(Schaufeli et al. 2006; Bakker and Demerouti 2008; Salanova and Schaufeli 2008) and is operationalized in the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). Fleck and Inceoglu (2010: 31-32) go on to report on a model of engagement that they developed as an attempt to address the negative implications of such conceptual diversity for both research and practice. They had two underlying principles that formed the core of their model; the first was that engagement is defined as a state that people can be in when they perform at work, the intensity of which can vary over time and from day to day. The second principle is that it was necessary to separate out three areas that are often conflated in the engagement literature; namely predictors of the state of engagement, the state of engagement itself, and the consequences of being in this state of engagement (see Figure 2 below). Figure 2 Model of Engagement – Drivers of State of Engagement driven Organizational engagement engagement behaviours outcomes Person-job fit Energy Effort Profit Absorption Extra-role Low staff fit turnover Alignment Advocacy Customer Identification satisfaction Personal Outcomes Personal Job satisfaction Dispositions Career progression Personality Motivation Source: Fleck and Inceoglu (2010: 32)
(Schaufeli et al. 2006; Bakker and Demerouti 2008; Salanova and Schaufeli 2008) and is operationalized in the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). Fleck and Inceoglu (2010: 31-32) go on to report on a model of engagement that they developed as an attempt to address the negative implications of such conceptual diversity for both research and practice. They had two underlying principles that formed the core of their model; the first was that engagement is defined as a state that people can be in when they perform at work, the intensity of which can vary over time and from day to day. The second principle is that it was necessary to separate out three areas that are often conflated in the engagement literature; namely predictors of the state of engagement, the state of engagement itself, and the consequences of being in this state of engagement (see Figure 2 below). Figure 2 – Model of Engagement Drivers of engagement State of engagement Engagement driven behaviours Organizational outcomes Person-job fit fit Energy Absorption Alignment Identification Effort Extra-role Advocacy Profit Low staff turnover Customer satisfaction Personal Outcomes Personal Dispositions Job satisfaction Career progression Personality Motivation Source: Fleck and Inceoglu (2010: 32)