The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2051-6614.htm

Employee
Antecedents and consequences of engagement
employee engagement revisited revisited
Alan M. Saks
Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
19

Abstract
Purpose – In 2006, Saks (2006) published one of the first empirical studies of the antecedents and
consequences of employee engagement. Since then dozens of studies on engagement have been published and
most of them have used the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) to measure work engagement.
The purpose of this paper is to revisit Saks (2006) to try and address some issues that have arisen during the
last ten years and to assess the generalizability of his findings and model using the UWES measure of work
engagement and single-item measures of job and organization engagement.
Design/methodology/approach – Additional analyses was conducted using the data from Saks (2006)
including measures of each job characteristic, the use of the UWES measure of work engagement, and
single-item general measures of job engagement and organization engagement. In addition, a review of
engagement research was conducted as well as research that used Saks’ (2006) measures of job engagement
and organization engagement.
Findings – The results indicate that skill variety is the main job characteristic that predicts job engagement.
The results of the analysis using the UWES measure of work engagement found that job characteristics and
perceived organizational support are significant predictors of work engagement, and work engagement
predicts job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior and intentions to
quit and mediates the relationship between the antecedents and the consequences. Similar results were found
using the single-item measures of job engagement and organization engagement. A review of the engagement
literature indicates general support for the Saks (2006) model of the antecedents and consequences of
employee engagement and for his measures of job and organization engagement. A revised and updated
model is provided with additional antecedents and consequences.
Practical implications – The results indicate that organizations can drive employee engagement by focusing
on skill variety as well as providing social support, rewards and recognition, procedural and distributive
fairness, and opportunities for learning and development. In addition, organizations can assess employee
engagement more frequently and easily by using single-item measures of job and organization engagement.
Originality/value – This paper provides an update and revision of the Saks (2006) model of employee
engagement and suggests that the main findings are similar when using the UWES measure of work
engagement and single-item general measures of job engagement and organization engagement.
Keywords Job characteristics, Job engagement, Antecedents, Organization engagement
Paper type Research paper

For over ten years, employee engagement has been at the forefront of management research
and practice. Besides the ever growing number of published studies, there are now
numerous books on engagement (e.g. Albrecht, 2010), special journal issues devoted to
engagement (e.g. Shantz, 2017), review articles (e.g. Saks and Gruman, 2014) and even
several meta-analyses (e.g. Christian et al., 2011; Halbesleben, 2010). As a result, much has
been learned about employee engagement and it continues to be of considerable interest to
practitioners, consultants, researchers, and organizations especially given its potential to
contribute to an organization’s competitive advantage, and reports of low levels of employee
engagement across the globe (Albrecht et al., 2015).
In 2006, Saks (2006) proposed and tested one of the first models of employee engagement.
The article has been recognized as one of the first empirical studies to examine the Journal of Organizational
Effectiveness: People and
antecedents and consequences of employee engagement (Farndale et al., 2014; Shuck, 2011) Performance
and continues to be frequently cited in the engagement literature. Vol. 6 No. 1, 2019
pp. 19-38
However, given the many studies that have been published in the last decade, it is not © Emerald Publishing Limited
2051-6614
clear if the Saks (2006) model and findings are still valid given that most studies have used DOI 10.1108/JOEPP-06-2018-0034
JOEPP different measures of employee engagement, and most have used the Utrecht Work
6,1 Engagement Scale (UWES) (Guest, 2014).
The purpose of this paper is to revisit Saks (2006) in an attempt to shed some light on the
validity and generalizability of his model and findings, and to also address a number of
issues that have arisen since the article was published. To that end, additional analyses is
conducted to determine what job characteristics best predict job engagement, whether the
20 results are similar when using the UWES measure of work engagement, and to assess the
usefulness and validity of single-item measures of job engagement and organization
engagement. In addition, a review of engagement research is conducted to assess the
validity of the Saks (2006) model and the use of Saks’ (2006) measures of job engagement
and organization engagement.

Saks (2006)
Employee engagement has been primarily linked to Kahn’s (1990) research on personal
engagement and Schaufeli et al.’s (2002) research on work engagement. Kahn (1990) defined
personal engagement as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work
roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and
emotionally during role performances” (p. 694). In contrast, personal disengagement
involves “the uncoupling of selves from work roles; in disengagement, people withdraw and
defend themselves physically, cognitively, or emotionally during role performances” (p. 694).
Schaufeli et al. (2002) define engagement “as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of
mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p. 74). Vigor involves high
levels of energy and mental resilience while working; dedication refers to being strongly
involved in one’s work and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, and challenge;
and absorption refers to being fully concentrated and engrossed in one’s work.
Extending these two definitions of engagement, Saks (2006) made a distinction between
job engagement and organization engagement noting that engagement is specific to the role
an individual is performing and that most employees have at least two main roles - their
work role and their role as a member of their organization. He reasoned that the two most
important roles performed by most organizational members are one’s role in their job and
one’s role as a member of their organization. Several writers have referred to this approach
to employee engagement as multidimensional (Anthony-McMann et al., 2017; Bailey et al.,
2017; Shuck, 2011). Thus, the purpose of the Saks (2006) study was to investigate the
antecedents and consequences of job engagement and organization engagement.
As shown in Figure 1, Saks (2006) predicted that a number of antecedents (job
characteristics, rewards and recognition, perceived organizational support (POS), perceived
supervisor support (PSS), perceptions of distributive justice and perceptions of procedural
justice) predict job and organization engagement; job and organization engagement predict
a number of consequences (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational
citizenship behavior directed to the individual (OCBI) and the organization (OCBO), and
intention to quit); and job and organization engagement mediate the relationships between
the antecedents and the consequences.

Antecedents
Consequences
Figure 1. Job characteristics Employee Engagement
Perceived organizational support Job satisfaction
Saks (2006) model of Perceived supervisor support Job engagement Organizational commitment
the antecedents and Rewards and recognition Organization engagement Intention to quit
consequences of Procedural justice Organizational citizenship
employee engagement Distributive justice behavior
The theoretical basis for the model is social exchange theory (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Employee
According to Saks (2006), employees decide how much they will engage themselves in their job engagement
and organization based on the resources they receive from their organization. The antecedents in revisited
the model are considered to be resources and when employees receive them they will respond
with greater levels of engagement. According to Saks (2006), “employees feel obliged to bring
themselves more deeply into their role performances as repayment for the resources they receive
from their organization” and “the amount of cognitive, emotional, and physical resources that an 21
individual is prepared to devote in the performance of one’s role is contingent on the economic
and socioemotional resources received from the organization” (p. 603).
To test the model, Saks (2006) conducted a cross-sectional study of 102 employees
working in a variety of jobs and organizations. With respect to the antecedents, Saks (2006)
found that all of them were significantly positively correlated with job engagement and
organization engagement. The results of multiple regression analyses indicated that the
antecedent variables explained a significant amount of the variance in job engagement and
organization engagement. POS was the only antecedent that was a significant predictor of
both job engagement and organization engagement. In addition, job characteristics were a
significant predictor of job engagement and procedural justice was a marginally significant
predictor of organization engagement.
For the consequences, the results of multiple regression analyses indicated that job and
organization engagement explained a significant amount of the variance in job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, OCBI, OCBO and intention to quit. Both job engagement
and organization engagement were significant predictors of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, OCBO and intention to quit. However, job engagement was not a significant
predictor of OCBI and organization engagement approached significance.
Finally, the tests for mediation indicated that job and organization engagement fully
mediated the relationships for organizational commitment, OCBI, and intention to quit, and
partially mediated the relationships for job satisfaction and OCBO.
In summary, Saks (2006) found that several antecedent variables predicted job
engagement and organization engagement, job and organization engagement predicted a
number of consequences, and job and organization engagement mediated the relationships
between the antecedents and the consequences.

The present study

The purpose of the present study is to address a number of issues and questions that have arisen
since the Saks (2006) study was published and to determine if the results of his study are still
valid and generalizable in light of the fact that most studies have used the UWES measure of
work engagement. Specifically, there are five research questions that this study aims to answer.
First, while Saks (2006) found that job characteristics were positively related to job
engagement, because the job characteristics scale used by Saks (2006) combined six job
characteristics into one measure (autonomy, task identity, skill variety, task significance,
feedback from others and feedback from the job), it is not known which job characteristics are
most important for and the best predictors of job engagement. Although job characteristics
such as feedback, skill variety and autonomy have been found to be positively related to work
engagement (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008), many studies have only tested one or two job
characteristics (e.g. autonomy, performance feedback) along with other job resources (e.g.
social support) (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007, 2009a, b). As a result, it
is not known what job characteristics best predict job engagement.
Second, most research on employee engagement has used the UWES measure of work
engagement which is the most popular measure of engagement and has dominated the field
(Byrne et al., 2016). According to a recent review of engagement research, 86 percent of the
studies used the UWES (Bailey et al., 2017). This makes it difficult to compare the results of
JOEPP Saks (2006) to other studies of engagement and raises questions about the validity and
6,1 generalizability of his model and findings. As a result, it is not known to what extent the
results of Saks (2006) are similar to and generalize to studies that have used the UWES to
measure work engagement.
Third, Saks (2006) designed two scales to measure job engagement and organization
engagement. One of the items in each scale is a general item that simply asks respondents if
22 they are highly engaged in their job (I am highly engaged in this job) and organization (I am
highly engaged in this organization). Given the potential practical and research usefulness
of single-item measures of psychological constructs (Wanous and Hudy, 2001; Wanous et al.,
1997), and the desire for shorter measures of engagement (Schaufeli et al., in press), it is
worthwhile to know if these single item measures operate similarly to the complete scales.
Fourth, given the many studies published since Saks (2006), it is now possible to evaluate
his model against the existing research. In particular, to what extent have the antecedents of
his model been found to predict engagement, has engagement been found to predict the
consequences in his model, and does engagement mediate relationships between
antecedents and consequences?
Fifth, Saks (2006) developed a measure of job engagement and a measure of organization
engagement to correspond with one’s job and organization in line with Kahn’s (1990) notion
that engagement is role specific and reflects the extent to which an individual is engaged in
the performance of a particular role. However, given that most research has used the UWES
measure of work engagement, we know very little about the use and validity of these
measures, and if research that has used these measures has resulted in findings that are
similar to research that has used the UWES measure of work engagement.
In summary, the purpose of this paper is to revisit Saks (2006) and try to answer the
following five research questions:
RQ1. What job characteristics predict job engagement?
RQ2. Do the results of Saks (2006) generalize to the UWES measure of work engagement?
RQ3. Do the single-item measures of job and organization engagement operate similarly
to the complete scales?
RQ4. Do the results of engagement research support the Saks (2006) model of the
antecedents and consequences of employee engagement?
RQ5. Are the results of engagement research that used the Saks (2006) measures
of job engagement and organization engagement consistent with engagement
research findings?

Method
Participants and procedure
The participants in Saks (2006) were 102 employees working in a variety of jobs and
organizations. The average age was 34; 60 percent were female; average job tenure was four
years; average organization tenure was five years; and average work experience was
12 years. Saks (2006) collected the data from 24 students enrolled in a graduate course in
research methods at a large Canadian University. Each student distributed the survey to
five currently employed individuals. Participants returned their survey in a sealed envelope;
102 surveys were returned representing a response rate of 85 percent.
Saks (2006) designed two six-item scales to measure job engagement and organization
engagement. Participants responded to the 12 items using a five-point scale with anchors (1)
strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. A principal components factor analysis resulted in
two factors corresponding to job engagement (five items, α ¼ 0.82) and organization
engagement (six items, α ¼ 0.90). The UWES was not included in Saks (2006), however, Employee
participants completed the 17-item scale developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002) as part of the engagement
data collection for the study. Reliabilities are as follows: UWES 17-items (α ¼ 0.93), vigor revisited
(α ¼ 0.80), dedication (α ¼ 0.89) and absorption (α ¼ 0.84). Information on the measurement
of the antecedents and consequences can be found in Saks (2006).

Results
To address the first three research questions (job characteristics, the UWES measure of
23
work engagement, and single-item engagement measures) additional analyses using data
from Saks (2006) was performed. A review of the employee engagement literature was
conducted to address RQ4 and RQ5 (support for the model and the use of job and
organization engagement measures).
RQ1. What job characteristics predict job engagement?
To test the relationships between the job characteristics and job engagement, correlation
and multiple regression analyses were conducted using the six items for each job
characteristic. First, as shown in Table I, the results of the correlational analyses indicate
that the six job characteristics are moderately intercorrelated and significantly positively
correlated to job engagement. Of the six job characteristics, skill variety is the most strongly
correlated to job engagement (r ¼ 0.43, p o0.001).
To determine which job characteristics best predict job engagement, multiple regression
analyses was conducted in which all six job characteristics were entered into the regression
along with the other antecedents in the model. As shown in Table II, the antecedents explained
a significant amount of the variance in job engagement (R2 ¼ 0.33, po0.001). Among the
antecedents, POS (0.37, po0.01) and skill variety (0.28, po0.05) were significant.
To further investigate the relationship between each job characteristic and job
engagement, a second regression analysis was conducted with job engagement regressed on
just the six job characteristics. As shown in Table II, the job characteristics explained a
significant amount of the variance in job engagement (R2 ¼ 0.26, p o0.001) and as with the
previous regression analysis in which all of the antecedents were included, only skill variety
was significant (0.29, p o0.05).
Thus, both regression analyses indicate that skill variety replaced job characteristics as a
significant predictor of job engagement. These findings indicate that the significant effect of
job characteristics on job engagement reported by Saks (2006) was due to skill variety.
RQ2. Do the results of Saks (2006) generalize to the UWES measure of work engagement?
To assess the extent to which the results of Saks (2006) generalize to the UWES measure of
work engagement, regression analyses for the antecedents and consequences as well as
mediation were replicated using the UWES instead of Saks’ (2006) measures of job and
organization engagement.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Skill variety –
2. Task significance 0.48** –
3. Task identity 0.44** 0.55** –
4. Autonomy 0.59** 0.48** 0.47** –
5. Feedback from the job 0.36** 0.42** 0.40** 0.30** – Table I.
6. Feedback from others 0.24* 0.30** 0.23* 0.06 0.37** – Intercorrelations of
7. Job engagement 0.43** 0.37** 0.35** 0.25** 0.33** 0.28** – job characteristics and
Notes: *p o0.05; **p o 0.01 job engagement
JOEPP Variables Job engagement
6,1
Skill variety 0.28* 0.29*
Task significance 0.07 0.11
Task identity 0.13 0.12
Autonomy −0.14 −0.07
Feedback from the job 0.12 0.11
24 Feedback from others 0.01 0.11
Perceived organizational support 0.37**
Perceived supervisor support −0.03
Rewards and recognition −0.07
Table II.
Procedural justice 0.06
Multiple regression
analyses of job Distributive justice −0.07
2
characteristics R 0.33 0.26
predicting job F 3.93*** 5.47***
engagement Notes: Values in table are standardized β coefficients. *p o0.10; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001

Antecedents of work engagement

Multiple regression analyses was conducted in which the UWES was regressed
simultaneously on the six antecedent variables. As shown in Table III, the antecedent
variables explained a significant amount of the variance in work engagement (R2 ¼ 0.46,
p o0.001). In terms of the specific antecedents, job characteristics (0.45, p o0.001) and POS
(0.37, po 0.01) were significant.
To better understand the relationships between the antecedents and each dimension of
the UWES, additional multiple regression analyses were conducted in which each dimension
of the UWES (absorption, vigor and dedication) was regressed simultaneously on the six
antecedent variables. The results indicated that the antecedents explained a significant
amount of the variance in absorption (R2 ¼ 0.31, p o0.001), vigor (R2 ¼ 0.37, p o0.001), and
dedication (R2 ¼ 0.53, p o0.001). With respect to the specific antecedents, job characteristics
(0.43, p o0.001) and POS (0.28, p o0.05) predicted absorption; job characteristics (0.30,
p o0.01), POS (0.36, po 0.01) and procedural justice (0.24, p o0.05) predicted vigor; and job
characteristics (0.51, p o0.001) and POS (0.38, po 0.001) predicted dedication.

Consequences of work engagement

To examine the relationship between work engagement and the consequences, multiple
regression analyses were conducted in which each of the consequences was regressed on the
three dimensions of the UWES (absorption, vigor, dedication).
As shown in Table IV, the UWES explained a significant amount of the variance in job
satisfaction (R2 ¼ 0.47, p o0.001), organizational commitment (R2 ¼ 0.57, p o 0.001),

Variables Job engagement Organization engagement Work engagement

Job characteristics 0.37*** 0.12 0.45***

Perceived organizational support 0.36** 0.57*** 0.37**
Perceived supervisor support −0.05 −0.03 −0.10
Rewards and recognition −0.03 −0.13 −0.02
Procedural justice 0.01 0.18* 0.13
Table III.
Multiple regression Distributive justice −0.06 −0.05 −0.06
analyses predicting R2 0.30 0.39 0.46
job, organization, and F 6.55*** 9.74*** 12.92***
work engagement Notes: Values in table are standardized β coefficients. *p o0.10; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001
intention to quit (R2 ¼ 0.41, p o0.001), OCBI (R2 ¼ 0.08, p o0.05) and OCBO (R2 ¼ 0.24, Employee
p o0.001). With respect to each dimension, vigor predicted job satisfaction (0.27, p o0.05) engagement
and approached significance for organizational commitment (0.23, p ¼ 0.06); dedication revisited
predicted job satisfaction (0.51, po 0.001), organizational commitment (0.56, p o0.001),
intention to quit (−0.55, p o0.001), and OCBO (0.43, p o0.01); absorption was not a
significant predictor of any of the outcomes and none of the UWES dimensions predicted
OCBI although the variance explained by all three dimensions was significant. 25
Mediating effects of work engagement
To test for the mediation effects of work engagement, multiple regression analyses was
conducted in which the consequences were regressed on the antecedents with work
engagement controlled. When the three dimensions of the UWES were controlled, the
antecedent variables explained less variance in job satisfaction (12 percent from 42 percent),
organizational commitment (4 percent from 35 percent and not significant), intention to quit
(3 percent from 24 percent and not significant), OCBI (6 percent from 12 percent and not
significant) and OCBO (9 percent from 31 percent and only marginally significant, p o0.10).
Thus, work engagement either partially or fully mediated the relationships between the
antecedent variables and the consequences.
RQ3. Do the single-item measures of job and organization engagement operate similarly
to the complete scales?
To assess the single-item measures of job and organization engagement, correlation and
regression analyses were conducted as well as a paired-samples t-test. With respect to the
correlations, the single-items of job engagement and organization engagement were
similarly moderately correlated (r ¼ 0.58, p o0.001) as was the case for the complete scales
(r ¼ 0.62, p o0.001). In addition, a paired-samples t-test indicates a significant difference
between job engagement and organization engagement, t (101) ¼ 4.26, p o0.001. As was the
case for the complete scales, the mean for the single-item measure of job engagement
(M ¼ 3.35) was significantly higher than the mean for the single-item measure of
organization engagement (M ¼ 2.93).
To assess the usefulness and validity of the single-item measures of job and organization
engagement, multiple regression analyses was repeated using these items instead of the
complete job and organization engagement scales. As shown in Table V, the antecedents
explained a significant amount of the variance in job engagement (R2 ¼ 0.25, p o0.001) and
organization engagement (R2 ¼ 0.28, p o0.001). POS (0.41, p o0.01) and job characteristics
(0.28, p o0.01) predicted job engagement, and POS predicted organization engagement
(0.43, p o0.01).
In addition and as shown in Table VI, job and organization engagement explained a
significant amount of the variance in job satisfaction (R2 ¼ 0.51, p o0.001), organizational

Organizational
Job Organizational Intention citizenship behavior- Organizational citizenship
satisfaction commitment to quit individual behavior-organization

Vigor 0.27* 0.23**** −0.14 0.16 0.10

Table IV.
Dedication 0.51*** 0.56*** −0.55*** 0.16 0.43**
Multiple regression
Absorption −0.08 0.00 0.03 −0.02 −0.03 analyses of work
R2 0.47 0.57 0.41 0.08 0.24 engagement
F 28.63*** 42.43*** 22.29*** 2.75* 10.34*** predicting
Notes: Values in table are standardized β coefficients. *p o 0.05; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001; ****p o0.10 consequences
JOEPP commitment (R2 ¼ 0.42, p o0.001), intention to quit (R2 ¼ 0.31, p o0.001), and OCBO
6,1 (R2 ¼ 0.16, po 0.001) and approached significance for OCBI (R2 ¼ 0.06, p ¼ 0.06). Job
engagement predicted job satisfaction (0.52, p o0.001), organizational commitment (0.29,
p o0.01) and intention to quit (−0.45, p o0.001), and organization engagement predicted job
satisfaction (0.27, p o0.01), organizational commitment (0.44, p o0.001), OCBI (0.27,
p o0.05) and OCBO (0.27, po0.05).
26 Finally, with job and organization engagement controlled, the antecedents explained less
variance in job satisfaction (14 percent from 42 percent), organizational commitment
(9 percent from 35 percent), intention to quit (6 percent from 24 percent and no longer
significant), OCBI (9 percent from 12 percent and no longer significant) and OCBO
(17 percent from 31 percent). Thus, as with the complete scales, the single-item measures either
partially or fully mediated the relationships between the antecedents and the consequences.
RQ4. Do the results of engagement research support the Saks (2006) model of the
antecedents and consequences of employee engagement?
In the last ten years, dozens of studies have tested relationships between antecedents and
consequences of employee engagement. Thus, a key question is whether the findings from
these studies support the Saks (2006) model especially in light of the fact that most studies
used the UWES measure of work engagement.
With respect to the antecedents of engagement, many studies have found job
characteristics such as autonomy, skill variety and performance feedback to be positively
related to work engagement (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008). Indeed, Bailey et al. (2017) found
that of those studies that have examined the antecedents of engagement, most focused on
aspects of job design.
May et al. (2004) found that a measure of job enrichment that consisted of the five core job
characteristics of the job characteristics model (skill variety, task identity, task significance,

Variables Job engagement Organization engagement

Job characteristics 0.28* 0.10

Perceived organizational support 0.41* 43*
Table V. Perceived supervisor support −0.05 −0.03
Multiple regression Rewards and recognition −0.08 −0.13
analyses of
Procedural justice −0.02 0.13
antecedents predicting
single-item measures Distributive justice −0.02 0.09
2
of job and R 0.25 0.28
organization F 5.26** 6.14**
engagement Notes: Values in table are standardized β coefficients. *p o0.01; **p o0.001

Organizational Organizational
citizenship citizenship
Job Organizational Intention behavior- behavior-
Table VI.
satisfaction commitment to quit individual organization
Multiple regression
analyses of single-item
Job engagement 0.52*** 0.29** −0.45*** −0.06 0.18
measures of job and
organization Organization engagement 0.27** 0.44*** −0.16 0.27* 0.27*
engagement R2 0.51 0.42 0.31 0.06 0.16
predicting F 51.26*** 36.42*** 22.55*** 2.90**** 9.31***
consequences Notes: Values in table are standardized β coefficients. *p o0.05; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001; ****po 0.10
autonomy and feedback) was positively related to engagement through psychological Employee
meaningfulness. Christian et al. (2011) found that autonomy, task variety, and task engagement
significance were positively related to engagement. revisited
In their meta-analysis, Crawford et al. (2010) found that nine different types of resources
were related to engagement including three from the Saks (2006) model: job characteristics
(autonomy, feedback, job variety), organizational, supervisor, and co-worker social support,
and rewards and recognition. 27
Social support and supportiveness have consistently been found to predict engagement.
For example, May et al. (2004) found that supportive supervisor relations and supportive
co-worker relations were related to engagement through psychological safety. Rich et al.
(2010) found that POS predicted job engagement. Byrne et al. (2016) found that both PSS and
POS were positively related to engagement. Zhong et al. (2016) found that POS
was positively related to job engagement and mediated the relationship between
high-performance human resource (HR) practices and job engagement.
Finally, in a study on justice and job engagement, Haynie et al. (2016) found that
distributive justice but not procedural justice was significantly positively related to job
engagement. However, procedural justice was related to job engagement when perceptions
of senior management trust were high. In other words, senior management trust perceptions
moderated the relationship between procedural justice perceptions and job engagement.
While all of the antecedents in the Saks (2006) model have been found to be positively
related to employee engagement in at least one study, research has found that there are
many other antecedents of engagement such as job demands, dispositions, personal
resources, opportunities for learning and development, and various forms of leadership.
For example, Christian et al. (2011) found that problem solving, job complexity,
transformational leadership, and leader-member exchange were positively related to
engagement while physical demands and work conditions (e.g. health hazards) were
negatively related. Crawford et al. (2010) found that opportunities for development, positive
workplace climate, and recovery time were positively related to engagement. They also
found that challenge demands (job responsibility, time urgency and workload) were
positively related to engagement while hindrance demands (administrative hassles,
emotional conflict, organizational politics, resource inadequacies, role conflict, and role
overload) were negatively related to engagement.
Among these antecedents, a number of them have been shown to be consistently related
to engagement. For example, several studies have found leadership to be an important
antecedent of engagement, especially positive types of leadership such as transformational
leadership, authentic leadership and ethical leadership (Breevaart et al., 2016; Carasco-Saul
et al., 2015). Vincent-Hoper et al. (2012) found that transformational leadership was
positively related to work engagement, and work engagement mediated the relationship
between transformational leadership and subjective occupational success.
Opportunities for learning and development have also consistently been found to be
positively related to engagement. Bakker and Bal (2010) found that opportunities for
development predicted work engagement, and Eldor and Harpaz (2016) found that
opportunities for learning via a positive learning climate promotes employee engagement. In
a study on care givers in long-term care facilities, learning opportunities was the strongest
predictor of engagement (Sarti, 2014). Thus, opportunities for learning and development
have been identified as an important job resource for facilitating engagement (Bakker and
Xanthopoulou, 2013).
Perceptions of fit and perceived value-congruence have also been found to be positively
related to engagement (Crawford et al., 2010; May et al., 2004; Rich et al., 2010; Saks and
Gruman, 2011). In addition, dispositional characteristics such as conscientiousness, positive
affect, proactive personality and core self-evaluations (Christian et al., 2011; Rich et al., 2010;
JOEPP Young et al., 2018) as well as personal resources such as self-efficacy, optimism and
6,1 resilience have also been shown to be positively related to work engagement (Bakker and
Demerouti, 2008; Bakker et al., 2014; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007, 2009a, b).
With respect to the consequences of engagement, all of the consequences examined by
Saks (2006) (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, OCB and intention to quit) have
been found to be predicted by engagement (Bailey et al., 2017; Halbesleben, 2010).
28 In addition, engagement has been shown to predict a number of other consequences,
particularly job/task/in-role performance, and extra-role or contextual performance (Bakker
and Bal, 2010; Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Bakker et al., 2012; Byrne et al., 2016; Christian
et al., 2011; Eldor and Harpaz, 2016; Halbesleben, 2010; Mackay et al., 2017; Reijseger et al.,
2017; Rich et al., 2010) as well as health-related outcomes such as general/psychological
health, physical strains, perceived stress, burnout and life satisfaction (Bailey et al., 2017;
Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Byrne et al., 2016; Halbesleben, 2010).
Finally, many studies have found support for a mediating effect of employee engagement
for the relationship between various antecedents and consequences. For example,
Christian et al. (2011) found that work engagement mediated the relationship between
several antecedents (job characteristics, transformational leadership, conscientiousness,
positive affect) and task and contextual performance. Rich et al. (2010) found that job
engagement fully explained the relationship between three antecedents (value congruence,
POS and core self-evaluations) and task performance and organizational citizenship behavior.
Haynie et al. (2016) found that job engagement mediated the relationship between justice
perceptions and task performance, OCB and job satisfaction. Eldor and Harpaz (2016) found
that engagement mediates the relationship between perceived learning climate and
several extra-role behaviors (e.g. creativity). Finally, Byrne et al. (2016) reported a number of
mediating relationships between various antecedents (e.g. POS) and consequences
(e.g. job performance).
In summary, although all of the antecedent variables in the Saks (2006) model have
received some support particularly job characteristics and social support which have received
the most research attention, many other antecedents have also been found to predict
engagement especially job demands, opportunities for learning and development, fit
perceptions, dispositional factors and personal resources, and leadership. Similarly, the
relationships between engagement and all of the consequences in the Saks (2006) model have
been supported, and engagement has also been found to predict performance and employee
health and well-being outcomes. Finally, employee engagement has frequently been found to
mediate relationships between a variety of antecedents and various consequences.
RQ5. Are the results of engagement research that used the Saks (2006) measures
of job engagement and organization engagement consistent with engagement
research findings?
To date, eight published studies have used Saks’ (2006) measures of job engagement and/
or organization engagement. Two studies used the measure of job engagement. Anaza
and Rutherford (2012a) found that employee-customer identification and customer
orientation were positively related to job engagement, and customer orientation mediated
the relationship between employee-customer identification and job engagement. In
addition, organizational identification was indirectly related to job engagement through
customer orientation.
In a related study, Anaza and Rutherford (2012b) tested a model in which internal
marketing and job satisfaction predicts employee patronage, and employee patronage and job
satisfaction predicts job engagement. While they found support for this model, it is worth
noting that the measure of internal marketing was a composite variable that consisted of
measures of empowerment, remuneration, recognition, training and development, and internal
communication. In addition, measures of POS and PSS were included as controls. The Employee
relationship between these variables and job engagement were all positive and significant engagement
except for remuneration. revisited
Four studies used the measure of organization engagement. Malinen et al. (2013) tested a
model with several antecedents (trust in senior management, distributive justice, procedural
justice), organization engagement and intention to quit. The results of this longitudinal
study indicated that trust in senior management and procedural justice perceptions were 29
positively related to organization engagement, and organization engagement partially
mediated the relationship between trust in senior management and procedural justice with
intention to quit.
Juhdi et al. (2013) investigated the effects of HR practices (career management, person-job
fit, compensation, performance appraisal and job control) on organization engagement and
the extent to which organization engagement mediated the effects of HR practices on
turnover intention. The results indicated that the HR practices explained a significant
amount of the variance in organization engagement, and all of the HR practices were
significant. In addition, organization engagement partially mediated the relationship
between HR practices and turnover intention.
Mahon et al. (2014) tested a model of the antecedents of organization engagement. They
found that shared personal vision, shared positive mood, and POS were positively related to
organization engagement. In addition, the relationships for shared personal vision and POS
were moderated by emotional intelligence (EI) such that the positive relationships with
organization engagement were stronger for participants with higher EI.
Farndale et al. (2014) measured organization engagement using three items from Saks
(2006) and two additional items. They investigated the extent to which organization
engagement and work engagement (measured by the UWES) predict work outcomes and
perceived organizational performance. They found that both work and organization
engagement were significantly related to affective commitment, active learning, initiative,
OCBO and perceived organizational performance. Organization engagement was also
positively related to job satisfaction. More importantly, work engagement was more
strongly related to and a better predictor of active learning and initiative, while organization
engagement was more strongly related to and a better predictor of affective commitment
and job satisfaction. Farndale et al. (2014) concluded that while work and organization
engagement are related, they are “distinct constructs, with different strengths of
relationship with other constructs in the work outcomes and perceived organization
performance nomological network” (p. 170).
Two studies combined job engagement and organization engagement into one measure
of employee engagement. Biswas and Bhatnagar (2013) tested a model in which two
antecedents (POS and PO fit perceptions) predict employee engagement, and employee
engagement predicts organizational commitment and job satisfaction. The results provided
support for a model in which employee engagement mediates the relationship between POS
and PO fit perceptions with job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
In the second study that used a combined measure of engagement, Biswas et al. (2013)
found that POS and psychological contract were positively related to employee engagement
and mediated the relationship between distributive justice and procedural justice with
employee engagement.
In summary, although few studies have used the Saks (2006) measures of job
engagement and organization engagement, several of the antecedents of his model (POS,
PSS, recognition, distributive and procedural justice) have been found to predict job and
organization engagement, and job and organization engagement have been found to predict
the consequences from his model (job satisfaction, OCBO, organizational commitment and
intention to quit). In addition, several studies found support for job and organization
JOEPP engagement as a mediating variable between various antecedents and consequences.
6,1 Furthermore, a number of other antecedents (HR practices, internal marketing, PO fit
perceptions, psychological contract, shared personal vision, shared positive mood) have
been shown to be related to job and organization engagement. These findings are for the
most part consistent with the engagement literature with respect to the antecedents
(e.g. POS, fit perceptions, justice perceptions) and the consequences of engagement (e.g. job
30 satisfaction, organizational commitment, OCB, intention to quit).

Discussion
In one of the first empirical studies on the antecedents and consequences of employee
engagement, Saks (2006) found that a number of antecedents predict job and organization
engagement, and job and organization engagement mediates the relationships between the
antecedents and consequences of engagement. The main objective of this study was to
revisit Saks (2006) to answer five research questions about his model and findings. In doing
so, this paper extends the employee engagement literature in several respects.

Job characteristics and job engagement

The results of the regression analyses indicated that the positive effect for job
characteristics reported by Saks (2006) was due to skill variety. In other words, participants
who had a greater amount of skill variety in their job reported higher levels of job
engagement. This finding is consistent with other studies that have found job variety to be
among the strongest predictors of work engagement (see Peccei, 2013; Guest, 2014).
Although some studies have reported significant relationships between other job
characteristics and work engagement, particularly autonomy and feedback, this might be due
to the fact that they were the only job characteristics included in the analyses and in the present
study all of the core job characteristics were included. As a result, the findings for job
characteristics in other studies might be inflated to the extent that other job characteristics such
as skill variety were not included. Alternatively, it is also possible that autonomy and feedback
are most important for driving engagement in jobs with low skill variety. Future research is
required to further asses the findings of this study given that they are based on single-item
measures of job characteristics.

Antecedents and consequences of engagement using the UWES

The results of this study indicate using the UWES to measure work engagement results in
essentially the same findings as those reported by Saks (2006) using his measures of job and
organization engagement. The antecedents explained a significant amount of the variance in
work engagement and the same two antecedents that were related to job engagement (job
characteristics and POS) were significantly positively related to work engagement. The
results also indicated that the antecedents explained a significant amount of the variance in
each dimension of the UWES, especially dedication. Furthermore, the same two antecedents
(job characteristics and POS) were positively related to each dimension of work engagement.
With respect to the consequences, the UWES explained a significant amount of the
variance in all of the consequences. Although the variance explained in intention to quit
was much greater than what Saks (2006) found, the variance was the same for OCBI and
similar although slightly higher for the other consequences. As for the dimensions of the
UWES, dedication was the strongest predictor of all of the consequences except for OCBI.
Vigor was significantly positively related to job satisfaction and marginally related to
organizational commitment, while absorption was not significantly related to any of the
consequences. Thus, most of the relationships between the UWES and the consequences
were due to dedication.
 The results for mediation analysis indicated that the UWES fully mediated the Employee
relationships for organizational commitment, intention to quit, and OCBI and partially engagement
mediated the relationships for job satisfaction and OCBO which replicates Saks’ (2006) revisited
findings for job and organization engagement.
Overall, the results using the UWES are essentially the same as Saks’ (2006) results
providing some support for the generalizability of his findings to the UWES measure of
work engagement. The same antecedents that predict job engagement predict work 31
engagement, the UWES was related to all of the consequences, and the UWES mediated
the relationships between the antecedents and the consequences as did job and
organization engagement.
However, the UWES was more strongly related to the antecedents and some of the
consequences. In fact, the UWES explained more variance in job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, intention to quit, and OCBO than job and organization engagement. This
should not be surprising as the UWES has been found to capture a general positive job
attitude and a broader domain than other measures of engagement (Byrne et al., 2016). In
fact, Byrne et al. (2016) found that correlations between the UWES and a number of
antecedents and consequences were significantly higher than the correlations between the
job engagement scale ( JES) (Rich et al., 2010) and the same antecedents and consequences.
Thus, the results of this study are consistent with those of Byrne et al. (2016) in that the
UWES tends to be more highly correlated to antecedents and consequences than other
measures of engagement. According to Byrne et al. (2016), this does not mean that the
UWES is a better or more accurate measure of engagement, but rather that the UWES
overlaps with job attitudes and other variables in the engagement nomological network.
Thus, like the JES, job and organization engagement appear to have less overlap with job
attitudes than the UWES. Given that the UWES has been found to overlap with job
attitudes and job burnout (Cole et al., 2012), the job and organization engagement
measures developed by Saks (2006) might be more viable alternatives for those interested
in measuring employee engagement.

Single-item measures of job and organization engagement

The single-item measures of job and organization engagement were found to operate
similarly to the full scales. As was the case for the full scales, the antecedents explained a
significant amount of variance in both job and organization engagement, and POS was
a significant predictor of both job and organization engagement, and job characteristics was
a significant predictor of job engagement.
For the consequences, job and organization engagement explained a significant amount
of the variance in job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intention to quit, and OCBO
and approached significance for OCBI (p ¼ 0.06). Thus, the single-item measures of job and
organization engagement were significantly related to the same consequences as the
complete scales except for the relationship between job engagement and OCBO which was
not significant (although the size of the regression coefficient was similar to the complete
scale), and for organization engagement predicting intention to quit which was not
significant. In addition, the relationship between organization engagement and OCBI now
reaches a conventional level of significance. And, like the full scales, the single-item
measures of job and organization engagement mediated the relationships between the
antecedents and the consequences.
Interestingly, the single-item measures were more effective in distinguishing the target
of the consequence. While Saks (2006) found that organization engagement was a
stronger predictor of all of the consequences, with the single-item measures, job
engagement was a stronger predictor of the job-related consequences (job satisfaction and
intention to quit one’s job) while organization engagement was a stronger predictor of the
JOEPP organization-related consequences (organizational commitment, OCBI and OCBO). Thus,
6,1 the single-item measures appear to be more discriminating when it comes to predicting
job-related vs organization-related consequences.
In summary, the general trend and results for the single-item measures of job and
organization engagement was similar to the complete scales. The only difference is in the size
of some of the relationships. For example, the antecedents explained less variance in the
32 single-item measures of job and organization engagement, and the single-item measures
explained more variance in job satisfaction and intention to quit but less variance in
organizational commitment, OCBI and OCBO. Otherwise, the results using the single-item
measures of job and organization engagement are essentially the same as the complete scales.

Research support for Saks (2006) model of engagement

A review of the engagement literature indicates support for the two antecedents (job
characteristics and POS) that Saks (2006) found predict job and organization engagement as
well as the consequences. Furthermore, a number of studies have found support for the
other antecedents in his model (PSS, rewards and recognition, procedural justice, and
distributive justice) although they have received less research attention than job
characteristics and social support. In addition, many studies have found that engagement
mediates relationships between various antecedents and consequences.
However, many other antecedents have been found to predict engagement. As indicated
earlier, there is now considerable evidence that employee engagement is also predicted by
job demands (challenge and hindrance), dispositions and personal resources (e.g. positive
affectivity), positive forms of leadership such as transformational leadership, opportunities
for learning and development, and perceptions of fit. In addition, there is now strong
evidence that engagement predicts task and extra-role performance as well as general
health and well-being outcomes as well as stress, strain and burnout. Thus, Saks’ (2006)
model is out of date with the extant engagement literature.
Therefore, Figure 2 presents a revised and updated model of the antecedents and
consequences of employee engagement. Although other antecedents and consequences of
engagement have been studied, those included in the model have consistently been shown to
be related to engagement. However, a more quantitative review and meta-analysis is
required to test the nature and strength of these relationships. In addition, because most
studies have used the UWES to measure work engagement and few studies have measured
organization engagement, the relationships shown in Figure 2 pertain mostly to job
engagement rather than organization engagement.
In addition, it is important to note that some of the relationships in Figure 2 are more
complex than shown. For example, some of the antecedents have been found to be related to
each other (e.g. job resources influence personal resources which mediate the relationship

Antecedents
Job characteristics
Perceived organizational support
Perceived supervisor support
Rewards and recognition
Procedural justice
Distributive justice
Fit perceptions
Figure 2. Leadership
Revised model of the Opportunities for learning and
antecedents and development
Job demands
consequences of Dispositional characteristics
employee engagement Personal resources
Employee Engagement
Job engagement
Organization engagement
Consequences
Job satisfaction
Organizational commitment
Intention to quit
Organizational citizenship
behavior
Task performance
Extra-role performance
Health and well-being
Stress and strains
Burnout
between job resources and work engagement) (Bakker et al., 2014; Bakker and Employee
Xanthopoulou, 2013; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007, 2009b), and some of the antecedents engagement
interact to influence engagement (job resources have a greater effect on work engagement revisited
when job demands are high and buffer the negative effects of job demands on work
engagement) (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Bakker et al., 2007, 2014). Thus, there are a
number of moderating and mediating relationships that are not shown in Figure 2.
33
Saks’ (2006) measures of job and organization engagement
Relatively few studies have used Saks’ (2006) measures of job engagement and
organization engagement and those that have used them used one or the other or
combined them into a single measure of employee engagement. However, those studies
that have used them have found results that are consistent with his model and research on
employee engagement with respect to the antecedents of engagement (POS, PSS,
recognition, training and development, distributive and procedural justice, fit
perceptions), the consequences of engagement (job satisfaction, OCBO, organizational
commitment, intentions to quit), and the mediating effects of engagement.
Unfortunately, none of the studies measured both job and organization engagement
(although Farndale et al., 2014 measured organization engagement and work engagement
using the UWES). Thus, we have not learned very much about the differential relationships
and nomological networks of job engagement vs organization engagement. Furthermore,
those studies that have combined job and organization engagement into a single measure of
employee engagement undermine the purpose of having separate constructs and measures of
job and organization engagement and blur the distinction between them. And because so few
studies have measured organization engagement, most of what we know about employee
engagement pertains to job or work engagement rather than organization engagement.

Implications for research and practice

The results of this study have several implications for future research. First, the results
indicate that among the core job characteristics, skill variety was the only significant
predictor of job engagement. This is surprising given that other studies have found that job
characteristics such as autonomy and performance feedback are significant predictors of
work engagement (Christian et al., 2011). Therefore, future research is needed on the relative
importance and effects of different job characteristics for job/work engagement. It is
possible that the importance of job characteristics for engagement varies as a function of
several factors such as the nature of the job, the level of the position, the tenure of
employees, and employee characteristics. In addition, given that other work characteristics
such as work context and social characteristics are strong predictors of job attitudes and
behaviors (Humphrey et al., 2007), future research should also examine them as well given
that they might also influence employee engagement.
The results of this study indicate that two different measures of engagement were
similarly related to engagement antecedents and consequences. This is an important finding
because it suggests that the findings from studies that use these measures of engagement
are comparable and generalizable. Future research should continue to compare and contrast
different measures of engagement. In addition, future studies might also test the single-item
measures of job and organization engagement to learn more about how they compare to
other measures of employee engagement, their relationship to different antecedents and
consequences, and how reliable they are compared to employee engagement scales.
Although a number of studies have used Saks’ (2006) measures of job and organization
engagement, only four have measured organization engagement and none of these studies
measured and compared job and organization engagement. Therefore, we still do not know
very much about organization engagement. As noted by Guest (2014), while work engagement
JOEPP is a well-established construct, the same cannot be said for organization engagement. Thus,
6,1 future research is needed on organization engagement to better understand how it differs from
work and job engagement, and to develop a more complete nomological network of its
antecedents and consequences. Ideally, future studies should measure both job and
organization engagement to learn more about how they relate to different antecedents and
consequences since there is some evidence that although they are related, they are differentially
34 related to antecedents and consequences (Farndale et al., 2014; Saks, 2006).
In addition, future studies should not combine job and organization engagement into a
measure of employee engagement as this blurs the distinction between them and results in a
contaminated measure of engagement that will produce research findings that are difficult
to interpret and generalize.
One area in particular need of research is on employee engagement interventions.
A recent meta-analysis identified four types of interventions (personal resource building, job
resource building, leadership training and health promotion) which had a small but positive
effect on work engagement (Knight et al., 2017). The results of the present study suggest
that interventions focused on job design with particular emphasis on skill variety and POS
seem especially worthwhile. Future research is also needed on the effects of interventions on
organization engagement as it is very possible that different interventions will be more or
less effective for building work or job engagement vs organization engagement.
In terms of practice, the results of this study suggest that two key drivers of job
engagement are skill variety and POS with the latter also being important for organization
engagement. While other antecedents have been found to be related to engagement, the
results of this study suggest that providing employees with opportunities to use a variety of
skills which generally means work that is interesting and challenging, is especially likely to
promote job engagement. In addition, organizations that provide and demonstrate support,
care, and concern for their employees and their well-being can also expect higher levels of
job and organization engagement.
Thus, in terms of specific actions, a focus on job design with particular attention to skill
variety and initiatives that demonstrate the organization’s support for employees such as
programs that promote employee health and well-being, work-life balance, involving and
inviting employee input and voice in important matters that affect employees would seem to
be particularly worthwhile for promoting employee job and organization engagement.
In addition, organizations that are concerned about improving employee job attitudes and
OCB, and lowering turnover intentions might be able to do so by fostering employee engagement.
Job engagement seems to be particularly important for job satisfaction and intention to quit while
organization engagement seems to be more important for organizational commitment and OCB.
The results of the UWES measure of work engagement indicate that increasing dedication is
most important for improving job attitudes and OCBO and lowering turnover intentions.
A final practical implication of this study stems from the findings that the single-item
measures for job and organization engagement operate similarly to the complete scales
which in turn operate similarly to the UWES measure of work engagement. Organizations
that are concerned about employee surveys that are either too long or too frequent can use
the single-item measures of job and organization engagement to monitor and benchmark
employee engagement. These single-item measures provide organizations with an easy and
quick way to keep track of their employees’ job and organization engagement. However,
because the reliability of single-item measures tends to be lower than complete scales, some
caution is required when using single-item measures of engagement.

Study limitations
Like most studies on employee engagement, this study involved a cross-sectional design
and the use of self-report data. As a result, some of the relationships between the study
variables might be inflated due to common method bias and conclusions about causality Employee
between the antecedents, engagement and the consequences cannot be made. In addition, engagement
because the core job characteristics were measured by single items the reliability is not revisited
known and the results might differ from the complete scales. Therefore, some caution is
required when interpreting the results.
However, the main objective this study was to revisit the model and findings of Saks
(2006) and to assess the model using the UWES measure of work engagement and the 35
single-item measures of job and organization engagement. Thus, the intent was to see if the
results of Saks (2006) can be replicated and generalized using different measures of
engagement. Therefore, if common method and inflation bias is a problem then it would
have a similar effect for all of the engagement measures. Given the objectives of this study,
inflation bias is less of a concern then it might otherwise be.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that among the job characteristics, skill variety
is the best predictor of job engagement. In addition, the main findings of Saks (2006) do not
change when the UWES measure of work engagement is used or when single-item measures of
job and organization engagement are used. Research on employee engagement generally
supports Saks’ (2006) model of the antecedents and consequences of employee engagement,
and research that has used Saks’ (2006) measures of job and organization engagement is
consistent with research that has used the UWES to measure work engagement. Future
research should continue to test the evolving nomological network of relationships for both job
engagement and organization engagement and to investigate the validity and generalizability
of different measures of employee engagement.

References
Albrecht, S.L. (2010), Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice,
Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Albrecht, S.L., Bakker, A.B., Gruman, J.A., Macey, W.H. and Saks, A.M. (2015), “Employee engagement,
human resource management practices and competitive advantage: an integrated approach”,
Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 7-35.
Anaza, N.A. and Rutherford, B. (2012a), “How organizational and employee-customer identification,
and customer orientation affect job engagement”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 23 No. 5,
pp. 616-639.
Anaza, N.A. and Rutherford, B.N. (2012b), “Developing our understanding of patronizing frontline
employees”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 340-358.
Anthony-McMann, P.E., Ellinger, A.D., Astakhova, M. and Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2017), “Exploring
different operationalizations of employee engagement and their relationships with workplace
stress and burnout”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 163-195.
Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K. and Fletcher, L. (2017), “The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of
employee engagement: a narrative synthesis”, International Journal of Management Reviews,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 31-53.
Bakker, A.B. and Bal, P.M. (2010), “Weekly work engagement and performance: a study among
starting teachers”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 1,
pp. 189-206.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands-resources model: state of the art”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2008), “Towards a model of work engagement”, Career Development
International, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 209-223.
JOEPP Bakker, A.B. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2013), “Creativity and charisma among female leaders: the role of
6,1 resources and work engagement”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 24 No. 14, pp. 2760-2779.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Sanz-Vergel, A.I. (2014), “Burnout and work engagement: the JD-R
approach”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1,
pp. 389-411.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and ten Brummelhuis, L.L. (2012), “Work engagement, performance, and
36 active learning: the role of conscientiousness”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80 No. 2,
pp. 555-564.
Bakker, A.B., Hakanen, J.J., Demerouti, E. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2007), “Job resources boost work
engagement, particularly when job demands are high”, Journal of Educational Psychology,
Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 274-284.
Biswas, S. and Bhatnagar, J. (2013), “Mediator analysis of employee engagement: role of perceived
organizational support, P-O fit, organizational commitment and job satisfaction”, Vikalpa,
Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 27-40.
Biswas, S., Varma, A. and Ramaswami, A. (2013), “Linking distributive and procedural justice to
employee engagement through social exchange: a field study in India”, The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 1570-1587.
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Derks, D. (2016), “Who takes the lead? A multi-source
diary study on leadership, work engagement, and job performance”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 309-325.
Byrne, Z.S., Peters, J.M. and Weston, J.W. (2016), “The struggle with employee engagement: measures
and construct clarification using five samples”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 101 No. 9,
pp. 1201-1227.
Carasco-Saul, M., Kim, W. and Kim, T. (2015), “Leadership and employee engagement: proposing
research agendas through a review of literature”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 38-63.
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), “Work engagement: a quantiative review and test
of its relations with task and contextual performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 89-136.
Cole, M.S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A.G. and O’Boyle, E.H. (2012), “Job burnout and employee engagement:
a meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 5,
pp. 1550-1581.
Crawford, E.R., LePine, J.A. and Rich, B.L. (2010), “Linking job demands and resources to employee
engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 5, pp. 834-848.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Eldor, L. and Harpaz, I. (2016), “A process model of employee engagement: the learning climate and its
relationship with extra-role performance behaviors”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37
No. 2, pp. 213-235.
Farndale, E., Beijer, S.E., Van Veldhoven, M.J.P.M., Kelliher, C. and Hope-Hailey, V. (2014), “Work and
organization engagement: aligning research and practice”, Journal of Organizational
Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 157-176.
Guest, D. (2014), “Employee engagement: a skeptical analysis”, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness:
People and Performance, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 141-156.
Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2010), “A meta-analysis of work engagement: relationships with burnout, demands,
resources, and consequences”, in Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Work Engagement: A
Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, Hove, pp. 102-117.
Haynie, J.J., Mossholder, K.W. and Harris, S.G. (2016), “Justice and job engagement: the role of senior
management trust”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 889-910.
Humphrey, S.E., Nahrgang, J.D. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007), “Integrating motivational, social, and Employee
contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work engagement
design literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1332-1356.
revisited
Juhdi, N., Pa’wan, F. and Hansaram, R.M.K. (2013), “HR practices and turnover intention: the mediating
roles of organizational commitment and organizational engagement in a selected region in
Malaysia”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 15,
pp. 3002-3019.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”,
37
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.
Knight, C., Patterson, M. and Dawson, J. (2017), “Building work engagement: a systematic review and
meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 792-812.
Mackay, M.M., Allen, J.A. and Landis, R.S. (2017), “Investigating the incremental validity of employee
engagement in the prediction of employee effectiveness: a meta-analytic path analysis”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 108-120.
Mahon, E.G., Taylor, S.N. and Boyatzis, R.E. (2014), “Antecedents of organizational engagement:
exploring vision, mood and perceived organizational support with emotional intelligence as a
moderator”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 1-11.
Malinen, S., Wright, S. and Cammock, P. (2013), “What drives organizational engagement? A case
study on trust, justice perceptions and withdrawal attitudes”, Evidence-Based HRM: A Global
Forum for Empirical Scholarship, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 96-108.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004), “The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 11-37.
Peccei, R. (2013), “Engagement at work: an evidence-based review”, in Bach, S. and Edwards, M. (Eds),
Managing Human Resources, 5th ed., Wiley, Chichester, pp. 336-363.
Reijseger, G., Peeters, M.C.W., Taris, T.W. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2017), “From motivation to activation:
why engaged workers are better performers”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 117-130.
Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects of job
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619.
Saks, A.M. and Gruman, J.A. (2011), “Getting newcomers engaged: the role of socialization tactics”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 383-402.
Saks, A.M. and Gruman, J.A. (2014), “What do we really know about employee engagement?”, Human
Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 155-182.
Sarti, D. (2014), “Job resources as antecedents of engagement at work: evidence from a long-term care
setting”, Human Resource Development, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 213-237.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 293-315.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Schaufeli, W.B., Shimazu, A., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M. and De Witte, H. (in press), “An ultra-short
measure for work engagement: the UWES-3 validation across five countries”, European Journal
of Psychological Assessment.
Shantz, A. (2017), “Coming full circle: putting engagement into practice”, Organizational Dynamics,
Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 65-66.
JOEPP Shuck, B. (2011), “Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: an integrative literature
6,1 review”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 304-328.
Vincent-Hoper, S., Muser, C. and Janneck, M. (2012), “Transformational leadership, work engagement,
and occupational success”, Career Development International, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 663-682.
Wanous, J.P. and Hudy, M.J. (2001), “Single-item reliability: a replication and extension”, Organizational
Research Methods, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 361-375.
38 Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E. and Hudy, M.J. (1997), “Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item
measures?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 247-252.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2007), “The role of personal
resources in the job demands-resources model”, International Journal of Stress Management,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 121-141.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009a), “Reciprocal relationships
between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 235-244.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009b), “Work engagement and
financial returns: a diary study on the role of job and personal resources”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 183-200.
Young, H.R., Glerum, D.R., Wang, W. and Joseph, D.L. (2018), “Who are the most engaged at work?
A meta-analysis of personality and employee engagement”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 1330-1346.
Zhong, L., Wayne, S.J. and Liden, R.C. (2016), “Job engagement, perceived organizational support,
high-performance human resource practices, and cultural value orientations: a cross-level
investigation”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 823-844.

Corresponding author
Alan M. Saks can be contacted at: saks@utsc.utoronto.ca

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com