关于参与的不同观点,何去何从?系统文献综述

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Hadas Wittenberg, Gabriel Eweje, Nazim Taskin, Darryl Forsyth
{"title":"关于参与的不同观点,何去何从?系统文献综述","authors":"Hadas Wittenberg,&nbsp;Gabriel Eweje,&nbsp;Nazim Taskin,&nbsp;Darryl Forsyth","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Engagement has emerged as a significant focus in contemporary management research, widely acknowledged for its positive impact on wellbeing and performance. However, over 30 years since its introduction, the concept of engagement remains fractured with multiple definitions, ongoing theoretical debates, and inconsistent empirical evidence of practical value. This review addresses the evolving nature of work-related engagement, recognizing the need for fresh perspectives to better understand this complex phenomenon. To facilitate progressing the research agenda beyond current debates, we used a meta-narrative review as a systematic approach for synthesizing our findings and problematizing techniques to generate innovative ideas. Our review identified six distinct groups, each arguing for different conceptualizations of engagement. We illuminated opportunities for further research directions by mapping and challenging dominating narratives. Specifically, our review highlights the need to conduct research outside the predominant positivist/postpositivist perspective. It also identifies a need for additional research to understand how task-level engagement happens through the interplay of individuals and the environment. Our study makes significant conceptual contributions by offering clear boundaries of existing knowledge, an alternative conceptualization of engagement, and a platform for new directions. Contribution to literature review methodology using integrative and generative approaches is also discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"26 3","pages":"410-434"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijmr.12361","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Different perspectives on engagement, where to from here? A systematic literature review\",\"authors\":\"Hadas Wittenberg,&nbsp;Gabriel Eweje,&nbsp;Nazim Taskin,&nbsp;Darryl Forsyth\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ijmr.12361\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Engagement has emerged as a significant focus in contemporary management research, widely acknowledged for its positive impact on wellbeing and performance. However, over 30 years since its introduction, the concept of engagement remains fractured with multiple definitions, ongoing theoretical debates, and inconsistent empirical evidence of practical value. This review addresses the evolving nature of work-related engagement, recognizing the need for fresh perspectives to better understand this complex phenomenon. To facilitate progressing the research agenda beyond current debates, we used a meta-narrative review as a systematic approach for synthesizing our findings and problematizing techniques to generate innovative ideas. Our review identified six distinct groups, each arguing for different conceptualizations of engagement. We illuminated opportunities for further research directions by mapping and challenging dominating narratives. Specifically, our review highlights the need to conduct research outside the predominant positivist/postpositivist perspective. It also identifies a need for additional research to understand how task-level engagement happens through the interplay of individuals and the environment. Our study makes significant conceptual contributions by offering clear boundaries of existing knowledge, an alternative conceptualization of engagement, and a platform for new directions. Contribution to literature review methodology using integrative and generative approaches is also discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Management Reviews\",\"volume\":\"26 3\",\"pages\":\"410-434\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijmr.12361\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Management Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12361\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Management Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12361","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

参与已成为当代管理研究的一个重要焦点,其对福利和绩效的积极影响已得到广泛认可。然而,"敬业度 "这一概念自提出至今已有 30 余年,但仍存在多种定义、持续的理论争论以及不一致的实用价值经验证据等问题。本综述探讨了与工作相关的敬业度不断演变的本质,认识到需要新的视角来更好地理解这一复杂现象。为了推动研究议程超越当前的争论,我们使用了元叙事综述作为一种系统方法,用于综合我们的发现和问题化技术,以产生创新的想法。我们的综述确定了六个不同的小组,每个小组都主张对参与进行不同的概念化。我们通过描绘和挑战主导叙事,为进一步的研究方向提供了机会。具体而言,我们的综述强调了在主流实证主义/后实证主义视角之外开展研究的必要性。此外,我们还发现需要开展更多研究,以了解任务层面的参与是如何通过个人与环境的相互作用而发生的。我们的研究在概念上做出了重大贡献,为现有知识提供了清晰的界限,为参与提供了另一种概念,并为新的研究方向提供了平台。我们还讨论了使用整合和生成方法对文献综述方法的贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Different perspectives on engagement, where to from here? A systematic literature review

Different perspectives on engagement, where to from here? A systematic literature review

Engagement has emerged as a significant focus in contemporary management research, widely acknowledged for its positive impact on wellbeing and performance. However, over 30 years since its introduction, the concept of engagement remains fractured with multiple definitions, ongoing theoretical debates, and inconsistent empirical evidence of practical value. This review addresses the evolving nature of work-related engagement, recognizing the need for fresh perspectives to better understand this complex phenomenon. To facilitate progressing the research agenda beyond current debates, we used a meta-narrative review as a systematic approach for synthesizing our findings and problematizing techniques to generate innovative ideas. Our review identified six distinct groups, each arguing for different conceptualizations of engagement. We illuminated opportunities for further research directions by mapping and challenging dominating narratives. Specifically, our review highlights the need to conduct research outside the predominant positivist/postpositivist perspective. It also identifies a need for additional research to understand how task-level engagement happens through the interplay of individuals and the environment. Our study makes significant conceptual contributions by offering clear boundaries of existing knowledge, an alternative conceptualization of engagement, and a platform for new directions. Contribution to literature review methodology using integrative and generative approaches is also discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Management Reviews (IJMR) stands as the premier global review journal in Organisation and Management Studies (OMS). Its published papers aim to provide substantial conceptual contributions, acting as a strategic platform for new research directions. IJMR plays a pivotal role in influencing how OMS scholars conceptualize research in their respective fields. The journal's reviews critically assess the state of knowledge in specific fields, appraising the conceptual foundations of competing paradigms to advance current and future research in the area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信