Building engagement in the workplace

By Arnold B. Bakker. 2008

372 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Demography, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/59f99128e49e5274df69bfd5db9b8b948c30ed96

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Demography

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Psychosocial safety climate moderating the effects of daily job demands and recovery on fatigue and work engagement (2014, background): “It is strongly related to employee well-being, job performance levels, and intention to stay with one’s current employer and is considered a key outcome in interventions aimed at promoting worker well-being (Bakker, 2009; Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010; Sonnentag, 2003).”
Principal self-efficacy and work engagement: assessing a Norwegian Principal Self-Efficacy Scale (2011, background): “…that work engagement is positively associated with concepts such as job resources (e.g. support, feedback, autonomy), personal resources (e.g. selfefficacy, organizational-based self-esteem and optimism) and job performance (e.g. extra-role performance) (Bakker 2009; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007).”
Proactivity, job characteristics, and engagement: a longitudinal study (2010, background): “Job resources can either increase employees’ growth, learning and development, or help them in achieving work goals (Bakker, 2008).”
Engage Them to Public Service (2013, methodology): “Although the UWES is the most extensively used scientifically derived measure of engagement and has been validated in several countries (Bakker, 2009; Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011; Schaufeli et al., 2006), it is not the only measure of EE (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004; Rich et al.”
The relationship between perceived organizational support and work engagement: The role of self-efficacy and its outcomes (2014, background): “, Sonnentag, 2003), and by decreasing their turnover intentions (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Regarding job performance, according to Bakker (2009), four reasons can explain why work-engaged employees perform better than non-work-engaged employees.”
Key questions regarding work engagement (2011, background): “Research has revealed that engaged employees are highly energetic, selfefficacious individuals who exercise influence over events that affect their lives (Bakker, 2009; Schaufeli et al., 2001).”
Antecedents of academic performance of university students: academic engagement and psychological capital resources (2019, background): “This notion may explain why people tend to invest more resources in positive endeavors (Salanova et al., 2010) and consequently experience better performance (Bakker, 2009).”
Work engagement and workaholism: comparing the self-employed and salaried employees (2010, background): “However, more evidence points at predictors of work engagement, such as self-efficacy and optimism (Bakker, 2009).”
Defining and measuring work engagement : Bringing clarity to the concept (2010, methodology): “Page 17 South Africa (Storm & Rothmann, 2003), Sweden (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006), and The Netherlands (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008; Te Brake, Bouwman, Gorter, Hoogstraten, & Eijkman, 2007). However, it appears that the three dimensions of engagement are very clos”
Regulatory mode orientations and well‐being in an organizational setting: the differential mediating roles of workaholism and work engagement (2014, background): “Engaged employees feel connected to their work (Kahn, 1990) and generate a cycle of positive feedback from their own positive attitudes and high activity levels (Bakker, 2009).”
Dynamics of psychological contracts with work engagement and turnover intention: The influence of organizational tenure (2013, background): “Consequently, through a broader action repertoire, engaged employees contribute more to their work than nonengaged employees (Bakker, 2009; Bakker & Bal, 2010).”
Work–Family Enrichment and Satisfaction (2014, methodology): “The literature uses this theory to enlighten the relationship of engagement and work–family enrichment to performance (Bakker, 2008; Carlson, Ferguson, Kacmar, Grzywacz, & Whitten, 2011).”
Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources (2009, methodology): “Day-level autonomy was assessed with two items (‘Today during the shift, I could decide myself how to execute my job/I could decide myself on the pace of executing my job’), based on a scale developed by Bakker, Demerouti, and Verbeke (2004). Inter-item correlations ranged from .63 to .84 across the”
Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on work engagement in the hospitality industry: Test of motivation crowding theory (2017, background): “Research has shown that engaged employees make a company more productive and competitive in today’s global business world (Bakker, 2009; Bakker and Bal, 2010).”