【正文】 t the core dimensions of burnout (exhaustion and cynicism) and engagement (vigor and dedication) are opposites of each other (GonzalezRoma et al., 2021). Schaufeli et al. (2021, p. 74) define engagement “as a positive, fulfilling, workrelated state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption.” They further state that engagement is not a momentary and specific state, but rather, it is “a more persistent and pervasive affectivecognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behavior” (p. 74). In the academic literature, engagement is said to be related to but distinct from other constructs in anizational behavior. For example, Robinson et al. (2021, p. 8) state that:engagement contains many of the elements of both mitment and OCB, but is by no means a perfect match with either. In addition, neither mitment nor OCB reflect sufficiently two aspects of engagement – its twoway nature, and the extent to which engaged employees are expected to have an element of business awareness. Organizational mitment also differs from engagement in that it refers to a person39。 in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances.” Personal disengagement refers to “the uncoupling of selves from work roles。 Shaw, 2021) or the amount of discretionary effort exhibited by employees in their jobs (Frank et al., 2021). In the academic literature, a number of definitions have been provided. Kahn (1990, p. 694) defines personal engagement as “the harnessing of anization members39。s degree of engagement depends on the role in question (Rothbard, 2021). Thus, it is possible that the antecedents and consequences of engagement depend on the type of engagement. In the next section, employee engagement is defined followed by a discussion of employee engagement models and theory and the study hypotheses. What is employee engagement? Employee engagement has bee a widely used and popular term (Robinson et al., 2021). However, most of what has been written about employee engagement can be found in practitioner journals where it has its basis in practice rather than theory and empirical research. As noted by Robinson et al. (2021), there has been surprisingly little academic and empirical research on a topic that has bee so popular. As a result, employee engagement has the appearance of being somewhat faddish or what some might call, “old wine in a new bottle.” To make matters worse, employee engagement has been defined in many different ways and the definitions and measures often sound like other better known and established constructs like anizational mitment and anizational citizenship behavior (Robinson et al., 2021). Most often it has been defined as emotional and intellectual mitment to the anization (Baumruk, 2021。 Kowalski, 2021). Unfortunately, much of what has been written about employee engagement es from the practitioner literature and consulting firms. There is a surprising dearth of research on employee engagement in the academic literature (Robinson et al., 2021). The purpose of this study was to investigate the antecedents and consequences of two types of employee engagement: job and anization engagements. Previous research has focused primarily on engagement in one39。 Richman, 2021). It has even been reported that the majority of workers today, roughly half of all Americans in the workforce, are not fully engaged or they are disengaged leading to what has been refe