CHAPTER ONE

1.0 Introduction

Malaysian higher education is responsible for developing human capital with the

capability to compete in the global economy (Mohamed, 2008). However, Malaysian

higher education success is directly related to the capability of its workforce. As one of

the tertiary education provider, polytechnics’ contributions are significant to the

development of first-class mentality human capital, therefore it needs to embark on

employee engagement at all academicians whose professionalism is needed to perform in

their duty with the aims to change the public's perception of polytechnics by making the

polytechnics high quality institutions of international standards and the preferred choice

of students as well as provide a viable alternative pathway to traditional university

education.

Three polytechnics were selected as premier polytechnics are Politeknik Ungku Omar in

Ipoh (Perak), Politeknik Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah in Shah Alam (Selangor) and

Politeknik Ibrahim Sultan (Johor) which were benchmarked against renowned technical

institutions such as the Faschoschule in Germany Austria, Sweden, Finland, Norway and

France. These three institutions will be granted high levels of autonomy and their focus

would be in niche areas of the industry.

Department of Polytechnic Education and Department of Community College Education

new objective is to produce innovative and highly marketable individuals. Therefore the

lecturers of Polytechnics Malaysia play a crucial roles to make this objectives achievable

1
by becoming the best employee which is the engaged employee, who is intellectually and

emotionally aligned with the goals of the organization (Right Management, 2009).

Employee engagement has emerged as the most discussed topic among top management

around the globe in this decade as it is important element for organizational survival and

success. Engagement as a research topic has been of great interest to scholars across

discipline wherein different terms such as customer engagement (Islam and Rahman,

2016a, b, c, 2017), civic engagement (Jennings and Stoker, 2004; Mondak et al., 2010),

social engagement (Achterberg et al., 2003; Huo et al., 2010), and employee engagement

(Karatepe and Demir, 2014; Saks, 2006) have been used to express it. Despite this

progress, relatively low levels of employee engagement continue to be reported in

organizations across the globe. Aon (Hewitt, 2013) for example, reported that four out of

every ten employees they surveyed were not engaged, and two out of ten were actively

disengaged. Unfortunately, results revealed that polytechnics in Malaysia have no efforts

in promoting sustainable development among its staff (Wilfredo, 2013).

Polytechnics as one of the bigger tertiary vocational education provider, is no exception

with the urge to have engage staffs especially academicians. However, studies on

employee engagement specifically within higher education are limited (Daniels, 2016).

This lack of studies can be counter-productive to organizations that rely a lot on their

employee service, specifically, the labor intensive education sector. The engagement of

academic faculty is considered to have a great impact on student success and is suggested

to be important for the attainment of educational goals (González-Rico et al., 2016).

Truss et al. (2013) recently proposed that employee engagement may finally provide the

key to understanding how effective HRM practice can lead to higher individual and
2
organizational performance. There needs to be increased attention to the antecedents of

employee engagement, especially in terms of job resources, personal resources, and job

demands (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014). Organizations should constantly

strive to improve their levels of employee engagement, because improving employee

engagement influences the well-being of both employees and organizations (Bakker,

2011,). Rivera and Flinck (2011) explained how “estimates show that in recent employee

engagement studies, employees who are disengaged cost organizations approximately

35% of their payrolls”.

Employee engagement is influenced by different variables, inclusive of job resources

(Bakker et al., 2008; Mauno et al., 2007; Mendes and Stander, 2011). The results of a

study conducted by Mendes and Stander, (2011) suggested that engagement is best

predicted by job resources and personal resources. However, almost previous findings

reveals from job resources and personal resources, the relationship between employee

engagement and the other potential antecedents has received relatively limited empirical

attention. (Shuck and Wollard, 2009) suggest a growing need to explore the broader range

of predictors on work engagement due to potential antecedents has received relatively

limited empirical attention. Thus, this study attempts to the gap by determining the

relationship between trust in leader and employee engagement by focusing on two main

variables inclusive of job resources and performance management.

Employees constitute the most powerful resource for an organization to sustain long-term

competitive advantage (Huselid, Jackson, & Schuler, 1997). Organizations that attract,

develop, and retain top talent will thrive while those that do not will struggle to remain

competitive (Holtom, Mitchell, Lee, & Inderrieden, 2005, p. 337). Retaining and

3
attracting engaged academic staff in the education sector is a critical driver for success

(Shuck and Wollard, 2010). Meanwhile the polytechnic management still needs to

provide more opportunities for the empowerment of the lecturers as regards to the

courses that are taught. (Nek, Salomawati and Ahmad, 2010).

Previous studies have revealed three broad factors that influence employee proactivity

including individual differences, perceived work environment, and job-related factors

(Crant, 2000; Freese and Fay, 2001). Job resources have received considerable attention

as important, distal antecedents of proactive behaviors that may influence proactivity via

more proximal, motivational states such as work engagement compare with the others

factors (Bindl and Parker, 2010; Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008).

Job resources include: “physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of the

job that help achieve work goals, and/or reduce job demands, and/or stimulate personal

growth and learning (Demerouti et al., 2001). Job resources actuate a motivational

process leading to engagement (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Throughout the three

Performance Management processes, the following should be applied to foster Employee

Engagement: employee development facilitation and support, employee involvement,

trust, and justice. In order to have a PM system achieve EE, the broad context and culture

of organizations may have to change to be sustainability oriented (Molraudee, 2016).

One of the important touchpoints of work environments that often influenced Employee

Engagement is the performance management (PM) process (Compton, 2005).

Performance management is an ongoing organizational process involving a wide range of

activities that include identifying, assessing, and promoting individual and team

performance for the purpose of achieving organizational objectives (Aguinis and Pierce,

4
 2008; DeNisi and Pritchard, 2006). If properly managed, performance management

processes can have a positive and direct influence on employee engagement and

downstream attitudinal, behavioural, and organizational outcomes (Buchner, 2007).

Chughtai and Buckley (2008) conceptualized trust as an antecedent of Employee

engagement. Abraham (2012) in the light of perceived fairness empirically suggested the

contribution of trust in Employee engagement. Trust in the leader can be defined as the

employee’s willingness to accept vulnerability on the basis of positive expectations of the

intentions of the leader (Schoorman et al., 2007). Therefore, work engagement is present

when an employee is fully commitment to the work through focused energy and a

positive state of mind (Tims et al., 2011). Research proved that activities and programmes

carried out by department heads affected lecturer commitment and the level of lecturers’

work commitment varied significantly between department heads in Polytechnics

Malaysia (Mohammed, Siti and Saedah, 2012). According to the 2004 UK WERS

national survey data, trust in management was the single most influential factor linked to

EE, which applied to all occupational groups (Purcell et al., 2009).

Problem Statement
The study of behaviours within organizational setting has highlighted critical

variables that are supportive or detrimental to the performance of workforce. This

notion holds true while focusing on quality of human resources that is a major factor

which contribute significantly to the organizational success (Meyer and Allen, 1997).

Moreover, a decline in employee engagement levels can have an effect on

productivity, customer service and performance (Mone et al., 2011). Pawar and

Chakravarthy’s (2014) study revealed that, generally, employees leave for financial

reasons or because of difficulties with getting on well with their managers, career

5
development, colleague cooperation, role ambiguity or a lack of information on job

description, among other reasons.

Based on a report from ‘Sistem SISPAA, Febuary 8, 2018.’ Found that total

complaints received from publics to Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia are

122 complaints. These truly an indicator of issue related with employee engagement

as the features contradicts when the presence of high levels of employee engagement,

will enhances job performance, task performance, and organizational citizenship

behaviour, productivity, discretionary effort, affective commitment, continuance

commitment, levels of psychological climate, and customer service (Holbeche and

Springett, 2003; Leiter and Bakker, 2010). Employee engagement among lecturers

are even more important to study in academic institutions, especially higher

institutions which are the sources of human resources and sole responsible for

educating the intellect of nations.

An understanding of lecturers’ level of employee engagement is important because it

reflects their personal interpretation of how absorbing and meaningful their work

experiences are. Malaysian polytechnics like other educational institutions were

established to serve specific purposes and to carry out designed missions. The overall

performance of polytechnics depends upon their lecturers and ultimately their level

of employee engagement. The level of lecturers’ employee engagement is considered

to be a key factor in the success of any educational institution.

While from a research made by Towers Watson, shows that companies with low

levels of employee engagement experienced a 32.7 percent decline in their operating

income. Again in Gallup findings, workers in the United Kingdom are likely to take

6
more sick days than their engaged colleagues, which bring down productivity even

further. US economy has loss of estimated $370 billion due to disengaged employees.
Employee disengagement is due to the result of employees who lack of social

interaction at work and experience least autonomy in work roles and those who feel

their jobs are unimportant.

Gallup research has shown that only 13 percent of employees worldwide are engaged

with their organizations (MacLeod and Clarke, 2011). Furthermore, Jackson and

Schuler, (1985) and Hawkins et al., (2012) showed that employee burnout after four

or five years. Hence, it is essential for further studies to be observe pertaining with

organization employee engagement. Models of engagement that work in the host

nation, for example, may have no effect, or an opposite effect, in other countries

(Collins, 2013). Thus currently, investigating the relationship between organizational

leadership and employee engagement is of the utmost importance, as such

relationships affect performance and productivity (Marquard, 2010).

Understanding on how lecturers become satisfied and committed to their polytechnics

and to what degree various factors contribute to their level of commitment, is really

important to boosting up their performance. Thus, it is important to identify clearly

the job resources and performance management as factors that enhance lecturers’

employee engagement level with leadership styles as mediating variable that higher

management can work to maximize the productivity of lecturers. Although a

significant amount of research focusing on employee engagement in business

organizations has accumulated, comparatively only few data addressed on lecturers’

employee engagement in higher education settings as well there also was very little

information to be found regarding these concepts within Malaysian polytechnics.

7
A studied have been done on employee engagement with job resources by Elaine

Farndale, Inge Murrer, (2015) to look into further cross-national theory validation of

the job resource – engagement relationship in three countries simultaneously

(Mexico, the Netherlands, USA). This study used three countries selected as a

moderator variables under Western countries. Rivera and Flinck (2011) explained that

the “majority of employee engagement research has been focused on the private

sector where relationships and causality is informed by management metrics and

financial spreadsheets”. Therefore, these study look forward to endeavours to broaden

understanding of employee engagement to add literature and research in the area of

employee well-being in the public sector; especially in the area of higher institutions

in Malaysia, which is virtually less-existent.

Despite, the conceptual and empirical links between HRM practices and employee

engagement, and between engagement and performance, are not well established

(Guest, 2014; Sparrow, 2014; Sparrow and Balain, 2010). Performance management

is among the four key engagement-related HR practices (employee selection,

socialization, performance management, and learning and development).

Designing the performance management process to foster employee engagement will

lead to higher levels of performance (Mone and London, 2010). Along this lines,

(Gruman and Saks, 2011) argue that performance management process will be

enhanced by focusing on employee engagement as a proximal outcome and

fundamental determinant of job performance. There currently exists very little

conceptual and empirical work on how the performance management process can

enhance performance by fostering employee engagement (Gruman and Saks, 2011).

8
 Despite Performance Management was increased emphasis, much of the empirical

research on Performance Management reveals that it remains one of the great

paradoxes of Human Resource Management (HRM). Many Performance

Management systems have failed to realize their full potential contribution to

organizational effectiveness and sustainability (Molraudee Saratun, 2016). Chughtai,

A. A., & Buckley, F. (2011) also recommended for future studies focus on identifying

other potential intervening variables, which may help uncover the discrete level

linkages between work engagement and job performance.

Research Objectives

The objectives of this study to examine and enhance the understanding of the

uncertainty about the influence of job resources and performance management

towards employee engagement with trust in leader as a mediating factors.

The research objectives are as follows:
1) To determine the influence of Job resources on employee engagement in

Polytechnics Malaysia
2) To examine the influence of Performance Management on employee engagement

in Polytechnics Malaysia
3) To determine the effect of trust in leader towards the relationship between Job

resources and employee engagement in Polytechnics Malaysia

4) To determine the effect of trust in leader towards the relationship between

Performance Management and employee engagement in Polytechnics Malaysia

Research questions

1) How significant is the influence of job resources on employee engagement in

Polytechnics Malaysia?
2) How significant is the influence of performance management on employee

engagement in Polytechnics Malaysia?

9
3) What is the effect of trust in leader on job resources towards employee engagement

in Polytechnics Malaysia?
4) What is the effect of trust in leader on performance management towards

employee engagement in Polytechnics Malaysia?

Significance of studies

This study contributes a massive of knowledge on employee engagement by

determining the influence of Job resources (Demerouti [Link],(2001) and Bakker [Link],

(2006)) and Performance Management (Beardwell and Claydon, 2007) by

investigating the effect of trust in leader as mediating variable.

This research study aimed to provide valuable insights to leaders, managers and

human resource practitioners using job resources and performance management also

will clarify the contribution of trust of leader that well embedded by the members of

the organization which indicate organization roles that must be highlighted to create

high employee engagement.

This empirical dissertation research contributed to the understanding of the impact of

job resources and performance management especially in public sector in Malaysia

and specifically in Polytechnics Malaysia. It also provided practical recommendation

that can help leaders develop plans and actions for enhancing employee engagement

by using suitable job resources and performance management.

Hence, this study will help Public higher Institutions in Malaysia specifically

Polytechnic Malaysia and other organizations inclusive public and private, profit

oriented and non-profit oriented to identify job or employee factors and work or

management factors to sustain a long-term engagement. Most scholars agree that

10
engaged employees have high levels of energy and contribute strongly to their work

through creativity, responsibility for their own professional development, teamwork

and commitment to high-quality performance standards (Paulsen et al., 2013).

Scope and Limitations

Though this study will focus on job resources and performance management

contribute to employee engagement and trust in leader as a mediating factor towards

employee engagement, it does have some limitations. The sample in this study only

covers Polytechnic Malaysia, this could have affected the relationship outcome

obtained in this study since different organizations may yield in a different scenario.

Another limitation to be taken into consideration is the nature of duties within the

education setting and public sector in Malaysia environment.

11
 CHAPTER TWO

2.0 Introduction

Kahn (1990) was the pioneer researcher to posit that engagement means the psychological

presence of an employee when executing his organizational task. Employee engagement was a

popular concept in industry during the period 1999-2005 where it was extensively discussed among

managers, policy makers and consultants. Academicians became interested in this study only from

2006 (Welch, 2011) when a number of studies extended the concept employee engagement to job

engagement, work engagement and organization engagement. Numerous studies suggests that the

presence of higher levels of employee engagement significantly reduces turnover intention (Maslach

et al., 2001; Saks, 2006). Over the years, researchers and human resource (HR) specialists have

found that enthusiastic workers are a productive asset to the (Kompaso and SriDevi, 2010).

Employee engagement is a vital issue for organizational leaders (Seijts and Crim, 2006), because

employees are the core asset of any organization (Lockwood, 2007). Furthermore, research results

have indicated a direct relationship between engagement and work aspiration (Geldenhuys et al.,

2014).

Studies have shown that effective leaders can provide a positive impact on the perceptions of workers

about their jobs and thus boost retention (Machpee and Suryaprakash, 2012). Despite, prior research

has found that individuals seek more meaning in their day-to-day work compare to what they do in
12
their personal lives (Mishra et al., 2014; Ugwa et al., 2014). Hence, managers should strive to make

work meaningful, such as by ascertaining and endeavoring to resolve any difficulties that employees

face (Biswas et al., 2013).

2.1 Theory

2.1.1 Social Exchange Theory (Saks, 2006)

In this study, first theoretical underpinning employee engagement is The social exchange theory

(SET) by Saks (2006) which the central tenet of the social exchange theory is that people make

social decisions based on perceived costs and benefits with assumption that human being

evaluate all social relationships to determine the benefits they will obtain from such relationship.

This perception shows a reciprocal relationship between the supports organizations give to their

employees and employee’s willingness to make the most of their individual and team

performance. The social exchange provides a theoretical foundation to justify the reasons why

employees decide to engage more or less on their work or stay with their organization. Employee

engagement involves emotional and psychological relationship between employees and their

organization that can be transmuted into negative or positive behaviours which employees

display at their workplace. The social exchange theory (SET) also explain employee engagement

motivation which argues that when individuals received economic and socio-emotional resources

from their organization, they will feel obliged to respond in kind and repay the organization.

Saks (2006) argue that although, the models of Kahn (1990) and Maslach et al. (2001) indicate

the psychological conditions that are essential for engagement, they do not fully clarify "why

individuals will respond to these conditions with varying degrees of engagement." He affirmed

13
that the social exchange theory provides a stronger theoretical rationale for explaining employee

engagement. Andrew and Sofian (2012) confirmed that it is considered as the most accepted and

widely used theory in the recent research that covers employee engagement. They explained that

the central tenet of this theory is that people decisions are made based on perceived costs and

benefits. This assumption confirms that human being assess all social relationships in order to

determine the benefits they will obtain as a result of such relationship. Saks (2006) claimed that

the level of employee engagement is a good way for employees to repay their organization.

Accordingly employees decide whether they will or will not engage themselves in relation to the

resources they get from their organization (Andrew and Sofian, 2012). This view as clarified by

Saks (2006) shows a reciprocal relationship between the supports given by organizations to their

employees and employees' willingness to make the most of their individual and team

performance. The social exchange provides a theoretical foundation that justifies the reasons why

employees decide to become more or less engaged in their workplace or remain with their

organization. According to Andrew and Sofian (2012), employee engagement involves emotional

and psychological relationship between employees and their organization that can be changed

into negative or positive behaviors that employees show at their workplace.

Social Exchange Theory has been discussed by a number of researchers in the context of

employee engagement and seems appropriate, most accepted and widely studied theory in recent

research on employee engagement. As per the theory, there are two types of relationships at

workplace. Economic relationship, which is tangible and appears to be short, and social

exchange relationships that are related to close personal attachment and open-ended obligation

(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). The logic behind is employees, who are satisfied with their

14
jobs and like the work culture, appreciate resources given to them by the organization, feels

obliged and are always eager to give their best to the organization.

The social exchange theory (SET) is used to explain employee engagement motivation. The core

of SET argues that when individuals received economic and socio-emotional resources from

their organization, they feel obliged to respond in kind and repay the organization. In other

words, obligations are generated through a series of interactions between parties who are in a

state of reciprocal interdependence. This is supported by Robinson et al. (2004), who assert that

employee engagement is a two-way relationship between the employer and employee.

Employees are more likely to engage themselves in work in return for the resources and benefits

provided by their organization.

2.1.2 Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) (Bakker [Link]., 2004)

(Bakker [Link]., 2004) explain Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model explain that job resources

are those physical, social or organizational aspects of the job that may: reduce job demands, and

the associated physiological and psychological costs; be functional in achieving work goals; or

stimulate personal growth, learning, and development. It is stated that job resources have

motivational role both intrinsically and extrinsically.

Saks (2006) hypothesized that employee engagement developed through a social exchange

model and was the first academic researcher to suggest separate states of engagement: job

engagement and organizational engagement. In his conceptualization, Saks defined the emerging

multidimensional concept of employee engagement as “a distinct and unique construct consisting

of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components associated with individual role

15
performance” (p. 602). This definition was inclusive of previous literature suggesting that

employee engagement was developed from cognitive (Kahn, 1990; Maslach et al., 2001;

Maslow, 1970), emotional (Harter et al., 2002; Kahn, 1990), and behavioral elements (Harter et

al., 2002; Kahn, 1990; Maslach et al., 2001) and extended current thinking on the topic by

developing a three-component model.

The JD-R (Job Demand-Resources) theory assumes that job resources like managerial support or

task autonomy motivate employees to engage in and complete tasks successfully; they also help

employees achieve work goals because these resources provide basic human needs and foster

employee growth, learning, and development (Houkes, Janssen, De Jonge, & Nijhuis, 2001)

Scholars adopting the Job Demand-Resources approach to understanding engagement typically

maintain that job demands have an effect on the strength of the relationships between job

resources (e.g. autonomy, feedback, and support) and engagement (Albrecht, 2010; Bakker and

Demerouti, 2008; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Job demands refer to the physical, psychological,

social, or organizational factors that require “sustained physical and/or psychological” effort on

the employees' part and therefore are thought to be associated with certain physiological or

psychological costs (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004, p. 296). Nahrgang et al. (2011)conducted a

meta-analytic test and found that job demands hindered an “employee's progress towards

engagement” (p. 85). Also, Bakker et al. (2006) contended that job demands, such as emotional

overload and high expectations, may be powerful predictors of burnout.

Schaufeli et al. (2009) conducted a longitudinal survey and discovered that changes in job

demands predicted future burnout and work engagement. Although job demands are not

necessarily negative, they may develop into “stressors” if they require that the employees invest

16
too much effort and if trying to meet those demands is associated with negative outcomes such as

anxiety, burnout, or even depression (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004, p. 296). Job demands,

therefore, are used in this paper to refer to such organizational aspects as work overload

(physical) or peer pressure (emotional).

According to the JD-R model (Bakker et al., 2004), job resources are those physical, social, or

organizational aspects of the job that may: reduce job demands, and the associated physiological

and psychological costs; be functional in achieving work goals; or stimulate personal growth,

learning, and development. Job resources have motivational role both intrinsically and

extrinsically. Intrinsically, job resources foster employees’ growth, learning, and development by

fulfilling basic human needs such as needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Broeck

et al., 2008; Deci et al., 1999; Ryan and Deci, 2000). Extrinsically, job resources are instrumental

for employees in achieving their work goals. For instance, job resources such as encouragement

from team members, and supportive comments and actions from the supervisor. All these form of

job resources may assist employees to reduce their physiological and psychological costs at

work, which aid them to complete their job easily. Subsequently, these job resources motivate

them to dedicate more energy and time in work (Llorens et al., 2007; Schaufeli and Bakker,

2004).

Interestingly, a survey conducted by International Survey Research revealed that antecedents of

employee engagements are varied among countries (ISR, 2003). For instance, they found that

company management is an important determinant of employee engagement among countries

such as Australia, Singapore, and Hong Kong. However, for countries such as UK and US, a

more important factor is the degree to which organizations are able to provide long-term

employment and career opportunities. Moreover, Gallup’s studies had found that the levels of
17
 employee engagement are also varied across countries. For instance, Gallup studies in year 2004

reported that the levels of employee engagement in Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand, and
Job Resources
Singapore to be 18 percent, 12 percent, 9 percent, 17 percent and 9 percent respectively (The
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Gallup Organization, 2004).
Organization – Financial
rewards

Interpersonal- Team climate

2.3 Main Variables or Constructs Involved in the Study
Job – Feedback
Job Engagement
Task – Participant in decision
2.3.1 Employee Engagement
making

Adapted from: Demerouti [Link], Organization Engagement

Engagement was first conceptualized and defined by Kahn as “The ‘harnessing of
(2001) and Bakker [Link],(2006)
organizational members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ

and express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during role

performances” (Kahn, 1990:694). Harter et al., (2002: 205) further defined

Adapted from: Saks (2006)
employee engagement as “the individual’s involvement and satisfaction as well as

enthusiasm for work”. Employee engagement is therefore the level of commitment

and involvement an employee has towards his or her organization and its values.

The concept has received growing interest from HR consulting firms and HR

practitioners within the past two decades (Shuck and Wollard, 2010). In the 1990s,

the Gallup consulting firm reported from its research that the most important factor

in helping companies grow is EE. The firm then developed its popular 12 actionable

elements survey (Gallup, 2015). Top executives around the world have given

attention to this concept because EE is believed to be a potential factor in an

18
organization’ stability to become effective, innovative, competitive, and sustainable

(Welch, 2011)

The construct of employee engagement is relatively new for HRM and appeared in

the literature form early two decades (Robinson et al., 2005; Melcrum Publishing,

2005; Ellis and Sorensen, 2007). Saks (2006) and Roberts (2006) noted that

engagement is most closely associated with the existing construct of job

involvement and flow. The study by Hallberg and Schaufeli (2006), who present the

concept of employee engagement theoretically and empirically, defined engagement

as representing experiences of vigor, dedication to the role, and periods of

absorption over extended periods of time – weeks, months, or even years.

Employee engagement has emerged as a potentially important topic (Simpson,

2009). Many scholars have affirmed the positive relationship between employee

engagement at the workplace and his/her performance, organizational success as

well as organizational financial performance (Saks, 2006; Simpson, 2009).

Employee engagement has been defined in different ways. The academic literature

has provided a number of definitions, for example Kahn (1990, p. 694), who was

the first to conceptualize engagement, defines personal engagement as "the

harnessing of organization members' selves to their work roles; in engagement,

people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally

during role performances." So, according to Kahn (1990), engagement means being

19
psychologically present when occupying and undertaking any organization role

(Saks, 2006; Kular et al., 2008).

Kular et al. (2008) clarified that the cognitive aspect of employee engagement is

concerned with the beliefs of employees about the organization, its leaders as well

as the working conditions. They explained that the emotional aspects relate to the

way that employees feel about those three factors and whether they have positive or

negative attitudes toward the organization and its leaders. The physical aspect refers

to the physical energies used by the individuals to achieve their roles. Robinson et

al. (2004) define employee engagement as a positive attitude that the employee

have toward the organization and its values. They describe an engaged employee as

one who is aware of business context, and works with others to improve

performance for the benefit of the organization. Similarly, Andrew and Sofian

(2012) pointed out that employee engagement is the level of commitment and

involvement that employees have toward their organizations and its values.

Organizations therefore, should work in order to develop and nurture engagement,

which requires a two-way relationship between both employer and employee. Saks

(2006) highlighted another definition of employee engagement by Rothbard (2001)

which goes further to state that it involves two components namely: attention and

absorption; attention can be referred to the "cognitive availability" and the amount

of time needed by someone in thinking about a role, while absorption implies being

occupied in a specific role and "refers to the intensity of one's focus on a role"

20
(Saks, 2006, p. 601). Yener et al. (2012, p. 726) define the three dimensions of

engagement as "vigor is feeling oneself highly energetic and willing to work even in

the face of difficulties. Dedication is feeling a sense of significance, enthusiasm,

inspiration, pride and challenge. It pertains to strong involvement. Absorption is

characterized by being fully concentrated and deeply engrossed in one's work.

When feeling absorbed one becomes insensible of time and has difficulties with

detaching oneself from work." Saks (2006) conceptualizes employee engagement

based on Maslach et al. (2001) model. Saks (2006) defines employee engagement

as the extent to which an individual is attentive and absorbed in the performance of

his/her roles (pp: 600-619).

Anitha J. (2013) has done a causal study and empirically tested on a number of

consolidated factors which predictors of employee engagement were six

management functions which emerged in order of importance inclusive first was

work environment. Studies by Miles (2001) and Harter et al.(2002), Holbeche and

Springett (2003), May et al. (2004) and Rich et al. (2010) show that employee

engagement is the result of various aspects of the workplace. Deci and Ryan (1987)

stipulate that management which fosters a supportive working environment

typically displays concern for employees’ needs and feelings, provides positive

feedback and encourages them to voice their concerns, to develop new skills and to

solve work-related problems. Second was leadership, Leadership was the second

main criteria identified as a fundamental factor to inform employee engagement.

Effective leadership is a higher-order, multi-dimensional construct comprising self-

21
awareness, balanced processing of information, relational transparency, and

internalised moral standards (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Research studies (e.g.

Wallace and Trinka, 2009) show that engagement occurs naturally when leaders are

inspiring.

Leaders are responsible for communicating that the employees’ efforts play a major

role in overall business success. Next is team and co-worker relationship aspect that

emphasizes the interpersonal harmony. May et al.(2004) found that relationships in

the workplace had a significant impact on meaningfulness, one of the components

of engagement. Training and career development also an important dimension to be

considered because this will helps employees to focus on doing their jobs. Training

improves service accuracy and thereby impacts service performance and

employee engagement (Paradise, 2008). Compensation or remuneration is another

important attribute that will motivates employees to achieves more hence focus on

their work and tasks. Organizational policies is an indispensable dimension that will

extent employee engagement. Studies (e.g. Schneider et al., 2009) show that the

recruitment policy of an organisation has a direct impact on future employees’

engagement and commitment. Workplace wellbeing enhances employee

engagement as a holistic measurement. Gallup’s data has emphasized that there is

no metric that captures more variance in human behaviour than wellbeing.

Wellbeing is defined as “all the things that are important to how we think about and

experience our lives” (Rath and Harter, 2010)

22
MacLeode and Clarke (2011) say that the employees provide competitive

advantage, are a valued asset and key to enhancing productivity in the organization.

It is clearly in a company’s interest, therefore, to concentrate on engaging

employees, both intellectually and emotionally.

2.3.2 Job Resources

Three of these job resources (financial rewards, performance feedback, participation

in decision making) stem from the original JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001).

Other scholars have also recognized team climate as an important job resource (e.g.

Bakker et al., 2006). Team climate complements the organizational psychological

perspective of the other resources (the development of engagement in the

workplace), illustrating the social psychological perspective of engagement (its

development through relationships between people) (Bakker et al., 2006).

Empirical studies have demonstrated that job resources have a positive relationship

with work engagement (Crawford et al .,2010; Halbesleben, 2010). May et al.’s

study (2004) found available job resources to positively predict psychological

availability, which, in turn, had significant predictive power on engagement.

In addition, a study among Dutch employees showed that various job and personal

resources were positively related to work engagement over a follow-up period of 18

months (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009). Similarly,

23
 Hakanen, Peeters, and Perhoniemi (2011) found that various job resources predicted

both work engagement and work-family enrichment over a three-year follow-up

period, further supporting the notion of long-term resource gain processes.

According to the JD-R model, job resources (i.e., physical, psychological, social, or

organizational job aspects that may be functional in achieving work-related goals;

reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs; and

stimulate personal growth and development) (Demerouti et al. 2001) enhance work

engagement. Bakker and Demerouti (2012) explained that “employees achieve the

best job performance in challenging, resourceful work environments; they add that

“employees need to have sufficient job challenges, and job resources, including

feedback, social support, and skill variety”

[Link] Financial rewards

Financial rewards have a positive relationship with engagement across countries

as a moderating variables (Elaine & Inge, 2015). Mustapha, N. (2013) finding

result answered the objective and at the same time confirmed a positive

significant correlation between remuneration package and job satisfaction. On the

basis of the findings, it can be concluded that reward dimensions have significant

effect on employees’ performance. Sajuyigbe, A. S., Olaoye, B. O., & Adeyemi,

M. A. (2013) stated positive result between performance and reward. The result

found that pay, performance bonus, recognition and praise are the tools that

24
management can use to motivate employees in order for them to perform

effectively and efficiently. From this study it can be easily inferred that workers

reward package matters a lot and should be a concern of both the employers and

employees. De Gieter, S. and Hofmans, J. (2015), findings revealed that the

relationship between reward satisfaction and particular employee outcomes is not

necessarily the same for all employees. Although they did not found individual

differences in the relationship between reward satisfaction and task performance.

While a research made by Muhammad Idrus Taba, (2018) explained that Extrinsic

Reward System and Intrinsic Reward System had no direct effect on Work

Performance, but Work Performance and Organizational Commitment were

mediating variables to bridge the relation of Extrinsic Reward System and

Intrinsic Reward System with Work Satisfaction. Jack Wiley, Francis Lake,

(2014) revealed in their study that what employees most want from the top leaders

of their organizations is to be inspired, respected and rewarded. Organisations

whose leadership teams scored higher on measures of inspiring, respecting and

rewarding employees also achieved higher employee engagement, customer

satisfaction and financial performance.

[Link] Team climate

Team climate have a positive relationship with engagement across countries as a

moderating variables (Elaine & Inge,2015). Research suggests that coworker

support has the potential to motivate service providers to remain effective and

persistent in meeting the challenge of providing for customer needs and solving

25
customer problems, which is equivalent to higher levels of customer orientation

(Liaw et al., 2010). Nwamaka A. Anaza Edward L. Nowlin Gavin Jiayun Wu,

(2016) examine the relationship between having a mentor and emotional network

or coworkers resources as a job resources on customer orientation makes

employees more aware of the potential for promotion and other rewards as well

emotional and professional support.

[Link] Participation in decision making

Participation in decision making have a positive relationship with engagement

across countries as a moderating variables (Elaine & Inge, 2015). Gail Pacheco,

Don Webber, (2016) stated that it appears clear that the magnitude of the marginal

effects for both socio-demographic and work characteristics do not differ when

comparing workers with above and below average participation. More

importantly, the authors find a substantial negative marginal effect of below

average participation on job satisfaction (close to three times the magnitude of the

next largest marginal effect estimated in the model), indicating how crucial it is

for employers to actively pursue programmes that enhance PDM. Scholars have

recently proposed that the realization of the benefits of joint decision-making may

be more complex than originally thought (Ahearne et al., 2005; Benoliel and

Somech, 2014; Chen et al., 2011; Wallance et al., 2011; Zhang and Bartol, 2010),

and they have called for further investigations of possible boundary conditions.

Weixiao Guo, Duanxu Wang, (2017) indicate that joint decision making is more

26
positively related to team creativity under lower levels of team membership

change. D.S. Sukirno, Sununta Siengthai, (2011) finds that participative decision

making and academic rank have significant effect on lecturer performance.

This finding implies that involving lecturers in educational decision making

would be useful to improve not only lecturer performance but also organizational

performance. In addition, among all demographic variables taken into account,

only academic rank significantly affects lecturer performance. Andres Salas-

Vallina, Rafael Fernandez, (2017) suggest that PDM fully mediates the

relationship between inspirational leadership and HAW. Thus, PDM plays an

essential role in explaining how inspirational leader behaviours.

However a study by Brenda ScottLadd, Verena Marshall, (2004) has an argument

findings where employees perceived that PDM contributed to performance

effectiveness and led to greater gains in the workplace. An unexpected result was

that these benefits did not contribute to increased job satisfaction or commitment

despite PDM having a direct positive influence on job satisfaction, which in turn

increases commitment. These findings support arguments that employees believe

participation in decision making offers them substantial benefits, but suggests

they are more ambivalent about increasing task demands and the gains they

receive for this extra effort. A study made by Christopher Wilson, (2016), indicate

that dominant coalition members’ values of organizational openness to the

27
environment and perceived substantive autonomy of the organization positively

predicted perceptions of public relations participation in organizational decision

making.

[Link] Performance feedback

Previous research has identified that the supervisor feedback environment,

defined as employees’ perceptions of the extent to which the supervisor promotes

feedback-seeking behavior, is a key antecedent of feedback-seeking behavior

(Dahling and O’Malley, 2011; Steelman et al., 2004). Feedback was defined as

information about performance that allows a performer to change his or he

behavior (Daniels & Bailey, 2014).

Performance feedback can be an effective strategy for increasing teachers’

treatment integrity levels and is widely recommended as a first-line intervention

for teachers demonstrating low levels of treatment integrity (Noell, 2010). Manso

(2011) shows that feedback from supervisors is important in motivating

employees to experiment with new technologies.

However, in organization that has ample perceived autonomy can effect

engagement in completely different ways when supervisory support and feedback

implied, whereas if the environment with little perceived autonomy, feedback

from supervisor is beneficial and able to improves engagement (Menguc, Auh,

Fisher, & Haddad, 2013).

2.4.3 Performance Management

28
Haines and St-Onge (2012) found in their study of 312 organizations in Canada

that the organizations that focussed on EE also had PM systems that delivered

more effective outcomes. EE is often overlooked in the PM literature, which tends

to focus on performance outcomes or validity of performance evaluation

(Molraudee Saratun , 2016).

A new approach to PM is required as more generation Y people enter

[Link] new type of PM means less management and direct control of

performance, but more engaging of employees through facilitating and providing

supportive conditions and context for performance to happen (Breevaart et al.,

2014). Throughout the three processes in PM: Performance agreement,

performance monitor and performance appraisal, the following should be applied

to foster engagement: employee development orientation, employee involvement,

and justice and trust. These are a few key ways to use PM to enhance EE

(Molraudee Saratun, 2016).

There currently exists very little conceptual and empirical work on how the

performance management process can enhance performance by fostering employee

engagement. ([Link], T.S Prasanna, 2012). Throughout the three PM

processes, the following should be applied to foster EE: employee development

facilitation and support, employee involvement, trust, and justice. In order to have

a PM system achieve EE, the broad context and culture of organizations may have

to change to be sustainability oriented. (Molraudee Saratun, 2016). Performance

29
management practices and employee attitudes are crucial for achievement of

managed performance in public universities (James Kagaari, John C. Munene,

Joseph Mpeera Ntayi, 2010).

[Link] Performance Agreement

In a PA, managers should consider both organizational and individual goals, values,

competencies, and interests to promote meaningfulness and employee ownership

and well-being (Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007). Meaningfulness can be achieved

through incorporating an employee’s true self by providing a linkage between the

individual’s life aspiration and work goals. It can be increased through the broader

discussion of outputs, outcomes, and impact of employee performance upon team

and organization performance, and benefits to external stakeholders.

Furthermore, in a PA, employees should be architects of their jobs rather than being

handcuffed with a fixed job description (Gruman and Saks, 2011). The 2011 UK

workplace employment relations study (WERS) national survey showed the

connection between employee involvement in job design and engagement (Dix,

2013). Furthermore, the PA should be used by managers to discuss the engagement

behaviors (e.g. role expansion, proactivity, adaptability, and persistence) and their

engagement behavior goals with employees (Gruman and Saks, 2011).

[Link] Performance monitor

30
It is necessary to monitor the agreement and performance progress periodically,

starting with the employee’s self-monitoring. Employee involvement in monitoring

themselves and having discussions with managers regarding readjusting any PA

elements (both performance expectations and support/facilitation resources) ensure

continuing alignment with any changing personal needs, organization goals and

contexts. This is very important nowadays, considering the fast pace and high

frequency of changes in many organizations, their environments, and employee

situations. On-going performance checks should focus on development,

emphasizing the growth of the individual and the company together (Molraudee

Saratun, 2016).

[Link] Performance appraisal

Saks’s study (2006) showed that procedural justice preceded organization

engagement. Empirical relationships were found between fairness and engagement

(Maslach and Leiter, 2008) and between psychological safety and engagement (May

et al., 2004). Gruman and Saks (2011) suggest that engagement is likely to be

enhanced by creating psychological safety and availability through fairness.

Employees should be able to trust the organization and its managers that they will

be treated fairly in appraisal.

Employee voice should also be taken into account. Employee perceptions of voice

during performance appraisal were found to be associated with post-session justice

31
judgments (Elicker et al., 2006). Furthermore, fairness is also enhanced through the

way employee performance is rewarded. Employees should trust the organization

and managers that employee investment in energy and time will be rewarded.

Recognition and incentives should also be provided for employees who exhibit

engagement behaviors. Reward and recognition were reported to precede job

engagement in a study of bankers in Turkey by Koyuncu et al. (2006) and predicted

both job engagement and organization in a study in Saudi Arabia by Moussa (2013).

However, Saks’s study (2006) of 102 employees working at various jobs in different

organizations in Canada found that reward and recognition had no significant

relationship with job and organization engagement.

Evaluation is often the sole focus of performance appraisal. In order to achieve EE,

development and future-oriented appraisal should be encouraged. An empirical

positive association was found between supervisory feedback on performance and

how to improve and EE in a study of 482 service employees in 66 retail stores in

Canada (Mengucet al., 2013)

High performance work system are also known as high performance work practices

(Mihail and Kloutsiniotis, 2016). However, various researchers have stressed the

need to evaluate the missing link between high performance work system and

organisational outcomes (Jiang et al., 2013; Messersmith et al., 2011; Becker and

Huselid, 2006).

32
 Van De Voorde and Beijer (2015, p. 62) acknowledged that “although research has

shown that the use of high-performance work systems (HPWS) is associated with

employee outcomes, our knowledge of the meanings employees attach to HPWS

systems and how these shape employee outcomes is still limited”.

2.5.5 Trust in Leader

While trust is defined and conceptualized in different ways, comprehensive definition of trust

that has been empirically tested extensively in schools is “Trust is one party’s willingness to be

vulnerable to another party based on the confidence that the latter party is (a) benevolent, (b)

reliable, (c) competent, (d) honest, and (e) open” (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2000).

Benevolence is the belief that the other has my best interest in mind. Reliability is the belief that

the other will come through for me. Competence is the belief that the other is capable of

accomplishing a given task. Honesty is the belief that the other will be forthright with

information and do what is right. Openness is the belief that the other will share accurate and

needed information.

In schools, trust is recognized as a critical component related to both student achievement

and the behaviors of individuals and groups that contribute to effective schools (Bryk and

Schneider, 200; Tschannen-Moran, 2014). Without trust, people do not take risks that

characterizes genuine learning (Tschannen-Moran, 2014). Even more so, in times of crisis

or change, trust is a resource that can lead to schools to continue to learn and to flourish.

It is important to consider what trust means to the relationships between groups in a

33
school community. The important relationships are primarily between teachers and

leaders, teachers and clients (students and parents), parents and schools, students and

teachers, and between colleagues (Tschannen-Moran, 2014).

On an individual basis, trust in leader has been related to increased job satisfaction and

work engagement and reduced intention to leave (Moorman et al., 2013). With regard to

the leader, trust in leader results in enhanced satisfaction with the leader and perceived

leader effectiveness (Gillespie and Mann, 2004; Hogan et al., 1994; Moorman et al.,

2013).

Furthermore, trust in leader has been shown to act as a key mediator in the dyadic

relationship between leader and subordinate (Huang, 2012). For instance, Collquitt and

Rodell (2011) recognized trust in leader as a mechanism that transmits the effect of

perceptions of leader integrity on follower responses, while Giessner and Van

Knippenberg (2008) and Kalshoven and Den Hartog (2009) revealed that it mediates the

impact of leader group prototypicality and ethical leadership on perceived leader

effectiveness, respectively.

Trust in the leader has been defined as an employee’s psychological state, which involves

positive expectations about the leader’s intentions or behaviors in situations entailing risk

(Gao et al., 2011). Validating the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), past studies have

established that the leader who is concerned with the well-being of followers imbues a
34
positive psychological state within them, which is reciprocated by followers in the form

of gratitude and increased trust (Kelloway et al., 2012; Zhang and Zhou, 2014).

Kalshoven and Den Hartog (2009) also argued that trusted leaders were more effective in

extracting higher performance from subordinates. It has further been observed that

employees’ trust in leader reflects their willingness to be vulnerable to the leader’s

actions because they are of the belief that the leader will not suppress their rights

(Robbins, 2002).

Extant literature gives evidence that trust in leadership mediates the effects of leadership

on various work-related outcomes such as job performance (Zhu et al., 2013) and

employee citizenship (Rubin et al., 2010). Trust in a leader is the willingness of a

subordinate to be vulnerable to the actions of his or her supervisor whose behaviours and

actions he or she cannot control, and whose responsibility is to communicate to them the

goals and policies determined by top management (Tan and Tan, 2000).

Gillespie and Mann (2004) claim that it is important that supervisors act in ways that not

only build followers' beliefs about the leader's trustworthiness, but also build their

behavioural and emotional trust towards the leader. Research by Gillespie and Mann

(2004) shows that strong leadership practices of communicating and role modelling the

organization's vision and goals, inspirational motivation of common values to get them

accepted as shared goals, and acting in ways that build respect, pride and confidence in

employees, accounted for 67 per cent of the trust that employees had in their supervisor.

35
Surprisingly, only a handful of studies have empirically examined the impact of trust on

work engagement and the limited empirical evidence lends support to the notion that

positive trust in the supervisor can augment work engagement (Chughtai and Buckley,

2011).

(Chughtai, A., Byrne, M. & Flood, B. J Bus Ethics (2015) 128: 653.) in their research

search the role of trust in supervisor as mediating to look for the effect of ethical of

leadership on work engagement which the result is positive which explained that by

building trust-based relationships with their subordinates, ethical leaders can enhance

subordinates’ work engagement and protect them from the adverse effects of burnout. A

study by (See-Kwong Goh & Brian Zhen-Jie, Low,2013), provides new finding to the

existing literature whereby trust in leaders serves as a partial mediator between servant

leadership and organizational commitment.

CHAPTER THREE

36
3.0 Introduction of Research Methodology

The research methodology presents the research design and methods used to collect,

organize, and analyze the data required to address the research questions and hypotheses.

This is followed by a thorough description and rationale for the sample and the unit of

analysis. In this section will presents a comprehensive review of the data collection

procedures, and the handling of the data. Finally, the quantitative procedures used to test the

hypotheses are presented.

3.1 Research Design

The research design for the purpose of this study will be that of a descriptive study, making

use of information requested from the academic staff of Malaysian Polytechnic by means of

structured questionnaire. Descriptive methods help us to understand the way things are

(Welman and Kruger 2004: 19-20).

A cross-sectional sample survey field study will be applied in this research as data will be

collected at a single point in time. Non-experimental research design used to discover the

relationship among variables in real social structures, such as communities, institutions and

organizations (Kerlinger, 1992).

This survey will be administered online to test the study hypotheses. Many researchers have

turned to social media as a viable source for collecting research data (Castelli et al., 2013).

3.2 Research Process

37
 Generally, this research employed a research process, which is common to all

scientifically based investigations. There are seven main stages i.e. problem, hypothesis,

research design, measurement, data collection, data analysis and generalization. Each

stage affects theory and is affected by it as well (Frankfort, Nachmias and Nachmias

1992).

3.3 Collection Methods

An internet based self-report survey will be used to collect data for this study using a

leading provider of web-based survey solutions using onlines that is SurveyMonkey

appllication. An internet based self-report survey are utilized in research more often than

any other mode of data collection (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009) and this will

offer researchers tremendeous cost savings and time efficiency compared with mail

surveys (Dillman, 2000).

3.3.1 Pilot test

A pilot test will be conducted on the survey instrument to assess the clarity of

survey items, proper function of the on-line administration method, and to

evaluate psychometric properties of the survey instrument with a sample of

N=25 respondents. Based on the pilot test will help to do modifications which

needed to be applied to the instruments. The survey will take approximately two
38
 weeks for one week to do data collection and another one week to analyze the

data obtain. The survey instrument will be posted on SurveyMonkey, a leading

provider of web-based survey solutions using online.

3.3.2 Data collection procedure

Data collection will follow 6-phases of process:

(1) Obtain permission from each director of East Malaysia Polytechnics

(2) Conduct pilot study by sending survey to a number of 25 lecturers and

experts.

(3) Identify relevant email address of lecturers from each of the East Malaysia

Polytechnic administration.

(4) Sent invitations through email with a brief description of the study and a

SurveyMonkey link

(5) After 1-2 weeks, depending on lecturers group response, re-sent the

invitations again; increased the frequency of invitation to reach expected number

of responses

(6) Surveys was administered and data were collected via SurveyMonkey; the

dissertation chair was notified with progress of survey respondent count (target

sample size was N >= 400)

Sampling Design
39
The technique of stratification is often employed in the preparation of sample designs

because it generally provides increased accuracy in sample estimates without leading to

substantial increases in costs. Stratification does not imply any departure from probability

sampling – it simply requires that the population be divided into subpopulations called strata

and that probability sampling be conducted independently within each stratum. The sample

estimates of population parameters are then obtained by combining information from each

stratum (Ross, K. N., 1987). The departments in Polytechnics will be the strata in this study.
3.3.3 Target Population

In this study the target population will include academic staff for East Malaysian

Polytechnic at 2017 comprises from different department including Engineering,

Commerce, Hospitality, Mathematics and Science, and General Studies. Based on

sources from Department of Polytechnic Education, the total number of lecturers

from four polytechnics in East Malaysia inclusive two from Sarawak and two from

Sabah are 897.

Sample size

Sample size is important to establish the representative of the sample for

generalization (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010). Hair, Black, Anderson & Latham (2006),

the minimum requirements of sample size is at least to have 5 (five) participants per

variable however the most acceptable participants per variable are 10 (ten). Hence,

for the sample size of this study with given four variables, thus it is equivalent to 50

respondents. For methods such as correlational analysis, a sample size of at least 5

40
 and up to 50 participants per variable is suggested (Green, 1991). Thus, this study had

4 variables, a minimum total sample size of 20. According to a power analysis using

G*Power 3.1(Hinkle et al., 2006), the target sample size for this study required to

obtain a power of 0.80, an alpha of 0.05 (95 percent significant level), and an effect

size of 0.08 is N = 270. However, for the purposes of this study, a sample size of

approximately 300 participants will be occupied to strengthen statistical power.

Instrumentation

A survey questionnaire will be adapted with a combination of existing validated

measurements based on the extensive review of literature was utilized to develop the

instrument for this research. Further, the selected validated measurements will be tailored

to accommodate with the sample of this research.

The draft of the instruments will be confirm to a number of experts in the field to identify

any potential problems. This process also could help in improving validity and reliability

of the questionnaire (Churchill, 1995; Frazer and Lawley, 2000).

Job resources. Job Resources will be assessed with six items from E. Farndale and I.

Murrer (2015). The items were measured on a 10-point Likert scale.

41
Performance management. The questionnaire will be constructed chiefly to focus the

performance management four specific aspect inclusive performance agreement,

performance monitor, performance appraisal and performance evaluation. The employee

performance management were adapted from (Decramer, Smolders, & Vanderstraeten,

2013) of twenty items. The items were measured on a 10-point Likert scale.

Employee engagement. The most widely accepted construct of engagement used in

academic studies has been the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) developed by

Schaufeli et al. (2002) will be used to assess work engagement. Authors of UWES have

provided free use of the survey instrument for academic research purposes. This research

will be using 17 item UWES to measure employee engagement. The items of the UWES

are grouped into three subscales that reflect the underlying of engagement: Vigor (6

items), Dedication (5 items), and Absorption (6 items). All items are scored on a 6-point

frequency rating using Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). The organization

engagement scale is a combination of items taken from extant measures and novel items

inclusive 3 items from Saks (2006) and 2 items from (E. Farndale et al., 2014)

Trust in Leader. Six items will be used to tap these dimensions. Six of the items were

developed by Cook and Wall (1980) and the other four items developed by (Philip M. et

al., 1990). Four items will be derived from Gabarro and Athos (1976). The items were

measured on a 6-point Likert scale.

3.3.4 Operationalization of the Constructs

42
 Constructs have been operationalized using Likert scales for measurement. The

likert type scale is a common approach used to measure a wide variety of latent
H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d, H1e, H1f, H1g, H1h,
H1hH1h
Job Resources constructs (Kent, 2001). In this research, the six-point Likert scale, ranging from
EMPLOYEE
(1) strongly disagree to (6) strongly agree were applied. The ENGAGEMENT
rationale of
Organization – Financial rewards
applying the six-point scale was to overcome the central tendency error (Cooper
Interpersonal- Team climate
and Schindler, 2003).
Job – Feedback

Task – Participant in decision Job Engagement

making
Research
Adapted from: Demerouti [Link], Theoretical Framework
(2001) and Bakker [Link],(2006) Trust in Leader Organization Engagement

Performance Management

Adapted from: Saks (2006)

Performance Agreement

Performance Monitor

Performance Appraisal

Adapted from: (Beardwell and

Claydon, 2007)

43
3.4 Data Analysis

PLS-SEM has recently received considerable attention in a variety of disciplines including

marketing (Hair et al., 2012b), strategic management (Hair et al., 2012a), management

information systems (Ringle et al., 2012), operations management (Peng and Lai, 2012), and

accounting (Lee et al., 2011). Much of the increased usage of PLS-SEM can be credited to

the method’s ability to handle problematic modeling issues that routinely occur in the social

sciences such as unusual data characteristics (e.g. non-normal data) and highly complex

models.

H3a, H3b, H3c, H3d, H3e, H3f, H3g, H3h,

H3i, H3j, H3k, H3l, H3m, H3n

The data collected were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)

version 23 software. After the data were

H2a, screened and
H2b, H2c, H2d, H2e, cleaned,
H2f it was transformed into csv

form so that the next analytical software known as Partial Least Square-Structural Equation

Model (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS Version 3.0 (Ringle et al., 2015) was used to analyze the

measurement model to scrutinize the internal consistency, indicator reliability, convergent

44
validity, and discriminant validity. Once the measurement model had been conducted, the

researcher then performed another test known as structural model to determine the

coefficient of determination (R2) and path coefficient followed by hypothesis testing.

3.8 Hypothesis development

Though there are a number of factors that have been identified as those that influence

employee engagement, this research attempts to consolidate them and present influence a

comprehensive picture of determinants of employee engagement in Polytechnics East

Malaysia. This gives the hypothesis as follows:

3.81 (Crawford, LePine, & Rich, 2010) stated that the relationships among resources and

engagement were consistently positive. Job resources also play a distinct role, as

they enable employees to deploy their energy at work harmoniously which allow

employees to detach themselves from their work when appropriate, thereby

preventing exhaustion and feeling pressured and overtaxed (Trépanier, Fernet,

Austin, Forest, & Vallerand, 2014). A study made in three different countries:

Mexico, Netherlands and the USA show that certain job resources (financial

rewards, team climate, participation in decision making) positively influence

engagement in all three countries but relatively shows distinctions between the

strength of relationships between these job resources and engagement however,

performance feedback was not found to be related to engagement in the countries

45
 studies contradicting with the JD-R model as proposed by Demerouti et al., (2001).

(Farndale & Murrer, 2015).

To determine the influence of Job resources on employee engagement in Polytechnics

Malaysia.
H1a: Financial reward has a positive influence on job engagement in in Polytechnics

East Malaysia
H1b: Financial reward has a positive influence on organization engagement in

in Polytechnics East Malaysia

H1c: Team climate has a positive influence on job engagement in Polytechnics

East Malaysia
H1d: Team climate has a positive influence on organization engagement in

Polytechnics East Malaysia

H1e: Feedback has a positive influence on job engagement in Polytechnics East

Malaysia
H1f: Feedback has a positive influence on organization engagement in

Polytechnics East Malaysia

H1g: Participating in decision making has a positive influence on job

engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

H1h: Participating in decision making has a positive influence on organization

engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

3.8.2 It was suggest that supervisory feedback is positively related to engagement

while supervisory support is not and also supervisory support had a positive

effect while supervisory feedback had a negative effect on engagement at high

levels of perceived autonomy (Menguc et al., 2013). (Gruman & Saks, 201

mentioned of producing performance increments may be best achieved by

46
 orienting the performance management system to promote employee

engagement.
To examine the influence of Performance Management on employee engagement

in Polytechnics Malaysia
H2a: Performance Agreement has a positive influence on job engagement in

Polytechnics East Malaysia

H2b: Performance Agreement has a positive influence on job engagement in

Polytechnics East Malaysia

H2c: Performance Monitor has a positive influence on job engagement in

Polytechnics East Malaysia

H2d: Performance Monitor has a positive influence on organization

engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

H2e: Performance Appraisal has a positive influence on job engagement in

Polytechnics East Malaysia

H2f: Performance Appraisal has a positive influence on organization

engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

H2g: Performance Evaluation has a positive influence on job engagement in

Polytechnics East Malaysia

H2h: Performance Evaluation has a positive influence on organization

engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

3.8.3 Employee trust in leader was positively related with employee engagement (Wang

& Hsieh, 2013). In one study made on the effect of downsizing on trust in the

organization, it was found that employees who experience an increase in trust

also experience an increase in work engagement (Buckley, 2011) and

(Engelbrecht, Heine, & Mahembe, 2017). Trust must be recognize as a two-way

street whereby if management wants to reap the benefits of having an engaged

47
 workforce, it needs to attend to all features that promote and sustain trust and

avoid actions that erode trust. Engagement only exist with trust (Agarwal, 2014).
To determine the effect of trust in leader towards the relationship between Job

resources and employee engagement in Polytechnics Malaysia

3.4.1 H3a: Trust in leader will mediate the relationship between Organization and job

engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

H3b: Trust in leader will mediate the relationship between Organization and

organization engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

H3c: Trust in leader will mediate the relationship between Interpersonal and job

engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

H3d: Trust in leader will mediate the relationship between Interpersonal and

organization engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

H3e: Trust in leader will mediate the relationship between Job and job

engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

H3f: Trust in leader will mediate the relationship between Job and organization

engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

H3g: Trust in leader will mediate the relationship between Task and job

engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

H3h: Trust in leader will mediate the relationship between Task and

organization engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

H3i: Trust in leader will mediate the relationship between Performance Agreement and

job engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

H3j: Trust in leader will mediate the relationship between Performance

Agreement and organization engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

H3k: Trust in leader will mediate the relationship between Performance Monitor

and job engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

H3l: Trust in leader will mediate the relationship between Performance Monitor

and organization engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

H3m: Trust in leader will mediate the relationship between Performance

Appraisal and job engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

48
 H3n: Trust in leader will mediate the relationship between Performance

Appraisal and organization engagement in Polytechnics East Malaysia

Realizing that those factors are antecedents or determinants of employee engagement, it

is quite evident that they will have a direct positive impact on employee engagement.

However by considering the individuality of these variables which are separate concepts

unto themselves, the hypothesis was outline to ensure their relationship with employee

engagement.

49
3.8 Flow of Research

1. Refining 2. Design, validate, 3. Fieldwork and data

statement of and testing the collection
problem, measuring
objectives of instruments
the study,
research

5. Data analysis and 4. Data management,

report writing editing, coding and
input

50
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4.0 Preamble

This chapter presents the analysis conducted and presents the empirical findings for the
research hypotheses. Firstly presented was the overview of the data analysis process followed
with the preliminary analysis of the data. This was followed with data cleaning process using the
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 22.0 for the first phase, inclusive of
checking for missing data, suspicious response, outliers and normality of data. In addition, to
gain an overview of the data, computation on frequencies, means, standard deviations, perform
the non-response and common method bias tests. PLS-SEM technique in Smart PLS Version 3.0
M3 was used for the assessment and validation of the measurement model and structural model.
After the model quality was determined, the next process continued with mediation analysis and
evaluation of the hypotheses. Finally, results of hypotheses testing are reported and lastly the
summary of data analysis and findings is presented.

4.1 Response Acquired

The table 4.1 illustrate a quantitative cross-sectional survey research design was implemented
whereby questionnaires through online survey was administered using SurveyMonkey to over 33
polytechnics across Malaysia which cover four polytechnics in East Malaysia and 29
polytechnics in Peninsular Malaysia. Over a period of three months, 292 participants (N=292)
provided their consent to participate. Sixty-two of the participants were deleted from the sample
due to incomplete responses. The final 230 participants provided data that were analyzed for this
study. This number of respondents exceeds the minimum requirements of sample of 134 based
on G-Power 3.1.

51
Table 4.1

Questionnaires achieved

Polytechnic No. of G-Power Unusable Usable

questionnaires requirement questionnaires questionnaires

achieved

East Polytechnic 129 - 28 101

Peninsular Polytechnic 163 - 34 129

Total 292 134 62 230

Source: Surveymonkey

4.2 Preliminary Data Analysis

4.2.1 Data editing and coding

Data received from the SurveyMonkey application is edited by checking

whether the raw data were complete before proceed with data entry in SPSS. By following
(Sekaran, 2003), if the respondents had answered at least 75 percent of the questionnaire, it can
be considered for sampling purposes in this research.

There are two ways of entering data either pre-coding or post coding (De Vaus, 1995).
This research exercised the pre-coding option by determining the code for each question items
with numerical values in SPSS. Then frequency analyses were conducted for each of the variable
to detect for out-of-range values. Next any of the out-of-range values will be corrected
appropriately.

Table 4.2.1(a) Data screening for Items Job Resources (JR)

52
 Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's

Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Alpha if Item
Deleted

JR1 33.54 76.115 .683 .916

JR2 33.75 73.536 .826 .897

JR3 34.59 73.185 .731 .910

JR4 33.69 72.510 .844 .895

JR5 33.66 71.714 .797 .900

JR6 34.41 70.798 .752 .908

Table 4.2.1 (b) Data screening for Items Performance Management (PM)
53
 Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's

Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Alpha if Item
Deleted

PM1 116.38 1091.223 .869 .985

PM2 116.32 1091.000 .900 .984
PM3 116.38 1089.400 .906 .984
PM4 116.15 1094.511 .862 .985
PM5 116.07 1099.581 .840 .985
PM6 116.03 1102.716 .835 .985
PM7 116.45 1086.696 .894 .984
PM8 116.50 1077.786 .895 .984
PM9 116.44 1088.396 .865 .985
PM10 116.88 1068.413 .874 .985
PM11 116.67 1076.975 .916 .984
PM12 116.68 1069.811 .887 .984
PM13 116.63 1086.856 .837 .985
PM14 116.23 1095.955 .806 .985
PM15 116.69 1077.108 .897 .984
PM16 116.70 1072.565 .913 .984
PM17 116.69 1076.436 .897 .984
PM18 116.79 1073.992 .907 .984
PM19 116.98 1073.837 .871 .985

Table 4.2.1 (c) Data screening for Items Job Engagement (JE)

Item-Total Statistics
54
 Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's
Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Alpha if Item
Deleted

JE1 114.66 559.703 .712 .961

JE2 113.99 552.239 .789 .959

JE3 113.54 568.506 .629 .962

JE4 114.15 546.556 .854 .958

JE5 113.82 557.456 .792 .959

JE6 114.44 549.309 .792 .959

JE7 114.04 548.485 .833 .959

JE8 114.51 549.729 .776 .960

JE9 114.16 557.181 .737 .960

JE10 113.58 557.784 .755 .960

JE11 114.07 552.061 .843 .959

JE12 114.39 553.416 .727 .960

JE13 113.70 568.733 .716 .961

JE14 114.31 555.720 .791 .959

JE15 114.41 559.677 .745 .960

JE16 114.89 554.836 .710 .961

JE17 114.54 559.170 .716 .961

55
Table 4.2.1 (d) Data screening for Items Organization Engagement (OE)

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's

Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Alpha if Item
Deleted

OE1 28.17 54.270 .888 .971

OE2 28.24 53.982 .932 .964

OE3 28.05 52.343 .926 .965

OE4 27.85 53.908 .923 .965

OE5 27.89 53.026 .932 .964

Table 4.2.1 (e) Data screening for Items Trust in Leader (TL)

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's

Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Alpha if Item
Deleted

TL1 40.10 101.750 .857 .881

TL2 40.30 102.165 .886 .879

TL3 40.07 101.274 .879 .879

TL4 39.95 105.644 .853 .884

TL5 41.93 123.144 .212 .962

TL6 40.57 104.561 .774 .891

TL7 40.41 105.920 .870 .883

56
 4.2.2 Data Screening

Data screening is crucial process to ensure the data were correctly entered,
identifying suspicious or unengaged response, free from outliers on continuous data and
confirmation of data.

[Link] Missing data

Missing data up to 10% may not cause any serious problem in the
analyses of findings (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 1983). MCAR test as proposed by (Sarstedt
& Mooi, (2014) was used to analyzed the missing data using IBM SPSS. Expectation-
maximization (EM) estimation was used for both quantitative and categorical variables to check
for missing value. Expected Maximization (EM) as suggested by

57
 Table [Link] (a) Percentage of Missing data

Univariate Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Missing No. of Extremesa

Count Percent Low High

JR1 229 7.21 1.950 1 .4 5 0

JR2 228 7.01 1.862 2 .9 10 0
JR3 230 6.17 2.082 0 .0 0 0
JR4 230 7.08 1.895 0 .0 10 0
JR5 228 7.09 2.033 2 .9 2 0
JR6 229 6.38 2.208 1 .4 0 0
PM1 230 6.57 1.925 0 .0 0 0
PM2 229 6.62 1.882 1 .4 15 0
PM3 230 6.56 1.893 0 .0 0 0
PM4 229 6.81 1.886 1 .4 15 0
PM5 227 6.89 1.853 3 1.3 13 0
PM6 229 6.92 1.797 1 .4 10 0
PM7 228 6.49 1.988 2 .9 0 0
PM8 229 6.46 2.087 1 .4 0 0
PM9 230 6.53 1.973 0 .0 0 0
PM10 228 6.10 2.304 2 .9 0 0
PM11 229 6.29 2.075 1 .4 0 0
PM12 229 6.31 2.247 1 .4 0 0
PM13 228 6.35 2.075 2 .9 0 0
PM14 230 6.71 1.986 0 .0 14 0
PM15 230 6.27 2.093 0 .0 0 0
PM16 229 6.26 2.146 1 .4 0 0
PM17 230 6.28 2.100 0 .0 0 0
PM18 230 6.17 2.118 0 .0 0 0
PM19 229 5.95 2.222 1 .4 0 0
JE1 230 6.66 1.860 0 .0 12 0
JE2 230 7.32 1.890 0 .0 3 0
JE3 229 7.78 1.808 1 .4 10 0
JE4 230 7.16 1.895 0 .0 12 0
JE5 229 7.49 1.754 1 .4 0 0
JE6 229 6.89 1.957 1 .4 12 0
58
JE7 230 7.28 1.888 0 .0 4 0
JE8 230 6.80 1.987 0 .0 13 0
Univariate Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Missing No. of Extremesa

Count Percent Low High

JE9 230 7.15 1.876 0 .0 8 0

JE10 230 7.74 1.813 0 .0 7 0

JE11 230 7.26 1.783 0 .0 1 0

JE12 230 6.92 2.003 0 .0 15 0
JE13 230 7.62 1.597 0 .0 6 0
JE14 230 7.01 1.795 0 .0 7 0
JE15 230 6.90 1.791 0 .0 7 0
JE16 230 6.43 2.000 0 .0 0 0
JE17 230 6.77 1.865 0 .0 8 0
OE1 230 6.88 1.917 0 .0 9 0
OE2 230 6.81 1.866 0 .0 0 0
OE3 230 7.00 1.993 0 .0 10 0
OE4 230 7.20 1.886 0 .0 3 0
OE5 230 7.16 1.935 0 .0 3 0
TL1 230 7.12 2.107 0 .0 4 0
TL2 230 6.93 2.028 0 .0 15 0
TL3 230 7.15 2.089 0 .0 4 0
TL4 230 7.27 1.901 0 .0 2 0
TL5 230 5.29 2.644 0 .0 0 0
TL6 230 6.66 2.119 0 .0 0 0
TL7 230 6.81 1.856 0 .0 10 0

a. Number of cases outside the range (Q1 - 1.5*IQR, Q3 + 1.5*IQR).

59
 [Link] Suspicious or Unengaged Response Patterns

[Link] Outliers

[Link] Normality Test

4.2.3 Profile of Respondents

Variable Frequency Percent

4.2.4 Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics on demographic were analyzed to provide an in depths

knowledge on the sample that this study engaged on. Each of the principle constructs were also
taken for descriptive statistics calculations on their means and standard deviations. Along that,
cross-tabulations of at least two categorical variables were calculated to examine the various
relationships within the data.

4.2.4 Statistical Analysis

[Link] Assessment of Reflective Measurement Model

Figure [Link] depicts the path model for this study. The assessment begin
with test the measurements of the model.

[Link] Assessment of Formative Measurement Model

[Link] Assessment of Structural Model and Evaluation of Hypotheses

60
 [Link] Mediation Analysis

[Link] Hypotheses Testing

4.2.5 Importance-Performance Matrix (IPMA)

4.3 Chapter Summary

61
 REFERENCES

Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. and Rapp, A. (2005), “To empower or not to empower your sales
force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on
customer satisfaction and performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, pp. 945-
55.

Andrew, O. and Sofian, S. (2012), " Individual factors and work outcomes of employee
engagement ", Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 40, pp. 498 - 508 .

Anita J. (2013), “Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee

performance”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63
Iss 3 pp. 308 – 323

Beardwell, J. and Claydon, T. (2007), Human Resource Management: A Contemporary

Approach,Pearson Education, Harlow

Becker, B.E. and Huselid, M.A. (2006), "Strategic human resources management: Where
do we go from here?", Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 898-925.

Benoliel, P. and Somech, A. (2014), “The health and performance effects of participative
Leadership : Exploring the moderating role of the Big Five personality dimensions”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 23, pp. 277-294.

Bindl, U.K., Warr, P.B., Parker, S.K & Inceoglu, I. (2010), Multiple patterns of affect-
behaviour associations”, Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
(SIOP) Conference, Atlanta, GA, April.

Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O.K. and Espevik, R. (2014),
“Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 138-157.

Brenda Scott,Ladd, Verena Marshall, (2004) "Participation in decision making: a matter of

context?", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 Issue: 8, pp.646-662

Castelli, P. A., Egleston, D. O., & Marx, T. G. (2013). Social media: A viable source for
collecting research data. Business Education Innovation Journal, 5(2), 30-34.

Chang., Hai-Jiang., Jing-Jing., Dan-Yang., Bakker., (2013). Does work engagement

increase person-job fit? The role of crafting and job in security

62
Chen, G., Sharma, P.N., Edinger, S.K., Shapiro, D.L. and Farh, J.L. (2011), “Motivating
and Demotivating Forces in Teams: Cross-Level Influences of Empowering Leadership
and Relationship Conflict”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 96, pp.541-57.

Christopher Wilson, (2016) "How dominant coalition members’ values and perceptions
impact their perceptions of public relations participation in organizational decision
making", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 20 Issue: 3, pp.215-231

Chughtai, A. A., & Buckley, F. (2011). Work engagement: Antecedents, the mediating role
of learning goal orientation and job performance. Career Development International, 16,
684–705.

Chughtai, A., Byrne, M. & Flood, B. J Bus Ethics (2015) 128: 653.
[Link]

Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing

constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73.

Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence
Erlbaum,Mahwah, [Link], R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory:
an interdisciplinary review”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.

Crawford, E.R., LePine, J.A. and Rich, B.L. (2010), “Linking job demands and resources
to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic
test”,Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 95 No. 5, pp. 834-848.

Dahling, J.J. and O’Malley, A.L. (2011), “Supportive feedback environments can mend
broken performance management systems”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol.
4 No. 2, pp. 201-203.

Daniels, A. C., & Bailey, J. S. (2014). Performance Management: Changing behavior that
drives organization effectiveness. Atlanta, GA: Aubrey Daniels International Inc

De Gieter, S. and Hofmans, J. (2015), Rewards and employee outcomes. Human Resource
Management Journal, 25: 200-216.

Demerouti E. Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB (2001b) The job demands-resources

model of burnout. J Appl Psychol 86:499-512.

Densten, I.L. (2005), “The relationship between visioning behaviours of leaders and
follower burnout”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 105-118

Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P. and Roth, K.P. (2008), “Advancing formative measurement
models”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 12, pp. 1203-1218.

63
Diamantopoulos, A. and Winklhofer, H.M. (2001), “Index construction with formative
indicators: an alternative to scale development”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38
No. 2, pp. 269-277.

Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.

--------. 2007. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Second ed. New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Dipboye, R. L., & de Pontbriand, R. (1981). Correlates of employee reactions to

performance appraisals and appraisal systems. Journal of Applied psychology, 66(2), 248.

Dix, G. (2013), “Presentation of WERS 2011 Data”, IRRU-Acas seminar, London

Elaine Farndale Inge Murrer, (2015)," Job resources and employee engagement: a cross-
national study ", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 30 Iss 5 pp. 610 – 626

Frankfort-Nachmias, C., and D. Nachmias. 1992. Research methods in the social sciences.
4th ed. New York: St. Martin's Press.

The Gallup Organisation (2004) [online] Available at: [Link]. Accessed 28th
June 2007.

Gail Pacheco, Don Webber, (2016) "Job satisfaction: how crucial is participative decision
making?", Personnel Review, Vol. 45 Issue: 1, pp.183-200

Gallup (2015),“Q12 employee engagement”, available at

[Link]/services/169328/[Link] (accessed March 2,
2016).

Gruman., Saks., (2010). Performance management and employee engagement

Gruman, J.A. and Saks, A.M. (2011), “Performance management and employee
engagement”, Human Resource Management Review , Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 123-136.

JF Hair, WC Black, BJ Babin, RE Anderson, RL Tatham - 2006 - [Link]

Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Hackman, J. and G. Oldham. 1980. Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

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. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.268
64
Haines, V.Y. III and St-Onge, S. (2012),“Performance management effectiveness: practices
or context?”,The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp.
1158-1175.

Halbesleben, J.R. (2010), “A meta-analysis of work engagement: relationships with

burnout, demands, resources, and consequences” , in Leiter, M.P., Bakker, A.B. and

Helm, S., Eggert, A. and Garnefeld, I. (2009), “Modelling the impact of corporate
reputation on customer satisfaction and loyalty using PLS”, in Esposito, V.V., Chin, W.W.,

Henseler, [Link] Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods,
and Applications, Springer, Berlin.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2012), “Using partial least squares path
modelling in advertising research: basic concepts and recent issues”, Handbook of
Research on International Advertising, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.

Holbeche, L. and Springett, N. (2003), In Search of Meaning in the Workplace, Horsham,

Roffey Park Institute, ISBN: 0 907416527.

Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly, M. B. (2008). Turnover and Retention
Research. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 231-247. doi:
10.1080/19416520802211552

Houkes, I., Janssen, P. P. M., De Jonge, J., & Nijhuis, F. J. N. (2001). Specific relationships
between work characteristics and intrinsic work motivation, burnout and turnover
intention: a multi-sample analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 10, 1-23.

Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1997). Technical and strategic human
resource management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 40(1), 171-188.

Jack Wiley, Francis Lake, (2014) "Inspire, Respect, Reward: re-framing leadership
assessment and development", Strategic HR Review, Vol. 13 Issue: 6, pp.221-226,

Jackson, S.E., & Schuler, R.S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research
on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 36, 16-78.

Jenkins., Delbridge., (2013) Context matters: examining ‘soft” and ‘hard’ approaches to
employee engagement in two workplaces

65
Jiang, K., Takeuchi, R. and Lepak, P.D. (2013), "Where do we go from here? New
perspectives on the black box in strategic human resource management research", Journal
of Management Studies, Vol. 50 No. 8, pp. 1448-1480.

Kerlinger, F. N. 1992. Foundations of behavioural research. Fortworth, TX: Harcourt

Bruce Publishers.

Liaw, Y.J., Chi, N.W. and Chuang, A. (2010), “Examining the mechanisms linking
transformational leadership, employee customer orientation, and service performance: the
mediating roles of perceived supervisor and coworker support”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 477-492.

Locke, E.A., Kirkpatrick, S., Wheeler, J.K., Schneider, J., Niles, K., Goldstein, H., Welsh,
K. & Chah, D. 1999. The essence of leadership: the four keys to leading successfully. New
York: Lexington Books.

Maslach, C. (Eds), Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research,

Psychology Press,New York, NY, pp. 102-117.

MANSO, G. “Motivating Innovation.”Journal of Finance, Vol. 66 (2011), pp. 1823–1852.

Messersmith, J.G., Patel, P.C., Lepak, D.P. and Gould-Williams, J.S. (2011), "Unlocking
the black box: Exploring the link between high-performance work systems and
performance", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 6, pp. 1105-1118.

Mihail, D.M. and Kloutsiniotis, P. V. (2016), "The effects of high-performance work

systems on hospital employees' work-related well-being: Evidence from Greece",
European Management Journal, pp. 1-15. [Link]

Kahn W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement

at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.

Kular, S.,Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E. and Truss, K. (2008 ), " Employee engagement:
a literature review ", Working Paper No. 19, Kingston Business School (KBS)Kingston-
upon-Thames, available at[Link] (accessed
April 5, 2013).

Leiter, M.P. and Bakker, A.B. (2010), “Work engagement: introduction”, in Bakker, A.B.
and Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Work engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research,
Psychology Press, Hove, pp. 1-9.

Ling., Mat., Al-Omari (2013). Organizational practices and employee engagement: a case
of Malaysia electronics manufacturing firms, Business Strategy Series, Vol. 14 Iss: 1, pp.3
– 10

66
Loher, B., R. Noe, N. Moeller and M. Fitzgerald. 1985. A Meta-Analysis of the Relation of
Job Characteristics to Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology 70:280-289

Luthans, F. (2005) Organisational behaviour. (10th ed.) McGraw Hill Irwin

Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S., (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving
performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89-96

Maslach, C., Schaufelli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. ( 2001 ), " Job burnout ", Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 397 - 422 .

MacLeod, David and Clarke, Nita, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS),
corp creator. (2011) Engaging for success: enhancing performance through employee
engagement, A report to Government.

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper and Row

May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004),“The psychological conditions of
aningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at
work”,Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 11-37.

Menguc., Anh., Fisher., Haddad., (2012). To be engage or not to be engaged: The

antecedents and consequences of service employee engagement, JOURNAL OF
BUSINESS RESEARCH. 10.1016/[Link].2012.01.007

Meyer JP, Allen NJ (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.

Mooi, E.A. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), A Concise Guide to Market Research: The Process,
Data, and Methods Using IBM SPSS Statistics, Springer, Berlin.

Molraudee Saratun, (2016)," Performance management to enhance employee engagement

for corporate sustainability ", Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 8 Iss 1
pp. 84 - 102

Mone., Eisinger., Guggenheim., Price., Stine., (2011). Performance management at the

wheel: During employee engagement in organization, Journal of Business and Psychology,
June 2011, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 205-212

Mustapha, N. (2013). The influence of financial reward on job satisfaction among

academic staffs at public universities in Kelantan, Malaysia. International Journal of
Business and Social Science, 4(3).

Nahrgang, J.D. , Morgeson, F.P. and Hofmann, D.A. (2011), “Safety at work: a meta-
analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout,
67
engagement, and safety outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 1, pp. 71-
94

Nicholas, J. 1982. The Comparative Impact of Organization Development Interventions on

Hard Criteria Measures. Academy of Management Review 7(4):551-542.

Noell, G. H. (2010). Empirical and pragmatic issues in assessing and supporting

intervention implementation in school. In G.

G. Peackock, R. A. Ervin, E. J. Daly, & K. W. Merrell (Eds.), Practical handbook in school

psychology (pp. 513 – 530). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Ologbo C., Sofian. (2012). Individual factors and work outcomes of employee
engagement: Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, Volume 40,498-508

Pan., Werblow., (2012). Does good job enrichment policy and practices impact employees’
job satisfaction?, Journal of Global Business Issues, 6(1), 1-5

Perry, J. L., D. Mesch and L. Paarlberg. 2006. Motivating Employees in New Governance
Era: The Performance Paradigm Revisited. Public Administration Review 66(4):505-514.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990).

Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader,
satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The leadership quarterly, 1(2), 107-
142.

Rasli., Huam., Thou., Bandar. (2012). Employee engagement and employee shareholding
program in a multinational company in Malaysia, Procedia Social and Behavioural
Sciences, Volume 40, 209-214

Right Management. (2009). Employee engagement; Maximizing organizational

performance. Retrieved November 01, 2014. From http; [Link]/thought-
leadership/research/[Link]

Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Zimmermann, L. (2011), “Customer satisfaction with

commercial airlines: the role of perceived safety and purpose of travel”, The Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 459-472.

Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004), The Drivers of Employee Engagement,
Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton .

Rothbard, N.P. (2001), " Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and
family roles ", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46, pp. 655 - 684 .

68
Saks, A. (2006), " Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement ", Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600 - 619 .

Sajuyigbe, A. S., Olaoye, B. O., & Adeyemi, M. A. (2013). Impact of reward on employees
performance in a selected manufacturing companies in Ibadan, Oyo state, Nigeria.
International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 2(2), 27-32.

Sapna Popli Irfan A. Rizvi, (2017)," Leadership style and service orientation: the catalytic
role of employee engagement ", Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 Iss 1 pp.
292 - 310

Sarstedt, M. and Schloderer, M.P. (2010), “Developing a measurement approach for

reputation of non-profit organizations”, International Journal Nonprofit Voluntary Sector
Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 276-299

Schaufeli, W. and Salanova, M. (2007), “Work engagement”, in Gilliland, S.W., Steiner,.D.

and Scarlicki, D.P. (Eds), Managing Social and Ethical Issues in Organizations,
Information Age Publishers, Greenwich, CT, pp. 135-177.

Scrima., Lovita., Parry., Falgares., (2013). The mediating role of work engagement on the
relationship between job involvement and affective commitment, The International Journal
of Human Resource, Volume 25(15)

See-kwong goh, . Brian Zhen-Jie, . Low, . (2013). The Influence of Servant Lead ership
towards Organizational Commitment: The Mediating Ro le of Trust in Leaders . Canadian
Center of Science and Education

Seibert, S.E., Wang, G. and Courtright, S.H. (2011), “Antecedents and consequences
ofpsychological and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 5, p. 981.

Sekaran, U. 2003. Research methods for business: A skill building approach. 4th ed. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.

Shuck, B. and Wollard, K. (2010),“Employee engagement and HRD: a seminal review of

the foundations”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 89-110.

Simpson, M. (2009), " Engagement at work: a review of the literature ", International
Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 1012 - 1024 .

Steelman, L.A. and Rutkowski, K.A. (2004), “Moderators of employee reactions to

negative feedback”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 6-18

69
Stumpf., Tymon Jr., Van Dam. (2013). Felt and behavioral engagement in workgroups of
professionals. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 83(3),
255-264

Taba Muhammad Idrus, Muhammad Idrus Taba. 2018. Mediating effect of work
performance and organizational commitment in the relationship between reward system
and employees’ work satisfaction. Journal of Management Development 37:1, 65-75

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2011), “Do transformational leaders
enhance their followers’ daily work engagement?”, The Leadership Quarterly , Vol. 22 No.
1, pp. 121-131.

Trahant B. (2009). Driving better performance through continuous employee engagement.

Public Manager, 38(1), 54-59.

Truss., Shantz., Soane., Alfes., Delbridge., (2013). Employee engagement, organizational

performance and individual well-being: exploring the evidence, developing the theory, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Volume 24(12), 2657-2669

Van De Voorde, K., Paauwe, J. and Van Veldhoven, M. (2012), “Employee well-being and
the HRM-organisational performance relationship: a review of quantitative studies”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 391-407.

Wallance, J.C., Johnson, [Link] Mathe, K. (2011), “Structural and Psychological

Empowerment Climates, Performance, and the Moderating Role of Shared Felt
Accountability: A Managerial Perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96, pp.
840-850.

Wilfredo, H., & P, C. J. (2013). Education for sustainable development practices among
polytechnics in Malaysia. Proceeding of the International Conference on Social Science
Research.

Weixiao Guo, Duanxu Wang, (2017) "Does joint decision making foster team creativity?
Exploring the moderating and mediating effects", Personnel Review, Vol. 46 Issue: 8,
pp.1590-1604

Welch, M. (2011),“The evolution of the employee engagement concept: communication

implications”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp.
328-346.

Yener, M., Yaldiran, M. and Ergun, S. (2012),"The effect of ethical climate on work
engagement ", Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 58 No. 12, pp. 724 - 733 .

70
Zhang, X.M. and Bartol, K.M. (2010), “Linking empowering leadership and employee
creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative
process engagement”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53, pp. 107-28.

Zhang, T., Avery, G.C., Bergsteiner, H. and More, E. (2014), “The relationship between
leadership paradigms and employee engagement”, Journal of Global Responsibility, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 4-21.

Zhu, W., Avolio, B.J. and Walumbwa, F.O. (2009), “Moderating role of follower
characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement”, Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 590-619.

71