Many researchers have concerns about work engagement's distinction from other constructs and its theoretical merit. The goals of this study were to identify an agreed‐upon definition of engagement, to investigate its uniqueness, and to clarify its nomological network of constructs. Using a conceptual framework based on Macey and Schneider (2008; Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30), we found that engagement exhibits discriminant validity from, and criterion related validity over, job attitudes. We also found that engagement is related to several key antecedents and consequences. Finally, we used meta‐analytic path modeling to test the role of engagement as a mediator of the relation between distal antecedents and job performance, finding support for our conceptual framework. In sum, our results suggest that work engagement is a useful construct that deserves further attention.

Although considerable research has focused on employee reactions to organizational justice, far less research has examined why managers adhere to rules of justice in the first place. Taking a proactive approach to organizational justice, we address this void by examining managerial motives for adhering to distributive, procedural, informational, and interpersonal rules of justice on a day-today basis. Results of an experience-sampling study of 90 managers who completed daily surveys over a three-week period revealed that both "cold" cognitive (i.e., effecting compliance, identity maintenance, and establishing fairness) and "hot" affective (i.e., high positive affect and low negative affect) motives were associated with managerial adherence to justice rules. Moreover, "cold" motives were more strongly associated with justice rule adherence for justice dimensions over which managers perceived less discretion, while "hot" motives were more strongly associated with justice rule adherence for justice dimensions over which managers perceived greater discretion. We discuss the implications of our findings for both theory and practice.

No abstract

We examine the effect of supervisor injustice directed toward 1 team member and argue not only that the violated member will retaliate against the supervisor but that team members will band together as a collective in order to retaliate. However, we argue that effects depend on which member is violated, such that violating a strategic core member will result in greater retaliation. We then test the effect of a supervisor recovery attempt, hypothesizing that a recovery will negatively impact retaliation and that the coreness of the violated member moderates this effect, such that it is more important to recover a core member. We test our hypotheses utilizing 64 teams engaged in a command-and-control simulation. Results generally support our hypotheses for retaliation in the form of fewer supervisor-directed organizational citizenship behaviors but are less supportive for retaliation in the form of lower supervisor performance evaluations.

Job analysis has a central role in virtually every aspect of HR and is one of several high performance work practices thought to underlie firm performance. Given its ubiquity and importance, it is not surprising that considerable effort has been devoted to developing comprehensive job analysis systems and methodologies. Yet, the complexity inherent in collecting detailed and specific "decomposed" information has led some to pursue "holistic" strategies designed to focus on more general and abstract job analysis information. It is not clear, however, if these two different strategies yield comparable information, nor if respondents are equally capable of generating equivalent information. Drawing from cognitive psychology research, we suggest that experienced and careless job analysis respondents are less likely to evidence convergence in their decomposed and holistic job analysis judgments. In a field sample of professional managers, we found that three different types of task-related work experience moderated the relationship between decomposed and holistic ratings, accounting for an average ΔR 2 of 4.7%. Three other more general types of work experience, however, did not moderate this relationship, supporting predictions that only experience directly related to work tasks would prove to be a liability when making judgments. We also found that respondent carelessness moderated the relationship