关键词不能为空

当前您在: 主页 > 英语 >

structure是什么意思外文翻译--员工敬业度的前因后果

作者:高考题库网
来源:https://www.bjmy2z.cn/gaokao
2021-01-19 10:00
tags:

routine是什么意思-structure是什么意思

2021年1月19日发(作者:managerial)
外文翻译
--
员工敬业度的前因后果




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 Psychology2006 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 interest in employee
engagement Many have claimed that employee engagement predicts employee
outcomes
organizational
success
and
financial
performance

eg
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 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
discussion
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 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 Robinson
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
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 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
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
Robinson et al 2004 p 8 state thatengagement 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 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 and 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
judgment
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 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
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
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 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
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
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
predictors
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
outside
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 2001 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
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
als 2001 models
indicate
the
psychological
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
that
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
2005 Rules
of
exchange
usually
involve
reciprocity
or
repayment
rules
such
that
the
actions
of
one
party
lead
to
a
response
or
actions
by
the
other
party
For
example when individuals receive economic and socioemotional resources
from their organization they feel obliged to respond in kind and repay
the
organization Cropanzano
and
Mitchell
2005 This
is
consistent
with
Robinson
et
als

2004

description
of
engagement
as
a
two-way
relationship between the employer and employee

routine是什么意思-structure是什么意思


routine是什么意思-structure是什么意思


routine是什么意思-structure是什么意思


routine是什么意思-structure是什么意思


routine是什么意思-structure是什么意思


routine是什么意思-structure是什么意思


routine是什么意思-structure是什么意思


routine是什么意思-structure是什么意思



本文更新与2021-01-19 10:00,由作者提供,不代表本网站立场,转载请注明出处:https://www.bjmy2z.cn/gaokao/531936.html

外文翻译--员工敬业度的前因后果的相关文章