教育学论文 金融学论文 国际商务管理论文 市场营销论文 会计学论文 社会学论文 旅游管理论文 计算机论文 人力资源管理论文 广告媒体学 物流学论文 Engineering Thesis sociology ThesisMBA论文 linguistic Thesis Journalism and Mass Communicat Law Thesis Economics Thesis
返回首页

影响员工敬业度的前因后果Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement

时间:2016-02-12 09:21来源:www.ukthesis.org 作者:英国论文网 点击联系客服: 客服:Damien

员工敬业度近年来在商业咨询公司和媒体中已成为一个广受欢迎的热点话题。然而很少有学术文献和相关人员会研究它的渊源和结果。本研究基于社会交换理论,目的是测试一个有关工作和机构敬业度的前身和结果的模型。设计/方法/措施——在不同的工作和组织完成的一项对102名员工的调查。平均年龄在34岁,60%是女性员工。参与者在他们目前的岗位上的平均工作时间为四年并有平均12年的工作经历。调查包括工作企业敬业度的测试方法,
创新点:这是第一份关于区别工作跟公司敬业度并测量各种工作和组织参与的前因和后果的研究。因此,考虑到缺乏关于员工敬业度的学术研究,这肯定是一份最新的管理研究。
近年来,已经有大量的公司对员工敬业度产生兴趣。许多人声称,员工敬业度预示了员工的产出,组织的成功,和财务表现。但与此同时,据报道,当今员工敬业度呈下降趋势,员工离职率正在恶化。甚至现在有人报道说,大多数的工人占大约一半的美国劳动力没有全心投入,这些被每年大约花费美国企业每年3000亿美元的生产力损失,被称为劳力缺口。
 
Abstract摘要

Purpose – Employee engagement has become a hot topic in recent years among consulting firms and in the popular business press. However, employee engagement has rarely been studied in the academic literature and relatively little is known about its antecedents and consequences. The purpose of this study was to test a model of the antecedents and consequences of job and organization engagements based on social exchange theory. Design/methodology/approach – A survey was completed by 102 employees working in a variety of jobs and organizations. The average age was 34 and 60 percent were female. Participants had been in their current job for an average of four years, in their organization an average of five years, and had on average 12 years of work experience. The survey included measures of job and organization engagement as well as the antecedents and consequences of engagement. Findings – Results indicate that there is a meaningful difference between job and organization engagements and that perceived organizational support predicts both job and organization engagement; job characteristics predicts job engagement; and procedural justice predicts organization engagement. In addition, job and organization engagement mediated the relationships between the antecedents and job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intentions to quit, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Originality/value – This is the first study to make a distinction between job and organization engagement and to measure a variety of antecedents and consequences of job and organization engagement. As a result, this study addresses concerns about that lack of academic research on employee engagement and speculation that it might just be the latest management fad.
         In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest 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 engagement 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 referred 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 surprising 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 in one’s job. However, there is evidence that one’s 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 discussion of employee engagement models and theory and the study hypotheses.
 
What is employee engagement?员工敬业度是什么?

         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 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 some might call, “old wine in a new bottle.”
         To make matters worse, employee engagement has been defined in many different ways and the definitions and measures often sound like other better known and established constructs like organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (Robinsonet 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 definitions 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 uncoupling 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 organizational 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 being engrossed in a role and refers to the intensity of one’s 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 direct 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 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 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, Robinsonet al.(2004, p. 8) state that: ... engagement contains many of 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. Organizational commitment also differs from engagement in that it refers to a person’s 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 and informal behaviors that can help co-workers and the organization, the focus of engagement is one’s 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 judgment about the need satisfying abilities of the job and is tied to one’s 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) 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.”(责任编辑:anne)


------分隔符-------------------------------------
UK Thesis Base Contacts
推荐内容