Work Engagement: A Quantitative Review and Test of
its Relations with Task and Contextual Performance
Journal:
Personnel Psychology
Manuscript ID:
Ppsych-main-10-1057.R3
Manuscript Type:
Main Section Submission
Keywords:
Motivation, Job performance/criteria, Stress
Personnel Psychology
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter,
J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual
performance. Personnel Psychology, 64: 89-136. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x, which has
been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x
This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and
Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions, as can be found on https://authorservices.wiley.com/
author-resources/Journal-Authors/licensing/self-archiving.html
Work Engagement 1
Running Head: WORK ENGAGEMENT
Work Engagement: A Quantitative Review and Test of
its Relations with Task and Contextual Performance
Michael S. Christian
Kenan-Flagler Business School
University of North Carolina
Adela S. Garza
Eli Broad College of Management
Michigan State University
Jerel E. Slaughter
Eller College of Management
University of Arizona
Author’s note. A previous version of this article was presented at the 2007 meeting of the
Academy of Management. We would like to acknowledge Jessica Siegel and Edgar Kausel for
their helpful comments on the manuscript.
Page 1 of 73 Personnel Psychology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Work Engagement 2
Abstract
Many researchers have concerns about work engagement’s distinction from other constructs and
its theoretical merit. The goals of the current study were to identify an agreed-upon definition of
engagement, to investigate its uniqueness, and to clarify its nomological network of constructs.
Using a conceptual framework based on Macey and Schneider (2008), we found that engagement
exhibits discriminant validity from, and criterion related validity over, job attitudes. We also
found that engagement is related to several key antecedents and consequences. Finally, we used
meta-analytic path modeling to test the role of engagement as a mediator of the relation between
distal antecedents and job performance, finding support for our conceptual framework. In sum,
our results suggest that work engagement is a useful construct that deserves further attention.
Page 2 of 73Personnel Psychology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Work Engagement 3
In recent years, work engagement has become a well-known variable to both scientists
and practitioners. An emerging body of research is beginning to converge around a common
conceptualization of work engagement as connoting high levels of personal investment in the
work tasks performed on a job (e.g., Kahn, 1990; Macey & Schneider, 2008; May, Gilson, &
Harter, 2004; Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002; Rich, LePine, & Crawford,
2010). However, several issues remain unresolved that have important implications for the future
of engagement research. Historically engagement research has been plagued by inconsistent
construct definitions and operationalizations (Macey & Schneider, 2008). As a result, there is
confusion as to whether engagement is conceptually and empirically different from other
constructs (e.g., Dalal, Brummel, Wee, & Thomas, 2008; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Newman &
Harrison, 2008). Thus, some researchers are ambivalent about the incremental value of
engagement over other constructs as a predictor of behavior (Newman & Harrison, 2008).
Macey and Schneider (2008) point out that “the relationships among potential
antecedents and consequences of engagement…have not been rigorously conceptualized, much
less studied” (p. 3-4), resulting in an inadequate understanding of work engagement’s
nomological network. Moreover, although researchers have argued that engagement, as a
motivational variable, should lead to high levels of job performance (e.g., Kahn, 1990; Schaufeli,
et al., 2002; Rich et al., 2010), we know little about engagement’s uniqueness as a predictor of
job performance. Thus, the overarching intent of the current research is to resolve these
deficiencies by organizing and integrating the available evidence in the literature. Specifically,
our goals were to (a) examine the literature to find areas of commonality among the
conceptualizations of engagement in order to arrive at an agreed-upon definition, (b) investigate
Page 3 of 73 Personnel Psychology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Work Engagement 4
the extent to which engagement is a unique construct, and (c) clarify the nomological network of
constructs associated with engagement.
The remainder of this study unfolds as follows. We begin by identifying and describing
the commonalities contained in this body of research in order to arrive at an operationalization
that exhibits relative consensus. We next situate engagement in a conceptual framework that
specifies its associations with antecedents, outcomes, and conceptually similar constructs. Using
this framework, we then argue that engagement is a unique concept and develop expectations for
its discriminant validity. Next, we draw on our framework to discuss the antecedents and
consequences (i.e., job performance) of engagement and develop expectations for their
correlations. We then argue that engagement will predict job performance over and above the job
attitudes in our framework. Next, we propose a test of our framework, which specifies
engagement as a mediating link between its antecedents and consequences. Finally, we use meta-
analytic techniques to test our predictions.
Defining Work Engagement
Although there have been many studies that measure constructs that carry the
“engagement” label, operational definitions are not always consistent. In order to define
engagement in the current research, we reviewed the literature to find commonalities among the
measures of the engagement concept. Because the vast majority of studies that we reviewed drew
on Kahn (1990) as a conceptual foundation (e.g., Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; May et al., 2004;
Rothbard, 2001; Saks, 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Rich et al., 2010), we used his work as our
starting point for organizing the literature.
Kahn (1990) proposed that personal engagement represents a state in which employees
"bring in" their personal selves during work role performances, investing personal energy and
Page 4 of 73Personnel Psychology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60