员工敬业度的前因后果文献翻译.docx

1、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 Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement 外文出处 Journal of Managerial Psychology.2006(7):p600-619 外文作者 Alan M. saks. 原文: Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement Alan M. Saks. In recent years, there has been a great deal of interes

2、t in employee engagement. Many have claimed that employee engagement predicts employee outcomes, organizational success, and financial performance (e.g. total shareholder return) (Bates, 2004; Baumruk, 2004; Harter et al., 2002; Richman, 2006). At the same time, it has been reported that employee en

3、gagement is on the decline and there is a deepening disengagement among employees today (Bates, 2004; Richman, 2006). It has even been reported that the majority of workers today, roughly half of all Americans in the workforce, are not fully engaged or they are disengaged leading to what has been re

4、ferred to as an “engagement gap” that is costing US businesses $300 billion a year in lost productivity (Bates, 2004; Johnson, 2004; Kowalski, 2003). Unfortunately, much of what has been written about employee engagement comes from the practitioner literature and consulting firms. There is a surpris

5、ing dearth of research on employee engagement in the academic literature (Robinson et al., 2004). The purpose of this study was to investigate the antecedents and consequences of two types of employee engagement: job and organization engagements. Previous research has focused primarily on engagement

6、 in ones job. However, there is evidence that ones degree of engagement depends on the role in question (Rothbard, 2001). Thus, it is possible that the antecedents and consequences of engagement depend on the type of engagement. In the next section, employee engagement is defined followed by a discu

7、ssion of employee engagement models and theory and the study hypotheses. What is employee engagement? Employee engagement has become a widely used and popular term (Robinson et al., 2004). However, most of what has been written about employee engagement can be found in practitioner journals where it

8、 has its basis in practice rather than theory and empirical research. As noted by Robinson et al. (2004), there has been surprisingly little academic and empirical research on a topic that has become so popular. As a result, employee engagement has the appearance of being somewhat faddish or what so

9、me might call, “old wine in a new bottle.” To make matters worse, employee engagement has been defined in many different ways and the definitions and measures often sound like other better known and established constructs like organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (Robins

10、on et al., 2004). Most often it has been defined as emotional and intellectual commitment to the organization (Baumruk, 2004; Richman, 2006; Shaw, 2005) or the amount of discretionary effort exhibited by employees in their jobs (Frank et al., 2004). In the academic literature, a number of definition

11、s have been provided. Kahn (1990, p. 694) defines personal engagement as “the harnessing of organization members selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances.” Personal disengagement refers to “the u

12、ncoupling of selves from work roles; in disengagement, people withdraw and defend themselves physically, cognitively, or emotionally during role performances” (p. 694). Thus, according to Kahn (1990, 1992), engagement means to be psychologically present when occupying and performing an organizationa

13、l role. Rothbard (2001, p. 656) also defines engagement as psychological presence but goes further to state that it involves two critical components: attention and absorption. Attention refers to “cognitive availability and the amount of time one spends thinking about a role” while absorption “means

14、 being engrossed in a role and refers to the intensity of ones focus on a role.” Burnout researchers define engagement as the opposite or positive antithesis of burnout (Maslach et al., 2001). According to Maslach et al. (2001), engagement is characterized by energy, involvement, and efficacy, the d

15、irect opposite of the three burnout dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy. Research on burnout and engagement has found that the core dimensions of burnout (exhaustion and cynicism) and engagement (vigor and dedication) are opposites of each other (Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2006). Schaufeli

16、 et al. (2002, p. 74) define engagement “as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption.” They further state that engagement is not a momentary and specific state, but rather, it is “a more persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive

17、 state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behavior” (p. 74). In the academic literature, engagement is said to be related to but distinct from other constructs in organizational behavior. For example, Robinson et al. (2004, p. 8) state that:engagement contains many o

18、f the elements of both commitment and OCB, but is by no means a perfect match with either. In addition, neither commitment nor OCB reflect sufficiently two aspects of engagement its two-way nature, and the extent to which engaged employees are expected to have an element of business awareness. Organ

19、izational commitment also differs from engagement in that it refers to a persons attitude and attachment towards their organization. Engagement is not an attitude; it is the degree to which an individual is attentive and absorbed in the performance of their roles. And while OCB involves voluntary an

20、d informal behaviors that can help co-workers and the organization, the focus of engagement is ones formal role performance rather than extra-role and voluntary behavior. Engagement also differs from job involvement. According to May et al. (2004), job involvement is the result of a cognitive judgme

21、nt about the need satisfying abilities of the job and is tied to ones self-image. Engagement has to do with how individuals employ themselves in the performance of their job. Furthermore, engagement involves the active use of emotions and behaviors in addition to cognitions. May et al. (2004, p. 12)

22、 also suggest that “engagement may be thought of as an antecedent to job involvement in that individuals who experience deep engagement in their roles should come to identify with their jobs.” In summary, although the definition and meaning of engagement in the practitioner literature often overlaps

23、 with other constructs, in the academic literature it has been defined as a distinct and unique construct that consists of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components that are associated with individual role performance. Furthermore, engagement is distinguishable from several related constructs,

24、 most notably organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and job involvement. Employee engagement models and theory Given the limited research on employee engagement, there has been little in the way of model or theory development. However, there are two streams of research that

25、 provide models of employee engagement. In his qualitative study on the psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work, Kahn (1990) interviewed summer camp counselors and organizational members of an architecture firm about their moments of engagement and disengagement at

26、work. Kahn (1990) found that there were three psychological conditions associated with engagement or disengagement at work: meaningfulness, safety, and availability. In other words, workers were more engaged at work in situations that offered them more psychological meaningfulness and psychological

27、safety, and when they were more psychologically available. In the only study to empirically test Kahns (1990) model, May et al. (2004) found that meaningfulness, safety, and availability were significantly related to engagement. They also found that job enrichment and role fit were positive predicto

28、rs of meaningfulness; rewarding co-worker and supportive supervisor relations were positive predictors of safety while adherence to co-worker norms and self-consciousness were negative predictors; and resources available was a positive predictor of psychological availability while participation in o

29、utside activities was a negative predictor. The other model of engagement comes from the burnout literature which describes job engagement as the positive antithesis of burnout noting that burnout involves the erosion of engagement with ones job (Maslach et al., 2001). According to Maslach et al. (2

30、001), six areas of work-life lead to burnout and engagement: workload, control, rewards and recognition, community and social support, perceived fairness, and values. They argue that job engagement is associated with a sustainable workload, feelings of choice and control, appropriate recognition and

31、 reward, a supportive work community, fairness and justice, and meaningful and valued work. Like burnout, engagement is expected to mediate the link between these six work-life factors and various work outcomes. Although both Kahns (1990) and Maslach et al.s (2001) models indicate the psychological

32、conditions or antecedents that are necessary for engagement, they do not fully explain why individuals will respond to these conditions with varying degrees of engagement. A stronger theoretical rationale for explaining employee engagement can be found in social exchange theory (SET). SET argues tha

33、t obligations are generated through a series of interactions between parties who are in a state of reciprocal interdependence. A basic tenet of SET is that relationships evolve over time into trusting, loyal, and mutual commitments as long as the parties abide by certain “rules” of exchange (Cropanzano and Mictchell