A preliminary field test of an employee work passion model

Abstract

Four dimensions of a process model for the formulation of employee work passion, derived from Zigarmi, Nimon, Houson, Witt, and Diehl (2009)Zigarmi, Nimon, Houson, Witt, and Diehl (2009) proposed a process model for the formulation of employee work passion using social cognitive theory as an underlying framework. Recognizing the issues in the existing employee engagement literature, Zigarmi et al. developed a cognitive model that separates the constructs of work affect, work cognition, and work intention in order to describe the formation of a construct they termed employee work passion. They used the term employee work passion to differentiate the construct from the redundancy, confusion, and misinterpretation associated with employee engagement. Their model provides human resource development (HRD) professionals with the opportunity to serve their employee base by understanding the factors that connect employees' experience of their organizational work life to their resultant work passion.The employee work passion model (Zigarmi et al., 2009) offers three advantages to the process of diagnosing and improving organizational life over and above traditional models of employee engagement (e.g., Avery, McKay, & Wilson, 2007;Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). First, employee work passion considers both organizational and job factors. Second, employee work passion incorporates self-defining activities. Third, employee work passion is supported by theory that can explain how it is formed.

The Influence of Passion and Work–Life Thoughts on Work Satisfaction

“…Despite the lack of clear research inquiries or precisely elaborated constructs, the concept of passion has a long history in research and philosophy (Cardon, Wincent, Singh & Drnovsek, 2009;Rony, 1990;Zigarmi, Nimon, Houson, Witt, & Diehl, 2011). The concepts of harmonious and obsessive passion were introduced to capture a more clearly defi ned and fi ne-grained picture on how individuals interact with their personal environment (Vallerand & Houlfort, 2003).…”

The dualistic model of passion for work: Discriminate and predictive validity with work engagement and workaholism

“…Practitioners and researchers alike have been calling for passion for work as means for wellbeing and performance (Allegretti, 2000;Boyatzis, McKee, & Goleman, 2002;Cardon, Wincent, Singh, & Drnovsek, 2009;Locke & Latham, 2004;Martin, 2004;Perrewé, Hochwarter, Ferris, McAllister, & Harris, 2013;Zigarmi, Nimon, Houson, Witt, & Dichl, 2011).…”

Role of Passion in Organizational Cynicism: A Mediating Effect of Sustainable Leader in the Process Model

“…Firstly, the key indicators that differentiate employee engagement with passion are organizational and job-related factors (Zigarmi et al 2009 ) which together explain the construct. WP construct not only considers both organizational and job factors, but it is even termed as selfdefi ning activity which strengthens one's identity (Zigarmi et al 2011a ;Vallerand and Houlfort 2003 ). On the contrary, the engagement construct is connected solely to job-related factors as perceived by academicians, whereas practitioner has related it solely to organizational factors creating a debate in their interpretation.…”

“…On the contrary, the engagement construct is connected solely to job-related factors as perceived by academicians, whereas practitioner has related it solely to organizational factors creating a debate in their interpretation. From social cognitive theory perspective (Zigarmi et al 2011a ), WP has been discerned to emphasize on appraisal process of an individual on events and environment impacting one's well-being, whereas, from role theory perspectives of Khan ( 1990 ), it is described as one kind of stable psychological presence wherein the individuals in organization express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally to their discretionary work roles. Secondly, the emotional and intellectual involvement is referred to as emotional and intellectual commitment to the organization (Baumruk 2004 ;Richman 2006 ;Shaw 2005 ) or the amount of discretionary effort exhibited by employees in their jobs (Frank et al 2004 ), and the duo explains variance in employee engagement substantially.…”