Don’t Curb Your Enthusiasm! The Role of Work Engagement in Predicting Job Performance

Introduction

In recent years, the interest in the area of Human Resources Management (HRM) and organizational behavior has focused on employees’ work engagement (Kim et al., 2019), its role in the workplace, and its effects on an organization (Shuck & Wollard, 2010). One of these effects is its positive impact on job performance (Kim, 2014), contributing to organizational goals (Campbell & Wiernik, 2015). However, it is well known that both engagement and performance are multidimensional constructs (Bakker et al., 2023; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Understanding the different relationships between work engagement and performance dimensions is useful for practitioners, who may develop various interventions depending on the performance dimension of interest. The present paper targets this issue, considering the three dimensions of work engagement (i.e., vigor, dedication, and absorption) and the most relevant dimensions of job performance (i.e., task performance, contextual performance, counterproductive work behaviors, and adaptive performance). Additionally, we investigate whether work engagement provides incremental validity over the Big Five personality traits, given their prominent role among the main predictors of job performance (Sackett et al., 2021).

Engagement at Work

The concept of engagement in the workplace was first put forward by Kahn (1990) as personal engagement, defined as individual employees’ commitment to their roles in organizations. Work engagement is a positive affective motivational state that incorporates a work-related mindset characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Bakker et al., 2023; Schaufeli et al., 2001). Vigor refers to increased enthusiasm, mental stamina, and eagerness to dedicate time and effort to one’s work. Dedication refers to feeling one’s work is worthwile, pride, and passion. Absorption involves being wholly concentrated on and engrossed in one’s work so that time flies (Schaufeli et al., 2002).

The level of engagement that individuals have in their job tasks is a reflection of their involvement and is directly tied to their job performance (Bakker et al., 2011). The active engagement and participation of individuals in their professional endeavors generate a favorable emotional response connected to their job and the overall work atmosphere (Castellano et al., 2019; Salanova & Llorens, 2008). Work engagement plays a vital role in organizational management, as it is closely tied to elevated levels of performance for both individuals and the organization as a whole (Barría-González et al.,2021; Prieto-Díez et al., 2022).

The significance of work engagement is inherent in its positive role in employee attitudes, behavior, motivations, and various organizational outcomes (Bakker, 2011; Bakker & Demerouti, 2018; Bakker et al., 2014). It can directly benefit both the organization and fully engaged employees (Chen et al., 2020). However, some individuals may find it difficult to sustain high levels of healthy work engagement without suffering from exhaustion or deviance. According to extensive research on this topic, work engagement affects several organizational outcomes, for instance, employee turnover, job performance, health and safety, mental health (Kim, 2014), greater job fulfillment, increased proactive behavior, and higher organizational commitment (Babakuss et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2016). It is also positively linked to task performance and negatively to the intention to quit (Monje Amor et al., 2021).

Focusing on performance, engaged workers may perform better because they feel positive emotions (Bakker & Demerouti 2008), which encourage them to approach others, be helpful and sociable, and notice and take advantage of opportunities at work (Cropanzano & Wright, 2001; Fredrickson, 2003; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005).

Greater work engagement is often observed in employees who are actively involved in the organizations, as they display a proactive attitude, foster innovation, and actively contribute to improving the organization´s outcomes (Prieto-Díez et al., 2022; Ruiz-Zorrilla et al., 2020). Engaged workers have high dynamism, interest, vigor, and positivity (Cropanzano & Wright, 2001) and are more efficient and productive (Liu et al., 2021). They are also more likely to feel confident about achieving their objectives and to utilize available resources better (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). When workers use their personal resources, it tends to enhance their level of work engagement. It plays a crucial role within the organizational sphere, being influenced by a combination of personal and contextual factors (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014).

Employees who are engaged have a higher performance than employees who are not engaged. They have a positive attitude towards their work (Bakker, 2009).

The job-demand-resources (JDR) model is a theory that may explain how work engagement and job performance are linked, why employees who are engaged in their work can have increased performance (Bakker et al., 2023). They have a positive attitude towards their work, wchich promotes new ideas and resources (Bakker, 2009).

According to the JDR model, job demands and job resources are the antecedents of work engagement. Job demands are typically the physical, social, or organizational job characteristics that require an employee to expend prolonged physical or mental energy. Job demands impose a physiological toll, such as exhaustion or weakening (Tu et al., 2022). These physical and emotional stressors gradually sap workers’ energy, which can lead to high burnout and low work engagement and performance. In contrast, job resources are the traits of a job that help to facilitate work fulfillment, reduce any psychological toll of job demands (Demeroutti et al., 2001), and have direct and positive effects on employees´ work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Woocheol, 2017). Job resources stimulate and support employees in their efforts to meet work responsibilities, increasing work engagement and decreasing burnout (Bakker et al., 2003; Bakker & Demerouti, 2018; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007).

Conjointly, job demands and job resources affect task performance and have secondary effects on burnout and work engagement (Luo & Lei, 2021; Xie et al., 2021). Firstly, job demands have been linked to high burnout and low work engagement, which were both found to reduce task performance. Secondly, job resources have been linked to reduced burnout levels and higher work engagement, both related to increased task performance (Tu et al., 2022) and lower levels of turnover intention within organizations (Woocheol, 2017).

Much research associates work engagement with job performance (e.g., Bakker & Bal, 2010; Cropanzano & Wright, 2001; Monje Amor et al., 2021; Tu et al., 2022).

Organizations must carefully consider the level of autonomy they provide to their employees and organizational factors when designing strategies to enhance work engagement (Prieto-Díez et al., 2022).

Nevertheless, most research focuses on one or two dimensions at best (mainly task performance and another), limiting the usefulness of work engagement-based interventions for performance. We need empirical evidence that guides practitioners through the differences in the relationships of vigor, dedication, and absorption with each job performance dimension.

Job Performance and its Relationship with Work Engagement

Job performance is a multidimensional construct that includes all the behaviors under a worker’s control that impact organizational results, varying across organizations and time (Ramos-Villagrasa et al., 2019). There is a consensus that there are at least three dimensions of performance (Rotundo & Sacket, 2002): task performance, contextual performance, and counterproductive behaviors at work.

Task performance refers to workers’ performance regarding the successful accomplishment of assigned tasks and the fulfillment of responsibilities (Williams & Anderson, 1991) assumed as part of their jobs (Che et al., 2021). It measures the employee’s achievement in delivering the established objectives and also the quality and quantity of the work (Koopmans et al., 2011). Most research shows that work engagement is characterized by dynamic resilience and willingness to put effort into work assignments (Schaufeli et al., 2002), suggesting a positive relationship with task performance (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008; Neuber et al., 2022; Song et al., 2018).

Contextual performance refers to work functions that do not directly play a part in the organization’s technical key focus but are nevertheless advantageous for an organization, for example, assisting and collaborating with others (Meyers et al., 2020). Work engagement favorably impacts this performance dimension (Byrne et al., 2016; Organ & Ryan, 1995), which is assumed to be mainly dependent on motivational factors (Sonnentag & Frese, 2002).

Counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) include employees’ deliberate actions that undermine organizational outcomes (Muric et al., 2022; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000), such as habitual tardiness, lack of concentration at work, and reduced effort in daily work routines (Fernández-del-Río et al., 2021). Recent research has reported a negative relationship between work engagement and this performance dimension (Chen et al., 2020). Some authors consider that CWB has two subdimensions, organizational deviance for behaviors toward the organization, and interpersonal deviance for behaviors toward its members (Fernández-del Río et al., 2021). According to prior research, a negative association between work engagement and both kinds of deviant behaviors can be expected.

Besides the aforementioned performance dimensions, some authors suggest incorporating a new dimension based on workers’ adaptive behaviors (Jundt et al., 2015), also called adaptive performance (Ramos-Villagrasa et al., 2020). It encompasses behaviors displayed by workers, which change to suit job demands (Baard et al., 2014). The relationship between work engagement and adaptive performance is inconclusive, with some studies supporting a positive relationship (e.g., Kaltiainen & Hakanen, 2022; Park et al., 2020) while others do not find this relationship (Nandini et al., 2022). However, this may be explained by the inconsistent effect of work engagement on different adaptive behaviors such as creativity, dealing with stress, and others (van den Heuvel et al., 2020).

The Present Study

Given the literature above, we find a gap in work engagement literature: more research is needed to investigate which work engagement dimensions are related to each kind of performance. Analyzing the two constructs at a dimension level will be useful for work engagement research and guide practitioners wishing to tailor organizational interventions that positively impact organizational outcomes.

In addition to our first objective, we also aim to explore whether work engagement adds further validity to the predictive models of job performance when considering personality. Personality, conceptualized as the ‘Big Five’ (i.e., Negative emotionality, Extraversion, Open-mindedness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness), is one of the most relevant personal variables in the work setting (Ramos-Villagrasa et al., 2022). It is also one of the main determinants of job performance (Sackett et al., 2021), with a significant and positive relationship between the different performance dimensions, except for CWB. An exception is Negative emotionality, which shows a negative relationship with the positive dimensions of performance and a positive relationship with CWB (Ramos-Villagrasa et al., 2019; Ramos-Villagrasa et al., 2020). The relationship between engagement and personality has rarely been studied (Janssens et al., 2019). The two variables conjointly have been studied even less as predictors of job performance. Following a recent meta-analysis by Fukuzaki and Iwata (2022), around 30% of the variance of work engagement may be explained by the Big Five, and its associations with personality traits were as follows: Negative emotionality (ρ = -.36), Extraversion (ρ = .38), Open-mindedness (ρ = .38), Agreeableness (ρ = .27), and Conscientiousness (ρ = .41). Unfortunately, these authors did not report results for work engagement at the dimension level. The literature has previously established the role of personality and work engagement as predictors of job performance. Considering that they are related but different constructs, we hypothesize that work engagement dimensions will increase the explained variance of job performance over the Big Five personality traits.

Method

Participants

A total of 365 workers from northern Spain participated in our study. Of them, 207 were female (56.6%) and 159 were male (43.4%). They were aged between 18 and 65 years (M = 40.13, SD = 13.78). Regarding education, most of them had a university degree (26.4%), followed by those having high school studies (23.7%). Regarding work conditions, 59.2% held a permanent position, 23.4% were temporary, and the rest held other positions (e.g., internships). Average work experience was 16.88 (SD = 12.75) years.

The sample was obtained following the snowball technique, through social networks, with a direct link to the questionnaire (see Procedure subsection). All the collected questionnaires were valid, as they were designed so that it was mandatory to answer all the questions.

Instruments

Sociodemographic Questionnaire

An ad hoc questionnaire was developed, asking participants about their gender, age, level of studies, type of work position, job position, and years of work experience.

Big Five Inventory - 2 Short Version (BFI-2; Soto & John, 2017)

The Big Five personality traits were measured with the Spanish version of the short form of the BFI (12 items per dimension). It uses a five-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The dimensions and their observed reliability were: Negative emotionality (e.g., “[I am someone who] is moody, has up and down mood swings”; Ω = .66), Extraversion (e.g., “is outgoing, sociable”; Ω = .60), Open-mindedness (e.g., “is curious about many different things”; Ω = .62), Agreeableness (e.g., “is compassionate, has a soft heart”; Ω = .65), and Conscientiousness (e.g., “is systematic, likes to keep things in order”; Ω = .68).

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli et al., 2002)

The UWES includes 17 items to measure the three dimensions of work engagement: Vigor, Dedication, and Absorption. Vigor has six items; a sample item is: “When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work” (Ω = .86). Dedication has five items; a sample item is: “I am enthusiastic about my job” (Ω = .91). Absorption has six items; a sample item is: “When I am working, I forget everything else around me” (Ω = .85). Each item was assessed on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always).

Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (IWPQ, Koopmans, 2015; Spanish version by Ramos-Villagrasa et al., 2019).

We used IWPQ Task Performance subscale, which has 5 items. Participants answer on a 5-point rating scale (0 = seldom to 4 = always). A sample item is: “I managed to plan my work so that it was done on time” (Ω = .90).

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Checklist (OCB-C10; Spector et al., 2010)

The Spanish adaptation by the two authors included in the Appendix was used. The scale comprises 10 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (every day). A sample item is: “Worked weekends or other days off to complete a project or task” (Ω = .89).

Workplace Deviance Scale (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Spanish version by Fernández del Río et al., 2021).

This self-report measure assesses the frequency of various deviant behaviors in the workplace. Participants answer on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (daily). The scale consists of two subscales: Organizational CWB (12 items, Ω = .85) and Interpersonal CWB (7 items, Ω = .62). Sample items are “Taken property from work without permission” (organizational CWB) and “Made fun of someone at work” (interpersonal CWB).

Adaptive Performance Scale (Marques-Quinteiro et al., 2015; Spanish version by Ramos-Villagrasa et al., 2020).

This scale encompasses 8 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (totally ineffective) to 7 (totally effective). A sample item is “I quickly decide on the actions to resolve the problem” (Ω = .93).

Procedure

To attract participants, the authors requested their students’ collaboration, distributing a questionnaire with the scales detailed in the Measures section among workers they knew who voluntarily agreed to participate. Participants received all the information about research objectives and the anonymity of their responses in the questionnaire instructions. Additionally, they could contact the researchers for clarifications or further information. The research complies with the ethical criteria of the Helsinki Protocol and the American Psychological Association.

Data Analyses

The analyses were performed using SPSS v.27 and Jamovi. We estimated descriptive statistics (M, SD, asymmetry, and kurtosis), reliability (Ω), correlations (Spearman’s rho test), hierarchical regression analyses and moderation analyis. Regarding hierarchical regression, we developed a different model with each performance dimension as the criterion (i.e., task performance, contextual performance, CWB-interpersonal, CWB-organizational, and adaptive performance). We introduced control variables in Step 1 (gender and work experience), the Big Five in Step 2, and work engagement dimensions in Step 3. Moderation analyses were performed with PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2022).

Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the target variables in the total sample. All the variables showed values according to prior literature, including the deviation from normality in the CWB variables (organizational deviance: asymmetry = 2.166 and kurtosis = 5.977; interpersonal deviance: asymmetry = 3.808 and kurtosis = 16.833).

Table 2 shows associations between variables. To avoid the above-mentioned deviations from normality, we used Spearman’s non-parametric rho test to determine the correlations between variables. As shown in Table 2, the Big Five personality traits correlated as expected, with one exception: Negative emotionality was not related to Open-mindedness (r = -.08, p = .120). Regarding work engagement, all the dimensions showed high and positive associations with each other (M_|r| = .82). The high association between age and work experience is according with prior literature (r = .91, p < .001). The association of gender with all personality traits, specifically with Negative emotionality (r = .25, p < .001) and Conscientiousness (r = .15, p = .005) is relatable.

Concerning the relationships with the criteria, task performance was related to all the dimensions of personality (M_|r| = .25) and to all dimensions of work engagement (M_|r| = .25). Contextual performance was associated with Extraversion (r = .34, p < .001), Conscientiousness (r = .21, p < .001), Open-mindedness (r = .21, p < .001), and all the work engagement dimensions (M_|r| = .42). Organizational deviance was related to all the personality traits except for Open-mindedness (r = -.08, p = .155, M_|r| of the remaining traits = .23), and to work engagement (M_|r| = .25). Interpersonal deviance was related to work experience (r = -.11, p = .030), Agreeableness (r = -.34, p < .001), Conscientiousness (r = -.15, p = .004), Vigor (r = -.16, p = .003), and Absorption (r = -.14, p = .007). Adaptive performance was related to all the personality traits (M_|r| = .28) and work engagement dimensions (M_|r| = .34).

Hierarchical regression analyses are displayed in Table 3. In the control variables, age was excluded because of the aforementioned overlap with work experience. Big Five personality traits are involved in all predictive models, whilst work engagement only in positive dimensions of job performance (i.e., task performance, contextual performance, and adaptive performance). Now we shall discuss the results model by model.

The first model explains 23.4% of the variance of task performance, and 5.20% is due to work engagement. The predictors of task performance were Vigor (β = .416, p < .001), Conscientiousness (β = .235, p < .001), Absorption (β = -.193, p = .042), and Extraversion (β = .128, p = .020).

The second model used contextual performance as the criterion (27.8% of explained variance, 14.2% due to work engagement). The predictive variables were Extraversion (β = .242, p < .001) and Absorption (β = .186, p = .042)

The third model focused on organizational deviance. Although Step 3 seemed significant (R² = .198, p = .001), none of the work engagement dimensions was included in the predictive model. Thus, for parsimony, we considered Step 2, with 16.0% of explained variance, with Agreeableness (β = -.229, p < .001) and Conscientiousness (β = -.196, p = .001) as predictors.

The fourth model centered on interpersonal deviance. As the third step is nonsignificant, we focus on the second one, with 14.8% of explained variance. Its only predictor was Agreeableness (β = -.403, p < .001).

The fifth model explained 24.7% of adaptive performance, with 5.9% due to work engagement. The predictors were Agreeableness (β = .213, p < .001), Vigor (β = .192, p = .048), and Extraversion (β = .157, p = .004).

The last analyses performed were moderation analyses. According to Table 4, only five potential moderator effects exists, all with CWB: Agreeableness x Dedication in organizational deviance, and four in the prediction of Interpersonal deviance, namely Negative emotionality x Absorption, Extraversion x Dedication, Agreeableness x Dedication, and Conscientiousness x Absorption. These relationships were explored using bootstrapping (5,000 samples) with the PROCESS Macro. Results showed that only associations involving Dedication are significant. Thus, low (B = -0.927, p < .001), medium (B = -0.558, p < .001) and high (B = -0.323, p = .038) levels of Dedication moderate the relationship between Agreeableness and Organizational deviance. Low (B = -0.815, p < .001) and medium (B = -0.410, p < .001) levels of Dedication moderates the relationship between Agreeablenes and Interpersonal deviance, whilst the effect of Extraversion over Interpersonal deviance s substantially lower when Dedication is low (B = -0.262, p < .011). All these moderations are shown in Figure 1.

Discussion

This research investigated the incremental validity of work engagement over the Big Five in predicting job performance. According to the results, even when considering the Big Five personality traits, work engagement contributes significantly to predicting three different kinds of job performance: task performance, contextual performance, and adaptive performance. The predictive models’ increase due to including work engagement ranges between 5% and 14%. It is also interesting to note the differential functioning of the dimensions of work engagement: Vigor and Absorption play a role in different performance dimensions (the former in task performance and adaptive performance, the latter in task performance and contextual performance), but Dedication is not involved in any of the models of job performance. However, Dedication plays a role as moderator between two personality traits (Agreeableness and Extraversion) and CWB. These are the main results of our research. Accordingly, we suggest that practitioners interested in improving job performance through positive interventions should focus on Vigor and Absorption more than on Dedication.

Concerning Absorption, it is also remarkable that high levels of Absorption are detrimental to task performance, but are positive for contextual performance. This result was unexpected because until now it had been thought that the higher the work engagement, the better. However, our results suggest that a high focus on work issues may lead to helping coworkers, developing and proposing new ideas, or voluntarily making additional efforts, but not necessarily to performing the job better. This result highlights the relevance of the study of work engagement at a dimensional level, at least when job performance is involved.

Another interesting outcome is that, although work engagement dimensions are not involved directly in predictive models of CWB, Dedication is involved as a moderator between Agreeableness and Extraversion. Considering this result, engagement has demonstrate this contribution to all types of job performance. The case of CWB is notable, because their negative impact on organizations (Fernández-del-Río et al., 2021). Practitioners interested in preventing CWB should focus on promoting engagement and not only organizational justice (Fernández-del-Río et al., 2022).

The joint role of personality and engagement as predictors of job performance is also striking. In our study, the relevance of work engagement dimensions is similar to that of personality traits in the models in which it is involved, except for one: the Vigor dimension of work engagement is the most relevant predictor, overcoming Conscientiousness, which is considered one of the most important predictors of performance (Schmitt, 2014). This result may be explained according to the recent meta-analysis by Salgado and Moscoso (2022), who found that subjective well-being is as important as other relevant predictors of performance, like the Big Five and cognitive ability. Further research should investigate this issue, verifying whether it is an artifact of our sample or whether work engagement may be more relevant than it has been considered until now.

As a whole, our study contributes to the literature on positive psychology in general and work engagement specifically, providing evidence of the significance of this construct for all the positive dimensions of job performance.

Limitations and Further Research

Some limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, the design is cross-sectional, so we cannot be sure of the inferences found until further longitudinal research confirms them. Second, our study uses self-report data to measure job performance. Although people might obtain higher scores in performance due to their positive self-evaluations, self-reports reduce problems with missing data and confidentiality and gather data from any occupation (Koopmans et al., 2013).

Since we used a snowball methodology to recruit participants, some limitations may be selection bias, sample diversity, and lack of control over sample size as may introduce bias in the data and limit the generalizability of the results.

Despite these limitations, we think the present article highlights essential issues that can be improved by further research. In that regard, we encourage conducting studies like this one but in specific occupations and using cross-cultural research to generalize the results to other contexts. It would also be interesting to investigate the relationship between work engagement and other personality traits, like dark personality (e.g., Dark Tetrad; Fernández-del-Río et al., 2022), and the way their consideration affects the prediction of job performance.