Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258130125

Jobengagement:Antecedentsandeffectsonjobperformance

ArticleinTheAcademyofManagementJournal·June2010

CITATIONS

130

READS

15,807

1author:

BruceLouisRich

UniversityofFlorida

9PUBLICATIONS2,105CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

AllcontentfollowingthispagewasuploadedbyBruceLouisRichon26June2017.

Theuserhasrequestedenhancementofthedownloadedfile.Allin-textreferencesunderlinedinblueareaddedtotheoriginaldocument

andarelinkedtopublicationsonResearchGate,lettingyouaccessandreadthemimmediately.

JOB ENGAGEMENT: ANTECEDENTS AND EFFECTS ONJOB PERFORMANCE

BRUCE LOUIS RICHCalifornia State University San Marcos

JEFFREY A. LEPINEEEAN R. CRAWFORDUniversity of Florida

We theorize that engagement, conceptualized as the investment of an individual’scomplete self into a role, provides a more comprehensive explanation of relationshipswith performance than do well-known concepts that reflect narrower aspects of theindividual’s self. Results of a study of 245 firefighters and their supervisors supportedour hypotheses that engagement mediates relationships between value congruence,perceived organizational support, and core self-evaluations, and two job performancedimensions: task performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Job involve-ment, job satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation were included as mediators but did notexceed engagement in explaining relationships among the antecedents and perfor-mance outcomes.

Popular press articles and business consultantshave claimed that engaged employees give compa-nies competitive advantages (Corporate LeadershipCouncil, 2006; Gallup Management Journal, 2005).However, although scholars have made greatstrides over the past decade in identifying corre-lates of engagement (e.g., Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes,2002; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), little theory orempirical observation accounts for the role of en-gagement as a means through which organizationscan create competitive advantages. In particular,researchers have not examined the role of engage-ment as a mechanism that links employee charac-teristics and organizational factors to employee jobperformance.

This gap in knowledge of engagement may beunderstandable, given that the concept has a fairlybrief history and a substantial portion of this re-search has been grounded in theories of burnoutand employee well-being (e.g., Maslach & Leiter,1997). However, Kahn (1990) originally describedengagement as a unique and important motiva-tional concept: the harnessing of an employee’s fullself in terms of physical, cognitive, and emotionalenergies to work role performances. This concep-tualization not only suggests a linkage between en-gagement and job performance, but also representsan inclusive view of the employee’s agentic self,and thus engagement may provide a more compre-hensive explanation for job performance effectsthan is provided by more familiar mechanisms thatemphasize narrower aspects of the employee’s self.Researchers have focused on performance explana-

tions that emphasize affect or cognition or the mo-tives for physical persistence in tasks. Yet theseexplanations do not account for the possibility thatindividuals can choose to invest their affective,cognitive, and physical energies simultaneouslyinto role performances and that this more holisticinvestment of the self into one’s role representssomething that is distinct and fundamental (Kahn,1990, 1992).

Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to drawfrom Kahn’s (1990) work to develop theory thatpositions engagement as a key mechanism explain-ing relationships among a variety of individualcharacteristics and organizational factors and jobperformance. We begin by describing research cen-tered on explanations for job performance that ad-dress narrower aspects of an employee’s self, high-lighting how these perspectives may be limitedwith respect to explaining why important individ-ual and organizational factors impact job perfor-mance. We then draw from Kahn’s theory todescribe how engagement represents the simulta-neous investment of cognitive, affective, and phys-ical energies into role performance, and how suchinvestments may better explain relationships withtwo different aspects of job performance: task per-formance and organizational citizenship behavior.We then draw from Kahn’s theory to identify threeantecedents of engagement: value congruence, per-ceived organizational support, and core self-evalu-ations. These concepts have been previously linkedto job performance, and thus, our theorizing ex-tends understanding of why the relationships

� Academy of Management Journal2010, Vol. 53, No. 3, 617–635.

617

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s expresswritten permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only.

among these antecedents and job performance oc-cur. We also argue that engagement plays a medi-ating role in relationships between the antecedentsand the two dimensions of job performance andthat this meditational role is more comprehensivethan research using familiar and well-researchedconcepts, such as job involvement, job satisfaction,and intrinsic motivation, would suggest, as theseconcepts rest on a relatively narrow view of theself. Finally, we describe a study of firefightersdesigned to test our theoretical model.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

The majority of research intended to improveunderstanding of variability in work role perfor-mances has focused on explanatory concepts thatemphasize relatively narrow aspects of employees’selves. As the first example, researchers have con-ceptualized the self in terms of cognitive energythat can be allocated in various work and nonworkdomains according to identities individuals definefor themselves in reference to the roles they hold(Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). As a primeexample, the concept of job involvement refers tothe degree to which employees relate to their jobsas comprising their lives in total, so that an em-ployee who exhibits high job involvement identi-fies strongly with his or her job and thinks aboutthe job even when outside of work (Kanungo,1982). Job involvement is influenced by organiza-tion characteristics, supervisory behaviors, and in-dividual differences (Brown & Leigh, 1996) and isreasoned to predict job performance because indi-viduals who identify the most strongly with theirjobs focus their thoughts on work and interpretmore situations as opportunities to perform workrole activities (Hillman, Nicholson, & Shropshire,2008; Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006).

Another stream of work based on a relativelynarrow explanation of the self is research in whichit is conceptualized in terms of emotional reactionsthat are associated with the human desire to fulfillsubjective psychological needs or values. For ex-ample, there is a rich history of research on theconcept of job satisfaction, which refers to “a plea-surable or positive emotional state resulting fromthe appraisal of one’s job or job experience” (Locke,1976: 1300). Job satisfaction is promoted throughfavorable perceptions of job characteristics, super-visors, and coworkers (Russell, Spitzmuller, Lin,Stanton, Smith, & Ironson, 2004) and is also influ-enced by differences in individual personality(Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). The positive feel-ings associated with high job satisfaction that resultfrom favorable evaluations of what their organiza-

tion supplies make people more willing to carry outbehaviors associated with tasks that contribute to or-ganizational effectiveness (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993;Judge, Bono, Thoresen, & Patton, 2001).

Finally, there is theory and research that refers tothe self primarily in terms of the physical energiesthat are focused on specific task activities resultingfrom the need to feel competent and maintain au-tonomy and control over courses of action. Exem-plary is the extensive research on the concept ofintrinsic motivation, which is defined as the desireto exert effort on a task in the absence of externalconstraints or contingencies (Deci, 1975; Deci &Ryan, 1985). Intrinsic motivation is promoted byboth work contexts and individual differences thatfoster feelings of competence, autonomy, and relat-edness (Gagne & Deci, 2005), and it is argued toinfluence performance because opportunities tosatisfy these three intrinsic needs facilitate self-motivation and effective regulatory functioningthrough internalization of organizationally valuedgoals (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004).

Although researchers have examined each ofthese concepts in relationship with job perfor-mance, each focuses on a different aspect of the selfin explaining why individuals choose to investthemselves into their work roles. Job involvementfocuses on the cognitive energy individuals investto maintain identities related to work. Job satisfac-tion focuses on affective reactions and the need tomaintain happiness. Intrinsic motivation focuseson individuals’ effort and persistence dedicated tomaintaining autonomy and control. When consid-ered as an aggregate, these explanations comple-ment one another in explaining variability in per-formance. However, this approach does notaccount for the possibility that investments of cog-nitive, emotional, or physical energy manifest morefundamental choices to invest these three aspectsof the self in a holistic and connected manner(Goffman, 1961). We argue that this fundamentalunderlying mechanism is embodied by Kahn’s(1990) engagement concept. Because this conceptaccounts for the simultaneous investment of avail-able energies into a work role, it provides a morecomprehensive explanation for job performancethan do concepts that depict the self more narrowly.

Kahn’s Engagement

In an article reporting results of theory-generat-ing ethnographic research, Kahn formally definedengagement as “the simultaneous employment andexpression of a person’s ‘preferred self’ in task be-haviors that promote connections to work and toothers, personal presence (physical, cognitive, and

618 JuneAcademy of Management Journal

emotional) and active, full performances” (1990:700). In engagement, organization members har-ness their full selves in active, complete work roleperformances by driving personal energy into phys-ical, cognitive, and emotional labors. Engaged in-dividuals are described as being psychologicallypresent, fully there, attentive, feeling, connected,integrated, and focused in their role performances.They are open to themselves and others, connectedto work and others, and bring their complete selvesto perform (Kahn, 1992). Kahn noted that engage-ment is observed through the behavioral invest-ment of personal physical, cognitive, and emo-tional energy into work roles (Kahn, 1992). Peopleexhibit engagement when they become physicallyinvolved in tasks, whether alone or with others; arecognitively vigilant, focused, and attentive; and areemotionally connected to their work and to othersin the service of their work (Kahn, 1990). Put sim-ply, engagement involves investing the “hands,head, & heart” (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995: 110)in active, full work performance.

Kahn’s engagement concept is motivational be-cause it refers to the allocation of personal re-sources to role performance and also to how in-tensely and persistently those resources are applied(Kanfer, 1990). Engagement, however, subsumesthe traditional focus on physical or cognitive effortallocated to specific tasks or sets of tasks, as itreflects bringing forth increasing depths of the selfin the service of one’s broadly defined role. In otherwords, although individuals can be involved intheir work roles physically, cognitively, or emo-tionally, engagement is maintaining these involve-ments simultaneously in a connected rather thanfragmented manner (Kahn, 1992). Rather than thesummation of the various energies that can bebrought to a role, engagement reflects their com-monality—a common cause of the investment ofthe various energies. Thus, from the perspective ofKahn, job engagement is best described as a multi-dimensional motivational concept reflecting the si-multaneous investment of an individual’s physical,cognitive, and emotional energy in active, full workperformance. In even more direct terms, engage-ment is a multidimensional motivational constructof the latent form with dimensions serving as indi-cators of the higher-order engagement concept(Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998).

Job Performance Consequences of Engagement

As stated previously, the overarching purpose ofthis article is to provide insight into the role thatengagement plays in relationships with job perfor-mance. Here we define job performance as the ag-

gregated value to an organization of the set of be-haviors that an employee contributes both directlyand indirectly to organizational goals (Borman &Motowidlo, 1993; Campbell, 1990). We chose a be-havioral conceptualization of job performance be-cause engagement is a concept that reflects humanagency, and thus it is appropriate to focus on con-sequences that are largely under an employee’svolitional control. Moreover, because behavioralperformance has multiple dimensions, this per-spective can provide insight into the specific typesof employee behaviors that transmit the effects ofengagement to more “objective” outcomes, such asproductivity, efficiency, and quality.

Kahn (1990) did not explicitly outline a relation-ship between engagement and job performance.However, we have strong theoretical reasons to be-lieve that such a link exists. At a general level,employees who are highly engaged in their workroles not only focus their physical effort on thepursuit of role-related goals, but are also cogni-tively vigilant and emotionally connected to theendeavor (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Kahn,1990). In contrast, employees who are highly dis-engaged in their work roles withhold their physi-cal, cognitive, and emotional energies, and this isreflected in task activity that is, at best, robotic,passive, and detached (Goffman, 1961; Hochschild,1983; Kahn, 1990).

At a more specific level, theoretical research haslinked investments of the three energies of en-gagement to job performance. First, investment ofphysical energy into work roles contributes toorganizational goals because it facilitates the ac-complishment of organizationally valued behaviorsat increased levels of effort over extended periodsof time (Kahn, 1990, 1992). Because people’s workroles are defined largely by behavioral expectationsof others in their organization (Katz & Kahn, 1978),investments of physical energy toward role accom-plishment should result in a greater likelihood ofmeeting these expectations, and thus, judgmentsthat the role holder is a positive contributor to theorganization. Brown and Leigh (1996) found inmultiple samples that employees who workedharder exhibited higher levels of job performance.

Second, investment of cognitive energy intowork roles contributes to organizational goals be-cause it promotes behavior that is more vigilant,attentive, and focused (Kahn, 1990). Weick andRoberts (1993) used the term “heedfulness” as alabel for behaviors that possess this same set ofcharacteristics, and those authors noted that whenheedfulness declines because of reductions in in-vestments of cognitive energy, performance decre-ments result from failures to see, to take note of, or

2010 619Rich, Lepine, and Crawford

to be attentive to one’s work role. In their researchon flight deck operators on an aircraft carrier,Weick and Roberts observed that as the degree ofheedfulness increased, crucial operational errorsdecreased.

Finally, investments of emotional energy intowork roles contribute to organizational goals in anumber of related ways (Kahn, 1990). Those whoinvest emotional energy into their roles enhanceperformance through the promotion of increasedconnection among coworkers in pursuit of organi-zational goals (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). In-vestments of emotional energies also help individ-uals meet the emotional demands of their roles in away that results in more complete and authenticperformance (Kahn, 1990, 1992).

Relationships with task performance. Individ-ual job performance consists of distinct sets of ac-tivities that contribute to an organization in differ-ent ways (Campbell, 1990). Accordingly, it isimportant to consider how different aspects of jobperformance might be influenced by engagement.The first narrow aspect of job performance is taskperformance, defined as those activities that aredirectly involved in the accomplishment of core jobtasks, or activities that directly support the accom-plishment of tasks involved in an organization’s“technical core” (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Be-haviors that comprise task performance are estab-lished and central to any given job; there is consen-sus about what they are; and they are relativelystatic over time (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991). Becauseengaged individuals invest their physical, cogni-tive, and emotional energies into their work roles,they should exhibit enhanced performance becausethey work with greater intensity on their tasks forlonger periods of time, they pay more attention toand are more focused on responsibilities, and theyare more emotionally connected to the tasks thatconstitute their role.

Hypothesis 1. Job engagement is positively re-lated to task performance.

Relationships with organizational citizenshipbehavior. Job performance not only includes taskperformance, but also the less formal “emergent”behaviors that contribute to organizations less di-rectly (Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997). Thesetypes of behaviors, which include helpfulness,sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and civic virtue(Organ, 1988), do not contribute directly to an or-ganization’s technical core, but rather, they contrib-ute to the organization by fostering a social andpsychological environment conducive to the ac-complishment of work involved in the organiza-tion’s technical core (Motowidlo et al., 1997). The

most common label for these performance behav-iors is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB;Organ, 1988). To the extent that engaged employeesinvest themselves more fully while at work than dothose who are less engaged, they should be morewilling to step outside the bounds of their formallydefined jobs and engage in acts that constitute OCB.Moreover, to the extent that engagement is reflectedby heedfulness and connectedness to one’s work(Kahn, 1992), it may foster a mental frame in whichone’s role is perceived to include a wider array ofbehaviors that could ultimately benefit the organi-zation. Indeed, Kahn (1990, 1992) argued that thephysical, cognitive, and emotional energies of en-gagement foster active, complete role performancesthrough behavior that is extra conscientious, inter-personally collaborative, innovative, and involved.

Hypothesis 2. Job engagement is positively re-lated to organizational citizenship behavior.

Antecedents of Job Engagement

Kahn (1990) assumed that individual’s percep-tions of their work contexts and their own individ-ual characteristics foster psychological conditionsthat directly influence the willingness to person-ally engage in work roles. This general causal flowis similar to Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) notionthat job characteristics impact critical psychologi-cal states that influence people’s internal work mo-tivation. Kahn suggested three direct psychologicalconditions for engagement, each of which can bethought of in terms of a question people ask them-selves prior to choosing to personally engage ordisengage from their role: (1) How meaningful is itfor me to bring myself into this performance? (2)How safe is it to do so? and (3) How available am Ito do so? Kahn also theorized that characteristics ofemployees and organizations drive beliefs regard-ing these three questions—which we will refer to aspsychological meaningfulness, safety, and avail-ability. Specifically, perceptions of organizationaland work factors related to tasks and roles are theprimary influences on psychological meaningful-ness; perceptions of social systems related to sup-port and relationships are the primary influenceson psychological safety; and self-perceptions ofconfidence and self-consciousness are the primaryinfluences on psychological availability. In thepresent research, we consider a focal antecedentfrom each of these categories: value congruence,perceived organizational support, and core self-evaluations. These three antecedents have beenpreviously linked to job performance, and thus wecan consider the degree to which engagement

620 JuneAcademy of Management Journal

serves as an important mechanism through whichthe effects of the antecedents are transmitted.

Value congruence. The experience of psycholog-ical meaningfulness involves a sense of return oninvestments of the self in role performance (Kahn,1990). Individuals who experience meaningfulnesstend to feel worthwhile, useful, valuable, and ableto give themselves to their work role and to others(Kahn, 1990). According to Kahn (1990, 1992), oneimportant influence of meaningfulness is the con-gruence between the behaviors expected by an or-ganization and the behaviors that individual em-ployees value as a part of their own self-images.That is, when employees find that their roles callfor behaviors that are congruent with how they liketo see themselves (their preferred self-images), theyare more likely to find their roles inviting, valuable,and worthwhile and more willing to fully engagethemselves (Kahn, 1992). When individuals findthat their role expectations pull for behaviors thatthey feel are inappropriate for their preferred self-images, they feel devalued, taken advantage of, andless willing to give themselves to their work roles(Kahn, 1990, 1992).

Because organizational values are communicatedto organization members in terms of what behav-iors are appropriate and expected for their workroles (Chatman, 1989; Ravlin & Meglino, 1987), andbecause personal values reflect, in part, behavioralstandards and desires involved in one’s self-image(Cable & Edwards, 2004; Locke, 1976), the role ofvalue congruence becomes clear. That is, when in-dividuals believe that their personal values are con-gruent with those of the organization for whichthey work, they perceive that organizational roleexpectations are congruent with their preferredself-images (Chatman, 1989; Kahn, 1990, 1992;Kristof, 1996), and thus they should find moremeaningfulness in their work, and in turn, exhibithigher engagement. Research has supported theidea that perceived value congruence facilitates in-dividuals making greater personal investments inthe pursuit of organizational goals because of theexperienced meaningfulness of their work roles(Brown & Leigh, 1996; May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004);however, no research has examined the relation-ship between perceived value congruence andKahn’s conceptualization of engagement.

Hypothesis 3. Perceived value congruence ispositively related to job engagement.

Perceived organizational support. The experi-ence of psychological safety is described as feelingable to invest oneself without fear of negative con-sequences (Kahn, 1990). Individuals feel safe inorganizational contexts perceived to be trustwor-

thy, secure, predictable, and clear in terms of be-havioral consequences. Kahn suggested that em-ployees experience psychological safety, in part, asa result of supportive management and supportiveand trusting interpersonal relationships with oth-ers in their organization. Individuals with trustinginterpersonal relationships in supportive organiza-tional environments are able to take risks, exposetheir real selves, and try and perhaps fail withoutfearing the consequences (Kahn, 1990). Kahn fur-ther suggested that individuals feel safer when theyhave some control over their work and that mana-gerial reluctance to loosen its control sends a mes-sage that employees are not to be trusted and shouldfear overstepping their boundaries. Thus, supportivemanagement and interpersonal relationships fosterfeelings of psychological safety that increase willing-ness to engage fully in work roles.

Perceived organizational support, a concept thatreflects the type of support Kahn (1990) discussed,develops through employee interactions with or-ganizational agents such as supervisors and reflectsemployees’ beliefs concerning the extent to whichthe organization they work for values their contri-butions and cares about their well-being (Eisen-berger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). Em-ployees who perceive high organizational supporthave positive and secure expectations concerningthe organization’s likely reaction to employees’contributions as well as their mistakes, and thusthey have less reason to fear incurring damagingconsequences for their self-images, statuses, or ca-reers as a result of investing themselves fully intotheir work roles (Edmondson, 1999). When per-ceived organizational support is low, employeesare unsure of what to expect, fear that they maysuffer for their personal engagement, and choose toguard their selves by withdrawing from their roles(Kahn, 1990). This reasoning is consistent with re-search showing positive relationships between per-ceptions of various forms of support in an organi-zation and conceptualizations of job engagementsimilar to Kahn’s (e.g., Bakker, Demerouti, &Schaufeli, 2005; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006;Saks, 2006).

Hypothesis 4. Perceived organizational sup-port is positively related to job engagement.

Core self-evaluations. Psychological availabilityis described as individuals’ readiness to personallyengage at a particular moment (Kahn, 1990). Indi-viduals who are psychologically available perceivethemselves to be ready and prepared to put theirphysical, cognitive, and emotional energies intorole performance, and thus, they tend to exhibithigher engagement in role performance contexts.

2010 621Rich, Lepine, and Crawford

One of the key influences on availability is an in-dividual’s having a general level of confidence inhis or her own abilities, status, and self-conscious-ness that leaves more or less room for investmentsof self in role performances (Kahn, 1990). Kahn(1992) further suggested that this type of confi-dence is a relatively stable individual difference,and it operates in such a way that the more gener-ally confident the individual feels about his or hercapabilities and status, the more likely the individ-ual is to feel available and prepared to engage fullyin his or her role.

To a large degree, the confidence that Kahn dis-cussed is reflected in the concept of core self-evaluations, a contemporary construct defined asindividuals’ appraisals of their own worthiness,effectiveness, and capability as people (Judge,Locke, & Durham, 1997). People with high coreself-evaluations are well adjusted, positive, self-confident, and efficacious, and they believe in theirown agency (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003).Individuals with high core self-evaluations ap-praise demands more positively, have greater abil-ity to cope with these demands effectively, andthus have more resources available to invest in theperformance of their work roles (Judge & Hurst,2007). Because individuals with high core self-evaluations tend to feel more capable of dealingwith work demands, they should also perceive ahigher level of availability to invest themselves intotheir roles, and thus, core self-evaluations shouldbe positively related to job engagement. Althoughcore self-evaluations have been linked to motiva-tional concepts such as goal setting and overall taskmotivation (e.g., Erez & Judge, 2001), no researchhas linked the concept to job engagement.

Hypothesis 5. Core self-evaluations are posi-tively related to job engagement.

Mediating Role of Job Engagement

To this point, we have argued that value congru-ence, perceived organizational support, and coreself-evaluations promote the simultaneous invest-ment of cognitive, emotional, and physical energyinto a work role, and this investment, in turn, trans-lates into superior work role performance. In otherwords, we have implicitly described a model inwhich engagement mediates relationships amongits antecedents and job performance activities. In-deed, researchers have found that value congru-ence (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson,2005), perceived organizational support (Rhoades& Eisenberger, 2002), and core self-evaluations(Judge & Bono, 2001) are positively linked to job

performance, and we argue here that engagementplays an important role in explaining theserelationships.

As we noted earlier, scholars have offered expla-nations of job performance rooted in theories thatdefine human agency more narrowly than does en-gagement, and these narrower explanations couldalso account for relationships between our anteced-ents and outcomes. However, whereas conceptssuch as job involvement, job satisfaction, and in-trinsic motivation suggest performance may be en-hanced through different aspects of the self thatoperate with relative independence, Kahn (1990)theorized that there is a unique aspect of humanagency that functions in a more holistic, consistent,and connected manner. To be engaged in a job isnot just being cognitively attentive to the job, orfeeling and expressing positive emotions on thejob, or doing specific job tasks simply for the sakeof doing them. Instead, engagement reflects the si-multaneous investment of cognitive, emotional,and physical energies in such a way that one isactively and completely involved in the full perfor-mance of a role. For these reasons, we expect valuecongruence, perceived organizational support, andcore self-evaluations to affect job performancethrough investments of the self as reflected by en-gagement, even when job involvement, job satisfac-tion, and intrinsic motivation are considered asmediators.

Hypothesis 6a. Job engagement mediates therelationship between value congruence andtask performance.

Hypothesis 6b. Job engagement mediates therelationship between value congruence andand OCB.

Hypothesis 7a. Job engagement mediates therelationship between perceived organizationalsupport and task performance.

Hypothesis 7b. Job engagement mediates therelationship between perceived organizationalsupport and OCB.

Hypothesis 8a. Job engagement mediates therelationship between core self-evaluations andtask performance.

Hypothesis 8b. Job engagement mediates therelationship between core self-evaluationsand OCB.

Hypothesis 9. Job engagement mediates rela-tionships among the antecedents and perfor-mance outcomes when job involvement, job

622 JuneAcademy of Management Journal

satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation are con-sidered as additional mediators.

METHODS

Sample and Procedures

Participants included 245 full-time firefightersand their supervisors employed by four municipal-ities. Participants were predominately male (87%)and Caucasian (88%) and had completed at least anassociate’s degree (61%). On average, they were 39years old (s.d. � 8.71) and had 11.5 years tenure(s.d. � 8.86). There were no differences among thefire departments in variables that could result inspurious relationships. We distributed and col-lected surveys during working hours. We told par-ticipants that the survey was designed to measurejob attitudes and that their responses to the surveywould be kept confidential.

Measures

Participants rated their own job engagement, jobinvolvement, job satisfaction, intrinsic motivation,value congruence, perceived organizational sup-port, and core self-evaluations using a five-pointLikert scale that ranged from “strongly disagree” (1)to “strongly agree” (5).

Job engagement. Most existing measures of en-gagement have been criticized for not fully reflect-ing Kahn’s (1990) conceptualization as the degreeto which individuals invest their physical, cogni-tive, and emotional energies into their role perfor-mance (Newman & Harrison, 2008). The most pop-ular measure of engagement is the Utrecht WorkEngagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli & Bakker,2003); however, it includes items that confoundengagement with the antecedent conditions sug-gested by Kahn. For instance, the UWES includesitems that tap respondent perceptions of the levelof meaningfulness and challenge of work. Thus,although the UWES has gained in popularity asinterest in engagement has grown, we needed todevelop a measure that maps more precisely ontoKahn’s conceptualization.

To this end, we followed practices described byscholars who have discussed the process of devel-oping and validating measures of constructs (e.g.,Schwab, 1980). We first searched the literature forscales and items that fit the definitions of the threeengagement dimensions as described by Kahn(1990). Our goal was to measure the three dimen-sions of engagement in such a way that the com-monality of those dimensions would adequatelyreflect job engagement. Although we did not locate

a set of existing scales with items that “perfectly”fit the definitions of the dimensions, we were ableto compile a list of items that we felt we could use,and we supplemented this list with items we wroteto fill out the content domain of each dimension.

Our review of the literature for existing measuresthat might tap Kahn’s (1992) physical engagementdimension revealed that Brown and Leigh’s (1996)measure of “work intensity,” which the authorsdefined as the “energy exerted per unit of time”(1996: 362), came the closest. However, we signif-icantly modified the items in Brown and Leigh’sscale to promote greater conceptual correspon-dence with Kahn’s conceptualization of the physi-cal engagement dimension. For example, three ofthe five original items began with the phrase “whenI work” or “when there’s a job to be done,” and wefelt this wording created some ambiguity. Specifi-cally, the phrase could be interpreted as limitingthe focal situation to those particular, and perhapsrare, circumstances in which an individual ispresent at work for a full day, but only chooses toperform role-related activities for a small portion oftime, during which he or she accomplishes theactivitieswith high intensity simply to avoid beingreprimanded or fired for not being productive. Inour opinion, this interpretation is not consistentwith engagement as conceptualized by Kahn, andso the wording of these items was revised.

To measure the emotional aspect of engagement,we drew from Russell and Barrett’s (1999) researchon core affect, defined as a somewhat generalizedemotional state consisting of two independent di-mensions—pleasantness (feeling positive) and acti-vation (a sense of energy). To be consistent withKahn’s description of this aspect of engagement, wewrote items that refer to emotions that reflect bothhigh pleasantness and high activation (enthusiasm,excitement, energy, interest). Further, in keepingwith research on emotions (defined as affectivestates directed toward something specific [Frijda,1993]), we also had the items refer to feelings asso-ciated with a particular target, which in the contextof the present research was a respondent’s workrole. Measuring work-related emotion within a seg-ment of the core affect domain has precedent in theorganizational behavior and applied psychologicalliteratures. For example, Bono, Foldes, Vinson, andMuros (2007) measured positive workplace emo-tions using a measure that combined scores onitems that referred to the degree of enthusiasm,happiness, and optimism experienced at work.

Finally, for the cognitive aspect of engagement,we drew from Rothbard’s (2001) measure of engage-ment, which includes both attention (level oramount of focus and concentration) and absorption

2010 623Rich, Lepine, and Crawford

(level of engrossment or the intensity of the focusand concentration). Although Rothbard distin-guished between these two facets in her analyses,the dimensions were strongly related, and they hadremarkably similar zero-order relationships withother variables in her study. For these reasons, andalso because we had no theoretical predictions re-garding functional differences between the two di-mensions, we did not attempt to maintain the dis-tinction. Rather, we refined six items fromRothbard’s scale to promote conceptual consis-tency with Kahn’s description of the cognitive as-pect of engagement.

We first administered our initial 18-item job en-gagement scale to a convenience sample of 117individuals who were employed full-time in a va-riety of occupations and organizations. We re-ceived completed surveys from 84 participants (a72 percent response rate). About half of the partic-ipants were female, and on average, they were 28years old with 4.6 years of full-time work experi-ence. Participants rated the job engagement itemson a scale that ranged from “strongly disagree” (1)to “strongly agree” (5). We submitted the data to anexploratory factor analysis using principal axis fac-toring with an oblique rotation. Three factors wereextracted with eigenvalues greater than 1.00. Theemotional engagement factor accounted for the larg-est amount of variance (57%), followed by the phys-ical (11.46%) and cognitive (6.26%) factors. Withone exception, factor loadings of items to their cor-responding scale were greater than .71, and therewas no cross-loading greater than .30. We modifiedthe item with a low factor loading (.59) for thesubsequent data collection. The items for each di-mension were averaged and formed reliable scales(internal consistency reliabilities ranged from .89to .94). The strong correlations among the scales(r � .63–.74) supported their aggregation to an over-all job engagement scale, which was also reliablefrom an internal consistency standpoint (.95).

We then cross-validated the job engagement scale(after modifying the one potentially problematicitem) in a sample of 180 employees of a skilledcare nursing facility. Participants in this samplewere predominately female (81%) and Caucasian(73.3%), had completed at least an associate’s de-gree (55.5%), and on average were 43 years in age(s.d. � 15.5). To assess the structure of the engage-ment scale in this sample, we specified a series ofmodels and tested them using confirmatory factoranalysis (CFA). We first fit the data to a one-factormodel in which all 18 items loaded on a singlelatent variable. The results of this model indicatedpoor fit to the data in an absolute sense (�2[135] �1,007.21, CFI � .89, SRMR � .12, RMSEA� .24);

thus the items did not appear to reflect a singleengagement factor. Next, we specified a three-factormodel in which we loaded each item onto its cor-responding engagement dimension. Results of thisCFA indicated that this model fit the data well bothin an absolute sense (�2[132] � 302.67, CFI � .98,SRMR � .05, RMSEA � .08) and as compared to thealternative one-factor model (��2[3] � 704.54, p �.001). The strong interrelationships among thethree engagement dimensions (average r � .65) sug-gested a commonality indicative of a higher-orderfactor (Kline, 2005; Law et al., 1998). Accordingly,we specified an additional model in which weloaded the three first-order engagement dimensionsonto a second-order engagement dimension. Be-cause the number of estimated endogenous rela-tionships and degrees of freedom in this model arethe same as those for the model with three corre-lated engagement dimensions, the fit statistics ofthe second-order model indicated exactly the samegood fit with the data. However, the second-orderfactor loadings for the physical, cognitive, andemotional dimensions were all positive, strong,and statistically significant (.89, .64, and .90, re-spectively), as were the factor loadings on the in-dividual items (shown in the Appendix). Thus, inkeeping with Kahn’s theorizing, specifying engage-ment as a second-order factor was supported.

For the main study involving the firefighters, wesubmitted the engagement items to CFA and againfound support for the structure of our engagementmeasure as consisting of three first-order factorsthat in turn load on a second-order factor. We con-ducted analyses that mirrored what we describedin the previous paragraph. The hypothesized sec-ond-order model fit the data well (�2[132] � 391.90,CFI � .97, SRMR � .05, RMSEA � .09), signifi-cantly better than the one-factor alternative (��2[3] �1,073.12, p � .001). The first-order (see the Appen-dix) and second-order factor loadings (.90, .72, .79)from the hypothesized model were strong, statisti-cally significant, and similar to the cross-validationsample in size.

Other self-report measures. We measured valuecongruence using three items from Caldwell, Chat-man, and O’Reilly (1990) that focus on the align-ment of employee values with organizational val-ues. We assessed perceived organizational supportwith a 6-item scale developed by Eisenberger,Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, and Rhodes (2001). Weused a 12-item measure of core self-evaluationsfrom Judge and colleagues (Judge et al., 2003). Wemeasured job involvement using Kanungo’s (1982)10-item scale. We measured job satisfaction usingCammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh’s (1983)3-item scale of general or overall job satisfaction.

624 JuneAcademy of Management Journal

Finally, we measured intrinsic motivation with thecorresponding 4 items from the Situational Motiva-tion Scale (Guay, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000).

Supervisor-report measures. Participants’ su-pervisors completed a job performance question-naire that included 5 items from Williams andAnderson’s (1991) task performance scale, and Leeand Allen’s (2002) 16-item OCB scale. Supervisorsscored the items using a five-point Likert scale thatranged from “strongly disagree” (1) to “stronglyagree” (5). To assess whether the ratings lackedindependence, we calculated intraclass correlationcoefficients, or ICC1s, using the between- and with-in-supervisor variance components estimated fromrandom coefficient models. Supporting indepen-dence, the ICC1s for both task performance andOCB were very small, and not close to reachingstatistical significance (ICC1task performance � .01,�2[110] � 94.96, p � .85; and ICC1OCB � .05,�2[110] � 107.79, p � .54).

RESULTS

Table 1 reports descriptive statistics and correla-tions among all study variables. As shown in thetable, the study variables all possess an acceptabledegree of internal consistency reliability. Of moresubstantive interest, job engagement is associatedwith the conceptual antecedents and consequencesin the manner that we hypothesized. That is, indi-viduals reported they were more engaged in theirjobs when they also reported higher levels of valuecongruence, perceived organizational support, andcore self-evaluations. Also, individuals reportinghigher levels of engagement tended to receivehigher supervisor ratings of task performance andorganizational citizenship behavior. Although thesezero-order correlations are meaningful and providepreliminary support for our theorizing, we formallytested our hypotheses by specifying a series of struc-

tural models in which all of the relationships with jobengagement are embedded.

Measurement Model

Following convention, we assessed the fit of ourdata to a measurement model prior to assessingsubstantive relationships. Model 1 is the proposedmeasurement model, for which we loaded eachindividual item onto its respective higher orderfactor (value congruence, perceived organizationalsupport, core self-evaluations, job engagement, jobinvolvement, job satisfaction, intrinsic motivation,task performance, organizational citizenship be-havior), which we allowed to correlate. In keepingwith the previously discussed CFA results, weloaded the engagement items onto the respectivefirst-order factor, which were then loaded onto asecond-order factor. We scaled each latent variableby setting a factor loading of an indicator to 1.00.To account for variance due to measurement arti-facts, we allowed error variances from the two neg-atively worded job involvement items to correlate.Similarly, to account for item wording similarity,we allowed error variances for two of the job satis-faction items to correlate.

As the fit statistics in Table 2 indicate, model 1 fitthe data well in an absolute sense (�2[2,809] �5,097.90, CFI � .95, SRMR � .10, RMSEA � .06),and the loadings of the items onto their respectivelatent variables were statistically significant andstrong (average estimate/standard error � 11.70;average loading � .70). We compared model 1 tomore parsimonious nested alternatives that com-bined latent constructs to assess the discriminantvalidity of the latent variables, and in no case didan alternative model fit the data as well as thehypothesized model. Because of our focus on en-gagement in this study, we report results of modelsin which we combined job engagement with job

TABLE 1Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Key Study Variablesa

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Job engagement 4.32 0.49 (.95)2. Job involvement 2.75 0.64 .47* (.86)3. Job satisfaction 4.36 0.62 .56* .48* (.83)4. Intrinsic motivation 3.76 0.52 .35* .42* .37* (.70)5. Value congruence 3.75 0.70 .44* .27* .44* .19* (.70)6. Perceived organizational support 3.30 0.90 .45* .48* .64* .34* .52* (.92)7. Core self-evaluations 3.88 0.39 .34* .19* .24* .14* .21* .21* (.72)8. Task performance 4.27 0.55 .35* .26* .29* .21* .21* .23* .12 (.90)9. Organizational citizenship 4.04 0.53 .35* .23* .30* .18* .29* .32* .14* .63* (.93)

a n � 245. Coefficient alpha reliabilities are on the diagonal in parentheses.* p � .05

2010 625Rich, Lepine, and Crawford

involvement (model 2), job satisfaction (model 3),intrinsic motivation (model 4), value congruence(model 5), perceived organizational support (model6), and core self-evaluations (model 7). To supportthe discriminant validity of the supervisor-ratedconstructs, we also report a comparison of the fit ofthe data to a model in which we combined taskperformance and OCB (model 8). The statistics andfit indexes in Table 2 show that none of the alter-native models fit the data as well as our hypothe-sized model. Chi-square difference tests indicatedstatistically significant differences in model fit fa-voring model 1. In sum, this analysis supported theadequacy of the measures testing substantiverelationships.

Tests of Substantive Relationships

In keeping with the theory we outlined earlier,we specified a model in which value congruence,perceived organizational support, and core self-evaluations predicted job engagement, job involve-ment, job satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation,which in turn predicted task performance and or-ganizational citizenship behavior. Because theoryand empirical research indicate that task perfor-mance and OCB are reflections of a broader jobperformance construct (e.g., Hoffman, Blair, Me-riac, & Woehr, 2007), we allowed the disturbanceterms on these latent variables to correlate. We firstspecified a model that included these relationshipstogether with direct effects of the independent vari-ables on the dependent variables.

This first structural model fit the data well in anabsolute sense (�2[2,817] � 5,230.53, CFI � .95,SRMR � .11, RMSEA � .06). However, there wereno statistically significant direct relationships be-tween the independent and dependent variables.

Therefore, we specified a second structural model,nested within the first, in which we eliminated thesix direct effects of the independent variables onthe dependent variables. This model also fit thedata well (�2[2,823] � 5,238.43, CFI � .95, SRMR �.11, RMSEA � .06). In fact, the fit of this model tothe data was the same as the fit of the first model(��2[6] � 7.90, p � .25). Thus, the second modelwas superior to the first because it was more parsi-monious and fit the data equally well.

The standardized path estimates from the secondmodel, depicted in Figure 1, indicate support forHypotheses 1 and 2 in that the paths from jobengagement to task performance and OCB werepositive and statistically significant (� � .25 and.27, respectively). In other words, supervisors ofindividuals who indicated they were highly en-gaged reported that these individuals had higherlevels of task performance and OCB. Hypotheses 3,4, and 5 were also supported, as the paths to en-gagement from value congruence, perceived organ-izational support, and core self-evaluations werepositive and statistically significant (� � .35, .37,and .36, respectively). Individuals reported beingmore highly engaged when they perceived highervalue congruence, organizational support, and coreself-evaluations.

The path estimates in Figure 1 also reveal thatalthough job involvement, job satisfaction, and in-trinsic motivation were predicted by the indepen-dent variables, these three variables did not haveany statistically significant relationships with thetwo job performance outcomes. Although job in-volvement, job satisfaction, and intrinsic motiva-tion appear to have meaningful relationshipswith job performance when considered alone in azero-order sense, they appear to have little pre-

TABLE 2Measurement Modela

Structure �2 df CFI SRMR RMSEA 90% CI ��2(df)b

Model 1: Nine factors 5,097.90 2,809 .95 .10 .06 .06–.06Model 2: Eight factors, JE & JI combined 5,176.07 2,810 .95 .18 .06 .06–.06 78.17 (1)Model 3: Eight factors, JE & JS combined 5,113.65 2,810 .95 .13 .06 .06–.06 15.75 (1)Model 4: Eight factors, JE & IM combined 5,170.11 2,810 .95 .16 .06 .06–.06 72.21 (1)Model 5: Eight factors, JE & VC combined 5,151.37 2,810 .95 .15 .06 .06–.06 53.47 (1)Model 6: Eight factors, JE & POS combined 5,130.49 2,810 .95 .16 .06 .06–.06 32.59 (1)Model 7: Eight factors, JE & CSE combined 5,200.98 2,810 .95 .16 .06 .06–.06 103.08 (1)Model 8: Eight factors, TP & OCB combined 5,140.81 2,810 .95 .17 .06 .06–.06 42.91 (1)

a n � 245. JE, job engagement; JI, job involvement; JS, job satisfaction; IM, intrinsic motivation; VC, value congruence; POS, perceivedorganizational support; CSE, core self-evaluations; TP, task performance; OCB, organizational citizenship behavior; CFI, comparative fitindex; SRMR, standardized root-mean-square residual; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; 90% CI, 90% RMSEA confi-dence interval. All �2 and ��2 values are p � .001.

b ��2 tests relative to model 1.

626 JuneAcademy of Management Journal

dictive relevance when considered along withengagement.

Thus far, our analyses support the mediating roleof engagement in relationships between value con-gruence, perceived organizational support, andcore self-evaluations and the two aspects of jobperformance. To more thoroughly examine media-tion, we examined the pattern of indirect relation-ships attributable to the various mediators. Mean-ingful indirect relationships may be observed even

when the zero-order relationship between an inde-pendent and dependent variable is nonsignificant,as might be the case when the independent variableis more distal or when the effect of the independentvariable is masked by offsetting indirect effects ofother mediators (Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998;Shrout & Bolger, 2002).

In Table 3 we report Sobel (1982) tests of statis-tical significance using unstandardized estimatesand corresponding standard errors for indirect ef-

FIGURE 1Structural Model with Engagement and Other Affective-Motivational Statesa

Value Congruence

PerceivedOrganizational

Support

Core Self-Evaluations

JobEngagement

JobInvolvement

JobSatisfaction

IntrinsicMotivation

TaskPerformance

OrganizationalCitizenshipBehavior

.35*

.06

.22*

.15*

.03

.38*

.37*

.48*

.11

.36*

.62

.15

.25*

.07

.14

.02

.27*

.05

.15

.02

*

a Standardized paths. Only relationships among the highest-order latent variables shown.* p � .05

TABLE 3Tests of Indirect Relationships through Engagement and Other Affective-Motivational Statesa

Relationship

Indirect Effect Through

JobEngagement

JobInvolvement

JobSatisfaction

IntrinsicMotivation

Value congruence3Task performance 0.12* 0.01 0.04 0.00Value congruence3Organizational citizenship 0.11* 0.00 0.04 0.00Perceived organizational support3Task performance 0.08* 0.03 0.08 0.01Perceived organizational support3Organizational citizenship 0.07* 0.02 0.06 0.00Core self-evaluations3Task performance 0.18* 0.02 0.04 0.01Core self-evaluations3Organizational citizenship 0.16* 0.01 0.04 0.00

a n � 245.* p � .05

2010 627Rich, Lepine, and Crawford

fects through job engagement, job involvement, jobsatisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. In support ofHypotheses 6a and 6b, value congruence exhibitedstatistically significant indirect effects on both taskperformance and OCB through engagement. In sup-port of Hypotheses 7a and 7b, perceived organiza-tional support exhibited statistically significant in-direct effects on both task performance and OCBthrough engagement. Finally, in support of Hypoth-eses 8a and 8b, core self-evaluations exhibited sta-tistically significant indirect effects on both taskperformance and OCB through engagement. Theseindirect relationships were obtained in models thatincluded job involvement, job satisfaction, and in-trinsic motivation, and thus Hypothesis 9 was sup-ported. Finally, as shown in the third, fourth, andfifth columns of Table 3, no statistically significantindirect relationships can be attributed to job in-volvement, job satisfaction, or intrinsic motivation.

DISCUSSION

Theoretical Contributions

Our primary theoretical contribution is that weextended Kahn’s (1990) theory by considering thedegree to which engagement serves as an importantmechanism through which the antecedents of en-gagement impact job performance. We argued thatKahn’s theory provides for a more complete repre-sentation of the self in terms of the energies thatindividuals invest in their roles, and in doing so,engagement provides a more comprehensive expla-nation of mediation than do mechanisms that con-cern narrower aspects of the self. In support of thisargument, we found statistically significant indi-rect relationships through engagement betweeneach of the antecedents and each of the outcomes,and these relationships emerge in models that alsoinclude job involvement, job satisfaction, and in-trinsic motivation as mediators. In fact, our resultsindicate that engagement fully accounts for the re-lationships between the antecedents and the per-formance outcomes. Although we certainly couldhave examined the mediating role of additionalvariables in our research, no remaining direct ef-fects with engagement were included in the model,and accordingly, there were no remaining effectsfor any additional variables to mediate.

Our research also illuminates the nature of thebehavioral contributions to their organizationsmade by employees as a function of their job en-gagement. More specifically, firefighters in ourstudy who were engaged not only invested theirenergy into executing the tasks involved in fightingfires and dealing with other emergencies, but also

tended to be helpful, courteous, and involved inorganizational matters. The degree to which en-gagement predicts such a wide array of behavioralactivities is noteworthy, and research could de-velop and test more nuanced theoretical explana-tions of why this might be true. For example, per-haps engagement increases the breadth of theactivities that individuals consider to be part oftheir roles, and accordingly, engaged individualsdo not distinguish among activities that reflect taskperformance and OCB when they make choicesabout how to allocate their physical, cognitive, andemotional energies at work—they simply throwtheir full selves into their roles, which they under-stand to include any activity that could potentiallycontribute to their effectiveness.

Of course, this issue raises the question ofwhether there may be circumstances in which wemight expect to find differences in relationshipsbetween engagement and the two types of perfor-mance criteria. For example, differences in rela-tionships could appear in job contexts where dis-tinctions among the behavioral elements thatconstitute task performance and OCB are large. Theline between whether helping behavior directedtoward a fellow firefighter is task performance orcitizenship behavior may be blurred because thebehavior likely contributes to the employing organ-ization both directly (through task accomplishmentthat requires cooperation and teamwork) and indi-rectly (by fostering a positive social-psychologicalclimate). In such contexts, and as we noted in theprevious paragraph, it may be that the relationshipswith engagement would be similar because the em-ployees see their role as including both elements.In contrast, we may observe differences in relation-ships with engagement in contexts where the linebetween task performance and OCB is easier toappreciate. In a commission-based sales job, forexample, helping behavior directed toward anothersalesperson would more likely be viewed as some-thing clearly outside the bounds of normal roleactivities that primarily involve customer interac-tion. With such a possibility in mind, researcherscould test theory that explains how relationshipsbetween job engagement and job performance de-pend on the nature of job performance.

Our research also provides a better understand-ing of the etiology of job engagement. Kahn (1990)suggested that engagement is rooted in the psycho-logical conditions of meaningfulness, safety, andavailability and that perceptions of self and of workcontext cause these psychological conditions. Weapplied this framework and identified three ante-cedents of engagement that we considered in ourresearch: value congruence, perceived organization-

628 JuneAcademy of Management Journal

al support, and core self-evaluations. Ours is thefirst research to link this particular set of anteced-ents to Kahn’s engagement construct, and our re-sults illustrate that each antecedent has a uniqueeffect on engagement and that all these effects are ofnear-equal magnitude. We note that the patterns ofrelationships among the antecedents and the othermediators are different from the pattern of relation-ships with engagement. All three antecedents pre-dict job satisfaction; however, the effect of per-ceived organizational support is stronger than theeffects of value congruence and core self-evalua-tions. Job involvement is only predicted by valuecongruence and perceived organizational support.Intrinsic motivation is only predicted by perceivedorganizational support. Although we did not antic-ipate these specific patterns of relationships, thedifferences in these patterns do provide furthersupport for the distinctiveness of engagement rela-tive to job involvement, job satisfaction, and intrin-sic motivation.

Implications for Future Research

Although the majority of research on engagementhas been grounded in the literature on burnout andemployee well-being and has emphasized relation-ships with antecedent conditions, our research ex-plicitly positions engagement as a motivationalconcept and emphasizes relationships with behav-ioral consequences. This emphasis is consistentwith Ashforth and Humphrey’s (1995) argumentthat because engagement accounts for the simulta-neous expression of both strong motivation andpsychological involvement, it is an important mo-tivational concept with great potential to improveunderstanding of the mechanisms through whichcontextual perceptions and behavioral tendenciesultimately influence behavior and performance. Totap this potential, however, research should beginto focus more explicitly on the development andtesting of theory regarding how engagement fitsinto other theories of motivation (Kanfer, 1990).

For example, because Kahn defined engagement asthe degree to which people choose to invest their fullselves into role-related activities, it could be worth-while to explore implications of engagement in thecontext of existing cognitive choice theories of moti-vation (e.g., Naylor, Pritchard, & Ilgen, 1980). InKahn’s view, choices to engage are a function of threepsychological conditions that follow from questionsthat organization members seem to unconsciouslyask themselves in each situation. Researchers couldexamine how these questions correspond to expect-ancies and appraisals from theories of motivation(e.g., Vroom, 1964), and perhaps Kahn’s theory could

be supplemented with concepts that are found to beconceptually unique. For example, it could be worth-while to examine the influence of self-regulation onthe three psychological conditions. Feedback indicat-ing negative discrepancies between goals and roleperformance creates a sense of challenge and an in-centive for investment of the self in a role, and inturn, this should foster a greater sense of meaningful-ness. The same negative feedback, however, may bethreatening to an individual’s self-image and maytherefore reduce feelings of psychological safety. Fu-ture research could directly examine these relation-ships, as well as possible solutions to the implieddilemma. As one idea, Kahn noted that psychologicalsafety could be promoted in nonthreatening contextsin which there is consistency, predictability, and re-spect. Accordingly, it is possible that the literature oninteractional justice, defined as the degree to whichinformation is communicated with truthfulness, re-spect, politeness, and dignity (e.g., Bies & Moag,1986), could be applied to develop a more elaboratemodel of the roles that goal setting and self-regulationplay in the process of engagement.

As mentioned in our introduction, although claimsabound that employee engagement creates competi-tive advantages for organizations, little theory or em-pirical observation accounts for the means by whichengagement creates this competitive advantage. Ourresearch provides one answer in that employees whoexhibited higher levels of engagement were found tocontribute to their organizations with higher levels ofindividual task performance and OCB. Future re-search is needed to examine other means by whichengagement contributes to performance advantagesfor organizations. One potential avenue is to examinewhether engagement manifests itself as a property ofwork groups and teams. For example, it is possiblethat work teams develop a characteristic or “conta-gion” level of employee engagement, so that someteams’ members consistently invest their full selvesinto their work team roles, while other teams’ mem-bers do not. This collective engagement might facili-tate development of common purpose and cohesive-ness, even connecting the individuals in a kind of“group mind,” which then is mobilized toward theteam’s pursuit and achievement of organizationalgoals (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). As teams be-come increasingly common as a unit of work organi-zation, the operation of engagement at the team orwork group level represents an important means bywhich organizations can develop performance advan-tages. Such research would also inform prior empir-ical work that has linked engagement to unit-levelperformance (Harter et al., 2002; Salanova, Agut, &Peiro, 2005; Salanova, Llorens, Cifre, Martınez, &Schaufeli, 2003).

2010 629Rich, Lepine, and Crawford

Limitations

Although the findings of this study are generallysupportive of our hypotheses, our research designhad limitations that could be addressed in futureresearch. First, the degree to which our results wouldgeneralize to other employees and jobs is unknown.For example, the physical nature of the firefightingjob may have helped respondents to distinguish be-tween physical and cognitive energies in a way thatwould be more difficult for “knowledge workers.”Although this may be a valid concern, the factorstructure of the engagement scale with firefighterswas similar to that for employees in the skilled nurs-ing facility. Moreover, we were more interested in thecommonality of the factors, rather than in loadings ofthe first-order factors.

Second, although the majority of research on en-gagement is cross-sectional, including the currentresearch, Kahn originally described engagement interms of dynamic moments, ebbs and flows, and“calibrations of self-in-role” (1990: 694). Kahn dis-tinguished engagement from concepts such as in-volvement and commitment, designating the latteras more generalized states of which organizationmembers maintain average levels over time andspecifying the former, engagement, as instead refer-ring to specific fluctuations of psychological pres-ence in particular moments and situations. Kahnhimself called for future research that would de-velop dynamic process models explaining how theantecedent conditions described above combine toproduce moments of personal engagement (Kahn,1990: 717-718). Future research should begin toemploy experience-sampling, within-subjects de-signs and use multilevel modeling to develop andtest models capturing the variance in individuals’engagement in their work roles over time.

Third, we did not measure three concepts (i.e.,meaningfulness, safety, and availability) that, wepresumed, underlie the relationships among ourantecedents and job engagement. Several measuresof these concepts exist (e.g., Edmonson, 1999; Mayet al., 2004), and if we had included them in ourstudy, we could have conducted a more direct testof Kahn’s theory. We note, however, that the link-ages among these concepts and engagement havebeen established theoretically (Kahn, 1990) andempirically (May et al., 2004), and so our approachof using the previous research as the foundation forspecifying our model is reasonable. Moreover, tothe extent that Kahn positioned the antecedents weconsidered as more distal causes of engagementthan the three psychological conditions, our studymay provide a more conservative test of our med-itation hypotheses. Finally, we focused on ante-

cedent concepts with fairly direct relevance tomanagers regarding which specific aspects of theemployees and their work contexts could beshaped to enhance engagement.

Fourth, although we used multiple data sources,our research was cross-sectional, and so any infer-ences regarding causality are limited. Although wehad strong theoretical and logical reasons to presumecausal ordering, which was subsequently reflected inour structural equation modeling, we caution readersthat alternative causal models are plausible, andthese could be examined in future research. For ex-ample, to fully understand how job engagement andjob performance are related, researchers could con-sider the impact that performance has on job engage-ment. Along these same lines, although we consid-ered job involvement, job satisfaction, and intrinsicmotivation as mechanisms through which the ante-cedents could impact the criteria, we did not consideralternative roles that these concepts might play. Forexample, relative to engagement, these variablescould be more distally related to the performancecriteria. Such a structure would be consistent withthe idea that job engagement is the motivational con-cept most proximally related to behavioral outcomesand that positive attitudes such as satisfaction andinvolvement are reasons why an individual mightbecome more engaged (Rothbard, 2001). Research fo-cused directly on this issue is necessary to help re-searchers understand more clearly how job attitudes,engagement, and job performance are interrelated.

Fifth, the antecedents and mediators in our modelwere all from self-report measures, and therefore, it islikely that method variance inflated the relationshipsamong these variables. However, our primary focuswas on substantive relationships with job perfor-mance variables that were not from the same sourceand, maybe more important, the tests of mediationwere dependent on a fairly complex pattern of rela-tionships among the variables that would be verydifficult to explain away with method variance alone.Nevertheless, future research could be designed toreduce reliance on self-reports. It may be possible, forexample, to obtain ratings of job engagement frompeers who work closely with focal employees.

Finally, we conceptualized and measured jobperformance as behavior, and therefore, it is un-known whether engagement has effects on objec-tive measures of job performance such as produc-tivity, efficiency, or quality. Although these typesof objective measures may be less appropriate forfirefighters, given the nature of the work outcomesfor which they are responsible, it would be worth-while to consider their use in research in otherwork contexts. In fact, future research could exam-

630 JuneAcademy of Management Journal

ine a more comprehensive meditational chainwhereby various performance behaviors are posi-tioned as mediators between engagement and theobjective indicators of performance.

Practical Contributions

Although our research was primarily intended totest theoretically derived hypotheses, our findings dohave practical implications. First, and at a very gen-eral level, our results suggest that practices that en-gender engagement among employees can enhancejob performance, and these improvements in job per-formance are likely to come in the form of both taskperformance and organizational citizenship behavior.However, although the relevance of engagement tojob performance may be important in and of itself,what may be more noteworthy is the greater useful-ness of engagement in predicting job performancerelative to job involvement, job satisfaction, and in-trinsic motivation. This pattern of findings suggeststhat rather than spreading resources over variouspractices aimed at assessing and improving a varietyof attitudes and motivational states, it may be worth-while to focus resources on practices that assess andenhance employee engagement.

Second, our research shows that higher levels ofvalue congruence, perceived organizational sup-port, and core self-evaluations are associated withhigher levels of employee engagement. Althoughthere is already good reason to believe in the valueof management practices that can increase the prev-alence of these factors at work, their strong impacton engagement provides an additional reason forrecommending these practices. Thus, for example,staffing practices could be tailored to select em-ployees who possess high core self-evaluations andvalues that fit with those of the hiring organization.Following their entry, the organization could thenuse mentoring, socialization opportunities, and analigned set of people management practices to com-municate a consistent set of organizational values.Finally, through leadership training as well as per-formance management systems that provide devel-opmental feedback, the organization could fosterperceptions among employees that it is supportive.Our results show that managers’ use of practices toincrease these factors can promote employee en-gagement directly and enhance employee perfor-mance indirectly.

Finally, as we noted earlier, engagement has beenconceptualized and measured in several differentways, and we believe that it is important to takethese differences into account when interpretingscores and applying them to practice. Our measure,

for example, emphasized the motivational nature ofengagement, and so we do not know whether en-gagement conceptualized and measured largely asan attitude (e.g., Harter et al., 2002) or as well-being(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003) would function simi-larly in terms of enhancing job performance. Thus,until more is known about the correspondenceamong the various measures of engagement, prac-titioners should pay special attention to whetherthe measure of engagement being considered forapplication has shown evidence of being linkedspecifically to the criteria of interest.

Conclusion

Kahn’s perspective on engagement has been citedas providing a sound conceptual basis for researchon engagement (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Mayet al., 2004; Rothbard, 2001; Salanova et al., 2005;Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker,2002). We further argued here that Kahn’s concep-tualization of engagement is important to consideras a mechanism that transmits effects of individualand organizational factors to different aspects of jobperformance. Whereas previous research has fo-cused on mechanisms that emphasize narrow as-pects of the self, Kahn’s engagement concept ac-counts for the simultaneous employment of severalaspects of the self in a work role and thus providesa more comprehensive understanding of perfor-mance. Results of our study strongly supported atheoretical model grounded in this idea. Relative toother mechanisms that reflect narrower views ofthe self, investments of the self that are reflected inengagement appear to provide a more completeexplanation for relationships with job performance.

REFERENCES

Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2008.Identification in organizations: An examination offour fundamental questions. Journal of Manage-ment, 34: 325–374.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. 1995. Emotion in theworkplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations, 48: 97–125.

Baard, P., Deci, E., & Ryan, R. 2004. Intrinsic need satis-faction: A motivational basis of performance andwell-being in two work settings. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 34: 2045–2068.

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. 2005. Thecrossover of burnout and work engagement amongworking couples. Human Relations, 58: 661–689.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. 1986. Interactional justice: Com-

2010 631Rich, Lepine, and Crawford

munication criteria of fairness. In R. Lewicki, M.Bazerman, & B. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on nego-tiation in organizations, vol. 1: 43–55. Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.

Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. 2007.Workplace emotions: The role of supervision andleadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92:1357–1367.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding thecriterion domain to include elements of contextualperformance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.),Personnel selection in organizations: 71–98. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. 1996. A new look at psycho-logical climate and its relationship to job involve-ment, effort, and performance. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 81: 358–368.

Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. 2004. Complementary andsupplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical inte-gration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 822–834.

Caldwell, D. F., Chatman, J. A., & O’Reilly, C. A. 1990.Building organizational commitment: A multi-firmstudy. Journal of Occupational & OrganizationalPsychology, 63: 245–251.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Klesh,J. R. 1983. Assessing the attitudes and perceptions oforganizational members. In S. E. Seashore, E. E.Lawler III, P. H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), As-sessing organizational change: A guide to meth-ods, measures, and practices: 71–138. New York:Wiley.

Campbell, J. P. 1990. Modeling the performance predic-tion problem in industrial and organizational psy-chology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),Handbook of industrial and organizational psy-chology, vol. 1 (2nd ed.): 687–732. Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.

Chatman, J. A. 1989. Improving interactional organiza-tional research: A model of person-organization fit.Academy of Management Review, 14: 333–349.

Corporate Leadership Council. 2006. The effort divi-dend: Driving employee performance and reten-tion through engagement. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the Society for Industrial Organi-zational Psychology, Dallas.

Deci, E. L. 1975. Intrinsic motivation. New York:Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation andself-determination in human behavior. New York:Plenum.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. 1993. The psychology ofattitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace JovanovichCollege Publishers.

Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning

behavior in work teams. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 44: 350–383.

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., &Rhoades, L. 2001. Reciprocation of perceived organ-izational support. Journal of Applied Psychology,86: 42–51.

Eisenberger, R., Hungtington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa,D. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journalof Applied Psychology, 71: 500–507.

Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and perfor-mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1270–1279.

Frijda, N. H. 1993. Moods, emotion episodes, and emo-tions. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbookof emotions: 381–403. New York: Guilford Press.

Gagne, M., & Deci, E. 2005. Self-determination theoryand work motivation. Journal of Organizational Be-havior, 26: 331–362.

Gallup Management Journal. 2005. Unhappy workersare unhealthy too. http://gmj.gallup.com. RetrievedOctober 5.

Goffman, E. 1961. Encounters: Two studies in the soci-ology of interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. 2000. On theassessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic mo-tivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS).Motivation and Emotion, 24: 175–213.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. 2002. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction,employee engagement, and business outcomes: Ameta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87:268–279.

Hillman, A. J., Nicholson, G., & Shropshire, C. 2008.Directors’ multiple identities, identification, andboard monitoring and resource provision. Organiza-tion Science, 19: 441–456.

Hochschild, A. R. 1983. The managed heart: Commer-cialization of human feeling. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J.2007. Expanding the criterion domain? A quantita-tive review of the OCB literature. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 92: 555–566.

Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. 1991. The structure ofwork: Job design and roles. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organi-zational psychology, vol 2: 165–207. Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2001. Relationship of coreself-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—

632 JuneAcademy of Management Journal

with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86:80–92.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Thoresen, C. J., & Patton, G. K.2001. The job satisfaction-job performance relation-ship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 127: 376–407.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. 2003.The core self-evaluations scale: Development of ameasure. Personnel Psychology, 56: 303–331.

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. 2002. Five-factormodel of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 530–541.

Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. 2007. The benefits and possiblecosts of positive core self-evaluations: A review andagenda for future research. In D. L. Nelson & C. L.Cooper (Eds.), Positive organizational behavior:159–174. London: Sage.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. 1997. Thedispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core eval-uations approach. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol.19: 151–188. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personalengagement and disengagement at work. Academyof Management Journal, 33: 692–724.

Kahn, W. A. 1992. To be fully there: Psychological pres-ence at work. Human Relations, 45: 321–349.

Kanfer, R. 1990. Motivation theory and industrial andorganizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.Hough (Eds.) Handbook of industrial and organi-zational psychology: 75–170. Palo Alto, CA: Con-sulting Psychologists Press.

Kanungo, R. N. 1982. Measurement of job and work in-volvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 341–349.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology oforganizations. New York: Wiley.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. 1998. Dataanalysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. T.Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psy-chology: 233–265. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kline, R. B. 2005. Principles and practice of structuralequation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: GuilfordPress.

Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. 2006.Where is the “me” among the “we”? Identity workand the search for optimal balance. Academy ofManagement Journal, 49: 1031–1057.

Kristof, A. L. 1996. Person-organization fit: An integra-tive review of its conceptualizations, measurement,and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49: 1–49.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C.2005. Consequences of individual’s fit at work: Ameta-analysis of person-job, person-organization,

person-group, and person-supervisor fit. PersonnelPsychology, 58: 281–342.

Law, K. S., Wong, C., & Mobley, W. H. 1998. Toward ataxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Acad-emy of Management Review, 23: 741–755.

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. 2002. Organizational citizenshipbehavior and workplace deviance: The role of affectand cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87:131–142.

Locke, E. A. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfac-tion. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of indus-trial and organizational psychology: 1293–1349.Chicago: Rand McNally.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. 1997. The truth about burn-out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. 2004.The psy-chological conditions of meaningfulness, safety andavailability and the engagement of the human spiritat work. Journal of Occupational & OrganizationalPsychology, 77: 11–37.

Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. 1997. Atheory of individual differences in task and contex-tual performance. Human Performance, 10: 71–83.

Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen, D. R. 1980. Atheory of behavior in organizations. New York: Ac-ademic Press.

Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. 2006. Making itsafe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and profes-sional status on psychological safety and improve-ment efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organ-izational Behavior, 27: 941–966.

Newman, D. A., & Harrison, D. A. 2008. Been there,bottled that: Are state and behavioral work engage-ment new and useful construct “wines”? Industrialand Organizational Psychology, 1: 31–35.

Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behav-ior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books.

Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. 1987. Effect of values onperception and decision making: A study of alterna-tive work values measures. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 72: 666–673.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. 2002. Perceived organiza-tional support: A review of the literature. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87: 698–714.

Rothbard, N. P. 2001. Enriching or depleting? The dy-namics of engagement in work and family roles.Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 655–684.

Russell, J. A., & Barrett, L. F. 1999. Core affect, prototyp-ical emotional episodes, and other things calledemotion: Dissecting the elephant. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 76: 805–819.

Russell, S. S., Spitzmuller, C., Lin, L. F., Stanton, J. M.,Smith, P. C., & Ironson, G. H. 2004. Shorter canalso be better: The abridged Job in General Scale.

2010 633Rich, Lepine, and Crawford

Educational and Psychological Measurement,64: 878 – 893.

Saks, A. M. 2006. Antecedents and consequences of em-ployee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychol-ogy, 21: 600–619.

Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiro, J. M. 2005. Linking or-ganizational resources and work engagement to em-ployee performance and customer royalty: The me-diation of service climate. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 90: 1217–1227.

Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martınez, I., &Schaufeli, W. B. 2003. Perceived collective efficacy,subjective well-being and task performance amongelectronic work groups: An experimental study.Small Groups Research, 34: 43–73.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. 2003. UWES—UtrechtWork Engagement Scale: Test manual. Departmentof Psychology, Utrecht University. http://www.schaufeli.com/. Retrieved August 8.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. 2004. Job demands, jobresources and their relationship with burnout andengagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Or-ganizational Behavior, 25: 293–315.

Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., &

Bakker, A. 2002. The measurement of burnoutand engagement: A confirmatory factor analyticapproach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3: 71–92.

Schwab, D. P. 1980. Construct validity in organizationalbehavior. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings, (Eds.),Research in organizational behavior, vol. 2: 3–43.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimen-tal and nonexperimental studies: New proceduresand recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7:422–445.

Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic intervals for indirect ef-fects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart(Ed.), Sociological methodology: 290–312. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and motivation. Oxford, U.K.:Wiley.

Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective mind inorganizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks.Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357–381.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfactionand organizational commitment as predictors of or-ganizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Jour-nal of Management, 17: 601–617.

APPENDIX

TABLE A1Job Engagement Items and Factor Loadingsa

ItemsSkilled Care NursingFacility Employeesb Firefightersc

Physical engagementI work with intensity on my job .60 .71I exert my full effort to my job .81 .86I devote a lot of energy to my job .88 .77I try my hardest to perform well on my job .89 .84I strive as hard as I can to complete my job .87 .79I exert a lot of energy on my job .78 .67

Emotional engagementI am enthusiastic in my job .85 .87I feel energetic at my job .89 .90I am interested in my job .81 .82I am proud of my job .78 .68I feel positive about my job .81 .87I am excited about my job .80 .91

Cognitive engagementAt work, my mind is focused on my job .88 .80At work, I pay a lot of attention to my job .84 .87At work, I focus a great deal of attention on my job .92 .91At work, I am absorbed by my job .88 .92At work, I concentrate on my job .78 .67At work, I devote a lot of attention to my job .78 .88

a All factor loadings are significant at p � .001.b n � 180.c n � 245.

634 JuneAcademy of Management Journal

Bruce Louis Rich (brich@csusm.edu) is an associate pro-fessor in the Department of Management at CaliforniaState University San Marcos. He received his Ph.D. inorganizational behavior and human resource manage-ment from the University of Florida. His research inter-ests include employee engagement, leadership, motiva-tion, emotions, and prosocial organizational behavior.

Jeffery A. LePine (jeffery.lepine@cba.ufl.edu) is the Dar-den Restaurants Professor of Management at the War-rington College of Business Administration, University

of Florida. He received his Ph.D. from Michigan StateUniversity. His research interests include team composi-tion and teamwork, citizenship performance and voice,occupational stress, and employee engagement.

Eean R. Crawford (eean.crawford@cba.ufl.edu) is a doc-toral student in organizational behavior at the War-rington College of Business Administration, Universityof Florida. His current research interests include em-ployee engagement, team effectiveness, work stress,memory, and learning.

2010 635Rich, Lepine, and Crawford

Copyright of Academy of Management Journal is the property of Academy of Management and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

View publication statsView publication stats