Personality and Individual Differences 73 (2015) 44–49

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The engageable personality: Personality and trait EI as predictors

of work engagement
Reece Akhtar, Lara Boustani, Dimitrios Tsivrikos, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic ⇑
Department of Psychology, UCL, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Work engagement is seen as a critical antecedent of various organizational outcomes such as citizenship
Received 5 June 2014 behavior and employee productivity. Though defined as a state, recent research has hinted at potential
Received in revised form 26 August 2014 individual differences in engagement, meaning that employees differ in their tendencies to engage at
Accepted 28 August 2014
work. This study investigated the effects of the Big Five personality traits, work-specific personality,
and trait emotional intelligence, on work engagement among a sample of 1050 working adults. Hierar-
chical multiple regression analyses identified trait EI, openness to experience, interpersonal sensitivity,
Keywords:
ambition, extraversion, adjustment, and conscientiousness as predictors of engagement. Trait EI pre-
Engagement
Personality
dicted work engagement over and above personality. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.
Trait EI Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction is extensively researched, its broad nature may conceal important

In recent years there has been a growing interest in exploring the
link between personality and a construct known as work engage-
ment (defined as ‘‘a fulfilling work-related state of mind that is charac-
terized by vigor, dedication and absorption’’; p. 702, Schaufeli, Bakker,
& Salanova, 2006). The construct has been found to hold a positive
relationship with a variety of organizational measures of perfor-
mance (Saks, 2006), despite evidence to suggest that up to 70% of
the workforce are not engaged (Gallup Employee Engagement sur-
vey; 2011). As a result there is a practical and theoretical need to
better understand how and why individuals become engaged with
their work in order to improve employee well-being and organiza-
tional performance (Robertson & Cooper, 2010).
An increasingly popular approach to understand the anteced-
ents of work engagement involves examining the differences in
personality traits possessed by more or less engaged employees,
however a comprehensive understanding of a wide range of traits
seems to be lacking, in particular, the role of trait emotional
intelligence (TEI; Petrides & Furnham, 2003) and contextualized
measures of personality, with researchers favoring broad personal-
ity traits such as the Five Factor Model (FFM). For example,
Halbesleben’s (2010) meta-analysis of work engagement found
few studies that reported the effects of narrow traits.
According to the FFM, stable patterns of behaviors are charac-
terized by five higher order personality traits. Although the FFM
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 794 138 6220.
E-mail address: t.chamorro@ucl.ac.uk (T. Chamorro-Premuzic).
relationships when it comes to the prediction of work engagement,
thereby demonstrating an example of the bandwidth-fidelity prob-
lem (Ashton, 1998; Griffin & Hesketh, 2004). Therefore, contextu-
alized and narrow personality traits (for example, trait EI & the
Hogan Personality Inventory; Hogan & Hogan, 1997; HPI) may offer
incremental validity. In line with this, the present study explored
the predictive validity of narrow and contextualized measures of
personality on work engagement, over and above broad traits.
Demonstrating such a relationship would have practical implica-
tions surrounding talent management, recruitment and organiza-
tional change.
1.1. Big Five as predictors of engagement: Past studies
Given that the definition of work engagement consists of activa-
tion and energy, it has been argued that certain personality dimen-
sions reflect a propensity for engagement due to their behavioral
characteristics (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli,
2009). Specifically, preliminary evidence suggests that high extra-
version, agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness, as well as
low neuroticism, relate to high levels of work engagement.
1.1.1. Neuroticism and extraversion
Langelaan, Bakker, van Doornen, and Schaufeli (2006) examined
the relationship between Eysenck’s Big Two and work engagement.
They characterized burnout and work engagement in terms of per-
sonality and temperament, using the two-dimensional activation
and pleasure model of affect proposed by Schaufeli and Bakker

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.040
0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R. Akhtar et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 73 (2015) 44–49 45

(2004) as the underlying framework (Langelaan et al., 2006). The extraversion and openness to experience are divided into two sep-
pleasure dimension at the level of subjective experience, refers to arate traits (for a discussion on the distinction between the FFM
how well one is feeling, while the activation dimension refers to and HPI see Hogan & Holland, 2003). Given the previous discussion
the mobilization of energy. Since negative affect (NA) is character- on broad versus narrow traits, it is suitable to include both the FFM
ized by feelings of nervousness, anger and fear, and positive affect and the HPI to test for incremental validity. The following is there-
(PA) is characterized by feelings of happiness, enthusiasm and fore hypothesized:
energy. Langelaan et al. (2006) concluded that engaged employees
have high PA and low NA compared to burned-out employees. In H1: Extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, and agreeable-
fact, NA has been found to be strongly related to neuroticism and ness will positively predict work engagement.
weakly related to extraversion, while the opposite is true for PA H2: Neuroticism will negatively predict work engagement.
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Similarly, Inceoglu and Warr (2011) H3: All HPI dimensions will positively predict work
found that low levels of neuroticism and high levels of extraversion engagement.
predicted employee engagement.
1.2. Trait EI as predictor of engagement
1.1.2. Conscientiousness
Kim Shin and Swanger’s (2009) findings also revealed conscien-
Aside from FFM personality, recent research on work engage-
tiousness as the strongest predictor of work engagement. They
ment alludes to the importance of emotions via its link with the
suggest that since the components of work engagement describe
conservation of resources (COR; Hobfoll, 2001) theory. According
internal drives to achieve a goal, conscientiousness affects work
to COR, people invest in personal resources to avoid loss and max-
engagement through internal motivational processes. Indeed, indi-
imize gain. Since emotional resources, a subtype of personal
viduals high in conscientiousness are more likely to have a high
resource, have been found to elicit positive attitudes and perfor-
achievement orientation (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Therefore
mance, they are also likely to elicit engagement. Employees high
employees high in conscientiousness are reported as being respon-
on emotional intelligence (the degree to which a person can man-
sible and invest their energy into work, which in turn creates a
age & interpret their own and other’s emotions; Salovey & Meyer,
strong sense of professional efficacy (Kim et al., 2009).
1989) have successful interactions with their peers, and conse-
Consistently, Mostert and Rothmann (2006) found conscien-
quently collect more emotional resources from these successful
tiousness to be a predictor of engagement in a survey of 1794
interactions. Thus it motivates them to exert more effort and
South African police officers. Inceoglu and Warr (2011) highlight
energy at work, making EI a personal resource that facilitates
these findings by demonstrating the achievement orientation facet
engagement (Duran, Extremera, & Rey, 2004).
of conscientiousness to be the strongest predictor of engagement
Brunetto, Teo, Shacklock, and Farr-Wharton (2012) further sup-
relative to other Big Five factors. Moreover, in their exploratory
port this narrative, where they conclude that EI predicts one’s per-
investigations of engagement and conscientiousness,
ceptions of well-being and job satisfaction, which in turn,
Halbesleben, Harvey, and Bolino (2009) indicate that conscientious
influences engagement. Similarly, Ravichandran, Arasu, and
employees exhibit high levels of work engagement because they
Kumar (2011) concluded that higher levels of trait EI predicted
experience lower levels of work interference with their family
higher levels of overall engagement. In line with the COR theory,
(Halbesleben et al., 2009).
this study emphasizes EI as a personal resource that is associated
with positive emotional and behavioral responses to work-context
1.1.3. Agreeableness
stressors. Duran et al. (2004) further supported these findings by
Wefald, Reichard, and Serrano (2011) found that in addition to
demonstrating a correlation between mood regulation and all
conscientiousness and extraversion, agreeableness predicted
engagement dimensions.
engagement and even mediated its effect on job satisfaction and
More specifically, two meta-analyses (O’Boyle, Humphrey,
commitment. Similarly, Kim, Shin and Umbreit (2007), suggest
Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2010; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004)
that agreeableness is as important as extraversion when it comes
found trait EI to predict a wide range of job performance outcomes
to professional efficacy. Although it was not specifically related
after controlling for personality and IQ. Therefore despite its over-
to work engagement, its relationship with self-efficacy emphasizes
lap with the Big Five personality factors, studies have suggested
its pertinence to the hospitality industry (Kim et al., 2007, 2009). In
that trait EI explains additional and unique variance to outcomes
fact Morgeson, Reider, and Campion (2005) suggest that engaged
such as happiness (Chamorro-Premuzic, Benett, & Furnham,
employees efficiently implement their tasks, which for the most
2007), life satisfaction (Saklofske, Austin, & Minski, 2003), and
part, require teamwork. Therefore since agreeable employees fos-
competency to support (Petrides & Furnham, 2003). In particular
ter teamwork, they are more likely to be engaged than those low
trait EI is distinct from ability EI in its measurement and discrimi-
on agreeableness.
nant validity (Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2014). Given the above argu-
ments, the following is hypothesized:
1.1.4. Openness to experience
Openness to experience has been found to predict training but
H4: Trait EI will demonstrate incremental validity over the FFM
not job proficiency (Griffin & Hesketh, 2004). Inceoglu and Warr
of personality.
(2011) however, found creative thinking styles (a facet of open-
H5: Trait EI will demonstrate incremental validity over and
ness) to be a significant predictor of engagement despite the
above the seven HPI traits.
remaining openness facets to be unrelated. This supports Griffin
and Hesketh (2004) who argue that the predictive validity of open-
ness to experience with regards to organizational outcomes is 2. Methods
reduced due to its multidimensionality.
Despite the inconsistencies among the personality factors 2.1. Participants
examined, the literature suggests that all factors of FFM could pre-
dict engagement. It can be expected that this relationship will be The sample consisted of N = 1050 adults workers
stronger for work specific measures of the FFM, in this case the (Females = 527, 50.2%; Males = 523; 49.8%) and the ages ranged
HPI. The HPI features seven traits that are based on the FFM, except from 19 to 81 years (M = 45.2, SD = 12.53). Participants worked in
46 R. Akhtar et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 73 (2015) 44–49
a wide range of sectors (Education = 69.1%, Technology = 7.8%,
Health = 3.5%). Most participants worked full-time (79.5%).
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form (Petrides
& Furnham, 2006)
Trait emotional intelligence was measured using Petrides and
Furnham’s (2006) 30-item self-report scale. The scale used a 5-
point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = completely
agree), requires respondents to indicate the extent to which they
agree with statements concerning their ability to manage and
identify their own emotions and those of others (e.g. ‘‘I can deal
effectively with people’’).
2.2.2. The Ten Item Personality Inventory (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann,
2003)
TIPI is a brief measure of the FFM. It consists of 10-items with 2
items representing each factor (extraversion, neuroticism, open-
ness, agreeableness, & conscientiousness). The questionnaire starts
with the statement ‘‘I see myself as’’ followed by 10 items, each of
which includes a pair of trait descriptors (e.g. ‘‘I see myself as anx-
ious, easily upset’’). Using a 7-point Likert-scale (1 = strongly dis-
agree to 7 = strongly agree), respondents rate the degree to
which the descriptors apply to them.
2.2.3. Hogan Short Personality Inventory (Short HPI; Hogan & Hogan,
1997)
The short HPI is a form of the longer 182-item HPI. This measure
emphasizes constructs pertinent to job and occupational perfor-
mance. The measure consists of 21 questions representing 7 pri-
mary scales: ‘‘adjustment’’ (neuroticism) refers to one’s ability to
remain calm under pressure. Together, ‘‘ambition’’, one’s competi-
tiveness and desire for leadership roles, and ‘‘sociability’’, one’s
need to interact with others, represent extraversion. ‘‘Interpersonal
sensitivity’’ (agreeableness) refers to one’s tactfulness and ability
to maintain relationships with others. ‘‘Prudence’’ (conscientious-
ness) refers to one’s self-discipline and responsibility. Finally,
‘‘inquisitive’’, one’s creative potential and curiosity, and ‘‘learning
approach’’, the degree to which one is achievement-oriented and
keeps up with business and technological topics, represent open-
ness to experience (Hogan & Hogan, 1997). Participants respond
using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree).
2.2.4. The Utrecht work engagement survey-9 items (UWES-9;
Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003)
The UWES-9 is a 9-item scale measuring work engagement. It is
a shorter version of the original 17-item UWES that characterizes
work engagement by three subscales: vigor, dedication, and
absorption. The items are presented in a form of questions (e.g.
‘‘I am immersed in my job’’) and participants are asked to respond
using a frequency 7-point Likert-type scale (0 = never to
6 = always).
2.3. Procedure & data analysis
Participants were recruited through the internal network of the
Academic Conferences International Company. Participants pro-
vided their answers via online questionnaires. Participants
received immediate feedback on their personality and emotional
intelligence scores.
Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations and hierarchical
multiple regressions were computed.
3. Results
Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations and estimates of
internal are shown in Table 1. Generally, both HPI and TIPI have
similar correlation effect sizes with respect to engagement. Among
the hypothesized predictor variables, EI had the strongest correla-
tion with work engagement. Given these results, the incremental
validity of trait EI in the prediction of engagement beyond that of
the personality variables was then tested.
3.1. Regression analysis
A four-step hierarchical multiple regression were employed to
explore the predictors of engagement. In the first step of the
regression, age and gender were entered. In the second and third
steps, TIPI and HPI dimensions were entered respectively. Finally,
trait EI was entered in the fourth step. The statistical assumptions
for the model (i.e. ratio of cases to IVs, normality, independence of
errors, homoscedasticity, linearity, & absence of multicollinearity)
were all met.
Table 2 displays the results for all steps of the regression. The
significant predictors (in order from strongest to weakest) were:
trait EI, openness to experience, interpersonal sensitivity, ambi-
tion, extraversion, adjustment and conscientiousness (hypotheses
1, 2 & 3 partially supported, & hypothesis 4 & 5 supported). In
model three, it is important to highlight how neuroticism and
agreeableness became non-significant once contextualized alter-
natives of the traits (i.e. the HPI’s Adjustment & Interpersonal Sen-
sitivity) were included in the model. Similarly, broad traits such
conscientiousness and extraversion demonstrated incremental
validity over contextualized measures. Model three accounted for
25% of the variance in engagement scores. When trait EI was
included in the model, the amount of variance accounted for rose
to 26%.
4. Discussion
Our results demonstrate that personality factors are valid pre-
dictors of work engagement. Since there was a slight overlap
between the operationalization of the HPI and TIPI factors, not all
HPI and Big Five dimensions were significant predictors as they
competed for variance in engagement. The broad Big Five person-
ality predictors were openness, extraversion, and conscientious-
ness, while the work-related personality predictors were
interpersonal sensitivity, adjustment, and ambition.
Though studies have identified personality as determinants of
engagement (see Inceoglu & Warr, 2011; Kim et al., 2009;
Langelaan et al., 2006; Wefald et al., 2011) findings have been
mixed as to which dimensions best predict engagement. This is
mainly because most research on engagement and personality
has focused on extraversion, emotional stability and conscientious-
ness as the psychological states experienced by those high on these
traits can be related to engagement by definition (Bakker,
Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008). Though studies have excluded
openness to experience because it is perceived as a weak predictor
of work outcomes (Griffin & Hesketh, 2004), it emerged as the sec-
ond strongest predictor (after EI) in this study. One explanation for
this relationship is through openness to experience’s link with the
personal resource, resiliency. Resiliency is a main driver of work
engagement as resilient individuals are able to successfully control
their environment, which gives them intrinsic motivation to pur-
sue their goals (i.e. goal self-concordance; Bakker et al., 2008).
Given the link between openness to experience and resiliency, it
is not surprising that employees high on openness to experience
acquire the motivation and energy to be engaged at work.
 R. Akhtar et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 73 (2015) 44–49 47

Table 1
Descriptive statistics & bivariate correlations.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

1. Engagement –
2. E .24** –
3. A .12** .03 –
4. C .20** .01 .15** –
5. N .20** .05 .36** .23** –
6. O .31** .28** .13** .09** .19** –
7. Adjustment .27** .06 .21** .17** .65** .19** –
8. Ambition .25** .22** .08** .12** .12 .19** .28** –
9. Sociability .21** .67** .06 .07* .15 .28** .31** .06 –
10. IS .18** .01 .53** .13** .23** .12** .31** .15** .05 –
11. Prudence .07* -.07* .10** .38** .10** .13** .11** .08** .05 .14** –
12. Inquisitive .02 .13** .11** .11** .11** .22** .02 .04 .13** .17** .08* –
13. LA .19** .05 .07 .08* .08** .29** .26** .12** .15** .11** .15** .01 –
14. Trait EI .41** .33** .36** .33** .57** .43** .52** .17** .22** .05 .13** .28** .18** –
15. Age .24** .00 .18** .09** .20** .11** .21** .02 .07* .09** .00 .15** .16** .21** –
Mean 4.46 4.63 4.96 5.56 3.02 5.68 3.15 3.23 3.28 3.90 3.37 2.92 3.95 3.85 45.29
SD .91 1.37 1.11 1.12 1.27 1.00 .81 .69 .80 .64 .74 .66 .62 .44 12.47
a .90 .63 .25 .47 .57 .45 .67 .37 .56 .37 .49 .20 .28 .88 –

Note: E = Extraversion, C = Conscientiousness, A = Agreeableness, O = Openness, N = Neuroticism, IS = Interpersonal Sensitivity, LA = Learning Approach.
*
Correlation significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
**
Correlation significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Table 2
Results of a hierarchical regression.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Variables b t b t b t b t
Age .24 7.99*** .18 6.24*** .16 5.70*** .16 5.62***
Gender .01 .27 .01 .49 .01 .18 .02 .51
Neuroticism .12 3.79*** .02 .51 .03 .74
Conscientiousness .14 4.99*** .10 3.45** .08 2.46*
Openness .20 6.90*** .16 5.31*** .13 4.15***
Agreeableness .01 .16 .05 1.57 .07 1.09*
Extraversion .18 6.19*** .13 3.55*** .11 2.86**
Sociability .04 1.08 .02 .54
Interpersonal sensitivity .14 4.34*** .12 3.85***
Prudence .04 1.29 .04 1.16
Inquisitive .01 .27 .01 .21
Adjustment .12 3.36** .09 2.31*
Ambition .14 4.84*** .12 4.20***
Learning approach .06 1.92 .04 1.22
Trait EI .18 4.16***
R2 Adj R2 R2 Change
Model 1 .058 .056 .058
Model 2 .203 .197 .145
Model 3 .255 .245 .052
Model 4 .267 .256 .012
*
Correlation significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
**
Correlation significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
***
Correlation significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). N = 1050.

The salience of extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of
work engagement is documented in this study thereby supporting
the affective-motivational state of work engagement (Langelaan
et al., 2006). Moreover, this study is in line with previous findings
that link conscientiousness with work engagement. Since the com-
ponents of work engagement describe internal drives to achieve a
goal, conscientiousness affects work engagement through internal
motivational process. This means that conscientious individuals
are more likely to have high levels of achievement orientation
and are less affected by external interferences (e.g. family), and
thus exhibit more energy at work (Halbesleben et al., 2009; Kim
et al., 2009).
Both TIPI and HPI personality measures were proven significant
predictors since they explained similar unique variances in
engagement. Although the HPI dimensions fully explained the var-
iance of neuroticism on engagement, the TIPI fully explained the
variance of prudence, sociability, and learning approach, suggest-
ing that their corresponding broad Big Five factors better explain
the variance in engagement.
Despite the slight overlap between HPI and TIPI dimensions,
this study indicates that some situational specific personality
traits (HPI) account for variances which broad traits (TIPI) do
not tap into. For example, interpersonal sensitivity, but not agree-
ableness, emerged as a significant predictor of engagement.
Therefore there was no relation between employees who reported
seeing themselves as generally more sympathetic and warm
instead of critical on engagement. Specifically, employees with a
strong desire to help others at work, that avoid hurting others’
feelings, and are not seen as confrontational, exhibit higher levels
of engagement at work. Thus, a distinction between contextuali-
zed and broad behavior is apparent when it comes to work
engagement.
48 R. Akhtar et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 73 (2015) 44–49
This distinction was further demonstrated given that ambition
remained significant over and above TIPI’s Big Five variant, sug-
gesting that it has predictive validity that Big Five does not account
for in engagement. This is unlike sociability, whose relationship
with engagement was fully accounted for by TIPI (i.e. extraver-
sion). This result highlights the need to measure broad and narrow
personality traits to get a comprehensive understanding of behav-
ior at work.
Finally, when looking at each predictor alone, trait EI predicted
engagement even after controlling for the variance of personality
factors (and age), supporting H3. Despite only accounting for an
extra 1% in the variance, trait EI’s unique contribution in predicting
work engagement beyond that of demographics and personality
was demonstrated. This finding suggests that emotionally intelli-
gent employees are more likely to be engaged at work regardless
of their age, gender, and Big Five and HPI profiles. This provides
support for the theoretical explanation of emotional intelligence
as a personal resource that facilitates engagement. According to
Duran et al. (2004) employees high on emotional intelligence have
successful interactions with coworkers, which in turn motivate
them to be more engaged.
Our results provide an insightful prospective towards a hierar-
chical integration of dispositional determinants for work engage-
ment, especially highlighting the independent contribution of
trait EI in the prediction of engagement. Broad measures of person-
ality, along with work-specific measures and trait EI appear to be
important contributors to work engagement. Although previous
studies have highlighted the importance of broad personality in
work engagement, none have examined the unique contribution
of emotional intelligence beyond other personality measures.
These findings are important because they provide empirical evi-
dence for stable individual differences in engagement, an unstable
state.
4.1. Limitations and future research
Although this study further expands knowledge on employee
engagement, its findings should be considered within the method-
ological limitations. Firstly, future research should seek to include
a more representative sample, given that the majority of the sam-
ple worked within the education sector. Secondly, this study mea-
sured work engagement as a one-dimensional construct. Future
analyses should also examine the relationships between its differ-
ent dimensions (vigor, dedication, and absorption) and personality,
to detect potential differences. Future research should also exam-
ine incremental validity of personality and trait EI beyond demo-
graphics; specifically over and above other factors that strongly
related to work engagement such as job resources, which has been
shown to influence work engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
Finally, since this study supports a horizontal relationship between
different personality traits and engagement of the same employee,
future research could investigate a vertical relationship between
these traits and engagement, specifically how EI of a direct leader
affects the engagement of his/her subordinates.
4.2. Implications
The results of this study have both theoretical and applied
implications. On a practical level by understanding dispositional
predictors of engagement, organizations can select employees high
on the personality traits examined in this study, specifically EI,
openness, extraversion, conscientiousness, adjustment, ambition,
and interpersonal sensitivity. By including these personality char-
acteristics in their selection criteria, organizations can improve
the likelihood of finding high-performing job candidates that other
selection systems may exclude.
Second, the results of this study can be used to enhance engage-
ment-related interventions. Most organizations are increasing
engagement by focusing on changes related to job demands and
resources. Though these job characteristics are also pertinent,
organizations can maximize their resources by being able to pre-
dict engagement earlier on (i.e. in the selection process), as
opposed to continuously spending resources on engagement inter-
ventions at a later stage. Therefore, this study supports a selection-
based approach to engagement, which could be more effective
than an intervention-based one. Thus, the empirical knowledge
allows organizations to gain competitive advantage by improving
the engagement of their employees.
References
Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow
traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 289–303.
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement:
An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work Stress, 22,
187–200.
Brunetto, Y., Teo, S., Shacklock, K., & Farr-Wharton, R. (2012). Emotional
intelligence, job satisfaction, well-being and engagement: Explaining
organisational commitment and turnover intentions in policing. Human
Resource Management Journal, 22(4), 428–441.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Benett, E., & Furnham, A. (2007). The happy personality:
Mediational role of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual
Differences, 42, 1633–1639.
Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2014). Comparing ability and self-report trait
emotional intelligence, fluid intelligence, and personality traits in career
decision. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 174–178.
Duran, A., Extremera, N., & Rey, L. (2004). Self-reported emotional intelligence,
burnout and engagement among staff in services for people with intellectual
disabilities. Psychological Reports, 95, 386–390.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. Jr., (2003). A very brief measure of the
Big Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.
Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. (2004). Why openness to experience is not a good predictor of
job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 243–251.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships
with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P.
Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and practice
(pp. 102–117). London and New York: Psychology Press.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation
of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work
interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1452–1465.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the
stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology,
50(3), 337–421.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan personality inventory manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan
Assessment Systems.
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-
performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(1), 100–112.
Inceoglu, I., & Warr, P. (2011). Personality and job engagement. Journal of Personnel
Psychology, 4, 177–181.
Kim, H. J., Shin, K. H., & Swanger, N. (2009). Burnout and engagement: A
comparative analysis using the Big Five personality dimensions. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 96–104.
Kim, H. J., Shin, K. H., & Umbreit, W. T. (2007). Hotel job burnout: The role of
personality characteristics. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
26(2), 421–434.
Langelaan, S., Bakker, A. B., van Doornen, L. J. P., & Schaufeli, W. (2006). Burnout and
work engagement: Do individual differences make a difference? Personality and
Individual Differences, 40, 521–532.
Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting individuals in team
settings: The important of social skills, personality characteristics, and
teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58, 583–611.
Mostert, K., & Rothmann, S. (2006). Work related well-being in the South African
police service. Journal of Criminal Justice, 5, 479–491.
O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. (2010).
The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 100–120.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Technical manual of the trait emotional
intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue). London: University of London, Institute of
Education.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2006). Trait EI in workplace. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 36(2), 552–569.
Ravichandran, K., Arasu, R., & Kumar, S. A. (2011). The impact of emotional
intelligence on employee engagement behavior: An empirical study.
International Journal of Business and Management, 6, 157–169.
Robertson, I. T., & Cooper, C. L. (2010). Full engagement: The integration of
employee engagement and psychological well-being. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 31(4), 324–336.
 R. Akhtar et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 73 (2015) 44–49
Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. S. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a
trait emotional intelligence measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 34,
1091–1100.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.
Salovey, P., & Meyer, J. D. (1989). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9, 185–211.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). UWES-Utrecht work engagement scale: Test
manual. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, Utrecht
University.
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.
49
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional Intelligence: A meta-analytic
investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 65, 71–95.
Wefald, A., Reichard, R., & Serrano, S. (2011). Fitting engagement into a nomological
network: The relationship of engagement to leadership and personality. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4), 522–537.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work
engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal
resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 183–200.