Development and Initial Validation of the Multidimensional Employee Engagement Instrument (MEEI): A Mixed-Methods Scale Development Study

Abstract

Employee engagement remains one of the most widely studied constructs in organizational research. However, the ever-increasing involvement of Generation Z and Generation Y employees in the workplace raises the question of whether current employee engagement measuring tools are appropriate. The literature states that Generation Z employees are different than Generation X and the Baby Boomers. In this study, we developed and provided initial validation for a contemporary multidimensional measure of employee engagement using DeVellis and Thorpe’s nine-step scale development process. A sequential mixed-methods design integrated a comprehensive literature review, completed in 2024, phenomenological interviews with employees representing Generations X, Y, and Z, and psychometric evaluation of the resulting instrument. Contrary to expectations derived from portions of the generational literature, participants described a remarkably similar understanding of what employee engagement is across generations. However, the final factors show that the first factor of the six-factor instrument focuses on Person-Job Values/Passion/Purpose Fit, which is supported in the 2024–2025 literature; with factors two, three, and four aligning with the contemporary literature: Person-Colleague Fit, Person-Supervisor Fit, Person-Community Fit. The fifth factor focused on Person-Job Flexibility Fit, which is supported in the 2024–2025 literature. The sixth factor reflects Person-Organization Fit and aligns with the contemporary literature. Confirmatory factor analyses and validity testing provided initial evidence supporting the reliability and construct validity of the Multidimensional Employee Engagement Instrument (MEEI). The findings suggest that employee engagement is not simply an individual psychological state, but a multidimensional person–environment fit construct reflecting employees’ alignment with higher-order values: work, colleagues, supervisors, community, flexibility, and organizations. This study contributes a theoretically grounded and psychometrically supported instrument for advancing employee engagement research and practice.

1. Introduction

Our purpose in this research study is to develop a new measurement instrument for employee engagement using scale development data from Generation Z, Generation Y, and Generation X employees. Headley (2024), Lynn (2023), Salcedo (2016), and B. Winston et al. (2024) used the Utrecht Employee Engagement measure developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002) in previous research on employee engagement. While the Utrecht Work Engagement instrument has been used successfully since its inception, recent research has suggested that Generation Z employees may differ from previous generations in their workplace expectations, values, and motivational preferences (Dehghan Nayeri et al., 2026; Goessling, 2017; Roy et al., 2025; Syafani et al., 2025; Yadav et al., 2025). This is important because Schaufeli et al. developed their instrument in 2002. Generation Z members, born between 1995 and 2009 (Goh & Lee, 2018), would have been, at the oldest, seven years old and not yet part of the workforce during the original scale development.

The absence of Generation Z employees from Schaufeli et al.’s (2002, p. 71) scale development study is not a sufficient reason to develop a new employee engagement instrument. However, Schaufeli et al. conceptualized engagement primarily as the opposite of burnout and developed their items accordingly. Since that time, employee engagement research has expanded to include additional perspectives emphasizing meaningful work, organizational support, relationships, autonomy, person–environment fit, and employee well-being. These developments raise the question of whether employee engagement encompasses dimensions beyond the absence of burnout and whether contemporary employees, including Generation Z, describe engagement in ways that extend beyond the original conceptualization.

P. Kumar and Padhi (2022) developed a nine-factor employee engagement instrument using a sample of 850 Indian employees aged 25–40 (p. 2265). The youngest participants in their sample would have included Generation Z employees, given that the oldest Generation Z employees would have been 27 years old at the time of the study. Like Schaufeli et al. (2002), P. Kumar and Padhi built upon the existing employee engagement literature while expanding the conceptualization of engagement through additional dimensions identified in their research. Their work further suggests that employee engagement may be broader than earlier conceptualizations and may benefit from continued examination using contemporary employee populations.

In this study, we present a literature review of employee engagement and the three youngest generations in the workplace: (a) Generation Z, (b) Generation Y, and (c) Generation X. We then present the qualitative interview questions that emerged from our literature review and use a phenomenological study to explore how employees describe highly engaging work experiences and the conditions that contribute to those experiences. Although prior research has suggested possible generational differences, the qualitative findings in this study revealed substantial thematic similarity across the three generations. These findings informed the development of an initial employee engagement item pool, which was substantially evaluated through a scale development study using a quota sample of Generation Z, Generation Y, and Generation X employees.

According to Howe and Strauss (2007), members of a generation are:

Shaped by events or circumstances according to which phase of life its members occupy. As each generation ages into the next phase—from youth to young adulthood to midlife to elderhood—its attitudes and behaviors mature, producing new currents in the public mood.

(p. 42)

The study is presented in three sequential phases.

2. Literature Review

In this literature review, we present the definitions and components of employee engagement from the theoretical literature. We then present our understanding of the three generations included in this study and their similarities and differences.

2.1. Employee Engagement

Ahmed et al. (2015) defined employee engagement as employees’ “psychological and mental attachment with [the] organization” (p. 634). Similarly, Dai and Qin (2016) defined an engaged employee as someone who is “fully absorbed by and enthusiastic about their work and so takes positive action to further the organization’s reputation and interests” (p. 48). This emphasis on attachment to the organization aligns with person-organization fit (Chuang et al., 2016), suggesting that employees’ perceptions of organizational alignment may represent an important antecedent of employee engagement.

May et al. (2004) identified meaningfulness, psychological safety, and availability as important antecedents of engagement. Schaufeli et al. (2002) conceptualized engagement through the dimensions of vigor, dedication, and absorption, with vigor representing personal energy and effort, dedication reflecting commitment and enthusiasm, and absorption describing complete immersion in work. Chaudhary et al. (2011) adopted these dimensions in their work, while Chass and Balu (2018) emphasized employee commitment to both assigned responsibilities and the psychological contract R. S. Hassan et al. (2024) similarly described employee engagement as “a positive, satisfying, affective motivational state of work-related wellbeing” (p. 5). Collectively, these perspectives suggest that engagement encompasses meaningful work, commitment, energy, and psychological investment in one’s role.

Kahn’s (1990) foundational theory proposed that employees determine their level of engagement by considering three questions:

• How meaningful is it to me to bring myself into this performance? (p. 703)
• How safe is it to do so? (p. 703).
• How available am I to do so? (p. 703).

Kahn’s framework continues to provide one of the most influential explanations of why employees choose to invest themselves cognitively, emotionally, and physically in their work.

Lynn (2023) argued that meaningful work is rooted in intrinsic motivation. According to self-determination theory, people pursue activities because they are inherently enjoyable or personally rewarding (Deci et al., 1989; Deci & Ryan, 2014; Gagné & Deci, 2014; Johnson, 2013; H. Kumar & Raghavendran, 2013). Intrinsic motivation strengthens employees’ connection to their work, resulting in greater passion and engagement (H. Kumar & Raghavendran, 2013). Self-determination theory further suggests that engagement increases when employees experience autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2014; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Employees who feel capable, empowered, and connected to others are more likely to report higher levels of motivation, job satisfaction, well-being, and engagement.

Baumeister and Leary (1995) proposed that individuals seek meaning through purpose, values, efficacy, and self-worth. Cartwright and Holmes (2006) similarly argued that meaningful work emerges from the interaction between an individual’s internal values and the workplace context. They suggested that employees continually evaluate where they belong, how they relate to others, and how they contribute value to the organization. Employees who perceive alignment between their personal values and their work environment are therefore more likely to experience meaningful work and higher levels of engagement. Salcedo (2016) further reported that work engagement is positively associated with job satisfaction.

Arshad et al. (2022) demonstrated that empowering leadership fosters organizational identity, autonomy, and work engagement by encouraging participation in decision-making and providing employees with the resources needed to succeed. Likewise, A. Hassan and Ahmed (2011) linked engagement to high levels of involvement and affective energy. Shuck et al. (2017) described engaged employees as individuals who bring their full cognitive, emotional, and physical selves into their work roles.

Kahn (1990) further characterized engagement as the simultaneous physical, cognitive, and emotional expression of the preferred self during work role performance. Engaged employees become immersed in their work, remain attentive to task accomplishment, and develop meaningful connections with colleagues while expressing their values, beliefs, and authentic identities through their work.

Schaufeli et al. (2002) similarly described engaged employees as energetic, resilient, enthusiastic, and proud of their work. These employees demonstrate persistence during challenges, willingly invest effort in accomplishing organizational goals, and often engage in behaviors that extend beyond formal job requirements.

Robinson et al. (2004) argued that employee engagement extends beyond organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior by emphasizing the reciprocal relationship between employees and organizations. They identified job enrichment and role fit as important antecedents of meaningful work, which subsequently influences engagement. Similarly, Saks (2006) proposed that engagement is best understood through social exchange theory, in which trust, loyalty, and reciprocal support strengthen employees’ willingness to invest themselves in their work.

More recently, Farzana and Charoensukmongkol (2024) described engagement as employees’ participation, happiness, and passion for their work, reflected in their cognitive and emotional connection to meaningful tasks. They further suggested that employees are more engaged when they perceive their work as worthwhile, aligned with their personal values, supported by psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995), and consistent with their competencies. Naveed and Zia (2024) likewise found that engaged employees demonstrate enthusiasm, commitment, and collaboration that contribute to improved organizational performance. Headley (2024) reported that employee engagement is positively associated with perceived organizational support and organizational commitment.

Collectively, the employee engagement literature suggests that engagement is a multidimensional construct influenced by meaningful work, organizational support, supervisory relationships, colleague relationships, autonomy, trust, purpose, and the alignment between employees and their work environments. While the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2002) remains one of the most widely used measures of employee engagement, subsequent scholarship has expanded the conceptualization of engagement beyond vigor, dedication, and absorption to include person–environment fit, psychological empowerment, social exchange, and employee well-being. These developments provided the theoretical foundation for the present study and informed the qualitative exploration used to develop a contemporary measure of employee engagement.

2.2. Operationalized Definition of Employee Engagement

Drawing from the employee engagement literature reviewed above, we developed an operationalized definition to guide the qualitative phase of this scale development study. The operationalized definition synthesized the recurring concepts identified across the literature and served as the foundation for the phenomenological interview protocol. We chose to use Co-pilot to reword our academic-voice definition so that the voice would be compatible with Generation Z and Y employees:

Employee engagement is a multidimensional psychological state in which employees are intrinsically motivated to invest cognitive, emotional, and behavioral energy into their work. Engaged employees find their work meaningful, perceive alignment between their personal values and their work, and experience supportive relationships with their supervisors, colleagues, organizations, and communities. They feel competent, valued, empowered, and connected to their work environment, which encourages them to contribute beyond formal job requirements. Employee engagement is strengthened when employees receive organizational support, autonomy, adequate resources, and positive interpersonal relationships that foster trust, purpose, and well-being. This operationalized definition is informed by the employee engagement literature reviewed above. It is consistent with B. Winston and Gilbert’s (2024) finding that employees are more engaged when they perceive their supervisors as demonstrating ethical behavior.

(Reworded by Co-pilot AI Chatbot)

The operationalized definition served as the basis for the following qualitative research question:

What motivates employees to be highly engaged in their work? The following phenomenological interview questions emerge from the operationalized definition:

• IQ1—Describe a work situation in which you felt happy and motivated to work on a project to the extent that you were excited to start work and looked forward to resuming work on the task. Please state why you felt happy and motivated to work on this task.
• IQ2—Describe a work situation in which you willingly, without being asked, went beyond expected work behaviors such as working late without compensation, expending your own funds to purchase tools or supplies, etc., so that you could willingly commit your time and resources to completing a task.
• IQ3—Describe a work situation in which you engaged in a work task because you wanted to support your coworkers, supervisor, or organization. Describe why you wanted to support your coworkers, supervisors, or organization.
• IQ4—Describe a work situation in which you wholeheartedly engaged in the work because your supervisor or organization gave you autonomy to plan and carry out your work, and empowered you with the authority and the resources to do your work. Describe why you felt so committed to completing the task.
• IQ5—Describe a work situation in which you wholeheartedly engaged in the work because you wanted to reciprocate to the organization and your supervisor for all the care that they gave you.

2.3. Generation Z

Goh and Lee (2018) reported that Generation Z members were born between 1995 and 2009. However, they cautioned against using rigid age boundaries because generational transitions are often gradual, with younger members of one generation exhibiting characteristics of the next generation and older members retaining characteristics of the previous generation. According to Alves (2024), Generation Z was projected to comprise approximately 30% of the workforce by 2024, underscoring the importance of including this generation in contemporary employee engagement research.

Researchers have suggested that Generation Z employees value diversity, inclusion, work–life balance, and meaningful work while also demonstrating independence, determination, and creativity (Alves, 2024). Gabrielova and Buchko (2021) similarly described Generation Z employees as individuals who seek opportunities to contribute within organizations while enjoying their work. They further reported that Generation Z employees value flexible work arrangements, paid time off, and workplaces that support personal well-being.

Leadership also appears to influence Generation Z employees’ workplace experiences. Gabrielova and Buchko (2021) suggested that Generation Z employees respond positively to transformational leadership, while McGaha (2018) reported that they value supervisors who communicate effectively, foster inclusive cultures, demonstrate emotional intelligence, provide mentorship, exhibit competence, and promote equality.

Additional research has characterized Generation Z employees as technologically proficient, independent problem solvers, and comfortable using digital technologies (Dobrowolski et al., 2022; Leslie et al., 2021). Although often described as digital natives, Leslie et al. (2021) found that Generation Z employees continue to value face-to-face communication when available. Researchers have also suggested that Generation Z employees value autonomy, flexibility, and continuous feedback in the workplace (Gabrielova & Buchko, 2021; Leslie et al., 2021).

Collectively, the literature suggests that Generation Z employees may place particular emphasis on meaningful work, flexibility, supportive leadership, autonomy, and opportunities to contribute. These characteristics provided a rationale for including Generation Z employees in the present study while recognizing that many of these preferences have also been reported among employees from other generations.

From the literature about Generation Z, we suggest the following additional interview questions:

• IQ6—Tell me how important the following are to your engagement in the workplace: (a) diversity, (b) inclusion, (c) work–life balance, and (d) opportunity to be creative.

Following our factor analysis, we reviewed the literature again. We found support for Generation Z’s interest in higher-order values supporting the Person-Values/Passion/Purpose fit factor from the work by Roy et al. (2025), Dehghan Nayeri et al. (2026). We also found support for person-flexibility from the work of Yadav et al. (2025), Syafani et al. (2025), and Goessling (2017).

2.4. Generation Y

According to Howe and Strauss (2009), Generation Y, commonly referred to as Millennials, was born between 1982 and 1995. Ng et al. (2010) suggested that Millennials, having observed the demanding work lives of many Baby Boomer parents, place greater emphasis on achieving balance between work and personal life. They reported that Millennials seek meaningful work, competitive compensation, workplace flexibility, and opportunities to prioritize family responsibilities. Nguyen (2023) likewise noted that Millennials value meaningful work and flexibility, although some researchers have characterized this generation as more willing to change employers than previous generations.

Pyöriä et al. (2017) challenged the common perception that Millennials value work less than older generations. Instead, they found that Millennials desire meaningful work, seek balance between professional and personal life, and value opportunities to contribute to both organizational success and the broader community. Their findings suggest that Millennials remain highly committed to work when they perceive their work as meaningful and aligned with their personal values.

Rubiano-Moreno et al. (2023) reported that Millennials are comfortable with digital technologies and frequently integrate work and personal life. Their study also found that Millennials demonstrate strong task dedication and place considerable value on collaboration within workgroups. These characteristics align closely with several antecedents of employee engagement identified earlier in this literature review.

Gabrielova and Buchko (2021) compared Generation Y and Generation Z employees, suggesting that Millennials may be somewhat more willing to take risks, while both generations value frequent feedback and collaborative work environments. Although researchers have identified some differences between the two generations, considerable overlap exists in their preferences for meaningful work, flexibility, supportive leadership, and opportunities for personal contribution.

2.5. Generation X

According to Howe and Strauss (2007), Generation X members were born between 1961 and 1981. Howe and Strauss described Generation X employees as valuing independence, personal responsibility, and free agency over long-term organizational loyalty. Howe and Strauss also suggested that Generation X members often prefer making individual contributions rather than participating extensively in civic or organizational activities.

Krahn and Galambos (2014) reported that Generation X employees are intrinsically motivated by challenging work that offers variety, collaboration, and opportunities to make meaningful contributions at both local and global levels. These characteristics suggest that meaningful work and opportunities for impact remain important antecedents of engagement for this generation.

Jin and Rounds (2012), in their longitudinal study of changing work values, found that Generation X employees tended to emphasize intrinsic work values during early adulthood but gradually placed greater importance on extrinsic values as their careers and family responsibilities evolved. This finding suggests that employees’ work values may change across the lifespan, reinforcing the importance of examining employee engagement across multiple generations rather than focusing on a single age cohort.

Collectively, the generational literature suggests that researchers have identified possible differences in workplace values, motivations, and preferences among Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z employees. At the same time, substantial overlap exists across the three generations, particularly regarding the importance of meaningful work, supportive leadership, flexibility, autonomy, collaboration, and opportunities to contribute. These observations provided the rationale for including employees from all three generations in the qualitative phase of this study to explore how employee engagement is experienced across contemporary workplaces.

3. Qualitative Study Method

A phenomenological case study design was selected to explore employees’ lived experiences of engagement and the antecedent conditions that contributed to those experiences. This approach was appropriate because the purpose of the qualitative phase was to understand how participants experienced employee engagement and to identify recurring concepts that could inform the development of a new employee engagement measurement instrument.

Participant recruitment was guided by B. E. Winston’s (2023) review of 14 qualitative bounded case studies, which found that thematic saturation was commonly achieved with approximately five participants. Accordingly, the study initially recruited five participants from each of the three generations included in this research: Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z. Informed consent forms are located in Appendix A and Appendix B.

Interviews were conducted during October 2024, using Zoom Meetings and transcribed using Descript. The transcripts were then imported into Intellectus Qualitative (Intellectus Statistics, 2023) to assist with the initial coding process. Intellectus Qualitative (Intellectus Statistics, 2024) generated preliminary AI-assisted codes based on recurring concepts identified within the transcripts, which the research team manually reviewed and verified. The research team subsequently reviewed each transcript, evaluated the AI-generated codes against the participants’ narratives and the employee engagement literature, and refined the coding structure through an iterative process. We used the codes generated by Intelletus Qualitative but grouped the codes into six groups that aligned with the person–environment fit group of theories and employee well-being. Final coding decisions, theme development, and interpretation remained the responsibility of the researchers.

The resulting themes provided the conceptual foundation for developing the initial item pool that was subsequently evaluated during the quantitative scale development phase.

3.1. In-Depth Interviews and In Vivo Coding Results

Seven Generation X employees participated in the qualitative interviews. The fourth interview achieved thematic saturation; however, the remaining scheduled interviews were completed. Five Generation Y employees were also interviewed, with thematic saturation similarly occurring by the fourth interview. Three Generation Z employees participated in the study. The themes identified within the Generation Z interviews were consistent with those emerging from the Generation X and Generation Y participants. No meaningful generational themes unique to Generation Z were identified. Consequently, the qualitative data from all three generations were analyzed collectively to identify common antecedents of employee engagement.

Table 1. Similarity of Transcript Excerpts Across the Three Generations.

Generation	Transcript Excerpts
Generation X	Well, enjoyment of a work project and to continue working on that in part has to do with simply enjoying the nature of the work. I believe that some of this satisfaction may come from the work being well suited to the person’s temperament and giftings. That’s a big part of it.
Generation Y	I’m a people person. I enjoy being around other people and enjoy a collaborative work environment. I enjoy taking a leadership role in the project, but also doing it in a way that makes other people feel valued and heard, and where I can delegate both tasks and responsibility depending on the scope of the project and the abilities and training of the people I’m working with. So, with all that in mind, I think a situation where I feel happy and motivated to work on a project. Starting and resuming it would be where I am working with people instead of in isolation; where I have significant input into the direction of the project; and where I can make sure that everybody on it feels included and valued.
Generation Z	In my work, I do mechanical things, and I often get excited when we’re doing a part of the engine or vehicle that I have not done before, and I get to learn how to do that or something we don’t do very often, things like that. Some of the work I’m doing is exciting, and I’m excited to go to work and knock it out.

presents representative participant responses to Interview Question 1, illustrating the consistency of employee engagement experiences across the three generations. Participants described engagement in terms of meaningful work, opportunities to contribute, collaboration with others, learning, and personal fulfillment despite differences in their specific job contexts.

Interview Question 1 was:

Describe a work situation in which you felt happy and motivated to work on a project to the extent that you were excited to start work and looked forward to resuming work on the task. Please state why you felt happy and motivated to work on this task.

Although participants described different workplace experiences, the underlying engagement themes were remarkably consistent across the three generations. Generation X participants generally provided longer and more detailed narratives than Generation Y and Generation Z participants. This may reflect greater workforce experience and organizational tenure rather than substantive differences in how employee engagement was experienced.

3.2. Results of the Qualitative Study

Intellectus Qualitative software (Version 2024) was used to facilitate the qualitative analysis, and all AI-generated codes were manually checked and confirmed by the research team. Interview transcripts were uploaded into the software, and AI-assisted coding was used to generate an initial set of codes based on recurring concepts across the participants’ responses to the research question:

• What motivates employees to be highly engaged in their work?

The lead investigator independently reviewed the AI-generated codes alongside the interview transcripts. The codes were also compared with the employee engagement literature. Through an iterative review process, conceptually relevant codes were organized into broader theoretical themes reflecting established employee engagement constructs. Rather than relying solely on the AI-generated thematic structure, the researchers refined and reorganized the codes into six conceptually meaningful themes: Person-Supervisor Fit, Person-Organization Fit, Person-Job Fit, Person-Group/Colleague Fit, Person-Community Fit, and Personal Wellbeing. All AI-generated codes were retained and assigned to one of these six researcher-defined themes.

Table 2. Resultant Themes and Example Codes for the Research Question.

Theme	Codes	Frequency
Person-Supervisor Fit	AI: Recognition And Respect	4
	AI: Reciprocity	3
	AI: Empowerment Through Leadership	3
Person-Organization Fit	AI: Mission Alignment	4
	AI: Organizational Commitment	4
	AI: Belief In The Mission	3
	AI: Resource Availability	3
	AI: Sense Of Purpose	1
	AI: Resource Provision	4
	AI: Organizational Loyalty	2
	AI: Supportive Work Environment	5
Person-Job Fit	AI: Going Above And Beyond	10
	AI: Autonomy	14
	AI: Service And Dedication	3
	AI: Work Engagement	3
	AI: Creativity And Innovation	5
	AI: Adding Value	8
Person-Group/Colleague Fit	AI: Workplace Relationships	3
	AI: Teamwork And Support	3
	AI: Gratitude	3
	AI: Reciprocity And Giving Back	3
	AI: Trust And Empowerment	5
	AI: Collaborative Work Environment	3
Person-Community Fit	AI: Community Impact	6
	AI: Community Service	5
Personal Wellbeing	AI: Personal Care And Support	3
	AI: Purpose And Impact	2
	AI: Intrinsic Motivation	2
	AI: Personal Growth	3
	AI: Personal Connection To Mission	10
	AI: Job Satisfaction	3
	AI: Personal Resources	4
	AI: Personal Investment	4
	AI: Meaningful Work	4
	AI: Personal Fulfillment	4
	AI: Personal Values Alignment	2
	AI: Willingness To Help	4

AI = Artificial Intelligence-generated themes via Intellectus Qualitative.

presents the resulting thematic framework and representative AI-generated codes associated with each theme.

3.3. Themes

The qualitative analysis resulted in six overarching themes representing the primary antecedents of employee engagement identified across the participant interviews. Following review of the AI-generated preliminary codes, the researchers organized conceptually related codes into six theoretically meaningful themes: Person-Supervisor Fit, Person-Organization Fit, Person-Job Fit, Person-Group/Colleague Fit, Person-Community Fit, and Personal Wellbeing.

Collectively, these themes describe how employees experience engagement through meaningful work, supportive leadership, positive workplace relationships, organizational alignment, community connection, and personal well-being. These qualitative findings provided the conceptual foundation for developing the initial pool of employee engagement scale items that was evaluated during the quantitative phase of the study.

4. Scale Development

We followed DeVellis and Thorpe’s (2022) nine-step process for scale development. The literature review and qualitative findings satisfied Step 1 by defining the construct of employee engagement and identifying the conceptual dimensions that informed the development of the initial item pool.

Consistent with Step 2 of DeVellis and Thorpe’s (2022) framework, we selected a seven-point frequency response scale anchored by Never and Always. According to DeVellis and Thorpe, this response format allows respondents to indicate the frequency or intensity of their experiences while producing data appropriate for subsequent psychometric analyses.

4.1. Scale Development Item Pool

The qualitative analysis identified six conceptual themes that served as the foundation for developing the initial employee engagement item pool. Drawing from the qualitative findings and the employee engagement literature, scale items were written to represent each construct. The resulting item pool was designed to capture the breadth of employees’ experiences across the six dimensions of engagement identified during the qualitative phase.

The Person-Organization Fit dimension reflects the degree to which employees perceive alignment with the organization’s values, mission, culture, and supportive environment. Representative items included:

4.

My organization creates an environment where employees feel supported.

5.

I feel encouraged by my leaders to do my best work.

6.

I feel encouraged by my colleagues to do my best work.

The Person-Supervisor Fit dimension represents the quality of the relationship between employees and their immediate supervisors, including trust, empowerment, recognition, and leadership support. Representative items included the following:

• I feel trusted by my supervisor to manage the work responsibilities delegated to me.
• I feel empowered by my supervisor’s leadership.
• I believe my supervisor recognizes me for the contributions I make at work.

The Person-Job Fit dimension reflects the alignment between employees’ strengths, values, interests, and the work they perform. Representative items included:

• What I do in my work comes naturally, as if I am meant to do this type of work.
• I feel joyful when I am engaged in my work.
• I believe that my work adds value to the final product/service.

The Person-Group/Colleague Fit dimension captures employees’ perceptions of collaboration, shared values, communication, and interpersonal relationships within their workgroups. Representative items included:

• I feel that my communication style aligns well with that of my colleagues.
• I share similar values and goals with my colleagues.
• I am comfortable collaborating with my colleagues on projects and tasks.

The Person-Community Fit dimension reflects employees’ sense of connection with the broader community in which they live and work. Representative items included:

• I feel a sense of connection to my community.
• I would recommend my community to family members and friends as a great place to live.
• The people in my community share values similar to my values.

The Personal Wellbeing dimension represents employees’ sense of purpose, personal growth, fulfillment, and overall well-being in relation to their work. Representative items included:

• I feel a sense of purpose for the work I do, which motivates me to consistently give my best effort.
• My work provides me with meaningful opportunities to fully leverage my talents and skills.
• My work environment allows me to thrive both professionally and personally.

All items were measured using a seven-point frequency response scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 7 (Always).

4.2. Jury of Expert Evaluation

An initial pool of 72 items was developed, with 12 items representing each of the six dimensions identified during the qualitative phase of the study. This balanced item pool was submitted to a panel of three subject matter experts for content validation. Two reviewers held Ph.D. degrees in Organizational Leadership, and one held a Ph.D. in Organizational Psychology. All three reviewers had expertise in employee engagement, scale development, or both.

The expert panel recommended retaining all 72 items, indicating that the items adequately represented the intended constructs. The reviewers did, however, suggest minor wording revisions to improve clarity and readability. A total of 24 items were revised based on their recommendations, with no items being eliminated from the initial item pool.

An example of a reviewer-recommended revision is shown below:

Original item: I value that my supervisor gives me autonomy over my work.

Revised item: My supervisor gives me autonomy over my work.

The revised 72-item instrument was subsequently used in the quantitative phase of the study for psychometric evaluation.

4.3. Validation Items

To establish concurrent validity, consistent with Step 6 of DeVellis and Thorpe’s (2022) scale development framework, we included two previously validated measures that assess constructs conceptually related to employee engagement. Person-Organization Fit was assessed using Resick et al.’s (2007) five-item Person-Organization Fit scale, and Person-Supervisor Fit was assessed using Chuang et al.’s (2016) five-item Person-Supervisor Fit scale. These measures were selected because the qualitative findings identified organizational and supervisory relationships as important antecedents of employee engagement.

To assess discriminant validity, we included Wong and Law’s (2002) four-item Others’ Emotion Appraisal scale. Emotional intelligence is conceptually related to employee engagement but represents a distinct construct. Accordingly, moderate or weak relationships between the new employee engagement measure and Others’ Emotion Appraisal would provide evidence of discriminant validity.

Consistent with Step 7 of DeVellis and Thorpe’s (2022) framework, data were collected through Prolific from employed adults residing in the United States. To ensure representation across multiple generations, the sampling plan included the following minimum recruitment targets:

• A minimum of 125 people aged 21–30 at the time of data collection (Generation Z) living in the United States of America who have at least one year of work experience.
• A minimum of 125 people aged 31–43 at the time of data collection (Generation Y) living in the United States of America who have at least one year of work experience.
• A minimum of 125 people aged 44–64 at the time of data collection (Generation X) living in the United States of America who have at least one year of work experience.
• A minimum of 125 people aged 65–90 at the time of data collection (Baby Boomer Generation) living in the United States of America who have at least one year of work experience.

Prolific, during August 2025, recruited 533 participants. After data screening and quality checks, 511 responses were retained for the psychometric analyses.

4.4. Demographics

Peterson (2000) suggested that sample sizes between 300 and 600 participants are generally adequate for exploratory factor analysis. Similarly, DeVellis and Thorpe (2022) recommended obtaining approximately five participants per scale development item. Because the initial instrument contained 72 items, a minimum sample of 360 participants was recommended. The final sample of 511 participants exceeded both recommendations and was therefore considered adequate for the psychometric analyses.

Table 3. Demographics.

Generation	Gender		Years of Work Experience
	Female	Male	Less Than 5	5–10	11–15	16–20	21–25	26–30	31 or More
Gen Z	48	68	47	59	7	1	0	0	0
Gen Y	67	68	3	37	33	36	22	3	1
Gen X	71	56	0	4	7	10	33	26	48
Boomer	80	50	0	0	3	2	2	4	119
Total	266	242	50	100	50	49	57	33	168

Note: N = 508, three participants declined to state their gender, and four participants declined to report their years of work experience.

summarizes the demographic characteristics of the sample by generation, gender, and years of work experience. Gender information was available for 508 participants, as three participants declined to report their gender. Similarly, four participants declined to report their years of work experience.

5. Analysis

In response to an anonymous reviewer’s recommendation, the exploratory factor analysis was reanalyzed using Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with Promax rotation. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.979, indicating excellent sampling adequacy for factor analysis. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity yielded a χ²(2556) = 42,944.67, p < 0.001, supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.

We found six factors:

• Factor 1 had an eigenvalue of 37.2 and consisted of 17 items that explained 51.3% of the variance. The factor primarily consisted of items representing personal values, purpose, meaningful work, and alignment between employees’ values and their work. They focused on employees’ passion for and purpose of the work, as well as the alignment of the work’s values with employees’ values. We labeled this factor: “person-job values/passion/purpose fit”.

  ○

  The focus on values/passion/purpose-for Generation-Z and Generation-Y is substantiated in the work by Lynn (2023), Roy et al. (2025), Dehghan Nayeri et al. (2026)

• Factor 2 had an eigenvalue of 4.6 and consisted of 12 items that explained 6.0% of the variance. The items were from the person-colleague fit list. We labeled this factor “person-colleague fit.”
• Factor 3 had an eigenvalue of 3.7 and consisted of 11 items that explained 4.8% of the variance. The items were from the person-supervisor fit list. We labeled this factor “person-supervisor fit.”
• Factor 4 had an eigenvalue of 2.9 and consisted of 10 items that explained 3.6% of the variance. The items were from the person-community fit list. We labeled this factor “person-community fit.”
• Factor 5 had an eigenvalue of 2.0 and consisted of 5 items that explained 2.5% of the variance. The items were from the employee well-being, person-organization fit, and supervisor fit lists of items. The items focused on job flexibility to accommodate employees’ needs and wants. We labeled this factor “person-job flexibility fit.”

  ○

  The focus on flexibility is substantiated in the work of Gabrielova and Buchko (2021), Yadav et al. (2025), Syafani et al. (2025), and Goessling (2017).

• Factor 6 had an eigenvalue of 1.5 and consisted of 11 items that explained 1.7% of the variance. The items came from the person-organization fit list. We labeled this factor “person-organization fit.”

Hair et al. (2013) suggested having at least 60% of the variance explained from the accepted factors (p. 44). The six factors explain 69.9% of the variance. Figure 1 presents the scree plot. The clear inflection point after the first factor supported retention of the six-factor solution, along with the eigenvalues, variance explained, and interpretability of the factors.

For the final scales, we selected items that were not similar to other items in the factor and that had factor loads of at least 0.600. Please see

Table 4. Factors, Scale Items, and Factor Loads.

Scale Item	Factor 1 Person-Job Values/Passion Fit	Factor 2 Person-Colleague Fit	Factor 3 Person-Supervisor Fit	Factor 4 Person-Community Fit	Factor 5 Person-Job Flexibility Fit	Factor 6 Person-Organization Fit
PVF 1 I feel a sense of purpose for the work I do, which motivates me to consistently give my best effort.	0.995
PVF 2 I believe that my work is meaningful.	0.921
PVF 3 My work provides me with meaningful opportunities to fully leverage my talents and skills.	0.921
PVF 4 What I do in my work comes naturally, as if I am meant to do this type of work.	0.870
PVF 5 My work values are aligned with my personal mission or purpose.	0.819
PVF 6 I feel joyful when I am engaged in my work.	0.742
PVF 7 My work environment allows me to thrive both professionally and personally.	0.715
COL 1 I feel comfortable giving and receiving feedback from my colleagues.		0.849
COL 2 My colleagues respect and value my ideas and input.		0.837
COL 3 I feel supported by my colleagues in professional matters.		0.836
COL 4 I trust my colleagues to deliver on their responsibilities and commitments.		0.829
COL 5 I share similar goals with my colleagues.		0.812
COL 6 My approach to work aligns well with the work habits of my colleagues.		0.799
COL 7 I share similar values with my colleagues.		0.785
SUP 1 My supervisor trusts me to manage my work responsibilities.			0.950
SUP 2 My supervisor trusts my decision-making ability at work.			0.881
SUP 3 My supervisor gives me autonomy over my work.			0.867
SUP 4 My supervisor recognizes me for the contributions I make at work.			0.826
SUP 5 My supervisor and I mutually respect one another.			0.811
SUP 6 I am empowered by my supervisor’s leadership.			0.803
SUP 7 My supervisor motivates me to do my best work.			0.701
COM 1 Given the opportunity, I would choose this community again.				0.947
COM 2 I am proud to say I live in my community.				0.896
COM 3 I believe living in my community supports my wellbeing.				0.893
COM 4 I would recommend my community to family members and friends as a great place to live.				0.875
COM 5 In general, I believe my community is friendly toward individuals or families who move here for their jobs.				0.853
COM 6 In general, I believe others in my community respect differences in nationality, beliefs, and traditions.				0.770
COM 7 The people in my community share values similar to my values.				0.761
PFF 1 My job provides me with the flexibility needed to care for my physical and emotional health.					0.838
PFF 2 My work schedule provides me with the flexibility to maintain healthy habits and adequate rest.					0.799
PFF 3 My organization offers flexibility that allows me to balance my professional and personal life.					0.779
PFF 4 My work environment supports a healthy work–life balance (professional duties and personal self-care practices).					0.706
PFF 5 My supervisor gives me flexibility to adjust my work hours.					0.681
ORG 1 I believe in my organization’s mission and goals.						0.757
ORG 2 My organization creates an environment where employees feel supported.						0.731
ORG 3 I feel a sense of loyalty to my organization.						0.710
ORG 4 I am willing to go above and beyond to ensure my organization’s success.						0.664
ORG 5 My organization provides the tools and resources I need to succeed.						0.644
ORG 6 I feel proud to tell others that I work for my organization.						0.643
ORG 7 I would recommend my organization to others as a great place to work.						0.606

.

Following the exploratory factor analysis, descriptive statistics, internal consistency reliability, and group comparisons were conducted for the newly developed scales.

5.1. Descriptives

We calculated scale means and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the six newly developed employee engagement scales, together with the concurrent and discriminant validity measures. According to Kim (2013), for sample sizes greater than 300, data can be considered normal if the absolute skew is 2 or less and the absolute kurtosis is below 7. The results in

Table 5. Descriptives.

Scale	Mean	SD	Skewness	SE	Kurtosis	SE	Cronbach α
POF_Avg	5.12	1.48	−0.922	0.108	0.382	0.216	0.97
PSF_Avg	5.0	1.52	−0.947	0.108	0.365	0.216	0.96
EFB_Avg	5.5	1.11	1.078	0.108	1.709	0.216	0.92
PVF_AVG	5.3	1.40	−1.113	0.108	0.73	0.216	0.96
COL_AVG	5.5	1.15	−1.153	0.108	1.634	0.216	0.95
SUP_AVG	5.7	1.30	−1.413	0.108	1.960	0.216	0.95
COM_AVG	5.2	1.29	−0.952	0.108	0.771	0.216	0.95
PFF_AVG	5.4	1.37	−1.059	0.108	0.0759	0.216	0.92
ORG_AVG	5.3	1.42	−0.881	0.108	0.111	0.216	0.96

Note: N = 509, POF = Person-Organization Fit, PSF = Person-Supervisor Fit, EFB = Others Emotional Appraisal, PVF = person-job values/passion/purpose fit, COL = Person-Colleague Fit, SUP = Person-Supervisor Fit Factor, COM = Person-Community Fit, PFF = Person-Flexibility Fit, ORG = Person-Organization Fit.

show that the data are normal.

5.2. Concurrent and Discriminant Validity Testing

To evaluate concurrent and discriminant validity, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated among the six newly developed employee engagement scales and the validation measures. The resulting correlation matrix is presented in

Table 6. Concurrent and Discriminant Validity Correlations.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. POF	-
2. PSF	0.77	-
3. EFB	0.40	0.30	-
4. PVF_Avg	0.82	0.66	0.43	-
5. COL_Avg	0.74	0.63	0.39	0.68	-
6. SUP_Avg	0.68	0.85	0.28	0.65	0.64	-
7. COM_Avg	0.57	0.48	0.35	0.56	0.59	0.44	-
8. PFF_Avg	0.67	0.66	0.28	0.64	0.58	0.66	0.45	-
9. ORG_Avg	0.86	0.75	0.32	0.82	0.68	0.76	0.52	0.69	-

Note: N = 509. All correlations are significant p = 0.01. POF = Person-Organization Fit, PSF = Person-Supervisor Fit, EFB = Others’ Emotional Appraisal, PVF = Person-Job Values/Passion/Purpose Fit, COL = Person-Colleague Fit, SUP = Person-Supervisor Fit Factor, COM = Person-Community Fit, PFF = Person-Flexibility Fit, ORG = Person-Organization Fit.

.

Evidence of concurrent validity was supported through significant positive correlations between the six employee engagement scales and Resick et al.’s (2007) Person-Organization Fit scale, as well as Chuang et al.’s (2016) Person-Supervisor Fit scale. These findings indicate that the newly developed scales are strongly associated with established measures of conceptually related constructs while capturing the multidimensional nature of employee engagement.

Discriminant validity was evaluated using Wong and Law’s (2002) Others’ Emotion Appraisal scale. All six employee engagement scales were significantly and positively correlated with Others’ Emotion Appraisal. Consequently, the results did not provide strong evidence of discriminant validity using this comparison measure. One possible explanation is that employees who are more effective at recognizing and understanding others’ emotions may also be more likely to develop positive workplace relationships, collaborate effectively, and experience higher levels of employee engagement. Although emotional intelligence and employee engagement are theoretically distinct constructs, they may share meaningful conceptual overlap.

Another possible explanation for the observed relationships is that the six employee engagement dimensions were derived primarily from person–environment fit theories, including person–job fit, person–supervisor fit, person–colleague fit, person–community fit, and person–organization fit. These theoretical perspectives share a common emphasis on the alignment between individuals and their work environments. Likewise, the Person-Job Values/Passion/Purpose Fit factor incorporated concepts from both employee well-being and person–job fit, which may have contributed to the moderate relationships observed among the constructs.

Future research should continue to examine the discriminant validity of the Employee Engagement Scale using additional comparison measures representing conceptually distinct workplace constructs. The correlation coefficients supporting concurrent and discriminant validity are presented in Table 6.

5.3. t-Test and ANOVA Analysis

Independent-samples t-tests were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 29 to examine gender differences across the newly developed employee engagement scales and the validation measure. Descriptive statistics for the gender comparisons are presented in

Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for Gender Differences on the Employee Engagement Scales.

Gender		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean
PVF_Avg	Female	266	5.5	1.32	0.081
	Male	242	5.2	1.43	0.092
COL_Avg	Female	266	5.6	1.10	0.067
	Male	242	5.4	1.17	0.075
SUP_Avg	Female	265	5.8	1.23	0.075
	Male	242	5.5	1.30	0.084
COM_Avg	Female	266	5.3	1.24	0.076
	Male	242	5.0	1.33	0.086
PFF_Avg	Female	266	5.5	1.34	0.082
	Male	242	5.3	1.41	0.091
EFB_Avg	Female	266	5.7	0.97	0.060
	Male	242	5.3	1.19	0.077

Note: N = 509. PVF = Person-Job Values/Passion/Purpose Fit; COL = Person-Colleague Fit; SUP = Person-Supervisor Fit; COM = Person-Community Fit; PFF = Person-Job Flexibility Fit; EFB = Others’ Emotion Appraisal.

, with the corresponding t-test results reported below.

The descriptive statistics indicate that female participants reported higher mean scores than male participants across all measured constructs. The largest mean differences were observed for Person-Job Values/Passion/Purpose Fit, Person-Supervisor Fit, Person-Community Fit, and Others’ Emotion Appraisal. In contrast, the differences for Person-Colleague Fit and Person-Job Flexibility Fit were comparatively smaller. Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to determine whether these observed differences were statistically significant.

The t-test results shown in

Table 8. Independent-Samples t-Tests for Gender Differences on the Employee Engagement Scales.

		t-Test for Equality of Means
		t	df	Significance		Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
				One-Sided p	Two-Sided p			Lower	Upper
PVF_Avg	Equal variances assumed	3.126	506	0.001	0.002	0.38	0.122	0.14167	0.62097
	Equal variances not assumed	3.114	490.463	0.001	0.002	0.38	0.122	0.14070	0.62193
COL_Avg	Equal variances assumed	1.815	506	0.035	0.070	0.18	0.101	−0.01506	0.38008
	Equal variances not assumed	1.809	493.390	0.036	0.071	0.18	0.101	−0.01569	0.38070
SUP_Avg	Equal variances assumed	2.414	505	0.008	0.016	0.27	0.112	0.05042	0.49178
	Equal variances not assumed	2.407	494.120	0.008	0.016	0.27	0.113	0.04983	0.49237
COM_Avg	Equal variances assumed	2.457	506	0.007	0.014	0.28	0.114	0.05622	0.50517
	Equal variances not assumed	2.449	492.614	0.007	0.015	0.28	0.115	0.05546	0.50593
PFF_Avg	Equal variances assumed	1.758	506	0.040	0.079	0.21	0.122	−0.02517	0.45370
	Equal variances not assumed	1.754	494.884	0.040	0.080	0.21	0.122	−0.02581	0.45434
EFB_Avg	Equal variances assumed	3.839	506	0.000	0.000	0.37	0.096	0.18044	0.55879
	Equal variances not assumed	3.802	465.981	0.000	0.000	0.37	0.097	0.17860	0.56063

Note: N = 509. PVF = Person-Job Values/Passion/Purpose Fit; COL = Person-Colleague Fit; SUP = Person-Supervisor Fit; COM = Person-Community Fit; PFF = Person-Job Flexibility Fit; EFB = Others’ Emotion Appraisal.

indicate statistically significant gender differences for the Person-Job Values/Passion/Purpose Fit, Person-Supervisor Fit, Person-Community Fit, and Others’ Emotion Appraisal scales. The differences observed for Person-Colleague Fit and Person-Job Flexibility Fit were smaller and did not reach statistical significance using the conventional two-tailed criterion (p < 0.05). Overall, these findings suggest that female participants tended to report higher levels of employee engagement across several dimensions than male participants.

To examine whether employee engagement differed across generations, separate one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted for each of the six employee engagement dimensions as shown in

Table 9. One-Way ANOVA Results for Employee Engagement Scales by Generation.

		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
PVF_Avg	Between Groups	57.321	3	19.107	10.327	0.001
	Within Groups	938.088	507	1.850
	Total	995.409	510
COL_Avg	Between Groups	17.418	3	5.806	4.474	0.004
	Within Groups	657.963	507	1.298
	Total	675.380	510
SUP_Avg	Between Groups	17.327	3	5.776	3.466	0.016
	Within Groups	841.478	505	1.666
	Total	858.804	508
COM_Avg	Between Groups	20.416	3	6.805	4.154	0.006
	Within Groups	830.572	507	1.638
	Total	850.987	510
PFF_Avg	Between Groups	15.594	3	5.198	2.781	0.040
	Within Groups	947.564	507	1.869
	Total	963.158	510
ORG_Avg	Between Groups	56.266	3	18.755	9.812	0.001
	Within Groups	969.116	507	1.911
	Total	1025.382	510

Note: N = 509. PVF = Person-Job Values/Passion/Purpose Fit; COL = Person-Colleague Fit; SUP = Person-Supervisor Fit; COM = Person-Community Fit; PFF = Person-Job Flexibility Fit; ORG = Person-Organization Fit.

.

• A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of group for PVF_Avg, F(3, 507) = 10.33, p < 0.001.
• A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant group effect for COL_Avg, F(3, 507) = 4.47, p = 0.004.
• A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of group for SUP_Avg, F(3, 505) = 3.47, p = 0.016.
• A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant group effect for COM_Avg, F(3, 507) = 4.15, p = 0.006.
• A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant group effect for PFF_Avg, F(3, 507) = 2.78, p = 0.040.
• A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant group effect for ORG_Avg, F(3, 507) = 9.81, p < 0.001.

The ANOVA results shown in

Table 10. Bonferroni Post Hoc Comparisons by Generation.

Scale	Generations That Differed
Person-Values Fit	Gen Z—Gen X Gen Z—Baby Boomer Gen Y—Baby Boomer
Person-Colleague Fit	Gen Z—Baby Boomer
Person-Supervisor Fit	Gen Z—Baby Boomer
Person-Community Fit	Gen Z—Baby Boomer
Person-Flexibility Fit	No differences
Person-Organization Fit.	Gen Z—Gen X Gen Z—Baby Boomer Gen Y—Baby Boomer

, revealed statistically significant generational differences for all six employee engagement dimensions. Significant effects were observed for Person-Job Values/Passion/Purpose Fit, F(3, 507) = 10.33, p < 0.001; Person-Colleague Fit, F(3, 507) = 4.47, p = 0.004; Person-Supervisor Fit, F(3, 505) = 3.47, p = 0.016; Person-Community Fit, F(3, 507) = 4.15, p = 0.006; Person-Job Flexibility Fit, F(3, 507) = 2.78, p = 0.040; and Person-Organization Fit, F(3, 507) = 9.81, p < 0.001. Because the omnibus ANOVA tests only identify that differences exist among the four generations, Bonferroni post hoc analyses were conducted to determine which generations differed significantly.

The Bonferroni post hoc comparisons indicated that the most consistent differences occurred between Generation Z and Baby Boomers. Additional significant differences were observed between Generation Z and Generation X, as well as between Generation Y and Baby Boomers for the Person-Job Values/Passion/Purpose Fit and Person-Organization Fit scales. No significant post hoc differences were found for the Person-Job Flexibility Fit scale. These findings suggest that although the qualitative phase identified substantial thematic similarity across generations, the quantitative analyses revealed meaningful differences in the degree to which generations endorsed several dimensions of employee engagement. Future research should further examine the practical implications of these differences for organizational leaders and managers seeking to engage a multigenerational workforce.

5.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted using Intellectus Statistics (Version 2024) to evaluate the measurement structure of the Employee Engagement Scale. Schreiber et al. (2006) recommended a participant-to-instrument ratio of approximately 10:1 for CFA. With 509 participants, the present study achieved an approximate participant-to-item ratio of 36:1, indicating that the sample size was more than adequate for the analyses.

Model fit was evaluated using multiple goodness-of-fit indices, including the Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index (NFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). Following the recommendations of Hooper et al. (2008), acceptable model fit is generally indicated by NFI and TLI values approaching or exceeding 0.95, CFI values between 0.90 and 0.95 or higher, RMSEA values below 0.10, and SRMR values between 0.05 and 0.08.

Two CFA models were evaluated. The first model included all six employee engagement dimensions identified through the exploratory factor analysis: Person-Job Values/Passion/Purpose Fit, Person-Colleague Fit, Person-Supervisor Fit, Person-Community Fit, Person-Job Flexibility Fit, and Person-Organization Fit. Collectively, these six dimensions comprise the Multidimensional Employee Engagement Instrument (MEEI). The second model included only the first three dimensions, Person-Job Values/Passion/Purpose Fit, Person-Colleague Fit, and Person-Supervisor Fit, which collectively explained more than 60% of the total variance, consistent with the recommendation of Hair et al. (2013). These three dimensions comprise the Multidimensional Employee Engagement Instrument–Short Form (MEEI-SF). The model fit indices for both analyses are presented in

Table 11. Fit Indices for the CFA models.

Model	NFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR
PVF, COL, SUP, COM, PFF, and ORG	0.89	0.91	0.92	0.07	0.05
PVF, COL, SUP	0.92	0.93	0.94	0.09	0.04

Note. N = 509. PVF = Person-Job Values/Passion/Purpose Fit; COL = Person-Colleague Fit; SUP = Person-Supervisor Fit; COM = Person-Community Fit; PFF = Person-Job Flexibility Fit; ORG = Person-Organization Fit; NFI = Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.

.

Although the six-factor MEEI represents the complete factor structure identified through the exploratory factor analysis, the three-factor MEEI-SF demonstrated comparatively stronger model fit and provides a more parsimonious measure of employee engagement. Therefore, we recommend the MEEI-SF for further validation and use while recognizing the need for cross-validation with an independent sample.

6. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to develop and provide initial validation for a contemporary measure of employee engagement using a mixed-methods scale development process. Building on an extensive review of the employee engagement literature, phenomenological interviews, and psychometric analyses, this study identified six dimensions that collectively characterize employee engagement. The findings contribute to the literature by extending traditional conceptualizations of employee engagement beyond individual psychological states to include multiple dimensions of person–environment fit.

One of the most notable findings was the consistency of the qualitative themes across generations. Although previous research has suggested that Generation Z differs from earlier generations in its workplace expectations, the phenomenological interviews revealed substantial similarity among Generations Z, Y, and X in how participants described meaningful employee engagement. Thus, we concluded that Generations Z, Y, and X similarly described employee engagement. The factor analysis results show a greater emphasis on higher-order values, passion, and purpose as antecedents to employee engagement. Regardless of generation, participants consistently emphasized supportive leadership, meaningful work, positive relationships with coworkers, organizational support, community, and personal well-being. These findings suggest that while generational differences may influence workplace preferences, the fundamental experiences that foster employee engagement appear to be remarkably consistent across generations.

The qualitative findings served as the conceptual foundation for developing the initial pool of employee engagement items. Subsequent exploratory factor analysis identified six observable dimensions of employee engagement: person-job values/passion/purpose fit, person-colleague fit, person-supervisor fit, person-community fit, person-job flexibility fit, and person-organization fit. Together, these factors suggest that employee engagement is best understood as a multidimensional construct reflecting the quality of the relationships employees experience with their work, supervisors, colleagues, organizations, communities, and the flexibility afforded within their work environment.

The resulting factor structure of the MEEI also extends existing employee engagement research. Much of the prior literature has emphasized employee engagement as a psychological state characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002) or as the meaningful investment of one’s physical, cognitive, and emotional energies into work roles (Kahn, 1990). While these perspectives remain foundational, the present findings indicate that employee engagement also reflects the need for values-alignment and personal relationships with colleagues and supervisors, community, flexible work arrangements, and organizational support. Leaders who intentionally strengthen these aspects of the work environment may be better positioned to foster sustained employee engagement across a diverse workforce.

The six employee engagement dimensions demonstrated moderate to strong positive intercorrelations. One possible explanation is that the factors were derived primarily from person–environment fit theories, including person–job fit, person–supervisor fit, person–colleague fit, person–community fit, and person–organization fit. These theoretical perspectives share a common emphasis on the alignment between individuals and their work environments, resulting in some overlap among the dimensions, which is both expected and theoretically appropriate. Rather than representing redundant constructs, the six factors appear to capture complementary aspects of employee engagement that together provide a more comprehensive understanding of the construct.

Evidence supporting the validity of the MEEI was also encouraging. The newly developed dimensions demonstrated strong concurrent validity through significant positive relationships with established measures of person–organization fit and person–supervisor fit. Although discriminant validity was not supported using the Others’ Emotion Appraisal scale as the comparison measure, this finding may reflect the conceptual relationship between emotional intelligence and employee engagement. Employees who are more effective at recognizing and understanding others’ emotions may also be more likely to build positive workplace relationships, collaborate effectively, and report higher levels of employee engagement. Future research should continue evaluating discriminant validity using comparison measures representing conceptually distinct organizational constructs.

Female participants generally reported higher levels of employee engagement across several dimensions than male participants. In addition, the Bonferroni post hoc analyses revealed significant differences across generations, with the largest differences occurring between Generation Z and Baby Boomers. Additional differences were observed between Generation Z and Generation X and, for several dimensions, between Generation Y and Baby Boomers. Interestingly, these quantitative differences contrast with the qualitative findings, which revealed considerable agreement among participants regarding the meaning of employee engagement. One possible explanation is that although employees across generations conceptualize employee engagement similarly, they differ in the degree to which they experience or endorse particular dimensions of employee engagement within their own work environments.

Taken together, these findings suggest that employee engagement is not simply an individual psychological state but a multidimensional person–environment fit construct. While foundational theories have emphasized vigor, dedication, absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002), and the investment of physical, cognitive, and emotional energies into work (Kahn, 1990), the present findings indicate that employees experience employee engagement through multiple forms of alignment with their work environment. Specifically, participants consistently described employee engagement in terms of person–job values/passion/purpose fit, person–colleague fit, person–supervisor fit, person–community fit, person–job flexibility fit, and person–organization fit. Rather than replacing existing theories of employee engagement, this multidimensional framework extends them by integrating complementary person–environment fit perspectives into a broader conceptualization of employee engagement.

Overall, the findings support a multidimensional person–environment fit conceptualization of employee engagement and provide initial support for the MEEI-SF as a contemporary assessment framework. Together, these findings provide a foundation for continued validation, refinement, and theoretical development of employee engagement across diverse organizational settings.

6.1. Value of the Study to Researchers

This study makes several meaningful contributions to the employee engagement literature. First, the qualitative findings suggest substantial thematic similarity among the Generation Z, Y, and X participants in this study in how they described employee engagement and its antecedents. First, the qualitative findings suggest substantial thematic similarity among the Generation Z, Y, and X participants in this study in how they described employee engagement and its antecedents. Although generational differences may exist in workplace preferences or in the degree to which particular dimensions are experienced, the qualitative findings in this study suggest commonality in how participants described the conditions associated with engagement. These findings suggest that employee engagement may be driven more by universal workplace experiences than by generational membership alone.

Second, this study expands the theoretical understanding of employee engagement by integrating person–environment fit theory into the conceptualization of the construct. Rather than viewing employee engagement solely as an individual psychological state characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption, the findings indicate that employee engagement is influenced by the degree of alignment between employees and multiple aspects of their work environment. The MEEI-SF incorporates six interrelated dimensions: person–job values/passion/purpose fit, person–colleague fit, person–supervisor fit, person–community fit, person–job flexibility fit, and person–organization fit. Collectively, these dimensions provide a more comprehensive framework for understanding employee engagement in contemporary organizations.

Third, this study contributes a theoretically grounded and psychometrically supported measurement instrument for assessing employee engagement. The mixed-methods scale development process, including the literature review, phenomenological interviews, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and validity testing, provides initial evidence supporting the reliability and construct validity of the MEEI-SF. As such, the instrument offers researchers an alternative measure that extends existing employee engagement frameworks by incorporating multiple person–environment fit dimensions.

Fourth, this study contributes to the emerging use of AI-assisted qualitative analysis. Intellectus Qualitative generated the initial codes, which were subsequently reviewed by the researchers and reorganized into clusters aligned with relevant person–environment fit theories and the employee well-being literature. This process illustrates how AI-assisted qualitative analysis can support the coding process while preserving researcher judgment in the interpretation and organization of qualitative findings.

Finally, the findings provide additional empirical support for emerging research emphasizing meaningful work, values alignment, and workplace flexibility as important contributors to employee engagement. The Person-Job Values/Passion/Purpose Fit dimension aligns with the work of Roy et al. (2025) and Dehghan Nayeri et al. (2026), who emphasized the importance of meaningful work and value congruence. Likewise, the Person-Job Flexibility Fit dimension is consistent with the findings of Yadav et al. (2025), Syafani et al. (2025), and Goessling (2017), suggesting that flexibility has become an increasingly important aspect of employee engagement in contemporary organizations. Together, these findings reinforce the growing body of literature indicating that employee engagement extends beyond traditional motivational constructs and reflects the broader relationship between employees and their work environments.

Taken together, this study contributes both a contemporary theoretical perspective and a new multidimensional measure of employee engagement. Future researchers can build upon these findings by further validating the MEEI-SF across diverse organizational settings, industries, cultures, and occupational groups while continuing to refine the theoretical relationship between employee engagement and person–environment fit.

6.2. Future Research

Although this study provides initial evidence supporting the reliability and validity of the MEEI-SF, additional research is needed to further evaluate, refine, and extend the instrument. As with all scale development studies, validation is an iterative process that requires replication across diverse populations and organizational settings.

First, future quantitative studies should cross-validate the six-factor model using independent samples representing a variety of industries, organizational sizes, occupations, and cultural contexts. Cross-validation will help determine whether the proposed factor structure remains stable across different employee populations and work environments. Researchers should also continue evaluating the psychometric properties of the instrument through additional assessments of convergent, discriminant, predictive, and criterion-related validity.

Second, future research should examine the predictive capabilities of the MEEI-SF. Although the present study focused on scale development and validation, future studies should investigate how the six engagement dimensions relate to important organizational outcomes such as employee performance, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, innovation, organizational citizenship behaviors, employee well-being, and turnover intentions. Such research would provide additional evidence regarding the practical value of the instrument for both researchers and practitioners.

Third, additional qualitative research is warranted to better understand the demographic findings observed in this study. Although participants across Generations Z, Y, and X described employee engagement in remarkably similar ways during the phenomenological interviews, the quantitative analyses identified significant differences in the degree to which several employee engagement dimensions were endorsed across generations. Future qualitative studies should explore the reasons underlying these differences and examine how organizational context, career stage, leadership experiences, and workplace expectations influence employee engagement throughout an employee’s career.

Similarly, female participants reported significantly higher scores than male participants across several employee engagement dimensions. Additional qualitative and quantitative research is needed to better understand the organizational, social, and occupational factors that may contribute to these differences. Examining these relationships across industries, leadership levels, and organizational cultures may provide valuable insight into how different employee populations experience employee engagement.

Finally, future research should continue investigating the theoretical relationship between employee engagement and person–environment fit. The present findings suggest that employee engagement reflects multiple forms of alignment between employees and their work environments, including relationships with supervisors, colleagues, organizations, communities, meaningful work, and workplace flexibility. Longitudinal studies examining how changes in these dimensions influence employee engagement over time would provide valuable evidence regarding the causal relationships among these constructs. Additional research should also explore whether the proposed six-factor framework remains stable across international populations, remote and hybrid work environments, nonprofit and for-profit organizations, and emerging workforce trends.

Continued validation and refinement of the MEEI-SF will strengthen its usefulness as both a research instrument and an organizational assessment tool. As additional empirical evidence accumulates, the scale may provide researchers with a robust multidimensional measure for advancing theory while offering organizations a practical framework for understanding and improving employee engagement.

6.3. Limitations

As with any scale development study, the findings should be interpreted within the context of several limitations. First, all participants were employed in the United States. Although this provided a relatively homogeneous sample for the initial development and validation of the MEEI-SF, the findings may not fully generalize to employees working in different cultural, economic, or organizational contexts. The qualitative phase also included only three Generation Z participants, which limits the extent to which the generational similarities identified in the interviews can be generalized. Future cross-cultural studies should examine whether the six-factor structure remains stable across countries and cultures.

Second, this study employed a cross-sectional research design. Consequently, the findings describe relationships among the proposed employee engagement dimensions but do not establish causal relationships. Longitudinal research is needed to examine how changes in person-job values, supervisory relationships, organizational fit, workplace flexibility, and other dimensions influence employee engagement over time.

Finally, this investigation represents the initial validation of the MEEI-SF. Although the results provide encouraging evidence of reliability and construct validity, continued replication with independent samples is essential. Additional research involving different industries, occupations, organizational settings, and demographic groups will further strengthen confidence in the scale’s psychometric properties and generalizability.

Despite these limitations, the mixed-methods scale development process, combined with the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, provides a strong foundation for future refinement and validation of the MEEI-SF.

6.4. Conclusions

The exploratory factor analysis identified six dimensions that comprise the full MEEI: Person-Job Values/Passion/Purpose Fit, Person-Colleague Fit, Person-Supervisor Fit, Person-Community Fit, Person-Job Flexibility Fit, and Person-Organization Fit. The confirmatory factor analyses subsequently compared the six-factor MEEI with the more parsimonious three-factor MEEI-SF, which retains Person-Job Values/Passion/Purpose Fit, Person-Colleague Fit, and Person-Supervisor Fit. The MEEI-SF demonstrated comparatively stronger model fit, providing preliminary support for its further validation and use while recognizing the need for cross-validation with an independent sample.

The qualitative findings revealed remarkable consistency across Generations X, Y, and Z in how employees described meaningful employee engagement. Rather than identifying fundamentally different conceptions of employee engagement across generations, participants consistently emphasized meaningful work, supportive leadership, positive relationships with coworkers, organizational support, community, and workplace flexibility. These findings suggest that the fundamental antecedents of employee engagement may be more universal than generationally distinct.

Building on these findings, the study identified six dimensions of employee engagement: Person-Job Values/Passion/Purpose Fit, Person-Colleague Fit, Person-Supervisor Fit, Person-Community Fit, Person-Job Flexibility Fit, and Person-Organization Fit. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, together with validity testing, provided initial evidence supporting the reliability and construct validity of the MEEI-SF.

Collectively, these findings suggest that employee engagement is not simply an individual psychological state but a multidimensional person–environment fit construct reflecting employees’ alignment with meaningful work, supervisors, colleagues, organizations, communities, and workplace flexibility. This perspective extends traditional employee engagement frameworks by integrating multiple dimensions of person–environment fit into a broader understanding of employee engagement while providing researchers and practitioners with a more comprehensive framework for assessing employee engagement.

This study makes three principal contributions to the employee engagement literature. First, it demonstrates that employees across generations share a remarkably similar understanding of the fundamental antecedents of employee engagement. Second, it extends engagement theory by conceptualizing employee engagement as a multidimensional person–environment fit construct. Finally, it introduces the MEEI-SF, a theoretically grounded and psychometrically supported instrument that provides researchers and practitioners with a contemporary framework for measuring employee engagement. Continued validation across diverse industries, occupations, cultures, and organizational settings will further strengthen the utility of the MEEI-SF while advancing future theory and research on employee engagement. By reconceptualizing employee engagement as a multidimensional person–environment fit construct, this study provides a foundation for the next generation of employee engagement theory, measurement, and practice.