Is Autonomy Always Beneficial for Work Engagement? A Six-year Four-Wave Follow-Up Study.

autonomy job resources longitudinal multilevel regression mixture modeling work engagement

Journal

Journal for person-oriented research
ISSN: 2003-0177
Titre abrégé: J Pers Oriented Res
Pays: Sweden
ID NLM: 101673808

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2020
Historique:
entrez: 11 2 2021
pubmed: 12 2 2021
medline: 12 2 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Work engagement is expected to result from job resources such as autonomy. However, previous results have yielded that the autonomy-work engagement relationship is not always particularly strong. Whereas previous longitudinal studies have examined this relationship as an average at a specific point in time, this study examined whether this relationship is different within individuals from one time to another over the years. Furthermore, experiences of work engagement are expected to affect how employees benefit from autonomy, but no studies have so far investigated whether the initial level of work engagement affects the autonomy-work engagement relationship. This study aimed to first identify the different kinds of longitudinal relationship patterns between autonomy and work engagement, and then to investigate whether the identified relationship patterns differ in terms of the initial mean level of work engagement. The four-wave study was conducted among Finnish managers (

Identifiants

pubmed: 33569149
doi: 10.17505/jpor.2020.22043
pii: JPOR-6-1-016
pmc: PMC7842623
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

16-27

Informations de copyright

© Person-Oriented Research.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Références

J Occup Health Psychol. 1996 Apr;1(2):145-69
pubmed: 9547043
J Occup Health Psychol. 2017 Jul;22(3):273-285
pubmed: 27732008
BMC Public Health. 2012 Oct 29;12:918
pubmed: 23107281
J Appl Psychol. 2016 Dec;101(12):1635-1654
pubmed: 27618407
J Occup Health Psychol. 2018 Apr;23(2):289-301
pubmed: 28191997
Psychol Methods. 2003 Sep;8(3):369-77; discussion 384-93
pubmed: 14596497
J Organ Behav. 2017 Jul;38(6):792-812
pubmed: 28781428
JP J Biostat. 2018 Jan-Jun;15(1):1-20
pubmed: 31452580
Am Psychol. 2012 Oct;67(7):545-56
pubmed: 22506688
Int J Nurs Stud. 2014 Dec;51(12):1644-53
pubmed: 24957676
Br J Psychiatry. 2009 Sep;195(3):249-56
pubmed: 19721116
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2016 Jul 1;42(4):309-19
pubmed: 27258720

Auteurs

Piia Seppälä (P)

Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Arinatie 3, FI-00370, Helsinki, Finland.

Anne Mäkikangas (A)

Tampere University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Psychology, Kalevantie 4, FI-33014, Tampere, Finland.

Jari J Hakanen (JJ)

Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Arinatie 3, FI-00370, Helsinki, Finland.

Asko Tolvanen (A)

University of Jyväskylä, Department of Psychology, Seminaarinkatu 15, FI-40014, Jyväskylä, Finland.

Taru Feldt (T)

University of Jyväskylä, Department of Psychology, Seminaarinkatu 15, FI-40014, Jyväskylä, Finland.

Classifications MeSH