







































Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal  

Vol. 22 (2), August 2025, 143-156 

ISSN:  2598-6368(online); 1693-7236(print)                                                                 

       humanitas@psy.uad.ac.id             http://journal1.uad.ac.id/index.php/Humanitas            https://doi.org/10.26555/humanitas.v22i1.1222 

Quality of work life, anchor virtues, and work engagement: The 

moderating role of workload 

Dhiatira Biananda Apsari, Bagus Riyono 

Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia 

Corresponding author: bagus@ugm.ac.id 

 

This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license. 

 

Introduction 

Work engagement has consistently been a critical issue in various organizations due to its 

recognized importance as a fundamental concept for enhancing workplace well-being 

(Bakker, 2011). Saxena and Srivastava (2015) assert that work engagement has become one 

of the primary challenges that must be effectively managed to achieve organizational goals. 

Accordingly, Frank et al. (2004) emphasize that work engagement should be a core strategy 

for involving employees at all levels to ensure long-term success. 

Work engagement refers to a positive, fulfilling mental and emotional state in relation 

to one’s work, characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption  (Hakanen et al., 2006). 

Vigor represents high energy levels, mental resilience while working, willingness to work 

persistently, and enthusiasm in overcoming obstacles. Dedication reflects full involvement 

ARTICL E  INF O  
 

ABSTRACT  

 

Article history 

Received: 8 January 2025 

Revised: 22 June 2025 

Accepted: 3 July 2025 

 Work engagement is a critical issue across organizations due to its 

vital role in enhancing workplace well-being. This study examines the 

impact of quality of work life and anchor virtues on work 

engagement, with workload as a moderating variable, among Civil 

Servants (PNS) at the National Land Agency (BPN) in District X. A 

total of 101 active Civil Servants participated in this quantitative 

study. Data were collected using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale 

(UWES), the Quality of Work Life Scale, the Anchor Personality 

Inventory (focusing on anchor virtues), and the Subjective Workload 

Assessment Technique (SWAT) Scale. Structural Equation Modeling 

(SEM) was conducted using Smart PLS version 3.0 to evaluate 

measurement models, test hypotheses, and analyze structural 

relationships. The findings reveal that workload moderates the 

relationships between quality of work life, anchor virtues, and work 
engagement. Specifically, the relationship between quality of work 

life and work engagement strengthens under high workload 

conditions. Conversely, the effect of anchor virtues on work 

engagement weakens as workload increases. These results highlight 

the complex dynamics of workload as a moderator and underscore the 

importance of quality of work life and anchor virtues in fostering 

work engagement among Civil Servants dedicated to public service 

 
     

 

Keywords 

Anchor Virtues 

Civil Servants 

Quality Of Work Life 

Work Engagement 

Workload 

 

 

 

mailto:humanitas@psy.uad.ac.id
http://journal1.uad.ac.id/index.php/Humanitas
https://doi.org/10.26555/humanitas.v22i1.1222
mailto:bagus@ugm.ac.id
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


144   
               ISSN 2598-6368 (online) / ISSN 1693-7236 (print) 

  

Dhiatira Biananda Apsari et.al (Quality of work life, anchor virtues, and work engagement:…) 

in work with a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. 

Absorption is characterized by full concentration and joy in one’s work, where employees 

feel time passes quickly and it is difficult to detach themselves from their work (Leiter & 

Bakker, 2010). 

According to Gorgievski & Bakker (2010), employees with high work engagement 

perform better than their less-engaged peers. Engaged employees exhibit high energy, 

effectively contribute to task completion, and feel capable of meeting job demands 

(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). They are more likely to take the initiative to assist colleagues 

in solving problems and willingly share information (Schaufeli, 2012). 

In the context of civil servants (PNS), work performance directly impacts public trust 

in government services (Rohmatiah & Amadi, 2019). Similarly, Gallup (2016) found that 

the average engagement rate among government employees is 29% at the national level and 

17% at the regional level, with the latter categorized as actively disengaged. Engagement 

levels in the public sector (33%) lag behind those in the private sector (36%) (Lavigna & 

Basso, 2020). 

However, public sector employees are often among the most disengaged workers 

compared to other sectors (Dale Carnegie Training, 2012). A common occurrence is that, 

after officially becoming civil servants, certain behaviors emerge that tarnish the image of 

PNS as a whole (Sitorus & Primanita, 2024). This is in line with the statements given by 

civil servants at the National Land Agency (BPN) of Regency X, who were previously 

interviewed. The phenomena experienced by the civil servants at BPN Regency X indicate 

that the issue of work engagement has become a critical area for improvement. As reflected 

in the first aspect of work engagement—vigor—an issue identified among BPN employees 

in Regency X is the presence of employee behavior that indicates fatigue at work and a sense 

of stagnation. In the dedication aspect, behaviors indicating a lack of enthusiasm for work 

are evident, such as the number of employees arriving late for the morning assembly. Lastly, 

in the absorption aspect, some employees show a lack of attention to their tasks and a desire 

to finish work quickly without considering the quality of the outcomes. This is further 

supported by the study which found that the BPN Office of Regency X still needs to improve 

the timeliness of its services conducted (Yanuariza & Novitaningtyas, 2021). Officers are 

expected to be more punctual in completing their tasks and in finalizing the PTSL (Complete 

Systematic Land Registration) certification process in accordance with the applicable 

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP).   

Employees who directly interact with clients or the public are particularly critical to 

ensuring work engagement. These employees must dedicate their time and efforts to provide 

optimal satisfaction to clients and the public (Dale Carnegie Training, 2012). Given its 

significance, research on work engagement is crucial to improving both employee welfare 

and organizational productivity. 

Bakker and Demerouti (2008) propose the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, 

which identifies three factors influencing work engagement: job resources, job demands, and 

personal resources. These factors are interrelated, with job resources being particularly 

important when job demands, such as high workloads, increase. The JD-R model posits that 

job and personal resources can predict engagement levels, especially under high job demands 

(Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Employees engaged in their work are driven not just by 

intrinsic motivation but by genuine enjoyment of their work (Gorgievski & Bakker, 2010). 

In the JD-R theory, it is stated that the higher a person’s personal resources, the more likely 

they are to experience alignment between their personal goals and intrinsic motivation 

(Judge et al., 2005). 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 145 

 

Dhiatira Biananda Apsari et.al (Quality of work life, anchor virtues, and work engagement:…)  

In this study, work engagement is hypothesized to be enhanced through job resources, 

specifically quality of work life (QWL). QWL was selected because it can increase work 

engagement by 35%-40%, depending on the organizational context (Ishfaq et al., 2022). 

Riyono et al. (2022) describes QWL as an organizational culture that balances psychological 

well-being and employee productivity. Unlike previous studies, this research examines the 

relationship between QWL and work engagement in the specific context of the National 

Land Agency (BPN) in Regency X, focusing on the public sector. 

QWL is believed to enhance work engagement by encompassing aspects such as trust, 

care, respect, learning, and contribution (Riyono et al., 2022). Trust fosters a sense of 

security and value among employees. Care ensures employees feel appreciated. Respect 

motivates employees to excel in their work. Learning opportunities enable employees to 

achieve their best. Lastly, the collective willingness to contribute to organizational progress 

plays a vital role in boosting engagement. 

An employee’s personality significantly influences work engagement (Ongore, 2014). 

Riyono (2012) suggests that psychological stability is shaped by individual anchors. Anchors 

represent personal values that guide behavior, including virtues, self, others, and material 

orientations (Riyono, 2012). Virtues, namely principles based on virtuous values. Self, 

namely all self-qualities that are used as a guide for individuals. Others, namely something 

outside a person that is used as a guide for an individual. Materials, defined as all kinds of 

valuable materials and objects that are used as a mainstay for individuals (Riyono, 2020). 

Employees with stable anchor virtues embody goodness, truth, and compassion in their work 

and lives (Hardono, 2021). These values encourage behaviors that benefit organizational 

goals. This study focused on virtues because of individuals with anchor virtues tend to create 

a more supportive organizational climate because their behavior is oriented toward goodness 

and noble values. Those who rely on virtues as their anchor also tend to exhibit emotional 

stability (Hardanti & Riyono, 2022). 

In this study, workload is examined as a job demand. According to the JD-R model 

(Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), job demands such as workload act as moderators in the 

relationship between job resources and work engagement and between personal resources 

and work engagement. Workload encompasses time load, mental effort, and psychological 

stress (Reid & Nygren, 1988). Workload refers to a set of duties or responsibilities given to 

employees within a designated period, requiring them to complete the tasks using their skills 

and capabilities (Yaningsih & Triwahyuni, 2022). Variations in perceptions of workload 

influence its impact on engagement (Elfitasari & Mulyana, 2020). To strengthen the 

theoretical basis of the hypothesis, relevant studies were included to support the role of 

workload as a moderating variable. For instance, Abualigah et al. (2021) demonstrated that 

workload moderates the relationship between religiosity and work engagement, indicating 

its potential to influence how personal or psychological resources impact work-related 

outcomes. This evidence provides a theoretical justification for investigating workload as a 

moderator in the present study. This study positions job demand as a moderator based on the 

JD-R model, which suggests that high job demands can weaken or strengthen the effects of 

personal and organizational resources on work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). 

Unlike previous studies that examined QWL or virtues independently, this research 

integrates both constructs and tests the moderating role of job demand to offer a more 

nuanced understanding of how employees stay engaged under varying levels of work 

pressure. 

This study offers a novel perspective by examining the role of workload as a 

moderating variable in the relationship between QWL and work engagement, as well as 

between anchor virtues and work engagement, particularly within the context of public 



146   
               ISSN 2598-6368 (online) / ISSN 1693-7236 (print) 

  

Dhiatira Biananda Apsari et.al (Quality of work life, anchor virtues, and work engagement:…) 

sector employees at the National Land Agency (BPN) in Regency X. The purpose of this 

research is to investigate how QWL influences work engagement, moderated by workload 

and anchor virtues influence work engagement, moderated by workload. Helping the 

National Land Agency (BPN) understand the factors that influence employee work 

engagement, thereby enabling the development of more effective policies to improve. Thus, 

we propose two hypotheses: (H1) QWL influences work engagement, moderated by 

workload; (H2) anchor virtues influence work engagement, moderated by workload 

Method 

This research was conducted using a non-experimental quantitative approach to the survey 

method. The data were analyzed using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) with SmartPLS 

version 3.0, including the bootstrapping technique to test hypotheses. PLS-SEM was chosen 

because the relatively small sample size allows for analysis using this method, as PLS-SEM 

is indeed suitable for studies with limited samples. In addition, PLS-SEM can be applied to 

models with high complexity, involving multiple constructs and numerous indicators. This 

study uses questionnaires to measure four variables (work engagement, quality of work life, 

anchor virtues, and workload) in the research sample. Data were collected between October 

18th and November 1st, 2024, through a Google Form distributed via broadcast message. 

Participants 

The participants of this research consist of 101 active civil servants working at the National 
Land Agency (BPN) in Regency X. The sampling method used in this study is a population 
study. Descriptive information on the participants’ demographic characteristics is presented 
in Table 1. 

Table 1 

Participants' Demographic Data 

 
Demographics Category Frequency Percentage 

Gender Male 60 59% 

 Female 41 41% 

Education High School 10 10% 
 Diploma 17 17% 

 Undergraduate 58 57% 

 Postgraduate 16 16% 

Age 20-30 years 10 10% 

 31-40 years 30 30% 

 41-50 years 30 30% 

 51-60 years 31 30% 

Working Period 1-6 years 33 33% 

 7-12 years 42 42% 

 >12 years 26 26% 

 

Instruments 

Work engagement. Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), developed by Schaufeli and 
Bakker and translated by Rosa and Riyono (2014), was used to measure work engagement. 
This instrument consists of 15 items. Responses are based on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging 
from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates "never" and 5 indicates "always." The validity test in this study 
used Aiken’s V with 12 raters, resulting in scores between 0.83 and 0.98. The reliability 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 147 

 

Dhiatira Biananda Apsari et.al (Quality of work life, anchor virtues, and work engagement:…)  

coefficient in this study, as measured by Cronbach’s Alpha, was 0.89. An example question 
from this item is "When I wake up in the morning, I feel excited to go to work". 

Quality of Worklife. Quality of Work Life Scale, developed by Riyono (2012), was 
used to measure quality of work life. This instrument consists of 25 items. Responses are 
based on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates "never" and 5 indicates 
"almost always." The validity test in this study used Aiken’s V with 12 raters, resulting in 
scores between 0.77 and 0.96. The reliability coefficient in this study, as measured by 
Cronbach’s Alpha, was 0.92. An example question from this item is “trusted to maintain 
confidentiality in my work”. 

Anchor Personality. Anchor Personality Inventory (API), which focuses on anchor 
virtues, was developed by Riyono (2020) to measure anchor virtues. This instrument consists 
of 10 items. Responses are based on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 
indicates "strongly disagree" and 5 indicates "strongly agree." The validity test in this study 
used Aiken’s V with 12 raters, resulting in scores between 0.81 and 0.94. The reliability 
coefficient in this study, as measured by Cronbach’s Alpha, was 0.91. An example question 
from this item is “when I experience failure, I always try to see the lesson behind it”. 

Workload. SWAT (Subjective Workload Assessment Technique) scale, developed by 
Agustiningrum (2016) based on Gary B. Reid’s theory, was used to measure subjective 
workload. This instrument consists of 18 items. Responses are based on a 5-point Likert scale, 
ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates "strongly disagree" and 5 indicates "strongly agree." 
The validity test in this study used Aiken’s V with 12 raters, resulting in scores between 0.83 
and 0.94. The reliability coefficient in this study, as measured by Cronbach’s Alpha, was 
0.93. An example question from this item is “tasks often come one after another without a 
break”. 

Data Analysis 

The hypothesis testing in this study was conducted using SEM data analysis techniques with 
SmartPLS version 3.2.9. Before testing the hypotheses, the researcher carried out an 
evaluation of the Measurement Model (Outer Model) and the Structural Model (Inner Model). 
For hypothesis testing, the researcher used the bootstrapping analysis technique with a 
significance level of 95% (α = 0.05) and a t-table value of 1.96 (two-tailed). 

Results  

Measurement Model (Outer Model) 

In terms of the validity, in this study, the loading factor values for all variables are > 0.7, 

indicating that the research can proceed to the next analysis stage. The outer loading values 

for quality of work life range from 0.82 to 0.89, anchor virtues loading factor values range 

from 0.85 to 0.94, work engagement loading factor values range from 0.71 to 0.81, and 

workload loading factor values range from 0.78 to 0.93.  These results suggest a strong 

relationship between the variables, reinforcing the reliability of the measures used in the 

study. Consequently, further analyses can be conducted to explore the underlying 

connections and implications of these findings in workplace settings. This indicates that the 

data gathered is robust enough to warrant deeper investigation. Such analyses could reveal 

valuable insights into how these factors interact and affect employee experiences. See Figure 

1 

 
 



148   
               ISSN 2598-6368 (online) / ISSN 1693-7236 (print) 

  

Dhiatira Biananda Apsari et.al (Quality of work life, anchor virtues, and work engagement:…) 

 
Figure 1 
Measurement Model (Outer Model) 
 

 
 

Table 2 shows that all variables have an AVE value > 0.50, indicating that the variables 

in this study can be considered valid. Therefore, the convergent validity of all variables in 

this study has been fulfilled. 

Table 2 

Average Variance Extracted (AVE) score 

 

Variables 
Average Variance Extracted score (AVE) 

Score Description 

Quality of Work Life 0.99 Valid 

Anchor Virtues 0.81 Valid 

Work Engagement 0.58 Valid 

Workload 0.75 Valid 

Table 3 shows that all variables used in this study have composite reliability values > 

0.60 and Cronbach's alpha > 0.60, indicating they are reliable. 

Table 3 

Composite Reliability and Cronbach’s Alpha score 

 
Variables  Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability 

Quality of Work Life 0.99 0.99 

Anchor Virtues 0.98 1.00 

Work Engagement 0.95 0.95 

Workload 0.98 0.98 

Moderating Effect Quality of Work Life*Workload 1.00 1.00 
Moderating Effect Anchor Virtue *Workload 1.00 1.00 

 

Structural Model (Inner Model) 

The results show that 75.5% of the variance in Work Engagement can be explained by the 

combination of Quality of Work Life, Anchor Virtues, and Workload, as indicated by an R-



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 149 

 

Dhiatira Biananda Apsari et.al (Quality of work life, anchor virtues, and work engagement:…)  

square (R²) value of 0.755. This suggests that the model has a strong explanatory power, 

with only 24.5% of the variance attributed to other factors not included in this study. The R-

Square value in this study is considered strong, indicating that the independent variables 

have a strong influence on the dependent variable. 

Table 4 

F Square score (f2) 

 Work Engagement 

Quality of Work Life 0.14 

Anchor Virtues 0.09 

Workload 0.22 

Quality of Work Life* Workload 0.07 

Anchor Virtues*Workload 0.10 

 

The f-square values are shown in Table 4. A value of 0.02 or higher but less than 0.15 

indicates a small effect, a value of 0.15 or higher but less than 0.35 indicates a moderate 

effect, and a value of 0.35 or higher indicates a large effect. Quality of work life and anchor 

virtues have a small effect on work engagement, while workload has a moderate effect on 

work engagement. Additionally, when workload is used as a moderating variable, the effect 

of quality of work life on work engagement is small. Similarly, when workload is used as a 

moderating variable, the effect of anchor virtues on work engagement is also small. 

The current study aimed to examine how quality of work life influences work 

engagement, moderated by workload, and how anchor virtues influence work engagement, 

moderated by workload. The significance level used is 95% (α = 0.05) with a t-table value 

of 1.96 (two-tailed). The results of the bootstrapping calculations in this study can be seen 

in Figure 2. 

Figure 2 
Path Coefficient 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Based on Table 5, the strength of the relationships and p-values are the effect of quality 

of work life on work engagement has a coefficient value of 0.38 and a p value of 0.00. This 

indicates that quality of work life has a positive impact on work engagement. It can be 



150   
               ISSN 2598-6368 (online) / ISSN 1693-7236 (print) 

  

Dhiatira Biananda Apsari et.al (Quality of work life, anchor virtues, and work engagement:…) 

interpreted that every 1-point increase in quality of work life leads to a 0.35 increase in work 

engagement. The effect of anchor virtues on work engagement has a coefficient value of 

0.18 and a p value of 0.00. This demonstrates that anchor virtues positively influence work 

engagement. It can be interpreted that every 1-point increase in anchor virtues results in a 

0.18 increase in work engagement. The effect of workload on work engagement has a 

coefficient value of 0.43 and a p value of 0.00. This signifies that workload positively affects 

work engagement. It can be interpreted that every 1-point increase in workload leads to a 

0.43 increase in work engagement. The interaction between quality of work life and 

workload on work engagement has a coefficient value of 0.18 and a p value of 0.02. This 

indicates that the effect of quality of work life on work engagement is positively moderated 

by workload. It can be interpreted that every 1-point increase in the interaction between 

quality of work life and workload results in a 0.18 increase in work engagement. The 

interaction between anchor virtues and workload on work engagement has a coefficient 

value of -0.17 and a p value of 0.00. This means that the effect of anchor virtues on work 

engagement is negatively moderated by workload. It can be interpreted that every 1-point 

increase in the interaction between anchor virtues and workload results in a 0.17 decrease in 

work engagement. 

Table 5 

Path Coefficient 

 

Hypothesis 
Original 

Sample 

T 

Statistics  
p value Conclusion 

Quality of work life⭢ Work engagement  0.35 3.24 0.00 Accepted 

Anchor virtue ⭢ Work engagement 0.18 3.04 0.00 Accepted 

Workload ⭢Work engagement 0.43 3.59 0.00 Accepted 

Moderating Effect  

Quality of work life *Workload ⭢Work engagement  

0.18 2.31 0.02 Accepted 

Moderating Effect 

Anchor virtue *Workload ⭢Work engagement 

-0.17 2.97 0.00 Accepted 

 

The results demonstrated significant relationships between the predictor variables and 

work engagement. Quality of work life had a positive and significant effect on work 

engagement (β = 0.35, p = 0.001), indicating that an increase in perceived quality of work 

life is associated with higher levels of engagement. Anchor virtues also showed a positive 

effect (β = 0.18, p = 0.002), suggesting that stronger endorsement of anchor virtues 

contributes to greater work engagement. Additionally, Workload had a significant positive 

effect on work engagement (β = 0.43, p < 0.001), indicating that, within this context, higher 

workload may be associated with increased engagement. Regarding interaction effects, the 

moderation analysis revealed that workload positively moderated the relationship between 

quality of work life and work engagement (β = 0.18, p = 0.02). This suggests that the positive 

impact of quality of work life on engagement becomes stronger when workload is high. In 

contrast, workload negatively moderated the relationship between anchor virtues and work 

engagement (β = −0.17, p = 0.003), implying that the beneficial effect of anchor virtues on 

engagement weakens under higher workload conditions. See Table 5  

Thus, the result support both research hypotheses. For H1, Quality of work life was 

found to have a significant positive effect on work engagement, this means that better quality 

of work life is associated with higher levels of work engagement. Moreover, this relationship 

is positively moderated by workload, indicating that the positive effect of quality of work 

life on work engagement becomes stronger when workload increases. For H2, Anchor 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 151 

 

Dhiatira Biananda Apsari et.al (Quality of work life, anchor virtues, and work engagement:…)  

virtues also showed a significant positive influence on work engagement. However, the 

moderation effect of workload on this relationship is negative, meaning that as workload 

increases, the positive effect of anchor virtues on work engagement weakens. These findings 

confirm that workload plays a moderating role in both relationships, strengthening the effect 

of quality of work life on work engagement, but reducing the effect of anchor virtue on work 

engagement. 

Discussion 

The purpose of this study is to determine whether quality of work life affects work 
engagement with workload as a moderator, and whether anchor virtues influence work 
engagement, also moderated by workload. Based on the research findings, the first 
hypothesis (H1) is accepted. This indicates that quality of work life plays a role in enhancing 
work engagement, and its effect is influenced by workload. The results show that quality of 
work life has a positive impact on work engagement. This is supported by research 
conducted by Kanten and Sadullah (2012), which found a significant relationship between 
quality of work life and work engagement. As explained by Bakker (2011), work 
engagement is strongly influenced by job resources, and quality of work life is one such 
resource. Riyono (2012) identifies five key aspects of quality of work life (i.e., trust, care, 
respect, learning, and contribution) that encourage employee engagement by creating a sense 
of being valued and supported. 

The interaction effect shows that workload, as a moderating variable, strengthens the 

relationship between quality of work life and work engagement among civil servants at the 

National Land Agency (BPN) in District X. Under high workload conditions, the role of 

quality of work life in enhancing work engagement increases. Under moderate workload, 

the influence still increases, but at a slower pace. Under low workload, the influence of 

quality of work life on work engagement decreases. Overall, this indicates that the role of 

quality of work life on work engagement increases in line with the increase in workload. 

This finding is in line with Bakker and Schaufeli (2008), who suggested that job resources, 

including quality of work life enhance work engagement, especially when job demands, 

including workload are high. Institutions that foster quality of work life in the workplace can 

improve employee engagement by providing essential elements such as: trust and 

responsibility in their roles, opportunities for learning, involvement in valuable 

contributions, appreciation from supervisors and peers, and mutual care among colleagues. 

All of these contribute to psychological well-being and help employees find meaning 

in their work (Gupta & Sharma, 2018). With strong quality of work life, increased workload 

is no longer viewed negatively but rather as a challenge that fosters engagement, as 

employees feel adequately resourced to handle it. As stated by Bakker & Demerouti (2007) 

in the JD-R model, when employees have sufficient resources, high job demands can actually 

increase engagement by motivating employees to contribute more. Additionally, high 

workload that is positively received and perceived as a challenge can further enhance 

employee involvement in their work. Research by Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) emphasized 

that work engagement is not solely tied to light job conditions but also depends on how 

employees perceive and manage demands, provided they have enough job and personal 

resources. 

The National Land Agency (BPN) in District X is responsible for public service tasks 

related to land matters. The workload related to public service demands at institutions like 

BPN can place significant pressure on employees. However, with good quality of work life, 



152   
               ISSN 2598-6368 (online) / ISSN 1693-7236 (print) 

  

Dhiatira Biananda Apsari et.al (Quality of work life, anchor virtues, and work engagement:…) 

this workload can be managed as a challenge to overcome. For civil servants at BPN District 

X, this is crucial since the high demands of public service require strong engagement to 

ensure optimal service delivery. When quality of work lifeis well-established, civil servants 

at BPN District X can maintain high engagement levels even under increasing workload, 

which in turn will positively impact the quality of services provided to the public. 

Similarly, the second hypothesis (H2) is also accepted, indicating that personal virtue-

based values, the anchor virtues affect work engagement and are influenced by workload. 

The findings reveal that anchor virtues have a positive effect on work engagement. As stated 

by Bakker and Demerouti (2007), personality traits influence an individual’s work 

engagement, and in this study, anchor virtues represent such traits. These personal 

characteristics can encourage individuals to contribute optimally. Research by Riyono 

(2020) indicates that individuals attain greater stability when they use virtues as their 

personal anchor. The stability of an anchor reflects an individual's capacity to cope with life 

challenges. When individuals anchor themselves in virtues rooted in goodness, those values 

guide them toward positive behavior. Consequently, individuals with anchor virtues are 

inclined to engage in behaviors that benefit their organization. 

Individuals with anchor virtues tend to cultivate a harmonious, supportive, and 

dynamic work environment while avoiding conflict. This enables smoother coordination and 

greater contribution at work (Hardanti & Riyono, 2022). work engagement is also influenced 

by personal resources (Bakker, 2011), and anchor virtues fall into this category. However, 

the interaction effect shows that workload, as a moderator, weakens the role of anchor virtues 

in work engagement. Under high workload conditions, the role of anchor virtues in 

influencing work engagement among civil servants at BPN District X decreases. Under 

moderate workload, the role increases, but not significantly. Under low workload, the 

influence of anchor virtues on work engagement increases. Overall, this indicates that the 

role of anchor virtues in work engagement tends to decrease as workload increases.  

According to (Riyono & Himam, 2011), anchors represent a personality structure. 

They are considered a personality structure because they reflect behavioral patterns that 

demonstrate a person’s orientation toward values such as virtues (Riyono, 2012). 

Characteristics within anchor virtues—such as kindness, meaning, love (Riyono, 2012), as 

well as empathy and integrity—serve as foundations for employees in carrying out their daily 

tasks that help employees feel more connected and find meaning in their work. However, in 

high workload contexts, the positive impact of anchor virtues on engagement may diminish 

or even reverse.This is supported by the JD-R model, which states that personal resources 

help individuals manage job demands and influence work engagement. Unfortunately, this 

area has not been widely researched. In this study, anchor virtues as personal resources were 

shown to increase work engagement. Riyono (2020) argues that anchors have characteristics 

that provide internal stability across various life situations. In the workplace, individuals 

with anchor virtues are more stable when facing high job demands. However, they may 

prefer to maintain work-life balance rather than push themselves beyond their limits to meet 

excessive demands, which they perceive as detrimental to their engagement. 

This is consistent with Bakker and Sanz-Vergel (2013), who noted that job demands 

can become obstacles for individuals. In the case of civil servants at BPN District X, 

considering that it is the largest district and faces more complex demands and cases than 

other areas, employees may perceive their workload as particularly high. This creates a 

difficult work environment where the positive influence of anchor virtues on work 

engagement can diminish or even reverse when job demands are overwhelming and personal 

resources are insufficient to compensate. 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 153 

 

Dhiatira Biananda Apsari et.al (Quality of work life, anchor virtues, and work engagement:…)  

Practical recommendations from this study to improve the quality of work life can be 

implemented through several key aspects. In terms of trust, leaders are encouraged to build 

confidence in their subordinates by delegating more challenging tasks that align with 

employees’ competencies. For example, unit leaders at the BPN (National Land Agency) in 

District X can regularly assign specific responsibilities—such as handling land disputes or 

managing land archive systems—to high-potential employees. These tasks should be 

matched with the employees’ competencies and previous performance evaluations, allowing 

them to feel empowered without feeling overwhelmed. An evaluation and feedback system 

should also be established upon task completion to provide recognition and guidance for 

further development. For the respect aspect, institutions should cultivate values that 

encourage mutual respect and appreciation among employees. This can be done by 

establishing a peer appreciation program, where employees can nominate their colleagues 

for monthly awards based on values such as respect and teamwork. In terms of care, 

recognition and appreciation should be given to employees who are able to handle a high 

workload while still delivering satisfactory service to the public. This can be assessed using 

relevant Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) such as the number of land case files completed 

on time, citizen satisfaction levels (measured through surveys), or the ability to resolve 

complex land cases. Regarding learning, the institution can provide training facilities to 

support employee development, such as communication training to improve service delivery 

and IT training in line with the ongoing digital transformation at BPN.  

For the contribution aspect, employees should be provided with a forum where they 

can directly share their ideas related to organizational problem-solving. This can be 

facilitated by creating participatory spaces that allow employees to offer innovative ideas 

and solutions for operational challenges, thereby increasing their sense of ownership and 

engagement within the organization. Another practical recommendation relates to the 

influence of anchor virtues on work engagement, moderated by workload. It is essential for 

institutions to clearly communicate organizational goal setting to employees. In high 

workload situations, it becomes particularly important for the institution to define clear and 

achievable goals and communicate them effectively to all employees. Ultimately, well-

structured goal setting reflects an individual’s commitment to their objectives. With clear 

goals, each employee is expected to better understand their priorities and direction, which in 

turn helps focus their efforts and increases their sense of engagement with their work. 

The limitation of this study lies in the use of workload as a moderator variable in the 

relationship between quality of work life and work engagement. This is because the main 

focus of the study was not on employees’ perceptions of workload. Theoretically, an ideal 

workload is not necessarily high or low, but rather one that matches an individual’s capacity 

and competence. However, in this study, the measurement of workload did not fully capture 

this alignment; instead, it focused more on intensity (whether the workload was light or 

heavy), which may have led to findings that appear less logical. For future research, it is 

recommended either to remove workload as a moderating variable or to develop a more 

accurate measurement that reflects the appropriateness of workload relative to individual 

capacity. 

Conclusion 

This study demonstrates that workload can moderate the role of quality of work life on work 
engagement among civil servants at the National Land Agency (BPN) in District X. When 
the workload is high, the influence of quality of work life on work engagement increases 
significantly. Under moderate workload conditions, the influence of quality of work life still 



154   
               ISSN 2598-6368 (online) / ISSN 1693-7236 (print) 

  

Dhiatira Biananda Apsari et.al (Quality of work life, anchor virtues, and work engagement:…) 

increases, but at a slower rate. However, when the workload is low, the influence of quality 
of work life on work engagement tends to decrease. This study also proves that workload 
moderates the role of anchor virtues on work engagement among civil servants at BPN 
District X. When the workload is high, the effect of anchor virtues on work engagement 
weakens. Under average workload conditions, the influence of anchor virtues increases, 
although not significantly. When the workload is low, the role of anchor virtues in enhancing 

work engagement increases.  

Acknowledgment 

The authors thank the participants for their contributions to this research. 

 

Declarations 

Author contribution. The first author contributed to designing the study, collecting data, and  

writing the manuscript draft. The second author contributed to supervising the design study,  

consulting on data analysis, reviewing the manuscript, and finalising the manuscript.    

Funding statement. The authors did not receive funding for research and manuscript 

writing.  

and publication of this article.  
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest that can influence this study. 
 

References 

 

Abualigah, A., Davies, J., & Harrington, S. (2021). Religiosity and work engagement: 

Workload as a moderator. Stress and Health, 37(5), 862–870. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3042 

Agustiningrum, D. T. (2016). The relationship between emotional intelligence and workload 

with work stress. Universitas Gadjah Mada. 

Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in 

Psychological Science, 20(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411414534 

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands‐resources model: State of the art. 

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115 

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career 

Development International, 13(3), 209–223. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476 

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and 

looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056 

Bakker, A. B., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2013). Weekly work engagement and flourishing: The 

role of hindrance and challenge job demands. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 

397–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.008 

Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged 

employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 

147–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.515 

Dale Carnegie Training. (2012). The dynamics of employee engagement. 

https://www.dalecarnegie.id/uploads/2014/02/The_Dynamics_of_Employee_Engage

ment.pdf 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 155 

 

Dhiatira Biananda Apsari et.al (Quality of work life, anchor virtues, and work engagement:…)  

Elfitasari, N., & Mulyana, O. P. (2020). The relationship between perceptions of workload 

and work engagement among employees. Character: Jurnal Penelitian Psikologi, 7(1), 

1–7. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.26740/cjpp.v7i1.32901 

Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R. P., & Taylor, C. R. (2004). The race for talent: Retaining and 

engaging workers in the 21st century. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12–25. 

Gallup. (2016). Global great jobs report. https://www.gallup.com/services/191105/gallup-

2016-global-great-jobs-

report.aspx#:~:text=Gallup’s%202016%20Global%20Great%20Jobs,from%20more%

20than%20130%20countries 

Gorgievski, M. J., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Passion for work: Work engagement versus 

workaholism. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement: 

Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 264–271). Edward Elgar Publishing. 

https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849806374.00030 

Gupta, N., & Sharma, V. (2018). The comparative analysis of employee engagement 

measures: A theoretical perspective. International Journal of Management Practice, 

11(1), 42–68. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMP.2018.088382 

Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement 

among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 495–513. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001 

Hardanti, N. F., & Riyono, B. (2022). The role of anchor virtues, leader member exchange, 

and creative climate on innovative work behavior. ANALITIKA: Jurnal Magister 

Psikologi UMA, 14(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.31289/analitika.v14i1.6760 

Hardono, E. R. (2021). The role of parenting style and anchor virtues on the grit of 

prospective workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Universitas Gadjah Mada. 

Ishfaq, M., Al-Hajieh, H., & Alharthi, M. (2022). Quality of work life (QWL) and Its impact 

on the performance of the banking industry in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of 

Financial Studies, 10(3), 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs10030061 

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and 

life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied 

Psychology, 90(2), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.257 

Kanten, S., & Sadullah, O. (2012). An empirical research on relationship quality of work life 

and work engagement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 360–366. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.057 

Lavigna, B., & Basso, P. (2020). Employee engagement in human services. (Part 2): The 

flip slide of challenge is opportunity. https://www.cpshr.us/wp-

content/uploads/6070902f51055885e3c1ff33_pp-oct-2020-employee-engagement-

part-2-1.pdf 

Leiter, M. P., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory 

and research. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: Introduction 

(1st ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203853047 

Ongore, O. (2014). A study of relationship between personality traits and job engagement. 

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 1315–1319. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.226 

Reid, G. B., & Nygren, T. E. (1988). The subjective workload assessment technique: A 

scaling procedure for measuring mental workload. In P. S. Hancock & N. Meshkati 

(Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 185–218). North-Holland. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62387-0 

Riyono, B. (2012). Quality of work life (QWL) assessment report. 



156   
               ISSN 2598-6368 (online) / ISSN 1693-7236 (print) 

  

Dhiatira Biananda Apsari et.al (Quality of work life, anchor virtues, and work engagement:…) 

Riyono, B. (2020). A study of the internal structure of the anchor personality inventory. 

ANIMA Indonesian Psychological Journal, 35(2), 183–205. 

https://doi.org/10.24123/aipj.v35i2.2907 

Riyono, B., Hartati, S., & Fatdina, F. (2022). Quality of work life (QWL) from psychological 

perspective and the development of its measurement. Jurnal Psikologi, 49(1), 87–103. 

https://doi.org/10.22146/jpsi.67973 

Riyono, B., & Himam, F. (2011). Reaching for anchors: The fundamental motivational force 

to counterbalance human powerlessness [Universitas Gadjah Mada]. 

http://etd.repository.ugm.ac.id/home/detail_pencarian/51211 

Rohmatiah, A., & Amadi, D. N. (2019). Analysis of work professionalism and work 

motivation on employee performance with inspector leadership as a moderating 

variable in the Magetan regency inspectorate. Prosiding Seminar Nasional 

Cendekiawan, 2.1.1-2.1.9. https://doi.org/10.25105/semnas.v0i0.5764 

Rosa, W. N., & Riyono, B. (2014). The role of task autonomy, feedback, and quality of 

working life on work engagement. Universitas Gadjah Mada. 

Saxena, V., & Srivastava, R. K. (2015). Impact of employee engagement on employee 

performance case of manufacturing sectors. International Journal of Management 

Research and Business Strategy, 4(2), 139–174. 

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/IMPACT-OF-EMPLOYEE-

ENGAGEMENT-ON-EMPLOYEE-OF-Saxena-

Srivastava/aa9e6185b54c606588cc8d3c4b17aa423304a9ad 

Schaufeli, W. (2012). Work engagement: What do we know and where do we go? Romanian 

Journal of Applied Psychology, 14(1), 3–10. 

https://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/374.pdf 

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship 

with burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample study. Journal of Organizational 

Behavior, 25(3), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248 

Sitorus, H., & Primanita, R. Y. (2024). The relationship between employee well-being and 

work engagement among government employees. Innovative: Journal Of Social 

Science Research, 4(1), 9214–9224. 

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31004/innovative.v4i1.8978 

Yaningsih, T. A., & Triwahyuni, E. (2022). The influence of supervision, workload, and 

career development on employee job satisfaction. Akmenika: Jurnal Akuntansi Dan 

Manajemen, 19(1), 604–613. https://doi.org/10.31316/akmenika.v19i1.2636 

Yanuariza, Y. V., & Novitaningtyas, I. (2021). Quality of service in the comprehensive 

systematic land registration program at the Sleman district land office. JPAP: Jurnal 

Penelitian Administrasi Publik, 7(2), 104–115. 

https://doi.org/10.30996/jpap.v7i2.3650 

  


