员工敬业度的前因后果文献翻译.docx

员工敬业度的前因后果文献翻译.docx

《员工敬业度的前因后果文献翻译.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《员工敬业度的前因后果文献翻译.docx（11页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

员工敬业度的前因后果文献翻译

员工敬业度的前因后果[文献翻译]

本科毕业论文（设计）

外文翻译

外文题目Antecedentsandconsequencesofemployeeengagement外文出处JournalofManagerialPsychology.2006（7）:

p600-619外文作者AlanM.saks.

原文:

Antecedentsandconsequencesofemployeeengagement

AlanM.Saks.

Inrecentyears,therehasbeenagreatdealofinterestinemployeeengagement.Manyhaveclaimedthatemployeeengagementpredictsemployeeoutcomes,organizationalsuccess,andfinancialperformance（e.g.totalshareholderreturn）（Bates,2004;Baumruk,2004;Harteretal.,2002;Richman,2006）.Atthesametime,ithasbeenreportedthatemployeeengagementisonthedeclineandthereisadeepeningdisengagementamongemployeestoday（Bates,2004;Richman,2006）.Ithasevenbeenreportedthatthemajorityofworkerstoday,roughlyhalfofallAmericansintheworkforce,arenotfullyengagedortheyaredisengagedleadingtowhathasbeenreferredtoasan“engagementgap”thatiscostingUSbusinesses$300

billionayearinlostproductivity（Bates,2004;Johnson,2004;Kowalski,2003）.

Unfortunately,muchofwhathasbeenwrittenaboutemployeeengagementcomesfromthepractitionerliteratureandconsultingfirms.Thereisasurprisingdearthofresearchonemployeeengagementintheacademicliterature（Robinsonetal.,2004）.Thepurposeofthisstudywastoinvestigatetheantecedentsandconsequencesoftwotypesofemployeeengagement:

jobandorganizationengagements.Previousresearchhasfocusedprimarilyonengagementinone'sjob.However,thereisevidencethatone'sdegreeofengagementdependsontheroleinquestion（Rothbard,2001）.Thus,itispossiblethattheantecedentsandconsequencesofengagementdependonthetypeofengagement.Inthenextsection,employeeengagementisdefinedfollowedbyadiscussionofemployeeengagementmodelsandtheoryandthestudyhypotheses.

Whatisemployeeengagement?

Employeeengagementhasbecomeawidelyusedandpopularterm（Robinsonetal.,2004）.However,mostofwhathasbeenwrittenaboutemployeeengagementcanbefoundinpractitionerjournalswhereithasitsbasisinpracticeratherthantheoryandempiricalresearch.AsnotedbyRobinsonetal.（2004）,therehasbeen

surprisinglylittleacademicandempiricalresearchonatopicthathasbecomesopopular.Asaresult,employeeengagementhastheappearanceofbeingsomewhatfaddishorwhatsomemightcall,“oldwineinanewbottle.”

Tomakemattersworse,employeeengagementhasbeendefinedinmanydifferentwaysandthedefinitionsandmeasuresoftensoundlikeotherbetterknownandestablishedconstructslikeorganizationalcommitmentandorganizationalcitizenshipbehavior（Robinsonetal.,2004）.Mostoftenithasbeendefinedasemotionalandintellectualcommitmenttotheorganization（Baumruk,2004;Richman,2006;Shaw,2005）ortheamountofdiscretionaryeffortexhibitedbyemployeesintheirjobs（Franketal.,2004）.

Intheacademicliterature,anumberofdefinitionshavebeenprovided.Kahn（1990,p.694）definespersonalengagementas“theharnessingoforganizationmembers'selvestotheirworkroles;inengagement,peopleemployandexpressthemselvesphysically,cognitively,andemotionallyduringroleperformances.”

Personaldisengagementrefersto“theuncouplingofselvesfromworkroles;indisengagement,peoplewithdrawanddefendthemselvesphysically,cognitively,oremotionallyduringroleperformances”（p.694）.Thus,accordingtoKahn（1990,

1992）,engagementmeanstobepsychologicallypresentwhenoccupyingandperforminganorganizationalrole.

Rothbard（2001,p.656）alsodefinesengagementaspsychologicalpresencebutgoesfurthertostatethatitinvolvestwocriticalcomponents:

attentionandabsorption.Attentionrefersto“cognitiveavailabilityandtheamountoftimeonespendsthinkingaboutarole”whileabsorption“meansbeingengrossedinaroleandreferstotheintensityofone'sfocusonarole.”

Burnoutresearchersdefineengagementastheoppositeorpositiveantithesisofburnout（Maslachetal.,2001）.AccordingtoMaslachetal.（2001）,engagementischaracterizedbyenergy,involvement,andefficacy,thedirectoppositeofthethreeburnoutdimensionsofexhaustion,cynicism,andinefficacy.Researchonburnoutandengagementhasfoundthatthecoredimensionsofburnout（exhaustionandcynicism）andengagement（vigoranddedication）areoppositesofeachother（Gonzalez-Roma

etal.,2006）.

Schaufelietal.（2002,p.74）defineengagement“asapositive,fulfilling,work-relatedstateofmindthatischaracterizedbyvigor,dedication,andabsorption.”Theyfurtherstatethatengagementisnotamomentaryandspecificstate,butrather,itis“amorepersistentandpervasiveaffective-cognitivestatethatisnotfocusedonanyparticularobject,event,individual,orbehavior”（p.74）.

Intheacademicliterature,engagementissaidtoberelatedtobutdistinctfromotherconstructsinorganizationalbehavior.Forexample,Robinsonetal.（2004,p.8）statethat:

engagementcontainsmanyoftheelementsofbothcommitmentandOCB,butisbynomeansaperfectmatchwitheither.Inaddition,neithercommitmentnorOCBreflectsufficientlytwoaspectsofengagement–itstwo-waynature,andthe

extenttowhichengagedemployeesareexpectedtohaveanelementofbusinessawareness.

Organizationalcommitmentalsodiffersfromengagementinthatitreferstoaperson'sattitudeandattachmenttowardstheirorganization.Engagementisnotanattitude;itisthedegreetowhichanindividualisattentiveandabsorbedintheperformanceoftheirroles.AndwhileOCBinvolvesvoluntaryandinformalbehaviorsthatcanhelpco-workersandtheorganization,thefocusofengagementisone'sformalroleperformanceratherthanextra-roleandvoluntarybehavior.

Engagementalsodiffersfromjobinvolvement.AccordingtoMayetal.（2004）,jobinvolvementistheresultofacognitivejudgmentabouttheneedsatisfyingabilitiesofthejobandistiedtoone'sself-image.Engagementhastodowithhowindividualsemploythemselvesintheperformanceoftheirjob.Furthermore,engagementinvolvestheactiveuseofemotionsandbehaviorsinadditiontocognitions.Mayetal.（2004,p.12）alsosuggestthat“engagementmaybethoughtofasanantecedenttojobinvolvementinthatindividualswhoexperiencedeepengagementintheirrolesshouldcometoidentifywiththeirjobs.”

Insummary,althoughthedefinitionandmeaningofengagementinthepractitionerliteratureoftenoverlapswithotherconstructs,intheacademicliteratureithasbeendefinedasadistinctanduniqueconstructthatconsistsofcognitive,

emotional,andbehavioralcomponentsthatareassociatedwithindividualroleperformance.Furthermore,engagementisdistinguishablefromseveralrelatedconstructs,mostnotablyorganizationalcommitment,organizationalcitizenshipbehavior,andjobinvolvement.

Employeeengagementmodelsandtheory

Giventhelimitedresearchonemployeeengagement,therehasbeenlittleinthewayofmodelortheorydevelopment.However,therearetwostreamsofresearchthatprovidemodelsofemployeeengagement.Inhisqualitativestudyonthepsychologicalconditionsofpersonalengagementanddisengagementatwork,Kahn（1990）interviewedsummercampcounselorsandorganizationalmembersofanarchitecturefirmabouttheirmomentsofengagementanddisengagementatwork.Kahn（1990）foundthattherewerethreepsychologicalconditionsassociatedwithengagementordisengagementatwork:

meaningfulness,safety,andavailability.Inotherwords,workersweremoreengagedatworkinsituationsthatofferedthemmorepsychologicalmeaningfulnessandpsychologicalsafety,andwhentheyweremorepsychologicallyavailable.

IntheonlystudytoempiricallytestKahn's（1990）model,Mayetal.（2004）foundthatmeaningfulness,safety,andavailabilityweresignificantlyrelatedtoengagement.Theyalsofoundthatjobenrichmentandrolefitwerepositivepredictorsofmeaningfulness;rewardingco-workerandsupportivesupervisorrelationswerepositivepredictorsofsafetywhileadherencetoco-workernormsandself-consciousnesswerenegativepredictors;andresourcesavailablewasapositivepredictorofpsychologicalavailabilitywhileparticipationinoutsideactivitieswasanegativepredictor.

Theothermodelofengagementcomesfromtheburnoutliteraturewhichdescribesjobengagementasthepositiveantithesisofburnoutnotingthatburnoutinvolvestheerosionofengagementwithone'sjob（Maslachetal.,2001）.AccordingtoMaslachetal.（2001）,sixareasofwork-lifeleadtoburnoutandengagement:

workload,control,rewardsandrecognition,communityandsocialsupport,perceivedfairness,andvalues.Theyarguethatjobengagementisassociatedwithasustainable

workload,feelingsofchoiceandcontrol,appropriaterecognitionandreward,asupportiveworkcommunity,fairnessandjustice,andmeaningfulandvaluedwork.Likeburnout,engagementisexpectedtomediatethelinkbetweenthesesixwork-lifefactorsandvariousworkoutcomes.

AlthoughbothKahn's（1990）andMaslachetal.'s（2001）modelsindicatethepsychologicalconditionsorantecedentsthatarenecessaryforengagement,theydonotfullyexplainwhyindividualswillrespondtotheseconditionswithvaryingdegreesofengagement.Astrongertheoreticalrationaleforexplainingemployeeengagementcanbefoundinsocialexchangetheory（SET）.

SETarguesthatobligationsaregeneratedthroughaseriesofinteractionsbetweenpartieswhoareinastateofreciprocalinterdependence.AbasictenetofSETisthatrelationshipsevolveovertimeintotrusting,loyal,andmutualcommitmentsaslongasthepartiesabidebycertain“rules”ofexchange（CropanzanoandMictchell