ArticlePDF Available

Being engaged at work and detached at home: A week-level study on work engagement, psychological detachment, and affect

Taylor & Francis
Work & Stress
Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Although earlier research has shown that work engagement is associated with positive outcomes for the employee and the organization, this paper suggests that employees also need time periods for temporarily disengaging (i.e., psychological detaching) from work. We hypothesized that work engagement and psychological detachment from work during off-job time predict high positive affect and low negative affect and that psychological detachment is particularly important when work engagement is high. Over the course of four working weeks, 159 employees from five German organizations from various industries completed surveys twice a week, at the beginning and the end of four consecutive working weeks. Hierarchical linear modelling showed that a person’s general level of work engagement and the week-specific level of psychological detachment from work during off-job time jointly predicted affect at the end of the working week. As expected, work engagement moderated the relationship between psychological detachment and positive affect. These findings suggest that both engagement when being at work and disengagement when being away from work are most beneficial for employees' affective states.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 1
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home:
A Week-Level Study on Work Engagement, Psychological Detachment, and Affect
Sabine Sonnentag
Eva J. Mojza
Carmen Binnewies
Annika Scholl
University of Konstanz
Working Paper (March 2008)
Please do not cite or quote without permission from the authors.
Author Note. This study was funded by the German Research Community (DFG; SO 295/4-1,
4-2). This grant is gratefully acknowledged. We would like to thank Franziska Bertram,
Claudius Bornemann, Stefanie Ernst, Verena Hahn, Till Kastendieck, Nadja Metzler, Frithjof
Müller, Christian Peters, Sonja Riefer, Julia Schweda, and Ines Spitzner for support during
data collection and Jana Kühnel, Arnold Bakker, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful
comments on earlier versions of this paper.
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Sabine Sonnentag, Department
of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Postbox 42, D-78457 Konstanz, Germany. Electronic
mail may be sent to sabine.sonnentag@uni-konstanz.de
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 2
Abstract
Although earlier research has shown that work engagement is associated with positive
outcomes for the employee and the organization, this paper suggests that employees also need
time periods for temporarily disengaging (i.e., psychological detaching) from work. We
hypothesized that work engagement and psychological detachment from work during off-job
time predict high positive affect and low negative affect and that psychological detachment is
particularly important when work engagement is high. Over the course of four working
weeks, 159 employees from five organizations completed weekly surveys twice a week.
Hierarchical linear modeling showed that a person’s general level of work engagement and
the week-specific level of psychological detachment from work during off-job time jointly
predicted affect at the end of the working week. As expected, work engagement moderated
the relationship between psychological detachment and positive affect. These findings suggest
that both engagement when being at work and disengagement when being away from work
are most beneficial for employees’ affective states.
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 3
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home:
A Week-Level Study on Work Engagement, Psychological Detachment, and Affect
Work influences individuals’ affective states and well-being. Past research focusing
on working conditions as prime causes of affect and well-being has shown that employees
who face a high degree of job stressors react with more negative affect in the short run
(Gryzwacz, Almeida, Neupert, & Ettner, 2004; Zohar, Tzischinski, & Epstein, 2003) and an
impairment of well-being in the long run (De Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers,
2003; Sonnentag & Frese, 2003). In this paper, we argue that not only job stressors as
environmental factors impact on a person’s affective state; also, the way the person
approaches his or her work matters for this person’s affective state. For example, an employee
who enjoys his or her work and is generally highly dedicated to it most probably experiences
higher levels of positive affect after a working period than a person who lacks this enjoyment
and dedication. However, if a person continuously thinks and ruminates about his or her work
– also when the working day is over – this person’s affective state might be impacted in a
negative way. In this paper, we examine if experiences of work engagement (i.e., vigor,
dedication, and absorption; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) and disengagement (i.e., psychological
detachment from work during off-job time; Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005) are related to a
person’s affective state at the end of a working week. Engagement at work and lack of
disengagement from work during off-job time are two distinct concepts because high
engagement at work does not necessarily correspond to low disengagement from work during
non-work time. In line with earlier research (Repetti, 1993; Rothbard, 2001), we differentiate
between positive and negative affect as two distinct affective states.
During the past decade, researchers increasingly started to examine affective correlates
and consequences of work engagement (e.g., Britt, Adler, & Bartone, 2001; Demerouti,
Bakker, de Jonge, Janssen, & Schaufeli, 2001; Rothbard, 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004)
and of temporary disengagement from work during off-job time (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005;
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 4
Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, in press). However, work engagement and disengagement
from work were addressed in rather separated literatures. The only study that included work
engagement and psychological detachment from work in one single study (Kühnel,
Sonnentag, & Westman, 2007) did not analyze the affective outcomes of work engagement
and psychological detachment from work. The effects of work engagement and
disengagement from work during non-work time on affect and well-being might not be
independent from each other, but may interact. For example, psychological detachment might
matter only for employees high on work engagement. Therefore, it is important to combine
the investigation of work engagement and psychological detachment in one single study. Our
study addresses this gap in the literature.
Engagement at work and psychological detachment from work during off-job time are
no opposites. We view work engagement and psychological detachment from work as two
distinct experiences representing two distinct constructs. Empirical evidence suggests that
they are positively correlated (Kühnel et al., 2007).
In our study, we use a within-person study approach in order to predict weekly
fluctuations of affect from work engagement and psychological detachment from work during
off-job time. We focus on a person’s general level of work engagement as a relatively durable
attribute of the individual (Macey & Schneider, 2008) and on week-specific levels of
psychological detachment from work during off-job time. This approach enables us to test the
cross-level interaction between work engagement and psychological detachment from work.
Examining this cross-level interaction provides an answer to the question whether
psychologically detachment from work during off-job time is equally important for all
individuals (Ilies, Schwind, & Heller, 2007).
Our study adds to the increasing body of studies that examined individual-level
variation of affect (e.g., Elfering et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2007). We do not only address
largely neglected predictors, but also extend the time frame covered in this research by
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 5
choosing longer time intervals (i.e., weeks) than did most of the earlier studies (i.e., days; for
an exception see Totterdell, Wood, & Wall, 2006). Moreover, we contribute to research on the
interface between work and non-work (e.g., Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007). Until now,
most studies in this area have investigated how one life domain impacts the other. Our study
goes one step further and examines if predictors from the work domain (work engagement)
and predictors from the non-work domain (psychological detachment from work during off-
job time) jointly predict affective states at the end of the working week.
We examine affect at the end of the working week as core outcome variables for two
main reasons: First, affect at the end of the working week is a very proximal outcome of the
processes happening during the week and reflects rather immediate responses to these
processes. Therefore, affect at the end of the working week most probably is a more sensitive
indicator of affect-relevant experiences than are more general indicators of affect or well-
being. Second, affect at the end of the working week should influence a person’s functioning
during the weekend, that is at the work-family interface (Geurts & Demerouti, 2003). When a
person experiences high negative affect and low levels of positive affect, the quality of social
interactions in the family and other non-work areas might suffer (Schulz, Cowan, Cowan, &
Brennan, 2004; Story & Repetti, 2006).
Our study is also practically relevant. If it turns out that work engagement predicts
favorable affective states (i.e., high positive affect and low degrees of negative affect), then
organizations have to find ways to improve their employees’ work engagement, for example
by increasing job resources such as control at work (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). If
psychological detachment from work during off job time predicts favorable affective states,
then employees should be encouraged to disengage themselves from their job during off-job
time.
Affect
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 6
In our study, we focus on the core differentiation between positive and negative affect
as two distinct, higher-order affective dimensions (Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999)
that refer to the fundamental distinction between pleasure and displeasure (Feldman Barrett,
Mesquita, Ochsner, & Gross, 2007). In terms of other affect models (e.g., Russell & Carroll,
1999), this conceptualization of positive affect refers to states of pleasure and activation
(arousal), whereas negative affect refers to states of displeasure and activation (arousal). In
line with the conceptualization of Watson et al. (1999), we examine positive affect as high
positive activation and negative affect as high negative activation. Positive affect includes the
experience of enthusiasm, alertness, and excitement. Negative affect comprises experiences
such as distress, fear, and nervousness. In concentrating on these two affective states, we
follow earlier research that has shown that positive and negative affect are highly relevant for
behavior at work (Dalal, 2005; Ilies, Scott, & Judge, 2006; Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006) and for
experiences at home (Ilies et al., 2007).
Work Engagement
Work engagement is a broad concept that comprises as core features high
involvement, affective energy, and self presence at work (Britt, Dickinson, Greene-Shortidge,
& McKibben, 2007; Macey & Schneider, 2008). Here, we use the engagement concept as
introduced by Schaufeli and his co-workers (Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005; Schaufeli &
Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzáles-Romá, & Bakker, 2002). These scholars have
defined work engagement as “a positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind that is
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006;
Schaufeli et al., 2006). Vigor refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience at work. It
is characterized by the motivation to invest effort at work and to persist, also in case of
difficulties. Dedication means to be strongly involved in one’s work and to experience
significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Absorption refers to full
immersion in and concentration on one’s work. When employees feel absorbed in their work,
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 7
they experience that time passes quickly and they find it difficult to detach themselves from
work (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Work engagement has to be differentiated from workaholism
that is characterized by working excessively and working compulsively (Schaufeli, Taris, &
Bakker, 2006; Schaufeli, Taris, & van Rhenen, in press). Being energetic, dedicated, and
absorbed at work does not mean to work extremely long hours or to experience an
uncontrollable need to work. Empirical research showed that work engagement and
workaholism are distinct constructs (Schaufeli et al., in press).
There is some indication that work engagement fluctuates within individuals over time
(Sonnentag, 2003). However, variance attributable to between-person variation exceeds
variance attributable to within-person variation (Sonnentag, 2003; Xanthopoulou, Bakker,
Demerouti, & Schaufeli, in press). Therefore, in this study, we follow the view of Macey and
Schneider (2008) who discussed engagement as an experience that is “relatively durable over
time” (p. 13) and examine work engagement as a person characteristic. This approach is in
line with the dominant view on work engagement as an individual difference variable
(Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007) and allows for testing trait-state interactions (for a similar idea
see Ilies et al., 2006).
We propose that a person’s general level of work engagement is positively related to
positive affect and negatively related to negative affect at the end of the working week. Work
engagement characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption is a positive experience in
itself. Persons who enjoy a generally high level of engagement at work should therefore have
more positive experiences at work. Positive experiences and pleasant events are known to
promote high positive affect (Gable, Reis, & Elliot, 2000; Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, &
Lazarus, 1981).
Moreover, work engagement should be negatively related to negative affect. Persons
high in work engagement are proactive at work (Hakanen, Perhoniemi, & Toppinen-Tammer,
in press; Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008), implying that they strive to improve poor working
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 8
procedures what in turn should reduce negative affect because there are less reasons that
could trigger negative affect. As high work engagement implies to be absorbed in one’s work,
highly work-engaged persons should be less “distracted” by negative events (e.g., social
conflicts) that might occur at work. As a consequence, they are less likely to concentrate on
such negative events and their negative affect should remain low.
Finally, high work engagement may enable successful task completion (cf., Salanova
et al., 2005; Sonnentag, 2003), whereas low work engagement may hinder performance
because effort and concentration are lacking. Persons experiencing high levels of work
engagement will be more likely to complete their tasks and to successfully perform at work
(Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, in press). Successful performance in turn is
known to foster positive affect and to reduce negative affect (Fisher & Noble, 2004).
Empirical evidence from studies focusing on between-person differences suggests that
work engagement is positively related to positive affect and negatively related to physical
symptoms and other indicators of poor well-being. For example, Rothbard (2001) showed that
attention to one’s work (as one aspect of engagement) was positively associated with positive
affect. A longitudinal study over the period of three months showed that engagement
predicted well-being and a low level of physical symptoms, also when controlling for initial
levels of well-being and symptoms (Britt, Castro, & Adler, 2005). We assume that work
engagement is not only related to a person’s general level of affect – as shown in earlier
research (Rothbard, 2001). We expect to find this relation also when assessing positive and
negative affect at the week level because persons high on work engagement will experience
work engagement also during the working week.
Hypothesis 1. A person’s general level of work engagement is positively related to
positive affect and negatively related to negative affect at the end of the working week.
Psychological Detachment from Work during Off-Job Time
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 9
Although the experience of being fully engaged at work is assumed to be related to
high positive affect and low levels of negative affect, continued immersion in one’s job might
be detrimental for a person’s affective state. This should be particularly the case when intense
preoccupation with job-related thoughts and activities continues after the end of the (formal)
working day (Schaufeli, et al., in press; Snir & Zohar, in press). Specifically, we argue that a
lack of detaching oneself psychologically from work during off-job time is negatively related
to positive affect and positively related to negative affect at the end of the working week.
Psychological detachment from work has been described as an “individual's sense of
being away from the work situation” (Etzion, Eden, & Lapidot, 1998, p. 579). It implies not to
engage in job-related activities during off-job time and also to refrain from job-related
thoughts and worries. Psychological detachment is an experience of leaving one’s work
behind when returning home from work. It means to disengage oneself mentally from work
while not being at the workplace (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007).
Low detachment from one’s job during off-job time, however, implies that the
functional systems (e.g., neuroendocrine and cardiovascular systems) remain in a state of
prolonged activation (Brosschot, Gerin, & Thayer, 2006). This prolonged activation and
continued preoccupation with job-related problems and thoughts drains energy resources and
increases negative affect (Thomson, 2006). Not detaching from work and keeping thinking
about job-related issues after work also reduces the likelihood to become fully immersed in
family or leisure-time experiences. For example, a recent study showed that employees were
less involved in social behaviors at home (as rated by their spouses) when they experienced
high levels of work-family conflict (i.e., when they were preoccupied with job-related issues
while being at home; Ilies et al., 2007). Being still mentally busy with job-related topics
makes it difficult to enjoy and capitalize on these other – probably more positive –
experiences (Lyobomirsky & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1993). Not engaging in such more positive
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 10
experiences implies to miss opportunities to increase positive affect (Gable et al., 2000;
Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004).
Lack of psychological detachment from one’s work might seem to be typical for
persons high on workaholism. However, conceptually lack of psychological detachment is
distinct from workaholism as the latter implies to work extensively and to be busy with actual
work-related activities all the time, whereas lack of psychological detachment means to be
mentally preoccupied with work-related issues and, thus, can also occur during other types of
activities (e.g., during leisure time).
Empirical research has shown that persons who detach from work during off-job time
experience higher levels of life satisfaction and better well-being (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007),
whereas continued preoccupation with one’s job during after-work hours and inability to
switch off from one’s job is part of an unhealthy pattern characterized by high levels of
fatigue, sleep complaints, and other indicators of poor well-being (Grebner, Semmer, &
Elfering, 2005; van Hooff, Geurts, Kompier, & Taris, 2007). In addition, research that
focused on day-to-day processes within persons revealed that on days when persons
succeeded in detaching themselves from their job after work, they enjoyed higher levels of
positive and lower levels of negative affective states (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005; Sonnentag et
al., in press). This previous research on within-person processes analyzed psychological
detachment at the day level. However, it is unclear how lack of detachment unfolds over
longer periods of time. Therefore, the present study examines the relationship between
psychological detachment from work and subsequent affective states at the week level.
Specifically, we examine in a within-person study design if persons experience more
favourable affective states after working weeks when they succeeded to psychologically
detach from work during evening hours, compared to weeks when they were less successful in
detaching from work.
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 11
Hypothesis 2. Psychological detachment from work throughout off-job time during the
working week is positively related to positive affect and negatively related to negative affect
at the end of the working week.
Work Engagement as a Moderator in the Detachment-Affect Relationship
Psychological detachment from work during off-job time might not be equally
relevant for all individuals. For example, one might argue that psychological detachment does
not matter for highly engaged employees because for them, work is a positive experience. Not
detaching from such a positive experience might even have beneficial effects on affective
states, because this positive experience remains psychologically present during after-work
hours.
In contrast to this perspective, we argue that persons high on work engagement benefit
more from psychological detachment from work during off-job time than do persons low on
work engagement. Being highly work-engaged does not imply that work pe se is a more
positive experience and that one encounters less stressors on the job (Demerouti et al., 2001;
Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
Moreover, there is empirical evidence that persons highly engaged at work are more
negatively affected in their well-being by stressors (e.g., work overload) and negative
experiences encountered on the job (Britt et al., 2005) - probably because these events at
work are more meaningful for highly engaged persons and because high absorption in one’s
work implies also that one is highly absorbed in stressful situations. Together, these findings
suggest that it is particularly important for highly work-engaged persons to psychologically
detach themselves from work during off-job time. When highly engaged employees do not
detach, the likelihood increases that stressors possibly encountered at work will extend their
negative effects also during non-work hours. As a consequence, negative affect will increase
and positive affect will decrease.
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 12
However, we argue that job stressors are not an essential condition for the assumed
interaction between work engagement and psychological detachment. Also, when not facing a
high amount of stressors at work, psychological detachment from work during off-job time
should be particularly important for employees high on work engagement. There are at least
two reasons for such a cross-level interaction between work engagement and psychological
detachment from work during off-job time.
First, in line with Kahn (1990), it can be assumed that engagement at work and the
associated positive experiences such as vigor or absorption do not imply that work is
effortless (cf. Macey & Schneider, 2008). Rather, work engagement may be draining
cognitive and affective resources. To avoid that resource drain continues during off-job time
and may eventually result in poor affective states, psychological detachment from work
during off-job time is particularly important for persons experiencing high engagement at
work.
Second, as the experience of work engagement implies high positive activation (e.g.,
vigor), engaged employees’ activation level probably is high also at the time when returning
home from work. When highly engaged employees continue to think about job-related issues
or even continue with job-related activities (i.e., do not psychologically detach from work),
their activation level will remain high. Such a high activation level – although it might be
associated with a positive affective valence – will make it difficult to relax, to fall asleep later,
and to enjoy good sleep quality (cf., Brosschot, Pieper, & Thayer, 2005; van Hooff, Geurts,
Kompier, & Taris, 2006). Poor sleep will have detrimental effects on subsequent affect (Scott
& Judge, 2006; Totterdell, Reynolds, Parkinson, & Briner, 1994). To reduce this high
activation level during after-work hours, it is important for highly engaged employees to
mentally disengage from job-related thoughts and activities.
In contrast, as employees with low work engagement are generally less negatively
affected by their unfavorable experiences at the workplace (Britt et al., 2005), psychologically
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 13
detaching from these experiences will not matter much. Moreover, they will be less absorbed
in their job experiences and therefore, they need less psychological detachment from work.
Hypothesis 3. Work engagement moderates the relationship between psychological
detachment from work during off-job time and positive and negative affect. The relationship
between psychological detachment from work during off-job time and affect is stronger for
employees high on work engagement than for employees low on work engagement.
Control Variables
We included gender, age, and leadership position as demographic control variables in
the analyses. In addition, we took week-specific control variables into account. First,
experiences and events happening during the weekend may influence an employee’s approach
to work and affect during the working week. Therefore, we controlled for affect at the start of
the working week (i.e., when predicting positive affect at the end of the week, we controlled
for positive affect at the start of the week, and when predicting negative affect at the end of
the week, we controlled for negative affect at the start of the week). Second, as job stressors
such as time pressure or workload might impact on affect (Ilies et al., 2007; Totterdell et al.,
2006), we controlled for time pressure experienced during the week. Finally, affect at the end
of the working week might not only be influenced by what happened during the past week; it
might be also affected by the anticipation of events and experiences to come. Therefore, we
included anticipation of a nice weekend as an additional control variable.
Method
Sample
We collected our data from employees of five German organizations from various
industry sectors. The five industry sectors comprised: (1) electrical engineering including
business areas such as industrial automation, information technology, and communications,
(2) media including business areas such as daily newspapers, printing, and logistics, (3)
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 14
design and distribution of mountain sports equipment and sport apparel, (4) aluminum
manufacturing and supply, and (5) energy supply and public local transportation services.
To recruit participants, we first presented the study to the management of the
organizations during face-to-face meetings and then contacted potential participants. We sent
information packages to potential participants with (1) a letter describing the study and
requirements for participation and (2) a return form for registration. The letter stressed that
participation required access to the internet at the workplace and that data collection would
include responding to a general survey, four weekly surveys to be responded to on Monday
morning and four weekly surveys to be responded to on Friday afternoon, during four
consecutive working weeks. On the return form, participants were given the opportunity to
indicate the four specific weeks for participation that best suited their personal schedules (e.g.,
did not include vacations or weeks with extensive business travel). Upon registration,
participants received a link to the general online survey. Every week, mostly on Monday
morning and Friday afternoon, participants were sent links to the online surveys to be
answered on the respective days (because of holidays, some of the working weeks started on
Tuesdays or ended on Thursday; in these cases, participants completed the weekly surveys on
Tuesday mornings and Thursday afternoons, respectively).
A total of 193 employees agreed to participate. However, 34 persons failed to provide
the necessary data or did not respond to the weekly survey at the requested days and times,
resulting in a final sample size of 159 persons (52.2 percent female) providing data from 432
weeks (effective response rate at the person level: 82.3 %)..
Average age of study participants was 40.7 years (SD = 8.8). Participants’ average job
tenure was 16.8 years (SD = 9.3) and organizational tenure was 12.5 years (SD = 8.7).
Participants worked in a broad variety of jobs including – among others – jobs as managers
(29.6 %), economists (15.7 %), technicians (8.8 %), engineers (8.2 %), journalists (5.7 %),
computer scientists (5.0 %), and administrative jobs (13.2 %). Average working time per
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 15
week was 39.9 hours (SD = 10.3). About a quarter of the sample (27.7 %) had a supervisory
position.
Measures
We collected our data with a set of online surveys comprising a general survey, a
Monday morning survey, and a Friday afternoon survey. The general survey had to be
completed once (before starting to complete the weekly surveys), the Monday and the Friday
survey had to be completed during four consecutive working weeks. In the general survey, we
assessed trait work engagement and demographic data. In the Monday survey, we measured
the control variables positive and negative affect at the beginning of the working week. With
the Friday survey, we gathered data on psychological detachment from work during evening
hours throughout the week, positive and negative affect experienced on Friday afternoon, and
the control variables time pressure and weekend anticipation. All items were in German. If
not otherwise reported, participants responded to all items on 5-point Likert scales. Table 1
reports means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations.
General survey variables. We assessed trait work engagement with the 9-item version
of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006). A sample item was “I feel
happy when I am working intensively”. Participants responded to the work-engagement items
on a 7-point Likert scale (ranging from 0 = never to 6 = always, every day). Cronbach’s alpha
was .96. As person-level control variables we assessed gender, age, and leadership position
with single items.
Week-level predictor variable. As week-level predictor variable, we measured
psychological detachment from work with the four detachment items adapted from the
Recovery Experience Questionnaire (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). We reformulated the items so
that they assessed a person’s level of detachment during the work of data collection (e.g.,
“During this week, I forgot about my work during leisure time”). Cronbach’s alphas
computed separately for each of the four weeks ranged between .94 and .97 (mean = .96).
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 16
Week-level outcome variables. Our outcome variables were positive and negative
affect on Friday afternoon. Positive affect on Friday was assessed with six positive-affect
items from the PANAS (“active”, “interested”, “excited”, “strong”, “inspired”, “alert”;
Watson et al., 1988) in its German version (Krohne, Egloff, Kohlmann, & Tausch, 1996).
Negative affect on Friday was assessed with six negative-affect items from the PANAS
(“distressed”, “upset”, “irritable”, “nervous”, “jittery”, “afraid”; Krohne et al., 1996; Watson
et al., 1988). Participants were instructed to indicate whether the items described their
momentary state “now, on Friday evening” (5-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 =
very much). We decided not to use the full PANAS scales to keep the weekly surveys short.
Cronbach’s alpha for the four weeks ranged between .86 and .91 (mean=.89) for positive
affect and between .79 and .83 (mean = .81) for negative affect.
We examined if the week-level predictor and outcome variables (psychological
detachment, positive and negative affect on Friday) represent distinct constructs. Following
the suggestions for examining construct validity of within-person data (Bolger, Davis, &
Rafaeli, 2003), we conducted Confirmatory Factor Analyses with the person-mean centered
data. Analyses showed that a three-factor model with all items loading on their designated
factors had a data better fit than a one-factor model (∆χ² = 1074.44; df = 3; p < .001) and than
a two-factor model with negative and positive affect items loading on one common factor
(∆χ² = 318.55; df = 2; p < .001). Thus, the predictor and outcome variables clearly represent
distinct constructs.
Week-level control variables. As control variables at the week level, we measured
positive and negative affect (assessed on Monday), time pressure throughout the week and
weekend anticipation (both assessed on Friday). For measuring the control variables positive
and negative affect on Monday, we used the same items as for assessing affect on Friday, with
the instruction to respond to the items with respect to one’s state “now, on Monday morning”.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses with person-mean centered affect scores showed that a two-
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 17
factor model with all positive-affect items loading on one factor and all negative-affect items
loading on another factor had a better fit with the data significantly than a one-factor model
with all items loading on one factor (∆χ² = 407.15; df = 1; p < .001). Cronbach’s alpha for the
four weeks ranged between .82 and .90 (mean=.86) for positive affect and between .74 and
.87 (mean = .82) for negative affect.
We measured week-specific time pressure with three items adapted from Semmer
(1984) and Zapf (1993). A sample item was “This week, I worked under time pressure”.
Cronbach’s alpha for the four weeks ranged between .83 and .89 (mean = .86). We
conceptualized weekend anticipation as the anticipation of enjoying a nice weekend and
measured it with four items (e.g., “I am looking forward to a pleasant weekend”). Cronbach’s
alpha for the four weeks ranged between .83 and .88 (mean = .86).
Data analysis
Because our data set had a hierarchical structure with weeks nested in persons, we
used hierarchical linear modeling for analyzing the data (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). We
centered the person-level control variables at the grand mean and all week-level predictors
and control variables at the respective person mean. We used the MLwin program for data
analysis (Rasbash et al., 2000).
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Before testing our hypotheses, we examined the between-person and within-person
variance components of positive and negative affect. For positive affect, 38.3 percent of the
total variance was within persons (0.240/(0.240+0.387) = 0.383) and 61.3 percent of the total
variance was between persons (0. 387/(0.240+0.387) = 0.613). For negative affect, the
percentages were 58.1 and 41.9, respectively. Thus, affect varied both within and between
persons, warranting the examination of predictor variables at the person level and at the week
level.
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 18
Test of Hypotheses
Tables 2 and 3 show the findings from hierarchical linear modeling. To test our
hypotheses, we started with a Null model which included the intercept as the only predictor.
In Model 1, we entered person-level control variables (gender, age, leadership position). In
Model 2, we included within-person control variables (affect on Monday, time pressure
during the week, weekend anticipation on Friday). In Model 3, we entered our core predictor
variables of interest (trait work engagement and week-specific psychological detachment
from work during off-job time). In Model 4, we entered the interaction term between trait
work engagement and week-specific psychological detachment from work during off-job
time). We examined fixed effects and tested the improvement of each model over the previous
one by computing the differences of the respective loglikelihood statistic -2*log and
submitting this difference to a χ²-test.
For positive affect as the outcome variable (Table 2), Model 1 including the person-
level control variables did not fit the data better than the Null model. Within-person control
variables entered in Model 2 contributed to an increased model fit, with all three control
variables being significant. Positive affect on Monday and positive weekend anticipation were
positively related to positive affect on Friday, whereas time pressure throughout the working
week was negatively related to positive affect on Friday. Model 3 that included trait work
engagement and week-specific psychological detachment fitted the data better than Model 2.
Both predictor variables had significant positive estimates indicating that the higher a
person’s work engagement and the higher psychological detachment from work during off-job
time of this specific working week, the higher the positive affect at the end of the week. In
Model 4, we included the interaction effect between trait work engagement and week-specific
psychological detachment. Model fit further increased and the interaction term was
significant. To examine the pattern of the interaction in more detail, we ran simple slope tests
to examine the pattern of the interaction in more detail (Aiken & West, 1991; Preacher,
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 19
Curran, & Bauer, 2006). Analysis showed that for persons with a high level of work
engagement (one standard deviation above the mean), psychological detachment from work
during off job time was positively related to positive affect on Friday afternoon (γ = 0.2544;
SE = 0.0692; z = 3.6772; p < .001), whereas for persons with a low level of work engagement
(one standard deviation below the mean), psychological detachment from work during off job
time was not significantly related to positive affect on Friday afternoon (γ = 0.0276; SE =
0.074; z = 0.3733; ns). Figure 1 displays this interaction pattern.
Table 3 shows the findings for negative affect on Friday afternoon as outcome
variable. Similarly to the results for positive affect, person-level control variables did not
predict negative affect at the end of the working week. Again, within-person control variables
contributed significantly to the prediction of negative affect at the end of the working week.
Time pressure was positively and weekend anticipation was negatively related to negative
affect at the end of the working week. Interestingly, negative affect on Monday did not predict
negative affect on Friday. Trait work engagement and week-specific psychological
detachment were entered in Model 3. This model showed an improvement of model fit over
the previous model. Trait work engagement was negatively related to negative affect at the
end of the working week. Week-specific psychological detachment from work during non-
work time was negatively related to negative affect. Model 4 that included the interaction
between trait work engagement and week-specific detachment from work did not result in an
improvement of model fit.
Overall, hierarchical linear modelling provided full support for Hypothesis 1. For
positive affect as outcome variable, also Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3 were supported. For
negative affect, support for Hypothesis 2, but not for Hypothesis 3 was found.
Additional Analyses
One might argue that it is not only psychological detachment that predicts affect at the
end of the working week, but that also affect at the start of the working week predicts
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 20
psychological detachment from work throughout the week. To test this assumption, we
computed additional multi-level models with psychological detachment (assessed on Friday
afternoons) as outcome variable and positive and negative affect experienced on Monday
(assessed on Monday mornings; person-mean-centered) as predictor variables. The inclusion
of positive and negative affect did not improve model fit over a Null model with the intercept
as the only predictor (-2*log =3.257; χ² = 3.257; df = 2; ns). The estimates of positive and
negative affect (γ = 0.047; SE = 0.078; t = 0.628 and γ = -0.152; SE = 0.105; t = -1.448, ns,
respectively) were both non-significant. Also, when entering the two affect variables
separately or when additionally including control variables (gender, age, leadership position,
time pressure during the week, weekend anticipation, and general level of work engagement),
the picture did not change and the estimates of positive and negative affect always were non-
significant. Thus, there is no reason to believe that affect on Monday influences psychological
detachment from work throughout the week.
Discussion
Researchers have argued that experiences from one life domain spill over into the
other, for example experiences at work impact on experiences in the home domain (Edwards
& Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Our study extends this knowledge by
demonstrating that engagement at work and disengagement from work during off-job time
jointly predict employees’ affective states at the end of a working week. Moreover, our study
showed that psychological detachment from work during off-job time is particularly important
when work engagement is high. Highly engaged employees need time off the job where they
can distance themselves from their work, most probably by focusing on other activities and
responsibilities not related to work. The overall pattern of our finding suggests that a balance
between high engagement at work and high disengagement from work during non-work time
is highly relevant for protecting employees’ well-being.
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 21
In more detail, we found that employees who generally experience high levels of work
engagement report higher levels of positive affect and lower levels of negative effect at the
end of the working week. As highly engaged employees generally experience lower levels of
exhaustion (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), it might be that they have more cognitive and
emotional resources (Hobfoll, 1998) to deal with daily job stressors and maybe also to
capitalize on positive events at work (Gable et al., 2004). It would be a particularly interesting
avenue for future research to examine the mediating processes underlying the relation
between work engagement and affective states at the end of the working week.
The finding that psychological detachment during off-job time throughout the working
week predicts affective states at the end of the working week adds to earlier studies that
examined relations between psychological detachment and well-being by using different
study designs (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Although in a strict
sense, we should not derive causal conclusions from our study, this finding might suggest that
psychological detachment from work during off-job time is crucial for regulating one’s affect
over the course of the working week (cf., Shimazu & Schaufeli, 2007). In addition, it has to
be noted that not detaching from work might also have benefits, for example when trying to
find a solution for a pressing problem at work or when engaging in some reflection about
positive events that happened at work (cf., Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005).
Work engagement moderated the relationship between psychological detachment from
work during off-job time and positive affect indicating that detachment is particularly
important for highly work-engaged persons. Although one could also build a case that
psychological detachment should be less relevant when work engagement is high (because
there might be no need to disengage from a positive, enthusiastic experience), our data
suggest the opposite is true. To stay alert and interested until the end of the working week,
particularly highly engaged persons need to detach from work when they are at home. In other
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 22
words, the finding might imply that work engagement unfolds its affective potential mainly
when psychological detachment from work during off-job time is high.
Work engagement, however, revealed no cross-level interaction with psychological
detachment when predicting negative affect. It might be that negative affect at the end of the
working week is influenced by the level of stressors a person generally encounters (as
opposed to week-specific stressor levels) and that in such a situation, psychological
detachment during off-job time can do little to alleviate the negative effects of low work
engagement.
In our study, a person’s general level of work engagement was not related to week-
specific experiences of psychological detachment from work during off-job time (r = .02,
Table 1). This finding is in line with earlier research on work engagement and workaholism
(Schaufeli et al., in press; Snir & Zohar, in press) and demonstrates that work engagement can
be differentiated from a compulsive need to work. High work engagement does not imply that
one needs to stay mentally attached to one’s work during off-job time.
Limitations
This study is not without limitations. First, it has been proposed that work engagement
is conceptually closely related to positive affect (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Therefore, one
might argue that the relationship between work engagement and positive affect found in our
study only reflects conceptual overlap between work engagement and positive affect. Indeed,
the vigor component of work engagement is linked to notions of energy and aliveness
(Schaufeli et al., 2006) also characteristic for high positive affect. However, for several
reasons, we are convinced that this conceptual link does not invalidate the overall findings of
our study. First, vigor is only one aspect of the work-engagement concept and is gauged with
only a third of all work-engagement items. Second, work engagement was not only related to
positive affect, but also to negative affect (negatively). Third, while conceptual overlap might
partially explain the direct relationship between work engagement and positive affect, it can
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 23
not account for the interaction effect between work engagement and psychological
detachment on positive affect. Taken together, the conceptual closeness between work
engagement and positive affect does not question this study’s overall findings.
Second, we collected our data with self-report measures. Therefore, one might argue
that common method-variance accounts for our findings (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003). In addition, because psychological detachment and affect were collected at
the same points in time, occasion factors might have influenced the findings. We tried to
reduce threats by common method variance and occasion factors by statistically controlling
for affect at the beginning of the week, for time pressure during the week, and for weekend
anticipation at the end of the week. If the relationships discovered in this study were
exclusively based on a common method or an occasion factor, then the relationships between
the predictor and outcome variables would break down when controlling for variables that
most probably are also influenced by this assumed common method or occasion factor (e.g.,
weekend anticipation, retrospective assessment of time pressure). However, work engagement
and psychological detachment from work during off-job time strongly predicted affect on
Friday, over and above the control variables that themselves were empirically related to affect
on Friday. Thus, although future studies should opt for the inclusion of multi-source measures
and for the separation of measurement points, the inclusion of control variables in our
analyses suggests that common method and occasion bias can not account for our core study
findings.
Third, the design of our study does not warrant conclusions about causality. For
example, one might argue for reversed causation with affect influencing (perceptions of)
psychological detachment or for third variables having influenced both predictor and outcome
variables. We tried to meet these challenges in a number of ways. First, we assessed work
engagement in the general survey before measuring affect on Friday afternoon. Therefore,
affect experienced at the weekly times of data collection could not have influenced work
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 24
engagement data. Second, we controlled for positive and negative affect at the start of the
working week. Thus, if there are stable individual-difference variables that affect both the
assessment of psychological detachment and state affect, these variables would have also
impacted affect on Monday (and we controlled for this potential effect in our analyses). Third,
we tested for reverse causation and found that Monday affect did not predict psychological
detachment assessed on Friday. Thus, all these procedural steps do not support alternative
causal interpretations referring to reverse causation and third variables. However, to arrive at
less tentative conclusions about causality, future studies should try to manipulate
psychological detachment from work during off-job time and examine its affective
consequences. Our study findings encourage future experimental research in this area by
demonstrating that it is probably worthwhile to invest research resources into this endeavour.
Implications for Future Research and for Practice
Our study focused on affect at the end of the working week as outcome variables. It
would be particularly interesting in future studies to examine if work engagement and
psychological detachment from work during off-job time are also related to other outcomes
such as low-arousal affective states (e.g., serenity, fatigue), job satisfaction, task performance,
or proactive behavior. Moreover, future studies may choose different time frames for
examining the relationships between work engagement, psychological detachment, affect and
other outcome variables. One option would be to examine how the relationships unfold at the
day-level. For example, it could be examined if psychological detachment during the evenings
is equally important on all days of the week or if high levels of detachment on one day can
compensate for low levels on other days. Another option would be to address longer-term
associations in longitudinal studies with time lags of several months. Such studies could
address longer-term effects of lack of detachment and its interplay with work engagement.
Recently, Elsbach and Hargadon (2006) argued that periods of “mindless” work
during the workday might provide benefits for performance in high-intensity jobs. In line with
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 25
reasoning, it would be worthwhile to examine if periods of temporarily detaching from high-
involvement tasks while at work help employees to regulate their affective states throughout
the working week.
Although causal interpretations of our data must remain tentative, the findings point to
some directions for promising interventions. Overall, our findings suggest that it is important
to increase work engagement and to encourage psychological detachment from one’s job
during after-work hours. Research has identified resources at work as core predictors of work
engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Therefore, organizations should provide high level
of job control and supervisory support in order to stimulate employee engagement (Bakker,
Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, in press; Mauno, Kinnunen, & Ruokolainen, 2007).
Psychological detachment can be enhanced by advising employees to segment between their
work and non-work life (Rothbard, Philips, & Dumas, 2005). One specific threat to a
successful segmentation between work and non-work life is the use of communication
technologies (e.g., email, pagers, and mobile phones; Boswell & Olson-Buchanon, 2007) that
make it difficult to mentally switch off from job-related thoughts during after-work hours.
Interventions may address explicit organizational policies and implicit norms of unlimited
availability in order to help employees to detach from their jobs – at least temporarily.
Conclusion
Of course, organizations want fully engaged employees as work engagement is
associated with positive organizational outcomes (Salanova et al., 2005; Sonnentag, 2003).
Our study suggests that also employee affect benefits from high work engagement and that
being engaged at work and detaching from work during non-work time are not mutually
exclusive. Rather, when high levels of work engagement combine with high levels of
detachment during off-job time, employees enjoy the highest levels of positive affect.
Therefore, continuous preoccupation with work as a 24/7 approach to one’s job probably is a
double-edged sword that in the long run might threat employee health and well-being.
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 26
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328.
Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (in press). Job resources
boost engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational
Psychology.
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived.
Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579-616.
Boswell, W. R., & Olson-Buchanon, J. B. (2007). The use of communications technologies
after hours: The role of work attitudes and work-life conflict. Journal of Management,
33, 592-610.
Britt, T. W., Adler, A. B., & Bartone, P. T. (2001). Deriving benefits from stressful events:
The role of engagement in meaningful work and hardiness. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 6, 53-63.
Britt, T. W., Castro, C. A., & Adler, A. B. (2005). Self engagement, stressors, and health: A
longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1475-1486.
Britt, T. W., Dickinson, J. M., Greene-Shortidge, T. M., & McKibben, E. (2007). Self
engagement at work. In C. L. Cooper & D. Nelson (Eds.), Positive organizational
behavior (pp. 143-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brosschot, J. F., Gerin, W., & Thayer, J. F. (2006). The perseverative cognition hypothesis: A
review of worry, prolonged stress-related activation, and health. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 60, 113-124.
Brosschot, J. F., Pieper, S., & Thayer, J. F. (2005). Expanding stress theory: Prolonged
activation and perseverative cognition. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30, 1043-1049.
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 27
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Application and data
analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship
behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
1241-1255.
De Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Houtman, I. L. D., & Bongers, P. M.
(2003). "The very best of the millenium": Longitudinal research and the demand-
control-(support) model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 282-305.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., de Jonge, J., Janssen, P. P. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001).
Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian
Journal of Work Environment and Health, 27, 279-286.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying
the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management
Review, 25, 178-199.
Elfering, A., Grebner, S., Semmer, N. K., Kaiser-Freiburghaus, D., Lauper-del Ponte, S., &
Witschi, I. (2005). Chronic job stressors and job control: Effects on event-related
coping success and well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 78, 237-252.
Elsbach, K. D., & Hargadon, A. B. (2006). Enhancing creativity through "mindless" work: A
framework of workday design. Organizational Science, 17, 470-483.
Etzion, D., Eden, D., & Lapidot, Y. (1998). Relief from job stressors and burnout: Reserve
service as a respite. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 577-585.
Feldman Barrett, L., Mesquita, B., Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2007). The experience of
emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 373-403.
Fisher, C. D., & Noble, C. S. (2004). A within-person examination of correlates of
performance and emotions while working. Human Performance, 17, 145-168.
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 28
Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction and
conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 57-80.
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Recovery, health, and job performance: Effects of weekend
experiences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 187-199.
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Behavioral activation and inhibition in
everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1135-1149.
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things
go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 228-245.
Geurts, S. A. E., & Demerouti, E. (2003). Work/non-work interface: A review of theories and
findings. In M. J. Schabracq (Ed.), The handbook of work and health psychology (pp.
279-312). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Grebner, S., Semmer, N. K., & Elfering, A. (2005). Working conditions and three types of
well-being: A longitudinal study with self-report and rating data. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 31-43.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of
work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 72-92.
Gryzwacz, J. G., Almeida, D. M., Neupert, S. D., & Ettner, S. L. (2004). Socioeconomic
status and health: A micro-level analysis of exposure and vulnerability to daily
stressors. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45, 1-16.
Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tammer, S. (in press). Positive gain spirals at
work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit
innovativeness. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1998). Stress, culture, and community: The psychology and physiology of
stress. New York: Plenum.
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 29
Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and
experienced states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 49, 561-575.
Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., & Heller, D. (2007). Employee well-being: A multilevel model
linking work and nonwork domains. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 16, 326-341.
Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., Wagner, D. T., Johnson, M. D., DeRue, D. S., & Ilgen, D. R.
(2007). When can employees have a family life? The effects of daily workload and
affect on work-family conflict and social behavior at work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 1368-1379.
Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance:
Test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126-138.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparison of two modes
of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 4, 1-39.
Krohne, H. W., Egloff, B., Kohlmann, C.-W., & Tausch, A. (1996). Untersuchungen mit einer
deutschen Version der "Positive and Negative Affect Schedule" (PANAS).
Diagnostica, 42, 139-156.
Kühnel, J., Sonnentag, S., & Westman, M. (2007). Does work engagement increase after a
short respite? The interplay of psychological detachment and job involvement.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Lyobomirsky, S., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1993). Self-perpetuating properties of dysphoric
rumination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 339-349.
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 30
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 3-30.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as
antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 70, 149-171.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tolls for probing
interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve
analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437-448.
Rasbash, J., Browne, W., Goldstein, H., Yang, M., Plewis, I., Healy, M., et al. (2000). A
user's guide to MLwiN. London, UK: Multilevel models project institute of education,
University of London.
Repetti, R. L. (1993). Short-term effects of occupational stressors on daily mood and health
complaints. Health Psychology, 12, 125-131.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and
family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-684.
Rothbard, N. P., Philips, K. W., & Dumas, T. L. (2005). Managing multiple roles: Work-
family policies and individuals' desires for segmentation. Organization Science, 16,
243-258.
Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect.
Psychological Bulletin, 125, 3-30.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work
engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service
climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1217-1227.
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 31
Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). A cross-national study of work engagement as a
mediator between job resources and proactive behavior. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 19, 116-131.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25, 293-315.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire. A cross-national study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66, 701-716.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological
concept and its implication for organizations. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner & D. P.
Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management (Volume 5): Managing
social and ethical issues in organizations (pp. 135-177). Greenwich: CT: Information
Age Publishers.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzáles-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic
approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Bakker, A. B. (2006). Dr. Jeckyll or mr. Hyde: On the
differences between work engagement and workaholism. In R. J. Burke (Ed.),
Research companion to working time and work addiction (pp. 193-217). Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar.
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & van Rhenen, W. (in press). Workaholism, burnout and work
engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied
Psychology: An International Review.
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 32
Schulz, M. S., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Brennan, R. T. (2004). Coming home upset:
Gender, marital satisfaction, and the daily spillover of workday experience into couple
interaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 250-263.
Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). Insomnia, emotions, and job satisfaction: A multilevel
study. Journal of Management, 32, 622-645.
Semmer, N. (1984). Streßbezogene Tätigkeitsanalyse [Stress-oriented task-analysis].
Weinheim: Beltz.
Shimazu, A. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). Does distraction facilitate problem-focused coping
with job stress? A one-year longitudinal study. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30,
423-434.
Snir, R., & Zohar, D. (in press). Workaholism as discretionary time investment at work: An
experience-sampling study. Applied Psychology: An International Review.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the
interface between non-work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518-528.
Sonnentag, S., & Bayer, U.-V. (2005). Switching off mentally: Predictors and consequences
of psychological detachment from work during off-job time. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 10, 393-414.
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (in press). "Did you have a nice evening?" A
day-level study of recovery experiences, sleep, and affect. Journal of Applied
Psychology.
Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2003). Stress in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen &
R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology (Vol. 12: Industrial and
organizational psychology, pp. 453-491). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and
validation of a measure assessing recuperation and unwinding at work. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 204-221.
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 33
Story, L. B., & Repetti, R. (2006). Daily occupational stressors and marital behavior. Journal
of Family Psychology, 20, 690-700.
Thomson, D. K. (2006). The association between rumination and negative affect: A review.
Cognition and Emotion, 20, 1216-1235.
Totterdell, P., Reynolds, S., Parkinson, B., & Briner, R. B. (1994). Associations of sleep with
everydoy mood, minor symptoms and social interaction experience. Sleep, 17, 466-
475.
Totterdell, P., Wood, S., & Wall, T. (2006). An intra-individual test of the demands-control
model: A weekly diary study of psychological strain in portfolio workers. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 63-84.
van Hooff, M. L. M., Geurts, S. A. E., Kompier, M. A. J., & Taris, T. W. (2006). Work-home
intereference: How does it manifest itself from day to day? Work and Stress, 20, 145-
162.
van Hooff, M. L. M., Geurts, S. A. E., Kompier, M. A. J., & Taris, T. W. (2007). Workdays,
in-between workdays and the weekend: A diary study on effort and recovery.
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 80, 599-630.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The panas-scales. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Watson, D., & Tellegan, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological
Bulletin, 98, 219-235.
Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation systems
of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological
evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 820-838.
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 34
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (in press). Work
engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal
resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.
Zapf, D. (1993). Stress-oriented analysis of computerized office work. European Work and
Organizational Psychologist, 3, 85-100.
Zohar, D., Tzischinski, O., & Epstein, R. (2003). Effects of energy availability on immediate
and delayed emotional reactions to work events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
1082-1093.
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 35
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation between Study Variables
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Age 40.74 8.78
2 Gender a1.48
0.50 .37
3 Leadership position b1.28 0.45 .21 .37
4 Trait work engagement 3.60 1.28 -.18 -.12 .15
5 Positive affect on Monday morning 3.12 0.67 .08 .07 .12 .55 -.34 .03 .20 .12 .49 -.22
6 Negative affect on Monday morning 1.32 0.40 -.04 -.04 -.01 -.30 -.37 .05 -.25 -.26 -.13 .45
7 Time pressure 3.18 0.88 -.04 -.07 .07 .08 .08 -.02 -.13 -.27 -.16 .17
8 Weekend anticipation 3.90 0.69 .03 -.11 .01 .22 .32 -.34 .03 .23 .24 -.31
9 Psychological detachment from work 3.20 0.98 .06 -.16 -.25 .02 .12 -.34 -.21 .29 .26 -.27
10 Positive affect on Friday afternoon 2.89 0.71 .07 -.07 -.01 .27 .52 -.15 -.11 .28 .26 -.37
11 Negative affect on Friday afternoon 1.45 0.46 .03 .02 -.00 -.26 -.28 .63 .13 -.29 -.32 -.38
Note. Correlations below the diagonal are person-level correlations (N = 159) with correlations r |.20| being significant at p <.05 and r . |15|
being significant at p <.01. Correlations above the diagonal are day-level correlations (N = 432) with correlations r |.13| being significant at p
<.01. a. 1 = Female. 2 = Male. b. 1 = No leadership position. 2 = Leadership position.
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 36
Table 2
Multilevel Estimates for Models Predicting Positive Affect at Friday Afternoon
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Estimate SE t Estimate SE t Estimate SE t Estimate SE t
Intercept 3.149 0.215 14.657 3.137 0.215 14.591 3.189 0.204 15.632 3.188 0.204 15.627
Gender
-0.178 0.124 -1.435 -0.178 0.124 -1.435 -0.117 0.119 -0.983 -0.114 0.119 -0.958
Age 0.008 0.007 1.143 0.008 0.007 1.143 0.013 0.007 1.857 0.013 0.007 1.857
Leadership position -0.002 0.133 -0.015 0.008 0.133 0.060 -0.104 0.129 -0.806 -0.106 0.129 -0.821
Positive affect on Monday
morning
0.160 0.060 2.667 ** 0.139 0.057 2.439 * 0.132 0.059 2.237 *
Week-specific time pressure -0.136 0.041 -3.317 *** -0.116 0.041 -2.819 ** -0.118 0.041 -2.878 **
Weekend anticipation 0.119 0.045 2.644 ** 0.104 0.044 2.364 * 0.110 0.044 2.500 *
Trait work engagement (WE) 0.170 0.043 3.953 *** 0.169 0.043 3.930 ***
Week-specific detachment (D) 0.148 0.048 3.083 ** 0.141 0.048 2.938 **
WE x D 0.089 0.041 2.171 *
-2*log (lh) 865.338 838.340 814.280 809.630
Diff -2*log a2.799 26.998 *** 24.060 *** 4.650 *
Df 3 3 2 1
Level 1 Intercept Variance (SE) 0.241 (0.021) 0.218 (0.019) 0.212 (0.018) 0.209 (0.018)
Level 2 Intercept Variance (SE) 0.377 (0.054) 0.386 (0.054) 0.341 (0.049) 0.341 (0.049)
Note. * p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001.
a. Model 1 was compared to a Null Model with the intercept as the only predictor (γ = 2.884; SE = 0.056; t = 51.400; -2*log = 868.137; Level 1 Intercept Variance = 0.240; SE =
0.021; Level 2 Intercept Variance = 0.387; SE = 0.055).
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 37
Table 3
Multilevel Estimates for Models Predicting Negative Affect at Friday Afternoon
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Estimate SE t Estimate SE t Estimate SE t Estimate SE t
Intercept 1.370 0.140 9.786 1.380 0.140 9.857 1.351 0.135 10.007 1.351 0.135 10.007
Gender
0.042 0.081 0.519 0.039 0.081 0.481 0.007 0.078 0.090 0.005 0.078 0.064
Age 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 -0.003 0.004 -0.750 -0.003 0.004 -0.750
Leadership position 0.011 0.086 0.128 0.006 0.086 0.070 0.069 0.085 0.812 0.068 0.085 0.800
Negative affect on Monday
morning
0.040 0.070 0.571 0.021 0.070 0.300 0.021 0.070 0.300
Week-specific time pressure 0.076 0.036 2.111 * 0.065 0.037 1.757 0.065 0.037 1.757
Weekend anticipation -0.091 0.039 -2.333 * -0.083 0.039 -2.128 * -0.081 0.039 -2.077 *
Trait work engagement (WE) -0.098 0.028 -3.500 ** -0.099 0.028 -3.536 **
Week-specific detachment (D) -0.085 0.043 -1.977 * -0.087 0.043 -2.023 *
WE X D 0.034 0.036 0.944
-2*log (lh) 649.068 637.048 621.707 620.865
Diff -2*log a0.384 12.020 ** 15.341 *** 0.842
Df 3 3 2 1
Level 1 Intercept Variance (SE) 0.179 (0.015) 0.172 (0.015) 0.169 (0.014) 0.168 (0.014)
Level 2 Intercept Variance (SE) 0.128 (0.023) 0.131 (0.023) 0.118 (0.021) 0.119 (0.022)
Note. * p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001.
a. Model 1 was compared to a Null Model with the intercept as the only predictor (γ = 1.446; SE = 0.036; t = 40.167; -2*log = 649.452; Level 1 Intercept Variance = 0.179; SE =
0.015; Level 2 Intercept Variance = 0.129; SE = 0.023).
Being Engaged at Work and Detached at Home 38
Positive Affect
5
4
3
Figure 1. Interaction Effect of Work Engagement (WE) and Psychological Detachment on Positive Affect
1
2
Low Detachment High Detachment
Low Trait WE High Trait WE
... Tämä ilmentää palautumiseen liittyvää psykologista irrottautumista stressiä aiheuttavasta asiasta (esim. Sonnentag, Mojza, Binnewies & Scholl, 2008). Myös Folkman (2008) on korostanut positiivisten tunteiden merkitystä stressaavissa tilanteissa, sillä positiiviset tunteet auttavat palauttamaan fysiologisia ja psykososiaalisia hallintaresursseja. ...
Article
Full-text available
Tässä tutkimuksessa tarkasteltiin korkeakouluopiskelijoiden kokemaa päivittäistä opintoihin liittyvää stressiä, opiskelijoiden käyttämiä keinoja stressin hallitsemiseksi sekä stressinhallintakeinojen yhteyksiä stressitason muutokseen päivien välillä. Mobiilipäiväkirjatutkimukseen osallistui 86 maisterivaiheen opiskelijaa, jotka vastasivat sekä strukturoituihin että avoimiin päiväkirjakysymyksiin viikon ajan, kerran päivässä (N = 602). Avoimet vastaukset stressinhallintakeinoihin liittyen luokiteltiin ja kvantifioitiin, ja stressinhallintakeinojen yhteyksiä stressitason muutokseen kolmena perättäisenä päivänä tarkasteltiin monitasomallinnuksella. Tulokset osoittivat, että tutkimusviikolla opiskelijoiden stressitasossa esiintyi huomattavaa päivittäistä vaihtelua. Opiskelijat pyrkivät kuitenkin hallitsemaan opiskeluun liittyvää stressiä seitsemän eri keinon avulla, esimerkiksi opintojaan edistämällä tai liikunnan avulla. Kun stressinhallintakeinojen käytön yhteyttä stressitason muutokseen tarkasteltiin kolmena peräkkäisenä päivänä, sosiaaliset suhteet, opintojen edistäminen, ajanhallinta sekä positiivinen asenne ja reflektio osoittautuivat toimiviksi keinoiksi laskea opintoihin liittyvää stressiä.
... The JD-R model offers a valuable perspective on these interactions, emphasizing how job control combines with other resources to mitigate stressors and promote well-being [27]. For instance, studies suggest that the positive effects of autonomy are amplified when paired with supportive leadership, highlighting the importance of complementary resources for maximizing outcomes [58]. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study investigated the factors influencing teachers’ organizational commitment in China. We employed a survey design with a sample of 506 full-time teachers from various public middle and high schools across mainland China. Social connectedness, job control, and work engagement were measured using self-reported scales. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was utilized to examine the hypothesized relationships. The results indicated that social connectedness and job control were directly associated with higher levels of organizational commitment among teachers. Furthermore, work engagement played a mediating role in these relationships. Specifically, teachers who felt more connected to their colleagues and had greater control over their work reported higher levels of work engagement, which, in turn, predicted stronger organizational commitment. These findings highlight the importance of fostering a supportive and collaborative school environment to cultivate social connectedness and provide teachers with greater autonomy and decision-making opportunities to enhance job control. By nurturing these factors, schools can promote work engagement, ultimately leading to a more dedicated and committed teaching workforce.
... Conversely, feelings of engagement that originate in one area of life might lead people to feel energised in other areas, as is indicated by research into spillover effects that shows how certain experiences can be transmitted between life domains (Rodríguez-Muñoz et al. 2013). Engagement has also been linked to better recovery from stress (Sonnentag et al. 2008), which again suggests that engagement in one area of life might provide an individual with more energy in other areas of life. ...
... This result is somewhat surprising, as it was previously argued that employees who are generally highly engaged in their work could detach better at the end of the workday, even if there were high workloads (Clauss et al., 2021). It was also suggested that a balance between engagement at work and psychological disengagement from work-related effort during free time is highly relevant for protecting employees' well-being, pointing to the crucial relationship between engagement, detachment, and individual health (Sonnentag et al., 2008). ...
Article
Full-text available
Finding a balance between work-invested effort and recovery moments represents one of the key paths to preserving employee health and well-being. The present research aims to facilitate this line of study in the East European context by adapting the Recovery Experience Questionnaire (REQ; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007) to the Romanian culture. Based on two cross-sectional designs, the REQ was administered online to Romanian employees from various occupations (N = 264, Study 1), and to a sample of Romanian higher education professionals (N = 176, Study 2). Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted, which supported the first-order four-factor structure and the two-factor second-order model of REQ. Nomological validity received support through the expected correlations between the recovery experiences factors and antecedent job demands (i.e., work pressure, role conflict) and an antecedent resource (i.e., autonomy). Criterion validity was sustained by the concurrent relationships with consequences of recovery (i.e., work engagement, job performance, mental and physical health complaints). REQ demonstrated excellent reliability with internal consistencies marginal to or above .90. Moreover, the instrument was invariant across genders and study populations. Overall, the present research suggests that the Romanian version of the REQ is an adequate measure that can be used in this cultural context to assess recovery experiences.
... Workplace activities that evoke and cultivate positive emotions and experiences, which include pleasure, meaning, and accomplishment, are critical in achieving success, psychological growth, and improved mental and physical health (well-being)(Aarrestad et al., 2015; Quoidbach et al., 2015; Wall et al., 2017).In addition, the results revealed a positive and significant relationship between concentration at work and meaningful work, support at work, and work environment.Dubreuil et al. (2014) highlight that when employees use their strengths, they enter into a state of deep concentration and involvement, which involves attention to detail and effective and efficient information processing. In addition, despite the literature not being consistent on the relationship between psychological detachment from work and work performance, remaining mentally present at work is not ideal for employee satisfaction, well-being, and health(Sonnentag et al., 2008;Olafsen & Bentzen, 2020). According toAsmui et al. (2012), good ergonomic practices have the potential to create a comfortable and welcoming work environment as well as influence the physical and mental capabilities of employees.Kim and Jang (2022) affirm that a comfortable working environment positively influences the psychological responses of employees.Moreover, the findings revealed a positive and significant correlation between meaningful work and work environment, as well as the availability of coworker and supervisor support at work.Albrecht et al. (2021) highlight that apart from fostering meaningful work through diverse practices, organizations have the responsibility to establish the basic moral conditions that allow meaningful workplaces to flourish.Kahn's (1990) employee engagement model posits that meaningfulness results from employees experiencing challenging work, task variety, and jobs that allow employees to feel that they are making a valuable contribution. ...
Article
Full-text available
An engaged workforce is vital for higher education institutions to contribute positively to the developing world. The purpose of this study is to examine employee engagement and its significance for academic and administrative employees at the Durban University of Technology in the Province of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa. The study opted for a quantitative research design to explore the role and importance of employee engagement. The target population consisted of 1,861 university employees at the selected university in South Africa, and 320 employee from different university units and positions were selected using simple random sampling without replacement. The results revealed that 80% of respondents exert high levels of physical energy, concentration, and dedication toward achieving institutional objectives. Additionally, the results showed a significant difference in the support employees get, with administrative staff receiving more support than academic staff members. The study concluded that university employees exhibit high levels of physical energy at work. In addition, the study found a significant and positive relationship between employees exhibiting high levels of physical energy at work and employees who find their work meaningful and experience inspiration.
... Engagement: Emotional Engagement; Cognitive Engagement; Behavioral Engagement; Social Engagement; Physical Engagement (Kahn, 1990;Rich et al., 2010;Sonnentag et al., 2008) ...
Article
Full-text available
Organizational commitment and transformational leadership play an important role in organizational success. This study explores the interrelationships between organizational commitment and employee engagement, highlighting their interconnected nature and implications for organizational effectiveness. A conceptual framework approach is used to map the interdependencies between transformational leaders, organizational commitment, and employees. Key findings and models from the selected studies are extracted to identify common themes and gaps. The conceptual framework aims to provide a foundational reference for future empirical studies and will assist practitioners in devising leadership strategies that effectively harness the potential of their workforce. The framework provides a comprehensive understanding of how leadership behaviors influence employees' emotional attachment to the organization and their subsequent engagement in their work roles.
Article
Purpose This paper aims to explore how homeworking influences employee engagement in a German service company during the COVID-19 pandemic and to provide recommendations for organisations on how to secure employees’ engagement remotely. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopts a qualitative research design in a case study setup with a German service company. A refined framework links homeworking and engagement based on the data collected from interviews and surveys. Findings This paper identifies several factors that affect engagement whilst homeworking, such as work–life balance, family, work intensification, team environment, leadership, organisational activities and flexible working arrangements. The paper also proposes a refined framework that links homeworking and engagement and offers practical implications for organisations. Research limitations/implications This paper is based on a small and homogeneous sample from one service company in Germany, which limits the generalisability of the findings. Future research could use larger and more diverse samples, longitudinal designs and quantitative methods to examine the impact of homeworking on engagement. Originality/value This paper contributes to the scarce literature on homeworking and engagement by providing new and up-to-date insights into the homeworking experience and its effect on engagement in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The paper also offers useful suggestions for organisations on how to adapt their practices and policies to secure engagement in a remote work environment.
Article
BACKGROUND: Human Resource Management (HRM) has emerged as a crucial facet of organizational success, particularly in balancing profitability and environmental sustainability. The growing environmental concerns are reshaping HRM, giving rise to Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) practices. However, there is a critical need to understand the evolution and impact of GHRM. OBJECTIVE: This literature review explores the role of GHRM in fostering sustainable practices, employee well-being, and engagement within organizations. It aims to provide the groundwork for future research. METHODS: This study examined 204 selected journal articles from Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar following PRISMA guidelines. The article underwent rigorous screening, data extraction, and analysis using NVivo 14 software. RESULTS: The literature review explored the theoretical underpinnings of GHRM practices. Scoping review provided insights into the depth of available literature, mapping revealed research gaps and thematic clusters. However, systematic review highlights GHRM’s role in organisational sustainability and employee well-being. CONCLUSIONS: GHRM emerges as a crucial factor in fostering environmental capabilities and steering the transition from traditional HR practices to eco-friendly approaches, paving the way for new paradigms. Moreover, practitioners must extend their considerations beyond routine organizational HR practices to enhance sustainable HR practices and employees’ well-being.
Article
Despite the importance of leader humor in sustaining organizational effectiveness, little is known about how and when leader humor affects employee thriving, an important indicator of employee personal growth and organizational sustainable human capital. Drawing on and extending the socially embedded model of thriving at work, this study takes a balanced view and investigates the positive and negative impacts of leader humor on employee thriving. On the one hand, we propose that leader humor is related to information inadequacy, which hinders employee thriving. On the other hand, we argue that leader humor enables employees' positive affect, which enhances their level of thriving. Three‐wave data collected from 268 employees working in various industries support our hypotheses. The findings show that high‐quality information and affect resources exchange relationships with teammates (i.e., team–member exchange) alleviate the detrimental effect of leader humor on information adequacy but do not affect its beneficial effect on positive affect, which facilitates employee thriving as a whole. This study has practical implications on how practitioners can capitalize on leader humor and build a thriving workforce.
Article
Full-text available
Globally, the construction industry is facing a severe labor shortage, and attracting and retaining workers has become a pressing challenge. This study examined the effect of rehabilitation exercise on construction workers’ willingness to sustain their careers through a questionnaire survey of 479 construction workers using a quantitative research methodology. It aims to reveal how the self-efficacy, perceived usefulness, and self-regulation of rehabilitation exercise affect construction workers’ occupational sustainability through physical and psychological recovery. The results of the study show that (1) the rehabilitation exercise self-efficacy and perceived usefulness of recovery exercise positively affect construction workers’ career sustainability intentions and (2) psychological recovery and physical recovery play parallel mediating roles in the effects of rehabilitation exercise self-efficacy, the perceived usefulness of recovery exercise, and self-regulation of recovery exercise on construction workers’ career sustainability intentions. The findings suggest that improving the physical and psychological capital of construction workers through recovery exercise can effectively enhance their career commitment and willingness to be sustainable. This study provides a reference for the design of more comprehensive and systematic rehabilitation and health management programs in the future and offers suggestions from the perspective of recovery exercise for the development of sustainable construction workers.
Chapter
Full-text available
Self-engagement at work As individuals go to work and carry out various tasks, there will be times when they are invested in the quality of their work and feel responsibility for and commitment to superior job performance. There will also be times when they feel disengaged from their work or from certain aspects of their job, consequently withdrawing or disconnecting from a given area of performance. In the present chapter we argue that engaging the self in work serves to commit an individual to superior performance, and that such engagement has consequences for motivation, affect, and performance. Although most prior authors have viewed engagement in work as having primarily positive consequences, we present a more complex analysis, ultimately arguing that engaging the self in work can have positive consequences when the employee has the resources and aptitudes necessary for successful performance, but may have negative consequences when substantial impediments exist ...
Article
Joint effects of daily events and dispositional sensitivities to cues of reward and punishment on daily positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) were examined in 3 diary studies. Study 1 showed that positive events were strongly related to PA but not NA, whereas negative events were strongly related to NA but not PA. Studies 2 and 3 examined how the dispositional sensitivities of independent appetitive and aversive motivational systems, the Behavioral Activation System (BAS) and the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), moderated these relationships. Participants in Study 2 with higher BAS sensitivity reported more PA on average; those with more sensitive BIS reported more NA. Also, BIS moderated reactions to negative events, such that higher BIS sensitivity magnified reactions to negative events. Study 3 replicated these findings and showed that BAS predisposed people to experience more positive events. Results demonstrate the value of distinguishing within-person and between-person effects to clarify the functionally independent processes by which dispositional sensitivities influence affect.
Article
Interest in the problem of method biases has a long history in the behavioral sciences. Despite this, a comprehensive summary of the potential sources of method biases and how to control for them does not exist. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which method biases influence behavioral research results, identify potential sources of method biases, discuss the cognitive processes through which method biases influence responses to measures, evaluate the many different procedural and statistical techniques that can be used to control method biases, and provide recommendations for how to select appropriate procedural and statistical remedies for different types of research settings.
Article
This study began with the premise that people can use varying degrees of their selves. physically. cognitively. and emotionally. in work role performances. which has implications for both their work and experi­ ences. Two qualitative. theory-generating studies of summer camp counselors and members of an architecture firm were conducted to explore the conditions at work in which people personally engage. or express and employ their personal selves. and disengage. or withdraw and defend their personal selves. This article describes and illustrates three psychological conditions-meaningfulness. safety. and availabil­ ity-and their individual and contextual sources. These psychological conditions are linked to existing theoretical concepts. and directions for future research are described. People occupy roles at work; they are the occupants of the houses that roles provide. These events are relatively well understood; researchers have focused on "role sending" and "receiving" (Katz & Kahn. 1978). role sets (Merton. 1957). role taking and socialization (Van Maanen. 1976), and on how people and their roles shape each other (Graen. 1976). Researchers have given less attention to how people occupy roles to varying degrees-to how fully they are psychologically present during particular moments of role performances. People can use varying degrees of their selves. physically, cognitively, and emotionally. in the roles they perform. even as they main­ tain the integrity of the boundaries between who they are and the roles they occupy. Presumably, the more people draw on their selves to perform their roles within those boundaries. the more stirring are their performances and the more content they are with the fit of the costumes they don. The research reported here was designed to generate a theoretical frame­ work within which to understand these "self-in-role" processes and to sug­ gest directions for future research. My specific concern was the moments in which people bring themselves into or remove themselves from particular task behaviors, My guiding assumption was that people are constantly bring­ ing in and leaving out various depths of their selves during the course of The guidance and support of David Berg, Richard Hackman, and Seymour Sarason in the research described here are gratefully acknowledged. I also greatly appreciated the personal engagements of this journal's two anonymous reviewers in their roles, as well as the comments on an earlier draft of Tim Hall, Kathy Kram, and Vicky Parker.
Article
Work-family research emphasizes the importance of mechanisms that link work and family. However, these mechanisms typically are described in metaphoric terms poorly suited to rigorous research. In this article we translate work-family linking mechanisms into causal relationships between work and family constructs. For each relationship we explain its sign and causal structure and how it is influenced by personal intent. We show how these respecified linking mechanisms constitute theoretical building blocks for developing comprehensive models of the work-family interface.
Article
The present study investigated in a sample of 587 telecom managers whether workaholism, burnout, and work engagement - the supposed antipode of burnout - can be distinguished empirically. These three concepts were measured with existing, validated multi-dimensional questionnaires. Structural equation modeling revealed that a slightly modified version of the hypothesised model that assumed three distinct yet correlated constructs - burnout, engagement, and workaholism - fitted the data best. Multiple regression analyses revealed that these three concepts retained unique hypothesised patterns of relationships with variables from five clusters representing (1) long working hours, (2) job characteristics, (3) work outcomes, (4) quality of social relationships, and (5) perceived health, respectively. In sum, our analyses provided converging evidence that workaholism, burnout, and engagement are three different kinds of employee well-being rather than three of a kind.