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