Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Work engagement

Work engagement is a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in one's job, and persistence in the face of difficulties. Dedication involves a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge in one's work. Absorption is marked by being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one's work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulty detaching oneself from the job. This state is distinct from burnout, representing its positive antithesis, and focuses specifically on the individual's relationship with their work tasks rather than broader organizational attitudes. As of 2024, global employee engagement levels have declined to 21%, emphasizing its critical role in enhancing productivity and well-being.^[1] The concept originated with William Kahn's 1990 work on psychological conditions of personal engagement. It was refined by Wilmar Schaufeli and colleagues in the early 2000s into a multidimensional construct within the job demands-resources model, distinguishing it from practitioner concepts of employee engagement that include commitment and loyalty.

Definition and Conceptualization

Core Definition

Work engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort despite difficulties, and persistence in the face of challenges. Dedication involves a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge derived from one's work. Absorption is marked by being fully concentrated and deeply engrossed in one's work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulty detaching oneself from the task at hand. This state of mind is rooted in organizational psychology and represents a relatively persistent and pervasive phenomenon, distinct from temporary fluctuations in motivation or transient moods. Unlike short-term motivational surges tied to specific incentives or events, work engagement reflects a sustained positive orientation toward work tasks and roles. The concept of engagement draws from the broader tradition of positive psychology, which emphasizes strengths, well-being, and optimal functioning rather than pathology.^[2] Within organizational contexts, it is often conceptualized through theoretical frameworks such as the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, where job resources are posited to foster this engaged state.

Historical Development

The foundational concept of work engagement originated with William A. Kahn's 1990 conceptualization and developed further in the late 1990s and early 2000s within the emerging field of positive psychology and the broader domain of organizational behavior, shifting focus from burnout and disengagement to positive states of employee involvement and fulfillment.^[2]^[3] This development aligned with positive psychology's emphasis on strengths and well-being, pioneered by figures like Martin Seligman, which encouraged research into motivational aspects of work beyond traditional stress models.^[4] Kahn described engagement as the harnessing of employees' full selves—physically, cognitively, and emotionally—in their work roles, influenced by psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability. This laid the groundwork for viewing engagement as a dynamic psychological state rather than a static trait. Building on this, in 2002, Wilmar B. Schaufeli and colleagues formalized the construct through the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), defining it as a positive, fulfilling work-related state characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption, thereby enabling empirical measurement and widespread adoption in research. The concept further evolved through integration with the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, initially proposed by Evangelia Demerouti, Arnold B. Bakker, and colleagues in 2001, which positioned job resources (such as autonomy and support) as key drivers of engagement by buffering demands and fostering motivation.^[5] This framework expanded in 2007 when Bakker and Demerouti refined the JD-R model to explicitly link engagement to motivational processes, emphasizing how resources enhance personal accomplishment and reduce exhaustion, thus establishing engagement as a central outcome in occupational health psychology.^[6] Following the COVID-19 pandemic, research on work engagement expanded significantly post-2020 to address the implications of remote and hybrid work arrangements, with studies highlighting both challenges like isolation reducing engagement and opportunities such as flexibility boosting it through better work-life balance.^[7]^[8] These investigations, often within the JD-R framework, examined how pandemic-induced demands (e.g., blurred boundaries in remote settings) interacted with resources like digital tools and managerial support to influence engagement levels across diverse workforces.^[9] As of 2025, ongoing research continues to track trends, with global employee engagement levels showing a decline to 21% in 2024 amid persistent hybrid work challenges and economic factors.^[1] Work engagement is frequently conceptualized as the positive antithesis to burnout, positioning these constructs as opposite poles on a continuum of occupational well-being. Burnout manifests as a state of chronic physical and emotional exhaustion, cynicism toward one's job, and a diminished sense of professional accomplishment, whereas work engagement is marked by high levels of vigor (energy and mental resilience), dedication (a sense of significance and enthusiasm), and absorption (full immersion in work activities). This distinction underscores engagement's role in fostering positive motivational states, in contrast to burnout's depletion of resources, as outlined in the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model.^[10]^[11] In contrast to job involvement, which primarily reflects a cognitive identification with one's role and a belief in its centrality to one's self-concept, work engagement emphasizes affective and energetic components that drive active participation and enthusiasm in daily tasks. Job involvement focuses on the psychological attachment to the work itself as a defining aspect of identity, often independent of emotional fulfillment, while engagement integrates feelings of vitality and commitment that enhance performance and well-being. Empirical analyses confirm these as distinct constructs, with engagement showing stronger correlations to positive affect and lower overlap with cognitive dedication alone.^[12]^[13] Work engagement differs from workaholism in its voluntary, healthy nature versus the compulsive and potentially distressing drive of the latter. Engaged employees invest effort willingly, deriving satisfaction and balance from their work, whereas workaholics exhibit an obsessive need to overwork, often leading to impaired health and work-life boundaries despite high output. Studies demonstrate that while both involve intense work focus, engagement predicts positive outcomes like life satisfaction and performance, in opposition to workaholism's links to burnout and exhaustion.^[14]^[15] Although related to the concept of flow introduced by Csikszentmihalyi, work engagement is broader and more consistently job-oriented, without requiring the precise balance of skill and challenge that defines flow as a transient, optimal experience. Flow represents momentary states of complete immersion and intrinsic reward during specific activities, often peaking in creative or challenging tasks, whereas engagement encompasses a sustained positive state across varied work demands, emphasizing overall vigor and dedication rather than episodic harmony. This differentiation highlights engagement's applicability as a pervasive work attitude, distinct from flow's situational intensity.^[16]^[17]

Nature of Engagement

Trait Versus State Engagement

Work engagement has been conceptualized in scholarly literature as potentially embodying both a relatively enduring individual disposition and a transient motivational state, prompting debate over its fundamental nature. From the trait perspective, work engagement is viewed as a stable personality-like characteristic that reflects an individual's predisposition to invest energy in work tasks across different contexts, such as varying jobs or roles. This view posits engagement as linked to core personality traits, particularly conscientiousness, which shows the strongest association (ρ = 0.41), and extraversion (ρ = 0.38), suggesting that individuals high in these traits exhibit consistently higher levels of engagement due to inherent motivational orientations.^[18] In contrast, the state perspective frames work engagement as a fluctuating condition that varies daily or situationally in response to environmental factors, rather than as a fixed attribute. This approach emphasizes engagement as a positive, short-term motivational state characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption, which can be activated or diminished by immediate job conditions. Within the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, engagement emerges as a state driven by the balance of job resources (e.g., autonomy, support) and demands (e.g., workload), where resources particularly boost engagement under high demands, leading to motivational processes that enhance performance.^[19] Empirical evidence from diary studies supports this variability, revealing substantial within-person fluctuations; for example, one study found approximately 42% of variance in work engagement attributable to state-like changes within individuals over short periods, indicating that daily experiences significantly alter engagement levels.^[20] Longitudinal research further illuminates this dual nature, demonstrating both trait-like consistency and state-like variability in work engagement. Across multiple studies with time lags ranging from months to years, the average rank-order stability coefficient for engagement is approximately 0.66, implying that trait components account for about 40-50% of variance in engagement levels over time, while the remainder reflects state-driven changes influenced by contextual shifts.^[21] Younger employees exhibit lower stability (coefficients of 0.47-0.65 over 6-19 months), suggesting greater state-like responsiveness, whereas older employees show higher consistency (0.77-0.81 over 3-4 years), aligning with more entrenched trait influences.^[21] These findings indicate that while engagement displays moderate endurance, it is not wholly stable, with diary and multi-wave designs consistently showing substantial variance as state-like fluctuations responsive to daily job dynamics.^[20] Theoretically, this trait-state distinction has profound implications, particularly within integrative frameworks like the JD-R model, where personality traits predispose individuals to higher baseline engagement but state variations mediate the pathway to outcomes such as performance and well-being. Traits like conscientiousness and extraversion set the foundation for engagement propensity, yet situational resources and demands trigger state-level activation, creating a dynamic interplay that explains both individual differences and contextual adaptability in motivational processes.^[22] This integration underscores engagement's role as a multifaceted construct, bridging dispositional stability with environmental responsiveness to foster a comprehensive understanding of employee motivation.^[19]

Core Dimensions

Work engagement is primarily conceptualized through three core dimensions—vigor, dedication, and absorption—as outlined in the influential model by Schaufeli and colleagues. These dimensions represent a positive, fulfilling state of mind related to work, distinct from but opposite to burnout's exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced efficacy.^[23] Vigor refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in one's job, and the capacity to persist even in the face of difficulties. Employees high in vigor approach tasks with sustained enthusiasm and recover quickly from setbacks, maintaining a sense of vitality throughout the workday. This dimension underscores the physical and psychological stamina that enables proactive engagement with work demands.^[23]^[16] Dedication involves a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge derived from one's work. It reflects a profound identification with the job, where individuals perceive their roles as meaningful and worthwhile, fostering a strong affective commitment. This dimension highlights the motivational pull of work's intrinsic value, driving employees to go beyond basic requirements.^[23]^[16] Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and deeply engrossed in one's work, whereby time passes quickly and it becomes difficult to detach from tasks. Employees experiencing absorption often enter a flow-like state, with heightened focus and immersion that blurs the boundaries between work and personal awareness. This dimension emphasizes cognitive immersion and the pleasurable intensity of being "lost" in productive activity.^[23]^[16] The three dimensions are interrelated yet distinct, as evidenced by confirmatory factor analyses showing high correlations (latent correlations ranging from .79 to .96 across dimensions) while supporting a three-factor structure over a single-factor alternative. These findings indicate that vigor, dedication, and absorption collectively form a higher-order construct of work engagement, where the dimensions reinforce one another to produce overall engagement.^[23] Although the three-dimensional model dominates, some scales and conceptualizations incorporate variations, such as additional aspects like discretionary effort or separating enthusiasm as a distinct element beyond dedication. For instance, certain measures extend to four or five dimensions to capture broader facets like identification or task performance.^[24]

Measurement Approaches

Key Instruments and Scales

The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) is one of the most widely used instruments for assessing work engagement, originally developed by Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, and Bakker. The full version consists of 17 self-report items measuring three core dimensions—vigor (6 items), dedication (5 items), and absorption (6 items)—rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always).^[23] A shorter 9-item version (UWES-9), with 3 items per dimension, was later introduced to facilitate broader application while maintaining psychometric integrity.^[25] The Job Engagement Scale (JES), developed by Rich, LePine, and Crawford, focuses on the physical, emotional, and cognitive aspects of engagement in job tasks.^[26] This 18-item scale, comprising 6 items each for physical, emotional, and cognitive engagement, uses a 5-point Likert scale to capture the extent of individuals' investment in their work roles.^[26] Other notable instruments include the Gallup Q12, a proprietary 12-item survey designed for organizational-level assessment of employee engagement, which evaluates elements such as clarity of expectations, recognition, and opportunities for growth through yes/no or frequency-based responses.^[27] The Work-related Flow Inventory (WOLF), also known as the Flow@Work scale and developed by Bakker, measures state-like flow experiences with 13 items across three subscales—absorption (4 items), work enjoyment (4 items), and intrinsic work motivation (5 items)—on a 7-point Likert scale.^[28] These instruments are typically administered via anonymous surveys in organizational or research settings to gauge individual or group engagement levels, with many, such as the UWES, offering validated adaptations for cross-cultural and multilingual use to ensure applicability across diverse workforces.^[23]

Psychometric Properties

The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), a widely used instrument for measuring work engagement, exhibits strong reliability across its core dimensions of vigor, dedication, and absorption. Internal consistency is generally high, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging from 0.70 to 0.90 for each subscale and exceeding 0.90 for the total score in diverse samples, such as Dutch and international cohorts.^[23] Test-retest reliability over one-year periods ranges from 0.58 to 0.72, indicating moderate to high stability in engagement levels over time.^[23] Validity evidence for the UWES supports its construct alignment. Convergent validity is evident in moderate positive correlations with job satisfaction (r = 0.50–0.60), reflecting shared aspects of positive work experiences.^[29] Divergent validity is demonstrated by negative associations with burnout measures (r = -0.30 to -0.66), distinguishing engagement from exhaustion and cynicism.^[23] Predictive validity is confirmed through links to performance outcomes, such as increased productivity and reduced turnover, in longitudinal studies.^[23] The UWES has been validated in over 20 languages and across multiple countries, supporting its cross-cultural applicability from individualistic to collectivist contexts.^[30] However, some cultural biases appear in the absorption dimension, where scores tend to be lower in collectivist societies due to differing emphases on immersive individual focus versus group-oriented work norms.^[29] Despite these strengths, limitations in engagement measurement tools like the UWES include reliance on self-reports, which can introduce social desirability and recall biases.^[31] Common method variance poses another challenge, potentially inflating correlations when variables are assessed via the same source and format.^[32] Recent 2025 research on the Flow@Work Engagement Survey addresses these issues by enhancing state-level measurement with improved construct validity and reliability, offering a promising alternative for capturing transient engagement.^[33]

Antecedents and Drivers

Individual-Level Factors

Individual-level factors play a crucial role in fostering work engagement, encompassing stable personal traits, psychological resources, demographic characteristics, and behavioral tendencies that influence how employees connect with their work. These factors operate within theoretical frameworks like the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, which posits that personal resources can amplify engagement by buffering demands and enhancing motivation.^[34] Personality traits, particularly from the Big Five model, exhibit positive correlations with work engagement. Meta-analytic evidence indicates that extraversion (β = 0.17), conscientiousness (β = 0.25), and emotional stability (β = 0.16, inverse of neuroticism) predict higher levels of engagement, collectively explaining about 33% of its variance.^[18] These traits facilitate energetic involvement and persistence at work, with conscientiousness showing the strongest association due to its link with diligence and goal-directed behavior.^[18] Personal resources such as self-efficacy and optimism further drive engagement through mechanisms like resource caravans in the JD-R model, where these attributes build upon each other to sustain motivation. Self-efficacy, defined as confidence in one's capabilities to perform tasks, correlates positively with engagement (r = 0.42), enabling employees to view challenges as opportunities for mastery.^[34] Similarly, optimism, the expectation of positive outcomes, predicts engagement (r = 0.31) by promoting resilient responses to job demands.^[34] Demographic influences on work engagement are generally modest but notable in certain patterns. Engagement tends to increase with age, often peaking in mid-career due to accumulated experience and emotional regulation skills that enhance dedication and vigor.^[35] Higher education levels moderate the relationship between personal resources and engagement, showing stronger associations among university-educated workers compared to those with lower education levels.^[34] Gender effects are minimal, with no significant differences observed across meta-analytic samples.^[34] Behavioral aspects, including proactive personality and learning goal orientation, enhance engagement by encouraging initiative and growth-seeking. Proactive personality, characterized by anticipatory action and change-oriented behavior, strongly predicts engagement (ρ = 0.49), as individuals actively shape their work environment to align with personal energies.^[36] Learning goal orientation, a focus on developing competencies through challenges, promotes engagement by fostering job crafting and self-regulatory strategies that deepen absorption in tasks.

Organizational-Level Factors

Organizational-level factors play a pivotal role in shaping work engagement by providing the structural and relational resources that enable employees to thrive in their roles. These factors encompass job resources, leadership practices, work design elements, and cultural norms that organizations can actively modify to enhance motivation and dedication at work. Research grounded in the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model highlights how such resources buffer against demands and directly foster engagement by promoting fulfillment and efficacy.^[37] Job resources, including autonomy, feedback, and social support, are among the strongest predictors of work engagement within the JD-R framework. Autonomy, or the freedom to make decisions in task execution, correlates positively with engagement (r = .34), allowing employees to experience meaningful control over their work. Feedback from supervisors and peers provides clarity on performance and progress, showing a robust association (r = .40) that reinforces vigor and absorption. Social support, particularly supervisory support, emerges as a key enabler with a correlation of r = .36, exemplified by mentoring that builds trust and reduces isolation; in meta-analytic evidence, this support accounts for substantial variance in engagement levels. Co-worker support also contributes (r = .27), fostering collaborative environments that amplify dedication. These resources not only prevent burnout but actively cultivate a positive motivational state.^[37]^[34] Leadership styles significantly influence engagement through inspirational and supportive mechanisms. Transformational leadership, characterized by vision articulation and individualized consideration, boosts engagement by inspiring employees and fostering a sense of purpose, with meta-analytic correlations reaching r = .47 across diverse organizational contexts. This style enhances dedication by modeling enthusiasm and encouraging personal growth. Recent 2025 research underscores the importance of transparent communication in leadership, particularly post-pandemic, where open dialogue about organizational changes and hybrid work builds trust and mediates engagement via a heightened sense of community; structural equation modeling in U.S. surveys confirms this pathway strengthens voice behaviors and loyalty. Such practices are especially vital in remote settings to mitigate disconnection.^[38]^[39] Work design elements, drawing from the Job Characteristics Model, further drive engagement by infusing tasks with variety, significance, and optimal challenges. Task variety and skill utilization predict higher engagement (β = .41 in some cultural contexts), as they prevent monotony and promote absorption through diverse responsibilities. Task significance, where work impacts others, similarly elevates vigor and dedication by connecting individual efforts to broader outcomes. Recent studies emphasize psychological safety as a design enabler, creating environments where employees risk-share ideas without fear, thereby enhancing overall engagement. Work-life balance initiatives, such as flexible hours, support this by allowing control over schedules, with positive links to psychological well-being and reduced exhaustion, indirectly bolstering engagement. These designs counteract hindering factors like overload while amplifying motivational pulls.^[40]^[41] Organizational culture reinforces engagement through recognition programs and career growth opportunities, serving as key enablers in 2025. Recognition initiatives, such as peer-nominated awards, directly increase engagement by affirming contributions, with empirical evidence indicating significant boosts in motivation and retention when integrated into daily practices. Career growth pathways, including training and promotion prospects, align with JD-R resources by signaling investment in employees' futures, correlating with higher vigor and commitment. In contemporary analyses, cultures emphasizing these elements—particularly post-pandemic—are associated with improved engagement metrics, prioritizing inclusivity and development over mere compliance. Individual traits may moderate these effects, such as resilience amplifying responses to growth opportunities, but organizational levers remain primary.^[42]^[43]

Outcomes and Consequences

Positive Effects on Performance and Well-Being

Work engagement has been consistently linked to enhanced individual performance outcomes. Meta-analytic evidence indicates a positive relationship between work engagement and task performance, with a corrected correlation of ρ = .25 based on 41 studies involving 13,762 participants.^[44] Similarly, engagement predicts contextual performance, including organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), at ρ = .30 across 23 studies.^[44] These associations suggest that engaged employees exert greater effort and persistence in core duties and discretionary behaviors that support organizational functioning. Engagement also fosters innovative behaviors at work. A meta-analysis of 25 studies found a moderate positive correlation (r = .46) between work engagement and innovative work behavior, highlighting how vigor, dedication, and absorption motivate creative problem-solving and idea generation.^[45] On the well-being front, high work engagement correlates with reduced turnover intentions (r = -.43), drawing from a comprehensive meta-analysis within the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) framework across diverse occupational samples.^[37] It is also strongly associated with greater job satisfaction (r = .60), as engaged individuals experience more fulfillment and positive affect in their roles.^[37] Furthermore, engagement buffers against psychosomatic complaints, showing a negative correlation (r = -.37) with psychological distress indicators like fatigue and health impairments.^[37] At the organizational level, work engagement drives broader benefits such as increased productivity and customer satisfaction. A large-scale meta-analysis of 339 studies across 230 organizations reported a corrected correlation of .21 between engagement and productivity metrics, with top-quartile engaged units outperforming bottom-quartile ones by 20-21% in sales and profitability.^[46] For customer outcomes, the correlation stands at .28, linking engaged employees to higher loyalty and satisfaction scores, with a 10% performance gap between high- and low-engagement groups.^[46] Recent research from 2025 further demonstrates that work engagement mediates the relationship between organizational commitment and performance, particularly in high-demand sectors like healthcare, where it amplifies commitment's positive effects on output.^[47] These effects operate through motivational mechanisms in the JD-R model, where engagement spurs increased effort and initiates positive resource gain spirals—engaged workers acquire more personal and job resources, further boosting performance and well-being in a virtuous cycle.

Potential Downsides and Risks

High levels of work engagement can lead to over-engagement, where excessive dedication to work depletes personal resources and increases the risk of exhaustion, particularly in high-strain jobs. Research has identified an "engaged-burnout" profile among employees, characterized by simultaneous high engagement and elevated burnout symptoms, which is prevalent in demanding professions such as teaching.^[48] This profile arises when job demands consistently exceed available resources, leading to sustained vigor and absorption alongside emotional exhaustion and cynicism.^[49] Longitudinal studies further indicate that while engaged workers initially experience lower exhaustion, prolonged high engagement heightens the likelihood of future burnout, especially without adequate recovery periods.^[50] The benefits of work engagement are subject to boundary conditions, diminishing in toxic organizational cultures or environments with insufficient recovery opportunities. In toxic workplaces marked by bullying, harassment, or lack of support, engagement levels decline as employees perceive reduced organizational identification and well-being, mediating the negative impact on their dedication and performance.^[51] Similarly, high engagement can exacerbate work-life conflict by blurring boundaries and draining energy reserves, leading to interference with family tasks and overall recovery; recent analyses using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative methods confirm bidirectional effects where excessive engagement contributes to heightened conflict over time. Work engagement does not benefit all employees equally, with systemic barriers resulting in lower levels among marginalized groups. Intersectional analyses reveal disparities in engagement influenced by race, gender, and health inequities, where older workers from racial-ethnic minorities face compounded challenges such as discrimination and poorer work conditions, reducing their ability to sustain vigor and absorption compared to majority groups.^[52] These inequities stem from broader organizational and societal structures that limit access to resources fostering engagement for underrepresented populations. Measurement of work engagement often relies on self-reports, which can introduce pitfalls, particularly in high-power-distance cultures where disengagement may be underreported. In such contexts, employees may exhibit response biases due to deference to authority or social desirability, masking true levels of detachment and leading to overestimation of engagement.^[53] Cross-cultural meta-analyses highlight how national culture moderates engagement dynamics, with self-report instruments potentially less accurate in hierarchical societies where honest reporting of low engagement is inhibited.^[54]

Interventions and Future Directions

Strategies for Enhancing Engagement

Individual strategies for enhancing work engagement often focus on building personal resources through targeted training programs. Mindfulness-based interventions, such as structured meditation and awareness exercises, have demonstrated effectiveness in increasing work engagement by reducing stress and improving emotional regulation among employees. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found that these programs yield medium effect sizes (Cohen's d = 0.30–0.50) on engagement levels, particularly in workplace settings where participants report sustained improvements in vigor and dedication post-intervention.^[55]^[56] Goal-setting workshops, which involve structured sessions to define clear, achievable objectives aligned with personal strengths, also promote engagement by fostering a sense of autonomy and progress. Evidence from RCTs indicates these workshops produce medium effect sizes (d = 0.30–0.50) in boosting absorption and overall engagement, with participants showing enhanced motivation through self-directed planning techniques. Such interventions are particularly impactful when integrated into regular professional development, helping individuals navigate daily challenges more effectively.^[56] At the organizational level, job crafting programs empower employees to redesign their roles by adjusting tasks, relationships, and cognitions to better align with their preferences and strengths, thereby elevating engagement. A longitudinal meta-analysis of these programs reported a positive association with work engagement (standardized effect size d = 0.37), with sustained benefits observed over time in diverse occupational contexts. Leadership development initiatives that emphasize resource provision—such as training managers to offer emotional support, feedback, and autonomy—further amplify engagement by creating supportive environments. Studies show that engaging leadership behaviors, including inspiration and connection-building, significantly predict higher team and individual engagement levels.^[57]^[58] In 2025, hybrid work policies have gained prominence as an organizational strategy, allowing flexible arrangements that balance remote and in-office work to accommodate employee needs and enhance well-being. Research indicates that organizations with fully flexible hybrid models report higher employee engagement rates compared to fully on-site setups, driven by improved work-life integration and reduced burnout. These policies, when clearly defined, contribute to positive coworker sentiment and productivity without compromising collaboration.^[59]^[60] Multi-level approaches combine individual resilience-building, such as stress management training, with structural organizational changes like formal recognition systems that reward contributions through peer nominations or incentives. These integrated interventions address both personal and contextual factors, leading to broader engagement gains; for instance, projects incorporating resilience workshops alongside recognition platforms have shown improved mental health and motivation across teams. By aligning personal development with systemic supports, such strategies create synergistic effects that sustain engagement over time.^[61] Effective implementation of these strategies typically involves a phased rollout, beginning with pilot testing in select teams, followed by organization-wide adoption, and monitored through pre- and post-assessments using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). The UWES, a validated 9- or 17-item instrument measuring vigor, dedication, and absorption, enables reliable tracking of changes, with meta-analyses of interventions confirming its sensitivity to detect medium-sized improvements (d = 0.30–0.50) in engagement scores. This approach ensures interventions are evidence-driven and adaptable based on empirical feedback.^[56]

Emerging Research Trends

Recent studies highlight significant shifts in work engagement research following the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in integrating remote and hybrid work models. Research indicates that hybrid arrangements can enhance engagement by improving work-life balance, though they also introduce challenges like isolation that may diminish vigor among remote workers. For instance, a 2025 analysis of employee data from 2021 to 2024 found that remote work can increase engagement levels in flexible organizations but led to burnout in those lacking support structures.^[62]^[63] Emerging scholarship is also examining artificial intelligence's role as a job resource in fostering digital engagement. AI tools, such as generative systems, are shown to boost engagement by augmenting productivity and providing personalized feedback, with 2025 studies reporting positive effects among users who perceive AI as supportive rather than substitutive. However, dual effects emerge, where high AI reliance correlates with increased work-life conflict, underscoring the need for balanced implementation. As of 2025, projections indicate AI will drive net job growth of 78 million by 2030 while augmenting skills like resilience, potentially enhancing engagement through upskilling.^[64]^[65] Addressing inclusivity gaps, recent investigations focus on work engagement among diverse populations, including gig economy workers and underrepresented groups. In the gig economy, algorithmic management influences engagement through transparency and fairness, with a 2025 study revealing that equitable platforms elevate engagement among freelancers, yet exacerbate exhaustion for marginalized ethnic minorities due to biased algorithms. Similarly, research on older workers in gig roles shows lower engagement tied to precarious conditions, calling for tailored resources to bridge demographic disparities.^[66]^[67] Methodological advances are prioritizing longitudinal and multi-source designs to capture the dynamic nature of work engagement states. A 2019 meta-analysis of 55 longitudinal studies demonstrates that multi-wave data better elucidates reciprocal effects between resources and engagement, revealing state fluctuations over time that cross-sectional methods overlook. These approaches also link engagement to broader well-being outcomes, such as mediating work-life conflict, with findings from multi-source employee-supervisor data indicating that engagement buffers conflict by 18-22% in high-demand environments.^[68]^[69] Looking ahead, future research agendas emphasize engagement's integration with sustainable practices and mental health interventions. Studies project that sustainable leadership styles will drive engagement by aligning organizational goals with environmental responsibility, potentially increasing vigor through purpose-driven roles. In mental health, interventions like AI-supported mindfulness programs are gaining traction, with 2025 reports showing they enhance engagement while reducing anxiety symptoms in high-stress sectors. Additionally, as of November 2025, Cisco's hybrid study highlights 68% gains in mental wellbeing under flexible policies, supporting engagement in diverse work models.^[70]^[71]^[72]^[60]

References

[1]
Work engagement: drivers and effects - OSHwiki
Jun 18, 2013 · The concept of work engagement fits into the tradition of positive psychology which focuses on mental health rather than mental illness.Missing: etymology | Show results with:etymology<|control11|><|separator|>
[2]
12.1 The History of Positive Psychology
Key Takeaways. Positive psychology began to develop in the 1990s with a focus on the strengths, virtues, and talents that contribute to successful functioning ...57 12.1 The History Of... · Positive Psychology · Gratitude<|separator|>
[3]
PERMAH Explained: The Effective Building Blocks of Wellbeing
Jul 25, 2024 · When Positive Psychology emerged in the late 1990s, more scholars and researchers started developing various models of wellbeing to explain ...The 6 Pillars Of Permah · Positive Emotions · Applying Permah In Daily...
[4]
The Job Demands–Resources Model of Burnout - ResearchGate
Oct 9, 2025 · The job demands-resources (JD-R) model proposes that working conditions can be categorized into 2 broad categories, job demands and job resources.
[5]
The Job Demands‐Resources model: state of the art
Apr 3, 2007 · The purpose of this paper is to give a state‐of‐the art overview of the Job Demands‐Resources (JD‐R) model. Design/methodology/approach.Strengths and weaknesses of... · The job demands‐resources... · Dual processes
[6]
Work from home—Work engagement amid COVID‐19 lockdown and ...
The study establishes that WFH work engagement during COVID‐19 has a significant impact upon the employee's happiness. Some of the earlier studies too have ...
[7]
Post-COVID remote working and its impact on people, productivity ...
The primary aim of this article is to synthesise this work and conduct an exploratory scoping review of both scholarly and grey literature on the impacts of the ...
[8]
(PDF) Remote Work And Employee Engagement Exploring The ...
Jan 10, 2025 · The pandemic of the coronavirus and its effects have increased the prevalence of remote work than before and, therefore, the form of ...
[9]
(PDF) Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD-R Approach
May 26, 2025 · For personal use only. THE CONCEPT OF ENGAGEMENT. Kahn (1990) introduced the concept of engagement, conceptualizing it as the “harnessing of.
[10]
[PDF] Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite ...
Mar 3, 2005 · Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study.
[11]
[PDF] Can Work Engagement Be Discriminated from Job Involvement and ...
Dec 10, 2004 · Conclusion: Work engagement, job involvement, and organizational commitment are empirically distinct constructs and, thus, reflect different ...
[12]
"Same Same" But Different? Can Work Engagement Be ...
Work engagement, job involvement, and organizational commitment are empirically distinct constructs and, thus, reflect different aspects of work attachment.
[13]
Workaholism, Burnout, and Work Engagement: Three of a Kind or ...
Feb 27, 2007 · This agrees with the qualitative study of Schaufeli et al. (2001) that suggests that engaged employees enjoy good mental health. Therefore, we ...
[14]
[PDF] Workaholism vs. Work Engagement: the Two Different Predictors of ...
Apr 3, 2014 · As expected (hypothesis 1), workaholism and work engagement were weakly (<0.30) and positively related to each other.
[15]
[PDF] Defining and measuring work engagement - Wilmar Schaufeli
Consequently, work engagement is defined and operationalized in its own right as “a positive, fulfilling, work- related state of mind that is characterized by.
[16]
What are the differences between flow and work engagement? A ...
Work engagement and work-related flow are distinguishable in that work engagement denotes a more extended period of heightened performance, whereas flow ...
[17]
Association between the five-factor model of personality and work ...
The purposes of this meta-analysis were (1) to examine the associations between work engagement (WE) and the personality dimensions of five-factor model.
[18]
Work Engagement: Organizational Attribute or Personality Trait?
Aug 2, 2022 · Various studies have found positive relationships between work engagement and general personality traits ... longitudinal evidence. Work ...
[19]
Job Demands–Resources Theory: Ten Years Later - Annual Reviews
In this article, we discuss the concepts of burnout and work engagement and review their antecedents and consequences. We look back at our inaugural Annual ...
[20]
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/10.1027/1016-9040/a000160
[21]
[PDF] The longitudinal development of employee well-being: a systematic ...
This article reports a systematic review of findings on the long-term development of employee well-being, taking into account the effects of time lag, age, ...
[22]
Daily Fluctuations in Work Engagement: An Overview and Current ...
... between-person variance). Similarly, daily diary studies have shown that the ... The results suggest that recovery translates into employee work engagement, and ...
[23]
[PDF] WORK ENGAGEMENT: A QUANTITATIVE REVIEW AND TEST OF ...
First, work engagement should refer to a psychological connection with the performance of work tasks rather than an attitude toward features of the organization ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[24]
None
Summary of each segment:
[25]
Work engagement measures: A systematic literature review *
Abstract: Most of the time, literature defines work engagement as a positive mental state characterized by the psychological presence at work and involving ...<|separator|>
[26]
The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire
It is concluded that the UWES-9 scores has acceptable psychometric properties and that the instrument can be used in studies on positive organizational behavior ...
[27]
Enriching or Depleting? The Dynamics of Engagement in Work and ...
This study develops a model of engagement in the multiple roles of work and family. I examine two competing arguments about the effects of engaging in ...Missing: original | Show results with:original
[28]
Gallup's Q12 Employee Engagement Survey
This Gallup survey measures four levels of employee needs, from basic clarity to personal growth. When these needs are met in sequence, they create a workplace ...
[29]
The work-related flow inventory: Construction and initial validation of ...
The WOrk-reLated Flow inventory (WOLF) measures flow at work, defined as a short-term peak experience characterized by absorption, work enjoyment, ...Missing: original | Show results with:original
[30]
Evaluating the two‐item measure of engagement at work for Japan ...
Aug 21, 2024 · Cultural differences can influence work engagement. A cross‐sectional study comparing UWES‐9 scores among employees from 16 countries found that ...
[31]
Psychometric validation of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-Student ...
Sep 14, 2025 · (Schaufeli et al. 2002b) proposed a three-dimensional model of academic engagement consisting of vigor, dedication, and absorption. They defined ...<|separator|>
[32]
A psychometric evaluation of the 17 itemed Utrecht Work ...
Jan 29, 2020 · Thirdly, this instrument validation study relied on self-reported data that may have caused the threat of common method bias. Storm and Rothmann ...
[33]
[PDF] Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review ...
Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which method biases influence behavioral research results, identify potential sources of ...
[34]
Internal validity of the Flow@Work engagement survey - ScienceDirect
Feb 15, 2025 · Research article. Measuring enablers and indicators of employee engagement: Internal validity of the Flow@Work engagement survey.
[35]
https://academic.oup.com/joh/article/66/1/uiad008/7442061
[36]
Work engagement among older workers: a systematic review
Work engagement increases with age, mainly through increased emotional regulation. Age moderates relationships between job factors and work engagement. Work ...
[37]
Who are the most engaged at work? A meta‐analysis of personality ...
Jul 23, 2018 · In order to identify the employees who are most likely to be engaged in their work, we conducted a meta-analysis of 114 independent samples ...
[38]
[PDF] A meta-Analysis Using the Job Demands-Resources Model
As previously stated, the motivational process of engagement postulates that re- sources allow workers to cope with the demanding aspects of their job and at ...
[39]
https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884251349496
[40]
https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22295
[41]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8685887/
[42]
A concept analysis of psychological safety: Further understanding ...
Specifically, psychological safety enhanced job satisfaction, work engagement, organizational commitment and empowerment and led to less emotional exhaustion ...
[43]
The impact of recognition, fairness, and leadership on employee ...
Jan 9, 2025 · The results indicate that recognition significantly boosts employee engagement, while fairness and involvement also positively contribute, ...
[44]
2025 Global Culture Report - Executive Summary - O.C. Tanner
After meeting employees' basic needs, organizations can help their people thrive at work and in life with growth, flexibility, and recognition opportunities, ...
[45]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351529308_Work_Engagement_and_Innovative_Work_Behavior_Meta-Analysis_Study
[46]
Work Engagement and Innovative Work Behavior: Meta-Analysis ...
According to Sari, Yudiarso and Sinambela (2021) , there is a moderate to strong correlation between WE and IWB, meaning that engaged employees tend to exhibit ...
[47]
[PDF] The Relationship Between Engagement at Work and Organizational ...
An updated meta-analysis has revealed a substantial relationship between individual job satisfaction and individual performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton ...Missing: task | Show results with:task
[48]
Work engagement: the key driver in transforming organizational ...
Jul 1, 2025 · This study examined the mediating effect of work engagement on the relationship between organizational commitment and work performance among midwives in Ghana.
[49]
Work Burnout and Engagement Profiles Among Teachers - Frontiers
Oct 3, 2019 · We identified two profiles among teachers: engaged (30%) and engaged-burnout (70%) profiles. We found that those in the engaged profile group ...
[50]
Over Engagement, Protective or Risk Factor of Burnout? - IntechOpen
An optimal level of such vitamin effectively prevents burnout, and an excessive level of engagement (not workaholics) could work as a risk factor for burnout ...
[51]
Is Work Engagement Exhausting? The Longitudinal Relationship ...
Apr 12, 2020 · Our findings suggest that engaged employees are less exhausted but face a higher risk of exhaustion over time.Study 1 · Study 2 · General Discussion
[52]
How Toxic Workplace Environment Effects the Employee Engagement
A toxic workplace environment negatively affected employee engagement, directly and indirectly, through organizational support (OS) and employee well-being (EW ...
[53]
The Intersecting Consequences of Race-Gender Health Disparities ...
... disparities in work engagement among older workers. We offer some recommendations here. First, we suggest workplaces develop innovative ways to better ...
[54]
[PDF] Power distance and work engagement : A case study of ... - AGRH
Third, the self-report of dependent variables may be bias, and fourth culture could be bias if the participants misunderstand between desired and actual ...
[55]
Culture, Burnout, and Engagement: A Meta‐Analysis on National ...
Jun 24, 2019 · Regarding the role of culture, our study reveals moderating roles for five out of six cultural dimensions using Hofstede's framework.
[56]
Mindfulness-Based Programs in the Workplace: a Meta-Analysis of ...
Mar 2, 2020 · Our meta-analysis provides evidence that MBPs effectively promote the health and well-being of employees in various occupational settings.
[57]
Building work engagement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis ...
A systematic review with meta‐analysis was conducted to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of work engagement interventions.Missing: Bulletin | Show results with:Bulletin<|control11|><|separator|>
[58]
Longitudinal meta-analysis of job crafting shows positive association ...
We found a considerable positive association between job crafting and later work engagement (standardized effect size of d = 0.37, 95%CI = [0.16, 0.58]).
[59]
Engaging Leadership: How to Promote Work Engagement? - Frontiers
Oct 26, 2021 · Engaging leadership is defined as leadership behavior that facilitates, strengthens, connects and inspires employees in order to increase their work engagement.<|control11|><|separator|>
[60]
Flexible and hybrid working practices in 2025 - CIPD
Jul 15, 2025 · Our research explores how current flexible and hybrid working practices are impacting performance, employee engagement and wellbeing.
[61]
[PDF] Cisco Global Hybrid Work Study 2025
Respondents working for organizations with fully flexible hybrid work policies report the highest positive sentiment among co-workers, with 74% indicating ...
[62]
H-WORK Project: Multilevel Interventions to Promote Mental Health ...
Oct 31, 2020 · The paper describes the study design, research questions and methods of a large, international intervention project aimed at improving ...Missing: recognition | Show results with:recognition
[63]
[PDF] The Impact of Remote Work on Employee Productivity and ... - ijrti
Jul 7, 2025 · Taken together, the evidence suggests that remote work enhances productivity and engagement when underpinned by clear policies, robust digital ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[64]
Flexible and hybrid working practices in 2025 - CIPD
Jul 15, 2025 · Our research explores how current flexible and hybrid working practices are impacting performance, employee engagement and wellbeing.
[65]
AI's dual impact on employees' work and life well-being
This study explores how AI at work affects employees' work and life domains. Generative AI and AI efficacy increase productivity.
[66]
[PDF] Future of Jobs Report 2025 - World Economic Forum: Publications
As we enter 2025, the landscape of work continues to evolve at a rapid pace. Transformational breakthroughs, particularly in generative artificial intelligence ...
[67]
(PDF) Employee Engagement in the Gig Economy - ResearchGate
Aug 7, 2025 · This research aims to investigate Employee Engagement in the context of the gig economy through a systematic literature review method.Missing: diverse | Show results with:diverse
[68]
https://www.academia.edu/93076370/The_drivers_of_work_engagement_A_meta_analytic_review_of_longitudinal_evidence
[69]
The drivers of work engagement: A meta-analytic review of ...
In our meta-analytic review, we identified 55 longitudinal studies that investigate the impact of various job resources on work engagement. To uncover the ...
[70]
a longitudinal examination of cross-lagged and simultaneous effects
Jun 16, 2025 · The present study aimed to examine the time-lagged and concurrent reciprocal relationships between job resources and work engagement.<|control11|><|separator|>
[71]
Fueling work engagement through sustainable leadership
Mar 22, 2025 · This is the first endeavor to investigate how a sustainable leadership style drives work engagement by mediating the effects of perceived organizational ...
[72]
(PDF) Employee Engagement: Roadmap Towards Sustainable Future
Feb 25, 2025 · This document provides a road map for organizations seeking to integrate employee engagement into their sustainability strategies.
[73]
[PDF] Workforce State of Mind - Headspace Health
Mar 18, 2025 · In our seventh annual survey on workplace mental health, we partnered with Dimensional Research to conduct a survey among employees and HR ...