Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 117–130 | Cite as

From Motivation to Activation: Why Engaged Workers are Better Performers

  • Gaby Reijseger
  • Maria C. W. Peeters
  • Toon W. Taris
  • Wilmar B. Schaufeli
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between work engagement and multiple dimensions of employee performance, as mediated by open-mindedness.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Survey data were obtained from 186 employees of a food processing plant and the findings were cross-validated in an independent convenience sample (N = 308).

Findings

SEM analyses revealed that the more engaged the employees were, the more they displayed extra-role and in-role performance. As expected, these associations were partially mediated by open-mindedness. Results were ambiguous for counterproductive performance showing a direct negative relation between engagement and counter productivity, and an indirect, positive relation through open-mindedness.

Implications

With its systematic look at the relation between engagement and multiple indicators of performance, the current study shows why it is important for both employers and employees to invest in engaged employees: there is a relationship with better performance which can partly be explained by the fact that engagement is associated with open-mindedness. This may help to inform organizations under what circumstances engagement leads to positive or negative forms of performance. Vice versa, a decrease in the multiple indicators of performance may signal organizations to look after their employees' mental health, i.e., engagement.

Originality/Value

This is one of the first studies to include multiple dimensions of employee performance in relation to work engagement. Moreover, it is one of the first studies that focus on the underlying psychological process that might explain for this relationship.

Keywords

Work engagement Employee well-being Open-mindedness Job performance Extra-role behavior In-role behavior Counterproductive behavior Organizational outcomes 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Amit, A., & Sagiv, L. (2013). The role of epistemic motivation in individuals’ response to decision complexity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). Amos users’ guide version 4.0. Chicago, IL: Smallwaters Corporation.Google Scholar
  3. Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakker, A. B., & Bal, P. M. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13, 206–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balducci, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Fraccaroli, F. (2011). The job-demands resources model and counterproductive work behaviour: The role of job-related affect. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 467–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 78–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 613–636.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowling, N. A., & Gruys, M. L. (2010). Overlooked issues in the conceptualization and measurement of counterproductive work behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358–368.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Chirumbolo, A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Areni, A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2005). Motivated closed-mindedness and creativity in small groups. Small Group Research, 36, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Darr, W., & Johns, G. (2008). Work strain, health, and absenteeism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 293–318.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 628–638.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. De Dreu, C. K. W., Beersma, B., Stroebe, K., & Euwema, M. C. (2006). Motivated information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of negotiated agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 927–943.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Shaw, J. D. (1998). Positive affectivity and negative outcomes: The role of tenure and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 950–959.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2Achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Fisher, C. D. (2003). Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are correlated? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 753–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fujita, K., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2007). Mindsets and pre-conscious open-mindedness to incidental information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Galinsky, A. D., & Kray, L. J. (2004). From thinking about what might have been to sharing what we know: The effects of counterfactual mind-sets on information sharing in groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 606–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology, 61, 227–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goodman, S. A., & Svyantek, D. J. (1999). Person-organization fit and contextual performance: Do shared values matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 254–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work & Stress, 22, 242–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 280–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoyle, R. H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: basic concepts and fundamental issues. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling, concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 1–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., Schaufeli, W. B., de Vet, H. C. W., & van der Beek, A. J. (2011). Conceptual frameworks of individual work performance: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53, 856–866.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kruglanski, A. W. (1980). Lay epistemic-logic-process and contents: Another look at attribution theory. Psychological Review, 87, 70–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). The psychology of being ‘right’: The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 395–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing”. Psychological Review, 103, 263–283.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lievens, F., & Anseel, F. (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis and invariance of an organizational citizenship behaviour measure across samples in a Dutch-speaking context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 299–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 57, 70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meier, L. L., & Spector, P. E. (2013). Reciprocal effects of work stressors and counterproductive work behavior: A five-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 529–539.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  41. Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P. M., Schaufeli, W. B., & Van Wijhe, C. I. (2012). Good morning, good day: A diary study on positive emotions, hope, and work engagement. Human Relations, 65, 1129–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Reijseger, G., Schaufeli, W. B., Peeters, M. C. W., & Taris, T. W. (2012). Ready, set, go! From work engagement to job performance. In S. P. Gonçalves (Ed.), Occupational health psychology: From burnout to well-being. London: Scientific & Academic Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  45. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. The Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roe, R. A. (1999). Work performance: A multiple regulation perspective. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 231–335). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). Waarom bevlogenheid? Is tevredenheid dan niet voldoende? [Why engagement? Is satisfaction insufficient?] Retrieved on [datum] from www.sn.nl/inzicht.
  48. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relation with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schaufeli, W. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2006). About the role of positive and negative emotions in managers’ well-being: A study using the Job-related Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS). Gedrag & Organisatie, 19, 323–344.Google Scholar
  51. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taris, T. W., & Kompier, M. A. J. (2006). Games researchers play: Extreme-groups analysis and mediation analysis in longitudinal, occupational, and health research. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 32, 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Taris, T. W., & Kompier, M. A. J. (2014). Cause and effect: Optimizing the designs of longitudinal studies in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 28, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taris, T. W., & Schreurs, P. J. G. (2009). Well-being and organizational performance: An organizational-level test of the happy-productive worker hypothesis. Work & Stress, 23, 120–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tjosvold, D., Tang, M. M. L., & West, M. (2004). Reflexivity for team innovation in China: The contribution of goal interdependence. Group and Organization Management, 29, 540–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Beek, I., Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Schreurs, B. H. J. (2012). For fun, love, or money: What drives workaholic, engaged, and burned-out employees at work? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 61, 30–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). Psychometric qualities of the multicultural personality questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Wright, T. A., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). Job satisfaction and psychological well-being as nonadditive predictors of workplace turnover. Journal of Management, 33, 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. AMJ, 44, 682–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gaby Reijseger
    • 1
  • Maria C. W. Peeters
    • 1
  • Toon W. Taris
    • 1
  • Wilmar B. Schaufeli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Work and Organizational PsychologyUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations