版權(quán)說明:本文檔由用戶提供并上傳,收益歸屬內(nèi)容提供方,若內(nèi)容存在侵權(quán),請進行舉報或認領(lǐng)
文檔簡介
1、<p><b> 中文3219字</b></p><p> 本科畢業(yè)論文(設計)</p><p><b> 外文翻譯</b></p><p> 外文題目 Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement
2、 </p><p> 外文出處 Journal of Managerial Psychology.2006(7):p600-619 </p><p> 外文作者 Alan M. saks.
3、 </p><p><b> 原文:</b></p><p> Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement</p><p> Alan M. Saks.</p><p> In recent years, there has been
4、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; Baum
5、ruk, 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).
6、 It has even been reported t</p><p> Unfortunately, much of what has been written about employee engagement comes from the practitioner literature and consulting firms. There is a surprising dearth of resea
7、rch 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 engag
8、ements. Previous research has focused primarily on engagement in one's job. However, there is evidence that one</p><p> What is employee engagement?</p><p> Employee engagement has become
9、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 emp
10、irical 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
11、somewhat faddish or what some</p><p> 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
12、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; Richm
13、an, 2006; Shaw, 2005) or the amount of discretionary effort exhibited by employees in their jobs (Frank et al., </p><p> In the academic literature, a number of definitions have been provided. Kahn (1990, p
14、. 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 perf
15、ormances.” Personal disengagement refers to “the uncoupling of selves from work roles; in disengagement, people withdraw and defend themselves physically, cognitively, or emotionally during role perf</p><p>
16、 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 th
17、e 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.”</p><p> Burnout researchers define engagement
18、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 dim
19、ensions 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 othe
20、r (Gonzalez-Roma et al</p><p> 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 furth
21、er 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” (
22、p. 74).</p><p> 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
23、 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
24、the extent to which engaged employees are expected to have an element of business awarenes</p><p> Organizational commitment also differs from engagement in that it refers to a person's attitude and att
25、achment 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 behavi
26、ors 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.</p><p> Engagement also differs from job involv
27、ement. 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 e
28、mploy 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
29、 of as an antecedent to j</p><p> 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 de
30、fined 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 rela
31、ted constructs, most notably organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and job involve</p><p> Employee engagement models and theory</p><p> Given the limited research on
32、 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
33、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.
34、Kahn (1990) found that there we</p><p> 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 eng
35、agement. 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-worke
36、r norms and self-consciousness were negative predictors; and resources available was a positive predictor of psycholog</p><p> The other model of engagement comes from the burnout literature which describes
37、 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 b
38、urnout 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, fe</p><
39、;p> 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 respon
40、d to these conditions with varying degrees of engagement. A stronger theoretical rationale for explaining employee engagement can be found in social exchange theory (SET).</p><p> SET argues that obligation
41、s 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
42、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 acti
43、ons by the other party. For exampl</p><p> 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 an
44、d 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 w
45、ay for individuals to respond to an organization's actions. It is more difficult for employees to vary their levels of jo</p><p> In summary, SET provides a theoretical foundation to explain why employe
46、es 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
47、 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,
48、</p><p> Study hypotheses</p><p> 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 f
49、rom 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 do
50、minant roles for most organizational members are their work role and their role as a member of an organization. Therefore,</p><p> Antecedents of employee engagement</p><p> Although there is
51、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
52、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 engagem
53、ent. (節(jié)選)</p><p><b> 譯文:</b></p><p> 員工敬業(yè)度的前因后果</p><p> Alan M. Saks.</p><p> 近幾年,員工敬業(yè)度一直受到關(guān)注。許多人聲稱,員工敬業(yè)度能預測員工產(chǎn)出,組織的成功,及財務表現(xiàn)(如股東總回報)(Bates, 2004; Baumru
54、k, 2004; Harter et al., 2002; Richman, 2006)。與此同時,據(jù)報道,現(xiàn)在員工敬業(yè)度在下降,員工之間的接觸深度脫離(Bates, 2004; Richman, 2006)。甚至有人報道說,工人今天,大約占美國勞動力半數(shù),多數(shù)沒有得到充分的參與或它們脫離,導致了“接觸的差距”,即在美國企業(yè)年生產(chǎn)力損失上達到3000億美元(Bates, 2004; Johnson, 2004; Kowalski, 20
55、03)。</p><p> 不幸的是,目前很多關(guān)于員工敬業(yè)度的書籍都是以從業(yè)文獻或者咨詢公司為依據(jù)。在關(guān)于員工敬業(yè)度的學術(shù)文獻研究中有一個令人驚訝的研究(Robinson et al., 2004)。研究的目的是探討員工敬業(yè)的兩種類型的前因和后果:工作和企業(yè)接觸。以前的研究主要集中在一個人的工作投入。但是,有證據(jù)表明,個人的敬業(yè)程度和他在問題中的角色有關(guān)(Rothbard, 2001)。因此,它有可能接觸的前因
56、和后果取決于接觸的類型。在下一節(jié)中,員工敬業(yè)度是由后面的員工敬業(yè)度模型、理論、研究假設來定義的。</p><p> 什么是員工敬業(yè)度? </p><p> 員工敬業(yè)度,已成為廣泛采用的術(shù)語(Robinson et al., 2004)。然而,目前可以在醫(yī)生雜志上找到很多關(guān)于員工敬業(yè)度的文章,這些雜志通常是關(guān)于實證研究方面的較多。正如羅賓遜等人(2004年)提出的令人驚訝的小學術(shù)和實證研
57、究等,已經(jīng)成為一個熱門話題。因此,員工敬業(yè)度開始盛行或者有些人稱為“新瓶裝舊酒”。</p><p> 更糟的是,員工敬業(yè)的定義有很多種,定義、措施和建立類似組織承諾與組織公民行為的結(jié)構(gòu)(Robinson et al., 2004) 往往聽起來更好理解。多數(shù)情況下它已被定義為致力于組織的情感和理智(Baumruk, 2004; Richman, 2006; Shaw, 2005)或由員工自行決定工作量。</
58、p><p> 在學術(shù)文獻中,做了一些定義。Kahn (1990, p. 694)認為 “人們能夠在生理上、認知上和情感上改變他們投入到工作角色中的自我的程度”,不敬業(yè)是指“從工作角色中脫離出來,表現(xiàn)為從生理上、認知上和情感上的自我回撤和自我防衛(wèi)” (p.694)。因此,根據(jù)Kahn (1990, 1992)的觀點,敬業(yè)度是指員工在擔當和執(zhí)行組織角色時的心理存在。</p><p> Roth
59、bard(2001, p. 656)也將員工敬業(yè)度定義為心理的存在,但更進一步地指出,它涉及到兩個關(guān)鍵因素:關(guān)注和吸引。關(guān)注是指“認知上的可獲得性和員工在思考這個角色上花費的時間”,而吸引是指“員工沉浸在一個角色里以及聚焦于這個角色的強度?!?lt;/p><p> 研究職業(yè)倦怠的學者認為敬業(yè)是職業(yè)倦怠的對稱或者是積極的反饋(Maslach et al., 2001)。根據(jù)Maslach(2001)的研究,敬業(yè)的三個
60、特征是活力、投入和效能,與職業(yè)倦怠的的三個要素疲倦、自我疏離和效能低下相反。對倦怠和敬業(yè)的研究發(fā)現(xiàn),職業(yè)倦怠(疲倦和自我疏離)和敬業(yè)(活力和奉獻精神)的核心維度是相互對立的(Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2006)。 </p><p> Schaufeli(2002, p. 74)將敬業(yè)度定義為“一種積極的、符合理想的、與工作相關(guān)的思維狀態(tài),以活力、奉獻和吸引為特征”他們進一步指出,敬業(yè)不是一時的
61、和具體的狀態(tài),而是 “一個更為持久和普遍的情感認知的狀態(tài),不依賴于任何特定的對象、事件、個人或行為的重點” (p. 74)。</p><p> 在學術(shù)文獻中,敬業(yè)被認為與其他組織行為的結(jié)構(gòu)有關(guān),但有所不同。例如,Robinson et al. (2004, p. 8)表述:敬業(yè)包含了組織承諾和組織公民行為的很多內(nèi)容,但無論和哪一個都不是完美的組合。此外,無論是承諾還是組織公民行為都沒有充分反映敬業(yè)的兩個方面,其
62、雙向性,以及在任何敬業(yè)程度上的員工有被認為有一定的經(jīng)營意識。</p><p> 組織承諾與敬業(yè)有所不同,它是指一個人的態(tài)度和他們的組織的附件。敬業(yè)不是一種態(tài)度,它是一種在自己個角色展示中所表現(xiàn)出的認真和投入的程度。而組織公民行為涉及自愿和非正式的,以幫助同事和組織的行為,敬業(yè)的重點是一個人的表現(xiàn),而不是正式的角色外的作用和自愿的行為。</p><p> 敬業(yè)不同于工作投入。根據(jù)May
63、et al. (2004),工作投入是一個認知判斷關(guān)于滿足需要的工作能力的結(jié)果,依賴于一個人的自我形象。敬業(yè),與員工個人如何驅(qū)使自己在工作中好好表現(xiàn)有關(guān)。此外,敬業(yè)涉及到認知和行為情緒的積極利用。May et al. (2004, p. 12)還表明,“敬業(yè)可能被認為是一種個人通過對工作前期經(jīng)歷和對自己的工作角色的深入的經(jīng)驗確定他們的工作投入?!?lt;/p><p> 總之,雖然在定義和從業(yè)文學的意義上與其他結(jié)構(gòu)往
64、往重疊,但在學術(shù)文獻中已被定義為一個獨立和獨特的結(jié)構(gòu),它的組成部分認知,情感和行為都與個人的作用表現(xiàn)相關(guān)。此外,敬業(yè)要與幾個相關(guān)內(nèi)容相區(qū)別,如組織承諾,組織公民行為,工作投入。</p><p> 員工敬業(yè)度模型和理論 </p><p> 由于對員工的敬業(yè)度的研究有限,很少有在模型或理論發(fā)展上的研究。然而,有兩個數(shù)據(jù)流,提供員工敬業(yè)度模型的研究。在Kahn(1990)的員工工作時的敬業(yè)和
65、不敬業(yè)的心理狀況的定性研究中,他采訪夏令營輔導員和一些在建筑公司工作的員工,了解他們工作中敬業(yè)和不敬業(yè)的時刻。Kahn(1990)發(fā)現(xiàn),有三種心理狀況與敬業(yè)和不敬業(yè)相關(guān):意義,安全性,可用性。換言之,在更具有心理意義,安全性更高的工作中,員工更愿意投入其工作中。</p><p> 在實證檢驗Kahn(1990)模型的唯一的研究中,May et al. (2004)發(fā)現(xiàn)意義,安全性和可用性與敬業(yè)有顯著的相關(guān)性。他
66、們還發(fā)現(xiàn),工作豐富化和角色契合有積極的意義;獎勵同事和支持主管關(guān)系對于安全性有積極意義;資源的可用性是一個積極的心理預測,而在外界活動的參與是一個消極的預測。</p><p> 另一個敬業(yè)模型來自職業(yè)倦怠,把工作敬業(yè)描述為倦怠的對立面,倦怠是對敬業(yè)的侵蝕(Maslach et al., 2001)。根據(jù)Maslach et al. (2001)提出,工作與生活中有六個方面導致倦怠和敬業(yè):工作量,控制,獎勵和認可
67、,社區(qū)和社會的支持,是否公平,價值觀。他們認為,工作敬業(yè)與一個可持續(xù)的工作量,選擇和控制的感覺,適當?shù)谋碚煤酮剟?,社會的支持,有意義有價值的工作有關(guān)。敬業(yè)被認為可以調(diào)節(jié)生活工作中的這6個因素和各項工作成果的關(guān)系。</p><p> 雖然Kahn和Maslach的模型都指出,心理條件或者是前因?qū)τ诰礃I(yè)來說是必須的。他們也不能完全解釋為什么人們用不同的敬業(yè)程度來應對這些條件。一個員工敬業(yè)度更有力的解釋可以來自于社會
68、交換理論(SET)。</p><p> 社會交換理論認為義務產(chǎn)生于,處于一種相互依存狀態(tài)下的各方面之間的一系列相互作用。SET的一個基本原則是關(guān)系隨著時間的變化要演變成信任、忠誠,相互遵守一些承諾,同時遵守一定的交換規(guī)則(Cropanzano and Mictchell, 2005)。交換規(guī)則通常涉及互惠或回報規(guī)則以至于一方領(lǐng)導這樣的行為,而另一方則響應這樣的行為。例如,當個人得到他們的組織的經(jīng)濟和社會情緒的資
69、源,他們會覺得有義務回應實物和償還組織(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005)。這觀點與Robinson等人描述敬業(yè)時認為雇主與雇員之間有著一種雙向關(guān)系,是一致的。</p><p> 個人回報組織的一種方式表現(xiàn)為敬業(yè)度的水平。也就是說,員工會選擇他們投入工作的程度來回報他們所接受的組織的資源。使自己更全面地投入到自己的工作角色中,投入更大的知識、情感以及物質(zhì)資源,這是一個非常深刻的方式,用
70、來回應組織的行動。對于員工來說以不同的工作表現(xiàn)來作為賠償和其他行政決定的依據(jù)更具有難度。因此,員工更可能改變他們的敬業(yè)度來換取他們的組織資源和所提供的福利。</p><p> 總之,社會交換理論為解釋員工在工作中為什么投入更多或者更少提供了理論基礎(chǔ)。Kahn(1990)和Maslach(2001)這兩個模型所提出的敬業(yè)的條件,都可以被認為在社會交換理論中經(jīng)濟和社會情感與資源做交互。當員工從他們的組織得到這些資源
71、,他們覺得有責任向組織回報更大的敬業(yè)度。在Kahn (1990)的敬業(yè)度定義中,作為對組織中得到的資源的一種回報,要使員工感受到有責任更加投入到他們的工作中。當組織沒有提供這些資源,人更有可能退出,脫離自己的角色。因此,認知,情感和物質(zhì)資源,從組織上得到的經(jīng)濟和社會情緒資源決定著個人準備投入到自己的工作角色中。</p><p><b> 研究假設</b></p><p&
72、gt; 圖1顯示了員工敬業(yè)度模型。該模型的核心是兩種類型的員工敬業(yè):工作和組織參與。這遵循了相關(guān)角色參與的感念。也就是說,它在何種程度上反映了一個人在一個特定的組織角色中的心理作用。對于大多數(shù)組織成員而言,最占主導地位的是他們工作中的角色以及他們作為一個組織成員的角色。因此,該模型明確承認了包括工作和組織。這也遵循了以下的主張,人們有多個角色,并按照Rothbard (2001) 和May et al. (2004)建議,研究應探討在
溫馨提示
- 1. 本站所有資源如無特殊說明,都需要本地電腦安裝OFFICE2007和PDF閱讀器。圖紙軟件為CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.壓縮文件請下載最新的WinRAR軟件解壓。
- 2. 本站的文檔不包含任何第三方提供的附件圖紙等,如果需要附件,請聯(lián)系上傳者。文件的所有權(quán)益歸上傳用戶所有。
- 3. 本站RAR壓縮包中若帶圖紙,網(wǎng)頁內(nèi)容里面會有圖紙預覽,若沒有圖紙預覽就沒有圖紙。
- 4. 未經(jīng)權(quán)益所有人同意不得將文件中的內(nèi)容挪作商業(yè)或盈利用途。
- 5. 眾賞文庫僅提供信息存儲空間,僅對用戶上傳內(nèi)容的表現(xiàn)方式做保護處理,對用戶上傳分享的文檔內(nèi)容本身不做任何修改或編輯,并不能對任何下載內(nèi)容負責。
- 6. 下載文件中如有侵權(quán)或不適當內(nèi)容,請與我們聯(lián)系,我們立即糾正。
- 7. 本站不保證下載資源的準確性、安全性和完整性, 同時也不承擔用戶因使用這些下載資源對自己和他人造成任何形式的傷害或損失。
最新文檔
- 員工敬業(yè)度的前因后果[文獻翻譯]
- 炮擊金門的前因后果
- 李曄探尋植入式廣告的“前因后果”
- 談中國古代納妾制度的前因后果
- 未來世界-1970及其前因后果--孟剛的主頁
- 移動終端微博用戶習慣的前因后果研究.pdf
- 康緣戰(zhàn)略規(guī)劃報告-前因后果-final-1123
- 我國機床制造業(yè)員工工作不安全感的前因后果研究.pdf
- 雷曼兄弟破產(chǎn)的前因后果——基于金融危機背景的分析.pdf
- 1938-1942年胡適使美之前因后果_20610.pdf
- 員工敬業(yè)度外文翻譯
- 外文翻譯--建立高員工敬業(yè)度的企業(yè)文化
- 在線購物顧客滿意度前因的調(diào)查【外文翻譯】
- 員工敬業(yè)度的研究綜述
- 如何提升員工敬業(yè)度?
- 員工敬業(yè)度的研究綜述
- 建立高員工敬業(yè)度的企業(yè)文化[文獻翻譯]
- 組織提高員工敬業(yè)度的方法
- 提高員工敬業(yè)度十法
- 企業(yè)員工敬業(yè)度研究.pdf
評論
0/150
提交評論