洞见：职业健康心理学家Wilmar Schaufeli——17万引用次数的背后
Wilmar Schaufeli
2020年3月3日，我们非常荣幸地邀请到Wilmar Schaufeli在荷兰乌特勒支大学(Utrecht University)进行了专访，话题围绕他的职业生涯，研究主题选择，理论构建，概念创建(如engagement, engaging leadership)，问卷开发，科研发表，以及对于年轻研究者的建议展开。相信这次专访，会给我们很多的年轻研究者有所启发。
以下为正式采访内容 (可点击播放部分采访音频)：
I am very pleased today to be with Wilmar. Wilmar is a legend in the field of Occupational health psychology. He has made many contributions to the field in terms of research on burnout, engagement, and workaholism among many others. And published more than 500 national and international scientific papers. And has been named highly cited researcher in the field, with more than 170,000 citations in Google scholar. So, it is a great honor to have Wilmar today to talk about his career, research, and many other topics.
今天有机会能与Wilmar对话真的非常荣幸。Wilmar 无疑是职业健康心理学领域泰斗式人物，他为这个领域做出了无数贡献（工作倦怠/敬业度/工作狂等方面的研究）。他发表了超过500篇学术文章，被授予高引用学者，谷歌引用次数超17万。因此，我们非常荣幸能够与Wilmar探讨他的职业生涯，研究主题，及其它主题。
Let me first say that it is an honor to be invited to share everything, my experience with you. Because I think it's very important that young people get some kind of the records information. Because you are writing papers and stuff, and that is always a finished product. But there is all story behind it. And now we have the opportunity of sharing this.
我很开心能与大家分享自己的研究经验，年轻人获得一些记录性信息非常重要，因为无论你在写论文还是其它什么，那始终是成品。而背后的故事我们始终无法获得, 现在我们有机会分享这一点。
Wilmar
Career Path 职业生涯
Here is the first question. To our knowledge, you had been initially trained in Clinical Psychology, and also affiliated as a Clinical Psychologist in the career. How did you decide to choose Occupational Health Psychology as your primary field?
第一个问题。据我们了解，您最初学习领域是临床心理学，且获得了专业的职称临床心理学家。那么，请问您是如何选择职业健康心理学作为您地研究领域？
When we talk about my research career, I think it's very important to notice that when I was in your age, it was probably 30, 40 years ago. The world was quite different. The academic world was also different. So many things that I did in my career, decisions that I made in my career have also to do with the specific context of that time. For instance, when I became a professor... or let's go one step back when I got a tenure position at the university. I had not a PhD. I had not published one single English paper. So that was in 1978. So there was a completely different world. If you now apply for a tenured position at the university, you have to have a Ph.D degree, you have to have international publications, English publications. So the level is very much higher, but also the whole, let's say society, the whole environment is different. Because now people are very consciously aware of their career making informed decisions. When I was your age, career was something like a pain. When you went in business, maybe you have a career, but nobody was really worried about careers or talking about careers or whatever. It was not a kind of topic. You just did whatever you liked. So many things that I probably will say do not apply to the current context. On the other hand, I was also able to observe the differences. And I'm still publishing and active now. So I witnessed all that kind of change, and that's probably also interesting for you.
当谈论我的研究生涯时，我要提醒大家，我读博士的时候，大概是三、四十年前，那时候情形和现在是完全不同的。学术界也不一样。我在职业生涯中所做的很多事情及决定都与当时的特定背景相关。比如1978年我在大学任职时我并没有博士学位，也没有发表过一篇英文论文。如果你现在申请大学的终身职位，你必须要拥有博士学位，还要有英文出版物。所以现在整体要求都提高了，社会环境也已经发生了变化。现在人们会非常有意识地关注自己的职业生涯，以做出明智的决定。当我还是你们的年龄时，很少有人谈论职业生涯。大家只是做了自己喜欢的事情。因此，我说的很多事情或许不适用于当前环境。但另一方面，我也能够观察到差异。而且我现在仍活跃在学术界。因此，我目睹了所有这些变化，这或者对你们也有些意义。
But coming back to the question, I was trained as a clinical psychologist, got my master at that time. We had a lot of philosophy, a lot of sociology, biology etc. And the only thing that remains now the program is biology. And everything that has to do with the body. But the more social aspects are not so much included in psychology. And I also did a lot of mathematics, statistics, and methodology. I was also an student assistant for methodology. So I got paid by the university for tutoring groups of students. So I was always interested in this scientific part. But I was a clinical psychology psychologist. I worked one year abroad in Germany as a clinical psychologist. Half of it was an internship. And the other half was just working there. And they paid me. So I stayed there one year. So in total, I studied actually seven years and one year abroad.
So that's already a difference. Now, because people usually have four years to Ph.D, maybe now the study is more intense. But still, I feel that we learn more because it was much more broad. But when I was a student, I was already interested in the relation between, let's say clinical psychological phenomena, like depression for instance, and work for unemployment. And so I got really interested in that. I don't know why I was interested in the connection between clinical psychology and work.
Wilmar讲述了自己教育经历，最初在临床心理学学习，那时候研究生教育也与现在不同，时间更久所学科目也更为广泛，花费了七年时间，6年国内一年在国外。在学习的时候发现自己对临床心理学与工作的相关比较感兴趣。
That was about 1978 I graduated, and got a part time job at the University of Groningen and as a clinical psychologist. I was interested in unemployment, depression, and anxiety and things like that. Then I try to get a scholarship. I failed the first year, the second year I got a scholarship. That scholarship was for writing a Ph.D. And it was about psychological health and employment among school leaders of colleges, actually not universities. What I did was quite unusual at that time. I sampled them when they were still at school. And after 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, and so 2 years after their graduation. So I had five moments, I had 636, I still know, 636 people that have followed. The whole sample of 636.
Including a baseline when they were still at school and then I could follow what happened. And I could also use some advanced statistics. At that time I also use LISREL for data analysis, which at that time was quite new. And they launched it in 1978 and I made a list and analyzed my data, maybe in 1982, 1983, 1984, something like that. At some point, I was in a statistical seminar, the statistics professor said maybe you want to present your data. because it's longitudinal and nobody has the data.
And I still didn't know anything about academic careers. Or so there was at almost 27 or 28, 29. I was presenting my longitudinal LISREL data. After getting the results, I wrote my Ph.D. thesis, it was actually a book. I wanted to write a book. I didn't want to write papers. So I wrote an English book. And then after that I started to write English paper.
I had one first English paper actually was in Journal Personality and Social Psychology (Schaufeli, 1988). And it was about attribution styles. So we have different attribution styles, stable versus unstable. And the idea was how do unemployed people attribute their unemployment? And what is the consequence? And I was the only author and I had two supervisors, but they actually did not supervise. So I did all my things on my own, more or less.
And I saw that all the publications were in journal of personality and social psychology. So it was Complete ignorance. I sent it to the journal and then later people told me that this is a tortuous you publish that journal. But I didn't know. I know I was working in a clinical psychological department and they were involved in clinical psychology. And they were not publishing in English journals. They were not interested in scientific. Now they are, but at that time they were not. So they were practical people. And I was interested in science. I just did that.
That was my idea. And then when I finished my Ph.D. , I got an award. And by the way, which is about you get this extra award about 5 to 10% of the people will get it, the best. So I got this award (punlish in a top-tier journal). Then I apply for a full time job at Radboud University, Nijmegen. And there was a group that was studying job stress. And that was not a clinical department, but it was a work and organizational department. So then I made a move to work and organizational psychology. I had also to teach introduction to work on organizational psychology. And I never followed a course in my whole student career on work and organizational psychology. So I had to teach the students 400 or 500 every year. Then I was in the field and then I was interested still in the connection between clinical psychology and work samples.
Wilmar 谈论了自己的博士研究，追踪了636个被试两年多，统计的学习以及用英文写作博士论文。“稀里糊涂”的就发表了一篇JPSP，然后别人告诉他，那是一本很棒的期刊。与现在不同，那时候临床心理学对学术发表还不是很感兴趣。博士毕业后, 进入工业组织心理学领域。
Choosing Research Topic/ Field
As one of the most eminent OHP scholars who extraordinarily has been active since the 1990s, we noticed that your research interests also changed across time (i.e., from unemployment, stress and burnout at work, absenteeism, fatigue, boredom, engagement, workaholism, to recently engaging leadership). What are your research logics across such an inspiring array of research topics? What drives you passionately for diving deep into these topics (especially burnout and work engagement research)?
作为1990年代以来最杰出的OHP学者之一，我们注意到您的研究兴趣也随时间而变化（例如，从失业，工作压力和倦怠，旷工，疲劳，无聊，敬业度，工作狂到最近敬业型领导）。 在如此多的研究主题中，您的研究逻辑是什么？ 是什么促使您热衷于深入研究这些主题（尤其是倦怠和工作投入研究）？
At the new department, I started to work internationally with other people and so forth. So that was actually the beginning, okay. This also relate to the research topics like unemployment. That was the idea that when I was a clinical psychologist, I at Radboud University Nijmegen, I also worked in a psychiatric clinic that was in the same building. and I did diagnostics there. And I had discussions with doctors and nurses and about patients and look what to do with him and what kind of diagnoses, what kind of therapy? I noticed that the nurses and the doctors were also sometimes stressed. And I found it actually very interesting. I thought I'm interested in job stress and not so very interested in patients. And then I had to decide what kind of topic I should choose for my research. And I was discussing this with several people and in the discussions that it was clear that I like to study stress in health care, and more particularly, a particular form of stress. At that time, that was called burnout at the beginning thereof was meant to be syndrome that only occurred among people who had some kind of where they work with people like in health care, like in education, like police officers.
So I thought job stress is too general. Burnout is specific. It's in health care. My background is in health care because I worked there. I did my internship there. I worked there as a clinical psychologist. I also observed stressed nurses and doctors. So that was the beginning. And that was the reason. I was interested in this burnout as a kind of specific job stress phenomenon. Yeah. And from that I found that I was more interested in phenomena than actually in theories. I mean you just walk out, you observe, you look, and you see people that stress; or people are stress, or people are workaholics, they work all the time while they are very engaged. And this was always from the starting point.
You go out, you see, you observe and there is some kind of condition. And from burnout to engagement was more or less logical, because I was visiting companies and the research there and having sometimes consultancy based on that research. And then people told me very often you're focusing on burnout and sickness, absence and all these negative things. But there are also people here who are really suggesting that they like there, they are engaged. And so what about them? And then for me, it was a very intriguing question. So you have a company and you said 15% is burned out. But what about the others? And maybe there are people who are completely not burnout. They have to set off it.
So then I agree began to think about that. And it was actually in Spain in 1999 When I was there, I teach a class. And then I thought maybe we should do some kind of research with the class. We make a kind of questionnaire. We ask about 25 students in the class. Or somebody can ask every student to have this questionnaire completed by five people. So we have won another 25. So this drive work engagement scale was actually developed in Spain. The idea and the questionnaire itself. And then I was thinking, but you can also have engagement is working very hard and very much and investing a lot in your work for a positive reason, because work is fun. You are intrinsically motivated, but there are also people who have the wrong motivation to work hard because they have a kind of addiction.
So then it was quite logical to say, okay, you're engaged people who have a positive motivation. But maybe there are also people who look like engaged, but they have negative motivation. And this is something else. This is workaholism. And then boredom actually was like more the observation that nowadays there are a lot of professions like security personnel, for instance, airports or everywhere that drive cars. And that works very boring. You also see that there is higher level of education of the working population is rising, but the level of jobs is not rising. So that means that there are a lot of also people who regulate from psychology who were in under there.
It's kind of skill under-utilization. So they work at a lower level and they're probably bored. So that was the reason that I thought what we see is a rising level of education in the general population. And many people end up in kind of jobs that are below their level of education. So they must feel bored. And that's why boredom is probably an interesting phenomenon. And that's how these things relate in time. So it's all kind of logic. And then the final issue, which is probably of interesting use of engaging leadership.
这部分Wilmar分享了自己研究主题之间的逻辑，始终贯穿的是“观察现象”。他最初在与那些咨询师护士等接触的时候就发现虽然他们职业是帮助别人,他们也有压力。因此，工作倦怠并非特定的职业群体。而后来在与企业的接触中，发现虽然有一部分人存在工作倦怠现象，但还有大部分人确实是非常热爱工作，经常沉浸于自己的工作，如果少部分人是倦怠，那么这些人呢？于是这促使他提出了工作投入(敬业度)这一概念。但还有一些人表面貌似投入，但是动机却是不同，一些错误动机这些就是工作狂。然后，发现随着近年来大众受教育水平提高，然而工作的要求并没有相应提高，他们的技能并不能充分发挥，因此工作就很无聊。所有的这些他所研究的主题之间也都贯穿着这一观察现象的逻辑。
But I was looking for a leadership concept that was closed to these occupational health phenomena I have studied and more importantly, it was also losing in theory. Just like if you look into the literature of transformational leadership, which is most often used? For me, it's always a mystery. How does it mean there are four different aspects, but why not five, one or three? And how did they emerge and how they are related? There’s much literature about that leadership, but not about the theoretical rationale.
So I was thinking, I need a leadership concept which is focused on patient health. Engagement serves as the most positive form, because this is what you want to do; And it's better to also from a kind of marketing perspective to say, I won't take leadership that is improving engagement instead of preventing burnout. So preventing something negative, people like to do something positive, that is engagement. And by increasing engagement, you automatically decrease burnout. Thus, the idea was to have a leadership concept focusing on engagement that is rooted in theory.
我基于自己研究的职业健康领域和当前领导理论的缺失，发现工作投入作为职业健康中最重要的概念可以应用到领导力中预防工作倦怠，由此提出了一种关注工作投入的领导力构念——投入型领导力(Engaging leadership)。
And then I found self-determination theories with different kinds of psychological needs are related to engagement, originally there were three basic needs of autonomy, connectedness, and competence. There's a logical thought that engaging leader should foster or satisfy these basic psychological needs as a kind of mechanism. My aim was not to have another leadership style that is a kind of competitor of transformational leadership, but was to come up with a leadership style that is relevant for increasing engagement in organizations. And that includes behaviors like connecting, strengthening, facilitating, and powering. That can also be trained or can be displayed. In practice, it is practically relevant for so that was more or less a story.
And then I thought actually in contact with organizations, there was much talking about the meaningfulness of work. And there is also a basic need for meaning. So the meaning you could argue that is implied in need for autonomy. When your need for economy satisfy, that means that your personal goals that you find meaningful and important are satisfied. You can choose your own personal goals. But on the other hand, if you look at the items, they actually are not about meaning per se, but there are about making the right choices, such as I'm having enough freedom or responsibility in a job. And behind this is that reason for meaning. So that's why I thought we include another basic need, because of the literature Baumeister and Franco and people that argue as well, the basic need of humans is to find meaning in life, also meaning in work. So then I ended up with the force. The basic need is a little bit outside self-determination theory. But I got it published actually. And there is a little bit of confusion because my first paper was three, another was recent one is four, but that's how science is working. It's always work in progress.
同时，我发现自我决定理论中的基本需求与倦怠紧密相关，这些基本心理需求背后的意义（meaningfulness）实际上才是个体的根本需求，即寻找生命的意义和工作的意义。因此，我开发这一构念的动机在于找到组织中可以增加工作投入的领导力风格，即包括那些连接、强化、促进与授权员工的领导行为。这些都与增加个体的工作意义有关，这也正如测量题目所示。
So you've already explained how this engaging leadership distinct from other leadership styles. Yeah. And I know that when you look at the correlations between all these leaderships, they might be pretty high. And we showed in one paper that you have, I'm not sure if this paper is published yet or is still accepted or not published, which had transformational leadership and engaging leadership, and engagement. And there are also correlated amongst each other, which actually means that engaging leadership and transformation leadership independently predict engagement. So they are correlated. Sure. But if you take this correlation consideration, there is still some unique variance explained that usually conception. Okay, that's what I think you find with lots of what others did not do. But if you take ethical leadership or empowering leadership, you will actually see the stage for large parties are overlapping and there is some specificity. But my whole goal is not to show that engaging leadership is the most specific. And I like the concept because of this kind of leadership behaviors, when I talk to manages organizations and I tell them that it's very good and important to connect, to inspire, to strengthen and to empower. Then they also give you the union. So they know they recognize this as that is relevant to them, that they can learn. They have examples from that. And for me, this engaging leadership is also a practical concept. And I tried to give a scientific basis with that too.
关于这一领导力风格与其他类型的区别，我们的研究中投入型领导力的确表明它与其他风格存在一定相关性。正如我们最近的研究中发现投入型领导力与变革型领导力存在相关，他们都可以独立预测工作投入。但是如果深入考虑这些相关，这里仍然有一些独特的变异性可以解释概念。但是我喜欢这个构念，在于其在组织实践中可以积极发挥领导的连接、启发、强化和授权行为，这在实际的管理实践中具有重要价值。
As you mentioned clearly for the motivation of engaging leadership, what would you expect for the future research on this topic?
既然您清楚地描述了研究投入型领导的动机，您对这一主题的未来研究有何看法?
I know what I did with engaging leadership, and I did it also not with burnout, because this was invented by somebody else. However, I didn't do a lot of work on it. But by engagement, you always work together with other people. So it would never do it alone. So I always worked a lot with other people. So I'm not claiming that I've done that all of my own. But in the work that I did, it is important to develop a concept than to have a measurement tool that validates a measurement tool, and then to have a strategy on how to disseminate.
And it's the same with the engaging leadership. So I really like the idea, give it to everybody who likes to work with it and they can do whatever they can explore it. And everybody has another angle. For me, the main task is to have a concept to have a measurement instrument to have some kind of theoretical idea how that works. And then it's enough for me. I get it to other people and they can continue working with it. So I do not plan to have a lot more studies, only engaging leadership on a particular research line that I would like to invest also because I'm retired. So I don't want to to to continue this, because then you actually need PhD students, you need grants, and you have to network. And in order to network, you have to go to all of people you have to travel and you have to invest a lot of time and effort in that. And I'm now retired and I have all the priorities I want to write and to read and not to be involved in all kinds of practical projects, because that's too much time consuming actually.
我清楚知道自己所做过的工作，研究其实是要与其他人一起合作。对于我自身的工作，我认为开发一个构念远比一个可以验证并策略性传播的测量工具所重要，其实我的主要任务就是开发出构念、测量工具以及如何让理论观点工作。我希望其他人可以坚持这一主题进行深入研究。
I'm really like your motivation to develop such a concept. In terms of current research on engagement, there is an emerging and growing research focuses on leader engagement phenomena. Come back with the practical significance of the engaging leadership, do you have any idea about how such an engaging leadership style can be extended to leader engagement phenomena, or whether there are any differences between these two concepts?
我非常喜欢您开发这一构念的动机。基于当前对工作投入的研究，越来愈多的新兴研究开始关注领导投入这一现象。您对投入型领导是否可以拓展到领导投入这一现象有何看法，或者两者有何区别？
You mean a differentiation between engaging leadership styles of the leader himself or herself, and the level of engagement of the leader. Definitely, the level of and these are indeed these are separate things so far I was talking about leadership style. This kind of leadership like when you lead a team that you are caring about the team spirit, you have informal relations with people, you try to solve conflicts between people, you bring people together, you give people assignments that they have to do together very consciously in order to by people. This is engaging leadership as a leadership style.
And another stream of research is actually about and I did not so much about it. It's about the engagement of the leader himself. And here is the concept of emotional contagion. The idea is that there is a kind of actually have different routes through which the level of engagement of a leader can spill over to the engagement of the team. First is the kind of role model. This is more like vicarious learning in social cognitive theory. So you see an engaged person doing all kinds of things. And you see that this person is intrinsically motivated. And then he is a role model. This is the vicarious learning thing. And the other is what has been called emotional contagion, is unconscious kind of mimicking. It's also the reason why people when there is a funeral, start to cry, even if you don't know the person who has been buried.
And also in work teams, the latter one makes sense. If you have a leader that is cheerful, that is positive, then it's better than when you have a leader that is always depressed and is always anxious and always have a bad mood. So it's quite logical. But we showed that this is the case, this is not a mechanism than this style. I have one project in big companies such as Phillips and Siemens, in the effect of a leadership training to increase engaging leadership among leaders and to see if it has an effect on team performance and team-level engagement. So yeah, there are some preliminary results that suggest that you can actually learn leaders to be more engaged and that it has a positive effect on your team, not on all team outcomes.
投入型领导表现为领导一个团队需要关注团队精神，团队内的非正式关系以及如何解决冲突和连接。然而，领导投入则强调领导层面的工作投入会溢出影响到团队的投入，这其中可能会涉及到领导的榜样角色和情绪传染的机制，这在团队中也同样具有意义。
Regarding the extension of the above phenomena, how about disengaging leadership?
关于上述现象的衍生，您如何看待disengaging leadership?
We developed a scale and it also some studies on disengaging leadership, which is kind of the opposite. And the reasoning is that this engaging leadership is actually frustrating your basic psychological needs. And there is a distinction, an interesting distinction between satisfying basic needs and not satisfying basic needs, which is different then frustrating basic needs. This is differently that actively frustrating needs. So actively denying people to develop themselves because they want to do a course and you resign, you don't want it or a person wants to learn something on the job. And you give him some stupid task where he doesn't learn anything in order to frustrate.
And this is a kind of bullying. When I was got interested in engaging leadership, I did not think about disengaging leadership. But once you have engaging leadership, then you think and you look into organizations and you think there are also some very bad leaders who actually do exactly the same, but in the opposite way. And I think, for example, distracted leadership and supervisor abortion or something like that. And then if you come up with a conception of disengagement, this disengaging leadership, and then you have to tell the difference between the strategy all kinds of discovering the leadership.
Disengaging leadership实际上是对个体基本心理需求的阻挠，领导可以主动阻碍下属心理需求的满足。正如我后来认识到，组织中的投入型领导存在其对立面，你可以对此进行开发并明确其与engaging leadership的重要区别。
We have national representative samples in Austria, Germany, Ireland, Finland, Japan, Netherlands, and Belgium, and more will follow. It was an attempt to build this consortium to share all this with all the other people. Of course, I know that when these people are using that, they will publish about this and then continue to use it, and other people as well. So you get this kind of bigger kind of like oil--it's spreading in the way. This is a kind of dissemination strategy to build this consortium, to have people involved, to bring people together, to have a nice atmosphere. When we bring them together, you pay for your own travel and accommodation. But the meals and all the old things are for free. So you bring them together and you will have a nice atmosphere and social program. And you say, let's pool our data and do a rush analysis. What we actually did to see is if this burnout assessment tool is homogeneous. So we included this. We had a specialist in Sweden, Portugal and South Africa. They are writing a paper on the cross-national factorial validity, and they are state-of-the-art specialists that use the pooled data of all the other countries. So that's very important. In similar kind of things we did with the US. I gave it for free for the researchers. And I said, you can get it for free, and you should give me the data in exchange. So I have an international database with 76000 people of that used the questionnaire. So you try to establish a relationship with them and to write to stimulate the use of the instrument and publish about it.
我们在澳大利亚、德国、爱尔兰、日本、荷兰和比利时都有代表性样本。那是一项建立学术共同体的尝试，目标是与所有人分享我们的成果。当然，我知道其他人会利用这些数据样本发表相关文章，并继续使用这个量表，然后会有更多人加入。所以我们的影响力就像滚雪球一样越滚越大，会有更多人加入我们的学术共同体，形成一种良好的学术氛围，这也是一种扩大影响力的策略。当我们把人汇集到一起的时候，我们会说，你需要自己支付交通和住宿费用，但我们会提供免费的餐饮等等。然后大家把数据汇集到一起，并开展研究。我们这样做的目的是看看burnout的评估工具是否具有同质性。我们有来自瑞典、葡萄牙和南非的专家，他们在开展一项跨国的研究，以验证量表的因子效度。他们都是使用来自各国样本的数据集的顶尖学者。我在美国也做了类似的事情。我把数据向其他学者公开，然后我说，我给了你免费数据，你也需要给我数据作为交换。所以我们有了一个国际数据库，里面有使用该问卷的76000名受访者。通过这种方式，你可以尝试着与其他学者建立联系，并促进测量工具的使用，进而拥有相应的学术发表。
It seems like at the beginning, you started from a phenomenon, and then created a new concept based on the theory, and then you developed new scales that could be validated and used by other people. The final thing is maybe we need to publish our studies. Next question is about the publications.
所以您首先是从现象出发，然后根据理论构建了一个新的概念，继而开发出了可供他人验证和使用的量表。最终我们需要发表自己的研究。下一个问题是关于学术发表。
Yes, there is a thing that is also important. We started with the engagement question. We had many items, and then 17, and then 9. Those publications in 2000, 2002, and 2006. Based on five or six samples from Finland, Spain, the Netherlands, and other countries, we had reduced it to 9 items. And now in 2018 and 2019, we reduced to 3. And the interesting thing is you cannot do it the other way around. You cannot start with 3 items. Engagement is complicated, so the measurement should be long first.
是的，发表很重要。但还有一点比较重要的是关于量表开发。就我们关于engagement的研究而言，我们一开始有很多题项，后来缩减到了17个，再后来9个，分别发表在2000年，2002年和2006年。根据来自芬兰、西班牙、荷兰和其他国家的留个样本，我们确定了9题项的量表，后来在2018和2019年，我们缩减到了3个题项。有趣的是，我们不能反着来。你不能一开始就只有3个题项，因为engagement是比较复杂的构念，所以测量工具一开始得长一点。
It's the same with the burnout assessment. We had 23 items, which would be published. And we now have a smaller one, which is 12 items. When you start with 12 items, nobody will believe in you. So you have to make a bigger questionnaire with subscales very complicated. And then after so many years, we have another one with only 4 items finally. But this is not so good as the 12 items because burnout a little bit more complicated. Then the 12 item is much more accurate than 4 items. But anyway, what you do usually is you have a longer questionnaire, and then you shorten it. Because in practice, people want to have a short span. Also researches like the shorter one, I'm sure. But it doesn't work when you have a new concept with only two items, or others will say it's two simple, right? And it takes a long time. In 2002, it was published first in a Spanish journal, by the way, and then in an English one, and then in 2019 because it took a long time to get it published. In 2016 or so, there was a 3-item version accepted, but it took two years to publish it. So it takes more than a decade in total to do that. That's a long time.
关于burnout的研究也是一样的，我们23题项的量表可以被发表，现在有个更精简的量表，只有12题项。但如果你一开始只有12个题项，没人会认可你。所以你一开始必须要有长一点的复杂的量表。然后过了很多年，我们最终确定了4题项的量表，但是这个短版量表没有那个12题项的有效，因为burnout是一个更加复杂的概念，所以12题项量表更加精确。但是不管怎么说，你一开始得有一个长的量表，后来慢慢缩减它。因为出于实用的角度考虑，我敢肯定不管是业界还是学术界的人们都喜欢短一点的测量工具。但也不能太短，如果你有一个概念，只有两个题项来测量，大家都会觉得太简单了。发表这些文章也花了很长时间，一开始是2002年发表在一个西班牙杂志上，然后是2019年发表在英文期刊上。大概是在2016年的时候，有一个3题项的版本被接收了，花了两年的时间。总的来说，发表这些文章耗费了大概十年的时间，真的很漫长。
So we can continue our question about publications like as have been mentioned. You have more than 500 public cases. The question is how do you choose a journal for the like book and papers?
继续关于发表的话题。您有500多篇的发表，那么您是如何选择投稿的期刊呢？
When I was a PhD or at the beginning of my career, I went to the library and there were physically all the journals. And then you had the psychological abstracts, which is a very thick book first published in 1888. In the book, there were short abstracts updated every month. They were short abstracts, and you could find indexes and stuff like that. Then you had to write to the author and to say, “Can you send me a photo copy?” So that means that only the very best journals were in the library. I had very bad luck because I was interested in my PhD in work and organizational psychology. There was a social psychology about attribution. There was a methodology at the same time. They were in different libraries， so I had to ride my bike in the rain, from the library of the Institute of Work and Organizational Psychology to Social Psychology, to Clinical Psychology, and to Methodology. All these physical things were there. It was important to be in a very good journal, because only then other people could show could see your results. And now it doesn't matter, actually. I mean, you have some kind of open-access journal, and they will find you anyway. You just type in Google work engagements and they will find you. So for finding, for being cited, what kind of journal you choose is not so important anymore. But for your career, it is important because some journals are at higher ranks and have a higher impact factor than other journals.
当我还是一个博士生的时候，也就是在我的学术生涯早期，我会去图书馆，那里有很多实体的期刊。然后你可以找到一本1888年出版的厚厚的大书，里面有心理学的研究摘要，每月会更新一次。你可以通过那本书找到文章的索引，然后得写信给作者，问他们能不能给你寄一份文章的影印版。这就意味着只有最好的期刊才能被图书馆收录。我运气不太好，因为我博士阶段的研究兴趣是工作与组织心理学、政治心理学，需要用到关于归因的一些社会心理学知识，也需要用到方法论的一些知识。但是这方面的文献都在不同的图书馆，所以我需要在雨中蹬着我的自行车，从工作与组织心理学、政治心理学的研究所的图书馆到医学心理所的图书馆，再到方法论研究所的图书馆。再然后你就会发现，发表在好期刊上非常重要，因为只有这样别人才能看到你的研究成果。现在是不同了，因为你可以通过开放渠道获得各种各样的期刊。比方说，你只需要在谷歌学术里面输入work engagement，就可以看到与之相关的研究。所以，仅仅是为了让人查找并引用自己的文章，现在发表在好期刊上倒不是太重要。但是为了你的学术生涯考虑，还是需要考虑好期刊。一些期刊排名更靠前，影响因子更高，所以你还是得向那些期刊投稿。
And sadly enough, the rejection rates are very high, at 80-90 percent, and it costs a lot of time. Also, the requirements are higher. I mean, you cannot publish a paper in a top journal with a cross-sectional study with only self-reports. You could do that 20 years ago, but not anymore. So you need longitudinal, you need objective measures, you need a very theoretical framework, etc. So the level is getting higher and higher. And the danger that I actually see there is what I talked before that these top journals use very high standards, but they go very much away from what is relevant for practice. That's a little bit of problem. They say, “What are your theoretical contributions?” Now it's interesting to look at psychological journals and medical ones. In my career, I was also publishing in medical occupational health journals. Medical journals require different theoretical rationale and results than psychological ones. They won't want to know numbers like how many people or what proportion of the population has a depression? They want to know what is the definition of depression, what is the percentage, the prevalence and the incident. And in the psychological journals, you have to introduce different kinds of operational definitions, summarize a whole literature about this, how to measure the concept in different ways, and the advantages and the disadvantages of the measurement. Also, you have to write an introduction like what we know, have your methods and results relatively shortly, and add a very long discussion. This is what happens in psychology. In a nasty way, you can say psychology is still a kind of empirical philosophy, because we like to have big theories. However, the theories are not very interesting to me actually. I'm more interested in the empirical data. But in order to understand the data, you have to have some kind of theoretical ideas. That's true.
不过遗憾的是，那些好期刊的拒稿率也是很高，经常达到百分之八九十，而且会花费你很长时间。好期刊的要求也更高，现在你不可能在顶级杂志上发表一项只有自陈报告的横截面研究。二十年前还行，现在是再也不可能了。你需要追踪研究，需要客观的测量，需要高度理论化的研究框架，等等。所以录用标准也是越来越高了。这里面是有些问题的，因为我发现顶级期刊虽然追求很高的学术标准，但是与实践是越来越脱节了。这是一个问题。审稿人们可能会问：“你的理论贡献是什么？”如果比较心理学和医学杂志，我们会发现很有趣。在我的学术生涯中，我也向职业健康的医学类杂志投稿过。医学杂志和心理学杂志对理论基础和研究结果有不同的要求。医学类杂志不会要求你报告样本里面有多少人或多大比例患有抑郁症，它们只会要求你说明抑郁的定义、患病百分比、流行程度和事件。
而在心理学杂志中，你需要介绍变量的各种的操作性定义，归纳一个完整的文献综述，介绍如何使用多种不同的方法测量这个变量，以及不同测量方法的优缺点……你还需要写段我们平时看到的那种的引言，然后相对简洁地介绍你的研究方法和结果，最后加上一长串的讨论。这就是心理学的规则。如果简单粗暴地说，你可以认为心理学还是一种实证哲学，因为我们喜欢一些宏大叙事。但是我对那些叙事并不感兴趣，我对实证数据更感兴趣。不过为了更好地理解数据，你必须得有一些理论意识。
When I submit a paper to a journal, the standard feedback is always like this: the building of the hypothesis should be improved, the introduction is too fussy, the theoretical rationale should be strengthened and so on. So I have to say, theoretical rationale is always a safe. I never got a paper back that said, “there are too many theories or you need to cut down your theories.” Sometimes they say, “it's too long, and you should be more to the point.” And then you do that. And then they say, “but now you should argue a little bit more about that.” So it's always like the theory should be more prominent. Sometimes I indeed think like this: it doesn't change what I found, and it doesn't change the relevance or the impact, so why having all these theoretical fuss? This is a little bit of problem in psychology also compared to other fields like medical science, for instance. But you are all graduating in or writing your thesis in psychology, and you all want to publish in Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, or Leadership Quarterly or whatever. You should do that. But your supervisors should help you, I believe. Because this is some kind of skill. You just have to know how to write it, and learn the skill you can learn. But I would say it is also part of political in the sense of increasing your theoretical story.
当我向杂志投稿的时候，标准的反馈经常是这样的：假设推演需要改进，引言有点混乱，理论基础有待加强等等。所以我说，写好理论基础总是比较安全的。我从来不会得到这样的修回意见：“理论太多了，你需要缩减你的理论。”有时候审稿人会说：“理论部分写得太长了，需要更提纲挈领一点。”然后你就照意见修改。继而他们可能会说：“但是现在你需要再多论述一点。”诸如此类。总的来说，理论的地位总是显而易见的。有时候我确实会这样想：理论并不能改变我所发现的事实，也不能改变变量间的相关性或强度，所以为什么要在理论这块瞎忙活？这确实是心理学有别于其他学科（比如医学）的地方。但是你们都还在读书，在写心理学的论文，你们都想在《职业健康心理学报》、《领导力季刊》等杂志上发表文章，你们就必须重视理论。但我觉得，导师需要发挥力量，因为理论撰写是一种技巧。你只需要学习如何撰写，努力获得你可以获得的写作技能。这也是一种提升你讲故事能力的方式。
I still remember in 2018, Leuven WAOP conference, as a keynote speaker you have provided 10 suggestions for PhD students, and the first one is to talk to and observe real people. Why?
我还记得在2018年的鲁汶工作与组织心理学会议上，您在主题演讲中提出了对博士生的10点建议，其中第一条就是“与真实的人们交流并观察他们”，为什么呢？
This is my personal idea. If there is a person, I don’t like do an experiment about remuneration of giving money to people and see what is the effect. I'm not saying that's not good. I don't like doing studies with students in laboratories， but I don't mind other people doing that. But for me, this is not fun. I mean I'd rather go out to that building place and to talk to his workers and to say, what about your boss? And what about your work? It's personal thing. I think it's also good for work and organizational psychology to establish your relation with practice. Because I think that work and organizational psychology will be irrelevant when there is no relation with practice， and it will not have a practical impact. So that means that you should answer some kind of questions, like how to improve productivity, how to solve conflicts, how to negotiate at the workplace, how to have a diverse workplace. There are a lot of other issues that I was not working on that are relevant for work and organizational psychology that you can observe of that you can actually study. So that would be my recommendation.
这只是我的个人观点。如果有个人在这里，我不喜欢给他点钱然后做一个关于薪酬的实验。不是说这样不好，只是我自己不喜欢用学生来做实验室实验，我不介意别人是不是这样做。仅仅是对个人而言，我觉得这样没意思。我个人更喜欢去工作场所和员工交谈，问问他们自己的领导怎么样，工作怎么样。这只是我个人的偏好。我觉得对于工作和组织心理学研究而言，这对建立你和业界的联系也有好处。因为我认为如果工作和组织心理学与实践没有任何联系的话，研究是没有意义的，研究是不会产生社会价值的。观察实践中的人，就意味着你需要回答不同的问题，例如如何提高生产力，如何解决冲突，如何在工作场所沟通协调，如何管理多样化的员工……有很多与工作和组织心理学相关的话题，我没法一一研究，但是你可以去观察，去研究。所以这就是我的建议。
Do you have any advice for junior researchers who have just graduated usually need to balance the work of teaching and doing research, and to develop their career path as well?
您对青年学者有什么建议吗？尤其是那些刚毕业的，需要平衡教学和科研工作，以及发展学术生涯的青年学者。
What would be nice for you is to see that you can supervise master students， for instance， and have the master students do some kind of sub study that is interesting for you. Maybe not the main big thing, but some kind of site question that is relatively minor that can be done by master student. Perhaps when you do it clever, you can you have more data. You can even make a publication out of it together with the master student or whatever you decide together. If you chose to stay at the university, you have to teach. So that means that you have also to have some kind of experience with groups or with larger classes. Some teaching would be okay, but for your career, you have to focus more on your research.
有一点对你们很有帮助的是你们可以辅导硕士生，而硕士生可以帮忙做一些你们感兴趣的子研究。可能不需要让他们做非常重要的事，但是一些相对简单的工作是可以让硕士生完成的。如果你够聪明的话，可能可以通过与硕士生合作的方式获得更多的数据。你甚至可以和他们合作发表文章，或者做其他你想做的事情。如果你毕业后选择在高校工作，你就必须承担教学的任务。这就意味着你可以收获一些和学生团队或大型课堂一起工作的经验。适当的教学工作是可以的，但是为了你的职业生涯着想，你必须花费更多的时间在科研方面。
What do you think of the future research on the JDR model?
您如何看待JD-R模型未来的研究前景？
Well, the JD-R model is like a kind of a Christmas tree, you can hang everything in it. You could say leadership, job crafting, we have personal resources. But there are also personal vulnerabilities like perfectionism. And so, things that are negative. Because they have resources that help you and you have personal vulnerabilities like, well, you might be have a high level of neuroticism, or your level of self-esteem is very low. And that x just the opposite. You can also have that you can make it more dynamic in terms of say you have this job crafting. Yeah, so you can change the outcomes. And so that's the Christmas tree kind of thing. And that's getting more and more complicated and complicated. Of course, that's kind of logic that will happen.
JD-R模型(Job Demands-Resources model) 好比一棵圣诞树，你可以把任何东西加上去，比如领导力、工作塑造(job crafting)、个人资源、个体局限性等等，理论会变得更加丰富复杂。
What also will happen? Another thing is looking into longitudinally, what happens with these kinds of processes, spirals and circles and how does it influence each other? Personally, I think that a lot of things that we are studying, we have a very naive idea about causality. We say why you have this on the seasons, and they demand on resources and leads to consequences, engagement burnout. But in truth, they're all circles. I mean it's not a and b but it's also b going to a, and maybe a going to b is stronger than b go into a. But it is very naive to think that you have a kind of unidirectional causality, this is causing that, because it's always, it's not a picture. It's a movie. I it's constantly changing. So, if I perform very well, because I'm engaged, I will be even more engaged when I performed, because I’ve done good. There is this circle. So that's what will happen as well. It's more meteorological.
第二点是纵向研究(longitudinal study)。我个人认为，我们对于因果关系的了解十分有限。以JDR模型为例，通常的理解是，工作要求与资源导致了工作投入和精力耗竭；但事实上，很多变量都是互为因果的，变量间的关系是圆形循环，不单是A导致B，B同样也影响着A，也许A导致B多于B导致A。所以，假设单方向的因果关系是非常天真的，真实情况往往不是一个静止的图片、而是一个不断变化的电影。比如，我因为投入而有很好的工作表现，会激励我在工作中愈发投入，由此构成循环。
Another thing that what will happen is that you can have the JDR model at the team level, at the aggregate level. So, because engagement you have also something like team engagement, you can ask people how engaged you feel that you can also ask how engaging your team feels which is another kind of call it innovation.
第三点，JD-R模型可以被放到团体水平(team-level, the aggregate level)来研究。比如工作投入，之前是在个体层面被研究，但也可以研究团体的工作投入情况，这也是一种形式的创新。
So, these are the things that happen. And what is probably theoretically most interesting is like you started smiling, you're gonna said it's a heuristic model. It's not a theoretical model in a sense. So why question? So, JDR model is saying you have demands and they have an impact on engagement. But why is this the case? The JDR model is not giving you that answer, saying they are inherently motivated. But why? So, for instance, these basic psychological needs might be between because you have demands, on these demands, they satisfy the basic needs. And because of these basic needs, you have high level of intrinsic motivation or engagement, which is a psychological explanation.
And you can use conservation of resource theory for that. You can use German action theory for that. You can have different kinds of theories to explain why the JDR model is working. So this is more academically interesting, but I think on the other hand, for practice, this model is more or less the well finished or complete or you don't need much more. I mean people that are managers they have to deal with some 1000 different problems. And then psychologist comes and say you have demands or resources, burnout, engagement or health impairment. And you have motivation and you have sustainable outcome for them. There is leadership and you have something personal for them. For them, this is already almost too much. If you make the model more complicated, what you can do and what will happen, which is a good thing for science, does not have a big practical impact, I think, because the model is in that sense, I would argue already kind of model that you can use in practice. And that you shouldn't make very much more complicated, because then it loses its ability to function as a kind of useful lens for people. Because then it becomes too complicated, maybe interesting psychologically, but you cannot expect the average manager to be a psychologist.
这些是未来研究可能发展的方向。JD-R模型说工作要求导致工作投入，但对于内在机制的解释并不完善，或许是因为工作要求满足了基本心理需求，因此产生了内在动机，引发工作投入。不同的理论可以被应用来解释JD-R模型成立的原因，这是学术研究感兴趣的方面。换一个角度来说，对于实务应用而言，并不需要很复杂的模型，实务应用不需要了解模型的内在机制，JD-R模型已经可以被应用了；甚至当模型演变成更复杂的形式时，就会失去帮助实务管理的功能，因为不能期望每个管理者成为心理学家去理解复杂模型。
Publications
You said that PhD students and Junior researchers should focus their most energy on research. So what's the most important skill for these people to develop during their early research career?
你说博士生和青年学者应该把他们大部分精力放在做研究上，那么对于他们来说什么技能是最重要的，比如说，写作？
Writing. My experience is that I taught a lot of foreign students. I was also a visiting professor in Spain for 10 years and spent every year one to sometimes even three months doing research projects, and PhD students from, I do know from Sweden, from Norway, from Germany, from Italy, from Spain, from Finland, from Japan, from China. But the most difficult part was always writing. Perhaps not so much in China, for Chinese students it's more simply the English language, the language master is writing proper English. For people in Spain, in France and in Germany also. they have another tradition that they write even more, even longer introductions. And they use very long sentences and a very complicated stuff. And they always said to me, well, and then I said you can skip this. But I read all these books. You read all these books is very important that you read those books, but you don't need to cite everybody because then you get like this long, but they wanted to include everything they know in the introduction. And then it becomes much to.
是写作。我以前在西班牙做了十年的访学教授，每年会花一定时间在研究项目上，我知道很多来自不同国家的学生，如瑞士，挪威，德国，意大利，西班牙，芬兰，日本，德国等，对于绝大部分人来说阅读是最困难的，然后就是写作。也许对于中国人来说会相对容易一些。语言掌握的关键是合适。对于西班牙，法国和德国人来说，他们习惯把引言写的尽可能多尽可能长，我会告诉他们，你可以跳过这个或者那个部分，即使你读过了里面所有的这些书，这些文献，当然这很重要，但是你也没必要把他们一一列出，那就太赘余了。
So in English what you do is you focus very strong music. These are the hypotheses 1 2 3 4. I have to make a finer kind of reasoning， it's kind of funnel. So you start in the introduction, say burnout is or engaging leadership is a general problem in society… with two sentences and then you say, there are some theories about this model. Then there is some research blabla. And then finally you come to your point and say okay, I want to do this and isn't it? But it should be very short. Should be very concise. It should be specific and it should not be like this is this interesting to know that should be clear line and it should be short sentences active a language use not saying research in the past decades. It seems that the researchers agree with the fact that you simply say this and this shows that the death I the simple single clear for many people from all the languages, this is too simple, especially from southern europe, eastern europe. Holland is a little bit different. Maybe scandinavia is different For people who come from countries where that are farther away from English, like you.
所以在英语写作里，你要始终围绕在你的主旋律上，比如，你提出假设1,2,3,4，你要给出很好的推理。像漏斗一样，我们一般从引言开始，你可以用两句话说明比如burnout，work engagement在当今社会很重要，然后你强调现有理论，然后说已经做了哪些研究，最后你到达你的论点，说你具体想做这个。但是他应该是很简短的，很精确的。而不是说东一榔头西一棒槌，这个点很有趣，那条线需要明晰，我们应该用简短的语言来激活语言而不是动不动就提及过去几十年的研究。
For me, it's always very helpful to imagine how it is as a Chinese to write English, simply to imagine how it would be for me to write Chinese. I mean，when I would learn Chinese, for me learning Chinese is just as difficult as for you learning English. So I completely understand that is extremely difficult for you.
我可以想象作为一个中国人来写英文文章是什么样子，就像我自己如何写中文一样。当我学习中文的时候，学习中文对于我就像你们学习英文一样难。所以我完全可以理解。
Because for us， English is not a language. And many people in Holland they write and read and speaking is very perfect and they don't. But still for people from Germany, from Scandinavia, English is relatively easy. For French, Italian, Spanish, because they are Roman languages, each pretty much difficult. For people from completely different cultures like Japan, like China, like Korea, it's really, really difficult.
因为对于我们来说，英语已经不只是一个语言，很多荷兰的写、读、说的东西非常完美，而事实并非如此。对于来自斯堪的纳维亚半岛，德国人来说，英语也是相对简单。而法语，意大利语，西班牙语来自日耳曼体系，所以英语对于他们来说也相对比较容易。但是对于来自完全不同的文化（例如日本，中国，韩国）的人来说，英语真的就是非常困难了。
You have the language technically and you have also the way of writing a scientific paper. On the last one，there are courses for this, but languages like there's one worthful language is practice, practice and practice. That's everything you have to do. Talk English. Whenever you have the opportunity, read English, look to the BBC news or whatever. So that you have a lot of inputs every day and practice and ask feedback of people. And it's hard work. And it's a little bit of a pity because your aim is not to learn English. Your aim is to be scientists. But in order to be a scientist, you have to do a PhD and you have to publish and publish English papers.
你可以拥有掌握英语的技巧，也可以学习撰写科学论文的方式，你还可以参加一些课程。但是，像英语这样通用性极广的语言你还是要不断的练习练习。这是不得不做的事。只要有机会就尽可能地多说英语。通过BBC新闻或其他渠道尽可能地多读英文。这样您每天就有大量的英语输入，不断地练习并征求人们的反馈。而且，这是一场艰难地持久战。这有点可惜，因为我们的目的不是学习英语，而是做科研，成为科学家。但是，要成为一名科学家，您必须要有很好地英文水平，才能理解其他学者发表的信息，与他人更好地对话。
What do you think are the most important topics for future research on the work stress literature - work stress in general and maybe considering the environment change. For example，recent news about the coronavirus, since people still need to work at home or somewehere else. Do you have any suggestion? How can they avoid like pronounced and panic to have because of the virus?
您认为对于未来的stress研究而言，最重要的主题是什么？如一般意义上的的工作压力，或者因为外界环境改变而带来的新的工作压力，比如今年爆发的新冠病毒，人们仍然需要工作。所以您有什么建议？他们如何才能避免由于病毒出现带来的恐慌？
I think stress is something that will I， some people said 20 or 30 years ago, burnout， stress, this is a kind of fashion. And then people will in 20 years not remember the word. I don't think so. I think that the reason is simple because people used to work. In China is probably even more dramatic. Your parents, your grandparents, they were probably farmers or working in agriculture or at very small business. And now China is a major leading economy with people in very high level jobs which are more mental and then less physical. And I there are not so many people working physically And where they are working physically robots will take over. So there is more mental loads, there is more social demands. If people work in teams, people work with customers, people work with people in other countries. So the social demands these mental demands are they will in psychological demands, they will increase, which means stress and not physical demands, which means back pain or play on your shoulders or whatever. So I think this stress will actually remain for a very long time. it was always there historically, also in the 19th century, although it was probably not recognize that much, but I think it will remain within that context.
我认为压力是20或30年前我和大家都会提到的那种，比如倦怠，压力，似乎是一种时尚，然后人们可能再过个20年就不记得这个词了。我不这么认为，原因很简单，因为人们习惯了工作。比如在中国，你们的父母，祖父母或外祖父母，他们可能是农民，从事农业或小商业。现在，中国已经成为主要的经济领先体，人们更多地在从事脑力工作而不是体力工作。事实上，当代社会也没有几十年前那么多的体力工作了，大部分需要体力劳动的现在都可以用机器人。因此，当代的职场人会受到很多精神需求，社交需求。尤其是人们与团队一起合作，与客户打交道，与来自其他国家的员工一起工作。因此，这些社交需求，精神需求都会成为一种心理需求，也就是精神压力，而不是比如背痛或挑担子等生理压力。我认为这种心理压力实际上会持续很长时间。其实它在历史上一直存在，早在19世纪，尽管它可能并没有现在那么多，但在当年这种背景下它仍然会存在。
There are a lot of things like globalization, like the fact that you are now here as Chinese. This is maybe a little bit of an exception. But in 10 20 years there will be more people from China or from any other country. So we get more much more diverse workforce, much more working together, people from different cultures. So this is also something that will happen in future. So you need also more research in how people integrate， how do we collaborate or do we solve problems conflict. So the whole diversity globalization will cause stress in a way also will cause on the other and maybe engagement because it's also fun， it's also nice， it's also good that happens. Yes， this kind of phenomenon will emerge and will impact also research.
现在发生着很多事，比如全球化，比如你们现在可以以中国人的身份在这里工作。这也许是一个例外。但是在10年20年后，将会有更多来自中国或其他任何国家的人。因此，我们拥有更多来自不同文化背景的人，拥有更多多样化的员工队伍，更多的合作机会。所以这也是将来会发生的事情。还需要更多地研究去探索人们如何融入整合，如何合作以及如何解决冲突问题。因此，整个多样性的全球化将会以某种方式增加人们的工作压力，这当然从另一个方面来看，可能也会增加员工的投入，因为这将更有趣，更好玩。这种现象会出现也会影响未来研究地走势。
最后附上Wilmar 对于博士生的十个建议
Ten suggestions for Ph.D. students:
Talk to and observe real people
Don’t over-plan your career
Beware of social comparison
Read, write and present a lot
Build a professional network
Socialize and make friends
Take initiative and ownership
Ask for feedback
Be prosocial and share
Follow your passion and share
References
Schaufeli, W. B. (1988). Perceiving the causes of unemployment: An evaluation of the Causal Dimensions Scale in a real-life situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 347-356.
UWES从17 items-9-3
Schaufeli, W. B.,Salanova, M., Bakker, A. B., & Gonzales-Roma, V.(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatoryfactor analytic approach. Journal ofHappiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a shortquestionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychologicalmeasurement, 66(4), 701-716.
Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M., & De Witte,H. (2017). An ultra-shortmeasure for work engagement: The UWES-3 validation across five countries.
个人网页：https://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/
THE END
采访小组成员及文字编辑：李培凯/史健/李冉冉/曹文蕊/杨伟文/张曼玉
排版：孟雪
往期精选
欢迎关注我们，一个专注于管理学及心理学学术研究的平台