Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to test whether work engagement can be predicted by two core dimensions, energy and involvement, both at the individual and team levels. Design/methodology/approach – Based on the circumplex model of affective well-being (Russell, 1980), the authors propose the work engagement grid and collect data on individual and team work engagement (TWE) from two different samples (n=1,192 individuals). Findings – Results show a significant positive relationship between the individual engagement grid and individual work engagement. However, only the energy dimension significantly predicted TWE. The authors also provide evidences for the relationship between the engagement grid and related variables (e.g. adaptive performance, team cohesion, satisfaction), and show that the combination of energy and involvement present smaller correlations with those variables than the complete engagement scales. Research limitations/implications – Data were collected from simulation samples, therefore generalization of the findings must be done with caution. The findings allow for developing a brief measure of work engagement, particularly useful for longitudinal or diary study designs. Practical implications – When teams are the work unit, the displays of energetic behaviors ought to be fostered in order to boost collective engagement. Originality/value – The authors add to the existing literature on work engagement, concluding that individual and team-level work engagement have structural differences between them, with the collective construct being dependent on external manifestations of energy, and that individual work engagement needs a cognitive component of absorption in order to foster performance.

Energy, Engagement, Involvement, Work engagement grid
dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMP-11-2014-0336, hdl.handle.net/1765/82479
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Erasmus University Rotterdam

Costa, P.L, Passos, A.M, & Bakker, A.B. (2016). The work engagement grid: predicting engagement from two core dimensions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(4), 774–789. doi:10.1108/JMP-11-2014-0336