Work Engagement by Alejandro Arias

• 2012

Ciencia & Trabajo • YEAR 14 • SPECIAL ISSUE • MARCH

Ciencia & Trabajo YEAR 14 • SPECIAL ISSUE • MARCH • 2012

FUNDACIÓN CIENTÍFICA Y TECNOLÓGICA ASOCIACIÓN CHILENA DE SEGURIDAD

ISSN 0718-0306 versión impresa, ISSN 0718-2449 versión en línea, Cienc Trab. 2012 march; 14 (special issue)

A Special Issue on Work Engagement

w w w. c i e n c i a y t r a b a j o . c l

How Organizational Strategies Predict Team Work Engagement | 7 How do Engaged Employees Stay Engaged? | 16 Workplace Relationships as Demands and Resources | 23 The Empirical Distinctiveness of Work Engagement and Workaholism among Hospital Nurses in Japan | 31 Personal Resources Contribution to Engagement | 37 Investigating the Associations between Ministerial Resources, Personality Traits and Engagement | 44 Reciprocal Relationships Between Work Engagement and Task-Related, Interpersonal, and Organizational Resources | 53 Bridging the Practice and Science of Employee Engagement | 61 Similarities and Differences Between Engagement and Workaholism among Finnish Judges | 72 Explaining Nurses’ Engagement and Performance with Social Exchange with Hospital | 81 Studying With Passion: Personal Initiative and Engagement Relationship | 89

Editorial | Ciencia & Trabajo

Editorial Work Engagement In 2002 a seminal article of Work Engagement was published in Journal of Happiness Studies by Schaufeli, Salanova, Bakker & González-Romá. Since then, hundreds of scientific articles had been published around the globe, and the great interest and publications on the topic still continues. For example, a search (January, 2012) in PsycINFO, the leading database of academic publications in psychology, yielded 140 peer reviewed journal articles on ‘‘work engagement’’, 61 on ‘‘employee engagement’’, and 30 on “job engagement”. And more importantly, more than 80% of these articles used the UWES (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, Schaufeli, Salanova et al., 2002) as the measure of the construct. It seems that Work Engagement is a very popular topic, not only in research but also in consultancy as well. For instance, a Google search (January, 2012) reveals 28,600,000 hits for ‘‘employee engagement’’ and 632,000,000 hits for ‘‘work engagement’’. If we look into the past about the “story” of work engagement, we can associate its study to the idea that after years and years of being studying job burnout (the theoretical opposite to work engagement), it was time to shift our focus from investigating the negative side of psychological health at work and start to study its positive side. This is coincident with the Positive Psychology movement, which became more prominent since the beginnings of the century. Whereas traditional psychology focuses on disease, disability and malfunctioning, Positive Psychology focuses on well-being, human strength and optimal functioning. Following this recent trend, Luthans (2002, p. 179) argued that we need positive organizational research as well, which he defined as ‘… the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement in today’s workplace’. Currently, Positive Organizational Psychology moved around the globe with more and more specific scientific journals, conferences and seminars, university teaching programs and PhD theses. In that International exciting context, we can characterize work engagement as the competence (energy or vigour) and willingness (involvement or dedication) to work passionately and with enthusiasm. Furthermore, empirical work seems to confirm the divergent role of the third dimension of work engagement—absorption (e.g., Salanova, Llorens, Cifre, Martínez, & Schaufeli, 2003; Schaufeli, Taris, & van Rhenen, 2008). To sum up, to recognise work engagement, we have to focus on its three main indicators: Vigor. A work engaged person feels energetic, strong, and

vibrant while at work. He/she feels confident, can take a punch, and does not easily get discouraged. Dedication. Work engaged employees feel connected to their work and are enthusiastic about it. They do care about what happens at work. They find their work meaningful and are proud of their job. Absorption. Work engaged employees are completely immersed in their work; they are sucked in to it, or absorbed. They are focussed, find their job challenging and enjoy what they do, and often forget time when they are working. Despite work engagement has been investigated during last decades, it is still important to know more about the underlying psychological mechanisms that explain how work engagement is developed over time, its antecedents and consequences, and, more importantly, what are “the stronger” theoretical models that can explain work engagement over time. In addition, it is necessary to understand how work engagement is related to opposite constructs such as burnout and workaholism, what are the differences among work engagement and similar constructs such as work passion, how work engagement is related to other resources at different levels (such as personality, emotional intelligence, team resources and organizational variables), and how are these relations (i.e., reciprocal, causal?). Moreover, appears relevant to consider using different methodological approaches to study work engagement (such as qualitative methods for example) in order to understand better the construct, and finally, but not least important, how work engagement is related with important outcomes for companies specially in an economic crisis as the one we are currently experiencing (for example, job performance and productivity, proactive behaviour and personal initiative, and job crafting). International prestigious researchers about work engagement put together their knowledge and empirical findings in their studies about the topic. The result: this special issue about work engagement that consider most of the topics listed before. The aims are to reflect and go into the questions, gaps and current debates and topics related to work engagement around the globe (from Japan to Canada through Europe). Each of the researchers involved in this special issue attempts to bring to the readers the best and hot topics on work engagement. I hope that these articles are useful to your research and professional practice and, I really thank the authors for having enthusiasm and “real” engagement on this piece of work. Thank you very much to all of you.

YEAR 14 • SPECIAL ISSUE • MARS • 2012

Ciencia & Trabajo

ISSN 0718-0306 versión impresa ISSN 0718-2449 versión en línea

Director: Pedro Cárdenas Editor Jefe: Leonardo Varela Referencias e Indización: María del Carmen Sosa Corrector de Texto: Ramón Espinoza Traducción Inglés: Pablo Valencia Diseño Gráfico: Corina García Distribución: Mauricio Millares

Revista Ciencia & Trabajo se encuentra en las siguientes bases de datos: • Dialnet (www.dialnet.com) • EBSCO (www.ebscohost.com) • Latindex (www.latindex.org) • Latindex (catálogo) (www.latindex.org) • LILACS (www.bireme.br) • Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory (www.ulrichsweb.com) • Psicodoc (www.psicodoc.copmadrid.org) • e-revistas (www.erevistas.csic.es) • IMBIOMED (www.imbiomed.com)

Foto portada: Banco de fotos ACHS.

CONSEJO EDITORIAL: PhD Arie Shirom Universidad de Tel Aviv, Israel. PhD. Carlos Díaz Universidad de Chile, Chile. Dra. Catterina Ferreccio Departamento de Salud Pública, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile. PhD. Christina Maslach Universidad de California, Berkeley, USA. PhD. Dana Loomis Escuela de Salud Pública, Universidad de Carolina del Norte, USA. Dr. Eduardo Algranti FUNDACENTRO, Brasil. PhD. Eusebio Rial-González Agencia Europea de Seguridad y Salud en el Trabajo, España. PhD. Juan Andrés Pucheu Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile. PhD. Kyle Steenland Escuela de Salud Pública, Universidad de Emory, USA. Dra. Luz Claudio Mount Sinai School of Medicine, USA. PhD. Marisa Salanova Universidad Jaume I de Castellón, España. PhD. Marisol Concha Asociación Chilena de Seguridad, Chile. Ing. Nella Marchetti Universidad de Chile, Chile. Dr. Oscar Nieto Fundación Iberoamericana de Seguridad y Salud Ocupacional, Argentina. PhD. Pablo Livacic Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Chile. PhD. Pedro R. Gil-Monte Universidad de Valencia, España. Dr. Rubén Torres Organización Panamericana de la Salud, OPS / Organización Mundial de la Salud, OMS, Chile. PhD. Sarah Gammage Organización Internacional del Trabajo, OIT. PhD. Shrikant Bangdiwala Escuela de Salud Pública, Universidad Carolina del Norte, USA. PhD. Steven Markowitz Queens College, USA. Ms. Víctor Córdova Asociación Chilena de Seguridad, Chile.

Para revisar y descargar éste y números anteriores de Ciencia & Trabajo en formato PDF, visite

www.cienciaytrabajo.cl

“C&T, Ciencia & Trabajo” es una publicación trimestral, propiedad de la Fundación Científica y Tecnológica Asociación Chilena de Seguridad. Derechos Reservados. Todos los textos publicados están protegidos por derecho de autor, conforme a la ley No 17.336 de la República de Chile. Se autoriza la publicación posterior o la reproducción total o parcial de los artículos, en formato impreso o electrónico, siempre y cuando se cite “C&T, Ciencia & Trabajo”, como fuente primaria de publicación. Vicuña Mackenna 210, piso 6, Providencia - Chile. Teléfono: (56-2) 685 3884 • e-mail: cyt@achs.cl • Internet: www.cienciaytrabajo.cl Imprenta: DONNEBAUM S.A. www.donnebaum.cl

Ciencia & Trabajo

Index | Ciencia & Trabajo

Index

Índice

1 3 4

Editorial Index In this Issue

Original Articles How Organizational Practices Predict Team Work 7

Engagement: The Role of Organizational Trust Acosta H, Salanova M, Llorens S

How do Engaged Employees Stay Engaged? Bakker A, Demerouti E, Xanthopoulou D

Workplace Relationships as Demands and Resources: A Model of Burnout and Work Engagement Leiter M, Nicholson R, Patterson A, Spence H The Empirical Distinctiveness of Work Engagement and Workaholism among Hospital Nurses in Japan: The effect on Sleep Quality and Job Performance Kubota K, Shimazu A, Kawakami N, Takahashi M, Nakata A, Schaufeli W Personal Resources (Emotional Intelligence, Core Selfevaluation and Positive Affectivity) Contribution to Engagement: Analysis on Spanish College Students and Employees Durán A, Extremera N, Rey L

Editorial Índice En este número

Artículos Originales ¿Cómo Predicen las Prácticas Organizacionales el 7

Engagement en el Trabajo en Equipo?: El Rol de la Confianza Organizacional Acosta H, Salanova M, Llorens S

¿Cómo los Empleados Mantienen su Engagement en el Trabajo? Bakker A, Demerouti E, Xanthopoulou D

Las Relaciones Interpersonales en el Lugar de Trabajo Como Demandas y Recursos Laborales: Un Modelo de Burnout y Engagement Leiter M, Nicholson R, Patterson A, Spence H

Distinción Empírica Entre Engagement y Trabajolismo en Enfermeras Hospitalarias de Japón: Efecto Sobre la Calidad del Sueño y el Desempeño Laboral Kubota K, Shimazu A, Kawakami N, Takahashi M, Nakata A, Schaufeli W

La Contribución de Los Recursos Personales (Inteligencia Emocional, Core Self-evaluation y Afectividad Positiva) para el Engagement: Un Análisis en Estudiantes Universitarios y Trabajadores Españoles Durán A, Extremera N, Rey L

Investigación de las Asociaciones entre los Recursos Ministeriales, Rasgos de la Personalidad y Engagement entre el Clero Indio Newman E, De Witte H

Investigating the Associations between Ministerial Resources, Personality Traits and Engagement among the Indian Clergy Newman E, De Witte H

The More You Give, the More You Get? Reciprocal Relationships Between Work Engagement and TaskRelated, Interpersonal, and Organizational Resources Kubicek B, Korunka C, Paškvan M

Bridging the Practice and Science of Employee Engagement: A Qualitative Investigation Albrecht S, Wilson-Evered E

¿Mientras más Das, más Recibes? Relaciones Recíprocas entre el Engagement Laboral y los Recursos Asociados a las Labores, Interpersonales y Organizacionales Kubicek B, Korunka C, Paškvan M

Too Good to Be True? Similarities and Differences Between Engagement and Workaholism among Finnish Judges Hakanen J, Rodríguez A, Perhoniemi R

Uniendo La Ciencia y La Práctica del Engagement Laboral: Una Investigación Cualitativa Albrecht S, Wilson-Evered E

Explaining Nurses’ Engagement and Performance with Social Exchange with Hospital Chambel M

¿Muy Bueno para Ser Cierto? Similitudes y Diferencias entre el Engagement y la Adicción al Trabajo en Jueces Finlandeses Hakanen J, Rodríguez A, Perhoniemi R

Studying With Passion: Personal Initiative and Engagement Relationship Lisbona A, Bernabé M, Palací F, Gómez A, Martín M

Explicando el Engagement y el Desempeño de las Enfermeras que Presentan Intercambio Social con el Hospital Chambel M

Estudiar con Pasión: Relación con la Iniciativa Personal y el Engagement Lisbona A, Bernabé M, Palací F, Gómez A, Martín M

In this issue ORIGINAL ARTICLES How Organizational Strategies Predict Team Work Engagement: The Role of Organizational Trust This study contributes to the understanding of the relationship between healthy organizational strategies, organizational trust and work engagement based on the Model of Healthy and Resilient Organizations. A sample of 518 employees from Spanish Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs) is used. How do Engaged Employees Stay Engaged? This work aims to discover what employees can do to be more engaged with their work. In this line the enduring engagement is defined and different researches exploring the relationship between engagement - (a) job performance, (b) proactive behaviour and (c) customization work are analyzed. Workplace Relationships as Demands and Resources: A Model of Burnout and Work Engagement The present paper investigates the relationship between interpersonal encounters at work and experiences of burnout and engagement in a longitudinal sample of Canadian nursing staff (N = 472). Hypotheses about the demands of the workplace (incivility) and resources (citizenship) are presented. The Empirical Distinctiveness of Work Engagement and Workaholism among Hospital Nurses in Japan: the effect on Sleep Quality and Job Performance The aim of this study is to prove the distinction between engagement and workaholics, studying their relationship to sleep quality and work performance. Interviews to a sample of 447 nurses from 3 hospitals in Japan by a self-administered questionnaire were conducted. Personal Resources (Emotional Intelligence, Core Selfevaluation and Positive Affectivity) Contribution to Engagement: Analysis on Spanish College Students and Employees This study examines the rise of the validity on the dimensions of emotional intelligence beyond the core self-evaluations (critical self-evaluations) and positive affectivity as predictors of work engagement in both university students and workers. Investigating the Associations between Ministerial Resources, Personality Traits and Engagement among the Indian Clergy The following study attempts to explore if personality traits could play an important role in priests being positively motivated 4

and engaged in priestly life and ministry. The present study on clergy engagement among a sample of 511 priests employed the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale to tap engagement, Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire to tap ministerial resources and the NEO FFI Personality Inventory to tap personality traits. The More You Give, the More You Get? Reciprocal Relationships Between Work Engagement and Task-Related, Interpersonal, and Organizational Resources This work unravels the interaction between the Engagement of workers and job resources, when considering separately the job resources related to interpersonal and organizational tasks. Bridging the Practice and Science of Employee Engagement: A Qualitative Investigation This qualitative study sought to map the extent of the science-practice divide and to further inform the content of the science and the practice of employee engagement considering a sample of 51 senior operational and human resource managers of a large multi-national mining company. Too Good to Be True? Similarities and Differences Between Engagement and Workaholism among Finnish Judges This research of a representative sample of Finnish judges (N = 550) investigates the similarities and differences between work engagement and workaholism by using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. Explaining Nursesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Engagement and Performance with Social Exchange with Hospital This study investigated the impact of a social exchange relationship on workersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; engagement and the relationship between this positive psychological state and workersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; performance. This paper uses a sample of nurses from a Portuguese public hospital (N=249). Studying With Passion: Personal Initiative and Engagement Relationship This article studies the Spanish adaptation of the harmonious passion and obsessive passion scale (Vallerand et al. 2003) and the proposal of an exploratory model capable of analyze the harmonious passion and obsessive passion; the personal initiative; the engagement; and perceived learning. A sample of 266 students of higher degrees from three colleges (UNED, UMH and UA) participated in this study. | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 |

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article

How Organizational Practices Predict Team Work Engagement: The Role of Organizational Trust

¿Cómo Predicen las Prácticas Organizacionales el Engagement en el Trabajo en Equipo?: El Rol de la Confianza Organizacional Mg. Hedy Acosta1, Marisa Salanova, Phd1 and Susana Llorens, Phd1 1. WONT Research Team. Universitat Jaume I, Spain.

ABSTRACT

The current study aims to contribute to our understanding of the relationship between healthy organizational practices, organizational trust and team work engagement. It is based on the Healthy & Resilient Organizations Model (Salanova, Llorens, Cifre, & Martínez, 2012) and examines 518 employees nested in 55 teams from 13 small-and medium-sized enterprises using data aggregated at the work-unit level. Healthy organizational practices, organizational trust and team work engagement were aggregated from team members’ perceptions using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC1 and ICC2) taking the group as the referent. Structural Equation Modeling by AMOS revealed that, as expected, organizational trust plays a full mediating role among healthy organizational practices and team work engagement at the team. Theoretical and practical contributions based on the Healthy & Resilient Organizations Model are discussed. Key words: Organizational practices, organizational trust, team work engagement.

Global economic conditions, faster changes in labor market, and the social and economic crisis are making it increasingly more important to promote positive experiences in organizations, such as organizational trust. It is understood as “employees´ willingness at being vulnerable to the actions of their organizations, whose behavior and actions they cannot control”.1 Organizational trust is important in working life and organizational effectiveness;2-5 and has received substantial attention in the management and social science literature.6 In this way, previous research agrees that trust is pivotal, useful in organizational activities and a source of sustainable competitive advantage.7,8 Despite its relevance, few studies have focused on trust at the team level, especially when groups play a crucial role in contemporary

RESUMEN

El presente estudio contribuye a entender la relación entre prácticas organizacionales saludables, confianza organizacional y engagement en el trabajo en equipo basándose en el Modelo de Organizaciones Saludables y Resilientes (HERO, Salanova, Llorens, Cifre, y Martínez) utilizando datos agregados a nivel de equipo. La muestra está compuesta por 518 empleados anidados en 55 equipos que pertenecen a 13 Pequeñas y Medianas Empresas (PyMEs) españolas. Las variables se agregaron a nivel de equipos utilizando el Coeficiente de Correlación Intraclase (CCI1 y CCI2). De acuerdo a lo esperado, los Modelos de Ecuaciones Estructurales revelaron que la confianza organizacional media de forma total la relación entre prácticas organizacionales saludables y engagement en el trabajo en equipo. Se discuten las implicaciones teóricas y prácticas del estudio. Palabras claves: prácticas organizacionales saludables, confianza organizacional, engagement en el trabajo en equipo.

organizations to achieve organizational goals9 as well as to increase efficiency and competitiveness10, productivity11 and health.12 Moreover, as far as we know there is no previous empirical research focusing on the role that organizational trust plays in the relationship among healthy organizational practices and team work engagement. That is, considering the team perceptions as the referent of healthy organizational practices, organizational trust and team work engagement. In the current study we go one step further by studying the mediating role of organizational trust among healthy organizational practices and team work engagement in a higher-order level of analysis (i.e., teams). Specifically, the objective of our study is testing the mediating role of organizational trust among healthy organizational practices and team work engagement using aggregated data at the work-unit level based on the HERO Model (Healthy & Resilient Organizations Model; Salanova et al., 2012).13

The Theoretical Background: The Healthy & Resilient Organizations Model Correspondence / Correspondencia Mg. Hedy Acosta Department of Social Psychology, Universitat Jaume I, Av. Sos Baynat, s/n. 12071. Castellón (Spain). Tel.: +34 964 72 9563 • Fax: +34 964 72 9262 e-mail: hacosta@psi.uji.es. Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 7/15

Nowadays organizations differ not only in the investment they make in health, resilience and motivation of their employees (and teams), but also in the structure and the management of the work processes implemented (e.g., organizational practices) and in healthy outcomes oriented toward achieving incomes and excellence for society.14,12 These organizations are healthy and resilient

Original Article | Acosta Hedy et al. because the focus on health and resilience is based not only on individuals (i.e., employees) but also on teams and on the organization as a whole. There is evidence to believe that HERO’s are those which are resilient when it comes to coping economic and financial crises and important changes, and thus become stronger than unhealthy organizations.15 In a similar way, Salanova16,17 and Salanova et al.13 define HERO’s as “those that make systematic, planned and proactive efforts in order to improve employees’ and organizational health through Healthy Organizational Practices related to improve the job characteristics at three levels: (1) task level (e.g., task redesign in order to improve autonomy, feedback), (2) social environmental level (e.g., bidirectional communication in order to improve social relationships), and (3) organizational level (e.g., organizational practices in order to improve healthy, work-family balance)”. Based on theoretical premises about healthy and resilient organizations, HERO Model is a heuristic theoretical model that makes it possible to integrate results about vast empirical and theoretically-based evidence from research on job stress, Human Resource Management (HRM), organizational behavior and positive occupational health psychology.18 According to this model, a healthy and resilient organization refers to a combination of three main and interrelated components: (1) resources and healthy organizational practices (e.g., job resources, healthy organizational practices), (2) healthy employees (e.g., trust, work engagement), and (3) healthy organizational outcomes (e.g., performance).13 A particular aspect of the model is that all dimensions included within it are tested at the collective level (i.e., teams or organizations). Since this model is considered a heuristic model, a test of the specific relationships among certain key elements is required. Consequently, in the present study, we focus on two specific components of the HERO Model: (1) resources and healthy organizational practices (i.e., healthy organizational practices) and (2) healthy employees (i.e., organizational trust, team work engagement) tested at the team level of analysis.

Healthy Organizational Practices

Healthy organizational practices are a key component in the HERO Model. They are one of the elements included in the resources and healthy organizational practices component. We refer to organizational practices that are developed by HRM in order to achieve organizational goals19 as well as to increase the psychological and financial health at the staff, team and organizational level.13 Healthy organizational practices are defined as “the pattern of planned human resource deployments and activities intended to enable an organization to achieve its goals”.19 The rationale to focusing on organizational practices is that they are highly relevant in organizations. In fact, organizations which attempt to implant organizational practices display more positive experiences in their employees (and teams) (e.g., organizational trust;20,21) and healthy outputs such as organizational commitment22, competitively23 and organizational performance.24 All in all, organizational practices enhance the appeal of the organizations and help them to be perceived as a great place to work25, and consequently, they should be included in business strategy.26, 27

Recent research based on the European Project ERCOVA28 shows that there are eight main practices from HRM based on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): work-family balance, mobbing prevention, skills development, career development, psychosocial

health, perceived equity, communication, and corporate social responsibility.13 These studies provide evidence that these organizational practices can have a positive impact on employees’ wellbeing. Specifically, in a sample of 710 employees nested within 84 groups from 14 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) results show that, in general terms, resources and healthy organizational practices (i.e., healthy organizational practices and job resources) had a positive impact on employees’ health (i.e., collective efficacy, work engagement and resilience), which in turn had a positive impact on healthy outcomes (i.e., performance, commitment and excellent results).13 Also, Acosta, Salanova, and Llorens29 show that organizational practices can also enhance organizational trust at the team level of analysis, specifically skill development and communication practices. However, the few studies that have been conducted on the topic offer different results regarding which organizational practices exert the greatest effect on employees’ psychological health and well-being.26 We agree with Fredrickson and Dutton30 who state that the positive impact of healthy organizational practices on employees’ health only occurs when workers perceive that those practices are being implemented in the organization correctly, that is, when employees trust in their organization.

Organizational Trust

Organizational trust is considered one of the key elements of the HERO Model. Specifically, it is a psychological construct included within the category of “healthy employees”. Healthy employees refers to employees with positive psychological resources (e.g., organizational trust, self-efficacy, mental and emotional competences, organizational-based self-esteem, optimism, hope, resilience) which are positively related to well-being (e.g., work engagement).31,32 As mentioned above, we consider organizational trust to mean “employees’ willingness at being vulnerable to the actions of their organizations, whose behavior and actions they cannot control”.1 This definition is focused on vertical trust, that is, the trust between supervisors/top managers and employees (or teams). In this way healthy and resilient organization need to look at how to build organizational trust by mean of different antecedents (e.g., healthy organizational practices). Suarez, Caballero, & Sánchez33 in a sample composed by 214 Chilean employees suggested that trust is pivotal in work processes such as cooperation. Different scholars have shown that, in order to increase trust in an organization (i.e., vertical trust), investment in healthy organizational practices is needed.29,20,30,34-36 In this way, there is evidence that employees trust in their supervisor and top managers if they perceive justice in the organizational practices and decisions.37 Furthermore, there is research evidence in favor that organizational trust influences employee well-being, specifically work engagement1 measured at the individual level. Compared to employees with low levels of organizational trust, employees who trust in the organization experience more vigor, dedication and absorption at work. One innovation of the present study is that work engagement is considered at the team level. Research has evidenced that teams plays an important role to increase efficiency and competitiveness10, productivity11 and psychosocial health.12 Despite the relevance of testing teams, the vast majority of scholars have focused on work engagement at the individual level; in consequence, little attention has been given to teams.38-40

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | How Organizational Predict Team Work Engagement: The Role of Organizational Trust

Team Work Engagement

Traditionally, work engagement has been described as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption”.41 Vigor suggests the willingness to invest effort in one’s work, persistence in the face of difficulties, and high levels of energy and mental resilience while working. Dedication refers to a particularly strong work involvement and identification with one’s job. The final dimension of engagement, absorption, denotes being fully concentrated and engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from the task. Since the well-established work engagement at the individual level (e.g., Llorens, Bakker, Schaufeli, & Salanova42; Llorens, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova43; Salanova & Llorens44; Seppälä et al.,45), a recent shift in the study of work engagement considers it a psychosocial collective construct, at the team level. That is because some authors propose that emotional contagion occurs.46 It is the main crossover mechanism behind the emergence of a shared-state such as team work engagement. Although only few studies have focused on collective engagement, important results have been found. Generally speaking, collective work engagement increases: (1) business-unit outcomes47, (2) task performance in students working in groups11, (3) service climate and performance in service employees48, (4) collective positive affect and collective efficacy by positive spirals49, and (5) work engagement at the individual level.50,1 Team work engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by team work vigor, dedication and absorption which emerges from the interaction and shared experiences of the members of a work team.11 Basically, work engagement at the collective level has been tested by a collective version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale11,13 by means of 18 items referred to: collective vigor, collective dedication and collective absorption. Also, in Salanova et al.13 the whole HERO Model was validated by second order factor analyses, in which team work engagement (with the long version with 18 items) showed a good factorial structure and was considered one of the key elements in the ‘healthy employees’. Based on this, recently, Torrente, Salanova, Llorens, and Schaufeli51 offered a validation of the team work engagement scale proposed in Salanova et al.13 in order to construct a shorter measure. The Team Work Engagement scale is composed by nine items which considers three dimensions: team work vigor (three items), team work dedication (three items), and team work absorption (three items). Although these three dimensions are considered traditionally measures of work engagement at individual level, previous empirical studies showed that the core of engagement is composed by vigor and dedication.43,31,52 Absorption is also part of other psychologist construct (e.g., Flow at work; Workaholism). This would explain that this dimension is not clearly related to work engagement.53-54 In the present study, we try to delete this gap in the literature by using team work engagement by aggregated data at work-unit level of analysis, considering its core dimensions.

The Current Study

Taking previous research, the objective of our study is to test, for the first time, the role of organizational trust (i.e., vertical trust) among healthy organizational practices and team work engagement (team work vigor and team work dedication) by aggregating data at the team level. Specifically, we test the mediating role of organizational trust (i.e., vertical trust) among healthy organizaCiencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 7/15

tional practices and team work engagement (i.e., team work vigor and team work dedication) considering the aggregated perception of the team members. At this point, we expect that organizational trust fully mediates the relationship among healthy organizational practices and team work engagement (i.e., team work vigor and team work dedication) Figure 1. Research model: The proposed full mediated model. Healthy Organizational

Team Work Engagement

ns +

+ Organizational Trust

Method Sample and Procedure

A convenience sample was used for this study consisting of 518 employees (response rate was 58%) nested within 55 work-units from 13 SMEs in Spain. Of these employees, 77% belonged to the service and 23% to the industry sub-sectors. Additionally, 53% were women and 70% had permanent contracts. The average tenure in the current job was 5 years (SD = 3,47), 7 years working in the same company (SD = 5,57), and 10 years working in general (SD = 7,67). Finally, work-units had an average of 7 team members each (mean = 7,60, SD = 3,5). Once agreed in their participation, enterprises provided to their employees with information regarding the project by different means (e.g., meetings, bulletin board, intranet). Also researchers conducted information meetings to further explain the project to employees and supervisors. Participants completed a self-report questionnaire regarding their work-units. We use the work-unit definition of George55, according to which a work-unit is an entity consisting of a group of workers who work together under the same supervisor and share collective responsibility for performance outcomes. The questionnaire was distributed to the different team members in the company by the researchers themselves and took approximately 30 minutes to be filled in. In order to prevent bias, only workers with more than six months of organizational tenure were considered for the analyses. According to McCarthy56 at least six months are needed to new workers get settled into their job and the organization. As for the ethical issues considered in this research, WONT research team ensured strict compliance with applicable regulations, especially with regards to the utmost confidentiality in handling data, ensuring at all times that the guidelines governing this were based on the usual rigor of scientific research.

Measures

Healthy Organizational Practices were assessed by nine items included in the HERO questionnaire13 which, as mentioned above, considers eight practices: work-family balance (one item; ‘In the last year, mechanism and practices have been introduced in this organization in order to facilitate the work-family balance and the private lives of its employees’), mobbing prevention (one item; ‘In the last year, mechanism and practices have been introduced in this organization in order to prevent mobbing at work’), skills 9

Original Article | Acosta Hedy et al. development (one item; ‘In the last year, mechanism and practices have been introduced in this organization in order to facilitate the development of workers’ skills’), career development (one item; ‘In the last year, mechanism and practices have been introduced in this organization in order to facilitate workers’ career development’), psychosocial health (one item; ‘In the last year, mechanism and practices have been introduced in this organization in order to ensure well-being and quality of life at work’), perceived equity (one item; ‘In the last year, mechanism and practices have been introduced in this organization in order to ensure that workers receive rewards’), organizational communication (two items; ‘In the last year, mechanism and practices have been introduced in this organization in order to facilitate communication from management to workers’; ‘In the last year, mechanism and practices have been introduced in this organization in order to ensure that information about the organizational goals is given to everyone who needs to known about them’), and corporate social responsibility (one item; ‘In the last year, mechanism and practices have been introduced in this organization in order to ensure issues concerning corporate social responsibility are dealt with’). Internal consistencies for the scale achieved the cut-off point of 0,70 (alpha = 0,87).57 Respondents answered using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). In order to lead respondents’ attention from the individual level to the team level, all the variables were focused on team perceptions by aggregated data at the work-unit level. Organizational Trust was assessed by four items based on Huff and Kelley’s scale58 that were included in the HERO questionnaire.13 An example of the item is: ‘In this organization, subordinates have a great deal of trust in their supervisors and top managers’. Internal consistencies for the scale reached the cut-off point of 0,70 (alpha = 0,88).57 Respondents answered using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree). Again, in order to lead respondents’ attention from the individual level to the team level, all the items focused on team perceptions so that they could be aggregated at team level. Team Work Engagement Scale was assessed by the core dimensions (six items) (i.e., team work vigor and team work dedication) of a team work engagement scale11 validated by Torrente et al.51 Specifically, we tested: team work vigor (three items; e.g. ‘During the task, my team feels full of energy’; alpha = 0,78) and team work dedication (three items; e.g. ‘My team is enthusiastic about the task’; alpha = 0,84). Internal consistencies for two dimensions achieved the cut-off point of 0,70.57 Respondents answered using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). In order to lead respondents’ attention from the individual level to the team level, all the items focused on team perceptions by aggregated data at team level.

Data Analyses

Firstly, we calculated internal consistencies (Cronbach’s a) for individual data using the PASW 18.0 software application. Secondly, Harman’s single factor test59 was computed for the variables in the study in order to test for bias due to common method variance, also using individual data. Thirdly, since the variables in the study (i.e., healthy organizational practices, organizational trust, and team work engagement) were measured at the team level, we computed agreement at the team level for each scale (for the procedure used to aggregate, see Chen, Mathieu, & Bliese60). To do so, we used a consistency-based approach by computing

Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC1 and ICC2)61,62 using the PASW 18.0. Thus, it is concluded that when ICC1 and ICC2 were higher than 0,12 and 0,60, respectively.61,62 Different Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were computed in order to ascertain whether there was statistically significant between-group discrimination for the average scales. Fourthly, we computed descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among the scales by means of data aggregated at the team level. Finally, AMOS 18.0 (Analyses of Moment Structures63) software program was used to implement different Structural Equation Models to test for the relationships among healthy organizational practices, organizational trust and team work engagement using aggregated data at the work-unit level. Two plausible models were compared following Baron and Kenny64: M1, the full mediated model, in which organizational trust is fully mediating the relationship among healthy organizational practices and team work engagement; M2, the partial mediated model, in which organizational trust partially mediates the relationship among healthy organizational practices; that is, there is also a direct relationship from healthy organizational practices and team work engagement. Maximum likelihood estimation methods were used in which the input for each analysis was the covariance matrix of the items. We assessed two absolute goodness-of-fit indices to evaluate the goodness-of-fit of the models: (1) the c2 goodness-of-fit statistic; and (2) the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The c2 goodness-of-fit index is sensitive to sample size, for this reason is recommended to use relative goodness-of-fit measures.65,66 So then, four relative goodness-of-fit indices were used: (1) Comparative Fit Index (CFI), (2) Normed Fit Index (NFI); (3) Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI, also called the Non-Normed Fit Index); and (4) Incremental Fit Index (IFI). Finally, the AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) index was also computed to compare nontested models. For RMSEA, values smaller than 0,05 are considered as indicating an excellent fit, 0,08 are considered as indicating an acceptable fit whereas values greater than 0,1 should lead to model rejection.67 For the relative fit indices, values greater than 0,90 are indicative of a good fit.68 The lower the AIC index, the better the fit is.70,68

Results Aggregation and Descriptive Analyses

Firstly, the results of the Harman’s single factor test59 on the individual database (N = 518) reveals a bad fit to the data, _2(14) = 267,779, p = 0,000, RMSEA = 0,187, CFI = 0,776, NFI = 0,768, TLI = 0,665, IFI = 0,778, AIC = 295,779. In order to avoid the problems related to the use of Harman’s single factor test59, we compared the results of the one latent factor model with a model considering three latent factors. Results show significantly lower fit of the model with one single factor when compared to the model with multiple latent factors, Delta _2(2) = 204,617, p < 0,001. Consequently, we may consider that the common method variance is not a serious deficiency in this dataset. Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, intercorrelations and aggregation indices of all the study variables aggregated at work-unit level (N = 55) using the PASW 18.0. Based on the aggregated data at work-unit level (N = 55), the ICC1 and ICC2 indices ranged from 0,12 to 0,41 and from 0,60 to 0,86 for the variables in the study, respectively. Thus, aggregation results provide support 7/15 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 |

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | How Organizational Predict Team Work Engagement: The Role of Organizational Trust to conclude that within-group agreement in the study’s work-units is sufficient to aggregate unit members’ perceptions to the workunit level.60 We also tested a one-way ANOVA to ascertain whether there was statistically significant between-group discrimination in average variables among employees. Results on aggregated scales among employees shows statistically significant between-group discrimination in healthy organizational practices, F(54, 457) = 4,44, p < 0,001; vertical trust, F(54, 455) = 7,55, p < 0,001; team work vigor, F(54, 457) = 2,37, p < 0,001 and team work dedication, F(54, 457) = 2,71, p < 0,001. Consequently, there is a significant degree of between-group discrimination which supported the validity of the aggregate healthy organizational practices, organizational trust and team work engagement (i.e., team work vigor and team work dedication) got support from it. Finally, intercorrelations among healthy organizational practices, organizational trust and team work engagement by aggregated data at work-unit level (N = 55) shows that, as expected, variables correlate positively and significantly among each other (100%) ranging from 0,30 to 0,94 (p < 0,001).

Model Fit: Structural Equation Modeling

For the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) we used the aggregated database (N = 55); consequently, the aggregated scales at work-unit level for healthy organizational practices, organizational trust, and team work engagement were considered as latent variables. Healthy organizational practices comprise eight indicators: work-family balance, mobbing prevention, skill development, career development, psychosocial health, perceived equity, communication and corporate social responsibility. Organizational trust comprised one indicator. Finally, team work engagement comprised two indicators regarding the core dimensions of engagement: team work vigor and team work dedication. Since organizational trust is only composed by one indicator, the error variance of vertical trust indicator was constrained in all the models in order to avoid unidentified problems by using the formula, (1-α) * σ2,71 Table 2 shows the results of the SEM conducted to test the relationship among healthy organizational practices, organizational trust

and work team engagement by aggregated data at the work-unit level. The findings of these analyses indicate that the proposed model (M1) in which organizational trust fully mediates the relationship among healthy organizational practices and team work engagement fitted not well to the data, c2(43) = 153,884, p = 0,000, RMSEA = 0,22, CFI = 0,67, NFI = 0,61, TLI = 0,58, IFI = 0,68, AIC = 199,88. Similar results were obtained for the partial mediation model (M2), c2(42) = 153,381, p = 0,000, RMSEA = 0,22, CFI = 0,67, NFI = 0,61, TLI = 0,57, IFI = 0,68, AIC = 201,38. Consequently, none of these two models showed adequate goodness-of-fit indices, thus not giving support for the proposed model when the healthy organizational practices are tested with the original nine items. To deal with this unexpected finding, an item reduction procedure consisted on keeping the items with the highest factor loading was applied to the original healthy organizational practices indicators in order to ensure the quality of the scale.72,51 For instance, skill development, career development, perceived equity and corporate social responsibility were leave out of the model. Consequently, a short version scale of the healthy organizational practices (five items) distributed by four practices was obtained (alpha = 0,82): work-family balance (one item), mobbing prevention (one item), psychosocial health (1 item), and organizational communication (two items). Thus, a revised model in which organizational trust mediates among healthy organizational practices (a short version that was composed by five items distributed in four practices) and team work engagement fit the data with all fit indices satisfying the criteria. Chi-square tests between Full Mediated Model Revised (M1R) and the original model 1 (M1) show a significant difference between both models, Delta c2(29) = 135,69, p < 0,001. Consequently, in the following analyses, the short version of the healthy organizational practices is included in the analyses using aggregated data at the work-unit level. As Table 2 shows, the Full Mediated Model Revised (M1R) fit the data with all fit indices satisfying the criteria for a good fit. Chi-square tests between M1R and the Partial Mediated Model Revised (M2R), show a non-significant difference, Delta c2(1) = 3,67, ns. These

Table 1. Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations by aggregated data (N = 55). Variables 1. Healthy organizational practices (8 practices) 2. Healthy organizational practices (4 practices) 3. Organizational trust 4. Team work vigor 5. Team work dedication

Mean 2,89 2,87 3,23 4,28 4,48

DS 1,33 1,48 1,49 1,04 1,14

ICC1 0,28 0,31 0,41 0,12 0,15

ICC2 0,79 0,81 0,87 0,60 0,63

1 2 3 4 - 0,94*** - 0,57*** 0,54*** - 0,33*** 0,34*** 0,30*** - 0,38*** 0,38*** 0,36*** 0,68***

Notes: *** p < 0,001.

Table 2. Fit Indices for Structural Equation Models by aggregated data (N = 55). Models X2 gl p RMSEA CFI NFI TLI IFI AIC ∆X2 ∆gl ∆RMSEA ∆CFI ∆NFI ∆TLI ∆IFI ∆AIC M1 153,88 43 0,000 0,22 0,67 0,61 0,58 0,68 199,88 M2 153,38 42 0,000 0,22 0,67 0,61 0,57 0,68 201,38 Diff. M2 -M1 0,50 1 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 1,50 M1R 17,69 13 0,17 0,08 0,97 0,91 0,96 0,97 47,69 M2R 14,02 12 0,30 0,05 0,98 0,93 0,98 0,98 46,02 Diff. M1 -M1R 135,69 30 0,01 0,03 0,03 0,39 0,29 153,76 Diff. M2R -M1R 3,68 1 0,03 0,01 0,02 0,02 0,01 1,68 Notes: χ2 = Chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI = Comparative Fir Index; NFI = Normed Fit Index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; IFI = Incremental Fit Index; AIC = Akaike information Criterion. Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 7/15

Original Article | Acosta Hedy et al. Figure 2. SEM analyses about healthy organizational strategies, organizational trust and team work engagement in aggregated database (N = 55). Only the significant coefficients are displayed at p < 0,001and p < 0,01. Work-Family Conciliation

Mobbing Prevention 0,84***

0,84***

Psychosocial Health 0,75***

Team Work Vigor

Communication

Team Work Dedication 0,98***

0,69*** 0,19

Healthy Organizational

0,58***

0,88*** Team Work Engagement

0,41** Organizational Trustl 0,94*** Vertical Trust

results give evidence for the M1R since: (1) it is more parsimonious than M2R, (2) for M2R the direct path between healthy organizational practices and team work engagement was not significant (p = 0,08) and more important, (3) also for M2R, the regression weight between organizational trust and work team engagement was non-significant (p = 0,293). Firstly, it is important to note that all the manifest scales loaded significantly on the intended latent factors. An inspection of the output revealed that all the indicators of healthy organizational practices, organizational trust and team work engagement loadings were higher than 0,69. Secondly, a revision of the regression weights of the proposed M1R reveals that, as expected, healthy organizational practices has a positive and significantly influence on organizational trust (b = 0,58, p < 0,001), which in turn positively and significantly influences team work engagement (b = 0,41, p < 0,05). It is interesting to note that, healthy organizational practices explain the 33% of the variance on organizational trust (R2 = 33%), which in turn explain the 16% of the variance on team work engagement (R2 = 16%).

Discussion The aim of our study was to evaluate, for the first time, the relationship among healthy organizational practices, organizational trust and team work engagement by aggregating data at the team level. Specifically, we tested the mediating role of organizational trust (i.e., vertical trust) between healthy organizational practices and the core of team work engagement (i.e., team work vigor, team work dedication) by considering the aggregate perceptions from the team members in SMEs. We hypothesized that the organizational trust fully mediated the relationship between healthy organizational practices and work engagement when data were aggregated at the team level. The current study contributes to our understanding of the relationship among two of the elements of the HERO Model, that is, resources and healthy organizational practices (in terms of healthy organizational practices) and healthy employees (i.e., organizational trust and team work engagement) using data aggregated at the work-unit level. In a sample of 518 employees nested within 55 work-units from 13 SMEs in Spain, we tested the relationship among healthy organizational practices (four practices), organizational trust (i.e., vertical trust) and 12

the core of team work engagement (team work vigor and team work dedication) at the team level included in the HERO questionnaire.13 Results of the Structural Equation Modeling with data aggregated at the work-unit level of analyses revealed that, unexpectedly, the model with the eight original items of healthy organizational practices did not fit to the data (neither for the full nor for the partial mediation model). Based on an iterative process, the original scale was reduced to five items distributed on four practices. This result gives evidence to consider these four practices are the main ones related to organizational trust (i.e., vertical trust). On the other hand, we expect that the rest of practices (i.e, skill development, career development, perceived equity, and corporate social responsibility) could be relevant to other healthy employeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s phenomenon (e.g., efficacy beliefs, optimism, resilience) and healthy organizational outcomes (e.g., commitment, excellent results). The hypothesized models with the short version of healthy organizational practices fit significantly better to the data than the original model with the eight healthy organizational practices. Structural Equation Modeling showed that organizational trust fully mediated the relationship among healthy organizational practices (four practices) and the core of team work engagement (team work vigor and team work dedication) tested at the work-unit level. These results are in line of previous research, in which the organizational trust has a key role among organizational practices and employeesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; well-being.20,34-35,1,33 However, in the present study we go one step more, since the relationships among healthy organizational practices, organizational trust and team work engagement have been considered at team level. In fact, it seems that only when teams perceived that organizations are implementing healthy practices in the organization, the team work engagement is increasing. Thus, vertical trust is a pivotal element to feel good at work. We can conclude that organizations must foster trust between employees and supervisors or top managers because healthy practices implemented by Human Resources Management will impact positively on teams work engagement if there is organizational trust. All in all, results give support to our hypothesis and we can say that the objective of the study has been reached.

Limitations and Further Research

The present study has several limitations. The first one is that the data were obtained by self-report instruments. However, aggregate rather than individual perceptions of teams have been considered 7/15 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 |

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | How Organizational Predict Team Work Engagement: The Role of Organizational Trust for healthy organizational practices, organizational trust and the core of the team work engagement. Consequently, the use of these data aggregated at the team level of analyses enabled us to minimize the common method variance bias. Secondly, a convenience sample is used in the present study. However, it is a wide sample, including different teams from different enterprises which belong to different economical sectors. Another limitation is that we used team perceptions on organizational phenomena (i.e., healthy organizational practices and organizational trust). Further step in research should consider the aggregation of data at organizational level and to test the relationship among healthy organizational practices and organizational trust (aggregated at organizational level) on team work engagement (aggregated at team level) by means of hierarchical linear modeling73 to explore cross-level effects and interactions between organizational and team levels. However, in the present study we can assume that the group level of analyses is adequate to test organizational trust as well as healthy organizational practices. Attending to the organizational trust, in the present study we focus on specific type of organizational trust: vertical trust, that is, the trust between employees and supervisor and top managers. Based on this, team perception of their supervisor and top managers are needed to know more about organizational trust. Attending to the healthy organizational practices we used data aggregated at the team level of analysis since we considered that the sharing perceptions of employees working in teams are determinant in order to perceive the practices implemented by the organizations and their quality.38 Moreover, we assume that in this process of perception and evaluation of the quality of the practices implemented by the organization, supervisors plays a key role. In fact, in the present study we concluded that not only the healthy practices are important but the trust in the supervisor is relevant in work teams. If we consider this, we expect differences in perceptions and quality of organizational practices implemented and consequently, the evaluations of this phenomenon at the team level are also crucial. Furthermore, it should be interesting to test this model using multiple organizations (not only Spanish SME) in cross-cultural and with longitudinal studies in order to explore the existence of positive spirals over time. According to HERO Model, the three elements (i.e., healthy organizational practices, healthy employee, and healthy outcomes) are assumed to be related to each other over time by a gain spiral.74 Another step in the study should be to test the model including healthy organizational outcomes, for example organizational commitment (aggregated at organizational level), work-unit productivity (measured by the supervisor opinion) and loyalty by customers (aggregated at organizational level). This would bring the opportunity to test the effect between healthy organizational practices and organizational trust on healthy outcomes considering the three key elements of the HERO Model.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

The present study shows some implications for future research and practice. At the theoretical level, the present study extends the corpus of knowledge about the key role of organizational trust in the relationship between healthy organizational practices and team work engagement tested by data aggregated at work-unit level in SMEs. The positive relationship lends support to HERO Model13 because it analyzes the relationship proposed by the model between resources and healthy organizational practices (i.e., healthy organizational practices) and healthy employees (i.e., organizational trust and team work engagement) a higher level of analyses (i.e., teams). Furthermore, a shorter and more parsimonious scale on healthy organizational practices is found when constructs are tested at team level. From the practical point of view, results can be used by HRM in order to foster and develop organizational trust in their teams from a perspective based on continuous prevention and promotion actions.75 Specifically, results show the relevance of investing in work-family balance, mobbing prevention, psychosocial health, and organizational communication in organizations. Investment in these practices should be interpreted by teams as a sign that the organization is concerned about its employees, and consequently trust in the organization will be enhanced. As a result, well-being of teams will be improved by increasing team work engagement.

Final Note

This study has tested the relationship between HRM, organizational trust and team work engagement in teams by aggregated data. Healthy organizational practices and team work engagement are related through organizational trust, given support for the premises of the HERO Model for the team-level of analyses. This study enhances the role that HRM plays in order to improve healthy employees in terms of organizational trust and team work engagement. Researchers and practitioners should use these results about the role of organizational trust among healthy organizational practices and team work engagement in order to enhance HEROs. Maybe, this will be the first step to know how organizational trust influences organizational practices and team work engagement.

Author Note

This study is supported by a research grant from the Spanish Ministry of Work and Social Affairs (#411/UJI/SALUD), The Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (#PSI2008-01376/ PSIC), Universitat Jaume I & Bancaixa (#P11B2008-06) and Universitat Jaume I (FPI Program).

Original Article | Acosta Hedy et al.

REFERENCE 1. Lin CP. Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement based on attachment theory. J Bus Ethics. 2010;94:517-531. 2. Cardona N, Calderón G (2010). Confianza en las interacciones del trabajo investigativo. Un estudio en grupos de investigación en una universidad pública colombiana. Cuad. Adm. Bogotá (Colombia), 23, 69-93. 3. Dirks KT, Ferrin DL. The role of trust in organizational setting. Organ Sci. 2001;12:450-467. 4. Kiffin-Petersen S, Cordery J. Trust, individualism and job characteristics as predictor of employee preference for teamwork. Hum Resource Manage. 2003;14:96-116. 5. Mayers RC, Gavin MB. Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employee watch the boss. Acad Manage J. 2005; 48:874-888. 6. Wong Y, Ngo H, Wong C. Antecedents and outcomes of employees’ trust in Chinese joint ventures. Asia Pac J Manage. 2003;20:481-499. 7. Andersen JA. Trust in managers: A study of why Swedish subordinates trust in their managers. Bus Ethics. 2005;14:392-404. 8. Barney JB, Hansen MH. Trust worthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Manage J. 1994;15:175-191. 9. Tan, H., & Lim, A. (2009). Trust in coworkers and trust in organization. Journal of Psychology, 1, 45-66. 10. Hodson R. Group relations at work: Solidarity, conflict, and relations with management. Work Occupation. 1997;24:426-452. 11. Salanova M, Llorens S, Cifre E, Martínez IM, Schaufeli WB. Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups. Small Gr Res. 2003;34:43-73. 12. Wilson M, Dejoy D, Vandenberg R, Richardson H, McGrath A. Work characteristics and employee health and well-being: Test of model of healthy work organization. J Occup Organ Psych. 2004;77:565-588. 13. Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., y Martínez, I. M. (2012). We need a HERO! Towards a HEalthy & Resilient Organization (HERO) Model validation. Manuscript submitted for publication. 14. Landsbergis PA. The changing organization of work and the safety and health of working people: A commentary. J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45:61–72. 15. Cooper CL, Cartwright S. Healthy mind; Healthy organization-A proactive approach to occupational stress. Hum Relat. 1994;47:455-471. 16. Salanova M. Organizaciones saludables y desarrollo de recursos humanos [Healthy organizations and human resources development]. Estudios Financieros: Rev.Trab.Seg.Soc. (RTSS-CEF). 2008; 303:179-214 17. Salanova M. Organizaciones saludables, organizaciones resilientes [Healthy organizations, resilient organizations]. Gestión Práctica de Riesgos Laborales 2009; 58:18-23. 18. Llorens, S., del Líbano, M., y Salanova, M. (2009). Modelos teóricos de salud ocupacional [Theoretical models of occupational health psychology]. In M. Salanova (Ed.), Psicología de la Salud Ocupacional. (pp. 63–93). Madrid: Síntesis. 19. Wright PM, McMahan CG. Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management. J Manage. 1992;18:295-320. 20. Bruhn J. Trust and the Health of organizations. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers; 2001 21. Tremblay M., Cloutier J, Simard G, Chênevert D, Vandenberghe C. The role of HRM practices, procedural justice, organizational support and trust in organizational commitment and in role and extra-role performance. Int J Hum Resour Man. 2010;21:405-433. 22. Mayers JP, Smith CA. HRM practices and organizational commitment: Test of a mediation model. Can J Adm Sci 2000;17:319-331. 23. Calderon, G. (2003). Dirección de recursos humanos y competitividad . INNOVAR Revista de Ciencias Administrativas y Sociales, 22, 157-172. 24. Bacon N, Hoque K. HRM in the SME sector: Valuable employees and coercitive networks. Hum Resource Manage. 2005;16:1976-1999. 25. Carlsen A. Positive dramas: Enacting self-adventures in organizations. J Positive Psychol. 2008;3:55-75.

26. Budhwar P, Debrah Y. Rethinking comparative and cross-national human resource management research. Hum Resource Manage. 2001;12:497-515. 27. Zapata, J. (2009). La integración de la dirección de recursos humanos con la estrategia organizacional en las empresas afiliadas a ASCORT. Revista Ciencias Estratégicas, 17, 273-290. 28. ERCOVA European Project [online]. Bruselles: ESF; 2004 [cited January 12, 2010]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/equal/index_en.cfm. 29. Acosta H, Salanova M, Llorens S. How organizational trust is predicted by healthy organizational practices. E-book 4th International Seminar on Positive Occupational Health Psychology. (In press). 30. Fredrickson B, Dutton J. Unpacking positive organizing: Organizations as sites of individual and group flourishing. J Posit Psychol. 2008;1:1-3. 31. Lorente L, Salanova M, Martínez,IM., Schaufeli WB. Extension of the Job Demands-Resources model in the prediction of burnout and engagement among teachers over time. Psicothema. 2008;20:354-360. 32. Luthans F, Youssef C, Avolio B. Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007. 33. Suarez, T., Caballero, A., & Sánchez, F. (2008). Incidencia de la mentira en la confianza y la cooperación en el ámbito laboral. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 41, 213-224. 34. Jain AK, Sinha AK. General health in organizations: Relative relevance of emotional intelligence, trust and organizational support. Int J Stress Manage. 2005;12:257-273. 35. Kath LM, Magley V J, Marmet M. The role of organizational trust in safety climate´s influence on organizational outcomes. Accident Anal Prev. 2010;42:1488-1497. 36. Mone E, London M. Employee Engagement. Through effective performance management. A practical guide for managers. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis; 2010. 37. Dirks KT, Ferrin DL. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87:611-638. 38. Richardson, J., y West, M. A. (2010). Engaged work teams. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement. Perspectives, issues, research and practice. (pp. 323–340). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 39. Simpson, M. R. (2009). Engagement at work: A review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1012–1024. 40. Whitman, D. S., Van Rooy, D. L., y Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, and performance in teams: a meta–analysis of collective construct relations. Personnel Psychology, 63, 41–81. 41. Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, Gonzalez-Romá V, Bakker AB. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Happiness Stud. 2002;3:71-92. 42. Llorens S, Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB, Salanova MTesting the robustness of the job demands-resources model. Int J Stress Manage. 2006;13:378-391. 43. Llorens S, Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. Does a positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Comput Hum Behav. 2007;23:825-841. 44. Salanova M, Llorens S. Exposure to information and communication technology and its relationship to work engagement. Ciencia y Trabajo. 2009;32:55-62. 45. Seppälä P, Mauno S, Feldt T, Hakanen J, Kinnunen U, Tolvanen A et al. The construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. J Happiness Stud. 2009;10:459-481. 46. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., y Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York: Cambridge University Press. 47. Harter JK, Schmidt FL, Hayes TL. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87:268-279. 48. Salanova M, Agut S, Peiró JM. Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90:1217-1227. 49. Salanova M, Llorens S, Schaufeli WB. Yes, I can, I feel good, and I just do it! On gain cycles an spirals of efficacy beliefs, affect, and engagement. Appl Psychol- Int Rev. 2011; 60:255-285.

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | How Organizational Predict Team Work Engagement: The Role of Organizational Trust 50. Bakker, A. B., van Emmerik, H., y Euwema, M. C. (2006). Crossover of burnout and engagement in work teams. Work and Occupations, 33, 464–489. 51. Torrente P, Salanova M, Llorens S, Schaufeli WB. From “I” to “We”: Validity of a Team Work Engagement Scale. E-book 4th International Seminar on Positive Occupational Health Psychology. (In press). 52. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. J Organ Behav. 2004;25:293-315. 53. Rodríguez-Sánchez, A., Salanova, M., Cifre, E., y Schaufeli, W.B. (2011). When good is good: A virtuous circle of self-efficacy and flow at work among teachers. Revista de Psicología Social, 26, 1-15. 54. Taris, T.W., Schaufeli, W.B., y Shimazu, A. (2010). The push and pull of work: About the difference between workaholism and work engagement. In A.B. Bakker y M.P. Leiter (Eds.),Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 39-53). New York: Psychology Press. 55. George J M. Personality, affect, and behaviors in groups. J Appl Psychol. 1990;75:107-116. 56. McCarthy, J. P. (1992). Focus from the star. HR Magazine, 77-83. 57. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGrawHill; 1994 58. Huff L, Kelley L. Levels of Organizational trust in individualistic versus collectivist societies: a seven-nation study. Organ Sci. 2003;14:81-90. 59. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SM, Lee J, Podsakoff NP. Common method variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88:879-903. 60. Chen G, Mathieu JE, Bliese PD. A framework for conducting multilevel construct validation. In: Yammarino FJ, Dansereau F, editors. Research in multilevel issues: 6. Multilevel issues in organizational behavior and processes.Vol.3. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2004. p.273-303 61. Bliese P. Within-group agreement, non independence, and reliability. Implications for data analysis. In: Klein K, Kozlowski S, editors. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. Foundations, extensions and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2000. p.349-381. 62. Glick WH. Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Acad Manage Rev.1985;10:601-616.

63. Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). Amos users’ guide version 4.0. Chicago, IL: Smallwaters Corporation. 64. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator- mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical consideration. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51:1173-1182. 65. Bentler P M. Comparative fit indexes in structural equation models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107:238-246 66. Marsh HW, Balla JR, Hau KT. An evaluation of Incremental Fit Indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In: Marcoulides GA, Schumacker RE, editors. Advanced structural equation modeling, issues and techniques. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 1996. p.315-353. 67. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage; 1993. p.136-162. 68. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6:1-55. 69. Akaike H. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika. 1987;52:317-332. 70. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH, editor. Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995. p.76-99. 71. Stephenson MT, Holbert RL. A monte carlo simulation of observable versus latent variable structural equation modeling techniques. Commun Res. 2003;30:332-354. 72. Schaufeli WB, Shimazu A, Taris TW. Driven to work excessively hard: The evaluation of a two-factor measure of workaholism in the Netherlands and Japan. Cross-Cult Res. 2009;43:320-348. 73. Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analyses: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 74. Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., y Salanova, M. (2007). Does a positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 825-841. 75. Salanova, M., Cifre, E., Martínez, I.M., y Llorens, S. (2007). Caso a caso en la prevención de riesgos psicosociales. España: Lettera Publicaciones.

Original Article

How do Engaged Employees Stay Engaged? ¿Cómo los Empleados Mantienen su Engagement en el Trabajo? Arnold B. Bakker1, Evangelia Demerouti2, Despoina Xanthopoulou3 1. Universidad Erasmus de Rotterdam, Depto. de Psicología Laboral y Organizacional, Rotterdam, Holanda. 2. Universidad Técnica de Eindhoven, Departamento de Gestión del Rendimiento Humano, Eindhoven, Holanda. 3. Universidad de Creta, Departamento de Psicología, Rethimno, Grecia.

ABSTRACT

The present literature review focuses on what employees can do to stay engaged. After defining enduring work engagement, we review the literature on state work engagement. In addition, we discuss research on the relationship between engagement on the one hand, and (a) job performance, (b) proactive behavior, and (c) job crafting on the other. Finally, we review the evidence for reciprocal relationships between work engagement and job and personal resources. We conclude that engaged employees take care of their own work engagement by proactively shaping their work environment. As a result, engaged employees do not only make full use of the available job resources, but they also create their own resources to stay engaged. Key words: Job Crafting, Job Performance, Proactive Behavior, Work Engagement

RESUMEN

El presente trabajo apunta a descubrir qué pueden hacer los empleados para estar más engaged con su trabajo. Después de definir qué se entiende por un engagement perdurable, hacemos una revisión de la bibliografía existente sobre el engagement entendido como un estado mental del individuo. Además, analizamos las diferentes investigaciones que se han dedicado a estudiar la relación que hay entre engagement, por un lado, y (a) desempeño laboral, (b) conducta proactiva y (c) personalización del trabajo, por el otro. Finalmente, revisamos la evidencia que sustenta las relaciones recíprocas entre el engagement y los recursos personales y laborales. Concluimos que los empleados engaged se encargan de mantener su propio compromiso en el trabajo, modificando proactivamente su ambiente laboral. Como resultado, los empleados engaged no sólo hacen un uso total de los recursos laborales disponibles, sino que también son capaces de crear sus propios recursos para mantenerse comprometidos. Palabras Claves: Personalización del trabajo, Desempeño laboral, Conducta Proactiva, Engagement.

How do Engaged Employees Stay Engaged? Most scholars agree that job resources are the most important drivers of work engagement. Research has confirmed that career growth opportunities, supportive relationships with coworkers, performance feedback, and employee skill development facilitate engagement1, particularly when the job is challenging.2,3 Given these findings, one may argue that the organization plays an important role in fostering engagement, through the provision of resourceful and challenging jobs. We agree that managers can play a crucial role in employee engagement because they have the legitimate power to influence work conditions. Research indeed suggests that management influences the job demands and resources of their employees,4,5

Correspondence / Correspondencia Arnold B. Bakker, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Institute of Psychology, Woudestein, T12-47, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 10 408 8853 website: www.arnoldbakker.com e-mail: bakker@fsw.eur.nl.

and can indirectly influence employee engagement.6 However, in the present theoretical article, we focus on what employees can do themselves. How do engaged employees stay engaged? We argue that engaged employees take care of their own work engagement by proactively shaping their work environment. We propose that engaged employees do not only make full use of the available job resources, but also create their own resources. Understanding the psychological processes that explain how engaged employees stay engaged contributes to the theoretical advancement of the work engagement concept, but also provides useful insights for sustaining or creating flourishing workforces.

What is Work engagement? Work engagement is most often defined as “… a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption”.7,8 Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working. Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one’s work, and experiencing a sense of significance and enthusiasm. Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work. In essence, work engagement captures how workers experience their work: as stimulating and energetic and something to which they really want to devote time and effort (the vigor component); as a significant and meaningful pursuit (dedication); and as engrossing and interesting (absorption).9 Research has revealed

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | How do Engaged Employees Stay Engaged? that engaged employees are optimistic and self-efficacious individuals who exercise influence over events that affect their lives.10 Because of their positive attitude and high activity level, engaged employees create their own positive feedback, in terms of appreciation, recognition, and success.11 Engaged employees are often also highly engaged outside work, for example in sports, creative hobbies, and volunteer work. However, engaged employees are not addicted to their work. They enjoy other things outside work and, unlike workaholics, they do not work hard because of a strong and irresistible inner drive, but because for them working is fun.12 In order to differentiate work engagement from related types of work-related well-being (e.g., job satisfaction, workaholism, and burnout), Bakker and Oerlemans13 used Russell’s14 circumplex model of affect. According to this model, affective states arise from two fundamental neurophysiological systems, one related to a pleasure–displeasure continuum and the other to arousal, activation, or alertness. Each emotion can be understood as a linear combination of these two dimensions as varying degrees of both pleasure and activation (see Figure 1). Specific emotions arise out of patterns of activation within these two neurophysiological systems, together with interpretations and labeling of these emotional experiences. For instance, the degree of activation whilst experiencing positive (pleasurable) emotions varies considerably.15,16 Feeling calm and content implies a lower level of activation compared to feeling happy, engaged, excited or enthusiastic. Similarly, unpleasant emotions may range from “feeling bored or depressed” to “feeling upset, anxious or tense”. Figure 1. A two-dimensional view of work-related subjective well-being.13,14

HIGH ACTIVATION Agitated Hostile Irritated WORKAHOLISM Angry

Engagement

Tense

UNPLEASANT

Dejected Lethargic Fatigued Gloomy Sad

Excited Enthusiastic Energised Happy Pleased

PLEASANT

Burnout

SatisfacTION

Content Relaxed Calm Tranquil

LOW ACTIVATION

As can be seen in Figure 1, work engagement is positioned in the upper right quadrant of the circumplex model as it resemblances high levels of pleasure (i.e. dedication and absorption) and activation (i.e. vigor). Engagement is different from job satisfaction in that it is a much more active experience. Also, engagement is different from workaholism, in terms of the valence of the experience. Workaholics have a strong inner drive to work excessively hard17, but this experience often goes along with low levels of pleasure. Finally, the positioning of burnout in the lower left Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 16/22

quadrant of the circumplex model (low levels of pleasure and activation) is consistent with some studies suggesting that burnout is conceptually the opposite of work engagement.18,19 Initially, the concept of work engagement was developed to capture an overall state of employees with regard to their job. Schaufeli et al8, in one of their first articles on work engagement, emphasized that ‘rather than a momentary and specific state, engagement refers to a more persistent and pervasive affectivecognitive state’ (p. 74). Later on, Sonnentag20 was the first to challenge this view by introducing the concept of state-like, as opposed to trait-like, work engagement.

State Work Engagement Trait-like work engagement (or the between-persons view) answers questions like why one person feels engaged at work while another does not. State-like work engagement (or the within-person view) answers questions like why one person feels more engaged at work on specific days and not on other days. If one aims at investigating the full phenomenological experience of work engagement, one has to focus on state work engagement as a rather momentary and transient experience that fluctuates within individuals within short periods of time (from hour to hour, or from day to day).21 This approach enables us to examine – in addition to general predictors such as enduring resources as specified in the Job Demands-Resources model – the more proximal predictors of the work engagement experience. Thus, this approach promises answers to the question: when do persons feel work engagement? Are there specific situational features that have to be present during a specific day in order to feel engaged? Knowledge about the more proximal situational and person-related predictors of work engagement is crucial to create a setting that optimally supports work engagement during critical times and periods. Diary studies have indeed demonstrated that work engagement fluctuates substantially within individuals, thus supporting the state-like view. For example, Sonnentag20 assessed work engagement in public service employees over the course of five working days and found that 42 percent of the overall variance was at the day (i.e., within-individual) level and 58 percent of the overall variance was at the between-individual level. Similarly, Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Heuven, Demerouti, and Schaufeli22 who studied flight attendants during three trips to intercontinental destinations reported that 41 percent of the overall variance in work engagement was attributable to within-person variation. Furthermore, in the study of Bakker and Xanthopoulou23 among dyads of colleagues within-person fluctuations in work engagement were found to explain 44 percent of the total variance. Slightly smaller but still substantial was the percentage (31%) in the study by Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli24, who studied daily work engagement among fast-food restaurant employees. Taken together, these studies show that at least one third of the total variance in daily work engagement can be attributed to within-person fluctuations. Although persons clearly differ in their overall level of work engagement (also expressed in the 58 to 69 percent of total variance that is attributable to between-person variation), day-level20,24 and weeklevel25 studies suggest that persons do not engage in their work every day to the same extent; work engagement shows substantial variation across short periods of time. 17

Original Article | Bakker Arnold et al. With respect to predictors of state work engagement, findings parallel but do not overlap with findings about trait work engagement supporting the distinctive status of the state experience. Specifically, Sonnentag20 found that state work engagement was significantly higher on days that employees felt recovered in the morning, compared to days when they did not feel well recovered. Furthermore, diary studies have shown that on days that employees feel more self-efficacious, more optimistic and have a stronger sense of organization-based self-esteem, they experience higher levels of work engagement.22,24 With respect to job characteristics, the studies that addressed within-individual variation in state work engagement24,25 consistently suggest that autonomy plays an important role. In contrast, social job resources like daily supervisory coaching, team climate, and social support were found to be important predictors in some occupations, but not in all. Although job demands were rarely addressed as potential predictors of state work engagement, the study by Bakker, van Emmerik, Geurts, and Demerouti26 found that day-level workload was positively related to day-level state work engagement – suggesting that workload acted as a challenge. To conclude, research on state work engagement indicates that there are not only people who are more engaged in their work than others but the level of engagement differs from day to day within the same person. Importantly, the situational predictors of state work engagement seem slightly different from those of trait work engagement.

Engagement and Job Performance The main reason for the growing interest of both academics and managers in the concept of work engagement is its predictive value for job performance. The positive association between engagement and performance may be explained by at least four distinct psychological mechanisms.11 First, engaged employees often experience positive emotions, including joy and enthusiasm. These positive emotions seem to broaden people’s thought-action repertoire27, implying that they constantly learn and acquire new skills and thereby work on their personal resources.28 These resources can be used during task performance. Second, engaged workers experience better health.29 This means that they have the ability to focus on their tasks and dedicate all their energy to their work. Third, engaged employees create their own resources as engagement has been found to positively predict job resources over time.25,10 If needed, they ask for performance feedback or they ask colleagues for help. Finally, engaged workers transfer their engagement to others in their immediate environment.23,30 Since in most organizations performance is the result of collaborative effort, the engagement of one person may transfer to others and indirectly improve team performance. The number of studies supporting the positive relationship between employee engagement and (task and extra-role) performance is increasing.31 For example, Halbesleben and Wheeler32 in their study among American employees, their supervisors, and their closest coworkers from a wide variety of industries and occupations showed that work engagement made a unique contribution (after controlling for job embeddedness) to explaining variance in job performance. Salanova, Agut, and Peiró33 conducted a study among personnel working in Spanish restau18

rants and hotels. Service employees (N=342) from 58 hotel frontdesks and 56 restaurants provided information about organizational resources, engagement, and service climate, while customers (N=1,140) from these units provided information on employee performance and customer loyalty. Structural equation modeling analyses showed that organizational resources and work engagement predicted service climate, which, in turn, predicted employee performance and then customer loyalty. Bakker and Xanthopoulou34 showed that engaged school principals were rated as more creative (i.e. a specific aspect of task performance) by their subordinate teachers. It was proposed that engagement adds to creativity because a person who is not engaged is less likely to use his/her skills and expertise in the service of creative performance, even if he/she holds the expertise and ability to perform creatively. In contrast, energetic, dedicated and absorbed employees are more inclined to use their skills or to acquire new skills in order to be creative. Saks35 supported the positive relation between engagement and organizational citizenship behavior. In a survey study among employees working in a variety of jobs and organizations, he found that engaged individuals were more likely to attend functions that were not required by the organization in order to improve the overall image. Finally, Bakker and Demerouti30 in their study among 175 working couples supported the crossover of work engagement from women to men. In turn, men’s work engagement related positively to their in-role and extra-role performance, as rated by their colleagues. Similar results have been reported for the relationship between state work engagement and job performance episodes. Forty-four flight attendants were followed-up over consecutive flights to three intercontinental trips, three times per trip: after the outbound flight, and before and after the inbound flight.22 Results suggested that colleague support during the outbound flight related positively to flight attendants’ self-efficacy before the inbound flight, and work engagement during the inbound flight. Consequently, work engagement related positively to selfreported in-role and extra-role performance during the inbound flight. These findings are quite striking because they imply a cyclical effect. When employees receive sufficient support from their colleagues, they feel more efficacious and they are more engaged. As a result, they reciprocate this support by being good citizens (i.e. by supporting their colleagues). In a similar vein, Bakker and Bal25 performed a study among 54 Dutch starting teachers. Teachers filled in short questionnaires every Friday for five consecutive working weeks. Results of this study revealed that weekly engagement related positively to weekly (in-role and extra-role) self-rated performance. Importantly, teachers’ selfratings of performance were strongly related to supervisors’ ratings of teachers’ performance that were collected during the first week of the study. Furthermore, Bakker and Xanthopoulou23 in a diary study among 62 dyads of coworkers who worked closely together, found that colleagues influenced each other’s level of engagement, and indirectly influenced each other’s daily performance. Specifically, this study revealed that daily work engagement crossed over from one colleague to the other on days they had more business and informal contacts (phone, e-mail, face-to-face) than usual; on these days, particularly vigorous coworkers facilitated each other’s performance. In a similar diary design among 78 dyads of coworkers, Bakker and Xanthopoulou36 found evidence for the 16/22 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 |

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | How do Engaged Employees Stay Engaged? daily crossover of job performance from one person to the other, particularly on days that one of the two colleagues was highly engaged. This interaction effect remained significant after controlling for daily availability of job resources, and the degree to which colleagues liked each other. Finally, work engagement has also been found to relate positively to productivity. In a study among Greek employees working in fast-food restaurants, a compelling case was made of the predictive value of work engagement for financial turnover, on a daily basis.24 Consistent with hypotheses, results showed that employees were more engaged on days that were characterized by more job resources than usual. Daily job resources, like supervisor coaching and positive team atmosphere contributed to employees’ day-levels of optimism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem, which, in turn, explained daily work engagement. Importantly, on days employees were more engaged, restaurants reported higher financial returns. To conclude, there is substantial empirical evidence for the positive relationship between work engagement and job performance – both at the between-person and at the within-person level.31 Support for this relationship is substantial and adds to our understanding of why engaged employees stay engaged. While engagement facilitates high levels of performance and profit for the organization, employees who perform at a high level are also likely to stay engaged in their job. At the organizational-level of analysis, a possible reason for this is that a flourishing organization is more likely to provide the means (i.e. resources) to employees that facilitate engagement. This is in line with Schneider, Hanges, Smith, and Salvaggio37, who showed that financial and market performance predicted overall job satisfaction more strongly than the reverse (although some of the reverse relationships were also significant). However, of more importance here is a reason that stems from the person-level of analysis. Employees performing at a high level are more likely to feel confident and believe that they have control over the environment.10 As Gist and Mitchell38 argued, positive, self-directed performance feedback may retain or enhance employees’ self-efficacy, which in turn keeps them engaged at work.28 This kind of proactive behavior that characterizes engaged employees may be another explanation of why they stay engaged.

Engagement and Proactive behavior Proactivity at work has been defined as a special type of goaldirected behavior that it is self-starting, anticipatory and changeoriented.39-42 According to Bindl and Parker39, “employees can be proactive in initiating better ways of conducting their tasks (individual task proactivity), they can be proactive in developing methods to help their team perform better (team member proactivity), or they can actively suggest how to improve performance of the organization (organization member proactivity)”. Several studies have focused on the relationship between work engagement and proactive behavior at work. Salanova and Schaufeli43 found in a cross-sectional survey study among managers of a Dutch telecom company and Spanish technology employees a positive relationship between engagement and self-reported personal initiative at work. Specifically, multi-group analyses showed that work engagement fully mediated the relationship between job resources and proactive behavior at work in both samples. In a similar vein, Schaufeli et al.12 in their survey study Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 16/22

among Dutch employees from a wide range of occupations, reported a positive relationship between engagement on the one hand, and innovativeness on the other. Specifically, engaged employees were more likely to invent new solutions for problems at work. Consistently, in a longitudinal study among Finnish dentists, Hakanen, Perhoniemi, and Toppinen-Tammer44 found a positive link between engagement on the one hand, and personal initiative and innovation on the other hand. They found that engaged dentists were more likely to do more than they are asked to do, and tried to be actively involved in organizational matters. In addition, engaged dentists constantly made improvements in their work and gathered feedback and ideas for improvements from clients. Furthermore, Sonnentag20 showed in her diary study that day-level recovery was positively related to day-level work engagement. Daily engagement was, in turn, positively related to day-level proactive behavior (personal initiative and pursuit of learning) during the workday. In line with these findings, Bakker, Demerouti, and Ten Brummelhuis45 showed that engagement is positively related to active learning behavior. Employees from a wide variety of occupations who scored high on vigor, dedication, and absorption scored also high on supervisor-ratings of active learning. Engaged workers were more likely to learn new things through their work activities, and to search for task-related challenges. They were also more likely to ask their colleagues for feedback about their performance. Finally, a recent study among almost 750 young Finnish managers46 showed that engaged managers were most eager to develop themselves in the job and to increase their occupational knowledge. They were also most likely to have positive attitudes towards modernization and increased productivity. Taken together, these findings imply that engaged employees are not passive actors in work environments, but instead actively change their work environment if needed.

Engagement and Job crafting Employees may actively change the design of their jobs by choosing tasks, negotiating different job content, and assigning meaning to their tasks or jobs.47 This process of employees shaping their jobs has been referred to as job crafting.48 Job crafting is defined as the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in their task or relational boundaries. Physical changes refer to changes in the form, scope or number of job tasks, whereas cognitive changes refer to changing how one sees the job. Berg, Wrzesniewski and Dutton49 offer some examples of making ‘physical changes’ to one’s job. For instance, they interviewed a maintenance technician who told that he crafts his job in the form of taking on additional tasks. After being for some time in the organization, he started to proactively help newcomers to learn the job. Because he turned out to be good at this, he became formally responsible for the training of new employees. Berg and colleagues49 also cite a customer service representative who reframed the perception of the job as a meaningful whole that positively impacts others rather than a collection of separate tasks (i.e. cognitive change as a form of job crafting): “Technically, [my job is] putting in orders, entering orders, but really I see it as providing our customers with an enjoyable experience, a positive experience, which is a lot more meaningful to me than entering numbers” (pp. 167).

Original Article | Bakker Arnold et al. Changing relational boundaries means that individuals have discretion over whom they interact with while doing their job. According to Wrzesniewski and Dutton48, job crafting focuses on the processes by which employees change elements of their jobs and relationships with others to revise the meaning of the work and the social environment at work. Thus, job crafting is about changing the job in order to experience enhanced meaning of it. As a consequence, employees may be able to increase their person-job fit. However, before employees can start crafting their job, they must perceive they have the opportunity to make changes. This refers to the autonomy employees have in what they do in their job and how they do it. For example, when employees perform tasks that are interdependent, there is not much room for changing how and when to perform the tasks and relational boundaries. Also, support from supervisors seems very important in perceiving opportunities to craft. A supervisor who understands the employee may offer the employee autonomy to impact upon his/ her job tasks, and thereby encourages self-initiation.50 Tims and Bakker51 adopt the view that employees are active in changing their job tasks and relational boundaries. However, they argue that not every employee may have room and motivation for changing the job. Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, and Schwartz52 suggested that employees who view their work as a calling (i.e., focus on enjoyment or fulfilling) are more likely to engage in job crafting, because work is more central in their lives. Consistent with this view, Tims, Bakker, and Derks53 showed that engagement has a positive relationship with colleague-ratings of job crafting. Engaged employees were most likely to increase their job resources, for example, ask for feedback from their supervisor and mobilize their social network. Additionally, engaged employees were most likely to increase their own job demands in order to create a challenging work environment. For example, they proactively volunteered to be involved in a project if possible. Additionally, if it is quiet at work they see this as an opportunity to start new projects. Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, and Schaufeli54 examined the situational conditions influencing job crafting on a daily basis, as well as the relationship between job crafting and state work engagement. Their study was conducted among 95 employees from several organizations who filled in a diary for five consecutive days. Job crafting was operationalized as “resources seeking”, “challenges seeking” and “demands reducing”. Findings not only confirmed the validity of the job crafting conceptualization including the three specific behaviors of resources seeking, challenges seeking and demands reducing, but also showed that job crafting behaviors varied significantly from one day to another (withinperson variance ranged between 31% and 45%). Moreover, it was found that on days that work pressure and autonomy were both high (i.e. active jobs) individuals showed higher resources seeking and lower demands reducing behaviors. Interestingly, it was shown that the more employees sought resources and challenges on a specific day the more engaged they were in their job. In contrast, the more employees simplified their work on a specific day, the less engagement they experienced on that day. These findings suggest that job crafting may occur on a daily basis, it is predicted by a work context that is characterized by high work pressure and high autonomy, and it has both beneficial (in case of resource and demands seeking) and detrimental (in case of demands reducing) effects on work engagement.

Cycles of Engagement The finding that job resources are the most important drivers of work engagement29, and that engaged employees proactively mobilize their own job resources, seems to suggest that resources are reciprocal with engagement. This assumption of reciprocity actually implies that engaged employees are more likely to craft their job, which in turn helps them to sustain their engagement. Is there evidence for the existence of such ‘cycles of engagement’? Some longitudinal and diary studies indeed suggest that such cycles do exist. First, in their three-year panel study among 2,555 Finnish dentists, Hakanen and his colleagues44 examined how job resources and work engagement may start a gain cycle. Drawing on Hobfoll’s55 conservation of resources (COR) theory, a reciprocal process was predicted: (1) job resources lead to work engagement and work engagement leads to personal initiative (PI), which, in turn, has a positive impact on work-unit innovativeness, and (2) work-unit innovativeness leads to PI, which has a positive impact on work engagement, which finally predicts future job resources. The results generally confirmed these hypotheses. Positive and reciprocal cross-lagged associations were found between job resources and work engagement and between work engagement and PI. In addition, PI had a positive impact on work-unit innovativeness over time. This suggests that job resources fueled engagement and initiative, but also that engagement and personal initiative led to more resources over time. Second, Xanthopoulou et al.10 examined the role of personal resources (i.e. self-efficacy, self-esteem, and optimism) and job resources (i.e. job autonomy, supervisory coaching, performance feedback, and opportunities for professional development) in explaining work engagement. They carried out a two-wave longitudinal study among technical specialists with a time interval of one year and a half. It was hypothesized that job resources, personal resources, and work engagement are reciprocal over time. Results showed that not only (job and personal) resources and work engagement, but also job and personal resources were mutually related. These findings support the assumption of COR theory55 that various types of resources and well-being evolve into a cycle that determines employees’ successful adaptation to their work environments. Importantly, these results indicate that engaged employees are more likely to be efficacious (i.e. have control over the environment), optimistic and to feel valued by the organization that increases the chances of impacting on their work environment. Put differently, engaged employees are characterized by high levels of personal resources (and particularly self-efficacy) that broaden their autonomy to change tasks or relational boundaries. Third, Schaufeli et al.56 in their study among Dutch managers of a telecom company hypothesized that work engagement would have a positive impact on changes in job resources over a one-year time period. The results showed that changes in job resources predicted engagement, and that engagement was predictive of increases in social support, autonomy, opportunities for development, and performance feedback. Finally, in their study among starting teachers Bakker and Bal25 found that weekly changes in work-related resources (autonomy, supervisory coaching, performance feedback, and opportunities for development) predicted week-levels of engagement. In addition, they found a reversed causal effect: engaged teachers were best able to mobilize their own job resources. 16/22 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 |

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | How do Engaged Employees Stay Engaged? Taken together, these results show that employee engagement and behavior can have a positive effect on the available resources. Engaged employees seem to create or mobilize their own personal and job resources – in other words, they engage in job crafting.48 In this way, engaged employees seem to sustain and manage their own vigor and dedication.25,28 This dynamic, reciprocal relationship between resources and engagement as described by COR theory is compatible with and partly supports the notion of a gain cycle of engagement.

Conclusion So far, the main concern of scholars and managers interested in work engagement was to figure out what is the best way to design a job in order to enhance employee engagement. Research of the past decade boils down to the significance of job and personal resources in creating engaged workforces.1,29 The present conceptual paper has gone one step further, and examined how engaged employees stay engaged based on their own initiative. With the help of theory and previous findings the main purpose was to find out how engaged employees stay engaged in their work. A thorough examination of the literature suggests that engaged employees are likely to work in an environment that stimulates autonomy, and believe that they have control over this environment (i.e. self-efficacy;28). The role of control, as a situational

factor and as personal characteristic both at the between- and within-person level of analysis, is highly significant in explaining why engaged employees stay engaged. The reason is that this perceived control gives more freedom to employees to actively shape (i.e. craft) their work environment.48 As a result, engaged employees are likely to create a resourceful (by seeking for or creating more resources) and more challenging (by seeking demands) work environment. Next to control, engaged employees behave proactively and reach high performance standards that may also contribute to retaining and even enhancing work engagement. Both behavioral manifestations create positive cycles with engagement. On the one hand, proactivity is, by definition, closely related to job crafting that enhances engagement. On the other hand, successful performance initiates self-directed positive feedback.38 Self-directed feedback helps employees to understand the optimal outcomes of engagement. Consequently, this helps not only to retain engagement, but also to enhance it. To conclude, this conceptual paper suggests that engaged employees stay engaged because they have the autonomy to impact upon their work in a way that it becomes not only more resourceful, but also more challenging. This insight is important for practice because it indicates that engaged employees need active jobs (characterized by high resources and high challenges) in order to stay engaged. The competitive advantage of engaged employees though is that they do not rely only on management to get their ideal job. Instead, they are able and willing to initiate the required changes themselves.

REFERENCES 1. Bakker AB, Demerouti E. Towards a model of work engagement. Career Develop Int. 2008; 13:209-223. 2. Bakker AB, Hanaken JJ, Demerouti E, Xanthopoulou D. Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. J Educ Psychol. 2007; 99:274–284. 3. Hakanen JJ, Bakker AB, Demerouti E. How dentists cope with their job demands and stay engaged: The moderating role of job resources. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005;113:479-487. 4. Nielsen K, Randall R, Yarker J, Brenner SO. The effects of transformational leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological wellbeing: A longitudinal study. Work Stress. 2008;22:16-32.

5. Piccolo RF, Colquitt JA. Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Acad Manage J. 2006;49:327-340. 6. Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2011). Do transformational leaders enhance their followers’ daily work engagement? The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 121-131. 7. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In: Bakker AB, Leiter MP, editors. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press; 2010. p. 10-24. 8. Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, González-Romá V, Bakker AB. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Happiness Stud. 2002;3:71-92.

Original Article | Bakker Arnold et al. 9. Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP, Taris TW. Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work Stress. 2008; 22:187-200. 10. Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. J Vocat Behav. 2009;74:235-244. 11. Bakker AB. Building engagement in the workplace. In: Burke RJ, Cooper CL, editors. The peak performing organization. Oxon, UK: Routledge; 2009. p. 50-72. 12. Schaufeli WB, Taris TW, Bakker A. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide: On the differences between work engagement and workaholism. In: Burke R, editor. Work hours and work addiction. Northhampton, UK: Edward Elgar; 2006. p.193-252. 13. Bakker, A.B., & Oerlemans, W. (2011). Subjective well-being in organizations. In K.S. Cameron & G.M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship (pp. 178-189). New York: Oxford University Press. 14. Russell JA. Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychol Rev. 2003;110:145-172. 15. Freedmann JL. What happiness is, who has it, and why. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1978. 16. Warr P. Work, happiness, and unhappiness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2007. 17. Schaufeli WB, Taris TW, Van Rhenen W. Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Appl Psychol-Int Rev. 2008;57:173-203. 18. Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A.B. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 209-222. 19. González-Romá V, Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Lloret S. Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles?. J Vocat Behav. 2006;62:165-174. 20. Sonnentag S. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behaviour: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. J Appl Psychol. 2003; 88:518-528. 21. Sonnentag S, Dormann C, Demerouti E. Not all days are created equal: The concept of state work engagement. In: Bakker AB, Leiter MP, editors. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press; 2010. p. 25-38. 22. Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB, Heuven E, Demerouti E, Schaufeli, WB. Working in the sky: A diary study on work engagement among flight attendants. J Occup Health Psych. 2008;13:345-356. 23. Bakker AB, Xanthopoulou D. The crossover of daily work engagement: Test of an actor-partner interdependence model. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94:1562-1571. 24. Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. J Occup Organ Psych. 2009;82:183-200. 25. Bakker AB, Bal PM. Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. J Occup Organ Psych. 2010;83:189-206. 26. Bakker AB, Van Emmerik H, Demerouti E, Geurts S. (2010). Recovery turns job demands into challenges: A diary study on work engagement and performance. Unpublished manuscript. Rotterdam: Department of Work and Organizational Psychology. 27. Fredrickson BL. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am Psychol. 2001;56:218-226. 28. Salanova M, Schaufeli WB, Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB. The gain spiral of resources and work engagement: Sustaining a positive worklife. In: Bakker AB, Leiter MP, editors. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press; 2010. p. 118-131. 29. Bakker AB, Leiter MP, editors. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press; 2010. 30. Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The crossover of work engagement between working couples: A closer look at the role of empathy. J Manage Psych. 2009;24:220-236. 31. Demerouti E, Cropanzano R. From thought to action: Employee work engagement and job performance. In: Bakker AB, Leiter MP, editors. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press; 2010. p. 147-163.

32. Halbesleben JRB, Wheeler AR. The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work Stress. 2008;22:242-256. 33. Salanova M, Agut S, Peiró JM. Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90:1217-1227. 34. Bakker AB, Xanthopoulou D. (2012). Creativity and charisma among female leaders: The role of resources and work engagement. Manuscript submitted for publication. 35. Saks AM. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J Manage Psych. 2006; 21:600-619. 36. Bakker AB, Xanthopoulou D. The convergence of job performance during interactions with engaged colleagues: An actor-partner interdependence analysis. Rotterdam; Erasmus University; 2010. 37. Schneider B, Hanges PJ, Smith DB, Salvaggio AM. Which comes first: Employee attitudes of organizational financial and market performance? J Appl Psychol. 2003;88:836-851. 38. Gist, ME, Mitchell TR Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Acad Manage J. 1992; 17:183-211. 39. Bindl U, Parker SK. Proactive work behavior: Forward thinking and changeoriented action in organizations. In: Zedeck S, editor. APA Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (In press). 40. Crant JM Proactive behavior in organizations. J Manage. 2000;26:435-462. 41. Grant AM, Ashford SJ. The dynamics of proactivity at work. Res Organ Behav. 2008;28: 3-34. 42. Parker SK, Williams HM, Turner N. Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. J Appl Psychol. 2006; 91:636-652. 43. Salanova M, Schaufeli WB. A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behavior. Int J Hum Resour Man. 2008;19:116-131. 44. Hakanen JJ, Perhoniemi R, Toppinen-Tanner S. Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness. J Vocat Behav. 2008;73:78-91. 45. Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Ten Brummelhuis, L.L. (2012). Work engagement, performance, and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 555-564. 46. Hyvönen K, Feldt T, Salmela-Aro K, Kinnunen U, Mäkikangas A. Young managers’ drive to thrive: A personal work goal approach to burnout and work engagement. J Vocat Behav. 2009;75:183-196 47. Parker SK, Ohly S. Designing motivating jobs: An expanded framework for linking work characteristics and motivation. In: Kanfer R, Chen G, Pritchard RD, editors. Work motivation: Past, present and future. New York: LEA/Psychology Press; 2008. p. 233-284. 48. Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad Manage Rev. 2001;26:179-201. 49. Berg JM, Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. J Organ Behav. 2010; 31:158-186. 50. Baard PP, Deci EL, Ryan RM Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2004;34:2045-2068 51. Tims M, Bakker AB. Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. S Afr J Ind Psychol. (In press). 52. Wrzesniewski A, McCauley CR, Rozin P,Schwartz B. Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to their work. J Res Pers. 1997;31:21-33. 53. Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173-186. 54. Petrou P, Demerouti E, Peeters M, Schaufeli W. Crafting a job on a daily basis: Contextual antecedents and the effect on work engagement. (In press, 2010). 55. Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol. 1989;44:513-524. 56. Schaufeli, WB, Bakker AB, Van Rhenen W. How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism J Organ Behav. 2009;30(7):893-917. 16/22 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 |

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article

Workplace Relationships as Demands and Resources: A Model of Burnout and Work Engagement Las Relaciones Interpersonales en el Lugar de Trabajo Como Demandas y Recursos Laborales: Un Modelo de Burnout y Engagement Michael P. Leiter1, Ryan Nicholson2, Ashlyn Patterson3, Heather K. Spence Laschinger4 1. PhD. Canada Research Chair in Occupational Health and Wellbeing. 2. MSc. 3. BA. Centre for Organizational Research and Development, Arcadia University. 4. RN. PHD. FCAHS. Distingued University Profesor, University of Western Ontario.

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the relationship between workplace interpersonal encounters and the experiences of burnout and work engagement in a longitudinal sample of Canadian nurses (N = 472). Based on the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, the authors hypothesized that workplace demands (i.e., incivility) are related to the core burnout scales of exhaustion and cynicism while resources (i.e., civility) are related to professional efficacy and work engagement. Additionally, instigated incivility was hypothesized as being positively associated with experienced incivility. A structural equation analysis found that the data best fit a slightly revised JD-R model that supported demands being closely linked to exhaustion and cynicism, while linking resources with efficacy and engagement. Contrary to expectations, instigated incivility was related to a lack of coworker civility rather than workplace incivility. The implications of these findings for potential interventions and future research are discussed. Key words: Engagement, Burnout, Teamwork, Incivility, Civility, Social Behavior

RESUMEN

Este trabajo investiga la relación existente entre los encuentros interpersonales en el trabajo y las experiencias de burnout y engagement en una muestra longitudinal de personal de enfermería canadiense (N = 472). Basado en el modelo de demandas y recursos laborales (JD-R), los autores plantearon la hipótesis de que las demandas del lugar de trabajo (es decir, el incivismo) están relacionadas con las principales escalas de burnout y cinismo, mientras que los recursos (es decir, el civismo) están relacionados con la eficacia profesional y el engagement. Además se hipotetizó que el incivismo instigado está asociado positivamente con el incivismo percibido. A través de un análisis de ecuaciones estructurales se pudo descubrir que los datos se ajustan mejor a un modelo JD-R al que se le hicieron algunas modificaciones y que respalda la idea de que las demandas están estrechamente relacionadas con el agotamiento y el cinismo, mientras que los recursos están vinculados con la eficacia y el engagement. Contrariamente a lo esperado, el incivismo instigado está relacionado con la falta de civismo entre colegas, en vez de vincularse con el incivismo en el lugar de trabajo. Por último, se discuten las implicaciones de estos hallazgos para las posibles intervenciones. Palabras clave: ENGAGEMENT, BURNOUT, TRABAJO EN EQUIPO, INCIVISMO, CIVISMO, COMPORTAMIENTO SOCIAL

Workplace stress has long been noted as a major contributor to impairments in physical health and overall job performance.1 This internalized personal experience of stress mediates the relationship between workplace stressors and work-related outcomes including leave of absences and illness.2 The stress response to prolonged exposure of chronic job demands is termed ‘burnout’.3 Working relationships with colleagues and supervisors have long been recognized as having a definitive role in employees’ psychological connections with work4,5, serving as both resources and burdens. The research reported here considers the extent to which burnout or work engagement are associated with the quality of social interaction that employees have with their colleagues at work.

Correspondence / Correspondencia Michael P. Leiter, PhD Centre for Organizational Research & Development, Acadia University 24 Highland Ave, Wolfville, NS Canada, B4P 2R6 Tel.: 902-585-1357 • Fax: 902-585-1083 e-mail: michael.leiter@acadiau.ca Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 23/30

Burnout Job burnout is a response to the effects of emotional and interpersonal stressors found on the job.6,7 The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI)8 defines burnout as comprising three factors: exhaustion, cynicism, and feelings of professional inefficacy, although many consider exhaustion and cynicism to be the core burnout dimensions. Exhaustion is the component of burnout describing the depletion and overexertion of both physical and emotional resources. When people use the term ‘burnout’ colloquially, they often convey images of exhaustion; however, exhaustion on its own fails to take into account the relationship between an employee and their work when subjected to these chronic job demands. Cynicism, the interpersonal aspect of burnout, is characterized by creating psychological distance from the workplace through detached responses to coworkers, management, customers, and other various aspects of the job. Finally, inefficacy refers to feelings of reduced occupational self-esteem, accomplishment, and productivity, representing the self-evaluation portion of burnout. Exhaustion and cynicism, the two primary measures of burnout, demonstrate the highest correla23

Original Article | Leiter Michael et al. tion between the three aspects of burnout at approximately 0,55.8 Burnout was initially thought to be brought about by stress from intrapersonal relationships in the workplace applicable only to employees acting as a service provider to a client. As a result, the Maslach Burnout Inventory—Human Services Scale (MBI-HSS)8 was designed to measure burnout in employees only with occupations that could be defined as ‘people work’. The concept has since been more broadly applied to people of varying occupations and sectors, as reflected by the design of the Maslach Burnout Inventory – General Survey.9 The vast majority of burnout studies, approximately 90 percent, use the MBI as their primary measurement tool making it the current ‘gold standard’ for measuring occupational burnout.10 High scores on the exhaustion and cynicism scales of the MBI in combination with a low professional efficacy score signals the presence of burnout. Burnout research has focused primarily on the negative facets of work, a logical viewpoint as psychology has generally examined the negative aspects of the human experience, such as studies of mental illness, environmental stressors, or countless other examples. Breaking away from this stance, ‘positive psychology’ has seen an emergence in popularity within the last decade. Positive psychology shifts the focus away from repairing damage and towards strengthening positive traits and qualities.11 Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter7 applied this viewpoint to burnout by proposing work engagement as its antithesis, defined as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind”.12 Unlike burnout, no clear operational definition of work engagement has been established as two somewhat divergent perspectives have been put forward. One perspective, as first put forward by Maslach and Leiter13, suggests that work engagement is the direct antithesis of burnout. They propose that work engagement consists of three dimensions: energy, involvement, and efficacy. These three dimensions are direct polar opposites of their respective burnout counterparts of exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy. According to this model, individuals scoring high on the efficacy scale and low on the exhaustion and cynicism scales of the MBI are considered as being engaged with their work, in direct contrast to the scoring pattern of burnout. More recently, Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, and Bakker12 suggested that the MBI is unsuitable for measuring work engagement as it does not provide a measurement independent from burnout as the engagement and burnout scales are merely opposing ends of three continuums. Rather, they developed the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) as a means of measuring work engagement separate from burnout.12 Schaufeli and colleagues believe that work engagement is characterized by three factors: vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and effort directed towards work. Dedication is described as being heavily involved in the job and includes feelings of pride and enthusiasm. The third factor, absorption, describes individuals who find themselves happily immersed in their work to the point of having a difficult time separating their life from their work. Vigor and dedication are the direct polar opposites of the burnout factors of exhaustion and cynicism respectively.7,14 These vigor-exhaustion and dedication-cynicism dimensions have been labeled activation and identification respectively.14 Absorption, on the other hand, is not considered to be the opposite of the burnout factor inefficacy and was not originally hypothesized as a part of engagement. Rather, it was proposed as a third factor following in-depth interviews conducted with a sample of workers15 and was supported by a confirmatory factor analysis.12

Although Schaufeli and colleagues12 showed that the three-factor work engagement model fit their data better than a single measure of work engagement, the correlations between the vigor, dedication, and absorption are high, typically greater than 0,60.16 The impact of these strong correlations may be best highlighted by Sonnentag17 who used the UWES to measure work engagement as a single-factor after a principal component analysis did not result in a three-factor structure. Various studies using the MBI and UWES have examined how the proposed factors of burnout and engagement best fit their respective data sets. As expected, the three components of burnout have been negatively correlated with the three components of work engagement.12,18,19 However, the loading patterns exhibited consistently differ from what would be expected (i.e., exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy loading on one factor and vigor, dedication, and absorption on a second factor). A core burnout factor consisting only of exhaustion and cynicism and an extended engagement factor, including the three proposed engagement scales and efficacy, best fit the data as efficacy is strongly correlated with all three aspects of engagement.15,18,20,21 Schaufeli and Bakker18 suggest this may be due to the positive wording of the efficacy items on the MBI. The engagement scales are also worded positively while the core burnout scales are negatively worded. With this in mind, it has been suggested that burnout may be measured more accurately with the use negatively-worded items to measure inefficacy instead of using the reverse score of positively written efficacy items.22

Incivility and Job Demands/Resources Model The Job Demands-Resources Model23 suggests job demands and job resources are generalized job characteristics that are related to the experience of burnout and work engagement. Job demands refer to physical, social, and organizational factors on the job that require extra physical or mental effort leading to physiological and psychological costs.23 Over time, the accumulation of these costs can lead to burnout. For example, Baker, Demerouti, Taris, Schaufeli, and Schreurs24 reported that an increase in job demands is related to increased feelings of exhaustion. Similarly, Hakanen, Schaufeli, and Ahola25 found that job demands were positively correlated with burnout and depression both initially and over a three year time period. One job demand of considerable interest is incivility. As defined by Andersson and Pearson26, workplace incivility is “… low-intensity deviant behaviour with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others” (p.457). Examples of these types of behavior include withholding information, spreading rumors about colleagues, and making demeaning remarks to someone. Incivility among coworkers can result in emotionally draining interactions, which can have negative psychological costs to employees. For example, workplace incivility is associated with a decrease in self-esteem, self-confidence, and an increase in feelings of depression, nervousness, and anxiety.27,28 In contrast, job resources are physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that: assist in achieving work goals, reduce job demands, and stimulate personal growth.23 These resources foster employee motivation, and thus are also believed to increase work engagement. For example, there is evidence that job resources correlate strongly with work engagement both immediately

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Workplace Relationships as Demands and Resources: A Model of Burnout and Work Engagement and over time.25 In addition, Demerouti et al.23 found that when job resources are lacking, work disengagement is more likely to occur. Civility reflects supportive collegial relationships that provide an example of a job resource. Civil behavior involves taking others’ feelings into consideration, treating others with dignity, and acting in accordance with the social norm of mutual respect.26 Workplace civility involves positive interpersonal relationships that consist of valuing and being valued by others. As a job resource, supportive collegial relationships motivate employees. That motivation is integral to maintaining a strong level of work engagement. Workplace civility has strong associations with key organizational outcomes. High levels of civility are positively correlated with nurses’ trust in management29 while low levels of civility are associated with employees’ turnover rates.30 In contrast to workplace civility that reflects the overall tone of collegial interactions, incivility measures focus on specific incidents31 from coworkers or supervisors. Measures of instigated incivility ask respondents to report the frequency with which they enact uncivil behaviors towards others at work. Instigated incivility marks a qualitative shift from measures of experienced incivility in that it asks respondents to acknowledge their personal contribution to incivility occurring within their workplace. They are not only victims of incivility but perpetrators of these actions as well. We include instigated incivility as an outcome in parallel with burnout and work engagement. As a self-report of respondents’ behavior, it adds a distinct dimension beyond the emotional and cognitive perspectives reflected in other constructs. While experienced incivility and civility represent demands and resources at work, instigated incivility reflects respondents’ direct participation in that social environment. Whereas civility levels reflect core values in an organization’s culture32, people would tend to align their own social interactions with those they receive from others. In addition to direct relationships from received to instigated incivility, employees’ levels of burnout or work engagement may have implications for instigated incivility. Greater exhaustion and cynicism would discourage employees to interact with colleagues with sensitivity and consideration because these qualities require more effort. When experiencing burnout, employees are incapable of considerate relationships because they lack the necessary energy and involvement in others. Less work engagement could also contribute to more instigated incivility as less engaged employees would invest less of their personal resources in their workplace interactions even if they did not feel exhausted or cynical but only indifferent.

Hypotheses The Job Demand/Resources Model proposes that job demands align more directly with the exhaustion and cynicism aspects of burnout while job resources align more closely with work engagement. Regarding interpersonal encounters at work, incivility from coworkers and from supervisors represent a significant demand with emotional and operational consequences.33,34 In contrast, coworkers and supervisors can be the most effective source of resources in their capacity to provide emotional, operational, and informational support. Hypothesis 1: The data will support a model in which demands (supervisor and coworker incivility) have close relationships with the exhaustion and cynicism aspects of burnout while resources (supervisor and coworker civility) have direct relationships with professional efficacy and work engagement. Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 23/30

Instigated incivility reflects employees’ acceptance of incivility as an unavoidable feature of worklife or something tolerated if not encouraged in the organizational culture. A primary source of their attitudes towards workplace civility is their encounters with others at work. Hypothesis 2: Instigated incivility will be positively associated with incivility from coworkers and supervisors and negatively associated with coworker civility.

Methods Participants

At Time 1, 1173 health-care workers in three district health authorities in Nova Scotia and two hospitals in Ontario completed a survey. At Time 2, 907 health-care workers completed the survey. Time 1 had 255 participants on intervention units and 885 in the contrast units; Time 2 had 171 participants in the intervention units and 691 in the contrast units. Four hundred seventy-two participants completed surveys both at Time 1 and Time 2. Participants were predominantly female (N = 426, 90,3%; male: N = 37, 7,8%, 9 not responding), with an average age of 43,26 years (SD = 9,46) at Time 1. Their employment status varied, including full-time (Time 1: N = 353, 74,8%; Time 2: N = 351, 74,4%), part-time (Time 1: N = 87, 18,4%; Time 2: N = 87, 18,4%), casual (Time 1: N = 25, 5,3%; Time 2: N = 23, 4,9%), and temporary (Time 1: N = 4, 0,8%; Time 2: N = 3, 0,6%) employment, with 3 not responding at Time 1 and 8 not responding at Time 2. The occupational categories with the highest response rates included Staff RNs (Time 1: N = 245, 51,9%; Time 2: N = 245, 51,9%), RPNs (Time 1: N = 26, 5,5%; Time 2: N = 26, 5,5%), Ward Clerks (Time 1: N = 22, 4,7%; Time 2: N = 21, 4,4%), LPNs (Time 1: N = 21, 4,4%; Time 2: N = 21, 4,4%) and Unit Clerks (Time 1: N = 19, 4,0%; Time 2: N = 19, 4,0%). As of Time 2, respondents worked in their current hospital for varying lengths: less than six months (9, 1,9%), 6 to 24 months (16, 3,4%), 2-5 years (80, 16,9%), 6-10 years (88, 18,6%), 11-15 years (46, 9,7%), 16-20 years (67, 14,2%), 21-30 years (106, 22,5%), and more than 30 years (22, 4,7%), with 38 not responding.

Procedure

These health-care workers completed a questionnaire as part of a project to improve civility among colleagues. In accordance with procedures approved by relevant ethics review panels, researchers worked with hospital personnel to distribute questionnaire packages to personnel on 41 units across the five hospitals. We explained the research objectives, ensured confidentiality, and posted reminders in the hospitals to help increase participation. In accordance with ethical procedures, completing the surveys was voluntary. Participants had an option of completing the survey online. Members of the team presented the rationale for the survey and were present on participating units across the shifts to answer questions and provide assistance upon request. Participants returned completed surveys in business-reply stamped envelopes to a research center that was independent of the hospitals. We received 1173 surveys from the 3163 distributed for a response rate of 37%. Following the first wave of surveys, an intervention was implemented by the research team, in cooperation with hospital partners, on 8 of the 41 units. In accordance with ethical procedures, participation in CREW sessions was voluntary. A second wave of surveys was administered one year after the first survey using the same procedure. At Time 2, we received 907

Original Article | Leiter Michael et al. surveys from the 3163 distributed for a response rate of 28,6%. Four hundred seventy-two participants completed surveys both at Time 1 and Time 2 and had complete variables for this study.

Measures Emotional Exhaustion. A subscale of the Maslach Burnout InventoryGeneral Survey (MBI-GS)8,9 was used to measure Emotional Exhaustion. Participants used a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (every day) to rate the extent to which they experience exhaustion and cynicism at work (e.g., “I feel used up at the end of the workday”). In the current study, the internal reliability for Emotional Exhaustion was high (a = 0,91 at Time 1 and a = 0,91 at Time 2). Cynicism. A subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS)8,9 was used to measure Cynicism. Participants used a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (every day) to rate the extent to which they experience exhaustion and cynicism at work (e.g., “I have become less interested in my work since I started this job”). In the current study, the internal reliability for Cynicism was high (a = 0,82 at Time 1 and a = 0,87 at Time 2). Professional Efficacy. Efficacy was measured using the professional efficacy scale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory—General Scale (MBI—GS).9 Participants used a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (every day) to rate the extent to which they experience efficacy (e.g., “I feel exhilarated when I accomplish something at work”). In the current study, the internal reliability was high (a = 0,73 at Time 1, and a = 0,76 at Time 2). Engagement. Engagement was measured using a shortened 4-item version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES).12 The items included all three UWES constructs: dedication (2), vigor (8, 15), and absorption (9); the average of the four items produced one score, UWES. Participants used a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (every day) to rate how often they experience engagement with their work (e.g., “I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose”). In the current study, the internal reliability was high at Time 1 (a = 0,75) and Time 2 (a = 0,76). Instigated Incivility. Consistent with Blau and Andersson35, an additional dimension of instigated workplace incivility was included. Using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “never” to “daily,” partici-

pants rated their own behavior on each of the five items (e.g., “Ignored or excluded others from professional camaraderie”). In the current study, the internal reliability was high at Time 1 (a = 0,72) and Time 2 (a = 0,81). Experienced Incivility (Supervisor and Coworker). The 10-item Workplace Incivility Scale31 assesses the frequency of health-care workers’ experiences of workplace incivility including disrespectful, rude, or condescending behaviors in the previous month. Using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “never” to “daily” participants rated the extent to which they experienced each of five behaviors (e.g., “People treat each other with respect in my work group”) from their supervisor and from their coworkers. In the current study, the internal reliability was high for each dimension at Time 1 (supervisor: a = 0,81, coworker: a = 0,85). Supervisor Civility. The 3-item Supervisor Evaluation Scale36 measures the perceptions of positive relations in regards to the participant’s immediate supervisor (e.g., “Encourages innovative/ creative thinking about improving quality”). The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. In the current study, the internal reliability was high (Time 1 a = 0,86). Coworker Civility. The CREW Civility Scale37 consists of eight items designed to measure the perceptions of workplace civility within a work group and across an organization (e.g., “A spirit of cooperation and teamwork exists in my work group”, “Disputes or conflicts are resolved fairly in my work group”, “This organization does not tolerate discrimination”). The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. In the current study, the internal reliability was high (Time 1 a = 0,87).

Results Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, Cronbach alphas, and correlations for the variables in the study. Table 2 displays the t statistics (comparing Year 1 to Year 2) for the outcome variables (see Table 1 and Table 2). In addition, pair-wise t-tests established that coworker incivility (M=0,71) occurred more often than supervisor incivility (M=0,49; t(475)=5,55, p<0,001) and more frequently than instigated incivility

Table 1. Descriptives, Correlations, and Cronbach’s Alpha Values. 1. T1 Exhaustion 2. T1 Cynicism 3. T1 Efficacy 4. T1 Work Engagement 5. T1 Instigated Incivility 6. T1 Supervisor Incivility 7. T1 Co-worker Incivility 8. T1 Supervisor Civility 9. T1 Co-worker Civility 10. T2 Exhaustion 11. T2 Cynicism 12. T2 Efficacy 13. T2 Work Engagement 14. T2 Instigated Incivility

M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2,68 (1,45) (0,91) 0,54 -0,16 -0,42 0,18 0,36 0,20 -0,32 -0,19 0,63 0,44 -0,17 -0,32 0,16 1,56 (1,24) (0,82) -0,37 -0,60 0,37 0,33 0,31 -0,34 -0,33 0,40 0,58 -0,33 -0,43 0,26 4,73 (0,91) (0,73) 0,62 -0,13 -0,02a -0,17 0,14 0,35 -0,15 -0,33 0,60 0,48 -0,12b 4,63 (1,08) (0,75) -0,20 -0,22 -0,19 0,26 0,33 -0,31 -0,42 0,45 0,63 -0,10 0,49 (0,45) (0,72) 0,28 0,56 -0,12 -0,41 0,22 0,31 -0,11b -0,19 0,48 0,49 (0,72) (0,81) 0,24 -0,47 -0,24 0,28 0,30 -0,07a -0,12b ,020 0,72 (0,76) (0,85) -0,08a -0,52 0,19 0,25 -0,11b -0,18 0,27 3,36 (0,93) (0,86) 0,31 -0,23 -0,27 0,19 0,25 -0,10b 3,74 (0,67) (0,87) -0,20 -0,31 0,30 0,32 -0,22 2,59 (1,43) (0,91) 0,61 -0,22 -0,37 0,23 1,51 (1,30) (0,87) -0,44 -0,56 0,37 4,76 (0,92) (0,76) 0,63 -0,11b 4,60 (1,11) (0,76) -0,18 0,50 (0,59) (0,81)

Note. N = 475; Unmarked correlations are significant (p<0,05); aCorrelations are not significant (p>0,05); bCorrelations are significant (p<0,01).

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Workplace Relationships as Demands and Resources: A Model of Burnout and Work Engagement Table 2. Differences Between Variables Measured at Time 1 and Time 2. Time 1 Mean Time 2 Mean (SD) (SD) Coefficient Exhaustion 2,68 (1,45) 2,60 (1,43) 0,08 Cynicism 1,56 (1,24) 1,52 (1,30) 0,04 Efficacy 4,73 (0,91) 4,76 (0,92) -0,03 Work Engagement 4,63 (1,08) 4,60 (1,11) 0,03 Instigated Incivility 0,49 (0,45) 0,50 (0,59) -0,01

t Sig, statistic df (2-tail) 1,48 471 0,140 0,80 471 0,425 -0,68 471 0,497 0,60 471 0,550 -0,54 471 0,588

(M=0,49; t(475)=7,97, p<0,001). There was no difference in the frequency of supervisor incivility and instigated incivility (t(475)=0,03, p=980). We contrasted the strength of correlations using Hotellings t test for contrasting correlated correlations to determine the extent to which the zero-order correlations reflected the expected pattern of stronger resource relationships with professional efficacy and UWES with stronger demand relationships with exhaustion and cynicism. Exhaustion was more strongly correlated with supervisor incivility (r = 0,36) than with coworker incivility (r = 0,20) (t(472) = 3,18, p<0,01); exhaustion was also more strongly correlated with supervisor civility (r =-0,32) than with coworker civility (r = -0,19) (t(472) = 2,55, p<0,01). However, the absolute values of exhaustion’s correlation with civility measures were nearly identical to its correlations with the corresponding incivility measure. Cynicism showed a quite different pattern with all of its correlations with the civility and incivility measures nearly the same, ranging in absolute value from 0,31 to 0,37. Efficacy showed yet a different pattern. Efficacy was more strongly correlated with coworker incivility (r = -0,17) than with supervisor incivility (r = -0,02) (t(472) = 2,55, p<0,01); it was also strongly correlated with coworker civility (r = 0,35) than with supervisor civility (r = 0,36) (t(472) = 4,15, p<0,01. The absolute value of efficacy’s correlation with coworker civility (r = 0,35) was stronger than its correlation with coworker incivility (r = -0,17) (t(472) = 4,26, p<0,01); the absolute value of efficacy’s correlation with supervisor civility (r = 0,14) was stronger than its correlation with supervisor incivility (r = -0,02) (t(472) = 2,24, p<0,01). UWES showed little differentiation among the social variables. Engagement was not more strongly correlated with coworker incivility (r = -0,19) than with supervisor incivility (r = -0,22) (t(472) = 0,54, ns); it was also strongly correlated with coworker civility (r = 0,26) than with supervisor civility (r = 0,33) (t(472) = 1,33, ns). The absolute value of efficacy’s correlation with coworker civility (r = 0,26) was not stronger than its correlation with coworker incivility (r = -0,22) (t(472) = 0,92, ns); the absolute value of efficacy’s correlation with supervisor civility (r = 0,33) was stronger than its correlation with supervisor incivility (r = -0,19) (t(472) = 3,29, p<0,01).

Model Testing

A structural equation analysis evaluated the Hypothesized Model using EQS (EQuationS).38 Whereas some items showed a moderate kurtosis, the analysis used the robust analysis option of EQS, which corrects for multivariate kurtosis.39 The following section reports the robust statistics for Chi Square (Satorra-Bentler Scaled Statistics)40, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Root Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). In all models the first item of each factor is fixed to establish the factor’s scale. One criterion for model fit was an absolute reference point of a CFI ≥ 0,900.39 For the three subscales of the Work Incivility Scale respondents rate Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 23/30

the same five items regarding coworkers, supervisors, and themselves. This structure results in a response pattern for each item across the three ratings. To address this pattern, the SEM freed the error correlations among the identical items across the three ratings. That is, the error term of WIS1Supervisor was freed to correlate with the error term of WIS1 Coworker and the error term of WIS1 Instigated, and the error term of WIS1 Coworker was freed to correlate with the error term of WIS1 Instigated. The same pattern was followed for the other WIS items. We used three items as indicators for each of the three aspects of burnout and each of the three areas of worklife. We selected these items on the basis of previous research41,42 that identified these items as having low error correlations: exhaustion (MBI-3, MBI-4, MBI-6); cynicism (MBI-9, MBI-13, MBI-15); professional efficacy (MBI-10, MBI-11, MBI-12). The constructs based on the restricted set of items correlated very strongly with their full-scale counterparts, ranging from 0,86 for efficacy to 0,96 for exhaustion, indicating a close correspondence of the reduced item scales with the full item scales. Using few items has the advantage of focusing the analysis on the structural relationships among constructs. The model retains its factor analytic component, assigning it a secondary role. The basic reference point for an EQS analysis is the Independence Model that assigns no items to factors. The second reference point is the Structural Null Model that assigns items to their appropriate factors, but does not assign any structural relationships among the factors. The hypothesized JD/R Model improved the fit above the Structural Null (c2(18) =496 0,21, p<0,0001). Although some of the stipulated paths did not attain statistical significance, the analysis did not indicate that it had neglected important structural relationships. The analysis indicated problems with one UWES item, “When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work .”The two largest multivariate modification indices directed to assign this item (negatively) to exhaustion for Time 2 (Modification Index = 50.695) and for Time 1 (Modification Index = 49,42). The third largest modification index concerned the error correlation of the Time 1 UWES item with a professional efficacy item (Modification Index = 21.662). The suggestion of double loading this item on both exhaustion and work engagement ran contrary to the research objective of considering the distinct roles of burnout and work engagement in modeling the social environments of work group. We decided to repeat the analysis without this item, using the other three items to define the work engagement construct.

Revised Model

The values for the Independence and Structural Null Models for the Revised JD/R Model adjusted with the deletion of the UWES item at Time 1 and Time 2. This analysis also showed that the proposed JD/R model improved over the Structural Null Model (c2(18) = 487,34, p<0,0001) (see Table 3). We computed a Final JD/R Model by deleting the structural paths that did not attain statistical significance (p<0,05): To cynicism: coworker incivility To efficacy: cynicism and coworker civility To work engagement: coworker civility To instigated incivility: coworker incivility and supervisor incivility. The Final JD/R Model provided a good fit (CFI = 0,930). The Chi Square value dropped only 1,48 while gaining six degrees of freedom, indicating a more parsimonious fit. 27

Original Article | Leiter Michael et al. Table 3. Model Fit Indices. Model X 2 df Sig. CFI RMSEA Independence 8023,40 1176 Structural Null 2110,48 1072 0,0001 0,848 0,050 JD/R Model 1614,27 1054 0,0001 0,918 0,037 Models without UWES 1 Independence 7473,19 1081 Structural Null 1900,15 980 0,0001 0,856 0,049 JD/R Model 1412,81 962 0,0001 0,929 0,035 Model with only Significant Structural Paths 1414,29 968 0,0001 0,930 0,034

Figure 1 displays the Final JD/R Model. The only path among the outcome variables in the model runs from cynicism to instigated incivility. The paths from the social variables to the outcome variables follow the basic principles of the JD/R Model: the negative indicators—supervisor incivility and coworker incivility—have paths to exhaustion and cynicism. In contrast, supervisor civility has paths to professional efficacy and to work engagement. Coworker civility has a negatively signed path to instigated incivility. Table 4 displays the factor coefficients for the constructs within the model. The first item in each set was designated as fixed to provide a standard for the scale. All of the coefficients are significant on the proper construct. Note that the first UWES maintains a strong loading on the UWES work engagement construct at both times; it’s only problem is a tendency to cross-load on the exhaustion construct. Figure 1. Final model with significant structural paths. Final JD/R Model

Autocor

YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 1 0,12

0,57

Exhaustion

0,66

Cynicism

0,26 0,30

0,55

Efficacy

0,14

0,61

UWES

0,61

Instigated incivility

0,11

0,20 -0,24

Coworker incivility Supervisor incivility Supervisor civility Coworker civility

Discussion This analysis has found general support for the basic pattern predicted by the Job Demands/Resources Model that links demands more closely with the exhaustion and cynicism aspects of burnout while linking resources more closely with professional efficacy and work engagement. The study went further in its exploration of team social encounters: it encourages perceiving the positive side of these interactions as resources while depicting negative encounters as imposing additional demands upon employees. An unexpected but intriguing finding was that instigated incivility is more directly tied to a dearth of coworker civility than to the incidence of incivility from others at work. In addition, the results shed some light on the dynamics of burnout and work engagement. Implications for practice and future research are discussed. The analysis is clear that both supervisor and coworker incivility

Table 4. Factor Loadings for Proposed Model. Variable MBI 3 MBI 4 MBI 6 MBI 9 MBI 10 MBI 11 MBI 12 MBI 13 MBI 15 UWES 8 UWES 15 UWES 2 UWES 9 Civility 1 Civility 3 Civility 4 Civility 6 MBI 3 MBI 4 MBI 6 MBI 9 MBI 10 MBI 11 MBI 12 MBI 13 MBI 15 UWES 8 UWES 15 UWES 2 UWES 9 Supervisor 1 Supervisor 2 Supervisor 3 WIS Supervisor 1 WIS Supervisor 2 WIS Supervisor 3 WIS Supervisor 4 WIS Coworker 1 WIS Coworker 2 WIS Coworker 3 WIS Coworker 4 WIS Instigated 1 WIS Instigated 2 WIS Instigated 3 WIS Instigated 4 WIS Instigated 1 WIS Instigated 2 WIS Instigated 3 WIS Instigated 4

Coefficient 0,861 0,839 0,830 0,843 0,516 0,725 0,816 0,431 0,717 0,721 0,442 0,784 0,660 0,786 0,843 0,726 0,256 0,830 0,834 0,892 0,882 0,468 0,707 0,842 0,490 0,761 0,743 0,450 0,804 0,658 0,802 0,932 0,841 0,828 0,648 0,786 0,818 0,828 0,752 0,761 0,809 0,658 0,563 0,728 0,673 0,667 0,613 0,610 0,560

Factor Error T1 Exhaustion 0,508 T1 Exhaustion 0,544 T1 Exhaustion 0,558 T1 Cynicism 0,538 T1 Efficacy 0,857 T1 Efficacy 0,688 T1 Efficacy 0,578 T1 Cynicism 0,902 T1 Cynicism 0,697 T1 UWES 0,693 T1 UWES 0,897 T1 UWES 0,621 T1 UWES 0,751 T1 Coworker Civility 0,618 T1 Coworker Civility 0,537 T1 Coworker Civility 0,688 T1 Coworker Civility 0,967 T2 Exhaustion 0,557 T2 Exhaustion 0,551 T2 Exhaustion 0,453 T2 Cynicism 0,471 T2 Efficacy 0,884 T2 Efficacy 0,707 T2 Efficacy 0,539 T2 Cynicism 0,872 T2 Cynicism 0,649 T2 UWES 0,669 T2 UWES 0,893 T2 UWES 0,594 T2 UWES 0,753 T1 Supervisor Civility 0,597 T1 Supervisor Civility 0,362 T1 Supervisor Civility 0,541 T1 Supervisor Incivility 0,561 T1 Supervisor Incivility 0,762 T1 Supervisor Incivility 0,618 T1 Supervisor Incivility 0,576 T1 Coworker Incivility 0,561 T1 Coworker Incivility 0,659 T1 Coworker Incivility 0,649 T1 Coworker Incivility 0,587 T1 Instigated Incivility 0,753 T1 Instigated Incivility 0,826 T1 Instigated Incivility 0,685 T1 Instigated Incivility 0,740 T2 Instigated Incivility 0,745 T2 Instigated Incivility 0,790 T2 Instigated Incivility 0,792 T2 Instigated Incivility 0,828

R2 0,742 0,704 0,689 0,710 0,266 0,526 0,665 0,186 0,514 0,520 0,195 0,615 0,436 0,618 0,711 0,527 0,066 0,690 0,696 0,795 0,778 0,219 0,500 0,709 0,240 0,579 0,553 0,203 0,647 0,433 0,644 0,869 0,707 0,686 0,420 0,618 0,669 0,685 0,566 0,578 0,655 0,433 0,317 0,530 0,453 0,445 0,376 0,373 0,314

Note. Item numbers for the MBI refer to the full 16 item scale; Item numbers for the UWES refer to the full 17 item scale.

serve as demands in that they precede increases in exhaustion and cynicism in the longitudinal analysis. This finding extends previous research43-45 in going beyond the expected correlation of incivility with burnout to identifying specific links with exhaustion and cynicism. Increased exhaustion reflects the role of incivility as a demand that prompts recipients to expend energy. The available information does not distinguish between energy expended to counter incivility through further interactions and the

Original Article | Workplace Relationships as Demands and Resources: A Model of Burnout and Work Engagement energy consumed through simple emotional reactions to an experience of rudeness. The larger coefficients associated with supervisor incivility in contrast to coworker incivility reflect the greater importance of supervisory relationships for employees. Although supervisor incivility occurs less frequently than coworker incivility, its occurrence appears to be more consequential. The lower frequency for supervisor incivility may reflect managers’ greater control over their emotional reactions at work or respondents’ less frequent encounters of any kind with supervisors relative to coworkers. The correlations indicate similar levels of relationship of both kinds of incivility with cynicism and exhaustion. Although the model confirmed the path from coworker incivility to exhaustion, but not to cynicism, this pattern reflects exhaustion playing a mediating role between coworker incivility and cynicism: greater cynicism reflects the energy depletion associated with responding to coworker incivility. Supervisor civility operates clearly as a resource, associated with both work engagement and professional efficacy. Neither source of civility has significant paths to exhaustion or cynicism despite their correlations with these factors. Apparently exhaustion and cynicism’s relationships with incivility captured the shared variance among the social variables in the model. This aspect of the model is consistent with the JD/R model in that the demand qualities relate to the core aspects of burnout while the resource qualities relate to the positive conception of work engagement. This pattern was more evident in the structural equation model that accommodated the relationships among all of the variables than in the simple correlations. Only professional efficacy showed a pattern of stronger correlations with resources than with demands; cynicism’s correlations did not differentiate at all. The analysis of instigated incivility provided valuable insights into this constructs relationships with the social environment as well as to burnout and work engagement. First, cynicism links instigated

incivility with the negative side of social interactions and experience. Both coworker and supervisor incivility have connections with exhaustion and cynicism that in turn has a positive relationship with subsequent levels of instigated incivility. In addition to this pathway, the negative path from coworker civility suggests that a weak culture of respect among colleagues facilitates the expression of incivility at work.

Limitations

The research is limited by its reliance on self-report questionnaire data. These scales have a good record of reliability and validity, but we do not have independent data sources within this study for the relevant constructs. The longitudinal structure of the data permits insight into the temporal sequence of processes, but cannot support definitive conclusions about causality.

Practical Implications

As organizations develop policies and political jurisdictions develop laws to control workplace bullying, the quality of social relationships among colleagues and first-line mangers increases in importance. Whether these developments reflect increases in bad behavior at work or increases in employees’ standards for respect, employers have an obligation to enhance the quality of their workplace communities. The research presented here describes the role of social relationships in the development of burnout and work engagement. They also indicate that the psychological experience of burnout, especially the cynicism component of the syndrome, is integral to employees’ response to received incivility and to their propensity to display incivility. The results are encouraging in that they support working on both ends of the spectrum: both decreasing incivility as well as increasing civility can be viable methods for controlling the expression of incivility among people at work. There may well be benefits in reduced burnout and increased work engagement along the way.

REFERENCES 1. Sauter, SL, Murphy LR, editors. Organizational risk factors for job stress. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1995 2. Leiter MP, Maslach C. A mediation model of job burnout. In: Antoniou, ASG; Cooper C L, editors. Research companion to organizational health psychology. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar; 2005. p. 544-564. 3. Maslach C. Burnout: A multidimensional perspective. In: Schaufeli WB, Maslach C, Marek T, editors. Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis; 1993. p.19-32. 4. Leiter MP, Maslach C. The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout and organizational commitment. J Organ Behav. 1988;9:297-308. 5. Taris TW, Peeters MCW, Le Blanc PM, Schreurs PJG, Schaufeli WB. From inequity to burnout: The role of job stress. J Occup Health Psych. 2001;6:303-323. 6. Maslach C. Job burnout: New directions in research and intervention. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2003;12:189-192. 7. Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:397-422. Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 23/30

8. Maslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP. Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual. 3rd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1996. 9. Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP, Maslach C, Jackson SE. Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey. In: Maslach C, Jackson, SE, Leiter, MP, editors. The Maslach Burnout InventoryTest Manual. 3rd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1996. 10. Schaufeli WB, Enzmann D. The burnout companion to study and research: A critical analysis. London, UK: Taylor and Francis; 1998. 11. Seligman MEP, Csikszentmihalyi M . Positive psychology: An introduction. Am Psychol. 2000;55:5-14. 12. Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, Gonzalez-Roma V, Bakker AB. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Happ Stud. 2002;3:71-92. 13. Maslach C, Leiter MP. The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1997. 14. Gonzalez-Roma V, Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Lloret S. Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? J Vocat Behav. 2006;68:165-174.

Original Article | Leiter Michael et al. 15. Schaufeli WB, Taris TW, LeBlanc PM, Peeters M, Bakker AB, De Jonge J. ‘Maakt arbeid gezond? Op zoek naar de bevlogen werkenemer’ [Does work make health? In search of the engaged worker]. De Psycholoog. 2001;36:422-428. 16. Balducci CB, Fraccaroli F, Shaufeli WB. Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the utrecht work engagement scale (UWES-9): A cross-cultural analysis. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2010;26:143-149. 17. Sonnentag S. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88:518-528. 18. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. J Organ Behav. 2004;25:293-315. 19. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006;66:701-716. 20. Schaufeli WB, Taris TW, van Rhenen W. Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Appl Psychol: Int Rev 2008;57:173-203. 21. Zhang Y, Gan Y, Cham H. Perfectionism, academic burnout and engagement among Chinese college students: A structural equation modeling analysis. Pers Indiv Differ. 2007;43:1529-1540. 22. Schaufeli WB, Salanova M. Efficacy or inefficacy, that’s the question: Burmout and work engagement, and their relationships with efficacy beliefs. Anxiety Stress Copin-Int J. 2007;20:177-196. 23. Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. The job demands-resources model of burnout. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86:499-512. 24. Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Taris TW, Schaufeli WB, Schreurs PJG. A multigroup analysis of the job demands-resources model in four home care organizations. Int J Stress Manage. 2003;10:16-38. 25. Hakanen JJ, Schaufeli WB, Ahola K. The job demands-resources model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work Stress. 2008;22:224-241. 26. Andersson LM, Pearson CM. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Acad Manage Rev. 1999;24:452-471. 27. Einarsen S. Harassment and bullying at work: A review of a Scandinavian approach. Aggress Violent Beh. 2000;5:379-401. 28. Randle J. Bullying in the nursing profession. J Adv Nurs. 2003;43:395-401. 29. Laschinger HKS, Finegan J. Using empowerment to build trust and respect in the workplace: A strategy for addressing the nursing shortage. Nurs Econ. 2005;23:6-13. 30. Pinel E, Paulin N. Stigma consciousness at work. Basic Appl Social Psych. 2005;27:345-352. 31. Cortina LM, Magley VJ, Williams JH, Langhout RD. Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. J Occup Health Psych. 2001;6:64-80.

32. Schein E. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1992 33. Bruk-Lee V, Spector PE. The social stressors-counterproductive work behaviors link: Are conflicts with supervisors and coworkers the same? J Occup Health Psych. 2006;11:145-156. 34. Frone MR. Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a model among young workers. J Occup Health Psych. 2000;5:246-255. 35. Blau G, Andersson L. Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility. J Occup Organ Psych. 2005;78:595-614. 36. Leiter MP, Maslach C. Preventing burnout and building engagement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc; 2000. 37. Meterko M, Osaturke K, Mohr D, Warren N, Dyrenforth S. Civility: The development and psychometric assessment of a survey measure. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, 2007, August. Philadelphia: Academy of Management; 2007. 38. Bentler PM, Chou CP. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociol Method Res. 1987;16:78-117. 39. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994. 40. Satorra A, Bentler PM. Scaling corrections for chi square statistics in covariance structure analysis. Los Angeles, CA: University of California. 1988. (UCLA Statistics Series; 2). 41. Leiter MP, Day A, Harvie P, Shaughnessy K. Personal and organizational knowledge transfer: Implications for work life engagement. Hum Relat. 2007;60:259-283. 42. Leiter MP, Maslach C. Areas of worklife: A structured approach to organizational predictors of job burnout. In: Perrewé P, Ganster DC, editors. Research in occupational stress and well being: Vol. 3. Emotional and physiological processes and positive intervention strategies. Oxford, UK: JAI Press-Elsevier; 2004. p. 91-134 43. Kern JH, Grandey AA. Customer incivility as a social stressor: The role of race and racial identity for service employees. J Occup Health Psych. 2009;14:46-57. 44. Laschinger HKS, Leiter MP, Day A, Gilin-Oore D. Workplace empowerment, incivility, and burnout: Impact on staff nurse recruitment and retention outcomes. J Nurs Manage. 2009;17:331-339 45. Leiter MP, Price SL, Laschinger HKS. When respect deteriorates: Incivility as a moderator of the stressor-strain relationship among hospital workers. J Nurs Manage. 2010;18:1-11.

Complementary references:

1. Maslach C. Understanding burnout: Definitional issues in analyzing a complex phenomenon. In: Paine WS, editor. Job stress and burnout. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1982. p.29-40. 2. Maslach C, Jackson, SE. The Maslach Burnout Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1981.

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article

The Empirical Distinctiveness of Work Engagement and Workaholism among Hospital Nurses in Japan: The effect on Sleep Quality and Job Performance Distinción Empírica Entre Engagement y Trabajolismo en Enfermeras Hospitalarias de Japón: Efecto Sobre la Calidad del Sueño y el Desempeño Laboral Kazumi Kubota, MS, RN, PHN1, Akihito Shimazu, PhD1, Norito Kawakami, MD, DMSc1, Masaya Takahashi, PhD2, Akinori Nakata, PhD3, Wilmar B. Schaufeli, PhD4 1. Department of Mental Health, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan. 2. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, 6-21-1 Nagao, Tama-ku, Kawasaki, 214-8585, Japan. 3. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 45226, USA. 4. Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University, PO Box 80.140, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands.

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of the present study is to demonstrate the distinctiveness of work engagement and workaholism by examining their relationships with sleep quality and job performance. Method: A total of 447 nurses from 3 hospitals in Japan were surveyed using a self-administrated questionnaire including Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), the Dutch Workaholism Scale (DUWAS), questions on sleep quality (7 items) regarding (1) difficulty initiating sleep, (2) difficulty maintaining sleep, (3) early morning awakening, (4) dozing off or napping in daytime, (5) excessive daytime sleepiness at work, (6) difficulty awakening in the morning, and (7) tiredness awakening in the morning, and the World Health Organization Health Work Performance Questionnaire. Results: The Structural Equation Modeling showed that, work engagement was positively related to sleep quality and job performance whereas workaholism negatively to sleep quality and job performance. Conclusion: The findings suggest that work engagement and workaholism are conceptually distinctive and that the former is positively and the latter is negatively related to well-being (i.e., good sleep quality and job performance). Key words: workaholism, work engagement, sleep quality, job performance

RESUMEN

Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio es demostrar la distinción entre engagement y trabajolismo, estudiando su relación con la calidad del sueño y el desempeño laboral. Método: Un total de 447 enfermeras de 3 hospitales de Japón fueron entrevistadas mediante un cuestionario autoadministrado que incluía la escala Utrecht (UWES, Utrecht Work Engagement Scale), la Escala de Adicción al Trabajo Holandesa (DUWAS, Dutch Workaholism Scale), preguntas sobre la calidad del sueño (7 ítems) con respecto a (1) dificultad para conciliar el sueño, (2) dificultad para mantener el sueño, (3) despertar temprano por la mañana, (4) dormirse o tomar siestas durante el día, (5) somnolencia diurna excesiva en el trabajo, (6) dificultad para despertarse por la mañana, y (7) despertar cansado en la mañana, y el Cuestionario sobre Salud y Desempeño (CSD) de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. Resultados: Los modelos de ecuaciones estructurales demostraron que el engagement se relaciona positivamente con la calidad del sueño y el rendimiento laboral, mientras que el trabajolismo tiene una relación negativa con la calidad del sueño y el desempeño laboral. Conclusión: Los resultados indican que el engagement y el trabajolismo son conceptualmente diferentes. El primero tiene una connotación positiva, mientras que el segundo se asocia de manera negativa al bienestar (buena calidad del sueño y buen rendimiento en el trabajo). Palabras clave: Trabajolismo, Adicción al trabajo, Engagement, Calidad del sueño, Desempeño laboral.

INTRODUCTION

Correspondence / Correspondencia Kazumi Kubota Department of Mental Health, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan Tel.: +81-(0)3-5841-3522 • Fax: +81-(0)3-5841-3392 e-mail: kazumikubota-tky@umin.net Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 31/36

In recent years, work environment have rapidly been changing. For instance, clear role expectations at work do not exist anymore1, and the boundaries between work and personal life are becoming more blurred.2 These changes on working conditions call for a better understanding of personal attitude at work (i.e., how they feel about their work as well as where they work). In fact, some researchers have emphasized that personal attitude toward work can be associated with well-being.3-7 This article focused on the empirical distinctiveness between work engagement (i.e., working hard with intrinsic motivation) and workaholism (i.e., work excessively hard in a compulsive fashion) 31

Original Article | Kubota Kazumi et al. among nurses. This issue is particularly important because some conceptual confusion exists about the nature of these two overlapping concepts.8 In addition, current professional practice patterns among nurses show they are working longer than they ever have.9-11 The effect of these long hours may cause nurses to work in the midst of poor sleep quality and low job performance.

Work Engagement The concept of work engagement emerged from burnout research, namely as an attempt to cover the entire spectrum running from employee unwell-being (burnout) to employee well-being.12 In order to prosper and survive in today’s continuously changing environment, rather than merely “healthy” employees, organizations need engaged employees.13 Work engagement refers to a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption.13 Vigor refers to high revels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in one’s work and persistence even in the face of difficulties. Dedication is characterized by a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge at work. Absorption consists of being fully concentrated, happy and deeply engrossed in one’s work whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulty detaching oneself from work. Thus engaged employees work hard (vigor), are involved (dedicated) and feel engrossed (absorbed) in one’s work. Engaged worker may be seen similar to workaholics in the sense that they both work hard, are involved and feel engrossed in their work. However, in contrast to workaholics, engaged workers lack the typical compulsive drive.13,6 Engaged employees enjoy doing things outside work, they do not feel guilty when not working, and they do not work hard because of a strong and irresistible drive but for them work is fun.14 So, despite the fact that workaholics and engaged employees may work similarly hard, their motivation to do so differs fundamentally.14,8,15 It is interesting to note that workaholism shows a positive relationship with excess working time, whereas this relationships is absent for work engagement.8

Workaholism

The term workaholism originates from Oates, who describes it as “… the compulsion or the uncontrollable need to work excessively”.16 Ever since, it has become a colloquial term in the popular press as well as in empirical research. For the lay public workaholism seems synonymous with working extremely hard, however, conceiving workaholism exclusively in terms of the number of working hours is misreading because it neglects its addictive nature. A typical work addict is motivated by a strong internal drive that cannot be resisted rather than being motivated by external or contextual factors, such as financial problems, poor marriage, organizational culture, supervisory pressure, or a strong desire for career advancement.17 Given the ease with how the lay public uses the term workaholism, it is surprising that even after four decades researchers do not have adequate consensus about its meaning. Many researchers agree with workaholism as a negative phenomenon18-21,8,14 because it refers to the very origin of the term workaholism which was meant to correspond to alcoholism.22 But some researchers view workaholism as a positive phenomenon.23-26 For instance, Korn et al. call workaholics ‘hyper-performers’ as seen from an organizational perspective.23 Although ‘Is workaholism good or bad for employee well-being?’ has been discussed, Scott et al. found three common characteristics of

workaholism that feature across various definitions.26 First, they spend a great deal of time on work activities when given the discretion to do so. Second, they are reluctant to disengage from work and persistently and frequently think about work then they are not at work. Finally, they work beyond what is reasonably expected from them to meet organizational or economic requirements. Therefore, based on a conceptual analysis, Schaufeli et al.8 defined workaholism as the tendency to work excessively hard (the behavioral dimension) and being obsessed with work (the cognitive dimension), which manifests itself in working compulsively. This definition agrees with the most recent analysis of scholarly definitions that concludes that hard work at the expense of other important life roles and a strong internal drive to work are two key aspects of workaholism.27

Correlates of work engagement

Because work engagement was introduced as an antipode of burnout6, it is expected that work engagement is primary related to (lack of) health problems. In addition, in the job-stress recovery literature, recovery from work (i.e., psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery, and control) is positively correlated both with work engagement and sleep quality.28 Hence, it can be speculated that work engagement is related to good sleep quality because engaged workers are likely to have better recovery experiences. In terms of job performance, there are at least four reasons why engaged workers perform better than non-engaged workers.29 Engaged employees: (1) often experience positive emotions, including happiness, joy, and enthusiasm; (2) experience better health; (3) create their own job resources and personal resources; and (4) transfer their engagement to others. In line with this notion, some research showed that work engagement was positively related to better job performance.14,6

Correlates of workaholism

Workaholics may go as far as actively creating additional work for themselves (i.e., work excessively)—for instance, by working on projects more complicated than necessary or by refusing to delegate work.8 Therefore, increased job demands can lead to insufficient opportunities to recover from such excessive efforts, leaving workaholics emotionally or cognitively exhausted over time.30 Such persistent cognitive activities (i.e., working compulsively) may also result in automatic arousal and emotional distress. Consequently, workaholics report relatively high levels of psychological distress and physical complaint.6 In modern industrialized society, poor sleep is prevalent31,32 and its consequences include functional impairments, reduced quality of life, and significant health care costs.33 Moreover, among the working population, poor sleep quality is associated not only with deteriorated health (e.g., psychological distress, physical complaints), but also with poor work functioning, which can result in increased risk of accident/injury at work, absenteeism, reduced productivity, and job dissatisfaction.31,34 It means sleep quality is important outcomes in the area of occupational health. Since sleep quality is associated with psychological and physical health33-37, it can be speculated that workaholism could be related to poor sleep quality. In fact, Kubota et al.7 showed workaholic nurses had higher risks for poor sleep quality (i.e., impaired awakening, insufficient sleep, and workplace sleepiness). Besides sleep quality, another relevant outcome associated with workaholism is job performance. Schaufeli et al.14 argued that workaholics work hard rather than smart; they create difficulties for

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | The Empirical Distinctiveness of Work Engagement and Workaholism among Hospital Nurses in Japan

METHODS

Sleep quality: Seven self-reported questions related to sleep were selected for this study, following previous sleep studies41,31,32,7— namely, (1) difficulty initiating sleep (i.e., How long does it usually take you to fall asleep in bed), (2) difficulty maintaining sleep (i.e., How often do you have difficulty staying asleep), (3) early morning awakening (i.e., How often do you wake up too early and can’t fall asleep again), (4) dozing off or napping in daytime (i.e., How often do you take a nap while commuting time or during lunch break), (5) excessive daytime sleepiness at work (i.e., How often do you feel very drowsy when you are at work), (6) difficulty awakening in the morning (i.e., Do you feel difficulty waking up in the morning), and (7) tiredness awakening in the morning (i.e., Do you feel restless when you wake up in the morning). Difficulty initiating sleep is scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = within 10 minutes, 5 = over 2 hours), other questions are scored on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = very few, 5 = almost every day). That is, in terms of each sleep question, higher score indicated a lower sleep quality. Job performance: Job performance was assessed using a single item from the World Health Organization Health Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ).42 Respondents were asked to rate their overall work performance during the past four week on a 0-10 self-anchoring scale, in which 0 is defined as the “worst possible work performance a person could have on this job” and 10 is defined as “top work performance” on the job. Possible confounders: As possible confounders, age, gender, and shift (two-shift / three-shift / day-shift / others) were included.

Participants and procedure

Statistical analysis

themselves and their co-workers, suffer from perfectionism, are rigid and inflexible, and do not delegate. Some empirical studies revealed that workaholism were negatively related to job performance.6,17

This study

Previous studies which examined the distinctiveness between work engagement and workaholism suggest that they share the behavioral component (work excessively hard), but that the underlying motivation differs fundamentally.14,8,15 Moreover, the studies mentioned above suggest that work engagement is related to wellbeing, whereas workaholism to unwell-being. However, there have been only two studies that empirically investigated associations of work engagement and workaholism with well-being.14,6 In addition, there are no empirical studies that included sleep problems, which are important outcomes in the area of occupational health. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to demonstrate the empirical distinctiveness of work engagement and workaholism by examining their relationships with sleep quality and job performance in a sample of Japanese nurses. In line with the discussion above, we expected that work engagement is positively related to sleep quality and job performance (Hypothesis 1). In contrast, workaholism is negatively related to sleep quality and job performance (Hypothesis 2).

Participants in this study included 750 registered nurses in 3 hospitals in Japan (2 hospitals are located in central area, and the other is in eastern area of Japan). All participants received a self-administrated questionnaire and had two months (from October to November 2008) to complete it. A total of 503 nurses returned the completed questionnaire, for a response rate of 67,1%. Data from 56 respondents were excluded from the analysis due to missing variables in the questionnaire. Thus, the final number of respondents for analysis was 447 (overall coverage rate: 59,6 %). The aims and procedures of this study were explained to all nurses prior to commencing the study. The procedures of this study were approved by the Ethics Committees of The University of Tokyo Graduate School of Medicine.

Measures

The questionnaire included the following five aspects; work engagement, workaholism, sleep problems, job performance, and possible confounders. Work engagement: Work engagement was assessed with the short form of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)38, that has recently been validated in Japan as well.39 The UWES includes three subscales that reflect the underlying dimensions of engagement: Vigor (3 items; e.g., At my job, I feel strong and vigorous), Dedication (3 items; e.g., I am enthusiastic about my job), and Absorption (3 items; e.g., I am immersed in my work). All items are scored on a 7-point Likert scale (0 = never, 6 = always). Workaholism: Workaholism was measured using the Dutch Workaholism Scale (DUWAS) developed by Schaufeli and his colleagues.40 The scale consists of two subscales: Work Excessively (e.g., I stay busy and keep many irons in the fire) and Work Compulsively (e.g., I feel guilty when I take time off work). Each subscale consists of 5 items that are rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 4 = totally agree). Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 31/36

Before evaluating the hypothesized model (Fig. 1), we first examined the factorial validity of sleep questions by explanatory factor analysis (EFA) with principal factor method and promax rotation and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In CFA, besides the É‘2 statistic, the comparative fit index (CFI), the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were utilized to evaluate the model fit. Then, the hypothesized model (Fig. 1) was evaluated with structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques (Please note that Fig. 1 also presents the results of SEM). Because of the large number of items, it was not possible to conduct SEM-analysis on a full disaggregation model. Therefore, the scales introduced above were used as indicators of the latent factors. All latent factors had two or three indicators except for job performance which had only one indicator. To control for random measurement error for this factor, the error variance of Figure 1. Standardized solution (Maximum Likelihood estimates) of the hypothesized model. N = 447. VI

DE 0,85

0,84

0,83

Work engagement Workaholism 0,78

0,29 0,36 -0,36 -0,10

0,86

Sleep quality Job performance

-0,24 -0,96 -0,31

1,00

IS PA SID JP

Note: VI = Vigor; DE = Dedication; AB = Absorption; WE = Work compulsively; IS = Insomnia symptoms; PA = Problems on awakening; SID = Sleeping in the daytime.

Original Article | Kubota Kazumi et al. Table 1. Means, SDs, Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s alpha on the diagonal), and Correlations of the variables used in this study (n = 447a). Measures 1 Vigor 2 Dedication 3 Absorption 4 Work excessively 5 Work compulsively 6 Insomnia symptoms 7 Problems on awakening 8 Sleepiness in the daytime 9 Job performance

# Items 3 3 3 5 5 3 2 2 1

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6,7 2,8 0,85 0,71*** 0,69*** -0,16** -0,08 -0,19*** -0,35*** 8,9 2,6 0,77 0,70*** 0,01 0,06 0,09 -0,16** 6,5 3,0 0,83 -0,07 -0,05 -0,07 -0,23*** 12,4 3,2 0,74 0,67*** 0,13** 0,35*** 9,5 2,7 0,61 0,18*** 0,29*** 6,2 2,9 0,76 0,23*** 8,2 2,8 0,53 4,8 2,3 5,6 1,7 - - - - - - -

8 -0,10* -0,07 -0,09 0,06 0,04 -0,01 0,30*** 0,80 -

9 0,29*** 0,36*** 0,28*** -0,11* -0,09* -0,10* -0,11* -0,13** -

* p < 0,05, ** p < 0,01, *** p < 0,001. a The numbers did not add up to the total umber of the participants because of occasional missing data.

job performance was set equal to zero. The level of significance was p < 0,05 (two-tailed). PASW Statistics 18 and AMOS 16 were used for the statistical analyses.

RESULTS Characteristics of the Respondents

Of 447 respondents, 428 (95,7 %) were females and 19 males (4,3 %); 272 (60,9 %) worked with three-shift, 132 (29,5 %) with two-shift, 29 (6,5 %) with day-shift, and 14 (3,1 %) with others. The mean age of the respondents was 31,0 years (SD = 7,87).

Factor structure of sleep questions

The EFA for sleep questions extracted three factors regarding “insomnia symptoms ((1) difficulty initiating sleep, (2) difficulty maintaining sleep, and (3) early morning awakening)”, “problems on awakening ((6) difficulty awakening in the daytime and (7) tiredness awakening in the daytime)”, and “sleepiness in the daytime ((4) dozing off or napping in daytime and (5) excessive daytime sleepiness at work)”. Inter-factor correlations were 0,23 (p < 0,001) between insomnia symptoms and problems on awakening, 0,30 (p < 0,001) between problems on awakening and sleepiness in the daytime, and -0,01 between insomnia symptoms and sleepiness in the daytime. These results suggest that sleep quality can be conceptualized by these three factors. The proposed three-factor model was also supported by the results of the CFA. The three-factor model (X2 (11) = 41,18, CFI = 0,96, GFI = 0,97, AGFI = 0,93, RMSEA = 0,08) fits significantly better to the data than the one-factor model which assumed that all 7 items loaded on one ‘sleep quality factor ‘(X2 (14) = 391,61, CFI = 0,54, GFI = 0,80, AGFI = 0,61, RMSEA = 0,25; DX2 (3) = 350,43, p < 0,001).

Descriptive statistics for the study variables

Table 1 shows the mean, standard deviations, internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha), and correlations of all scales included in this study. As can be seen, all variables have relatively favorable reliabilities with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of 0,74 or higher except for work compulsively and problems on awakening.

Model testing

Results of the SEM-analysis showed that the proposed model (displayed in Fig. 1) fits adequately to the data; X2 (24) = 89,504, CFI = 0,95, GFI = 0,96, AGFI = 0,92, RMSEA = 0,08. Work enga-

gement was positively related to sleep quality (b = 0,29 , p < 0,001) and job performance (b = 0.36, p < 0.001). In contrast, workaholism was negatively related to sleep quality (b = - 0.36, p < 0.001) and job performance (b = - 0.10, p < 0.05). In a next step, we conducted additional analysis to control for potential confounders (i.e., age, gender, and shift work). Specifically, each control model as a manifest variable simultaneously and was allowed to have effects on all variables in the model. After controlling for confounding variables, the path coefficients were virtually the same as those of the proposed model, but the model fit decreased (X2 (27) = 99.016, CFI = 0.94, GFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.08). Importantly, all the relationships of the control variables to the model variables were non-significant. Therefore, the control variables were removed from final model in Fig. 1.

DISCUSSION This study examined the distinctiveness of work engagement and workaholism in terms of their relationships with well-being (i.e., sleep quality and job performance) among hospital nurses in Japan. Results of SEM showed that associations of work engagement and workaholism with well-being are different; work engagement is related to well-being (i.e., better sleep quality and job performance), whereas workaholism is related to unwell-being (i.e., poor sleep quality and job performance). This means work engagement and workaholism can be empirically differentiated from each other. As far as the relationship of work engagement with sleep quality and job performance is concerned, our SEM results showed that work engagement had positively related to sleep quality as expected in Hypothesis 1. Since engaged employees, compared to workaholics, do not feel guilty when not working14, they are likely to have better recovery experiences, which might lead to good sleep quality. Our SEM results also showed that work engagement was positively related to job performance as expected in Hypothesis 2. Although we did not mention a specific hypothesis between sleep quality and job performance, each component of sleep quality had positive correlation with job performance (see Table 1). Since the experience of good health is one of the conditions for better job performance29, good sleep quality among engaged nurses may have led to better job performance. This health component is an important conceptual aspect that separates work engagement from other proactive organizational attitudes like organizational commitment.43

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | The Empirical Distinctiveness of Work Engagement and Workaholism among Hospital Nurses in Japan As expected in Hypothesis 2 and in line with previous studies7,6,17, workaholism was negatively related to sleep quality and job performance. The associations were still observed even after adjusting for demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, and shift work), suggesting that workaholism have adverse effects on sleep quality and job performance independent of these characteristics. It is important to note that workaholism had stronger relationship with sleep quality (b = - 0,36) compared to job performance (b = - 0,10). The relative strong association with sleep quality underlines the importance of health component for workaholism. Since workaholics spend more time on their work26, increased job demands may lead to less opportunity for recovery from excessive efforts and higher exhaustion. In addition, thinking persistently and frequently about work â&#x20AC;&#x201D;even when not working26â&#x20AC;&#x201D; may cause autonomic arousal and emotional distress through the cognitive activation. These behavioral and cognitive characteristics of workaholism might result in poor sleep quality. In terms of job performance, workaholism are not only spending more times on their work but also rigid and inflexible, which can lead to poor job performance.

tive indicators (e.g., sleep polysomnography and objective performance) in the future. Third, because the participants were recruited only from 3 hospitals in Japan, the findings could not be generalized. Finally, not much consideration was given to unmeasured factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and leisure time physical activity35,32, or unknown factors. These confounders may have some influence on the relationship of work engagement and workaholism with well-being (i.e., sleep quality and job performance).

Conclusion The present study indicated that work engagement and workaholism are two different kinds of concepts: work engagement is associated with well-being, whereas workaholism with unwell-being. This suggests the importance of focusing on personal attitudes toward work. Future research should examine the effects of personal attitudes as well as work environment on improving well-being among nurses.

Limitations

Several limitations need to be discussed. First, because of the crosssectional design of the study, a causal relationship could not be determined. In addition, long-term effects of work engagement and workaholism are unknown. A prospective study is needed to investigate a causal linkage and long-term effects. Second, all indicators were measured using self-reported questionnaires. In addition to selfreport bias due to (for example) negative affect, common method variance might have played a role, although several studies have demonstrated that these influences are not as significant as expected.44,45 Nevertheless, findings should be repeated with objec-

Ethics Approval

This study was conducted with the approval of the Ethics Committees of The University of Tokyo Graduate School of Medicine

Funding source and conflicts of interest

Funding source: This study was supported in part by a National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Japan. Conflicts of interest: None

Original Article | Kubota Kazumi et al.

REFERENCIAS 1. Sullivan SE.. The changing nature of careers: a review and research agenda. J Manage. 1999;25:457-484. 2. Jones F, Burke RJ, Westman M. Work-lifebalance: key issues. In: Jones F, Burke RJ, Westman M, editors. Work-life balance: a psychological perspective. East Sussex: Psychology Press; 2006. p. 1-9. 3. Åkerstedt T, Knustsson A, Westerholm P, Theorell T, Alfredsson L, Kecklund G. Sleep disturbances, work stress and work hours A cross-sectional study. J Psychosom Res. 2002;53:741-748. 4. Tachibana H, Izumi T, Honda S, Takemoto T. The prevalence and pattern of insomnia in Japanese industrial workers: Relationship between psychosocial stress and type of insomnia. Psychiat Clin Neurosci. 1998;52:397-402. 5. Kecklund G, Åkerstedt T. Apprehension of the subsequent working day is associated with a low amount of slow wave sleep. Biol Psychol 2004;66:169-176. 6. Shimazu A, Schaufeli WB. Is workaholism good or bad for employee wellbeing? The distinctiveness of workaholism and work engagement among Japanese employees. Ind Health. 2009;47:495-502. 7. Kubota K, Shimazu A, Kawakami N, Takahashi M, Nakata A, Schaufeli WB. Association between Workaholism and Sleep Problems among Hospital Nurses. Ind Health. (In press). 8. Schaufeli WB, Taris TW, Rhenen WV. Workaholism, burnout and engagement: One of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Appl Psychol-Int Rev. 2008;57:173-203. 9. Scott LD, Rogers AE, Hwang WT, Zhang Y. Effects of critical care nurses’ work hours on vigilance and patients’ safety. Am J Crit Care. 2006;15:30-37. 10. Trinkoff A, Geiger-Brown J, Brady B, Lipscomb J, Muntaner C. How long and how much are nurses now working? Am J Nurs. 2006;106:60-71. 11. Hughes RG, Rogers AE. Are you tired? Sleep deprivation compromises nurse’s health and jeopardized patients. Am J Nurs. 2004;104:36-38. 12. Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP.. Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52: 397-422. 13. Schaufeli WB, Taris TW, Le Blanc P, Peeters MCV. Bakker AB, De Jonge J. Maakt arbeid gezond? Op Zoek naar de bevlogen werknemer [May work produce health? The quest for the engaged worker]. De PSycholoog. 2001;36:422-428 (in Dotch). 14. Schaufeli WB, Taris TW, Bakker AB. Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde? On the differences between work engagement and workaholism. In: Burke RJ, editor. Research comparison to working time and work addiction. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar; 2006. p.193-217. 15. Sonnentag S. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the interface between nonwork and work. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88:518-28. 16. Oates W. Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addiction. New York: World; 1971 17. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Van der Heijden FMMA, Prins JT. Workaholism among medical residents: It is the combination of working excessively and working compulsively that counts. Int J Stress Manage. 2009;16:249-272. 18. Robbinson BE. Work Addiction. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications;1989 19. Porter G. Organizational impact of workaholism: suggestions for researching the negative outcomes of excessive work. J Occup Health Psychol. 1996;1:70-84. 20. McMillan LHW, O_Driscoll MP. Exploring new frontiers to generate an integrated definition of workaholism. In: Burke RJ, editors. Research companion to working time and work addiction. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar; 2006.p. 89-107. 21. Shimazu A, Schaufeli WB, Taris TW. How does workaholism affect worker health and performance? The mediating role of coping. Int J Behav Med. 2010;17:154-160. 22. Oates W. On being a “Workaholic”. Pastoral Psychol. 1986;19:16-20.

23. Korn ER, Pratt GJ, Lambrou PT. Hyper-performance: The A.I.M. strategy for releasing your business potential. New York: John Wiley; 1987. 24. Spence JT, Robbins AS. Workaholism: definition, measurement, and preliminary results. J Pers Assess. 1992;58:160-178. 25. Machlowitz M. Workaholics: Living with them, working with them. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1980. 26. Scott KS, Moore KS, Miceli MP. An exploration of the meaning and consequences of workaholism. Hum Relat. 1997;50:287-314. 27. Ng TWH, Sorensen KL, Feldman DC. Dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of workaholism: a conceptual integration and extension. J Organ Behav. 2007;28: 111-136. 28. Sonnentag S, Fritz C. The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Occup Health Psychol. 2007;12:204-221. 29. Bakker AB. Building engagement in the workplace. In: The peak performing organization. Cooper CL, Burke RJ. editors. Oxon; Routledge; 2008. p. 50-72. 30. Taris TW, Schaufeli WB, Verhoeven LC. Workaholism in the Netherlands: Measurement and implications for job strain and work-nonwork conflict. Appl. Psychol-Int Rev. 2005;54:37-60. 31. Nakata A, Haratani T, Kawakami N, Miki A, Kurabayashi L, Shimizu H. Sleep problems in white-collar male workers in an electric equipment manufacturing company in Japan. Ind Health. 2000;38:62-68. 32. Nakata A, Ikeda T, Takahashi M, Haratani T, Fujioka Y, Fukui S, Swanson NG, Hojou M, Araki S. Sleep-related risk of occupational injuries in Japanese small and medium-scale enterprises. Ind Health. 2005;43:89-87. 33. Simon G, Vonkoff M. Prevalence, burden, and treatment of insomnia in primary care. Am J Psychiatry. 1997;154:1417-1423. 34. Doi Y. An epidemiologic review on occupational sleep research among workers. Ind Health. 2005;43:3-10. 35. Nakata A, Hatratani T, Takahashi M, Kawakami N, Arito H, Kobayashi F, Araki S. Job stress, social support, and prevalence of insomnia in a population of Japanese daytime workers. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59:1719-1730. 36. Harvey AG. A cognitive model of insomnia. Behav Res Ther. 2002;40:869-893. 37. Ohayon MM. Epidemiology of insomnia: What we know and what we still need to learn. Sleep Med Rev. 2002;6:97-111. 38. Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, González-Romá V, Bakker AB. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Happiness Stud. 2002;3:71-92. 39. Shimazu A, Schaufeli WB, Kosugi S, Suzuki A, Nashiwa H, Kato A, Sakamoto M, Irimajiri H, Amano S, Hirohata K, Goto R, Kitaoka-Higashiguchi K. Work Engagement in Japan: validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Appl Psychol-Int Rev. 2008;57:510-23. 40. Schaufeli WB, Shimazu A, Taris TW. Being driven to work excessively hard: the evaluation of a two-factor measure of workaholism in the Netherlands and Japan. Cross-Cult Res. 2009;43:320-348. 41. Bliwise DL, King AC, Harris RB, Haskell WL. Prevalence of self-reported poor sleep in a healthy population aged 50-65. Soc Sci Med. 1992;34:49-55. 42. Kessler RC, Barber C, Beck A, Berglund P, Cleary PD, McKenas D, Pronk N, Simon G, Stang P, Ustun TB, Wang P. The world health organization health and work performance questionnaire (HPQ). J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45:156-74. 43. Hallberg UE, Schaufeli WB. “Same same” but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? Eur Psychol. 2006;11:119-127. 44. Edwards JR. To prosper, organizational psychology should overcome methodological barriers to progress. J Organ Behav. 2008;29:469-491. 45. Spector PE. Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Org Res Methods. 2006;9:221-23

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article

The Contribution of Personal Resources (Emotional Intelligence, Core Self-Evaluations and Positive Affect) to Engagement: An Analysis in Spanish College Students and Employees

La Contribución de Los Recursos Personales (Inteligencia Emocional, Core Self-evaluationS y Afectividad Positiva) Al Engagement: Un Análisis en Estudiantes Universitarios y Trabajadores Españoles Auxiliadora Durán1, Natalio Extremera2, Lourdes Rey3 1. PhD in Psychology, Department of Social Psychology, University of Malaga, Spain. 2. PhD in Psychology, Department of Social Psychology, University of Malaga, Spain. 3. PhD in Psychology, Department of Personality, Assessment and Psychological Treatment, University of Málaga, Spain.

ABSTRACT

The study examines the incremental validity of emotional intelligence dimensions above and beyond core self-evaluations and positive affectivity as predictors of employee engagement in both college students (N=347) and employees (N=344). Moreover, we test the potential role as mediators of emotional intelligence dimensions and positive affectivity in the relationship between core self-evaluations and engagement. The hierarchical regression and mediation analyses have shown the potential influence of emotional intelligence dimensions (clarity and repair) on vigor and dedication. Data of mediational analyses revealed the mediator role of positive affectivity and emotional intelligence dimensions in the relationships between core self-evaluations - engagement (vigor and dedication). Results are discussed in the context of the relevance of personal resources in academic and organizational settings. Keywords: Personal resources; Engagement; Mediation analyses; Emotional Intelligence.

RESUMEN

El presente estudio examina la validez incremental de las dimensiones de la inteligencia emocional más allá del potencial explicativo de las core self-evaluations (auto-evaluaciones centrales) y la afectividad positiva como predictores del engagement (ilusión por el trabajo) tanto en estudiantes universitarios (N=347) como en trabajadores (N=344). Por otra parte, se analiza el rol de las dimensiones de la inteligencia emocional y la afectividad positiva como mediadores en la relación entre core self-evaluations y engagement. Las regresiones jerárquicas y los análisis de mediación apuntan la influencia potencial de las dimensiones de la claridad y reparación emocional sobre el vigor y la dedicación. Los datos de los análisis mediacionales revelan asimismo el papel mediador de las dimensiones de la afectividad positiva y de la inteligencia emocional en la relación entre las core self-evaluations y el engagement (vigor y dedicación). Los resultados se discuten en el contexto de la relevancia de los recursos personales en contextos académicos y organizacionales. Palabras claves: Recursos personales, Engagement, Análisis de Mediación, Inteligencia Emocional.

Introduction Since the beginning of last decade, the construct of employee engagement (EE) has emerged in the context of Positive Organizational Psychology as a key factor in the development of organizations’ human capital. This construct has also been considered an advantage in order to become a competitive organiza-

Correspondencia / Correspondence Facultad de Estudios Sociales y del Trabajo Complejo de Estudios Sociales y Comercio, Ampliación Campus Teatinos. 29071 Málaga, España Tel.: 0034951952154 e-mail: aduran@uma.es Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 37/43

tion.1 In this sense, the literature on EE indicates that engaged workers are able and willing to go the extra mile, take initiative at work, generate their own positive feedback, and look for job challenges. Workers should be active agents committed to high level performance and who respond adequately to changes.1-3 In constantly changing organizations and in a context of financial crisis and technological innovation, employees are asked to show change-ability and resilience. In fact, the ideal employees are proactive, self-directed and take responsibility for his/her own performance and development.4 In this sense, engaged employees are extremely worthy in competitive organizations. Employee engagement is widely defined as an affective-motivational, positive, fulfilling, persistent and pervasive state of workrelated well-being characterized by: vigor, dedication, and absorption.5 This state of mind is not focused on any particular object, event, individual or behavior, and engaged employees will show high levels of energy, feel enthusiastic about their job, and will often be fully engrossed in their work. In this sense, vigor is characte37

Original Article | Durán Auxiliadora et al. rized by mental resilience when working and the will to exert efforts into work even facing adversities. Dedication includes not only enthusiasm, but also inspiration, pride and sense of significance relating to one’s work. And finally, absorption is related to a state where time pass quickly, one feels carried away by one’s job and it is difficult to detach from work. Hence, being a workrelated phenomenon, engagement has also been examined in academic settings and the Utrecht Work Engagement ScaleStudent version has been developed in order to extend the research with student samples. Although students are neither employed nor hold jobs, from a psychological approach their core daily tasks can be considered as ‘‘work’’. In this sense, students are engaged in structured, coercive activities (e.g., attending daily classes or making assignments) that are aimed at specific goals (i.e., passing exams and finally acquiring a degree).6 Paying attention to adaptive outcomes for engaged employees, they could include many different domains, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment; good mental and psychosomatic health, including positive emotions and lower risk of burnout; good in-role and extra-role performance; increased intrinsic motivation, personal initiative or proactive behavior; and the acquisition of job and personal resources. For organizations, the adaptive outcomes identified include retention of talented employees, a positive corporative image and businessunit performance, financial returns or service quality.3,7,8 In this line, engagement could be considered a well-being index for both healthy organizations and employees. The current study analyses the phenomenon of engagement (as indicator of work well-being) in two different samples - college students and employees - and focuses on the links among engagement and various constructs within the individual domain -emotional intelligence (EI), core self-evaluations (CSE) and positive affectivity (PA).

Personal Resources as antecedents of engagement: The Job Demand-Resources Model

Focusing on the antecedents of engagement, empirical research has shown positive associations between EE and job resources: that is, the more job resources are available for employees, the more likely employees feel engaged, particularly in high job demands situations.9 In this line, many different job resources have been identified as antecedents of EE, such as social support, performance feedback, autonomy, coaching, job control, training facilities, task variety and opportunities for professional development.1,10 Even so a growing tendency in research has focused on state-like personal resources as predictors of EE, in general the scientific research has neglected to some extent the role of personal resources as potential determinants of employees’ adaptation to work environments.11 In this context, personal resources are linked to resiliency and they have been described as positive selfevaluations that refer to persons’ sense of their ability to control and impact upon the environment12, and that may well determine individual’s perception of work environment. Along this line, empirical research has also shown that positive self-evaluations predict aspects of work related well-being, such as goal-setting, motivation, performance, job and life satisfaction.13 At present, personal resources such as self-efficacy, organization-based selfesteem, optimism, resilience, or an active coping style, have been 38

recognized as crucial for individuals’ psychological and workrelated well-being, and associated with EE.7,8 Indeed, such personal resources seem to help engaged workers to experience a certain perception of effective control of the work environment.14 Further, this involvement of the self could be considered as a prerequisite for the experience of engagement. Personality traits may influence the ease which personal resources are developed. As Van den Heuvel et al4 indicated people high on extraversion may be more likely to think optimistically, but regardless of traits, it is possible to develop optimistic explanatory styles. They identified personal resources in organizational settings as a lower-order, cognitive-affective aspects of personality; developable systems of positive beliefs about one’s self (i.e. self-esteem, self-efficacy), and the world (i.e. optimism) which motivate and facilitate goal attainment, even in the face of adversity or challenge. The authors proposed a personal resources adaptation model, which suggests a reciprocal relationship between employees’ personal resources and job demands/resources. Also personal resources may act both as mediators and moderators in explaining the relationship between work environment and outcomes, such as work engagement or adaptive performance. Finally, over time it is proposed a positive impact of work engagement and adaptive performance on personal resources. Xanthopoulou et al7-8 have contributed to the theoretical development of the Job Demand-Resources model by proposing that personal resources play a significant role in a motivational process since, they contribute to, along with job demands and resources, and explain unique variance in exhaustion and EE. In this sense, engaged employees tend to easily recognize, activate or create resources that facilitate goal attainment. In addition, workers who feel self-efficacious, valuable and optimistic may create a resourceful work environment. Personal resources may be promoted by a meaningful and manageable environment and they might also determine how individuals perceive or interpret this environment and react to it. In sum, EE is related to both job and personal resources over time, and job resources may enhance the employee’ feelings about being more able to deal with work goals.

Study Variables

Positive affect (PA) has been defined as a state that reflects the extent to which a person feels enthusiastic, active and alert, while negative affect (NA) includes adverse mood states, such as anger, fear or nervousness.15 Measured as a state affect refers how a person feels at any given time while trait affect is the tendency to experience a particular affective state over time. Affectivity has been linked to subjective and objective health variables.11 Stated that positive affectivity is likely to be a manifestation of subjective well-being being considered as an outcome of CSE (but not negative affectivity). Individuals high in CSE are likely to experience more frequent positive emotions of differences in perceptions and motivation when compared with those low in CSE. As Schaufeli & Bakker16 have stated, being a personal resource, positive affectivity includes similar affects as work engagement, but at a dispositional rather than a state level. This conceptual distintion means that employees who are characterized by positive affectivity are more likely to be engaged with their jobs. In this line, Langelaan, Bakker, Van Doornen, & Schaufeli17 showed that work engagement is positively related to extraversion, usually considered an indicator of positive affecti37/43 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 |

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | The Contribution of Personal Resources (Emotional Intelligence, Core Self-Evaluations and Positive Affect) to Engagement vity. Empirical research has also shown that employees who are high on the CSE perceive their work as more motivating (job complexity) and experience their worlds more positively (positive affectivity).18 In a recent study, Weyhrauch, Culbertson, Mills, & Fullagar19 found that highly engaged individuals reported experiencing greater positive affectivity and psychological capital (self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resilience). The Core Self-Evaluations (CSE) is a relatively new construct within personality domain which reflects beliefs in one’s capabilities (to control one’s life) and competence (to perform, cope, persevere, and succeed) and a general sense that life will turn out well for oneself.13 This broad, latent personality trait is viewed as a bottom-line appraisal of one’s self-worth, and it is indicated by self-esteem, generalized self-efﬁcacy, locus of control, and (low) neuroticism (high emotional stability). During last years, this construct has been examined mostly within the organizational context, but the empirical research includes increasing results in other areas.20 As a whole, empirical research suggests that positive attitudinal and behavioural outcomes are produced by both encouraging environmental conditions combined with the right employee temperament - such as high CSE. Moreover, individuals with high levels of CSE report lower levels of stress and conflict, including work–family conflict, are more successful in their careers, cope more effectively with setbacks, show more constructive reactions to feedback, better capitalize on advantages and opportunities, and have higher earnings. As core self-evaluations define how an individual sees her- or himself, they also affect how a person perceives and assesses situations. CSE has emerged as a valid predictor or correlate of both affective and objective work outcomes, such as job and life satisfaction, happiness, job performance or affective organizational commitment21-25 In recent studies, CSE was also shown to have a strong negative effect on perceived job stress26, and a negative association with burnout.27 Paying attention to the links with engagement, Rich, Lepine, and Crawford28 have shown that engagement mediates the relationships between CSE and both task performance and organizational citizen behavior. In addition to CSE, emotional intelligence (EI) has emerged as a popular and growing area of social research.29 Following Mayer and Salovey’s30 theoretical approach, EI is defined as a set of interrelated skills concerning the ability to perceive accurately, appraise and express emotion, the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought, and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth. Several studies have demonstrated that EI is related to diverse aspects of positive well-being or psychological adjustment31 and to be predictive of coping behaviors, well-being and health.32 EI has also been proposed as an important predictor of work-related outcomes such as job satisfaction.33-34 However the empirical research has yielded mixed findings, with weak to modest relationships between trait EI and job satisfaction being reported.35-26 Similarly, studies have shown that emotionally intelligent employees are more prone to appraise potentially stressful events positively, and to cope better with potential harmful effects of stress.37 While scarce studies have simultaneously analyzed the influence of both CSE and EI on outcomes, it appears that measures of EI can contribute something unique. In a recent study, Kluemper38

found that with Big-five dimensions and IQ controlled, trait EI predicted coping, stress, and life satisfaction. When CSE and social desirability were added as control variables in the model, although the incremental validity coefficients were reduced, trait EI still accounted for significant incremental variance. Following the line of Zeidner et al29 who recommend looking for the variance explained by EI with regard to conventional criteria and whether EI remains predictive with IQ and personality factors statistically controlled, in the current study we extend the existing research on CSE and EI and aim to determine how these constructs, along with PA influence employee/student engagement. As relatively new constructs, EI -and also CSE- must be analyzed in order to test if they provide independently additional variance to the prediction of personal and work well-being. Considering that the effect of CSE may overlap in some way with those tapped by EI, and that CSE, EI, and positive affectivity have been found to be significantly associated with well-being, it would be important to determine the extent to which the influences of CSE and positive affect on EE can be distinguished from the influences of EI on these well-being indicators. We examine the incremental validity of EI above and beyond CSE and positive affect as predictors of EE. Moreover, we test the potential role as mediators of EI dimensions and positive affect in the relationship between CSE – EE.

The present study

The purpose of the present study was threefold: First, we sought to test the potential influence of CSE, EI and PA on engagement (vigor and dedication), in both a sample of multi-professional employees and a sample of college students. Also we sought to examine the extent to which EI, as a distinct theoretical construct, accounts for EE beyond what for by the influence of CSE, a broader personality dimension, and positive affectivity. Finally, we sought to explore the role of EI dimensions and PA as mediators between CSE and engagement. In order to test our hypothesis, a series of hierarchical regression and mediation analyses were conducted. Given previous research on the variables included in the study, EE dimensions were expected to be significantly associated with and influenced by CSE, EI dimensions, and positive affectivity. Moreover, we predicted that EI dimensions would add unique and significant incremental validity in predicting EE. Finally, we hypothesised a significant EI dimensions and positive affect mediator effect between CSE and engagement.

Method Participants and procedure

Data were collected from two samples: a multi-professional employees sample (N=344; 45,1% male/54,9% female; Mean age: 33,02 years (S.D.=10,92) and a college students sample (N=347; 32,9% male/67,1% female; Mean age: 20,96 years (S.D.=2,49). Participants in the study include a wide sample of university degrees and job activities. In order to obtain a higher generalizability of our results, these participants were recruited by a snowball technique, a non-probability sampling technique, in which the undergraduate students recruited friends and family to participate voluntarily. This snowball technique allows us to collect a wider and general population sample from an university 39

Original Article | Durán Auxiliadora et al. context. Tourism degree students were asked to participate in a research about leisure time activities as a voluntary option in their psychology course. They were in charge to recruit other students and employees as participants in the study. Previously to fill out the questionnaires all participants were informed about confidentiality issues. Although sampling bias is a possible drawback of this method39, the instructions of the questionnaires were precise to avoid these biases to a greater extent.

Materials

Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS)40 is considered a proxy for EI. The scale has three factors that provide independent scores: attention to feelings (the ability to monitoring emotions); clarity of feelings (related to the ability to discriminate between emotions); and mood repair (concerning to the ability to regulate unpleasant moods or maintain pleasant moods). We used the well-validated Spanish shorter version of the TMMS41 (Item example: I always can say how I feel). The scale is rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Very often).This version includes 24 items from the original version (eight for each subscale) and it has shown acceptable internal consistency and satisfactory test–retest reliability. Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS)15; Spanish version Sandin et al.42 The 20-item scale comprises two mood scales, one measuring positive affect (10 positive emotion adjectives; happy, joyful, etc.) and the other measuring negative affect (10 negative emotion adjectives; angry, depressed, etc.). Each item is rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Very slightly or not at all) to 5 (Extremely) to indicate the extent to which the respondent has felt this way in the indicated time frame. A higher score on PA items indicates more positive affect, or the extent to which the individual feels enthusiastic, active, and alert. On the opposite a higher score on NA indicates more negative affect, or the extent to which the individual feels aversive mood states and general distress. Watson et al15 reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the various time reference periods. In the case of the general period, alpha was 0,88 for PA and 0,87 for NA. In this study we apply the PA subscale. Core self-evaluations Scale (CSES).43 The CSES is a 12-item scale developed in order to measure the underlying self-evaluative factor that is present across the four more specific traits of selfesteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control. Example items include: “Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless”, “Overall, I am satisfied with my self”. The measure is rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Table 1. Descriptives and Cronbach’ alpha values. Student sample Employee sample N=347 N=344 Mean SD a Mean SD a Core Self-Evaluations 3,43 0,58 0,69 3,51 0,58 0,80 Attention 3,66 0,66 0,85 3,52 0,75 0,75 Clarity 3,64 0,61 0,83 3,67 0,63 0,82 Repair 3,57 0,69 0,84 3,63 0,71 0,76 Positive Affect 3,45 0,61 0,74 3,37 0,68 0,84 Vigor 3,75 1,14 0,81 4,32 1,15 0,79 Dedication 4,28 1,19 0,86 4,12 1,40 0,85 Absorption 3,49 1,32 0,85 3,79 1,38 0,82 SD: Sample Data.

Range 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 0-6 0-6 0-6

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)5; Spanish version Salanova, Schaufeli, Llorens, Peiró, & Grau).44 This scale includes 15 items which measure the three dimensions of engagement: vigor (“I am bursting with energy in my work”), dedication (“I find my work full of meaning and purpose”) and absorption (“When I am working, I forget everything around me”). The scale is rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 0 (Never) to 6 (Daily). For students the scale included items related with their academic activities (UWES-S).45 The UWES has shown good indexes of internal consistency between 0,68 to 0,91.5

Results Descriptive analyses

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations and Cronbach alphas for all the study variables. The correlations indexes are included in Table 2. Consistent with previous research, CSE shows statistically significant correlations with all the dimensions/constructs included in the study. Correlations indexes are not significant for attention and absorption (sample of students). This low to moderate indexes are ranging from r 0,11 (p< 0,05) for vigor (students sample) to r 0,54 (p< 0,01) for PA (employee sample). The highest indexes have been obtained between CSE-PA and CSE-repair. For emotional intelligence, clarity and repair have shown the highest significant correlation indexes with PA (clarity r 0,21/0,35; repair r 0,24/0,37; p< 0,01), for both students and employees samples. As expected, engagement dimensions have shown moderate-high correlation indexes between them, ranging from r 0,56 to r 0,69 (p< 0,01).

Hierarchical regression analyses

The hierarchical regression analyses are summarized in Table 3. These analyses included the core dimensions of engagement (vigor and dedication) and EI (clarity and repair). To examine the predictive utility of EI in accounting for variance in vigor and dedication beyond what is accounted for by CSE and PA, we conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses for each of the criterion measures. Initially, sex and age were entered in regression analyses as control variables; CSE were entered as the second step, and PA as the third step. The two dimensions of Table 2. Correlations indexes (r Pearson). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Core Self-Evaluations - 2. Attention -0,10 -0,14** - 3. Clarity 0,18* 0,18** 0,33** 0,24** - 4. Repair 0,33** -0,007 0,30** 0,42** 0,07 0,40** - 5. Positive Affect 0,39** 0,09 0,21* 0,24** 0,54** 0,01 0,35** 0,37** - 6. Vigor 0,11* -0,10 0,14** 0,19** 0,21** 0,26** 0,14** 0,31** 0,23** 0,25** - 7. Dedication 0,13* -0,02 0,10 0,19** 0,22** 0,62** 0,17** 0,24** 0,18** 0,12* 0,21** 0,66** 8. Absorption 0,06 0,01 0,20** 0,17** 0,15** 0,69** 0,65** 0,12* 0,20** 0,17** 0,07 0,17** 0,56** 0,69** Students: first line/Employees: second line in each variable/dimension. **p< 0,01//* p< 0,05. 37/43 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 |

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | The Contribution of Personal Resources (Emotional Intelligence, Core Self-Evaluations and Positive Affect) to Engagement emotional intelligence were entered as a block in the fourth step. With regard to vigor, a total of 9,1% (students) and 15,5% (employees) of these variances were accounted for. Students who reported a higher degree of PA, as well as who obtained a higher skill at repairing moods scored higher in vigor. For employees, that ones who showed a higher degree of CSE, as well as employees with a higher perceived skill at distinguishing between moods (clarity) scored higher on vigor. Sex and age have also shown a statistically significant influence in the level of vigor. For predicting dedication, a total of 9,2% (college students) and 6,7% (employees) of these variances were accounted for. In this vein, students who showed a higher degree of PA and higher skills at repairing moods, as well as employees reporting a higher level of PA obtained higher scores on dedication. In sum, EI dimensions were found to account for a significant amount of the variances in EE (ranging from DR2 0,021 to 0,043 p< 0,01) for both students and employees samples. Only for predicting dedication in employees EI dimensions were found not to account for a significant amount of the variance (DR2 0,008 p > 0,05). Table 3. Hierarchical regression analyses. Student Sample Employee Sample R2 b DR2 R2 b DR2 VIGOR 9,1% 15,5% Step 1 0,18 Sex 0,125 0,062 Age 0,93 0,124* Step 2 0,17* 0,76** Core Self-evaluations 0,006 0,13* Step 3 0,033** 0,018* Positive Affect 0,167** 0,099 Step 4 0,024** 0,043** Repair 0,126** 0,049 Clarity 0,080 0,211** DEDICATION 9,2% 6,7% Step 1 0,014 0,001 Sex 0,129* 0,052 Age -0,022 -0,036 Step 2 0,022** 0,039** Core Self-evaluations 0,025 0,092 Step 3 0,035** 0,019* Positive Affect 0,182** 0,141* Step 4 0,021** 0,008 Repair 0,155** -0,011 Clarity ------**p< 0,01//*p< 0,05

Mediational analyses

A series of regressions (see Table 4) were performed to test each of the mediational relationships according to the criteria speciďŹ ed by Baron and Kenny46: First, the predictor variable (CSE) must be related to the mediator variable (PA/clarity/repair). Second, the predictor variable must be related to the outcome variable (vigor/ dedication). Third, the mediator variable must be related to the outcome variable. Fourth, after controlling for the effects of the mediator on the outcome, the relation between the predictor and the outcome must be significantly decreased. To determine whether the reduction could be considered significant, the Sobel test was used.47 Thus, according to the criteria of having a reduction in the relationship between the predictor and the dependent variable to a non-signiďŹ cant level, for college students results indicated full Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 37/43

Table 4. Mediational analysis. Students Employees R2 b p Z R2 b p Z Sobel test Sobel test PA as Mediator VIGOR CSE 1,4% 0,118 0,029 -- 7% 0,265 0,000 2,39* CSE 1,4% 0,041 0,384 -- 6,9% 0,179 0,004 Positive Affect 4,6% 0,195 0,001 -- 8,6% 0,153 0,015 DEDICATION CSE 1,9% 0,137 0,012 -- 3,2% 0,179 0,001 - CSE 1,9% 0,050 0,384 -- 3,1% 0,085 0,182 - Positive Affect 5,7% 0,215 0,000 -- 5,1% 0,167 0,009 -Repair as Mediator VIGOR CSE 1,4% 0,118 0,029 -- 7% 0,265 0,000 2,44* CSE 1,4% 0,060 0,288 -- 7% 0,203 0,000 Repair 4% 0,172 0,003 -- 8,8% 0,147 0,011 DEDICATION CSE 1,9% 0,137 0,012 -- 3,2% 0,179 0,001 // CSE 1,9% 0,081 0,155 -- 3,2% 0,156 0,009 // Repair 4,3% 0,165 0,004 -- 3,5% 0,056 0,347 // Clarity as Mediator VIGOR CSE 1,4% 0,118 0,029 -- 7% 0,265 0,000 3,80** CSE 1,4% 0,094 0,086 -- 7% 0,179 0,001 Clarity 3,1% 0,131 0,017 -- 12,8% 0,256 0,000 DEDICATION CSE -- -- -- // 3,2% 0,179 0,001 2,19* CSE -- -- -- // 3,5% 0,143 0,012 Clarity -- -- -- // 5% 0,132 0,021 **p< 0,01//*p< 0,05

mediation for five mediational relationships. That is, positive affectivity and repair fully mediated the relationships between CSE and the two dimensions of engagement; while clarity fully mediated the relationship between CSE and vigor. For employees, clarity partially mediated the relationships between CSE and the EE dimensions, while the skill at repairing moods is a partial mediator of the CSE influence on vigor. Finally, positive affectivity was a partial mediator in the relationships between CSE and vigor, but fully mediated the relationship between CSE and dedication.

Discussion The purpose of the current study was to analyse the relationships between engagement and diverse constructs within the individual domain in two different samples: college students and employees. The main interests of this research have been focused on the predictive role of emotional intelligence (EI), core selfevaluations (CSE) and positive affectivity (PA) as personal resources. The study has specifically explored both the incremental validity of EI dimensions in predicting engagement above and beyond what is accounted for by CSE and PA; and the role of EI dimensions and PA as mediating variables in the relations CSE-EE. As a whole, the study lends support to the literature on individual resources that underlines the role of personality and emotions as well-being predictors.48 Moreover, data supported the incremental validity of relatively new constructs such us EI with respect to a broader personality dimension such as CSE. In line with previous studies38, our findings suggest that EI and CSE albeit related, might reflect partially different processes. By

Original Article | Durán Auxiliadora et al. extension results indicated the relevance of emotions and affectivity in organizational and academic settings. More specifically, the core self-evaluations appeared as a relevant antecedent variable for employee vigor together with clarity, while PA is the only significant antecedent of employee dedication. In this sense, PA appeared as a relevant antecedent for dedication in both college students and employees. Taken together EI dimensions have shown their incremental validity over and beyond CSE and PA, with the exception of the final regression model for employee dedication. That is, college students skilled at making use of their emotions by directing them towards constructive activities and personal performance, and who feel enthusiastic, active and alert, might be more vigorously engrossed in their daily academic tasks. As Xanthopoulou et al8, have stated organizations must realize that job and personal resources lead to engaged workforces, who seem able to mobilize additional resources. Human resources policies should focus on creating resourceful work environments and on training programs that enhance employees’ positive selfbeliefs. Organizations should avoid overwhelming job demands and pay attention to the fact that empowerment of employees’ personal resources may also be profitable. Personal resources as CSE, PA and EI seem useful tools to promote EE and their improvement might become an important issue in the organizational agenda. Different areas such as personnel selection support, leadership, distribution of stressful assignments, etc., could be benefited. Focusing on intervention programs in academic and work settings, engagement could be increased by clarity and emotional repair through the development of regulation strategies. In this vein, Salovey et al40 proposed that enhancing beliefs that moods can be understood and regulated may help people to perceive their emotions as less threatening and consequently increase the levels of well-being. So positive psychology interventions, which focus both on promoting CSE and teaching individuals useful ways to regulate emotions or maintain pleasant moods, might contribute to a happier perception of life and higher levels of vigor and dedication in their jobs. Some limitations need to be pointed out in our research. First, the study was conducted with self-reported measures, so it is likely that social desirability might have influenced responses. Also,

self-reported measures such as TMMS only evaluate selfperceived emotional dimensions, and it would be beneficial to include emotional performance measures in order to reduce the problem of common method variance with outcome variables. A combined approach may be the most appropriate to apply in future research for predicting EE. Another significant issue is the use of a cross-sectional design, which necessarily limits our conclusions due to the fact that it is not possible to determine the direction of casuality. Nevertheless, our results lend support to the idea that academic and organizational training program developers should consider essential dimensions of CSE, such as self-esteem or generalized self-efficacy, as well as EI skills or PA, for increasing work/ academic engagement and thus to contribute to better employee and student well-being. Although in the workplace and academic contexts many factors are out of the individual control, the development of training programs -which help employees and students to understand their own emotions and repair their moods-, together with the necessary organizational/academic changes, -which promote higher dedication and vigor feelings, are complementary and useful interventions to increase the employee and student psychological well-being. These suggestions could be specially applied to university contexts, where the ongoing reforms will have a strong impact on European higher education. These changes include changes in degrees structure or a growing interest in links between higher education, research and innovation; equitable participation and lifelong learning, etc. The innovation in teaching methods will ask the students to learn throughout their entire personal and professional life, and to develop new skills. In this new academic context to built engagement will also be needed. Even though empirical evidence have confirmed a strong relationship between personality constructs and well-being, it should not be assumed that well-being is an unchangeable aspect of one’s character. In fact, dispositional traits might interact with flexible aspects of mood regulation and, as a result, people would experience different judgments with regard to well-being. In this sense, individuals might be able to acquire mood repair abilities, given the similarities between mood repair and other techniques such as positive refocusing or learned optimism styles (Seligman, 1998).

REFERENCES 1. Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB. Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. J Organ Behav. 2008; 29:147-154. 2. Salanova M, Schaufeli, WB. A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behavior. Int J Hum Resour Man. 2008;19(1): 116-131. 3. Schaufeli WB, Salanova M. Enhancing work engagement through the management of human resources. In: Näswall K, Sverke M, Hellgren J, editors. The individual in the changing working life. Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press; 2008. pp. 380-404. 4. Van den Heuvel M, Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB. Personal resources and work engagement in the face of change. In: Houdmont J, Leka S, editors. Contemporary occupational health psychology: Global perspectives on research and practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2010. pp. 124-150 5. Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, González-Romá V, Bakker AB. The measurement of engagement: a confirmative analytic approach. J Happiness Stud. 2002; 3:71-92.

6. Schaufeli WB, Salanova M. Efficacy or inefficacy, that’s the question: Burnout and work engagement, and their relationships with efficacy beliefs. Anxiety Stress Copin. 2007; 20(2):177-196. 7. Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. The Role of Personal Resources in the Job Demands-Resources Model. Int J Stress Manage. 2007;14(2):121-141. 8. Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. J Vocat Behav. 2009;74: 235-244. 9. Halbesleben JR. A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources and consequences. In: Bakker AB, Leiter MP, editors. Work engagement: The handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press; 2010. pp.102-117. 10. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. J Organ Behav. 2004; 25: 293-315. 37/43 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 |

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | The Contribution of Personal Resources (Emotional Intelligence, Core Self-Evaluations and Positive Affect) to Engagement 11. udge TA, Locke EA, Durham CC. The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Res Organ Behav. 1997; 19:151-188 12. Hobfoll SE, Johnson RJ, Ennis N, Jackson AP. Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003; 84:632-643. 13. Judge TA, Van Vianen AE, De Pater I. Emotional stability, core self-evaluations, and job outcomes: A review of the evidence and an agenda for future research. Hum Perform. 2004; 17:325-346. 14. Luthans F, Norman SM, Avolio BJ, Avey JB.The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate—employee performance relationship. J Organ Behav. 2008; 29:219-238. 15. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988; 54(6):1063-1070. 16. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. The conceptualization and measurement of work engagement. In: AB Bakker MP Leiter, editors. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press; 2010. pp.10-24 17. Langelaan S, Bakker AB, Van Doornen LJ, Schaufeli WB. Burnout and work engagement: Do individual differences make a difference? Pers Indiv Differ. 2006;40:521–532. 18. Gardner DG, Pierce JL. The Core Self-evaluation Scale: Further Construct Validation Evidence. Educ Psychol Meas. 2009;70:291-304. 19. Weyhrauch WS, Culbertson SS, Mills MJ, Fullagar CJ. Engaging the Engagers: Implications for the Improvement of Extension Work Desing. Journal of Extension [on line]. 2010 [cited dec 2011]; 48(3)1-11. Available from: http:// www.joe.org/joe/2010june/pdf/JOE_v48_3a5.pdf 20. Tsaousis I, Nikolau I, Serdaris N, Judge TA. Do the core self-evaluations moderate the relationship between subjective well-being and physical and psychological health? Pers Indiv Differ. 2007;42:1441-1452. 21. Bono JE, Judge TA. Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. Eur J Personality. 2003;17:5-18. 22. Judge TA, Bono JE. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A metaanalysis. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86:80-92. 23. Judge TA, Locke EA, Durham CC, Kluger AN. Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. J Appl Psychol. 1998;83:17-34. 24. Piccolo RE, Judge TA, Takahashi K, Watanabe N, Locke EA. Core self-evaluations in Japan: relative effects on job satisfaction, life satisfaction and happiness. J Organ Behav. 2005;26:965-984. 25. Stumpp T, Hülsheger UR, Muck PM, Maier GW. Expanding the link between core self-evaluations and affective job attitudes. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2009;18(2):148-166. 26. Brunborg GS. Core Self-Evaluations. A Predictor Variable for Job Stress. Eur Psycholog. 2008;13(2):96-102. 27. Best RG, Stapleton LM, Downey RG. Core self-evaluations and job burnout: The test of alternative models. J Occup Health Psychol. 2005;10:441-451. 28. Rich BL, Lepine JA, Crawford ER. Job Engagement: Antecedents and effects on Job performance. Acad of Manage J. 2010;53(3):617-635. 29. Zeidner M, Matthews G, Roberts RD. Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace: A Critical Review. Appl Psychol: Int Rev. 2004;53(3):371–399. 30. Mayer JD, Salovey P. What is emotional intelligence? In: Salovey P, Sluyter D, editors. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators. New York: Basic Books; 1997.pp.3-31. 31. Mayer J, Roberts R, Barsade SG. Human Abilities: Emotional Intelligence. Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:507-536.

32. Heck GL, Van den Oudsten BL. Emotional intelligence: Relationship to stress, health, and well-being. In: Vingerhoets A, Nyklicek I, Denollet J, editors. Emotion regulation: Conceptual and clinical issues. New York: Springer; 2008. pp. 97-121. 33. Daus CS, Ashkanasy NM. The case for the ability-based model of emotional intelligence in organizational behaviour. J Organ Behav. 2005;26:453-466. 34. Van Rooy DL, Viswesvaran C. Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. J Vocat Behav. 2004;65(1):71-95. 35. Kafetsios K, Loumakou M. A comparative evaluation of the effects of trait emotional intelligence and emotion regulation on affect at work and job satisfaction. Int J Work Organ Emot. 2007;2(1):71-87. 36. Lopes PN, Grewal D, Kadis J, Gall M, Salovey P. Evidence that emotional intelligence is related to job performance and affect and attitudes at work. Psicothema. 2006;18(1):132-138. 37. Gerits L, Derksen J, Verbruggen A. Emotional Intelligence and Adaptive Success of Nurses Caring for People With Mental Retardation and Severe Behavior Problems. Ment Retard. 2004;42(2):106-121. 38. Kluemper DH. Trait emotional intelligence: The impact of core-self evaluations and social desirability. Pers Indiv Differ. 2008;44:1402-1412. 39. Hendricks VM, Blanken P. Snowball sampling: theoretical and practical considerations. In: Hendricks VM, Blanken P, Adriaans N, editors. Snowball Sampling: A Pilot Study on Cocaine Use. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Instituut Voor Onderzoek IVO; 1992. pp.17-35 40. Salovey P, Mayer JD, Goldman SL, Turvey C, Palfai TP. Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In: Pennebaker JW, editors. Emotion, disclosure and health .Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1995. pp.125-154 41. Fernández-Berrocal P, Extremera N, Ramos N. Validity and reliability of the Spanish modified version of the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. Psychol Rep. 2004; 94:47-59. 42. Sandín B, Chorot R, Lostao L, Joiner TE, Santed MA, Valiente RM. Escalas PANAS de afecto positivo y negativo: Validación factorial y convergencia transcultural. Psicothema.1999;2:37-51. 43. Judge TA, Erez A, Bono J, Thoresen CJ. The Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES): Development of a measure. Person Psychol. 2003; 56:303-331. 44. Salanova M, Schaufeli WB, Llorens S, Peiró JM, Grau R. Desde el burnout al engagement: ¿una nueva perspectiva?. Rev Psicol Trab Organ. 2000;16(2):117-134. 45. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. UWES – Utrecht Work Engagement Scale Preliminary Manual [on line]. 2003[cited dec 2011]. Available from: http:// www.schaufeli.com. 46. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Person Soc Psychol 1986;51:1173-1182. 47. Sobel ME. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In: Leinhardt S, editor. Sociological Methodology. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association; 1982. pp. 290-312. 48. Judge TA, Hurst C. The benefits and possible costs of positive core self-evaluations: A review and agenda for future research. In: Nelson D, Cooper CL, editors. Positive organizational behavior . London: Sage Publications; 2007. pp. 159-174

Referencias complementarias: 1. Judge TA. Core Self-Evaluations and Work Success. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2009;18(1):58-62. 2. Seligman ME. Learned Optimism. 2nd ed. New York: Simon and Schuster; 1998.

Original Article

Investigating the Associations between Ministerial Resources, Personality Traits and Engagement among the Indian Clergy Investigación de las Asociaciones entre los Recursos Ministeriales, Rasgos de la Personalidad y Engagement entre el Clero Indio Eugene Newman Joseph1, Hans De Witte1,2

1. Research Group Work, Organisational & Personnel Psychology (WOPP) Department of Psychology, K.U.Leuven, Belgium. 2. North-West University (Vanderbijlpark Campus), South-Africa.

ABSTRACT

Work engagement is a state of being happily engrossed in work and a feeling that one can give more in spite of difficulties, trials and tribulations. In line with this clergy engagement can be seen as a state in which priests constantly expend a great deal of energy through service and compassion to others with enthusiasm, commitment and absorption. The dynamic, dedicated and up-to-date priest thrives in demanding situations. Since engagement is defined as a work related state of mind43 most of the studies have concentrated on the situational factors. This study attempts to explore if personality traits could play an important role in priests being positively motivated and engaged in priestly life and ministry. The present study on clergy engagement among a sample of 511 priests employed the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale to tap engagement, Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire to tap ministerial resources and the NEO FFI Personality Inventory to tap personality traits, which is yet another addition to a long history of empirical research based on Catholic clergy conducted in various parts of the world. Hierarchical regression analyses confirmed that ministerial resources (skill utilization, social support from people and social support from priests) have a positive association with engagement and among the personality traits as expected Neuroticism had a negative association, while extraversion and conscientiousness had a positive association with engagement among the Indian clergy. Key words: Engagement; Ministerial Resources; Personality; Clergy.

RESUMEN

El engagement laboral es el estado de sentirse feliz y compenetrado hacia el trabajo, además de tener la capacidad de realizar un esfuerzo extra a pesar de las dificultades, procesos y preocupaciones. De forma paralela, el engagement del clero podría apreciarse como un estado en el cual los sacerdotes gastan comúnmente una gran cantidad de energía a través de su servicio y compasión hacia terceros con entusiasmo, compromiso y absorción. Los sacerdotes dinámicos, dedicados y modernos se enfrentan a situaciones exigentes. Debido a que el engagement se define como un estado mental hacia el trabajo, la mayoría de los estudios se han concentrado en los factores situacionales. Este estudio intenta explorar si los rasgos de la personalidad podrían jugar un rol importante en la motivación positiva y del engage en la vida sacerdotal y ministerial. El presente trabajo se realizó a partir de una muestra de 511 sacerdotes utilizando la medición Utrecht Work Engagement Scale para estimar el engagement, el Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire para evaluar los recursos ministeriales y el NEO FFI Personality Inventory para revisar los rasgos de la personalidad, el cual es otra adición a una larga historia de investigación empírica basada en el clero católico que se realiza alrededor del mundo. Los análisis de regresión jerárquica confirmaron que los recursos ministeriales (uso de habilidades, apoyo social de la gente y apoyo social por parte de los sacerdotes) tienen una asociación positiva con el engagement y los rasgos de la personalidad. Tal como se esperaba, el neuroticismo presenta una asociación negativa, mientras que la extraversión y la conciencia mostraron una asociación positiva hacia el engagement del clero indio. Palabras clave: engagement, recursos ministeriales, personalidad, clero.

Introduction The opening words of Charles Meyer in his book Man of God: A Study of the Priesthood are “the priesthood is in trouble” (1974, p. 9). More than forty years after Vatican II, a plethora of books on priesthood flood us with the widespread acknowledgement that

Correspondence / Correspondencia Prof. dr. Hans De Witte Full Professor Work Psychology Research Group Work, Organisational & Personnel Psychology (WOPP) Department of Psychology-K.U.Leuven Tiensestr. 102, 3000 Leuven. België - Belgium Tel.: 016-32.60.60 • Fax: 016-32.60.55 e-mail: Hans.Dewitte@psy.kuleuven.be

there is a crisis in priesthood today. Ministering to the faithful in the Church is a noble call, which focuses on constantly giving and sharing that could be fulfilling, when complimented with high resources eventually leading to engagement. Taking into consideration the scenario of the Indian Church in a multi-religio-political situation, and also relying on the empirical studies done on engagement that have led to the belief that the available resources43, and positive personality traits30 predict engagement45, an attempt was made to study engagement among the Catholic diocesan clergy in India. In a bid to accomplish this for the first time this study has employed a positive construct: work engagement in a different context (India) among a different professional category (priests) adapting some concepts like ‘job’ and ‘work’ to ‘ministry’ the term that denotes the work of priests. This study will focus on positive psychology by analyzing work engagement and by testing its antecedents: ministerial resources. Finally the JDR-model has been employed for the first time among priests to test and compare the differential effects of the two kinds of resources namely minis44/52 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 |

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Investigating the Associations between Ministerial Resources, Personality Traits and Engagement among the Indian Clergy terial resources and personal resources.

Ministerial Resources

Since the beginning of the 21st century following the general trend in psychology48 scholars in occupational psychology have evinced interest on the psychological phenomenon engagement. Engagement is defined as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption”.46 Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy, zest, stamina and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence in the face of difficulties.45 It is considered the direct opposite of exhaustion one of the core dimensions of burnout.33 The continuum spanned by vigor and exhaustion has been labelled “energy”.42 Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one’s work, and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge.43 It is considered the direct opposite of cynicism, another core dimension of burnout.33,32 The continuum spanned by dedication and cynicism has been labelled “identification”46. Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work.42,45 Being fully absorbed in one’s work comes close to Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) concept of “flow”, a state of optimal experience that is characterized by focused attention, clear mind, mind and body unison, effortless concentration, complete control, loss of self-consciousness, distortion of time and intrinsic enjoyment. But contrary to flow which is a complex concept with many aspects and refers to short-term peak experiences, even outside the realm of work, absorption is a more pervasive and persistent state of mind.45 In line with this definition, clergy engagement can be seen as a feeling of possessing high levels of energy, the willingness to offer oneself wholeheartedly and to invest effort in one’s ministry even in the midst of difficulties and trying situations, wherein a priest is happily engrossed in his ministry and feels a sense of fulfilment.46

Paraphrasing the definition of job resources15, ministerial resources refer to those physical, psychological, social, cultural, organizational and congregational aspects of the ministry that either/or (1) reduce ministerial demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs; (2) are functional in achieving ministerial goals; (3) stimulate personal growth, learning and development.43 Resources not only assist in dealing with job demands and in getting things done43 but as Hobfoll23 describes they are also important in their own right. Substantiating this view, several studies have confirmed the hypothesis that resources are not only necessary to deal with ministerial demands and to ‘get things done’23 but they also are important in enhancing performance.2,15 Though there are no specific studies that have been done on clergy engagement, nevertheless there are studies that have been done in relation to positive outcomes of priestly life and ministry. Studies on clergy have attested to the fact that resources like autonomy;31 skill utilization;32 support from the people they minister to;17,40,20,41 support from fellow priests;26,52 and support from the authority41,26,52 lead to the ministerial satisfaction and well-being of the priest and lack of all these resources could lead to depression, stress and burnout. Based on literature and research, we have selected the following variables for ministerial resources for our study among Indian clergy. 1) Autonomy: The ability to determine one’s work methods, work schedules and even issues such as breaks and vacations38,39 is expected to have a positive association with engagement 2) Skill utilization: The degree to which jobs allow individuals to exhibit their skills, talents and abilities14,25,50 is assumed to be positively associated with engagement. 3) Social Support is that piece of information that convinces people that others love them and care for them, respect them and value them and that they are part of a network of communications and mutual support.8 Hence social support from people, colleagues (priests) and Authority are expected to be positively associated with engagement.

Ministerial Resources and Personality Traits

Personality Traits

In the current era of great transition and upheaval, priests are called to live their ministry with depth, anticipating the ever more profound, numerous and sensitive demands and challenges not only of a pastoral, but also of a social and cultural nature, which they must face (PDV, no. 5, 1). Pastoral ministry is definitely a fascinating undertaking, yet one that is onerous, open to misunderstanding and marginalization and especially today, to fatigue, exhaustion, challenge, isolation and at times solitude. To engage in the diverse areas of the apostolate requires complete dedication, generosity, intellectual preparation, a mature and deep spiritual life and a commitment to authentic service of the faithful through pastoral ministry.10 Priests have multiple responsibilities and feel pulled in many directions to perform everything equally well, without being able to set priorities.40,18,17 In a situation like this if they are complimented with resources at the same time if they are in possession of positive personality traits they could be engaged in their priestly life and ministry. One of the innovative aspects of this study is the employment of the JDR-Model15 to develop our hypotheses and to analyze the role of ministerial resources and personal resources in predicting engagement among the Indian priests.

Over the last decades, research using the so-called Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality has been quite productive. Despite the fact of its popularity, there are hardly any studies that have employed the FFM to study its association with engagement. The study by Langelaan and collegues30 is the only study that the authors have come across that has studied the association between two (neuroticism and extraversion) of the five personality dimensions and engagement.45 Hence the present study aims at extending these studies by focusing on all the FFM personality factors simultaneously in the prediction of engagement in Indian Catholic Diocesan Priests. Based on the literature of the FFM, previous research and above all taking into account the nature of priestly ministry in India wherein priests are incessantly approached by the people for their spiritual, emotional and even material needs, the following predictions were made. Neuroticism is characterized by a tendency to be emotionally unstable, fearful and irritable. The characteristics of neurotics are that they possess low self-esteem, poor inhibition of impulses, social anxiety and helplessness.11 People high on neuroticism are emotionally reactive and tend to interpret ordinary situations as threatening, and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult.4,22 Previous research has found neuroticism to be negatively associated with engagement.30 Serving the

Engagement

Original Article | Newman Eugene, De Witte Hans people in India has its own pros and cons. On the positive side, priestly ministry would be satisfying and fulfilling but on the negative side, it could be exhausting and frustrating due to the various unanticipated demands and challenges a priest has to confront on a daily basis. Based on literature and research and taking into account the nature of priestly ministry in India which is people oriented, we expect neuroticism to be negatively associated with engagement. Extraversion is characterized by a tendency to be self confident, dominant, active and excitement seeking. The basic characteristics of extraverts are that they enjoy being with people, are full of energy, optimistic, experience positive emotions, have higher frequency and intensity in personal interactions, are enthusiastic, action-oriented10 and have a keen interest in other people and external events.16 Hence, it is not surprising to find that extraversion was positively associated with engagement.30 Pastoral ministry in India involves constantly being with and for the people. Hence, it would be rather conducive for priests scoring high on extraversion to naturally get along with the people with ease than for priests who are low on extraversion. Hence, in line with the literature and research, we assumed that extraversion would be positively associated with engagement. Thirdly, there no studies to the authorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; knowledge which have investigated the relationship between engagement and Openness to Experience, which is characterized by a tendency to be creative, intelligent and open to new ideas.12 It must be clear that to attend to all people in a community, priests ideally need to be flexible and open to the experiences and opinions of others. Taking into account the characteristics associated with openness and the situation of priestly ministry in India, we expect openness to experience to be positively associated with engagement. Agreeableness is characterized by the tendency to be most concerned with interpersonal relationships.19 The basic characteristics of agreeableness trait are being considerate, friendly, generous, helpful and willing to compromise their interests with others and above all valuing getting along with others.51 There are no studies yet that have explored the association between agreeableness and engagement. However, learning to be concerned about the welfare of the people, being considerate, friendly, generous and helpful are essential characteristics of priestly ministry in India. Taking into account the nature of priestly ministry in India, we expect agreeableness to be positively associated with engagement. The construct of Conscientiousness, represents the drive to accomplish something and it contains the characteristics necessary in such a pursuit: being organized, self-disciplined, systematic, efficient, practical and steady.16 There is a dearth of research on conscientiousness and engagement. Ministering in India is strenuous because a priest has to constantly deal with people who are poor, downtrodden, uneducated, unemployed and with various social, financial and cultural burdens. Unless he has some set goals and targets, and gets himself organized to help the people, he could end up frustrated in meeting all these demands. Taking into consideration the multi-cultural Indian society in which a priest ministers, we expect conscientiousness to be positively associated with engagement.

The Catholic Church in India The motive behind briefly discussing the history of the Catholic Church in India is to situate the target of our study-the Catholic diocesan priests of the Latin rite. More often India is associated with the major religions of Hinduism or Islam; however Christianity has

enjoyed a long and rich history and tradition in the Indian subcontinent. Although India has a majority of Hindus, no official state religion is named. India in its constitution has determined to preserve freedom of religion. The population of India is around 1,16 billion (http://populationcommission.nic.in) of which approximately 17,3 million are Catholics (http://www.ccbi.in), which represents less than 2% of the total population. The Indian Catholic Church is a communion of three individual churches: the Latin Church which is the biggest, the Syro-Malabar Church and the Syro-Malankara Church.37 There are 160 dioceses in India comprising 30 archdioceses and 130 dioceses (http://www.cbcisite.com) (of which 23 archdioceses and 105 dioceses: a total of 128 dioceses are of Latin rite; 5 archdioceses and 21 dioceses: a total of 26 dioceses are of Syro-Malabar rite and 2 archdioceses and 4 dioceses: a total of 6 dioceses of Syro-Malankara rite). According to 2003 statistics (the most recent posted on the CBCI website) there are around 14,000 diocesan priests and 13,500 religious priests (http://www.cbcisite.com). Our target of study - the group of Catholic diocesan priests of the Latin rite - is involved in people-oriented work either in parishes or institutions in South India, constantly catering to the material, educational, social and above all spiritual needs of the people.

Aims of the Study The primary aim of the study was to investigate whether the Indian diocesan catholic clergy are engaged when they encounter ministerial resources in their priestly life and ministry. Secondly, do personality traits aid in the prospect of being engaged when priestly life and ministry are complimented with ministerial resources. By employing the construct of engagement, this study adds to the literature of engagement in three aspects: 1) to validate that the engagement scale is applicable in the study of the ministry (work) of priests 2) to systematically bring all the possible and relevant resources under the broad variable ministerial resources to analyze its association with engagement 3) to explore the association of five personality traits with engagement for the first time.

Method Procedure

The present empirical study was conducted in 21 Latin Catholic dioceses of South India (Tamil Nadu [14 dioceses], Karnataka [5 dioceses], Andhra Pradesh [1 diocese] and Kerala [1 diocese]) during the months of January-May 2007. Dioceses in the five ecclesiastical regions of South India were randomly selected. 30 priest delegates who extended positive assurances that they would lend a hand in the distribution and collection of the questionnaires were chosen from the dioceses selected (Alwaye, Bangalore, Bellary, Chikmagalur, Chingelpet, Coimbatore, Dharmapuri, Dindigul, Kottar, Kumbakonam, Madras-Mylapore, Mysore, Ootacamund, Palayamkottai, Pondicherry, Salem, Shimoga, Sivagangai, Thanjavur, Trichy and Vizag). The nature of the project and the research objectives were explained to them in detail. The questionnaires were mailed to the priest delegates, in packets containing 20 or 30 or 50, in accordance with their requests. As instructed the delegates distributed the questionnaires to all the priests who resided and ministered in the area the delegate had his residence. No specific criteria were followed for selecting the priests to fill out the questionnaire or in the distribution of the ques44/52 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 |

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Investigating the Associations between Ministerial Resources, Personality Traits and Engagement among the Indian Clergy tionnaire as such, for every priest could be part of the sample. By the end of February 2007, 800 questionnaires were distributed.

Participants Overall, a total of 540 questionnaires were returned, for a response rate of 67,5%, including those who responded but declined to participate (N = 28), and those whose data were incomplete (N = 1). Of the 67,5% (540) who returned their surveys, 63,9% (511) were complete and usable for the study. Both the overall (67,5%) and the usable response rates for this study’s data are satisfactory. The age of the participants in our sample varied between 27 and 88 years with a mean age of 43,2 years (SD = 11,8). The participants’ ministerial experience varied from 1 to 58 years with a mean of 14,9 years (SD=11,9). With respect to participants’ level of education in our study, 43,2% (N = 221) had bachelor’s degrees, 44,4% (N = 227) obtained a masters degree and 11,5% (N = 59) had acquired a PhD, four participants did not indicate their educational qualification. In our study, 28,2% (N = 144) of the participants lived alone without a companion priest; 26,4% (N = 135) had one priest companion, 16,8% (N = 86) had two; 8,4% (N = 43) had three and the remaining 20,2% (N = 103) live with more than four up to thirty eight companion priests. A vast majority of the participants in our study are situated in the town/semi-urban and rural areas. 33,5% (N = 171) of the priests minister in rural areas, 49,7% (N = 254) work in town areas and 16,8% (N = 86) in metropolitan cities. In our study, 74,4% (N = 380) of the priests are engaged in parish ministry, 25,6% (N = 112) work in institutions (seminaries, colleges, schools and commissions at the national, regional and diocesan levels) and 3,7% (N = 19) in the diocesan curia.

Measures We adapted a few well known measures by choosing only the workrelated scales that were relevant for our study. We also changed words like “work and job” used in the original version of the measures to “ministry”, the term used for the work of priests. The following were the measures that were used. Utrecht Work Engagement Scale42,46 is a self-report questionnaire with 17 items assessing three aspects of work engagement: Vigor (6 items) refers to high levels of energy and resilience, the willingness to invest effort, not being easily fatigued, and persistence in the face of difficulties (e.g., “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”). Dedication (5 items) refers to deriving a sense of significance from one’s work, feeling enthusiastic and proud about one’s job, and feeling inspired and challenged by it (e.g., “I find the ministry that I do is full of meaning and purpose”). Absorption (6 items) refers to being totally and happily immersed in one’s work and having difficulty detaching oneself from it, so that time passes quickly and one forgets everything else (e.g., “When I am ministering, I forget everything else around me”). Subjecting our data to a factor analysis using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with iteration and varimax rotation, factor loadings below 0,40 were suppressed. A clear three factor structure was absent all items loaded on one factor which is in line with the study of Sonnetag.48 All items had a minimal factor loading of 0,55. This gives us an additional reason to use the one factor fit of engagement which is acceptable49 instead of the three factor fit. The reliability of the total scale of engagement was high (_ = 0,96). Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 44/52

Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire: (COPSOQ)28 Ministerial demands and ministerial resources were assessed employing Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. The COPSOQ was developed by the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) in Denmark to assess psychosocial work environment factors. This inventory has been adapted by taking only those scales that were applicable for our study. PCA using varimax rotation revealed that all the items loaded in the respective scales on one factor. Factor loadings below 0,40 were suppressed and all items had a minimal factor loading of 0,48 and no cross loadings emerged. Task related job characteristics assess autonomy and skill utilization. Autonomy assesses if a priest can take a break or influence the amount of work he is assigned to, on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (to a large extent) to 5 (to a very small extent) (e.g., “Can you decide when to take a break?”; 4 items _ = 0,76), and skill utilization assesses whether the ministry is varied and opportunities are there to utilize one’s talents and skills, on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Always) to 5 (Never/hardly ever) (e.g., “Is your ministry varied?”; 6 items; _ = 0,78). Social support at the interpersonal level assesses the support of the people with whom and for whom the priest works, on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Always) to 5 (Never/hardly ever) (e.g., “Is there a good atmosphere between you and the people you work for?”; 4 items; _ = 0,81), and support of priests measures if there is good cooperation and understanding with other priests and immediate superiors on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Always) to 5 (Never/hardly ever) (e.g., “How often do you get help and support from other priests?”; 4 items; _ =0,88). Social support at the organizational level, assesses if the authority (Bishop) understands, appreciates and offers developmental opportunities to the priest, on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Always) to 5 (Never/ hardly ever) (e.g., “To what extent would you say that your Bishop appreciates the priests and shows consideration for the individual?”; 8 items; _ = 0,95). The NEO Five-Factor Inventory: (NEO-FFI)12 is an abbreviated 60-item version of the 240-item NEO-PI-R assessing Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The anchoring for all the 60 items varies from 1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree. PCA using the varimax rotation for the Big Five failed to reveal the expected five factors. The factor structure was collapsed and in addition the reliability score for the openness scale was very low (_ = 0,46). Neuroticism (12 items) assesses the negative affect and self reproach (e.g., Sometimes I feel completely worthless; _ = 0,72). Extraversion (12 items) assesses positive affect, sociability and activity (e.g., I like to have a lot of people around me; _ = 0,68). Openness to experience (12 items) assesses aesthetic and intellectual interests and unconventionality (e.g., I am intrigued by the patterns I find in art and nature; _ = 0,46). Agreeableness (12 items) assesses non-antagonistic orientation and pro-social orientation (e.g., I try to be courteous to everyone I meet; _ = 0,75). Conscientiousness (12 items) assesses orderliness, goal striving and dependability (e.g., When I make a commitment I can always be counted on to follow; _ = 0,81). Since our study attempts to establish only the relevance and association of engagement with the personality traits, we did not delve into establishing the statistical criteria not supporting the FFM for the NEO-FFI. As the NEO-FFI is an internationally validated and accepted scale, we decided to work with the original four dimensional version excluding the openness scale in further statistical analysis because of the low reliability score and lack of correlation with the other variables.

Original Article | Newman Eugene, De Witte Hans Table 1. Correlations means and standard deviation of demographics, engagement, personality traits and ministerial resources Variables 1 Age 2 Bachelors 3 Phd 4 Comp 5 Rural 6 Metro 7 Res 8 Engagement 9 Neuroticism 10 Extraversion 11 Openness 12 Agreeableness 13 Conscientious 14 Autonomy 15 Skill Utilization 16 Support-People 17 Support-Priests 18 Support-Authority

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 M SD 1 43,02 11,51 -0,06 1 0,44 0,50 0,13** -0,32** 1 0,12 0,32 0,13** -0,21** 0,50** 1 3,33 5,89 -0,05 0,18** -0,10* -0,22** 1 0,33 0,47 0,09* -0,20** 0,23** 0,46** -0,32** 1 0,17 0,38 0,08 -0,29** 0,41** 0,57** -0,25** 0,36** 1 , 1,26 0,44 0,09* -0,08 0,11* 0,18** -0,10* 0,13** 0,18** 1 4,02 1,42 -0,16** 0,11* -0,13** -0,15** 0,06 -0,08 -0,14** -,050** 1 2,82 0,55 -0,11* -0,04 0,19** 0,06 -0,04 0,05 0,04 0,48** -0,31** 1 3,35 0,46 -0,20** -0,09 0,01 0,03 -0,00 0,09* 0,07 -0,02 -0,05 0,09 1 2,94 0,29 0,05 -0,06 0,08 0,11* -0,02 0,10* 0,13** 0,48** -0,56** 0,46** 0,08 1 3,39 0,53 0,09* -0,18** 0,19** 0,14** -0,16** 0,13** 0,13** 0,44** -0,34** 0,37** -0,02 0,37** 1 3,72 0,53 0,15** -0,04 ,02 0,07 0,11* 0,02 0,03 0,29** -0,28** 0,10* 0,01 0,16** 0,15** 1 3,39 0,83 -0,06 -0,11* 0,04 0,07 -0,04 0,08 0,11* 0,51** -0,28** 0,27** 0,00 0,24** 0,33** 0,36** 1 3,67 0,67 0,12** -0,04 -0,01 0,02 0,01 0,05 0,06 0,58** -0,40** 0,32** -0,04 0,39** 0,30** 0,41** 0,51** 1 3,88 0,71 0,14** -0,02 0,00 0,09* 0,03 0,06 0,16** 0,50** -0,38** 0,23** 0,01 0,35** 0,24** 0,42** 0,45** 0,61** 1 3,42 1,00 0,08 0,02 0,01 0,04 -0,01 0,04 0,09* 0,32** -0,28** 0,14** -0,07 0,21** 0,14** 0,32** 0,36** 0,41** 0,58** 1 3,16 1,04

Note: *p ≤ 0,05; ** p ≤ 0,01.

Data Analysis The data was analysed with the help of SPSS 16.0. Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) were employed to analyze the data. Cronbach alpha coefficients (_) were used to assess the internal consistency of the measuring instruments7 Pearson correlation coefficients were used to specify the relationship between the variables (cf. Table 1). In order to examine the predictive impact of ministerial demands and resources on burnout and engagement, a series of hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed for engagement in three steps. Several relevant demographic variables were controlled, namely age (years), education, companions, place and institution. Education was recoded into two dummy variables with those who have completed Masters as the reference group. Place was recoded into two dummy variables with town as reference group and residence was recoded into one dummy variable with institution as reference group. In each of these regressions, demographic variables (age, education, companions, place of ministry, institution) were entered in the model in the first step to control for their influence on the outcomes. Pragmatically from the psychological point of view, since personality traits are relatively stable over time, differ among individuals and influence one’s behaviour (American Psychological Association, 2000)53 they (neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness) were entered in the second step to test its additional explanatory power. Finally, ministerial resources (autonomy, skill utilization, social support from people, priests and authority) were introduced in the third step. A test of the change in R2 indicates whether ministerial resources and personality traits add to the explanation of the dependent variable after controlling for demographics.

Results Foremost we wanted to test if personality traits and ministerial resources were associated with burnout after controlling for demographic background. The results in Table 2 show that the demogra48

phics made no significant contribution in the prediction of engagement. With the introduction of personality traits in step two, there was a significant increase in the explained variance (R = 0,44, p <0,001; R2 Change = 0,39, p <0,001). In step three with the addition of ministerial resources there was an increase in the explained variance (R = 0,57, p <0,001; R2 Change = 0,13, p Table 2. Results of regression analysis with engagement as dependent variable and demographic characteristics, personality traits and ministerial resources as predictors (N=511). Predictors Engagement 1 2 Demographics Age 0,06 0,07 Ed bachelors -0,02 0,01 Ed PhD -0,00 -0,09* Companions 0,09 0,06 Rural -0,03 0,01 Metro 0,04 0,02 Residence 0,10 0,09* Personality Traits Neuroticism -0,28*** Extraversion 0,29*** Agreeableness 0,10* Conscientiousness 0,20*** Ministerial Resources Autonomy Skill utilization Support-people Support-priests Support-authority R 0,22*** 66*** R2 0,05*** 0,44*** F value 3,42 34,34 df 7(492) 11(488) R2 change 0,05*** 0,39***

3 0,06 0,02 -0,04 0,07 -0,03 0,00 0,05 -0,17*** 0,22*** 0,06 0,11*** -0,02 0,19*** 0,23*** 0,11* -0,01 0,75*** 0,57*** 39,39 16(483) 0,13***

Note: *p ≤ 0,05; ** p ≤ 0,01; *** p ≤ 0,001.

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Investigating the Associations between Ministerial Resources, Personality Traits and Engagement among the Indian Clergy <0,001). The results confirmed that neuroticism was negatively associated while extraversion and conscientiousness were positively associated with engagement. Agreeableness failed to make a significant contribution. With regard to ministerial resources, skill utilization, support from people and support from fellow priests were positively associated with engagement. Autonomy and social support from authority made no contribution in the prediction of engagement.

Discussion This study attempted to explore the associations between personality traits, ministerial resources, and engagement, among the Indian Catholic diocesan clergy. With regard to neuroticism as expected, it was negatively associated with engagement. The negative association of neuroticism with engagement was in line with the previous empirical research among Dutch employees30 that reported low levels of neuroticism to be associated with engagement. Priestly ministry in India involves constant interaction with people in their day to day struggles which could emotionally exhaust priests. It is not unexpected that priests in India are confronted by people who seek assistance for their various needs (material, emotional, spiritual, educational and medical). Most often priests do not possess the resources or the solutions to alleviate all the problems of the countless numbers who approach them. Such challenging circumstances would be difficult even for normal individuals to deal with and manage. Since individuals high on neuroticism interpret even ordinary situations and events as threatening, minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult, it is also possible that they perceive and view things negatively and moreover minister with a pessimistic and defeated approach.11,16,17 Taking into consideration the priestly call and the Indian context in particular where the priest is incessantly thronged by the people, it is likely that priests who are not too anxious, easily frustrated, annoyed and irritated would be able to deal with and manage the challenges of priestly life and ministry more effectively. The results of our data reflect this notion emphatically that priests who score low on neuroticism tend to be calm, emotionally stable, and free from persistent negative feelings12 and feel engaged in their priestly ministry. With regard to extraversion, as expected it had a significant positive association with engagement. The findings were in line with the only study that has been done in relation to personal differences and engagement by Langelaan and colleagues30 that revealed high levels of extraversion to be positively associated with engagement. It is obvious that extraversion is positively associated with engagement because extraverts are action oriented, people oriented and above all enthusiastic11,17 and optimistic even amidst challenging situations. Priestly ministry is challenging everywhere in the world, however the exercise of priestly ministry can be more challenging in India where Catholics are an impoverished minority. Very often challenges come unanticipated from sudden explosions of communal violence, persecution of Christians by fanatical Hindu movements, eruptions of natural disasters like earthquakes, floods etc, â&#x20AC;&#x153;sheep stealingâ&#x20AC;? by other denominational congregations, anti-Christian attitudes and policies from the government6 and so on. Unless a priest is optimistic and enthusiastic about his priestly role it would be hard for him to guard, guide and lead the people entrusted to his care. Ministry basically Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 44/52

involves interacting with the people on a daily basis, participating in their daily struggles which necessarily requires constant vigilance, fearless courage, patient love and above all, immense optimism. Therefore, it is necessary that the priest be action oriented and people oriented, which are the characteristics of extraversion. It is evident from our results that priests who possess positive feelings derive immense enjoyment and pleasure in being with people11, bursting with immense energy in confronting the challenges of ministry, and exhibiting optimistic attitudes in dealing with the people which are also, to a certain extent the characteristics of those who are engaged45. Thus, it is not surprising to find those with high scores on extraversion among the Indian Catholic diocesan priests to be engaged. With regard to agreeableness, the results of our study showed that it had no significant association with engagement. Priestly ministry in India is intense because people value the presence of the priest in every aspect of their lives. Knowledge of the nature of priestly ministry in India could be vital in understanding the relationship between agreeableness and burnout. Catholics in India live in a multi-religious context with the Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and other religious groups who are devoted to their religious beliefs, practices, customs and ceremonies. The priests and leaders of these religious groups play a vital role in lives of the people. In addition, there are several Christian denominational groups who are eagerly waiting for opportunities to attract Catholics to their congregational gatherings and prayer meetings. Hence, it is imperative for the Catholic priests to be generally concerned with the well-being and welfare of the people, involved in their lives, and extend themselves more generously by being considerate, friendly and helpful to the people which are some of the basic characteristics of the agreeableness trait. Furthermore, Catholics also to a great extent expect the presence and the blessing of their priest in all their endeavours and undertakings.31 Since, the agreeable dimension is most concerned with interpersonal relationships; we assumed that it would have an impact on engagement. However, the results of our study were surprising and unexpected. Since there are no prior studies that have been done on agreeableness and engagement we were unable to compare our results. As expected, conscientiousness was positively associated with engagement. In India where illiteracy and poverty loom large, the priest has a multitude of concerns to deal with in the administration of a parish/institution. Some of the most important concerns are generating funds to keep the parish or institution alive, construction and maintenance of the church or rectory, helping the poor in their educational, medical and housing needs, channelizing government grants that aim at the welfare of poor, orphaned and downtrodden etc.6 To achieve all this involves meticulous planning and systematic organization which are the basic characteristics of a conscientious individual. In addition, the priest is the person who is sought after to deal with most of the concerns that transpire in the lives of the Catholics, ranging from personal to psychological to marital problems. When priests are inundated incessantly with the cares of the people, we assumed that priests who are organized, systematic, efficient, practical and steady would be efficient and effective in dealing with, managing accomplishing and their priestly ministry. The results of our study have confirmed the assumption true beyond doubt. This suggests that conscientiousness paves the way for optimal functioning and enhances engagement in priestly ministry. Since, conscientious 49

Original Article | Newman Eugene, De Witte Hans individuals achieve their target through purposeful organized planning and persistence, it is not surprising that they are engaged in their priestly ministry. Lack of association between autonomy and engagement among the Indian priests is contradictory to the literature and studies that confirm a positive relationship between autonomy and engagement.15,42 One important reason for lack of association between autonomy and engagement in this study is that with the exception of a few assistant priests in parishes and institutions most priests enjoy complete autonomy in their ministry. Those in authority usually do not interfere in the parish/institution administration unless a serious issue warrants it. Secondly, the assistant priests are usually young priests who are either fresh from the seminary or who have only a year or two of priestly experience. The assignment of the assistant parish priest is transitory and his elevation to the status of parish priest is imminent usually after two or three years of experience in parish ministry with a senior priest. Hence, he is aware that he has to adjust to the way of life of the parish priest temporarily and can exercise autonomy when he is given a parish. Thirdly, after rigorous formation for ten or eleven years, serving in the parish is already a great source of relief and freedom. Finally, as mentioned in the preceding sections, people in India generally are very respectful and submissive to their priests. People do not unnecessarily interfere in the administration of the parish, unless extreme or urgent necessity requires. Therefore, we can conclude that autonomy has no predictive impact on engagement among the Indian Catholic diocesan clergy. The association of skill utilization with engagement among the Indian clergy is in line with the research among other human service professionals21,39 and also supports the literature of Manalel31 which argues that in order to be effective in priestly ministry, priests should be provided with a favourable atmosphere to utilize their skills. The significant association of skill utilization with engagement in our sample could be accounted for by the following: Unlike religious priests whose talents and abilities are tapped even during the early days of formation and who have opportunities created for them to specialize in their field of interest, diocesan priests in accordance with the needs of the diocese have to be open to all ministries (Ponnore, 1998). Often they have to place the interests of the diocese first, rather than their own. Hence, many diocesan priests end up specializing in a field that they are not interested in because of the need of the diocese. Secondly, we could never deny the human errors that have preferred the less capable individual for specialization or for a particular assignment neglecting the more capable and worthy candidate. There are many such individuals among the diocesan clergy who feel that they were passed over in favour of someone else because of prejudice or bias. Thirdly, managerial environments with established traditional systems and organizations could hinder the utilization of a priestâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s talents and skills. We could expect that many diocesan priests would be a lot more engaged, if the authorities would take the trouble of studying the interests and aptitudes of their priests and offer them favourable opportunities to utilize their skills.36 Thus it is not surprising to find among the sample of the Indian diocesan clergy provision of opportunities to utilize skills significantly predicts engagement. Social support from the people is viewed as the most significant variable in our study among Indian Catholic diocesan clergy in the 50

prediction of engagement. Being with and for the people is part of the essence of the ministry of the diocesan priests. Their community is the parish/institution to which they are assigned as ministers. Hence getting psychologically engaged depends to a great extent on how well they are accepted by the people to whom they have dedicated their lives. Secondly, it is obvious that priests in India constantly give: spiritually, emotionally and materially. This constant spending of their time, energy and resources could be complemented when priests know from the responsive support of the people that what they are doing is helpful to them, this generates in them a feeling of accomplishment and leads to engagement. Finally, to be supported by the people for whom one offers his very being is a very basic human need.31 Hence, it is obvious that priests in India look to the support of the people in the form of appreciation, gratitude, feedback and encouragement which would reduce the risk of burnout and enhance the possibilities for engagement. The positive association between social support from priests and engagement is in line with the engagement literature38 and among clergy4,17 that reported social support and co-operation from colleagues and fellow priests to be seen as of growing importance in the adequate performance of a priestâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ministry. To be happy and effective in the ministry, priests need support and affirmation from the fellow priests.31 Priests in India regularly come together at the diocesan and vicariate levels for recollections and other common meetings. There are also gatherings among batch mates and friends where common concerns are shared and discussed. Furthermore, in the event of the eruption of a crisis or a problem in a particular parish/institution, often it is priest friends who extend their helping hands to resolve the crisis and rescue the individual priest from trauma. Therefore, support from priests is valued highly in our sample. In addition, a circle of friends among priests who can guide, warn, encourage and sometimes admonish is valued to a great degree by priests. This notion has been confirmed by the positive association between social support from priests and engagement in our study. With regard to social support from the authority, we expected that it would significantly contribute to the prediction of clergy engagement. The findings reveal that there is no association between social support from authority and engagement which contradicts the literature and research on engagement15,43,47 that found a significant association between social support from superiors/ supervisors and engagement. Three reasons could account for this inconclusive result: 1) even though support from authority is necessary for a priest, yet there are other more vital, immediate and weighty concerns in the diocesan priestâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life and in the ministry he encounters on a daily basis. Hence the ministry of the diocesan priests depends more on his relationship with the people; therefore it is not surprising that support from people and support from fellow priests with whom they have close association are valued more than the support from the bishops. 2) Quite often priests evaluate the support from the bishop from four angles: i) allotment of places to priests in the yearly transfers ii) approachability when a crisis occurs iii) the manner of dealing with problems when approached iv) encouragement and appreciation given to the priests in their ministry. The first is an indication of how appreciative the bishop is and only happens once in five or seven years when a priest finishes his term in office. The next two are applicable only to priests who find themselves in crisis. The fourth happens once a year, when the bishop visits the parish or occasio44/52 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 |

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Investigating the Associations between Ministerial Resources, Personality Traits and Engagement among the Indian Clergy nally when they meet. Hence it is not surprising to see that absence or presence of support from authority does not contribute to engagement in the Indian Catholic diocesan clergy. Limitations of this study include the cross-sectional design and the reliance on self-report. The scale that measured the Big Five personality traits in our study was NEO FFI (60 items). The factor structure was collapsed and in addition the reliability score for the openness scale was very low (_ = 0,46). Instead of the NEO FFI, the NEO PI-R (240 items) could have been used so that a clearer factor structure, absent in the present study, could have emerged. Furthermore,

measuring the sub-facets of each of the five personality traits could have given a detailed insight into the facets that influence burnout and engagement. Despite these limitations, this study may have important practical implications as well. The results of the study indicate that the personal resources an individual possesses facilitate and enhance optimal functioning in priestly ministry. Secondly the results confirmed that when priestly ministry is complemented with resources such as skill utilization, social support from people and priests could enhance engagement among priests.

REFERENCIAS 1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th Ed.). Washington, DC: Author; 2000. 2. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. The cross-over of burnout and work engagement among working couples. Human Relations. 2005; 67, 266–289 3. Bolger, N. Coping as a personality process: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1990; 59, 525–537. 4. Brouwer, R. Pastor tussen macht en onmacht. (Pastor between power and powerlessness). Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum; 1995. 5. Catholic Bishop’s Conference of India (CBCI). Church in India. Retrieved on June 7, 2008 from http://cbcisite.com/; 2008. 6. Chellakan, A. The daily struggles of the missionaries. In J. B. Saldanha (Ed.). Struggling to be authentic: Pastoral and moral concerns of the Indian Church. Mangalore: Prakashalaya Publications. 2006; pp. 55-68. Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 44/52

7. Clark, L. A. & Watson, D. Constructing Validity: Basic Issues in Objective Scale Development. Psychological Assesment. September 1995 Vol. 7, No. 3, 309-319. 8. Cobb, S. Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1976; 38, 300-314. 9. Conference of Catholic Bishop’s of India (CCBI). Statistics of the church in India. Retrieved on June 7, 2008 from http://ccbi.in/; 2008. 10. Congregation for the Clergy. Directory for the life and ministry of priests. New Delhi: CBCI Commission for Clergy and Religious; 1994. 11. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1980; 38, 668-678. 12. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. NEO PI-R: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992.

Original Article | Newman Eugene, De Witte Hans

REFERENCIAS 13. Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences. 1991; 12, 887–898. 14. Crandall, R. Motivations for leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 12, 45-54. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001a). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1980; 86, 499-512. 15. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., De Jonge, J., Janssen, P. P. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian Journal of Work & Health. 2001a; 27, 279-286. 16. De Raad, B. (2000). The big five personality factors: The psycholexical approach to personality, Seattle/Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers; 2000. 17. Evers, W., & Tomic, W. (2003). Burnout among Dutch reformed pastors. Journal of Psychology and Theology. 2003; 31, 329–338. 18. Francis, L. J., Louden, S. H., & Rutledge, C. J. F. Burnout among Roman Catholic parochial clergy in England and Wales: Myth or reality? Review of Religious Research. 2004; 46, 5-19. 19. Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case of agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996; 70, 820-835. 20. Grosch, W. N. & Olsen, D.C. Clergy burnout: An integrative approach. In Journal of Clinical Psychology: Psychotherapy in Practice. 2000; 56(5), 617-627. 21. Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology. 2006; 43, 495-513. 22. Heppner, P. P., Cook, S. W., Wright, D. M., & Johnson, W. C. Progress in resolving problems: A problem-focused style of coping. Journal of Counseling Psycholog. 1995; 42, 279–293. 23. Hobfoll, S. E. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psycholog. 2002; 6, 307-324. 24. John Paul II. Pastores dabo vobis. Post-synodal apostolic exhortation, on the formation of priests. Mumbai: St. Paul Publications; 1992. 25. Kleiber, D. A., & Rickards, W. N. Leisure and recreation in adolescence: Limitation and potential. In M. Wade (Ed.). Constraints on leisure (pp. 289-319). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas; 1985. 26. Knox, S., Virginia, S. G., & Lombardo, J. P. Depression and anxiety in Roman Catholic secular clergy. Pastoral Psychology. 2002; 50, 345-358. 27. Knox, S., Virginia, S. G., Thull, J., & Lombardo, J. P. Depression and contributors to vocational satisfaction in Roman Catholic secular clergy. Pastoral Psychology. 2005; 54(2), 139-155. 28. Kristensen, T. S., Hannerz, H., Hogh, A., & Borg, V. Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire: A tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scandanavian Journal of Work Environment Health. 2005; 31, 439-449. 29. Laing, M. T. B. (Ed.). The Indian Church in context: Her emergence, growth and mission. New Delhi: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; 2002. 30. Langelaan, S., Bakker, A. B., Van Doornen, L. J. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. Burnout and work engagement: Do individual differences make a difference? Personality and Individual Differences. 2006; 40, 521-532. 31. Manalel, G. Priest as a man: Counseling for the clergy. Kerala: Karunakaran Books; 2006. 32. Maslach, C., Leiter, M. P. & Schaufeli, W. B. Measuring burnout. In C. L. Cooper & S. Cartwright (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of organizational well-being (pp. 86-108). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. 33. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. Burnout. Annual Review of Psychology. 2001; 52, 397-422. 34. Meyer, C. Man of God: A study of the priesthood. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company; 1974.

35. National Commission on Population. Instant Population of India. Retrieved on June 7, 2008 from http://populationcommission.nic.in/welcome.htm; 2008. 36. Raj, A., & Dean, K. E. Burnout and depression among Catholic priests in India. Pastoral Psychology. 2005; 54, 157-171. 37. Robinson, R. Christians of India. New Delhi: Sage; 2003. 38. Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martinez, I., & Schaufeli, W. B. Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Groups Research. 2003; 34, 43-73. 39. Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and procative behavior. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2008; 19, 116-131. 40. Sanford, J.A. Ministry burnout. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1982; 25, 293-315. 41. Scanlon, T. J., & McHugh, D. Clergy under stress: A reassessment of stress research in ministerial work. Unpublished manuscript, University of Central Lancashire; 2001. 42. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. UWES—Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Test manual. Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Psychology, Utrecht University; 2003. 43. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2004; 25, 293-315. 44. Schaufeli, W. B., & Buunk, B. P. Burnout: An overview of 25 years of research and theorizing. In M. J. Schabracq, J. A. M. Winnubst & C. L. Cooper . The handbook of work and health psychology (pp. 383-425). New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2003. 45. Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.). Managing social and ethical issues in organizations (pp. 135-177). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing; 2007. 46. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2002a; 3, 71–92. 47. Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. Workaholism, burnout, and engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee wellbeing? Applied Psychology: An International Review. 2008; 57(2), 173-203. 48. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist. 2000; 55, 5–14. 49. Sonnentag, S. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between non work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88, 518–528. 50. Tinsley, H. E. A., & Tinsley, D. J. A theory of the attributes, benefits and causes of leisure experience. Leisure Sciences. 1986; 8, 1-45. 51. Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. Extension of the interpersonal adjective scales to include the big five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1990; 59, 781-790. 52. Virginia, S. Burnout and depression among Roman Catholic secular, religious, and monastic clergy. Pastoral Psychology. 1998; 47, 49–67. 53. Warr, P. Well-being and the work place. In D. Kahnerman, E. Diener & N. Schwarz (Eds.). Well being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press; 1999.

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article

The More You Give, the More You Get? Reciprocal Relationships Between Work Engagement and Task-Related, Interpersonal, and Organizational Resources

¿Mientras más das, más recibes? Relaciones recíprocas entre el engagement laboral y los recursos asociados a las labores, interpersonales y organizacionales Bettina Kubicek1 , Christian Korunka2, Matea Paškvan3 1. Mag. Dr. Faculty of Psychology Department of Applied Psychology: Work, Education and Economy, University of Vienna, Austria. 2. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Faculty of Psychology, Department of Applied Psychology: Work, Education and Economy, University of Vienna, Austria. 3. Mag. Faculty of Psychology Department of Applied Psychology: Work, Education and Economy, University of Vienna, Austria.

ABSTRACT

Drawing on broaden-and-build theory and conservation of resources theory, this study disentangles the reciprocal relationship between employee work engagement and job resources by separately examining task-related, interpersonal, and organizational job resources. More specifically, it hypothesizes that work engagement is not only a consequence of, but also antecedes, job control, esteem reward, and job security. Using data from a full two-wave panel study with a 15-month time lag among 591 eldercare workers, the authors examined normal, reversed, and reciprocal causation by means of structural equation modeling. They found that the reciprocal model best fits the data. As hypothesized, job security was mutually related to work engagement over time. By contrast, job control was shown to precede, and esteem reward was shown to follow from, work engagement. Theoretically speaking, these findings suggest that divergent mechanisms account for the relationships between job resources of various types and work engagement. Practically speaking, the development of a reciprocal cycle between work engagement and job security may represent an active coping process in an unstable economic situation, since data collection for this panel study commenced shortly after the onset of the global economic crisis. Keywords: Work engagement, esteem reward, job control, job security, eldercare

RESUMEN

Al utilizar la teoría abierta y construida junto con la teoría de la conservación de los recursos, este estudio desenmaraña la relación recíproca entre el engagement laboral de los trabajadores y los recursos laborales; esto, al examinar por separado los recursos laborales relacionados a las tareas interpersonales y organizacionales. Más específicamente, plantea que el engagement laboral no es sólo una consecuencia de, sino que antecede al control laboral, recompensa a la estima y a la seguridad laboral. Al utilizar los datos de un estudio completo de dos ondas con un desfase de 15 meses entre 591 personas que trabajan al cuidado de personas de la tercera edad, los autores examinan la causalidad normal, invertida y recíproca por medio del modelo de ecuaciones estructural. Los autores descubrieron que el modelo recíproco fue el que mejor se adaptaba a los datos. Tal y como se había planteado, la seguridad laboral se encontraba relacionada mutuamente con el engagement laboral a través del tiempo. En contraste, se encontró que el control laboral precedía al engament laboral, mientras que la recompensa a la estima era posterior. Hablando teóricamente, estos hallazgos sugieren que mecanismos divergentes explican las relaciones entre varios tipos de recursos laborales y engagement laboral. De manera práctica se podría decir que el desarrollo de un ciclo recíproco entre engagement y seguridad laboral podría representar un proceso de copia activo en un escenario económico inestable, debido a que la recolección de datos para este estudio de panel comenzó poco después del principio de la crisis económica mundial. Palabras clave: Engagement laboral, recompensa a la estima, control laboral, seguridad laboral, cuidado de personas de la tercera edad.

Introduction The capacity of enterprises and organizations to be innovative and assure future success relies, to some extent at least, on the willingness of employees to invest energy in their work, perform to a high

Correspondence / Correspondencia Bettina Kubicek Department of Applied Psychology: Work, Education, Economy Educational Psychology and Evaluation, University of Vienna Universitaetsstrasse 7, 1010 Vienna, Austria Tel.: ++43-1-4277-47345 • Fax: ++43-1-4277-47889 e-mail: bettina.kubicek@univie.ac.at Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 53/60

standard, take on responsibilities, and strive toward challenging work goals. It may be due to the impact of such factors on business outcomes1 that consultants and human resource managers are increasingly attentive to employee engagement.2 Corresponding to this trend, occupational health psychology is witnessing a growing interest in work engagement as an important indicator of job-related well-being. In their attempts to better understand this “positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind”3, researchers tested the relationship of work engagement to a variety of potential correlates. What they found cross-sectionally, and also more recently, over time, is that both job resources and personal resources foster work engagement.4,6 Notwithstanding the importance of these findings, researchers call for a more dynamic perspective on the relationship between resources and work engagement.7,9 Based on longitudinal data, they suggest that these two dimensions are

Original Article | Kubicek Bettina et al. reciprocally linked. That is, work engagement is assumed to stimulate employees’ personal and situational resources, which in turn foster employees’ work engagement. Congruent with this reasoning, we argue that job resources are not only antecedents of, but also consequences of, work engagement. The theoretical foundations for this assumption are provided by Hobfoll’s10,11 conservation of resources theory and by Fredrickson’s12,13 broaden-and-build theory. Both approaches describe “gain spirals” or “upward spirals” that offer possible explanations for a reciprocal relationship between work engagement and job resources. Conservation of resources theory states that people strive to protect, retain, and accrue resources, because they are both valuable in their own right and helpful in attaining personal goals.11 The possession of resources is assumed to foster well-being as well as the acquisition of additional resources. For example, jobs high in autonomy and task variety may offer employees greater opportunities to engage in collegial contact which, for its part, has the potential to lead to social support or approval. This dynamic perspective on resource acquisition suggests that engaged workers, i.e., those who are especially motivated to fulfill their work goals, are more likely to search for resources and thereby accrue additional resources in the course of their work. Broaden-and-build theory12,13, on the other hand, suggests that transient positive emotions have the ability to both broaden people’s attention and thinking and to open their mind for a wider-than-usual range of ideas. These broadened perspectives are presumed to facilitate the development of enduring personal resources which, in turn, promote well-being—the foundation for future experiences of positive emotions. As work engagement is, in itself, a positive workrelated state of mind, it is presumed to trigger positive emotions which broaden employees’ outlooks and thereby help them to handle their job. The successful completion of tasks should then contribute to the accumulation of resources such as, rewards, task discretion, and job security. The presumed reciprocal cycle is closed when job resources, accrued through one of the pathways described, make people more engaged in their work. A reciprocal relationship with engagement has already been demonstrated for composite measures of job resources, work relationships, and active coping.7,8 With our study, we want to add to this line of research by looking at additional sets of job resources. We seek to demonstrate that task resources (i.e., job control), interpersonal resources (i.e., esteem reward), and organizational resources (i.e., job security) are reciprocally related to work engagement over time. Furthermore we go beyond previous research by examining these three resources separately, in lieu of merging them into one higher-order resource factor. We do so by applying a structural equation modeling approach to a longitudinal (two-wave) sample of 591 eldercare workers.

Job Resources as Antecedents of Work Engagement Work engagement is characterized by the positive work-related states of vigor, dedication, and absorption.14 Even though its tripartite structure bears resemblance with the burnout concept, which consists of exhaustion, depersonalization/cynicism, and reduced professional efficacy, work engagement is conceptually distinct from job burnout.3 Rather than being exhausted and inefficient, engaged workers show high levels of energy and mental

resilience (vigor). They are strongly involved in their work and take meaning, pride, and inspiration from it (dedication). Further, engaged workers lose track of time and experience difficulties in detaching themselves from work, as they become absorbed in their work.2 Given the positive work-related feelings that characterize engagement, researchers have dedicated considerable effort to identifying potential correlates and antecedents of work engagement (see Halbesleben 2010 for a meta-analysis4; and Simpson for a review).15 What they found is that work engagement results from motivational processes that are triggered by job resources. Job resources are physical, psychological, social, or organizational features of the job that help employees to cope with job demands, attain work goals, and achieve personal growth.16 According to the effort-recovery approach17, work environments that offer resources foster employees’ willingness to dedicate their efforts and abilities to the work task. Such work environments are likely to facilitate successful task completion even in the face of difficulties, and to support goal attainment. Adequate performance feedback and esteem rewards may, for instance, heighten employees’ work investments by fostering their extrinsic motivation. On the other hand, it can be inferred from self-determination theory18 that those work environments that fulfill basic human needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness are intrinsically motivating. Performance feedback, for example, offers the opportunity to learn new skills and thereby improve one’s job competence. Job control and social support are, by contrast, able to satisfy workers’ needs for autonomy and relatedness, respectively. Empirical evidence of the effect of job resources on work engagement has hitherto been based primarily on composite measures of job resources. For example, in their influential work on the Job Demands-Resources model, Demerouti and colleagues16 aggregated such diverse aspects as performance feedback, job control, rewards, participation in decision making, supervisor support, and job security into an overall job resource variable. Subsequent studies mostly followed this procedure and examined subsets of these work characteristics19 or additional aspects20 within one higher-order job resources factor. In summarizing this research, one can argue that the effect of aggregated job resources is widely established. Therefore, Weigl and colleagues8 suggested putting more effort into the examination of specific constructs. In order to disentangle the effects of various job resources on work engagement, they drew on existing work about the distinction between different resource bases, such as the focal worker, organizational members, work tasks, and the organization.21 In continuing this line of research, the present study differentiates between task-related, interpersonal, and organizational resources as indicated by job control, esteem reward, and job security. Job control refers to employee’s opportunities for decision-making and for discretion in how to fulfill tasks and obtain goals. Esteem reward refers to the recognition employees receive from other organizational members in response to their work achievements. Finally, job security refers to protection against undesirable job changes or involuntary job loss. By distinguishing between various bases of job resources and testing their relationship with work engagement, we hope to contribute to a more differentiated perspective on the relationship between job resources and work engagement. From a practical point of view, this knowledge may help organizations to develop more specific interventions to improve their employees’ well-being and engagement.

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Reciprocal Relationships Between Work Engagement and Task-Related, Interpersonal, and Organizational Resources According to previous findings on the positive effects of composite measures of job resources on work engagement, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 1a: Time 1 job control is positively related to Time 2 work engagement. Hypothesis 1b: Time 1 esteem rewards are positively related to Time 2 work engagement. Hypothesis 1c: Time 1 job security is positively related to Time 2 work engagement.

Job Resources as Consequences of Work Engagement While research on the impact of work characteristics on employee well-being has long been established and has produced considerable knowledge about beneficial and detrimental environmental features, insights into how employees actively shape working conditions are but beginning to emerge in occupational health psychology. For example, in their model of work design, Parker, Wall, and Cordery22 conceptualized individual workers as one antecedent of work characteristics beside internal and external organizational factors, such as management style or environmental uncertainty. In a similar vein, Grant and Ashford23 called for a more active conceptualization of employees, who, in their opinion, “do not just let life happen to them”, but “try to affect, shape, curtail, expand, and temper what happens in their lives” (p. 3). With regard to job control, research on job crafting24 and proactivity25 lends support to the notion of the employee as a co-designer of her/his work characteristics. Not only were those employees who perceive their job as a calling found to be more likely to change the form, scope, or number of their tasks26, but also, proactive workers were found to create more autonomous tasks for themselves.27 Following from this research, two mechanisms are likely to explain the influence of work engagement on job control: Firstly, engaged workers may seize and generate opportunities to exert control at work. As the tasks of a job are not entirely fixed, engaged workers may utilize their existing latitude to shape their work. Further, they may more actively search for job control than their less engaged counterparts. Secondly, role making may occur as a result of the employee’s interaction with her/his supervisor.28,29 Supervisors may give engaged employees more task discretion, which results in higher levels of job control among engaged than among non-engaged workers. We therefore hypothesize: Hypothesis 2a: Time 1 work engagement is positively related to Time 2 job control. Evidence for the positive impact of work engagement on esteem reward can be derived from broaden-and-build theory. Fredrickson12, in her account of empirical support for the build hypothesis, highlighted that shared experiences of positive emotions translate into more enduring social resources. For example, people in a positive mood were shown to be more likely to help others.30 Receiving support, in turn, creates gratitude and the urge to reciprocate. Engaged workers may, as they experience a positive work-related state of mind, be more prone to provide support to others and to build positive relationships at work. They should therefore be better able to mobilize social resources and to receive recognition from organizational members. Further, engaged workers may receive approval from their supervisors in response to their efforts and achievements. Whereas the positive effect of Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 53/60

work engagement on work relationships has been supported by prior research8,9, the effect of esteem rewards has not yet been studied. We hypothesize: Hypothesis 2b: Time 1 work engagement is positively related to Time 2 esteem rewards. Likewise, the supervisor-employee interaction suggests that work engagement is beneficial to employee job security. Given their positive outlook on the job and the effort they dedicate to their job, engaged workers should be valued colleagues and employees. In fact, their work engagement should put them at lower risk of experiencing undesirable job change or involuntary job loss. We therefore hypothesize: Hypothesis 2c: Time 1 work engagement is positively related to Time 2 job security.

Reciprocal Relationships between Job Resources and Work Engagement Prior work on the relationship between job resources and work engagement has gone further than proposing reversed causation. By drawing on the concept of a “gain spiral” or an “upward spiral”, an amplifying loop of consecutive increases in work engagement and job resources has been assumed. In order to support this hypothesis of an upward spiral, two prerequisites must be fulfilled31: First, the variables of interest need to be bi-directionally or reciprocally related. That is, job resources must be related to work engagement and vice versa. Second, the variables must increase over time. That is, job resources and work engagement must be higher at Time 2 than at Time 1. Empirical evidence for increases in work engagement and job resources is, however, scarce. For example, in their three-wave study, Weigl and colleagues8 found no substantial changes in work engagement or job resources. Given the missing evidence for actual increases, we restrict our analysis to reciprocal cycles of mutual reinforcement. Following Bandura’s32 notion of “reciprocal determinism”, we assume that employees are not only subjected to work characteristics, but are also co-designers of their environment, making them both “producers and products of social systems” (p.6). We therefore hypothesize: Hypothesis 3: Job resources and work engagement are reciprocally related.

Method Procedure and Sample

A two-wave panel study with a time lag of 15 months was undertaken to test the study hypotheses. Participants were eldercare workers, recruited from 38 nursing homes or outpatient care organizations in the Eastern region of Austria. Of the participating organizations, some were privately financed and some were publicly financed. In both waves of data collection, employees received paper-pencil questionnaires and were asked to either return the completed questionnaires to the researchers or post them in a special box placed in their ward or at their organizational headquarters. In wave 1 (November 2008 until March 2009), a total of 3.155 questionnaires was distributed among the nursing staff and 1.697 were returned, resulting in an overall response rate of 54%. In February 2010, these organizations were contacted 55

Original Article | Kubicek Bettina et al. again and invited to participate in the second round of data collection lasting from March to July 2010. During this period, 1.437 of the 3.145 distributed questionnaires were returned (response rate: 46%). The two data sets were linked using a personal code that participants were asked to provide on each survey. In total, 591 responses could be matched. Thus, the longitudinal sample makes up 35% of wave 1 respondents. Of those study participants for whom data could be matched, 68% were employed in nursing homes and 32% in outpatient care organizations. The sample included 27% nurses, 46% orderlies, and 20% nursing aids. Five percent of the participants indicated that they belonged to other professional groups without specifying these, and 2% did not indicate professional group membership. Most respondents were female (89%) and reported German as their first language (82%). At wave 1, 11% of the participants were younger than 31 years of age, 26% were between 31 and 40 years, 46% were between 41 and 50 years, and 17% were 51 years or older. Educational levels were typical for the nursing profession, with nearly equal proportions of people having completed compulsory schooling (20%), vocational training (29%), or professional school (34%). Few respondents indicated having earned a high school diploma (13%) or a university degree (4%). Mean organizational tenure and average years of experience in the nursing profession at Time 1 were relatively high with 8,82 (SD = 7,39) and 10,84 years (SD = 8,27), respectively. Given the panel dropout, Chi-square tests and unpaired t-tests were conducted to compare the final longitudinal sample with the 1,105 participants who had provided data only at Time 1. No differences were found with regard to gender (__(1) = 0,13, ns) or educational level (__(4) = 7,41, ns). However, younger employees (i.e., those below age 31; __(3) = 14,15, p < 0,01) were underrepresented in the longitudinal sample as compared to the T1-only-sample. This corresponds with the finding that participants of both surveys had longer tenure and more experience in the nursing profession than T1-onlyparticipants (Ms = 8,82 and 7,71, t(1433) = 2,80, p < 0,01; Ms = 10,84 and 9,90, t(1616) = 2,19, p < 0,05, respectively).

Measures

Work engagement. Respondents indicated their level of work engagement by answering the short version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9).33 Comprising 3 x 3 items, the questionnaire measures the sub-dimensions of work engagement—vigor, dedication and absorption. For each item respondents indicated how frequently they experienced the respective work-related state of mind on a 7-point frequency scale ranging from 1 (always) to 7 (never). A sample item of the dedication subscale reads as follows: “I am enthusiastic about my job”. After recoding the items so that higher values indicate higher levels of work engagement, internal consistencies were assessed. At both time points, consistency coefficients as indicated by Cronbach’s _ were relatively high: t1: 0,93; t2: 0,93. Job control was measured using a 3-item subscale of a German self-report instrument for work analysis in hospitals (TAA).34 Respondents specified their level of job control by indicating the extent to which they could decide on their tasks as well as on the ways and means of performing them. For example, respondents had to assess the following statement on a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1 (to a very great extent) to 5 (not at all): “One can decide which tasks to pursue”. Again, the answers were recoded so that higher values are indicative of more job control. The items showed moderate internal consistencies (_(t1) = 0,64; _(t2) = 0,72). 56

Esteem reward was measured using a short version of the Effort Reward Imbalance Questionnaire (ERI).35 Respondents had to rate two 5-point Likert-scaled items based on the following rating procedure. First, they had to indicate whether they received adequate esteem reward at their workplace (1). Subsequently, those who lacked adequate esteem were asked to indicate to what extent they felt distressed by this lack. Response alternatives ranged from not distressed (2) to very distressed (5). For example, respondents had to assess the following statement: “Considering all my efforts and achievements, I receive the respect and prestige I deserve at work”. After recoding the items so that higher values indicate higher esteem, intercorrelations were calculated. The resulting correlation coefficients were relatively high, with r = 0,80 at Time 1 and r = 0,77 at Time 2. Job security was also measured with the short version of the ERI questionnaire.35 Using the same rating procedure as described above, respondents had to assess the following two items: “I have experienced or I expect to experience a change in my work situation” and “My job security is poor”. Again, items were recoded so that higher values indicate higher job security. Intercorrelations between the two items were moderately high (r(t1) = 0,56; r(t2) = 0,62).

Results Overall, 497 of the 591 participants provided complete data on all study variables. Given the potential negative effect of not including all available data in the analysis, we used imputation techniques to substitute missing observations.36 Where respondents provided data on more than half of the items of one subscale, missing data was replaced by the respective scale mean. This procedure left us with 559 useable cases. Table 1 depicts descriptive statistics and intercorrelations. This table shows that job resources and work engagement changed across the two waves of data collection. To assess whether these changes were statistically significant, we conducted pair-wise t-tests. With regard to job resources, we found that esteem and job control increased over the course of the study (t(558) = -2,56, p < 0,05 and t(558) = -2,34, p < 0,05, respectively), whereas job security remained stable (t(558) = 0,73; ns). With regard to work engagement, significant changes were observed that point in the opposite direction to changes in job resources: respondents reported significantly lower levels of work engagement at Time 2 than at Time 1 (t(558)=4,39, p<0,001). Despite the observed changes in mean levels, test-retest correlations were moderately high (0,22 ≤ r ≤ 0,60). Furthermore, all correlations point in the expected directions, with resources being positively associated with each other and with work engagement, respectively. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Subscales. 1 Job control (t1) 2 Job control (t2) 3 Esteem (t1) 4 Esteem (t2) 5 Job security (t1) 6 Job security (t2) 7 Work engagement (t1) 8 Work engagement (t2)

M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3,25 0,71 0,44** 0,09* 0,13** 0,20** 0,15** 0,29** 0,27** 3,33 0,74 0,10* 0,19** 0,17* 0,22** 0,23** 0,29** 3,89 1,09 0,22** 0,35** 0,09* 0,16** 0,08 4,03 0,99 0,22** 0,34** 0,18** 0,25** 4,11 0,91 0,38** 0,17** 0,22** 4,08 1,00 0,18** 0,34** 5,32 1,11 0,60** 5,14 1,15

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Reciprocal Relationships Between Work Engagement and Task-Related, Interpersonal, and Organizational Resources

Measurement models

In a first step, the instruments construct validity was evaluated using confirmatory factor analyses. To examine whether the job resources and work engagement items represent distinct constructs, we specified four alternative models: A 1-factor model with all items from Time 1 and Time 2 loading on one factor; a 2-factor model with items loading on their respective time-factors; a 4-factor model with items loading on their respective esteem-, job control-, job security-, and work engagement-factors; and an 8-factor model with items loading on their respective dimensions and time points. For all models, measurement errors between corresponding items at Time 1 and Time 2 were correlated to account for non-independence between repeated measures.37 As can be seen in Table 2, the 8-factor model fits the data better than the 1-factor (___(28) = 3285,64, p < 0,001), the 2-factor (___(27) = 2927,84, p < 0,001), or the 4-factor model (___(22) = 2438,54, p < 0,001). In addition to its more adequate fit compared to the alternative models, the 8-factor model yields acceptable overall fit indices. Although the chi-square to degrees-of-freedom ratio as well as the CFI deviate slightly from their recommended ranges of acceptability (i.e., __/df < 2,5, CFI > 0,95; Hu and Bentler 1999)38, the RMSEA value indicates a good model fit. However, an inspection of modification indices showed that adding two error correlations would increase model fit. Allowing for these correlations seems justified, as the respective items belong to the same subdimension of work engagement (vigor and absorption, respectively). The modification led to significant improvement in model fit (___(4) = 346,09, p < 0,001). In a last step, this final model was tested for metric invariance across measurement points by constraining the factor loadings of corresponding items to being equal across time points. These equality constraints did not lead to a significant change in chi-square (___(12) = 10,85, ns), supporting the assumption that the corresponding T1 and T2 items are equal in meaning. Table 2. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA). X2 df X2/df CFI RMSEA p-close CFA Job resources & Work engagement 1-Factor model 4488,59** 448 10,02 0,61 0,127 0,000 2-Factor model 4130,79** 447 9,24 0,64 0,122 0,000 4-Factor model 3641,49** 442 8,24 0,69 0,114 0,000 8-Factor model 1202,95** 420 2,86 0,92 0,058 0,000 8-Factor model incl. two error correlations 856,86** 416 2,06 0,96 0,044 0,995 8-Factor model incl, error corr. and fixed factor loadings (metric invariance) 867,71** 428 2,03 0,96 0,043 0,9980 Note: N = 559; *p < 0,05, **p < 0,01; CFI = Comparative Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, p-close = p-value of close fit.

Structural model

To test the study hypotheses, we transformed the final measurement model into competing structural models using a stepwise approach.39 In the first step, we specified a stability model (M1). This model included autoregression paths for each construct from Time 1 to Time 2 and synchronous correlations among Time 1 constructs. We then added lagged effects of Time 1 job resources on Time 2 work engagement to the stability model. In a third step, a reversed model (M3) was specified. Therefore, regression paths from Time 1 work engagement to Time 2 job resources were added to the stability model. Finally, Model 2 and Model 3 were combined to test for reciprocal effects between job resources and work engagement (M4). Table 3 displays the overall fit indices of the four alternative models. The stability model already yielded acceptable fit, with most indices satisfying their cut-off criteria. However, adding the effects of job resources on work engagement did further improve the model. Model 3, which contained reversed effects from work engagement to job resources, did also fit the data better than the stability model. In addition, it showed a more adequate fit to the data than Model 2, which contained effects of job resources on work engagement. Yet, the best fit was achieved by the reciprocal model. This model was not only superior to all other competing models, but also revealed fit indices, which all fell well within their respective ranges of acceptability. Structural path coefficients for the reciprocal model are depicted in Figure 1. The structural paths of the reciprocal model reveal that the stability coefficients are somewhat higher than the cross-lagged effects and synchronous correlations at Time 1. Out of the three lagged effects of job resources on work engagement, two were statistically significant: Job control as well as job security at Time 1 were positively related to work engagement at Time 2. Thus, Hypothesis 1b and 1c were supported, whereas Hypothesis 1a was rejected. For lagged effects of work engagement a similar pattern of results was found: Two out of three regression coefficients were significant. In concordance with H2a and H2c, work engagement at Time 1 was beneficial for esteem rewards at Time 2, and for perceived job security at Time 2. That is, engaged workers reported higher levels of esteem rewards and job security 15 months later. No such positive effect was found with regard to job control at Time 2. Thus H2b was rejected. In addition, our findings provide partial support for Hypothesis 3, stating that job resources and work engagement are reciprocally related. Although the reciprocal model yielded good fit indices and was the best fitting model, only job security actually showed significant causal and reversed relations with work engagement, suggesting that job security is especially conducive to work engagement and that engaged workers are more likely to perceive their jobs as secure.

Table 3. Results of Structural Equation Modeling Analyses. ΔX2 Models X2 df X2/df CFI RMSEA p-close M1: Stability model 1051,07** 446 2,36 0,94 0,049 0,61 M2: M1 incl. effects of resources on engagement 1028,47** 443 2,32 0,94 0,049 0,71 M1-M2=22,60** M3: M1 incl. effects of engagement on resources 1020,73** 443 2,30 0,94 0,048 0,75 M1-M3=30,34** M4: M1 incl. reciprocal effects 1001,22** 440 2,28 0,95 0,048 0,82 M1-M4=49,85** M2-M4=27,25** M3-M4=19,51**

Δdf 3 3 6 3 3

Note: N = 559; *p < 0,05, **p < 0,01; CFI = Comparative Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, p-close = p-value of close fit, ∆2= changes in chi-square, ∆df = changes in degrees of freedom. Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 53/60

Original Article | Kubicek Bettina et al. Figure 1. Reciprocal Model of Job Resources and Work Engagement. Job control t1

0,12*[0,16; 0,07]

0,57** [0,63; 0,07]

Job control t2

0,26** [0,23; 0,05]

Esteem t2

0,32**[0,19; 0,04]

0,14*[0,09; 0,04]

Esteem t1

0,19**[0,25; 0,08]

0,20**[0,17; 0,04] 0,37**[0,16; 0,03] 0,44**[0,50; 0,07]

Job securityl t1

0,15*[0,11; 0,05]

0,41** [0,50; 0,08]

Job securityl t2

0,15**[0,25; 0,08]

0,27**[0,21; 0,05]

Work engagement t1

Work engagement 0,57** t2 [0,58; 0,04]

Note: N = 559; *p < 0,05, **p < 0,01; broken lines represent non-significant paths; unstandardized estimates and standard errors of measurement are depicted in brackets; manifest variables and autocorrelations among variables are not displayed; job control is measured with three items; esteem and job security each use two items as manifest indicators; work engagement is measured with nine items.

Discussion Using longitudinal data of 559 eldercare workers, we tested reciprocal relationships between job resources and work engagement. It was postulated that job resources are both antecedents and consequences of work engagement. In further developing earlier longitudinal studies on this topic9,20,21, we distinguished between taskrelated (job control), interpersonal (esteem reward), and organizational (perceived job security) resources, instead of applying a composite measure of job resources. By using structural equation modeling, we were able to show that both job control and job security at Time 1 affected work engagement at Time 2. Further, work engagement at Time 1 affected esteem rewards and perceived job security at Time 2. Hence, a reciprocal relationship between work engagement and perceived job security was confirmed.

Theoretical considerations

In general, the study results comply with the few comparable longitudinal studies which were recently published on the relationship between work engagement and job resources.9,20,21 Further, they are consistent with both conservation of resources theory10 and broaden-and-build theory12 insofar as positive effects of resources on work engagement and of work engagement on resources were shown over time. Our longitudinal study advances the results of previous studies by examining different facets of job resources, as recently suggested by Weigl and colleagues.8 We separately investigated task-related (job control), interpersonal (esteem rewards), and organizational (job security) resources. For job control, a positive relationship with work engagement, but no 58

reversed effect, was found. If one takes into consideration that the job demands of eldercare workers (e.g., the number of patients, service obligations, and time for each patient) are relatively stable over time, the observed effect seems quite plausible. A job control – work engagement – job control upward spiral would entail increases in personal work engagement empowering individuals to reorganize their tasks. Though this assumption is conceivable from a theoretical perspective, it may take some time for eldercare workers to establish more job autonomy at their ward. For the interpersonal job resource esteem reward, an opposite effect was observed. Esteem rewards did not affect work engagement, but were affected by work engagement. Again this result seems quite plausible because esteem reward—as an interpersonal resource—may be gained if coworkers or supervisors recognize employees’ work engagement and consequently give positive feedback. In contrast to job control, esteem rewards may follow relatively promptly from work engagement, suggesting a reversed effect. A full reciprocal effect—resources affecting work engagement and vice versa—was observed for the organizational resource, job security. In explaining and understanding this effect one should take into consideration that data collection for this study commenced shortly after the onset of the global economic crisis. For the first time in their personal employment histories, eldercare workers had to face downsizing because of cost reductions in healthcare. Thus, and somewhat contradicting the assumptions of broaden-andbuild theory12, one may speculate that the job security-work engagement part of the reciprocal relationship was also triggered by negative emotions. On the other hand, and in line with this theory, the work engagement-job resources relationship may be explained by a broadening of employee thought-action repertoires based on positive emotions. Further, the development of a reciprocal cycle between work engagement and job security may represent an active coping process in an unstable economic situation. Given the divergent relationships between the various facets of job resources and work engagement revealed in this study, one might argue that the underlying theoretical models need refining in future studies. Conservation of resources theory and broaden-andbuild theory may be useful as general frameworks, but they are somewhat limited in explaining specific job resources-work engagement relationships. In further complicating this picture, temporal factors in causal relationships need to be considered. As Frese and colleagues39,40 pointed out, linear models may not always be appropriate to represent cause-and-effect relationships. And different types of resources may need divergent timelines to develop in response to employee work engagement. Job characteristics, for example, tend to have more inertia than do esteem rewards or perceptions of job security. In order to increase one’s level of job control, structural changes pertaining to the work team or the organization may be required, rendering modification within a 15-month timeframe difficult. Going beyond the assumption of reciprocal relationships, both conservation of resources theory10 and broaden-and-build theory12 postulate gain spirals. For one of the three facets of job resources, namely job security, we were able to confirm normal and reversed causation as a first prerequisite for upward spirals.31 The second precondition of gain spirals—consecutive increases in both resources and work engagement over time—was, however, not met. Only two of the three job resources (esteem rewards and job control) increased over the 15-month observation period. Job security remained stable, while mean values of work engagement

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Reciprocal Relationships Between Work Engagement and Task-Related, Interpersonal, and Organizational Resources decreased slightly over time. This result complies with several earlier studies that tested for reciprocal causation, but neither examined, nor confirmed, amplifying loops.7 In drawing on Lindsey and colleagues31, one might even argue that upward spirals are by no means preferable to constant cycles. Continual increases in work engagement and resources may result in overconfidence41 and in working overtime42, thereby increasing the risk of experiencing a work-to-home conflict. Because of the potential negative effect of upward spirals, Lindsey and colleagues31 advocate self-correcting cycles, in which adjustments are made as a consequence of situation analysis and of an understanding of cause-and-effect relationships.

Study limits and methodological considerations

The study was designed as a longitudinal study with a medium time interval of 15 months between the two measurement points. Longitudinal designs permit better control of common method biases, but in principle also permit testing of cause-and-effect relationships.39 Although a â&#x20AC;&#x153;realâ&#x20AC;? causation effect may only be tested in experimental settings, theory-based longitudinal field studies assessing variables over time enhance confidence in causal relationships.43 Although the total sample size of our study is quite large, and the return rates for both waves average 50%, the return rate for the true longitudinal sample was relatively low, yet still comparable to earlier longitudinal studies.44 The low response rate notwithstanding, we were able to confirm that the longitudinal sample largely matches the cross-sectional sample with regard to demographic variables. Apart from age and tenure, participants of the longitudinal sample did not differ from the T1-only-participants. One reason for the somewhat lower mean age in the longitudinal sample may be heightened job turnover among younger employees. Unfortunately, we were not able to trace those employees who changed their employer, because access to the study participants was solely provided by the care organizations. Yet despite limitations in the longitudinal sample size, one may conclude that the study findings can be generalized across eldercare workers. Further, the data partially supported the three study hypotheses, but the observed lagged effects were relatively small. In fact, stabilities seem to outweigh the regression paths between constructs. In interpreting the magnitude of the lagged effects one has to keep

in mind that stabilities are high if time for change is short.36 A time interval of 15 months seems sufficient to detect causal and reversed effects, it decreases substantial effects and increases stabilities. Therefore the found lagged regression weights are by no means trivial. Rather they are substantive and of practical importance.

Practical implications

This study is the first in a line of similar studies on the relationship between resources and work engagement20,21 dealing with eldercare. As eldercare belongs to the broader field of human service work, general recommendations for designing motivating service jobs may be derived from the study results. However, the specific working conditions of elder care still need to be considered. In addition to personal initiative, structural changes such as job redesign do seem essential to increasing job control. One conceivable improvement in job resources is to give eldercare workers more control over patient selection and higher degrees of freedom in scheduling start times and durations of shifts. Implementing such changes may be somewhat easier in outpatient care organizations than in nursing homes. On the other hand, increasing esteem rewards should be able to be easily established in both settings. Supervisor training and improved team meetings may be a first step. As demonstrated by several studies45, stress management training should help to further increase job resources and work engagement. Considering the burnout-prone working conditions of eldercare workers, stress intervention programs may be an efficient strategy to maintain employee health and motivation at work.

Future outlook

By measuring three individual facets of job resources, namely task-related, interpersonal, and organizational resources, instead of using a composite measure, this study shows that the underlying mechanisms linking resources and engagement at work deserve in-depth examination. In order to do so, further refinement of the theories and measurements is necessary. To investigate dynamic relationships over time, even more sophisticated longitudinal studies are needed. Improvements could be achieved by including more measurement points or by using complementary approaches such as diary studies.

Original Article | Kubicek Bettina et al.

REFERENCIAS 1. Harter JK, Schmidt FL, Hayes TL. Business unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A metaanalysis. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(2):268-279. 2. Schaufeli W, Bakker AB. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. J Organ Behav. 2004; 25(3):293-315. 3. Schaufeli W,Salanova M, González-Romá V, Bakker AB.The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Happiness Stud. 2002;3(1):71-92. 4. Halbesleben JR. A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In: Bakker AB, Leiter MP, editors. Work engagement. A handbook of essential theory and research. Hove: Psychology Press; 2010. p.102-117. 5. Korunka C, Kubicek B, Schaufeli W, Hoonakker P. Work engagement and burnout: Testing the robustness of the Job Demands-Resources Model. J Posit Psychol. 2009;4(3):243-255. 6. Mauno S, Kinnunen U, Ruokolainen M. Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. J Vocat Behav. 2007;70:149-171. 7. Salanova M, Schaufeli WB, Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB. The gain spiral of resources and work engagement: Sustaining a positive worklife. In: Bakker AB, Leiter MP, editors. Work engagement. A handbook of essential theory and research. Hove: Psychology Press; 2010. p.118-131. 8. Weigl M, Hornung S, Parker SK, Petru R, Glaser J, Angerer P. Work engagement and accumulation of task, social, and personal resources: A three-wave structural equation model. J Vocat Behav. 2010;77(1):140-153. 9. Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli W. Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. J Vocat Behav. 2009;74:235-244. 10. Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptionalizing stress. Am Psychol. 1989;44(3):513-524. 11. Hobfoll SE. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Rev Gen Psychol. 2002;6(4):307-324. 12. Fredrickson BL. What good are positive emotions? Rev Gen Psychol. 1998; 2(3):300-319. 13. Fredrickson BL. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. Am Psychol. 2001;56(3):218-226. 14. Bakker AB, Schaufeli W, Leiter MP, Taris TW. Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work Stress. 2008;22(3):187-200. 15. Simpson MR. Engagement at work: A review of the literature. Int J Nurs Stud. 2008;46(7):1012-1024. 16. Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. The Job DemandsResources model of burnout. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):499-512. 17. Meijman TF, Mulder G. Psychological aspects of workload. In: Drenth PJ, Thierry H, de Wolff CJ, editors. Handbook of work and organizational psychology: Work psychology. Hove: Psychology Press;1998.Vol. 2, p.5-33. 18. Deci WL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum; 1985. 19. Schaufeli, Bakker AB, van Rhenen W. How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. J Organ Behav. 2009;30:893-917. 20. Hakanen JJ, Perhoniemi R, Toppinen-Tanner S. Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness. J Vocat Behav. 2008;73(1):78-91. 21. Salanova M, Bakker AB, Llorens S. Flow at work: Evidence for an upward spiral of personal and organizational resources. J Happiness Stud. 2006;7(1):1-22. 22. Parker SK, Wall TD, Cordery JL. Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2001; 74:413-440. 23. Grant AM, Ashford SJ. The dynamics of proactivity at work. Res Organ Behav. 2008;28:3-34. 24. Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad Manage Rev. 2001;26(2):179-201. 25. Parker SK, Ohly S. Designing motivating jobs. In: Kanfer R, Chen G, Pritchard RD,

editors. Work motivation: Past, present, and future. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2008 26. Wrzesniewski A, McCauley C, Rozin P, Schwartz B. Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to their work. J Res Pers. 1997;31(1):21-33. 27. Frese M, Garst H, Fay D. Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships between work characteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural equation model. J Appl Psychol. 2007;92(4):1084-1102. 28. Graen GB, Scandura TA. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Res Organ Behav. 1987;9:175-208. 29. Hornung S, Rousseau DM, Glaser J, Angerer P, Weigl M. Beyond top-down and bottom-up work redesign: Customizing job content through idiosyncratic deals. J Organ Behav. 2010;31(2):187-215. 30. Isen AM. Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1987;20:203-253. 31. Lindsley DH, Brass DJ, Thomas JB. Efficacy-performance spirals: A multilevel perspective. Acad Manage Rev. 1995;20(3):645-678. 32. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman; 1997. 33. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Preliminary Manual [on line]. Utrecht: Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. 2003[cited dec 2011]. Available from: www.schaufeli.com. 34. Büssing A, Glaser J. Das Tätigkeits- und Arbeitsanalyseverfahren für das Krankenhaus - Selbstbeobachtungsversion (TAA-KH-S) [Activity and work analysis in hospitals; self-report version (TAA-KH-S)]. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2002. 35. Siegrist J, Wege N, Pühlhofer F, Wahrendorf M. A short generic measure of work stress in the era of globalization: Effort-reward imbalance. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2009;82:1005-1013. 36. Bollen KA. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1989. 37. Reinecke J. Strukturgleichungsmodelle in den Sozialwissenschaften [Structural equation modeling in social sciences]. München: Oldenbourg Verlag; 2005. 38. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6(1):1-55. 39. Zapf D, Dormann C, Frese M. Longitudinal studies in organizational stress research: A review of the literature with reference to methodological issues. J Occup Health Psychol. 1996;1(2):145-169. 40. Frese M, Zapf D. Methodological issues in the study of work stress. In: Cooper CL, Payne R, editors. Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons; 1988. 41. Vancouver JB, Thompson CM, Tischner EC, Putka DJ. Two studies examining the negative effect of self-efficacy on performance. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(3):506-516. 42. Beckers DGJ, van der Linden D, Smulders PGW, Kompier MAJ, van Veldhoven MJPM, van Yperen NW. Working overtime hours: Relations with fatigue, work motivation, and quality of work. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46(12):12821289. 43. Mathieu JE, Taylor SR. Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. J Organ Behav. 2006;27(8):1031-1056. 44. Maslach C, Leiter MP. Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. J Appl Psychol. 2008;93(3):498-512. 45. Cifre E, Salanova M, Rodríguez-Sánchez AM. Dancing between theory and practice: Enhancing work engagement through work stress intervention. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf. In press.

Referencias complementarias:

1. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879-903. 2. Schaufeli W, Bakker AB. Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In: Bakker AB, Leiter MP, editors. Work engagement. A handbook of essential theory and research. Hove: Psychology Press; 2010. p.10-24.

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article

Bridging the Practice and Science of Employee Engagement: A Qualitative Investigation Uniendo La Ciencia y La Práctica del Engagement Laboral: Una Investigación Cualitativa Simon L. Albrecht1, Elisabeth Wilson-Evered2 1. School of Applied Psychology (BBH), Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. 2. School of Management and Information Systems. Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.

ABSTRACT

While the practice and the science of employee engagement continue to run on largely separate paths, the science of engagement continues to evolve with ongoing incremental refinements to existing models and measures. This qualitative study sought to map the extent of the science-practice divide and to further inform the content of the science and the practice of employee engagement. Interview data obtained from 51 senior operational and human resource managers of a large multi-national mining company revealed that whereas a considerable overlap is apparent in the way that scientists and practitioners view the nature and the drivers of employee engagement, there are also key differences and differences of emphasis. Consistent with recent research, the importance of a reciprocal or two-way partnership between management and employees was highlighted by interviewees as being very important to engagement. The interview data also suggested that ‘focused energy’ and ‘alignment with organizational goals’ should further be recognized as key attributes of engagement within the academic literature. Importantly, a number of opportunities to elaborate the Job Demands-Resources model were identified. First, the differential influence of organizational level resources (e.g. senior leadership; organizational climate) versus job level resources emerged. Second, the potential differential influence that challenge versus stressor demands can exert at the organizational level (e.g. large scale organizational change; organizational politics) and at the job level (e.g. role ambiguity; role conflict) emerged. Third, the direct effects of both challenge demands and hindrance demands on work engagement could be usefully and more explicitly acknowledged in the JD-R model. Finally, taking into account the study limitations, we propose future opportunities to extend the integration of the science and the practice of employee engagement. Key words: employee engagement; science-practice; demands-resources; qualitative research.

RESUMEN

Mientras que la práctica y la ciencia del engagement laboral continúan recorriendo caminos separados, la ciencia del engagement sigue evolucionando a través de constantes refinamientos aplicados a modelos y medidas existentes. Este estudio cualitativo busca poder mapear el alcance de la separación de la ciencia y la práctica; además de informar el contenido de la ciencia y la práctica del engagement laboral. Los datos obtenidos a partir de un universo de 51 operadores experimentados y gerentes de recursos humanos, pertenecientes a una compañía minera multinacional, revelaron que mientras una considerable sobreposición es aparente en la forma en que los científicos y practicantes ven la naturaleza y las conducciones del engagement laboral, también existen diferencias clave y de énfasis. De manera consistente con investigaciones recientes, la importancia recíproca, o la sociedad igualitaria entre gerentes y empleados, se destacó como algo esencial por parte de los entrevistados en función del engagement. Los datos obtenidos también sugieren que la “energía enfocada” y “la alineación de objetivos organizacionales, deberían ser reconocidos como atributos fundamentales del engagement dentro de la literatura académica. Es de esta forma, se identificaron un número de oportunidades para elaborar un modelo de “Demandas y Recursos Laborales” (Job Demands-Resources model, en inglés). Lo primero en surgir fue la influencia diferencial de los recursos de nivel organizacional (liderazgo experimentado; clima organizacional) versus los recursos de nivel laboral. Lo segundo en presentase fue la influencia potencial diferencial que desafía versus las demandas estresantes que se ejercen a nivel organizacional (cambio organizacional a gran escala, políticas organizacionales) y al nivel laboral (ambigüedad de rol, conflictos de rol). Tercero, los efectos directos de las ordenes complicadas y las demandas obstaculizadoras sobre el engagement laboral podrían ser reconocidas de manera más provechosa y explícita en el modelo Demandas y Recursos Laborales. Para concluir, al considerar las limitaciones del estudio, proponemos futuras oportunidades para extender la integración de la ciencia y la práctica del engagement laboral. Palabras claves: compromiso de los empleados, ciencia-práctica, demandas de recursos; investigación cualitativa

Correspondence / Correspondencia Simon L. Albrecht Griffith University, School of Aoolied Psychology (BBH) Messines Ridge Road, Mt Gravatt Queensland 4122, Australia Tel.: +61737353441 e-mail: s.albrecht@griffith.edu.au Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 1/1

Employee engagement remains a hot topic within both the academic and practitioner domains. The field continues to grow and to grow rapidly. An internet search of the term ‘employee engagement’ will yield around one million hits leading to practitioner articles, blogs, case studies, survey providers, and academic research papers and commentary. Macey, Schneider, Barbera and Young39 recently noted that ‘rarely has a term … resonated as strongly with business executives as employee engagement has in recent years” (p. xv). Similarly, the body of scholarly work focused on work engagement continues to flourish and the number of books1,2,9,10,49, research papers, conference papers and 61

Original Article | Lasso Jorge conference presentations emanating from the academic domain continues to grow. Despite the enormous advances about how best to understand, measure and manage engagement, recent research and reviews of the state of play of employee engagement5,15 have identified a number of issues yet to be fully resolved. For example, there are still unresolved issues about how best to conceptualize engagement and the number and nature of its dimensions. Additionally, more research is needed to ascertain the influence that organizational level variables such as organizational climate or a climate for engagement exert on employee engagement. More generally, the nature and amount of influence that leaders exert over followers’ engagement also warrants further research attention. With respect to how best conceptualize engagement and its dimensions, Schaufeli and colleagues’ definition of work engagement - ‘‘... a positive, fulfilling, work related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption’’53 - remains the most widely accepted definition in the academic domain. Alternative conceptualizations exist. For example, May, Harter and Gilson38, and more recently Rich, LePine and Crawford45, offered definitions and measures of employee engagement based on the extent that employees invest themselves cognitively, affectively and physically in their work.29 Although Schaufeli and Bakker51 pointed out there is considerable commonality across such approaches, there are nevertheless theoretical and measurement issues across and within the two approaches which have yet to be fully reconciled. Specifically, whereas Rich and colleagues conceptualized engagement as a higher order construct, indicated by three first order factors (physical, emotional and cognitive engagement), Schaufeli and Bakker and colleagues have generally conceptualized and measured engagement as a construct consisting of three first order factors - vigor, dedication and absorption (see Schaufeli, Bakker & Salanova, for validation of the UWES-9).52 Additionally, although Schaufeli and Bakker51 identified absorption as a ‘common denominator’ in differing definitions of engagement, Bakker and Leiter9 suggested that absorption might be better conceptualized as an outcome of engagement rather than a constituent dimension. This line of argument leaves ‘energy’ and ‘involvement’ as the core dimensions of engagement.9 Furthermore, there may be additional dimensions of engagement not fully encompassed by Schaufeli and colleagues or by Rich and colleagues. Macey et al.34 for example, argued in support of a definition of engagement that, amongst other things, more explicitly acknowledges a focus on alignment with, and the achievement of, organizational goals. Macey et al. argued that engagement can, in part, be characterized by “purpose and focused energy ... directed toward organizational goals” (p. 7). In sum, given that energy and involvement appear to be core and foundational elements of engagement, further theorizing and quantitative and qualitative research may potentially identify and validate additional elements or dimensions. A broad range of theories have been invoked to understand and explain the importance, emergence and maintenance of employee engagement. Such theories include conservation of resources theory (COR)28; self determination theory (SDT)16; social exchange theory (SET)12; social identity theory (SIT)59; role theory29; broaden-and-build theory of positive emotion20; job characteristics theory (JCT)25; and the job demands–resources model (JD–R)6,7. The JD–R (see Figure 1), the most widely cited and widely used

theoretical model in the engagement literature, shows how job resources (e.g. autonomy, feedback, support) and personal resources (e.g. self-efficacy, optimism, resilience) directly influence work engagement. Engagement in turn influences outcomes such as commitment, in-role performance, extra-role performance, creativity and financial outcomes. Furthermore, the JD-R explains the way in which job demands (e.g. workload, time pressure) moderate the relationship between job resources and engagement such that the motivational influence of resources on engagement is enhanced when employees experience demands as being moderately high or high26 or as ‘challenging’.8 Noteably, Crawford et al15 recently argued that the nature of the relationship among demands and engagement may be dependent on the nature of the demand. Crawford et al., using meta-analytic structural equations modeling, showed that demands perceived as ‘challenge demands’ will likely have a positive influence on engagement while demands perceived as ‘hindrance demands’ will likely have a negative influence on engagement. Beyond the ‘hindrance versus challenge’ distinction, arguably, demands classified as organizational level demands (e.g. macro level organizational change, high level organizational politics, etc) might exert a different type or amount of influence on resource-engagement relationships relative to more proximal job level demands such as work overload, role ambiguity, role conflict, job enlargement, promotion, and the like.

Figure 1. The JD-R model of work engagement (based on Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2008). Job Demands - Work Pressure - Emotional demands - Mental demands - Physical demands - etc. Job Resources - Autonomy - Performance Feedback - Social Support - Supervisory Coaching - etc. Personal Resources - Optimism - Self-efficacy - Resilience - Hope - etc

Work Engagement - Vigor - Dedication - Absorption

Performance - In-role performance - Extra-role performance - Financial return - Turnover - etc.

Irrespective of the different types of demands worthy of exploration in the JD-R, the job and personal resources components of the JD-R are of fundamental importance to practitioners and academics alike. These key elements represent the motivational building blocks to engagement and as such potentially define the salient predictors or ‘drivers’ of engagement. If engagement is desirable and advantageous in organizational contexts - as generally agreed - workplace practitioners in particular, will want to know which ‘levers to pull’ and which ‘buttons to press’ to influence, manage Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Título Artículo and develop engagement. In effect, the drivers provide “the keys to taking action to increase engagement and [therefore] performance”.19 Recent meta-analyses and qualitative reviews have helped identify the strongest and most reliable predictors of engagement.15,14,27,37,56 Halbesleben27 meta-analysis, consistent with the JD–R6, showed that feedback, autonomy, social support and organizational climate are consistently associated with engagement and/or particular facets of engagement. Halbesleben’s meta-analysis also showed that personal resources (e.g. self-efficacy and optimism) are strongly related to engagement. Additionally, Crawford et al.’s meta-analysis identified work role fit, job variety, rewards and recognition, recovery, and opportunities for development as reliable predictors of engagement. Overall, although a broad range of predictors of engagement have been identified in the literature, opportunities remain to identify additional antecedents, resources or drivers and to organize such theoretically and empirically derived key drivers into an overarching framework or taxonomy. Such a framework or taxonomy, consisting of a comprehensive set of resources, might then be applied by researchers and practitioners to determine which resources or drivers are most salient across differing organizational contexts. With respect to developing a taxonomy of resources, it may potentially prove helpful to further extend the JD-R by differentiating more ‘distal’ organizational level resources (e.g. senior leadership; organizational climate; organizational support; HRM policies; etc) from more ‘proximal’ job level resources such as autonomy, skill utilization, supervisor support, training and development opportunities. Consistent with this view, Crawford et al.15 and Kahn30 suggested that the differential influence of senior leadership (an organizational level resource) versus direct report leadership (a job level resource) might warrant further investigation. With respect to the influence that leaders exert over follower engagement, the role of the leader in fostering work engagement has received limited academic research attention.5 The lack of attention is somewhat surprising given the widespread recognition within the practitioner literature.46 While there is emerging evidence to suggest that transformational leadership is either directly or indirectly associated with followers’ levels of vigor, dedication, and absorption;55,60 that middle managers have a critical role in developing engagement;41 and that empowering leadership might also influence engagement3, additional research is required to further establish the strength of the association between different styles of leadership and follower engagement. More generally, engagement, as a motivational construct, might usefully serve as the key explanatory mechanism accounting for the way in which leadership influences ‘downstream’ individual outcomes such as commitment, job satisfaction, absence and performance. The influence on engagement of differing types of leadership – for example transformational, authentic and empowering leadership – at different levels of leadership (e.g. senior leadership versus middle management versus direct line management) might therefore usefully be further examined. Organizational climate is another organizational level construct worthy of further systematic research attention within the engagement literature. Although Halbesleben27 and Crawford et al.15 in their recent meta-analyses identified organizational climate as a salient predictor of employee engagement, Albrecht1,2 argued for the need to acknowledge ‘a climate for engagement’ as an important predictor of employee engagement. Such a construct, appro-

priately conceptualized and measured, might provide a useful summary index of the extent to which the organizational context supports employee engagement in varying organizational settings. At a somewhat broader level, another unresolved issue or challenge in the engagement literature centres on the research-practice divide. Both scientists and practitioners have suggested that the research and the practice of engagement are, in large part, progressing along different paths. Macey and Schneider33, for example, noted that “scholars and practitioners think and speak about engagement in different ways” (p. 76). Bakker and Leiter9,10 noted that consultants, in contrast to academics, often define engagement in a way that confuses it with traditional concepts such as job satisfaction and commitment. Though it is widely recognized that best-practice, peer-reviewed and evidence-based research should underpin the practice of engagement Schaufeli y Bakker51, perhaps part of the science-practice disconnect might reasonably be attributable to practitioners being more skilful than academics at detecting what resonates with the ‘lived experience’ of organizational decision makers interested in actioning and realizing the purported benefits of employee engagement. Whatever the explanation, the differences in science and practice perspectives suggest clear and present opportunities for researchers and practitioners to work more closely together so that good science is more firmly embedded in good practice and that good practice is more firmly embedded in good science. Indeed, some closer collaboration between scientists and practitioners, aimed at bridging the science-practice divide, may in the end help inoculate engagement against being remembered as merely a passing fad. Instead, engagement could build on its current status as a legitimate, distinct and important construct that explains important individual, team and organizational experiences and outcomes. One initial step on the path to bridge the science practice divide might involve directly comparing how engagement is understood in workplace practice against the accumulated wisdom found in the peer-reviewed academic literature. Currently, there is very little literature identifying how the academic understanding of engagement corresponds to how engagement is understood by employees and human resource and organizational development professionals in their working context. Even though a vast amount of academically grounded survey data on engagement has been collected in a wide diversity of organisations across the globe, because these data have generally been collected using ‘off-theshelf’, pre-validated engagement and engagement-related scales, their content validity or ecological validity has rarely been evaluated. In response to ongoing calls for academics and practitioners to more fully collaborate and cooperate4,39, and to avoid the unhealthy situation whereby “the academics [are] the [only] ones asking the research questions and interpreting the answers”13, academics might usefully further engage with internal HR/OD and operational decision-makers who are working on the practice of engagement on a daily basis. By working on understanding the language and the issues as experienced at the ‘coal face’ by employees, researchers may be able to gain a greater understanding of how employees think about, understand and action engagement. By going to the ‘lived experience’ of employee engagement, researchers might find opportunities to translate the prevailing academic models, theories, frameworks and measures into a language more readily understood and appreciated by workplace practitioners. They may, for example, using models such as

Original Article | Lasso Jorge the JD-R6,7 be able to, in a practical sense, help practitioners more clearly conceptualize engagement and distinguish it from related yet distinct constructs more appropriately identified as antecedents or consequences of engagement. As previously noted, whereas the bulk of the engagement literature is based on quantitative research methods, there has been limited qualitative research published on the topic. Kahn’s29 seminal thinking on engagement was derived from interviews conducted with camp counselors and employees of an architectural firm. Kahn argued that it is important to deeply probe people’s experiences and situations and that qualitative methods provide a powerful means by which to capture such experiences and situations. Furthermore, Kahn also argued that attitude surveys may not sufficiently help researchers go fully to the core of people’s lived experience of work. In addition to Kahn’s qualitative research, Schaufeli and colleagues54, Margolis and Molinsky36 and Engelbrecht18 are among the few researchers who have applied qualitative methods to the study of engagement. Bakker and Demerouti7, summarizing some of the key findings to emerge from Engelbrecht’s interviews, noted that an engaged midwife “is a person who radiates energy and keeps up the spirit at the ward, especially in situations where work morale is low… [;] is willing to do whatever needs to be done, and is viewed as a source of inspiration for herself and her colleagues…[;] has a positive attitude towards her work and is happy for the things she is doing” (p. 210). Words such as ‘energy’, ‘willing to do’, and ‘positive attitude’ not only corroborate extant academic views as to the nature of engagement but perhaps point researchers towards ways in which the construct can be further elaborated. Additional qualitative research might usefully inform and potentially progress some of the as yet unresolved issues in the conceptualization and measurement of work engagement as outlined above. Furthermore, qualitative research methods may play an important role in assuring the content and ecological validity of the theory, modelling and measurement of engagement that to date has been largely derived from the use and analysis of quantitative survey data. To sum up, and in light of the scarcity of published qualitative research on work engagement and the unresolved issues about how best to conceptualize and measure employee engagement, the study reported here had three main aims; first to determine how key human resources and operational employees of a major resource sector organization perceive and understand work engagement. Second, the research aimed to cross-reference these findings with established theories, models, and measures on work engagement and to therefore contribute to establishing the content validity and ecological validity of the existing engagement related research. Third, we hoped to uncover additional considerations in the study of engagement beyond those currently used and mostly derived using quantitative methods. More specifically, the study aimed to identify how the construct of engagement and the JD-R might be augmented or reconceptualized to better reflect the lived experience of engagement.

and their tenure ranged from six-months to 22 years. The interviewees had varying job roles broadly classified within operations (n = 25), human resources (n = 16), professional/technical (n = 6), or other (n = 4). The interviewees occupied senior level operational or human resource roles.

Procedure

The interviews were conducted by nine interviewers employed within the host organization. The geographical spread and the remoteness of some of the operations of the host organization precluded the researchers from conducting the interviews. Additionally, the decision to use in-house interviewers was in part made by the host organisation to be seen to be directly actioning the organization’s strategic focus on engagement. The researchers did, however, provide very specific guidelines for training the in-house interviewers, advised on sampling and communication strategies, and developed the semi-structured interview protocol and a set of interviewer guidelines. The questions included: ‘what does employee engagement mean for you’, ‘tell me about times when you have felt particularly engaged at work’, and ‘what are the conditions or factors which enabled you or your colleagues to be engaged’? The interviewers were trained to use, where appropriate, open-ended and non-leading probing questions to uncover deeper level characteristics of the lived experience of employee engagement. The 51 interviews ranged between 45 and 60 minutes in duration. Participant consent to record the interviews was obtained and each interview was transcribed in its entirety.

Data-analysis

The data analytic strategy aligned with that reported by Grant, Dutton and Rosso (2008) who used a qualitative data derived from 40 interviews to identify the “prosocial sensemaking mechanisms through which giving to a support program enhances employees’ affective commitment to [their] organization” (p. 901). Drawing on grounded theory methods21 and interpretative phenomenological analysis57, the first named researcher first read through all the transcripts and identified key words and key themes within which to classify responses. A coding scheme was finalized for each of the questions analysed before the first and second named researchers then independently coded the interviewee responses from the transcripts. The overall average interrater agreement across the different questions for the first and second named researchers, calculated using Spearman’s rho, ranged between 0,81 and 0,93. After calculating inter-rater reliability indices, coding discrepancies were identified and either resolved across the two researchers or omitted from the analyses.

RESULTS

The fifty one interviewees who agreed to participate in the study were Australian employees of a large multi-national resources organization which has operations in a range of locations across the globe. The interviewees ranged in age from 26 to 60 years

The data collected in the interviews were very rich and attest to the genuine commitment the interviewers and the interviewees invested in the process. Interviewee commitment to adhering to the semi-standardized process was clearly evident in the transcripts. Interviewer skill in probing and encouraging engagement in the interview process was also evident in the transcripts. The key findings for the key questions addressed in the research are described below.

Method Participants

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Título Artículo

What is employee engagement?

Interviewees were initially asked for their understanding of the term engagement as it applies to work. Interviewees were asked questions such as ‘what does engagement mean for you?’, ‘how would you define it?’ and ‘can you tell me about a time when you felt particularly engaged at work?’ The questions generated 136 coded comments across 19 key themes. The themes and words most often coded related to engagement being a relational and reciprocal construct (n = 25 codings); being predicated on open, respectful and supportive leadership (n = 22 codings); involving the willingness to contribute to organizational objectives and exercise discretionary effort (n = 15 codings); being bound up with a sense of connection to, commitment to and identification with the organization (n = 14 codings); involving the full ‘heart and mind’ expression of self in work (n = 11 codings); being about self-striving in alignment with business objectives (n = 10 codings); and being about the experience of open and respectful relationships (n = 10 codings). Other key words and themes were related to the experience of trust (n = 9 codings); empowerment (n = 7 codings); and being challenged to improve and grow (n = 4 codings). Some example and representative comments for these key themes include: “in terms of the relationship, it is sort of a two-way thing like any relationship you know it needs to be both parties talking and discussing and working through issues and coming to some sort of common view” [S14: Interviewee #42] “I think engagement is a genuine sense of connection that either leaders make with people or that people make with organizations that is all about reciprocity. If I do my best for the organization the organization will do its best for me” [S3-Q2: Interviewee #2]. “an employee chooses willingly (with their heart and their head) to be a member of the organization. The team member will apply discretionary effort”. [S14: Interviewee #47] “it is about the contribution the person is willingly prepared to make for their organization.” [S22: Interviewee #77 (n.b. interviewee identity numbers relate to the number indicated on a master list of potential interviewees)] “I think engagement is a mindset of the employee who identifies with the success of the company and then exhibits that by behaviors consistent with the interest of the company in an all encompassing sense.” [S6: Interviewee #72] “It is really about the individual, where the behavior of each individual employee contributes to the business. Ultimately it is about individual behavior, motivations, state of mind, where there is alignment to and contribution to business objectives”. [S46: Interviewee #27] These comments corroborate much of the thinking and research published in the academic literature. The comments clearly point to engagement being recognized as a motivational and psychological state which involves ‘a willingness’, ‘a mindset’, or ‘a state of mind’. The comments mostly support the pervasive view among academics that the psychological state of engagement Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 1/1

needs to be clearly distinguished from behavior (e.g. discretionary effort) which is better conceptualized as an outcome or a consequence of engagement.24 Also consistent with the mainstream academic engagement literature, the comments point to the clear importance of ‘involvement’ and ‘dedication’ as key constituent facets or dimensions of engagement.51 However, the numerous references interviewees made to ‘focused energy’ and ‘alignment with organizational goals’, although acknowledged by some practitioners and academics as central to the experience of experience33, are not as clearly evident in mainstream academic conceptualizations and measures of engagement (e.g. UWES-9).52 As already noted, the notion of reciprocal responsibility or mutual commitment was often identified as an important characteristic or precondition for engagement. Consistent with the tenets of social exchange theory12, and the double-headed arrows or feedback loops in the JD-R model (see Figure 1), interviewees endorsed the two-way commitment and responsibilities associated with engagement. In so doing, the respondents recognized that without support and resources from the organization, engagement will not emerge nor be maintained. One interviewee related a case example whereby a previously engaged and committed employee became disengaged as a consequence of a perceived lack of mutual commitment from the organization in managing a change in role: “They realized they had done nothing to ensure his competence and confidence in the new role. They hadn’t consulted him at all about the move. So he had been provided with no support to manage the move, had had no consultation about it, and his loss of confidence was assumed to be him not being committed to the business. It became more and more difficult for him to be engaged with the work. It was only that the leader was [subsequently] prepared to look at it again that there was a shift” [S5: Interviewee #15a] Interviewees were explicitly probed about their own personal experience of engagement (‘tell me about a time when you felt really engaged at work’), consistent with the established academic definitions. Responses clearly acknowledged the ‘energy’, ‘enthusiasm’, and ‘passion’ dimensions identified by academics and practitioners to be core characteristics of engagement.51 However, the ‘absorption’ dimension of Schaufeli and collegues53 conceptualization of engagement did not as clearly emerge through the comments. Of note, many interviewees reported being engaged when the context or circumstance involved some significant degree of demand or challenge. These observations are consistent with the modeling of demands as moderators of resources-engagement relationships within the JD-R (see Figure 1) and consistent with recent commentary on the JD-R.15 The sense of striving to achieve in the face of challenge seemed central to many of the reported experiences of engagement: “… it was a constant challenge … the pressure I suppose was what kept me involved in the outcome …” [S4: Interviewee #6] “It felt positive. Sometimes draining. … particularly intense” [S5: Interviewee #42] “I think the times when people are most engaged will be when they are most challenged” [S11: Interviewee #23]

Original Article | Lasso Jorge “the times I felt incredibly energized. .. my output is a lot more focused for a lot longer time and my output level is a lot higher and I probably work longer and I think my behavior or my excitement about what I am doing probably influences other people as well” [S12: Interviewee #80] “It was the satisfaction that we had achieved something, I had the feeling that I didn’t think we were going to be able to. You felt you were part of a grander scheme of things and you know and you played your part in keeping that going.” [S19: Interviewee #20] “the times that I feel most engaged is when I am actually doing positive work for the division … [knowing] what I am doing is then going to have a positive effect on people because this is something that is going to make their work easier or you know have less challenges.” [S20: Interviewee #67] “I think it basically means that when people go to work they mostly enjoy it, …, and can see that they can make a contribution and that contribution is valued” [S7: Interviewee #15] Having offered their own understanding and experience of engagement, interviewees were asked to comment on example definitions developed by the project team reflecting core elements of engagement as drawn from existing academic and practitioner definitions. Example statements included reference to working positively’, ‘achieving the goals and needs of the company’, ‘mutual commitment’, ‘respect, trust and fairness’, ‘personal accountability’, and ‘saying positive things about the company’. Though the majority (88%) of interviewees agreed with the example statements, a number of interviewees (n = 14) cautioned against adopting an overly academic definition. Additionally, four interviewees cautioned against using words such as ‘positive’ in definitions of engagement because of the different meanings such words may have for different individuals. Some of the coded comments include: “we need to do some work to make it [the definition] more punchy in terms of communication on the shop floor and understanding [S3: Interviewee #2] “You don’t want lawyers devising definitions of concepts like this” [S3: Interviewee #12] “The current definition is however too wordy. I don’t believe I can give this to an employee and they will necessarily understand it. I think it would be more beneficial to have a shortened/sharper version of the definition, which is supported by the longer vision” [Interviewee #47] “When you talk about employees working ‘positively’ – people might have different notions of what working ‘positively’ means. … there is great diversity in our individual judgments about what is positive and what is not. I might say it something like this: Employees say things or talk about their company, their team, their leader and themselves in ways that build the business and its reputation.” [S7: Interviewee #15a, 15b]

What are the conditions or factors which lead to or drive engagement?

Interviewees were asked for their views as to what drives engagement – ‘what causes you, your team members to become engaged?’ The interviewees were also asked specifically about the importance of leadership as a driver of engagement. The question generated 166 coded comments across 15 key themes. The words and themes most often coded identified leadership as being a critical ingredient to establishing engagement (n = 41 codings); as being fundamentally about establishing and maintaining respectful, open, and trusting relationships (n = 26 codings); as being about communicating a purpose and a vision for the team (n=18); about being visible, hands-on and ‘walking the talk’ (n = 10 codings); about needing to have and to model personal conviction, commitment and engagement (n = 10 codings); about having a common purpose and common values across different levels of leadership (n = 10 codings); and about being able to deal with different personalities and balance the strengths and weaknesses within the team to achieve organizational goals (n=8). Other key words and themes were related to the differential effects of an employee’s direct leader as opposed to a leader ‘once removed’ or senior level leadership (n=14 codings). Some example and representative comments for these key themes include: “Leadership. Enormous. In fact I think it is the most important issue. … Leaders are the absolute key.” [S2: Interviewee #2] “I think it [leadership] is the biggest single source. It is not 100% but if you ask me it is probably two thirds to three quarters – 60-65% of employee engagement is driven by the one to one relationship with your direct manager and I think this applies to every level of the organization” [S7: Interviewee #24] “If you don’t have good leadership you will not have engagement – good leadership needs to be at all levels.” [S13: Interviewee #51] “…the leader goes one step further, and needs to be able to assign work to a team that maximizes the strengths of the team, needs to be able to move the pieces on the chess board to avoid the personality conflicts or to create the symmetries where those are possible, and that’s hard” [S1: Interviewee #11] “… building that relationship, building that sense of trust where people feel as though they can comment openly, they can debate openly, be directly recognized for their performance… . Because if people trust both their leaders and the organization they’ll engage at a much higher level than they have been” [S2: Interviewee #2] “I think the most important relationship is the ‘manager once removed’. This is because the MoR has the ability to provide opportunities for career development, supplying varied work – more so than their immediate manager. The immediate manager is still very important. I can recall a situation where my relationship with my immediate manager was not that good, but my MoR relationship was good. I still had the confidence regarding career development because of this” [S22: Interviewee #49]

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Título Artículo “unless you are out there and seen to be visible in the workplace then I think it is harder for people to relate to you.” [S22: Interviewee #49]

contribute to where the company is going. You have to create a climate where people can actively participate” [Q16: Interviewee #9]

More generally, the influence of organizational change on engagement (n=9 codings), the importance of a clear organizational vision (n = 9 codings) and the influence of organizational politics (n=8 codings) were identified as relatively important factors which can positively or adversely influence engagement: “[people get disengaged] not understanding why the change is being introduced, … and feeling that they have no opportunity to influence the change, not being in a position where they can ask questions and be provided with an answer, … so the disengagement is where the leaders are not appropriately briefed and appropriately committed through information to actually sell the change in the organization.” [Q17: Interviewee #22] “it is a bit hard to personally feel or personally see how you can add value if you don’t know where the company is going or what the company is going to do.” [Q17: Interviewee #21]

Overall, the results suggest a clear overlap between the lived experience of engagement of interviewees and the conceptualizations of engagement as portrayed in the academic literature. The results also offer a number of opportunities to broaden the conceptualization, modeling and measurement of employee engagement. First, the notion of focused striving might more fully be acknowledged in definitions and measures of engagement. Second, and as modelled in Figure 2, the results point toward opportunities to elaborate the JD-R to further acknowledge the differential influence of organizational level resources (e.g. senior leadership, organizational politics, organizational change) and job resources. Third, there are opportunities to further delineate the differential influence that challenge versus stressor demands exert at both the organizational level and the job level. The direct effects of both challenge demands and hindrance demands on work engagement also need to be acknowledged.

“I think you’ve got to have a very clear alignment from the top of the organization.” [Q16: Interviewee #59]

DISCUSSION

“I have seen a lack of team effort between managers and on occasions at general manager le, competiveness between them. Cynicism and probably higher as well.” [Q16: Interviewee #12] “I can’t stand the corporate bullshit.” [Q17: Interviewee #2] “[I get disengaged] where a leader takes credit for my work and doesn’t say thank you or acknowledge me.” [Q17: Interviewee #39] A number of comments also identified the important impact of culture, climate, and social norms on engagement (n = 9 codings). These observations are in line with social information processing perspectives (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) and calls for further research on ‘climate for engagement’ (Albrecht, 2010). Comments such as the following point to the importance of establishing and maintaining a ‘climate for engagement’: “if there isn’t some critical mass of engagement in enough individuals in the business, then it is very hard for one individual to sustain their own engagement” [S7: Interviewee #15a] “[disengaged arises when] you see little clumps of employees that spend half their day talking about why this isn’t such a good thing and that effects the next stage it permeates every meeting.” [Q17: Interviewee #22] “… the things that drive cultures are systems, symbols and behaviours… So by fundamentally addressing the systems, symbols and behaviours you are actually setting up a new culture.” [Q16: Interviewee #40] “… you have to create an environment where people feel they can engage, and feel that it’s a non-threatening environment where there is no fear from contributing, and the fear of being ridiculed, as a fact that, yes I am willing to stand up and

The study set out to determine how the lived experience of engagement as experienced by employees of a large multinational mining company compared to well-respected models, theories, frameworks and measures of engagement derived from Figure 2. An expanded JD-R model of work engagement (developed from Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2008). Organizational Demands Stressor / Challenge - Organizational Change - Organizational Politics - etc.

Job Demands Stressor / Challenge - Work overload - Promotion - Role ambiguity - Enlargement - etc. - etc.

Organizational Resources - Senior Leadership Vision - Vision Communication - Leadership Alignment - HRM Practices - Organizational Climate - Climate for Engagement - etc. Job Resources - Autonomy - Performance Feedback - Direct Report Leadership - Supervisory Coaching - Co-worker Support - Skill & Career Development - etc. Personal Resources - Optimism - Self-efficacy - Resilience - Hope - etc.

Attitudes - Commitment - Satisfaction - Well-Being - Turnover Intention - etc. Work Engagement - Vigor - Dedication - Focus - Striving

Performance/ Behavior - In-role performance - Extra-role performance - Adaptivity - Absence - Turnover - etc. Outcomes - Financial returns - Innovation - etc.

Original Article | Lasso Jorge the academic domain. A number of general conclusions can be drawn from the analysis: (1) There is considerable overlap between what the academics write and what the interviewees reported about their lived experience of engagement. Although the terminology the interviewees used to describe their experience may have been somewhat different to that used by academics, the interviewees clearly acknowledged ‘vigor’ (energy/ being energized) and ‘dedication’ (involvement/ commitment) in their experience of engagement at work. There was, however, less explicit acknowledgement of the ‘absorption’ dimension as identified by academics in their definitions of engagement.45,47 Consistent with academic theorizing34, ‘focused effort’ and ‘alignment with organizational objectives’ were endorsed as important dimensions of engagement. Furthermore, and consistent with the thinking and writing of Kahn29, May, Gilson and Harter38 and Rich, LePine and Crawford45, the affective (heart), cognitive (head) and behaviorally oriented (e.g. willingness to engage in discretionary performance) aspects of engagement were also acknowledged. More generally, much of the interview data can be organised in a way which is consistent with existing models, theories and frameworks. The Job Demands-Resources model, for instance, provides an effective means by which to summarise and integrate much of the content provided by the interviewees. The interview data corroborated core JD-R tenets by clearly evidencing that employee engagement is dependent on the availability of adequate resources (social, physical, psychological, organisational). Such resources were reported to enable employees to strive to achieve work and organizational goals with energy and commitment, to fully invest themselves in the work (affectively, cognitively and physically) and to cope with the demands (physical, psychological, social, organisational) that their job and organizational context presents. The important role that job demands play in conditioning the circumstances by which resources result in engagement was also acknowledged. The utility of distinguishing between hindrance demands and challenge demands15 was evidenced. The importance of employees identifying a two-way and reciprocal co-commitment with management was also highlighted in interviewee accounts of engagement and its causes. Such considerations are consistent with academic research showing the emergence of upward spirals of engagement20,50, reversed causal effects between resources and engagement32 and exchange relationships between managers and their subordinates.41 In sum, the interview data showed that both individual employees and individual leaders have a role in maintaining engagement with the experience of engagement involving reciprocal interactions between individual employees, their leaders and their workplace. (2) There are opportunities to extend existing conceptualizations and definitions of engagement to further emphasize aspects of the lived experience of engagement. As previously noted, the interviewees highlighted focused effort and striving in alignment with organizational objectives as important dimensions of engagement. While these dimensions have been previously acknowledged in the engagement literature34,40 and are implicit in Schaufeli et al.’s dedication dimension, academic definitions may usefully further emphasize the dimension of focused striving in definitions of engagement. Such an emphasis, in line with mainstream motivational theory and consulting practice44,

endorses the notion that the energy associated with engagement needs to be directed toward, and aligned with, the achievement of functional and adaptive work and organizational goals, objectives and strategies. The conceptualization of the psychological state of engagement might therefore usefully incorporate some further consideration of ‘focused striving’ or ‘focused effort’ directed toward the achievement of organizational goals. As noted above, and in line with recent research findings15, the interviewee comments also suggested opportunities to further distinguish between ‘challenge demands’ and ‘hindrance’ or ‘stressor’ demands within the engagement literature. While the JD-R6,7 and the Demands-Control Model clearly acknowledge the positive outcomes associated with active jobs (characterized by high demands and high control) the engagement literature may be well served by further distinguishing known ‘stressor demands’ such as role conflict, role ambiguity and work overload from ‘challenge demands’ such as increased responsibility, the challenge of meeting project timelines, promotion and job enlargement. The interviewee comments clearly indicated that challenge demands play an important role in the experience of engagement. Furthermore, and in accord with the modeling in Figure 2, the interview data corroborate research evidence14 suggesting that work demands, beyond moderating the association between resources and engagement, also directly influence the experience of engagement. These direct relations might sensibly be modelled in the JD-R and further developed to understand when, why and at what level different challenge demands convert into stressor demands in different situations. Given that Sonnentag and colleagues have shown that work engagement can result in increased in job demands over time58 and that increased job demands, in turn, might result in adverse health and well-being outcomes17, the non-linear or curvilinear effects of job and organizational demands deserve further research attention. Furthermore, it may also be useful to more formally distinguish between organizational level demands and job level demands. Organizational level demands such as organizational politics and the implementation of broad level organizational change may exert additional and unique effects on the way that organizational, job and personal resources influence engagement. Modelling and assessing the direct effects of such different demands on engagement could usefully be the subject of further research. As modelled in Figure 2, the interviewee data highlighted the important influence that organizational level resources might exert on job resources and employee engagement. The interviewee data clearly pointed toward consideration of factors such as clarity of organizational goals43, communication of vision23 and strategic alignment42 as more distal or macro organizational level resources likely to influence employee engagement. Consistent with the social information processing perspectives48 and the recognition of the social context of work engagement31, additional organizational level resources such organizational climate, a climate for engagement, and supportive HR practices were also identified as relevant contextual factors pertinent to the experience and expression of engagement. (3) Much of the interviewee description of what engagement is and what is consists of confused engagement with its antecedents and outcomes. Academics can help practitioners think more clearly about how engagement differs from its antecedents and its consequences and other related constructs.

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Título Artículo The interview transcripts revealed that interviewees tended to confuse engagement with its antecedents and outcomes in the course of describing the nature and causes of engagement. Supportive leadership, involvement in decision-making and engaging in discretionary behavior were often ‘bundled up’ in interviewee descriptions of engagement. Most academics, however, argue that these antecedents need to be conceptualized and operationalized as distinct and separate constructs. Bakker, Albrecht and Leiter, for example, argued “it is time to put to bed the notion that engagement is nothing more than some ‘old wine-new bottle’ conceptual cocktail”. Instead, it is important to recognize engagement “is a unique construct which deserves the same theoretical and practical attention as other more established organizational constructs”.1 The interview data therefore helps explain how some of the practitioner-based definitions and measures, which similarly have confused engagement, antecedents and outcomes, might have emerged and why they have become popular in practice and in the applied human resource management and consulting press. Given that many of the interviewees had not been exposed to the academic ‘old wine-new bottle’ arguments, it is not surprising that in conversation, they might confuse constructs that others with a more trained focus on such issues might be able to differentiate. Communicating more clearly through conversations with HR and operational staff the benefits of conceptualizing the experience of work in terms of inputs and outcomes using practical models such as the JD-R6,7 might guide practitioners to understand more clearly the importance of the distinctions. Perhaps, academics could usefully look for opportunities to further engage with practitioners to explain the utility of models such as the JD-R but do so in a language which more strongly resonates with the way that practitioners feel, think and talk about their experiences at work. Such conversations might enable practitioners to make distinctions and describe subtleties that in turn could potentially improve strategies to frame assessments, interventions and evaluations. (4) Leadership needs to be more explicitly acknowledged as a resource within the engagement literature and the JD-R. The interviewees were unequivocal about the importance of the leader’s role in influencing employee engagement, at the direct reporting level, at the level of the leader once removed and at the level of senior level leadership. The key and most commonly cited ‘driver’ of engagement was the extent to which employees perceived their direct report leaders to be open, honest, involving, and empowering. The very strong thread within interviewee comments about the important role that leadership has on engagement reflects a clear difference of emphasis in the practitioner versus the academic literatures. Within the practitioner literature46 and within writing which straddles the practitioner and academic literature34, the critical influence of leadership is taken as a given. Macey et al., for example, argued that senior leadership support and ‘buy-in’ is critical to any successful engagement related initiative. Numerous consulting companies also stress the vitally important role that the leadership exercised by direct supervisors has on employee engagement.44 However, despite some quite recent research55,60, there has been limited academic research directed toward understanding the influence of leaders on employee engagement. For example, Halbesleben27 and Christian and Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 1/1

Slaughter14 meta-analyses did not include leadership among the set of resources examined as antecedents of engagement. The results of the present qualitative analysis corroborate the important role that leadership plays in the experience of employee engagement. Specifically, our study has endorsed the call for more academic research on the influence of leadership at the level of the senior management team, middle management, team leadership, and direct report leadership. Furthermore, the importance of the degree of alignment across leadership levels needs also to be the subject of further research.42 Given that transformational leadership11 and empowering leadership35 styles appear to cover the key dimensions highlighted as being important to leadership, these well-established models might usefully serve to guide ongoing research. Individualized consideration, for example, was indicated as a particularly important dimension – pointing to the importance of leaders getting to know their employees and team members as people and getting to know their personal circumstances. The vision, charisma and inspirational dimensions of transformational leadership were also acknowledged in many interviewee comments as particularly important determinants of engagement. (5) Academic definitions and conceptualizations of engagement might usefully be expressed in a language which practitioners can readily identify with and adopt in practice. As previously noted, several interviewee comments suggested that academic definitions and language may not fully resonate with the lived experience of engagement within employee working contexts. Respondents were wary of endorsing definitions which sounded too academic. Interviewees noted that any definition of engagement adopted by an organization should be able to be easily communicated to and understood by employees working at ‘the shop floor’. It appears therefore that there are opportunities for academics to better ‘translate’ their academic definitions and language into forms which are more likely to resonate with practitioners and become more acceptable to and adopted by practitioners.61 The directness and simplicity of definitions favored by practitioners are exemplified in a definition offered by one of the interviewees: “the feeling of willingly applying your heart and mind toward making a valuable contribution to the business...”. The challenge for academics may be to hold in the background their theoretically derived definitions and dimensions of engagement and work with grounded definitions. Such representations could nevertheless accommodate measurement that is appropriately construct valid and derived from good academic theory, thinking and practice. The challenge will be to incorporate and accommodate these dimensions without making the definitions overly cumbersome or complex. In conclusion, on the basis of the interview transcripts analyzed, the science-practice ‘gap’ appears not too wide but wide enough to hinder communication among the parties. Existing definitions, models and measures from the academic domain overlap to quite a large extent with comments, content and experiences offered by the interviewees. Reciprocation or two-way commitment, for example, was clearly highlighted as an important consideration for the understanding and experience of engagement. Energy and involvement were identified as key dimensions fundamental to the experience of engagement. Figure 2, however, also highlights some potential areas for further research which emerged from the

Original Article | Lasso Jorge interviewee data. As previously noted, the results suggest opportunities to broaden the conceptualization, modeling and measurement of employee engagement to further acknowledge the notion of focused striving in alignment with organizational goals. Additionally, and as modelled in Figure 2, there might also be useful opportunities to elaborate the JD-R to further acknowledge the differential influence of organizational level resources (e.g. senior leadership; organizational climate) and job resources. More particularly, leadership influence and a climate for engagement appear particularly worthy of additional research within the academic research domain. There might also be useful opportunities within the JD-R to further delineate the potential differential influence that challenge versus stressor demands exert at both the organizational level and the job level. The direct effects of both challenge demands and hindrance demands on work engagement might also usefully be further acknowledged. Academics have much to offer practice in terms of models and measures that can potentially help practitioners more clearly and accurately disentangle engagement as a construct from what are better conceptualized as its antecedents or outcomes. Academic engagement research has developed a firm platform from which practitioners can implement evidenced based decisions aimed at assessing, developing and maintaining optimal levels of engagement in varying organizational contexts. We argue in favor of an

increasing rapprochement, cooperation and collaboration between the scientists and the practitioners. Such cooperation across academics and practitioners will help ensure that the right questions about the nature, importance, frequency and practical implications of employee engagement are being asked and answered. The expanded JD-R model, as shown in Figure 2, maps a number of potential research opportunities within the broader ongoing engagement research agenda. Although there are clear limitations with respect to the generalizability of our qualitative data, we hope our paper makes an important contribution to the engagement literature by arguing for the utility and legitimacy of qualitative methods as a means for extending theory and research and for providing a critical means for assessing the ecological validity of extant academically oriented research. Our aspiration was to help demonstrate some of the richness and texture that qualitative methods can contribute. A final quote: “… you can’t pay lip service, you can’t say that we are going to go on this engagement journey, or we want to build a company that you are committed working to and that we are going to create and only do a communication piece. If you had the chance to put your money where your mouth is – you have to actually live what you are wanting to do. So I guess the barrier is rhetoric – you’ve got to get rid of the rhetoric. You’ve actually got to start ‘doing the do’”. [Q16: Interviewee #21]

REFERENCIAS 1. Albrecht, S. L. Employee engagement: 10 key questions for research and practice. In S. L. Albrecht, (Ed.). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers. 2010; pp. 3-19. 2. Albrecht, S. L. (Ed.). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers; 2010. 3. Albrecht, S. L. & Andreeta, M. The influence of empowering leadership, empowerment and engagement on affective commitment and turnover intentions in community health service workers: Test of a model. Leadership in Health Services. 2011; 24 (3), 228-237. 4. Anderson, N., Herriot, P., & Hodgkinson, G. P. The practitioner-researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now and where do we go from here? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2001; 74, 391–411. 5. Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2011; 20 (1), 4-28. 6. Bakker, A. B. & Demerouti, E. The job demands–resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2007; 22, 309–328. 7. Bakker, A. B. & Demerouti, E. Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International. 2008; 13(3), 209–223. 8. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. How do engaged employees stay engaged? Ciencia & Trabajo (this edition); 2010. 9. Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (Eds.). Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press; 2010. 10. Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. Where do we go from here: Integration and future research on work engagement. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 181–196). New York: Psychology Press; 2010. 11. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (Eds.). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994. 12. Blau, P. M. Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: John Wiley; 1964.

13. Briner, R. B., & Rousseau, D. M. Evidence-based I-O Psychology: Not there yet. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. 2011; 4(1), 3-22. 14. Christian, M. S. & Slaughter, J. E. Work engagement: A meta-analytic review and directions for research in an emerging area. Congress paper in 67th annual meeting of Academy of Management, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, August 6; 2007. 15. Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and metaanalytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2010; 95(5), 834-848. 16. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum; 1985. 17. De Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Houtman, I. L. D., & Bongers, P. M. ‘The very best of the millenium’: Longitudinal research and the demandcontrol-(support) model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2003; 8, 282-305. 18. Engelbrecht, S. Motivation and burnout in human service work: The case of midwifery in Denmark, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Roskilde University, Roskilde; 2006. 19. Fleck, S. & Inceoglu, I. (2010). A comprehensive framework for understanding and predicting engagement. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), The handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 31-42). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 20. Fredrickson, B. L. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden-and- Build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist. 2001; 56(3), 218–26. 21. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine: Chicago; 1967. 22. Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. Giving commitment: Employee support programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal. 2008; 51(5), 898-918.

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Título Artículo 23. Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. Leader vision and the development of adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2010; 95(1), 174–182. 24. Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Neal, A. Is behavioral engagement a distinct and useful construct? Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2008; 1, 48–51. 25. Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. Work re-design. Reading, RA: Addison Wesley; 1980. 26. Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. How dentists cope with their job demands and stay engaged: The moderating role of job resources. European Journal of Oral Sciences. 2005; 113, 479–487. 27. Halbesleben, J. A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources and consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 102–117). New York: Psychology Press; 2010. 28. Hobfoll, S. E. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist. 1989; 44(3), 513–24. 29. Kahn, W. A. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal. 1990; 33(4), 692–724. 30. Kahn, W. A. The essence of engagement: Lessons from the field. (pp. 20-30). In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers; 2010. 31. Leiter, M. P. & Bakker, A. B. Work engagement: Introduction. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 1–9). New York: Psychology Press; 2010. 32. Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B. & Salanova, M. Does a positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in Human Behavior. 2007; 23, 825-41. 33. Macey, W. H. & Schneider, B. The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. 2008; 1, 3–30. 34. Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K., & Young, S. A. Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. Malden, MA: Wiley; 2009. 35. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. Leading workers to lead themselves: The external relationship of self-managed work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1987; 32, 106-128. 36. Margolis, J. D., & Molinsky, A. Navigating the bind of necessary evils: Psychological engagement and the production of interpersonally sensitive behavior. Academy of Management Journal. 2008; 51(5), 847-872. 37. Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Mäkikangas, A., & Feldt, T. Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: A qualitative review and directions for future research (pp. 111-128). In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers; 2010. 38. May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2004; 77, 11-37. 39. McGahan, A. M. Academic research that matters to managers: On zebras, dogs, lemmings, hammers, and turnips. Academy of Management Journal. 2007; 50(4), 748–753. 40. Medhurst, A. R., & Albrecht, S. L. Salesperson performance, engagement, climate for involvement, and psychological capital: A proposed model. Journal of Management and Organization. 2011; 17(3), 398-413. 41. Neilson, K. & Gonzalez, E. R. Engaging middle managers: Activities and resources which enhance middle manager engagement. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers. 2010; pp. 139-148. 42. O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., Chatman, J. A., Lapiz, M., & Self, W. How leadership matters: The effects of leaders’ alignment on strategy implementation. The Leadership Quarterly. 2010; 21, 104–113.

43. Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F.,Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Robinson, D. L., & Wallace, A. M. Validating the organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2005; 26, 379-408. 44. Phelps, M. Is it time to rethink employee engagement? DDI: www.ddiworld. com/pdf/isittimetorethinkemployeeengagement_wp_ddi.pdf; 2009. 45. Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal. 2010; 53(3), 617-635. 46. Rosas-Gaddi, R. Leadership and employee engagement: When employees give their all. DDI; www.ddiworld.com/pdf/ddi_ph_leadershipandemployeeengagement_ar.pdf; 2004. 47. Rothbard, N. P. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2001; 46, 655-684. 48. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1978; 23, 224-253. 49. Salanova, M. & Schaufeli, W. B. El engagement en el trabajo: Cuando el trabajo se convierte en pasión [Work engagement: When work turns into passion]. Madrid: Alianza Editorial; 2009. 50. Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W. B., Xanthopoulou, D., & Bakker, A. B. The gain spiral of resources and work engagement: Sustaining a positive worklife. In A. B. Bakker &M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press. 2010; pp. 118-131. 51. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press. 2010; pp 10-24. 52. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2006; 66(4), 701-716. 53. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2002; 3, 71–92. 54. Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., Le Blanc, P., Peeters, M., Bakker, A.B. & De Jonge, J. Maakt arbeid gezond? Op zoek naar de bevlogen werknemer (Does work make happy? In search of the engaged worker), De Psycholoog. 2001; 36, 422-8. 55. Segers, J., De Prins, P., & Brouwers, S. Leadership and engagement: A brief review of the literature, a proposed model, and practical implications. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers. 2010; pp. 149-158. 56. Simpson, M. Engagement at work: A review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2008; 46, 1012–24. 57. Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. Interpretative phenomenological analysis, In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to methods. London: Sage; 2003. 58. Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. Staying well and engaged when demands are high: The role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2010; 95(5), 965-976. 59. Tajfel, H. Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information. 1974; 14, 101–18. 60. Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. Do transformational leaders enhance their followers’ work engagement? Leadership Quarterly. 2011; 22, 121-131. 61. Wilson-Evered E., Härtel, C. E. J., & Neale, M. A longitudinal study of workgroup innovation: The importance of transformational leadership. Advances in Health Care Management. 2001; 2, 315-340.

Original Article

Too Good to Be True? Similarities and Differences Between Engagement and Workaholism among Finnish Judges

¿DEMASIADO bueno para ser cierto? Similitudes y diferencias entre el engagement y la adicción al trabajo en jueces finlandeses Jari Hakanen, PhD1, Alma M. Rodríguez-Sánchez2, Riku Perhoniemi3 1. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland. 2. PhD, Wont Research Team, Universitat Jaume I Castellón, Spain. 3. MA, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland.

ABSTRACT

Recently, it has been suggested that in addition to positive relationships between work engagement and organizational outcomes, work engagement may also have a dark side, i.e., it may also lead to negative consequences for the employee. This study of a representative sample of Finnish judges (N = 550) investigated the similarities and differences between work engagement and workaholism. Despite some similarities, our results generally supported previous findings that engagement and workaholism are distinct concepts. First, confirmatory factor analysis showed that engagement and workaholism are separate notions, although absorption, a sub-dimension of engagement, also loaded weakly on the workaholism factor. Second, structural equation modeling results showed that in contrast to workaholism, engagement was positively related to job resources (positive core self-evaluations and social capital) and to better sleep quality, life satisfaction, and work-family and family-work interface, and negatively related to presenteeism and turnover intentions. Unexpectedly, engagement was unrelated to detachment from work. Both engagement and workaholism were positively associated with organizational commitment, working hours and overtime. Interestingly, workaholics showed both organizational commitment and, tentatively, turnover intentions. All in all, engagement was mainly related to healthy and positive outcomes. However, even though engaged employees enjoy working, they should ensure sufficient recovery, such as detachment from work, in order to remain engaged. Key words: Work engagement; Workaholism; Judges; Well-being; Work-Family; Recovery; Life satisfaction

RESUMEN

Recientemente, se ha sugerido que además de las relaciones positivas del engagement en el trabajo con los resultados organizacionales, el engagement también podría tener un lado negativo, es decir, también podría generar consecuencias negativas para los trabajadores. Este estudio en una muestra representativa de jueces finlandeses (N = 550), investigó las similitudes y diferencias entre el engagement y la adicción al trabajo. A pesar de tener algunas similitudes, nuestros resultados respaldan investigaciones previas donde se afirma que el engagement y la adicción al trabajo son conceptos diferentes. En primer lugar, el análisis factorial confirmatorio probó que el engagement y la adicción al trabajo son nociones distintas, aunque la absorción, una sub-dimensión del engagement, también mostró una débil saturación con adicción al trabajo. En segundo lugar, los resultados de ecuaciones estructurales demostraron que al contrario que la adicción al trabajo, el engagement se relaciona de manera positiva con los recursos laborales (core selfevaluations y capital social), y con una mejor calidad del sueño, satisfacción con la vida, y con la interacción trabajo-familia / familia-trabajo; y se relaciona negativamente con el presentismo y a las intenciones de abandono. Inesperadamente, el engagement no presentó relación con el proceso de desconexión del trabajo. Ambos, el engagement laboral y la adicción al trabajo, se asociaron positivamente al compromiso organizacional, horas trabadas y al trabajar horas extras. Curiosamente, los adictos al trabajo muestran también compromiso organizacional, y, ocasionalmente, desconexión del trabajo. En términos generales, el engagement se relacionó a estados saludables y a resultados positivos. No obstante, a pesar de que los trabajadores engaged disfrutan del trabajo, ellos deberían asegurar una suficiente recuperación del mismo, con el objetivo de mantenerse engaged. Palabras claves: Engagement, Adicción al Trabajo, Jueces, Bienestar, Trabajo -Familia, Recuperación, Satisfacción con la Vida .

Introduction

Correspondence / Correspondencia Jari Hakanen Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Work Organizations, Topeliuksenkatu 41 a A FI-00250 Helsinki Tel.: +358 30474 2453 • Fax: +358 9 2413496 e-mail: jari.hakanen@ttl.fi

Today, the borders of time, space and work organization are becoming increasingly blurred in the labor context. This boundaryless work tendency, characterized by individualized schedules, temporal and geographical flexibility and more job autonomy2, has become more widespread among a broad range of occupations in the last decades, particularly among knowledge workers.1 Judges form one particular occupational group characterized by long working hours, high responsibility, high autonomy and blurred borders between work and free time.35 This boundaryless work context might be seen as a double-edged sword. On the one 72/80 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 |

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Similarities and Differences Between Engagement and Workaholism among Finnish Judges hand, flexible work arrangements and autonomy may enhance work engagement and thriving at work followed by other positive outcomes, but on the other, this flexibility may also pave the way for extensive working and workaholic tendencies, with detrimental consequences for well-being. Moreover, in the flexible and autonomous working conditions described above, it is not entirely clear whether positive states, such as work engagement and negative work orientations (e.g. workaholism), are completely distinct from each other particularly among employees who work hard and who have high responsibility at work. Indeed, several scholars have recently suggested that there may be a downside to work engagement, which, for example, could lead to workaholism over time.3,20 The general aim of this study was to address the differences and similarities between work engagement and workaholism, regarding a variety of outcomes (at individual, work-family and organizational level), among Finnish judges. In addition, we explored the role of personal and social job resources (core self-evaluations and social capital) in work engagement and workaholism. We aimed at investigating, whether engagement – in addition to its positive correlates – could also have negative correlates similar to workaholism or even associate with workaholism, which would suggest that engagement could be even “too good to be true”.

Work engagement and workaholism Work engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption.42 Vigor refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in one’s work, the ability to avoid being easily fatigued, and persistence in the face of difficulties. Dedication refers to strong involvement in one’s work accompanied by feelings of enthusiasm and significance, and by a sense of pride and inspiration. Absorption refers to a state in which individuals are fully concentrated and engrossed in their activities, whereby time passes quickly and they find it difficult to detach themselves from work. In contrast, workaholism has been defined as the tendency to work excessively hard and to be obsessed with work, which manifests itself through working compulsively.46 Thus, workaholism consists of two main dimensions: (a) a strong inner drive to work hard, that leads to working compulsively, in combination with (b) high effort expenditure, that leads to working excessively.53 At first glance, it seems there are some similarities between work engagement and workaholism. For instance, engaged employees work hard (vigor), are involved (dedicated) and feel happily engrossed (involved) in their work. Workaholics also work hard and are dedicated to their jobs. However the main difference is that engaged workers work hard because they like and enjoy work for its own sake, whereas workaholics are driven by a strong inner obsession with their job. Moreover, previous studies suggest that engaged employees are generally satisfied with their jobs and their lives, whereas workaholics are not.53 It appears that engagement and workaholism are conceptually different, although some authors argue that workaholism may also have positive consequences for both workaholics and the organizations they work for since they are devoted to their work.28,34 However, only a few empirical studies43,44,46 of Dutch and Japanese employees have addressed the relationships between Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 72/80

these two concepts and their correlates. Thus it is necessary to also focus on other professional and cultural contexts to clarify the similarities and differences between these two concepts regarding their outcomes from a global point of view, namely on an individual, work-family and organizational level. In addition, further research is needed to show the distinctiveness of these two constructs in terms of their associations with personal and job resources, and their factorial relationships.

Work engagement vs. workaholism: Individual outcomes

As regards individual outcomes, we investigated the differences and similarities between work engagement and workaholism related to overwork (working hours and boundaryless work), recovery and health (detachment from work, working when sick and sleep problems), and well-being (life satisfaction). First, because of the behavioral tendency of workaholics to work excessively, these employees work more hours than is required.8 Likewise, boundaryless working, i.e., taking work home and working at weekends also characterizes workaholics.54 However, engaged employees may also spend a lot of time working because they are enthusiastic about their jobs. In fact, work engagement has been found to associate with working overtime.44,46 Therefore we expect that both engagement and workaholism are positively related to working hours and boundaryless work (Hypothesis 1). Individual health outcomes regarding engagement and workaholism have been relatively scarcely investigated. In previous studies, engagement has associated with perceived health and well-being32,40,46, whereas workaholism has related to ill-health.49 However, some controversy exists regarding engagement and workaholism and their relationships with health. In two studies, unexpectedly, both engaged employees and workaholics reported higher levels of psychosomatic complaints.44,46 Psychosomatic complaints can be expected to relate to the amount of time spent working and also to the lack of recovery (e.g. detachment, sleep quality). As regards workaholism, McMillan and O’Driscoll29 found hardly any differences in the health status of workaholics and others. Thus, more research is needed to clarify the differences between work engagement and workaholism in terms of health. Engagement has been positively linked to recovery experiences such as daily feelings of recovery50 and detachment from work during short respites26 suggesting that detachment from work may also be important for those whose jobs are engaging. In addition, engagement was negatively associated with working when sick, i.e., presenteeism, among Finnish dentists.17 Because of positive feelings generated at work, and not overworking at the expense of health, engaged employees assumingly sleep well most of the time. On the other hand, workaholics, due to excessive and compulsive working are not likely to be able to detach mentally from work and therefore may be prone to sleep problems10 and continue working even when they feel sick.41 However, to our knowledge, no empirical studies exist focusing simultaneously on engagement and workaholism and their relationships with sleep quality, detachment from work, and presenteeism. Based on previous research, we argue that engagement is positively related to detachment from work and negatively to sleep problems and presenteeism (Hypothesis 2a), whereas workaholism is negatively related to psychological detachment and positively to sleep problems and presenteeism (Hypothesis 2b). Finally, some support exists for the positive association between

Original Article | Hakanen Jari et al. engagement and different aspects of general well-being and life satisfaction.32,44 In contrast, workaholics have reported lower levels of life satisfaction.6,9 Therefore we posit that work engagement is positively related to life satisfaction (Hypothesis 3a) whereas workaholism is negatively related to life satisfaction (Hypothesis 3b).

Work engagement vs. workaholism: Work-Family enrichment and conflicts

Another relevant and under-studied issue that may shed light on the similarities and differences between work engagement and workaholism is work-family interface. Interestingly, Halbesleben, Harvey, and Bolino21 found that engagement was positively associated with work-to-family conflict (WF-). They argue that those with excess work resources, i.e., high in engagement, are likely to reinvest those resources back into work (in the form of organizational citizenship behavior) and subsequently lack resources to devote to family life. However, we assume that engaged and energized employees may also be engaged in other areas of their lives and have a rich social and family life.45 Experiencing positive emotions and cognitions at work due to a fulfilling job may also enrich one’s family role. Indeed, using a full panel design, Hakanen, Peeters, and Perhoniemi16 found that engagement and work-to-family enrichment (WF+) reciprocally influenced each other over time. In contrast, workaholics tend to have poor social relationships, and experience more WF- than others employees.4,6,54 In addition, instead of work enriching their family role, the opposite is true for workaholics: work impoverishes their family role. Therefore, we expect that engagement is positively related to WF+ and negatively to WF- (Hypothesis 4a), whereas workaholism is negatively related to WF+ and positively to WF- (Hypothesis 4b). Very little is known about the associations between engagement and/or workaholism and family-to-work enrichment (FW+) and family-to-work conflict (FW-). However, in previous longitudinal studies, job resources have predicted engagement, which in turn has also predicted future job resources15,56, one interpretation being that engaged employees may be more capable of mobilizing new resources at work. We expect that due to surplus resources (being engaged and proactive), engaged employees may also be able to benefit from the family role and resources that can enrich and improve the quality of one’s work role, and accordingly experience more FW+ and less FW-. In contrast, for workaholics, family role and expectations are in conflict with the obsession of working constantly and the secondary family role is unlikely to enrich workaholic’s primary role as a hard worker. Therefore, we expect that engagement is positively related to FW+ and negatively to FW- (Hypothesis 5a), whereas workaholism is negatively related to FW+ and positively to FW- (Hypothesis 5b).

Work engagement vs. workaholism: Organizational outcomes

Research has shown that engagement can be positive not only for employees but particularly for organizations. Engaged employees enjoy their work, perform better and show high organizational commitment.14,39 Hence, engaged employees have also shown lower levels of negative organizational outcomes such as turnover intentions.32,40 On the other hand, some controversy exists regarding the positive vs. negative consequences of workaholism for organizations. Some authors argue that workaholism has positive consequences since workaholics work hard and are extremely 74

productive34, whereas others state that they are rigid and do not perform particularly well.47 As regards organizational attitudes, previous studies have found weak positive associations between workaholism and organizational commitment44,46 but no relationship between workaholism and turnover intentions.9 Due to limited research evidence, we expect that workaholics show organizational commitment both in terms of commitment and low turnover intentions. Thus, we hypothesize that both engagement and workaholism are positively related to organizational commitment and negatively to turnover intentions (Hypothesis 6).

Work engagement vs. workaholism: Personal and social job resources

Thus far, we have focused on the correlates of work engagement and workaholism regarding diverse outcomes. However, it is also necessary to know about the role that personal and social resources may play as antecedents of these two constructs. Previously, engagement has been related to several personal resources (e.g., selfefficacy, self-esteem, optimism) and job resources (e.g., autonomy, social support).15,40,56 In addition, it has been shown that job resources boost engagement over time, which in turn influences organizational commitment in the future.19 In contrast, a different association has been found regarding workaholism: the scant research evidence suggests that workaholism is related to a lack of job resources.46 It is possible that workaholics experience a lack of resources (such as support) because, beyond external job demands they also work hard due to self-imposed demands and make their jobs even more complicated than necessary. Moreover, workaholics are perfectionists and therefore tend to evaluate their work characteristics negatively.52 In this study, we specifically focused on two kind of “meta resources” that gather a variety of resources in themselves, namely core self-evaluations (personal resource) and social capital (social job resource). Core self-evaluation (CSE) is defined as a higher order trait representing the fundamental evaluations that people make about themselves and their worthiness, competence, and capability. In the core self-evaluations theory, the core concept is indicated by four traits: self-esteem, locus of control, neuroticism, and generalized self-efficacy.24 Judge, Bono, and Locke23 found that CSE is indeed a relevant personal resource by showing that positive self-evaluations were associated with job characteristics and job complexity, which were in turn related to job satisfaction. To our knowledge, only one recent study has explored the relationship between CSE and engagement38, which showed that engagement fully mediated the relationship between CSE and task performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Conversely, we found no studies addressing the relationship between CSE and workaholism. However, one explanation for the development of workaholism relates to the negative and distorted self-concept of workaholics.36 Accordingly, because of low selfesteem and feelings of worthlessness, workaholics may strive through addictive working for more positive self-evaluation. As a result of using all their time and energy for working at the cost of their social lives and other potentially rewarding roles, they may, however, end up having an even more negative self-image. Social capital refers to those features of social organization that act as resources for individuals and facilitate collective action. These include networks of associations, high levels of interpersonal trust and norms, or mutual aid and reciprocity.11,37 High

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Similarities and Differences Between Engagement and Workaholism among Finnish Judges levels of social capital have been found to predict employee health and well-being.30 Thus, social capital is a social and organizational job resource that may be positively related to engagement. In contrast, workaholism, which is often accompanied by poor social relationships at work, lack of social skills, and the inability to delegate and work in a team may be negatively related to social capital. In other words, we expect that work engagement is positively related to CSE and social capital (Hypothesis 7a), whereas workaholism is negatively related to CSE and social capital (Hypothesis 7b).

Method Participants

The cross-sectional data for this study was gathered through a postal questionnaire survey as a part of a national well-being study initiated by the Supreme court of Finland. The study was aimed at every judge working in Finnish general courts at the time of the data collection (N = 707). General courts provided researchers with the contact information of judges. In October 2009, questionnaires were posted to every judge to his/her workplace. The letter included the questionnaire and a pre-paid envelope for returning the questionnaire. After two weeks, we posted a reminder including a new questionnaire to those who had not responded. Altogether, 550 judges responded to the questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 78%. The data was representative of Finnish judges working in district courts, the courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court. Of the participants, 55,5% were male, the mean age was 53,5 years (SD = 8,47) and the average number of years employed in present tasks was 11,4 (SD=9,9).

Measures

Work engagement was measured using the nine-item version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale.13,42 This includes three subscales that each comprise three items: vigor (e.g. “At my work, I am bursting with energy”), dedication (e.g. “I am enthusiastic about my job”), and absorption (e.g. “I am immersed in my work”). Items were rated on a seven-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (daily). The subscales showed good internal reliability: Cronbach’s alphas (a) were 0,88 for vigor, 0,85 for dedication and 0,80 for absorption. Workaholism was measured using the ten-item Dutch Workaholism Scale (DUWAS)43, rated on a four-point scale from 1 (hardly never) to 4 (nearly always). The scale consists of two subscales: working excessively (e.g. “I find myself continuing to work after my coworkers have called it quits”) and working compulsively (e.g. “It is important to me to work hard even when I do not enjoy what I am doing”). Both subscales had a good internal reliability; a = 0,82 for working excessively and a = 0,82 for working compulsively. Overwork. Working hours were measured by one item (“How many hours a week do you usually work at your main occupation?”). Boundaryless work was estimated using three items comprising working on weekends, bringing work home, and working on vacation. The items were rated on a scale from 1 (almost never) to 4 (nearly always); a = 0,81. Recovery and health. Sleep problems was assessed by three questions from the Basic Nordic Sleep Questionnaire31 comprising trouble falling asleep, waking up in the middle of the night, and Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 72/80

waking up too early and not being able to fall asleep again, over the last three months. Items were rated on a scale from 1 (never or more rarely than once a month) to 5 (daily or almost daily); a = 0,68. Presenteeism consisted of two items measuring working when feeling sick at home and/or at work during the last 12 months. Both items were scored on a four-point scale from 1 (not once) to 4 (more than five times). Intercorrelation between the items was r = 0,54. Detachment from work was measured using the four-item scale developed by Sonnentag and Fritz (2007; e.g. “I forget about work”). The items were rated on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); a = 0,86. Life satisfaction was measured using the five-item scale by Pavot and Diener33 (e.g. “In most ways my life is close to the ideal”). The items were scored on a seven-point rating scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree); a = 0,90. Work-family interface was measured with four scales developed by Grzywacz and Marks.12 The four scales cover both positive and negative work-to-family and family-to-work spillover (enrichment and conflict). The items were rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (all the time). WF+ was assessed using three items (e.g. “The things you do at work help you deal with personal and practical issues at home”); a = 0,79. FW+ was similarly assessed using three items (e.g. “Your home life helps you relax and feel ready for the next day’s work”); + = 0,73. WF- was assessed using three items (e.g. “ My job makes me feel too tired to do the things that need attention at home”); a = 0,84. FW- was assessed using three items (e.g. “Personal or family worries and problems distract me when I am at work”); a = 0,82. CSE theoretically has the subscales of self esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control and (lack of) neuroticism, which should load on one factor.24 However, CFA showed that the twofactor model consisting of a positive CSE factor (positively phrased items) and a negative CSE factor (negatively phrased items) fit the data better than the one-factor model. This solution also enabled us to use two indicators for the latent CSE factor in the study models. The items were scored on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); a = 0,79 for the positive CSE factor and a = 0,83 for the negative CSE factor. Social capital was evaluated using four scales. Organizational climate was measured using a four-item scale by Lindström, Hottinen, and Bredenberg27 (e.g. “Do you think the social climate in your workplace is comfortable and relaxed?”). Items were rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); a = 0,85. Sense of community, justice and respect, and trust were based on the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ).25 Sense of community was measured using a three-item scale (e.g. “Do you feel part of a community at your place of work?”); a = 0,84. Justice and respect was measured using a four-item scale (e.g. “Is the work distributed fairly?”); a = 0,84. Trust was measured by one item inquiring whether supervisors and subordinates trusted each other. All COPSOQ items were rated on a scale from 1 (very rarely/ never) to 5 (very often). Organizational attitudes. Organizational commitment was measured using two items by Lindström, Hottinen and Bredenberg27 (e.g. “I’m willing to put serious effort into furthering the basic mission of my organization”). The intercorrelation between the items was r = 0,55 (a = 0,70). Turnover intentions were measured using two items developed for the present study: “I often think about moving into another job inside the court system” and “I often think about moving into another job outside the court

Original Article | Hakanen Jari et al. system”. Inter-correlation between the items was r = 0,47 (a = 0,64). The items of both these scales were rated on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Statistical analyses

We employed Structural Equation (SEM) techniques and Amos 16.0 software to test the study models. We used latent variables (indicated by respective scales or items) in all study models, except with working hours which were measured with one item. We applied Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the factorial relationships between work engagement and workaholism. More specifically, we compared two factor (“engagement” and “workaholism”) model with a one-factor (including both engagement and workaholism) model and also examined whether there would be cross-loadings between the two constructs. As regards the structural equation model including core self-evaluations, social capital, engament and workaholism, and organizational attitudes we compared a fully mediated model with a partially mediated model. All model comparisons were based on chi-square difference tests and inspecting fit indices. We used the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) as absolute goodness-of-fit indices, and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the Normed Fit Index (NFI) as relative fit indices. RMSEA values smaller than 0,05 are indicative of a good fit, whereas values greater than 0,1 should lead to model rejection.7 For the other indices, as a rule of thumb, values greater than 0,90 (and preferably greater than 0,95) are considered to indicate a good fit.22 In addition, we used bootstrapping to investigate the total effects of job and personal resources on the organizational outcomes. We also employed Sobel tests to further examine the mediated relationships.

Results Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and the correlations between the study variables. As can be seen from this table, vigor correlated negatively, and absorption weakly but positively with both dimensions of workaholism. Dedication correlated negatively with working compulsively and was unrelated to working excessively.

Work engagement and workaholism

Confirmatory factor analysis showed that a one-factor model, in which all the scales of engagement and workaholism loaded on the same factor, had a poor fit (c2 (6) = 735,40, GFI = 0,65, CFI = 0,36, NFI = 0,36, and RMSEA = 0,484). Based on positive intercorrelations between absorption and workaholism, together with previous research, we next compared two 2-factor models (‘engagement’ and ‘workaholism’ factors) that were similar in all other respects, except that in the second model absorption was allowed to load both on engagement and workaholism. This latter model (Figure 1) had a good fit with the data. Moreover, this model had a better fit with the data than the model including ‘pure’ engagement and workaholism factors (∆c2 (1) = 45,66, p < 0,001). Thus, engagement consisted of three highly loading scales : vigor, dedication, and absorption, whereas workaholism was indicated by scales of working excessively and working compulsively, and to a lesser extent by absorption (st. b = 0,29). To obtain more clear-cut, interpretable results, in subsequent analyses we removed absorption and focused on core dimensions of both engagement and workaholism.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between the study variables among Finnish judges (N = 550). Variables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, M Sd 1. Vigor 4,40 1,18 2. Dedication 4,57 1,17 0,76 3. Absorption 4,61 1,11 0,56 0,66 4. Working excessively 2,27 0,65 -0,13 0,01 0,20 5. Working compulsively 1,93 0,65 -0,23 -0,12 0,10 0,66 6. Working hours (1 item) 41,68 6,94 0,05 0,14 0,22 0,41 0,29 7. Boundaryless work 2,07 0,70 -0,04 0,07 0,19 0,64 0,51 0,52 8. Sleeping problems 2,56 0,89 -0,26 -0,21 -0,11 0,25 0,32 0,05 ,20 9. Presenteeism 1,88 0,84 -0,21 -0,15 -0,05 0,33 0,34 0,14 0,32 0,28 10. Psychological detachment 2,87 0,89 0,13 0,06 -0,04 -0,39 -0,43 -0,18 -0,39 -0,33 -0,23 11. Life satisfaction 5,13 1,18 0,47 0,44 0,24 -0,32 -0,37 -0,08 -0,20 -,020 -0,23 0,27 12. WF+ 2,40 0,77 0,35 0,29 0,18 -0,14 -0,14 -0,01 -0,09 -0,11 -0,08 0,20 0,31 13. FW+ 3,37 0,78 0,19 0,25 0,18 -0,10 -0,07 0,03 -0,04 -0,16 -0,01 0,10 0,45 0,32 14. WF- 2,87 0,77 -0,39 -0,24 -0,03 0,64 0,60 0,25 0,45 0,33 0,31 -0,37 -0,45 -0,25 -0,12 15. FW- 1,97 0,65 -0,20 -0,20 -0,10 0,24 0,25 0,04 0,16 0,17 0,17 -0,16 -0,41 -0,03 -0,23 0,38 16. Core self-evaluations 3,68 0,60 0,53 0,43 0,21 -0,38 -0,45 -0,12 -0,23 -0,36 -0,27 0,35 0,65 0,25 0,22 -0,57 -0,37 17. Climate 3,41 0,85 0,28 0,27 0,13 -0,14 -0,24 -,04 -0,15 -0,22 -0,19 0,14 0,25 0,13 0,11 -0,17 -0,13 0,26 18. Sense of community 4,17 0,68 0,27 0,22 0,16 -0,06 -0,16 -,04 -0,07 -0,19 -0,12 0,10 0,32 0,16 0,17 -0,21 -0,17 0,32 0,58 19. Justice and respect 3,36 0,79 0,27 0,26 0,16 -0,12 -0,15 ,04 -0,04 -0,19 -0,20 0,12 0,26 0,17 0,20 -0,22 -0,12 0,30 0,67 0,61 20. Trust (1 item) 3,63 0,88 0,21 0,20 0,13 -0,10 -0,16 -0,03 -,05 -0,17 -0,14 0,10 0,23 0,14 0,15 -0,18 -0,11 0,26 0,63 0,54 0,74 21. Organizational commitment 4,36 0,59 0,33 0,41 0,36 0,12 0,11 0,17 0,15 -0,09 0,01 0,01 0,22 0,19 0,16 0,03 -0,04 0,25 0,14 0,21 0,22 0,16 22. Exit intentions 1,83 0,89 -0,22 -0,17 -0,09 0,19 0,21 0,01 0,07 0,05 0,20 -0,08 -0,33 -0,12 -0,04 0,21 0,13 -0,25 -0,19 -0,14 -0,20 -0,22 -0,17 Note. Correlations > 0,15 are statistically significant, p < 0,001; correlations between 0,12-.15 are statistically significant, p < 0,01; correlations between 0,09-0,11 are statistically significant, p < 0,05.

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Similarities and Differences Between Engagement and Workaholism among Finnish Judges Figure 1. Relationships between dimensions of work engagement and workaholism.

(c2 = 37,55; df= 3; GFI=0,97; CFI=0,97; NFI=0,97; RMSEA=0,149) Vigor

0,84***

Work engagement

0,90***

In the next model (Figure 3), we investigated the relationships between engagement, workaholism and WF+, FW+, WF_, and FW_. Engagement was positively related to WF+ and FW+ and negatively to WF_ and FW_. In contrast, workaholism positively associated with WF_ and FW_ and negatively with WF+. Workaholism was unrelated to FW+.

Dedication

Figure 3. Work engagement and workaholism, and their relationships with positive and negative interaction between work and family.

Absorption

(c2 = 276,28; df= 89; GFI=0,94; CFI=0,95; NFI=0,93; RMSEA=0,064)

0,75*** -0,17**

Relationships with work-family interface

0,29***

Workaholism

Work engagement

0,76***

0,38** 0,24***

Working excessively

Work to family + -0,12*

-0,27*** 0,67***

Working compulsively

Note: *** p < 0,001; ** p <0,01.

-0,19***

0.78***

Relationships with overwork, recovery, and well-being

Figure 2 shows how engagement and workaholism were related to overwork, recovery and health, and life satisfaction. First, engagement was weakly but positively associated with working hours and boundaryless work (e.g. working during weekends or vacations), and unrelated to detachment from work. However, it was negatively related to working when sick and to sleep problems. Workaholism showed mainly different patterns of relationships. Although workaholism also correlated positively with working hours and boundaryless work, the associations were clearly stronger than those of engagement. In addition, workaholism was related to poor recovery as indicated by its negative association with detachment from work and positive associations with working when sick and with sleep problems. Finally, engagement was positively and workaholism negatively associated with life satisfaction. Figure 2. Work engagement and workaholism, and their relationships with individual outcomes.

(c2 = 495,69; df= 182; GFI=0,92; CFI=0,95; NFI=0,92; RMSEA=0,058) Working hours

0,18*** 0,47***

Work engagement

0,13** -0,27***

Boundaryless work 0,71***

Sleeping problems 0,36***

-0,17**

0,41***

Presenteeism

Workaholism

-0,53***

-0,36***

Detachment 0,47***

Family to work + Ns

Work to family -

-0,18***

Workaholism

0,29***

Family to work -

Note: *** p < 0,001; * p < 0,05.

Relationships with job, and personal resources, and organizational attitudes

Finally, we tested a model in which engagement and workaholism mediated the impacts of social capital (job resource) and CSE (personal resource) on organizational commitment and turnover intentions. The partially mediated model (c2 = 176,93; df= 62; GFI=0,95; CFI=0,96; NFI=0,94; RMSEA=0,060) fit the data better than the fully mediated (c2 = 194,11; df= 66; GFI=0,95; CFI=0,96; NFI=0,924 RMSEA=0,062) model (â&#x2C6;&#x2020;c2 (4) = 17,17, p < 0,01). Figure 4 shows that both social capital, and particularly CSE positively associated with engagement, whereas CSE had a negative and social capital a non-significant relationship with workaholism. In addition, engagement was positively related to organizational commitment and negatively to turnover intentions. Interestingly, workaholism was both positively related to organizational commitment and tentatively also to turnover intentions (p = 0,06). CSE also had a direct positive effect on organizational commitment, whereas social capital had a negative direct impact on turnover intentions. The Sobel tests further confirmed three mediated relationships. Engagement fully mediated the association between social capital and organizational commitment (z = 2,17; p < 0,05), and both engagement (z = 4,00; p <0,001) and workaholism (z = 4,69; p <0,001) partially mediated the relationship between CSE and organizational commitment. Finally, both engagement (z = 1,96; p = 0,05) and workaholism (z = 1,83; p = 0,067) tentatively mediated the relationship between CSE and turnover intentions. All in all, the bootstrapping analysis showed that core self-evaluations had a total effect (including direct and indirect effects) on both organizational commitment (p < 0,01) and on exit intentions (p < 0,001). Similarly, social capital had significant total effects on organizational commitment (p < 0,01) and on exit intentions (p < 0,05). 77

Original Article | Hakanen Jari et al. Figure 4. Work engagement and workaholism as mediators between core-self evaluations and social capital, and organizational attitudes.

(c2 = 176,93; df= 62; GFI=0,95; CFI=0,96; NFI=0,91; RMSEA=0,060) 0,33**

Core self-evaluations

0,58***

Work engagement

0,35***

0,45***

0,12* 0,40***

-0,18*

-0,61***

Social capital

Organizational commitment

Workaholism

0,16*

-0,15*

Exit intentions

-0,14*

Note: *** p < 0,001; ** p < 0,01; * p < 0,05; a p = 0,06.

Discussion Previous studies have consistently shown that engagement is related to various positive outcomes and may be fostered by a variety of resources.16,39,46 However, Halbesleben and collegues21 showed that being highly engaged may also associate with increased levels of work-family conflict. These results raise the question as to whether engagement is even too good to be true and whether there is a downside to engagement, e.g. it could lead to workaholism in the long term.3 In this study, using a representative sample of Finnish judges, we focused on the associations of engagement and workaholism with job (social capital) and personal (core self-evaluations) resources, and with a set of individual, work-family, and organizational outcomes. All in all, the results supported previous findings that engagement can be differentiated from workaholism.46,49 However, engagement showed some similarities with workaholism that also deserve attention.

Similarities between engagement and workaholism

CFA between the sub-dimensions of engagement and workaholism supported the two-factor model consisting of engagement and workaholism factors. However, similarly to a previous study by Schaufeli and collegues46 the third sub-dimension of engagement, i.e. absorption, loaded not only on engagement but also positively – albeit weakly – on the workaholism factor. Obviously, employees may become absorbed in their work for different motivational reasons.53 Thus, vigor and dedication seem to be “pure” indicators of engagement, whereas high level of absorption could also be a sign of workaholic tendency. In addition, supporting the finding by Schaufeli et al.46 engagement was positively related to working hours and boundaryless working. This means that engaged judges were also likely to work longer hours, take work home, and occasionally also work at weekends and on vacation. It is plausible that because of boundaryless working, the association between engagement and detachment from work during free time was unexpectedly non-significant. However, Kühnel et al.26 findings suggest that in order to foster engagement, individuals should detach from work demands and take care of recovery, through for example short (2-4 days) respites. Similarly to engagement, workaholism was also positively related to

overwork, but this association was clearly stronger, and workaholism further associated negatively with psychological detachment. As expected, engagement positively associated with organizational commitment and negatively with turnover intentions. Interestingly, workaholism positively related both to commitment and tentatively also to turnover intentions. It is noteworthy that although workaholics are assumed to work hard because of inner pressures, regardless of feelings related to a particular organization,47 a positive association between workaholism and organizational commitment has also been previously found.46 The present study suggests that in contrast to engaged employees, workaholics may not be truly loyal to their organizations; they may at the same time consider alternative jobs. Longitudinal studies are needed to compare how engagement and workaholism may lead to different types of organizational attitudes.

Differences between engagement and workaholism

Thus far, only a handful of studies have focused on the relationship between engagement and health.5 Our study lends further support to the positive association between engagement and subjective indicators of health. Although engagement was positively associated with overwork and not related to detachment from work, our results showed that engaged employees would not however work when sick (presenteeism). In addition, engagement was negatively related to sleep problems. These findings suggest that being engaged means that one may overwork as long as it remains within reasonable limits and is not at the expense of one’s health. In contrast, workaholism associated with less detachment and more presenteeism and sleep problems, indicating that workaholics indeed work compulsively and beyond what is good for their health and well-being. The difference between engagement and workaholism was also evident in their associations with life satisfaction – positive for engagement and negative for workaholism.49 Moreover, this was the first study to show that engagement may be good for all four possible types of work-family interaction whereas the opposite holds true for workaholism: Engagement was positively related to WF+ and FW+ and negatively to WF- and FW-. In contrast, workaholism was negatively related to WF+, positively to WF- and FW-, and unrelated to FW+. Several previous studies have shown that workaholism is related to WF-.4,6,54 Recently, Halbesleben et al.21 found that engagement may also predict WF- via organizational citizenship behavior. It is possible that judges are not actively involved in extra-role behavior and therefore their engagement does not lead to conflicts between work and family. On the contrary, engagement seems to promote enrichment experiences from work to family.16 Instead, for a workaholic, enrichment between two conflicting roles is not plausible, and even reasonable role expectations and demands from the family may interfere with work and thereby influence FW-. Previous studies have constantly shown that the main drivers of engagement are job resources but that in some cases, for example after having recovered from a serious disease, the role of personal resources may be even more important.15 This was one of the first studies to show that positive core self-evaluations (CSE), i.e. valuing oneself (self-esteem), belief in one’s capabilities of performing (selfefficacy), seeing events as being contingent on one’s own behavior (locus of control), and emotional stability (low neuroticism) were closely related to engagement.38 Moreover, we found that CSE was even more strongly related to engagement than job resources (social capital as indicated by justice, trust, community, and climate). The rather weak relationship between social capital and engagement can 72/80 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 |

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Similarities and Differences Between Engagement and Workaholism among Finnish Judges relate to the secondary role of interpersonal job resources in judges’ jobs compared to task resources, such as autonomy. Is it however noteworthy that engagement was a mediator between social capital and commitment, as well as between CSE and commitment. Schaufeli and collegues44,46 have found that workaholics may perceive their job resources negatively, whereas we found that workaholism was unrelated to job resources. One explanation is that job resources help to meet job demands and foster well-being but that workaholism is about self-imposed demands regardless of the available job resources. Workaholics are also often characterized by a lack of social skills, undervaluing their colleagues, and an inability to delegate work, which all imply difficulties in mobilizing social resources at work. Furthermore, our study showed quite a strong negative relationship between workaholism and positive self-evaluations. This finding supports the cognitive theory of workaholism, which posits that workaholism is based on deeply-rooted negative core-beliefs.55 Our study, albeit cross-sectional, encourages paying more attention to this theory in investigating the origins of workaholism.

Limitations

This study has two noteworthy limitations. First, all the variables were based on self-reports. It is a challenge for future studies to use for example other-rated estimates (e.g. ratings by a family member and/or a close colleague) of work-family relationships.48 In addition, it would be valuable to use an objective measure of turnover in comparing the outcomes of engagement and workaholism. Second,

this study was cross-sectional. An interesting future challenge would be to test our study models longitudinally using a panel design. It would also be important to longitudinally investigate the mutual relationship between engagement and workaholism; particularly the role of absorption in relation to other dimensions of engagement and workaholism. As an additional limitation, scales measuring sleep problems (a = 0,68) and turnover intentions (a = 0,64) showed rather low internal consistencies. Including more items per each scale would apparently have improved Cronbach alphas of these measures. However, the latent variables of sleeping problems and exit intentions both had factor loadings over 0,60 which is well above the conventional limit of 0,40.

Conclusion Engagement had mainly healthy and positive associations with individual, work-family, and organizational outcomes and was also positively associated with core self-evaluations and social capital. However, engaged employees also overwork and therefore perhaps do not necessarily pay enough attention to sufficient detachment from work. All in all, this study suggests that work engagement is not a risk factor for workaholism although longitudinal studies are needed to address this issue properly. According to the present study, engagement seems to be beneficial for employees, their families and organizations without having a dark side and therefore we conclude that engagement is not too good to be true.

REFERENCIAS 1. Albertsen, K., Persson, R., Garde, A.H., & Rugulies, R. Psychosocial Determinants of Work-o-Family Conflict among Knowledge Workers with Boundaryless Work. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being. 2010; 2, 160-181. 2. Allvin, M. New rules of work: Exploring the boundaryless job. In K. Nässwall, J. Hellgren, & M. Sverke (Eds.), The individual in the changing working life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2008; pp. 19-45. 3. Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S.L., & Leiter, M. P. Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2011; 20, 4-28. 4. Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Burke, R. Workaholism and relationship quality: a spillover-crossover perspective. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2009; 14, 23-33. 5. Bakker, A.B., & Leiter, M.P. Where to go from here: Integration and future research on work engagement. In A.B. Bakker & M.P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (). New York: Psychology Press. 2010; pp. 181-196. 6. Bonebright, C.A., Clay, D.L., & Ankenmann, R.D. The relationship of workaholism with work-life conflict, life satisfaction, and purpose in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2000; 47, 469-477. 7. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage. 1993; pp. 136-162. 8. Buelens, M., & Poelmans, S.A.Y. Enriching the Spence and Robbins’ typology of workaholism: Demographic, motivational and organizational correlates. Organizational Change Management. 2004; 17, 459–470. 9. Burke, R. J. It’s not how hard you work but how you work hard: Evaluating workaholism components. International Journal of Stress Management. 1999; 6, 225-239. Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 72/80

10. Burke, R. J., & McAteer, T. Work Hours and Work Addiction: The Price of all Work and no Play. In: P. Perrewé & D. Ganster (Eds.), Exploring the Work and Non-Work Interface (Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being, Volume 6). United Kingdom: Elsevier. 2007; pp. 239-273. 11. Coleman, J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology. 1998; 94, S95–S120. 12. Grzywacz, J.G., & Marks, N.F. Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2000; 5, 111-126. 13. Hakanen J. J. Työn imun arviointimenetelmä – työn imu –menetelmän (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale) käyttäminen, validointi ja viitetiedot Suomessa [Assessing Work Engagement with the Finnish version of UWES: The use, validation and norm scores]. Helsinki: Työterveyslaitos, http://www.ttl.fi/NR/ rdonlyres/7C812259-C052-48EA-8AF6-19BC443863E8/0/Työn_imu_arv_ men.pdf; 2009. 14. Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A., & Schaufeli, W. Burnout and engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology. 2006; 43, 495–513. 15. Hakanen, J. J., & Lindbohm, M. Work engagement among breast cancer survivors and their referents: The importance of optimism and social resources at work. Journal of Cancer Survivorship. 2008; 2, 283-295. 16. Hakanen, J J., Peeters, M., & Perhoniemi, R. Enrichment processes and gain spirals at work and at home: A three-year cross-lagged panel study . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2011; 84, 8-30. 17. Hakanen, J. J., & Perhoniemi, R. Hammaslääkäreiden tyohyvinvointi Suomessa. Seurantatutkimus 2003-2006 [Work-related well-being among Finnish dentists. A follow-up study 2003-2006]. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health and the Finnish Dental Association; 2006.

Original Article | Hakanen Jari et al.

REFERENCIAS 18. Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and workunit innovativeness. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2008; 73, 78-91. 19. Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W.B. & Ahola, K. The job demands-resources model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work & Stress: A special issue on work engagement. 2008; 22, 224-241. 20. Halbesleben, J. R. B. The consequences of engagement: The good, the bad, and the ugly. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2011; 20, 68-73. 21. Halbesleben, J. R. B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. Too Engaged? A Conservation of Resources View of the Relationship Between Work Engagement and Work Interference With Family. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2009; 94, 14521465. 22. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999; 6, 1-55. 23. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2000; 85, 237-249. 24. Judge, T., Erez, A., Bono J. & Thoresen, C. The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology. 2003; 56, 303-331. 25. Kristensen, T. S., Hannerz, H., Høgh, A., & Borg, V. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ). A tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scandinavian Journal of Work & Environmental Health. 2005; 31, 438-449. 26. Kühnel, J., Sonnentag, S., & Westman, M. Does work engagement increase after a short respite? The role of job involvement as a double-edged sword. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2009; 82, 575-594. 27. Lindström, K., Hottinen, V., & Bredenberg, K. Työilmapiiri- ja hyvinvointibarometri [The healthy organization barometer]. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health.; 2000. 28. Machlowitz, M. Workaholics: Living with them, working with them. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1980. 29. McMillan, L. H. W, & O’Driscoll, M. P. Workaholism and health: implications for organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2004; 17, 509-519. 30. Oksanen, T., Kouvonen, A. Kivimaki, M., Pentti, J., Virtanen, M., Linnaa, A., et al. Social capital at work as a predictor of employee health: Multilevel evidence from work units in Finland. Social Science and medicine. 2008; 66, 637-649. 31. Partinen, M., & Gislason, T. Basic Nordic Sleep Questionnaire (BNSQ): a quantitated measure of subjective sleep complaints. Journal of Sleep Research. 1995; 4 (Suppl. 1), 150-155. 32. Parzefall, M., & Hakanen, J. J. Psychological contract and its motivational and health-enhancing properties. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2010; 25, 4-21. 33. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment.1993, 5, 164-172. 34. Peiperl, M., & Jones, B. (2001). Workaholics and overworkers: Productivity or pathology? Group and Organization Management, 26, 369–393. 35. Perhoniemi, R., & Hakanen, J. Tuomareiden ja esittelijöiden työhyvinvointi yleisissä tuomioistuimissa 2009 [Occupational well-being of judges and referendaries in general courts 2009]. Helsinki: Finnish Supreme Court; 2010. 36. Porter, G. Organizational impact of workaholism: suggestions for researching the negative outcomes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 1996; 1, 70–84. 37. Putnam, R. D. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2000.

38. Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal. 2010; 53, 617-635. 39. Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J.M. Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005; 90, 1217–27. 40. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2004; 25, 293–315. 41. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., van der Heijden, F. M., & Prins, J. T. Workaholism Among Medical Residents: It Is the Combination of Working Excessively and Compulsively That Counts. International Journal of Stress Management. 2009a; 16, 249-272. 42. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. The measurement of burnout and engagement: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2002; 3, 71-92. 43. Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., & Taris, T. W. Being Driven to Work Excessively Hard. The Evaluation of a Two-Factor Measure of Workaholism in The Netherlands and Japan. Cross-Cultural Research. 2009b; 43, 320-348. 44. Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Bakker, A. B. Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde? On the differences between work engagement and workaholism. In R. J. Burke (Ed.), Research companion to working time and work addiction. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 2006; pp. 193-217. 45. Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T., Le-Blanc, P., Peeters, M., Bakker, A., & de Jonge, J. Maakt arbeid gezond? Op soek naar de bevlogen werknemer. (Work and health: The quest for the engaged worker). Psycholoog. 2001; 36, 422-428. 46. Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W. & Van Rhenen, W. Workaholism, burnout and engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 2008; 57, 173-203. 47. Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S, & Miceli, M. P. An exploration of the meaning and consequences of workaholism. Human Relations. 1997; 50, 287-314. 48. Shimazu, A., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. How Job Demands Affect an Intimate Partner: A Test of the Spillover-Crossover Model in Japan. Journal of Occupational Health. 2009; 51, 239-248. 49. Shimazu, A., & Schaufeli, W. B. Is workaholism good or bad for employee wellbeing? the distinctiveness of workaholism and work engagement among Japanese employees. Industrial Health. 2009; 47, 495-502. 50. Sonnentag, S. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between non-work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88, 518-528. 51. Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2007; 12, 204-221. 52. Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1992; 58, 160–178. 53. Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B. & Shimazu, A. The push and pull of work: About the difference between workaholism and work engagement. In A.B. Bakker & M.P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press. 2010; pp. 39-53. 54. Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B. & Verhoeven, L. C. Workaholism in the Netherlands: Measurement and implications for job strain and work-nonwork conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology: An International Review. 2005; 54, 37-60. 55. Van Wijhe, C. I., Schaufeli, W. B., & Peeters, M. C.W. Understanding and treating workaholism: Setting the stage for successful interventions. In: C. Cooper & R. Burke (Eds.). Psychological and behavioural risks at work. Farnham: Ashgate. 2010; pp. 107– 34. 56. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2009; 74, 235-244.

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article

Explaining Nurses’ Engagement and Performance with Social Exchange with Hospital Explicando el engagement y el desempeño de Los/las enfermeros(AS) que presentan intercambio social con el hospital Maria José Chambel1 1. Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon.

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the impact of a social exchange relationship on workers’ engagement and the relationship between this positive psychological state and workers’ performance. We analysed a sample of nurses from a Portuguese public hospital (N=249). Our results showed that nurses who perceived their relationship with the hospital as being characterised by ‘mutual high inducements’ had higher engagement than nurses with ‘mutual low- mutual medium or employee over-inducements’. The work engagement of nurses was positively related to nurses’ performance (behaviours as assessed by their supervisors). The theoretical and practical implications are discussed and limitations and suggestions for future research are presented. Key words: Work engagement; Nurses; Employment relationship; Social exchange; Performance.

Introduction Hospitals have an exceptional complexity. Organising practices are essential to effectiveness, but they are not necessarily easy to implement.36 To deliver care that is safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient and equitable is the core objective of a hospital and its achievement depends on multiple dimensions. The motivation of the hospital’s employees has been deemed indispensable due to their importance in promoting their positive attitudes and behaviours and involving them in the organization’s activities.9 Indeed, nurses form the largest group of hospital professionals and research has revealed that nurses’ affective and motivational response at work, understood as engagement at work, positively relates to work-related outcomes such as nurses’ performance.55

Correspondence / Correspondencia Maria José Chambel Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon Alameda da Universidade 1649-013 LISBOA, Portugal Tel.: 351 21 794 36 00 • Fax: 351 21 793 34 08 e-mail: mjchambel@fp.ul.pt Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 81/88

RESUMEN

El presente estudio investiga el impacto de una relación de intercambio social sobre el engagement de los(as) trabajadores(as) y la relación entre este estado psicológico positivo junto con el desempeño de las mismas. Para tales efectos, analizamos una muestra de enfermeras de un hospital público portugués (N=249). Nuestros resultados demostraron que los enfermeros(as) que percibían su relación con el hospital como un “elevado estímulo mutuo” presentaban un engagement mayor comparado a los enfermeros(as) que percibían dicha relación como un estímulo bajo, intermedio o como un sobre estímulo. El engagement laboral de los enfermeros(as) fue positivo en relación a su desempeño (comportamientos evaluados por los supervisores). Las implicancias teóricas y prácticas se discuten. Además se presentan limitaciones y sugerencias para futuras investigaciones. Palabras claves: Engagement Laboral, Enfermeras, Relación Laboral, Intercambio Social, Desempeño.

Some recent studies within the framework of the Job DemandsResources Model have demonstrated that job resources are significant predictors of work engagement.20,30,31,49,58 As triggers of the motivational process, engagement results from job resources. It is associated with positive outcomes such as, for example, organisational commitment, performance and citizenship behaviours.3 However, despite the large body of literature concerned with work engagement over recent years, little work has explored the relationships among organisational variables, engagement, and performance. This study aims to extend previous research by adding an organizational component to the literature on engagement. Building on the arguments of social exchange theory, a positive association might be expected between the degree of social exchange and nurses’ engagement. When social exchange takes place in an employer–employee relationship, a broader scope of resources is received by employees that trigger a broader contribution on their part.11 Employers who can balance these inducements and contributions are likely to be able to develop better social exchange relationships with their employees and, consequently, reap higher motivation and performance. The current study attempts to examine the relationship involving employment, namely social exchange, engagement and performance. Our goal was to move away from the focus in the literature on job predictors of work engagement, particularly job resources (e.g. control, supervisor support, and peer support), to a focus on the organisational resources, namely the pattern of the

Original Article | Chambel Maria José exchange relationship. Thus, in this study we set out to determine whether various types of exchange relationships between nurses and the hospital were meaningful in predictions of work engagement. In our study, like the typology developed by Tsui and colleagues57 exchange relationship types were represented by nurse and hospital inducements. However, like Shore and Barksdale52 we considered this relationship as perceived by the nurse. Since we focus on the form of the exchange agreement, we describe our typology as one of exchange relationships. In a balanced relationship, both nurses and the hospital are perceived to be contributing similarly in the exchange. On the contrary, in an unbalanced relationship, either the nurse or the hospital is perceived to be substantially more of a contributor than the other party.

Typology of the social exchange relationship

We used the social exchange theory as a basis for understanding the employment relationship. According to Blau6, in contrast to economic commodities, inducements involved in social exchange do not have an exact price in terms of a single quantitative medium of exchange. Contrary, they are defined only in general and it is the exchange of the underlying mutual high social inducements that is the main concern of the participants. By balanced, we mean that employees perceive the level of employee and employer inducements within the relationship to be similar. In these types of exchange relationships, when one person does something beneficial for another party, there is an expectation that the action will be reciprocated.19 Thus, if an employee perceives that he or she has been treated well by the organisation (e.g. received high inducements from), he/she would feel obligated to treat the organisation well (e.g. provided high inducements to). In other words, employees feel obligated to reciprocate in order to create balance in the exchange with the organisation. Like Tsui and collegues57, Shore and Barksdale52 and Hom et al24, we predicted that some nurses would perceive social exchange relationships, which were balanced, while others might perceive their employment relationships as unbalanced. Unbalanced relationships can be as follow nurses had high hospital contribution perceptions while contributions by the nurses to the hospital were low; nurses had low hospital contribution perceptions while investment by the nurses in the hospital was high. In fact, the changing context in public hospitals in Portugal and the consequences for nurses’ work conditions may contribute to an unbalanced relationship with the hospital.24 Trends involving greater financial control have implied teams with lower number of members, more control of time and material expenses for each task, more patients for each professional, and less time for hospitalisation. Nurses in close contact with patients are the first to notice changes in patient health. In response, they tend to increase their contributions by simultaneously responding to both hospital and patient demands. However, the strategy of cost control by hospital implies that contributions towards the nurses are not increased. As a result, the relationship between the hospital and nurses becomes unbalanced. Thus, we propose that the exchange agreement might be categorised into four types, based on the extent to which there is balance, or mutuality in nurse and hospital inducements.52,57 Inducements can range from high (the nurse or hospital is viewed as having a high obligation to contribute with social inducements) to low (there is a very limited, or non-existent sense of obligation to contribute with social inducements).

When the nurse perceives that the employment relationship consists of high levels of both nurse and hospital social inducements, the exchange relationship is balanced. This type of `mutual high inducements’ exchange reflects a strong social exchange in which the nurses perceive that they owe the hospital a great deal (i.e., they feel highly obligated to contribute a wide variety of inducements) and that the organisation is also highly obligated to them. When both nurse and hospital inducements are low to moderate, the exchange relationship is balanced, and of a weak form. In this ‘mutual low inducements’ relationship neither the nurse or hospital inducements are as strong. The nurse with a mutual low social inducements exchange feels that with limited effort he or she can maintain the employment relationship and expect a limited amount in return from the hospital. Two types of unbalanced social exchange relationships may also occur between nurses and the hospital. When the nurse considers his or her inducements to be higher than hospital inducements, he/she feels betrayed by the hospital. In this type of exchange `employee over-inducements’ relationship, nurse inducements are perceived to be consistently higher than hospital inducements. Nurses would likely view their own part of the exchange as having been fulfilled, while the hospital has not reciprocated by contributing with inducements to the nurses. The final type of unbalanced relationship consists of low nurse inducements and high hospital inducements. This `employee under-inducements’ relationship arises when hospital couple high or broad inducements with low or narrow contributions by nurses. This exchange favours nurses, who consider themselves to receive more than they give, and favour the perceptions of indebtedness to the hospital.

Social exchange relationship and engagement

In the ‘mutual high inducement’ relationships employees consider they have a stronger social exchange relationship with the organization. They will benefit from the exchange relationship because each party to the exchange is likely to continue the mutually beneficial relationship.53 In the ‘employee under-inducement’ employees are in a position of feeling obligated to fulfil the obligations created by the organisation’s good treatment.19 This allows them to restore the balance in the exchange with the employer and positively contribute to the organisation.52 Based on exchange partners’ reciprocity ‘mutual high inducement’ and ‘employee under- inducement’ of social exchange the relationship has positive effects on employee responses. Because employees consider the organisation to amply invest in employees, they should reciprocate with corresponding greater contributions than do those working for ‘employee over- inducement’ or ‘low mutual inducements’ relationships.13 Feeling obligated because of valuable benefits, employees commit to and remain in a mutual- and under-inducement relationship to avoid the psychological discomfort and social stigma of not living up to their end of the bargain as well as to maintain the inflow of valuable inducements.61 We may consider two reasons for the interaction between a social exchange relationship and engagement. Engagement is a motivational construct characterised by a positive feeling in relation to work, which includes vigour, dedication and absorption.51 Vigour is characterised by high levels of energy while working, which are conveyed through strong effort and persistence. Dedication is

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Nurses’ Engagement and Performance with Social Exchange with Hospital characterised by a sense of significance, enthusiasm and inspiration. Absorption is characterised by being fully concentrated and happy in one’s work, with distortion of time and intrinsic enjoyment.49,51 However, this last characteristic, absorption, has been viewed as the result of engagement. Hence, vigour and dedication as considered the core dimensions of engagement.44 First, motivation at work has been analysed for several decades by means of an effort-reward balance, given that each and every one of us seeks some kind of reward as a response to the efforts we put into our work.48 When this balance exists, we find ourselves in reciprocal situations and feel motivated to continue to put effort into the accomplishment of our work. On the contrary, when this balance is not present, because we are making an effort but not receiving due reward, we are then confronted with an absence of reciprocity between the costs and rewards which gives rise to a de-motivation (Siegrist, 2000). The ‘mutual high inducement’ and the ‘employee under-inducement’ relationships trigger additional effort on the part of the employee, with a view to obtaining the expected rewards. This balance demands greater investment. This leads to higher motivation, in other words, physical and psychological investment with a view to maintaining or obtaining the balance of relationship. Thus, we may expect great investment in maintaining the social exchange or recovering such balance to increase work engagement: the energy devoted to the job that ends up being conveyed through an increase in the amount of vigour used to accomplish tasks; more dedication, enthusiasm and inspiration, since work promoting self-fulfilment and intrinsic enjoyment is carried out in that particular organisational context.49 Second, engagement implying a high level of energy and involvement with work is dependent on the resources the individual obtains in the work context17,20,43,50, namely the resources which have a high potential in the promotion of intrinsic motivation and well-being at work.46 Thus, the social exchange relationship might be related to engagement as the broad menu of socio-emotional inducements given by mutual- and employee under-inducement. Specifically, cultivating social exchange also strengthen work motivation by fulfilling employees’ needs for esteem, approval, and emotional support. In fact, the socio-emotional inducements triggered by an organisation in a social exchange include being responsive to employee objectives and well-being, taking employment security, promoting potential job opportunities outside and within the organization, and the creation of more challenging goals.27,40 When there is exchange of these inducements the individual regards him/herself as having available job resources that stimulate personal development and work motivation49 and, consequently, increase his or her engagement.17 H1: The social employment relationship will relate to nurses’ work engagement: H1a) The ‘mutual high inducement’ social exchange relationship (SER) will relate positively to nurses’ work engagement; H1b) The ‘under employee inducement’ SER will relate positively to nurses’ work engagement.

Engagement and performance

Job performance refers to employees’ behaviors that are supposed to contribute to the effectiveness of the organization and to overall organizational performance.8 Recent theoretical and empirical work suggests that the conceptualization of job performance should include in-role performance, or how well a person Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 81/88

completes his/her assigned duties, and also include contextual performance7, or, as labeled by Organ33, Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB). These behaviors are discretionary, are not part of individuals’ assigned duties and are still beneficial to the organization, its members and the employees themselves. Engagement entails a positive definition of work health and relates positively with outcomes to contribute to organizational success, such workers’ performance.50 In fact, workers with high engagement are workers with high motivation to perform their work well.3 First, engaged workers are characterized by a high energy and dedication that increase the effort that is invested to perform well. Second, workers with engagement get trapped in a positive, vicious cycle, in which they are inclined to search job resources (for example, control, peer or supervisor support) that contribute to higher engagement.47 Engagement, as a predictor of employee performance, is supported by various researchers’ theoretical and empirical work.23,29,51 Studies have linked job engagement to a spectrum of performance-related behaviours, including task performance20, customer satisfaction43, supervisor-rated performance37,38,41, colleague-rated performance4, affective organisational commitment21,34, organisational citizenship behaviour37,38, and financial return.59 Specifically with nurses, Salanova, Lorente, Chambel and Martínez45 established a relationship between work engagement and supervisorrated extra-role performance. Furthermore, in meta-analysis studies the relationship between engagement and positive outcomes at work has been demonstrated. Harter and colleagues demonstrated the economic benefits of business-units with higher average levels of engagement compared to those with lower levels of engagement.23 Halbesleben22 confirmed the positive association between engagement and positive outcomes at work, namely a stronger relationship between dedication and commitment and turnover intention. Thus, work engagement may not only benefit the individual but also offer organisations a competitive advantage.5 In this study, we followed the recommendations for future research put forward by Simpson.55 The author calls for more research in the arena of nursing, namely conducting more research to provide a better understanding the consequences of nurses’ work engagement on job performance. In this study we considered that engagement relates with in-role performance, e.g. how well a person performs activities required by his or her job description. H2: Nurses’ work engagement will relate positively to supervisor-rated in-role performance.

Method Participants and Procedure

The participants in our study were nurses in a Portuguese public hospital with different health services. We distributed self-report questionnaires with scales measuring the main variables of this study among nurses who belonged to these different health services. After eliminating incomplete questionnaires, a total of 249 sets of supervisor-subordinate questionnaire dyads remained and constituted the sample for our study (70,7% participation rate). Out of these, 81,9% were women and 18,1% were men, with a mean age of 33,5 years (SD = 10,1) and a mean tenure at this hospital of 9,4 years (SD=9,0). All nurses were directly contracted 83

Original Article | Chambel Maria José by hospital, 71% had a permanent contract and 29% had a fixterm contract. In our procedure, we first received permission from the Board of Directors of the hospital and the Ethical Committee. Second, the researcher met with the supervisors, in several small groups, to explain the purpose and requirements of the study. Each one of the 18 supervisors, who agreed to participate in our study, was given two kinds of questionnaires, one for him/herself to complete, and one for each of the subordinated nurses. Supervisor and nurses were matched via identification numbers on the questionnaires. Third, supervisors distributed the questionnaires to their corresponding subordinates. Each respondent was given a sealable envelope in which to enclose the completed survey. Finally, the researcher returned to the hospital after two weeks to collect the surveys. Moreover, we asked each supervisor to evaluate the performance of each of his/her subordinate. We wrote each specific and individual subordinate name on the supervisor’s questionnaire. After completing the survey, the supervisors were asked to cut the names of the subordinates. Thus, the identity of the subordinate was anonymous, even if someone was to see the completed survey. All the participants were assured the complete confidentiality of their responses. We also emphasized that participation in the study was voluntary.

Measures

The social employment relationship (SER). The social employment relationship was assessed by an adaptation of the measure developed by Rousseau.40 This measure referred to promises, but other authors also adapted measures concerning promises and asked for inducements.10,12,15 A social exchange includes inducements that predict intrinsic motivation because they fulfill basic human needs such as the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.42 These inducements are closely related to the relational and balanced items included in the measure of Rousseau.40 Contrary, the exchanges of material inducements, closely related to transactional items in this measure, is present in an economic relationship that predicts extrinsic motivation. Because we were analysing the social exchange and not economic exchange we erased transactional items. Hospital inducements (what the nurse feels the hospital provide to the nurse) contained twelve items and nurse inducements (what the nurse feels he or she provides to the hospital) also contained twelve items. All responses for the inducement items were made with a 5-point scale (1 not at all; 5 to a very large extent). To test if nurses distinguished the two perceptions of inducements, one for the hospital and another for him or her, we performed an exploratory factor analysis of the items capturing these variables. An exploratory analysis in principal components (eigenvalues >1) revealed two factors with item loadings on the expected factors. Item loading equalled or exceeded 0,50. Overall the rotated varimax factor solution showed loadings that confirmed the postulated structure (Appendix A). The cronbach alpha for hospital inducement was 0,90 and for nurse inducements was 0,86. A k-means cluster analysis of the two social exchange relationship (standardised) dimensions (hospital inducements and nurse inducements) yielded clusters matching the categories: mutual high inducements (pattern 1, N=38), mutual low inducements (pattern 2, N=50), mutual medium inducements (pattern 3, N=67), and employee over-inducement (pattern 4,

N=93) (Table 1). Contrary to other studies24,52,57 we did not obtain the ‘employee under-inducements’ relationship. This might have occurred due to the fact that perceptions of the individuals towards their relationship with the organisation undergo a number of cognitive biases, which tend to protect and attach more importance to their contribution in such.40 Table 1. Social Exchange Relationship Patterns of Nurses (N= 249). Patterns N Inducements Exchange Hospital Nurse 1 38 3,12 4,07 2 50 1,60 2,89 3 67 2,41 3,43 4 93 1,73 4,01

Given that clusters are empirically derived, we employed double cross-validation to check robustness by randomly dividing the sample into two halves and running k-means cluster analysis with each subsample. We then derived cluster centers for the four social employment relationship dimensions from the Subsample 2 cluster analysis and applied them to Subsample 1’s social employment relationship scores to classify cases in this latter group. A chi-square test indicated that these two ways of clustering Subsample 1 cases equivalently classified them. We repeated this cross-validation with Subsample 2 and found similar clusters. Thus, our initial cluster solutions were cross-validated. We also compared social employment relationship dimension scores across the four clusters with analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results reveled that organizational inducement were significantly different (F= 210,58, p<0,001) and individual inducement too (F= 119,74, p<0,001). To contrast ‘mutual high inducement’ SER with the other we created a ‘mutual high inducement’ dummy variable (coding this as 1s and the other as 0s). Since we expected ‘mutual low inducements’, ‘mutual medium inducements’ and ‘employee over-inducement’ to produce inferior outcomes, we combined these three forms. The dummy variable thus contrasted the mutual social exchange relationship with this second reference group. Engagement. We measured the core dimensions of engagement, e.g. vigour and dedication dimensions44 of Work Engagement using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)51 formed by 6 and 5 items, respectively (item examples: “At my work, I feel bursting with energy” and “I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose”). Individuals answered the questionnaire items using a 7-value Likert scale, ranging from 0 (never/nothing) to 6 (always, everyday). The cronbach alpha for vigour was 0,80 and for dedication was 0,85. Performance. We measured performance using an adaptation of the Williams and Anderson scale60 also used in another study in Portugal.14 The measure contained six items with responses on a 1–5 scale ranging from ‘almost never’ to ‘almost always’. An example of an item is ‘He/she carries out the tasks that are given to him/her’ (Appendix B). The cronbach alpha for performance was 0,78. The nurse’s supervisor evaluated performance and high scores indicate good performance. Control Variables. As possible confounders, age, gender, and tenure were included. We controlled for tenure (in years), and demographic variables - gender was coded ‘1’ if the respondent was male and ‘0’ if the respondent was female - and age (in years).

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Nurses’ Engagement and Performance with Social Exchange with Hospital

Structural Equations Modeling Analyses

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the measurement model and to analyse structural models, as recommended by Anderson and Greging.1 Obtaining a good fit in a prior test of measurement model is critical to establish discrimant validity, and to inspect risks associated with the common method variance.35 SEM was performed using the AMOS software package. The Maximum Likelihood Estimation Method and the covariance matrix were used throughout the analysis and gauged model fit with the comparative fit index (CFI), the incremental fit index (IFI), and root-mean- square error of approximation (RMSEA).26 Values near 0,08 for RMSEA are considered to indicate an acceptable model fit16 and fit index values greater than 0,90 are considered to indicate a good fit.25 For complete model testing, we checked individual parameter estimates.

Results

Figure 1. Results from SEM.

Preliminary analyses

Since self-reports were used in this study, we considered the recommendations of Podsakoff and colleagues35 in order to test for the common method variance bias. Thus, we applied Harman’s single-factor test with Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) for the study variables. The results reveal a significantly inferior fit of the single-factor model [Delta c2 = 522,22, p < 0,001] compared to the model with three latent factors (i.e. social exchange relationship, work engagement and performance) (c2(111, n=249) = 292,70; RMSEA = 0,07; CFI = 0,91; IFI = 0,91). Hence, one single factor cannot account for the variance in the data and, consequently, we cannot consider the common method variance to be a serious deficiency in this dataset. Furthermore, all factor loadings were significant and sizeable (mean estimated standardised loading 0,84), suggesting convergent validity.1 Table 2. Measure Model fit. Models 1 Factor Model 3 Factor Model

c2 814,92 292,70

implemented in the AMOS computer program.2 We used Social Exchange Relationship and Performance as a single scale score indicator for each latent variable and Work Engagement as a latent variable with two indicators (vigour and dedication). We used age, gender and tenure as latent variables with exogenous influences on outcome measures.18,24 Fit for the hypothesized model was good (c2 (df, 4)= 9,03, p< 0,001; IFI= 0,98; CFI= 0,98; RMSEA= 0,07). According to parameter estimates (Figure 1), ‘mutual high inducements’ SER related positively to work engagement relative to ‘employee over-inducements’, ‘mutual medium inducement’ and ‘mutual low inducements’ SER (b = 0,25, p< 0,001). This finding corroborated Hypothesis 1a. We also verified in support of Hypotheses 2 a positive relationship between work engagement and nurses’ performance (b = 0,16, p< 0,05). The model explained 12% of the variance of work engagement and 4% of performance.

df 115 111

IFI 0,59 0,91

CFI RMSEA 0,65 0,16 0,91 0,07

Descriptive analyses

Table 2 shows the inter-correlations and the alpha coefficient of all the variables. We may observe that all variables have an alpha coefficient higher than 0,7032 and as expected, all the inter-correlations among the study variables are positive and significant. Table 3. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for all variables. Mean S.D 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Age 33,46 10,09 2. Gendera - - -0,15* 3. Tenure 9,43 9,00 0,94*** -0,16* 4. Mutual SER 0,15 0,36 0,09 0,09 0,12 5. Vigour 4,17 0,95 0,22** -0,14* 0,23*** 0,20** 0,80 6. Dedication 4,55 1,00 0,13 -0,15* 0,14* 0,24*** 0,76*** 0,85 7. Performance 3,77 0,78 -0,12 -0,03 -0,13 0,09 0,08 0,13* 0,78 Note: (ª) Dummy Variable coded 0 if Female and 1 for Male; Mutual SER (‘Mutual high inducement’) = 1 and 0 for other Social Exchange Relationship. Reliability coefficients are shown along the diagonal. * _< 0,05; ** _< 0,01; *** _< 0,001.

Hypotheses testing

Vigor

Dedication 0,88***

0,86***

Mutual SER

0,25***

Engagement

Performance 0,16*

0,15*

-0,17*

Gender

0,16*

Age

Tenur

0,13*

Discussion

The results of this research study contribute to our understanding of the effects of an organisational variable, the social exchange relationship, on workers’ engagement. We found that nurses believing to be a ‘mutual high inducement’ between them and the hospital had higher engagement than others with mutual low, mutual medium or employee over inducements. We confirmed that work engagement is important to nurses’ in-role performance. Previous studies have shown that the resources available in a work context have a crucial role in the development of engagement3, whereby the most used resources are those related to the job, for instance, job control, supervisor support and peer support.50 Nevertheless, professional life has a broader scope than the job. That is why the social exchange relationship with the organisation for which one works takes on greater importance in explaining employee motivation.6 It is through this relationship that employees gain access not only to a set of benefits that satisfy their intrinsic needs, but also when there is a balance between the provider and receiver they feel motivated to continue this relationship. As expected, we found that the nurses who believed themselves to have a relationship with the hospital in which they exchanged more socio-emotional inducements were, in fact, the nurses with higher engagement levels. If they considered the hospital to provide them conditions for further self 85

Original Article | Chambel Maria José development, creating more job opportunities to guarantee higher levels of well-being, stability and security27 then they invested more energy in the accomplishment of their tasks and regarded the work as more inspiring and challenging.49 It was this situation based on the mutual exchange of valued inducements that corresponded to higher levels of motivation on the part of the nurses.11 Social exchange has long dominated scholarly writings about employment relationships, furnishing a prime explanation for how they shape workforce contributions and corporate performance.11,24,56,57 Our study has shown that social exchange, namely mutual high investment between the organisation and employees, is related to work engagement. Future research might analyse whether this positive psychological state is an important mechanism for helping us to explain the why and how social exchange relations influence the results of employees and organizations. Contrary to what was expected, we did not find nurses who believed they received more benefits than they provided in their relationship with the hospital. We believe this to be due to a situation of over-penalisation towards the hospital.39 The profound changes in the health system in Portugal and its implications for the professional lives of nurses may have favoured this result. Future research is needed to explore the reasons for an absence of this category, in which, for example, the extent to which breach or violation of promises that contribute to the social exchange relationship11 may be examined. On the other hand, in our sample only a minority of nurses (15,3%) consider their relationship to be balanced, implying an exchange of mutual high benefits. Indeed, given that these are the nurses who feel more engagement with their work, we consider it essential that health policy makers and administrators understand the importance of employees’ motivation and attempt to promote a positive employment relationship capable of making it mutually high in the exchange of inducements. In our study we confirmed that having nurses with high engagement was important for the life in the hospital as the nurses with higher work engagement levels were the ones to display better performance.55 Our results show that work engagement related positively with in-role performance (evaluated by supervisor). This relationship is in agreement with the studies developed by other researchers that had demonstrated that workers with higher engagement performed better.20,37,38,41 On the other side, recently Salanova et al.45 showed that only engaged nurses would show extra-role performance. We could consider that this positive psychological state is not only crucial to promote nurses’ contextual performance, but also their in-role performance. As with all studies, certain shortcomings should be mentioned. First, results may not readily generalise to different countries. Evidence for categorisation of social exchange might be correlated with the Portuguese situation in health public policy. Furthermore, exclusively sampling nurses also limits applicability of findings to other workforce populations. Second, we used cross-sectional data, meaning that one should be wary of interpreting the results in a causal way. For example, we argued that the social exchange relationship lead workers to feeling more engaged, but it could as well be that engaged workers are more likely to see their relationship with the organisation as positive. However, the hypothesised relationships were based on generally accepted employment relationships – workers’ motivation relationships.

Despite these limitations, we believe that this study has presented some interesting findings that may inspire future studies on both work engagement and the performance of health professionals. We showed that the employment relationship, namely the ‘mutual high inducement’ relationship between nurses and the hospital, is related to nurses’ engagement. Second, we confirmed that supervisors’ performance ratings were higher for nurses with higher engagement. Therefore, and as referred to by Simpson55 this study points to a need to analyse the context of health institutions to understand nurse engagement. Moreover, this study is assumed to be innovative because we have found a social context variable in work that provides engagement, i.e., an employment relationship characterized by the mutual exchange of value inducements. On the other hand, and as stated by Ramanujam and Rousseau36 it also points to a need to analyse the organizational context beyond health issues, since the latter seem to be the most likely cause for the problems experienced by such institutions. Our study also confirms that nurses’ engagement plays a key role in ensuring their performance.50 Appendix A. Exploratory Factorial Analysis of inducements. Factor1 Factor2 Development of my skills and competences 0,55 0,10 Developmental opportunities within this firm 0,75 0,12 Give me more attractive performance goals 0,77 0,10 Support me to attain higher levels of quality 0,75 0,14 Advancement within the firm 0,78 0,04 Job assignments that enhance my goals 0,81 0,11 Employment stability 0,54 0,17 Offer me permanent social benefits that cover my family 0,58 0,04 Concern for my personal welfare 0,75 0,05 Sacrifice it short-term interests for my interests 0,71 -0,10 Make decisions on the basis of my interests 0,73 0,02 To work hard so that I stay in this Hospita 0,65 -0,05 Make personal sacrifices for this Hospital -0,05 0,55 Accept increasingly more demanding performance requirements 0,09 0,67 Take this hospital’s concerns personally 0,11 0,63 Adapt to the new performance demands according to job requirements 0,02 0,77 Develop my skills 0,16 0,67 Not leave the Hospital at a critical time -0,16 0,53 Protect this hospital’s image -0,05 0,70 Positively respond to new performance demands 0,02 0,79 Become personally attached to the Hospital 0,16 0,55 Accept increasingly challenging performance standards 0,10 0,77 Actively seek internal opportunities for development and training 0,25 0,52 Continue working in this hospital 0,12 0,56 % Variance Explain 25,5 21,6 Eigenvalue 6,12 5,18 Cronbach Alpha 0,90 0,86

Appendix B. Items of in-role performance responded by nurse’s supervisor (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Fulfills

responsibilities specified in job description. Performs tasks that are expected of him/her. Meets formal performance requirements of the job. He/she carries out the tasks that are given to him/her. Neglects aspects of the job he/she is obligated to perform (R). Fails to perform essential duties (R).

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Nurses’ Engagement and Performance with Social Exchange with Hospital

REFERENCIAS 1. Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin. 1988; 103, 411–423. 2. Arbuckle, J. L. Amos users’ guide version 6.0. Chicago, Ill Smallwaters Corporation; 2005. 3. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2007; 22, 309-328. 4. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. Using the Job Demands-Resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management. 2004; 43, 83–104. 5. Bakker, A.B., & Schaufeli, W.B. Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2008; 29, 147 154. 6. Blau, P. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley; 1964. 7. Borman, W.C., & Motowidio, S.J. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt and W.C. Borman (Eds), Personnel Selection in Organizations, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. 1993; pp. 71-98. 8 Campbell, J. P. Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette, and L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. 1990; pp. 687-732. 9 Chu, C.-I, Lee, M.-S., Hsu, H.-M., & Chen, I-C. Clarification of the antecedents of hospital nurse organizational citizenship behavior – An example from Taiwan regional hospital. Journal of Nursing Research. 2005; 13, 313-323. 10. Coyle-Shapiro, J.A-M. A Psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2002; 23, 927-946. 11. Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M., & Conway, N. The employment relationship through the lens of social exchange. In J.A.-M. Coyle-Shapiro, L.M. Shore, M.S. Taylor & L.E. Tetrick (eds.), The employment relationship. Examining psychological and contextual perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. 2004; pp. 5-28. 12. Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M., & Conway, N. Exchange relationships: Examining psychological contracts and perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005; 90, 774-781. 13. Coyle-Shapiro, J., Shore, L., Taylor, M., & Tetrick, L. Commonalities and conflicts between different perspectives of the employment relationship: Toward a unified perspective. In J. Coyle-Shapiro, L. Shore, M. Taylor, & L. Tetrick (Eds.), The employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives . Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. 2004; pp. 119–134. 14. Chambel, M.J., & Castanheira, F. They don`t want to be temporaries: Similarities between temps and core workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2007; 28, 943-959. 15. Chambel, M.J., & Oliveira-Cruz, F. Breach of psychological contract and the development of burnout and engagement: A longitudinal study among soldiers on a peacekeeping mission. Military Psychology. 2010; 22, 110-127. 16. Cudeck, R., & M.W. Browne. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J. Scott Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 1993; pp.1-9 17. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., De Jonge, J., Janssen, P.P.M., & Schaufeli, W.B. Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health. 2001; 27, 279-286. 18. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P., & Rhoades, L. Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001; 86, 42–51. 19. Gouldner, A.W. The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review. 1960; 25, 161-178. 20. Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A., & Schaufeli, W. Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology. 2006; 43, 495–513. Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 81/88

21. Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. The Job Demands-Resources model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work & Stress. 2008; 22, 224–241. 22. Halbesleben, J.R.B. A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In A.B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement. A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press. 2010; pp. 102-117. 23. Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., & Hayes, T.L. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002; 87, 268-79. 24. Hom, P.W., Tsui, A.S., Wu, J.B., Lee, T.W., Zhang, A.Y., Fu, P.P., & Li, L. Explaining employment relationships with social exchange and job embeddedness. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2009; 94, 277-297. 25. Hoyle, R.H. The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling, Concepts, Issues, and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 1995; pp. 1-15. 26. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453. 27. Hui, C, Lee, C, & Rousseau, D. Psychological contract and organizational citizenship behavior in china: Investigating generalizability and instrumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2004; 89, 311-321. 28. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. LISREL user guide version VI (4th Ed.). Mooresville, I.: Scientific Software International; 1986. 29. Kahn, W. A. To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations. 1992; 45, 321–349. 30. Lorente, L., Salanova, M., Martínez, I. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. Extension of the job demands-resources model in the prediction of burnout and engagement among teachers over time. Psicothema. 2008; 20, 354-360. 31. Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U. & Ruokolainen, M. Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2007; 70, 149-171. 32. Nunnaly, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1994. 33. Organ, D.W. Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance. 1997; 10, 85-97. 34. Parzefall, M-R., & Hakanen, J. Psychological contract and its motivational and health-enhancing properties, Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2010; 25, 4-21. 35. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., J-Y Lee, & N.P. Podsakoff. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88, 879–903. 36. Ramanujam, R. & Rousseau, D. The challenges are organizational not just clinical. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2006; 27, 811-827. 37. Rich, B. L. Job engagement: Construct validation and relationships with job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. 2007; 67: 3066. 38. Rich, B. L., & LePine, J. A. Job engagement: Construct validation and relationship with job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation. Paper presented at the 22nd annual SIOP Conference, New York; 2007. 39. Rousseau, D.M. Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. London: Sage; 1995. 40. Rousseau, DM. Psychological Contract Inventory Technical report. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University; 2000. 41. Rothbard, N. P., & Wilk, S. L. In the eye of the beholder: The relationship between employee and supervisor perceptions of engagement and their effect on performance. Paper presented at the 22nd annual SIOP Conference, New York; 2007. 42. Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. M. On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality. 1997; 65, 529–565.

Original Article | Chambel Maria José

REFERENCIAS 43. Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J.M. Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005; 90, 1217 1227. 44. Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martínez, I. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-Being and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Group Research. 2003; 34, 43-73. 45. Salanova, M., Lorente, L., Chambel, M.J., & Martinez, I. Transformational leadership and extra-role performance: The mediating role of efficacy beliefs and work engagement. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2011; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05652. 46. Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behavior. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2008; 19, 116–131. 47. Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W.B., Xanthopoulo, D., & Bakker, A.B. The gain spiral of resources and work engagement: Sustaining a positive worklife. In In A.B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement. A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press. 2010; pp. 118-131. 48. Schaufeli, W. B. The balance of give and take: Toward a social exchange model of burnout. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale. 2006; 19, 87–131. 49. Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2004; 25, 293-315. 50. Schaufeli, W.B. & Salanova, M. Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. In S.W. Gilliland, D.D. Steiner. & D.P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in Social Issues in Management (Volume 5): Managing Social and Ethical Issues in Organizations. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers. 2007; pp. 135-177. 51. Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. The measurement of burnout and engagement: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2002; 3, 71–92.

52. Shore, L.M., & Barksdale, K. Examining degree of balance and level of obligation in the employment relationship: A social exchange approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1998; 19, 731-744. 53. Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. Perceived organizational support and organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano & K.M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice and support: Managing social climate at work. Quorum Press. 1995; pp. 149-164. 54. Siegrist, J. Adverse health effects of high-effort/ low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 1996; 1, 27–41. 55. Simpson, M. R. Engagement at work: A review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2009; 46, 1012-1024. 56. Takeuchi, R., Wang, H., Lepak, D.P., & Takeuchi, K. An empirical examination of the mechanisms mediating between high-performance work systems and the performance of of Japanese organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007; 92, 1069-1083. 57. Tsui, A.S., Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W., & Tripoli, A.M. Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal. 1997; 40, 1089-1121. 58. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., E. Demerouti, & Schaufeli, W. B. The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management. 2007; 14, 121–141. 59. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2009; 82, 183–200. 60. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in–role behaviors. Journal of Management. 1991; 17, 601–617. 61. Wu, J., Hom, P., Tetrick, L., Shore, L., Jia, L., Li, C., & Song, J. The norm of reciprocity: Scale development and validation in the Chinese context. Management and Organization Review. 2006; 2, 377–402.

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article

Estudiar con Pasión: Relación con la Iniciativa Personal y el Engagement Studying With Passion: Personal Initiative and Engagement Relationship Ana Lisbona, Miguel Bernabé1, Francisco Palací, Ana Gómez-Bernabeu2, Maite Martín-Aragón1 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) 1. Universidad Miguel Hernández 2. Universidad de Alicante

RESUMEN

Los objetivos de este trabajo son, la adaptación al castellano de las escalas de pasión armoniosa y pasión obsesiva de Vallerand y otros1 y la propuesta de un modelo exploratorio que analice la relación ente ambos tipos de pasión y la iniciativa personal, el engagement y el aprendizaje percibido. En el estudio han participado una muestra de 266 estudiantes de titulaciones superiores de tres universidades (UNED, UMH y UA). Los resultados muestran relaciones estadísticamente significativas entre todas las variables del estudio, reproducen la estructura factorial del cuestionario original y confirman el modelo propuesto. Los resultados están en la línea de trabajos previos que identifican que experimentar pasión armoniosa en una actividad se relaciona con comportamientos positivos tales como persistencia, vigor y dedicación y un mejor rendimiento. Asimismo, se contrasta la independencia entre el engagement y el concepto de pasión. Las implicaciones teóricas y prácticas así como las limitaciones son discutidas en el trabajo. Palabras clave: Pasión Armoniosa, Pasión Obsesiva, Engagement, Iniciativa Personal, Rendimiento Académico.

Introducción. En los últimos años el interés por conseguir una enseñanza universitaria de calidad se ha hecho saliente en las universidades españolas con la adaptación de sus títulos al Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior, si bien la preocupación por ofrecer una enseñanza de calidad no es una novedad en España. Recientemente, también está despertando el interés por el estudio del bienestar de los estudiantes. Así, se ha estudiado el bienestar psicológico de estudiantes universitarios y su relación con el desempeño académico, entre otras variables.2-3 Asimismo, el interés de los investigadores se está dirigiendo al estudio de aspectos motivacionales

Correspondencia / Correspondence Ana Lisbona Facultad de Psicología. UNED (Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia) Dpto. de Psicología Social y de las Organizaciones Despacho 1.49. C/ Juan del Rosal, 10. 28040 Madrid (Spain) Tel.:+34 913986285 • Fax:+34 913986215 e-mail: amlisbona@psi.uned.es Ciencia & Trabajo | YEAR 14 | Special Issue | MARCH 2012 | www.cienciaytrabajo.cl | 89/95

ABSTRACT

This article studies the spanish adaptation of the harmonious passion and obsessive passion scale (Vallerand et al. 2003)23 and the proposal of an exploratory model capable of analize the harmonious passion and obsessive passion; the personal initiative; the engagement; and perceibed learning. A sample of 266 students of higher degrees from three colleges (UNED, UMH and UA) participated in this study. The outcomes show significant statistic relationships among all the variables of this study, the factorial structure of the original questionaire is reproduced and the proposed model is confirmed. The outcomes match previous studies that show that experiencing harmonious passion in an activity is related with positive behaviours such as persistence, vigor, dedication, and better performance. From this perspective, the independence between engagement and the passion concept is compared. The theorical implications and practices along with limitations are discussed in this study. Key words: harmonious passion, obsessive passion, engagement, personal initiative, academic performance.

y emocionales de los estudiantes. Por ejemplo, se ha estudiado como la absorción y el disfrute en la actividad se relaciona con la experiencia de Flow en estudiantes que realicen una tarea mediada por ordenador, encontrándose el papel de la motivación intrínseca en el desarrollo de emociones positivas.4 En este contexto de estudio, la pasión sobre una actividad constituye una línea novedosa, especialmente si nos referimos a la pasión en los estudios. La pasión, puede incrementar la motivación, potenciar el bienestar y la identificación, aunque también generar estados motivacionales-afectivos, como son el Burnout o la Adicción al Trabajo, que afecten al rendimiento.5-6 El estudio de la pasión se incluye en el conjunto de investigaciones que tienen por objeto el análisis de las fortalezas humanas y el desarrollo óptimo, denominado Psicología Positiva.7 Más allá de una moda pasajera, se agrupan los estudios de variables que tradicionalmente no han despertado tanto interés en la comunidad científica como es el estudio del bienestar o la felicidad.8-9-10 Este menor interés histórico por el estudio del funcionamiento óptimo, ha producido una carencia de herramientas que permitan su análisis. Por ello, el objetivo de este trabajo será adaptar y validar una escala para evaluar la pasión sobre una actividad, en concreto los estudios, que facilite el análisis de la misma. De acuerdo a la Teoría de la Autodeterminación11-12, se puede afirmar que las personas tienen una tendencia natural a internalizar algunas actividades en su self. Dependiendo de la impor-

Original Article | Lisbona Ana et al. tancia y el valor de estas actividades eventualmente llegan a ocupar una parte central en la identidad de la persona. Así, si una actividad es altamente valorada y se ha convertido en un aspecto central de la propia identidad, la actividad se convierte en pasión.13 La pasión ha sido definida como una fuerte inclinación hacia una actividad que gusta a las personas y que se considera importante, sobre la que se invierte tiempo y energía.14 Estos autores diferencian entre dos tipos de pasión, la obsesiva y la armoniosa. La pasión obsesiva se refiere a la internalización controlada sobre una actividad como parte de la propia identidad, que genera una presión interna para abordar una actividad que a la persona le gusta. Mientras que la pasión armoniosa se refiere a una internalización autónoma que permite a la persona elegir abordar una actividad que le gusta. La diferencia ente ambos tipos de pasión, es que la segunda de ellas promueve una adaptación saludable mientras que la primera, frustra esta adaptación positiva y genera, no sólo un afecto negativo, sino también una persistencia sin flexibilidad o rígida.14 Tanto la pasión como la motivación intrínseca, presentan similitudes y diferencias. Así, ambos constructos tienen una relación con una actividad (i.e. estudiar). Se diferencian en el grado que ocupa en la identidad de la persona. Las personas que están intrínsecamente motivadas libremente se comprometen en una actividad y de la satisfacción inherente se deriva en compromiso con la actividad. Mientras que la pasión por una actividad llega a ser una parte central de la identidad de la persona y esto es lo que explica el desarrollo de la actividad.15 Tanto en el ámbito académico como en el laboral, es importante detectar cuál es el proceso psicológico involucrado mediante el cual el interés por una actividad se convierte en pasión. Vallerand y Houlffort14 identificaron dos procesos, incluidos en la definición de ambos tipos de pasión: la valoración de la actividad y la internalización de la actividad como parte de la propia identidad. Los estudios que se han realizado en este contexto1,14 proponen el Modelo Dualístico de Pasión15 donde se identifican una serie de respuestas afectivas en función del tipo de pasión experimentada con el desarrollo de la actividad. En primer lugar, señalan los resultados afectivos positivos para la pasión armoniosa y negativos para la pasión obsesiva, destacando entre los positivos el flow y entre los negativos, la ansiedad.16-17-18 Este patrón de respuestas se ha mostrado invariable en diferentes dominios de actividades como la práctica deportiva, la práctica de artes escénicas o el estudio de disciplinas artísticas.19 En nuestro caso, como el engagement se ha estudiado en el contexto académico2-3, proponemos el engagement como uno de los resultados afectivos positivos de la pasión armoniosa. El engagement se ha definido como un estado mental positivo relacionado con el trabajo y caracterizado por vigor, dedicación y absorción.20 El segundo bloque de resultados de la pasión que señalan Vallerand y Houlffort14 es la persistencia. En ambos tipos de pasión se encontrará persistencia, si bien existen diferencias entre la persistencia asociada a la pasión armoniosa, que se espera sea más flexible que la persistencia asociada a la pasión obsesiva, de carácter más rígido. La iniciativa personal es un concepto de desempeño activo que recoge la persistencia entre las características de la definición, por eso pretendemos explorar si un resultado de la pasión armoniosa es la iniciativa personal. Por ejemplo, en estudiantes de música se ha comprobado que la pasión explicaría la práctica deliberada y el alto rendimiento.13 La definición de iniciativa señala que se refiere a conductas, prin-

cipalmente relacionadas con el trabajo y con el ámbito organizacional que se caracteriza por las siguientes tres características: auto-iniciadas, proactivas y persistentes en la superación de las barreras que van apareciendo.21 Además, estas conductas son capaces de modificar el ambiente, ya que se encuentran efectos recíprocos de la iniciativa personal en los cambios en las características del trabajo.22 El tercer bloque de resultados que destacan Vallerand y Houlffort14, es el desempeño, en nuestro caso el objetivo último de estudiar la pasión en el ámbito académico es analizar cómo se relaciona con los resultados de aprendizaje percibido. En este sentido, hay un elevado consenso en la bibliografía en que cada vez es más importante la reflexión que el propio estudiante realiza sobre su proceso de aprendizaje desde el punto de vista de la persona que aprende y del modo en que lo hace.23 Por último, aunque el concepto de pasión ha sido definido y contrastado empíricamente, al hablar de pasión en la actividad de estudiar nos preocupa diferenciar esta pasión por la enseñanza superior del concepto de engagement. Así, partiendo del modelo de Recursos y Demandas de Demerouti y otros24, se identifica claramente una fuerte relación entre la existencia de recursos en el entorno próximo de la persona y la generación de respuesta de engagement, mientras que en la ausencia de estos, la respuesta se debilitaría teniendo un mayor peso las demandas laborales. Sin embargo, la pasión explicaría la persistencia mantenida en situaciones donde se requiere una inversión personal importante, ejerciendo la propia actividad la fuerza motivacional necesaria en ausencia de recursos. Un trabajo realizado con estudiantes de música, señala tal efecto donde la práctica deliberada no siempre es divertida.13 Atendiendo a las definiciones propuestas por los autores, la definición de Vallerand y Houlfort14, habla de una fuerte inclinación hacia una actividad que gusta a las personas por que se considera importante, sobre la que se invierte tiempo y energía y, del mismo modo, en la dimensión del engagement vigor, de acuerdo a la definición de Schaufeli y otros25, se caracteriza por altos niveles de energía y resistencia mental mientras se trabaja, el deseo de invertir esfuerzo en el trabajo que se está realizando incluso cuando aparecen dificultades en el camino, junto con la dimensión dedicación que se refiere a la manifestación de un sentimiento de significación, entusiasmo, inspiración, orgullo y reto por el trabajo.25 De las definiciones se desprende que el ámbito de influencia de la pasión ocuparía un aspecto central en la identidad de la persona, mientras que el vigor se reduciría al ámbito laboral. De acuerdo a la definición de la dimensión absorción del engagement, ésta parece no estar tan relacionada con la pasión, ya que de acuerdo a la definición de Schaufeli y otros25, la absorción ocurre cuando se está totalmente concentrado en el trabajo, mientras se experimenta que el tiempo ‘pasa volando’, y se tienen dificultades a la hora de desconectar de lo que se está haciendo, debido a las fuertes dosis de disfrute y concentración experimentadas. Salanova, Llorens, Cifre, Martínez y Schaufeli26 sugieren que la absorción podría considerarse más una consecuencia del engagement, que uno de sus componentes. Señalan, además su cercanía al concepto de flow, que como hemos mencionado se ha considerado uno de los resultados de la pasión. Así, siguiendo la comparación con el corazón del burnout8, los opuestos a agotamiento y cinismo, serían vigor y dedicación, por lo que podemos hablar de estas dos dimensiones como el corazón del engagement.26 Entre los objetivos de

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Estudiar con Pasión: Relación con la Iniciativa Personal y el Engagement nuestro trabajo se encuentra clarificar la diferenciación de estos conceptos: pasión (armoniosa y obsesiva) y engagement. Ante lo expuesto, el objetivo principal de este trabajo será adaptar al castellano las escalas de pasión armoniosa y pasión obsesiva de Vallerand y otros1, al ámbito académico de la enseñanza universitaria, partiendo del Modelo Dual de Pasión.27 Así, las hipótesis del trabajo son las siguientes: Hipótesis 1: La estructura factorial de la adaptación al castellano y al contexto académico del cuestionario será la misma que la original: dos factores independientes que se corresponden con las dos escalas estudiadas: pasión armoniosa y pasión obsesiva. En segundo lugar, la pasión armoniosa se ha relacionado con resultados positivos a nivel organizacional, tales como: persistencia, rendimiento o bienestar.14 Atendiendo al Modelo Dualístico de Pasión propuesto por Vallerand y otros.27 Por tanto, de manera exploratoria se espera encontrar esa misma relación en resultados similares a nivel académico, de manera concreta: se espera encontrar una relación positiva entre pasión armoniosa y engagement, iniciativa personal y desempeño académico, mientras que se espera que esta relación no resulte significativa con pasión obsesiva (Hipótesis 2). Por lo que se propone un modelo de relaciones entre los dos tipos de pasión y los resultados: engagement, iniciativa personal y aprendizaje percibido. Véase figura 1. Figura 1. Modelo teórico propuesto. Vigor Pasión Armoniosa

Absorción Dedicación

Pasión Obsesiva

Iniciativa Personal Aprendizaje Percibido

Por último, a pesar de estar relacionados, se analizará si el concepto de pasión es independiente del término engagement (Hipótesis 3).

Método Participantes

La muestra de estudio es de 266 participantes pertenecientes a la Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche (49,2%), la Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (39,1%), y a la Universidad de Alicante (9,4%). Principalmente participaron estudiantes de Psicología, Terapia Ocupacional y Publicidad y Relaciones Públicas (84,8%). La media de edad es de 28,42 años (dt= 9,84), siendo un 71,8% mujeres. Un 63,3% de los participantes se encuentra cursando los primeros cursos o el primer ciclo.

Instrumentos

y energía. La escala está compuesta por dos subescalas: Pasión Armoniosa (ej. “Estoy totalmente involucrado en mis estudios”) y Pasión Obsesiva (ej. “Mi humor depende de si soy o no capaz de estudiar algo”) de 6 ítems cada una. La escala de respuesta es tipo Likert de 1 a 7 (Completamente en desacuerdo a Completamente de acuerdo). Ambas subescalas cuentan con una adecuada consistencia interna con un Alpha de Cronbach de 0,82 para la subescala pasión armoniosa y 0,84 para la subescala pasión obsesiva. Engagement. Se utilizaron las subescalas Vigor, Dedicación y Absorción de la versión española para estudiantes del Utrecht Work Engagement Scale20 que fue validado a población española por Schaufeli y otros.25 Así, ejemplos de Vigor (6 ítems) es “Puedo seguir estudiando durante largos periodos”, de Dedicación (5 ítems) “Estoy orgulloso de hacer esta carrera” y de Absorción (6 ítems) “Estoy inmerso en mis estudios”. La fiabilidad de la escala es apropiada con un Alpha de Cronbach de 0,83 para Vigor, 0,88 para Dedicación y 0,80 para Absorción. La escala de respuesta es tipo Likert de 0 a 6 (Nunca o Ninguna vez a Siempre o Todos los días). Iniciativa Personal. Se utilizaron dos instrumentos: la escala de Iniciativa Autoinformada de Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng y Tag28 adaptaba a población española por Lisbona y Palací.29 Cuenta con 6 ítems y una escala de respuesta tipo Likert de 1 a 5 (Totalmente en desacuerdo a Totalmente de acuerdo). El alpha de cronbach es 0,76. Y, en segundo lugar, la adaptación al español y al ámbito académico del Situational Judgement Test of Personal Initiative (SJTPI) de Bledow y Frese,30 que en su escala original se compone de 12 situaciones habituales y comunes a cualquier trabajo con 4 posible opciones de respuesta o conductas probables para solucionar la situación planteada y que ha sido adaptado a situaciones en el ámbito académico29 el Alpha de Cornbah es 0,70. Resultados de aprendizaje. Se elaboró una escala ad hoc que evalúa los resultados del aprendizaje percibido con relación al estudio. La escala está compuesta por 2 ítems (ej. “Creo que he aprendido mucho en mis estudios”). La escala de respuesta es tipo Likert de 1 a 7 (Completamente en desacuerdo a Completamente de acuerdo). La consistencia interna es apropiada con un Alpha de Cronbach de 0,77.

Diseño y procedimiento

Se trata de un estudio cuasi-experimental con un diseño transversal. El procedimiento de recolección de datos se llevó a cabo realizando un muestreo de conveniencia, contactando bien presencialmente, bien mediante correo electrónico con estudiantes matriculados en asignaturas donde impartían docencia los investigadores y solicitando la participación voluntaria. Los cuestionarios fueron auto-administrados durante los tres primeros meses del curso académico. Se solicitó su consentimiento informado para la utilización de los datos para fines de la investigación. La Tasa de Respuesta fue del 66,5%.

Análisis de datos

En primer lugar, se ha realizado un análisis factorial confirmatorio utilizando AMOS17.0 probando tres modelos: (1) un modelo de un factor donde todos los constructos son la expresión de un solo factor latente; (2) un modelo de cinco factores donde todos los factores (pasión obsesiva y armoniosa, engagement, iniciativa personal y aprendizaje percibido) son independientes y (3) un modelo de cinco factores donde todos están correlacionados. Si el modelo de cuatro factores cuenta con un mejor ajuste que el modelo con un solo factor, se reducen los posibles problemas del efecto de la varianza del método común. 91

Original Article | Lisbona Ana et al. Se han realizado, además, análisis factoriales exploratorios mediante el método de componentes principales con rotación Oblimin, utilizando el paquete estadístico Spss17. Por último, se han realizado modelos de ecuaciones estructurales mediante el método de máxima verosimilitud utilizando AMOS31, para analizar a nivel exploratorio la relación entre la pasión y los resultados. Los índices de bondad de ajuste utilizados han sido tanto absolutos como relativos y de parsimonia. Los índices absolutos utilizados han sido (1) the c2 goodness-of-fit statistic and (2) the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Se ha utilizado como índice relativo, el comparative fit index (CFI).19 Por ultimo como índice de parsimonia, el Akaiké Information Criterion (AIC). Los criterios para estos índices son los siguientes: para el RMSEA, se consideran indicadores de un ajuste del modelo aceptable valores menores de 0,0833, y para el índice relativo CFI valores mayores de 0,90 (Hoyle, 1995).

Resultados Análisis descriptivos

En la Tabla 1 se muestran los análisis de fiabilidad y descriptivos de las escalas utilizadas, así como la correlación entre las mismas. Como se observa, los niveles de consistencia interna son superiores al criterio propuesto para todas las escalas. Las correlaciones entre las variables son estadísticamente significativas para la totalidad de las mismas. Con la excepción de la escala situacional para evaluar la iniciativa personal (SJTPI) que no ha obtenido una correlación estadísticamente significativa ni con la dimensión dedicación del engagement ni con el aprendizaje percibido. Como en la escala original1, ambas subescalas de pasión cuentan con una correlación positiva y significativa. Tabla 1. Consistencia Interna (Cronbach’s a), Medias, Desviaciones Típicas y Correlaciones. 1. P. Armoniosa 2. P. Obsesiva 3. Vigor 4. Dedicación 5. Absorción 6. Iniciativa Auto 7. Iniciativa SJTPI 8. R. Aprendizaje

M DT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5,27 0,90 (0,82) 0,41** 0,62** 0,72** 0,62** 0,53** 0,14* 0,60** 3,24 1,17 (0,84) 0,41** 0,34** 0,40** 0,30** 0,13* 0,24** 3,68 1,14 (0,83) 0,67** 0,81** 0,53** 0,12* 0,46** 4,64 1,05 (0,88) 0,61** 0,47** 0,10 0,63** 3,77 1,07 (0,80) 0,50** 0,12* 0,41** 3,39 ,68 (0,76) 0,13* 0,35** ,13 ,45 (0,70) 0,10 5,44 1,20 (0,77)

Análisis factorial confirmatorio

Se ha comprobado el ajuste de los tres modelos de análisis factorial confirmatorio, el ajuste es mejor para el tercer modelo(c2=527,8; df =142; RMSEA= 0,101; CFI=0,845; IFI=0,793; AIC=661,752) con los cinco factores correlacionados, que considerando los cinco factores independientes (c2=1051,7; df =187; RMSEA= 0,132; CFI=0,685; IFI= 0,690; AIC=1181,65). Además, el ajuste de este modelo es, también mejor que el modelo con un solo factor latente(c2=666,02; df =184; RMSEA= 0,099; CFI=0,825; IFI=0,780; AIC=802,02).

Análisis factorial exploratorio

Para contrastar la primera hipótesis, en la que se esperaba encontrar la misma estructura factorial que en la escala original, se realizó un análisis factorial exploratorio con rotación Oblimin por

encontrarse los dos factores correlacionados (Tabla 2). Así, el índice Kaiser-Meyer-OIlkin es 0,853 y junto al Test de Esfericidad de Bartlett que muestra una c2 de 1568,95 (p≤0,000) con 91 g.l. apoya como adecuado la realización del análisis factorial para la matriz de datos. De acuerdo al método de extracción de componentes principales se extraen dos componentes que conjuntamente explican el 53,42% de la varianza explicada de Pasión (Tabla 2). Como se observa en la Tabla 2, los ítems saturan en cada uno de los factores esperados con puntuaciones superiores a 0,50 en todos los casos. Los ítems del factor I (Armonía) explican el 37,05%, mientras que los ítems del factor II (Obsesión), explican el 16,37%. Así, los resultados reproducen la misma estructura factorial de la escala original (Hipótesis 1). Tabla 2. Análisis Factorial de la Escala de Pasión. Ítem Factor I A6. Mis estudios me permiten vivir experiencias memorables 0,74 A1. Mis estudios me permiten vivir una gran variedad de experiencias 0,58 A5. Mi formación académica es un pasión que controlo 0,70 A3. La formación que estoy recibiendo para conseguir esta titulación reflejan las cualidades que me gustan de mi mismo 0,65 A7. Estoy totalmente comprometido con mis estudios 0,74 A4. Mis estudios se encuentran en armonía con las otras actividades que forman parte de mi vida 0,75 A2. Las cosas que descubro en mis estudios me permite apreciar mi formación académica todavía más 0,61 O4. Me siento dependiente emocionalmente de mis estudios O5. Para mi es difícil controlar mi necesidad de estudiar O6. Tengo un sentimiento obsesivo hacia mis estudios O3. Tengo dificultad para imaginar mi vida sin los estudios O2. El impulso que siento es tan fuerte que necesito seguir estudiando O7. Mi humor depende de si soy o no capaz de estudiar algo O1. No puedo vivir sin mis estudios VAR 37,05%

Factor II

-0,50 -0,53 -0.64 -0,83 -0,81 -0,82 -0,58 16,37%

Relaciones entre la pasión obsesiva y armoniosa y los resultados

Se ha puesto a prueba el modelo de investigación, mediante un modelo exploratorio de ecuaciones estructurales, donde tanto la pasión armoniosa como la pasión obsesiva se relacionan con los tres resultados: engagement, para cada una de sus tres dimensiones por separado: vigor, dedicación y absorción, iniciativa personal y aprendizaje percibido. El ajuste del modelo no es adecuado (c2=659,18; gl=182; RMSEA=0,0106; CFI=0,810; IFI= 0,812; AIC= 15530,86) y las relaciones entre la pasión obsesiva y los resultados: dedicación, absorción, aprendizaje percibido e iniciativa personal no son significativas (t=-0,896; t=1,373; t=-0,785 y t=1,792, respectivamente). Al eliminar estas relaciones, entre también deja de ser significativa la relación entre pasión obsesiva y vigor (t=-1,931) Por lo que se decide mejorar el modelo, mediante los índices de modificación y eliminando la pasión obsesiva, obteniendo así relaciones significativas (t>1,96) entre la pasión armoniosa y los resultados y unos índices de ajuste adecuados (c2=589,98; gl=295; RMSEA=0,067; CFI=0,916; IFI= 0,917; AIC=755,98).

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Estudiar con Pasión: Relación con la Iniciativa Personal y el Engagement todos los ítems de las dimensiones vigor y absorción, con la excepción del ítem 4 de absorción que satura en el factor cuatro. El segundo factor explica el 9,33% de la varianza y agrupa los 5 ítems de la dimensión del engagement dedicación y dos ítems de pasión armoniosa. El tercer factor, que agrupa los cinco primeros ítems de pasión obsesiva. El ítem 5, satura también en el factor 6, junto con los otros dos ítems de pasión obsesiva. El tercer factor explica el 6,74% de varianza y el sexto factor el 3,49%. El cuarto factor agrupa dos ítems de absorción y tres de pasión armoniosa y explica el 4,71% de la varianza. Por último, el quinto factor, explica el 4,55% de varianza y agrupa dos ítems de pasión armoniosa.

Figura 2. Modelo final. 0,83***

Pasión Armoniosa

0,66*** 0,93*** 0,89*** 0,77***

Vigor 0,69 Absorción 0,43 Dedicación 0,86 Iniciativa Personal 0,79 Aprendizaje Percibido 0,58

Discusión

Para contrastar la tercera hipótesis, que explorará la independencia entre el concepto de pasión y el concepto de engagement, se ha realizado un análisis factorial exploratorio. El Test de Esfericidad de Bartlett, obtiene una puntuación de 4265,53, siendo significativo el estadístico c2 (p≤0,000) con 435 g.l. El índice Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin es 0,908. Los estadísticos apoyan como apropiado la realización del análisis factorial. Se obtienen 6 factores que explican el 65,64% de la Varianza. Como se observa en la Tabla 3, el primer factor explica el 36,83% de la varianza y agrupa Tabla 3. Análisis Factorial Pasión Armoniosa y Engagement. Item Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor IV Factor V 36,83% 9,33% 6,74% 4,71% 4,55% Vigor 1 0,68 Vigor 2 0,53 Vigor 3 0,61 Vigor4 0,70 Vigor5 0,71 Absorción 1 0,72 Absorción 2 0,68 Absorción 3 0,73 Absorción 4 0,50 Absorción 5 0,51 Absorción 6 0,69 Dedicación 1 0,69 Dedicación 2 0,52 Dedicación 3 0,75 Dedicación 4 0,80 Dedicación 5 0,82 P. Armoniosa 1 0,78 P. Armoniosa 2 0,52 P. Armoniosa 3 0,56 P. Armoniosa 4 0,62 P. Armoniosa 5 0,56 P. Armoniosa 6 0,76 P. Armoniosa 7 0,57 P. Obsesiva 1 0,80 P. Obsesiva 2 0,58 P. Obsesiva 3 0,85 P. Obsesiva 4 0,72 P. Obsesiva 5 0,57 P. Obsesiva 6 P. Obsesiva 7

Factor VI 3,49%

0,56 0,76 0,83

A la vista de los resultados, se reproduce la estructura factorial del cuestionario original en la muestra de estudiantes españoles, confirmando la hipótesis 1. Los resultados están en la línea de los trabajos consultados, agrupándose los ítems en dos factores, uno que incluye respuestas relacionadas con la pasión armoniosa que promueve una adaptación saludable, mientras que un segundo factor que recoge aquellos ítems que reflejarían un afecto negativo.14 Asimismo, la consistencia interna de ambas subescalas ha resultado apropiada. Por lo que podemos decir, que la escala es apropiada para evaluar la pasión sobre los estudios. La literatura hablaba de pasión sobre una actividad concreta y se han desarrollado escalas sobre la pasión en el trabajo, pero hasta ahora no se había estudiado la pasión sobre los estudios. Por otra parte, los resultados obtenidos apoyan las relaciones que se han encontrado entre la pasión armoniosa y resultados afectivos positivos en el trabajo.17 Además, los resultados están en la línea de los trabajos que confirman que los elevados niveles de engagement en estudiantes se asocian con un mejor rendimiento.2,34 Respecto a la segunda hipótesis planteada, los resultados están en la línea de los trabajos que apoyan el modelo teórico propuesto14,16,17, donde experimentar pasión armoniosa respecto a una actividad, en nuestro caso estudiar, se asocia a resultados positivos como el engagement, la iniciativa personal y el desempeño14, en concreto, el aprendizaje percibido. Sin embargo, la pasión obsesiva no es predictora de las respuestas positivas evaluadas en los estudiantes, lo cual confirmaría lo expuesto en la segunda hipótesis. Así, los resultados señalan la importancia de experimentar emociones positivas o bienestar que puedan estar a la base de mejores niveles de rendimiento académico en los estudiantes.2,3 Una de las relaciones señaladas a nivel teórico ha sido la propuesta entre la pasión y la persistencia, señalando diferencias en el tipo de persistencia entre ambos tipos de pasión. En nuestro trabajo se ha elegido un concepto activo de desempeño: la iniciativa personal, que recoge en su misma definición la persistencia. Frese y Fay21 señalan un aspecto muy importante de la persistencia relacionado con la distinción entre flexibilidad y rigidez de la persistencia en función del tipo de pasión. Así, analizando las tres facetas de la iniciativa personal desde la Teoría de la Acción35, indican como la persistencia será imprescindible en la puesta en marcha de los planes para la consecución de los objetivos, ya que será necesario superar diversas dificultades durante la ejecución del plan. Si bien, desarrollan la idea de cómo los trabajadores que llevan a cabo acciones efectivas, protegen sus objetivos y no se desvían de ellos, pero si pueden modificar los planes para conseguir los objetivos cuando detectan que éstos no funcionan en la 93

Original Article | Lisbona Ana et al. consecución de objetivos, señalando: proteger los planes es menos importante que proteger los objetivos durante el proceso de la acción.21 Es decir, la flexibilidad en la persistencia será más efectiva que la rigidez en la persistencia relacionada con la pasión obsesiva, que no permite modificar los planes cuando no funcionan para proteger la consecución del objetivo. Queremos destacar, también, el hecho de que la iniciativa personal ha sido evaluada mediante dos herramientas. Por un lado se ha utilizado el cuestionario autoinformado, y, además, se ha utilizado la versión adaptada al ámbito académico del cuestionario situacional para evaluar la iniciativa personal, SJTPI.29 La correlación entre pasión, tanto armoniosa como obsesiva es significativa para la iniciativa evaluada con las dos herramientas. Sin embargo, en el modelo de ecuaciones estructurales la relación es significativa sólo para la pasión armoniosa, tal y como se esperaba a nivel teórico. Por último, la relación del concepto de pasión con el concepto de engagement, a nivel teórico sugería la necesidad de distinguirlos empíricamente. La definición de pasión se encuentra estrechamente relacionada con las definiciones de dos de las tres dimensiones del engagement: dedicación y vigor, consideradas el corazón del engagement. Sin embargo, la correlación entre ambas dimensiones y la pasión armoniosa y la pasión obsesiva no ha resultado más elevada que para la dimensión absorción y en el análisis factorial, los ítems de pasión armoniosa saturan en tres factores, dos de ellos con ítems de las dimensiones del engagement dedicación y absorción. No podemos concluir que los conceptos pasión y engagement son totalmente independientes, pero la estructura factorial apunta hacia esa independencia. En cuanto a las posibles limitaciones de la investigación, sería conveniente analizar la relación entre la pasión obsesiva y otros conceptos, como la identificación con los estudios o la adicción al trabajo, entre otros para contrastar que realmente el concepto de pasión obsesiva se diferencia de otros conceptos también estudiados en la literatura organizacional. La definición de Salanova, Del Líbano, Llorens, Schaufeli y Fidalgo36 se refiere a la adicción al trabajo como un estado psicológico negativo caracterizado por el trabajo en exceso debido, fundamentalmente, a una presión interna que no se puede evitar, y en la definición de pasión obsesiva, también se habla de esa presión interna.14

Por último, el presente trabajo se enmarca dentro de un estudio más amplio, con un diseño longitudinal. En trabajos posteriores se estudiarán las relaciones de las variables evaluadas en el momento de este estudio con las evaluadas al finalizar el curso (mes de septiembre). De especial interés será estudiar el valor predictivo del modelo sobre el rendimiento académico objetivo, las calificaciones. Sin embargo, es necesaria una reflexión en torno a los criterios de rendimiento académico más apropiados, ya que junto con criterios objetivos como las calificaciones o el número de créditos superados, es necesario considerar la propia percepción de aprendizaje, la utilidad de ese aprendizaje, los índices de abandono, la posterior inserción laboral, la satisfacción personal, o incluso, el esfuerzo percibido. Asimismo, es importante continuar con el estudio de la validez del cuestionario, tanto convergente como divergente.

Implicaciones teóricas, técnicas y prácticas.

La importancia de la introducción del concepto de pasión se ha puesto de manifiesto al encontrar relación con resultados positivos. Si bien, es necesario el estudio longitudinal que se está desarrollando en la actualidad para profundizar en la relación con resultados positivos y objetivos, las calificaciones. El hecho de que la pasión por los estudios se relacione con la iniciativa personal y el engagement justifica la necesidad de fomentar la pasión por los estudios en los universitarios. Del mismo modo, que prevenir la pasión obsesiva, que ya en su definición se muestra como generadora de malestar, y no ha mostrado relaciones significativas con resultados beneficiosos analizados. A nivel técnico, el trabajo aporta una herramienta de evaluación de la pasión por una actividad, con la cual podemos cuantificar la pasión experimentada por un sujeto en el desarrollo de una actividad y contribuye a reducir la escasez de instrumentos para evaluar el funcionamiento óptimo. Por último, a nivel práctico, el estudio realizado contribuye a la reflexión sobre las acciones dirigidas a la prevención del absentismo y el abandono en los primeros cursos y la promoción del rendimiento académico. Así, mediante estrategias a diferentes niveles organizativos, es posible promover la pasión por los estudios y generar una identidad en los estudiantes que contribuya a su iniciativa y rendimiento. Aspecto relacionado con los cambios actuales en los planes de estudio que demandan un estudiante más activo en el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje.

Ciencia & Trabajo

Original Article | Estudiar con Pasión: Relación con la Iniciativa Personal y el Engagement

REFERENCIAS 1- Vallerand, R.J., Blanchard, C.M.,Mageau, G.A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C., Léonard, M. et al. Les passions de l’âme: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 85, 756–767. 2- Salanova, M., Martínez, I., Bresó, E., Llorens, S. y Grau, R. Bienestar psicológico en estudiantes universitarios: facilitadores y obstaculizadores del desempeño académico. Anales de Psicología. 2005; 21, 170-180. 3- Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W.B., Martínez, I.M. y Breso, E. How Obstacles and Facilitators Predict Academic Performance: The Mediating Role of Study Burnout and Engagement. Anxiety, Stress & Coping. 2009; 22, 1-18. 4- Rodriguez-Sánchez, A., Cifre, E., Salanova, M. y Aborg, C. Technoflow among Spanish and Swedish students: a confirmatory factor multigroup analysis. Anales de Psicología. 2008; 24, 42-48. 5- Burke, R.J., Fiksenbaum, L. Work Motivations, Satisfactions, and Health Among Managers: Passion Versus Addiction. Cross-cultural Research. 2009; 43(4), 349-365. 6- Vallerand, R., Paquet, Y., Phillippe, F., Charest, J. On the role of passion for work in Burnout: A Process Model. Journal of Personality; 2010. 7- Seligman, E., y Csikszentmihalyi, M. Positive Psychology, An introduction. American Psychologist. 2000; 55, 5-14. 8- Rand, K.L. y Snyder, C.R. A reply to Dr. Lazarus, the evocator emeritus. Psychological Inquiry. 2003; 14, 148-153. 9- Vázquez, C. La Psicología Positiva en perspectiva. Papeles del Psicólogo. 2006; 27(1). 10- Seligman, E. Positive Health. Applied Psychology. 2008; 57(1), 3-18. 11- Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum; 1985. 12- Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. The What and Why of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior_, Psychological Inquiry. 2000; 11: 227–268. 13- Hacker, W. Activity: A fruitful concept in industrial psychology. En: M. Frese & Sabini (Eds), Goal Directed Behavior: The Concept of Action in Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1985. 14- Vallerand, R.J, y Houlfort, N. Passion at work: Toward a new conceptualization. En D. Skarlicki, S. Gilliland, y D. Steiner (Eds.), Social issues in management. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. 2003; Vol. 3, pp. 175–204. 15- Vallerand, R.J. On the psychology of passion: In search of what makes people’s lives most worth living. Canadian Psychology. 2008; 49, 1-13. (invited paper, CPA Presidential Address). 16- Ratelle CF, Vallerand RJ, Mageau GA, Rousseau FL y Provencher PJ. When passion leads to pathology: a look at gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies. 2004; 20, 105-119. 17- Mageau G.A., Vallerand R.J., Rousseau F.L., Ratelle C.F., Provencher P.J. Passion and gambling: investigating the divergent affective and cognitive consequences of gambling. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2005; 35, 100–118. 18- Keng, C., Khoo, A., Chia, W., Divaharan, S. Passion and intrinsic motivation in Digital Gaming. Cyberpsychology & Behavior. 2008; 11(1), 39-45. 19- Rip, B., Fortin, S. and Vallerand, R.J. The Relationship Between Passion and Injury in Dance Students_, Journal of Dance Medicine and Science. 2006; 10 (1): 14-20. 20- Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. The measurement of burnout and engagement: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2002; 3, 71-92. 21- Frese, M., y Fay, D. Personal Initiative: An Active Performance Concept for Work in the 21st Century. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2001; 23, 133–187.

22- Ratelle CF, Vallerand RJ, Mageau GA, Rousseau FL y Provencher PJ. When passion leads to pathology: a look at gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies. 2004; 20, 105-119. 23- Ibabe, I. E. y Jaureguizar, J.A. Autoevaluación a través de Internet: variables metacognitivas y rendimiento académico. Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa. 2007; 6(2), 59-75. 24- Demerouti, E., Bakker, A., Nachreiner, F., y Schaufeli, W. The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001; 86, 499-512. 25- Ibabe, I. E. y Jaureguizar, J.A. Autoevaluación a través de Internet: variables metacognitivas y rendimiento académico. Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa. 2007; 6(2), 59-75. 26- Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martínez, I., & Schaufeli, W.B. Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Group Research. 2003; 34, 43-73. 27- Vallerand, R.J., Mageau, G.A., Elliot, A., Dumais, A., Demers, M-A., & Rousseau, F.L. Passion and performance attainment in sport.Psychology of Sport & Exercise. 2008; 9, 373-392. 28- Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K. y Tag, A. The concept of personal iniciative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples, Journal of Occupational and Organitational Psychology. 1997; 70, 139-161. 29- Lisbona, A., Palaci, F.J. y Bernabé, M. Evaluación de la iniciativa personal en estudiantes: cuestionario situacional. Manuscrito presentado para su publicación; 2010. 30- Bledow, R. & Frese, M. A situational Judgment Test of Personal Initiative and its Relationship to Performance. Personal Psycholog. 2009; 62, 229-258. 31- Arbuckle, J.L. Amos users’ guide version 4.0. Chicago: Smallwaters Corporation; 1997. 32- Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., y Hau, K. T. An evaluation of incremental fit indexes: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. En G. A. Marcoulides y R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling techniques. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 1996; pp. 315-353. 33- Browne, M.W., y Cudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. En K.A. Bollen y J.S. Longs (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 1993; pp. 136-162. 34- Martínez, I. y Salanova, M. Niveles de burnout y engagement en estudiantes universitarios. Relación con el desempeño y desarrollo profesional. Revista de Educación. 2003; 330, 361-384. 35- Hacker, W. Activity: A fruitful concept in industrial psychology. En: M. Frese & Sabini (Eds), Goal Directed Behavior: The Concept of Action in Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1985. 36- Salanova, M., Del Líbano, M., Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W.B., y Fidalgo, M. La adicción al trabajo. Nota Técnica de Prevención, 759, 22ª Serie. Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo; 2008. 37- Lisbona, A. y Palací, F.J. La medida de la iniciativa personal. Adaptación al Castellano. Manuscrito presentado para su publicación; 2010. 38- Green, D.E., Walkey, F.H., and Taylor, A.J.W. The Three-factor Structure of the Maslash Burnout Inventory. Journal of Science Behavior and Personality. 1991; 6, 453–472. 39- Rip, B., Fortin, S. and Vallerand, R.J. The Relationship Between Passion and Injury in Dance Students. Journal of Dance Medicine and Science. 2006; 10 (1): 14-20 40- Salanova, M. & Schaufeli, W. B. A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour: The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2008; 19, 116-131.

Instrucciones a los Autores C&T, Ciencia & Trabajo, órgano de difusión de la Fundación Científica y Tecnológica de la Asociación Chilena de Seguridad, tiene como misión divulgar el conocimiento en las áreas de seguridad e higiene industrial, salud ocupacional, calidad de vida laboral y otras disciplinas asociadas al mundo del trabajo y medio ambiente. . C&T suscribe principalmente al acuerdo sobre Requisitos Uniformes para Preparar los Manuscritos Enviados a Revistas Biomédicas (Estilo Vancouver), elaborado por el Comité Internacional de Directores de Revistas Médicas (New England Journal of Medicine 1997; 336 : 30915, actualizados en octubre de 2008, en el sitio web www.icmje.org). Los artículos científicos que C&T publica deben ser originales. Los autores deben haber participado en el trabajo en grado suficiente para asumir la responsabilidad de su contenido total. No confiere la calidad de autor haber participado en la obtención de fondos, en la recolección de datos, en la supervisión general del grupo de investigación, haber aportado muestras o reclutado pacientes; tampoco se aceptan las “Autorías por cortesía”. Se puede citar un autor corporativo en los ensayos multicéntricos. La totalidad de los integrantes de un equipo, citados como autores, puede indicarse bajo el título o en una nota a pie de página, los que deberán cumplir todos los criterios antes mencionados; quienes no los cumplan figurarán, con su autorización, en la sección de Agradecimientos. Los artículos sobre experimentación en humanos y animales deben ser acompañados de una copia digital de la aprobación del Comité de Ética de la Institución donde se realizó el estudio, de acuerdo a la Declaración de Helsinki de 1975. En el artículo no se deben incluir datos que permitan identificar a los sujetos de estudio. Los artículos deben ser enviados en formato electrónico (Microsoft Word para PC, o compatible) en Español, Portugués o Inglés. El formato debe ser simple para facilitar la edición del texto e incluir las siguientes secciones; a. Página inicial a. Título del artículo, que debe ser conciso, no incluir abreviaturas y dar idea exacta de su contenido. Si el tema ha sido presentado en alguna conferencia, indicarla citando la ciudad y fecha de exposición. b. Nombre completo de los autores, profesión, grado académico (si corresponde) y afiliación institucional, incluyendo ciudad y país. c. Departamento e Institución donde se realizó la investigación, si corresponde. d. Fuente de financiamiento, si la hubo. Declarar eventuales conflictos de interés. e. Dirección postal, e-mail, fono y fax del autor que se ocupará de la correspondencia relativa a este documento. b. Página dos • Resumen en idioma original con una extensión máxima de 200 palabras. Debe incluir objetivos, método, resultados, conclusiones principales y ser escrito en estilo impersonal. • Al final del resumen debe incluir tres a cinco descriptores (palabras claves o keywords) extraídos de la lista de Descriptores en Ciencias de la Salud (DeCS) (www.bireme.br). Página tres y siguientes en el siguiente orden • El formato del texto depende del tipo de artículo. Los artículos científicos son el producto de un trabajo de observación, investigación clínica o experimentación que consta de las siguientes secciones: a) Introducción en la que se presentan las razones que motivaron el estudio y los objetivos del mismo; b) Material y Métodos en la que se describen los elementos y procedimientos utilizados de manera tal que los resultados puedan ser reproducidos por otros investigadores; se debe incluir una descripción suficiente del análisis estadístico; c) Resultados en la que se presentan los hallazgos del estudio; d) Discusión en la que se destacan los aspectos nuevos e importantes del estudio, conclusiones, implicaciones y limitaciones de los resultados. La extensión máxima de este tipo de artículo no debe exceder los 36.000 caracteres (incluyendo los espacios). Los artículos de revisión son el producto del análisis crítico de la literatura reciente sobre un tópico especial. Este tipo de artículo incluye los puntos de vista del autor sobre el tema. Normalmente este tipo de documento es encargado por C&T a expertos en el tema según planificación editorial. La extensión máxima de estos artículos no debe exceder los 60.000 caracteres (incluyendo los espacios). La comunicación de Casos, en los que se describen situaciones de interés médico vistos con poca frecuencia (casos clínicos) o situaciones especiales encontradas en la práctica diaria de otros profesionales de la salud ocupacional (investigación de un accidente que ocurre por primera vez, por ejemplo). Este tipo de artículo debe contener dos secciones; en la primera se describe el caso y en la segunda se comentan los hallazgos y se hacen las recomendaciones que correspondan. La

extensión máxima de este tipo de artículo no debe exceder los 20.000 caracteres (incluyendo los espacios). Los Artículos de Educación son aquéllos que contribuyen a la formación integral de los profesionales de Salud Ocupacional. Generalmente son solicitados por el Comité Editorial de C&T. La extensión máxima de ellos es de 60.000 caracteres (incluyendo los espacios). Los Artículos de Opinión son comunicaciones personales sustentadas bajo el método científico y con referencias bibliográficas que apoyan las opiniones. La extensión máxima de estos artículos es de 20.000 caracteres (incluyendo los espacios). • Al final del texto puede incluirse una sección de agradecimientos y, a continuación las Referencias bibliográficas. Es de completa responsabilidad de los autores la información entregada en esta área, quienes debieran revisar siempre su listado para confirmar que éstas estén completas, con todos sus elementos y simbología integrantes en orden y verificar su inserción en el texto. En caso contrario, el material puede ser devuelto para corrección. Las referencias deben ser presentadas e incluidas en el texto según las siguientes indicaciones, basadas en las normas ISO 690:1987 para formato impreso e ISO 690-2 para formato electrónico: todas las referencias deben incluir los siguientes elementos y la puntuación indicada: • Apellido paterno del autor/editor más las iniciales del nombre (hasta seis autores, separados por coma; si son más de seis agregar “et al” después del sexto) o autor institucional, si corresponde. • Año de publicación, separado por punto de elemento anterior. • Título completo del artículo, del libro o del capítulo, si corresponde, separado por punto de elemento anterior. • Título abreviado de la revista, de acuerdo a listado de Biosis o Index Medicus (ver: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db= journals), o libro Proceedings, si es el caso, separado por punto de elemento anterior. • Ciudad/estado/país de publicación, y editor, separando por dos puntos estos elementos y por punto de elemento anterior. • Números del volumen y páginas inicial y final, separando por dos puntos estos elementos y por punto de elemento anterior. • Disponibilidad en Internet, si se sabe, separado por punto de elemento anterior. Las referencias se enumeran en el orden en que se las menciona por primera vez en el texto. Identificadas mediante numerales arábigos, colocados al final de la frase o párrafo en que se las alude. Las referencias que sean citadas únicamente en las Tablas o en las leyendas de las Figuras, deben numerarse en la secuencia que corresponda a la primera vez que se citen dichas Tablas o Figuras en el texto. Los resúmenes de presentaciones a Congresos pueden ser citados como referencias sólo cuando fueron publicados en revistas de circulación común. Si se publicaron en “Libros de Resúmenes”, pueden citarse en el texto (entre paréntesis), al final del párrafo pertinente. Se puede incluir como referencias a trabajos que están aceptados por una revista, aún en trámite de publicación; en este caso, se debe anotar la referencia completa, agregando a continuación del nombre abreviado de la revista la expresión “(en prensa)”. Los trabajos enviados a publicación pero todavía no aceptados oficialmente, pueden ser citados en el texto (entre paréntesis) como “observaciones no publicadas” o “sometidas a publicación” y no deben alistarse entre las referencias. Al alistar las referencias, su formato debe ser el siguiente: Artículos en Revistas: Apellido e inicial del nombre del o los autores. Mencione todos los autores cuando sean seis o menos; si son siete o más, incluya los seis primeros y agregue “et al”. Limite la puntuación a comas que separen los autores entre sí. Sigue el título completo del artículo, en su idioma original. Si elige su traducción al inglés, debe ser la que figuró en la publicación y se enmarca en paréntesis cuadrado. Luego, el nombre de la revista en que apareció, abreviado según el estilo usado por el Index Medicus: año de publicación; volumen de la revista: página inicial y final del artículo. Ejemplo: “Brunser A, Hoppe A, Cárcamo DA, Lavados PM, Roldán A, Rivas R et al. Validez del Doppler transcraneal en el diagnóstico de muerte encefálica. Rev Med Chile 2010;138: 406-12”. Capítulos en Libros: Ejemplo: “Rodríguez P. Trasplante pulmonar. En: Rodríguez JC, Undurraga A, Editores, Enfermedades Respiratorias. Santiago, Chile: Editorial Mediterráneo Ltda.; 2004. p. 857-82”.

Artículos en formato electrónico: Citar autores, título del artículo y revista de origen tal como para su publicación en papel, indicando a continuación el sitio electrónico donde se obtuvo la cita y la fecha en que se hizo la consulta. Ejemplo: Cienc Trab 2010; 12 (38): 461-464. Disponible en: wwwcienciaytrabajo.cl [Consultado el 14 de enero de 2010]. Para otros tipos de publicaciones, aténgase a los ejemplos dados en los “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals”. • Páginas complementarias Las Tablas, deben llevar numeración arábica correlativa con título descriptivo breve, por orden de aparición. Cada columna debe tener un encabezamiento corto y abreviado el que puede incluir símbolos para unidades. Separe con líneas horizontales solamente los encabezamientos de las columnas y los títulos generales. Las columnas de datos deben separarse por espacios y no por líneas verticales. Al pie de la tabla se debe indicar el significado de cada abreviatura y la simbología del método estadístico empleado. Las tablas deben ser enviadas en el formato original; por ejemplo, si ella se construyó en Microsoft Excel, debe enviarse el archivo que originó la tabla. En el texto del artículo, el autor debe indicar el lugar donde sugiere insertar la tabla. Figuras o Gráficos deben ser elaboradas en formatos compatibles con Microsoft Excel o PowerPoint. Cada figura o gráfico debe identificarse con números arábicos correlativos. Las leyendas deben facilitar su comprensión, sin necesidad de recurrir a la lectura del texto. Las figuras o gráficos deben ser enviadas en el formato original al igual que lo señalado para las tablas. En el texto del artículo, el autor debe indicar el lugar donde sugiere insertar las figuras o gráficos. Ilustraciones y fotografías deben ser enviadas en formato electrónico JEPG de alta resolución. De ser necesario, estos archivos deben enviarse en forma separada. Aspectos Legales La responsabilidad de los conceptos publicados en Ciencia & Trabajo es exclusiva de los autores, no comprometiendo en modo alguno la opinión de la Fundación Científica y Tecnológica ACHS y de Ciencia & Trabajo. Todos los textos publicados están protegidos por Derecho de Autor, conforme a la Ley No 17.336 de la República de Chile. Se autoriza la publicación posterior o la reproducción total o parcial de los artículos, en formato impreso o electrónico, siempre y cuando se cite a Ciencia & Trabajo como fuente primaria de publicación. Los autores de artículos científicos deben establecer por escrito que no existen conflictos de interés de ningún tipo que pueda poner en peligro la validez de lo comunicado. Aspectos Administrativos La recepción del manuscrito será notificada por correo electrónico al primer autor firmante, lo que no implica su aceptación. El Comité Editorial hará una primera evaluación del material y de su cumplimiento con estas normas. La evaluación del trabajo será realizada por dos o más evaluadores externos a la revista, designados por el comité editorial de C&T. Las observaciones de forma o contenido efectuadas por estos evaluadores serán enviadas a los autores para su consideración. El documento que éstos generen al ser introducidas las modificaciones, será el que se publique. Aquellas observaciones que los autores consideren que no es pertinente incorporar al documento, deberán ser comentadas en carta dirigida el editor en jefe de C&T. La versión final del artículo, será de exclusiva responsabilidad de los autores. C&T entregará un ejemplar de la versión impresa del artículo a cada autor. Toda comunicación, tanto de remisión de trabajos como de correspondencia a la editorial, debe ser dirigida a: Leonardo Varela Editor Jefe Revista Ciencia & Trabajo Vicuña Mackenna 210, Piso 6, Providencia, Santiago, Chile Fono: (56-2) 685-3854 Fax: (56-2) 685-3882 e-mail: lvarelav@achs.cl Declaración de la Responsabilidad de Autoría y Conflicto de Intereses El siguiente documento debe ser firmado por todos los autores del manuscrito y remitido como copia digitalizada. Este documento debe contener lo siguiente: • Título del Manuscrito: • Responsabilidad de Autoría: “Certifico que he contribuido directamente al contenido intelectual de este manuscrito, a la génesis y análisis de sus datos, por lo cual estoy en condiciones de hacerme públicamente responsable de él y acepto que mi nombre figure en la lista de autores”. • Conflicto de intereses: “Declaro que no existe ningún posible conflicto de intereses en este manuscrito”. Si existiera, será declarado en este documento y/o explicado en la página del título, al identificar las fuentes de financiamiento.

Índex 1 3 4

Editorial Index In this Issue

Original Articles How Organizational Practices Predict Team Work 7

Engagement: The Role of Organizational Trust Acosta H, Salanova M, Llorens S

How do Engaged Employees Stay Engaged? Bakker A, Demerouti E, Xanthopoulou D

Workplace Relationships as Demands and Resources: A Model of Burnout and Work Engagement Leiter M, Nicholson R, Patterson A, Spence H

The Empirical Distinctiveness of Work Engagement and Workaholism among Hospital Nurses in Japan: The effect on Sleep Quality and Job Performance Kubota K, Shimazu A, Kawakami N, Takahashi M, Nakata A, Schaufeli W

Personal Resources (Emotional Intelligence, Core Selfevaluation and Positive Affectivity) Contribution to Engagement: Analysis on Spanish College Students and Employees Durán A, Extremera N, Rey L

Investigating the Associations between Ministerial Resources, Personality Traits and Engagement among the Indian Clergy Newman E, De Witte H

The More You Give, the More You Get? Reciprocal Relationships Between Work Engagement and TaskRelated, Interpersonal, and Organizational Resources Korunka C, Kubicek B, Paškvan M

Bridging the Practice and Science of Employee Engagement: A Qualitative Investigation Albrecht S, Wilson-Evered E

Too Good to Be True? Similarities and Differences Between Engagement and Workaholism among Finnish Judges Hakanen J, Rodríguez A, Perhoniemi R

Explaining Nurses’ Engagement and Performance with Social Exchange with Hospital Chambel M

Studying With Passion: Personal Initiative and Engagement Relationship Lisbona A, Bernabé M, Palací F, Gómez A, Martín M

FUNDACIÓN CIENTÍFICA Y TECNOLÓGICA ASOCIACIÓN CHILENA DE SEGURIDAD