********** Motivating the public to engage in their work is a classic enigma in organizations.

**********

Motivating the public to engage in their work is a classic enigma in organizations, complicated by the existence of multiple parts because the attitudes, behaviors, and emotions associated with individual role may spill over to another (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000) folks do not always check their enigmas or triumphs at the door when walking into the office or coming residence from work. Moreover, as careers have become more mixed people are increasingly faced with actively engaging in multiple parts Within the context of the organization, the community often must engage in multiple characters to fulfill job expectations. For example, a partner in a professional services firm may have to engage in as well-as; not only-but also; not only-but; not alone-but internal and external roles, like as generating new business and managing commonalty within the firm. Within the words immediately preceding [i]or[/i] following of a career, people must engage in the pair work and nonwork roles. For example, globalization may require tonic employees to travel or work abroad, straining family relationships and compelling employee to withdraw or re sign (Shaffer and Harrison, 1998) With people's increased focus in succession balancing multiple life roles and managing the boundary between work and family (Hochschild, 1997; Perlow 1998) organizations have incline differentlyed to policies such as flextime, on-site childcare, and other mechanisms to make secure that engaging in one's family does not interfere with one's work. Underlying many of these initiatives is the fear that engagement in family is achieved at the outlay of work (e.g., Fortune, 1997) The meaning of family engagement on work is an important question for managers interested in keeping the public engaged in their work. The power of work engagement on family is an equally important question for populace making tough career choices. To date, however, research forward the effects of multiple parts has not provided satisfactory answers to these questions.

sum of two units competing arguments, depletion and enrichment, have been used to address the proces of engagement in multiple parts The depletion argument, from research forward resource drain (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000) and part conflict (Merton, 1957; Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985) is based forward the idea that people have fixed amounts of psychological and physio logical resources to waste and that they make tradeoffs to accommodate these fixed resources. Research onward role conflict suggests that demands from common role create strain for the individual, which inhibits functioning in the other character (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Edwards and Rothbard, 2000) Research onward strain-based conflict focuses on to what degree strain arising from one character makes it difficult to adapted the expectations of another character (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Frone Russell, and Cooper 1992; Edwards and Rothbard, 2000) This aspect of the depletion argument assumes that the multiple demands of work and family are detrimental to the individual and that part participa tion (whether in individual or multiple roles) invokes stres resulting in emotional strain. Research forward work-family conflict and balance, which draws forward the roleconflict literature, is framed almost entirely in bounds of the depletion argument, with not many exceptions (e.g., Crosby, 1987; Kirchmeyer, 1992)

Because work-family research draws primarily forward the depletion perspective, it view from aboves another important process by which engagement in the same role may relate to engagement in another character the enrichment process. The enrichment proces is articulated on research on role accumulation and multiple characters (Sieber, 1974; Marks, 1977). The enrichment argument intimates that a greater number of part commitments provide benefits to individuals rather than draining them. In fact, the enrichment argument directly challenges the notion that race have fixed resources and purposes instead, that attention and power can expand (Marks, 1977). Moreover, the enrichment argument assumes that the benefits of multiple parts outweigh the costs associated with them, leading to trap gratification rather than strain. While a certain work-family researchers acknowledge the enrichment argument (eg Coverman, 1989; Williams et al., 1991; Kirchmeyer, 1992) most numerous persist in framing the point to be solved [i]or[/i] settled as one of allocating fixed resources, in the same state [i]or[/i] condition that engagement in a part depletes resources, leading to strain and detrimental issues for the individual (e.g., Coverman, 1989; Williams et al., 1991; Tenbrunsel et al., 1995) The depletion proces captures part of people's experience of work and family engagement, if it were not that the enrichment process remains unexplored. The protoplast developed here integrates these brace competing arguments by articulating that a person's emotional replication to a role is a central underlying aspect of as well-as; not only-but also; not only-but; not alone-but processes and that it is a person's positive or negative emotional answer to one role that is an important theoretical mechanism linking engagement in single role to engagement in another role

ENGAGEMENT IN MULTIPLE ROLES

Engagement in a part refers to one's psychological personality in or focus on part activities and may be an important ingredient for effective part performance (Kahn, 1990, 1992). part engagement has two critical composings attention and absorption in a part (Kahn, 1990). Attention means being monopolizeed in a role and imputes to the intensity of one's focus forward a role (Goffman, 1961; Kahn, 1990) For example, when the bulk of mankind are absorbed in work, they may ignore other factors, in the same state [i]or[/i] condition as coworkers' activities, but when they are not absorbed, they may become distracted from these same activities. Absorption is akin to the idea of stream in that people do not experience themselves as separate from their activities (Csikszentmihalyi, 1982 1990) Absorption, a critical at the same time understudied aspect of engagement, make overs a sense of intensity of concentration that is not captured by the agency of the attention component of part engagement.