wilmarschaufeliemployeeengagement 141121082456 conversion gate02

7/21/2019 Wilmarschaufeliemployeeengagement 141121082456 Conversion Gate02

1/44


2/44

The Low Countries Leuven Utrecht

Jorma Rantanen lecture, FIOH, 21 November 2014 - 2


3/44

City of Utrecht



4/44

City of Leuven



5/44



6/44

The traditional view

Disease

Disorder

Damage

Disability

Labor: Animal laborans Effort

Strain

Sacrifice

Blood, sweat & tears

In the sweat of thy face shaltthou eat bread (Genesis 3:19)

The Janus-face of work

Opus: Homo faber Creativity

Productivity

Challenge

Development

In and through labor manbecomes man (Karl Marx)



7/44

Positive Psychology is the scientific study of optimal human

functioning. It aims to discover and promote the factors that

allow individuals and communities to thrive

Martin Seligman (1999)

Its time for a change..



8/44

Positive concepts

Appreciative inquiry

Authentic leadership

Character strengths andvirtues

Courage

Emotional intelligence

Empowerment Flourishing

Flow

Gratitude

Hope

Organizational

virtuousness

Organizational spontaneity

Organization based self-etsteem

Passion

Psychological capital

Resilience

Self-efficacy

Serving leadership

Spirituality

Spirit at work

Thriving

Transcendent behavior



9/44

Changes in the world of work

From To

Stability Continuous change

Monoculture Diversity

Vertical hierarchy Horizontal networks

External supervision & control Self-control & empowerment Dependence on organization Accountability & employability

Fixed schedules & work patterns Boundarylessness

Physical demands Mental and emotional demands

Individual work Team work

Detailed job descriptions Job crafting



10/44

For modern organizations, mental capital is of increasing

importance. Therefore they do not need a merely healthy

workforce but a motivated workforce that is engaged.

Psychologization



11/44

The emergence of engagement

First used in the 1990s in business contexts Increase of importance of mental capital

From 2000 onwards also in academia

Emergence of positive psychology



12/44

Engagement = business

2,030,000 hits (in 0.19 sec.)

All major consultancy firms are involved



13/44

Engagement is on the rise

Source: Google Scholar

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Work engagement Employee engagement


Nu

mberofpublications


14/44


Why positive?

Scientific

To overcome the one-sided negative focus

To challenge the notion of one-dimensionality

To add explanatory power

Practical

To be in line with business developments

To connect HRM and OH&S

Pragmatic

It is more appealing

It is fun


15/44

What is engagement?

Concept and measurement



16/44



17/44

Engagement in business

Employee engagement is usually defined in terms of:

Organizational commitment (affective say and continuance - stay)

Extra-role behavior (discretionary effort - strive)

: Engaged employees consistently demonstrate three generalbehaviors. They: (1) Say consistently speak positively about the

organization to co-workers, potential employees, and customers; (2)

Stay have an intense desire to be a member of the organization despite

opportunities to work elsewhere; (3) Strive exert extra time, effort,

and initiative to contribute to business success (www.hewittassociates.com).

http://www.hewittassociates.com%29./http://www.hewittassociates.com%29./


18/44

Engagement in academia

Work engagement is a positive, affective-motivational state of

fulfillment that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and

absorption (p. 74).

Schaufeli et al. (2002)



19/44

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)

Vigor

At my job I feel strong and vigorous

Dedication

I am enthusiastic about my work

Absorption I get carried away by my work

Available in 26 language versions from www.wilmarschaufeli.nl

Finnish version: Seppl et al. (2009)

Schaufeli et al. (2002, 2006)

http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/


20/44

What do we know?



21/44

Prevalence of engagement

Study Sample Engaged (%)

Gallup (2010) US 28%

Towers Perrin (2005) US 23%

Blessing White (2005) US 21%

Towers Perrin (2004) UK

France

Germany

14%

14%

23%

Gallup (2003) UK

France

Germany

19%

12%

12%

25%

15%



22/44

Demographics of engagement(N = 4,000 representative Dutch national sample)

Weak positive relationship with age (r= .10)

No systematic gender differences

Differences between professions:

Smulders (2006)

High in engagement:

entrepreneurs teachers

managers

artists

farmers

sales persons

nurses

Low in engagement:

blue-collar workers food processing

printers

police officers

ICT-workers

home care staff

retail workers



23/44

Development of engagement across time

Engagement is relatively stable across time (Mauno et al., 2007; Seppl et al.,2009)

Engagement and workaholism develop separately, job change

has positive effect (Mkikangas et al., 2013)

Vigor and exhaustion do not develop in tandem, but dedication

and cynicism do (Mkikangas et al., 2012)

Two profiles: Engaged and Exhausted-Workaholic (Innanen et al., 2014)



24/44

Engagement model in business

Linkage studies

Engagement

driversEmployee

engagement

Business

outcomes



25/44

Drivers of engagement

Trust and integrity of management

Personal relationship with manager

Co-workers and team (support, climate)

Challenging job (autonomy, participation)

Skill development Career opportunities

Line-of-sight between individual and company performance

Pride about the company

Source: Gibbons (2006), based on 12 studies using over 500,000 employees around the globe



26/44

Business outcomes (linkage studies)

Sales performance at team level (Bates, 2004 Fleming et al. 2005)

Customer service productivity (Conference Board, 2003)

Customer satisfaction (Coco & Jamison, 2011)

Companys financial performance (Hewitt, 2004)

Individual job performance (CLC, 2004)

Customers discretionary purchases (Oakley, 2005)

Retention and turnover(Towers Perrin, 2005)

For additional case studies see the report to the UK government of MacLeod & Clarke (2010).Engagingfor success: Enhancing performance through engagement.



27/44

Engaged vs. non-engaged units

152 organizations; 32,394 business units; 955,905 employees

Gallup, 2010; See also Harter, Schmidt & Hayes, 2002

Absenteeism Safety incidents Quality (defects)

Customer

satisfactionProductivity Profitability

- 37%

- 49%

- 60%

+12%+18% +16%



28/44

Academic studies

Is engagement something specific?

What are its antecedents and consequences

How can it be explained?



29/44

Types of affective employee well-being

ACTIVATION

DEACTIVATION

PLEASUREDISPLEASURE

Adapted from Russell (2003)

SATISFIED

WORK

ADDICTED

BURNED-OUT

ENGAGED



30/44

Putting the taxomomy to the test

Salanova et al. (2014)



31/44

Engagement goes beyond job satisfaction

Correlation between engagement and satisfaction:.53 (k=4, N=9,712)

k N Satisfaction Engagement

Task performance 5 1175 .30 .39

Contextual performance 4 1139 .24 .43

Christian, Garza & Slaughter (2011)



32/44

Antecedents

Job resources

Job control Social support

Performance feedback

Opportunity to develop

Task variety

Responsibility

Transformational leadership

Value fit

Organizational justice

For reviews and meta-analyses see: Halbesleben (2010); Mauno et al. (2010); Crawford et al. 2010; Christian et al. (2011)

Challenge demands

Workload Time urgency

Mental demands



33/44

Antecedents

Job resources

Job control (autonomy)

Social support (co-workers and team)

Performance feedback(line-of-sight)

Opportunity to develop (career opportunities)

Task variety (skill development)

Responsibility (challenging job)

Transformational leadership (personal relation with leader)

Value fit (pride)

Organizational justice (trust & integrity)

For reviews and meta-analyses see: Halbesleben (2010); Mauno et al. (2010); Crawford et al. 2010; Christian et al. (2011)

Challenge demands

Workload(challenging job)

Time urgency (idem)

Mental demands (idem)



34/44

Emotional stability

Extraversion

Conscientiousness

Optimism

Self-confidence

Achievement striving

Adaptive perfectionism (i.e. personal standards)

Person characteristics

For reviews see: Simpson (2009), Schaufeli & Salanova (2008), Schaufeli & Taris (2012)



35/44

Individual outcomes

Physical

Reactivity of the HPA (Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal)axis (Langelaan et al. 2006)

Cardiac autonomic activity (Seppl et al., 2012)

Mental

Low levels depression (Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012; Anxiety (Innstrand, 2012)

Perceived physical/psychosomatic health (Schaufeli, Taris, van Rhenen, 2008)

Sleep quality (Kubota et al., 20l1); Sleep hygiene (Barber et al., 2013)

Behavioral

Workability (Airila et al. 2012)

Proactive behavior(Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008)



36/44


37/44

A model for work engagement

Job

resources

Challenge

demands

Personal and

organizational

outcomes

Engagement

Adapted from Bakker & Demerouti (2007, 2008)

Personal

resources

Leadership



38/44

What we know

Work engagement differs from workaholism and job satisfaction Similar antecedents of work engagement are identified by business and

academic research

Business research shows linkage with business outcomes

Academic research shows links with person characteristics and individual

outcomes and to a lesser degree organizational outcomes

A dynamic psychological motivation process seems to exist

Leadership might play a crucial (indirect) role



39/44

How to improve engagement ?



40/44

Interventions

Treatment PreventionAmplition



41/44

Different levels (empirical evidence)

Individual level Gratefulness and kindness (Ouweneel, Le Blanc & Schaufeli, 2014)

Mindfulness (Leroy, Anseel, Dimitrova & Sels, 2013)

Job crafting training (Van den Heuvel, Demerouti & Peeters, 2012)

Career management training (Vuori, Toppinen-Tanner & Mutanan, 2011)

Team level Manager led group meetings (Allen & Rogeslberg, 2013)

Caring leadership (Bishop, 2013)

Team redesign (Cifre, Salanova & Rodriguez, 2010)

Team-level collaborative job crafting (McClelland, 2014)

Organization level Performance management (Mone et al., 2011)

Leadership development (Biggs, Brough & Bardour, 2014)

For additional case studies see: MacLeod & Clarke Simpson (2010)



42/44

Key-factors for success (consultancy experience)

1. Systematic, stepwise approach

2. Combination of approaches

3. Participation

4. Communication

5. Commitment from top-management

6. Focus on operational leadership

There isneither a silver bullet nor a quick fix



43/44

Work engagement..

seems to be a unique construct

can be measured in a valid and reliable way

... is fostered by job and personal resources

has positive consequences for employee and organization

may be improved by interventions at different levels



44/44

Paljon kiitoksia mielenkiinnostanne!

More information

Academic:www.wilmarschaufeli.nlConsultancy: www.3ihc.nl

http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/http://www.3ihc.nl/http://www.3ihc.nl/http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/

wilmarschaufeliemployeeengagement 141121082456 conversion gate02

Documents