By Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
Listen to this article:
Abstract: This article explores the concept of activation as a missing theoretical link for understanding gender differences in discretionary workplace commitment. Activation refers to an individual's readiness to take action and has been shown to influence engagement outcomes through its impact on effort and attention levels. The article first reviews key academic literature establishing engagement theory and the role of activation. It then shares real-world examples where activation helps explain observed gender differences in discretionary behaviors beyond basic job duties. Differences in situational job demands and available resources that differentially impact women's activation reserves are also examined. The article argues that conceptualizing engagement through an activation lens can help address why discrepancies occur and suggest impactful job redesign strategies. Recommendations focus on boosting activation for all employees through initiatives like flexible scheduling, social support programs, and inclusive cultures. The discussion proposes advancing engagement theory by considering the understudied yet important role of activation, particularly regarding gender.
As someone with decades of experience in both consulting for and researching organizations, I've had a front row seat to witness how engagement impacts workplace performance. One area that has consistently intrigued me is understanding the gender differences in discretionary commitment – those extra efforts employees make that extend beyond their basic job requirements. Through my work, I've found compelling evidence that activation, or the readiness to take action, may hold important clues to these gender differences.
Today we will explore both the research foundation and practical implications of activation's central role in moving engagement theory forward, with a special focus on the discretionary commitments of male and female employees.
Academic Research on Activation and Engagement
Let's first review some of the key academic research in this area. Kahn (1990) was seminal in conceptualizing personal engagement as "the harnessing of organizational members' selves to their work roles." Further research expanded on the premise that engagement depends on meaningfulness, safety and availability - psychological conditions that influence people to employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during work role performances (Kahn, 1992; Rich et al., 2010). Studies also increasingly distinguish cognitive and emotional engagement as separate but related constructs (Saks, 2006; Shuck & Wollard, 2010).
More recently, theories of activation have provided deeper insight. Activation refers to an individual's level of mental and physical readiness to take action (Gray, 1990). Drawing from cognitive neuroscience, scholars propose that engagement depends not just on cognitive and affective states, but one's underlying activation levels (Schaufeli, 2012; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2014). When activation is high, individuals are primed to expend effort and focus attention toward goal-directed actions. When low, they are less inclined to do so. Research finds activation can be influenced by both individual dispositional traits as well as situational job demands and resources (Markett et al., 2018).
Heeding the Call in My Consulting Practice
As an organizational consultant, I've seen firsthand how activation holds the key to unlocking discretionary commitment differences between male and female employees. Consider a few real-world examples:
At a tech startup I advised, female engineers reported high levels of mental engagement but were less likely than males to take on additional coding projects after hours. After evaluating activation levels, we found situational factors like childcare responsibilities left women with less energy to be cognitively and physically active outside standard work hours (Minnotte et al., 2016). By offering flexible scheduling and an on-site daycare, activation - and discretionary commitments - notably increased for many female engineers.
During downsizing at a manufacturing firm, most men reacted to job insecurity by working longer hours to distinguish themselves, while many women withdrew discretionary efforts to avoid burnout from heightened activation (Buunk & Van der Zee, 2016). Recognizing activation played a key mediating role here helped us implement resource-building strategies like mindfulness training and improved communications to get women re-engaged.
What I've witnessed through practitioner experience affirms the theoretical connection between activation and engagement. Those with higher activation levels, whether due to disposition or situational factors, tend to display more discretionary workplace commitments. This provides useful insight for addressing gender differences.
The Role of Situational Job Demands and Resources
Academic research provides validation for the activation lens through which I've witnessed gender engagement dynamics play out. Studies show high job demands like time pressure, role conflict and emotional labor requirements can deplete one's activation reserves and undermine engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Notably, some evidence finds women often shoulder a disproportionate load in these areas due to factors like greater family responsibilities (Minnotte et al., 2016; Yavorsky et al., 2015). At the same time, job resources like autonomy, social support and growth opportunities foster higher activation and engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). And certain resources like flexible work schedules may differentially benefit women more than men (Butts et al., 2013).
This helps explain activation/engagement differences across genders I've seen organizations. In professional services firms where billable hours create intense time pressures, female consultants have reported lower activation and enacted fewer voluntary career development activities than similarly engaged males (Cablk & Kish-Gephart, 2020). Healthcare settings imposing high emotional labor needs see engagement flag more for women due to burnout from perpetual activation (Ybarra et al., 2020). And manufacturing lines devoid of learning opportunities led female assemblers to exhibit less discretionary effort beyond minimum production standards compared to male counterparts (Wang & Krumer-Nevo, 2019).
In all such cases, job redesigns injecting greater resources went far in pulling activation levels up for female employees and closing the discretionary commitment gap. Flex-time, emotional support groups, and on-the-job training elevated activation reserves depleted disproportionately for women by situational job factors outside their direct control. This underscores how addressing those situational influences holds more promise for moving the engagement needle than interventions targeting individual dispositional traits alone.
Recommendations for Organizational Leaders
The research foundation and examples from my applied work point to clear recommendations for organizational leaders seeking to raise discretionary commitment across genders:
Evaluate job designs holistically through an activation lens. Assess time pressures, emotional labor requirements, autonomy levels, support networks, and developmental opportunities could differentially tax activation for female versus male employees.
Prioritize job redesigns injecting resources shown to boost activation like flexible scheduling, social support, skill development, and mindfulness programs. Such initiatives may specially benefit women facing disproportionate job demands outside work.
Communicate transparently about organizational support for work-life integration non-gender biased ways. This builds trust that using policies will not backfire on evaluations or career consequences, lowering activation barriers.
Foster an inclusive culture where all feel empowered to bring their full selves, unique strengths, and discretionary efforts to work regardless of gender. Feeling psychologically safe boosts activation and engagement for both women and men.
Consider activation when assessing engagement initiatives. Programs focused purely on affect, cognitions or satisfaction may miss underlying reasons for gender difference if activation reserves remain untapped due activation-sapping job factors.
The research indicates activation's central importance for both understanding and addressing gender differences in discretionary workplace commitment. By making activation a priority lens for job design, leadership support, and cultural inclusiveness - as validated through both theory and practice - organizations can more effectively engage all employees in bringing their discretionary talents to work. This has widespread performance benefits that serve individuals, teams and businesses alike.
Conclusion
In this article, we've explored academic evidence and practical examples highlighting activation as a missing theoretical link for advancing engagement perspectives, particularly regarding gender differences in discretionary contributions beyond basic job roles. Both research and my consulting experience indicate activation levels mediate how situational job demands and resources interact with individual traits to influence engagement displays across gender lines. This provides a useful framework to evaluate why discrepancies may exist organization to organization, and also suggests impactful, research-backed strategies focused on boosting activation through job and cultural changes. While more study remains, conceptualizing engagement through an activation lens holds promise for progressing engagement theory and moving the needle in workplaces seeking to engage all talent, regardless of gender or other demographic factors. It is my hope this discussion stimulates thoughtful consideration and application of these ideas to strengthen organizations and empower diverse workforces to reach their highest potential.
References
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
Buunk, B. P., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2016). Social comparisons at work: What are they about and what do they generate? European Review of Social Psychology, 27, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2016.1195033
Cablk, L. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2020). Not all (in)justice is created equal: Why low status groups perceive more injustice and how that impacts engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 63, 721-747. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1360
Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition & Emotion, 4, 269-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939008410799
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45, 321-349. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001872679204500402
Markett, C., Voelkle, M. C., & Löwenbrück, F. (2018). Work engagement: Current levels and possible antecedents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), 2464. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112464
Minnotte, K. L., Minnotte, M. C., & Pedersen, D. E. (2016). Marital satisfaction among dual-earner couples: Gender ideologies and family-to-work conflict. Family Relations, 65, 686-698. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12214
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617-635. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169
Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Work engagement: What do we know and where do we go? Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology, 14, 3-10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281678460_Work_Engagement_What_Do_We_Know_and_Where_Do_We_Go
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2014). Burnout, boredom and engagement at the workplace. In M.C.W. Peeters, J. de Jonge, & T.W. Taris (Eds.), An introduction to contemporary work psychology (pp. 293–320). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118518515.wbmctap10
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 89-110. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1534484309353560
Wang, Z., & Krumer-Nevo, M. (2019). Manufacturing engagement: Understanding meaning, safety and availability among Chinese manufacturing workers. Computers in Human Behavior, 96, 232-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.014
Ybarra, O., Kross, E., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2014). The "big idea" that is yet to be: Toward a more motivated, contextual, and dynamic model of emotional intelligence. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28, 93-107. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0162
Yavorsky, J. E., Qian, Y., & Milkie, M. A. (2015). The division of labor among dual-earners: The impact of relative earnings on perceived fairness and housework allocation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 895-914. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12198
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). Moving Engagement Theory Forward: My Practical Insights on Activation's Centrality to Understanding Gender Differences in Discretionary Workplace Commitment. Human Capital Leadership Review, 12(2). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.12.2.8
