Predicting Faculty Member’s Work Engagement in Indonesia: Testing the Role

of Optimism, Perceived Organizational Support and Self-efficacy

Aditya Nanda Priyatama, Muhamad Zainudin

and Seger Handoyo

Faculty of Psychology, Airlangga University, Surabaya, Indonesia

Keywords: Work engagement, perceived organizational support, self-efficacy, and optimism

Abstract: One of the influential human resources on the quality development of higher education in Indonesia is the

faculty member. A faculty member’s role, is to achieve the objective of the national education—to educate

the nation and improve the quality of cultured and civilized Indonesians. A faculty member’s contribution

for the higher education in Indonesia becomes important if it is done effectively with the appropriate

behavior. Not only in the quantity, but also on the direction of the effort, the characteristics within the

faculty member, the effort or willingness to complete a task, and many other things supported by the higher

education institution becomes significantly meaningful for the success of a faculty member’s performance.

Therefore, each faculty member has to identify each of their responsibility, performance, and be able to

measure their own success indicators. One of the factors that may improve the performance of an

organization is through looking at how far the faculty members’ engagement is. A number of studies related

to engagement are the perceived organizational support and optimism. This study aimed at seeing some

psychological constructs related to the perception of organizational supports and optimism has an influence

on faculty member’s engagement by using self-efficacy mediator variable on a state university’s faculty

members in Surakarta. The sample used in this research are 393 faculty members of Universitas Sebelas

Maret Surakarta. Data analysis used Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) with Lisrel 8.70 program. The

results of the analysis showed a fit model and there was a significant influence on the perceived

organizational support and optimism on faculty members’ engagement by the mediation of self-efficacy.

This indicated that self-efficacy was significant mediator to the perception of organizational support and

optimism with faculty members’ engagement. Thus, self-efficacy became essential in improving faculty

members’ engagement. This study affirmed self-efficacy as significant mediator in improving faculty

members’ engagement to organization

1 INTRODUCTION

One of the human resources that has an influence on

the quality development process of higher education

institutions in Indonesia is the faculty member. The

faculty member is one of the essential components

that has the role to achieve the objectives of the

national education—to educate the nation and able

to improve the quality of civilized Indonesians.

Following the Law No. 14 of 2005 on school

teachers and faculty members, it is explained that

faculty members are a professional lecturer and

scholar with the main task to transform, develop,

and disseminate knowledge, technology, and arts

through education, research, and community

development or what are usually called as the three

pillars of higher education.

To achieve organizational success, an

appropriate effort is needed, to maintain the human

resources within the organization. One of the

possible efforts is engagement. Engagement is an

individual’s obedience toward the organization, in

relation to the vison, mission, and the organization’s

objectives on the work process. Work engagement in

a faculty member is built through process; it takes a

long time and high commitment from the leaders

and the individuals. To achieve that, a leader’s

consistency in mentoring the employees and faculty

members is required. In creating work engagement,

an organization’s leader is expected to have certain

competences. Some of the competences are

communication technique, feedback giving

technique on anything that has been done, and

performance appraisal technique (McBain, 2007).

Priyatama, A., Zainudin, M. and Handoyo, S.

Predicting Faculty Member’s Work Engagement in Indonesia: Testing the Role of Optimism, Perceived Organizational Support and Self-efﬁcacy.

DOI: 10.5220/0008588903230329

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings (ICP-HESOS 2018) - Improving Mental Health and Harmony in

Global Community, pages 323-329

ISBN: 978-989-758-435-0

323

A number of researches have studied the

characteristics of work context—discussing work

engagement. However, some personal characteristics

may also influence engagement. For instance, when

an individual is optimistic about the future,

engagement is more likely to occur (Xanthopoulou,

Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007). Their study

discussed the roles of three personal resources (self-

efficacy, self-efficacy-based organization, and

optimism) in predicting employee engagement.

Their research results concluded that when

employees are effectively participating, they believe

they can fulfill given expectations in a series of

contexts. Moreover, participating employees believe

that they generally receive better results in their lives

(optimist) and meet their needs by participating in

the organizational roles. Furthermore, the three

personal resources also uniquely contribute to

explaining the variants within employee engagement

from time to time, beyond the impact of the work’s

source and the previous engagement level (Bakker,

Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008).

The studies above show various relationships

with employee engagement. Current research makes

effort to look at several theoretical constructs that

can be related to work engagement; one of them is

psychological capital. Psychological capital is a

positive state of a person’s psychological condition,

which consists of the characteristics of self-efficacy

in all tasks given, optimism, hope, and resilience

(Luthans et al., 2007).

Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) explained that work

engagement is basically influenced by two factors,

job demand-resources (JD-R) model and

psychological capital. JD-R Model includes several

aspects, such as physical condition, social, and

organization, salary, career opportunity, supervisor

and colleague support, and performance feedback.

Meanwhile, psychological capital consists of self-

efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience. This

research does not only seek for looking at the

influence of optimism and perceived organizational

support on work engagement, but also to look at

how far the factors related to self-efficacy can

mediate for the relationships between the two. Self-

efficacy is suspected to become mediator for a

maximum achievement for psychological capital in

acquiring employee engagement. Efficacy is widely

known to come from 4 proposed main sources

relevant to employee engagement. An individual

having high efficacy is identified from their

persistence in surviving, motivated by the belief on

their future success. Low efficacy arises to predict

burnout, the opposite of engagement. Therefore, it is

believed that the higher self-efficacy, the higher

employee engagement in an individual.

Eisenberger et al.’s (1986) study suggested that

perceived organizational support (POS) improved

the employee’s emotional bond with the

organization. In their research, Eisenberger et al.

(1986) defined POS as a form of employees’

certainty on the organization, that organization

appreciates the employees’ efforts and contributions,

and cares about their prosperity. The employees with

fulfilled socioemotional needs would be more

committed to the organization than those who did

not.

2 METHOD

2.1 Participants

Subjects of this research are 393 faculty members

from 10 faculties in Universitas Sebelas Maret

Surakarta, with the criteria of having minimum 2-

year experience working as faculty members at

Universitas Sebelas Maret. Samples in this research

are state university’s faculty member in Surakarta

with following characteristics: (1) faculty member

with the academic rank of minimum Asisten Ahli, (2)

work experience of minimum 2 years, (3) Age 30-65

years old.

2.2 Procedures

Tryout in this research by disseminating 400

booklets of research scales to 400 faculty members

working at Universitas Sebelas Maret Surakarta.

After approximately 3 months of the scale

dissemination, the researchers collected 375

exemplars of the scale, 20 of them were broken

scales due to incomplete filling, so the scales

available to be processed for discriminatory power

and reliability testing were 355 scales. After

reliability and validity tests, researchers acquired the

scale to be given to the 400 faculty members as

research subjects. Among 400 scales disseminated to

the faculty member, 7 were incompletely filled,

leaving 393 scales available to be analyzed. In other

words, the samples used in current research as

subjects were 393 faculty members.

2.3 Measures

Current research used 4 research scales, which are

perceived organizational support scale, work

engagement scale, self-efficacy scale, and optimism

ICP-HESOS 2018 - International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings

324

scale. Perceived organizational support scale is a

psychology scale based on aspects referring to the

survey of perceived organizational support from

Eisenberger et al. (1986) with 29 items. Those

aspects are caring for prosperity, response to

difficulties, caring for work performance, and

response to ideas and opinions. One of the POS

scale items is “the University assists me to optimally

improve my achievement according to my ability”.

Work engagement scale used was adaptation of

UWES (Utrech Work Engagement Scale) with 17

items based on the aspects formulated by Schaufeli

et al. (2002), consisting vigor, dedication, and

absorption. One of the items for work engagement

scale is “I feel so ardent during my work”.

Self-efficacy scale was composed by using the

aspects formulated by Bandura (1977), such as:

magnitude, generality, and strength, which consisted

of 9 favorable items and 9 unfavorable items. One of

the items in self-efficacy scale is “I am certain of my

ability in completing my work, despite being under

work pressure. Optimism scale used in this research,

was arranged based on the optimism specifications

formulated by Seligman (1990) with 17 items using

the permanent, pervasiveness, and personalization

aspects. One of the items in optimism scale is “I

believe that the problem I faced can be well-solved

in time”.

All four scales mentioned were Likert-model

scales, each having the characteristics of four

alternative responses separated into favorable and

unfavorable statements moving from very

inappropriate to very appropriate. On the POS scale

index, the discriminatory power of the items ranged

from 0.468 to 0.799 with the Cronbach alpha of

0.965. In work engagement scale index, the items’

discriminatory power ranged from 0.250 to 0.491

with the Cronbach alpha of 0.768. In self-efficacy

scale index, the items’ discriminatory power ranged

from 0.404 to 0.655 with the Cronbach alpha of

0.899. In optimism scale, the index of the

discriminatory power ranged from 0.348 to 0.625

with the Cronbach alpha of 0.874. By using the

confirmatory factor analysis, the scales’ items were

found to be valid and reliable as shown in the table

below

Table 1: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Work

Engagement Scale.

Indicat

λ t

1-ε t

1-ε

Note

E1 0.98 0.46 0,04 0.01 Valid,

reliable

E2 0.62 0.28 0.61 0.12 Valid,

reliable

E3 0.66 0.35 0.56 0.15 Valid,

reliable

Table 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Perceived

Organizational Support Scale.

Indicat

λ t

1-ε t

1-ε

Note

POS1 0.79 18.61 0.37 12.49 Valid

reliab

POS2 0.87 21.53 0.24 11.10 Valid

reliab

POS3 0.93 24.20 0.13 7.62 Valid

reliab

POS4 0.91 22.92 0.18 9.67 Valid

reliab

Table 3: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Self-Efficacy

Scale.

Indicat

λ t

1-ε t

1-ε

Note

EFI1 0.83 19.07 0.32 9.70 Valid,

reliable

EFI2 0.87 20.29 0.25 8.02 Valid,

reliable

EFI3 0.85 19.78 0.28 8.76 Valid,

reliable

Table 4: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Optimism Scale.

Indicator λ t

1-ε t

1-ε

Note

OPT1 0.7

17.

0.3

9.47 Valid,

reliable

OPT2 0.8

19.

0.2

5.45 Valid,

reliable

OPT3 0.7

19.

0.4

10.77 Valid,

reliable

Predicting Faculty Member’s Work Engagement in Indonesia: Testing the Role of Optimism, Perceived Organizational Support and

Self-efﬁcacy

325

From all four Confirmatory Factor Analysis, data

were found that to score manifest variable

(observed) that forms latent variable, it can be done

by testing structural coefficient that results from t-

test. Other than through the t-test, a standardized

solution was also used. The overall result of the t-

test and standardized solution shows that the items

were valid and reliable.

3 RESULT

Based on the performed model test, it shows that the

occurred model was declared fit. Some

characteristics for goodness of fit show that fit can

be seen on the fit test model table below:

Tabel 5: Goodness of fit model.

Statistics Value Fit

Criteria

Note

Chi Square 0.000 p>0.05 Not

RMSEA 0.008 ≤0.1 Fit

GFI 0.92 >0.9 Fit

SRMR 0.045 <0.05 Fi

AGFI

0.88 >0.9 Not

PGFI

0.62 >0.9 Not

0.98 >0.9 Fi

NFI

0.98 >0.9 Fi

PNFI

0.76 >0.9 Not

CFI

0.98 >0.9 Fi

IFI

0.98 >0.9 Fi

RFI

0.97 >0.9 Fi

From the result of fit model above, it can be seen

that some criteria of fit model have been achieved,

which are on the criteria of RMSEA, GFI, SRMR,

NFI, NNFI, CFI, IFI, and RFI are indicated as fit. T-

test model can be seen from the figure below:

Figure 1: T-test Model.

Meanwhile, the standardized solution can be

seen from the figure below:

Figure 2: Standardized Solution Model.

4 DISCUSSION

The research we conducted looked at a number of

theoretical constructs than can be related to work

engagement, one of them is psychological capital.

Psychological capital is a positive psychological

condition of a person that consists the

characteristics of self-efficacy in all tasks,

optimism, hope, and resilience (Luthans et al.,

2007).

The research result supports Schaufeli & Bakker

(2003) who mentioned that work engagement is

basically influenced by two factors, job demand-

resources model (JD-R) and psychological capital.

JD-R Model consists of a number of aspects, such as

physical condition, social, organization, salary,

career opportunity, supervisor and colleagues’

supports, and also performance feedback.

Meanwhile, for psychological capital, it consists of

self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience.

Sweetman and Luthans (cited in Bakker and

Leiter, 2010) discuss that there is a positive

influence between efficacy, optimism, hope, and

resilience with work engagement. Efficacy is widely

known to come from 4 main sources that can be

proposed according to employee engagement. An

individual who has high efficacy is usually marked

with their persistence to survive, driven by their

belief in their future’s success. Low efficacy appears

to predict burnout, the opposite of engagement.

Therefore, the higher the self-efficacy within an

individual’s self, then it is believed that employee

engagement on an organization is also higher.

According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacy is a

belief that someone can fulfill the required behaviors

to produce a successful result. Furthermore, Saks

and Gruman’s (2011) study mention that self-

ICP-HESOS 2018 - International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings

326

efficacy is an important factor to bind an individual.

They found that there is a positive relationship

between job fit perceptions, positive emotions and

self-efficacy with employee engagement on new

employees. A newly joining individuals with high

self-efficacy in an organization tend to feel more

secure and psychologically willing to bind

themselves with their new roles (Saks and Gruman,

2011).

On the optimism side, our research is also in line

with Seligman’s (Seligman & Schulman, 1986)

opinion that figures optimism as an attribute

measured based on explanatory style. An optimistic

individual who believe they can achieve their

success will have a more general (I can be successful

from one scope to another), consistent (I can always

succeed), and internal (I created this success)

attitudes. When they face failure, the individual will

have a specific, inconsistent, and external attitude.

Another explanation on optimism was discussed by

Carver and Scheier (2003) that an optimistic

individual expects for good thing to happen to

themselves, they have significant attitude and

cognitive. It is important to notice that psychological

capital sets for a realistic value of optimism, since an

unrealistic optimism may lead to a negative result

(Seligman, 1998). An optimistic individual is

responsible on what has been done and hopes for a

positive result. A good psychological availability

will improve engagement (Kahn, 1990). Overall, the

optimism component of psychological capital is

directly related to service and absorption component

of work engagement.

In its relationship with education institution, the

result of this research shows that optimism is needed

to improve and develop education institutions.

Current human resources in education institution is

also expected to have optimism attitude.

The studies of Christian and Slaughter (2007);

Halbesleben (2010) (cited in Albrecht et al. (2010)

mention some predictors of engagement, such as

social supports, self-efficacy, optimism, and

organization climate. Self-efficacy and optimism

have the roles to improve employee engagement

with the support of conducive organization climate.

A conducive climate is acquired if the employees

perceived their organization to provide supports on

the work performed by the employees. The studies

above show strong influence between self-efficacy

and optimism that support our research.

Wiley et al. (2010, cited in Albrecht, 2010) also

found some facts that work engagement can be well-

formed when the individuals within the organization

are highly motivated and have the opportunity to

develop. An organization has the participation in

providing opportunity for an individual to improve,

and without it there is no way an individual has an

engagement their organization. The study’s result

also has a relationship with our research results. One

of the efforts made by the organization to maximize

the potentials within the organization is by providing

the opportunity for the individuals to develop well,

so the individuals will maximize their all potential

abilities to develop their organization.

Sweetman and Luthans (2010, cited in Baker and

Leiter, 2010) mention that their preliminary research

indicated that between self-efficacy, optimism, hope,

and resilience in their relationships with work

engagement, there was a mediator variable, which is

positive emotion. Specifically, a high positive

emotion will improve the influence of self-efficacy,

hope, optimism, and resilience on work employee

engagement. Sweetman and Luthans (2010) mention

that this positive emotion is related to employees’

behavior within the organization. Halbesleben

(2010), Baker and Leiter (2010) contend that their

hypotheses related to social support, autonomy,

feedback, positive climate of an organization, and

self-efficacy have been proven. From their research

results, there is a relationship between autonomy and

self-efficacy that has a high relationship with work

engagement. Xanthopoulou et al. (2009a, cited in

Baker and Leiter, 2010) argue that personal

resources, which consists of self-efficacy, optimism,

and work resources such as work autonomy,

supervisory coaching, performance feedback, and

employee development opportunity has a high

relationship with work engagement. Both personal

resources and work resources complete each other in

providing positive contributions for the development

of work engagement. In another research,

Xanthopoulou et al. (2009b) investigate that self-

efficacy and optimism are two of a number of

criteria to make meaning out of work engagement.

REFERENCES

Albrecht, Simon L. 2010. Handbook of Employee

Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and

Practice, pp: 3-19. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing

Limited.

Bakker, Arnold B. 2010. Engagement and Job Crafting:

Engaged Employees Creat Their Own Great Place to

Work. Edited by Albrecht, Handbook of Employee

Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and

Practice, pp: 229-244. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing

Limited.

Predicting Faculty Member’s Work Engagement in Indonesia: Testing the Role of Optimism, Perceived Organizational Support and

Self-efﬁcacy

327

Bakker, Arnold B., Albrecht, Simon L and Leiter, Michael

P. 2011. Key Questions Regarding Work Engagement.

European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, Volume 20, No. 1, pp: 4-28.

Bakker, Arnold B and Demerouti, Evangelia. 2008.

Towards a Model of Work Engagement. Career

Development International, Volume 13, No. 3, pp:

209-223.

_______. 2011. The Job Demands-Resources Model:

Challenges for Future Research. Journal of Industrial

Psychology, Volume 37, No. 2, pp: 974-982.

Bakker, Arnold B., Demerouti, Evangelia and Schaufeli,

Wilmar B. 2003. Dual Processes at Work in A Call

Centre: An Application of the Job Demands-

Resources Model. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, Volume 12, No. 4, pp:

393–417.

Bakker, Arnold B., Demerouti, Evangelia., Taris, Toon

W., Schaufeli, Wilmar B and Schreurs, Paul J.G. 2003.

A Multigroup Analysis of the Job Demands-Resources

Model in Four Home Care Organizations.

International Journal of Stress Management, Volume

10, No. 1, pp: 16-38.

Baker, AB., Schaufeli, W.B. 2008. Positive Organizational

Behavior: Engaged Employee in flourishing

Organizations. Journal Of Organizational Behavior:

29, 147-154

Bakker, Arnold B., Gierveld, J.H and Rijswijk, K Van.

2006. Succesfactoren Bij Vrouwelijke Schoolleiders in

Het Primair Onderwijs: Een Onderzoek Naar

Burnout, Bevlogenheid en Prestaties (Success Factors

among Female School Principlas in Primary Teaching:

A Study on Burnout, Work Engagement and

Performance), pp: 3-28.Diemen: Right Management

Consultants.

Bakker, Arnold B and Leiter, Michael P. 2010. Work

Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and

Research, pp: 181-196. New York: Psychology Press.

Bakker, AB., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., & Taris,

T.W. 2008. Work engagement: An emerging concept

in occupational health psychology. Work and Stress:

An International Journal of Work, Health and

Organizations. Volume 22. Issue 3, 187-200

Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social Learning Theory, pp: 79-85.

New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

_______. 1982. Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human

Agency. American Psychologist, Volume 37, No. 2,

pp: 122-147.

_______. 1994. Self-efficacy, pp: 2-15. New York:

Academic Press.

_______. 1997. Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, pp: 1-

45. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Carver, Charles S and Scheier, Michael F. 2002.

Optimism. Edited by Snyder and Lopez, Handbook Of

Positive Psychology, pp: 231-243. New York: Oxford

University Press.

_______. 2003. Optimism. Edited by Lopez and Snyder,

Positive Psychological Assesment: A handbook models

and measures, pp: 75-89. US: American Psychological

Association.

_______. 2009. Optimism. Edited by Lopez, The

Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology, pp: 656-663.

United Kingdom: Willey Blackwell.

Eisenberger, Robert., Armeli, Stephen., Barbara,

Rexwinkel., Patrick D. Lynch., Linda, Rhoades.

2001. Reciprocation of Perceived Organizational

Support. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 86. No.

1. 42-51.

, Robin Huntington, Steven

Hutchison, Debora Sowa. 1986. Perceived

Organizational Support. Journal of Applied

Psychology. Vol. 71. No. 3. 500-507.

Kahn, William. A. 1990. Psychological Conditions of

Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work.

Academy of Management Journal, Volume 33, No.4,

pp: 692-724.

Kahn, William. A. 2010. The Essence of Engagement:

Lessons from The Field. Edited by Albrecht,

Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives,

Issues, Research and Practice, pp: 20-30. UK: Edward

Elgar Publishing Limited.

Luthans, Fred. 2002. Positive Organizational Behavior:

Zdeveloping and managing psychological strenght.

Academy Of Management Executive, 16, 57-72

Luthans, F.,& Peterson, S. J. 2002. Employee Engagement

and Manager Self-efficacy. Implication for Managerial

Effectiveness and Development.The Journal of

Management Development, 21, 376-387.

Luthans, F.& Jensen, Susan M. 2002. Hope: A New

Resource Development Review, 1, 304-322.

Luthans, Fred. 2011. An Evidence-Based Approach:

Organizational Behavior, pp: 204-205. New York:

McGraw-Hill Companies

Luthans, Fred., Avey, James B., Avolio, Bruce J.,

Norman, Steven M and Combs, Gwendolyn M. 2006.

Psychological Capital Development: Toward a Micro-

Intervention. Journal of Organizational Behaviour,

27,pp: 387-393.

Luthans, Fred., Luthans, Kyle W. and Luthans, Brett C.

2004. Positive Psychological Capital:Beyond Human

and Social Capital. Business Horizons, Volume 47,

No. 1, pp: 45-50.

Luthans, Fred., Youssef, Carolyn M., and Avolio, Bruce J.

2007. Psychological Capital: Developing the Human

Competitive Edge, pp: 3-54. UK: Oxford University

Press.

Luthans, Fred and Youssef, Carolyn M. 2004. Human,

Social, and Now Positive Psychological Capital

Management: Investing in People for Competitive

Advantage. Organizational Dynamics, Volume. 33,

No. 2, pp: 143-160.

McBain, R. 2007. The Practice Of Engagement: Research

Into Current Employee Engagement Practice.

Strategic HR Review, Vol. 6 Iss: 6, Pp.16 - 19

Rhoades, Linda., Eisenberger. Robert., Stephen Armeli.

2001. Affective Commitment to the Organization: The

ICP-HESOS 2018 - International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings

328

Contribution of Perceived Organizational Support.

Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 86. No. 5. 825-

836.

, Eisenberger, Robert. 2002. Perceived

Organizational Support: A Re

of the Literature.

Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 87. No. 4.

698-714.

Saks, A.M. 2006 Antecedents And Consequences Of

Employee Engagement. Journal Of Managerial

Psychology. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Vol.

21 No. 7.Pp. 600-619

Saks, Jamie A and Gruman, Alan M. 2010. Performance

Management and Employee Engagement. Human

Resource Management Review, 21, 123-136.

_______. 2011. Getting Newcomers Engaged: The Role of

Socialization Tactics. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, Volume 26, No. 5, pp: 383-402.

Schaufelli, Wilmar B., Salanova, Marisa., Roma, Vicente

Gonzalez and Bakker, Arnold B. 2002. The

Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two

Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach.

Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, pp: 71-92.

Schaufeli, Wilmar B., Bakker, Arnold B and Salanova,

Marisa. 2006. The Measurement of Work Engagement

with a Short Questionary. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, Volume 66, No. 4, pp:

701-716.

Schaufeli, WB and Baker, A.B. 2004. Job Demands, Job

resources, and their relationship with burnout and

engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315

Schaufeli, W.B & Bakker, A.B. 2003. UWES.Ultrecht

Work engagement Scale.Preliminary Manual.

Occupational Health Psychology Unit. Ultrecht

University

Scheier, Michael F., Carver, Charles S and Bridges,

Michael W. 1994. Distinguishing Optimism from

Neuroticism (and Trait Anxiety, Self-Mastery, and

Sel-Esteem): A Reevaluation of the Life Orientation

Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

Volume 67, No. 6, pp: 1063-1078.

Seligman, Martin E. P. 1990. Learned Optimism: How to

Change Your Mind And Your Life, pp: 44-51. New

York: A Division of Random House.

_______. 2004. Authentic Happiness: Using the New

Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for

Lasting Fulfillment, pp: 30. New York: Free Press.

_______. 1998. Learned Optimism. New York: Pocket

Books

Sweetman, David and Luthans, Fred. 2010. The Power of

Positive Psychology: Psychological Capital and Work

Engagement. Edited by Bakker and Leiter, Work

Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and

Research, pp: 54-68. New York: Psychology Press.

Xanthopoulou, Despoina., Bakker,Arnold B., Demerouti,

Evangelia and Schaufeli, Wilmar B. 2007. The Role of

Personal Resources in the Job Demands-Resources

Model. International Journal of Stress Management,

Volume 14, No. 2, pp: 121-141.

_______. 2009. Work Engagement and Financial Returns:

A Diary Study on the Role of Job and Personal

Resources. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 82, pp: 183-200.

Predicting Faculty Member’s Work Engagement in Indonesia: Testing the Role of Optimism, Perceived Organizational Support and

Self-efﬁcacy

329