Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:27:17.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Behavioral Engagement a Distinct and Useful Construct?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Mark A. Griffin ,
Sharon K. Parker  and
Andrew Neal
Mark A. Griffin*
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Sharon K. Parker
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Andrew Neal
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK S10 2DL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 48 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield

**

School of Psychology, University of Queensland

References

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Schmitt, N., Borman, W. C., & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462.10.1177/014920630002600304Google Scholar
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133–187.10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23005-6Google Scholar
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347.10.5465/amj.2007.24634438Google Scholar
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. 1, 3–30.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.xGoogle Scholar
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extra-role efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–419.Google Scholar
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 612–624.10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.612Google Scholar
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66–80.10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66Google Scholar