1. WORK ENGAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION

2. DEFINITION In business Development dimensions International
Work engagement increases profits
Increasing work engagement pays off
Development dimensions International
Work engagement has three dimensions
Cognitive- belief in and support for the goals and values of the organization
Affective- sense of belonging and sense of pride and attachment to the organization
Behavioural- willingness to go the extra mile, intention to stay with the organization

3. DEFINITION
Hewitt
Engaged employees demonstrate three general behaviours
Say- consistently speak positive about the organization
Stay- have an intense desire to be a member of an organization despite opportunities to work elsewhere
Strive- exert extra time, effort and initiative to contribute to business success

4. DEFINITION Towers Perrin
Employee engagement is an affective state that reflects employees’ personal satisfaction and a sense of of inspiration and satisfaction they get from work and part of the organization

5. DEFINITION Engagement in academia Kahn ( 1990) Maslach (2001)
Harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles: in engagement people employ, express themselves physically, cognitively, emotionally and mentally during role performances
Maslach (2001)
Energy, involvement and efficacy – the direct opposites of the burn out dimensions
A positive fulfilling work related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption ( Schaufeli et al., 2002). It is an affective- cognitive state.

6. DEFINITION
Positive, fulfilling, affective-motivational state of work-related well-being that can be seen as the opposite of job burn out.
High levels of energy
Enthusiastic involvement to one’s work
High levels of vigor and strong identification with one’s work (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Tarris, 2008).

7. DEFINITION Motivational concept
Engaged workers feel obligated to strive towards challenging goals
They have personal energy they bring to work
They do not keep their energy in reserve for something important, they accept that today’s work reflects intense involvement
They pay attention – they consider important details while getting the essence of challenging problems

8. DEFINITION & MEASUREMENT
Three dimensions:
Absorption: Seeing job as engrossing and something on which they are fully concentrated
Vigor: Viewing job as stimulating and energetic and something to which they really want to devote time and effort
Dedication: Evaluating job as a significant and meaningful pursuit

9. DEFINITION & MEASUREMENT
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
At work I feel that I am bursting with energy V
I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose D
Time flies when I am working A

10. Related Concepts Extra-role behaviour Personal initiative
Job involvement
Organizational commitment
Job satsifaction
Positive affectivity
Flow
Workaholism

11. Not all days are created equal: The concept of state work engagement
State level of work engagement
How do you do at work?
Why one person feels more engaged at work on specific days and on other days not.
Experiences that fluctuate over time
Trait level of work engagement
Why one person feels engaged at work while other persons not

12. Not all days are created equal: The concept of state work engagement
Within person perspective
Allows for a closer look at temporal patterns of work-related experiences and behaviours.
Asking individuals retrospective reports over the previous months or even the year and providing summary accounts of their psychological states ignores the dynamic part of the work engagement.
Enables us to examine proximal predictors of work engagement in addition to general predictors

13. Not all days are created equal: The concept of state work engagement
Within person perspective
Enables us to examine proximal predictors of work engagement in addition to general predictors
When do people feel work engagement
Are there specific situational features that have to be present during a specific day in order to feel engaged?
Are there person-specific states that foster work engagement during a specific day or week?
Not only high levels of self-efficacy are important but a person has to be self efficacious about his/her task on a specific day

14. Not all days are created equal: The concept of state work engagement
Within person perspective
Enables us to examine proximal predictors of work engagement in addition to general predictors
When do people feel work engagement
Are there specific situational features that have to be present during a specific day in order to feel engaged?
Are there person-specific states that foster work engagement during a specific day or week?
Not only high levels of self-efficacy are important but a person has to be self efficacious about his/her task on a specific day
Trait work engagement reflects more of an attitude whereas SWE reflects a vivid experience

15. Empirical Evidence
Studies show that work engagement fluctuates within individuals.
Sonnentag (2003) examined work engagement in 147 public service employees over 5 working days
42% variance was at the day level and 58% variance was at the between individual level.
Xanthopoulou et al. (2008) studied 44 flight attendants
41% of overall variance was explained by within-person variation.
Bakker and Bal (in press) examined 54 teachers over five working days
35% variance was attributable to within person variation

16. Empirical Evidence
Studies show that individuals differ in their overall level of work engagement – 58 to 69% of total variance but day level and week level studies show that they do not engage in work engagement to the same degree.

17. Empirical Evidence
Studies show that individuals differ in their overall level of work engagement – 58 to 69% of total variance but day level and week level studies show that they do not engage in work engagement to the same degree.

18. Predictors of state engagement
Studies examined day level predictors of work engagement concentrated on day-specific states of the person – day level recovery and day-level self efficacy.
Job situation variables were also considered

19. Predictors of state engagement
Sonnentag (2003)
Day level recovery as a potential predictor of day level SWE.
Day level recovery: A person’s experience that he or she has relaxed from yesterday’s job stress and now feels refreshed.
Day level recovery – in the morning before the start of the working day
SWE- in the afternoon at the end of the working day.
SWE was higher on days when employees felt recovered in the morning.

20. Predictors of state engagement
Bakker, van Emmerik, Geurts, & Demetrouti (2008)
Assembly line workers
Day level recovery and day level work engagement
Day level recovery in the morning predicted
Day level recovery: A person’s experience that he or she has relaxed from yesterday’s job stress and now feels refreshed.
Day level recovery – in the morning before the start of the working day
SWE- in the afternoon at the end of the working day.
Day level recovery in the morning predicted SWE during the day
Interaction effect with job demands
Employees who faced high job demands and who were at the same highly recovered in the morning experienced the highest level of SWE during the day.

21. Predictors of state engagement
Conservation of resources framework ( Hobfoll, 1998)
People have an innate as well as a learned drive to create, foster, conserve, and protect the quality and quantity of their resources.
Many things could be conceived as resources, but COR theory relates to those
resources that are key to survival and well-being (e.g., shelter, attachment to significant others, self-esteem), or
that are linked to the process of creating and maintaining key resources (e.g., money, credit).

22. Predictors of state engagement
According to COR theory, stress occurs under three
conditions:
(1) when individuals’ key resources are threatened with loss,
(2) when resources are lost, or
(3) when individuals fail to gain resources following significant resource
Stressful or traumatic events consume these resources, thereby augmenting their sensitivity to subsequent stressors.
Recovery during leisure time builds up resources that in turn facilitate SWE

23. Predictors of state engagement
Personal resources foster day level SWE.
Day level resources such as day level recovery increases day level self-efficacy.
Day-level self efficacy and related resources in turn may help one to fully concentrate on one’s work
Day level personal resources ( day level self efficacy, day-level organization based self esteem) predicted SWE ( Xanthopoulou, 2008). I

24. Predictors of state engagement
Personal resources predicted SWE
Stamina
Ability to concentrate
Emotional energy

25. Predictors of state engagement
Xanthoupoulou (2009) looked into job resources too
Day specific coaching
Day specific autonomy
Team climate
All these job resources predicted day level SWE.

26. Predictors of state engagement
Job stressors – job demands
Day level job demands were positively related to day level SWE
If employees have recovered from previous effort and strain
If they have high energy reserves and are recovered from previous day’s fatigue

27. Predictors of state engagement
Bakker and Bal ( in press)
Week level autonomy, week level exchange with the supervisor and week level opportunities for development predicted SWE.

28. Predictors of state engagement
Bakker and Bal ( in press)
Week level autonomy, week level exchange with the supervisor and week level opportunities for development predicted SWE.

29. Outcomes of state work engagement
Sonnentag (2003) examined whether day level SWE was related to day level proactive behaviour
During days employees experienced high level of SWE they also reported high levels of personal initiative and learning behaviour.
Bakker and Bal (in press)
Week level SWE predicted week-level job performance
Xanthoupoulou (2009)
Fast food company workers
Day level job resources had an effect on SWE via day level personal resources
Day level SWE predicted day level financial returns.

30. Outcomes of state work engagement
Is day level SWE is related to day level non-work state engagement?
Rothbard (2001) examined engagement in the work and family domain with a between person approach.
Absorption at work was positively correlated to absorption in the family.
Individuals who are engaged at work are also engaged in their private life ( Schaufeli, Trais, LeBlanc, Peeters, Bakker, & De Jonge, 2001).

31. Developing a comprehensive model of state work engagement
Proximal day level personal resources play a role in SWE
State self efficacy
Self esteem
Optimism
Positive affect energy
They increase employees' belief about being able to address his or her tasks and to achieve the desired outcomes.

32. Developing a comprehensive model of state work engagement
Proximal day level personal resources paly a core role in SWE
Positive affect as a proximal day level personal resource foster excitement and interest than in turn will increase feelings of vigour.
Therefore resources and experiences that foster positive energy are necessary but not sufficient prerequisites for SWE.
States activating positive aspects of the self ( Self efficacy, state self esteem) are of particular importance for the experience of SWE.

33. Developing a comprehensive model of state work engagement
Day level demands will also increase day level work engagement
High demands present on the day make it necessary to focus one’s attention on the task at hand and mobilize a high level of energy.
High demands reduce the likelihood of getting distracted by irrelevant cues and foster absorption at work.

34. Developing a comprehensive model of state work engagement
Day level demands will interact with personal resources in predicting SWE
SWE will be at a high level when day level demands meet a high level of personal resources available at the specific moment.
Proximal day level personal resources will benefit from more distal day level processes and from day day level job resorurces. Rceovery restores personal resources that have been threatened by previous job demands.

35. Practical Implications
State work engagement
Inform individuals and organizations about how to foster work engagement in specific situations or during specific times
Proximal predictors of state work engagement should be paid attention
State self efficacy
Distal predictors of state work engagement
Recovery
When high work engagement is needed on a specific day it is crucial for that individuals refill their “resource reservoir” beforehand
Autonomy
Team climate
Supervisor behavior