Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:52:17.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Defining Employee Engagement for Productive Research and Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Reeshad S. Dalal*
Affiliation:
George Mason University
Bradley J. Brummel
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Serena Wee
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Lisa L. Thomas
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Department of Psychology, George Mason University, David King Hall, Room 3077, MSN 3F5, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
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

*

Department of Psychology, George Mason University

References

Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E., & MacDermid, S. M. (2005). An episodic process model of affective influences on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 10541068.10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1054Google Scholar
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99109.10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1979). Personality and learning theory: Vol. 1. The structure of personality in its environment. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 10111027.10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011Google Scholar
Harrison, D. A. (2002). Meaning and measurement of work role withdrawal: Current controversies and future fallout from changing information technology. In Koslowsky, M. & Krausz, M. (Eds.), Voluntary employee withdrawal and inattendance: A current perspective (pp. 95131). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.10.1007/978-1-4615-0599-0_5Google Scholar
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 330.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.xGoogle Scholar
May, D., Gilson, R., & Harter, L. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 1137.10.1348/096317904322915892Google Scholar
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247259.10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247Google Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 7192.10.1023/A:1015630930326Google Scholar
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior. A new look at the interface between non-work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518528.10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.518Google Scholar
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465490.10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.465Google Scholar
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 174.Google Scholar