Introduction

In the past few decades, core self-evaluation (CSE), a critical type of personality traits, has attracted the interest of many researchers (e.g., Bipp et al., 2019). CSE has been defined as an individual’s basic evaluation of their own worth and ability (Judge et al., 2005), which consists of generalized self-efficacy, self-esteem, locus of control, and emotional stability (Judge et al., 1998). A great deal of research has demonstrated CSE to be effective in improving career exploration (Zhu et al., 2021), entrepreneurial orientation (Stewart et al., 2021), and organizational citizenship behavior (Joo & Jo, 2017). Furthermore, employees high in CSE are more likely to experience a low level of emotional exhaustion (Anand & Mishra, 2021) and execute less counterproductive work behaviors (Debusscher et al., 2016).

More importantly, because work engagement has a significant implication for employees and employer organizations (Wood et al., 2020), researchers have begun to investigate the linkage between CSE and work engagement (Bakker, 2022; Tisu et al., 2020). A host of studies suggest that CSE is a significant elicitor of work engagement (e.g., Bipp et al., 2019; Tims & Akkermans, 2017; Yan et al., 2018). However, relatively little is known about why and when CSE is associated with work engagement. Unpacking the “black box” of the relationship between CSE and work engagement is important because it allows us to adopt more accurate approaches to maximize employees’ work engagement.

Extant few studies have attempted to reveal the mechanisms underlying the relationship between CSE and work engagement from the perspective of resources. For example, Yan et al. (2018) found that CSE could make individuals obtain more emotional resources, thereby leading to higher levels of work engagement; the work of Bipp et al. (2019) demonstrated that CSE could promote work engagement through seeking structural and social resources. Surprisingly, although conservation of resources (COR) theory points out that personal characteristic resources such as CSE enables individuals to achieve more emotional, social, and behavioral resources, which in turn, stimulate individuals to perform well (Bipp et al., 2019; Chen & Fellenz, 2020; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009), existing research on the relationship between CSE and work engagement neglected the important role of behavioral resource in explaining why CSE is associated with work engagement. Such gap is problematic because personality traits always influence behaviors of individuals and then produce various positive outcomes (Conard, 2006; Lubbers et al., 2010). Thus, the first purpose of this study is to consider employee strengths use (ESU) as a mediator between CSE and work engagement.

ESU involves various proactive behaviors that employees execute to capitalize on their own strengths at work (Van Woerkom et al., 2016a). Research on COR theory showed that CSE as an important characteristic resource could spur individuals’ positive behaviors (i.e., behavioral resources) and then produce positive outcomes such as work engagement (Tims & Akkermans, 2017). Since ESU has been regarded as a type of behavioral resources (Chu et al., 2022) and ESU has a close relationship with CSE (Ding & Lin, 2020) and work engagement (Bakker & van Wingerden, 2021), it is reasonable to believe that ESU mediates the relationship between CSE and work engagement.

In addition, COR theory also suggests that individuals who are confronted with loss of resources or experience the potential resources loss tend to reduce the investment of existing resources so as to avoid the further resources loss (Halbesleben et al., 2014). In today’s rapidly changing work environments, role overload is ubiquitous and has attracted many researchers’ attention (Alfes et al., 2018; Brown et al., 2005). Role overload as a barrier to work engagement (Freeney & Tiernan, 2009) is closely associated with loss of resources (Montani & Dagenais-Desmarais, 2018) primarily because employees need to utilize existing resources to deal with role overload. More importantly, compared with loss of relatively fixed resources such as characteristic resources, individuals are more sensitive to loss of relatively changing resources such as behavioral resources (Ding et al., 2022). A recent empirical study has found that role overload could attenuate the positive effect of ESU (Ding et al., 2023). Thus, based on the above theoretical arguments, we believe that role overload can lower the positive relationship between ESU and work engagement because when employees have a high level of role overload, they will conserve extant behavioral resources rather than transform these resources into work engagement. The second purpose of this study is to examine the moderating effect of role overload. Because CSE may influence ESU and then enhances work engagement, we also posited that role overload could moderate the mediational effect of ESU on the relationship between CSE and work engagement.

Taken together, we aim to make two important theoretical contributions. For one thing, this study contributes to enriching our understanding of why CSE is linked with work engagement by considering the mediating effect of ESU as a critical behavioral resource on the CSE-work engagement linkage. For another, this study contributes to a better understanding of boundary condition under which CSE has a stronger positive relationship with work engagement by revealing the moderating effect of role overload on the relationships between CSE, ESU, and work engagement.

Theory and hypotheses development

CSE and work engagement: ESU as a mediator

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). Engaged employees perform better (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Sonnentag, 2003), experience higher positive affect (Rothbard, 2001), and show higher levels of commitment to their organizations (Demerouti et al., 2001). Given the importance of work engagement to employees and organizations, researchers have directed their interest toward antecedents to work engagement (Tims et al., 2011; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009), especially individual characteristics’ influence on work engagement. For instance, a large number of studies have shown that proactive personality (Bakker et al., 2012), big five personality traits (Akhtar et al., 2015), and regulatory focus (Jason & SN, 2021) contribute to improved work engagement.

CSE as a higher order personality trait comprising self-esteem, general self-efficacy, emotional stability, and locus of control (Johnson et al., 2008) has also been found to be positively related to work engagement (Hentrich et al., 2017). Although CSE consists of four dimensions, a large majority of research regarded CSE as a whole rather than investigated each dimension (e.g., Chiang et al., 2014; Simsek et al., 2010). This study also treated CSE as a whole and considered its effectiveness. COR theory provides an important rationale for the relationship between CSE and work engagement. Specifically, research on COR theory suggested that various resources such as job resources, characteristic resources, and social resources are the foundation of work engagement (e.g., Hobfoll et al., 2018; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009; Weigl et al., 2010). CSE can be treated as a critical characteristic resource because it contributes to task attainment (Kacmar et al., 2009), reduces job demands such as job stress (Brunborg, 2008), and promotes personal growth and development (Wang et al., 2022). Further, high-CSE employees pay more attention to the work-related positive information (Chang et al., 2012), have higher levels of self-efficacy (Johnson et al., 2008), and proactively embed themselves into work task (Okorie et al., 2023), which in turn, leads to greater work engagement.

Although the positive relationship between CSE and work engagement has received support from a growing body of empirical research (e.g., Hentrich et al., 2017; Tims & Akkermans, 2017), we have relatively little knowledge about the mechanisms underlying the relationship between CSE and work engagement. This study first considered the mediating effect of ESU on the linkage between CSE and work engagement. ESU has been defined as “the initiative that employees may take to use their strengths at work” (Van Woerkom et al., 2016a, p. 962), it is a crucial type of proactive behaviors (Botha & Mostert, 2014). ESU is able to make employees feel more authentic self (Govindji & Linley, 2007), positive affect (Wood et al., 2011), and confidence in attaining work goals (Van Woerkom et al., 2016b). In particular, ESU is rather effective in boosting work engagement (Meyers & Van Woerkom, 2017) in that employees playing to their strengths at work are apt to consider their work as meaningful (Littman-Ovadia et al., 2017), which in turn motivates employees to engage more at work (Jung & Yoon, 2016; Steger et al., 2013).

In addition to consequences of ESU, some researchers have also explored the antecedents to ESU. Extant literature has shown that ESU can be triggered by strengths knowledge (Govindji & Linley, 2007), perceived organizational support for strengths use (Van Woerkom et al., 2016b), and autonomy support (Kong & Ho, 2016). More importantly, a recent empirical study indicated that CSE is a significant facilitator of ESU, mainly because employees high in CSE are more readily to experience greater positive affect and to perform higher emotional intelligence, such emotional resources drive employees to work on their strengths (Ding & Lin, 2020). The positive relationship of CSE with ESU can be explained by COR theory suggesting that individuals with more resources are more readily to achieve more other resources (Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Halbesleben et al., 2014) in that both CSE and ESU can be regarded as personal resources (Stander & Mostert, 2013; Yuan et al., 2014).

Based on the above findings, this study further postulates that ESU plays a mediating role in the CSE-work engagement linkage. According to COR theory, one type of resources can produce other types of resources (gain spiral of resources) which are conductive to enhanced work engagement (Hakanen et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2023; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). As demonstrated earlier, CSE is a specific form of characteristic resources (Hsieh et al., 2019) and ESU is a specific form of behavioural resources (Bakker et al., 2019; Tisu & Vîrgă, 2022). Accordingly, ESU may mediate the positive relationship of CSE with work engagement. More specifically, employees high in CSE will experience higher levels of positive affect due to their sensitivity to positive aspects of work or work environments, which in turn promotes employees to utilize their strengths at work (Ding & Lin, 2020). When employees work on their strengths, they will treat their work as meaningful (Littman-Ovadia et al., 2017) that in turn, stimulates them to engage more in work (Jung & Yoon, 2016; Steger et al., 2013). Taken together, we postulate:

H1. ESU mediates the relationship between CSE and work engagement.

The moderating effect of role overload

Prior research showed that the positive relationship of CSE with work engagement might be contingent on situational factors (e.g., Yoo & Lee, 2019). Our study highlighted the moderating role of role overload in the relationship between CSE, ESU and work engagement. Role overload refers to the “situations in which employees feel that there are too many responsibilities or activities expected of them in light of the time available, their abilities, and other constraints” (Bolino & Turnley, 2005, p. 741), it is ubiquitous (Kahn et al., 1964), especially in today’s rapidly changing work environment (Alfes et al., 2018). Generally, role overload occurs when available resources of employees are inadequate to tackle role demands (Brown et al., 2005). Role overload has been demonstrated to be detrimental to job performance (Jones et al., 2007). More importantly, employees who experience higher role overload might have stronger feelings of loss of resources (Bacharach et al., 1990; Matthews et al., 2014).

COR theory suggested that employees have the tendency to gain, maintain, and protect their valuable resources and prevent loss of resources (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Especially, when employees perceive loss of resources, they will decrease the investment of remaining resources to impede the further loss of resources (Schmitt et al., 2016). More importantly, compared with loss of relatively fixed resources such as characteristic resources, individuals are more sensitive to loss of relatively changing resources such as behavioral resources (Ding et al., 2022). Given that ESU can be treated as a specific form of behavioral resources (Van Woerkom et al., 2016b), following the above theoretical logic, employees might decrease the investment of ESU resource in work when they experience higher role overload, which in turn results in lower levels of work engagement. That is, role overload can attenuate the positive relationship of ESU with work engagement.

From the perspective of situational constraints theory (Peters & O’Connor, 1980), role overload can be conceptualized as situational constraint factor because it belongs to job hindrance demands (Yuan et al., 2015) and is detrimental to job performance (Jones et al., 2007). Situational constraints theory suggested that situational constraints can prevent employees from translating their valuable resources into positive outcomes (Griffin et al., 2000). Accordingly, it is reasonable to believe that role overload can prevent employees from translating their strengths use resource into work engagement. In sum, we posit:

H2. Role overload attenuates the positive relationship between ESU and work engagement in such a way that the positive relationship is weaker when role overload is high than low.

According to the above discussion, we have hypothesized that ESU mediates the relationship between CSE and work engagement, and role overload lessens the relationship between ESU and work engagement. By integrating the two hypotheses, we can further propose a moderated mediation model (Edwards & Lambert, 2007), that is, role overload also moderates the mediating effect of ESU on the CSE-work engagement linkage. Specifically, CSE as a type of characteristic resources can lead to increased ESU as a concrete form of behavioral resources. Because employees are more sensitive to loss of behavioral resources compared with loss of characteristic resources, when role overload is high, employees are more prone to conserve behavioral resources rather than translate ESU into work engagement. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H3. Role overload can attenuate the indirect relationship of CSE with work engagement via ESU, such that the indirect relationship is stronger when role overload is low rather than high.

The hypothesized model was displayed in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The proposed research model

Full size image

Method

Participants and procedure

In today’s rapidly changing China, innovation-driven development has been the theme of the new era. Especially for energy companies, there is a greater need for sustainable development through innovation. Since work engagement is a quite important driving force of employee innovation (Park et al., 2014), this study was conducted in one energy company in China so as to find out the way of stimulating employee work engagement. We invited 480 employees to participate in the research. Convenience sampling and self-administrated questionnaires were deployed to collect data at two points in time, separated by one month interval. Experienced research assistants conducted the process of data collection and promised that all information related to participants would be treated as confidential strictly. Participants did not gain any economic incentive.

After obtaining informed consent from participants and the company, research assistants first instructed participants to complete questionnaire concerning demographic variables, CSE scale, strengths use scale, and role overload (Time 1). We received 436 questionnaires in this stage (90.83% response rate). At Time 2, 379 of 436 participants completed work engagement scales (84.86% response rate). Finally, 344 valid paired data were obtained. Among 344 participants, 47.40% were female, and 52.60% were male. Most of participants had bachelor’s degree (95.10%). 75.90% have worked in the present companies for more than 5 years. Participants’ age ranged from 18 to 55 years old and the mean age of participants was 34.76 (SD = 7.00); 5.99% were between 18 and 25 years old, 51.42% were between 26 and 35 years old, 34.70% were between 36 and 45 years old, and 7.89% were between 46 and 55 years old.

Measures

We asked the participants to assess all items of key variables on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Since scales used by this study were developed in English, they were translated into Chinese edition following the translation and back translation process (Brislin, 1970). Specifically, two assistant professors in the field of organizational psychology first translated English items into Chinese items. Second, a professional translator and another assistant professor in the field of organizational psychology translated these Chinese items into English items so as to ensure item equivalence.

CSE. CSE was evaluated using a 12-item scale of Judge et al. (2003). An example item was “I am capable of coping with most of my problems”. The Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.83.

ESU. We adopted 5 items from Strengths Use and Deficit Correction questionnaire of Van Woerkom et al. (2016a) to assess ESU. An example item was “In my job, I make the most of my strong points”. The Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.94.

Role Overload. Role overload was rated using a 3-item scale developed by Bolino and Turnley (2005). An example item was “The amount of work I am expected to do is too great”. The Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.88.

Work Engagement. Work engagement was evaluated using a 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) developed by Schaufeli et al. (2006). An example item was “When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work”. The Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.94.

Control Variables. In accordance with prior research (Ding & Lin, 2020), gender and organizational tenure were considered as control variables. Gender was coded as follows: 1 = men, 2 = women. Organizational tenure was coded as follows: 1 = one year and below, 2 = 2–3 years, 3 = 4–5 years, 4 = 6–7 years, 5 = 8–10 years, 6 = 11–20 years, 7 = more than 20 years.

Data analysis

To examine our claims, we carried out the following processes. First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in AMOS 23.0 was applied to examine the discriminant validity of focal variables. Second, a single unmeasured latent factor method was utilized to test the common method variance (CMV). Third, means and standard deviations of all research variables and correlations between them were computed in SPSS 22.0. Fourth, multiple regression analyses were applied to examine H1 and H2; PROCESS [Model 4] in SPSS 22.0 was used to further examine the mediating effect of ESU; PROCESS [Model 1] were used to further examine the moderating effect of role overload. Subsequently, PROCESS [Model 14] was employed to examine the H3. Furthermore, we utilized 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (5000 draws) to determine the significance of direct, indirect, and conditional effects.

Results

Discriminant validity

CFA was employed to examine the discriminant validity of CSE, ESU, role overload, and work engagement. In order to decrease inflated measurement errors resulting from multiple items of the latent construct (Nasser-Abu Alhija & Wisenbaker, 2006), we formed three randomized item parcels for CSE, and three item parcels for work engagement based on its three dimensions. All items of ESU and role overload were regarded as indicators of corresponding theoretical constructs. As displayed in Table 1, the results of CFA indicated that the four-factor measurement model exerted the best fit to the data compared to alternative models. Thus, there is a significant discriminant validity among focal variables.

Table 1 Results of CFAs: comparison of measurement models
Full size table

CMV

Since self-report questionnaires were applied to collect data, it is necessary to examine CMV of research data. Following suggestion of Podsakoff et al. (2003), a single unmeasured latent factor method was adopted to test the CMV. We created a latent common method factor and loaded this factor on all item parcels and items of focal variables. Analytical results showed that the five factors model exhibits a good fit to the data (χ2 = 156.48, df = 70, χ2/df = 2.24, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, GFI = 0.94), but the common method factor merely accounted for 13.18% of variance, less than 25.00% (Williams et al., 1989). As such, there was no serious CMV in this study.

Descriptive statistics

Means, standard deviations and correlations of all research variables were reported in Table 2.

Table 2 Means, standard deviations and correlations
Full size table

Hypotheses testing

H1 assumed that ESU mediates the relationship between CSE and work engagement. As reported in Model 5 in Table 3, the coefficient of ESU (mediator) was 0.30, p < 0.001. It is important to note that the coefficient of CSE was not significant (β = 0.05, p > 0.05). Results of PROCESS [Model 4] analysis also showed that the indirect relationship of CSE with work engagement via ESU was significant (effect = 0.16, CI: [0.09, 0.25]), whereas the direct relationship of CSE with work engagement was not significant (effect = 0.06, CI: [-0.08, 0.19]). Thus, we can conclude that ESU fully mediates the CSE and work engagement relation, providing support for H1.

Table 3 Results of multiple regression analyses
Full size table

H2 postulated that role overload negatively moderates the association of ESU with work engagement. To examine this hypothesis, the interaction term of ESU and role overload was created by using their centered values. According to Model 6 in Table 3, the interactive effect of ESU and role overload on work engagement was significant (β = -0.22, p < 0.001). Results of PROCESS [Model 1] analysis also indicated that the interaction term between ESU and role overload is significant (β = -0.13, CI: [-0.19, -0.07]). Therefore, H2 received support. In addition, to further interpret the moderation results, we depicted the slopes for the relationship between ESU and work engagement at high (mean + SD) and low (mean - SD) level of role overload. Figure 2 suggested that ESU has stronger relationship with work engagement when role overload is low (effect = 0.33, SE = 0.04, t = 7.65, p < 0.001, CI: [0.24, 0.41]) but not when role overload is high (effect = 0.07, SE = 0.05, t = 1.55, p > 0.05, CI: [-0.02, 0.16]).

Fig. 2
figure 2

The moderating effect of role overload on the relationship between ESU and work engagement

Full size image

H3 posited that role overload moderates the indirect relationship of CSE with work engagement through ESU. As reported in Table 4, index of moderated mediation was − 0.15 (SE = 0.04, CI: [-0.24, -0.06]), the mediating effect of ESU on the relationship between CSE and work engagement was stronger when role overload is low (effect = 0.27, SE = 0.05, CI: [0.18, 0.38]) but not when role overload is high (effect = 0.04, SE = 0.05, CI: [-0.06, 0.15]). As such, H3 was supported.

Table 4 Results of moderated mediation analysis
Full size table

Discussion

This study of 344 employees working in an energy company in China examined the roles of strengths use and role overload in the CSE-work engagement linkage. As predicted, all hypotheses received support. Specifically, ESU mediates the positive relationship of CSE with work engagement, and role overload attenuates the direct relationship of ESU with work engagement and the indirect relationship between CSE and work engagement via ESU.

Theoretical implications

The main theoretical contribution of this study is twofold. For one thing, this study contributes to a better understanding why CSE is associated with work engagement by revealing the mediating effect of ESU on the relationship between CSE and work engagement from the perspective of COR theory. As demonstrated earlier, although several studies have found that CSE has a direct relationship with work engagement (Tims & Akkermans, 2017; Yan et al., 2018), relatively little literature investigated the process mechanisms accounting for the relationship between CSE and work engagement. Based on COR theory (Hobfoll et al., 2018), we tested the mediating effect of ESU on this relationship, and found that ESU fully mediates the CSE and work engagement relation. Specifically, research on COR theory showed that one type of resources can produce other types of resources which are conductive to enhanced work engagement (Hakanen et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2023; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). Since CSE and ESU, respectively, can be treated as a specific form of characteristic resources (Hsieh et al., 2019) and a specific form of behavioural resources (Bakker et al., 2019; Tisu & Vîrgă, 2022), ESU acts as a mediator between CSE and work engagement. Although previous research has identified the mediating effect of career adaptability on the CSE-work engagement linkage from the perspective of career construction theory (Yoo & Lee, 2019) and the mediating effect of emotional intelligence on this linkage from the affective events theory (Yan et al., 2018), this study is the first to reveal the mediating effect of ESU on this linkage from the perspective of COR theory. Thus, our finding extends our understanding of the relationship between CSE and work engagement.

For another, this study advances our understanding of the boundary condition of the relationship between CSE and work engagement by revealing the negatively moderating effect of role overload on the direct relationship of ESU with work engagement and the indirect relationship of CSE with work engagement via ESU. Our result about the negatively moderating effect of role overload is consistent with prior research demonstrating that role overload can lessen the impact personal resources have on positive outcomes (Brown et al., 2005). Importantly, this study treated ESU as behavioural resource (Ding & Lin, 2020; Venz et al., 2018) and confirmed that the effect of ESU is contingent on role overload. According to COR theory (Schmitt et al., 2016), when employees perceive loss of resources due higher role overload, they will be less likely to invest behavioural resource (i.e., ESU) in work to impede the further loss of resources, which in turn results in decreased work engagement. Furthermore, building on situational constraints theory (Griffin et al., 2000), role overload as a situational constraint factor prevents employees from translating their resources (i.e., ESU) into positive outcome (i.e., work engagement). This finding extends previous research on ESU by revealing the boundary condition of the effect of ESU in that a large number of extant studies mainly focused on antecedents and outcomes of ESU (Miglianico et al., 2020), very little research investigated when ESU is more effective in affecting employees. Additionally, we also found that role overload lessens the mediational effect of ESU on the relationship between CSE and work engagement, which helps us find out the way of optimizing the indirect relationship of CSE with work engagement via ESU. Although extant literature showed that the relationship of CSE with work engagement depends on various situational factors such as perceived organizational constraints, feedback level, and perceived leader effectiveness (Chang et al., 2012), this study is the first to investigate the attenuating effect of role overload on the indirect relationship between CSE and work engagement via ESU from the perspective of COR theory, which contributes to a better understanding when CSE will have a stronger relationship with work engagement.

Practical implications

This study has also several practical implications. First, the result of the mediating effect of ESU on the linkage between CSE and work engagement means that motivating employees to utilize their strengths at work is also a promising strategy to facilitate work engagement. We suggest that organizations design and implement strengths-based human resource practices (Van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015) or promote employees with a high level of strengths mindset (Ding & Liu, 2022) to be leaders so as to boost ESU. For example, Aguinis et al. (2012) developed nine recommendations of implementing strengths-based performance feedback; Ding and Liu (2022) developed a 12-item scale to measure individual strengths mindset. Moreover, numerous studies have indicated that strengths intervention is also an effective way of spurring ESU (e.g., Harzer & Ruch, 2016; Meyers & Van Woerkom, 2017). For example, organizations can conduct strengths intervention to enhance ESU by following the intervention project of Meyers and Van Woerkom (2017).

Second, when organizations attempt to improve employee work engagement through CSE and ESU, reducing employees’ perceptions of role overload is conductive to enhancing the effectiveness of CSE and ESU in eliciting work engagement. Previous research has found that related-job feedback, task identity, formal communication, and realistic job preview are effective in lowering role overload (Bacharach et al., 1990). The work of Gurbuz et al. (2013) also showed that perceived organizational support is conductive to decreased role overload.

Limitations and directions for future research

This study has several limitations. First, we used a single source to gather data. Such approach may yield CMV. Although CMV testing demonstrated that CMV of this study did not pose a serious threat to our results, we also encourage researchers to adopt multi-source approach to collect to so as to enhance the robustness of our results. Second, while we adopted a two-wave research design in the process of data collection, CSE and strengths use constructs were collected at the same time point, which will prevent us from making causal inference about the mediating effect of strengths use. Future research should try to conduct experiment study to replicate our findings. Third, we utilized a sample of Chinese employees to examine our predictions, which limits the cross-cultural applicability of our results because the culture difference between China and Western countries might lead to the difference in employees’ perceptions of CSE, strengths use, role overload and work engagement (Ding & Lin, 2020). Thus, future research should examine our findings in a wide variety of cultural contexts. Finally, we only used samples from one energy company to examine our hypotheses, which may limit the external validity of our results. We encourage researchers to replicate our findings by adopting various samples from different organizations in future research.