Review Article

The Link Between Work

Engagement and Job Performance
A Meta-Analysis
Andreea Corbeanu1 and Dragoş Iliescu1,2
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

1
Department of Psychology, University of Bucharest, Romania
2
Department of Industrial Psychology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa

Abstract: This study addresses the link between work engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption), task performance, and contextual
performance. Following a systematic literature review, we identified 174 unique studies. Studies had to be set in an organizational environment,
include a measure of work engagement as well as an objective or subjective measure of performance, and offer information concerning the link
between work engagement and job performance, irrespective of whether it was the main aim of the study. Following a random-effects model,
we obtained meta-analytic correlations of r =.36 (N = 33 independent samples), r =.36 (N = 26 independent samples), and r =.38 (N = 29
independent samples) between the three components of work engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption), respectively, and job per-
formance. For the overall work engagement and job performance, we report a correlation of r =.37 (N = 166 independent samples). Furthermore,
potential moderators of these relationships were examined. The findings highlight the importance of work engagement research for improving
organizational performance.
Keywords: work engagement, job performance, meta-analysis, contextual performance, task performance

Work engagement is considered a key indicator of organi- This paper offers a systematic review of our knowledge
zational health because it significantly influences employee on the topic of work engagement and job performance
performance, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, customer through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Despite
satisfaction, organizational success, and firm profitability being developed across a similar time frame with the
(Harter et al., 2002). Engaged employees experience more recently published study by Neuber et al. (2021), with
positive emotions when compared to their less engaged which it shares a number of similarities, this paper was pre-
coworkers; work engagement thus promotes feelings such as registered and contributes to the scientific literature in
inspiration, a positive mood, satisfaction (Rodrı́guez-Muñoz three unique ways.
et al., 2013), as well as creativity and openness (Bakker & First, it paints a complete picture of job performance by
Xanthopoulou, 2013), which, in turn, promote a higher level addressing both contextual and task performance. This
of job performance, which is another central construct in brings value through the fact that it solidifies the con-
industrial–organizational psychology and the most exten- clusions of Neuber et al. (2021) about task performance,
sively researched criterion variable in human resource on top of also studying a different – yet just as
management literature (Borman et al., 1995). important – area of the construct: contextual perfor-
For this reason, it is perhaps unsurprising that, across mance. This also adds to earlier work that did include
the past two decades, there has been an ever-increasing both facets of job performance but that included a limited
rise in the interest garnered by the construct of work breadth of papers in the analysis (e.g., Christian et al.,
engagement, resulting in a steady swell of research on the 2011, included only 14 studies for task performance and
topic (Bakker & Albrecht, 2018). However, until the 10 for contextual performance; Mackay et al., 2017, only
emergence of a very recent meta-analysis (Neuber et al., included 16 studies on focal performance and 13 on
2021), there was little consistency in the scientific litera- contextual performance). Second, we also focus on the
ture when it came to the actual relationship between work two main measures that are habitually used to measure
engagement and job performance, with a bulk of studies the job engagement: the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
reporting a positive association (e.g., Anitha, 2014; Knight (UWES; Schaufeli et al., 2022), versus the Job Engage-
et al., 2016; Rich et al., 2010), while others reported null or ment Scale (JES; Rich et al, 2010). There has been
insignificant evidence (e.g., Buil et al., 2019). considerable criticism around the UWES, particularly

© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology (2023), 22(3), 111–122

https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000316
 112 A. Corbeanu & D. Iliescu, Work Engagement and Job Performance Meta-Analysis

suggesting that its items are a heterogeneous mix, bor- series of methodological and conceptual moderators to
rowed from a number of organizational psychology reveal insights into the conditions in which this link occurs.
constructs, such as job satisfaction and commitment
(Newman et al., 2017). By comparing the two measures
directly, this paper investigates whether the JES is a vi-
able alternative to UWES, to be used in organizational Work Engagement and Job
practice, and examines some of the theory around the Performance
conceptual models on which the two scales are built.
Third, by including participant occupation as a mod-
erator, we reveal whether the relationship between work A brief discussion of the concepts of work engagement and
engagement and job performance could be different for job performance, respectively, is presented in the Electronic
customer-facing versus non–customer-facing roles. The Supplementary Material (ESM 1). The association between
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

burnout literature suggests that employees who have to work engagement and job performance seems to generally
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

deal with emotional demands on their jobs, such as facing be a positive one, visible through a number of empirical
irate customers, or having to caretake a number of patients studies: In a sample of 587 employees, Halbesleben and
while faking positive emotions (Bhave & Glomb, 2013) are Wheeler (2008), for instance, have shown that one’s level
more vulnerable toward developing burnout (Lennard of engagement at a certain point in time predicts both self-
et al., 2019). Given that some authors view work en- reported and observed performance 2 months later.
gagement as a direct opposite of burnout (Maslach et al., Engaged employees are more likely to perform organiza-
1997), we investigate whether these assumptions hold true tional citizenship behaviors because they are more efficient in
for the positive end of the spectrum as well. performing their tasks, thus unlocking resources and further
investing themselves in tasks that are not included in their job
description (Christian et al., 2011). Similar research results
support the idea that work engagement promotes both task
Overview of the Current Paper performance and contextual performance (Bakker & Bal,
2010). Correspondingly, work engagement helps em-
The purpose of this study is twofold. First, we present the ployees put their thoughts/ideas into practice, resulting in
latest understanding of the link between work engage- better job performance for engaged employees (Demerouti,
ment and job performance. This is done through a sys- Cropanzano, et al., 2010). Another explanation is that en-
tematic review and meta-analysis, summarizing the gaged employees have better results because they (a) expe-
observed link between the two variables, and presenting rience positive emotions that help them search for new ideas
an integrated and comprehensive outline of the studied and build their own resources; (b) have a better mood, al-
relationship, cross-referencing them with the current lowing them to put all their energy into work; (c) actively look
scientific understanding of this relationship. Second, this for feedback and support from their coworkers and super-
paper introduces and discusses a series of variables that visors to generate new resources; and (d) have the ability to
moderate the strength of association between work en- convey a sense of engagement to their colleagues, thus im-
gagement and job performance, which have not been proving the overall performance of the team (Bakker, 2008).
previously analyzed. Work engagement also predicts organizational perfor-
This research endeavor is driven forward by the following mance and clients’ satisfaction. While studying the dy-
main arguments: Despite the recognized importance, the namics of a fast-food company, Xanthopoulou et al. (2009)
two constructs have in the scientific literature, on top of found a positive relationship between work engagement in
numerous studies establishing that high levels of work daily work and financial gains. Clients’ loyalty might also
engagement are associated with enhanced job performance constitute a consequence of work engagement. These results
(e.g., Anitha, 2014; Mone & London, 2021; Rich et al., mirror meta-analytical findings in a research paper pub-
2010), research is scant when it comes to explaining the lished in 2002 by Harter et al. According to the authors,
mechanisms through which it happens. Several scholars work engagement is associated with higher profitability, as
have previously called for papers addressing this dearth well as with higher levels of clients’ satisfaction and loyalty.
(e.g., Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Demerouti, Cropanzano Based on the above arguments, we advance the fol-
et al., 2010), and there have been some attempts to bridge lowing hypothesis:
this gap, by introducing concepts such as learning goal
orientation (Chughtai & Buckley, 2011), to explain the link H1(a, b, c): All three dimensions of work engagement
between work engagement and job performance. Our meta- (i.e., vigor, dedication, and absorption) will be posi-
analysis adds to this gap in the literature by examining a tively correlated with job performance.

Journal of Personnel Psychology (2023), 22(3), 111–122 © 2023 Hogrefe Publishing

 A. Corbeanu & D. Iliescu, Work Engagement and Job Performance Meta-Analysis 113

Moderators and Wheeler (2008) on a sample of American employees

brings evidence that work engagement uniquely contrib-
Type of Performance utes to explaining variance in job performance, even after
The two main aspects that comprise job performance are controlling for job embeddedness.
contextual, or in-role performance and task, or extra-role Based on the above arguments, we put forth the fol-
performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Despite meta- lowing hypotheses:
analytic evidence that the two constructs are empirically
related yet distinct (Conway, 1999), there is still much H2(a, b, c): The relationship between all three work
debate around the boundaries of each type of perfor- engagement dimensions (i.e., vigor, dedication, and
mance, particularly within the work engagement literature absorption) and job performance will be stronger for
(Leung, 2009). We considered task performance as strictly task performance, compared to contextual performance.
the behavior that is explicitly “expected, evaluated and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

rewarded” (Leung, 2009), typically associated with a Type of Performance Report

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

formal context, such as the tasks included in one’s job As the boundaries between task and contextual behaviors
description (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Extra-role, or become increasingly blurry (Leung, 2009), different ob-
contextual performance, comprises discretionary behav- servers (e.g., supervisors and employees) may differently
iors which are not listed in any job description (Bowling, interpret what is voluntary and what has become man-
2009) but still foster the effective functioning of em- datory. In this light, differences between self-reported
ployees and the organization as a whole (Becker & Kernan, measures of job performance and those reported by
2003). We also considered papers that reported related others are to be expected. What is more, neither method is
constructs, such as organizational citizenship behaviors free of criticism. While self-reports are viewed as vul-
(OCBs; Organ, 1988). nerable toward biases such as social desirability effects or
Previous meta-analytic findings report mixed associa- acquiescent responding (Kuncel & Tellegen, 2009;
tions when it comes to overall work engagement and job Podsakoff et al., 2013; Weijters et al., 2010), the integrity
performance. While Christian et al. (2011) found a stronger of reports by an external third party is also dependent on
relationship for task performance (ρ = .43, compared to the appropriate exercise of a manager’s professional
ρ = .34 for contextual performance), Mackay et al. (2017) judgment which, in turn, is influenced by a myriad of
report the opposite (ρ = .22 for focal performance and possible biases such as the “halo effect,” the “first im-
ρ = .28 for contextual performance). We expect the rela- pression error,” the “similar to me effect,” or the “central
tionship between work engagement and job performance tendency error” (Lin & Kellough, 2018). However, it is
to be stronger for task performance, since engaged em- considered that the true extent of such errors in judgment
ployees may display a series of behaviors that increase is largely undocumented (e.g., Battaglio, 2018). In this
their performance at work, more so than their behaviors paper, we considered both studies relying on self-reports,
toward others – such as generating a conducive work as well as studies that employ a more objective measure of
environment (Bakker et al., 2003), applying job crafting job performance, and tested whether subjective measures
(Tims et al., 2015), actively seeking feedback (Bakker & of performance will yield higher associations with em-
Xanthopoulou, 2009), or generally seeking to acquire or ployee engagement compared to more objective measures.
maximize their resources (Neuber et al., 2021). On the basis of the above considerations, we suggest the
We also expect the three facets of work engagement to following research question:
correlate stronger with task performance. This is due to the
nature of the three dimensions, which is intrinsically more RQ1(a, b, c): Are subjective measures of job perfor-
conducive to an output of focused work on a given task, mance more strongly correlated with work engage-
rather than to engaging in diffuse discretionary behaviors ment, in each of its three dimensions (i.e., vigor,
(Costa et al., 2015). As most organizations clearly outline dedication, and absorption), compared to objective
duties and responsibilities the employees have to adhere measures of job performance?
to, it is likely that the dimensions of work engagement
highly contribute to the successful completion of tasks. As Type of Work Engagement Measure
individuals find themselves fully immersed in their work, There are at least three conceptualizations of work en-
finding difficulty in ceasing their work and feeling that gagement in the scientific literature. Subsequent to that of
time has passed quickly (Sweetman & Luthans, 2010), Kahn (1990), which consists of three dimensions, physical,
there may be little time left for discretionary behaviors cognitive, and affective, work engagement emerged as the
(i.e., OCB). This argument is also supported by previous opposite of burnout (Maslach & Jackson, 1981), and mea-
studies. For instance, a study conducted by Halbesleben surable with the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Finally, one

© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology (2023), 22(3), 111–122

 114 A. Corbeanu & D. Iliescu, Work Engagement and Job Performance Meta-Analysis

approach (Schaufeli et al., 2002) placed the label at the industries, such as transport, communication, storage, and
heart of its own definition as a stand-alone construct, which manufacturing, and this may be so on two accounts. First,
includes three facets: vigor, dedication, and absorption. The based on the Job Demands–Resources model (Demerouti
measure that draws from this final conceptualization is the et al., 2010), job resources, such as job autonomy, social
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli et al., support, and feedback are the main contributors of work
2002), which is perhaps the most widely used work en- engagement, while job demands are the primary drivers of
gagement scale to date. The limitation with all these burnout. In this light, it is possible that jobs that imply
measures, however, is that, through their very design, they human interaction have a wider array of job resources
make it impossible to determine whether a person can available, such as better professional development, acting
experience burnout and work engagement concomitantly, in a good social climate, benefitting from peer support, and
which has been shown to occur (Kuok & Taormina, 2017). receiving immediate feedback. Second, it is believed that
Also, in the case of UWES, the scale seems to be negatively helping people and working toward their benefit brings
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

correlated with the three burnout dimensions and is thus not meaning to one’s role and increases the employees’ own
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

necessarily an independent measure. On the other hand, the levels of work engagement (Hakanen et al., 2019). We,
Job Engagement Scale (JES; Rich et al., 2010), is based on therefore, expected the following:
the conceptualization and dimensions of work engagement
introduced by Kahn (1990). It is yet unclear to date whether H3(a, b, c): Work engagement will be more strongly
burnout and work engagement are opposite constructs or associated with job performance in the case of client-
whether they are the extreme ends of a continuum, despite facing roles, in each of its three dimensions (i.e., vigor,
the fact that important research has been carried out on this dedication, and absorption), compared to non–client-
topic (Demerouti, Mostert, & Bakker, 2010). facing roles, or to roles that imply mixed interactions.
We chose to focus on these two measures (i.e., UWES vs.
JES) specifically because, to our knowledge, they are the
only available scales that directly target employees’ actual
level of job performance, and not their perceptions of work Method
characteristics, such as the Gallup Workplace Audit
(Mackay et al., 2017). To more closely examine the two work Search Strategy
engagement measures, given that they were not designed to
be equivalent, we mapped the facets of each construct as To find and examine all available papers on the link be-
follows: (1) we compared emotional engagement (JES) tween work engagement and job performance, we per-
against vigor (UWES), (2) we compared physical engage- formed a systematic review of the scientific literature on
ment (JES) and dedication (UWES), and (3) we compared the topic. The databases we examined were Web of
cognitive engagement (JES) versus absorption (UWES). Knowledge, PsychINFO, ProQuest, Scopus, and Science-
Based on these findings, we have reviewed the associations Direct. We used the following search string: “(work en-
of work engagement and job performance as approached by gagement) OR (vigour) OR (dedication) OR (absorption)
these two measures and expected the following: AND (job performance) OR (in-role performance) OR
(extra-role performance) OR (task performance) OR
RQ2(a, b, c): When measured with the UWES, work (contextual performance) OR (organizational citizenship
engagement will be more strongly associated with job behaviour) AND (employee) OR (workplace).” In addition,
performance, in each of its three dimensions (i.e., we carried out an ancestor search, looking through the
vigor, dedication, and absorption), compared to the reference list of notable research papers on the relation-
JES, and other measures of work engagement. ship between work engagement and job performance to
include in the meta-analysis. Additionally, we also
Participant Occupation searched databases (i.e., ProQuest) for any unpublished
There is evidence that work engagement is positively re- research (i.e., dissertations), with a view to minimizing the
lated to a wide range of sociodemographic and work-related impact of publication bias.
factors, the most prominent of them being educational
attainment, occupation, industry, and employment contract
(Hakanen et al., 2019). In a study based on over 35,000 Procedure
European employees, participant occupation explained
68% of the variance in work engagement (Hakanen et al., We initially screened all the articles found in the databases,
2019), while human service jobs were found to contribute based on their title and abstract, and downloaded all those
more to employee engagement than other types of which matched our inclusion criteria. The main researcher,

Journal of Personnel Psychology (2023), 22(3), 111–122 © 2023 Hogrefe Publishing

 A. Corbeanu & D. Iliescu, Work Engagement and Job Performance Meta-Analysis 115

as well as an independent rater, read all the selected articles reports. As we found a broad range of measures used to
and matched them against the inclusion and exclusion determine the level of performance, we did not place any
criteria to filter out the noneligible studies. Potential dis- further constraints here; otherwise, it would have led to a
agreements were openly discussed until consensus was considerable reduction of the available research pool.
reached. Initially, we downloaded a number of 379 articles Seven studies were excluded during this step.
after screening the title and abstract. We found and Finally, studies should include a measure of the strength
eliminated 72 duplicates right away, leaving a total of 307 of the association between work engagement and job
studies for in-depth screening. Following a full-text read, a performance globally or between the independent di-
final total of 174 studies were included in the analysis. mensions of each construct (e.g., in the form of a corre-
lation matrix). We took into consideration studies that
included this information, even if it was not the central
Inclusion Criteria purpose of this study. The application of this criterion led
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

to the exclusion of 55 studies.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

We used four criteria to deem studies eligible for inclusion. Considering all the exclusion and inclusion criteria, we
First, we only included studies on samples of full-time excluded a total of 133 papers (see Figure 1).
employees. We did not consider any studies where stu-
dents participated; however, we included samples of
working students, as long as the paper specified that they Coding
are full-time employees. Application of this criterion led to
the exclusion of a number of 68 studies. Coding was carried out by two independent researchers.
Second, studies should report a score on work en- Potential disagreements were addressed through open
gagement, either globally or on one or more of its three discussions until consensus was reached. Additionally,
dimensions. The application of this criterion led to the we computed the inter-rater consistency using the κ
exclusion of three studies. statistic (Cohen, 1960): κ = .79 (p < .000). Typically, a κ
Third, studies should report a score on job performance, value between .60 and .79 is considered moderate,
irrespective of whether it is global, task, or contextual. whereas one between .80 and .90 is viewed as strong and
Similarly, we considered both self-reports or third-person one between .40 and .59 as weak (McHugh, 2012). Data

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for the study

selection process.

© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology (2023), 22(3), 111–122

 116 A. Corbeanu & D. Iliescu, Work Engagement and Job Performance Meta-Analysis

were collected in an Excel spreadsheet, and the following independent samples, resulted in a significant, positive
aspects were included: (a) the main aim of the study, (b) relationship (r = .37; p < .000), with a 95% CI ranging
sample size, (c) sample characteristics (e.g., the profes- from .34 to .40. The Q-statistic of the overall effect was
sion of the participants), (d) the work engagement significant, with a large amount of heterogeneity
measure, (e) the job performance measure, (f) whether (Q(208) = 3,434.12, l2 = 94.30; p < .000). The results of
performance was self-reported or not, (g) the type of job the analysis conducted on the relationship between vigor
performance measured (i.e. task, contextual), (h) the year and job performance, on 33 independent samples, display
of publication, and (i) correlation coefficients between a significant positive association (r = .36, p < .000), the
each of the work engagement components and job 95% CI ranging from .29 to .42; Q(32) = 236.49, p < .000,
performance. l2 = 92.56. An analysis performed on 26 independent
studies, yielded a significant, positive relationship (r = .36,
p < .000), between dedication and job performance, 95%
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Meta-Analysis CI = [.29; .42]; Q(31) = 208.83, p < .000, l2 = 91.47).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Finally, the results of the analysis conducted on the re-

Information about the technical details on how the meta- lationship between absorption and job performance, on
analysis was performed (i.e., the software that was used, 29 independent samples, showed a significant, positive
the way the different indices were computed, how the relationship (r = .38; p < .000), with a 95% CI ranging
moderators were investigated, and how publication bias from .30 to .46; Q(28) = 325.17, p < .000, l2 = 94.16).
was considered) is available in ESM 1.

Moderator Effects

Results We identified a high degree of heterogeneity with all work

engagement dimensions, which signals the existence of
Characteristics of the Studies potentially important moderators. As such, we considered
the type of performance measurement (i.e., task, con-
The analysis included a final number of 174 studies, with a textual), the type of performance report (i.e., self or other
total of 181 unique samples provided. The reported report), the work engagement measure (i.e., UWES,
number of participants in each study ranged from 34 to UWES-short, and JES), and the participant occupation (i.e.,
2,429 (with a gross N of 68,443 participants). The ma- customer-facing roles/non–customer-facing roles/mixed)
jority of studies (k = 105; 58.01%) employed the Utrecht as categorical moderators and tested the strength of their
Work Engagement Scale to measure work engagement, influence on the relationship between work engagement
while its short version was used 45 times (24.86%). and job performance. The results are discussed below.
Eighteen papers (9.94%) used the JES measure (Rich
et al., 2010). The remaining 7.18% (k = 13) of articles Type of Performance Measured
employed another measure of work engagement. All The type of performance measured was not a significant
scales had acceptable reliability, with most studies re- moderator of any work engagement dimension or the
porting alphas of .80 or higher. In terms of job perfor- global construct (Q[1] = .00, p = .96 for global work en-
mance, 145 studies (84.8%) used self-report measures to gagement, Q[1] = .09, p = .76 for vigor, Q[1] = .68, p = .40
measure job performance, while about 21.05% of the for dedication, Q[1] = .44, p = .49 for absorption). Further
studies (k = 36) used an objective measure. For the type of information is summarized in Table 1.
performance measured, 105 studies measured only task
performance, while 31 studies reported only contextual Type of Performance Report
performance; 45 studies reported both. The full refer- The type of performance report was not a significant
ences of the studies included in the meta-analysis are moderator of any work engagement dimension or the
available in ESM 2. The study characteristics are sum- global construct (Q[1] = 3.12, p = .07 for global work en-
marized in a table in ESM 3. gagement, Q[1] = 3.45, p = .06 for vigor, Q[1] = 1.05, p = .30
for dedication, Q[1] = .09, p = .75 for absorption). Further
information is summarized in Table 1.
Overall Effect Size
Work Engagement Measure
The results of the random-model analysis on the link The work engagement measure was a significant mod-
between work engagement and job performance, on 166 erator for all three dimensions of work engagement.

Journal of Personnel Psychology (2023), 22(3), 111–122 © 2023 Hogrefe Publishing

 A. Corbeanu & D. Iliescu, Work Engagement and Job Performance Meta-Analysis 117

Table 1. Moderation analysis type of performance

95% confidence interval
Variables k Estimate z p Lower Upper
Type of performance (contextual)
Global work engagement 209 .00 19.78 .96 .06 .41
Vigor 33 .02 .30 .76 .12 .16
Dedication 32 .05 .82 .40 .08 .19
Absorption 29 .06 .67 .49 .11 .24
Type of performance report (subjective)
Global 209 .06 1.76 .07 .00 .14
Vigor 33 .19 1.85 .06 .01 .39
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Dedication 32 .10 1.02 .30 .09 .30

Absorption 29 .05 0.31 .75 .27 .38
Note. Baseline categories were task performance, objective measures. *p < .05. **p < .01.

In regard to vigor, the results indicate a Q(4) of 16.81, In the case of absorption, the results display a
p = .00. For UWES, the measure estimate was r = .02; Q(4) = 20.95; p = .000. For UWES, the measure estimate
p = >.05; 95% CI [ .17; .22]. For UWES-short, the results was r = .08; p > .05; 95% CI ranging from .42 to .24,
display an r = .03; p = >.05; 95% CI [ .18; .25]. Finally, the while for UWES-short, the results display an r = .09;
measure estimate for JES was r = .51; p < .000; 95% CI p > .05; 95% CI [ .35; .17]. For JES, the measure estimate
[.22; .80]. was r = .51; p < .000; 95% CI [.18; .84]. The work en-
For dedication, we obtained a Q(4) of 11.96, p = .01. For gagement measure was not a significant moderator for the
UWES, the measure estimate was r = .01; p > .05; 95% CI global construct of work engagement and job performance
[ .21; .42]. For UWES-short, the results display an r = .07; (Q[4] = 3.96, p = .41). Table 2 contains detailed information
p > .05; 95% CI ranging from .17 to .32, while for JES, the about this moderator. Next, Table 3 contains some in-
measure estimate was r = .46; p < .000; 95% CI [.15; .78]. formation on the meta-analytic correlations between the

Table 2. Moderation analysis work engagement measure

95% confidence interval
Variables k Estimate z p Lower Upper
UWES
Global work engagement 209 .04 .40 .68 .15 .23
Vigor 33 .23 0.23 .81 .17 .22
Dedication 32 .10 .64 .51 .21 .42
Absorption 29 .08 0.52 .60 .42 .24
UWES – short
Global work engagement 209 .00 .10 .91 .10 .12
Vigor 33 .35 .31 .75 .18 .25
Dedication 32 .07 0.16 .54 .17 .32
Absorption 29 .09 0.67 .49 .35 .17
JES
Global work engagement 209 .08 1.40 .16 .21 .03
Vigor 33 .51*** 3.44 .00 .22 .80
Dedication 32 .46** 2.88 .00 .15 .78
Absorption 29 .51** 3.23 .00 .18 .84
Note. Baseline category was other-measures. **p < 0.001, ***p < 0.000.

© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology (2023), 22(3), 111–122

 118 A. Corbeanu & D. Iliescu, Work Engagement and Job Performance Meta-Analysis

Table 3. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and intercorrelations between the scales of JES and UWES
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Cognitive engagement (JES) .57 .11 —
2. Physical engagement (JES) .63 .09 .99 —
3. Emotional dedication (JES) .68 .06 .97 .99 —
4. Absorption (UWES) .34 .13 .86 .91 .95 —
5. Dedication (UWES) .32 .14 .86 .79 .72 .19 —
6. Vigor (UWES) .31 .14 .45 .35 .24 .14 .91*** —
Note. ***p < .01.

Table 4. Moderation analysis participant occupation

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

95% confidence interval

Variables k Estimate z p Lower Upper
Client facing
Global work engagement 209 .00 0.11 .90 .07 .06
Vigor 33 .03 0.47 .63 .18 .11
Dedication 32 .08 1.27 .20 .22 .04
Absorption 29 .08 1.05 .29 .24 .07
Non–client-facing
Global 209 .00 0.01 .99 .08 .08
Vigor 33 .07 .71 .47 .12 .27
Dedication 32 .07 .85 .38 .10 .26
Absorption 29 .20* 2.00 .04 .00 .40
Note. Baseline category was mixed client interaction. *p < .05. **p < .01.

scales of UWES versus the JES. The means and SDs listed three hypotheses. First, the data fully support our first
were calculated based on the available correlation hypothesis and establish that all dimensions of work en-
coefficients. gagement correlate positively with job performance, the
strongest correlation being shown by the absorption di-
Participant Occupation mension. However, the data do not seem to support our
Finally, data suggest that participant occupation seemed to second hypothesis, as the relationship between work en-
be a significant moderator for the absorption dimension of gagement and job performance is not significantly
work engagement (Q[2] = 8.26, p = .00). For client-facing stronger for task performance, not in the case of the global
roles, the measure estimate was r = .08, p > .05; 95% CI work engagement construct, nor for its dimensions. Our
[ .24; .07]. For non–client-facing roles, the measure es- third hypothesis was partially supported by the data, since
timate was r = .20, p < .05; 95% CI [ .00; .40]. Participant participant occupation was a significant moderator only for
occupation did not moderate any other work engagement the absorption dimension of work engagement. However,
dimension or the global construct (Q[2] = .01, p = .99 for counter to our hypothesis, the relationship was stronger for
global work engagement; Q[2] = 1.17, p = .55 for vigor; Q non–client-facing roles.
[2] = 3.71, p = .15 for dedication). Additional information is Additionally, this meta-analysis also investigated two
summarized in Table 4. research questions. The type of performance report (self-
vs. other-report) was not a significant moderator either
global work engagement or any of its facets. Finally, the
relationship between work engagement and job perfor-
Discussion mance is strengthened (i.e., moderated) by the work
engagement measure used (UWES/UWES-short/JES) for
This meta-analysis reveals significant, positive associa- all the work engagement facets; the JES yielded
tions between the three dimensions of work engagement consistently higher associations with job performance for
(namely, vigor, dedication, and absorption) and job per- all three work engagement dimensions, the strongest for
formance and clarifies the status of knowledge related to absorption.

Journal of Personnel Psychology (2023), 22(3), 111–122 © 2023 Hogrefe Publishing

 A. Corbeanu & D. Iliescu, Work Engagement and Job Performance Meta-Analysis 119

Theoretical Contributions Engagement therefore carries a number of corporate

advantages from increased business-unit performance,
From a theoretical perspective, the findings of this paper are strong financial returns, and a positive corporate image
consistent with the literature on the topic of job performance (Durán et al., 2010), possibly to better organizational
and work engagement, solidifying conclusions of previous financial performance and retention (Demerouti et al.,
empirical and meta-analytic research (Christian et al, 2011; 2010; Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008). Evidence related
Neuber et al., 2021). It reveals that, as expected, all three to employee engagement and business profitability re-
dimensions of work engagement correlate highly with job ported that companies with employees scoring in the top
performance. quartile of engagement had, on average, from $80,000 to
A valuable contribution of this paper lies in the im- $120,000 higher monthly revenue or sales – and for one
portance of the examined moderators. Our analysis of the organization, the difference was more than $300,000
measures used for the assessment of work engagement (Harter et al., 2002). Additionally, in a survey carried out
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

demonstrated higher associations between work engage- by Gallup (2013), it became apparent that actively dis-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ment and job performance for the JES, followed closely by engaged employees are in fact working to the detriment
the short version of UWES when compared to the standard of their employer, being characterized in absenteeism,
version of UWES. The fundamental criticism toward disregarding the work of their coworkers, blatantly dis-
UWES is that its items are a heterogeneous mix, which playing negativity, and driving customers away. Based on
draws from a number of already established constructs, the same study, the estimate was that, for the United
such as job satisfaction and commitment (Newman et al., States, active disengagement of employees’ costs from
2017), and tend to correlate so highly that the facets cannot US$450 billion to $550 billion per year; the figure ranges
be considered distinct constructs. In contrast, the JES is from €112 billion to €138 billion per year in Germany
based on Kahn’s (1990) original conceptualization of work (US$151 billion to $186 billion) and between £52 billion
engagement, and the authors referred to research on af- and £70 billion in the United Kingdom (US$83 billion and
fect, behavior, and cognition when designing the subscales $112 billion) per year. In light of this discussion and
(Rich et al., 2010). Previous research (Drake, 2012) because our study clearly showed a strong association
comparing the two measures suggests that UWES was a between job performance and work engagement, we
better predictor of stress than JES. Conversely, our find- strongly encourage organizations to organize and include
ings suggest that JES is a stronger predictor of job per- interventions aimed at addressing and improving work
formance than UWES. Additionally, by examining the engagement.
average correlations among the work engagement facets The fact that, in our paper, the JES measure of work
for both measures, we found that only the link between engagement seemed to strengthen the relationship between
dedication and vigor (and not any of the JES scales) was work engagement and job performance, as our results
statistically significant, yielding a very high correlation suggest, implies that, in organizational contexts, practi-
coefficient (r = .91). tioners should primarily turn to the Job Engagement Scale
The type of participant occupation (i.e., client-facing vs. when in need of a scale that could be more valid in predicting
non–client-facing) is another promising moderator that we job performance. In addition, it is possible that workers
considered. We have pursued the expectation that work and researchers alike could make more use of the JES,
engagement is boosted by the immediate feedback one gets rather than the UWES, as a solid measure for work en-
from human interactions and therefore would be more gagement. As our results tentatively support the con-
strongly associated with client-facing roles. Our findings clusion that the Job Engagement Scale is better suited to
seem to oppose that, as we found stronger associations for addressing the degree to which employees are engrossed
non–client-facing roles, in the case of absorption. One in their work.
possibility, as suggested by Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi Finally, our findings seem to give more weight to work
(2014), is that solitary tasks are more conducive to the state engagement being more strongly associated with job
of flow, in which employees feel more productive, and better performance in the non–client-facing roles when it comes
equipped to navigate their tasks. to the absorption dimension of the construct. An important
practical implication for this stems from the choice or-
ganizations may have when selecting to invest in certain
Practical Contributions interventions to boost job performance within their do-
mains. Work engagement interventions may be particu-
In line with the general findings of the work engagement larly appropriate for those roles which require little to no
literature, our paper confirmed that work engagement is client interaction, and as such it is in this area that they
positively (and strongly) associated with job performance. may yield the strongest returns.

© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology (2023), 22(3), 111–122

 120 A. Corbeanu & D. Iliescu, Work Engagement and Job Performance Meta-Analysis

General Limitations and Guidelines for and the fact that it introduces a new moderator on the
Future Research relationship between work engagement and job perfor-
mance, which is essential for the thorough understanding
The main limitation of the current meta-analysis is of the constructs.
tributary to the nature of this kind of study design and
refers to it unavoidably taking over some of the limi-
tations of the primary studies included in the analysis.
Because these articles included cross-sectional designs, Electronic Supplementary Material
we cannot draw any causal inferences from our findings.
This means that we cannot, based on the available data, The electronic supplementary material is available with
truly know whether work engagement fosters high job the online version of the article at https://doi.org/10.
performance or if, in fact, a good performance boosts 1027/1866-5888/a000316
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

employee engagement. Thus, it is critical that future ESM 1. Details on the focal concepts (work engagement and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

research focuses on longitudinal designs, based on job performance) and technical details of the meta-analysis.
which we may infer causal associations between work ESM 2. Full references of the studies included in the meta-
engagement and job performance. Second, most of the analysis.
studies included in the present meta-analysis included ESM 3. Table summarizing the study characteristics.
very skewed samples of participants, mainly from
WEIRD (i.e., Western, educated, industrialized, rich,
and democratic) societies – and while WEIRD pop-
ulations represent as high as 80% of all study partici- References
pants in published research, they represent merely 20%
of the world’s population (Henrich et al., 2010). In our
Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their
meta-analysis, only 54 (31.58%) studies targeted non- impact on employee performance. International Journal of
WEIRD countries. For a thorough understanding of work Productivity and Performance Management, 63(3), 308–323.
engagement, future research should focus on and be https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-01-2013-0008
Bakker, A. (2008). Building engagement in the workplace. In The
inclusive of as many countries and cultures as possible,
peak performing organization (pp. 50–72). Routledge.
beyond the widely used WEIRD niche. Bakker, A. B., & Albrecht, S. (2018). Work engagement: Current
Finally, the extant literature on work engagement fails trends. Career Development International, 23(1), 4–11. https://
to capture an appropriate conceptualization of the con- doi.org/10.1108/cdi-11-2017-0207
Bakker, A. B., & Bal, M. P. (2010). Weekly work engagement and
struct. Despite the many approaches to the topic, still
performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Oc-
there are not any clear definitions and convincing mea- cupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(1), 189–206.
sures of this concept (Kuok & Taormina, 2017). There https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909x402596
have been several calls (e.g., Macey & Schneider, 2008; Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work
engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209–223.
Thomas, 2009) for a rigorous examination of the work
https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476
engagement components and their relationship to the Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., &
available work engagement measures. It has been sug- Schreurs, P. J. G. (2003). A multigroup analysis of the job
gested that future research on work engagement should demands-resources model in four home care organizations.
International Journal of Stress Management, 10(1), 16–38.
include building consensus around the meaning and
https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.10.1.16
conceptualization of the construct (Bakker & Leiter, Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010). Work engagement: A handbook
2010). In our paper, we set the foundations of the rela- of essential theory and research (1st ed.). Psychology Press.
tionship between work engagement (with its many ap- Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2009). The crossover of daily
work engagement: Test of an actor–partner interdependence
proaches) and job performance and strongly call for more
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1562–1571. https://
research into the mechanisms through which this link doi.org/10.1037/a0017525
occurs. Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2013). Creativity and charisma
To conclude, this meta-analysis reviews and introduces among female leaders: The role of resources and work engage-
ment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
a perspective of the extant literature on work engagement
24(14), 2760–2779. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.751438
and job performance. Although it has a number of theo- Battaglio, R. P., Belardinelli, P., Bellé, N., & Cantarelli, P. (2018).
retical limitations and a suite of similarities with another Behavioral public administration ad fontes: A synthesis of re-
recently published review and meta-analysis (Neuber search on bounded rationality, cognitive biases, and nudging in
public organizations. Public Administration Review, 79(3),
et al., 2021), its clear strengths are the fact that it ana-
304–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12994
lyses an important number of independent samples, thus Becker, T. E., & Kernan, M. C. (2003). Matching commitment to
solidifying the current scientific conclusions on the topic, supervisors and organizations to in-role and extra-role

Journal of Personnel Psychology (2023), 22(3), 111–122 © 2023 Hogrefe Publishing

 A. Corbeanu & D. Iliescu, Work Engagement and Job Performance Meta-Analysis 121

performance. Human Performance, 16(4), 327–348. https://doi. Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of
org/10.1207/s15327043hup1604_1 engagement and embeddedness in predicting job performance
Bhave, D. P., & Glomb, T. M. (2013). The role of occupational and intention to leave. Work & Stress, 22(3), 242–256. https://
emotional labor requirements on the surface acting–job sat- doi.org/10.1080/02678370802383962
isfaction relationship. Journal of Management, 42(3), 722–741. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313498900 level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal
contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/
research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99–109. https://doi.org/10. 0021-9010.87.2.268
1207/s15327043hup1002_3 Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest
Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of Ratee people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3),
task performance and interpersonal factors on supervisor and 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0999152x
peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engage-
168–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.168 ment and disengagement at work. Academy of Management
Bowling, N. A. (2009). Effects of job satisfaction and conscien- Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

tiousness on extra-role behaviors. Journal of Business and Knight, C., Patterson, M., & Dawson, J. (2016). Building work en-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Psychology, 25(1), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009- gagement: A systematic review and meta-analysis investigating
9134-0 the effectiveness of work engagement interventions. Journal of
Buil, I., Martı́nez, E., & Matute, J. (2019). Transformational lead- Organizational Behavior, 38(6), 792–812. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ership and employee performance: The role of identification, job.2167
engagement and proactive personality. International Journal of Kuncel, N. R., & Tellegen, A. (2009). A conceptual and empirical
Hospitality Management, 77, 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. reexamination of the measurement of the social desirability of
ijhm.2018.06.014 items: Implications for detecting desirable response styles and
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work en- scale development. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 201–228.
gagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01136.x
task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), Kuok, A. C. H., & Taormina, R. J. (2017). Work engagement: Evolution
89–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x of the concept and a new inventory. Psychological Thought,
Chughtai, A. A., & Buckley, F. (2011). Work engagement. Career 10(2), 262–287. https://doi.org/10.5964/psyct.v10i2.236
Development International, 16(7), 684–705. https://doi.org/10. Lennard, A. C., Scott, B. A., & Johnson, R. E. (2019). Turning frowns
1108/13620431111187290 (and smiles) upside down: A multilevel examination of surface
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. acting positive and negative emotions on well-being. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. Applied Psychology, 104(9), 1164–1180. https://doi.org/10.1037/
https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 apl0000400
Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from Leung, L. (2009). User-generated content on the internet: An ex-
task performance for managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psy- amination of gratifications, civic engagement and psychological
chology, 84(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.3 empowerment. New Media & Society, 11(8), 1327–1347. https://
Costa, A. C. R., Demo, G., Coura, G. K. V., & Fogaça, N. (2015). doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341264
Organizational citizenship behaviors: A systematic review and Lin, Y. C., & Kellough, J. E. (2018). Performance appraisal problems
new research possibilities. Associação Nacional de Pós Grad- in the public sector: Examining supervisors’ perceptions. Public
uação e Pesquisa Em Administração. http://www.anpad.org.br/ Personnel Management, 48(2), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/
abrir_pdf.php?e=Mjg1MjU= 0091026018801045
Demerouti, E., Cropanzano, R., Bakker, A., & Leiter, M. (2010). From Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). Engaged in engagement: We
thought to action: Employee work engagement and job per- are delighted we did it. Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
formance. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: 1(1), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00016.x
A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 147–163). Mackay, M. M., Allen, J. A., & Landis, R. S. (2017). Investigating the
Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203853047 incremental validity of employee engagement in the prediction
Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Burnout and work of employee effectiveness: A meta-analytic path analysis. Hu-
engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of man Resource Management Review, 27(1), 108–120. https://doi.
both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.03.002
15(3), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019408 Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experi-
Drake, T. (2012). Assessing employee engagement: A comparison of enced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2(2), 99–113.
the job engagement scale and the Utrecht work engagement scale https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205
(No. 1516919). Colorado State University ProQuest Dissertations Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E. & Leiter, M. P. (1997). Maslach Burnout
Publishing. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/354424247.pdf Inventory. Scarecrow Education.
Durán, M. A., Extremera, N., & Rey, L. (2010). Analyzing the contri- McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic.
bution of emotional intelligence and core self-evaluations as Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.
personal resources to employee engagement. In S. L. Albrecht 2012.031
(Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement. Edward Elgar. https:// Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2021). Using performance management to
doi.org/10.4337/9781849806374.00024 drive employee engagement in the public sector. In D. Blackman
Gallup. (2013). State of the global workplace. https://www.gallup. (Ed.), Handbook on performance management in the public
com/topic/state-of-the-global-workplace-2013.aspx sector (pp. 276–293). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/
Hakanen, J. J., Ropponen, A., Schaufeli, W. B., & de Witte, H. (2019). 9781789901207.00024
Who is engaged at work? Journal of Occupational & Environ- Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The concept of flow. In
mental Medicine, 61(5), 373–381. https://doi.org/10.1097/jom. Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 239–263).
0000000000001528 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8_16

© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology (2023), 22(3), 111–122

 122 A. Corbeanu & D. Iliescu, Work Engagement and Job Performance Meta-Analysis

Neuber, L., Englitz, C., Schulte, N., Forthmann, B., & Holling, H. Weijters, B., Cabooter, E., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The effect of
(2021). How work engagement relates to performance and ab- rating scale format on response styles: The number of response
senteeism: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Work and categories and response category labels. International Journal
Organizational Psychology, 31(2), 292–315. https://doi.org/10. of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.
1080/1359432x.2021.1953989 1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.004
Newman, A., Neesham, C., Manville, G., & Tse, H. H. M. (2017). Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and or-
Examining the influence of servant and entrepreneurial ganizational commitment as predictors of organizational citi-
leadership on the work outcomes of employees in social en- zenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3),
terprises. The International Journal of Human Resource 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305
Management, 29(20), 2905–2926. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B.
09585192.2017.1359792 (2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
soldier syndrome (The Issues in Organization and Management 74(3), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003
Series). Lexington Books.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Welsh, D. T., & Mai, K. M. (2013). History
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Surveying for “artifacts”: The susceptibility of the OCB–perform- Received January 14, 2022
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ance evaluation relationship to common rater, item, and mea- Revision received September 21, 2022
surement context effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), Accepted September 26, 2022
863–874. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032588 Published online March 8, 2023
Rich, B. L. (2006). Job engagement: Construct validation and re-
lationships with job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic Open Data
motivation. University of Florida. This research was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework
Rodrı́guez-Muñoz, A., Sanz-Vergel, A. I., Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. OSF). The pre-registration is presented here: https://osf.io/
(2013). Engaged at work and happy at home: A spillover–crossover admsp/?view_only=6933a3a1b0c844b28be2facdd8140b9a
model. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(2), 271–283. https://doi. The study data and the R code are available at https://osf.io/
org/10.1007/s10902-013-9421-3 e7zv4/.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá V., & Bakker, A. B.
(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two ORCID
sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happi- Andreea Corbeanu
ness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015630930326  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5107-6089
Sweetman, D., & Luthans, F. (2010). The power of positive psy- Dragoş Iliescu
chology: Psychological capital and work engagement. In A. B.  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5958-3920
Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of
essential theory and research (pp. 54–68). Psychology Press. Dragos Iliescu
Thomas, K. W. (2009). Intrinsic motivation at work: What really drives Department of Psychology
employee engagement (2nd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers. University of Bucharest
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2015). Examining job crafting Panduri Street, No. 90
from an interpersonal perspective: Is employee job crafting 050663 Bucharest
related to the well-being of colleagues? Applied Psychology, Romania
64(4), 727–753. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12043 dragos.iliescu@fpse.unibuc.ro

Journal of Personnel Psychology (2023), 22(3), 111–122 © 2023 Hogrefe Publishing