Decisiones de diseño

Engagement reflects on an employees’ intellectual and emotional attachment to his or her work, with Heger (2007, p.122) stating that, “employees’

engagement involves both rational and emotional subscales”, including “what employees think (the mind) and feel (the heart) about their work and organisation”.

28

Engaged workers are therefore physically involved in their tasks and remain cognitively alert, whilst staying emotionally connected to others (Olivier &

Rothmann, 2007).

In order to understand engagement it is necessary to look at the overall framework of work engagement. There are various conceptual frameworks available in the literature that reflects on work engagement.

2.3.3.1 Kahn’s model

Kahn (1990) presented a theoretical framework within which ‘self-role’ can be explained. The focus is on personal engagement and personal disengagement. According to Kahn (1990), employees express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally in their work roles during personal engagement. During the process of disengagement employees uncouple themselves from the work roles; they withdraw themselves physically, cognitively or emotionally from their work role. Kahn (1990, p. 694) defined personal engagement as “ the harnessing of organisation members selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during role performances”.

Schaufeli (2013) states that this model is based on the needs-satisfying approach therefore assuming that engagement will take place when three psychological conditions are met. Therefore it assumes that when the job is challenging and meaningful; the social environment at work is safe and personal resources are available; the needs for meaningfulness, safety and availability are met and therefore engagement is likely to occur.

According to Bakker, et al. (2008) this view of work engagement is related to, and defined in terms of the work role, whilst other views of engagement regard it as the positive opposite if burnout, hence focusing on work activity and work itself.

29

2.3.3.2 Saks’ model of engagement

Saks (2006) argued that the social exchange theory (SET) can form the basis for explaining engagement. “SET argues that obligations are generated through a series of interactions between parties who are in a state of reciprocal interdependence” (Saks, 2006, p. 603). Furthermore, Schaufeli (2013, p. 20) explains that the social exchange theory is based on the assumption that

“relationships at work evolve over time into trusting, loyal and mutual commitments as long as all parties involved abide by reciprocity or repayments rules”.

According to Saks (2006) engagement is one way for employees to repay their employer. The level of engagement can therefore vary in response to the resources that employees get from the employer. Employees bring themselves into their work roles and devote greater amounts of cognitive and emotional resources to the job in order to respond to the organisation’s actions and resources. Saks (2006) acknowledges that it is difficult for employees to vary their performance in accordance with the amount of resources they receive from the employer; because performance is usually measured.

However, it is easier to change the amount of engagement in response to resources received. Schaufeli (2013) further suggests that there is an obligation for the employee to respond to resources that the organisation offer.

Saks (2006) concludes that SET therefore provides a theoretical framework to explain why employees choose to be more or less engaged at certain times.

However, once the organisation is perceived to have failed in providing the economic and socio-emotional resources, employees are more likely to withdraw and disengage themselves from their roles. Saks (2006) explains that employees will decrease their amount of cognitive, emotional and physical resources contingent to the amount of resources received from the organisation.

30

2.3.3.3 The affective shift model

According to Schaufeli (2013, p. 19) the affective shift model assumes that both a person’s positive and negative state of affect have important implications for work engagement. It is suggested that there is interplay of positive and negative affect at work that produces work engagement”. When a person experiences a negative affect it will alert him or her that something is not well. By recognising that something is wrong it will result in effort to change the negative affect to a positive affect. Schaufeli (2013) argues that the moment the negative affect is minimised and the positive affect increased, it will result in work engagement. Bledow, Schmitt, Frese and Kuhnel (2011) further suggest that work engagement is the result of people moving from situation with a negative state of affect to a positive state of affect, as shown in figure 2.9.

Figure 2.9: The affective shift model of work engagement (Bledow, et al. 2011, p. 1247)

2.3.3.4 The job demands-resources model

According to Schaufeli (2013) the Job demands-resources (JD-R) model regards burnout and engagement as separate constructs, figure 2.10 .According to Schaufeli (2013) the JD-R model assumes that engagement is the result of two resources, namely job resources and personal resources.

Bakker and Demerouti (2008) further state that these resources either independently or combined predict work engagement.

31

Figure 2.10: The JD-R model of work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008, p.218)

Schaufeli (2013) suggests that job resources refer to the aspects of the job that are functional in achieving work goals, decreasing job demands or encouraging personal growth. Personal resources are aspects of the self and refer to the ability to control and impact the work environment. Schaufeli (2013, p. 16) further states that the JD-R model refers to the motivational process in that “work engagement mediates the relationship between job and personal resources on the one hand and positive outcomes on the other hand”. In conclusion the JD-R model states that these resources encourage engagement in terms of energy, persistence and focus. Hence, engagement will in turn produce positive outcomes, for example job performance.

2.3.3.5 Overall model of work engagement

Bakker and Demerouti (2008) state that the drivers and consequences of work engagement are explained in an ‘overall model of work engagement’, figure 2.11. The overall model of work engagement stems from JD-R model.

32

According to Bakker (2011) this model suggests that job resources are the start of a motivational process that leads to more engagement, which in turn results in higher performance. The model further suggests that job resources become more important when employees are confronted with higher job demands. Job resources and personal resources are independent predictors of work engagement. Bakker (2011, p. 267) further states that employees with more personal resources are better “able to mobilise their job resources and generally are more engaged in their work”.

Figure 2.11: The model of work engagement (Bakker, 2011, p. 267)

Bakker (2011, p. 267) summarises the model of work engagement by stating that job and personal resources have “a positive impact on engagement when job demands are high”; in turn work engagement has a positive effect on job performance.

There is clear loop of feedback between personal resources, to work engagement and job performance, resulting in job crafting that again adds to personal resources.

33

According to Bakker (2011, p. 267) this loop is evidence that employees who are engaged are able to create their own resources”, fostering engagement over time. Bakker (2011) explains job crafting by stating that it allows individuals to fit their jobs to their personal preferences and to their personal knowledge and skills. Employees involved in job crafting are therefore actively involved in their work and are able to change their work environment if needed, to ensure performance and goal achievement.