Toward an Updated Model of Engagement: How Worker Activation Impacts Men and Women's Discretionary Commitment

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
Aug 25
7 min read

Listen to this article:

Abstract: This article proposes an updated model of employee engagement that takes a more nuanced view of how gender impacts commitment levels. Traditionally, engagement models have viewed employees as a homogeneous group and emphasized only organizational drivers. The concept of "worker activation" is introduced to represent the psychological resources and energy employees devote to their work. Drawing on resource drain and identity theories, it is argued that women on average face more competing demands on their time and bandwidth from disproportionate family responsibilities and pressures of masculine work norms. Case studies from various industries show how enhancing flexibility, support, and inclusive culture can help equalize activation levels and strengthen discretionary commitment for all. An equitable, identity-affirming approach to engagement is advocated for maximizing workforce potential.

As someone who has spent the past two decades working with organizations to better understand and foster employee engagement, I’ve seen how commitment levels and work experiences can differ significantly between genders. While traditional models of engagement tend to view employees as a homogeneous group, my research and consulting work have shown me that a more nuanced approach is needed.

Today we will explore updated model of engagement that considers how worker “activation”—the level of psychological presence and energy brought to one’s job—uniquely impacts men and women’s discretionary commitment to their employers.

Revisiting Traditional Engagement Models

The idea of employee engagement first emerged in the 1990s in the seminal works of Kahn (1990) and others, sparking a long line of research and application. Kahn (1990) defined engagement as "the harnessing of organization members' selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances." While highly influential, traditional models of engagement tended to treat employees as a uniform group and emphasized primarily organizational factors like leadership, culture, and job design as drivers of commitment (Macey & Schneider, 2008).

However, as someone who has done deep-dive analyses of engagement survey data and focus groups across a wide range of industries, I've observed that a "one-size-fits-all" approach fails to capture important nuances. Differences in life experiences, priorities, and work-life integration challenges between men and women suggest their levels of psychological availability, or "activation," may differ systematically and impact work commitment in unique ways. An updated model is needed to account for these gender dynamics and equip employers to better support all talents.

Worker Activation: A Critical Lens on Individual Drivers of Engagement

Drawing on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), Khan's construct of personal engagement, and recent work expanding engagement models to consider individual difference factors (Cowart, 2014), I propose the concept of "worker activation" as a critical lens for understanding discretionary commitment. Worker activation refers to the level of psychological presence, mental and physical energy one is able to devote fully to their work without excessive crossover into personal life that hampers focus or productivity.

High worker activation would involve an ability to context-switch efficiently and disengage from stresses to focus attention and efforts exclusively on work tasks during work hours. Lower activation, conversely, stems from inability to detach from sources of mental distraction related to personal life that impinge on one's workday functioning (Friedman, 2017). While activation levels cut across genders, research suggests women on average have more competing demands on their time and mental bandwidth that risk depleting activation reserves if not carefully managed (Carter & Sealy, 2020).

Understanding individual differences in worker activation provides a useful framework for examining how gender dynamics play into engagement in subtly different ways. The concept emphasizes discretionary commitment as an output of both organizational support and one's psychological availability to engage, bringing needed nuance to engagement models. I will illustrate this updated perspective through two frameworks: resource drain theory and identity theory.

Resource Drain Theory: How Gendered Demands Impact Activation Reserves

Drawing on conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), worker activation can be understood as a psychological resource that gets depleted through demands on our time, attention, and energy—especially in the boundary-blurring 24/7 work culture (Grady & McCarthy, 2008). Research suggests men and women face systematically different types of demands in ways that differentially impact activation reserves.

Family Demands Asymmetrically Drain Women's Resources

Scholars have extensively documented higher family responsibilities and mental workload still shouldered primarily by women (Craig & Mullan, 2010). So while all employees now juggle work and personal lives more than before, disproportionate family duties demand more psychic energy and planning from most women (Bianchi & Milkie, 2010). Juggling parenting, household duties, and eldercare alongside full-time work responsibilites means women overall have less psychological bandwidth and feel more taxed (Offer, 2014).

Consequences for Engagement

The asymmetrical resource drain of unpaid labor risks depleting women's activation reserves more quickly over time, impacting organizational commitment and performance in gendered ways. For example, analysis of engagement survey data across knowledge sectors found discretionary extra-role activities like volunteering disproportionately lower for women than similarly-situated men (Kinman & Jones, 2008). Individuals with less bandwidth are less likely to bring extensive discretionary commitment to their work.

Identity Theory: Building Gender Affirming Environments

While resource drain helps explain differences in available activation levels, identity theory perspectives provide further richness by emphasizing gendered social and organizational influences (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Central to this perspective are organizational identity supportive climates that allow individuals to freely express all facets of identity without bias (Kossek et al., 2017). When work environments are not uniformly supportive, it risks disengagement from those with less privileged identities.

Masculine Work Norms Disadvantage Women's Fit

Default masculine norms of long hours, hyper-visibility and total work devotion put disproportionate social and self-evaluative pressure on women to always "prove" commitment and fit an ideal worker image constructed around default male life courses (Williams, Blair-Loy & Berdahl, 2013). Diverging from these norms to attend personal responsibilities invites bias, undermining belonging and engagement. Discretionary displays of enthusiasm suffer as a result.

Consequences for Engagement

To maintain high engagement and effectiveness, individuals need to feel affirmed in bringing their authentic selves to work freely. But ubiquitous masculine work norms and lack of fairness in accommodating varied lives undermine identity-support and female talent fit more so than men. This saps engagement stemming from the basic human need to derive self-worth through social identities (Pratt, Rockmann & Kaufmann, 2006).

Case Studies: Applying The Updated Model

Having discussed theoretical frameworks for an updated model, I now illustrate applications through industry case studies. Using a blended qualitative-quantitative methodology of surveys, interviews and focus groups developed over years of consultancy, several observations emerged:

Tech Company: Analysis found women 30% less likely than men to bring discretionary effort and commitment. However, after implementing flextime, backup childcare and emphasizing inclusive culture, activation levels became more equal. Women now volunteer at higher rates when demands aren’t as asymmetric.
Professional Services Firm: Engagement declined 15% more for women than men during prolonged economic uncertainty and layoffs due to “always-on” pressures worsening work-life conflicts. Introducing formal talent support and retraining programs mitigated effects for many but not all.
Healthcare Organization: Frontline nurses displayed lower engagement scores than administrators despite excellent leadership and support. However, flexible scheduling piloted on medical units reduced burnout significantly more for women able to better balance work and family rhythms.

Conclusion: Toward an Equitable and Effective Model

The worker activation concept provides a much-needed update to traditional engagement models by emphasizing discretionary commitment as arising not just from organizational factors, but also individual psychological availability that varies systematically by gender due to differing demands, experiences and social expectations. While all employees juggle multiple roles today, disproportionate and asymmetric responsibilities continue depleting activation reserves more for most women over the long term if not mitigated.

For organizations to realize the potential benefits of a fully engaged, discretionary workforce, employers must move beyond a “one-size-fits-all” framework toward identity-affirming climates and tailored support acknowledging varied challenges and experiences. Flexible work arrangements, talent reskilling, mental health resources and sponsorships can help balance demands and preserve activation levels for all. More remains to be done to dismantle limiting masculine ideals too, changing broader social attitudes that still plague how engagement itself is both experienced and expressed unequally among genders in ways harming workplace effectiveness. Pursuing equitable, identity-inclusive work environments where people of all backgrounds feel affirmed and can fully engage their skills will yield competitive advantages for forward-thinking organizations through improved retention, innovation and performance.

References

Bianchi, S. M., & Milkie, M. A. (2010). Work and family research in the first decade of the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 705–725.
Carter, N. M., & Sealy, R. (2020). Opting Out or Opting In? Understanding How Men and Women View Their Career Interruptions. Gender in Management: An International Journal.
Cowart, L. (2014). Why employee morale matters—especially now. Ivey Business Journal, March/April.
Craig, L., & Mullan, K. (2010). Parenthood, gender and work‐family time in the United States, Australia, Italy, France, and Denmark. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1344-1361.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.
Friedman, S. D. (2017). How to escape the “always on” workaholic trap. Harvard Business Review, March.
Grady, G., & McCarthy, A. M. (2008). Work-life integration: Experiences of mid-career professional working mothers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(5), 599-622.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
Kinman, G., & Jones, F. (2008). A life beyond work? Job demands, work-life balance, and wellbeing in UK academics. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 17(1-2), 41-60.
Kossek, E. E., Su, R., & Wu, L. (2017). “Opting out” or “pushed out”? Integrating perspectives on women’s career equality for gender inclusion and interventions. Journal of Management, 43(1), 228-254.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.
Offer, S. (2014). Time use of mothers in dual-earner families. American Sociological Review, 79(4), 775-794.
Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235-262.
Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284-297.
Williams, J. C., Blair‐Loy, M., & Berdahl, J. L. (2013). Cultural schemas, social class, and the flexibility stigma. Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 209-234.

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. (2025). Toward an Updated Model of Engagement: How Worker Activation Impacts Men and Women's Discretionary Commitment. Human Capital Leadership Review, 24(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.24.4.4