Engagement organisationnel : une analyse sous l’angle des facteurs de santé et de fonctionnement optimal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bien que les travaux illustrent le rôle des composantes de l’engagement organisationnel dans la satisfaction, la fidélité, et la performance des employés, moins d’attention a été portée sur leurs liens avec les indicateurs de santé, de stress, et de fonctionnement au travail. Notre étude utilise trois échantillons indépendants pour examiner la distinction entre l’engagement affectif, l’engagement normatif, l’engagement par sacrifice perçu, et l’engagement par manque d’alternatives, ainsi que leur relation avec l’épuisement émotionnel, les symptômes dépressifs, la redevabilité interpersonnelle, les stresseurs de défi et entravants, l’estime de soi, le dévouement évalué par le supérieur, et l’engagement au travail. Les résultats indiquent que l’engagement affectif a des liens négatifs avec l’épuisement et les symptômes dépressifs, et des liens positifs avec la redevabilité, le dévouement, l’estime de soi, et l’engagement au travail. L’engagement normatif présente un lien négatif avec l’estime de soi et l’engagement au travail alors que l’engagement par sacrifice perçu est positivement lié à ces mêmes variables. Enfin, l’engagement par manque d’alternatives est positivement lié à l’épuisement, aux symptômes dépressifs, et aux stresseurs, et négativement lié à l’estime de soi. Ces résultats illustrent autant les bénéfices que le côté obscur de l’engagement organisationnel. While previous research has illustrated the role of organizational commitment components in employee satisfaction, loyalty, and performance, less attention has been paid to their relationships to indicators of health and stress, and optimal functioning at work. This study uses three independent samples to examine the distinction among affective, normative, perceived sacrifice, and few alternatives commitments and their relationships with emotional exhaustion, depressive symptoms, interpersonal guilt, challenge and hindrance stressors, self-esteem, supervisor-rated job dedication, and job engagement. Findings indicate that affective commitment negatively relates to emotional exhaustion and depressive symptoms and positively relates to interpersonal guilt, job dedication, self-esteem, and job engagement. Normative commitment was negatively associated with self-esteem and job engagement while perceived sacrifice commitment was positively related to these variables. Finally, few alternatives commitment was positively related to emotional exhaustion, depressive symptoms, and job stressors, and negatively related to self-esteem. These findings illustrate both the bright and dark sides of organizational commitment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".