engaged, and 15% are actively disengaged.
Unfortunately, this employee disengagement caused
a decline in organizational productivity and costed $
300 billion in 2004 in the United States (Gallup
Management Journal, 2005).
The data was shocking, but the report came
from journal practitioners’ literatures and
organizational consulting companies. There is still
little research on engagement from academics (Saks
2006: 600), especially employee engagement
research in not for profit organization. Research in
this area is quite interesting because non-profit
organizations are not profit oriented, but rather serve
the community.
Therefore, this study wants to fill the shortage
of academic literature on the topic of employee
engagement, especially work engagement among the
professionals managing zakat in East Java using
UWES (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale) which is
most widely used in work engagement research
(Koyuncu et al. 2006). The focus of this study is to
know how the level of work engagement of zakat
management professionals in East Java, so that it
could be used as input for both the organization and
academically.
2 THEORICAL FRAMEWORK
The concept of engagement was first introduced by
William Khan in 1990, Kahn (in Imperatori 2017:
24) describes that people who have engagement will
work and express themselves physically, cognitively
and emotionally in their roles in the organization.
Khan added that engagement is an authentic
expression of self that occurs during engagement
that is psychologically beneficial to the individual.
Therefore, engagement definition in here is based on
personal engagement condition. This argument is
conceptualized using the need-satisfaction approach
where engagement meets personal needs (Shuck
2011).
Conversely, 'personal disengagement' refers to
the absence of emotional energy, physical and
psychological energy when doing work. This refers
to 'unemployment' (self unemployment), self
decoupling (separating self) from the job role.
Disengaged people do not interpret/think about their
role, they only do work, without creativity and
innovation, and without showing what they are
thinking and feeling (Kahn 1990, 1992).
Based on that definition, engagement shows
positive conditions of worker that related with
positive attitudes toward work. Many studies show
that engagement related with extra-role behavior and
performance (Saks 2006; Macey & Schneider 2008;
Bakker & Schaufeli 2008; Schaufeli et al.
2012)(Saks 2006). Moreover, extensive studies show
that behavior is the end result of work engagement
(Christian et al. 2011; Rich et al. 2010; Salanova et
al. 2005) and OCB is a consequence of engagement
(Saks 2006).
Maslach and Leiter in (Schaufeli et al. 2002)
suggest that engagement and burnout are the
opposite end of the continuum. Burnout means
exhaustion or mental fatigue, cynicism or
indifference, lack of professional achievement or
success, in social life and technical scope.
Conversely, engagement is associated with three
dimensions that are opposite to burnout, namely
energy (vs exhaustion), involvement (vs. cynicism)
and efficacy (vs. lack of efficacy). Consistently,
these authors operationalize engagement as the
inverse value of burnout on the Maslach Burnout
(MBI-GS) Inventory scale.
In the same perspective, Schaufeli et al. (2002, p.
74) argue that work engagement is a positive
antipode of burnout, but they have arguments and
show that work engagement is a different concept
than burnout. They define work engagement as a
“positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that
is characterized by vigor, dedication and
absorption”. The researchers also showed that
burnout and engagement had different antecedents
and the final consequences that might be different,
even though both had negative relations (Bakker &
Schaufeli 2008).
However, there are still many different types of
understanding about engagement. Researchers often
use employee engagement, work engagement,
personal engagement, and organizational
engagement, alternately as these terms are the same
concept. There are still inconsistencies in construct
definitions and operational definitions (Macey &
Schneider 2008). But even so, some empirical
research has found and proved that engagement,
especially work engagement is different constructs
from job involvement, organizational commitment,
and job satisfaction (Anitha J. 2014; Hallberg &
Schaufeli in Avery et al. 2007; Bakker & Schaufeli
2008; Christian et al. 2011; Schaufeli et al. 2002).
Furthermore, Rich et al. (2010) explained that
engagement is conceived as a form of overall
individual investment in a role (the investment of
individual's complete self into a role), which is able
to explain its relevance to performance
comprehensively when compared to other