Hi everyone! Many of you asked me for a summary of my dissertation research.  Of course you are welcome to the whole thing if you’d like… just let us know and we’ll send you the PDF file, all 167 pages in their academic glory :).  Please let me know if you would like to replicate this study in your organization… I am really interested in taking this research to the “next level” by adapting the survey, applying it to other samples, and correcting some of the limitations of the first one.

What is engagement?

I adopted William Kahn’s (1990) engagement model for my study.  Kahn, a pioneer in engagement research, defined engagement as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles” (p. 695).  Engaged individuals are psychologically connected to their work and express this connection in physical, emotional, and cognitive ways. Physical engagement encompasses vigor, energy, and effort.  Emotional engagement means pride, enthusiasm, and identification with one’s work.  Finally, cognitive engagement means the focus of one’s cognitive energies in the completion of the job.

What is personality?

Personality can be defined as a set of correlated behaviors (Howard & Howard, 2001a) or a set of “relatively stable and pervasive dispositions to act, think and feel in consistent and characteristics ways” (McCrae, 2006, p. 53).  Researchers (McCrae, Costa, Ostendorf, Angleitner, Hrebickova, & Avia, 2000) suggested that personality traits are surprisingly stable and have a heavy genetic component.  Thus, personality is not expected to change much during adult years. 

For this research, I adopted the “Five Factor Model” of personality (FFM).  The FFM is one of the most adopted and researched personality models today (Saucier & Goldberg, 2003).  The main premise of the FFM is that all personality traits available may be “clustered” around five main factors (Howard & Howard, 2001a):

• Need for stability is a person’s level of resilience when experiencing and/or reacting to stress.
• Extraversion represents a person’s sociability and general tolerance for sensory bombardment.
• Originality combines imagination, interest in novelty, tolerance for change, and intellectual complexity.
• Accommodation is a person’s interest in serving others and her tendency to challenge the status quo.
• Consolidation relates to the person’s concentration, discipline, and methodicalness.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of the study was to explore relationships between personality and employee engagement.  Specifically, I wanted to know if certain psychological traits made it more likely for a person to be engaged at work.

Participants

Participants were human services professionals and paraprofessionals from three not for profit social services agencies.  Managers were eliminated from the study.  A total of 890 surveys were sent and 420 were received at a response rate of 47.19 percent.  After various elimination processes (I needed to eliminate extreme scores, those with missing answers, etc.) 292 participants remained. 

Instruments used

The two instruments used were the short form of the WorkPlace Big Five ProFile™ (Howard & Howard, 2001b) to assess personality and the Job Engagement Survey (Rich, 2006) to assess engagement.  The WPB5 is a 48-item questionnaire and the JES is an 18-item questionnaire.  Both surveys were combined in a single online survey which could be completed in 8 minutes.

Research questions and findings

The four research questions asked were:

1. What is the strength and direction of the relationships between the five factors of personality and employee engagement?

Findings: Significant correlations were found between engagement and three personality traits: need for stability (negative correlation, r = - 0.19), extraversion (positive correlation, r = 0.30), and consolidation (positive correlation, r = 0.15).

This basically means that calmer, more extraverted, and more focused individuals may be more engaged.

2. What is the combination of personality scores that best predicts engagement?

Findings: Extraversion and consolidation significantly predict engagement.  The effect size, however, is small – about 9 percent of the variability in engagement can be explained by these two traits.  These findings suggest that the more extraverted and focused a person is, the more he/she is likely to become engaged.

3. What are the differences in employee engagement across the personalities of employees in the three organizations?

Findings: There were no significant differences in the engagement of employees in the three organizations – thus, participants from the three organizations were combined in a single sample.  The more resilient (low need for stability) employees were more engaged than their less resilient counterparts.  The more extraverted employees were, likewise, more engaged than their introverted counterparts.  Effect sizes were once again very low (between three and five percent only).

4. What are the differences in employee engagement across the personalities of professionals and paraprofessionals?

Findings: Professionals and paraprofessionals did not differ significantly in engagement in general.  However, paraprofessionals seemed to profit from higher extraversion and lower accommodation.  In other words – paraprofessionals who were more challenging (low accommodation) and more sociable (high extraversion) seemed to also be more engaged.  While the more engaged professionals were also extraverted, they tended to have “middle of the road” accommodation scores.  Effect sizes for both extraversion and accommodation were of 4 percent.

Discussion

This research confirmed the results of previous studies by Langelaan, Bakker, Van Doornen, & Schaufeli (2004) and Rich (2006).  In general, those who are calm (low need for stability), sociable (high extraversion), and focused (high consolidation) seemed to have a very slight “edge” on engagement.

The relationships between personality and engagement, however, were not strong.  This seems to indicate that the search for an “engaged personality” in general is elusive.  Other factors likely to impact engagement might include:

• Organizational factors such as support from the organization and the manager (Saks, 2006), justice (Saks, 2006), recognition (Koyuncu, Burke, & Fiksenbaum, 2006), skill acquisition opportunities (Towers Perrin, 2008), positive relationships with coworkers (Bakker, van Emmerik, & Euwema, 2006), and leadership style (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, and May, 2004).
•  Job factors such as the meaningfulness of the job (Kahn, 1990), autonomy, and the availability of feedback (Hackman, Oldham, Janson, & Purdy, 1975).
• Demographic factors (excluding personality) such as gender (Mauno, Kinnunen, Mäkikangas, & Nätti, 2005).  Results from research on age or race/ethnicity and engagement do not seem conclusive – possibly, what matters is not age or race per se but social relationship issues resulting from age and race differences.

In summary, personality matters – but other components of engagement are likely to matter as well, making the search for an “engaged personality” rather elusive.  Engagement seems to be a highly complex phenomenon.  Rather than searching for engaged personalities, leaders might instead focus on engagement-related factors under their control such as support, justice, recognition, and the availability of skill acquisition opportunities (i.e. training workshops, coaching, stretching assignments, etc.). 

As I reflected on the data, one additional possibility occurred to me.  Personality may not affect engagement directly.  Instead, personality traits could influence three key psychological conditions of engagement (Kahn, 1990), namely meaningfulness, safety, and availability, where:

• Meaningfulness means the perceived importance of the job. 
• Safety means the person’s ability to be him/herself at work, without fear of punishment or alienation
• Availability means the presence of sufficient physical and emotional resources to perform one’s job

Kahn (1990) found that the above conditions had a strong impact on engagement levels.  Personality could impact one’s perceptions of these three conditions and one’s decision to engage or disengage after the conditions are identified.  For instance, the same work environment might be perceived by a calm and resilient individual as safe, and by her more nervous counterpart as unsafe.  Additional research is needed to test this hypothesis.

Certain limitations of the study may have altered the findings and reduced the impact of personality.  For instance:

• Social desirability bias may have artificially raised engagement scores.  Perhaps the survey could be rewritten to make the “desirable” answers less clear.  Also, a study conducted outside an organizational setting (i.e. including people from various organizations outside their normal environment) might reduce participants’ confidentiality concerns and invite more honest responses.
• Even though all participants came from social services agencies, their jobs may have varied too much.  More accurate results could emerge from research focusing on very narrow job areas.

Bibliography

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801-823.

Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. (1975). A new strategy for job enrichment. California Management Review, 17(4), 57-71.

Howard, P. J., & Howard, J. M. (2001a). The owner’s manual for personality at work. Austin, TX: Bard Press.

Howard, P. J., & Howard, J. M. (2001c). WorkPlace BigFive ProFile. Charlotte, NC: Centacs.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.

Koyuncu, M., Burke, R., & Fiksenbaum, L. (2006). Work engagement among women managers and professionals in a turkish bank: Potential antecedents and consequences. Equal Opportunities International, 25(4), 299-310.

Langelaan, S., Bakker, A. B., Van Doornen, L. J. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2004). Burnout and work engagement: Do individual differences make a difference? Personality and Individual Differences, 40(2006), 521-532.

Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Mäkikangas, A., & Nätti, J. (2005). Psychological consequences of fixed-term employment and perceived job insecurity among health care staff. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 14(3), 209-237.

McCrae, R. (2006). Psychopathology from the perspective of the five factor model. In S. Strack (Ed.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (pp. 53-64). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebickova, M.,  & Avia, M. D. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 173-186.

Rich, B. L. (2006). Job engagement: Construct validation and relationships with job satisfaction, job involvement, and instrinsic motivation. Unpublished Doctoral, University of Florida,

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-619.

Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. (2003). The structure of personality attributes. In M. R. Barrick, & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 1-29). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Towers Perrin. (2008). Towers perrin global workforce study executive report. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from www.towersperrin.com

As I sit at my office at Wright State University I realize, quite viscerally, what engagement really means.  It means a perfect connection.  It means looking at yourself in some invisible mirror and saying: “I was born to do this.”

I have always wanted to be a college professor.  If you ask me why I will hesitate - I may read you a list of characteristics of the job that I like, or say that I love the college environment, or explain that I love studying.  All those things are true - but that’s not it.  I like being a college professor because I am intrinsically and deeply connected to college teaching. I like being a college professor because this is who I am.  

In a recent presentation I said that I didn’t care about increases in bottom line or productivity that came from engagement - and of course I could hear an audible gasp from the audience.  She doesn’t care about what? Did she really say that?

Here is why I don’t care.  I don’t care because those who are truly engaged don’t worry about being productive. The truly engaged are productive because there’s no other way to be.  

You see, engagement goes far beyond “working hard” or “being a good employee” even though engaged employees are likely to, indeed, do a good job.  Instead, engagement is about reaching that perfect blend between professional and personal, between work and life, between what we do for a living and who we are. Everything else… the hard work, the better productivity, the excitement - everything else comes from allowing our natural energy to flow. Undisturbed. Unguided. Perfectly connected to who we are.

Data collection for my dissertation officially starts tomorrow - I can’t believe I am getting there!  This weekend I spent most of my available time refreshing my memory on SPSS (for the uninitiated, SPSS is a really statistical package) and running some tests on a very small pilot study on engagement I ran using friends and family as guinea pigs.  30 people responded to my pilot survey.  

The survey I used combined Bruce Rich’s engagement questions with Howard & Howard’s Workplace Big Five ProFile.  I am trying to find out if there are correlations between engagement and any of the big five traits.  To tell you the truth, I wasn’t expecting to find much at this point, for two main reasons.  First, I only have 30 people - a very small sample.  Secondly, my guinea pig participants came from a variety of professional areas.  Engagement should, however, be tested within specific professional fields.  

I was surprised, though, when I did find something - a 0.46 significant correlation between engagement and extraversion. 

If these results are replicated in my “real” study (for which the sample is much larger), here is a possible explanation: The world of work is easier on extraverts. Why? Because the world of work is social.  We need to interact with our bosses, colleagues, and subordinates.  We need to network and find support in all possible places.  We need to be out there.  And out there may not be where introverts want to be.  

Does this mean introverts are not engaged? Of course not. First, introverts could very well be highly engaged, as long as their work environment respects their strengths and needs.  The people whom I surveyed could simply be in the wrong jobs.  Secondly, these results are very preliminary and might not be replicated.  I’ll keep you posted.  In the meantime… what do you think? 

We are adding an “ask the consultant” category to make this site more interactive and participative.  Do you have a “burning question”? Are you curious about something? Do you need a suggestion? Use this space to communicate with us! We will answer to postings as soon as possible.

One of my “off duty” hobbies is to participate in an online “mini blog” site called “Floort” (www.floort.com).  At Floort we can write our opinions on pretty much anything – from trivial issues such as hair styles and the taste of hamburgers to more serious ones involving diversity relations or international policies. Indeed, this may be one reason why I like the site so much – nothing is off limits.  Taboo topics such as religion and politics are ok.  All it takes is an opinion and a reasonably “tough skin” – things can get pretty feisty from time to time.

One of my most interesting co-floorters is Mr. William Brown, a pre-med student from Texas Tech.  The two of us disagree most of the time, bring up every supporting web site we can think of, and can go on for days on the same topic.  We have succeeded, however, in keeping civility alive – we can get excited and passionate, but never rude or insulting. Probably for this reason, I have learned a lot from our debates.

The excerpt below came from one of one his Floorts, and I reproduce it here with his permission. 

I just got done working with one of my old horses, Boe, and was thinking about how much that old son of a gun has taught me. I’ve had him since I was 8 and he’s taught me patience, determination, and about having confidence in my own abilities. He taught me that ignorance will get you hurt, and that cockiness will get you killed. He’s taught me that no matter how hard you kick you’ll never get him to run as fast as he does when he’s running home. He taught me that a good hard ride will always leave you sore, sunburned, and tired, but that it’s always worth it. He taught me that approaching things head on is the best way not to get kicked in the teeth, and that you can chase a horse all day with a rope but you’ll never catch him till you get the feed bucket. He taught me that if we come to a puddle that he won’t go through it probably means it’s too deep, and that when he’s stuck in that puddle telling him to go doesn’t help nearly as much as getting off and pulling. All in all I know that the old guy doesn’t have very many more years left, but when he dies he’ll have left a mark on me that I’ll never forget.

I chuckle as I reread the excerpt.  I chuckle because I read so much and look for complicated models and conduct endless surveys… and yet, at the end of the day, receive the most powerful message from Mr. Brown’s horse in Texas.  Calm down. Curb your frustrations even if you need to lock the door and scream a little.  Remember what your jobreally is… to help Boe negotiate puddles, face challenging rides, and get safely to his destination.  And most of all – remember to take lessons from the Boes in your life – all those non-work experiences in which we must influence people whom we cannot hire or fire, people who will simply walk out on us if they don’t feel we’re leading them where they want to go, people who could care less what our title is. 

Thank you Boe – you have taught me a thing or two. What has life taught you today?

A colleague and I were chatting about her company’s engagement efforts.  ”We pay a lot of attention to engagement,” she said.  ”For instance, just now we had another engagement survey.  We believe that happy employees serve our customers better and thus yield better results for our company.”

A fine thought… but unfortunately not quite accurate.  In reality, engagement and satisfaction are not synonymous terms. Engagement means a complete connection with one’s work, a connection expressed cognitively, physically, and emotionally.  Engaged employees are not only satisfied… they are also proud of what they do, attentive, focused, and energetic.  This combination of pride, attention, and energy is powerful - and yields extraordinary results.

Satisfaction, on the other hand, does not necessarily mean productivity.  For instance, an employee could be satisfied with the general work conditions and even complimentary of her supervisor and colleagues - and yet be disengaged. In fact, attempts to find positive correlations between satisfaction and productivity have often found mixed results.  

Because satisfaction and engagement are not synonymous, we advise our clients to pay special attention to the engagement surveys they select.  The majority of the surveys currently in the market tend to measure antecedents of engagement such as good work relations, a pleasant environment, or inclusive leadership. While those factors are likely to be, indeed, connected to engagement, they are not the same as engagement.  

The ideal survey should, therefore, ask questions directly related to engagement. Antecedent questions on environmental, leadership, job, and other aspects may be included, as long as true engagement items (i.e. how proud are you of your work? how much attention to you pay to your job?) are also measured. 

Of course, there is a problem with this approach as well - social desirability bias.  People know they are “supposed” to feel pride. They know they are paid to pay attention.  Won’t these beliefs and suppositions lead to less than honest responses?

Possibly - which is what makes the design of an engagement study so tricky.  The “optimum” study will probably include qualitative and quantitative data collection methods such as written surveys, interviews, and focus group discussions.  Triangulation - asking the same question to different observers - is also helpful.  Also, a good study will measure employees at different times instead of once only.  Engagement, after all, is a variable construct - even people who are engaged most of the time are not permanently engaged.  

Of course a mixed methods study such as the one described is neither easy nor inexpensive - thus, understandably, few if any organizations or researchers go that far.  I am now in the middle of my dissertation study on engagement and am collecting my data via a quantitative survey distributed once to employees. That is fine - as long as results are put into perspective and limitations of the findings are acknowledged.  Each of us contributes one more piece to the engagement puzzle.  Each survey gives us a sense of where we are.  After all, there is no such thing as certainty in the world of social research.

The emperor is naked.  We see its nakedness as we participate in session after session about “valuing differences” and “appreciating diversity.” We see its nakedness as we realize that at the end of a particularly intensive diversity session the “excited” participants are those who were excited about the topic before we even started.  Maybe… just maybe… we managed to sway the middle of the road opinions of the middle-of-the-roaders a wee bit closer to the “appreciating diversity” direction.  In all likelihood, though, they will forget all about it once they get back to the “real life.” 

We define Conversity as a series of intentional conversations to find connections. When Susan Gray and I worked together during the first year of our business, we thought that the word “Conversity” better described how we wanted to go about improving diverse team relationships.  In a nutshell, we wanted team members to talk to one another and find common ground.  We wanted teams to focus on what really mattered - their mission, vision, and common goals.  

The Conversity idea came from at least two sources: experience and research.  First, experience.  Intuitively we know that we seek people with whom we have something in common.  Be honest… when was the last time that you said… gee, this person is totally different from me in every single aspect I can think of… how about I become her friend? 

Secondly, social psychology research tells us that diversity relations are a paradox… we tend to understand and value the diversity of those whom we perceive as similar.  Does that sound odd? It is odd… but it is also the way we operate.  If I perceive you to be like me, then I can accept that you are not totally like me.  I can focus on the things we have in common and find the differences interesting.  But if I perceive you to be totally different from me, then the bridge is broken - my tendency is to leave, not to get close enough to find connections.

What does that mean for diversity development? Basically, that our traditional diversity efforts, while laudable, are unlikely to work.  The more we tell our employees how different they are, the less they build bridges. The less they connect. We’re not saying, mind you, that we ought not to discuss differences - differences are important, they are productive, they help us manifest a variety of strengths and talents in the workplace.  Differences are essential if we are to build an organization that works (can you imagine a company where everyone is a clone of your star sales person? Or your star accountant? Or your star researcher? That would be one strange company… and one doomed for disaster…).  

What we are saying is that every time we encourage our employees to discover the strength of their differences we should also help them build a common ground.  A bridge.  A flag to waive together as they move in the same direction using different tools.

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree? Tell us about it!

This is a space for discussions, questions, and communication.  We hope you will comment, bring your ideas, and make this site a useful resource for our clients, colleagues, and friends.  Are you interested in a particular topic? Do you have a “burning question”? Let us know!