


































UAFS Advances in Business Research 2012 LOWREZ (2).pdf


Dawsey and Taylor                                                                                                                                                       Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 63-71 

63 

 

Empirical Evidence of Active Engagement and Active Disengagement in an Organizational 

Setting 
 

Joseph Dawsey, Piedmont College 

Edward Taylor, Piedmont College 
 

 

This study provides empirical evidence supporting the notion that a continuum of behaviors range from one end 

point named active disengagement to another end point named active engagement. We utilized a previously 

analyzed data set and found support for the existence of the engagement continuum and in addition, we found 

support for the idea that the analytical lens of this continuum improves our understanding of the relationships 

between commonly used measures of citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, and psychological bonding.  

One final result of this analysis is the decoupling of the model from references to OCBs and extra-role behavior as 

articulated in the OCB research stream by recognizing that the theoretical grounding of the engagement model and 

the original OCB model was Katz and Kahn (1978). 
 

 

Disengagement in an Organizational Setting 
 

Interest in the phenomenon of employee engagement has gained in both attention and awareness since it was first 

introduced into the scholarly literature more than twenty years ago (e.g., Kahn, 1990; 1992). What does it mean to 

be engaged or even fully engaged at work? What is employee engagement? Over the years, researchers have 

produced a myriad of definitions and approaches (e.g., Macey & Schneider, 2008; Pfeffer, 2007), and seemingly 

these definitions have only been matched in variety and intensity in the works of practitioners and the popular press 

(Baron, 2005; Gallup, 2001; Krueger & Killham, 2005, 2006). In many ways, it is perhaps the popularity of the 

concept of employee engagement that has contributed to its somewhat inconsistent lineage. The search for a 

definition of employee engagement might be likened to encountering a chimera for the first time. At once we are 

fascinated by the multifaceted and idiosyncratic nature of the constituent components of the beast, and yet, we are 

equally horrified, and perhaps underwhelmed, with the loosely configured overall result. Instinctively, almost all 

managers know that they want to achieve a certain level of engagement with all employees but frequently find 

themselves baffled by inconsistent results.  

Building upon this awareness, recent articles in the human resource development (HRD) literature have 

generated equally increasing interest in the concept of employee engagement in the workplace (e.g., Fairlie, 2011; 

Shuck, 2011; Shuck & Herd, 2012; Shuck & Wollard, 2010). At the same time, this burgeoning interest has also 

seemingly generated as many questions about employee engagement has have been answered in the scholarly 

literature. As a construct, employee engagement appears to have loosely coalesced from observations originating 

from practitioner articles (e.g., Gallup, 2001) and the popular press with some growing interest among academic 

researchers. These parallel discussions have also created what might be thought of as two lines of thought about 

employee engagement. The popular discussion, based primarily on anecdotal observations, has focused on the 

economic effects of having engaged employees in the workplace. Alongside the popular discussion, the academic 

literature has concentrated on aspects of what it means to be either engaged or disengaged. One of the most notable 

early efforts at conceptualizing employee engagement was Kahn’s (1990) article describing personal engagement 

and personal disengagement. Kahn’s (1990) definition of personal engagement highlighted the cognitive, emotional, 

and behavioral aspects of engagement as “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s ‘preferred 

self’ in task behaviors that promote connections to others personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional), 

and active full role performances” (p. 700). This definition is interesting because it incorporates the full extent of 

personal presence, (including physical, cognitive, and emotional qualities) along with the notion of full roll 

performance. The nature of role performance and role characteristics is not a new discussion in either the 

organizational behavior or the HRD literatures; the manner in which workers assume and perform various roles in 

the workplace has been explored for some time (e.g., Blauner, 1964; Graen, 1976; Kahn, 1990, 1992; Katz & Kahn, 

1978; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Merton, 1968). By incorporating role performance into his definition of personal 

engagement, Kahn (1990) was attempting to address what he perceived to be a lack of contextual considerations 

(e.g., Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997) surrounding the discussions of employee 

engagement.  

A variety of research efforts have examined similar constructs including the motivational factors surrounding job 

involvement (Hackman, 1969; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959; Maslow, 1950; Vroom, 1995), the 



Dawsey and Taylor                                                                                                                                                       Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 63-71 

64 

 

psychological elements (Kahn, 1990, 1992; Katz & Kahn, 1978), the emotional elements (Hochschild, 1979, 

2003/1983; Maslach, 2003; Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter, 2001) and the extended or SRB elements (Dalal, 2005; 

Grant, 2007; Lee & Allen, 2000; Organ, 1988; Smith, Organ & Near, 1983). Macey and Schneider (2008), in one of 

the major conceptual reviews of emotional labor identified the general types of engagement that lead to the 

development of employee engagement: trait engagement; state engagement; and behavioral engagement. All of this 

points toward something of an evolving, yet still very unclear positioning of employee engagement. This lack of 

clarity is further highlighted in Shuck and Wollard’s (2010) summary of employee engagement definitions (p. 101): 
 

  “Personal engagement is the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s ‘preferred self’ in task 

behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence, and active full role performances” 

(Kahn, 1990, p. 700). 

  “A persistent, positive affective-motivational state of fulfillment in employees that is characterized by high 

levels of activation and pleasure” (Maslach et al., 2001, p. 417). 

  “Employee engagement refers to the individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for 

work” (Harter et al., 2002, p. 269). 

  “A distinct and unique construct that consists of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components that is 

associated with individual role performance” (Saks, 2006, p. 602). 

  “[Engaged] employees are mentally and emotionally invested in their work and in contributing to their 

employer’s success” (Czarnowsky, 2008, p. 6).  

  Trait engagement is defined as the “inclination or orientation to experience the work from a particular vantage 

point” (Macey & Schneider, 2008, p. 5). Psychological state engagement is defined as an antecedent to 

behavioral engagement (encompassing the constructs of satisfaction, involvement, commitment, and 

empowerment; pp. 5-6). Behavioral engagement is “define[d] in terms of discretionary effort” (p. 6). 
 

Even though conversations addressing employee engagement have now been around for over twenty years, there 

has remained a persistent problem in the academic literature in terms of agreement as to what exactly constitutes 

employee engagement. What is employee engagement? What does it mean to be engaged at work? Is engagement a 

behavioral element or a psychological state? These and many similar questions have been explored over the years, 

but the conceptual picture of what engagement might look like has yet to be fully realized and/or measured through 

empirical research. 

In addressing these questions of employee engagement, Dawsey and Taylor (2011) introduced a model of 

worker engagement built around an engagement continuum ranging from Active Disengagement to Active 

Disengagement (AE - ADE). It addresses articles in the popular press (e.g., Gallup, 2001) and gaps in the twenty-

plus-year-old scholarly research stream (e.g., Kahn, 1990; Macey & Scneider, 2008). One of the most cited 

definitions of engagement is drawn from Kahn’s (1990) descriptions of personal engagement and personal 

disengagement (Shuck & Rieo, 2011). Kahn (1990) defined personal engagement as “the simultaneous employment 

and expression of a person's 'preferred self' in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, 

personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional), and active full role performances” (p. 700). Kahn (1990) 

further defined personal disengagement as the “simultaneous withdrawal and defense of a person's preferred self in 

behaviors that promote a lack of connections, physical, cognitive, and emotional absence, and passive, incomplete 

role performance” (p. 701). Dawsey and Taylor’s (2011) model builds on Kahn’s definitions of personal 

engagement, but contrary to previous theory, the new model no longer views disengagement as simply the absence 

of engagement; instead Dawsey and Taylor’s (2011) research found observable behaviors all along an engagement 

continuum. The AE - ADE continuum (Dawsey & Taylor, 2011) describes workers who perform supra-role 

behaviors (SRBs) (Katz & Kahn, 1978) and who are committed to their organizations as actively engaged; and 

workers who undermine their fellow workers and are not committed to the organization as actively disengaged. It is 

the behavioral element when coupled with the cognitive and emotional elements that accounts for the active forms 

of engagement and disengagement. Figure 1 illustrates the four points along the engagement continuum that 

constitutes the general conceptual framework of the model: Active Engagement, Engagement, Disengagement, and 

Active Disengagement.  

Dawsey and Taylor (2011) defined active engagement as a psychological state of being bonded with the 

organization, and a cognitive state of expressed commitment to the organization (e.g., not planning to leave the 

organization); a further behavioral element of this psychological state (or attitude) would be consistent with 

behaviors typically associated with the early organizational citizenship behavior literature (e.g., Organ, 1988) which 

we now term SRBs given Organ’s (1997) decoupling of OCBs from SRB behavior. In summary, actively engaged 



Dawsey and Taylor                                                                                                                                                       Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 63-71 

65 

 

employees are bonded with the organization and self-directed in their work, making psychological measures more 

important than cognitive and with a distinct pro-organizational behavioral element.  

Dawsey and Taylor (2011) did not assert that general engagement (or what is often referred to in the literature as 

employee engagement) lacks a behavioral element, instead they asserted that general engagement and general 

disengagement are both attitudes that contain psychological and cognitive components but when the behavioral 

element manifests itself, it will be through supra-role behavior (Katz & Kahn, 1978) rather than through IRB 

behaviors (IRBs) (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Macey and Schneider (2008) also noted engagement concepts encompassing 

psychological states, traits, and behaviors, including elements of higher than normal effort and involvement.  

The current study applies Dawsey and Taylor’s model to an existing data set of supervisor and subordinate dyads 

with measures of IRBs and SRBs, perceptions, and performance. The purpose of the study is to see if behaviors and 

attitudes consistent with the engagement model shown below in Figure 1 can be found in this existing dataset. 
 

Figure 1: Engagement Continuum 
 

Active Engagement (AE) 

(21 items) 

Engagement (E) 

(34 items) 

Compliance 

(203 items) 

Disengagement 

(DE) 

(33 items) 

 Active Disengagement (ADE) 

(23 items) 

High IRB High IRB  Low IRB Low IRB 

Higher SRB 

Lower (AOB) 

(Higher pos. SRB) 

Outreaches  

to coworkers 

 Withdrawal 

from coworkers 

Lower SRB 

Higher (AOB) 

(Higher Neg.  SRB) 

No intent to quit 

(cognitive commitment) 

(Higher cognitive commitment) Compliance (Lower cognitive 

commitment) 

Intends to quit 

(No cognitive commitment) 

High psychological commitment - 
(Bonded) 

   Low psychological 
commitment (Not bonded) 

 

Method 
 

This study utilized a data set that initially was designed and deployed for a study published by Tepper and Taylor 

(2003) containing measures of mentorship, organizational citizenship behavior, justice, and other known covariates.  

The data set contains 314 dyads drawn from a survey of over 2,000 supervisors and their subordinates from 78 

national guardsmen units in a Midwestern state. Tepper and Taylor's (2003) research demonstrated that supervisory 

mentoring enhanced subordinate perceptions of organizational justice which in turn led to increased levels of OCB 

performance in their subordinates as predicted by a trickle-down model of organizational justice (Masterson, 2001). 
 

Measures 
 

In most research projects the following discussion would be found in the literature review but in this case, where 

an existing data set, created for another purpose is assessed for its usefulness as a study of Dawsey and Taylor’s 

(2011) engagement continuum, this problem has arisen in the measures section of the study. The original data set 

included a measure of OCBs as envisioned by Organ (1988) and attacked by Morrison (1994). The original 

presentation of the engagement continuum (Dawsey & Taylor, 2011) was explained using terminology commonly 

associated with OCBs (e.g., in-role and extra-role behavior). It now appears that any model conforming to Katz & 

Kahn’s (1978) theory of roles must use terminology that is not a part of the in-role / extra-role debate surrounding 

OCBs and contextual performance and therefore, we have adopted IRB to designate in-role behavior as envisioned 

by Katz & Kahn (1978) and SRB to designate supra-role behavior described in the theory of roles (Katz & Kahn, 

1978). 

The 20-item survey measure of organizational citizenship behavior (Organ 1988) was successfully challenged by 

Morrison (1994) when she demonstrated that a majority of respondents to a survey containing the 20-item OCB 

measures viewed 18 of the 20 items as in-role behavior and Morrison therefore concluded that OCBs did not exist if 

respondents were engaging in in-role behaviors. Organ (1997) noted that this was a weakness of the measure and not 

of the construct; but he then removed the requirement that citizenship behaviors must be extra-role behavior and 

invoked Motowidlo and Van Scotter’s (1994) contextual performance. Organ’s elimination of the extra-role 

requirement for OCBs effectively decoupled OCB from its theoretical roots (i.e., one of Katz and Kahn’s (1978) 

theory of roles - supra-role behavior which the extant literature now calls extra-role behavior and/or OCBs).  

Dawsey and Taylor’s engagement model rests directly on the theory of roles as articulated by Katz and Kahn (1978) 

and therefore tests of the engagement model requires measures of psychological commitment and the three 



Dawsey and Taylor                                                                                                                                                       Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 63-71 

66 

 

behavioral roles in Katz and Kahn’s (1978) theory of roles (i.e., in-role behavior (IRB), supra-role behavior (SRB), 

and commitment).  

The original 20-item OCB measure, with its significant variance as to whether the survey items were IRB or 

SRB (Morrison, 1994) in the eyes of the worker, was found to be very useful for the planned analysis because it 

measured both IRB and SRB behavior and because the dataset also contained measures of IRB / SRB perception for 

both the supervisor and the subordinate for each of the 20 survey items. A further benefit of the measure is that it 

addresses the three forms of work conceptualized in today’s labor market: the physical tasks of a wall paper factory, 

plus emotional labor (Hochschild, 2003/1983), and knowledge work (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Davenport, 2005).  

In other words, had Morrison (1994) taken the tact that Organ (1988) had an operationalization problem because the 

original OCB construct assumed that IRBs were physical tasks and assumed that SRBs were emotional labor and 

knowledge work then the debate over whether OCBs were necessarily SRB behaviors would necessarily have taken 

a different course since Morrison’s (1994) study of nurses in a hospital setting involved workers whose principle 

duties involved knowledge work and emotional labor. This could be explained in part by noting that the extant 

vocabulary of the day did not include emotional labor as a concept (i.e., Hochchild gave us emotional labor in 1983, 

Smith, Organ, and Near gave us OCBs in 1983). It is also worth noting that it was an objective of F. W. Taylor’s 

classical scientific management was the division of labor in such a way that the physical task became the work of 

the subordinate and the knowledge work became the purview of the supervisor.   

Contextual performance (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994) likewise is inadequate when applied to this analysis 

because contextual performance simply identifies whether or not a task is an IRB thereby creating a dichotomy of 

“in-role” and “not in-role,” effectively ignoring the SRBs of the theory of roles (e.g., Not in-role isn’t the conceptual 

equivalent of supra-role.   

Katz & Kahn (1978) correctly assert that there are roles assumed by organization members that enhance the 

likelihood of organizational success or reduce the likelihood of organizational failure which are simply in- or supra- 

simply because of role perceptions. There are roles that remain supra-role even if the role incumbent declares it to be 

in-role. You cannot order a soldier to run in front of a machine gun, yet when one does, and saves lives, the leader of 

the organization will be glad that the soldier saw it as part of his job to do what the leader couldn’t actually order the 

soldier to do. Or when school teachers run in front of a machine gun to save lives, we’re glad that the teacher saw it 

as part of their job when asked about what they did and why. Brave souls perform heroic deeds (supra-role 

behavior), and those same brave souls will later explain, “I was just doing my job,” – this is supra-role behavior and 

not simply a matter of role perception. 

Nine survey items were selected as the focus for analysis as a way to link this operationalization of OCBs to the 

extant research in the field (Dierdorff, Rubin, & Bachrach, 2012) and concurrently account for a labor market 

economy where most jobs include more knowledge work and emotional labor than physical tasks. Three survey 

items were used to construct a sub-scale termed helping coworkers (e.g., shares ideas with co-workers); these three 

items also focus on knowledge work. Three additional survey items were selected that tapped into the subscale 

conscientious compliance or a quality focus (e.g., beats work deadlines); these items also address things surrounding 

the performance of physical tasks. The third set of survey items constitutes pro-organizational behavior or 

organizational dedication (e.g., welcomes newcomers to the organization); and concurrently focused on things 

typically thought of as emotional labor. These behaviors were reported by the supervisor of the worker performing 

the behavior by using a standard 5 point Likert scale, with scale scores ranging from 1 – strongly disagree to 5 – 

strongly agree. The items were selected in a manner that addressed the nature of work in the modern economy by 

including tasks that address emotional labor, knowledge work, and physical tasks. 

Anti-organizational behavior, the theoretical opposite of OCB, was measured with the following two item scale: 

“hinders the efforts of coworkers to be successful” and “gives misleading information to coworkers.” These 

behaviors were reported by the supervisor using a 5-point Likert scale with scores ranging from 1 - strongly disagree 

to 5 - strongly agree.   

Psychological bond is the mean score of 5 items, taken from a 10 item psychological contract scale (Millward 

and Hopkins, 1998; Raja, Johns, & Ntalianis, 2004; Rousseau, 1989). The Likert type scale ranges from 1 to 5 where 

1 represented the lowest level of bonding and 5 the highest. The five survey items were: “I feel a personal 

connection with this organization,” “Being in this organization is a significant part of who I am as a person,” “I feel 

a strong emotional bond with the organization,” “I would experience significant regret if I stop being associated with 

the organization,” and “My role in the organization affects many aspects of my life.” 

Organizational commitment, conceptualized by Katz and Kahn (1978) as a willingness of the individual to 

remain with the organization, was measured with three survey items that asked the respondents about their intention 

to quit the organization. A Likert type scale was utilized where 1 reflected no intention to quit and 5 represented 

someone who fully intended to quit. 



Dawsey and Taylor                                                                                                                                                       Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 63-71 

67 

 

The engagement index is the product of the psychological bond and organizational commitment variables after 

reverse recoding commitment so that a 5 reflects a high degree of intent to remain with the organization. Since 

commitment and psychological bond each have scale scores ranging from 1 to 5, then the range of values for this 

index is 1 to 25.  After calculating the engagement index we sorted the 314 records in the data set on the engagement 

index.   

The engagement category was the last variable created. Five engagement categories were created as originally 

presented in Dawsey and Taylor’s (2011) model (see Figure 1). Each item in the data set was assigned to one of the 

5 categories based upon the engagement index score. Those data records were placed, within plus or minus one 

standard deviation of the mean (11.75, SD = 6.97), into the compliant category. This turned out to be 65% of the 

observations or roughly two thirds of the data records and not inconsistent with a normal distribution. The remaining 

one third of the file was split in half with one sixth (55 records) representing the two engagement categories of the 

model, and the other sixth (56 records) representing the two disengagement categories. The values in the 

engagement index provided very natural break points - as 21 items were assigned to the active engagement category 

and the remaining 34, with lower index scores, were assigned to the engagement category. Similar break points were 

found within the disengagement items with the result that 23 items were assigned to the active disengagement 

category and the remaining 33 were assigned to the disengagement category. Figure 1 includes a summary of the 

number of records placed in each category.   

Alphas for all measures were well above Nunnally’s (1978) .7 guideline; alpha scores are shown on the diagonal 

of the correlation matrix in Table 1.   
 

Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Intercorrelations, and Coefficient Alphas 
 

  Variable Mean S.D. 1  2  3  4  5   6  7  

  1.  Psychological Bond 3.43 1.01 (.88 )             
  2.  Intent to Quit (commitment) 3.27 1.56 .58 ** (.88 )           

  3.  Engagement Index 11.75 6.97 .84 ** .84 ** (na)          

  4.  Helping Coworkers 3.61 .82 .23 ** .17 ** .23 ** (.88 )       
  5.  Quality of work 3.63 .80 .21 ** .16 ** .22 ** .87 ** (.90 )     

  6.  Pro-organizational Behavior 3.59 .81 .27 ** .20 ** .27 ** .89 ** .84 ** (.89 )   

  7.  Anti-organizational behavior 2.26 .97 -.11  .02  -.08  -.31  -.25 ** -.31 ** (.92 ) 
  

 

Notes: * P<.05, ** P<.01.  N = 314.  Coefficient alphas are shown on the diagonal in parenthesis 
 

Findings 
 

On an item by item basis, each OCB survey item was classified according to whether the supervisor indicated a 

particular task as IRB (“an integral part of the job”) or SRB (“above and beyond the scope of the job”) and whether 

the subordinate indicated the task as IRB or SRB.  Each of the nine survey items are shown in Table 2. 
   

Table 2: Leader and Subordinate In-role Behavior/Supra-role Behavior Perceptions  

with Performance Levels 
 

 Leader says IRB Leader says SRB 

TASK 

Subordinate 

Says IRB 

Subordinate 

Says SRB 

Subordinate 

Says IRB 

Subordinate 

Says SRB 

Coworker helping         

Share ideas – w/coworkers  3.60 50% 3.70 26% 3.60 16% 3.60 8% 

Treats coworkers courteously  3.60 56% 3.90 24% 3.60 12% 3.80 8% 

Encourages coworker innovations  3.50 46% 3.70 29% 3.20 15% 3.50 10% 

Average 3.57 51% 3.77 26% 3.47 14% 3.63 9% 

Quality of work         

Works carefully  3.00 55% 3.60 25% 3.50 12% 4.00 8% 

Works Error free 3.70 57% 3.80 27% 3.50 12% 4.00 4% 

Beats deadlines on work 3.55 41% 3.63 36% 3.30 16% 3.56 8% 

Average 3.42 51% 3.68 29% 3.43 13% 3.84 7% 

Pro-Org-Behavior         

Welcomes newcomers to the  
organization (5) 

3.60 56% 3.90 21% 3.50 12% 3.70 11% 

Takes pride in the organization when talking about it (12) 3.55 48% 3.71 25% 3.48 16% 3.70 11% 

Tells outsiders this is a good place to work (16) 3.56 35% 3.63 30% 3.20 16% 3.57 17% 

Average 3.50 50% 3.69 25% 3.42 15% 3.69 10% 

Note:  N = 314 dyads. 
 



Dawsey and Taylor                                                                                                                                                       Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 63-71 

68 

 

Our initial observation is inconsistent with the cross-sectional studies in the OCB literature. In every case, more 

of the task behavior was performed when the task was viewed as SRB by the subordinate without regard to the 

supervisors’ perceptions. This is contrary to the Morrison’s (1994) criticism that OCBs are simply an artifact of 

occasions when the subordinate views a task as IRB and performs the task as part of the job; while at the same time 

the supervisor views it as SRB (e.g., simply a difference of opinion). This is also contrary to the conventional 

bureaucratic wisdom that if you want a specific task to be performed, you should incorporate it into an employee’s 

job description (e.g., make it IRB). This also suggests that management attempts to enhance performance by 

redefining SRB tasks as IRB results in the just the opposite. Finally, this initial analysis suggests that the important 

role perception is the perception of the individual performing the task and not the perception to the supervisor.   

The previously mentioned analysis was repeated by selecting only the actively engaged and the actively 

disengaged and comparing the mean scores for each group with the results in Tables 3, 4, and 5. As shown in Table 

3 the actively engaged performed more of these behaviors than did those who were actively disengaged without 

regard to role perception. The results of those nine one-way ANOVAs support the ability of the engagement model 

cited to explain significant differences in behavior.  

In Table 4, a series of one-way ANOVAs comparing the subordinates who reported an IRB role-perception
1
 for 

each of the nine survey items are reported. Although actively engaged workers performed more in each of the nine 

areas, only about half of the differences were significant. In Table 5, a series of one-way ANOVAs comparing the 

subordinates who reported an SRB role-perception for each of the nine survey items are reported. Although actively 

engaged workers performed more of it in each of the nine areas, only about half of the differences were significant. 

One little notable oddity is that if the difference is significant in Table 4 it isn’t in Table 5 and vice versa. 
 

Table 3: One Way ANOVAs 
 

Behavior AE Mean (SD) ADE Mean (SD) Degrees of Freedom F statistic p-value 

Coworker helping      

Sharing ideas with coworkers 4.33(.66) 3.17(.98) (1, 42) 20.6 .000** 

Treating coworkers courteously 4.19(.68) 3.13(.87) (1, 42) 20.0 .000** 

Encourages coworker innovations  4.14(.99) 3.04(.88) (1, 42) 21.8 .000** 

Conscientious compliance      

Works carefully  4.24(.77) 3.13(.87) (1, 42) 19.9 .000** 

Works error free 4.24(.70) 3.09(.90) (1, 42) 22.0 .000** 

Beats deadlines  4.10(.70) 2.96(.77) (1, 42) 26.3 .000** 

Organizational dedication      

Takes pride in the organization when  

talking about it 

4.14(.66) 3.26(.75) (1, 42) 17.1 .000** 

Tells outsiders this is a good place to work 4.00(.78) 3.35(.65) (1, 42) 9.2 .004** 

Welcomes newcomers to the organization 4.10(.78) 3.22(.85) (1, 42) 13.8 .001** 

 ** p < .05.        
 

Table 4: One Way ANOVAs Comparing IRBs 
 

Behavior Mean SD Degrees of Freedom F statistic p-value 

Coworker helping      

Sharing ideas with coworkers  (AE) 

                                                  (ADE) 

3.77 

3.50 

1.17 

.85 

(1, 21) .37 .55 

Treating coworkers courteously  (AE) 

                                                     (ADE) 

4.06 

2.93 

1.03 

.99 

(1, 29) 9.52 .00** 

Encourages coworker innovations  (AE) 

                                                         (ADE) 

3.60 

2.75 

1.27 

.89 

(1, 16) 2.58 .12 

Conscientious compliance      

Works carefully  (AE) 

                            (ADE) 

3.88 

3.00 

1.17 

.93 

(1, 30) 5.51 .03** 

Works error free  (AE) 
                             (ADE) 

3.75 
3.00 

1.13 
.78 

(1, 28) 4.36 .046** 

Beats deadlines  (AE) 

                           (ADE) 

3.60 

3.00 

1.27 

.50 

(1, 17) 1.77 .20 

Organizational dedication      

Takes pride in the organization when talking about it  (AE) 
                                                                                       (ADE) 

3.79 
3.42 

1.05 
.67 

(1, 24) 1.1 .31 

Tells outsiders that this is a good place to work  (AE) 

                                                                             (ADE) 

3.73 

3.33 

1.03 

.82 

(1, 19) .71 .41 

Welcomes newcomers to the organization  (AE) 

                                                                     (ADE) 

3.81 

3.31 

1.11 

.75 

(1, 27) 1.96 .17 

* p < .1, ** p < .05.   



Dawsey and Taylor                                                                                                                                                       Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 63-71 

69 

 

Table 5: One Way ANOVAs comparing SRBs 
 

Behavior Mean SD Degrees of Freedom F statistic p-value 

Coworker helping      

Sharing ideas with coworkers  (AE) 
                                                  (ADE) 

4.36 
3.10 

.81 

.88 
(1, 19) 11.82 .00** 

Treating coworkers courteously  (AE) 

                                                     (ADE) 

3.71 

3.50 

.76 

.55 

(1, 11) .33 .58 

Encourages coworker innovations  (AE) 
                                                         (ADE) 

4.07 
3.42 

.73 

.52 
(1, 24) 6.75 .02** 

Conscientious compliance      

Works carefully  (AE) 

                            (ADE) 

4.14 

3.60 

.90 

.55 

(1, 10) 1.42 .26 

Works error free  (AE) 

                             (ADE) 

4.38 

3.67 

.74 

.52 

(1, 12) 3.96 .07* 

Beats deadlines  (AE) 

                           (ADE) 

4.00 

3.00 

.78 

.78 

(1, 23) 10.12 .00** 

Organizational dedication      

Takes pride in the organization when talking about it  (AE) 

                                                                                       (ADE) 

4.10 

3.25 

.74 

.46 

(1, 16) 8.03 .01** 

Tells outsiders that this is a good place to work (AE) 
                                                                            (ADE) 

3.89 
3.21 

.93 

.43 
(1, 21) 5.66 .03** 

Welcomes newcomers to the organization  (AE) 

                                                                     (ADE) 

3.88 

3.29 

.84 

.76 

(1, 13) 2.03 .18 

.* p < .1, ** p < .05.   
 

Conclusion 
 

This analysis found the existence of behaviors consistent with the model described in Figure 1 thereby providing 

evidence supporting the model as articulated. Further study can exclude the complexity of determining whether the 

supervisor views a task as an in- or extra- role behavior; all that seems to matter is the perception of the person 

performing the task as to in- or SRB perception. It further appears that the engagement construct can have 

significant explanatory power with respect to IRB and SRB task performance in the workplace. Finally, the nature of 

work (i.e., physical tasks, knowledge work, and emotional labor) will necessarily become part of any analysis of role 

performance in future studies. 
 

REFERENCES 
 

Baron, A. 2005. Measuring for the right reasons. Strategic Communication Management, 9(5), 13. 
 

Blauner, R. 1964. Alienation and freedom: The factory worker and his industry. Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press. 
 

Brief, A., & Motowidlo, S. 1986. Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 

710-725. 
 

Czarnowsky, M. 2008. Learning’s role in employee engagement: An ASTD research study. Alexandria, VA: 

American Society for Training and Development.  
 

Dalal, R. 2005. A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and 

counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241-1255. 
 

Dawsey, J., & Taylor, E. 2011. Active engagement to active disengagement: A proposed model. Business Studies 

Journal, 33(1), 29-41.   
 

Davenport, T. 2005. Thinking for a Living: How to get better performance and results from knowledge 

workers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.   
 

Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. 1998. Working knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.  
 

Dierdorff, E., Rubin, R., & Bachrach, D. 2012. Role expectations as antecedents of citizenship and the moderating 

effects of work context. Journal of Management, 38(2), 573-598.  
 

Fairlie, P. 2011. Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key employee outcomes: Implication for human 

resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 508-525.  



Dawsey and Taylor                                                                                                                                                       Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 63-71 

70 

 

Gallup. (2001, March 19). Gallup study indicates actively disengaged workers cost U.S. hundreds of billions 

each year. Gallup Management Journal. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from http://gmj.gallup.com/content/466/ 

gallup-study-indicates-actively-disengaged-workers-cost-us-hundreds.aspx.   
 

Graen, G. 1976. Role making processes within complex interactions. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of 

industrial and organizational psychology, 1201-1245. Chicago: Rand-McNally. 
 

Grant, A. 2007. Relational job design and the motivation to make a pro-social difference. Academy of 

Management Review, 32(2), 393-417. 
 

Hackman, R. 1969. Nature of the task as a determiner of job behavior. Personnel Psychology, 22(4), 435-444. 
 

Harter, J., Schmidt, F., & Hayes, T. 2002. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee 

engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. 
 

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. 1959. The motivation to work. New York: Wiley. 
 

Hochschild, A. 1979. Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85(3), 

551-575. 
 

Hochschild, A. 2003. The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling: Twentieth anniversary 

edition. Berkley: University of California Press.  
 

Kahn, W. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 

33(4), 692-724. 
 

Kahn, W. 1992. To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45(4), 321-349. 
 

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. 1978. The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.  
 

Krueger, J., & Killham, E. (2005, December 8). At work, feeling good matters: Happy employees are better 

equipped to handle workplace relationships, stress, and change, according to the latest GMJ survey. 

Gallup Management Journal. 
 

Krueger, J., & Killham, E. (2006, March 9). Why Dilbert is right: Uncomfortable work environments make for 

disgruntled employees - just like the cartoon says. Gallup Management Journal. 
 

Lee, K., Carwswell, J., & Allen, N. 2000. A meta-analytic review of occupational commitment: Relations with 

person- and work-related variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 799-811. 
 

Macey, W., & Schneider, B. 2008. The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial & Organizational 

Psychology, 1(1), 3-30. 
 

Maslach, C. (2003). Burnout: The cost of caring. Cambridge, MA: Malor Books. 
 

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W., & Leiter, M. 2001. Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422. 
 

Maslow, A. 1950. A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), 370-396. 
 

Masterson, S. 2001. A trickle-down model of organizational justice: Relating employees’ and customers’ 

perceptions of and reactions to fairness.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 594 – 604.  
 

Merton, R. 1968. Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press. 
 

Millward, L., & Hopkins, L. 1998. Psychological contracts, organizational and job commitment. Journal of 

Applied Social Psychology, 28(16), 1530-556. 
 

Morrison, E. 1994. Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee's 

perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1543-1657. 
 

Motowidlo, S., Borman, W., & Schmit, M. 1997. A theory of individual differences in task and contextual 

performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71-83. 

Masterson, S. 2001. A trickle-down model of organizational justice: Relating employees’ and customers’ 

perceptions of and reactions to fairness.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 594 – 604.  



Dawsey and Taylor                                                                                                                                                       Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 63-71 

71 

 

Motowidlo, S., & Van Scotter, J. 1994. Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual 

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480. 
 

Nunnaly, J. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. 
 

Organ, D. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington.  
 

Organ, D. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-

97. 
 

Pfeffer, J. 2007. Human resources from an organizational behavior perspective: Some paradoxes explained. Journal 

of Economic Perspectives, 21(4), 115-134. 
 

Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F.  2004. The impact of personality of psychological contracts. Academy of 

Management Journal, 47(3), 350-367. 
 

Rousseau, D. 1989. Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibility Rights 

Journal, 2(2), 121-139. 
 

Saks, A. 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 

21(7), 600-519. 
 

Shuck, B. 2011. Integrative literature review: Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: An integrative 

literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), 304-328. 
 

Shuck, B., & Herd, A. 2012. Employee engagement and leadership: Exploring the convergence of two frameworks 

and implications for leadership development in HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 11(2), 156-181. 
 

Shuck, B., & Reio, T. 2011. The employee engagement landscape and HRD: How do we link theory and scholarship 

to current practice? Advances in Developing Human Resource Development, 13(4), 419-428. 
 

Shuck, B. & Wollard, K. 2010. Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human 

Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89-110. 
 

Smith, A., Organ, D., & Near, J. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of 

Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663. 
 

Swanson, R., & Holton, E. 2009. Foundations of human resource development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler 

Publishers.  
 

Tepper, B., & Taylor, E. 2003. Relationships among supervisors' and subordinates' procedural justice perceptions 

and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 97-105.  
 

Vroom, V. 1995. Work and motivation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
 

 

Joseph Dawsey is the instruction, outreach and asessment librarian at Piedmont College. He is a Ph.D. candidate in 

adult education and human resource and organizational development at University of Georgia. His current research 

interests include employee engagement and disengagement, emotional labor, and emotions in the workplace. He has 

published in Business Studies Journal. 
  

Edward Taylor is associate dean at Walker School of Business and professor of strategic management and 

leadership at Piedmont College. He received his Ph.D. in management from University of Kentucky. His research 

interests include managerial citizenship behaviors, workplace and classroom engagement, competitive advantage 

status assessment, and the integration of quality management systems with the strategic management process. He 

has published in Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal of Business 

Research, International Journal of Conflict Management, and Business Studies Journal.  
 

Shuck, B. 2011. Integrative literature review: Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: An integrative 

literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), 304-328. 

Shuck, B., & Herd, A. 2012. Employee engagement and leadership: Exploring the convergence of two frameworks 

and implications for leadership development in HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 11(2), 156-181. 

Shuck, B., & Reio, T. 2011. The employee engagement landscape and HRD: How do we link theory and scholarship 

to current practice? Advances in Developing Human Resource Development, 13(4), 419-428. 

Shuck, B. & Wollard, K. 2010. Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human 

Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89-110. 


