According to Harter et al. (2002: 269) the GWA items are antecedents of personal job satisfaction and other affective (emotional) constructs akin to Kahn (1990). As in Kahn’s conceptualization, they see engagement occurring when are emotionally ‘individuals connected to others and cognitively are emotionally and cognitively vigilant.’ Employees engaged when they know what is expected of them (job have what they need to do demands), their work (job have opportunities to feel an impact and fulfilment in their work resources), (personal resources), perceive that they are part of something significant with coworkers who they trust (work and have chances to improve and develop (performance) engagement), – note the JD-R Work Engagement Model (Figure 1, Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2008; Bakker & Leiter, 2010 below). The importance of the GWA for Harter et al. (2002) is that if the items make sense to employees and managers it is more likely that people will accept the instruments results and will motivate them to take action as a result of the feedback based on such items. Gallup (2006 cited in Robertson-Smith & Marwick, 2009) proposes that employees can be divided into groups of engaged, not engaged and actively disengaged. Figure 1: The JD-R Work Engagement Model Schaufeli (2002: 74) define work engagement "as a positive, fulfilling, work-related et al. state of mind that is characterised by vigor, dedication, and absorption", which Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova (2006) go on to suggest is a motivational psychological state akin to – Maslach, Schaufeli and (2001: 417) earlier definition. Yalabik et al. (2013: 2802) Leiter’s defined as persistent, pervasive, positive and fulfilling ‘work engagement’ “an independent, work-related affective cognitive and motivational psychological Yalabik et al. – – state.” (2013) suggest that this definition is consistent with the European Engagement Model
According to Harter et al. (2002: 269) the GWA items are antecedents of personal job satisfaction and other affective (emotional) constructs akin to Kahn (1990). As in Kahn’s conceptualization, they see engagement occurring when ‘individuals are emotionally connected to others and cognitively vigilant.’ Employees are emotionally and cognitively engaged when they know what is expected of them (job demands), have what they need to do their work (job resources), have opportunities to feel an impact and fulfilment in their work (personal resources), perceive that they are part of something significant with coworkers who they trust (work engagement), and have chances to improve and develop (performance) – note the JD-R Work Engagement Model (Figure 1, Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2008; Bakker & Leiter, 2010 below). The importance of the GWA for Harter et al. (2002) is that if the items make sense to employees and managers it is more likely that people will accept the instruments results and will motivate them to take action as a result of the feedback based on such items. Gallup (2006 cited in Robertson-Smith & Marwick, 2009) proposes that employees can be divided into groups of engaged, not engaged and actively disengaged. Figure 1: The JD-R Work Engagement Model Schaufeli et al. (2002: 74) define work engagement "as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterised by vigor, dedication, and absorption", which Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova (2006) go on to suggest is a motivational – psychological state akin to Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter’s (2001: 417) earlier definition. Yalabik et al. (2013: 2802) defined ‘work engagement’ as “an independent, persistent, pervasive, positive and fulfilling work-related affective – cognitive and motivational – psychological state.” Yalabik et al. (2013) suggest that this definition is consistent with the European Engagement Model