Exploring the Job Demands–Resources Model of Work Engagement in Government: Bringing in a Psychological Perspective

Abstract

Work engagement refers to an active energetic state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Despite practitioner's attention for work engagement, few public administration scholars have studied public servants' work engagement empirically. The goal of this study is to extend the job demands-resources (JD-R) model of work engagement using insights from the public administration literature. The analysis of a large-scale survey (N = 9,465) shows that (a) work and personal resources, including public service motivation, are positively related to work engagement; (b) red tape moderates these relationships; and (c) work engagement mediates the relationship between JD-R and job outcomes. In conclusion, public organizations can potentially increase work engagement and inherently employee outcomes by increasing work-related resources (autonomy, cooperation with colleagues) and selecting personnel with a proactive personality and high levels of public service motivation.

Mixed Feelings? Comparing the Effects of Perceived Red Tape and Job Goal Clarity on HRM Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment Across Central Government, Government Agencies, and Businesses

“…Red tape. Red tape was measured using six items developed by the Dutch government, which have been applied previously (Borst et al, 2017;Vermeeren & Van Geest, 2012). Although not developed in research, the items are in line with the notion of red tape as a multidimensional construct (Borry, 2016;Van Loon et al, 2016), including both burdensome (e.g., "Complying with all the rules and procedures within my organization takes a lot of time") and ineffective (e.g., "Rules and procedures in my organization make it difficult to do my job well") dimensions.…”

‘Through the looking-glass’: addressing methodological issues in analyzing within- and between-sector differences in employee attitudes and behaviors

“…Recently, scholars have focused on a more conscientious sampling strategy by selecting similar types of jobs or occupational groups across sectors (Andersen, Pallesen, and Pedersen 2011;Hansen and Kjeldsen 2018;Kjeldsen and Hansen 2018). Others have taken a different perspective by comparing sectors based on a normative distinction of people-processing and people-changing organizations (Borst 2018;Van Loon 2017), with their classification of people-changing organizations showing great overlap with the semipublic or hybrid sector used in other comparative studies (Blom et al 2020;Lan and Rainey 1992;Wittmer 1991). Altogether, these recent developments show that scholars have become aware of the limitations in sample classification in earlier research and, as a result, have called for more research aimed at providing greater insights into differences in employee attitudes and behaviors across sectors.…”

“…Whereas controlling for measurement invariance is common practice in research fields such as psychology, sociology, and management (Byrne, Shavelson, and Muth en 1989;Davidov et al 2014;Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998;Vandenberg and Lance 2000), this is certainly not the case for the field of public administration (Jilke et al 2015). In fact, in recent years, only a few comparative studies have tested for measurement invariance (Borst 2018;Van Loon 2017). As a comprehensive and technical examination of measurement invariance in public administration is beyond the scope of this study, and as it has already been thoroughly discussed by Jilke et al (2015), we will only describe the three major hierarchical forms of measurement invarianceconfigural, metric, and scalarthat are needed before means can be accurately compared across groups.…”

“…Proactivity toward self-development Proactivity was measured using three items that have been validated in earlier research (Bateman and Crant 1993;Borst, Kruyen, and Lako 2019). An example item is: 'I constantly try to improve myself in my profession' (a ¼ 0.81).…”

“…Unfortunately, this practice does not seem to be common in public administration literature yet (for recent exceptions. see Borst 2018;Hansen and Kjeldsen 2018;Van Loon 2017).…”