Background information & Past Research
Researchers agree upon the importance of defining and studying this job attitude because of the important individual and organizational motivation and performance (Khan et al. 2011). Furthermore, job involvement is important to individuals because it can influence their quality of life, given that work occupies such a large amount of people’s everyday lives (Brown, 1996). Throughout the literature, job involvement is either defined by, linked with, or a determinant of job engagement. However, the concepts are distinct from one another. According to Saks (2006), job engagement reflects how employees utilize themselves throughout performance on their jobs, and includes two additional elements of emotion and behavior. Therefore, job involvement is the strict cognitive evaluation of one’s job and how it pertains to whom that person is as an individual, while engagement additionally reflects one’s affect toward his/her job and the resulting behaviors they exhibit.
The struggle to differentiate job involvement from other constructs can be seen throughout the history of its research. Lodahl and Kejner (1965) were among the first to formally define job involvement, synthesizing various names and definitions from previous research. Initially, Lodahl and Kejner defined job involvement as how much work
performance affects self-esteem. In other words, it reflects how individuals internalize how well they do in their work and the importance of that assessment on one self-worth. Lodahl and Kejner highlight that anindividual with high job involvement is someone for whom work is psychologically important, which consequently means he/she is very affected by anything that happens at work. Within their initial study, Lodahl and Kejner identified job involvement as a multidimensional construct.
However, Lawler and Hall (1970) felt the literature was still ambiguous in describing exactly what job involvement includes, how it is defined and
especially how the construct relates to other job attitudes. The vast majority of research at the time did not adequately account for the difference between job involvement and many of the aspects included in measuring job satisfaction (Lawler & Hall, 1970). Additionally, researchers had not yet distinguished job involvement from motivation, specifically intrinsic motivation. So Lawler and Hall defined job involvement exclusively as the psychological importance of work. However, they removed the element of the evaluation of that importance on an individual’s self-esteem.
In an attempt to refine the literature on job involvement, Brooke, Russell and Price (1988) explored the discriminant validity between job involvement and the two related constructs of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. They found that individuals recognize a difference between the three concepts, and identify job involvement as the degree to which one is absorbed in their job. It is important to note that by Brooke et al.’s definition job involvement does not include how one’s absorption with work affects one’s self-concept. Therefore, at this point in the research job involvement was strictly viewed as a cognitive belief of the importance of one’s work. As such, job involvement is separate from related constructs.
Around the late 1980s somewhat of a consensus within the research appeared by accepting Lodahl and Kejner’s (1965) original definition of job involvement consisting of both the level of importance of one’s work, as well as the extent to which one actively participates in work. However, this research did not eliminate the similarity between job involvement and the similar constructs previously mentioned (Baotham, 2013). In response, Kanungo (1982) distinguished general and specific forms of the construct. This means job involvement pertains only to an individual’s job responsibilities, while work involvement is one’s overall identification with and active participation in work. The distinction between these two levels remains today.
The struggle to differentiate job involvement from other constructs can be seen throughout the history of its research. Lodahl and Kejner (1965) were among the first to formally define job involvement, synthesizing various names and definitions from previous research. Initially, Lodahl and Kejner defined job involvement as how much work
performance affects self-esteem. In other words, it reflects how individuals internalize how well they do in their work and the importance of that assessment on one self-worth. Lodahl and Kejner highlight that anindividual with high job involvement is someone for whom work is psychologically important, which consequently means he/she is very affected by anything that happens at work. Within their initial study, Lodahl and Kejner identified job involvement as a multidimensional construct.
However, Lawler and Hall (1970) felt the literature was still ambiguous in describing exactly what job involvement includes, how it is defined and
especially how the construct relates to other job attitudes. The vast majority of research at the time did not adequately account for the difference between job involvement and many of the aspects included in measuring job satisfaction (Lawler & Hall, 1970). Additionally, researchers had not yet distinguished job involvement from motivation, specifically intrinsic motivation. So Lawler and Hall defined job involvement exclusively as the psychological importance of work. However, they removed the element of the evaluation of that importance on an individual’s self-esteem.
In an attempt to refine the literature on job involvement, Brooke, Russell and Price (1988) explored the discriminant validity between job involvement and the two related constructs of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. They found that individuals recognize a difference between the three concepts, and identify job involvement as the degree to which one is absorbed in their job. It is important to note that by Brooke et al.’s definition job involvement does not include how one’s absorption with work affects one’s self-concept. Therefore, at this point in the research job involvement was strictly viewed as a cognitive belief of the importance of one’s work. As such, job involvement is separate from related constructs.
Around the late 1980s somewhat of a consensus within the research appeared by accepting Lodahl and Kejner’s (1965) original definition of job involvement consisting of both the level of importance of one’s work, as well as the extent to which one actively participates in work. However, this research did not eliminate the similarity between job involvement and the similar constructs previously mentioned (Baotham, 2013). In response, Kanungo (1982) distinguished general and specific forms of the construct. This means job involvement pertains only to an individual’s job responsibilities, while work involvement is one’s overall identification with and active participation in work. The distinction between these two levels remains today.