Engaging in Work Even When It Is Meaningless

Work Engagement and Its Antecedents

Perhaps owing to a diversity of definitions for employee engagement, a great variety of factors appear to hold potential for increasing (or decreasing) engagement. Among theoretical perspectives, the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) provides a straightforward approach to understanding potentially influential workplace factors. Job resources refer to physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that are instrumental in achieving work-related goals, reducing demands and the associated costs, and stimulating personal growth and development (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). In this model, if the resources provided to employees are greater than the demands placed on employees, engagement is likely; however, if demands outstrip resources, burnout is likely. Fostering engagement is a matter of providing resources and diminishing demands. The Job Characteristics Model has also been used to identify workplace factors that predict optimal work outcomes (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). This model maintains that there are five core job characteristics that impact employee psychological states. In turn, these psychological states influence work outcomes, which may include engagement. Both job resources (e.g., support from colleagues and supervisors, performance feedback, and learning opportunities) as well as positive job characteristics (e.g., skill variety, autonomy) have been supported as precursors to work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007).

The JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) also highlights the fact that job performance can be motivated by intrinsic factors that are relevant to basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 1985) or by extrinsic factors that impel performance through material or social pressures (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Some resources may be more likely to impact intrinsic motivation (e.g., support from colleagues and supervisors; learning opportunities) and some may be more likely to impact extrinsic motivation (e.g., pay raises linked to productivity). In both cases, employees may become more engaged in their jobs, because they derive fulfillment from them (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), successively leading to better performance (Bakker, 2009).

Increasingly, interest has been directed at individual-level personality factors that may serve as antecedents to engagement. Most of this research has focused on the connection between work engagement and the Big Five personality dimensions (i.e., Neuroticism, Extroversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness). For instance, Kim, Shin, and Swanger (2009) examined the Big Five and work engagement and found Conscientiousness to be the most dominant personality trait influencing engagement. They concluded that employees high in Conscientiousness (i.e., characterized by strong responsibility and organizational skills) were more likely to invest energy into work, complete the job, and ultimately feel a stronger sense of professional efficacy. Other research has linked high levels of Neuroticism to greater burnout and lesser engagement; whereas the converse pattern of relations has been found between Extraversion, burnout, and engagement (see Langelaan, Bakker, Doornen, & Schaufeli, 2006). The potential roles of Neuroticism and Extraversion in predicting engagement sheds light on the importance of emotions in work. Neuroticism is defined in part by a propensity to experience negative affect, and Extraversion is defined in part by an inclination to experience positive affect. Thus, some part of the relationship between these two personality traits and engagement could be due to the influence of affective state.

Affect and Engagement

There are a number of reasons to suggest an important relationship between affect and engagement. According to Kahn (1990), people must have psychological availability in order to become engaged. Psychological availability includes the emotional, cognitive, and physical resources needed to fully invest oneself to one’s job. Negative affect may reduce psychological availability, thus impairing engagement. Alternatively, positive affect may help people interpret workplace events favorably by increasing psychological availability, preventing disruptions to one’s work, and facilitating engagement (Schaufeli & Van Rhenen, 2006).

Research has supported the relationship between positive affect and employee engagement (Bosman, Rothmann, & Buitendach, 2005). This research has frequently used the constructs of positive and negative affect (PA and NA, respectively) as measured using the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) developed by Watson and Clark (1984). However, some weaknesses of this instrument have been noted. First, the constructs of PA and NA do not appear to be entirely orthogonal, which reduces the accuracy of estimates of their independent contributions to employee engagement (Barrett & Russell, 1999). Second, significant parts of the affect content domain are left out of PA and NA measurement (Barrett & Russell, 1999; Russell & Barrett, 1999; Schimmack & Crites, 2005). For instance, the PA scale contains items such as alert, inspired, and proud, but does not contain items such as happiness, cheerfulness, or relaxation. Likewise, the NA scale contains items such as tension, guilt, and irritation, but does not include items such as boredom, sadness, or displeasure. Finally, predicting who is most and least likely to become engaged requires consistent and stable measures of affect; yet, there is typically fluctuation in PA and NA scores over time.

In response to these criticisms, Judge and Bretz (1993) have suggested an alternative measure, which they refer to as affective disposition. Affective disposition is defined as one’s predisposition to experience a given affective state (i.e., positive or negative) across situations and over time (Judge & Bretz, 1993). It is a stable characteristic that has been more associated with long-term subjective well-being, as opposed to more brief and transient affective states. For example, affective disposition may have a weak relationship with affective states experienced on any randomly chosen day, but should have a strong relationship with overall subjective well-being experienced over the course of a year. According to Judge (1990), individuals with a positive affective disposition may have a tendency to see the world and their experiences in a more favorable light, a tendency that should carry over into the workplace. In fact, several studies show a linkage between positive affective disposition and positive attitudes toward work, in addition to job satisfaction, job performance, and even current income (e.g., Cropanzano, James, & Konovsky, 1993; Diener, Nickerson, Lucas, & Sandvik, 2002; George, 1989; Hochwarter, Perrewe, Ferris, & Brymer, 1999; Staw & Ross, 1985). However, the relationship between the construct of affective disposition and work engagement has not been investigated to date.

The Neutral Object Satisfaction Questionnaire (NOSQ) was selected as a measure of affective disposition instead of the often-used PANAS for several reasons. First, the NOSQ and the PANAS differ in terms of content and structure; the PANAS asks respondents to indicate how frequently they experience a set of positive and negative emotions, while the NOSQ asks respondents to indicate their reactions to neutral, everyday stimuli (Eschleman & Bowling, 2010). This distinction has led some to argue that the PANAS is more a measure of one’s state of subjective well-being, whereas the NOSQ is a trait measure of affective disposition (Judge & Bretz, 1993). Additionally, the NOSQ is thought to elicit more accurate and direct information recall due to the fact that the items presented are typically ‘external to the individual and neutral,’ whereas the items presented on the PANAS are ‘personally relevant and affective-oriented’ (Eschleman & Bowling, 2010, p. 504).

In an empirical comparison of the NOSQ and the PANAS, the high stability of the NOSQ distinguishes this measure as assessing a disposition. Judge and Bretz (1993) demonstrated the stability of the NOSQ by evaluating the test–retest reliability over a 6-month period. In this study, the NOSQ had a corrected stability coefficient of .88. The NOSQ has also been found to be stable over a 5-week period with a stability coefficient of .79 (Carter, 2004). In addition, when comparing the NOSQ to positive affectivity (PA) and negative affectivity (NA) in longitudinal studies, the NOSQ is more stable (Carter, 2004; Judge & Bretz, 1993). By comparing the corrected stability coefficients of the NOSQ and the PANAS, Judge and Bretz (1993) found that the NOSQ has a stability coefficient significantly stronger than PA (.16 increase) and NA (.17 increase). Carter (2004) provides support for Judge and Bretz in their study over a 5-week period. In this study, the NOSQ has a stability coefficient significantly stronger than PA (.18 increase) and NA (.20 increase). The high test–retest reliability of the NOSQ, in comparison to the test–retest reliability of the PANAS, is evidence that NOSQ provides a better assessment of disposition.

Meaningful Work and Work Engagement

Affective disposition, on its own, may not be sufficient for employee engagement. It may be that having a positive affective disposition allows people with other positive attributes to engage with work. In line with this reasoning, Macey and Schneider (2008) proposed that the interaction of dispositional factors such as positive affectivity and proactive personality could increase the chances of an individual experiencing work in a positive and energetic way. We suggest that the variable of meaningful work is a compelling prospect for interacting with dispositional affect to predict employee engagement. Meaningful work refers to people’s judgments that their work is significant, worthwhile, and has positive meaning (Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010). Research on this construct is accelerating and so far supports the idea that meaningful work may provide richer, more satisfying, and more productive employment (Steger & Dik, 2009).

Meaningful work is thought to arise when people have a clear understanding of their abilities, what is expected of them, and how to operate successfully within their work environment (Steger & Dik, 2009; Steger & Dik, 2010). In addition, meaningful work is more likely to be experienced when people know their effort works toward a clear purpose within an organization, and when it contributes to some greater social benefit. Thus, meaningful work occurs when people can really apply themselves to significant work activities that serve a valued, broader purpose.

A number of studies have focused on the consequences of meaningful work. Meaningful work is related to important work-related and general well-being variables, such as job satisfaction, being able to use one’s strengths at work, greater intrinsic work motivation, and organizational commitment (Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, & McKee, 2007; Littman-Ovadia & Steger, 2010; Steger, Dik, & Duffy, 2012). When employees feel their work is meaningful, it occupies a more central and important place in their lives (Harpaz & Fu, 2002; MOW International Research Team, 1987). Accordingly, they are less often absent from their work and report less intention to leave their organization (Scroggins, 2008; Steger et al., 2012). Research within the job characteristics model has also found that meaningful work is connected to positive work outcomes and general well-being (Hackman & Oldham, 1980).

As implied, the set of attitudes that constitute meaningful work should facilitate employees’ abilities to invest themselves in their work and engage more fully. The conceptual link between meaningful work and work engagement is underscored by a recent report by the consulting firm Towers Perrin (2003), showing that meaningful work experiences formed the foundation for employee engagement in organizations. Nonetheless, only a handful of studies have explored the relationship between meaningful work and work engagement (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004; Olivier & Rothmann, 2007; Rothmann & Buys, 2011). For example, Olivier and Rothmann (2007) investigated the antecedents of work engagement on a sample consisting of employees from a multinational oil company based at different locations across South Africa. Their results showed that meaningful work was a significant predictor of work engagement. Other research has found a similar relation between meaningful work and employee engagement (Stringer & Broverie, 2007). Thus, meaningful work seems to be a promising avenue for understanding how employees engage in their work (May et al., 2004).

However, meaningful work is conceived as a nearly pure cognitive and motivational variable. Employees make sense of their work, see a purpose to it, and feel driven to help some greater good. Employees engaged in meaningful work should find it easier to be cognitively present and available in their work, stay involved, experience efficacy, and become dedicated and absorbed, which melds with the cognitive and motivational components of engagement (Kahn, 1990; Maslach & Leiter, 1997; Schaufeli et al., 2002). Yet, engagement also is characterized in emotional terms, whether being emotionally available and present (Kahn, 1990), feeling energy (Maslach & Leiter, 1997), or demonstrating vigor for work activities (Schaufeli et al., 2002). We suggest that meaningful work plays a complementary and interactive role with people’s emotional experiences, conceptualized here as affective disposition. When employees experience their work as meaningful, the relationship between affective disposition and employee engagement should be diminished, because of the cognitive and motivational forces associated with meaningful work. However, when meaningful work is low, affective disposition should have a stronger relationship with employee engagement because it can serve as an alternate, emotionally accessible route to engagement.

We hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive correlation between affective disposition and work engagement.

Method

Results

To examine the relationships between work engagement, meaningful work, and affective disposition, Pearson correlations were calculated. A decision was made to use the total UWES-9 score, based on Sonnentag’s (2003) inability to find clear evidence for the three-factor structure as a measure for work engagement, and based on recent psychometric findings indicating that both the overall score and the constituent factors may be used in research and practice in Israel (Littman-Ovadia & Balducci, 2012). Correlations between all the study measures, reliabilities, means, and standard deviations (SDs) are presented in Table 1. Hypotheses 1 and 2 predicted a positive relationship between affective disposition and meaningful work with work engagement. As Table 1 shows, all of the correlations were significant and in the expected direction. Specifically, work engagement was positively related to meaningful work (r = .62, p < .01) and to affective disposition (r = .27, p < .01). Thus, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics, Pearson Correlations, and Reliabilities for Measures.

Measures	M	SD	1	2	3
Affective disposition	2.28	0.24	(−0.65)
Meaningful work	3.83	0.74	0.25**	(−0.84)
Work engagement	1.24	1.24	0.27**	0.62**	(−0.93)

N = 252.

**p < 0.01 α coefficients are provided in parentheses.

Assessing the Moderating Effects of Meaningful Work

Consistent with the guidelines suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) for examining moderating effects between continuous variables, hierarchical regression analyses were performed to examine the extent to which meaningful at work might moderate the influence of affective disposition on work engagement. With work engagement as the dependent variable, standardized NOSQ scores (predictor) were entered in the first step, followed by standardized WAMI scores (moderator) in the second step. To examine the possibility of a significant moderator effect, standardized NOSQ × WAMI scores were then entered in the third and final step. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), evidence of a moderator effect is present when the interaction term between the predictor and moderator is significant. Regression results for the moderation effect are presented in Table 2. Affective disposition accounted for 6% of the variance in the first step. In the second step, meaningful work accounted for a significant addition of 33% of the variance. In the third and final step, the affective disposition × meaningful work interaction accounted for a significant addition of 2%. The complete regression model accounted for 41% of the variance in work engagement, F(3, 245) = 56.24, p < .001). Step 3 of Table 2 shows that the interaction of affective disposition and meaningful work is significant (β = −.14, p < .01). In support of Hypothesis 3, meaningful work was found to significantly moderate the relationship between affective disposition and work engagement. Overall, these results indicate that meaningful work has a direct influence on work engagement beyond what can be accounted for by affective disposition, and also moderates the relation between affective disposition and work engagement.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Regression Results for the Moderation Effect.

	b	SE b	β	▵F	▵R2	Adj. R2
Step 1				16.80	0.6	.06**
Affective disposition	.31	.07	.25**
Step 2				132.24	.33	.39***
Affective disposition	.18	.06	.11*
Meaningful work	.72	.06	.59***
Step 3				6.95	.02	.41***
Affective disposition	.11	.06	.09*
Meaningful work	.66	.07	.55***
Affective disposition × Meaningful work	−.16	.06	−.14**

Note. N = 248. The coefficients are standardized β weights.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

To examine the interaction effects that emerged, we plotted the simple slopes of the affective disposition–work engagement linkage at 1 SD below the mean and 1 SD above the mean of meaningful work (Aiken & West, 1991). We also tested whether each slope was statistically significant. As shown in Figure 1, the results matched the predicted pattern: The affective disposition–work engagement linkage exists in the low meaningful work condition (simple slope = .23, p < .01), but was not found to be significant in the high meaningful work condition (simple slope = −.05, p > .05). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was fully supported. Specifically, when work has low meaning—those employees with high affective disposition engaged much more than those with low affective disposition, but when the work has high meaning—there are no differences between the two groups.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Simple slope for the interaction effect of affective disposition and meaningful work on work engagement.

Discussion

There is a lack in research on the influence of personality factors, and particularly affective disposition, on work engagement. In addition, although work engagement and meaningful work have been linked by previous theory and research, little is known about the nature of that relationship. Descriptions of work engagement include cognitive and motivational, as well as emotional terms, which led to the hypothesis that the presence of meaningful work would moderate the relationship between affective disposition and work engagement. We hypothesized that people who perceive their work as meaningful would engage in their work more, regardless of whether they have the kind of positive affective disposition that could stimulate an emotional source of work engagement. In contrast, we hypothesized that people who perceive less meaning in their work would be more reliant on their affective disposition for work engagement. Specifically, in the absence of meaningful work, people who have a high positive affective disposition would be more engaged compared to people who have low positive affective disposition. As predicted, results from this study showed significant, positive relationships between affective disposition and work engagement, and between meaningful work and work engagement. More importantly, meaningful work was found to moderate the relationship between affective disposition and work engagement in the manner that was hypothesized.

These findings offer some important theoretical implications for vocational and work psychology. The present results support and extend previous studies, which found an association between personality traits with work engagement (Kim et al., 2008; Langelaan et al., ; Shraga & Shirom, 2007). One important result of this research was establishing the linkage between affective disposition and work engagement. These results are consistent with other studies that showed that affective disposition is linked to positive work experiences (George, 1989; Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986). One explanation of this result may be based on the Broaden and Build theory of positive emotion (Fredrickson, 2001). According to this theory, certain positive emotions (e.g., joy, interest, contentment) have the capacity to broaden people’s repertoire of thoughts and actions, making it possible for them to recognize additional solutions to problems and opportunities for advancement and growth. Positive emotions therefore might facilitate people’s proactive and adaptive work behaviors, including the kinds of team-building and committed action that are associated with meaningful work. From this perspective, we can speculate that employees who are high in affective disposition may have extended mental, social, and pragmatic resources, and thereby feel more engrossed in their work (Blustein, 2008).

A second implication regards the positive expression of affective disposition in one’s daily work. Employees high in affective disposition may be experienced as more pleasant and kind in interpersonal relationships, and thus avoid work conflicts. As a result, employees can invest more efforts and resources into work and therefore will be more engaged. This result may be related to research findings on organizational commitment, an outcome that is closely related to work engagement (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006). In this context, Leiter and Maslach (1988) suggested that supportive contact with coworkers may enhance commitment to an organization. People with positive affective dispositions may enhance their own work engagement—and that of others—through helping create positive working relationships.

This study adds additional support to previous scholarship emphasizing the link between meaningful work and work engagement (e.g., May et al., 2004; Olivier & Rothmann, 2007; Towers Perrin, 2003; Stringer & Boverie, 2007). Because of the consistent link between these two variables, organizations interested in a more energized, fulfilled, and engaged workforce should recognize the meaning and emotional aspects of work (Cartwright & Holmes, 2006). This result also lends some credence to Peters’ (1994) suggestion that people need meaning in their lives and will sacrifice a great deal to institutions that will provide them with this meaning.

The findings in this study also offer some practical implications for organizations. By understanding the antecedents of work engagement, organizations can work toward creating an environment that will nurture increased engagement. In addition, it may be possible to implement the research results in the personnel selection area. For example, organizations should recognize the importance of affective disposition as a predictor of engagement at work, which in turn may be essential to both employee and organizational health (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). It may even be possible for organizations to use the concept of affective disposition as an employment selection criterion.

Our results suggest that meaningful work is likely a stronger predictor of work engagement than affective disposition. People who felt their work was meaningful were more engaged, regardless of affective disposition. Yet, among people who found little meaning in their work, those who generally experience more positive affect were more likely to be engaged than those who typically experience negative affect. The confirmation of a moderating role for meaningful work in the relationship between affective disposition and work engagement suggest, however, that there is probably no “one-size-fits-all” answer to increasing work engagement. One implication of the moderating effect we found is that strategies for enhancing engagement might find different targets depending on an employee’s affective disposition. Among positive workers, it may be that both fostering meaningful work and allowing the expression of their innate positive disposition may enhance engagement. Among workers with a negative disposition, meaningful work appears to be closely related to engagement, suggesting that focusing on meaningful work may be a profitable route for engagement. Meaningful work may have a special compensation value for those with low affective disposition, behind the high value that it has for all employees.

The importance of work engagement increases in this current era of economic crisis, instability, and occupational insecurity (Baruch & Hind, 1999). Focusing on the predictors of work engagement may lessen the pain that is experienced by employees and help them overcome this period in a positive and productive way. Given the importance of meaningful work, organizations should increase their awareness of its impact on mental health in general, and on work engagement in particular. Meaningful work should also be considered a potential target for selection procedures, using tools like the WAMI and other measures of meaningful work, particularly within organizations that value engagement. Employers are also encouraged to provide appropriate conditions that enhance employees’ sense of meaningfulness in their work as well as their intrinsic motivation. This might entail clearly defining employees’ roles and responsibilities, demonstrating how employee effort is integral to the organization’s functions, helping employees align their personal values to the organization’s mission, treating workers with respect and providing them autonomy, and fostering opportunities for workers to serve some wider community or social benefit through their work.