Work engagement is generally accepted to have three factors: vigour, dedication and absorption. I studied whether this three-factor model is valid for India. 182 Indian working professionals completed the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the three factor model may not be appropriate for India. Instead, it may be more appropriate to consider work engagement as a single-factor construct for India. Further analyses showed that the single-factor model is invariant across gender, organizational tenure and dyadic duration, but varies across age groups. It may indicate the need to consider culture as a boundary condition for work engagement.
AlokK.IsraelD. (2012). Authentic leadership and work engagement. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(3), 498–510.
2.
AndersonJ.C.GerbingD.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
3.
AttridgeM. (2009). Measuring and managing employee work engagement: A review of the research and business literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 24(4), 383–398.
4.
BalP.M.De CoomanR.MolS.T. (2011). Dynamics of psychological contracts with work engagement and turnover intention: The influence of organizational tenure. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2011.626198.
5.
BalducciC.FraccaroliF.SchaufeliW.B. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 143–149.
ByrneB.M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.
8.
ChaudharyR.RangnekarS.BaruaM. (2011). Relation between human resource development climate and employee engagement: Results from India. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 7(4), 664–685.
9.
ChristianM.S.GarzaA.S.SlaughterJ.E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136.
10.
CoetzeeM.de VilliersM. (2010). Sources of job stress, work engagement and career orientations of employees in a South African financial institution. Southern African Business Review, 14(1), 27–57.
11.
CooperD.ThatcherS.M.B (2010). Identification in organizations: The role of self-concept orientations and identification motives. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 516–538.
12.
CropanzanoR.MitchellM.S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.
13.
DemeroutiE.MostertK.BakkerA.B. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(3), 209–222.
14.
FongT.C.-t.NgS.-m. (2011). Measuring engagement at work: Validation of the Chinese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. doi:10.1007/s12529-011-9173-6.
15.
GardnerW.L.CogliserC.C.DavisK.M.DickensM.P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120–1145.
16.
HalbeslebenJ.R.B (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In BakkerA. B.LeiterM. P. (Eds), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 102–117). New York: Psychology Press.
17.
HuL.BentlerP.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
18.
KahnW.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
19.
KlineR.B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press.
20.
MacCallumR.C.ZhangS.PreacherK.J.RuckerD.D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 19–40.
21.
MaslachC.SchaufeliW.B.LeiterM.P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397–422.
22.
MichaelsE.Handfield-JohnsH.AxelrodB. (2001). The war for talent. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
23.
PatiS.P.KumarP. (2010). Employee engagement: Role of self-efficacy, organizational support & supervisor support. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(1), 126–137.
24.
RavichandranK.ArasuR.Arun KumarS. (2011). The impact of emotional intelligence on employee work engagement behavior: An empirical study. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(11), 157–169.
25.
ReichersA.E.SchneiderB. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs? In SchneiderB. (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture (pp. 5–39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26.
SaksA.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.
27.
SchaufeliW.B.BakkerA.B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In BakkerA. B.LeiterM. P. (Eds), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 10–24). New York: Psychology Press.
28.
SchaufeliW.B.BakkerA.B.SalanovaM. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
29.
SchaufeliW.B.SalanovaM.González-RomaV.BakkerA.B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.
30.
ShimazuA.SchaufeliW.B.KosugiS.SuzukiA.NashiwaH.KatoA., (2008). Work engagement in Japan: Validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(3), 510–523.
31.
TriceH.M.BeyerJ.M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
32.
UllmanJ.B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (Eds), Using multivariate statistics (4th ed., pp. 653–771). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
YuanK.-H.BentlerP.M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with non normal missing data. Sociological Methodology, 30(1), 165–200.
35.
ZhuW.AvolioB.J.WalumbwaF. (2009). Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group and Organization Management, 34(5), 590–619.
