Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis.

By James K. Harter, Frank L. Schmidt, Theodore L. Hayes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002

5,033 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ef4784551509456237a2ba2926e30eecf485a456

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 Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Citations in the corpus

Transformational Leadership and Performance Across Criteria and Levels: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Research (2011, background): “As noted by Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002), “unit-level research also provides opportunities to establish linkages to outcomes that are directly relevant to most businesses . . . item-level measurement error is less of a concern” and has direct implications for “issues on which managers can…”
Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. (2009, background): “Discussion Previous research indicates that work engagement is associated with positive outcomes, such as increased job satisfaction, stronger organizational commitment, and weaker intentions to quit (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008; Harter et al., 2002; Saks, 2006).”
A model of satisfaction with open-plan office conditions: COPE field findings (2007, methodology): “ Harter et al. (2002) conducted a meta-analysis on 198,514 employees from 7,939 business-units in 36 companies, to examine the relationships between employee satisfaction and organisational outcomes.”
Consequences of the performance appraisal experience (2010, methodology): “Job satisfaction has been used as a measure of employee wellbeing (Green., 2004) and has also been associated with employee productivity and safety (Harter et al., 2002).”
High performance work practices, employee outcomes and organizational performance: a 2-1-2 multilevel mediation analysis (2018, background): “This type of management–employee exchange relationship has practical implications, more so in health care settings, as positive employee attitudes and behaviours are essential for employees’ work efficacy (Harter et al., 2002).”
Work engagement and workaholism: comparing the self-employed and salaried employees (2010, methodology): “On a more aggregate level, and using a different measure of work engagement, Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002) demonstrated that employees’ levels of engagement are positively related to business-unit performance (for example, customer loyalty, profit, and productivity).”
What Do We Really Know About Employee Engagement (2014, methodology): “In fact, at least seven different scales have been developed to measure engagement [not including Gallup’s engagement survey (Harter et al., 2002), which is really a measure of management practices, or the Maslach Burnout Inventory or the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory, which have also been used]: Roth”
Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. (2004, positive): “High scores on the GWA mean that employees have positive perceptions of the work environment, which leads to a high internal motivational state that Harter et al. (2002) labeled employee engagement.”
Humble Chief Executive Officers’ Connections to Top Management Team Integration and Middle Managers’ Responses (2014, background): “These three responses reflect a comprehensive assessment of attitudes and behaviors that potentially contribute to individual and organizational effectiveness (Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes, 2002).”
Development and application of a new measure of employee engagement: the ISA Engagement Scale (2012, background): “Empirical evidence supports this (Halbesleben and Wheeler 2008; Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes 2002; Salanova et al. 2003; Schaufeli and Bakker 2004; Schaufeli, Martı́nez, et al. 2002; Schaufeli, Salanova, et al. 2002).”
How Do Developmental and Accommodative HRM Enhance Employee Engagement and Commitment? The Role of Psychological Contract and SOC Strategies (2013, background): “Hence, both engagement and commitment are important predictors of job performance (Harter et al., 2002; Kuvaas, 2008).”