Mapping the landscape of work engagement research

Employee engagement fell to an 11-year low after another 3% drop in the first quarter of 2024. This downward trend raises alarm, suggesting that engagement is a serious problem that companies globally can no longer overlook (Chrisdyer, 2024). The Gallup State of the Global Workplace report affirms the role of employee engagement as a significant factor contributing to the overall life experiences of employees. Furthermore, the global economy is affected by lower levels of engagement, costing over US$8.9 trillion or 9% of the worldwide gross domestic product (Gallup, 2024). Interestingly, while companies with the best employee management practices have achieved an impressive 70% engagement, globally, the percentage drops to 23%. Interestingly, it is noteworthy to mention that while countries like India, the United States and Brazil have done remarkably well in terms of engagement, countries like Japan, Pakistan and France have the lowest rate, averaging 7%. These findings underscore the global differences in the level of employee engagement. The report further draws attention towards the positive association between engagement levels and organisational outcomes (Gallup, 2023). Though the definition of engagement has been explored extensively in the literature, interestingly, employee and work engagement are used interchangeably. Depending on the specific context, these terms reflect different focus areas, thereby reflecting contextual differences. Therefore, to boost the level of engagement in the workplace, it is essential to understand the concept and its subsequent influence on organisations.

Recent scholarship emphasises that work engagement, characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption, plays a pivotal role in individual well-being and organisational outcomes (Bakker, 2022; Boccoli, Gastaldi, & Corso, 2022). Scholars have increasingly focused on leadership styles, digital work environments and mental health as key drivers (Schaufeli, 2021; Curcuruto, Williams, Brondino, & Bazzoli, 2023). Yet, a disconnect persists between research attention and the growing practical need for engagement strategies, particularly in the wake of hybrid work models and talent retention challenges (Knight, Patterson, & Dawson, 2019; Zainab & Ahmad, 2022).

Considering the rising concerns of employee engagement and the need for organisations to understand and contribute to building engagement, there is a need for continuous research in the area. Despite the vast literature on the topic of engagement, there is a limited study conducted in differentiating between employee engagement and work engagement and an inadequate bibliometric analysis of the research available in the Scopus Database between 2013 and 2023. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap and add to the existing literature on the need for distinction between work engagement and employee engagement. The study aims to offer answers to the following questions:

• Q1. What are the trends in the frequency of annual publications and citations in work engagement?

• Q2. Who are the key authors, institutions, countries and journals working on the concept?

• Q3. What are the existing research trends and key areas of interest in this field?

• Q4. What are the impending directions for research in work engagement?

Before proceeding with the analysis, it is essential to clarify the conceptual distinction between “work engagement” and “employee engagement,” as this differentiation forms the theoretical foundation of our bibliometric investigation. While these terms are often used interchangeably in practice, they represent distinct conceptual frameworks with different theoretical underpinnings.

Work engagement, as conceptualised by Schaufeli et al. (2019), refers to a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption. This construct focuses specifically on the individual’s psychological connection to their work tasks and activities, emphasising the intrinsic motivational aspects of work performance. Work engagement is measured through validated instruments such as the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) and represents a narrower, task-focused conceptualisation.

Employee engagement, conversely, encompasses a broader organisational construct that includes emotional, cognitive and physical dimensions of an individual’s relationship with their organisation as a whole (Kahn, 1990; Saks, 2006). This construct extends beyond task-specific engagement to include organisational commitment, job satisfaction and extra-role behaviours, representing a more comprehensive organisational psychology framework.

This distinction is crucial for our bibliometric analysis as it determines the scope of literature included and influences the interpretation of research trends. Our study focuses primarily on work engagement as defined by Schaufeli’s framework, while acknowledging the broader employee engagement literature where conceptually relevant. This focused approach enables a more precise analysis of research trends within the specific theoretical domain of work-related psychological states.

Although bibliometric studies exist in related areas, there is no comprehensive synthesis that distinguishes work engagement from the broader employee engagement construct and contextualises its evolution in the post-pandemic era. Declining engagement levels have direct implications for productivity, innovation and organisational sustainability, making it critical to understand the intellectual structure, research frontiers and geographical concentration of work engagement research. This study bridges these gaps by offering a theoretically grounded, data-driven overview that informs both academic inquiry and practical interventions.

Selecting appropriate data analysis tools and techniques is crucial for enhancing the validity of research outcomes and is an essential step in the research process. Online databases are viewed as a very valuable resource tool for the procurement of data on scientific research. Some widely used online bibliometric research databases include Web of Science, Scopus, Medline and Google Scholar. The data were retrieved from Scopus, published by Elsevier, for this study. Scopus was chosen for this study as Scopus journals are known for their high-quality content and have the most significant citation and abstract database covering a wide range of subjects/areas compared to the Web of Science database (Hashem et al., 2023). After selecting the desired database, the next phase is to define the search criteria. During this stage, the document tracking method was used to search the database for the query term, as shown in Table 1.

To collect data on work engagement, the authors performed a query search in the Scopus database in July 2024 using the term “Work engagement”. This search yielded 3,152 publications. Next, books, conference papers, reviews and errata (totalling 292 documents) were excluded, as access to full text might not be available. Only articles were considered in this study. Hence, the specific criteria “article” was selected. Furthermore, the result was restricted to the “English” language, and the year of consideration was limited to 2013–2023 (totalling 2,371 articles). 2024 publications were excluded from the query as the data will be limited to six months and might not help in a meaningful comparison. As a result of the strategy, 2,352 articles were obtained and saved in a text file “scopus.txt” format and comma-separated values in “scopus.csv” format.

Bibliometric analysis has emerged as a widely used qualitative research analysis and statistics method to identify the patterns of publications in a given period of literature (Wang et al., 2020). This method offers a comprehensive understanding of the research area by examining various factors, including authors, journals, sources, countries and institutions.

This study performs a thorough analysis of the data gathered from Scopus. Various analyses were conducted during the process, such as co-citations (Small, 1973), citations, co-authors and co-occurrence analysis (Callon, Courtial, Turner, & Bauin, 1983). The unit of analysis included documents, sources, keywords, organisations, references and countries. Apart from using the built-in analyser features in Scopus (Guiling, Panatik, Sukor, Rusbadrol, & Cunlin, 2022), VOS viewer software was used for the construction and visual analysis of various features of the publications on work engagement (Costa et al., 2019) and to under the interrelationship between different variables in the area of work engagement.

The concept has received significant consideration from academia and business organisations globally, resulting in numerous articles being published (Welch, 2011). The sample dataset for the current study, derived from the Scopus database, comprises 2,352 articles published across over 160 reputed journals, with over 159 authors affiliated with 160 institutions and spanning 94 countries.

The collection of articles on work engagement in the Scopus database reveals a consistent rise from 2013 to 2023. Throughout the decade, a total of 2,352 articles were published, enriching the field with valuable contributions. Figure 1 shows the yearly distribution of publications, emphasising the growing research on work engagement.

The distribution of publications on work engagement, as shown in Figure 1, can be divided into three distinct periods. The initial period ranges between 2013 and 2015, while the growth year is between 2016 and 2018, followed by the exponential increase in research between 2019 and 2023. From 2013 to 2015, there was a gradual and significant rise in publications; it can be noted that it was in 2019 that there was a surge in publications. Notably, approximately 72% of the research on work engagement was undertaken post-2020, suggesting a growing interest. This rising trend is coherent with the conclusions of Zahari and Kaliannan (2022), who also noted that the publications and research in the field of work engagement have increased using Scopus and Web of Science, especially after 2016. Moreover, Knight et al. (2019), in their study of databases like Web of Science, Scopus and Medline and Knight, Patterson, and Dawson (2017), in their extensive analysis using different databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, have identified that there is a growing interest and increase in publications. With disengaged employees costing companies approximately $350 million annually (Osborne & Hammoud, 2017), the need for an engaged workforce is further necessitated because it creates a culture synonymous with enthusiasm, productivity, creativity and innovation. Additionally, engaged employees find their jobs to be meaningful. These factors have made work engagement a pertinent topic (Khusanova, Kang, & Choi, 2021).

The citation analysis reveals a significant increase in work engagement research in recent years. Over 93% of citations are from articles published between 2020 and 2023, drawing attention towards the scholarly discourse on work engagement in the pandemic era (pre- and post-years). As a result, the integrated analysis of the citations and publications provides an overview of the development of work engagement research (Figure 1).

The research in the area of work engagement has received contributions from various countries, with over 93 countries contributing towards the literature in the area. Table 2 specifies the leading nations regarding scholarly output and citations impact within work engagement research between 2013 and 2023. The table includes data on total citations, normalised citations and Links.

China leads in both the quantity and impact of work engagement research, as shown in Table 2. The United States and the Netherlands also make significant contributions. While countries like Bangladesh, New Zealand, Oman, Russia and Singapore have a more negligible impact, their involvement underscores the global interest in work engagement. Nevertheless, while these contributions might be on a smaller scale, their active participation in work engagement literature highlights their role in work engagement.

These findings are consistent with those of Yang et al. (2018) and Chan, Ma, Shang, and Liu (2022), who highlighted China as a prominent contributor and region of interest in the field of work engagement. In their research into work engagement, Altaf and Masrek (2021) identified that the USA, China and the Netherlands are the top countries in terms of publication productivity. Nurrosidah and Sopiah (2022) also noted that most of the publications in this area originate from the United States, the Netherlands and India.

Additionally, the Gallup Report (2024) offers supplementary insights into work engagement and employee engagement based on regions. The United States and Asia, followed by Australia and New Zealand, have highlighted regional percentages of engaged employees at an average of 28.4%, despite concerns over stress, anger, sadness and loneliness (Gallup, 2024). On the other hand, the Middle East, North Africa and Europe have exhibited the lowest regional percentage of engaged employees, with approximately 13% of engaged employees. This draws attention towards the need to examine the underlying factors resulting in lower engagement levels in these countries and the necessity for implementing targeted interventions to boost engagement levels in these regions. The number of links in Table 2 indicates international co-authorship between countries. By investigating these links and structures, it is possible to identify countries that have contributed the highest co-authorship and higher levels of author collaboration.

The co-authorship network identifies three distinct clusters of 22 countries. The Red cluster, with China in the centre (17 links), encompasses 19 countries contributing, including the United Kingdom, United States, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Australia. These countries have a higher level of collaboration and co-authorship concerning the research on work engagement. The Green cluster comprises two countries, Turkey and Poland, which have also made significant contributions to work engagement. The third cluster involves only Indonesia contributing towards the work in the area. Based on the co-authorship’s inclusion criteria, these 19 countries have made significant contributions and collaborated extensively to study work engagement. This aligns with Han, Yan, and Piroozfar (2022), who highlighted the dominant role of the USA and China in international work engagement research collaborations.

These findings reflect enormous implications extending beyond the identified clusters and contributing countries. Identifying the specific clusters guides the scope of further research regarding international collaborations and knowledge sharing in work engagement.

An assessment of the work engagement-related research in the Scopus database from 2013 to 2023 discovers the participation from over 5,000 research institutions with a minimum of 5 publications. With the inclusion criteria of a minimum of 5 publications from the specific institution, 21 institutions were identified. Table 3 gives a detailed outline of the institutions contributing considerably to high-quality work engagement literature.

Two notable institutions that are researching work engagement are based in the Netherlands and South Africa, while others are located in Finland, Pakistan, Turkey and Japan. The Erasmus University, situated in Rotterdam, Netherlands, stands out as a highly productive institution in terms of total publications and citations on the topic. Additionally, the research efforts of these institutions are not limited to total publications but are also evident in the citation network, as represented in Figure 2. The network visualisation draws attention towards the institutional network that has made substantial contributions with at least five publications on work engagement. For example, Erasmus University contributed 4,033 citations. Similarly, the University of Johannesburg has 979 citations. Such findings restate the significance of the research being carried out by these institutions.

A comprehensive analysis of 2,352 articles shows active involvement from 6,131 authors, with nearly 90% of them contributing just one publication in the area, suggesting diverse perspectives in contribution to the field of work engagement. An in-depth analysis of the author’s productivity, measured in terms of total publications and citations, has been displayed in Table 4.

Table 4 draws attention to the authors who have made considerable contributions to work engagement research, thereby offering greater insight into the impact of the study in the work engagement field. Arnold Bakker emerges as the most valuable author with forty-six publications in the domain of work engagement. Norito Kawakami and Osman M. Karatepe closely follow in second and third place with twenty-eight publications. Akihito Shimazu and Wilmar B. Schaufeli follow with twenty-five and twenty-four publications, respectively. Eldor, Harpaz, and Westman (2020) highlighted these authors as significant contributors to the work engagement research. A deeper analysis of Table 4 draws attention towards the considerable variations in the average citations per article, ranging from 17.27 to 106.21. Bakker, A., has an impressive average citation per article of 106.

In addition, further comprehending the collaborative dynamics between the authors sheds light on interesting dynamics of author collaborations in the field of work engagement literature. Figure 3 presents a visual representation of the co-authorship network created using VOSviewer. In this visualisation, authors are depicted as circles and the curved lines represent the strength of their connections. The colours in the figure denote different collaboration clusters. The co-authorship networks comprise 12 clusters and include 33 authors, each of whom has contributed at least five articles on work engagement. Within the visual network, Arnold Bakker, from the Netherlands, holds the top rank with over 46 publications and 42 links, implying extensive association with other international authors. Norito Kawakami from Japan also contributes significantly, with 28 publications and 68 links.

In the Scopus database, the publications are spread across 812 journals. Of these, approximately 96% (781 journals) have published a single work engagement article, around 0.02% have published over 30 articles and 3.8% have a minimum of 10 articles. Table 5 summarises the top journals according to the number of publications and citations.

Notably, 27.2% of the journals on work engagement are in business, management and accounting, and 20.6% have been done in psychology and social sciences, at 15.8%. Furthermore, “Frontiers in Psychology” emerges as the leading journal with over 146 publications, followed by “International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health” contributed 70 journals between 2013 and 2023. Additionally, both journals have demonstrated an upward publication trend, especially after 2018. Interestingly, almost all the top journals have exhibited a similar trend in the publications post-2018 (Figure 4).

The trend in line Figure 4 indicates the increasing number of publications from the leading journals focussing on work engagement and emphasising contributions towards advancing the knowledge of work engagement. Additionally, in terms of Impact Factor to assess the influence and repute of the journals in the scholarly community, it is identified that while “Frontiers in Psychology” has achieved an impact factor of 4.232, “International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health” has achieved an impressive impact factor of 4.614 for 2023–2024. A study by Zainab and Ahmad (2022) and Kaur and Randhawa (2024) has pointed out the role of “Frontiers in Psychology”, “International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health” and “Sustainability” in work engagement literature.

The analysis provides insights into the scholarly effect of 2,352 articles on work engagement. These articles have received 31,543 citations, emphasising their significance within academia. The article by Schaufeli (2017) has received over 421 citations and average citations of 60.14, cementing its status as a landmark publication in the field of work engagement. The paper offers insights into measuring and addressing work engagement and burnout using tools like “Energy Compass (EC),” based on the JD-model. By adopting a case study methodology, Schaufeli applied the JD-R model in a Dutch hotel chain to illustrate its positive impact on employee well-being.

Schaufeli, Shimazu, Hakanen, Salanova, and De Witte's (2019) study is the second most cited but has an impressive accumulated total of 415 and 83 average citations. The study focuses on introducing an ultra-short 3-item measure of the UWES to provide statistical evidence for the reliability and validity of indicators of work engagement. Among the authors listed for contributing to the prominent field of work engagement, Bakker, A. and Demerouti, E. have been the primary contributors towards the citations of each of the above studies.

Karatape (2013) ranks third on the list with accumulated 362 citations. The papers propose and test a research model that examines whether work engagement can function in the outcomes of high-performance work practices.

All the above-cited articles significantly contribute to the scholarly discourse on work engagement and continue to be foundational articles for shaping the theoretical and empirical investigations of the research issues. All the identified articles have explored varied dimensions of engagement, including definition, determinants, outcomes, moderators and mediators, offering more insight into the field of work engagement for industry experts, researchers and practitioners.

In this study, the co-citations network encompasses a co-citations network of 2,352 articles. From a total of 117,989 cited references, just 78 met the set limit of citation frequency (minimum 50 citations). As shown in Figure 5, the findings draw attention towards some of the most significant and prominent studies that have been continually referred to and cited in the work engagement literature. Figure 5 reveals co-citation networks with three red, blue and green clusters. The large size of the circle reveals higher citations. The co-citations network shows the clustering of references on work engagement.

The red cluster of 38 publications focused on various elements, including work engagement, leadership, job resources, self-efficacy and well-being. Numerous studies within this cluster have found a positive association between engagement and well-being. Within this cluster, Schaufeli et al. (2019) emerge as the most cited references, with over 329 citations when checked under the established threshold. The green cluster contained 24 publications and primarily delved into the key elements of employee work engagement. It also explored its impacts and influences on other aspects of the work environment. Researchers have employed diverse theoretical frameworks to investigate work engagement’s multifaceted nature and underlying mechanisms. Such as Bakker and Demerouti (2007) relied on the JD-R model, and Kahn (1990) relied on descriptive theory grounded in experiences, behaviours and perceptions of organisational members. Schaufeli et al. emerge as the most cited authors with over 200 citations. The blue cluster comprised 16 publications primarily focussing on measuring work engagement, the role of stress and burnout, self-determination and motivation. Some of these studies have examined work engagement, anxiety and burnout. Additionally, work engagement frameworks have been key to most of these investigations.

These clusters emphasise different dimensions of work engagement, including theoretical frameworks, measurement models and the factors driving or influencing work engagement and its consequences. By analysing these clusters in-depth, researchers can gain insight into the multi-dimensional nature of work engagement and its role and impact on various organisational practices and processes.

An analysis of the author’s assigned keywords in work engagement research offers insight into the research trends in the field. In this study, 2,352 articles were evaluated based on the author’s keywords in the publications on work engagement. Subsequently, VOSviewer was used to conduct the network analysis and visually illustrate the findings. For consistency and accuracy, the keywords with similar conceptual foundation and meaning but even with different spellings, were consolidated under one cluster. For example, organisational citizenship behaviour was merged with organisational commitment under one cluster.

After consolidation, 4,183 unique keywords were identified and with a threshold of a minimum of 25 occurrences, 39 of the most significant and prevalent keywords were identified (Figure 6). These keywords have been subsequently clustered based on the colour clusters and occurrences.

The keywords clustering provides an overview of the primary research themes and thematic focus that have been researched and debated in the domain of work engagement. A visualisation of the keywords network has been presented in Figure 6. The visual map illustrates the potential relationship between the keywords within the work engagement literature, thereby offering insight into the existence of thematic relations between the variables.

Figure 6 visualises the frequency and relationship between the keywords. Larger circles indicate higher frequency, whilst closer proximity suggests stronger connections. Different colours highlight thematic clusters, with eight clusters identified in the current dataset: red, blue, green, yellow, purple, turquoise, orange and brown.

Cluster 1 - red has mainly focused on assessing the relationship between work engagement levels, affective commitment, organisational citizenship behaviour and job satisfaction. Studies within this cluster have employed mediation analysis to predict and analyse the role of extraneous variables in the impact of work engagement. Research on work engagement aims to identify the role of leadership in driving employee work engagement and how work engagement can predict organisational commitment. Similarly, Bakker and Demerouti (2007) identified the role of job demands and resources in work engagement. Additionally, Gümüştaş and Karataş Gümüştaş (2022) also explored the mediation moderation role of work engagement in driving organisational citizenship behaviour and overcoming workplace incivility.

Cluster 2 Green looked at the relationship between burnout and job engagement, the negative impact of stress on work engagement levels and the connection between well-being, mental health and work engagement. Jung et al. (2023) provide data demonstrating the harmful impact of burnout and extended working hours on physicians’ professional engagement. Burnout and Work engagement have been identified as the prominent themes within this cluster (Haruna, Shiromaru, & Masuko Sumikawa, 2023). Mental health and well-being have also been recognised as a critical factor driving work engagement (Curcuruto et al., 2023). In this context, Schaufeli (2021) stressed the need to promote an engaged workforce through adopting effective organisational practices.

Cluster 3 - Blue primarily connects self-efficacy, emotional intelligence and resilience with work engagement. Aligned with this, Dåderman, Kajonius, Hallberg, Skog, and Hellström (2022) explored the positive correlation between trait-based leadership resources, task performance, perceived stress and work engagement. Furthermore, leaders’ emotional intelligence and compassionate behaviour contribute towards building work engagement. Similarly, Javed, Niazi, Nawaz, Ali, and Hussain (2023) drew attention to the role of resilience and self-motivation in enhancing work engagement. Additionally, productive leadership leads to empowered employees and building intellectual capital directly impacts work engagement.

Cluster 4 - yellow encompasses studies exploring employee engagement with variables like transformational leadership, turnover intention and leadership by employing self-determination theory and job-demand resource theory. These theories serve as an efficient framework for understanding the key factors impacting the employee level of work engagement within the organisation. Fee Yean et al. (2023) employed the social exchange and JD-R theories to examine the relationship between trust, workload and work engagement towards goal orientation. They found that trust is not the only factor that predicts work engagement; learning culture and workload are also essential factors. In this cluster, transformational leadership and employee engagement emerge as the factors for strategic significance in boosting work engagement. Additionally, leadership has been recognised as a key factor in work engagement as employees develop skills like communication, collaboration and leadership (Huaman et al., 2023; Song et al., 2022).

Cluster 5 - purple explores the interconnectedness between job demands, job resources and personal resources and how these factors contribute to work engagement. These studies examine the impact of job demands and resources using the JD-R theory to boost work engagement. Al Badi, Cherian, Farouk, and Al Nahyan (2023) suggested that with the right combination of job characteristics and positive organisational factors, there is a higher level of work engagement and job performance. Additionally, Indrayani, Wayan Supartha, I Gusti Ayu Manuati Dewi, and Piartrini (2023) pointed out that perceived organisational support and occupation self-efficacy manifest as personal and job resources and have a significant role in work engagement. Organisations need to offer favourable resources in the form of organisational support and foster emotional, cognitive and behavioural dedication to boost work engagement.

Cluster 6 - Turquoise focuses on the interconnectedness between work engagement, job crafting, job performance and workaholism. Thai, To, Tran, Ho, and Hong Ho (2023) explored the mediating role of job crafting in the relationship between perceived organisational support and autonomy on work engagement, suggesting that job crafting promotes engagement and empowers employees. Silva Louro, David Gabardo-Martins, Silva Louro, and David Gabardo-Martins (2023) observed the mediating role of work engagement in establishing a positive relationship between job resources and job crafting. The structural equation modelling found that fear of missing out and social support at work contribute to increasing job crafting resources. Hagen, Bogaerts, and De Caluwé (2022) observed that work engagement and workaholism are related to hard work, yet workaholics are compulsively engaged and seek pleasure in work.

Cluster 7 - Orange examines the relatedness between work engagement, mindfulness and psychological capital. Interestingly, the association between psychological capital and mindfulness has been the centre of attention for researchers, while mindfulness has received much less consideration in the work engagement literature. Goyal and Sharma (2023) explored whether well-being mediates the relation between mindfulness and work engagement, suggesting that managers creating a mindful workforce can contribute to making a positive workplace environment and become a key source of engagement. Kotera, Van Laethem, and Ohshima (2020) further suggested that organisations can drive mindfulness through training to create an environment that arouses positive emotions and enhances work engagement.

Cluster 8 - Brown explores the relatedness between supervisor support, turnover intention and work engagement. Sheehan, Tham, Holland, Cooper, and Newman (2021) suggested that supervisor support moderates the indirect correlation between high-performance work practices and work engagement. Furthermore, supervisor support is vital for employees to seize organisational opportunities that redefine their jobs. Li, Mohamed, Mahomed, and Khan (2022) further add that employing the JD-R model reiterates the significant role of organisational support in mitigating the negative influence of turnover intention and strengthening the positive impact of work engagement.

The geographical, institutional and thematic patterns identified in our bibliometric analysis reflect broader contextual factors that have shaped work engagement research over the examined period. Understanding these underlying drivers provides crucial insight into not merely what research trends have emerged, but why they have developed in specific directions.

The concentration of work engagement research in developed economies, particularly North America and Europe, reflects several interconnected factors. First, these regions possess established research infrastructure and funding mechanisms that support psychological and organisational research. The prevalence of knowledge-based economies in these areas has created practical demand for understanding employee psychological states that drive productivity and innovation.

The post-2020 surge in work engagement research, particularly evident in our temporal analysis, directly correlates with the global pandemic’s disruption of traditional work arrangements. Countries with advanced digital infrastructure and flexible work policies became natural laboratories for studying engagement in remote and hybrid work environments. This explains the continued dominance of research output from technologically advanced economies.

Furthermore, cultural factors significantly influence research priorities. Individualistic cultures, predominant in Western economies, emphasise personal fulfilment and psychological well-being at work, driving academic interest in engagement concepts. This cultural bias may explain the relative underrepresentation of research from collectivistic cultures, suggesting important opportunities for cross-cultural validation of engagement theories.

The emergence of specific institutions as research leaders in work engagement reflects strategic investments in organisational psychology and human resource management research. Universities with strong business schools and psychology departments, particularly those with established connections to industry partners, have developed competitive advantages in securing funding for engagement research.

The institutional patterns also reveal the influence of national research priorities. Countries investing heavily in workplace wellbeing and productivity enhancement–often driven by ageing populations and labour shortages–have seen their institutions emerge as research leaders. This strategic alignment between national economic needs and research funding explains the concentration of high-impact research within specific institutional networks.

The thematic clusters identified in our analysis directly respond to evolving organisational challenges and societal shifts. The emergence of themes related to digital work environments, well-being and work-life integration reflects organisations’ struggles with technological transformation and changing employee expectations.

The prominence of themes related to leadership and management reflects the growing recognition that engagement cannot be addressed through individual-level interventions alone but requires systemic organisational changes. This thematic evolution demonstrates the field’s maturation from descriptive studies toward actionable organisational interventions.

Recent global events, including economic uncertainty, climate concerns and social justice movements, have influenced the emergence of themes related to meaningful work, organisational purpose and sustainable employment practices. These developments suggest that future work engagement research will increasingly integrate broader societal concerns into traditional organisational psychology frameworks.

These findings not only map the intellectual landscape of work engagement but also highlight why the field has evolved in its current trajectory, reflecting responses to technological disruption, cultural shifts and the urgent need for sustainable engagement strategies.

This study contributes theoretically by advancing conceptual clarity between work engagement and the broader construct of employee engagement, enabling future research to adopt a more precise focus on task-related engagement. By mapping intellectual structures, the analysis identifies underexplored yet high-potential research domains, including the effects of abusive leadership, subjective well-being and workaholism. These findings call for theory development that integrates engagement with leadership dynamics, cross-cultural validation and sustainable employment models.

From a managerial perspective, the results underscore the importance of evidence-based strategies to strengthen engagement across levels. Organisations should invest in leadership development that fosters psychological safety and meaningful work design, implement pulse-based engagement measurement frameworks and address contextual factors such as remote work and generational differences. The identification of geographic disparities in research output highlights the value of global knowledge sharing and culturally sensitive engagement interventions. Collectively, these insights offer managers and human resource practitioners practical pathways to build a resilient, motivated and high-performing workforce.

Based on our bibliometric analysis, several strategic directions emerge for advancing work engagement research. Researchers should prioritise longitudinal study designs to capture the dynamic nature of work engagement over time. Our analysis reveals a predominance of cross-sectional studies, limiting understanding of engagement development and sustainability. Future research should adopt experience sampling methods and diary studies to capture real-time engagement fluctuations.

Additionally, the identified geographical concentration presents significant opportunities for cross-cultural validation and theory extension. Researchers should establish collaborative networks with institutions in underrepresented regions, particularly in the Asia-Pacific and developing economies, to test the cultural generalisability of engagement frameworks.

Furthermore, the thematic analysis reveals opportunities for integrating work engagement research with emerging fields such as digital wellbeing, environmental psychology and social impact measurement. Researchers should develop collaborative frameworks that bridge the gap between organisational psychology and broader social sciences.

Lastly, priority areas for investigation include: (1) engagement in artificial intelligence-augmented work environments, (2) sustainability-focused engagement models, (3) engagement measurement in gig and platform economies and (4) intergenerational differences in engagement drivers and manifestations.

Organisations should implement multi-level engagement interventions that address individual, team and organisational factors simultaneously. Our analysis reveals that successful engagement initiatives require systemic approaches rather than isolated programs. Additionally, practitioners should adopt validated measurement tools that distinguish between work engagement and broader employee satisfaction. Regular pulse surveys using abbreviated engagement scales can provide real-time insights for management intervention. The thematic analysis emphasises the critical role of leadership in fostering engagement. Organisations should invest in leadership development programs that specifically address engagement-supportive behaviours, including the creation of psychological safety, the design of meaningful work and the facilitation of employee development. Lastly, as digital work environments become permanent fixtures, organisations must develop engagement strategies specifically designed for remote and hybrid work arrangements. This includes creating virtual social connections, maintaining clear communication channels and ensuring equitable engagement opportunities across work modalities.

It is critical to uncover research gaps outside of the primary study themes to expand work engagement research. The outcomes of co-occurrence network analysis reveal areas that may be investigated further.

One of the promising avenues for future research is the intriguing correlation between work engagement and leadership styles, particularly abusive leadership. While the role of leadership has been widely recognised in terms of drivers of employee engagement, there is a need to explore the idea in the context of work engagement. Furthermore, while positive leadership roles, for instance, transformational leadership, have been extensively recognised in the field (Aftab, Sarwar, Kiran, Abid, & Ahmad, 2022; Hasan, Ahmad, & Osman, 2023; Sutarmin, Yulianeu, Darmawan, & Kurniawan, 2023), there is a need for examining the role and impact of abusive leadership in work engagement (Wang, Li, Bauer, & Berrin, 2023; Wu, Zhang, & Zhang, 2023). Despite the extensive body of literature on engagement and the influence of leadership, there remains a critical gap in exploring and developing a greater understanding of how the negative aspects of leadership and supervision roles, for instance, the controlling nature or abusive behaviour of the supervisor, are associated with different leadership styles.

Gupta and Singh (2020) posited that subjective well-being is a significant contributing factor to employee work engagement. Higher subjective well-being is observed when employees engage in positive experiences and exhibit greater satisfaction with life (Silva, Caetano, & Rueff, 2023). Highly involved employees exhibit greater satisfaction with their careers, have a greater sense of well-being and contribute towards creating a positive work environment. Therefore, to boost work engagement and drive positive organisational outcomes, management and organisations need to recognise the employees, offer learning and growth opportunities and provide a resource that supports the employees’ subjective well-being. Therefore, further research is vital for understanding the impact of negative aspects of leadership styles on engagement.

Furthermore, workaholism has been identified as another key factor that needs consideration in work engagement research. Workaholism or work addiction is associated with compulsive overworking, which can result from work engagement and fulfilling the mental state of the employees (Bereznowski, Bereznowska, Atroszko, & Konarski, 2021). Work engagement and workaholism are two types of investment heavily invested in the work state of the employees. Employees reporting high levels of work engagement and workaholism will work more hours at work, have lower turnover intent and can take on a higher workload (Cook & Gilin, 2023). As a result, studying the relationship between workaholism and work engagement might reveal fascinating dimensions of this multifaceted relationship and contribute to adding new dimensions to the field of work engagement.

To advance research in work engagement, it is vital to address the indicated areas of future study and explore these gaps, including negative aspects of leadership styles, subjective well-being and workaholism and its influence on the work environment and engagement. Through comprehensive research in these domains, the researchers can significantly advance their understanding of the multifaceted factors influencing work engagement, offering evidence-based strategic recommendations to foster a highly committed and engaged workforce. This undertaking will enhance knowledge and provide practical implications for companies pursuing the development of an engaged workforce and a culture of highly committed workforce.

By providing a theoretically grounded synthesis of a decade of research, the study bridges a critical gap in understanding work engagement’s intellectual foundations, evolving themes and future directions. For practitioners, these insights translate into actionable strategies to cultivate engagement in increasingly complex and hybrid organisational contexts. This study provides a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of work engagement research from 2013 to 2023, highlighting its growing importance in academic and organisational contexts. By analysing 2,352 articles, the findings underscore China’s leading role in research contributions, alongside significant collaborations from the United States and the Netherlands. Notable themes include the connections between work engagement, burnout, leadership styles and job resources. The keyword co-occurrence and co-citation analyses identify underexplored areas, such as the effects of abusive leadership, workaholism and subjective well-being, offering opportunities for future research. Practical implications emphasise the need for organisations to prioritise work engagement through targeted HR practices, fostering a sustainable and committed workforce.

Although this study offers a significant understanding of the field of work engagement, it is essential to recognise the potential limitations. One of the significant limitations is that the data corpus method only relies on one database, Scopus. To expand the scope of insights from this analysis, future research should consider including additional databases such as PubMed and Web of Science. Including these sources will capture more comprehensive insight into the research landscape of work engagement.

The scope of this study was constrained by the search query and the focused solely on articles. Future research should consider expanding the query with other keywords, such as organisational and job engagement, to achieve an in-depth review. Also, the inclusion criteria can be expanded to include book chapters and conference proceedings. In summary, including multiple databases, expanding search queries and publication types can aid in gaining a more comprehensive understanding of the field of work engagement.