The Attitudinal, Behavioral, and Performance Outcomes of Work Engagement: A Comparative Meta-Analysis Across the Public, Semipublic, and Private Sector

• Author: Rick T. Borst,Christiaan J. Lako,Michiel S. de Vries,Peter M. Kruyen
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X19840399
• Published date: 01 December 2020
• Date: 01 December 2020
• Published By: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19840399

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2020, Vol. 40(4) 613 –640

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X19840399

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

The Attitudinal, Behavioral,

and Performance Outcomes

of Work Engagement: A

Comparative Meta-Analysis

Across the Public, Semipublic,

and Private Sector

Rick T. Borst1, Peter M. Kruyen2, Christiaan J. Lako2,

and Michiel S. de Vries2

Abstract

Eager to learn from private sector trends, practitioners in (semi)public organizations

across the world have recently turned their eyes to the concept of work engagement

to improve employee performance. Studies in the private sector show that work

engagement is a more robust predictor of performance than, for example, satisfaction.

The goal of this study is to find out whether the effects of work engagement on

attitudinal, behavioral, and performance outcomes within the semipublic and

public sector are also as high as expected and whether these relationships differ

between the public, semipublic, and private sector. The results of the cross-sectoral

meta-analysis of 130 studies showed that the most noticeable significant sectoral

differences can be found in the mean work engagement and the effects of work

engagement on the level of attitudinal outcomes (job satisfaction and commitment)

and behavioral outcomes (workaholism and turnover intention).

Keywords

work engagement, performance, meta-analysis, comparative, behavioral outcomes,

attitudes

1Utrecht University School of Governance, The Netherlands

2Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Rick T. Borst, Assistant professor, School of Governance, Utrecht University, Bijlhouwerstraat 6,

3511 ZC Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Email: r.t.borst@uu.nl

840399ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X19840399Review of Public Personnel AdministrationBorst et al.

research-article2019

614 Review of Public Personnel Administration 40(4)

Introduction

Eager to learn from private sector trends, practitioners in public and semipublic

organizations across the world have recently turned their eyes to the concept of

work engagement to improve employee performance (e.g., Cotton, 2012; Jansen,

van den Brink, & Kole, 2010; Kernaghan, 2011; Lavigna, 2013). Work engage-

ment is a positive psychological concept defined as “[ . . . ] a positive, fulfilling,

work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorp-

tion” (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002, p. 74). Since studies

in the private sector show that work engagement is the most robust predictor of

performance outcomes (e.g., Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011), it has become

a very important factor for scholars and practitioners in the field of Human

Resource Management (HRM; Albrecht, Bakker, Gruman, Macey, & Saks, 2015).

However, public HRM research on work engagement in general and on the rela-

tionship with performance outcomes in particular has been quite limited (Borst,

Kruyen, & Lako, 2017; Kernaghan, 2011; Vigoda-Gadot, Eldor, & Schohat, 2013).

Nevertheless, in recent times it is expected of public and semipublic employees

in many countries to perform better with fewer resources, facing an increasingly

critical public opinion and emotionally demanding environments (Liu, Yang, &

Yu, 2015; Tummers, Kruyen, Vijverberg, & Voesenek, 2015; Uggadan & Park,

2017). Due to these more stringent conditions nowadays, several scholars question

whether it is still enough to focus on common well-being factors such as satisfac-

tion and commitment to reach high performance as these factors are indicative of

being calm, content, and relaxed (Tummers, Steijn, Nevicka, & Heerema, 2018;

Uggadan & Park, 2017). As a result, satisfied and committed employees might not

reach their full potential but instead become passive without much initiative

(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010; Tummers et al., 2018). However, instead, it is argued

that “public and semipublic managers need their employees to be proactive and

dedicated, and feel energetic in their work to reach high performance—i.e., these

organizations need engaged workers” (Borst, 2018, p. 287). That is, it is expected

that work engagement is positively related to good service provision, the improve-

ment of client satisfaction, and quality of service (Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2013).

Work engagement is therefore potentially the answer to the main challenge in the

public and semipublic sector today, namely, performance enhancement (Vigoda-

Gadot et al., 2013).

Numerous scholars, however, have contested whether work engagement demon-

strates similar beneficial effects in the public and semipublic sector in comparison

with the private sector (Akingbola & Van den Berg, 2019; Bailey, Madden, Alfes,

& Fletcher, 2017; Noesgaard & Hansen, 2018). In particular, empirical studies have

highlighted characteristics specific to the public and semipublic sector that are

likely to result in possible deviant effects of work engagement on employee out-

comes, including red tape, frequent changes of political leadership, and the diver-

gent motivations to work as a public servant (Borst, 2018; Lavigna, 2013; Perry &

Vandenabeele, 2015). Thus, the question arises as to what degree the positive