外文翻译员工敬业度的前因后果.doc

《外文翻译员工敬业度的前因后果.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《外文翻译员工敬业度的前因后果.doc（17页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。

1、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 engagementAlan M SaksIn recent years there has been a great deal of interest in employee engagement Ma

2、ny 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 deep

3、ening 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 busi

4、nesses 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 liter

5、ature 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 depe

6、nds 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 hypothesesWhat is empl

7、oyee engagementEmployee 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

8、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 bottleTo make matters worse employee engagement has been defined in

9、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 B

10、aumruk 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 w

11、ork 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 r

12、ole performances p 694 Thus according to Kahn 1990 1992 engagement means to be psychologically present when occupying and performing an organizational roleRothbard 2001 p 656 also defines engagement as psychological presence but goes further to state that it involves two critical components attentio

13、n 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 roleBurnout researchers define engagement as the opposite or positive antithesis of burn

14、out 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

15、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 m

16、omentary 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 be

17、havior 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 eng

18、aged employees are expected to have an element of business awarenessOrganizational 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

19、 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 behaviorEngagement also differs from job involvement According to May

20、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 be

21、haviors 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 jobsIn summary although the definition and meaning of engageme

22、nt 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 disti

23、nguishable from several related constructs most notably organizational commitment organizational citizenship behavior and job involvementEmployee engagement models and theoryGiven the limited research on employee engagement there has been little in the way of model or theory development However ther

24、e 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 en

25、gagement 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 meaningfuln

26、ess and psychological safety and when they were more psychologically availableIn 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 positiv

27、e 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 participat

28、ion in outside activities was a negative predictorThe 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 20

29、01 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 su

30、pportive 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 outcomesAlthough both Kahns 1990 and Maslach et als 2001 models indicate the psychological conditions or antecedent

31、s 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 t

32、hrough 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 exc

33、hange 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

34、Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005 This is consistent with Robinson et als 2004 description of engagement as a two-way relationship between the employer and employeeOne way for individuals to repay their organization is through their level of engagement That is employees will choose to engage themselves t

35、o varying degrees and in response to the resources they receive from their organization Bringing oneself more fully into ones work roles and devoting greater amounts of cognitive emotional and physical resources is a very profound way for individuals to respond to an organizations actions It is more

36、 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 organizationIn

37、 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 Kahns 1990 and Maslach et als 2001 model can be considered economic and socioemotional exchange resources within SCT When

38、employees receive these resources from their organization they feel obliged to repay the organization with greater levels of engagement In terms of Kahns 1990 definition of engagement employees feel obliged to bring themselves more deeply into their role performances as repayment for the resources t

39、hey 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 on

40、es work roles is contingent on the economic and socioemotional resources received from the organizationStudy hypothesesFigure 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

41、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 The

42、refore 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 organizationsAnte

43、cedents of employee engagementAlthough there is little empirical research on the factors that predict employee engagement it is possible to identify a number of potential antecedents from Kahns 1990 and Maslach et als 2001 model While the antecedents might differ for job and organization engagement

44、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现如股东总回报 Bates 2004 Baumruk 2004 Harter et al 2002 Richman 200

45、6 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

46、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

47、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 p694 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

48、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Maslach2001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的研究发现职业倦怠和和活力和奉献精神的核心维度是相互对立的 Gonzalez-Roma et al 2006 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