Importance of Employee Engagement in Business Environment:

Transcription

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

2 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

3 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

4 Table of Contents 1. Introduction Problem statement and research question Relevance of thesis topic and the applicability of the results Structure of the paper Theoretical background Concept of employee engagement Defining Engagement Similarity and distinction from other organizational constructs Employee engagement models and theory Importance of engagement Organizational outcomes Employee outcomes Why do engaged employees perform better Antecedents of engagement Implication for organization Organizational support of employee engagement HR support of employee engagement Specifics of administration employees work-life in educational organizations Specifics of work Issues affecting the quality of administrators work lives Administrative workers moral Factors influencing the engagement of administrative staff Methodology Research methods Information gathering Data collection Data analysis Results Recommendations Limitations Conclusion Further research Bibliography... 59

5 List of figures: Figure 1. Characteristics of engaged employees 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 Figure 5. Ratio of engaged to actively disengaged employees. 49 Figure 6. Mean values and the disposition of ranks of antecedents of engagement 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

6 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. 1

7 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 burnoutantithesis 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 2

8 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 3

9 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. 4

10 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. 5

11 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 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 6

12 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). 7

13 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) 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 8

14 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 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 9

15 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 selfconsciousness 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). 10

16 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 11

17 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 satisfactionloyalty (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). 12

18 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. 13

19 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 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. 14

20 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, 15

21 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 16

22 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 17

23 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. 18

24 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 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. 19

25 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 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-andbuild 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 20

26 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 21

27 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. 22

28 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 23

29 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) 24

30 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 25

31 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 26

32 (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 27

33 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 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 28

34 employees, who agree with this statement. The survey conducted by The Corporate Leadership Council (2002), which analyzed 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). 29

35 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 30

36 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: worklife 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 31

37 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, selfmanaged 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 32

38 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 communitybuilding 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 taskcommitted trough sharing the vision, encouraging higher performance expectations and 33

39 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) 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). 34

40 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. 35

41 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 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 noncontract 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 36

42 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) 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) 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). 37

43 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) 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, 38

44 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 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 39

45 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 (needssupplies). 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). 40

46 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. 41

47 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 42

48 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 43

49 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, 44

50 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 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 , 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 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 45

51 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. 46

52 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 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 47

53 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 5,00 4,50 4,00 3,50 3,00 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 Individual employee engagement 4,25 4,00 4,17 4,33 4,42 3,58 3,67 3,83 4,00 4,08 3,25 3,58 3,50 3,25 3,25 3,33 3,50 3,33 3, (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. 48

54 Figure 5. Ratio of engaged to actively disengaged employees 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 67% 26% 7% 33% 37% 49% 63% 18% 0% Engaged Not Engaged Actively Disengaged 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 Antecedents of Engagement 5 4,5 4 3,5 3 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) 2,5 2 1,5 1 (For the better visualization on this figure the engaged area is presented by green color, non engaged area by yellow and disengaged by red) 49

55 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 Meaningfulness 4,4 4,2 4 3,8 3,6 3,4 3,2 3 4,32 4,00 3,79 1. meaningfull job 2. autonomy at work 3. performance feedback 4,26 4.development opportunities (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. 50

56 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 Safety 3,9 3,7 3,5 3,3 3,1 3,74 3,05 3,84 3,26 3,58 3,53 3,26 2,9 2,7 2,5 (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. 51

57 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 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. 52

58 Figure 9. The disposition of mean values of antecedents of engagement belonging to availability Availability 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 3, Time to restore personal resources (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 53

59 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 , 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 54

60 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. 55

61 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. 56

62 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 57

63 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. 58

64 9. Bibliography Abraham, S., Development of Employee Engagement Programme on the basis of Employee Satisfaction Survey. Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance and Marketing, 4(1), pp Aktouf, O., Management and theories of organizations in the 1990s: Toward a critical radical humanism. Academy of Management Review, 17, pp Attridge, M., Measuring and Managing Employee Work Engagement: A Review of the Research and Business Literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 24(4), pp Bakker, A. and Schaufeli, W., Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, pp Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E., The job demands resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), pp Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E., Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), pp Bakker, A.B. and Leiter M.P., 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., Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), pp Balain S. and Sparrow P., Engaged to Perform: A new perspective on employee engagement: Executive Summary. Lancaster University Management School. Barsade, S., The ripple effect: emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, pp Blumberg B., Cooper, D.R. and Schindler P.S., Business research methods. London: McGraw-Hill. Bright, L., Why Age Matters in the Work Preferences of Public Employees: A Comparison of Three Age-Related Explanations. Public Personnel Management, 39(1), pp Britt, T.W., Adler, A.B. and Bartone, P.T., Deriving benefits from stressful events: The role of engagement in meaningful work and hardiness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), pp Buchanan, D., The Development of Job Design Theories and Techniques. New York: Praeger Publishers. Cartwright, S. and Holmes, N., The meaning of work: the challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management Review, 16, pp Corporate Leadership Council, Building the High-Performance Workforce A Quantitative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Performance Management Strategies, Washington,DC 59

65 Creswell, J.W., 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., The job demands-resources model of burnout. The Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), pp Denscombe, M., The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects. Buckingham: Open University Press. Dernovsek, D., Engaged Employees. Credit Union Magazine, 74(5), pp. 42. DeRue, D.S. and Morgeson, F.P., 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 Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa,D., Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), pp Flick, U., Designing Qualitative Research. [e-book] London : SAGE Publications, Limited, Thousand Oaks. Available through: ASB Library website < [Accessed 1May 2012]. Fredrickson, B.L. and Joiner, T., Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13, pp Fredrickson, B.L., The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist,56, pp Gallup, Gallup study: engaged employees inspire company innovation. The Gallup Management Journal. Available at: Study Engaged Employees Inspire Compa ny.aspx [Accessed 12 May 2012]. Gallup, 2010, Employee engagement. What is your ration?. Available at: < [Accessed 20 February 2012]. George, J. M., Reed, T. F., Ballard, K. A., Colin, J. And Fielding, J., Contact with AIDS patients as a source of work-related distress: Effects of organizational and social support. Academy of Management Journal, 36, Ghauri, P. and Grønhaug, K., Research methods in business studies: a practical guide. 3rd ed. London: Ft Prentice Hall. Graen G.B., Enriched engagement through assistance to systems change: a proposal. Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 1, pp Gravenkemper, S., Building Community in Organizations: Principles of Engagement. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59(3), pp Grawitch, M.J., Gottschalk, M. and Munz, D.C., 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 Greenberg, J., Organizational justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, pp

66 Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R., Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Hakanen, J., Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B., Burnout and work engagement among teachers. The Journal of School Psychology, 43, pp Hallam G.L., 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 < [Accessed 20 May 2012]. Hallberg U.E. and Schaufeli W.B., Same same but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?. European Psychologist, 11(2), pp Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L., Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp Heintzman R. and Marson B., People, service and trust: Links in a public sector service value chain. International Review of Administrative Studies, 7(4), pp Hermsen, J. and Rosser, V., Examining Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction of Staff Members in Higher Education. CUPA-HR Journal. 59(2), pp Igbaria, M. and Buimaraes, T., Antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction among information center employees. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(4), pp Johnsrud, L.K. and Rosser, V.J., College and University Midlevel Administrators: Explaining and Improving Their Morale. The Review of Higher Education, 22(2), pp 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 Kahn, W., Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, pp Kahn, W., To be full there: psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45, pp 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, Business research methods. London: McGraw-Hill. Karsan. R., Engaging and aligning employees. Training Journal, p Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J. and Fiksenbaum, L., Work engagement among womenmanagers and professionals in a Turkish bank: potential antecedents and consequences. Equal Opportunities International, 25, pp Kristof, A.L.,1996. Person Organization Fit: An Integrative Review of Its Conceptualizations, Measurement, and Implications. Personnel Psychology, 49 (1), pp Langelaan, S., Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Van Rhenen, W. and Van Doornen, L.J.P., Do burned-out and work-engaged employees differ in the functioning of 61

67 the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis?. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health, 32, pp Lawler, E.E. and Hall, D.T., Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, pp Lockwood, N.R., Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR's Strategic Role. HR Magazine, 52(3), Special section pp Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Norman, S.M. and Combs, G.M., Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, pp Markos, S. and Sridevi M.S., Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), pp Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P., Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, pp Mauno S., Kinnunen U. and Ruokolainen M., Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: a longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, pp May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M., The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 77, pp Mone, E.M., and London, M., 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., Advances in Occupational Health: From a Stressful Beginning to a Positive Future. Journal of Management, 33(6), pp Ologbo, C.A. and Saudah, S., Engaging People who Drive Execution and Organizational Performance. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 3(3), pp Paradise, A., Influences Engagement. T+D, 62(1), pp Penna, Meaning at Work Research Report. Available at: < [Accessed 28 March 2012]. Porter, C., Exploring human resource management. London: McGaw-Hill p.442 Quick, J.C., Macik Frey, M. and Cooper, C.L., Managerial Dimensions of Organizational Health: The Healthy Leader at Work. Journal of Management Studies, 44(2), pp Rashid, H.A., Asad, A. and Ashraf, M.M., Factors Persuading Employee Engagement and Linkage of EE to Personal & Organizational Performance. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(5), pp Rhoades,.L, Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S., Affective commitment to the organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, pp

68 Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp Robertson-Smith G. and Markwick C., Employee Engagement A review of current thinking. Institute for Employment Studies, Report 469. Robinson, D., Engagement is marriage of various factors at work. Thought Leaders, pp.37. Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S., The Drivers of Employee Engagement. Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton Rosser V.J., Midlevel Administrators: What We Know. New Directions for Higher Education, 111, pp Saks, A.M., Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, pp, Salanova, M., Agut, S. and Peiro, J.M., Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), pp Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martı nez, I. and Schaufeli, W.B., Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Groups Research, 34, pp Sanchez, P. and McCauley, D Measuring and Managing Engagement in a Cross- Cultural Workforce: New Insights for Global Companies. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 26(1), pp Sange, R. & Srivasatava R.K., Employee Engagement and Mentoring: An Empirical Study of Sales Professionals. Synergy, 10(1), pp Schaufeli, W., Martı nez, I., Marque s-pinto, A., Salanova, M. and Bakker, A.B., Burnout and engagement in university students: A crossnationa study. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 33, pp Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B., Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multisample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, pp Schaufeli, W.B. and Salanova, M., 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., How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), pp Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B., The measurementof engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, pp Schneider, B. & Bowen, D., The service organization: Human resource management is crucial. Organizational Dynamics, 21, pp Scott, R.A., Lords, Squires and Yeoman: Collegiate Middle Managers and Their Organizations. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education. 63

69 Scottish Executive, Employee engagement in the Public Sector: a review of literature. Available at: < [Accessed 27 March 2012]. Seijts, G.H. and Crim, D., What engages employees the most or, the ten C s of employee engagement. Ivey Business Journal Online, 70(4), pp Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur, M.B., The motivational effect of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, pp Shuck, B. and Wollard, K., Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the Foundations Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), pp Shuck, B., Four Emerging Perspectives of Employee Engagement: An Integrative Literature Review. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), pp Song, J.H. and Kim, H.M., 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 Song, J.H., Kolb, J.A., Lee, U.H. and Kim, H.K., Role of transformational leadership in effective organizational knowledge creation practices: Mediating effects of employees' work engagement. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(1), pp Sonnentag, S., Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behaviour: a new look at the interface between non work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), pp Sy, T., Cote, S. and Saavedra, R., The contagious leader: impact of leader s affect on group member affect and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, pp Temkin, B., Employee Engagement Benchmark Study. Temkin Group. Available att: < [Accessed 25 May 2012]. Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., Xanthopoulou, D., Do transformational leaders enhance their followers' daily work engagement?. Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), pp Towers Perrin, Working today: understanding what drives employee engagement. Towers Perrin. Available at: < nt_2003.pdf> [Accessed 6 March 2012]. Wah, L., Engaging employees a big challenge. Management Review, 88(9), pp. 10. Westbrook, S. D., Morale Proficiency and Discipline. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 8(1), pp Westman, M., Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations, 54, pp Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B., The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), pp

70 Appendix 1. Questionnaire (English version) i

71 (Danish version) ii

72 iii

73 iv

74 Appendix 2. Mean values of individual responses. 2.1 The disposition of individual responses regarding performance feedback I receive feedback about my performance at work 0 1 highly disagree disagree neutral agree highly agree (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 I perceive VUC being fair in the processes that resolve disputes and allocate resources? highly disagree disagree neutral agree highly agree (For the better visualization on this figure the engaged area is presented by green color, not engaged area by yellow and disengaged by red) v

75 2.3. The disposition of individual responses regarding social support from colleagues I get high level of social support from colleagues highly disagree disagree neutral agree highly agree (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 I get hight level of social support from supervisors highly disagree disagree neutral agree highly agree (For the better visualization on this figure the engaged area is presented by green color, not engaged area by yellow and disengaged by red) vi

76 2.5 The disposition of individual responses regarding social climate The workplace climate is emotionally positive, comfortable and relaxed highly disagree disagree neutral agree highly agree (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 I trust my senior leader highly disagree disagree neutral agree highly agree (For the better visualization on this figure the engaged area is presented by green color, not engaged area by yellow and disengaged by red) vii

77 2.7 The disposition of individual responses regarding information accessibility. 11. I think that the management shares enough job-related information with the personnel in your organization highly disagree disagree neutral agree highly agree ((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. 12. I have enough time at home to relax after the working day highly disagree disagree neutral agree highly agree (For the better visualization on this figure the engaged area is presented by green color, not engaged area by yellow and disengaged by red) viii