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