Abstract
Orientation: This study explores the relationship between individual work performance dimensions and work engagement within a South African multinational organisational context. Despite widespread interest in these constructs, their interrelationships remain inadequately explored.
Research purpose: The primary aim of this study was to investigate whether task and contextual performance can predict work engagement among employees of a multinational corporation operating in South Africa.
Motivation for the study: Existing literature focuses on engagement as an antecedent to performance. This study contributes by investigating the reverse relationship of whether performance components may function as drivers of work engagement.
Research approach/design and method: A quantitative cross-sectional approach was followed. Data were collected from 420 employees using convenience sampling. Participants completed the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire and the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Data were analysed using correlation and multiple regression to assess relationships between variables.
Main findings: Both performance dimensions were positively associated with work engagement. Contextual performance showed a stronger relationship, suggesting behaviours such as cooperation, initiative and supporting colleagues play an important role in fostering engagement. Together, both dimensions explained a meaningful portion of variation in engagement levels.
Practical/managerial implications: Organisations should develop performance management systems that recognise and reward both task and contextual performance. Leadership should encourage pro-social behaviours that strengthen social capital and sustain engagement.
Contribution/value-add: This study provides empirical evidence from a South African multinational context demonstrating the differential predictive capacity of performance dimensions on engagement, highlighting contextual performance as central to fostering engaged workforces.
Keywords: work engagement; task performance; contextual performance; individual work performance; performance.
Introduction
In an increasingly dynamic and competitive global economy, employee engagement has emerged as a critical determinant of organisational success (Deepalakshmi et al., 2024). Within this pursuit, two constructs have garnered significant scholarly and practitioner attention: individual work performance and work engagement. The relationship between these constructs has traditionally been conceptualised with engagement as an antecedent to performance (Alam et al., 2023; Rana et al., 2019; Saks, 2019). Work engagement and individual work performance represent critical constructs in contemporary organisational psychology, with substantial implications for employee well-being (Aubouin-Bonnaventure et al., 2024; Taris & Schaufeli, 2018) and organisational effectiveness (Bankins et al., 2024; Schaufeli, 2021). Within the South African context, the study of work engagement has received significant attention (Dhanpat & Mkhwanazi, 2023; Geldenhuys et al., 2014; Munnisunker & Dhanpat, 2025; Patience et al., 2020). Work engagement, characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption in one’s work (Bakker, 2022), has become a central focus for organisations seeking to optimise human capital (Zeglat & Janbeik, 2019). It is also linked to a range of positive outcomes including psychological empowerment (Dhanpat & Mkhwanazi, 2023), reduced turnover (Memon et al., 2021) and improved well-being (Huang et al., 2022; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Concurrently, individual work performance is a multidimensional construct, primarily delineated into task performance as the proficiency in executing core technical tasks and contextual performance the voluntary, interpersonally oriented behaviours that support the organisational (Platania et al., 2023). Simultaneously, individual work performance, encompassing both task performance and contextual performance dimensions, remains a fundamental concern for organisations operating in increasingly competitive global markets (Mihalca et al., 2024).
While considerable research has examined work engagement as an antecedent to performance outcomes (Bakker & De Vries, 2021), relatively limited attention has been devoted to investigating the reverse relationship. Specifically, the extent to which individual performance dimensions may function as drivers or predictors of work engagement remains inadequately explored (Chen & Chen, 2023). This gap is particularly pronounced within African organisational contexts, where unique socio-economic conditions may influence the dynamics between performance and engagement (Botha & Mostert, 2014).
This study addresses this gap by empirically examining the relationships between task performance, contextual performance and work engagement within a South African multinational organisation. By investigating performance as a potential predictor of engagement, this research contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the reciprocal mechanisms through which these constructs interact in contemporary workplaces.
Background and problem statement
The prevailing narrative in organisational psychology positions work engagement as a key predictor of employee performance (Bakker et al., 2008). Grounded in the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, this perspective posits that engaged employees, brimming with energy and enthusiasm, invest greater effort into their tasks and exhibit discretionary, pro-social behaviours (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Substantial empirical evidence demonstrates that engaged employees typically demonstrate higher levels of both task and contextual performance (Akanpaadgi et al., 2024; Huang et al., 2022).
The financial services sector presents a particularly relevant context for examining these dynamics. Characterised by high job demands, stringent regulatory requirements and intensive client-facing pressures, financial services organisations must continuously balance performance expectations with employee well-being. Within South Africa, the sector operates against a backdrop of significant socio-economic inequality, skills shortages and transformation imperatives, all of which place additional demands on employees. For multinational financial services organisations operating locally, these pressures are compounded by the need to meet internationally benchmarked performance standards while retaining and engaging a diverse workforce. Despite this, limited empirical research has examined how individual work performance dimensions relate to work engagement specifically within this sector and context.
A significant empirical gap exists. The South African labour market, characterised by high unemployment, significant inequality and workforce diversity (Botha & Mostert, 2014), provides a critical setting for examining these dynamics. South African organisations increasingly operate within globalised networks, creating multinational environments where employees navigate both local and international workplace norms.
This study addresses the inadequate understanding of whether, and to what extent, task performance and contextual performance serve as predictors of work engagement within South African multinational organisations. Specifically, limited empirical evidence exists regarding whether and how individual work performance dimensions function as engagement antecedents, with the differential effects of task versus contextual performance receiving minimal scholarly attention. This represents a significant limitation, as understanding these differential relationships could inform targeted interventions.
The practical implications are substantial. Organisations invest considerable resources in performance management systems and engagement initiatives, yet without understanding bidirectional interactions between these constructs, such investments may be suboptimally designed. If performance dimensions differentially predict engagement, organisations could strategically emphasise behaviours to maximise engagement outcomes.
It is within this context that this study was conducted, drawing on a sample of employees from a large multinational financial services organisation operating in South Africa. This setting was selected because it represents the intersection of high-performance demands, multinational operational complexity and the uniquely South African socio-economic environment, making it an appropriate and informative context in which to examine the relationship between performance dimensions and work engagement.
The following research questions guided this study: (1) To what extent do task performance and contextual performance predict work engagement among employees in a South African multinational organisation?; (2) What is the relationship among task and contextual performance with work engagement? and (3) Which performance dimension serves as the stronger predictor of work engagement?
In addition, the study aims to provide practical recommendations for performance management and employee engagement strategies in South African multinational workplaces.
Literature review
Individual work performance: Conceptual foundations
Individual work performance represents a multidimensional construct (Koopmans et al., 2013) central to organisational effectiveness and has been conceptualised in various ways throughout the evolution of organisational psychology literature. Contemporary frameworks recognise that employee performance extends beyond the mere execution of prescribed technical tasks to encompass a broader spectrum of behaviours that contribute to organisational functioning (Mihalca et al., 2024; Van der Vaart, 2021). This multidimensional perspective acknowledges that employees contribute value through both formal role requirements and discretionary activities that support the organisational context (Elorza et al., 2016).
The distinction between task performance and contextual performance emerged from seminal work by Borman and Motowidlo (1997), who identified these as fundamentally different yet complementary dimensions of job performance. In early research Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) distinguished between task and contextual performance. Task performance refers to the proficiency with which employees execute activities that directly contribute to the organisation’s technical core, those behaviours formally recognised in job descriptions and performance appraisals (Campbell et al., 1990). In contrast, contextual performance encompasses voluntary behaviours that, while not formally required, facilitate organisational effectiveness by maintaining and enhancing the psychological, social and organisational context in which task activities occur (Palenzueal et al., 2019; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996).
Recent empirical investigations have demonstrated that both performance dimensions contribute uniquely to organisational outcomes (Palenzuela et al., 2019; Saidin et al., 2024; Zeglat & Janbeik, 2019), although through different mechanisms. Task performance directly influences productivity metrics and technical outcomes, while contextual performance shapes organisational climate, social capital and adaptability (Hemsworth et al., 2024).
The growing recognition of contextual performance’s importance reflects broader shifts in organisational environments characterised by increased interdependence, technological change and the necessity for collaborative problem-solving (Akanpaadgi et al., 2024).
Contextual performance and organisational citizenship behaviour
Contextual performance shares considerable conceptual overlap with organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB), a construct that has received extensive scholarly attention since its introduction by Organ (1994). The OCB refers to discretionary behaviours that are not explicitly recognised by formal reward systems yet contribute to organisational effectiveness by fostering a supportive social and psychological environment (Ndoja & Malekar, 2020; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Both constructs emphasise voluntary, pro-social activities that transcend formal role requirements, including behaviours such as assisting colleagues, demonstrating initiative, endorsing organisational objectives and exercising conscientiousness (Newton & LePine, 2018).
Despite their conceptual similarities, subtle distinctions exist between contextual performance and OCB.
Contextual performance is typically conceptualised as a component of overall job performance and is increasingly recognised in formal performance evaluation systems (Çalışkan & Köroğlu, 2022), whereas OCB traditionally referred to behaviours considered extra-role and not captured by standard appraisal mechanisms (Ekmekcioglu & Nabawanuka, 2023). Contemporary perspectives suggest these distinctions have diminished as organisations increasingly acknowledge the value of discretionary behaviours and incorporate them into performance management frameworks (Awan et al., 2021).
Empirical research demonstrates that contextual performance and OCB are influenced by similar antecedents, including personality characteristics (particularly conscientiousness and agreeableness) (Nurrohmat, 2022), leadership styles (Widodo, 2021), perceived organisational support (Akhtar et al., 2021) and organisational justice perceptions (Hemsworth et al., 2024). Furthermore, both constructs have been associated with positive organisational outcomes including enhanced team effectiveness, reduced turnover intentions, improved service quality and increased organisational adaptability (Kumari et al., 2021).
Work engagement: Theoretical foundations and conceptualisation
Work engagement represents a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterised by three core dimensions: vigour, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Vigour refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, along with the willingness to invest effort in one’s work even in the face of difficulties. Dedication encompasses strong involvement in work accompanied by feelings of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge. Absorption describes a state of full concentration and deep engrossment in work, wherein time passes quickly and one experiences difficulty detaching oneself from work tasks (Bakker, 2022).
Work engagement differs fundamentally from related constructs such as job satisfaction and organisational commitment (Saks et al., 2022). While job satisfaction reflects an evaluative judgement about one’s job, and organisational commitment represents attachment to the organisation, work engagement captures the active, energetic investment of oneself in work activities (Schaufeli, 2021). Engaged employees do not merely feel satisfied or committed; they actively invest physical, cognitive and emotional resources in their work roles (Huang et al., 2022).
The theoretical foundations of work engagement are rooted primarily in positive organisational psychology and the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). The JD-R model proposes that work engagement emerges through a motivational process whereby job resources (such as autonomy, social support, performance feedback and learning opportunities) foster engagement by satisfying basic psychological needs and stimulating personal growth (Aubouin-Bonnaventure et al., 2024). These resources are particularly salient in contexts characterised by high job demands, where they buffer against burnout while simultaneously promoting engagement (Taris & Schaufeli, 2018).
Within multinational organisations, work engagement takes on additional complexity, as employees must navigate both local South African workplace norms and internationally standardised organisational practices. This dual navigation may create unique psychological demands that influence how performance experiences translate into engagement (Kundi et al., 2022). Understanding these dynamics is therefore particularly relevant for multinationals operating within the South African context, where local socio-economic conditions intersect with global organisational standards (Van der Straaten et al., 2023).
The relationship between performance and engagement: Traditional perspectives
The relationship between work engagement and performance has been extensively researched (Christian et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2013), with the predominant theoretical and empirical focus positioning engagement as an antecedent to performance outcomes (Saks, 2019). This perspective is firmly grounded in motivational theories and the JD-R model, which posit that engaged employees, characterised by high levels of energy, enthusiasm and immersion in work, naturally invest greater effort and persistence in their tasks, resulting in superior performance (Bakker & De Vries, 2021).
Considerable empirical evidence supports this engagement-to-performance pathway. Meta-analytic research demonstrates that work engagement exhibits significant positive relationships with both task performance and contextual performance across diverse organisational contexts (Alam et al., 2023; Rana et al., 2019). Engaged employees tend to demonstrate greater proficiency in executing core technical tasks, exhibit higher quality output, meet deadlines more consistently and achieve performance standards more reliably (Deepalakshmi et al., 2024). Furthermore, engagement has been linked to increased likelihood of engaging in OCBs, including helping colleagues, volunteering for additional responsibilities and demonstrating initiative in addressing organisational challenges (Akanpaadgi et al., 2024).
The mechanisms through which engagement influences performance are multifaceted. Cognitive explanations suggest that engaged employees experience fewer distractions, maintain better focus and allocate attentional resources more effectively to task-relevant information (Huang et al., 2022). Affective mechanisms propose that the positive emotions associated with engagement broaden thought-action repertoires, enhance creativity and facilitate problem-solving (Bankins et al., 2024). Social mechanisms highlight that engaged employees create positive spirals of engagement within teams through emotional contagion and modelling, thereby amplifying collective performance (Schaufeli, 2021).
Alternative perspectives: Performance as a predictor of engagement
While the dominant research paradigm positions engagement as a driver of performance (Bakker, 2011; Schaufeli, 2013), theoretical frameworks suggest the possibility of reciprocal or reverse relationships wherein performance experiences may influence subsequent engagement levels (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). This alternative perspective draws support from several theoretical traditions, including conservation of resources theory, self-efficacy theory and self-determination theory (SDT).
Conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) proposes that individuals strive to acquire, maintain and protect valued resources. Successful task performance represents a form of resource gain that can build personal resources such as self-efficacy, professional reputation and mastery experiences. These accumulated resources, in turn, may foster work engagement by enhancing employees’ capacity to meet job demands while maintaining positive affective states (Chen & Chen, 2023). In this framework, performance success creates upward spirals wherein achievement builds resources that facilitate further engagement and subsequent performance gains.
Self-efficacy theory provides another theoretical basis for predicting performance engagement (Bandura, 1997). Successful performance experiences constitute mastery experiences, the most powerful source of self-efficacy beliefs. As employees complete tasks and receive positive feedback regarding their performance, their confidence in their capabilities strengthens. Higher self-efficacy, in turn, predicts greater work engagement as employees feel more capable of meeting challenges and investing effort in demanding activities (Ekmekcioglu & Nabawanuka, 2023).
Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) offers a particularly compelling theoretical rationale for why performance, especially contextual performance, might predict engagement. Self-determination theory proposes that intrinsic motivation and well-being flourish when three fundamental psychological needs are satisfied: autonomy (experiencing volition and psychological freedom), competence (feeling effective in producing desired outcomes) and relatedness (experiencing connection with others). Successful task performance directly satisfies competence needs by demonstrating effectiveness. Contextual performance, characterised by voluntary, self-initiated behaviours, may be particularly potent in satisfying all three needs: autonomy (through volitional choice to engage), competence (through successful execution) and relatedness (through supporting colleagues and strengthening social bonds). The satisfaction of these fundamental needs would be expected to enhance intrinsic motivation and work engagement (Zeglat & Janbeik, 2019).
Despite these compelling theoretical arguments, empirical research explicitly testing performance as a predictor of engagement remains limited. Some longitudinal studies suggest bidirectional relationships, wherein engagement and performance mutually reinforce each other over time (Bakker & De Vries, 2021). However, research specifically examining whether and how different dimensions of individual work performance differentially predict work engagement is scarce, representing a significant gap in the literature (Chen & Chen, 2023).
The literature review reveals several critical gaps that justify the present research. Firstly, while considerable research positions engagement as an antecedent to performance, the reverse relationship, performance predicting engagement, has received insufficient empirical attention. Theoretical frameworks suggest plausible mechanisms through which successful performance could enhance engagement, yet few studies have explicitly tested this pathway (Chen & Chen, 2023).
Secondly, research examining the differential effects of task versus contextual performance on work engagement is particularly scarce. Given the distinct nature of these performance dimensions, task performance reflecting prescribed technical proficiency versus contextual performance encompassing voluntary, pro-social behaviours, they may relate to engagement through different psychological mechanisms and with varying strength.
Understanding these differential relationships could inform more targeted interventions to enhance employee engagement (Ekmekcioglu & Nabawanuka, 2023).
Thirdly, the African organisational context, and specifically the South African workplace environment, remains underrepresented in the engagement and performance literature. The unique socio-economic conditions, cultural values and historical factors that characterise South African organisations may influence performance engagement dynamics in ways not captured by research conducted in Western contexts (Botha & Mostert, 2014).
Research addressing this geographical gap is essential for developing contextually relevant theory and practice.
This study addresses these gaps by investigating the extent to which task performance and contextual performance predict work engagement among employees in a South African multinational organisation, and whether these performance dimensions demonstrate differential predictive power. By examining performance as a potential driver of engagement rather than merely a consequence, this research contributes to a more nuanced, bidirectional understanding of how these critical constructs interact in contemporary workplaces.
Research design
Research method
Research approach and philosophy
A quantitative research approach was followed to examine the relationships between task performance, contextual performance and work engagement. A cross-sectional survey design was implemented, enabling the collection of data from a substantial sample at a single time point to measure the variables of interest and analyse their interrelationships (Saunders et al., 2019). The research was guided by a post-positivist philosophy, which acknowledges that while an objective reality exists, it can only be imperfectly understood because of researchers’ inherent biases and limitations (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This paradigm emphasises rigorous, structured methodologies, including standardised measurement instruments and statistical analyses, to approximate reality and test hypotheses as objectively as possible.
Research participants and sampling
The target population consisted of employees from a large financial services organisation operating in South Africa. Access to the organisation was facilitated through its Human Resources department, which supported the research initiative, and acted as a gatekeeper. A non-probability convenience sampling technique was employed, which was deemed appropriate for this exploratory study as it allowed for efficient and cost-effective data collection from readily accessible and willing participants (Etikan et al., 2016). The final sample comprised N = 420 employees from various divisions and hierarchical levels within the organisation. Demographic data were collected and outlined in Table 1.
| TABLE 1: Demographic characteristics of participants (N = 420). |
The sample consisted of 420 participants. The majority were male (67.6%), with females comprising 32.1% and a small fraction identifying as non-binary (0.2%). Most participants were aged between 30 years and 39 years (46.0%), followed by 40 years – 49 years (24.5%), 20 years – 29 years (23.1%) and 50 years – 59 years (6.0%). Tenure was most commonly between 6 years and 10 years (28.6%), followed by 11 years – 15 years (20.0%) and 1 years – 5 years (16.7%). In terms of job level, over half were at the intermediate/experienced level (51.4%), with 22.1% at entry level and smaller proportions in various management tiers.
Measuring instruments
Data were collected via an electronic survey platform, with participants completing the questionnaire online. Electronic informed consent was obtained prior to questionnaire completion. Data were collected using a self-administered online questionnaire featuring two established scales: the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (IWPQ) (Koopmans et al., 2013) and the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
Task and Contextual Performance were measured using the 13-item IWPQ developed by Koopmans et al. (2013). The instrument contains two subscales: Task Performance (8 items): Assesses core technical proficiency and execution of prescribed role tasks (e.g. ‘I managed to plan my work so that it was done on time’). Respondents rated items on a 7-point frequency scale from Contextual Performance (5 items): Measures of voluntary, interpersonally oriented behaviours that support the organisational environment (e.g. ‘I took on extra responsibilities’). The same 7-point frequency scale was used. Previous studies established suitable reliability scores, suggesting internal consistency for task performance and contextual performance at 0.85 (Van der Vaart, 2021).
Work Engagement was measured using the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). The scale captures three dimensions vigour (3 items), dedication (3 items) and absorption (3 items) and were combined into a total engagement score (e.g. ‘At my work, I feel bursting with energy’). Responses were recorded on a 7-point frequency scale from 0 (Never) to 6 (Always). Previous studies have established acceptable reliability scores and Dhanpat and Munnisunker (2025) yielded and alpha of 0.92
Data analysis
Data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 28, IBM Corp., 2021, [Computer software]) following a comprehensive analytical protocol.
Descriptive statistics including means, standard deviations (s.d.), skewness and kurtosis were computed for all composite variables. Normality assumptions were evaluated using established thresholds: absolute values for skewness > 3.0 and kurtosis > 8.0 indicated substantial non-normality (Kline, 2015). Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, with coefficients ≥ 0.70 considered acceptable (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Separate exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) using Principal Axis Factoring with Promax rotation were conducted for the Task Performance Scale and the Contextual Performance Scale independently, to verify the distinct factor structure of each instrument. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (> 0.60 acceptable, > 0.80 meritorious) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < 0.001) confirmed factorability (Field, 2018). Factors with eigenvalues > 1.0 were retained (Kaiser criterion), and items with primary loadings ≥ 0.40 and cross-loadings < 0.30 were considered for inclusion (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019). Pearson product-moment correlations were computed to examine bivariate relationships between variables. Effect sizes were interpreted using Cohen’s (1988) guidelines: r = 0.10 (small), 0.30 (medium) and 0.50 (large). A standard multiple regression analysis was performed to test the predictive power of task and contextual performance on work engagement. Assumptions of linearity, homoscedasticity, independence of residuals and absence of multicollinearity were thoroughly examined. Multicollinearity was assessed using variance inflation factors (VIF < 5.0 acceptable, < 10.0 indicating serious multicollinearity) and tolerance values (> 0.20 acceptable; Field, 2018). The statistical significance threshold was set at α = 0.05 for all analyses.
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management Research Ethics Committee of the University of Johannesburg (Reference Number: IPPM 2024-885 [D]). Participation was voluntary and informed consent was obtained electronically from all participants. Anonymity and confidentiality were maintained throughout the research process, with data stored on password-protected servers accessible only to the research team. While no personally identifying information was elicited from participants, confidentiality measures were implemented to ensure that individual responses could not be linked to specific employees within the organisation, thereby encouraging honest and candid responses. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any stage without penalty.
Results
Descriptive statistics and scale reliability
Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients for the study variables are presented in Table 2. Mean scores were relatively high across all constructs, with work engagement showing the highest mean score (M = 39.11, s.d. = 9.35), followed by contextual performance (M = 31.04, s.d. = 6.34) and task performance (M = 21.17, s.d. = 3.50). Work engagement the largest standard deviation (s.d. = 9.35), indicated considerable variability in engagement levels across the sample. This dispersion may reflect meaningful differences in engagement across divisions, job levels or tenure groups, and warrants further investigation in future research. Assessment of data normality revealed that all variables met acceptable distributional assumptions. Specifically, absolute skewness values ranged from 0.65 to 1.00, and kurtosis values ranged from 0.03 to 0.60, all falling well below the recommended thresholds of 2 and 7, respectively (Kline, 2015). This indicates that the data did not substantially deviate from normal distribution, supporting the appropriateness of subsequent parametric analyses. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Excellent reliability for work engagement and good reliability for task and contextual performance with alpha values ranging from 0.85 to 0.92, substantially exceeding the conventional threshold of 0.70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Work engagement exhibited the highest reliability (α = 0.92), while both task performance (α = 0.86) and contextual performance (α = 0.85) also demonstrated strong internal consistency. Minor differences in sample size reflect occasional missing responses on specific scale items.
| TABLE 2: Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients. |
These findings provide robust evidence for the psychometric adequacy of the measurement instruments employed in this study.
Correlational analysis
Pearson correlation analyses were conducted to examine the bivariate relationships between contextual and task performance and work engagement. As presented in Table 3, the correlation matrix revealed significant positive associations among all measured constructs.
| TABLE 3: Intercorrelations between study variables. |
Both task and contextual performance demonstrated significant positive correlations with work engagement. Task performance showed a moderate relationship with work engagement (r = 0.42, p < 0.001), while contextual performance demonstrated a substantially stronger association (r = 0.53, p < 0.001), representing medium and large effects, respectively, according to Cohen’s (1988) conventions. These findings suggest that contextual performance behaviours have a particularly strong relationship with work engagement. A correlation of 0.55 indicates shared variance of about 30% (r2 = 0.30), meaning the constructs are related but still distinct.
Exploratory factor analysis of performance dimensions
An EFA using principal axis factoring with a Promax (oblique) rotation was conducted on the 13 performance items. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.90, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.60, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 [78] = 2471.47, p < 0.001), confirming the factorability of the data. The analysis revealed a clear two-factor solution (accounting for 50.23% of the variance), with all items loading strongly (> 0.45) on their expected factors (task and contextual performance), thus confirming the distinctiveness of the two dimensions.
An EFA using principal axis factoring with a Proimax (oblique) rotation was conducted on the nine work engagement items. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.923, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.60, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 [36] = 2370.536, p < 0.001), confirming the factorability of the data. The analysis revealed a clear one-factor solution (accounting for 56.597% of the variance), with all items loading strongly (> 0.70) on a single factor, thus confirming the unidimensionality of the work engagement construct.
Multiple regression analysis
A standard multiple regression was performed, as presented in Table 4, to assess the unique contribution of task and contextual performance in predicting work engagement. Preliminary analyses confirmed no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity, homoscedasticity or multicollinearity (all VIFs = 1.44, well below the threshold of 10).
| TABLE 4: A summary of multiple regression analysis for variables predicting work engagement. |
The regression model was statistically significant, F(2, 413) = 89.50, p < 0.001, accounting for 30.2% (Adj. R2 = 0.30) of the variance in work engagement. This indicates that the model explains a substantial proportion of variance in work engagement. As shown in Table 4, both task performance (β = 0.18, p < 0.001) and contextual performance (β = 0.43, p < 0.001) were significant positive predictors of work engagement. The standardised coefficients indicate that contextual performance was a stronger unique predictor than task performance.
Discussion
The study investigated the relationships between two distinct performance dimensions and work engagement within the South African organisational context. The findings provide evidence for the interconnected nature of these constructs and offer valuable insights into performance-related mechanisms in contemporary South African workplaces.
The strong correlation observed between the two performance dimensions themselves suggests that employees who report higher levels of task performance also tend to report higher levels of contextual performance. This finding challenges a compartmentalised view of job performance and instead supports a more holistic perspective where in-role and extra-role behaviours are interrelated components of overall effectiveness (Mihalca et al., 2024). This synergy implies that effective performance management systems should recognise and encourage both dimensions rather than treating them in isolation (Akanpaadgi et al., 2024; Awan et al., 2020)
This finding supports the theoretical propositions employees who exhibit higher levels of discretionary behaviours are more likely to be engaged and benefit the organisation beyond their formal job requirements (Newton & LePine, 2018). The stronger relationship with contextual performance may be attributed to the nature of engagement itself, which encompasses emotional, cognitive and physical investment in work (Huang et al., 2022). Such comprehensive involvement naturally manifests in voluntary behaviours that support colleagues, organisational goals and workplace improvements.
The regression analysis revealed that both performance dimensions significantly predict work engagement. These findings provide support for the possibility of a reciprocal relationship between performance and engagement, as suggested in theoretical models, by Bakker and Demerouti (2008). The JD-R theory suggests that high performance can serve as a personal resource that enhances engagement through feelings of accomplishment and self-efficacy (Bakker & De Vries, 2021; Chen & Chen, 2023). The fact that both performance dimensions emerged as significant unique predictors of work engagement, even after accounting for their shared variance, is a crucial finding. It indicates that excelling in one’s core duties and engaging in voluntary, OCBs each contribute independently to an employee’s level of engagement. The finding that contextual performance was the stronger predictor highlights the importance of the social and relational aspects of work. It suggests that the sense of purpose and connection derived from contributing to the broader organisational environment is a more effective or engagement than the satisfaction derived from task accomplishment alone.
Particularly noteworthy is the stronger predictive power of contextual performance compared to task performance in explaining work engagement. This suggests that contextual behaviours may be more strongly associated with employees’ experience of engagement (Ekmekciogluc & Nabawanuka, 2023; Hemsworth et al., 2024). This finding resonates with SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000), which posits that behaviours driven by intrinsic motivation and personal choice are more likely to enhance psychological well-being and sustained engagement.
From a practical perspective, these findings suggest that South African organisations seeking to enhance employee engagement should not focus exclusively on task performance indicators. Instead, a more holistic approach that recognises and rewards contextual performance behaviours may yield greater returns in terms of sustained employee engagement. This is particularly relevant for multinational organisations operating within South Africa, where human capital effectiveness must be maximised while addressing broader societal needs (Botha & Mostert, 2014).
Implications for practice, human resource and employees
The finding that both dimensions of individual work performance, task and contextual performance, significantly predict work engagement offers several important implications for practice. The finding points to the need to develop holistic performance management systems that value and measure both dimensions of performance equally. Traditional performance management often focusses predominantly on task performance metrics (Pulakos et al., 2019), potentially overlooking the substantial contribution of contextual activities to overall organisational effectiveness. While this observation holds broadly across South African organisations, multinational organisations may already employ more sophisticated, multidimensional performance management frameworks aligned with global best practice. Even so, contextual performance behaviours may remain undervalued relative to quantifiable task outputs, making the present findings equally relevant within multinational environments. As such there is a need for HR to consider integrating 360-degree feedback (Souki et al., 2025) or peer evaluations to capture contextual performance elements (Akanpaadgi et al., 2024) such as collaboration, initiative and support for colleagues. Recruitment and selection processes might emphasise identifying candidates who demonstrate propensity for both performance dimensions.
For line managers and organisational leadership, these results highlight the importance of creating work environments that facilitate both task accomplishment and contextual behaviours (Pazetto et al., 2024; Schaufeli, 2021). This involves providing clear role expectations and resources for task performance while simultaneously fostering a supportive climate that encourages voluntary contributions. Managers should be trained to recognise and reward contextual performance through both formal recognition and informal appreciation, understanding that these behaviours significantly contribute to engagement and organisational success (Kumari et al., 2021).
For employees, this study extends that effectiveness in either dimension of individual work performance contributes meaningfully to their work experience (Zeglat & Janbeik, 2019). Participating in contextual performance, such as assisting colleagues, improving processes and supporting organisational objectives, not only benefits the organisation but may also strengthen employees’ sense of purpose and connection to their work. This understanding may encourage employees to view contextual activities not as optional extras but as integral components of professional effectiveness and personal satisfaction.
Organisations might consider implementing development programmes that build skills in both task execution and contextual behaviours, alongside creating communication channels that highlight examples of outstanding contextual performance. By properly valuing both dimensions of individual work performance, organisations can create more accurate and fair systems for talent management while simultaneously fostering the conditions for sustainable work engagement.
Limitations and recommendations for future research
While this study offers valuable insights, several limitations should be considered when interpreting its findings. The use of a cross-sectional design means data was captured at a single point in time. This effectively provides a view of relationships but cannot establish causality or reveal how these relationships might evolve. Future longitudinal research is necessary to establish the causal directionality and potential reciprocity inherent in the relationship between performance and work engagement. The reliance on convenience sampling from a single organisation limits the generalisability of our results and should be interpreted with caution. Employees in different sectors, smaller organisations or distinct cultural contexts might demonstrate different patterns between performance and engagement. Future research should replicate this study using more robust sampling strategies across multiple organisations and industries to strengthen the external validity of the findings.
Conclusion
This study provides robust empirical evidence for the interconnected relationships between performance dimensions and work engagement within a South African multinational organisational context. The findings highlight the particular importance of contextual performance in predicting and understanding work engagement, suggesting that organisations should adopt holistic approaches to performance management that recognise both task and contextual contributions. These insights contribute to the growing body of research on positive organisational behaviour in African contexts and provide practical guidance for human resource practitioners seeking to enhance employee engagement and organisational effectiveness.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The author, Nelesh Dhanpat, declares that no financial or personal relationships inappropriately influenced the writing of this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Nelesh Dhanpat: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualisation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. The author confirms that this work is entirely their own, has reviewed the article, approved the final version for submission and publication, and takes full responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Funding information
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available and are available from the corresponding author, Nelesh Dhanpat, upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Akanpaadgi, E., Kuuyelleh, E.N., & Adam, A. (2024). Performance management and contextual performance in technical universities. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 9, 100788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100788
Akhtar, A., Ahsan, S., Andleeb, S.N., Bano, S., & Kainat, R. (2021). Moderating role of perceived organizational support between organizational citizenship behavior and organizational performance among industrial employees. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 9(3), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2021.938
Alam, J., Mendelson, M., Ibn Boamah, M., & Gauthier, M. (2023). Exploring the antecedents of employee engagement. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 31(6), 2017–2030. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2020-2433
Aubouin-Bonnaventure, J., Chevalier, S., Lahiani, F.J., & Fouquereau, E. (2024). Well-being and performance at work: A new approach favourable to the optimal functioning of workers through virtuous organisational practices. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 32(4), 608–623. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-01-2023-3584
Awan, U., Nauman, S., & Sroufe, R. (2021). Exploring the effect of buyer engagement on green product innovation: Empirical evidence from manufacturers. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), 463–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2631
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. (2022). The social psychology of work engagement: State of the field. Career Development International, 27(1), 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-08-2021-0213
Bakker, A.B., & De Vries, J.D. (2021). Job Demands–Resources theory and self-regulation: New explanations and remedies for job burnout. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 34(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2020.1797695
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., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., & Taris, T.W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393649
Bandura, A. (Ed.) (1997). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press.
Bankins, S., Ocampo, A.C., Marrone, M., Restubog, S.L.D., & Woo, S.E. (2024). A multilevel review of artificial intelligence in organizations: Implications for organizational behavior research and practice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(2), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2735
Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3
Botha, C., & Mostert, K. (2014). A structural model of job resources, organisational and individual strengths use and work engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v40i1.1135
Çalışkan, A., & Köroğlu, E.Ö. (2022). Job performance, task performance, contextual performance: Development and validation of a new scale. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 8(2), 180–201. https://doi.org/10.29131/uiibd.1201880
Campbell, J.P., McHenry, J.J., & Wise, L.L. (1990). Modeling job performance in a population of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43(2), 313–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb01561.x
Chen, M., & Chen, C.C. (2023). The moral dark side of performance pressure: How and when it affects unethical pro-organizational behavior. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(7), 1359–1389. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1991434
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., & Slaughter, J.E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deepalakshmi, N., Tiwari, D., Baruah, R., Seth, A., & Bisht, R. (2024). Employee engagement and organizational performance: A human resource perspective. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(4), 5941–5948. https://doi.org/10.53555/kuey.v30i4.2323
Dhanpat, N., & Mkhwanazi, D. (2023). Psychological empowerment and work engagement: A two-way street. In Proceedings of the 16th International Business (pp. 2343–2365). Conference, 21–23 September 2025. Swakopmund.
Dhanpat, N., & Munnisunker, N. (2025). Job crafting dimensions as predictors of work engagement: Evidence from a South African financial services organisation. In 18th International Business Conference Proceedings (pp. 2027–2045). North-West University.
Ekmekcioglu, E.B., & Nabawanuka, H. (2023). How discretionary HR practices influence employee job satisfaction: The mediating role of job crafting. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 45(3), 776–793. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-07-2022-0326
Elorza, U., Harris, C., Aritzeta, A., & Balluerka, N. (2016). The effect of management and employee perspectives of high-performance work systems on employees’ discretionary behaviour. Personnel Review, 45(1), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2014-0167
Etikan, I., Musa, S.A., & Alkassim, R.S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage.
Geldenhuys, M., Taba, K., & Venter, C.M. (2014). Meaningful work, work engagement and organisational commitment. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v40i1.1098
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Sage.
Hemsworth, D., Muterera, J., Khorakian, A., & Garcia-Rivera, B.R. (2024). Exploring the theory of employee planned behavior: Job satisfaction as a key to organizational performance. Psychological Reports, 129(2), 1584–1615. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v40i1.1098
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Huang, C.C., Tu, B., Zhang, H., & Huang, J. (2022). Mindfulness practice and job performance in social workers: Mediation effect of work engagement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(17), 10739. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710739
Kim, W., Kolb, J.A., & Kim, T. (2013). The relationship between work engagement and performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 12(3), 248–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312461635
Kline, R.B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C.M., Hildebrandt, V.H., Schaufeli, W.B., De Vet, H.C., & Van der Beek, A.J. (2013). Development of an individual work performance questionnaire. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401311285273
Kumari, K., Ali, S.B., & Abbas, J. (2021). Examining the role of motivation and reward in employees’ job performance through mediating effect of job satisfaction: An empirical evidence. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 10(4), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.33844/ijol.2021.60606
Kundi, Y.M., Sardar, S., & Badar, K. (2022). Linking performance pressure to employee work engagement: The moderating role of emotional stability. Personnel Review, 51(3), 841–860. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2020-0313
Memon, M.A., Salleh, R., Mirza, M.Z., Cheah, J.H., Ting, H., Ahmad, M.S., & Tariq, A. (2021). Satisfaction matters: The relationships between HRM practices, work engagement and turnover intention. International Journal of Manpower, 42(1), 21–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-04-2018-0127
Mihalca, L., Ratiu, L., Helm, C., Brendea, G., & Metz, D. (2024). The relationship of job characteristics with in-role and extra-role performance: The mediating effect of job crafting. Baltic Journal of Management, 19(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-05-2023-0191
Motowidlo, S.J., & Van Scotter, J.R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475
Munnisunker, N., & Dhanpat, N. (2025). Exploring the relationship between job crafting and resilience. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 2997. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v23i0.2997
Ndoja, K., & Malekar, S. (2020). Organisational citizenship behaviour: A review. International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 11(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWOE.2020.110629
Newton, D.W., & LePine, J.A. (2018). Organizational citizenship behavior and job engagement: ‘You gotta keep’em separated!’. In P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. MacKenzie & N.P. Podsakoff (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational citizenship behavior (pp. 43–54). Oxford University Press.
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Nurrohmat, N. (2022). The effects of professionalism and behavior by organizational citizenship (OCB) as mediating variables on the effect of personality on performance (a study on Makassar Police). International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 39(4), 1040–1058. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-08-2018-0219
Organ, D.W. (1994). Personality and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 20(2), 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639402000208
Palenzuela, P., Delgado, N., & Rodríguez, J.A. (2019). Exploring the relationship between contextual performance and burnout in healthcare professionals. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 35(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a13
Patience, M.G., De Braine, R., & Dhanpat, N. (2020). Job demands, job resources, and work engagement among South African nurses. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 30(5), 408–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2020.1821315
Pazetto, C.F., Luiz, T.T., & Beuren, I.M. (2024). Empowering leadership for contextual performance: Serial mediation of organizational support and commitment. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 73(4), 1005–1026. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-04-2022-0195
Platania, S., Morando, M., Gruttadauria, S.V., & Koopmans, L. (2023). The individual work performance questionnaire: Psychometric properties of the Italian version. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 14(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe14010004
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307
Pulakos, E.D., Mueller-Hanson, R., & Arad, S. (2019). The evolution of performance management: Searching for value. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015009
Rana, S., Pant, D., & Chopra, P. (2019). Work engagement and individual work performance: Research findings and an agenda for employee relationships. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 6(5), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12846.56644
Saidin, K., Wan, P., Halim, W.A., & Solihah, W.F. (2024). A synthesis towards the construct of job performance: Dimensions and theoretical approaches. Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences, 22(2), 300–312. https://doi.org/10.57239/PJLSS-2024-22.2.0022
Saks, A.M. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement revisited. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 6(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-06-2018-0034
Saks, A.M., Gruman, J.A., & Zhang, Q. (2022). Organization engagement: A review and comparison to job engagement. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 9(1), 20–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-12-2020-0253
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
Schaufeli, W. (2021). Engaging leadership: How to promote work engagement? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 754556.
Schaufeli, W.B. (2013). What is engagement? In C. Truss, K. Alfes, R. Delbridge, A. Shantz & E. Soane (Eds.), Employee engagement in theory and practice (pp. 15–35). Routledge.
Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2004). Utrecht work engagement scale: Preliminary manual. Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A.B. (2002). Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-17 [Database record]. APA PsycTests.
Souki, K., Aad, S.S., & Karkoulian, S. (2025). The impact of 360-degree feedback on innovative behavior within the organization: The mediating role of organizational justice. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 33(3), 584–602. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-12-2023-4146
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
Taris, T.W., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2018). Individual well-being and performance at work: A conceptual and theoretical overview. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Current issues in work and organizational psychology (pp. 189–204). Routledge.
Van der Straaten, K., Narula, R., & Giuliani, E. (2023). The multinational enterprise, development, and the inequality of opportunities: A research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 54(9), 1623–1640. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-023-00625-y
Van der Vaart, L. (2021). The performance measurement conundrum: Construct validity of the individual work performance questionnaire in South Africa. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 24(1), 3581. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v24i1.3581
Van Scotter, J.R., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 525. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.525
Widodo, W. (2021). The effect of organizational citizenship and visionary leadership on contextual performance: A case study in Indonesia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(6), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no6.0377
Zeglat, D., & Janbeik, S. (2019). Meaningful work and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of individual work performance. Management Research Review, 42(7), 859–878. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2018-0206
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
