Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

[Link]

REGULAR ARTICLE

Employee Engagement as Human Motivation: Implications

for Theory, Methods, and Practice

J. David Pincus1,2

Accepted: 25 November 2022 / Published online: 28 December 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
2022

Abstract
The central theoretical construct in human resource management today is employee
engagement. Despite its centrality, clear theoretical and operational definitions are
few and far between, with most treatments failing to separate causes from effects,
psychological variables from organizational variables, and internal from external
mechanisms. This paper argues for a more sophisticated approach to the engage-
ment concept, grounding it in the vast psychological literature on human motiva-
tion. Herein lies the contribution of our paper; we argue that the apparent diversity
of operational definitions employed by academics and practitioners can be under-
stood as tentative attempts to draw ever nearer to key motivational concepts, but
never quite get there. We review the leading definitions of employee engagement in
the literature and find that they are reducible to a core set of human motives, each
backed by full literatures of their own, which populate a comprehensive model of
twelve human motivations. We propose that there is substantial value in adopting
a comprehensive motivational taxonomy over current approaches, which have the
effect of “snowballing” ever more constructs adopted from a variety of fields and
theoretical traditions. We consider the impact of rooting engagement concepts in
existing motivational constructs for each of the following: (a) theory, especially the
development of engagement systems; (b) methods, including the value of applying
a comprehensive, structural approach; and (c) practice, where we emphasize the
practical advantages of clear operational definitions.

Keywords Employee engagement · Employee motivation · Motivation ·

Emotion · Employee emotion · Spirituality

J. David Pincus
[Link]@[Link]

1
Employee Benefit Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA
2
Leading Indicator Systems, One Franklin Street, Boston, MA 02110, USA

13
1224 Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

Introduction

Despite the centrality of the employee engagement concept, clear theoretical and
operational definitions are few and far between, with most treatments failing to
separate causes from effects, psychological variables from organizational variables,
and internal from external mechanisms. This paper argues for a more sophisticated
approach to the engagement concept, grounding it in the vast psychological literature
on human motivation.

The Current State of Theory

In social science research, it is always good practice to try to distinguish causes

and effects in theoretical models, resulting in testable propositions. Much of the
theoretical work of both academics and practitioners1 in the domain of employee
engagement has unfortunately neglected this fundamental step, instead adopting a
list generation approach, enumerating all the exogenous and endogenous variables
that could, should, or might be expected to co-occur with engagement. This approach
has returned long lists of items with little regard for separating causes from effects,
psychological variables from organizational variables, states from traits, and the cog-
nitive from the emotional from the behavioral. In a literature review, Kular et al.,
(2008) concluded that despite the “great deal of interest in engagement, there is also a
good deal of confusion. At present, there is no consistency in definition, with engage-
ment having been operationalized and measured in many disparate ways.” Nearly a
decade later in a subsequent literature review, Dewing & McCormack (2015) observe
that “it is a challenge to find much substance or a clear definition for the concept of
engagement… Further, it is unclear how the construct relates to other existing similar
concepts…” (p. 2). As suggested by these, and indeed virtually all authors on this
subject, the term employee engagement has remained stubbornly muddled, conflated,
and confused, a victim of entangled, conflated pseudo-definitions that overlap heav-
ily with related but distinct concepts such as job engagement, work engagement,
organizational engagement, intellectual-social-affective engagement, and collective
organizational engagement (Albrecht, 2010). In this way, the academic and practitio-
ner literatures have been subjected to a kind of “snowballing effect” as authors apply
different theoretical models bringing with them a host of new constructs, while also
applying ever more synonyms for existing constructs (for examples, see list of key-
words used in literature review below).

1
An array of theoretical and measurement systems have been proposed by human resources consulting
practitioners for the employee engagement construct (Pincus, 2020). Zigarmi et al. (2009) clearly differ-
entiate between increasingly divergent practitioner and academic approaches to conceptualizing, defining,
and operationalizing employee engagement. A burgeoning volume of measures and concepts has been
growing rapidly from the “bottom-up” through the efforts of practitioners having the effect of widening
the gap over time between academic concepts with psychometrically validated measures and unsystem-
atic pragmatic approaches. Although the practitioner perspective is valuable, and our general conclusions
and suggestions extend equally to them, for the purposes of the current paper we limit our focus to peer-
reviewed academic systems.

13
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255 1225

The need for conceptual clarity is particularly acute for the concept of engagement.
By one account, few business concepts have resonated as strongly as has employee
engagement (Schneider et al., 2009). This strong and growing interest is confirmed
by Google Trends (accessed August 28, 2020), which shows a steady upward trend
in Google searches involving the phrase “employee engagement” beginning in April
2004 (their earliest data) at an index of 0, increasing to an index of 100 in July 2020
(indicating the strongest search volume to date). It is important to note that, despite
the obvious relevance of the engagement concept to employee emotional wellness,
this upward trend in interest pre-dates the current COVID-19 pandemic. Further-
more, studies have found significant linkages between employee engagement and
physical and mental health (Harter et al., 2003; Porath et al., 2012; Sonnentag, 2003;
Spreitzer et al., 2005). In light of this trend, providing a clear definition of employee
engagement isn’t just a good idea for developing theory and measurement, it may be
important for improving public health.
Although no universally accepted definition of employee engagement exists,
Shuck (2011) has extensively reviewed the literature and identified four dominant
research streams: Kahn’s (1990) need-satisfying approach, Maslach et al.’s (2001)
burnout-antithesis approach, Harter et al.’s (2002) satisfaction-engagement approach,
and Saks’ (2006) multidimensional approach. These four streams are derived from
entirely different research traditions: organizational behavior (Kahn), social psy-
chology (Maslach), commercial polling (Harter), and human resource management
(Saks) and, accordingly, can be thought of as four descriptions made by the prover-
bial men around the elephant, each absolutely correct in his description, but none
able to adequately describe the holistic essence of the phenomenon. In the spirit of
crowdsourcing, we will keep track of every postulated component and subcompo-
nent described by each tradition before attempting to apply an overarching model to
encompass them all.

Epistemological Foundations

We now make a very short digression into epistemology, noting only that the domi-
nant models of employee engagement all seem to tacitly assume the operation of the
Stimulus → Organism → Response (S-O-R) model, which has been the dominant
assumption in psychology since the close of the behaviorist era. In this formulation,
external, environmental stimuli are perceived and acted upon in the brain of the indi-
vidual organism, which mediates and causes observable behavior; accordingly, this
is known as the mediation model and provides a scaffolding to separate causes from
effects at two stages: external causes of internal effects and internal causes of behav-
ioral effects. This presupposes asymmetrical relations between causes and effects
(i.e., effects don’t cause causes) and should provide clear guidance for determining
the role of different variables in the chain of causation by asking questions such as
“Is X an external, environmental stimulus, a psychological response, or a behavioral

13
1226 Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

outcome?” and “Does X cause Y or vice-versa?” But, as we will show, this has often
not been the case in the employee engagement literature.2

Do Engagement Concepts Refer to Stimulus, Organism, or Response?

Key constructs related to employee engagement have a nasty habit of showing up in

different S-O-R roles at different times. For example, autonomy is part of the defi-
nition of engagement proposed by Maslach et al. (2001), but it is also an anteced-
ent condition in the Hackman & Oldham (1980) system employed by Kahn (1990).
Autonomy also shows up as an antecedent in discussion of role breadth (Morgeson et
al., 2005), and again as an outcome in extra-role behavior or role-expansion (Coyle-
Shapiro et al.,2004 ). It is unclear whether a behavioral intention like taking charge
is a cause of engagement, a marker of engagement, or a consequence of engagement.
The same pattern is observed with regard to the construct of psychological pres-
ence. One the one hand, Kahn (1990) defines engagement itself as a harnessing of the
self within the work role. On the other hand, the construct of organizational commit-
ment, defined in a seminal paper as an outcome variable (Saks, 2006), is defined by
the projection of the self into the organization (e.g., “Working at my organization has
a great deal of personal meaning to me”; “I feel personally attached to my work orga-
nization”). We are left to wonder if projecting one’s self into one’s work is a cause of
engagement, an indicator of engagement, or an outcome of engagement.
Again we see this pattern with regard to the key constructs of perceived organi-
zational support (POS) and perceived supervisor support (PSS), which are identified
as antecedent conditions (Saks, 2006). POS and PSS have been shown to be statisti-
cally related to measures of psychological safety, as well as to job characteristics of
openness, being encouraged to try new things, and enjoying a supportive relationship
with supervisor and colleagues (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), resulting in the outcome
of having “high quality relationships.” But this begs the question of what types of
variables these really are: Is perceived safety not a response to antecedent conditions?
Are POS and PSS themselves not psychological feeling states evoked by conditions?
As such, we would argue that these constructs play multiple roles and defy being
hard-coded into any one phase of the S-O-R process; it might be more accurate to
think about them as multiple feedback loops. The example of perceived caring by
the employer, a form of POS, is no trivial matter: As reported by Saks (2006), “dem-
onstrating caring and support” is far and away the biggest predictor of both job and
organizational engagement. But it’s not clear if perceived caring is part of the psy-
chological response that defines engagement itself, or if it should be considered an
antecedent condition, or even an outcome.
Unfortunately, this sort of conceptual “slipperiness” (Macey & Schneider, 2008)
affects nearly every construct in the employee engagement literature: Is task variety
purely an antecedent condition (an attribute of an environmental stimulus), or does
task variety necessitate absorption (a definition of engagement; mediator variable) on
the part of the employee in order to successfully perform the role, and by so doing,

2
This is quite apart from other basic problems of determining causation in social science in the absence of
longitudinal and experimental research designs.

13
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255 1227

does it necessarily induce role expansion (a behavioral outcome variable)?3 In this

light, it is easy to see how the slipperiness of constructs permits them to migrate back
and forth in status from stimulus to psychological mediator to behavioral outcome.
Despite valiant past attempts to categorize these constructs as one of the three ele-
ments in the S-O-R model, it is our contention that a more fruitful approach might be
found in allowing for multiple causal relations and feedback loops beyond the rigid
S-O-R assumption. As we will argue below, the vast majority of engagement con-
structs can be considered to act as psychological mediators, specifically, motivations,
which direct the organism to seek out certain kinds of stimuli (S), generate emotional
experiences (O), and prepare the body for response (R).
Motivations are inherently dynamic, that is, they pertain to striving for change over
time from current conditions to an improved future state. Because of this dynamism,
we suggest that a better model than S-O-R may be found in Maruyama’s (1963) Sec-
ond Cybernetics model of deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes. In contrast
to standard thermostat-like cybernetic systems that characterize most homeostatic
systems, using negative feedback loops to keep conditions within certain bounds,
deviation-amplifying processes push conditions toward increasing rates of change
(e.g., a crack in the sidewalk fills with water; it freezes causing the crack to expand,
which then holds more water, causing further expansion, and so on). Motives become
actualized within the context of particular workplaces; the resulting direction of
change is a function of mutually causal interactions between initial predispositions,
e.g., the worker grew up in a success-oriented family vs. in an egalitarian commune,
and work conditions that amplify certain types of needs, e.g., a sales department
that closely tracks and rewards individual achievement vs. a non-profit with a cul-
ture of communalism. These interactions and their feedback loops naturally spawn
increasing rates of change, which can either deepen a worker’s commitment to their
organization or drive them out. Our contention is that deviation-amplification is an
important underlying force that impels microgenesis from starting conditions to striv-
ings for change, and from foundational forms of motivation (e.g., the need for safety
or autonomy) to higher, decentralized forms of motivation (e.g., the need for esteem
or higher purpose).

Do Engagement Concepts Refer to Affect, Cognition, or Behavior?

A very similar and related problem plagues attempts to separate constructs as pri-
marily cognitive, emotional, or behavioral. The dominant definitions of employee
engagement have gone to great pains to explicitly state that this construct is a cog-
nitive, emotional, and behavioral complex. Commitment to the organization, for
example, is defined as having both intellectual and emotional components (Baumruk,
2004; Richman, 2006; Shaw, 2005). Psychological presence is defined as being pres-
ent cognitively, emotionally, and physically (Kahn, 1990). The authors of the popular
3
To further complicate matters, direct perception theorists might suggest that antecedents aren’t always
“ordinary” stimuli, i.e., neutral objects, but are often special stimuli with inherent affordance values, i.e.,
stimuli that by their very nature afford certain kinds of interactions, the way a comfortable chair affords
“sitability.” In this view, an antecedent like task variety could afford (induce) task and role expansion, for
example.

13
1228 Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) have defined engagement as a “persis-

tent and pervasive affective-cognitive state” (p. 74; Schaufeli et al., 2002). These
approaches pays lip service to this distinction but essentially finesse the problem. By
fudging and blurring any real distinctions between the affective, cognitive, and cona-
tive, researchers are left without critical guidance for developing valid and reliable
measures. Macey & Schneider (2008) express concern particularly about the inability
of current measures to address the emotional component, which they see as essential
to the distinctive definition of employee engagement.
Certain components of engagement have been identified as primarily cognitive,
e.g., attention, which is defined as both cognitive availability and time spent thinking
about role (Rothbard, 2001). In UWES terms, absorption, being intensely engrossed
in one’s role (Rothbard, 2001; Maslach et al., 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2002) seems like
a primarily cognitive construct, whereas vigor (full of energy) seems more behav-
ioral. The final component of UWES, dedication, seems primarily grounded in cog-
nition with shades of affect (e.g., “I find the work that I do full of meaning and
purpose”; “My job inspires me”; “My job is challenging”).
Just like the difficulties in establishing their S-O-R designations, these concepts
defy easy classification as thoughts, feelings, or actions. Mirroring the consensus
definition of the attitude construct in social psychology as having components of
affect, cognition, and behavior (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996), we contend that the vast
majority of these constructs imply thoughts, actions, and feelings, with a particular
emphasis on the latter (Macey & Schneider, 2008). As demonstrated below, the con-
cept of motivation, like attitude, can encompass this triad.

Literature Review

In accordance with Templier and Paré (2018), a literature review of the theory devel-
opment type was conducted consistent with the six-step process outlined by these
authors: (1) problem formulation, (2) literature search, (3) screening for inclusion,
(4) quality assessment, (5) data extraction, and (6) data analysis and interpretation,
as follows:

(1) The primary goal of this review is to identify theoretical systems that pur-
port to define the components of employee engagement.
(2) The literature search was performed using multiple, iterative search strategies
beginning with consultation of the Web of Science and Google Scholar search
engines, using combination of keywords drawn from definitions of engagement
such as “engagement,” “motivation,” “striving,” “involvement,” “persistence,”
“commitment,” “absorption,” “dedication,” “vigor,” “performance,” “citizen-
ship,” “identification,” in conjunction with the object of these descriptors:
“employee,” “worker,” “work,” “task,” “job,” “team,” “group,” “organization,”
etc. As relevant papers were identified, the list of search terms was updated to
include additional terms. Further, backward and forward searches on relevant
papers permitted the discovery of additional materials.
(3) The searches described above resulted in millions of publications of multi-
ple types, which were further screened for inclusion. Screening criteria focused

13
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255 1229

on the presence of a comprehensive model of engagement, whether viewed

through the lens of management, psychology, human resources, or assess-
ment. Additionally, results were screened for the availability of a complete set
of assessment items that corresponded to each comprehensive model. These
screens reduced the set to roughly 40 publications.
(4) At this point, the full set of publications were reviewed for quality and rele-
vance, resulting in additional forward and backward searching, which revealed
a final set of conceptual models that conformed to the above requirements.
(5) The specific elements of each model were extracted into a table for direct
comparison (Tables 3–5).

(6) The analysis and implications are presented below.

The analysis resulted in the identification of 102 concepts (Table 4) and 120 indi-
vidual assessment items (Table 5) referenced in the seminal and review papers on
employee engagement. The concepts range widely across multiple dimensions that
have been identified in past reviews, namely, antecedent conditions; indicators of
engagement itself (cognitions, emotions, behaviors); observable outcomes of engage-
ment; traits; and higher order qualities of engagement (e.g., persistence over time).
These 102 concepts also vary broadly in terms of their content, encompassing job
characteristics (e.g., variety, challenge, enrichment); individual traits (e.g., consci-
entiousness, autotelic personality, locus of control); intrapsychic concerns related to
the self (e.g., psychological safety, authenticity, opportunities for personal growth);
relations with the material world of work (e.g., autonomy, absorption, opportunity to
meaningfully contribute); social cognitions, emotions, and motivations (e.g., sense
of belonging, demonstrations of caring, opportunities for recognition); and concerns
with higher-order, abstract principles (e.g., justice, values, purpose).

Emergent Points of Consensus

Since several literature reviews and meta-analyses of this literature have been con-
ducted recently, we will not repeat the cataloguing of papers by commonalities here.
Instead, we will use the points of consensus as a starting point for our main conten-
tion, which is that employee engagement is best conceived as human motivation,
and that the various constructs proposed all neatly fit into a structured taxonomy of
human motivation.
Across the papers reviewed, several points of consensus emerge:

1. Engagement is primarily considered to be an individual-level, not group-level,

construct; as such, group level effects are the aggregated result of individual
results (Shuck et al., 2017; Shuck, Adelson, & Reio, 2016; Shuck & Wollard,
2010).
2. Engagement is a latent psychological variable and therefore can be estimated but
never directly observed, having the effect of re-classifying all so-called behav-
ioral engagement constructs as outcomes (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Macey et
al., 2009)

13
1230 Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

3. Engagement acts primarily as a mediator variable between antecedents (e.g., job

characteristics, work conditions, etc.) and outcomes (e.g., intention to quit, pro-
ductivity, performance; Saks & Gruman, 2014; Christian et al., 2011; Shuck,
2011; Rich et al., 2010; Bakker & Bal, 2010; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Macey
et al., 2009; Saks, 2006; Hakanen et al., 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
4. Engagement is primarily conceived of as a state rather than a trait (Shuck et al.,
2017; Christian et al., 2011; Saks & Gruman, 2014).
5. Engagement is a multi-dimensional construct (“a complex nomological net-
work”, Macey & Schneider, 2008) that includes cognitive, emotional, and behav-
ioral dimensions, but is primarily considered affective (Saks & Gruman, 2014;
Soane et al., 2012; Christian et al., 2011; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Macey et al.,
2009; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Kahn, 1990).
6. Engagement is primarily conceived of as an affectively-charged goal-directed
state, which is typically referred to as motivation in the psychological literature,
and is explicitly labeled as motivation in many seminal works (Saks & Gru-
man, 2014; Soane et al., 2012; Crawford et al., 2010; Macey & Schneider, 2008;
Macey et al., 2009; Meyer & Gagné, 2008; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2017,
2018; Bakker et al., 2016; Bakker & Sanz-Vergel, 2013; Schaufeli et al., 2002;
Kahn, 1990).
7. Repeated calls have been made to address the problem of non-parsimonious
construct proliferation, and for conceptual development to address questions of
nomological validity in the hopes of identifying a “super-engagement construct”
that can integrate the disparate and growing collection of constructs (Albrecht,
2010; Shuck et al., 2017; Cole et al., 2012; Shuck, 2011; Macey & Schneider,
2008; Macey et al., 2009).

Why Motivation?

It’s no coincidence that the major definitions of the employee engagement construct,
despite their widely ranging theoretical origins, happen to fall perfectly in line with
the definition of motivation, given by Pincus (2004) as an individual-level, unobserv-
able state of emotion or desire operating on the will and, as a psychological media-
tor, causing it to act. We contend that this is because the concept of engagement is
identical to the concept of motivation, albeit applied to a particular area of applica-
tion, i.e., one’s work. The goal of this paper is to suggest that a conceptual model
already exists that can accommodate all of these concepts, and that splitting hairs
over which aspects of which concepts are antecedents, mediators, or consequences,
is much like trying to parse out which are cognitions, emotions, or behavioral inclina-
tions. From a motivational perspective, these concepts each have facets in all of these
readout channels, i.e., a single motivational construct, say the need for belonging,
can be fostered by certain conditions, can become a salient need, is experienced both
affectively and cognitively, and can be behaviorally expressed.
In their seminal review article, Macey & Schneider (2008) explicitly describe
employee engagement as a form of motivation, and report the widespread usage of
synonyms for motivation in the literature including an “illusive force that motivates
employees” (Wellins & Concelman, 2005) and a “high internal motivational state”

13
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255 1231

Table 1 Definitional Characteristics of Employee Engagement and Human Motivation

Consensus Definition Employee Human
Engagement Motivation
Construct is defined as an individual-level, not group-level, psychological • •
construct
Construct is a latent variable that is not directly observable • •
Construct acts as a mediator variable between antecedent conditions and • •
behavioral outcomes
Construct is conceived of primarily as a state rather than a trait • •
Construct is conceived of as being multi-dimensional, with cognitive, emo- • •
tional, and behavioral dimensions, but is considered to be primarily affective
Construct is defined as an affectively-charged goal-directed state, and often • •
explicitly labeled as motivation

(Colbert et al., 2004). Shuck’s (2011) integrative literature review offers a very simi-
lar definition of employee engagement “as a positive psychological state of motiva-
tion with behavioral manifestations.” (p. 2). Macey & Schneider (2008) make an
intriguing statement that explicitly supports our contention:

“Some readers may feel that there are clear hints of ‘motivation’ in what we
have just written and wonder to themselves why we are not saying that this
(employee engagement) is motivation. The answer is that the construct of moti-
vation is itself a hypothetical construct with considerable ambiguity surround-
ing it. Were we to introduce it here, it might further confound the issues so we
leave the chore of integrating engagement with ‘motivation’ to others.” (p. 4).

Suffice it to say, we accept this challenge. In surveying the literature, the attributes
that consistently define the concept of employee engagement equally define motiva-
tion. Motivation is the meta-theory the field has been calling for (Table 1).
A leading comprehensive theory of motivation is Buck’s (1985) PRIME Theory,
an acronym for Primary Motivational and Emotional Systems. The key premise is
that motivation is a state of pent-up potential energy that, when actualized, is “read
out” through cognitive, emotional, and behavioral systems. In this model, each of
these three readouts have distinct functions: the function of syncretic cognition is to
provide the opportunity for conscious self-regulation; emotional expression serves to
spontaneously communicate what one is feeling to others, which supports social coor-
dination; and physical responses serve the need for adaptive behavior. The consensus
view of engagement follows this same exact pattern of cognition (e.g., enthusiastic
thinking), emotion (e.g., felt pleasantness), and behavior (e.g., physical activation).
The dominant perspective on the origin of motivations, echoed by Buck (1985)
and Damasio (2012), is that they are essentially mechanisms of homeostasis, keeping
the organism within set bounds of desirable operation. Motivational and emotional
processes are activated within individuals via stereotyped action patterns, which
have existed long before evolution designed conscious minds. In Damasio’s view,
humans have minds for the purpose of sensing changes in our physiological states
both internally and externally, and consciousness exists to provide us flexibility in
how to respond to our environments. In this view, higher-order motivations (e.g., to

13
1232 Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

feel free, included, cared for, fair, etc.) are built up (ontogenetically, phylogenetically,
and microgenetically) from the neural substrates of unconscious, physiological needs
on a continuum that begins with the physiologically-grounded (e.g., feeling safe) and
extending up to those that are increasingly influenced and shaped by culture (e.g.,
feeling respected, successful, ethical, self-actualized, and having a life purpose). As
motives become more culturally mediated (i.e., developing socio-historically), they
are also increasingly subject to cultural prescription of appropriate avenues for their
fulfillment. As suggested by Vygotsky (1978) and Leont’ev (1978), the microgenesis
of personality and self-concept, as amalgamations of sets of needs and need-traits,
is heavily determined by the social environments provided by caregivers, family,
school, etc.
Consistent with the operation of all four of Vygotsky’s levels of human develop-
ment, it is through the experience of deficiencies that development proceeds. Accord-
ingly, we would expect hierarchical progress in motivation to typically occur in
response to negative motivation, at least initially; over time, the role of positive aspi-
rations would gain more prominence. As noted by cultural psychologists, negative
and positive motivations tend to work together in a complementary fashion (Valsiner,
2014, 2019, 2021). Boredom, as an example of a negative motivational nudge, initi-
ates stimulation seeking and desire for flow experiences; in this view, a certain degree
of boredom is necessary to spark creativity and innovation (Boesch, 1998).

Applying a Taxonomy of Human Motivation to Engagement Constructs

Recently, a unified model of human motivation has been introduced to describe the
types of emotional needs that impel humans to take action (Pincus, 2022). It was nec-
essary to develop this model because, surprisingly, despite a plethora of mini-theories
of motivation (e.g., Need for Achievement, Need for Affiliation, Terror Manage-
ment Theory, Flow Theory, etc.), no comprehensive model of human motivation yet
existed in the psychology literature. Maslow’s need hierarchy makes strides toward
being more comprehensive, yet his focus on high achieving individuals led him to
neglect many key motivations recognized in the literature, such as the need for Nur-
turance identified by Bowlby and Harlow, McClelland’s Need for Achievement and
Need for Power, Erickson’s Identity Formation motive, and Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow
Theory, among others.
To address this need, we began with the premise that motivation activates and
directs behavior toward goals in four fundamental domains of life: the intrapsychic
(inner-directed, focused on the self), the instrumental (outer-directed, focused on the
material world of work and play), the interpersonal (socially-directed), and the spiri-
tual (directed toward adherence with transcendent and eternal principles). These four
domains of motivational focus have been identified by multiple systems of thought
(Pincus, 2022) including developmental psychology (e.g., James, Maslow, and Kohl-
berg), sports psychology, social psychology & philosophy of religion, and by the five
major world religions. We followed the premise of four fundamental motivational
domains with a typology of three possible levels of motivational fulfillment. Follow-
ing the work of Fromm (2013) and Rand (1993), we proposed that these four domains
of fulfillment cross three states of existence: a foundational level of forward-looking

13
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255 1233

Table 2 A unified pyramid of human motivation (Pincus, 2022)

Three Levels Four Life Domains
of Striving Self Material Social Spiritual
Aspirational Fulfilling Potential and Success and Recognition Higher Purpose
Limitation Failure and Scorn and Materialism

Experiential Authenticity and Conformity Immersion and Caring and Ethics and
Boredom Uncaring Wrongdoing

Foundational Safety and Anxiety Autonomy and Inclusion and Justice and
Disempowerment Exclusion Injustice

expectations (being), an intermediate level of experiences in the moment (doing),

and an advanced level of backward-looking outcomes (having).4 Crossing the four
life domains with the three modes of existence results in a periodic table-style matrix
that is arguably comprehensive since there are no additional fundamental domains of
life or modes of existence. This matrix is presented below as Table 2, along with the
resulting distributions of concepts and assessment items (Table 3) analyzed as part of
the literature review.
As suggested above, the columns of the model organize the motivational concepts
in terms of the location of the desired change (change in feelings about the self;
change in feelings about action in the material world, change in feelings about social
relationships and social interactions; and change in feelings about relationships with
transcendental, ethereal principles) and the rows of this table organize motivational
concepts according to the types of change toward which a particular motivational
force is striving (change in expectations for the future, change in real time experi-
ences of the present, and change in retrospective evaluation of outcomes from life
choices and activities). Each motivational concept in the matrix has both positive
(aspiration-linked) and negative (frustration-linked) emotional forms—reflecting the
push and pull of emotional energies that move people to take action in life. 5 Motiva-
tional energy is typically fueled by both positive “pull” and negative “push” forces
for the same need; for example, a worker who feels disempowered strives to rid
himself or herself of this feeling (negative), typically by seeking greater autonomy
(positive). In this way, positive and negative motivational forces should be seen as
complementary, not as zero-sum tradeoffs.
Another important postulate of this model, like that of Maslow’s need hierarchy,
is that progress within any of the life domains requires the successful satisfaction

4
Aristotle proposed the same three-level delineation between states of existence: potentiality (having
potential), energy or potentiality-as-such (motion that makes use of that latent potential), and actuality (the
finished product). The classic example of this distinction involves the building of a house. The building
materials could be used to build a house or they could be used to build some other structure; this is their
state of potentiality, what Aristotle called “the buildable.“ The motion of building the house brings the
materials toward the goal of actualization as a house but is an intermediate step in the process; this is the
state of energy or potentiality-as-such. When the house is finished, the building materials are in a state of
actualization.
5
Since it is logically possible for an employee to be motivated by either the positive aspiration for a
motive or to avoid the negative frustration of the same motive, or both, or neither, we make no prediction
about the expected relationships between positive and negative manifestations, and propose instead that
they tend to operate in a complementary manner.

13
1234 Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

Table 3 Distributions of engagement concepts and assessment items by the twelve cells of the unified
pyramid of human motivation
Three Levels of Four Life Domains
Striving Self Material Social Spiritual
Aspirational Fulfilling Potential Success and Recognition Higher Purpose
and Limitation Failure and Scorn and Materialism
% of qualifying 7.8% 5.2% 2.6% 7.8%
constructs
% of qualifying items 3.6% 5.5% 4.5% 3.6%

Experiential Authenticity and Immersion and Caring and Ethics and

Conformity Boredom Uncaring Wrongdoing
% of qualifying 7.8% 26.0% 9.1% 10.4%
constructs
% of qualifying items 3.6% 38.2% 8.2% 10.0%

Foundational Safety and Anxiety Autonomy and Inclusion and Justice and
Disempowerment Exclusion Injustice
% of qualifying 3.9% 10.4% 5.2% 3.9%
constructs
% of qualifying items 0.9% 2.7% 9.1% 10.0%

of more basic needs before the next level becomes salient, e.g., before one can be
concerned with living up to their full potential, they must already have achieved feel-
ings of safety and authenticity. In our extensive review of the motivational literature,
over 100 distinct motivational concepts (i.e., needs or drives) were identified; all fit
within one of these twelve categories of motivation, supporting our contention that
the matrix is comprehensive.
Although we have displayed the matrix as a flat table for the purposes of pub-
lication, we prefer a three-dimensional pyramidal structure to reinforce the notion
that humans must start from the basic motivations within each of the four domains
before ascending to the salience of higher motivations; consequently, progressively
fewer humans attain the higher levels with each domain, shrinking their relative
sizes toward the top as visually represented by a pyramid. Another important theo-
retical concept that is reinforced by a pyramid heuristic is the fact that the Self is
proposed to be antipodal to the Social, and the Spiritual is proposed to be antipodal
to the Material; we will return to this point later as it has implications for hypoth-
esis generation.
Presuming that most readers are not yet familiar with this model, we will give a
brief introduction to the twelve motives of this matrix, and relate certain key con-
cepts from the employee engagement literature to each. In all, 77 of the 102 con-
cepts identified in the literature review found homes in this matrix. The remaining
25 were primarily personality traits (i.e., ambitiousness, autotelic personality, con-
fidence, conscientiousness, determination, exchange ideology, hardiness, initiative,
locus of control, optimism, proactivity, self-efficacy, self-esteem/self-worth, trait
positive affect). These were excluded on the basis that the consensus view holds that
the engagement construct is a state, not a trait. Job characteristics were similarly
excluded because they are not psychological states (i.e., feedback from task and oth-

13
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255 1235

ers, job and task characteristics, job enrichment, job demands, physical presence, and
turnover intention). Finally, meta-characteristics that encompass multiple sub-dimen-
sions were excluded because they are merely category labels whose subcomponents
have already been included (i.e., personal resources, job resources, job satisfaction,
motivation, and persistent/pervasive affective-cognitive state).

Motives of the Self

Safety and Anxiety. At the most basic level, there is a human need to feel safe and
secure. This means feeling safe and assured in the face of challenges. When safety
motivation is operating there is a desire to gain the basic sense that one has the confi-
dence, protection, and comfort to successfully grow as a person. The need for “peace
of mind” captures the spirit of this motive. At least twelve major theories of motiva-
tion include a need for safety as a core motive (Forbes, 2011; Pincus, 2022).
Fittingly, the very first academic paper that described the phenomenon of employee
engagement by Kahn (1990) lists psychological safety as one of the three pillars of
engagement. In their review of the literature, Saks & Gruman (2014) suggest that
Kahn’s need for safety is indeed the most fundamental requirement for engagement,
which they describe as “important and necessary for all types of engagement” to
develop (p. 175). Additional engagement constructs that speak to this need include
the need for physical health (Saks, 2006; Sonnentag, 2003) and trust (Saks, 2006;
Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
Authenticity and Conformity. At the next level, pertaining to experiences with
and of the self, comes the human need to feel able to express one’s distinctive indi-
viduality in the face of pressures to conformity. This is the desire to gain the sense that
one is different in a good way, and to use this difference to successfully take action
toward desired results. “Know thyself” captures the spirit of this motive. At least nine
major theories of motivation include a need for authenticity as a core motive (Forbes,
2011; Pincus, 2022).
The essence of Kahn’s (1990) engagement construct is that true engagement
requires the “holistic investment of the entire self” (p. 97), i.e., their full, true, and
complete selves, to one’s work role. That the need for authenticity is built atop ful-
filled needs for psychological safety seems logical and fitting. Additional engage-
ment constructs that speak to this need include the need for authenticity (Saks &
Gruman, 2014; Rich et al., 2010; Christian et al., 2011; Macey & Schneider, 2008;
May et al., 2004; Kahn, 1990), emotional presence (Kahn, 1990), personal identifi-
cation (Cole et al., 2012; Christian et al., 2011; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Bono &
Judge, 2003; Kahn, 1990; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986), projection of the self into
work & organization (Christian et al., 2011; Saks, 2006; Kahn, 1990), and role fit,
i.e., the degree of match between the authentic self and one’s job and organization
(Macey & Schneider, 2008).
Fulfilling Potential and Failure to Thrive. At the highest level of attainment
in the domain of the Self we find the need for self-actualization, the need to feel
as though one is progressing toward fulfilling their personal potential as a human.
This is the desire to gain the sense that one has the skill and mastery to successfully
become one’s “best self.” The expression, “Be all that you can be,” captures the spirit

13
1236 Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

of this motive. At least eleven major theories of motivation include a striving toward
one’s full potential as a core motive (Forbes, 2011; Pincus, 2022).
This motive has found full expression in the recent literature on thriving at work
(Spreitzer et al., 2005; van der Walt, 2018), which is defined as a “sense of progress,
or forward movement, in one’s self-development” (p. 4). Several related constructs
in the engagement literature speak to this need for personal growth and mastery
including strivings for extra role behavior (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006;
Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), role expansion (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Morgeson
et al., 2005), mastery, learning, development and personal growth (Crawford et al.,
2010), opportunities for growth & development (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Harter
et al., 2002), as well as desires to innovate (Macey & Schneider, 2008). The construct
of initiative (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Frese & Fay, 2001), when applied within the
domain of the Self, may fuel all of these strivings.

Motives of the Material Domain

Autonomy and Disempowerment. At the most basic level of the Material domain,
the area of life most directly associated with work, is the need for autonomy, defined
as the need to feel authorized, capable and competent in the face of challenge.
Autonomy is the desire to gain the basic sense that one has the ability, resources, and
authority to successfully take action toward a desired result. The expression, “You
can do it,” captures the spirit of this motive. At least seven major theories of moti-
vation include a striving for autonomy, including terms such as self-determination,
empowerment, and self-efficacy (Forbes, 2011; Pincus, 2022).
A variety of engagement-related constructs explicitly focus on the need for auton-
omy (Soane et al., 2012; Meyer & Gagné, 2008; Saks, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001).
Other related psychological concepts include competence (Soane et al., 2012; Meyer
& Gagné, 2008; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Spreitzer, 1995), control (Macey &
Schneider, 2008; Spreitzer, 1995), empowerment (Macey & Schneider, 2008), per-
sonal discretion/agency (Kahn, 1990), and self-determination (Macey & Schneider,
2008; Meyer & Gagné, 2008). We would also classify personal resources in this
category, such as positive anticipation of future behavior and mental and physical
resilience. There is a set of antecedent conditions that can help make these strivings
successful including resource availability (Shuck, 2011; Macey & Schneider, 2008;
Schaufeli et al., 2002; Harter et al., 2002; Maslach et al., 2001) and sustainable work-
load (Saks, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001), among other task characteristics.
Immersion and Boredom. At the intermediate, experiential level of the Mate-
rial domain, we find the need for immersion, the striving to feel fully focused and
engaged in the moment. This desire to lose one’s self in activity, in a state of total
awareness, absorption, and flow, plays a particularly prominent role in definitions of
engagement. The expression, “Being in the zone,” captures the essence of this motive.
No less than thirteen major systems of motivation include this motive (Forbes, 2011;
Pincus, 2022).
Of all the motives discussed herein, immersion is the motive most densely popu-
lated by engagement constructs, representing roughly one-quarter of the 102 identi-
fied in the literature review. Chief among these is absorption (Kahn, 1990; Saks &

13
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255 1237

Gruman, 2014; Rothbard, 2001; Maslach et al., 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Hooker
& Csikszentmihalyi, 2003), one of the three pillars of the dominant Schaufeli-Bakker
UWES paradigm and a hallmark of Kahn’s (1990) concept of engagement. As pointed
out by Saks & Gruman (2014), “if there is one common component across all defini-
tions of engagement, it is the notion of being absorbed in one’s work and role” (p.
166). Unsurprisingly, then, there are many different terms used to describe this con-
struct and these tend toward either cognitive, emotional, or behavioral descriptors.
The cognitive forms of this state include attention (Rothbard, 2001; Kahn, 1990),
psychological availability (Kahn, 1990), cognitive presence (Kahn, 1990; Christian
et al., 2011), experiential quality of doing work (Kahn, 1990), focused effort (Macey
& Schneider, 2008), and job involvement (Christian et al., 2011; Macey & Schnei-
der, 2008; Saks, 2006; May et al., 2004; Maslach et al., 2001). The affective forms
of this state draw a variety of labels including passion (Zigarmi et al., 2009; Macey
& Schneider, 2008; Wellins & Concelman, 2005), enjoyment (Macey & Schneider,
2008; Rothbard & Edwards, 2003), happiness (Schaufeli et al., 2002), energy or ener-
getic state (Saks & Gruman, 2014; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008, 2017, 2018; Maslach
& Leiter, 2008; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001), enthu-
siasm (Saks & Gruman, 2014; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008, 2017, 2018; Macey &
Schneider, 2008; Harter et al., 2003, 2002), and positive affect (Macey & Schnei-
der, 2008; Saks, 2006; Sonnentag, 2003; Kahn, 1990). The behavioral descriptors
of this state include efficacy (Saks & Gruman, 2014; Maslach & Leiter, 2008; Saks,
2006; Maslach et al., 2001), productivity (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Harter et al.,
2002), vigor (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Shirom, 2003; Schaufeli et al., 2002), and
the display of discretionary effort (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006; Frank et
al., 2004; Mowday et al., 1982). As predicted by Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow Theory
(2003), antecedent stimulus conditions that help elicit this state include an optimal
level of challenge (Shuck, 2011; Brown & Leigh, 1996; Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
Success and Failure. At the highest level of attainment in the Material domain we
find successful accomplishment, the striving to feel a sense of achievement as a result
of one’s effort. This motive represents the desire to contribute to and be victorious in
attaining desired results and to experience material rewards as a result. The expres-
sion, “In it to win it,” captures the spirit of this motive. At least seven major psycho-
logical theories of motivation include this motive (Forbes, 2011; Pincus, 2022).
Within the engagement literature, this motive tends to be relegated to the status of
evaluative outcome variable, as job performance (Saks, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker,
2004) or individual performance (Christian, et al., 2011; Alfes et al., 2010; Bakker
& Xanthopoulou, 2009). Nevertheless, several key papers include either the striving
to make important contributions (Shuck, 2011; Brown & Leigh, 1996; Hackman &
Oldham, 1980) or the striving to have impact (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Spreitzer,
1995), both of which are well aligned with this need.

Motives of the Social Domain

Inclusion and Exclusion. At the foundational level of the social sphere is the need
for acceptance and inclusion that permits the establishment of social bonds. Inclu-
sion means feeling socially accepted, connected, and integrated, the desire to gain

13
1238 Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

the basic sense that one belongs and can develop social attachments and friendships.
The expression, “We are family,” captures this spirit. At least nine major motivational
systems include this motive, which has been similarly labeled the need for affiliation,
sociability, belonging, or social contact (Forbes, 2011; Pincus, 2022).
Within the engagement literature, this motive figures prominently, with increased
attention from the UK-based research group of Bailey (Truss), Soane, Madden, Alfes,
& Fletcher, who have raised its profile substantially by naming it one of the three
pillars of their Intellectual-Social-Affective (ISA) engagement concept (Bailey et al.,
2015; Bailey et al., 2017; Soane et al., 2012). Although this is a new level of promi-
nence for the construct, it has been a part of the engagement literature for many years,
showing up as belonging (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mowday
et al., 1982), high quality relationships (Saks, 2006), the ability to show warmth to
others (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Shirom, 2003), and social relatedness (Soane et
al., 2012; Shuck & Wollard, 2010; Meyer & Gagné, 2008; Kahn, 1990).
Caring and Uncaring. At the intermediate, experiential level of the Social triad
comes the experience of feeling cared for by one’s employer, supervisor, or col-
leagues. Caring means feeling able to give and receive (appropriate) love, nurtur-
ance, and support, the desire to feel emotional nourishment, empathy, devotion, and
experience mutual gratitude. The expression “Sharing is caring” aptly captures its
essence. At least eight major motivational systems include this motive, which has
been similarly labeled the need for nurturance, intimacy, succorance, attachment, or
parental love (Forbes, 2011; Pincus, 2022).
Feeling cared for is an especially important construct within the engagement lit-
erature due to its predictive power; Saks (2006) reports that perceived organizational
support is far and away the top predictor of engagement with the organization and
is tied for first place with job characteristics as the top predictor of job engagement.
This construct goes by many names including caring, concern, and support (Saks,
2006; Kahn, 1992), community & social support (Saks, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001),
manager support (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Harter et al., 2002), perceived organiza-
tional support (Saks, 2006; Rhodes et al., 2001), perceived supervisor support (Saks,
2006; Rhodes et al., 2001), social support (Saks, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004;
Maslach et al., 2001), and supportive supervisors & management (Shuck, 2011;
Brown & Leigh, 1996; Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
Recognition and Indifference. At the pinnacle of the Social triad is the need
for social recognition. Recognition means feeling that one has achieved a social
status of being admired, respected, and esteemed, typically as a resident expert in
some skill or ability in the context of work. This motive represents the desire to
gain social acknowledgement that one has been successful in a socially significant
pursuit. The expression, “Hats off to you,” captures the spirit of this motive. At
least eight major motivational systems include this motive, which has been simi-
larly labeled the needs for esteem, honor, or egoistic prosocial motivation (Forbes,
2011; Pincus, 2022).
Surprisingly, the need for recognition barely registers in the engagement litera-
ture with only two constructs matching this description. Significantly, however, the
few times this concept surfaces, it appears in seminal papers (Macey & Schneider,
2008; Saks, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001), suggesting that recognition needs should

13
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255 1239

be seriously considered as components of engagement. The first of these is the

rewards & recognition construct (Saks, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001), specifically the
recognition component; the reward construct would generally be classified with the
successful accomplishment motive by motivational theorists. The other construct
is that of the need for pride (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Mowday et al., 1982), the
desire for a kind of social “badge value” or caché associated with prominent, suc-
cessful organizations.

Motives of the Spiritual Domain

Fairness and Injustice. At the basic level of the Spiritual triad is the need for justice
and fairness, the need to feel that one’s organization acts in an honest, unbiased,
impartial, even-handed and transparent manner. In practice, this means the employ-
ees strive to feel the basic sense that good is rewarded, bad is punished, and that gain
goes to those most deserving of it. The spirit of this motive is captured by the expres-
sion, “If you want peace, work for justice.” We note parenthetically that the impor-
tance of this motive has recently been dramatically underscored by the Black Lives
Matter movement and perceived corporate responses to COVID-19. We suggest that
to the extent that needs for justice have not been incorporated into engagement con-
structs, it has been an oversight that should be corrected. This motive appears in
many motivational systems, particularly those focusing on moral development in
children (e.g., Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, Lerner’s just world hypoth-
esis, Bloom’s roots of good and evil, etc.; Pincus 2022).
Here, again, is an example of a need that has received scant notice in the engage-
ment literature, but when it is mentioned, it is in some of the most significant papers
in the body of work (Saks, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001). Both
Saks (2006) and Maslach et al. (2001) identify the important role of perceived fair-
ness, and procedural and distributive fairness as antecedent conditions for fostering
engagement. Saks (2006) assesses the power of a host of variables in predicting both
job engagement and organization engagement; of these, procedural justice is one of
only two significant predictors of organizational engagement.
Ethics and Wrongdoing. At the intermediate, experiential level comes the need to
feel that one and one’s organization behaves in an ethical manner, consistent with nor-
mative moral values. This is the striving to feel that one’s actions, and those of one’s
organization, are in accordance with a set of moral principles, universal values, or at
the very least, accepted standard business practices, applied to the business in which
you are engaged. This is the desire to feel that one’s and one’s organization act in
accordance with principled best practices and the highest ethical standards, something
that is universally preached in corporate values statements but too often ignored in
practice. The essence of this need is captured by the expression, “Do the right thing.”
This motive similarly appears in motivational systems that focus on moral develop-
ment including those of Kohlberg, Batson, Staub, and even Kant (Pincus, 2022).
Ethical motivation receives a great deal of attention in the engagement literature,
in the form of the many constructs devoted to reciprocity, obligation, duty, loyalty,
and the like. At the individual level, this adherence to principle includes the sense of

13
1240 Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

personal dedication and duty toward the organization. Chief among these may be the
concept of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) directed to other individuals
or to the organization (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002),
organizational commitment behavior (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006; Robin-
son et al., 2004; Rhoades et al., 2001), emotional and intellectual commitment to the
organization (Saks, 2006; Baumruk, 2004; Richman, 2006; Shaw, 2005; O’Reilly &
Chatman, 1986), mutual commitments (Saks, 2006; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005),
dedication (Shuck, 2011; Thomas, 2007; Schaufeli et al., 2002), loyalty (Saks, 2006;
Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), and values (Saks, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001). Because
these constructs have nearly all been defined in terms of observable behaviors, as a
group they have tended to be categorized as outcomes or consequences of engagement
rather than engagement itself, which misses the point of their motivational status.
When an employee experiences ethical strivings (as motivation), they may tilt toward
demonstrating observable citizenship behaviors (as part of the readout of that motiva-
tion), but it is important to recognize the motivation itself as the cause of that behavior.
Higher Purpose and Materialism. At the peak of the Spiritual domain stands the
noblest and rarest of the motives, the need to feel as though one is serving a higher
purpose or calling through one’s effort. Higher purpose means having a more mean-
ingful reason to live, work, and exist than satisfying material needs. This is the desire
to transcend the ordinary limitations of everyday life toward a higher, even spiritual,
purpose. An expression that captures its essence is, “Those who have a why to live
can bear almost any how.” An impressive collection of motivational theorists explic-
itly include a form of higher purpose or transcendental motivation in their systems
including Staub, Kohlberg, and Maslow (Pincus, 2022).
Similar to the ethical motivation, the need for higher purpose is very well estab-
lished in the engagement literature with extensive references to the construct of the
meaningfulness of work, both in one’s work and at one’s work (Kahn, 1990; Saks &
Gruman, 2014; James et al., 2011; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003;
Meyer & Allen, 1997; Brown & Leigh, 1996; Spreitzer, 1995). Of particular note
is research focused explicitly on spiritual needs and their relationship to employee
engagement (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2010; Houghton et al., 2016; Milliman et al.,
2018; Saks, 2011; van der Walt, 2018). These spiritual needs have been described
as a need for meaning and purpose, awareness of life, connectedness, experience
of sacredness, personal reflection and growth, health and inner peace, and compas-
sion (van der Walt, 2018). Closely related constructs include organizational purpose
(Macey & Schneider, 2008), sense of purpose (Macey & Schneider, 2008), transfor-
mational leadership, which is thought of as a catalyst for meaning and purpose (Saks
& Gruman, 2014; Bakker et al., 2011; Christian et al., 2011; Macey & Schneider,
2008), and adaptive behavior, which represents individual strivings in support of the
organization’s purpose (Macey & Schneider, 2008).

Implications for Theory

The persistent problem of adequately defining employee engagement is well docu-

mented (Shuck et al., 2017; Saks & Gruman, 2014; Macey & Schneider, 2008). As

13
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255 1241

perceptively noted by Macey & Schneider (2008), trying to separate antecedents and
consequences from an ill-defined mediating construct is, at best, a “slippery” busi-
ness (p. 10). By failing to embed the phenomena of engagement within a clear theo-
retical model, the field has suffered from concept proliferation, as indicated by the
more than 100 identified herein. This is a failure of parsimony, but more fundamen-
tally, it is a failure to clearly state the essential character of the phenomenon itself.
Across the literature there are precious few citations of the psychological literature
on motivation, which is extensive. It is telling that Kahn (1990), in the paper that first
defined this construct, employs Maslow’s (1970) need hierarchy as one of its primary
foundations. Despite the grounding of the original concept in motivation theory, the
only consistent acknowledgements to the psychological literature involve passing
references to self-concordance theory (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999) and self-determina-
tion theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
One of the most significant benefits to theory development of our proposition is
to embed the vast array of engagement concepts within a structure that is logical and
arguably comprehensive, as there are no known additional domains of human life
or modes of existence (Fromm, 2013; Rand, 1993). Knowing these limits directly
addresses the call to end concept proliferation (Cole et al., 2012), since any new con-
struct proposed will necessarily have a “home” among similar constructs.
Another important benefit is immediately obvious from our analysis of Tables 3
and 4 as one can immediately see the degree of conceptual overlap, and distinctive-
ness, between different theoretical streams. As noted, fully one quarter of the con-
cepts, and nearly two in five assessment items, identified relate to the motivational
construct of immersion, suggesting that this is the most defining characteristic of
employee engagement. By the same token, underrepresented concepts can also be
clearly identified, e.g., safety, authenticity, recognition, justice, and included in future
research.
Another key feature of our model is the requirement that each motivation must be
capable of operating as either a striving toward positive aspiration (i.e., promotion) or
away from negative frustration (i.e., prevention). Explicitly recognizing the polarity
of motives within each cell supports further logical organization of proposed facilita-
tive or inhibitory concepts, and, indeed, suggests that future research assess each of
the twelve motives in terms of promotion needs and prevention needs.
However, we believe the greatest contribution to theory development is the estab-
lishment of a general theory of employee engagement that is composed of every
possible human motivation (Pincus, 2022). Our model of human motivation takes the
form of a pyramid formed by four sides representing four life domains: the Self, the
Material, the Social, and the Spiritual. By placing these domains as opposing pairs,
Self and Social, and Material and Spiritual, via a visual metaphor of distance, we are
suggesting strong linkages between adjacent domains (e.g., Self – Spiritual – Social),
and weak linkages for antipodal domains, for which there exists strong theoretical
(Kohlberg and Power, 1981; Staub, 2005) and empirical support (Mahoney, et al.,
2005).
A next frontier for research will be to describe the manner in which discrete moti-
vations (both positive and negative) interact with each other to spark developmental
progression both at the individual level and at the level of the organization. Our

13
1242 Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

pyramidal model posits that such progress necessarily moves individuals and organi-
zations in the direction of transcendence of categorical boundaries, with the ultimate
goal of unifying all twelve motivations, i.e., what gives me security also provides jus-
tice for others, what gives me a sense of achievement also brings honor to the organi-
zation, what gives me a sense of authenticity also brings me a sense of purpose, etc.

Implications for Methods

In the words of Shuck et al. (2017), “the lack of engagement measures that are both
academically grounded as well as practically useful, …complicates the ability of
researchers to answer scholarly inquiry around questions of nomological validity and
structural stability matched with practical usability” (p. 15). A symptom of flawed
measures, the products of flawed theories, is the failure to garner empirical sup-
port for tested hypotheses, and the literature is rife with examples. Shuck (2011)
cites Rich et al.’s (2010) finding that one operationalization of engagement failed to
explain any variance in outcomes beyond that explained by intrinsic motivation, job
involvement, and job satisfaction, suggesting that this concept and its operationaliza-
tion was incomplete and “in need of theory building.” Similarly, Shuck (2010) found
that Kahn’s definition of engagement failed to predict unique variance in outcomes,
whereas a set of non-engagement variables were successful in explaining variance.
In the same spirit, Macey & Schneider (2008) called for a fundamental re-thinking
of the approach to measurement. In their view, an adequate measurement technique
is needed that can validly and reliably measure the motivational-emotional content
of these constructs while minimizing rational filtering of response. In the words of
Macey & Schneider (2008):

● “The results from survey data are used to infer that reports of these conditions
signify engagement, but the state of engagement itself is not assessed.” (p. 7).
And current measures “do not directly tap engagement. Such measures require
an inferential leap to engagement rather than assessing engagement itself.” (p. 8).
● “Some measures…used to infer engagement are not affective in nature at all and
frequently do not connote or even apply to a sense of energy…” (p. 10). “Mea-
sures of psychological states that are devoid of direct and explicit indicators of
affective and energetic feeling are not measures of state engagement in whole or
part.” (p. 12).
● “The conclusion from these articles is to focus the measurement on the construct
of interest; if engagement is the target, ensure that the measure maps the content
of the construct.” (p. 26).

We couldn’t agree more, and our proposed reconceptualization of employee engage-

ment has clear implications for advancing measurement. If employee engagement is
indeed a motivational-emotional construct, then attempting to assess it using verbal
and numerical assessment items is immediately problematic because such measures
require rational, analytical thought on the part of the respondent. Entire research
streams have evolved in the decades since Kahn (1990) specifically to work around
the problems of assessing emotional and experiential constructs. These include a

13
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255 1243

variety of so-called “System 1” techniques, named for Daniel Kahneman’s (2011)

distinction between the brain’s fast, intuitive system (System 1) and the slower, ratio-
nal system (System 2). These measurement systems are designed to bypass ratio-
nal, cognitive filters, so that researchers can directly access motivational-emotional
states, and include neurological imaging and electrical techniques (e.g., fMRI, EEG),
physiological techniques (e.g., facial electromyography, facial coding, electro-der-
mal response, pupillary dilation, eye tracking, heart rate, blood pressure, respiration),
and indirect measures of motivational-emotional meaning (e.g., Implicit Association
Test, Affective Priming, Image-based Techniques). We urge scholars to move beyond
cognitively-biased “paper and pencil” surveys when attempting to measure this moti-
vational-emotional construct.

Implications for Practice

Much of contemporary employee engagement theory has little to offer the current
day practitioner due to the lack of coherent theory and, accordingly, the weak ability
of measures derived from these theories to explain variance in important outcomes.
By grounding the many concepts attendant to this construct within a unified theory
of human motivation, the task of understanding and communicating its essence is
greatly simplified. This alone should be very helpful to practitioners who must some-
how explain what their models measure and why.
Beyond its heuristic value, a unified model of human motivation provides a series
of testable hypotheses, which can illuminate the specific relationships between each
of the twelve motives (and their promotion and prevention faces) and external condi-
tions that are under the employer’s control, outcomes that are important to the client,
and with each other that together give meaning to interventions within a particu-
lar cultural context. Knowing which of the twelve complementary motives are most
salient within a particular cultural milieu can assist the organization and workers to
address work-related issues contextually, situationally, and adaptively. The cultural
meaning of negative emotional needs is especially important to understand: The drive
to avoid failure would have an entirely different meaning in a learning culture that not
only tolerates failure, but actively encourages it, as opposed to a culture where “fail-
ure is not an option.” By aligning motivational interventions with the deep currents
of cultural context, such interventions can take on meanings that are harmonious and
adaptive, not incongruent, or inappropriate.6
Finally, in the words of social psychologist Kurt Lewin, “there is nothing so
practical as a good theory.” The many challenges to the defensibility of the engage-
ment construct can easily create points of friction for practitioners who have curious
clients. Adopting a structured, holistic model with face validity should hold clear
advantages for all parties by providing a common language and framework to house
their concepts and items.

6
In a learning organization, failure-avoidant workers might be encouraged to use successive approxima-
tion or test-and-learn as more appropriate, culturally-consistent goals.

13
1244 Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

Conclusion

In summary, this paper responds to repeated, urgent calls for integration of the
diverse and proliferating concepts related to employee engagement. The subject of
employee engagement is garnering unprecedented popularity (Shuck, 2011; Google
Trends, 2020). Even in the best case, the current state of affairs means that theoretical
disconnects slow progress in the field; in worse cases, it means that vast quantities
of money and time are being directed to efforts that are poorly understood, leading
to dangerous levels of waste that run the risk of poisoning the HRD field against a
potentially valuable, even essential, concept.
As a final example of the utility of our model, we return to one of the many laments
over the state of engagement theory and measurement. Shuck (2011) gives a series of
examples of assessment items from different scales derived from multiple theoreti-
cal and measurement traditions that are seemingly impossible to reconcile within a
single conceptual system:

● “…Treated (as if they) were impersonal objects” (Uncaring).

● “I can be myself at work” (Authenticity).
● “I am prepared to fully devote myself to performing my job duties” (Ethics).
● “I am bursting with energy” (Immersion).

These are widely disparate items, to be sure. However, as indicated in the paren-
theses, our model easily accommodates all of these perspectives, mini-theories, and
concept within a single model, providing a kind of “unified field theory” of employee
engagement. We contend that the secret to unlocking a meta-theory to encompass all
of these perspectives, and all of the dimensions they propose, has always been hidden
in plain sight within the very first descriptions of employee engagement.

13
 Appendix

Table 4 Employee engagement concepts that conform to the consensus view

Motivational Employee engagement concepts Antecedents Cognitive Emotional Behavioral Consequences
matrix cell
A1 Safety Physical health (Saks, 2006; Sonnentag, 2003) •
A1 Safety Safety (psychological; Kahn, 1990) • •
A1 Safety Trust (Saks, 2006; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) •
A2 Authenticity Authenticity (Saks & Gruman, 2014; Rich et al., 2010; Christian et al., 2011; Macey & Schneider, 2008; May et • • •
al., 2004; Kahn, 1990)
A2 Authenticity Emotional presence (Kahn, 1990) •
A2 Authenticity Identification (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Bono & Judge, 2003; Kahn, 1990; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986) • • •
A2 Authenticity Personal identification (Cole et al., 2012; Christian et al., 2011; Kahn, 1990) • •
A2 Authenticity Projection of self into work & organization (Christian et al., 2011; Saks, 2006; Kahn, 1990) • •
A2 Authenticity Role fit (Macey & Schneider, 2008) •
A3 Potential Extra role behavior (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) • •
A3 Potential Initiative (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Frese & Fay, 2001) •
A3 Potential Innovation (Macey & Schneider, 2008) • •
A3 Potential Mastery, learning, development and personal growth (Crawford et al., 2010) •
A3 Potential Opportunity for growth & development (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Harter et al., 2002) •
A3 Potential Role expansion (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Morgeson et al., 2005) •
B1 Autonomy Autonomy (Soane et al., 2012; Meyer & Gagné, 2008; Saks, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001) •
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

B1 Autonomy Competence (Soane et al., 2012; Meyer & Gagné, 2008; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Spreitzer, 1995) •
B1 Autonomy Control (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Spreitzer, 1995) • •
B1 Autonomy Empowerment (Macey & Schneider, 2008) •
B1 Autonomy Personal discretion (Kahn, 1990) •
B1 Autonomy Resource availability (Shuck, 2011; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Harter et al., 2002; •
Maslach et al., 2001)
B1 Autonomy Self-determination (control; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Meyer & Gagné, 2008) •
B1 Autonomy Workload (sustainable; Saks 2006; Maslach et al., 2001) •
B2 Immersion Absorption (Kahn, 1990; Saks & Gruman, 2014; Rothbard, 2001; Maslach et al., 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2002; • •
Csikszentmihalyi, 2003)
B2 Immersion Activation (Macey & Schneider, 2008) • •
B2 Immersion Attention (Rothbard, 2001; Kahn, 1990) •

13
1245

B2 Immersion Availability (psychological; Kahn, 1990) • •

 Table 4 (continued)
1246

Motivational Employee engagement concepts Antecedents Cognitive Emotional Behavioral Consequences

matrix cell
B2 Immersion Challenge (Shuck, 2011; Brown & Leigh, 1996; Hackman & Oldham, 1980) •

13
B2 Immersion Cognitive presence (Kahn, 1990) •
B2 Immersion Discretionary effort exhibited (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006; Frank et al., 2004; Mowday et al., 1982) • •
B2 Immersion Efficacy (Saks & Gruman, 2014; Maslach & Leiter, 2008; Saks, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001) • •
B2 Immersion Energy/Energetic state (Saks & Gruman, 2014; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008, 2017, 2018; Maslach & Leiter, •
2008; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001)
B2 Immersion Enjoyment (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Rothbard & Edwards, 2003) •
B2 Immersion Enthusiasm (Saks & Gruman, 2014; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008, 2017, 2018; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Harter • •
et al., 2003, 2002)
B2 Immersion Experiential quality of doing work (Kahn, 1990) • • •
B2 Immersion Focused effort (Macey & Schneider, 2008) •
B2 Immersion Happiness (Schaufeli et al., 2002) •
B2 Immersion Job involvement (Christian et al., 2011; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006; May et al., 2004; Maslach et al., • •
2001)
B2 Immersion Passion (Zigarmi et al., 2009; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Wellins & Concelman, 2005) •
B2 Immersion Positive affect (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006; Sonnentag, 2003; Kahn, 1990) •
B2 Immersion Productivity (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Harter et al., 2002) • •
B2 Immersion Psychologically present, being present, connected, integrated (Christian et al., 2011; Kahn, 1990) • •
B2 Immersion Vigor (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Shirom, 2003; Schaufeli et al., 2002) •
B3 Success Contribution, opportunity to make important (Shuck, 2011; Brown & Leigh, 1996; Hackman & Oldham, 1980) • •
B3 Success Impact (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Spreitzer, 1995) •
B3 Success Job performance (Saks, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) • •
B3 Success Performance, individual (Christian, et al., 2011; Alfes et al., 2010; Bakker & Xanopoulou, 2009) •
C1 Inclusion Belonging (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mowday et al., 1982) •
C1 Inclusion High quality relationships (Saks, 2006) •
C1 Inclusion Show warmth to others (ability to; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Shirom, 2003) •
C1 Inclusion Social relatedness & connectedness (Soane et al., 2012; Shuck & Wollard, 2010; Meyer & Gagné, 2008; Kahn, • • •
1990)
C2 Caring Caring, concern, and support demonstrated (Saks, 2006; Kahn, 1992) •
C2 Caring Community & social support (Saks, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001) •
C2 Caring Manager support (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Harter et al., 2002) •
C2 Caring Perceived organizational support (Saks, 2006; Rhodes et al., 2001) •
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255
 Table 4 (continued)
Motivational Employee engagement concepts Antecedents Cognitive Emotional Behavioral Consequences
matrix cell
C2 Caring Perceived supervisor support (Saks, 2006; Rhodes et al., 2001) •
C2 Caring Social support (Saks, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Maslach et al., 2001) •
C2 Caring Supportive supervisors & management (Shuck, 2011; Brown & Leigh, 1996; Hackman & Oldham, 1980) •
C3 Recognition Pride (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Mowday et al., 1982) •
C3 Recognition Rewards & recognition (appropriate; Saks 2006; Maslach et al., 2001) •
D1 Justice Distributive justice (Saks, 2006, Colquitt, 2001) •
D1 Justice Perceived fairness (Saks, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001) •
D1 Justice Procedural justice (Saks, 2006, Colquitt, 2001) •
D2 Ethics Dedication (Shuck, 2011; Thomas, 2007; Schaufeli et al., 2002) • •
D2 Ethics Emotional & intellectual commitment to the organization (Saks, 2006; Baumruk, 2004; Richman, 2006; Shaw, • •
2005; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986)
D2 Ethics Loyalty (Saks, 2006; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) • •
D2 Ethics Mutual Commitments (Saks, 2006; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) •
D2 Ethics Organizational citizenship behavior directed to the individual (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006; Lee & • •
Allen, 2002)
D2 Ethics Organizational citizenship behavior directed to the organization (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006; Lee & • •
Allen, 2002)
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

D2 Ethics Organizational commitment behavior (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006; Robinson et al., 2004; Rhoades et • •
al., 2001)
D2 Ethics Values (Saks, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001) •
D3 Purpose Adaptive behavior (Macey & Schneider, 2008) •
D3 Purpose Meaningfulness in work and at work (psychological; Kahn, 1990; Saks & Gruman, 2014; James et al., 2011; • •
Macey & Schneider, 2008; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Brown & Leigh, 1996; Spreitzer,
1995)
D3 Purpose Organizational purpose (Macey & Schneider, 2008) • •
D3 Purpose Personal meaning (sense of purpose; Macey & Schneider, 2008) • •
D3 Purpose Purpose (Macey & Schneider, 2008) • •
D3 Purpose Transformational leadership (Saks & Gruman, 2014; Bakker et al., 2011; Christian et al., 2011; Macey & Schnei- • •
der, 2008)

13
1247
 Table 5 Employee engagement assessment items that conform to the consensus view
1248

Motivational Factor or Component Employee engagement item Source

matrix cell
A1 Safety Rewards and Recognition Job security. Saks (2006)

13
A2 Authenticity Perceived organizational support My organization strongly considers my goals and values. Saks (2006)
A2 Authenticity Perceived organizational support My organization cares about my opinions. Saks (2006)
A2 Authenticity Perceived supervisor support My supervisor cares about my opinions. Saks (2006)
A2 Authenticity Perceived supervisor support My supervisor strongly considers my goals and values. Saks (2006)
A3 Potential Rewards and Recognition More freedom and opportunities. Saks (2006)
A3 Potential Rewards and Recognition Training and development opportunities. Saks (2006)
A3 Potential Rewards and Recognition More challenging work assignments. Saks (2006)
A3 Potential Dedication To me, my job is challenging Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES
B1 Autonomy Job characteristics How much autonomy is there in your job? That is, to what extent does your Saks (2006)
job permit you to decide on your own how to go about doing the work?
B1 Autonomy Vigor When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES
B1 Autonomy Vigor At my job, I am very resilient, mentally Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES
B2 Immersion Vigor At my work, I feel bursting with energy Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES
B2 Immersion Vigor At my job, I feel strong and vigorous Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES
B2 Immersion Cognitive engagement Performing my job is so absorbing that I forget about everything else May et al. (2004) Engagement Scale
B2 Immersion Cognitive engagement I am rarely distracted when performing my job May et al. (2004) Engagement Scale
B2 Immersion Emotional engagement I really put my heart into my job May et al. (2004) Engagement Scale
B2 Immersion Emotional engagement I often feel emotionally detached from my job (r) May et al. (2004) Engagement Scale
B2 Immersion Physical engagement I exert a lot of energy performing my job May et al. (2004) Engagement Scale
B2 Immersion Physical engagement Work with intensity Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
B2 Immersion Physical engagement Exert my full effort Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
B2 Immersion Physical engagement Devote a lot of energy Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
B2 Immersion Physical engagement Try my hardest to perform well Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
B2 Immersion Physical engagement Strive as hard as I can Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
B2 Immersion Physical engagement Exert a lot of energy Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
B2 Immersion Emotional engagement Enthusiastic Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
B2 Immersion Emotional engagement Feel energetic Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
B2 Immersion Emotional engagement Interested Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
B2 Immersion Emotional engagement Feel positive Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
B2 Immersion Emotional engagement Excited Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

B2 Immersion Cognitive engagement Mind is focused Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
 Table 5 (continued)
Motivational Factor or Component Employee engagement item Source
matrix cell
B2 Immersion Emotional engagement Pay a lot of attention Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
B2 Immersion Emotional engagement Focus a great deal of attention Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
B2 Immersion Absorbed Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
B2 Immersion Concentrate Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
B2 Immersion Devote a lot of attention Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
B2 Immersion Job engagement I really “throw” myself into my job. Saks (2006)
B2 Immersion Job engagement Sometimes I am so into my job that I lose track of time. Saks (2006)
B2 Immersion Job engagement This job is all consuming; I am totally into it. Saks (2006)
B2 Immersion Job engagement My mind often wanders and I think of other things when doing my job (R). Saks (2006)
B2 Immersion Job engagement I am highly engaged in this job. Saks (2006)
B2 Immersion Intellectual engagement I focus hard on my work Soane et al. (2012) ISA Engagement Scale
B2 Immersion Intellectual engagement I concentrate on my work Soane et al. (2012) ISA Engagement Scale
B2 Immersion Intellectual engagement I pay a lot of attention to my work Soane et al. (2012) ISA Engagement Scale
B2 Immersion Affective engagement I feel positive about my work Soane et al. (2012) ISA Engagement Scale
B2 Immersion Affective engagement I feel energetic in my work Soane et al. (2012) ISA Engagement Scale
B2 Immersion Affective engagement I am enthusiastic in my work Soane et al. (2012) ISA Engagement Scale
B2 Immersion Absorption Time flies when I’m working Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES
B2 Immersion Dedication I am enthusiastic about my job Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES
B2 Immersion Absorption When I am working, I forget everything else around me Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

B2 Immersion Absorption I feel happy when I am working intensely Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES
B2 Immersion Absorption I am immersed in my work Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES
B2 Immersion Absorption I get carried away when I’m working Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES
B2 Immersion Absorption It is difficult to detach myself from my job Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES
B3 Success Vigor I can continue working for very long periods at a time Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES
B3 Success Vigor At my work I always persevere, even when things do not go well Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES
B3 Success Physical engagement I stay until the job is done May et al. (2004) Engagement Scale
B3 Success Rewards and Recognition A pay raise. Saks (2006)
B3 Success Rewards and Recognition A promotion. Saks (2006)
B3 Success Rewards and Recognition A reward or token of appreciation (e.g. lunch). Saks (2006)
C1 Inclusion Organization engagement Being a member of this organization is very captivating. Saks (2006)
C1 Inclusion Organization engagement One of the most exciting things for me is getting involved with things hap- Saks (2006)

13
1249

pening in this organization.

 1250

Table 5 (continued)
Motivational Factor or Component Employee engagement item Source

13
matrix cell
C1 Inclusion Organization engagement I am really not into the “goings-on” in this organization (R). Saks (2006)
C1 Inclusion Organization engagement Being a member of this organization make me come “alive.” Saks (2006)
C1 Inclusion Organization engagement Being a member of this organization is exhilarating for me. Saks (2006)
C1 Inclusion Organization engagement I am highly engaged in this organization. Saks (2006)
C1 Inclusion Organizational commitment I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. Saks (2006)
C1 Inclusion Social engagement I share the same work values as my colleagues Soane et al. (2012) ISA Engagement Scale
C1 Inclusion Social engagement I share the same work goals as my colleagues Soane et al. (2012) ISA Engagement Scale
C1 Inclusion Social engagement I share the same work attitudes as my colleagues Soane et al. (2012) ISA Engagement Scale
C2 Caring Job characteristics To what extent do managers or co-workers let you know how well you are Saks (2006)
doing on your job?
C2 Caring Rewards and Recognition Praise from your supervisor. Saks (2006)
C2 Caring Perceived organizational support My organization really cares about my well-being. Saks (2006)
C2 Caring Perceived organizational support My organization shows little concern for me (R). Saks (2006)
C2 Caring Perceived organizational support My organization is willing to help me if I need a special favor. Saks (2006)
C2 Caring Perceived organizational support Help is available from my organization when I have a problem. Saks (2006)
C2 Caring Perceived organizational support My organization would forgive a honest mistake on my part. Saks (2006)
C2 Caring Perceived supervisor support My work supervisor really cares about my well-being. Saks (2006)
C2 Caring Perceived supervisor support My supervisor shows very little concern for me (R). Saks (2006)
C3 Recognition Emotional engagement Proud of Rich, LePine, & Crawford (2010) Job engagement scale
C3 Recognition Rewards and Recognition Respect from the people you work with. Saks (2006)
C3 Recognition Rewards and Recognition Some form of public recognition (e.g. employee of the month). Saks (2006)
C3 Recognition Organizational commitment I am proud to tell others I work at my organization. Saks (2006)
C3 Recognition Dedication I am proud on the work that I do Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES
D1 Justice Distributive justice Do the outcomes you receive reflect the effort you have put into your work? Saks (2006)
D1 Justice Distributive justice Are the outcomes you receive appropriate for the work you have completed? Saks (2006)
D1 Justice Distributive justice Do your outcomes reflect what you have contributed to the organization? Saks (2006)
D1 Justice Distributive justice Are your outcomes justified given your performance? Saks (2006)
D1 Justice Procedural justice Have you been able to express your views and feelings during those Saks (2006)
procedures?
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255
 Table 5 (continued)
Motivational Factor or Component Employee engagement item Source
matrix cell
D1 Justice Procedural justice Have you had influence over the outcomes arrived at by those procedures? Saks (2006)
D1 Justice Procedural justice Have those procedures been applied consistently? Saks (2006)
D1 Justice Procedural justice Have those procedures been free of bias? Saks (2006)
D1 Justice Procedural justice Have those procedures been based on accurate information? Saks (2006)
D1 Justice Procedural justice Have you been able to appeal the outcomes arrived at by those procedures? Saks (2006)
D1 Justice Perceived organizational support If given the opportunity, my organization would take advantage of me (R). Saks (2006)
D2 Ethics Procedural justice Have those procedures upheld ethical and moral standards? Saks (2006)
D2 Ethics Organizational commitment I really feel that problems faced by my organization are also my problems. Saks (2006)
D2 Ethics Organizational commitment I feel personally attached to my work organization. Saks (2006)
D2 Ethics OCBI Willingly give your time to help others who have work-related problems. Saks (2006)
D2 Ethics OCBI Adjust your work schedule to accommodate other employees’ requests for Saks (2006)
time off.
D2 Ethics OCBI Give up time to help others who have work or non-work problems. Saks (2006)
D2 Ethics OCBI Assist others with their duties. Saks (2006)
D2 Ethics OCBO Attend functions that are not required but that help the organizational image. Saks (2006)
D2 Ethics OCBO Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the organization. Saks (2006)
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

D2 Ethics OCBO Take action to protect the organization from potential problems. Saks (2006)
D2 Ethics OCBO Defend the organization when other employees criticize it Saks (2006)
D3 Purpose Job characteristics In general, how significant or important in your job? That is, are the results Saks (2006)
of your work likely to significantly affect the lives or well-being of other
people?
D3 Purpose Organizational commitment Working at my organization has a great deal of personal meaning to me. Saks (2006)
D3 Purpose Dedication I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES
D3 Purpose Dedication My job inspires me Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES

13
1251
1252 Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

Data Availability All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article (and
its supplementary information files). Original source materials are available from the author by request.

Declarations

Conflict of interest There are no conflicts of interests which need to be disclosed.

References
Albrecht, S. L. (2010). Handbook of Employee Engagement: perspectives, issues, Research and Practice.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Alfes, K., Truss, C., Soane, E., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2010). Creating an engaged workforce:. findings
from the Kingston employee engagement consortium project.
Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2017). The meaning, Antecedents and Outcomes of
Employee Engagement: a narrative synthesis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19,
31–53.
Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., Fletcher, L., Robinson, D., Holmes, J., Buzzeo, J., & Currie, G. (2015b).
Evaluating the evidence on employee engagement and its potential benefits to NHS staff: a narrative
synthesis of the literature. Health Services Delivery Research, 3, 1–424.
Bakker, A. B., & Bal, P. M. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting
teachers, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2010), 83, 189–206.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job Demands-Resources model: state of the art. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory: taking stock and looking forward.
- Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2018). Multiple levels in job demands-resources theory: implications for
employee well-being and performance. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-
being (e-handbook). Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers.
Bakker, A. B., Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., & Vergel, S. (2016). A. I. Modelling job crafting behaviours: Impli-
cations for work engagement. - Human Relations, 2016, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 169–189.
Bakker, A. B., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2013). Weekly work engagement and flourishing: The role of hin-
drance and challenge job demands. - Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2013, Vol 83, No. 3, pp 397–409.
Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2009). The crossover of daily work engagement: test of an actor–
partner interdependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1562–1571. [Link]
org/10.1037/a0017525.
Baumruk, R. (2004). The Missing link: The role of employee engagement in business success, Report of
Hewitt Associates/Michael Treacy study, Workspan, 47, 48–52.
Boesch, E. E. (1998). Sehnsucht: Von der Suche nach Glück und Sinn [Longing: on the search of joy and
meaning] (1st ed.). Bern: Huber.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the motivational
effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 554–571.
Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job
involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of applied psychology, 81(4), 358–368.
Buck, R. (1985). Prime theory: an integrated view of motivation and emotion. Psychological review,
92(3), 389–413.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work Engagement: a quantitative review and test
of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of
personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of applied psychol-
ogy, 89(4), 599.
Cole, M. S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A. G., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2012). Job burnout and employee engagement:
a meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation. Journal of Management, 38, 1550–1581.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium:
a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of applied psychology,
86(3), 425–445.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., & Conway, N. (2004). The employment relationship through the lens of social
exchange. The employment relationship: examining psychological and contextual perspectives, 5–28.

13
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255 1253

Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee
engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of applied psychol-
ogy, 95(5), 834.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. Journal of
management, 31(6), 874–900.
Damasio, A. (2012). Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain. Vintage.
Dewing, J., & McCormack, B. (2015). Engagement: a critique of the concept and its application to person-
centred [Link] Practice Development Journal, 5.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). 4. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st
century. Research in organizational behavior, 23, 133–187.
Forbes, D. L. (2011). Toward a unified model of human motivation. Review of general psychology, 15(2),
85–98.
Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R. P., & Taylor, C. R. (2004). The race for talent: retaining and engaging workers
in the 21st century. Human resource planning, 27(3), 12–25.
Fromm, E. (2013). To have or to be?. A&C Black.
Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2010). The science of workplace spirituality. Handbook of work-
place spirituality and organizational performance, 2, 3–26.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers.
Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495–513.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psy-
chology, 87(2), 268.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to
business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies.
Hooker, C., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Flow, creativity, and shared leadership. Shared leadership:
Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, 217–234.
Houghton, J. D., Neck, C. P., & Krishnakumar, S. (2016). The what, why, and how of spirituality in the
workplace revisited: a 14-year update and extension. Journal of Management Spirituality & Religion,
13(3), 177–205.
James, J. B., McKechnie, S., & Swanberg, J. (2011). Predicting employee engagement in an age-diverse
retail workforce. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 173–196.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad-
emy of management journal, 33(4), 692–724.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
Kohlberg, L., & Power, C. (1981). Moral development, religious thinking, and the question of a seventh
stage. In L. Kohlberg (Ed.), Essays on moral development: volume one. The philosophy of moral
development (pp. 311–372). New York: Harper & Row.
Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E., & Truss, K. (2008). Employee engagement: A literature
review. Kingston Business School, Kingston University Working Paper Series No 19, ISBN No.
1-872058-39-6/978-1-872058-39-9/9781872058399.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: the role of
affect and cognitions. Journal of applied psychology, 87(1), 131.
Leontʹev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 1(1), 3–30.
Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. (2009). Employee Engagement: tools for
analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. Malden, WA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Jewell, T., Magyar, G. M., Tarakeshwar, N., & Phillips, R. (2005).
A higher purpose: the sanctification of strivings in a community sample. The International Journal
for the Psychology of Religion, 15(3), 239–262.
Maruyama, M. (1963). The second Cybernetics: deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes. American
Scientist, 5(2), 164–179.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). The truth about burnout: how organizations cause personal stress and
what to do about it. John Wiley & Sons.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of psychology, 52(1),
397–422.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (L. Carr, Ed.).

13
1254 Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & 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 orga-
nizational psychology, 77(1), 11–37.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: theory, research, and application. Sage.
Meyer, J. P., & Gagné, M. (2008). Employee engagement from a self-determination theory perspective.
Industrial and organizational psychology, 1(1), 60–62.
Milliman, J., Gatling, A., & Kim, J. S. (2018). The effect of workplace spirituality on hospitality employee
engagement, intention to stay, and service delivery. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
35, 56–65.
Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K., & Hemingway, M. A. (2005). The importance of job autonomy,
cognitive ability, and job-related skill for predicting role breadth and job performance. Journal of
applied psychology, 90(2), 399–406.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of commit-
ment, absenteeism, and turnover.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the
effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of applied
psychology, 71(3), 492–499.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches.
Westview Press.
Pincus, J. (2004). The consequences of unmet needs: the evolving role of motivation in consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 3(4), 375–387.
Pincus, J. D. (2020). Employee Engagement as Motivation: practitioner models. Advance Preprint. https://
[Link]/10.31124/advance.13270571.v1.
Pincus, J. D. (2022). Theoretical and empirical foundations for a Unified pyramid of human motivation
(pp. 1–26). Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science.
Porath, C. L., Spreitzer, G. M., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at work: toward its measure-
ment, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2),
250–275. DOI: [Link]
Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. Positive organi-
zational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline, 309, 327.
Rand, Y. (1993). Modes of existence (MoE): to be, to have, to do: cognitive and motivational aspects.
International Association for Cognitive Education. Israel: Nof Ginosar.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: the contribu-
tion of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 825–836. [Link]
org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825.
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job perfor-
mance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635. Doi:[Link]
Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how you can create it. Workspan, 49(1), 36–39.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The Drivers of Employee Engagement. UK: Institute for
Employment Studies. IES Report 408.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles.
Administrative science quarterly, 46(4), 655–684.
Rothbard, N. P., & Edwards, J. R. (2003). Investment in work and family roles: a test of identity and utili-
tarian motives. Personnel Psychology, 56(3), 699–729.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee [Link] of managerial
psychology,600–619.
Saks, A. M. (2011). Workplace spirituality and employee engagement. Journal of Management Spirituality
& Religion, 8(4), 317–340. DOI: [Link]
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement? Human
resource development quarterly, 25(2), 155–182.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engage-
ment and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies,
3(1), 71–92.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burn-
out and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International
Journal of Industrial Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(3), 293–315.

13
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023) 57:1223–1255 1255

Schneider, B., Macey, W. H., Barbera, K. M., & Martin, N. (2009). Driving customer satisfaction and
financial success through employee engagement. People and Strategy, 32(2), 22.
Shaw, K. (2005). An engagement strategy process for communicators. Strategic Communication Manage-
ment, 9(3), 26–29.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: the
self-concordance model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 76(3), 482–497.
Shirom, A. (2003). Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigor and the study of positive affect in
organizations. Research in organizational stress and well-being, 3, 135–165.
Shuck, B. (2011). Integrative literature review: four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: an
integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), 304–328.
Shuck, B., Adelson, J. L., & Reio, T. G. Jr. (2017). The employee engagement scale: initial evidence for con-
struct validity and implications for theory and practice. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 953–977.
Shuck, B., Osam, K., Zigarmi, D., & Nimon, K. (2017). Definitional and conceptual muddling: identifying
the positionality of employee engagement and defining the construct. Human Resource Development
Review, 16(3), 263–293.
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: a seminal review of the foundations.
Human Resource Development Review, 9, 89–110. Doi:[Link]
Soane, E., Truss, C., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2012). Development and application
of a new measure of employee engagement: the ISA Engagement Scale. Human resource develop-
ment international, 15(5), 529–547.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the interface
between nonwork and work. Journal of applied psychology, 88(3), 518.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and
validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G. M., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded
model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16(5), 537–549.
Staub, E. (2005). The Roots of Goodness: The Fulfillment of Basic Human Needs and the Development
of Caring, Helping and Nonaggression, Inclusive Caring, Moral Courage, Active Bystandership, and
Altruism Born of Suffering. In G. Carlo & C. P. Edwards (Eds.), Vol. 51 of the Nebraska Symposium
on motivation. Moral motivation through the life span (pp. 33–72). Lincoln, NE, US: University of
Nebraska Press.
Templier, M., & Paré, G. (2018). Transparency in literature reviews: an assessment of reporting practices
across review types and genres in top IS journals. European Journal of Information Systems, 27(5),
503–550.
Thomas, C. H. (2007, August). A new measurement scale for employee engagement: Scale development,
pilot test, and replication. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2007, No. 1, pp. 1–6). Bri-
arcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
Valsiner, J. (2014). An invitation to cultural psychology. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Valsiner, J. (2019). Ornamented lives. Advances in cultural psychology. Charlotte, NC: IAP.
Valsiner, J. (2021). General human psychology. Theory and history in the human and social sciences.
Springer.
van der Walt, F. (2018). Workplace spirituality, work engagement and thriving at work. SA Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 44(1), 1–10.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wellins, R., & Concelman, J. (2005). Creating a culture for engagement. Workforce Performance Solu-
tions, 4(1), 1–4.
Zigarmi, D., Nimon, K., Houson, D., Witt, D., & Diehl, J. (2009). Beyond engagement: toward a frame-
work and operational definition for employee work passion. Human Resource Development Review,
8(3), 300–326.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and appli-
cable law.

13