Is Employee Engagement Truly the Key to Productivity—or Is There More to the Story?

Listen to this article:

Abstract: This article examines the complex relationship between employee engagement and productivity in organizations. It establishes clear definitions of engagement and productivity as distinct yet related constructs. Through a review of scholarly literature, the article demonstrates that while engagement generally correlates with performance, it does not guarantee productivity due to various intervening factors. Key considerations discussed include the importance of aligning engagement strategies with business goals through job design, performance management, and organizational culture. The article also addresses how sustaining engagement over time through managing burnout, turnover, and workload is necessary to impact long-term productivity. Finally, real-world examples from different industries are provided to illustrate the practical application of strategically aligning engagement and productivity aims in a way that benefits both organizational outcomes and employee experience. The article aims to advance practitioner understanding of this multifaceted relationship.

As a management consultant and researcher, I've seen a lot of debate around the relationship between employee engagement and productivity over the years. On the one hand, engagement surveys and HCM vendors point to countless studies showing the positive impact of engagement on the bottom line. On the other hand, skeptical practitioners wonder if reality is more complex.

Today we will explore this question and I hope to provide helpful context and examples to advance this discussion.

What Do We Mean by "Engagement" and "Productivity"?

To start, it’s important we establish working definitions (Kahn, 1990). Employee engagement generally refers to a heightened emotional connection one feels towards their work and organization that influences their willingness to go above and beyond (Saks, 2006). Productivity, meanwhile, relates specifically to output—the efficient conversion of inputs like labor, materials, and technology into outputs like goods, services and organizational outcomes (Levine, 1995).

While engagement and productivity are often correlated, they are distinct constructs (Christian et al., 2011). One can be highly engaged but not highly productive if, for instance, they are engaged in low-value activities. Conversely, employees can be highly productive in terms of outputs but disinterested and disengaged. The relationship is complex with many mediating factors.

Engagement Does Not Guarantee Productivity

A common mistake is equating engagement with productivity and overlooking important intervening steps. Several studies show engagement is just one potential driver of in-role and extra-role performance, which then influences productivity (Rich et al., 2010; Shuck et al., 2011). Other drivers include competence, role clarity, resources, and a supportive environment for achieving goals (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008).

For example, an otherwise engaged employee may struggle with unclear expectations or lack of training, inhibiting their productivity. Oppositely, disengaged but highly skilled employees can still excel short-term if environmental factors are supportive (Bakker et al., 2004). Long-term, disengagement is likely to catch up with them through decreased discretionary effort, innovation and retention (Saks, 2006).

Alignment of Engagement and Productivity Goals Is Key

To better connect engagement and productivity, organizations must ensure alignment between what engages employees and what the business needs to be productive. Three aspects are important:

1. Job design: Employees must be engaged in work that is meaningful, appropriately challenging and allows them to apply their skills (Kahn, 1990). For a call center rep, measurable call times may engage them in productivity, while pointless admin tasks do not.

2. Performance management: Goals and metrics must reflect the tasks and behaviors that increase both employee engagement and business results. Relying too heavily on disengaging metrics like call times alone can backfire (Aubé et al., 2014).

3. Organizational culture: Core values and priorities communicated through actions like rewards and role modeling should unite employees and business aims. For example, an innovative tech company rewarding patents over customer metrics risks disengaging customer support staff.

When done well, alignment inspires discretionary effort that boosts both engagement and productivity (Christian et al., 2011). However, it requires nuanced understanding of different roles within a coordinated system.

Engagement Must Be Sustained to Impact Productivity

Even when engagement and productivity aims are aligned, engagement's impact on productivity is not guaranteed unless it can be sustained over time (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Two major threats are:

Burnout: Prolonged or intensifying job demands without adequate resources can lead to exhaustion, cynicism and inefficacy—the key dimensions of burnout (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). An engaged employee working extreme hours may become disengaged and less productive.

Turnover of engaged talent: If engagement drives better opportunities elsewhere, organizations risk losing engaged staff whose embodied knowledge and skills provided significant productivity (Saks, 2006). Onboarding and retraining replacements is costly and disruptive.

Hence, organizations must constantly work to renew engagement through strategies like workload management, development opportunities, supportive leadership and work-life balance to retain engaged talent and their contributions over the long-run (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).

Application in Practice: Three Industry Examples

To move from theory to practice, consider three real-world examples of aligning engagement and productivity:

Tech startup example

A software development startup faces high pressure to continuously improve and expand their product. Developers are deeply engaged by challenges, autonomy and impact of their work. By emphasizing OKRs over billable hours and valuing innovation over replication, the founders sustain engagement tied to business growth.

Hospital example

A hospital aligns frontline staff engagement to patient outcomes with core values highlighting compassion. Doctors and nurses participate in lean process improvement aimed at both healing metrics and diminishing burnout-inducing workarounds. This engagement prevents turnover despite pandemic pressures.

Call center example

After high agent churn, a call center invests in empathy and soft skills training for supervisors. New one-on-one coaching boosts agent skill development and elevates engagement metrics beyond speed metrics alone. With discretionary efforts like proactive problem-solving, productivity rebounds while quality improves.

In each case, tailored engagement strategies supporting both people and performance revived productivity challenges in a sustainable manner aligned with organizational priorities. This holistic approach is what sustained impacts require.

Conclusion

In reviewing this evidence, it's clear the relationship between engagement and productivity is complex, mediated by many intervening factors within a system. While engagement generally correlates with performance and outputs in the short-term, sustaining those impacts long-term requires nuanced understanding of diverse roles and dynamic alignment between what engaging employees and achieving business goals. With cautious application of this perspective, organizations can gain from both people and performance, avoiding oversimplified assumptions around their relationship. As the debate continues, a both-and, rather than either-or, mindset may advance understanding and outcomes most constructively.

References

1. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.

2. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209–223.

3. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43(1), 83–104.

4. Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136.

5. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

6. Levine, D. I. (1995). Reinventing the workplace: How business and employees can both win. Brookings Review, 13(1), 28-32.

7. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2(2), 99–113.

8. Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635. h

9. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.

10. Shuck, B., Reio, T. G., & Rocco, T. S. (2011). Employee engagement: An antecedent and outcome approach to model development. Human Resource Development International, 14(4), 427–445.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2026). Is Employee Engagement Truly the Key to Productivity—or Is There More to the Story? Human Capital Leadership Review, 31(2). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.31.2.4