↓ Skip to main content

Antecedents of organizational engagement: exploring vision, mood and perceived organizational support with emotional intelligence as a moderator

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
237 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Antecedents of organizational engagement: exploring vision, mood and perceived organizational support with emotional intelligence as a moderator
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01322
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward G. Mahon, Scott N. Taylor, Richard E. Boyatzis

Abstract

As organizational leaders worry about the appalling low percentage of people who feel engaged in their work, academics are trying to understand what causes an increase in engagement. We collected survey data from 231 team members from two organizations. We examined the impact of team members' emotional intelligence (EI) and their perception of shared personal vision, shared positive mood, and perceived organizational support (POS) on the members' degree of organizational engagement. We found shared vision, shared mood, and POS have a direct, positive association with engagement. In addition, shared vision and POS interact with EI to positively influence engagement. Besides highlighting the importance of shared personal vision, positive mood, and POS, our study contributes to the emergent understanding of EI by revealing EI's amplifying effect on shared vision and POS in relation to engagement. We conclude by discussing the research and practical implications of this study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 237 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 231 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 16%
Student > Master 35 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 12%
Student > Bachelor 22 9%
Researcher 15 6%
Other 36 15%
Unknown 63 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 73 31%
Psychology 39 16%
Social Sciences 25 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 4%
Engineering 6 3%
Other 22 9%
Unknown 62 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2022.
All research outputs
#3,683,309
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,332
of 29,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,382
of 362,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#108
of 349 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 362,492 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 349 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.