Work Engagement and Career

Work Engagement

There has been considerable research on engagement within the HRD field within recent years (Shuck, 2013) demonstrating that engagement contributes to desired outcomes for both individuals and organizations (Fletcher, 2015; Rurkkhum & Bartlett, 2012). The concept of engagement was first coined by Kahn (1990) as personal engagement. He defined personal engagement as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles” (Kahn, 1990, p. 694). Since then, there has been a push to conceptualize the concept of engagement using various engagement terms in disciplines such as HRD. Among these engagement terms, work engagement and employee engagement are central to the work of HRD scholars (e.g., Schaufeli & Salanova, 2011). Work engagement is defined as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Salanova, et al., 2002, p. 74). Employee engagement refers to “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state directed toward desired organizational outcomes” (Shuck & Wollard, 2010, p. 103). When considering a general definition of engagement, Saks and Gruman (2014) have found that the most frequently used definitions are those of Kahn and Schaufeli, Salanova, et al.’s (2002) definition, the latter of which is based on the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model. Interestingly, the concept of employee engagement is more popular in business, whereas work engagement is more often studied in academia (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2011).

Employee engagement may encompass employees’ relationship to their professional or occupational roles and with their organizations (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2011); however, work engagement refers only to the relationship between employees and their work. More recently, the integrative theory proposed by Saks and Gruman (2014) has shown that employee engagement may be integrated into the JD-R model as well as Kahn’s (1990) theory, thereby encompassing various other types of engagement such as task, work, job, group/team, and organization engagement. Given that the majority of the 18 articles selected for this study utilize the concept of work engagement consisting of vigor, dedication, and absorption, however, the present literature review accordingly uses work engagement to investigate the relationship between engagement and career: work engagement (16 articles), employee engagement (one article), and engagement (one article).

To measure the concept of engagement, Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) have developed the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). The UWES exists in two versions, the UWES-17 (17 items) and UWES-9 (nine items), with UWES-9 being the more popular tool for engagement-related empirical studies because it has been globally validated (Carasco-Saul et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2013; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). Despite its popular use, the UWES has been recently criticized by scholars. Rich, Lepine, and Crawford (2010), for example, have argued that the UWES is comprised of confounding items that measure the antecedent conditions of engagement rather than engagement itself, therefore overlooking Kahn’s (1990) original conceptualization (Jeung, 2011; Newman & Harrison, 2008). Meanwhile, Cole, Walter, Bedeian, and O’Boyle (2012) have found through meta-analysis that the UWES is empirically redundant with an existing measure of job burnout (i.e., Maslach Burnout Inventory, MBI). To address this issue, Rich et al. have attempted to develop and validate another measure that more precisely reflects Kahn’s conceptualization by capturing three subdimensions of engagement (i.e., cognitive, emotional, and physical engagement). The results show a valid structure for the three subdimensions of engagement, but they have not been validated across diverse cultures and industries (Jeung, 2011).

There has likewise been growing conceptual and empirical research on engagement. For instance, a special issue of Advances in Developing Human Resources (ADHR) including seven conceptual and empirical articles on engagement was published in 2011, linking engagement-related research to practical strategies designed to enhance employees’ work engagement and work engagement’s application to HRD field (Shuck & Reio, 2011). Using a structured literature review, Wollard and Shuck (2011) have identified 42 antecedents to engagement spanning two levels (i.e., individual antecedents [21] and organizational antecedents [21]) and have proposed assessment indices to determine the exact nature of the antecedents. Wollard (2011) has also examined the construct and process of employee disengagement, proposing a research agenda for disengagement that takes into account estimates suggesting that between 50% and 70% of employees are disengaged. Rivera and Flinck (2011) have described an engagement initiative (e.g., sharing knowledge and upside-down decision making) and its impact on employee satisfaction and sense of ownership in the federal government using a case-review method. Two articles (Nimon & Zigarmi, 2011; Zigarmi & Nimon, 2011) introduced and further explored the notion of work passion as a form of engagement, where work passion was evaluated as part of an improvement effort within a global organization. Two other empirical studies investigated the influence of antecedents such as supervisor and coworker incivility (Reio & Sanders-Reio, 2011) and meaningful work (Fairlie, 2011) on engagement using a sample of U.S.-based employees. The results showed that incivility variables have negative effects on engagement, whereas meaningful work has a positive impact on engagement.

In explaining the relationship between work engagement and career, the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008) may be used. The model has two major components: job resources and personal resources, both of which are considered antecedents of engagement. Hakanen and Roodt (2010) have argued that job resources may be found in employees’ organizations (e.g., career opportunities), relationships (e.g., leaders’ support), the organization of their work (e.g., role clarity), and tasks (e.g., autonomy). Personal resources, however, refer to an individual’s sense of capability to manage his or her surroundings using optimism, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and resilience. Employees who have personal resources have confidence in their capabilities and are optimistic about their futures. This allows them to be more engaged in their jobs (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007). By preserving the resources encapsulated in the JD-R model, employees are able to avoid falling prey to burnout. They instead remain motivated and are able to adjust to complicated career paths (Akkermans, Schaufeli, Brenninkmeijer, & Blonk, 2013). Based on this extant literature, the present study thus suggests that influential relationships between career and work engagement exist.

Career

Despite the commonly used definition of “career” as the unfolding sequence of a person’s work experiences over time (Arthur, Hall, & Lawrence, 1989), the word “career” has multifaceted and far-reaching implications for both research and practice. Traditionally, research on career has highlighted objective career success, as documented by individual achievements such as compensation, promotion, and one’s hierarchical position in a given organization (Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005). Those who adopt this perspective, typically argue that objective career success leads to subjective psychological satisfaction (Nicholson & de Waal-Andrews, 2005). However, some researchers have seen career as subjective. Subjective career success means that each individual constructs his or her own internal understanding and evaluation of his or her career, and that this understanding and evaluation depend on dimensions that are personally important to the individual, such as job satisfaction, self-awareness, adaptability, and learning (Arthur et al., 2005; Hall & Chandler, 2005). Those who subscribe to the subjective perspective regarding career believe that subjective career success drives objective results by providing individuals with positive psychological capital (Hall & Chandler, 2005).

In addition to considering how to measure career success, researchers have also investigated how to determine career boundaries. Traditionally, climbing the hierarchical ladder within an organization was seen as a sign of career success. However, in recent decades, low job security and high job mobility have caused both employers and employees to reconsider their expectations of employees’ lifelong employment. Indeed, the concept of a career is now seen as unpredictable, unstable, and multidirectional (Baruch, 2006). Because of these changes in the workplace and the advent of the protean career, employees have come to be expected to demonstrate self-directedness in choosing their career paths, relying on the values that they personally (rather than their organizations) hold. The dissolution of traditional expectations regarding lifelong employment has simultaneously led to the rise of the belief that employees are able to physically cross organizational boundaries whenever new career opportunities are available. Both perspectives have emerged as alternative explanations for the behaviors of employees in modern organizations (Briscoe, Hall, & Frautschy DeMuth, 2006).

Finally, researchers have also debated whether a career should be considered the responsibility of the individual to plan and execute, or whether an organization might manage and support an individual employee in his or her career to secure the organization’s human capital (Baruch, 2006). Unlike previous career-development strategies that depended on an individual’s social capital and informal networks, today’s career-development strategies take into account an organization’s need for integrated, systemic career management systems to develop human resources in the long term. Because of the transition from the traditional, progressive lifelong career to a series of short-term learning cycles, employees are finding that even though they acquire job capabilities and achieve high levels of mastery in their jobs, near the end of each job (or learning cycle), they need to begin a new period of career exploration. These changes in career development have necessitated setting up a holistic process that reaches from the early stages in an employee’s career to his or her eventual retirement.

Given these shifts, it is necessary to attend more closely to career and career development in the contemporary organization. In today’s rapidly changing business environment, employees face ambiguous situations in their careers and must develop new capabilities according to unexpected organizational situations, such as layoffs due to economic downturns and changes in job responsibilities caused by technological innovation. In addition, the growing frequency of cross-cultural work environments (Suutari & Mäkelä, 2007) and generation gaps (James et al., 2011) may influence how interventions are received. Employees who have career-development plans with specific values and competencies are better able to navigate this complicated career terrain than those who do not (Hall & Chandler, 2005). Organizations are thus committed to securing a large pool of employees with positive psychological capital, as determined by indicators such as subjective career success, employability, and adaptability.

Career as a Predictor of Engagement

As predictors of engagement, the following variables were noted: career consequences (Fiksenbaum, 2014), career competency (Akkermans et al., 2013), career values (Sortheix, Dietrich, Chow, & Salmela-Aro, 2013), perceived career support (Poon, 2013), psychological career resources (Venter, Coetzee, & Basson, 2013), career adaptability and career management self-efficacy as job and personal resources (Cotter & Fouad, 2012), the presence of a calling (Hirschi, 2012), career adaptability (Rossier, Zecca, Stauffer, Maggiori, & Dauwalder, 2012), career-development opportunities (Simon, 2012), career development (James et al., 2011), and career indecision (Konstam & Lehmann, 2010).

Many of the articles address the antecedents of engagement from a job-based and/or personal resources perspective. These antecedents were revealed to be positively related to engagement. First of all, in the case of job resources, perceived career support was found to have an indirect effect on engagement through affective commitment (Poon, 2013). The availability of career-development opportunities (Simon, 2012) has a direct effect on engagement. Although James et al. (2011) used the term “job conditions” rather than “job resources,” they reached similar conclusions as Simon (2012). In their study, career development included both career-development opportunities and promotions. Interestingly, the career development of older workers did not predict engagement, a result that makes sense considering that these workers are at the end of their careers and unlikely to be seeking promotion.

In the case of personal resources, career management self-efficacy (Cotter & Fouad, 2012) and career competencies (reflection on motivation, reflection on qualities, networking, self-profiling, work exploration, and career control; Akkermans et al., 2013) have been shown to have a direct effect on engagement. Among career values (intrinsic, rewards, and security values), only intrinsic career values predict engagement (Sortheix et al., 2013). Given that intrinsic career values refer to “the rewards derived from participating in the work tasks themselves, such as interest and autonomy” (p. 467), the results imply that intrinsic career values are an important personal resource and contribute to engagement (Sortheix et al., 2013).

Cotter and Fouad (2012) have defined career adaptability as both uncertainty adaptability and work-stress adaptability, finding that its effect on engagement is not significant. They have argued that career adaptability may trigger career-exploration behaviors that make individuals more independent and less engaged in their current positions. However, career adaptability has been shown to have a direct effect on engagement when it is based on the factors of concern, control, curiosity, and confidence, as in the research of Rossier et al. (2012). These different definitions of career adaptability have influenced how scholars analyze the relationship between engagement and career adaptability . It is important to develop a fixed definition of career adaptability so that the concept can be more consistently evaluated.

Of course, there are studies that are less conceptually coherent than the aforementioned studies because they do not use a common theoretical model. For example, Konstam and Lehmann (2010) have focused on the perspective of career decision-making difficulties. According to the researchers, emerging adults who are career-indecisive are significantly less likely to report engagement. Venter et al. (2013), however, have explored whether employees’ psychological career resources significantly predict their levels of work engagement. They have found that behavioral adaptability positively predicts vigor, dedication, and absorption. Moreover, self-esteem positively influences vigor and dedication, whereas career purpose negatively influences vigor, and career venturing and individual skills negatively influence dedication. In the model proposed by Fiksenbaum (2014), career consequences, as a component of work–family culture, refers to “the degree to which employees perceive positive or negative career consequences for using work–family benefits” (p. 658). Work–family culture is inversely related to work–family conflict (WFC), and WFC negatively influences work engagement. Last, the presence of “calling” has an indirect effect on engagement through work meaningfulness and occupational identity (Hirschi, 2012). Taken in tandem, these studies suggest that although research on predictors of engagement are abundant, a theoretical framework that encompasses variables besides the JD-R model is needed.

Career as an Outcome of Engagement

As outcomes of engagement, the following variables have been addressed in recent research: career commitment (Barnes & Collier, 2013); career satisfaction (Karatepe, 2012); and career satisfaction and career turnover intentions (Laschinger, 2012). In particular, satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intentions have all been considered as representative organizational outcomes (Tett & Meyer, 1993). Organizational outcomes or job performance is also regarded as a final result in the JD-R model (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014). This finding indicates that the outcome variables of engagement have focused on career-related job performance in the JD-R model.

The results of each study are as follows. Barnes and Collier (2013) have investigated the mediating effects of engagement in relation to service climate, job satisfaction, and affective commitment (independent variables), as well as career commitment and adaptability (dependent variables). The results of the study show that in the case of a high-contact service context, engagement has full mediating effects among service climate, adaptability, and career commitment, as well as between job satisfaction and adaptability. It also has partial mediating effects between job satisfaction and career commitment. There are no significant mediating effects among affective commitment, adaptability, and career commitment. In the case of a low-contact service context, engagement has full mediating effects between service climate and career commitment; among job satisfaction, adaptability, and career commitment; and between affective commitment and adaptability. In addition, engagement plays a partial mediating role between service climate and adaptability. There is no mediation between affective commitment and career commitment.

Laschinger (2012) has examined the effects of personal dispositional factors, situational factors, and new graduate support structures (predictors), as well as burnout, engagement, incivility, bullying, mental health, and physical health (intermediate outcomes), on job satisfaction, job turnover intentions, career satisfaction, and career turnover intentions (retention outcomes). Comparing levels of engagement among first- and second-year Canadian nurses, Laschinger found that only first-year nurses’ engagement has a positive impact on career satisfaction; it simultaneously has a negative impact on career turnover intentions.

Last, Karatepe (2012) has investigated work engagement as a mediator in the relationship between coworkers and supervisor support, as well as among career satisfaction, service recovery performance, job performance, and creative performance. The results indicate that work engagement fully mediates the effects of coworkers and supervisor support on career satisfaction. As the findings above suggest, recent work on engagement outcomes has focused mainly on organization- and job-related performance; more research on career from a variety of perspectives remains necessary.

Other Relationships Between Engagement and Career

Scholars have studied career-related variables and engagement as separate outcome variables rather than focusing on their causal relationship. Career commitment (Littman-Ovadia, Oren, & Lavy, 2013) and career satisfaction (Burke, Koyuncu, & Fiksenbaum, 2008; Fiksenbaum, Jeng, Koyuncu, & Burke, 2010; Smith et al., 2012) have been explored, with the findings largely consistent with the outcome variables of engagement. In particular, some scholars have viewed career satisfaction, career commitment, and engagement as components of work-related attitudes and emotions (Littman-Ovadia et al., 2013), subjective success (Smith et al., 2012), and work outcomes (Burke et al., 2008).

The results of each study are as follows. Littman-Ovadia et al. (2013) have focused on associations among avoidant attachment orientation, anxious attachment orientation, and work-related attitudes and emotions (work engagement, career commitment, burnout, and emotional distress). The results show that avoidance has a negative impact on work engagement and career commitment, whereas job autonomy has a positive impact on work engagement and career commitment. Moreover, the interactions between avoidance and job autonomy have negative effects on work engagement and career commitment.

Smith et al. (2012) have examined the effect of women’s beliefs in the glass ceiling, including the stages of resilience, denial, acceptance, and resignation, on subjective success, which consists of career satisfaction, happiness, emotional well-being, physical health, and engagement. The researchers found that resilience has a positive effect on engagement, whereas denial has a positive effect on engagement and career satisfaction. However, acceptance has a negative effect on engagement.

Fiksenbaum et al. (2010) have investigated the effect of work intensity and work hours on engagement, work outcomes (job satisfaction, career satisfaction, job stress, and intent to quit), and psychological well-being. The results suggest that work intensity per hour does not significantly influence work-career satisfaction, yet it does play a statistically significant role in predicting engagement.

Burke et al. (2008) have examined the relationship between women’s prejudices regarding their male colleagues and their organizational cultures, and the women’s work outcomes (e.g., career satisfaction and engagement) and levels of psychological well-being. The results indicate that women who have greater perceptions of bias indicate less career satisfaction and lower levels of engagement. Given scholars’ continued focus on career commitment and career satisfaction as engagement outcomes (or similarly related to engagement), it is necessary that there be more focus on clarifying the precise relationship between these variables and engagement.

Career as a Job Resource

Proponents of self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) regard autonomy as a major part of physiological well-being. Having the opportunity for autonomous decision making in accordance with one’s own values may provide the intrinsic motivation that allows an employee to invest a higher level of attention and interest in his or her job, as long as that career has been chosen without regard to social pressures or obligations. Thus, the values of each employee, especially those that pertain to his or her career, may be considered an important component of job resources. Career values stem from individuals’ “evaluations of the desirability of different kinds of job attributes” and tend to be conceived of as either intrinsic—the “rewards derived from participating in the work tasks themselves, such as interest and autonomy”—or extrinsic—the “rewards that are external to the work experience, such as income and prestige” (Sortheix et al., 2013, p. 467). Employees who are motivated by intrinsic and extrinsic career values may feel more ownership over their jobs and thus choose to take more proactive approaches, in turn finding more opportunities to enhance their careers. These opportunities are likely to help employees maintain high levels of engagement.

Career as a Personal Resource

Conservation of resources (COR) theory suggests that employees draw on their personal energy by acquiring and accumulating resources, thereby maintaining engagement (Hobfoll, 1989; Leiter & Maslach, 2010). The existence of sufficient job resources places employees in a gain spiral that enables positive reciprocal relationships among various types of job demands over time (Salanova, Schaufeli, Xanthopoulou, & Bakker, 2010). Yet, burnout happens as resources dry up or invested resources do not meet their expected levels of performance. Due to the frequent job transitions of most employees today, whether by choice or necessity, employees find that they are now expected to meet diverse organizational and social expectations during their careers (Rossier et al., 2012). As such, career adaptability, or “the attitudes, competencies, and behaviors that individuals use in fitting themselves to work that suits them” (Savickas, 2005, p. 45), has become one of the emerging principal personal resources influencing employees’ levels of work engagement. Career adaptability may enhance person–environment fit by predicting an individual’s capability for success, as well as what the individual needs in regard to his or her workplace environment to achieve career success. It may also trigger individual development based on employees’ and employers’ understandings of what individuals value. Employees who possess career adaptability may take proactive actions to find opportunities and set proper goals. They may also be able to secure appropriate personal resources when they meet with unexpected adversity or career plateaus (Akkermans et al., 2013).

Career Development as a Moderator

Rousseau (1990) has highlighted the importance of the psychological contract that produces work engagement. Given that employees always expect both implicit and explicit benefits in relation to their organizations, it is only when the relationship between employers and their employees is appropriately negotiated and executed that there is the fulfillment of this psychological contract. This fulfillment of the psychological contract may lead to work engagement. Taking up this perspective, Saks (2006) has used social exchange theory (SET) to argue that “employees are more likely to exchange their engagement for resources and benefits provided by their organization” (p. 603). For example, if employees are exposed to career-development opportunities that help them strengthen their career adaptability, the employees may then identify their obligations to their companies with more engaged attitudes (Agarwal, Datta, Blake-Beard, & Bhargava, 2012; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). However, employees may become disengaged and lose their sense of their career values in organizations that do not provide proper resources. Therefore, career development may play a significant moderating role with regard to career adaptability and values to facilitate work engagement.

Career as Performance

Outcomes of work engagement in terms of employees’ careers include career commitment, career satisfaction, and career turnover intention. These outcomes are typical for employees engaged in their jobs. Fredrickson (2001) has suggested that affectively positive states influence psychological well-being. According to the broaden-and-build (B&B) theory, positive emotions broaden employees’ thought-action repertoires, thus resulting in more creative and flexible behaviors and the accumulation of personal resources via the creation of learning opportunities. Such opportunities help employees develop concrete roadmaps that include the employees’ own strengths and weaknesses in their organizations and labor markets; these roadmaps then assist employees in successfully handling future challenges (Salanova et al., 2010). Ultimately, engaged employees who are not only motivated to achieve their short-term goals, but who also simultaneously cultivate a deep-seated passion toward their work and career, may establish lifelong resources that help them maintain their positive career-related states, such as career satisfaction, career commitment, and low career turnover intention (Barnes & Collier, 2013; Karatepe, 2012; Laschinger, 2012).

The comprehensive framework for future research discussed above is illustrated in Figure 1. This framework assumes that perceived career support and career adaptability independently or together predict employees’ levels of work engagement. Perceived career support plays a significant role as a job resource within an organization, while career adaptability represents one of the most important personal resources for helping employees successfully establish their careers. When employees’ levels of these two resources are high, career-development programs may have a moderating effect on the relationship between perceived career support and/or career adaptability and employees’ levels of work engagement. Likewise, engaged employees may have positive work attitudes, which thereby allow for the continual renewal of resources and produce a positive gain spiral (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Relationships associated with career and work engagement.

Implications for HRD Practice

From its synthesis in the literature review of the relationship between work engagement and career, this study provides several implications for HRD practice.

Although there has been considerable research showing that engaged employees are able to perform better (Kim et al., 2012), it might be difficult to promote employees’ work engagement from the perspective of careers over time due to strenuous workplace environments. Employees today work longer hours than those in the past (Golden, 2009). In particular, workloads are heavier for high-profile executives and knowledge workers in extreme work environments; these workloads come in exchange for higher wages and positions, both of which serve as objective markers of career success. However, some employees are forced to abandon career advancement to achieve work–family balance or occupational health; these employees choose relatively lighter workloads and less-promising positions in the labor market by pursuing subjective career success or life satisfaction (Greenhaus, Peng, & Allen, 2012). In either work situation, the excessive investment of time and effort by employees is likely to have a fatal impact on the employees’ productivity, leading to their decreased vigor. Moreover, due to the continued economic recession, and in particular, the high unemployment rate, employees are facing job insecurity while experiencing mass buyouts, payroll cuts, and benefit reductions as a part of the reshaping of the old economy. In the midst of this economic transition period, employees may find it difficult to dedicate themselves to their jobs and roles. In addition, employees are prevented from being fully absorbed in their work because they have no true assurance that their work is worthwhile or that it will reward them with personal growth and career advancement. This engagement problem may result in lower levels of dedication and absorption as employees doubt the returns on the physical, cognitive, and emotional investments aimed at achieving organizational goals (Brown & Leigh, 1996).

Under these strenuous workplace conditions, well-designed career-development systems in organizations could serve as a positive amplifier of employees’ levels of work engagement. Without adequate career-development intervention, jobs and personal resources could easily dry up, leading to psychological exhaustion in the short-term and substandard performances in the long term. In this regard, it is necessary to consider the new roles of each group of stakeholders in career development: (a) employees, (b) managers, and (c) HRD professionals. Despite the important roles played by employers and HRD professionals in career development, each individual still holds the primary responsibility for his or her career. This is particularly true given the decreased likelihood that an employee will spend his or her entire career with one employer. Because of the diminished responsibility organizations now have for employees’ careers, more proactive initiatives by employees are necessary to ensure objective or subjective career success. The most critical initiative might be employees’ self-assessments and reality checks, using various tools for long-term career planning to identify their own career interests and the achievability of those goals within their organizations (Noe, 2002). More realistic career blueprints and paths could facilitate more effective and applicable action planning, thereby enabling employees to maintain their levels of work engagement during the implementation of career plans by maximizing the use of personal resources.

Like employees, managers should take more proactive roles in the career development of their employees, ensuring that there are appropriate career-development opportunities to maintain or facilitate engagement (Simon, 2012). Traditionally, managers have been reluctant to be actively involved in employees’ career planning, as their focus is directed toward current work outcomes or urgent career-related issues. Managers may also lack the interpersonal skills for career counseling (Noe, 2002). However, employees have typically also avoided managers in career counseling because they feel hesitant to reveal private information to receive career advice or to discuss a career decision that may be beyond the current organization. However, considering the concepts of the protean and boundaryless careers, it is clear that managers could play a significant role by assessing their employees’ readiness for job transitioning and providing constructive feedback based on performance evaluations. Managers might also be information sources for new job positions, training opportunities, and other available resources both internal and external to the organization. Managers’ support fundamentally contributes to personal commitment, career success, and the retention of employees (Tymon, Stumpf, & Smith, 2011), and managers and employers who provide career-development opportunities are more likely to obtain the organizational commitment of employees with protean and boundaryless attitudes (Briscoe & Finkelstein, 2009). Given that protean and boundaryless orientations are attitudes that can be taught and learned (Briscoe, Henagan, Burton, & Murphy, 2012), managers can be role models for their employees. If managers are able to serve as role models for their employees’ career paths by sharing their personal career success tips or taking the opportunity to reflect on their career visions or values, they may become critical providers of job resources for employees who are planning and developing their careers while seeking to maintain work engagement.

Last, HRD professionals should offer adequate career-development opportunities by sharing potential career paths in the organization, providing relevant job capability-building training and development (as a way of developing by “training”), and designing a job rotation, enlargement, and enrichment program (as a way of developing by “job”). Employees with stronger career values (Sortheix et al., 2013) and higher levels of adaptability (Rossier et al., 2012) gain considerable benefits and extensive career-development opportunities from these various experiences because they are likely to make personal changes based on work engagement. In this regard, an organization might manage and support an individual employee in his or her career to secure and enhance the organization’s human capital. Consequently, the existence of sufficient and seamless career-development opportunities positions employees in a gain spiral that loops into a positive reciprocal relationship with work engagement over time.

Implications for HRD Theory

The HRD theory could expand its understanding of career by exploring how to sustain employees’ levels of work engagement over time. Career-related dependent variables, such as calling, recognize that employees consider their careers over longer durations than before. These variables accumulate as a result of employees participating in purposeful personal behaviors and socialization activities over time, unlike other non-career dependent variables such as job performance or employees’ consideration of an imminent endpoint. However, most empirical research identified in the 18 articles in this study highlighted the concept of work engagement as a temporal psychological state that may change according to personal experiences (Sonnentag, Dormann, & Demerouti, 2010). Although employees’ levels of work engagement are generally described as consistent over the long term, research about “state work engagement” (e.g., flight attendants’ diary studies; Sonnentag et al., 2010) has shown the existence of within-individual fluctuations according to daily resources and demands (Bakker & Leiter, 2010; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010). Therefore, to better understand work engagement as a psychological state and to recognize how to sustain that engagement over time, it is necessary to consider the distinctive relationship between the short- and long-term characteristics of employees’ levels of work engagement and careers.

In particular, the variations in employees’ levels of work engagement might be taken to imply that some employees possess the psychological capability to remain engaged; this may mean showing resilience by bouncing back from a failure or even accepting increased responsibility (Luthans, 2002). However, employees who were once highly engaged could experience high levels of burnout, as no one can work in an engaged state indefinitely without nurturing his or her psychological well-being (Robertson & Cooper, 2010). Recognizing that it is difficult for an employee to maintain a given level of work engagement regardless of internal and external negative influences, HRD professionals need to hone in on an employee’s engaged state by establishing structured career-development interventions that facilitate each employee’s seamless career advancement. In this regard, the theorization of work engagement would be more effective if it were considered alongside the long-term characteristics of career, thereby helping professionals understand how to sustain work engagement over time.

Implications for HRD Research

Many opportunities exist to connect work engagement and career, as well as to uncover new implications and identify a novel theory for development, in the field of HRD research. For example, future research on the relationship between work engagement and career should explore the influence of job demands on employees’ levels of work engagement and career. Although there has been substantial research on how jobs and personal resources pertain to career-related concepts, few studies have been conducted on the effects of job demands on long-term career planning and development, and additional empirical rationales are required to identify these effects (e.g., Cotter & Fouad, 2012). Job demands refer to the characteristics of jobs that require arduous physical and psychological investments, such as heavy workloads and deadline pressures, as well as role ambiguity (Hakanen & Roodt, 2010). Job demands also produce conflicting influences. Role ambiguity in job demands may cause negative outcomes such as high turnover rates, but time pressure in job demands might have a positive effect on job satisfaction (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000). This means it may be possible that acceptable levels of job demands could promote work-related motivation. Therefore, future empirical studies should examine the characteristics of job demands and their positive or negative impacts on career.

New studies on the effects of career and its related activities on work–life balance are similarly needed. HR-related variables including working hours, work intensity, and a supportive work–family culture should be integrated into this analysis. Complex jobs and longer working hours make employees easily exhausted and less productive. These difficult work environments may have a negative impact on the long-term capability required of employees by labor markets. These environments may also negatively influence employees’ abilities to create and sustain healthy family lives, thus causing a loss spiral in the relationship between career and work engagement.

Moreover, the increasingly complex global workplace has led to diverse perspectives regarding the implications of career. Having had multiple international jobs can develop one’s career capital as well as enhance several work-related competencies (Suutari & Mäkelä, 2007). Further investigation into various research settings should thus be conducted to reveal the complex relationship between work engagement and career. There are many demographic considerations such as age, gender, education, and seniority that must be taken into account. For example, across countries and industries in which retirement is occurring later in life than before, researchers should consider the implications for employees who are working beyond the expected retirement age. There are also generational differences in work-related values such as engagement (James et al., 2011). Therefore, researchers should consider how the employees of Generation Y are designing their careers to account for employers’ growing demands while still maintaining career engagement.

Finally, further research on terms related to engagement (e.g., employee engagement, work engagement, and job engagement) are recommended to determine whether these terms are conceptually and empirically distinct and independent not only from one another but also from other similar terms (e.g., burnout). Although several aforementioned engagement terms seem to be interchangeably utilized by scholars and practitioners, they may not be all the same. For instance, Schaufeli and Salanova (2011) have maintained that employee engagement refers to the relationship between employees and their occupations, jobs, or organizations, while work engagement refers only to the relationship between employees and their work. Moreover, although the UWES developed by Schaufeli et al. (2006) has been the tool most widely and frequently used for measuring the concept of engagement, Cole et al. (2012) have provided the meta-analytic evidence that the UWES is empirically redundant with a measure of job burnout (MBI). Given the increasing attention to the concept of engagement due to its positive impact on employees and their organizations, such continued research efforts are essential to sustain the transfer of knowledge between scientific-practitioner domains (Cole et al., 2012).