725967

research-article2017
HRDXXX10.1177/1534484317725967Human Resource Development ReviewKim et al.

Article
Human Resource Development Review
1­–27
The Relationship Between © The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Work Engagement and sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1534484317725967
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484317725967
Organizational Commitment: journals.sagepub.com/home/hrd

Proposing Research Agendas

Through a Review of
Empirical Literature

Woocheol Kim1, Jiyoung Kim1, Heajung Woo1,

Jiwon Park2, Junghyun Jo1, Sang-Hoon Park1,
and Se Yung Lim1

Abstract
Work engagement and organizational commitment are among the most studied topics
in a range of fields, including human resource development (HRD) and organization
development (OD). The value of such work is evident in the direct influence of
work engagement and organizational commitment on employee well-being and
organizational performance. However, scholars have divergent perspectives on the
relationship between these two concepts. While some studies have examined work
engagement as a precursor to organizational commitment, others have investigated
work engagement as an outcome of organizational commitment. Despite the
contrasting perspectives, little research effort has been made to reconcile these
differing views through the synthesis and analysis of the extant literature. Therefore,
this study aims to examine the current state of engagement-commitment research
and then to suggest HRD implications for research and practice based on a review
of selected literature.

Keywords
work engagement, organizational commitment, literature review

1Korea University of Technology and Education, Cheonan, Korea

2The Pennsylvania State University, State College, USA

Corresponding Author:
Jiyoung Kim, Korea University of Technology and Education, 1600, Chungjeol-ro, Byeongcheon-myeon,
Dongnam-gu, Cheonan, Chungcheongnam-do 330-708, Korea.
Email: ifing@koreatech.ac.kr
2 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

Work engagement and organizational commitment have received continuous attention

as topics of study in the fields of human resource development (HRD), organization
development (OD), management, and psychology (Jeung, 2011; Kim, Kolb, & Kim,
2013; Mercurio, 2015; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Recent studies have supported
this emphasis, concluding that both concepts are fundamental to employee well-being
and provide competitive advantages to organizations in areas of human performance,
such as job performance and turnover intention (Albdour & Altarawneh, 2014; Ibrahim
& Falasi, 2014; Kanste, 2011; Kim, Khan, Wood, & Mahmood, 2016; Rivkin, Diestel,
& Schmidt, 2016).
In the context of scholarly and practical literature, work engagement refers to “pos-
itive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication,
and absorption” (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002, p. 74).
Organizational commitment, on the contrary, is defined as “the relative strength of an
individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization”
(Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979, p. 226). As these definitions imply, work engage-
ment focuses on the relationship between employees and the work they perform,
whereas organizational commitment emphasizes the relationship between the
employee and the organization of which they are a part.
In addition to studies of work engagement and organizational commitment as dis-
crete concepts, research has also addressed the engagement–commitment relationship,
empirically investigating construct distinction between work engagement and organi-
zational commitment (e.g., Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; Huynh, Metzer, & Winefield,
2012; Kanste, 2011) as well as the engagement–commitment relationship in connec-
tion with other relevant research constructs (e.g., Hansen, Byrne, & Kiersch, 2014;
Huynh et al., 2012). Especially, in conceptualizing the relationship, some studies have
formulated work engagement as a precursor to organizational commitment and exam-
ined the impact of work engagement on organizational commitment (e.g., Albrecht,
2012; Hu & Schaufeli, 2011; Karatepe, 2013; Richardsen, Burke, & Martinussen,
2006). Meanwhile, others have framed work engagement as an outcome of organiza-
tional commitment and investigated the impact of organizational commitment on work
engagement (e.g., Barnes & Collier, 2013; Cantor, Morrow, & Montabon, 2012;
Rivkin et al., 2016; Zhang, Ling, Zhang, & Xie, 2015).
Despite the significant dispute over the directionality of the engagement–commit-
ment relationship, little research effort has been made to synthesize examinations of the
engagement–commitment relationship in extant empirical literature. A comprehensive
investigation of this kind would benefit both researchers and practitioners of holistic
HRD. Such data could support HRD practitioners in designing and implementing strat-
egies and policies seeking to enhance work engagement and organizational commit-
ment in employees. Likewise, HRD researchers would gain a vital resource for
discussing the contrasting views of the engagement–commitment relationship.
To answer the call, this study aims to (a) search, analyze, and synthesize relevant
empirical studies that examine the relationship between work engagement and organi-
zational commitment in organizational contexts, and (b) propose insightful directions
for research and practice in the field of HRD. Accordingly, this study is organized into
Kim et al. 3

three sections. First, the “Method” section details article selection process along with
search criteria used for the literature review. This is followed by a description and
synthesis of the findings from the selected literature. The study concludes with a dis-
cussion of HRD implications for future research and practice based on a synthesis of
the reviewed literature.

Method
This study employed an integrative literature review as its method for its propensity to
summarize, examine, and synthesize a current body of literature on a topic (Chermack
& Passmore, 2005). This section describes the article search and selection process as
well as the data organization and analysis of chosen literature.

Description of Selection Process

Using Torraco’s (2005) framework as a guide, the initial step was to search for articles
and to select those most relevant to the study. Recognizing that the importance of
implementing a clear and specific method in the literature review, this study made note
of the following considerations in the article selection process: (a) where the articles
were found (i.e., which database); (b) when the search was conducted; (c) who under-
took the search process; (d) how the articles were found; (e) how many articles
appeared in the search, against the total number of articles selected; and (f) why the
articles were finally chosen (Callahan, 2010; Carasco-Saul, Kim, & Kim, 2015; Kim
et al., 2013).
When performing the initial search in April 2016, the researchers used ProQuest
(Multiple Databases), which included 47 smaller database subsets (e.g., PsycINFO,
PsycARTICLES, and ABI/INFORM Collection), to extract relevant articles. The pri-
mary focus of this study, and therefore the search keyword combinations, was on the
relationship between work engagement and organizational commitment in an organi-
zational context. The term work engagement is often used interchangeably with simi-
lar terms, such as employee engagement, job engagement, role engagement, or
personal engagement (Carasco-Saul et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2013; Lee, Kwon, Kim,
& Cho, 2016). Thus, to conduct a comprehensive search, all five of the aforemen-
tioned terms were used as engagement-related keywords.
For the concept of organizational commitment, studies found in search results on
Google Scholar tended to utilize several similar terms, including commitment, affec-
tive commitment, and affective organizational commitment. Given that all of these
terms contain the common term commitment, the keyword commitment was used for
the search. Taken together, the search keywords used for the initial search were com-
binations of (a) “commitment” with (b) “work engagement,” “employee engagement,”
“job engagement,” “role engagement,” or “personal engagement.” For the purpose of
this study, the review focused on articles published in peer-reviewed, English-language
journals and containing the precise search terms in titles and/or abstracts. Although
there was no specific time restriction imposed on results, it is notable that the concept
4 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

Table 1.  Number of Selected Articles by Database.

Initial review In-depth review

Database (ProQuest) Keywords (abstracts) (full texts)
47 databases including commitment AND (work 61 18
PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, engagement OR employee
ABI/INFORM Collection, engagement OR job
ProQuest Social Science engagement OR role
Premium Collection, and engagement OR personal
Social Science Premium engagement)
Collection
Google Scholara — 14  3
Total 21
aWe used Google Scholar to search for articles that appeared in the reference lists of the searched

articles. Excluding duplicated articles, we added three more articles that were not found in the initial
search process.

of work engagement was first introduced in the literature in 1990 (Carasco-Saul et al.,
2015; Shuck & Wollard, 2010). In addition, we only included articles that provided
full texts through the databases to conduct an in-depth review in the second step.
The initial search using the above keywords yielded 61 matching articles on
ProQuest (Multiple Databases). Subsequently, a staged review approach was used to
examine the 61 articles and to identify relevant articles for the current research pur-
pose. The staged review approach consists of first conducting an initial review of the
abstract and then completing an in-depth review of the article (Torraco, 2005). In the
in-depth review process, articles were subject to criteria that the study (a) empirically
examines the engagement–commitment relationship, (b) has been conducted in an
organization setting, and (c) offers relevant and detailed discussions about the engage-
ment–commitment relationship. Reference lists of searched articles were then investi-
gated for any articles that may not have been found by the search in the selected
databases. After this secondary search process, three articles that empirically exam-
ined the relationship between work engagement and organizational commitment were
added. Ultimately, 21 empirical articles found in this process were selected for further
review (see Table 1).

Overview of Work Engagement and Organizational

Commitment
Work Engagement
As a concept, work engagement has increasingly gained attention among organiza-
tions and researchers (Lee et al., 2016). One reason for this growing interest is that
work engagement has been connected to valuable business results across all sizes and
types of organizations (Vance, 2006). Numerous empirical studies have shown that
Kim et al. 5

employees’ work engagement influenced organizational desired outcomes (e.g., job

and financial performance, productivity, innovative work behavior, commitment, turn-
over intention, and customer satisfaction). Moreover, these results have noticeably
piqued the interest of organizations (e.g., Albrecht, 2012; Chughtai, 2013; Harter,
Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Karatepe, 2013; Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010; Saks,
2006; Zhang et al., 2015).
In defining the concept of engagement, studies have used various terms depending
on their perspective, purpose, and context (Carasco-Saul et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2013).
Since Kahn (1990) coined the term from a psychological perspective, numerous
related terms and definitions have been proposed by scholars and practitioners. Among
them, work engagement and employee engagement are considered key terms in the
field of HRD (Lee et al., 2016). Work engagement is defined by HRD as “a positive,
fulfilling, work-related state of mind” comprised of three subdimensions such as vigor,
dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). In contrast, employee
engagement is defined as “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behav-
ioral state directed toward desired organizational outcomes” (Shuck & Wollard, 2010,
p. 103). Although the terms tend to be used interchangeably, the term “employee
engagement” is used more often in the field of business and “work engagement” in the
scholarly literature (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2011). In addition, Saks and Gruman
(2014) speculated that the term employee engagement has broader scope than work
engagement. That is, employee engagement is an individual’s positive attachment to
one’s job, occupation, and organization, while work engagement is an individual’s
positive psychological state regarding his or her work.
To examine the concept of engagement empirically, scholars have made an effort to
propose several ways of accurately measuring engagement. Among these methods, the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) has been considered the most popular (Rich
et al., 2010; Saks & Gruman, 2014). The UWES was developed by Schaufeli and his
colleagues (2002) for assessing the construct of work engagement with three subdi-
mensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption. The UWES has been globally validated
and used in two versions, UWES-17 and UWES-9 (Lee et al., 2016). Despite its popu-
lar and wide use, some scholars have argued that the UWES includes redundant ele-
ments and measures of job burnout and tends to measure predictors of engagement
rather than engagement itself (Lee et al., 2016; Newman & Harrison, 2008; Rich et al.,
2010). To address this issue, other measurements have been developed including those
by Rich et al. (2010), Soane et al. (2012), and Demerouti and Bakker (2008). Saks
(2006) also attempted to conceptualize and measure employee engagement as a two-
dimensional construct comprising job engagement and organizational engagement,
reflecting Kahn’s (1990) earlier point of view. This measurement consists of six items
each for job engagement and organizational engagement. However, as it has not been
widely used, its construct validity is limited.
Given that a majority of studies (13 of 21 articles) selected for the literature review
used the term “work engagement”, the present study uses the term work engagement,
as well. Also, as most studies (15 of 21 articles) measured engagement by using the
UWES either fully or partially, this study will consider work engagement to comprise
6 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

vigor, dedication, and absorption in investigating the relationship between commit-

ment and engagement.

Organizational Commitment
Many previous studies have demonstrated the positive influence that employee com-
mitment has on organizational outcomes, including organizational effectiveness, work
engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover intention (Ahmed & Ahmed, 2013; Meyer
& Herscovitch, 2001; Plewa & Quester, 2008; Poon, 2013; Zhang et al., 2015).
Understandably, organizations have also shown considerable interest in increasing
employees’ commitment to the workplace in pursuit of these goals.
To accurately define and measure commitment, extensive research has been con-
ducted within an organizational context (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Over the years,
commitment has been conceptualized with diverse terms including organizational
commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Mowday et al., 1979),
commitment (Albrecht, 2012; Plewa & Quester, 2008), and commitment in the work-
place (Feldman, 2004). Mowday et al. (1979) defined organizational commitment as
the strength of identification and involvement of an individual employee in an organi-
zation, focusing on the attitudinal perspective of commitment. Meyer and Allen (1991)
defined organizational commitment as a psychological state with at least three charac-
teristics including “affective attachment to the organization, perceived costs associ-
ated with leaving the organization, and obligation to remain with the organization”
(pp. 63-64). Furthermore, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) synthesized how previous
literature had defined commitment and found that the essence of these definitions was
“a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more tar-
gets” (p. 301) along with the three components of affective, normative, and continu-
ance commitment. However, Mercurio (2015) claimed that the core of organizational
commitment is only affective commitment. These variant opinions evince the dis-
agreement that still exists about the concept of organizational commitment (Meyer &
Herscovitch, 2001).
To measure the concept of commitment, Mowday et al. (1979) developed a unidi-
mensional instrument, the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), which
comprised 15 items. The OCQ was validated by numerous studies (e.g., Barnes &
Collier, 2013; Mowday et al., 1979; Richardsen et al., 2006). More recently, however,
researchers have increasingly considered commitment to be a multidimensional con-
struct encompassing affective commitment, value commitment, moral commitment,
continuance commitment, and/or normative commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990;
Jaros, Jermier, Koehler, & Sincich, 1993; Mayer & Schoorman, 1992; Meyer &
Herscovitch, 2001). Consequently, Meyer and Allen’s framework has gained support
among the multidimensional measures of commitment (Bergman, 2006). Allen and
Meyer (1990) developed a self-reported questionnaire as a three-dimensional mea-
surement consisting of 24 items, with eight items each for affective, normative, and
continuance commitment. This measurement has since been implemented by many
studies (e.g., Albdour & Altarawneh, 2014; Aydogdu & Asikgil, 2011).
Kim et al. 7

Given that a large majority of studies (17 out of 21) selected for the literature review
used either the term “organizational commitment” or “affective [organizational] com-
mitment,” the current study utilizes the term organizational commitment. Also, as
many of the studies (10 out of 21) used the measurement developed by Allen and
Meyer (1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997) either fully or partially, this study will consider
organizational commitment to comprise affective, normative, and continuance com-
mitment in investigating the relationship between commitment and engagement.

Findings on Work Engagement and Organizational

Commitment
The process of analysis and synthesis was implemented based on the 21 empirical
articles that were ultimately selected. As an effort to support a better understanding of
the selected literature, a brief summary including authors, purpose, sample data, and
key findings from the selected literature is presented in Table 2. These studies are
listed in chronological order, beginning in 2006. The following section provides find-
ings from the selected literature on the relationship between work engagement and
organizational commitment. As the purpose of the current study mainly focuses on
empirical studies on the engagement–commitment relationship, this section consists
of two subsections on how the reviewed empirical literature was investigated, in terms
of (a) diverse effects examined in the engagement–commitment relationship associ-
ated with antecedents and consequent variables and (b) key terms, measures, and
methods utilized to conceptualize and analyze the relationship.

Effects in the Engagement–Commitment Relationship

Among 21 reviewed studies, 10 studies focused on examining the effects of engage-
ment on commitment in organizations (i.e., engagement as a predictor of commit-
ment), whereas seven studies primarily focused on investigating the effects of
commitment on engagement (i.e., commitment as a predictor of engagement). Another
four of the studies examined the bidirectional or distinct relationship between engage-
ment and commitment.

Effects of engagement on commitment. While two studies, Albdour and Altarawneh

(2014) and Plewa and Quester (2008), investigated the direct influence of engagement
on commitment, a majority of studies (8 out of 10) examined the influences of engage-
ment on commitment in association with antecedent and consequent variables. Most
studies focused on job-related resources as relevant input variables. Four of the studies
used the job-related resources of social support, performance feedback, autonomy, and
task variety to examine the effects of engagement on commitment. Richardsen et al.
(2006) revealed that work engagement partially mediated the effects of the job
resources of autonomy and social support from supervisors and coworkers on organi-
zational commitment in a sample group of 150 Norwegian employees. Llorens, Bak-
ker, Schaufeli, and Salanova (2006) discovered that work engagement partially
8
Table 2.  A Summary of the Selected Literature on Engagement and Commitment.

Authors (year) Purpose Sample (n) Key findings

Hallberg and To examine whether work engagement could N = 186 Work engagement and organizational commitment are
Schaufeli be empirically distinct from organizational (Sweden) empirically separate constructs.
(2006) commitment and job involvement
Llorens, To examine the mediating effect of work N = 1,131 Work engagement partially mediated the effect of job
Bakker, engagement between job resources, job (Spain and resources on organizational commitment across both
Schaufeli, demands, and organizational commitment Netherlands) Spanish and Dutch samples.
and Salanova
(2006)
Richardsen, To investigate a mediating effect of work N = 150 Work engagement partially mediated the effects of job
Burke, and engagement in the relationship between (Norway) resources on organizational commitment.
Martinussen work (e.g., job resources) and health
(2006) outcomes (e.g., commitment)
Saks (2006) To examine the relationship between N = 102 Work engagement (job and organization engagement)
employee engagement (job and (Canada) partially mediated the link between the antecedent
organizational engagement), antecedents variables (e.g., job characteristics, organizational support
(e.g., job characteristics), and consequences and procedural justice) and organizational commitment.
(e.g., organizational commitment)
Hakanen, To test the job demands-resource model N = 2,555 The two-phase cross-lagged panel analysis showed that
Schaufeli, in a 3-year cross-lagged study of burnout, (Finland) work engagement had a mediating effect between job
and Ahola commitment, and work engagement resources (task variety, social support at work, and
(2008) feedback in dentistry) and organizational commitment.
Plewa and To study the relationship between personal N =124 (62 Personal engagement positively influenced commitment.
Quester engagement, commitment, and other dyads)
(2008) variables (Australia)
Demerouti, To investigate whether the dimensions of N = 528 Organizational commitment was significantly correlated
Mostert, work engagement (vigor and dedication) are (South with vigor and dedication.
and Bakker correlated with organizational commitment Africa)
(2010)

(continued)
 Table 2. (continued)

Authors (year) Purpose Sample (n) Key findings

Parzefall andTo examine the effect of work engagement
Hakanen in the relationship between psychological
(2010) contract fulfillment and its motivational and
health-enhancing properties
Hu and To study the mediation effect of work
Schaufeli engagement in the relationship between
(2011) current remuneration and organizational
outcomes
Albrecht To examine the relationship between job/
(2012) team/organizational resources, engagement,
commitment, and performance
Cantor, To examine how employee perceptions of
Morrow, and management practices influence employee
Montabon affective commitment and engagement in
(2012) environmental behaviors.
Huynh, To examine a conceptual distinction among
Metzer, and organizational connectedness, work
Winefield engagement, and organizational commitment
(2012)
Barnes and To examine mediating effects of work
Collier engagement among service climate, job
(2013) satisfaction, affective commitment, career
commitment, and adaptability.
Chughtai To investigate mediating effects of work
(2013) engagement between affective commitment
to supervisor and work outcomes.
N = 178 Work engagement fully mediated the relationship
(Germany) between psychological contract fulfillment and affective
commitment in the public sector.
N = 585 Work engagement mediated the relationship between
(China) current remuneration as a job resource and
organizational outcomes (organizational commitment
and lower turnover intention).
N = 3,515 Employee engagement mediated the relationship between
(Australasia) antecedents (job/team/organizational resources) and
organizational commitment.
N = 317 (N/A) Employee affective commitment to environmental
behaviors had a positive effect on employee engagement
in environmental behaviors.
N = 227 While subscales of work engagement and organizational
(Australia) commitment were correlated, they were empirically
distinct constructs.
N = 705 Work engagement fully mediated the link between
(USA) affective commitment and adaptability with the low
contact services, but did not mediate the link with the
high contact services.
N = 192 Work engagement fully mediated the link between
(Ireland) affective commitment to supervisor and work outcomes
(innovative work behavior, feedback seeking for self-
improvement, and error reporting).

9
(continued)
10
Table 2. (continued)

Authors (year) Purpose Sample (n) Key findings

Karatepe To test the mediating role of work
(2013) engagement between organizational politics
and employee outcomes (e.g., affective
organizational commitment).
Albdour and To investigate the relationship between
Altarawneh employee engagement (job and
(2014) organizational engagement) and
organizational commitment (affective,
normative, and continuance)
Hansen, To study how interpersonal leadership relates
Byrne, and to organizational identification, employee
Kiersch engagement, organizational commitment,
(2014) and job tension
Ibrahim and To examine the relationship between
Falasi (2014) employee loyalty (organizational
commitment) and employee engagement
Choi, Tran, To test the mediating role of employees’
and Park affective organizational commitment
(2015) between inclusive leadership and employees’
work engagement
Rivkin, Diestel, To investigate the relationship between
and Schmidt affective commitment, day-specific flow
(2016) experiences, and day-specific psychological
well-being (e.g., work engagement)
N = 231 (Iran) Work engagement acted as a full mediator in the
relationship between organizational politics and affective
organizational commitment.
N = 294 Both job and organizational engagement positively
(Jordan) influenced affective and normative components of
organizational commitment. Job engagement negatively
influenced the continuance component.
N = 451 (USA Employee engagement mediated the relationship
and Canada) between organizational identification and
organizational commitment and the relationship
between organizational commitment and job tension.
Organizational commitment also mediated the link
between interpersonal leadership and engagement.
N = 50 (UAE) Both affective and continuance components of
organizational commitment are positively related to
employee engagement.
N = 246 Employees’ affective organizational commitment partially
(Vietnam) mediated the relationship between inclusive leadership
and employee work engagement.
N = 90 Day-specific flow experiences mediated the link between
(Germany) affective commitment and high work engagement.
Kim et al. 11

mediated the effect of the job resources of social support and performance feedback on
organizational commitment across two sample groups (654 Spanish employees and
477 Dutch employees). Using a two-phase cross-lagged panel analysis, Hakanen,
Schaufeli, and Ahola (2008) showed that work engagement had a mediating effect
between the job resources of task variety, social support at work, and feedback and
organizational commitment in the field of dentistry. Albrecht (2012) utilized not only
job resources (i.e., career development, autonomy, supervisor support, and role clar-
ity) but also organizational and team resources (i.e., organizational and team culture)
as input variables to examine the effects of engagement on commitment. The results of
this study showed that engagement played mediating roles in the relationship between
antecedent job, team, and organizational resources and organizational commitment
among 3,515 employees from a large multinational mining company.
In addition, three studies used antecedent variables pertaining to job resources in that
researchers either conceptualized these antecedents as job resources themselves (i.e.,
current remuneration and psychological contract fulfillment) or subfactors of these
antecedents partly overlapped with those of job resources (i.e., job characteristics). In a
sample group of 585 workers in China, Hu and Schaufeli (2011) found that work
engagement played a partial mediating role in the relationship between current remu-
neration as a job resource and organizational outcomes, including organizational com-
mitment. Saks (2006) investigated the relationship between employee engagement,
organizational support, procedural justice, and organizational commitment, with ante-
cedents including the job characteristics of autonomy, skill variety, feedback, task sig-
nificance, and task identity in a sample of 102 Canadian employees. The results
indicated that work engagement, composed of job and organization engagement, played
a partial mediating role between the antecedent variables of job characteristics, organi-
zational support, and procedural justice and organizational commitment. Parzefall and
Hakanen (2010) also found that, in a public organization with a sample of 178 German
employees, work engagement fully mediated the relationship between psychological
contract fulfillment (considered as a job resource) and affective commitment. In addi-
tion, turnover intention was used as an outcome variable in the engagement–commit-
ment relationship, revealing that affective commitment had a fully mediating role
between work engagement and turnover intention. In another study, Karatepe (2013)
posed organizational politics as an antecedent variable and found that work engage-
ment played a fully mediating role in the relationship between organizational politics
and affective organizational commitment with 231 hotel employees in Iran.
Two further studies focused on the direct effect of engagement on commitment.
The results of one of these studies demonstrated that personal engagement positively
influenced commitment in 124 participants from Australian university and industry
staff (Plewa & Quester, 2008). In another study of 294 frontline employees from a
Jordan banking sector, Albdour and Altarawneh (2014) revealed that job engagement
and organizational engagement were positively associated with the affective and nor-
mative components of organizational commitment. However, it was also found that
job engagement had a negative influence on continuance component of organizational
commitment.
12 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

Effects of commitment on engagement.  Although two studies, Cantor et al. (2012) and
Ibrahim and Falasi (2014), primarily examined the direct influence of commitment on
engagement, five out of seven studies investigated the influence of commitment on
engagement in association with other research variables.
Three out of five studies (Barnes & Collier, 2013; Chughtai, 2013; Zhang et al.,
2015) considered diverse consequent variables (i.e., innovative work behavior, feed-
back seeking for self-improvement, error reporting, turnover intention, and adapt-
ability) as research variables for the effects of commitment on engagement. Chughtai
(2013) found that work engagement fully mediated the link between affective com-
mitment to the supervisor and work outcomes such as innovative work behavior,
feedback seeking for self-improvement, and error reporting with a sample of 192
research scientists. With a sample of 705 respondents in the United States, Barnes
and Collier (2013) also reported that work engagement mediated the link between
affective commitment and adaptability in low contact services, whereas there was no
mediating effect in the relationship in high contact services. Zhang et al. (2015) also
demonstrated that work engagement partially mediated the negative effect of orga-
nizational commitment on turnover intention with a sample of 512 building engi-
neers in Taiwan.
In addition, two out of five studies (Choi, Tran, & Park, 2015; Rivkin et al., 2016)
utilized either an input variable (i.e., inclusive leadership) or a mediating variable (i.e.,
day-specific flow experiences) to examine the effect of commitment on engagement.
Choi et al. (2015) reported that affective organizational commitment played a partial
mediating role between inclusive leadership and work engagement with a sample of
246 employees in Vietnam. A study of Rivkin et al. (2016), with a sample of 90
employees in Germany, revealed that affective commitment positively influenced high
work engagement and that day-specific flow experiences mediated between affective
commitment and high work engagement.
Two studies focused on the direct effect of commitment on engagement. Ibrahim
and Falasi (2014) found out that both affective commitment and continuance commit-
ment had a significant relationship with employee engagement in a sample of 50 gov-
ernment employees in the United Arab Emirates. In addition, a study of Cantor et al.
(2012) found a significant, positive impact of employee affective commitment on
employee engagement in environmental behaviors in a sample of 317 supply chain
management employees.

Bidirectional and distinct relationship between engagement and commitment.  The selected
literature review included one study that investigated not only the effects of engage-
ment on commitment but also the effects of commitment on engagement (Hansen
et al., 2014), and additional three studies examined the construct distinction between
engagement and commitment (Demerouti, Mostert, & Bakker, 2010; Hallberg &
Schaufeli, 2006; Huynh et al., 2012).
In studying the bidirectional relationship of engagement and commitment, Hansen
et al. (2014) aimed to examine the mediating effects of employee engagement on inter-
personal leadership, organizational identification, organizational commitment, and job
Kim et al. 13

tension. What they found was that employee engagement played a mediating role
between organizational identification and organizational commitment. However, the
study also tested the relationships between those aforementioned factors by re-speci-
fying organizational commitment as a mediator between interpersonal leadership and
employee engagement. Through the exploration, they found that organizational com-
mitment also mediated the link between interpersonal leadership and engagement and
that employee engagement had a mediating effect on the relationship between organi-
zational commitment and job tension.
With regard to the construct distinction between engagement and commitment, the
results of three remaining studies showed that both the constructs and their subscales
were closely related (Demerouti et al., 2010; Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; Huynh et al.,
2012). However, with a sample of 227 volunteers from emergency service organiza-
tions in Australia, Huynh et al. (2012) found that, although the subscales of work
engagement and organizational commitment are related, they are empirically distinct
constructs. In addition, by examining relationships of these constructs with other con-
structs such as health complaints (e.g., emotional exhaustion), job factors (e.g., auton-
omy), and personal factors (e.g., intrinsic motivation) in a sample of 186 Swedish
employees, Hallberg and Schaufeli (2006) also concluded that, while work engage-
ment and organizational commitment are closely related, they are empirically separate
constructs.

Terms, Measures, and Methods

Terms and measures.  In the 21 reviewed articles, diverse terms and instruments were
utilized to conceptualize and measure work engagement and organizational commit-
ment. When it comes to engagement, it seems that the terms work engagement and
employee engagement as singular concepts are predominantly used in engagement-
related studies, and the UWES is primarily used to measure the concept of engage-
ment. Of the various terms for “engagement,” 18 out of 21 studies employed the term
either “work engagement” (13) or “employee engagement” (5). Two studies used the
term “engagement” alone, and one article utilized the term “personal engagement.”
With regard to measures of engagement, a majority of the studies (17 out of 21)
either fully or partially used versions of the UWES (i.e., UWES-17 and UWES-9).
Given the global validation of UWES-9 (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006), most
of these studies measured the concept of engagement with the three subdimensions of
vigor, dedication, and absorption. However, three studies measured engagement with
only vigor and dedication, conceptualizing them as core dimensions of engagement
and/or the conceptual opposite to burnout (i.e., Demerouti et al., 2010; Llorens et al.,
2006; Parzefall & Hakanen, 2010). In addition, two studies, Albdour and Altarawneh
(2014) and Saks (2006) used the term “employee engagement,” conceptualized as a
multiple concept consisting of job engagement and organizational engagement, and
measured the two levels of engagement with the 12 items of Saks’s (2006) instrument.
Two other studies attempted to conceptualize and measure engagement in other ways.
One study, Ibrahim and Falasi (2014), measured engagement with the Gallup
14 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

Workplace Audit (GWA), often used to measure job satisfaction (Harter et al., 2002),
and the other study, Cantor et al. (2012), measured engagement in environmental
behaviors with three subfactors (i.e., frequency of involvement, innovative environ-
mental behaviors, and promotion of environmental initiatives).
When it comes to commitment, a majority of the studies focused on employees’
affective commitment dimension in conceptualizing and measuring commitment
within an organization, and the measure of organizational commitment developed by
Allen and Meyer (1990) was primarily utilized to assess the concept of commitment.
Concerning terms of commitment, 17 out of the 21 studies used either “organizational
commitment” (9) or “affective (organizational) commitment” (8), whereas the four
remaining studies employed other terms such as “commitment” (2), “affective super-
visory commitment” (1), and “employee loyalty” (1).
A majority of studies (19 out of 21) put the focus of commitment on the relationship
between employees and their organization, with the exception two studies which put
the focus of commitment on either employees’ relationships with their supervisors
(Chughtai, 2013) or employees’ relationships with their environmental behaviors
(Cantor et al., 2012). Regarding measures of commitment, 12 out of 21 studies fully or
partially used the measure of organizational commitment developed and modified by
Allen and Meyer (1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997). Although this measure is comprised of
three subdimensions (i.e., affective, normative, and continuance commitment), most
studies (10 out of 12) paid attention mainly to the affective dimension of organiza-
tional commitment, whereas only two studies either focused on all (Albdour &
Altarawneh, 2014) or even two of them (i.e., affective commitment and continuance
commitment; Ibrahim & Falasi, 2014). One study (Zhang et al., 2015) used a multidi-
mensional measurement developed by Ling, Zhang, and Fang (2000) with five subdi-
mensions (i.e., affective, normative, ideal, economic, and choice commitment). In
addition, six studies measured commitment itself without subdimensions by using
diverse instruments including the measure developed by Mowday et al. (1979) (e.g.,
Barnes & Collier, 2013; Hu & Schaufeli, 2011; Richardsen et al., 2006). Two articles
measured organizational commitment using several items without any references
(Albrecht, 2012; Cantor et al., 2012).

Methods.  All reviewed empirical studies used quantitative approaches and collected
data through survey questionnaires with Likert-type scales. Among the statistical
methods used to examine diverse relationships (i.e., direct, indirect, and distinct)
between research variables, including work engagement and organizational commit-
ment, structural equation modeling (SEM) approaches were used predominantly, and
a bootstrapping approach was utilized more to test mediating effects. Specifically,
among 21 reviewed articles, a majority of studies (17 out of 21) employed SEM
approaches (e.g., Hu & Schaufeli, 2011; Karatepe, 2013; Parzefall & Hakanen, 2010;
Plewa & Quester, 2008), whereas four studies utilized multiple regression approaches
(e.g., Albdour & Altarawneh, 2014; Ibrahim & Falasi, 2014; Richardsen et al., 2006)
to investigate the engagement–commitment relationships. In addition, two studies that
employed SEM approaches also used more sophisticated statistical methods such as
Kim et al. 15

multilevel analysis by including day-level variables (Level 1) and person-level vari-

ables (Level 2) (Rivkin et al., 2016) as well as cross-lagged analysis by a longitudinal
research design based on two waves over a 3-year period (Hakanen et al., 2008).
To test indirect relationships (i.e., mediating effects) between work engagement,
organizational commitment, and other variables, most studies used one of four
approaches: the bias-corrected bootstrapping method (5; e.g., Albrecht, 2012; Barnes
& Collier, 2013); a SEM model comparison through a chi-square difference test (4;
e.g., Hakanen et al., 2008); the Sobel test (3; e.g., Hansen et al., 2014; Karatepe, 2013);
and Baron and Kenny’s mediation test (2; e.g., Richardsen et al., 2006).

Discussion
This section consists of three subsections, beginning with an assessment of strengths
and weaknesses of the reviewed studies and, then, offering an analytical synthesis of
what the authors investigated through this research. Following the synthesis, this study
suggests HRD implications for practice and research agendas based on this literature
review.

Assessment of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Reviewed Literature

First, a review of these 21 studies shows that work engagement and organizational
commitment are distinct constructs. Researchers conceptualized the engagement–
commitment relationship with differing perspectives (i.e., engagement as a precursor
to commitment or commitment as a precursor to engagement); however, the results of
the reviewed literature demonstrated that both the impact of work engagement on
organizational commitment and the impact of organizational commitment on work
engagement were statistically significant. These findings offer a firm ground for an
empirical understanding of one-directional effects on the engagement–commitment
relationship. Although it could be hypothesized that work engagement and
organizational commitment might have a reciprocal relationship based on the results,
all reviewed studies focused only on examining one-directional effects without
considering potential reciprocal effects. Such research efforts could provide more
holistic insights to conceptualizing the engagement–commitment relationship in the
future.
Second, a majority of reviewed studies (17 out of 21) seemed to utilize the SEM
approach as a robust statistical technique to test a research model with hypotheses.
SEM can estimate and correct measurement errors of observed variables (e.g., survey
items), including latent variables in a research model, and examine various relation-
ships among multiple endogenous and exogenous latent variables simultaneously
(Bae, 2014; Kline, 2011; Parzefall & Hakanen, 2010), all definite advantages over the
multiple regression approach. In testing mediating effects, the bootstrapping method
was more utilized, as it is strongly recommended and considered the most powerful
method for measuring specific indirect relationships under most sample conditions
without an assumption of a multivariate normal distribution (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
16 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

Cross-sectional design has been applied as a primary research design in all but one
longitudinal study (Hakanen et al., 2008). However, many researchers also mentioned
it as a limitation to generalizing the results of their studies. Without longitudinal
research efforts, research findings and their implications on the engagement–commit-
ment relationship would remain limited and inconclusive (Carasco-Saul et al., 2015).
As cross-sectional research design does not take into account the factor that work
engagement and organizational commitment develop over time (Bergman, 2006),
studies need to consider the longitudinal research design, which could provide more
in-depth insights regarding the engagement–commitment relationship.
Third, of the three subdimensions of organizational commitment (i.e., affective,
normative, and continuance commitment), more than half of studies focused on the
affective dimension when conceptualizing and measuring employees’ commitment
to an organization, as evidenced throughout this review (e.g., Barnes & Collier,
2013; Choi et al., 2015; Karatepe, 2013; Parzefall & Hakanen, 2010; Rivkin et al.,
2016). The predominance of the affective dimension is partly supported by Mercurio’s
(2015) claim that the essence of organizational commitment is affective commitment.
However, given Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) assertion that the core of commit-
ment consists of affective (i.e., desire), normative (i.e., felt obligation), and continu-
ance (i.e., perceived costs) commitment as a binding force to a particular target (e.g.,
organization), normative and continuance dimensions should not be disregarded if
organizational commitment is to be accurately represented and measured. More
research efforts to comprehensively conceptualize and measure organizational com-
mitment, using either a second-order hierarchical construct (i.e., organizational
commitment) or three distinct constructs (i.e., affective/normative/continuance com-
mitment), for example, need to be considered.
Last, all the reviewed studies were conducted in various contexts, in terms of sam-
ple geography and occupation, to provide comprehensive understanding of the rela-
tionship between work engagement and organizational commitment. Reviewed studies
have been conducted globally in North America (United States and Canada), Europe
(e.g., Germany, Netherlands, and Norway), Australia, Oceania, Asia (e.g., Iran, China,
and Vietnam), Middle East (Jordan and United Arab Emirates), and Africa (South
Africa). Among the diverse occupations encompassed by extant literature are public
sector officers, professionals, frontline employees, engineers, and volunteers. Despite
substantial global research, considering that each study was investigated separately in
a specific context, questions may remain as to whether findings of studies have similar
or different implications in other settings. Expanded empirical research to externally
validate the study findings across countries and occupations would be a positive con-
tribution to a more holistic understanding of the engagement–commitment
relationship.

Synthesis of the Reviewed Literature

Engagement leading to commitment with associated variables. On the influence of
employee engagement on commitment to an organization, 11 studies hypothesized
Kim et al. 17

and empirically demonstrated that engagement could serve as a precursor to commit-

ment. Employee commitment is one of the work/job outcomes (e.g., Karatepe, 2013;
Richardsen et al., 2006) that can be influenced by the motivational process and conse-
quent work engagement (Llorens et al., 2006), resulting from employee well-being
(Hu & Schaufeli, 2011). That is, when employees are attached to and engaged in their
work, they can become connected to their work and other employees. Ultimately,
through this process, employees form an attachment with their organization (Hansen
et al., 2014).
Employee engagement could lead directly to enhanced commitment within organi-
zations (Albdour & Altarawneh, 2014; Plewa & Quester, 2008). In addition, the effects
of work engagement on employees’ organizational commitment could be supported
and facilitated by considering organizational inputs (i.e., antecedent variables) such as
job resources (Albrecht, 2012; Llorens et al., 2006; Richardsen et al., 2006), organiza-
tional and team resources (i.e., organizational and team culture; Albrecht, 2012), cur-
rent remuneration (Hu & Schaufeli, 2011), psychological contract fulfillment (Parzefall
& Hakanen, 2010), organizational support, job characteristics, organizational proce-
dural justice (Saks, 2006), organizational politics (Karatepe, 2013), and organizational
identification (Hansen et al., 2014). Although these antecedents seem different, most
are related, fully or partly, to job resources when investigating subfactors. Job resources
consist of social support from supervisors and/or coworkers, autonomy, task variety,
role clarity, feedback/performance feedback, and career development (Albrecht, 2012;
Llorens et al., 2006; Richardsen et al., 2006). Job characteristics consist of autonomy,
skill variety, feedback, task significance, and task identity (Saks, 2006). Current remu-
neration (Hu & Schaufeli, 2011) and psychological contract fulfillment (Parzefall &
Hakanen, 2010) are also conceptualized as job resources by researchers.
Antecedents used in examining the effects of engagement on commitment could be
reorganized into job resources (social support from supervisors and/or coworkers,
autonomy, task variety, role clarity, feedback/performance feedback, career develop-
ment, current remuneration, and psychological contract fulfillment), organizational
and team resources, job characteristics (autonomy, skill variety, feedback, task signifi-
cance, and task identity), organizational politics, and organizational identification.
Furthermore, the effect of employees’ work engagement on their organizational com-
mitment could lead to reducing their turnover intention (Parzefall & Hakanen, 2010).
Taken together, Figure 1 illustrates a framework that encompasses all the discussed
influences of engagement on commitment in association with other relevant research
constructs.

Commitment leading to engagement with associated variables.  Eight studies conceptual-

ized and empirically demonstrated that commitment is a precursor to engagement and
that, when employees are involved, attached, and loyal to their organization, they
could be engaged in their work or manifest enhanced work engagement (Barnes &
Collier, 2013; Ibrahim & Falasi, 2014; Zhang et al., 2015). That is, employee commit-
ment to an organization will occur before their work engagement (Barnes & Collier,
2013), and when employees feel attached to an organization and obliged to repay the
18 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

Figure 1.  Relationships associated with effects of engagement on commitment.

aJob resources.
bJob characteristics.

organization for this attachment, work engagement results as one way of such repay-
ment (Choi et al., 2015). The implication is that, after employees are attached to their
organization, they could become attached to their work as well. Specifically, employee
commitment to an organization could also directly and positively influence engage-
ment at work (Ibrahim & Falasi, 2014), and the impact of commitment on engagement
could then be mediated by employees’ daily specific flow experiences (Rivkin et al.,
2016).
Effects of employees’ organizational commitment on their work engagement could
also be supported and facilitated by considering organizational inputs especially asso-
ciated with leadership, such as inclusive leadership (Choi et al., 2015) and interper-
sonal leadership (Hansen et al., 2014). The effect of organizational commitment on
work engagement could lead to reduced turnover intention (Zhang et al., 2015) and job
tension (Hansen et al., 2014) as well as enhanced adaptability (Barnes & Collier,
2013). In addition to employee commitment to the organization, employee commit-
ment to a supervisor could have a positive impact on work engagement, which, in turn,
influences their innovative work behavior, feedback seeking for self-improvement,
and error reporting in a positive way (Chughtai, 2013). Taken together, Figure 2 illus-
trates a framework that encompasses all the discussed influences of commitment on
engagement in association with other relevant research constructs.

Implications for HRD Research

This synthesis of extant literature on the relationship between work engagement and
organizational commitment suggests several implications for HRD research. More
opportunities for empirical research exist to explore the engagement–commitment
relationship further as well as to uncover new implications in the field of HRD. First,
as an effort to catalyze future research, the current study suggests frameworks in
Kim et al. 19

Figure 2.  Relationships associated with effects of commitment on engagement.

Figures 1 and 2 drawn from the examined empirical studies. However, we cannot pos-
tulate that the integrated frameworks are empirically valid, as neither of them have
been specified and examined as a whole research model. It is therefore recommended
that the suggested frameworks be validated to provide more holistic implications. In
addition, as most studies focused on the affective component of organizational com-
mitment (e.g., Choi et al., 2015; Rivkin et al., 2016)—with some emphasizing vigor
and dedication as core dimensions of work engagement by excluding absorption (e.g.,
Parzefall & Hakanen, 2010)—reconceptualizing subdimensions of both constructs or
redefining the constructs could be other areas worth examining for future research.
Given that the reviewed studies primarily focused on the one-directional effect of
the relationship between work engagement and organizational commitment, future
research could expand the current research effort by investigating the reciprocal rela-
tionship between engagement and commitment, considering both effects of engage-
ment on commitment and effects of commitment on engagement in research models.
Data collection should also be implemented with more than two time frames (e.g.,
Time 1 and Time 2) to examine the reciprocal relationship effectively, with a recom-
mended longitudinal research design (e.g., years of cross-lagged study; Hakanen et al.,
2008). The results of such research could provide the bigger picture of the engage-
ment–commitment relationship.
In addition to quantitative research, future research could consider qualitative
approaches to obtain in-depth meanings as well as to offer context and opportunities
for expanded dialogues. When qualitative and quantitative studies are combined, elab-
orating on the meaning of the findings would be beneficial for such dialogues (Kim
et al., 2013; Swanson, Watkins, & Marsick, 1997). As the reviewed quantitative stud-
ies showed that both the effects of engagement on commitment and the effects of com-
mitment on engagement are statistically significant, future research could employ
qualitative approaches to determine (a) how employees define and distinguish work
engagement and organizational commitment, (b) upon which construct employees put
more value and why, and (c) which construct employees think precedes the other in
their organizational context and why. This would enable researchers to elaborate fur-
ther on the quantitative findings about the engagement–commitment relationship.
20 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

Last, as most research variables used in the reviewed studies, including engage-
ment and commitment, are individual-level variables, future research could consider
organizational-level variables to comprehend the engagement–commitment relation-
ship and relevant organizational-level antecedents and consequences. By considering
two levels of engagement (i.e., job engagement and organizational engagement; Saks,
2006) instead of a singular concept of engagement, future research could employ mul-
tilevel research, using engagement as an organizational-level variable (i.e., aggregated
variable) and including other organizational-level variables (e.g., actual turnover rates
and error reporting rates of organizations). For this purpose, it would be helpful to use
more sophisticated statistical methods such as multilevel analysis in SEM or hierarchi-
cal linear modeling (HLM).

Implications for HRD Practice

The reviewed empirical literature showed that the effect of work engagement on com-
mitment and the effect of commitment on engagement are both statistically signifi-
cant. However, which of these constructs precedes the other or whether both constructs
are reciprocally related has not yet been made empirically explicit. Therefore, it would
be more informative and effective for HRD professionals to utilize both frameworks
(i.e., Figures 1 and 2) with a holistic perspective. The findings also indicated that
engagement and commitment could be managed and enhanced by organizational
efforts (e.g., job resources and inclusive leadership as antecedents) and that such
results ultimately could produce desired organizational outcomes (e.g., lower turnover
intention and innovative work behavior). Given these conclusions, HRD professionals
are advised to pay more attention to diverse antecedent variables, presented in Figures
1 and 2, when designing relevant HR interventions to enhance work engagement and
organizational commitment of employees.
From a review of the literature, it appears that most of the antecedent variables
associated with the effects of engagement on commitment (see Figure 1) belong to job
resources (e.g., role clarity, autonomy, performance feedback, social support, and
career development) or job characteristics (e.g., task significance, autonomy, and task
identity). Both categories partly overlap in terms of their subfactors and their focus on
supporting individual employees’ job/work. Thus, if organizations hope to increase
employees’ engagement and commitment on the level of the individual, HRD profes-
sionals must pay more regard to several factors. Such factors include what job
resources and job characteristics the organization is able to provide and how the orga-
nization will adequately deliver these resources and characteristics when creating or
modifying HR interventions to enhance employees’ work engagement. For instance, if
an organization has a company-wide career development path system, HRD profes-
sionals could collaborate with managers and executives to provide individual employ-
ees with opportunities for their career development based on annual performance
feedback from their managers. HRD professionals could also offer in-house training
programs and/or half-day workshops so that supervisors might more effectively clarify
subordinate roles and provide social support and autonomy to subordinates using per-
formance feedback meetings.
Kim et al. 21

In addition, some antecedent variables such as inclusive leadership, interpersonal

leadership, and team culture focus on team-level interactions with leaders and other
employees. To this end, it is critical to consider how to build a supportive team culture
through fair interactions with leaders, especially through inclusive and interpersonal
leadership. Inclusive leadership refers to leaders’ openness, accessibility, and availability
when interacting with their followers (Choi et al., 2015). Interpersonal leadership is
comprised of transformational leadership and interactionally fair leadership (Hansen
et al., 2014). For HRD professionals in organizations seeking to enhance employee
engagement and commitment on the level of team interaction, it is crucial to establish an
interactive team climate with a midterm perspective and fair, open, and respectful lead-
ers who frequently interact with followers, sharing information and a common vision.
Some antecedents such as organizational culture, organizational procedural jus-
tice, and organizational politics primarily focus on organizational-level culture.
Positive organizational culture refers to “a culture of openness, fairness, and support”
(Albrecht, 2012, p. 845), and similarly, procedural justice is about fairness of pro-
cesses and means to allocate resources (Saks, 2006). Conversely, organizational poli-
tics refers to “phenomena in which organizational members attempt either directly or
indirectly to influence other members by means not sanctioned by formal standard . .
. or informal norms” (Karatepe, 2013). Taken together, it would be pivotal to estab-
lish an organizational climate with the goals of fair treatment and process and an
attitude of openness and support toward employees. If organizations support increas-
ing employees’ engagement and commitment at the level of organizational culture,
HRD professionals will need to take a long-term approach to build up a company-
wide culture based on openness and fairness. As an initial effort to do that, HRD
professionals should define and clarify what their organizational culture means and
why a positive organizational culture is important and beneficial to individuals,
teams, and the organization as a whole. HRD professionals must also put consider-
able effort into supporting the development of their designed organizational culture
and educating others on this culture using diverse HR interventions (e.g., sharing best
practices, on-/off-line messages from CEO/executives, culture-related posters, and
promotion material including short video clips). During this process, conveying these
messages to more employees and helping them to trust this organizational culture is
a vital part of encouraging employees to act as change agents and supporters, reflect-
ing a positive organizational culture in their own work.
Despite such OD efforts, if any forms of organizational politics exist, creating a fair
and supportive culture would quickly go down the drain. Hence, HRD professionals
should be watchful against any forms of organizational politics and make persistent
efforts to diminish the side effects of organizational politics with substantial support
from CEO/executives.

Conclusion
This literature review employed the holistic perspective of empirical research on the
relationship between work engagement and organizational commitment to examine
22 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

studies, identify relevant findings, assess strengths and weaknesses, and synthesize find-
ings into meaningful implications for HRD research and practice. Throughout the pro-
cess, this study identified what we know and what we need to explore further on the
topic. The reviewed studies showed that work engagement and organizational commit-
ment are distinct constructs. The studies also showed that the impacts of work engage-
ment on organizational commitment and of organizational commitment on work
engagement, associated with other antecedent and consequent variables, were statisti-
cally significant. However, as the reviewed studies mainly focused on the one-direc-
tional effect of the relationship between work engagement and organizational
commitment, the research is still not empirically clear on which construct precedes the
other or whether both constructs are reciprocally related in terms of the holistic
perspective.
The synthesis of reviewed studies on the relationship between work engagement
and organizational commitment yield relevant HRD implications for practice and
research. With regard to HRD practice, HRD professionals are encouraged to pay
more attention to diverse antecedent variables (e.g., job resources and team/organiza-
tional culture, see Figures 1 and 2) when designing and implementing relevant HR
interventions. Most antecedents including job resources and job characteristics tended
to focus on supporting individual employees’ job/work, whereas some antecedents are
related to either team-level interactions (e.g., inclusive and interpersonal leadership)
and/or organizational-level culture (e.g., organizational culture, procedural justice,
and organizational politics). Future HRD research could empirically validate the
frameworks suggested in Figures 1 and 2 and examine the reciprocal relationship
between engagement and commitment with a longitudinal research design. In addition
to quantitative approaches, future studies could also consider employing qualitative
approaches to obtain in-depth meanings and offer greater context on the engagement–
commitment relationship. Finally, future studies could further explore to link between
engagement and commitment by considering both individual- and organizational-level
variables.
Last, the current study only reviewed empirical studies on work engagement–orga-
nizational commitment relationship based on the purpose of the study and excluded
conceptual literature that might have been useful to the study. Thus, we suggest further
exploration on conceptual studies that can help us toward more holistic perspectives
about both work engagement and organizational commitment concepts.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by Korea University of
Technology and Education.
Kim et al. 23

References
Ahmed, K., & Ahmed, H. (2013). The mediating effect of organizational commitment on the
relationship between perceived organizational support and turnover intention. Journal of
Research in Social Sciences, 1, 33-66. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview
/1458618923?accountid=27772
Albdour, A. A., & Altarawneh, I. I. (2014). Employee engagement and organizational commit-
ment: Evidence from Jordan. International Journal of Business, 19, 192-212. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/openview/b894bb8913f8d8bbdb1fdf1a28d34146/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar
Albrecht, S. L. (2012). The influence of job, team and organizational level resources on
employee well-being, engagement, commitment and extra-role performance: Test of a
model. International Journal of Manpower, 33, 840-853. doi:10.1108/01437721211268357
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63,
1-18. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
Aydogdu, S., & Asikgil, B. (2011). An empirical study of the relationship among job satisfaction,
organizational commitment and turnover intention. International Review of Management
and Marketing, 1, 43-53.
Bae, B. R. (2014). Lisrel 9.1 structural equation modeling: Principles and practices. Seoul,
South Korea: Cheonglam.
Barnes, D. C., & Collier, J. E. (2013). Investigating work engagement in the service environ-
ment. Journal of Services Marketing, 27, 485-499. doi:10.1108/JSM-01-2012-0021
Bergman, M. E. (2006). The relationship between affective and normative commitment: Review
and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 645-663. doi:10.1002/
job.372
Callahan, J. L. (2010). Constructing a manuscript: Distinguishing integrative literature reviews
and conceptual and theory articles. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 300-304.
doi:10.1177/1534484310371492
Cantor, D. E., Morrow, P. C., & Montabon, F. (2012). Engagement in environmental
behaviors among supply chain management employees: An organizational support
theoretical perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48, 33-51. doi:10.1111/
j.1745-493X.2011.03257.x
Carasco-Saul, M., Kim, W., & Kim, T. (2015). Leadership and employee engagement: Proposing
research agendas through a review of literature. Human Resource Development Review, 14,
38-63. doi: 10.1177/1534484314560406
Chermack, T. J., & Passmore, D. L. (2005). Using journals and databases in research. In R. A.
Swanson & E. F. Holton (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of
inquiry (pp. 401-418). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Choi, S. B., Tran, T. B. H., & Park, B. I. (2015). Inclusive leadership and work engagement:
Mediating roles of affective organizational commitment and creativity. Social Behavior
and Personality, 43, 931-944. doi:10.2224/sbp.2015.43.6.931
Chughtai, A. A. (2013). Linking affective commitment to supervisor to work outcomes. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 28, 606-627. doi:10.1108/JMP-09-2011-0050
Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2008). The Oldenburg Burnout Inventory: A good alternative
to measure burnout and engagement. In J. R. B. Halbesleben (Ed.), Handbook of stress and
burnout in health care (pp. 1-25). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
24 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A thor-
ough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 15, 209-222. doi:10.1037/a0019408
Feldman, D. C. (2004). Multiple commitments in the work place: An integrative approach,
by Aaron Cohen. Academy of Management Review, 29, 514-516. doi:10.5465/AMR.2004.
13670956
Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The job demands-resources model: A
three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement.
Work & Stress, 22, 224-241. doi:10.1080/02678370802379432
Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same Same” but different? European Psychologist,
11, 119-127. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.119
Hansen, A., Byrne, Z., & Kiersch, C. (2014). How interpersonal leadership relates to employee
engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 953-972. doi:10.1109/JMP-11-2012-
0343
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.268
Hu, Q., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). Job insecurity and remuneration in Chinese family-
owned business workers. Career Development International, 16, 6-19. doi:10.1108/
13620431111107784
Huynh, J. Y., Metzer, J. C., & Winefield, A. H. (2012). Validation of the Four-Dimensional
Connectedness Scale in a multisample volunteer study: A distinct construct from work
engagement and organizational commitment. International Society for Third-Sector
Research, 23, 1056-1082. doi:10.1007/s11266-011-9259-4
Ibrahim, M., & Falasi, S. A. (2014). Employee loyalty and engagement in UAE public sector.
Employee Relations, 36, 562-582. doi:10.1108/ER-07-2013-0098
Jaros, S. J., Jermier, J. M., Koehler, J. W., & Sincich, T. (1993). Effects of continuance, affec-
tive, and moral commitment on the withdrawal process: An evaluation of eight structural
equation models. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 951-995. doi:10.2307/256642
Jeung, C. W. (2011). The concept of employee engagement: A comprehensive review from a
positive organizational behavior perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 24, 49-
69. doi:10.1002/piq.20110
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement
at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724. Retrieved from http://ezaccess.
libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docvie
w/199783385?accountid=13158
Kanste, O. (2011). Work engagement, work commitment and their association with well-being
in health care. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 25, 754-761. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
6712.2011.00888.x
Karatepe, O. M. (2013). Perceptions of organizational politics and hotel employee outcomes:
The mediating role of work engagement. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 25, 82-104. doi:10.1108/09596111311290237
Kim, W., Khan, G. F., Wood, J., & Mahmood, M. T. (2016). Employee engagement for sustain-
able organizations: Keyword analysis using social network analysis and burst detection
approach. Sustainability, 8, 631-642. doi:10.3390/su8070631
Kim, W., Kolb, J. A., & Kim, T. (2013). The relationship between work engagement and perfor-
mance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource
Development Review, 12, 248-276. doi: 10.1177/1534484312461635
Kim et al. 25

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lee, Y., Kwon, K., Kim, W., & Cho, D. (2016). Work engagement and career: Proposing
research agenda through a review of literature. Human Resource Development Review, 15,
29-54. doi:10.1177/1534484316628356
Ling, W. Q., Zhang, Z. C., & Fang, L. L. (2000). Research on the structural model of Chinese
employees’ organizational commitment. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 3, 76-
81. (in Chinese)
Llorens, S., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2006). Testing the robustness of the
job demands–resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 378-391.
doi:10.1037/1072-5245.13.3.378
Mayer, R. C., & Schoorman, F. D. (1992). Predicting participation and production outcomes
through a two-dimensional model of organizational commitment. Academy of Management
Journal, 35, 671-684. doi:10.2307/256492
Mercurio, Z. A. (2015). Affective commitment as a core essence of organizational commit-
ment: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 14, 389-
414. doi:10.1177/1534484315603612
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commit-
ment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89. doi:10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and appli-
cation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781452231556
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace toward a general model.
Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(00)00053-X
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organiza-
tional commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247. doi:10.1016/0001-
8791(79)90072-1
Newman, D. A., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Been there, bottled that: Are state and behavioral
work engagement new and useful construct “Wines”? Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 1, 31-35. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00003.x
Parzefall, M. R., & Hakanen, J. (2010). Psychological contract and its motivational and
health-enhancing properties. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 4-21. doi:10.1108/
02683941011013849
Plewa, C., & Quester, P. (2008). Dyadic study of “Champions” in university-industry rela-
tionships. Asia-Australia Marketing Journal and Logistics, 20, 211-226. doi:10.1108/
13555850810864560
Poon, J. M. L. (2013). Relationships among perceived career support, affective commitment,
and work engagement. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 1148-1155. doi:10.1080/
00207594.2013.768768
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40,
879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and
effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617-635. doi:10.5465/
AMJ.2010.51468988
Richardsen, A. M., Burke, R. J., & Martinussen, M. (2006). Work and health outcomes among
police officers: The mediating role of police cynicism and engagement. International
Journal of Stress Management, 13, 555-574. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.13.4.555
26 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

Rivkin, W., Diestel, S., & Schmidt, K. H. (2016). Which daily experiences can foster well-
being at work? A diary study on the interplay between flow experiences, affective com-
mitment, and self-control demands. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 1-13.
doi:10.1037/ocp0000039
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-619. doi:10.1108/02683940610690169
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement?
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 155-182. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21187
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engage-
ment with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66, 701-716. doi:10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2011). Work engagement: On how to better catch a slippery
concept. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 39-46. doi:10.10
80/1359432X.2010.515981
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement
of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92. doi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foun-
dations. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 89-110. doi:10.1177/1534484309353560
Soane, E., Truss, K., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2012). Development
and application of a new measure of employee engagement: The ISA Engagement Scale.
Human Resource Development International, 15, 529-547. doi:10.1080/13678868.2012.7
26542
Swanson, B. L., Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1997). Qualitative research methods. In R. A.
Swanson & E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Human resource development research handbook (pp.
88-113). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human
Resource Development Review, 4, 356-367. doi:10.1177/1534484305278283
Vance, R. J. (2006). Employee engagement and commitment: A guide to understanding, mea-
suring, increasing engagement in your organization. Alexandria, VA: SHRM Foundation.
Zhang, J. C., Ling, W. Q., Zhang, Z. Y., & Xie, J. (2015). Organizational commitment, work
engagement, person–supervisor fit, and turnover intention: A total effect moderation
model. Social Behavior and Personality, 43, 1657-1666. doi:10.2224/sbp.2015.43.10.1657

Author Biographies
Woocheol Kim (PhD) is an assistant professor in the Department of Human Resource
Development and the Graduate School of HRD, Korea University of Technology and Education
(KOREATECH). His research interests include positive change, work/employee engagement,
sustainability, performance improvement, leadership, and career development in organizations.
Jiyoung Kim is a doctoral student in the Graduate School of HRD, Korea University of
Technology and Education (KOREATECH). Her research interests include positive change,
work/employee engagement, personal traits, and training and development in organizations.
Heajung Woo is a doctoral student in the Graduate School of Human Resource Development,
Korea University of Technology and Education (KOREATECH). Her research interests include
vocational training, job competency, workplace learning, and learning transfer.
Kim et al. 27

Jiwon Park is a PhD candidate of Workforce Education and Development with emphasis on
HRD/OD at the Pennsylvania State University. Her research interests include employee engage-
ment, leadership development of managers and women, and organization development.
Junghyun Jo is a graduate student in the Graduate School of HRD, Korea University of
Technology and Education (KOREATECH). She is also working in the Corporate Culture
Transformation Team, Department of Human Resource Development, LG Chem. Her research
interests include positive change, work engagement, career development, and job competency
development.
Sang-Hoon Park is a graduate student in the Graduate School of HRD, Korea University of
Technology and Education (KOREATECH). His research interests include vocational educa-
tion, leadership, career development in organizations, and educational policy.
Se Yung Lim (PhD) is a professor in the Department of Human Resource Development and the
Graduate School of HRD, Korea University of Technology and Education (KOREATECH). His
research interests include vocational identity development, expertise development, work/
employee engagement and work integrated learning.