WORK ENGAGEMENT: A QUANTITATIVE REVIEW AND TEST OF ITS RELATIONS WITH TASK AND CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE

Authors

Errata

This article is corrected by:

  1. Errata: Corrigendum Volume 68, Issue 3, 717–719, Article first published online: 25 June 2015

  • Author's note. A previous version of this article was presented at the 2007 meeting of the Academy of Management. We would like to acknowledge Jessica Siegel and Edgar Kausel for their helpful comments on the manuscript.

and requests for reprints should be addressed to Michael S. Christian, Organizational Behavior Department, Kenan-Flagler Business School, CB #3490, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3490; mike_christian@unc.edu.

Abstract

Many researchers have concerns about work engagement's distinction from other constructs and its theoretical merit. The goals of this study were to identify an agreed-upon definition of engagement, to investigate its uniqueness, and to clarify its nomological network of constructs. Using a conceptual framework based on Macey and Schneider (2008; Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30), we found that engagement exhibits discriminant validity from, and criterion related validity over, job attitudes. We also found that engagement is related to several key antecedents and consequences. Finally, we used meta-analytic path modeling to test the role of engagement as a mediator of the relation between distal antecedents and job performance, finding support for our conceptual framework. In sum, our results suggest that work engagement is a useful construct that deserves further attention.

Ancillary