Ulla Kinnunen1, Taru Feldt2, Jessica de Bloom3, Kalevi Korpela3. 1. School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Psychology, University of Tampere, 33014, Tampere, Finland. Ulla.Kinnunen@uta.fi. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. 3. School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Psychology, University of Tampere, 33014, Tampere, Finland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present study aimed at identifying subgroups of employees with similar daily energy management strategies at work and finding out whether well-being indicators and job characteristics differ between these subgroups. METHODS: The study was conducted by electronic questionnaire among 1122 Finnish employees. First, subgroups of employees with unique and distinctive patterns of energy management strategies were identified using latent profile analysis. Second, differences in well-being indicators and job characteristics between the subgroups were investigated by means of ANCOVA. RESULTS: Four subgroups (i.e., patterns) were identified and named: Passives (n = 371), Averages (n = 390), Casuals (n = 272) and Actives (n = 89). Passives used all three (i.e., work-related, private micro-break and physical micro-break) strategies less frequently than other subgroups, whereas Actives used work-related and physical energy management strategies more frequently than other subgroups. Averages used all strategies on an average level. Casuals' use of all strategies came close to that of Actives, notably in a shared low use of private micro-break strategies. Active and Casual patterns maintained vigor and vitality. Autonomy and social support at work played a significant role in providing opportunities for the use of beneficial energy management strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Autonomy and support at work seem to support active and casual use of daily energy management, which is important in staying energized throughout the working day.
PURPOSE: The present study aimed at identifying subgroups of employees with similar daily energy management strategies at work and finding out whether well-being indicators and job characteristics differ between these subgroups. METHODS: The study was conducted by electronic questionnaire among 1122 Finnish employees. First, subgroups of employees with unique and distinctive patterns of energy management strategies were identified using latent profile analysis. Second, differences in well-being indicators and job characteristics between the subgroups were investigated by means of ANCOVA. RESULTS: Four subgroups (i.e., patterns) were identified and named: Passives (n = 371), Averages (n = 390), Casuals (n = 272) and Actives (n = 89). Passives used all three (i.e., work-related, private micro-break and physical micro-break) strategies less frequently than other subgroups, whereas Actives used work-related and physical energy management strategies more frequently than other subgroups. Averages used all strategies on an average level. Casuals' use of all strategies came close to that of Actives, notably in a shared low use of private micro-break strategies. Active and Casual patterns maintained vigor and vitality. Autonomy and social support at work played a significant role in providing opportunities for the use of beneficial energy management strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Autonomy and support at work seem to support active and casual use of daily energy management, which is important in staying energized throughout the working day.
Keywords:
Energy management; Exhaustion; Job demands; Job resources; Vigor; Vitality
Authors: Jan Hyld Pejtersen; Tage Søndergård Kristensen; Vilhelm Borg; Jakob Bue Bjorner Journal: Scand J Public Health Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.021