Pulling back the curtain: Modeling the motivational process underlying the contemporary engagement concept

goals. At best, levels on these goals can simply be sustained. As a result, these abstract goals are a different type of goal than is typically described by Goal Setting Theory. Rather than being a goal with a specific end point, they are better thought of as an ongoing referent standard. Within work settings, the prototypical higher order abstract goal is job performance. It is important to note that this goal is often subordinate to even higher order rewards-based goals such as receiving a pay increase or a job promotion. What is noteworthy about applied work settings is that rewards are most often linked to an opaque notion of job performance. So if the worker desires an increase in pay or a promotion, he or she must first commit to the goal of job performance. Following from the discussion above, the next step is to identify task-based goals he or she can complete that will demonstrate job performance. It is at the task level that observable behaviors first appear in work settings. Thus, the real genius behind the underlying motivational capacity of the concept of job performance is that it forms an abstract referent standard for the lower level task-based goals and, as a result, job performance can never be fully achieved; it can only be sustained. This point may appear counterintuitive since the purpose of any performance review, such as an annual review, is to evaluate the level of job performance that has been achieved throughout the year. However, what is actually being evaluated is total level of achievement of specific task level goals over a given period of time, such as whether the worker completed Project X on time and under budget. Based on the level of achievement Modeling Job Engagement 73 of various work goals or tasks, a general impression of overall job performance is formed for the period of time that it was evaluated. This specific type of negative feedback loops forms the link between engagement, motivation, and performance. Workers first commit to the higher order goal of job performance, which leads them to identify specific task-based performance goals. To the extent the worker believes he or she is capable of completing the tasks and believes the environment will support task completion, the worker will experience a sense of motivation directed at task completion. This will lead the worker to engage with the task. Finally, feedback is required to monitor task completion during task engagement and ultimately to determine whether the task was completed. Once tasks are completed, new tasks must be identified and the cycle begins again. It is this ongoing cycle moving from task identification to task engagement to evaluation of task completion, all in the service of the higher order goal of sustaining job performance, which creates a state of job engagement. Therefore, job engagement is defined as a state of active motivation to perform in one’s job, characterized by an ongoing willingness to expend effort in the service of sustaining job performance. Modeling Job Engagement The fourth goal of this research is to present a new theoretical model of the engagement process. It is helpful to begin with a basic conceptual model of the cyclical motivational process that underlies a state of job engagement. Figure 1 below outlines the conceptual progression of cognitive and behavioral events expected to occur as engagement first come online. The model contains six Modeling Job Engagement 74 discrete events that are theorized to occur in consecutive order through one full cycle of the model. A single cycle corresponds to a single event of task engagement. A state of job engagement forms when environmental conditions support consecutive cycles through the model. The model also identifies four primary cognitive evaluation points rooted in prior motivational research that determine whether the motivational process will come online in the first place and whether it will continue through consecutive cycles. These cognitive evaluation points can also be viewed at input points since it is at these points where environmental conditions and other antecedent constructs will influence the motivational process. In an ideal scenario supporting the formation of job engagement, antecedents will influence the person at each input point so that he or she progresses through the six steps in the model and then continue through successive cycles resulting in an ongoing state of job engagement. However, at each of the six steps it is also possible for the worker to believe he or she either does not want to or is not able to proceed to the next step. Examples of negative cognitions a worker might have are provided in the dotted lined boxes in the model. If these types of cognitions form the worker will be unlikely to proceed to the next step in the model. Modeling Job Engagement 75 Figure 1: Conceptual Model of Job Engagement Conceptual Model of Job Engagement (1) Entry Point: Do I want to perform in my job? No (2) Can I identify specific tasks to do? (3) Do I believe I can do those tasks? (4) Then I am motivated to try to do the tasks. Person Work Environment (5) Worker expends effort in order to complete the tasks (Task Engagement occurs). Yes (6) Did I receive Feedback that I completed the tasks? Yes Yes Yes; continue cycle I must have been wrong about my ability so why try again? No, I was unable to complete the tasks Job Engagement Why try again if it is not possible to know whether I am successful? No, I did not receive any feedback Why would it be worth the effort to try? How can I try if I do not know what to do? No No Why try if I have no chance of success ? The motivational process in a work setting begins with a general cognitive commitment to job performance. This goal serves as the higher order referent standard for all subsequent actions and is thus modeled in Figure 1 as the “Entry Point. ” Obviously the degree to which the worker aspires to maintaining high level of job performance will impact all subsequent steps in the model, but for the purpose of this conceptual model the focus is simply whether the worker will generally state “yes, I want to perform” or “no, it is not that important for me to perform. ” A worker who states that he or she has no desire to sustain job performance will also not exhibit future instances of task engagement (i.e., why Modeling Job Engagement 76 exhibit any effort if one does not care about achieving any results). If the worker answers “yes” to step one, the worker must move to step two and attempt to identify specific tasks at the program level that will demonstrate job performance. This is the second cognitive evaluative input point because motivation will or will not continue to come online depending upon the evaluation the worker makes at this point. This point is most closely related to the degree of role clarity perceived by the worker and thus, setting clear, behavioral-based goals and communicating specific performance expectations are two ways in which management can impact this input point. The third step, which is also the third cognitive evaluative input point in the model, is an evaluation by the worker of whether he or she is capable of completing the tasks. There are two important sets of contributing factors on this cognitive evaluation. One set of factors are those experiences that impact a personal sense of self-efficacy, such as having received training or experiencing prior success on similar tasks (i.e., enactive mastery). The other set include any environmental factors outside of the worker’s control, but which the worker perceives to have an impact on task completion. These factors include trust in management, organizational justice perceptions, empowerment perceptions, and the perceived availability of tools and resources. As a practical matter, it is assumed that one rarely delineates the internal and external factors when evaluating one’s total ability to complete a set of tasks. It is the position of this research that this is generally experienced by the worker as a sense of selfefficacy. Modeling Job Engagement 77 If steps one, two, and three all result in a “yes” statement, the model predicts that a person will progress to step four and experience a sense of motivation to try to complete the tasks. This step is not modeled as one of the four evaluative input points so it is given a square shape to indicate it is now an inevitable step in progression in the process. Similarly, if a worker is motivated to try to complete the tasks, the next inevitable step (step five in the model) is task engagement (i.e., expending effort in the service of task completion). The key point being that motivational energy and subsequent task engagement are not directly impacted by the external environment. Environmental factors are mediated by the preceding cognitive evaluations in steps one through three. Step five is an important step in the model because it is externally observable in the form of behaviors directed at task completion. The final step involves feedback. For this research, feedback refers to any type of information perceived by the worker relevant to determining task completion including verbal feedback provided by a supervisor as well as feedback inherent in a task. Step six is the fourth and final cognitive evaluative input point into the job engagement process. Two issues can occur at this step that will reduce overall job engagement. The first is a total lack of feedback and the second is receiving feedback that one is not successfully completing the tasks, which will typically cause one to doubt one’s prior self-efficacy assumptions. Conversely, if the feedback suggests the worker has successfully completed the tasks then this is expected to increase the likelihood of future cycles because of its impact on future self-efficacy. Modeling Job Engagement 78 At this point the worker has passed through one full cycle of the cognitive motivational