Owing to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, business environment has been undergoing rapid economic and technological changes. Furthermore, future development and growth can no longer be guaranteed, given the use of strategies that focus only on short-term profit creation (Schwab, 2016). The recent outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has accelerated these changes. Organizations face increasingly fierce competition, even as the pandemic (similar to previous crises) has increased ambiguity and uncertainty in the business environment, compelling organizations to undertake measures to protect the health of employees and improve the chances of organizational survival (Combe and Carrington, 2015). Just as the pandemic forced political leaders to take measures at the national level, it also pushed families, individuals, and leaders of organizations to take measures at their respective levels (Kniffin et al., 2021). In a major social crisis such as COVID-19, the most important measure is to identify the determinants influencing employee health, well-being, and organizational survival, which are directly linked to performance in the workplace.

Under these circumstances, organizations must cope with unpredictable changes in the management environment and establish specific strategies to survive and thrive (Haas and Yorio, 2018; Sherman and Roberto, 2020). Similarly, effective management of human resources is emphasized (Kim, 2016) as a core element in maintaining competitiveness and maximizing organizational performance. As human resources are regarded as the main driver of performance, organizations are investing in them and making strong efforts to manage them more effectively and develop employee competence (Haas and Yorio, 2018; Sherman and Roberto, 2020). Organizations are trying to develop the resources required to change the behaviors of their members and improve job performance (Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008), as well as provide support and management for employees to perform their job effectively and improve performance.

During a crisis, it is important for organizations to facilitate rapid responses and self-initiated changes among employees through support and management (Demerouti and Bakker, 2023). Accordingly, it is necessary to consider employee-related resources to investigate measures to improve organizational performance (Kwon and Kim, 2020). There are two main resources to consider: job resources, which play a motivational role and provide support for employees to achieve work goals; and personal resources, which refer to an individual’s sense of their ability to control and influence their environment successfully (Hobfoll et al., 2003; Bakker and Demerouti, 2008).

First, job resources must be considered as factors that influence job performance. Job performance is determined not only by personal factors but also by employees’ work environment, authority, autonomy, and support from leaders (Hackman and Oldham, 1975). A high level of job resources offsets the negative effects of job environment and is instrumental in achieving job performance. More importantly, job resources improve employees’ job engagement, which leads to high job performance (Macey and Schneider, 2008; Demerouti and Cropanzano, 2010).

A substantial body of research exists on psychological capital, a variable of employees’ personal resources that is closely related to job performance (Larrabee et al., 2010; Seo et al., 2014). In the field of human resources, psychological capital is critical for promoting engagement and improving job performance (Demerouti and Bakker, 2023). Employees with high levels of positive psychological capital tend to show fewer negative factors, such as burnout and job turnover, while showing a greater number of positive factors, such as job satisfaction, engagement, and job performance (Seo et al., 2014; Laschinger et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2015). Thus, positive psychological capital facilitates job engagement, motivating employees to achieve job goals and positively influencing job performance (Luthans, 2002; Sweetman and Luthans, 2010).

Engagement has been studied as a core variable mediating the relationship between job resources, psychological capital, and job performance (Bakker, 2009; Kim, 2017; Kim et al., 2018). It is perceived as an important research subject by practitioners and researchers because it is related to performance variables, such as innovative behavior, productivity, and stability (Bakker and Leiter, 2010; Zhong et al., 2016). It has been found to be highly correlated with outcomes such as performance, creativity, and health while increasing job productivity and maintaining employee well-being (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008).

Despite a large number of studies exploring the role of employee engagement in the relationship between job resources, psychological capital, and job performance, few studies have investigated the relationships between job resources, psychological capital, employee engagement, and job performance all together. Previous studies have investigated the effects of job resources on employee engagement or job performance (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Rothmann and Joubert, 2007), the effect of psychological capital on employee engagement or job performance (Luthans, 2002; Bandura and Locke, 2003; Kim, 2016), and the effect of employee engagement on job performance (Shuck and Wollard, 2010). However, most of these explored partial relationships between variables, rather than examine the structural relationship between major variables, as we attempt in this study. Additionally, the majority of research on employee engagement has focused on job or work engagement. Most prior studies have used the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) to measure work engagement (Bailey et al., 2017; Saks et al., 2022). As a result, results were narrowly related to job and work engagement. However, recently, employee engagement is recognized as a multidimensional concept. For example, employee has the various roles such as “a work role and a role as a member of their organization” (Song et al., 2021; Saks et al., 2022). Thus, we aim to investigate the relationship between the variables influenced by rapid changes in the work environment represented by digital transformation, while also considering the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic as a major social crisis. We examine how job autonomy (Demerouti and Bakker, 2023) and psychological well-being (Rudolph et al., 2021; Demerouti and Bakker, 2023), which lower employee anxiety about health and welfare, influence in-role performance in the form of proactive employee characteristics, as well as extra-role performance in the form of prosocial behavior, as mediated by employee engagement.

This study contributes to a better understanding of the importance of employees’ positive emotions and proactive behaviors in times of crisis characterized by fast-paced changes to the business environment; it makes theoretical and practical contributions toward guiding the management and developing human resources to improve work efficiency in organizations.

Autonomy is the degree to which a job gives employees discretion while working to control the work process on their own terms (Morris and Feldman, 1996). Furthermore, it allows employees to determine how to do their job (including the selection of tools and instruments for planning and establishing the work process), and to take responsibility for the results (Amabile et al., 1996).

Job autonomy is also defined as the degree of freedom, independence, and discretion in decision making and skill application in one’s work, including discretion in determining the time schedule for work and work procedures (Kim et al., 2018). As autonomy gives employees a sense of control over their work and work responsibilities, it positively influences their job satisfaction and sense of achievement (Rhee et al., 2017). The degree of autonomy may differ according to the organization. Autonomy can be linked to motivation and passion for work, and a lack of autonomy may lead to lower job performance in specific areas. The range of autonomy includes task methods, composition of the task team, scope of the task, and goal setting (Wall et al., 1995). Job autonomy also refers to the degree of control that employees have to select a job for themselves and adjust the speed of work while performing the job. This can increase overall job satisfaction and improve and develop employee attitudes toward job performance (Dodd and Ganster, 1996). As an important motivational factor, job autonomy influences employees’ attitudes (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Job autonomy is also a major predictor of organizational and individual job performance (Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Campion, 1988) and has been used as an independent variable that influences parameters and dependent variables in many previous studies. It is also known to affect the psychological status of an individual, eliciting positive work-related outcomes (Hackman and Oldham, 1975, 1976).

Kahn (1990), who was widely credited with the first application and use of engagement theory to the workplace, defined engagement as ‘the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work role; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances’ (p. 694). Based on the concept of personal engagement, as defined by Kahn (1990), follow-up studies have taken various approaches and used a range of terms, including personal engagement, job engagement, work engagement and employee engagement, and the concept of engagement has been presented from different perspectives (Leiter and Bakker, 2010; Shuck, 2011). In the early 2000s, the rise of positive psychology sparked discussions related to happiness and mental well-being experienced at work and the concept of work engagement was studied in relation to employee burnout and well-being (Leiter and Maslach, 2010). For example, work engagement refers to “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). Recently, the concept of engagement has been examined engagement from both the job and organizational perspectives. Hence, to emphasize that the individual belongs to an organization, the word ‘employee’ was added to the term ‘engagement’ (i.e., employee engagement). Actually, Shuck et al. (2017) defined employee engagement as “an active, work-related positive psychological state operationalized by the intensity and direction of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral energy” (p. 959).

Breaugh and Becker (1987) identified job performance, commitment, employee engagement, and autonomy as elements of job attitude that elicit organizational engagement. Beer et al. (1985) argued that perceived control reduces employees’ interest in their job and increases turnover, while job autonomy reduces turnover and improves motivation and job performance. Miller (1990) found that job autonomy has a positive effect on employees’ job satisfaction, stress reduction, and job performance. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) confirmed the positive effects of job resources such as feedback, autonomy, and task significance on job engagement. Job resources such as skill variety, task significance, and autonomy are crucial factors in employee job performance. According to a study by the Ministry of Education in Helsinki, teachers who lacked job resources showed lower job performance and higher burnout and dropout rates (Hakanen et al., 2006). One study that examined job resources classified into job control and support from leaders and colleagues, found that when more control over their job is given to employees, they are likely to feel a greater sense of responsibility in performing their job leading to higher employee engagement (Binnewies et al., 2008; Karatepe et al., 2013). Job resource factors influencing employee engagement, job autonomy, task diversity, task significance, performance feedback, social support, and the work environment have been identified (Macey and Schneider, 2008). Job resources, such as feedback, autonomy, and learning opportunities, are not only necessary to meet job demands, but also to determine employee engagement (Broeck et al., 2010; Halbesleben, 2010).

Psychological well-being is defined using many terms, including happiness, quality of life, life satisfaction, subjective well-being, psychological health, sense of well-being, and well-being. This term first appeared in academic literature as “positive mental health” (Jahoda, 1959). Jahoda identified the following six sub-components of positive mental health: (1) self-acceptance, (2) effort of growth and self-actualization, (3) integration of personality, (4) autonomy from social pressure, (5) perception of reality, and (6) environmental mastery. It is a closely related concept with psychological capital (Manzano-García and Ayala, 2017), so two concepts have been compared with each other. The four characteristics of psychological capital, such as the employee’s willingness and methods to achieve their goals, the optimism about reaching realistically positive outcomes, the confidence to make a positive difference in their work environment, and the resilience to quickly recover from setbacks, have a very close relationship with the theoretical basis. In other words, the integration of hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism, which are the core of psychological capital, is an important antecedent as available resources and mechanisms to promote well-being (Youssef-Morgan and Luthans, 2015). Youssef-Morgan and Luthans (2015) found that domain-specific satisfaction led to higher overall psychological capital, which led to higher overall well-being. Therefore, positive assessments and comprehensions of circumstances can be influenced by psychological capital, which in turn can affect well-being (Chawla and Sharma, 2019).

Empirical studies on psychological well-being, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and psychological capital have found a strong positive relationship between self-efficacy and many job-related outcomes and perceived as an important factor in psychological capital (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). These personal resources are positive self-reflections related to resilience and other factors, and they are highly related to individual abilities and senses (Hobfoll et al., 2003). Employees with high self-efficacy are more interested in and passionate about their job, which improves job performance (Bandura and Locke, 2003). Previous studies on psychological capital among nurses have confirmed that those with high self-efficacy are likely to have lower job stress, burnout, and turnover intentions and higher job satisfaction, employee engagement, and job performance (Duggleby et al., 2009; Salanova et al., 2011; Federici and Skaalvik, 2012; Laschinger et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2015). Also, Sharma and Sharma (2015) contend that employees with psychological well-being felt positive self-efficacy and engaged with their work. On the contrary, when employees get burn out, they manifest signs of exhaustion and become less engaged at work.

In a study on psychological capital, employee attitudes, and behavioral outcomes, Youssef-Morgan and Luthans (2007) reported that psychological capital has a positive effect on job happiness, job satisfaction, and engagement among employees. Gong et al. (2019), through the study of enterprises, found that psychological capital can have a positive impact on job performance and burn out. Salanova et al. (2011) demonstrated that employee self-efficacy improves positive emotions, which influences employee engagement. It has also been found that employees’ perceived psychological atmosphere influences employee engagement, which in turn influences performance, mediated by effort (Bakker and Oerlemans, 2016).

One problem with the literature on the effects of engagement on performance is that the traditional definition of performance is broad and can be interpreted in various ways (Demerouti and Cropanzano, 2010). Job performance is the result of employees playing a role in achieving organizational goals and tasks. Job performance is a matter of widespread concern as a factor required for the operation of efficient organizations (Miller, 1990). In general, job performance refers to the degree to which an employee’s job is performed successfully, akin to the definition of productivity used by industrial psychologists (Pinous, 1986).

Demerouti and Cropanzano (2010) classified job performance into in- and extra-role performance. In-role performance is defined as behavior that directly supports the formally requested outcomes and organizational goals while performing a job. In-role performance, however, emphasizes the means of personal performance toward an organizational goal. A key factor is personal initiative. Extra-role performance refers to an employee’s discretionary behavior as a member of an organization, including prosocial behavior. It is believed that discretionary behavior does not necessarily influence the productivity of employees but facilitates the effective functioning of the organization (Demerouti and Cropanzano, 2010). Studies on the consequences of employee engagement on performance suggest that employees with high levels of employee engagement belong to high-performing groups (Harter, 2001; Kwon and Kim, 2020). In contrast, employees with high levels of engagement tend to proactively increase their job resources and are involved in innovative and proactive behaviors for better performance (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997; Saks, 2006). In a study conducted among nurses, Nasurdin et al. (2018) found that employee engagement positively influences job performance.

The job demands-resources (JD-R) model–the theoretical foundation of this study, is an integrated model presented to explain job burnout and employee engagement among organizational employees, using the theory of positive and negative outcomes at the personal level (Demerouti et al., 2001). Several studies, which developed the concept of the JD-R model, found that there are personal resources based on personal characteristics, in addition to job resources, which influence employee engagement (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Bakker and Leiter, 2010). Also, job demand, as the factor that reduces engagement, is defined as aspects of the job that require sustained physical or mental effort, such as emotional demands and unfavorable work conditions (Schaufeli and Tarris, 2014; Figure 1).

According to the JD-R model, employee engagement is facilitated by job resources and personal resources (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004) and produces positive outcomes such as innovative behavior (Kwon and Kim, 2020). Schaufeli and Tarris (2014) described employee engagement as characterized by immense spirit and psychological flexibility while working (vigor), strong feeling of importance, keen interest, devotion, and challenging working tasks (dedication), and highly concentrated and cheerful preoccupation with one’s work (absorption). Previous research on employee engagement showed that engaged members tend to use the resources they have to be more productive and possess the skills and energy for the job (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Demerouti and Cropanzano, 2010; Bakker and Oerlemans, 2016; Kwon and Kim, 2020). According to broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 1998), positive emotions by engagement experience serve to broaden an individual’s thought–action repertoire, which in turn has the effect of building that individual’s physical, intellectual, and social resources to facilitate in-role performance and extra-role performance. The results of these studies confirm that employees who are energetic, devoted, and focused on their jobs of their own volition are likely to show high performance. Based on this discussion, the following hypotheses were formulated (Figure 2).

Although the degree of impact depends on the occupational group, the pandemic significantly affected workplace health and safety, which resulted in drastic changes in the work environment, including telecommuting (Rudolph et al., 2021). This led to a number of studies on psychological capital focusing on employee health and well-being (e.g., burnout, life satisfaction, loneliness, and procrastination; Van Roekel et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021) and performance (e.g., job performance; Bakker et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021). In this context, we aimed to investigate the relationship between variables influenced by rapid changes in the work environment represented by the COVID-19 pandemic as a major social crisis. Furthermore, we examined how job autonomy influences in-role performance in the form of proactive employee characteristics, as well as extra-role performance in the form of prosocial behavior, as mediated by employee engagement, using the job demands-resources model.

Our findings can be summarized as follows. First, job autonomy as a job resource has a statistically significant positive effect on employee engagement. This result supports previous findings that job resource components such as feedback, autonomy, and task significance have a positive effect on job engagement (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Demerouti and Cropanzano, 2010; Cho and You, 2020; Choi et al., 2020). Of the factors eliciting job engagement and high job performance, job autonomy has drawn attention as a critical antecedent (Bakker and Geurts, 2004; Hakanen and Roodt, 2010; Anderson et al., 2014); in the job demands-resources model (Demerouti et al., 2001; Bakker and Demerouti, 2008), job resources, such as job autonomy, are assumed to influence job engagement through motivation. Recent meta-analyzes have shown that job autonomy positively affects job engagement among employees (Crawford et al., 2010; Christian et al., 2011; Lesener et al., 2019). These results are consistent with our findings.

Second, employees’ psychological well-being as psychological capital was found to have a statistically significant positive effect on employee engagement. This finding is in line with research showing that employees with higher psychological capital tend to change their thinking and attitudes toward their organization in a positive direction, have a higher sense of belonging, are self-motivated to learn, and adjust to changes more appropriately (Lim and Kim, 2019; Shin and Kim, 2020). This is also consistent with the finding that psychological capital promotes active job participation and a tendency to innovate to improve job performance (Luthans et al., 2007; Jeong et al., 2011). This also supports the finding that psychological capital positively influences employees’ job happiness, job satisfaction, and engagement (Youssef-Morgan and Luthans, 2007; Salanova et al., 2011).

Third, employee engagement positively influences job performance in a statistically significant way. This finding supports the results of previous studies that job engagement, presented by Kahn (1990) as a positive psychological factor that induces work motivation, is an important factor in generating positive outcomes in areas such as productivity (Masson et al., 2008; Rich et al., 2010) and overall job performance (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Rich et al., 2010; Kartal, 2018). The significance of this finding can be confirmed and explained by previous studies on the positive effects of employee engagement on job performance (Baterman and Strasser, 1984; Meyer and Allen, 1991; Nasurdin et al., 2018).

Fourth, employee engagement was found to have a significant mediating role with performance variables, when focused on aspects of employee engagement as the degree to which employees feel enthusiasm for their work, promote their dedication and their own work with autonomous efforts in the organization. In other words, it was confirmed that employee engagement is significant as a mediating factor that manifests innovative behavior, and it is consistent with the results of previous studies that employee engagement can promote and mediate innovative behavior of members in an environment with high job autonomy and satisfaction with basic psychological needs (Karatepe et al., 2013; Kim, 2017; Kartal, 2018; Kwon and Kim, 2020; Kim and Song, 2022).

Job autonomy and emotional stability, through psychological well-being, contribute to improvement in work performance by promoting employee engagement, thus, allowing employees to proactively perform jobs and actively cooperate with others. Therefore, companies that are experiencing rapid work environment changes through digital transformation, such as telecommuting and online work cooperation after the COVID-19 pandemic, need to pay more attention to the importance of highly motivating jobs and the influence of psychological resource factors (Rudolph et al., 2021; Demerouti and Bakker, 2023).

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

DL: wrote and revised the manuscript, funding acquisition. YJ: designed the study, analyzed the data and revised the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version for publication.

This study was supported by the University of Suwon (2021).

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.