Engagement as Motivation: Academic Models

,


INTRODUCTION
1.1 The current state of theory In social science research, it is always good practice to try to distinguish causes and effects in theoretical models, resulting in testable propositions.Much of the theoretical work of both academics and practition-ers11An array of theoretical and measurement systems have been proposed by human resources consulting practitioners for the employee engagement construct (Pincus, 2020a).Zigarmi et al. (2009) clearly differentiate between increasingly divergent practitioner and academic approaches to conceptualizing, defining, and operationalizing employee engagement.A burgeoning volume of measures and report has been growing rapidly from the "bottom-up" through the efforts of practitioners (largely atheoretical) having the effect of widening the gap over time between academic concepts with psychometrically validated measures and unsystematic pragmatic approaches.Although the practitioner perspective is valuable, and our general conclusions and suggestions extend equally to them, for the purposes of the current paper we limit our focus to peer-reviewed academic systems. in the domain of employee engagement has unfortunately neglected this fundamental step, instead adopting a list generation approach, enumerating all the exogenous and endogenous variables that could, should, or might be expected to co-occur with engagement.This approach has returned long lists of items with little regard for separating causes from effects, psychological variables from organizational variables, states from traits, and the cognitive from the emotional from the behavioral.In a literature review, Kular et al. (2008) concluded that despite the "great deal of interest in engagement, there is also a good deal of confusion.At present, there is no consistency in definition, with engagement having been operationalized and measured in many disparate ways."Nearly a decade later in a subsequent literature review, Dewing and McCormack (2015) observe that "it is a challenge to find much substance or a clear definition for the concept of engagement. . .Further, it is unclear how the construct relates to other existing similar concepts. . ." (p.2).As suggested by these, and indeed virtually all authors on this subject, the term employee engagement has remained stubbornly muddled, conflated, and confused, a victim of entangled, conflated pseudo-definitions that overlap heavily with related but distinct concepts such as job engagement, work engagement, organizational engagement, intellectual-social-affective engagement, and collective organizational engagement.In this way, the academic and practitioner literatures have been subjected to a kind of "snowballing effect" as authors apply different theoretical models bringing with them a host of new constructs, while also applying ever more synonyms for existing constructs (for examples, see list of keywords used in literature review below).
The need for conceptual clarity is particularly acute for the concept of engagement.By one account, few business concepts have resonated as strongly as has employee engagement (Schneider et al., 2009).This strong and growing interest is confirmed by Google Trends (accessed August 28, 2020), which shows a steady upward trend in Google searches involving the phrase "employee engagement" beginning in April 2004 (their earliest data) at an index of 0, increasing to an index of 100 in July 2020 (indicating the strongest search volume to date).It is important to note that, despite the obvious relevance of the engagement concept to employee emotional wellness, this upward trend in interest pre-dates the current COVID-19 pandemic.Furthermore, studies have found significant linkages between employee engagement and physical and mental health (Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2003;Porath et al., 2012;Sonnentag, 2003;Spreitzer et al., 2005).In light of this trend, providing a clear definition of employee engagement isn't just a good idea for developing theory and measurement, it may be important for improving public health.
Although no universally accepted definition of employee engagement exists, Shuck (2011) has extensively reviewed the literature and identified four dominant research streams: Kahn's (1990) need-satisfying approach, Maslach et al.'s (2001) burnout-antithesis approach, Harter et al.'s (2002) satisfaction-engagement approach, and Saks' (2006) multidimensional approach.These four streams are derived from entirely different research traditions: organizational behavior (Kahn), social psychology (Maslach), commercial polling (Harter), and human resource management (Saks) and, accordingly, can be thought of as four descriptions made by the proverbial men around the elephant, each absolutely correct in his description, but none able to adequately describe the holistic essence of the phenomenon.In the spirit of crowdsourcing, we will keep track of every postulated component and subcomponent described by each tradition before attempting to apply an overarching model to encompass them all.

Epistemological foundations
We now make a very short digression into epistemology, noting only that the dominant models of employee engagement all seem to tacitly assume the operation of the Stimulus Organism Response (S-O-R) model, which has been the dominant assumption in psychology since the close of the behaviorist era.In this formulation, external, environmental stimuli are perceived and acted upon in the brain of the individual organism, which mediates and causes observable behavior; accordingly, this is known as the mediation model and provides a scaffolding to separate causes from effects at two stages: external causes of internal effects and internal causes of behavioral effects.This presupposes asymmetrical relations between causes and effects (i.e., effects don't cause causes) and should provide clear guidance for determining the role of different variables in the chain of causation by asking questions such as "Is X an external, environmental stimulus, a psychological response, or a behavioral outcome?" and "Does X cause Y or vice-versa?"But, as we will show, this has often not been the case in the employee engagement literature.22This is quite apart from other basic problems of determining causation is social science in the absence of longitudinal and experimental research designs.
1.2.1 Do engagement concepts refer to Stimulus, Organism, or Response?Key constructs related to employee engagement have a nasty habit of showing up in different S-O-R roles at different times.For example,autonomy is part of the definition of engagement proposed by Maslach et al. (2001), but it is also an antecedent condition in the Hackman & Oldham (1980) system employed by Kahn (1990).Autonomyalso shows up as an antecedent in discussion of role breadth (Morgeson et al, 2005), and again as an outcome in extra-role behavior or role-expansion (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004).It is unclear whether a behavioral intention like taking charge is a cause of engagement, a marker of engagement, or a consequence of engagement.
The same pattern is observed with regard to the construct ofpsychological presence .One the one hand, Kahn (1990) defines engagement itself as a harnessing of the self within the work role.On the other hand, the construct of organizational commitment , defined in a seminal paper as an outcome variable (Saks, 2006), is defined by the projection of the self into the organization (e.g., "Working at my organization has a great deal of personal meaning to me"; "I feel personally attached to my work organization").We are left to wonder if projecting one's self into one's work is a cause of engagement, an indicator of engagement, or an outcome of engagement.
Again we see this pattern with regard to the key constructs of perceived organizational support (POS) and perceived supervisor support (PSS), which are identified as antecedent conditions (Saks, 2006).POS and PSS have been shown to be statistically related to measures ofpsychological safety , as well as to job characteristics of openness, being encouraged to try new things, and enjoying a supportive relationship with supervisor and colleagues (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), resulting in the outcome of having "high quality relationships."But this begs the question of what types of variables these really are: Isperceived safety not a response to antecedent conditions?Are POS and PSS themselves not psychological feeling states evoked by conditions?As such, we would argue that these constructs play multiple roles and defy being hard-coded into any one phase of the S-O-R process.The example of perceived caring by the employer , a form of POS, is no trivial matter: As reported by Saks (2006), "demonstrating caring and support" is far and away the biggest predictor of both job and organizational engagement.But it's not clear if perceived caring is part of the psychological response that defines engagement itself, or if it should be considered an antecedent condition, or even an outcome.
Unfortunately, this sort of conceptual "slipperiness" (Macey & Schneider, 2008) affects nearly every construct in the employee engagement literature: Is task variety purely an antecedent condition (an attribute of an environmental stimulus), or does task variety necessitate absorption (a definition of engagement; mediator variable) on the part of the employee in order to successfully perform the role, and by so doing, does it necessarily inducerole expansion (a behavioral outcome variable)?33Tofurther complicate matters, direct perception theorists might suggest that antecedents aren't always "ordinary" stimuli, i.e., neutral objects, but are often special stimuli with inherent affordance values, i.e., stimuli that by their very nature afford certain kinds of interactions, the way a comfortable chair affords "sitability."In this view, an antecedent like task variety could afford (induce) task and role expansion, for example.In this light, it is easy to see how the slipperiness of constructs permits them to migrate back and forth in status from stimulus to psychological mediator to behavioral outcome.Despite valiant past attempts to categorize these constructs as one of the three elements in the S-O-R model, it is our contention that the vast majority of these constructs should be considered psychological mediator variables, and specifically, motivations , which direct the organism to seek out certain kinds of stimuli (S), generate emotional experiences (O), and prepare the body for response (R).
1.2.2Do engagement concepts refer to Affect, Cognition, or Behavior?
A very similar and related problem plagues attempts to separate constructs as primarily cognitive, emotional, or behavioral.The dominant definitions of employee engagement have gone to great pains to explicitly state that this construct is a cognitive, emotional, and behavioral complex.Commitment to the organization, for example, is defined as having both intellectual and emotional components (Baumruk, 2004;Richman, 2006;Shaw, 2005).Psychological presence is defined as being present cognitively, emotionally, and physically (Kahn, 1990).The authors of the popular UWES have defined engagement as a "persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state" (p.74; Schaufeli et al., 2002).These approaches pays lip service to this distinction but essentially finesse the problem.By fudging and blurring any real distinctions between the affective, cognitive, and conative, researchers are left without critical guidance for developing valid and reliable measures.Macey & Schneider (2008) express concern particularly about the inability of current measures to address the emotional component, which they see as essential to the distinctive definition of employee engagement.
Certain components of engagement have been identified as primarily cognitive, e.g., attention , which is defined as bothcognitive availability and time spent thinking about role (Rothbard, 2001).In UWES terms, absorption , being intensely engrossed in one's role (Rothbard, 2001;Maslach et al., 2001;Schaufeli et al., 2002), seems like a primarily cognitive construct, whereasvigor (full of energy) seems more behavioral.The final component of UWES, dedication , seems primarily grounded in cognition with shades of affect (e.g., "I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose"; "My job inspires me"; "My job is challenging").
Just like the difficulties in establishing their S-O-R designations, these concept defy easy classification as thoughts, feelings, or actions.Mirroring the consensus definition of the attitudeconstruct in social psychology as having components of affect, cognition, and behavior (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996), we contend that the vast majority of these constructs imply thoughts, actions, and feelings, with a particular emphasis on the latter (Macey & Schneider, 2008).As demonstrated below, the concept of motivation , likeattitude, can encompass this triad.

LITERATURE REVIEW
In accordance with Templier and Paré (2018), a literature review of the theory development type was conducted consistent with the six-step process outlined by these authors: (1) problem formulation, (2) literature search, (3) screening for inclusion, (4) quality assessment, (5) data extraction, and (6) data analysis and interpretation, as follows: (1) The primary goal of this review is to identify theoretical systems that purport to be define the components of employee engagement.(2) The literature search was performed using multiple, iterative search strategies beginning with consultation of the Web of Science and Google Scholar search engines, using combination of keywords drawn from definitions of engagement such as "engagement," "motivation," "striving," "involvement," "persistence," "commitment," "absorption," "dedication," "vigor," "performance," "citizenship," "identification," in conjunction with the object of these descriptors: "employee," "worker," "work," "task," "job," "team," "group," "organization," etc.As relevant papers were identified, the list of search terms was updated to include additional terms.Further, backward and forward searches on relevant papers permitted the discovery of additional materials.(3) The searches described above resulted in millions of publications of multiple types, which were further screened for inclusion.Screening criteria focused on the presence of a comprehensive model of engagement, whether viewed through the lens of management, psychology, human resources, or assessment.Additionally, results were screened for the availability of a complete set of survey items that corresponded to each comprehensive model.These screens reduced the set to roughly 40 publications.(4) At this point, the full set of publications were reviewed for quality and relevance, resulting in additional forward and backward searching, which revealed a final set of conceptual models that conformed to the above requirements.(5) The specific elements of each model were extracted into a table for direct comparison (Table 2).( 6) The analysis and implications are presented below.
The analysis resulted in the identification of 102 concepts (Table 3) and 120 individual items (Table 4) referenced in the seminal and review papers on employee engagement.The concepts range widely across multiple dimensions that have been identified in past reviews, namely, antecedent conditions; indicators of engagement itself (cognitions, emotions, behaviors); observable outcomes of engagement; traits; and higher order qualities of engagement (e.g., persistence over time).These 102 concepts also vary broadly in terms of their content, encompassing job characteristics (e.g., variety, challenge, enrichment); individual traits (e.g., conscientiousness, autotelic personality, locus of control); intrapsychic concerns related to the self (e.g., psychological safety, authenticity, opportunities for personal growth); relations with the material world of work (e.g., autonomy, absorption, opportunity to meaningfully contribute); social cognitions, emotions, and motivations (e.g., sense of belonging, demonstrations of caring, opportunities for recognition); and concerns with higher-order, abstract principles (e.g., justice, values, purpose).

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

Why Motivation?
It's no coincidence that the major definitions of the employee engagement construct, despite their widely ranging theoretical origins, happen to fall perfectly in line with the definition of motivation (Pincus, 2004; Table 1).We contend that this is because the concept of engagement is identical to the concept of motivation, albeit applied to a particular area of application, i.e., one's work.The goal of this paper is to suggest that a conceptual model already exists that can accommodate all of these concepts, and that splitting hairs over which aspects of which concepts are antecedents, mediators, or consequences, is much like trying to parse out which are cognitions, emotions, or behavioral inclinations.From a motivational perspective, these concepts each have facets in all of these readout channels, i.e., a single motivational construct, say the need for belonging, can be fostered by certain conditions, can become a salient need, is experienced both affectively and cognitively, and can be behaviorally expressed.

INSERT TABLE 1 HERE
In their seminal review article, Macey & Schneider (2008) explicitly describe employee engagement as a form of motivation, and report the widespread usage of synonyms for motivation in the literature including an "illusive force that motivates employees" (Wellins & Concelman, 2005) and a "high internal motivational state" (Colbert et al, 2004).Shuck's (2011) integrative literature review offers a very similar definition of employee engagement "as a positive psychological state of motivation with behavioral manifestations."(p. 2).Macey & Schneider (2008) make an intriguing statement that explicitly supports our contention: "Some readers may feel that there are clear hints of 'motivation' in what we have just written and wonder to themselves why we are not saying that this (employee engagement) is motivation.The answer is that the construct of motivation is itself a hypothetical construct with considerable ambiguity surrounding it.Were we to introduce it here, it might further confound the issues so we leave the chore of integrating engagement with 'motivation' to others."(p.4).
Suffice it to say, we accept this challenge.In surveying the literature, the attributes that consistently define the concept of employee engagement equally define motivation.Motivation is the meta-theory the field has been calling for.
Perhaps the leading and most comprehensive theory of motivation is Buck's (1985) PRIME Theory, an acronym for Primary Motivational and Emotional Systems.The key premise of is that motivation is a state of pent-up potential energy that, when actualized, is "read out" through cognitive, emotional, and behavioral systems.In this model, each of these three readouts have distinct functions: the function of syncretic cognition is to provide the opportunity for self-regulation; emotional expression serves to spontaneously communicate what one is feeling to others, which supports social coordination; and physical responses serve the need for adaptive behavior.The consensus view of engagement follows this same exact pattern of cognition (e.g., enthusiastic thinking), emotion (e.g., felt pleasantness), and behavior (e.g., physical activation).

APPLYING A TAXONOMY OF HUMAN MOTIVATION TO ENGAGEMENT CON-STRUCTS
About a decade ago, we developed a model of human motivation specifically to describe the types of emotions that drive us to take actions in life (Forbes, 2011).It was necessary to develop this model because, surprisingly, despite a plethora of mini-theories of motivation (e.g., Need for Achievement, Need for Affiliation, Terror Management Theory, Flow Theory, etc.), no comprehensive model of human motivation yet existed in the psychology literature.Maslow's need hierarchy makes strides toward being more comprehensive, yet his focus on high achieving individuals led him to neglect many key motivations recognized in the literature, such as the need for Nurturance identified by Bowlby and Harlow, McClelland's Need for Achievement and Need for Power, Erickson's Identity Formation motive, and Csikszentmihalyi's Flow Theory, among others.
To address this need, we began with the premise that motivation activates and directs behavior toward goals in four fundamental domains of life: the intrapsychic (inner-directed, focused on the self), the instrumental (outer-directed, focused on the material world of work and play), the interpersonal (socially-directed), and the spiritual (directed toward adherence with transcendent and eternal principles).These four domains of motivational focus have been identified by multiple systems of thought (Pincus, 2020b) including developmental psychology (e.g., James, Maslow, and Kohlberg), sports psychology, psychology & philosophy of religion, and by the five major world religions.We followed the premise of four fundamental motivational domains with a typology of three possible levels of motivational fulfillment.Following the work of Fromm (2013) and Rand (1993), we proposed that these four domains of fulfillment cross three modes of living: a foundational level of forward-looking expectations (being ), an intermediate level of experiences in the moment (doing ), and an advanced level of backward-looking outcomes (having ).Crossing the four life domains with the triad of modes of living results in a periodic table-style matrix that is arguably comprehensive since there are no additional fundamental domains of life or modes of existence.This matrix is presented below, along with the resulting distributions of concepts (see Table 3) and items (see Table 4, downloadable ) analyzed as part of the literature review.

INSERT TABLE 2 HERE
As suggested above, the columns of the model organize the motivational concepts in terms of the location of the desired change (change in feelings about the self; change in feelings about action in the material world, change in feelings about social relationships and social interactions; and change in feelings about relationships with transcendental, ethereal principles) and the rows of this table organize motivational concepts according to the types of change toward which a particular motivational force is striving (change in expectations for the future, change in real time experiences of the present, and change in retrospective evaluation of outcomes from life choices and activities).Each motivational concept in the matrix has both positive (aspiration-linked) and negative (frustration-linked) emotional forms-reflecting the push and pull of emotional energies that move people to take action in life.Another important postulate of this model, like that of Maslow's need hierarchy, is that progress within any of the life domains requires the successful satisfaction of more basic needs before the next level becomes salient, e.g., before one can be concerned with living up to their full potential, they must already have achieved feelings of safety and authenticity.In our extensive review of the motivational literature, over 100 distinct motivational concepts (i.e., needs or drives) were identified; all fit within one of these twelve categories of motivation, supporting our contention that the matrix is comprehensive.
Although we have displayed the matrix as a flat table for the purposes of publication, we prefer a threedimensional pyramidal structure to reinforce the notion that humans must start from the basic motivations within each of the four domains before ascending to the salience of higher motivations; consequently, progressively fewer humans attain the higher levels with each domain, shrinking their relative sizes toward the top as visually represented by a pyramid.Another important theoretical concept that is reinforced by a pyramid heuristic is the fact that the Self is proposed to be antipodal to the Social, and the Spiritual is proposed to be antipodal to the Material; we will return to this point later as it has implications for hypothesis generation.
Presuming that most readers are not yet familiar with this model, we will give a brief introduction to the twelve motives of this matrix, and relate certain key concepts from the employee engagement literature to each.In all, 77 of the 102 concepts identified in the literature review found homes in this matrix.The remaining 25 were primarily personality traits (i.e., ambitiousness, autotelic personality, confidence, conscientiousness, determination, exchange ideology, hardiness, initiative, locus of control, optimism, proactivity, self-efficacy, self-esteem/self-worth, trait positive affect).These were excluded on the basis that the consensus view holds that the engagement construct is a state , not a trait.Job characteristics were similarly excluded because they are not psychological states (i.e., feedback from task and others, job and task characteristics, job enrichment, job demands, physical presence, and turnover intention).Finally, meta-characteristics that encompass multiple sub-dimensions were excluded because they are merely category labels whose subcom-ponents have already been included (i.e., personal resources, job resources, job satisfaction, motivation, and persistent/pervasive affective-cognitive state).

Motives of the Self
Safety vs. Anxiety.At the most basic level, there is a human need to feel safe and secure.This means feeling safe and assured in the face of challenges.When safety motivation is operating there is a desire to gain the basic sense that one has the confidence, protection, and comfort to successfully grow as a person.
The need for "peace of mind" captures the spirit of this motive.At least twelve major theories of motivation include a need for safety as a core motive (Forbes, 2011).
Fittingly, the very first academic paper that described the phenomenon of employee engagement by Kahn (1990) lists psychological safety as one of the three pillars of engagement.In their review of the literature, Saks & Gruman (2014) suggest that Kahn's need for safety is indeed the most fundamental requirement for engagement, which they describe as "important and necessary for all types of engagement" to develop (p.175).Additional engagement constructs that speak to this need include the need for physical health (Saks, 2006;Sonnentag, 2003) and trust (Saks, 2006;Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
Authenticity vs. Conformity.At the next level, pertaining to experiences with and of the self, comes the human need to feel able to express one's distinctive individuality in the face of pressures to conformity.This is the desire to gain the sense that one is different in a good way, and can use this difference to successfully take action toward desired results."Know thyself" captures the spirit of this motive.At least nine major theories of motivation include a need for authenticity as a core motive (Forbes, 2011).
Fulfilling Potential vs. Failure to Thrive.At the highest level of attainment in the domain of the Self we find the need for self-actualization, the need to feel as though one is progressing toward fulfilling their personal potential as a human.This is the desire to gain the sense that one has the skill and mastery to successfully become one's "best self."The expression, "Be all that you can be," captures the spirit of this motive.At least eleven major theories of motivation include a striving toward one's full potential as a core motive (Forbes, 2011).
This motive has found full expression in the recent literature onthriving at work (Spreitzer et al., 2005; van der Walt, 2018), which is defined as a "sense of progress, or forward movement, in one's self-development" (p.4).Several related constructs in the engagement literature speak to this need for personal growth and mastery including strivings for extra role behavior (Macey & Schneider, 2008;Saks, 2006;Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), role expansion (Macey & Schneider, 2008;Morgeson et al., 2005), mastery, learning, development and personal growth (Crawford et al., 2010), opportunities for growth & development (Macey & Schneider, 2008;Harter et al., 2002), as well as desires to innovate (Macey & Schneider, 2008).The construct of initiative (Macey & Schneider, 2008;Frese & Fay, 2001), when applied within the domain of the Self, may fuel all of these strivings.

Motives of the Material Domain
Autonomy vs. Disempowerment.At the most basic level of the Material domain, the area of life most directly associated with work, is the need for autonomy, defined as the need to feel authorized, capable and competent in the face of challenge.Autonomy is the desire to gain the basic sense that one has the ability, resources, and authority to successfully take action toward a desired result.The expression, "You can do it," captures the spirit of this motive.At least seven major theories of motivation include a striving for autonomy, including terms such as self-determination, empowerment, and self-efficacy (Forbes, 2011).
Immersion vs. Boredom.At the intermediate, experiential level of the Material domain, we find the need for immersion, the striving to feel fully focused and engaged in the moment.This desire to lose one's self in activity, in a state of total awareness, absorption, and flow, plays a particularly prominent role in definitions of engagement.The expression, "Being in the zone," captures the essence of this motive.No less than thirteen major systems of motivation include this motive (Forbes, 2011).
Of all the motives discussed herein, immersion is the motive most densely populated by engagement constructs, representing roughly one-quarter of the 102 identified in the literature review.Chief among these is absorption (Kahn, 1990;Saks & Gruman, 2014;Rothbard, 2001;Maslach et al., 2001;Schaufeli et al., 2002;Hooker & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003), one of the three pillars of the dominant Schaufeli-Bakker UWES paradigm and a hallmark of Kahn's (1990) concept of engagement.As pointed out by Saks & Gruman (2014), "if there is one common component across all definitions of engagement, it is the notion of being absorbed in one's work and role" (p.166).Unsurprisingly, then, there are many different terms used to describe this construct and these tend toward either cognitive, emotional, or behavioral descriptors.
Success vs. Failure .At the highest level of attainment in the Material domain we find successful accomplishment, the striving to feel a sense of achievement as a result of one's effort.This motive represents the desire to contribute to and be victorious in attaining desired results and to experience material rewards as a result.The expression, "In it to win it," captures the spirit of this motive.At least seven major psychological theories of motivation include this motive (Forbes, 2011).

Motives of the Social Domain
Inclusion vs. Exclusion.At the foundational level of the social sphere is the need for acceptance and inclusion that permits the establishment of social bonds.Inclusion means feeling socially accepted, connected, and integrated, the desire to gain the basic sense that one belongs and can develop social attachments and friendships.The expression, "We are family," captures this spirit.At least nine major motivational systems include this motive, which has been similarly labeled the need for affiliation, sociability, belonging, or social contact (Forbes, 2011).
Within the engagement literature, this motive figures prominently, with increased attention from the UKbased research group of Bailey (Truss), Soane, Madden, Alfes, & Fletcher, who have raised its profile substantially by naming it one of the three pillars of their Intellectual-Social-Affective (ISA) engagement concept (Soane et al., 2012).Although this is a new level of prominence for the construct, it has been a part of the engagement literature for many years, showing up as belonging (Macey & Schneider, 2008;Meyer & Allen, 1997;Mowday et al., 1982), high quality relationships (Saks, 2006), the ability to show warmth to others (Macey & Schneider, 2008;Shirom, 2003), and social relatedness (Soane et al., 2012;Shuck & Wollard, 2010;Meyer & Gagné, 2008;Kahn, 1990).
Caring vs. Uncaring.At the intermediate, experiential level of the Social triad comes the experience of feeling cared for by one's employer, supervisor, or colleagues.Caring means feeling able to give and receive (appropriate) love, nurturance, and support, the desire to feel emotional nourishment, empathy, devotion, and experience mutual gratitude.The expression "Sharing is caring" aptly captures its essence.At least eight major motivational systems include this motive, which has been similarly labeled the need for nurturance, intimacy, succorance, attachment, or parental love (Forbes, 2011).
Recognition vs. Indifference.At the pinnacle of the Social triad is the need for social recognition.
Recognition means feeling that one has achieved a social status of being admired and esteemed, perhaps as a resident expert in some skill or ability in the context of work.This motive represents the desire to gain social acknowledgement that one has been successful in a socially significant pursuit.The expression, "Hats off to you," captures the spirit of this motive.At least eight major motivational systems include this motive, which has been similarly labeled the needs for esteem, honor, or egoistic prosocial motivation (Forbes, 2011).
Surprisingly, the need for recognition barely registers in the engagement literature with only two constructs matching this description.Significantly, however, the few times this concept surfaces, it appears in seminal papers (Macey & Schneider, 2008;Saks, 2006;Maslach et al., 2001), suggesting that recognition needs should be seriously considered as components of engagement.The first of these is the rewards & recognition construct (Saks, 2006;Maslach et al., 2001), specifically the recognition component; the reward construct would generally be classified with the successful accomplishment motive by motivational theorists.The other construct is that of the need for pride (Macey & Schneider, 2008;Mowday et al., 1982), the desire for a kind of social "badge value" or caché associated with prominent, successful organizations.

Motives of the Spiritual Domain
Fairness vs. Injustice.At the basic level of the Spiritual triad is the need for justice and fairness, the need to feel that one's organization acts in an honest, unbiased, impartial, even-handed and transparent manner.In practice, this means the employees strive to feel the basic sense that good is rewarded, bad is punished, and that gain goes to those most deserving of it.The spirit of this motive is captured by the expression, "If you want peace, work for justice."We note parenthetically that the importance of this motive has recently been dramatically underscored by the Black Lives Matter movement and perceived corporate responses to COVID-19.We suggest that to the extent that needs for justice have not been incorporated into engagement constructs, it has been an oversight that should be corrected.This motive appears in many motivational systems, particularly those focusing on moral development in children (e.g., Kohlberg's theory of moral development, Lerner's just world hypothesis, Bloom's roots of good and evil, etc.; Pincus, 2020b).
Here, again, is an example of a need that has received scant notice in the engagement literature, but when it is mentioned, it is in some of the most significant papers in the body of work (Saks, 2006;Maslach et al., 2001;Colquitt et al., 2001).Both Saks (2006) and Maslach et al. (2001) identify the important role of perceived fairness, and procedural and distributive fairness as antecedent conditions for fostering engagement.Saks (2006) assesses the power of a host of variables in predicting both job engagement and organization engagement; of these, procedural justice is one of only two significant predictors of organizational engagement.
Ethics vs. Wrongdoing.At the intermediate, experiential level comes the need to feel that one and one's organization behaves in an ethical manner, consistent with normative moral values.This is the striving to feel that one's actions, and those of one's organization, are in accordance with a set of moral principles, universal values, or at the very least, accepted standard business practices, applied to the business in which you are engaged.This is the desire to feel that one's and one's organization act in accordance with principled best practices and the highest ethical standards, something that is universally preached in corporate values statements but too often ignored in practice.The essence of this need is captured by the expression, "Do the right thing."This motive similarly appears in motivational systems that focus on moral development including those of Kohlberg, Batson, Staub, and even Emmanuel Kant (Pincus, 2020b).
Ethical motivation receives a great deal of attention in the engagement literature, in the form of the many constructs devoted to reciprocity, obligation, duty, loyalty, and the like.At the individual level, this adherence to principle includes the sense of personal dedication and duty toward the organization.Chief among these may be the concept of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) directed to other individuals or to the organization (Macey & Schneider, 2008;Saks, 2006;Lee & Allen, 2002), organizational commitment behavior (Macey & Schneider, 2008;Saks, 2006;Robinson et al., 2004;Rhoades et al., 2001), emotional and intellectual commitment to the organization (Saks, 2006;Baumruk, 2004;Richman, 2006;Shaw, 2005;O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986), mutual commitments (Saks, 2006;Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), dedication (Shuck, 2011;Thomas, 2007;Schaufeli et al., 2002), loyalty (Saks, 2006;Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), and values (Saks, 2006;Maslach et al., 2001).Because these constructs have nearly all been defined in terms of observable behaviors, as a group they have tended to be categorized as outcomes or consequences of engagement rather than engagement itself, which misses the point of their motivational status.When an employee experiences ethical strivings (as motivation), they may tilt toward demonstrating observable citizenship behaviors (as part of the readout of that motivation), but it is important to recognize the motivation itself as the cause of that behavior.
Higher Purpose vs. Materialism.At the peak of the Spiritual domain stands the noblest and rarest of the motives, the need to feel as though one is serving a higher purpose or calling through one's effort.Higher purpose means having a more meaningful reason to live, work, and exist than satisfying material needs.This is the desire to transcend the ordinary limitations of everyday life toward a higher, even spiritual, purpose.An expression that captures its essence is, "Those who have a why to live can bear almost any how ."An impressive collection of motivational theorists explicitly include a form of higher purpose or transcendental motivation in their systems including Staub, Kohlberg, and Maslow (Pincus, 2020b).
Similar the ethical motivation, the need for higher purpose is very well established in the engagement literature with extensive references to the construct of the meaningfulness of work, both in one's work and at one's work (Kahn, 1990;Saks & Gruman, 2014;James et al., 2011;Macey & Schneider, 2008;Pratt & Ashforth, 2003;Meyer & Allen, 1997;Brown & Leigh, 1996;Spreitzer, 1995).Of particular note is research focused explicitly on spiritual needs and their relationship to employee engagement (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2010;Houghton et al., 2016;Milliman et al., 2018;Saks, 2011;van der Walt, 2018).These spiritual needs have been described as a need for meaning and purpose, awareness of life, connectedness, experience of sacredness, personal reflection and growth, health and inner peace, and compassion (van der Walt, 2018).Closely related constructs include organizational purpose (Macey & Schneider, 2008), sense of purpose (Macey & Schneider, 2008), transformational leadership, which is thought of as a catalyst for meaning and purpose (Saks & Gruman, 2014;Bakker et al., 2011;Christian et al., 2011;Macey & Schneider, 2008), and adaptive behavior, which represents individual strivings in support of the organization's purpose (Macey & Schneider, 2008).

INSERT TABLE 3 HERE TABLE 4 SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE AS DOWNLOADABLE CONTENT
4 IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY, MEASUREMENT, AND PRACTICE

Implications for theory
The persistent problem of adequately defining employee engagement is well documented (Shuck et al., 2017;Saks & Gruman, 2014;Macey & Schneider, 2008).As perceptively noted by Macey & Schneider (2008), trying to separate antecedents and consequences from an ill-defined mediating construct is, at best, a "slippery" business (p.10).By failing to embed the phenomena of engagement within a clear theoretical model, the field has suffered from concept proliferation, as indicated by the more than 100 identified herein.This is a failure of parsimony, but more fundamentally, it is a failure to clearly state the essential character of the phenomenon itself.Across the literature there are precious few citations of the psychological literature on motivation, which is extensive.It is telling that Kahn (1990), in the paper that first defined this construct, employs Maslow's (1970) need hierarchy as one of its primary foundations.Despite the grounding of the original concept in motivation theory, the only consistent acknowledgements to the psychological literature involve passing references to self-concordance theory (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999) and self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
One of the most significant benefits to theory development of our proposition is to embed the vast array of engagement concepts within a structure that is logical and arguably comprehensive, as there are no known additional domains of human life or modes of existence (Forbes, 2011;Rand, 1993).Knowing these limits directly addresses the call to end concept proliferation (Cole et al., 2012), since any new construct proposed will necessarily have a "home" among similar constructs.
Another important benefit is immediately obvious from our analysis of Table 3 as one can immediately see the degree of conceptual overlap, and distinctiveness, between different theoretical streams.As noted, fully one quarter of the concepts, and nearly two in five items, identified relate to the motivational construct of immersion , suggesting that this is perhaps the most defining characteristic of employee engagement.By the same token, underrepresented concepts can also be clearly identified, e.g., safety , authenticity,recognition , justice , and included in future research.
Another key feature of our model is the requirement that each motivation must be capable of operating as either a striving toward positive aspiration (i.e., promotion) or away from negative frustration (i.e., prevention).Explicitly recognizing the polarity of motives within each cell supports further logical organization of proposed facilitative or inhibitory concepts, and, indeed, suggests that future research assess each of the twelve motives in terms of promotion needs and prevention needs.
However, we believe the greatest contribution to theory development is the establishment of a general theory of employee engagement that is composed of every possible human motivation (Forbes, 2011;Pincus, 2020b).Our model of human motivation takes the form of a pyramid formed by four sides representing four life domains: the Self, the Material, the Social, and the Spiritual.By placing these domains as opposing pairs, Self vs. Social and Material vs. Spiritual, via a visual metaphor of distance, we are suggesting strong linkages between adjacent domains (e.g., Self -Spiritual -Social), and weak linkages for antipodal domains, for which there exists strong theoretical (Kohlberg and Power, 1981;Staub, 2005) and empirical support (Mahoney, et al., 2005).Based on the structure of our model, we propose a series of four testable hypotheses that, if supported, will contribute substantial validation: H1. Stronger, more statistically significant positive relationships will exist between measures within the domain (columns) than across domains (rows).For example, we would expect stronger associations between the Material domain's autonomy, immersion, and success(column) motivations than say autonomy, safety, inclusion, andjustice (row).
H2. Stronger, more statistically significant positive associations will exist among measures of the expectations (bottom row), experiential (middle row), and outcomes (top row) than will exists between diagonal cells, e.g., autonomy, caring, and purpose.
H3. Stronger, more statistically significant positive associations will exist between adjacent domains (columns) than between antipodal domains.Specifically, we propose that stronger relationships will be seen between motives of. . .: 1.The Self with the adjacent Material and Spiritual domains, and that weaker or possibly negative associations will exist between the motives of the Self and Social domains.2. The Material with the adjacent Self and Social domains, and that weaker or possibly negative associations will exist between the motives of the Material and Spiritual domains.3. The Social with the adjacent Material and Spiritual domains, and that weaker or possibly negative associations will exist between the motives of the Social and Self domains.4. The Spiritual with the adjacent Self and Social domains, and that weaker or possibly negative associations will exist between the motives of the Spiritual and Material domains.
H4. Measures of positive aspiration (i.e., promotion) and measures of frustration avoidance (i.e., prevention) will emerge as separate subcomponents within each of the twelve distinct motivations specified by the model.11Since it is logically possible for an employee to be motivated by either the positive aspiration for a motive or to avoid the negative frustration of the same motive, or both, or neither, we make no prediction about the expected relationships between positive and negative manifestations, and propose instead that they can operate independently.

Implications for measurement
In the words of Shuck et al. (2017), "the lack of engagement measures that are both academically grounded as well as practically useful, . . .complicates the ability of researchers to answer scholarly inquiry around questions of nomological validity and structural stability matched with practical usability" (p.15).A symptom of flawed measures, the products of flawed theories, is the failure to garner empirical support for tested hypotheses, and the literature is rife with examples.Shuck (2011) cites Rich et al.'s (2010) finding that one operationalization of engagement failed to explain any variance in outcomes beyond that explained by intrinsic motivation, job involvement, and job satisfaction, suggesting that this concept and its operationalization was incomplete and "in need of theory building."Similarly, Shuck (2010) found that Kahn's definition of engagement failed to predict unique variance in outcomes, whereas a set of non-engagement variables were successful in explaining variance.
In the same spirit, Macey & Schneider (2008) called for a fundamental re-thinking of the approach to measurement.In their view, an adequate measurement technique is needed that can validly and reliably measure the motivational-emotional content of these constructs while minimizing rational filtering of response.In the words of Macey & Schneider (2008): • "The results from survey data are used to infer that reports of these conditions signify engagement, but the state of engagement itself is not assessed."(p.7).And current measures "do not directly tap engagement.Such measures require an inferential leap to engagement rather than assessing engagement itself."(p.8).
• "Some measures. . .used to infer engagement are not affective in nature at all and frequently do not connote or even apply to a sense of energy. . ." (p.10)."Measures of psychological states that are devoid of direct and explicit indicators of affective and energetic feeling are not measures of state engagement in whole or part."(p.12) • "The conclusion from these articles is to focus the measurement on the construct of interest; if engagement is the target, ensure that the measure maps the content of the construct."(p.26).
We couldn't agree more, and our proposed reconceptualization of employee engagement has clear implications for advancing measurement.If employee engagement is indeed a motivational-emotional construct, then attempting to assess it using verbal and numerical survey items is immediately problematic because such measures require rational, analytical thought on the part of the respondent.Entire research streams have evolved in the decades since Kahn (1990) specifically to work around the problems of assessing emotional and experiential constructs.These include a variety of so-called "System 1" techniques, named for Daniel Kahneman's (2011) distinction between the brain's fast, intuitive system (System 1) and the slower, rational system (System 2).These measurement systems are designed to bypass rational, cognitive filters, so that researchers can directly access motivational-emotional states, and include neurological imaging and electrical techniques (e.g., fMRI, EEG), physiological techniques (e.g., facial electromyography, facial coding, electro-dermal response, pupillary dilation, eye tracking, heart rate, blood pressure, respiration), and indirect measures of motivational-emotional meaning (e.g., Implicit Association Test, Affective Priming, Image-based Techniques).We urge scholars to move beyond cognitively-biased "paper and pencil" surveys when attempting to measure this motivational-emotional construct.

Implications for practice
Much of contemporary employee engagement theory has little to offer the current day practitioner due to the lack of coherent theory and, accordingly, the weak ability of measures derived from these theories to explain variance in important outcomes.By grounding the many concepts attendant to this construct within a unified theory of human motivation, the task of understanding and communicating its essence is greatly simplified.This alone should be very helpful to practitioners who must somehow explain what their models measure and why.
Beyond its heuristic value, a unified model of human motivation provides a series of testable hypotheses, which can illuminate the specific relationships between each of the twelve motives (and their promotion and prevention faces) and external conditions that are under the employer's control, outcomes that are important to the client, and with each other that together give meaning to interventions.Knowing which of the twelve motives are most salient for a client's most valuable employees greatly simplifies the task of prioritizing interventions.Further, it is just as important to know which motives are not in play as those that are.Such an understanding will guide practitioners away from non-aligned interventions, e.g., in a time of great collective stress (negative Safety), implementing an individual recognition program (positive Recognition) could be viewed as obtuse or insensitive.
Finally, in the words of social psychologist Kurt Lewin, "there is nothing so practical as a good theory." The many challenges to the defensibility of the engagement construct can easily create points of friction for practitioners who have curious clients.Adopting a structured, holistic model with face validity should hold clear advantages for all parties by providing a common language and framework to house their concepts and items.

CONCLUSION
In summary, this paper responds to repeated, urgent calls for integration of the diverse and proliferating concepts related to employee engagement.The subject of employee engagement is garnering unprecedented popularity (Shuck, 2011;Google Trends, 2020).Even in the best case, the current state of affairs means that theoretical disconnects slow progress in the field; in worse cases, it means that vast quantities of money and time are being directed to efforts that are poorly understood, leading to dangerous levels of waste that run the risk of poisoning the HRD field against a potentially valuable, even essential, concept.
As a final example of the utility of our model, we return to one of the many laments over the state of engagement theory and measurement.Shuck (2011) gives a series of examples of items from different scales derived from multiple theoretical and measurement traditions that are seemingly impossible to reconcile within a single conceptual system: • ". . .Treated (as if they) were impersonal objects" (C2, Uncaring ) • "I can be myself at work" (A2, Authenticity ) • "I am prepared to fully devote myself to performing my job duties" (C2, Ethics ) • "I am bursting with energy" (B2, Immersion ) These are widely disparate items, to be sure.However, as indicated in the parentheses, our model easily accommodates all of these perspectives, mini-theories, and concept within a single model, providing a kind of "unified field theory" of employee engagement.We contend that the secret to unlocking a meta-theory to encompass all of these perspectives, and all of the dimensions they propose, has always been hidden in plain sight within the very first descriptions of employee engagement.

Table 1 .
Definitional Characteristics of Employee Engagement and Human MotivationConsensus DefinitionConstruct is defined as an individual -level, not group-level, psychological construct Construct is a latent variable that is not directly observable Construct acts as a mediator variable between antecedent conditions and behavioral outcomes Construct is conceived of primarily as a state rather than a trait Construct is conceived of as being multi-dimensional, with cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions, but is considere Construct is defined as an affectively-charged goal-directed state, and often explicitly labeled as motivation