1,592 publications from this institution
People try to acquire resources at work which they value such as autonomy, social relationships, and feedback about their performance. These job resources are functional in achieving work goals and may stimulate personal growth, learning, and development. As such, job resources initiate a motivational process that may lead to work engagement and positive organizational outcomes, including enhanced performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). This premise is consistent with traditional motivational approaches such as job characteristics theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) and self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to the former approach, particular job characteristics such as skill variety, autonomy, and feedback have motivating potential and indirectly predict positive outcomes like intrinsic motivation (a concept closely related to work engagement), through the activation of positive psychological states. In a somewhat similar vein, self-determination theory posits that job resources are motivating because they fulfill basic human needs, such as the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Consequently, work contexts that provide resources such as job control (autonomy), feedback (competence), and social support (relatedness) would enhance well-being and increase intrinsic satisfaction at work (Ryan & Frederick, 1997).
Objective: To investigate whether work engagement influences self-perceived health, work ability, and sickness absence beyond health behaviors and work-related characteristics. Methods: Employees of two organizations participated in a 6-month longitudinal study (n = 733). Using questionnaires, information was collected on health behaviors, work-related characteristics, and work engagement at baseline, and self-perceived health, work ability, and sickness absence at 6-month follow-up. Associations between baseline and follow-up variables were studied using multivariate and multinomial logistic regression analyses and changes in R2 were calculated. Results: Low work engagement was related with low work ability (odds ratio: 3.68; 95% confidence interval: 2.15 to 6.30) and long-term sickness absence (odds ratio: 1.84; 95% confidence interval: 1.04 to 3.27). Work engagement increased the explained variance in work ability and sickness absence with 4.1% and 0.5%, respectively. Conclusions: Work engagement contributes to work ability beyond known health behaviors and work-related characteristics.
The current study examined the mediating effect of presenteeism and moderating effect of managerial support in the relation between workaholism and work–family conflict. A sample of 1065 white‐collar employees from an Italian company filled in an online survey and hypotheses were tested using a bootstrapping procedure. Results showed that presenteeism mediated the association between workaholism and work–family conflict. Moreover, the mediating effect of presenteeism was moderated by managerial support: for employees reporting lower levels of support workaholism was stronger related to presenteeism than for those experiencing higher support. Presenteeism, in turn, was related to greater levels of work–family conflict. The present study sheds light into the protective role played by managerial support in preventing workaholic employees from forcing themselves to attend work also when feeling sick. Accordingly, early intervention aimed at buffering the negative association between workaholism and work–family conflict should focus on training managers to develop supportive leadership skills.
The Job Demands–Resources Model was used as the basis of the proposal that there are two parallel processes involved in work-related well-being among teachers, namely an energetical process (i.e., job demands→burnout→ill health) and a motivational process (i.e., job resources→engagement→organizational commitment). In addition, some cross-links between both processes were hypothesized. Structural equation modeling was used to simultaneously test the hypotheses in a sample of Finnish teachers (N =2038). The results confirmed the existence of both processes, although the energetical process seems to be more prominent. More specifically, (1) burnout mediated the effect of high job demands on ill health, (2) work engagement mediated the effects of job resources on organizational commitment, and (3) burnout mediated the effects of lacking resources on poor engagement. The robustness of these findings is underscored by the fact that they were obtained in one half of the sample (using random selection) and cross-validated in the other half.
Building on Deci and Ryan's Self-Determination Theory and Meijman and Mulder's Effort-Recovery Model, the present study examined the nature, antecedents, and consequences of working hard (i.e., workaholism and work engagement) in a Dutch convenience sample of 1,246 employees.A confirmatory factor analysis showed that workaholism and work engagement were two largely independent concepts.Crossing these two concepts yielded four types of workers: workaholic employees, engaged employees, engaged workaholics, and nonworkaholic/ nonengaged employees.MANOVA and subsequent ANOVAs were used to compare these four groups regarding their motivation, working hours, and levels of burnout.As expected, study results revealed that workaholic employees were driven by controlled motivation, whereas engaged employees were driven by autonomous motivation.Engaged workaholics were driven by both controlled and autonomous motivation.In addition, the results revealed that engaged workaholics spent most time on working.Unlike workaholic employees, engaged workaholics did not experience the highest levels of burnout, suggesting that high engagement may buffer the adverse consequences of workaholism.The present study emphasizes the importance of differentiating among at least three categories of employees who work hard: workaholic employees, engaged employees, and-for the first time-engaged workaholics.
No abstract is provided for this article.
No abstract is provided for this article.
This paper introduces a new definition for burnout and investigates the psychometric properties of the Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT). In a prior qualitative study, 49 practitioners were interviewed about their conceptualization of burnout (part 1). Using a dialectical approach, four core dimensions—exhaustion, mental distance, and impaired emotional and cognitive impairment—and three secondary dimensions—depressed mood, psychological distress, and psychosomatic complaints—emerged, which constitute the basis of the BAT. In the second study, the psychometric characteristics of the BAT were investigated in a representative sample of 1500 Flemish employees, focusing on factorial validity, reliability, and construct validity, respectively. Results demonstrate the assumed four-factor structure for the core dimensions, which is best represented by one general burnout factor. Contrary to expectations, instead of a three-factor structure, a two-factor structure was found for the secondary dimensions. Furthermore, the BAT and its subscales show adequate reliability. Convergent validity and discriminant validity with other burnout measures—including the MBI and OLBI—was demonstrated, as well as discriminant validity with other well-being constructs, such as work engagement and workaholism.