The Relationship Between Work Engagement and Organizational Commitment: Proposing Research Agendas Through a Review of Empirical Literature

Description of Selection Process

Using Torraco’s (2005) framework as a guide, the initial step was to search for articles and to select those most relevant to the study. Recognizing that the importance of implementing a clear and specific method in the literature review, this study made note of the following considerations in the article selection process: (a) where the articles were found (i.e., which database); (b) when the search was conducted; (c) who undertook the search process; (d) how the articles were found; (e) how many articles appeared in the search, against the total number of articles selected; and (f) why the articles were finally chosen (Callahan, 2010; Carasco-Saul, Kim, & Kim, 2015; Kim et al., 2013).

When performing the initial search in April 2016, the researchers used ProQuest (Multiple Databases), which included 47 smaller database subsets (e.g., PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, and ABI/INFORM Collection), to extract relevant articles. The primary focus of this study, and therefore the search keyword combinations, was on the relationship between work engagement and organizational commitment in an organizational context. The term work engagement is often used interchangeably with similar terms, such as employee engagement, job engagement, role engagement, or personal engagement (Carasco-Saul et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2013; Lee, Kwon, Kim, & Cho, 2016). Thus, to conduct a comprehensive search, all five of the aforementioned terms were used as engagement-related keywords.

For the concept of organizational commitment, studies found in search results on Google Scholar tended to utilize several similar terms, including commitment, affective commitment, and affective organizational commitment. Given that all of these terms contain the common term commitment, the keyword commitment was used for the search. Taken together, the search keywords used for the initial search were combinations of (a) “commitment” with (b) “work engagement,” “employee engagement,” “job engagement,” “role engagement,” or “personal engagement.” For the purpose of this study, the review focused on articles published in peer-reviewed, English-language journals and containing the precise search terms in titles and/or abstracts. Although there was no specific time restriction imposed on results, it is notable that the concept of work engagement was first introduced in the literature in 1990 (Carasco-Saul et al., 2015; Shuck & Wollard, 2010). In addition, we only included articles that provided full texts through the databases to conduct an in-depth review in the second step.

The initial search using the above keywords yielded 61 matching articles on ProQuest (Multiple Databases). Subsequently, a staged review approach was used to examine the 61 articles and to identify relevant articles for the current research purpose. The staged review approach consists of first conducting an initial review of the abstract and then completing an in-depth review of the article (Torraco, 2005). In the in-depth review process, articles were subject to criteria that the study (a) empirically examines the engagement–commitment relationship, (b) has been conducted in an organization setting, and (c) offers relevant and detailed discussions about the engagement–commitment relationship. Reference lists of searched articles were then investigated for any articles that may not have been found by the search in the selected databases. After this secondary search process, three articles that empirically examined the relationship between work engagement and organizational commitment were added. Ultimately, 21 empirical articles found in this process were selected for further review (see Table 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Number of Selected Articles by Database.

Database (ProQuest)	Keywords	Initial review (abstracts)	In-depth review (full texts)
47 databases including PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, ABI/INFORM Collection, ProQuest Social Science Premium Collection, and Social Science Premium Collection	commitment AND (work engagement OR employee engagement OR job engagement OR role engagement OR personal engagement)	61	18
Google Scholar a	—	14	3
Total			21

a

We used Google Scholar to search for articles that appeared in the reference lists of the searched articles. Excluding duplicated articles, we added three more articles that were not found in the initial search process.

Work Engagement

As a concept, work engagement has increasingly gained attention among organizations and researchers (Lee et al., 2016). One reason for this growing interest is that work engagement has been connected to valuable business results across all sizes and types of organizations (Vance, 2006). Numerous empirical studies have shown that employees’ work engagement influenced organizational desired outcomes (e.g., job and financial performance, productivity, innovative work behavior, commitment, turnover intention, and customer satisfaction). Moreover, these results have noticeably piqued the interest of organizations (e.g., Albrecht, 2012; Chughtai, 2013; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Karatepe, 2013; Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010; Saks, 2006; Zhang et al., 2015).

In defining the concept of engagement, studies have used various terms depending on their perspective, purpose, and context (Carasco-Saul et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2013). Since Kahn (1990) coined the term from a psychological perspective, numerous related terms and definitions have been proposed by scholars and practitioners. Among them, work engagement and employee engagement are considered key terms in the field of HRD (Lee et al., 2016). Work engagement is defined by HRD as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind” comprised of three subdimensions such as vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). In contrast, employee engagement is defined as “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state directed toward desired organizational outcomes” (Shuck & Wollard, 2010, p. 103). Although the terms tend to be used interchangeably, the term “employee engagement” is used more often in the field of business and “work engagement” in the scholarly literature (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2011). In addition, Saks and Gruman (2014) speculated that the term employee engagement has broader scope than work engagement. That is, employee engagement is an individual’s positive attachment to one’s job, occupation, and organization, while work engagement is an individual’s positive psychological state regarding his or her work.

To examine the concept of engagement empirically, scholars have made an effort to propose several ways of accurately measuring engagement. Among these methods, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) has been considered the most popular (Rich et al., 2010; Saks & Gruman, 2014). The UWES was developed by Schaufeli and his colleagues (2002) for assessing the construct of work engagement with three subdimensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption. The UWES has been globally validated and used in two versions, UWES-17 and UWES-9 (Lee et al., 2016). Despite its popular and wide use, some scholars have argued that the UWES includes redundant elements and measures of job burnout and tends to measure predictors of engagement rather than engagement itself (Lee et al., 2016; Newman & Harrison, 2008; Rich et al., 2010). To address this issue, other measurements have been developed including those by Rich et al. (2010), Soane et al. (2012), and Demerouti and Bakker (2008). Saks (2006) also attempted to conceptualize and measure employee engagement as a two-dimensional construct comprising job engagement and organizational engagement, reflecting Kahn’s (1990) earlier point of view. This measurement consists of six items each for job engagement and organizational engagement. However, as it has not been widely used, its construct validity is limited.

Given that a majority of studies (13 of 21 articles) selected for the literature review used the term “work engagement”, the present study uses the term work engagement, as well. Also, as most studies (15 of 21 articles) measured engagement by using the UWES either fully or partially, this study will consider work engagement to comprise vigor, dedication, and absorption in investigating the relationship between commitment and engagement.

Organizational Commitment

Many previous studies have demonstrated the positive influence that employee commitment has on organizational outcomes, including organizational effectiveness, work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover intention (Ahmed & Ahmed, 2013; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Plewa & Quester, 2008; Poon, 2013; Zhang et al., 2015). Understandably, organizations have also shown considerable interest in increasing employees’ commitment to the workplace in pursuit of these goals.

To accurately define and measure commitment, extensive research has been conducted within an organizational context (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Over the years, commitment has been conceptualized with diverse terms including organizational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Mowday et al., 1979), commitment (Albrecht, 2012; Plewa & Quester, 2008), and commitment in the workplace (Feldman, 2004). Mowday et al. (1979) defined organizational commitment as the strength of identification and involvement of an individual employee in an organization, focusing on the attitudinal perspective of commitment. Meyer and Allen (1991) defined organizational commitment as a psychological state with at least three characteristics including “affective attachment to the organization, perceived costs associated with leaving the organization, and obligation to remain with the organization” (pp. 63-64). Furthermore, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) synthesized how previous literature had defined commitment and found that the essence of these definitions was “a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more targets” (p. 301) along with the three components of affective, normative, and continuance commitment. However, Mercurio (2015) claimed that the core of organizational commitment is only affective commitment. These variant opinions evince the disagreement that still exists about the concept of organizational commitment (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).

To measure the concept of commitment, Mowday et al. (1979) developed a unidimensional instrument, the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), which comprised 15 items. The OCQ was validated by numerous studies (e.g., Barnes & Collier, 2013; Mowday et al., 1979; Richardsen et al., 2006). More recently, however, researchers have increasingly considered commitment to be a multidimensional construct encompassing affective commitment, value commitment, moral commitment, continuance commitment, and/or normative commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Jaros, Jermier, Koehler, & Sincich, 1993; Mayer & Schoorman, 1992; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Consequently, Meyer and Allen’s framework has gained support among the multidimensional measures of commitment (Bergman, 2006). Allen and Meyer (1990) developed a self-reported questionnaire as a three-dimensional measurement consisting of 24 items, with eight items each for affective, normative, and continuance commitment. This measurement has since been implemented by many studies (e.g., Albdour & Altarawneh, 2014; Aydogdu & Asikgil, 2011).

Given that a large majority of studies (17 out of 21) selected for the literature review used either the term “organizational commitment” or “affective [organizational] commitment,” the current study utilizes the term organizational commitment. Also, as many of the studies (10 out of 21) used the measurement developed by Allen and Meyer (1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997) either fully or partially, this study will consider organizational commitment to comprise affective, normative, and continuance commitment in investigating the relationship between commitment and engagement.

Effects in the Engagement–Commitment Relationship

Among 21 reviewed studies, 10 studies focused on examining the effects of engagement on commitment in organizations (i.e., engagement as a predictor of commitment), whereas seven studies primarily focused on investigating the effects of commitment on engagement (i.e., commitment as a predictor of engagement). Another four of the studies examined the bidirectional or distinct relationship between engagement and commitment.

Terms, Measures, and Methods

Assessment of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Reviewed Literature

First, a review of these 21 studies shows that work engagement and organizational commitment are distinct constructs. Researchers conceptualized the engagement–commitment relationship with differing perspectives (i.e., engagement as a precursor to commitment or commitment as a precursor to engagement); however, the results of the reviewed literature demonstrated that both the impact of work engagement on organizational commitment and the impact of organizational commitment on work engagement were statistically significant. These findings offer a firm ground for an empirical understanding of one-directional effects on the engagement–commitment relationship. Although it could be hypothesized that work engagement and organizational commitment might have a reciprocal relationship based on the results, all reviewed studies focused only on examining one-directional effects without considering potential reciprocal effects. Such research efforts could provide more holistic insights to conceptualizing the engagement–commitment relationship in the future.

Second, a majority of reviewed studies (17 out of 21) seemed to utilize the SEM approach as a robust statistical technique to test a research model with hypotheses. SEM can estimate and correct measurement errors of observed variables (e.g., survey items), including latent variables in a research model, and examine various relationships among multiple endogenous and exogenous latent variables simultaneously (Bae, 2014; Kline, 2011; Parzefall & Hakanen, 2010), all definite advantages over the multiple regression approach. In testing mediating effects, the bootstrapping method was more utilized, as it is strongly recommended and considered the most powerful method for measuring specific indirect relationships under most sample conditions without an assumption of a multivariate normal distribution (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Cross-sectional design has been applied as a primary research design in all but one longitudinal study (Hakanen et al., 2008). However, many researchers also mentioned it as a limitation to generalizing the results of their studies. Without longitudinal research efforts, research findings and their implications on the engagement–commitment relationship would remain limited and inconclusive (Carasco-Saul et al., 2015). As cross-sectional research design does not take into account the factor that work engagement and organizational commitment develop over time (Bergman, 2006), studies need to consider the longitudinal research design, which could provide more in-depth insights regarding the engagement–commitment relationship.

Third, of the three subdimensions of organizational commitment (i.e., affective, normative, and continuance commitment), more than half of studies focused on the affective dimension when conceptualizing and measuring employees’ commitment to an organization, as evidenced throughout this review (e.g., Barnes & Collier, 2013; Choi et al., 2015; Karatepe, 2013; Parzefall & Hakanen, 2010; Rivkin et al., 2016). The predominance of the affective dimension is partly supported by Mercurio’s (2015) claim that the essence of organizational commitment is affective commitment. However, given Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) assertion that the core of commitment consists of affective (i.e., desire), normative (i.e., felt obligation), and continuance (i.e., perceived costs) commitment as a binding force to a particular target (e.g., organization), normative and continuance dimensions should not be disregarded if organizational commitment is to be accurately represented and measured. More research efforts to comprehensively conceptualize and measure organizational commitment, using either a second-order hierarchical construct (i.e., organizational commitment) or three distinct constructs (i.e., affective/normative/continuance commitment), for example, need to be considered.

Last, all the reviewed studies were conducted in various contexts, in terms of sample geography and occupation, to provide comprehensive understanding of the relationship between work engagement and organizational commitment. Reviewed studies have been conducted globally in North America (United States and Canada), Europe (e.g., Germany, Netherlands, and Norway), Australia, Oceania, Asia (e.g., Iran, China, and Vietnam), Middle East (Jordan and United Arab Emirates), and Africa (South Africa). Among the diverse occupations encompassed by extant literature are public sector officers, professionals, frontline employees, engineers, and volunteers. Despite substantial global research, considering that each study was investigated separately in a specific context, questions may remain as to whether findings of studies have similar or different implications in other settings. Expanded empirical research to externally validate the study findings across countries and occupations would be a positive contribution to a more holistic understanding of the engagement–commitment relationship.

Synthesis of the Reviewed Literature

Engagement leading to commitment with associated variables

On the influence of employee engagement on commitment to an organization, 11 studies hypothesized and empirically demonstrated that engagement could serve as a precursor to commitment. Employee commitment is one of the work/job outcomes (e.g., Karatepe, 2013; Richardsen et al., 2006) that can be influenced by the motivational process and consequent work engagement (Llorens et al., 2006), resulting from employee well-being (Hu & Schaufeli, 2011). That is, when employees are attached to and engaged in their work, they can become connected to their work and other employees. Ultimately, through this process, employees form an attachment with their organization (Hansen et al., 2014).

Employee engagement could lead directly to enhanced commitment within organizations (Albdour & Altarawneh, 2014; Plewa & Quester, 2008). In addition, the effects of work engagement on employees’ organizational commitment could be supported and facilitated by considering organizational inputs (i.e., antecedent variables) such as job resources (Albrecht, 2012; Llorens et al., 2006; Richardsen et al., 2006), organizational and team resources (i.e., organizational and team culture; Albrecht, 2012), current remuneration (Hu & Schaufeli, 2011), psychological contract fulfillment (Parzefall & Hakanen, 2010), organizational support, job characteristics, organizational procedural justice (Saks, 2006), organizational politics (Karatepe, 2013), and organizational identification (Hansen et al., 2014). Although these antecedents seem different, most are related, fully or partly, to job resources when investigating subfactors. Job resources consist of social support from supervisors and/or coworkers, autonomy, task variety, role clarity, feedback/performance feedback, and career development (Albrecht, 2012; Llorens et al., 2006; Richardsen et al., 2006). Job characteristics consist of autonomy, skill variety, feedback, task significance, and task identity (Saks, 2006). Current remuneration (Hu & Schaufeli, 2011) and psychological contract fulfillment (Parzefall & Hakanen, 2010) are also conceptualized as job resources by researchers.

Antecedents used in examining the effects of engagement on commitment could be reorganized into job resources (social support from supervisors and/or coworkers, autonomy, task variety, role clarity, feedback/performance feedback, career development, current remuneration, and psychological contract fulfillment), organizational and team resources, job characteristics (autonomy, skill variety, feedback, task significance, and task identity), organizational politics, and organizational identification. Furthermore, the effect of employees’ work engagement on their organizational commitment could lead to reducing their turnover intention (Parzefall & Hakanen, 2010).

Taken together, Figure 1 illustrates a framework that encompasses all the discussed influences of engagement on commitment in association with other relevant research constructs.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Relationships associated with effects of engagement on commitment.

Commitment leading to engagement with associated variables

Eight studies conceptualized and empirically demonstrated that commitment is a precursor to engagement and that, when employees are involved, attached, and loyal to their organization, they could be engaged in their work or manifest enhanced work engagement (Barnes & Collier, 2013; Ibrahim & Falasi, 2014; Zhang et al., 2015). That is, employee commitment to an organization will occur before their work engagement (Barnes & Collier, 2013), and when employees feel attached to an organization and obliged to repay the organization for this attachment, work engagement results as one way of such repayment (Choi et al., 2015). The implication is that, after employees are attached to their organization, they could become attached to their work as well. Specifically, employee commitment to an organization could also directly and positively influence engagement at work (Ibrahim & Falasi, 2014), and the impact of commitment on engagement could then be mediated by employees’ daily specific flow experiences (Rivkin et al., 2016).

Effects of employees’ organizational commitment on their work engagement could also be supported and facilitated by considering organizational inputs especially associated with leadership, such as inclusive leadership (Choi et al., 2015) and interpersonal leadership (Hansen et al., 2014). The effect of organizational commitment on work engagement could lead to reduced turnover intention (Zhang et al., 2015) and job tension (Hansen et al., 2014) as well as enhanced adaptability (Barnes & Collier, 2013). In addition to employee commitment to the organization, employee commitment to a supervisor could have a positive impact on work engagement, which, in turn, influences their innovative work behavior, feedback seeking for self-improvement, and error reporting in a positive way (Chughtai, 2013). Taken together, Figure 2 illustrates a framework that encompasses all the discussed influences of commitment on engagement in association with other relevant research constructs.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Relationships associated with effects of commitment on engagement.

Implications for HRD Research

This synthesis of extant literature on the relationship between work engagement and organizational commitment suggests several implications for HRD research. More opportunities for empirical research exist to explore the engagement–commitment relationship further as well as to uncover new implications in the field of HRD. First, as an effort to catalyze future research, the current study suggests frameworks in Figures 1 and 2 drawn from the examined empirical studies. However, we cannot postulate that the integrated frameworks are empirically valid, as neither of them have been specified and examined as a whole research model. It is therefore recommended that the suggested frameworks be validated to provide more holistic implications. In addition, as most studies focused on the affective component of organizational commitment (e.g., Choi et al., 2015; Rivkin et al., 2016)—with some emphasizing vigor and dedication as core dimensions of work engagement by excluding absorption (e.g., Parzefall & Hakanen, 2010)—reconceptualizing subdimensions of both constructs or redefining the constructs could be other areas worth examining for future research.

Given that the reviewed studies primarily focused on the one-directional effect of the relationship between work engagement and organizational commitment, future research could expand the current research effort by investigating the reciprocal relationship between engagement and commitment, considering both effects of engagement on commitment and effects of commitment on engagement in research models. Data collection should also be implemented with more than two time frames (e.g., Time 1 and Time 2) to examine the reciprocal relationship effectively, with a recommended longitudinal research design (e.g., years of cross-lagged study; Hakanen et al., 2008). The results of such research could provide the bigger picture of the engagement–commitment relationship.

In addition to quantitative research, future research could consider qualitative approaches to obtain in-depth meanings as well as to offer context and opportunities for expanded dialogues. When qualitative and quantitative studies are combined, elaborating on the meaning of the findings would be beneficial for such dialogues (Kim et al., 2013; Swanson, Watkins, & Marsick, 1997). As the reviewed quantitative studies showed that both the effects of engagement on commitment and the effects of commitment on engagement are statistically significant, future research could employ qualitative approaches to determine (a) how employees define and distinguish work engagement and organizational commitment, (b) upon which construct employees put more value and why, and (c) which construct employees think precedes the other in their organizational context and why. This would enable researchers to elaborate further on the quantitative findings about the engagement–commitment relationship.

Last, as most research variables used in the reviewed studies, including engagement and commitment, are individual-level variables, future research could consider organizational-level variables to comprehend the engagement–commitment relationship and relevant organizational-level antecedents and consequences. By considering two levels of engagement (i.e., job engagement and organizational engagement; Saks, 2006) instead of a singular concept of engagement, future research could employ multilevel research, using engagement as an organizational-level variable (i.e., aggregated variable) and including other organizational-level variables (e.g., actual turnover rates and error reporting rates of organizations). For this purpose, it would be helpful to use more sophisticated statistical methods such as multilevel analysis in SEM or hierarchical linear modeling (HLM).

Implications for HRD Practice

The reviewed empirical literature showed that the effect of work engagement on commitment and the effect of commitment on engagement are both statistically significant. However, which of these constructs precedes the other or whether both constructs are reciprocally related has not yet been made empirically explicit. Therefore, it would be more informative and effective for HRD professionals to utilize both frameworks (i.e., Figures 1 and 2) with a holistic perspective. The findings also indicated that engagement and commitment could be managed and enhanced by organizational efforts (e.g., job resources and inclusive leadership as antecedents) and that such results ultimately could produce desired organizational outcomes (e.g., lower turnover intention and innovative work behavior). Given these conclusions, HRD professionals are advised to pay more attention to diverse antecedent variables, presented in Figures 1 and 2, when designing relevant HR interventions to enhance work engagement and organizational commitment of employees.

From a review of the literature, it appears that most of the antecedent variables associated with the effects of engagement on commitment (see Figure 1) belong to job resources (e.g., role clarity, autonomy, performance feedback, social support, and career development) or job characteristics (e.g., task significance, autonomy, and task identity). Both categories partly overlap in terms of their subfactors and their focus on supporting individual employees’ job/work. Thus, if organizations hope to increase employees’ engagement and commitment on the level of the individual, HRD professionals must pay more regard to several factors. Such factors include what job resources and job characteristics the organization is able to provide and how the organization will adequately deliver these resources and characteristics when creating or modifying HR interventions to enhance employees’ work engagement. For instance, if an organization has a company-wide career development path system, HRD professionals could collaborate with managers and executives to provide individual employees with opportunities for their career development based on annual performance feedback from their managers. HRD professionals could also offer in-house training programs and/or half-day workshops so that supervisors might more effectively clarify subordinate roles and provide social support and autonomy to subordinates using performance feedback meetings.

In addition, some antecedent variables such as inclusive leadership, interpersonal leadership, and team culture focus on team-level interactions with leaders and other employees. To this end, it is critical to consider how to build a supportive team culture through fair interactions with leaders, especially through inclusive and interpersonal leadership. Inclusive leadership refers to leaders’ openness, accessibility, and availability when interacting with their followers (Choi et al., 2015). Interpersonal leadership is comprised of transformational leadership and interactionally fair leadership (Hansen et al., 2014). For HRD professionals in organizations seeking to enhance employee engagement and commitment on the level of team interaction, it is crucial to establish an interactive team climate with a midterm perspective and fair, open, and respectful leaders who frequently interact with followers, sharing information and a common vision.

Some antecedents such as organizational culture, organizational procedural justice, and organizational politics primarily focus on organizational-level culture. Positive organizational culture refers to “a culture of openness, fairness, and support” (Albrecht, 2012, p. 845), and similarly, procedural justice is about fairness of processes and means to allocate resources (Saks, 2006). Conversely, organizational politics refers to “phenomena in which organizational members attempt either directly or indirectly to influence other members by means not sanctioned by formal standard . . . or informal norms” (Karatepe, 2013). Taken together, it would be pivotal to establish an organizational climate with the goals of fair treatment and process and an attitude of openness and support toward employees. If organizations support increasing employees’ engagement and commitment at the level of organizational culture, HRD professionals will need to take a long-term approach to build up a company-wide culture based on openness and fairness. As an initial effort to do that, HRD professionals should define and clarify what their organizational culture means and why a positive organizational culture is important and beneficial to individuals, teams, and the organization as a whole. HRD professionals must also put considerable effort into supporting the development of their designed organizational culture and educating others on this culture using diverse HR interventions (e.g., sharing best practices, on-/off-line messages from CEO/executives, culture-related posters, and promotion material including short video clips). During this process, conveying these messages to more employees and helping them to trust this organizational culture is a vital part of encouraging employees to act as change agents and supporters, reflecting a positive organizational culture in their own work.

Despite such OD efforts, if any forms of organizational politics exist, creating a fair and supportive culture would quickly go down the drain. Hence, HRD professionals should be watchful against any forms of organizational politics and make persistent efforts to diminish the side effects of organizational politics with substantial support from CEO/executives.