THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Work engagement is divided into three dimensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schuafeli et al., 2002). Vigor is characterized by effort and investment in one’s work and persistency in the face of work-related difficulties (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). A vigorous employee may be characterized by physical and emotional strength, energy, and alertness (Schuafeli & Bakker, 2004).
Dedication corresponds to a sense of pride and meaning in one’s work. Dedication is characterized by enthusiasm and inspiration. Employees who possess high dedication find significance in their work. Dedication functions as the opposite of cynicism in the burnout construct (Shirom, 2011).
Absorption refers to the ability to concentrate on their work in a positive manner (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Absorption is evidenced by high levels of concentration and being absorbed in one’s work (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Those possessing high absorption may become deeply immersed in work, sometimes accompanied by a difficulty in detaching from it (Mauno et al., 2007).
Vigor and dedication are considered the core dimensions of engagement, while absorption is a consequence of engagement (Bakker et al., 2008). Employee engagement is positively related to positive outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors, and is negatively related to detrimental outcomes such as turnover intentions (Saks, 2006) and burnout (Schaufeli et al., 2002).
There are three types of employees in the workplace: engaged employees, not engaged employees, and actively disengaged employees (Crabtree, 2013). Engaged employees are those who find passion in their work and feel connected to their organization. Disengaged employees put the time into their work but do not emotionally connect. Actively disengaged employees are those that are unhappy with their work and act out their unhappiness. These employees may be found actively undermining other employees and the organization (Crabtree, 2013).
While at first glimpse a high degree of employee engagement is positive, detrimental work behaviors can mask themselves as engagement (Rothbard & Patil, 2011). It is possible to confuse workaholism, a detrimental behavior, for high levels of work engagement (van Beek et al., 2011). Workaholics tend to be the most likely to suffer burnout, followed by engaged workaholics, with engaged employees being the least likely to suffer burnout (van Beek et al., 2011).
Weyhrauch et al. (2010) found Extension agents’ program areas to be significantly related to their levels of dedication and absorption. Family and Consumer Science agents had higher dedication levels than both Agriculture and Natural Resource agents and 4-H agents. Statistically significant differences were also found for absorption, with Family and Consumer Science agents reporting greater absorption than 4-H agents. No significant differences were found for vigor. In another study of work engagement in Extension, Abbott (2017) found that County Extension Directors (CEDs) possess average above average to high engagement. CEDs reported average vigor, high dedication, and high absorption. The results of the study also showed that CEDs had no significant differences in engagement based on gender, age, or years of service.
Table of Contents
- INTRODUCTION
- THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- PURPOSE
- METHODS
- FINDINGS
- CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- REFERENCES