Journal of Occupational Health Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association

2013, Vol. 18, No. 2, 132–143 1076-8998/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0031978

The Moderating Role of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in the

Work Engagement–Performance Process

Jonathon R. B. Halbesleben Anthony R. Wheeler

University of Alabama University of Rhode Island

Kristen K. Shanine
University of Alabama
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a cognitive disability that affects millions. Although

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

individuals with ADHD are employed throughout many organizations and there is evidence that their
performance is lower, scant research exists describing how ADHD impacts an individual’s performance.
In this article, we extend attentional control theory to examine how ADHD impacts both the effectiveness
and efficiency of employee performance. Across 3 samples, 2 of general working adults (n ⫽ 257 and
170) and 1 of nurses (n ⫽ 243), we found that ADHD was associated with lower performance (rated via
self-, coworker, and supervisor ratings) and that the relationship was strongest for in-role performance,
suggesting that employees with ADHD may be diverting attention away from task-relevant behaviors.
Furthermore, although work engagement was associated with higher performance, that relationship was
diminished among those who experienced higher levels of ADHD, suggesting lower performance
efficiency. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on attentional control and the
management of those with ADHD at work.

Keywords: attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, attentional control theory, work engagement, perfor-

mance, organizational citizenship behavior

The American Psychiatric Association (1994) defines attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as a persistent pattern of
inattention or hyperactivity that tends to be more severe or fre-
quent than peers at similar levels of development. Most people
consider ADHD a childhood disorder, but 50% of ADHD cases in
children continue into adulthood (Barkley, 1990; Matza, Paramore,
& Prasad, 2005). In a representative sample of Americans, Kessler
et al. (2006) reported that 4.4% of adults had ADHD; they further
indicated this is likely a conservative estimate because of a social
stigma associated with self-reporting adult ADHD. Among those
who have jobs, researchers suggest that adults with ADHD are
more likely to have decreased performance, higher conflict with
coworkers, higher risk of injury, and higher turnover than employ-
ees without ADHD (Kessler, Adler, Ames, Barkley, et al., 2005;
Murphy & Barkley, 1996; Weiss & Hechtman, 1993). For exam-
ple, Kessler, Lane, Stang, and Van Brunt (2009) found that em-
This article was published Online First March 4, 2013.
Jonathon R. B. Halbesleben, Department of Management and Market-
ing, University of Alabama; Anthony R. Wheeler, Schmidt Labor Research
Center and College of Business Administration, University of Rhode
Island; Kristen K. Shanine, Department of Management and Marketing,
University of Alabama.
We acknowledge the valuable contributions of Angelo Pappas to this
article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jonathon
R. B. Halbesleben, Department of Management and Marketing, University of
Alabama, Box 870225, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0225. E-mail: jhalbesleben@
cba.ua.edu
ployees with ADHD were associated with a 4 –5% reduction in
work performance compared with those without ADHD. Despite
these initial descriptive findings, researchers know relatively little
about how the disability affects employee performance and the
mechanisms through which employees channel their personal re-
sources into performance.
In this article, we examine the impact that ADHD has on job
performance by drawing on attentional control theory (ACT; Ey-
senck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007). ACT proposes that
conditions that create inattention, such as ADHD, create perfor-
mance deficiencies both in effectiveness of performance and effi-
ciency of performance. In a workplace setting, this suggests that
those with ADHD should perform at lower levels compared with
colleagues (Kessler et al., 2009). Of greater interest, however, is
understanding why this happens. We extend the literature by
suggesting that the lower efficiency with which those with ADHD
use their resources helps explain the lower performance. To that
end, we examined how ADHD moderates the relationship between
engagement and performance and work. Work engagement de-
scribes “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli,
Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002, p. 74; see also Bak-
ker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008). Researchers consistently
find that work engagement positively relates to both in-role and
extrarole job performance (Halbesleben, 2010). In this article, we
position the engagement–performance process as reflective of the
efficiency with which employees translate the resources available
to them to job performance. Because the inattention associated
with ADHD should decrease the efficiency of performance, we

132
 ADHD AND WORK PERFORMANCE
expected that it should decrease the relationships between engage-
ment and performance.
As its name implies, ACT proposes that the lack of efficiency is
the result of a lack of attentional control, and that inattention
increases the likelihood that individuals will be diverted from task
performance toward more task-irrelevant behaviors (Eysenck &
Derakshan, 2011; Eysenck et al., 2007). In the work context, this
suggests that employees with ADHD should be more likely to
engage in work behaviors that provide more immediate responses,
such as interpersonal helping behaviors, than behaviors that might
have more task-relevant but long-term outcomes. As a result, we
examined the relationship between ADHD and varied forms of
performance (task performance, organizational citizenship directed
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
at the organization, and organizational citizenship directed at the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
organization).
Taken together, the purpose of this research was to better
understand the performance decrements associated with ADHD
through an examination of both the efficiency (engagement–
performance relationships) and effectiveness (different types of
performance) outcomes associated with attentional control. In light
of the frequency of ADHD in the workplace and the understudied
nature of the disorder in work contexts (Kessler, Adler, Ames,
Barkley, et al., 2005), such a study moves the literature toward a
better understanding of the impact that mental health may have in
work performance and a broader understanding of the role that
inattention can play in performance effectiveness and efficiency.
ADHD and Attentional Control
The symptoms of ADHD suggest that it may negatively impact
an employee’s ability to optimally allocate, direct, or invest atten-
tional resources into meeting the demands of the job and organi-
zation. Key symptoms include difficulty in organization, focus,
and time management along with a tendency for procrastination
(Patton, 2009). As noted by Kitchen (2006), employees with
ADHD often have difficulty prioritizing important tasks. In addi-
tion, adults with ADHD commonly report impulsivity and over-
activity (Jackson & Farrugia, 1997), which can lead to failure to
consider the consequences of actions, anxiety, discomfort in meet-
ings, and unwillingness to wait for others (Patton, 2009).
It is worth noting that our study focused on employed adults
who exhibit symptoms of ADHD. This may exclude extreme cases
of ADHD in which individuals are unable to hold a job because of
their disability (Halmøy, Fasmer, Gillberg, & Haavik, 2009). It
may also exclude those employees who have been diagnosed with
ADHD but are addressing their symptoms through treatment. With
those conditions in mind, we addressed a significant population of
working adults. Many employees with adult ADHD do not seek
treatment because of a social stigma associated with reporting their
condition to their employer (Carroll & Ponteretto, 1998; Florey &
Harrison, 2000; Kessler et al., 2009; Sanders, 2005; Stone &
Colella, 1996). Furthermore, many individuals suffer from the
symptoms of adult ADHD without a confirmed diagnoses. Thus, it
is likely that those adults in our study who reported experiencing
levels of ADHD symptoms consistent with a high risk of adult
ADHD represent a significant group within the broader population
of working adults.
133
Performance Effectiveness
The symptoms of ADHD, most notably the difficulty in focus-
ing and prioritizing, fit well with the proposed mechanisms of
attentional control and reduced performance efficiency and effec-
tiveness outlined by ACT. In this study, we conceptualized per-
formance in two ways: task performance and organizational citi-
zenship behavior (OCB). Task performance refers to performance
on tasks that are required or expected of an employee, and OCB
refers to behaviors that are not required of the job but may benefit
other people in the organization (e.g., helping a coworker) or the
organization more broadly (Williams & Anderson, 1991).
As noted above, previous studies have found that employees
with symptoms of ADHD tend to have lower performance in the
workplace (Kessler et al., 2009). From the perspective of ACT,
those who have difficulty with attentional control (e.g., because of
ADHD) have lower quality performance than those without such
difficulty (Eysenck et al., 2007). According to ACT, this may
occur because cognitive processes that guide behavior in goal-
directed ways are impaired (Derakshan & Eysenck, 2009; Eysenck
& Derakshan, 2011). This is consistent with the finding that those
who are anxious tend to be more distracted from tasks (Pancheco-
Unguetti, Acosta, Callejas, & Lupianez, 2010). Thus, we hypoth-
esized a direct effect of ADHD on workplace performance behav-
iors. However, given that the relationship has already been tested,
we included this hypothesis more as a test of the performance
effectiveness aspects of ACT. The real value in ACT is its expla-
nation of the decrements in performance effectiveness resulting
from lower performance efficiency (Eysenck & Derakshan, 2011).
Hypothesis 1: Employees with symptoms of ADHD will ex-
hibit lower performance, both (a) in-role performance and (b)
OCB, than employees who do not report experiencing symp-
toms of ADHD.
Performance Efficiency
When understanding performance efficiency, ACT explains
how individuals use their cognitive processing resources to
achieve goals (Eysenck et al., 2007). In this study, we conceptu-
alized performance efficiency two ways. First, we considered the
selection of performance behaviors that are most closely related to
the requirements of the job (task performance). ACT theorists
propose that individuals who have difficulty with attentional con-
trol get distracted by stimuli in the environment that are not
directly related to the task and thus may divert attention away from
task-relevant behaviors toward task-irrelevant behaviors (Eysenck
& Derakshan, 2011). More specifically, two attention processes
explain how this works (Corbetta & Schulman, 2002; Posner &
Peterson, 1990). The stimulus-driven system responds to stimuli in
the environment that demand immediate attention. On the other
hand, the goal-driven system emphasizes the cognitive processes
that keep individuals moving toward a broader goal through cog-
nitive control (Miller & Cohen, 2001).
Typically, these systems interact, where one remains goal-
driven by stimuli that force the individual to consider their current
situation in light of the goals (Pashler, Johnston, & Ruthroff,
2001). However, problems of attentional control can impact the
balance of these systems because it shifts cognition toward an
emphasis on stimuli that impact our immediate situation (Eysenck
 134 HALBESLEBEN, WHEELER, AND SHANINE
et al., 2007; Fox, Russo, & Georgiou, 2005). Thus, those with
conditions that might negatively impact attentional control are
more affected by immediate demands in their environment at the
expense of longer term, task-related behaviors.
In the case of work performance, this may suggest that those
with ADHD are more likely to divert resources toward tasks that
are less likely to contribute to their personal or organizational
performance. Because OCBs are, by definition, not part of the
work task set but are helpful to the organization (Bateman &
Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988), they can be thought of as task-
irrelevant behaviors in the workplace. This is not to say that OCB
does not contribute to the performance of the organization or even
to ratings of the task performance of the individual (Kiker &
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Motowidlo, 1999; Werner, 1994; Whiting, Podsakoff, & Pierce,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
2008). Nonetheless, OCBs are behaviors that are discretionary and
do not directly represent task-relevant behaviors (Bateman &
Organ, 1983).
Individuals occasionally engage in OCB at the expense of task
performance behaviors (Bergeron, 2007). Specifically, they might
be more likely to engage in behaviors that help others in the
workplace rather than emphasizing behaviors that help the orga-
nization broadly (Bowler & Brass, 2006; Halbesleben & Bowler,
2007). In the workplace, the opportunity to help an individual is
appealing because it can, in most cases, be more quickly acknowl-
edged and reciprocated compared with periodic reviews of task
performance. Furthermore, employees may feel pressure to engage
in such behavior from their supervisor, politics, or an emphasis on
career success (Bolino, Turnley, Gillstrap, & Suazo, 2010; Hsiung,
Lin, & Lin, 2012; Schuh et al., 2012). As a result, we expected that
employees reporting symptoms of ADHD would be more likely to
divert their resources away from task-relevant behaviors (task
performance) toward behaviors that are not as directly relevant to
work tasks (i.e., OCB; Kitchen, 2006). Moreover, we expected that
among OCB options, employees with ADHD would chose OCBs
that help individuals (OCB-I) more than OCBs that help the
organization more broadly (OCB-O). As a result, we expected a
stronger negative relationship between ADHD and in-role perfor-
mance and a stronger negative relationship between ADHD and
OCB-O but not OCB-I.
Hypothesis 2: ADHD will have a stronger negative relation-
ship with in-role performance than OCB-O and a stronger
negative relationship with OCB-O than OCB-I.
The second mechanism for lower performance efficiency from
ACT is the ability to translate resources on the job into perfor-
mance behaviors. As noted, the emphasis in ACT is how individ-
uals use their resources to achieve tasks. Researchers have con-
ceptualized engagement as a state of excess resources that
employees invest into their performance (Gorgievski & Hobfoll,
2008; Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008; Kühnel, Sonnentag, & Ble-
dow, 2012). Engagement is a useful construct in this context, as
measuring specific resources becomes problematic in the work-
place because of idiosyncratic perceptions of resources across
individuals (Gorgievski, Halbesleben, & Bakker, 2011; Hobfoll,
2001). Because resources vary significantly among employees,
measuring more general perceptual markers of resource availabil-
ity such as engagement offers significant advantages.
The literature is consistent in the finding that employees with
higher engagement invest those additional resources in perfor-
mance behaviors, both task performance and OCB (Bakker et al.,
2008; Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008; Llorens, Salanova, Bakker,
& Schaufeli, 2007; Salanova, Agut, & Peir&oacute, 2005;
Salanova, Bakker, & Llorens, 2006). Thus, whereas an additional
test of that relationship offers a limited extension of the literature,
we tested the hypothesis that engagement is associated with higher
performance as a replication of the literature and establish the
moderating effect of ADHD that represents performance ineffi-
ciency.
Hypothesis 3a: Work engagement is positively associated
with in-role performance.
Hypothesis 3b: Work engagement is positively associated
with OCB.
As we have noted, performance inefficiency in an ACT context
suggests that those with ADHD would have a lower ability to
translate their resources into performance. For example, the failure
to consider the consequences of actions could lead an employee
with ADHD to invest resources in activities with limited benefit
(e.g., taking excessive time on projects that will lead to meager
results). Difficulty organizing, focusing, or managing time may
mean that an employee with ADHD invests significant resources
in activities that are not actually completed (or less critical tasks
are completed at the expense of important tasks; Kitchen, 2006).
Thus, an employee with ADHD could have the multitude of
motivational resources associated with engagement but would be
unable to channel those resources in a way that leads to high levels
of performance. We proposed that this pattern would exist for both
typical (in-role) performance as well as OCB, as both involve
investment of motivational resources and could be limited by the
presence of ADHD.
Hypothesis 4a: ADHD will moderate the relationship between
work engagement and in-role performance such that ADHD
will reduce the positive relationship.
Hypothesis 4b: ADHD will moderate the relationship between
work engagement and OCB such that ADHD will reduce the
positive relationship.
We summarize the proposed relationships in Figure 1. We tested
the proposed model in three samples using a variety of measures of
performance (as well as different sources of performance ratings)
and different time lags to provide a constructive replication of our
findings.
Figure 1. Conceptual model linking work engagement, attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and performance.
 ADHD AND WORK PERFORMANCE
Method
Participants and Procedure
Sample 1. Sample 1 included 257 working adults from a
variety of industries and organizations. The sample included 120
men and 137 women with a mean age of 44.31years (SD ⫽ 10.90).
The participants had been working for their current organization
for a mean of 6.41 years (SD ⫽ 5.11). A wide variety of industries
and organizations were represented, including education (n ⫽ 59),
health care (n ⫽ 56), government/military (n ⫽ 40), banking or
financial services (n ⫽ 31), manufacturing (n ⫽ 19), and telecom-
munications (n ⫽ 17). They reported working a mean of 44.51
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
hr/week (SD ⫽ 10.33).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The data were collected in Spring 2008 with the assistance of
approximately 65 undergraduate management students as part of a
research experience assignment. The students provided links to an
online survey to up to five adults holding full-time jobs. The
students contacted 327 unique participants; 275 (84%) completed
the initial survey. As part of the survey, the participants were asked
whether they would complete a follow-up survey and, if so,
whether they would provide their e-mail address for future contact.
Six months after the initial survey, the first author contacted the
participants by e-mail and provided a link to an online follow-up
survey.
From Times 1 and 2, we matched complete data from 257
participants. This left us with a final retention rate across the data
collection administrations of 93% and a final usable response rate
of 79%. To ensure that the surveys were indeed completed by the
working adults, we randomly selected 50% of the surveys and
directly contacted the participant by either phone or e-mail to
verify participation; all verified that they had completed the sur-
vey.
Sample 2. Sample 2 included 170 working adults plus a
coworker for each from a variety of industries and organizations.
The sample included 81 men and 89 women with a mean age of
33.63 years (SD ⫽ 11.89). The participants had been working for
their current organization for a mean of 15.10 years (SD ⫽ 6.64).
Again, a wide variety of industries and organizations were repre-
sented, including health care (n ⫽ 22), government/military (n ⫽
19), banking or financial services (n ⫽ 12), education (n ⫽ 11),
and manufacturing (n ⫽ 10). They reported working a mean of
40.30 hr/week (SD ⫽ 11.68).
The data were collected in Autumn 2009 with the assistance of
approximately 32 undergraduate management students as part of a
research experience assignment. The students provided links to an
online survey to distribute to a maximum of five adults holding
full-time jobs. Each participant had to forward a link to a coworker
who could complete focal job performance ratings about the par-
ticipant. The students contacted 104 unique participants; 94 (90%)
completed the initial survey. As part of the survey, we asked the
participants whether they would complete a follow-up survey and,
if yes, whether they would provide their e-mail address for future
contact. One week after the initial survey, the first author contacted
the participants by e-mail and provided a link to an online
follow-up survey.
From Times 1 and 2, we matched complete data from 85
participants. This left us with a final retention rate across the data
collection administrations of 90% and a final usable response rate
135
of 82%. To ensure that the surveys were indeed completed by the
working adults, we randomly selected 50% of the surveys and
directly contacted the participant to verify participation; all veri-
fied that they had completed the survey.
Sample 3. Sample 3 included 243 nurses from a large com-
munity hospital in the Midwest region of the United States. The
sample included 23 men and 218 women (two participants did not
respond to this question) with a mean age of 44.81 years (SD ⫽
11.41). The participants had been working for their current orga-
nization for a mean of 12.79 years (SD ⫽ 10.59). They reported
working a mean of 35.41 hr/week (SD ⫽ 8.38).
The data were collected via an online survey. A survey link was
sent by the director of nursing at the hospital with a request to
participate in the survey. The hospital employs 398 registered
nurses working in nonmanagement positions. Of those, 282 com-
pleted the survey for an initial response rate of 71%. At the end of
the survey, the participants were asked to provide their name to
link their responses to a supervisor survey. They also were asked
to provide the e-mail address of their supervisor. Three days
following the initial recruitment e-mail to the nurses, the director
of nursing sent a reminder e-mail encouraging them to participate.
About a week following the nurse survey, the nurse supervisors
were sent a link to a separate survey that included only the
performance measure outlined below. Three days after the initial
recruitment e-mail, a reminder was sent to the supervisors remind-
ing them to participate. They were asked to indicate which em-
ployee they were completing it for. A total of 78 different super-
visors completed surveys. They completed an average of 1.89
surveys each, ranging from one to eight. On average, the supervi-
sors completed the survey 7.31 days following the time when the
participant completed his or her survey.
We matched complete data from 243 participants and supervi-
sors. This left us with a final response rate of 61%. We examined
differences in demographics, engagement, performance, and
ADHD scores between those whose supervisor responded and
those whose supervisor had not responded and found no significant
differences. We also compared demographics of the nurses who
completed the survey with the general nurse population within the
hospital and found that nurses who completed the survey tended to
be younger compared with the general population. Finally, we
compared scores on all survey variables between those who re-
sponded to the initial recruitment e-mail and those who responded
to the follow-up e-mail, finding those higher in ADHD were more
likely to respond to the initial recruitment e-mail, t(241) ⫽ 2.14,
p ⬍ .05.
Measures
Work engagement. Engagement was measured at Time 1 in
all three samples using the short version of the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003; Schaufeli, Bakker,
& Salanova, 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2002). It contained nine items
designed to assess the three components of engagement: vigor,
dedication, and absorption (with three items for each subscale).
Example items included “When I get up in the morning, I feel like
going to work” (vigor); “To me, my job is inspiring” (dedication);
and “When I am working, I forget everything else around me”
(absorption). It was scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Seppälä et al.
 136 HALBESLEBEN, WHEELER, AND SHANINE
(2009) reported that the nine-item short version of the Utrecht
Work Engagement Scale has improved psychometric properties
over the original 17-item scale. Consistent with literature concern-
ing this scale (e.g., Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008; Hallberg &
Schaufeli, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), we summed the
subscales to create one general score for work engagement.
ADHD. ADHD was assessed using the World Health Orga-
nization Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (Kessler, Adler, Ames,
Demler, et al., 2005). It consists of six items intended to screen
adults with ADHD. It is a short version of the original 18-item
Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale; as Kessler, Adler, Ames, Demler,
et al. (2005) reported, the short version outperformed the longer
version in sensitivity, specificity, and total classification accuracy
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
when compared against clinical interview ratings. The measure is
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disor-
ders (4th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Consistent
with the specifications of Kessler, Adler, Ames, Demler, et al.,
participants were asked to consider the past 6 months, and then
were asked questions such as “How often do you have trouble
wrapping up the fine details of a project, once the challenging parts
have been done?” The items were scored on a 5-point frequency
scale from 0 (never) to 4 (very often).
Kessler, Adler, Ames, Demler, et al. (2005) recommend a scor-
ing system that creates three groups based on the scores, a proce-
dure typical of psychiatric screening measures when the interest is
in a single person’s symptoms. We followed that scoring system
whereby the three groups were created on the basis of the number
of items to which people responded affirmatively (indicating often
or very often). According to the Kessler, Adler, Ames, Demler, et
al. study of correspondence with actual diagnoses, those indicating
affirmative responses to four to six questions were considered
“high risk” for ADHD. Across the three samples, about 10% of the
sample was in the highest risk category (Sample 1: 10%, Sample
2: 12%, Sample 3: 9%).1 Those indicating affirmative responses to
two or three questions were considered “moderate risk” (Sample 1:
44%, Sample 2: 41%, Sample 3: 45%), and those indicating
affirmative responses to none or one question were considered
“low risk” for ADHD (Sample 1: 46%, Sample 2: 47%, Sample 3:
46%). For purposes of this study, we dummy coded the risk
categories 0 (low risk), 1 (moderate risk), and 2 (high risk). We
collected this measure at both Time 1 and Time 2. Because the
results were very consistent across the two data collections, we
used the measures collected at Time 1.
Job performance for Samples 1 and 3. At Times 1 and 2, we
assessed in-role performance by using the seven-item In-Role
Performance subscale of the performance measure developed by
Williams and Anderson (1991). To assess OCBs, we used the
seven-item OCBs Directed at the Organization (OCB-O) and
seven-item OCBs Directed at Individuals (OCB-I) subscales of the
Williams and Anderson scale. Sample items included “adequately
completes assigned duties” for in-role performance, “preserves and
protects organizational property” for OCB-O, and “takes time to
listen to coworker’s problems and worries” for OCB-I. The mea-
sure was scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). We used the Williams
and Anderson scale because it allowed us to assess performance in
a consistent manner over a broad spectrum of occupations and
jobs.
For Sample 3, this measure was completed by both the partic-
ipant and his or her supervisor using the same 7-point scale as in
Sample 1. Items were worded for the appropriate respondent. The
supervisors were asked to evaluate the participant’s performance
over the previous week.
Job performance for Sample 2. At Times 1 and 2, we
assessed in-role performance in Sample 2 by using the three-item
In-Role Performance subscale of the performance measure devel-
oped by Goodman and Syvantek (1999). To assess OCBs, we used
the three-item Altruism subscale of Goodman and Syvantek. Sam-
ple items included “achieves the objectives of the job” for in-role
performance and “helps others with their work when they have
been absent” for OCB. It was scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
We asked both the participant and his or her coworker to
complete this assessment. Items were worded for the appropriate
respondent (e.g., “I achieved the objectives of the job” vs. “He or
she achieved the objectives of the job”). Coworkers were asked to
evaluate the participant’s performance over the previous week.
Results
Descriptive variables and correlations for Samples 1–3 are in-
cluded in Tables 1, 2, and 3, respectively. All measures achieved
acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha), values for
which appear on the diagonals of each table. The zero-order
correlations were in the expected directions, with ADHD associ-
ated with lower in-role performance and OCB and with engage-
ment associated with higher in-role performance and OCB. These
correlations provide initial limited evidence that supports our
hypotheses.2
We tested our hypotheses using the hierarchical regression
procedures outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) and Aiken and
West (1991); the regression results are shown in Tables 4, 5, 6, 7,
and 8. Prior to running the regression models, we mean-centered
the independent variable, following recommendations of Aiken
and West. The first step examined the relationship between Time
1 engagement and Time 2 performance (either in-role or OCB). In
the second step, we added ADHD into the regression. Finally, the
Engagement ⫻ ADHD interaction was added in Step 3. At each
step, we analyzed the change in R2 and, if significant, examined
the significance of the ␤ for the added variable. In all steps, we
controlled for the corresponding Time 1 performance variable
(e.g., controlled for Time 1 in-role performance when Time 2
in-role performance was the dependent variable).
With Hypothesis 1, we predicted that ADHD would be nega-
tively associated with (a) in-role performance, (b) OCB-O, and (c)
OCB-I. We found support for these hypotheses in the relationship
between ADHD and self-rated in-role performance (␤ ⫽ ⫺.12,
1
Note that although higher than the 4% ADHD prevalence rate typically
reported, this reflects individuals at risk for ADHD, so it may be higher
than the number of individuals experiencing ADHD.
2
Because the use of discrete variables in regression means we lose
information and variability, we were concerned that this limited the data
analysis. As such, we also analyzed the data treating ADHD as a contin-
uous variable. We found the same pattern of results using this type of
analysis, suggesting that the findings are not necessarily the result of the
uneven split in the sample or loss of variability information. Results are
available on request from the first author.
 ADHD AND WORK PERFORMANCE 137

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Sample 1 (N ⫽ 257)

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gender 0.47 0.53 —

2. Age (years) 44.31 10.90 .03 —
3. Tenure (years) 6.41 5.11 .06 .25ⴱⴱ —
4. ADHD 1.98 0.65 .02 ⫺.05 ⫺.07 —
5. Engagement 3.42 0.37 ⫺.03 .06 .03 ⫺.45ⴱⴱ .82
6. In-role performance 4.58 0.37 ⫺.02 .02 .04 ⫺.32ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .74
7. OCB 4.15 0.41 .00 ⫺.02 .01 ⫺.29ⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱ .47ⴱⴱ .82
Note. ADHD ⫽ attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior. Cronbach’s alpha values are along the diagonal.
Gender was coded 0 ⫽ male, 1 ⫽ female. ADHD was coded 1 ⫽ low risk, 2 ⫽ moderate risk, and 3 ⫽ high risk.
ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

p ⬍ .05), OCB-O (␤ ⫽ ⫺.14, p ⬍ .05), and OCB-I (␤ ⫽ ⫺.09,
p ⬍ .05) in Sample 1. Similarly, we found negative relationships
between ADHD and self-rated OCB (␤ ⫽ ⫺.25, p ⬍ .01),
coworker-rated in-role performance (␤ ⫽ ⫺.34, p ⬍ .01), and
coworker-rated OCB (␤ ⫽ ⫺.25, p ⬍ .01) in Sample 2, but the
relationship between ADHD and self-rated in-role performance
was not significant (␤ ⫽ ⫺.03, ns). Finally, we found support for
these hypotheses in Sample 3 in the relationship between ADHD
and self-rated in-role performance (␤ ⫽ ⫺.22, p ⬍ .01), OCB-O
(␤ ⫽ ⫺.19, p ⬍ .01), and OCB-I (␤ ⫽ ⫺.06, p ⬍ .05), and in the
relationship between ADHD and supervisor-rated in-role perfor-
mance (␤ ⫽ ⫺.45, p ⬍ .01), OCB-O (␤ ⫽ ⫺.29, p ⬍ .01), and
OCB-I (␤ ⫽ ⫺.16, p ⬍ .05).
To test Hypothesis 2, that ADHD would have a stronger nega-
tive relationship with in-role performance than OCB-O and a
stronger negative relationship with OCB-O than OCB-I, we tested
the differences between the regression coefficients within each
sample. In Sample 1, we did not find support for this hypothesis,
as the differences between in-role performance, OCB-O, and
OCB-I betas were not significant (in-role vs. OCB-O z ⫽ 0.23, ns;
OCB-O vs. OCB-I z ⫽ 0.57, ns). In Sample 2, Hypothesis 2 was
not supported because ADHD had a stronger negative relationship
with OCB than self-rated in-role performance. On the other hand,
the difference between the relationship between ADHD and
coworker-rated in-role performance and OCB was significant (z ⫽
2.01, p ⬍ .05). In Sample 3, the differences between self-rated
in-role performance, OCB-O, and OCB-I betas were not signifi-
cant (in-role vs. OCB-O z ⫽ 0.29, ns; OCB-O vs. OCB-I z ⫽ 1.21,
ns). However, when supervisor-rated performance was used (in-
role vs. OCB-O z ⫽ 2.89, p ⬍ .01; OCB-O vs. OCB-I z ⫽ 2.13,
p ⬍ .05), the differences were significant. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was
partially supported: It was not supported when self-rated perfor-
mance was used, but it was supported when ratings by others were
used.
In Sample 1, the relationship between work engagement and
in-role performance was significant in Step 1 of the regression
(␤ ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .05) and in all subsequent steps of the regression
(see Table 4). This supports the prediction in Hypothesis 3a that
work engagement is positively associated with in-role perfor-
mance. Similarly, the relationships between work engagement and
OCB-O (␤ ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .01) and OCB-I (␤ ⫽ .42, p ⬍ .01; see
Table 4) were significant.
In Sample 2, for self-ratings of performance, the relationships
between work engagement and in-role performance (␤ ⫽ .26, p ⬍
.01) and OCB (␤ ⫽ .22, p ⬍ .05) were significant in Step 1 of the
regression and in all subsequent steps of the regression (see Table
5). The coworker ratings of performance followed the same pattern
in Sample 2; the relationships between work engagement and
coworker-rated in-role performance (␤ ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .05) and OCB
(␤ ⫽ .25, p ⬍ .01) were significant. The same pattern held for
Sample 3 for self-rated in-role performance (␤ ⫽ .24, p ⬍ .01),
OCB-O (␤ ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .01), and OCB-I (␤ ⫽ .35, p ⬍ .01; see
Table 7) and for coworker rated in-role performance (␤ ⫽ .20, p ⬍
.01), OCB-O (␤ ⫽ .17, p ⬍ .01), and OCB-I (␤ ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .01;
see Table 8). Taken together, the findings consistently supported

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Sample 2 (N ⫽ 170)

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Gender 0.47 0.53 —

2. Age (years) 44.31 10.90 .03 —
3. Tenure (years) 6.41 5.11 .06 .25ⴱⴱ —
4. ADHD 2.14 0.82 .02 .03 ⫺.01 —
5. Engagement 3.53 1.10 .04 ⫺.02 ⫺.01 ⫺.06 .94
6. Self-rated in-role performance 6.26 0.77 ⫺.05 .03 .00 ⫺.33ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .92
7. Self-rated OCB 5.68 0.87 ⫺.04 .02 .00 ⫺.14 .31ⴱⴱ .47ⴱⴱ .70
8. Coworker-rated in-role performance 6.36 0.57 .06 .00 .03 ⫺.35ⴱ .26ⴱ .25ⴱ .21ⴱ .89
9. Coworker-rated OCB 5.50 1.19 .04 .01 .02 ⫺.23ⴱ .19ⴱ .48ⴱⴱ .27ⴱ .46ⴱⴱ .83
Note. ADHD ⫽ attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior. Cronbach’s alpha values are along the diagonal.
Gender was coded 0 ⫽ male, 1 ⫽ female. ADHD was coded 1 ⫽ low risk, 2 ⫽ moderate risk, and 3 ⫽ high risk.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 138 HALBESLEBEN, WHEELER, AND SHANINE

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Sample 3 (N ⫽ 243)

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Gender 0.89 0.11 —

2. Age (years) 44.81 11.41 .03 —
3. Tenure (years) 12.79 10.59 .02 .34ⴱⴱ —
4. ADHD 1.99 0.70 .00 ⫺.04 ⫺.03 —
5. Engagement 4.01 0.88 .05 .02 .00 ⫺.04 .95
6. Self-rated in-role performance 5.98 0.82 ⫺.01 ⫺.02 .03 ⫺.25ⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱ .93
7. Self-rated OCB 5.23 0.72 ⫺.03 .02 .02 ⫺.19ⴱ .28ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ .86
8. Supervisor-rated in-role performance 5.86 0.63 .04 .03 .08 ⫺.39ⴱⴱ .21ⴱ .23ⴱ .22ⴱ .88
9. Supervisor-rated OCB 5.21 0.97 .05 .02 .06 ⫺.28ⴱ .24ⴱⴱ .21ⴱ .19ⴱ .39ⴱⴱ .84
Note. ADHD ⫽ attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior. Cronbach’s alpha values are along the diagonal.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Gender was coded 0 ⫽ male, 1 ⫽ female. ADHD was coded 1 ⫽ low risk, 2 ⫽ moderate risk, and 3 ⫽ high risk.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Hypotheses 3a and 3b regardless of rating source and across three
samples.
Hypothesis 4a suggested that ADHD would moderate the
relationship between work engagement and in-role performance
in such a way that ADHD would diminish the relationship
between the two variables. Examining Step 3 and R2 values of
the regression equations, we found this to be the case in Sample
1 (␤ ⫽ ⫺.19, p ⬍ .05) and with self-ratings (␤ ⫽ ⫺.16, p ⬍
.05) and coworker ratings in Sample 2 (␤ ⫽ ⫺.34, p ⬍ .05),
with significant changes in R2 when the interaction was added
in Step 3 (see Tables 4 and 6, respectively). This effect was also
supported in Sample 3 for both self-ratings (␤ ⫽ ⫺.35, p ⬍ .05)
and supervisor ratings (␤ ⫽ ⫺.65, p ⬍ .01) of in-role perfor-
mance.
In Hypothesis 4b, we predicted that ADHD would moderate the
relationship between work engagement and OCB, also so that
would ADHD diminish the relationship between the two variables.
Examining Step 3 of the regression equations, we found this to be
the case in Sample 1 (␤ ⫽ ⫺.23, p ⬍ .05), with both self-ratings
(␤ ⫽ ⫺.45, p ⬍ .05) and coworker ratings in Sample 2 (␤ ⫽ ⫺.45,
p ⬍ .05) and with both self-ratings (␤ ⫽ ⫺.35, p ⬍ .05) and
supervisor ratings in Sample 3 (␤ ⫽ ⫺.59, p ⬍ .05). All three
cases also led to increases in R2 when the interaction was added in
Step 3. With the exception of self-rated in-role performance in
Sample 2, both Hypothesis 4a and 4b were supported in all three
samples.
To illustrate the moderation effects, we graphed the interactions
using the procedures outlined by Aiken and West (1991) and
Preacher, Curran, and Bauer (2006; see Figure 2; because the
patterns were very consistent across samples, we illustrate one
graph for each type of performance to save space. The others are
available from the authors). The results indicate a consistent pat-
tern in which mean levels of performance were lower for partici-
pants scoring at higher risk of ADHD, and the slope for those low
risk for ADHD was positive and the slope of those at higher risk
for ADHD was either negative or zero. We also performed simple
slopes tests (Aiken & West) to examine whether the slopes were
significantly different from zero. The simple slopes tests indicated
that the slopes for those low in ADHD were positive and signifi-
cant in each case, and that the slopes for those higher in ADHD
were not different from zero. For brevity, the results of the simple
slopes tests are available from the first author. Overall, across three
samples, the findings supported Hypotheses 4a and 4b regarding
the moderating effect of ADHD on the work engagement–
performance relationship.
Discussion
Across three samples, we found that ADHD was associated with
lower job performance, with one exception, and that when perfor-
mance ratings by others were used, the negative relationship be-
tween ADHD and performance tended to be strongest for in-role

Table 4
Sample 1 Regression Results of the Moderated Relationship Between Work Engagement, ADHD, and Self-Ratings of Performance
(N ⫽ 257)

In-role performance OCB-O OCB-I

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
Time 1 performance .22 .20 .20 .38 .36 .36 .29 .30 .30ⴱⴱ
Time 1 work engagement .13ⴱ .20ⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ .54ⴱⴱ .54ⴱⴱ .53ⴱⴱ .42ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ
ADHD ⫺.12ⴱ ⫺.13ⴱ ⫺.14ⴱⴱ ⫺.11ⴱ ⫺.09ⴱ ⫺.08ⴱ
Engagement ⫻ ADHD ⫺.14ⴱ ⫺.23ⴱⴱ ⫺.19ⴱⴱ
R2 .35 .40 .42 .31 .34 .36 .43 .47 .52
⌬R2 .05ⴱ .02ⴱ .03ⴱ .02ⴱ .04ⴱ .05ⴱ
Note. ADHD ⫽ attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; OCB-O ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior that helps the organization; OCB-I ⫽ organiza-
tional citizenship behavior that helps individuals. Entries are standardized beta coefficients. ADHD was coded 1 ⫽ low risk, 2 ⫽ moderate risk, and 3 ⫽
high risk.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 ADHD AND WORK PERFORMANCE 139

Table 5
Sample 2 Regression Results of the Moderated Relationship Between Work Engagement, ADHD, and Self-Ratings of Performance
(N ⫽ 170)

In-role performance OCB

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
Time 1 performance .43 .45 .45 .58 .57 .56ⴱⴱ
Time 1 work engagement .26ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱ
ADHD ⫺.03 ⫺.04 ⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.27ⴱⴱ
Engagement ⫻ ADHD ⫺.13ⴱ ⫺.18ⴱⴱ
R2 .43 .44 .46 .17 .21 .24
⌬R2 .01 .02ⴱ .04ⴱ .03ⴱ
Note. ADHD ⫽ attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior. Entries are standardized beta coefficients. ADHD
was coded 1 ⫽ low risk, 2 ⫽ moderate risk, and 3 ⫽ high risk.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

performance than OCB (and especially OCB-I). Our findings also
confirm the hypothesized role of ADHD in the work engagement–
performance relationship, finding a fairly consistent pattern
whereby those suffering from adult ADHD had a significantly
reduced relationship between work engagement and performance.
The findings were generally consistent across rating sources (self,
coworker, and supervisor) and across different timeframes for data
collection. Such a pattern represents a constructive replication of
the findings and offers greater internal and external validity of our
study.
The findings regarding the strength of the relationship between
ADHD and performance (Hypothesis 2) are intriguing. This hy-
pothesis was not supported in any tests that involved the use of
self-rated performance but were supported in tests in which per-
formance ratings by others were tested. This might suggest that
whereas others view those with ADHD as diverting their attention
toward less task-relevant behaviors, the employees themselves do
not view themselves as doing the same. This self– other difference
may be worthy of future exploration, as it may suggest that
self-awareness of diversion of attention to task-irrelevant behav-
iors might increase the focus on task-relevant behaviors.
Along those lines, we recognize that we cannot entirely test
the processes predicted by Hypothesis 2. Because we were not
in a position to observe the choices participants made regarding
performance behaviors, we cannot draw direct inferences about
decisions to engage in one type of behavior at the expense of
another. Perhaps future research that puts participants into a
performance choice situation may provide a further test of the
performance efficiency tenets of ACT. Although it was not
intended to be an indicator of performance, it is noteworthy that
those higher in ADHD were more likely to respond to the initial
recruitment e-mail for the survey in Sample 2. This offers
further support for our contention that those with symptoms of
ADHD are more likely to divert their attention toward helping
behaviors. Clearly, completion of this survey would not be
considered an element of their task performance. The recruit-
ment e-mail represents a stimulus that might divert attention
away from task performance and toward an activity that could
be characterized as OCB-I. In light of the common concerns
with measurement of performance, this finding may serve as an
interesting avenue for future research designs regarding how
ADHD individuals divert their attention in response to stimuli.
Implications for Theory and Research
This study makes two significant contributions to the literature.
The primary contribution of this study is its extension of ACT to
the occupational health psychology literature. To this point, ACT
had largely been applied to the cognitive psychology literature in
laboratory settings. This study suggests that ACT could help
explain workplace decisions of those who might be in positions in
which anxiety or some other impairment impacts their ability to

Table 6
Sample 2 Regression Results of the Moderated Relationship Between Work Engagement, ADHD, and Coworker Ratings of
Performance (N ⫽ 170)

In-role performance OCB

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
Time 1 performance .26 .25 .25 .35 .24 .24ⴱⴱ
Time 1 work engagement .13ⴱ .12ⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ
ADHD ⫺.34ⴱⴱ ⫺.46ⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.27ⴱⴱ
Engagement ⫻ ADHD ⫺.29ⴱⴱ ⫺.18ⴱⴱ
R2 .22 .24 .26 .17 .21 .24
⌬R2 .02ⴱ .04ⴱ .04ⴱ .03ⴱ
Note. ADHD ⫽ attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior. Entries are standardized beta coefficients. ADHD
was coded 1 ⫽ low risk, 2 ⫽ moderate risk, and 3 ⫽ high risk.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 140 HALBESLEBEN, WHEELER, AND SHANINE

Table 7
Sample 3 Regression Results of the Moderated Relationship Between Work Engagement, ADHD, and Self-Ratings of Performance
(N ⫽ 486)

In-role performance OCB-O OCB-I

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
Time 1 performance .48 .46 .46 .39 .40 .40 .25 .24 .24ⴱⴱ
Time 1 work engagement .24ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ .35ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ
ADHD ⫺.22ⴱⴱ ⫺.24ⴱⴱ ⫺.19ⴱⴱ ⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.06ⴱ ⫺.05
Engagement ⫻ ADHD ⫺.31ⴱⴱ ⫺.41ⴱⴱ ⫺.15ⴱⴱ
R2 .42 .47 .51 .21 .23 .28 .15 .21 .25
⌬R2 .05ⴱ .04ⴱ .02ⴱ .05ⴱ .06ⴱ .04ⴱ
Note. ADHD ⫽ attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; OCB-O ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior that helps the organization; OCB-I ⫽ organiza-
tional citizenship behavior that helps individuals. Entries are standardized beta coefficients. ADHD was coded 1 ⫽ low risk, 2 ⫽ moderate risk, and 3 ⫽
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

high risk.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

control attention. Given that anxiety associated with stressors in
the workplace and occupational safety represent two commonly
studied aspects of occupational health psychology, broader appli-
cation of ACT may be a significant advance in our understanding
of the cognitive aspects of occupational health psychology.
The second contribution is advancing the literature on the im-
pact of ADHD in the workplace. By most accounts, ADHD is
among the most prevalent mental disorders in the United States
and is underdiagnosed (Kessler et al., 2006). This suggests that
there are a significant number of working adults with ADHD. Our
research adds to the literature suggesting that employees with
ADHD have a variety of negative outcomes (Kessler, Adler,
Ames, Barkley, et al., 2005; Murphy & Barkley, 1996; Weiss &
Hechtman, 1993). As we noted in the introduction, Kessler et al.
(2009) reported that employees with ADHD have 4 –5% lower
work performance than their non-ADHD counterparts. Our study
supports their finding that ADHD is associated with lower perfor-
mance; moreover, we extend their study by examining other con-
texts (their study was limited to a single manufacturing facility)
and by using multiple sources of performance information (their
study was solely self-report).
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
We acknowledge the limitation of using a self-report assess-
ment of ADHD. Although the screening instrument we used has
high concordance with clinical assessments, an assessment us-
ing multiple sources of information is ideal (Murphy & Adler,
2004). We also acknowledge this issue of decreasing variability
of scores on this assessment by categorizing respondents; how-
ever, we followed previous precedent for using this measure
(Kessler, Adler, Ames, Demler, et al., 2005). Future research
that can supplement the screening scale with clinical assess-
ments and information from other sources (e.g., spouses) would
improve the accuracy of diagnosis and allow researchers to
avoid categorizing data.
One aspect of ADHD that we did not test in the present study is
the idea that many adults with ADHD have lower status in their
organizations and occupations (Weiss & Hectman, 1993). This,
combined with the performance deficiencies associated with
ADHD, may mean that those with ADHD have lower resources to
begin with. This might suggest that those with ADHD would be
less likely to have the resources to become engaged. Although we
did not find a negative relationship between engagement and
ADHD that might follow from such a prediction, we also did not
explicitly examine the resources of the employees in the study.
This would be a valuable avenue for future research, with both
theoretical and practical implications, as it may suggest that in
addition to having a difficult time managing their resources (the
finding of the present study), they may have fewer resources to
begin with.

Table 8
Sample 3 Regression Results of the Moderated Relationship Between Work Engagement, ADHD, and Supervisor Ratings of
Performance (N ⫽ 486)

In-role performance OCB-O OCB-I

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
Time 1 performance .36 .36 .36 .41 .42 .42 .26 .25 .23ⴱⴱ
Time 1 work engagement .20ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ
ADHD ⫺.45ⴱⴱ ⫺.45ⴱⴱ ⫺.29ⴱⴱ ⫺.29ⴱⴱ ⫺.16ⴱⴱ ⫺.15ⴱⴱ
Engagement ⫻ ADHD ⫺.49ⴱⴱ ⫺.38ⴱⴱ ⫺.34ⴱⴱ
R2 .35 .40 .42 .31 .34 .36 .43 .47 .52
⌬R2 .05ⴱ .02ⴱ .03ⴱ .02ⴱ .04ⴱ .05ⴱ
Note. ADHD ⫽ attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; OCB-O ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior that helps the organization; OCB-I ⫽ organiza-
tional citizenship behavior that helps individuals. Entries are standardized beta coefficients. ADHD was coded 1 ⫽ low risk, 2 ⫽ moderate risk, and 3 ⫽
high risk.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 ADHD AND WORK PERFORMANCE
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 2. Sample 1 performance as a function of attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and engagement.
Finally, a counterpoint to our study is the finding that adults
with ADHD can perform well in entrepreneurial settings or envi-
ronments where the pace is fast (Arnst, 2003; Carroll & Ponteretto,
1998; Lamberg, 2003; Wyld, 1996). Weiss and Weiss (2004) even
suggested that adults with ADHD can be successful to the point of
being workaholics in the right setting. It is possible that in those
situations, careful management of work resources is less impor-
tant. For example, the impulsivity associated with ADHD may be
a benefit for someone who needs to make quick decisions. Our
data do not allow for the examination of such processes; future
research that specifically examines allocation of resources among
entrepreneurs with ADHD or managers in fast-paced work settings
would help to better understand the boundary conditions governing
the role that ADHD plays in managing resources at work.
Practical Implications
Our findings suggest that employees with ADHD likely encoun-
ter negative outcomes in the workplace. In some cases, they may
have the resources needed to be successful, but they are not in a
position to appropriately manage them in a way that leads to high
141
levels of performance. This leads to the natural question of what
organizations can do to help address these concerns, given that
there is a high likelihood that they employ people with ADHD. An
initial step in addressing the problem is to address human resource
managers’ understanding of ADHD (Patton, 2009). Matza et al.
(2005) surveyed employers, finding that employers acknowledged
little of the implications of ADHD for their employees. As a result,
human resource professionals often do not know whether to handle
ADHD under the typical framework of occupational injuries or
something more consistent with the realm of an employee assis-
tance program (Sanders, 2005). ADHD might simply fall through
the cracks.
In addition, very few organizations offer accommodations for
ADHD. This is, in part, because employees may not be aware
that they have ADHD and, as a result, do not seek accommo-
dations (Patton, 2009). However, some of these potential ac-
commodations have a direct impact on the findings of this
study. For example, Kitchen (2006) proposed accommodations
such as time management tools (e.g., to-do lists) and more quiet
and organized work areas to help employees with ADHD focus
on important tasks. Human resource managers might recom-
mend that office workers reduce the number of computer ap-
plications on an employee with ADHD’s computer, as more
applications, especially non–work-related applications, might
exacerbate the employee’s ADHD tendencies. Employers might
also consider presenting instructions in both oral and written
formats, as well as providing visual aids and handouts (To-
miney & Tominey, 2000). We propose that such accommoda-
tions would improve the ability of these employees to manage
their resources so that the link between engagement and per-
formance can be restored. We note, however, that the findings
suggesting benefits of ADHD in some situations also suggest
that organizations would be well served to carefully consider
the impact of ADHD and how it can yield positive results with
regard to performance. As a result, we caution managers not to
assume that our findings suggest that those with ADHD are
lower performers and thus should not be accommodated. More-
over, recent findings suggest that pursuing management strat-
egies that go too far to force self-control may yield higher strain
and absenteeism (Diestel & Schmidt, 2012), so care must be
taken in how such interventions are implemented.
Conclusion
Despite impacting significant numbers of workers, there re-
mains very little research on the way ADHD affects decisions at
work. Our study makes two major contributions to the literature.
First, it adds to the literature suggesting that ADHD has important
implications for employees and organizations by finding that it can
impact both the effectiveness and efficiency of performance. Sec-
ond, and more important, our study highlights the theoretical
mechanism (lack of attentional control) underlying ADHD’s role
in the engagement–performance relationship. Not only does this
help focus attention on how to address concerns with ADHD in the
workplace, it adds to the literature on ACT by offering an exten-
sion of that theory into broader field work in occupational health
psychology.
 142 HALBESLEBEN, WHEELER, AND SHANINE
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and inter-
preting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington DC: Author.
Arnst, C. (2003, October 27). Attention deficit: Not just kid stuff. Business
Week pp. . 84 – 86
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work
engagement: An emerging concept in organizational psychology. Work
& Stress, 22, 187–200. doi:10.1080/02678370802393649
Barkley, R. A. (1990). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook
for diagnosis and treatment. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator distinction
in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good
soldier. The Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595. doi:
10.2307/255908
Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizen-
ship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy of Management
Review, 32, 1078 –1095. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.26585791
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., Gillstrap, J. B., & Suazo, M. M. (2010).
Citizenship under pressure: What’s a “good soldier” to do? Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 31, 835– 855. doi:10.1002/job.635
Bowler, W. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Relational correlates of interper-
sonal citizenship behavior: A social network perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 70 – 82. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.70
Carroll, C. B., & Ponteretto, J. G. (1998). Employment counseling for
adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Issues without an-
swers. Journal of Employment Counseling, 35, 79 –95. doi:10.1002/j
.2161-1920.1998.tb00478.x
Corbetta, M., & Schulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and
stimulus-directed attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3,
215–229. doi:10.1038/nrn755
Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (2009). Anxiety, processing efficiency,
and cognitive performance: New developments from attentional control
theory. European Psychologist, 14, 168 –176. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.14
.2.168
Diestel, S., & Schmidt, K.-H. (2012). Lagged mediator effects of self-
control demands on psychological strain and absenteeism. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 556 –578. doi:
10.1111/j.2044-8325.2012.02058.x
Eysenck, M. W., & Derakshan, N. (2011). New perspectives in attentional
control theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 955–960.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.019
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007).
Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emo-
tion, 7, 336 –353. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336
Florey, A. T., & Harrison, D. A. (2000). Responses to informal accom-
modation requests from employees with disabilities: Multistudy evi-
dence on willingness to comply. The Academy of Management Journal,
43, 224 –233. doi:10.2307/1556379
Fox, E., Russo, R., & Dutton, K. (2005). Anxiety modulates the degree of
attentive resources required to process emotional faces. Cognitive, Af-
fective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 396 – 404. doi:10.3758/CABN.5
.4.396
Goodman, S. A., & Syvantek, D. J. (1999). Person– organization fit and
contextual performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 254 –275.
doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998.1682
Gorgievski, M. J., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2011). Expand-
ing the boundaries of psychological resource theories. Journal of Occu-
pational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 1–7. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8325.2010.02015.x
Gorgievski, M. J., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2008). Work can burn us out or fire us
up: Conservation of resources in burnout and engagement. In J. R. B.
Halbesleben (Ed.), Handbook of stress and burnout in health care (pp.
7–22). Hauppauge, NY: NOVA Science.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Rela-
tionships with burnout, demands, resources and consequences. In A.
Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essen-
tial theory and research (pp. 102–117). London, UK: Routledge.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and
job performance: The mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 93–106. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.93
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of
engagement and embeddedness in predicting job performance and in-
tention to leave. Work & Stress, 22, 242–256. doi:10.1080/
02678370802383962
Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different?
Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and
organizational commitment? European Psychologist, 11, 119 –127. doi:
10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.119
Halmøy, A., Fasmer, O. B., Gillberg, C., & Haavik, J. (2009). Occupational
outcome in adult ADHD: Impact of symptom profile, comorbid psychi-
atric problems, and treatment. Journal of Attention Disorders, 13, 175–
187. doi:10.1177/1087054708329777
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested
self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 337– 421. doi:
10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Hsiung, H.-H., Lin, C.-W., & Lin C.-S. (2012). Nourishing or suppressing?
The contradictory influences of perception of organizational politics on
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Orga-
nizational Psychology, 85, 258 –276. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011
.02030.x
Jackson, B., & Ferrugia, D. (1997). Diagnosis and treatment of adults with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Counseling & Devel-
opment, 75, 312–319. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1997.tb02346.x
Kessler, R. C., Adler, L., Ames, M., Barkley, R. A., Birnbaum, H.,
Greenberg, P., . . . Üstün, T. B. (2005). The prevalence and effects of
adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder on work performance in a
nationally representative sample of workers. Journal of Occupational
and Environmental Medicine, 47, 565–572. doi:10.1097/01.jom
.0000166863.33541.39
Kessler, R. C., Adler, L., Ames, M., Demler, O., Faraone, S., Hiripi, E., .
. . Walters, E. E. (2005). The World Health Organization Adult ADHD
Self-Report Scale (ASRS): A short screening scale for use in the general
population. Psychological Medicine, 35, 245–256. doi:10.1017/
S0033291704002892
Kessler, R. C., Adler, L., Barkley, R., Biederman, J., Conners, C. K.,
Demler, O., . . . Zaslavsky, A. M. (2006). The prevalence and correlates
of adult ADHD in the United States: Results from the National Comor-
bidity Survey Replication. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 163,
716 –723. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.163.4.716
Kessler, R. C., Lane, M., Stang, P. E., & Van Brunt, D. L. (2009). The
prevalence and workplace costs of adult attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder in a large manufacturing firm. Psychological Medicine, 39,
137–147. doi:10.1017/S0033291708003309
Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1999). Main and interaction effects of
task and contextual performance on supervisory reward decisions. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 84, 602– 609. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.4
.602
Kitchen, S. G. (2006). Employees with attention deficit-hyperactivity dis-
order. Washington, DC: Job Accommodation Network, U. S. Depart-
ment of Labor.
Kühnel, J., Sonnentag, S., & Bledow, R. (2012). Resources and time
pressure as day-level antecedents of work engagement. Journal of Oc-
 ADHD AND WORK PERFORMANCE
cupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 181–198. doi:10.1111/j
.2044-8325.2011.02022.x
Lamberg, L. (2003). ADHD often undiagnosed in adults. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 290, 1565–1567. doi:10.1001/jama.290
.12.1565
Llorens, S., Salanova, M., Bakker, A., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). Does a
positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist?
Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 825– 841. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004
.11.012
Matza, L. S., Paramore, C., & Prasad, M. (2005). A review of the economic
burden of ADHD. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 3, 5–9.
doi:10.1186/1478-7547-3-5
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal
cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202. doi:
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Murphy, K. R., & Adler, L. A. (2004). Assessing attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder in adults: Focus on rating scales. Journal of
Clinical Psychiatry, 65, 8 –11.
Murphy, K., & Barkley, R. A. (1996). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity dis-
order in adults: Comorbidity and adaptive impairments. Comprehensive
Psychiatry, 37, 393– 401. doi:10.1016/S0010-440X(96)90022-X
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good
soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Pancheco-Unguetti, A. P., Acosta, A., Callejas, A., & Lupianez, J. (2010).
Attention and anxiety: Differential attentional functioning under state
and trait anxiety. Psychological Science, 21, 298 –304. doi:10.1177/
0956797609359624
Pashler, H., Johnston, J. C., & Ruthroff, E. (2001). Attention and perfor-
mance. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 629 – 651. doi:10.1146/
annurev.psych.52.1.629
Patton, E. (2009). When diagnosis does not always mean disability: The
challenge of employees with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD). Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 24, 326 –343. doi:
10.1080/15555240903176161
Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human
brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25– 42. doi:10.1146/annurev
.ne.13.030190.000325
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools
for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel
modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behav-
ioral Statistics, 31, 437– 448. doi:10.3102/10769986031004437
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational
resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer
loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 90, 1217–1227. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217
Salanova, M., Bakker, A. B., & Llorens, S. (2006). Flow at work: Evidence
for an upward spiral of personal and organizational resources. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 7, 1–22. doi:10.1007/s10902-005-8854-8
Sanders, B. (2005). Understanding psychiatric disabilities. Accessed from
http://www.shrm.org/hrresources/whitepapers_published/CMS_
0114913.asp
143
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. (2003). UWES Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale: Test manual. Unpublished manuscript. Utrecht University,
Utrecht, Netherlands. Available at http://www.schaufeli.com
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and
their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. doi:10.1002/job.248
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement
of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716. doi:
10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B.
(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative
analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. doi:10.1023/
A:1015630930326
Schuh, S. C., Zhang, X., Egold, N. W., Graf, M. M., Pandley, D., & van
Dick, R. (2012). Leader and follower organizational identification: The
mediating role of leader behavior and implications for follower OCB.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 421– 432.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02044.x
Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A.,
& Schaufeli, W. (2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 10, 459 – 481. doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9100-y
Stone, D. L., & Colella, A. (1996). A model of factors affecting the
treatment of disabled individuals in organizations. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 21, 352– 401.
Tominey, E., & Tominey, M. (2000). Working effectively with people with
attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Cornell University Program on
Employment and Disability Brochure, Ithaca, NY.
Weiss, G., & Hechtman, L. (1993). Hyperactive children grown up: ADHD
in children, adolescents, and adults. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Weiss, M. D., & Weiss, J. R. (2004). A guide to the treatment of adults
with ADHD. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 65(Suppl. 3), 27–37.
Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the
impact of in-role and extra-role behaviors on supervisory ratings. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 79, 98 –107. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.1.98
Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Pierce, J. R. (2008). Effects of task
performance, helping, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance
appraisal ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 125–139. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.125
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organiza-
tional commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role
behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601– 617. doi:10.1177/
014920639101700305
Wyld, D. C. (1996). The “ADHD card:” Coping with adult attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the American workplace. Equal Oppor-
tunities International, 15, 22–33. doi:10.1108/eb010713
Received June 20, 2012
Revision received January 21, 2013
Accepted January 24, 2013 䡲