WRIGHT [8] SCHAUFELI [3] SCHAUFELI [4] 3 5 FRANK ; [10] ; SCHAUFELI SCHAUFELI ARYEE [9] HACKMAN ROBERTSON [11] [5] 5 FRANK [10] 5 ; ;

8 6 20116 ChineseJournalofManagement Vol.8No.6 Jun.2011 1 2 (1. ;2. ) :191 2 ; ; ; : ; ; ; :C93;D035.2;D630.3 :A :1672 884X(2011)06 0865 07 AnEmpiricalStudyonAntecedentsofCivilServants Engagement YANG Hongming 1 LIAOJianqiao 2 (1.JinanUniversityGuangzhouChina; 2.HuazhongUniversityofScienceandTechnologyWuhanChina) Abstract:Thispaperinvestigated191civilservantstostudythestructureoftheirengagementand thepersonalfactorsjobcharacteristicsorganizationalinterpersonalfactorsthatinfluencedengage ment.firstlyfactoranalysisvalidatedthecivilservants engagementincludingdedicationandvigor. ThentheindependentsampleTtestandANOVAshowedthatthemalehadmorevigorthanfemale theolderonesthelongerworkingageonesthehighlevelemployeesorthehighdegreeemployees hadmorededication.themultiplelinearregressionanalysisconfirmedthatjobimportancefeedback jobautonomysupervisorsupportco workersupporthaddiferentpromotionefectstodedication vigororengagement.butskilsvariabilityhasnot.finalythepaperproposessomehumanresource managementtacticsforthegovernmentleaderstoimprovetheengagementofcivilservants. Keywords:civilservants engagement;dedication;vigor;jobcharacteristics [1] 3 1 1.1 KAHN [2] :2009 09 09 : (70972016) 865

8 620116 WRIGHT [8] SCHAUFELI [3] SCHAUFELI [4] 3 5 FRANK ; [10] ; SCHAUFELI 1.3 1.2 SCHAUFELI ARYEE [9] HACKMAN ROBERTSON [11] [5] 5 FRANK [10] 5 ; ; ; WORD [12] ; [4] 1.4 SCHAUFELI SCHAUFELI [13] (utrechtworkengagementscaleuwes) [6] [7] ; : 866

1 5 2.3 2 Pearson 1 3 2.4 2 51 2.6%; 0.000 KMO= 10% 73.8% 16.2%; 0.904 10.5% 27.2% 1 30.9% 31.4%; 5 38.2%5 15 33%15 28.8% SPSS11.5 Amos7.0 2.4.1 2.1 CITC CITC 0.40 MPA 3 5 4 ; SCHAUFELI [4] 3 260 215 191 73.46% 191 UWES 73.8% 26.2%; 30 38.2%31~40 32.5%41~50 26.7% Bartlet χ 2 =1398.4p= 0.45 0.32 2.2 7 2 2 : 70.979% 1 3 HACK 2 [14] MAN OLDHAM 1 BAARD [15] 1 53.765% 17.214% 2 OLDHAM CUMMINGS [14] 4 SCHAUFELI [4] ; ; ; Likert7 1 Likert5 1 867

8 620116 2.4.3 Cronbachα 0.775 Cronbachα 1 0.855 0.7 Cronbachα 0.628~ 0.831 0.233 0.895 ( 3) 0.803 0.188 0.783 0.186 0.766 0.271 3 0.233 0.855 0.229 0.823 0.216 0.821 /% 53.765 17.214 4 2.4.2 191 [16] ( 2) 2 Pearson 2 χ 2 /df GFI NFI CFI RMSEA 2.039 0.932 0.856 0.918 0.074 2.170 0.939 0.938 0.965 0.078 1.734 0.965 0.962 0.983 0.062 0.885 Cronbachα 3 Pearson Pearson Pearson : χ 2/df GFI RMSEA NFI CFI χ 2/df 2GFI NFI CFI 1 0.9RMSEA 0 0.08 3 Pearson M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 3.155 0.869 (0.628) 2 3.696 1.002 0.292 (0.697) 3 3.403 0.813 0.300 0.269 (0.661) 4 3.478 0.843 0.212 0.318 0.463 (0.747) 5 3.335 0.812 0.159 0.233 0.346 0.343 (0.809) 6 3.675 0.796 0.104 0.224 0.267 0.325 0.632 (0.895) 7 3.508 1.238 0.241 0.313 0.362 0.392 0.404 0.412 (0.842) 8 3.925 1.211 0.199 0.249 0.242 0.195 0.183 0.113 0.489 (0.827) : 0.01 0.05 ( ) 4 T ANOVA :1 4.1 ROTHBARD [17] 5 2 4 1 2 1 868

2 SCHAUFELI [4] : : 4 ; ; 3 4 2 / <40 40 / <5 5~15 >15 3.589 3.280 3.336 3.922 4.053 0.447 3.717 3.381 3.324 3.460 3.806 T F 1.520-3.047 2.038 1.833 + 2.485 p 0.130 0.003 0.043 0.068 0.086 4.038 3.607 3.919 3.941 4.087 3.907 3.931 3.922 3.735 4.127 3.946 T F 1.520-0.114 0.616 0.050 1.795 p 0.030 0.910 0.539 0.961 0.169 : F T ; 0.001 + 0.1 4.2 ; 0.7 5 2 ; 5 β Sig. β Sig. β Sig. 0.094 0.157 0.098 0.191 0.104 0.137 0.150 0.025 0.198 0.006 0.151 0.031 0.166 0.020 0.189 0.010 0.159 0.036 0.177 0.017 0.059 0.463 0.162 0.036 0.136 0.100 0.083 0.268 0.190 0.008 0.277 0.000 0.020 0.784 0.109 0.198 R 0.539 0.308 0.467 R 2 0.291 0.095 0.218 Adj R 2 0.275 0.085 0.201 F 19.059 0.000 9.880 0.000 12.958 0.000 0.277 +0.177 + 0.166 +0.150 4 27.5% ; 0.198 +0.189 2 8.5% ; 0.190 +0.162 +0.159 +0.151 4 869

8 620116 20.1% ; 5 SCHAUFELI [4] 2 ; ; ; 1 [19] ; ; 2 3 ; PER RY [18] TANNEN ( BAUM [20] ) 870

ComparativeStudyofTheirPerceived WorkExperi ence[j].group & Organization Management1992 17(1):72~85. [10]FRANKSALEWIS G B.GovernmentEmployees Working Hardor Hardly Working [J].American ReviewofPublicAdministration200434(1):36~ 51. [11]ROBERTSON K.EmployeeInvolvementinthePub licsector:a BeterBet[J].Public Money19855 (1):41~45. [12]WORDJSUNG M P.Working AcrosstheDivide: JobInvolvementinthePublicandNonprofitSectors [J].Review of Public Personnel Administration :1 200929(2):103~133. [13]SCHAUFELIW BBAKKER A B.UWES Utrecht 2 Work Engagement Scale:Test Manual[EB/OL]. (2003 12 06)[2009 08 26].htp://www.schaufeli. 3 com. [14] DL. [M].. : 2004. [15]BAARDPPDECIELRYAN R M.IntrinsicNeed Satisfaction:A Motivational Basis of Performance and Wel beingintwo WorkSetings[J].Journalof AppliedSocialPsychology200434(10):2045~ [1]. 2068. ( )[J]. 2003(12):22. [16]. [2]KAHN W A.Psychological Conditions of Personal EngagementandDisengagementat Work[J].Acade myofmanagementjournal199033(4):692~724. [3]SCHAUFELIW BSALANOVA MGONZ LEZ ROMA Vetal.The Measurementof Engagement andburnout:a ConfirmativeAnalyticApproach[J]. JournalofHappinessStudies20023(1):71~92. [4]SCHAUFELIW BBAKKER AB.JobDemandsJob Resourcesand TheirRelationship withburnoutand Engagement:A Multi sample Study[J].Journalof OrganizationalBehavior200425(1):293~315. [5]HACKMANJR OLDHAM G R. Motivation ThroughtheDesignof Work:TestofaTheory[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 197616(2):250~279. ing:diagnostic Findingsfrom Multiple Companies [6]. [J]. 2008(10):17~20. [7]. [J]. 2008(10):13~16. [8]WRIGHYBE.Public sectorworkmotivation:are viewofthecurrentliteratureandarevisedconcep tualmodel[j].journalofpublicadministration Re searchandtheory200111(4):559~586. [9]ARYEES.PublicandPrivateSectorProfessionals:A [J]. 2008(5):43~46. [17]ROTHMANNSJOUBERTJH M.JobDemands Job ResourcesBurnoutand Work Engagementof Managersata Platinum Mineinthe North West Province[J].SouthAfricanJournalofBusinessMan agement200738(3):49~61. [18]PERRYJL.Measuring PublicService Motivation: AnAssessmentofConstructReliabilityandValidity [J].JournalofPublicAdministration Researchand Theory19966(1):5~22. [19] PB. [M].. : 2001. [20]TANNENBAUM SI.EnhancingContinuousLearn [J].Human Resource Management199736(4): 437~452. ( ) : (1979~) ( 510632) E mail:yhm0530 @163.com 871