TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 1

Team-Member Exchange and Work Engagement: Does Personality Make a Difference?

Fang-Yi Liao, Liu-Qin Yang*

Portland State University

Mo Wang

University of Florida

Damon Drown

Portland State University

Junqi Shi

Peking University, China

* Correspondence concerning this paper may be sent to Liu-Qin Yang, Ph.D., Department of

Psychology, P.O. Box 751, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207.

Please cite this paper as

Liao, F-Y., Yang, L.-Q., Wang, M., Drown, D., Shi, J. (2013) Team-member exchange and work

engagement: Does personality make a difference? Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 63-

77.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 2

Abstract

Purpose Adopting a person-situation interactionist framework, the present study examined the

joint effects of employee personality (i.e., extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness) and

social exchange relationships with peers (i.e., team-member exchange; TMX) in predicting work

engagement.

Methodology The present study is based on survey responses from 235 Chinese employees

collected at two time points with three months in between. We conducted moderated regression

analyses to test the hypotheses that employees higher in extraversion or conscientiousness or

lower in neuroticism would demonstrate a stronger TMX-work engagement relation.

Findings Results from this study showed that the three focal personality traits moderated the

TMX-engagement relation simultaneously. Specifically, the positive TMX-engagement relation

was stronger for employees with higher extraversion or lower neuroticism than that for their

counterparts. Interestingly, the TMX-engagement relation was positive for employees lower in

conscientiousness but negative for those higher in conscientiousness.

Implications These findings support the notion that lateral social exchange relationships in the

workplace (i.e., TMX) are an important antecedent of work engagement and, more importantly,

their beneficial effects on work engagement are contingent on certain types and/or levels of

personality traits.

Originality/Value This study not only advances our understanding of presumed antecedents of

work engagement, but also opens a new door for future research on work engagement by

highlighting the importance of a person-situation interactionist framework.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 3

Team-Member Exchange and Work Engagement: Does Personality Make a Difference?

In recent years, work engagement has gained increasing attention in both applied and

academic fields (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011; Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008;

Gallup, 2010; Griffin, Parker, & Neal, 2008; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Newman & Harrison,

2008; Saks, 2008). Consistent with but going beyond the conceptualization of psychological

engagement by Kahn (1990), Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, and Bakker (2002) defined

work engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterized by vigor,

dedication, and absorption” (p. 74). In other words, work engagement indicates the extent to

which employees' psychological engagement is expressed in performing specific work tasks and

roles.

We endorse work engagement as a role-based motivational concept in that it captures

how one expresses him/herself in work role by investing his/her physical, emotional and

cognitive energies simultaneously (Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003,

2010). Theoretically and empirically, the integrative manner via which work engagement

regulates one’s physical, emotional, and cognitive aspects of the self goes beyond the constructs

in prior literature that focus on one or two aspect(s) of the self (Goffman, 1961; Rich et al., 2010).

To name a few, intrinsic motivation reflects one’s investment of physical and emotional aspects

of the self on specific activities with a purpose of fulfilling needs for autonomy, competence, and

relatedness (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000); job satisfaction, which reflects one’s

emotional aspect of the self, refers to positive feelings one has towards one’s job due to his/her

positive appraisal of the job experiences (Locke, 1976); job involvement represents the extent to

which one considers his/her job as a critical part of his/her life and it captures the cognitive

aspect of oneself as invested in the work roles (Kanungo, 1982). Indeed, Rich, LePine, and

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 4

Crawford (2010) showed that work engagement exceeded intrinsic motivation, job involvement,

and job satisfaction in accounting for the relations between various antecedents and employee

performance outcomes.

In addition to predicting performance outcomes (see Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011,

for a review), work engagement has also been found to link to other important outcomes such as

service climate and work interference with family (Halbesleben, Harvey, & Bolino, 2009;

Salanova, Agut, & Peiro, 2005). However, more research is needed on the antecedents of work

engagement. As noted by Christian et al.’s (2011) review, work engagement often is a

consequence of both dispositional and environmental characteristics. Unfortunately to a large

extent, models or theories of work engagement that have been tested in the existent literature

only address its antecedents from different but disconnected perspectives. Examples of those

models include psychological foundations of work engagement (Dollard & Bakker, 2010; May,

Gilson, & Harter, 2004), dispositional determinants (e.g., Big-Five Model and temperament;

Inceoglu & Warr, 2011; Kim, Shin, & Swanger, 2009; Langelaan, Bakker, van Doornen, &

Schaufeli, 2006), and psychosocial environmental factors (e.g., social exchange theory and

justice theory; Saks, 2006), occupational stress-related factors (e.g., job demands-resources

model - Halbesleben, 2010; Mauno, Kinnunen, & Ruokolainen, 2007; burnout - Maslach,

Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Uncovering the joint effects of dispositional and environmental

characteristics on work engagement will contribute to the theoretical understanding of how work

engagement occurs and further inform managerial practices that aim at enhancing employee

engagement levels. Therefore, the primary goal of this field study is to test a person-situation

interactionist model of work engagement as informed by the person-situation interactionism

paradigm (e.g., Levin, 1935; Mendoza-Denton, Ayduk, Mischel, Shoda, & Testa, 2001; Murray,

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 5

1938). To this end, this study goes beyond the prior research by integrating the literatures of

personality and social exchange relationships in the context of predicting work engagement.

Specifically, this study examines how personality variables (i.e., extraversion,

neuroticism, and conscientiousness) and social exchange relationship characteristics (i.e., team

member exchange - TMX) jointly predict focal employees’ work engagement, an indicator of

work motivation. TMX refers to employees' perceptions of their lateral exchange relationships

with their entire peer group (Seers, 1989). Using a time-lagged research design, the present study

has two research purposes: First, to examine if TMX directly predicts work engagement; second,

to investigate if aforementioned personality variables serve as moderators of the TMX-

engagement relation. By examining multiple Big Five personality traits as moderators between

TMX and work engagement (with other coexistent social exchange relationships controlled for),

the present study has the potential to contribute to the literature in several ways. First, it may

extend the conceptual framework of work engagement proposed by Christian and colleagues

(2011). Second, it will inform future managerial practices aimed at enhancing employee

engagement. Finally, it will contribute to the understanding of the workplace social exchange

network that includes multiple levels of employee social exchange relationships (e.g., employees'

exchange relationships with coworkers, the supervisor or the organization; Cole, Schaninger, &

Harris, 2002).

TMX and Work Engagement

Prior literature (Blau, 1964; Cole et al., 2002; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) has well

documented that work relationships are formed via interpersonal social exchange processes at

multiple levels. Typically, employees simultaneously engage in social exchanges with their peers

(e.g., group members), leaders, and the organization. Those social exchanges form the coworker

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 6

relationship (e.g., TMX), the leader-member exchange relationship (e.g., LMX- employees’

perceived dyadic exchange relationship between them and the leader; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995),

and the relationship with the organization (e.g., perceived organizational support; POS -

employees’ perceptions of how much the organization cares about their well-being; Eisenberger,

Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986).

Given the increasing utilization of group-based work for accomplishing organizational

objectives and the trend of flatter organizational structures (Harrison, Johns, & Martocchio,

2000), lateral interactions among focal employees and their peers in work group settings have

become more frequent and play a more pivotal role for employee and organizational

effectiveness. Theoretical evidence has supported the notion that coworker relationships

(including TMX) supplement the other two exchange relationships in comprising the vital

psychosocial work environment (Catwright & Holmes, 2006; Chiaburu, & Harrison, 2008; Cole

et al., 2002). Compared to the roles of relationships with the leader and the organization,

empirical evidence to date has supported that coworker relationships play an equally important

role in predicting various employee attitudes and performance indicators (Anand, Vidyarthi,

Liden, & Rousseau 2010; Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Ng & Sorensen, 2008). Yet, much more

research is needed to understand the important roles of coworker relationships in predicting

employee motivation, a key variable that can aid our understanding of various phenomena and

the relations among phenomena in the workplace (Latham & Pinder, 2005). Taken further,

examining the roles of coworker relationships in predicting work engagement (a role-based

motivational variable) may contribute to the theoretical development of social exchange theory

and enrich the current motivational theories (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Cole et al., 2002;

Latham & Pinder, 2005).

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 7

High-quality TMX, one of the best-received conceptualizations of coworker exchange

relationships, reflects focal employees’ perceptions of high levels of openness and support

between members in their peer group. These perceptions inform employees about their close

psychological connections and effective work relationships with their peers (Kahn, 1992; Seers,

1989). Indeed, empirical evidence from prior literature suggests that the quality of employees'

relationships with coworkers is positively related to a safe and positive interpersonal

environment, as indicated by those employees' willingness to report errors in tasks or feeling

positive towards and comfortable in interacting with coworkers (Edmondson, 1996; Kahn, 1990;

May et al., 2004; Tse & Dasborough, 2008). Such a safe and positive interpersonal environment

associated with high-quality TMX contributes to employees' role-making processes and

engagement in their work roles (Dollard & Bakker, 2010; May et al., 2004; Seers, 1989). The

importance of high-quality TMX for fostering work engagement is consistent with Kahn's (1990)

argument about personal engagement at work: One needs to stay connected with others at work

in order to stay engaged.

Additionally, high-quality TMX may also benefit employees’ role performance in that

high-quality exchanges between group members involve sharing task-related resources and

work-role-related expertise (Seers, 1989). Indeed, prior research (albeit limited) has shown that

high-quality TMX enhances group members’ helping behaviors and their intents to share

knowledge with each other (e.g., Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007; Liu, Keller & Shih, 2011; Love &

Forret, 2008). Those role supportive behaviors presumably should enhance employees’ role

performance and, in turn, levels of engagement in their work roles (Edmondson, 1999; Katz &

Kahn, 1978). In sum, we expect that an open and safe psychosocial environment, as indicated by

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 8

high-quality TMX, will provide a positive interpersonal context for employees to exchange

resources and feedback with each other and engage in their work roles without reservations.

Hypothesis 1: TMX will positively predict work engagement.

Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Conscientiousness Moderate the TMX-Engagement

Relation

Following the person-situation interactionism paradigm (e.g., Levin, 1935; Mendoza-

Denton et al., 2001; Murray, 1938), employee personality could serve as a boundary condition

under which employee social exchanges (the situation) exert impact on their work motivation

(work engagement in our case). In other words, employees with different personality traits may

appraise and react to a similar situation (e.g., high-quality TMX) in different ways. As suggested

by prior literature on work engagement (Kahn, 1990, 1992; May et al., 2004; Tse & Dasborough,

2008), high-quality TMX should contribute to a positive, open, and safe interpersonal

environment that allows focal employees to fully express themselves in work roles and to have

high role performance and engagement. Nevertheless, employees with different personality

characteristics may reap the benefits of TMX on their work engagement to a different extent.

In order to understand the personality boundary of the TMX-engagement relation, the

authors apply the five-factor model (FFM; namely, extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness,

openness to experience, and agreeableness), a framework shown to be encompassing and

generalizable across measures, cultures, and sources of ratings (Barrick & Mount, 1991;

Goldberg, 1992; McCrae & John, 1992). A substantial body of past research has supported the

relevance of these five personality traits to work motivation, including work engagement

(Inceoglu & Warr, 2011; Judge & Ilies, 2002; Kim et al., 2009; Langelaan et al., 2006).

According to the meta-analytic review by Judge and Ilies (2002), three of the Big Five traits -

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 9

extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness - bear higher relevance to motivational

processes and outcomes (i.e., self-efficacy, expectancy, and goal-setting) than the other two

factors. In addition, the past literature on work engagement has shown associations of those three

traits with work engagement processes (e.g., Inceoglu & Warr, 2011; Kim et al., 2009;

Langelaan et al., 2006). Therefore, only extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness are

included in the present study as potential moderators between TMX and work engagement.

However, it would be important to include the other two less motivation-relevant personality

traits (agreeableness and openness to experience) as control variables while testing the research

hypotheses pertaining to the three focal traits. By doing so, we may understand the unique effects

of the three focal traits on the TMX-engagement relation within the encompassing framework of

all five personality factors.

We first consider the potential moderating role of extraversion in the TMX-engagement

relation. Individuals high on extraversion tend to be energetic, assertive, sociable, and oriented to

the outside world (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Goldberg, 1992). Given the core characteristics of

sociability extroverted individuals have (Ashton, Lee, & Paunonen, 2002; Goldberg, 1992), they

generally feel comfortable working on tasks together with others. Under situations where they

perceive high-quality exchange relationships with peers, extroverted employees tend to react

with more positive emotions (e.g., Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991). Further, their general orientation

and agentic attitudes towards the social environment enable them to fully capitalize on TMX,

and feel more comfortable fully expressing themselves as they become more engaged in work

roles. In contrast, introverted employees (i.e., low on the dimension of extraversion) tend not to

enjoy the benefits of high-quality TMX, as they are generally shy and prefer being solitary (Ickes,

Snyder, & Garcia, 1997). In turn, their levels of engagement in work roles should not be

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 10

influenced by their TMX quality to a significant extent. Thus, we predict the following

moderating effect of extraversion.

Hypothesis 2: Extraversion will moderate the positive relation between TMX and work

engagement such that the relation will be stronger (vs. weaker) among employees higher

(vs. lower) in extraversion.

Neuroticism concerns the tendency of an individual to demonstrate poor emotional

adjustment in the form of distress. Individuals high in neuroticism tend to be moody, tense,

envious, and insecure (Goldberg, 1992) and have trouble with self-regulation (Kanfer &

Heggestad, 1997). Under situations where they perceive high-quality TMX, highly neurotic

employees may feel concerned about how to maintain such positive relationships. In turn, they

may not be able to enjoy the presumably safe and open interpersonal environment in their peer

group that accompanies the TMX; for example, neurotic employees tend to report less peer or

coworker support (Iverson, Olekalns, & Erwin, 1998). Therefore, the level of TMX quality is not

expected to contribute to those neurotic employees’ psychological comfort in terms of fully

expressing their true selves in work roles.

On the other hand, employees lower in neuroticism tend to be more relaxed and have

more stable moods. They should do better in adjusting to their social environment and can better

handle dynamic task-related and interpersonal exchanges with others (e.g., Schmidt, 2006).

Possibly, those employees having higher emotional stability (lower neuroticism) tend to assume

more central roles in work groups' social networks such that they are seen as friends or good

sources of work-related advice by many coworkers (e.g., Klein, Lim, Saltz, & Meyer, 2004).

Therefore, for this group of employees, high-quality TMX indicates their coworkers are

supportive of them via resources-sharing and feedback-giving, which should reinforce their

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 11

perceived connectedness and further motivate them to continue engaging in their work roles,

including the role of supporting other coworkers. Hereto, we propose the following moderating

effect of neuroticism on the TMX-engagement relation.

Hypothesis 3: Neuroticism will moderate the positive relation between TMX and work

engagement such that the relation will be stronger (vs. weaker) among employees lower

(vs. higher) in neuroticism.

Conscientious individuals are generally well-organized, deliberate, dependable and

efficient (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Goldberg, 1992; Saucier, 1994). Accordingly, high-quality

TMX should be perceived as a great opportunity by conscientious employees in that those social

exchanges may provide them with various resources, such as mutual trust between them and

peers and helpful feedback from peers on their work roles. In turn, those efficient and deliberate

employees will attend to their peers’ feedback as a way to enhance their role clarity and

engagement. Indeed, prior research supports the link between task-related feedback and work

motivation (Behson, Eddy, & Lorenzet, 2000; Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Demerouti, 2006). It is

also likely that when experiencing high-quality TMX those conscientious employees feel

motivated to share information with and help their coworkers, such that they can maintain the

positive work experiences they already have while interacting with others. In fact, prior evidence

suggests that employee conscientiousness is related to more organizational citizenship behaviors

(OCBs), namely discretionary behaviors that enhance the effective functioning of the

organization, such as helping others at work (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, &

Bachrach, 2000). Prior research also suggests that conscientious employees may utilize OCBs to

reciprocate positive work experiences such as those from high-quality LMX (e.g., Lapierre &

Hackett, 2007). Conceivably, those conscientious employees may use information-sharing or

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 12

helping behaviors to reciprocate positive TMX experiences. Such behaviors should in turn

benefit their positive interpersonal interactions at work and further enhance their engagement in

work roles, especially those roles that require interactions with others.

In contrast, employees lower in conscientiousness tend not to benefit from high-quality

TMX because they are generally disorganized, careless, and inefficient. In other words, those

employees’ functioning in work roles cannot be enhanced by the resource-rich peer exchange

relationships if they themselves do not exert deliberate efforts to stay connected with their work

roles and others at work (Kahn, 1990, 1992). Therefore, we predict the following moderating

effect of conscientiousness on the TMX-engagement relation.

Hypothesis 4: Conscientiousness will moderate the positive relation between TMX and

work engagement such that the relation will be stronger (vs. weaker) among employees

higher (vs. lower) in conscientiousness.

Taken together, the present study aims to examine the relation between TMX and work

engagement and how employees’ personalities (extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness)

moderate the focal relation. In addition, since various types of social exchange relationships

coexist in employees’ psychosocial environment, it is important to consider the two most

commonly studied vertical social exchange relationships in the workplace (LMX and POS) in

our study of TMX (a lateral social exchange variable). Specifically, given the established linkage

of LMX and POS with work motivation, including role-making processes and work engagement

(Christian et al., 2011; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Kinnunen, Feldt, & Mäkikangas, 2008; Rhoad

& Eisenberger, 2002), our study investigates the joint effects of TMX and employee

personalities on work engagement with the effects of LMX and POS on work engagement

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 13

controlled. By doing so, we hope to understand the unique role of TMX in the context of an

entire social exchange network (Cole et al., 2002).

Method

Participants and Procedures

Employees working for the freight department of a large airport in Southern China were

recruited to participate in this study. These employees worked in groups, which performed tasks

such as loading and unloading items, screening potentially hazardous items, and cataloging items.

There was one supervisor (or a group leader) for each group. Group members interacted with

each other in everyday job tasks. A trained research assistant of the authors' research team

worked as the survey administrator to distribute and collect questionnaires. Participants

responded to two different surveys conducted at two time points with three months in between.

The Time 1 questionnaire included the personality and TMX measures, as well as demographic

variables. The Time 2 questionnaire included the work engagement measure.

In total, 365 questionnaires were distributed to all staff at both time points. At Time 1,

302 employees responded. At Time 2, 235 out of these 302 employees responded. The overall

response rate for the matched data was 64% (235 out of 365). Among the 235 respondents in our

final sample, the average age was 24.37 (SD = 4.41) and 58% of them were men. Participants

were allowed to fill out the questionnaires either during work or outside work. Confidentiality of

the survey responses was assured to all participants. As part of the procedure to ensure

confidentiality, information about group membership of these participants was not collected in

the study because the relatively small group size (less than 5) could potentially increase the

chance of identifying individual participants.

Measures

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 14

When possible, we adopted the Chinese version of the focal measures available in the

literature (see more details below). Otherwise, the authors established Chinese versions of the

measures by following the commonly used translation-back translation procedure (Van de Vijver

& Leung, 1997). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to confirm the measurement

factor structure of all newly-established Chinese scales.

The Big Five. Saucier’s (1994) Big-Five personality markers were used to assess the five

traits in the five-factor model. Participants were instructed to rate how accurately each

descriptive statement described them on a nine-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (extremely

inaccurate) to 9 (extremely accurate). Eight items were used for each of the five subscales.

Example items included: ‘‘Talkative’’ (for extraversion), ‘‘Moody’’ (for neuroticism),

“Organized” (for conscientiousness), “Creative” (for openness to experience) and “Cooperative”

(for agreeableness). In order to confirm the factor structure of the Chinese version of the scale, a

CFA was run with maximum likelihood estimation using Mplus 5.21 (Muthén & Muthén, 2002).

However, some items showed relatively low factor loadings (< .40) and the overall fit indices of

the model were less than adequate (e.g., root mean square error of approximation;

RMSEA > .10). With two low-loading items removed from each factor, the final five-factor

model had six items per factor (combined into three parcels, respectively, to reduce the number

of parameters needed to estimate the model). The model demonstrated adequate fit: RMSEA

= .07; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .07; comparative fit index (CFI) = .92;

Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .90; χ2/df = 2.09. Therefore, the shortened 30-item scale was used

for the hypothesis testing. The fit statistics of the measurement models corresponding to the

original versus shortened scales are showed in Table 2. The Cronbach’s alpha was above .70 for

all factors except for openness to experience (α = .68).

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 15

Team-member exchange (TMX). Seers' (1989) 10-item measure was used to assess the

individual employee’s perception of the overall quality of his/her relationship with all group

members collectively. Example items included "Others let me know when I affect their work."

and “Others are willing to finish work assigned to me.” All items used a five-point Likert scale,

ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The Cronbach’s alpha of this measure

was .75 in the current sample. A CFA of the 10-item measurement model suggested good fit

(RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .04; CFI = .97; TLI = .94; χ2/df = 1.84).

Work engagement. We assessed work engagement with the 17-item Utrecht Work

Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003), which was designed to measure three

dimensions (vigor, dedication, and absorption). All items used a seven-point Likert scale ranging

from 0 (never) to 6 (always). An example item for vigor was: “At my work, I feel bursting with

energy;” one for dedication was: “I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose;” one for

absorption was: “Time flies when I'm working.” The Chinese version of this scale was adapted

from the prior literature (Ren, 2009; Zhang & Gan, 2005).

Given that various recent studies have found that a one-dimension structure fitted better

than a three-dimension one (e.g., Seppala et al., 2009; Shimazu et al., 2008; Sonnentag, 2003),

the authors decided to run a CFA with three dimensions specified as separate factors, and another

CFA with work engagement specified as a general second-order factor underlying the three

dimensions. However, three items showed relatively low factor loadings and the overall fit

indices of both models were less than adequate. With the three low-loading items removed, the

final models (one model without and the other model with general work engagement set as a

second order factor) demonstrated equally adequate fit: RMSEA = .09; SRMR = .05; CFI = .93;

TLI = .91; χ2/df = 2.96. The fit statistics of the measurement models corresponding to the

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 16

original versus shortened 14-item scales are showed in Table 2. Since the second-order factor

loadings of vigor, dedication, and absorption were all positive, medium-to-strong, and

statistically significant (.46, .96, and .95, respectively), we endorse the existence of the second-

order factor (Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998). In order to reflect the differential contribution of the

three first-order factors to the second-order factor, we calculated total scores of the work

engagement scale as weighted by the first-order factors' loadings on the second-order factor, and

used those weighted scores in our hypothesis testing. The Cronbach’s alpha for the shortened 14-

item overall scale was .92.

Control variables. Employees' age (in years), organizational tenure (in years), and

number of years of education could account for variance in TMX and motivational variables,

such as organizational commitment (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002), and

possibly the link between them (Liden, Wayne, Sparrowe, 2000; Major, Kozlowski, Chao, &

Gardner, 1995). Therefore, we controlled for these variables in our focal analyses for hypothesis

testing. As mentioned earlier, we also included the two less motivation-relevant personality traits

(openness to experience and agreeableness), LMX, and POS as control variables.

Leader-member exchange (LMX). LMX was measured by the 12-item LMX-MDM

measure (Liden & Maslyn, 1998; = .84 in the current sample). An example item was: “I like

my supervisor very much as a person.” Participants were instructed to rate all items on a five-

point Likert scale with 1 as Strongly Disagree and 5 as Strongly Agree. Two CFAs of the 12-

item measurement model were run: One with the four subdimensions (affection, contribution,

loyalty, and professional respect) loaded on a second-order factor and one without the second-

order factor. The results suggested equally good fit of both models (RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .05;

CFI = .96; TLI = .94; χ2/df = 1.98). Since the second-order factor loadings of the four

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 17

subdimensions were all positive, strong, and statistically significant, ranging from .63 to .82, we

endorse the existence of the second-order factor, as consistent with the prior literature (Erdogan,

Kraimer, & Liden, 2004; Erdogan & Liden, 2006).

Perceived organizational support (POS). POS was measured by the seven items from

the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS; Eisenberger et al., 1986). Participants

responded to items on a seven-point Likert scale with 1 as Strongly Disagree and 7 as Strongly

Agree. An example item was: “The organization really cares about my well-being.” The Chinese

version of this scale was used and shown to be reliable in the prior literature (e.g., Nixon, Yang ,

Spector, & Zhang, 2011). The Cronbach’s alpha of the measure was .85 in the current sample.

Results

Table 1 contains the descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations of all variables.

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, TMX, as measured in Time 1, was significantly correlated with

work engagement as measured in Time 2 (r = .26, p < .01). No outliers were identified from the

exploratory analysis we conducted therefore no data were excluded before running further

analyses.

Insert Table 1 about here

As discussed earlier, all five personality traits coexist in an individual, therefore it makes

sense to control for the two non-focal traits (openness to experience and agreeableness) and

consider all three focal traits simultaneously while testing hypotheses. Statistically, it should be

more conservative to test how the three focal traits moderate the TMX-engagement relation at

the same time. Such an approach has been used in the past (e.g., Nosek, 2005). Therefore, we

tested the three moderation-related hypotheses (Hypotheses 2-4) simultaneously. In addition,

since various types of social exchange relationships coexist in employees’ psychosocial

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 18

environment, the authors chose to control for LMX and POS in the moderated regression model.

Through this approach, we were able to reveal the unique effects of the TMX-personality

interactions on work engagement in a realistic context (i.e., with all important social exchange

relationships and all Big Five personality factors taken into account). Specifically, we ran

moderated regression analyses using the following steps: Step 1, centered control variables

(demographics, two non-focal personality traits, LMX, and POS) were entered; Step 2, the three

focal personality traits were entered after being centered; Step 3, centered TMX was entered;

Step 4, all interaction terms between each focal personality trait and TMX were entered. When

significant, interaction effects were plotted by using values that corresponded to one standard

deviation above and below the scale means of TMX and moderators; simple slope tests were

conducted thereafter (Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006). Table 3 presents the results of those

regression analyses.

Insert Table 2 about here

Hypothesis 1 predicted that TMX would have a significant main effect on work

engagement. However, as showed in Step 3 of Table 3, there was no significant main effect of

TMX on work engagement when controlling for LMX, POS, and the Big Five personality traits.

Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was not supported by the results from the multiple regression analysis.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that extraversion would moderate the relation between TMX and

work engagement such that the positive relation would be stronger (vs. weaker) when

extraversion is higher (vs. lower). As noted by the interaction term in Step 4 of Table 3, there

was a significant moderation effect of extraversion on the TMX–engagement relation (β = .19, p

< .05). Moreover, simple slope test results were consistent with the hypothesis. That is, the

slopes indicated that the TMX-engagement relation was somewhat stronger among employees

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 19

with higher extraversion - one standard deviation above the mean (simple slope B = .41, ns.),

whereas the relation was somewhat weaker among employees with lower extraversion - one

standard deviation below the mean (simple slope B = -.24, ns.). Figure 1 further illustrated the

moderating effect of extraversion. It is important to note that the TMX-engagement relation was

significant among employees with extraversion at two standard deviations above the mean

(simple slope B = .74, p < .05), and nonsignificant among those at two standard deviations below

the mean (simple slope B = -.57, ns.). Such an approach is consistent with the recommendation

by Grace and Bollen (2005) and Liu, Zhang, and Wang (in press). Specifically, this approach

may increase the statistical power for detecting the relatively small but non-zero effect size (true

for our case here), and further help researchers make more precise conclusions about relatively

weak moderation effects. Therefore, supporting Hypothesis 2, the TMX-engagement relation was

stronger (more positive) among extroverted employees than among introverted employees.

Insert Figure 1 about here

In Hypothesis 3, we predicted that the relation between TMX and work engagement

would be moderated by neuroticism, such that the positive relation would be stronger (vs. weaker)

when neuroticism is lower (vs. higher). As shown by the corresponding interaction term in Table

3, there was a significant moderation effect of neuroticism on the TMX-engagement relation (β =

-.23, p < .01). Further, simple slope analysis indicated that the TMX-engagement relation among

employees lower in neuroticism was stronger and significant (simple slope B = .48, p < .05),

whereas the relation among their counterparts higher in neuroticism was weaker and not

significant (simple slope B = -.31, ns.). The significant moderating effect of neuroticism was

further illustrated in Figure 2. Supporting Hypothesis 3, the relation between TMX and work

engagement was stronger (more positive) among employees who are lower in neuroticism.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 20

Insert Figure 2 about here

Hypothesis 4 predicted that conscientiousness would moderate the relation between TMX

and work engagement such that the positive relation would be stronger (vs. weaker) when

conscientiousness is higher (vs. lower). As indicated by the corresponding interaction term in

Step 4 of Table 3, there was a significant interaction between conscientiousness and TMX (β = -

.33, p < .01). However, as shown by Figure 3 and further confirmed by simple slope tests,

among employees higher in conscientiousness, TMX was negatively related to work engagement

(simple slope B = -.51, p < .05), which is opposite to what was predicted by Hypothesis 4.

Notably, among employees lower in conscientiousness, TMX was positively and significantly

related to work engagement (simple slope B = .67, p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was not

supported.

Insert Figure 3 about here

In summary, extraversion and neuroticism did seem to moderate the TMX-engagement

relation in a way that was consistent with what we hypothesized, whereas conscientiousness did

not. Overall, the moderating effects of all three traits accounted for significant incremental

validity over and above the main effects of TMX, focal personality traits, and various control

variables in predicting work engagement (R2 = .04, p < .01).

Discussion

The current study represents one of the first attempts to examine how person-situation

interactions predict work engagement levels over time. As noted earlier, although both

situational and individual antecedents of work engagement have been investigated in the

literature, there has been limited empirical research that examines how work-environmental

factors with relational foci and dispositional individual differences simultaneously predict work

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 21

engagement levels. Findings from the present study highlighted the significant joint effects of

TMX and employees' personality traits (extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness) in

predicting their work engagement levels over three months. Specifically, employees with higher

extraversion, lower neuroticism, or lower conscientiousness seemed to engage more in their

work roles as they experience high-quality TMX, in comparison with their counterparts lower in

extraversion or higher in neuroticism and conscientiousness.

Overall, the present study makes several contributions to the literature on work

engagement and social exchange theory. First, we found significant joint effects of TMX and

employee personality in predicting work engagement over three months, which supports the

notion that both employees' dispositions and work environmental factors matter for fostering

work motivation, including engagement (Christian et al., 2011; Latham & Pinder, 2005). Such

findings have direct implications for managerial practices in terms of enhancing employee work

engagement. Second, results from our study have implications for the theoretical development of

work engagement. Specifically, our findings support the conceptual framework of work

engagement as proposed by Christian and colleagues (2011) in that social relational aspects of

job characteristics (TMX in our study as a form of social support) and employee dispositions

(Big Five personality in our study) are both important to foster work engagement. However, our

study went beyond Christian and colleagues' framework of work engagement by including lateral

social exchange relationships (TMX) and personality traits that were not part of that framework

(neuroticism and extraversion). Finally, our study took into account the effects of employees'

vertical social exchange relationships (LMX and POS) while examining the interaction effects of

TMX and employee personality in predicting work engagement. That is, our findings empirically

support the notion that peer relationships are a vital part of employees' psychosocial environment

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 22

and should be emphasized in the workplace social exchange network which includes both

vertical and lateral social relationships (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Cole et al., 2002).

The Direct Effect of TMX on Work Engagement

Correlational analysis (Table 1) showed that employees' TMX was significantly and

positively associated with their work engagement levels, however, such main effect diminished

when effects of other forms of social exchange relationship were taken into account (i.e., LMX

and POS; see Table 3). Therefore, we conclude that Hypothesis 1 about the main effect of TMX

on engagement was not supported, and endorse the importance of further investigations on the

potential moderation effects of the three focal personality traits on the TMX-engagement relation.

Interestingly though, we observed a strong and consistent positive effect of POS on work

engagement, over and above the significant focal interaction effects of employee personality and

TMX (Table 3). As predicted by the network-based social exchange theory (Cole et al., 2002),

hierarchical organizational structures may increase the salience of POS and the effect of LMX,

and organizational culture, such as people orientation or emphasizing high homogeneity among

employees, may also contribute to a more salient POS effect on employee outcomes. The

employee sample used in this study was from a Chinese organization that has a hierarchical

organizational structure, a long history, and mature culture, such as people orientation. Therefore,

we suspect that the aforementioned characteristics of the studied organizational context may

account for the strong relationship observed between POS and work engagement. In addition, as

informed by the literature on cultural psychology (Oysterman, Kemmelmeier, & Coon, 2002),

the overall collectivistic Chinese culture in which our study participants worked might also have

contributed to the salience of POS in the context of studying employee engagement. However,

we acknowledge that the plausible explanations as discussed above warrant future examination.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 23

Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Conscientiousness Moderate the TMX-Engagement

Relation

Findings from the current study demonstrated that employees' personality traits

moderated the TMX-engagement relation. Specifically, TMX seemed to be more beneficial for

work engagement when employees' personality traits were at certain levels (i.e., higher

extraversion, lower neuroticism, or lower conscientiousness). In support of Hypothesis 2,

employees higher in extraversion seemed to react to high-quality TMX more positively via

investing more of their physical, emotional, and cognitive energies into work roles as

experiencing higher levels of work engagement, as opposed to their counterparts lower in

extraversion. It is likely that those extroverted high TMX recipients enjoy the positive social

dynamics in their peer group due to their sociable tendency and agentic attitudes (Ashton et al.,

2002; Goldberg, 1992). As a result, they felt comfortable expressing themselves in various work

roles (staying engaged) more so than introverted employees. However, it is important to note that

the size of the aforementioned moderation effect was relatively small. Therefore, the conclusion

about the differential effect of TMX on work engagement would presumably best apply to

situations where we contrast extremely extroverted employees with extremely introverted

employees. In support of Hypothesis 3, employees lower in neuroticism (with higher emotional

stability) seemed to react to high-quality TMX more positively via engaging themselves more

into work roles, as opposed to their counterparts higher in neuroticism. Perhaps those

emotionally-stable employees generally hold relatively central roles in their work groups and

social networks (e.g., Klein et al., 2004), and high-quality TMX they experienced may confirm

their high level of connectedness and psychological comfort in the group. That should serve as a

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 24

reinforcer and motivator for them to stay connected with coworkers and engaged in their work

roles.

However, for employees with higher conscientiousness, who are believed to be more

motivated and better performers in the workplace (Barrick &Mount, 1991; Judge & Illes, 2002),

high-quality TMX seemed to hinder their work engagement. In contrast, high-quality TMX

seemed to enhance work engagement among employees with lower conscientiousness. Such a

moderating effect of conscientiousness on the TMX-engagement relation was opposite to that we

hypothesized. Possibly, when perceiving high-quality TMX, employees with lower

conscientiousness tend to feel obligated to interact with members of their peer group and, in turn,

receive some benefits from those social exchanges (e.g., getting feedback from peers). That

could compensate for their typically careless and disorganized work style and help them to stay

connected with their peers and become more engaged in their work roles. Regarding employees

with higher conscientiousness, high-quality TMX may simultaneously activate two contradictory

motivational and behavioral tendencies (Moon, 2001). Characterized for being efficient and

achievement-oriented, conscientious high-TMX recipients are likely to become motivated to

accomplish their job tasks well in a positive and open psychosocial environment. They do so

through capitalizing on the positive resources offered by high-quality TMX (e.g., feedback and

support for their role functioning). However, those same employees also have high needs for

being dependable and orderly, which could account for their deliberate attention to reciprocating

favors from their peers involved in the high-quality TMX processes. That is, conscientious

employees tend to assume obligations to reciprocate in high-quality peer relationships in addition

to obligations to perform their job tasks well. Over time, they may be overwhelmed by the large

amount of obligations and become distracted from fully performing their work roles. Indeed,

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 25

Bolino and Turnley (2005) found that employees who showed higher initiative reported more

role overload than those who showed lower initiative.

The plausible explanation, as speculated above, warrants further investigation in future

research. For example, facet-level measurement of personality traits and a qualitative perspective

can be incorporated into future studies in order to test the specific mechanisms underlying the

TMX-personality interactions in relation to employee engagement. Indeed, the past literature,

albeit limited, has shown that more activated sub-factors of extraversion and conscientiousness

(i.e., social potency versus achievement-orientation, respectively) accounted for the dispositional

influence on work engagement, more so than the less activated sub-factors - the affiliation versus

dependability component, respectively for extraversion versus conscientiousness (Inceoglu &

Warr, 2011).

Taken together, past literature suggests that employees with different types/levels of

personality traits tend to have different affective, agentic, and motivational patterns (Bandura,

2001; Inceoglu & Warr, 2011). Those affective, agentic, and motivational patterns constitute

either personal strength or weakness depending on the types of situational demands or resources

employees have in their work environment. Consistent with prior evidence for the motivational

relevance of personality, our findings showed that employees with different types/levels of

personality traits may differentially modify the motivational process through which the quality of

their social exchanges with peers (a type of situational resource) benefits their work engagement

levels. Therefore, the present study extends the conceptual framework proposed by Christian and

colleagues (2011) in two ways. First, it adds two new important personality traits (extraversion

and neuroticism) and a new psychosocial factor (TMX) to that framework. Second, it uncovers

the interactive effects of employee personality (extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness)

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 26

and TMX in predicting work engagement. In other words, future research may further the

theoretical development of work engagement by incorporating a person-situation interactionist

framework as used in the present study (Mendoza-Denton et al., 2001). Importantly, this study

also echoes the call for more research on the impact of employees' peer relationships within a

broader social context - that is, a social exchange network including different levels of social

relationships (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Cole et al., 2002). Our findings support the notion that

high-quality lateral social relationships at work have important implications for employees'

engagement at work (Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004).

Practical Implications

As informed by the consistent positive effect of POS on employee engagement,

management in this studied organization could better communicate to employees about various

supportive policies and benefits (e.g., paid family leave) available in the organization, which

could increase employees' POS and, in turn, enhance their work engagement levels. In addition,

collective organizational events, such as an organization-wide reception to welcome new

employees, may enhance the salience of a collective and people-oriented organizational culture

and further contribute to the positive effect of POS on employees’ work engagement levels.

In addition, our study findings highlighted the importance of considering both employees'

personality traits and the lateral aspect of their social exchange processes while designing

strategies to enhance employees’ work engagement. Echoing the suggestions proposed by other

work engagement scholars in the literature (Christian et al. 2011; Inceoglu, & Warr, 2011), we

endorse the potential benefits of personality-based selection procedures. For instance, if a

selection procedure integrates the measurement of extraversion and neuroticism, then extroverted

and emotionally stable employees can be selected and they may be predisposed to work

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 27

engagement in condition that they fit in work relationships of reasonable quality. In addition,

according to our study findings, current employees' work engagement levels may be enhanced if

intervention programs are implemented to improve the lateral interactional processes among

employees on a daily basis. For example, team-building exercises can be used to enhance

positive task-related or social interactions between employees, and training programs can be

used to improve leaders' skills of facilitating positive relationships among their employees.

Though, it is important to note that such intervention programs or managerial practices aimed at

enhancing the TMX quality may be more effective for employees with certain types of

personality than for others. Specifically, such intervention programs might be effective in

increasing the engagement levels of extroverted, emotionally stable and/or less conscientious

employees, but might be counterproductive if used for highly conscientious employees.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the contributions the present study may have, it has several limitations that

should be mentioned. First of all, the study sample was limited to employees from a single

organization in a single culture (China). Future research should examine the generalizability of

the results from the current study to samples drawn from other industries and cultures. For

example, TMX may be more important for work settings where the accomplishment of team

tasks more rely on collaboration or social interactions among teammates, such as research and

development settings (Seers, 1989; Seers, Petty, & Cashman, 1995).

Second, results from the present study may be susceptible to common method variance

because all data were collected by a self-report method (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, &

Podsakoff, 2003). Fortunately, this concern was somewhat mitigated by the time-lagged design

of the study, as well as the focus on interaction over main effects, which is less subject to the

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 28

threat of the same-source bias (Evans, 1985). Nonetheless, in order to make more confident

conclusions regarding the causal relationships between the personal and situational antecedents

and work engagement as examined in this study, longitudinal and/or quasi-experimental designs

are recommended for future studies. Indeed, some longitudinal research (albeit limited; e.g.,

Weigl, Hornung, Parker, Petru, Glaser, & Angerer, 2010) has shown that coworker relationships

may contribute to employees' engagement levels which, in turn, impact the quality of their future

relationships with coworkers.

In addition, we would like to recognize the limitation related to the measurement of our

focal constructs (TMX and the Big Five personality traits). In this study, TMX was measured at

the individual level as the items referred to individual employees' personal experiences in group

settings. Fortunately, such individual-level measurement is consistent with the operationalization

of the individual-level construct "perceived TMX quality" as employed in this study. In turn,

employee responses from the TMX measure were appropriate for testing our hypotheses

focusing on the individual-level relations among TMX, personality, and work engagement.

However, we do recognize that the lack of information on group membership in our study

prevented us from assessing the potential confound of group-level differences in TMX quality

among the individual-level TMX responses, as well as testing the possible cross-level effects of

the aggregated group-level mean and differentiation of TMX quality on the individual-level work

engagement (Bliese, 2000). Therefore, future research should adopt multilevel designs in order

to examine the implications of lateral social exchange relationships at the group level, including

their cross-level effects on individual-level outcomes and their effects on group-level outcomes,

such as work engagement climate.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 29

The limitation related to the measurement of the Big-Five personality is the lack of facet-

level components. Due to the constraint of the survey length allowed for this project, the authors

were not able to use the full version of the Big Five personality measure that differentiates

different facets within each of the five factors. Therefore, specific mechanisms related to the

different facets of conscientiousness, such as the achievement-oriented versus dependability-

oriented facets, could not be tested in order to explain the unexpected moderating effect of

conscientiousness on the TMX-engagement relation. Consistent with the tenet of the bandwidth-

fidelity theory (Cronbach & Gleser, 1957), personality facets that are relevant to interpersonal

relationships (e.g., Moon, 2001; Watson & Clark,1997) should be more likely to interact with

relational variables (i.e., TMX in our case) to predict work outcomes, as compared to other less-

interpersonally-relevant facets. Further research concerning the interactions of personality and

psychosocial factors (e.g., TMX, leadership) should benefit from theorizing and measuring

personality traits at the facet level.

In summary, using a time-lagged research design, the present study found evidence to

support the importance of simultaneously considering employees' dispositional characteristics

(extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness) and perceptions of TMX in predicting their

work engagement levels. Building on our findings, future research could examine more

motivation-relevant employee characteristics (e.g., self-regulatory focus; Higgins, 1997, 2000)

and more situational factors from multiple time points in order to further understand the

formation and change of work engagement (e.g., Bakker et al., 2008; Bakker et al., 2011; Macey

& Schneider, 2008). To facilitate the theoretical development of work engagement, future

research should also use longitudinal designs to simultaneously incorporate performance and

well-being outcomes of work engagement while examining its antecedents.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 30

References

Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P., Liden, R., & Rousseau. (2010). Good citizens in poor-quality

relationships: Idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship quality. Academy of

Management Journal, 53, 970–988.

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S. V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion?

Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83,

245–252.

Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S.L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 4–28.

Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P. & Taris, T. W. (2008). Employee engagement: An

emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22, 187–200.

Bandura A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of

Psychology, 52, 1–26.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big-Five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Behson, S., Eddy, E., & Lorenzet, S. (2000). The importance of the critical psychological states

in the job characteristics model: A meta-analytic and structural equations modeling

examination. Current research in social psychology, 5, 170–189.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications

for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel

theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new

directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 31

Bolino, M.C., & Turnley, W.H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The

relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family

conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740–748.

Cartwright, S. & Holmes, N. (2006). The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee

engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 199–208.

Chiaburu, D.S. & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and

meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1082–1103.

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,

89–136.

Cole, M. S., Schaninger, W. S., & Harris, S. G. ( 2002). The workplace social exchange network:

A multilevel, conceptual examination. Group and Organization Management, 27, 142–167.

Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1957). Psychological tests and personnel decisions.

Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Cropanzano, R. & Mitchell, M.S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review,

Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good business: Leadership, flow and the making of meaning.

London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Demerouti, E. (2006). Job characteristics, flow, and performance: The moderating role of

conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 266–280.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 32

Dollard, M., & Bakker, A. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work

environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 579–599.

Edmondson, A. (1996). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and

organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science, 32, 5–32.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.

Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M.L., & Liden, R.C. (2004). Work value congruence and intrinsic career

success: The compensatory roles of leader-member exchange and perceived organizational

support. Personnel Psychology, 57, 305–332.

Erdogan, B. & Liden, R.C. (2006). Collectivism as a moderator of responses to organizational

justice: Implications for leader-member exchange and ingratiation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 27, 1–17.

Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in

moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Process, 36, 305–323.

Gagne´, M., & Deci, E. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.

Gallup. (2010). Employee Engagement. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from

http://www.gallup.com/consulting/52/employee-engagement.aspx

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 33

Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis:

Bobbs-Merrill.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers of the Big-Five factor structure.

Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.

Grace, J. B., & Bollen, K. A. (2005). Interpreting the results from multiple regression and

structural equation models. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 86, 283–295.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development

of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-

level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.

Griffin, M., Parker, S., & Neal, A. (2008). Is behavioral engagement a distinct and useful

construct? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 48–51.

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, UK and

New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Halbesleben, J. R. B., Harvey, J. & Bolino, M. (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.

Harrison, D. A., Johns, G., & Martocchio, J. J. (2000). Changes in technology, teamwork,

diversity: New directions for a new century of absenteeism research. In G. Ferris (Ed.),

Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 18, pp. 43–91). Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 34

Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55,

1217–1230.

Ickes, W., Snyder, M., & Garcia, S. (1997). Personality influences on the choice of situations. In

R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp.

165-195). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Inceoglu, I. & Warr, P. (2011). Personality and job engagement. Journal of Personnel

Psychology, 10, 177–181.

Iverson, R. D., Olekalns, M., & Erwin, P.J. (1998). Affectivity, organizational stressors, and

absenteeism: A causal model of burnout and its consequences. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 52, 1–23.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-

analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797–807.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.

Kahn, W.A. (1992). To be full there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45,

321–349.

Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). The joint effects of personality and workplace social

exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance. Journal

of applied psychology, 92, 1286–1298.

Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Motivation traits and skills: A person-centered approach

to work motivation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 1–56.

Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 67, 341– 349.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 35

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Kim, H., Shin, K., & Swanger, N. (2009). Burnout and engagement: A comparative analysis

using the Big Five personality dimensions. International Journal of Hospitality

Management, 28, 96–104.

Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T, & Mäkikangas, A. (2008). Testing the effort-reward imbalance model

among Finnish managers: The role of perceived organizational support. Journal of

occupational health psychology, 13, 114–127.

Klein, K., Lim, B.-C., Saltz, J. & Mayer, D. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of

the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 952–

963.

Langelaan, S., Bakker, A. B., van Doornen, L., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2006). Burnout and

employee engagement: Do individual differences make a difference? Personality and

Individual Differences, 40, 521–532.

Lapierre, L. M., & Hackett, R. D. (2007). Trait conscientiousness, leader-member exchange, job

satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A test of an integrative model. Journal

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 539–554.

Larsen R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative

emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132–140.

Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the

twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485–516.

Law, K. S., Wong, C., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional

constructs. Academy of Management Review, 23, 741–755.

Levin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 36

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader–member exchange: An

empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of

psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships,

and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407–416.

Liu, D., Zhang, Z., & Wang, M. (in press). Mono-level and multilevel mediated moderation and

moderated mediation: Theorization and test. In X. Chen, A. Tsui, & L. Farh (Eds.)

Management Research Methods 2nd Edition (in Chinese). Beijing, China: Peking

University Press.

Liu, Y., Keller, R. T., & Shih, H.-A. (2011). The impact of team-member exchange,

differentiation, team commitment, and knowledge sharing on R&D project team

performance. R&D Management, 41, 274–287.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),

Handbook of Industrial and Organizational psychology (pp. 1293-1349). Chicago: Rand

McNally.

Love, M. S., & Forret, M. (2008). Exchange relationships at work: An examination of the

relationship between team-member exchange and supervisor reports of organizational

citizenship behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 342–352.

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30.

Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal

investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the moderating

effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418–431.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 37

Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as antecedents

of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 149-171.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology,

52, 397–422.

May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. & Harter, L.M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,

safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications.

Journal of Personality, 60, 174–214.

Mendoza-Denton, R., Ayduk, O., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Testa, A. (2001). Person X

Situation Interactionism in Self-Encoding ( I Am ... When ...): Implications for affect

regulation and social information processing. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 80, 533–544.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance,

and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates,

and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 6, 20–52.

Moon, H. (2001). The two faces of conscientiousness: duty and achievement striving in

escalation of commitment dilemmas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 533–540.

Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in personality. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2002). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

Newman, D. A., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Been there, bottled that: Are state and behavioral

employee engagement new and useful construct “wine?” Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, 1, 31–35.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 38

Ng, T.W.H., & Sorensen, K.L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships

between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group Organization

Management, 33, 243–268.

Nixon, A., Yang, L. Q., Spector, P.E., & Zhang, X.C. (2011). Emotional labor in China:

Examining moderators and consequences of the emotional labor process. Stress and Health,

27, 289–305.

Nosek, B. A. (2005). Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluation.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 565–584.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Oysterman, D., Kemmelmeier, M., & Coon, H. (2002). Cultural psychology, a new look: Reply

to Bond (2002), Fiske (2002), Kitayama (2002), and Miller (2002). Psychological Bulletin,

128, 110–117.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of applied psychology, 88, 879–903.

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, 513–563.

Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction

effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal

of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 39

Ren, F. (2009). Perceived organizational support, work engagement and employee performance:

Structural equation modeling analysis. Unpublished master thesis, Macau University of

Science and Technology, Macau, China.

Rich, B., LePine, J., & Crawford, E. (2010). Job Engagement: Antecedents and effects on job

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.

Rhoades L, & Eisenberger R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 21, 600–619.

Saks, A. M. (2008). The meaning and bleeding of employee engagement: How muddy is the

water? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 40–43.

Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiro, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work

engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service

climate, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1217–1227.

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516.

Seppala, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A. & Schaufeli, W.

(2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and

longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Study, 10, 459–481.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 40

Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2003). UWES-Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Test manual.

Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, Utrecht University

(http://www.schaufeli.com).

Shaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bring

clarity to the concept. In Arnold B. Bakker and Michael P. Leiter (Ed.). Work engagement:

A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonza´lez-Roma´, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The

measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of

Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.

Schmidt, L. L. (2006). Self-reported emotional intelligence as an indicator of social exchange

quality at work. Unpublished dissertation, University of Houston, Houston, Texas.

Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 118–123.

Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J. F. (1995). Team-member exchange under team and

traditional management: A natural occurring quasi-experiment. Group and Organization

Management, 20, 18–38.

Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W.B., Kosugi, S., Suzuki, A., Nashiwa, H., Kato, A…. Goto, R.. (2008).

Employee engagement in Japan: Development and validation of the Japanese version of the

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 510–

523.

Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, employee engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at

the interface between non-work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518–528.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 41

Tse, H. H. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2008). A study of exchange and emotions in team member

relationships. Group & organization management, 33, 194–215.

Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural

research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. (1997). Measurement and mismeasurement of mood: Recurrent and

emergent issues, Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 267–296.

Weigl, M., Hornung, S., Parker, S., Petru, R., Glaser, J., & Angerer, P. (2010). Work

engagement accumulation of task, social, personal resources: A three-wave structural

equation model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 140–153.

Zhang, Y., & Gan, Y. (2005). The Chinese version of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: An

examination of reliability and validity. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13, 268–

270.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 42

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of All Study Variables

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Age 24.37 4.41 N/A

2. Years of education 14.15 1.69 -.12* N/A

3. Organizational tenure 2.99 2.66 .70** -.10 N/A

4. Agreeableness (A) 7.20 1.12 .17** -.01 .06 (.72)

5. Openness to experience (O) 6.24 1.13 .11 .05 .05 .52* (.68)

6. Etraversion (E) 6.43 1.20 .07 -.04 .04 .56** .67** (.73)

7. Neuroticism (N) 3.47 1.41 -.23** .05 -.08 -.50** -.48** -.50** (.78)

8. Conscientiousness (C) 6.79 1.27 .16** -.00 .13* .63** .61** .66** -.65** (.75)

9. POS 4.03 1.17 .07 -.13* -.08 .24** .07 .22** -.30** .13* (.85)

10. LMX 3.69 0.58 .00 -.05 -.12* .34** .26** .32** -.31** .30** .50** (.84)

11. TMX 3.71 0.63 .11 -.12* .04 .48** .38** .46** -.39** .44** .30** .51** (.75)

12. Work engagement 3.39 1.11 .17* -.10 .13* .22** .14* .12 -.20** .14* .30** .27** .26** (.92)

Note. Cronbach's alpha is presented in parentheses on the diagonal. POS = perceived organizational support. LMX = leader-member

exchange. TMX = team-member exchange.

* p < .05, ** p < .01.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 43

Table 2 Confirmatory Factor Analyses (Measurement Models) of the Big Five Personality and Work Engagement Measures

Model χ2

/df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Δχ2/Δdf

40-Item Big Five Personality Measure : The Original Five-Factor Model 3.62 0.79 0.75 0.11 0.13

30-Item Big Five Personality Measure : The Revised Five-Factor Model 2.09 0.92 0.90 0.07 0.07 5.12**

17-Item Work Engagement Measure: The Original Three-Factor First-Order or Second-Order Model 3.44 0.88 0.86 0.11 0.05

14-Item Work Engagement Measure: The Revised Three -Factor First-Order or Second-Order Model 2.96 0.93 0.91 0.09 0.05 4.09**

Note. df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean squared error of

approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

* p < .05; ** p < .01.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 1

Table 3 The Moderating Effects of Extraversion, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness on the

TMX- Work Engagement Relation

Predictors (Time 1) Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Age -.00 -.03 -.03 -.06

Years of education -.03 -.03 -.02 -.03

Organizational tenure .14 .16 .16 .18

POS .23** .24** .24** .20*

LMX .13 .12 .09 .11

Agreeableness (A) .08 .10 .08 .08

Openess to experience (O) .07 .12 .12 .11

Extraversion (E) -.14 -.14 -.13

Neuroticism (N) -.07 -.06 -.06

Conscientiousness (C) .00 .00 .01

TMX .06 .05

TMX * E .19*

TMX * N -.23*

TMX * C -.33**

R2 .16 .17 .17 .21

ΔR2 .16 .01 .00 .04

ΔF 5.73*** .89 .57 4.04**

(7, 218) (3, 215) (1, 214) (3, 211)

Overall F 5.73*** 4.28*** 3.93*** 4.09***

(7, 218) (10, 215) (11, 214) (14, 211)

Work Engagement (Time 2)

Note. Values in this table are standardized regression coefficients. POS = perceived

organizational support. LMX = leader-member exchange. TMX = team-member exchange.

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 1

Figure 1 The Moderating Effect of Extraversion on the TMX-Work Engagement Relation

2

3

4

5

Low TMX High TMX

Wo

rk

E

ng

ag

em

en

t

Extraversion

Low

High

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 1

Figure 2 The Moderating Effect of Neuroticism on the TMX-Work Engagement Relation

TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 1

Figure 3 The Moderating Effect of Conscientiousness on the TMX-Work Engagement Relation