Abstract
Orientation: Based on different roles that managers occupy at different levels in organisations the question often arises: ‘how will these multiple roles and levels affect their engagement?’
Research purpose: This study aimed to establish if employee engagement is a multi-level construct based on the multiple roles that individuals occupy in organisations.
Motivation for the study: Several engaging management practices on different organisational levels were identified that either engage or disengage employees that are not being considered in the current mono-level, mono-role engagement models.
Research design, approach and method: This quantitative study is based on a cross-sectional survey conducted amongst 1750 individuals with managerial responsibilities in three different organisations. About 610 participants attempted to complete the survey, but only 425 fully completed responses could be used for final statistical analysis.
Main findings: Four different structural models were confirmed in the study. The first three confirmed different pull and push factors for individual, team and management engagement. The fourth model established that all three engagement constructs contribute to an engaging climate in organisations without any significant collinearity between the three engagement constructs.
Practical/managerial implications: The empirical evidence confirms unique sets of pull and push factors on individual, team and managerial levels. Human resource practitioners should, therefore, take note of which factors promote employee engagement on each level.
Contribution/value-add: The study confirms that employee engagement can be viewed as a multi-role, multi-level construct where significant spillover and/or crossover effects between different levels and roles are possible.
Keywords: employee motivation; employee engagement; individual engagement; team engagement; management engagement; engaging climate.
Introduction
Employee engagement remains a topical research and management issue (Bakker 2009; Macey & Schneider 2008); consequently, much research has been conducted thus far on factors that promote engagement in the workplace (Bakker & Demerouti 2007, 2008; Bakker et al. 2008; Demerouti et al. 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker 2004). In this respect, Demerouti et al.’s (2001) job demands-resources (JD-R) model is perhaps the most significant attempt to date to create a framework or a taxonomy for categorising the different demand (push) and resource (pull) factors (cf. Schaufeli & Taris [2014] for a list) that contribute towards work engagement on an individual level into a coherent model. On the other hand, Joubert (2010) identified no less than 57 management practices based on a management value chain model that can be grouped on different organisational levels (Joubert 2010; Joubert & Roodt 2011). These management practices result in engaging or disengaging work behaviours of individuals who occupy various roles on different organisational levels. These push and pull factors go beyond the demands and resources model of individual work engagement as proposed by Demerouti et al. (2001) and the question that arises is as follows: should employee engagement not be conceptualised as a multi-level construct?
Role theory and role identity theory suggest that individuals are tied mechanically to the different roles that they perform in an organisation (Burke & Stets 2009; Stets & Burke 2000). Only a few studies were found to have explained employee engagement on another organisational level (i.e. team level – Torrente et al. 2012a, 2012b), but no other studies could be found that simultaneously investigated employee engagement of the same individuals in different roles on different organisational levels. The main research question of the study can therefore be formulated as: ‘which push and pull factors contribute towards individuals’ engagement in different roles that they simultaneously hold on individual, team and/or management levels?’
The contribution of this study lies in the fact that it will identify push and pull factors that promote individuals’ engagement in the different roles that they simultaneously hold on individual, team and/or management levels. The results may be of significance for both human resource (HR) practitioners and researchers. It is argued that the contexts in which these roles are performed have each unique push and pull factors that may affect employee engagement on these particular levels. The study will also demonstrate how individuals’ engagement on these three levels contributes towards establishing an engaging climate in organisations. Consequently, the study conducted in three distinctly different types of organisations and industries will focus on individuals who hold multiple roles on different levels as the unit of analysis. More specifically, the following research objectives (ROs) were formulated:
- RO1 – Selected push and pull factors promote employee engagement on an individual level.
- RO2 – Selected push and pull factors promote employee engagement on a team level.
- RO3 – Selected push and pull factors promote employee engagement on a management level.
- RO4 – How employee engagement on these mentioned levels is mutually related as well as related to an engaging climate?
This article has four parts. Firstly, a theoretical orientation and a literature review will identify the most important push and pull factors that promote individuals’ engagement on three different organisational levels. Secondly, the research design and method will be presented with a brief summary of the measuring instruments used. Thirdly, the results of the study are presented and, finally, the article is concluded by a discussion of these research findings. The theoretical orientation and literature review will follow next.
Theoretical orientation and literature review
Theoretical orientation
This article will use role theory (Biddle 1986) and role identity theory (Burke & Stets 2009; Stets & Burke 2000) as the theoretical framework in which the study is embedded. Super (1990) stated that individuals occupy several (life) roles over the course of their lives. One such role is the work role that will assist the individual to integrate into the work community (Bothma, Lloyd & Khapova 2015) or the work organisation. The same principle applies in the workplace where it can be expected of individuals to occupy different work roles on different levels depending on their skills and preferences. Stander (2016), for instance, has identified no less than nine potential team roles and team members are assigned to these roles based on their skills and preferences. Mintzberg (1973) also referred to 10 different managerial roles that managers fulfil. It is needless to say that individuals need to be engaged in all these work roles regardless of their levels.
Literature review
The literature review in this article will cover five distinct aspects, namely, engaging contributing factors on (1) an individual level, (2) a team level, (3) a managerial level, (4) empirical evidence of how these engagement levels mutually relate and (5) how these respective engagement levels relate to an engaging climate.
Individual engagement
The JD-R model (Demerouti & Bakker 2011; Demerouti et al. 2001; Hakanen & Roodt 2010; Llorens et al. 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker 2010) proposes that different resources and demands (depending on their proportional representation) will result in either work engagement or burnout. Schaufeli and Bakker (2010:13) defined and operationalised work engagement as ‘… a positive, fulfilling, work related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption’ (see also Schaufeli & Salanova 2007).
According to Demerouti et al. (2001), job resources (JRs) are:
…those physical, psychological, social or organisational aspects of a job that either/or (1) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs; (2) are functional in achieving work goals and (3) stimulate personal growth, learning and development. (p. 501)
De Braine and Roodt (2015) refer to
…proximal resources (those more closely linked to the individual) such as skill variety, relationship with supervisors and peers, and role clarity. Distal resources (those further removed from the individual) as team climate, perceived external prestige as well as flow of information and communication. (p. 89)
Job demands on the other hand refer to
…those physical, psychological, social or organisational aspects of a job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (i.e. cognitive and emotional) effort on the part of the employee and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs. (Demerouti et al. 2001:501)
Proximal JDs are those that are closer to the individual and include ‘…emotional demands, role ambiguity, role conflict, lack of job control, lack of social support (from supervisors and colleagues), lack of feedback and work overload’. Distal JDs are those that are further removed from the individual and ‘…could include an unfavorable physical work environment and an unsupportive climate’ (De Braine & Roodt 2015:90).
Joubert (2014) listed a number of frequently cited studies that reported on empirical linkages between particular pull and push variables, which can be related to engagement on an individual level. These studies are Bakker and Demerouti (2007); Bakker, Demerouti and Schaufeli (2003); Breevaat and Bakker (2018); Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002); Hitlin (2003); Jain and Ansari (2018); Kahn (1990); Llorens et al. (2006); Luthans, Luthans and Luthans (2004); Nienaber and Martins (2016); Maslach and Leiter (1997); May, Gilson and Harter (2004); Pati and Kumar (2010); Rothbard (2001); and Shuck, Adelsin and Reio (2017). Joubert (2014:80–81) listed the identified push and pull factors (including and beyond the JD-R model) related to individual engagement in Table 1.
TABLE 1: Summary of reported empirical evidence on push and pull factors relating to individual engagement. |
Based on the strength of previously conducted empirical research on these above-listed factors, the following variables were selected as (1) pull and (2) push factors of individual engagement in the current study:
Pull factors: social support and performance feedback (Bakker et al. 2003) and autonomy (Bakker, Demerouti & Euwema 2005)
Push factors: work overload, emotional demands and physical demands (Bakker et al. 2005).
The above-mentioned variables are operationalised based on the following theoretical definitions: social support has been defined by Bakker and Demerouti (2007:315) as ‘…the support employees receive from their colleagues…’. Bakker et al. (2011:266) defined performance feedback as ‘…the likelihood of being successful in achieving one’s work goals’. Ackfeldt and Coote (2005:154) defined autonomy as the result of providing decision-making authority to employees at all levels. Bakker and Demerouti (2007:313) defined work overload as a job demand that contributes to employee exhaustion, especially in terms of employees’ mental and physical resources. Bakker et al. (2005:177) defined emotional demands as ‘…the frequency of exposure to emotionally demanding situations, such as complaints, impoliteness and intimidation’. Physical demands are defined as all aspects of a job that require physical effort from an employee and are associated with certain physiological costs, such as exhaustion (Bakker et al. 2003:395).
Based on this empirical evidence, the following research hypothesis was formulated:
H1: The selected pull and push factors are predictors of individual work engagement.
Team engagement
Schaufeli et al. (2002) defined team engagement as a ‘…positive, fulfilling work-related shared state characterised by vigor, dedication and absorption which emerges from the interaction and shared experiences of a work team’ (see also Mill 2008).
In the case of team engagement, the same argument is used where both the pull and push factors are identified, which may have an impact on team engagement. Only a limited number of studies have listed some pull and push factors that are related to team engagement (Aiqin et al. 2018; Aw & Ayoko 2017; Bakker, Van Emmerik & Euwema 2006; Bledouw 2009; Horton, McClelland & Griffin 2014; Jiang & McKay 2010; Lockwood 2007; Macleod & Clarke 2009; Patel et al. 2017; Raibick 2018; Torrente et al. 2012a; Ullah, Khattak & Rahman 2018). Joubert (2014:91–92) also listed these push and pull factors (beyond those reported in the JD-R model) that are related to team engagement in Table 2.
TABLE 2: Summary of reported empirical evidence on push and pull factors relating to team engagement. |
Based on the strength of empirical research conducted earlier on these above-listed factors, the following variables were selected as (1) pull and (2) push factors of team engagement in the current study:
Pull factors: supportive team climate, team work and coordination (Torrente et al. 2012b)
Push factors: team level burnout (Bakker et al. 2006), lack of group efficacy (Zellars et al. 2001) and team conflict (Miles & Kivlighan 2010).
The above-mentioned variables’ operational definitions will be based on the following theoretical definitions: Anderson and West (1998:236) defined organisational climate as what is generally referred to as ‘the way things are around here’ and consequently team climate will be the way things are in the team. Lewis-Tyran and Gibson (2008) defined teamwork as
…teams of employees who are interdependent on one another, who are jointly responsible for objectives and who recognise themselves as teams (cf. Cohen & Baily 1997), which is the essential mechanism for achieving work objectives. (p. 48)
Kraut et al. (2005:10) defined coordination as ‘…the management of task interdependencies carried out in the context of relationships with other group members’. Bakker et al. (2006:467) defined team-level burnout as where employees ‘…may perceive symptoms of burnout in their colleagues and automatically take on the same symptoms’. Zellars et al. (2001:483) defines team (collective) efficacy as the team members’ perceptions of their own group’s competence or the group’s ability to complete tasks successfully. Miles and Kivlighan (2010:117) defined (team) conflict as interpersonal conflict and even distrust.
Based on the empirical evidence provided, the following research hypothesis was formulated:
H2: The selected pull and push factors are predictors of team engagement.
Management engagement
In a similar vein as in the case of the above definitions of individual and team engagement, Joubert and Roodt (2016:59) defined management engagement as a ‘…positive, fulfilling work-related shared state characterised by vigor, dedication and absorption which emerges from the interaction and shared experiences of different managers and their interactions on “management level”’.
In the case of management engagement, both the identified pull and push factors that may have an impact on management engagement are identified in the following published research: Burke and El-Kot (2010); Flynn (2007); Furness (2008); Holland, Cooper and Sheenan (2017); Jena Lalatendu, Pradhan and Pranigrahy (2018); Lee et al. (2017); Luthans and Petersen (2002); Rothmann and Joubert (2007); Wiley, Kowske and Herman (2011); and Xu, Liu and Chung (2017). Joubert (2014:101) also listed such push and pull factors (beyond those reported in the JD-R model) that are related to team engagement in Table 3.
TABLE 3: Summary of empirical evidence on push and pull factors relating to management engagement. |
Based on the strength of empirical research conducted previously on these above-listed factors, the following variables were selected as (1) pull and (2) push factors of management engagement in the current study:
Pull factors: Manager self-efficacy, organisational support, and (management) resources (Rothmann & Joubert 2007).
Push factors: Management workload, (lack of) advancement opportunities, and job insecurity (Rothmann & Joubert 2007).
The above-mentioned variables’ operational definitions are based on the following theoretical definitions: Luthans and Peterson (2002:379) defined (manager) self-efficacy as ‘…an individual’s belief about his or her abilities to mobilise cognitive resources and courses of action needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given context’. Jackson and Rothmann (2005:115) defined organisational support as ‘…the relationship that employees have with their supervisor which includes potential ambiguities regarding their work, information, communication, and contact possibilities’. The variable resources in this instance is defined by Rothmann and Joubert (2007:55) ‘… as specific resources for managers, … such as staff and equipment, and financial resources’. Management workload is, according to Joubert (2014:171), a consequence of increased complexity, challenges and the technical nature of the work. Rothmann and Joubert (2007:55) defined advancement opportunities as ‘…a job resource in the form of opportunities for growth and development, promotion, and financial progress’. Van Schalkwyk et al. (2010:2) defined job insecurity as an ‘…overall concern about the future of one’s job’.
Based on the empirical evidence provided, the following research hypothesis was formulated:
H3: The selected pull and push factors are predictors of management engagement.
Empirical evidence of how these engagement levels mutually relate
Research that reports on the links or spillover effects on engagement between different organisational levels is sparse (Bakker & Demerouti 2009; Bakker et al. 2006; Bakker & Xanthopoulou 2009). Bakker et al. (2006) in investigating spillover effects between individual and team levels established a link between individual and team engagement. In a similar vein, Tims, Bakker and Xanthopoulou (2011) reported on how managers impact their followers’ work engagement. Rothmann and Joubert (2007) found that individual factors had an impact on managers’ engagement levels. Schaufeli and Taris (2014) pointed out that the different push and pull factors should be studied in relation to the engagement construct on a particular level. The current study adheres to this compatibility principle. The mentioned studies suggest that there may be links or spillover effects between the roles that individuals occupy on different organisational levels. No previous studies could be found that simultaneously investigated the engagement phenomenon in different organisational roles across different organisational levels.
Relationships with an engaging climate
Al-Shammari (1992) argues that leaders are responsible for setting the overall tone in organisations, and consequently the leadership style should be considered as associated with the organisational climate (see also Lee et al. 2017; Xu et al. 2017). Other researchers such as Dladla (2009), Fisher, Milner and Chandraprakash (2007), Hamlin and Serventi (2008), Kidd and Smewing (2001) and Rego and Cunha (2008) identified the relationships between organisational climate, job satisfaction and engagement. Kidd and Smewing (2001) more specifically suggested that leaders, even low-level supervisors, play an important role in the establishment of a supportive organisational climate. Ferreira (2013) in her study on an engaging leadership climate defined an engaging leadership climate as: ‘…where leadership, climate and engagement intersect’ (Ferreira & Roodt 2013:11). In order to develop an engaging climate in an organisation, one needs engagement on all the organisational levels. No studies could be found that have simultaneously investigated the effect of different engagement levels on an engaging climate. The fourth hypothesis of the study could therefore be formulated as follows:
H4: The three engagement constructs (individual, team and management) are predictors of engaging climate.
The model to be tested in the current study is presented in Figure 1.
|
FIGURE 1: The identified measurement model to be tested. |
|
The next section explains the research design and research method followed in the study.
Research design
Research approach
The research approach followed in this study is described as a cross-sectional survey design followed by ex post facto data analyses. The study therefore follows the quantitative research tradition where variable data are quantitatively analysed. The unit of analysis focused on in this study is the individual who performs different roles on different organisational levels. A multi-level study could have been considered, but posed too many challenges in terms of managing research ethics considerations, specifically with respect to anonymity and confidentiality of participants, and was therefore avoided.
Research method
The research method followed in this study is discussed under the following four subheadings.
Research participants and sampling
About 1750 supervisors, managers or management executives from three distinctively different organisations were targeted for this study, with the dominant consideration of establishing whether the research model will hold across these different organisations that function in different industries, possess different cultures and employ distinctively different policies and procedures in achieving their different strategic objectives. These three organisations are located in the public sector, the insurance industry and in the pharmaceutical research industry.
The approximately 1750 individuals targeted to participate by means of an electronic census-based survey were individuals who functioned in different roles on three different levels, namely, as individuals in their own right, as members of a team, or as supervisors, managers or executives. About 610 participants attempted to complete the survey, but only 425 fully completed surveys could be used for final statistical analysis (with an average response rate of about 24% per organisation, ranging between 18% and 33%). The large number (185) of incomplete responses had to be discarded owing to too many missing values. A strict cut-off of five missing values was used to label a response as incomplete.
It is evident from Table 4 that slightly more than half of the managers are men, nearly half are between 31 and 40 years of age, close to 60% have a university degree, about 75% have work experience between 3 and 20 years, 97% are full-time employment and nearly 75% are on middle and senior management levels. Most of the managers are speaking either English (46%) or Afrikaans (37%).
TABLE 4: Sample analysis as per demographics. |
Measuring instruments
Owing to the large number of measuring instruments involved in the study, only a summary table of measuring instruments used on each level will be presented here. Table 5 includes the independent variables (pull and push factors) as well as the UWES-9 (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale) for measuring individual work engagement as the dependent variable. The items of all these listed measures (including the UWES-9) were subjected to iterative item and reliability analyses.
TABLE 5: Measures for testing the individual engagement measurement model. |
It is evident from Table 5 that all scales have acceptable internal consistency reliabilities.
Similarly, only a summary table of measuring instruments used on the team level will be presented. Table 6 includes the independent variables (pull and push factors) as well as the team engagement scale for measuring team engagement as the dependent variable. The items of all these listed measures (including the team engagement scale) were subjected to iterative item and reliability analyses.
TABLE 6: Measures for testing the team engagement measurement model. |
All variables displayed in Table 6 have acceptable internal consistency reliabilities, except for supportive team climate that is below 0.6.
A summary table of measuring instruments used on the management level will be presented next. Table 7 includes the independent variables (pull and push factors) as well as the management engagement scale for measuring management engagement as the dependent variable. The items of all these listed measures (including the management engagement scale and the engaging climate scale) were subjected to iterative item and reliability analyses.
TABLE 7: Measures for testing the management engagement and engaging climate measurement models. |
It should be noted that all the included variables in Table 7 have acceptable internal consistency reliabilities, except for the resources and the job insecurity variables.
Research procedure
The survey was designed by including the measurement scales as described above and was then subjected to a pilot study that included 10 individuals in the financial services industry. The feedback received from these participants as well as their written responses were reviewed to determine their understanding of the items. As a result of this pilot study, a number of minor changes were made to some of the items of some measures.
The actual survey was launched over a period of 4 weeks. The URL was sent out to the potential respondents of the three participating companies and all the survey data were collected electronically over this period. During the last 2 weeks, the respondents received electronic reminders and the survey was then closed. All research ethic protocols and principles of the university were adhered to during the execution of the research project.
Statistical analyses
A particular sequence was followed for the data analysis. Firstly, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to establish if the original construct could be replicated and if any items would ‘migrate’ to other measures. Secondly, item and reliability analyses were conducted on different established variables. Thirdly, all the items of these variables (for the combined pull and push factors) were subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the fit of the measurement model. This resulted in some items being discarded to improve the model fit. Finally, structural equation models (SEMs) were conducted to predict engagement on the respective levels as well as engaging climate. The structural model fit of these SEMs was also improved by removing some items or variables.
The results of the CFAs are presented and discussed per variable in terms of absolute fit and incremental fit measures. Absolute fit measures are the chi-square (c²), degrees of freedom (df), the chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio (c²/df) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Incremental fit indices are the Bentler–Bonnett normed fit index (NFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI) and the comparative fit index (CFI). The required limits for fit indices used in this study are as follows (Hair et al. 2009; Kline 2005):
- maximum likelihood of model fit (relative chi-square measurement): c²/df < 5
- GFI: 0.88–0.99
- CFI: 0.88–0.99
- RMSEA: 0.001–0.12.
Ethical considerations
All University of Johannesburg research ethics protocols were observed and adhered to in this study.
Results
The EFA results, the CFA fit statistics as well as the SEM fit statistics will be reported for the different models that were tested on different levels. The results for the individual engagement models are reported below.
Testing the measurement model fit for combined push and pull factors for each of the three engagement levels
The EFA results for the combined pull and push factors on an individual level are as follows: the combined scales’ Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) was 0.854, with a Bartlett’s test of sphericity chi-square value of 6241.709 (df = 325; p < 0.01). This factor matrix is therefore suitable for factor analysis. Five interpretable factors were extracted with the number of retained items in brackets. The first factor was social support (four items – Q28, Q29, Q30 and Q31), the second factor was work overload (three items – Q41, Q42 and Q43), the third factor was emotional demands (four items – Q46, Q47, Q48 and Q49), the fourth factor was autonomy (four items – Q37, Q38, Q39 and Q40) and the fifth factor was performance feedback (four items – Q32, Q33, Q35 and Q36). Item Q53 was removed for loading on the wrong factor, item Q50 for having a too low factor loading, item Q34 did not load on any factor and items Q44, Q45, Q51 and Q52 loaded on two separate factors. Physical demands emerged as a split factor (two items – Q51 and Q52; two items – Q44 and Q45), both were non-determined and therefore omitted from further analysis.
The intercorrelation matrix of the combined pull and push factors on team level engagement yielded the following results: a KMO MSA of 0.929, with a Bartlett’s test of sphericity chi-square value of 6230.458 (df = 300; p ≤ 0.01), thereby confirming the factorability of the matrix. Five factors were extracted (with the number of items in brackets): teamwork (five items – Q67, Q68, Q69, Q70 and Q73), coordination (five items – RQ65, RQ72, RQ74, RQ76 and RQ88), team-level burnout (two items – RQ77 and RQ78), group efficacy (three items – Q81, Q82 and Q84) and team conflict (three items – Q85, Q86 and Q87). During the EFA analysis, Q65, Q72, Q76, Q77, Q78 and Q88 were reversed. Item Q83 was removed because it loaded as a single item on a factor. A number of questions (Q80, Q66, Q63, Q64, Q75 and Q79) were excluded from the analysis because of low factor loadings.
The intercorrelation matrix of the combined different push and pull factor relating to management engagement yielded the following results: the combined analysis had a KMO MSA of 0.912, with a Bartlett’s test of sphericity chi-square value of 9110.325 (df = 741; p = 0.01). The factorability of this matrix is hereby confirmed. Eight factors were included in the CFA: (1) manager self-efficacy 1 – delegation and communication, (2) manager self-efficacy 2 – motivating and inspiring, (3) organisational support, (4) resources, (5) job insecurity, (6) management workload, (7) lack of advancement opportunities 1 – remuneration and (8) lack of advancement opportunities 2 – decision-making. Factors 6 and 8 had only two items loading on the variables and thus were removed. The items included the measurement model were as follows: manager self-efficacy 1 – delegation and communication (10 items – Q98, Q99, Q100, Q101, Q102, Q103, Q104, Q105, Q106 and Q107), manager self-efficacy 2 – motivation and inspiration (4 items – Q108, Q109, Q110 and Q121), organisational support (4 items – Q111, Q112, Q113 and Q114), resources – (3 items – RQ116, Q117 and Q118), management workload (3 items – RQ119, RQ120 and RQ122), lack of advancement opportunities 1 – remuneration (3 items – Q124, Q125 and Q126), lack of advancement opportunities 2 – decision-making (2 items – Q128 and Q129) and those two items (Q128 and Q129) were consequently removed, and job insecurity (6 items – RQ131, RQ132, RQ133, Q134, RQ135 and RQ136). During the EFA analysis, Q116, Q119, Q120, Q122, Q131, Q133, Q136 and Q135 were recoded. Q102, Q123 and Q107 were excluded because they were cross-loading on their respective factors. Q115, Q127, Q130 and RQ116 were excluded because they had low factor loadings.
Miles and Shevlin (2001) explained that SEM is an evaluation methodology to determine how well the data fit an underlying structural model. Structural equation models therefore test both a measurement model (by using a CFA) and a structural model (by using a SEM) individually and concurrently (Byrne 2001). The fit statistics of the measurement models for combined push and pull factors on the three engagement levels are reported in Table 8. The Mardia (1970) normalised coefficient of multivariate kurtosis for the combined individual pull and push factor measurement models on each level was established and consequently the adjusted Yuan–Bentler fit statistics were considered (Bentler 2006).
TABLE 8: Confirmatory factor analysis goodness of fit statistics for combined pull and push factors for three engagement level measurement models (N = 425). |
Table 8 indicates that the three measurement models were confirmed for the combined pull and push factors for predicting engagement on each of the three levels. All fit indices show a good model fit. These measurement models can therefore be used in the SEMs.
Testing the measurement model fit for the three engagement levels and engaging climate
The fit statistics for the measurement models to predict engagement on each of the three levels as well as for engaging climate are presented in Table 9.
TABLE 9: Confirmatory factor analysis goodness of fit statistics for the measurement models of the three engagement level scales and engaging climate (N = 425). |
It is evident from Table 9 that the fit criteria of all the indices were met. These models are therefore suitable to be included in the SEMs.
Testing the structural model fit for predicting engagement on each of the three engagement levels as well as for engaging climate
The fit statistics for the structural models for predicting engagement on each of the three engagement levels are presented in Table 10. Table 10 also presents the fit statistics for testing the possibility of collinearity between the three engagement constructs as well as the structural model for predicting engaging climate.
TABLE 10: Confirmatory factor analysis goodness of fit statistics for the structural equation models for predicting three engagement levels, test for collinearity and engaging climate (N = 425). |
The CFA fit statistics confirm that there is no collinearity between the engagement variables in the model and it also confirms the differential validity of the three engagement variables. It is evident from Table 10 that all the fit indices for these four remaining structural models are good and that these models can be interpreted. The three engagement models are presented in Figures 2–4.
|
FIGURE 2: Structural equation model for individual engagement. |
|
|
FIGURE 3: Structural equation model for team engagement. |
|
|
FIGURE 4: Structural equation model for management engagement. |
|
The SEM (see Figure 2) for the prediction of individual engagement confirms a significant relationship between the observed push and pull factors and individual engagement which is in support of H1. The model yielded an overall R²-value of 0.458, with significant path coefficients between individual engagement and the pull factors social support (0.239), work overload (0.145), autonomy (0.234) and performance feedback (0.274). Only one push factor, emotional demands (−0.120), related negatively to individual engagement. All the pull and push factor items included in the model were significantly related to the latent variables, except for items Q29, Q41, Q38 and Q32. The only individual engagement item that was not significantly related to the criterion variable, individual engagement, was Q19. This structural model is therefore suitable for interpretation.
The SEM (see Figure 3) for the prediction of team engagement confirms a significant relationship between the observed push and pull factors and team engagement which is in support of H2. The model for team engagement yielded a high overall R²-value of 0.638. Significant path coefficients for team engagement related positively to teamwork (0.278), team-level burnout (0.089), group efficacy (0.344) and team conflict (0.281), but coordination (−0.194) related negatively to team engagement. All the pull and push factor items were significantly related to the latent variables except for items Q67, RQ65, RQ77, Q81, and Q85. Only one team engagement item was not significantly related to team engagement, namely Q54. This structural model is therefore suitable for interpretation.
The SEM (see Figure 4) for the prediction of management engagement confirms a significant relationship between the observed push and pull factors and management engagement, which is in support of H3. The CFA on the SEM yielded a high overall R²-value of 0.526. Management engagement related positively to manager self-efficacy 1 and 2 (0.435), organisational support (0.266), resources (0.043), management workload (0.161) and lack of advancement opportunities 1 – remuneration (0.002), while job insecurity (−0.019) related negatively to management engagement. Most of the items were significantly related to the latent variables, except for items Q98, Q111, Q117, RQ119, Q124 and RQ131. The only management engagement item that was not significantly related to management engagement was Q89. This structural model is therefore suitable for interpretation. The SEM for predicting engaging climate is presented next in Figure 5.
|
FIGURE 5: Structural equation model for engaging climate. |
|
It is evident from Figure 5 that there exists a significant relationship between all three levels of engagement – individual engagement (0.271), team engagement (0.155) and management engagement (0.209) – and engaging climate, which is also in support of H4. This structural model yielded an overall R²-value of 0.306. These three levels of engagement are also mutually related. Individual engagement is related to team engagement (0.554), which in turn is related to management engagement (0.533). Management engagement is also related to individual engagement (0.735). It was established that no significant collinearity between different engagement constructs on different levels is present. The pull and push factor items were all related to the latent variables, except for items IE19, TE54 and ME89. The only engaging climate item that was not significantly related to engaging climate was Q137. This structural model is therefore suitable for interpretation.
Discussion
The research problem investigated in this study emanates from the fact that work engagement (as frequently being used in the JD-R Model [Demerouti et al. 2001]) is only operationalised as an individual level construct. Based on the multiple roles that individuals (more specifically, managers) often occupy across different organisational levels, the following question is raised: should employee engagement not be conceptualised as a multi-level construct? The main research question of the study was therefore framed as follows: ‘which push and pull factors contribute towards individuals’ engagement in different roles that they simultaneously hold on individual, team and/or management levels?’ Role theory suggests that individuals can occupy different roles on different levels depending on their skills and preferences (Stander 2016). The different contexts on these different levels may therefore activate unique pull and push factors to facilitate engagement on these levels. As stated earlier, the following ROs of the study were formulated to test, respectively, H1–H4:
- RO1 – Selected push and pull factors promote employee engagement on an individual level.
- RO2 – Selected push and pull factors promote employee engagement on a team level.
- RO3 – Selected push and pull factors promote employee engagement on a management level.
- RO4 – How employee engagement on these mentioned levels is mutually related as well as related to an engaging climate?
This study, to the authors’ knowledge, is the first to simultaneously include pull and push factors on three different organisational levels to predict employee engagement of individuals fulfilling roles on those levels. In turn it also established how engagement in roles on these three levels is related to engaging climate.
Summary of the research results
The research results will be briefly presented as per the ROs of the study.
Research results with respect to RO1
A review of the literature suggested that a large number of studies have been conducted identifying a range of different pull and push factors that are related to employee engagement (including and beyond the JD-R model) on an individual level (see Table 1). Frequently cited studies in this respect are by Bakker and Demerouti (2007), Bakker et al. (2003), Breevaat and Bakker (2018), Harter et al. (2002), Hitlin (2003), Jain and Ansari (2018), Kahn (1990), Llorens et al. (2006), Luthans et al. (2004), Nienaber and Martins (2016), Maslach and Leiter (1997), May et al. (2004), Pati and Kumar (2010), Rothbard (2001) and Shuck et al. (2017). Variables were then selected from this list and included as pull and push factors to predict individual engagement in the current study, namely, social support (Bakker et al. 2003); performance feedback (Bakker 2011), autonomy (Bakker et al. 2005), work overload (Bakker et al. 2006), and emotional demands and physical demands (Bakker et al. 2005).
Empirical evidence emanating from the CFA on the structural model confirmed significant path coefficients between individual engagement and the pull factors social support, work overload, autonomy and performance feedback. Only one push factor, emotional demands, related negatively to individual engagement. The physical demands factor was excluded from the model, which is in contrast with some of the studies listed above; however, this can be explained if one considers the non-physical nature of managerial work. The model yielded an overall R²-value of 0.458. These results confirm the findings of almost all the above-listed studies and also support H1: The selected pull and push factors are predictors of individual work engagement.
Research results with respect to RO2
A review of the literature only found a limited number of studies that had listed pull and push factors related to team engagement, namely, Aiqin et al. (2018), Aw and Ayoko (2017), Bakker et al. (2006), Bledouw (2009), Horton et al. (2014), Jiang and McKay (2010), Lockwood (2007), Macleod and Clarke (2009), Patel et al. (2017), Raibick (2018), Torrente et al. (2012a) and Ullah et al. (2018). The variables used in these studies to predict team engagement are listed in Table 2. Variables for the current study were selected from this list and included as pull and push factors to predict team engagement, namely, supportive team climate, team work and coordination (Torrente et al. 2012a), team-level burnout (Bakker et al. 2006), lack of group efficacy (Zellars et al. 2001) and team conflict (Miles & Kivlighan 2010).
Empirical evidence emanating from the CFA confirmed significant path coefficients between the observed push and pull factors and team engagement, which is in support of H2, that is, the selected pull and push factors are predictors of team engagement. The model for team engagement yielded a high overall R²-value of 0.638. Significant path coefficients for team engagement related positively to teamwork, team-level burnout, group efficacy and team conflict, but coordination related negatively to team engagement. In the latter case, coordination (or the lack thereof) turned into a push factor. All five factors were mutually significantly related.
Research results with respect to RO3
A systematic review of the literature could only identify a few studies that suggested a link between different pull and push factors with management engagement, namely, Burke and El-Kot (2010), Flynn (2007), Furness (2008), Holland et al. (2017), Jena Lalatendu et al. (2018), Lee et al. (2017), Luthans and Petersen (2002), Rothmann and Joubert (2007), Wiley et al. (2011) and Xu et al. (2017). The pull and push factors identified in these studies are listed in Table 3. Selected pull and push factors were then identified from this list for use in the current study, namely, manager self-efficacy (Luthans & Peterson 2002), organisational support (Rothmann & Joubert 2007), resources (Rothmann & Joubert 2007), management workload (Storm & Rothmann 2003), (lack of) advancement opportunities (Rothmann & Joubert 2007) and job insecurity (Van Schalkwyk et al. 2010).
Empirical evidence resulting from the CFA confirmed significant path coefficients between management engagement and manager self-efficacy, organisational support, resources, management workload and lack of advancement opportunities (remuneration), while job insecurity related negatively to management engagement which is in support of H3: the selected pull and push factors are predictors of management engagement. In this instance, management workload and the lack of advancement opportunities related positively with management engagement. This is an unexpected result. The reason for this may be that South African managers know that workload and lack of advancement opportunities is part and parcel of the managerial work challenge. The model yielded an overall R²-value of 0.526.
Research results with respect to RO4
Based on a review of the literature, only a few studies could be identified that investigated spillover or crossover effects between different engagement levels, namely, Bakker et al. (2006), Tims et al. (2011) and Rothmann and Joubert (2007).
Empirical evidence resulting from two separate CFAs confirmed (1) that the engagement constructs in the model were not collinear, but were separate constructs in their own right, despite the fact that they were operationally defined by using the same theoretical definition, and (2) that these three engagement constructs were all significantly mutually related and also related to engaging climate. Significant relationship between all three levels of engagement – individual engagement, team engagement, and management engagement – and engaging climate is found, which is also in support of H4: the three engagement constructs (individual, team and management) are predictors of engaging climate. This model yielded an overall R²-value of 0.306.
Conclusions and recommendations
The study achieved all the stated ROs. Firstly, it confirmed that the selected pull and push factors on an individual level are related to individual engagement. In this instance, the pull factors social support, work overload, autonomy and performance feedback were positively related to individual engagement, while the push factor emotional demands was negatively related. Physical demands were unrelated to individual engagement and therefore omitted from the model. RO1 of the study is hereby achieved.
Secondly, the study confirmed that the selected pull and push factors on a team level are related to team engagement. In this case, the pull factors teamwork, team-level burnout, group efficacy and team conflict were positively related to team engagement, while coordination was negatively related. RO2 of the study is hereby achieved.
Thirdly, the study confirmed that the selected pull and push factors on management level are related to management engagement. In this instance, the pull factors manager self-efficacy, organisational support, resources, management workload and lack of advancement opportunities – remuneration were positively related to management engagement, while job insecurity was negatively related. RO3 of the study is hereby achieved.
All three of the above ROs show that different sets of pull and push factors promote engagement at individual, team and management levels. This result is in support of the notion that different roles and their unique contexts create different pull and push factors that are at play on these levels. It is therefore argued that employee engagement should be operationalised as a multi-level model. The results also show that pull factors can turn into push factors if the basic conditions (thresholds) for promoting engagement are met or not met. Thus, an inverted U-relationship may exist between some pull and push factors and engagement on each level. In this instance, some push factors turned surprisingly into pull factors (e.g. work overload, team-level burnout and manager workload, respectively, on individual, team and management levels). It seems that this phenomenon is unique to the South African context.
RO4 confirmed two aspects: (1) that all three types of engagement (individual, team and management) are not collinear and are independent constructs in their own right and (2) that all three types of engagement are positively related to each other, and also to engaging climate. This result confirms that all three levels provide a more inclusive and comprehensive view of employee engagement. RO4 is hereby achieved. This result confirms possible contagion or spillover effects between these different types of engagement in the prediction of an engaging climate (cf. Bakker & Demerouti 2009; Bakker et al. 2006; Bakker & Xanthopoulou 2009).
Implications of the results
It is foreseen that the results reported above have significant implications for HR practitioners and researchers.
For human resource practitioners and managers
Human resource practitioners and managers should be aware of the fact that individuals operate in unique roles that each have their own unique contextual demands and resources. Human resource practitioners and managers therefore should not promote employee engagement without being aware of the different roles at play within their different contexts. A one-size-fits-all approach will therefore not be effective. This means that HR practitioners and managers should, firstly, know what these roles and their respective contexts are; secondly, what the most important pull and push factors in these different contexts are; and, thirdly, what the potential crossover or spillover effects between these different roles may be. They should also be aware of the fact that managers are mainly responsible for creating an engaging climate in organisations, which means that if they are not engaged themselves, it may have dire spillover or crossover effects on lower tiers in the organisation. By consciously managing these pull and push factors on different levels, they can promote individuals’ engagements on these levels.
For researchers
Role theory and role identity theory suggest that individuals function in different roles and that these roles may be on different levels and each may have unique contexts. This necessitates to have a relook at the way employee engagement is conceptualised and measured. Empirical evidence of this study suggests that employee engagement can be conceptualised as a multi-level construct based on different roles that individuals occupy. It is suggested that for a more inclusive measurement model of employee engagement these three levels should be included in such a model. The study furthermore shows that these different contexts may have spillover; crossover or contagion effects on lower tier levels, which may ultimately have an impact on employee engagement or disengagement on the lower levels (cf. Bakker & Demerouti 2009; Bakker et al. 2006; Bakker & Xanthopoulou 2009).
Limitations of the study
This study was exploratory in nature and therefore was conducted in only three organisations, with a relatively small overall sample size. However, the research model was confirmed across three distinctly different organisations, each functioning in a different industry. The sample size was also large enough to conduct all the required statistical analyses for the study without compromising their rigour.
Based on role theory, it was decided to target individuals with management responsibility who occupied different roles across different levels in organisations. A multi-level analysis could have been used, but this would have added to the complexity of collecting the data, with the possible violation of ethical principles with respect to anonymity and confidentiality.
A third possible limitation that may be present is the effect of common method variance. The fact that response data were collected for all variables in the same way, may have artificially enhanced the relationships between the variables.
Suggestions for future research
We suggest that this study should be replicated across more organisations and in different countries with larger sample sizes. If in any way practically possible (and without violating any ethical principles), the study should be conducted across different tiers in the organisation by using different sample groups on each tier, but linked in terms of their reporting lines and/or authority spans (i.e. a multi-level study). This may possibly yield a different picture altogether. However, this approach of linking the different tiers would pose challenges in terms of participant anonymity and confidentiality.
Another suggestion may be to identify the most important pull and push factors that individuals deem important and then to link them empirically to the respective levels rather than to rely only on theoretical evidence for making these links.
Literature suggests that several stakeholder groups are involved in organisations, and that these stakeholders should be effectively engaged for achieving strategic objectives of the organisation. Similar studies can therefore be conducted by focussing on other stakeholder groups (e.g. customers, communities and organised labour) and how they contribute towards organisational performance.
Summative conclusion
The study set out to determine which pull and push factors contribute to individuals’ engagement in the different roles that they simultaneously hold on individual, team and/or management levels. A systematic literature review conducted earlier suggested which pull and push factors could be considered on each level. A quantitative research approach was followed by conducting a cross-sectional survey in three different organisations. Data analyses confirmed that different pull and push factors are indeed operational on different levels to predict engagement on those levels. The study found empirical support for the hypotheses that the three engagement constructs were related to engaging climate. All four ROs were subsequently achieved. The overall research aim of the study, namely, to establish if employee engagement can be operationalised as a multi-role, multi-level construct, is hereby achieved.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
M.J. conducted the research and reported this in his PhD study. G.R. wrote the article based on the results obtained from M.J.’s PhD study.
References
Ackfeldt, A. & Coote, L.V., 2005, ‘A study of organizational citizenship behaviours in a retail setting’, Journal of Business Research 58, 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00110-3
Aiqin, L., Ran, L., Haixia, X., Yujun, N. & Ying, L., 2018, ‘Team autonomy amplifies the positive effects of proactive personality on work engagement’, Social Behaviour and Personality: An International Journal 46(7), 1071. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6830
Al-Shammari, M.M., 1992, ‘Organisational climate’, Leadership and Organization Development Journal 13(6), 30–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739210021884
Anderson, N.R. & West, M.A., 1998, ‘Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 19(3), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3%3C235::AID-JOB837%3E3.0.CO;2-C
Aw, V.K.J. & Ayoko, O.B., 2017, ‘The impact of followers’ conflict behaviours on teams’ transformational leadership, team member exchange and engagement’, International Journal of Conflict Management 28(4), 509–532. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-04-2016-0020
Bakker, A.B., 2009, ‘Building engagement in the workplace’, in R.J. Burke & C.L. Cooper (eds.), The peak performing organization, pp. 50–72, Routledge, Oxon, UK.
Bakker, A.B., 2011, ‘An evidence-based model of work engagement’, Current Directions in Psychological Science 20(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411414534
Bakker, A.B. & Demerouti, E., 2007, ‘The job Demands–Resources model: State of the art’, Journal of Managerial Psychology 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Bakker, A.B. & Demerouti, E., 2008, ‘Towards a model of work engagement’, Career Development International 13(3), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476
Bakker, A.B. & Demerouti, E., 2009, ‘The crossover of work engagement between working couples: A closer look at the role of empathy’, Journal of Managerial Psychology 24, 220–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940910939313
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. & Euwema, M.C., 2005, ‘Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 10(2), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. & Schaufeli, W.B., 2003, ‘Dual processes at work in a call centre: An application of the Job Demands–Resources model’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 12(4), 393–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320344000165
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. & Taris, T.W., 2008, ‘Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology’, Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health and Organisations 22(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393649
Bakker, A.B., Van Emmerik, I.J.H. & Euwema, M.C., 2006, ‘Crossover of burnout and engagement in work teams’, Work and Occupations 33(4), 464–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888406291310
Bakker, A.B. & Xanthopoulou, D., 2009, ‘The crossover of daily work engagement: Test of an actor-partner interdependence model’, Journal of Applied Psychology 94, 1562–1571. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017525
Bartram, B., Fleck, S. & Inceoglu, I., 2009, ‘A comprehensive framework for understanding and predicting engagement’, paper presented on the 2nd of April 2009 at the International Symposium on Disentangling Engagement, during the 24th Annual SIOP Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana
Bentler, P.M., 2006, EQS 6 structural equations program manual, Multivariate Software Inc., Encino, CA.
Biddle, B.J., 1986, ‘Recent developments in role theory’, Annual Review of Sociology 12, 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435
Bledouw, R., 2009, ‘Managing innovation successfully: The value of contextual fit. Innovation implementation in leader-system systems: Effective modes of management’, Unpublished PhD thesis, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany.
Breevaat, K. & Bakker, A.B., 2018, ‘Daily job demands and employee engagement’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 23(3), 338–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000082
Bothma, F.C., Lloyd, S. & Khapova, S., 2015, ‘Work identity: Clarifying the concept’, in P.G.W. Jansen & G. Roodt (eds.), Conceptualising and measuring work identity, pp. 23–51, Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht.
Burke, J.B. & El-Kot, G., 2010, ‘Work engagement among managers and professionals in Egypt: Potential antecedents and consequences’, African Journal of Economic and Management Studies 1(1), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/20400701011028158
Burke, P.J. & Stets, J.E., 2009, ‘Identity theory and social identity theory’, Social Psychology Quarterly 63(3), 24–237.
Byrne, B.M., 2001, Structural equation modelling with AMOS. Basic concepts, applications, and programming, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Cohen, S.G. & Bailey, D.E., 1997, ‘What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite?’, Journal of Management 23, 239–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300303
Dladla, T., 2009, ‘The effects of locus of control on the relationship between organisational climate and job satisfaction, life satisfaction and self-esteem in a call centre’, Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
De Braine, R. & Roodt, G., 2015, ‘Personal and situational work-based identity antecedents’, in P.G.W. Jansen & G. Roodt (eds.), Conceptualising and measuring work identity, pp. 87–116, Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht.
Demerouti, E. & Bakker, A.B., 2011, ‘The job demands-resources model: Challenges for future research’, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 37, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9242-4_4
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. & Schaufeli, W.B., 2001, ‘The Job Demands–Resources Model of burnout’, Journal of Applied Psychology 86, 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Ferreira, C.M., 2013, ‘Assessing the reliability and validity of a leadership climate survey’, Master’s thesis, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Ferreira, C.M. & Roodt, G., 2013, ‘The development of an engaging leadership climate questionnaire’, paper presented at the 30th Pan Pacific Conference, Sandton Convention Centre, Johannesburg, South Africa, 03–06 June.
Fisher, J., Milner, K. & Chandraprakash, A., 2007, ‘Organisational climate, job tension and job satisfaction in a South African call centre case study’, Ergonomics SA 19, 22–30.
Flynn, G., 2007, ‘The virtuous manager: A vision for leadership in business’, Journal of Business Ethics 78(3), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9331-y
Furness, V., 2008, ‘Employee engagement: Managers’ reward’, Employee Benefits, viewed n.d., from https://www.employeebenefits.co.uk/managers-reward/.
Hakanen, J.J. & Roodt, G., 2010, ‘Using the job demands-resources model to predict engagement: Analysing a conceptual model’, in A.B. Bakker & M.P. Leiter (eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research, pp. 85–101, Psychology Press, New York.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. & Anderson, R.E., 2009, Multivariate data analysis, 7th edn., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hamlin, R.G. & Serventi, S.A., 2008, ‘Generic behavioral criteria for managerial effectiveness: An empirical and comparative case study of UK local government’, Journal of European Industrial Training 32(4), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590810871388
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. & Hayes, T.L., 2002, ‘Business-unit level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology 87, 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
Hitlin, S., 2003, ‘Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two theories of self’, Social Psychology Quarterly 66(2), 118–137. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519843
Holland, P., Cooper, B. & Sheehan, C., 2017, ‘Employee voice, supervisory support, and engagement: The mediating role of trust’, Human Resource Management 56(6), 915–929. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21809
Horton, K.E., McClelland, C.R. & Griffin, M.A., 2010, ‘Defined by our hierarchy? How hierarchical positions shape our identifications and well-being at work’, Human Relations 67(10), 1167–1188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713516374
Jackson, L.T.B. & Rothmann, S., 2005, ‘Work-related well-being of educators in a district of the North West Province’, Perspectives in Education 23, 107–122.
Jain, L. & Ansari, A.A., 2018, ‘Effect of perception of organisational politics on employee engagement with personality traits as moderating factors’, South East Asian Journal of Management 12(1), 85–104.
Jena Lalatendu, K., Pradhan, S. & Panigrahy, N.P., 2018, ‘Pursuit of organisational trust: Role of employee engagement, psychological well-being and transformational leadership’, Asia Pacific Management Review 23, 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2017.11.001
Jiang, K. & McKay, P.F., 2010, ‘Employees speak up when team performance suffers’, Manuscript presented at the August 2010 Academy of Management Conference, 6–10 August 2010, Montreal, Canada.
Joubert, M., 2014, ‘A comprehensive engagement predictive model’, Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Joubert, M., 2010, ‘Identifying enabling management practices for employee engagement’, Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Joubert, M. & Roodt, G., 2011, ‘Identifying enabling management practices for employee engagement’, Acta Commercii 11(1), 88–110. https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v11i1.155
Joubert, M. & Roodt, G., 2016, ‘Management engagement as a co-determinant of employee engagement’, Proceedings of the Pan-Pacific Conference XXXIII, 25–27 May, Miri, Malaysia, pp. 58–60, ISBN 1-931649-27-6.
Kahn, W.A., 1990, ‘Psychological conditions of personal engagement at work’, Academy of Management Journal 33, 692–724.
Kidd, J.M. & Smewing, C., 2001, ‘The role of the supervisor in career and organizational commitment’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 10(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320042000016
Kline, R.B., 2005, Principles and practice of structural equation modelling, 2nd edn., Guilford Press, New York.
Kraut, R.E., Fussell, S.R., Lerch, F.J. & Espinosa, A., 2005, ‘Coordination in teams: Evidence from a simulated management game’, Research Showcase @ CMU 1–58.
Lee, M.C., Idris, M.A., Mohd, A. & Delfabbro, P.H., 2017, ‘The linkages between hierarchical culture and empowering leadership and their effects on employees’ work engagement: Work meaningfulness as a mediator’, Internal Journal of Stress Management 24(4), 392–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000043
Lewis-Tyran, K.L. & Gibson, C.B., 2008, ‘Is what you see, what you get?: The relationship among surface- and deep-level heterogeneity characteristics, group efficacy, and team reputation’, Group & Organization Management 33(1), 46–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106287111
Llorens, S., Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B. & Salanova, M., 2006, ‘Testing the robustness of the Job Demands–Resources Model’, International Journal of Stress Management 13, 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.13.3.378
Lockwood, N.R., 2007, ‘Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage: HR’s strategic role’, SHRM Research Quarterly 1, 1–10.
Luthans, F. & Peterson, S.J., 2002, ‘Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy: Implications for managerial effectiveness and development’, Journal of Management Development 21(5), 376–387. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710210426864
Luthans, F., Luthans, S.M. & Luthans, B., 2004, ‘Positive psychological capital: Going beyond human and social capital’, Business Horizons 29, 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2003.11.007
Macey, W.H. & Schneider, B., 2008, ‘The meaning of employee engagement’, Industrial and Organisational Psychology 1, 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x
Macleod, D. & Clarke, N., 2009, Engaging for success: Enhancing performance through employee engagement, Report to Government No. BIS/Pub 8859/07/09NP.URN09/1075, Crown, United Kingdom.
Mardia, K.V., 1970, ‘Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications’, Biometrika 57, 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.3.519
Maslach, C. & Leiter, M., 1997, The truth about burnout, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. & Harter, L.M., 2004, ‘The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability, and the engagement of the human spirit at work’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 77, 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915892
Miles, J.R. & Kivlighan, D.M.J., 2010, ‘Co-leader similarity and group climate in group interventions: Testing the co-leadership, team Cognition–Team Diversity model’, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice 14(2), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017503
Miles, J.N.V. & Shevlin, M.E., 2001, Applying regression and correlation: A guide for students and researchers, Sage Publications, London.
Mill, R., 2008, Team engagement revisited, viewed 13 October 2012, http://www.parentchildself.com.au/index.php?section=86.
Mintzberg, H., 1973, The nature of managerial work, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Nienaber, H. & Martins, N., 2016, Employee engagement in a South African Context, KR Publishing, Johannesburg.
Patel, A.S., Moake, T.R., Timothy, R. & Oh, N., 2017, ‘Employee engagement for an increasingly educated workforce: The impact of competitive team climate’, Journal of Personnel Psychology 16(4), 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000188
Pati, S.P. & Kumar, P., 2010, ‘Employee engagement: Role of self-efficacy, organizational support and supervisor support’, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations 46(1), 126–137.
Raibick, E., 2018, ‘Raise your team’s employee engagement score’, PM World Journal 7(5), 1–3.
Rego, A. & Cunha, M.P.E., 2008, ‘Organisational citizenship behaviours and effectiveness: An empirical study in two small insurance companies’, The Service Industries Journal 28(4), 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642060801917695
Rothbard, N.P., 2001, ‘Enriching or depleting: The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles’, Administrative Science Quarterly 46, 655–684. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094827
Rothmann, S. & Joubert, J.H.M., 2007, ‘Job demands, job resources, burnout and work engagement of managers at a platinum mine in the North West province’, South African Journal of Business Management 38(3), 49–61.
Schaufeli, W.B., 2012, ‘The measurement of work engagement’, in R.R. Sinclair, M. Wang & L.E. Tetrick (eds.), Research methods in occupational health psychology: Measurement, design, and data analysis, pp. 138–153, Routledge, New York, USA.
Schaufeli, W.B. & Bakker, A.B., 2001, ‘Werk en welbevinden: Naar een positive benadering in die arbeids- en gezondheidspsychologie [Work and well-being: Towards a positive approach to occupational and health psychology]’, Gedrag en Organizatie 14, 229–253.
Schaufeli, W.B. & Bakker, A.B., 2004, ‘Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 25, 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248
Schaufeli, W.B. & Bakker, A.B., 2010, ‘The conceptualization and measurement of work engagement: A review’, in A.B. Bakker & M.P. Leiter (eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research, Psychology Press, New York.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. & Salanova, M., 2006, ‘The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study’, Educational and Psychological Measurement 66(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W.B. & Salanova, M., 2007, ‘Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations’, in S.W. Gilliland, D.D. Steiner & D.P. Skarlicki (eds.), Research in social issues in management (Volume 5): Managing social and ethical issues in organisations, pp. 135–177, Information Age Publishers, Greenwich, CT.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. & Bakker, A.B., 2002, ‘The measurement of burnout and engagement: A confirmatory factor analytic approach’, Journal of Happiness Studies 3, 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
Schaufeli, W.B. & Taris, T.W., 2014, ‘A critical review of the Job Demands-Resources Model: Implications for improving work and health’, in G.F. Bauer & O. Hämmig (eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health: A transdisciplinary approach, pp. 43–68, Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht.
Shuck, B., Adelsin, J.L. & Reio, T.G., 2017, ‘The employee engagement scale: Initial evidence for construct validity and implications for theory and practice’, Human Resource Management 56(6), 953–977. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21811
Stander, M., 2016, ‘Understanding work teams’, in S.P. Robbins, T.A. Judge, A. Odendaal & G. Roodt (eds.), Organisational behaviour: Global and Southern African perspectives, pp. 242–266, Pearson Education, Cape Town.
Stets, J.E. & Burke, P.J., 2000, ‘Identity theory and social identity theory’, Social Psychology Quarterly 63(3), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695870
Storm, K. & Rothmann, S., 2003, ‘A psychometric analysis of the Maslach Burnout Inventory – General Survey in the South African Police Service’, South African Journal of Psychology 33(4), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630303300404
Super, D.E., 1990, ‘A life-span, life-space approach to career development’, in D. Brown & L. Brooks (eds.), Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice, 2nd edn., pp. 197–261, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. & Xanthopoulou, D., 2011, ‘Do transformational leaders enhance their followers’ daily work engagement?’, The Leadership Quarterly 22, 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.011
Torrente, P., Salanova, M., Llorens, S. & Schaufeli, W.B., 2012a, ‘Teams make it work: How team work engagement mediates between social resources and performance in teams’, Psicothema 24(1), 106–112.
Torrente, P., Salanova, M., Llorens, S. & Schaufeli, W.B., 2012b, ‘From I to we: The factorial validity of a team work engagement scale’, in J. Neves & S.P. Gonçalves (eds.), Occupational health psychology: From burnout to well-being, pp. 333–355, Edições Sílabo, Lisboa.
Ullah, R., Khattak, S.R. & Rahman, S., 2018, ‘The buffering effect of team work effectiveness on the relationship between employee work engagement and behavioural outcomes’, Journal of Managerial Sciences 12(1), 49–61.
Van Schalkwyk, S., Du Toit, D.H., Bothma, A.S. & Rothmann, S., 2010, ‘Job insecurity, leadership empowerment behaviour, employee engagement and intention to leave in a petrochemical laboratory’, SA Journal of Human Resource Management 8(1), 234–240. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v8i1.234
Wiley, J.W., Kowske, B.J. & Herman, A.E., 2011, ‘Developing and validating a global model of employee engagement’, in SL. Albrecht (ed.), Handbook of employee engagement, pp. 351–363, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA.
Xu, J., Liu, Y. & Chung, B., 2017, ‘Leader psychological capital and employee work engagement: The roles of employee psychological capital and team collectivism’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal 38(7), 969–985. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2016-0126
Zellars, K.L., Hochwarter, W.A., Perrewe, P.L., Miles, A.K. & Kiewitz, C., 2001, ‘Beyond self-efficacy: Interactive effects of role conflict and perceived collective efficacy’, Journal of Managerial Issues 13(4), 483–499.
|