aspects was her advocacy of group creativity and positive relationships
between management and employees. This also reects in her work titled, “The Giving
235
Employee
engagement
and
self-efcacy
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
of Orders”, where she proposes that even when considering commands, the ultimate
outcome will reect how the command is perceived by the employee; thus, each
command should be depersonalized and reect only what is needed by the group
(Damart, 2013). This view also reects a core of scientic management calling for a
depersonalized form of commanding where neither employee or employer has any
authority over another and the joint effort with mutual responsibilities toward the
common goal is preferable, an integrated effort (Gibson et al., 2013). Thus, it appears that
Follett blended the scientic approach of an impersonal approach to job analysis (law of
situation), although she did advocate a more egalitarian view (Novicevic et al., 2013).
However, “Follett’s ideas on management are the product of an intellectual trajectory
different from that taken by practitioners such as […] Fayol or Taylor” (Damart, 2013,
p. 460). For example, integration goes against Fayol’s principles, which specically cite
hierarchical powers and a philosophy of unity of command– unchallenged orders and
sheer obedience. Unlike Follett, who notes that the organization is a totality made up of
the sum of its parts, and everyone is part of that totality (Damart, 2013).
The development of management thoughts continue with Elton Mayo’s work and the
Hawthorne experiments that are well-known in the eld of management and social
research. The Hawthorne experiments/studies exposed that management must center
on interpersonal relations (Koontz, 1961;Novicevic et al., 2013). The Hawthorne studies
are among the most popular and most criticized management research studies
associated with interpersonal relations (Bedeian and Wren, 2001). The concern for the
human factor in the workplace was associated with the human relations school that
emerged in the 1920s and 1930s (Varje et al., 2013); however, the rst management
pioneer to spread the concern for human element in the industry was Robert Owen
(1771-1858) (Evans et al., 2013). Moreover, Wren (2005,1987) argued that the Hawthorne
studies did not really discover new things, as similar ndings were anticipated in the
work of Williams (1920),Mathewson (1931) and Taylor (1911).
All criticism aside, a number of researchers (Locke and Latham, 2004;Organ et al.,
2006) in the organizational behavior eld claim that many organizational behavior
topics revert to the Hawthorne studies (Muldoon, 2012). Elton May believed that “the
worker is a person whose attitudes and effectiveness are conditioned by social demands
from both inside and outside the work plant” (Hartley, 2006, p. 286). The worker needs
to have the sense of belonging and have a say in his work; in other words, engaging the
worker.
Engagement is an incredibly delicate phenomenon, both challenging to develop and
tough to sustain (Kahn, 2010), because it is mostly built in the interpretation of the work
environment (Shuck and Reio, 2011). Employee engagement can be improved by
adopting specic workplace behavioral practices, such as job design, supervisory
communication and interaction (Attridge, 2009). These were all part of the themes that
the major management gurus in the eld such as Frederick Taylor, Lillian Gilbreth,
Mary Parker Follett and Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne studies contributed and promoted.
A historical evolution of employee engagement
Although employee engagement has gained popularity and the term is broadly used to
describe engagement, there is a lack of academic and empirical research (Shuck and
Wollard, 2010), and most of what has been written can be found in practitioner journals
where its core is in practice, rather than in empirical research and theory (Saks, 2006).
JMH
21,2
236
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
For example, Reuteman (2014) wrote an organizational leadership piece on Gordon
Bethune (Continental Airlines), which specically discusses employee engagement and
provides research ndings based on quantitative measures (e.g. earnings per share
[EPS] growth rates) for companies citing active engaged employees. As a result, the
denition and meaning of employee engagement is unclear and vague and has been
interchangeably misused with many different terms.
The rst appearance of the term, engagement, was in an Academy of Management
Journal article, “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement
at Work” (Kahn, 1990). In his eminent piece, Kahn draws on Goffman’s (1961) work,
which is evidenced in the reference to Goffman’s (1961) role theory stating that “people
act out momentary attachments and detachments in role performances” (Kahn, 1990,
p. 694). Although Goffman’s work did not deal with organizational life directly, Kahn
drew inspiration from the concept of role playing and pursued this avenue to identify a
construct that would identify this behavior in a work environment. Kahn dened what
is considered employee engagement as personal engagement/disengagement – a
harnessing of the individuals’ selves within work role contexts manifesting in physical,
cognitive and emotional role performances or an uncoupling of the selves causing
withdrawal, and the individual will then defend him/herself physically, cognitively or
emotionally while performing the work roles. Moreover, Shuck and Wollard (2010,
p. 103) dened the term employee engagement as “an individual employee’s cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral state directed toward desired organizational outcomes”.
Kahn’s concepts of engagement/disengagement were also heavily inuenced by an
integration of Alderfer’s (1972) and Maslow’s (1954) notion that individuals need
self-employment and self-expression at work. The classication of engagement results
showed that unlike disengaged employees, personally engaged employees are more
satised and productive.
Drawing from the work of Goffman (1961),Maslow (1954,1970) and Alderfer (1972),
Kahn’s (1990) study began with the basis that employees can use different degrees of
their selves “physically, cognitively, and emotionally”, selves-in-roles adjusted by the
individuals while performing their roles, which, in turn, has inference for their work and
experiences. Employee engagement has been described as a distinct and unique
construct that is made up of cognitive, emotional and behavioral components, all of
which are associated with individual role performance (Saks, 2006).
Kahn’s two qualitative studies were performed on summer camp counselors and
members of an architectural rm to investigate in which situations at work people were
engaged or disengaged. Kahn also elaborates on three psychological conditions
(meaningfulness, safety and availability) that affect an employee’s engagement or
disengagement. Meaningfulness is the feeling that an employee is receiving something
in return for his giving on the job, such as tasks, roles and interactions. He refers to safety
as an employee being able to show and work without fearing negative consequences to
one’s status at work and is inuenced by interpersonal relationships, groups and
intergroup dynamics. Kahn states that availability refers to one’s possession of the
physical, emotional and psychological resources needed on the job. Future researchers
at the time expanded on the dimensions. For example, May et al. (2004) focused on
validating Kahn’s ndings, and results revealed that meaningfulness, safety and
availability were signicantly related to engagement in their study. Furthermore, the
authors found that job enrichment and role t predicted meaningfulness; supportive
237
Employee
engagement
and
self-efcacy
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
supervisor relations and rewards predicted safety, whereas available resources
predicted availability.
Other than the three mentioned dimensions, Kahn’s studies led to the identication of
engagement as a multidimensional construct with three dimensions, namely: vigor,
dedication and absorption (Kahn, 1990,1992;Schaufeli et al., 2002;Gonzalez-Roma et al.,
2006). Schaufeli and Bakker’s (2001) qualitative study based on in-depth interviews
found that, although vigor and dedication were regarded as the main dimensions of
employee engagement, absorption was found to be a relevant dimension. Vigor is
distinguished by high levels of energy and mental hardiness devoted to performing
tasks, a readiness to invest effort in one’s tasks and a determined attitude, even in the
face of difculties (Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2006). Furthermore, the authors note,
dedication refers to being challenged, inspired and strongly immersed in work, along
with an experienced sense of meaning, interest and pride. Rothbard (2001) refers to
employee engagement as a psychological presence and states that it is composed of two
main components: attention and absorption. Attention refers to the time an employee
spends about his role, whereas absorption means being immersed and the concentration
of one’s attention on a given role. Salanova and Schaufeli (2008) investigate work
engagement (i.e. vigor and dedication) and its role as a mediating variable between job
resources and proactive behavior at work. Absorption is when employees are fully
concentrated and happily absorbed in their work tasks, nding it difcult to detach from
work and tend to lose track of time (Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2006). Overall, an individual’s
engagement in their roles denotes his/her psychological presence (focus) on their role
activities, contributing to effective role performance (Kahn, 1990,1992).
The conceptualization of engagement and disengagement would be further
expanded by researchers such as Maslach et al. (2001, p. 417) who argued that job
burnout and engagement are two ends of a continuum, opposite of each other and
dened employee engagement as “a persistent positive affective state […] characterized
by high levels of activation and pleasure”. Other researchers (Gonzalez-Roma et al.,
2006) also found that employee engagement and burnout dimensions are opposite poles,
where vigor and dedication are opposites to emotional exhaustion and cynicism (the
core dimensions of burnout). The continuum is implied as emotional exhaustion and
cynicism (Maslach et al., 2001), the opposite of activation and pleasure (Gonzalez-Roma
et al., 2006). Further investigations regarding burnout (Schaufeli et al., 2008) also
suggest that employee engagement and burnout are two distinct conceptual, empirical
constructs.
Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) referred to work engagement as they test a model where
work engagement and burnout have different predictors and consequences. Simpson
(2009) argued that there exist four lines to characterize engagement, namely: personal
engagement, burnout/engagement, work engagement and employee engagement.
Researchers expanded on this research to investigate a positive affective-motivational
state of mind questioning whether employee engagement can enrich or deplete work and
family roles as well as expanding on improved methods to measure the complex
construct (Maslach et al., 2001;Rothbard, 2001;Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004;Leiter, 2005).
Considering employee well-being, research shows that engagement is also positively
related to health. Hakanen et al. (2006) found a moderate negative correlation between
engagement’s dimension (vigor) and psychosomatic health complaints such as chest
pain, which indicates that engaged employees are more likely not to have these types of
JMH
21,2
238
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
health issues and are able to perform better (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008). Finally,
Maslach and Leiter (2004) state that employee engagement is best summarized as
“energy, involvement, and efciency”, which are, again, direct opposites of the burnout
core dimensions. Hence, together, Kahn (1990) and Maslach et al. (2001) provided the two
earliest theoretical frameworks for understanding employee engagement (Saks, 2006).
A number of empirical studies have examined the relationship between the different
dimensions of employee engagement and other job-related aspects. A relationship
between job resources and employee engagement has consistently surfaced in the
literature. As mentioned previously, vigor and dedication may play a mediating role
between job resources and proactive behavior (Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008). In
addition, available resources (availability) may predict employee engagement (May
et al., 2004). De Lange et al.’s (2008) study of turnover showed that low work
engagement, low job autonomy and low departmental resources predicted actual
transfer to another company. Bakker and Demerouti (2008) found that when job
demands are high, job resources as well as personal resources have a positive effect on
engagement, which, in turn, has a positive effect on job performance.
Bakker and Demerouti (2008) argue that job resources play an intrinsic (nurturing
employee growth as well as learning and development) or extrinsic (inuential in
achieving goals) motivational role. This was further supported by Salanova and
Schaufeli (2008) whose study also support the positive relationship found in previous
studies, implying that intrinsic motivation is increased by job resources. Bakker and
Demerouti (2008) and Deci and Ryan (1985, p. 56) also link the term employee
engagement to motivation by arguing that some authors have dened intrinsic
motivation in conditions where the given task is interesting, whereas other authors have
dened it in terms of “the satisfactions a person gains from intrinsically motivated task
engagement”. Furthermore, as noted in the Introduction, the ndings are in line with
studies dating back decades, which implied that highly engaged employees tend to be
intrinsically motivated (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Since Kahn’s work, a number of
denitions of employee engagement have been provided. Table I illustrates various
denitions provided by researchers who have studied the term, engagement.
A historical evolution of self-efcacy
Extant literature in all disciplines (i.e. management, organizational behavior and human
resource management) has established that managing people and their behavior is a
core success for better work-related performance and higher output. A number of
theories have been anticipated to explain human psychosocial functioning, and social
cognitive theory is one of these theories (Wood and Bandura, 1989). One of the
mechanisms in the social cognitive theory is self-efcacy (Bandura, 1977,1986,1988).
In the 1970s, Albert Bandura, a scholar of social cognition theories, rst dened the
concept of self-efcacy as the “conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior
required to produce certain outcomes” (Bandura, 1977, p. 193). A year later, Bandura
(1978, p. 240) revisited self-efcacy and redened it as “a judgment of one’s ability to
execute a particular behavior pattern”. He stated that unless individuals trust that they
could achieve what they want, they have little encouragement to engage in difcult
activities; no matter what other factors may be the core motivators of performing a task,
they have to be rooted in the deep belief that one’s action will make a difference
(Bandura, 1997,2006). Furthermore, Bandura notes, employees who are in doubt of their
239
Employee
engagement
and
self-efcacy
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
ability to meet specic requirements will most probably feel incompetent, which could
lead to psychological stress, and these inabilities may also expand to the inability to
handle such a situation (Jimmieson et al., 2004). In addition, employees who believe that
they can perform a task are encouraged to engage in more complex tasks and solve
existing ones; they enjoy the challenge (Staples et al., 1999). Self-efcacy is the very
foundation of human motivations and personal achievements (Bandura, 2001). For
employees to accomplish their goals and adjust to the organization’s expectations, they
need to trust in themselves and believe in the abilities, self-efcacy (Bandura, 1978;
Tams, 2008).
Since Bandura, various scholars have also provided denitions to self-efcacy from
different perspectives. Boyd and Vozikis (1994) refer to self-efcacy as a task-specic
construct and includes beliefs of condence an individual has about internal constraints,
i.e. personality, and external constraints, i.e. environment. McDonald and Siegall (1996)
Table I.
Denitions of
engagement
Author(s) Denition of employee engagement
Kahn (1990) “Harnessing of organizations members’ selves to their work
roles; in engagement, people employ and express
themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during
role performances”
Maslach et al. (2001) “A persistent, positive affective-motivational state of
fulllment”
Rothbard (2001) Attention: “[. . .] the cognitive availability and the amount of
time one spends thinking about a role” and absorption:
“[. . .] the intensity of one’s focus on a role”
Dvir et al. (2002) “High levels of activity, initiative, and responsibility”
Harter et al. (2002) “The individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well
as enthusiasm for work”
Schaufeli et al. (2002) “A positive, fullling, work-related state of mind that is
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption”
Harter et al. (2003) “An employee’s involvement with, commitment to, and
satisfaction with work”
Colbert et al. (2004) “High internal motivational state”
Wellins and Concelman (2005) “The illusive force that motivates employees to higher (or
lower) levels of performance”
Erickson (2005) “Engagement is about passion and commitment- the
willingness to invest oneself and expend one’s discretionary
effort to help the employer succeed”
Mathieu et al. (2006) “Experience of authority and responsibility”
Bakker and Demerouti (2008) “Engaged employees have high levels of energy and are
enthusiastic about their work”
Bakker and Demerouti (2008) “Engaged employees have a sense of energetic and effective
connection with their work activities, and they see
themselves as able to deal well with the demands of their
jobs”
Shimazu and Schaufeli (2009) “A unique concept that is best predicted by job resources
and personal resources and is predictive of psychological/
physical health, proactive organizational behavior, and job
performance”
JMH
21,2
240
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
dened self-efcacy as the belief and the ability of an employee to successfully
performing a given task. The authors argue that employees with high levels of
self-efcacy are those who have a strong condence in their ability to perform a new
task and are more motivated. Self-efcacy, unlike personality traits which are largely
xed, is state-like and dynamic and can change over time with new learning and
experiences (Luthans and Peterson, 2002). Therefore, self-efcacy can be developed or
changed through a number of sources.
According to Bandura, there are four sources uctuating in strength that an
employee can use to judge individual efcacy to perform the given task/job (Staples
et al., 1999). The strongest of the sources is performance accomplishment, where an
employee assesses the ability to succeed in performing a task based on personal mastery
undertakings such as previous experiences with a certain task (Staples et al., 1999).
Bandura (1994) argued that mastery experiences are very effective in developing a
strong sense of efcacy. This approach was also initiated with Frederick Taylor’s work,
where the worker needs to develop the relevant skill. Next, the second source of
information is referred to as vicarious experience, whereby Bandura (1994) explains that
“seeing people similar to oneself succeed by sustained effort raises observers’ beliefs
that they too possess the capabilities master comparable activities to succeed”.
Vicarious experience, which is gained by watching other employees perform the task
successfully, can enhance self-efcacy when observers improve their outcome by
learning from what they have been observing (Staples et al., 1999). The third strongest
source is social persuasion which refers to directing employees by proposal to believe
that they can effectively perform their job, which would raise their levels of self-efcacy
(Staples et al., 1999). Having spoken support from others helps employees get rid of the
doubts they have about their capabilities and encourages them to give their best
performance to complete the given task. The nal and fourth source, the employee’s
physiological or emotional state, can also judge one’s self-efcacy because emotional
responses such as anxiety and nervousness can lead to a lower anticipation in one’s
ability to the job and denitely in one’s self-efcacy (Staples et al., 1999). Bandura (1994,
p. 5) states that “it is not the sheer intensity of emotional and physical reactions that is
important but rather how they are perceived and interpreted”. Indeed, previous studies
show that developing self-efcacy is benecial to employee well-being by decreasing
stress (Staples et al., 1999;Jimmieson et al., 2004).
Tams (2008) argued that even though research supports the relationship between
self-efcacy and these four sources of information, there is a need to know how
employees reason about self-efcacy while handling a certain task. Tams examined
peoples’ perception of self-efcacy through a study composed of 145 interviews with
employees from different settings (e.g. telemarketing, brand design). The ndings
showed that there were two modes of thinking (attending and reecting) and four types
of thinking about self-efcacy: attending to one’s doing, reecting upon one’s doing,
attending to one’s social environment and taking a stance toward one’s environment
(2007).
Bandura’s and Tams’ work overlap. For example, “attending to one’s doing” by
focusing on the task assigned and generalizing previous experiences and reecting on
one’s doing is a form of learning from setbacks similar to Bandura’s “performance
accomplishment”, an employees’ learning based on personal mastery undertakings like
previous experiences. “Attending to one’s social environment”, employees relating to
241
Employee
engagement
and
self-efcacy
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
others and imitating their performance is similar to Bandura’s denition of vicarious
experience, which is gained by watching other employees perform the task successfully.
“Taking a stance toward one’s environment”, employees distancing and asserting their
personal perspective is a person-centered approach, illustrates a range of ways in which
employees think about self-efcacy. The limitation of this approach is that it needs
further research to strengthen its validity (Tams, 2008).
Self-efcacy has been associated with other constructs in the literature. Gist (1987),
Gist and Mitchell (1992) and Bandura (1978) have related self-efcacy to task
performance, such that employees who possess high levels of self-efcacy will have
positive perceptions of their performance. Saks (1995) found a positive relationship
between employees’ ability to cope within a variety of situations and self-efcacy.
Bandura (1982) had previously found that self-efcacy and stress were negatively
related, and that employees who believed in their abilities to perform the job experienced
less stressed. More recent studies have shown that developing self-efcacy helps
employees worry less (Hayek et al., 2012).
Tierney and Farmer (2002) used data from two different rms to test a new construct,
creative self-efcacy, and results indicated that job tenure, supervisor behavior and job
self-efcacy were predictors of creative efcacy beliefs. Their ndings were consistent
with previous studies (Ford, 1996;Bandura, 1997), which showed efcacy states affect
employees’ decisions to be creative at their jobs and that numerous efcacies are
indicators for creative performance (Tierney and Farmer, 2002).
Self-efcacy has also played a moderating role between career commitment and
career success. For employees with high levels self-efcacy, career commitment
predicted both objective and subjective career success (Ballout, 2009). Brown et al. (2005)
found that personal goals as well as self-efcacy were determinants of successful
actions, which were consistent with Bandura and Cervone’s (1983) ndings that showed
that employees with high levels of self-efcacy set higher personal goals.
As per employee engagement, employees with high levels of self-efcacy will expend
more effort, work longer, are more motivated and perform at a higher level than
employees with lower levels of self-efcacy (McDonald and Siegall, 1996). Jackson (2002)
argued that when faced with hardship or disappointment, employees with high
self-efcacy are more likely to better tackle the problem by staying more focused and
persistent, and those employees are more likely to spend greater effort than those with
low self-efcacy beliefs. Employees with high levels of self-efcacy are those who set
higher career goals, put more effort and pursue career strategies that would lead to the
achievement of these goals (Ballout, 2009).
Hypotheses development
Organizations today are very concerned about managing their performance (Tams,
2008), and with the presence of unstable environmental circumstances resulting from
the development of new global and technological trends, employers are urged to search
for multi-skilled employees who can achieve effective performance in any setting
(Ballout, 2009). Organizations, nowadays, are on the look to stimulate employee
behaviors that would enhance organizational performance. The literature suggests that
higher levels of self-efcacy and the concept of employee engagement are positively
related to performance.
JMH
21,2
242
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
To date, few studies have shown a positive relationship between engagement and
self-efcacy. For example, in a study carried on a group of Dutch employees from
different occupations, the results showed that engaged employees have high energy and
self-efcacy (Schaufeli et al., 2001). In another study among highly skilled Dutch
technicians, a relation between three personal resources (self-efcacy, organizational-
based self-esteem and optimism) and work engagement was identied (Xanthopoulou
et al., 2007). Other studies regard these two concepts as interrelated when they
conceptualize engagement as involvement of the self and relate different constructs such
as self, which are: self, self-esteem, self-efcacy and self-identity of engagement to the
self (Macey and Schneider, 2008).
However, there have been no clear studies on whether there would be a strong
relationship between the three dimensions of employee engagement (vigor, dedication
and absorption) and self-efcacy. Moreover, as stated in the introduction, most of the
studies were conducted in a Western context. The goal of this study is to test for a
positive inuence between self-efcacy and the three dimensions of employee
engagement in a non-Western country.
The two constructs have much in common. First, both engagement and self-efcacy
have their roots embedded in psychology. As stated previously, Kahn found three
psychological conditions associated with the engagement/disengagement of employees
at work, and he believed that engagement was psychologically present when
performing a certain task/role. Also, in their book, Psychological Capital, researchers
Luthans et al. (2006) argued that positive psychological capital is composed of positive
psychological means of self-efcacy, hope, optimism and psychological resilience.
Second, both constructs are also related to emotional aspects. It has been suggested that
disengaged employees separate themselves from work roles and move away
“cognitively” and “emotionally” (Kahn, 1990). Similarly, it has been argued that
employees’ physiological or emotional state can also judge one’s self-efcacy because
emotional responses such as anxiety and nervousness can lead to a lower anticipation in
one’s ability to the job and denitely in one’s self-efcacy (Staples et al., 1999).
Third, the action of employees extending effort is also emphasized in both constructs.
It has been studied that an entrepreneur with high self-efcacy beliefs will exert more
effort for a longer period of time, persist despite setbacks and develop better plans and
strategies for the given task (Shane et al., 2003). Fourth, both constructs are also viewed
as forms or patterns of behavior. For instance, while Macey and Schneider (2008) refer to
engagement as a desirable condition having both attitudinal and behavioral
components, Bandura (1978, p. 240) refers to self-efcacy as “a judgment of one’s ability
to execute a particular behavior pattern”. More studies done by different scholars have
also shown signicance between engagement and self-efcacy with other constructs.
For instance, studies have shown that motivation is related to engagement (Deci and
Ryan, 1985) and self-efcacy (Bandura, 1977). Moreover, studies have shown positive
relationships between engagement and organizational commitment (Hakenen et al.,
2006) and positive relationships between self-efcacy and organizational commitment
(Staples et al., 1999). Based on the literature review and background we have presented,
we predict a positive inuence of self-efcacy on the three dimensions of employee
engagement (vigor, dedication, absorption).
Vigor is dened by high levels of energy and mental exibility while performing a
task (Schaufeli et al., 2006); it’s when employees are willing to invest effort in their work
243
Employee
engagement
and
self-efcacy
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
and persist even in the face of difculties. Luthans and Peterson (2002) build on the
Bandura’s studies to state that the higher the individual’s self-efcacy, the more
probable that he/she will be able to initiate tasks, extend effort toward task
accomplishment and persist when problems are encountered or even in the face of
failure. It has been noticed that both denitions use the term persistence despite
difculties and that both mention the extension of effort. Employees who believe that
they can perform the job with success, will most likely invest and spend effort, despite
encountered problems. Their strong beliefs regarding their capabilities would most
likely stimulate their persistence. Thus, the literature implies that:
H1. Employee’s self-efcacy will positively inuence vigor.
The absorption dimension represents the full concentration and deep engrossment in
one’s work, “where time passes quickly and one has difculty detaching oneself from
work” (Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2006, p. 166). Similarly, results show that when employees
have high levels of self-efcacy, they expend more effort and work longer; they are also
more motivated and perform at a higher level (McDonald and Siegall, 1996). Time passes
quickly for this type of employee, immersed in the task/job and for those who feel they
have the required skills and attributes to accomplish the task. Employees with both
self-efcacy and absorption will have a sense of pleasure while performing their jobs
that time simply does not matter to them. Armed with this knowledge, it is proposed
that:
H2. Employee’s self-efcacy will positively inuence absorption.
Dedication refers to being challenged, inspired and strongly immersed in work and
experiencing a sense of signicance (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008). Self-efcacy
beliefs affect the choice and the amount of challenge and commitment to personal
goals (Appelbaum and Hare, 1996). Engaged employees enjoy being challenged, and
they are strongly immersed in their work, as it represents a sense of meaning; in
addition, when employees have condence that they can perform the job, this
inuences how much dedication they would invest in the job (Stevens, 1988).
Therefore, it is predicted that:
H3. Employee’s self-efcacy will positively inuence dedication.
Figure 1 presents the conceptual model for the proposed relations in H1-H3.
Self- Efficacy
Dedication
H1(+)
H3(+)
H2(+)
Absorption
Vigor
Figure 1.
A conceptual
framework
JMH
21,2
244
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
Methodology
Measures
One of the objectives of this study is to examine the inuence of self-efcacy on the three
dimensions of employee engagement, as stipulated in the literature. To examine the
proposed relations, a multi-item scale was used. To measure self-efcacy, eight items
adopted from Jones (1986) were measured. The items were measured on a ve-point
Likert-type scale, anchored with a “1” representing a strong disagreement and a “5”
representing a strong agreement. To measure the three dimensions of employee engagement
(vigor, dedication, absorption), the 17-item Utrecht work engagement scale (UWES) scale
from Schaufeli et al. (2002) was utilized. Vigor was measured with six items, dedication was
measured with ve items and absorption was measured with six items; all were measured on
a seven-point rating scale, ranging from “0” ⫽never to “6” ⫽always.
Sample
The authors distributed questionnaires by email and face-to-face to employees in major
organizations in the service industry in Beirut city, Lebanon. The main organizations in
Lebanon are located in Beirut city. Lebanon offers us an interesting context, as it is
considered as the only Arab country that provides an interaction between the Western
and Middle Eastern countries (Tlaiss and Kauser, 2011). A total of 600 questionnaires
were distributed, and 426 completed questionnaires were collected, 71 per cent response
rate. The sample was composed of females (n⫽264) and males (n⫽162). The majority
of the sample was single and had at least a bachelor’s degree. A detailed description of
the characteristics of the sample is provided in Table II.
Results
For the purpose of validating the scales used in this study, we conducted a factor analysis to
examine the structure of both constructs in this context, and reliability test was conducted to
examine the reliability of the scales. All items loaded on the relevant factor; thus, the
structure of both constructs was achieved. Cronbach’s alphas were: 0.71, 0.81, 0.78 and 0.80
for self-efcacy, vigor, dedication and absorption, respectively. All the values were greater
than 0.70, the cutoff value suggested by Nunnally (1978). We also conducted a correlation
analysis to examine the correlation between the factors. Table III provides the Cronbach’s
alphas and the correlation. The three factors of employee engagement explained 78 per cent
of the total variance of employee engagement.
To test the proposed relations in the three hypotheses, we subjected the data to
multiple regression analysis using SPSS 21. In H1, we predicted a positive inuence of
self-efcacy on vigor, and the regression results supported the proposed relationship
(

⫽0.198, t-value ⫽4.14, p-value ⬍0.01). In H2, a positive inuence of self-efcacy on
absorption was predicted, and the regression results supported the proposed
relationship (

⫽0.211, t-value ⫽4.44, p-value ⬍0.01); hence, H2 was supported.
Finally, H3 predicted a positive inuence of self-efcacy on dedication (

⫽0.229,
t-value ⫽4.82, p-value ⬍0.01); the regression results supported the proposed
relationship; thus, H3 was supported. The results indicated that when the individual
believes in his/her capabilities, he/she will be motivated to engage in his/her work roles.
Engagement brings all who we are in our roles. Table III provides a detailed description
of the regression results for the three hypotheses (Table IV).
245
Employee
engagement
and
self-efcacy
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
Table II.
Demographic
characteristics
Frequency
Gender
Male 162
Female 264
Marital status
Single 237
Married 119
Divorced 40
Widowed 30
Age (years)
20-30 178
31-40 143
41-50 42
51-60 63
Position (as specied by participants)
Top management 38
Middle management 92
First-line employee 256
Others 40
Education
High school 50
BA/BS 228
Masters 88
Other 60
Table III.
Correlation and
Cronbach’s alpha
Vigor Dedication Absorption Self-efcacy
Vigor 0.81
Dedication 0.856** 0.78
Absorption 0.821** 0.818** 0.80
Self-efcacy 0.198** 0.229** 0.211** 0.71
Notes: ** Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level; cronbach’s alpha in bold and diagonal
Table IV.
Regression results
Hypotheses B B SE R
2
TSignicance
H1 (supported) DV: Vigor P-Self-efcacy 0.475*** 0.198*** 0.115 0.04 4.14 0.000
H2 (supported) DV: Absorption
P-Self-efcacy 0.528*** 0.211*** 0.119 0.04 4.44 0.000
H3 (supported) DV: Dedication
P-Self-efcacy 0.565*** 0.229*** 0.117 0.05 4.82 0.000
Note: *** p⬍0.01
JMH
21,2
246
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
Discussion and implications
To understand the contemporary management, it is important to examine and
understand its history. Bedeian (2004, p. 93) argues that:
[…] the past exists in a reciprocal relationship with the present. Just as the past is seen through
the eyes of the present, the present is judged in an unending dialogue with the past.
Tracing the management history through the examination of the work of Frederick
Taylor, Lillian Gilbreth, Mary Parker Follett and Elton Mayo highlighted the roots of the
concept of employee engagement. Through the analysis of the past and understanding
the knowledge, both practitioners and scholars can gain a better understanding and be
aspired (Bedeian, 1998). Although the term employee engagement was not used in the
early schools of management thought, the characteristics of involvement, engrossment,
energy, cooperation and concentration were identied in the work of the early
management schools.
The empirical examination of the proposed relations provided additional evidence
and insights from a non-Western context. As mentioned earlier, the majority of the
previous studies have been conducted in Western context. Abrahamson (1996) states
that examining the context in which specic management ideas and practices are
produced and implemented is important. Incorporating non-Western thoughts and
insights will add value to our understanding (Evans et al., 2013). Thus, the value of the
results in this study will add to both the self-efcacy and employee engagement
literatures. To our knowledge, it is the rst study to cross-validate the proposed relation
between the three dimensions of employee engagement and self-efcacy as opposed to
the aggregate concept of employee engagement in a non-Western context.
Across the world, organizations are realizing that managing people and their
behaviors is a core success for better work-related performance and higher output.
Managers are noticing that employees are key factors that constitute the base of their
accomplishments. Thus, managing people and their behavior is the core of success of
their organizations. Engaging employees at work is an important element for the
success of the organization and improving all the outcomes that leads to this success
(Bakker and Demerouti, 2008). Moreover, the authors argued that to promote
engagement in the workplace, the individuals have to be armed with the right skills and
continuously seek skill development. In line with this, Erickson (2005) argued that
employee engagement is shown when the individual is willing to invest in himself and
expend effort to help his employer succeed. Our results indicated that as employees
believe in their capabilities their engagement will be demonstrated. In line with this,
Barnard (1948, p. 8) stated, “it is good and practical to have persistently in mind that the
key to dynamic effort in all industry is the individual and his willingness to develop in
it”. According to Gallup’s (2009) meta-analysis, the higher the level of employee
engagement, the higher the success of the business in terms of high efciency,
productivity, prot, revenue and low absenteeism. Engaging employee should be of
high concern to both scholars and practitioners.
Moreover, the results of our study show additional empirical evidence to support the
previous results found among the Dutch employees (Schaufeli et al., 2001). The fact that
believing in one’s own capability to successfully fulll the requirements of the job is an
important factor to increase the level of employee engagement in today’s operation.
According to Czarnowsky (2008), 85 per cent of the employees distrust their leaders’
247
Employee
engagement
and
self-efcacy
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
knowledge about how to develop employee engagement, the results of this study
highlight the importance of helping the employee develop self-efcacy to boost
employee engagement. Novicevic et al. (2011, p. 136) argued that “industrial relations
and human resource practices can help managers to earn employee trust and enhance
their will to cooperate and contribute to the organization’s success”. In Lebanon, the
attitude of the managers within the organizational hierarchy will be observed by the
employees and will inuence the level of cooperation and engagement. In today’s work
environment, managers need to provide support to help employees engage in
developing the right skills that motivate them to implement engagement. Engagement
brings all who we are in our roles. Finally, to manage means to care, to drive and
improve (Le Texier, 2013). So, as managers are expected to use their personal tools as
means to fulll managerial tasks, they are also expected to induce similar psychological
presence in their subordinates (Kahn, 1992;Varje et al., 2013).
Limitations and future research
Although we tried to minimize the limitations of our study, as in any study, our study
has limitations. The rst limitation is the data; data were collected from one industry,
the service industry. Future research should target different industries, and this may
lead to obtain a larger sample from different types of industries that will allow the
generalization of the results. The second limitation is the self-reported data; employees
self-evaluated themselves, which may lead our data to be contaminated with bias.
Future research should attempt to obtain data from employee and supervisor or
manager to have a better understanding of the level of employee engagement at the
workplace. Future research should expand on the dimensions of employee engagement
and self-efcacy through a global lens via cultural differences and similarities (Carraher,
2003;Carraher et al., 2003,2008;Huettinger, 2008;Lunnan and Traavik, 2009;Varje
et al., 2013). It is important that future researchers try to collect data from other Arab
countries to provide a better understanding and further insights for both the
practitioners and academics, with regard to the Arab employee population. As stated,
there is a huge gap of studies regarding Arab countries and a variety of
management-related factors. A study of the modes of approaches to increase employee
engagement (e.g. explicit goals, feedback) or attributes (e.g. pay, insurance) and whether
one plays a stronger role in increasing employee engagement would be welcomed.
Previous studies have found that increased employee satisfaction may increase prots
in other populations (Harter et al., 2002). Furthermore, future research should examine
the climate for engagement, as suggested by Bakker et al. (2011); employees who nd
that work is of no meaning and lack the resources to perform their job, they develop the
feeling of loneliness and rejection (Maslow, 1970).
Moreover, Lebanon is considered a country with high power distance index,
according to Hofstede national framework, so people accept the unequal distribution of
power and resources in institutions. Therefore, another venue for future research is to
examine the moderating effect of organizational justice on the relation between the three
dimensions of employee engagement and self-efcacy. We argued that if the individual
believes in his/her capability, he/she will engage in job roles. But, investigating what
occurs if the employee perceives inequity? Will the employee still engage even if he
believes in his/her capabilities? Furthermore, the moderating effect of gender would be
another future venue to be examined, especially because the Arab world is perceived to
JMH
21,2
248
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
be a male-dominated culture; well the female engage less than the male? Moreover,
examining what Mary Parker Follett emphasized on situationality and cooperation in
management through mutual understanding (Corey and Millage, 2014;Fry and
Thomas, 1996;Wren, 2005) is another venue for future research. The editor of the
Journal of Management History has called for additional empirical management history
research to be done (Carraher, 2006,2011,2012a,2012b,2013a,2013b,2013c,2014a,
2014b). Finally, the importance of engagement has been identied in this study from a
historical background and empirical background, leading to consider engagement as a
mechanism that has an impact at the individual level and at the organizational level,
which will inuence the performance of the individual and the organizations.
References
Abrahamson, E. (1996), “Management fashion”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20,
pp. 254-285.
Alderfer, C.P. (1972), Existence, Relatedness, and Growth, Free Press, New York.
Appelbaum, S.H. and Hare, A. (1996), “Self-efcacy as a mediator of goal setting and
performance”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 33-47.
Attridge, M. (2009), “Measuring and managing employee work engagement: a review of the
research and business literature”, Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 383-398.
Bakker, A., Albrecht, S. and Leiter, M. (2011), “Key questions regarding work engagement”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-28.
Bakker, A. and Demerouti, E. (2008), “Towards a model of work engagement”, Career
Development International, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 209-223.
Ballout, H. (2009), “Career commitment and career success: moderating role of self-efcacy”,
Career Development International, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 655-670.
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efcacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1978), “The self-system in reciprocal determinism”, American Psychologist, Vol. 34
(April), pp. 344-358.
Bandura, A. (1982), “Self-efcacy mechanism in human agency”, American Psychologist, Vol. 37
No. 2, pp. 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1988), “Self-efcacy conception of anxiety”, Anxiety Research, Vol. 1, pp. 77-98.
Bandura, A. (1994), “Self-efcacy”, in Ramachaudran, V.S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human
Behavior, Academic Press, New York, NY, Vol. 4, pp. 71-81.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efcacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York,
NY.
Bandura, A. (2001), “Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 52 (February), pp. 1-26.
Bandura, A. (2006), “Toward a psychology of human agency”, Perspectives on Psychological
Science, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 164-180.
Bandura, A. and Cervone, D. (1983), “Self-evaluative and self-efcacy mechanisms governing the
motivational effects of goal systems”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45,
pp. 1017-1028.
249
Employee
engagement
and
self-efcacy
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
Barnard, C.I. (1948), Organization and Management: Selected Papers, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Bedeian, A.G. (1998), “Exploring the past”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 4-15.
Bedeian, A.G. (2004), “The gift of professional maturity”, Academy of Learning and Education,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 92-98.
Bedeian, A.G. and Wren, D.A. (2001), “The most inuential management books of the twentieth
century”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 221-225.
Boje, D.M. and Winsor, R.D. (1993), “The resurrection of Taylorism: total quality management’s
hidden agenda”, Journal of Organizational Change, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 57-70.
Boyd, N.G. and Vozikis, G.S. (1994), “The inuence of self-efcacy on the development of
entrepreneurial intentions and actions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18,
pp. 64-77.
Brown, S., Jones, E. and Leigh, T. (2005), “The attenuating effect of role overload on relationships
linking self-efcacy and goal level to work performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 972-979.
Burke, R.J. Koyuncu, M., Jing, W. and Fiksenbaum, L. (2009), “Work engagement among hotel
managers in Beijing, China: potential antecedents and consequences”, Tourism Review,
Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 4-18.
Carraher, S.M. (2003), “The father of cross-cultural research: an interview with Geert Hofstede”,
Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 97-106.
Carraher, S.M. (2006), “Attitude towards benets among SME owners in Eastern Europe: a
30-month study”. Global Business and Finance Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 41-48.
Carraher, S.M. (2011), Turnover prediction using attitudes towards benets, pay, and pay
satisfaction among employees and entrepreneurs in Estonia, Latvia, & Lithuania. Baltic
Journal of Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 25-52.
Carraher, S.M. (2012a), “Global and empirical management history?”, Journal of Management
History, Vol. 18 No. 3.
Carraher, S. (2012b), “Social entrepreneurship: interviews, journal surveys, and measures”,
Journal of Management History, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 364-367.
Carraher, S.M. (2013a), “ISI, social entrepreneurship, and research”, Journal of Management
History, Vol. 19 No. 1.
Carraher, S.M. (2013b), “Follett, Barnard and Taylor”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 19
No. 4.
Carraher, S.M. (2013c), “Signaling intelligence, management history, marry-go-round, and
research”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 19 No. 2.
Carraher, S. (2014a), “Dutton, management philosophy, realistic job previews, and Weber”,
Journal of Management History, Vol. 20 No. 2.
Carraher, S. (2014b), “Leadership, entrepreneurship, and suggestions for future research”, Journal
of Management History, Vol. 20 No. 1.
Carraher, S.M., Carraher, S.C. and Whitely, W. (2003), “Global entrepreneurship, income, and work
norms: a seven country study”, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 31-42.
Carraher, S.M., Sullivan, S.E. and Crocitto, M. (2008), “Mentoring across global boundaries: an
empirical examination of home- and host-country mentors on expatriate career outcomes”,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 1310-1326.
Chalofsky, N. (2010), Meaningful Workplace, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
JMH
21,2
250
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), “Work engagement: a quantitative review
and test of its relations with task and contextual performance”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 64, pp. 89-136.
Colbert, A.E., Mount, M.K., Harter, J.K., Witt, L. and Barrick, M.R. (2004), “Interactive effects of
personality and perceptions of the work situation on work placed deviance”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 599-609.
Combs, J.C. and Skill, M. (2003), “Managerialist and human capital explanations for key executive
pay premiums: a contingency perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 1,
pp. 63-73.
Corey, J. and Millage, P. (2014), “Ethnographic study on the Harley Davidson culture and
community”, Journal of Technology Management in China, Vol. 9 No. 1.
Czarnowsky, M. (2008), Learning’s Role in Employee Engagement: An ASTD Research Study,
American Society for Training & Development, Alexandria, VA.
Damart, S. (2013), “How Mary P. Follett’s ideas on management have emerged: an analysis based
on her practical management experience and her political philosophy”, Journal of
Management History, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 459-473.
De Lange, A.H., De Witte, H. and Notelaers, G. (2008), “Should I stay or should I go? Examining
longitudinal relations among job resources and work engagement for stayers versus
movers”, Work & Stress, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 201-223.
Deci, W.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human
Behavior, Plenum, New York, NY.
Dent, E. and Bozeman, P. (2014), “Discovering the foundational philosophies, practices, and
inuences of modern management theory”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 145-163.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. and Shamir, B. (2002), “Impact of transformational leadership on
follower development and performance: a eld experiment”, The Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 735-744.
Erickson, T.J. (2005), “Testimony submitted before the US Senate committee on health, education,
labor and pensions”, May, p. 26.
Evans, W.R., Pane Haden, S.S., Clayton, R.W. and Novicevic, M.M. (2013), “History-of-
management-thought about social responsibility”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 8-32.
Ford, C. (1996), “A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 1112-1142.
Fry, B.R. and Thomas, L.L. (1996), “Mary Parker Follett: assessing the contribution and impact of
her writings”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 11-19.
Gallup (2009), Q12® Meta-Analysis, The Relationship Between Engagement at Work and
Organizational Outcomes, available at: www.gallup.com/consulting/126806/q12-
metaanalysis.aspx (accessed 6 May 2010).
Garber, P.R. (2007), in Garnham, S.M. (Ed.), 50 Activities for Employee Engagement, HRD Press,
MA.
Gibson, J.W., Chen, W., Henry, E., Humphreys, J. and Lian, Y. (2013), “Examining the work of Mary
Parker Follett through the lens of critical biography”, Journal of Management History,
Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 441-458.
Gist, M.E. (1987), “Self-efcacy: implications for organizational behavior and human resource
management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 472-485.
251
Employee
engagement
and
self-efcacy
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
Gist, M.E. and Mitchell, T.R. (1992), “Self-efcacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 119-122.
Goffman, E. (1961), Encounters, Penguin University Books, Harmondsworth.
Gonzalez-Roma, V., Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Lioret, S. (2006), “Burnout and work
engagement: independent factors or opposite poles?”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 165-174.
Grachev, M. and Rakitsky, B. (2013), “Historic horizons of Frederick Taylor’s scientic
management”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 51-527.
Greenwood, R.G., Greenwood, R.A. and Severance, J.A. (1978), “Lillian Gilbreth, rst lady of
management”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 1, pp. 2-6.
Hakanen, J., Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006), “Burnout and work engagement among
teachers”, Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 43, pp. 495-513.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), “Business-unit-level relationship between
employees satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 268-279.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Keyes, C.L.M. (2003), “Well-being in the workplace and its
relationships to business outcomes”, Flourishing: The Positive Person and the Good Life,
American Psychological Press, Washington, DC, pp. 205-244.
Hartley, N. (2006), “Management history: an umbrella model”, Journal of Management History,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 278-292.
Hayek, M., Novicevic, M.M., Buckley, R., Clayton, R.W. and Roberts, F. (2012), “Narrative
analysis of Dale Carnegie’s how to stop worrying and start living: using psychological
capital as the analytical framework”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 268-284.
Heames, J.T. and Breland, J.W. (2010), “Management pioneer contributors: 30-year review”,
Journal of Management History, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 427-436.
Huettinger, M. (2008), “Cultural dimensions in business life: Hofstede’s indices for Latvia and
Lithuania”, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 359-376.
Jackson, W.J. (2002), “Enhancing self-efcacy and learning performance”, Journal of Experimental
Education, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 243-254.
Jimmieson, N.L., Terry, D.J. and Callan, V.J. (2004), “A longitudinal study of employee adaptation
to organizational change: the role of change-related information and change-related
self-efcacy”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 11-27.
Jones, G. (1986), “Socialization tactics, self-efcacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to
organizations”, Academy of Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 262-279.
Judge, T.A., Jackson, C.L., Shaw, J.C., Scott, B.A. and Rich, B.L. (2007), “Self-efcacy and
work-related performance: the integral role of individual differences”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 107-127.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 692-724.
Kahn, W.A. (1992), “To be full there: psychological presence at work”, Human Relations, Vol. 45,
pp. 321-349.
Kahn, W.A. (2010), “The essence of engagement: lessons form the eld”, in Albrechet, S. (Ed.),
Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice, Edward
Elgar Publishing, pp. 20-30.
JMH
21,2
252
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
Kemp, L.J. (2013), “Modern to postmodern management: developments in scientic management”,
Journal of Management History, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 345-436.
Koontz, H. (1961), “The management theory jungle”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 174-188.
Le Texier, T. (2013), “The rst systematized uses of the term ‘management’ in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 189-224.
Leiter, M.P. (2005), “Engagement with work: issues for measurement and intervention in Burke”,
in Cooper, R.J. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), The Human Resources Revolution: Why Putting
People First Matters, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 213-230.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2004), “What should we do about motivation theory? Six
recommendations for the twenty-rst century”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 388-403.
Lunnan, R. and Traavik, L. (2009), “Is the standardization of human resource practices perceived
as fair across national cultures? The cases of China, Lithuania, and Norway”, Baltic Journal
of Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 127-148.
Luthans, F. and Peterson, S. (2002), “Employee engagement and manger self-efcacy”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 376-387.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. and Avolio, B. (2006), Psychological Capital: Developing the Human
Competitive Edge, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
McDonald, T. and Siegall, M. (1996), “Enhancing worker self-efcacy: an approach for reducing
negative reactions to technological change”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 41-44.
Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee engagement”, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-30.
Maslach, C. and Leiter, M.P. (2004), “Stress and burnout: the critical research”, in Cooper, C. (Ed.),
Handbook of Stress Medicine and Health, 2nd ed., CRC Press, London, pp. 155-172.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001a), “Job burnout”, in Fiske, S.T., Schacter, D.L.
and Zahn-Waxler, C. (Eds), Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 397-422.
Maslow, A.H. (1954), Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row, New York.
Maslow, A.H. (1970), Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row, New York.
Mathewson, S.B. (1931), The Restriction of Output Among Unorganized Workers, Viking Press,
New York, NY.
Mathieu, J.E., Gilson, L.L. and Ruddy, T.R. (2006), “Empowerment and team effectiveness: an
empirical test of an integrated model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91, pp. 97-108.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004), “The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 11-37.
Muldoon, J. (2012), “The Hawthorne legacy: a reassessment of the impact of the Hawthorne studies
on management scholarship, 1930-1958”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 105-119.
Novicevic, M., Hayek, M. and Fang, T. (2011), “Integrating Barnard’s and contemporary views of
industrial relations and HRM”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 126-138.
Novicevic, M.M., Humphreys, J.H., Buckley, M.R., Roberts, F., Hebdon, A. and Kim, J. (2013),
“Teaching as constructive-developmental leadership: insights from Mary Follett”, Journal
of Management History, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 423-440.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
253
Employee
engagement
and
self-efcacy
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
Organ, D.Q., Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenize, S.B. (2006), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its
Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences (Foundations for Organizational Science), Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Payne, S.C., Youngcourt, S.S. and Watrous, K.M. (2006), “Portrayals of F.W. Taylor across
textbooks”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 385-407.
Reuteman, R. (2014), “Value lessons: just how much is good leadership worth?”, Entrepreneur,
Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 38-47.
Rich, B., Lepine, J. and Crawford, E. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635.
Robertson, I.V. and Cooper, R. (2010), “Full engagement: the integration of employee engagement
and psychological well-being”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 324-336.
Rothbard, N.P. (2001), “Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family
roles”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46, pp. 655-684.
Saks. A.M. (1995), “Longitudinal eld investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of
self-efcacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 21, pp. 1-225.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 600-619.
Salanova, M. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008), “A cross-national study of work engagement as a
mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 116-131.
Schachter, H. (2010), “The role played by Frederick Taylor in the rise of the academic management
elds”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 437-448.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2001), “Work and well-being: towards a positive approach in
occupational health, psychology”, Gedrag & Organisatie, Vol. 14, pp. 229-253.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Work engagement and the measurement of a concept”,
Gender in Organizations, Vol. 17, pp. 89-112.
Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T., Le Blanc, P., Peeters, M., Bakker, A.B. and De Jonge, J. (2001), “Work and
health? The quest for the engaged worker”, De Psycholoog, Vol. 36, pp. 422-428.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of
engagement and burnout and: a conrmative analytic approach”, Journal of Happiness
Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement
with a short questionnaire”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 66 No. 4,
pp. 701-116.
Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and Van Rhaven, W. (2008), “Workaholism, burnout, and work
engagement: three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being?”, Applied
Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 173-203.
Shane, S., Locke, E.A. and Collins, C.J. (2003), “Entrepreneurial motivation”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 257-279.
Shimazu, A. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009), “Is workaholism good or bad for employee well-being?
The distinctiveness of workaholism and work engagement among Japanese employees”,
Industrial Health, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 495-502.
Shuck, B. (2011), “Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: an integrative literature
review”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 304-328.
JMH
21,2
254
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
Shuck, B. and Reio, T.G. (2011), “The employee engagement landscape and HRD: how do we link
theory and scholarship to current practice?”, Advances in Developing Human Resources,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 419-428.
Shuck, M.B., Rocco, T.S. and Albornoz, C.A. (2011), “Exploring employee engagement from the
employee perspective: implications for HRD”, Journal of European Industrial Training,
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 300-325.
Shuck, M.B. and Wollard, K.K. (2009), “A historical perspective of employee engagement: an
emerging denition”, in Plakhotnik, M.S., Nielsen, S.M. and Pane, D.M. (Eds), Proceedings
of the Eighth Annual College of Education & GSN Research Conference, Florida
International University, Miami, pp. 133-139, available at: http://coeweb.u.edu/research_
conference/
Shuck, M.B. and Wollard, K.K. (2010), “Employee engagement & HRD: a seminal review of the
foundations”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 89-110.
Simpson, M.R. (2009), “Engagement at work: a review of the literature”, International Journal of
Nursing Studies, Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 1012-1024.
Stajkovic, A. and Luthans, F. (1998), “Self-efcacy and work-related performance: a
meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124, pp. 240-261.
Staples, D.S., Hulland, J.S. and Higgins, C.A. (1999), “A self-efcacy theory explanation for the
management of remote workers in virtual organizations”, Organization Science, Vol. 10
No. 6, pp. 758-776.
Tams, S. (2008), “Constructing self-efcacy at work: a person centered perspective”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 165-183.
Taylor, F.W. (1911), The Principles of Scientic Management, Harper, New York, NY.
Tierney, P. and Farmer, S.M. (2002), “Creative self-efcacy: potential antecedents and relationship
to creative performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 1137-1148.
Tlaiss, H. and Kauser, S. (2011), “The impact of gender, family, and work on the career
advancement of Lebanese women managers”, Gender in Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 8-36.
Varje, P., Turtiainen, J. and Väänänen, A. (2013), “Psychological management: changing qualities
of the ideal manager in Finland 1949-2009”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 33-54.
Wagner-Tsukamoto, S. (2008), “Scientic management revisited: did Taylorism fail because of a
too positive image of human nature?”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 348-372.
Wellins, R. and Concelman, J. (2005), “Creating a culture for engagement”, Workforce Performance
Solutions, available at: www.WPSmag.com (accessed 10 January 2014).
Williams, W. (1920), What’s on the Worker’s Mind?, C. Scribner’s Sons, New York, NY.
Wollard, K.K. and Shuck, B. (2011), “Antecedents to employee engagement: a structured
review of the literature”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 429-446.
Wood, R.E. and Bandura, A. (1989), “Social cognitive theory of organizational management”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 361-384.
Wren, D.A. (1972), The Evolution of Management Thought, Wiley, New York, NY.
Wren, D.A. (1987), The Evolution of Management Thought, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Wren, D.A. (1994), The Evolution of Management Thought, 4th ed., John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Wren, D. (2005), The History of Management Thought, 5th ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
255
Employee
engagement
and
self-efcacy
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
Wren, D.A. and Hay, R.D. (1977), “Management historians and business historians: differing
perceptions of pioneer contributors”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 470-476.
Wren, D.A. and Bedeian, A.G. (2009), The Evolution of Management Thought, 6th ed., John Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2007), “The role of personal
resources in the job demands-resources model”, International Journal of Stress
Management, Vol. 14, pp. 121-141.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009), “Work engagement and
nancial returns: a diary study on the role of job and personal resources”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 183-200.
Further reading
Maslach, C. and Leiter, M.P. (2008), “Early predictors of job burnout and engagement”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 93, pp. 498-512.
Corresponding author
Grace K. Dagher can be contacted at: grace.dagher@lau.edu.lb
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
JMH
21,2
256
Downloaded by California State University Northridge At 12:57 11 February 2016 (PT)
