Applying the Job Demands-Resources model:
A ‘how to ’ guide to measuring and tackling work engagement and burnout
Wilmar B. Schaufeli
INTRODUCTION
Thereisagreatpracticalneedtoassesspsychosocialfactors atworkandimproveemployeewell-being.Evidently,poor working conditions and burned-out employees are asso- ciated with, for instance, sickness absence, occupational injuriesandaccidents,poorworkperformance,andreduced productivity,whereastheoppositeistrueforgoodworking conditionsand employee engagement.So ultimately, psy- chosocial factors and employee well-being translate into financialbusinessoutcomes.Thereforeitisinthecompany’s enlightenedself-interesttomonitorpsychosocialfactorsat workandemployee’swell-beingonaregularbasis,sothat timely and targeted measures can be taken to prevent burnoutandtoincreaseworkengagement.Apartfromthis intrinsicreasonthereisalsoanextrinsicreasonfororgani- zationstomonitortheworkplace,atleastinEurope.Follow- ing the EU framework Directive 1989/391/EEC on occupationalsafetyandhealth,allEUmemberstateshave issuedlegislationonthepreventionofpsychosocialrisksat the workplace. The two most relevant provisions of that directive are that: (1) employers should ensure that all workersreceivehealthsurveillancethatincludespsychoso- cialrisks(Article15)and;(2)employersareheldresponsible forpreventingill-healthatwork,andmusttakeappropriate measurestomakeworkhealthier(Article5).Hence,orga- nizationshavealegalobligationtomonitorpsychosocialrisk factors and improve employee’s health and well-being.
AlthoughthislegalframeworkonlyappliestoEUmember- states,monitoringrisksandimprovinghealthandwell-being isparamountinothercountriesaswellbecauseofimmanent advantages,includingfinancialandbusinessoutcomes.But how to achieve that, and what has occupational health psychologytooffer?
In this paper I make the case that the Job Demands Resources(JD-R)modelcanbeusedasanintegrativecon- ceptual frameworkfor monitoringthe workplacewiththe aimtoincreaseworkengagementandpreventburnout.The JD-Rmodelisparticularlysuitedforthispurposebecause:
(1)itintegratesapositivefocusonworkengagementwitha negativefocusonburn-outintoabalancedandcomprehen- sive approach; (2)it is has a broad scope, that allowsto includeallrelevantjobcharacteristics;(3)itifflexible,so thatitcanbetailoredtotheneedsofanyorganization;(4)it actsasacommoncommunicationtoolforallstakeholders.In contrast, previous models focused almost exclusively on negative aspects of the job and included a limited, pre- defined setof jobcharacteristics. Because of itscompre- hensive,broad,flexibleandcommunicativenaturetheJD-R model not only enjoys great popularity among academic researchers, but it makes the model also quite suitable forpracticaluseinorganizations.
The paper starts with a brief description of the JD-R modelandthen introducestheEnergyCompass,an online surveytoolthatisbasedontheJD-R model.Next,acase example is presented of an organizational development projectthatillustratesthepracticaluseoftheJD-Rmodel forincreasingengagementandpreventingburnout.
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE JD-R MODEL
The JD-R model was introduced about fifteen years ago to understand burnout, a chronic state of work related psychological stress that is characterized by exhaustion (i.e., feeling emotionally drained and used up), mental distancing (i.e., cynicism and lack of enthusiasm), and reduced personal efficacy (i.e., doubting about one’s
—132
Availableonlineatwww.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
j ou rna l hom e pa ge : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c om/ l o ca t e / org dy n
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.008 0090-2616/©2017ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
competenceandcontributionatwork).Aftersomeyearsthe modelwassupplementedwithworkengagement,apositive, fulfillingpsychological state thatischaracterized byvigor (i.e.,highlevelsofenergyandresilience),dedication(i.e., experiencing asense ofsignificance,pride andchallenge) andabsorption(i.e.,beingfullyconcentrated andhappily engrossedinone’swork).
AccordingtotheJD-Rmodel,everyjobincludesdemands as well as resources. Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli (2001;p. 501) defined jobdemands as “aspects ofthejobthatrequiresustainedphysicalormentaleffort andarethereforeassociatedwithcertainphysiologicaland psychological costs”. Roughly speaking these are the
‘badthings’atworkthatdrainenergy,suchasworkover- load, conflicts with others, and future job insecurity.
In contrast, job resources are the ‘good things’ that are defined as “aspects of the job that may do any of the following: (a) be functional in achieving work goals; (b) reduce jobdemands and the associated physiological and psychological costs; (c) stimulate personal growth and development”3.Examplesofjobresourcesaresupportfrom others (which helps to achieve work goals), job control (whichmightreducejobdemands),andperformancefeed- back(whichmayenhancelearning).
Inessence,theJD-Rmodelintegratestwobasicpsycho- logicalprocesses.
First,astressprocess,whichissparkedbyexcessivejob demandsandlackingresourcesmay—viaburnout—leadto negativeoutcomessuch as sicknessabsence, poorperfor- mance, impeded workability,andlow organizationalcom- mitment.Essentially,whenjobdemands(the‘badthings’) are chronically high and are not compensated by job resources(the‘goodthings’),employee’senergyisprogres- sivelydrained.Thismayfinallyresultin astateofmental exhaustion (‘burnout’), which, in its turn, may lead to negativeoutcomesfortheindividual(e.g.,poorhealth)as wellasfortheorganization(e.g.,poorperformance).Sec- ond,amotivationalprocess,whichistriggeredbyabundant jobresources and may— via work engagement— leadto positive outcomes such as organizational commitment, intention to stay, extra-role behavior, employee safety, and superior work performance. In fact, job resources (the‘goodthings’)haveinherentmotivationalquality;they spark employee’s energy and make them feel engaged, which,inturnleadstobetteroutcomes.
Pleasenote,thatfromaninterventionpointofviewboth high job demands and poor job resources contribute to burnout, whereas only abundant job resources (and not lowjobdemands)contributetoworkengagement.Hence, byincreasingresources,suchassocialsupport,jobcontrol and feedback, twobirds are hitby one stone:burnout is preventedandengagementisfostered.Incontrast,reducing demands,suchasworkoverload,conflictsandjobinsecurity wouldonly affect burnout butnotwork engagement.The reasonisthatinadditiontobeingpotentiallystressful,job demands may also be challenging to some point so that loweringjobdemandswouldresultinlesschallengingjobs andhencelowerlevelsofworkengagement.Forinstance, havingtomeetatightdeadlinemayalsostimulateperfor- mance.
TheempiricalsupportfortheJD-Rmodelisabundant.For instance,inareviewpublishedin2014oftheJD-Rmodel,
ToonTarisandIshowedthattwelvestudiesconfirmedthe mediating role of burnout in the stress process and of engagement in the motivational process, whereas in the remaining four studies partial instead of full mediation wasfoundforeitherburnoutorengagement.Morerecently, we reviewed eight longitudinal studies among workers of variouscountriesandfoundthatthepredictionsoftheJD-R model regarding the causal relationships between job characteristics (i.e., jobdemands and jobresources) and employeewell-being(i.e.,burnoutandwork engagement) werelargelysupportedbyfivestudies,partlysupportedby twostudies,whereasonlyonestudyfailedtofindanylong- itudinalrelationship.
Althoughitwasacknowledgedthatjobdemandsandjob resources could interact in affecting burnout and work engagement — e.g., co-worker support might buffer the negativeeffectofworkoverloadonburnout—theevidence forsuchinteractionsisratherweak.ThisledXanthopoulou, Bakker,DemeroutiandSchaufeli(2009;p.236)toconclude that “...the current evidence on demandresource interactioneffectsshowsthatevenifsignificant,theprac- ticalrelevanceofsuchinteractionstendstobelow”.
TwootherextensionsoftheJD-Rmodelareworthmen- tioning.First,personalresourceshavebeenincludedinthe JD-Rmodel.AccordingtoXanthopoulouandhercolleagues (2009;p.236),thesearedefinedas“positiveself-evalua- tionsthatarelinkedtoresiliencyandrefertoindividuals’
sense of their ability to control and impact upon their environmentsuccessfully”.Examplesofpersonalresources are self-efficacy, optimism, and organization based self- esteem. Although personal resources can be integrated successfully in the JD-R model and their effects may be substantial,itisstillunclearwhichplacetheyshouldoccupy inthemodel.Thisseemstodependonthepersonalresource under study, for instance, stable personality traits (e.g., optimism) are more likely to act as antecedents of job demands and job resources, whereas malleable personal characteristics (e.g.,self-efficacy)couldact as mediators betweenjobcharacteristicsandwell-being.
Second, engaging leadership was added to the JD-R model.Engaging leadership is relatedtotransformational leadership,forinstancebothincludeinspiringfollowers.Yet theyalsodifferbecause engagingleadership: (1) isfirmly rootedinawell-developedpsychologicaltheoryofmotiva- tion (Self-Determination Theory; SDT); (2) specifically focusesonhowtoincreaseemployeeengagement;(3)not onlyincludesanindividualbutalsoasocial,teamdimension.
More specifically, engaging leaders: (1) inspire their fol- lowers(e.g.,byenthusingthemfortheirvisionandplans);
(2)strengthentheirfollowers(e.g.,bygrantingthemfree- domandresponsibility);and(3)connecttheirfollowers(e.
g.,byencouragingteamworkandcollaboration).Byinspir- ing,strengtheningandconnectingleaderspromotetheful- fillment of follower’s basic psychological needs for autonomy,competenceandrelatedness,respectively,which accordingtoSDTareinherentinallhumans.Itappearsthat engaging leadership has an indirect effect on preventing burnout and increasingengagement by reducing demands and increasing job resources, respectively. For instance, inspiringleadersprovidetheirfollowerswithorganizational resources (e.g., by emphasizing alignment, value congru- ence,trust,andjustice)andminimizetheirorganizational
demands (e.g. by circumventing bureaucracy and ade- quately managing organizational change). Furthermore, strengthening leaders provide their followers with work resources (e.g., job control, use of skills, task variety) and developmentresources (e.g., performance feedback, careerperspective),andmonitortheirqualitativeandquan- titative job demands (e.g., work overload, emotional demands, and work-home interference). Finally, engaging leaders connect their followers by providing them social resources(e.g.,goodteamatmosphere,roleclarity).Inother words,engaged leaders reduced their followers’jobdemands, whichin itsturn,reducedtheirlevelsofburnoutandthey simultaneously increased their followers’ job resources, whichinitsturn,boostedtheirlevelsofworkengagement.
Inconclusion,theJD-Rmodelisaratherstraightforward andempiricallyvalidatedmodelthatspecifiesrelationships between job (and personal) characteristics, leadership, employeewell-being,andoutcomes.Basically,itstatesthat decreasing job demands, increasing job (and personal) resources and stimulating ‘engaged’ leadership prevents burnout and increases work engagement. And as a result of this, less negative and more positive outcomes are achievedfor bothemployees andorganizations. Sincejob demands and job resources spark the health impairment andmotivationalprocesses,respectivelytheirproperassess- mentis paramount. Therefore, a specific assessment tool thatisbasedontheJD-Rmodelwasdevelopedandwillbe discussedbelow.
AN ONLINE JD-R ASSESSMENT TOOL: THE ENERGY COMPASS
1Numerouscomprehensivesurveysexisttoevaluatepsycho- socialfactorsatwork,forinstance,theQuestionnaireonthe ExperienceandEvaluationofWork(QEEW),theCopenhagen PsychosocialQuestionnaire(COPSOC),theNordicQuestion- naireforPsychosocialandSocialFactorsatWork(QPSNordic), and the Health and Safety Executive’s Management
StandardsIndicatorTool(HSEMSIT),allofwhichhavebeen developedinthe1990sinnorthwesternEurope.Althoughall questionnaires include various job demands and job resources, they are not based on the JD-R model (see Fig.1), or of any other jobstress model for that matter.
Ratherthanbeingdeducedfromanoverarching,conceptual framework,they havebeen developed inductively sothat themassesofdatathatarebeingproducedbythesesurveys aredifficulttointerpret.
SofartheEnergyCompass(EC)isthefirstinstrumentthat isexplicitlybasedontheJD-Rmodel.Itsbriefandinforma- tivenameexpressesthattheECmightguideindividualsas wellasorganizationsinchoosingtherightdirectiontofind energyat work.Inadditiontobeingbasedona validated conceptual framework, the EC is also more efficient and morebalanced(seeTable1).
This means that compared to the other psychosocial questionnaires, theECusesshorterscales andsuffersless fromnegativitybiasbecauseitincludesmorepositivecon- structs.
Inareviewof9studiesontheJD-Rmodel,ToonTarisandI (2014)identified30potentialjobdemands,31jobresources, 22 outcomes, and 12 personal resources, whereby some conceptsoverlappedtoalargedegree(e.g.,teamharmony andteamcohesion).Takingthisoverlapintoaccountaswell Job demands
Job resources Work
engagement Burnout
Positive outcomes Negative outcomes Health impairment process
Motivational process
+ +
+ +
_
Figure1 TheJobDemandsResourcesModel
Table1 CharacteristicsofPsychosocialQuestionnaires
#Items #Constructs Efficiency Negativity bias
QEEW 203 27 7.7 3.3
COPSOC 135 30 4.5 3.0
QPSNordic 145 30 4.8 2.5
HSEMSIT 35 7 5.0 2.3
EC 133 58 2.3 1.3
Note:QEEW=QuestionnaireontheExperienceandEvaluationof Work; COPSOC=the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire;
QPSNordic=theNordicQuestionnaireforPsychosocialandSocial FactorsatWork;HSEMSIT=HealthandSafetyExecutive’sMan- agement Standards IndicatorTool; EC=Energy Compass; Effi- ciency=#items/#constructs; Negativity bias=#negative constructs/#positiveconstructs.
1Thisisaproprietarymeasure,thecopyrightisownedbyTriplei HumanCapital,TheNetherlands.
asmypersonalexperienceregardingthepracticalrelevance ofthesevariablesfororganizations,12jobdemands,22job resources, 9 outcomes and 8 personal resources were selected(see Table 2).Three jobdemands wereincluded thatweredeemedimportantfromapractitioner’spointof view but did not appearon the review (i.e., under-load, bureaucracy, and pace of change), as well as four job resources(i.e.,teameffectiveness,fulfillmentofexpecta- tions of others, being aligned with the organization, and valuecongruencebetweenemployeeandorganization),and threepersonalresources(i.e.,settingone’sownlimits,goal directedness,andself-development).Thetechnicaldetails oftheconstructionofECareexplainedinAppendixA.
ImmediatelyaftercompletingtheECrespondentsreceive anautomaticallygeneratedfeedbackreportinwhichtheir scoresarecomparedwiththoseoftheaverageemployee.
Thestructureofthereport,whichcanbesavedorprintedin pdf-format,followsthelogicoftheJD-Rmodelwithsepa- rate sections for job demands, job resources, personal resources, well-being,and outcomes.Inaddition,specific suggestions aregivenin thispersonalized feedbackreport about how to decrease high demands and increase poor resources.
The validity of the EC was investigated by testing the underlying JD-R model. First a factor-analysis of job demandsandjobresourceswascarriedoutfromwhichthree typesofdemands emerged(i.e.,qualitative,quantitative, andorganizationaldemands)andfourtypesofresources(i.
e., social, work, organizational, and development resources);seeTable2.Next,usingatwo-stageapproach, thefactor-scores ofdemands and resources wereused as indicators of the corresponding higher-order constructs.
Theseconstructswereincludedtogetherwithburnout,work engagement,outcomesandleadershipintoaso-calledstruc- turalequationmodel.Infact,thismodelcanbeseenasan operationalizationoftheJD-Rmodel.Itappearedthatthe hypothesizedstructuralequationmodelfittedtothedataof therepresentativesample.Inotherwords,therelationships betweenthe constructsthatareincluded in theEC agree withthepropositionsoftheJD-Rmodel(seeFig.1).
Inconclusion,theECconsistsofabroadsetofvalidand reliableindicatorsofjobdemands,jobresources,outcomes, andpersonalresourcesthathavebeenidentifiedbyprevious researchandconsultancyexperience.Itisanefficienttool thatassessesa broad varietyof constructswithrelatively few items, thereby balancing a positive and a negative Table2 ContentoftheEnergyCompass
approach.Referencedataareavailablethatallowtheclas- sificationofemployee’sscoresas‘high’,‘average’,or‘low’
ascomparedtotheworkingpopulation.Sofar,onlyDutch reference data are available (see Appendix A); for use inothercountrieslocalreferencedataarerecommended.
Andlastbut not least,it wasshown thatthe JD-R model serves as an overarching, conceptual framework for the EC. Or put differently,that the EC can beused toassess theJD-Rmodel.
USING THE JD-R MODEL IN ORGANIZATIONS:
A CASE EXAMPLE
Belowa project is discussed thatuses the JD-R model to improveworkengagementandpreventburnoutinthehos- pitalityindustry.Salanova,Agut,andPeiró(2005)foundthat workengagementisparticularlyimportantinthehospitality industrybecauseitisrelatedtoservicequalityandcustomer loyalty.Ontheotherhand,researchcarriedoutbyPienaar andWillemse(2008) showsthat workersinthe hospitality industryruntheriskofburning outbecauseofdemanding customersandlongandanti-socialworkinghours.
TheroleoftheJD-Rmodelgoesbeyondthefactthatit liesat the core of the EC, which is used to analyze the complexityoftheorganization’srealityandtoteaseoutthe mostrelevantfactorsforincreasingworkengagementand preventingburnout.Perhapsevenmoreimportantly,theJD- Rmodelplaysacrucialroleinthecommunicationwithall stakeholdersthat areinvolved inthe project;employees, topmanagement,middlemanagement, linemanagement, HR-officers, andworkers council.The modelconstitutesa
‘common language’ and acts as a lens through which all stakeholders see the organization and their personal and professionalsituation.
The projectwascarriedoutinoneofthelargestDutch hotelchainsthatoperates22hotelsintheNetherlandsand employs1055employees.Sofar, theorganizationhadcar- riedoutin-house,annual,mandatoryemployeesatisfaction surveys.Althoughtheresponsewasusuallyhightopmanage- mentwasdissatisfiedwithfortworeasons.First,thequality ofthein-housesurveywasquestionedbecauseitlackeda solidscientificfoundation.Second,itwassuspectedthatthe resultsofthesurveywerebiasedbecausetheywerelinked viaspecifictargetstohotelmanager’sfinancialbonuses.In other words,a perverse incentivecouldnot beexcluded.
Hence, an independent party was invited to carry out a voluntary,state-of-the-art,scientificallybasedengagement surveyand wouldsuggest improvements toincrease work engagement, as the organization aspired to employ
‘engaged’ratherthanmerely‘satisfied’employees.Itwas reasoned by top-management that an engaged workforce would realize the organization’s core values of respect, entrepreneurship,passion,style,andcustomerorientation betterthanasatisfiedworkforce.Infactthatisarealistic expectation,whichisbyandlargebackedupbyresearchand casestudies.
Fig. 2 shows the general process model — also called regulativecycle—thatisemployedinorganizationalchange projectswiththe JD-R model andwhich consists of eight steps.Eachstepwillbediscussedbelowandillustratedby thehospitalityproject.
Step1:AimandProject Team
Inthecaseofthehospitalityprojectthemainaimoftop- management was: how can employee’s levels of work engagementbeincreased?SinceaccordingtotheJD-Rmodel (Fig.1)burnoutcanbereducedsimultaneously,asecondary aimwasadded:todecreaselevelsofburnout.Sotheoverall aim of theproject wastoincrease work engagementand preventburnout.Thecommitmentoftheorganizationtothe project was illustrated by the fact that together with a dedicated consultant, a member of the top-management (i.e.,theCFO)andtheheadoftheHR-departmentconsti- tutedprojectteam.Thisalsomeantthat,ifnecessary,the processcouldbespeededupbecausecommunicationlines were short and extra resources (i.e., finances and time) couldbereadilymadeavailable.
The project team drafted a detailed planning that included various milestones, suchas deliveringreports to the management of the participating hotels. Two months were planned for the preparationphase(steps 1—3), one month for the fieldwork (step 4), two months for data- analysesandreporting(step5),onemonthforsurveyfeed- back(step6),andfromthe7thmonthonwardsinterventions would take place (step 7). Finally, a one-year follow-up measurementwiththeECwasplanned.
Step2:CustomizingtheEnergyCompass
TheECwastailoredtotheneedsoftheorganizationbythe projectteam.Keypersons,suchasHRofficers,hotelman- agement,supervisors,andworkcouncilmemberswerecon- sultedtoidentifythemostrelevantjobstressors,personal andjobresources,andoutcomesthatshouldbeincludedin theEC.Sinceitwasimportanttoreducethelengthofthe survey, four less relevant jobdemands (mental demands, negative changes, work underload, and harassment) and threejobresources (fulfillment of expectation,participa- tion in decision making, and alignment) were eliminated fromtheEC.Moreover,onlytwopersonalresources(proac- tivityandgoal-directedness)andthreeoutcomes(team-and organizational commitment and turnover intention) were includedbecausetheseweredeemedmostrelevant.Rather thanfocusingonincreasingpersonalresources,theorgani- zationoptedforincreasingjobresources.Andsincethemain aimwasincreasingworkengagement,onlycommitmentwas includedasonoutcomebecauseitismorecloselylinkedwith engagementthaneitheremployabilityorjobperformance.2 TheversionoftheECthatwasusedintheprojectincluded 34constructs(seeTable1).
Step3:InternalCommunicationCampaign
Beforecarryingout thesurveyan internal communication campaignwaslaunched.Itsgoalwastostimulateemployees tofill-outtheECandtobeactivelyinvolvedintheproject.
The communicationsnot onlystressed theimportancefor theorganization,butalsothevoluntarynatureofthesurvey, andthefactthatparticipatingemployeeswouldreceivea
2Schaufeli(2014).
personalized feedback report of their scores on the EC.
Pleasenotethatthiswasinsharpcontrasttotheprevious surveysthatweremandatoryanddidnotproduceimmedi- ate,personalizedfeedback.Anonymitywasguaranteed,and itwasexplicitlystatedthatnobodyintheorganizationwould haveaccesstothedataoftheemployees.Lastbutnotleast, itwasemphasizedthattheresultsofthesurveywouldbe used to improve employee’s working conditions. So the campaignprovidedtwoanswerstothequestion‘what’s in itforme?’:apersonalizedreportaswellasbetterworking conditions.
The company’s intranet was used for informing all employees about the aims and planning of the project.
For instance, a short 1.5-min animation was published ontheintranetandposterswereondisplayinallparticipat- ing hotels. To stress the importance of the project, top- managementwasthesenderofallcommunicationstothe employees.
Step4:Surveyand IndividualFeedback
All1055employeesreceivedanemailintheirprivatemail- box with a link to the online EC. Instead of work email
addresses,privateemailaddresses weredeliberatelyused inordertostressthatparticipationwasvoluntary.Duringthe three-weekperiodthattheweblinkwasopen,hotelman- agersreceivedfiveupdates of theresponse rates oftheir ownhotel,ascomparedtotheotherhotels.Thiswasmeant to facilitate participation, as low scoring hotels were expectedtostimulate their employees tofill outthe EC.
The final response rate was 43% (N=452) and ranged between hotels from 21 to 73%. Probably, this relatively lowresponserateshouldbeinterpretedasacounter-reac- tiontoprevioussurveys thathave been mandatoryfor all employees. The lowest response — about 20% — was observedamong dishwashersand apprentices, most likely becausetheircommitmenttotheorganizationisrelatively low,also given high turnover rates for thesegroups. The largestprofessionalgroupsinthesampleweredeskrecep- tionists(38%),waiters(22%),cooks&chefs(11%),andhouse- keeping(9%).The meanageofthesamplewas36.6years, with49% aged under 35 years,and an average tenure of 5.5years.Thefiguresillustratetheyoungageofthecom- pany’sworkforce.Themajorityofthesamplewerewomen (55%) and on the average employees worked 35.4h per week,whichwas15%morethanisstipulatedintheirlabor contracts.Sooverworkispervasive.
Figure2 TheProcessModeloftheProject
It tookparticipantsonaverage 42min tocomplete the EC,varyingfrom12mintoover3h.Obviouslysomeemploy- eeslefttheEC-windowopenontheircomputerwhiledoing otherthings.Thevast majorityoftheemployees—86%— neededmaximum30mintocompletetheEC,whichwasset asthetargetedtimebytheprojectteam.
Immediately after completing the EC, the employees receivedanautomaticallygeneratedfeedbackreport,which comparedtheemployee’sscoreswiththebenchmark(i.e.
theaverageDutchemployee)andwhichexplainsthemean- ingofthescoresingreaterdetail.Incaseofanunfavorable scorerelativetothebenchmark thefeedback textinvites theemployee totake action.Forinstance,ifascoreindi- catesthatcareerperspectivesarepoor,a weblinktothe company’scareercounselingserviceisprovidedformaking an appointment. The individual feedback report is struc- tured according to the JD-R model, meaning that job demands, job and personal resources, well-being (work engagementandburnout),andoutcomesareeachpresented underdifferentheadings.Inordertoassistemployeeswith theinterpretationtheirreport,thelogicoftheJD-Rmodelis brieflyexplained.
Step5: AnalysesandReporting
Ageneralreportwasdraftedfortheentireorganization,as wellas for each ofthe 22hotelsindividually.In addition, reports were also drafted for the 14 largest teams that included more than 7 participating employees. The com- pany-,hotel- andteam-reportswerebasedonaggregated data,whichmeansthataveragescoresforthewholeorga- nization, the hotel, and the team are reported.Like the individualfeedbackreport,theaggregatedreportsgivean overviewofthescoresforeachelementoftheJD-Rmodel, includingacomparisonwiththebenchmark. Fortheorga- nizationasawholetheaverageDutchemployeeservedasa benchmark, whereas for the hotels and the teams other hotelsandotheremployeesfromthesamehotelwereused asreferencegroups, respectively.For thesakeofbrevity, onlytheoverallfindingsfortheentireorganizationwillbe discussedhere.Needlesstosaythattheresultsofindividual hotels(andteams)maydeviatefromthisgeneralpicture.
Itappearsthat,generallyspeaking,scoresontheECare quitefavorable.For instance, 28%of theemployeeswere engaged, whereas only 8% reported burnout complaints, against15%forbothintheworkingpopulation.Alsolevels of job satisfaction and commitment were higher, whilst turnover-intention was somewhat lower. On the negative side, two stressors stand out; work overload was more prevalentand the paceof change wastoo high for 5% of theemployees,againstonly1%inthereferencegroup.Asfar as job resources are concerned, appropriate tools were availablefor49%ofemployees(60%inthereferencegroup), andfor52%theirpaywasfair(66%inthereferencegroup).In addition,scoresonperson-jobfit,possibilitiesforlearning anddevelopment,andteameffectivenesswere(somewhat) loweras well.Nevertheless,takentogether,itseemsthat employeesareexposedtofewstressfuljobdemandsandcan drawuponconsiderablejobandpersonalresources.
Thisisnottosaythatjobcharacteristicscannotorshould notimprove.Inordertoidentifythosejobdemandsandjob
resourcesthatshouldbeimprovedinordertoincreasework engagement,aso-calledpriorityanalysiswascarriedoutfor engagement(see Fig.3a) andburnout (seeFig.3b)sepa- rately.
Basically,thisanalysiscombinesthelevelofemployee’s jobdemandsandjobresources(aboveorbelowthebench- mark)withtheimpactthesescoreshaveonworkengage- mentandburnout(increaseordecrease).Specifically,those demandsandresourcesthatdeviatefromthebenchmark— eitherpositivelyornegatively—areenteredinaregression analyses in order todetermine their positive or negative impactonworkengagementandburnout.
Fromthe priority analyses of workengagement nojob characteristics emerged that should be tackled or moni- tored.However,recognition(bycustomersandcolleagues), congruenceofpersonalandorganizationalvalues,anduseof skillswereidentifiedasassetsthatincreaselevelsofengage- mentandshouldthereforebeutilized.Inotherwords,these three resources are crucial in maintaining high levels of engagement. Most importantly, however, person-job fit, possibilities for learning and development, availability of tools,andteam-effectivenessscoredbelowthebenchmark andshouldthus befurtherdeveloped inorder toenhance levelsofengagement.
Asimilarpriority-analysisforburnoutrevealedthatskill utilization shouldbeutilized becausethisis an assetthat decreasesburnout.Furthermore,thereisroomforimprov- ing person-job fit that should be developed in order to decreaselevelsofburnout.Finally,physicaldemands,inter- personalconflicts,andemotionaldemandsscoredbelowthe benchmark–—which is fine, of course. But because these demands may potentially increase levels of burnout they shouldbemonitored.
Insum,althoughlevelsofengagementarerelativelyhigh, itseemsthatfurtherimprovementispossible,specificallyby developingalimitedsetnumberofresources(person-jobfit, possibilities for learning and development, availability of tools, and team-effectively). Likewise, burnout could be furtherreducedbyincreasingperson-jobfitandtheutiliza- tionofemployee’sskills.Itseemsthatthereisafirmbasisfor thiskindofimprovementsasresultsoftheECindicatethat employees feel committed to the organization and their team, experience a supportive, positive and fair social climate,sharevalueswiththeorganization,andhavetrust inleadership.
Step6:Survey Feedback
The general report was discussed with top-management, afterwhichall22hotelsreceivedseparatereports,aswell as the14teams.Feedback sessionswereheldindividually withthemanagementofthefourmostproblematichotels, whereasresultswerediscussedwiththeremaining18hotels in four sessions withfour hotels each. In addition to the dedicatedconsultantandtheheadofHR,theCOOpartici- patedineachfeedbacksessionastoemphasizetheimpor- tance of the sessions for the top-management. In these sessionstwoquestionswereanswered.
First,inhowfar doesthepatternofresultscorrespond withthe perception ofthe stakeholders?This is a kind of validitycheck.IncasetheresultsoftheECwouldhavebeen
completelyatoddswiththepicturethestakeholdershave, somethingiswrongandthecauseofthatdiscrepancyneeds tobe identifiedbefore proceedingfurther. However,as a rule, the stakeholders shared the conclusions of the EC anditwasfeltthatthepatternofresultsthatwasuncovered bytheECmatchedtheperceptionofthegeneral-andhotel management. So it seemed that the EC produced a valid picture.
Second,giventheconclusionsoftheEC,whatmeasures couldandshouldbetakeninordertoincreaseengagement and prevent burnout? Evidently, answering this question includes prioritizing various potential measures. A
tailor-made procedure was followed here, whereby theentireorganizationandeachhotel(andteam)formulated itsownobjectives.Thereasonforthiswasthat—asnoted above—theresultsoftheECvariedbetweenvarioushotels.
Below in the next step the measures are discussed that weretakenatthegeneral,organizationallevel.
Thefeedbacksessionswereconduciveinbuildingacom- monlanguagetodiscussthe resultsandtheactions tobe taken.The terminology andthe logic of the JD-R model, whichisquiteeasytounderstandalsofornon-specialistsand non-academics,provedtobequitehelpfulinthisrespect.In addition, feeding back the results and discussing these Tackle
Utilize
• Recognition
• Value congruence
• Use of skills
Monitor
(a)
(b)
Develop
• Person-job fit
• Learning possibilities
• Availability of tools
• Team effectiveness
Increase Dec rease
Above b enchmark
Below b enchmark
Tackle
Utilize
• Use of skills
Monitor
• Physical demands
• Emotional demands
• Conflicts
Develop
• Person-job fit
Decrease Increase
Above benchmark
Bel ow benchmark
Figure3 (a)ThePriorityMatrixforEngagement.(b)ThePriorityMatrixforBurnout
criticallywithmanagement,supervisors,andemployeesis cruciallyimportanttobuildcommitmentandtrustforimple- mentinginterventions.
Step7: Interventions
Inprinciple, basedonthe resultsof the EC,twotypes of measures canbe taken.First, employeesthemselves may take measures to improve their own personal or job resources, or decrease their job demands. Usually about 10%—15% of the employees do so spontaneously; for instance, they talk to their bosses or their colleagues to addresscertainissues,contactacareercounselingservice, orconsulttheiroccupationalphysician.Inthecurrentpro- ject,thefocuswasnotonindividual-basedmeasuresbuton measuresthatweretakenattheleveloftheentireorgani- zationorthehotelsortheteam.ForreasonsofeconomyI willonlydiscussthemainmeasuresthatweretakenatthe overallorganizationallevel.Inaddition,eachhotelorteam initiatedspecific actionstoimproveengagementandpre- ventburnout.For instance,inoneparticularhotelalarge gap existed between the front office (reception)and the restaurant,which hadanegativeimpactoncustomerser- vice.It wasdecidedthatreceptionists wouldoccasionally workin the restaurant,and vice versa,inorder tofoster mutualunderstanding.Furthermore,particularlyforhotels inAmsterdamthecombinationofaveryhighworkloadanda fiercecompetitiononthehospitalitylabormarketresulted in a shortage of personnel.Therefore, Amsterdam hotels decidedtofocustheirHRpolicymoreonpersonalretention.
Basedonthereportthatwasdiscussedwithtop-manage- mentthefollowingactionsweretakenfortheentireorga- nization:
1.TheannualHR-cyclewasupdatedwiththeaimofkeep- ingjobschallenging.Traditionally,eachsummeremploy- eeshadaperformancereviewwiththeirsupervisorthat focused almost exclusively on past performance. This review wasfollowed inthe winterby aformalperfor- manceappraisal.Theperformancereviewwasreplaced bya‘feedforwardsession’,whichisfutureorientedand focuses on employee’s preferences, potentials, and strengths, and how to develop these. In addition, a
‘talentchart’isintroducedwhichgivesanoverviewof thetalentpoolattheleveloftheentire organization.
ThisinformationisusedforHRpoliciestosupportcareer management of employees. Refocusing the HR-cycle would specifically increase person-job fit and the use ofskills,andthereforemostlikelyenhanceteameffec- tiveness.
2.The curriculum and usage of the organization’s own trainingcenterwasadaptedtobettermeetthespecific needs of the employees. Their training needs were systematicallyinventoried,newtrainingprogramswere launched,andexistingprogramswereupdated.Thenew rangeoftrainingprogramswascommunicatedtohotel managers and their employees. Two internal trainers werededicatedtothisprojectthat,inessence,focused onincreasing employee’spossibilities for learningand development.
3.Top-management,personifiedbytheCEOandtheCOO, performedsitevisitstoeachofthehotelstohaveround
tablediscussionsatlunchtimewithallemployees.This way, top-down and bottom-up communication is im- proved, so that top-management is better informed abouttheissuesofemployeesattheshopfloor,whereas employeesreceivefirst-handinformationabouttheor- ganization’spolicies. As a result,these site visits and roundtablesmight increaseemployee’sperceivedrec- ognitionandtheirsharedvalueswiththeorganization.
4.Additionalchannelswereopenedtocommunicatewith employees,suchasmailings totheirprivateaddresses (both via email and surface mail),organize townhall meetingswithemployeeinhotels,anddisplayingposters instaffroomswithimportantmessages.Theaimofthese actionswastoincreasethealignmentoftheemployees withthe company’smission and core values(i.e., re- spect, entrepreneurship, passion,style, and customer orientation).Thiswasexpectedtoimprovecommunica- tionandvaluecongruencewiththeorganization.
5.ICT-systems were updated and better adapted to the businessprocessandtotheuser’sneeds.Manyemploy- eesusethesetools,anditwasexpectedthattheywould benefit from improved ICT-systems when performing theirjobs.
Step8:Evaluation
OneyearaftertheECwascarriedoutafollow-upmeasure- ment was conducted using the same survey. Again, and followingthe sameprocedure,allemployeeswereinvited tofill-outthe ECand475employeesdidso.However,the records of only 241 employees could be linked as they participated bothtimesin thesurvey.This correspondsto roughlyhalf(53%)oftheinitialsample.Itappearedthatin thisgrouptherateofengagedemployeeshadincreasedby 2%atfollow-up,whereasthelevelofburnoutremainedthe same. In the total follow-up sample, which also includes thosewhofilledintheECforthefirsttime,theratesforwork engagementandburnoutwere32%and8%,respectively.This corresponds to an increase of 4% for engagement and a decreaseof1%forburnout.So,onbalance,thenewgroup whoparticipatedinthesurveyforthefirsttimeatfollow-up was more engaged and had less burnout complaints than those who also participated one year ago. Moreover, an increaseinjobsatisfaction(4%),organizationalcommitment (4%),andteamcommitment(3%)wasobserved,aswellas andaminordecreaseinturnoverintentionof2%.Hence,it seemsthat,overall,employeewell-being,satisfaction,and commitmenthaveincreased.Also,itseemsthatthosewho filledoutthequestionnaireforthefirsttimeatfollow-up(i.
e.,newhires)aremoreengaged,satisfiedandcommitted thanthosewithmoretenure.
Thus far it’s mostly good news. However, it is rather challenging to explain these positive changes since most driversofwell-beingdidnotchangeovertime.Ratherthan change,stabilityseemstobethenorminthehotelchain.
Nevertheless, some minor negative as well as positive changes were observed. On the negative side, pace of change, work-home conflict, and interpersonal conflicts slightly increased,whereasuse ofskills andvaluecongru- ence somewhatdecreased. On the positive side,recogni- tion, available tools, fair pay, organizational justice, possibilities for learning and development, and career
perspectivehaveincreased.Theincreaseofsomeofthese jobresourcesmightbelinkedtospecificmeasuresthathave beentaken.Morespecifically:(1)renewingtheannualHR- cycle might have increased employee’s recognition and career perspectives; (2) renewing the training curriculum might have increasedemployee’spossibilities for learning anddevelopmentas well astheir careerperspectives; (3) site-visitsandroundtables,mighthavefosteredemployee’s recognitionbymanagement,andorganizationaljustice;(4) openingnewcommunicationchannelsmighthavefostered recognitionandorganizationaljusticeaswell;and(5)updat- ingandadaptingICT-systemsmighthaveimprovedtheavail- abilityoftools.Yet,otherresourcesremainedunaffectedor evenworsened,althoughnotsubstantially.
Takentogether,theresultsoftheevaluationaresome- whatdifficulttointerpret,particularlyasfarastheeffects ofthe measuresareconcerned.Itshouldbekeptin mind though,thatonlymeasuresfortheentireorganizationwere takenintoaccounthere.Aspointedoutabovethesewere supplemented byspecific measures inparticular hotelsor teams. Clearly, this complicates interpretation. Yet, the mainmessagetobetakenfromtheevaluationisthree-fold:
(1)levelsofemployeeengagement,satisfaction,andcom- mitmenthaveincreased;(2)withafewexceptions,levelsof jobdemandsandjobresourcesremainedratherstable;(3) althoughnofirmconclusionscanbedrawnabouttheeffec- tivenessoftheinterventionsitseemsthattheycanbelinked toincreasesinsomejobresources.
Somecaveatsarealsoworthmentioning.Itmightindeed be thatthe interventions have increased someresources, which,intheirturn,hadapositiveeffectonemployeewell- beingandcommitment.Butperhapstheinterventionsalso changed other aspects of the organizationthat were not assessed by the EC, such as organizational climate. Also, perhaps more time is needed for the changes to have a measurableeffect.Forinstance,employeesparticipateonly onceperyearinafutureoriented‘feedforward’sessionwith theirsupervisorsothatitisnotveryrealistictoexpectlarge, short-term changes in job characteristics as a result of renewingtheHR-cycle.Finally,andmostimportantly,eval- uatingaprojectbyusingafollow-upmeasurementisnotthe same as investigating the effectiveness of interventions.
Ideally,forthatarandomizedcontroltrialisneeded.That typeofexperimentaldesignnotonlyincludesacontrolgroup butalsotherandomization ofemployeesacross theinter- vention andcontrol groups. Rather, the evaluation of the currentprojectisafinalsteptoconcludethefirstcycleand to provide input for the next cycle. For this particular projectthismeans,forinstance,thattheobservedstability shouldbediscussedinfeedbacksessionswithmanagement andemployees.Do theyrecognize this?Haveother things perhapschanged?Didchangesinonepartoftheorganization canceloutthoseinotherparts?Suchquestionscouldmark thestartofanewcycle.
CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK
Inthisarticle,itisarguedandillustratedthattheJD-Rmodel may serve as the guiding principle for an organizational
developmentprocess that aims to increase work engage- mentandpreventburnout.Themodeliswellequippedfor thispurposebecauseitiscomprehensive,asitincludesboth apositivemotivationalprocessaswellasanegativeastress process.This balanced approach is an important asset to
‘sell’themodel toorganizations becauseit integrates an occupationalhealthapproach(reducingjobstressandburn- out)withanHR-approach(increasingworkmotivationand engagement).
Moreover, the JD-R model can be broadly applied in various types of organizations because a wide range of job-andpersonalcharacteristics,aswellas outcomescan beincluded.Atthesametimethemodelisalsoflexible,in thesensethatitmaybetailoredtothespecific settingin whichitisapplied.ThisisexemplifiedbytheEC,whichisan efficientonlinetooltoassessallrelevantJD-Rconstructs.
PotentiallyaboutsixtyconstructscanbeincludedintheEC, butusuallyfewerareincludedasitistailoredtotheorga- nization. For instance, in the hospitality project 34 con- structswereincluded,whichtookemployeesapproximately 30mintocomplete.Thiscombination ofbreadthandspe- cificity is of great practical significance and is therefore anotheruniquesellingpointoftheJD-Rmodel.
As is exemplified by the case above, the JD-R model providesacommonlanguageamongmembersoftheorga- nization that facilitates communication about ‘work and well-being’. For many organizational members, including management,thisisratherunknownandslipperyterritory forwhichanappropriatevocabularyislacking.Moreover,the JD-Rmodelalsoactsasavehicletounderstandtheunder- lyingpsychologicaldynamicsintermsofstress-andmotiva- tionalprocesses.Finally,theJD-Rframeworkplaysamajor role in prioritizing and implementing future actions to increase work engagement and preventburnout. Because theJD-Rmodelisintuitivelyappealingandeasytoexplain, forinstancebyusingconcreteexamplesfromemployee’sor manager’sownexperiences,itiswellsuitedasaconceptual toolforunderstandingandguidingfutureactions.
Alogical nextstep is toextend theEC withan online platform for self-management and self-enhancement that alsobuildsuponthe JD-R model.Basedonthe EC-scoring pattern,theonline systemsuggests foreach participating employeeasetofspecifictrainingmodulestoimprovework engagement and prevent burnout. For instance, ‘how to craftyourjob’,‘beincontrolofyourtime’,‘howtomanage your boss’, ‘dealingwithuncertainty’,or ‘give yourself a break’.FollowingthelogicoftheJD-Rmodel,theseonline modulesaimtoincrease employee’sresourcesandreduce theirdemands.Theonlineplatformmaybeusedindividually byemployeesaswellascollectivelybyteams.Currently,the platformisbeingimplementedandevaluatedacrossvarious organizations.Sothenextstepforwardistoadda perso- nalized,efficientonlinesystemthatsupportstheorganiza- tionaldevelopmentprocess towardbetteremployee well- being.
Acknowledgment
ThisresearchwasfundedbytheResearchFundKULeuven.
APPENDIX A. CONSTRUCTION OF THE ENERGY COMPASS
AsfewitemsaspossiblewereincludedintheECinorder tominimalizetherespondent’sburden,whichisparticular important for survey research in organizations. In fact, 23 concepts were measured with only one item, which agreeswitharecentcallfortheuseofsingle-itemmeasures inorganizationalresearch.3As arule,items fromexisting scales were used for the EC, but for 18 constructs self- formulated items had tobe used because no items from existingscaleswereavailable(seeTable2).Theitemsofthe EC were selected on face validity and correlations were computed withthe total scale-score usingdata collected over the years in various samples (the total number of respondentsexceeds50,000).Acriterionofr>.80wasused fortheseitem-totalcorrelations;mostvalueswerearound .90,though. Additionally,inorder toevaluatetheconcur- rent validity, correlationswith other variables werecom- paredbetweentheshort(or1-item)scalesandtheoriginal longerscales.Itwasexpected—andfound—thatthesizeof both correlations did not largely differ (i.e., <.10). For instance,usingatotalsampleofover77,000respondents,
it appeared that the 9-item version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale correlated .96 with the short 3-item versionthatisincludedintheEC.4Moreover,bothversions correlated almost identically with41 demands, resources andoutcomeswithanaverage,absolutedifferenceofonly .02.Finally,theinternalconsistencies(coefficienta)ofall shortenedscalesintheECexceedbyfartheusualcriterion of .70 with an average value of .86. In short, there is considerable evidence for the reliability and the validity oftheEC.
Inordertoobtainreferencedatafromarelevantgroup thatcouldserveasabenchmark,theECwasadministeredin a representative sample (N=12135) of the Dutch working populationagedbetween18and65.Basedonthe25thand 75thpercentilesofthefrequencydistributionsofthescores, cut-offvaluesfor‘low’anda‘high’scoreswereestablished for each construct. So when an employee scores ‘high’
(‘low’)onaparticularjobdemand,resource,outcome,this meanshisorherscoreiscomparablewiththatofthe25%
highest(lowest)scoringDutchemployees.Forworkengage- mentandburnoutthecut-offfora‘high’scorewassetat 15%. Those whoscorein between both cut-off valuesare
‘average’comparedtootherDutchworkers.
3Fisher,Matthews&Gibson(inpress).
4Schaufeli,Shimazu,Hakanen,Salanova&DeWitte(2016).
5Forestablishingthesizeofthesampleanerrormarginof3%and aconfidenceintervalof5%wasused(Schaufeli,2015a).
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
TheJobDemands-ResourcesModel
TheJD-Rmodel,whichoriginallyonlyincludedburnout,was firstpublishedin:DemeroutiE.,Bakker,A.B.,Nachreiner,F.,
& Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The Job Demands–—Resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499—512.Afew yearlater,theextendedJD-R modelwith engagementwaspublished:Schaufeli,W.B.& Bakker,A.B.
(2004).Job demands,jobresources andtheirrelationship withburnoutandengagement:Amulti-samplestudy.Jour- nalofOrganizationalBehavior,25,293—315.Both seminal papers haven been cited over 3500 times each (Google Scholar; May, 2016), which illustrates the popularity of theJD-R model amongresearchers.Stillafew year later, personalresourceswereaddedtothemodel:Xanthopoulou, D.,Bakker,A.B., Demerouti,E.,& Schaufeli,W.B.(2009).
Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior,74,235—244.Aconceptualoverviewcanbefound in: Bakker,A. & Demerouti,E. (2007), The Job Demands- Resources(JD-R)model:Stateoftheart.JournalofManage- rialPsychology,22,309—328.Anoverviewofrecentempiri- cal findings is presented in: Schaufeli, W.B. & Taris, T.W.
(2014). A critical review of the Job Demands-Resources Model: Implications for improving work and health. In G.
Bauer&O.Hämmig(Eds),Bridgingoccupational,organiza- tionalandpublichealth(pp.43—68).Dordrecht:Springer.
Themostrecentreviewis:Taris,T.W.&Schaufeli,W.B.(in press).TheJobDemands-Resourcesmodel,itsbases,appli- cationsandrange.InS.Clarke,T.Probst,F.Guldenmundand J. Passmore (Eds), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of occupational safety and workplace health.Chichester:Wiley-Blackwell.
Assessment(EnergyCompass)
Various questionnaireshave been publishedtoassess psy- chosocial work factors and employee well being, for instance:(1)theQuestionnaireontheExperienceandEva- luationofWork (QEEW),Van Veldhoven,M., DeJonge,J., Broersen, S., Kompier,M., & Meijman, T. (2002).Specific relations between psychosocial job conditions and job- related stress: A three-level analytic approach. Work &
Stress,16,207—228;(2)theCopenhagenPsychosocialQues- tionnaire(COPSOC),Kristensen,T.,Hannertz,H.,Hogh,A.,
&Borg,V.(2005).The CopenhagenPsychosocialQuestion- naire(COPSOQ)–—Atoolfortheassessmentandimprovement ofthepsychosocialworkenvironment.ScandinavianJournal
ofWorkEnvironment&Health,31,438—449;(3)theNordic Questionnairefor Psychosocialand Social Factorsat Work (QPSNordic),Elo,A.L.,Skogstad,A.,Dallner,M.,Gamberale, F.,Hottinen,V.,&Knardahl,S.(2000).User’sguideforthe QPSNordic:GeneralNordicQuestionnaireforpsychological andsocial factorsatwork.Copenhagen:NordicCouncilof Ministers;(4)theHealthandSafetyExecutive’sManagement StandardsIndicatorTool(HSEMSIT),Edwards,J.A.& Web- ster,S.(2012).Psychosocialriskassessment:measurement invarianceoftheUKHealthandSafetyExecutive’sManage- ment Standards Indicator. Work & Stress, 26, 130—142.
Recently,Aacaseismadeinfavorofusingsingle-itemmea- suresbyFisher,G.G.,Mattews,R.A.,&MitchellGibbons,A.
(inpress). Developingand investigatingthe use of single- itemmeasuresinorganizationalresearch.JournalofOccu- pational Health Psychology. A first validity study oft he Engergy Compass hasbeen publishedin Dutch:Schaufeli, W.B.(2015a).VanburnoutnaarbevlogenheidWerkenwel- bevindeninNederland[Fromburnouttoworkengagement:
Workandwell-beingintheNetherlands].M&O,69,15—31.
TheEnergyCompasshasalsobeenusedin:Schaufeli,W.B.
(2015b).EngagingleadershipintheJobDemands-Resources Model.CareerDevelopmentInternational,20,446—463.
Intervention(CaseExample)
For an overview (of research) on work engagement see:
Schaufeli, W.B. (2014). What is engagement? In C. Truss, R. Delbridge, K. Alfes, A. Shantz, & E. Soane. (Eds.).
Employee engagement in theory and practice (pp. 15—
35). London: Routledge. For a review of case studies on increasingworkengagementinorganizationssee:MacLeod, D. & Clarke, N. (2009). Engaging for success: Enhancing performancethroughemployeeengagement.OfficeofPub- licSectorInformation.London,UK:http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/
1810/1/file52215.pdf. The so-called regulative cycle has beendescribedbyVanStrien(1977).Towardsamethodology of psychological practice:The regulative cycle. Theory &
Psychology,7,683—700.Therelevanceofengagementand burnoutforthehospitalityindustryhasbeendocumentedin;
Salanova,M.,Agut,S.,&Peiró,J.M.(2005),Linkingorga- nizational resources and work engagement to employee performanceandcustomerloyalty:themediationofservice climate,JournalofAppliedPsychology,90,1217—1227and Pienaar,J.&Willemse,S.A.(2008),Burnout,engagement, coping and general health of service employees in the hospitalityindustry,TourismManagement,29,1053—1063, respectively.
WilmarB.SchaufeliisdistinguishedresearchprofessoratLeuvenUniversity,BelgiumandfullprofessorofWork andOrganizationalPsychologyatUtrechtUniversity,TheNetherlands(www.wilmarschaufeli.nl).Inaddition,he
isalsovisitingprofessoratLoughboroughBusinessSchool,UK,andJaumeIUniversitat,Castellon,Spain.Hewas awarded‘HighlyCitedResearcher’byThomsonReutersinrecognitionofrankingamongthetop1%ofmostcited researchersinthefieldofpsychology.Initially,hisresearchinterestwasonjobstressandburnout,butinthelast decadehisfocusshiftedtowardpositiveoccupationalhealthpsychology.Dr.SchaufeliisafellowoftheEuropean AcademyofOccupationalHealthPsychology,alicensedoccupationalhealthpsychologist,andalsoworkspart- timeasanorganizationalconsultant(www.3ihc.nl).(ResearchUnitOccupational&OrganizationalPsychology andProfessionalLearning,KULeuven,Belgium;DepartmentofPsychology,UtrechtUniversity,P.O.Box80.140, 3508TCUtrecht,TheNetherlands.Emails:w.schaufeli@uu.nl;wilmar.schaufeli@kuleuven.be).
