Work Engagement
Every factor researchers have brought together to explain work engagement, combined from 7 study models into one ranked driver set — the model the priority engine reasons over.
31 drivers · 7 contributing models · Handbook entry →
§1The drivers, by consensus
Ranked by how many independent models include each driver (consensus), then pooled effect. “In N of 7” is a robustness signal — a driver in many models is one many researchers agreed matters; a driver in one is a single lead worth following.
| Driver | Consensus | Pooled r | Grade | Heterogeneity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Autonomy | 3 / 7 | +0.48 | A | I²≈1.00 |
| Task Variety | 2 / 7 | +0.53 | B | — |
| Servant Leadership | 2 / 7 | +0.49 | A | — |
| Job Resources | 2 / 7 | +0.37 | A | — |
| Performance Feedback | 2 / 7 | +0.34 | A | — |
| Social Support | 2 / 7 | +0.32 | A | — |
| Job Satisfaction | 1 / 7 | +0.60 | A | — |
| Need Satisfaction | 1 / 7 | +0.58 | A | I²≈1.00 |
| Optimism | 1 / 7 | +0.55 | A | — |
| Task Significance | 1 / 7 | +0.51 | B | — |
| Burnout | 1 / 7 | −0.48 | A | — |
| Relatedness | 1 / 7 | +0.48 | A | — |
| Work Self Efficacy | 1 / 7 | +0.47 | A | — |
| Transformational Leadership | 1 / 7 | +0.43 | A | — |
| Turnover Intention | 1 / 7 | −0.43 | A | — |
| Conscientiousness | 1 / 7 | +0.41 | A | — |
| Ethical Leadership | 1 / 7 | +0.39 | B | — |
| Competence | 1 / 7 | +0.38 | A | — |
| Extraversion | 1 / 7 | +0.38 | A | — |
| Neuroticism | 1 / 7 | −0.36 | A | — |
| Organizational Justice | 1 / 7 | +0.33 | B | — |
| Leader Member Exchange LMX | 1 / 7 | +0.31 | B | — |
| Agreeableness | 1 / 7 | +0.27 | A | — |
| Role Conflict | 1 / 7 | −0.24 | A | — |
| Abusive Supervision | 1 / 7 | −0.23 | A | — |
| Role Overload | 1 / 7 | −0.20 | B | — |
| Hindrance Demands | 1 / 7 | −0.19 | A | — |
| Challenge Demands | 1 / 7 | +0.16 | A | — |
| Workload | 1 / 7 | +0.13 | A | — |
| Workload Wl | 1 / 7 | +0.13 | A | — |
| Job Demands | 1 / 7 | −0.08 | A | — |
“Pooled r” is the meta-analytic prior where one exists; drivers marked study-reported have a model but not yet a pooled prior — a concrete acquisition target. This is the value-of-information view in miniature: the priority engine can rank which driver to measure first by consensus, strength, and how much is still unknown.
§2The models it’s built from
Each contributing study model — the researcher’s theory of this outcome — with its size and grade, so the meta-model is auditable back to its sources.
| Source study | Predictors | Grade |
|---|---|---|
| doi:10.1037/a0019364 | 13 | A |
| doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x | 6 | A |
| doi:10.1177/00332941211051988 | 6 | A |
| doi:10.2486/indhealth.2021-0051 | 4 | A |
| doi:10.1177/0149206316632058 | 4 | A |
| doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101458 | 3 | A |
| doi:10.1177/0149206316665461 | 2 | B |