In: European journal of work and organizational psychology: the official journal of The European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, Band 22, Heft 4, S. 450-460
In: European journal of work and organizational psychology: the official journal of The European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, Band 33, Heft 3, S. 294-309
The present study examined the configurations, or profiles, taken by distinct global and specific facets of job engagement and burnout (by relying on a bifactor operationalization of these constructs) among a nationally representative sample of Canadian Defence employees ( n = 13,088; nested within 65 work units). The present study also adopted a multilevel perspective to investigate the role of job demands (work overload and role ambiguity), as well as individual (psychological empowerment), workgroup (interpersonal justice), supervisor (transformational leadership), and organizational (organizational support) resources in the prediction of profile membership. Latent profile analyses revealed five profiles of employees: Burned-Out/Disengaged (7.13%) , Burned-Out/Involved (12.13%), Engaged (18.14%), Engaged/Exhausted (15.50%), and Normative (47.10%). The highest turnover intentions were observed in the Burned-Out/Disengaged profile, and the lowest in the Engaged profile. Employees' perceptions of job demands and resources were also associated with profile membership across both levels, although the effects of psychological empowerment were more pronounced than the effects of job demands and resources related to the workgroup, supervisor, and organization. Individual-level effects were also more pronounced than effects occurring at the work unit level, where shared perceptions of work overload and organizational support proved to be the key shared drivers of profile membership.
This research sought to provide a better understanding of the psychometric multidimensionality of workers' responses to the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Studies 1 and 3) and the Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS; Studies 2 and 3). This research also aimed to document the relations between the components of work engagement and workaholism and workers' functioning (i.e., job satisfaction, work performance, work-family conflict, and sleeping problems). Three studies (N = 273, N = 241, N = 304) were conducted to reach these objectives. Results from these three studies indicated that a bifactor-exploratory structural equation modeling (bifactor-ESEM) representation of workaholism and work engagement ratings was superior to alternative representations. Specifically, employees' assessments of work engagement concurrently reflected a global work engagement factor which co-existed with specific vigor, dedication, and absorption components. Similarly, employees' ratings of workaholism revealed a global workaholism factor and simultaneous specific working excessively and working compulsively facets. Our findings also shed light on the criterion-related validity of these workaholism and work engagement components by documenting their differentiated associations with measures of job satisfaction, work performance, work-family conflict, and sleeping problems. Precisely, results from Studies 1 to 3 consistently showed the key role of global workaholism, global work engagement, and the specific vigor facet in predicting outcomes.
This research examines how employee's perceptions of three sources of support in the workplace (i.e., organization, supervisor, and colleagues) combine within specific profiles and the nature of the relations between these profiles and indicators of employees' psychological health (i.e., stress, sleep problems, psychosomatic strains, and depression). Furthermore, this research examines the within-sample and within-person stability of the identified support profiles over the course of an 8-month time interval. Latent profile and latent transition analyses conducted on a sample of 729 workers indicated six identical profiles across the two measurement occasions: 1, moderately supported; 2, weakly supported; 3, isolated; 4, well-supported; 5, supervisor supported; and 6, highly supported. Profile membership was very stable over time for most profiles, with the exception of the isolated profile which was only moderately stable. Furthermore, the isolated and supervisor-supported profiles presented the lowest levels of psychological health, while the well-supported and moderately supported profiles presented the highest levels of psychological health. Of particular interest, results suggested that some risks might be associated with the highly supported profile, although this result could be a simple reflection of the women-dominant composition of this profile. This research has implications for theory and practice, which will be discussed in the article.
This study examines how the different dimensions of job engagement combine within different profiles of workers ( n = 264). This research also documents the relations between the identified job engagement profiles, demographic characteristics (gender, age, education, working time, and organizational tenure), job characteristics (work autonomy, task variety, task significance, task identity, and feedback), attitudes (affective and normative commitment), and psychological health (emotional exhaustion and ill-being). Latent profile analysis revealed four profiles of employees defined based on their global and specific (physical, emotional, and cognitive) job engagement levels: Globally Disengaged, Globally Engaged, Globally but not Emotionally Engaged, and Moderately Engaged. Employees' perceptions of task variety and feedback shared statistically significant relations with their likelihood of membership into all latent profiles. Profiles were finally showed to be meaningfully related to employees' levels of affective commitment, normative commitment, emotional exhaustion, and ill-being.
In: European journal of work and organizational psychology: the official journal of The European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, Band 28, Heft 2, S. 239-258
In: European journal of work and organizational psychology: the official journal of The European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, Band 32, Heft 3, S. 432-449
In: European journal of work and organizational psychology: the official journal of The European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, Band 32, Heft 2, S. 216-233
In: European journal of work and organizational psychology: the official journal of The European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, S. 1-19