Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: Engagement is an emerging job attitude that purports to measure employees' psychological presence at and involvement in their work. This research compares three academic approaches to engagement, and makes recommendations regarding the most appropriate conceptualisation and measurement of the construct in future research. The current research also investigates whether any of these three approaches to engagement contribute unique variance to the prediction of turnover intentions above and beyond the predictive capacity of alternative constructs. METHODS: An online survey was taken by 382 employees and managers from a mid-sized financial institution. RESULTS: Results failed to support either a multi- or unidimensional factor structure for the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) engagement measure. For the Shirom-Melamed Vigor Measure (SMVM), a multi-dimensional structure was identified as a good fit, while a unidimensional structure fit poorly. The uni-factorial structure of Britt's engagement measure was confirmed. The Schaufeli measure of engagement was a strong predictor of work outcomes; however, when controlling for job satisfaction and affective commitment, that measure lost its ability to predict intentions to leave. Two components of the Shirom vigor measure held their predictive validity. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, these findings suggest that the Shirom vigor measure may provide better insight into whether and how much a person is 'into' his or her job. The Schaufeli measure was a good predictor of important work outcomes, but when job satisfaction and affective commitment were controlled, it lost its predictive validity. We were not able to confirm the three-factor structure of the Schaufeli measure. Two components of the Shirom vigor measure predicted turnover intentions after controlling for job satisfaction and affective commitment, suggesting less overlap with those constructs than the Schaufeli measure of engagement. This research adds important information on the nature of engagement and is expected to contribute toward a better understanding of the construct itself, as well as its measurement.
Wefald et al. (Thu,) studied this question.