The present study explored the factor structure of engagement and its relationship with job satisfaction. The authors hypothesize that work engagement comprises 3 constructs: vigor, dedication, and absorption. Using structural equation modeling, the authors analyze data from 3 archival data sets to determine the factor structure of engagement. In addition, they examine the hypothesis that engagement and job satisfaction are separate but related constructs, using structural equation modeling and hierarchical regression. The authors test models in which engagement and job satisfaction items loaded onto a single latent variable and 1 in which they loaded onto 2 separate variables. Results from the conﬁrmatory factor analysis indicate engagement has 3 factors. In addition, conﬁrmatory factor analysis and hierarchical regressions indicate engagement and job satisfaction are separate constructs. Last, hierarchical regressions demonstrated the constructs have different relationships with the areas of work–life scale. Implications for theory and research are discussed. Keywords: construct validity, engagement, job satisfaction
POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY HAS ENJOYED AN INCREASING EMPHASIS in the organizational literature in the past decade, with particular emphasis given to engagement. Engagement is deﬁned as a positive relationship with one’s work characterized by a sense of meaning, competence, and impact (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
... prove useful in explaining job satisfaction, in the police force. Chan (2009) states that two factor theory of motivation were constructed according to Maslow ... ’s hierarchy of needs. It provides a useful framework for assessing police officer job satisfaction. The two factor theory ...
Research on the topic has burgeoned from the burnout literature. Originally thought of as the antithesis of burnout, research has demonstrated it is indeed a separate construct from burnout (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001).
In addition, research has also differentiated work engagement from organizational commitment and job involvement (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006).
However, despite criticisms that work engagement may simply be job satisfaction under a new moniker (Macey & Schneider, 2008), little research to date has attempted to differentiate engagement and job satisfaction. The current study explored the relationship of engagement and job satisfaction using a combination of factor analytic techniques and tests for incremental validity. Engagement Several deﬁnitions of engagement are prevalent in the literature. Conceptualizations of engagement range from proactive personality to role expansion (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
This ambiguity has been fueled by applied surveys that tap into a variety of work-related constructs under the collective label “employee engagement.”
Such surveys often combine constructs such as job satisfaction, morale, work involvement, and role ambiguity. One example is the Gallop Workplace Audit, which comprises items that measure several constructs such as job satisfaction, community at work, and role ambiguity (Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2002).
Yet, little empirical research has been conducted in the literature to differentiate these constructs. The factor structure of engagement has come under criticism in the literature (Alarcon, Lyons, & Tartaglia, 2010; Saks, 2005).
The most popular factor structure of engagement is a three-factor structure (Schaufeli, Martinez, Marques, Salanova, & Bakker, 2002; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002).
However, some researchers have suggested engagement may be a single construct (Britt, Dickinson, Greene, & McKibben, 2007; Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; Shirom, 2003).
A problem with the previous literature is that when exploring the factor structure of engagement, the studies relied on a single sample. The reliance on a single sample to conﬁrm the factor structure, especially with small sample sizes, has many problems. First, smaller samples increase the likelihood of errors. Second, there is no conﬁrmation of the model other than the CFA, which often relies on modifying the model, which may have occurred by chance.
... or other occasion but they have to emphasize on several factors before hiring them. There are several things a business ... trade unions. Resentment might occur due to unbalance employee moral, work load and responsibility. 7. Accidents, thefts, proprietary info ... methods Provide temporary workers or the employment agency with job descriptions and information on company benefits, rules and regulation ...
However, using two samples to conﬁrm the factor structure of engagement ensures that any alterations to the model are tested against the other sample. The most popular theory and measure of engagement in the literature is the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli, Salanova, et al., 2002).
In this measure, engagement is conceptualized as a positive, fulﬁlling state at work that is deﬁned by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor is the abundance of energy such as mental resilience and persistence despite difﬁculties (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
Dedication, the second aspect of engagement, is exempliﬁed by a sense of signiﬁcance, enthusiasm, challenge, pride, and inspiration (Schaufeli, Salanova, et al., 2002).
Last, absorption is characterized by intense concentration and engrossment with one’s work. When an individual is absorbed, time passes by quickly, and it is difﬁcult to disconnect from one’s work.
The conservation of resource theory states the engaged individual creates more resources in the environment by fostering social support, engaging in physical ﬁtness, and ultimately generating positive emotions (Hobfoll, 1989).
These positive emotions take the form of vigor. Vigor in the work environment leads to an increase in dedication as the individual invests in the environment. Last, individuals who are vigorous and dedicated often lose track of time and become immersed in the work, having absorption. This process indicates they are separate, albeit related constructs. Hypothesis 1: Engagement comprises three separate dimensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption.
Macey and Schneider (2008) discuss work engagement as having conceptual overlap with job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational commitment, and empowerment. They describe work engagement as an amalgamation of these constructs. Although there is similarity between the constructs, and there may be some conceptual overlap, research and theory have demonstrated engagement is conceptually and empirically distinct from burnout, organizational commitment, and job involvement (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
... as work motivators, increasing job satisfaction, and ultimately decreasing employee turnover rates. Keywords: job satisfaction, employee turnover, employee satisfaction, employee retention, work motivation, employee motivation, employee engagement, retention ...
These results suggest engagement is not simply a renaming of the old constructs. Yet, few studies have examined the distinction between engagement and job satisfaction. Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction has been deﬁned in a variety of different ways. A general deﬁnition of job satisfaction is how much one is fond of one’s job (Spector, 1997).
Job satisfaction has been conceptualized as an appraisal of one’s job (i.e., a cognitive variable), an affective reaction to one’s job, or an attitude towards one’s job (Brief, 1998; Spector, 1997; Weiss, 2002; Weiss & Brief, 2001).
Weiss (2002) argued that job satisfaction is an attitude, and research should distinguish the objects of cognitive evaluation such as emotions, beliefs, and behaviors.
He argues that previous measures of job satisfaction confound job cognitions with job satisfaction, the former being cognitive evaluations, and the latter being affective. Job satisfaction can also be discussed in global or facet aspects (Spector, 1997).
Global job satisfaction refers to the overall feeling towards the particular job. Global job satisfaction is a predictor of organizational citizenship behaviors (Organ & Ryan, 1995), absenteeism (Wegge, Schmidt, Parkes, & van Dick, 2007) and turnover (Saari & Judge, 2004).
The facet approach is used to ﬁnd out what aspects of the job context produce satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Some of the facets measured are satisfaction with the job, supervisor, coworkers, pay, and promotion. Job Satisfaction and Work Engagement Job satisfaction is different from engagement in two ways. First, job satisfaction can be experienced at different levels (i.e., global satisfaction and facet satisfaction) and is a function of perceptions and affect towards the job (Brief, 1998; Organ & Near, 1985; Spector, 1997), whereas work engagement is the content of the work itself (Maslach & Goldberg, 1998).
The job is a speciﬁc instance of employment, such as a nurse in a speciﬁc hospital, in a position such as emergency room personnel.
The work content comprises the actual duties one is performing, such as a nurse’s requirement to exhibit empathy, draw blood, and check on the general well-being of patients. In the nurse example, the nurse may not ﬁnd much job satisfaction from the context but may be engaged with the work nonetheless. Secondly, research has demonstrated that work engagement is positively associated with demands in the workplace (Saks, 2005), unlike job satisfaction, which has been negatively associated with demands (Macklin, Smith, & Dollard, 2006).
The Dissertation on A Study on Job Satisfaction Level on Employee’s Performance at JUPEM Negeri Sembilan
... to saturation causing no satisfaction in the work, in addition to financial satisfaction factors, physical, social satisfaction and psychological satisfaction also affects job satisfaction. Lack or loss ... people were continually complaining about their jobs (Spector, 1996). No matter what the researchers did, the participants found a reason to complain ...
Thus, high work demands may help to foster engagement, albeit, when they are not overwhelming. In contrast, high work demands typically result in lower job satisfaction. One study to date has explored the relationship of engagement with satisfaction in university students (Wefald & Downey, 2009).
They explored student engagement and student satisfaction with the university. In contrast to the typical three-factor model, the authors used a two-factor solution comprising emotional attachment and vigor. The authors then assessed the relationship between student engagement and satisfaction.
They found student engagement and satisfaction with school were two separate constructs. However, there are two issues with that study. First, the authors modiﬁed the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students (UWES-S; Schaufeli et al., 2002), which is less developed than the scale used for employees. Also, the authors used only 14 of the 17 items on the survey and performed a conﬁrmatory factor analysis on the data. Second, although work engagement and school engagement were demonstrated to be conceptually similar (Schaufeli et al., 2002), job satisfaction and school satisfaction have not demonstrated the same similarity. Although the study Wefald and Downey (2009) does tend to support the hypothesis that engagement and job satisfaction are distinct, it remains unclear how an established work engagement scale will relate to job satisfaction. Hypothesis 2: The items for engagement and job satisfaction will load onto separate constructs.
Perceptions of the Workplace In addition to examining the distinction between engagement and job satisfaction using factor analytic methods, the current study also explored the incremental validity of engagement over job satisfaction in predicting perceptions of the work environment as the criterion. Research in occupational health psychology has identiﬁed six key work domains that contribute to worker well-being, known as the areas of work life (AWL): workload, control, reward, community, fairness, and values (Leiter & Maslach, 1999, 2004; Maslach & Leiter, 1997).
... job satisfaction. Finally, the Faces Scale of job satisfaction, one of the first scales used widely, measured overall job satisfaction with just one item which participants ... work satisfaction in general. Other job satisfaction questionnaires include: the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), the Job Satisfaction ... had time constraints. – The sample size might not be very representative. ...
The ﬁrst two constructs, workload and control, have their roots in the Job Demands-Control Model of job stress (Karasek & Theorell, 1990).
A demanding workload occurs when there is too much to do with too little time, often leading to stress. In contrast, a sustainable workload provides opportunities to use and reﬁne skills as well as providing opportunities to learn new areas (Landsbergis, 1988).
Control is the perceived opportunity to make choices and decisions using one’s ability to think and solve problems. Active participation in decision-making within the organization has been associated with higher levels of efﬁcacy and is a cornerstone of job enrichment strategies (Hackman, 1986; Leiter, 1992).
“Reward” refers to the compensation an individual receives for working. This compensation may be monetary or intrinsic. For example, rewards such as recognition and appreciation are compensation for working; however, they have little or no monetary value. A rewarding workplace supports psychological and physical health in the workplace (Leiter, 1992; Maslanka, 1996).
Community is the supportive social fabric of the work environment, and the ability of others in the environment to resolve work issues. The construct was created as an amalgamation of social support and role conﬂict (Leiter & Maslach, 2005).
Although there is conceptual overlap with constructs such as social support, the community variable is distinct because it also subsumes aspects of communication, alienation, and cooperation. Research has consistently demonstrated that a lively, attentive, and responsive work environment enables optimal functioning and buffers against workplace strain (Leiter & Maslach, 2004).
Fairness is the idea that employees are equitably treated and respected. The fairness construct emerged from the social justice and equity literature. When employees are stressed, they look to management to help them solve problems in an equitable way (Leiter & Harvie, 1997).
... Model Herzberg believes that the opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction, but rather no job satisfaction, and similarly, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction ... actual level of job satisfaction within the 40, 000-employee organization. In addition to this, the answers selected by the sample group could ...
Those who perceive a lack of fairness may feel alienated from the work community, leading to less satisfaction and engagement. Last, values gauge the extent to which the requirements align with one’s principles.
A match between the values of the organization and the individual can be a motivating factor, leading to a self-perpetuating dynamic that supports job satisfaction and engagement. Organizational theory has a vast literature on the AWL dimensions under different monikers, with an emphasis on person–job ﬁt (Da Silva, Hutcheson, & Wahl, 2010).
Some of the earliest models of stress focused on the idea of person–job ﬁt, with later research continuing to focus on both individual and environmental factors (Kahn & Byosiere, 1992).
Several theories abound, attempting to address variations in people’s reaction to the workplace by considering congruence between personal and organizational characteristics (Finnegan, 2000; Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Finnegan, 1998).
Most of the previous research has focused on the perceived lack of ﬁt with the environment, leading to strain (Kreiner, 2006; KristofBrown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005).
However, the job satisfaction literature has a rich body of research that demonstrates that perceived person–organization ﬁt with the AWL leads to positive outcomes. If an individual has a good ﬁt with the environment, the job can provide a sense of fulﬁllment and contentment, thus freeing employees from the hassles in the workplace.
The AWL dimensions have been the focus of research on engagement in the past decade (Leiter & Maslach, 2004).
Indeed, the constructs of the AWL were created with engagement in mind (Leiter & Maslach, 2004; Maslach & Leiter, 1997).
The individual’s perceived ﬁt on the AWL will lead to a self-perpetuating dynamic that supports engagement. Both engagement (Leiter & Maslach, 2004) and job satisfaction (Fassina, Jones, & Uggerslev, 2008) have been shown to relate to the dimensions with the AWL. However, if engagement is a separate construct from job satisfaction, it should account for signiﬁcant additional variance in predicting the AWL even when controlling for job satisfaction. If engagement does predict the AWL when controlling for job satisfaction, it also demonstrates the functional nature of engagement. Engagement may be a separate construct from job satisfaction, but if it does not account for additional variance above and beyond job satisfaction, then it may have little practical utility in the workplace. Hypothesis 3: Engagement will account for additional variance in the AWL, with control for job satisfaction.
Method Participants Data was collected from three archival data sets that contained the work engagement and job satisfaction scales. No participants were in more than one sample. Participants in Sample 1 were undergraduates enrolled in various psychology courses at a Midwestern public university. The data were screened for participants who worked 20 hours or more per week and had job tenure of greater than 6 months. Participants were screened after collection to avoid response distortion of hours worked for inclusion in the study. These requirements resulted in a sample of 280 participants. The average age of the participants was 20 years old. Approximately 68% of participants were female, and 69% were Caucasian. The average hours worked was 27 hours, and the average tenure on the job was 26 months. Participants in Sample 2 (N = 387) were undergraduates enrolled in various psychology courses at a Midwestern public university. The same criteria for inclusion in the study were used as in Sample 1. The average age of the participants was 20 years old. Approximately 63% of participants were female, and 73% were Caucasian.
The average hours worked was 28.5 hours, and the average tenure on the job was 21.5 months. Participants in Sample 3 (N = 394) were full-time employees from a variety of occupations who participated in the study for a $5 gift card. Participants were recruited from the individuals that agreed to be emailed regarding possible participation in online research. The database has been used to recruit participants for published studies in the past (e.g., Judge, Ilies, & Scott, 2006).
The average age of the participants was 42 years old, approximately 51% of participants were female, and 76% were Caucasian. The average amount of hours worked per week for the sample was 40 hours, and the average tenure on the job was 74 months. Measures Engagement Engagement was measured with the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9; Schaufeli et al., 2006).
The UWES consists of three subscales for vigor, dedication, and absorption, which have three items each. All items are scored on a 7-point asymmetrical rating scale ranging from 0 (“never”) to 6 (“daily”).
Job Satisfaction The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (MOAQ; Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979) was used to measure global job satisfaction. The scale is three items long. Higher scores on the scale indicate greater amounts of global job satisfaction.
The MOAQ has demonstrated adequate construct validity, with task identity, skill variety, and job complexity as antecedents, and with life satisfaction, perceptions of justice, and job involvement as correlates, and with in-role performance and organizational citizenship behaviors as outcomes of the measure (Bowling & Hammond, 2008).
Perceptions of Work Environment The Areas of Work–Life Survey (AWLS) measures perceived person–context ﬁt (Leiter & Maslach, 2000).
The scale has six subscales that measure perceived workload, control, reward, community, fairness, and values in the workplace. The scales have 6-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, and 5-items respectively. The scales have demonstrated divergent validity from constructs such as burnout, engagement, and job satisfaction (Leiter, 2005; Leiter & Maslach, 2000).
Procedure All three samples were combined into one large sample (N = 1061).
The sample was then randomly split into two samples: Sample 1 (N = 530) and Sample 2 (N = 531).
This splitting of the sample was done for two reasons. First, it was done to ensure the results are not biased by the large sample size. Second, having a second sample to compare with ensures the results are not capitalizing on chance. The second sample is used to ensure the model ﬁts across two separate sets of data. To ensure that variables are not different between the two samples, we conducted a series of t tests. These were performed to ensure that no sample was signiﬁcantly different on any variable, as this may have occurred by chance.
None of the t tests were signiﬁcant, indicating there were no signiﬁcant differences between the two samples on any variable. Analyses First, we established whether engagement is a one-dimensional or multidimensional construct. We used the chi-square difference test to determine if a one- or three-factor model ﬁt the data better. After conﬁrming the structure of engagement, we used the chi-square difference test to evaluate competing models where engagement and job satisfaction load onto the same construct or different constructs. Last, we ran hierarchical regression to determine if engagement contributed to the prediction of perception of ﬁt with the environment, controlling for job satisfaction. Results Preliminary Analyses The means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations were calculated for each subscale. The results are shown in Table 1. All scales had acceptable reliabilities. The Mahalanobis distance statistic was run in MPlus 5.1 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998–2010) to determine any signiﬁcant outliers in the data set.
All variables had sufﬁcient normality for structural equation modeling. The comparative ﬁt index (CFI) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) were the only indices used to determine goodness of ﬁt, but the chisquare and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) are also reported for each model. Hu and Bentler (1999) found that two indices would adequately determine model ﬁt. One index should use the maximum likelihood (SRMR), and the other index should use either generalized least squares or asymptotically distribution-free estimators (CFI).
Factor Structure of Engagement CFAs with one- and three-factor solutions were run on the engagement items to determine that factor structure of the engagement scale.
Hypothesis 1 was supported. Engagement and Job Satisfaction The ﬁrst step in the analyses was to test the measurement model. The measurement model depicted all the latent variables covarying with each other, to determine adequate ﬁt of the latent variables. The latent variables in the current study were vigor, dedication, absorption, and job satisfaction. The measurement model had adequate ﬁt in Sample 1, χ 2(48, N = 530) = 204.37, p < .001, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .04; and Sample 2, χ 2(48, N = 531) = 208.59, p < .001, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .03. As the measurement model ﬁt, and all loadings on the respective factors were signiﬁcant, further analyses were warranted. We compared two competing models of engagement and job satisfaction. The ﬁrst model depicts engagement as a second-order latent construct with vigor, dedication, and absorption loading onto engagement and with job satisfaction covarying with engagement. The second model depicts all the constructs loading onto the second-order latent construct of engagement.
The model with engagement and job satisfaction covarying with each other had adequate ﬁt in Sample 1, χ 2(50, N = 530) = 237.69, p < .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .04; and Sample 2, χ 2(48, N = 531) = 237.86, p < .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .04. The model with job satisfaction subsumed under the engagement factor had adequate ﬁt in Sample 1, χ 2(51, N = 530) = 244.35, p < .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .04; and Sample 2, χ 2(51, N = 531) = 244.616, p < .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .04. A chi-square difference test was performed to determine which model had better ﬁt. The chi-square difference test was signiﬁcant for both Sample 1, χ 2 = 6.66, p < .01; and Sample 2, χ 2 = 6.75, p < .01, indicating the model with engagement and job satisfaction as separate factors ﬁt the data better. Hypothesis 2 was supported. Incremental Effects Next, hierarchical regressions were run to determine if engagement explained additional variance in the AWLS, with control for job satisfaction.
Tables 2 and 3 depicts the results of the regression analyses. Results illustrated that engagement explained a small but signiﬁcant amount of unique variance in workload, control, reward, community, and values in both samples after controlling for job satisfaction. However, engagement did not account for unique variance in perceptions of fairness after controlling for job satisfaction. Hypothesis 3 was partially supported. Discussion As more research continues to abound regarding the engagement construct, it is necessary to ensure the dimensionality and predictive validity of the construct.
However, it should be noted that there were high correlations and covariances between the three factors of engagement. The vigor and dedication subscales correlated with each other at .80, and absorption correlated with vigor and dedication at .76 and .75, respectively. This indicates the factor structure may indeed be one-dimensional. However, this may be due to the measures used to assess engagement and job satisfaction. The nine items used to assess the constructs were the items with the strongest loadings on the subscales (Schaufeli et al., 2006).
The MOAQ is also considerably short. This is problematic because there is less variability in shorter scales. An assumption of classical test theory is that longer scales assess constructs better (Embretson & Reise, 2000).
The use of shorter scales may have inﬂated the intercorrelations of the items. Indeed, the 17-item version of the UWES has shown less overlap between the subscales, possibly due to having more variance in the subscales. Thus, the previous issues with construct dimensionality may be due to the use of the nine-item scale and not necessarily to the construct.
The average covariance between engagement and job satisfaction was relatively high. These results are indicative of the literature on engagement and job satisfaction (Saks, 2005).
Structural equation modeling demonstrated across both samples that the model where engagement and job satisfaction load onto different constructs ﬁt the data signiﬁcantly better. These results are consistent with Wefald and Downey (2009) and emphasize the importance of engagement in the literature as a distinct construct. The current results extend the Wefald and Downey (2009) study by examining the relationship between engagement and job satisfaction (versus school satisfaction) and by using an established measure for engagement. However, the chi-square difference tests were relatively small. This indicates the constructs have a large amount of shared variance, and it cannot be determined that one model ﬁts the data better theoretically. Being satisﬁed with one’s job may be an aspect of engagement.
Indeed, a positive affective tone toward one’s job may facilitate energy at work, a sense of pride in one’s work, and an immersion in one’s tasks. In addition, we tested whether engagement had any incremental value in predicting perceptions of the ﬁt with the work environment. With the exception of perceived fairness in the workplace, engagement consistently predicted a small amount of signiﬁcant variance in the AWL, with control for job satisfaction. Both engagement and job satisfaction entail a positive affective and cognitive relationship with the work environment (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Spector, 1997), but engagement entails more activation with the work environment than simply being satisﬁed (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
Of particular importance is the ﬁnding that at least one dimension of engagement was a signiﬁcant predictor of the AWL in the each of the ﬁnal regression equations, with exception of fairness. There is a long rich history on the relationship of perceived fairness and job satisfaction (Fassina et al., 2008).
Those who perceive inequity in the workplace will be more dissatisﬁed because they perceive the work and effort are not fairly rewarded.
However, it must be noted that job satisfaction is a perception of the job one has, not necessarily the work one does. Fairness is inherent in the particular instance of the job. For example, suppose that in Hospital A, a worker perceives a lack of fairness. If a worker is dissatisﬁed with the fairness in the workplace, he or she may attempt to transfer to Hospital B, where—he or she hears—there is more equity. Thus, the individual may try to change the job but not the work. Engagement is concerned with the work, and when there is a perceived mismatch, the worker may leave the profession. Accordingly, when we control for the affective response to the job (job satisfaction), we see engagement is no longer a predictor of fairness. Limitations The ﬁrst limitation of the current study is the small effect size of the ﬁndings. Although structural equation modeling indicated they are statistically different, researchers could argue that job satisfaction and engagement are part of the same latent construct. This may have occurred because of the large sample sizes. Even after splitting the sample into two samples, we still had samples sizes over 500, which are considered large.
Second, the reliance on short measures for the current sample is a limitation. The subscales of engagement and the job satisfaction scale were all only three-items long. In addition, the AWLS consist of constructs assessed with three-to-six items. As previously mentioned, this is problematic for classical test theory. However, the signiﬁcant ﬁndings even with the smaller scales provide a conservative estimate of the true relationships because less variability would make the relationships among the constructs more difﬁcult to assess. A third limitation is the reliance on self-report measures. Although some researchers have suggested that common method variance is problematic in organizational research, others have questioned whether this assumption is correct (Spector, 2006).
In reference to job satisfaction, self-reports may be the most accurate form of assessment as the individual is the best person to report his or her own feelings of job satisfaction. Another limitation of the study is the use of student data for assessing organizational constructs.
Although this limitation is of some concern, we screened the data for participants who worked at least 20 hours per week and had at least 6 months of tenure at their job. In addition, there was a full-time working sample included in the overall sample. Implications and Future Research The current study has several implications. First, engagement and job satisfaction appear to be empirically and theoretically distinct constructs. This is similar to other research that has demonstrated engagement is separate from constructs such as organizational commitment and job involvement. However, the current study did not deﬁnitively dispel the notion that engagement may simply be “old wine in a new bottle.” Although engagement is distinct from these constructs when they are measured separately, it remains to be seen if engagement is not simply an amalgamation of several constructs such as job involvement, satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Even if engagement is a higher order construct of these variables, it may still be useful to explore the higher order nature of these behaviors in the workplace, much like the core self-evaluation has been with personality (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003).
It may be that the shared variance of engagement and the criterion that is not explained by job satisfaction may be explained by the aforementioned constructs. Second, if engagement and job satisfaction are indeed distinct variables as suggested by the current study, then researchers and consultants should seek to better understand the unique predictors and outcomes of each of these important organizational factors. Speciﬁcally, the role of positive affectivity may be key in the relationships between job satisfaction and engagement. In addition, researchers would be well advised to explore the relationship of job performance with engagement and job satisfaction. Indeed, meta-analyses have demonstrated that the relationship of job satisfaction with performance is spurious after control for personality traits (Bowling, 2007).
It remains to be seen what role engagement plays in job performance. NOTE 1. For a copy of the models with factor loadings, please contact the ﬁrst author. AUTHOR NOTES Gene M. Alarcon is postdoctoral student for the organizational effectiveness research area within the 711th Human Performance Wing of the Air Force Research Laboratory. He received his PhD in industrial/organizational psychology from Wright State University in 2009.
His research interests include stress and emotions, coping, personality, engagement, IRT, and HLM. Joseph B. Lyons is the Team Lead for the organizational effectiveness research area within the 711th Human Performance Wing of the Air Force Research Laboratory. He received his PhD in industrial/organizational psychology from Wright State University. His research interests include trust, collaboration, leadership, stress and emotions, organizational assessment, and organizational change.
Alarcon, G., Lyons, J. B., & Tartaglia, F. (2010).
Understanding predictors of engagement with the military. Military Psychology, 22, 301–310. doi: 10.1080/089956052010492695 Bowling, N. A. (2007).
Is the job satisfaction-job performance relationship spurious? A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 167–185. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.007 Bowling, N. A., & Hammond, G. D. (2008).
A meta-analytic examination of the construct validity of the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 63–77. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.004 Brief, A. P. (1998).
Attitudes in and around organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Britt, T. W., Dickinson, J. M., Moore, D., Castro, C. A., & Adler, A. B. (2007).
Correlates and consequences of morale versus depression under stressful conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 34–47. doi: 10.1037/1076-89126.96.36.199 Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. R. (1979).
“The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Da Silva, N., Hutcheson, J., & Wahl, G. D. (2010).
Organizational strategy and employee outcomes: A person-ﬁt perspective. Journal of Psychology: International and Applied, 144, 145–161. doi: 10.1080/00223980903472185 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. doi: 10.1177/0149206307309260 Embretson, S. E, & Reise, S. P. (2000).
Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Fassina, N. E.,
Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. (2008).
Relationship clean-up time: Using meta-analysis and path analysis to clarify relationships among job satisfaction, perceived fairness and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 34, 161–188. doi: 10.1177/0149206307309260 Finnegan, J. E. (2000).
The impact of person and organizational values on organizational commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 149–169. doi: 10.1348/096317900166958 Hackman, J. R. (1986).
The psychology of self-management in organizations. In M. S. Pallak & R. Perloff (Eds.), Psychology and work: Productivity, change, and employment (pp. 89–136).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006).
Same but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist, 11, 119–127. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.119 Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2002).
Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In C. L. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: The positive person and the good life. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hobfoll, S. (1989).
Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999).
Cutoff criteria for ﬁt indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003).
The core self-evaluation scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331. doi: 10.1111/j.17446570.2003.tb00152.x Judge, T. A., Ilies, R., & Scott, B. A. (2006).
Work-family conﬂict and emotions: Effects at work and at home. Personnel Psychology, 59, 779–814. doi: 10.1111/j.17446570.2006.00054.x Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992).
Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 571–650).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists. Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990).
Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York, NY: Basic Books. Kreiner, G. E. (2006).
Consequences of work-home segmentation or integration: A person–environment ﬁt perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 482–507. doi: 10.1002/job.386
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005).
Consequences of individuals’ ﬁt at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor ﬁt. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342. doi: 10.1111/j.17446570.2005.00672.x Landsbergis, P. A. (1988).
Occupational stress among health care workers: A test of the job demands–control model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 217–239. doi: 10.1002/job.4030090303b Leiter, M. P. (1992).
Burnout as a crisis in professional role structures: Measurement and conceptual issues. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 5, 79–93. doi: 10.1080/10615809208250489 Leiter, M. P. (2005).
Perception of risk: An organizational model of burnout, stress symptoms, and occupational risk. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 18, 131–144. doi: 10.1080/10615800500082473 Leiter, M. P., & Harvie, P. (1998).
Conditions for staff acceptance of organizational change: Burnout as a mediating construct. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 11, 1–25. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00207-X Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (1999).
Six areas of worklife: A model of the organizational context of burnout. Journal of Health and Human Resources Administration, 21, 472–489. Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2000).
Areas of Worklife Survey. Wolfville, NS, Canada: Center for Organizational Research & Development. Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2004).
Areas of worklife: A structured approach to organizational predictors of job burnout. In P. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Emotional and physiological processes and intervention strategies (Vol. 3, pp. 91–134).
Oxford, England: Elsevier. Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2005).
A mediation model of job burnout. In A. G. Antoniou & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to organizational health psychology (pp. 544–564).
North Hampton, MA: Elgar. Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008).
The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial Organizational Psychology, 1, 1–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x Macklin, D. S., Smith, L. A., & Dollard, M. F. (2006).
Public and private
sector work stress: Workers compensation, levels of distress and job satisfaction, and the demand–control–support model. Australian Journal of Psychology, 58(3), 130–143. doi: 10.1080/00049530600940190 Maslach, C., & Goldberg, J. (1998).
Prevention of burnout: New perspectives. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 7, 63–74. doi: 10.1016/S0962-1849(98)80022-X Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997).
The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Maslanka, H. (1996).
Burnout, social support and AIDS volunteers. AIDS Care, 8, 195– 206. Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998–2010).
Mplus User’s Guide. Fifth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen. Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1985).
Cognition and affect in measures of job satisfaction. International Journal of Psychology, 20, 241–253. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995).
A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004).
Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 43, 395–407. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20032 Saks, A. (2005).
Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600–619. doi: 10.1108/02683940610690169
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. doi: 10.1002/job.248 Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006).
The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471 Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Marques Pinto,
A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002).
Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 464–481. doi: 10.1177/0022022102033005003 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. doi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326 Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. (1998).
Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 462–470. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.83.3.462 Shirom, A. (2003).
Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigor and the study of positive affect in organizations. In D. Ganster & P. L. Perrewe (Eds.), Research in Organizational Stress and Well-Being (Vol. 3, pp. 135–165).
Greenwich, CT: JAI. Spector, P. E. (2006).
Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232. doi: 10.1177/1094428105284955 Spector, P. E. (1997).
Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wefald, A. J., & Downey, R. G. (2009).
Construct dimensionality of engagement and its relation with satisfaction. International Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 143, 91–112. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.143.1.91-112 Wegge, J., Schmidt, K., Parkes, C., & van Dick, R. (2007).
“Taking a sickie”: Job satisfaction and job involvement as interactive predictors of absenteeism in a public organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 77–89. doi: 10.1348/096317906×99371 Weiss, H. M. (2002).
Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173–194. doi: 10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00045-1 Weiss, H. M., & Brief, A. P. (2001).
Affect at work: An historical perspective. In R. L. Payne and C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The psychology of work: Theoretically based empirical research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Original manuscript received September 7, 2010 Final version accepted April 19, 2011