Mind mapping the topic of employee engagement

Mind mapping the topic of employee engagement

Joseph Kim-keung Ho

Independent Trainer

Hong Kong, China

Abstract: The topic of employee engagement is a main one in Human Resource Management. This article makes use of the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach to render an image on the knowledge structure of employee engagement. The finding of the review exercise is that its knowledge structure comprises four main themes, i.e., (a) Descriptions of basic concepts and information (b) Major underlying theories and thinking, (c) Main research topics and issues, and (d) Major trends and issues related to practices. There is also a set of key concepts identified from the employee engagement literature review. The article offers some academic and pedagogical values on the topics of employee engagement, literature review and the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach.

Key words: Employee engagement, literature review, mind map, the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach

Introduction

Employee engagement is a main topic in Human Resource Management. It is of academic and pedagogical interest to the writer who has been a lecturer on Human Resource Management for some tertiary education centres in Hong Kong. In this article, the writer presents his literature review findings on employee engagement using the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach. This approach was proposed by this writer in 2016 and has been employed to review the literature on a number of topics, such as supply chain management, strategic management accounting and customer relationship management (Ho, 2016). The MMBLR approach itself is not particularly novel as mind mapping has been employed in literature review since its inception. The overall aims of this exercise are to:

1.      Render an image of the knowledge structure of employee engagement via the application of the MMBLR approach;

2.      Illustrate how the MMBLR approach can be applied in literature review on an academic topic, such as employee engagement.

The findings from this literature review exercise offer academic and pedagogical values to those who are interested in the topics of employee engagement, literature review and the MMBLR approach. Other than that, this exercise facilitates this writer’s intellectual learning on these three topics. The next section makes a brief introduction on the MMBLR approach. After that, an account of how it is applied to study employee engagement is presented.

On the mind mapping-based literature review approach

The mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach was developed by this writer in 2016 (Ho, 2016). It makes use of mind mapping as a complementary literature review exercise (see the Literature on mind mapping Facebook page and the Literature on literature review Facebook page). The approach is made up of two steps. Step 1 is a thematic analysis on the literature of the topic chosen for study. Step 2 makes use of the findings from step 1 to produce a complementary mind map. The MMBLR approach is a relatively straightforward and brief exercise. The approach is not particularly original since the idea of using mind maps in literature review has been well recognized in the mind mapping literature. It is also an interpretive exercise in the sense that different reviewers with different research interest and intellectual background inevitably will select different ideas, facts and findings in their thematic analysis (i.e., step 1 of the MMBLR approach). To conduct the approach, the reviewer needs to perform a literature search beforehand. Apparently, what a reviewer gathers from a literature search depends on what library facility, including e-library, is available to the reviewer. The next section presents the findings from the MMBLR approach step 1; afterward, a companion mind map is provided based on the MMBLR approach step 1 findings.

Mind mapping-based literature review on employee engagement: step 1 findings

Step 1 of the MMBLR approach is a thematic analysis on the literature of the topic under investigation (Ho, 2016). In our case, this is the employee engagement topic. The writer gathers some academic articles from some universities’ e-libraries as well as via the Google Scholar. With the academic articles collected, the writer conducted a literature review on them to assemble a set of ideas, viewpoints, concepts and findings (called points here). The points from the employee engagement literature are then grouped into four themes here. The key words in the quotations are bolded in order to highlight the key concepts involved.

Theme 1: Descriptions of basic concepts and information

Point 1.1.              “Harter et al. …. were the first to look at employee engagement at the business unit level and used an enormous data­base to link higher levels of employee engagement to increased business unit outcomes. In their conceptualization, employee engagement was defined as an “individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work”…” (Shuck and Wollard, 2010);

Point 1.2.              “Numerous definitions of engagement can be derived from the practice- and research driven literatures. Additional definitions can be attributed to folk theory: the common intuitive sense that people, and particularly leaders within organizations, have about work motivation. Common to these definitions is the notion that employee engagement is a desirable condition, has an organizational purpose, and connotes involvement, commitment, passion, enthusiasm, focused effort, and energy, so it has both attitudinal and behavioral components” (Macey and Schneider, 2008);

Point 1.3.               “Work empowerment can be defined as the “process of enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organizational members through the identification of conditions that foster powerlessness and through their removal by both formal organizational practices and informal techniques of providing efficacy information” …. Due to its importance, the positive influence of empowerment on several organizational variables such as employees’ health, and job satisfaction, and loyalty have been studied by several researchers ….. However, only a handful of scholars have indicated the possible relationship between work empowerment and engagement” (Joo, Lim and Kim, 2016);

Point 1.4.               “Kahn … defined personal engagement as “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s ‘preferred self’ in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence, and active full role performances” …” (Shuck and Wollard, 2010);

Point 1.5.              “Kahn defines personal engagement as ‘‘harnessing’’ of the individual self with the work role. As such, engagement is a binding force, similar to commitment as defined by Meyer et al. …, ….. the experience of personal engagement encompasses elements of both involvement and commitment as psychological states and also a sense of personal identity in role behaviour” (Macey and Schneider, 2008);

Point 1.6.               “Operationally, the measures of engagement have for the most part been composed of a potpourri of items representing one or more of the four different categories: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, psychological empowerment, and job involvement” (Macey and Schneider, 2008);

Point 1.7.              “Personal role engagement was first conceptualised by Kahn …., who sought to develop a new approach to work motivation by undertaking an inductive ethnographic study within a summer camp for adolescents and an architecture firm. From this study, he defined engagement as the ‘harnessing of organization members selves to their work roles’ …., and described it as the simultaneous expression of various facets of one’s preferred self at work” (Fletcher, 2016);

Point 1.8.              “Work engagement was developed through a deductive and quantitative approach that focused on positioning it as the positive anti-thesis of job burnout. Consequently, it was found that although the two were highly related, engagement represented an independent construct that was not the polar opposite of burnout ... Work engagement is defined as ‘a positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind . . . that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behavior’…” (Fletcher, 2016);

Theme 2: Major underlying theories and thinking

Point 2.1.              “….customer satisfaction affects positively the engagement pro-cess. When the worker believes that the client is satisfied, he will be motivated, rewarded, and satisfied. Also, a feel of trust and self-confidence will come into his mind, which can lead to a better engagement in doing business” (Azoury, Daou and Sleiaty, 2013);

Point 2.2.              “….work-life balance is, at least in part, dependent on work and home temporal and investment expectations. Employees who can successfully detach from their home life and work life, when appropriate, can more swiftly delve into their work, another indicator of engagement” (Thompson, Lemmon and Walter, 2015);

Point 2.3.              “According to Farmery, an organization influences its employee’s engagement by attracting the workforce on the basis of its brand” (Azoury, Daou and Sleiaty, 2013);

Point 2.4.              “… engagement is different from satisfaction as Gubman … states that engagement means “a heightened emotional connection to a job and organization that goes beyond satisfaction” that enables people to perform well, and makes want to stay with their employers and say good things about them” (Bhatnagar, 2007);

Point 2.5.              “… engagement is enabled when there is psychological safety, which allows individuals freedom of expression to be themselves within an organisational context, without fear of negative consequences” (Fearon, McLaughlin and Morris, 2013);

Point 2.6.              “….. the measures of engagement we have seen in use in the world of practice are highly similar to the measures used for assessments of job satisfaction (or climate or culture), albeit with a new label. Although there may be room for satisfaction within the engagement construct, engagement connotes activation, whereas satisfaction connotes satiation” (Macey and Schneider, 2008);

Point 2.7.              “….although levels of engagement can be affected by a variety of organizational antecedents (i.e., job fit and psychological climate), employee engagement involves performance on immediate, work-related tasks, not attitudinal functions about or perceptions of the work environment; it can be assumed, however, that attitudes and perceptions about the work environment can and do affect levels of employee engagement in an intimate fashion” (Shuck, Ghosh, Zigarmi and Nimon, 2012);

Point 2.8.              “….Hay’s …. article, “Strategies for Survival in the War for Talent,” captured results of survey data from 330 companies in 50 countries on employee perceptions and intentions toward their employers, and found that many employees “leave their jobs because they are unhappy with their boss” …. Tims, Bakker, and Xanthopoulou … put it this way, that daily fluctuations in leadership may influence employees’ self-beliefs (i.e., personal resources) and work experiences (i.e., employee engagement)” (Carasco-Saul, Kim and Kim, 2015);

Point 2.9.              “…to define employee engagement as “a multidimensional construct that comprises all of the different facets of the attitudes and behaviors of employees towards the organization.” The five dimensions of employee engagement are: employee satisfaction, employee identification, employee commitment, employee loyalty and employee performance” (Kumar and Pansari, 2015);

Point 2.10.         “According to Kahn, engaged individuals are psychologically present, attentive, connected, integrated, and focused in their role performances. The contemporary definition of engagement embraces a highly similar meaning, defining engagement as “a positive work-related state of mind comprised of vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Mackay, Allen and Landis, 2017);

Point 2.11.         “Arguably, it is the Schaufeli et al. … definition which is most widely cited, viewing engagement as: “a positive, fulfilling, work related state of mind that is characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption”. The authors define vigour as characterised by high levels of energy and resilience; dedication with a sense of significance, inspiration, pride and challenge and; absorption as being fully engrossed in one’s work, characterised by flow, which can involve either a persistent affective state, or a series of “peaks” in which one is immersed in high work engagement” (Fearon, McLaughlin and Morris, 2013);

Point 2.12.          “Basing their argument on the norms of reciprocity, Macey and Schneider … observed that engaged employees invest their time, energy or personal resources trusting that their investment will be rewarded (intrinsically or extrinsically) in meaningful way by the supervisor/management. Greater justice perceptions will more likely be related to an employee performing effectively and contributing to organizational outcomes, leader-related outcomes and performance outcomes” (Gupta and Kumar, 2013);

Point 2.13.         “Effective work engagement has a number of antecedents ….: . “Rewarding work relationships”, ….. “Work-life balance”, which helps counteract the negative stress and strains associated with work overload and emotional exhaustion …. . “Alignment of organisational and personal values”, so that employees identify with and work towards commonly held values and goals” (Fearon, McLaughlin and Morris, 2013);

Point 2.14.         “Employees with more ‘‘how to’’ knowledge are more capable of expressing themselves through their work, becoming immersed in their tasks, and understanding and reveling in the complexities of their responsibilities. These are all indicative of employee engagement” (Thompson, Lemmon and Walter, 2015);

Point 2.15.         “For companies to get the most out of employee engagement, it is imperative that they develop a thorough understanding of their current employee engagement strategies and the effects those strategies are having on employees” (Kumar and Pansari, 2015);

Point 2.16.         “To provide the environment where employees can be successful in both the core job and the non-core job roles, a few things are necessary: • Leaders themselves have to be engaged; ….• Leaders need to clearly articulate how each role helps support the business strategy and plan. • Leaders have to create an environment where the non-core job roles are valued, and they must remove barriers to employees’ working in the noncore job roles. These three conditions for engagement are not easy for leaders to meet” (Welbourne, 2007);

Point 2.17.         “When people are truly engaged, they believe that they really belong. They have a sense of meaning or validation when they feel that they “fit,” they’re accepted, and they’re part of the group. It’s a sense of association and connection, and they will go forward together because they have something in common” (Berens, 2013);

Point 2.18.         “Serrano and Reichard … surmise that leaders could play an important role in establishing a work environment in which employees feel energized and involved. To help leaders fulfill the role, they identified the following four specific pathways that may increase their employees’ engagement: “(1) designing meaningful and motivating work, (2) supporting and coaching employees, (3) enhancing employees’ personal resources, and (4) facilitating rewarding and supportive coworker relations”…” (Carasco-Saul, Kim and Kim, 2015);

Theme 3: Main research topics and issues

Point 3.1.              “….leadership is theoretically a key antecedent of many subsequent factors including employee engagement (Xu & Thomas, 2011), which lead to desirable consequences such as organizational performance or individual well-being” (Carasco-Saul, Kim and Kim, 2015);

Point 3.2.              “…despite a surge in interest in improving engagement, people still disagree about what employee engagement is, how to go about getting it, and what it looks like when it is achieved. Additionally, with all the attention given to reported levels of low employee engagement, there are few if any statistics on what a realistic level of engagement should be for employees overall and for various subgroups of workers” (Welbourne, 2007);

Point 3.3.              “A plethora of research exists to support a resource-based model of employee engagement, yet a formal categorization of this research has not yet been developed” (Thompson, Lemmon and Walter, 2015);

Point 3.4.              “A synthesis of research on employee engagement reveals three forms of capital: (1) human capital, or what you can functionally do at work based on innate or learned qualities, (2) social capital, or who you know and how you can leverage those connections at work, and (3) family capital, or the level of support you have in balancing work and life demands” (Thompson, Lemmon and Walter, 2015);

Point 3.5.              “Although several theories of employee engagement have been developed, most research on employee engagement is based on the JD-R [Job Demands–Resources] model. There has been little attempt to integrate Kahn’s … theory with the JD-R model and there does not exist a generally accepted theory of employee engagement” (Saks and Gruman, 2014);

Point 3.6.              “As organizations pay more attention to employee engagement and HRD [human resource development] professionals are increasingly asked to play a role in the development of engagement strategies, research about employee engagement eludes the HRD professional. The gap in knowl­edge between the needs of organizations and the ability for professionals to respond effectively is problematic for HRD scholars, researchers, and practitioners as well as for the organizations that employ them” (Shuck and Wollard, 2010);

Point 3.7.              “Cummings … explained work empowerment as consisted of five factors (variety, identity, significance, autonomy, and feedback). Research has identified job characteristics as a predictor for affecting employee motivation and performance at work …. Later, psychological empowerment captured organizational researchers and practitioners’ interests. Psychological empowerment refers to “intrinsic task motivation manifested in a set of four cognitions reflecting an individual’s orientation to his or her work role: competence, impact, meaning, and self determination”…” (Joo, Lim and Kim, 2016);

Point 3.8.              “Due to the intuitive link between EE [employee engagement] and employee performance, a number of studies have had success showing that engaged employees perform better than their less-engaged counterparts … Employee engagement has been linked to higher job performance ratings, increased in-role performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, personal initiative, higher likelihood of promotion, decreased absenteeism and tardiness, and lower turnover and turnover intention, …. Studies have also shown links between EE and less intuitive outcomes such as decreases in work-related health complaints …, employee innovativeness …., and objective markers of financial performance at the organizational level” (Mackay, Allen and Landis, 2017);

Point 3.9.              “Employee engagement as a key to the retention of talent …. is an area in which the lead has been taken by practitioners …. It is an area where rigorous academic research is required” (Bhatnagar, 2007);

Point 3.10.         “If EE [employee engagement] does predict job performance over-and-above other individual job attitudes, it may be perhaps better conceptualized as an efficient higher-order construct. The abbreviated version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale [UWES] …, the most commonly used measure of engagement, is only nine items long. Given that the scale appears to contain elements of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment, it may be an efficient way to broadly assess a number of underlying job attitudes” (Mackay, Allen and Landis, 2017);

Point 3.11.         “In the fields of human resources (HR) and organizational behavior, however, while there are an increasing number of studies separately exploring the effect of PsyCap [psychological capital], authentic leadership, work empowerment, and employee engagement, no empirical study has examined the comprehensive and dynamic relationships among these key POB [positive organizational behaviour] topics within organization settings” (Joo, Lim and Kim, 2016);

Point 3.12.         “Over the years, several definitions [on employee engagement] have emerged. Some researchers focused on worker burnout, the idea being that employees who are not experiencing burnout are engaged. Others went beyond burnout and fatigue to focus on the basic needs at a workplace, noting that if employees are engaged, then they “are positive about their work being meaningful, their workplace being safe and the availability of sufficient resources for completing tasks.” Still others explored the emotional side of work and provided a comprehensive definition that focused on the cognitive, emotional and behavioral components associated with an individual’s performance” (Kumar and Pansari, 2015);

Point 3.13.         “Prior to Saks …, practitioner literature was the only body of work connecting employee engagement drivers to employee engagement and its consequences. Saks believed employee engagement developed through a social exchange model and was the first to separate job engagement and organizational engagement into separate types of employee engagement” (Shuck and Wollard, 2010);

Point 3.14.         “Quite often, engagement, as a psychological state and an observable behavior, is measured simultaneously (both the state of and resulting behaviour to). Rich et al. …, however, suggested alternatively that researchers should focus on dimensions of motivational energy affected by latent conditions within an employee’s environment that result in observable behavior rather than focusing on the behavior alone” (Shuck, Ghosh, Zigarmi and Nimon, 2012);

Point 3.15.         “Since the emergence of employee engagement in the management literature, two key themes have emerged. First, employee engagement has been lauded by many writers as the key to an organization’s success and competiveness. ….. Second, it has been reported time and time again that employee engagement is on the decline and there is a deepening disengagement among employees today” (Saks and Gruman, 2014);

Point 3.16.         “The outcomes of employee engagement are advocated to be exactly what most organizations are seek­ing: employees who are more productive, profitable, safer, healthier, less likely to turnover, less likely to be absent, and more willing to engage in discretionary efforts ….. Furthermore, claims have been made that engaged employees aver­age higher customer satisfaction ratings and generate increased revenue …. Recent evidence even suggests a direct employee engagement–profit linkage” (Shuck and Wollard, 2010);

Point 3.17.         “The two most dominant and widely utilised constructs of engagement applied to HRD [human resource development] research are work engagement …. and personal role engagement … Despite representing similar multidimensional and higher-order attitudinal constructs, the two conceptually differ in fundamental ways …., which therefore affect the measurement of these constructs and potentially the relationship they have with HRD practices as well as with performance” (Fletcher, 2016);

Point 3.18.         “Thomas …. developed a unidimensional conceptualization of engagement. He argued that although the consequences of engagement (i.e. behaviors) occur in three categories – physical, cognitive, emotional – the state preceding these behaviors is essentially unidimensional” (Gupta and Kumar, 2013);

Point 3.19.         “Work engagement …. focuses on the ability of engaged individuals to gain and mobilise job resources in their work environment and personal resources so that performance can be enhanced …., and as such views training as a functional organisational resource that primarily acts to build self-efficacy, which in turn can lead to engagement and performance …. This resource-based perspective has been criticised for reducing the role of engagement as ‘a transactional commodity” (Fletcher, 2016);

Point 3.20.         “… confusion exists because engagement is used by some to refer to a specific construct (e.g., involvement, initiative, sportsmanship, altruism) with unique attributes and by others as a performance construct defined as exceeding some typical level of performance” (Macey and Schneider, 2008);

Point 3.21.         “……there are … several models and theories of engagement. The origin of these theories and models stem from two primary areas of research: job burnout and employee well-being … and Kahn’s … ethnographic study on personal engagement and disengagement” (Saks and Gruman, 2014);

Theme 4: Major trends and issues related to practices

Point 4.1.              “Engaging employees – especially by giving them participation, freedom, and trust – is the most comprehensive response to the ascendant postindustrial values of self-realization and self-actualization”. The performance data of the best companies in the USA show that in all the practice areas discussed previously, objectives are more easily met when employees are engaged and more likely to fall short when they are not” (Bhatnagar, 2007);

Point 4.2.              “The driving need today is for business to continue to improve productivity in a global environment where continuous change is making it difficult to compete. This desire to do more is combined with the mandate to do so with less, and one of the only outlets left for making this happen is employees. However, given the employee contract as it has been redefined, it is not easy for employers to snap their fingers and simply get employees to do more. Thus, the employee engagement movement arrived as a way to solve this problem” (Welbourne, 2007);

Point 4.3.              “To really drive engagement, it’s imperative that leaders, managers, and individuals look at the behaviors that will support the execution of the strategy. Only 26 percent of workers can strongly agree that most of the managers in their organization embody the values or behaviors that they would like their employees to have” (Berens, 2013);

Point 4.4.              “As suggested by Shuck …, the next steps for employee engagement should focus toward differentiating the construct from “other well-researched job attitude and organizational constructs such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement, and job affect, as well as uncovering statistical evidence regarding the concept’s demonstrated usability and validity”…” (Azoury, Daou and Sleiaty, 2013);

Each of the four themes has a set of associated points (i.e., idea, viewpoints, concepts and findings). Together they provide an organized way to comprehend the knowledge structure of the employee engagement topic. The bolded key words in the quotation reveal, based on the writer’s intellectual judgement, the key concepts examined in the employee engagement literature. The referencing indicated on the points identified informs the readers where to find the academic articles to learn more about the details on these points. Readers are also referred to the Literature on employee engagement Facebook page for additional information on this topic. The process of conducting the thematic analysis is an exploratory as well as synthetic learning endeavour on the topic’s literature. Once the structure of the themes, sub-themes[1] and their associated points are finalized, the reviewer is in a position to move forward to step 2 of the MMBLR approach. The MMBLR approach step 2 finding, i.e., a companion mind map on employee engagement, is presented in the next section.

Mind mapping-based literature review on employee engagement: step 2 (mind mapping) output

By adopting the findings from the MMBLR approach step 1 on employee engagement, the writer constructs a companion mind map shown as Figure 1.

Referring to the mind map on employee engagement, the topic label is shown right at the centre of the map as a large blob. Four main branches are attached to it, corresponding to the four themes identified in the thematic analysis. The links and ending nodes with key phrases represent the points from the thematic analysis. The key phrases have also been bolded in the quotations provided in the thematic analysis. As a whole, the mind map renders an image of the knowledge structure on employee engagement based on the thematic analysis findings. Constructing the mind map is part of the learning process on literature review. The mind mapping process is speedy and entertaining. The resultant mind map also serves as a useful presentation and teaching material. This mind mapping exercise confirms the writer’s previous experience using on the MMBLR approach (Ho, 2016). Readers are also referred to the Literature on literature review Facebook page and the Literature on mind mapping Facebook page for additional information on these two topics.

Concluding remarks

The MMBLR approach to study employee engagement provided here is mainly for its practice illustration as its procedures have been refined via a number of its employment on an array of topics (Ho, 2016). No major additional MMBLR steps nor notions have been introduced in this article. In this respect, the exercise reported here primarily offers some pedagogical value as well as some systematic and stimulated learning on employee engagement in the field of Human Resource Management. Nevertheless, the thematic findings and the image of the knowledge structure on employee engagement in the form of a mind map should also be of academic value to those who research on this topic.

Bibliography

1.      Azoury, A., L. Daou and F. Sleiaty. 2013. “Employee engagement in family and non-family firms” International Strategic Management Review 1, ScieneDirect: 11-29.

2.      Berens, R. 2013. “The Roots of Employee Engagement- A Strategic Approach” Employment Relations Today Fall: 43-49.

3.      Bhatnagar, J. 2007. “Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES employees: key to retention” Employee Relations 29(6), Emerald: 640-663.

4.      Carasco-Saul, M., W. Kim and T. Kim. 2015. “Leadership and Employee Engagement: Proposing Research Agendas Through a Review of Literature” Human Resource Development Review 14(1), Sage: 38-63.

5.      Fearon, C., H. McLaughlin and L. Morris. 2013. “Conceptualising work engagement: An individual, collective and organisational efficacy perspective” European Journal of Training and Development 37(3), Emerald: 244-256.

6.      Fletcher, L. 2016. “Training perceptions, engagement, an performance: comparing work engagement and personal role engagement” Human Resource Development International 19(1), Routledge: 4-26.

7.      Gupta, V. and S. Kumar. 2013. “Impact of performance appraisal justice on employee engagement: a study of Indian professionals” Employee Relations 35(1), Emerald: 61-78.

8.      Ho, J.K.K. 2016. Mind mapping for literature review – a ebook, Joseph KK Ho publication folder October 7 (url address: http://josephkkho.blogspot.hk/2016/10/mind-mapping-for-literature-review-ebook.html).

9.      Joo, B.K., D.H. Lim and S. Kim. 2016. “Enhancing work engagement: The roles of psychological capital, authentic leadership, and work empowerment” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 37(8), Emerald: 1117-1134.

10. Kumar, V. and A. Pansari. 2015. “Measuring the Benefits of Employee Engagement” MIT Sloan Management Review 56(4) Summer: 67-72.

11. Literature on employee engagement Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/Literature-on-employee-engagement-1267048466723655/).

12. Literature on literature review Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.literaturereview/).

13. Literature on mind mapping Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.mind.mapping/).

14. Macey, W.H. and B. Schneider. 2008. “The Meaning of Employee Engagement” Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1, Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 3-30.

15. Mackay, M.M., J.A. Allen and R.S. Landis. 2017. “Investigating the incremental validity of employee engagement in the prediction of employee effectiveness: A meta-analytic path analysis” Human Resource Management Review 27, Elsevier: 108-120.

16. Saks, A.M. and J.A. Gruman. 2014. “What Do We Really Know About Employee Engagement?” Human Resource Development Quarterly 25(2) Summmer, Wiley: 155-182.

17. Shuck, B. and K. Wollard. 2010. “Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the Foundations” Human Resource Development Review 9(1): 89-110.

18. Shuck, B., R. Ghosh, D. Zigarmi and K. Nimon. 2012.”The Jingle Jangle of Employee Engagement: Further Exploration of the Emerging Construct and Implications for Workplace Learning and Performance” Human Resource Development Review 12(1), Sage: 11-35.

19. Thompson, K.R., G. Lemmon and T.J. Walter. 2015. “Employee Engagement and Positive Psychological Capital” Organizational Dynamics 44, Elsevier: 185-195.

20. Welbourne, T.M. 2007. “Employee Engagement: Beyond the fad and into the executive suite” Executive Forum Spring: 45-51. (url address: http://www.eepulse.com/documents/pdfs/ee-engagement-leader-to-leader-march-2007-published-version.pdf) [visited at March 14, 2017].

---

[1] There is no sub-theme generated in this analysis on employee engagement.