Original Research

Associations among personality traits, basic psychological needs, and work engagement: An organisational neuroscience perspective

Petrus J. Vorster, Dirk J. Geldenhuys

Received: 27 Feb. 2026; Accepted: 20 Apr. 2026; Published: 15 May 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Orientation: Work engagement is widely recognised as a key driver of organisational performance and employee well-being. However, limited research has simultaneously examined the associations among personality traits, basic psychological needs, and work engagement.

Research purpose: This study investigated the associations among work engagement, personality traits, and basic psychological needs from an organisational neuroscience perspective.

Motivation for the study: Few studies have explored the associations between personality traits and basic psychological needs in relation to work engagement. Integrating dispositional and motivational perspectives may, therefore, provide a more comprehensive understanding of work engagement.

Research approach/design and method: A quantitative, non-experimental design was employed with a sample of 118 South African employees. Data were analysed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, correlation analysis, and hierarchical multiple regression.

Main findings: Work engagement was positively associated with extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, agreeableness, and the basic psychological needs of ‘joyful connection’ and ‘autonomous mastery’, and negatively associated with neuroticism. Hierarchical multiple regression further showed that personality traits explained a substantial proportion of variance in work engagement, and that ‘joyful connection’ accounted for additional variance beyond personality traits.

Implications for practise: Work engagement may be enhanced by aligning organisational practices with employees’ dispositional tendencies and by cultivating work environments that support both relational connectedness and growth-oriented need fulfilment.

Contribution/value-add: This study suggests that work engagement is associated with both personality traits and basic psychological need satisfaction, thereby advancing integrative organisational neuroscience perspectives on employee motivation.

Keywords: work engagement; personality traits; basic psychological needs; organisational neuroscience; consistency theory; neural networks; motivational schemas.

Introduction

Work engagement, defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of vigour, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002; Schaufeli, 2012), is widely recognised as essential for employee well-being and organisational effectiveness (Bakker et al., 2023). Yet, sustaining engagement remains a persistent global challenge (Gallup, 2025). According to Gallup (2025), 79% of employees worldwide are disengaged, with the majority either ‘quiet quitting’ or actively disengaged. In Sub-Saharan Africa, engagement levels remain particularly low, with only approximately one in five employees considered engaged (Gallup, 2025). Engagement statistics reported for South Africa were somewhat more favourable than the global average, with 23% of South Africans thriving at work (Gallup, 2025). These findings underscore the urgent need to identify factors that reliably contribute to higher levels of engagement.

Personality traits have long been associated with a range of positive occupational outcomes, including improved job performance, satisfaction, and well-being (Anglim et al., 2020; Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge et al., 2002). The Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality provides a robust framework for conceptualising stable dispositional differences in openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, with evidence supporting its structural validity and reliability in the South African context (De Bruin et al., 2022). Empirical studies indicate that traits such as openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness are consistently linked to work engagement, whereas neuroticism tends to undermine it (Fukuzaki & Iwata, 2022; Kim et al., 2009; Langelaan et al., 2006; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Ongore, 2014).

In addition to dispositional factors, motivational theories highlight the role of basic psychological needs in shaping behaviour and well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2020; Van den Broeck et al., 2021). Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) emphasises autonomy, competence, and relatedness as universal needs, while Grawe’s (2007) consistency theory underscores the centrality of need fulfilment in guiding approach- and avoidance-oriented behaviours through distinct neural pathways. Consistent satisfaction of the needs for attachment, pleasure maximisation and pain minimisation, control and orientation, and self-esteem enhancement is associated with adaptive functioning and neural integration, whereas chronic frustration may foster dysregulation, maladaptive schemas, and disengagement (Dahlitz, 2015; Garnett et al., 2022; Grawe, 2007).

From an organisational neuroscience perspective, motivation and work engagement may be conceptualised as emerging from the dynamic interplay between dispositional tendencies and large-scale neural systems implicated in salience detection, executive regulation, and self-referential processing (Menon, 2023; Menon & Uddin, 2010), with the satisfaction of basic psychological needs supporting adaptive neural integration and emotional regulation processes (Arden, 2019). Given evidence linking personality traits to work engagement (Fukuzaki & Iwata, 2022) and the role of basic psychological needs in motivational functioning (Van den Broeck et al., 2021), integrating these perspectives may provide a more comprehensive account of the individual-level mechanisms underlying work engagement (Bakker et al., 2023).

Despite extensive research on work engagement (Bakker et al., 2023; Schaufeli, 2012), few studies have simultaneously examined the combined role of personality traits and basic psychological needs in relation to work engagement, particularly in a way that considers their relative contributions within an integrative framework (Borah & Barua, 2018; Mhlanga et al., 2021; Prokešová et al., 2019). Moreover, the integration of these constructs within an organisational neuroscience framework remains underdeveloped in the literature. Addressing this gap, this study investigates the relationships among work engagement, personality traits, and basic psychological needs in a South African workforce sample. By integrating dispositional and motivational perspectives within an organisational neuroscience framework, the study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the individual-level mechanisms shaping work engagement. This study does not directly measure neural activity. Rather, it applies established findings from affective neuroscience, motivational neuroscience, and network neuroscience to interpret behavioural relationships between personality traits, basic psychological needs, and work engagement.

Literature review and hypothesis development

Work engagement

Work engagement has become a central construct in organisational psychology since the 1990s and continues to receive considerable scholarly attention (Bakker et al., 2023; Schaufeli, 2012). Kahn (1990, p. 694) was the first to introduce the construct and defined engagement as the ‘harnessing of organisation member’s selves to their work roles: in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, emotionally and mentally during role performances’. Engaged employees, therefore, invest substantial effort in their occupational roles because they experience a strong psychological connection to their work. However, research on burnout has largely inspired the more recent development of work engagement scholarship (Bakker et al., 2023). In contrast to individuals who experience burnout, engaged individuals are characterised by energy and a sense of connection to their work (Maslach et al., 2001; Maslach & Leiter, 2008; Taris, 2023). Engaged employees perceive their work as challenging rather than overwhelming or exhausting (Schaufeli, 2012, 2013). Although there is ongoing debate about whether burnout and work engagement may co-occur or represent mutually exclusive opposites, Maricuțoiu et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis found non-significant cross-lagged relationships between burnout and work engagement, suggesting that the two constructs may function as relatively independent processes over time.

Despite variations in definition and measurement, work engagement is widely conceptualised as a ‘positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption’ (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). Vigour refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, a willingness to invest effort in one’s tasks, and persistence even in the face of difficulties (Bakker et al., 2023; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Taris, 2023). Dedication is characterised by a strong involvement in one’s work and is accompanied by feelings of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Absorption entails being fully concentrated and deeply engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and individuals experience difficulty detaching themselves from their tasks (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Thus, vigour reflects sustained energy and persistence, dedication captures enthusiasm and a sense of meaningful involvement, and absorption refers to being fully immersed in one’s work (Schaufeli, 2012).

Work engagement can be more clearly understood as a dynamic motivational state that develops when supportive work environments align with individuals’ personal strengths and capacities. Within the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) framework, engagement functions as a key psychological process through which job and personal resources are translated into sustained performance and well-being (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Christian et al., 2011; Lesener et al., 2020; Neuber et al., 2022). Extensive meta-analytic evidence shows that organisational resources, such as autonomy, developmental opportunities, performance feedback, and empowering leadership, have stronger and more lasting effects on engagement than job demands. At the same time, personal resources (e.g. optimism, self-efficacy, resilience) and core personality traits, particularly conscientiousness and extraversion, consistently predict higher engagement, sometimes even more strongly than social or task-related job factors (Mazzetti et al., 2021; Young et al., 2018).

In turn, work engagement expands employees’ thinking and behavioural flexibility, promoting creativity, adaptability, and improved task and contextual performance, often serving as the mechanism through which resources influence these outcomes (Bakker et al., 2020). Research in the South African context supports these broader theoretical patterns, while highlighting the importance of leadership quality, communication climate, organisational justice, and opportunities for growth within a socio-economically diverse environment (Bakker et al., 2023; Kotzé & Mostert, 2025; Mabe et al., 2024; Masuku et al., 2025; Mvuyana et al., 2025). Overall, the literature presents work engagement as a central link between work design and individual characteristics, positioning it not simply as a positive attitude but also as a core psychological capability that enables organisational effectiveness, resilience, and innovation (Bakker et al., 2023). However, despite its well-documented benefits, work engagement levels remain concerningly low worldwide, with most employees disengaged from their work (Gallup, 2025), underscoring the ongoing need to identify reliable and theoretically grounded predictors of engagement, particularly those rooted in personality and motivational processes.

Personality traits

Personality traits can be defined as ‘consistent patterns of individual differences in thoughts, feelings and behaviours’ (McCrae et al., 1993, p. 4). The Five-Factor Model (FFM) or Big Five Model of personality remains the most widely accepted structural framework for describing personality (DeYoung & Blain, 2020). The FFM offers a structure for personality that is best described by five traits that characterise distinct variances (Taylor & De Bruin, 2013). The five factors include openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990). These dimensions capture a broad spectrum of individual differences and have demonstrated cross-cultural validity, including within South Africa (De Bruin et al., 2022).

Openness to experience captures the breadth, depth, and complexity of individuals’ intellectual and experiential engagement with the world (Soto et al., 2016). Individuals high in openness demonstrate cognitive flexibility, aesthetic sensitivity, and receptivity to novel experiences, and are more likely to pursue innovative pursuits and endorse progressive value orientations (Taylor & De Bruin, 2013). In contrast, individuals who are low in openness are inclined to have less diverse interests and favour familiarity over novelty (Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006). Conscientiousness reflects self-regulatory capacity, goal-directed persistence, and behavioural organisation (Soto & Jackson, 2013). Conscientiousness is consistently identified as the most robust dispositional predictor of academic attainment, occupational performance, and health-promoting behaviours, while low conscientiousness is associated with impulsivity and counterproductive conduct (Soto et al., 2016).

Extraversion denotes a dispositional tendency towards sociability, assertiveness, and positive emotionality (Taylor & De Bruin, 2013). Extraverts are more likely to experience elevated subjective well-being, attain social status, and emerge as leaders, particularly in socially demanding contexts (Soto & Jackson, 2013). Contrastingly, introverts are inclined to be uncomfortable in social settings and tend to remain private regarding their opinions and emotions (Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006). Agreeableness represents a prosocial interpersonal orientation characterised by empathy, cooperation, and relational harmony (Soto et al., 2016). Higher agreeableness predicts peer acceptance and relationship satisfaction (Taylor & De Bruin, 2013), whereas low agreeableness is associated with interpersonal conflict and adverse social outcomes (Soto & Jackson, 2013).

Finally, neuroticism reflects emotional instability and heightened sensitivity to negative affect (Soto et al., 2016). Elevated neuroticism is associated with diminished well-being, reduced occupational satisfaction, and increased vulnerability to mood disorders (Taylor & De Bruin, 2013), while low neuroticism denotes emotional stability and resilience (Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006). Various studies confirm that the FFM of personality is valuable for investigating the basis of work engagement. A synthesis of the literature reveals that common themes, such as high openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness, together with low neuroticism, are present in employees with significant work engagement levels (Fukuzaki & Iwata, 2022; Kim et al., 2009; Langelaan et al., 2006; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Ongore, 2014). It is, therefore, clear that personality traits, particularly within the framework of the FFM, are significant when aiming to understand differences in how employees experience and sustain engagement at work.

Basic psychological needs

In addition to personality traits, the satisfaction of basic psychological needs has also been found to significantly predict variations in work engagement (Liebenberg et al., 2022; Van den Broeck et al., 2021). The fulfilment of basic psychological needs is widely recognised as essential for human motivation, well-being, and effective functioning (Dahlitz, 2015; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Grawe, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2020). Successful organisations, therefore, often create a highly engaged workforce by establishing an environment that ensures satisfaction of basic psychological needs (Gallup, 2025; Green et al., 2017). Van den Broeck et al. (2010, p. 982) state that basic psychological need satisfaction is regarded as ‘the essential nutriment for individuals’ optimal functioning and well-being, as water, minerals, and sunshine are essential for plants to bloom’. Gallup (2023, p. 95) further opines that employees ‘can become engaged when their basic needs are met and when they have a chance to contribute, a sense of belonging, and opportunities to learn and grow’. Thus, it is evident that basic psychological need fulfilment is considered a fundamental mechanism for employees’ flourishing at work and experiencing a sense of engagement while completing their job tasks (Van den Broeck et al., 2021).

Building on the central role of basic psychological needs in motivation and well-being, Grawe’s (2007) consistency theory provides an integrative explanation of how the continual striving for need satisfaction drives human behaviour and psychological coherence. Grawe (2007, p. 167) defines basic psychological needs as ‘needs that are present among all humans, and their violation or enduring nonfulfillment leads to impairments in mental health and well-being’ Grawe (2007, p. 169) further notes that ‘the goals a person forms during his or her life ultimately serve the satisfaction of distinct basic needs’. Grawe (2007) identified key psychological basic needs as the crux of his consistency theory – our behaviour is driven to satisfy these needs, either in a healthy way (approach driven from cortical processes) or in a pathological way (avoidance driven from limbic processes). According to Grawe (2007), these four basic psychological needs include: the need for attachment, the need for pleasure maximisation and pain minimisation, the need for control and orientation, and the need for self-esteem enhancement. These basic psychological needs serve as the foundation for human motivation, giving rise to approach and avoidance schemas that guide behaviour towards need satisfaction or protection from threat (Grawe, 2007).

Various studies have confirmed the presence of two significant motivational schemas, one inclined towards possible positive effects, coined the approach motivational system, and the other inclined towards possible adverse effects, named the avoidance motivational system (Elliot, 1999, 2008; Elliot & Covington, 2001; Grawe, 2007). Put differently, approach motivation is driven by a desirable outcome, whereas avoidance motivation is driven by an undesirable outcome (Elliot, 1999, 2008; Elliot & Covington, 2001; Grawe, 2007). According to Grawe (2007), approach motivation and avoidance motivation operate on different neural networks. If an individual develops in an environment where needs have been fulfilled, especially during the critical early attachment phase, then approach schemas of interacting with the environment are likely to develop, resulting in approach-oriented behaviour (Dahlitz, 2015). Conversely, an individual whose needs are continually threatened and violated will likely develop avoidance schemas that will motivate insecure, anxious, and avoidant behaviour (Grawe, 2007). Approach and avoidance motivation is, therefore, viewed as ‘psychological orientations toward or away from stimuli (whether concrete objects, events, and possibilities or abstract subjective representations) that may or may not have a corresponding somatic movement or action’ (Dahlitz, 2017, p. 113).

The underlying neural architecture supporting these motivational systems can be understood through the lens of three core self-organising brain networks, which dynamically regulate emotion, cognition, and behaviour (Arden, 2019; Menon, 2023; Menon & Uddin, 2010; Siegel, 2019). Therefore, to understand the neurological foundations of behaviour, Arden (2019) identifies three key self-organising mental operational networks: the salience network (SN), the default mode network (DMN), and the executive network (EN). These networks integrate sensations, emotions, and thoughts to preserve a balanced mental state. According to Siegel (2019), mental health is rooted in the optimal self-organisation of these systems, which emerge from the integration of differentiated neural elements, with dysfunction leading to rigidity or pathology.

The SN, also coined the feeling network, with hubs in the anterior cingulate and ventral anterior insular cortices, detects emotionally salient stimuli and facilitates transitions between the internally focused DMN and externally directed EN (Chen et al., 2016; Menon & Uddin, 2010). The DMN, comprising regions such as the ventral medial prefrontal cortex and posterior cingulate cortex, is active during rest and internal processes such as self-reflection, contributing to a coherent self-concept (Buckner & DiNicola, 2019; Menon, 2023). In addition, the EN, mediated by the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, supports higher-order executive functions such as cognitive flexibility and inhibitory control, essential for goal-directed behaviour and emotion regulation (Arden, 2019; Zelazo, 2015).

Together, these dynamic networks enable adaptive functioning by integrating internal experiences with external demands (Arden, 2019; Menon, 2023; Menon & Uddin, 2010; Siegel, 2019). Collectively, basic psychological needs, motivational schemas, and mental operational networks offer complementary explanations for the mechanisms that drive human behaviour, motivation, and well-being (Grawe, 2007). Understanding how these systems interact may, therefore, provide a valuable foundation for examining workplace behaviour from a neuropsychological perspective. Building on this foundation, the following section introduces the organisational neuroscience perspective, which integrates these motivational and neural mechanisms with psychological constructs such as work engagement, personality traits, and basic psychological needs.

The organisational neuroscience perspective

Organisational neuroscience can be defined as:

[A] multi-disciplinary field that uses information about the brain to build a more complete understanding of topics that fall under the purview of management scholars, industrial / organizational psychologists, and consultants. (Ward et al., 2015, p. 18)

Organisational neuroscience is an emerging interdisciplinary field that integrates principles from neuroscience, psychology, and organisational science to understand workplace behaviour by examining the brain-based mechanisms underlying cognitive-, emotional-, and motivational processes (Becker et al., 2011; Waldman et al., 2011). In this study, the organisational neuroscience perspective is employed to interpret work engagement, personality traits, and basic psychological needs through the lens of neural systems that are theorised to regulate motivation, emotion, and cognition (Arden, 2019; Grawe, 2007; Menon, 2023; Menon & Uddin, 2010).

The salience-, default mode-, and executive networks dynamically regulate internal and external processing (Arden, 2019; Menon, 2023; Menon & Uddin, 2010; Siegel, 2019). These networks may support workplace functioning by enabling employees to allocate attention, regulate emotions, and sustain goal-directed behaviour – all essential components of work engagement (Ashkanasy et al., 2014). The satisfaction of basic psychological needs is proposed to engage approach-oriented motivational systems linked to the salience and executive networks (Arden, 2019; Elliot, 1999, 2008; Elliot & Covington, 2001; Grawe, 2007; Menon, 2023; Menon & Uddin, 2010), which could contribute to higher levels of work engagement. Similarly, personality traits can be conceptualised as relatively stable patterns of brain-based functioning that influence how individuals experience and regulate motivation (DeYoung, 2010; DeYoung & Blain, 2020). Specifically, dopaminergic and serotonergic pathways, linked to approach and avoidance motivation, form the biological foundation of the FFM, influencing how individuals experience reward, regulate emotion, and pursue goals (Allen & DeYoung, 2017; DeYoung, 2015; DeYoung & Blain, 2020).

These neural mechanisms could provide a crucial bridge between personality traits, basic psychological needs, and work engagement, illustrating that the patterns driving motivation and behaviour in organisational contexts may be rooted in the functional architecture of the brain. Work engagement may, therefore, be viewed as a neuropsychological state associated with the coordinated functioning of these neural networks during work-related activity. The organisational neuroscience perspective, thus, provides an integrative framework linking personality traits, basic psychological needs, and work engagement through underlying motivational and neural processes. This perspective informs the theoretical rationale of this study, which seeks to explore how these constructs interact to shape work engagement from both psychological and neurobiological standpoints.

Integration of literature

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between work engagement, personality traits, and basic psychological needs from an organisational neuroscience perspective. Prior research indicates that openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness are generally positively associated with engagement, whereas neuroticism tends to show negative associations (Fukuzaki & Iwata, 2022; Kim et al., 2009; Langelaan et al., 2006; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Ongore, 2014). In addition, research demonstrates that the satisfaction of basic psychological needs is positively linked to engagement through enhanced motivation, well-being, and performance (Green et al., 2017; Van den Broeck et al., 2021). There is also evidence of associations between personality traits and basic psychological needs. For example, extraversion has been linked to higher need satisfaction, whereas neuroticism has been linked to need frustration (Hlupić et al., 2022). These findings suggest that personality traits and need fulfilment may jointly shape work engagement. Yet, relatively few studies have considered all three constructs together, particularly from an organisational neuroscience perspective. Based on the reviewed literature, the following hypotheses were formulated:

H1: Extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience will correlate positively with work engagement, while neuroticism will correlate negatively.

H2: Extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience will correlate positively with basic psychological needs, while neuroticism will correlate negatively.

H3: Basic psychological needs will correlate positively with work engagement.

H4: Personality traits and basic psychological needs will jointly contribute to work engagement, with basic psychological needs explaining additional variance beyond personality traits.

Research methods and design

Participants and procedure

This study employed a quantitative, non-experimental research design and collected primary data through an online survey administered to employees working in an engineering and project management South African organisation. Participation was voluntary, and confidentiality and anonymity were assured in line with ethical guidelines. Ethical clearance and institutional permission were obtained prior to data collection. A convenience sampling strategy was used, yielding responses from 118 employees. A minimum sample size of more than 100 respondents was targeted in line with practical and contextual considerations (Maree, 2025). As this study was conducted within a single South African organisation, this served as further support for the choice of a minimum sample of more than 100 respondents (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). While the sample size of 118 is modest, it was deemed adequate for the correlational and regression analyses conducted. The same sample was used for both exploratory and confirmatory analyses of the measurement instruments, and no separate pilot testing was conducted. The survey included demographic questions, the shortened version of the Basic Traits Inventory (BTI-Short) (Taylor & De Bruin, 2013), a novel basic psychological needs instrument based on Grawe’s (2007) consistency theory, and the nine-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale UWES-9 (Schaufeli et al., 2006).

Sample description

Table 1 illustrates the demographic profile of the participants. Over half (56.8%) of the participants were female, and most of the participants were well educated. The majority of participants were white (72%) and spoke either Afrikaans (57.6%) or English (36.4%). Considering the age of the participants, 39% were aged between 30–39 years, 23.7% between 18–29 years, 22.9% between 40–49 years, 10.2% between 50–59 years, and 4.2% were in the age group 60 years and older.

Study measures

The study employed a biographical questionnaire, along with three validated instruments, to assess the constructs of interest. The final survey consisted of 93 items and required approximately 15 to 20 min to complete. Demographic information was collected to describe the sample. Variables included gender, race, age, home language, and highest level of education. To assess employees’ satisfaction of basic psychological needs at work, the researcher developed a measure based on Grawe’s (2007) four needs: the need for attachment, the need for pleasure maximisation and pain minimisation, the need for control and orientation, and the need for self-esteem enhancement. A deductive approach was followed in generating items from an approach-schema perspective (Elliot, 1999, 2008; Elliot & Covington, 2001), grounded in a detailed literature review of organisational neuroscience and motivational theory (Dahlitz, 2015; Grawe, 2007; Hinkin, 1995, 1998). An initial pool of 24 items was created, with six items for each need. Items were carefully worded to avoid ambiguity, double-barrelled phrasing, and negative wording (Foxcroft, 2013). Expert consultation was sought throughout the process (DeVellis, 1991; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006).

The draft items underwent a pre-test item-sort task with 12 participants holding at least a bachelor’s degree. Using Anderson and Gerbing’s (1991) method, indices of substantive validity were calculated, namely the proportion of substantive agreement (P_sa) and the substantive-validity coefficient (C_sv). Items that failed to reach acceptable thresholds (Howard & Melloy, 2016) were either rephrased or excluded. The refined items were subsequently analysed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), internal consistency reliability testing, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the factor structure and establish convergent, discriminant, and construct validity. The analyses supported a two-factor solution labelled ‘joyful connection’ (reflecting belonging, positive social interaction, relational fulfilment, and positive affect) and ‘autonomous mastery’ (capturing competence, autonomy, and growth through challenge). Although Grawe’s (2007) model proposes four distinct needs, the two-factor solution observed here may reflect a higher-order clustering of these needs within this sample rather than a direct replication of the original theoretical structure. Items were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 5 (very much agree). The full list of retained items is presented in Appendix 1.

Personality was measured using the BTI-Short. This scale comprises 60 items, with 12 items assessing each of the Big Five traits: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The BTI-Short has been validated in the South African context and demonstrates satisfactory psychometric properties (De Bruin et al., 2022). Work engagement was assessed using the UWES-9. The UWES-9 consists of three subscales, vigour, dedication, and absorption, each measured with three items. Items are scored on a seven-point frequency scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). The UWES-9 has been widely validated across cultural contexts, including South Africa, and is considered a reliable measure of engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010).

Common method variance

Because all data were collected through self-reports in a single online survey, steps were taken to reduce the risk of common method bias. Participants were assured of anonymity and reminded that there were no right or wrong answers, which helped minimise evaluation apprehension (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In addition, the order of survey items was randomised to reduce response patterns associated with question sequence. These procedures were implemented to mitigate consistency motifs and halo effects, thereby enhancing the validity of the responses (Maree, 2025). However, as all measures were self-reported and collected at a single time point, the potential influence of common method variance on the observed associations cannot be entirely ruled out.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Department of Industrial and Organisational Psychology Ethics Review Committee of the University of South Africa (ref. no. 2022/CEMS/IOP/019) on 27 September 2022. Informed consent was obtained from both the organisation and the individual participants. Participation was voluntary, and the researchers explained and maintained the confidentiality and anonymity of the participants, who could withdraw from the study at any time without explanation or fear of penalty (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Maree, 2025).

Statistical analyses and results

Exploratory factor analysis

Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to examine the structure of the UWES-9. Principal component analysis (PCA) was initially used as a data reduction technique to assess the suitability of the data and to explore the underlying structure. Principal component analysis demonstrated strong suitability for factor analysis, with a high Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value of 0.907 and a significant Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (χ² = 866.152, df = 36, p < 0.001), confirming adequate interrelationships among items (Bartlett, 1950; Kaiser, 1974). Principal component analysis was selected as a data reduction technique appropriate to the study’s exploratory, correlational design, although it does not model latent constructs in the same manner as common factor analysis (Field, 2018). The EFA indicated a unidimensional structure, with all items loading onto a single component with factor loadings above 0.4, thus justifying the retention of all items for further analysis (Stevens, 1992). In contrast, the EFA of the basic psychological needs scale, initially utilising PCA as a preliminary step, followed by principal axis factoring (PAF) with oblimin rotation, revealed a KMO of 0.805 and a significant Bartlett’s Test (χ² =1116.863, df = 276, p < 0.001), suggesting high data adequacy (Bartlett, 1950; Kaiser, 1974). Although initial analyses indicated seven factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, theoretical alignment with Horn’s (1965) parallel analysis and Grawe’s (2007) model suggested three and four factors, respectively. However, neither solution produced a coherent structure because of cross-loadings. A subsequent two-factor solution yielded a clearer structure, with eleven items loading on ‘joyful connection’ and six on ‘autonomous mastery’, aligning with Grawe’s (2007) consistency-theoretical model of mental functioning and resulting in the exclusion of seven problematic items.

Internal consistency reliabilities of the measuring instrument

Before conducting CFA on the UWES-9 and the researcher’s instrument based on Grawe’s (2007) basic psychological needs, internal consistency reliabilities were assessed. Evaluating internal consistency reliability helps to identify problematic items (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), with Cronbach’s alpha values ideally above 0.7 (Kline, 1999; Peterson, 1994). The UWES-9 demonstrated strong internal reliability (α = 0.931), indicating good internal consistency. For the researcher’s basic psychological needs instrument, the factors ‘joyful connection’ and ‘autonomous mastery’ also indicated acceptable internal reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha values of α = 0.850 and α = 0.780, respectively. In addition, the BTI-Short exhibited good internal reliabilities across all measured personality traits. More specifically, neuroticism (α = 0.920), conscientiousness (α = 0.910), extraversion (α = 0.880), openness to experience (α = 0.870), and agreeableness (α = 0.850) all indicated strong internal reliabilities. Overall, these results confirmed that the instruments utilised had good to excellent internal consistency reliability (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Kline, 1999; Peterson, 1994).

Confirmatory factor analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis of the UWES-9 indicated a good model fit for a unidimensional structure, with fit indices supporting a single-factor model of work engagement. The composite reliability (CR) of 0.993 and an average variance extracted (AVE) of 0.550 provided evidence of convergent validity for the work engagement construct, affirming the scale’s construct validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). These results confirm that the UWES-9 effectively captures a single underlying factor of work engagement in this context. In contrast, CFA for the researcher’s basic psychological needs scale based on Grawe’s (2007) model revealed mixed results. While the fit indices suggested an acceptable model fit for the two factors, ‘joyful connection’ and ‘autonomous mastery’, with CR values of 0.859 and 0.831 indicating good internal consistency, the AVE values (0.365 and 0.356) fell below the recommended threshold, signalling limited convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). However, discriminant validity was upheld as the AVE/R² ratio exceeded 1. These results suggest that while the scale shows some reliability, it may lack adequate construct validity for measuring basic psychological needs within the South African context, warranting further refinement.

Correlation analysis

Pearson correlation coefficients were computed to examine the relationships among work engagement, personality traits, and basic psychological needs (N = 118). Descriptive statistics indicated relatively high levels of work engagement (means [M] = 4.68, standard deviation [s.d.] = 1.11), ‘joyful connection’ (M = 4.31, s.d. = 0.53), ‘autonomous mastery’ (M = 4.46, s.d. = 0.50), conscientiousness (M = 4.13, s.d. = 0.67), and agreeableness (M = 4.06, s.d. = 0.51), with comparatively lower levels of neuroticism (M = 2.47, s.d. = 0.87). Standard deviations suggested adequate variability across all constructs. The correlation analysis revealed several significant relationships among the variables. Work engagement was positively correlated with ‘joyful connection’ (r = 0.52, p < 0.01) and moderately with ‘autonomous mastery’ (r = 0.24, p < 0.01). Additionally, a strong positive correlation was found with extraversion (r = 0.51, p < 0.01). ‘Joyful connection’ showed strong positive correlations with both work engagement (r = 0.52, p < 0.01) and ‘autonomous mastery’ (r = 0.47, p < 0.01). ‘Autonomous mastery’ correlated positively with work engagement (r = 0.24, p < 0.01) and ‘joyful connection’ (r = 0.47, p < 0.01). Extraversion was positively correlated with work engagement (r = 0.51, p < 0.01), ‘joyful connection’ (r = 0.60, p < 0.01), and ‘autonomous mastery’ (r = 0.44, p < 0.01). Neuroticism was negatively correlated with work engagement (r = −0.23, p < 0.05), but not significantly with ‘joyful connection’ or ‘autonomous mastery’. Conscientiousness was positively correlated with work engagement (r = 0.43, p < 0.01), ‘joyful connection’ (r = 0.32, p < 0.01), and ‘autonomous mastery’ (r = 0.35, p < 0.01). Openness was positively correlated with work engagement (r = 0.22, p < 0.05), ‘joyful connection’ (r = 0.37, p < 0.01), ‘autonomous mastery’ (r = 0.46, p < 0.01), and extraversion (r = 0.56, p < 0.01). Agreeableness was positively correlated with work engagement (r = 0.25, p < 0.01), ‘joyful connection’ (r = 0.55, p < 0.01), and ‘autonomous mastery’ (r = 0.37, p < 0.01). Table 2 presents the M, s.d., and Pearson correlation coefficients among the study variables.

Figure 1 summarises the significant two-tailed Pearson correlations among work engagement, the two basic-needs dimensions (i.e. ‘joyful connection’ and ‘autonomous mastery’), and the Big Five traits.

FIGURE 1: Conceptual map of significant Pearson correlations among work engagement, basic psychological needs, and Big Five traits (N = 118).

Note. Undirected lines denote correlations; values shown are Pearson’s r with significance levels (p < 0.05 = *, p < 0.01 = **). No causal relations are implied.

Figure 2 depicts the pattern of associations between the basic-needs dimensions (i.e. ‘joyful connection’ and ‘autonomous mastery’) and the Big Five traits, highlighting significant two-tailed Pearson correlations.

FIGURE 2: Correlations between basic psychological needs and Big Five personality traits (N = 118).

Hierarchical multiple regression analysis

In addition to factor analyses and Pearson correlations, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the relative and incremental contributions of personality traits and basic psychological needs to work engagement. In Step 1, personality traits accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in work engagement, R² = 0.39, F(5, 112) = 14.07, p < 0.001. Extraversion (β = 0.44, p < 0.001) and conscientiousness (β = 0.26, p < 0.01) were positively associated with work engagement, whereas neuroticism, openness, and agreeableness were not significantly associated. In Step 2, the inclusion of ‘joyful connection’ and ‘autonomous mastery’ resulted in a significant increase in explained variance, ΔR² = 0.06, F(7, 110) = 12.73, p < 0.001, with the full model accounting for 45% of the variance in work engagement (R² = 0.45). Within this model, extraversion (β = 0.28, p < 0.05) and conscientiousness (β = 0.27, p < 0.01) remained significantly associated with work engagement. ‘Joyful connection’ was also positively associated with work engagement (β = 0.36, p < 0.01), whereas ‘autonomous mastery’ was not significantly associated. Neuroticism, openness, and agreeableness remained non-significant. Overall, the findings indicate that personality traits and basic psychological needs are jointly associated with work engagement, with ‘joyful connection’ accounting for additional variance in work engagement beyond personality traits. Table 3 presents the hierarchical multiple regression analysis results.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between work engagement, personality traits, and basic psychological needs from an organisational neuroscience perspective. The study adopted a cross-sectional, correlational design and, therefore, focused on examining associations among the variables. The organisational neuroscience perspective was applied as a conceptual framework to interpret these relationships rather than to test underlying neural mechanisms. Accordingly, the findings should be interpreted as reflecting associations rather than causal mechanisms. Using correlational analyses, three main findings emerged. Firstly, consistent with prior research (Fukuzaki & Iwata, 2022; Kim et al., 2009; Langelaan et al., 2006; Ongore, 2014), work engagement was positively associated with extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, and agreeableness, and negatively associated with neuroticism. Extraversion and conscientiousness showed the strongest positive associations, underscoring that sociability, energy, and diligence may be linked to higher levels of work engagement. In contrast, neuroticism was negatively associated with engagement, suggesting that emotional instability and anxiety may be related to reduced levels of sustained work engagement. These findings are consistent with the broader evidence base linking the FFM to occupational well-being. This pattern is consistent with the view that work engagement tends to be more strongly associated with energetic, approach-oriented tendencies (extraversion) and goal-directed persistence (conscientiousness), and less strongly associated with tendencies characterised by negative affectivity and stress reactivity (neuroticism) (Bakker et al., 2023; Schaufeli, 2012). The findings also reinforce the FFM’s relevance for understanding stable individual differences in occupational well-being in the South African context (De Bruin et al., 2022), suggesting that personality traits may be related to how employees experience vigour, dedication, and absorption in their work (Schaufeli et al., 2002). In this regard, work engagement has been conceptualised as both a relatively stable trait and a context-dependent state (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Schaufeli, 2012), and the present findings may reflect the interplay between these dispositional and situational influences.

Secondly, significant positive associations were observed between personality traits and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs. Extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, and agreeableness were all positively associated with the two identified need dimensions, ‘joyful connection’ and ‘autonomous mastery’. This suggests that employees higher on these traits may be more likely to experience interpersonal connection, enjoyment, independence, and self-sufficiency in their work. These results align with prior studies (Hlupić et al., 2022) showing that stable, prosocial, and open personality profiles are associated with greater need fulfilment. This pattern may indicate that personality traits are not only associated with how individuals engage with their work but also with how they experience and interpret their work environments in terms of need satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2020). For example, individuals higher in extraversion and agreeableness may be more likely to perceive and engage in positive social interactions, which could be associated with greater relational fulfilment, while those higher in conscientiousness may be more inclined towards structured, goal-directed behaviour that supports experiences of competence and autonomy (Soto et al., 2016; Taylor & De Bruin, 2013). Similarly, openness may be associated with a greater tendency to seek out and engage in novel and growth-oriented experiences, which may enhance perceptions of mastery and self-development (Allen & DeYoung, 2017; DeYoung, 2015; DeYoung & Blain, 2020). The relatively strong association between extraversion and ‘joyful connection’ likely reflects conceptual proximity between sociability-related dispositions and the experience of positive interpersonal connection at work, although the constructs remain theoretically distinct. However, the magnitude of the association, together with the lower AVE values, suggests some shared variance, warranting further research to more clearly delineate these constructs. Collectively, these findings suggest that personality traits may be associated with differential exposure to, and interpretation of, need-relevant experiences in the workplace. This reinforces the view that need satisfaction is not solely a function of the work environment but may also be linked to dispositional tendencies that shape how individuals navigate, perceive, and respond to organisational contexts (Ryan & Deci, 2020; Van den Broeck et al., 2021).

Thirdly, both basic psychological needs dimensions demonstrated positive relationships with work engagement. In particular, ‘joyful connection’ was strongly associated with engagement, highlighting the potential importance of meaningful and enjoyable social interactions for energy, dedication, and absorption at work. ‘Autonomous mastery’ also showed a significant, although weaker, association, indicating that autonomy and competence may be linked to engagement, albeit to a lesser degree. These findings echo the logic of Grawe’s (2007) consistency-theoretical model, which posits that need fulfilment is associated with motivation, well-being, and adaptive functioning. This pattern is also compatible with motivational theories emphasising need satisfaction as being associated with optimal functioning (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2020; Van den Broeck et al., 2021), and may indicate that, in this context, the relational-affective quality of work (i.e. belonging, positive interaction, enjoyment) is more strongly associated with engagement than mastery-related experiences. ‘Joyful connection’ was also strongly associated with extraversion and agreeableness, suggesting that socially oriented dispositions may be closely linked to the experience of relational fulfilment at work. In contrast, ‘autonomous mastery’ was most strongly associated with openness and extraversion, which may reflect links between curiosity, growth orientation, and engagement in learning, challenge, and volitional striving. Notably, neuroticism showed weak and non-significant relationships with the need factors, despite its negative association with work engagement. This pattern may suggest that neuroticism is less directly associated with perceived need satisfaction and may instead relate to engagement through alternative pathways, such as stress sensitivity, rumination, and affective volatility, which may be associated with reduced sustained investment at work (Taris, 2023). This finding may further indicate that not all dispositional influences on work engagement operate through need satisfaction processes. However, this interpretation remains tentative and warrants further investigation using longitudinal and multimethod approaches.

In addition to the correlational findings, the hierarchical regression analysis provided further insight into the relative and incremental associations among the variables. Personality traits accounted for a substantial proportion of variance in work engagement, with extraversion and conscientiousness emerging as significant contributors. When basic psychological needs were included, ‘joyful connection’ remained positively associated with engagement and accounted for additional variance beyond personality traits. In contrast, ‘autonomous mastery’ was not significantly associated with engagement when considered alongside personality traits and ‘joyful connection’. This pattern suggests that, within the present sample, relational aspects of need satisfaction may be more strongly associated with work engagement than mastery-related aspects, particularly when dispositional tendencies are taken into account. Interpreted through an organisational neuroscience lens, the results are broadly consistent with a neuropsychological account in which work engagement is associated with coordinated functioning across large-scale brain networks implicated in salience detection, executive regulation, and self-referential meaning-making (Arden, 2019; Menon, 2023; Menon & Uddin, 2010; Siegel, 2019). Traits such as extraversion and openness have been linked to approach sensitivity and reward responsiveness, which may be associated with a greater tendency to orient towards opportunity-related cues and goal-directed activity, while conscientiousness is consistent with executive control processes related to persistence, planning, and sustained attention (DeYoung, 2010; DeYoung & Blain, 2020). Conversely, neuroticism is associated with heightened threat sensitivity and negative affectivity, which may be related to avoidance-oriented processing and the perception of workplace demands as stressors rather than challenges.

Within Grawe’s (2007) consistency theory, ‘joyful connection’ and ‘autonomous mastery’ may be understood as workplace manifestations of need fulfilment that are associated with approach-oriented motivational schemas. When considered alongside the regression findings, ‘joyful connection’ remained positively associated with work engagement and accounted for additional variance beyond personality traits, whereas ‘autonomous mastery’ did not show a significant association when controlling for other variables. This pattern may suggest that relational aspects of need satisfaction are more strongly associated with engagement than mastery-related experiences, particularly when dispositional tendencies are taken into account. From an organisational neuroscience perspective, this pattern may indicate that experiences of relational safety and positive social affect are more closely associated with adaptive regulation across neural systems implicated in motivation and self-regulation, compared to mastery-related processes in isolation. This is consistent with the idea that social connectedness may be linked to stabilisation of affective and attentional processes, potentially supporting flexible switching between internally focused and externally directed modes of processing required for sustained engagement (Menon & Uddin, 2010). Taken together, these results highlight the collective importance of personality traits and basic psychological needs in relation to work engagement. From an organisational neuroscience perspective, fulfilling needs such as attachment, pleasure maximisation and pain minimisation, control and orientation, and self-esteem enhancement, may be associated with greater congruence across neural systems implicated in self-regulation, motivation, and emotional balance (Arden, 2019; Grawe, 2007; Menon, 2023; Menon & Uddin, 2010). However, these interpretations should be understood as conceptual applications of existing neuroscientific frameworks rather than as direct evidence of underlying neural mechanisms.

Theoretical contributions

This study contributes to the work engagement literature by demonstrating that engagement is meaningfully associated with both stable personality traits and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs. Prior research has consistently shown that extraversion and conscientiousness are positively related to work engagement, whereas neuroticism is negatively associated (Fukuzaki & Iwata, 2022; Kim et al., 2009; Langelaan et al., 2006; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Ongore, 2014). However, these associations have largely been examined independently of motivational need processes. By showing that need satisfaction, particularly ‘joyful connection’, is concurrently associated with engagement, and accounts for additional variance beyond personality traits in the regression analysis, the present findings extend previous work on basic psychological needs and engagement (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2020; Van den Broeck et al., 2021). These results suggest that engagement may be associated not only with dispositional tendencies but also with the extent to which core psychological needs are fulfilled in the workplace. This perspective advances theoretical understanding by positioning work engagement as an outcome that is associated with the alignment between enduring personality characteristics and motivational experiences at work (Bakker et al., 2023; Schaufeli, 2012).

The study further extends Grawe’s (2007) consistency theory into the organisational domain by empirically identifying two coherent need-based dimensions, ‘joyful connection’ and ‘autonomous mastery’, which are associated with work engagement. The comparatively stronger association of ‘joyful connection’ with engagement, as well as its incremental contribution in the regression analysis, underscores the potential relevance of relational fulfilment and belonging in understanding engagement, consistent with motivational accounts emphasising the importance of need satisfaction for adaptive functioning (Ryan & Deci, 2020; Van den Broeck et al., 2021). Interpreted within an organisational neuroscience framework (Arden, 2019; Menon, 2023; Menon & Uddin, 2010; Siegel, 2019), these findings provide a multilevel conceptual lens linking personality structure, need fulfilment, and motivational regulation. Collectively, the study contributes to theory by suggesting that work engagement may be more coherently understood as an emergent motivational state associated with both dispositional sensitivities and need-supportive conditions, rather than as the product of any single psychological construct in isolation.

Practical and managerial implications

This study offers practical insights for organisations by emphasising the relationships between personality traits, basic psychological needs, and work engagement. The findings suggest that work engagement may be enhanced when employees’ dispositional tendencies are supported by work environments that fulfil core psychological needs. Consistent with prior research linking extraversion and conscientiousness to higher engagement (Fukuzaki & Iwata, 2022; Kim et al., 2009; Langelaan et al., 2006; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Ongore, 2014), organisations may benefit from recognising that employees differ in their natural motivational sensitivities. Extraverted employees may be more likely to thrive in collaborative, socially interactive environments, whereas conscientious employees may respond particularly well to clearly structured goals, feedback, and opportunities for achievement. The negative association between neuroticism and engagement further underscores the potential importance of psychologically safe and emotionally supportive leadership climates, which have been shown to buffer stress and enhance well-being (Bakker et al., 2023). Engagement strategies may, therefore, be more effective when job design and leadership practices are aligned with the motivational profiles of employees.

Importantly, ‘joyful connection’ emerged as the strongest need-based correlate of work engagement and also demonstrated incremental relevance beyond personality traits in the regression analysis. This finding aligns with research highlighting the central role of belonging and relatedness in motivation and well-being at work (Ryan & Deci, 2020; Van den Broeck et al., 2021). Creating environments characterised by trust, inclusion, and positive social interaction may, thus, be particularly relevant for supporting engagement. While ‘autonomous mastery’ was also associated with engagement, its comparatively smaller association suggests that opportunities for autonomy and growth may be most impactful when embedded within relationally supportive contexts. From an organisational neuroscience perspective (Arden, 2019; Menon, 2023; Menon & Uddin, 2010; Siegel, 2019), practices that promote belonging, enjoyment, independence, and structured growth may be associated with more adaptive motivational functioning and reduced avoidance-oriented responses. By simultaneously considering personality dispositions and psychological need fulfilment, organisations may be better positioned to design engagement interventions that move beyond surface-level morale initiatives toward greater alignment between individual motivational tendencies and organisational context.

Strengths, limitations, and avenues for future research

A notable strength of this study lies in its integrative examination of personality traits and basic psychological needs within the context of work engagement, framed through an organisational neuroscience perspective. By emphasising relational patterns, while also incorporating regression analysis, the study offers conceptual clarity regarding how these constructs co-occur and are associated. The identification of ‘joyful connection’ and ‘autonomous mastery’ as dimensions of need satisfaction provides preliminary empirical support for Grawe’s (2007) consistency theory in an applied organisational setting. This relational focus extends existing engagement research by highlighting the interconnected nature of dispositional traits, need fulfilment, and engagement, thereby offering a more nuanced understanding of employee motivation and psychological functioning at work.

Despite these contributions, several limitations must be acknowledged. The cross-sectional design limits the ability to draw causal conclusions, as observed associations do not establish temporal directionality. The reliance on self-report questionnaires may introduce potential biases, including social desirability and common method variance, although procedural measures were implemented to mitigate these risks. This reliance on a single measurement method may have contributed to inflated associations among variables because of shared method variance, and the findings should therefore be interpreted with this limitation in mind. Moreover, the organisational neuroscience perspective adopted in this study is interpretive in nature, as no direct neural or physiological measures were obtained, and the neuroscience-based explanations should therefore be understood as theoretical contextualisations rather than empirically tested mechanisms.

Furthermore, the use of convenience sampling within a single South African organisational context may constrain the generalisability of the findings to broader occupational and cultural populations. In addition, organisational factors such as job demands and job resources, as outlined in the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, were not explicitly examined in this study. These contextual variables may play an important role in shaping work engagement and could potentially mediate or moderate the relationships observed between personality traits, need satisfaction, and engagement.

It is also possible that characteristics of the specific organisational environment, such as its relational climate, job structure, or workforce composition, may have influenced the observed patterns of associations among personality traits, need satisfaction, and work engagement. In addition, although the sample size was adequate for correlational and regression analyses, it is relatively modest for CFA, particularly given the number of items included. Accordingly, the results of this study should be interpreted with this limitation in mind.

Finally, while the basic psychological needs instrument demonstrated acceptable internal reliability, concerns regarding aspects of construct validity, particularly in relation to the ‘autonomous mastery’ dimension, suggest that further refinement and validation of the scale may be warranted. The emergence of a two-factor structure may reflect a higher-order clustering of Grawe’s needs within this sample, although measurement characteristics and sample-specific factors cannot be ruled out. While ‘joyful connection’ primarily reflects relational aspects of need satisfaction, the inclusion of certain items may also capture elements of control and orientation, suggesting some conceptual overlap within the factor structure. Accordingly, these dimensions should be interpreted as preliminary and context-bound representations of need satisfaction rather than definitive structural evidence.

Future research may extend these findings through longitudinal designs that permit examination of changes in work engagement and need satisfaction over time, thereby helping to clarify potential temporal relationships among the variables. Incorporating multi-method approaches, such as peer evaluations, supervisor ratings, or qualitative methodologies, may reduce reliance on self-report data and enhance construct robustness. Studies employing larger, more diverse samples and probability-based sampling strategies would strengthen the external validity of the findings across varied organisational contexts. In addition, continued refinement and validation of the basic psychological needs instrument, particularly ensuring comprehensive representation of Grawe’s (2007) need domains, remain important priorities for advancing theoretical and empirical work in this area.

Conclusion

This study examined the relationships among work engagement, personality traits, and basic psychological needs within a South African organisational context. Engagement was positively associated with extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, agreeableness, and the need dimensions of ‘joyful connection’ and ‘autonomous mastery’, while neuroticism was negatively related to engagement. These findings support the view that work engagement is associated with both enduring dispositional tendencies and the extent to which core psychological needs are fulfilled at work. In addition, hierarchical multiple regression analysis demonstrated that ‘joyful connection’ accounted for additional variance in work engagement beyond personality traits, highlighting the relevance of relational need fulfilment in understanding engagement.

From an organisational neuroscience perspective, work engagement may be understood as a motivational state associated with the interplay between dispositional tendencies and the fulfilment of relational and mastery-related needs. Approach-oriented traits such as extraversion and conscientiousness may be linked to sustained goal-directed involvement, whereas threat sensitivity associated with neuroticism may be related to reduced engagement. The associations of both ‘joyful connection’ and ‘autonomous mastery’ with engagement suggest that relational belonging and growth-oriented competence experiences may be linked to adaptive work motivation within supportive organisational contexts.

While the cross-sectional design and reliance on self-report measures preclude causal conclusions, the findings provide a meaningful platform for further investigation. Continued refinement of the basic psychological needs instrument and replication across larger and more diverse samples may strengthen the robustness and generalisability of the evidence. Overall, this study contributes to a more cohesive account of work engagement by positioning it within the dynamic interplay of personality dispositions and psychological need satisfaction, while offering practical insights for organisations seeking to support employee well-being and performance. Accordingly, references to neuroscientific processes should be understood as conceptual interpretations of the observed relationships among the variables rather than direct empirical evidence.

Acknowledgements

This article is partially based on Petrus J. Vorster’s thesis entitled ‘Towards a work engagement framework considering personality traits and basic psychological needs from an organisational neuroscience perspective’ towards the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject Industrial and Organisational Psychology, University of South Africa in October 2025, with supervisor D.J. Geldenhuys. It is available at: https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/32218

Competing interests

The authors, Petrus J. Vorster and Dirk J. Geldenhuys, declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

CRediT authorship contribution

Petrus J. Vorster: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft. Dirk J. Geldenhuys: Supervision. Both authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

Funding information

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability

Data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Petrus J. Vorster, upon reasonable request.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.

References

Appendix 1: Basic Psychological Needs Measure

The following items were retained following exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Items were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 5 (very much agree).

Joyful Connection (11 items)

I aim to form relationships at work.

I actively collaborate with my colleagues.

I display empathy towards my colleagues.

I aim to support my colleagues.

I strive to be part of a group at work.

I incorporate fun into my work.

I strive to make work enjoyable.

I actively participate in group events at work.

I ask for clarity when I complete my work.

I participate in initiatives that make work pleasant.

I aim to understand the context of a situation at work.

Autonomous Mastery (6 items)

I seek out work tasks that I can learn from.

I complete goals that will improve my career.

I actively contribute to projects at work that improve my skills.

I actively engage in projects that seem enjoyable.

I seek out opportunities to develop new skills in my job.

I aim to consider various options available to me in order to complete my job tasks.