COLLEGE 10 : Bevlogenheid / EngagementWilmar Schaufeli

1. Inleiding

De Januskop van werk

Mens als “werkend dier” (Martin Luther : volgens Christelijke ethiek doe je het om in de hemel te komen). Werk is bron van allerlei ellendeAnimal laborans : Moeite, Inspanning, Opoffering, Bloed, zweet & tranenTraditionele visie : Disease, Disorder, Damage , Disability

Mens als .... (Karl Marx : Je leert door werk, ontwikkeling,). Misschien geeft werk wel energie, uitdaging ?Homo faber : Creativiteit, Productiviteit, Uitdaging, OntwikkelingPositieve visie : Energizing, Enriching, Exciting, Engaging

2. Positieve psychologie Positieve psychologie: de wetenschappelijke studie van optimaal menselijk functioneren met als doel om de factoren die individuen en organizaties doen gedijen te ontdekken en te bevorderen” (Seligman !!)

Seligman heeft hier een stem aan gegeven ! (voorzitter American….) : mensen te helpen zich te ontwikkelen.

Zeer sterk in opkomst, maar ook tegenreactie tegen positieve psychologie : Bijv. Barabara Ehrenreich ‘Smile or Die’

Maakt geld gelukkig ? Nee !

Waarom worden we niet steeds gelukkiger ?

Sociale vergelijking Olympische medaille winnaars (Medvec et al., 1995) (brons gelukkigst, dan goud, dan zilver) Duitse Democratische Republiek (DDR) (vgl met Tsjechoslowakije, of met West-Duitsland)

Habituatie (‘headonic tredmill”) : je went eraan, je hebt steeds meer nodig om hetzelfde gevoel te krijgen.

Aanpassing aan ankerpunt (‘set point”) (zie grafiek) : individueel punt van geluk of welbevinden, als er iets neg gebeurt slechter voelen, als er iets pos gebeurt beter voelen, maar uiteindelijk altijd terugkomen bij ankerpunt

Wat bepaalt geluk ?

50% bepaald min of meer genetische set-point 10% omstandigheden waar je niet zoveel kan aan doen 40% blijft over : daarmee kan je zelf invloed hebben op geluk (door jezelf te veranderen, je

omgeving te veranderen..)

Wat kunnen we van nonnen leren ? Omstreeks eeuwwisseling Amerikaanse psychologen naar klooster gegaan, CVs die ze schreven

toen ze 20 waren geanalyseerd, en geteld hoeveel positieve emoties daarin werden opgegeven. Gecontroleerde omstandigheden, leefden helemaal hetzelfde. Gelukkige nonnen leven langer !!!

Leidt geluk tot succes op het werk ?Een meta-analyse laat zien dat gelukkige mensen….

• …vaker voor sollicitaties worden uitgenodigd• …betere banen vinden• …beter door hun chef worden beoordeeld • …het beter doen in managementfuncties• …minder opgebrand raken• …minder negatief werkgedrag vertonen• …betere arbeidsprestaties leveren

Conclusies over geluk : • Geld maakt niet gelukkig• Er bestaat een genetisch ankerpunt voor geluk• Geluk kan voor ca. 40% beïnvloed worden• Gelukkige mensen leven langer• Gelukkige werknemers zijn succesvoller

3. Ons werk verandert ! Ons werk verandert, daar heeft ook de opkomst vd positieve psychologie mee te maken ! Het

psychologisch kapitaal van mensen wordt steeds belangrijker : bijv. wasmachine-hersteller moet nu een tevreden klant achterlaten : zijn product is niet meer het allerbelangrijkste.

Je moet je dus kunnen invoelen in de ander, communicatieve vaardigheden… was vroeger allemaal minder nodig.

= De psychologisering van werk (‘soft skills’) => Daarom hebben moderne arbeidsorganisaties niet langer gezonde, maar “mentaal vitale” werknemers nodig. Gevolg :

o Bevlogenheid wordt belangrijkero Risico op burnout neemt toe : impliceert allemaal aanpassingen, en aanpassing vraagt

energie !

4. Bevlogenheid Definitie

Het eerst gebruikt in jaren ’90 in bedrijven (door veranderingen in ondernemingen) : Toename belang bevlogenheid

Vanaf 2000 ook in de wetenschap, ie Opkomst van de positieve psychologie

“Bevlogenheid is een positieve, affectief-motivationele toestand van opperste voldoening die wordt gekarakteriseerd door vitaliteit, toewijding en absorptie” (Schaufeli et al., 2002; p. 74)

Heeft met gevoelens, motivatie te maken. Met 3 belangrijke aspecten : vitaliteit = energie, willen invessteren, doorzetten ook indien niet

evident. toegewijd = enthousiast, ervaren als uitdaging, zijn er trots op absorptie : focus, opgeslorpt (piekervaringen =”flow”). Je kan niet constant in “flow” zijn (absorptie) <=> Bevlogenheid verandert niet zomaar.

Vb. Rapping flight attendant : hoe kan ik mijn werk zo interessant maken dat het op mijn hobby gaat lijken ? zo invullen dat ik daar bij bevlogen kan blijven, en dat mijn baas daar ook baat bij heeft. Idee vliegmy : wij investeren in bevlogenheid, en daardoor maken wij meer winst. Naamsbekendheid. 10 jaar geleden wss voor ontslagen (duidelijke hierarchie,contr) maar nu zegt zelfde my : vul je rol in zoals je wil, als maar niet tegen onze belangen in.

Wordt vandaag van iedereen verwacht !

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)

Vitaliteit : op mijn werk bruis ik van energie ” Toewijding : “Ik ben enthousiast over mi jn baan” Absorptie : “Ik ga helemaal op in mijn werk”

Beschikbaar in 27 talen; zie www.wilmarschaufeli.nlOpgenomen in de NEA en de EU Working Conditions Survey. In Utrecht is onderzoek nr bevlogenheid gestart !

Prevalentie van bevlogenheid

Verband met landen Europa : west-europa gemiddeld gzeer bevlogen. D ellende zit beetje in balkan en zuid-europa

Verband tss bevlogenheid en economie : link met BNP Verband tss bevlogenheid en cultuur / de wereld (zie Japan): expressie van emoties.bijv. in japan

taboe daarop, omdat my erg gebaseerd is op harmonie,groepsdenken… je niet verheffen boven de groep. Zijn ze dat dan niet, of zeggen ze dat dan niet ? niet dat laatste, eerder zo dat d e cultuur je zo programmeert daar. Geert Hofstede : software of the mind => onderzoek naar impact cultuur!!

AUTONOMIE ! (zie bovenstaande figuur)

Wiel met emoties vd mens (Russel ?)

Verschil bevlogenheid vs workalcoholismeVerschil zit em vnl in de motivatie !! approach : interessant vinden, er naartoe gaan. Workaholic : negatieve emoties als hij niet werkt. => werken om negatieve gevoelens te vermijde? Aanwijzingen dat workaholics vroeger niet goed gehecht zijn : steeds opnieuw tonen dat je aandacht verdient , dat je wel goed bent, liefde verdient… Workaholics geen plezier !!!

Verschil bevlogenheid vs tevredenheidFiguur : 9 to 5 = tevreden. Tevreden mensen : missen de uitdaging (activeringsniveau)

Bevlogenheid : oorzaken en gevolgen

Waarom betere prestaties ? Bevlogen werknemers…• … zijn proactief, ze nemen initiatief• … stellen hogere doelen, ze voelen zich competent• … zijn intrinsiek gemotiveerd, ze gaan voor de inhoud• … vertonen pro-sociaal gedrag, ze zijn vriendelijk en coöperatief• … ervaren positieve emoties, ze verwerken informatie beter • … zijn gezond, ze verzuimen niet

Figuur : 25% meest bevlogen Bus vgln met 25% minst bevlogen (dus bv. die 25% heeft 37% minder verzuim bijv.)Investeer dus in het geluk, de bevlogenheid van je werknemers !Waarom betere prestaties ? Aantal variabelendie men kan linken aan betere prestatie !

Figuur : Pijl van energiebronnen naar burnout : als je er te weinig hebt ! MAAR geen pijl van stress nr bevlogenheid : Minder stress is NIET gerelateerd aan meer bevlogenheid, want dan is uitdagning ook weg. Anders zou je je vervelen.

Dus : Niet inzetten op stressbronnen. Wel : inzetten op energiebronnen : twee vliegen in één klap : meer bevlogenheid en minder burnout !!

Ook nog ‘leiderschap’ : doet er toe wie jouw baas is (kan zelf stressbron zelf, kan je interessante projecten geven, steun geven…). Belangrijk in aansturen energiebronnne/stressbronnen

Persoonlijke hulpbronnen : van nature optimistisch bijv. Hoe ben je als persoon ?

Stressoren: (er zijn er meer dan hier : ongeveer 30 in totaal, hier de belangrijkste !)

Emotioneel = emotioneel belast (bijv. mensen zijn boos op jou) Rolconflict : je moet je baas tevredenhouden (snel werken) maar je wil ook je klant tevreden

houden (tijd nemen) Waardencongruentie : bijv. bedrijf dat vanalles verspilt, en is niet waar jij voor staat.

Energiebronnen :

Persoonlijke hulpbronnen :

Bevlogen leiderschap : Gebaseerd op zelfdeterminatietheorie (aantal basisbehoeften waaraan mensen willen tegemoet komen) : betekenis, groei, verbondenheid, autonomie => We weten dat al die dingen gerelateerd zijn aan bevlogenheid

5. Bevlogenheid - INTERVENTIES

Curatie Preventie ‘ Amplitie ’

Je stapt dan buiten standaard medisch model => amplitie cursief.Curatie :iemand beter maken die ziek is (bijv. burnout). Preventie : hoe kan ik burnout voorkomen , nog steeds in medisch paradigma. MAAR NU : Hoe kan ik nu een situatie, een persoon optimaliseren => dan verlaat je medisch model. Versterken, vergroten..Het gaat erom iets positiets te stimuleren, andere manier van denken.

Hieronder methodes waarvan we weten dat ze werken, je kan op verschillende niveaus werken. Dus Evidence-based :

Interventie : E-Coaching traject

Je kon je aanmelden voor e-coaching traject om je motivatie te verhogenInhoud : bijv. 3 complimenten gevenClips : bijv. hoe vraag je nu sociale steun (wat voor soort vragen stel je)Meting : vooraf, Na 4 weken en nog later

Traject : • Inhoud: 12 opdrachten en 10 gedragsexperimenten • Tijd: 15-20 minuten per opdracht; experimenten duren vaak korter• Duur: 4 weken• Ondersteuning:

• Coaches zijn via internet beschikbaar • Korte instructie clips• Bijhouden van een persoonlijk blog (met anderen delen)

• Pre-, post-, en follow-up meting• Survey feedback

• Dagelijks invullen van de Motivation MonitorTheoretisch model : Gebaseerd op Sociale leertheorie van Bandura => success ervaringen (mastery experience : ik kan dat !) => Self-efficacy vergroot (vertrouwen in zichzelf)

Interventie-effecten   : Pos emoties : paarse lijn eigenlijk vrij vlak ! Helaas : grafiek niet zo mooi bij bevlogenheid… Niveau was tamelijk hoog voor mensen die zich hadden aangemeld. We weten dat mensen die al

wel bevlogen zijn, die melden zich aan… Bijv . mensen die al fit zijn, melden zich aan voor bedrijfsfitprogramma…

Laten we die groep die binnenkomt in 3 verdelen en kijken hoe die zich verhouden tov controlegroep. Wat je dna vindt : in laagste groep zie je een positief effect van de interventie. Dus voor die mensen waar het voor bedoeld is, die profiteren er wel van.Geen sterk effect maar wel signficant.

Hou in de gaten dat je te maken hebt met selectie-effecten !

Interventie effect self-efficacy & emoties

Interventie effect bevlogenheid:

Nadien Uitgebouwd naar nieuw instrument, soort online platform

6. Bevlogenheid - PRAKTIJK

Als je resultaten individueel terugkoppelt (slide : de energiebalans) : je ziet dat er het een en ander aan de hand is.

Als je kijkt naar de verschillende districten : qua veranderingen en bureaucratie veel verschil (grijs is de benchmark voor NL)

Nog niveau lager : teamspecifiek profiel maken Niveau organisatie : Elke organisatie is anders : JDM model toegepast en alle bronnen

geanalyseerd. Model blijkt aardeig te kloppen . Bevlogen leiderschap : correlatie, geen causaal effect vastgesteld (maar toch meenemen in

overzicht, want indirect effect door die stressoren en energiebronnen te beinvloeden).

Elk district is anders :

Elk team is anders :

Elke organisatie is anders :

Tot slot : 10 tips voor bevlogenheid

1. Neem initiatief, benut de mogelijkheden die jou studie biedt2. Benut zoveel mogelijk je eigen talenten en volg je dromen en passies3. Zorg voor een goede balans tussen studie en privé4. Focus niet alleen op resultaat maar ook op je persoonlijke ontwikkeling 5. Vraag regelmatig feedback van anderen6. Wees optimistisch; denk in mogelijkheden in plaats van problemen7. Stel jezelf uitdagende, maar wel realistische doelen 8. Help en steun anderen, wees coöperatief 9. Zorg goed voor je lijf; bewegen, slapen en ontspannen10. Houdt je studie uitdagend, ook voor de toekomst

EXTRA ARTIKEL : What is EngagementWilmar Schaufeli

1. Introduction

Definitie Merriam-Webster woordenboek : Engagement = emotional involvement or commitment, being ‘in gear’.

Here : Work engagement : refers to the relation of the employee with his work (<=> employee engagement : may also include the relationship with the organization. Including this would blur the distinction between engagement and concepts like organizational commitment and extra-role behaviour)

Easy to recognize in practice, but difficult to define, a lot of confusion (Macey & Schneider 2008) due to the ‘bottom-up’ manner in which the notion has evolved in organizations :

o is at odds with the top-down academic approach, requiring a clear and unambiguous definition

o hampers with the understanding of work engagement for practical purposes.

2. The emergence of engagement in business and academia : Brief history

Gallup organization (1990s), best-selling book ‘First, break all the rules’, first uses the term (consulting firm !)

Buckingham & Coffman (1999) summarized Survey results from Gallup on ‘strong workplaces’ (100.000 employees). Perceptions of such workplaces were assessed with 12 questoins, later known as the ‘Q’. They occasionally use the term ‘engagement’ in their book on Leadership ‘what great managers do differently’.

Around 2000, engagement was ‘in the air’ and many consulting firms followed. Why ? o probably due to number of changes in the world of work, from traditional to modern

organisations (zie tabel in slides) => growing importance of human capital and psychological involvemen of employees

o AND, positive psychology movement did emerge then, or was claimed by group around Martin Seligman (Presiden of the American Psychology organisation) => created the fertile soil that made scientific engagement research blossom

Summary of table = Psychologisation of work (diversity => perspective taking, assertiveness <= team work, job crafting => personal inititative….)David Ulrich : book ‘Human Resource Champions’ : “employee contribution becomes a critical business issue because in trying to produce more output with less employee input, companies have no choice but to try to engage not only the body, but also the mind and the soul of every employee” :1) Human capital more important (more has to be done with fewer)2) Modern orgs need employees able and willing to invest in their jobs psychologically => WORK

ENGAGEMENT

3. Definitions of engagement business and in academia

In Business, engagement is defined as as blend of 3 existing concepts (consultancy firms combined and relabelled existing notions) : Job satisfaction Commitment to the organisation Extra-role behaviorSuch conceptualisations are propery of consulting firms and no subject to external peer review => problematic iro transparency (eg. measurement tools are not publicly avaialble).

Academic definitions systematically reviewed by Shuck (2011). Identified 4 approaches, based on 213 publications :

The needs satifsying Approach : (Kahn, 1990) : Engagement as the employment and expression of one’s preferred self in taks behaviours => Important for theoretical thinking but rarely used in empirical research

The Burnout-antithesis Approach : rooted in occupational health psychology, engagement as antithesis of burnout. Two schools of thought exist here :

o Maslach & Leiter (1997) : E and B are endpoints of a continuum (energy, involvement and effficacy VS exhaustion, cynicism, lack of accomplishment) => High on engagement means low on burnout and vicevers

o Schaufeli ea (2002) : engagement as a distinct concept that is negatively related to burnout, a concept in its own right: “positive, fulfilling, workrelated state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, absorption)” The UWES (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale) is based on this definition.

The satisfaction-engagement Approach : Gallups : ‘engagement = an individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well ass enthousiasm for work” => seems to overlap with traditional constructs as job involvement and job satisfaction. Indeed, Q correlates almost perfectly with items that tap job satisfaction. They acknowledge overlap in way that instead of the ‘experience’ of engagment, Q measures the ‘antecedents’ of engagement. Due to fact that has been designed for practice (to improve jobs so that employees would be more satisfied) and not from scholarly perspective.Still this view had impact in academia as well, due to meaningful links between engagement and BU outcomes (eg customer satisfaction, profit, turnover…)

The Multidimensional Approach : Saks (2006) : “ a distinct and unique construct consisting of cognitive, emotional and behavioral components that are associated with individual role performance”. Similar to Kahn (focus on role performance) but innovative because distinction between ‘job engagement’ (perfoming the work role) and ‘organizational engagement’ (performing the role as a member of the organisation). Both are moderately related, but seem to have different antecedents and consequences. This approach hardly been taken up by researchers.

Together, each stress different aspect of engagement : 1) Its Relation with role performance2) Its positive nature in terms of employee well-being as opposed to burnout3) Its relation with resourceful jobs4) Its relation with both the job as well as with the organisation

What elements to include/exclude from the definition ?Macey & Schneider (2008) (seminal overview ) : suggest exhaustive synthesis of all elements :

1) Trait engagement (conscientiousness, trait positive affect, proactive personality)2) State engagement (satisfaction, involvement, empowerment..)3) Behavorial engagement (extra-role behaviour, proactivity, role expansion)

But then (Saks) ‘engagement’ serves as an umbrella for whatever.. Schaufeli ea : more restictive model, engagement as an experienced psychological state !So distinction between the experience, antecedents and consequences (zie figuur JDR-model) => NOR resourceful jobs (S-E approach) NOR performance behavior (Business approach) are constituting elements! Definitions by Kahn and by Schaufelli both fit within this figure : Both agree on 3 components (see earlier) : physical-energetic (vigor), emotional (dedication) and

cognitive (absorpt) Both align on their operationalisations : items included in engagement inventory Kahn show

striking resemblance with thise in the abs, ded and vig scales of the UWES. (especially for cognitive engagement and absorption).

Recently ‘Intellectual, Social, Affective (ISA) Engagement scale’ introduced, also based on Kahn, and includes 3 facts of engagement : 1) intellectual (absorption), 2) social (socially connect with colleagues), 3) affective (positive affect c role). First & third are similar to absorption & vigour (2nd

facet not considered before)

4. Engagement as a unique construct

Not just ‘old wine in new bottles’ ! Distinction to be made with :

Job related attitudesConfusion because in business context distinction is often blurred, eg : Meta-analysis (NewMan, Joseph & Hulin 2010) showed engagement as closely related to ‘the A(ttitude)-factor (= combination of job satisfaction, job involvement and affective organisational ocmmitment. BUT : Only overlap of 15-29% Engagement shows correlation with other variables, eg. meta-analysis (Christian, 2011) shows that

engagement predicts in-role & out-role performance, after controlling for satisfaction & commitment => its power goes beyond these three attitudes ! (evidence found in study of Rich ea, 2010)

Engagement is more stronly related wit performance, rather than attitudes, because it reflects an energetic drive, rather than a feeling of satiation

Job behavior and behavioral intentionsEngagement is only moderatly and negatively related to turnover intention (Meta-analysis Halbesleven, 2010) : Indeed, 4 independent samples (Schaufeli) showed mediatoin effect of engagement in relation job

resources-turnover intention (the more resourceful the job, the higher level of engagement, the lower intention to quit)

Additional samples (Schaufeli) : idem for proactive behavior: the more resourceful the job, the higher level of engagement, the more personal initiative.

Replicated in longitudinal study of Finnish dentistsSo related to, but discriminiated from behavioral intentions and actual behavior that reflects an employee’s commitment to the organisation and its goals.

Health and well-beingCorrelations betweeen the 3 dimensions of burn-out and engaement are less than -1,00, and highest for dimension ‘inefficacy’ (due to fact that is measured with positively framed items which are then reversed to assess inefficay !) : Based on more than 50 samples, Cole showed that engagement (as assessed by UWES) is a

distinct concept than burnout (assessed with Maslach Burnout Inventory, MBI). Concludes that Kahn’s definition may offer a better basis for conceptualizatoin that does not overlap with burnout

Detailed psychometric studies to assess relationships between UWES & MBI, showed that both assess separate constructs.

JD-R model shows that both have different antecendents !

An alternative, under-researched state-of-mind that could serve as counterpart : Boredom ! Boredom : “a psychological state of low arousal and dissatisfaction due to an under-stimulating

work environment”. Is also a displeasurable-disactivated affect, just like burnout ! Schaufeli : boredom is neg related with engamgeent (r = -0,46) en pos related with burnout

(r=0,40) AND that boredom is inversely related to job demands & resources, satifsfaction, commitment and turnover intention.

To be investigated further

What about workaholism : “the compulsive tendency to work excessively”. A number of studies have shown : 1. Engagement (UWES) and workaholism (DUWAS – Dutch Workaholism Scale) can be measured

indepently, although some overlap iro ‘absorption’ (both groups have difficulty in detaching) 2. Engagement is “good” and WA is “bad’. => score inversely on performance, distress,

psychosomatic complaints, sleep, life satisfaction, ... (due to the obsessive aspect !) 3. The underlying motivation of both groups differ (intrinsicaly for the fun <-> external standards

of self-worth and soical approval)(wiel in slides = taxonomy of work-related well-being using the circumplex model of emotions).

Personality Schaufeli ea used a 2-dimensional model that included neuroticism (the disposition to experience

distressing emotions as fear, depression, frustration) and extraversion (the disposition towards cheerfulness, sociability, high activity). Found engagement is neg related to the former and pos to the latter. Correlations from -.033 to .50 so overlap with these personality traits is small

Sudy by Kim ea : Big 5 personality traits => only conscientiousness significantly related to engagement (r=.37) (and NOT neuroticism or extraversion). After controlling for job related factors, still positively related, but now also neuroticism negatively associated.

Engagement seems to be more a psychological state than an dispositional trait.

SummaryLots of overlaps & relations, but strong enough to assume they are identical ? NO.

5. Theoretical frameworks

No unique theoretical framework for engagement. Below, four different approaches discussed :

The needs-satisfying approach Kahn (1990) assumes employee becomes engaged when 3 psyhological conditions are met :

o Meaningfulness (feeling or receiving ROI of one’s self in role performance) => influenced by nature of the job (task and role characteristics)

o Psychological safety (feeling able to show and employone’s self without fear or neg consequences) => influenced by socal environment (interpersonal relations, group dynamics, management style, norms)

o Availabilty (the belief of having physical and mental resources to engage the self at work) => influenced by personal resources, eg physical energy.

Model derived from qualitative interview and observation study among counselors from summer camp for adolescents & architects

First tested by May (2004), using questionnaires of employees from insurance firms. Indeed, particularly meaningfulness and to lesser extent safety & availability pos correlated with engagement. Found also that :

o job enrichment and role fit were pos related to meaningfulness,o coworker & supportive supervisor pos related to safetyo personal resources pos related to availablilty

Summary : when job is meaningful, environment is safe and resources available => needs for meaninfulness, safety and availability satisfied => engagment likely to occur

The jobs demands-resources modelParticularly used also by scholars that believe in burnout as antithesis : Assumes that engagement results from inherently motivating nature of resources : 1) job

resources, 2) personal resources (eg self-efficacy, optimism, emotional stability => the ability to control and impact one’s environment) => Engagement mediates the relation between resources and positive outcome => the motivational process

Negative process, the health impairment process, job demands => physical or mental effort => physical or psychological costs => insufficient recovery => may burnout.

Cross-links between both processes :o Poor resources may foster burnouto Job demands might increase engagement, BUT only for challenge demands that can

promote mastery, personal growth, future gainso Hindrances that twhart growth, learning etc (eg role conflict, hassles) do NOT impact work

engagement. Confirmed in meta-analysis of Crawford (64 samples) : relation between demands and engagement

varies with the nature of the demand : hindrances are negatively related and challenges positively.

A lot of empirical evidence for this main assumption : motivational + health impairment process : Schaufeli : reviewed 16 cross-sectional studies from 7 countries => in ALL cases mediating effects

of burnout & engagement (in 4 cases partial mediation, ie also direct effect from demands & resources on outcomes, in 13 caes siginficant crosslinks, particularly between poor job resources and burnout). However, no causal conclusions can be made (eg high engagement could lead to more favourable perceptions of resources = reversed causation).

Longitudinal evidence ? (=> = prediction ) 3-year follow-up study of Finnish dentists supported 1) both processes,2) mediation (resources

=> engagement => org commitment AND demands => burnout => depression), 3) no reversed causation (ie neither burnout or engaement predicted job demands or resources).

Similar study of Dutch managers : increase in demands and decrease in resources => burnout => absence duration AND increase in resources => enagement => absence frequency.

One-year follow-up study of australian univ staff : resources => strain (neg) and org commitment (pos)BUT failure to confirm effect of demands on strain. No reversed causation detected.

Summary : indications found for mediating role of work engagement and burnout in the motivational and health impairment processes respectively.

Additional empirical evidence suggests feedback loop back from performance and engagement to job and personal resources. This is consistent with the notion of resource accumulation after sucessful performance ! (eg higher level of self-efficacy AND positive feedback from supervisor)

The affective shift modelSeeks to explain the dynamic nature of work enagement. Based on the assumption that both pos and neg affect have important functions for work engagement. Proposes that a core mechanism underlying the emergency of engagement is a shift from neg to pos affect : Neg affect has motivating potential (signals that things are not going well and action is necessary) Subsequent effort releases this potential of neg affect A shift to pos affect state occurs Engagement most likely results when this up-regulation of pos affect is accompanied by

simultaneous down-regulation of neg affectSo the dynamic interplay of pos and neg affect produces work engagement !!!

Bledlow (2011) : 55 German ICTers, 2 weeks : demonstrated as predicted => only one study so far, but encouraging for explaining the dynamic nature of engagement !

Social exchange theoryArgues that relationships at work evolve over time into trusting, loyal, mutual commitments as long as reciprocity is respected ! Based on this, Saks (2006) argues that one way for individuals to repay their organisation is thru

engagement. (In terms of Kahn’s definition : “feel obliged to bring them more deeply into their role performance, as repayment for the resources they received from the organisation”). THUS if org fails to provide these resources, more likely to disengage, might result in burnout.

Relation between organisational engagement and perceived rewards, support etc.. are STRONGER than with job engagement.

Overall, both week , so evidence very limited.Recently, using social exchange perspective, Alfes showed that relation between engagement and citizenship behavior AND between engagement and turnover intention, is moderated by perceived org support and by relation with supervisor (specifically : when engaged, feel supported AND when good relation with supervisor, more citizenship)6. Organizational outcomes of engagement 3 approaches exist to examine organisational outcome : Relate engagement of individuals to indiviudal outcomes relevant for the org (sickness,

performance) Relate average :

o engagement levels of teams to team level outcomes (eg performance, absence rates,..)o engagement level of Bus with BU level outcomes (profit, productivity, ..)BUT validity of averaging individual scores across heterogeneous groups of hundreds, thousands, is not beyond question…

Case studies might illustrate relationships between employee engagement levels and particular organisational outcome

1st and 2nd approach are way engagement is studied in academia and business respectively.

Attitudes and behaviors of employees and teams

Organisational attitudes and behaviour should be distinguished but actually be considered as outcomes of work engagement : Recent study UK employees shows engagement mediates relation between job resources and

outcomes like OCB (organisational citizenship behavior), CWB (counterproductive work behaviour) and task performance as assessed by supervisor.

Various longitudinal studies : show that high engagement lead over time to more org commitment, pers initiative and innovative behavior at team level.

Among students : hig engagement at beginning of term is associated with higher grade point average (GPA) at the end of the term.

Medical residents commit fewer errors

Ample evidence that engagement is related to positive organisational attitudes and behavior.

At the team level, documented that : level of engagement of frontline staff in hotels/restos is pos related with customer satisfaction : the

higher the service quality is rated. Diary study fast food restaurant : financial turnover higher when employees were more engaged

=> the more engaged a particular shift,the more food sold.

So, strong academic evidence that engagement leads to pos outcome for the org, both on individual and team level.

Business success

Many consultancy firms have claimed pos relation.

Most convincing evidence : Gallup Organisation : meta-analysis of 8000 bus from 36 companies revealed pos relation with

indicators of bu performance, eg customer satisfaction & loyalty, profitability, productivity, turnover and safety. More detailed analyses showed that (Compared to he bottom 25% least engaged bus) the 25% most engaged bus had : 2 to 4% more client satisfaction 1 to 4% higher profitability 13 to 36% less turnover Higher monthly revenue on sales

Other Gallup study : 955.000 respondents in US and 23 other nations : engagement accounted for 78% of variance in profitability. In bus with higher engagement : 94% higher success rate in own organisation, 145% higher success rate across organisations.

But caution : Consultancy firms studies not transparent lack scientificic rigor questionable operationalisation since overlap with other concepts, eg linkage study of Gallup uses

the Q, which in fact assesses the antecedents of engagement, in terms of perceived job resources (so in fact : resourceful jobs are linked with business success !)

summary

circumstancial evidence exists that suggests that work engagement might be related to business success. However, strictly scientifically, further investigation is necessary.

7. General conclusion and outlook Purely scientifically : see definition measured by UWES explained by job resources-demands modelBUT narrow…(does not include drivers nor consequential behaviour)

For business and consultancy : defined in broader terms including employee behaviours that are in line with the organisational

goals Reasoning : employees might feel engaged in their work, but not contribute to org success

because their engagement is not focused.BUT uniqueness of the concept is now gone, because the distinction with concepts as extra-role behaviour and organisational commitment gets blurred.

So we are stuck in dilemma : experience (purely psychological state) <-> including behavioral expression.Pragmatic solution could be : consider it as a psychological state in conjunction with its behavioral expression => uniqueness preserved and practicality guaranteed.

Impact for scientific research : focus on ways how engagement is expressed in behavior in line with team and org goals (eg engagement – performance, engagement – productivity)