Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 118

The energizing nature of work engagement: Toward a newneed-based theory of work motivation

Paul I. Green Jr.a,*, Eli J. Finkelb, Grainne M. Fitzsimonsc, Francesca Ginoa

aHarvard University, United StatesbNorthwestern University, United StatescDuke University, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:Available online 22 November 2017

Keywords:NeedsMotivationWork engagementDisengagementAuthenticitySelf-expression

A B S T R A C T

We present theory suggesting that experiences at work that meet employees expectationsof need fulfillment drive work engagement. Employees have needs (e.g., a desire to beauthentic) and they also have expectations for how their job or their organization will fulfillthem. We argue that experiences at work that confirm employees need fulfillmentexpectations yield a positive emotional state that is energizing, and that this energy ismanifested in employees behaviors at work. Our theorizing draws on a review of the workengagement literature, in which we identify three core characteristics of workengagement: (a) a positive emotional state that (b) yields a feeling of energy and (c)leads to positive work-oriented behaviors. These key themes provide the foundation forfurther theorizing suggesting that interactions at work confirm or disconfirm employeesneed fulfillment expectations, leading to different levels of engagement. We extend ourtheorizing to argue that confirmation, or disconfirmation, of different need expectationswill yield emotional experience of varying magnitudes, with confirmation of approach-oriented need expectations exerting stronger effects than the confirmation of avoidance-oriented need expectations. We close with a review suggesting that organizationalcontextual features influence the expression of these needs, sustaining or undermining thepositive emotional experiences that fuel work engagement.

2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

Human needs at work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Work engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A history of the study of work engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4The whole self . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5A sequential perspective on work engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Affective events and the experience of energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Emotion as energy vs. satiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Work engagement vs. disengagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7The benefits and antecedents of work engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The benefits of work engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: pgreen@hbs.edu (P.I. Green).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2017.10.007

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Organizational Behavior

journal homepage: www.else vie r .com/ locat e/r iob

0191-3085/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.riob.2017.10.007&domain=pdfmailto:pgreen@hbs.eduhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2017.10.007https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2017.10.007http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01913085www.elsevier.com/locate/riob

2 P.I. Green et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 118

Antecedents of work engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Need fulfillment expectations and the sustenance of work engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Employees expectations as counterfactual realities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Normative as socially granted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Normative as general and abstract expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Psychological contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Need fulfillment expectations and work engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Approach and avoidance needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Differential emotional responses to disconfirmed and confirmed approach and avoidance need expectations . . . . . 11Between-individual expectation differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Organizational features and confirmation or disconfirmation of approach-oriented expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Authentic self-expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Organizational characteristics and authentic self-expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The popular business press has grown increasinglyenamored with the idea that the modern workplace is, insome structural and meaningful way, inadequate (Hamel,2009, 2012; Laloux, 2014). Popular articles point toalarming statistics suggesting a meaningful proportionof employees in U.S. organizations report a complete lackof engagement, and even report knowingly engaging inbehaviors harmful to their employer (OBoyle & Harter,2013). This same literature points to myriad prescriptivemeasures, often in the form of case studies depictingorganizations where employees seem so passionate andenthusiastically motivated at work that they seem toapproach euphoria (Fortune, 2016; Hamel, 2011; Laloux,2014; Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010).

These case studies vary in the ways by whichorganizations purport to motivate their employee popula-tion. Numerous lists of great companies to work for haveemerged, most leveraging measures of employee engage-ment and organizational performance as evidence of theefficacy of the various practices these organizationsimplement to motivate employees. The Fortune 100 BestCompanies to Work For (Fortune, 2016), for example,points to companies whose practices include payinghigher than standard wages, providing free health cover-age for employees, and offering flexible and autonomouswork arrangements. These companies offer various perksand benefits, ranging from bringing pets to work, offeringon-campus dining and childcare, wellness programs, andeven in-office recreational activities. Employees at some ofthese companies report that inclusive practices thatembrace their distinctive characteristics make their workmotivating. At some level, these organizations all engendera highly motivated workforce by creating an environmentthat provides fulfillment of their employees needs.

The various practices in the organizations described inthese case studies help to fulfill fundamental humanneeds. Some speak to enhanced safety and securitythrough higher wages and family health coverage. Othersspeak to the need for self-actualization or authentic self-expression (e.g. inclusive workplaces that celebrate differ-ences). These stories suggest that the ongoing fulfillmentof needs at work is a source of motivation.

Indeed, employees come to work with a set of needs,and those needs influence their behavior at work insignificant ways. Organizational scholarship has longtheorized some relationship between human needs, whichare generally thought to be fundamental and universal, andemployee behavior, most notably in the domain of workmotivation (Alderfer, 1969, 1972; Argyris, 1957; Kanfer &Heggestad, 1997; Maslow, 1943; McGregor, 1960). In fact,many existing theories of work motivation have assumedthat individuals work in order to fulfill fundamental needs.These theories build on the basic logic of humans aswanting, as Pinder (2014: 67) suggested in his review ofneeds and motivation. Maslow (1943: 370) went so far asto postulate that Any motivated behavior, must beunderstood to be a channel through which many basicneeds may be simultaneously expressed or satisfied. Mostsubsequent need-based theories of work motivation alsohave begun with the basic proposition that needs are amotivational forceand often, with an emphasis on theidea that pain or displeasure associated with unmet needsleads to motivation (e.g. Alderfer, 1972; Locke, 1991;Maslow, 1943; McGregor, 1960; Pinder, 2014). For example,McGregor (1960) argued that a satisfied need is not amotivator for behavior.

But the case studies reported above point to needfulfillment, rather than unmet needs, as the source ofemployee motivation. More fulfilling environments seemto be a major source of motivation in these cases. Further,these case studies seem to suggest that organizationalpractices that go beyond providing safety and security foremployees, and also fulfill needs for self-expression andauthenticity, have particularly powerful motivationalpotential. The overarching implication behind these linesof study is that positive experiences, in addition to therelatively negative experiences associated with unfulfilledor obstructed need pursuits, carry motivational power.That is, need fulfillment (as opposed to unsatiated needs)may also have motivating power.

A central question presented by these case studies ishow do positive experiences at work, or, more specifically,need fulfillment experiences, lead to increases in motiva-tion? This paper offers a foundation for a new approach to

P.I. Green et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 118 3

the study of needs at work, one that specifically aims toaddress this question. We present a set of theoreticalarguments suggesting that experiences at work thatconfirm need fulfillment expectations are energizing,providing fuel for motivated behavior. The work engage-ment literature, which emphasizes the experience ofenergy as core to engagement, provides our starting point.Following a brief review of the study of work motivationand needs, we turn to an in-depth review and summary ofthe work engagement literature. In clarifying the keyattributes of work engagement present in the literature,we make the case that the experience of work engagementis key to describing the relationship between positive needfulfillment experiences and motivated behavior at work.

Work engagement is commonly defined as a positive,fulfilling, work-related state characterized by vigor,dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonz-lez-Rom, & Bakker, 2002). However, different lines ofscholarly study have embraced conceptually differingviews of the nature of work engagement. We make threepoints of emphasis in our discussion. First, we argue thatwork engagement is, at its core, the experience of energyeffectively, the fuel of motivated behavior. Second, weargue that, unlike a positive affective state such as jobsatisfaction, which reflects a state of satiation, the energyinherent in work engagement may lead to positive workbehaviors and outcomes. Finally, we emphasize theemotional component of work engagement. Much of theenergy that employees bring to bear in their day-to-dayactivities at work is sustained (or undermined) throughpositive (or negative) emotional experiences. Thus, emo-tional experiences, as a source of the energy inherent inwork engagement, are central to our theorizing.

Our interactions with others are the most emotion-laden experiences we have and tend to yield more intenseemotions than most non-relational experiences (Elfenbein,2007). Because work engagement is the product ofemployees emotional experiences at work, interactionswith others may strongly influence engagementin fact,the effect of interactions at work may well eclipse theeffect of other structural factors (e.g., job features) on workengagement. These relational interactions become theday-to-day events that sustain, or alternately undermine,work engagement.

We then discuss employee expectations of human needfulfillment at work. We argue (a) that employees comparetheir experiences at work to their normative expectationsof work, and (b) that expectancy disconfirmation leads topersistent negative emotional experiences, whereas ex-pectancy confirmation sustains a positive emotional state.Employees emotional response to this expectancy confir-mation (or disconfirmation) fuels work engagement.

We next draw upon research on approach andavoidance orientation to distinguish between approach-oriented and avoidance-oriented needs. We suggest thatemployee emotional responses to confirmed approach-oriented need expectations (e.g., authentic self-expres-sion) will be relatively more positive than responses toconfirmed avoidance-oriented need expectations (e.g.safety and security). This presents a point central to ourtheorizing: work engagement does not merely vary as a

function of met or unmet expectations, but also as afunction of the approach/avoidance nature of the expecta-tion. Fulfillment of employee expectations around ap-proach-oriented needs may present an opportunity fororganizations to create an emotional experience that is farmore fulfilling for employees than the fulfillment ofavoidance-oriented expectations.

We close with a more in-depth examination of one needthat we will use as an example of an approach-orientedneed at work: the need for authentic self-expression (oftenreferred to as self-actualization). Though our argumentssuggest that work engagement is sustained throughinteractions at work, we propose that contextual featuresexert a powerful influence on the nature of thoseinteractions, leading to confirmation, or disconfirmation,of employees expectations of authentic self-expressionneeds.

This work is an argument for a new approach to thestudy of needs at work. Although needs at work have beenwidely studied for many decades, these traditions havetended to work within the humans as wanting tradition,building on the core notion that needs affect motivatedbehavior primarily when they are unsatisfied. Our workcomplements this emphasis by arguing for the motiva-tional power of need fulfillment experiences. As such, ourtheorizing provides a springboard for numerous lines offurther empirical exploration.

First, through our review and summary of the workengagement literature, we identify three critical features ofwork engagement: it is a positive emotional experience; itis an energy force; and relational interactions are a primarysource of emotional energy. These features articulate thenature and practical relevance of work engagement, whiledistinguishing it from other work-related affective states.The experience of energy is perhaps the most criticaldefining feature of work engagement, and this energy isassociated with positive emotional experiences. Scholarsstudying work engagement (e.g. Macey & Schneider, 2008)have noted a lack of construct clarity (Suddaby, 2010); weaim, with this work, to encourage researchers to coherearound a more distinct, precise conceptualization of workengagement.

Second, by reinforcing and expanding existing con-ceptualizations of engagement as a relationally mediatedphenomenon, we open doors to research examining boththe relational antecedents and consequences of engage-ment. Past research has suggested social antecedents ofwork engagement; for example, positive organizationalscholars have argued that engagement flows from high-quality connections, and other empirical studies havesuggested that engagement is, in part, the product ofperceived social support at work (Bakker & Schaufeli,2008; Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; Rich et al., 2010). We extendthis line of scholarly interest by suggesting that relation-ships provide experiences that affirm (or disconfirm)employees expectations of need fulfillment at work.

Third, we introduce the function of expectations as animportant predictor of work engagement. We extend thegeneral logic implied by social contract theories of work toinclude more general normative expectations of work. Webelieve that this aspect of work engagement has the

4 P.I. Green et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 118

potential to help explain varying levels of engagementacross employees, performing the same work within thesame organizational context.

Finally, in our theory, experiences at work that confirmemployees approach-oriented needs, such as authenticself-expression, are particularly powerful sources ofenergy. We thus aim to offer a theoretical foundation forthe ways that organizations can facilitate the confirmation(or disconfirmation) of these important needs. In the finalsection of this manuscript, we summarize literature thatsuggests ways in which organizational features enable (orrestrain) authentic self-expression at work. We hope thisprovides a foundation for organizational scholars andmanagers to begin to develop structural approaches toshaping employees relational interactions in ways that canenable fulfillment of this, and other approach-orientedneeds.

Human needs at work

The academic literature provides us with a variety ofviews of human needs. Motivation research, in particular,has periodically returned to the examination of funda-mental needs as an explanation for motivated behavior.Maslows (1943) theory posits a notable framework forunderstanding the motivational potential of human needs.Maslow conceptualized needs as generally grouped intofive basic categories: safety, security, belongingness, self-esteem, and self-actualization. McGregor, in his seminalThe Human Side of Enterprise, similarly proposed ageneral human tendency to pursue needs according tosome sort of logical hierarchy and also referenced five basicneeds, though in slightly different terms (McGregor, 1960).McClelland (1967) argued for need pursuit as an overarch-ing motivational theory and a view of human needs inwhich individuals differed as a function of which of threebasic needs was dominant.

With their theory of the motivational effects of jobcharacteristics, Hackman and Oldham (1976) launched astream of research that was oriented toward fulfillingworkers higher-order needs, such as meaningfulnessand autonomy (e.g., Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Roberts &Glick,1981; Sims, Szilagyi, & Keller, 1976), and wasgrounded in the notion that such needs carried greatermotivational potential than other, baser pursuits. Morerecently, self-determination theorists have argued thatautonomy (and, to some degree, belongingness) at workleads to intrinsic motivation for a task, which in turnenhances task performance (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan &Deci, 2000). Finally, Kanfer and colleagues (Heggestad &Kanfer, 2000; Kanfer, Ackerman, & Heggestad, 1996;Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997) identified motivational traitsthat can manifest as a need for achievement and show thatthe nature of this achievement need can influenceemployees behavioral tendencies.

As compared with historical traditions emphasizinghow the discomfort associated with unmet needs yieldsmotivation at work (e.g. Alderfer, 1972; Locke, 1991;Maslow, 1943; McGregor, 1960; Pinder, 2014), some recentempirical exploration has emphasized a complementaryidea that positive experiences, including those related to

need fulfillment, may also be motivating. Some researchershave suggested, and empirically tested, a positive rela-tionship between subjective well-being (a proxy for lifesatisfaction) and positive work outcomes (e.g. Judge,Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Riketta, 2008; also seeTenney, Poole, & Diener, 2016 for a comprehensive review).The field of positive organizational scholarship is groundedin the basic assumption that positive experiences yieldpositive outcomes, including motivated and energizedbehavior (e.g. Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Cameron &Dutton, 2003; Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; Fredrickson,2003). This work is echoed by news stories of organizationsthat focus on providing a positive, fulfilling workplaceexperience to employees, endeavors that seem to yielddriven and motivated employees (Fortune, 2016; Hamel,2011, 2012; Laloux, 2014).

Nearly all commonly accepted definitions of motivationincorporate the idea of energy (Locke, 1991; Mitchell &Daniels, 2003; Pinder, 2014). Indeed, higher energyexpenditure is associated with higher levels of productivi-ty, citizenship behaviors, and helping behaviors. Andenergy expenditure is generally tightly associated withmotivation. Many need-based work motivation theoriespropose that the discomfort associated with unmet needsinspires exertion of effort or the expenditure of energy. Wepropose that although unmet needs might indeed inspirethe expenditure of energy, positive need-related experi-ences may provide a valuable source of energy, effectivelyfueling positive work-related outcomes. Thus, the heart ofany theory linking positive need-related experiences andpositive work-related outcomes, such as work engage-ment, must begin with an understanding of the nature andsource of energy.

Work engagement

A history of the study of work engagement

Scholarly interest in work engagement can be traced tothe early 1970s, when researchers began studying burnout,a negative work-related state of mind characterized byexhaustion and a mental distancing from ones work (e.g.Freudenberger, 1974, 1975; Maslach, 1976; see Maslach &Schaufeli, 1993 for a review). The early research focused oncharacterizing the phenomenon and explained burnout asa function of feelings employees had toward their work.Scholarly findings from this era suggest that burnout is amix of exhaustion, cynicism, and a sense of ineffectivenessin ones work, although it is not empirically evidentwhether cynicism and lack of effectiveness are distinctexperiences or derived from the more overarchingexperience of exhaustion (Leiter, 1993; Maslach, Schaufeli,& Leiter, 2001).

Driven in part by a desire for more prescriptiveexaminations of this seemingly widespread work phe-nomenon of burnout, researchers began asking questionsabout the more positive manifestation of employeesrelationship with their work: engagement (Schaufeli &Buunk, 2003). The burnout literature generally assertedthat work engagement is simply the opposite of burnout.Maslach et al. (2001: 416) wrote that engagement is

P.I. Green et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 118 5

characterized by energy, involvement and efficacythedirect opposites of the three burnout dimensions. Byimplication, engagement is assessed by the oppositepattern of scores on the three [burnout inventory]dimensions. Burnout researchers consequently arrivedat the conclusion that understanding and eliminating thecauses of burnout will naturally lead to increases in workengagement (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1997; Maslachet al., 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003)

The whole self

A separate stream of research argues that engagementis a distinct and orthogonal construct, not merely the neteffect of eliminating causes of burnout (Rich et al., 2010). Infact, some research suggested that sustained engagementcan actually lead to burnoutan assertion that conflictswith the notion that engagement flows from the elimina-tion of burnout (Halbesleben, Harvey, & Bolino, 2009;Kunda, 2009). The emergence of this alternate conceptu-alization of work engagement as orthogonal to burnoutcoincides with a broader organizational trend asserting theindividual and organizational value of employees beingpsychologically present at workof bringing their wholeselves to their jobs (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Cameron &Dutton, 2003; Rothbard & Patil,2012). This new disciplin-ary niche responded to a growing recognition thatemployees have great untapped potential and a beliefthat the key to unlocking that potential was to find ways torelease employees passions (Kahn, 1992; Ulrich, 1997). Inhis book Human Resource Champions,Ulrich (1997: 125)argued that to excel in an increasingly competitivelandscape, organizations must find ways to engage notonly the body but the mind and soul of every employee.

A sequential perspective on work engagement

A related line of study characterizes work engagementmore precisely as a form of energy. Conceptually alignedwith the whole self movement, this work defines thecritical feature of engagement as energy. It also draws animportant distinction between simply being present atwork and engaging ones full energy in ones work. Thisliterature provides two key characteristics inherent tomost conceptualizations of work engagement: workengagement is characterized as (a) a positive affectivestate; and (b) as an experience of energy.

Schaufeli, Salanova et al. (2002: 74) provided adefinition of engagement that best illustrates these twoimportant components. They defined engagement as apositive, fulfilling, work-related state characterized byvigor, dedication, and absorption. The first half of theirdefinition suggests that engagement is a positive andfulfilling affective state, similar to job satisfaction. Thesecond half of the definition conveys an energized state ofaction. Vigor refers to high levels of energy and mentalresilience while working, the willingness to invest effortacross the various dimensions of ones work, and persis-tence even in the face of difficulties (Bakker & Demerouti,2008). Dedication and absorption reflect action-oriented

organizational outcomes. Dedication refers to stronginvolvement in ones work and the experience of signifi-cance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge.Absorption refers to a state of high concentration andfulfilled engrossment in ones work, whereby time passesquickly and one has difficulty detaching from the work(May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004). In sum, this construct ofwork engagement has three key aspects: a positivepsychological experience; yielding an energized state;manifesting as behavioral tendencies oriented towardpositive organizational outcomes (Kahn, 1990, 1992;Macey & Schneider, 2008; Rich et al., 2010).

In an empirical exploration of the positive effects ofwork engagement in two work contexts, Rich et al. (2010)generally embraced this view. But in their review of theliterature, they distinguish between work engagement anda broad set of related, though distinct, lines of study, suchas job characteristics (e.g. Hackman & Lawler, 1971;Hackman & Oldham,1976), reward systems, and goalsetting (e.g. Locke & Latham, 2002)all of which,importantly, focus on task-oriented outcomes. They arguedfor the importance of understanding and measuring workengagement distinct from other constructs measuringoverall affective sentiments toward the organization.Rather than the summation of the various energies thatcan be brought to a role, they argue (2010 pg. 619),engagement reflects their commonalitya common causeof the investment of the various energies. In a number ofpropositions, Macey and Schneider (2008) suggested thatstate work engagement (used to distinguish the psycholog-ical state of engagement from trait or behavioral workengagement) is, in fact, an overarching psychological stateand that other related constructs, such as organizationalcommitment, job involvement, and psychological empow-erment, are facets of work engagementlanguagesuggesting that each of these distinct constructs issubsumed by work engagement.

Although we stop short of asserting that work engage-ment is a superordinate construct, Rich et al.s (2010)assertion that work engagement reflects a thread that runsthrough each of these independent constructs is aconsistent theme across recent work engagement litera-ture. The energy found in work engagement is often at leastpartially present in measures of other behaviorallyimportant constructs. Rich, Lepine, and Crawford pre-sented a three-part measure of work engagement,capturing the distinct, and combined, physical, cognitive,and emotional energy1 one experiences at work. Bycombining the cognitive, physical and emotional compo-nents of an employees energy into a single measure, workengagement represents a means of explaining the impor-tant common positive consequences of each of theserelated constructs (Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998). Rich et al.(2010: 619) summarized the energized nature of workengagement eloquently, stating that through engagement,

1 By way of clarification, though Rich et al., 2010 distinguish betweenphysical, cognitive and emotional energy, in our view, these three possibleforms of experienced energy are confined to the motivational component

ur conceptualization of work engagement.

behavioral tendencies associated with positive of o

6 P.I. Green et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 118

employees harness their full selves in active, completework role performance by driving personal energy intophysical, cognitive, and emotional labors. In sum, energyis one operative and defining characteristic of workengagement.

Affective events and the experience of energy

The energy so central to work engagement is commonlydescribed as being fueled by a positive affective state.Rothbard (2001) found support for the hypothesis thatpositive affective states lead to increased attention andabsorption, two of the three energized states characteristicof work engagement. Work engagement is generallydescribed in as a positive, fulfilling statesuggestive ofa positive affective or emotional experience (Schaufeli,Salanova et al., 2002). More explicitly, it has been definedas a persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive statethat employees experience at work (Schaufeli, Martinez,Pinto, Salanova, & Bakker, 2002: 465). Macey andSchneider (2008: 12), in their review of the engagementliterature, argued explicitly that positive affect associatedwith the job and work setting are central to theconceptualization and measurement of work engagement,particularly as it relates to the sense of energy central to theexperience of engagement.

Thus, affect seems to play a critical role in workengagement, though the literature is not always clear onthe nature of this relationship. Some work implies thatpositive affect is a consequence of engagement (e.g.,Schaufeli, Martinez, et al., 2002), while other worksuggests that the energy reflected in the definition ofengagement is a consequence of emotional experiences(e.g., Macey & Schneider, 2008; Rothbard, 2001; Rothbard& Patil, 2012) sometimes referred to as affective events. Aswe discuss in the next section, a broader evaluationsuggests that emotional experiences are the source of theenergy inherent to work engagement.

Emotion as energy vs. satiationAlthough work engagement is at least moderately

correlated with other affective states, such as job satisfac-tion, Macey and Schneider (2008 pp. 8) provide animportant distinction that clearly illuminates the distinctnature of work engagement: engagement connotesactivation, whereas satisfaction connotes satiation. Thisdistinction between satiation and activation shines a lighton an important tension implicit in many motivationaltheories: satisfaction or satiation implies no tendency tochange. Many traditional need-based theories of motiva-tion rely on discomfort (unmet needs) to motivatebehavior. A satisfied need is not a motivator for behavior,writes McGregor (1960: 147). Except as you are deprived[of something], it has no appreciable motivating effectupon your behavior.

Because both work engagement and job satisfaction arepresumed to be the product of positive emotionalexperiences at work, one might discount work engage-ment as indistinct from job satisfaction. But as a measure ofcontentment with ones work environment, satisfaction isconceptually inversely related to the motivation to act. It

reflects a tendency to maintain the status quo and, moreimportantly, acts as a psychological signal to conserve(rather than exert) energy. Rich et al. (2010) provideimportant empirical evidence suggesting a distinctionbetween the two, citing in part this energy versus satiationdifference between the two constructs. In one sample, theyshowed a moderate correlation between job satisfactionand work engagement that suggested some overlap butalso meaningful distinctions between the two measures.More importantly, they show that work engagementsignificantly and substantively contributes to job perfor-mance (the manifestation of energy), even when control-ling for job satisfaction. In short, the evidence suggests thatalthough positive emotional experiences may lead to asense of satisfaction and imply satiation, they may alsoserve as a motivational force by providing real energy.

Ample evidence suggests that positive affective statescan improve performance. George and Brief (1992), forexample, reviewed literature suggesting that experiencinga positive mood at work leads to active, extra-rolebehaviors, such as helping others, protecting the organi-zation, forms of active and constructive voice, and self-development. Other research has shown that positivemoods predict reduced absenteeism (Forgas & George,2001) and increased variety seeking in complex situations(Isen, 2001). George and Brief (1996) presented onecognitively oriented explanation for this general relation-ship, arguing that emotions serve as feedback signals thatguide employees in their efforts to achieve various possibleselves. Reviewing evidence of the relationship betweenmood and motivation, Elfenbein (2007) suggested that thepurely cognitive view of mood as a behavioral influence istoo narrow: affect is always a critical part of theconstruction of thoughts; consequently, it is problematicto separate affect from cognition (2007: 352). We proposethat positive affective states lead to improved performanceby enhancing employees sense of energy. Emotionalexperiences, which influence general affect, also influenceemployees experience of energy and their consequentorganizationally beneficial behavior.

This relationship between emotion and energy iscentral to our conceptualization of work engagement.Elfenbein (2007: 346) argued persuasively for the concep-tual idea of emotions as an energizing fuel for behavior,noting emotions are meant to move us. The origin of theterm is the Latin word promotionem, to move forward. Theconcept of work engagement offers a means of explainingthe experience of energy and positive behavior at work,above and beyond traditional motivational theories. Thefeeling of energy that Macey and Schneider (2008: 6)described in their review of the work engagementliterature is fueled by incidental emotions. The energyreflected in the various conceptualizations of workengagement is emotional in nature: work engagement isenergy derived from ones emotional experiences at work.

The view of positive emotions as energy-giving isconsistent with a growing body of research in psychology.One compelling argument suggests that negative emo-tional experiences tend to demand energy, thus robbingthe experiencer of this vital fuel required to attend to otherissues of import (Fredrickson, 2013). Negative emotions

P.I. Green et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 118 7

tend to narrowly focus our energy stores on minimizingthe aversive experience (e.g. Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, &Calvo, 2007; Fredrickson, 2013). Positive emotions, on theother hand, serve to broaden our awareness to a widerarray of thoughts and actions, effectively expanding ourenergy stores for a broader set of work-related activities(see Fredrickson, 2013, for a review). Fredrickson (2003)described the thought-action tendencies of positiveemotions in terms evocative of energy. Joy, for example,creates the urge to play she wrote, while interest createsthe urge to explore . . . and to expand the self (Fre-drickson, 2003: 166). Positive emotions also help dissipatethe energy-sapping effect of negative emotions, furthersupporting the notion that positive emotions energize(Fredrickson & Levenson, 1998; Tugade & Fredrickson,2004). Finally, the experience of positive emotions hasbeen associated with a wider range of action tendenciesthan neutral or negative emotional states, again suggestingthat the feeling of positive emotion is experienced asenergy (see Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005).

This brings us back to the definition of work engage-ment: it is grounded in positive emotional experience andyields the experience of energy. This energy is the productof the emotions the employee experiences during inter-actions with others at work. Negative emotional experi-ences generally serve to sap an experiencers energy, whilepositive emotional experiences tend to sustain and bolsterthe experiencers energy.2 The energy provided by positiveemotional experiences at work fuels the positive perfor-mance associated with work engagement. Interestingly,the experience of energy resulting from positive emotionalexperiences at work may yield both direct and indirectbenefits to the individual and her organization.

We focus primarily on the heightened effort andpersistence inherent to the experience of work engage-ment. But because work engagement is fueled by positiveemotional experiences at work, highly engaged employeesare also likely to experience more rapid learning,improvement, career expansion, and personal growth.The experience of energy associated with work engage-ment also broadens employees focus and attention,increasing their tendency to seek and find novel solutionsto problems (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005;Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987), be more open to newinformation (Estrada, Isen, & Young, 1997), and explorenew opportunities (Kahn & Isen, 1993; Renninger, 1992)all of which are likely to enhance longer-term perfor-mance, innovation, and career development. This phe-nomenon, termed the upward spiral of workengagement (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003), suggests thepotential of work engagement to enhance immediate taskperformance and to expand employees ability to improve

performance and more readily adapt to changing circum-stances.

Work engagement vs. disengagement

The dominant characterization of work engagement asa positive emotional state demands one importantconceptual clarification: disengagement is, in this view,a state of low or nonexistent energy. Disengagementemerges when the fuel of positive emotions is absent (orsapped by negative emotional experiences). Rothbard andPatil (2012), however, observed that dedication andabsorption (two features of work engagement) sometimescorrespond with negative affect, suggesting that workengagement may have both a positive and negativedirection; by contrast, disengagement is a state devoidof energyeither neutral in nature, or perhaps lethargicand listless. Individuals, they suggest, may experienceengagement in their work, accompanied by either apositive or negative affective state. For example, theysuggest that one can be engaged in something because itis a problem to be solved, and this can be associated withnegative affect; or, one can be engaged in an activity that isjoyful (Rothbard & Patil, 2012: 60).

Although this conceptualization seems at odds withmuch of the work engagement literature, it is important toconsider, if for no other reason than that it is also at oddswith our assertion that positive emotional experiencesyield energy and negative emotional experiences sapenergy. We identify two key reasons why it is unlikely thata negative-affective-fueled form of work engagementexists. First, the dominant and widely accepted definitionof work engagement asserts that it is a positive andfulfilling state. That is, it seems almost axiomatic that thestudy of work engagement focuses on understanding theoutcomes associated with positive experiences at work.While it is very likely that negative affective experiences, insome circumstances, correspond with increased dedica-tion and absorption, we simply suggest that said dedica-tion and absorption must be of a phenomenologicallydifferent nature than that inherent in work engagement.For example, someone who is criticized is likely to feelnegative affect and may expend a great deal of energy tocorrect the mistakes. This behavior is consistent withtraditional need-based motivation theories, which assertthat individuals are motivated to fulfill their needs (be itthe avoidance of aversive outcomes or the pursuit ofpositive states).

Conversely, as argued above, work engagement as aconstruct is central to explaining motivational states thataccompany positive affective experiences, which are oftenthought of as satiating (and, consequently, carrying nomotivational value). We are interested in the co-occur-rence of positive affect, energy, and dedication andabsorption. If negative experiences at work sometimeslead to dedication and absorption, presumably aimed atcorrecting the cause of the negative experience, we shouldnot be surprisedsuch a finding is consistent with a widetheoretical and empirical literature. This behavior caneasily be explained by traditional theories of motivation asthe pursuit of some alternate, desired state.

2 We note that all negative, or positive, emotional experiences are notequal. We use positive and negative as general categories, and point to thegeneral energizing, or energy-sapping, nature of the broader category. Butwe note that various discrete emotions may vary in the degree to whichthey adhere to this general principle. The energizing effect of the positiveemotion elation is likely to differ in intensity from the energizing effect ofthe positive emotion calmness.

8 P.I. Green et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 118

Finally, work engagement is distinct from intrinsicmotivation. Intrinsic motivation is a task-oriented experi-ence; the positive affect it instills is associated with thetask itself (De Charms, 2013; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Workengagement, on the other hand, reflects absorption in eveninherently uninteresting tasks; the positive experience isnot task focused, and the source of positive emotionalenergy need not be the task itself. Work engagement is lessfocused on the incidental emotions associated with a taskand more reflective of the aggregate of an employeesemotional experiences at workexperiences that providea source and store of energy, which can then be deployedeven toward tasks that are, themselves, uninteresting orassociated with negative affect.

We thus embrace the dominant conceptualization ofwork engagement as a state of high energy characterizedby an overarching state of positive emotion, and ofdisengagement as the lack of energy generally associatedwith an overarching state of negative emotion. Observ-ances of dedication and absorption not associated with apositive emotional state likely reflect some other motivat-ed pursuit.

The benefits and antecedents of work engagement

Work engagement is generally considered a positiveexperience that has important positive downstreamconsequences. Indeed, the core experiences central towork engagement (increased energy, yielding dedicationand absorption) are presumed to lead to other importantoutcomes. Further, as we have argued in the prior section,work engagement as a construct warrants study primarilygiven its theoretical foundation as a source of positiveoutcomes not adequately explained by traditional theoriesof work motivation. Indeed, our theory is, ultimately,concerned with the positive behavioral outcomes associ-ated with need-fulfillment experiences at work. Much ofthe empirical research examining work engagement hasfocused on the benefits, as well as antecedents, of workengagement. We now turn to a brief review of each.

The benefits of work engagementWork engagement is generally seen as a positive and

fulfilling employee experience and, consequently, an endunto itself (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Rothbard, 2001;Rothbard & Patil, 2012). The positive organizationalscholarship (POS) literature conceptualizes work engage-ment as an important construct even if only because itmakes work an inherently more positive employeeexperience (Rothbard & Patil, 2012). In fact, the emotionalenergy side of work engagement is likely closely tied toemployees general well-being (Diener, 2000), with recentresearch even suggesting positive physiological effectsresulting from enhanced work engagement (e.g. Dutton &Heaphy, 2003).

But work engagement is also theorized as a mediator ofvarious positive organizational outcomes. In fact, histori-cally, the dominant motivation for studying work engage-ment has been the prospective organizational benefits.And, indeed, abundant evidence suggests that workengagement contributes to various positive organizational

outcomes, including productivity (Masson, Royal, Agnew,& Fine, 2008; Rich et al., 2010), task and overallperformance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Rich et al.,2010; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007), organizational citizen-ship behaviors (Rich et al., 2010), and even increased clientsatisfaction (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008).

Antecedents of work engagementResearch on the antecedents of work engagement has

been more substantive than research on the benefits ofwork engagement. This work has focused primarily onrelatively stable context-specific characteristics (e.g., jobdemands) or individual differences. Much research sug-gests that the balance between job demands and availableresources leads to work engagement (Demerouti, Bakker,De Jonge, Janssen, & Schaufeli, 2001; Rich et al., 2010;Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), though, as discussed above, thisresearch generally has been conducted using engagementmeasures that are conceptualized as the absence ofburnout. Work that employees experience as meaningfulalso has been shown to increase employees workengagement (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; May et al.,2004; Rich et al., 2010), as have both person-specificattitudes and personality characteristics (Judge & Bono,2001; Langelaan, Bakker, Van Doornen, & Schaufeli, 2006;Rothbard & Patil, 2012).

Because work engagement is fueled in part by emotion,ones day-to-day and moment-to-moment work experi-ences have great potential to influence ones workengagement (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). Althoughengagement is generally considered to be an overarchingstate, it is at least in part relationally conveyed. Workengagement is cultivated and maintained not merelythrough our interest in the task at hand or our generalassessment of stable characteristics of the organization,but also through our myriad interactions with others in theorganization and the ways in which those interactionsconfirm, or disconfirm, our expectations.

In fact, given its emotional nature, work engagementmay primarily reflect the complex multiplicity of inter-actions an employee has had at work. Recent conceptionsof work suggest that employees tend to conceptualize theirwork as a series of relational interactions with others(Dutton & Dukerich, 2006; Wrzesniewski, Dutton, &Debebe, 2003) rather than as a group of activities.Relational interactions are among the most emotion-ladenexperiences individuals will have at work (e.g., Basch &Fisher, 1998; Dasborough, 2006; Elfenbein, 2007; Gaddis,Connelly, & Mumford, 2004; Mignonac & Herrbach, 2004).Interactions that inspire positive emotional experiencesare energy-giving; interactions that inspire negativeemotional experiences are energy-depleting (Cameron &Dutton, 2003; Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; Rothbard & Patil,2012). These everyday relational experiences at workrepresent an important underexplored aspect of workengagement. Past emphasis on the structural character-istics of work and individual differences as predictors ofwork engagement was driven in part by measurementtechniques: as snapshots of an employees sentiments,surveys lend themselves to the measurement of relativelystable work features. But the inherently varying nature of

P.I. Green et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 118 9

employees everyday emotional states warrants a closerlook at the ways in which their day-to-day interactions atwork influence the sustenance of their work engagement.The recent emphasis on discrete emotions in organiza-tional research, and advancements in the measurement ofdiscrete emotional events (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2002;Ashkanasy & Humphrey, 2011; Elfenbein, 2007; Judge,Weiss, Kammeyer-Mueller, & Hulin, 2017; Lam, Weiss,Welch, & Hulin, 2009), compel further examination of onecritical immediate consequence of these emotional expe-riences: work engagement.

Need fulfillment expectations and the sustenance ofwork engagement

The emotions that employees experience duringinteractions at work fuel their work engagement. Butwhat determines how employees respond emotionally toexperiences at work? Certainly, some experiences areuniversally positive or negative. A manager threatening jobtermination will be widely experienced as a threateningact and likely generate feelings of fear and stress. Likewise,a leader publicly expressing gratitude for a job well done islikely to be viewed as a positive experience, one that weexpect will yield excitement or pride.

But an employees day-to-day, and even moment-to-moment, experiences at work are far more mundane andnuanced. Indeed, Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) arguedpersuasively for a more microscopic study of emotions atwork. How do employees respond, emotionally, to theroutine normality of day-to-day interactions at work? Ifthe majority of an employees interactions at work are notparticularly memorable, why does it seem that employeeslevels of work engagement, examined broadly, are bimodalrather than, as we might expect, concentrated aroundsome mean reflective of emotional ambivalence? Theanswer might be that, in practice, employees emotionalresponses cannot be solely predicted by the objectivecharacteristics of their circumstances. Rather, theseresponses and consequent work engagement may emergewhen employees compare their objective reality to theirset of expectations of work.

Employees expectations as counterfactual realities

Employees carry in their minds a normative view ofwhat work should be. This normative view, or set ofexpectations, is forged by myriad social influences,including upbringing (e.g., parental influences), education,past experiences, and even socio-economic trends. Theseexpectations become the backdrop against which employ-ees compare their daily experiences at worka mentallyconstructed counterfactual reality that effectively informsemployees emotional reactions to their daily experiences(Roese, 1997). Ample research in psychology (Kray et al.,2010; Roese, 1997; Zeelenberg et al., 1998) demonstratesthe dramatic effect ones counterfactual mental reality canwield on ones affective response to that reality. Ouremotional response to our circumstances cannot beadequately explained by the objective nature of thosecircumstances: better objective circumstances can, at

times, paradoxically yield more negative emotionalresponses (e.g Iyengar, Wells, & Schwartz, 2006; Medvec& Savitsky, 1997). The now-seminal research examiningthe emotional response of Olympic medal winnersperfectly illustrates this phenomenon: though the silvermedal is objectively superior to the bronze, bronze medalwinners exhibit more positive emotion than silver duringmedal ceremonies, because silver medalists tend to engagein upward comparisons, whereas bronze medal winnersengage in downward comparisons (Medvec, Madey, &Gilovich, 1995).

Employees normative expectations become the coun-terfactual reality against which employees compare theirday-to-day experiences. We use the term normative toqualify the term expectations for two reasons. First,people develop expectations over time through varioussocial experiences. Second, they apply these generalizedand overarching expectations to any prospective workcontext. These characteristicssocially granted and gener-ally appliedare central to the cultivation of should benormative expectations.

Normative as socially grantedNormative expectations are strongly held mental

models of what work should be, developed and honedover time through our social interactions, includingeducation, socio-economic status, and upbringing. Giventhat work is a ubiquitous institution, young adultsnecessarily give serious consideration to what work is,should be, and could be. A persons construction of hernormative expectations of work resemble her constructionof her normative expectations of romantic relationshipsanother domain in which, incidentally, socio-economicand political forces lead to heightened expectations that,when met, yield particularly high levels of fulfillment(Finkel, Cheung, Emery, Carswell, & Larson, 2015; Finkel,Hui, Carswell, & Larson, 2014; Finkel, Larson, Carswell, &Hui, 2014).

Normative as general and abstract expectationsNormative expectations tend to be generalized and

somewhat abstract, aligning closely with broader pursuitcategories, such as generalized needs. Because theseexpectations are general in nature, its often hard to, exante, define the specific means by which the expectationsshould be fulfilled. A person may, for example, carry ageneralized normative expectation of self-actualizationinto their work. This expectation substantively affects howhe thinks about his interactions at work, but it is difficult,or perhaps impossible, to identify in advance the specificbehaviors and interactions that the organization must taketo fulfill that expectation.

Psychological contracts

Normative expectations call to mind research onpsychological contracts. But, as we describe here, themeans by which employers mitigate or eliminate the riskassociated with breached psychological contracts cannotmitigate the negative consequences of disconfirmednormative expectations of work. The psychological

10 P.I. Green et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 118

contract research suggests that employees view theiremployment relationship with their organization as acontract that includes both explicit and implicit agree-ments (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Rousseau, 1990, 2004;Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). In the mind of theemployee, these implicit agreements represent bindingobligations, which may be vague and uncertain, but whichnonetheless become expectations (Rousseau, 2004). If anorganization breaches such a contract, psychologicalcontract theory suggests that employees will redefinethe relationship in more transactional terms, respondingwith reduced organizational trust, decreased extra-rolebehavior (e.g., organizational citizenship), reduced perfor-mance, and increased likelihood of quitting (Robinson,1996; Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Robinson & Rousseau,1994; Thompson & Bunderson, 2003).

This general pattern of behavior is conceptually similarto our argument that unmet normative expectations leadto decreases in work engagement and, in turn, toundesirable behavioral effects. In psychological contracttheory, however, the undesirable behavioral effects ofcontract violation are driven by trust violations (Robinson,1996; Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). The critical featureof a psychological contract is the employees belief that acommitment has been made. Violations of that commit-ment are experienced as breaches of the contract. Becauseemployees seek to maintain equity between the costs andthe benefits of their employment relationship, theymoderate their behavior as a means of realigning thecontract (Turnley & Feldman, 2000).

The logic underlying employee responses to contractbreaches is insufficient to explain the theoretical relation-ship between normative work expectations and workengagement. Employees can enter a work relationshipcarrying a normative expectation of work, knowing fullwell that their current employee will never fulfill thatexpectation. Psychological contract theory would charac-terize this arrangement as a healthy and fulfilled contractbecause there is no breach. Consider, for example, a highschool student whose counselor encouraged her to alwayspursue her unique passion at work, but who can only findmundane work in a fast-food restaurant. The restaurantoffers no promise of passion pursuit; therefore, there is nobreach of trust. Yet, we argue, because the employee viewswork as a domain that should provide the pursuit ofpassion, she experiences a state of disengagement.Clarification of the precise nature of the employmentagreement is not sufficient to blind the employee to hernormative expectations of work; those expectationsremain a mental comparison, and consequently hold swayover her emotional response to her experiences.

In a sense, the psychological contract literaturesuggests that employees compare their experiences atwork to a mental image of what is agreed upon and, uponexperiencing a negative mismatch, lose trust and moderatetheir behavior as a compensatory penalty. Our theorizingsuggests, though, that a focus on expectations resultingfrom employee-employer agreements is too narrow toadequately account for the full spectrum of expectationsemployees bring to work. Empirical evidence supportsthis assertion. Robinson, in a longitudinal study of

psychological contract breach and erosion of trust amongmanagers, found the predicted relationship between trustand both lower performance and intent to remain. But shealso found a separate, and independent, effect (above andbeyond the effect of trust) between unmet expectationsand these two important outcomes. This additional effectsuggests (consistent with our theorizing) a distinct, andpotentially important, mechanistic pathway betweendisconfirmed normative expectations and subsequentperformance (Robinson, 1996).

We suggest that employees, in addition to anypsychological contract with a specific organization, alsocompare their experiences at work to a mental image ofwhat ought to bea normative picture reflecting theirgeneralized suite of expectations of work. Violations ofthese generalized and normative expectations, though notnecessarily yielding a decrease in trust (and the resultantundesirable behavioral effects predicted by psychologicalcontract theories), do lead to negative emotional experi-ences.

Porter and Steers (1973) introduced the conceptual ideaof workplace expectations, and subsequent lines oforganizational research suggest a relationship betweenunmet work expectations and outcomes such as organiza-tional commitment, satisfaction, turnover, and absentee-ism (e.g. Greenhaus, Seidel, & Marinis, 1983; Porter &Steers, 1973; Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1991; and Wanous, Poland, Premack, & Davis,1992). But these lines of work, by virtue of their universalemphasis on setting realistic expectations and socializa-tion practices, suggest that the negative effects associatedwith unmet expectations are specifica conscious decisionto withdraw ones effort due to a sense of betrayal orbreach of trust. This historical body of work, though broad,generally ignores the emotions that flow from discon-firmed expectations, as well as the distinct effect apersistent negative emotional state may have on theenergy one directs toward ones work. Though realistic jobpreviews may eliminate the risk of breached trust and theconsequent negative effects, they cannot ameliorate anemployees deep-set normative beliefs about what workshould be.

Need fulfillment expectations and work engagement

Though employees may hold myriad normativeexpectations about work, our theory is primarily focusedon employees response to experiences that confirm, ordisconfirm, their expectations around certain fundamen-tal human needs. We expect that experiences thatconfirm employees need expectations will provide theemotional fuel of work engagement. But employeesemotional response to confirmed and disconfirmed needfulfillment expectations will vary as a function of thegeneral type of need; that is, their emotional response toconfirmed self-expression and authenticity expectations,for example, will differ from their emotional response toconfirmed security expectations. The varying emotionalresponses as a function of need type have importantimplications for understanding the full complexity ofwork engagement. We make no claim regarding the

P.I. Green et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 118 11

general superiority of one form of need over another.Rather, we rely on a distinction between needs asconceptually approach- or avoidance-oriented in nature.This distinctionalong with the inherently differentemotional response to confirmed and disconfirmedexpectations of approach needs relative to avoidanceneedsforms the foundation of our theory.

Approach and avoidance needsNeeds are often categorized as either approach- or

avoidance-oriented in nature (Elliot & Thrash, 2002).Although any need can be pursued from differentorientations (Brockner & Higgins, 2001), approach-oriented needs are those aimed at pursuing a positivestate, whereas avoidance-oriented needs are thoseprecipitated by the desire or drive to avoid some negativeoutcome. Of course, any need can be pursued from eitheran approach or avoidance orientation; however, someneeds may be a better fit with one or the otherorientation. That is, people may more often pursue certainneeds with either an approach or an avoidance motiva-tion. For example,physiological and safety or security needsare often directed toward avoiding harmful experiences,such as physical threats, hunger, and bodily injury. For thesake of explaining how we think approach and avoidanceorientation affects needs at work, we will use safety andsecurityneedsasourexemplar foravoidanceorientation.Foran exemplar for approach orientation, we use self-actuali-zation needs. With their focus on achieving positive stateslike authenticity and self-expression, they are a goodexample of a need that is likely often pursued via approachorientation.

We have argued that work engagement, and theresultant energy and positive behavioral outcomes, are afunction of employees emotional experiences at work.Logically, the positive emotional responses associated withconfirmed expectations will yield higher levels of workengagement than disconfirmed expectations. But thenotion of approach and avoidance needs is central toour theory, as employees emotional experiences inresponse to confirmed (or disconfirmed) need expect-ations is likely to vary as a function of whether theirexpectations are approach- or avoidance-oriented. First,the specific, discrete emotions they experience in responseto interactions with others at work will differ, dependingon whether their expectations are predominately ap-proach- or avoidance-oriented (see Elfenbein, 2007; andScherer & Tran, 2003). This literature suggests, forexample, that confirmed avoidance need expectations willyield experiences of relief, gratefulness, or quiescence,whereas confirmed approach need expectations will yieldexperiences of pride, joy, and excitement. Further, andperhaps more importantly, considering the direct rela-tionship between positive emotional experiences and theexperience of energy, the magnitude of the emotionalexperience will vary as a function of motivationalorientation (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Idson, Liberman,& Higgins, 2000). In the following two sections, wedescribe the prospective differential emotional responsesto confirmed and disconfirmed approach and avoidance

Differential emotional responses to disconfirmed andconfirmed approach and avoidance need expectations

We expect that more intensely experienced negativeemotions will have a more extreme negative effect on theexperiencers sense of energy and consequent workengagement. The negative emotions associated withdisconfirmed avoidance-oriented expectations are experi-enced as relatively more painful than the negativeemotions associated with disconfirmed approach-orientedexpectations (Higgins, Bond, Klein, & Strauman, 1986;Idson et al., 2000). In turn, we expect that employeeswhose avoidance-oriented needs are disconfirmed at workwill be less engaged than those whose approach-orientedneed expectations are disconfirmed. Fig. 1 presents aconceptual graphical representation of the relative effect ofconfirmed/disconfirmed approach/avoidance expectationson work engagement. (The solid line depicts the theoreticalrelative engagement levels for disconfirmed approach- andavoidance-oriented need expectations.)

Notably, this is not to say that employees whoseapproach-oriented needs are disconfirmed will exhibithigher levels of motivated behavior. Within the regulatoryfocus literature, Idson et al. (2000) showed that the moreintense emotional experience associated with discon-firmed prevention goals yielded greater motivated behav-ioral tendencies than the negative emotional experiencesassociated with disconfirmed promotion goals. If suchprocesses work similarly with avoidance goals, we wouldexpect that because the pain associated with disconfirmedavoidance oriented is so great, employees will be stronglymotivated to mitigate the pain and correct the discrepancy.But that motivation will not result from the positiveexperience of energy characteristic of work engagement.

We further expect that more intensely experiencedpositive emotions will have a more extreme positive effecton the experiencers sense of energy and consequent workengagement. Again borrowing from the regulatory focusliterature, we can assume that the positive emotionsassociated with confirmed approach-oriented expect-ations are experienced as more intensely pleasurable thanthe positive emotions associated with confirmed avoid-ance-oriented expectations (Brockner & Higgins, 2001;Higgins et al., 1986; Idson et al., 2000). In turn, we expectthat employees whose approach-oriented needs are

Fig. 1. Prospective effect of confirmed and disconfirmed need fulfillment

ctations on work engagement.

need expectations. expe

12 P.I. Green et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 118

confirmed at work will be more engaged than those whoseavoidance-oriented need expectations are confirmed (seethe dotted line in Fig. 1).

Collectively, we expect that confirmed need fulfillmentexpectations will positively influence work engagement,but that there is a particular energy premium associatedwith confirmed approach-oriented expectations such asauthentic self-expression. These theoretical arguments, byextension, carry further implications for organizations,particularly when considering partial confirmation ofemployee expectations.

Between-individual expectation differencesEmployees bring varying expectations of need fulfill-

ment to their work. As we argued above, normativeexpectations of need fulfillment at work are likely theproduct of social norms, upbringing, and perhaps socio-economic background. A central question, then, is how willemployees with differing expectations of work respond tovarious organizational contexts?

Imagine, for example, that two employees join anorganization that offers a high degree of financial and jobsecurity in an industry considered safe and with organiza-tional leaders who work to build a psychologically safecultural environment. In short, they join an organizationwhere employees are likely to experience the avoidance-oriented expectations around safety and security asconfirmed. The first employee has relatively narrowexpectations of work that are focused on safety andsecurity. The second employee has further expectations,namely the approach-oriented expectations of authenticself-expression. Our theory logically suggests that thesecond employee, though immersed in exactly the sameorganizational context as the first, will experiencerelatively lower levels of work engagement than the firstemployee.

Individuals are immersed in organizational contextsfull of stimuli. Expectations serve as attention filters thatguide information-search behaviors, effectively primingindividuals to seek and focus on evidence that confirms (ordisconfirms) their expectations (Elfenbein, 2007; Izard,1993; Scherer & Tran, 2003). This insight is particularlyrelevant in understanding the potentially consequentialeffect of relatively mundane experiences at work onemployee emotions and work engagement. Our expect-ations increase our sensitivity to interactions that appearto confirm, or disconfirm, those expectations.

By this logic, we would expect the second of ourhypothetical employeesthe one who brings expectationsof authentic self-expression to workto experiencerelatively more negative emotions than the first employee,who only brings expectations of safety and security towork. Though immersed in the same organizationalcontext as the first employee, the second employee willhave a fundamentally different emotional experience,primarily because he is attentive to, and actively searchingfor, experiences that confirm his approach-orientedexpectations.

Similarly, we might expect organizational efforts tofulfill needs not reflected in employees expectations ofwork to yield relatively marginal positive results. Because

expectations focus attention and sensitize employees toconfirming or disconfirming experiences at work, it ispossible the organizational efforts to enable authentic self-expressive experiences may not yield the increases in workengagement for some that they would for individuals whobring expectations of authentic self-expression to work.Conversely, our review in the next section suggests variouspositive direct effects associated with the experience ofauthentic self-expression, effects independent of any effecton work engagement. It is possible that, over time,employees may come to expand their expectation set,leading to longer-term increases in work engagement.

Our theoretical reasoning brings us to the realizationthat approach-oriented needs have both great positive andnegative potential. But in what ways do organizationsconfirm, or disconfirm, employees expectations abouttheir ability to obtain authentic self-expression at work?

Organizational features and confirmation ordisconfirmation of approach-oriented expectations

Even without intending to do so, organizations oftendisconfirm employees expectations. In particular, thestructures and norms of many modern organizationsmake it particularly difficult for them to confirm ap-proach-oriented expectations related to authentic self-expression. To the degree that employees bring expect-ations of authentic self-expression to work, the prospec-tive costs associated with disconfirmation, and the benefitsassociated with confirmation, compel a deeper examina-tion of the ways in which organizations disconfirm orconfirm these approach-oriented expectations. In thefollowing sections, we review evidence suggesting arelationship between structural or contextual featuresand the experience of authentic self-expressionthe needwe are using as our example of a need typically pursued inan approach orientation. We begin by briefly defining anddescribing work on authentic self-expression.

Authentic self-expression

Maslow, in describing the need for what he called self-actualization, refers to the human desire to become moreand more what one is, to become everything that one iscapable of becoming (Maslow, 1943: 384). Fulfillment ofthis expressive need to become ones unique self and to bevalued as such takes different forms for differentindividuals. Authentic self-expression is the fulfillmentof an individuals sense of who they are in words, action,and the relational value others place on the authenticallyexpressed self.

Authentic self-expression has been associated withincreased creativity and innovation. In group settings,authentic self-expression can improve performance, acti-vating the often-dormant benefits associated with diver-sity (Polzer, Milton, & Swarm, 2002). Individuals who areable to express their true self at work should experiencereduced exhaustion and emotional depletion (Grandey,2003; Hewlin, 2003, 2009). Nevertheless, relatively littlehas been written about authentic self-expression in theworkplace, in large part because traditional organizational

P.I. Green et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 118 13

processes and structures are not ideally suited forfulfillment of this need. Concerned with minimizingvariance, bureaucratic forms of organizing demand thatemployees conform to explicit processes, protocols, andprocedures (Taylor, 2011; Weber, Henderson, & Parsons,1947) in performing their jobs. In search of differentiationand competitive advantage, an organization encouragesitsemployees to behave in ways consistent with theorganizations value proposition and works to cultivateshared cultural norms and values that pressure individu-als to align their thinking and behavior with the leadersvision (OReilly & Chatman, 1996; Pratt, 2000; Schein,2010). When onboarding new employees, organizationsexpose them to socialization experiences that aredesigned to reduce ambiguity about appropriate behav-iors in the workplaceand that serve to quickly andeffectively mold individuals thinking and actions toensure uniformity and predictability (Van Maanen &Schein, 1979). And, because organizations are conceptu-alized as instruments aimed at achieving a specific goalthat employees do not necessarily intrinsically value(Barnard, 1968), organizations attempt to influenceemployees to internalize such goals (Kelman, 1958;OReilly & Chatman, 1986; OReilly & Chatman, 1996).

These various organizational practices together serve toimpress an organizational identity and behavioral code onindividuals while suppressing their unique identities(Nicholson, 1984; Sherif, 1958). In the process, employeesinevitably will experience a sense of inauthenticity, anexperience antithetical to authentic self-expression (Cable,Gino, & Staats, 2013). There is a clear psychological cost tothe enforced suppression of individuality and authenticself-expression within the workplace. People who sup-press their authentic selves in deference to organizationalstrictures feel alienated from the self (Grandey, 2003;Roberts, 2012), can be exhausted by the cognitive effortassociated with suppressing the self (Hewlin, 2003, 2009),and can even experience a sense of immorality andimpurity resulting from a sense that they are beinguntruthful with their self (Gino, Kouchaki, & Galinsky,2015). More generally, these relatively common organiza-tional practicesstrong socialization processes, a strongfocus on process adherence, and demands for uniformityand conformityhamper employees ability to authenti-cally self-express in organizational settings (Cable et al.,2013).

Organizational characteristics and authentic self-expression

The need for self-expression in service of realizing self-actualization is grounded in our human desire fordistinctiveness. We desire, in part, to see ourselves asunique and distinct human beings, meaningfully differentfrom others (Brewer, 2003). This desire for distinctivenessis likely related to our desire for a meaningful existencetofeel that we matter to the world and exist for a specific andimportant purpose; if we see ourselves as perfectlyindistinct, we cannot credibly believe that our purposeis meaningful and valued (Baumeister, Vohs, Aaker, &Garbinsky, 2013; McAdams, 2013). Our search for distinc-tiveness is, in part, relationally fulfilled. Our value to the

world is an abstract reflection of the degree to which weare doing something important for others and areappreciated by them. In short, we need our unique self-view to be reflected within our social environment (Swann,1983; Swann & Read, 1981).

Strong cultural norms, socialization processes, and anexplicit organizational demand for uniformity serve notonly to repress individuals ability to act in authenticallyself-expressive ways, but also as a signal to others of anindividuals social value. These organizational systemsshape not only individuals behavior but also their sharedvalue assessment of others non-conforming behavior. Toenable the fulfillment of employees need for authenticself-expression, organizations must create environmentshospitable to diverse and varied individuals. It is notenough to simply allow individuals to be themselves;organizations must also enable interpersonal relationshipsthat signal the individual value of a persons distinctivecontribution, characteristics, and passions.

Many employees find some measure of social accep-tance through collective social identity. Strong cultures,socialization processes, and inspirational, purpose-focusedleadership all help employees embrace, and feel embracedby, a collective social identity. Paradoxically, individualssocial value is a reflection of the degree to which theysuppress the self and exhibit collectively valued attributes.Conversely, authentic self-expression demands that indi-viduals develop a sense that their social value as areflection of their idiosyncrasies, not merely of theirconformity to collectively valued attributes. Organization-al practices such as those described above establish anorganizational code (as formalized processes, uniformitynorms, and socialization practices) that signals that anindividuals value is a reflection of minimized deviancefrom that organizational code. This dominant sense ofwhat is valued will, in turn, influence the nature ofemployees relational interactions.

In short, organizational norms or expressed values caninfluence the degree to which employees idiosyncrasiesare embraced and accepted. Cable et al. (2013) provided avivid example of the way in which onboarding processesprovide an early experience that serves to repress employ-ees sense of authenticity. They showed that a simple best-self exercise, conducted during the onboarding process,leads to increased performance and reduced turnoverafunction of the employees authenticity. Similar policiesand practices should serve to impress the validity andvalue of employees idiosyncrasies, and decrease thelikelihood that interpersonal interactions impose pressureto conform.

Discussion

We have argued here for the resurgence of the study ofneed fulfillment at work. Work motivation theories havewell articulated how the discomfort associated withunmet needs can carry motivating potential. But multipleveins of organizational study suggest a desire for theorylinking positive experiences and motivated behavior. Ourtheory begins with a review of the work engagementliterature, which has suffered from a crisis of construct

14 P.I. Green et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 118

clarity (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Rothbard & Patil,2012).Although the literature is broad and expansive, and thereexists a commonly cited definition, the characterizations ofthe construct are not always aligned, leading to anamorphous and indistinct construct. This opens the doorto criticisms of construct overlap and leads to practicalchallenges to empirically examining the nature of theconstruct (Suddaby, 2010). We have attempted, in ourexamination of the work engagement literature, to capturethe key distinct attributes reflected across the swath ofwork engagement research and to add clarity to the precisenature of work engagement.

Our review points to engagement as a construct that iscentral to understanding the motivational potential ofpositive experiences and fulfilling experiences at work.Our review of the work engagement literature points tothree critical and distinguishing attributes. First, weidentified the key attribute of energy that is so prevalentin much of the work engagement literature (Macey &Schneider, 2008; Rich et al., 2010; Rothbard, 2001;Rothbard & Patil, 2012) and explicit in the definition ofwork engagement (Schaufeli, Salanova et al., 2002).Second, we identified that positive emotional experiencesare the source of the energy so key to the sustenance ofwork engagement, reflecting the many past suggestionsthat work engagement is emotionally facilitated (e.g.Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Kahn, 1990, 1992; Rich et al.,2010; Rothbard & Patil, 2012). Finally, we argued that workengagement has been systematically theorized or empiri-cally demonstrated as a behavioral phenomenonanexperience leading to important positive organizationaloutcomes (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Rich et al., 2010).

Our hope is that this summaryand clarified construct willmotivate research across various streams. Although there isevidence of the positive effect of work engagement on jobperformance, we believe that a refined conceptual constructwill enable more focused empirical examinations of thedownstream performance consequences of work engage-ment. Our arguments further propose a conceptual pathwayfor the motivational effects of relationshipsa particularlyexciting line of study, in our opinion. We hope that scholarswill embrace the construct of work engagement as apossible pathway through which enhancing relationshipsat work can yield increased performance. We also hope thatthis work will add to the growing line of relationalmotivation literature (e.g. Grant, 2007; Grant & Ashford,2008), as well as literature expressly acknowledging therelational nature of work engagement (Dutton & Heaphy,2003; Rothbard & Patil,2012).

This conceptualization of work engagement alsoprovides an important springboard for describing thetheoretical relationship between positive emotional expe-riences at work and motivated behavior. Specifically, theview of work engagement as an experience of energy,sourced by emotional experiences, helps to clarify therelationship between needs and positive organizationalbehaviors. Specifically, we have argued that employeeneed fulfillment expectations predict work engagement.Employees expectations of need fulfillment at workbecome an ideal state against which they gauge theirroutine, daily workplace interactions. Those interactions

serve as evidence confirming or disconfirming employeesexpectations and consequently yield discrete emotionalexperiences, which either stimulate or drain employeesenergy. We hope that these theoretical arguments andproposed relationships inspire further empirical investi-gation directed at confirming and extending our theoreti-cal arguments.

This paper is also a call for further empirical researchexploring the means by which organizations can moresystematically confirm employees expectations of au-thentic self-expression. Our theory claims particularlypositive effects associated with confirmation of approach-oriented expectations related to needs like authentic self-expression; firms that can systematically enable confir-mation of these expectations should inspire higher levelsof engagement among their employees.

On a more somber note, our theoretical predictionspoint to particularly negative effects associated withdisconfirmed expectations of authentic self-expression.To be sure, disconfirmed avoidance expectations will morenegatively impact work engagement than disconfirmedapproach expectationsthere is certainly ample reason fororganizations to attend to confirmation of safety andsecurity expectations. But our theory suggests thatdisconfirmed approach expectations, even in an environ-ment that provides ample confirmation of avoidanceexpectations, will still yield disengagement. The variousexpectations are not additive; an employee carryingapproach-oriented expectations into an organizationproviding only confirmation of avoidance expectationswill likely experience lower levels of work engagementthan an employee in the same environment who onlycarries avoidance-oriented expectations into the work-place. This becomes particularly important when werecognize that many common organizational systemsare, unfortunately, not conducive to confirming ap-proach-leaning needs such as those for authentic self-expression. Managers and coworkers measure employeevalue, explicitly and implicitly, based on conformity tosocially accepted norms, and they demand conformity tospecified roles, patterns of behaviors, and normsall ofwhich enable a broader span of managerial control butrepress employees ability to authentically express them-selves through their work.

We believe that general societal trends have contribut-ed to a broad shift in individuals normative expectations ofwork. For decades, organizational scholarship has assumedthat employees might look to work as a source of morethan a mere paycheck. But recent trends suggest amounting pressure to allow employees to fulfill authenticself-expressive needs (e.g. Hochschild, 1997; Pratt &Ashforth, 2003; Wrzesniewski, 2003; Wrzesniewski &Dutton, 2001). Employees increasingly look to work as adomain in which to find meaning and fulfill callingsasense, consistent with self-expressive needs, that one isuniquely and specifically intended to achieve someidiosyncratic purpose in life (Berg, Grant, & Johnson,2010; Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Wrzesniewski,McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997).

We find it telling that more extreme cases of high levelsof work engagement, as reported in the popular press,

P.I. Green et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 118 15

often seem to coincide with departures from traditionalorganizational forms. The academic literature, too, hasbecome increasingly fascinated with atypical organiza-tional forms, in part because many of these organizationsseem intently focused on creating positive and fulfillingenvironments, and are marked by extremely engagedemployee populations. Lee and Edmondson (2017), forexample, motivate their examination of three decentral-ized, non-hierarchical organizations in part with theproposition that employees increasingly look for greaterlevels of fulfillment than traditional organizational formscan provide. We concur; as we have suggested above,employees increasingly expect work to fulfill approach-oriented authentic self-expression needs, expectationsthat traditional organizational forms and practices are notadequately prepared to fulfill. We hope this work willmotivate further study of the structural means by whichorganizations can enable the sorts of interactions thatconfirm employees authentic self-expression needs.

The inadequacy of traditional forms for the fulfillmentof authentic self-expression at work has other importantimplications for scholarly study. Because of this challenge,organizations devote significant time and