外文翻译--员工敬业度的前因后果

《外文翻译--员工敬业度的前因后果》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（13页珍藏版）》请在毕设资料网上搜索。

1、中文 3219 字 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 Psychology.2006(7):p600-619 外文作者 Alan M. saks. 原文 ： Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement Alan M. Saks. In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in employee eng

2、agement. 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 th

3、e 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 “

4、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 res

5、earch 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 ones job. How

6、ever, there is evidence that ones 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

7、 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

8、 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, “o

9、ld 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).

10、 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 provi

11、ded. 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 selv

12、es 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

13、(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

14、in a role and refers to the intensity of ones 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