好事太多?员工参与是否总是建设性的,脱离是否总是破坏性的?

IF 4.1 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS Management Decision Pub Date : 2024-05-28 DOI:10.1108/md-04-2023-0607
Amanda S. Davis, Beatrice I.J.M. Van der Heijden
{"title":"好事太多?员工参与是否总是建设性的,脱离是否总是破坏性的?","authors":"Amanda S. Davis, Beatrice I.J.M. Van der Heijden","doi":"10.1108/md-04-2023-0607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p> An employee engagement/disengagement typology is presented to visually illustrate their possible constructive and destructive effects within the workplace, and identify some of the contextual drivers that may lead to these occurrences.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p> A narrative literature review was conducted during 2020–2023 to gain a comprehensive overview of employee engagement and disengagement processes and theories since 1990. Content analysis enabled the findings to be grouped into their destructive and constructive behavioural effects to produce a new typology.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p> The typology shows that not all employee engagement is constructive and that not all disengagement is destructive. This more accurately reflects organisational life. Destructive employee engagement in particular, demonstrates that there can be “too-much-of-a-good-thing”.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\n<p> The typology may help inform future research designs to further understand the impact of contextual factors on both constructs, the pluralist interests involved and which interventions are likely to encourage constructive engagement and disengagement within specific contexts.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\n<p> It is recommended that employee engagement and disengagement are incorporated into leadership and management training and that practices to foster constructive employee engagement (or permit temporary constructive disengagement to allow recovery) endorse the principles of mutuality and reciprocity. Interventions to prevent destructive employee engagement and disengagement are also advisable, particularly when there are adverse internal and external contextual issues which risk disengagement.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p> The typology is the first to classify engaged and disengaged behaviours within the workplace across two dimensions. In doing so, this helps to evaluate employee engagement and disengagement theory by challenging the normative assumptions held within these constructs. This categorisation more accurately represents both constructs and visually illustrates that within the workplace, not only is employee engagement sometimes destructive but also that sometimes disengagement is constructive. Furthermore, it demonstrates that purposive destructive employee disengagement responses may be passive or active.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":18046,"journal":{"name":"Management Decision","volume":"97 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Too-much-of-a-good-thing? Is employee engagement always constructive and disengagement always destructive?\",\"authors\":\"Amanda S. Davis, Beatrice I.J.M. Van der Heijden\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/md-04-2023-0607\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p> An employee engagement/disengagement typology is presented to visually illustrate their possible constructive and destructive effects within the workplace, and identify some of the contextual drivers that may lead to these occurrences.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p> A narrative literature review was conducted during 2020–2023 to gain a comprehensive overview of employee engagement and disengagement processes and theories since 1990. Content analysis enabled the findings to be grouped into their destructive and constructive behavioural effects to produce a new typology.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p> The typology shows that not all employee engagement is constructive and that not all disengagement is destructive. This more accurately reflects organisational life. Destructive employee engagement in particular, demonstrates that there can be “too-much-of-a-good-thing”.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\\n<p> The typology may help inform future research designs to further understand the impact of contextual factors on both constructs, the pluralist interests involved and which interventions are likely to encourage constructive engagement and disengagement within specific contexts.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\\n<p> It is recommended that employee engagement and disengagement are incorporated into leadership and management training and that practices to foster constructive employee engagement (or permit temporary constructive disengagement to allow recovery) endorse the principles of mutuality and reciprocity. Interventions to prevent destructive employee engagement and disengagement are also advisable, particularly when there are adverse internal and external contextual issues which risk disengagement.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p> The typology is the first to classify engaged and disengaged behaviours within the workplace across two dimensions. In doing so, this helps to evaluate employee engagement and disengagement theory by challenging the normative assumptions held within these constructs. This categorisation more accurately represents both constructs and visually illustrates that within the workplace, not only is employee engagement sometimes destructive but also that sometimes disengagement is constructive. Furthermore, it demonstrates that purposive destructive employee disengagement responses may be passive or active.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":18046,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Management Decision\",\"volume\":\"97 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Management Decision\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/md-04-2023-0607\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Management Decision","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/md-04-2023-0607","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 介绍员工敬业/脱离敬业类型学,直观地说明它们在工作场所可能产生的建设性和破坏性影响,并确定可能导致这些情况发生的一些背景驱动因素。 设计/方法/途径 2020-2023 年期间进行了叙述性文献综述,以全面了解 1990 年以来员工敬业和脱离敬业的过程和理论。通过内容分析,将研究结果分为破坏性和建设性行为效果两类,从而形成一种新的类型学。研究结果 该类型学表明,并非所有的员工参与都是建设性的,也并非所有的脱离都是破坏性的。这更准确地反映了组织生活。研究局限/启示 该类型学有助于为未来的研究设计提供参考,从而进一步了解环境因素对这两个概念的影响、所涉及的多元利益以及哪些干预措施可能会在特定环境中鼓励建设性参与和脱离。实践意义 建议将员工敬业度和脱离敬业度纳入领导力和管理培训中,促进员工建设性敬业度(或允许暂时的建设性脱离敬业度,以便恢复)的做法应遵循相互性和互惠性原则。此外,还应该采取干预措施,防止出现破坏性的员工参与和脱离,尤其是在存在不利的内部和外部环境问题,可能导致脱离的情况下。这样做有助于评估员工敬业度和脱离敬业度理论,对这些理论中的规范性假设提出质疑。这种分类方法更准确地体现了这两个概念,直观地说明了在工作场所中,不仅员工敬业有时是破坏性的,而且有时脱离敬业也是建设性的。此外,它还表明,有目的的破坏性员工脱离反应可能是被动的,也可能是主动的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Too-much-of-a-good-thing? Is employee engagement always constructive and disengagement always destructive?

Purpose

An employee engagement/disengagement typology is presented to visually illustrate their possible constructive and destructive effects within the workplace, and identify some of the contextual drivers that may lead to these occurrences.

Design/methodology/approach

A narrative literature review was conducted during 2020–2023 to gain a comprehensive overview of employee engagement and disengagement processes and theories since 1990. Content analysis enabled the findings to be grouped into their destructive and constructive behavioural effects to produce a new typology.

Findings

The typology shows that not all employee engagement is constructive and that not all disengagement is destructive. This more accurately reflects organisational life. Destructive employee engagement in particular, demonstrates that there can be “too-much-of-a-good-thing”.

Research limitations/implications

The typology may help inform future research designs to further understand the impact of contextual factors on both constructs, the pluralist interests involved and which interventions are likely to encourage constructive engagement and disengagement within specific contexts.

Practical implications

It is recommended that employee engagement and disengagement are incorporated into leadership and management training and that practices to foster constructive employee engagement (or permit temporary constructive disengagement to allow recovery) endorse the principles of mutuality and reciprocity. Interventions to prevent destructive employee engagement and disengagement are also advisable, particularly when there are adverse internal and external contextual issues which risk disengagement.

Originality/value

The typology is the first to classify engaged and disengaged behaviours within the workplace across two dimensions. In doing so, this helps to evaluate employee engagement and disengagement theory by challenging the normative assumptions held within these constructs. This categorisation more accurately represents both constructs and visually illustrates that within the workplace, not only is employee engagement sometimes destructive but also that sometimes disengagement is constructive. Furthermore, it demonstrates that purposive destructive employee disengagement responses may be passive or active.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
8.70%
发文量
126
期刊介绍: ■In-depth studies of major issues ■Operations management ■Financial management ■Motivation ■Entrepreneurship ■Problem solving and proactivity ■Serious management argument ■Strategy and policy issues ■Tactics for turning around company crises Management Decision, considered by many to be the best publication in its field, consistently offers thoughtful and provocative insights into current management practice. As such, its high calibre contributions from leading management philosophers and practitioners make it an invaluable resource in the aggressive and demanding trading climate of the Twenty-First Century.
期刊最新文献
Compassion, value creation and digital learning orientation in social entrepreneurs The impact of supply chain revamping announcements on shareholder value Prioritizing factors for generative artificial intelligence-based innovation adoption in hospitality industry Exploring the role of heuristics in buyer–supplier relationship dynamics Understanding behavioral strategy: a historical evolutionary perspective in “Management Decision”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1