Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2012 @ West University of Timisoara Publishing House &

2012, Vol. 14, No. 1, 3-10 The Euroregional Center for Applied Psychology

Work Engagement. What Do We Know and Where Do We Go?

Wilmar B. Schaufeli
Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Received 26 February 2012; Accepted 10 April 2012

Available online 19 april 2012

Work engagement is a popular concept, both in business contexts as well as in academia. The
term first appeared in the 1990s and meanwhile over 200 scientific publications have appeared
on the subject. So it seems that it is time to take stock. The current paper has two main
objectives, first to present a brief overview about our current knowledge on engagement ( What
do we know?) and second to draft a future research agenda (Where do we go?). More
specifically, the research literature is summarized on five key issues: (1) the meaning and
measurement of work engagement; (2) the antecedents of engagement; (3) the consequences of
engagement; (4) state work engagement; and (5) building work engagement. As far as the future
research agenda on work engagement is concerned, seven main issues are proposed: (1)
conceptualization and measurement (e.g., the use of qualitative methods and peer-ratings); (2)
theoretical understanding (e.g., developing unique explanatory frameworks); (3) antecedents and
consequences (e.g., focusing on the paths that lead from work engagement to performance); (4)
epidemiology (e.g., using national representative samples); (5) cross-cultural validity (e.g.,
comparing engagement-levels across cultures); (6) the waxing and waning of engagement across
time (e.g., studying engagement in changing organizations); and (7) the collective nature of
work engagement (e.g., team-level engagement). It is concluded that work engagement is a
viable concept for both science and practice and that it needs further focused attention.

Keywords work engagement, review, measurement, antecedents, consequences

Address of correspondence: [Link]@[Link]

Work Engagement in Everyday Life, Business, and firms claim that employee engagement drives business
Academia success.
Although the definitions that are used by consulting
In everyday life, "engagement" refers to involvement, companies differ at first glance, employee engagement is
commitment, passion, enthusiasm, absorption, focused essentially conceived in terms of: (1) organizational
effort, and energy. For instance, Merriam-Webster commitment, more particularly affective commitment (i.e.,
dictionary describes engagement as “emotional the emotional attachment to the organization) and
involvement or commitment” and as “the state of being in continuance commitment (i.e., the desire to stay with the
gear.” organization), and (2) extra-role behavior (i.e.,
Employee engagement first emerged in business. discretionary behavior that promotes the effective
Although the origin of the term is not entirely clear, it was functioning of the organization). Conceptualized this way,
first used in the 1990s by the Gallup organization. employee engagement constitutes a blend of two existing
According to a global survey among CEO's, engaging psychological concepts. Hence, it looks like most
employees is one of the top-five most important challenges consultancy firms put new engagement wine in old
for organizations (Wah, 1999). Not surprisingly, therefore, commitment and extra-role bottles.
international business consulting companies have The first scholar who conceptualized engagement at
developed their own engagement concepts and proprietary work was Kahn (1990), an ethnographic researcher, who
survey tools. Based on large, international databases, described it as the “…harnessing of organization members’
covering various industries, these companies estimate that selves to their work roles: in engagement, people employ
roughly 20% of all employees are highly engaged at their and express themselves physically, cognitively,
work, whereas another 20% are actively disengaged. The emotionally, and mentally during role performances” (p.
remaining group of about 60% is moderately engaged 694). In other words, engaged employees put a lot effort in
(Attridge, 2009). And what is more, these consultancy their work because they identify with it. In its turn,

3
 Work Engagement

according to Kahn, engagement is assumed to produce What do we Know?

positive outcomes, both at the individual level (personal
growth and development) as well as the organizational A literature search using PsychLit revealed that to date
level (performance quality). (February 2012), 227 scientific publications have appeared
Work engagement is also considered as the positive with either "work engagement" or "employee engagement"
antithesis of burnout. Contrary to those who suffer from in the title. It is needless to say that it goes beyond the
burnout, engaged employees have a sense of energetic and scope of this paper to discuss this entire body of
effective connection with their work; instead of stressful knowledge. Instead, I will use a large brush and focus on
and demanding they look upon their work as challenging. the five most important issues. In doing so, I will refer as
Accordingly, engagement is characterized by energy, much as possible, to comprehensive literature reviews and
involvement and efficacy, which constitute the direct meta-analyses. The interested reader may also consult
opposites of the three burnout dimensions – exhaustion, recent volumes on the subject; Bakker and Leiter (2010),
cynicism, and reduced accomplishment (Maslach & Leiter, and Albrecht (2010).
1997). In this view, engagement and burnout are inherently
linked and can therefore be assessed with the same Meaning and Measurement of Work Engagement
instrument. Work engagement may be assessed with short self-
Alternatively, engagement is regarded as an report questionnaires. The most extensively researched
independent, distinct concept that is negatively related to questionnaire that is used in business contexts is Gallup’s
burnout. It is defined in its own right as “…a positive, Q12, which has been designed as a management tool
fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized (Harter, Schmidt, Killham, & Asplund, 2006). However,
by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Salanova, rather than assessing the experience of engagement as a
Gonzàlez-Romá & Bakker, 2002, p. 74). Vigor is psychological state, the Q12 taps its antecedents in terms of
characterized by high levels of energy and mental perceived job resources such as role clarity (''Do you know
resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in what is expected from you at your work?"), social support
one’s work, and persistence even in the face of difficulties. ("Do you have a best friend at work?"), and feedback ("In
Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one’s work, the last six months, has someone at work talked about your
and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, progress?"). Based on this information, managers may
inspiration, pride, and challenge. Finally, absorption is improve job resources.
characterized by being fully concentrated and happily The most often used instrument to measure
engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and engagement as a distinct psychological state is the Utrecht
one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work. Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli et al., 2002)
In conclusion, for Kahn (1990) the key reference of that includes three subscales: vigor, dedication, and
engagement is the work role, whereas for those who absorption. The UWES has been validated in Europe, but
consider engagement as the antipode of burnout it is the also in North America, Africa, Asia, and Australia (for a
employee’s work activity, or the work itself. In business recent overview see Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010).
contexts, the reference is neither the work role nor the Confirmatory factor analyses have consistently shown that
work activity but the organization. Furthermore, both the fit of the hypothesized three-factor structure to the data
academic conceptualizations that define engagement in its is superior to that of alternative factor models. In addition,
own right and agree that it entails a behavioral-energetic the internal consistencies of the three subscales are
(vigor), an emotional (dedication), and a cognitive sufficient. Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova (2006)
(absorption) component. developed a short nine-item version of the UWES, and
In an attempt to integrate the business and academic provided evidence for its cross-national validity. The three
views on engagement, Macey and Schneider (2008) used a engagement dimensions are moderately strong and
very broad description of engagement as “… a desirable positively related so that a total score can also be used as
condition [that] has an organizational purpose, and an overall indicator of work engagement. Generally
connotes involvement, commitment, passion, enthusiasm, speaking, scores on the UWES are relatively stable across
focused effort, and energy” (p. 4). Their comprehensive time, ranging between .82 and .86 across a three-year time
framework for understanding engagement includes: (1) interval (Seppälä et al., 2009).
positive views of life and work, or “trait engagement” (e.g., A study using a national representative Dutch sample
conscientiousness, trait positive affect, proactive of about 4,000 employees (Smulders, 2006) found that
personality); (2) feelings of energy and absorption or “state levels of engagement are higher among those with
engagement” (e.g., satisfaction, involvement, complex, professional jobs with high levels of job control
empowerment); and (3) extra-role behavior or “behavioral (e.g., entrepreneurs, managers, farmers, teachers, and
engagement” (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior, artists) as compared to those with less skilled and
personal initiative, role expansion). autonomous jobs (e.g., blue collar workers, home care
The first aim of this paper is to present a brief overview staff, and retail workers). No systematic gender differences
about our current knowledge on engagement (What do we seem to exist, but older workers are slightly more engaged
know?). So far, engagement research has mainly focused than their younger colleagues. Also, it seems that levels of
on (1) the meaning and measurement of work engagement; engagement are lower in Asian countries (especially Japan)
(2) the antecedents of engagement; (3) the consequences of as compared to other regions (Shimazu, Miyanaka, &
engagement; (4) state work engagement; and (5) building Schaufeli, 2010).
work engagement. The second aim is to draft a future Work engagement differs from other psychological
research agenda on engagement (Where do we go?). states such as job satisfaction, and workaholism. In
contrast to engagement that connotes activation

4
 Schaufeli

(enthusiasm, alertness, excitement, elation), satisfaction The possible consequences of engagement pertain to
connotes satiation (contentment, calmness, serenity, positive job-related attitudes, health and well-being, extra-
relaxation). Research confirms that engaged employees role behavior, and job performance (for overviews see:
outperform satisfied employees, probably for that very Schaufeli & Salanova, 2008; Christian et al., 2011;
reason (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010). Although at first Halbesleben, 2010). Compared to those we do not feel
glance some similarities may exist between workaholics engaged, those who are engaged feel more committed to
and engaged employees, their underlying motivation the organization, are less often absent, and they do not
differs fundamentally (Van Beek, Hu, Schaufeli, Taris, & intend to leave the organization. Also, engaged employees
Schreurs, 2012). Essentially, engaged employees work experience positive emotions, and enjoy very good mental
hard because for them work is challenging and fun, and psychosomatic health, particularly when compared
whereas workaholics are motivated by a compulsive inner with workaholics. Furthermore, they exhibit personal
drive they cannot resist. Or put differently, the former are initiative and have a strong motivation to learn. Taken
intrinsically motivated and the latter are extrinsically together, this suggests that engaged workers seem to be
motivated; more specifically, workaholics strive to meet able and willing ''to go the extra mile".
external standards of self-worth and social approval, which Those who are engaged perform better (Rich et al,
they have internalized. 2010; Halbesleben, 2010). For instance, engaged
employees deliver superior service quality, as perceived by
Antecedents of Work Engagement their customers. They also report less errors, are less often
Previous studies have consistently shown that job involved in occupational injuries and accidents, show more
resources and personal resources are positively associated innovative work behaviors, and are better rated by their
with work engagement (for recent overviews see: supervisors in terms of effectiveness and job performance
Christian, Garza & Slaughter, 2011; Halbesleben, 2010; than their less engaged colleagues. A meta-analysis that
Mauno, Kinnunen, Mäkikangas, & Feldt, 2010). Job included almost 8,000 business-units of 36 companies
resources refer to those physical, social, or organizational (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002) revealed that levels of
aspects of the job that may: (a) reduce job demands and the engagement are positively related to business-unit
associated physiological and psychological costs; (b) be performance (i.e., customer satisfaction and loyalty,
functional in achieving work goals; or (c) stimulate profitability, productivity, turnover, and safety). This
personal growth, learning, and development (Bakker & suggests that engaged workers can indeed offer a
Demerouti, 2008). Personal resources are positive self- competitive advantage to organizations.
evaluations that are linked to resiliency and refer to
individuals’ sense of their ability to successfully control State Work Engagement
and have an impact on their environment (Hobfoll, Most studies to date have looked at differences
Johnson, Ennis, & Jackson, 2003). Job resources that between individuals regarding work engagement, and the
predict work engagement may differ per organization. possible reasons for these differences, for example, work
Important resources are opportunities for development, characteristics and personal resources. However, recent
performance feedback, autonomy, skill variety, studies have shown that engagement may also fluctuate
transformational leadership, justice, and social support within persons from day to day. Depending on what
from colleagues and supervisors. In addition, it has been happens during the day, employees show higher or lower
shown that personal resources like self-efficacy, hope, levels of engagement in their work activities. State work
optimism, organizational-based self-esteem, and the engagement concerns within-person fluctuations of vigor,
abilities to perceive and regulate emotions are antecedents dedication, and absorption over short periods of time (e.g.,
of work engagement. Finally, engagement is weakly days or weeks; Sonnentag, Dormann, & Demerouti, 2010).
positively related to job demands that are stressful but also Within-person variations are commonly measured with
appeal to employees’ curiosity, competence, and diary designs that allow capturing the short-term dynamics
thoroughness – so-called job challenges – such as job of the experience. Research has shown that on average
responsibility, workload, cognitive demands, and time about 40% of the variance in engagement may be attributed
urgency (Crawford, LePine, & Rich, 2010). to such within-person fluctuations. Although general
The Job Demands – Resources (JD-R) Model (Bakker engagement levels have a positive relationship with state
& Demerouti, 2008) is one of the most often used models work engagement, typically, most variance in engagement
to explain engagement (see Schaufeli & Taris, in press, for is explained by daily events, like supportive interactions
an overview). According to the JD-R Model, job and with colleagues, the daily experience of autonomy, and
personal resources become more salient and gain their positive feedback from clients.
motivational potential when employees are confronted with
high job demands. Such conditions represent so-called Building Work Engagement
"active jobs", in which employees become motivated to Organizations may increase employee engagement by
learn and develop their skills. Research has shown that job using particular HRM-strategies (for overviews, see
resources like variability in the required professional skills Bakker, Oerlemans, & Ten Brummelhuis, in press;
and appreciation from colleagues are most predictive of Schaufeli & Salanova, 2008, 2010). For instance, employee
work engagement under conditions of high job demands engagement can be improved through better job design by
(e.g., high workload, emotionally demanding interactions using the motivating potential of job resources. Also job
with clients). rotation and changing jobs might result in higher
engagement levels because it challenges employees,
Consequences of Work Engagement increases their motivation, and stimulates learning and
professional development.

5
 Work Engagement

Because of the “contagious” nature of work scientists, entrepreneurs, and managers in order to see if
engagement (Bakker, Van Emmerik & Euwema, 2006), their profiles – both in terms of personal and job resources
leaders have a special role in fostering engagement. – matches with our current understanding of engagement.
Particularly transformational leadership that provides a For the same purpose, employees who score very high on
clear vision, inspires and motivates, offers intellectual an engagement questionnaire (e.g. the top 5%) could be
challenges, and shows interest in the needs of the studied in-depth using qualitative methods. Most likely
employees, is successful in accomplishing this. In addition, such studies would uncover unique personal and work-
management should focus on employee strengths instead of related characteristics of highly engaged people.
weaknesses. Instead of exclusively using self-report questionnaires
Training programs in organizations that aim at also peer-ratings of supervisors, co-workers, and/or
increasing work engagement should focus on building partners could be employed to assess work engagement.
efficacy beliefs. High levels of self-efficacy set in motion Such peer ratings could be based on behaviorally anchored
an upward gain-spiral that boosts engagement and rating scales and may eventually result in a valid
subsequent performance, which, in its turn, increases observation-based tool that can be used in practice, for
efficacy beliefs, and so on (Salanova, Schaufeli, instance, in assessment centers.
Xanthopoulou, & Bakker, 2010). To the extent that Recently, other similar constructs emerged such as
employees are able to keep developing themselves "energy at work" (Cole, Bruch & Vogel, 2011), "vigor at
throughout their careers, their levels of engagement are work" (Shirom, 2003), "harmonious and obsessive
likely to remain high. Career planning and development passion" (Vallerand et al., 2003), "zest at work" (Peterson,
boils down to increasing employee’s employability by Park, Hall, Seligman, 2009), "thriving at work" (Porath et
ensuring continuous personal and professional al., 2012), and "spirit at work" (Kinjerski & Skrypnek,
development. 2008). Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to
Engaged employees actively change their work discuss these concepts in detail, it is clear that conceptual
environment, if needed. This can be done by modifying the and empirical overlap with work engagement is likely to
content or design of the job, by selecting particular tasks exist. So in order to cut dead wood, psychometric research
rather than others, by negotiating different job contents, or is necessary on the quality and on the convergent and
by assigning more meaning to the work tasks. This process discriminant validity of questionnaires that tap various
of employees actively shaping their jobs has been referred positive, work related state of mind.
to as "job crafting" (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). And it From the outset it has been maintained that work
appears that engaged workers are most likely to employ job engagement is incompatible with burnout and is, in fact, to
crafting as strategy to improve their jobs (Bakker, 2011). be seen as its positive anti-thesis (González-Romá,
As a consequence, they improve their person–job fit and Schaufeli, Bakker, & Lloret., 2006). Despite the intuitive
experience their jobs to be more meaningful for them – and appeal of this claim, correlations are much less than -1.00
thus to further build their own work engagement. and range between -.24 and -.65 (Halbesleben, 2010).
There exists an alternative, under-researched state of mind
Where do we go? that may act as the counterpart of work engagement as
well: boredom at work. Feeling bored refers to a
Although academic research on work engagement is displeasurable-deactivating affect, whereas feeling engaged
booming this does not guarantee that our knowledge is refers to a pleasurable-activating affect. This means that
increasing likewise. For this to happen we need to follow a boredom and engagement are located diametrically
research agenda that covers the most important issues, opposite each other in Russell's (2003) circumplex model
instead of producing more of the same. Below a research of emotions. As expected, Reijseger et al. (in press), found
agenda on work engagement is drafted that focuses on that boredom is negatively related with engagement (r = -
seven main themes: (1) conceptualization and .46) and positively related with burnout (r = .40). The
measurement; (2) theoretical understanding; (3) authors defined boredom at work as a state of relatively
antecedents and consequences; (4) epidemiology; (5) cross low arousal and dissatisfaction that is due to an under-
cultural validity; (6) the waxing and waning of across time; stimulating work environment. Moreover, their study
and (7) the collective nature of work engagement. Of showed that compared to work engagement boredom is
course this list is not exhaustive and it reflects a personal inversely related to job demands, job resources, job
view on where we should go with engagement research in satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover
the years to come. intention. Future research should further elucidate in how
far boredom at work is indeed the counterpart of work
Conceptualization and Measurement engagement.
Despite the fact that the pioneering study of Kahn In the past decade, engagement has not only been
(1990) was qualitative in nature, virtually all subsequent studied as a more or less enduring pattern of affective and
studies on work engagement have been quantitative in cognitive responses to a challenging work environment in
nature. Kahn used an assortment of qualitative methods field studies, but also as a more dynamic and temporal
(i.e., observation, document analysis, self-reflection, and construct in dairy and laboratory studies. This inspired
in-depth interviews) to investigate a small group of Schaufeli and Salanova (2011) to distinguish two types of
counselors of a summer camp, whereby he played the role work engagement depending on their object: (1) habitual
of participant (being the head counselor) as well as engagement which refers to the job in general and (2) task
observer (being the researcher). Following-up this engagement which refers to the task at hand. Jobs consist
qualitative approach it would be interesting to study of several tasks, and employees might feel more engaged
prototypical highly engaged people such as artists, while performing some tasks rather than other tasks.

6
 Schaufeli

Hence, the study of task engagement would allow a more Although the list of possible antecedents and
fine-grained analysis of the specific tasks that constitute consequences of work engagement looks rather impressive
jobs. For instance, laboratory studies showed that task at first glance, these are often based on cross-sectional
engagement is positively related to the individual's task research. Despite the fact that the number of longitudinal
resources (Llorens, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2007). studies is rising more research is needed, particularly with
Moreover, studies on day-level engagement showed that three or more waves so that the mediating effect of
levels of absorption or "flow" were highest for tasks engagement can be studied and advanced techniques for
performed in the early morning and in the evening, with data-analyses can be applied (e.g., latent growth curve
the lowest levels for task performance between 14-16 modeling, stability and change modeling).
hours (Rodríguez, Schaufeli, Salanova, Cifre, & In addition, the non-work antecedents and
Sonnenschein, 2011). In short, adding the task-level to the consequences of work engagement have been neglected,
engagement concept opens another intriguing avenue for such as poor home resources and spill-over to leisure and
research. private life. An exception is the longitudinal study of
Hakanen, Schaufeli, and Ahola (2008), who included home
Theoretical Perspectives demands and home resources but unfortunately failed to
So far, engagement has mainly been studied within the show a significant effect on work engagement. This calls
framework of the JD-R Model (for an overview see for more research. Although several studies have been
Schaufeli & Taris, in press). More specifically, the JD-R carried out on the cross-over of work engagement among
Model assumes that challenging jobs that are characterized couples – usually based on the emotional contagion
by an abundance of job resources promote work hypothesis (Bakker et al.2007) – no studies have been
engagement, which, in its turn, leads to a variety of conducted to the spill-over of work engagement to non-
positive outcomes such as organizational commitment, job work domains.
performance, and low levels of sickness absence and A particular important consequence of engagement is
turnover. In other words, engagement mediates the job performance because of its relevance for organizations.
relationship between job resources and organizational Even though a number of studies has shown that work
outcomes. In terms of the JD-R model this is called the engagement is associated with superior job performance
motivational process, in which personal resources (e.g., (see Christian et al., 2012, for a review), it is not clear yet
self-efficacy, optimism, self-esteem) and challenging job why engagement leads to performance. It might be
demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008) play a role as speculated that least six pathways may be involved (cf.
additional antecedents of engagement. Bakker, 2011; Reiseger, Schaufeli, Peeters & Taris, in
However, as Schaufeli and Taris (in press) argue, in press). First, engaged employees often experience positive
fact, the JD-R model is a heuristic and descriptive emotions, such as happiness, joy, and enthusiasm. These
framework, rather than a theoretical and explanatory active positive emotions seem to broaden people’s thought-
framework. As a consequence, additional theories are action repertoire, implying the acquisition of new
needed to explain the underlying psychological knowledge and skills. This, in turn, would facilitate their
mechanisms that are involved in the linkage of work performance. Second, engaged workers experience better
engagement with demands, resources, and outcomes. So health. That means that they are less absent from work and
far Conservation of Resources Theory (Xanthopoulou, may be able to better focus on their job, so that they are
Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009), Broaden-and- more productive. Third, engaged employees craft their own
Build Theory (Ouweneel, Le Blanc, & Schaufeli, 2011), jobs. As a result their jobs fit their personal needs and
Social Cognitive Theory (Salanova, Llorens, & Schaufeli, values, which boosts their motivation and hence their
2011), Self-Determination Theory (Van den Broeck, performance. Fourth, engagement is likely to foster
Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008), and theoretical cognitive open-mindedness and behavioral readiness. The
notions such as emotional contagion (Bakker, Westman, & former improves information processing, whereas the latter
Schaufeli, 2007) and job crafting (Bakker, 2010) have been manifests itself in personal initiative, both of which are
used to explain work engagement in the context of the JD- conducive for superior performance. Fifth, engaged
R Model. However, instead of unique explanatory workers exhibit prosocial behavior (e.g., helping others,
frameworks these are existing theories that are merely being kind, and cooperative), which is likely to be
applied to work engagement. An exception to this rule is reciprocated by their colleagues. So prosocial behavior is
the recently proposed "affective shift model". This model likely to create a positive social climate that fosters
assumes that work engagement emerges from the dynamic collaboration, information sharing, and mutual assistance –
interplay of positive and negative affect (Bledow, Schmitt, and thus team performance. Finally, engaged workers
Frese, & Kühnel, 2011). More specifically, the affective transfer their engagement to others in their immediate
shift model, that was successfully tested at day-level using environment by a process of emotional contagion; i.e., the
experience sampling methods, posits that negative affect is crossover of emotions from one team-member to the other.
positively related to work engagement if negative affect is Since in most organizations performance is the result of
followed by positive affect. Future theorizing should collaborative effort, the engagement of one person may
increase our understanding of the unique psychological transfer to others and thus indirectly improve team
processes that are involved in work engagement. performance. So far, we can only speculate about these
pathways, future research should evaluate their viability.

Antecedents and Consequences

Epidemiology

7
 Work Engagement

With one notable exception in the Netherlands Hakanen and Schaufeli (in press) showed that employee's
(Smulders, 2006), epidemiological studies are lacking that engagement levels are unrelated to future burnout levels.
include national representative samples that cover all Hence it seems that one does not have to be on fire first in
occupational groups. Such studies are necessary in order to order to burn out. Interestingly, engagement had a negative
obtain normative scores that can be used as national or impact on depression and a positive impact on life
occupation-specific benchmarks against which individual satisfaction, whereas the reverse was true for burnout.
or aggregated engagement scores can be compared. That Burnout had a positive impact on future depressive
way, individual employees, teams, departments, symptoms and a negative impact on future life satisfaction.
organizations, or occupational groups can be identified More research is needed, also to investigate other possible
with "(very) low", "average" or "(very) high" levels of negative consequences of work engagement, such as
work engagement. workaholism, or work-family conflict.

Cross-cultural issues Collective Work Engagement

Unfortunately, also valid comparisons of engagement- Usually work engagement is studied as an individual-
levels across countries cannot be made as well because level construct – i.e., employee engagement. But it also
national representative samples are lacking. Nevertheless, exists as a collective construct, for instance, as team
it seems that Japanese employees are considerably less engagement. Like individuals, teams may also be energetic
engaged compared to those in other countries. It has been (‘While working, my team feels full of energy’), dedicated
suggested that this is caused by the pervasive tendency in (‘My team is enthusiastic about the task they have to
Japan to suppress the expression of positive affect, which accomplish’), and absorbed (‘While working, we forget
is ubiquitous in that country (Shimazu et al., 2010). For everything else around us’). A recent study that included
cultural reasons, suppressing one´s positive emotions 62 teams from 13 organizations showed that, as expected,
represents a moral distinction and is socially desirable in team work engagement played a mediating role between
Japanese society. This leads to a common bias in cross- team social resources (e.g., a supportive team climate and
cultural comparison given the positive framing of the proper coordination of tasks) and team performance, as
engagement items. assessed by the supervisor (Torrente, Salanova, Llorens, &
Perhaps more challenging than comparing levels of Schaufeli, 2012). Thus, when team members perceive that
engagement across countries is to investigate relationships their team can draw upon certain resources they feel that
with typical, local psychological phenomena such as their team is ''engaged", and according to their supervisors
"guanxi" exchange in China. As the moral principle such engaged teams perform better than less engaged
governing social interactions of related parties, guanxi teams. There are indications that a process of emotional
exchange is deeply rooted in Confucian values and, as contagion is responsible for the emergence of this shared
such, it is inherent in Chinese work ethics. Contrary to psychological state of team work engagement (Bakker et
Western social exchange relations, which involve the al., 2006). Although still scare, research on collective
exchange of equivalent value and timely return, Chinese engagement looks promising and cannot only be carried
guanxi exchange goes beyond an equal exchange and may out in teams, but also in larger units such as departments or
be reciprocated in the long run. Recently, Hu, Schaufeli, business units, or perhaps even entire organizations. An
and Taris (2012) integrated guanxi exchange into the JD-R issue that has been completely neglected so far is the
model and found that task and social resources partly existence of a corporate "engagement culture" that fosters
mediate its relationship with work engagement. employee's growth and developments and stimulates them
Investigating such culture specific notions in relation to to thrive.
work engagement will increase the cross-cultural validity
of the construct. Final Note

Engagement Across Time After about one decade of engagement research there is
Research shows that work engagement is rather stable a lot we that we know. Despite occasional disagreement
across time (Seppälä et al., 2009), which poses a problem the meaning of engagement is relatively clear and at least
in longitudinal research because, after controlling for one reliable and valid assessment tool exists. Various
previous levels of engagement, not much variance is left to (possible) antecedents and consequences have been
be explained by other factors. That means that instead of identified, and research also uncovered different types (i.e.,
investigating relatively stable work environments, future habitual and state) and levels (i.e., individual and
research should focus on eventful changes, such as the collective) of engagement. And what is more, we have
introduction of hot desking policies, a work space sharing begun to find ways to build engagement. But there also
strategy of organizations in which employees outnumber remains a lot to be done, and the research agenda outlined
desks. Specifically, Van den Heuvel, Demerouti, Bakker, above leads the way to where we should go. By taking up
and Schaufeli (2012) found that work engagement the issues of this agenda, we may not only increase our
predicted supervisor-rated adaptive performance of academic knowledge but may also support and inspire
employees, as well as their positive attitude to change six those practitioners who struggle to increase engagement
months later. organizations.
A long standing burning question is: are people "on
fire" first before they burn out? In other words, is work
engagement a risk factor for developing burnout?
Preliminary evidence suggests that this is not the case. In a
recent three-wave longitudinal study spanning seven years, References

8
 Schaufeli

study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work

Albrecht, S. L. (Ed.). (2010). Handbook of employee engagement. Work & Stress, 22, 224-241.
engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and Halbesleben, J.R.B., 2010. A meta-analysis of work
practice. Northampton, MA: Edwin Elgar. engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands,
Attridge, M. (2009). Measuring and managing employee resources, and consequences. In: Bakker, A.B. and
work engagement: A review of research and business Leiter, M.P. (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of
literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 24, essential theory and research. Psychology Press, New
398-389. York, NY, pp. 102-117.
Bakker, A.B. (2010). Engagement and "job crafting": Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002).
Engaged employees create their own great place to Business-unit-level relationships between employee
work. In S.L. Albrecht. Handbook of employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business
engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
practice (pp. 229-244). Northampton, MA: Edwin Psychology, 87, 268-279.
Elgar. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Killham, E. A., & Asplund, J.
Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work W. (2006). Q12 Meta-Analysis. Princeton, NY, The
engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Gallup Organization.
Science, 20, 265–269. Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model (2003). Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional
of work engagement. Career Development outcomes among inner city women. Journal of
International, 13, 209–223. Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 632–643.
Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W.B., & Taris, T.W. (2012). The
Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (Eds.). (2010). Work
relationship of social resources, task resources and
engagement: A handbook of essential theory and
Guanxi exchange with employee well-being: A
research. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
differentiation and extension of the Job Demands-
Bakker, A. B., Oerlemans, W. G. M., & Ten Brummelhuis,
Resources model in two Chinese samples. Manuscript
L. L. (in press). Becoming fully engaged in the
submitted for publication.
workplace: What individuals and organizations can do
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal
to foster work engagement. In R. Burke & C. Cooper
engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of
(Eds.), The fulfilling workplace: The organization’s
Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
role in achieving individual and organizational health.
Kinjerski, V. & Skrypnek, B.J. (2008). Four Paths to Spirit
UK: Gower.
at Work: Journeys of Personal Meaning, Fulfillment,
Bakker, A.B., Van Emmerik H., & Euwema, M.C. (2006).
Well-Being, and Transcendence Through Work. The
Crossover of burnout and engagement in work teams.
Career Development Quarterly, 56, 319-329.
Work and Occupations, 33, 464-489.
Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A. & Salanova, M.
Bakker, A.B., Westman, M., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2007).
(2007). Does a positive gain spiral of resources,
Crossover of burnout: An experimental design.
efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in
European Journal Work & Organizational
Human Behavior, 23, 825-841.
Psychology, 16, 220-239.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of
Bledow, R., Schmitt, A., Frese, M., & Kühnel, J. (2011).
employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational
The affective shift model of work engagement. Journal
Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1,
of Applied Psychology, 96, 1246-1257.
3-30.
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., Slaughter, J.E. (2011).Work
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about
engagement: A qualitative review and test of its
burnout. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
relations with task and contextual performance.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Mäkikangas, A. & Feldt, T.
Personnel Psychology, 64, 89-136.
(2010). Job demands and resources as antecedents of
Cole, M., Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. (2011). Energy at work:
work engagement: A qualitative review and directions
A measurement and validation linkage to unit
for future research. In Albrecht, S. L. (Ed.). Handbook
effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues,
DOI: 10.1002/job.759.
research and practice (pp. 111-128). Northampton,
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010).
MA: Edwin Elgar.
Linking job demands and resources to employee
Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P., & Schaufeli, W. (2011).
engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and
Flourishing students: A longitudinal study on positive
meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95,
emotions, personal resources, and study engagement.
834-848.
Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 142-153.
González-Romá, V., Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A., Lloret,
Peterson, C., Park, N., Hall, N., & Seligman, M.E.P.
S. (2006). Burnout and engagement: Independent
(2009). Zest at work. Journal of Organizational
factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 30, 161-172.
Behavior, 68, 165-174.
Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F.G.
Hakanen, J., & Schaufeli, W.B. (accepted for publication).
(2012). Thriving at work: Toward its measurement,
Do burnout and work engagement predict depressive
construct validation, and theoretical refinement.
symptoms and life satisfaction? A three-wave seven-
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 33, 250-275.
year prospective study. Journal of Affective Disorders.
Reijseger, G., Schaufeli, W.B., Peeters, M.C.W., Taris,
Hakanen, J., Schaufeli, W.B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The Job
T.W. Van Beek, I. & Ouweneel, E. (2012). Watching
Demands-Resources model: A three-year cross-lagged

9
 Work Engagement

the paint dry: Initial validation of the Dutch Boredom Schaufeli, W.B. & Taris, T.W. (in press). A critical review
Scale. Manuscript under review. of the Job Demands-Resources Model: Implications for
Reijseger, G., Schaufeli, W.B., Peeters, M.C.W., & Taris, improving work and health. In G.F. Bauer & O.
T.W. (in press). Ready, set, go! From engagement to Hämmig (Eds), Bridging occupational, organizational
performance. In J. Neves,. & S.P. Gonçalves (Eds.). and public health. Amsterdam: Springer.
Occupational Health Psychology: From burnout to Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen,
well-being. Lisboa: Edições Sílabo. U., & Tolvanen, A. (2009). The construct validity of
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and
engagement: Antecedents and effects on job longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies,
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 10, 459–481.
617-635. Shimazu, A., Miyanaka,, D. Schaufeli, W.B. (2010). Work
Rodríguez, A., Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Cifre, E., & engagement from a cultural perspective. In S. Albrecht
Sonneneschein, M. (2011). An electronic diary study (Ed.). The handbook of employee engagement:
on flow experiences involving working and non- Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 364-
working tasks. Work & Stress, 25, 75-92. 372). Northampton, MA: Edwin Elgar.
Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect of and the psychological Shirom, A. (2003). Feeling vigorous at work? The
construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110, construct of vigor and the study of positive affect in
145-172. organizations. Research in Occupational Stress and
Salanova, M., Llorens, & Schaufeli, W.B. (2011). Yes, I Well Being, 3, 135–164.
can, I feel good and just do it: On gain spirals of Smulders, P. (2006). De bevlogenheid van werknemers
efficacy beliefs, affect and engagement. Applied gemeten [Assessing employee's work engagement].
Psychology: An International Review, 60, 255-285. Hoofddorp: TNO-special september 2006.
Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W.B., Xanthopoulou, D. & Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Not
Bakker, A.B. (2010). Gain spirals of resources and all days are created equal: The concept of state work
work engagement. In A.B. Bakker & M.P. Leiter engagement. In A.B. Bakker & M.P. Leiter (Eds.),
(Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and
theory and research (pp. 118-131). New York: research (pp. 25-38). New York: Psychology Press.
Psychology Press. Torrente, P., Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Schaufeli, W.B.
Shimazu, A., Miyanaka, D. Schaufeli, W.B. (2010). Work (2012). Teams make it work: How team work
engagement from a cultural perspective. In S. Albrecht engagement mediates between social resources and
(Ed.). The handbook of employee engagement: performance in teams. Psicotema, 24, 106-112.
Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 364- Van Beek, I., Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W.B., Taris. T., &
372). Northampton, MA: Edwin Elgar. Schreurs, B.H. (2012). For fun, love or money. What
Schaufeli, W.B. & Salanova, M. (2011). Work drives workaholic, engaged and burned-out employees
engagement. On how to better catch a slippery concept. at work? Applied Psychology: An International Review,
European Journal for Work & Organizational 61, 30-55.
Psychology, 20, 39-46. Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., &
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the relationships between
measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role
concept. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work &
engagement: A handbook of essential theory and Stress, 22, 277-294.
research (pp.10-24). New York: Psychology Press. Van den Heuvel, M., Demerouit, E., Bakker, A.B., &
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). Schaufeli, W.B. (2012). Adaptation to flexible
The measurement of work engagement with a short workspaces: A multilevel study of resources and work
questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and engagement. Manuscript under review.
Psychological Measurement, 66, 701-716. Vallerand, R.J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G.A., Koestner,
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & R., Ratelle, C., Léonard, M., Gagné, M., & Masokai, J.
Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement (2003). Les passions de l’âme: On obsessive and
and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social
analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71- Psychology, 85, 756-767.
92. Wah, L. (1999). Engaging employees a big challenge.
Schaufeli, W. B. & Salanova, M. (2008). Enhancing work Management Review, 88, 10.
engagement through the management of human Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job:
resources. In K. Näswall, M. Sverke & J. Hellgren Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work.
(Eds.), The individual in the changing working life (pp. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179–201.
380-404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., &
Schaufeli, W.B. & Salanova, M. (2010). How to improve Schaufeli, W.B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships
work engagement? In S. Albrecht (Ed.). The handbook between job resources, personal resources and work
of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 235-
research and practice (pp. 399-415). Northampton, 244.
MA: Edwin Elgar

10