2014
DOI: 10.1007/s11266-014-9465-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Work Engagement in the Third Sector

Abstract: It has been assumed that third-sector organizations attract ideologically oriented employees. Therefore, employees consider their work as more meaningful. However, employees' ideological orientation has not been taken into account in previous studies on work engagement. With this in mind, the present study sets out to apply an extended job demand-resources (JD-R) model in a survey conducted with Finnish third-sector employees (N = 1,412). The results showed that thirdsector employees report higher work engagem… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
34
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
2
34
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, the studies were conducted in various sectors, including a homeless shelter (Williams, 2014), churches (Bickerton, Miner, & Dowson, 2014;Miner, Bickerton, Dowson, & Sterland, 2015), social cooperatives (Román-Calderón, Battistelli, & Odoardi, 2013), a nonprofit university (Gözükara & Şimşek, 2015), and long-term care organizations (Sarti, 2014), along with two studies conducted in general NPO settings (de Oliveira & da Silva, 2015;Selander, 2015). The studies were also conducted in diverse countries such as Australia (Bickerton et al, 2014;Miner et al, 2015), Brazil (de Oliveira & da Silva, 2015), Turkey (Gözükara & Şimşek, 2015), Italy (Román-Calderón et al, 2013;Sarti, 2014), Finland (Selander, 2015), and the United States (Williams, 2014). With respect to the definition/conceptualization of work engagement used in the 10 studies, Schaufeli and his colleagues' (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004;Schaufeli et al, 2002) conceptualizations were the most frequently used; five studies used their concepts (Bickerton et al, 2014;Miner et al, 2015;Román-Calderón et al, 2013;Sarti, 2014;Selander, 2015), one study (de Oliveira & da Silva, 2015) used other conceptualizations of work engagement (i.e., Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005), and one study (Williams, 2014) created an aggregated concept to identify work engagement by integrating Schaufeli et al's (2002) concepts of work engagement with other conceptualizations from different studies (i.e., Fleming, Coffman, & Harter, 2005;Little & Little, 2006).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the studies were conducted in various sectors, including a homeless shelter (Williams, 2014), churches (Bickerton, Miner, & Dowson, 2014;Miner, Bickerton, Dowson, & Sterland, 2015), social cooperatives (Román-Calderón, Battistelli, & Odoardi, 2013), a nonprofit university (Gözükara & Şimşek, 2015), and long-term care organizations (Sarti, 2014), along with two studies conducted in general NPO settings (de Oliveira & da Silva, 2015;Selander, 2015). The studies were also conducted in diverse countries such as Australia (Bickerton et al, 2014;Miner et al, 2015), Brazil (de Oliveira & da Silva, 2015), Turkey (Gözükara & Şimşek, 2015), Italy (Román-Calderón et al, 2013;Sarti, 2014), Finland (Selander, 2015), and the United States (Williams, 2014). With respect to the definition/conceptualization of work engagement used in the 10 studies, Schaufeli and his colleagues' (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004;Schaufeli et al, 2002) conceptualizations were the most frequently used; five studies used their concepts (Bickerton et al, 2014;Miner et al, 2015;Román-Calderón et al, 2013;Sarti, 2014;Selander, 2015), one study (de Oliveira & da Silva, 2015) used other conceptualizations of work engagement (i.e., Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005), and one study (Williams, 2014) created an aggregated concept to identify work engagement by integrating Schaufeli et al's (2002) concepts of work engagement with other conceptualizations from different studies (i.e., Fleming, Coffman, & Harter, 2005;Little & Little, 2006).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 | VOLUNTEERING, COLLECTIVE ACTIONS, AND CRISIS SITUATIONS Broadly defined, "volunteering means any activity in which time is given freely to benefit another person, group, or organization" (Wilson, 2000, p. 215). Traditional volunteers are mobilized by formal organizations (Hustinx et al, 2010;Selander, 2015). Usually, volunteering is defined in the context of work-unpaid work with an element of attractive leisure (Stebbins, 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fully engaged employees who are energetic and enthusiastic are more predisposed to perform Discretionary Service Behaviours (DSB) for their colleagues and organisation (McShane, Olekalns & Travaglione, 2013;Selander, 2015). Similar to organisational citizenship, McShane et al (2013) describe DSBs as the degree to which an employee feels emotionally connected to an organisation and feels the desire to assist customers and colleagues beyond their normal requirements.…”
Section: Employee Engagementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast with Bhaskar and Khera (2014), Salwendar (2015) described DSBs as the positive and negative intent to perform outside their explicit job descriptions, including, and not limited to bending the rules or violating procedures for customer satisfaction. Selander (2015) found that employees who are fully engaged are likely to over-work, lose track of time and sacrifice their own well-being for the sake of others. Though employees whom are proud and dedicated to their work, employees performing DSB's are likely to experience burnout if working overtime becomes the 'norm'.…”
Section: Employee Engagementmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation