Introduction It is imperative to mention that employee management is quite important nowadays because companies have to deal with numerous issues, and are looking for ways to increase profits. Moreover, many enterprises have recognized that the focus on workers is vital, but some of them struggle to retain them. McDonald’s is one of the best examples of the firms that consider such aspects to be important. The managers of the company have been one of the pioneers of investing much effort and money into establishing effective engagement of people working at different levels of the business. As the largest category of employees consists of low-skilled workers, the company faced the need to reduce repeated turnovers and overcome many other challenges and problems related to the specifics of the fast-food business. That is where employee engagement emerged as a strategic issue for providing the company’s sustainability. Furthermore, it has started to focus on the social responsibility and consider the needs of its workers. It would be beneficial to analyze ideas of scholars to get a better understanding of the subject matter, and gained knowledge can be applied to McDonald’s to determine the effectiveness of approaches that are used by the company. Therefore, the report will consist of the literature review, discussion of the findings and a conclusion. Literature Review Definitions and Misconceptions One of the most significant issues is the presence of differences in defining the employee engagement. Shuck and Wollard conducted a valid study on existing literature about the issue to investigate the concepts of employee engagement and compare the existing definitions (2010: 99). The authors discuss the contribution of the studies regarding employee engagement as a factor influenced by the personal satisfaction that should be assessed at the individual level. Besides, they accentuate the significance of the studies that highlighted the personal view of engagement based on the results of examining different dates from the practitioners’ experience. The analysis of the mentioned variants of perception of employee engagement demonstrates certain misconceptions in the existing definitions of the term. The first issue is related to defining employee engagement as an organizational-level variable. Such description misleads many practitioners and makes them search for methods of enhancing work commitment on many levels (Shuck and Wollard, 2010: 102). However, employee engagement has an individualistic character. Therefore, it is beneficial to focus on areas that are regarded most important (Walker, 2012: 91). Another inconsistency in academics’ definitions causes the practitioners to perceive employee engagement as a phenomenon having no types. Such misconception can put a threat to the effectiveness of chosen strategies as cognitive, and emotional engagement should be developed jointly (Shuck and Wollard, 2010: 103). It is also suggested that it could be intellectual, affective, and social (Bridger, 2014: 5). Therefore, the misconceptions in academics’ definitions of employee engagement seem to align with the mistakes made by practitioners while developing an appropriate strategy f