Engagement Attitudes Predict Discretionary and Non-Discretionary Work Behaviors Tom Mitchell, University of Baltimore (tmitchell@ubalt.edu) Matthew Ancona, University of Baltimore Abstract Employee engagement has generated much interest in both business and academic domains. However, researchers have yet to agree upon a uniform definition of employee engagement (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004). But a number of them include components of both attitudes and behaviors. We consider engagement attitudes and behaviors to be distinct constructs. A large sample of government employees completed the Engagement Attitudes Scale and the Engagement Behaviors Scale. Engagement attitudes predicted both and discretionary engagement behaviors such as extending help to co-workers and non-discretionary engagement behaviors such as proficiency in one’s tasks. Hypotheses Engagement Attitudes will predict both Discretionary and Non-Discretionary Engagement Behaviors Method Participants: N = 1,938 (63% response rate) from large State agency Age: 20 to 75 years (M = 45.4; SD = 11.2) Tenure: 1 to 48 years (M = 15.8; SD = 11.4)   Measures: Engagement Attitudes Scale (MSPB, 2007) (5 subscales, 15 items): Pride in Work or Workplace (4) Satisfaction with Leadership (2) Opportunity to Perform Well (4) Satisfaction with Recognition Received (2) Positive Work Environment with a teamwork focus (3) Engagement Behaviors Scale (Warr et al., 2013) (6 subscales, 18 items) Discretionary Behaviors subscales: Task Proactivity (3) Taking Charge (3) Strategic Scanning (3) Problem Prevention (3) Extra Role Behavior, Altruism, Org advocacy (3) Non-Discretionary Behaviors subscale: (1 scale, 3 items) Task Proficiency - required duties - (3) Results Scales Psychometrics: Subscale inter-correlations r = .30 to .69 Cronbach’s a = .6 to .9 Regression Outcomes: Discretionary Engagement Behaviors: (R2 adj = .289, F (3, 934) = 263.34, p < .001) Non-discretionary Engagement Behaviors: (R2adj = .266, F (3,1934) = 235.26, p < .001) Total Engagement Behaviors (Figure 1): (R2adj = .329, F (3,1934) = 316.28, p < .001) Figure 1. Beta weights for Predictors of Engagement behaviors Pride in Work or Workplace b= .379 Engagement Behaviors Opportunity to Perform Well b= .182 b= .073 Positive Work Environment Discussion Our findings support the notion that engagement attitudes predict both non-discretionary (required) and discretionary engagement behaviors. Thus, engagement researchers should consider both attitudinal and behavioral definitions of employment engagement. The primary limitation of this study was that both attitudes and behaviors were self-reported and therefore did not control for common method variance. These findings may help managers identify specific drivers for performance and target them for interventions. Both non-discretionary and discretionary behaviors are subject to varying levels of engagement. However, enhancements in performance may be more likely to achieved by focusing more on discretionary activities such as citizenship behavior, searching for better ways to work, and anticipating problems that lie ahead. Interventions that improve the attitudes that drive engagements behaviors will likely result in enhanced performance and lead to greater job satisfaction. References MSPB Engagement Scale (2007, Feb). Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey, Washington, DC, Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004, April). The drivers of employee engagement (Report 408). Brighton, UK: Institute for Employment Studies. Warr, P., Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., & Inceoglu, I. (2014, May). Four-quadrant investigation of job-related affects and behaviors. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 342-363,

Figure 1. Beta weights for significant predictors of job engagement behaviors Pride in Work or Workplace b= .379 Engagement Behaviors b= .182 Opportunity to Perform Well b= .073 Positive Work Environment