SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.38 número2Las expectativas sobre disponibilidad y la desconexión psicológica: el papel del uso del teléfono móvil con fines laborales fuera del trabajo y la preferencia por la segmentación¿Puede la valía de la actividad explicar el cambio de OCB-I? El papel mediador de las emociones positivas índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Compartir


Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones

versión On-line ISSN 2174-0534versión impresa ISSN 1576-5962

Rev. psicol. trab. organ. vol.38 no.2 Madrid ago. 2022  Epub 17-Oct-2022

https://dx.doi.org/10.5093/jwop2022a7 

ARTICLES

Work engagement: organizational attribute or personality trait?

El compromiso laboral: ¿atributo organizacional o rasgo de personalidad?

Francisco Prieto-Díeza  c  , Álvaro Postigoa  , Marcelino Cuestaa  , José Muñizb 

aUniversidad de Oviedo, España

bUniversidad Nebrija, España

cTecnalia, Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo Tecnológico, España

ABSTRACT

One of the most determining factors of work performance is the degree of engagement of people to their work. That degree of engagement is influenced by both personal and organizational factors. The objective of this research is to analyze the connection between personal characteristics and organizational attributes with the work engagement of workers. The sample consisted of 286 employed workers; 83.5% were Spanish and 16.5% belonged to other Spanish-speaking countries. The mean age was 44.51 years (SD = 8.76) and 55.2% were women. For the prediction of work engagement, a hierarchical linear regression was carried out, first introducing the variables that evaluate personal characteristics (Big Five, entrepreneurial personality, emotional intelligence, and personal happiness) and, later, variables relating to organizational attributes (happiness work and organizational climate). General personality traits (Big Five) explain 22% of work engagement, this percentage rising to 47% when entrepreneurial personality is introduced in the model. Emotional intelligence does not explain additional variance, but personal happiness does. Happiness at work and organizational climate produce a significant increase and the explained variance rises from 55% to 63% when they are included in the model. Both the variables related to the personal characteristics of the employees and variables related to the organizational attributes jointly contribute to the explanation of the degree of work engagement. Workers with high scores on entrepreneurial personality traits achieve higher levels of work engagement, finding a moderating effect of the organizational climate in the relationship between people's autonomy and their work engagement.

Keywords Work engagement; Entrepreneurial personality; Big Five; Emotional intelligence; Happiness; Organizational climate; Moderation

RESUMEN

Uno de los factores más determinantes del rendimiento laboral es el grado de compromiso de las personas con su trabajo. Ese grado de compromiso está influenciado tanto por factores personales como organizacionales. El objetivo de la presente investigación es analizar la relación entre las características personales y los atributos organizacionales con el compromiso laboral de los trabajadores. La muestra estuvo formada por 286 trabajadores por cuenta ajena, de los cuales el 83.5% eran españoles y un 16.5% pertenecía a otros países de habla hispana. La media de edad fue de 44.51 años (DT = 8.76) y el 55.2% eran mujeres. Para la predicción del compromiso laboral se llevó a cabo una regresión lineal jerárquica, introduciendo en primer lugar las variables que evalúan las características personales (Big Five, personalidad emprendedora, inteligencia emocional y felicidad personal) y posteriormente las relativas a los atributos organizacionales (felicidad laboral y clima organizacional). Los rasgos generales de personalidad (Big Five) explican el 22% del compromiso laboral, porcentaje que se eleva hasta el 47% cuando se introduce la personalidad emprendedora en el modelo. La inteligencia emocional no explica varianza adicional, pero sí la felicidad personal. La felicidad laboral y el clima organizacional producen un incremento significativo, pasando del 55 al 63% la varianza explicada cuando se incluyen en el modelo. Tanto las variables relacionadas con las características personales de los trabajadores como aquellas relativas a los atributos organizacionales contribuyen conjuntamente a explicar el grado de compromiso laboral. Los trabajadores con puntuaciones elevadas en los rasgos específicos de la personalidad emprendedora alcanzan mayores niveles de compromiso laboral, encontrándose un efecto moderador del clima organizacional en la relación entre la autonomía de las personas y su compromiso laboral.

Palabras clave Compromiso laboral; Personalidad emprendedora; Big Five; Inteligencia emocional; Felicidad; Clima organizacional; Moderación

Work engagement reflects how involved people are in the tasks that they have to do as part of their jobs and is closely related to their job performance (Bakker et al., 2011; Bakker & Oerlemans, 2019; Laguna et al., 2017; Martínez et al., 2020). The concepts of employee engagement and work engagement have usually been used interchangeably (Guest, 2014); however, work engagement refers to an employee's relationship to their work at the individual level, whereas employee engagement is about the relationship between the employee and their organization (Salanova et al., 2005; Tisu et al., 2020). Most researchers consider work engagement to be the effective involvement and participation of people in their work, which produces a positive affect associated with the job and the workplace environment (Castellano et al., 2019; Maslach et al., 2001; Rothbard & Patil, 2012; Salanova & Llorens, 2008). Despite the widespread use of the term, work engagement does not have a single definition, nor a uniform conceptualization, and different approaches suggest differentiation of engagement as a trait, as a psychological state, or as a behavior (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Solomon & Sridevi, 2010).

Work engagement is an important factor in the management of organizations due to its influence on companies' efficiency and competitiveness, along with its links to higher levels of both individual and organizational performance (Barría-González et al., 2021; Halbesleben, 2010; Lesener et al., 2020; Martínez et al., 2020). Employees who are engaged within the organization have been shown to be more proactive, to encourage innovation, and to make efforts to improve the organization's results (Harter et al., 2002; Ruiz-Zorrilla et al., 2020). The higher levels of energy, responsibility, enthusiasm, and effective connection to the job associated with work engagement underscore why companies are interested in understanding the factors that determine it.

How engaged employees are with their work is determined by both personal characteristics and factors related to the organizational climate (García-Arroyo & Segovia, 2021). There is no unequivocal answer about the extent to which one predominates over the other, which is one of the main objectives of the present study. When workers develop and use their personal resources, they tend to exhibit greater work engagement (Airilia et al., 2014; Bhatti et al., 2018; Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Emotional intelligence demonstrates a positive effect on work engagement (Barreiro & Treglown, 2020; Brunetto et al., 2012; Extremera et al., 2018; Ravichandran et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2015), as does a positive affective experience in the workplace (Fisher, 2010; Martos Martínez et al., 2021; Salas-Vallina et al., 2017). Emotional intelligence and personal happiness may act as resources that allow employees to enthusiastically deal with the demands of work and encourage work engagement (Cohn et al., 2009). The connection between personality characteristics and work engagement has been widely studied (Bakker & Leiter, 2010; Lisbona et al., 2018). Personality traits can be measured at different levels of conceptual breadth (Soto & John, 2017). A broad character trait can summarize a large amount of behavioral information and predict a wide range of important criteria, whereas more restricted trait measures more accurately express a specific behavioral description and can predict criteria that are closely linked to that description (John et al., 2008; Postigo et al., 2021). This is why it is important to distinguish between studies focusing on broad, Big Five-type, personality traits and those which use more specific personality traits. Various studies have found positive relationships between work engagement and general personality traits (Bakker et al., 2012; Bhatti et al., 2018; Hau & Bing, 2018; Martos Martínez et al., 2021; Zaidi et al., 2013), with agreeableness being the trait with the weakest relationship to work engagement (Janssens et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2009). Other authors have used specific personality traits to examine the relationship with work engagement. Traits such as self-efficacy, proactivity, innovation, stress-tolerance, and optimism have been positively related to employees' work engagement (Bhatti et al., 2018; Contreras et al., 2020; Li et al., 2017; Lisbona et al., 2018; Perera et al., 2018; Ocampo-Álvarez et al., 2021).

With regard to the organizational attributes that affect work engagement, studies have found clear connections between both physical and organizational characteristics of a job (Saks, 2019; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Saks (2019) suggested that giving employees opportunities to put diverse skills into practice in an interesting, challenging job is likely to lead to high work engagement. Employees' perceptions and opinions about the psychosocial context and the specific characteristics of the organization they work for influence their behavior and affect work engagement (Bartram et al., 2002; Basinska & Rozkwitalska, 2020; DeCottis & Summers, 1987; Dessler, 2008; González-Verde et al., 2015; Quiñones et al., 2013; Tandler et al., 2020). The various facets that may comprise a good organizational climate, such as organizational trust, the absence of workplace tension, social support, remuneration, and job satisfaction, lead an employee to be engaged with their work (Barría-González et al., 2021).

In this context, the present study has two objectives. Firstly, it aims to assess the weight of personal characteristics and organizational attributes in predicting the levels of employees work engagement. Personal characteristics include both general and specific personality traits, emotional intelligence, and personal happiness. The organizational attributes cover workplace happiness and organizational climate. Secondly, given that previous research has shown that people's perceptions of the psychosocial context and the specific characteristics of the organization influence behavior and impact their engagement with their work (Barría-González et al., 2021; Hermosa-Rodríguez, 2018; Murphy & Reeves, 2019), the study aims to assess the possible moderating effect of work-context variables (happiness and organizational climate) on the personal variables that are most important in predicting work engagement.

Method

Participants

The final sample comprised 286 employees and 17 cases were removed for giving insufficiently rigorous answers according to the attentional control scale. The majority (83.5%) were Spanish nationals and 16.6% were from other Spanish-speaking countries. The mean age of the sample was 44.51 years old (SD = 8.76), with a range between 24 and 67. Just over half (55.2%) were women and 73.8% had university-level qualifications. Just under a quarter (23.8%) had higher level management jobs, 33.6% were middle managers, 24.5% were technical-level employees, and 18.1% were skilled workers.

Instruments

Work Engagement Scale (ESCOLA; Prieto-Díez et al., 2021).

ESCOLA is a scale with 10 items that evaluates work engagement. The responses are given on a Likert-type scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates complete disagreement and 5 indicates complete agreement. The scale has a reliability (α) coefficient of .92 and evidence of convergent validity (Prieto-Díez et al. 2021). The reliability in the present study was excellent: α = .92.

Battery for the Evaluation of Enterprising Personality (BEPE; Cuesta et al., 2018).

The BEPE is an 80-item questionnaire which evaluates eight dimensions of enterprising personality: self-efficacy, autonomy, innovation, internal locus of control, achievement motivation, optimism, stress-tolerance, and risk-taking (Cuesta et al., 2018; Muñiz et al., 2014; Postigo et al., 2020). The items use a Likert scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The instrument exhibits a good fit to a bifactor model, with excellent reliability for the eight dimensions and the scale overall, and ? coefficients between .91 and .97 (Cuesta et al., 2018). In the present study, (α) coefficients were: enterprising personality = .97; self-efficacy = .91, autonomy = .83, innovation = .92, internal locus of control = .88, achievement motivation = .90, optimism = .92, stress-tolerance = .85, and risk-taking = .90.

Brief Organizational Climate Scale (CLIOR-S; Peña-Suárez et al., 2013)

The CLIOR-S is an instrument containing 15 items which assess the perceived organizational climate. The items use a Likert-type scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The instrument has a reliability coefficient of .94 and a correlation of .86 with the longer version (Peña-Suárez et al., 2013). The reliability in the present study was excellent: α = .94.

Overall Personality Assessment Scale (OPERAS; Vigil-Colet et al., 2013).

OPERAS evaluates the five broad personality traits according to the Big Five model (extraversion, emotional stability, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience; Costa & McCrae, 1992). There are 7 items for each dimension, using a Likert-type scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The subscales present reliability (α) coefficients between .71 and .86, and the instrument has adequate evidence of convergent validity (Vigil-Colet et al., 2013). In the present study the (α) coefficients of reliability were: extraversion = .80, emotional stability = .76, conscientiousness = .67, agreeableness = .68, and openness to experience = .70.

Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS-24; Fernández-Berrocal et al., 2004).

Emotional intelligence was assessed using the Spanish version of TMMS-24 (Extremera & Fernández-Berrocal, 2005; Fernández-Berrocal et al., 2004). This questionnaire has three dimensions: attention to emotion (8 items), which evaluates a person's tendency to observe and think about their own thoughts and emotional states; emotional clarity (8 items), which evaluates the extent to which people understand their own emotional states; and emotional repair (8 items), which evaluates people's perceptions of how they regulate their own feelings. The Spanish version exhibits reliability coefficients (α) above .85 for each of the subscales (Fernández-Berrocal et al., 2004). The items use a Likert scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The (α) reliability in the present study was .83 for attention, .76 for clarity, and .86 for repair.

Happiness at Work Scale (Ramírez-García et al., 2019).

This scale, developed in Spain, has 11 items which use a Likert scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). The instrument has two dimensions, the first covers factors related to the workplace (α = .91), while the second includes personal factors from the employee (α = .72). The reliability (α) in the present study was .91 for the first dimension and .75 for the second.

Attentional Control Scale

This is a scale with 10 Likert-type items with 5 response options each. The objective of this scale is to detect participants who answer without sufficient care and attention. The items are of the type "In this question, please select item four", and were interspersed randomly between the items of the various instruments. Participants who answered two or more questions incorrectly were eliminated from the study.

Procedure

Data collection took place online. Links to the questionnaire were disseminated through employee associations and professional social networks. Data collection took place between 3 April and 20 May 2020. Participants were informed that the study had nothing to do with the COVID-19 crisis or the lockdown, and responses should refer to the participants' normal working situations. The items from the instruments were randomly distributed. The questionnaire took an average of 40 minutes to complete. Participants received no kind of recompense for their participation. The anonymity of each participant was ensured and data confidentiality was maintained in strict accordance with data protection legislation (Ley Orgánica 3/2018, de 5 de diciembre, de Protección de Datos Personales y garantía de los derechos digitales).

Data Analysis

First, Pearson correlations were calculated between the variables used in the study: a) work engagement, b) the Big Five personality traits, c) eight specific traits of enterprising personality, d) three dimensions making up emotional intelligence, e) two happiness dimensions (personal and work-related), and f) organizational climate.

Secondly, a hierarchical linear regression was performed, using work engagement as the criterion variable, and adding a set of predictor variables at each step, from the variables measuring personal characteristics to variables focused on organizational attributes. Specifically, the variables were: a) The Big Five personality traits, b) eight specific dimensions of enterprising personality, c) three dimensions of emotional intelligence, d) personal happiness, e) work-related happiness, and f) organizational climate. The coefficient of determination (R2) was used to examine the percentage of variance explained.

Finally, the moderating capacity (e.g., Ato & Vallejo, 2011; Fatima et al., 2021) of organizational variables in the relationship between the personal variables and work engagement was assessed. The specific personal variables considered were those that were statistically significant in the final step of the previous hierarchical regression model and the organizational variable was the organizational climate. In addition, the moderating capacity of work-related happiness on the relationship between personal happiness and work engagement was also examined.

In each of the proposed regression models, organizational climate and work-related happiness had a moderating role in the relationship between the personal variable being examined and work engagement (Figure 1). Where the interaction was statistically significant, a simple slope analysis was performed between the predictor personal variable and work engagement at high (+1 SD), moderate (0 SD), and low (-1 SD) levels of the moderating organizational variable.

All analyses were performed using SPSS 24 (IBM Corp, 2016) and the PROCESS program (Hayes, 2017).

Figure 1. Representation of the Moderation of Organizational Variables on the Relationship between Personal Variables and Work Engagement. 

Results

As Table 1 shows, the correlations between the predictor variables and work engagement were very strong, particularly for enterprising personality (r = .70). In the variables related to personal characteristics, work engagement as assessed via ESCOLA exhibited a positive correlation with all of the BEPE dimensions and strong correlations with: achievement motivation = .66, innovation .64, self-efficacy = .62, optimism = .60, and risk-taking = .59. The personal happiness dimension also demonstrated a correlation of .58 with work engagement. Weaker correlations were found with the Big Five personality traits and with the three emotional intelligence dimensions. In terms of organizational variables, there were strong correlations between engagement and organizational climate (r = .54) and work-related happiness (r = .63).

Table 1. Pearson Correlations between the Variables Used in the Study 

*p < .05,

**p < .01.

Hierarchical linear regression was performed to examine the relationships between work engagement and the predictor variables as a whole. Table 2 shows the variables added to the model in each step, along with the increase in the coefficient of determination (R2) produced by the addition of the set of variables in that step. The Big Five traits explained 22% of work engagement, a value that rose to 47% when the eight specific traits of enterprising personality were added, with innovation being the only significant variable in the second step (p < .001). On adding the three variables making up emotional intelligence (step three), the increase in explaining work engagement was not significant. There was a notable increase in explaining work engagement on the addition of personal and work-related happiness variables (steps four and five). In the final model (step six), organizational climate was added, which produced a significant increase in the explanation of work engagement. The variables which were ultimately statistically significant in the explanation of employees' work engagement were achievement motivation and personal happiness (as personal variables), and work-related happiness and perceived organizational climate (as work-related variables). The final standardized regression equation (model 6) for predicting work engagement is given in Table 2 in the column which shows beta for each of the variables.

Table 2. Hierarchical Linear Regression Model for Predicting Work Engagement 

Note1Beta for each variable corresponds to the definitive model (model 6).

Once the predictive power of each block of variables on work engagement had been analyzed, the moderating effect of the organizational variables on the relationship between personal variables and work engagement was examined, specifically, innovation, autonomy, and achievement motivation were the most important variables in predicting work engagement. Therefore, we examined whether the organizational climate moderated the relationship of each of these variables with work engagement. In each model, organizational climate was used as a moderating variable and work engagement as a dependent variable. In the first model, the predictor variable was innovation. There were statistically significant results for the coefficients of innovation (β = .736, CI 95% [.330, 1.141], p < .001) and organizational climate (β = .365, CI 95% [.049, .682], p < .001), but not for the interaction (β = -.004, CI 95% [-.011, .003], p = .275). The model explained 52.4% of the variance in work engagement. The second model used achievement motivation as the predictor variable. There were statistically significant results for the coefficients of achievement motivation (β = .610, CI 95% [.184, .1.04], p = .005), but not for organizational climate (β = .210, CI 95% [-.135, .554], p = .232), or for the interaction (β = -.001, CI 95% [-.008, .007], p = .917). The model explained 53.3% of the variance. Finally, the third model used autonomy as the predictor variable. In this model both autonomy (β = 1.18, CI 95% [.634, 1.729], p < .001) and organizational climate (β = .796, CI 95% [.397, 1.195], p < .001) were statistically significant, with the interaction also being significant (β = -.014, CI 95% [-.023, -.004], p < .001), indicating the moderating role of organizational climate on the relationship between autonomy and work engagement, explaining 49.3% of the variance. A simple slope analysis was then performed from this model between the personal predictor variable and work engagement at high (+1 SD), moderate (0 SD), and low (-1 SD) levels of the moderating organizational variable (Figure 2). The chart shows how the relationship between autonomy and work engagement is moderated by the organizational climate. There is a stronger relationship when the organizational climate is low (-1 SD), and as the organizational climate improves, the relationship between autonomy and work engagement weakens (+1 SD).

Note. CLIOR = organizational climate; +1 SD = one standard deviation above the mean; -1 SD = one standard deviation below the mean.

Figure 2. Model of Moderation of Organizational Climate on the Relationship between Autonomy and Work Engagement 

In addition, given the importance demonstrated by happiness, both at the personal and organizational level, a model was specified in which work-related happiness moderated the relationship between personal happiness and work engagement. There were statistically significant results for the coefficients of personal happiness (β = .83, CI 95% [.414, 1.26], p < .001) and work-related happiness (β = .515, CI 95% [.237, .792]; p < .001), but not for the interaction (β = -.009, CI 95% [-.020, .001], p < .001); the model explained 46.5% of the variance.

Discussion

Interest in work engagement in the business world has led to the need to document the relationships with other positive variables linked to job performance. Work engagement is a very important variable in the organizational sphere (Bakker et al., 2011; Bakker & Oerlemans, 2019; Laguna et al., 2017; Martínez et al., 2020) and it depends on personal and contextual factors (e.g., García-Arroyo & Segovia, 2021; Saks, 2019; Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). The aim of the present study was to examine the influence of personal resources (general and specific personality traits, emotional intelligence, and personal happiness) and contextual resources (work-related happiness and organizational climate) on employees' engagement with their work. The study has shown that, on the one hand, both personal and work-related resources have some kind of impact and are predictors of work engagement, with the balance tipped towards the personal factors (Bakker et al., 2011; Bakker & Oerlemans, 2019; Laguna et al., 2017; Lisbona et al., 2018; Martos Martínez et al., 2021) and, on the other hand, that organizational components play a moderating role between certain personal variables and a person's engagement (Quiñones et al., 2013; Southwick et al., 2019).

The results show that the Big Five-type general personality traits had some predictive capacity over work engagement (Bakker et al., 2012; Bhatti et al., 2018; Hau & Bing, 2018; Martos Martínez et al., 2021; Zaidi et al., 2013), although that capacity improved notably when specific traits of enterprising personality were also used. These results are consistent with previous studies (Leutner et al., 2014; Postigo et al., 2021; Rauch & Frese, 2007) that showed how the evaluation of more specific behaviors more accurately expressed a specific behavioral description and could predict criteria that were closely linked to that description (John et al., 2008; Soto & John, 2017). This indicates, then, that people who are more autonomous and more innovative (see Cuesta et al., 2018), with certain tendencies towards intra-entrepreneurialism (Mumford et al., 2021), tend to be more committed to their work and make more efforts to improve organizational results (Harter et al., 2002; Ruiz-Zorrilla et al., 2020).

In contrast, despite the fact that emotional intelligence has been shown to be related to work engagement (Brunetto et al., 2012; Extremera et al., 2018; Ravichandran et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2015), its influence seems to vanish when employees' personality traits are considered. This may be because variables such as stress-tolerance and optimism are closely related to emotional intelligence (e.g., emotional repair-optimism, r = .66; emotional repair-stress-tolerance, r = .51), meaning that the relationship between work engagement and emotional intelligence may be explained by people's levels of psychological empowerment (Alotaibi et al., 2020; Gong et al., 2020). Happiness demonstrated the expected results. Ramírez-García et al. (2019) considered two factors related to worker happiness, one which included a worker's personal factors, and the other which was about aspects of work environment. Personal happiness slightly increased the prediction of work engagement, because there are certain aspects related to happiness and wellbeing that are not only explained by personality and which lead the employee to be engaged with their work (Fisher, 2010; Martos-Martínez et al., 2021; Salas-Vallina et al., 2017).

Both work-related happiness and organizational climate improved the prediction of employees' work engagement, increasing the variance explained from 55 to 63%. This finding, in line with other studies (Barría-González et al., 2021; Bartram et al., 2002; Basinska & Rozkwitalska, 2020; DeCottis & Summers, 1987; González-Verde et al., 2015) underscores the importance of organizational aspects (over and above personal resources) such as the absence of workplace tension, organizational trust, and social support when motivating workers.

Given the importance of these two (organizational and personal) components when attempting to explain a person's engagement with their job, the moderating role of the organizational components in the relationship between personal variables and work engagement was examined. The organizational climate exhibited a moderating role in the relationship between people's autonomy and their work engagement. People for whom there was a low-scoring organizational climate demonstrated stronger positive relationships between their autonomy and their work engagement than people who perceived better organizational climates. People's autonomy seems to play an important role in their work engagement, although its influence is weaker if work environment is perceived as excellent (Barría-González et., 2021; Gorostiaga et al., 2022; Murphy & Reeves, 2019; Yagil & Oren, 2021).

Various studies have indicated how important it is for work engagement to give workers a certain amount of control over their work, giving them autonomy and the ability to make decisions about tasks and encouraging them to develop their own capabilities (De la Rosa & Jex, 2010; García-Alba et al., 2021, 2022; Karasek, 1979). This suggests important implications for professional practice, where organizations must consider both the levels of autonomy they offer their staff about how they do their jobs and certain organizational aspects that should be addressed when designing strategies aimed at strengthening work engagement.

The conclusions of this study are clear and, as in almost every case, both personal and contextual resources are important. A person with an ambitious perception of themselves when they do things, who works hard, who is responsible and who puts forward new ideas and suggestions, who works autonomously and independently, and who has high tolerance to adversity is someone who will engage with their work. However, if this person finds themselves in a hostile, unstimulating work environment, this engagement may be weakened by the organizational climate, in which they may perform worse, or even give up altogether if the opportunity arises (Henares-Montiel et al., 2021; Sora et al., 2021; Southwick et al., 2019).

The present study has some limitations. As it deals with a sample of employees from various companies, the organizational climate variables provide heterogeneous information of the perception of climate in the different work contexts of each participant. In addition, it would be interesting to analyze the results of the study considering variables such as the organizational hierarchy that employees are part of.

Cite this article as: Prieto-Díez, F., Postigo, A., Cuesta, M., & Muñiz, J. (2022). Work engagement: Organizational attribute or personality trait? Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 38(2), 85-92. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2022a7

References

Airilia, A., Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., Luukkonen, R., Punakallio, A., & Lusa, S. (2014). Are job and personal resources associated with work ability 10 years later? The mediating role of work engagement. Work Stress, 28(1), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2013.872208Links ]

Alotaibi, S. M., Amin, M., & Winterton, J. (2020). Does emotional intelligence and empowering leadership affect psychological empowerment and work engagement? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(8), 971-991. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2020-0313Links ]

Ato, M., & Vallejo, G. (2011). The effects of third variables in psychological research. Anales de Psicología, 27(2), 550-561. [ Links ]

Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 4-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.485352Links ]

Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010). Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. Psychology Press. [ Links ]

Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. G. (2019). Daily job crafting and momentary work engagement: A self-determination and self-regulation perspective. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 112, 417-430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.12.005Links ]

Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: the role of job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65(10), 1359-1378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712453471Links ]

Barreiro, C. A., & Treglown, L. (2020). What makes an engaged employee? A facet-level approach to trait emotional intelligence as a predictor of employee engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 159, Article 109892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109892Links ]

Barría-González, J., Postigo, Á., Pérez-Luco, R., Cuesta, M., & García-Cueto, E. (2021). Assessing organizational climate: Psychometric properties of the ECALS scale. Anales de Psicología, 37(1), 168-177. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.417571Links ]

Bartram, D., Robertson, I. T., & Callinan, M. (2002). Introduction: A framework for examining organizational effectiveness. In D. Bartram, I. T. Robertson, M. Callinan, & M. C. I. Robertson (Eds.), Organizational effectiveness: The role of psychology (pp. 1-10). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470696736.chLinks ]

Basinska, B. A., & Rozkwitalska, M. (2020). Psychological capital and happiness at work: The mediating role of employee thriving in multinational corporations. Current Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00598-yLinks ]

Bhatti, M., Alshagawi, M., & Juhari, A. (2018). Mediating the role of work engagement between personal resources (self-efficacy, the big five model) and nurses' job performance. International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare, 11(3), 176-191. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHRH-10-2017-0056Links ]

Brunetto, Y., Teo, S. T., Shacklock, K., & Farr-Wharton, R. (2012). Emotional intelligence, job satisfaction, well-being and engagement: Explaining organizational commitment and turnover intentions in policing. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(4), 428-441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2012.00198.xLinks ]

Castellano, E., Muñoz-Navarro, R., & Toledo, M. S. (2019). Cognitive processes of emotional regulation, burnout and work engagement. Psicothema, 31(1), 73-80. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.228Links ]

Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway, A. M. (2009). Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9(3), 361-368. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015952Links ]

Contreras, F., Espinosa, J. C., & Esguerra, G. A. (2020). Could personal resources influence work engagement and burnout? A study in a group of nursing staff. SAGE Open, 10(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900563Links ]

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6(4), 343-359. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1992.6.4.343Links ]

Cuesta, M., Suárez-Álvarez, J., Lozano, L., García-Cueto, E., & Muñiz, J. (2018). Assessment of eight entrepreneurial personality dimensions: Validity evidence of the BEPE battery. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2352. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02352Links ]

De La Rosa, G., & Jex, S. (2010). Using the demands-control-support model to understand manager/supervisor engagement. In S. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement. Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 129-138). Edward Elgar Publishing. [ Links ]

DeCotiis, T. A., & Summers, T. P. (1987). A path analysis of a model of the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment. Human Relations, 40(7), 445-470. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678704000704Links ]

Dessler, G. (2008). Human resource management. Pearson Prentice Hall. [ Links ]

Extremera, N., Mérida-López, S., Sánchez-Álvarez, N., & Quintana-Orts, C. (2018). How does emotional intelligence make one feel better at work? The mediational role of work engagement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9), Article 1909. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15091909Links ]

Extremera N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2005). Inteligencia emocional percibida y diferencias individuales en el metaconocimiento de los estados emocionales: una revisión de los estudios con el TMMS. Ansiedad y Estrés, 11(2-3), 101-122. [ Links ]

Fatima, T., Majeed, M., Jahanzeb, S., Gul, S., & Irshad, M. (2021). Servant leadership and machiavellian followers: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 37(3), 215-229. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2021a19Links ]

Fernández-Berrocal, P., Extremera, N., & Ramos, N. (2004). Validity and reliability of the Spanish modified version of the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. Psychological Reports, 94(3), 751-755. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.94.3.751-755Links ]

Fisher, C. D. (2010). Happiness at work. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 384-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00270.xLinks ]

García-Alba, L., Postigo, Á., Gullo, F., Muñiz, J., & Del Valle, J. F. (2021). PLANEA Independent Life Skills Scale: Development and validation. Psicothema, 33(2), 268-278. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2020.450Links ]

García-Alba, L., Postigo, Á., Gullo, F., Muñiz, J., & Del Valle, J. F. (2022). Assessing independent life skills of youth in child protection: A multi-informant approach. The European Journal of Applied Psychology, 14(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2022a1Links ]

García-Arroyo, J. A., & Osca Segovia, A. (2021). Measuring the influence of environment on behaviour: A multimethod multi-sample validation of the Situational Strength at Work (SSW) Scale in Spanish-speaking samples. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 37(3), 203-213. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2021a14Links ]

Gong, Y., Wu, Y., Huang, P., Yan, X., & Luo, Z. (2020). Psychological empowerment and work engagement as mediating roles between trait emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 232. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00232Links ]

González-Verde, A., Jiménez-Suárez, A. C., & Reyes-Roldán, M. (2015). Procedimiento para el diagnóstico y mejora del clima organizacional. Revista de Ingeniería Industrial, 14(2), 25-42. [ Links ]

Gorostiaga, A., Balluerka, N., & Rodríguez-López, A. (2022). Assessment of adaptive performance and its role as a moderator of the relationship between person-organization fit and organizational citizenship behaviors. Psicothema, 34(1), 84-94. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2021.310Links ]

Guest, D. (2014). Employee engagement: A sceptical analysis. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 1(2), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-04-2014-0017Links ]

Halbesleben, J. R. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources and consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 118-131). Psychology Press. [ Links ]

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268Links ]

Hau, T. C., & Bing, K. W. (2018). Relationship between big five personality traits and work engagement among private university academic staff. International Journal of Education, Psychology and Counseling, 3(15), 79-85. [ Links ]

Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications. [ Links ]

Henares-Montiel, J., Ruiz-Pérez, I., Pastor-Moreno, G., Hernández, A. F., & Rodríguez-Barranco, M. (2021). Changes in employment situation and macroeconomic indicators linked to mental health following the recession in Spain: A multi-level approach. Psicothema, 33(3), 415-422. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2020.394Links ]

Hermosa-Rodríguez, A. M. (2018). Labor characteristics and commitment to work: Exploring occupational well-being. Estudios de Administración, 25(1), 20-31. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-0816.2018.55391Links ]

IBM Corp. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows (version 24.0) [Computer software]. IBM Corp. [ Links ]

Janssens, H., De Zutter, P., Geens, T., Vogt, G., & Braeckman, L. (2019). Do personality traits determine work engagement? Results from a Belgian study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 61(1), 29-34. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001458Links ]

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, L. A. Pervin, & R. W. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114-158). Guilford Press. [ Links ]

Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285-308. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498Links ]

Kim, H. J., Shin, K. H., & Swanger, N. (2009). Burnout and engagement: A comparative analysis using the big five personality dimensions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1), 96-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.06.001Links ]

Laguna, M., Razmus, W., & Zalinski, A. (2017). Dynamic relationships between personal resources and work engagement in entrepreneurs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(2), 248-269. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12170Links ]

Lesener, T., Gusy, B., Jochmann, A., & Wolter, C. (2020). The drivers of work engagement: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal evidence. Work & Stress, 34(3), 259-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2019.1686440Links ]

Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 58-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.042Links ]

Li, M., Wang, Z., Gao, J., & You, X. (2017). Proactive personality and job satisfaction: The mediating effects of self-efficacy and work engagement in teachers. Current Psychology, 36(1), 48-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9383-1Links ]

Lisbona, A., Palaci, F., Salanova, M., & Frese, M. (2018). The effects of work engagement and self-efficacy on personal initiative and performance. Psicothema, 30(1), 89-96. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.245Links ]

Macey, W., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.xLinks ]

Martínez, I. M., Salanova, M., & Cruz-Ortiz, V. (2020). Our boss is a good boss! Cross-level effects of transformational leadership on work engagement in service jobs. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 36(2), 87-94. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2020a10Links ]

Martos-Martínez, Á., Pérez-Fuentes, M., Molero Jurado, M., Simón Márquez, M., Barragán Martín, A. B., & Gázquez Linares, J. J. (2021). Empathy, affect and personality as predictors of engagement in nursing professionals. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), Article 4110. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084110Links ]

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397-422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397Links ]

Mumford, M. D., Elliott, S., & Martin, R. W. (2021). Intrapreneurship and firm innovation: Conditions contributing to innovation. In M. M. Gielnik, M. S. Cardon, & M. Frese (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship: New perspectives (pp. 160-190). Routledge. [ Links ]

Muñiz, J., Suárez-Álvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., Fonseca-Pedrero, E., & García-Cueto, E. (2014). Enterprising personality profile in youth: Components and assessment. Psicothema, 26(4), 545-553. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2014.182Links ]

Murphy, M. C., & Reeves, S. L. (2019). Personal and organizational mindsets at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 39, Article 100121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2020.100121Links ]

Ocampo-Álvarez, L., Quiroz-González, E., & Villavicencio-Ayub, E. (2021). Engagement and optimism in a group of Colombian workers: Analysis of some predictors. Universidad y Salud, 23(3), 320-328. https://doi.org/10.22267/rus.212303.246Links ]

Peña-Suárez, E., Muñiz, J., Campillo-Álvarez, A., Fonseca-Pedrero, E., & García-Cueto, E. (2013). Assessing organizational climate: Psychometric properties of the CLIOR Scales. Psicothema, 25(1), 137-144. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2012.260Links ]

Perera, H. N., Granziera, H., & McIlveen, P. (2018). Profiles of teacher personality and relations with teacher self-efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 171-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.034Links ]

Postigo, Á., Cuesta, M., García-Cueto, E., Prieto-Díez, F., & Muñiz, J. (2021). General versus specific personality traits for predicting entrepreneurship. Personality and Individual Differences, 182, Article 111094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111094Links ]

Postigo, Á., García-Cueto, E., Cuesta, M., Menéndez-Aller, Á., Prieto-Díez, F., & Lozano, L. M. (2020). Assessment of the enterprising personality: A short form of the BEPE battery. Psicothema, 32(4), 575-582. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2020.193Links ]

Prieto-Díez, F., Postigo, Á., Cuesta, M., & Muñiz, J. (2021). Work engagement. A new scale for its measurement. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 53, 133-142. https://doi.org/10.14349/rlp.2021.v53.15Links ]

Quiñones, M., Van de Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2013). Do job resources affect work engagement via psychological empowerment? A mediation analysis. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(3), 127-134. https://doi.org/10.5093/tr2013a18Links ]

Ramírez-García, C., García-Álvarez de Perea, J., & Garcia-Del Junco, J. (2019). La felicidad en el trabajo: validación de una escala de medida. RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas, 59(5), 327-340. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0034-759020190503Links ]

Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let's put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners' personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701595438Links ]

Ravichandran, K., Arasu, R., & Arun Kumar, S. (2011). The impact of emotional intelligence on employee work engagement behavior: An empirical study. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(11), 157-169. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v6n11p157Links ]

Rothbard, N. P., & Patil, S. V. (2012). Being there: Work engagement and positive organizational psychology. In K. S. Cameron, & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 231-243). Oxford University Press. [ Links ]

Ruiz-Zorrilla, P., Hernández, X., de Roda, A. B., Antino, M., & Rodríguez-Muñoz, A. (2020). Exploring daily patterns of work engagement among teachers: A latent growth modeling approach. Psicothema, 32(3), 374-381. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2020.57Links ]

Saks, A. M. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement revisited. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 6(1), 19-38. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-06-2018-0034Links ]

Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217-1227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217Links ]

Salanova, M., & Llorens, S. (2008). Estado actual y retos futuros en el estudio del burnout. Papeles del Psicólogo, 29(1) 59-67. [ Links ]

Salas-Vallina, A., López-Cabrales, A., Alegre, J., & Fernández, R. (2017). On the road to happiness at work (HAW): Transformational leadership and organizational learning capability as drivers of HAW in a healthcare context. Personnel Review, 46(2), 314-338. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-06-2015-0186Links ]

Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands-resources model: Implications for improving work and health. In G. F. Hämmig, & S. S. Media (Eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health: A transdisciplinary approach (pp. 43-68). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5640-3_4Links ]

Solomon, M., & Sridevi, S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89-96. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n12p89Links ]

Sora, B., Höge, T., Caballer, A., Peiró, J. M., & Boada, J. (2021). Job insecurity and performance: The mediating role of organizational justice in terms of type of contract. Psicothema, 33(1), 86-94. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2020.205Links ]

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117-143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096Links ]

Southwick, D. A., Tsay, C. J., & Duckworth, A. L. (2019). Grit at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 39, Article 100126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2020.100126Links ]

Tandler, N., Krauss, A., & Proyer, R. T. (2020). Authentic happiness at work: Self- and peer-rated orientations to happiness, work satisfaction, and stress coping. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1931. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01931Links ]

Tisu, L., Lupa, D., Vîrg, D., & Rusu, A. (2020). Personality characteristics, job performance and mental health: the mediating role of work engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 153, Article 109644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109644Links ]

Vigil-Colet, A., Morales-Vives, F., Camps, E., Tous, J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2013). Development and validation of the overall personality assessment scale (OPERAS). Psicothema, 25(1), 100-106. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2011.411Links ]

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Dollard, M. F., Demerouti, E., Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Schreurs, P. J. (2007). When do job demands particularly predict burnout? The moderating role of job resources. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(8), 766-786. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710837714Links ]

Yagil, D., & Oren, R. (2021). Servant leadership, engagement, and employee outcomes: The moderating roles of proactivity and job autonomy. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 37(1), 58-67. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2021a1Links ]

Zaidi, N. R., Wajid, R. A., Zaidi, F. B., Zaidi, G. B., & Zaidi, M. T. (2013). The big five personality traits and their relationship with work engagement among public sector university teachers of Lahore. African Journal of Business Management, 7(15), 1344-1353. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM12.290Links ]

Zhu, Y., Liu, C., Guo, B., Zhao, L., & Lou, F. (2015). The impact of emotional intelligence on work engagement of registered nurses: The mediating role of organisational justice. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24(15-16), 2115-2124. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12807Links ]

Received: November 05, 2021; Accepted: May 03, 2022

Correspondence: postigoalvaro@uniovi.es (Á. Postigo)

Conflict of Interest

The authors of this article declare no conflict of interest.

Creative Commons License This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial No Derivative License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited and the work is not changed in any way.