The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) is widely used as a psychometric assessment scale to measure work engagement by relative evaluation. Determining standard values for absolute evaluation would make it more useful. The merit of absolute evaluation is that it can offer an objective evaluation to personnel members regardless of their status in the organization.
OBJECTIVE:
This study examines the criteria for absolute evaluation of the Japanese version of UWES-9 and creates a database for the evaluation of work engagement.
METHODS:
To examine the evaluation criteria for the total points of UWES-9 for 417 automotive industry workers, responses were validated via a one-way analysis of variance and receiver-operating characteristic analysis, using the scales of “worthwhileness of work” and “level of job satisfaction” in the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire with similar work engagement concepts.
RESULTS:
In both scales, the ability to predict was at its highest when divided into the high work engagement group (wherein the total points of UWES-9 are 21 points and above).
CONCLUSIONS:
In the relative evaluation, 24 points from the average of the total points of UWES-9 is the standard. In the absolute evaluation, the lower standard around 21 points is probable.
SchaufeliWB, BakkerAB. Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study, J Organ Behav2004;25(3):293–315. doi: 10.1002/job.248.
2.
SchaufeliWB, SalanovaM, González-romáV, BakkerAB. The measurement of engagement and burnout: Atwo-sample confirmative analytic approach, J Happiness Stud2002;3(1):71–92. doi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326.
3.
SchaufeliWB, DijkstraP, ShimazuA, SatoMIntroduction to work engagement. Japan: Seiwa Shoten; 2012.
4.
KosakaD, SatoH. Employee engagement and work engagement: Same wine, different bottles?Annals Bus Admin Sci2020;19(6):227–39. doi: 10.7880/abas.0200911a.
5.
ShimazuA Work engagement: Spending every day vigorously with positive mental health. Japan: Roudo Chosakai; 2014, pp. 26-43.
6.
ShimazuA. Positive mental health and work engagement: Towards a strategic use of stress check-up system, Health Eval Prom2016;43:320–5.
7.
BakkerAB, LeiterMP, ShimazuA, InoueA, OtsukaY, ShimazuA, et al. Work engagement: The handbook for research and basic theory. Tokyo, Japan: Seiwa Shoten; 2014.
8.
VoltmerJB, VoltmerE, DellerJ. Differences of four work-related behavior and experience patterns in work ability and other work-related perceptions in a finance company, Int J Environ Res Public Health2018;15(7):1521. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15071521, PMID 30022016.
9.
SchaufeliWB, BakkerAB. Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study, J Organ Behav2004;25(3):293–315. doi: 10.1002/job.248.
10.
BakkerAB, DemeroutiE. The job demands-resources model: State of the art, J Manag Psychol2007;22(3):309–28. doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115.
11.
KoyuncuM, BurkeRJ, FiksenbaumL. Work engagement among women managers and professionals in a Turkish bank: Potential antecedents and consequences, Equal Oppor Int2006;25(4):299–310. doi: 10.1108/02610150610706276.
12.
HakanenJJ, SchaufeliWB, AholaK. The job demands-resources model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement, WorkStress2008;22(3):224–41. doi: 10.1080/02678370802379432.
13.
ShimazuA. Occupational stress and work engagement, Stress Sci Res2010;25:1–6.
14.
NilssonP, AnderssonHI, EjlertssonG. The work experience measurement scale (WEMS): A useful tool in workplace health promotion, Work2013;45(3):379–87. doi: 10.3233/WOR-121541, PMID 23324702.
15.
MacheS, VitzthumK, WankeE, DavidA, KlappBF, DanzerG. Exploring the impact of resilience, self-efficacy, optimism and organizational resources on work engagement, Work2014;47(4):491–500. doi: 10.3233/WOR-131617, PMID 23531578.
16.
HalbeslebenJRBA meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In: Bakker A, Leiter MP, editors. Work engagement: Recent developments in theory and research. New York: Psychology Press; 2010, pp. 102–17.
17.
XanthopoulouD, BakkerAB, DemeroutiE, SchaufeliWB. Demerouti, Schaufeli, WB, The role of personal resources in the job demand-resources model. Int J Stress Manag2007;14(2):121–41. doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121.
18.
MaslachC, LeiterMP. The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1997.
19.
DemeroutiE, BakkerAB. The Oldenburg burnout inventory: A good alternative to measure burnout and engagement. In: Halbesleben JRB, editor. The handbook of stress and burnout in health care. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2008, pp. 65–78.
20.
DemeroutiE, BakkerAB, NachreinerF, EbbinghausM. From mental strain to burnout, Eur J Work Organ Psychol2002;11(4):423–41. doi: 10.1080/13594320244000274.
21.
SliskovićA, BurićI, SorićI. The relations between Principal support and work engagement andburnout: Testing the role of teachers’ emotions and educational level, Work2019;64(2):203–15. doi: 10.3233/WOR-192987.
22.
Montero-MarinJ, ZubiagaF, CerecedaM, Demarzo PivaMM, TrencP, Garcia-CampayoJ. Burnout subtypes and absence of self-compassion in primary healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional study, PLOS ONE.2016;11(6):e0157499. doi: 10.1371/ijerph0157499.
23.
Letona-IbañezO, CarrascoM, Martinez-RodriguezS, AmillanoA, Ortiz-MarquesN. Cognitive, relational and task crafting: Spanish adaptation and analysis of psychometric properties of the Job Crafting Questionnaire, PLOS ONE.2019;14(10):e0223539. doi: 10.1371/ijerph, PMID 0223539.
24.
BoströmM, BjörklundC, BergströmG, NyberghL, SchäferEL, StigmarK, WåhlinC, JensenI, KwakL. Health and work environment among female and male Swedish elementary school teachers-A cross-sectional study, Int J Environ Res Public Health2019;17(1):227>. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17010227, PMID 31905608.
25.
ShimazuA, SchaufeliWB, KosugiS, SuzukiA, NashiwaH, KatoA, SakamotoM, IrimajiriH, AmanoS, HirohataK, GotoR, Kitaoka-HigashiguchiK. Work engagement in Japan: Validation of the Japanese version of Utrecht work engagement scale, Appl Psychol2008;57(3):510–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00333.x.
26.
SchaufeliWB, BakkerAB Utrecht work engagement scale [preliminary manual]. Occupational Health Psychology Unit Utrecht University; 2004.
27.
BrenninkmeijerV, Van YperenN. How to conduct research on burnout: Advantages and disadvantages of a unidimensional approach in burnout research, Occup Environ Med2003;60:16–26.
28.
TipaR, TudoseC, PucareaVL. Measuring burnout among psychiatric residents using the Oldenburg burnout inventory (OLBI) instrument, J Med Life2019;12(4):354–60. doi: 10.25122/jml-2019-0089.
29.
SummersRF, GorrindoT, HwangS, AggarwalR, GuilleC. Well-being, burnout, and depression among North American psychiatrists: The state of our profession, Am J Psychiatry2020;177(10):955–64. doi: 10.1176/appi.aj2020.19090901.
30.
KitaokaK, MasudaS, OginoK, NakagawaH. The Maslach burnout inventory-general survey (MBI-GS) and Japaneseversion, Hokuriku J Public Health.2011;37(2):34–40.
31.
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Labor Standards Bureau, Industrial Safety and Health Department, Occupational Health. Division; industrial health support office. Manual for the implementation of a stress check system based on the industrial safety and health law (revision); 2021.
32.
IguchiA. Job demand and job resources related to the turnover intention of public health nurses: An analysis using a job demands-resources model, Nihon Koshu Eisei Zasshi2016;63(5):227–40. doi: 10.11236/jph.63.5_227.
33.
PadulaRS, ChiavegatoLD, CabralCMN, AlmeidT, OrtizT, CarregaroRL. Is occupational stress associated with work engagement? , Work2012;41(Supplement 1):2963–5. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0549-2963.
34.
IwataN. Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In: Shimazu A, editor. (General translation). Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. Japan: Seiwa Shoten; 2014, pp. 19–48.
35.
ShimazuA. Work engagement and the level of demand of jobs –resource model: Heading towards the coexistence of health promotion and productivity improvement, Job Stress Res2016;23:181–6.
36.
JudgeTA, Van VianenAEM, De PaterIE. Emotional stability, core self-evaluations, and job outcomes: A review of the evidence and an agenda for future research, Hum Perform2004;17(3):325–46. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1703_4.
37.
NakamuraS, KawahitoJ, OtsukaY. Relationships among job stressors, work environment suitability and work engagement in manufacturing employee, Job Stress Res2012;19:255–63.
38.
BostjančičE, PetrovcičA. Exploring the relationship between job satisfaction, work engagement and career satisfaction: The study from public university, Hum Syst Manag2019;38(4):411–22. doi: 10.3233/HSM-190580.
39.
MacheS, BernburgM, GronebergDA, KlappBF, DanzerG. Work family conflict in its relations to perceived working situation and work engagement, Work2016;53(4):859–69. doi: 10.3233/WOR-162257.
40.
Ofei-DodooS, LongMC, BretchesM, KruseBJ, HaynesC, BachmanC. Work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions among family medicine residency program managers, Int J Med Educ2020;11:47–53. doi: 10.5116/ijme.5e3e.7f16.
41.
Public Interest Incorporated Association. International Economy & Work Research Institute [internet]. Definition of the meaning ofwork [cited Nov 16 2020].Available from: https://www.iewri.or.jp/.
42.
FerraroT, MoreiraJM, DosSNR, PaisL, SedmakC. Decent work, work motivation and psychological capital: An empirical research, Work2018;60(2):339–54. doi: 10.3233/WOR-182732.
43.
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [internet]. Reiwa version of the labor and economic white paper –regarding the tasks surrounding “working methods” under shortage of workers; 2019 [cited 21July 2021]. Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/wp/hakusyo/roudou/19/19-1.html.
44.
TomiettoM, ParoE, SartoriR, MaricchioR, ClariziaL, De LuciaP, PedrinelliG, FinosR, PN Nursing GrouWork engagement and perceived work ability: An evidence-based model to enhance nurses’ well-being, J Adv Nurs2019;75(9):1933–42. doi: 10.1111/jan.13981.
45.
LockeEAThe nature and causes of job satisfaction. In: Dunnettle MD, editor. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1976, pp. 1297–349.
46.
BakkerAB, LeiterMP, ShimazuA, InoueA, OtsukaY, ShimazuA, TaneichiK. Work engagement: The handbook for research and basic theory. Tokyo, Japan: Seiwa Shoten; 2014.
SchaufeliWB, BakkerAB, SalanovaM. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study, Educ Psychol Meas2006;66(4):701–16. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471.
49.
KoonV, HoT. Authentic leadership and employee engagement: The role of employee well-being, Hum Syst Manag2021;40(1):81–92. doi: 10.3233/HSM-200943.
50.
Department of Mental Health, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo [internet]. Kenko- Ikiiki’ workplace making forum, about publication of the; 2012. New version of the brief job stress questionnaire [cited Nov 16 2020]. Available from: https://mental.m.u-tokyo.ac.jp/jstress.
51.
KubotaK, ShimazuA, KawakamiN. Association of workaholism and work engagement with recovery experiences among Japanese workers, Japanese. J Behav Med2014;20(2):69–76.
52.
BakkerAB, ShimazuA, DemeroutiE, ShimadaK, KawakamiN. Work engagement versus workaholism: A test of the spillover-crossover model, J Manag Psychol2014;29:63–80.
53.
WestmanM. Stress and strain crossover, Human Ralations2001;54:717–51.
54.
ShimazuA, SchaufeliWB, MiyanakaD, IwataN. Why Japanese workers show low work engagement: An item response theory analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement scale, Biopsychosoc. Med2010;4:17.
55.
ScholzU, Gutiérrez DoñaB, SudS, SchwarzerR. Is general self-efficacy a universal construct, Eur JPsychol Assess2002;18(3):242–51. doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.18.3.242.
56.
LincolnJR, Employee work attitudes and management practice in the U.S. and Japan: Evidence from a large comparative survey. Calif Manag Rev.1989;32(1):89–106. doi: 10.2307/41166736.
57.
The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training [internet]. Study related to working methods, etc., and the current situation surrounding worker shortage; 2020. ETC [cited Nov 16 2020]. Available from: https://www.jil.go.jp/institute/research/2020/193.html.
58.
Hakanen JariJ, RopponenA, De WitteH, Schaufeli WilmarB. Testing demands and resources as determinants of vitality among different employment contract groups, A study in 30 European countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health2019;16(24):4951>. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16244951.
59.
van ScheppingenAR, de Vroome ErnestMM, Ten HaveKC, ZwetslootGI, WiezerN, van MechelenW. Vitality at work and its associations with lifestyle, self-determination, organizational culture, and with employees’ performance and sustainable employability, Work2015;52(1):45–55. doi: 10.3233/WOR-141947.
60.
ShimazuA, EguchiH. Work engagement: A literature review on current situation and future directions, Occup Health Rev2012;25:79–97.
