Hernández HL, Oramas VA

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 32-41
PDF size: 438.00 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Work engagement, characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption in the workplace, is a construct that allows us to describe a positive relationship between the employee and his/her work. The propose of this study is to describe the levels of work engagement in a sample of 76 aid workers; and to determine their relationship with self-efficacy, this construct refers people's confidence about their capability to perform a particular task successfully. In this way we could explain the relationship among an important personal resource as self-efficacy, and well-being in the employment context, and also the influence of work engagement as a potential source of personal efficacy beliefs. This is a correlational descriptive study with a crossover design. The results confirm that there is a relationship between self-efficacy and work engagement, but the values obtained reveals that other variables should be considered. We recommended using these results in future investigations.

REFERENCES

1. Bandura A. La auto-eficacia: El ejercicio del control. Nueva York: WH Freeman; 1997.

2. Roca MA. Psicología Clínica. Una visión general. La Habana: Editorial Félix Varela; 2006. p. 41-5.

3. Schyns B, YSczesny S. Leadership attributes valence in self-concept and occupational self-efficacy. Career Development International. 2010;15(1):78–92.

4. Schaufeli WB, Salanova M. Burnout, boredom and engagement in the workplace. Chapter 12. En: An introduction to contemporary Work Psychology. 1st ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2014. p.294-320.

5. Attridge M. Measuring and managing employee work engagement: A review of the research and business literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health. 2009;24:282–398.

6. Christian MS, Garza AS, Slaughter JE. Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology. 2011;64:89–136.

7. Harter JK, Schmidt FL, Hayes TL. Business-unitlevel relationships between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002; 87:268-79.

8. Breso E, Schaufeli WB, Salanova M. Can a selfefficacy-based intervention decrease burnout, increase engagement, and enhance performance? A quasi-experimental study. Higher Education. 2011; 61(4):339–55.

9. Martínez IM, Salanova M. Niveles de burnout y engagement en estudiantes universitarios, Relación con el desempeño y desarrollo profesional. Universidad Jaume l. Castrillón. 2001; 362-364.

10. Baessler J, Schwarzer R. Evaluación de la autoeficacia: Adaptación española de la escala de Autoeficacia General. Ansiedad y Estrés. 1996;2:1-8.

11. Schaufeli WB, Bakker A. (2002). UWES-Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Preliminary Manual. 2002 (versión digital).

12. Oramas A, Marrero I, Cepero E, del Castillo NP, Vergara A. El Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Evaluación del ‘work engagement’ en trabajadores cubanos. Revista Cubana de Salud y Trabajo. 2014; 15(2):47-56.

13. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of personality. En: Pervin L, John O, eds. Handbook of personality. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford; 1999. p. 154-96.

14. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology. 2001;52: 1-26.

15. Bandura A. Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health, Education & Behavior. 2004;31(2): 143-64.

16. Llorens S, Schaufeli WB, Bakker A, Salanova M. Does a positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in Human Behavior. 2007;23:825-41.