Personality and Job Engagement

By I. Inceoglu, P. Warr. 2011

148 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/62d8e0c3b1c84f34c8d347204c2f2f94f932c119

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Heavy work investment, personality and organizational climate (2016, background): “Two studies found that – after controlling for socio-demographic factors – work engagement was explained by neuroticism and conscientiousness (Inceoglu and Warr, 2011; Kim et al., 2009).”
Engagement, boredom, and burnout among students : Basic need satisfaction matters more than personality traits (2015, methodology): “Also, it has been argued that the active subfacets of extraversion, rather than the global dimension, are significantly related to engagement (Inceoglu & Warr, 2012).”
Team–Member Exchange and Work Engagement: Does Personality Make a Difference? (2013, background): “, social potency vs achievement-orientation, respectively) accounted for the dispositional influence on work engagement, more so than the less activated sub-factors—the affiliation versus dependability component, respectively for extraversion versus conscientiousness (Inceoglu and Warr 2011).”
The engageable personality: Personality and trait EI as predictors of work engagement (2015, background): “Similarly, Inceoglu and Warr (2011) found that low levels of neuroticism and high levels of extraversion predicted employee engagement.”
Employee engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage (2015, background): “With respect to a strategic HR focus on engagement as a source of competitive advantage, the potential utility of selection processes has largely been neglected (Inceoglu and Warr, 2011).”
Definitional and Conceptual Muddling: Identifying the Positionality of Employee Engagement and Defining the Construct (2017, background): “Three studies developed specific measures of job engagement (Inceoglu & Warr, 2011; Rich et al., 2010; Warr & Inceoglu, 2012); however, two of these studies (Inceoglu & Warr, 2011; Warr & Inceoglu, 2012) based the development of their scales on work by Schaufeli and his colleagues rather than on…”
Personality, self-efficacy and job resources and their associations with employee engagement, affective commitment and turnover intentions (2020, background): “Consistent with the narrow trait approach, Inceoglu and Warr (2011) found that social potency (a facet of extraversion) and that the ‘vigorous’ and ‘achieving’ sub-facets of achievement orientation (a facet of conscientiousness) were significantly associated with engagement.”