See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336277846

A Study on the Drivers of Employee Engagement and its Relationship with

Employee Performance

Article · January 2019

DOI: 10.21621/sajms.2019132.05

CITATIONS READS

2 1,414

2 authors:

Dr-Syeda Nazneen Waseem Kashif Mehmood

University of Karachi Bahria University Karachi Campus
27 PUBLICATIONS   125 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Employee Engagement and Personal resources as Determinants of Faculty performances: A comparative Analysis of private Vs Public sector HEIs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr-Syeda Nazneen Waseem on 19 April 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

South Asian Journal of Management Sciences
Vol: 13(2): 172-190, 2019
DOI: 10.21621/sajms.2019132.05

A Study on the Drivers of Employee Engagement and its

Relationship with Employee Performance

∗ †
Syeda Nazneen Waseem Kashif Mehmood

Abstract: The statement claiming that the raised employees’ engagement level will eventu-
ally help increase the employees’ well-being and work performance has not previously vastly tested,
specifically within faculty members of higher educational institutions (HEIs). The scarcity of note-
worthy studies on the antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement is addressed while a
complete, holistic and comprehensive model is presented in the paper that presents a rational ba-
sis on which further testing of the hypotheses could be identified and tested to verify the theory.
Based on the job demands resources model (JDR), it is hypothesized in the current study that
work engagement would be influenced by job resources and also engagement in turn have a positive
impact on employees in role and extra role performance behaviors. We used a non-experimental
design study with a survey sample of N=189 permanent full time teachers participated in the study.
Structural equation modeling were applied to test the model empirically, the results showed that
only one job resource out of three had a positive significant effect on boosting work engagement.
Additionally, the employee engagement at workplace was also found positively and significantly
influencing employees’ self rated performance. The current study also discussed the implications
of these findings with respect to theory and practice.

Keywords: Employee engagement, job resources, employee performance, higher educational

institutions (HEIs).

Introduction
In this contemporary world across globe especially after the start of 21st century, not only
organizational structures are evolving rapidly but the transformation in the workforce is
observed due to due to demographic shifts (Waseem, Frooghi, & Khan, 2016) and workforce
diversity (Yadav & Katiyar, 2017). Today in order for the companies to grow they have
realized the importance of talent management as the secret to their growth (Cappelli &
Keller, 2017), therefore human resource are the only strategic resource to capitalize upon.
Organization today focus on and utilize engaged employees as its strategic partner for be-
ing competitive in the business world (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014) as the scholars realized
that those employees who respond at work with improved level of energy, greater enthu-
siasm, are able to cope up with hardships and also while working time flies for them are
∗ PhD Scholar, IQRA University Lecturer, Karachi University Business School.
E-mail: nazneen.waseem@uok.edu.pk
† Associate Professor, IQRA University. Communication from UUM, Malaysia. E-mail: drkashif@iqra.edu.pk

172
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

actually regarded as engaged employees (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Therefore, employee
engagement because of its significance has received increased attention of researchers’ in
academic, business practitioners, and at governmental level (Yalabik, Popaitoon, Chowne,
& Rayton, 2013; Waseem et al., 2016). This highlights the importance and responsibility
of employing enterprises to provide a supportive culture to their employees where they can
remain committed and highly engaged with their jobs (Storm & Rothmann, 2003; Bailey,
Madden, Alfes, & Fletcher, 2017).
The construct of employee engagement is although not new but is definitely is the
one that required clarification vis-a-vis other work related existing constructs (Macey &
Schneider, 2008; Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006) and its theoretical conceptualizations (Shuck
& Wollard, 2010). It is more than 25 years since Kahn wrote first time about ‘personal
engagement’ with work, discussing if the employees opt to invest and engross themselves
fully and authentically in their working roles. Crawford, Rich, Buckman, and Bergeron
(2013); Macey and Schneider (2008) wrote that since then there has been a mushroom
growth in the development of a baffling multiplicity of definitions, measures, theories and
conceptualizations of employee engagement. Study on workplace engagement is not only
receiving interest of the researcher but is also becoming a buzzword which is being consid-
ered as HRM’s new best friend in the recent era (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Literature
defines Work engagement as a “positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is char-
acterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, &
Bakker, 2002). Vigor has been referred to high levels of energy, mental resistance, a willing-
ness to put effort into one’s work and tenacity even in the time of difficulties (Schaufeli et
al., 2002). Dedication is referred to “a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride
and challenge” in one’s job that is being performed (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Absorption
is elaborated as the extent to which an employee is fully focused and deeply gripped in
his or her work. There are six main distinct streams categorized as engagement conceptu-
alizations, but in the literature most dominant conceptualization which is well studied is
construct and measure of Utrecht Group’s ‘work engagement’, and in terms of theorization
the ‘job demands-resources’ framework is mostly studied (Bailey et al., 2017) . Thus, the
JD-R model helps explaining ‘engagement’ with the principle of; as those employees are
more likely to demonstrate high engagement at their work with high levels of job and/or
personal resources (Albrecht & Marty, 2017; Bailey et al., 2017).
The connection among different work attachment related constructs has been investi-
gated by numerous researchers and scholars of western countries, also work engagement
with its impact on employee performance within various contexts and particularly human
services, but none has studied the integrated framework of the antecedents as drivers of en-
gagement and their impact on employee in role and extra role performances together within
Higher Education sector of Karachi, Pakistan. Waseem, Frooghi, and Afshan (2013) wrote
in order to eradicate poverty and for the society to progress socially and economically edu-
cation is the only most powerful instrument which ultimately develops responsible citizens
too. The role of HEIs/Universities for shaping the future strengths and socio economic
development of any country can’t be underestimated, objectives of universities are to build
and accommodate literate economy (Parakhina, Godina, Boris, & Ushvitsky, 2017). Ed-
ucation is considered as a vital investment for the socio-economic progress of a country.

173
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

To help develop knowledge and skills based economies education and educationist play an
important role. The employees of the education sector can mark an important difference
and with a dominant influence on the results of organization (Van Wingerden, Derks, &
Bakker, 2017). Therefore, the focus of this study is to establish relationship of engagement
vis performance of the faculty of HEIs, to establish the external validity of the previous
researches on engagement and address the lack of academic literature on the antecedents
and outcome of engagement (Bailey et al., 2017).
Although various researches (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bailey et al., 2017) has previ-
ously examined interactions among different personal and job-related factors as antecedents
of work engagement. The combine research on work engagement and performance based
outcome is relatively new (Mone & London, 2018). Performance management helps em-
ployers to direct and focus their employees’ efforts but sometimes even currently highly
engaged employees, can experience burnout (Waseem et al., 2016; Mone & London, 2018).

Literature Review
Theoretical Background
The present study based on three models and other relevant theories combine to examine
their impact on employee performance. Previously many studies have strived to explain
engagement and employee performance but few of the models explained the phenomenon
with the integrative approach (Mone & London, 2018) but none within Pakistani context.
Employee performance regarded as the eventual target of the management of any orga-
nization shall need to be studied broadly so that the company’s image and productivity
can be enhanced (Frooghi & andSyeda NazneenWaseem, 2016); in line with it the cur-
rent study has integrated the Job Demand Resource Model-JDR (Bakker & Demerouti,
2008), Social exchange theory and Engagement model by Saks (2006) combine to predict
the employees performance outcome of any organization leading ultimately to customers
satisfaction which is the most dominant desire of any service oriented sector company. In
a recent study was concluded that intervention of job resources at work will ultimately
enhance the level of work engagement and thus improved performance (Van Wingerden et
al., 2017). This current study aims to enrich the scant literature by first time integrating
three models and the relevant theories to help explain engagement vis performance in one
of the most important sector of the country that is education industry, especially within
Pakistani context.

Empirical Studies
Employee Engagement
The concept of ‘personal engagement’ was first conceptualized by W.A. Kahn, who is re-
garded as an academic parent of the engagement movement (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014),
for individual roles ‘as the extent to which an individual is psychologically existent in a cer-
tain organizational role’ (Kahn, 1990). Later on, Kahn’s model was tested that supported

174
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

the Kahns’ findings stating that psychological surroundings of meaningfulness, protection

and availability are associated with engagement positively. Whereas, engagement was also
defined as an employees positive attitude towards their organization, its values, employees
awareness about business and work context through which organizational efficiency and
effectiveness can be improved (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004).
Schaufeli et al. (2002) gave another prominent conceptualization of engagement which
emerges from a fulfilling, positive, work-related state of mind that is categorized by vigor,
absorption and dedication. while working with high levels of mental flexibility and energy
is defined by Vigor; also when someone has the willingness and ability to invest effort in
his work by showing persistence even during work complications. Having a sense of mean-
ing, eagerness, pride, inspiration and challenge is been defined as dedication.. Whereas;
when one remains completely focused and happily engrossed in individual’s work, when
time flies fast and feel hard to detach him/herself from work (Schaufeli et al., 2002), is the
third and constituting element of engagement defined as absorption. Bedarkar and Pan-
dita (2014) wrote that those employees who show following three behaviors, namely Say,
Stay and Strive are actually the engaged employees. Employee engagement is although a
relatively new concept but is being extensively used and well-liked term in organizational
sciences (Robinson et al., 2004). The interest of academicians and practitioners in it is still
emerging, and attributed to the claims that the organizations which leverage on employee
engagement can witness noteworthy direct impact on desired end results (Macey & Schnei-
der, 2008; Rana, Ardichvili, & Tkachenko, 2014), using the top down design approach of
the job (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).

Job Resources and Engagement

Studies on antecedents and consequences of employee engagement were conducted by dif-
ferent researchers but the first prominent research in the academic literature on it was
tested by Saks (2006). In the meta analyses by Bailey et al. (2017), sixty-five i.e. thirty
eight (38%) percent of the studies utilized job demands-resources (JD-R) framework to help
explain engagement among which most of the papers also used the UWES. This viewpoint
is originated from job characteristics theory by Hackman and Oldham (1976) which illus-
trates that the desired psychological conditions which are necessary for engagement can
be generated from different attributes of work design including task significance, support,
autonomy, and feedback. This theory argues that employees who receive both social and
economic benefits from within their organization are more likely to return back to their
organization in the form of positive and affirmative outcomes. In order to prevail over the
limitations of other models on occupational psychology e.g., Job Demands Control Model
and Effort Reward Imbalance Model, (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008) developed the Job de-
mand resources (JDR) model based on the notion that JDR not only focus on the negative
aspects of the job but also study and analyze positive aspects of different characteristics
of job and its health improving effects ultimately (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; De Lange,
De Witte, & Notelaers, 2008).

175
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

Figure 1
The JD-R work engagement model Bakker and Demerouti (2008)

JD-R model concluded by Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, and Schaufeli (2001) cate-
gorizing the outcomes of work into two different broad classes including job demands and
job resources (See Fig: 1). In this model it was also proposed that any emotional, mental,
physical or undue expectations at job from the employee which are the demands of the job
actually will lead to raised burnout level among the employees. While job resources as the
second broad class of JDR model include, providing support, autonomy, encouraging feed-
back alleviate the unpleasant effects and helps increase engagement (Bakker & Demerouti,
2007). Therefore, in a nutshell those employees who experience lack of resources along
with high job expectations are more likely to develop high burnout along with decreased
engagement at workplace (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Authors also identified job’s design
and characteristics along with Human resource development practices as the key drivers of
employee engagement in the theoretical models of employee engagement (Rana et al., 2014)
as resources not only are vital on its own but also are crucial to help deal with demands
of the job (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), this notion supports Conservation of resources
(COR) theory (Hobfoll, 2001). Job characteristics theory by Hackman and Oldham (1976)
emphasizes the motivational prospective of job resources, including feedback, autonomy,
support and task significance. Bakker and Demerouti (2007); Sonnentag, Dormann, and
Demerouti (2010) supported that resources like, support, autonomy and encouraging feed-
back not only help mitigate the adverse effects of job demands but rather help improve
and turn into the positive outcomes of job like engagement. Xanthopoulou, Bakker, De-
merouti, and Schaufeli (2007) used the conservation of resources (COR) theory to support

176
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

that job resources significantly influence engagement through personal resources among
school principals and teachers. Hu and Bentler (1999) conducted a longitudinal study over
the time to analyze the job demands, job resources and employee well being; reported that
those employees under observation who receive less resources exhibited a marked increase
in the level of their burnout but a significant decrease in the level of engagement, this
idea supported the (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2013) view. Therefore we hypothesized the
following:
H1 : There is significant impact of workplace autonomy on teachers’ engagement.

H2 : There is significant impact of feedback on teachers’ engagement.

H3 : There is significant impact of supervisor support on teachers’ engagement.

Engagement and Performance

Scholars undeniably agree that, in this century all managers are determined to increase their
businesses performance thus demands more efficiency and output than any other period
of the history (Mone & London, 2018; Nazir & Islam, 2017) for that purpose managers
have been striving persistently through many challenges to be successful and leading their
company ahead of competitors (Shuck & Wollard, 2010). Bailey et al. (2017) performed
a systematic review of the argument that raised levels of engagement actually augment
the performance of the employee and thus organizations; through an extensive review
of the narrative literature of conceptual and empirical studies. Similarly, Bedarkar and
Pandita (2014) wrote that during any adverse and problematic times employee engagement
nowadays is considered as the most crucial and tool of strategic importance to attain
competitive advantage. This concept of engagement versus performance is also supported
by the JD-R model of work engagement by Bakker and Demerouti (2008) and this notion is
also similar to as suggested by David Guest in 1991 claims that the HR manager has specific
strategies and practices when executed, will result in behavioral and business outcomes.
The existing literature on performance (Williams & Anderson, 1991; Biswas & Varma,
2011) suggests in-role and extra-role as two categories of employee performance. The extent
to which employee execute his/her requirements of the job description is regarded as In-
role performance (Williams & Anderson, 1991), whereas all actions other then the formal
role requirements are suggested as extra-role performance and are totally at employees
prudence (George & Brief, 1992; Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014). Furthermore, all policies
and practices pertaining to HR in modern-day are deliberated with a approach that not
only increases the individuals’ involvement for on-the-job requirements but also encourages
extra-role behavior of employees (Guest, 1997; Budhwar & Khatri, 2001; Biswas & Varma,
2011; Bratton & Gold, 2017).
Van Wingerden et al. (2017) in their study identified that combined intervention of
personal resources and job crafting displayed contributory positive influence on work en-
gagement that resulted in enhanced in-role performance. This finding supports the notion
of Bakker and Xanthopoulou (2013) that in order to deal with the work tasks effectively
it is vital for the employees to have personal resources in an adequate range which in turn

177
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

improve engagement. In various studies highly engaged teachers not only work harder but
were found more innovative in recent studies, does stay longer at jobs (Nazir & Islam,
2017) and were additionally creative at work (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2013). Teachers
while acting as real change agents, help promote the speed of developmental process of
our society only if the issue of Teachers’ performance is addressed appropriately by the
concern authorities (Waseem et al., 2013). Employee engagement is the solution to deal
with the shortage problem and gaining retention of good faculty members in the higher ed-
ucational institutions (Nazir & Islam, 2017). In spite of that different scholars have shown
keen interests in past, exploring the construct employee engagement and identifying its
relationships with various outcomes (Saks, 2006; Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2013; Bedarkar
& Pandita, 2014; Van Wingerden et al., 2017), however, the prominent empirical studies
on the topic specifically within the higher education context are limited (Daniels, 2016;
Nazir & Islam, 2017). The scarcity of studies on the said topic can be detrimental for those
organizations which are specifically more dependent on their employees in order to out-
perform, such as the labor intensive education sector. The current study tries to respond
and fill this research gap, by investigating and empirically validating the relationship of
employee engagement and employee performance in Pakistani higher educational context.
Based on the given arguments following hypotheses are suggested:
H4a : There is a significant impact of employees’ engagement on teachers’ in-role per-
formance.

H4b : There is a significant impact of employees’ engagement on teachers’ extra-role

performance.

Contribution of this Study

This study fills in the gap for the need to address the scant literature on the antecedents
and outcome of engagement within educational environment, while; work engagement and
performance based outcome together has appeared fairly recently in academic research
(Mone & London, 2018). Therefore, this study offers important theoretical contributions
to the understanding of the linkage among Job resources, engagement and employees’ self
rated both In-role and extra-role performances; utilizing the JDR model within educa-
tional field. The key Job resources emerged from the systematic review of literature was
included in the study to validate it empirically and eventually help boosting engagement
within educational environment. The novel finding within specific context of the study was
that only supervisor support helps in boosting engagement levels on the contrary increased
autonomy and feedback mechanism among faculty members does not have any significant
influence on the work engagement. Our study also revealed that with the combine inter-
vention of personal resources on employees engagement level leads to improved both in-role
performance and extra-role performances. Therefore, it will help engagement practitioners
to identify and promote specific behavioral and thought processes within engaged teachers
while designing interventions and engagement strategies.

178
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

Hypothesized Model and Hypotheses

The given below Figure-2 contains the hypothesized model along with the suggested hy-
pothesized paths. The given paths will be tested empirically in the study:

Figure 2
Proposed hypothesized model

Methodology
Descriptive Analysis
The survey measurement tool was distributed among 250 permanent faculty members
belonging to business schools of Karachi, from which 208 questionnaires were returned
back. After screening of the data, multivariate outliers were detected by using Mahalanobis
distance (D2) critical chi-square function at p <0.001, a total of 19 invalid responses, were
removed and a final count of 189 responses were deemed usable for further analysis. The
collection of sample data using the measurement tool which was written in English took two
months (August 2018 to September 2018) by utilizing both hardcopy and online medium.
The authors adopted for convenience sampling for data collection, as researchers tend
to randomly select from samples of convenience (Tharenou, Donohue, & Cooper, 2007;
Marczyk, DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2005). The assumptions of SEM were checked in order
to carry out the data analysis; including sample size, outliers, normality of the data, scales
and multicollinearity issues (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). As per Churchill
and Iacobucci (2010) suggested for SEM measurements, yet with a small sample size of 50-
100 responses SEM models can also perform well. Further, Hair et al. (1998) also suggested
that study with 50 to 400 observations is also adequate. Therefore, in our context, the
given study sample size is 189, establishing that in order to perform estimations our sample
set would be sufficient.

179
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

Measures
A survey instrument was prepared so that the hypothesized model can be tested empir-
ically displayed in Fig-2; using the adapted scales from previous published studies. The
questionnaire included two factors and 8 variables namely: Employee engagement (UWES
Scale)-(Vigor, Dedication and Absorption), Autonomy, Feedback, Supervisor support and
employee performance - (In-role & Extra-role behavior). The original 17 item Utrecht
Work Engagement Scale (UWES) was utilized to measure Work Engagement by Schaufeli
and Bakker (2004) using seven- point likert scale. Employee Performance Scale established
by Lynch, Eisenberger, and Armeli (1999) was adopted to measure Employee performance,
which in total comprises of 16 items, out of which in-role behavior measured by nine items,
and remaining seven items used to measure extra-role performance behavior. The three
items scale by Komaki (1986) consistently utilized to measure Supervisor feedback. The
measure of job autonomy was adopted from Ford, Weissbein, and Plamondon (2003) us-
ing four survey items. Measures for Supervisor support was adapted from the study of
Anderson, Coffey, and Byerly (2002) comprising of six items in total. A 5-point Likert
scale was used to answer these questions ranging from (1) for strongly disagree to (5)
strongly agree.

Data Analysis
Two statistical softwares SPSS 21 and AMOS 21 were utilized for carrying data analysis
with a sample of N=189. By recognizing the (Hair et al., 1998) rule if value of Karl
Pearsons correlation is > 0.90 identifies that the issue of multicollinearity exists in the
study, values in Table-1 shows that there is no issue of multicollinearity as highest value
is 0.486 between Feedback and Supervisor support (Hair et al., 1998; Lin & Lee, 2004).
Nunally and Bernstein (1978) suggested to check the reliability of the instrument the
Cronbach α value should be more than 0.6, hence in our study after removing 2 items of
Supervisor support, 1 item of Feedback and 4 items from in-role employee behavior, all
Cronbach alpha values of variables were greater than 0.6 (See Table-1).

Table 1
Mean, Standard Deviations and Correlations (N=189)
Mean Std. Deviation SS FB AUT EE EPIR EPER
SS 3.7411 1.1003 (0.820)***
FB 3.7777 0.91941 .486** (0.6720)***
AUT 3.7085 0.91272 .312** .324** (0.719)***
EE 4.2435 0.96285 0.112 0.099 .321** (0.860)***
EPIR 4.1564 0.98317 .147* .162* .139* .184** (0.685)***
EPER 3.7944 0.8638 0.111 0.111 0.100 .179** .391** (0.604)***
*** Values in parenthesis shows Cronbach alpha values
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

180
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

Internal Reliability and Validity of Constructs

Estimation of different indices indicates the fitness of the Measurement model. Measur-
ing validity and reliability ensures the fitness of the instrument and its results, similarly
convergent validity ensures that the items from the instrument highly correlates with the
specific variable with which it should correlate theoretically. The results of Cronbach al-
pha (Cα), composite reliability (CR) and average variance explained (AVE) are given in
Table-2, establishing the construct and convergent validity. In the current study for all
included variables Cronbach alpha values were found more than the threshold value of 0.6
(Nunally & Bernstein, 1978). Composite reliability being a more appropriate indicator for
construct validity (Lin & Lee, 2004) was also used to measure the reliability of the overall
scale being used. Based on the suggested criterion for ensuring CR (above 0.7) and AVE
(above 0.5) implies the scale as reliable and valid (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), therefore, data
results identifies and accepted in terms of reliability and convergent validity as all the vari-
ables surpassed the threshold values, also the composite reliability for feedback is slightly
less than threshold of 0.7 that is 0.676; but as per Hair et al., a CR value between 0.6 to
0.7 would be sufficient if a models construct validity is good with factor loadings greater
than 0.5. So it was concluded in this study no serious issue of validity existed, therefore
the data and constructs can be carried further (Bouwman, Carlsson, Molina-Castillo, &
Walden, 2007; Waseem et al., 2016; Voorhees, Brady, Calantone, & Ramirez, 2016).

Table 2
Cronbach Alpha (CA), Composite Reliability (CR) and Average
Variance Explained (AVE)
Final (33) items
Variables CRa AV E b CronbachAlphac
extracted in CFA
SS 4 0.818 0.531 0.820
FB 2 0.676 0.511 0.672
AUT 2 0.847 0.740 0.719
EE 16 0.899 0.574 0.860
EPIR 5 0.794 0.759 0.685
EPER 4 0.832 0.555 0.604
Source: Authors Estimation (N=189)
a: CR>0.7 Bagozzi and Yi (1988)
b: AVE>0.5 Bagozzi and Yi (1988)
c: Cronbach > 0.6 Nunally and Bernstein (1978)

Common Method Variance

CFA was performed in the present research with thirty three (33) final loaded items that
signify six factors that are, employee engagement (EE), feedback (FB), autonomy (AUT),
supervisor support (SS), in-role performance (EPIR) and extra-role performance (EPER)
of employees. The CFA model as per Byrne (2013) identifies the relationship between
latent variables and measured items. Results of the convergent validity are given in Table
2 including final extracted items, composite reliability (CR) and average variance explained
(AVE), as the recommended threshold were met the constructs were carried forward for
conceptual analyses. The CFA model fitness relies on estimation different model fit indices
for its efficiency. The literature for that purpose supports on not to rely on reporting

181
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

any single index, a combination of indices for measuring the fitness of the model shall be
reported (Crowley & Fan, 1997).
A combination of Chi-Square test with CFI, RMSEA and SRMR was strongly supported
by Kline (1999), for Chi-Square (Tabachnick, Fidell, & Ullman, 2007) recommended the
threshold value of less than 2, the CFI shall be more than 0.90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Byrne,
1994); the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) as proposed by Browne et
al. (1993) shall be ≤ 0.05 and the Standardized Root Mean square Residual (SRMR) shall
be < 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The authors has utilized the suggestion by McDonald
and Ho (2002) according to which Comparative Fit index (CFI) are the most commonly
reported stated model fitness indice. As these indices are highly insensitive to sample size,
any misleading or the parameter estimates are preferred over other indices, so therefore
following the recommendation by Kline (1999), for measurement of Goodness of fit Table
3 presents the values of indices for four different comparative models along with the final
hypothesized model.

Table 3
Summary of Model Comparisons (N = 189)
Recommended value <2.0 >0.90 ≤0.05 (>0.5) <0.08
Source Tabachnik and Fidell (2007) Hu and Bentler (1999) Browne et al.(1993) Hu and Bentler (1999)
Null Model a 2.841 0.455 0.099(0.000) 0.103
Two Factor Model b 3.373 0.458 0.098(0.000) 0.113
Three Factor Model c 2.826 0.583 0.086(0.000) 0.097
Hypothesized Model d (33 items) 1.336 0.944 0.042(0.928) 0.054
SEM 1.512 0.912 0.050(0.921) 0.082
Source: Authors Estimation
a. Null model = 46 items
b. A Two Factor Model = Factor 1(30 Employee engagement & its drivers items), Factor 2(16 Employee performance items)
c. A Three factor Model = Factor 1 (17 items of Employee engagement), Factor 2 (Drivers of Engagement-13 items) and Factor 3
(16 Employee performance items)
d. Hypothesized Model composed of Factor 1 (16 items of Employee engagement), Factor 2 (4 items of supervisor support), Factor 3
(2 items of Feedback), Factor 4 (2 items of Autonomy), Factor 5 (5 items of Employee inrole behavior) and Factor 6 (4 items of Employee
Extrarole behavior)

As shown in above table; the fit indices values suggest our data fits well in the mea-
surement model thus confirming to the existing theories and validating the constructs. As
shown in Table-3 the CMIN/DF value of our final CFA model is calculated as 1.336, CFI
value is calculated as 0.944, RMSEA value is measured to be 0.042 and SRMR is calcu-
lated as 0.0544 which satisfied all recommended threshold prescribed by various authors.
In the final measurement many error terms has been incorporated but only within a factor
and not among different factors, as in our measurement model the correlation among er-
ror terms has been applied in the way that previously accepted and suggested by various
researchers (Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthén, 1989). Although, the results of our final model
reflect the best fitness and efficiency of model; but the previous studies emphasize that
good fitness models can also have misspecification (Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts, & Walker,
2007). Therefore to deal with the issue it is recommended to compare alternate models’
fitness results with the hypothesized model (Mulaik et al., 1989; Armenakis et al., 2007).
Based on the recommendation, in this study our final measurement model was compared
with three competing models and the results of this comparison are displayed in Table-3
identifying the superiority of our hypothesized model.

182
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

Structural Equation Modeling

The present study was tested by structural equation modeling (SEM) in order to validate
the theoretical framework and test the hypothesis constructed for the study. Byrne (2013)
suggested the structural model investigates the relationship among latent variables. The
results of our hypothesized structural model are displayed in Table 3 which ensures the good
fit and efficiency of our model evaluated by the value of normed chi-square (CMIN/DF)
= 1.512 significantly lower than the Byrne (2013)’s recommended value of 5, also than the
recommended value of 2 by Tabachnick et al. (2007); CFI = 0.912; and RMSEA = 0.050
(PCLOSE = 0.921). The recommended values reported for different fit indices have been
exceeded for the current study data and therefore our model exhibit good fitness.

Figure 3
The Structural Model Results [Note: *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01]

Table 4
SEM Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Hypothesized Path Path Coefficient S.E. C.R. P-value Remarks
H1 EE <— AUT 0.154 0.082 1.885 0.059 Not supported
H2 EE <— FB 0.006 0.099 0.061 0.952 Not supported
H3 EE <— SS 0.187 0.08 2.348 0.019 Supported
H4a EPIR <— EE 0.461 0.099 4.656 *** Supported
H4b EPER <— EE 0.477 0.103 4.613 *** Supported
Squared Multiple correlations(R-square)
EE 11.50%
EPIR 28.5
EPER 23.60%

The statistical significance of determinants and outcome for employee engagement were
all tested for their hypotheses given in the study and confirm the validity. Table 4 shows
the results of SEM regression paths, standardized regression weights, standard errors,
critical ratios, probability values and concluding remarks of the hypothesis. The results
suggested the non-significant impact of two drivers of engagement i.e. feedback(FB) and
Autonomy (AUT) on faculty’s engagement at workplace. Whereas, Supervisory support as

183
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

an important job resource do have a significant impact (β = 0.187, p=0.019), on faculty’s

engagement. Further, it is also statistically supported that employees engagement (EE)
do have a significant positive influence on the employees in-role (β = 0.461, p ***), and
extra-role work performances (β = 0.477, p***).
Among three endogenous variables, employees In role work performance behavior (EPIR)
is most vital construct in explaining the engagement model. EPIR explains 28.5% and
EPER explains 23.6% of the variation in engagement model. When engagement (EE) is
raised by one standardized unit, EPIR is enhanced by 0.461 and EPER by 0.477 stan-
dardized units. Moreover, confirming the hypothesis H4a and H4b. In total the present
study contains the five formulated hypotheses, out of which three are statistically found
significant from our analysis of the data. Displayed in Figure 3 are the empirical findings
of our research hypotheses.

Discussion and Managerial Implications

This study has significant implications for theory and management practices as it had
promoted the research on EE by including its possible antecedents and consequences, also
clearly conceptualizing the term; thus can have important influences on the managers of
the organizations while decision making on EE strategies.
Bailey (2017) in a meta analyses has identified that many different job resources have
been studied along with engagement, which includes support from supervisor, peer support,
feedback, autonomy and others. In almost all of the studies the results have shown some
degree of positive connection between job resources and engagement, while a study by
Ouweneel et al. (2012) was an exception, in which it was found non-significant association
between the variables under study. Also, in our study only one job resource supervisor
support is found to have positive and significant influence on engagement. Although the
notion resources have a significant impact on work engagement was also assumed in JDR
model (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) like previously proven in past study by Xanthopoulou
et al. (2007), but the present study highlights the fact individuals own personality, his/her
personal resources or other individual factors play a more dominant role rather than the
job resources while predicting work engagement (Albrecht & Marty, 2017), such as; those
teachers with high confidence in their abilities i.e. personal resource will most likely are at
ease to ask for or receive performance feedback (job resource) from their department head
or students because of their confidence of handling this feedback, the same is argued by
(Van Wingerden et al., 2017). It is not to conclude that work resources or environment
is not vital in predicting employees’ work engagement behavior; however, we conclude
that taking individual factors into account is essential as well. Still it must be considered
too; that different policies or nature of industry have different effects, thus yield vast
implications for theory building and practices, which future research will need to address.
It is also assumed within Pakistani cultural context more an employee gets the autonomy
to perform at work, due to freedom of work with less monitoring available it may result in
less dedication, thus suggesting controlling factors to be included in future EE researches
which can have important future implications for EE practitioners while formulating their
EE strategies.

184
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

By adopting diverse theoretical perspectives to help explain the influence of HR prac-

tices on employee performances has been vastly studied by scholars. Bailey in 2017 ex-
amined various studies for performance outcomes of engagement and concluded it can be
categorized under two main sub-headings, the first one as higher level performance out-
comes and second as individual performance outcomes. The existing literature by Williams
and Anderson (1991) on performance already suggested two forms of work performance-
in-role and extra-role. However, only few studies have investigated together the role of
job resources in improving in-role and extra-role performance of employee by fostering
employee engagement (Guan & Frenkel, 2018), supporting the JD-R model assumption
which suggests that by optimizing job demands and job or and personal resources work
engagement and performance can be facilitated and fostered (Bakker & Xanthopoulou,
2013; Demerouti et al., 2001). The argument postulated from JD-R model strengthen the
results of our study where the suggested hypothesis that employee engagement have a sig-
nificant and positive influence an employee’s in-role and extra-role performance, and thus
this hypothesis was accepted as found to be true. The study is unique as it tried to fill the
scarcity of significant empirical research on the topic of engagement as a mechanism to link
it with employee performances. The majority of previous researchers used cross-sectional,
self- report methods on the topic (Bailey et al., 2017), therefore it is recommended to use
complex methods or time-lagged research designs in future researches. It has been reported
in 2005 that majority of the American workers were found ‘disengaged’ which is referred
to as ‘engagement gap’ is annually costing $300 billion in lost of productivity, although
such type of databases are not available in Pakistan but disengagement problems has been
witnessed here too.
As the present study has incorporated modern theoretical models it sheds light on the
extant literature of employee engagement and thus academia can be benefited by channel-
izing their efforts by focusing on those aspects that can help foster the engagement level
of faculty members. It is recommended to focus on retaining recruited and developed staff
as it is difficult to replace the knowledge and experience of skilled staff, so that a contin-
uous cycle of teaching and excellence in research can be maintained in higher educational
institutions (Simmons et al., 2002; Nazir & Islam, 2017). Employee engagement requires
continued interactions with the employer to create a state of reciprocal interdependence as
it is an on-going and a long-term process between the two parties (Cropanzano & Mitchell,
2005) and realizing this fact is crucial for the management of educational institutions.
Thus; an engaged and committed workforce in a higher educational institute will have pos-
itive and great implications for the society (Nazir & Islam, 2017). The result of this study
is considered to have implications for both the engagement and performance literatures,
and for HR practitioners. Therefore it is expected that this study will broaden the scarce
literature on engagement and performance especially within the context of Pakistani higher
education context.

Limitations and Future Research Recommendations

The research is cross-sectional; thus, any inferences regarding causality are limited. Yet,
based on strong theoretical reasoning to presume causal ordering, also reflected later on

185
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

in the statistical analysis Cross-sectional data was gathered for this research survey from
different higher educational institutions of Karachi, Pakistan. Thus, the study can be
carried in other geographical regions of Pakistan in order to corroborate the results of
the findings. Furthermore, avenues for further research in other sectors also opens where
engagement practices actually leads to better performance outcomes such as from medical
practitioners thus validating the results in different contexts.
Also, while this study found that two out of three job resources had a weak and insignif-
icant influence on employees engagement; it may also be attempted in future researches to
explore some other drivers of engagement such as individual factors as discussed above like
monitoring and control factors i.e. style of leadership or type of personalities as predictors
of engagement. It is also suggested to design and implement real engagement practices
in institutions, observe significant changes over time and then validate the outcomes of
engagement thus recommending longitudinal researches, which can be productive for prac-
titioners in academia as well as for researcher

186
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

References
Albrecht, S. L., & Marty, A. (2017). Personality, self-efficacy and job resources and
their associations with employee engagement, affective commitment and turnover
intentions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–25.
Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and
informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conflict and job-related outcomes.
Journal of Management, 28 (6), 787–810.
Armenakis, A. A., Bernerth, J. B., Pitts, J. P., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Organizational
change recipients’ beliefs scale: Development of an assessment instrument. The Jour-
nal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43 (4), 481–505.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1), 74–94.
Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2017). The meaning, antecedents and
outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 19 (1), 31–53.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the
art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22 (3), 309–328.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career
Development International , 13 (3), 209–223.
Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2013). Creativity and charisma among female leaders:
The role of resources and work engagement. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 24 (14), 2760–2779.
Bedarkar, M., & Pandita, D. (2014). A study on the drivers of employee engagement
impacting employee performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133 , 106–
115.
Biswas, S., & Varma, A. (2011). Antecedents of employee performance and the role of job
satisfaction as a mediator. Employee Relations, 177-192.
Bouwman, H., Carlsson, C., Molina-Castillo, F. J., & Walden, P. (2007). Barriers and
drivers in the adoption of current and future mobile services in Finland. Telematics
and Informatics, 24 (2), 145–160.
Bratton, J., & Gold, J. (2017). Human resource management: Theory and practice. United
Kingdom: Palgrave.
Budhwar, P. S., & Khatri, N. (2001). A comparative study of HR practices in Britain and
India. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12 (5), 800–826.
Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic
concepts, applications, and programming. United Kingdom: Sage.
Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applica-
tions, and programming. United Kingdom: Routledge.
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of
factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance.
Psychological Bulletin, 105 (3), 456-468.
Cappelli, P., & Keller, J. (2017). The historical context of talent management. The Oxford
Handbook of Talent Management, 23–42.

187
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

Churchill, G. A., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Marketing research methodological foundations-

international edition. Hampshire: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Crawford, E. R., Rich, B. L., Buckman, B., & Bergeron, J. (2013). The antecedents and
drivers of employee engagement. In Employee engagement in theory and practice (pp.
71–95). Routledge.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of Management, 31 (6), 874–900.
Crowley, S. L., & Fan, X. (1997). Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts and
applications in personality assessment research. Journal of Personality Assessment,
68 (3), 508–531.
Daniels, J. R. (2016). An exploratory comparative case study of employee engagement in
christian higher education. Christian Higher Education, 15 (3), 126–139.
De Lange, A. H., De Witte, H., & Notelaers, G. (2008). Should i stay or should i go? Ex-
amining longitudinal relations among job resources and work engagement for stayers
versus movers. Work & Stress, 22 (3), 201–223.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 499-512.
Ford, J. K., Weissbein, D. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2003). Distinguishing organizational
from strategy commitment: Linking officers’ commitment to community policing to
job behaviors and satisfaction. Justice Quarterly, 20 (1), 159–185.
Frooghi, R., & andSyeda NazneenWaseem, S. A. (2016). The integration of loyalty, satisfac-
tion, and relationship commitment models to predict customer retention in Pakistani
telecom sector. South Asian Journal of Management, 10 (2), 56–79.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis
of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin,
112 (2), 310-329.
Guan, X., & Frenkel, S. (2018). How HR practice, work engagement and job crafting
influence employee performance. Chinese Management Studies, 12 (3), 591–607.
Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: A review and research
agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8 (3), 263–276.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test
of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16 (2), 250–279.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis.
Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different? can work en-
gagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?
European Psychologist, 11 (2), 119–127.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress
process: advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50 (3), 337–
421.
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Model-
ing: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 6 (1), 1–55.

188
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement

at work. Academy of Management Journal , 33 (4), 692–724.
Kline, R. B. (1999). Book review: Psychometric theory. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 17 (3), 275–280.
Lin, H.-F., & Lee, G.-G. (2004). Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge-sharing
behaviour. Management Decision, 42 (1), 108–125.
Lynch, P. D., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support: Infe-
rior versus superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84 (4), 467.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). Engaged in engagement: We are delighted we did
it. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1 (1), 76–83.
Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D., & Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of research design and
methodology. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural
equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7 (1), 64-82.
Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2018). Employee engagement through effective performance
management: A practical guide for managers. United Kingdom: Routledge.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989).
Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological
Bulletin, 105 (3), 430-445.
Nazir, O., & Islam, J. U. (2017). Enhancing organizational commitment and employee per-
formance through employee engagement: An empirical check. South Asian Journal
of Business Studies, 6 (1), 98–114.
Nunally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Parakhina, V., Godina, O., Boris, O., & Ushvitsky, L. (2017). Strategic management
in universities as a factor of their global competitiveness. International Journal of
Educational Management, 31 (1), 62–75.
Rana, S., Ardichvili, A., & Tkachenko, O. (2014). A theoretical model of the antecedents
and outcomes of employee engagement: Dubin’s method. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 26 (3/4), 249–266.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engage-
ment. Report-Institute for Employment Studies. Retrieved from tinyurl.com/
IES-drivers
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21 (7), 600–619.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relation-
ship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational
Psychology and Behavior , 25 (3), 293–315.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The mea-
surement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic
approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3 (1), 71–92.
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of
the foundations. Human Resource Development Review , 9 (1), 89–110.

189
 South Asian Journal of Management Sciences

Simmons, D. C., Kame’enui, E. J., Good, R., Harn, B. A., Cole, C., & Braun, D. (2002).
Building, implementing, and sustaining a beginning reading improvement model:
Lessons learned school by school. Interventions for Academic and Behavior Problems
II: Preventive and Remedial Approaches, 537–570.
Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Not all days are created equal: The
concept of state work engagement. New York: Psychology Press.
Storm, K., & Rothmann, S. (2003). A psychometric analysis of the utrecht work engage-
ment scale in the South African police service. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology,
29 (4), 62–70.
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics.
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Tharenou, P., Donohue, R., & Cooper, B. (2007). Management research methods. Cam-
bridge University Press.
Van Wingerden, J., Derks, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2017). The impact of personal resources
and job crafting interventions on work engagement and performance. Human Re-
source Management, 56 (1), 51–67.
Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity
testing in marketing: An analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 119–134.
Waseem, S. N., Frooghi, R., & Afshan, S. (2013). Impact of human resource management
practices on teachers’ performance: A mediating role of monitoring practices. Journal
of Education and Social Sciences, 1 (2), 31–55.
Waseem, S. N., Frooghi, R., & Khan, B. S. (2016). Empirical assessment of the constructs:
Workplace engagement, job burnout and turnover intention. Journal of Education &
Social Sciences, 4 (2), 112–131.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commit-
ment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management, 17 (3), 601–617.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role
of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of
Stress Management, 14 (2), 121-141.
Yadav, A., & Katiyar, D. (2017). Workforce diversity and individual differences: Impli-
cations for employee engagement. Indian Journal of Commerce and Management
Studies, 8 (3), 7.
Yalabik, Z. Y., Popaitoon, P., Chowne, J. A., & Rayton, B. A. (2013). Work engagement
as a mediator between employee attitudes and outcomes. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 24 (14), 2799–2823.

190

View publication stats