This position paper introduces the emerging concept of work engagement: a positive, fulfilling, affective-motivational state of work-related well-being that is characterized by vigour, dedication, and absorption. Although there are different views of work engagement, most scholars agree that engaged employees have high levels of energy and identify strongly with their work. The most often used instrument to measure engagement is the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, a self-report instrument that has been validated in many countries across the world. Research on engagement has investigated how engagement differs from related concepts (e.g., workaholism, organizational commitment), and has focused on the most important predictors of work engagement. These studies have revealed that engagement is a unique concept that is best predicted by job resources (e.g., autonomy, supervisory coaching, performance feedback) and personal resources (e.g., optimism, self-efficacy, self-esteem). Moreover, the first studies have shown that work engagement is predictive of job performance and client satisfaction. The paper closes with an account of what we do not know about work engagement, and offers a brief research agenda for future work.

This study addressed the methodological quality of longitudinal research examining R. Karasek and T. Theorell's (1990) demand-control-(support) model and reviewed the results of the best of this research. Five criteria for evaluating methodological quality were used: type of design, length of time lags, quality of measures, method of analysis, and nonresponse analysis. These criteria were applied to 45 longitudinal studies, of which 19 (42%) obtained acceptable scores on all criteria. These high-quality studies provided only modest support for the hypothesis that especially the combination of high demands and low control results in high job strain. However, good evidence was found for lagged causal effects of work characteristics, especially for self-reported health or well-being outcomes.

In this edition of Work & Stress, Kristensen and his colleagues critically discuss the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and present an alternative, more general instrument to measure burnout that exclusively focuses on exhaustion. Here we critically examine their reasons for developing a new burnout measure, as well as the theoretical foundations of this measure. Whereas we agree with Kristensen et al.'s remarks concerning the availability and item wording of the MBI, we do not share their concerns regarding its theoretical underpinnings. In our view, burnout should be conceptualized as a primarily work-related syndrome of (at least) exhaustion and depersonalization/cynicism. The MBI would seem to fit that conceptualization very well.