employee_engagement.pdf
Post on 01-Dec-2015
106 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1
Aarhus School of Business and Social Sciences
Aarhus University
Importance of Employee Engagement in
Business Environment:
Measuring the engagement level of administrative
personnel in VUC Aarhus and detecting factors requiring
improvement
By: Maryana Sakovska
Supervisor: Frances Jørgensen
Department of Management
June 2012
Abstract
The term employee engagement has gained popularity over the past twenty years.
Advocated positive outcomes of employee engagement make organizations develop the
culture of engagement at work as a priority for organization. Although much is written
on the subject of employee engagement, little is known about the engagement of
administrative workers at the educational organizations. For educational organizations,
it is important to engage administrative workers, as they are the ones who have a
significant influence on the tone, manner and style of the entire institution and quality
of their day-to-day performance contributes to the quality of the relationships with
faculties, students and the public (Scott, 1978 as referenced in Johnsrud and Rosser,
1999).
Different professions have their own specifics, which need to be addressed during the
engagement building process. For example, for hospital workers, safety issue is of a
high importance as they deal with different kinds of sicknesses, whereas for teachers or
counselors, the issue of stress and emotional exhaustion maybe of more important. One
can argue that common tools for employee engagement can be used for all types of
employees. However, in this paper it is argued that in order to engage administrative
personnel at the educational institutions it is important to know the specifics of their
work prior to developing tools for their engagement. Therefore, the purpose of this
paper is to find out the specifics of work of administrative staff, their moral, factors that
influence their engagement and to investigate the current engagement level of the
administrative workers and what can be done to improve it. The aim is to analyze
findings in light of the existing theory on engagement. The knowledge gained from the
theoretical part of this paper, together with the results of the research, can be used by a
top management of an educational institution, as well as HR professionals, to address
issues regarding the engagement of administrative personnel at educational
organizations.
The research was conducted at the VUC Aarhus, an educational institution for adults
based in Aarhus. The research was based on a questionnaire distributed to 25
administrative workers, who support VUC Aarhus. All respondents were asked to rank
12 factors that according to Gallup Q12 (Gallup, 2010) to determine the level of
engagement. The administrative workers had to evaluate factors according to their own
experience. Results show that there are no deeply disengaged administrative workers in
VUC Aarhus. On average employees’ engagement level is “non engaging” with a
tendency towards engagement. Therefore, according to the result of the questionnaire,
top management should address issues related to safety at work, in order to improve
engagement level.
Key words: Employee engagement, administrative workers, educational organizations
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Problem statement and research question ......................................................... 3
1.2 Relevance of thesis topic and the applicability of the results .............................. 4
1.3 Structure of the paper .................................................................................... 5
2. Theoretical background ........................................................................................... 6
2.1 Concept of employee engagement ................................................................... 6
2.1.1 Defining Engagement ........................................................................... 6
2.1.2 Similarity and distinction from other organizational constructs ................. 8
2.1.3 Employee engagement models and theory ............................................... 9
2.2 Importance of engagement ............................................................................14
2.2.1 Organizational outcomes ......................................................................14
2.2.2 Employee outcomes ............................................................................19
2.2.3 Why do engaged employees perform better ............................................20
2.3 Antecedents of engagement ...........................................................................22
2.4 Implication for organization ..........................................................................28
2.4.1 Organizational support of employee engagement ....................................28
2.4.2 HR support of employee engagement ....................................................34
2.5. Specifics of administration employees’ work-life in educational organizations ..36
2.5.1 Specifics of work ................................................................................37
2.5.2 Issues affecting the quality of administrators work lives ..........................37
2.5.3 Administrative workers moral ..............................................................38
2.5.4 Factors influencing the engagement of administrative staff ......................39
3. Methodology ....................................................................................................... 40
3.1 Research methods ........................................................................................40
3.2 Information gathering ...................................................................................42
3.3. Data collection ............................................................................................45
3.4. Data analysis ..............................................................................................47
4. Results ................................................................................................................ 47
5.Recommendations ................................................................................................. 53
6.Limitations ........................................................................................................... 56
7.Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 57
8.Further research .................................................................................................... 57
9. Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 59
List of figures:
Figure 1. Characteristics of engaged employees ………………………………..……. 16
Figure 2. Relationship between engagement and intent to leave the company …….… 17
Figure 3. Impact of formal performance review on employee performance …………. 29
Figure 4. Values of individual employee engagement ………………………………... 48
Figure 5. Ratio of engaged to actively disengaged employees ………………………. 49
Figure 6. Mean values and the disposition of ranks of antecedents of engagement ..... 49
Figure 7. The disposition of mean value of antecedents of engagement belonging to
“meaningfulness” …………………………………………………………. 50
Figure 8. The disposition of mean value of antecedents of engagement belonging to
“safety” ……………………………………………………………………. 51
Figure 9. The disposition of mean values of antecedents of engagement belonging to
“availability” …………………………………………………………….... 53
1
1. Introduction
Managers agree that modern business demands higher productivity and more efficiency,
than in previous times. Companies are trying to increase their performance in order to
place their company ahead of the competitors. At some point, satisfied employees,
content with their work experience, was a good formula for success, as a satisfied
employee, who wanted to stay with a company, contributed to the workforce stability
and productivity (Sanchez and McCauley, 2006). But those times have changed.
Nowadays, the business environment is global and competitive and simply satisfied and
stable employees are not enough to bring necessary business results. Satisfied
employees may just meet the work demands, but this will not lead to higher
performance (Abraham, 2012). In order to compete effectively, employers need to go
beyond satisfaction - employers must do their best to inspire their employees to apply
their full potential and capabilities to their work, if they do not, part of the valuable
employees’ resources remains unavailable for the company (Bakker and Leiter, 2010).
Therefore, modern organizations expect their employees to be full of enthusiasm and
show initiative at work, they want them to take responsibility for their own
development, strive for high quality and performance, be energetic and dedicated to
what they do – in other words companies want their employees be engaged (Bakker and
Leiter, 2010). Other researchers state that employee engagement is the best tool in the
company’s efforts to gain competitive advantages and stay competitive (Rashid et al.,
2011). Therefore, the construct of employee engagement has been an area of interest
among many researchers and consultancy firms, and received its recognition in the
management literature and among practitioners (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011).
Though, the notion of engagement is relatively new, it is already a hot managerial topic
and it is rare to find an HR or managerial related article that does not mention employee
engagement. The relative novelty of the concept has caused a situation, where there is
still no one clear and agreed definition of engagement (Robertson-Smith and Markwick,
2009). HR consulting firms and academic researchers are presenting their own
interpretations of the meaning of the construct. Some of the points presented by the
researchers are complementary and they agree that engagement creates the prospect for
employees to attach closely with their managers, co-workers and organization in general
and the engaging environment is the environment where employees have positive
attitude toward their job and are willing to do high-quality job.
2
In the academic circles, the concept of engagement is presented by four major
approaches: Kahn’s need satisfying approach (Kahn, 1990), Maslach et.al.’s burnout-
antithesis approach (Maslach et al. 2001), Hartner et.al.’s satisfaction-engagement
approach (Harter et al., 2002), and Saks’s multidimensional approach (Saks, 2006).
They are quite different, however all of them contribute to the deeper understanding of
employee engagement.
The importance of engagement is proven by the literature on engagement, which shows
that an engaging environment pays off. Studies by a number of researchers prove that
employee engagement supports organizational performance and success (Harter et al.,
2002; Salanova et al. 2003). As literature claims that the outcomes of employee
engagement are exactly what most organizations are looking for, there is no surprise in
corporate executives seeing the development of the engagement of employees as a
priority for organization (Ketter, 2008, as referenced in Shuck and Wollard, 2010).
However, in his book “The New Rules of Engagement”, Johnson wrote “the ability to
engage employees, to make them work with our business, is going to be one of the
greatest organizational battles of the coming 10 years” (Johnson, 2004, p.1, as
referenced in Sange and Srivasatava, 2012). CEOs worldwide see employee
engagement as one of the top five most important challenges for management (Wah,
1999).
It is even harder to build engagement within the specific group of employees in the
situation, when the knowledge about the specifics of their work-life is missing. The
majority of studies have a sample of employees within different occupations and
industries (e.g. Saks, 2006). Engagement of administrative workers in the educational
organizations is rarely studied and poorly understood, even though these employees
have a significant influence in the institution and the quality of their performance
contributes to the quality of relationships with faculty, students and the public (Scott,
1978). Therefore, understanding the specifics of administrative personnel work-life
perceptions is important to educational organizations, because those perceptions
influence how well they perform at work (Rosser, 2000). In addition, theoretical and
practical understanding of administrative personnel in educational organizations is
needed in order to prioritize and implement engagement building interventions targeted
towards improving their employees’ performance, students, faculty, public, satisfaction,
and other organizational outcomes. Therefore, a review of the existing literature
3
regarding engagement of administrative workers in educational organizations was
conducted.
The example of VUC Aarhus, an educational institution for adults, was taken in the
investigation to test engagement theories on the rarely investigated group of people. It
was considered to be interesting to find out the present engagement level of
administrative personnel and to find out factors that need to be improved. Firstly, we
will see the current level of the employee engagement. Secondly, the questionnaire will
map out the areas, which need improvement for further engagement building.
Engagement literature presents a number of factors that influence employee engagement
at work; these factors will be used to investigate which factors need to be improved in
order to increase the employee engagement.
1.1 Problem statement and research question
During past two decades, employee engagement became a very popular managerial
concept. Organizations use different engagement building tools in order to stay
competitive and improve performance. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the
research regarding the engagement of administrative workers within educational
institutions, as this part of the employees is rarely studied, though their day-to-day
performance has a significant influence on the quality of the entire institution
performance. This paper will apply the engagement theory and engagement measuring
methods to measure the existing level of engagement of administrative workers in the
educational institution for adults, VUC Aarhus. The aim is to find the current
engagement level of employees and to find the factors, which need to be improved in
order to further increase engagement.
Thereby, the research question for the investigation is the following:
What is the existing level of engagement of administrative workers at VUC Aarhus and
which areas of work-life needs to be improved in order to increase the level of
administrative personnel engagement in VUC Aarhus?
The problem statement will be addressed through the quantitative study, with the aim of
identifying the current level of administrative workers’ engagement and which work
related aspects need to be improved for the purpose of deeper engagement. The present
research will help leaders to highlight the areas for improvement. The results of the
4
research will help to give specific recommendations to VUC Aarhus, regarding which
areas they need to pay more attention to in order to improve administrative workers
engagement, and in order to be a better work place.
1.2 Relevance of thesis topic and the applicability of the results
According to the book “First, break all the rules”, which compiled the results from the
Gallup organization’s program of research on engagement, less than 1 out of 5
employees is actively engaged in their work (Buckingham, 1999 as referenced in
Attridge 2009). The same results, showing a low rate of engagement, continued to be
presented in many other surveys conducted in the past decade. This represents tendency
for a crisis in productivity and the workers well-being (Attridge 2009). These results
show that managers need to realize that the engagement level of their employees might
not be as good as they think, so they need to stay updated about the present level of
employee engagement in order to take appropriate action in time and not to lose
productivity.
According to the survey of 656 chief executive officers in America, Europe, Japan and
other countries, employee engagement is one of the top five most important challenges
for management (Wah, 1999). Taking into consideration that administrative workers in
educational organizations are a rarely studied group of employees, this is a double
challenge for the managers at VUC Aarhus. Therefore, this paper will also provide
information regarding specifics of administrative workers in the educational
organizations work lives. In the situation when organizations have a better
understanding of the administrative personnel work-life perceptions, it is easier for them
to create appropriate engagement building tools. More specifically, the empirical
research will show the current level of employee engagement and which factors
managers can improve to support engagement at work.
It was found that the answer to the problem statement will serve to address an important
issue for the managers of VUC Aarhus, though they might have limited applicability for
other educational organization. In one of its reports Temkin Group found that
employees working at smaller-sized organizaitions are more engaged (Temkin, 2012),
and this might be due to the reason that they have better relationships with colleagues
and experience a greater sense of belonging than their colleagues from larger firms.
5
Furthermore, Johnsrud and Rosser (1999) also suggest that the smaller the institution,
the more positive administrative workers moral and consequentially the higher chances
for their engagement. Therefore, result of this study can be applied only to the
educational institutions of the similar size. Furthermore, results of this study cannot be
used for similar organization in other countries. A Global Workforce Survey conducted
by Towers Perrin showed that distribution of engaged and disengaged employees differ
from country to country (Seijts and Crim, 2006). For example, countries like Mexico
and Brazil have the highest percentages of engaged employees, while Japan and Italy
have the largest percentages of disengaged employees
1.3 Structure of the paper
The structure of this thesis can be divided into four major parts. Firstly, an introduction
presents basic information regarding theoretical foundation of engagement and the
importance of the topic of administrative workers engagement in educational
organizations. It also presents research questions and explains the aim of the paper,
explains why the topic is relevant and suggests to who the results of the research will be
useful to.
The second part is the theoretical part of the thesis. It is based on the engagement
literature presented by academic circles. In this section, analysis of the existing
engagement literature and discussion of the area of interest are presented. The
theoretical foundation of the thesis is presented in 5 parts. The first part presents the
number of definitions of engagement and how it is different from the earlier, related
managerial concepts for the reader to understand the complexity of the term. This
section ends with a discussion of the four main employee engagement models. The
second section presents the impact employee engagement has on organizational and
individual outcomes, showing the benefits and importance of engagement. The third
section discusses factors leading to engagement in a workplace. The fourth section deals
with the discussion of actions organizations can take in order to build engagement, and
the supportive role of HR in engagement building process. The final theoretical section
presents work-life specifics of the administrative personnel in educational institutions,
their moral, and factors that influence their engagement.
6
The third part, methodological, is based on the empirical research. This part presents the
chosen methods, ways the information was gathered, how questionnaires were
constructed and how the results were collected. Furthermore this section presents the
justification of the choice of the employee engagement measuring tool and the choice of
factors that predict engagement of employees.
The last section of the paper contains the results of the conducted research. The
presentation of the results is then followed by the recommendations, based on the results
of the research. The paper ends with a conclusion, which summarizes the work covered
during the research and analysis. The literature processed during writing this paper, and
the appendix containing the questionnaire, are also included.
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Concept of employee engagement
2.1.1 Defining Engagement
One of the challenges of defining engagement is the lack of a universal definition of
employee engagement, as a researchfocus on employees’ work engagement is relatively
new.
More often than not, definitions of engagement include cognitive, emotional, and
behavioral components. The cognitive aspect of engagement includes employees’
beliefs about the organization, management and working conditions. The emotional
components (or beliefs) defines employees positive attitude, how they "feel" about their
employer, company’s values, leaders and working conditions (Kahn, 1990; Towers
Perrin, 2003; Robinson et al. 2004). The behavioral components measure the
willingness to act in certain ways, skills which employees offer (Towers Perrin, 2003)
and willingness to go the "extra mile” — some of these components are often used for
the employee engagement definition.
Academic literature presents a couple of definitions of engagement. One of the first and
most recognizable definitions of engagement is provided by Kahn (1990) and it suggests
that personal engagement is: “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their
work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically,
cognitively, and emotionally during role performance (p.694)”. His view concentrates
7
on the personal engagement of workers in order to emphasize performance
improvement through employing and expressing themselves on physical, cognitive and
emotional levels during their performance. In the case of disengagement employees
withdraw from role performance and try to defend themselves physically, cognitively or
emotionally (Kahn, 1990). In summary, following Kahn (1990), engagement means the
employees’ psychological presence at work.
Burnout researchers suggest that engagement is the opposite, a positive antitheses of
burnout (Maslach et al. 2001). Maslach et al. (2001) state that “engagement is
characterized by energy, involvement, and efficacy (p.416)”, the direct opposite of the
three burnout dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism, and ineffectiveness.
Schaufeli et al. (2002), present work engagement as contrastive concept to burnout, they
define work engagement “as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (p. 74)”. They also state that
engagement is not a momentary and specific state, but it is “a more persistent and
pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event,
individual, or behavior” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74).
In his research Harter et al. (2002) referred to employee engagement as “the
individuals’ involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work” (p.
269)
Three well-known organizations in the human resource area also offer definitions on the
term. Perrin’s Global Workforce Study (Towers Perrin, 2003) definition defines
engagement “as employees’ willingness and ability to contribute to company success”,
by putting “discretionary effort into their work, in the form of extra time, brainpower
and energy (p.1)”. Gallup organization defines employee engagement as the
involvement with and enthusiasm for work. Gallup as cited by Dernovsek (2008) likens
employee engagement to a positive employees’ emotional attachment and employees’
commitment. Institute of employment studies (Robinson et al. 2004) defines employee
engagement as “a positive attitude held by the employee towards the organization and
its value. An engaged employee is aware of business context, and works with colleagues
to improve performance within the job for the benefit of the organization. The
organization must work to develop and nurture engagement, which requires a two-way
relationship between employer and employee” (p.9).
8
After the process of synthesizing definitions and conceptual frameworks of employee
engagement, Shuck and Wollard suggested an emergent definition of the concept
(Shuck and Wollard, 2010). They propose to define employee engagement as “an
individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state directed toward
desired organizational outcomes” (Shuck and Wollard, 2010, p.103).
2.1.2 Similarity and distinction from other organizational constructs
Engagement is related to, but distinct from established organizational behavior
constructs such as organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB), job satisfaction, or job involvement.
There clear overlaps with organizational commitment and OCB, but there are also
differences. Even thought engagement includes many elements of commitment and
OCB, but none of them reflect the two way nature of engagement – the organization
works on engaging the employee, who in respond chooses the level of engagement to
offer back (Robinson et al., 2004). First of all let’s discuss engagement and
organizational commitment. Many researchers suggested that engagement is related to
employees’ voluntary behavioral aspects (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008; Saks, 2006),
while organizational commitment is more attitudinal in nature including affective,
continuance, and normative domains (Song and Kim, 2009). Saks (2006) also states that
organizational commitment refers only to the employees’ loyalty, attitudes and
attachment to the organization and this in turn brings the benefit of employment. But
engagement is not an attitude, it is a degree of how attentive and absorbed employees
are in their roles (Saks, 2006).In addition, commitment focuses on the organization,
while the engagement focuses on the tasks (Maslach et al. 2001).
Talking about difference between employee engagement and OCB, it should be said
that employee engagement focuses on more formal role performance actions, which are
not voluntary and not extra-role, whereas OCB relates to the voluntary (Saks, 2006) and
informal intentions to help coworkers or the organization on top of what is expected
from them (Robinson et al., 2004).
Job satisfaction has been defined as “the primary affective reactions of an individual to
various facets of the job and to job experiences” (Igbaria and Buimaraes, 1993, p. 148).
This and other definitions of job satisfaction emphasize the affective nature of the
9
construct (Song et al., 2012). In contrast to job satisfaction, engagement is considered a
voluntary emotional commitment that can be influenced by
peer/supervisor/organizational support, mutual trust and personal enthusiasm (Ologbo
and Saudah, 2011; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007; Saks,
2006). Job satisfaction is the extent to which employees use work as a source of
fulfillment of their needs, by which they feel comfortable or avoid feelings of
dissatisfaction. It does not encompass employees’ relationship with the work itself
(Maslach et al. 2001).
Similarities between job involvement and the involvement aspect of engagement at
work can also be found. Lawler and Hall (1970) defined job involvement as the degree
to which the employee perceives the job situation as important part of their life, because
of the opportunity it gives to satisfy a persons’ needs. From this, one can understand
that job involvement tends to depend on the importance of needs and the potential of the
job to satisfy the individual needs of the employee (May, et al., 2004). Therefore,
involvement is the result of the employees’ perception of the need satisfying abilities of
the job. Engagement differs from involvement, as it is concerned more with how the
workers employ themselves during job performance. Furthermore, engagement includes
the employee’s energy and emotions (May, et al., 2004).
To summarize the above it can be said that the meaning of engagement can sometimes
overlap with other constructs in organizational behavior, however it is still a distinct and
unique construct, which embraces cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components that
are associatedwith individual role performance.
2.1.3 Employee engagement models and theory
Kahn’s need satisfying approach
The first time employee engagement was mention in an Academy of Management
Journal article called “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and
Disengagement at Work” (Kahn, 1990). In his article, Kahn defined personal
engagement as “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s “preferred
self” in a task behaviors that promote connection to work and to others, personal
presence, and active full role performance (p.700)”.According to Kahn employees can
be engaged on a physical, emotional and cognitive level: these levels are significantly
10
affected by three psychological domains: meaningfulness, safety and availability (Kahn,
1990). In turn, these domains create influence on how employees perceive and perform
their roles at work.
Kahn defines meaningfulness as the positive “sense of return on investment of self in
role of performance” (Kahn, 1990, p.705). He describes psychological meaningfulness
as a feeling the person experiences in return for the psychological, cognitive and
emotional energy invested into task performance. The employees experience
meaningfulness when they feel useful, valuable and not taken for granted, and that their
work is important, desired and valued too. Work meaningfulness means that employees
are more likely to dedicate their efforts to specific tasks, instead of withholding – this
indicates the presence of engagement.
Furthermore safety was defined as the ability to show one’s self “without fear or
negative consequences to self image, status or career” (Kahn, 1990, p705). The
predictable, consistent and clear situations at work make employees feel safer in their
actions, which also increases the likelihood of engagement.
Availability, the third domain, Kahn defined as the “sense of possessing the physical,
emotional and psychological recourses” (Kahn, 1990) necessary to perform task in this
very moment. It measures how ready the employee is, taking into consideration the
distractions they experience.
The only study to date to empirically examine Kahn’s (1990) concept of engagement
which was conducted by May et al. show that all three of Kahn’s (1990) psychological
conditions were positively related to the development of engagement at work (May
et.al. 2004). They also found that meaningfulness was positively influenced by job
enrichment and role fit; rewarding co-worker and supportive supervisor relations
enhanced employees’ safety, while adherence to co-worker norms and self-
consciousness had negative effect; and resource availability was a positive predictor of
psychological availability, while outside life had a negative effect. Their findings also
show that the framework developed by Kahn (1990) built a foundation for the future
conceptualization of engagement (Shuck and Wollard, 2010).
11
Maslach et al.’s burnout-antithesis approach
Kahn’s research was the only published literature on engagement until 2001, when
Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) began their study on the job burnout concept. In
their study they positioned employee engagement as the “positive antithesis” (Maslach
et al. 2001) to burnout. Accordingly, employee engagement was defined as “a persistent
positive affective state of fulfillment in employees, characterized by vigor, dedication
and absorption” (Schaufeli, et al., 2002, p.74).
Vigor refers to the employees’ willingness to invest their efforts into their job, the high
levels of energy and their endurance and persistence in the face of difficulties.
Dedication refers to the employees’ strong involvement in their work, their feelings of
enthusiasm and significance. Absorption happens when the employee is pleasantly
occupied with work, this can be seen by the employee not keeping the track of time and
their inability to separate themselves from the job at hand (Maslach et al. 2001).
Burnout or disengagement arises when there is an imbalance between the workers and
the six work settings: workload, control, reward, community, fairness, and values
(Maslach et al. 2001). According to Maslach et al. (2001), engagement is associated
with the match between an employees’ profile and the job. This match can be
characterized by a “sustainable workload, feelings of choice and control, appropriate
recognition and reward, a supportive work community, fairness and justice, and
meaningful and valued work” (Maslach et al. 2001, p. 417).
Taking a look at Kahn’s (1990) concept of engagement and Maslach et al.’s (2001)
concept of burnout, it can be said that all of researchers presented a similar setting for
that influences engagement or burnout. These include: the amount of physical,
emotional and psychological recourses available to the employee and the skills they
possess, feelings of choice and control, the need of recognition as a reward, supportive
work interactions, and meaningful tasks and valued work (Maslach et al. 2001; Kahn,
1990). However, contrary to Kahn who explains cognitive engagement processes,
Maslach et al. lacks this explanation and instead presents engagement as the physical or
emotional absence of burnout.
Kahn’s (1990) and Maslachs et al’s (2001) works are the first theoretical frameworks,
which help to understand employee engagement. Many of the contemporary researchers
12
built their concepts of engagement from Kahn’s (1990) and Maslach et al’s (2001)
works (Shuck and Wollard, 2010).
Harter et al.’s satisfaction-engagement approach
In 2002, Harter et al. presented one of the most widely read and cited works on
employee engagement, where they used 7939 business units (Harter et al., 2002) to
examine the benefits of engagement. Employee engagement was defined here as an
“individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work” (Harter
et al., 2002, p. 269).
In their meta-analysis, they agreed with Kahn’s concept (1990) and saw engagement
occurring when the employees are emotionally and cognitively engaged and when they
know what is expected of them. They also agreed that engagement was dependent on
the employees having the tools necessary to do their tasks, feelings of fulfillment,
perceiving themselves as being significant, working with others whom they trust and
having the chance for improvement and development.
Using Kahn’s (1990) framework, Harter et al. developed a measure, consisting of 12
items, which assesses the employees’ perception of their company as a working place.
Results of the meta-analysis provided the evidence for the positive relationship between
employee engagement and several important business outcomes: customer satisfaction-
loyalty (r = 0.33), profitability (r = 0.17), productivity(r = 0.25), employee turnover (r =
-0.30), and safety (r = -0.32).
Saks’s multidimensional approach
Another approach to employee engagement emerged from the multidimensional
perspective of employee engagement presented by Saks (2006). His theory was built on
the belief that engagement is developed through a social exchange theory (SET).
Saks defined employee engagement as “a distinct and unique construct consisting of
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components that are associated with individual
role performance (p.602)”. This definition embraced previous literature on engagement,
and introduced the suggestion that employee engagement was developed from cognitive
(Kahn, 1990; Maslach et al., 2001), emotional (Harter et al., 2002; Kahn, 1990), and
behavioral components (Harter et al., 2002; Maslach et al., 2001).
13
Following Kahn’s conceptualization of engagement (1990), this reflects the extent to
which employees are psychologically present during particular organizational role
performances. According to Saks (2006), the two main roles that most organizational
members perform are their own work role and their role as a member of an organization.
From this we can identify that Saks was the first one to present separate states of
engagement: job engagement (psychological presence in one’s job) and organizational
engagement (psychological presence in one’s organization) (Saks, 2006).
Saks’s model was build on the potential antecedents drawn from Kahn’s (1990) and
Maslach et al.’s (2001) model (Saks, 2006). Saks’s findings indicate that even though
the two measures of engagement are related, they are distinct, as participants showed
significantly higher job engagement (M = 3.06), than organization engagement (M =
2.88).
The results of testing engagement antecedents showed that job characteristics (r = 37)
and organizational support (r = 36) were significant predictors of job engagement.
Procedural justice (r = 18) and organizational support (r = 57) were significant
predictors of organization engagement (Saks, 2006).
Furthermore, it was shown that job and organization engagement are predictors of job
satisfaction (r = 0.26, r = 0.41), organizational commitment (r = 0.17, r = 0.59), and
intention to quit (r = 20.22, r = 20.31) and organizational citizenship behavior directed
to the organization (r = 20, r = 30). Whereas, only organization engagement predicts
OCB directed to the individual (r = 0.20) (Saks, 2006). Unique variances and the fact
that only organization engagement predicts OCBI show that there is a difference
between job and organizational engagement.
In general Saks (2006) research suggested that the engagement can be experienced
emotionally and cognitively whilst being demonstrated behaviorally. Like Schaufeli,
Salanova et al. (2002), Saks supported the viewed of engagement as an absorption of
resources the employee has into the work they performed. This view linked Schaufeli,
Salanova et al. (2002), Kahn (1990) and Harter et al. (2002) models, as they all agree
that for engagement or absorption to occur, employees need the physical, emotional and
psychological resources to successfully perform their work; – without this, employees
eventually disengage.
14
2.2 Importance of engagement
Employee engagement is an important employee performance and organization
management topic. The importance of this topic is proven by its positive consequences
for the organization and employees - ‘Work engagement is a positive experience in
itself’ (Schaufeli et al., 2002, as referenced in Sonnentag, 2003). There are numerous
positive outcomes from building employee engagement, and both practitioners and
academic literature seems to be more or less consistent regarding the benefits of
employee engagement. Almost all major consultancy firms state that there is a
connection between employee engagement and profitability increase through higher
productivity, increased sales, customer satisfaction and employee retention (Bakker and
Leiter, 2010)
In academic circles, positive consequences on work engagement are also associated
with customer satisfaction, productivity, profit, employee turnover (Harter et al., 2002),
positive work attitudes, individual health, extra-role behaviors and performance
(Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007).
This section will present the current thinking on the organizational and individual
outcomes of employee engagement.
2.2.1 Organizational outcomes
Organizational Performance
Evidence from a number of studies supports the relation between employee engagement
and organizational outcomes. Studies have shown that employee engagement have a
positive influence on the following organizational performance indicators: customer
satisfaction (Harter et al., 2002; Towers Perrin, 2003; Heintzman and Marson, 2005),
productivity (Harter et al., 2002; Salanova et al, 2003; Schaufeli, et al., 2002), profit
(Harter et al., 2002; Salanova et al., 2003; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Markos and Sridevi,
2010 ), employee turnover (Harter et al., 2002; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Hallberg
and Schaufeli, 2006) and safety (Harter et al., 2002).
One of the most important studies, which show the importance of engagement on
business level was conducted by Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002). They connected
employee engagement with outcomes, which are directly relevant to most businesses:
customer satisfaction, productivity, profit, employee turnover and safety at work.
15
Employee engagement had a positive influence on all of the mentioned categories, but
mostly on customer satisfaction–loyalty (p=.33) employee turnover (p=.30) and safety
(p=.32), followed by productivity (p=.25) and profitability (p=.17) (Harter et al., 2002).
One of the explanations of the lower magnitude of correlation between engagement and
two last outcomes can be explained by the fact that these outcomes are more remote
variables, which are also influenced by other variables and indirectly by employee
attitudes (Harter et al., 2002). Through their study, the researchers concluded that
increasing employee engagement and building an environment that helps to foster
employee engagement, can significantly increase the companies’ chances of success in
their business.
Other researchers, such as Salanova et al. (2005), Bakker and Demerouti (2007),
Hakanen et al. (2006) and Hallberg and Schaufeli (2006), also support Harter et al.’s(
2002) findings and agree that employee engagement could be a predictor of
organizational success, as it seems to have the potential to affect employee retention,
employee loyalty and productivity, with some link to customer satisfaction, which
results a company’s business outcomes
But not everyone totally agrees with the idea that employee engagement boosts business
results. For example, Balain and Sparrow (2009) suggest that the link between
employee engagement and organizational performance is not so strong. Alternatively
they suggest that there is a reverse connection between organizational performance and
employees’ attitudes, so when the organizational performance indexes are high it evokes
positive attitudes among workers.
Employee productivity
As Kahn (1990) states, engagement affects employee performance. Other researchers
agree with this. In her research of six public organizations, Sonnentag (2003) found that
a high level of engagement helps employees “in taking initiative and pursuing learning
goals” (p.525). Engaged employees develop new knowledge, respond to opportunities,
go the extra mile (Lockwood, 2007; Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007) support the
company, and engage themselves in mentoring and volunteering. In addition, engaged
employees are more satisfied with their job and are more committed to the organization
(Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007), they have the urge to meet challenging goals, and they
have the urge to succeed. Engaged employees do not hold back, they not only have
more energy, but they also enthusiastically apply their energy at work. In addition,
16
engaged employees are intensively involved in their work and pay attention to the
details (Bakker and Leiter, 2010). Engaged employees go beyond the job description,
they dynamically change and arrange their job in a way in which it fits the changing
work environment (Bakker and Leiter, 2010). Furthermore, the positive attitude of
engaged employees stimulates the integrative and creative perspective that adds value to
service enterprise (Bakker and Leiter, 2010).
As researchers state, engaged employees see meaningfulness in their work, (Kahn,
1990; Maslach et al. 2001; Towers Perrin, 2003). If employees see no meaningfulness in
their job, they start to alienate and detach from their work, in other words they become
less committed and motivated at work (Aktouf, 1992). Furthernore, engagement in the
meaningful job increases the perception of benefits from work (Britt et al., 2001)
Even though neither Khan (1990), nor May et al. (2004) included the outcomes of
engagement in their study, later on Khan (1992) suggested that on the individual level,
engagement influences the quality of an employees’ work and their own experience of
doing their work etc. and on the organizational level, it influences the growth and
productivity of the organization. Salanova, Agut and Peiro agree with this suggestion. In
their study, they found the support of this suggestion, that those who are engaged
perform better (Salanova et al., 2005).
The Institute for Employment Studies summarized the ways in which engaged
employees behave (see Figure 1) (Robinson et al. 2004, p.6).
Figure 1. Characteristics of engaged employees
17
Employee retention
Besides the number of researches (e.i. Harter et al., 2002; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004;
Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006), who have presented evidence that engagement has an
influence on an employees’ intentions to quit, HR consultancy company Towers Perrin
has also found that highly engaged employees are a more stable employees (2003, p.21).
The results of their survey showed that around 66% of highly engaged employees had
no plans to leave their job versus 36% of moderately engaged and just 12% of the
disengaged employees (see Figure 2) (Towers Perrin, 2003, p.21).
Figure 2. Relationship between engagement and intent to leave the company
According to Towers Perrin (2003) though high engagement does not guarantee
retention (because a quarter of the employees would still consider the right opportunity),
it does increase the chances that the possibly more attractive employees, in a
competitive labor sense, will stay with the company.
Advocacy of the organization
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2006, as referenced in Scottish
Executive, 2007), states that engaged employees may be advocates of their organization.
Therefore this means that engaged employees are more predisposed to recommending
their organization, as a place to work, or believing in and recommending the products
and services of the organization. Another interesting result came out of the CIPD's
annual employee attitudes and engagement survey. Results show that employees
working in the public sector are more critical to their organization than their private
sector colleagues (CIPD 2006, as referenced in Scottish Executive, 2007). The same
survey also showed that 37% of employees are willing to do two things. Firstly, they are
willing to promote the organization as an employer, which means that future
18
recruitment costs could be reduced by recommending/introducing new personnel by
existing employees. Secondly, they are willing to promote its products and services,
which allows for free marketing and enhances the public awareness of the organization.
In addition to these findings, the 'Meaning at work research report’ presented by Penna
(2006) notes, that organizations might have a very disengaged group of employees, to
whom they refer as to “corporate terrorist”. According to Penna (2006) this group of
employees would actively discourage others from joining their current organization. In
summary, these two surveys show that employees who are more engaged are more
likely to bring an extra benefit for the company by advocating the organization, contrary
to those who are disengaged and can even harm the company.
Customer loyalty
Although research on the consequences of work engagement has shown its relationship
with positive outcomes such as low absenteeism and low turnover (Harter et al., 2002;
Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004), and high organizational commitment and performance
(Harter et al., 2002; Salanova, et al., 2003; Schaufeli, et al., 2002), little is known about
the consequences of engagement of service workers.
Taking a closer look at the specifics of the administrative workers role, it can be said
that the level of their service highly depends on the climate in the organization and on
how the employees feel at work (Salanova et al., 2005). How employees feel at work is
important, because it influences the quality of their work and the satisfaction of their
clients. This happens because the organization-customer relationship is managed
through their employees. The way an organization treats their employees, and the way
an employee feels during their role performance, is transmitted on their customers, as
they meet face-to-face and work closely together and observe each other. During this
interaction, clients receive both a personal and psychological experience with the
company. Afterward the exchange is complete, the company is judged depending on the
customers experience (Schneider and Bowen,1993).
The study by Salanova et al. (2005) showed that organizational resources and the level
of engagement influences the service climate, which effects employee performance
(appraised by the customer) and employee performance makes customers more satisfied
and loyal. Therefore, engagement is the predictor of the service quality, and respectively
the customer loyalty, in the organization.
19
Successful organizational change
Some authors suggest that employee engagement might play important role in the
implementation of organizational change (Graen, 2008), because though doing nothing,
actions taken by top management teams or external consultants brought mixed success.
Graen (2008) suggests that engaged participants of organizational change mayt be
important in making organization able to change and adapt to changing environment.
2.2.2 Employee outcomes
Psychological outcomes
Cartwright and Holmes (2006) suggest that the changing workplace environment brings
changes in the relationship between workers and their employers. When compared to a
traditional workplace environment, two decades ago, now employee-employer
relationships have become more transactional. Before employees offered their
organization loyalty, commitment and trust, and in return expected job security, training
and development, job advancement in their existing organization, but now this situation
has changed. Cartwright and Holmes (2006) state that employers now offer higher
salaries and instead of opportunities for skills development, which would lead to job
advancement, the chance to become more entrepreneurial and manage their own career
in exchange for employees’ efforts, and companies expect these efforts be higher than
before. Authors suggest that such a change in the employee-employer relationship has
frustrated many employees, as they have lost trust in the organization and they question
the meaningfulness of their work. As a result, many employees are trying to find greater
fulfillment from their work. Authors believe that engagement could help employees in
this situation, providing them with the opportunity to invest themselves in work.
Other authors suggested self-efficacy as a possible outcome of engagement (Seijts and
Crim, 2006). They state that engaged employees believe they can make a difference in
the organization, which is a powerful predictor of their behavior and performance.
Results of the Towers Perrin survey (2005, as cited in Seijts and Crim, 2006) support
this idea:
Eighty-four percent of highly engaged employees believe they can positively
impact the quality of their organization’s products, compared with only 31
percent of the disengaged.
20
Seventy-two percent of highly engaged employees believe they can positively
affect customer service, versus 27 percent of the disengaged.
Sixty-eight percent of highly engaged employees believe they can positively
impact costs in their job or unit, compared with just 19 percent of the
disengaged.
Health and well-being
Some research has presented an idea that engagement may result in a positive health
effect and positive feeling towards the organization and work itself (Mauno et al.,
2007). Gallup organization (Crabtree, 2005, cited in Lockwood, 2007) reported
increased health in engaged employees, with 62 per cent of engaged employees stating
that work positively affects their physical health, compared with 54 per cent of
disengaged employees reporting a negative effect of their work on their health, and 51
per cent reporting a negative effect on their generall well-being.
2.2.3 Why do engaged employees perform better
Bakker and Demerouti (2008) present four reasons why engaged employees perform
better than their non-engaged counterparts.
Positive emotions
Some researchers describe engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of
mind” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p.74; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004, p.295). With this state
of mind, employees more often experience positive emotions, such as happiness, joy
and enthusiasm. Happy people may be more open to opportunities at work, more helpful
to others, exert more confidence and be generally more optimistic (Cropanzano and
Wright, 2001, cited in Bakker and Demerouti, 2008). According to the broaden-and-
build theory, positive emotions, such as joy, interest and contentment, can help people
“build their personal resources (ranging from physical and intellectual resources to
social and psychological resources)” (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008, p.216).
For example, joy broadens resources “by creating the urge to play … and be creative”
(p. 220) and interest, broadens resources by creating the desire to explore, to learn new
information and experiences (Fredrickson, 2001).
Good health
21
Some researchers present an idea that engagement positively influences an employees’
health, which means that the health condition of engaged employees allows them to
perform better than non-engaged employees. In a study conducted by Hakanen et al.
(2006), they found evidence that work engagement is positively related to self-rated
health and work ability. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) also found a positive connection
between engagement and health. In their study among four different service
organizations, they found that engaged workers suffer less from self-reported
headaches, cardiovascular problems, and stomach aches. However, another research did
not find the evidence of the connection between engagement and physiological
indicators, one example of this can be seen through Langelaan et al. (2006) in regards
to the stress hormone
Ability to mobilize resources
Another reason why engaged employees are more productive, could be that engaged
employees are also more successful in mobilizing their job resources, as they have a
better working environment, and more pleasant colleagues to work with (Bakker and
Demerouti, 2007), and they are better at creating their own resources (Bakker and
Demerouti, 2008). The Broaden-and-build theory presented by Fredrickson (2001),
claims that the momentary experience of positive emotions can build enduring
psychological resources and, in addition, it can “trigger upward spirals toward enhanced
emotional well-being” (Fredrickson, 2001, p. 22). This means that positive emotions
make people feel good in the present, but also through their influence on broadened
thinking, positive emotions increase the possibility that people will feel good in the
future (Fredrickson, 2001; Fredrickson and Joiner, 2002).
There is also evidence for an upward spiral of work engagement and resources
presented by Xanthopoulou et al. (2007, as referenced in Bakker and Demerouti, 2008,
). Researchers showed that job and personal resources resulted in a higher level of
engagement one year later. At the same time, engagement results in an increase of
personal resources (optimism, self-efficacy and organization-based self-esteem) and job
resources (social support from colleagues, autonomy, coaching, and feedback) over
time. Similar results were presented by Llorens et al. (2007). They presented the “gain
spiral” of resources, self-efficacy and engagement over time. The study by Schaufeli et
al.’s (2009) also supports this idea. The results of this study showed that an initial high
22
level of engagement predicted the increase of job resources the next year, this included:
social support, autonomy, learning opportunities, and performance feedback.
So all these findings show that, compared with non-engaged employees, engaged
employees are better able to mobilize both job and personal resources, which supports
their future engagement.
Transfer of engagement
Organizational performance is the result of the combined efforts of the individual
employees (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008). Therefore, it is possible to assume that the
transfer of engagement from one employee to another will increase company
performance. Crossover can be defined as the transfer of positive or negative emotions
and experiences from one person to another (Westman, 2001).
Some researchers found evidence of emotional transferability, the results of these
research show that:
- A positive mood of the leader is transferred to the employees, resulting in less
effort needed to complete the task and more coordination (Sy et.al, 2005)
- A team members’ positive mood spreads among other team members and results
in more cooperation and better task performance (Barsade, 2001)
A similar theory was put forward by Bakker et al. (2006, as referenced in Bakker and
Demerouti, 2008), who found that team work engagement was related to individual
team members’ engagement. Individual engaged workers spread their optimism,
positive attitudes and pro-active behaviors between their co-workers, creating a positive
team climate.
All these findings suggest that engaged employees have a positive influence on their
colleagues and, as a consequence, their team performs better.
2.3 Antecedents of engagement
A lot of the literature on employee engagement comes from practitioner literature and
consulting firm. There is a lack of research on employee engagement in the academic
literature (Robinson et al., 2004). Though, some of the studies in the academic literature
contribute to the understanding of what drives employee engagement. This section will
present the current thinking and evidence of the catalysts for employee engagement.
23
While reviewing the academic literature, there is a tendency towards many authors
using antecedents and the driver of engagement interchangeably, however it is also
possible to argue why these two notions should be used separately. For example, one
can say that antecedents are more or less fixed characteristics of the people,
organization or job, such as meaningfulness (Saks 2006, p.604), whereas drivers are
more actions or activities, such as providing learning opportunities or social support
(Ologbo and Saudah, 2011; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007;
Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007). The main purpose for this section is to find out which
constructs, strategies or conditions have a positive influence on employee engagement,
regardless of whether it is fixed characteristics or actions.
The literature on the antecedents or drivers of employee engagement does not present a
lot of empirical research (Saks, 2006), however some factors have found empirical
support. For the purpose of this thesis, organization-related antecedents and drivers of
engagement have been combined into four groups, depending on their origin: the task
level, the organization of work level, the interpersonal and social relations level, the
level of organization, and the level of individual.
Task Level
In their research Saks (2006) and Ologbo and Saudah (2011) have differentiated job
engagement from organization engagement and showed that there is a difference
between these two types of engagement. For the purpose of this thesis, interest will be
based in the general engagement of employees at work, both job and organizational
engagement, this section presents the antecedents of both types of engagement.
As the foundation for the possible antecedents of engagement, Saks took Kahn’s (1990)
and Maslach et al.’s (2001) models of engagement. Results of this study show that job
characteristics are positively related to job engagement (Saks, 2006). For example,
challenging job, which allows employees to use different skills and gives an opportunity
to contribute to the company’s success, brings employees psychological meaningfulness
and a sense of return to their performance-investments (Kahn, 1990, 1992). Kahn
(1992) also states that employees who are involved in jobs, which are high on the core
job characteristics, are more likely to be engaged. According to Hackman and Oldham
(1980), core job characteristics are skill variety, task identity, task significance,
autonomy, and feedback. Kahn’s view has also been supported by other authors. In the
24
study of job resources it was found that feedback and autonomy were positively
associated with work engagement (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007), as they help in
achieving work related goals and may stimulate personal development (Schaufeli and
Salanova, 2007). At the same time burnout literature sates that the lack of feedback and
autonomy are consistently related to burnout (Maslach et al., 2001), and cause the range
of withdrawal reactions (Demerouti et.al., 2001) as they restrain learning and the need
for autonomy (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). The relationship between job
characteristics and employees’ engagement can also be explained from the social
exchange theory’s point of view. According to this theory, the employee and employer
are found in a reciprocal relationship and obligations are developed during their
interactions (Saks, 2006). Following this interpretation, when employees receive
challenging jobs they feel obligated to show higher level of engagement.
Organization of work Level
Employee development opportunities were also found to have a positive influence on
job engagement (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011). This connection may be due to the reason
that many employees desire to maintain their jobs inventive and interesting by acquiring
new skills and applying new approaches to their daily tasks. This goes hand in hand
with Kahn’s (1990) viewpoint that the ability to learn and to apply new knowledge
increases meaningfulness for employee, which in turn positively influences
engagement.
Interpersonal Level
Studies also show that social support from colleagues and supervisors are also
positively associated with work engagement (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011, Hakanen
et.al.2006, Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007). Supportive
colleagues and proper feedback from supervisors increases the likelihood of being
successful in achieving work goals (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Furthermore, social
support satisfies employees’ need to belong (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). In summary,
social support stimulates employee engagement either through satisfaction of basic
needs or through the achievement of work goals. Job burnout literature has also
extensively studied social support and has shown that there is a consistent and strong
evidence that lack of social support is linked to burnout (Maslach et al, 2001)
25
Social support from the colleagues and supervisor may also be important from the point
of view that both these constructs contribute to the general positive social climate in the
organization. In the research conducted by Hakanen et al. (2006), it was shown that
social climate predicts employee engagement.
Studies, that show the connection between social support and engagement, are in
conflict with the study conducted by Saks (2006), who did not find a significant
connection between perceived supervisor support and employee engagement. The
difference of these results and the ones presented later may be due to the fact that
studies were conducted between different employee groups, in different organizations,
industries and countries. These factors may have influenced the difference in the results.
Organization Level
The organizational level antecedents of employee engagement also found its empirical
support. The feeling of safety presented by Kahn (1990) is influenced by the
predictability and consistency of the procedures used to assign rewards, resources etc. at
work. Procedural justice, which is concerned with the employees’ perception of fairness
of means, used to determine the amount and distribution of resources among employees
(Greenberg, 1990), was proven to have a positive effect on job engagement (Saks,
2006). It can be explained from the fairness point of view. If the employees perceive an
organization to be just and fair, they will also feel it is fair for them to put in more to
work by increasing their engagement (Saks, 2006).
Other antecedents of employee engagement on the organizational level are the rewards
and recognition. Following Kahn’s theory (1990), the level of an employees’
engagement depends on the level of returns on their investments of self into work. The
sense of return can come not only from meaningfulness but also from an external
environment like rewards and recognition. Some literature suggests that many
employees like to be distinctively rewarded and recognized for the outstanding work
they do (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011). This means that the amount of received rewards
and recognition may stimulate the employees’ engagement. Maslash et al. (2001) also
suggest that the lack of rewards and recognition can lead to burnout; from this we can
say that a sufficient amount of rewards and recognition is important for engagement.
Study by Koyuncu et al. (2006) support this idea and show that the level of rewards and
recognition is an important part of work experience and a strong predictor of
26
engagement. The study conducted by Ologbo and Saudah (2011) duplicates the result
from Koyuncu et al. (2006) by showing that reward and recognition influences job
engagement. However, these findings contradict the findings of another study (Saks,
2006), where no significant connection between rewards and recognition was found.
Robinson (2007) agrees with Saks, and states that other factors besides rewards are
usually more important for engagement.
Leadership also plays a role in the level of an employees’ engagement. Employees need
to be confident is their organization; this confidence can be built through the reliability
of the leadership (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011). It can be seen in a couple of studies that a
strong degree of trust and confidence in senior leaders increases the chances that the
employee will repay with organizational engagement, as trust is an important factor in
building relationships (Karsan, 2011; Ologbo and Saudah, 2011).
Many researchers have stated that employees need clarification and communication of a
company’s goals and objectives and to have the feeling of being well informed about
what is going on in the company (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011). One of the publications
showed that the availability of information was positively related to engagement, as the
access to information increases the chances that the task at hand will be completed
successfully and that work goals will be achieved (Hakanen et al., 2006).
The image of the organization was also found to be connected with organizational
engagement. The more employees approve the company’s products and services, the
higher the level of organizational engagement they show (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011).
Individual antecedents
Perceived organizational support (POS) was empirically proven to have a positive
influence on job and organization engagement (Saks, 2006). POS refers to the
employees’ beliefs that an organization values their contributions and cares about their
well-being (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). The amount of support and care
employees’ perceive to receive from organization influences their psychological safety,
and enables them to employ their selves without fear of negative consequences (Kahn,
1990). From Rhoades’ et al.’s (2001) point of view, the employee and the employer are
in a dynamic relationship and employee monitors and responds to the organizations’
actions towards them (Rhoades’ et al.,2001). POS makes employees feel obligated “to
care about the organizations welfare and to help the organization reach its objectives”
27
(Rhoades’ et al., 2001, p.834). In other words, when an employee feels that the
organization takes care of them, the employees are expected to want to pay back by
becoming more engaged and helping organization. Recognizing the feeling of
obligation does not always bring its positive effects – the organization needs to establish
a context in which the obligation feels more like a favorable relationship with the
organization (Rhoades’ et al.,2001),as this will support favorable treatment by both the
employee and the company in the future.
An employees’ perception of the work environment as emotionally and physically safe,
can also be seen as the antecedent to the development of employee engagement (May
et.al., 2004; Kahn, 1990).
The study by Xanthopuolou et al. (2007) showed that there is also a connection between
personal resources and an employees’ engagement. Employees’ self-efficacy,
organizational-based self-esteem and optimism are those personal resources, which can
influence employees’ engagement (Xanthopuolou et al., 2007).
This was supported by Luthans et al’s. study (2006), which showed that employees who
believe that they can meet the demands in a broader context, satisfy their needs by
participating in roles within the organization and believe that they will experience good
outcomes (Xanthopuolou et al., 2007) feel more prepared for varying work situations
and that they are more able to control their working environment (Luthans et al’s.,
2006). These feelings may result in an employee being more confident and proud of
their work, seeing their work as meaningful and as a result being more engaged
(Hackman and Oldham, 1980). Engaged workers posses personal resources
(Xanthopuolou et al., 2007) such as self-efficacy, self-esteem and optimism, which help
to control and influence their working environment (Luthans et al’s., 2006).
As Kahn (1990) stated, at work employees employ themselves physically, cognitively
and emotionally, therefore they use their inner resources. From this, one can assume that
the level of the employees’ inner resources has an influence on the level of engagement
they show at work. Sonnentag (2003) agrees with this viewpoint and states that the level
of recovery of personal resources has an impact on the employees experience at work.
He claims that being able to recover in the evening after a working day, or during
weekends, is important for restoring an employees’ physical, emotional and
psychological resources necessary for engaging at work (Kahn, 1990). During his study
28
Sonnentag found that the employees who get a sufficient recovery during leisure time
show higher level of engagement the next day (Sonnentag, 2003). Moreover, work
engagement was found to be the mediator of the effect of recovery on the proactive
behaviors the next day. In other words, recovered employees were more engaged and
showed more personal initiatives.
In conclusion for this section, it can be said that engagement, which has a positive effect
on the employees’ behavior and attitude, can be derived from a strong mutual
relationship between the co-employees, their employer and the organization as a whole.
It is also important to remember that employees’ resources, and their recovery, play an
important role in the employees’ ability to engage. However, it is important to note that,
as Robinson (2007) pointed out, it is unlikely that a “one-size fits all” approach will
bring its benefits, as engagement and its drivers depend on the organization, employee
group, the individual and job itself.
2.4 Implication for organization
2.4.1 Organizational support of employee engagement
To build employee engagement employers can use different practices. Authors state that
actions should be taken on two levels – individual employee and at the larger
organizational level (Attridge et.al., 2009, as referenced at Attridge 2009).
A good point to start at is the individual level, which according to Attridge (2009) is to
change the way of giving feedback to employees regarding their job performance. It is
understandable that there is a limit to the number of points a manager can address
during the performance review, so it is important that they decide how to best allocate
their time during the feedback process. Some managers decide to concentrate more on
the employees’ performance or personality strengths while others may pay more
attention to performance or personality weaknesses (Corporate Leadership Council,
2002). Some studies have found evidence that job related feedback concentrating on an
employees’ strengths, not weaknesses, increases their engagement level. Some
researchers investigated engaged and disengaged employees regarding this statement.
The work by Coley Smith (2006, as referenced at Attridge 2009) presents that 77% of
engaged employees state that their supervisor focuses on positive characteristics while
giving feedback, compared to 23% of moderately engaged and only 4% of disengaged
29
employees, who agree with this statement. The survey conducted by The Corporate
Leadership Council (2002), which analyzed 19000 employees and managers in 34
organizations, also presents some interesting findings (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Impact of formal performance review on employee performance
As shown in the figure, the choice of emphasizing the positive or negative features in
performance reviews has a substantial impact on employee performance. More
precisely, the far left-hand side of the figure shows that an emphasis on performance
strengths in formal reviews can increase performance by 36.4 percent. The second bar
emphasizes on personality strengths, which also have a positive (21.3 percent) impact
on individual performance. The authors of the study state that those employees who
receive feedback, with emphasis on performance strengths, also feel better matched
with their job and believe they have the necessary resources to do their job (Corporate
Leadership Council, 2002). At the same time, the right-hand side of the figure
demonstrates that an emphasis on performance weaknesses can lower employee
performance on 26.8 percent, and these employees are more likely to feel they are not in
the right job (Corporate Leadership Council, 2002).
30
The message from these studies is a note of caution – organizations should understand
that the way in which they conduct formal reviews with employees is critical. Giving
negative feedback, without suggestions for improving performance, can undermine the
goal of the formal review. Though emphasizing performance strengths during the
formal reviews and providing employees with suggestions for how they can better
perform on the job, can increase performance and make employees feel more
comfortable with their work (Corporate Leadership Council, 2002).
Besides training managers to focus on the strength of the employees during performance
feedback, it makes more sense for the organization to prevent the situation of the
disengagement at the first place (Corporate Leadership Council, 2002). Authors suggest
many practices that can help to advance an organization’s health in this way (Nelson
et.al., 2007). On the organizational level, effective practices to prevent disengagement
include a better job design, resource support, working conditions, corporate culture and
effective leadership style.
Job design was defined as “...specification of the contents, methods, and relationships
of jobs in order to satisfy technological and organizational requirements as well as the
social and personal requirements of the job holder” (Buchanan, 1979, p.55)
Researchers state that employee engagement can be improved with the help of a better
job design, as specific elements and the job tasks can be designed in a way to benefit
from the employees strengths and, at the same time, employees can be placed into the
jobs, which are better matched to their abilities and knowledge (Barling et.al., 2005, as
referenced in Attridge, 2009).
Researches also associate a low level of engagement with a low level of social support
from supervisors and colleagues (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011; Schaufeli and Bakker,
2004; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Hakanen et.al., 2006). Meta-analysis of 73 prior
research studies conducted by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), shows that a higher
level of POS can decrease ‘strains’ symptoms, such as feeling fatigued, burnout,
anxious and having headaches, amongst employees. POS is expected to reduce these
negative reactions to stressors by signaling the availability of material as well as
emotional support when employees face high demands at work (George et.al. 1993).
One of the studies found that, when job demands are high, employee engagement can be
improved if the organization provides employees with more support and job resources,
such as supervisor support, innovative problem solving, positive appreciation and
31
collaborative organizational culture (Bakker et al. 2007). They also provide the reasons,
why these factors can act as a buffer for the increased strain. For example, supervisor
support may reduce the negative influence of job demands on strain, because
supervisor’s support and appreciation puts demands into different perspective. Positive
appreciation helps to maintain an employees’ motivation and shows that employees
should continues in a certain direction (Bakker et al. 2007). Organizational culture and
innovativeness also may be highly important to maintaining engagement between
employees, as this maintains their work as both interesting and challenging. Therefore,
providing employees with the right job resources can protect them from negative
consequences, depending on the kind of work, and support the employee engagement.
Furthermore, to create the appropriate environment for future engagement,
organizations should avoid or reduce the main predictors of an employees’ exhaustion
and/or burnout, such as difficult job demands and stressful working conditions
(Xanthopoulou et.al. 2007). Practices can include removing problematic or unfavorable
aspects of the tasks and technical operations, providing more user-friendly workplace
equipment, introducing more role clarity and decision making authority of workers, and
creating and supporting opportunities for positive social interactions at work (Warr,
2005, as referenced in Attridge, 2009). Even Gallup Q12 method of assessment of work
engagement includes the question of having a best friend at work (Gallup, 2010)
It is also important to change the culture of an organization in order to reduce or avoid
organizational factors that lead to employees being stressed at work, absenteeism and
disengagement (Attridge, 2009). Lockwood’s view backs this viewpoint and states that
“workplace culture sets the tone for engagement” (2007, p.4). The winner of the
Healthy Workplace is determined by the American Psychological Association and is
judged according to five criteria that contribute to a healthy workplace culture: work-
life balance, employee growth and development, health and safety, recognition and
employee involvement (Grawitch et.al., 2006).
Other researchers refined and expanded these practices to the following five categories
(Grawitch et.al., 2006):
1. Supporting work-life balance. Work-life balance programs recognize that
workers have responsibilities outside work and include not only practices and
policies regarding elderly and child care but also other responsibilities in
32
employees’ private lives that require flexibility. Examples of work-life balance
programs include flexible scheduling, childcare, eldercare, and provision of job
security.
2. Promoting employee growth and development. With employee growth and
development programs, organizations invest in the employees’ skills potential,
which makes them more committed to the organization and increases the
chances for internal career development. Employee growth and development
programs examples include additional on-the-job training, leadership
development and provision of internal career opportunities.
3. Encouraging employee health and safety at the workplace. Health and safety
programs are designed to maximize employees’ physical and mental health.
Such programs might include employee assistance programs for alcohol and
drug addiction, wellness screenings, stress management training, counseling and
safety training.
4. Praise and recognition. Recognition programs, which make employees feel
rewarded for their contribution to the organization, are usually perceived as
monetary rewards (bonuses or raises, but they can also include other types of
rewards such as honorary ceremonies, personal acknowledgment in companies’
newsletters etc.
5. Employee involvement. The goal of employee involvement, which is perhaps the
most popular of all healthy work place practices, according to the authors, is to
allow employees to bring diverse ideas to solving organizational problems and
increasing organizational effectiveness. Employee involvement can be increased
with greater employee participation in decision making, empowerment, self-
managed teams and job autonomy.
Other researchers suggest engagement practices, which can be taken on the managerial
level, that facilitate community-building efforts in organization (Gravenkemper, 2007):
1. Communicating a compelling message. To successfully engage people, the
company needs to capture their hearts and minds.
2. Building a guiding coalition. To build a community, it is necessary to create a
core leadership team that supports common goals.
3. Creating principle-based versus compliance-based guidelines for decisions and
behaviors. Principle-based guidelines are preferred for promoting engagement
33
and commitment, because it requires an individual interpretation of messages
and gives the opportunity to personalize meaning. Whereas, compliance-based
guidelines states that not demonstrating the desired behavior will result in
negative consequences. (Examples of principle-based guidelines: Treat others
the way that you would like to be treated. Be all that you can be. Examples of
compliance-based guidelines include: Don't walk on the grass. You will be
docked an hour's pay if you are late for work.)
4. Identifying early engagement indicators.Early indicators signal that community-
building efforts are acceleration, and it points out the successful initiatives to
which extra resources can be allocated. One of the indicators might be the “buzz
level” in the group.
5. Generating continuous opportunities for dialogue. Making people communicate,
rather than just listen, creates buy-in. Communication between leaders increases
their commitment and tends to strengthen the ties within the leadership group.
6. Planning assimilation strategies for new members and new leaders. Successful
assimilation of new members into the community and managing their transition
to leadership roles are two key points of increasing engagement and
commitment.
Leadership style and support also contributes to employee engagement (Ologbo and
Saudah, 2011; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). As supervisors carry an extra role as being
organizational agents, the employees’perception of their favorable or unfavorable
treatment may contribute to POS (Eisenberger et. al., 1986), which also has influence on
engagement (Saks, 2006). According to occupational health psychology research
(Barling 2007, as referenced in Attridge, 2009), the most effective leadership style for
supporting engagement is “transformational leadership”. This leadership style was
defined as “leadership behavior that transforms the norms and values of the employees,
whereby the leader motivates the workers to perform beyond their own expectations”
(Yukl, 1989, as referenced in Tims et. al. 2011, p.122).
Traditionally, transformational leaders communicate the vision of the future, inspire and
motivate employees, are a role model for subordinates, show real interest in the
employees’ needs and intellectually stimulate workers (Tims et. al. 2011). Inspirational
motivation, performed by the leader, inspires employees to be more engaged and task-
committed trough sharing the vision, encouraging higher performance expectations and
34
appealing to workers emotions (Hickman, 2010; Kelly, 2010 as referenced in Song
et.al., 2012).Other important attributes of the transformational leader are authenticity
and emotional competence with others (Quick et. al., 2007). The authentic leaders are
transparent to others, create positive psychological environment and are known for
having personal integrity. Emotionally competent leaders are aware of their own
feelings and emotions as well as other people feelings and emotions and know how to
act in accordance with these emotions. As a result, employees often develop a deeper
trust in management and the employees’ sense of self-efficacy improves; these two are
the factors which are associated with well-being and productivity (Attridge, 2009).
Some researchers found that transformational leaders are able to enhance employees’
feeling of involvement, commitment, potential and performance (Shamir et. al., 1993).
Workers might see their work as more challenging, involving and satisfying, when they
receive sufficient support, inspiration and coaching from supervisor, which gradually
makes them highly engaged (Tims et. al. 2011).
2.4.2 HR support of employee engagement
In order to get competitive advantages, organizations are referring to HR departments to
set the agenda to creating the culture of engagement at work (Lockwood, 2007).
The HR departments deal with personnel and their relations. Its responsibilities often
involve standard administrative tasks and assisting other managers by dealing with
employees starting from the selection process to the end of their contract. The HR
department is in charge of staffing, selection, orientation, training and development,
performance appraisal and safety issues. As the HR department works so closely with
employees and their issues, it is clear that for employee engagement to take place, HR
activities can help other managerial practices when dealing with employees.
Strategic function. Strategic HR helps to integrate HR policies and practices with the
organization’s strategic plans (Porter, 2008), giving the possibility to make the
employees’ work more meaningful and related to the strategic direction of the
organization. Research shows that the employees’ understanding of how their job is
connected to the company’s strategy, and how their job contributes to the company’s
success, is one of the most important drivers of employee engagement (Lockwood,
2007).
35
Recruitment and selection. The recruitment process tries to ensure that the company has
the right people placed in the right jobs. This is important for further employee
engagement, because if employees are in tune with their jobs then they are
psychologically and emotionally present during their task performance, they do not
block or withdraw from the job, and do not perform it mechanically (Khan, 1990).
Training and development. Learning, training and development can have two meanings
for the employees. It can be perceived as an intrinsic motivator, as they support
employees’ growth, learning and development. It can also be an extrinsic motivator,
because they give employees more tools they can use during their work for achieving
their goals (Bakker and Leiter, 2010). Moreover, in the survey conducted by Paradise
(2008), employees ranked quality of workplace learning opportunities as the first factor
influencing their engagement.
Performance management. In their book Mone and London (2010) recommends
managers to pay more attention to performance management in order to create a more
engaged workforce. Performance management includes the following activities, which
are found to be essential for employee engagement (Mone and London, 2010):
1. Building trust. Authors state that one of the key predictors of employee
engagement is their ability to trust their manager.
2. Setting meaningful goals. Research shows that a manager who spends time on
setting goals and plans with the employee makes them more able to engage,
because setting goals effectively empowers employees to act.
3. Communication about performance. Feedback is communication in the company
that helps an employees understand how their job contributes to the success of
the team and organization. Employees receiving ongoing feedback, specially
positive, on their performance are more engaged, because they also see it as
recognition and encouragement, which contributes to engagement.
4. Recognition. A simple “thank you”, not mentioning other formal ways (e.g. new,
exciting project, invitation to a senior meeting, awards, etc) gives employees a
sense of being valued and important.
5. Team learning and development. Employees have a chance to learn and develop
skills, which give them more tools to achieve their job goals, and, according to
Khan (1990), having necessary tools at work makes employees more able to
engage.
36
Compensation and Benefits. Thought compensation and benefits are not perceived to be
the most important, however they still play an important role in employees’ perception
of the job (Robinson, 2007). Having a market-related compensation and benefit
package, combined with the feeling of being reasonably rewarded (Koyuncu et al.,
2006), fairly treated and appreciated, makes employees more willing to engage
(Maslach et al. 2001; Kahn, 1990). The reward is not just a pay, it can be a combination
of pay, bonuses, financial and nonfinancial rewards such as extra free days, child care
etc.
2.5. Specifics of administration employees’ work-life in educational
organizations
The engagement of staff members at educational institutions is an important and
interesting issue to look at. Firstly, the administrative staff of the university has a
significant influence on the tone, manner and style of the entire institution. Secondly,
because the tasks and quality of day-to-day performance contributes to the quality of the
elationships with faculties, students and the public (Scott, 1978 as referenced in
Johnsrud and Rosser, 1999). Lastly this part of staff of academies and universities has
rarely been studied (Johnsrud and Rosser, 1999). Nowadays, educational institutions
are increasingly taking into consideration the notion of engagement, as they are starting
to realize that engagement helps to create a more efficient and productive workforce
(Johnsrud and Rosser, 1999).
Understanding the specifics and significance of the work performed by administrative
staff in the educational organization may be important prior to creating the culture of
engagement. Administrative workers, in educational organizations, are non-academic
support personnel. They are not a faculty and, unlike academic staff, they are non-
contract employees (Rosser, 2000; Johnsrud and Rosser, 1999). Administrative staff is
the advisors, analysts, counselors, specialists, technicians, and officers on which the
faculty and students rely on and trust (Rosser, 2000). They are the unsung professionals
in the academic environment: unsung, because their contribution to the educational
organization is rarely recognized , despite them making a significant contribution to
higher education as a whole (Rosser, 2000).Administrators play an essential role in the
educational organizations and they are known to be a loyal, dedicated, committed group
37
of managers who work long hours, are highly professional and skilled, with a strong
sense of connection to their work and enthusiastic about their tasks (Rosser, 2000)
2.5.1 Specifics of work
The specifics of the administrative employees are that, as well as having specific
responsibilities, they are also the front line employees of the organization (Rosser,
2000). Every first contact with the educational organizations is done so through them.
The quality of this experience may be an important factor for the future students’
integration and development (Rosser, 2000). Administrators are also the ones who
interact with the students, faculty, public and private sector and provide public and
community service information. Another significant element of their position, is that
they are the link between their own superior’s directions and the public, faculty and
students, who actually use their support and service (Rosser, 2000; Johnsrud and
Rosser, 1999). They deal with the external suppliers of resources needed to support the
different activities in the educational organizations (Scott, 1976, 1977 as references in
Rosser, 2000). As well as interacting with the faculty and students, administrators deal
also with the private sector, public sector and government in fund-raising activities and
provide the public and community with service information (Johnsrud and Rosser,
1999; Rosser, 2000). Furthermore, they monitor and regulate the policies and
procedures in the educational organizations. However, the specific with their position, is
that they rarely have the authority to participate in administrative policy making: to
change, adjust or develop the regulations that they carry out (Johnsrud and Rosser,
1999; Rosser, 2000).
2.5.2 Issues affecting the quality of administrators work lives
Understanding the significance of administrative staff within educational organizations
helps to understand the factors that influence their professional life. Studies have found
a couple of factors, which may negatively influence an employees’ job attitudes, and
consequentially their engagement: lack of cooperation with supervisors, little
involvement with the mission and goals, role ambiguity, position limitations, lack of
advancement and opportunities (Moore and Twombly, 1990, as referenced in Johnsrud
and Rosser, 1999), and limited resources (Scott, 1976, 1977, as referenced in Johnsrud
and Rosser, 1999).
38
At the same time, Johnsrud (1996 as referenced in Rosser, 2000) has identified three
areas which, as she suggests, are of consistent frustration for administrative workers: the
specifics of the midlevel position, lack of recognition for their contributions and the lack
of career development opportunities. The first issue, feeling between, is the biggest
source of frustration for administrative staff (Rosser, 2000). Their responsibility is to
implement and enforce policies developed by the senior administrators. However they
rarely have the chance to contribute to the decision-making process, even though they
are the ones who defend and explain these policies – when students, faculties or the
public question them. Despite being a big part of the educational organizations,
administrative workers sometimes feel invisible and unappreciated in the organization
(Johnsrud and Rosser, 1999). However, they want to be recognized for their
contribution to reaching educational organizations’ mission. They want to be
acknowledged and appreciated for the supportive role they play and for their
competencies (Johnsrud and Rosser, 1999). Recognition of their competencies
includes: guidance, trust, communication, participation, confidence and performance
feedback (Rosser, 2000). Looking for and gaining recognition has become an important
aspect of an administrators work life (Rosser, 2000). Recognition is known as one of the
basic human needs. Despite this many administrative staff feels that their need is not
being met by their organization (Rosser, 2000). Recognition can take many forms: most
important element is that administrators must feel valued and appreciated for all the
work they do (Johnsrud and Rosser, 1999). Another source of frustration is the lack of
career development (Rosser, 2000). Unlike faculty members, who have the chance to
remain in the same position while advancing in the ranks (assistant – associate – full
professor), administrators lack these advancement opportunities. In most educational
organizations mobility is limited or difficult, which is why it is highly important to
create possibilities for their professional growth (Rosser, 2000). Administrative staff
members are willing to improve on their techniques of completing their current job, as
well as gaining new skills and knowledge necessary to complete more challenging
assignments, or to gain more experience required for another position (Rosser, 2000).
2.5.3 Administrative workers moral
Understanding the specifics of the administrative workers’ perception of their work-life,
as expressed in moral for example, is very important to educational organizations,
39
because these perceptions, in one way or another, may influence the quality of the job
the workers complete or how long they decide to stay with organization (Rosser, 2000).
In their study Johnsrud and Rosser (1999) studied the administrators’ morale and its
influence on the employees’ perception of work. Wesbrook (1980) argues that on the
individual level, moral is connected with the employees’ satisfaction with their work
environment. Furthermore, Johnsrud and Rosser (1999) has defined morale as “a state
of mind regarding one’s job, including satisfaction, commitment, loyalty, and sense of
common purpose with respect to ones work (p.124)”. For a better understanding of the
administrative employees’ work life in their study Johnsrud and Rosser (1999)
presented the factors that affect an administrative workers’ morale. From the
institutional side it is affected by salary, opportunity for promotions and career
development opportunities. Professional issues, which also have an influence on morale,
are the degree of trust from the supervisor, sense of teamwork and recognition for their
contribution. Recognition can take many forms, whichever the form administrators must
feel that their abilities and contributions are valued and appreciated in the organization.
Another factor, trust as perceived from the supervisor, shows that supervisors play an
important role in the development of a positive work environment for their employees.
It can be seen that factors influencing moral, correspond to antecedents of employee
engagement. In summary, building and increasing employee engagement has a positive
influence on the workers moral and in turn, their attitudes to the work environment.
2.5.4 Factors influencing the engagement of administrative staff
Unfortunately, the higher education administrators’ engagement literature is not
extensive and does not yet include a lot of studies conducted within higher education.
The findings presented by Hermsen and Rosser (2008) shed some light on the factors
that influence engagement, specially that of the administrative workers within
educational institutions. They state that significant variables include: working
conditions, job fit, role fit, time spent interacting with students, and length of
employment on campus (Hermsen and Rosser, 2008). As working conditions were
found to be a significant and positive factor influencing engagement, this means that
better working conditions increase the chances that the employee will show a higher
level of engagement. Person-job fit was defined by Edwards (1991, as referenced in
40
Kristof, 1996, p.8) as ”the fit between the abilities of a person and the demands of a job
(i.e., demands-abilities) or the desires of a person and the attributes of a job (needs-
supplies)”. Person-role fit reflects the compatibility between the characteristics of the
person and the features of the role within the team, so compared with job-fit it describes
more the employees responsibilities within a team context (Ilgen,1994, as references in
DeRue and Morgeson 2007). Job fit also focuses more on the formal aspects of the
work, when role-fit includes both established and new tasks, which come out in teams
(Ilgen andHollenbeck 1991 as referenced in DeRue and Morgeson 2007), as team
members’ roles include formal tasks as well as informal socially defined tasks (Belbin,
1993, as referenced in DeRue and Morgeson 2007). In other words, the higher the
match between a person’s characteristics and those of the job, and the role he/she needs
to perform, the higher chances for engagement. Employees who spend more time
interacting with students also report a higher level of engagement. The only factor,
which was found to have a negative influence on the engagement of administrative
workers, was employment history, meaning that the longer employees were working
within an educational organization, the lower level of engagement they were showing.
3. Methodology
The following section will cover an approach and a method used for the investigation of
the current level of engagement of the administrative workers at VUC and the factors
that need to be improved in order to increase engagement. A brief introduction of
possible research approaches is presented further before explaining how the research
information and analysis data were gathered.
3.1 Research methods
It is relevant to use qualitative research when the prior knowledge about the area of
interest in limited. Due to its modest insight, qualitative research tends to be flexible,
with an emphasis on gaining insights and constructing theories (Ghauri & Grønhaug,
2006).The process of research involves emerging questions and the researcher making
interpretations of the meaning of the data (Creswell, 2009). Data collection and analysis
is often continuous, caused by limited prior understanding (Creswell, 2009).
41
Qualitative research “is interested in the perspectives of the participants, in everyday
practices and everyday knowledge referring to the issue under study” (Flick, 2008, p. 2).
Furthermore, qualitative research is concerned with patterns of behavior, such as rituals,
traditions, relationships and the way these are expressed (Denscombe, 2001).
Qualitative research provides text as empirical material instead of numbers in case of
quantitative research. The numbers, which possess specific characteristics, that are
useful for analytical purposes, are the attraction of the quantitative research. They give
the possibility to present findings in the form of graphs and tables. Such approach
“conveys a sense of solid, objective research” (Denscombe, 2001, p.177)
In order to measure the engagement level of employees and to find out the specific
antecedents of engagement that need to be improved, the quantitative research, with
questionnaires as the main source collecting data, was chosen. The choice has fallen on
a quantitative research for several reasons. A couple of tools for measuring employee
engagement have already been developed, which gives the opportunity to measure
engagement with a help of the questionnaire. This questionnaire produces numerical
data, which is a quantitative approach. Furthermore, existing researchers’ studies and
theories suggest a number of factors influencing the engagement, so no prior research
was needed for the purpose of this research.
If the purpose of this research was to find out the most important antecedents of
engagement for administrative workers in educational organizations, then the
information regarding this specific group would be limited, as little research has been
done on this group of employees. In this situation, the qualitative approach would be
more appropriate for collecting data (Creswell, 2009). However, the purpose of this
research is to identify which out of the suggested factors as listed in engagement
literature need to be improved in order to increase the engagement level of a rarely
studied, but still important, group of employees. In this situation, when the preliminary
knowledge regarding the topic has already been developed, quantitative research is
more appropriate (Creswell, 2009). Moreover, quantitative research provides results in
the form of numbers, which is highly applicable for the purpose of this paper, as they
can be compared with each other within the category of antecedents of engagement, and
can point out the factors driving engagement, which need to be improved. These
numbers are the basis for further analysis and recommendations.
42
Within the quantitative research approach a questionnaire method was found to be the
most appropriate. The reason for this is that brief, straightforward, standardized
information was needed and the social climate was found to be open enough to allow
full and honest answers. According to Denscombe (2001), in this kind of situation it is
appropriate to use questionnaires, as a method for research.
3.2 Information gathering
The theoretical part of the paper is based on findings from the engagement literature and
previous research on engagement. It consists of theoretical analysis of the existing
engagement literature and discussing the area of interest. The main source for gathering
information was ASB library’s database. It provides access to Business Source
Complete, which was used as the main tool to search books, magazine articles, and
research papers on the topic of employee engagement. The keywords, as well as their
synonyms and combinations, used to find the relevant information were: “employee
engagement”, “administrative workers”, “educational institution”.
Part I of the empirical research has been constructed based on The Gallup Q12 – a tool
for measuring employee engagement. This tool has been tested for several decades in
112 countries. The leading principal for the development of The Gallup Q12 is for it to
be used as a managerial tool; specially to be useful for managers in creating change
within an organization (Bakker & Leiter, 2010). All twelve questions suggested by
Gallup Q12 were used in Part I of the empirical research presented in this paper.
Part II of the empirical research has been constructed on the basis of several models and
theories, which have been developed within the engagement literature, that provide the
framework of what can enhance employee engagement. Furthermore, suggestions have
been narrowed down to the antecedents and drivers for engagement, which came from
Saks (2006), Kahn (1990), Maslach et al. (2001), Ologbo and Saudah (2011), Hakanen
et al. (2006, p.507), Robinson et.al. (2004), Karsan (2011), and Sonnentag (2003).
The thirteen factors, which have been chosen for the investigation, are:
1. Meaningful job
2. Autonomy at work
3. Performance feedback
4. Development opportunities
43
5. Perceived organizational support
6. Perceived procedural justice
7. Social support from colleagues
8. Supervisory support
9. Social climate
10. Trustworthy leader
11. Access to information
12. Time to restore personal resources
The composition of this list has started from the review of the article “Antecedents and
consequences of employee engagement” written by Alan M. Saks (2006). His research
was based on Kahn’s (1990) and Maslach et.al.’s (2001) models. Kahn (1990) states
that meaningful job increases psychological meaningfulness for the employee and
therefore increases engagement. Taking this into consideration, the factor “meaningful
job” has been included in the list. In his article, Saks (2006) showed evidence that the
job characteristics increase meaningfulness for the employee and are positively related
to job engagement. The burnout literature states that specifically two out of five core job
characteristics are consistently related to job burnout; these are lack of feedback and
autonomy. Therefore, these two factors were included in the list. Furthermore, factors
such as “perceived organizational support” and “perceived procedural justice” were also
used in the investigation, because Saks (2006) showed that they strengthen the
employees’ feeling of safety, which therefore increases their engagement.
Saks (2006) research of antecedents of engagement is limited, as it was based solely on
Kahn’s (1990) and Maslach et.al.’s (2001) engagement models. Furthermore, since the
time of Saks’ (2006) paper, new research on employee engagement has emerged.
Therefore, other factors have also been included in the list. The “development
opportunities” factor was taken from the study of Ologbo and Saudah (2011). Learning
and development helps employees to maintain their job interest and therefore
meaningfulness (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011). Recent research conducted by Ologbo and
Saudah (2011) and Hakanen et.al. (2006) found that “social support from colleagues”
and “supervisory support” also have positive influence on engagement. But these results
diverge from the results of the study conducted by Saks (2006), who did not find
support for “supervisory support” to be an antecedent of the engagement. Nevertheless,
Johnsrud and Rosser (1999) showed that, in educational organizations, administrative
44
workers’ moral has an influence on their perception and attitude to the job. The same
study pointed out that the morale of administrative workers in educational organizations
is influenced by a number of factors, such as working atmosphere, relations with
colleagues and supervisors. Therefore, it was decided to keep both of the factors,
“social support from colleagues” and “supervisory support”, in the list. The “social
climate” factor was taken from Hakanen et.al. (2006) research, as they showed that it
predicts work engagement. The “reward and recognition” factor suggested by Koyuncu
et al. (2006) and Ologbo and Saudah (2011) was not supported by Saks (2006) findings.
Being a questionable factor, which requires more investigation, it was excluded from
the list. The “Trustworthy leader” factor comes from Karsan’s (2011) suggestion that
trust is important for building relationships, which is necessary for further engagement.
The “access to information” factor was shown to be important by Hakanen et.al. (2006)
for further engagement and therefore was included in the list. Another researcher
showed that individuals that feel recovered after the working day show a higher level of
engagement the next day (Sonnentag, 2003). Therefore the factors connected with
personal availability were also considered as important for this investigation.
Administrative workers, besides daily tiredness, may sometimes experience high levels,
of stress (for example during the exam periods). According to Sonnentag (2003) it is
important that after stressful working days employees have enough time to relax and
restore their emotional and psychological resources, in order to be ready for high
performance the next day. Therefore, the “time to restore resources” factor was included
in the list.
Based on this literature, that presents factors which support engagement, own empirical
research has been constructed. Kahn (1990) suggested that three psychological
conditions serve as antecedents of personal engagement: psychological meaningfulness,
psychological safety, and psychological availability. Taking this into consideration
factors, which were included in the list, were grouped into three corresponding
categories:
1. Meaningfulness: “meaningful job”, “autonomy at work”, “performance
feedback” and “development opportunities” as they increase the job
meaningfulness for the employee;
2. Safety: “perceived organizational support”, “perceived procedural justice”,
“social support from colleagues”, “supervisory support”, “social climate”,
45
“trustworthy leader” and “access to information”, as they make employees feel
safer at work during their job performance;
3. Availability: sufficient “time to restore personal resources”, as it makes
employee more physically, emotionally and psychologically available to work.
3.3. Data collection
The empirical part of this paper is based on the data collected through the survey. The
aim of the survey is to apply engagement theories on the rarely investigated yet, but
important part of educational organizations’ staff. The survey was intended to measure
their engagement level and to find factors that need to be addressed in order to improve
engagement.
The method of collecting this data was a self administered questionnaire. This tool does
not require the presence of the researcher and it includes instructions how to fill in the
questionnaire, which respondents read on their own (Blumberg et al., 2005).
Questionnaires were sent via an e-mail, which contained a short introduction to the
purpose of the research and the link, where the on-line questionnaire could be found.
The advantages of this kind of survey are: low cost, ability to cover all participants and
participants’ privacy and confidentiality is protected (Blumberg et al., 2005). The
disadvantage connected with the potential limited access (Blumberg et al., 2005) to the
Internet was eliminated, as all participants have convenient access to the Internet.
Another possible disadvantage of this method is a possible low rate of responses
(Blumberg et al., 2005). To omit the likelihood of this situation, specific measures were
taken. It should be mentioned that preliminary notification and follow-ups are
successful tools in increasing response rate (Kanuk and Berenson, 1975). An advance
notification by e-mail was sent prior to the research to all the respondents by the Head
of Administration, which demonstrated his approval of the research and foretold that
research would be conducted soon. Due to the nature of their work, there is a potential
for a respondent to set the questionnaire aside and forget to complete it, as they may be
working under time constrains (Blumberg et al., 2005). To avoid this, a follow-up letter
was sent reminding participants to complete the questionnaire. Low amounts of
response can also be caused by the length of a questionnaire (Blumberg et al., 2005).
Therefore the questionnaire was designed to be short and contain only the necessary for
46
analysis questions. To avoid double response, the questionnaire was designed to allow
only one response per computer.
The research subjects were administrative workers at the VUC Aarhus. VUC Aarhus
offers education to adults, both at primary and high school levels. There are currently
approximately 270 employees at VUC Aarhus, of which 25 represent the
administration. The research was conducted among the administrative employees from
the Leader Secretary, Salary, Economy and Study Administration departments.
According to Denscombe (2001), the question of the adequate number of research
subjects does not have a straightforward answer and depends on the purpose of the
research. The main reason for not including all subjects is that the cost is too high and
the time it takes to curry out the research usually is too long (Ghauri & Grønhaug,
2006). Taking into consideration that the number of administrative workers is small, it
was decided to distribute the questionnaire to everyone, in order to get enough valuable
and thorough results that describe the precise picture of engagement. The questionnaire
was sent to 25 administrative workers; of this 19 responses were received.
The questionnaire, which was delivered to the participants (enclosed in the Appendix 1),
consist of two parts. Part one is determined to measure the level of the administrative
workers engagement. Part two is determined to find out the factors that need to be
improved to increase engagement. Participants of the questionnaire were ensured that
their responses were anonymous and confidential. They were also informed that it
would not take a lot of their time to complete the questionnaire. Part one was based on
The Gallup Q12 method for measuring employee engagement and consisted of 12
statements, which respondents are asked to rate on a scale from “strongly disagree” to
“strongly agree”. The second part of the questionnaire consist of 12 the antecedents and
drivers for engagement, which respondents also were required to rate on a scale from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, in order to find out which of the factors require
improvement.
Taking into consideration the difficulties with the English language among participants,
the questionnaire was translated into Danish. Although, the questionnaire was translated
by a native Danish speaker, some minor misinterpretations could occur. To avoid this,
the questionnaire was translated back to English for the comparison and possible
corrections.
47
The on-line questionnaire was created with the help of obsurvey.com. This tool collects
answers and automatically generates a basic report. Features of Obsurvey.com give the
opportunity to download the answers in the form of charts and images, and to view
report in a PDF or Excel format. Therefore, Excel was used to conduct further analysis.
3.4. Data analysis
For the simplicity of the analysis coding of received answers was used. Received
responses were coded as following: “strongly disagree” = “1”, “disagree” = “2”,
“neutral” = “3”, “agree” = “4”, and “strongly agree” = “5”.
The first step of the analysis was to calculate the individual engagement level of every
employee. This ment calculating how many of employees were highly engaged,
engaged, not engaged, disengaged or highly disengaged. This gave a better picture of
the overall engagement level of employees in the organization. The next step was to
calculate the mean values of the antecedents of engagement. The factor with the lowest
mean value was given the position number one and the following factors were given
subsequent numbers. This gave insight into the areas (meaningfulness, safety,
availability), which require the most improvement and specially which of these factors
need to be improved in order to increase the employee engagement.
4. Results
The results of the investigation will be discussed in two sections. The first section will
present the general level of administrative workers engagement at VUC Aarhus. The
second part will present the factors that need to be addressed in order to improve
engagement.
Gallup (2006) suggests that all employees can be divided into 3 types: engaged, not
engaged and highly disengaged. Respondents who answered agree or strongly agree to
the suggested Q12 questions belong to the engaged group. Gallup (2006) describes
engaged employees as the ones who work with passion, feel a profound connection to
their company, and help move their organization forward. Non-engaged employees are
the ones who “sleepwalk” through the working day. They dedicate their time, but not
energy or passion to their work. Actively disengaged employees are the biggest concern
for the organization, as they don’t keep their unhappiness to themselves; instead they
48
spread it around, undermining the results, their co-workers accomplished. The results of
the questionnaire show that that the overall score of the employee engagement at VUC
Aarhus is 3.73, which means that the employees are generally not engaged. Of course,
the engagement score, which is the middle position of the engagement scale, could be
explained by the existence of highly engaged or highly disengaged employees. However
the Figure 4, which presents the ranks of the individual level of administrative workers’
engagement, shows that there are no highly engaged or highly disengaged employees.
The ranks of employee engagement are spread more on the middle part of the figure
with only 7 employees reaching a score of 4 or slightly over. This means that
improvement to the level of engagement can be applicable to all of the presented
employees.
Figure 4. Values of individual employee engagement
(For the better visualization on this figure the “engaged” area is presented by green color, “non engaged”
area by yellow and “disengaged” by red)
The results of the VUC Aarhus administrative workers engagement show that 12
employees were found as “not engaged” and 7 as “engaged”. The comparison with the
world-class organizations and average rates (Gallup, 2010) can be found on Figure 5.
Through this, it can be seen that the disposition of engagement at VUC Aarhus is closer
to the average indicators.
4,00 3,58 3,67
3,25 3,58 3,50
3,25
4,25 4,17 3,83 4,00
3,25
4,33 4,08
4,42
3,33 3,50 3,33 3,58
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
3,50
4,00
4,50
5,00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Individual employee engagement
49
Figure 5. Ratio of engaged to actively disengaged employees
On Figure 6 the disposition and ranks of the antecedents of engagement is shown. Only
three factors “1.meaningful job”, “2.autonomy” and “3.development opportunities” lie
in the engaging area, whereas most of the factors lie in the “not engaging” area.
Figure 6. Mean Values and the disposition of ranks of antecedents of engagement
(For the better visualization on this figure the “engaged” area is presented by green color, “non engaged”
area by yellow and “disengaged” by red)
7% 18% 0%
26%
49% 63%
67%
33% 37%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Engaged
Not Engaged
Actively Disengaged
4,32 (10) 4,00
(8) 3,79 (6)
4,26 (9)
3,74 (5)
3,05 (1)
3,84 (7)
3,26 (2)
3,58 (4)
3,53 (3) 3,26
(2)
3,53 (3)
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
Antecedents of Engagement
50
The three categories of antecedents of engagement can be analysed separately for
deeper discussion. Figure 7 shows the mean values of engaging factors belonging to
meaningfulness. The relatively high mean value of the “1.meaningful job” (4.32) means
that employees see their work as challenging, they can utilize their different skills and
they have the opportunity to make an important contribution to the overall success of
the organizational (Saks, 2006).
The mean value of “2.autonomy” (4.00) means that employees choose which tasks to
perform, the order in which they perform the tasks, and when to start and finish the
tasks (Salanova et.al., 2005)
Figure 7. The disposition of mean value of antecedents of engagement belonging to
“meaningfulness”
(For the better visualization on this figure the “engaged” area is presented by green color and “non
engaged” area by yellow)
The mean value of the factor “4.development opportunities” (4.26) says that employees
have enough access to learning programs. This allows them to improve their knowledge
and development new skills, which helps them apply new methods to their daily tasks
(Ologbo and Saudah, 2011).
The only factor in this category in the “not engaging” zone is “3.feedback” (3.79). The
broad disposition of ranks (see Appendix 2.1) shows that the level of feedback may
differentiate from department to department, depending on the supervisor.
4,32
4,00
3,79
4,26
3
3,2
3,4
3,6
3,8
4
4,2
4,4
1. meaningfull job 2. autonomy at work 3. performance feedback
4.development opportunities
Meaningfulness
51
Figure 8 shows the mean values of engaging factors belonging to safety. Here you can
see all of the presented factors lie in the “non-engaging zone”. Such consistency shows
that workers generally do not perceive VUC Aarhus as a safe environment and they do
not feel comfortable enough to employ their selves without fear of negative
consequences for their image, status or career (Kahn, 1990). Individual responses to
the “5.perceived organizational support” with the mean value of 3.74 shows that most
of the respondents believe that the organization values their contributions and cares
about their well-being, however there are still some, who do not feel that their
contribution is valued in the organization.
Figure 8. The disposition of mean value of antecedents of engagement belonging to
“safety”
(For the better visualization on this figure the “non engaged” area is presented by yellow color)
Factor “6.perceived procedural justice” received the lowest value out of all antecedent
of engagement (see Figure 6). Looking at the individual responses (see Appendix 2.2), it
can be seen that only 4 employees find the allocation of rewards, resources etc. at work
as fair.
3,74
3,05
3,84
3,26
3,58 3,53
3,26
2,5
2,7
2,9
3,1
3,3
3,5
3,7
3,9
Safety
52
Factor “7.social support from colleagues” has the higher mean value of 3.84 in the
“Safety” group (see Figure 8). Taking a look at the individual responses (see Appendix
2.3), it can be said that nearly all employees feel as they are part of the group and can
receive help from co-workers if needed. The big difference in responses may be
explained by the individual characteristics of respondents; some employees may be less
open for contact with others.
The next factor “8.supervisory support” with a mean value of 3.26 is the second lowest
one out of the list (see Figure 6). If you take a look at the individual responses (see
Appendix 2.4), one can see that opinions are split, however most of the employees do
not receive enough support and appreciation from their supervisors. As supervisors are
seen as organizational agents (Eisenberger et. al., 1986), low levels of supervisory
support may partially explain the low evaluation of perceived organizational support.
Both factor “7. Social support from colleagues” and “8.supervisory support” contribute
to factor “9.social climate” with an average value of 3.58. Individual responses (see
Appendix 2.5) show that most employees feel positive, comfortable and relaxed at
work. If we take into consideration the previous factor, “8.supervisory support”,
respondents who places a low value here, may not be satisfied with the contribution of
supervisors to the social climate.
The factor “10.trust in senior leader” has a mean value of 3.53 and shows that individual
responses were split (see Appendix 2.6). This demonstrates that a percentage of
employees do not have confidence in their organization, because they do not see the
leadership as being reliable (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011). Lack of trust in organizational
leadership may partially explain the lack of trust in procedural justice, as leader are the
ones who decide which tools to use and how to use them.
Factor “11.access to information” has one of the lowest mean values of 3.26 (see Figure
6). Individual responses (see Appendix 2.7) show the respondents’ opinions differ
markedly on this topic. Consequently, such a difference in responses may be explained
by different working styles of department leaders.
53
Figure 9. The disposition of mean values of antecedents of engagement belonging
to “availability”
(For the better visualization on this figure the “not engaged” area is presented by area by yellow color
and “disengaged” by red)
The level of personal availability was measured by the time employees have to restore
their resources (Figure 9). The mean value of 3.53 and the disposition of individual
responses (see Appendix 2.8), show that not all employees are ready for high
performance the next day, as they do not get asufficient amount of rest at home.
5.Recommendations
The findings of this investigation, point out areas that the HR manager and department
leaders of VUC Aarhus should take better care of to improve the existing non-engaging
situation. Relatively high scores on factors belonging to employees feeling of
meaningfulness, show that workers feel worthwhile, useful, valuable and see the returns
on their self investment. The only non-engaging factor in this category is
“3.performance feedback”. Administrative workers in educational organizations rarely
have the chance to contribute to the decision making processes and therefore may feel
unrecognized and invisible (Johnsrud and Rosser, 1999). Therefore, according to Rosser
(2000) they seek recognition in performance feedback instead. Therefore, department
leaders should pay more attention to this factor; it should be their daily managerial task
(Mone & London, 2010). While giving performance feedback, Attridge (1999)
recommends concentrating on positive sides of the performance, how well employee
has performed and input in achieving the outcome. Instead of criticizing, department
3,53
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
11. Time to restore personal resources
Availability
54
leaders should suggest behaviors that can be changed to improve future performance
(Attridge, 1999; Mone & London, 2010). Besides formal feedback, such as year-end
performance appraisal, informal feedback, which can take place at any time, either in
conversation after an important event or in passing conversation, should be conducted at
least quarterly (Mone & London, 2010). In the situation when the supervisor does not
give direct feedback, employees are still trying to collect it indirectly through the feeling
how the leader treats them and the assignment he/she gives (Mone & London, 2010).
However, employees do not always interpret these signals correctly. Therefore, it is the
leaders’ task to provide employees with effective feedback, which will make them more
engaged and improve their performance. According to Mone and London (2010)
effective feedback should be easily understood and clear. It should be on a regular basis
and it is better to give feedback sooner rather than later, while the issue is still fresh in
the minds of both the supervisor and the employee.
Furthermore, the results of the investigation show that VUC Aarhus should direct most
of its attention towards increasing the employees feeling of safety, related to their work
life, as all factors in this category have non-engaging mean values.
Employees evaluate the support they receive from their organization and decide whether
or not to engage in relation to the resources they receive from the organization (Saks,
2006; Rhoades et al., 2001). Eisenberger et.al. (1986) and Rhoades and Eisenberger
(2002) agree that employees perceive supervisors as being organizational agents.
Therefore, the support of department leaders plays an important role in shaping a
favorable employees’ perception the organizational support. Furthermore, supervisory
support was found to be the second strongest association with POS after fairness of
treatment (Rhoades. and Eisenberger, 2002). Glen Hallam (1996) suggests measures
organizations, with the help of department leaders, can take to improve the employees’
perception of support. VUC Aarhus should discover the areas where employees need
help. For example, supervisors should ensure that employees understand the
organizational mission, they get the required information to do their job successfully
and that employees have support, while dealing with stressful situation etc. It is also
important to document and publicize the success of employees. This can, for example,
be in the form of a shared e-mail, congratulating an employee with his/her
accomplishments. This signals that the department leader and organization as a whole
values and appreciates its workers. Eisenberger et.al. (1986) have other suggestion on
55
how to improve organizational support. They state that POS could be improved through
material and symbolic rewards. They also state that more personalized praise is more
rewarding than a “one size fits all”.
Procedural justice also contributes to POS (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). Therefore,
VUC Aarhus should be more accurate and transparent in choosing procedures and
policies regarding resource distribution. Not only organizational trust needs to be
improved in VUC Aarhus. Employees do not have enough confidence in their
department leaders as well. Mone and London (2010) recommends steps for supervisors
to build employees’ trust. Department leaders should give employees achievable goals
and negotiate the resources they need to achieve those goals. Relatively high mean
value on “2.autonomy at works”, shows that supervisors are confident in their
employees, therefore leaders should continue to show that they are comfortable relying
on the employees. Leaders should be consistent in what they say and do, and
demonstrate predictable patterns of behavior, for employees to feel more comfortable
and trusting. Delivering feedback is a sensitive moment and being constructive, and
using the above stated recommendations regarding feedback, makes employees more
comfortable to discuss their performance and therefore to trust their leader. Increasing
the employees’ trust of supervisors may also improve their perception of organization
fairness, as department leaders are the ones to enact procedures regarding employees.
VUC Aarhus should also provide employees with information about what is going on in
the organization. Employees need to have access to information, which can help them
accomplish their tasks successfully (Hakanen et al., 2006). This includes clarifications
and performance feedback from their supervisor (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011). Glen
Hallam (1996) has some recommendations regarding the sharing of information. After
meetings, minutes should be taken and delivered to all the employees, who were not
able to attend. Employees need to know who knows what and who they can contact if
they need extra information. VUC Aarhus and department leaders specifically, should
support employees by helping each other learn new approaches and ways of
accomplishing tasks (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011). Besides facilitating a good working
culture, department leaders should also support positive social interaction between
employees, which will help them both to satisfy their need to belong and to achieve
work related goals.
56
Results also show that not all employees have a sufficient amount of time to restore
their inner resources to be ready for high performance at work. It is hard to give
recommendations to VUC Aarhus regarding this issue, because as an organization, it
cannot influence the employees’ activities and the level of preoccupation outside of
work hours.
6.Limitations
This research has a number of significant limitations, which should be noted. Firstly, a
possible limitation is the representativeness of the sample. The presented analysis and
following recommendations are based solely on responses from 19 out of the 25
employees. Strictly speaking, the 6 missing responses could change the results from the
survey and respectively the recommendations. Therefore, it should be noted that the
recommendations should be perceived with caution.
Secondly, the empirical part of the research has a limited generalization. Researchers
have shown that the level of engagement depends on the size of the organization
(Temkin, 2012). Therefore, the level of engagement that the respondents indicate might
not correspond to the engagement level of another educational organization of a
different size. Furthermore, the level of engagement employees have shown in this
study might not be true for the educational organizations of the similar size in other
countries, as the level of engagement varies geographically (Seijts & Crim, 2006).
Thirdly, limitation is related to the list of chosen antecedents of engagement. The list of
twelve factors was made on the basis of the existing engagement literature with attempt
to include factors specially important for administrative workers in educational
institutions. The list appears to cover the most important antecedents of engagement.
However, as the knowledge regarding the specific drivers of engagement for this group
of employees is limited, there is a risk that some important drivers were not included in
the list.
Finally, the questionnaire was designed in English and subsequently translated into
Danish. Although, the questionnaire was translated by a native Danish speaker, some
minor misinterpretations could occur.
57
7.Conclusion
The present research has applied engagement theory on the rarely investigated group of
employees and examined the engagement of administrative employees in VUC Aarhus.
The aim was to measure the engagement level of employees and to identify the factors
that need to be improved to increase the level of engagement. Results of the study have
shown that administrative employees within the organization are generally not engaged.
Furthermore, results of the investigation identified the areas and specific factors that
VUC Aarhus, as organization with the help of department leaders, need to improve.
According to Kahn (1990), employee engagement is influenced by three conditions:
meaningfulness, safety and availability. Results have shown that employees perceive
their job as meaningful, that they have a sufficient amount of autonomy and the
opportunity for development. The only factor in the meaningful category which lies in
the non-engaging zone is “3.performance feedback”. This means that managers need to
change the frequency and the manner in which they deliver performance feedback, and
to make it part of their daily managerial tasks.
Furthermore, results show that all of the factors corresponding to the employees’ ability
to employ themselves without fear of negative consequences are lying in the “not
engaging” area. In order to increase the employees feeling of safety, VUC Aarhus as an
organization should show that it cares about each individual employee and that they are
willing to help them perform their day-to-day tasks successfully. The amount of
organizational support is perceived by employees through organizational leadership.
Therefore, being an organizational agent, department leaders need to increase the level
of the employees trust towards them personally and consequentially towards
organization. Supervisors should also be more accurate and transparent in the decision
making regarding employees and provide employees with the necessary work related
information. Department leaders need to demonstrate a higher level of support in work
related situations; they also need to show that they care about their employees
personally. Therefore, they need to create and support a relaxed atmosphere at work,
where positive social and work related interaction between employees could take place.
8.Further research
It is recognizable that the sample of employees presented in the study is too small to
make generalizations and recommendations for other organizations. Therefore, further
58
studies should include a larger sample of employees. It appeared that much of the
literature and research on administrative workers in educational organizations has been
a case study (e.i. Hermsen & Rosser, 2008) and there has been no national study on this
topic. Therefore, studies should try to cover a larger geographical area and to compare
the results received from different countries and educational organizations of a different
size. This will ensure a broad spectrum of respondents and show how the geographical
location and size of an educational organization influences the engagement.
Existing research show that administrative workers from different institutional types
(research, baccalaureate, or community college) have a different level of moral
(Johnsrud and Rosser, 1999). In the future, research could investigate if the type of
educational organization has an influence on worker engagement.
It might be useful for further research to investigate the factors that have the highest
influence on the engagement of administrative workers in educational organizations. In
this manner organizations will know in which areas to concentrate their efforts. The
investigation could include the possible differences in the factors that drive engagement
between male and female. It could also show whether there is a gender difference in
antecedents of engagement.
The literature on career progression suggests that the employees perceptions of work
develops over time, and with age and more job tenure, employees may look for different
things from their work (e.i. Jurkiewicz & Brown 1998; Bright, 2010). It would be
interesting to learn whether engaging factors change with age and tenure. Potentially
employees, who just entered the market, would be more engaged through development
and promotion opportunities, and those closer to retirement would be more engaged by
social climate. Future research could investigate the change in perception of
engagement factors with age.
Future research could include observations regarding how fast the level of engagement
changes after the measures to increase engagement were implemented.
Finally, it is reasonable to assume that other organizations would like to improve on the
performance of their employees and therefore know how to engage their employees in
the most efficient way. Therefore, further research should also conduct investigations
within specific groups of employees, to be able to give specific recommendations to
organizations.
59
9. Bibliography
Abraham, S., 2012. Development of Employee Engagement Programme on the basis of
Employee Satisfaction Survey. Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT,
Finance and Marketing, 4(1), pp. 27-37.
Aktouf, O., 1992. Management and theories of organizations in the 1990s: Toward a
critical radical humanism. Academy of Management Review, 17, pp. 407–431.
Attridge, M., 2009. Measuring and Managing Employee Work Engagement: A Review
of the Research and Business Literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health,
24(4), pp. 383 – 398.
Bakker, A. and Schaufeli, W., 2008. Positive organizational behavior: Engaged
employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29,
pp.147–154
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E., 2007. The job demands–resources model: state of the
art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), pp. 309–328.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E., 2008. Towards a model of work engagement. Career
Development International, 13(3), pp.209–223.
Bakker, A.B. and Leiter M.P., 2010. Work engagement: a handbook of essential theory
and research. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Bakker, A.B., Hakanen, J.J., Demerouti, E. and Xanthopoulou, D., 2007. Job resources
boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(2), pp. 274-284.
Balain S. and Sparrow P., 2009. Engaged to Perform: A new perspective on employee
engagement: Executive Summary. Lancaster University Management School.
Barsade, S., 2002. ‘The ripple effect: emotional contagion and its influence on group
behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, pp. 644-77.
Blumberg B., Cooper, D.R. and Schindler P.S., 2005. Business research methods.
London: McGraw-Hill.
Bright, L., 2010. Why Age Matters in the Work Preferences of Public Employees: A
Comparison of Three Age-Related Explanations. Public Personnel Management, 39(1),
pp.1-14.
Britt, T.W., Adler, A.B. and Bartone, P.T., 2001. Deriving benefits from stressful
events: The role of engagement in meaningful work and hardiness. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), pp. 53-63.
Buchanan, D., 1979. The Development of Job Design Theories and Techniques. New
York: Praeger Publishers.
Cartwright, S. and Holmes, N., 2006. The meaning of work: the challenge of regaining
employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management Review,
16, pp. 199–208.
Corporate Leadership Council, 2002. Building the High-Performance Workforce A
Quantitative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Performance Management Strategies,
Washington ,DC
60
Creswell, J.W., 2009. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B., 2001. The job
demands-resources model of burnout. The Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), pp.
499 – 512.
Denscombe, M., 2001. The good research guide: for small-scale social research
projects. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Dernovsek, D., 2008. Engaged Employees. Credit Union Magazine, 74(5), pp. 42.
DeRue, D.S. and Morgeson, F.P., 2007. Stability and change in person-team and
person-role fit over time: The effects of growth satisfaction, performance, and general
self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology. 92(5), pp. 1242-1253.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa,D., 1986. Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), pp. 500–507.
Flick, U., 2008. Designing Qualitative Research. [e-book] London : SAGE
Publications, Limited, Thousand Oaks. Available through: ASB Library website
<http://www.asb.eblib.com.ez.statsbiblioteket.dk> [Accessed 1May 2012].
Fredrickson, B.L. and Joiner, T., 2002. Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward
emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13, pp. 172-175.
Fredrickson, B.L., 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist,56, pp. 218-226.
Gallup, 2006. Gallup study: engaged employees inspire company innovation. The
Gallup Management Journal. Available at:
http://gmj.gallup.com/content/24880/Gallup‐Study‐Engaged‐Employees‐Inspire‐Compa
ny.aspx [Accessed 12 May 2012].
Gallup, 2010, Employee engagement. What is your ration?. Available at:
<http://www.gallup.com/consulting/121535/employee-engagement-overview-
brochure.aspx> [Accessed 20 February 2012].
George, J. M., Reed, T. F., Ballard, K. A., Colin, J. And Fielding, J., 1993. Contact with
AIDS patients as a source of work-related distress: Effects of organizational and social
support. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 157–171.
Ghauri, P. and Grønhaug, K., 2006. Research methods in business studies: a practical
guide. 3rd ed. London: Ft Prentice Hall.
Graen G.B., 2008. Enriched engagement through assistance to systems’ change: a
proposal. Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 1, pp. 74–75.
Gravenkemper, S., 2007. Building Community in Organizations: Principles of
Engagement. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59(3), pp. 203-
208.
Grawitch, M.J., Gottschalk, M. and Munz, D.C., 2006. The path to a healthy
workplace: A critical review linking healthy workplace practices, employee well-being,
and organizational improvements. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 58(3), pp. 129 – 147.
Greenberg, J., 1990. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of
Management, 16, pp. 399-432.
61
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R., 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley.
Hakanen, J., Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B., 2006. Burnout and work engagement
among teachers. The Journal of School Psychology, 43, pp. 495-513.
Hallam G.L., 1996. The adventures of team fantastic: a practical guide for team leaders
and members. [e-book] Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership. Available
through: ASB Library website <http://www.asb.eblib.com.ez.statsbiblioteket.dk>
[Accessed 20 May 2012].
Hallberg U.E. and Schaufeli W.B., 2006. “Same same” but different? Can work
engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?.
European Psychologist, 11(2), pp. 119–27.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L., 2002. Business-unit-level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp.268-279.
Heintzman R. and Marson B., 2005. People, service and trust: Links in a public sector
service value chain. International Review of Administrative Studies, 7(4), pp. 549-575.
Hermsen, J. and Rosser, V., 2008. Examining Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction of
Staff Members in Higher Education. CUPA-HR Journal . 59(2), pp. 10-18.
Igbaria, M. and Buimaraes, T., 1993. Antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction
among information center employees. Journal of Management Information Systems,
9(4), pp.145–175.
Johnsrud, L.K. and Rosser, V.J., 1999. College and University Midlevel
Administrators: Explaining and Improving Their Morale. The Review of Higher
Education, 22(2), pp. 121-141.
Jurkiewicz, C. and Brown, R.,1998. GenXer’s vs. boomers vs. matures:generational
comparisons of public employees’ motivation. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 18(4), pp.18–37.
Kahn, W., 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement
at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, pp. 692-724.
Kahn, W., 1992. To be full there: psychological presence at work. Human Relations,
45, pp. 321-49.
Kanuk and Berenson, Mail surveys, p.450 Reprinted from the Journal of Marketing
Research, published by the American Marketing Association, in B. Blumberg, D.R.
Cooper, P.S. Schindler, 2005. Business research methods. London: McGraw-Hill.
Karsan. R., 2011. Engaging and aligning employees. Training Journal, p.52-55
Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J. and Fiksenbaum, L., 2006. Work engagement among
womenmanagers and professionals in a Turkish bank: potential antecedents and
consequences. Equal Opportunities International, 25, pp. 299-310.
Kristof, A.L.,1996. Person–Organization Fit: An Integrative Review of Its
Conceptualizations, Measurement, and Implications. Personnel Psychology, 49 (1), pp.
1–49.
Langelaan, S., Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Van Rhenen, W. and Van Doornen,
L.J.P., 2006. Do burned-out and work-engaged employees differ in the functioning of
62
the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis?. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment,
and Health, 32, pp. 339-48.
Lawler, E.E. and Hall, D.T., 1970. Relationship of job characteristics to job
involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54,
pp. 305–312.
Lockwood, N.R., 2007. Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive
Advantage: HR's Strategic Role. HR Magazine, 52(3), Special section pp. 1-11.
Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Norman, S.M. and Combs, G.M., 2006.
Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27, pp. 387–393.
Markos, S. and Sridevi M.S., 2010. Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving
Performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), pp. 89-96.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P., 2001. Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, pp. 397-422.
Mauno S., Kinnunen U. and Ruokolainen M., 2007. Job demands and resources as
antecedents of work engagement: a longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
70, pp. 149–171.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M., 2004. The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety, and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at
work. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 77, pp. 11-37.
Mone, E.M., and London, M., 2010. Employee Engagement: Through Effective
Performance Management – A Practical Guide for Managers. Taylor & Francis
Group NY.
Nelson, D.L., Macik-Frey, M. and Quick, J.C., 2007. Advances in Occupational Health:
From a Stressful Beginning to a Positive Future. Journal of Management, 33(6), pp.
809-840
Ologbo, C.A. and Saudah, S., 2011. Engaging People who Drive Execution and
Organizational Performance. American Journal of Economics and Business
Administration, 3(3), pp. 569-575.
Paradise, A., 2008. Influences Engagement. T+D, 62(1), pp. 54-59.
Penna, 2006. Meaning at Work Research Report. Available at: <http://www.e-
penna.com/newsopinion/research.aspx> [Accessed 28 March 2012].
Porter, C., 2008. Exploring human resource management. London: McGaw-Hill p.442
Quick, J.C., Macik‐Frey, M. and Cooper, C.L., 2007. Managerial Dimensions of
Organizational Health: The Healthy Leader at Work. Journal of Management Studies,
44(2), pp. 189 – 205.
Rashid, H.A., Asad, A. and Ashraf, M.M., 2011. Factors Persuading Employee
Engagement and Linkage of EE to Personal & Organizational Performance.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(5), pp. 98-108.
Rhoades, .L, Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S., 2001. Affective commitment to the
organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, pp. 825-36.
63
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. 2002. Perceived organizational support: a review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 698-714.
Robertson-Smith G. and Markwick C., 2009. Employee Engagement A review of
current thinking. Institute for Employment Studies, Report 469.
Robinson, D., 2007. Engagement is marriage of various factors at work. Thought
Leaders, pp.37.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S., 2004. The Drivers of Employee
Engagement. Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton
Rosser V.J., 2000. Midlevel Administrators: What We Know. New Directions for
Higher Education, 111, pp. 5-13.
Saks, A.M., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21, pp, 600-619.
Salanova, M., Agut, S. and Peiro, J.M., 2005. Linking organizational resources and
work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of
service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), pp. 1217–1227.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martı´nez, I. and Schaufeli, W.B., 2003. Perceived
collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work
groups: An experimental study. Small Groups Research, 34, pp. 43–73.
Sanchez, P. and McCauley, D. 2006. Measuring and Managing Engagement in a Cross-
Cultural Workforce: New Insights for Global Companies. Global Business and
Organizational Excellence, 26(1), pp. 41 – 50.
Sange, R. & Srivasatava R.K., 2012. Employee Engagement and Mentoring: An
Empirical Study of Sales Professionals. Synergy, 10(1), pp. 37-50
Schaufeli, W., Martı´nez, I., Marque´s-Pinto, A., Salanova, M. and Bakker, A.B., 2002.
Burnout and engagement in university students: A crossnationa study. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 33, pp. 464–481.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B., 2004. Job demands, job resources and their
relationship with burnout and engagement: a multisample study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, pp. 293–315.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Salanova, M., 2007. Work engagement: an emerging psychological
concept and its implications for organizations. In: S.W. Gilliland, D.D. Steiner, and D.P.
Skarlicki, ed, 2007, Research in Social Issues in Management: Managing Social and
Ethical Issues in Organizations, Information Age Publishers, Greenwich, CT.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Van Rhenen, W., 2009. How changes in job
demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), pp. 893 – 917.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B., 2002. The
measurementof engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic
approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, pp. 71-92.
Schneider, B. & Bowen, D., 1993. The service organization: Human resource
management is crucial. Organizational Dynamics, 21, pp. 39–52.
Scott, R.A., 1978. Lords, Squires and Yeoman: Collegiate Middle Managers and Their
Organizations. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.
64
Scottish Executive, 2007. Employee engagement in the Public Sector: a review of
literature. Available at:
<http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/05/09111348/3> [Accessed 27 March
2012].
Seijts, G.H. and Crim, D., 2006. What engages employees the most or, the ten C’s of
employee engagement. Ivey Business Journal Online, 70(4), pp. 1-5.
Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur, M.B., 1993. The motivational effect of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, pp. 577−594.
Shuck, B. and Wollard, K., 2010. Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review
of the Foundations Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), pp. 89-110.
Shuck, B., 2011. Four Emerging Perspectives of Employee Engagement: An Integrative
Literature Review. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), pp. 304-328 .
Song, J.H. and Kim, H.M., 2009. The integrative structure of employee commitment:
The influential relations of individuals’ characteristics in a supportive learning culture.
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 30(3), pp.240–255.
Song, J.H., Kolb, J.A., Lee, U.H. and Kim, H.K., 2012. Role of transformational
leadership in effective organizational knowledge creation practices: Mediating effects of
employees' work engagement. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(1), pp. 65-
101.
Sonnentag, S., 2003. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behaviour: a new look
at the interface between non‐work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), pp.
518–528.
Sy, T., Cote, S. and Saavedra, R., 2005. The contagious leader: impact of leader’s affect
on group member affect and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, pp.
295-305.
Temkin, B., 2012. Employee Engagement Benchmark Study. Temkin Group. Available
att: <http://experiencematters.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/small-companies-have-more-
engaged-employees/> [Accessed 25 May 2012].
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., Xanthopoulou, D., 2011. Do transformational leaders enhance
their followers' daily work engagement?. Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), pp. 121-131.
Towers Perrin, 2003. Working today: understanding what drives employee engagement.
Towers Perrin. Available at:
<http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=HRS/USA/2003/200309/Tale
nt_2003.pdf> [Accessed 6 March 2012].
Wah, L., 1999. Engaging employees a big challenge. Management Review, 88(9), pp.
10.
Westbrook, S. D., 1980. Morale Proficiency and Discipline. Journal of Political and
Military Sociology, 8(1), pp. 43 – 54.
Westman, M., 2001. Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations, 54, pp. 557-91.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B., 2007. The role of
personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress
Management, 14(2), pp. 121-41
i
Appendix 1. Questionnaire
(English version)
ii
(Danish version)
iii
iv
v
Appendix 2. Mean values of individual responses.
2.1 The disposition of individual responses regarding performance feedback.
(For the better visualization on this figure the “engaged” area is presented by green color, “not engaged”
area by yellow and “disengaged” by red)
2.2. The disposition of individual responses regarding procedural justice.
(For the better visualization on this figure the “engaged” area is presented by green color, “not engaged”
area by yellow and “disengaged” by red)
0 1
6
8
4
0
2
4
6
8
10
highly disagree disagree neutral agree highly agree
3. I receive feedback about my performance at work
0
3
12
4
0 0
5
10
15
highly disagree disagree neutral agree highly agree
5. I perceive VUC being fair in the processes that resolve disputes and allocate resources?
vi
2.3. The disposition of individual responses regarding social support from
colleagues.
(For the better visualization on this figure the “engaged” area is presented by green color, “not engaged”
area by yellow and “disengaged” by red)
2.4. The disposition of individual responses regarding supervisory support.
(For the better visualization on this figure the “engaged” area is presented by green color, “not engaged”
area by yellow and “disengaged” by red)
0 1
2
15
1
0
5
10
15
20
highly disagree disagree neutral agree highly agree
7. I get high level of social support from colleagues
1 2
9
5
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
highly disagree disagree neutral agree highly agree
8. I get hight level of social support from supervisors
vii
2.5 The disposition of individual responses regarding social climate.
(For the better visualization on this figure the “engaged” area is presented by green color, “not engaged”
area by yellow and “disengaged” by red)
2.6. The disposition of individual responses regarding trustworthy leader.
(For the better visualization on this figure the “engaged” area is presented by green color, “not engaged”
area by yellow and “disengaged” by red)
0
4
2
11
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
highly disagree disagree neutral agree highly agree
9. The workplace climate is emotionally positive, comfortable and relaxed
0
3
6
7
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
highly disagree disagree neutral agree highly agree
10. I trust my senior leader
viii
2.7 The disposition of individual responses regarding information accessibility.
((For the better visualization on this figure the “engaged” area is presented by green color, “not engaged”
area by yellow and “disengaged” by red)
2.8 The disposition of individual responses regarding availability.
(For the better visualization on this figure the “engaged” area is presented by green color, “not engaged”
area by yellow and “disengaged” by red)
0
4
6
9
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
highly disagree disagree neutral agree highly agree
11. I think that the management shares enough job-related information with the
personnel in your organization
1 2
5
8
3
0
2
4
6
8
10
highly disagree
disagree neutral agree highly agree
12. I have enough time at home to relax after the working day
top related