Many organizations are striving to become sustainable by improving the well-being and quality of life of employees (Di Fabio 2017). One important component for developing healthy workplaces is a focus on Employee Engagement (EE) to achieve competitive advantage through engaged employees with a satisfactory level of well-being, performance and career opportunities (Di Fabio 2017). Improved EE is associated with higher individual performance, productivity, reduced turnover and low sick-leave in organizations (Bakker and Schaufeli 2008; Rayton, Dodge and D’Analeze 2012; Bailey 2017). A lot of EE research has focused on private organizations while other research has focused on identifying the fundamental antecedents and consequences of EE in the public sector (Kişi 2024). In many countries, public sector workplaces encompass the largest section of the workforce. In Sweden around 1.5 million (out of around 5 million in the total workforce) people were employed in the public sector in 2022. Of these, 1.2 million were employed in the municipal sector and regions (Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions 2024).

Several instruments exist for measuring EE, even though none are universal. Previous studies have revealed that standardized measurements of EE in public sector organizations are limited (Dent 2024). There is therefore a need for more research investigating EE and its measurements in different cultures and contexts. To advance this research, this study investigates a model developed by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities (SALAR) called Sustainable Employee Engagement (SEE) which measures employees’ and managers’ perception of motivation, leadership and strategic management. In addition, an employee-advocacy-related metric has been studied - employee Net Promotor Score (eNPS) - which evaluates individuals’ propensity to recommend their employer to others. Many Swedish public sector workplaces use both SEE and eNPS as measurements for evaluating EE. There is a need for further investigation into these measures, as they are widely used in the public sector. A deeper understanding could provide more precise insights, serving as a foundation for enhancing employee engagement. Additionally, it is crucial to critically examine the components underlying SEE and eNPS, particularly given the limited number of items in these measures and the uncertainty surrounding the theoretical basis of the components, an area that remains underexplored in existing research. From a theoretical perspective, there is a need to further explore the associations between the components of SEE and eNPS, and to assess whether any of these components serve as stronger predictors of employee advocacy-related measures.

Public sector organizations in Sweden and in other countries are large and complex entities with networks of relationships between different organizational levels. The Swedish public sector has been strongly influenced by the Nordic model which is a democratic model where the rules are set by the labour market partners (Gustavsen 2011). However, this has been changing in the Nordic countries in recent decades with the introduction of the so-called New Public Management principles and their increased focus on market-like relationships, outsourcing and privatization (Kamp, Klemsdal and Gonäs 2013). Public sector employees and their first-line managers work in units organized in sectors, which are in turn managed by middle-managers and top management (Härenstam, Björk and Corin 2024). Public sector work environments in Sweden are often demanding, and employee health problems are not uncommon. Most public sector organizations are human service organizations, characterized by special relations with clients and endlessly demanding situations which are stressful for the employees (Rasmussen 2004; Berntson, Wallin and Härenstam 2012).

In studies of public sector organizations in the Nordic countries, decreasing resources and new forms of government have been put forth as explanations for the increased workload and decreased professional autonomy reported by employees (Rasmussen et al. 2024). Stress-related health problems in these organizations are being discussed at the national level in Sweden (Albin, Toomingas and Bodin 2016) due to increased rates of sick-leave. Studies show that gender differences in rates of sick-leave, i.e. higher figures among women, may be attributable to the way work is organized in female and male-dominated occupations, sectors and industries (Albin, Toomingas and Bodin 2016; Sverke et al. 2016). Studies of Swedish public sector organizations show that a positive experience of time management at work and in personal life, satisfaction with everyday life and proper recovery are associated with a positive work-life balance (Nilsson, Blomqvist and Andersson 2017; Törnquist, Bringsén and Andersson 2017). Work-life balance (WLB) is defined as the harmonization and management of personal and family commitments alongside professional responsibilities (Carlson, Grzywacz and Zivnuska 2009; den Dulk et al. 2013). Furthermore, other studies reveal that the interplay between employees in work teams is an important component for positive work-life experiences (Schultz, Sjøvold and Andre 2017; Geue 2018), referred to as the Team Climate (TC).

Extensive research on managers in the Swedish public sector (Berntson, Wallin and Härenstam 2012; Björk and Härenstam 2016; Corin and Björk 2016) shows that many managers are exposed to demanding working conditions with inadequate supporting structures in their organizations. Other research reveals that these managers can be placed in different clusters according to health, motivation and performance (Berntson, Wallin and Härenstam 2012). In clusters where support and recognition were lacking, managers had worse health, and lower motivation and performance. Several of these clusters are female dominated with demanding working conditions and health problems and a lot of client contact (Berntson, Wallin and Härenstam 2012; Björk and Härenstam 2016).

In summary, working conditions in public sector organizations indicate a need to improve EE, and there are several existing models that measure important components of EE. However, research is limited when it comes to standardized measurements of EE in public sector organizations (Dent 2024), which is the empirical base of this study. To our knowledge no previous studies have explored the relations between EE and eNPS in this sector.

The aim of this study is to provide a greater understanding of EE dynamics in the public sector, including TC and WLB components, and how these dynamics relate to employee advocacy aspects. Second, the study contributes knowledge about potential differences in key variables related to hierarchical position and gender, and how different categories of employees and managers rate EE in the Swedish public sector. Third, the study analyses the applicability of the Swedish EE model as an employee engagement measurement survey for employees in the public sector.

The following research questions were posed in the study:

Q1: Are the EE components of motivation, leadership and strategic management robust as measurements of EE?

One main challenge encountered in the research on employee engagement is the absence of a universally accepted definition of this concept. Different studies tend to adopt different definitions, although certain components recur with greater frequency than others (e.g. Ababneh and Macky 2015; Shrotryia and Dhanda 2019). EE is often construed as a measure of the emotional investment individuals have in their work. It encompasses various dimensions, including job satisfaction, interpersonal relationships and alignment with organizational values (Kahn 1990). According to Kahn, EE is related to employees’ experience of meaningfulness (i.e. feeling that work is valuable and worth doing), availability (i.e. having physical, mental and emotional energy to devote to work) and psychological safety (i.e. having the freedom to be oneself at work).

Measuring EE entails evaluating these facets through methods such as surveys, feedback sessions or performance appraisals. Robinson, Perryman and Hayday (2004) argue that EE should be seen as attitudes (positive) held by the employee towards the organization. Furthermore, it should be seen as a two-way relationship between employer and employees (Robinson, Perryman and Hayday 2004). Over the years, several models have been developed for measuring EE, for example, Copsoq III (Berthelsen et al. 2020), Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey – Employee Engagement index (Byrne, Peters and Weston 2016), Federal employee Viewpoint Survey 2020 (Dent 2024), Job Engagement Scale (Rich, LePine and Crawford 2010), Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al. 2002), ISA Engagement Scale (Soane et al. 2012), and the survey of Employee perceptions of diversity and inclusion (Trochmann, Stewart and Ragusa 2023). Several of the models address individual factors (e.g. engagement, burnout, meaningfulness) more than organizational factors (e.g. leadership, strategic management, advocacy).

In scientific discourse, research on employee advocacy encompasses a broader scope than what is captured by the eNPS. Employee advocacy is often linked to the concept of organizational citizenship behaviour (Walden and Kingsley Westerman 2018; Thelen and Formanchuk 2022). The significance of employee advocacy for organizations lies in its potential to influence key outcomes, such as operational efficiency and profitability. Prior studies have shown that employee advocacy can enhance organizational effectiveness (Kim and Rhee 2011) and yield positive outcomes (Godes and Mayzlin 2004; Gremler, Gwinner and Brown 2001). However, most research in this field focuses on the private sector, with a notable gap in studies addressing employee advocacy within welfare-oriented roles in municipal organizations. Moreover, previous research has established that employee advocacy tends to grow when internal communication is transparent and open (Thelen and Formanchuk 2022). This highlights the need for further exploration of the dynamics of employee advocacy in the public sector, particularly in the context of welfare-related jobs.

Another aspect frequently assessed by employers is the degree to which employees endorse their organization to friends and acquaintances. This evaluation typically involves employees rating their likelihood, on a 10-point scale, to recommend their employer to others. Termed eNPS, this metric emerged in the early 2000s in the United States (Reichfeld 2003). The eNPS was originally used in the car rental and aviation sectors and has since gained prominence as a singular measurement tool advocated by Reichfeld (2003). According to Reichfeld, eNPS serves as a comprehensive indicator for employers, as employee advocacy bolsters organizational reputation, while detractors pose a risk to brand perception. Consequently, eNPS facilitates the identification of effective leadership within an organization, enabling the rewarding of managers with high eNPS scores and corrective action for those where critics outweigh advocates (Reichfeld 2003). Scholarly inquiry has delved into employees’ propensity to advocate for their organization in various contexts, investigating this phenomenon across diverse settings and scenarios, most often in corporate environments (e.g. Jacobs 2003; Meier 2014; Anderson 2019).

Research on eNPS in the public sector remains limited, with only a few studies examining its implications across diverse organizational and cultural contexts. For instance, Kharchenko (2022) investigated loyalty within a major financial institution in Russia, conducting a comparative analysis of eNPS scores alongside key HR metrics such as engagement, satisfaction and motivation. The findings of this study were instrumental in suggesting modifications to the organization’s personnel management policy. Similarly, Stambulska and Peredalo (2022) highlighted the positive aspects of eNPS implementation within organizations, focusing on the same cultural context. Furthermore, Yaneva (2018) conducted a comparative analysis of eNPS within a Bulgarian company, drawing parallels with Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs and emphasizing the significance of belonging as a key determinant of eNPS (Thomas 2020). Since its inception in the United States, the adoption of eNPS has increased within the realm of HR consultancy and has subsequently made in-roads into the public sector in Sweden. An appropriate question arises regarding the continued relevance of eNPS scoring within the public sector. It is undeniable that there are substantial gaps between the roles of a manager in a car rental company in Michigan and an elderly-care nurse in northern Sweden. Moreover, there is reason to question the single-item approach since it is statistically weak as it is composed of only a single item (Grisaffe 2007). Instead, a more multi-dimensional perspective with a larger number of indicators should give a better understanding of employees’ perceptions of the organization (e.g. Grisaffe 2007). From a scientific perspective, there is a need for more research comparing the relatively unexplored concept of eNPS with key work-life components such as motivation, leadership, and strategic management. Additionally, there is a gap in understanding how eNPS relates to other factors like WLB and TC, a gap that this study aims to address.

It is reasonable to imagine that an individual’s hierarchical position within an organization, whether managerial or non-managerial, may have a distinct impact on their perception of work-life conditions. This is because managers bear the responsibility of establishing and delineating the goals that guide organizational activities. Presumably, such distinctions in organizational roles could potentially generate variances in the perception of work-life conditions, encompassing aspects such as motivation, leadership and managerial practices. Furthermore, it can be hypothesized that managers, by virtue of their formal responsibility for overseeing the working conditions of employees, may typically perceive that their job demands are greater compared to non-managerial employees. Prior research has revealed that managers who are engaging leadership enhances perceptions of autonomy, support from colleagues and opportunities for learning and development. These perceptions are intricately intertwined with the dimensions of engaging leadership and are positively associated with employee work engagement (Nikolova, Schaufeli and Notelaers 2019).

Regarding the first research question, the findings from the factor analysis presented in Table 2 underscore the resilience of the components encompassing motivation, leadership and strategic management as three factors within the SEE index. The other seven items form two factors, TC and WLB. Together, these elements elucidate a significant portion of the total variance, which represents 68.69% of the variance elucidated. The analysis revealed the presence of five factors with eigen values surpassing 1. The first factor (λ₁ = 4.70) accounted for 29.3% of the variance, followed by the second factor (λ₂ = 2.17) with 13.5% of the variance. Similarly, the third factor (λ₃ = 1.70) explained 10.6% of the variance, the fourth factor (λ₄ = 1.30) explained 8.1% of the variance, finally the fifth factor (λ₅ = 1.13) explained 7% of the variance.

Regarding the second research question, Table 3 shows significant correlations between the dependent variable eNPS and the independent variables: motivation, strategic management, leadership, TC and WLB. Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha values for the variables utilized are provided in the table. Positive relationships between the independent components of motivation, strategic management, leadership, TC and WLB were also observed (p < .001). The Cronbach’s alpha values for the variables range from 0.78 to 0.90, indicating a high level of reliability (Taber 2018).

Furthermore, regarding the second research question, Table 4 displays the results from OLS regressions comprising five models. These models illustrate a strong relationship between eNPS and employees’ and managers’ perceptions of SEE, TC and WLB. Further analysis revealed a clear trend, with motivation and leadership emerging as the primary factors significantly influencing eNPS. The final model accounted for 39 percent of the variance in eNPS. Collinearity tolerance variance values ranged from 0.55 to 0.76, while Variance inflation factor (VIF) values varied from 1.3 to 1.8, indicating robust measurements (Tabachnick and Fidel 2001).

For the third research question, Table 5 presents results from an analysis conducted to discern variances between the variables across the three eNPS categories. Notably, the post-hoc tests reveal that individuals who endorse their employer demonstrate significantly more positive attitudes toward the organization and their working conditions. Specifically, Promoters exhibit significantly higher scores compared to those who are passively satisfied (Passives), who in turn report higher levels of satisfaction than the Detractors. Overall, scores are remarkably high, with mean values exceeding four for all aspects among the Promoters. Similarly, Passives also have scores higher than four for all but one question. Regarding gender distribution in the eNPS categories, men were more likely to be promoters and women were slightly more likely to be detractors (see note in table 5).

In terms of research question four, Table 6 presents results from the comparisons of gender and hierarchical positions. Men exhibit significantly higher mean values on the components of eNPS, WLB, TC and leadership. Women, conversely, exhibit significantly higher values on the strategic management component. A potentially more noticeable issue than the disparity in their willingness to recommend is the differences between individuals in managerial roles and those who are not in such roles. People in managerial positions exhibit significantly higher values on all components compared to their non-managerial counterparts, except for WLB where the non-managerial employees had higher scores.

This study provides greater understanding of EE dynamics in the public sector and of how EE relates to eNPS, TC and WLB. EE is particularly important in public sector workplaces due to demanding working conditions, health problems and, sometimes, challenges with performance in this sector (Berntson, Wallin and Härenstam 2012; Sverke et al. 2016). Validated models for measuring EE are of great importance for the investigation of organizational and social factors, within and between organizations, and as a base for individual and organizational-oriented interventions for improving EE. As far as we are aware, there are no studies of the validity of the Swedish employment scale (SALAR) consisting of the components of motivation, leadership and strategic management. Furthermore, it is essential to conduct further research into the relationships between the SEE components, as well as to examine the relative strength of these components, in relation to eNPS.

Research question, Q1, examined whether the SEE components of motivation, leadership and strategic management were robust as measurements. The results revealed that the SALAR model, with its nine items, measures the underlying three components of motivation, leadership and strategic management with high internal consistency reliability. The results gleaned from the factor analysis highlight the robustness of these components within the SEE index. Collectively, these components explain a substantial proportion of the overall variance, accounting for 69 percent of the explained variance. However, when it comes to validity, there is reason to question whether they really measure the three components scientifically. For example, the leadership component only consists of three items related to relation-oriented behaviours and has nothing related to structure- and change-oriented behaviours (Larsson and Vinberg 2010; Yukl 2013). The component motivation only measures internal factors and the component strategic management only measures items related to workplace goals. Building on this, it is important to incorporate additional questions derived from prior research and theoretical frameworks into the measurement instruments to enhance their face- and construct validity. Nevertheless, the scale remains statistically robust and effectively captures key work-life factors.

Research question, Q2, examined the relations that can be found between the SEE components, WLB, TC and eNPS. The results revealed noteworthy correlations between eNPS and the SEE components, TC and WLB. The strongest correlations were between eNPS and the SEE components of motivation and leadership. The OLS regression analysis indicates that motivation has the most substantial influence on eNPS, followed by leadership, TC and WLB, respectively. Overall, these findings underscore the importance of these components in shaping employees’ and managers’ willingness to recommend their employer to others. The Swedish SEE measurements define motivation using questions related to intrinsic motivation, and the finding that motivation is the strongest factor indicates that employees and managers who are driven by an inner motivation to go to, and develop through, work also recommend the employer to friends and acquaintances to a greater extent. This is in line with earlier research (Ryan and Deci 2000). The fact that leadership is also of great importance for eNPS is in line with extensive research showing associations between leadership behaviours and for instance job satisfaction among employees (Montano et al. 2017; Swedish Agency for Work Environment Expertise, 2022), which in turn can lead to increased willingness for the employees to recommend the organizations. The results are consistent with previous research showing the importance of applying a multi-component approach to understand factors related to EE and eNPS (Kahn 1990; Robinson, Perryman and Hayday 2004; Byrne, Peters and Weston 2016; Byrne, Hayes & Holcombe 2017).

Research question, Q3, investigated whether there were any differences between different eNPS groups in terms of the components studied. The results revealed that differences between the three eNPS groups (Promoters, Passives, Detractors) are statistically significant. Notably, individuals who express a higher eNPS for their employer demonstrate significantly more favourable attitudes toward the organization and their working conditions. This sentiment is particularly pronounced among Promoters who exhibit substantially higher scores across all measured aspects compared to Passively satisfied (Passives). Even among employees categorized as more critical (Detractors), certain indicators such as the meaningfulness of their work and their understanding of organizational goals and expectations remain relatively high. These results are in accordance with Kahn (1990), who emphasizes the importance of meaningfulness for EE. The fact that it is possible to cluster groups of individuals based on eNPS and significant differences regarding the five independent components used, indicates the usefulness of the SALAR model together with measures of TC and WLB. This suggests that these measurements hold potential for guiding various individual and organizational interventions in public sector organizations. It is particularly important to investigate mechanisms beyond the lower component values for Detractors as a base for improvement processes for this group.

Regarding research question Q4, looking at whether there are any differences based on hierarchical position or gender and respondents’ ratings of the SEE components, the results show differences between managers and non-managerial employees and between female and male employees. Those in managerial positions demonstrate significantly higher values across various components and related items compared to non-managerial employees. Research shows that managers often have highly demanding jobs, high control over their jobs and enjoy a greater level of well-being than their employees (Hessels et al. 2018; Stephan 2018). In addition, research from other fields shows that managers, in general, tend to score themselves higher regarding different working condition variables than employees do (Alimo-Metcalfe 1998). Specifically, female employees exhibited higher mean scores in the area of strategic management, whereas male employees demonstrated greater eNPS and heightened trust in leadership compared to their female counterparts. Explanations beyond the scope of these results could be that men and women tend to work in different public sector workplaces, where women are exposed to greater demands and poorer resources (Sverke et al. 2016).

In summary, the SALAR model including the three SEE components together with components of TC and WLB, seems to be relevant for measuring individuals’ willingness to recommend public sector workplaces and organizations. In relation to other models for measuring EE (e.g. Schaufeli et al. 2002; Rich, LePine and Crawford 2010; Byrne, Peters and Weston 2016), which measure aspects of engagement, leadership, motivation, meaningfulness, work experiences and characteristics, the SALAR model studied combined with components of TC, WLB and eNPS, measures several of these aspects. However, the theoretical basis for both the SALAR model and eNPS is weak. To strengthen the validity of the SALAR model, more perspectives concerning motivation and leadership should be included. For eNPS, a more developed measurement related to employee advocacy should be applied when evaluating employees’ attitudes to the organization.

To protect the identity of the participants, the data-sets generated and analysed as part of this study are not publicly available. However, sections of the data without identifiers are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Human Resources and Communication departments of the municipality for providing us with the opportunity to carry out this study. We also extend our thanks to all the participants who took part in the research. This research was funded by the participating municipality and Mid Sweden University through a collaboration agreement (MIUN 2021/1080).