Discussion – Week 10
APA References, NO WEBSITES, Only peer-reviewed journal articles
All organizations seek employees who are enthusiastic and energetic as well as intelligent and focused. Employees who are highly engaged with their work are found to be more productive and are less likely to exhibit withdrawal behaviors such as absenteeism and burnout. The term engagement can describe psychological states, and behaviors, which together can be challenging to define and measure. Work engagement may be a unique concept or simply other constructs recombined, with both attitudinal and behavioral components, but it is considered to be an asset for organizations that can foster engaged employees and reap the benefits.
For this Discussion, consider work engagement in relation to job attitudes, job involvement, and job burnout.
With these thoughts in mind:
ASSIGNMENT an explanation of whether work engagement is a job attitude or a consequence of job attitudes and why. Then explain whether work engagement is the same as or different from job involvement and why. Finally, explain whether work engagement is the opposite of job burnout or something distinct from job burnout and why.
In my opinion, some key prerequisites for work engagement are commitment, enthusiasm, loyalty, and satisfaction. In other words, employees are engaged in their work only after they are satisfied with their job suggesting that engagement is a consequence of job attitude. Various research studies have also revealed that people who have a positive job attitude to include being satisfied will be somewhat more committed to the organization and more engaged in their work (Mathis & Jackson, 2006). A definition of work engagement I identified with is one according to Gibbons (2006 as cited in Jacobs, Renard, & Snelger, 2014) that associates engagement to the emotional and intellectual connection employees have to their job. The definition went on to list key attitudinal and behavioral components for work engagement such as effort, dedication, and commitment, all necessary for increasing engagement and in turn increasing employee retention, productivity, as well as higher company profits, customer loyalty, and satisfaction (Jacobs, Renard & Snelgar, 2014).
Examining this topic has brought several other researchers to light who have defined work engagement as having an association with burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) focus on engagement as being a positive antithesis of burnout. Whereas, others agree that job engagement and burnout are distinct constructs and should be treated separately (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). Several books, articles, television shows have profiled individuals with high paying careers such as that of lawyers who have left their jobs for lower paying jobs, sometimes retreating to small Caribbean islands all due to the burnout dilemma. Burnout is defined as having complete exhaustion, cynicism, ineffectiveness and disengagement from work (Demerouti, Mostert, & Bakker, 2010). Burnout does not happen overnight serving as a long-term and intensely physical, affective, and cognitive strain to certain job demands. Work engagement, on the other hand, is measured on the opposite spectrum of burnout where energy or vigour in engagement turns to exhaustion, involvement turns into cynicism, and efficacy turns into ineffectiveness (Demerouti, Mostert, & Bakker, 2010) suggesting again that though they are conceptually associated, the measures of each are different and should be treated independently.
Job involvement is similar to work engagement but with clearly differentiated concepts that are sometimes used interchangeably. Job involvement is more on the individual level whereas work engagement is on the corporate level (Kanungo, 1982). Job involvement is defined as an individual having complete identification with his or her specific job and actively participating in the job. It is a cognitive and intellectual decision made by the individual to make his job the substance of his self-worth. Work engagement describes the individual’s overall well-being and health at work (Jacobs, Renard & Snelgar, 2014) separate from the job itself. However, positive job involvement correlates to increased work engagement (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006) so ultimately someone who loves technology will submerge himself into everything IT in and outside of work. As a result, he will also be fully engaged in his work, increasing job satisfaction and commitment while reducing burnout.
Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A. B., (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigatin of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(3), 209-222. DOI: 10.1037/a0019408.
Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B., ( 2006). “Same same” but different?: Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?. European Psychologist, 11(2):119-127. DOI: 10.1027/1016.9040.11.2.119
Jacobs, S., Renard, M., & Snelgar, R. J., (2014). Intrinsic rewards and work engagement in the south african retail industry. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v40i2.1195
Kanungo, R. N., (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3), 341-349
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P., (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review Psychology, 52:397-422.
Mathis, R. L., & Jackson, J. H., (2006). Human resource management (11th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western, part of the Thomson Corporation
Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A., (2003). UWES Utrecht work engagement scale: Preliminary manual. Retrieved from: www.arnoldbakker.com/articles.php
Discussion – Week 10