Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:43:51.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Employee Engagement at the Organizational Level of Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

S. Douglas Pugh*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Joerg Dietz
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Belk College of Business, Department of Management, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, NC 28223

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

*

Belk College of Business, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

**

Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario

References

Buchanan, L. (2004, December). The things they do for love. Harvard Business Review, 82(12), 1920.Google Scholar
Chan, D. (1994). Functional relationships among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234246.Google Scholar
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 6194.Google Scholar
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107116.Google Scholar
George, J. M., & James, L. R. (1993). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups revisited: Comment on aggregation, levels of analysis, and a recent application of within and between analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 798804.Google Scholar
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268279.Google Scholar
Jamrog, J. (2004). The perfect storm: The future of retention and engagement. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 2633.Google Scholar
Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Moods and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 99130.Google Scholar
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. 1, 330.Google Scholar
McGregor, D. M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Rousseau, D. M. (1988). The construction of climate in organizational research. In Cooper, C. L. & Robinson, I. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, (Vol. 3, pp. 139158). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiro, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 12171227.Google Scholar
Schneider, B., Hanges, P. J., Smith, D. B., & Salvaggio, A. N. (2003). Which comes first: Employee attitudes or organizational financial and market performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 836851.Google Scholar
Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Fleenor, J., & Taylor, S. (1998). Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 462470.Google Scholar
Totterdell, P. (2000). Catching moods and hitting runs: Mood linage and subjective performance in professional sport teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 848859.Google Scholar