Safety and Health at Work

  • 제13권2호
  • /
  • Pages.213-219
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2093-7911(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2093-7997(eISSN)
산업안전보건연구원 (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Associations Between Work Characteristics, Engaged Well-Being at Work, and Job Attitudes - Findings from a Longitudinal German Study

  • Brokmeier, Luisa L. (Mannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Mannheim Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University) ;
  • Bosle, Catherin (Mannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Mannheim Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University) ;
  • Fischer, Joachim E. (Mannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Mannheim Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University) ;
  • Herr, Raphael M. (Mannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Mannheim Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University)
  • 투고 : 2021.12.09
  • 심사 : 2022.03.08
  • 발행 : 2022.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: The Job Demand & Resources model suggests work characteristics are related to mental well-being and work engagement. Previous work describes the development of a combined construct 'engaged well-being at work' (EWB). To what extent changes in measures of this construct are responsive to changes in job demands and resources or associated with changes in job-related attitudes has not been established. Methods: Longitudinal employee-level data from three waves (German Linked Personnel Panel) were used. Logistic and linear fixed effects regression analyses explored longitudinal associations between changes in EWB for participants over a three-year period with changes in job demands and resources and job-related attitudes (job commitment, satisfaction, and turnover intentions). Results: While job resources were associated with increased odds for a change into a healthier and/or more engaged category of EWB, job demands reduced them. Job resources were more strongly related to higher EWB (ORrange = 1.22 - 1.61) than job demands (ORrange = 0.79 - 0.96). Especially psychological job demands showed negative associations with improved EWB (OR = 0.79). A change from the least desirable category 'disengaged strain' to any other category of EWB was associated with greater odds by up to 20.6 % for increased commitment and job satisfaction and lower odds for turnover intentions. Discussion: Improving work characteristics, especially job resources, could increase employees' EWB, emphasizing the importance of job characteristics for a healthy workplace. Because EWB seems to be associated with job attitudes, an improvement of this indicator would be relevant for employees and employers.

키워드

과제정보

This study uses the Linked Personnel Panel (LPP), waves 1 and 2. Data access was provided via on-site use at the Research Data Centre (FDZ) of the German Federal Employment Agency (BA) at the Institute for Employment Research (IAB) and subsequently remote data access. This work was supported by a grant from the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. We also want to thank Dr. David Litaker (from the Mannheim Institute of Public Health) for his valuable recommendations throughout the writing process.

참고문헌

  1. DAK-Psychoreport 2020: rasanter Anstieg der Arbeitsausfalle; 2020. [press release].
  2. Cao W, Fang Z, Hou G, Han M, Xu X, Dong J, et al. The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China. Psychiatry Res 2020;287:112934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112934
  3. Liu CH, Zhang E, Wong GTF, Hyun S, Hahm HC. Factors associated with depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptomatology during the COVID-19 pandemic: clinical implications for U.S. young adult mental health. Psychiatry Res 2020;290:113172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113172
  4. Nicola M, Alsafi Z, Sohrabi C, Kerwan A, Al-Jabir A, Iosifidis C, et al. The socioeconomic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): a review. Int J Surgery 2020;78:185-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.018
  5. Rennert D, Kliner K, Richter M. Arbeitsunfahigkeit. In: Knieps F, Pfaff H, editors. BKK gesundheitsreport 2018. Berlin: Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft; 2018.
  6. Mani S, Mishra M. Non-monetary levers to enhance employee engagement in organizations e "GREAT" model of motivation during the Covid-19 crisis. Strategic HR Review 2020;19(4):171-5. https://doi.org/10.1108/shr-04-2020-0028
  7. Bubonya M, Cobb-Clark DA, Wooden M. Mental health and productivity at work: does what you do matter? Labour Economics 2017;46:150-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2017.05.001
  8. Schaufeli WB, Taris TW, Bakker AB. Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde: on the differences between work engagement and workaholism. In: Burke R, editor. Research companion to working time and work addiction. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar; 2006. p. 193-217.
  9. Christian MS, Garza AS, Slaughter JE. Work engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Pers Psychol 2011;64(1):89-136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x
  10. Kim W, Kolb JA, Kim T. The relationship between work engagement and performance: a review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource Development Review 2013;12(3):248-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312461635
  11. Bakker AB, Demerouti E. Job demands-resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. J Occup Health Psychol 2017;22(3):273-85. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
  12. Demerouti E, Nachreiner F. Zum Arbeitsanforderungen-Arbeitsressourcen-Modell von Burnout und Arbeitsengagement-Stand der Forschung. Zeitschrift fur Arbeitswissenschaft. 2019;73:119-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41449-018-0100-4
  13. Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. The job demands-resources model of burnout. J Appl Psychol 2001;86(3):499-512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
  14. Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Verbeke W. Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Hum Resour Manage 2004;43(1):83-104. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20004
  15. Bakker AB, Demerouti E, De Boer E, Schaufeli WB. Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. J Vocat Behav 2003;62(2):341-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00030-1
  16. Hakanen JJ, Schaufeli WB, Ahola K. The Job Demands-Resources model: a three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work Stress 2008;22(3):224-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802379432
  17. Bakker AB, Van Emmerik H, Van Riet P. How job demands, resources, and burnout predict objective performance: a constructive replication. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 2008;21(3):309-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800801958637
  18. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Van Rhenen W. How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. J Organiz Behav 2009;30(7):893-917. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.595
  19. Lesener T, Gusy B, Wolter C. The job demands-resources model: a meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Work Stress 2019;33(1):76-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1529065
  20. Grant AM. ROI is a poor measure of coaching success: towards a more holistic approach using a well-being and engagement framework. Coaching: An Int J Theory, Res Practice 2012;5(2):74-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2012.672438
  21. Robertson IT, Jansen Birch A, Cooper CL. Job and work attitudes, engagement and employee performance: where does psychological well-being fit in? Leadership & Organization Development Journal 2012;33(3):224-32. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731211216443
  22. Robertson IT, Cooper CL. Full engagement: the integration of employee engagement and psychological well-being. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 2010;31(4):324-36. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731011043348
  23. Bosle C, Fischer JE, Herr RM. Creating a measure to operationalize engaged well-being at work. J Occup Med Toxicol 2021;16(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-021-00297-0
  24. Mackeben J, Ruf K, Grunau P, Wolter S. LPP-Linked Personnel Panel 1617: quality of work and economic success: longitudinal study in German establishments (data documentation on the third wave). Nurnberg: Institut fur Arbeitsmarkt-und Berufsforschung (IAB) [Institute for Employment Research]; 2018.
  25. Broszeit S, Grunau P, Wolter S. LPP-Linked Personnel Panel 1415: quality of work and economic success: longitudinal study in German establishments (data documentation on the second wave). Nurnberg: Institut fur Arbeitsmarkt-und Berufsforschung (IAB) [Institute for Employment Research]; 2016.
  26. Bellmann L, Bender S, Bossler M, Broszeit S, Dickmann C, Gensicke M, et al. LPP-Linked Personnel Panel: quality of work and economic success: longitudinal study in German establishments (data collection on the first wave). Nurnberg: Institut fur Arbeitsmarkt-und Berufsforschung (IAB) [Institute for Employment Research]; 2015.
  27. Kampkotter P, Mohrenweiser J, Sliwka D, Steffes S, Wolter S. Measuring the use of human resources practices and employee attitudes: the Linked Personnel Panel. Evidence-based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship 2016;4(2):94-115. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-09-2015-0037
  28. Haylock M, Kampkotter P. Dataset: the linked Personnel panel (LPP). Data in Brief 2019;27:104824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.104824
  29. Deutsche Rentenversicherung. Wann kann ich in Rente gehen? [Internet]; 2022 [cited 2022 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.deutscherentenversicherung.de/DRV/DE/Rente/Kurz-vor-der-Rente/Wann-kann-ichin-Rente-gehen/Wann-kann-ich-in-Rente-gehen_detailseite.html.
  30. Topp CW, Ostergaard SD, Sondergaard S, Bech P. The WHO-5 well-being index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom 2015;84(3):167-76. https://doi.org/10.1159/000376585
  31. Bech P, Olsen LR, Kjoller M, Rasmussen NK. Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: a comparison of the SF-36 Mental Health subscale and the WHO-Five Well-Being Scale. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2003;12(2):85-91. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.145
  32. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educ Psychol Meas 2006;66(4):701-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
  33. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2004;25(3):293-315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248
  34. Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, Gonzalez-Roma V, Bakker AB. The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor Analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies 2002;3(1):71-92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
  35. Meyer JP, Allen NJ, Smith CA. Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. J Appl Psychol 1993;78(4):538-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538
  36. Gardiner JC, Luo Z, Roman LA. Fixed effects, random effects and GEE: what are the differences? Stat Med 2009;28(2):221-39. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3478
  37. StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2015.
  38. De Moortel D, Vandenheede H, Vanroelen C. Contemporary employment arrangements and mental well-being in men and women across Europe: a cross-sectional study. International Journal for Equity in Health 2014;13(1):90. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-014-0090-6
  39. Mauno S, De Cuyper N, Tolvanen A, Kinnunen U, Makikangas A. Occupational well-being as a mediator between job insecurity and turnover intention: findings at the individual and work department levels. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 2014;23(3):381-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.752896
  40. Yalabik ZY, Popaitoon P, Chowne JA, Rayton BA. Work engagement as a mediator between employee attitudes and outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2013;24(14):2799-823. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.763844
  41. Lindberg P, Karlsson T, Vingard E, editors. Determinants for positive mental health and wellbeing at workea literature review. Melbourne: Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA; 2015.
  42. Karasek RA. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly 1979;24(2):285-308. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498
  43. Siegrist J. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. J Occup Health Psychol 1996;1(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.1.1.27
  44. Siegrist J, Siegrist K, Weber I. Sociological concepts in the etiology of chronic disease: the case of ischemic heart disease. Social Science & Medicine 1986;22(2):247-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(86)90073-0
  45. Makikangas A, Kinnunen U, Feldt T, Schaufeli W. The longitudinal development of employee well-being: a systematic review. Work Stress 2016;30(1):46-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1126870
  46. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 2003;88(5):879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  47. Larson RB. Controlling social desirability bias. Int J Market Res 2018;61(5):534-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318805305