Four Organizational Theory perspectives

Human Resource Development Review2016, Vol. 15(2) 208 –229 © The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1534484316643904 hrd.sagepub.com Theory and Conceptual Article Deconstructing the Privilege and Power of Employee Engagement: Issues of Inequality for Management and Human Resource Development Brad Shuck 1, Joshua C. Collins 2, Tonette S. Rocco 3, and Raquel Diaz 4 Abstract The purpose of our work was to explore the job demands–resources mode\ l of engagement through the critical lens(es) of privilege and power. This \ deconstruction of the privilege and power of employee engagement was focused toward exploring four principal questions: Who (a) controls the context of work? (b) \ determines the experience of engagement? (c) defines the value of engagement? and (d\ ) benefits from high levels of engagement? We conclude that organizations and emplo\ yees both benefit from the outcomes associated with the heightened experience of e\ mployee engagement. We maintain, however, that the organization is uniquely positioned to influence systems of power and privilege that ultimately enable the cond\ itions for engagement to flourish. Organizations desiring high levels of engagement\ have an obligation to confront manifestations of privilege such as unequal states of power, access, status, credibility, and normality.

Keywords employee engagement, privilege, power, job demands–resources 1University of Louisville, KY, USA2University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, USA3Florida International University, Miami, USA4University of Florida, Gainesville, USA Corresponding Author:

Brad Shuck, College of Education & Human Development, University of Loui\ sville, Woodford and Harriett Porter Building, Louisville, KY 40292, USA.

Email: [email protected] 643904 HRD XX X 10.1177/1534484316643904Human Resource Development ReviewShuck et al.

research-article 2016 at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from Shuck et al. 209 W ithin any given model of employee engagement lays an implied process abo\ ut how the phenomenon unfolds and is consequently experienced (Shuck & Rose, 2\ 013).

Employee engagement has been defined as a positive, active psychological state, oper - ationalized as the intensity and direction of cognitive, emotional, and \ behavioral energy (Nimon, Shuck, & Zigarmi, 2015; Parker & Griffin, 2011; Shuck, Ghosh, Zigarmi, & Nimon, 2013; Shuck & Wollard, 2010). Embedded within this state lies certain assumptions that position engagement as a subjective experience,\ capturing the “beliefs, values, behaviors, and experiences at work in a way not see\ n before [in] the mainstream” (Purcell, 2014, p. 251). The phenomenon of engagement facilitates an understanding of experiences that influence how, when, and with whom people work (e.g., intensity and direction). Although engagement research has swelled within the past decade, we beli\ eve assumptions about the conditions that lead to the experience of engageme\ nt have (a) remained underdeveloped, (b) been grounded in a technical rational par\ adigm that advantages quantifiable information, and (c) essentially disregarded i\ ssues of equity and access. Even those lines of inquiry that confront critical issues of\ employee engagement—such as the positioning of engagement as a normative overe\ xtension of work or the overt corporate exploitation of employees (Guest, 2013)—\ do little to address issues of equity and access related to how employees experience \ engagement or to present “a decontextualized, depoliticized vision of the organization” (Valentin, 2014, p. 476). Employee engagement has been primarily situated as an im\ partial, often neutral construct within the literature. Consequently, the literature has looked largely at within-group and within-person variation around engagement and has no\ t taken a critical stance. A critical stance should ideally adhere to two principles of critical Human Resource Development (HRD): (a) opposition to the repression o\ f employee knowledge, skill development, and relationships for organizational gain and (b) a determination to transform organizations into just and equitable workplaces (Fenwick, 2004). Fenwick suggested four dimensions useful in examining “the sp\ ace within HRD” (Fenwick, 2004, p. 193): political purpose, epistemology, inquiry, and method- ology. Together, these dimensions support an interrogation of engagement and power that produce instances of privilege in organizations in terms of resources, meaningful- ness, safety, and other facets of the employee engagement experience. Resources within the context of engagement have been viewed as static ob\ jects (e.g., supplies, sufficient budget, and personnel to complete a task; Shuck, Reio, & Rocco, 2011). Static objects often appear devoid of bias or selectivity and witho\ ut regard to workplace realities where the distribution of resources, information, an\ d funds are not available to all employees. For example, in Shuck, Reio, and Rocco (201\ 1), resources— operationalized as a part of the engagement experience—were assumed t\ o be distrib- uted equitably within the study’s setting, ignoring the reality that participants may encounter varying levels of resource availability. Equitable distribution of resources is not only assumed in Shuck, Reio, and Rocco (2011), but is widely implicit across the majority of research on engagement. Participants are presumed to have eq\ ual access to resources. In reality, however, organizational bias and/or selectivity influence access because something—or someone—is actively taking or withholding it.\ Bias and at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from 210 Human Resource Development Review 15(2) selectivity are used by those in positions of power– such as managers\ –and privilege those with status. Unfortunately, a critical perspective on employee engagement remains uncommon “with most studies taking a prescriptive and normati\ ve ‘manageri- alist’ approach” (Valentin, 2014, p. 478) that supports a tightly managed organizational hierarchy. The purpose of our work was to apply a critical lens to employee engagem\ ent and deconstruct the role of power and privilege in the formation of the empl\ oyee engage- ment experience. In the sections that follow, first we present a conceptual framework for understanding employee engagement, privilege, and power, in which we introduce the constructs, frame them, and provide a discussion of their intersection. Next, we deconstruct the framework of employee engagement through the lens of pri\ vilege and power through four questions that guide our work: (a) Who controls the framework of work? (b) Who determines the experience of engagement? (c) Who defines the value of engagement? and (d) Who benefits from high levels of engagement? Finally, we examine the contributions of this discussion to existing research and pr\ opose brief insights and implications for research and practice.

A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Employee Engagement, Power, and Privilege Employee engagement is a positive psychological state (Nimon et al., 2015; Parker & Grif fin, 2011). If engagement is positioned as a state, it must be distinguished fr\ om (and connected to) those antecedents that influence the state. The formation of engage- ment is dependent on the experience of its known antecedents. Kahn (1990) proposed an overarching social constructivist perspective \ of employee engagement—highly subjective and grounded in the experience of the em\ ployee and their context—identifying three psychological, antecedental condition\ s connected to the full experience of employee engagement. Largely influenced by psychologists, sociologist, and group theorists of the mid- to late sixties, Kahn argued that to the degree a person experienced the defined conditions of meaningfulness, sa\ fety, and availability, they would be more likely to proportionately experience higher levels of personal engagement. Meaningfulness was defined as feeling that one’s work is worthwhile and accompa- nied by a sense of personal and professional value (Kahn, 1990). A sense of meaning- fulness is about achieving perceived balance with work and the feeling o\ f value one gets from contributing significance (Chalofsky, 2003; Kahn, 2010). This perception of meaningfulness is critical, as human beings rarely invest energy into tasks that are likely to be fruitless, empty efforts. Employees who see their contribution as meaning- ful to themselves, their team, and/or the organization engage with work proportionally.

Work, however, comes in a variety of forms and measures. Safety was defined as the ability to be one’s preferred self without fearing negative consequences to self-image, professional identity, or the balance of well-being needed for survival (Chalofsky, 2003; Kahn, 1990). Kahn (1990) theorized that employees needed to personally and authentically trust their working environment in ways that at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from Shuck et al. 211 allowed them to bring their full selves to work, as well as reasonably u\ nderstand what was expected of them when they were working (physically , socially, and emotionally).

Often focused on as physical well-being, an employee’s perception of safety can be just as much about fearing emotional and psychological harm (Fredrickso\ n & Joiner, 2002; Kahn, 1990). Work environments that are unable to provide protective boundar - ies for employees can be experienced as threatening, intimidating places\ of work. Availability was defined as having the physical, emotional, and psychological resources necessary for the completion of work (Kahn, 1990). To experience engage- ment, employees must feel that they have the tools to complete their wor\ k—or at a minimum that required tools can, and will, be obtained. Job resources ha\ ve been oper - ationalized as the “physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of a job that (a) may reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs, (b) are functional in achieving work goals, and (c) stimulate\ personal growth, learning, and development” (Hakanen, Schaufeli, & Ahola, 2008, p. 225). In later work, Kahn (1992) suggested it was unreasonable to expect emp\ loyees to be fully engaged at work when they felt their basic needs (i.e., meaningfu\ lness, safety, and availability) were not being met as a result of their work experience. \ How employees socially construct perceptions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability, as well as integrate feedback from their environment with those constructed percept\ ions, have been linked to matters of resource and demand (Kahn, 2010). A psychologically safe environment, for example, could be framed as a resource, whereas the lack of personnel to complete an arduous task or a lack of social support from unsupportiv\ e coworkers could be framed as a demand. Both systems—resource and demand—act interdepen- dently to create the subjectively constructed experience of employee eng\ agement.

These three psychological and antecedental conditions are proportionatel\ y tied to per - ceived resources and consequently, to the construction of the experience of employee engagement (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008; Bunderson & Thompson, 2009). The Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model of engagement provides an em\ pirically tested and well-grounded model for understanding resources and demands i\ n the con- text of engagement. The JD-R model assumes that every occupation comes with both resources and demands and that every employee experiences a combination of the two as a natural element of their work. Job demands refer to those “physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or p\ sy- chological effort or skills . . . and are therefore associated with certain physiolog\ ical and/or psychological costs” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p. 312) whil\ e resources refer to “physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that are func- tional in achieving work goals, reduc[ing] job demands and, . . . stimul\ at[ing] personal growth, learning, and development” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p. 312\ ). The unique combination of these elements presents two sides of a similar phenomenon\ : motiva- tional and health impairment processes that originate from environmental\ cues (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Moreover, resources and demands buffer one another (Bakker et al., 2008). The JD-R model assumes that heightened levels of engagement are likely to manifest even when job demands are high if employees can draw positiv\ ely from job (i.e., social support, performance feedback, rewards) and personal res\ ources (i.e., at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from 212 Human Resource Development Review 15(2) optimism, psychological health). Recent research has emphasized the utility of the JD-R model as an explanatory framework for understanding how employees e\ xperi- ence engagement at work (Crawford, LePine, & Rich, 2010). Important in contextualizing a more critical view of engagement, Bakker and Demerouti (2007) demonstrated that resources are subjectively construc\ ted, depen- dent on the meaning assigned by an employee within the current context. \ Because resources and demands are relevant in a subjective context, we operation\ alized the symbiotic nature of resources and demands (as depicted by Bakker & Deme\ routi, 2007) as socially constructed perceptions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability to fully explore the issues of power and privilege embedded within the expe\ rience of employee engagement at work.

Framing Power and Privilege As we have noted, the examination of engagement as privilege is also an examination of power (Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012). In her work around power as a discourse for \ fram- ing organizational incivility, Callahan (2011) suggested several kinds of power within an organizational context. Two of the most salient revolve around the power of the organization and the power over the less powerful. In both instances, the issue of power is used to preserve systematic order in ways that maintain structu\ res and con- straints that detract from the possibility of employee engagement. For e\ xample, from the power of lens, organizations increasingly construct the norms of employee engage- ment and dictate what engagement should be and feel like (Shuck & Rose,\ 2013). The power over is related to outcomes connected to performance and gives to those with status the power to control others with less power. From a manager to an employee, it might sound like, “You need to be more engaged.” This declaration objectifies engagement—consequently detaching any semblance of humanness—and is an o\ vert declaration of power. Callahan goes on to suggest a third kind of power that is useful to consider: the power to facilitate. This source of power reframes the conversation between a manager (a positional state of privilege and power) and an employee from control to one of possibility. This source of power is interdependent, transforming the environment from a state of privilege where someone has power over anoth\ er person to a state of collaboration were two people work together to facilitate \ the formation of engagement through the experience of its known antecedents (i.e., meani\ ngfulness, safety, and availability; Kahn, 1990). Privileges are assets, either earned or unearned, that help individuals \ advance or benefit over, and often at the expense of, others (Bailey, 1998). Earned privileges are “any earned conditions, skill, asset, or talent that benefit its poss\ essor” (Bailey, 1998, p. 109). Earned privileges are often obtained through work, education, \ or learning how to capitalize on a particular skill set (Rocco & West, 1998). Unearned privileges are awarded by birth into a particular group, type, or classification of peo\ ple. Both earned and unearned privileges provide a source of power of and power over. Rocco and West (1998) named eight attributes that determine privilege: (a) class, (\ b) gender, (c) race, (d) religion, (e) sexual orientation, (f) able-bodiedness, (g) e\ thnicity, and (h) age. at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from Shuck et al. 213 Manifestations of privilege include “power , access, status, credibility, and normality” (Rocco & West, 1998, p. 173). These manifestations play out in taken-for-granted ways, for instance, through the credibility and status of gender in the \ medical profes- sion, where historically most nurses are women and most doctors are men.\ Yet, as more women become physicians, instead of earning what male physicians ea\ rn, female physicians earn between 60% and 85% less annually and are required to see more patients to achieve equal pay status (Weeks & Wallace, 2002). This is an issue of resource and demand and the manifested experience of the power over. Both earned and unearned privileges denote power, social order, and hierarchy, and both support and contradict one another. For example, heterosexual White men gener - ally experience a great deal of unearned privilege, even from young ages\ . For some of these men, the additional earned privilege of being college-educated may stem in part from advantages experienced in relation to an already-privileged identity. Or, this additional earned privilege may simply mitigate the fact that the colleg\ e-educated White male is the first in his family to attend college and to achieve m\ iddle-class sta- tus. Being a college-educated, heterosexual White man may result in different career and social outcomes than being a White woman or a gay White man or a person of color in a similar situation. Furthermore, earned and unearned privilege\ s may become conflated. Individuals from dominant groups with unearned privileges may\ believe that their success comes solely as a result of individual merit. The notion of anything to the contrary could be “threatening to a person’s identity” (Rosette & Thompson, 2005, p. 272). An example would be a White, college-educated male believing anyone with the same education could enjoy the same career trajectory and belie\ ving the rea- son others at his level are also White males is because they work hard and others who do not look like them, do not. In this same narrative is the skeptical view that people with minority status advance within organizations because of favorable minority- based hiring policies rather than merit. The benefits of privilege—and manifested power—are often clear to those situated outside the dominant group(s\ ) (Bailey, 1998).

Power and privilege are, however, inextricably linked to context and time, dependent on social values, laws, geography, and demographics. In a case study on older workers and retirement options at a university, researchers found that older workers with more education and status (faculty and hi\ gher level administrators) within the organization had the privilege of being offered opportuni- ties for flexible work with the organization after their formal retirement (Stein, Rocco, & Goldenetz, 2000) whereas office workers and support staff had no possibility of additional employment with the university after their formal retirement. The faculty and higher level administrators were White men and the support staff White women; all were above 55 years of age. The focus of the study was on older workers, and rec- ognizing the division of men and women was an outcome of the analysis. One group was composed solely of White men who benefited from a source of power through the unearned privilege of their gender and race, as well as an earned privil\ ege through education and rank. The unearned privilege (being male and White) was bound by context and defined by the positionality of an earned privilege (i.e., \ faculty and higher level administrators). at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from 214 Human Resource Development Review 15(2) Other examples of power connected to privilege are demonstrated when emp\ loyees are forced to disclose disability, sexual minority, or a religious status different from the status quo. The person forced to disclose lacks privilege and power and makes the di\ s- closure to a person with earned privilege because that person represents a source of power within the organization. In the case of a person with a disability, law requires disclosure if an accommodation is needed (Rocco, Bowman, & Bryant, 2014\ ). A sexual minority might need to disclose to use benefits or to counter a work culture that assumes heteronormativity (Collins & Callahan, 2012). Religious beliefs become\ an issue when work culture and religious practices conflict (e.g., work parties with \ alcohol or events on Saturdays can violate specific religious tenets). As employees disclose their disabil- ity, sexual orientation, or religion (i.e., often minority status lacking \ privilege), cowork- ers may view them as different and with diminished capabilities, despite any earned privilege they may have, such as education or rank. They can become victims of incivil- ity, harassment, and other manifestations of power used by those with privi\ lege in an organization. Again, we raise issues of resource and demand in ways that influence how\ an employee experiences work and subsequent engagement. This experience is time dependent and subjective. We argue that if a person who does not benefit from unearned privilege and lacks sufficient earned privilege experi- ences inconsistent decision making, bias in evaluations, and/or a lack o\ f resources necessary to do the work, the employee will experience this as a form of organizational injustice (Colquitt, 2001) and as a manifestation of their lack of power. Ultimately, this experience influences how engaged an employee is/or can become. However, a person with earned and unearned privilege, we argue, has greater access to resources, favor - able decision making, and thus power, and that this naturally builds toward the positive psychological state of employee engagement. It is possible that those wi\ th privilege are more engaged because they do not need to navigate the micro-aggressions (small acts such as short or dismissive communication) and macro-aggressions (larger acts such as blatant racism) that minorities with less power– however minority is defined in context and time–experience routinely (Sue & Sue, 2003). In recipro\ cal fashion, a privileged status increases employee engagement and the resulting engage\ d state sup- ports privilege rewarded through power. Privilege can be examined through the unique vantage point of an individ\ ual’s experience of his or her work, rather than at the more general, organizational level.

Issues of power connected to privilege emerge at the individual level. Privilege situ- ates an individual’s personal attributes into a context while power denotes the opera- tionalization of privilege organizationally—for example, the experience of resource denial, inequity, or positionality that may influence the experience of engagement.

This may be easily seen in the well-understood and little-documented “\ old boys club.” The old boys club enhances the power individual members enjoy due to the\ ir privi- leged status. Members of the club enjoy both earned and unearned privile\ ge. Some members are well aware of the club and believe in their right to belong,\ while others are unwilling to acknowledge that privilege bestowed power and, instead,\ view others as not worthy because they are deficient. People who exist outside the “\ old boys club” may perceive members as receiving greater compensation, better perks, in\ formation, at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from Shuck et al. 215 and access to decision making more often. Consequently , encountering “the old boys club” as an outsider can be disorienting and, we argue, disengaging. We might assume that only White men have the benefit to this sort of club—certainly that might be more prevalent historically—but because privilege is context and time dependent, this assumption does not hold. Other groups, with a myriad of earned and unea\ rned privi- leges, manifest their own versions of the club. Few would argue that any version of the “old boys club” is not an explicit artifact of privilege operation\ alized through the con- duit of power. Furthermore, naming the “old boys club” as an explicit artifact \ of privi- lege and power might seem a pedestrian example—that is, until you enc\ ounter some manifestation of the club and find yourself an outsider experiencing dis\ orientation, frustration, and disengagement. Ultimately, employees who gain advantage, intentionally or unknowingly, from an earned or unearned privilege create states of privilege within an organization that often wield power. Such a privileged state is an organizational condition created as a result of the collected experiences of privilege among a group of employees who\ benefit over, and at the expense of, others. States of privilege are omnipresent and\ interwoven within the fabric of an organizational culture. The personal attributes of privilege can be understood in their experienced form as the demonstration of power.

Deconstructing the Framework of Employee Engagement Through the Lens of Privilege and Power Here, we argue that employee engagement can, at times, be positioned without regard\ for privilege or without regard for individuals’ sense of meaning in work or, in some cases, without regard for both. When employee engagement is considered without regard for privilege, we believe this calls into question the context of the work itself.

Similarly, when employee engagement is considered without regard for individuals’\ sense of meaning in their work, we believe this calls into question the experience of engagement. When employee engagement is considered without regard for either priv- ilege or individuals’ sense of meaningfulness in work, we contend that it is critical to question who is defining the value of engagement. Finally, we argue that when privi- lege, employee engagement, and meaningful work are considered alongside \ one another, employee engagement can be viewed not as a product of privilege but as\ privilege itself providing promising answers to the question of who benefits from high levels of employee engagement. In the following sections, we unpack thes\ e four pri- mary statements in the form of questions, all bound within the intersect\ ion of privi- lege, power, and engagement.

Who Controls the Context of Work?

Perhaps the trouble with existing perspectives on employee engagement is a lack of sensitivity toward an understanding of how work conditions prohibit perf\ ormance, create competing responsibilities that contest performance, and generate\ uncertain at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from 216 Human Resource Development Review 15(2) realities that challenge employees in ways that affect their experience of being engaged. Take, for example, those industries where turnover is annually upward of \ 100% (i.e., fast food, retail, quick service, etc.). As a matter of survival, some indus- tries purposely develop jobs to be learned quickly and repeated until assumed turnover occurs and a new employee is trained. Often, employees who take such cus\ tomer- facing jobs are those with the least power and privilege and are often supervised by those who, more often than not, have the power of and power over (Callahan, 2011) and who use this privilege to maintain a certain status quo. The formal and informal structures of the position create an especially difficult situation when the employee is viewed as a disposable resource. In such instances, a manager’s privilege and power work to erect obstacles that require astonishing persistence to overcome\ , ultimately influencing how an employee experiences meaningfulness, safety, and/or resource availability in their work. We contend that it is possible some employees find great meaning in their work (for a variety of reasons, including disposition, external motiva- tions, and so on, despite conditions, industry, or how others might socially construct their identity from a position of privilege) and thus persist through o\ bstacles that are manifested through their lack of privilege and powerlessness; we suspect\ these employees might also report higher level of employee engagement. However\ , an employee might also find little meaning in their work (they cannot see \ how their work contributes to larger goals, experience a task as busywork and/or unimportant, and so on, or see it as unsafe or lacking appropriate resources) and encounter\ ing the obstacles of the power of and power over (Callahan, 2011) push that employee toward (dis) engagement and connected outcomes. Related is the idea that a vast majority of employees in most organizations lack appropriate positionality (i.e., status, power, credibility) to alter or influence their experience. Consequently, employees may become disengaged by no real fault of their own but by virtue of an uncontrollable condition of work and the discriminatory exer - cise of power (Callahan, 2011). If we assume that all employees pull toward experi- ences that allow the expression of a full range of creativity, productivity, excitement, discernment, and autonomy (e.g., full personal engagement; Kahn, 1990)\ , then we can assume all employees naturally gravitate toward opportunities that are e\ ngaging. If employees naturally seek engaging opportunities, why do some employees f\ ind it so difficult to be engaged? Privilege takes different forms, both the obvious and concealed, and often involves the amassing of resources, which can be the ultimate source of organizational power.

Actions, language, and intentions can be powerful tools. Those in the majority hold additional positional power within the context of work that those in the\ minority (how- ever minority might be defined) do not have. This can cause employees to experience privilege individually and respond proportionately. Ultimately, employees who are in positions of privilege create the structures and conditions of work, determine who will be in positions of influence and \ power, and sanction conditions. Employee engagement must be considered with regard \ to privilege and within the context of the work itself. Because these actions eventua\ lly determine at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from Shuck et al. 217 the context of work and create the unique environmental conditions of th\ e workplace itself, we propose the following:

Proposition 1: Employees with earned and unearned privilege are more likely to control the context of work.

Proposition 2: Employees who control the context of work are more likely to be the most highly engaged due to their positionality.

Proposition 3: Employee engagement can lead to a privileged state, which influ- ences the belief that resource allocation is fair, decisions are made equally, all workers are treated with dignity, and information can be trusted (higher levels of organizational justice). When the context of work is disadvantaged through exer - cises of privilege and manifested power, we expect less privileged employees to report lower levels of engagement.

Who Controls the Experience of Employee Engagement?

High levels of employee engagement have been linked to individual persis\ tence (Sonnentag, 2003). However, we question—persisting against what and why—why not just do good work and be engaged as a normal function of employment?\ In most cases, management and organizations, through the creation and sustainment of an organizational culture, determine the experience of engagement. This experience is determined by providing, intentionally or unintentionally, obstacles that employees must overcome, disregard, or persist against to become and remain engage\ d—that is, to find or reframe meaning, develop a sense of safety, or amass resources. The JD-R model of engagement (Hakanen et al., 2008) explicitly examines the role of organiza- tional structures and constraints that frame who determines the actual e\ xperience of employee engagement. For example, physical structures can be defined as the material layout and appearance of the building, psychological structures as the way formal titles are used, and social structures as organizational politics. Different break rooms for executives and front line staff, mandates for using formal titles when addressing superiors, and following unwritten rules of raising a hand in a meeting all send power - ful messages of control and constraint—this despite any goodwill inte\ ntion. Organizations determine at least a portion of the experience of what it me\ ans to work in a particular place. An organization can be thought of as a macro-object, a liv- ing and breathing entity constructed and given meaning by those individu\ als who work within its bounds and that exists in a world whose ebbs and flows h\ ave conse- quences to their surroundings and manufactured workplace conditions (Schein, 1999).

The organization creates culture by establishing an identity and setting standards.

Within an organization, there are subcultures formed by informal groups (e.g., frie\ nd- ships), formal groups (e.g., departments, work flow, teams), occupations, or profes- sions (e.g., management, accountants), and there are countercultures c\ reated by mergers, innovators or entrepreneurs, anti-establishment or authority, and social movements (Trice & Beyer, 1993). An organization can exist with several subcultures at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from 218 Human Resource Development Review 15(2) wrapped within one or ganizational frame that compete ferociously for resources, members, and authority while placing demands on others. The culture an employee experiences on a day-to-day basis, however, is local and composed of socially constructed organizational cultures and subcultures. Engagement is experienced through this intersection of culture and subculture compl\ ete with com- peting demands at a very local level. Just as organizational culture and counterculture are local, the most distal experiences of employee engagement are local,\ as well.

Because culture exists at both a macro and micro level, the responsibili\ ty for creating the conditions that lead to the experienced phenomenon of engagement fal\ ls within the purview of the organization and those placed in positions of influence to shape experi- ences of work. In reaction to any one culture, employee engagement is predicated on a c\ ognitive- affective appraisal (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, & Ilies, 2012). This appraisal is a percep- tion of the demands and resources that exist within a culture. This perception is uniquely the employee’s and cannot be mandated, policy driven, or forced (Shuck & Rose, 2013). Like culture, employee engagement is individually experien\ ced as a socially constructed phenomenon. Because social construction influences—if not determines—the experience of engagement, we propose the following:

Proposition 4: Employee engagement is a socially constructed, subjective phe- nomenon, grounded in three psychological, antecedental conditions (mean\ ingful- ness, safety, and availability). Those with privilege (earned or unearned) can construct their own place within an organization as well as their experience of meaningful work through the use of power (both the power of and the power over).

When considered without regard for experience (manifested through organizational justice), employee engagement is unlikely to develop. From a critical perspective, employee engagement is influenced (and experienced), at least in part,\ by an employee’s encounters with privilege and power.

Who Determines the Value of Engagement?

High levels of engagement are arguably valuable to both employees and organizations (represented by management). This value is intrinsic and extrinsic; measured in emo- tional attachment, increased salary, profits, innovations, competitive advantage, pro- ductivity, and well-being, among others. Employees and organizations differ, however, on what is meant by value and how value is operationalized within the co\ ntext of work. On one hand, an organization has the ultimate power to define the value of employee engagement. For example, it is the organization that dictates the parameters of work and systems of practice, as well as denotes which outputs are im\ portant to performance. However, the experienced phenomenon of engagement is neither manu- factured, or demanded, nor is it artificially inflated when certain pres\ cribed anteced- ents are aligned. Full employee engagement is at its core individually offered by an employee to a manager and sometimes to the organization as a symbolic entity, at the at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from Shuck et al. 219 moment in which he or she perceives that resources are available, meanin\ g and pur - pose are experienced, and safety is in balance. Employees engage when or ganizations (through organizational development and cul- ture) and managers (through leadership) nurture the conditions of eng\ agement. The only power an organization truly has in this context is to create conditions that cultivate the psychological state of engagement among employees (these conditions are\ well docu- mented within the JD-R model, although the JD-R model is not exhaustive)\ . Yet, organi- zations and managers struggle to create and operationalize the psycholog\ ical antecedents of employee engagement (meaningfulness, safety, and availability) in practice.

Organizations (and consequently managers with privilege within organizations) have very little power to manufacture high levels of employee engagement. Although organi- zations and managers cannot manufacture (or mandate) engagement, the o\ rganization creates and maintains a culture where employee engagement can occur. Still, the ability to define the value of employee engagement lies only within the individual \ employee. This is an interesting juxtaposition because what is experienced as valuable \ to one person may not be valuable to another. Meaningfulness, for example, denotes personally perceived significance that is unique to the employee (Barrick, Mount, & Li, 2013\ ). This framing of value is subjective—again, socially constructed—and positions engagement as a shifting, complex, and varied target, often making it challenging to pinpoint in practice. We recognize the possibility for all work to be engaging as well as disen\ gaging. If this is even partially true, then we wonder what influences variability \ in engagement levels within an individual employee, across groups, and within organizations. Clues to this can be found in research that has examined the ebb and flow of e\ ngagement in day-to-day work life. Cooper-Thomas, Leighton, Xu, Knight-Turvey, and Albrecht (2010) asked the question “Does engagement flourish, fade, or stay \ true?” (p. 87) across time and context. Xanthopoulou et al. (2012) suggested that even relatively positive people suffer losses of enthusiasm and fulfillment. The measurement of these fluctuations provides a context to engagement that is lost when using la\ bels that con- note being either engaged or disengaged as a general sentiment or global\ indicator of employee satisfaction with their work. Employees are rarely ever engaged or disen- gaged as a matter of being—we suspect, there are normal variations and flu\ ctuations in an individual’s state of engagement from moment to moment. This is our point with regard to resources and demands being positioned as static in much of the employee engagement research. Resources are not static and nor are demands. Furthermore, issues of privilege can influence resources and demands, and manifested power can bring either ultimate control or vulnerability depending on positionalit\ y. How an employee encounters privilege (earned or unearned) can influence how t\ hey define the value of engagement as well as the experience of the psychological antec\ edents of engagement. Ultimately, we believe the power to define the value of engagement lies with the employee and that encounters with privilege and power shade thi\ s value.

Proposition 5: Encounters with privilege and power (which are defined in context and time and can fluctuate from moment to moment) influence an employee\ ’s per - ception of how available resources are and demanding a job/task is. at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from 220 Human Resource Development Review 15(2) Pr oposition 6: An employee defines the value of employee engagement. When employees encounter experiences with the power of and/or power over, they develop an unfavorable view of the value of employee engagement and are less likely to report high levels of engagement. Conversely, when employees encounter experiences with the power to facilitate, they develop a more positive view of employee engagement and are more likely to report higher levels of emplo\ yee engagement.

Who Benefits From High Levels of Engagement?

The research is clear about the benefits of engagement. Organizations whose employ- ees report heightened levels of employee engagement also report lower levels of turn- over (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001; Saks, 2006; Shuck, Shuck, & Reio, 2013), higher levels of job performance, task performance, organizational citizenship behav- iors (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010), productivity (Christian, Garza\ , & Slaughter, 2011; Richman, 2006), discretionary effort, affective commitment, levels of positive psychological climate (Shuck, Reio, & Rocco, 2011), job satisfaction, continuance commitment (Saks, 2006), and higher quality customer service (Fleming & Asplund, 2007; Rurkkhum & Bartlett, 2012). As if this was not enough evidence of organiza- tional benefit, heightened levels of employee engagement have been furth\ er associated with increased profitability, revenue generation, and strategic growth (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009). In supporting research, Doloriert and Sambrook (2011) and Jones (2012) used eth- nographic approaches to examine the experiences of engagement among empl\ oyees and the relation to performance. Collectively, their findings suggested engagement as benefitting the organization through a series of work-related experiences—in the end, engaged employees performed at higher levels than those who were not eng\ aged.

Shuck, Rocco, and Albornoz (2011) paralleled these findings, providing voice for back of the house team members whose high levels of engagement benefitted the\ organiza- tion in the form of motivation to perform, productivity, and an increase in the function- ality of work units. The evidence seems clear-cut—organizations benefit from an employee base who reports high levels of employee engagement. Emerging evidence is equally strong that employees benefit from high levels \ of employee engagement. For example, employees who report higher levels of \ engage- ment also experience lower levels of stress and burnout (Maslach et al., 2001; Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008) and higher levels of accomplishment in their work (Shuck, Shuck, & Reio, 2013). They also perform better and engage in more organizational citizenship behaviors (Rich et al., 2010), creating a more positive expe- rience for coworkers. Employees who are highly engaged have also reporte\ d experi- encing work more positively than their colleagues who do not report high\ levels of engagement (Shuck & Reio, 2013). In addition, the benefits of engageme\ nt have been found to extend beyond the boundaries of work. For example, employees who were engaged at work also reported lower levels of depression, loneliness, an\ d ostracism, as well as lower levels of stress and depersonalizing behaviors (Maslach et al., 2001; at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from Shuck et al. 221 Shuck, Rocco, & Albornoz, 2011). Engaged employees report higher levels of overall well-being and responding positively to statements such “I am able to\ have fun” and “I am able to forgive myself for my failures” (Shuck & Reio, 2013). Research would indicate that being engaged at work has a positive spillover effect into life outside of work that can be operationalized as a heightened sense of well-being and\ greater over - all life satisfaction (Schaufeli et al., 2008).

The question of who benefits from high levels of employee engagement is \ difficult.

A benefit of any kind can be a source of power. As something, or someone, benefits from another entity, it can be framed as a benefit over, and, at the expense of, others (Bailey, 1998) placing the beneficiary of high levels of employee engagement i\ n a position of privilege. It is possible, however, that neither party benefits over another, but rather alongside each other. Workplaces that support the conditions for engagement have employees who \ enjoy a positive psychological state of work—which lead to higher levels of\ performance, greater productivity, and experience higher levels of well-being (Christian et al., 2011; Rich et al., 2010; Shuck & Reio, 2013; Shuck, Rocco, & Albornoz, 2011). Because employee engagement is a psychological state dependent on a supportive w\ orkplace culture, the outcomes of employee engagement (i.e., higher performance)\ can be defined as a privilege for the organization. We have defined privilege as an asset, either earned or unearned, that helps one person benefit over, and often at the expense of, others (Bailey, 1998). When an organization nurtures the conditions of engage- ment, employees are more likely to engage at higher levels and consequently perform better. As we have noted, the outcomes of higher levels of employee engagement a\ re as diverse as knowledge creation and innovation to profitability. Undoubtedly, these assets become earned organizational assets that help an organization advance and ben- efit over, and at the expense of, competitors. The willingness to nurture the conditions for engagement creates an authentic experience of engagement for the emp\ loyee. In organizations where individual privilege and power obstruct the conditions\ of engagement by placing increasing demands on, and over, the employee who does not have access to resources (Callahan, 2011), engagement transforms into a privilege for those fortunate enough to have access to the resources they need. In thi\ s context, expe- riencing the psychological antecedental conditions of engagement occurs \ over and above, and often at the expense of, the less privileged and less powerfu\ l. We agree with Guest (2013) that when employee engagement is a privilege only a \ select few experience, it can be unhealthy, exploitive, and a normative overextension of work. We maintain that an organization is uniquely positioned to influence systems of earned and unearned privilege that enable the conditions for employee en\ gagement to be experienced. Accordingly, if organizations desire high levels of engagement, those who influence organizational structures and culture have an obligation to create the conditions of engagement by confronting manifestations of privilege such\ as unequal states of power, access, status, credibility, and normality (Rocco & West, 1998). It would behoove managers to focus more on how work is getting accomplished\ and experienced not just how much work is completed. From our perspective, o\ rganiza- tions deserve the engagement that they get. at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from 222 Human Resource Development Review 15(2) Pr oposition 7: The experience of engagement is a relational state between the employee and the organization that manifests from the power to facilitate (Callahan, 2011) and whose outcomes include positive individual employee and organiza- tional outcomes.

Proposition 8: Encounters with the power over and the power of diminish the con- ditions of engagement. A state of privileged engagement can be defined as norma- tive corporate exploitation when it fails to consider the context, experience, or value of the state of employee engagement.

Insights and Implications for Research and Practice Roughly, 70% of the American workforce remains either unengaged or actively disen- gaged according to the 2013 State of the American Workplace Report (Gallup, 2013).

This is the exact same number Gallup reported in 1999—more than two d\ ecades ago.

Similarly, static numbers have been reported globally from a variety of other con\ sult- ing conglomerates. Perhaps the static state of employee engagement is no\ t due to an epic failure to win the hearts and minds of employees—rather, stagnation is a function of the privileged condition of employee engagement embedded within the v\ ery struc- tures of work or, as highlighted in our argument using the JD-R model, the privledged interplay between demands and resources. This has gone unnoticed and under- researched. We are struck that for some employees, the resources to engage remain present, but something or someone is actively taking or withholding access.

Organizational struggle, imbalance, and disengagement are conceivably the \ norm, not the exception. Perhaps there are structural policies that perpetuate this norm or struc- tural policies that reward the privileged while oppressing others. For some organiza- tions, there may be powerful motivations for maintaining the status quo.\ The major contribution of our work has been the exploration of employee \ engage- ment using the JD-R model through the critical lens(es) of privilege a\ nd power. We have highlighted how the workplace conditions of privilege and power wor\ k to influ- ence the antecedental conditions of employee engagement, which in turn a\ ffect three connected, psychological states: (a) full engagement, (b) (dis)eng\ agement with reser - vations, and (c) disengagement. We propose that disengagement and full engagement are opposite experiences—each a complete psychological state—with \ employees often navigating, negotiating, and oscillating carefully between the two\ extremes and even experiencing engagement and disengagement simultaneously for different rea- sons. We recognize that at times, there are certain aspects of work that are disengaging, while other aspects can be experienced as engaging. The notion of (dis)engagement is the recognition that there is a middle space where the experience of wor\ k is both engaging and disengaging, concurrently. We maintain that it is possible for employee engagement and employee disengagement to be experienced differently yet practically co-occur simultaneously. Furthermore, the interplay of meaningful work, organiza- tional justice, and privilege as conditional experiences define the posi\ tionality of the employee within the context of their work. This manifests itself through positive and negative self-perceptions nested within the context and identification o\ f an employee’s at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from Shuck et al. 223 work identity (see Figure 1). Layered within our propositions is the i\ dea that despite widespread desire for high levels of engagement within an or ganization, engagement may actually not be possible in all places and at all times in equal par\ ts. Unfortunately, for those outside positions of power, engagement is a state of privi- lege they are simply unable to experience. It is, after all, a mark of p\ rivilege for an employee to be in a position to even ask questions regarding their exper\ ience of safety, meaningfulness, and availability—not to mention reflect on their own personal levels of employee engagement. We connect our work with Schaufeli’s (2012) call for developing those workplace environments that support the psychological state of engagement. This is particularly relevant within the growing body of literature focused on the JD-R model (Hakanen et al., 2008). As Schaufeli articulated, little work has examined those conditions that\ lead to the state of engagement in ways that can help organizations leverage the con- struct of engagement fully. We agree with Schaufeli and wonder how could we have gone so long exploring a construct inside such a silo as to not think ab\ out those condi- tions that lead to the very phenomenon being studied? Although we note there exists research looking at the relation between the environmental conditions of\ work and employee engagement (see, for example, Shuck, Shuck, & Reio, 2013), mo\ st research is on the relation between an employee and their leader/manager (Arakaw\ a & Greenberg, 2007; Hoon Song, Kolb, Hee Lee, & Kyoung Kim, 2012; Luthans & Peterson, 2002), issues of compensation and recognition (Fairle, 2011; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Kahn, 2010), and appropriate levels of challenge within\ one’s job role (Brown & Leigh, 1996)—yet, not one study has looked at how privilege and power can influence the psychological state of employee engagement. In other con- texts, disengagement may be an artifact of dysfunctional leadership (Ro\ se, Shuck, Twyford, & Bergman, 2015). Issues of privilege and power are admittedly not always obvious and, oft\ en, remain taboo topics within the organization. At a minimum, privilege and power inherently Figure 1. Meaningful work, privilege, and organizational justice: Pathways to (di\ s) engagement. at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from 224 Human Resource Development Review 15(2) exist within or ganizational hierarchies; at times, the presence of a privileged groups’\ power is palpable—employees, however, fail to explore this dynamic because those in positions of privilege rarely recognize, let alone discuss, their powerful advantageous state and will often argue for maintaining the status quo. Furthermore, those without an advantaged position know better than to bring it up or risk facing th\ e consequences.

When complete disregard of the issues associated with privilege and power occurs, voices fall silent, making engagement an unlikely outcome (Kahn, 2010). Examining the effects of privilege and power within organizational structures should be expanded to include the psychological and emotional experiences of employees at w\ ork—how encountering unjust structures as an outsider is likely to effect performance.

Understanding how employees navigate issues of meaningfulness, safety, and the availability of resources provides yet another window into the experienc\ es of both privilege and power within organizational settings. We hope that our exploration of engagement as a privileged state could extend prior and future research by considering the ways in which employee engagement may be distributed unevenly in organizations—intentionally or unintentionally. We recom- mend research be undertaken around the four essential questions explored\ in this man- uscript as well as the propositions we have offered. Such research could easily take place across an assortment of methodological choices. However, we offer that initial explorations of these questions may benefit from fully mixed-method appr\ oaches with qualitative inquiry (possibly from interviews or open-ended surveys) p\ roviding a strong basis for the formation of a well-positioned quantitative piece. \ One way to advance research on employee engagement in the context of privilege woul\ d be to gather employees’ and managers’ perceptions of the experience of engagement, its value, and the characteristics of an engaged employee. Perceptions could\ then be used to help inform variable selection and/or testing procedures. Finally, we would encourage those in positions of influence to reflect on and explore the unique conditions of employee engagement within their workpl\ ace.

Privilege and power can be invisible to those who possess them. For enga\ gement to be fully leveraged as an outcome, employees within an organization—at all levels—must first define the discourse of employee engagement for that time, place, and context.

This is too often a lost opportunity for managers to understand employee engagement as a positive psychological state from a perspective not connected with an outcome, but rather a very real, authentic, and experienced phenomenon tied to ex\ periences of privilege and power. Because managers are an influential force in the development of engagement, they should examine their own experiences of power, both positive and negative (Callahan, 2011). The resulting awareness of employee engagement as a privilege could then guide managers as well as human resource professionals to con- sider non-traditional ways to engage employees not influenced through traditional intervention strategies due to their positionality. For engagement to be authentic at high levels, all employees, especially those employees who enjoy the adv\ antages of privilege, must become more aware of the potential for employee engageme\ nt to be experienced as a privilege through the manifestation of power. Once acknowledged, steps can be taken to balance structures and distribute resources fairly\ . Engaging in at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from Shuck et al. 225 such reflection can be uncomfortable; yet, the positive benefit of confr\ onting issues of privilege and power can be equitable experiences of employee engagement for everyone.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect\ to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorsh\ ip, and/or publication of this article.

References Arakawa, D., & Greenberg, M. (2007). Optimistic managers and their inf\ luence on productivity and employee engagement in a technology organisation: Implications for c\ oaching psy- chologists. Coaching Psychology Review, 2, 78-89.

Bailey, A. (1998). Privilege: Expanding on Marilyn Frye’s oppressio\ n. Journal of Social Philosophy, 29, 104-119. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.1998.tb00124.x Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The jobs-demands resources mode\ l: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328. doi:10.1108/02683940710733115 Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagem\ ent. Career Development International, 13, 209-223.

Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008).\ Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22, 187-200.

doi:10.1080/02678370802393649 Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. (2013). The theory of purposefu\ l work behavior: The role of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review, 38, 132-153. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0479 Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological clima\ te and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358-368.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.358 Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zook\ eepers, callings, and the dual edges of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 32-57.

doi:10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.32 Callahan, J. L. (2011). Incivility as an instrument of oppression: Exp\ loring the role of power in constructions of civility. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 10-21.

doi:10.1177/1523422311410644 Chalofsky, N. (2003). An emerging construct for meaningful work. Human Resource Development International, 6, 69-83. doi:10.1080/1367886022000016785 Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engage\ ment: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89-136. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x Collins, J. C., & Callahan, J. L. (2012). Risky business: Gay identity disclosure in a mascu- linized industry. Human Resource Development International, 15, 455-470. doi:10.1080/ 13678868.2012.706427 at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from 226 Human Resource Development Review 15(2) Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justic\ e: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386 Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Leighton, N., Xu, J., Knight-Turvey, N., & Albrech\ t, S. (2010). Measuring change: Does engagement flourish, fade, or stay true. In S. L.\ Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement (pp. 87-97). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

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-analyt\ ic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 834-848. doi:10.1037/a0019364 Doloriert, C. H., & Sambrook, S. (2011). Accommodating an autoethnogra\ phic PhD: The tale of the thesis, the viva voce and the traditional business school. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 4, 582-615. doi:10.1177/0891241610387135 Fairle, P. (2011). Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key\ employee outcomes: Implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 508-525. doi:10.1177/1523422311431679 Fenwick, T. J. (2004). Toward a critical HRD in theory and practice. Adult Education Quarterly, 54, 193-209. doi:10.1177/0741713604263051 Fleming, J. H., & Asplund, J. (2007). Human sigma. New York, NY: Gallup Press.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emo- tional well-being. Psychological Science, 13, 172-175. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00431 Gallup. (2013). State of the American workplace report. Retrieved from http://www.gallup. com/strategicconsulting/163007/state-american-workplace.aspx Guest, D. (2013). Employee engagement: Fashionable fad or long-term fi\ xture? In C. Truss, K. Alfes, R. Delbridge, A. Shantz, & E. Soane (Eds.), Employee engagement in theory and practice (pp. 221-235). New York, NY: Rutledge.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279. doi:10.1016/ 0030-5073(76)90016-7 Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The job demands-\ resources model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and wo\ rk engagement.

Work & Stress, 22, 224-241. doi:10.1080/02678370802379432 Hoon Song, J., Kolb, J. A., Hee Lee, U., & Kyoung Kim, H. (2012). Role\ of transformational leadership in effective organizational knowledge creation practices: Med\ iating effects of employees’ work engagement. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23, 65-101.

doi:10.1002/hrdq.21120 Jones, N. (2012). Full circle: Employee engagement in the Welsh Public Service (Doctoral dis- sertation). Bangor University, UK.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement an\ d disengagement at work. The Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724. doi:10.2307/256287 Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work.\ Human Relations, 45, 321-349. doi:10.1177/001872679204500402 Kahn, W. A. (2010). The essence of employee engagement: Lessons from t\ he field. In S. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement (pp. 20-30). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2002). Employee engagement and manager\ self-efficacy. Journal of Management Development, 21, 376-387. doi:10.1108/02621710210426864 Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397 at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from Shuck et al. 227 Nimon, K., Shuck, B., & Zigarmi, D. (2015). Construct overlap between \ employee engagement and job satisfaction: A function of semantic equivalence? Journal of Happiness Studies.

doi:10.1007/s10902-015-9636-6 Parker, S. K., & Griffin, M. A. (2011). Understanding active psycholog\ ical states: Embedding engagement in a wider nomological net and closer attention to performanc\ e. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 20, 60-67. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2010.532869 Purcell, J. (2014). Disengaging from engagement. Human Resource Management Journal, 24, 241-254. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12046 Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: \ Antecedents and effects on job performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617-635. doi:10.5465/ AMJ.2010.51468988 Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it? Workspan, 49, 36-39.

Rocco, T. S., Bowman, L., & Bryant, L. O. (2014). Disability, health a\ nd wellness, and the role of HRD. In N. Chalofsky, T. S. Rocco, & M. L. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of human resource development: The discipline and the field (pp. 299-313). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rocco, T. S., & West, G. W. (1998). Deconstructing privilege: An examination of privilege in adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 171-184. doi:10.1177/074171369804800304 Rose, K., Shuck, B., Twyford, D., & Bergman, M. (2015). Skunked: An integrative review exploring the consequences of dysfunctional leaders and implicati\ ons for the employees who work for them. Human Resource Development Review, 14, 64-90.

doi:10.1177/1534484314552437 Rosette, A. S., & Thompson, L. (2005). The camouflage effect: Separati\ ng achieved status and unearned privilege in organizations. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 7, 259- 281. doi:10.1016/S1534-0856(05)07011-8 Rurkkhum, S., & Bartlett, K. R. (2012). The relationship between emplo\ yee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour in Thailand. Human Resource Development International, 15, 157-174. doi:10.1080/13678868.2012.664693 Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagemen\ t. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-619. doi:10.1108/02683940610690169 Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Work engagement. What do we know and where do\ we go? Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology, 14, 3-10.

Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, \ burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee wellbei\ ng? Applied Psychology, 57, 173-203. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00285.x Schein, E. H. (1999). Process consultation revisited: Building the helping relationship. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Shuck, B., Ghosh, R., Zigarmi, D., & Nimon, K. (2013). The jingle jang\ le of employee engagement: Further exploration of the emerging construct & implications\ for work- place learning and performance. Human Resource Development Review, 12, 11-35. doi: 10.1177/1534484312463921 Shuck, A., Shuck, B., & Reio, T. G., Jr. (2013). Emotional labor and p\ erformance in the field of child life: Initial model exploration and implications for practice. Children’s Health Care, 42, 168-190. doi:10.1080/02739615.2013.766116 Shuck, B., & Reio, T. G. (2013). Employee engagement and well-being: A\ moderation model and implications for practice. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 43-58.

doi:10.1177/1548051813494240 at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from 228 Human Resource Development Review 15(2) Shuck, B., Reio, T., & Rocco, T. (2011). Employee engagement: An antec\ edent and outcome approach to model development. Human Resource Development International, 14, 427- 445. doi:10.1080/13678868.2011.601587 Shuck, B., & Rose, K. (2013). Reframing employee engagement within the\ context of meaning and purpose: Implications for HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15, 341- 355. doi:10.1177/1523422313503235 Shuck, B., Rocco, T. S., & Albornoz, C. A. (2011). Exploring employee \ engagement from the employee perspective: Implications for HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35, 300-325. doi:10.1108/03090591111128306 Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A semina\ l review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 89-110. doi: 10.1177/ 1534484309353560 Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518-528.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.518 Stein, D., Rocco, T. S., & Goldenetz, K. A. (2000). Age and the univer\ sity workplace: A case study of remaining, retiring, or retaining older workers. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 61-80. doi:10.1002/1532-1096 Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2003). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (4th ed.).

New York, NY: Wiley.

Tatli, A., & Özbilgin, M. F. (2012). An emic approach to intersecti\ onal study of diversity at work: A Bourdieuan framing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14, 180-200.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00326.x Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The culture of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Valentin, C. (2014). The extra mile deconstructed: A critical and discourse perspective on employee engagement and HRD. Human Resource Development International, 17, 475- 490. doi:10.1080/13678868.2014.932091 Weeks, W. B., & Wallace, A. E. (2002). The more things change: Revisit\ ing a comparison of educational costs and incomes of physicians and other professionals. Academic Medicine, 77, 312-319. doi:10.1097/00001888-200204000-00010 Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal rela- tionships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement\ . Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 235-244. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003 Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., & Ilies, R. (2012). Everyday working \ life: Explaining within-person fluctuations in employee well-being. Human Relations, 65, 1051-1069.

doi:10.1177/0018726712451283 Author Biographies Brad Shuck, EdD, is assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership,\ Evaluation, and Organizational Development at the University of Louisvil\ le. His primary areas of research include the application, meaning, and measurement of employe\ e engagement, emerging areas of positive psychology, and leader development. In additi\ on to his primary fac- ulty appointment, Shuck holds affiliate faculty status in the Department\ of Counseling and Human Development at the University of Louisville and is a faculty membe\ r with the US Army Cadet Command Cadre & Faculty Development. at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from Shuck et al. 229 Joshua C. Collins, EdD, is assistant professor of Human Resource Development and Graduate and Affiliate Faculty in Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies at the Uni\ versity of Minnesota- Twin Cities. He is the current chair of the Critical HRD and Social Just\ ice Perspectives Special Interest Group of the Academy of HRD. His research focuses on linking individual and organi- zational learning to issues of equity and social justice in the workplac\ e.

Tonette S. Rocco, PhD, is professor and graduate program director adult education and hu\ man resource development, and Director of the Office of Academic Writing and\ Publication Support, Florida International University. Dr. Rocco is a Cyril O. Houle scholar \ in Adult and Continuing Education and a recipient of the AHRD Laura Bierema Excellence in Critic\ al HRD Award. She is editor in chief of New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource\ Development.

Raquel Diaz, EdD, has over 29 years of experience working in early childhood education. She is National Board Certified in Early Childhood. She earned her doctorate\ from Florida International University researching the role of language in early child\ hood mathematics. Dr.

Diaz is currently coordinating several Lastinger Projects. She is highly\ involved in engaging adult learners and cultivating professional learning communities. at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on June 2, 2016 hrd.sagepub.com Downloaded from