外文題目外文題目外文出處外文作者本科畢業論文(設計)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.（節選）譯文:員工敬業度的前因后果AlanM.Saks.近幾年，員工敬業度一直受到關注。許多人聲稱，員工敬業度能預測員工產出，組織的成功，及財務表現(如股東總回報)(Bates,2004;Baumruk,2004;Harteretal.,2002;Richman,2006)。與此同時，據報道，現在員工敬業度在下降，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，多數沒有得到充分的參與或它們脫離，導致了“接觸的差距”，即在美國企業年生產力損失上達到3000億美元(Bates,2004;Johnson,2004;Kowalski,2003)。不幸的是，目前很多關于員工敬業度的書籍都是以從業文獻或者咨詢公司為依據。在關于員工敬業度的學術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的兩種類型的前因和后果：工作和企業接觸。以前的研究主要集中在一個人的工作投入。但是，有證據表明，個人的敬業程度和他在問題中的角色有關(Rothbard,2001)。因此，它有可能接觸的前因和后果取決于接觸的類型。在下一節中，員工敬業度是由后面的員工敬業度模型、理論、研究假設來定義的。什么是員工敬業度？員工敬業度，已成為廣泛采用的術語(Robinsonetal.,2004)。然而，目前可以在醫生雜志上找到很多關于員工敬業度的文章，這些雜志通常是關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和實證研究等，已經成為一個熱門話題。因此，員工敬業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構(Robinsonetal.,2004)往往聽起來更好理解。多數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。在學術文獻中，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”，不敬業是指“從工作角色中脫離出來，表現為從生理上、認知上和情感上的自我回撤和自我防衛”(p.694)。因此，根據Kahn(1990,1992)的觀點，敬業度是指員工在擔當和執行組織角色時的心理存在。Rothbard(2001,p.656)也將員工敬業度定義為心理的存在，但更進一步地指出，它涉及到兩個關鍵因素：關注和吸引。關注是指“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倦怠的學者認為敬業是職業倦怠的對稱或者是積極的反饋(Maslachetal.,2001)。根據Maslach(2001)的研究，敬業的三個特征是活力、投入和效能，與職業倦怠的的三個要素疲倦、自我疏離和效能低下相反。對倦怠和敬業的研究發現，職業倦怠(疲倦和自我疏離)和敬業(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)將敬業度定義為“一種積極的、符合理想的、與工作相關的思維狀態，以活力、奉獻和吸引為特征”他們進一步指出，敬業不是一時的和具體的狀態，而是“一個更為持久和普遍的情感認知的狀態，不依賴于任何特定的對象、事件、個人或行為的重點”(p.74)。在學術文獻中，敬業被認為與其他組織行為的結構有關，但有所不同。例如，Robinsonetal.(2004,p.8)表述：敬業包含了組織承諾和組織公民行為的很多內容，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的兩個方面，其雙向性，以及在任何敬業程度上的員工有被認為有一定的經營意識。組織承諾與敬業有所不同，它是指一個人的態度和他們的組織的附件。敬業不是一種態度，它是一種在自己個角色展示中所表現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，敬業的重點是一個人的表現，而不是正式的角色外的作用和自愿的行為。敬業不同于工作投入。根據Mayetal.(2004)，工作投入是一個認知判斷關于滿足需要的工作能力的結果，依賴于一個人的自我形象。敬業，與員工個人如何驅使自己在工作中好好表現有關。此外，敬業涉及到認知和行為情緒的積極利用。Mayetal.(2004,p.12)還表明，“敬業可能被認為是一種個人通過對工作前期經歷和對自己的工作角色的深入的經驗確定他們的工作投入?！笨傊?，雖然在定義和從業文學的意義上與其他結構往往重疊，但在學術文獻中已被定義為一個獨立和獨特的結構，它的組成部分認知，情感和行為都與個人的作用表現相關。此外，敬業要與幾個相關內容相區別，如組織承諾，組織公民行為，工作投入。員工敬業度模型和理論由于對員工的敬業度的研究有限，很少有在模型或理論發展上的研究。然而，有兩個數據流，提供員工敬業度模型的研究。在Ka