Towards A Model of Work Engagement

Career Development International
Towards a model of work engagement

Arnold B. Bakker Evangelia Demerouti
Article information:
To cite this document:
Arnold B. Bakker Evangelia Demerouti, (2008),"Towards a model of work engagement", Career
Development International, Vol. 13 Iss 3 pp. 209 - 223
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476
Downloaded on: 19 October 2014, At: 01:13 (PT)
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 01:13 19 October 2014 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 68 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 17674 times since 2008*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Alan M. Saks, (2006),"Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement", Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21 Iss 7 pp. 600-619
Arnold B. Bakker, Evangelia Demerouti, (2007),"The Job Demands#Resources model: state of the art",
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. 309-328
Mustafa Koyuncu, Ronald J. Burke, Lisa Fiksenbaum, (2006),"Work engagement among women managers
and professionals in a Turkish bank: Potential antecedents and consequences", Equal Opportunities
International, Vol. 25 Iss 4 pp. 299-310
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 539746 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm
Work
engagement
Arnold B. Bakker
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, 209
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and
Evangelia Demerouti
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University,
Utrecht, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to provide an overview of the recently introduced concept of work
engagement.
Design/methodology/approach – Qualitative and quantitative studies on work engagement are
reviewed to uncover the manifestation of engagement, and reveal its antecedents and consequences.
Findings – Work engagement can be defined as a state including vigor, dedication, and absorption.
Job and personal resources are the main predictors of engagement; these resources gain their salience
in the context of high job demands. Engaged workers are more creative, more productive, and more
willing to go the extra mile.
Originality/value – The findings of previous studies are integrated in an overall model that can be
used to develop work engagement and advance career development in today’s workplace.
Keywords Organizational behaviour, Human resource management, Employee participation,
Employee attitudes, Job satisfaction, The Netherlands
Paper type Research paper

Bakker and Schaufeli (2008) have noted the need for positive organizational behavior
(POB) research, defined as “the study and application of positively oriented human
resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and
effectively managed for performance improvement in today’s workplace” (Luthans,
2002, p. 59). In this article, we will focus on one such a POB-construct, namely work
engagement – a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind. We will first define
work engagement, describe its measurement, and review studies on the “drivers” of
engagement. Then, we will outline why work engagement contributes to the bottom
line – performance and client satisfaction. The findings of previous studies are
integrated in an overall model that can be used to develop work engagement in today’s
workplace and advance career development.
Work engagement
Definition
Work engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is Career Development International
Vol. 13 No. 3, 2008
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Vigor is pp. 209-223
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1362-0436
Invited paper for Career Development International. DOI 10.1108/13620430810870476
CDI characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working. Dedication
13,3 refers to being strongly involved in one’s work and experiencing a sense of
significance, enthusiasm, and challenge. Absorption is characterized by being fully
concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and
one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work (see also, Schaufeli and Bakker,
2004). In short, engaged employees have high levels of energy and are enthusiastic
210 about their work. Moreover, they are often fully immersed in their work so that time
flies (see also May et al., 2004).
Structured qualitative interviews with a group of Dutch employees from different
occupations who scored high on the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al.,
2002) showed that engaged employees have high energy and self-efficacy (Schaufeli
et al., 2001). That helps them to exercise influence over events that affect their lives. For
example, because of their positive attitude and activity level, engaged employees create
their own positive feedback, in terms of appreciation, recognition, and success. Many
interviewees indicated that their enthusiasm and energy also appears outside work,
e.g. in sports, creative hobbies, and volunteer work. Engaged employees are no
supermen – they do feel tired after a long day of hard work. However, they describe
their tiredness as a rather pleasant state because it is associated with positive
accomplishments. Finally, engaged employees are not addicted to their work. They
enjoy other things outside work and, unlike workaholics, they do not work hard
because of a strong and irresistible inner drive, but because for them working is fun.
Results of Engelbrecht’s (2006) qualitative research among Danish midwives add
significantly to these Dutch findings by showing how engagement translates into
behavior. In the study of Engelbrecht, participants had to describe a highly engaged
colleague. The interviews revealed that an engaged midwife is a person who radiates
energy and keeps up the spirit at the ward, especially in situations where work morale
is low and frustration spreads. An engaged midwife is willing to do whatever needs to
be done, and is viewed as a source of inspiration for herself and her colleagues. “She
has a positive attitude towards her work and is happy for the things she is doing. The
love (for her job) is expressed through the passion with which she fulfils her daily
tasks. In addition to the normal tasks of a midwife, she is also engaged in other
job-related but voluntary activities at the ward” (p. 154).
Measurement
There are several instruments to measure work engagement. The Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (UWES) (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2003; Schaufeli et al., 2002) includes
items for the assessment of the three engagement dimensions included in Schaufeli
et al.’s (2002) definition: vigor, dedication and absorption. The UWES has been
validated in several countries, including China (Yi-Wen and Yi-Qun, 2005), Finland
(Hakanen, 2002), Greece (Xanthopoulou et al., n.d.), South Africa (Storm and Rothmann,
2003), Spain (Schaufeli et al., 2002), and The Netherlands (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2003;
Schaufeli et al., 2002). The confirmatory factor analyses applied to these studies
confirmed that the fit of the hypothesized three-factor structure to the data was
superior to that of any other alternative factor structures. In addition, the internal
consistencies of the three subscales proved to be sufficient in each study. It should be
noted, however, that some studies failed to find the three-factor structure of work
engagement (e.g. Sonnentag, 2003). This may be partly attributed to translation
problems when it comes to items that contain metaphors (e.g. “Time flies when I am Work
working”). Furthermore, Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) have argued that the total score
for work engagement may sometimes be more useful in empirical research because of
engagement
the moderate to high correlations between the dimensions. Schaufeli et al. (2006)
developed a short, nine-item version of the UWES, and provided evidence for its
cross-national validity. They showed that the three engagement dimensions are
moderately strong related. 211
An alternative instrument for the assessment of work engagement is the Oldenburg
Burnout Inventory (OLBI) (Demerouti and Bakker, n.d.). This instrument has
originally been developed to assess burnout, but includes both positively and
negatively phrased items, and hence, it can be used to assess work engagement as well
(cf. González-Romá et al., 2006). Researchers interested in assessing work engagement
with the OLBI can recode the negatively framed items. The OLBI includes two
dimensions: one ranging from exhaustion to vigor and a second ranging from cynicism
to dedication. The factorial validity of the OLBI has been confirmed in studies
conducted in Germany (Demerouti et al., 2002; Demerouti et al., 2001), the US
(Halbesleben and Demerouti, 2005), and Greece (Demerouti et al., 2003). Results of these
studies clearly showed that a two-factor structure with vigor and dedication (referred
to as exhaustion and disengagement in these studies) as the underlying factors fitted
better to the data of several occupational groups than alternative factor structures.
Finally, May et al. (2004) introduced three-dimensional concept of engagement that
is highly similar to that of Schaufeli et al. (2002). More specifically, May et al.
distinguish between a physical component (e.g. “I exert a lot of energy performing my
job”), an emotional component (e.g. “I really put my heart into my job”), and a cognitive
component (e.g. “Performing my job is so absorbing that I forget about everything
else”), which correspond to vigor, dedication, and absorption as measured by the
UWES. In the May et al. (2004) study, the scores on the three subscales are summed
into one overall and reliable score. As far as we know, other information about the
psychometric qualities of the May et al. (2004) engagement scale is not available yet.
Drivers of work engagement

Job resources
Previous studies have consistently shown that job resources such as social support
from colleagues and supervisors, performance feedback, skill variety, autonomy, and
learning opportunities are positively associated with work engagement (Bakker and
Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007). Job resources refer to those physical,
social, or organizational aspects of the job that may:
.
reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs;
.
be functional in achieving work goals; and
.
stimulate personal growth, learning, and development (Bakker and Demerouti,
2007; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004).
Hence, resources are not only necessary to deal with (high) job demands, but they also
are important in their own right.
Job resources are assumed to play either an intrinsic motivational role because they
foster employees’ growth, learning and development, or an extrinsic motivational role
because they are instrumental in achieving work goals. In the former case, job
CDI resources fulfill basic human needs, such as the needs for autonomy, relatedness and
13,3 competence (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Ryan and Frederick, 1997). For instance, proper
feedback fosters learning, thereby increasing job competence, whereas decision
latitude and social support satisfy the need for autonomy and the need to belong,
respectively. This intrinsic motivational potential of job resources is also recognized by
job characteristics theory (Hackman and Oldham, 1980).
212 Job resources may also play an extrinsic motivational role, because resourceful
work environments foster the willingness to dedicate one’s efforts and abilities to the
work task (Meijman and Mulder, 1998). In such environments it is likely that the task
will be completed successfully and that the work goal will be attained. For instance,
supportive colleagues and performance feedback increase the likelihood of being
successful in achieving one’s work goals. In either case, be it through the satisfaction of
basic needs or through the achievement of work goals, the outcome is positive and
engagement is likely to occur (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli and Salanova,
2007).
Consistent with these notions about the motivational role of job resources, several
studies have shown a positive relationship between job resources and work
engagement. For example, Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) found evidence for a positive
relationship between three job resources (performance feedback, social support, and
supervisory coaching) and work engagement (vigor, dedication and absorption) among
four different samples of Dutch employees. More specifically, they used structural
equation modeling analyses to show that job resources (not job demands) exclusively
predicted engagement, and that engagement is a mediator of the relationship between
job resources and turnover intentions.
This study was replicated in a sample of over 2000 Finnish teachers (Hakanen et al.,
2006). Results showed that job control, information, supervisory support, innovative
climate and social climate were all positively related to work engagement.
Conceptually similar findings were reported by Llorens et al. (2006) in a Spanish
context. In addition, Koyuncu et al. (2006) examined potential antecedents and
consequences of work engagement in a sample of women managers and professionals
(n ¼ 286) employed by a large Turkish bank. Results showed that work life
experiences, particularly control, rewards and recognition and value fit, were
significant predictors of all three engagement measures.
These studies suggesting a relationship between job resources and engagement,
though conducted among different populations, are cross-sectional. Recent
longitudinal research has generally confirmed the positive relationship between job
resources and work engagement. Mauno et al. (2007) utilized a two-year longitudinal
design to investigate work engagement and its antecedents among Finnish health care
personnel (n ¼ 409). Job resources predicted work engagement better than did job
demands. Job control and organization-based self-esteem proved to be the best lagged
predictors of the three dimensions of work engagement. Further, in their study among
managers and executives of a Dutch telecom company (n ¼ 201), Schaufeli et al. (2008)
found that changes in job resources were predictive of engagement over a period of one
year. Specifically, results showed that increases in social support, autonomy,
opportunities to learn and to develop, and performance feedback were positive
predictors of T2 work engagement after controlling for baseline engagement.
Salience of job resources Work
According to conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 2001), people seek to engagement
obtain, retain, and protect things they value, including for instance material, social,
personal, or energetic resources. The theory proposes that stress experienced by
individuals can be understood in relation to potential or actual loss of resources. More
specifically, Hobfoll and Shirom (2000) have argued that:
.
individuals must bring in resources in order to prevent the loss of resources; 213
.
individuals with a greater pool of resources are less susceptible to resource loss;
.
those individuals who do not have access to strong resource pools are more likely
to experience increased loss (“loss spiral”); and
.
strong resource pools lead to a greater likelihood that individuals will seek
opportunities to risk resources for increased resource gains (“gain spiral”).
Additionally, Hobfoll (2002) argues that resource gain acquires its saliency in the
context of resource loss. This suggests that job resources become more salient and gain
their motivational potential when employees are confronted with high job demands
(e.g. workload, emotional demands, and mental demands) because they can help goal
accomplishment.
Hakanen et al. (2005) tested this interaction hypothesis in a sample of Finnish
dentists employed in the public sector. It was hypothesized that job resources (e.g.
variability in the required professional skills, peer contacts) are most beneficial in
maintaining work engagement under conditions of high job demands (e.g. workload,
unfavorable physical environment). The dentists were split in two random groups in
order to cross-validate the findings. A set of hierarchical regression analyses resulted
in seventeen out of forty significant interactions (40 percent), showing, e.g. that
variability in professional skills boosted work engagement when qualitative workload
was high, and mitigated the negative effect of qualitative workload on work
engagement.
Conceptually similar findings have been reported by Bakker et al. (2007). In their
study among Finnish teachers working in elementary, secondary, and vocational
schools, they found that job resources act as buffers and diminish the negative
relationship between pupil misbehavior, representing a demanding aspect of work, and
work engagement. In addition, they found that job resources particularly influence
work engagement when teachers are confronted with high levels of pupil misconduct.
A series of moderated structural equation modeling analyses resulted in 14 out of 18
possible two-way interaction effects (78 percent). Particularly supervisor support,
innovativeness, appreciation, and organizational climate were important job resources
for teachers that helped them cope with demanding interactions with students.
Personal resources
Personal resources are positive self-evaluations that are linked to resiliency and refer to
individuals’ sense of their ability to control and impact upon their environment
successfully (Hobfoll et al., 2003). It has been convincingly shown that such positive
self-evaluations predict goal-setting, motivation, performance, job and life satisfaction,
career ambition and other desirable outcomes (for a review, Judge et al., 2004). The
reason for this is that the higher an individual’s personal resources, the more positive
CDI the person’s self-regard and the more goal self-concordance is expected to be
13,3 experienced (Judge et al., 2005). Individuals with goal self-concordance are intrinsically
motivated to pursue their goals and as a result they trigger higher performance and
satisfaction (see also Luthans and Youssef, 2007).
Several authors have investigated the relationships between personal resources and
work engagement. For example, Rothmann and Storm (2003) conducted a large
214 cross-sectional study among 1,910 South African police officers, and found that
engaged police-officers use an active coping style. They are problem-focused, taking
active steps to attempt to remove or rearrange stressors. Further, in their study among
highly skilled Dutch technicians, Xanthopoulou et al. (2007a) examined the role of three
personal resources (self-efficacy, organizational-based self-esteem, and optimism) in
predicting work engagement. Results showed that engaged employees are highly
self-efficacious; they believe they are able to meet the demands they face in a broad
array of contexts. In addition, engaged workers have the tendency to believe that they
will generally experience good outcomes in life (optimistic), and believe they can
satisfy their needs by participating in roles within the organization
(organizational-based self-esteem; see also Mauno et al., 2007).
These findings were replicated and expanded in a two-year follow-up study
(Xanthopoulou et al., 2007b). The findings indicated that self-efficacy,
organizational-based self-esteem, and optimism make a unique contribution to
explaining variance in work engagement over time, over and above the impact of job
resources and previous levels of engagement. As a final example, Bakker et al. (2006) in
their study among female school principals found that those with most personal
resources scored highest on work engagement. Particularly resilience, self-efficacy and
optimism contributed to work engagement, and were able to explain unique variance in
engagement scores (in addition to social support from team members and colleague
principals, opportunities for development, and social support from the intimate
partner). Thus, resilience is another personal resource that facilitates work
engagement, indicating that engaged workers are effective in adaptation to
changing environments.
In short, engaged workers possess personal resources, including optimism,
self-efficacy, self-esteem, resilience, and an active coping style, that help them to
control and impact upon their work environment successfully, and to achieve career
success (see also Luthans et al., 2008).
Engagement – performance link

Engelbrecht (2006) noticed in her qualitative study that a highly engaged midwife
“. . . is service-minded and client-oriented in her work, which can be noticed in her
quick, calm and patient reaction towards clients.” (p. 156). To date, only a few
quantitative studies have shown that work engagement is positively related to job
performance (for overview see Demerouti and Bakker, 2006). Nevertheless, the results
look promising. Bakker et al. (2004) showed that engaged employees received higher
ratings from their colleagues on in-role and extra-role performance, indicating that
engaged employees perform well and are willing to go the extra mile. Further, in their
survey among Dutch employees from a wide range of occupations, Schaufeli et al.
(2006) found that work engagement is positively related to in-role performance
(b ¼ 0:37), whereas workaholism is not. These findings were expanded in another
study among 327 secretaries. Gierveld and Bakker (2005) found that engaged Work
secretaries scored higher on in-role and extra-role performance than their non-engaged engagement
counterparts. In addition, results suggested that engaged secretaries had more
influence on daily business. They were more often asked to carry out additional,
challenging tasks, including personnel pre-selection, the organization of trade
exhibitions and conventions, and website maintenance.
Bakker et al. (2006) conducted a study on engagement and performance among 105 215
school principals and 232 teachers. Their study showed significant and positive
associations between school principals’ work engagement scores and teacher-ratings of
school principals’ performance and leadership. More specifically, results of structural
equation modeling showed that engaged principals scored higher on in-role and
extra-role performance. In addition, engagement was strongly related to creativity; the
higher school principals’ levels of work engagement, the better they were able to come
up with a variety of ways to deal with work-related problems. Finally, engaged school
principals were seen as transformational leaders – being able to inspire, stimulate and
coach their co-workers.
Salanova et al. (2005) conducted an important study among personnel working in
Spanish restaurants and hotels. Contact employees (n ¼ 342) from 114 service units (58
hotel front desks and 56 restaurants) provided information about organizational
resources, engagement, and service climate. Furthermore, customers (n ¼ 1; 140) from
these units provided information on employee performance and customer loyalty.
Structural equation modeling analyses were consistent with a full mediation model in
which organizational resources and work engagement predicted service climate, which
in turn predicted employee performance and then customer loyalty.
In their recent study among Greek employees working in a fast-food restaurant,
Xanthopoulou et al. (2007c) expanded this research, and made a compelling case of the
predictive value of work engagement for performance, on a daily basis. Participants
were asked to fill in a survey and a diary booklet for five consecutive days. Consistent
with hypotheses, results showed that employees were more engaged on days that were
characterized by many job resources. Daily job resources, like supervisor coaching and
team atmosphere contributed to employees’ personal resources (day-levels of
optimism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem), which, in turn, explained daily engagement.
Importantly, this study clearly showed that engaged employees perform better on a
daily basis. The higher employees’ levels of daily engagement, the higher their
objective financial returns.
Why engaged workers perform better

There are at least four reasons why engaged workers perform better than non-engaged
workers. Engaged employees often experience positive emotions, including happiness,
joy, and enthusiasm; experience better health; create their own job and personal
resources; and transfer their engagement to others.
Positive emotions
Recent research has shown that engaged employees often experience positive emotions
(Schaufeli and Van Rhenen, 2006), and this may be the reason why they are more
productive. Happy people are more sensitive to opportunities at work, more outgoing
and helpful to others, and more confident and optimistic (Cropanzano and Wright,
CDI 2001). According to the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson,
13,3 2001), certain positive emotions including joy, interest and contentment, all share the
capacity to broaden people’s momentary thought – action repertoires and build their
personal resources (ranging from physical and intellectual resources to social and
psychological) through widening the array of thoughts and actions that come to mind.
For instance, joy broadens resources by creating the urge to play and be creative.
216 Interest, another positive emotion, fosters the desire to explore, assimilate new
information and experiences and grow.
Evidence for the broadening hypothesis has been reported by Fredrickson and
Branigan (2005) and by Isen (2000). Accordingly, positive affect produces a broad and
flexible cognitive organization as well as the ability to integrate diverse material. The
question is now whether this “broaden-and-build” effect will manifest itself in
enhanced job performance, as one would assume because of the accumulation of
personal resources. Fredrickson (2001) has argued that we need to investigate how (and
whether) broadened thought-action repertoires are translated into decisions and
actions. In an organizational context, Fredrickson and Losada (2005) showed that when
the ratio of managers’ positive to negative emotions is relatively high during business
meetings, they ask more questions, and their range between questioning and advocacy
is broader, resulting in better performance.
Good health
Research suggests that engagement is positively related to health, and this would
imply that engaged workers are better able to perform well. Schaufeli et al. (n.d.) have
shown that engaged workers report less psychosomatic complaints than their
non-engaged counterparts. Similarly, Demerouti et al. (2001) found moderate negative
correlations between engagement (particularly vigor) and psychosomatic health
complaints (e.g. headaches, chest pain). In addition, Hakanen et al. (2006), in their study
among Finnish teachers showed that work engagement is positively related to
self-rated health and workability.
Further, Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) found in their study among four different
Dutch service organizations that engaged workers suffer less from, for example,
self-reported headaches, cardiovascular problems, and stomach aches. Shirom (2003)
has also argued that vigor is positively related to mental and physical health. However,
note that recent research has generally failed to find evidence for a link between
engagement and physiological indicators, including the stress hormone cortisol
(Langelaan et al., 2006).
Ability to mobilize resources

One important reason why engaged worked are more productive may be their ability to
create their own resources. Research with Fredrickson’s (2001) broaden-and-build
theory has shown that momentary experiences of positive emotions can build enduring
psychological resources and trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being.
Positive emotions not only make people feel good at the moment, but also feel good in
the future (Fredrickson and Joiner, 2002).
There is indeed evidence for an upward spiral of work engagement and resources.
Xanthopoulou et al. (2007b) showed in their research among highly skilled Dutch
technicians that T1 job and personal resources resulted in higher levels of work
engagement one year later (T2). Simultaneously, work engagement resulted in more Work
personal resources (optimism, self-efficacy, and organization-based self-esteem) and engagement
more job resources (social support from colleagues, autonomy, coaching, and feedback)
over time. Conceptually similar results have been found in a Spanish context (Llorens
et al., 2007; see also Salanova et al., 2006), suggesting that engagement triggers an
upward spiral and leads to higher levels of self-efficacy over time. Furthermore,
Schaufeli et al.’s (2008) study among managers showed that engagement was 217
predictive of increases in next year’s job resources, including social support, autonomy,
learning opportunities, and performance feedback. This all suggests that in
comparison with non-engaged employees, engaged employees are better able to
mobilize their own job and personal resources that, in turn, fuel future engagement and
so forth.
Crossover of engagement
In most organizations, performance is the result of the combined effort of individual
employees. It is therefore conceivable that the crossover of engagement among
members of the same work team increases performance. Crossover or emotional
contagion can be defined as the transfer of positive (or negative) experiences from one
person to the other (Westman, 2001). If colleagues influence each other with their work
engagement, they may perform better as a team.
There is indeed some experimental evidence for such a process of emotional
contagion. Barsade (2002) conducted an innovative laboratory study in which the
transfer of moods among people in a group, and its influence on performance was
examined. Using a trained confederate enacting mood, she showed that the pleasant
mood of the confederate influenced (video coders’ ratings of) the mood of the other team
members during a simulated managerial exercise (leaderless group discussion). The
positive mood contagion consequently resulted in more cooperative behavior and
better task performance. In a similar vein, Sy et al. (2005) found that when leaders were
in a positive (vs. negative) mood, individual team members experienced more positive
and less negative mood. The researchers also found that groups with leaders in a
positive mood exhibited more coordination and expended less effort than did groups
with leaders in a negative mood.
Other researchers focused on emotional contagion in the workplace viewing
contagion as a reciprocal emotional reaction among employees who closely collaborate.
Thus, in a field setting, Totterdell et al. (1998) found evidence that the moods of teams
of nurses and accountants were related to each other even after controlling for shared
work problems. In addition, Bakker et al. (2006) in their study among 2,229 officers
working in one of 85 teams found that team-level work engagement was related to
individual team members’ engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption), after
controlling for individual members’ job demands and resources. Thus, engaged
workers who communicated their optimism, positive attitudes and pro-active
behaviors to their colleagues, created a positive team climate, independent of the
demands and resources they were exposed to. This suggests that engaged workers
influence their colleagues, and consequently, they perform better as a team.
CDI Overall model of work engagement
13,3 The evidence regarding the antecedents and consequences of work engagement can be
organized in an overall model of work engagement. In building this model, we draw on
two assumptions from the job demands-resources (JD-R) model (Bakker and
Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001). The first assumption is that job resources
such as social support from colleagues and supervisors, performance feedback, skill
218 variety, and autonomy, start a motivational process that leads to work engagement,
and consequently to higher performance. The second assumption is that job resources
become more salient and gain their motivational potential when employees are
confronted with high job demands (e.g. workload, emotional demands, and mental
demands). Further, we draw on the work of Xanthopoulou et al. (2007a, b, c), who
expanded the JD-R model by showing that job and personal resources are mutually
related, and that personal resources can be independent predictors of work
engagement. Thus, employees who score high on optimism, self-efficacy, resilience

and self-esteem are well able to mobilize their job resources, and generally are more
engaged in their work.
The JD-R model of work engagement is graphically depicted in Figure 1. As can be
seen, we assume that job resources and personal resources independently or combined
predict work engagement. Further, job and personal resources particularly have a
positive impact on engagement when job demands are high. Work engagement, in
turn, has a positive impact on job performance. Finally, employees who are engaged
and perform well are able to create their own resources, which then foster engagement
again over time and create a positive gain spiral.
Figure 1.
The JD-R model of work
engagement
Future of work engagement Work
In this article, we intended to put work engagement on the research agenda by showing engagement
that engagement is predicted by typical job resources, is related to personal resources
and leads to higher job performance. Thus, work engagement is an important indicator
of occupational well-being for both employees and organizations. Human resource
managers can do several things to facilitate work engagement among their employees.
Important starting point for any active policy is the measurement of engagement and 219
its drivers among all employees, for example by using the JD-R model (see Figure 1).
On the basis of this assessment, it can be determined whether individual employees,
teams, job positions, or departments score low, average, or high on work engagement
and its antecedents. Following Kompier’s (2003) advice, interventions should then
focus on both individuals (in the context of the organization), and the organization at
large.
From a theoretical point-of-view, it is important that research on work engagement

starts to use more elaborated research designs where causality is tested rigorously
(using experimental or longitudinal designs) and where predictors and outcomes of
work engagement are measured objectively. Moreover, it is worth to focus on the
mechanisms through which work engagement leads to favorable outcomes by getting
insight in the processes that it initiates or is involved in. It is, for instance, conceivable
that self-regulation – i.e. goal-directed behavior – is facilitated when people are
engaged in their work because they have the energy (can do) and the motivation (want
to do) to undertake action. This can help them not only to achieve better performance
but also to increase their chances for a better career development. As Cooper (2005)
notes, individuals in the future will have to take responsibility for their own personal
development. Since juggling different work demands and stakeholders at work can
easily lead to a lifestyle of long working hours and workaholism, it is important to
appreciate the importance of sustaining a personal and family life outside work.
Promoting engagement in the workplace (and not only) can prove to be a liberating
experience, giving choice and control to the individual – but individuals have to arm
themselves with the right skills and attitudes, and engage in a constant program of
personal career development.
References
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands-resources model: state of the art”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 309-28.
Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008), “Positive organizational behavior: engaged employees
in flourishing organizations”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29, pp. 147-54.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Verbeke, W. (2004), “Using the job demands: resources model to
predict burnout and performance”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 43, pp. 83-104.
Bakker, A.B., Gierveld, J.H. and Van Rijswijk, K. (2006), Succesfactoren bij vrouwelijke
schoolleiders in het primair onderwijs: Een onderzoek naar burnout, bevlogenheid en
prestaties (Success factors among female school principals in primary teaching: A Study on
Burnout, Work Engagement, and Performance), Right Management Consultants, Diemen.
Bakker, A.B., Hakanen, J.J., Demerouti, E. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2007), “Job resources boost
work engagement, particularly when job demands are high”, Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol. 99, pp. 274-84.
CDI Barsade, S. (2002), “The ripple effect: emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47, pp. 644-77.
13,3
Cooper, C.L. (2005), “Research note: the future of work: careers, stress and well-being”, Career
Development International, Vol. 10, pp. 369-99.
Cropanzano, R. and Wright, T.A. (2001), “When a ‘happy’ worker is really a ‘productive’ worker:
a review and further refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis”, Consulting
220 Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 53, pp. 182-99.
Deci, W.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human
Behavior, Plenum, New York, NY.
Demerouti, E. and Bakker, A.B. (2006), “Employee well-being and job performance: where we
stand and where we should go”, in Houdmont, J. and McIntyre, S. (Eds), Occupational
Health Psychology: European Perspectives on Research, Education and Practice, Vol. 1,
ISMAI Publications, Maia.
Demerouti, E. and Bakker, A.B. (n.d.), “The Oldenburg Burnout Inventory: a good alternative to
measure burnout (and engagement)”, in Halbesleben, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Stress and
Burnout in Health Care, Nova Science, New York, NY.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Ebbinghaus, M. (2002), “From mental strain to
burnout”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 423-41.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Vardakou, I. and Kantas, A. (2003), “The convergent validity of two
burnout instruments: a multitrait-multimethod analysis”, European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, Vol. 18, pp. 296-307.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., De Jonge, J., Janssen, P.P.M. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “Burnout
and engagement at work as a function of demands and control”, Scandinavian Journal of
Work, Environment and Health, Vol. 27, pp. 279-86.
Engelbrecht, S. (2006), “Motivation and burnout in human service work: the case of midwifery in
Denmark”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Roskilde University, Roskilde.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2001), “The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions”, American Psychologist, Vol. 56, pp. 218-26.
Fredrickson, B.L. and Branigan, C.A. (2005), “Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention
and thought: action repertoires”, Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 19, pp. 313-32.
Fredrickson, B.L. and Joiner, T. (2002), “Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward
emotional well-being”, Psychological Science, Vol. 13, pp. 172-5.
Fredrickson, B.L. and Losada, M.F. (2005), “Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human
flourishing”, American Psychologist, Vol. 60, pp. 678-86.
Gierveld, J.H. and Bakker, A.B. (2005), De invloed van de secretaresse (The Influence of the
Secretary), Manpower, Diemen.
González-Romá, V., Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Lloret, S. (2006), “Burnout and work
engagement: independent factors or opposite poles?”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 62, pp. 165-74.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Hakanen, J. (2002), “Työuupumuksesta työn imuun – positiivisen työhyvinvointikäsitteen
ja-menetelmän suomalaisen version validointi opetusalan organisaatiossa” (“From
burnout to job engagement – validation of the Finnish version of an instrument for
measuring job engagement (UWES) in an educational organization”), Työ ja Ihminen,
Vol. 16, pp. 42-58.
Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2005), “How dentists cope with their job demands Work
and stay engaged: the moderating role of job resources”, European Journal of Oral
Sciences, Vol. 113, pp. 479-87. engagement
Hakanen, J., Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006), “Burnout and work engagement among
teachers”, The Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 43, pp. 495-513.
Halbesleben, J.R.B. and Demerouti, E. (2005), “The construct validity of an alternative measure of
burnout: investigating the English translation of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory”, Work 221
and Stress, Vol. 19, pp. 208-20.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001), “The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress
process: advancing conservation of resources theory”, Applied Psychology: An International
Review, Vol. 50, pp. 337-70.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2002), “Social and psychological resources and adaptation”, Review of General
Hobfoll, S.E. and Shirom, A. (2000), “Conservation of resources theory: applications to stress and
management in the workplace”, in Golembiewski, R.T. (Ed.), Handbook of Organization
Behavior, 2nd ed., Dekker, New York, NY, pp. 57-81.
Hobfoll, S.E., Johnson, R.J., Ennis, N. and Jackson, A.P. (2003), “Resource loss, resource gain, and
emotional outcomes among inner city women”, Journal of Personality and Social
Isen, A.M. (2000), “Positive affect and decision making”, in Lewis, M. and Haviland-Jones, J.M.
(Eds), Handbook of Emotions, 2nd ed., Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 417-35.
Judge, T.A., Van Vianen, A.E.M. and De Pater, I. (2004), “Emotional stability, core
self-evaluations, and job outcomes: a review of the evidence and an agenda for future
research”, Human Performance, Vol. 17, pp. 325-46.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Erez, A. and Locke, E.A. (2005), “Core self-evaluations and job and life
satisfaction: the role of self-concordance and goal attainment”, Journal of Applied
Kompier, M. (2003), “Job design and well-being”, in Schabracq, M.J., Winnubst, J.A.M. and
Cooper, C.L. (Eds), The Handbook of Work and Health Psychology, 2nd ed., Wiley,
Chichester, pp. 429-54.
Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J. and Fiksenbaum, L. (2006), “Work engagement among women
managers and professionals in a Turkish bank: potential antecedents and consequences”,
Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 25, pp. 299-310.
Langelaan, S., Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Van Rhenen, W. and Van Doornen, L.J.P. (2006),
“Do burned-out and work-engaged employees differ in the functioning of the
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis?”, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and
Health, Vol. 32, pp. 339-48.
Llorens, S., Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “Testing the robustness of the
job demands-resources model”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 13,
pp. 378-91.
Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2007), “Does a positive gain spiral of
resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist?”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 23,
pp. 825-41.
Luthans, F. (2002), “Positive organizational behavior: developing and managing psychological
strengths”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16, pp. 57-72.
Luthans, F. and Youssef, C.M. (2007), “Emerging positive organizational behavior”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 33, pp. 321-49.
CDI Luthans, F., Norman, S.M., Avolio, B.J. and Avey, J.B. (2008), “The mediating role of
psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate: employee performance
13,3 relationship”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29, pp. 219-38.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U. and Ruokolainen, M. (2007), “Job demands and resources as antecedents
of work engagement: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 70,
pp. 149-71.
222 May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004), “The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 11-37.
Meijman, T.F. and Mulder, G. (1998), “Psychological aspects of workload”, in Drenth, P.J.D. and
Thierry, H. (Eds), Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2, Psychology
Press, Hove, pp. 5-33.
Rothmann, S. and Storm, K. (2003), “Work engagement in the South African Police Service”,
paper presented at the 11th European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology,
14-17 May 2003, Lisbon.
Ryan, R.M. and Frederick, C.M. (1997), “On energy, personality, and health: subjective vitality as
a dynamic reflection of well-being”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 65, pp. 529-65.
Salanova, M., Agut, S. and Peiró, J.M. (2005), “Linking organizational resources and work
engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service
climate”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, pp. 1217-27.
Salanova, M., Bakker, A.B. and Llorens, S. (2006), “Flow at work: evidence for an upward spiral
of personal and organizational resources”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 7, pp. 1-22.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2003), “UWES – utrecht work engagement scale: test manual”,
Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, available at: www.schaufeli.com
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 25, pp. 293-315.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Salanova, M. (2007), “Work engagement: an emerging psychological concept
and its implications for organizations”, in Gilliland, S.W., Steiner, D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P.
(Eds), Research in Social Issues in Management: Managing Social and Ethical Issues in
Organizations, Vol. 5, Information Age Publishers, Greenwich, CT.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Van Rhenen, W. (2006), “Over de rol van positieve en negatieve emoties bij
het welbevinden van managers: Een studie met de Job-related Affective Well-being Scale
(JAWS)” (“About the role of positive and negative emotions in managers’ well-being: A
study using the Job-related Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS)”), Gedrag & Organisatie,
Vol. 19, pp. 323-244.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement
with a brief questionnaire: a cross-national study”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 66, pp. 701-16.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Van Rhenen, W. (2008), “How changes in job demands and
resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism”, manuscript
submitted for publication.
Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and Van Rhenen, W. (n.d.), “Workaholism, burnout and engagement:
one of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being?”, Applied Psychology:
An International Review.
Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W., Le Blanc, P., Peeters, M., Bakker, A.B. and De Jonge, J. (2001), Work
“Maakt arbeid gezond? Op zoek naar de bevlogen werknemer” (“Does work make happy?
In search of the engaged worker”), De Psycholoog, Vol. 36, pp. 422-8. engagement
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of
engagement and burnout and: a confirmative analytic approach”, Journal of Happiness
Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 71-92.
Shirom, A. (2003), “Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigor and the study of positive 223
affect in organizations”, in Ganster, D. and Perrewe, P.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational
Stress and Well-being, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 135-65.
Sonnentag, S. (2003), “Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the
interface between non-work and work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 518-28.
Storm, K. and Rothmann, I. (2003), “A psychometric analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale in the South African police service”, South African Journal of Industrial Psychology,
Vol. 29, pp. 62-70.

Sy, T., Cote, S. and Saavedra, R. (2005), “The contagious leader: impact of leader’s affect on group
member affect and group processes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, pp. 295-305.
Totterdell, P.S., Kellet, K., Teuchmann, K. and Briner, R.B. (1998), “Evidence of mood linkage in
work groups”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 1504-15.
Westman, M. (2001), “Stress and strain crossover”, Human Relations, Vol. 54, pp. 557-91.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2007a), “The role of personal
resources in the job demands-resources model”, International Journal of Stress
Management, Vol. 14, pp. 121-41.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2007b), “Work engagement:
a cycle of job and personal resources”, manuscript submitted for publication.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2007c), “How job and
personal resources influence work engagement and financial turnover: a diary study in a
Greek fast-food company”, manuscript submitted for publication.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Kantas, A. (n.d.), “The measurement of
burnout and engagement: a cross-cultural study comparing Greece and The Netherlands”,
New Review of Social Psychology (in press).
Yi-Wen, Z. and Yi-Qun, C. (2005), “The Chinese version of the Utrecht work engagement scale:
an examination of reliability and validity”, Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 13,
pp. 268-70.
Corresponding author
Arnold B. Bakker can be contacted at: bakker@fsw.eur.nl
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Dirk De Clercq, Dave Bouckenooghe, Usman Raja, Ganna Matsyborska. 2014. Unpacking the Goal
Congruence–Organizational Deviance Relationship: The Roles of Work Engagement and Emotional
Intelligence. Journal of Business Ethics 124, 695-711. [CrossRef]
2. Dorota Reis, Annekatrin Hoppe, Annette Schröder. 2014. Reciprocal relationships between resources,
work and study engagement, and mental health: Evidence for gain cycles. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 1-17. [CrossRef]
3. Hilde H. Midje, Ingunn T. Nafstad, Jonn Syse, Steffen Torp. 2014. Workaholism and Mental Health
Problems Among Municipal Middle Managers in Norway. Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine 56, 1042-1051. [CrossRef]
4. Anna R. Koch, Carmen Binnewies, Christian Dormann. 2014. Motivating innovation in schools: School
principals’ work engagement as a motivator for schools’ innovation. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 1-13. [CrossRef]

5. Bruce A. Rayton, Zeynep Y. Yalabik. 2014. Work engagement, psychological contract breach and job
satisfaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 25:17, 2382-2400. [CrossRef]
6. Zeynep Y. Yalabik, Yvonne van Rossenberg, Nicholas Kinnie, Juani Swart. 2014. Engaged and committed?
The relationship between work engagement and commitment in professional service firms. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management 1-20. [CrossRef]
7. Arnold B. Bakker, Ana Isabel Sanz Vergel, Jeroen Kuntze. 2014. Student engagement and performance:
A weekly diary study on the role of openness. Motivation and Emotion . [CrossRef]
8. David Jones, Sara Dechmerowski, Razia Oden, Valerie Lugo, Jingjing Wang-Costello, William
PikeOlfactory Interfaces 131-161. [CrossRef]
9. Christina Matz-Costa, Jacquelyn Boone James, Larry Ludlow, Melissa Brown, Elyssa Besen, Clair
Johnson. 2014. The Meaning and Measurement of Productive Engagement in Later Life. Social Indicators
Research 118, 1293-1314. [CrossRef]
10. Hazel Melanie Ramos, Thomas Wing Yan Man, Michael Mustafa, Zuie Zuie Ng. 2014. Psychological
ownership in small family firms: Family and non-family employees’ work attitudes and behaviours. Journal
of Family Business Strategy 5, 300-311. [CrossRef]
11. G. Caesens, F. Stinglhamber. 2014. The relationship between perceived organizational support and
work engagement: The role of self-efficacy and its outcomes. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/
European Review of Applied Psychology 64, 259-267. [CrossRef]
12. Osman M. Karatepe. 2014. Hope, Work Engagement, and Organizationally Valued Performance
Outcomes: An Empirical Study in the Hotel Industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management
23, 678-698. [CrossRef]
13. Susan van Schie, Stefan T. Güntert, Jeannette Oostlander, Theo Wehner. 2014. How the Organizational
Context Impacts Volunteers: A Differentiated Perspective on Self-determined Motivation. VOLUNTAS:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations . [CrossRef]
14. Donald C. Barnes, Joel E. Collier, Stacey Robinson. 2014. Customer delight and work engagement.
Journal of Services Marketing 28:5, 380-390. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Stefanie Mache, Karin Vitzthum, Burghard F. Klapp, Gerhard Danzer. 2014. Surgeons' work engagement:
Influencing factors and relations to job and life satisfaction. The Surgeon 12, 181-190. [CrossRef]
16. Stan De Spiegelaere, Guy Van Gyes, Hans De Witte, Wendy Niesen, Geert Van Hootegem. 2014. On the
Relation of Job Insecurity, Job Autonomy, Innovative Work Behaviour and the Mediating Effect of Work
Engagement. Creativity and Innovation Management n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
17. Philippe Dubreuil, Jacques Forest, François Courcy. 2014. From strengths use to work performance: The
role of harmonious passion, subjective vitality, and concentration. The Journal of Positive Psychology 9:4,
335-349. [CrossRef]
18. Liora Nutov, Orit Hazzan. 2014. An organizational engagement model as a management tool for high
school principals. Journal of Educational Administration 52:4, 469-486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. C. P. M. van der Vleuten, E. W. Driessen. 2014. What would happen to education if we take education
evidence seriously?. Perspectives on Medical Education . [CrossRef]
20. Scott Moodie, Simon Dolan, Roland Burke. 2014. Exploring the causes, symptoms and health
consequences of joint and inverse states of work engagement and burnout. Management Research: Journal
of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management 12:1, 4-22. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Grant R. Bickerton, Maureen H. Miner, Martin Dowson, Barbara Griffin. 2014. Spiritual resources and
work engagement among religious workers: A three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology 87:2, 370-391. [CrossRef]
22. Alan M. Saks, Jamie A. Gruman. 2014. What Do We Really Know About Employee Engagement?.
Human Resource Development Quarterly 25:2, 155-182. [CrossRef]
23. Guido Alessandri, Laura Borgogni, Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Gian Vittorio Caprara, Chiara Consiglio. 2014.
From Positive Orientation to Job performance: The Role of Work Engagement and Self-efficacy Beliefs.
Journal of Happiness Studies . [CrossRef]
24. Yong-Ki Lee, Joowon Choi, Bo-young Moon, Barry J. Babin. 2014. Codes of ethics, corporate
philanthropy, and employee responses. International Journal of Hospitality Management 39, 97-106.
[CrossRef]
25. Dr Julia Claxton, Diane Keeble-Ramsay, Andrew Armitage. 2014. HRD challenges when faced by
disengaged UK workers. Journal of Workplace Learning 26:3/4, 217-231. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Dr Julia Claxton, Janet McCray, Hazel Turner, Barbara Hall, Marie Price, Gill Constable. 2014. Social
care mentorship and employee engagement in the transformation of the Social Care Workforce. Journal
of Workplace Learning 26:3/4, 267-280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Dr Julia Claxton, Sowath Rana, Alexandre Ardichvili, Oleksandr Tkachenko. 2014. A theoretical model
of the antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement. Journal of Workplace Learning 26:3/4, 249-266.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Larissa Beattie, Barbara Griffin. 2014. Day-level fluctuations in stress and engagement in response to
workplace incivility: A diary study. Work & Stress 1-19. [CrossRef]
29. Päivi Hökkä, Katja Vähäsantanen. 2014. Agency-centred coupling—a better way to manage an educational
organization?. International Journal of Leadership in Education 17:2, 131-153. [CrossRef]
30. Leon T. de Beer, Jaco Pienaar, Sebastiaan Rothmann. 2014. Job Burnout, Work Engagement and Self-
reported Treatment for Health Conditions in South Africa. Stress and Health n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
31. Chang-qin Lu, Hai-jiang Wang, Jing-jing Lu, Dan-yang Du, Arnold B. Bakker. 2014. Does work
engagement increase person–job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational
Behavior 84:2, 142-152. [CrossRef]
32. Mariana Kaiseler, Cristina QueiróS, Fernando Passos, Pedro Sousa. 2014. STRESS APPRAISAL,
COPING, AND WORK ENGAGEMENT AMONG POLICE RECRUITS: AN EXPLORATORY
STUDY 1 , 2. Psychological Reports 114:2, 635-646. [CrossRef]
33. Hely Innanen, Asko Tolvanen, Katariina Salmela-Aro. 2014. Burnout, work engagement and workaholism
among highly educated employees: Profiles, antecedents and outcomes. Burnout Research . [CrossRef]
34. Arnold B. Bakker, Evangelia Demerouti, Ana Isabel Sanz-Vergel. 2014. Burnout and Work Engagement:
The JD–R Approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 1:1,
389-411. [CrossRef]
35. Jan Selmer, Charlotte Jonasson, Jakob Lauring. 2014. Knowledge processing and faculty engagement in
multicultural university settings: A social learning perspective. Journal of Further and Higher Education
38:2, 211-229. [CrossRef]
36. Abraham Carmeli, Alexander S. McKay, James C. Kaufman. 2014. Emotional Intelligence and Creativity:
The Mediating Role of Generosity and Vigor. The Journal of Creative Behavior n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
37. Piers H. Bayl-Smith, Barbara Griffin. 2014. Age discrimination in the workplace: identifying as a late-
career worker and its relationship with engagement and intended retirement age. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
38. Katariina Salmela-Aro, Katja Upadyaya. 2014. School burnout and engagement in the context of demands-
resources model. British Journal of Educational Psychology 84:1, 137-151. [CrossRef]
39. Ndayiziveyi Takawira, Melinde Coetzee, Dries Schreuder. 2014. Job embeddedness, work engagement and
turnover intention of staff in a higher education institution: An exploratory study. SA Journal of Human
Resource Management 12:1. . [CrossRef]
40. Cynthia D. FisherConceptualizing and Measuring Wellbeing at Work 1-25. [CrossRef]
41. Cheri Botha, Karina Mostert. 2014. A structural model of job resources, organisational and individual
strengths use and work engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 40:1. . [CrossRef]
42. Madelyn Geldenhuys, Karolina Łaba, Cornelia M. Venter. 2014. Meaningful work, work engagement and
organisational commitment. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 40:1. . [CrossRef]
43. Osman M. Karatepe, Eda Demir. 2014. Linking core self-evaluations and work engagement to work-family
facilitation. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 26:2, 307-323. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
44. Gillian Forbes, Ruth Freeman, Wendy McCombes, Gerry Humphris. 2014. Job leaving intentions and
occupation-related beliefs amongst preregistered dental nurses in Scotland: the mediating role of work
engagement and personal accomplishment. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 42:1, 11-19.
[CrossRef]
45. Giles P. McClelland, Desmond J. Leach, Chris W. Clegg, Ian McGowan. 2014. Collaborative crafting in
call centre teams. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
46. Stefanie Daniel, Sabine Sonnentag. 2014. Work to non-work enrichment: The mediating roles of positive
affect and positive work reflection. Work & Stress 28:1, 49-66. [CrossRef]
47. Mushtaq A. Siddiqi. 2014. Work engagement as a reaction to work environment and customer outcome:
a service marketing perspective. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 24:1, 21-38. [CrossRef]
48. Julaine Rigg, Sandra Sydnor, Annmarie Nicely, Jonathon Day. 2014. Employee Engagement in Jamaican
Hotels: Do Demographic and Organizational Characteristics Matter?. Journal of Human Resources in
Hospitality & Tourism 13:1, 1-16. [CrossRef]
49. Shu-wen Tang, Oi-ling Siu, Francis Cheung. 2014. A Study of Work-Family Enrichment among Chinese
Employees: The Mediating Role between Work Support and Job Satisfaction. Applied Psychology 63:1,
130-150. [CrossRef]
50. Osman M. Karatepe, Elnaz Beirami, Mona Bouzari, Hamaoyoun Pasha Safavi. 2014. Does work
engagement mediate the effects of challenge stressors on job outcomes? Evidence from the hotel industry.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 36, 14-22. [CrossRef]
51. Linda Koopmans, Jennifer K Coffeng, Claire M Bernaards, Cécile RL Boot, Vincent H Hildebrandt,
Henrica CW de Vet, Allard J van der Beek. 2014. Responsiveness of the individual work performance
questionnaire. BMC Public Health 14:1, 513. [CrossRef]
52. Arnold B. Bakker. 2014. Daily Fluctuations in Work Engagement. European Psychologist 1, 1-10.
[CrossRef]
53. Dr Raphael Snir and Prof. Itzhak Harpaz, Ilona van Beek, Toon W. Taris, Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Veerle
Brenninkmeijer. 2013. Heavy work investment: its motivational make-up and outcomes. Journal of
Managerial Psychology 29:1, 46-62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

54. Prof. Maura Sheehan, Yu Kyoung Park, Ji Hoon Song, Seung Won Yoon, Jungwoo Kim. 2013. Learning
organization and innovative behavior. European Journal of Training and Development 38:1/2, 75-94.
55. Marie Barbier, Isabelle Hansez, Nik Chmiel, Evangelia Demerouti. 2013. Performance expectations,
personal resources, and job resources: How do they predict work engagement?. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology 22:6, 750-762. [CrossRef]
56. Arnold B. Bakker, Ana Isabel Sanz-Vergel. 2013. Weekly work engagement and flourishing: The role of
hindrance and challenge job demands. Journal of Vocational Behavior 83:3, 397-409. [CrossRef]
57. J. Akkermans, W.B. Schaufeli, V. Brenninkmeijer, R.W.B. Blonk. 2013. The role of career competencies
in the Job Demands — Resources model. Journal of Vocational Behavior 83:3, 356-366. [CrossRef]
58. Maria Vassos, Karen Nankervis, Trevor Skerry, Kerrie Lante. 2013. Work engagement and job burnout
within the disability support worker population. Research in Developmental Disabilities 34, 3884-3895.
[CrossRef]
59. Daniel Lundqvist, Cathrine Reineholm, Maria Gustavsson, Kerstin Ekberg. 2013. Investigating Work
Conditions and Burnout at Three Hierarchical Levels. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
55:10, 1157-1163. [CrossRef]
60. Antje Schmitt, Hannes Zacher, Annet H. de Lange. 2013. Focus on opportunities as a boundary condition
of the relationship between job control and work engagement: A multi-sample, multi-method study.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 22:5, 505-519. [CrossRef]
61. Donna Sullivan Havens, Nora E. Warshawsky, Joseph Vasey. 2013. RN work engagement in generational
cohorts: the view from rural US hospitals. Journal of Nursing Management 21:7, 927-940. [CrossRef]
62. Marie Barbier, Benoit Dardenne, Isabelle Hansez. 2013. A longitudinal test of the Job Demands–
Resources model using perceived stigma and social identity. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology 22:5, 532-546. [CrossRef]
63. Luo Lu, Cary L. Cooper, Hui Yen Lin. 2013. A cross-cultural examination of presenteeism and
supervisory support. Career Development International 18:5, 440-456. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Donald C. Barnes, Joel E. Collier. 2013. Investigating work engagement in the service environment.
Journal of Services Marketing 27:6, 485-499. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Elena Fiabane, Ines Giorgi, Cinzia Sguazzin, Piergiorgio Argentero. 2013. Work engagement and
occupational stress in nurses and other healthcare workers: the role of organisational and personal factors.
Journal of Clinical Nursing 22:17-18, 2614-2624. [CrossRef]
66. Lars G. Tummers, Laura Den Dulk. 2013. The effects of work alienation on organisational commitment,
work effort and work-to-family enrichment. Journal of Nursing Management 21:6, 850-859. [CrossRef]
67. Mohammed Yasin Ghadi, Mario Fernando, Peter Caputi. 2013. Transformational leadership and work
engagement. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 34:6, 532-550. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. Oi Ling Siu, Arnold B. Bakker, Xinhui Jiang. 2013. Psychological Capital Among University Students:
Relationships with Study Engagement and Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Happiness Studies . [CrossRef]
69. Garry B. Hall, Maureen F. Dollard, Anthony H. Winefield, Christian Dormann, Arnold B. Bakker.
2013. Psychosocial safety climate buffers effects of job demands on depression and positive organizational
behaviors. Anxiety, Stress & Coping 26:4, 355-377. [CrossRef]
70. Zeynep Y. Yalabik, Patchara Popaitoon, Julie A. Chowne, Bruce A. Rayton. 2013. Work engagement
as a mediator between employee attitudes and outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 24, 2799-2823. [CrossRef]
71. Arnold B. Bakker, Despoina Xanthopoulou. 2013. Creativity and charisma among female leaders: the
role of resources and work engagement. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24,
2760-2779. [CrossRef]
72. Sarah Jenkins, Rick Delbridge. 2013. Context matters: examining ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ approaches to employee
engagement in two workplaces. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24, 2670-2691.
[CrossRef]
73. Aoife M. McDermott, Mary A. Keating, Yseult Freeney, Martin R. Fellenz. 2013. Work engagement as
a key driver of quality of care: a study with midwives. Journal of Health Organization and Management
27:3, 330-349. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
74. Aamir Ali Chughtai, Finian Buckley. 2013. Exploring the impact of trust on research scientists' work
engagement. Personnel Review 42:4, 396-421. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Else Ouweneel, Pascale M. Le Blanc, Wilmar B. Schaufeli. 2013. Do‐it‐yourself. Career Development
International 18:2, 173-195. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
76. Johannes J. De Waal, Jaco Pienaar. 2013. Towards understanding causality between work engagement and
psychological capital. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 39:2. . [CrossRef]
77. Osman M. Karatepe. 2013. High-performance work practices and hotel employee performance: The
mediation of work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Management 32, 132-140. [CrossRef]
78. Osman M. Karatepe. 2013. Perceptions of organizational politics and hotel employee outcomes.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25:1, 82-104. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
79. Esther Gracia, Marisa Salanova, Rosa Grau, Eva Cifre. 2013. How to enhance service quality through
organizational facilitators, collective work engagement, and relational service competence. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 22:1, 42-55. [CrossRef]
80. Jan Selmer, Charlotte Jonasson, Jakob Lauring. 2013. Group conflict and faculty engagement: is there
a moderating effect of group trust?. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35, 95-109.
[CrossRef]
81. Tracy J. Opie, Carolina M. Henn. 2013. Work-family conflict and work engagement among mothers:
Conscientiousness and neuroticism as moderators. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 39:1. . [CrossRef]
82. Anne Mäkikangas, Taru Feldt, Ulla Kinnunen, Saija MaunoDoes Personality Matter? A Review of
Individual Differences in Occupational Well-Being 107-143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
83. Simon L. AlbrechtWork Engagement and the Positive Power of Meaningful Work 237-260. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
84. Stewart I. Donaldson, Maren DollwetTaming the Waves and Wild Horses of Positive Organizational
Psychology 1-21. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
85. Cristina de Mello e Souza Wildermuth, Amy Grace Vaughan, Elizabeth Anne Christo-Baker. 2013. A
Path to Passion: Connecting Personality, Psychological Conditions, and Emotional Engagement. Journal
of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture 3:4, 18-45. [CrossRef]
86. Fernando Doménech Betoret. 2013. Teacher Psychological Needs, Locus of Control and Engagement.
The Spanish Journal of Psychology 16. . [CrossRef]
87. Audrey Morin, Anne Brault-Labbé, Audrey Brassard. 2013. Conceptualisation multimodale de
l’engagement professionnel et associations avec le bien-être chez des enseignants du primaire. Revue des
sciences de l'éducation 39, 571. [CrossRef]

88. Jasmine-Yan Huynh, Jacques C. Metzer, Anthony H. Winefield. 2012. Engaged or Connected? A
Perspective of the Motivational Pathway of the Job Demands-Resources Model in Volunteers Working for
Nonprofit Organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations
23:4, 870-898. [CrossRef]
89. Jeongdoo Park, Dogan Gursoy. 2012. Generation effects on work engagement among U.S. hotel
employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31:4, 1195-1202. [CrossRef]
90. Sylvie Vincent‐Höper, Clara Muser, Monique Janneck. 2012. Transformational leadership, work
engagement, and occupational success. Career Development International 17:7, 663-682. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
91. Neelam Nigah, Ann J. Davis, Scott A. Hurrell. 2012. The Impact of Buddying on Psychological
Capital and Work Engagement: An Empirical Study of Socialization in the Professional Services Sector.
Thunderbird International Business Review 54:6, 891-905. [CrossRef]
92. Else Ouweneel, Pascale M. Le Blanc, Wilmar B. Schaufeli. 2012. Don't leave your heart at home. Career
Development International 17:6, 537-556. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
93. Thomas Kalliath, Parveen Kalliath, Simon L. Albrecht. 2012. The influence of job, team and
organizational level resources on employee well‐being, engagement, commitment and extra‐role
performance. International Journal of Manpower 33:7, 840-853. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
94. Vidhi Agrawal, Richa Chaudhary, Santosh Rangnekar, Mukesh Kumar Barua. 2012. Relationships
between occupational self efficacy, human resource development climate, and work engagement. Team
Performance Management: An International Journal 18:7/8, 370-383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
95. Thomas Kalliath, Parveen Kalliath, Tui McKeown, Robyn Cochrane. 2012. Professional contractor
wellbeing: mutual benefits of organisational support. International Journal of Manpower 33:7, 786-803.
96. Adriana Viljevac, Helena D. Cooper-Thomas, Alan M. Saks. 2012. An investigation into the validity
of two measures of work engagement. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 23:17,
3692-3709. [CrossRef]
97. Selahattin Kanten, Omer Sadullah. 2012. An Empirical Research on Relationship Quality of Work Life
and Work Engagement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 62, 360-366. [CrossRef]
98. Paul Smith, Peter Caputi, Nadia Crittenden. 2012. How are women's glass ceiling beliefs related to career
success?. Career Development International 17:5, 458-474. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
99. Nora E. Warshawsky, Donna S. Havens, George Knafl. 2012. The Influence of Interpersonal Relationships
on Nurse Managers’ Work Engagement and Proactive Work Behavior. JONA: The Journal of Nursing
Administration 42:9, 418-425. [CrossRef]
100. Bernardo Moreno-Jiménez, Alfredo Rodríguez-Muñoz, Ana Isabel Sanz-Vergel, Eva Garrosa. 2012.
Elucidating the Role of Recovery Experiences in the Job Demands-Resources Model. The Spanish journal
of psychology 15:02, 659-669. [CrossRef]
101. Coralia Sulea, Delia Virga, Laurentiu P. Maricutoiu, Wilmar Schaufeli, Catalina Zaborila Dumitru, Florin
A. Sava. 2012. Work engagement as mediator between job characteristics and positive and negative extra‐
role behaviors. Career Development International 17:3, 188-207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
102. Jérôme Rossier, Gregory Zecca, Sarah D. Stauffer, Christian Maggiori, Jean-Pierre Dauwalder.
2012. Career Adapt-Abilities Scale in a French-speaking Swiss sample: Psychometric properties and
relationships to personality and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior 80:3, 734-743.
[CrossRef]
103. L. Antoinette Bargagliotti. 2012. Work engagement in nursing: a concept analysis. Journal of Advanced
Nursing 68:6, 1414-1428. [CrossRef]
104. David R. Strauser, Deirdre O'Sullivan, Alex W. K. Wong. 2012. Work Personality, Work Engagement,
and Academic Effort in a Group of College Students. Journal of Employment Counseling 49:2, 50-61.
[CrossRef]
105. I.J. Hetty van Emmerik, Bert Schreurs, Nele de Cuyper, I.M. Jawahar, Maria C.W. Peeters. 2012. The
route to employability. Career Development International 17:2, 104-119. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
106. Kiisa Hulkko-Nyman, Daria Sarti, Anu Hakonen, Christina Sweins. 2012. Total Rewards Perceptions and
Work Engagement in Elder-Care Organizations. International Studies of Management and Organization
42:1, 24-49. [CrossRef]
107. Jyotsna Bhatnagar. 2012. Management of innovation: role of psychological empowerment, work
engagement and turnover intention in the Indian context. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 23:5, 928-951. [CrossRef]
108. Rachel E. Kane, Marshall J. Magnusen, Pamela L. Perrewé. 2012. Differential effects of identification on
extra‐role behavior. Career Development International 17:1, 25-42. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
109. Christa Welthagen, Crizelle Els. 2012. Depressed, not depressed or unsure: Prevalence and the relation
to well-being across sectors in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 38:1. . [CrossRef]
110. Ilona van Beek, Qiao Hu, Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Toon W. Taris, Bert H.J. Schreurs. 2012. For Fun, Love,
or Money: What Drives Workaholic, Engaged, and Burned-Out Employees at Work?. Applied Psychology
61:1, 30-55. [CrossRef]
111. Richa Chaudhary, Santosh Rangnekar, Mukesh Kumar Barua. 2012. HRD climate, occupational self-
efficacy and work engagement: A study from India. The Psychologist-Manager Journal 15:2, 86-105.
[CrossRef]
112. Israel Sánchez-Cardona, Ramon Rodriguez-Montalbán, Elliot Acevedo-Soto, Kara Nieves Lugo, Frances
Torres-Oquendo, Jose Toro-Alfonso. 2012. Self-Efficacy and Openness to Experience as Antecedent of
Study Engagement: An Exploratory Analysis. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46, 2163-2167.
[CrossRef]
113. Alfredo Rodriguez-Muñoz, Ana I. Sanz-Vergel, Evangelia Demerouti, Arnold B. Bakker. 2012. Reciprocal
Relationships Between Job Demands, Job Resources, and Recovery Opportunities. Journal of Personnel
Psychology 11, 86-94. [CrossRef]
114. Alan M. Saks. 2011. Workplace spirituality and employee engagement. Journal of Management, Spirituality
& Religion 8:4, 317-340. [CrossRef]
115. Alicia S.M. Leung, L.Z. Wu, Y.Y. Chen, Michael N. Young. 2011. The impact of workplace ostracism
in service organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30:4, 836-844. [CrossRef]
116. Aamir Ali Chughtai, Finian Buckley. 2011. Work engagement. Career Development International 16:7,
684-705. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
117. Yehuda Baruch. 2011. The positive wellbeing aspects of workaholism in cross cultural perspective. Career
Development International 16:6, 572-591. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
118. Arnold B. Bakker, Lieke L. ten Brummelhuis, Jelle T. Prins, Frank M.M.A. van der Heijden. 2011.
Applying the job demands–resources model to the work–home interface: A study among medical residents
and their partners. Journal of Vocational Behavior 79:1, 170-180. [CrossRef]

119. Cristian Balducci, Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Franco Fraccaroli. 2011. The job demands–resources model
and counterproductive work behaviour: The role of job-related affect. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 20:4, 467-496. [CrossRef]
120. Arnold B. Bakker, Wido Oerlemans, Evangelia Demerouti, Bart Bruins Slot, Donovan Karamat Ali. 2011.
Flow and performance: A study among talented Dutch soccer players. Psychology of Sport and Exercise
12:4, 442-450. [CrossRef]
121. Drea Zigarmi, Kim Nimon, Dobie Houson, David Witt, Jim Diehl. 2011. A preliminary field test of an
employee work passion model. Human Resource Development Quarterly 22:2, 195-221. [CrossRef]
122. Jamie A. Gruman, Alan M. Saks. 2011. Performance management and employee engagement. Human
Resource Management Review 21:2, 123-136. [CrossRef]
123. Roslyn De Braine, Gert Roodt. 2011. The Job Demands-Resources model as predictor of work identity
and work engagement: A comparative analysis. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 37:2. . [CrossRef]
124. Adrian Medhurst, Simon Albrecht. 2011. Salesperson engagement and performance: A theoretical model.
Journal of Management & Organization 17:3, 398-411. [CrossRef]
125. Saija Mauno, Noona Kiuru, Ulla Kinnunen. 2011. Relationships between work-family culture and work
attitudes at both the individual and the departmental level. Work & Stress 25:2, 147-166. [CrossRef]
126. Lyndsay K. Field, Johanna H. Buitendach. 2011. Happiness, work engagement and organisational
commitment of support staff at a tertiary education institution in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology 37:1. . [CrossRef]
127. Sebastiaan Rothmann, Lene I. Jorgensen, Carin Hill. 2011. Coping and work engagement in selected
South African organisations. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 37:1. . [CrossRef]
128. Elsabé Bell, Nicolene Barkhuizen. 2011. The relationship between barriers to change and the work
engagement of employees in a South African property management company. SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology 37:1. . [CrossRef]
129. Fallen Mendes, Marius W. Stander. 2011. Positive organisation: The role of leader behaviour in work
engagement and retention. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 37:1. . [CrossRef]
130. Evangelia Demerouti, Erik van Eeuwijk, Margriet Snelder, Ulrike Wild. 2011. Assessing the effects of a
“personal effectiveness” training on psychological capital, assertiveness and self‐awareness using self‐other
agreement. Career Development International 16:1, 60-81. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
131. Maria Tims, Arnold B. Bakker, Despoina Xanthopoulou. 2011. Do transformational leaders enhance their
followers' daily work engagement?. The Leadership Quarterly 22:1, 121-131. [CrossRef]
132. Arnold B. Bakker, Simon L. Albrecht, Michael P. Leiter. 2011. Key questions regarding work engagement.
133. Chang-qin Lu, Oi-ling Siu, Wei-qing Chen, Hai-jiang Wang. 2011. Family mastery enhances work
engagement in Chinese nurses: A cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior 78:1, 100-109.
[CrossRef]
134. Arnold B. Bakker, Simon L. Albrecht, Michael P. Leiter. 2011. Work engagement: Further reflections
on the state of play. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 20:1, 74-88. [CrossRef]
135. Jonathon R. B. Halbesleben. 2011. The consequences of engagement: The good, the bad, and the ugly.

136. Cynthia D. Fisher. 2010. Happiness at Work. International Journal of Management Reviews 12:4, 384-412.
[CrossRef]
137. Veerle Brenninkmeijer, Evangelia Demerouti, Pascale M. le Blanc, I.J. Hetty van Emmerik. 2010.
Regulatory focus at work. Career Development International 15:7, 708-728. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
138. Arnold B. Bakker, Carolyn M. Boyd, Maureen Dollard, Nicole Gillespie, Anthony H. Winefield,
Con Stough. 2010. The role of personality in the job demands‐resources model. Career Development
139. Bill Buenar Puplampu. 2010. Leadership as engagement, leadership as system development. European
Business Review 22:6, 624-651. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
140. Maureen F. Dollard, Arnold B. Bakker. 2010. Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive
work environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology 83:3, 579-599. [CrossRef]
141. Anne Mäkikangas, Arnold B. Bakker, Kaisa Aunola, Evangelia Demerouti. 2010. Job resources and flow
at work: Modelling the relationship via latent growth curve and mixture model methodology. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83:3, 795-814. [CrossRef]
142. Machteld van den Heuvel, Evangelia Demerouti, Arnold B. Bakker, Wilmar B. SchaufeliPersonal
Resources and Work Engagement in the Face of Change 124-150. [CrossRef]
143. Chieh-Peng Lin. 2010. Modeling Corporate Citizenship, Organizational Trust, and Work Engagement
Based on Attachment Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 94:4, 517-531. [CrossRef]
144. Ralph Kattenbach, Evangelia Demerouti, Friedhelm Nachreiner. 2010. Flexible working times: effects on
employees' exhaustion, work‐nonwork conflict and job performance. Career Development International
15:3, 279-295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
145. Katriina Hyvönen, Taru Feldt, Asko Tolvanen, Ulla Kinnunen. 2010. The role of goal pursuit in the
interaction between psychosocial work environment and occupational well-being. Journal of Vocational
Behavior 76:3, 406-418. [CrossRef]
146. Arnold B. Bakker, Matthijs P. Bal. 2010. Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among
starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83:1, 189-206. [CrossRef]
147. Peter Kesting, John Parm Ulhøi. 2010. Employee‐driven innovation: extending the license to foster
innovation. Management Decision 48:1, 65-84. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
148. Osman M. Karatepe, Shohreh Keshavarz, Shima Nejati. 2010. Do Core Self-Evaluations Mediate the
Effect of Coworker Support on Work Engagement? A Study of Hotel Employees in Iran. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management 17:1, 62-71. [CrossRef]
149. Wendy Patton, Peter McIlveen. 2009. Practice and Research in Career Counseling and Development-2008.
The Career Development Quarterly 58:2, 118-161. [CrossRef]
150. Osman M. Karatepe, Olusegun A. Olugbade. 2009. The effects of job and personal resources on hotel
employees’ work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28:4, 504-512. [CrossRef]
151. Maria Peeters, Cobi Wattez, Evangelia Demerouti, Wietske de Regt. 2009. Work‐family culture, work‐
family interference and well‐being at work. Career Development International 14:7, 700-713. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
152. Jos Akkermans, Veerle Brenninkmeijer, Roland W.B. Blonk, Lando L.J. Koppes. 2009. Fresh and
healthy?. Career Development International 14:7, 671-699. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
153. Machteld van den Heuvel, Evangelia Demerouti, Bert H.J. Schreurs, Arnold B. Bakker, Wilmar
B. Schaufeli. 2009. Does meaning‐making help during organizational change?. Career Development
154. I.J. Hetty van Emmerik, Arnold B. Bakker, Martin C. Euwema. 2009. Explaining employees' evaluations
of organizational change with the job‐demands resources model. Career Development International 14:6,
594-613. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
155. Katriina Hyvönen, Taru Feldt, Katariina Salmela-Aro, Ulla Kinnunen, Anne Mäkikangas. 2009. Young
managers’ drive to thrive: A personal work goal approach to burnout and work engagement. Journal of
Vocational Behavior 75:2, 183-196. [CrossRef]
156. Timothy P. Munyon, Denise M. Breaux, Laci M. Rogers, Pamela L. Perrewé, Wayne A. Hochwarter.
2009. Mood crossover and relational reciprocity. Career Development International 14:5, 408-427.
157. Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Michael P. Leiter, Christina Maslach. 2009. Burnout: 35 years of research and
practice. Career Development International 14:3, 204-220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
158. Arnold B. Bakker, Mina Westman, I.J. Hetty van Emmerik, Arnold B. Bakker, Mina Westman, I.J. Hetty
van Emmerik. 2009. Advancements in crossover theory. Journal of Managerial Psychology 24:3, 206-219.

Towards A Model of Work Engagement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Towards A Model of Work Engagement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Career Development International

Towards a model of work engagement

References: this document contains references to 68 other documents.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Towards a model of work engagement

Drivers of work engagement

Engagement – performance link

Why engaged workers perform better

Ability to mobilize resources

engagement. Thus, employees who score high on optimism, self-efficacy, resilience

From a theoretical point-of-view, it is important that research on work engagement

Vol. 29, pp. 62-70.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Organizational Psychology 1-13. [CrossRef]

Managerial Psychology 29:1, 46-62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

sciences de l'éducation 39, 571. [CrossRef]

and their partners. Journal of Vocational Behavior 79:1, 170-180. [CrossRef]

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 20:1, 68-73. [CrossRef]

You might also like