SEISENSE Journal of Management

Vol 2 No 1 (2019): DOI: https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v2i1.84 , 57-68

Research Article

Assessing the Impact of Work Environment on

Employee Engagement among Non-Academic
Staffs of the University
Yusuf Nasidi 1 School Technology Management and Logistics,
Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010 Sintok, Kedah,
Malaysia.

A. U. Makera School Technology Management and Logistics,

Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010 Sintok, Kedah,
Malaysia.

A.M. Kamaruddeen School of Built Environment, University Collage of

Technology Sarawak, 96000 Sibu Sarawak.
Malaysia.

I.M. Jemaku Niger State Geographic Information System, Ministry

of Lands and Housing Minna, Niger State, Nigeria.

Received 2018-12-25
Accepted 2019-01-03 Abstract
Published 2019-01-04 Aim of the Study - The objective of this study was to access
the impact of work environment on employee engagement
Keywords among the non-academic staffs of the university in Nigeria.
Work Environment, Social exchange theory (SET) was utilized in developing the
Employee Engagement research framework. Methodology - A total of 150 non-
academics staff from l University, representing a response rate
of 63.3% participated in this study. Data were collected
How to cite?
through a self-administered questionnaire. The correlation and
Nasidi, Y., Makera, A., Kamaruddeen,
the hypothesis were tested using the statistical package for
A., & Jemaku, I. (2019). Assessing the
social sciences (SPSS 2.0). The Cronbach’s Alpha value for the
Impact of Work Environment on
variables ranging from 0.724 to 0.804 indicates very good
Employee Engagement among Non-
reliability of the research instrument.
Academic Staff of the University.
Findings - The findings indicate a moderate relationship
SEISENSE Journal of Management,
between the work environment and employee engagement,
2(1), 57-68.
and the hypothesis is not supported.
https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v2i1.84
Practical Implications - The study will provide direction to
both the management and the university staff for them to
proactively focus on providing a healthy and comfortable
Copyright (c) 2019 The Author(s) working environment that will boost engagement, which lead
towards enhancing the performance of university staff, and
also the university administrators in various ways.

1
Corresponding author’s email address: y.nasidi580@gmail.com

57
SEISENSE Journal of Management
Vol 2 No 1 (2019): DOI: https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v2i1.84 , 57-68
Research Article

Introduction
Employee engagement has grown into a key business priority for top leaders, highly engaged workers in a
competitive market can intensify innovation, productivity as well performance while minimizing costs related
to recruitment and retention (Sibanda & Ncube, 2014). Engaged employees are individuals that offer full
discretionary effort while working, and are tremendously enthusiastic and committed to their work, whereas
not engaged employees are those who are motivationally detached from work, as well lacks the vigour to
labour hard as well not thrilled at work (Perrin 2009; Bakker et al., 2008).
Frauenhiem (2006) found that satisfaction scores with all major categories of work in the United States have
dropped, and a little over half of the responded employees in the study rated themselves as engaged or highly
engaged. This issue of disengagement has an effect on big and small organizations globally, causing them to
incur excess costs, affect the perform on essential tasks, and to bring about widespread customer
dissatisfaction (Rampersad, 2006). Similarly, Nathan (2004) observed that for decade’s poor levels of
engagement and employees’ dissatisfaction influence performance. Employee disengagement is still a
common problem in the Federal University of Technology in Nigeria and it significantly affects the bottom-
line performance level.
Furthermore, Chandrasekar (2011) was of the view that work environment in most of the industry is risky and
not healthy, these consist of badly designed workstations, inappropriate furniture, shortage of ventilation,
unsuitable lighting, unnecessary noise, inadequate measure of security. Individuals operating in such
surroundings are exposed to occupational disease and it has an influence on the employee’s engagement. It
has been perceived that employees that operates in a helpful and supportive place of work are inspired to be
productive and efficient in discharging their duties (Clements, 1997). Furthermore, Akinyele (2010) reported
that 86 % of output problems stem directly from the institution’s work environment, and as such among the
problems that call for this study is lack of enough offices, unsupportive working environment for employees
to do their work effectively. Based on the above, it comes to reason that negative behaviour at work in the
Federal University of Technology could be associated with the work environment.
Previous studies that investigated some of the factors predicting employee engagement include: reward and
recognition, job characteristics, supervisor support and organizational justice (Hackman & Oldham, 1980;
Hakanen et al., 2006; Saks, 2006); pay and benefits (Buckingham & Coffman 2005); align efforts with strategy
(Development Dimensions International DDI, 2005); and feeling valued and involved (Robinson et al.,
2014).Furthermore, Saks (2006), Macey & Schneider (2008) stated that research on work environment and
employee engagement are still lacking which means that more research on employee engagement needs to be
conducted. All these literatures are limited and shows the need to investigate the influence of work
environment and employee engagement. The aim of this study is to access the impact of work environment
on employee engagement among non-academic staff of university.

Literature Review
Previous literatures were reviewed based on the variables for this study; employee engagement and work
environment.

Employee Engagement
Fleming and Asplund (2007) considered employee engagement as “the capability to arrest the heads, hearts,
and souls of your employees to infuse an intrinsic desire and enthusiasm for excellence”, hence adding a
spiritual element to Gallup’s reputable cognitive and emotional aspect of an engagement. Song et al. (2012)
found that employee engagement has a positive effect on individual performance, knowledge creation and
financial returns. Given the various benefits of employee engagement in organizations, it is unsurprising that

58
SEISENSE Journal of Management
Vol 2 No 1 (2019): DOI: https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v2i1.84 , 57-68
Research Article

employee engagement has sparked human resource development scholars’ interest. Susi & Jawaharrani (2011)
was of the view that Work-life balance is key driver of employees to employee engagement. Ram & Gantasala
(2011) examined the antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Hence, engaging both
managers and workers are responsible to achieve organizational objectives and goals (Metha & Metha, 2013).
Employee engagement is the process for employees and how their presence can improve the work efficiency
and progress of the organization in totality (Bhatla, 2011). He further emphasis on the challenges faced by the
human resource managers to improve employee engagement for the survival of the organization.
As indicated by Gallup (2002), that there are three types of individuals: engaged workers, disengaged workers
and actively disengaged workers. Hence the need to study employee engagement.

Work Environment
Working environment is considered as a different characteristic of work like the way job is done and
completed, involving the tasks like task activities, training, control on one’s own job-related activities, a sense
of achievement from work, variety of tasks and the intrinsic value for a task (Sousa-Poza & Sousa-Poza,
2000).
Kohun (1992) describe work environment as an entity which involves the entirety of powers, activities and
other compelling elements that are currently and or possibly contending with the worker’s activities and
performance. The working environment is the sum of the interrelationship (Rich et al., 2010). Harter et al.
(2002) viewed work environment as an environment that attracts individuals into organization, encourages
them to remain in the organization workforce and enables them to perform effectively. Work environments
provide conditions for workers high and effective performance, making the best use of their skills,
competence, knowledge and the available resources for the provision of high-quality services (Leshabari et
al.,2008). meaningful workplace environment is regarded as a key determinant of employee engagement (Popli
& Rizvi, 2016; Anitha, 2014).
Work environment was observed to be one of the important factors that decide the level of engagement of a
worker (Miles. 2001). Several studies by Harter et al. (2002); Holbeche and Springett (2003); May et al., (2004)
and Rich et al. (2010) exhibit that employee engagement is the outcome of different features of the work
environment. Deci and Ryan (1987) states that management which develops an encouraging work
environment normally exhibits concern towards workers needs and thoughts, offers constructive feedback
and urges employees to voice their worries, to build up new skills and to tackle issues that are work-related.
As a result, work environment that influence employees to focused on their job and interpersonal agreement,
is measured to be a key determinant of employee engagement (Yu, 2013).
Furthermore, previous study by Islam and Shazali, (2011) demonstrated that physical workplace prompts to
healthier service to clients and accomplish higher production. In addition, the study states that work
environment include good culture, working with a good team, good boss, physical surrounding, job safety,
sustainable compensation package, availability of food and drink in the place of work encourages greater
performance in the organization (Islam and Shazali, 2011).

Work Environment and Employee Engagement

Working environment is the needs to consider variety of issues, creating improved and higher performing
work environment requires a consciousness of how work place affects behaviour and how behaviour itself
drives workplace performance (Rich et al., 2010). Barry (2007) argued that in a relationship involving job,
working environment and apparatus of work, work environment turns into essential part of work itself.
Therefore, increasing understanding of work environment is based on recognition that space has diverse
characteristics, it executes various functions and there are distinctive ways individuals work.

59
SEISENSE Journal of Management
Vol 2 No 1 (2019): DOI: https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v2i1.84 , 57-68
Research Article

Lockwood (2005) discovered that most of the employees in an organization trusted healthier working
environment, result into an improved general employee engagement. Furthermore, a study by Anitha (2014)
found a significant relationship between work environment and employee engagement. Earlier studies have
shown work environment as a significant factor that determine the level of employee engagement. Studies by
Miles (2001) and Harter et al., (2002) found that different aspects of place of work can amount to different
levels of employee engagement. Hence, this view was supported by scholars (e.g., Holbeche & Springett 2003;
May et al., 2004; Rich et al., 2010). According to Deci and Ryan (1987) organizations that take part in their
roles and demonstrate their concern about worker’s needs and feelings, provide positive feedback and allow
employees to make known their concerns, develop new skills and solve work-related problems are considered
as management that fosters a supportive working environment.
Kahn (1990) found that helpful and trusting interpersonal relationships as well helpful administration
promotes psychological safety. Employee feel secured in a work environment that was characterized by
honesty and supportiveness (Miles, 2001). Supportive place of work permit members to test and try out new
things and even fail without fear of the consequences (Kahn, 1990). In similar vein, studies by Popli and
Rizvi, (2016), Anitha (2014) also showed that meaningful working environment is considered as important
determinant of employee engagement.
In another study by American Society of Interior Designers (ASID,1996) found that a working environment
permits a resourceful work by the employee and further, asserts that issues of privacy and adaptable
workspaces, integrated personal comfort and visual appeal as important aspect of working environment.
Furthermore, Morrison (1996) was of the view that working environment plays an essential part in inspiring
workers to carry out the work assigned to them. Skills required comprises the capacity to engage workers in
common objective setting, make clear role expectations and present normal performance feedback (Taufek,
Zulkifle, & Sharif, 2016). Similarly, Spector (1997) noted that workplace consist of well-being of workers, job
security, excellent relationship with co-workers, acknowledgment for a fine performance as well involvement
in the decision-making process of the organization. Chandrasekar (2011) argued that time and vigour will also
be needed to provide pertinent performance incentives, managing processes, providing adequate resources
and work surroundings coaching.
However, Spector (1997) observed that, majority of businesses disregards the workplace inside their
organization bringing about the unpleasant outcome on the performance of their workers.

Underpinning Theory
High level integrated work environment encourages employee engagement Khan (1990), while an increase in
the degree of work environment provide conditions for workers high and effective performance, making best
use of their skills, competence, knowledge and the available resources for the provision of high-quality
services (Leshabari et al., 2008). From a social exchange perspective, employees seem to express more
appreciation on the organization`s investments and support by exhibiting in return positive behaviours
toward the organization. Scholars have argued that employees aim to reciprocate in kind (e.g., Morrison, 1996;
Snape & Redman, 2010). Similarly, Morrison (1996, p. 503) argues that to the extent that the development of
a long-term relationship with employees will be more engaged in their contextual behaviours.
In defining work environment with employee engagement, the current study will rely heavily on social
exchange theory (SET) (Blau, 1964). In the current study, social exchange theory provides opportunity in
explaining the relationship between work environment and engagement of the non-academic staff of the
Federal University of Technology.

60
SEISENSE Journal of Management
Vol 2 No 1 (2019): DOI: https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v2i1.84 , 57-68
Research Article

Framework

Work Employee
Environment Engagement

Figure1: Framework

Hypotheses
Depiction upon the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and preceding empirical studies (Joarder & Sharif
2011; Huang et al., 2003) hypothesis will be developed for empirical testing and validation as regards to this
study. The study contained two variables which are: employee engagement (dependent variable), all
conceptualized as one-dimensional, while (work environment) as independent variable. Thus, in this study,
one hypothesis was developed, tested and validated.
H1: There is a significant relationship between work environment and employee engagement

Methodology
A quantitative approach was used in this study, the adoption of cross- sectional design was also considered.
following Alderfer (1972) a simple random sampling technic was employed. A structured survey questionnaire
was administered to the non-academic staffs of the university in Nigeria for data collection. Following
previous literature, the items were adapted, the items for measuring work environment adapted from
Chandrasekar (2011) and employee engagement adapted from Gallup Organization (2008). A five-point
Likert scale ranging from 1. = “strongly disagree,” 2. = “disagree,” 3. = “neutral,” 4. = “agree,” and 5. =
“strongly agree was employed in this study to measure all the variables. The statistical package for social
sciences (SPSS) was used for the data screening and analysis. In this study one hundred and fifty (150)
questionnaires were duly completed, returned and retained for the analysis out of (237) two hundred and
thirty-seven questionnaires administered, hence, representing 63.34% response rate.

Results
In this study data screening and analysis was carried out by employing the statistical package for social
sciences (SPSS), the normality test, linearity, reliability analysis, descriptive statistics of the variables,
correlation analysis and regression analysis on the relationship between work environment and employee
engagement as the variables for this study.

Normality Test
The study employed the assessment of the skewness and kurtosis to examine the normality of the data
collected. Following the suggestion of Hair et al. (2010) the acceptable threshold for skewness and kurtosis is
below ±3 and below ±8 for kurtosis. The findings in table 1 shows that the values of skewness and kurtosis
for the variables are below the threshold. As such, this result shows the data collected for this study is
normally distributed. Furthermore, the histogram with normality plot presented in Figure 1 depicts that the
data collected in this study is neither negatively nor positively skewed. Rather, the data converged at the
centre which explained why the normality plot is bell-shaped.

61
SEISENSE Journal of Management
Vol 2 No 1 (2019): DOI: https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v2i1.84 , 57-68
Research Article

Table 1 - Results of Normality

Variables Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error

WOE 3.09 .487 -.103 .198 -.403 .394
EPE 2.96 .580 .473 .198 .076 .394
Note: WOE= Work Environment; EPE= Employee Engagement

Figure 2. Normality curve

Linearity
The linearity assumption is confirmed on normal probability plot of the regression-standardized residual,
according to the suggestion of previous studies. The result of linearity for both dependent variable; employee
engagement and independent variable; work environment shows that all the points’ line in a reasonably
straight diagonal way. Therefore, it indicates that, the assumptions of linearity are met and there are no major
deviations in the dataset as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Linearity Graph

Reliability Analysis
The table 2 below indicated that the Cronbach alpha were calculated which served as the instrument used in
an attempt to find out internal reliability. The Cronbach alpha for the dependent and independent variable
(employee engagement, work environment) scale were .724, .804, respectively. The table below shows the
result which indicated the range of Cronbach alpha which are between .724 and .804. According to Robinson
et al. (1991) he recommends 0.60 to be the minimum accepted value, hence the Cronbach alpha of the

62
SEISENSE Journal of Management
Vol 2 No 1 (2019): DOI: https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v2i1.84 , 57-68
Research Article

variables in this study are reliable. Furthermore, according to Hair et al., (2014) he suggested that items that
are below the loading of .40 should be deleted. For this reason, only one item was deleted for employee
engagement the loading falls below the threshold value of .04.
Table 2 Reliability coefficients for the study variables

Number of items Item Deleted Cronbach Alpha

Employee Engagement 11 1 0.806
Work Environment 8 - 0.724

Descriptive Statistics for the Variables

The most common measure of central tendency is the mean, which is referring to the average value of the
data set (Alderfer, 1972; Hain & Francis, 2004). Standard deviation is a measure of spread or dispersion,
which provides an index of variability in the data set and it is the square root of variance. Both mean and
standard deviation are fundamental descriptive statistics for interval and ratio scale. Five-point Likert scale
was used in this study, and also adapted the interpretation of Nik et al. (2010) level of score. In their
recommendation they are of the view that scores of less than 2.33 are low level, 2.33 to 3.67 are moderate
level, and 3.67 and above considered as high level. Table 3 below shows the mean and standard deviation of'
the variables used in this study. The table below shows the statistic of the independent and dependent
variable with the mean ranging from 2.96 - 3.09, and standard deviation from .4.87- .580, this means that the
statistics of the variables for this study are high level.
Table 3 Mean and Standard Deviation of Study Variables
Variables Mean Std. Deviation
Statistic Statistic
WOE 3.09 .487
EPE 2.96 .580

Correlation Analysis
In establishing the weight and direction of relationships between multiple variables correlation analysis
statistical technique is used (Pallant, 2013). This is established using correlation coefficients to determine both
the positive and negative. Moreover, in determining the weight of relationship (r), value of the Pearson
Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) was used. The r value often ranges between +1 and -1. An r
value that is close to +1 indicates a strong positive relationship while an r value close to -1, can be interpreted
as a strong negative relationship. However, when r value is equal to zero there is no relationship.
Hair et al. (2011) recommends that several assumptions must be considered in using the r to investigate the
correlations between the variables of the study thus. The assumptions include, “the data must be in an
interval or ratio data. This assumption is met in this study as the data collected is in interval using the Liker-
type scale. Secondly, the relationship under examination should be linear. This assumption is also met, as this
study aim to examine the direct relationship of independent variables on dependent variable. The final
assumption that must be met before conducting a correlation analysis is to ensure the data is normally
distributed”. Clearly, this assumption has also been met as the result presented in section 1 revealed that, the
data used for the analysis in this study is normally distributed. Therefore, this study considered conducting

63
SEISENSE Journal of Management
Vol 2 No 1 (2019): DOI: https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v2i1.84 , 57-68
Research Article

correlation analysis using the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient. The Cohen’s guideline for
correlation strength is presented in Table 4 to interpret the weight of the relationship in this study.
Table 4 Cohen’s Guideline of Correlation Strength
R-values Strength of Relationship
r = +.10 to .29 or r = -.10 to -.29 Low
r = +.30 to .49 or r = -.30 to -.49 Moderate
r = +.50 to 1.0 or r = -.50 to -1.0 High
Source: Cohen (1988)
The result of the correlations among the variables including the independent variable and the dependent
variables are presented in table 5. The result is interpreted with regards to the strength of the independent and
dependent variable in Table 5.
Table 5 Inter Correlation of Study Variables
WOE EPE
WOE 1
EPE .491** 1
Inter Correlation of Study Variable **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The above table 5 explain the correlation between the dependent variable that is employee engagement and
the independent variable which is work environment as shown above. The result presented in table 5 shows
that, the relationship between work environment is moderate (r = .491).

Regression Analysis
The analysis of testing the hypothesis formulated in this study is presented in this section. A standard multiple
regression was employed in testing the rejection or acceptance of the hypothesis. Based on the objective of
this study the results of the multiple regression are discussed. Three steps to interpret the results of multiple
regressions established by Hair et al. (2010). First is to check the F value to determine the statistical
significance of the model. Second is to check for R2 value. Provided the categorization of acceptable R2 value
based on the number of independent variables and sample size provided by Hair et al. (2010) as presented in
Table 5 below. Finally, the last step for interpreting the result of multiple regression is to examine the
regression coefficients and their Beta coefficient (b) to determine the role of independent variables that have
statistically significant coefficients.
Table 6 Regression Analysis of Study Variables
Model Beta (b) T Value Sig
Work Environment 0.086 1 .122 0.05
R2 .617
Adjusted R2 .607
F Change 58.444
Dependent Variable: Employee Engagement
As shown in table 6 above the R2 is 61.7% of the total variance in work environment. This means that the
exogenous latent variable, work environment explains 61.7% of the variance of the employee engagement.

64
SEISENSE Journal of Management
Vol 2 No 1 (2019): DOI: https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v2i1.84 , 57-68
Research Article

Hence, following Chin (1998), Falk and Miller criteria (1992), the acceptable level of R2 value of the
endogenous latent variable has been achieved and this was considered as substantial. Also, the
recommendation of minimum threshold of 0.67, 0.33 and 0.19 as substantial, moderate and weak respectively
by Hain, & Francis (2004). Hair, et al. (2014) agreed that minimum threshold for R2 value of 0.75, 0.50 and
0.25 as strong, moderate and weak respectively.
At the outset, Hypothesis 1 predicted that the work environment is significantly related with the employee
engagement. The result show insignificant relationship between Work Environment and Employee
Engagement (β = 0. 086, t = 1.122, p> 0.05), thus the hypothesis is not supported.

Discussion and Conclusions

The correlation analysis result for this study shows a moderate relationship between work environment and
employee engagement. One hypothesis was formulated and tested using the SPSS. The hypothesis stated that
work environment is significantly related to employee engagement. The result is not supported, which is not
in line with past studies of (Anitha 2014; Miles et al., 2000; Harter et al., 2002; Holbeche & Springett 2003;
May et al.,2004; Rich et al.,2010; Nasidi, Kamaruddeen and Bahauden 2016). The findings of the study
indicate that work environment is not a predictor of employee engagement. The possible reason is that
employees of the university in question don’t get distracted by the environment setting when it comes to
discharging their duties, or rather the settings of the university environment does not call for any special
attention. Therefore, this independent variable has no any significant bearing on the engagement of
employees in the University. Both theoretical and practical contributions have been made by this study, the
theoretical contribution of this study is the extension of the existing literature about work environment and
employee engagement while the practical implications will provide direction to both the management and the
university staff for them to proactively focus on providing a healthy and comfortable working environment
that will boost engagement, which lead towards enhancing the performance of university staff, and also the
university administrators in various ways. Finally, a larger sample should be used for the future research using
the Smart PLS-SEM 3.0 so the model will be re-validated as has been suggested.

References
Akinwale, A. A. (2011). Labor reform and industrial conflicts mismanagement in Nigeria. Journal of
Political Economy October, 11-23.
American Society of Interior Designers, Armstrong world Industries, Steelcase, Inc.,
Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings.
Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging
concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187-200.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the
multifactor leadership questionnaire. Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bhatla, N. (2011). To study the Employee Engagement practices and its effect on employee performance
with special reference to ICICI and HDFC Bank in Lucknow. International Journal of Scientific &
Engineering Research, 2(8), 1-7.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Transaction Publishers.
Buckingham M., and Coffman C. (2005). First, break all the rules. Pocket Books, London.
Clements-Croome, D. J. (1997). Specifying indoor climate. Naturally Ventilated Buildings, E & FN Spon
(Chapman & Hall), ISBN 0419215204, 35, 91.

65
SEISENSE Journal of Management
Vol 2 No 1 (2019): DOI: https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v2i1.84 , 57-68
Research Article

Chandrasekar, K. (2011). Workplace environment and its impact on organizational performance in public
sector organizations. International Journal of Enterprise Computing and Business Systems, 1(1), 1-
19.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods
for business research, 295(2), 295-336.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hilsdale. NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum
Associates, 2.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 53(6), 1024.
Development Dimensions International. (2005). Predicting Employee Engagement MRKSRR12-1005.
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press.
Frauenheim, E. (2006). Study: Workers are disengaged but staying put. Workforce Management, 85(22)6.
Gallup (2002), “The high cost of disengaged employees”, Gallup Business Journal, April 15, available at:
http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/247/the-high-cost-of-disengagedemployees.aspx (accessed
22 February 2017).
Gallup Organization (2008). What your disaffected workers cost. Gullup Management Journal. Retrieved
from www.gallup.com.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign.
Hain, C A, & Francis, L. (2004). Development and Validation o f a Coworker Relationship Scale. Poster
session presented at the 65th Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association,
Newfoundland, Canada.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among
teachers. Journal of school psychology, 43(6), 495-513.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective (Seventh Edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Person Education Inc.
Hair, J., Celsi, M., Money, A., Samouel, P., & Page, M. (2011). Essentials of business research methods
(2nd edition ed.): ME Sharpe Inc.
Hair Jr, J. F., & Lukas, B. (2014). Marketing research (Vol. 2). McGraw-Hill Education Australia.
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.
Holbeche, L. and Springett, N. (2003), In Search of Meaning in the Workplace, Horsham, Roffey Park
Institute, ISBN: 0 907416527.
Islam, S., & Syed Shazali, S. T. (2011). Determinants of manufacturing productivity: pilot study on labor-
intensive industries. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60(6),
567-582.
Joarder, M. H., & Sharif, M. Y. (2011). The role of HRM practices in predicting faculty turnover
intention: empirical evidence from private universities in Bangladesh. The South East Asian Journal
of Management, 5(2), 159.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Kohun, S. (1992). Business environment. Ibadan: University Press Kyko OC (2005). Instrumentation:
Know yourself and Others Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (2003) 3rd editions:
Harloa Pearson Educational Limited.
Leshabari, M. T., Muhondwa, E. P., Mwangu, M. A., & Mbembati, N. A. (2008). Motivation of health
care workers in Tanzania: a case study of Muhimbili National Hospital. East African Journal of
Public Health, 5(1), 32-37.

66
SEISENSE Journal of Management
Vol 2 No 1 (2019): DOI: https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v2i1.84 , 57-68
Research Article

Lockwood, N. R. (2005). Employee engagement. SHRM Research Briefly Stated. Retrieved January, 27,
2008.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of occupational and
organizational psychology, 77(1), 11-37. Metha, D. and Metha, N. (2013) Employee Engagement: A
Literature Review. Economic Seria Management, 16, 208-215.
Metha, D. and Metha, N. (2013) Employee Engagement: A Literature Review. Economic Seria
Management, 16, 208-215.
Miles, E. L., Andresen, S., Carlin, E. M., Skjærseth, J. B., Underdal, A., & Wettestad, J.
(2001). Environmental regime effectiveness: confronting theory with evidence. Mit Press.
Morrison, A. M. (1996). Hospitality and travel marketing (No. Ed. 2). Delmar Publishers.
Nathan, R. M. (2004). Impact of Servant-Leadership on Employee Engagement and Workplace
Productivity. Argosy University, MBA.
Nik Muhammad, N.M., Jantan, M., & Md 'Taib, F. (2010). Moderating effect of
informatation processing capacity to investment decision making and
environmental scaning. Business Management Quartely Review 1(1), 9-22.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (5.
uppl.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
Pallant, J., (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS program.
England: McGraw Hill Open University Press
Perrin, T. (2009). Employee engagement underpins business transformation.
Popli, S., & Rizvi, I. A. (2016). Drivers of employee engagement: The role of leadership style. Global
Business Review, 17(4), 965-979.
Ram, G. V. P. P. (2011). Antecedent HRM practices for organizational commitment. International journal
of business and social science, 2(2).
Rampersad, H. (2006). Self‐ examination as the road to sustaining employee engagement and personal
happiness. Performance improvement, 45(8), 18-25.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job
performance. Academy of management journal, 53(3), 617-635.
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and
evaluation. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes, 1(3), 1-16.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of managerial
psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2010). HRM practices, organizational citizenship behaviour, and performance:
A multi‐ level analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 47(7), 1219-1247.
Sibanda, P., Muchena, T., & Ncube, F. (2014). Employee Engagement and Organizational Performance in
A Public Sector Organisation in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 4(1), 89-
99.
Song, J., Kolb, J. A., Lee, U., & Kim, H. (2012). Role of transformational leadership in efective
organizational knowledge creation practices: Mediating efects of employees’ work engagement.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(1), 65–101.
Sousa-Poza, A., & Sousa-Poza, A. A. (2000). Well-being at work: a cross-national analysis of the levels
and determinants of job satisfaction. The journal of socio-economics, 29(6), 517-538.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences (Vol. 3). Sage
publications.

67
SEISENSE Journal of Management
Vol 2 No 1 (2019): DOI: https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v2i1.84 , 57-68
Research Article

Susi, S. & Jawaharrani, K. (2011). Work-Life Balance: The key driver of employee engagement. Asian
Journal of management Research, 2(1).
Taufek, F. H. B. M., Zulkifle, Z. B., & Sharif, M. Z. B. M. (2016). Sustainability in Employment: Reward
System and Work Engagement.Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 699-704.
Yu, C., & Frenkel, S. J. (2013). Explaining task performance and creativity from perceived organizational
support theory: Which mechanisms are more important? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(8),
1165-1181.

68