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