Employee Engagement，Employee Resilience and Social Support: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Jessie Wu and Version 1 by Halima Begum.

According to the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, the level of resources such as social support employees get from an organisation is essential to build resilience. 

  • employee engagement
  • employee resilience
  • social support

1. Job Demands-Resources Model

The JD-R model [16][1] became distinctly well-known amongst the research community in the employee engagement literature [22,23][2][3]. Numerous studies on engagement have used the model as an explanatory structure [24][4]. As indicated by the model, job characteristics have two distinct classifications: job demands and job resources. According to [25][5], job demands are those physical, social, psychological, or organisational parts of the job that involves continuous physical or psychological effort in performing tasks. Job demands include high work pressure, physical demands, role ambiguity, and shift work. Job resources, on the contrary, refers to the availability of those physical, social, or psychological resources (i.e., performance feedback, job control, and social support) that decrease job demands’ effects and enhance employee growth and development. According to [26][6], the main evidence of the JD-R model is that both job demands and job resources affect employee engagement through some procedures. Job resources play a motivational role that reduces the burnout level, thus encouraging an employee’s positive approach, mindset, and attitude toward their job and, therefore, enhancing the engagement level [26][6]. This can be elucidated through the viewpoint of intrinsic or extrinsic motivational roles because they are instruments for accomplishing work goals.
Recently, the concept of personal resources was introduced into the JD-R model [16][1]. Specifically, personal resources refer to a positive self-assessment that is usually connected with resiliency that empowers individuals to impact their environment [16][1] successfully and effectively. Employees with this character (i.e., resilience, self-efficacy, optimism, and self-esteem) are predicted to be extra engaged as they impact their workplace [27][7]. As such, they can work without much of a stretch and adjust to change quickly. Personal resources are essential in helping people cope effectively with stress and stay in balance [28][8]. In addition, these resources allow individuals to tolerate and avoid excessive stressors and to improve their process of coping with stress [29,30][9][10]. Furthermore, personal resources have been discovered to be associated with social support and employee engagement [26][6], Employee engagement is influenced by the personal or interpersonal resources they receive from their organisation. The JD-R model has been used widely in investigating the influence of demands and job resources on several individual and organisational outcomes, such as employee engagement [24][4].

2. Employee Engagement

Over the past decade, employee engagement has become crucial to researchers and practitioners [31,32][11][12]. The practitioner and academic approaches to viewing the construct differ in both purpose and outcome [33][13]. The practitioners aim for desired outcomes such as employee retention, productivity and commitment. In addition, they focus more on group and macro levels to increase the function of the workgroups. However, the aim of the academics is precise; it has an unambiguous meaning, and the measurement of the construct is well established. The academics focus on the individual and the micro level to better understand the antecedent variables instigating its development and the correlated outcome variable [24,34][4][14].
Kahn [35][15] earlier defined employee engagement, and [36][16] reintroduced the construct of employee engagement by building on Kahn’s findings; their works on the concept of engagement adopt an alternating yet connected approach. [37][17] stated that engagement is a mental and positive fulfilment characterised by vigour, dedication, and absorption. Engagement is a more tenacious and affective-cognitive state than a momentary and specific state. Additionally, engagement does not focus on any individual, object, behaviour, or event. According to [37][17], vigour is characterised by the mental resilience of individuals and the high levels of energy put in while performing work. Such individuals are eager to work harder, even in times of difficulty. Dedication denotes active individual involvement in carrying out duties with enthusiasm, satisfaction, pride, and inspiration, while absorption can be described as the social state of individuals’ deep involvement when carrying out a given task. As a result of the deep involvement in executing a given task, time passes quickly, and employees have no intention of being disengaged from their work role.

3. Employee Resilience

According to Kuntz et al. [19][18], the concept of employee resilience was developed to shift the focus of resilience research away from internal indicators of how well people cope with stress towards the context of how well people demonstrate resilience in their daily work lives [19][18]. Employee resilience been conceptualised as a dispositional variable in charge of psychological mechanisms that empower employees to recover from challenging situations, traumatic events, and adversities [6,38][19][20]. In other words, it reflects employees’ ability to react well and experience less harmful consequences when faced with pressure at work. Employee resilience is a protective factor in employees’ responses to change and modification in the workplace, which in turn helps to cope and bounce back from adversity or setbacks that are often common in the workplace [39][21].
Recent studies on employee resilience have changed their perception from the dispositional approach to the scholar’s ability approach. For example, [40,41][22][23] proposed that employee resilience is a productive construct in organisational research when considered as an individual’s ability that can be built. Employees might be encouraged to cope with the obstacles they face through interactions between individuals and their work environment. This statement emphasises the significance of considering employee resilience in a work-related context and viewing it as an ability that can be established over time [9][24].
Studies have shown resilience as a requirement for survival in an unpredictable workplace [11,21][25][26]. Resilience among employees is significant for effective functioning in a “turbulent world” [42][27]. It has become essential for organisations to encourage specific means for stimulating employee resilience and employee engagement [21,43][26][28]. According to [39][21], resilient employees have a more prominent ability to recuperate from workplace challenges and are more receptive to fundamental organisational changes than non-resilient employees. In addition, [44][29] indicated that individuals with low resilience are more emotionally unstable and less flexible when faced with challenges. Reference [6][19] conclude that the significance of resilience cannot be underestimated as it is necessary for organisations’ sustainability.

4. Social Support

According to the Job Demands-Resources model (JD-R), social support is recognised as a job resource that can positively influence employee engagement and help control work demands [31][11]. Furthermore, social support is described as the assistance rendered by other individuals with a possibility that it may have positive effects on physical well-being and health [45][30]. Some researchers have described social support as a basic individual’s human and social needs for esteem, affection, approval, identity, sense of belonging, and security which are fulfilled through interaction and cooperation with others [46][31]. However, others have suggested that the benefits of social support arise because it facilitates coping and assists in responding to stress [47][32]. Additionally, social support triggers proactive behaviour skills and increases the propensity to take advantage of available resources [29][9]. Furthermore, social support can help leaders to influence subordinates’ creativity, adapt to environmental changes, and encourage intrinsic motivation [48][33]. Furthermore, support from organizations can improve job security and communication among employees and their employers [49][34].
Employees working in a supportive and resourceful work environment are most likely to be effective in accomplishing the organisation’s goal. This is because supportive relationships with others at work make the work environment more pleasant and rewarding [47][32]. Hence, the higher the support, the more openly employees can build trust and share vital information with their co-workers and the organisation, resulting in a positive organisational outcome. Social support is an essential variable in the effectiveness of an organisation and individual accomplishment; this, in turn, leads to employee engagement [50][35]. In addition, Coffman and Gonzalez-Molina [51][36] concluded in their study that social support is an essential antecedent of job satisfaction, job involvement, job stress, and engagement. Social support can also be examined as a mediator between two variables [52][37]. 

References

  1. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Towards a model of work engagement. Career Dev. Int. 2008, 13, 209–223.
  2. Desrumaux, P.; Lapointe, D.; Ntsame Sima, M.; Boudrias, J.S.; Savoie, A.; Brunet, L. The impact of job demands, climate, and optimism on well-being and distress at work: What are the mediating effects of basic psychological need satisfaction? Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 2015, 65, 179–188.
  3. Saks, A.; Gruman, J. What do we really know about employee engagement? Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2014, 25, 155–182.
  4. Schaufeli, W.; Taris, T. A critical review of the Job Demands-Resources Model: Implications for improving work and health. In Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 43–68.
  5. Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B. The Job Demands–Resources model: Challenges for future research. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 2011, 37, 9.
  6. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. J. Occup. Psychol. 2017, 22, 273–285.
  7. Lee, J.J.; Ok, C.M. Drivers of work engagement: An examination of core self-evaluations and psychological climate among hotel employees. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 44, 84–98.
  8. Agbaria, Q.; Abu-Mokh, A.J. The use of religious and personal resources in coping with stress during COVID-19 for Palestinians. Curr. Psychol. 2022, 1, 13.
  9. Lu, L.; Chou, C.Y.; Zeng, Y.L.Y.; Cooper, C.L. Personal and social resources in coping with long hours of the Chinese work condition: The dual roles of detachment and social motivation. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 33, 1606–1640.
  10. Rattray, J.; McCallum, L.; Hull, A.; Ramsay, P.; Salisbury, L.; Scott, T.; Cole, S.; Miller, J.; Dixon, D. Work-related stress: The impact of COVID-19 on critical care and redeployed nurses: A mixed-methods study. BMJ Open 2021, 11, 51326.
  11. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Sanz-Vergel, A.I. Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD–R Approach. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2014, 1, 389–411.
  12. Chaudhary, R. A multilevel investigation of the factors influencing work engagement. Psychol. Manag. J. 2014, 12, 128–158.
  13. Macey, W.H.; Schneider, B. The meaning of employee engagement. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2008, 1, 3–30.
  14. Saks, A.M. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Manag. Psychol. 2006, 21, 600–619.
  15. Kahn, W. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag. J. 1990, 33, 692–724.
  16. Maslach, C.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Leiter, M.P. Job Burnout. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 397–422.
  17. Schaufeli, W.; Salanova, M.; González-Romá, V. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 2002, 3, 71–92.
  18. Kuntz, J.R.C.; Näswall, K.; Malinen, S. Resilient Employees in Resilient Organizations: Flourishing Beyond Adversity. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2016, 9, 456–462.
  19. Kuntz, J.; Connell, P.; Näswall, K. Workplace resources and employee resilience: The role of regulatory profiles. Career Dev. Int. 2017, 22, 419–435.
  20. Shin, J.; Taylor, M.S.; Seo, M.-G. Resources for Change: The Relationships of Organizational Inducements and Psychological Resilience to Employees’ Attitudes and Behaviors toward Organizational Change. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55, 727–748.
  21. Fletcher, D.; Sarkar, M. Psychological resilience: A review and critique of definitions, concepts, and theory. Eur. Psychol. 2013, 18, 12–23.
  22. Lengnick-Hall, C.A.; Beck, T.E.; Lengnick-Hall, M.L. Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2011, 21, 243–255.
  23. Blasdel, T. Resilience at Work: An Exploration of the Process of Resilience with Marketing Agency Professionals. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA, 2015.
  24. Robertson, I.T.; Cooper, C.L.; Sarkar, M.; Curran, T. Resilience training in the workplace from 2003 to 2014: A systematic review. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2015, 88, 533–562.
  25. Malik, P.; Garg, P. Learning organization and work engagement: The mediating role of employee resilience. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 31, 1071–1094.
  26. Cooke, F.L.; Cooper, B.; Bartram, T.; Wang, J.; Mei, H. Mapping the relationships between high-performance work systems, employee resilience and engagement: A study of the banking industry in China. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2016, 30, 1–22.
  27. Hodliffe, M.C. The Development and Validation of the Employee Resilience Scale (EmpRes): The Conceptualisation of a New Model. Master’s Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2014.
  28. Camps, J.; Torres, F. Contingent reward leader behaviour: Where does it come from? Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2011, 28, 212–230.
  29. Cohen, S.; Syme, S. Issues in the study and application of social support. In Social Support and Health; Cohen, S., Syme, S.L., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1985.
  30. Thoits, P.A. Conceptual, Methodological, and Theoretical Problems in Studying Social Support as a Buffer Against Life Stress. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1982, 23, 145.
  31. Li, F.; Luo, S.; Mu, W.; Li, Y.; Ye, L.; Zheng, X.; Xu, B.; Ding, Y.; Ling, P.; Zhou, M.; et al. Effects of sources of social support and resilience on the mental health of different age groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Psychiatry 2021, 21, 16.
  32. Tu, Y.; Lu, X.; Choi, J.N.; Guo, W. Ethical Leadership and Team-Level Creativity: Mediation of Psychological Safety Climate and Moderation of Supervisor Support for Creativity. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 159, 551–565.
  33. Charoensukmongkol, P.; Suthatorn, P. How managerial communication reduces perceived job insecurity of flight attendants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2022, 27, 368–387.
  34. Inggamara, A.; Pierewan, A.C.; Ayriza, Y. Work–life balance and social support: The influence on work engagement in the Sixth European Working Conditions Survey. J. Employ. Couns. 2022, 59, 17–26.
  35. Coffman, C.; Gonzalez-Molina, G. Follow This Path: How the World’s Greatest Organizations Drive Growth by Unleashing Human Potential; Warner Business Books: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
  36. Wang, C.; Lin, S.; Ma, Y.; Wang, Y. The mediating effect of social support on the relationship between perceived stress and quality of life among shidu parents in China. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2021, 19, 104.
  37. Sweetman, D.; Luthans, F. The power of positive psychology: Psychological capital and work engagement. In Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research; Bakker, A.B., Leiter, M.P., Eds.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 54–68.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback