Introduction

There are dual costs incurred annually by impaired well-being (US$1 trillion) and reduced employee engagement (US$8.8 trillion), underscoring the importance of determining optimal work engagement levels leading to both a healthy and productive workforce, while also promoting sustainable growth and development. This endeavor is further supported by the increased attention to human well-being as reflected in the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) number three (health and well-being) and eight (decent work and economic growth). Therefore, this study explores the dynamic relationship between work engagement, recovery, and transformational leadership, emphasizing the temporal fluctuations of these constructs. While work engagement is often associated with positive outcomes such as higher productivity and well-being, recent research suggests that sustained engagement without adequate recovery could lead to resource depletion, exhaustion, and even burnout. Further most of the existing studies only employed a cross-sectional study design. The study aims to determine whether work engagement consistently enhances recovery or if its effects vary over time, potentially leading to detrimental long-term consequences. Additionally, the research investigates the role of transformational leadership in moderating these effects, while also making causal contributions to research due to a longitudinal study design.

Theoretical Framework

The study is grounded in two major psychological theories:
1. The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model – This framework explains how job demands can drain employees' energy while job resources (such as transformational leadership) promote engagement and well-being.
2. The Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory – This theory explains how individuals seek to build, maintain, and protect personal resources. If these resources are continuously depleted without adequate replenishment, employees may experience fatigue, stress, and decreased well-being.

Building on this theory, the study assumes and tests two possible pathways: One pathway follows the health-impairment process (JD-R model) where work engagement would hinder recovery, leading to an energy depletion effect. The other pathway follows the motivational process of the JD-R model where work engagement would support recovery, resulting in a limited decrease of the recovery level over the course of the day.

Methodology

A quantitative interval-contingent daily-diary study was conducted over two consecutive workweeks with N = 88 Spanish employees from various sectors, following approval from the bioethics commission of the University of Barcelona. Participants completed daily assessments of their work engagement (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale), recovery (State Recovery Scale), and perceived transformational leadership (HSA-Short Scale). Work engagement was measured via the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale through vigor, dedication, and absorption, while recovery (assessed with the State Recovery Scale) captured psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery, and control. Transformational leadership was assessed based on dimensions such as inspirational motivation and individualized consideration using the HSA-Short Scale.

Data Analysis

First regression analyses were used to assess both immediate and delayed effects. Then a moderation  effect with transformational leadership was tested. Finally, a random intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM) was employed to analyze how engagement and recovery influence each other over time and whether transformational leadership influences this relationship.

Key Findings & Discussion

The study found no statistical relationship between work engagement and recovery over time, suggesting that opposing effects—resource gains boosting recovery versus resource depletion from sustained effort—may neutralize each other. Additionally, no evidence was found for a potential dark side of work engagement, possibly due to the study's limited duration, as prior research linking work engagement to negative outcomes examined longer periods (e.g., six months). In addition, work engagement was found to be highly volatile within individuals, fluctuating significantly from day to day, emphasizing the need for future studies to analyze daily patterns rather than weekly averages. However, temporal trends over the week showed no consistent pattern, challenging the assumption of a downward trend in engagement. Lastly, transformational leadership did not significantly moderate the relationship between engagement and recovery, indicating that its influence may depend on additional workplace factors such as workload and job autonomy.

Practical Implications

Due to the consistently positive effect of work engagement on recovery, companies should promote and support it through initiatives such as work engagement interventions or supportive work environments. However, while work engagement is generally positive, organizations should monitor work engagement levels to prevent potential negative outcomes from sustained high engagement, as its negative consequences could not be ruled out.

Implementing regular check-ins and providing adequate breaks can help maintain a balance between engagement and recovery. Additionally, recognizing the volatility of work engagement and adjusting workloads based on fluctuations in employee energy and engagement can further ensure well-being over time. The study’s findings also suggest that transformational leadership alone might be insufficient to mitigate the negative effects of sustained engagement, highlighting the need for broader organizational interventions such as flexible work schedules and workload management.

Conclusion

An increased focus on workplace well-being and its economic impact highlights the dual costs of impaired well-being and reduced employee engagement. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the interplay between work engagement, recovery, and the role of transformational leadership in this context. Overall, this study contributes to the ongoing debate on the "dark side" of work engagement by emphasizing its temporal sensitivity and its complex relationship with recovery. It highlights the need for further research into longer timeframes, individual resilience factors, and organizational influences on recovery dynamics.

Additionally, it adds to the broader discussion on work engagement, recovery, and transformational leadership, underscoring the significance of these constructs for employee well-being and organizational success. However, achieving the optimal balance between work engagement and recovery remains a complex challenge for both leaders and employees.

Acknowledgments

Home Tutor
Prof. Rita Berger, Germany
Universitat de Barcelona, Facultat de Psicologia
ritaberger@ub.edu

Host Tutor
Dr. Edita Fino, Italy
University of Bologna
edita.fino@unibo.it

Methodological Tutor
Dr. David Leiva, Spain
Universitat de Barcelona, Facultat de Psicologia
dleivaur@ub.edu

IAAP Division
Division 1: Work and Organizational Psychology