Understanding active psychological states: Embedding engagement in a wider nomological net and closer attention to performance

By Sharon K. Parker, Mark A. Griffin. 2011

187 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0122d3fda8c9fa00c6e3c35f63767551ce14691e

How researchers see this paper

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

In Applied Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Mind the mindset! The interaction of proactive personality, transformational leadership and growth mindset for engagement at work (2018, background): “Second, proactivity can also be conceived as a behavioral attribute (state) that can affect engagement, but can also be the result of it (Parker and Griffin, 2011; Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008; Sonnentag, 2003).”
Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement (2012, background): “Thus, employees who are engaged and experience positive affect are more likely to show proactive behavior because they are better able to see possibilities and think innovatively (Bindl and Parker, 2011; Parker and Griffin, 2011).”
The Buffering Effect of Perceived Organizational Support on the Relationship Between Work Engagement and Behavioral Outcomes (2016, background): “As Parker and Griffin (2011) noted, low levels of work engagement do not necessarily imply correspondingly low levels of desirable work outcomes (e.g., higher turnover intentions and deviant behavior).”
The relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization (2016, background): “In a similar vein, Parker and Griffin (2011) argued that, when employees are energized, they are more prone to engage in proactive behaviour.”
Employee engagement, organisational performance and individual well-being: exploring the evidence, developing the theory (2011, background): “Further studies adopting similar approaches would be welcome, in order to show how engagement is situated within its nomological network (Parker and Griffin 2011).”
Construct Overlap Between Employee Engagement and Job Satisfaction: A Function of Semantic Equivalence? (2015, background): “Conceptually, employee engagement has been defined as an active, work-related positive psychological state (Parker and Griffin 2011; Shuck et al. 2013).”
The influence of prosocial motivation and civility on work engagement:The mediating role of thriving at work (2018, background): “Individuals energetically share their skills and knowledge (Eldor & Harpaz, 2016; Parker & Griffin, 2011), when they have good connectionwith other because employees cannot learn in the isolation (Spreitzer et al., 2005).”
The nature of employee engagement: rethinking the employee–organization relationship (2017, background): “…is important, because employee engagement shares characteristics with psychological empowerment as an active attitude and with the psychological contract as a mutual factor in the employee–organization relationship (Macey & Schneider, 2008; see also the recommendation of Parker & Griffin, 2011).”
Crafting the Change: The Role of Employee Job Crafting Behaviors for Successful Organizational Change (2018, background): “This pattern of results addresses regulatory focus as a basic individual difference giving insight on whether employee proactive or job crafting efforts are intensified under heightened motivation (S. K. Parker & Griffin, 2011) or under challenged motivation (Tims & Bakker, 2010).”
Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD–R Approach (2014, unknown): “More recently, Parker and colleagues have proposed that engagement, and the component of vigor in particular, broadens individuals ’ cognitive processes, stimulating several proactive behaviors such as job crafting (Parker et al. 2010, Parker & Griffin 2011).”
The relationship between perceived training and development and employee retention: the mediating role of work attitudes (2018, background): “strengthen their intention to stay with the organization (Parker and Griffin, 2011).”
The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: a moderated mediation model (2013, background): “Although the research evidence is convincing that higher levels of engagement lead to favourable outcomes for individuals and the organisation, the literature is only beginning to uncover how these relationships vary as a function of an employee’s relationship with his or her line manager and the or”