Work engagement (WE) refers to “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” [1] and is beneficial for both individual workers and organizations. Studies have indicated that WE is associated with improved physical and mental health [2, 3]. Furthermore, WE is associated with job performance [2, 4] and business growth [5]. Therefore, several researchers have developed intervention programs and verification methods in the workplace environment to enhance WE [6, 7].
To improve the mental health of employees, industrial and organizational psychologists and practitioners who evaluate either the psychosocial environments in the workplace or the effect of workplace intervention programs ought to ensure the accurate and sensitive documentation of job stressors as well as the mind and body state of employees [8]. Furthermore, the influence of individual factors, such as sociodemographic variables and worker personalities, should be considered to a significant extent. For example, negative affectivity (NA) [9, 10] is generally known that a personality trait strongly associated with work environment factors and stress responses [11, 12]. Therefore, statistically controlling negative affectivity had been recommended to distinctly determine the relationship between job stressors and stress responses [13, 14]. On the other hand, scholars have cautioned that statistical control removes true variance and distorts the effects of causal variables (e.g., job stressors and stress responses) and is thus not desirable [15]. Thus, the influence of a worker’s personality is exceedingly and intricately associated with workplace environmental factors or the worker’s stress response.
Similarly, this association might also be the case for the WE. The job demands-resources model includes WE as part of its motivational process [16, 17]. Furthermore, previous studies indicate that WE is enhanced by the abundance of job resources, such as job control and workplace support [18, 19]. On the other hand, in the job demand-resource model, although personality traits are included in personal resources, their position remains indefinite [17]. Bakker et al. [20] reported that extraversion in the five-factor model of personality theory is positively associated with job resources or WE. Furthermore, workers’ personality accounts for approximately 30–50% of the variance in WE [21, 22]. Thus, in addition to the association of negative affectivity between work environment factors, and stress response [11, 12], personality factors might be strongly associated with the relationship between job resources and WE.
A study comparing WE measurements between Japanese and Dutch people ought to consider cultural differences when interpreting WE values as Japanese people tend to suppress positive emotions while self-enhancement for Dutch people can represent lower measurement accuracy [23]. Furthermore, studies have shown that the Japanese are more likely to suppress expressions of positive emotions in contrast to Europeans and Americans due to cultural customs [24–26]. Iwata et al. [27] compared the factor structure of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) between Japanese and Western individuals and found that the personality traits of Japanese people largely determined positive emotions. Therefore, WE measurements among Japanese individuals exhibit a stronger reflection of their personality traits in contrast to Europeans and Americans.
Several studies have been conducted in various countries to examine the relationship between work environment factors and WE [18, 19]. However, no study has been conducted to quantitatively examine the relationship between personality and work environment factors or WE among Japanese workers. Young et al. [22] have recommended the use of personality assessments to improve WE which might be influenced by the worker’s personality. If personality traits are more strongly associated with WE and job resources among Japanese workers [27], it follows that personality assessment is exceedingly effective in improving their WE. Therefore, the present study aimed to clarify the relationship between personality and WE in relation to work environment factors.
Watson and Tellegen [28] found that the various moods nursed by humans can be categorized into two domains, namely, negative and positive affect. Subsequently, Watson et al. [10] discovered that negative and positive affect are pertinent in both state and trait ratings and thus referred to these trait domains as NA and positive affectivity (PA). High NA describes the ease of evoking negative emotions such as “scary” or “sluggish,” while high PA refers to the ease of evoking positive emotions such as “energetic” or “lively” [10]. This two-dimensional factor structure is common in Japan, the United States, and Europe [29], and the NA and PA roughly correspond to the dominant personality traits of neuroticism and extraversion in five-factor model, respectively [30]. Therefore, we used NA and PA as the variables of affective traits for this study.
In this study, the relationships between psychological distress and affective traits or work environmental factors were examined concurrently in relation to WE. Psychological distress [31] is used frequently in occupational stress research and previous studies show that there is no cultural difference between Japanese and Europeans or Americans in terms of stress responses comprising negative aspects such as depression and anxiety [24, 26, 32]. Thus, by comparing the results of psychological distress without cultural differences and WE with cultural differences, the extent to which affective traits influence the association between WE and work environmental factors can be clarified. This study investigates whether individuals should focus on external factors such as the workplace or individual factors such as affective traits to improve WE or reduce psychological distress among Japanese workers.
The objectives of this study were twofold: (a) to determine the extent to which workers’ affective traits explain WE and psychological distress, and (b) to determine the extent to which affective traits can impact the relationship between work environment factors, WE, and psychological distress.