Team work engagement: A model of emergence

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2014), 87, 414–436
© 2014 The British Psychological Society
www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Team work engagement: A model of emergence
Patrıcia L. Costa 1
*, Ana M. Passos 1 and Arnold B. Bakker2
1
ISCTE-IUL, Lisbon, Portugal
2
Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Research has shown that work engagement, both at the individual and team levels, is
relevant to understand employee performance and well-being. Nonetheless, there is no
theoretical model that explains the development of work engagement in teams that takes
into consideration what is already known about team dynamics and processes. This study
addresses this gap in the literature, presenting a model for the emergence of team work
engagement. The model proposes team inputs, outputs, and mediators as predictors of
team work engagement and highlights their recursive influences over time. This
conceptual work provides a starting point for further research on team work
engagement, allowing for distinguishing individual and team constructs.
Practitioner points
 The degree of energy and enthusiasm of teams depends on the way they interact.
 The affective and motivational dynamics of teams have consequences for their performance and
well-being.
 The emergence of team work engagement is better understood within the literature of teamwork.
The last decade has established work engagement as an important construct for both
employee performance and well-being (Halbesleben, 2010). Engaged employees display a
positive attitude towards work and high energy levels, which leads them to actively
intervene in their work environment. They tend to show high levels of self-efficacy
(Bakker, 2009) and organizational commitment (Demerouti, Bakker, De Jonge, Janssen, &
Schaufeli, 2001). In addition, engaged workers are inclined to work extra hours (Schaufeli,
Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008) and help their colleagues if needed (Halbesleben & Wheeler,
2008); they also manage to stay healthy in stressful environments (Demerouti, Bakker,
Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001).
Parallel to the studies on work engagement at the individual level, some researchers
have also started to explore the construct at the team level (Bakker, van Emmerik, &
Euwema, 2006; Salanova, Llorens, Cifre, Martinez, & Schaufeli, 2003; Torrente, Salanova,
Llorens, & Schaufeli, 2012a,b). These studies suggest that, at the team level, work
engagement has positive relationships with task and team performance, collective
positive affect, and efficacy beliefs. Team work engagement is also positively related to
individual work engagement.
Despite the acknowledgement of its relevance in the context of work teams, the vast
majority of studies have not presented a theoretical model framing the construct and
*Correspondence should be addressed to Patrıcia L. Costa, Av. Das Forcßas Armadas, Edifıcio ISCTE, Room 2w8, 1649-026
Lisbon, Portugal (email: [e-mail]).
DOI:10.1111/joop.12057
414

explicating the mechanisms responsible for its existence. This is one major gap in the
work engagement literature. The one commendable exception is the work by Torrente
et al. (2012b) that proposes team social resources (supportive team climate, team
work and coordination) as possible antecedents of team work engagement. The latter
idea is tightly linked to the literature on individual work engagement and rooted in the
job demands–resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), the conceptual model for
individual work engagement. To our knowledge, there have been no scholars reflecting
on whether and how team work engagement can be equated within the specific
literature on groups and teams,1 teamwork, and team effectiveness, which would allow
for a better understanding of teamwork, and create the theoretical rationale for
studying team work engagement. The goal of this study is to present a model for the
emergence of team work engagement, embedded in the literature on teams. It provides
a theoretical model for the emergence of the collective construct that accounts for
both team inputs and outputs and for team processes, highlighting their dynamic
interplay overtime.
The dialogue between the two domains of individual work engagement and team
effectiveness contributes to several positive outcomes. First, it will strengthen the
theoretical conceptualization of work engagement at the team level, accounting for what
is already known in terms of team functioning and enriching its nomological network.
Second, it will address legitimate concerns related to eventual construct proliferation
(Cole, Walter, Bedeian, & O’Boyle, 2012), distinguishing team work engagement from
other team-level constructs and from individual work engagement, by presenting a
specific team-level model of engagement. Third, this article will set the stage for future
research on work engagement in teams, providing a model that may be tested empirically.
Finally, it will allow for importing the knowledge acquired by team scholars in designing
interventions to foster collective engagement.
Work engagement
Work engagement is a positive, fulfilling state of work-related well-being. Following
Shaufeli and Bakker (2010), we define work engagement as an affective–cognitive state
characterized by vigour, dedication, and absorption. Engaged employees are energetic
and enthusiastic about their work, which leads them to perform better than non-engaged
employees, and to invest more effort in work than is formally expected (Halbesleben &
Wheeler, 2008). The most often used framework for studying engagement is the job
demands–resources model (Bakker, 2011; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Studies using this
model have shown that job demands and resources trigger two different psychological
processes that are the roots of work engagement and burnout: an energy impairment
process caused by excessive job demands and a positive motivational process that is
triggered by job resources. Job resources such as performance feedback, job control/
autonomy, and supervisory support are then conceptualized as the major antecedents of
work engagement (Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006; Richardsen, Burke, & Martinus-
sen, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), and they appear to enhance engagement especially
when job demands are high (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007). In
addition to job resources, personal resources have also been found to predict work
engagement (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007). Examples of these
1 Following the work by Guzzo and Dickson (1996), we use the terms groups and teams interchangeably throughout the article.
Team work engagement 415

personal resources are personality traits, such as high extraversion and low neuroticism
(Langelaan, Bakker, Schaufeli, & Van Doornen, 2006), and lower-order personality
characteristics including self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience (Sweetman &
Luthans, 2010; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007).
Thus, work engagement is particularly influenced by resources in the work
environment and in the person. These resources have the strongest impact on
engagement when job demands are high. Work engagement, in turn, is an important
predictor of positive attitudes towards the organization and job performance. In other
words, engagement mediates the impact of job and personal resources on organizational
outcomes (Shaufeli & Bakker, 2010), such as organizational commitment, personal
initiative, and extra-role behaviour (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004).
Team work engagement
Teams are ‘a distinguishable set of two or more people who interact, dynamically,
interdependently, and adaptively towards a common and valued goal/objective/mission,
who have been assigned specific roles or functions to perform, and who have a limited
lifespan of membership’ (Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992, p. 4).
Working in a team has specificities that distinguish it from working alone. Team
members need to coordinate and synchronize their actions, and every member has a
critical role for their collective action. Consequently, the success of teams is dependent
on the way team members interact with each other to accomplish the work (Marks,
Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001).
These major differences between working alone and working in a team should
account for conceptualizing work engagement and team work engagement differently.
Whereas individual work engagement is essentially dependent on job resources and
demands, team work engagement, as a collective construct, is dependent on the
individual actions and cycles of interaction responsible for creating a shared pattern of
behaviour (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999). Therefore, with the same resources and in an
equally challenging environment, some teams might develop a higher level of engagement
than others, because the affective, cognitive, and motivational outcomes of different
patterns of interaction are likely to be different. Commenting enthusiastically on new
equipment or energetically inciting team members to suggest new marketing strategies
after the entrance of a new competitor in the market is significantly different from
neutrally informing team members of that same equipment acquisition and angrily
referring to that new competitor.
Despite these variances, the existing research on team work engagement has failed
to incorporate these team phenomena and processes. Studies either do not account for
the differences between individual and team work engagement, or do not put forward
specific team-level models of engagement. For example, Tyler and Blader (2003) depart
from the engagement definition developed by Kahn (1990) – engaged employees bring
their full affective, physical, and cognitive self to the workplace – and propose that a
strong identification with the group will lead members to invest personal energy to aid
group success. This identification, in turn, depends on the respect and pride team
members have for their team. Tyler and Blader’s proposal on group engagement is
heavily based on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and does not present any
distinctive features of team work engagement that represent specific team dynamics.
Early studies such as the one by Salanova et al. (2003) and the one by Bakker et al.
416 Patrıcia L. Costa et al.

(2006) lack a clear definition of the team-level construct. The first one frames team work
engagement as a ‘positive aspect of collective well-being in work groups’ (p. 48) and
analyses the results considering the three dimensions of individual work engagement:
vigour, dedication, and absorption. The second one measures collective engagement
with the individual-level scale (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003), and the percentage of
engaged employees per team is used as a representation of collective engagement. The
absence of a team-specific definition, framed by the knowledge from the literature on
teams, may lead researchers to question whether team work engagement does exist as a
distinct construct from work engagement.
Nonetheless, work engagement is likely to be relevant at the team level, as a molar
motivational construct that comprises affective and cognitive components. Accounting
for individual trait differences, work events and the work environment are likely to
influence team members in a similar way, not only in terms of the affective experiences
but also in what motivation is concerned. Team members usually share the same
resources, the same team leader, the same customers, the same events, the same
co-workers, and even the same workspace. According to affective events theory (Weiss &
Cropanzano, 1996), it is likely that people experiencing the same events have similar
affective experiences. Some evidence has been reported on mood convergence between
people who work together: group affective tone (George, 1996), mood linkage (Trottedel,
Kellett, & Briner, 1998), or emotional contagion (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994).
Norms of emotional expression (Sutton, 1991), that are conveyed to everyone in the same
team, may also be considered relevant for the emergence of a common affective state,
facilitating (‘everyone should be cheerful and energetic’) or inhibiting (‘we do not talk
about our feelings, good or bad’) its development. Finally, several theories of work
motivation highlight the interaction of person and situation, arguing that some work
characteristics might foster motivation (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Lawler, 1994). When
sharing working characteristics, it is likely, then, that the level of motivation of team
members will converge.
Considering these ideas, it is not unlikely that team members develop similar affective,
cognitive, and motivational states. However, should researchers consider that work
engagement at the team level is qualitatively different than the weighted mean of
individual work engagement?
Some authors have already started to consider certain dynamics and variables that may
characterize engagement at the team level. Bakker, Albrecht, and Leiter (2011) propose
that collective engagement refers to the engagement of the team/group (team vigour,
team dedication, and team absorption), as perceived by individual employees and that it
might exist due to emotional contagion (Hatfield et al., 1994) among team members. This
perspective on team work engagement highlights essentially an affective dimension of
the collective construct, and not so much a cognitive or motivational one. Torrente et al.
(2012a) also state that emotional contagion could be the mechanism underlying team
work engagement. They further propose a specific definition of team work engagement
as a positive, fulfilling, work-related, and shared psychological state characterized by team
vigour, dedication, and absorption. Through structural equation modelling, and using 62
teams from 13 organizations, they reported evidence for a mediation role of team work
engagement between social resources (supportive team climate, coordination, and team
work) and team performance, as assessed by the supervisor. This model is the first one that
accounts for team-level variables in explaining the existence of team work engagement
and for its relationship with team performance. Even so, previous research had already
linked some social resources with individual work engagement. For example, Hakanen
Team work engagement 417

et al. (2006) report higher levels of work engagement in Finnish teachers with high levels
of social resources, such as supportive social climate. Schaufeli, Bakker, and Van Rhenen
(2009) replicated this finding among managers from a Dutch telecom company in a
longitudinal study. These findings suggest that social resources are not an exclusive
antecedent of team work engagement. Also, Torrente et al.’s (2012b) model fails to
integrate what we already know about team processes and team effectiveness, and
essentially represents a homologous (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) transposition of the
individual-level model of engagement, therefore overlooking possible important differ-
ences between levels.
Overall, previous research on work engagement in teams has some limitations. Most
studies do not present a clear definition of the construct or a theoretical model for team
work engagement that accounts for variables exclusively relevant in the context of teams.
Even when considering team-relevant variables and team members’ interaction, research
on team work engagement has not yet been integrated within the specific literature on
teams. In the next section, we attempt to overcome these limitations, by presenting a
model for team work engagement emergence based on the existing team effectiveness
literature.
Defining team work engagement
Team work engagement is as a shared, positive and fulfilling, motivational emergent
state of work-related well-being. Just like individual-level work engagement (Schaufeli &
Bakker, 2004; Shaufeli & Bakker, 2010), team work engagement is proposed as a
multidimensional construct characterized by affective and cognitive dimensions: team
vigour, team dedication, and team absorption. Team vigour stands for high levels of
energy and for an expression of willingness to invest effort in work and persistence in
the face of difficulties (e.g., conflict, bad performance feedback); for example, team
members enthusiastically encourage demoralized colleagues and explicitly express their
desire to continue working. Team dedication is a shared strong involvement in work
and an expression of a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and
challenge while doing so; for example, team members talk to each other and to others
(external to the team) about the importance of their work and about the thrill they feel
concerning their work. Team absorption represents a shared focused attention on
work, whereby team members experience and express difficulties detaching them-
selves from work, such as team members talk about their work during breaks,
commenting on time passing quickly, and not engaging in non-work-related interactions
when working.
Keeping functional equivalence with the work engagement definition proposed by
Schaufeli and Bakker (2003), this emergent state will lead to team effectiveness. However,
this definition allows for the conceptualization of a different construct’s structure, based
on the interaction patterns among the team members and reflects two essential constructs
rooted in the literature on teams and teamwork: emergent states and shared constructs.
Emergent states
Whereas Torrente et al. (2012b) define team work engagement as a shared psychological
state, we propose that team work engagement is an emergent state, something that is
exclusive to teams and cannot be found in individuals. The idea of an emergent state has
been explored in theories of chaos, self-organization, and complexity as important to
418 Patrıcia L. Costa et al.

understand how individuals contribute to organizational effectiveness (Kozlowski, Chao,
Grand, Braun, & Kuljanin, 2013; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Marks et al. (2001) distinguish
between team processes and team emergent states, discriminating two different aspects
of the life of work teams fundamental for their understanding. Team processes are
‘member’s interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive,
verbal, and behavioural activities directed towards organizing taskwork to achieve
collective goals’ (p. 357). Team processes involve the interaction of team members with
each other and with their task environment and are used to direct, align, and monitor what
members are doing. For example, strategy formulation, coordination, and tracking
resources are team processes. On the other hand, emergent states are properties of the
team that are dynamic in nature and that vary as a function of: team context, inputs,
processes, and outcomes. Emergent states describe cognitive, motivational, and affective
states of teams. Constructs such as collective efficacy, cohesion, or team potency are
emergent states (Kozlowski & Chao, 2012) because they refer to team qualities that
represent members’ attitudes, values, cognitions, and motivations and not interaction
processes.
Team work engagement is considered an emergent state that ‘originates in the
cognition, affect, behaviours, or other characteristics of individuals, is amplified by their
interactions, and manifests at a higher level’ (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000, p. 55). Its structure
depends on team experiences, namely on their members’ interactions during team
processes. For example, a certain sales team may have a low level of team work
engagement (e.g., low motivation to work, low levels of persistence, and low pride in their
work) in a context of a diminished amount of sales, constant conflicts between team
members, a lack of feedback and orientation, and aggressive and depreciative comments
from the leader. The same team’s level of engagement may start to increase when one of
those elements change: a new leader who is capable of clear goal setting and who tends to
display an energetic mood, a boost of the sales, a better management of the conflicts,
among others. These changes in team work engagement are not directly dependent on
objective events, but rather on the changes those events bring to the interaction between
team members.
It is the fact of being an emergent state that departs the construct of team work
engagement from individual-level work engagement – it does not depend on job resources
but essentially on the complex interplay of team’s inputs, processes, and outputs, and on
team members’ interactions. This conceptualization of team work engagement is more
complex than the ones previously presented in the literature. Yet, it reflects the
complexity inherent to human systems and is embedded in actual models for
conceptualizing teamwork.
Shared
The second main difference between team and individual work engagement is the
assumption of sharedness, already present in previous definitions of team work
engagement. The implication of being a shared state is that team members must have
similar perceptions about their collective degree of work engagement. According to
Kozlowski and Klein (2000), emergent constructs may be the result either of
composition (following additive or averaging combination rules) or compilation
(following nonlinear combination rules such as proportion or indices of variance)
processes. The combination rules of the lower-level units to form the higher-level
emergent state should be consistent with the previous theoretical conceptualization of
Team work engagement 419