Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Work engagement arnold bakker cdps211

1,199
views

Published on

Overall model of employee work engagement. This paper discusses the evidence.

Overall model of employee work engagement. This paper discusses the evidence.

Published in: Education, Career, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,199
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
28
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Current Directions in Psychological Science http://cdp.sagepub.com/ An Evidence-Based Model of Work Engagement Arnold B. Bakker Current Directions in Psychological Science 2011 20: 265 DOI: 10.1177/0963721411414534 The online version of this article can be found at: http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/20/4/265 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Association for Psychological Science Additional services and information for Current Directions in Psychological Science can be found at: Email Alerts: http://cdp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://cdp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on August 13, 2011
  • 2. Current Directions in PsychologicalAn Evidence-Based Model of Science 20(4) 265–269 © The Author(s) 2011Work Engagement Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0963721411414534 http://cdps.sagepub.comArnold B. Bakker1 Erasmus University RotterdamAbstractEmployees who are engaged in their work are fully connected with their work roles. They are bursting with energy, dedicatedto their work, and immersed in their work activities. This article presents an overview of the concept of work engagement.I discuss the antecedents and consequences of engagement. The review shows that job and personal resources are the mainpredictors of engagement. These resources gain their salience in the context of high job demands. Engaged workers are moreopen to new information, more productive, and more willing to go the extra mile. Moreover, engaged workers proactivelychange their work environment in order to stay engaged. The findings of previous studies are integrated in an overall modelthat can be used to develop work engagement and advance job performance in today’s workplace.Keywordsemployee engagement, JD-R model, job crafting, job performance, work engagementDo you remember the last time you were really fascinated by (2004) proposed what is arguably the most often used defini-a speaker who was explaining something very energetically tion of work engagement: an active, positive work-relatedand passionately? Do you recall the occasion you had a con- state that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption.necting flight and airport service officers were doing their Vigor refers to high levels of energy and mental resilienceutmost to help you get to the right gate in time? The persons while working, whereas dedication refers to being stronglyyou met during these occasions were engaged in their work— involved in one’s work and experiencing a sense of signifi-they put their selves in their work by doing it the best way they cance, enthusiasm, and challenge. Absorption is characterizedcould. by being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in work, In this article, I discuss the phenomenon of work engage- such that time passes quickly.ment and its antecedents and consequences. Additionally, I Work engagement is different from job satisfaction in thatoutline how engaged employees stay engaged—how they take it combines high work pleasure (dedication) with high activa-initiative and create changes in how their work is performed. tion (vigor, absorption); job satisfaction is typically a moreThe literature review is summarized in an overall evidence- passive form of employee well-being. Work engagement isbased model of work engagement illustrating that engaged different from work-related flow in that it refers to a longerworkers are proactive job crafters who mobilize their own job performance episode; flow typically refers to a peak experi-challenges and job resources. ence that may last only 1 hour or even less. Finally, work engagement is different from motivation, in that it also refers to cognition (absorption) and affect (vigor)—in addition toWork Engagement motivation (dedication). Not surprisingly then, work engage-Kahn (1990) was one of the first to theorize about work ment is a better predictor of job performance than are manyengagement. He described engaged employees as being fully earlier constructs.physically, cognitively, and emotionally connected with their Most studies to date have looked at differences betweenwork roles. Engagement refers to focused energy that is individuals regarding work engagement using the validateddirected toward organizational goals (Macey, Schneider,Barbera, & Young, 2009). Engaged employees are more likely Corresponding Author:to work harder through increased levels of discretionary effort Arnold B. Bakker, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Institute of Psychology,than are those who are disengaged. Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Woudestein, T12-47, There are several definitions of engagement (see Albrecht, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands2010; Bakker & Leiter, 2010), but Schaufeli and Bakker E-mail: bakker@fsw.eur.nl; see also www.arnoldbakker.com Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on August 13, 2011
  • 3. 266 BakkerUtrecht Work Engagement Scale and the possible reasons for telecom company, Schaufeli, Bakker, and Van Rhenen (2009)these differences—for example, working conditions and per- found that changes in job resources predicted engagementsonal resources (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Xanthopoulou, over a period of 1 year. Specifically, results showed thatBakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2009a). However, recent increases in social support, autonomy, opportunities tostudies have shown that engagement may also fluctuate within learn, and performance feedback were positive predictors ofpersons from day to day. Depending on what happens during future work engagement and (reduced) registered sicknessthe day, employees show higher or lower levels of engagement absenteeism.in their work activities. It is important to note that job resources become salient and gain their motivational potential when employees are con- fronted with high job demands (e.g., quantitative, emotional,Drivers of Work Engagement and cognitive demands). Hakanen, Bakker, and DemeroutiJob resources (2005) tested this hypothesized interaction between job demands and job resources in a sample of Finnish dentistsPrevious studies have consistently shown that job resources employed in the public sector. It was hypothesized and foundsuch as social support from colleagues, performance feedback, that job resources (e.g., variability in the required professionalskill variety, autonomy, and learning opportunities are posi- skills, peer contacts) were most beneficial in maintaining worktively associated with work engagement (Albrecht, 2010; engagement under conditions of high job demands (e.g., work-Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Job resources refer to those load, unfavorable physical environment). Similar findingsphysical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that may have been reported by Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, and Xan-(a) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and thopoulou (2007). In their study of Finnish teachers workingpsychological costs; (b) be functional in achieving work goals; in elementary, secondary, and vocational schools, they foundor (c) stimulate personal growth, learning, and development that job resources particularly influenced work engagement(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Hence, resources are not only when teachers were confronted with high levels of pupil mis-necessary to deal with (high) job demands—they also are conduct. Particularly supervisor support, innovativeness,important in their own right. appreciation, and organizational climate were important job Job resources are assumed to play either an intrinsic moti- resources for teachers that helped them cope with demandingvational role because they foster employees’ growth, learning, interactions with students.and development or an extrinsic motivational role becausethey are instrumental in achieving work goals. In the formercase, job resources fulfill basic human needs, such as the needs Personal resourcesfor autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Deci & Ryan, Personal resources are positive self-evaluations that are linked1985). For instance, proper feedback fosters learning, thereby to resiliency and refer to individuals’ sense of their ability toincreasing job competence, whereas decision latitude and successfully control and have an impact on their environmentsocial support satisfy the need for autonomy and the need to (Hobfoll, Johnson, Ennis, & Jackson, 2003). It has been con-belong, respectively. vincingly shown that such positive self-evaluations predict goal Job resources may also play an extrinsic motivational role, setting, motivation, performance, job and life satisfaction, andbecause resourceful work environments foster the willingness other desirable outcomes (for a review, see Judge, Van Vianen,to dedicate one’s efforts to the work task. In such environ- & De Pater, 2004). The reason for this is that the higher an indi-ments, it is likely that the task will be completed successfully vidual’s personal resources, the more positive the person’s self-and that the goal will be attained. For instance, supportive col- regard and the more goal self-concordance is expected to beleagues and performance feedback increase the likelihood of experienced. Individuals with goal self-concordance are intrin-being successful in achieving one’s work goals. In either case, sically motivated to pursue their goals, and as a result, they trig-be it through the satisfaction of basic needs or through the ger higher performance and satisfaction.achievement of work goals, the outcome is positive, and Several authors have investigated the relationships betweenengagement is likely to occur (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). personal resources and work engagement. For example, it has Consistent with these notions about the motivational role of been shown that self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control,job resources, several studies have shown a positive relation- and the abilities to perceive and regulate emotions are positiveship between job resources and work engagement. For exam- predictors of work engagement (for an overview, see Albrecht,ple, in their 3-year panel study among 2,555 Finnish dentists, 2010). In their longitudinal survey and diary studies, Xantho-Hakanen, Perhoniemi, and Toppinen-Tanner (2008) found that poulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli (2009a, 2009b)job resources, such as the opportunity to be creative (crafts- examined the role of three personal resources (self-efficacy,manship) and positive feedback about the direct results of organizational-based self-esteem, and optimism) in predictingwork, predicted work engagement—which, in turn, predicted work engagement. Results showed that engaged employeespersonal initiative and innovativeness. In a similar vein, in are highly self-efficacious; they believe they are able to meettheir study among managers and executives of a Dutch the demands they face in a broad array of contexts. In addition, Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on August 13, 2011
  • 4. Work Engagement 267engaged workers have the tendency to believe that they willgenerally experience good outcomes in life (optimistic) andbelieve they can satisfy their needs by participating in roleswithin the organization (self-esteem).Engagement–Performance LinkThere are at least four reasons why engaged workers performbetter than nonengaged workers. First, engaged employeesoften experience positive emotions, including gratitude, joy, andenthusiasm. These positive emotions seem to broaden people’sthought–action repertoire, implying that they constantly workon their personal resources (Fredrickson, 2001). Second,engaged workers experience better health. This means that theycan focus and dedicate all their skills and energy resources totheir work. Third, as will be illustrated later, engaged employeescreate their own job and personal resources. Finally, engaged Fig. 1. The model of work engagement (based on Bakker & Demerouti,workers transfer their engagement to others in their immediate 2008). Job and personal resources independently or together predict work engagement and have a particularly positive impact on engagement when jobenvironment (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009). Since in most demands are high; engagement, in turn, positively affects job performance.organizations performance is the result of collaborative effort, Importantly, the feedback loop in the model shows how employees whothe engagement of one person may transfer to others and indi- are engaged and perform well are able to create their own resources (jobrectly improve team performance. crafting), which then foster engagement over time and create a positive gain spiral. To date, several studies have shown that work engagementis positively related to job performance (e.g., in-role perfor-mance, that is, officially required outcomes and behaviorsthat directly serve the goals of the organization; creativity; Overall Model of Work Engagementorganizational citizenship behavior). For example, Bakker, The evidence regarding the antecedents and consequences ofDemerouti, and Verbeke (2004) showed that engaged employ- work engagement can be organized in an overall model of workees received higher ratings from their colleagues on in-role engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; see Fig. 1). Accord-and extra-role performance (discretionary behaviors on the ing to this model, job resources such as social support from col-part of an employee that are believed to directly promote the leagues and supervisors, performance feedback, skill variety,effective functioning of an organization, without necessarily and autonomy start a motivational process that leads to moredirectly influencing a person’s target productivity), indicating work engagement and consequently to higher performance. Inthat engaged employees perform well and are willing to go the addition, the model postulates that job resources become moreextra mile. Further, in their study of employees working in salient and gain their motivational potential when employeesSpanish restaurants and hotels, Salanova, Agut, and Peiró are confronted with high job demands (e.g., workload, emo-(2005) showed that employee ratings of organizational tional demands, and mental demands). Further, Xanthopoulouresources, engagement, and service climate were positively and her colleagues (2009a, 2009b) have shown that job and per-related to customer ratings of employee performance and cus- sonal resources are mutually related and that personal resourcestomer loyalty. can be independent predictors of work engagement. Thus, In their recent study of Greek employees working in fast- employees who score high on optimism, self-efficacy, resil-food restaurants, Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and ience, and self-esteem are well able to mobilize their jobSchaufeli (2009b) expanded this research and made a compel- resources and generally are more engaged in their work.ling case for the predictive value of work engagement for per- The model of work engagement is graphically depicted informance on a daily basis. Participants were asked to fill in a Figure 1. As can be seen, I assume that job resources and per-survey and a diary booklet for 5 consecutive days. Consistent sonal resources independently or in combination predict workwith hypotheses, results showed that employees were more engagement. Further, job and personal resources particularlyengaged on days that were characterized by many job have a positive impact on engagement when job demands areresources. Daily job resources like supervisor coaching and high. Work engagement, in turn, has a positive impact on jobteam atmosphere contributed to employees’ personal resources performance. Importantly, the feedback loop in the model(day levels of optimism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem), which, shows how employees who are engaged and perform well arein turn, contributed to daily engagement. Importantly, this able to create their own resources, which then foster engage-study clearly showed that engaged employees perform better ment over time and create a positive gain spiral.on a daily basis. The higher employees’ levels of daily engage- It should be noted that the relationships in Figure 1 doment, the higher their objective financial returns. not refer only to differences between persons but also to Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on August 13, 2011
  • 5. 268 Bakkerdifferences within persons over time. That is, on days when an fulfill their followers’ basic needs for competence, autonomy,individual employee is exposed to more job resources (like and relatedness? Future research should try to answer thesesupport from colleagues, feedback from the supervisor, and questions by conducting multilevel studies of leaders and theirinteresting contacts with customers), (s)he should experience followers. Furthermore, it is conceivable that more engage-higher levels of state work engagement and consequently per- ment is not always better. Employees cannot always beform better. Such days should also evoke more behaviors engaged; they need moments of absence and opportunities forknown as job-crafting (see below), which then result in higher recovery. It is plausible that—even on a single working day—levels of job and personal resources (e.g., optimism, self- fluctuating levels of work engagement are better than con-efficacy) on these specific days. stant, elevated levels of engagement. Future studies should not only investigate work engagement over longer periods of time with traditional surveys, but also investigate engagement overEngagement and job crafting shorter periods like weeks and days. Finally, recent studiesRemember the examples with which I started this article—the suggest that the concept of engagement may be relevant forenergetic and passionate speaker and the service officers who other domains than work as well, including education andwere helping you get your connecting flight. These engaged sport. It seems important to more fully examine whetheremployees showed active, positive, and even proactive behav- the engagement model holds in other life domains. Bakker,ior. Indeed, engaged employees are not passive actors in work Albrecht, and Leiter (2011) offer a more elaborate researchenvironments but instead actively change their work environ- agenda for engagement.ment if needed. Employees may actively change the content ordesign of their jobs by choosing tasks, negotiating different jobcontent, and assigning meaning to their tasks or jobs. This pro- Conclusioncess of employees shaping their jobs has been referred to as job Engaged employees are physically, cognitively, and emotion-crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). As a consequence of ally connected with their work roles. They feel full of energy,job crafting, employees may be able to increase their person– are dedicated to reach their work-related goals, and are oftenjob fit and to experience enhanced meaning in their work. fully immersed in their work. Work engagement is predicted Tims, Bakker, and Derks (in press) argue that job crafting by job resources and personal resources and leads to higheris a specific form of proactive behavior in which employees job performance. Thus, work engagement is an important indi-initiate changes in their levels of job demands and job cator of occupational well-being for both employees and orga-resources. Job crafting enables employees to fit their jobs to nizations. Human resource managers can do several things totheir personal knowledge, skills, and abilities on the one hand facilitate work engagement among their employees. An impor-and to their preferences and needs on the other. Consistent tant starting point for any active policy is the baseline mea-with this view, Tims and her colleagues found that engage- surement of engagement and its drivers among all employees,ment had a positive relationship with colleague ratings of job for example by using the work engagement model presented incrafting. Engaged employees were most likely to increase this article. On the basis of this assessment, it can be deter-their job resources—for example, by asking for feedback from mined whether individual employees, teams, job positions, ortheir supervisor and mobilizing their social network. Addition- departments score low, average, or high on work engagementally, engaged employees were most likely to increase their and its antecedents, and thereby we may learn where to mostown job demands in order to create a more challenging work usefully focus interventions. Generally, interventions aimed atenvironment. For example, they were most likely to start new harnessing the positive power of work engagement shouldprojects. focus on individuals and teams and the organization at large. Recommended ReadingCurrent issues in engagement Bakker, A.B., Albrecht, S., & Leiter, M.P. (2011). Key questionsAlthough research on work engagement is flourishing, there regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work andare still many lessons to be learned about engagement. For Organizational Psychology, 20, 4–28. Discusses key questionsexample, not all researchers agree on the definition and mea- regarding work engagement in more detail than the current article.surement of engagement. Although most authors use the three- Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2009). The crossover of workdimensional model of Schaufeli and Bakker (2004)—including engagement between working couples: A closer look at the rolevigor, dedication, and absorption—some authors have argued of empathy. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 220–236. Anthat the definition should include a behavioral dimension illustrative study among couples showing that work engagement(Macey et al., 2009). In addition, not much is known about may be contagious.how leaders influence their followers’ engagement and the Bakker, A.B., & Leiter, M.P. (Eds.). (2010). (See References). A thor-mechanisms that explain this influence. Do leaders set the ough, far-reaching theoretical analysis of work engagement.stage for follower engagement by offering the right mix Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagementbetween job demands and resources? Do effective leaders and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on August 13, 2011
  • 6. Work Engagement 269 692–724. A historical classic—one of the first papers to raise atten- Hakanen, J.J., Perhoniemi, L., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Posi- tion about employee engagement. tive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engage-Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. ment, personal initiative and work–unit innovativeness. Journal (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on of Vocational Behavior, 73, 78–91. the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Hobfoll, S.E., Johnson, R.J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A.P. (2003). Organizational Psychology, 82, 183–200. A representative study Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among that illustrates original research about daily work engagement. inner city women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 632–643.Declaration of Conflicting Interests Judge, T.A., Van Vianen, A.E.M., & De Pater, I. (2004). EmotionalThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to stability, core self-evaluations, and job outcomes: A review of thethe research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. evidence and an agenda for future research. Human Performance, 17, 325–346.References Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engage-Albrecht, S.L. (Ed.). (2010). Handbook of employee engagement: ment and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Jour- Perspectives, issues, research and practice. Glos, England: nal, 33, 692–724. Edward Elgar. Macey, W.H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K., & Young, S.A. (2009).Bakker, A.B., Albrecht, S., & Leiter, M.P. (2011). Key questions Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and competi- regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and tive advantage. London, England: Blackwell. Organizational Psychology, 20, 4–28. Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J.M. (2005). Linking organizationalBakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work resources and work engagement to employee performance and engagement. Career Development International, 13, 209–223. customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal ofBakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the Job Applied Psychology, 90, 1217–1227. Demands—Resources model to predict burnout and perfor- Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources mance. Human Resource Management, 43, 83–104. and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-Bakker, A.B., Hakanen, J.J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, 274–284. and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30,Bakker, A.B., & Leiter, M.P. (Eds.). (2010). Work engagement: A 893–917. handbook of essential theory and research. New York, NY: Psy- Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (in press). Development of the chology Press. job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior.Bakker, A.B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2009). The crossover of daily Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning work engagement: Test of an actor–partner interdependence employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Manage- model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1562–1571. ment Review, 26, 179–201.Deci, W.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self- Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum. (2009a). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, per-Fredrickson, B.L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive sonal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Behavior, 74, 235–44. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B.Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2005). How dentists cope (2009b). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study with their job demands and stay engaged: The moderating role of on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupa- job resources. European Journal of Oral Sciences, 113, 479–487. tional and Organizational Psychology, 82, 183–200. Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on August 13, 2011