Although the construct of work engagement has been extensively explored, a systematic meta-analysis based on a consistent categorization of engagement antecedents, outcomes, and well-being correlates is still lacking. The results of prior research reporting 533 correlations from 113 independent samples (k = 94, n = 119,420) were coded using a meta-analytic approach. The effect size for development resources (r = .45) and personal resources (r = .48) was higher than for social resources (r = .36) and for job resources (r = .37). Among the outcomes and well-being correlates explored, the effect size was highest for job satisfaction (r = .60) and commitment (r = .63). Furthermore, moderation analysis showed that (a) concerning the occupational role, work engagement finds a low association with turnover intention among civil servants, volunteer workers, and educators; (b) collectivist cultural environments reported a greater association of feedback with engagement than individualistic environments; (c) the relationship between personal resources and engagement was stronger among workers with university degrees than workers with high school diplomas. Furthermore, the absorption dimension showed a lower effect with all variables under investigation than vigor and dedication.

Most research on the effect of leadership behavior on employees’ well-being and organizational outcomes is based on leadership frameworks that are not rooted in sound psychological theories of motivation and are limited to either an individual or organizational levels of analysis. The current paper investigates whether individual and team resources explain the impact of engaging leadership on work engagement and team effectiveness, respectively. Data were collected at two time points on N = 1,048 employees nested within 90 work teams. The Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling results revealed that personal resources (i.e., optimism, resiliency, self-efficacy, and flexibility) partially mediated the impact of T1 individual perceptions of engaging leadership on T2 work engagement. Furthermore, joint perceptions of engaging leadership among team members at T1 resulted in greater team effectiveness at T2. This association was fully mediated by team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making). Moreover, team resources had a significant cross-level effect on individual levels of engagement. In practical terms, training and supporting leaders who inspire, strengthen, and connect their subordinates could significantly improve employees’ motivation and involvement and enable teams to pursue their common goals successfully.

As the aging population and workforce constitute a worldwide concern, it is becoming necessary to predict how the dual threat of aging and technology at work increases the job vulnerability of older workers and jeopardizes their employability and permanence in the labor market. The objective of this paper is twofold: (1) to analyze perceptions of artificial intelligence, robotics, and automation in work settings and the expected impact of these technologies on older workers to contextualize this emergent phenomenon; and (2) to propose a general model related to “Aging-and-Tech Job Vulnerability” to explain and predict the combined effect of aging and AI/robotics/automation on job insecurity and additional outcomes among older workers. The propositions of the Age-and-Tech Job Vulnerability model developed in this paper seek to present a first approach for the conceptual advance and research on this emerging phenomenon and entails several theoretical and practical implications for organizational psychology.

Purpose: – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate whether employees’ tendency to work excessive hours is motivated by the perception of a work environment that encourages overwork (overwork climate). Thus, this study introduces a self-report questionnaire aimed at assessing the perception of a psychological climate for overwork in the workplace. Design/methodology/approach: – In Study 1, the overwork climate scale (OWCS) was developed and evaluated using principal component analysis (n=395) and confirmatory factor analysis (n=396). In Study 2, the total sample (n=791) was used to explore the association of the overwork climate with opposite types of working hard (work engagement and workaholism). Findings: – Two overwork climate dimensions were distinguished, namely, overwork endorsement and lacking overwork rewards. The lack of overwork rewards was negatively associated with engagement, whereas workaholism showed a strong positive association with overwork endorsement. These relationships remained significant after controlling for the impact of psychological job demands. Research limitations/implications: – The findings rely on self-report data and a cross-sectional design. Practical implications: – The perception of a work environment that encourages overwork but does not allocate additional compensation seems to foster workaholism. Moreover, the inadequacy of overwork rewards constitutes a lack of resources that negatively affect employees’ engagement. Originality/value: – This study represents one of the first attempts to develop a questionnaire aimed at assessing a psychological climate for overwork and to explore whether the perception of this type of climate may be significantly related to workaholism and work engagement.

Interventions to improve mental health can target individuals, working groups, their leaders, or organisations, also known as the Individual, Group, Leader, and Organisational (IGLO) levels of intervention. Evaluating such interventions in organisational settings is complex and requires sophisticated evaluation designs taking into account the intervention process. In the present systematic literature review, we present state of the-art of quantitative measures of process evaluation. We identified 39 papers. We found that measures had been developed to explore the organisational context, the intervention design, and the mental models of the intervention and its activities. Quantitative process measures are often poorly validated, and only around half of the studies linked the process to intervention outcomes. Fifteen studies used mixed methods for process evaluation. Most often, a qualitative process evaluation was used to understand unexpected intervention outcomes. Despite the existence of theoretical process evaluation frameworks, these were not often employed, and even when included, frameworks were rarely acknowledged, and only selected elements were included. Based on our synthesis, we propose a new framework for evaluating interventions, the Integrative Process Evaluation Framework (IPEF), together with reflections on how we may optimise the use of quantitative process evaluation in conjunction with a qualitative process evaluation.