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 领导形象设计圆作业设计ao工艺污水处理厂设计附属工程施工组织设计清扫机器人结构设计 ) 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 少年中国说原文俱舍论原文大医精诚原文注音大学原文和译文对照归藏易原文 : 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 (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? 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 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, Robinson et 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.” 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 Kahn's (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 one's 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 Kahn's (1990) and Maslach et al.'s (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 al.'s (2004) description of engagement as a two-way relationship between the employer and employee. One way for individuals to repay their organization is through their level of engagement. That is, employees will choose to engage themselves to varying degrees and in response to the resources they receive from their organization. Bringing oneself more fully into one's work roles and devoting greater amounts of cognitive, emotional, and physical resources is a very profound way for individuals to respond to an organization's actions. It is more difficult for employees to vary their levels of job performance given that performance is often evaluated and used as the basis for compensation and other administrative decisions. Thus, employees are more likely to exchange their engagement for resources and benefits provided by their organization.. In summary, SET provides a theoretical foundation to explain why employees choose to become more or less engaged in their work and organization. The conditions of engagement in both Kahn's (1990) and Maslach et al.'s (2001) model can be considered economic and socioemotional exchange resources within SCT. When employees receive these resources from their organization they feel obliged to repay the organization with greater levels of engagement. In terms of Kahn's (1990) definition of engagement, employees feel obliged to bring themselves more deeply into their role performances as repayment for the resources they receive from their organization. When the organization fails to provide these resources, individuals are more likely to withdraw and disengage themselves from their roles. Thus, the amount of cognitive, emotional, and physical resources that an individual is prepared to devote in the performance of one's work roles is contingent on the economic and socioemotional resources received from the organization. Study hypotheses Figure 1 shows a model of employee engagement. At the core of the model are two types of employee engagement: job and organization engagements. This follows from the conceptualization of engagement as role related (Kahn, 1990; Rothbard, 2001); that is, it reflects the extent to which an individual is psychologically present in a particular organizational role. The two most dominant roles for most organizational members are their work role and their role as a member of an organization. Therefore, the model explicitly acknowledges this by including both job and organization engagements. This also follows from the notion that people have multiple roles and as suggested by Rothbard (2001) as well as May et al. (2004), research should examine engagement in multiple roles within organizations. Antecedents of employee engagement Although there is little empirical research on the factors that predict employee engagement, it is possible to identify a number of potential antecedents from Kahn's (1990) and Maslach et al.'s (2001) model. While the antecedents might differ for job and organization engagement, identical hypotheses are made for both types of engagement given the lack of previous research and this being the first study to examine both job and organization engagement. (节选) 译文: 员工敬业度的前因后果 Alan M. Saks. 近几年，员工敬业度一直受到关注。许多人声称，员工敬业度能预测员工产出，组织的成功，及财务 表 关于同志近三年现实表现材料材料类招标技术评分表图表与交易pdf视力表打印pdf用图表说话 pdf 现(如股东总回报)(Bates, 2004; Baumruk, 2004; Harter et al., 2002; Richman, 2006)。与此同时，据报道，现在员工敬业度在下降，员工之间的接触深度脱离(Bates, 2004; Richman, 2006)。甚至有人报道说，工人今天，大约占美国劳动力半数，多数没有得到充分的参与或它们脱离，导致了“接触的差距”，即在美国企业年生产力损失上达到3000亿美元(Bates, 2004; Johnson, 2004; Kowalski, 2003)。 不幸的是，目前很多关于员工敬业度的书籍都是以从业文献或者咨询公司为依据。在关于员工敬业度的学术文献研究中有一个令人惊讶的研究(Robinson et al., 2004)。研究的目的是探讨员工敬业的两种类型的前因和后果:工作和企业接触。以前的研究主要集中在一个人的工作投入。但是，有证据表明，个人的敬业程度和他在问题中的角色有关(Rothbard, 2001)。因此，它有可能接触的前因和后果取决于接触的类型。在下一节中，员工敬业度是由后面的员工敬业度模型、理论、研究假设来定义的。 什么是员工敬业度, 员工敬业度，已成为广泛采用的术语(Robinson et al., 2004)。然而，目前可以在医生杂志上找到很多关于员工敬业度的文章，这些杂志通常是关于实证研究方面的较多。正如罗宾逊等人(2004年)提出的令人惊讶的小学术和实证研究等，已经成为一个热门话题。因此，员工敬业度开始盛行或者有些人称为“新瓶装旧酒”。 更糟的是，员工敬业的定义有很多种，定义、措施和建立类似组织承诺与组织公民行为的结构(Robinson et al., 2004) 往往听起来更好理解。多数情况下它已被定义为致力于组织的情感和理智(Baumruk, 2004; Richman, 2006; Shaw, 2005)或由员工自行决定工作量。 在学术文献中，做了一些定义。Kahn (1990, p. 694)认为 “人们能够在生 理上、认知上和情感上改变他们投入到工作角色中的自我的程度”，不敬业是指“从工作角色中脱离出来，表现为从生理上、认知上和情感上的自我回撤和自我防卫” (p.694)。因此，根据Kahn (1990, 1992)的观点，敬业度是指员工在担当和执行组织角色时的心理存在。 Rothbard(2001, p. 656)也将员工敬业度定义为心理的存在，但更进一步地指出，它涉及到两个关键因素:关注和吸引。关注是指“认知上的可获得性和员工在思考这个角色上花费的时间”，而吸引是指“员工沉浸在一个角色里以及聚焦于这个角色的强度。” 研究职业倦怠的学者认为敬业是职业倦怠的对称或者是积极的反馈(Maslach et al., 2001)。根据Maslach(2001)的研究，敬业的三个特征是活力、投入和效能，与职业倦怠的的三个要素疲倦、自我疏离和效能低下相反。对倦怠和敬业的研究发现，职业倦怠(疲倦和自我疏离)和敬业(活力和奉献精神)的核心维度是相互对立的(Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2006)。 Schaufeli(2002, p. 74)将敬业度定义为“一种积极的、符合理想的、与工作相关的思维状态，以活力、奉献和吸引为特征”他们进一步指出，敬业不是一时的和具体的状态，而是 “一个更为持久和普遍的情感认知的状态，不依赖于任何特定的对象、事件、个人或行为的重点” (p. 74)。 在学术文献中，敬业被认为与其他组织行为的结构有关，但有所不同。例如，Robinson et al. (2004, p. 8)表述:敬业包含了组织承诺和组织公民行为的很多 内容 财务内部控制制度的内容财务内部控制制度的内容人员招聘与配置的内容项目成本控制的内容消防安全演练内容 ，但无论和哪一个都不是完美的组合。此外，无论是承诺还是组织公民行为都没有充分反映敬业的两个方面，其双向性，以及在任何敬业程度上的员工有被认为有一定的经营意识。 组织承诺与敬业有所不同，它是指一个人的态度和他们的组织的附件。敬业不是一种态度，它是一种在自己个角色展示中所表现出的认真和投入的程度。而组织公民行为涉及自愿和非正式的，以帮助同事和组织的行为，敬业的重点是一个人的表现，而不是正式的角色外的作用和自愿的行为。 敬业不同于工作投入。根据May et al. (2004)，工作投入是一个认知判断关于满足需要的工作能力的结果，依赖于一个人的自我形象。敬业，与员工个人如何驱使自己在工作中好好表现有关。此外，敬业涉及到认知和行为情绪的积极 利用。May et al. (2004, p. 12)还表明，“敬业可能被认为是一种个人通过对工作前期经历和对自己的工作角色的深入的经验确定他们的工作投入。” 总之，虽然在定义和从业文学的意义上与其他结构往往重叠，但在学术文献中已被定义为一个独立和独特的结构，它的组成部分认知，情感和行为都与个人的作用表现相关。此外，敬业要与几个相关内容相区别，如组织承诺，组织公民行为，工作投入。 员工敬业度模型和理论 由于对员工的敬业度的研究有限，很少有在模型或理论发展上的研究。然而，有两个数据流，提供员工敬业度模型的研究。在Kahn(1990)的员工工作时的敬业和不敬业的心理状况的定性研究中，他采访夏令营辅导员和一些在建筑公司工作的员工，了解他们工作中敬业和不敬业的时刻。Kahn(1990)发现，有三种心理状况与敬业和不敬业相关:意义，安全性，可用性。换言之，在更具有心理意义，安全性更高的工作中，员工更愿意投入其工作中。 在实证检验Kahn(1990)模型的唯一的研究中，May et al. (2004)发现意义，安全性和可用性与敬业有显著的相关性。他们还发现，工作丰富化和角色契合有积极的意义;奖励同事和支持主管关系对于安全性有积极意义;资源的可用性是一个积极的心理预测，而在外界活动的参与是一个消极的预测。 另一个敬业模型来自职业倦怠，把工作敬业描述为倦怠的对立面，倦怠是对敬业的侵蚀(Maslach et al., 2001)。根据Maslach et al. (2001)提出，工作与生活中有六个方面导致倦怠和敬业:工作量，控制，奖励和认可，社区和社会的支持，是否公平，价值观。他们认为，工作敬业与一个可持续的工作量，选择和控制的感觉，适当的表彰和奖励，社会的支持，有意义有价值的工作有关。敬业被认为可以调节生活工作中的这6个因素和各项工作成果的关系。 虽然Kahn和Maslach的模型都指出，心理条件或者是前因对于敬业来说是必须的。他们也不能完全解释为什么人们用不同的敬业程度来应对这些条件。一个员工敬业度更有力的解释可以来自于社会交换理论(SET)。 社会交换理论认为义务产生于，处于一种相互依存状态下的各方面之间的一系列相互作用。SET的一个基本原则是关系随着时间的变化要演变成信任、忠诚，相互遵守一些承诺，同时遵守一定的交换规则(Cropanzano and Mictchell, 2005)。交换规则通常涉及互惠或回报规则以至于一方领导这样的行为，而另一方则响应这样的行为。例如，当个人得到他们的组织的经济和社会情绪的资源，他们会觉得有义务回应实物和偿还组织(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005)。这观点与Robinson等人描述敬业时认为雇主与雇员之间有着一种双向关系，是一致的。 个人回报组织的一种方式表现为敬业度的水平。也就是说，员工会选择他们投入工作的程度来回报他们所接受的组织的资源。使自己更全面地投入到自己的工作角色中，投入更大的知识、情感以及物质资源，这是一个非常深刻的方式，用来回应组织的行动。对于员工来说以不同的工作表现来作为赔偿和其他行政决定的依据更具有难度。因此，员工更可能改变他们的敬业度来换取他们的组织资源和所提供的福利。 总之，社会交换理论为解释员工在工作中为什么投入更多或者更少提供了理论基础。Kahn(1990)和Maslach(2001)这两个模型所提出的敬业的条件，都可以被认为在社会交换理论中经济和社会情感与资源做交互。当员工从他们的组织得到这些资源，他们觉得有责任向组织回报更大的敬业度。在Kahn (1990)的敬业度定义中，作为对组织中得到的资源的一种回报，要使员工感受到有责任更加投入到他们的工作中。当组织没有提供这些资源，人更有可能退出，脱离自己的角色。因此，认知，情感和物质资源，从组织上得到的经济和社会情绪资源决定着个人准备投入到自己的工作角色中。 研究假设 图1显示了员工敬业度模型。该模型的核心是两种类型的员工敬业:工作和组织参与。这遵循了相关角色参与的感念。也就是说，它在何种程度上反映了一个人在一个特定的组织角色中的心理作用。对于大多数组织成员而言，最占主导地位的是他们工作中的角色以及他们作为一个组织成员的角色。因此，该模型明确承认了包括工作和组织。这也遵循了以下的主张，人们有多个角色，并按照Rothbard (2001) 和May et al. (2004)建议，研究应探讨在组织内的多个角色参与。 员工敬业的前因 Kahn's (1990)和Maslach等人的模型中，虽然没有多少预测员工敬业的因 素的实证研究。然而其工作和组织参与的来历可能和有所不同，做出相同的假设 是因为前人研究的不足，这是第一个关于工作和组织参与的研究。