655666

research-article2016
HRDXXX10.1177/1534484316655666Human Resource Development ReviewEldor

Article
Human Resource Development Review
1­–23
Work Engagement: © The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Toward a General sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1534484316655666
Theoretical Enriching Model hrd.sagepub.com

Liat Eldor1

Abstract
This article proposes a theoretical model linking the relatively new concept of work
engagement to three major domains of employees’ lives—work, personal life, and
community—and demonstrates the added value of engagement to each of these
domains, above and beyond other well-known concepts in the employee–organization
relationship. We propose that promoting work engagement among employees
provides organizations with a competitive advantage. Moreover, we maintain that work
engagement also creates added value beyond the boundaries of the workplace and has
the potential to enrich other major areas in an employee’s life. When compared with
similar work-related attitudes such as job involvement and job satisfaction, the work
engagement concept also provides added value to organizations, their employees, and
their community beyond these similar concepts. This article addresses the paucity of
structured literature on the multiple facets and added value of work engagement within
organizations and beyond, and presents a comprehensive, holistic model for improving
engagement in work that human resource development practitioners can implement.

Keywords
work engagement, competitive advantage, work-life enrichment, satisfaction with life,
positive spillover, community involvement

Introduction
The literature on employee–organization relationships contains ever-increasing refer-
ences to the concept of work engagement (e.g., Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011;
Eldor & Harpaz, 2016; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Rothbard & Patil, 2010; Shuck &

1University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

Corresponding Author:
Liat Eldor, The Wharton School, Management Department, University of Pennsylvania, 3214 Steinberg-
Dietrich Hall, 3620 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6370, USA.
Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

2 Human Resource Development Review 

Wollard, 2010), customarily defined as “ . . . a positive, fulfilling work-related state of

mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Salanova,
Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002, p. 74). The growing interest in work engagement in
the field of human resource development (HRD) is driven by the hope that improving
employees’ engagement in their work could have a significant positive impact on the
organization’s results and employees’ performance and learning (Macey & Schneider,
2008; Shuck, Reio, & Rocco, 2011; Shuck & Wollard, 2010).
However, despite the growing recognition of the importance of work engagement
in the literature and practices of HRD (e.g., Shuck & Reio, 2011; Shuck, Reio, &
Rocco, 2011; Shuck & Wollard, 2010), we still have little knowledge about its added
value in promoting the organization’s competitive advantage. This omission is signifi-
cant, because HRD professionals constantly seek to identify the factors that can
improve the performance of organizations (Barney & Wright, 1998). Drawing on
Wright’s (2003) argument that the mission of organizations must also include the pur-
suit of employee happiness, and following Zwetsloot and Pot’s (2004) call that
employee well-being is becoming a business value of strategic importance, we pro-
pose a comprehensive model for managing work engagement that provides benefits
for both the organization and its workers. Although many HRD studies have examined
various intriguing organizational aspects of work engagement (e.g., Shuck, Ghosh,
Zigarmi, & Nimon, 2013; Shuck, Reio, & Rocco, 2011; Shuck, Rocco, & Albornoz,
2011), there is far less research demonstrating the multi-faceted usefulness of this
phenomenon within organizations and in the multiple domains of employees’ lives,
both personal and communal. The lack of such information impedes our understand-
ing of the multi-faceted utility of work engagement, making it more difficult for HRD
practitioners to determine how to cultivate employee efficacy and effectiveness.
Therefore, the goal of this study is to conceptually explore the many facets of the use-
fulness of work engagement within organizations and beyond, within the specific con-
text of HRD.
To this end, we present a holistic, conceptually grounded approach to the develop-
ment of a complementary approach to work, life, and community via work engage-
ment. We argue that any organization aiming to increase its competitive advantage
must cultivate and foster work engagement among its employees. Moreover, work
engagement brings with it added value above and beyond other attitudes involved in
the employee–organization relationship. Figure 1 represents the proposed theoretical
framework in which we delineate the model. We maintain that the model contributes
to the HRD literature by demonstrating why improving employees’ engagement in
their work provides organizations and employees with mutual benefits that are desir-
able in the contemporary challenging reality.
We begin by providing a broad overview of the current state of work engagement
theory and research. Then we discuss the three areas of employees’ lives in which
engagement offers added value—work, personal life, and community—in an attempt
to formulate a comprehensive theoretical model. We investigate each area (i.e., work,
personal life, and community) using existing studies that support our claims and pro-
vide the basis for our propositions regarding the enriching potential of work

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

Eldor 3

Figure 1.  Model of the value add of work engagement.

engagement. The article concludes with a discussion including suggestions for manag-
ers and HRD professionals.

A Broad Conceptualization of Work Engagement for

HRD
Within the fields of HRD and organizational psychology, there is a growing body of
research on various perspectives on work engagement (Shuck, 2011). At its core, work
engagement refers to involvement, passion, enthusiasm, and energy (Macey &
Schneider, 2008). Practitioners often define work engagement in terms of affective
commitment, satisfaction, and identification, thereby confusing different constructs by
“putting old wine in new bottles” (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010, p. 12). For example, one
of the most widely cited pieces of practitioner literature is the Harter, Schmidt, and
Hayes (2002) framework using the Gallup conceptualization of work engagement as

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

4 Human Resource Development Review 

an “individual’s involvement and satisfaction with, as well as enthusiasm for, work”

(Harter et al., 2002, p. 269). However, from an academic point of view, interest in
work engagement can be traced back to Kahn’s (1990) seminal ethnographic work that
inspired much of the academic research on work engagement (e.g., May, Gilson, &
Harter, 2004; Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010; Rothbard, 2001; Shuck, 2011).
Kahn (1990) originally defined work engagement as “the harnessing of organiza-
tion members’ selves to their work roles, by which they employ and express them-
selves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performance” (p. 694). His
formal description views work engagement as a psychological, dynamic, and dialecti-
cal relationship, “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s preferred
self in task behaviors that promote connections to work, personal presence (physical,
cognitive, and emotional) and active full performances” (Kahn, 1990, p. 700). The
physical aspect of work engagement concerns the physical energies exerted by
employees to engage in organizationally valued behaviors at increased levels of effort
over extended periods of time. The emotional aspect deals with how employees feel
about their work and the emotional energy needed to meet the emotional demands of
their roles. Finally, the cognitive aspect of work engagement addresses employee
mindfulness, vigilance, and attention to work roles (Kahn, 1990, 1992). Thus, from
Kahn’s (1992) perspective, work engagement is best described as a motivational con-
cept reflecting the simultaneous and holistic expression of an employee’s physical,
emotional, and cognitive energy in a work role (Shuck & Wollard, 2010).
Inspired by Kahn’s (1990, 1992) seminal theory on psychological engagement,
Rothbard (2001) defines work engagement as “one’s psychological presence in or
focus on role activities” (p. 656). She suggests that there are two critical components
involved in work engagement: attention and absorption. Absorption refers to the inten-
sity of immersion that one experiences at work, being deeply engrossed and not easily
distracted; attention refers to the cognitive resources including the concentration and
cognitive energy that employees invest in their work (Rothbard, 2001). Rich et al.
(2010) have gone beyond this narrow conceptualization of work engagement as a cog-
nitive state and broadened Rothbard’s definition. Their study reverts to the earlier
theorizing of Kahn (1990, 1992) and proposes that engagement should be conceptual-
ized and measured so that there are three subcomponents: physical, emotional, and
cognitive. Grounded primarily in Kahn’s (1990) seminal study on work engagement,
HRD scholars have suggested that work engagement is a three-pronged construct con-
sisting of positive cognitive, emotive, and physical energies and investments (e.g.,
Shuck, 2011; Shuck & Reio, 2011; Shuck & Wollard, 2010).
A recent conceptual framework by Macey and Schneider (2008) offers a compre-
hensive taxonomy of work engagement. They describe work engagement as “ . . . a
desirable condition, has an organizational purpose, and connotes involvement, com-
mitment, passion, enthusiasm, focused effort and energy, so it has both attitudinal and
behavioral components” (p. 4); a “discretionary effort or a specific form of in-role or
extra-role effort or behavior” (p. 6); and the desire to go “beyond preserving the status
quo, and instead focus on initiating or fostering change in the sense of doing some-
thing more and/or different” (p. 24). These scholars propose work engagement to be

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

Eldor 5

an aggregate, a multi-dimensional construct that contains three different types of

engagement: trait engagement, state engagement, and behavioral engagement. Each
of these forms of engagement is based on the previous one, eventually leading to com-
plete engagement. In turn, complete engagement encompasses various conceptualiza-
tions such as a proactive personality and positive affect (i.e., trait engagement), job
involvement and psychological empowerment (i.e., state engagement), and initiative
and proactive behavior (i.e., behavioral engagement).
However, much of the early work engagement research adopted Maslach and
Leiter’s (1997) view of work engagement as the opposite pole of the term “burnout.”
Indeed, in the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), Maslach and Leiter (1997) define
work engagement as the opposite end of a continuum between engagement and
burnout, namely, “a persistent positive affective state characterized by high levels of
activation and pleasure” (p. 417). They argue that while engagement is characterized
by vigor, involvement, and efficacy, burnout is characterized by three parallel yet
opposite dimensions: exhaustion (vs. vigor), cynicism (vs. involvement), and inef-
fectiveness (vs. efficacy). Extending this line of thinking, Schaufeli et al. (2002)
define work engagement as a positive, fulfilling, motivational state of mind charac-
terized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Vigor refers to
high levels of energy and mental resilience at work, willingness to invest effort in
one’s work, and persistence in the face of difficulties and challenges (Schaufeli
et al., 2002). Dedication means being deeply involved in one’s work and experienc-
ing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge (Schaufeli
et al., 2002). The third component, absorption, involves full concentration on one’s
work to the point of experiencing time as passing quickly, having difficulty detach-
ing oneself from work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova,
2006; Schaufeli et al., 2002).
The root of Schaufeli et al.’s (2002) approach can be traced back to what has come
to be known as “positive psychology,” namely, “ . . . a change in the focus of psychol-
ogy from preoccupation only with repairing the worst things in life to also building
positive qualities” (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 5). This change led to a
positive shift of perspective in organizational psychology, principally in the study of
the characteristics of employee prosperity and well-being (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008;
Luthans & Youssef, 2007). The Schaufeli et al. (2002) conceptualization and opera-
tionalization of work engagement using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale has
been the subject of the greatest number of scientific studies (see the meta-analyses of
Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011, and Rich et al., 2010, and the overview of Shuck,
2011).
Building on earlier seminal conceptualizations of work engagement (e.g., Kahn,
1990; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Schaufeli et al., 2002), Shuck and Wollard (2010)
define engagement for HRD field as “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional,
and behavioral state directed toward desired organizational outcomes” (p. 103). They
also suggested that each dimension of work engagement is distinguishable, definable,
and derived from one another. To sum, while the literature contains several frame-
works for defining work engagement, a consensus seems to be forming that work

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

6 Human Resource Development Review 

engagement is an employee–organization relationship that reflects the employees’

simultaneous investment of cognitive, emotional, and physical energies that benefits
the organization as well as the employees themselves (e.g., Kahn, 1992; Macey &
Schneider, 2008; Rich et al., 2010; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Shuck, 2011; Shuck et al.,
2013; Shuck & Wollard, 2010). However, what is still lacking is a clear understanding
of what specific added value work engagement brings to the well-being of organiza-
tions and their employees.

Enhancing Work Engagement

Consistent with Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, and Schaufeli’s (2001) job demands–
resources model, previous studies have consistently shown that job resources facilitate
work engagement (Bakker et al., 2011). According to the job demands–resources
model (Demerouti et al., 2001), job resources are the aspects of work that are func-
tional in achieving work goals as well as in stimulating personal growth. They play a
key role in facilitating work engagement, because they have both extrinsic motiva-
tional potential by helping employees achieve their work goals and intrinsic motiva-
tional potential by facilitating their personal development (Bakker & Demerouti,
2007; Demerouti et al., 2001). Accordingly, studies have established a positive rela-
tionship between various job resources (e.g., learning climate, autonomy, job control,
role fit, skills variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, supervisor support,
performance feedback) and work engagement (see Bakker et al., 2011; Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007; Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004; Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti,
& Xanthopoulou, 2007; Eldor & Harpaz, 2016; Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006;
Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Van Rhenen, 2009; Shuck & Reio,
2011; Shuck, Reio, & Rocco, 2011; for a meta-analysis, see Crawford, LePine, &
Rich, 2010; Halbesleben, 2010).
Similarly, Kahn (1990) finds that the characteristics of tasks are important for
the experience of meaningfulness. Building on Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) job
characteristics theory, he suggests that meaningfulness, psychological safety, and
psychological availability influence employees’ internal work motivations (see
May et al., 2004; Rich et al., 2010; Shuck & Reio, 2011). For example, using a
sample of 203 employees from a large insurance firm, May et al. (2004) establish
that work engagement has a positive relationship with meaningfulness (r = .63),
availability (r = .29), and safety (r = .45), and demonstrated that all three of Kahn’s
(1990, 1992) conditions are important in the development of work engagement.
Kahn argues that work that is challenging, clearly delineated, varied, creative, and
autonomous is most likely to be associated with the experience of work engage-
ment. Thus, studies using the job demands–resources model illustrate how various
aspects of the organization and characteristics of the job can positively affect work
engagement (Shuck, 2011). Such theoretical approaches and empirical findings
clearly add to our overall knowledge about work engagement and its potential value
to the HRD community.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

Eldor 7

Work Engagement and Other Similar Concepts in the Employee–

Organization Relationship
A particularly intriguing question for HRD scholars and professionals alike is whether
work engagement is a distinct concept (e.g., Dalal, Brummel, Wee, & Thomas, 2008;
Frese, 2008; Griffin, Parker, & Neal, 2008; Newman & Harrison, 2008; Saks, 2008;
Schohat & Vigoda-Gadot, 2010; Shuck et al., 2013; Shuck & Wollard, 2010) or rather
a “new blend of old wines” (Newman, Joseph, & Hulin, 2010, p. 45). As Shuck (2011)
suggests, an additional important step in understanding the efficacy of work engage-
ment should focus on differentiating the added value that work engagement brings
from “other well-researched job attitude and organizational constructs such as job sat-
isfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement, and job affect . . . ” (p. 317).
Moreover, given the limits on HRD budgets and the demand of finding the most effec-
tive job attitude which cultivates employees’ performance and effectiveness, identify-
ing the specific benefits of work engagement and its added value above other similar
job attitudes is imperative for HRD professionals (Shuck, 2011).
To date, work engagement has been empirically distinguished from workaholism
and burnout (e.g., Gorgievski & Bakker, 2010; Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008),
from attitudes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment (e.g., Christian
et al., 2011; Eldor & Harpaz, 2016; Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006), and from commit-
ment to public service and involvement in public work (Vigoda-Gadot, Eldor, &
Schohat, 2013). Work engagement is distinguished from involvement (which reflects
only cognitive factors; for an extensive review, see Kanungo, 1982) in that it simulta-
neously encompasses cognitive, affective, and physical factors (Eldor & Harpaz,
2016; Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2013). Work engagement is
also distinguished from emotional commitment, defined as being proud of one’s orga-
nization and sharing its values (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006), in that the latter is merely
a single component of work engagement (i.e., state engagement; see Hallberg &
Schaufeli, 2006; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2013). Finally, work
engagement is distinguished from change-oriented organizational citizenship behav-
ior, defined as taking charge of one’s environment and as the employee’s efforts to
effect functional changes in the organization (Vigoda-Gadot & Beeri, 2012); the first
focuses on intra-role behavior, whereas the latter deals with extra-role behaviors
(Vigoda-Gadot & Beeri, 2012).
Recent research provides additional empirical evidence about the distinctiveness
and contribution of the work engagement construct (Christian et al., 2011; Rich et al.,
2010; Shuck, Reio, & Rocco, 2011). For instance, Christian et al. (2011) demonstrate
that engagement “exhibited discriminate validity from, and criterion related validity
over, job attitudes” such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment (p. 89).
Moreover, Rich et al. (2010) provide empirical findings that engagement predicts
work performance outcomes such as job and contextual performance above and
beyond other similar job attitudes such as job involvement, job satisfaction, and intrin-
sic motivation. Similarly, research specifically grounded in the context of HRD has

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

8 Human Resource Development Review 

pointed out the utility of work engagement above and beyond other more traditional
employee–organization concepts such as job satisfaction and job involvement (Shuck
et al., 2013; Shuck, Reio, & Rocco, 2011).
Nevertheless, given the more comprehensive definition of work engagement as
having physical, emotional, and cognitive aspects, we maintain that promoting it may
offer organizations a competitive advantage as well as benefit their employees’ per-
sonal growth and community involvement above and beyond other similar concepts in
the employee–organization relationship.

Toward a General Model of the Enrichment-Potential of

Engagement Concept
The state of work engagement research indicates a further need for further theoretical
development of the concept (Shuck et al., 2013). By employing a holistic model, work
engagement forms a multi-faceted contribution: a competitive advantage for organiza-
tions, a promoter of employee well-being in the extra work realm of life, and commu-
nity involvement.

Work Engagement: Creating a Competitive Advantage for

Organizations
Organizations today are experiencing constant competition, rapid innovation, and con-
tinuous change (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007; Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999). To succeed or
even survive, they must gain a competitive advantage (Porter, 1985), meaning, devel-
oping organization-specific resources that either cannot be imitated by other firms or,
if replicable, can be achieved only at an extremely high price (Barney & Wright, 1998;
Porter, 1985). Porter’s (1985) seminal work on the five-forces model indicates that the
relationship between the industry’s structure and strategic opportunities and forces can
be explained as an environmental analysis. Yet, according to Barney (1995), a com-
plete understanding of the sources of competitive advantage requires analyzing the
organization’s internal strengths and weaknesses as well. Barney and Wright (1998)
argue that organizations must develop their internal financial, physical, human, and
organizational assets to maintain their competitive advantage. These scholars point out
that a resource can be considered a potential source of sustainable competitive advan-
tage if it is valuable, relatively rare, and difficult to imitate (Barney & Wright, 1998).
Nevertheless, scholars in the field of strategic management have long appreciated the
difficulties inherent in identifying specific organizational competitive advantages,
because the value of traditional resources such as financial capital, technology, and
cost reductions have declined in the face of globalization and rapid competition
(Barney, 2001). Nevertheless, according to Barney and Wright (1998), employees can
provide a major competitive advantage if they are motivated to use their initiative for
the benefit of the organization and if they demonstrate loyalty to the organization.
Therefore, highly energetic, dedicated, and knowledgeable employees might be an

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

Eldor 9

important source of sustained competitive advantage, because they are valuable, rare,
and difficult to replicate (Barney, 2001; Barney & Wright, 1998).
We argue that work engagement promotes this competitive advantage, particularly
based on Porter’s (1996) claim that a competitive advantage can be effective only if it
is pursued with dedication, thoroughness, and forcefulness. We maintain that the
strong sense of dedication and willingness to invest one’s energies physically, emo-
tionally, and cognitively, nurtured among engaged employees, represents a valuable
organizational resource for achieving a competitive advantage (Eldor & Harpaz,
2016). Studies in the strategy literature have indeed confirmed that employees who are
dedicated to their organizations are more apt to work toward their organizations’ stra-
tegic objectives (e.g., Boxall, 1996; Cappelli, 1999; Lopez-Cabrales, Valle, & Herrero,
2006; Pfeffer, 1994), and inspired employees are likely to overcome serious organiza-
tional obstacles to doing so (e.g., Pfeffer, 2005; Snell, Youndt, & Wright, 1996).
Certainly, such ingredients are among the competitive advantages that rivals would be
least able to imitate (Barney, 1991; Lepak & Snell, 2002). Moreover, research has also
indicated that motivated employees are better at satisfying customers, thereby mini-
mizing costs while maximizing sales and income (e.g., Barney & Wright, 1998; Gorton
& Schmid, 2004; Ulrich, 1994). Thus, we maintain that enhancing the engagement of
employees in their work will offer an organization a competitive edge that its rivals
may not be able to duplicate.
Indeed, the past decade has witnessed a considerable increase in the published sci-
entific research on the positive effect of work engagement on organizational effective-
ness (Albrecht, 2010; Eldor & Harpaz, 2016). Researchers have pointed out the value
of effectively engaging employees and established that work engagement constitutes
an important variable of interest to organizations, linking it to work performance using
resource theories such as Fredrickson’s (2001, 2003) broaden-and-build theory of
positive emotions and Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resources theory (Bakker
et al., 2011). However, studies thus far have mainly focused on the association of work
engagement with higher levels of traditional in-role work performance and job atti-
tudes (see Albrecht, 2010; Bakker & Bal, 2010; Bakker, Demerouti, & Brummelhuis,
2012; Demerouti & Bakker, 2006; Demerouti & Cropanzano, 2010; Halbesleben &
Wheeler, 2008; Rich et al., 2010; Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005; Shuck, 2013;
Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Heuven, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2008). Nevertheless, these
results look promising when considering the potential role of work engagement in
boosting the organization’s competitive advantage by promoting valuable and desir-
able work performance behaviors. Indeed, Porter (1991) argues that “resources are not
valuable in and of themselves, but they are valuable because they allow firms to per-
form activities . . . business processes are the source of competitive advantage” (p.
108). Drawing on Porter’s (1991) argument, we maintain that work engagement can
offer organizations this kind of competitive advantage via contemporary desirable
work performance such as customer responsiveness, innovative behavior, and
effectiveness.
There are several rationales for positing a positive relationship between work engage-
ment and the improvement of an organization’s competitive advantage. First, employees

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

10 Human Resource Development Review 

who score high on the work engagement scale also score high on activation (Langelaan,
Bakker, Schaufeli, & Van Doornen, 2006). Therefore, the strong and persistent energy
embedded in work engagement may fuel behaviors in which employees take the initia-
tive to achieve organizational success and goals (Frese & Fay, 2001; Grant & Ashford,
2008; Shirom, 2010), craft their own jobs to be responsive (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,
2001), and make their voices heard (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001).
Second, engaged employees experience positive emotions such as joy, interest, con-
tentment, enthusiasm, and inspiration (Bindl & Parker, 2010) which, according to the
broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001), create enduring psychological and
social resources that promote emotional well-being (Fredrickson, 2003; Fredrickson &
Branigan, 2005; Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). For instance, joy expands resources by
promoting the urge to be outgoing and more sensitive to opportunities at work
(Cropanzano & Wright, 2001). Interest fosters the desire to assimilate new information
and experiences (e.g., Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). Previous studies indicate that posi-
tive emotions such as inspiration, challenge, and enthusiasm broaden people’s thought–
action repertoires and build their resources by expanding their thoughts, ideas, and
actions (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Schaufeli, Taris, Le Blanc, Peeters, Bakker, &
De Jonge, 2001); increase their openness to new experiences and creative solutions
(Cropanzano & Wright, 2001), leading to more outgoing behaviors at work (Cropanzano
& Wright, 2001); and promote proactive initiatives (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009). Thus,
engaged employees who experience these positive emotions in their work may be more
likely to break their habitual modes of thought and step outside the box.
Finally, engaged employees allocate their attention and energy more effectively
than less involved workers (Demerouti & Cropanzano, 2010) and are therefore more
focused on achieving the organization’s goals (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Rothbard &
Patil, 2010). Indeed, Kahn (1990, 1992) argues that the extent to which work engage-
ment is reflected in attentiveness and connectedness to one’s work may foster a frame
of mind in which work performance is perceived to include a wide array of responsive,
initiating, and involved behaviors that exceed the traditional border of in-role perfor-
mance behaviors. Accordingly, we expect the following:

Proposition 1: Work engagement will be positively related to promoting perfor-

mance behaviors such as customer responsiveness, innovative behavior, and effec-
tiveness that offer an organization a competitive advantage.

Work Engagement: Creating Added Value for Employees’ Personal Lives

In addition to its proposed benefits for the organization, promoting employees’ engage-
ment in their work may have a positive effect on their efficacy and well-being as well.
We maintain that work engagement is a significant attitude that is mutually beneficial
for both organizations and employees. Therefore, work engagement also leads to
desirable outcomes in their personal lives. The contribution to HRD practitioners can
be therefore leveraged from organizational perspective to how prosperity can be
simultaneously pursued for organizations and employees as well.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

Eldor 11

The majority of research on the spillover between work and one’s personal life has
mainly focused on negative effects such as conflicts between the demands of one’s job
and one’s family (e.g., see a review by Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley,
2005) and has been grounded in theories about stress or hypotheses about the scarcity of
resources (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000a, 2000b). However, in
line with the positive psychology approach (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), recent
studies on the interaction between work and personal life have also considered positive
spillovers (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000b; Lazarova, Westman,
& Shaffer, 2010), noting “the extent to which experiences in one role improve the quality
of life in the other role” (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006, p. 73). According to the Greenhaus
and Powell (2006) model, resources such as skills and perspectives, psychological and
physical resources, social capital, flexibility, and material resources, and positive affects
such as joy, fulfillment, inspiration, and challenge accumulated and derived from one’s
work role have a direct, positive impact on the employee’s family life as well.
We propose expanding that model and maintain that work engagement will have a posi-
tive effect on other aspects of the employee’s personal life and prosperity such as self-
esteem, career satisfaction and advancement, and subjective well-being. Based on the
notions of positive spillovers and enrichment, we argue that employees who are engaged
in their work will mobilize the resources, skills, and knowledge they have accumulated and
use them successfully in their personal lives. Such employees identify strongly with their
work and believe that it is meaningful (Albrecht, 2010; Bakker et al., 2011). Therefore,
they constantly seek to learn and grow occupationally and personally (Bakker & Leiter,
2010). These unique characteristics help them internalize the skills and knowledge they
acquire at work behaviorally, emotionally, and cognitively simultaneously. Therefore, they
can utilize these resources in their personal lives more easily and effectively (Greenhaus &
Powell, 2006). Moreover, work that involves challenging and meaningful experiences pro-
vides the individual with psychological and social capital such as social contacts and self-
efficacy (Bakker et al., 2011; Kahn, 1990, 1992; Rothbard, 2001). These multi-dimensional
resources lead to the building of a stronger set of personal resources and help individuals
achieve their professional goals and personal aspirations such as having satisfying personal
and professional lives. Thus, we propose the following:

Proposition 2: Work engagement will be positively related to improvements in

employees’ personal lives such as self-esteem, career satisfaction and advance-
ment, and subjective well-being.

Work Engagement as Creating Added Value for Employees’ Communal

Lives
Work engagement may also be significant in the context of the broader community
(Macey & Schneider, 2008; Schaufeli et al., 2001). Just as an organization wants its
employees to be engaged, so does a community want its citizens to be engaged and
involved. Thus, being engaged is a meaningful value that has significance beyond the
boundaries of the workplace.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

12 Human Resource Development Review 

According to the spillover theory (Wilensky, 1960), perceptions, attitudes, and

behaviors in one’s social setting can be manifested in another social setting as a reflec-
tion of one’s skills and experience. In other words, work-related activities and partici-
pation provide an employee with the skills and desire to participate in other domains
of social life (Cohen & Vigoda, 1998; Vigoda-Gadot, Mizrahi, Miller-Mor, & Tevet,
2008). We argue that when employees are engaged with their work and involved in
their workplace, these positive feelings and energies are likely to be translated into
high-quality performance that will spill over into the community domain. For exam-
ple, according to Sieber (1974), resources can be transferred from one area of life to
another. Thus, the personal contacts, social capital, and knowledge obtained at work
can be valuable resources for improving the functioning of the employee’s community
(Golembiewski, 1995; Sobel, 1993).
Our spillover argument is also based on Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of
resources theory. This theory is founded on the premise that individuals seek to pro-
tect, retain, and accumulate the resources that are desirable and instrumental in
attaining higher order goals (Hobfoll, 2001, 2002). Moreover, the conservation of
resources theory argues that individuals who already have resources have a better
chance of investing them to gain additional resources or achieve higher order goals
(Hobfoll, 2002). This phenomenon, dubbed “gain spirals,” is plausible because
when initial gains are made, even greater resources become available, providing
individuals with a surplus that they can invest (Gorgievski & Hobfoll, 2008; Hobfoll,
Johnson, Ennis, & Jackson, 2003).
Based on these sociological and organizational theories, we maintain that there are two
reasons for positing a positive spillover of work engagement into the communal domain.
First, engagement in the workplace may provide resources to individuals such as social
capital, contacts, knowledge, and self-efficacy that can be valuable resources for improv-
ing the functioning of the community (Cohen & Vigoda, 1998; Sieber, 1974; Wilensky,
1960). Second, positive feelings and additional psychological assets such as the sense of
mission, dedication, optimism, and happiness embedded in work engagement (e.g.,
Albrecht, 2010; Bakker et al., 2011; Bindl & Parker, 2010) are associated with benevo-
lence, generosity, and increased assistive behavior (George, 1991). Accordingly, we argue
that the resources, positive affect, and involvement at work—exemplified by a high
degree of work engagement—spill over into and are utilized in the communal domain.
The level of involvement displayed by individuals beyond the formal activities required
of them is an essential aspect of a flourishing society. Thus, we posit the following:

Proposition 3: The usefulness and positive contribution of work engagement will

spill over positively into the community domain in the form of community involve-
ment, social engagement, and pro-environmental behavior.

The Contribution of Work Engagement Over and Above Other Similar

Employee–Organization Relationship Concepts
As previously noted, work engagement is defined as the experience of being “fully
there” at work and manifesting this involvement physically, emotionally, and cognitively

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

Eldor 13

(Kahn, 1990; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Shuck & Wollard, 2010). According to this view,
work engagement is the behavioral, affective, and cognitive enrichment of the self,
reflected holistically and simultaneously in one’s state of mind (Kahn, 1990). Thus, the
concept of engagement provides a more comprehensive explanation for employees’ con-
tributions to and thriving at work above and beyond than other parallel concepts that
emphasize relatively narrower aspects of employees’ flourishing (Eldor & Vigoda-
Gadot, 2016).
For example, job satisfaction is conceptualized in terms of emotional reactions, inas-
much as they refer to “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the
appraisal of one’s job” (Locke, 1976, p. 1300). The positive feelings associated with a
high degree of job satisfaction cause employees to perform in a manner that contributes
to their outcomes (Judge, Bono, Thoresen, & Patton, 2001). Another example of parallel
concepts in the employee–organization relationship is job involvement, based on a rela-
tively narrow aspect of investment in terms of cognitive energy. Job involvement is
defined as a “cognitive or belief state of psychological identification” (Kanungo, 1982,
p. 342). Scholars reason that job involvement predicts better performance, because indi-
viduals who are deeply involved in their jobs focus their thoughts on work and interpret
more situations as opportunities (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006). Although studies
have demonstrated the contribution of each of these parallel concepts to individuals’
outcomes, they each focus on a narrow area. While these narrower explanations—affec-
tive, cognitive, or behavioral—could also account for the added value for the employees
and their organizations, they do not account for the simultaneous and holistic behavioral,
affective, and cognitive enrichment of the employees embodied in the concept of work
engagement (Kahn, 1992; Schaufeli et al., 2002). In contrast, work engagement is
reflected in the simultaneous enrichment of employees’ cognitive, emotional, and physi-
cal energies, not just in feeling positive emotions or identifying cognitively (Eldor &
Vigoda-Gadot, 2016). Accordingly, we argue that work engagement results in added
value for both employees and organization above and beyond that offered by other con-
cepts regarding the employee–organization relationship. To advance the theory and prac-
tice of the HRD field, we propose the following:

Proposition 4: Engagement in work will enrich the employees’ work, personal

lives, and well-being of their communities above and beyond other similar con-
cepts about the employee–organization relationship.

Conclusion
This study focuses on the added value that work engagement provides in promoting an
organization’s competitive advantage, improving the employees’ personal lives, and fos-
tering the well-being of the communities in which they live. As a coherent expression of
persistence, vigor, dedication, enthusiasm, and alertness at work, engagement offers
organizations and their employees added benefits that may not be obtained through other
concepts involved in the relationship between them and cannot be readily reproduced by
competitors. We believe that engaged individuals may be more satisfied with their jobs
and lives because they are participating physically, emotionally, and cognitively in

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

14 Human Resource Development Review 

activities that are salient to them and to the people around them. Hence, it behooves
HRD practitioners to find ways to improve employees’ engagement in their work. Such
employees function effectively, think innovatively, and are more responsive to custom-
ers (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Griffin et al., 2007; Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon,
2000). They show more initiative, engage in out-of-the-box-thinking in problem solving,
are open to change, and have a desire to share their knowledge with their colleagues
(Eldor & Harpaz, 2016; Bakker et al., 2011; Bindl & Parker, 2010; Demerouti &
Cropanzano, 2010; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Shuck, 2013). These are precisely the
factors that provide an organization with a competitive advantage, one that their com-
petitors will find very difficult to imitate (Barney, 1995; Barney & Wright, 1998).
The growing competitive reality forces organizations to become leaner and do
more with less (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010). Therefore, engaged employees who
are willing to take on greater responsibilities are a necessary asset for achieving orga-
nizational goals (Eldor & Harpaz, 2016; Parker & Griffin, 2011). Furthermore, the
trend toward global organizations and decentralization in the workplace makes it
harder for supervisors to oversee employees (Buchner, 2007), particularly in desirable
but hard-to-achieve areas such as proactivity and creativity (Parker et al., 2010; Parker
& Griffin, 2011). Thus, promoting work engagement may also be an effective approach
for HRD practitioners, one that focuses less on performance management and more on
performance facilitation. Work engagement can therefore be a HRD strategy for pro-
viding organizations with a competitive advantage.
Engagement in work also provides employees with resources and experiences that
enrich their own lives—a sense of meaningfulness, challenge, self-esteem, and fulfill-
ment—experiences that could also be associated with a fulfilling career path, increased
satisfaction with life, and greater well-being. The literature is replete with discussions
about the conflicts between work and family life, including feeling overwhelmed at
home (Brotheridge & Lee, 2005), anxiety, tension, and perceived stress (Eby et al.,
2005; Franche, Williams, Ibrahim, & Grace, 2006). Research has established the nega-
tive impacts of these outcomes on employees’ mental health and personal and family
lives (Kafetsios, 2007; Lambert, Pasupuleti, Cluse, Jennings, & Baker, 2006). However,
according to our proposed model, the positive aspects of engagement at work could
spill over into the employees’ personal lives and the community at large and ameliorat-
ing some of these issues. Linking work engagement and personal well-being suggests
that positive, challenging, and meaningful work experiences generate a broad spectrum
of positive thinking and feelings that lead to the building of personal resources in an
upward spiral, thereby helping individuals achieve their personal goals and aspirations
(Fredrickson, 2003). Moreover, the presence of energy, positive emotions, and mean-
ingful enrichment embedded in work engagement suggests that engaged individuals
may have more personal resources and capital available for reinvestment in their per-
sonal life (Albrecht, 2010; Bakker et al., 2011). We therefore believe that engaged indi-
viduals may experience a sense of harmony in life and obtain the optimal resources that
enable them to meet the long-term demands of their work and non-work roles.
Moreover, in line with recent organizational research suggesting that employee loy-
alty and retention are particularly high in organizations that have policies about the

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

Eldor 15

balance between life and work (Lourel & Guéguen, 2007; Smith & Gardner, 2007), we
maintain that cultivating a culture supportive of this goal is a fundamental mission for
HRD practitioners. Fostering it will reinforce not only employees’ prosperity and
well-being but also the prosperity of the organizations themselves. Moreover, taking a
humane approach by incorporating the many facets of work engagement that been
shown to have a positive impact on performance (Sambrook, 2012; Swanson &
Holton, 2009) may actually have a stronger effect on an organization’s bottom line
than the implementation of other initiatives.
Engagement at work may also have the potential of enriching community involve-
ment and other social contexts. That said, we believe that the consequences of having
engaged employees may spill over into additional life domains, further reinforcing the
importance of having engaged employees. Engaged employees who express positive
emotions at work tend to perceive the stimuli around them in a more positive light and
may be more generous and giving (Rothbard, 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2001). Moreover,
engagement in the workplace may prove beneficial to individuals in areas such as
knowledge and self-efficacy—benefits that enhance their functioning in the social
domain and can be valuable resources for successful communal functioning (Albrecht,
2010; Bakker et al., 2011). The chaotic nature of modern life forces multiple responsi-
bilities and duties onto employees, often leaving them overwhelmed by the demands
of numerous commitments (Rothbard & Patil, 2010). For this reason, we find the
potential contribution of work engagement outside the organization to be especially
critical and encouraging. Echoing George’s (1989) argument that “not only should we
consider how workers feel at work, but also how they feel off the job” (p. 321), orga-
nizations can positively affect their employees’ lives outside of work by promoting
work engagement. We therefore maintain that the work engagement concept can be a
win-win mechanism and a contemporary HRD tool that has the potential of enriching
multiple areas of life.
Understanding the added value of work engagement to areas beyond the workplace
such as the employees’ communal life and society involvement is important for HRD
professionals. As organizations’ boundaries become increasingly blurred, the value of
work engagement to HRD professionals may not be limited to the organizational level.
The emerging role of HRD practitioners extends beyond this realm to other areas
(Sambrook, 2012; Shuck & Rose, 2013; Swanson & Holton, 2009) such as the well-
being of employees, communities, society, and even the world at large that simultane-
ously influence and are influenced by organizations. Thus, HRD practitioners may
have an opportunity to expand their already salient impact and role. This emerging
role (or even mission) can be regarded through the lens of offering a comprehensive
organizational competitive advantage, one that views all the organizational stakehold-
ers as engaged partners who are essential in achieving this goal.
Work engagement appears to be a more effective enrichment mechanism than other,
more traditional employee–organization relationship mechanisms such as job satisfac-
tion and job involvement (Eldor & Vigoda-Gadot, 2016). Managers today agree that
this relationship has a critical impact on an organization’s competitiveness and effec-
tiveness (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Simply put, organizations today must achieve

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

16 Human Resource Development Review 

more with less (Masson, Royal, Agnew, & Fine, 2008), while employees yearn for
self-actualization and personal growth (Baruch, 2006; Hall, 2004)—two trends that
can either contradict one another or energize each other. With every passing decade,
the complexity of the employee–organization relationship grows along with our under-
standing of its essential role in a flourishing organization. Work engagement has
recently been introduced as a potentially optimal means of redefining the employee–
organization relationship because it encapsulates the notion of a coherent and simulta-
neous expression of multiple enrichments (Albrecht, 2010). We argue that emotional,
cognitive, or behavioral work experiences may enrich outcomes both at the workplace
and beyond, more so than other, narrower mechanisms embodied in parallel concepts.
According to our theory-building framework, work engagement offers a competitive
advantage for organizations and an added value in general, above and beyond similar
concepts. Thus, the recent HRD focus on work engagement is not a case of the old
employee–organization relationship concept being repackaged (e.g., Dalal et al., 2008;
Griffin et al., 2008; Newman et al., 2010); rather, it reinforces the argument of work
engagement leading to a contemporary employee–organization relationship frame-
work (Shuck, 2011; Shuck et al., 2013; Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2013). Moreover, the
likelihood that these experiences will provide added value in other realms of life is
stronger when these experiences occur simultaneously and in a holistic way as
expressed by the concept of work engagement, more so than other parallel concepts.

A Final Note
Briskin (1998) argues that,

to explore the challenge to the human soul in organizations is to build a bridge between
the world of personal and subjective individual experience and the world of organizations
that demands efficiency . . . we must be willing to shift our viewpoint back and forth
between what organizations want of people and what the contradictory nature of human
needs, desires, and experience. (p. xii)

Work engagement embraces a combination of individuals’ deeply physical, emotional,

and cognitive connectedness with the significant facets of their lives: work, personal
life, and community. Thus, by meeting the challenging reality of modern organiza-
tional life, work engagement provides the key to the mutual needs of organizations and
employees. HRD practitioners must therefore strive to enhance work engagement—
for the benefit of the organization and the good of society at large.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

Eldor 17

References
Albrecht, S. L. (2010). Employee engagement: 10 Key questions for research and practice. In
S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), The handbook of employee engagement: Perspective, issues, research
and practice (pp. 3-19). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engage-
ment. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 20, 4-28.
Bakker, A. B., & Bal, P. M. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among
starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 189-206.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands–resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Brummelhuis, L. L. T. (2012). Work engagement, perfor-
mance, and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
80, 555-564.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands–resources model
to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43, 83-104.
Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources
boost work engagement particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99, 274-284.
Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010). Where to go from here: Integration and future research on
work engagement. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of
essential theory and research (pp. 181-196). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employ-
ees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 147-154.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17, 99-120.
Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management
Executive, 9(4), 49-61.
Barney, J. B. (2001). Is resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management
research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 41-55.
Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. (1998). On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources
in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 37, 31-46.
Baruch, Y. (2006). Career development in organizations and beyond: Balancing traditional and
contemporary viewpoints. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 125-138.
Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Feeling good and performing well? Psychological engagement
and positive behaviors at work. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement:
Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 385-398). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Boxall, P. (1996). The strategic HRM debate and the resource based view of the firm. Human
Resource Management Journal, 6(3), 59-75.
Briskin, A. (1998). The stirring of soul in the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2005). Impact of work-family interference on general well-
being: A replication and extension. International Journal of Stress Management, 12, 203-221.
Buchner, T. W. (2007). Performance management theory: A look from the performer’s perspec-
tive with implications for HRD. Human Resource Development International, 10, 59-73.
Cappelli, P. (1999). The new deal at work: Managing the market-driven workforce. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business Review Press
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology,
64, 89-136.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

18 Human Resource Development Review 

Cohen, A., & Vigoda, E. (1998). An empirical assessment of the relationship between general
citizenship and work outcomes. Public Administration Quarterly, 21, 401-431.
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & 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, 95, 834-848.
Cropanzano, R., & Wright, T. A. (2001). When a “happy” worker is really a “productive”
worker: A review and further refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53, 182-199.
Dalal, R. S., Brummel, B. J., Wee, S., & Thomas, L. L. (2008). Defining employee engagement
for productive research and practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 53-56.
Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2006). Employees’ well-being and job performance: Where
we stand and where we should go. In J. Houdmont & S. Mclntyre (Eds.), Occupational
health psychology: European perspectives on research, education & Practice (Vol. 1)
(pp. 83-111). Maia, Portugal: ISMAI Publications.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512.
Demerouti, E., & Cropanzano, R. (2010). From thought to action: Employee work engagement
and job performance. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A hand-
book of essential theory and research (pp. 147-163). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family
research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002). Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 66, 124-197.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Specifying
the relationships between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review,
25, 178-199.
Eldor, L., & Harpaz, I. (2016). A process model of employee engagement: Learning climate and
its relationship with work performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 213-235.
Eldor, L., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2016). The nature of employee engagement: New conceptual
and empirical considerations of the employee-organization relationship. International
Human Resource Management. Published Online 19 May 2016. doi:10.1080/09585192.
2016.1180312
Franche, R. L., Williams, A., Ibrahim, S., & Grace, S. L. (2006). Path analysis of work condi-
tions and work-family spillover as modifiable workplace factors associated with depressive
symptomatology. Stress & Health, 22, 91-103.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotion in positive psychology: The broaden-
and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations. In K.
S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship:
Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 163-175). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. A. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention
and thought: Action repertories. Cognition & Emotion, 19, 313-332.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emo-
tional well-being. Psychological Science, 13, 172-175.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human
flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678-686.
Frese, M. (2008). The word is out: We need an active performance concept for modern work-
places. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice,
1, 67-69.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

Eldor 19

Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the
21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187.
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A look at job
stressors and positive affect experienced during the workday. Journal of Management, 35,
94-111.
George, J. M. (1989). Mood and absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 317-324.
George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behavior at work.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299-307.
Golembiewski, R. T. (1995). Practical public management. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
Gorgievski, M. J., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Passion for work: Work engagement versus worka-
holism. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues,
research and practice (pp. 264-271). Gloucester, UK: Edward Elgar.
Gorgievski, M. J., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2008). Work can burn us out and fire us up. In J. R. B.
Halbesleben (Ed.), Handbook of stress and burnout in health care (pp. 7-22). Hauppauge,
NY: Nova Science.
Gorton, G., & Schmid, F. A. (2004). Capital, labor, and the firm: A study of German codetermi-
nation. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2, 863-905.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-
family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72-92.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance:
Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 327-347.
Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Neal, A. (2008). Is behavioral engagement a distinct and useful
construct? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 48-51.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000a). Family, work, work-family spillover and problem
drinking during midlife. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 336-348.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000b). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An
ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work
and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111-126.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among
teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495-513.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burn-
out, demands, resources and consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work
engagement: Recent development in the theory and research (pp. 102-117). New York,
NY: Psychology Press.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative role of engagement and embed-
dedness in predicting job performance and turnover intention. Work & Stress, 22, 242-256.
Hall, D. T. (2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 65, 1-13.
Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Same but different? Can work engagement be dis-
criminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist,
11, 119-127.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

20 Human Resource Development Review 

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). The conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.

American Psychologist, 44, 513-524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress pro-
cess: Advancing Conservation of Resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 50, 337-370.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General
Psychology, 6, 307-324.
Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource loss, resource
gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 632-643.
Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). The changing nature of performance: Implications for
staffing, motivations, and development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Thoresen, C. J., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin,
127, 376-407.
Kafetsios, K. (2007). Work-family conflict and its relationship with job satisfaction and psy-
chological distress: The role of affect at work and gender. Hellenic Journal of Psychology,
4, 15-35.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45,
321-349.
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67, 341-349.
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2006). Where is the “me” among the “we”? Identify
work and the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1031-1057.
Lambert, E. G., Pasupuleti, S., Cluse, T. T., Jennings, M., & Baker, D. (2006). The impact of
work-family conflict on social work and human service worker job satisfaction and orga-
nizational commitment: An exploratory study. Administration in Social Work, 30, 55-74.
Langelaan, S., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., & Van Doornen, L. J. P. (2006). Burnout and
work engagement: Do individual differences make a difference? Personality and Individual
Differences, 40, 521-532.
Lazarova, M., Westman, M., & Shaffer, M. (2010). Elucidating the positive side of the work-
family interface on international assignments: A model of expatriate work and family per-
formance. Academy of Management Review, 35, 93-117.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Examining the human resource architecture: The relation-
ships among human capital, employment and human resource configuration. Journal of
Management, 28, 517-543.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of
contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality
characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 325-336.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1293-1349). Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally.
Lopez-Cabrales, A., Valle, R., & Herrero, I. (2006). The contribution of core employees to orga-
nizational capabilities and efficiency. Human Resource Management, 45, 81-109.
Lourel, M., & Guéguen, N. (2007). Home-work interferences: Their consequences on orga-
nizational commitment and perceived stress. Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie
Sociale, 74, 49-58.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

Eldor 21

Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of
Management, 3, 321-349.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial &
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 3-30.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause per-
sonal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Masson, R. C., Royal, M. A., Agnew, T. G., & Fine, S. (2008). Leveraging employee engage-
ment: The practical implications. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives
on Science and Practice, 1, 56-59.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningful-
ness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11-37.
Newman, D. A., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Been there, bottled that: Are state and behavioral
work engagement new and useful construct “wines”? Industrial and Organizational
Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 31-35.
Newman, D. A., Joseph, D. L., & Hulin, C. L. (2010). Job attitudes and employee engage-
ment: Considering the attitude “A-factor.” In S. Albrecht (Ed.), The handbook of employee
engagement: Perspectives, issues, research, and practice (pp. 43-61). Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive
motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827-856.
Parker, S. K., & Griffin, M. A. (2011). Understanding active psychological states: Embedding
engagement in a wider nomological net and closer attention to performance. European
Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 20, 60-67.
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people. California Management Review,
36(2), 9-28.
Pfeffer, J. (2005). Producing sustainable competitive advantage through the effective manage-
ment of people. Academy of Management Executive, 19(4), 95-106.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1996, November–December). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6),
61-78.
Porter, M. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal,
12(2), 95-117.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the work-
place: Development of taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 612-624.
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects
on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617-635.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and fam-
ily roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-684.
Rothbard, N. P., & Patil, S. V. (2010). Being there: Work engagement and positive organiza-
tional scholarship. In K. Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive
organizational scholarship (pp. 56-69). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Saks, A. M. (2008). The meaning and bleeding of employee engagement: How muddy is the water?
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 40-43.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engage-
ment to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1217-1227.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

22 Human Resource Development Review 

Sambrook, S. (2012). Human and resource development is hard. Human Resource Development
International, 15, 135-139.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
25, 293-315.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing
clarity to the concept. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A hand-
book of essential theory and research (pp. 10-24). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engage-
ment with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66, 701-716.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands
and resources predict burnout, work engagement and sickness absenteeism. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30, 893-917.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement
of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., Le Blanc, P., Peeters, M., Bakker, A. B., & De Jonge, J. (2001).
Does work make happy? In search of the engaged worker. The Psychologist, 36, 422-428.
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work
engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 57, 173-203.
Schohat, L. M., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2010). Employee engagement: Theoretical framework and
suggestions for empirical exploration. In S. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engage-
ment (pp. 98-107). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Special issue on happiness, excellence, and
optimal human functioning. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Shirom, A. (2010). Feeling energetic at work: On vigor’s antecedents. In A. B. Bakker & M. P.
Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 69-84).
Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Shuck, M. B. (2011). Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: An integrative
literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 10, 304-328.
Shuck, M. B. (2013). Further observations on the relationship between work engagement and
performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human
Resource Development Review, 1, 1-8.
Shuck, M. B., Ghosh, R., Zigarmi, D., & Nimon, K. (2013). The jingle jangle of employee
engagement: Further exploration of the emerging construct and implications for workplace
learning and performance. Human Resource Development Review, 12, 11-35.
Shuck, M. B., & Reio, T. (2011). The employee engagement landscape and HRD: How do we
link theory and scholarship to current practice? Advances in Developing Human Resources,
13, 419-428.
Shuck, M. B., Reio, T. G., Jr., & Rocco, T. (2011). Employee engagement: An examination of
antecedent and outcome variables. Human Resource Development International, 14, 427-445.
Shuck, M. B., Rocco, T. S., & Albornoz, C. A. (2011). Exploring employee engagement from
the employee perspective. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35, 300-325.
Shuck, M. B., & Rose, K. (2013). Reframing employee engagement within the context of mean-
ing and purpose implications for HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15,
341-355.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016

Eldor 23

Shuck, M. B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the
foundations. Human Resource Development, 9, 89-110.
Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulations. American Sociological Review,
39, 567-578.
Smith, J., & Gardner, D. (2007). Factors affecting employee use of work-life balance initia-
tives? New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 36, 3-12.
Snell, S. A., Youndt, M., & Wright, P. (1996). Establishing a framework for researching in stra-
tegic human resource management: Merging resource theory and organizational learning.
Research in Personnel & Human Resource Management, 14, 61-90.
Sobel, R. (1993). From occupational involvement to political participation: An exploratory
analysis. Political Behavior, 15, 339-353.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2009). Foundations of human resource development (2nd ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Ulrich, D. (1994). Profiling organizational competitiveness: Cultivating capabilities. Human
Resource Planning, 16(3), 1-17.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Beeri, I. (2012). Change-oriented citizenship behavior in public adminis-
tration: The power of leadership and the cost of politics. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 22, 573-596.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., Eldor, L., & Schohat, L. M. (2013). Engage them to public service:
Conceptualization and empirical examination of employee engagement in public adminis-
tration. American Review of Public Administration, 43, 518-538.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., Mizrahi, S., Miller-Mor, R., & Tevet, E. (2008). The bureaucracy-democracy
tango: A dual-source empirical revalidation by structural equation modeling in the Israeli
public sector. Politics & Policy, 36, 431-448.
Wilensky, H. L. (1960). Work, careers, and social integration. International Social Science
Journal, 12, 543-560.
Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An idea whose time has truly come.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 437-442.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active craft-
ers of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179-201.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Heuven, E., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008).
Working in the sky: A diary study on the work engagement among flight attendants.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 345-356.
Zwetsloot, G., & Pot, F. (2004). The business value of health management. Journal of Business
Ethics, 55(2), 115-124.

Author Biography
Liat Eldor is a post-doctorate researcher at The Wharton School, Management Department,
University of Pennsylvania. Her focus is on integrating the notion of Work Engagement with the
subject of employee wellbeing – yet another relevant topic in modern-day organizational psy-
chology which has been gaining popularity in recent years. An additional reflection of her
research work is the emphasis on the effects of employee work engagement on two different
pressing, yet interlaced, aspects of organizational prosperity: the effectiveness of employees and
their personal well-being. Her current research interests are employee-organization relationship,
job crafting, and engaged employee coping mechanism with regard to challenging and demand-
ing organizational environments such as organizational politics and conflictual situations.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on June 22, 2016