外文翻譯-員工敬業(yè)度的前因后果

外文題目外文題目外文出處外文作者本科畢業(yè)論文(設(shè)計)外文翻譯AntecedentsandconsequencesofemployeeengagementJournalofManagerialPsychology.2006(7):p600-619AlanM.saks.原文:AntecedentsandconsequencesofemployeeengagementAlanM.Saks.Inrecentyears,therehasbeenagreatdealofinterestinemployeeengagement.Manyhaveclaimedthatemployeeengagementpredictsemployeeoutcomes,organizationalsuccess,andfinancialperformance(e.g.totalshareholderreturn)(Bates,2004;Baumruk,2004;Harteretal.,2002;Richman,2006).Atthesametime,ithasbeenreportedthatemployeeengagementisonthedeclineandthereisadeepeningdisengagementamongemployeestoday(Bates,2004;Richman,2006).Ithasevenbeenreportedthatthemajorityofworkerstoday,roughlyhalfofallAmericansintheworkforce,arenotfullyengagedortheyaredisengagedleadingtowhathasbeenreferredtoasan“engagementgap”thatiscostingUSbusinesses$300billionayearinlostproductivity(Bates,2004;Johnson,2004;Kowalski,2003).Unfortunately,muchofwhathasbeenwrittenaboutemployeeengagementcomesfromthepractitionerliteratureandconsultingfirms.Thereisasurprisingdearthofresearchonemployeeengagementintheacademicliterature(Robinsonetal.,2004).Thepurposeofthisstudywastoinvestigatetheantecedentsandconsequencesoftwotypesofemployeeengagement:jobandorganizationengagements.Previousresearchhasfocusedprimarilyonengagementinone'sjob.However,thereisevidencethatone'sdegreeofengagementdependsontheroleinquestion(Rothbard,2001).Thus,itispossiblethattheantecedentsandconsequencesofengagementdependonthetypeofengagement.Inthenextsection,employeeengagementisdefinedfollowedbyadiscussionofemployeeengagementmodelsandtheoryandthestudyhypotheses.Whatisemployeeengagement?Employeeengagementhasbecomeawidelyusedandpopularterm(Robinsonetal.,2004).However,mostofwhathasbeenwrittenaboutemployeeengagementcanbefoundinpractitionerjournalswhereithasitsbasisinpracticeratherthantheoryandempiricalresearch.AsnotedbyRobinsonetal.(2004),therehasbeensurprisinglylittleacademicandempiricalresearchonatopicthathasbecomesopopular.Asaresult,employeeengagementhastheappearanceofbeingsomewhatfaddishorwhatsomemightcall,“oldwineinanewbottle.”Tomakemattersworse,employeeengagementhasbeendefinedinmanydifferentwaysandthedefinitionsandmeasuresoftensoundlikeotherbetterknownandestablishedconstructslikeorganizationalcommitmentandorganizationalcitizenshipbehavior(Robinsonetal.,2004).Mostoftenithasbeendefinedasemotionalandintellectualcommitmenttotheorganization(Baumruk,2004;Richman,2006;Shaw,2005)ortheamountofdiscretionaryeffortexhibitedbyemployeesintheirjobs(Franketal.,2004).Intheacademicliterature,anumberofdefinitionshavebeenprovided.Kahn(1990,p.694)definespersonalengagementas“theharnessingoforganizationmembers'selvestotheirworkroles;inengagement,peopleemployandexpressthemselvesphysically,cognitively,andemotionallyduringroleperformances.”Personaldisengagementrefersto“theuncouplingofselvesfromworkroles;indisengagement,peoplewithdrawanddefendthemselvesphysically,cognitively,oremotionallyduringroleperformances”(p.694).Thus,accordingtoKahn(1990,1992),engagementmeanstobepsychologicallypresentwhenoccupyingandperforminganorganizationalrole.Rothbard(2001,p.656)alsodefinesengagementaspsychologicalpresencebutgoesfurthertostatethatitinvolvestwocriticalcomponents:attentionandabsorption.Attentionrefersto“cognitiveavailabilityandtheamountoftimeonespendsthinkingaboutarole”whileabsorption“meansbeingengrossedinaroleandreferstotheintensityofone'sfocusonarole.”Burnoutresearchersdefineengagementastheoppositeorpositiveantithesisofburnout(Maslachetal.,2001).AccordingtoMaslachetal.(2001),engagementischaracterizedbyenergy,involvement,andefficacy,thedirectoppositeofthethreeburnoutdimensionsofexhaustion,cynicism,andinefficacy.Researchonburnoutandengagementhasfoundthatthecoredimensionsofburnout(exhaustionandcynicism)andengagement(vigoranddedication)areoppositesofeachother(Gonzalez-Romaetal.,2006).Schaufelietal.(2002,p.74)defineengagement“asapositive,fulfilling,work-relatedstateofmindthatischaracterizedbyvigor,dedication,andabsorption.”Theyfurtherstatethatengagementisnotamomentaryandspecificstate,butrather,itis“amorepersistentandpervasiveaffective-cognitivestatethatisnotfocusedonanyparticularobject,event,individual,orbehavior”(p.74).Intheacademicliterature,engagementissaidtoberelatedtobutdistinctfromotherconstructsinorganizationalbehavior.Forexample,Robinsonetal.(2004,p.8)statethat:engagementcontainsmanyoftheelementsofbothcommitmentandOCB,butisbynomeansaperfectmatchwitheither.Inaddition,neithercommitmentnorOCBreflectsufficientlytwoaspectsofengagement—itstwo-waynature,andtheextenttowhichengagedemployeesareexpectedtohaveanelementofbusinessawareness.Organizationalcommitmentalsodiffersfromengagementinthatitreferstoaperson'sattitudeandattachmenttowardstheirorganization.Engagementisnotanattitude;itisthedegreetowhichanindividualisattentiveandabsorbedintheperformanceoftheirroles.AndwhileOCBinvolvesvoluntaryandinformalbehaviorsthatcanhelpco-workersandtheorganization,thefocusofengagementisone'sformalroleperformanceratherthanextra-roleandvoluntarybehavior.Engagementalsodiffersfromjobinvolvement.AccordingtoMayetal.(2004),jobinvolvementistheresultofacognitivejudgmentabouttheneedsatisfyingabilitiesofthejobandistiedtoone'sself-image.Engagementhastodowithhowindividualsemploythemselvesintheperformanceoftheirjob.Furthermore,engagementinvolvestheactiveuseofemotionsandbehaviorsinadditiontocognitions.Mayetal.(2004,p.12)alsosuggestthat“engagementmaybethoughtofasanantecedenttojobinvolvementinthatindividualswhoexperiencedeepengagementintheirrolesshouldcometoidentifywiththeirjobs.”Insummary,althoughthedefinitionandmeaningofengagementinthepractitionerliteratureoftenoverlapswithotherconstructs,intheacademicliteratureithasbeendefinedasadistinctanduniqueconstructthatconsistsofcognitive,emotional,andbehavioralcomponentsthatareassociatedwithindividualroleperformance.Furthermore,engagementisdistinguishablefromseveralrelatedconstructs,mostnotablyorganizationalcommitment,organizationalcitizenshipbehavior,andjobinvolvement.EmployeeengagementmodelsandtheoryGiventhelimitedresearchonemployeeengagement,therehasbeenlittleinthewayofmodelortheorydevelopment.However,therearetwostreamsofresearchthatprovidemodelsofemployeeengagement.Inhisqualitativestudyonthepsychologicalconditionsofpersonalengagementanddisengagementatwork,Kahn(1990)interviewedsummercampcounselorsandorganizationalmembersofanarchitecturefirmabouttheirmomentsofengagementanddisengagementatwork.Kahn(1990)foundthattherewerethreepsychologicalconditionsassociatedwithengagementordisengagementatwork:meaningfulness,safety,andavailability.Inotherwords,workersweremoreengagedatworkinsituationsthatofferedthemmorepsychologicalmeaningfulnessandpsychologicalsafety,andwhentheyweremorepsychologicallyavailable.IntheonlystudytoempiricallytestKahn's(1990)model,Mayetal.(2004)foundthatmeaningfulness,safety,andavailabilityweresignificantlyrelatedtoengagement.Theyalsofoundthatjobenrichmentandrolefitwerepositivepredictorsofmeaningfulness;rewardingco-workerandsupportivesupervisorrelationswerepositivepredictorsofsafetywhileadherencetoco-workernormsandself-consciousnesswerenegativepredictors;andresourcesavailablewasapositivepredictorofpsychologicalavailabilitywhileparticipationinoutsideactivitieswasanegativepredictor.Theothermodelofengagementcomesfromtheburnoutliteraturewhichdescribesjobengagementasthepositiveantithesisofburnoutnotingthatburnoutinvolvestheerosionofengagementwithone'sjob(Maslachetal.,2001).AccordingtoMaslachetal.(2001),sixareasofwork-lifeleadtoburnoutandengagement:workload,control,rewardsandrecognition,communityandsocialsupport,perceivedfairness,andvalues.Theyarguethatjobengagementisassociatedwithasustainableworkload,feelingsofchoiceandcontrol,appropriaterecognitionandreward,asupportiveworkcommunity,fairnessandjustice,andmeaningfulandvaluedwork.Likeburnout,engagementisexpectedtomediatethelinkbetweenthesesixwork-lifefactorsandvariousworkoutcomes.AlthoughbothKahn's(1990)andMaslachetal.'s(2001)modelsindicatethepsychologicalconditionsorantecedentsthatarenecessaryforengagement,theydonotfullyexplainwhyindividualswillrespondtotheseconditionswithvaryingdegreesofengagement.Astrongertheoreticalrationaleforexplainingemployeeengagementcanbefoundinsocialexchangetheory(SET).SETarguesthatobligationsaregeneratedthroughaseriesofinteractionsbetweenpartieswhoareinastateofreciprocalinterdependence.AbasictenetofSETisthatrelationshipsevolveovertimeintotrusting,loyal,andmutualcommitmentsaslongasthepartiesabidebycertain“rules”ofexchange(CropanzanoandMictchell,2005).Rulesofexchangeusuallyinvolvereciprocityorrepaymentrulessuchthattheactionsofonepartyleadtoaresponseoractionsbytheotherparty.Forexample,whenindividualsreceiveeconomicandsocioemotionalresourcesfromtheirorganization,theyfeelobligedtorespondinkindandrepaytheorganization(CropanzanoandMitchell,2005).ThisisconsistentwithRobinsonetal.'s(2004)descriptionofengagementasatwo-wayrelationshipbetweentheemployerandemployee.Onewayforindividualstorepaytheirorganizationisthroughtheirlevelofengagement.Thatis,employeeswillchoosetoengagethemselvestovaryingdegreesandinresponsetotheresourcestheyreceivefromtheirorganization.Bringingoneselfmorefullyintoone'sworkrolesanddevotinggreateramountsofcognitive,emotional,andphysicalresourcesisaveryprofoundwayforindividualstorespondtoanorganization'sactions.Itismoredifficultforemployeestovarytheirlevelsofjobperformancegiventhatperformanceisoftenevaluatedandusedasthebasisforcompensationandotheradministrativedecisions.Thus,employeesaremorelikelytoexchangetheirengagementforresourcesandbenefitsprovidedbytheirorganization..Insummary,SETprovidesatheoreticalfoundationtoexplainwhyemployeeschoosetobecomemoreorlessengagedintheirworkandorganization.TheconditionsofengagementinbothKahn's(1990)andMaslachetal.'s(2001)modelcanbeconsideredeconomicandsocioemotionalexchangeresourceswithinSCT.Whenemployeesreceivetheseresourcesfromtheirorganizationtheyfeelobligedtorepaytheorganizationwithgreaterlevelsofengagement.IntermsofKahn's(1990)definitionofengagement,employeesfeelobligedtobringthemselvesmoredeeplyintotheirroleperformancesasrepaymentfortheresourcestheyreceivefromtheirorganization.Whentheorganizationfailstoprovidetheseresources,individualsaremorelikelytowithdrawanddisengagethemselvesfromtheirroles.Thus,theamountofcognitive,emotional,andphysicalresourcesthatanindividualispreparedtodevoteintheperformanceofone'sworkrolesiscontingentontheeconomicandsocioemotionalresourcesreceivedfromtheorganization.StudyhypothesesFigure1showsamodelofemployeeengagement.Atthecoreofthemodelaretwotypesofemployeeengagement:jobandorganizationengagements.Thisfollowsfromtheconceptualizationofengagementasrolerelated(Kahn,1990;Rothbard,2001);thatis,itreflectstheextenttowhichanindividualispsychologicallypresentinaparticularorganizationalrole.Thetwomostdominantrolesformostorganizationalmembersaretheirworkroleandtheirroleasamemberofanorganization.Therefore,themodelexplicitlyacknowledgesthisbyincludingbothjobandorganizationengagements.ThisalsofollowsfromthenotionthatpeoplehavemultiplerolesandassuggestedbyRothbard(2001)aswellasMayetal.(2004),researchshouldexamineengagementinmultipleroleswithinorganizations.AntecedentsofemployeeengagementAlthoughthereislittleempiricalresearchonthefactorsthatpredictemployeeengagement,itispossibletoidentifyanumberofpotentialantecedentsfromKahn's(1990)andMaslachetal.'s(2001)model.Whiletheantecedentsmightdifferforjobandorganizationengagement,identicalhypothesesaremadeforbothtypesofengagementgiventhelackofpreviousresearchandthisbeingthefirststudytoexaminebothjobandorganizationengagement.（節(jié)選）譯文:員工敬業(yè)度的前因后果AlanM.Saks.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(yù)測員工產(chǎn)出，組織的成功，及財務(wù)表現(xiàn)(如股東總回報)(Bates,2004;Baumruk,2004;Harteretal.,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(dǎo)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,2003)。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(xué)術(shù)文獻研究中有一個令人驚訝的研究(Robinsonetal.,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(shè)來定義的。什么是員工敬業(yè)度？員工敬業(yè)度，已成為廣泛采用的術(shù)語(Robinsonetal.,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(xué)術(shù)和實證研究等，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”。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)(Robinsonetal.,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。在學(xué)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(dān)當(dāng)和執(zhí)行組織角色時的心理存在。Rothbard(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?！毖芯柯殬I(yè)倦怠的學(xué)者認為敬業(yè)是職業(yè)倦怠的對稱或者是積極的反饋(Maslachetal.,2001)。根據(jù)Maslach(2001)的研究，敬業(yè)的三個特征是活力、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-Romaetal.,2006)。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)。在學(xué)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，Robinsonetal.(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。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。敬業(yè)不同于工作投入。根據(jù)Mayetal.(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。Mayetal.(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?！笨傊m然在定義和從業(yè)文學(xué)的意義上與其他結(jié)構(gòu)往往重疊，但在學(xué)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。員工敬業(yè)度模型和理論由于對員工的敬業(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Ka