Several research findings support the fact that the top 20 per cent of multinational corporations with high engagement scores are consistently doing something different. For example, Toyota Motor’s manufacturing plant in Georgetown, USA has an employee engagement level about 10 per cent higher than the US average. According to Peter Gritton, Vice-President (Admin–). at Toyota, the reason for their high levels of engagement can be attributed to the corporate culture that supports both individual creativity and team work (Bates, 2004). Gritton further emphasized, “[. . .] it is the responsibility of the management to support the employees and be committed to the overall success of both the employee and the company itself”. In addition to this, he insisted that to maintain consistently higher levels of engagement, management must develop employee trust on a daily basis. His message clearly emphasizes the importance of measuring employee engagement to gauge organizational health. Although a considerable amount of research attention is paid to employee engagement, practitioners are continually searching for ways in which their workforce can be meaningfully engaged. Unfortunately, most of the extant literature has failed to differentiate employee engagement from other constructs like job satisfaction or employee emotional commitment toward their organization. It was also observed that organizations use terms like “employee engagement” and “retention” interchangeably. To address this misperception, this paper strives to offer a conceptual model that will offer clearer insight on employee engagement.