The effects of work engagement and self-effi cacy on personal initiative and performance

  1. Ana Lisbona 1
  2. Francisco Palaci 1
  3. Marisa Salanova 2
  4. Michael Frese 3
  1. 1 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

  2. 2 Universitat Jaume I
    info

    Universitat Jaume I

    Castelló de la Plana, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02ws1xc11

  3. 3 National University of Singapore
    info

    National University of Singapore

    Singapur, Singapur

    ROR https://ror.org/01tgyzw49

Mostrar afiliaciones +
Revista:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Año de publicación: 2018

Volumen: 30

Número: 1

Páginas: 89-96

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Psicothema

Resumen

Antecedentes: los conceptos work engagement e iniciativa personal están relacionados pero son conceptos diferentes. Este trabajo se basa en el modelo de la iniciativa personal de Frese y Fay (2001) y lo amplía incluyendo el work engagement como antecedente de la iniciativa personal, junto con la autoefi cacia y el desempeño como resultado. Método: se realizaron dos estudios (estudio 1 con un diseño transversal N = 396 participantes de 22 organizaciones y estudio 2 con un diseño longitudinal con dos tiempos y N = 118 participantes de 15 organizaciones) para contrastar las hipótesis. Resultados: se utilizaron modelos de ecuaciones estructurales y el Macro de SPSS Process para contrastar el rol mediador de la iniciativa perosnal entre el work engagement y el desempeño, mostrando los resultados los efectos indirectos del work engagement sobre el desempeño a través de la iniciativa personal. Conclusión: los resultados de los dos estudios confi rman nuestras hipótesis. Work engagment y autoefi cacia llevan a una mayor iniciativa personal, que implica una mejora del desempeño. Junto a considerar el work engagment un antecedente de la iniciativa personal, los resultados permiten considerar a la iniciativa un antecedente del desempeño.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317-332. Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative an psychological safety, process innovations an firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 45-68.
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
  • Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 197, 238-246.
  • Binnewies, C., & Gromer, M. (2012). Creatividad e innovación laboral: el rol de las características del trabajo y la iniciativa personal [Creativity and innovation at work: The role of work characteristics and personal initiative]. Psicothema, 24(1), 100-105.
  • Bledow, R., & Frese, M. (2009). A situational Judgment Test of Personal Initiative and its Relationship to Performance. Personal Psychology, 62, 229-258.
  • Bledow, R., Schmitt, A., Frese, M., & Kühnel, J. (2011). The affective shift model of work engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 12461257.
  • Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Longs (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Carlos, V. S., & Rodrigues, R. G. (2016). Development and validation of a self-reported measure of job performance. Social Indicators Research, 126(1), 279-307.
  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: HarperCollins.
  • Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2000). Self-starting behavior at work: Toward a theory of personal initiative. In J. Heckhausen (Ed.), Motivational psychology of human development: Developing motivation and motivating development (pp. 307-337). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Frese, M. (2000). The changing nature of work. In N. Chmiel (Ed.), Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology (pp. 424-439). Oxford, England: Blackwell
  • Frese, M. (2008). The word is out: We need an active performance concept for modern workplaces. Commentary on focal article by Macey & Schneider: The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 67-69.
  • Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. In B. M. Staw & R. Sutton: Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187.
  • Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburguer, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 70, 139-161.
  • Frese, M., Garst, G., & Fay, D. (2007). Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships between work characteristics and personal initiative (PI) in a fourwave longitudinal structural equation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1084-1102.
  • Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 37-63.
  • Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327-347.
  • Hakanen, J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 78-91.
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Hoyle, R.H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-effi cacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Managment Journal, 29(2), 262-279.
  • Koop, S., de Reu, T., & Frese, M. (2000). Socio-demographic factors, entrepreneurial orientation, personal initiative, and environmental problems in Uganda. In M. Frese (Ed.), Success and failure of microbusiness owners in Africa: A psychological approach (pp. 5576). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
  • Lisbona, A., & Palací, F. J. (2014). How to assess performance: Subjective performance Scale. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  • Lisbona, A., Palaci, F. J., & Gómez-Bernabeu, A. (2008). Escala de Clima para la Iniciativa y para la Seguridad Psicológica: adaptación al castellano y su relación con el desempeño organizacional [Spanish adaptation of the scale of organizational climate focused on the support of initiative and psychological safety: Its relation with organizational performance]. Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 24, 153-157
  • Llorens, S., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). Testing the robustness of the Job Demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 378-391.
  • Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2007). Does a positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in Human Behaviour, 23, 825-841.
  • Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3-30.
  • Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indexes: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In G. A. Marcoulides& R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling techniques (pp. 315-353). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal Applied of Psychology, 88, 879-903.
  • Pransky, G., Finkelstein, S., Berndt, E., Kyle, M., Mackell, J., & Tortorice, D. (2006). Objective and self-report work performance measures: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Productivity And Performance Management, 55(5), 390-399.
  • Salanova, M., Bresó, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Hacia un modelo espiral de las creencias de eficacia en el estudio del burnout y del engagement [Towards a spiral model of efficacy beliefs in the study of burnout and engagement]. Ansiedad y Estrés, 11, 215-231.
  • Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martínez, I., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Group Research, 34, 43-73.
  • Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008).A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour: The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 116-131.
  • Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). El engagement en el trabajo. Cuando el trabajo se convierte en pasión [Work engagement. When work turns into passion]. Madrid: Alianza.
  • Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The measurement of burnout and engagement: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
  • Solís, M. (2015). The dilemma of combining positive and negative items in scales. Psicothema, 27(2), 192-199.
  • Speier, C., & Frese, M. (1997). Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator and moderator between control and complexity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinal field study in East Germany. Human Performance, 10, 171-192.
  • Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119.
  • Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 183-200.
  • Zacher, H., Heusner, S., Schmitz, M., Zwierzanska, M. M., & Frese, M. (2010). Focus on opportunities as a mediator of the relationships between age, job complexity, and work performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 374-386.
  • Zacher, H., Robinson, A. J., & Rosing, K. (2016). Ambidextrous leadership and employees’ self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(1), 24-46.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet