The drivers of work engagement: a meta-analytic review of longitudinal evidence
Abstract
Work engagement is currently one of the most popular outcomes in occupational health psychology. According to the motivational process within the job demands-resources (JD-R) framework, job resources stimulate work engagement, which in turn fosters job performance. While the general positive impact of job resources on work engagement is well established, it remains unclear how different types of job resources differentially predict work engagement over time. In our meta-analytic review, we identified 55 longitudinal studies that investigate the impact of various job resources on work engagement. To uncover the drivers of work engagement, we examined the differential impact of job resources on work engagement at group level, leader level, and organisational level via meta-analytic structural equation modelling. The findings suggest that job resources at each of the three levels predict work engagement over time. However, organisational-level resources (reflecting how the work is organised, designed and managed) contribute much more strongly to work engagement than group-level, and leader-level resources. All three levels of job resources and work engagement are highly stable. We advocate for interventions at any of the three levels. However, interventions at the organisational-level are most promising for enhancing work engagement and we thus strongly recommend strengthening those job resources.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Work engagement is positively associated with teacher wellbeing.
“Extensive research consistently highlights a positive association between work engagement and teacher wellbeing (Lesener et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2023).”
From Exploring the impact of workload, organizational support, and work engagement on teachers' psychological wellbeing: a structural equation modeling approach (2024) · cites this paper as Lesener et al., 2020
Meta-analytic evidence demonstrates that cognitive personal resources such as beliefs and values are particularly stable predictors of work engagement.
“Meta-analytic evidence demonstrates that cognitive personal resources such as beliefs and values are particularly stable predictors of work engagement (Lesener et al., 2020)”
From Teaching beliefs and wellbeing among primary school teachers: a moderated mediation of work engagement and career adaptability (2026) · cites this paper as Lesener et al., 2020
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 52 · Cited by 213
- Authors
- Lesener, T., Gusy, B., Jochmann, A., & Wolter, C.
- Affiliations
- Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Lesener, Tino
- Venue
- Work & Stress
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-11-05
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 259-278
- ISSN
- 0267-8373 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5335
- OpenAlex
- W2986043208
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 42 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 18.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Work & Stress (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Workaholism, burnout, and well-being
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
- Keywords
- work engagement, job resources, job demands-resources model, employee performance, longitudinal stability, occupational health psychology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review