2008
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00008.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Defining Employee Engagement for Productive Research and Practice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
52
0
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 64 publications
(60 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
4
52
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Specifically, considering the two states as complementary allows for the inclusion of both states within a person at all times to generate the (generally self-reported) levels of burnout and engagement that an individual is currently feeling. For example, previous research supports the idea that an individual's levels of state burnout and state work engagement can fluctuate within the span of a single work-day (Dalal, Brummel, Wee, & Thomas, 2008;Maslach et al, 2001;Schaufeli & Taris, 2005;Sonnentag et al, 2010;Sonnentag, 2003), implying that these forces remain in a state of constant flux that result in unique outcomes. Extending this idea, the notions of mutual implication and polarization intuitively follow.…”
Section: Overview Of Dialecticsmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Specifically, considering the two states as complementary allows for the inclusion of both states within a person at all times to generate the (generally self-reported) levels of burnout and engagement that an individual is currently feeling. For example, previous research supports the idea that an individual's levels of state burnout and state work engagement can fluctuate within the span of a single work-day (Dalal, Brummel, Wee, & Thomas, 2008;Maslach et al, 2001;Schaufeli & Taris, 2005;Sonnentag et al, 2010;Sonnentag, 2003), implying that these forces remain in a state of constant flux that result in unique outcomes. Extending this idea, the notions of mutual implication and polarization intuitively follow.…”
Section: Overview Of Dialecticsmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Most engagement measurement instruments are designed to measure engagement at either the individual level (Kahn, 1990;Rothman & Rothman, 2010;Schaufeli & Salanova, 2011) or the organisational level (Q12 of Gallup). Furthermore, there is no consensus in the literature on the dimensions comprising engagement, nor on the labels identifying these dimensions (Dalal et al, 2008;Frese, 2008;Griffin et al, 2008;Hirschfeld & Thomas, 2008;Macey & Schneider, 2008;Masson et al, 2008;Schaufeli & Salanova, 2011;Simpson, 2009;Van Rooy et al, 2011). The engagement measurement instrument reflects the different levels of engagement as well as a variety of dimensions as indicated in the (adapted) Macey and Schneider (2008) framework.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is, therefore, a complex construct. It further appears that authors disagree on the exact dimensions and/or terminology to identify these dimensions (Dalal, Brummel, Wee & Thomas, 2008;Frese, 2008;Griffin, Parker & Neal, 2008;Hirschfeld & Thomas, 2008;Juniper, 2012;Macey & Schneider, 2008;Robertson & Cooper, 2010;Saks, 2008;Schaufeli & Salanova, 2011) and whether positive (psychological) states and behaviour are…”
Section: Current Theoretical Perspectivesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A partir de ahí, la literatura ha desarrollado una gran cantidad de investigaciones y conceptualizaciones sobre esta variable, apareciendo una gran confusión y existiendo una falta de consenso en lo referente a la definición y su medición. Las razones pueden ser el rápido surgimiento que tuvo el engagement como nuevo concepto en las investigaciones (Macey y Schneider, 2008) y el posible solapamiento conceptual con otras variables más establecidas en la literatura como la satisfacción laboral, el compromiso organizativo o la implicación laboral (Saks, 2006;Dalal et al, 2008;Macey y Schneider, 2008;Newman y Harrison, 2008;Bakker, Albrecht y Leiter, 2011;Christian, Garza y Slaughter, 2011;Gruman y Saks, 2011;Shuck, 2011;Cole et al, 2012;Shuck et al, 2012).…”
Section: El Engagement Laboral 231 Conceptualización De La Variablunclassified
“…Bajo esta perspectiva integradora el engagement es conceptualizado como aglutinador de variables, por ejemplo, el compromiso organizacional, el compromiso laboral y la involucración laboral. Por tanto, el engagement puede ser una variable multidimensional agregada (Dalal et al, 2008;Macey y Schneider, 2008;Newman y Harrison, 2008;Zigarmi et al, 2009;Shuck y Wollard, 2010), teniendo así una mayor facilidad para explicar el comportamiento laboral de la persona (Zigarmi et al, 2009). …”
Section: Enfoque Multidimensionalunclassified