i
The Moderating Role of Teamwork Effectiveness in the Relationship
Between Work Engagement and Behavioral Outcomes
Rizwan Ullah
Student‟s ID # 10035
PhD – (Management)
Qurtuba University of Science & Information Technology
Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
ii
The Moderating Role of Teamwork Effectiveness in the Relationship
Between Work Engagement and Behavioral Outcomes
Rizwan Ullah
Student ID # 10035
PhD – (Management)
Department of Management Sciences
Date of Submission: (24/04/2019)
Supervisor: Dr. Sajid Rahman Khattak
Co-Supervisor: Dr. Shams Ur Rahman
Qurtuba University of Science & Information Technology
Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
iii
Supervisor’s Certificate for Thesis Submission
This is to certify that the dissertation submitted by Mr. Rizwan Ullah, having ID#
10035 is of sufficient standard to justify its acceptance by department of Management
Science Qurtuba University of Science and Technology Peshawar for award of degree
of Doctor of Philosophy in Management Sciences.
Please tick appropriate box
□ I recommend that the thesis may be revised
□ I recommend that the thesis be accepted for the award of degree
□ I recommend that the thesis be accepted for the award of degree with minor
amendments
Supervisor‟s Name: Dr. Sajid Rahman Khattak
Supervisor‟s Signature_________________
Co-Supervisor‟s Name: Dr. Shams Ur Rahman
Co-Supervisor‟s Signature_______________
iv
Author’s Declaration
I Rizwan Ullah here by state that my PhD thesis titled.
The Moderating Role of Teamwork Effectiveness in the Relationship Between Work
Engagement and Behavioral Outcomes.
Is my own work and has not been submitted previously by me for taking any degree
from this university.
Qurtuba University of Science & Information Technology Peshawar, Khyber
Pakhtoonkhwa.
Or anywhere else in the country/word.
At any time if my statement is found to be incorrect even after my graduate the
university has the right to withdraw my PhD degree.
Rizwan Ullah
Date :
v
Plagiarism undertaking
I solemnly declare that research work presented in the thesis titled.
The Moderating Role of Teamwork Effectiveness in the Relationship Between Work
Engagement and Behavioral Outcomes.
Is solely my research work with no significant contribution n from any other person.
Small contribution/help wherever taken has duly acknowledged and complete thesis
has been written by me.
I understand the zero tolerance policy of the HEC and this university.
Qurtuba University of Science & Information Technology Peshawar, Khyber
Pakhtoonkhwa
Towards plagiarism. Therefore I as an author of the above titled declare that no
portion of my thesis has been plagiarized and any material used as reference is
properly referred/cited.
I undertake that if I am found guilty of any formal plagiarism in the above titled
thesis even after award of PhD degree, the university reserves the right to
withdraw/revoke my PhD degree and that HEC and the university has the right to
publish my name on the HEC/University website on which names of students are
placed who submitted plagiarized thesis.
Student /author signature: ___________________.
Name: __________________________________.
vi
Certificate of Approval
This is to certify that the research work presented in the thesis, entitled
The Moderating Role of Teamwork Effectiveness in the Relationship Between Work
Engagement and Behavioral Outcomes.
Was conducted by Mr. Rizwan Ullah. Under the supervision of Dr. Sajid Rahman
Khattak.
No part of this thesis has been submitted any where else for any other degree is
submitted to partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
philosophy in field of Human Resource Management
Deportment of Management Science
University of: Qurtuba University of Science & Information Technology Peshawar,
Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa.
Student name: Rizwan Ullah signature:
Examination committee:
a) External examiner 1 : name
(designation & office address) signature:
b) Internal examiner 2 : name
(designation & office address) signature:
Supervisor name: signature:
Name of Dean/HOD: signature:
vii
Acknowledgement
I would like to pay my thanks and gratitude to the following individuals for
helping me to complete this thesis. My foremost gratitude goes to my lead supervisor,
Dr. Sajid Rahman Khattak, for his constructive comments, direction and guidance
throughout the PhD process. He encouraged and motivated me when my confidence
was low and guided me when my destination was unclear. I would like to thank my
Co-Supervisor Dr. Shams ur Rahman for his valuable feedback and insightful
questioning that helped to raise issues that sometimes escaped my attention. I would
also like to thank Qurtuba University of Science and Technology for providing such a
platform where I gained confidence and enhance my learning capabilities.
My family provided emotional support to me throughout the research process.
First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest gratitude to my
parents who raised me and taught to me to strive for knowledge. Last but not the least
I am much thankful to my brothers, Mr. Imran Ullah, Mr. Ghufran Ullah, Mr.
Nasir Ullah and Engineer Sana Ullah for financial support and continuous
motivation.
viii
Abstract
This study was an attempt to verify and test a commonly held assumption that low
level of employee work engagement may lead to a deviant behavior, absenteeism and
high turnover intentions. For this purpose, in the current research work 246
individuals from banking sectors of Pakistan were selected through stratified random
sampling technique. The responses of the respondents were measured through a
structured questionnaire having a five-point Likert scale. A negative significant
relationship was found between employee work engagement and behavioral
outcomes. A negative significant relationship was also found between employee work
engagement and turnover intention. Similarly, the study found a significant negative
association between work engagement and deviant behavior. Also, a negative
significant relation was found between work engagement and absenteeism. The
results suggest that team work effectiveness moderates the relationship between work
engagement and behavioral outcomes. Implication for theory and future research
direction was also highlighted.
Keywords: Employee Work Engagement; Behavioral Outcomes; Turnover Intention;
Deviant Behavior; Absenteeism; Teamwork Effectiveness
ix
Table of Contents
Supervisor‟s Certificate for Thesis Submission ....................................................................... iii
Author‟s Declaration ................................................................................................................. iv
Plagiarism undertaking .............................................................................................................. v
Certificate of Approval ............................................................................................................. vi
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract .................................................................................................................................. viii
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1
1. Background of the Study ............................................................................................... 1
1.1. Problem Statement ......................................................................................................... 8
1.2. Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 9
1.3. Objectives of the Study ................................................................................................ 10
1.4. Significance of the Study ............................................................................................. 10
CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................................... 12
LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................... 12
2. Literature Review......................................................................................................... 12
2.1. Approaches to Work Engagement ............................................................................... 14
2.1.1. The Burnout-Antithesis Approach ............................................................................... 15
2.1.2. The Needs-Satisfying Approach .................................................................................... 15
2.1.3. The Satisfaction-Engagement approach ...................................................................... 16
2.1.4. The Multidimensional Approach ................................................................................. 16
2.2. Work Engagement and Organizational Outcomes ....................................................... 17
x
2.2.1. Customer Loyalty......................................................................................................... 17
2.2.2. Employee Retention ..................................................................................................... 18
2.2.3. Employee Productivity ................................................................................................. 18
2.2.4. Advocacy of the Organization ..................................................................................... 19
2.2.5. Manager Self-Efficacy ................................................................................................. 19
2.2.6. Organizational Performance ........................................................................................ 20
2.2.7. Bottom-line Support..................................................................................................... 20
2.2.8. Successful Organizational Change .............................................................................. 20
2.3. Work Engagement and Employee Outcomes .............................................................. 21
2.3.1. Clarifying Expectation ................................................................................................. 21
2.3.2. Health and Well-being ................................................................................................. 22
2.4. Why Engaged Employees Perform Better ................................................................... 22
2.4.1. Positive Emotions ........................................................................................................ 22
2.4.2. Good Health ............................................................................................................. 23
2.4.3. Ability to Mobilize Resources ..................................................................................... 23
2.4.4. Crossover of Engagement ............................................................................................ 24
2.5. Workplace Deviant Behavior ....................................................................................... 25
2.5.1. Production Deviance .................................................................................................... 26
2.5.2. Property Deviance Behavior ........................................................................................ 26
2.5.3. Political Deviance ........................................................................................................ 27
2.5.4. Personal Aggression..................................................................................................... 28
2.6. Work Engagement and Behavioral Outcomes ............................................................. 28
2.6.1. Work Engagement and Employee Performance .......................................................... 29
2.6.2. Employee Work Engagement and Innovative Behavior .............................................. 30
2.6.3. Employee Work Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behavior .................... 30
xi
2.6.4. Employee Work Engagement and Organizational Commitment ................................. 32
2.6.5. Employee Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction ..................................................... 32
2.6.6. Employee Work Engagement and Task Performance ................................................. 33
2.6.7. Employee work Engagement and Turnover Intentions ............................................... 34
2.6.8. Employee Work Engagement and Counterproductive Work Behavior ....................... 35
2.6.9. Employee Work Engagement and Absenteeism .......................................................... 36
2.7. Teamwork Effectiveness .............................................................................................. 37
2.8. Theoretical Model of the Study ................................................................................... 38
2.9. Hypotheses of the Study .............................................................................................. 39
CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................................................... 41
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 41
3.2. Population of the Study ................................................................................................ 41
3.3. Sample of the Study ..................................................................................................... 43
3.4. Research Instrument..................................................................................................... 45
3.5. Pilot Study ................................................................................................................ 46
3.5.1. Pilot Study of the Current Research Work .................................................................. 48
3.5.2. Validity of Research Instruments................................................................................. 50
3.6. Procedure for Data Collection ..................................................................................... 61
3.7. Operational Definition ................................................................................................. 61
3.7.1. Employee Work Engagement ...................................................................................... 62
3.7.2. Deviant Behavior ......................................................................................................... 63
3.7.3. Employee Work Engagement and Turnover Intentions ............................................... 64
3.7.4. Employee Work Engagement and Absenteeism .......................................................... 66
3.7.5. Teamwork Effectiveness .............................................................................................. 66
CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................................... 69
xii
RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 69
4. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 69
4.1. Simple Linear Regression Model................................................................................. 70
4.1.2. Assumption No 2: Data Should be Free from Autocorrelation ................................... 71
4.1.3. Assumption No 3: There should be Homoscedasticity in the Data ............................. 72
4.1.4. Assumption No 4: Data should be Normally Distributed ............................................ 73
4.1.5. Assumption No 5: No Multicollinearity in the Data .................................................... 76
4.2. Results of Linear Regression ....................................................................................... 76
4.2.1. Result of Linear Regression Analysis of Employee Work Engagement and
Behavioral Outcomes ................................................................................................... 76
4.2.2. Result of Linear Regression Analysis of Employee Work Engagement and
Turnover Intention ....................................................................................................... 78
4.2.3. Result of Linear Regression Analysis of Employee Work Engagement and
Deviant Behavior ......................................................................................................... 80
4.2.4. Result of Linear Regression Analysis of Employee‟s Work Engagement and
Absenteeism ............................................................................................................. 82
4.3. Moderation Result ........................................................................................................ 85
4.3.1. Relationship between Employee‟s Work Engagement and Behavioral
Outcomes with Moderator Team Work Effectiveness ................................................. 85
4.3.2. Relationship between Employee Work Engagement and Absenteeism with
Moderator Team Work Effectiveness .......................................................................... 86
4.3.3. Relationship between Employee Work Engagement and Deviant Behavior
with Moderator Team Work Effectiveness .................................................................. 88
4.3.4. Relationship between Employee Work Engagement and Turnover Intention
with Moderator team work Effectiveness .................................................................... 89
xiii
CHAPTER 5 ........................................................................................................................... 91
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 91
5.1. Summary ............................................................................................................... 91
5.2. Findings ................................................................................................................ 95
5.2.1. Findings Related to Independent and Dependent Variables ........................................ 97
5.2.2. Findings Related to Demographic Features of the Managers ...................................... 97
5.2.3. Findings Related to Employee‟s Work Engagement ................................................... 98
5.2.4. Findings Related to Turnover Intentions ..................................................................... 99
5.2.5. Findings Related to Deviant Behavior ....................................................................... 100
5.2.6. Findings Related to Absenteeism............................................................................... 101
5.2.7. Findings Related to Team Work Effectiveness ......................................................... 102
5.3. Findings Related to Null Hypotheses ........................................................................ 103
5.4. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 109
5.5. Discussion .............................................................................................................. 113
5.6. Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 120
5.7. Suggestions for Future Research Work ..................................................................... 121
References ............................................................................................................................. 122
Appendix ............................................................................................................................... 136
Research Instrument ........................................................................................................... 136
xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Scree Plot of EWE .................................................................................................. 53
Figure 2: Scree Plot of TI ....................................................................................................... 55
Figure 3: Scree Plot of DB ..................................................................................................... 57
Figure 4: Scree Plot of Absenteeism ...................................................................................... 59
Figure 5: Scree Plot of TWE .................................................................................................. 61
Figure 6: Scatter Plot of Behavioral Outcomes ...................................................................... 73
Figure 7: Histogram of EWE and BO .................................................................................... 74
Figure 8: P-P Plot of EWE and BO ........................................................................................ 75
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1. Background of the Study
Over the last few decades, teamwork has got an immense importance in the
smooth running and functioning of organizations. This has been reported in different
research studies that positive relation exists between team-based working and the
quality of services and products offered by organization (Gibson, Porath, Benson &
Lawler, 2007). Teams in organizations provide a huge diversity in attitudes,
experiences, skills and knowledge whose integration makes it possible to offer
flexible, innovative and rapid solutions to different challenges faced by the
organization and problems that disturb progress of the organization. This can promote
performance of the organization and improving the satisfaction level of those making
up the team. This is the result of what has been called “the wisdom of crowd”. It
increases the capacity for achieving different types of performance which becomes
possible as a result of interaction among team members of the organization (Salas,
Rosen, Burke & Goodwin, 2009). However, in some research studies it was found
that team does not always act in this way. Sometime team fails in achieving high
performance task which are expected to them. Teams far from being mechanism
which are to capitalize products outcome effectively on collective efforts, turn into
“black holes”. This failure in achieving organizational tasks consume, emotional,
physical, and mental energies of the team members (Sims, Salas & Burke, 2005).
Over the past several years, the concept of work engagement has captured the
attention of academic researchers, government agencies and business practitioners.
2
They are interested in understanding the concept of the term itself as well as its causes
and consequences. Different researchers agree on the point that work engagement of
employees is worth exploring because of its immense effect on employees‟
performance (Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012; Saks, 2006). The definition of different
researchers about employees work engagement shows that it is the sum total of well-
established academic constructs. These academic constructs may be surmised as
different dimensions of organizational commitment such as effective commitment,
continuance commitment, job satisfaction of the employees, job involvement and
discretionary behaviors of the employees (Truss & Soane 2010). However, the unified
and consistent definition has not precluded wide discussion of performance effect of
employee work engagement including employee‟s productivity, profit and retention
(Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012; Saks, 2006).
Work engagement is considered a motivational –psychological state which has
three dimensions. These dimensions are described as dedication, vigor and absorption.
High work engagement has been linked to the improved in-role performance and
increased extra-role behavior (Demerouti Xanthropoulou, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2009).
High work engagement also reduces turnover behavior and intention to quit. The
study of Halbesleben (2010) made different contribution to work engagement. The
first contribution is the presentation of the simultaneous estimates of work
engagement on job performance of the employee. This study also presented whether
work engagement mediates relationship between job satisfaction and supervisor
support. Second contribution of this study was that it establishes the discriminant
validity of work engagement from both sides‟ effective commitment and job
satisfaction (Taipale, Selander, Anttila & Na¨tti 2011). This study examined whether
work engagement is an outcome of effective commitment and job satisfaction of
3
employees. Work engagement has been perceived as a motivational factor that
stimulates attainment of organizational goals and objectives. Environment of the
organization also play effective role in employee‟s job performance. Good and
friendly environment in the organization enables workers to offer their best efforts to
achieve organizational goals (Salas, Rosen, Burke & Goodwin, 2009).
The beginning of employee work engagement is the first step of his
appointment to the services of organization. It is the responsibility of the supervisor to
motivate employees in order to enhance workers‟ engagement in job performance and
commitment to organization. According to (Sims, Salas & Burke, 2005) two factors
were distinguished for workers‟ engagement. These factors were indicated as
employee job satisfaction and employee commitment. Social identity theory
suggested that strong and effective relationship between an employee and
organization enhances workers‟ motivation to exert effort for their organization and
colleagues (Truss & Soane 2010). On the other hand, a strong psychological
relationship with a particular organization can also enhance employee willingness to
engage with work itself and perform better. High level of workers‟ engagement can be
both mental and physical. This reflects the attitudinal and behavioral elements of the
concept (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004). In work engagement situation,
workers employ and express themselves cognitively, physically and emotionally
during role performance. According to Cartwright and Holmes (2006), the
organizational support is a possible link and relationship between work engagement
and organizational identification. They argued that employees with strong concept of
group identification show greater motivation towards cooperation to achieve
organizational goals and objectives with greater strength and success. Reade (2001)
4
also pointed out that organizational identification directly predicts increased
performance and motivation of the employees.
The concept of work engagement has been extensively researched in different
sub-fields of psychology. Lockwood (2007) stated that employee‟s work engagement
is considered as the business initiative which plays significant role in organization‟s
success and survival. Work engagement has three sub-components which are vigor,
dedication and absorption. According to Chughtai and Buckley (2008), higher level of
vigor on the part of employee indicates his readiness to devote effort within his work.
It also shows employee‟s readiness to remain resolute in the face of task difficulty or
failure. They indicated that “dedication” is the emotional component of employee
work engagement. It is often characterized as showing zeal and zest in work place
environment and putting one‟s heart into job (Airila, Hakanen, Punakallio, Lusa, &
Luukkonen, 2012). It represents worker‟s strong sense of identification with the
organization and also with his stipulated work. Absorption sub-component of work
engagement is characterized by individuals who are completely engaged in their task.
Individual is so immersed in performing task that he forgets time and everything
around him. This component of work engagement is characterized by full satisfaction,
concentration and fully engrossment in task completion (Chughtai & Buckley, 2008).
Different research studies show that there exists a positive relationship
between work engagement and individual performance (Macey et al., 2009;
Halbesleben, 2010). According to Schaufeli, Bakker, and Van Rhenen, (2009)
employee‟s work engagement has a sound effect on business result through individual
performance. There are many reasons which identify that work engagement has direct
and positive relation with job performance and task achievement. For example,
5
Schaufeli and Bakker, (2004) argued that work engagement is the fulfilling of positive
job-related experiences. They described work engagement as the state of mind that is
linked to good health and have a positive effect on work outcomes. Research studies
also show that work engagement has positive relationship with innovative behavior of
the individuals. Innovative behavior means the novel and creative ideas of individual
while performing different tasks in the organization. The research study of Slattenand
and Mehmetoglu (2011) explored that individual who were highly engrossed or
engaged in task completion, were more likely to have innovative behaviors. Such
individual comes with new and novel ideas. They also argued that high level of work
engagement broadens individual‟s state of mind and they show a creative and
innovative behavior in work place environment (Shantz, Alfes, Truss, & Soane, 2013;
Sulea, 2012). In a research study Agarwal et al (2012) found that employees‟ work
engagement has positive and significant relationship with individual‟s creative and
innovative behavior. They also found that work engagement significantly mediated
relationship between Leader-Member Exchange relationship and novel and innovative
work behavior. According to Bakker and Leiter (2010) those employees who are
engrossed in work have positive attitude in work place environment. Such positive
attitude encourages innovative and creative behavior in the organization (Halbesleben,
2010).
Academics and practitioners show great interest in the relationship between
work engagement organizational citizenship behaviors at work place. Organizational
citizenship behaviors mean the enthusiastic behavior of individual or employee that
he shows in performing task and such behaviors are not recognized and rewarded by
the organization. Such behaviors play vital role in enhancing organizational function.
The research study of Sulea et al., (2012) explored that employees who are engaged in
6
their work are more likely to involve in organizational citizenship behaviors. They
also found a significant relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors and
employee engagement. Engaged workers or individuals have the capability and
competency to achieve organizational and professional goals in a most effective way.
Such employees have confidence to show extra-role performance (Parker & Griffin,
2011).
The current research study is focused on the JD-R model. This model predicts
positive relationship between work engagement and organizational outcomes. Work
engagement significantly predicts valued and important organizational outcomes. In
particular work engagement predicts lower turnover intention and deviant behaviors
of employees (Mobley, Horner, & Hollingsworth, 1978). Different research work
show that work engagement is negatively correlated with turnover intention of the
employees. The turnover intention of employee means the extent to which an
employee has the plan to leave or quit the organization. Work engagement plays
significant role in minimizing deviant behaviors. Deviant behaviors of employees
may refer as theft in organization, damaging property of the organization, often arrival
late to work place and take unauthorized leave. All these and so many other deviant
behaviors have negative effect on organizational performance and product outcomes.
Deviant behaviors threaten the well-being of the organization and some time even the
survival of the organization (Robinson & Bennett, 1995).
The current research was designed to contribute to the literature in four ways.
First, the study identified the possible moderator i.e. teamwork effectiveness on the
relationship between work engagement and behavioral outcomes. Although some
research has examined interactions among personal and job-related factors as
7
antecedents of work engagement (e.g., Hakanen, Bakker, & Demerouti, 2005;
Hakanen & Lindbohm, 2008), to date, no empirical studies have examined a boundary
condition of the relationship between engagement and important individual outcomes
except Shantz et al., (2016). Whetten (1989) and subsequently Colquitt and Zapata-
Phelen (2007) argued that a theory describes the conditions under which a
hypothesized relationship holds (e.g., moderators). Thus, examining teamwork
effectiveness as a moderator enhances engagement theory by identifying conditions
under which the relationship between engagement and its outcomes are amplified or
attenuated.
The present study also contributes to engagement theory by positioning work
engagement as a work-related energy resource that is interchangeable with other
resources (Gorgievski-Duijvesteijn & Hobfoll, 2008). Although prior research has
applied conservation of resources theory to work engagement theory (e.g., Bakker,
Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007; Hakanen, Peeters, & Perhoniemi, 2011;
Halbesleben, Jaron Harvey, & Bolino, 2009; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007), these
studies have theorized that engagement is an outcome of job resources. In the present
study, consistent with Gorgievski-Duijvesteijn and Hobfoll (2008), we conceptualized
engagement as an energetic resource in and of itself.
Third, the present study contributes to a body of research that positions
teamwork effectiveness in terms of resource allocation (e.g., Hochwarter, Witt,
Treadway, & Ferris, 2006; Panaccio & Vandenberghe, 2009; Witt & Carlson, 2006).
Although teamwork effectiveness has traditionally been viewed as a social exchange
process in that it sets the basis for exchange relationships (Blau, 1964; Eisenberger et
al., 1986), researchers have suggested that teamwork effectiveness also acts as a
8
resource from which employees may draw. Consistent with conservation of resources
theory, we hypothesized that low levels of engagement imply depletion of a work-
related energy resource (e.g., engagement), which can be compensated for by an
organization-related resource (e.g., teamwork effectiveness).
A fourth contribution of this study is that we examine the relationship between
engagement and turnover intentions, deviant behavior and absenteeism. Two meta-
analyses show that there are far fewer empirical studies that have examined the
relationship between engagement and these three outcome variables, relative to
organizational commitment and job performance (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter,
2011; Halbesleben, 2010). Although the results of these meta-analyses clearly support
the relationship between engagement and positive work-related attitudes and
behaviors, there is a need for research on the extent to which engagement leads to less
desirable outcomes for organizations, such as turnover intentions, absenteeism and
deviance. Moreover, few studies that have examined the relationship between
engagement and turnover intentions & deviant behavior, and none of the studies that
have examined the relationship between engagement and absenteeism have employed
lagged dependent measures. Hence, the present study contributes to the turnover,
absenteeism and deviant behavior literatures by enhancing the external validity of
prior research that has positioned engagement as a determinant of these outcomes.
1.1. Problem Statement
As the researcher declared in the background of this research study that a low
level of employee‟s work engagement may not always lead to a low level of desirable
work outcomes. It is often seen that relatively disengaged workers may lead to a
lower level of turnover intentions and deviant behaviors. Only low level of work
9
engagement is not responsible for lower desirable work outcomes. There are also
some other available resources in the work place environment which have sound
effects on work outcomes. Some of these important possible resources which have
direct effect on work outcomes are perceived organizational support, team dynamic,
support from colleagues and support from the supervisor. Researchers suggest that
these available resources may buffers the relationship between employee work
engagement and behavioral outcomes (Shantz et. al., 2016). These researchers only
investigate whether perceived organizational support buffer the relationship between
work engagement and behavioral outcomes and did not explore the buffering effect of
other possible variables in the work environment like supervisor support, co-worker
support, team dynamic and so on. Thus, the focus of the study in hand is to bridge the
gap by investigating the buffering effect of team work effectiveness on the
relationship between work engagement and behavioral outcomes.
1.2. Research Questions
1. Is there any relationship between employee‟s work engagement and
behavioral outcomes?
2. Is there any relationship between employee‟s work engagement and turnover
intention?
3. Is there any relationship between employee‟s work engagement and
absenteeism?
4. Is there any relationship between employee‟s work engagement and deviant
behavior?
5. To what extent does teamwork effectiveness moderate the relationship
between work engagement and behavioral outcomes?
10
1.3. Objectives of the Study
This research study is correlational and descriptive in nature. This study was
designed to achieve the following main objectives.
1. To find out the relationship between employee engagement and behavioral
outcomes
2. To investigate the relationship between employee‟s work engagement and
turnover intentions
3. To determine the relationship between employee‟s work engagement and
deviant behavior
4. To analyze the relationship between employee work engagement and
employee‟s absenteeism
5. To verify the moderating effect of teamwork effectiveness on the relationship
between employee work engagement and behavioral outcomes
1.4. Significance of the Study
The current research study has a great significance both in practice and theory.
The findings will broaden horizon of knowledge about work effectiveness, work
engagement and behavioral outcome. Practices in human resource management are
made to identify ways to enhance employee‟s work engagement. In the work under
consideration teamwork effectiveness was used as moderator in the relationship
between work engagement and behavioral outcomes. Findings of this study will help
managers and supervisors to develop ways and means to enhance employee‟s work
outcomes. This study has contributed to the knowledge of engagement theory by
positioning work engagement as a work-related energy resource that is
interchangeable with other resources. The findings of this study are helpful for other
11
researchers in studying deviant behaviors of employees such as turnover intention,
absenteeism and deviant behaviors. This study is also helpful for policy makers to
identify ways how to increase work effectiveness and how to lessen deviant behaviors
of the employees. Findings of the current research study have important implication
for managers and policymakers. The theoretical model of this study will help
managers to comprehend and understand the concept of employee work engagement.
It will also help managers to know the ways how to enhance employee work
engagement. Findings of this study are helpful both at individual level and at
organizational level. Managers may be able to point out ways and means to minimize
turnover intentions among employees and to curb the high ratio of absenteeism. In a
nut shell, this study is significant in the field of human resource management.
12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2. Literature Review
Employee work engagement is an emerging concept in the field of
organizational psychology, human resource development, management and business.
In every field, there is a great interest in the concept of employee work engagement
(Hobfoll, 2001, 2002). Employee work engagement may be defined as the extent to
which employee is involved in his work. It depends on organizational practices which
are undertaken in order to achieve organizational goals (Wollard & Shuck, 2011).
Employee work engagement may be considered as a key characteristic in
accomplishing organizational success and competencies. It is a fact that engaged
workers are very important for the survival of organization. Engaged workers
significantly contribute to the bottom line (Shantz, Alfes & Latham, 2016). Different
research studies showed a positive and significant effect of work engagement on
employee‟s work attitude, his way of conduct and behavior in the organization and his
attitude towards job satisfaction and job performance (Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012).
In the present day, researchers in the area of human resource management
show great interest in the concept of employee work engagement. The concept of
“Employee Work engagement” was first coined by Kahn in 1990. According to Kahn
(1990) “the harnessing of organization members to their work roles; in engagement,
people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally
during role performances''. Kahn (1990) introduced for the first-time Psychological
contract theory (PCT). The psychological contract theory emphasizes on specific
13
psychological conditions. Such conditions are essential for high level of work
engagement. He pinpointed three psychological conditions which play crucial and
important role in motivating employees to engross in work more. These psychological
conditions are psychological meaningfulness, psychological availability and
psychological safety. According to Psychological contract theory, if organization can
ensure these three psychological conditions, in exchange, employee shows higher
level of engagement at work place (Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006).
Related to work engagement, Demerouti et al., (2001) introduced another
model which is known as Job-Demand Resource (JD-R) model. It states that
sometime employee is more engaged in work place personally, but they cannot
engagement effectively due to absence of some favorable conditions in the work place
environment. Different models and theories have been used to explain employee work
engagement. The most important theory concerned about employee work engagement
is Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli,
2001). This model or theory is concerned with the stronger logical model to explain
work engagement in most effective way. According to Saks (2006) “those employees
who are engaged to a higher level, experience a higher level of job resources which
ultimately helps to enhance employee performance”. As employee work engagement
is considered an individual level construct, so it first affects outcomes at individual
level. This individual level construct further affects organizational level outcomes
(Salanova, Agut & Peiro, 2005). When employees are engaged, it enhances their job
satisfaction which further enhances job performance of the employees. When
employees are satisfied in organization, they work with great zeal and zest and thus
increase organizational performance and achieve organization goals and objectives
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
14
Different research studies pointed several reasons why an engaged worker
shows good result in work place than disengaged worker. Baker and Demerouti
(2008) described four critical reasons why an engaged employee can perform better
than disengaged worker. First critical reason which they described is that engaged
employee has positive emotions at work place. Positive emotions increase employee‟s
confidence and develop optimistic attitudes towards work. Optimistic workers or
employees perform better as compared to pessimistic (Bindl & Parker, 2010). Second
critical reason is that engaged workers have more physical resources. Better
opportunity of physical resources leads to better performance and in turn it enhances
organizational performance. Schaufeli et al., (2008) in a research study found that
engaged workers have lesser psychosomatic complaint than disengaged employees.
Third reason is when employee receives socio-emotional resources from organization,
employee realizes an obligation to repay to the organization due to the rules of
exchange philosophy (Cropanzano & Mitchel, 2005). Fourth and final reason is that
engaged workers transfer their level of engagement to other employees and in turn
this increase organizational performance and achieve organizational outcomes in
better way as we all know that organizational performance depends on collective
efforts of the employees.
2.1. Approaches to Work Engagement
According to Shuck (2011) there are four approaches to define work
engagement. These approaches are;
15
2.1.1. The Burnout-Antithesis Approach
This approach is rooted in occupational health psychology. According to this
approach work engagement is considered as the antithesis of burnout. Salanova, Agut
and Peiro, (2005) described engagement and burnout are the positive and negative end
point of a single continuum. Work engagement is characterized by efficacy, job
involvement and energy. These characteristics of work engagement are the opposite
of the three characteristics of burnout. The three characteristics of burnout are lack of
accomplishment, cynicism and exhaustion. According to May, Gilson and Harter
(2004), employees who are more engaged in work have less attitude toward burnout
and vice versa. This approach considers work engagement as vigor, dedication and
absorption. Vigor means a high level of energy and mental competency in work place.
It is the willingness of an employee to invest his efforts in achieving organizational
goals. Vigor means persistence even in the face of difficulties (Shantz et. al., 2016).
Dedication means to be involved completely and strongly in work. A dedicated
worker feels pride in working in such organizations. He is inspired to work with
enthusiasm and accept challenges. Absorption means to work with great concentration
and happily engrossed in one‟s own work (Schaufeli et al., (2008).
2.1.2. The Needs-Satisfying Approach
According to this approach, workers are fully engaged in work place
environment. They express and employ themselves emotionally, cognitively,
physically and mentally while performing in work environment. This approach
considers work engagement as full expression of one‟s self in task behavior.
According to May, Gilson and Harter (2004), “although this approach is important for
16
theoretical thinking about engagement, this approach to work engagement has only
occasionally used in empirical research.
2.1.3. The Satisfaction-Engagement approach
According to Gallup Organization, the term employee work engagement is
concerned to an employee‟s engagement and satisfaction with work that he performs.
It is also referred to the enthusiasm that an employee shows for work (Civil, 2008).
This approach of work engagement has great importance and has significant effect in
academia. The Gallup‟s (2006) research has established a significant link between
business unit outcomes and employee‟s work engagement (Pech & Slade, 2008).
2.1.4. The Multidimensional Approach
According to this approach, work engagement is a unique combination of
different aspects of human behaviors and actions. These actions and behaviors are
associated with behavioral, emotional and cognitive components. These are associated
with employee‟s effective performance. Sake (2006) distinguished between
organizational engagement and job engagement. Although job engagement and
organizational engagement are moderately related, but they seem to have different
consequences and antecedent. Despite its intuitive appeal, the multidimensional
approach has hardly been used and taken by the researcher (Towera Perrin, 2006).
Viewing these four approaches of work engagement, each approach throws
light on different aspects of work engagement. It stresses on work engagement
relation with role performance of employees, its positive nature in terms of employee
well-being and its relationship with both the job as well as with the organization
(Balain & Sparrow, 2009).
17
2.2. Work Engagement and Organizational Outcomes
It is proved in different research works that employees who are more engaged
in work are more likely to stay with the organization (Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012;
Saks, 2006; Gibson, Porath, Benson & Lawler, 2007). Work engagement not only
improves employee‟s performance, but it also gears up organization‟s outcomes.
Work engagement increases bottom-line profit and it enable organizational agility
(Robinson, 2007). It plays significant role in driving change initiative in the
organization. Engaged workers invest their efforts fully in organizational work with
increased self-efficacy. Employee‟s work engagement enhances organizational
outcomes in following ways.
2.2.1. Customer Loyalty
Engaged workers are more loyal employees than disengage. According to
Levinson (2007a), engaged employees are happier in work place and they are more
likely to develop loyal environment in the organization. When employees are loyal,
they remain committed to the organization and thus increasing organizational
outcomes (Smith & Markwick, 2009). Engaged employees have the ability of
understanding how to meet costumer‟s needs. According to Levinson (2007a), “in
departments where engaged employees sell to engage customers, customer loyalty,
repeat purchases and recommendations to friends are double that of companies with
average employee engagement”. When this situation continues, it develops a mental
and emotional connection between the costumer and organization and this is
sometime termed as “costumer engagement” (Bates, 2004).
18
2.2.2. Employee Retention
It has been proved by different research studies that employees who are
satisfied and happy in their work place environment are more likely to remain in the
organization. Such employees have low level of turnover behavior in the organization.
When retention of employees is high, then organization can accomplish its
organizational goals more effectively (John, 2012). Blessing (2008) conducted a
research study and concluded that about 85% of engaged workers tend to remain in
the organization and they had low level of turnover behavior. He also concluded that
about 41% employees were willing to remain in the organization even if the
organization is struggling for its survival.
2.2.3. Employee Productivity
Work engagement has direct relation with employee productivity. Engaged
workers are committed to the organization and they work with zeal and zest thus
increasing organizational productivity. According to Lockwood (2007), engaged
employees work with great enthusiasm and they fully invest their efforts for
organizational productivity. Such employees are more loyal and are likely to go the
“extra mile” for the organization. Engagement works as an “illusive force” and it
motivates workers to accomplish higher level of performance and productivity
(Macey & Schneider, 2008). A survey was conducted by Suff and Reilly (2008) over
46 companies across 22 countries. It was found that engaged employees were twice
more likely to be top performer than are other employees who were disengaged or less
engaged.
19
2.2.4. Advocacy of the Organization
According to Scottish Executive Social Research, (2007) engaged employees
are more likely to advocate the organization as a place to work and actively promote
its products and services. Engaged workers remain loyal to the organization. They
fully invest their efforts to achieve organizational goals (Hall & Purcell, 2012). Famda
et al., (2011) found in a research study that in some organization, there were
disengaged employees. Those disengaged workers discourage other employees from
joining their current organization. Those disengaged employees are described as
“corporate terrorist” (Roche, Teague, Coughlan & Fahy. 2011).
2.2.5. Manager Self-Efficacy
Engaged employees have positive emotions at work place and respond
positively to managers. Engaged employees also show good performance and
accomplish organizational success. Positive attitude and good performance of
employees further enhance self-efficacy of the managers (Luthans & Peterson, 2002).
Different research studies have concluded that self-efficacy is positively linked to
work performance. Individual with high self-efficacy shows sustained effort and
strong determination to achieve organizational task. Roche, Teague, Coughlan and
Fahy (2011) concluded that engaged employees bring about the psychological arousal
of the manager. Manager trust their employees and become enthusiastic about work
outcomes of the employees and it enhances manager‟s self-efficacy. Thus both,
employee‟s work engagement and self-efficacy of manager have positive effect on
each other (Francis & Reddington, 2012).
20
2.2.6. Organizational Performance
Work engagement has direct effect on organizational performance. Best
performers in organization show high engagement scores. Harter et al., (2002)
conducted a research study of 7939 business unit in 36 companies. They found
significant relationship between employee‟s work engagement and employee‟s
turnover behavior, costumer‟s satisfaction and employee‟s productivity. It was also
concluded in this research study that building supportive environment in organization,
increase employee work engagement to higher level and this further increase the
likelihood of business success.
2.2.7. Bottom-line Support
Engaged and committed employees are more productive and they contribute
up to greater extent financially to the organization. Research study of Cleland et al.,
(2008) found significant and positive relationship between employee work
engagement and profitability through high rate of sales, increase in productivity,
employee retention and customer satisfaction. Different research studies suggested
that improved and effective employee work engagement result in an increase bottom-
line profit (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
2.2.8. Successful Organizational Change
Different research studies showed that employee work engagement plays
significant role in successful implementation of organizational change. It is of
immense importance enabling organization to adapt to the changing circumstances of
the market. A research study found that when companies introduced new engagement
improvement initiative policies and implementing change in the organization, it led to
time saving and improved organizational outcomes (Garen, 2008).
21
2.3. Work Engagement and Employee Outcomes
Employee work engagement is helpful both at individual level and at
organizational level. Engaged workers show more commitment to organization.
Highly engaged employees are enthusiastic, and they work with great fervor. When
employees are committed, they are motivated and inspired and they feel satisfaction at
work place. Satisfied workers enhance organizational productivity and thus achieve
organizational goals. Work engagement can yield fruitful result to employee
outcomes in following ways.
2.3.1. Clarifying Expectation
According to Cartwright and Holmes (2006), in today‟s work place, the
rapidly changing environment has brought with them a more transactional approach to
employee and employer relationship. First an employee needs a job for life and
promotion at the cost of his devoted efforts, loyalty to the organization and
commitment that he shows to the organization but with the passage of time, employer
tends to offer high salaries. Employer provides better opportunity of increased
employability due to the employee‟s efforts for achieving organizational goals. They
concluded in a research study that this shift in expectation has frustrated many
employees. Due to this shift in expectations, many employees are questioning the
meaning of work and seeking greater fulfillment from their employment. It is
employee work engagement that offers a solution for individual investing their best
efforts in work and thus enhancing organizational productivity. The increased sense of
employee about self-efficacy has been regarded as an outcome of employee
engagement (Sejit & Crim, 2006).
22
2.3.2. Health and Well-being
It is concluded in different research studies that employee work engagement
has positive effect on employee‟s health. Employee expresses positive feelings and
emotions towards work place and organization (Mauno et al., 2007; Rothbard, 2001
& Bhatnagar, 2007). In a research study, it was found that 62 percent employees
reported that work engagement have positive effect on their health. Perception of
organization as a healthy place to work increases employee‟s perception about
organizational commitment. Work engagement and investment of efforts into work
may lead to intrinsic motivation, mindfulness, creativity, playfulness and ethical
behavior (Sejit & Crim, 2006).
2.4. Why Engaged Employees Perform Better
Work engagement plays significant role in employee‟s better performance.
The question is why engaged and involved workers perform better than disengaged
workers. There are several reasons for better performance of engaged employees.
These reasons are discussed below.
2.4.1. Positive Emotions
Engaged employees often experience positive emotions including happiness,
joy, enthusiasm and zeal for work and this is the key reason why engaged workers are
more productive. Happy workers are more sensitive to opportunities and they grab it
whenever they find it. Engaged workers are more helpful to others and they are
optimistic and confident (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007b). Broaden-and-build theory of
positive emotion states that certain positive emotions have the capacity to broaden
individual‟s momentary thought and build their personal resources which include
23
physical, social, psychological and intellectual resources. These resources widen the
array of thoughts and actions that comes in mind (Fredrickson, 2001). For example,
joy broadens the resources inducing an urge in individual to play and be creative.
Another important positive emotion at work place is interest. Interest creates the
desire to explore new information and experiences and grow. According to Loasad
(2005), when the ratio of positive emotions of the manager is higher than negative
emotions, he asks more questions in the meetings and it result in better performance.
2.4.2. Good Health
Different research studies suggested that work engagement is positively and
significantly linked to good health and employees are able to perform in a better way
and thus achieve organizational outcomes in more effective way. According to the
study of Schaufeli et al., (2008), engaged workers report less psychosomatic
complaint than disengaged workers. Demerouti et al., (2001) conducted a research
study and found a moderate negative correlation between engagement and
psychosomatic health complaints such as chest pain and headaches. Similarly,
Hakanen et al., (2006) also found a positive link between work engagement and good
health. Their study on teachers concluded that work engagement is positively and
significantly linked to self-rated health and workability. Schaufeli and Baker (2004)
conducted a research study over four Dutch services organization. They found that
engaged workers reported less complaints about self-reported headache, stomach
aches and cardiovascular problems.
2.4.3. Ability to Mobilize Resources
Engaged workers are more productive because they have the ability to create
and mobilize their own resources. Xanthopoulu et al., (2007b) argued that people
24
having positive emotions feel better at present as well as in future. There is indeed
positive relation between work engagement and resources. Personal resources result
in higher level of work engagement. Agarwal, Datta, Black-Beard and Bhargava
(2012) declared a positive relationship between work engagement and personal
resources. They cited that work engagement resulted in more personal resources such
as self-efficacy, optimism and organizational based self-esteem. It was also found that
work engagement was positively related to autonomy, organizational support and
coaching and feedback.
2.4.4. Crossover of Engagement
Combined efforts of individuals result in better performance of the
organization. Cooperation among workers of the same work increases performance of
the individuals and also enhances organizational outcomes (Zopiatis, Constanti &
Theocharous, 2014). Due to crossover engagement individuals transfer their
experiences (positive and negative) to their colleague. If different workers in
organization influence each other with their work engagement, it results in better
performance of individual and organization. Barsade (2002) conducted a laboratory
study. He studied the transfer of mood among individuals and its influence on work
performance in a group. Result shows that positive mood of workers resulted in more
cooperative behavior and better task performance. In another study by Sy et al.,
(2000) it was found that when managers exhibit positive emotions at work place,
employees or workers also show positive mood and results in more coordination
among individuals.
25
2.5. Workplace Deviant Behavior
In any business organization, different individual come together, and they
express different behaviors. These behaviors have different consequences to the
organization and also to the individual. To maintain an ideal case of workplace in
organization, these behaviors of different individuals coincide with the norm of the
organization. But some time work behaviors range outside the norms of the
organization. Workers or individuals either lack motivation to conform to normative
expectations of the social content or become motivated to violate those expectations.
This situation results in deviant behavior at work place.
The concept of workplace deviant behavior has got immense importance in the
last two decades. It refers to those behaviors which includes deviations from formal
organizational norms (O‟Neill & Hasting, 2011). Although deviant behaviors are also
regarded positive deviant behaviors (Robbins & Galperin, 2010; Galperin, 2012;
Vadera, Pratt & Mishra, 2013), but in most research studies it is referred as
destructive behaviors at work place. Deviant behaviors affect, to large extent, the
performance and well-being of organization. It has negative effects on organizational
outcomes (Spector & Fox, 2010). According to Orucu and Yildiz (2014) “voluntary
behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the
well-being of an organization and its members or both”. Deviant behaviors have two
basic characteristics. First these are not mentioned and declared by formal job
definition. Secondly these behaviors violate organizational norms.
Robinson and Bennet (1995) described the framework of deviant behavior.
This framework has two dimensions (1) Minor vs Serious and (2) Interpersonal vs
Organizational. Combination of these two-dimension results in four different types of
26
deviant behaviors in the organization. It is a fact that deviant behavior begins small,
but with passage of time it becomes more sever sets of behavior. For instance, minor
incident of incivility can lead to aggression and ultimately result in worker absences
and other actions which are contrary to the interest of the organization (Adams, 2011).
Four dimensions of work place deviant behaviors are
2.5.1. Production Deviance
Production deviance are those behaviors which violate the established norms
and procedures of the organization and it minimizes both quantity and quality of the
work. excessive break, leaving early, coming late to work, spiriting effort, frequent
drug usage at work place, wasting resources and mental absence (Kelloway, Francis,
Prosser & Cameron, 2010). Withholding efforts means to apply less effort on job-
related task or show less zeal and enthusiasm for task. An individual might exhibit
withholding efforts because he has no or less liking for organization. These behaviors
have negative effect on the production of organization (Liao, Joshi & Chuang, 2004).
A survey shows that about 29% employees called in sick while actually they were not
sick. Coming late to work place and absenteeism linked closely to each other and this
might negatively affect organization performance.
2.5.2. Property Deviance Behavior
Property deviance may be referred as those actions or instances where
employee damages the valuable or tangible assets of the organization without
authority. Such behaviors or actions are quite harmful to the organization and it
results in negative performance of the organization (Zopiatis, Constanti &
Theocharous, 2014). Releasing secret and confidential information, destroying
equipment, lying about worked hours, accepting kickbacks, misusing accounts,
27
intentional errors and stealing from the organization, are some form of property
deviance behaviors. Some of these actions have direct effects on organization
performance. In one research study, it was found that about 57% employees were
involved in stolen property from their organization at least once (Everton, Jolton &
Mastrangelo, 2007). Another study shows that 60% employees indicated that they
have stolen from their organization in the past six months. Taking organization
property or goods is not considered as theft by employees while employer consider it
as a theft (Francis & Reddington, 2012). It is investigated in research studies that
employees of small organizations are more honest than employees of larger
organizations. If employees have social positive contact with the employer or
organization, they are less likely to steal from the organization (Zyglidopoulos &
Fleming, 2008).
2.5.3. Political Deviance
Political deviance means “the behavior as engagement in social interaction
that puts other individuals at a personal or political disadvantage”. Showing
favoritism, nattering about colleagues, workplace incivility, and opposing non-
beneficially are some kinds of political deviance. In organization, workplace incivility
is disrespectful behavior. It affects the smooth working of organization whether it is
intentional or unintentional (Cagle & Baucus, 2006). In a research study Leung,
(2008) found that 55% employees confessed that they said hurtful words to coworkers
in the organization. Employees expressing political deviance behavior in workplace
are less satisfied with their job. Such workers tend to leave job. These workers are
more depressed and anxious (Xanthopoulu et al., 2007b).
28
2.5.4. Personal Aggression
Personal aggression is also a serious problem in organizations. No company,
no organization or employee can avoid the occurrence of such behavior. Personal
aggression means “behaving in an aggressive or hostile manner towards other
individuals”. Physical assault, sexual harassment, verbal abuse, stealing from co-
workers, sabotaging work of co-workers are some forms of personal aggression.
Those employees who are the victims of personal aggression have physical and
emotional health problems. Such workers are less committed to their job and to their
organization and it negatively affect performance of the employees and as a result it
decreases organizational outcomes (McClurg & Butler, 2006). In a survey, it was
reported that about two million workers are physically attacked at work place every
year. Women are more victims of personal aggression than men. 50% of women were
the victim of violence who deceased in work place (Salanova, Agut & Peiro, 2005).
2.6. Work Engagement and Behavioral Outcomes
Work engagement plays significant role in organizational outcomes. Engaged
workers show more commitment to task completion and also to the organization.
They invest their efforts fully in accomplishing organizational goals. Work
engagement also change behavioral outcomes of the employees. Employee‟s work
engagement has direct effect on worker‟s turnover intentions, job satisfaction,
absenteeism, deviant behavior, organizational citizenship behavior, task achievement
and other related work place behavior (Fairlie, 2011).
29
2.6.1. Work Engagement and Employee Performance
Employee performance means the financial or nonfinancial result of
employee‟s efforts which he performs during task completion and which has direct
influence on the performance of the organization and also of the individual.
According to Rich et al., (2010), employee performance not only means in-role
behavior of the employee, but it also consists of the proactive and extra role work
behavior of the individual. Employee‟s performance plays significant role in
enhancing organizational productivity. It results in better achievement of the
organizational goals and task completion (Agarwal et al., 2012). According to Kahn
(1990), employee engagement results in individual level outcomes and organizational
level outcomes.
Different research studies have been conducted and it declared that in order to
improve and enhance employee performance, it is essential to focus on fostering
employee work engagement. Work engagement has positive relation with individual
performance. An engaged worker remains committed to task and to organization and
thus improve his performance (Hansen, Byrne & Kiersch, 2014). Engagement is an
individual level construct; it could influence business result through individual
performance. Scholars and researchers have pointed different and various reasons to
consider and believe that engagement has direct link with job performance of
employees. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) described work engagement as the fulfilling,
positive job-related experience and state of mind. It has direct relation with good
health and has significant effects on working outcomes. The study of Chrestain et al.,
2011) also confirmed positive and significant relationship between employee
performance and work engagement. Work engagement and employee performance
30
results in establishment of the most trusted, committed and loyal relationship in the
organization (Yalabik, Popaitoon, Chowne & Rayton, 2013).
2.6.2. Employee Work Engagement and Innovative Behavior
According to Wollard and Shuck (2011), innovative work behaviors are those
novel and creative ideas of the individual which individual possess and express during
performing task. Different research studies have shown positive and significant
relationship between work engagement and innovative behavior. The research study
of Slateen and Mehmetoglu (2011) declared that highly engaged individuals or
employees express more innovative behavior during performing different task in the
organization. They also argued that highly engaged workers have a positive state of
mind and emotional stability at work place. Innovative behavior helps individual to
broaden their mind. Similarly, Agarwal et al., (2012) also found related result about
work engagement and innovative behavior. They found that work engagement has
positive and significant relation with innovative work behavior. They also concluded
that employee work engagement mediated the relationship between innovative work
behavior and leader member exchange relation (LMX). In another research study,
Bakker and Lieter (2010) concluded that engaged employees always possess and hold
positive emotions and attitude. It encourages the integrative and creative perception of
the employee to create value to the organization.
2.6.3. Employee Work Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Organizational citizenship behaviors are referred to individual‟s behaviors
which are discretionary and not recognized by the formal reward system of the
organization. Kelloway et al., (2002) defined organizational citizenship behavior as
the enthusiastic behavior of employee at work place which is not formally accepted
31
and recognized by the reward system of the organization, but the occurrence of these
behavior helps to achieve organizational outcomes in most effective way. The
relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors is an interesting topic
among academics and researcher. When employees are engaged in work place, their
way of behaving in the organization increases and it promote organizational
outcomes. According to Bhatnagar and Biswas (2010), organizational citizenship
behavior plays significant and important role in the smooth functioning of the
organization. It also improves employee‟s performance to great extent.
In different organizational citizenship behavior research studies, employee‟s work
engagement has been examined as an important predictor. One possible explanation
for why employee work engagement is related to organizational citizenship behavior,
based upon the explanation of social exchange theory and principles of the mutual
exchange. Rich et al., (2010) stated that employee might perform organizational
citizenship behavior in work place because these behaviors consist of an emotional
component which attach employee to the organization. Research studies showed
employees who remained highly engaged at work place have an inclination to be
engaged in responsible and constructive organizational citizenship behavior (Kong,
2009). According to Sulea et al., (2012), high level of work engagement has positive
impact on organizational citizenship behavior. They further argued that highly
engaged employees at work place have the capability and competency to attain
organizational goals in most effective way. Highly engaged workers are confident in
performing extra-role in the organization. It is also found in a research study (Alacron
& Edward, 2011) that those employees who were highly engaged, experienced a
better psychological and mental health.
32
2.6.4. Employee Work Engagement and Organizational Commitment
Organization commitment is the sub field of organizational behavior which
was introduced in 1950s. Organization commitment is the topic of interest and takes
immense importance right from its introduction. Psychological attachment of
employee to their organization is called organization commitment. Organization
citizenship behavior, job performance and turnover are the main predictors of
organization commitment. Various research studies show positive and significant
association between organizational commitment and employee work engagement
(Hansen et al., 2014; Karatepe et al., 2014). There has been a debate among
researchers whether organizational commitment is the antecedent of employee work
engagement or it is the outcome of work engagement. Researchers have concluded
that organizational commitment is the outcome of employee work engagement
(Albrecht, 2012). Kelloway, Francis, Prosser and Cameron (2010) also concluded that
employees with high level of work engagement are attached in their organization.
2.6.5. Employee Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction may be defined as the situation in which employee is good at
work place and work with great zeal and zest. It is the degree to which employee
express positive emotions and invest efforts fully during performing their work role in
the organization (Robin & Judge, 2007). Some researchers argued that job satisfaction
is the outcome of work engagement, but some researchers consider job satisfaction as
the key driver of work engagement. Work engagement has positive and significant
relationship with job satisfaction. According to Barsade (2002), engaged employees
are full of energy and strength and they are highly involved in their job. High level of
work engagement may help employees to identify themselves in strong manner while
33
performing work task in the organization. Engaged employees are able to get enough
job resources and express a positive feeling at their work place. This can lead to
higher level of job satisfaction which results in the accomplishment of organizational
outcomes. Satisfied employees are responsible for organizational productivity
(Christian et al., 2011).
2.6.6. Employee Work Engagement and Task Performance
Engaged workers have full energy and they are enthusiastic in work
performance. Research shows that highly engaged employees have better performance
than disengaged individuals. According to Robin and Judge, (2007), engaged workers
are willing to exert extra energy and resources at work place in order to enhance
performance of the job. Different research studies found significant and positive
relationship between employee work engagement and individual performance (Leiter
& Bakker, 2010, Demerouti & Cropenzo, 2010; Hansen et al., 2014). Alfes, Shcntz,
Truss and Soane, (2013) conducted a research study among 1796 different
organizations that provide different services to employees. After analyzing data, they
concluded that there was positive and significant relationship between employee
engagement and task performance. Shantz, Latham and Alfes (2013) also explored
significant and positive association between work engagement and employee‟s task
performance. They argued that engaged employees are directed and inspired by their
intrinsic motivation and it helps them to work more than usual. According to Cagle
and Baucus (2006), engaged workers believe that organization create a pleasant and
creative environment for them which is helpful in reducing mental hazard. In such
situation, employees feel an obligation to repay to the organization in the form of
better task performance.
34
2.6.7. Employee work Engagement and Turnover Intentions
Turnover intention means to quit or leave the membership of the organization.
There are various reasons which support the notion that work engagement is
negatively related to turnover intentions of the employees. First, work engagement is
considered as the fulfilling positive work-related state of mind. Work engagement has
positively related to good health and stable emotional presentation. It has positive
effect on psychological and mental health of the employees (Schaufeli & Bakker,
2004). These positive emotions and experiences work as potential and energetic
resources which result in the retention of employee to remain in the organization. It is
expected that engaged workers may be less likely to possess and express deviant
behavior in the organization (Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008). Secondly, as a
result of exchange rules, there exists trusting and loyal relationship between employee
and employer. Engaged employees experience a reciprocation of favorable exchanges
with the organization. In the presence of loyal and trusted relation, an employee
refrain from behaving deviant behaviors and is likely to remain in the organization
and employee tries their best to maintain the quality of mutual relationship with the
employer (Saks, 2006). Third reason is that engaged employees have invested efforts
and energy into organization and they find it difficult to quit the organization.
Engaged workers do not take risk in changing job because it is risky investment of
time and effort (Murphy, Wayne, Liden, & Erdogan, 2003).
In different research studies, it has been concluded that employee work
engagement has negative relation with turnover intentions. Turnover intention is the
negative outcome of work engagement (Shantz et al., 2013). Engaged employees
often have greater and strong attachment to the organization and have lower
35
inclination to quit the organization. Albrecht and Anderata (2011) used a sample of
139 workers in health care services to confirm the direct and indirect out comes of
employee work engagement. They argued that engaged employees were motivated.
Engaged workers feel a sense of belonging to the organization and they seldom
express thoughts of leaving the organization. In a research study by Collini et al.,
(2013), it was found that turnover intention in healthcare services in USA was high
due to low level of work engagement.
2.6.8. Employee Work Engagement and Counterproductive Work Behavior
Counterproductive work behavior means those behaviors that harm or
sabotage the legitimate interest of the organization (Dalal, Lam, Weiss, Welch, &
Hulin, 2009). It is the negative behavior of employees that create harm and problems
in the organization. It may be referred as those behaviors which employee intends to
create harm for the organization it slows down the pace of progress of the
organization intentionally by slowing the speed of work, make fun of others at work
place and gossiping with other workers during performing task. Counterproductive
work behavior is harmful both to organization and individual. Employees lack
motivation in counter productive work behavior. Employees who are engaged in
organizational citizenship behavior are unlikely to have counterproductive work
behavior and vice versa (Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008). Researchers pointed out
that these counterproductive behaviors of employees could be lower if they have high
level of engagement towards the work (Sulea et al., 2012). Engaged employees are
zealous and enthusiastic at work place and they have influence on their surroundings
and it results in decreasing the level of counterproductive work behavior. Engaged
36
individuals at work place are likely to express positive extra role behavior rather than
deviant behavior (Fairlie, 2011).
2.6.9. Employee Work Engagement and Absenteeism
Absenteeism refers to stay outside the organization during working hours or
do not come to work place. Absenteeism has negative effects on employee
performance and as a result it negatively affects organizational outcomes. In
organization where the ratio of employee‟s absenteeism is high, organization fails in
accomplishing organizational goals (Agarwal, Datta, Black-Beard & Bhargava, 2012).
The cost of absenteeism has been increasing in different business units around the
world. It has severely affected even the emerging economy around the world
(Ramsey, 2006). Employee engagement is considered as the resources that have direct
and significant relation to the presence of employee at work place. According to Saks
(2006), engaged individuals have different resources such as physical resources,
cognitive resources and emotional resources, therefore engaged employees remain
happy and absorbed in their job. This situation leads to reduction in absenteeism of
the employees from work place (Roche, Teague, Coughlan & Fahy. 2011). In a
research study, it was observed that engaged employees show deep and strong
commitment to employer and it results in the improvement of business productivity.
Strong commitment to employer also reduce turnover intention and reduction in
absenteeism, safety incidents, shrinkage and product defects (Karatepe, Beirami, &
Safavi, 2014). A research study was conducted by Soane et al., (2013) in UK in the
625 service sector employees. It was found in this research study that employee
engagement has low correlation with absenteeism.
37
2.7. Teamwork Effectiveness
Effective teamwork can produce remarkable result in all fields of life. A
broad approach to effectiveness includes the multiplicity of organizational outcomes.
These organizational outcomes result at individual level, group level and at business
unit level. Teamwork is defined as a cooperative process in organization that allows
and help ordinary people of organization to accomplish extraordinary results.
Effective team work can achieve organizational goals in most effective way. An
important aspect of teamwork is effective leadership. Effective leadership can change
the route of success of the organization (Burke, Stagel, Salas, Pierce, & Kendall,
2006). It means that it is the responsibility of effective leader to create and maintain
favorable working environment in the organization. Effective leader motivates and
inspire team members to get involved in creating favorable work environment in the
organization. A good team leader focuses on his responsibilities and on team work
effectiveness (Luca & Tarricone, 2001).
Team may be referred to a unit or group of two or more individuals who are
interacting and coordinating their work in order to achieve organizational goals in
most effective way. Effective teamwork relay on effective communication among
team members. Effective communication is an essential characteristic of effective
teamwork. Through effective communication, members of a team exchange their
ideas and articulate their feelings, express their plans and understand each other‟s
viewpoints. Effective team work also means to have clear-cut roles and there is no
ambiguity of roles in effective teamwork. It is essential for smooth running of
organization that each member of organization should know what role he has to play,
what is the responsibility of each individual in organization. Effective teamwork is
38
about creating procedures for conflict resolution. Conflict is inevitable in
organization, no matter how good team may be (Marks, Mathieu & Zaccaro, 2001).
This research study was undertaken in the banking sector to find moderating
effect of teamwork effectiveness in the relationship between employee work
engagement and behavioral outcomes. Engaged employees are more committed to
organizational goals. They work with great zeal and zest to achieve organizational
outcomes. High engagement of employees ensures organizational productivity.
2.8. Theoretical Model of the Study
It is clear from the literature review that employee engagement has positive
and strong relationship with behavioral outcomes. Theoretical model of this research
study was based on two theories, one is social exchange theory and the other is
conservation of resources theory. According to social exchange theory, if employees
are not engaged in their work, they reciprocate with poor job attitudes and
organizational behaviors. Lower level of employee work engagement leads to deviant
behaviors such as turnover intentions and absenteeism. Conservation theory of
resources suggests that if employees are able to replace work engagement with other
resources such as teamwork effectiveness it results in lower level of turnover intention
and other deviant behavior. Employees who are already well resourced (relatively
high level of engagement) may not require an additional pool of resources to draw
from. Teamwork effectiveness was used as moderator. Effective team has clear-cut
rules and regulation. There is effective communication among team members. In this
research study three variables were used. Employee work engagement was used as
independent variable. It has three sub-dimensions namely, vigor, absorption and
dedication. Behavioral outcome was used as dependent variable. It has also three
39
facets which were described as turnover intention, absenteeism and deviant behavior.
Team work effectiveness was treated as moderating variable.
Pro
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework of the Study
2.9. Hypotheses of the Study
Ho1: Employee work engagement is negatively and insignificantly related with
behavioral outcomes
H1: Employee work engagement is negatively and significantly related with
behavioral outcomes
Ho2: Employee work engagement is negatively and insignificantly related with
turnover intentions
H2: Employee work engagement is negatively and significantly related with
turnover intentions
Employee Engagement Behavioral Outcomes
Turnover intentions
Deviant Behavior
Absenteeism
Teamwork
Effectiveness
40
Ho3: Employee work engagement is negatively insignificantly related with deviant
behavior
H3: Employee work engagement is negatively and significantly related with
deviant behavior
Ho4: Employee work engagement is negatively and insignificantly related with
absenteeism
H4: Employee work engagement is negatively and significantly related with
absenteeism
Ho5: Teamwork effectiveness does not moderate the significant relationship
between employee work engagement and behavioral outcomes
H5: Teamwork effectiveness moderates the significant relationship between
employee work engagement and behavioral outcomes
41
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The current chapter highlights research methodology in detail for the purpose
to find out solution to the research problem. The nature of this study is descriptive and
correlational. The current chapter briefly discusses population, sample and sampling
technique, research instruments, detail about pilot testing, instrument validation
technique and data collection procedure. This study was designed to find out
moderating role of work effectiveness in the relationship of employee work
engagement and behavioral outcomes.
3.1. Research Philosophy
The current study follows positivism research philosophy. The researcher
believes on facts and numerical data. The researcher gathered primary data through
structured questionnaire having a five-point likert scale. Thus, the study used
quantitative data and believes on positivism research philosophy with deductive
approach.
3.2. Population of the Study
Population means group of individuals to which the researcher shows interest.
Researcher wants to generalize the result of this interested group. The defined
population has at least one common characteristic which differentiate it from another
interested group. Population is of two types, one is target population and the other
type is accessible population. The defined population that the researcher would ideally
like to generalize its result is referred as target population. Accessible population is
that population which the researcher selects realistically from the target population.
42
In this research study, the population of the study was operational and branch level
managers of banking organizations in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Data collection from all
banks operated in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is not possible for the researcher, so the
researcher selected only six banks as the accessible population. Two public sector
banks were selected namely Bank of Khyber (BoK) and National Bank of Pakistan
(NBP) because there are only two government sector banks that have reasonable
branches in the selected districts of KPK. Two banks namely Allied Bank Limited
(ABL) and Askari Bank of Pakistan Limited (AS) were selected from private sector
commercial banks because these two banks have the largest branches network and
have a large market share. The two international banks which were selected were
Standard Charted Pakistan Limited (SC) and Bank Al-Falah Limited Pakistan
(BAFL). These banks were selected on the basis of their reputation, branches network
and market share in their respective domain (i.e. public, private and international). It
was not possible to collect data from all branches of these six banks in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa due to time constraint and financial resources. So, six cities were
selected as the sampling framework of the current research study. Peshawar,
Nowshehra, Mardan, Swat, Harripur and Abbotabad were selected for data collection.
These cities were easily approachable for the researcher. All branches of NBP, BoK,
AKBL, AS, SC and BAFL which were situated in these six cities were selected as
population of the study. All managerial level employees were selected for the study
including upper level, middle level and lower level management of banking
organizations. Standardized and adapted questionnaire was used for data collection.
Questionnaires were administered to all level of managers in the selected banks.
43
Table 1
Population Breakdown
Bank Name Branches
National Bank of Pakistan 105
Bank of Khyber 60
Allied Bank Limited 90
Askari Bank Limited Pakistan 21
Standard Charted Pakistan Limited 09
Bank Al-Falah Limited Pakistan 26
Total 311
Table 1 illustrates population break down for the current research study. Six
cities from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were selected as population of the study. In these six
cities, there were total 311 branches of these banks. Result of this table shows that
there were 105 branches of NBP, 60 branches of BoK, 90 branches of ABL, 21
branches of AKBL, 9 branches of SC and 26 branches of BAFL.
3.3. Sample of the Study
The main purpose of sampling is to obtain information about a population.
Sampling techniques are of immense importance in research studies. In social
sciences, it is not possible for researchers to collect data from the accessible
population. The researchers select group of individuals as sample which represents the
characteristics of the population. According to Gay et al., (2009) “sampling is the
selection of number of individuals for research study in such a manner that the
individuals represent the larger group or population from which they were selected.
44
There are different methods of selecting a sample from the larger group such as
random sampling, cluster sampling, stratified sampling and systematic sampling. In
the current research study, stratified sampling technique was used for selecting sample
from the population. In stratified random sampling, a sample is selected on the basis
of proportion of the population from each stratum. The process and procedure for
stratified sampling is the same as for random sampling except that in stratified
sampling, sample is selected from subgroup or strata while in random sampling,
sample is selected from whole group or population. Sekaran (2013) suggested that the
sample of the study should be ten times larger than the study variables. Field (2005)
also recommended that the sample of the research should be between 30 to 500.
Keeping in views these recommendations the study in hand plan to take a sample of
270 managerial level employees from the selected banks.
Total 270 questionnaires were delivered to the respondents in the selected
banks. In these total 270 questionnaires, 257 questionnaires were received back. Out
of 257 questionnaires, 11 questionnaires were not in a position to be included for
further analysis. Therefore, 246 questionnaires were selected for further analysis.
Table 2
Sample Break Down
Bank Name *Formula Sample Selected
NBP (105/311) * 270 91
BOK (60/311) * 270 52
ABL (90/311) * 270 78
AB (21/311) * 270 18
SCBL (9/311) * 270 08
BAl-FL (26/311) * 270 23
Total 270
*(Sample size of the strata = size of entire sample / population size * layer size)
45
Table 2 describes sample break down of the current research study. Total 270
respondents were selected as sample of the study. On the basis of stratified random
sampling formula 91 respondents were selected from National Bank of Pakistan, 52
respondents were selected from The Bank of Khyber. From Allied Bank Limited, 78
respondents were selected as sample. Eighteen respondents were selected from Askari
Bank of Pakistan Limited. Eight respondents were selected from Standard Charted
Pakistan Limited. Twenty three respondents were selected from Bank Al-Flah
Limited.
3.4. Research Instrument
Data collection is an important part of all types of research studies. All
researches involve selection and collection of data. Empirical research studies are
designed to answer different questions or to test hypotheses, they need data to be
collected. Different methods are used for data collection. Researchers use survey
questionnaire, observation, interview, case study, and checklist as research instrument
for data collection. In the current research study, researcher used survey questionnaire
as research instrument for data collection.
Employee work engagement was assessed with nine-items version of Utrecht
Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006b). This
research instrument of work engagement has been used by different researchers in
different research studies and in different context (e.g., Fairlie, 2011; Seppälä et al.,
2009; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009b). These research studies
show that UWES-9 scale of employee engagement has high degree of internal
consistency and test-retest reliability. It also has high degree of discriminant,
convergent and construct validity (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006a;
46
Seppälä et al., 2009). This research instrument assesses three dimensions of employee
work engagement. These dimensions are absorption, dedication and vigor. Each facet
was assessed by three items. 5-point rating scale was used to assess responses of the
respondent ranging from 1 (“never”) to 5 (“always”) for all subscales. The subscales
were combined to measure the overall level of work engagement.
Behavioral outcome was assessed with three sub dimensions. These were
turnover intention, deviant behavior, and absenteeism. Different survey questionnaire
was used to assess behavioral outcomes. Turnover intentions questionnaire was
developed by Borroff and Lewin (1997). It has four items measure and its reliability
was .80 during their study. 5-poit Likert scale was used to assess responses of the
respondent ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (Always). Deviant behavior questionnaire was
developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000). It has 12 items. 5-poit Likert scale was
used to assess responses of the respondent ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (Always).
Similarly, to measure absenteeism a scale developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000)
was used having a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Team work
effectiveness was used as moderator in the current research study. Teamwork
effectiveness questionnaire was developed by Sterling and Selenick (1988). This
questionnaire consisted of 11 research items. 5-point Lickert scale was used to assess
responses of the respondents ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
All these instruments are modified according to the Pakistani context and validity and
reliability of the instrument was check and found it satisfactory.
3.5. Pilot Study
The main purpose of conducting a pilot study is to determine and check out
the nature of the selected data. Generally pilot study is conducted on small sample
47
size. This sample is not included in the final study of the research. Pilot study is also
aimed to know about the relationship among different variables (Pilot et al., 2001). As
research questionnaires are used for data collection, so pilot study is aimed to test
validity and reliability of the research questionnaires. There is no consensus on the
size of the sample for pilot study. However, it is reasonable to take 10 to 20% sample
size of the total sample size. It means that if total sample is 300, from this sample 60
individuals should be taken for pilot study. Pilot study does not guarantee that
research questionnaire will be perfect in future. However, pilot study increases the
chances of the research instruments to be perfect (Baker, 1994).
Undertaking of pilot study is important for validating research instruments
before taking actual study. Validity means whether research instrument measures
what we want to measure through questionnaire. Pilot study also describes whether
research instrument has same objectives or not. Generally pilot testing study is used in
two different aspects in social sciences research. In the first aspect, it is considered as
a feasibility study of the original study. Pilot study is referred to as small scale study
or trial run study. The purpose and aim of pilot study is to prepare and validate
research instruments for major study. The second aspect of pilot study describes the
procedures which are undertaken before conducting major study (Pilot et al., 2001).
There are several objectives and purposes of the pilot study. An important aim
of pilot study is to test the procedures and ways of the desired research study. Another
important aim of pilot study is to validate research instruments for the major study. It
is also aim of the pilot study to provide information about the strength and weakness
of the desired research study. Pilot study gives information to the researcher if there is
any ambiguity in the items of research instruments. It is also helpful in highlighting
48
whether respondents face difficulties in responding questions (De Vaus, 1993). Pilot
study is undertaken in order to pinpoint misleading and inappropriate items or
questions in the survey questionnaire. Through pilot study, researchers make sure that
survey questionnaire is properly used. Pilot study tells us that the information
obtained are reliable and effective. Data collected and used in the pilot study should
not be used in the final analysis (Lancaster et al., 2004).
An important aim and purpose of pilot study is to provide authentic and valid
information about research instrument. It plays significant role in the success and
failure of the major and desired future research study. The general aim of pilot study
is to save time, resources and efforts for coming major study. These things and
objectives cannot be achieved without conducting pilot study. In a nut shell, the aim
and purpose of pilot study is to pinpoint the possible problems which might be faced
by the researcher and it might result in the failure of the desired research study. Pilot
study is aimed to minimize the chances of the failure of the proposed and desired
research study (De Vaus, 1993).
3.5.1. Pilot Study of the Current Research Work
The current research study is cross-sectional and correlational in nature. Three
main variables were used. Employee work engagement was used as independent
variable. Behavioral outcome was used as dependent variables. Team work
effectiveness was used as moderating variable. Standardized and adapted research
instruments were used to assess responses of the respondent. These research
instruments were used by different researchers. These were highly reliable and had
content and construct validity. As these were used for the first time here in Pakistan, it
was essential to check reliability of the instrument. To conduct pilot study of the
49
current research, twenty managers from different banks branches were selected. These
branches and managers were not included in the final sample of the research study.
Few branches of the selected sample were selected for pilot study. Questionnaires
were distributed among these selected employees and get their responses regarding
work engagement and behavioral outcomes. It took two weeks to collect data for the
pilot study. After receiving back all questionnaires from the respondents, SPSS
software (version 20) was used to check reliability of all three questionnaires which
were used as research instruments for this research project. Chronbach Alpha
Coefficient was used to determine the reliability of the study variables.
Table 3
Alpha Reliability Coefficient of Employee Work Engagement
Subscale No of Items Alpha Coefficient
Employee Work Engagement 9 .88
Table 3 shows result of alpha coefficient of employee work engagement
questionnaire. There are 9 items. It is evident from the result of the reliability that
employee engagement questionnaire is highly reliable. Alpha Coefficient value is .88
which shows that it is high reliable and is well above the standard value of .6.
Table 4
Alpha Reliability Coefficient of the Sub-Dimensions of Behavioral Outcomes
Subscale No of Items Alpha Coefficient
Turnover Intention 4 .81
Deviant Behavior 12 .75
Absenteeism 5 .83
Total 21 .79
Table 4 represents alpha coefficient reliability of the sub-dimensions of
behavioral outcomes. There are three sub-dimensions of behavioral outcomes namely
50
turnover intension, deviant behavior and absenteeism. Turnover intension has 4 items
and its reliability coefficient was .81. Deviant behavior consisted of 12 items and
alpha reliability coefficient was .75. Sub-dimension of absenteeism consisted of 5
items with reliability of .83. All values indicate that behavioral outcomes
questionnaire was also reliable.
Table 5
Alpha Reliability Coefficient of Teamwork Effectiveness
Subscale No of Items Alpha Coefficient
Teamwork effectiveness 11 .86
Table 5 represents alpha reliability coefficient of teamwork effectiveness.
There were 11 items in the questionnaire. SPSS was used to check reliability of the
questionnaire. The value of alpha reliability coefficient was .86 which shows that this
questionnaire was also a reliable questionnaire.
3.5.2. Validity of Research Instruments
Validity means the ability or quality of research instruments to measure what
the researchers want to measure through the questionnaire. Only reliability of research
instruments is not enough if questionnaire is not valid. So, reliability and validity both
are important to be checked before administering research instruments. Content
validity of all research instruments was checked through questionnaire experts and
subject matter experts. Content validity is the judgement regarding the logical link
between research instruments and objectives of the study. Content validity tells us that
research instruments accurately measure what it should have to measure. It also
represents a logical link between each item of the research instrument and objectives
of the study.
51
Criterion-related validity was established through principal component matrix
method. Kimberlin & Winterstein (2008) stated that criterion – related validity gives
indication about how well new research instrument scores correlate with the other
research instruments of the same construct or near similar constructs that are
theoretically related to it. However, it is noted that the original questionnaires or
instruments are also valid. This study conducted exploratory factor analysis to test of
the research instrument of the study. On the basis of experts‟ recommendations and
review of related literature construct and content validity are ensured. By using
principal component method an item having a minimum factor loading of 0.5 are
retained. Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin (KMO) measure of Sampling Adequacy are also
applied.
Table 6
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of EWE
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .771
Approx.Chi-Square 2142.93
Bartlett‟s Test of Sphericity df 36
Sig. .000
The table reported above highlight KMO and Bartlett‟s tests of the study
variable employee work engagement (EWE). As we know that the acceptable value of
KMO is .6, here in this case the value of KMO is .771 which is well above the
standard value suggested by researchers. Similarly, the p value of Bartlett‟s test is
significant which shows that we accept the alternate hypothesis and reject the null
one.
52
Table 7
Component Matrix
Component 1
I focus hard on my work .880
I concentrate on my work .879
I pay a lot of attention to my work .871
I share the same work values as my colleagues .865
I share the same work goals as my colleagues .789
I share the same work attitudes as my colleagues .782
I feel positive about my work .777
I feel energetic in my work .665
I am enthusiastic in my work .602
Table 7 shows the component matrix or factor loading of the study variable
employee work engagement (EWE). There are nine items of EWE scale. All items
have a good factor loading value and lies in the acceptable range. The acceptable
value of factor loading is .5. Here all items values are above .5. Field, (2009) also
cited by Khattak et al., (2016) recommended that the factor loading values near to 1
indicate the good case. The figure shown below report the scree plot of EWE. It tells
about how items should be remained in the scale. The dots in the scree plot indicate
the actual number of items to be remain in the scale. Here nine dots are shown which
means that EWE scale have nine items.
53
Figure 1: Scree Plot of EWE
Table 8
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of TI
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .882
Approx. Chi-Square 1300.86
Bartlett‟s Test of Sphericity df 6
Sig. .000
The table reported above highlight KMO and Bartlett‟s tests of the study
variable turnover intention (TI). As we know that the acceptable value of KMO is .6,
here in this case the value of KMO is .882 which is well above the standard value
suggested by researchers. Similarly, the p value of Bartlett‟s test is significant which
shows that we accept the alternate hypothesis and reject the null one.
54
Table 9
Component Matrix
Component 1
During the next year, I will probably look for a new job outside my current employer .966
I am seriously considering quitting my current employer for an alternative employer .964
I would seriously consider leaving for slightly better position elsewhere .956
I would seriously consider leaving my job for a position where I could earn more .942
Table 9 shows the component matrix or factor loading of the study variable
turnover intention (TI). There are four items of TI scale. All items have a good factor
loading value and lies in the acceptable range. The acceptable value of factor loading
is .5. Here all items values are above .5. Field, (2009) also cited by Khattak et al.,
(2016) recommended that the factor loading values near to 1 indicate the good case.
The figure shown below report the scree plot of TI. It tells about how items should be
remained in the scale. The dots in the scree plot indicate the actual number of items to
be remain in the scale. Here nine dots are shown which means that TI scale have four
items.
55
Figure 2: Scree Plot of TI
Table 10
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of DB
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .864
Approx. Chi-Square 6113.87
Bartlett‟s Test of Sphericity df 66
Sig. .000
The table reported above highlight KMO and Bartlett‟s tests of the study
variable deviant behavior (DB). As we know that the acceptable value of KMO is .6,
here in this case the value of KMO is .864 which is well above the standard value
suggested by researchers. Similarly, the p value of Bartlett‟s test is significant which
shows that we accept the alternate hypothesis and reject the null one.
56
Table 11
Component Matrix
Component 1
Spent too much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead of working .971
Falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more money than you spent on business expenses .966
Taken an additional or longer break than is acceptable at your workplace .960
Come in late to work without permission .952
Littered your work environment .958
Neglected to follow your boss's instructions .933
Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked .928
Discussed confidential company information with an unauthorized person .926
Used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on the job .915
Put little effort into your work .899
Taken property from work without permission .869
Dragged out work in order to get overtime .648
Table 11 shows the component matrix or factor loading of the study variable
deviant behavior (DB). There are 12 items of DB scale. All items have a good factor
loading value and lies in the acceptable range. The acceptable value of factor loading
is .5. Here all items values are above .5. Field, (2009) also cited by Khattak et al.,
(2016) recommended that the factor loading values near to 1 indicate the good case.
The figure shown below report the scree plot of DB. It tells about how items should
be remained in the scale. The dots in the scree plot indicate the actual number of items
to be remain in the scale. Here 12 dots are shown which means that DB scale have 12
items.
57
Figure 3: Scree Plot of DB
Figure 3: Scree Plot of DB
Table 12
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Absenteeism
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .840
Approx. Chi-Square 2327.08
Bartlett‟s Test of Sphericity df 10
Sig. .000
The table reported above highlight KMO and Bartlett‟s tests of the study
variable absenteeism. As we know that the acceptable value of KMO is .6, here in this
case the value of KMO is .840 which is well above the standard value suggested by
researchers. Similarly, the p value of Bartlett‟s test is significant which shows that we
accept the alternate hypothesis and reject the null one.
58
Table 13
Component Matrix
Component 1
In our organization employee get leave when they required .976
In our organization the process of applying for leave through supervisor is time consuming .972
In our organization employee take leave for their personal problems .965
In our organization employee get leave because of bed working condition .942
In our organization co-worker facilitate each other and adjust their leave schedule .931
Table 13 shows the component matrix or factor loading of the study variable
absenteeism. There are five items of absenteeism scale. All items have a good factor
loading value and lies in the acceptable range. The acceptable value of factor loading
is .5. Here all items values are above .5. Field, (2009) also cited by Khattak et al.,
(2016) recommended that the factor loading values near to 1 indicate the good case.
The figure shown below report the scree plot of absenteeism. It tells about how items
should be remained in the scale. The dots in the scree plot indicate the actual number
of items to be remain in the scale. Here five dots are shown which means that
absenteeism scale have five items.
59
Figure 4: Scree Plot of Absenteeism
Table 14
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of TWE
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .812
Approx. Chi-Square 4996.44
Bartlett‟s Test of Sphericity df 55
Sig. .000
The table reported above highlight KMO and Bartlett‟s tests of the study
variable teamwork effectiveness (TWE). As we know that the acceptable value of
KMO is .6, here in this case the value of KMO is .812 which is well above the
standard value suggested by researchers. Similarly, the p value of Bartlett‟s test is
significant which shows that we accept the alternate hypothesis and reject the null
one.
60
Table 15
Component Matrix
Component 1
Team members put the interests and priorities of the organization or unit ahead
Of the interests and priorities of their respective jobs .958
Team members obtain and use all the needed information and assistance from
others when solving problems or making decisions .952
The team is organized and structured suitably for the task it has to perform .949
Team problem solving processes and methods are appropriate and effective .940
Team decision making processes and methods are appropriate and effective .939
Team members participate meaningfully in higher-level decisions affecting their jobs .937
Team members receive the guidance and resources they need form the team manager .933
Team members express their opinions honestly and openly to each other .930
Team members make good use of the time of the day spend together .918
Every team member knows what other team members expect from him or her .917
Conflict between or among team members is handled promptly and effectively .765
Table 15 shows the component matrix or factor loading of the study variable
teamwork effectiveness (TWE). There are eleven items of TWE scale. All items have
a good factor loading value and lies in the acceptable range. The acceptable value of
factor loading is .5. Here all items values are above .5. Field, (2009) also cited by
Khattak et al., (2016) recommended that the factor loading values near to 1 indicate
the good case. The figure shown below report the scree plot of TWE. It tells about
how items should be remained in the scale. The dots in the scree plot indicate the
actual number of items to be remain in the scale. Here eleven dots are shown which
means that TWE scale have eleven items.
61
Figure 5: Scree Plot of TWE
3.6. Procedure for Data Collection
Data collection is the tedious and most time-consuming job in all type of
research studies. It requires time and resources. The current research study was cross-
sectional and descriptive in nature. Standardized and adopted questionnaire were used
for data collection. Before collecting data, pilot study was undertaken to check
reliability and validity of the research instruments. After result of pilot study, the
researcher personally visited all the selected branches of the concerned banks.
Questionnaires were furnished to all type of managers and were collected back.
3.7. Operational Definition
Following major terms constitute main body of this research study
62
3.7.1. Employee Work Engagement
Employee work engagement may be defined as the extent to which employee
is involved in his work. It depends on organizational practices which are undertaken
in order to achieve organizational goals (Wollard & Shuck, 2011). Employee work
engagement may be considered as a key characteristic in accomplishing
organizational success and competencies. It is a fact that engaged workers are very
important for the survival of organization. Engaged workers significantly contribute
to the bottom line (Shantz, Alfes & Latham, 2016). Different research studies show
positive and significant effect of work engagement on employee‟s work attitude, his
way of conduct and behavior in the organization and his attitude towards job
satisfaction and job performance (Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012).
Different models and theories have been used to explain employee work
engagement. The most important theory concerning employee work engagement is
Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001).
This model or theory is concerned with the stronger logical model to explain work
engagement in a most effective way. According to Saks (2006) “those employees who
are engaged to a higher level, experience a higher level of job resources, which
ultimately helps to enhance employee performance”. As employee work engagement
is considered an individual level construct, so it first affects outcomes at individual
level. This individual level construct further affects organizational level outcomes
(Salanova, Agut & Peiro, 2005). When employees are engaged, it enhances their job
satisfaction which further enhances job performance of the employees. When
employees are satisfied in organization, they work with great zeal and zest and thus
63
increase organizational performance and achieve organization goals and objectives
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Different research studies pointed several reasons why an engaged worker
shows good result in work place than disengaged worker. Baker and Demerouti
(2008) described four critical reasons why an engaged employee can perform better
than disengaged worker. First critical reason which they described is that engaged
employee has positive emotions at work place. Positive emotions increase employee‟s
confidence and develop optimistic attitudes towards work. Optimistic workers or
employees perform better as compared to pessimistic (Bindl & Parker, 2010). Second
critical reason is that engaged workers have more physical resources. Better
opportunity of physical resources leads to better performance and in turn it enhances
organizational performance. Schaufeli et al., (2008) in a research study found that
engaged workers have lesser psychosomatic complaint than disengaged employees.
Third reason is when employee receives socio-emotional resources from organization,
employee realizes an obligation to repay to the organization due to the rules of
exchange philosophy (Cropanzano & Mitchel, 2005). Fourth and final reason is that
engaged workers transfer their level of engagement to other employees and in turn
this increases organizational performance and achieve organizational outcomes in a
better way as we all know that organizational performance depends on collective
efforts of the employees.
3.7.2. Deviant Behavior
In any business organization, different individuals come together, and they
express different behaviors. These behaviors have different consequences to the
organization and also to the individual. To maintain an ideal case of workplace in
64
organization, these behaviors of different individuals coincide with the norm of the
organization. But some time work behaviors range outside the norms of the
organization. Workers or individuals either lack motivation to conform to normative
expectations of the social content or become motivated to violate those expectations.
This situation results in deviant behavior at work place.
The concept of workplace deviant behavior has got immense importance in the
last two decades. It refers to those behaviors which includes deviations from formal
organizational norms (O‟Neill & Hasting, 2011). Although deviant behaviors are also
regarded positive behaviors (Robbins & Galperin, 2010; Galperin, 2012; Vadera, Pratt
& Mishra, 2013), but in most research studies it is referred as destructive behaviors at
work place. Deviant behaviors affect, to large extent, the performance and well-being
of organization. It has negative effect on organizational outcomes (Spector & Fox,
2010). According to Orucu and Yildiz (2014) “voluntary behavior that violates
significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an
organization and its members or both”. Deviant behaviors have two basic
characteristics. First these are not mentioned and declared by formal job definition.
Secondly these behaviors violate organizational norms (Salanova, Agut & Peiro,
2005).
3.7.3. Employee Work Engagement and Turnover Intentions
Turnover intention means to quit or leave the membership of the organization.
There are various reasons which support the notion that work engagement is
negatively related to turnover intention of the employees. First, work engagement is
considered as the fulfilling positive work-related state of mind. Work engagement has
positively related to good health and stable emotional presentation. It has positive
65
effect on psychological and mental health of the employees (Schaufeli & Bakker,
2004). These positive emotions and experiences work as potential and energetic
resources which result in the retention of employee to remain in the organization. It is
expected that engaged workers may be less likely to possess and express deviant
behavior in the organization (Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008). Secondly, as a
result of exchange rules, there exist trusting and loyal relationship between employee
and employer. Engaged employees experience a reciprocation of favorable exchanges
with the organization. In the presence of loyal and trusted relation, an employee
refrain from behaving deviant behaviors and is likely to remain in the organization
and employee tries their best to maintain the quality of mutual relationship with the
employer (Saks, 2006). Third reason is that engaged employees have invested efforts
and energy in organization and they find it difficult to quit the organization. Engaged
workers do not take risk in changing job because it is risky investment of time and
effort (Murphy, Wayne, Liden, & Erdogan, 2003).
In different research studies, it has been concluded that employee work
engagement has negative relation with turnover intention. Turnover intention is the
negative outcome of work engagement (Shantz et al., 2013). Engaged employees
often have greater and strong attachment to the organization and have lower
inclination to quit the organization. Albrecht and Anderata (2011) used a sample of
139 workers in health care services to confirm the direct and indirect out comes of
employee work engagement. They argued that engaged employees were motivated.
Engaged worker feel a sense of belonging to the organization and they seldom express
thoughts of leaving the organization. In a research study by Collini et al., (2013), it
was found that turnover intention in healthcare services in USA was high due to low
level of work engagement.
66
3.7.4. Employee Work Engagement and Absenteeism
Absenteeism refers to stay outside the organization during working hours or
do not come to work place. Absenteeism has negative effect on the performance of
employee and as a result it negatively affects organizational outcomes. In organization
where the ratio of employee‟s absenteeism is high, fails in accomplishing
organizational goals (Agarwal, Datta, Black-Beard & Bhargava, 2012). The cost of
absenteeism has been increasing in different business units around the world. It has
severely affected even the emerging economy around the world (Ramsey, 2006).
Employee engagement is considered as the resources that have direct and significant
relation to the presence of employee at work place. According to Saks (2006),
engaged individuals have different resources such as physical resources, cognitive
resources and emotional resources, therefore engaged employees remain happy and
absorbed in their job. This situation leads to reduction in absenteeism of the
employees from work place (Roche, Teague, Coughlan & Fahy, 2011). In a research
study, it was observed that engaged employees show deep and strong commitment to
employer and results in the improvement of business productivity. Strong
commitment to the employer also reduces turnover intention and reduction in
absenteeism, safety incidents, shrinkage and product defects (Karatepe, Beirami, &
Safavi, 2014). A research study was conducted by Soane et al., (2013) in UK in the
625 service sector employees. It was found in this research study that employee
engagement has low correlation with absenteeism.
3.7.5. Teamwork Effectiveness
Effective teamwork can produce remarkable result in all fields of life. A
broad approach to effectiveness includes the multiplicity of organizational outcomes.
67
These organizational outcomes result at individual level, group level and at business
unit level. Teamwork is defined as a cooperative process in the organization that
allows and helps ordinary people of the organization to accomplish extraordinary
results. Effective team work can achieve organizational goals in most effective way.
An important aspect of teamwork is effective leadership. Effective leadership can
change the route of success of the organization (Burke, Stagel, Salas, Pierce, &
Kendall, 2006). It means that it is the responsibility of the effective leader to create
and maintain positive working environment in the organization. Effective leader
motivates and inspires team members to get involved in creating positive work
environment in the organization. A good team leader focuses on his responsibilities
and on team work effectiveness (Luca & Tarricone, 2001).
Team may be referred to a unit or group of two or more individuals who are
interacting and coordinating their work in order to achieve organizational goals in
most effective way. Effective teamwork relies on effective communication between
team members. Effective communication is the essential characteristic of effective
teamwork. Through effective communication, members of a team exchange their
ideas and articulate their feelings, express their plans and understand each other
viewpoints. Effective team work also means to have clear-cut roles and there is no
ambiguity of roles in effective teamwork. It is essential for the smooth running of
organization that each member of the organization know what role he has to play,
what is the responsibility of each individual in organization. Effective teamwork is
about creating procedures for conflict resolution. Conflict is inevitable in
organization, no matter how good team may be (Marks, Mathieu & Zaccaro, 2001).
68
3.8. Data Analysis Method
To answer the research questions and to achieve the study objectives simple
linear regression was applied. However, before the applying the regression, first all
the basic regression assumptions were tested and found it satisfactory. The detail
regarding regression assumptions and analysis were reported in chapter four.
Regression was applied to check the impact of independent variable on dependent
variables. Similarly, to check the moderating effect of teamwork effectiveness on
the relationship between independent variable and dependent variables PROCESS
was used.
3.9. Econometric Equation of Simple Regression Model
Yi = β0 + β1X1+µi………………………………………………………………..…1
Where,
Yi is the predicted value of behavioral outcomes (i.e. TI, DB and Abs)
β0 and β1 shows regression line coefficients
β1 represent the slope of regression line, which shows the change in behavioral
outcomes due to unit change in the independent variable EWE.
β0 represent the intercept of the dependent variable, the expected value of
behavioral outcomes when the value of independent variable is = 0.
X1 is the independent variable i.e. EWE
µi denote the residual or error term of the regression model, which includes all of
the distinct features of a respondent i, including randomness, measurement error,
and unique characteristics of a respondent that affect the predicted variable Yi.
69
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
4. Introduction
This chapter delineates results and findings of current research study. This
research study was undertaken to find out relationship between employee work
engagement and behavioral outcomes with moderating role of team work
effectiveness. This study was descriptive and correlational in nature. This study was
undertaken in the banking sector of Pakistan. To collect data, survey questionnaires
were used. Three standardized and adopted questionnaires were used for data
collection. One questionnaire was to assess employee work engagement, the second
questionnaire was to assess deviant behaviors of the respondents. Third questionnaire
was to assess teamwork effectiveness. Total 270 questionnaires were administered.
Finally, 257 questionnaires were received back. In these 257 questionnaires, 11
questionnaires were not properly marked. These were not included for data analysis.
Original 246 questionnaires were included for data analysis.
70
4.1. Simple Linear Regression Model
To predict and find out the value of dependent variable, simple linear
regression analysis is used. When one independent variable and one dependent
variable are involved in research study, simple linear regression is applied. When
more than two independent variables are involved, then multiple regression model
is used. In multiple regression analysis, two or more independent variables are
used. These variables explain effect on dependent variable and show variation in
dependent variable due to these independent variables. The total variation which is
occurred in dependent variable is the result of independent variables. In the current
research study, one independent variable and one dependent variable are used. So,
simple linear regression model was applied to test different research hypothesis of
the current research study.
There are some assumptions of regression analysis which needs to be met
out before applying simple linear regression. According to Gujrati (2012), the
effectiveness and appropriateness of regression analysis model is based on the
observation and fulfillment of certain regression assumptions. If these assumptions
of regression analysis are not fulfilled, then regression analysis result is not valid.
4.1.1. Assumption No 1: Dependent Variable should be Measured on
Interval and Ratio Scale
This assumption states that dependent variable of the study should be
measured on interval or ratio scale. This research study is descriptive in nature.
Data was collected through survey questionnaire. A five Point Likert Scale (1=
strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree) was used to measure respondent‟s
responses. There are also disagreements between researchers regarding Likert scale
71
as interval scale. However, there are many researchers who consider Likert Scale
as ordinal scale (James et al., 2013). However, the researchers are agreed on the
point that if data is measured on five point Likert scale, it also serves as interval
scale. In this research study, responses of the individuals were measured through
five point Likert scale (Allen & Seaman, 2007). Hence, first assumption of
regression analysis which stated that data should be measured on interval scale was
met out.
4.1.2. Assumption No 2: Data Should be Free from Autocorrelation
According to this assumption data should be free from autocorrelation
issue. It means that the responses of the overall sample should represent
independence of observation. No autocorrelation should be there in the residual of
the respondents‟ responses (Gujarati, 2012). Autocorrelation should be detected
through Durbin Watson test. Durbin Watson statistic value ranges from 0 to 4. A
positive autocorrelation exists if the value of Durbin Watson lies below 2 and a
negative autocorrelation exists if the value lies above 2 (Saunders, Saunders, Lewis
& Thornhill, 2011). There is no unanimity between researchers on the acceptable
value of Durbin Watson statistic. The acceptable range of Durbin Watson value
ranges between researchers. However, researchers agreed that the value of Durbin
Watson should lie between 1.5 and 2.5. In the current research work employee
work engagement was treated as independent or predictor variable while
behavioral outcome was treated as dependent variable. Work effectiveness was
used as moderating variable. The following table reports Durbin Watson statistics.
72
Table 16
Durbin - Watson Statistics
Independent Variable Dependent Variable Durbin Watson Statistic
Employee work engagement Behavioral Outcomes 1.63
Above table shows result of Durbin Watson statistic value to check
autocorrelation in the data. From the above table, Durbin Watson value is 1.63.
Thus, it is confirmed from the above table that data is free from autocorrelation
problem.
4.1.3. Assumption No 3: There should be Homoscedasticity in the Data
This assumption explains that data should contain homoscedasticity.
Homoscedasticity means that the variance of the residual along the line of best fit
remain similar as the lines moves. To check homoscedasticity in the data,
standardized residual is plotted against unstandardized predicted value (Gujrati,
2011). In order to check homoscedasticity in the data, plot “ZPRED” on X-axis. It is
also essential that “ZRESID” should be draw on Y-axis in order to check the issue of
homoscedasticity in the data. After plotting these values add trend line to it. There
should be homoscedasticity in the data if the trend line is zero or if its value is nearer
to zero. Another condition is that if the slope of the trend line is parallel to X-axis,
then there will be homoscedasticity in the data. Result showed that the slope of the
trend line was parallel to X-axis and it was equal to zero, hence there is
homoscedasticity in the data.
73
Figure 6: Scatter Plot of Behavioral Outcomes
Above chart shows regression residual analysis for independent variable
and dependent variable to check homoscedasticity in the data. Chart describes that
the slope of regression line is equal to zero. It is also determined in the graph that
linear line is totally parallel to X-axis. It is clear from the result of the above figure
that there is homoscedasticity in the data of independent and dependent variables.
Hence, homoscedasticity assumption of regression analysis is fulfilled.
4.1.4. Assumption No 4: Data should be Normally Distributed
The fourth assumption of regression analysis model states that data
should be normally distributed. There is agreeableness among researchers
regarding data normality for linear regression model. Gujrati (2011) stated that at
74
least residual should be normally distributed. Different statistical tests like
Histogram, Skewness & Kurtosis and Normal P-P Plot are used to check whether
data is normally distributed or not. For this current research study, Histogram and
Normal P-P Plot chart was used to find out normal distribution of the data.
Figure 7: Histogram of EWE and BO
Above chart shows histogram of the residual of the study of independent
variable employee work engagement and dependent variable behavioral outcomes.
Histogram analysis shows that data is normally distributed with just around the value
of zero. Result determined that the mean of the residual is almost equal to zero as
indicated in the upper right corner of the histogram. It is clear from the chart of
75
histogram that data is normally distributed and hence assumption of normality of data
is fulfilled.
Figure 8: P-P Plot of EWE and BO
Normal P-P Plot is generally used to determine how well the data fit the
normal distribution. The above figure shows Normal P-P Plot of the standardized
residual of the current research study. The dots on the straight line indicate that our
data for the current research study is normally distributed. Thus, this graph of Normal
P-P Plot distribution also confirmed the assumption that data is normally distributed.
76
4.1.5. Assumption No 5: No Multicollinearity in the Data
The fifth assumption states that data is free from multicollinearity issue.
This assumption is applicable when more than one independent variable is used.
Hence this assumption is applicable for multiple regression analysis. In multiple
regression analysis, more than two independent variables explain variance in the
predicted or dependent variable. If a strong association or correlation between two
independent variables is found, it represents that there is issue of multicollinearity
in the data. If there is multicollinearity in the data, it is difficult to find out which
independent variable s has more effects on the dependent variable than the other
one. It is also difficult to find out how much and to what extent one independent
variable results in the total variation in the dependent variable (Polit et al., 2001).
4.2. Results of Linear Regression
4.2.1. Result of Linear Regression Analysis of Employee Work Engagement and
Behavioral Outcomes
Table 17 (a)
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted Std. Error of Durbin-Watson
Square the Estimate
1 .393a
.154 .151 3.41 1.52
a. Predictors: (Constant), EWE
b. Dependent Variable: BO
Table 17 (a) shows the model summary of the regression analysis of
employee work engagement and behavioral outcomes. Table shows that R2
value is
.154. This indicates that our independent variable employee work engagement
explains 15.4% variance in the dependent variable. Durbin Watson value is 1.52.
77
Data is free from autocorrelation because Durbin Watson value lies in the
acceptable range.
Table 17 (b)
ANOVA
Model Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 519.908 1 519.908 44.503 .000
1 Residual 2850.529 244 11.682
Total 3370.437 245
a. Predictors: (Constant), EWE
b. Dependent Variable: BO
The above table 17(b) illustrates ANOVA statistics of employee work
engagement and behavioral outcomes. In this table, F- stat value is important
because it shows or tells about model fitness. It is clear from the result of this table
that F-stat value is 44.5. This F-stat value shows the overall fitness of the
regression model. Table shows that p value is 0.00 (p <0 .05). It means that the
value of R2 in the above table is the true value.
Table 17 (c):
Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 91.464 2.008 45.547 .000
EWE -.406 .061 -.393 -6.671 .000
a. Dependent Variable: BO
78
Table 17(c) shows the result of regression coefficients for the independent
variable employee work engagement and dependent variable behavioral outcomes.
As shown in the table above, the t value is -6.671 which is well above the standard
value of t (+-1.96). Result shows that unstandardized coefficient of employee work
engagement is -.406 which indicates that a unit change in our independent variable
(EWE) will bring .406 units change in our dependent variable (BO). The negative
sign shows that increase in EWE will decrease BO. It means that a unit change in
our independent variable (Employee Work Engagement) brings .406 units change
in our dependent variable (Behavioral Outcomes) in inverse direction. P value is
0.00 which is less than .05 (p < .05). The value of t-statistics is -6.671. Thus,
employee work engagement is significantly and negatively related with behavioral
outcomes (β0 = -.406, p < 0.05). So, our null hypothesis Ho1 which states that there
is no significant relationship between employee work engagement and behavioral
outcomes was rejected at 95% confidence level. It is pointed out that there was
significant and negative relationship between employee work engagement and
behavioral outcomes.
4.2.2. Result of Linear Regression Analysis of Employee Work Engagement and
Turnover Intention
Table 18(a)
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted Std Error Durbin-
Square of Estimate Watson
1 .289a
.084 .080 1.541 1.544
c. Predictors: (Constant), EWE
d. Dependent Variable: TI
79
Table 18(a) illustrates result of regression analysis of the employee work
engagement and turnover intention. Turnover intention was the sub-dimension of
behavioral outcomes. Table shows that R value is 0.289 and R2 value is 0.084. It
means that independent variable (employee work engagement) explains 8.4%
variance in our dependent variable (turnover intention). The value of Durbin
Watson lies in the acceptable range i.e. 1.544, thus, data is free from
autocorrelation.
Table 18 (b)
ANOVA
Model Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 52.941 1 52.941 22.29 .000
1 Residual 579.485 244 2.375
Total 632.426 245
c. Predictors: (Constant), EWE
d. Dependent Variable: TI
Table 18(b) describes ANOVA statistics of employee work engagement
and turnover intention. F-statistic value is the most important value in this table.
Table shows that F value is 22.29 which shows that our model is fit. P value is
significant at 0.00 which also confirms model fitness.
80
Table 18 (c)
Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
1 B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 16.96 .905 18.73 .000
EWE -.130 .027 -.289 -4.721 .000
b. Dependent Variable: TI
Table 18(c) illustrates regression analysis coefficient results for employee
work engagement and turnover intention. Table shows that employee work
engagement coefficient value is -.130 which indicates that a unit change in the
study independent variable will bring a negative change of 0.13 units in the
dependent variable. The value of t-stat is -4.721 which is greater than the standard
value (+-1.96). It is determined from this result that employee work engagement
has significant and negative relationship with turnover intention. Hence, hypothesis
Ho2 which states that there is no significant relationship between employee work
engagement and turnover intention is rejected. It means that when employees are
engaged in their work it leads to a lower turnover ratio.
4.2.3. Result of Linear Regression Analysis of Employee Work Engagement and
Deviant Behavior
Table 19(a)
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted Std. Error Durbin-Watson
Square of Estimate
.275a
.131 .027 3.37 1.68
e. Predictors: (Constant), EWE
f. Dependent Variable: DB
81
The above table 19(a) describes model summary of the independent
variable employee‟s work engagement and deviant behavior. Deviant behavior was
the sub-facet of behavioral outcomes (dependent variable of this study), so here it
was treated as dependent variable. Table shows that R2 is 0.131. It illustrates that
our independent variable explains 13.1% variance in dependent variable. In this
table, Durbin Watson value is 1.68 which indicates that data is free from
autocorrelation problem.
Table 19(b)
ANOVA
Model Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 87.739 1 87.739 7.69 .000
1 Residual 2782.05 244 11.402
Total 2869.797 245
e. Predictors: (Constant), EWE
f. Dependent Variable: DB
Table 19(b) shows ANOVA statistics of employee‟s work engagement and
deviant behavior. In this table, the most significant and important value is the value
of F-statistic. Table shows that F value is 7.69. F-stat value shows model fitness of
the data. Table also shows that p value is less than 0.05 which means that our
model is fit.
82
Table 19(c)
Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
1 B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 47.73 1.98 24.06 .000
EWE -.167 .060 -.175 -2.774 .000
c. Dependent Variable: DB
Table 19(c) illustrates result of regression coefficient of employee‟s work
engagement and deviant behavior. The unstandardized coefficient value is -0.167
which tells us that a unit change in the study independent variable will bring -0.167
units change in the study dependent variable. T-value is more than the standard
value suggested by researchers. A negative but significant association was found
between EWE and DB. Hence our null hypothesis Ho3 which states that there is no
significant relationship between EWE and DB is rejected and alternative
hypothesis is accepted. It means that when employees are engaged in work, there is
little chance of deviant behavior.
4.2.4. Result of Linear Regression Analysis of Employee’s Work Engagement
and Absenteeism
Table 20 (a)
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted Std. Error Durbin-
R Square of Estimate Watson
1 .332a
.110 .107 1.895 1.55
g. Predictors: (Constant), EWE
h. Dependent Variable: AB
83
Table 20(a) describes regression model summary of the independent
variable (employee‟s work engagement) and dependent variable (absenteeism). In
the above table, R value is 0.332 and R2
value is 0.110. It means that EWE explains
11% variation in the dependent variable AB. Data is also free from autocorrelation
issue because the Durbin Watson value is 1.55.
Table 20 (b)
ANOVA
Model Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 108.831 1 108.831 30.294 .000
1 Residual 876.554 244 3.592
Total 985.385 245
g. Predictors: (Constant), EWE
h. Dependent Variable: AB
Table 20(b) describes ANOVA statistics of employee‟s work engagement
and absenteeism. In this table consideration should be given to F-stat value and p
value because it shows model fitness. Here the F-stat value is 30.294 and the p-
value is significant which tells us that the model is fit. Although there is no
standard value of F-stat but in majority cases F value greater than 5 indicates
model fitness because in such situation the p value becomes significant.
84
Table 20(c)
Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
1 B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 19.854 1.114 17.82 .000
EWE -.186 .034 -.332 -5.504 .000
e. Dependent Variable: AB
Table 20(c) throws light on the result of regression coefficient of employee
work engagement and absenteeism. Result shows that unstandardized coefficient
value is -0.186. It means that our dependent variable will change 0.186 units‟ due
to a unit change in our independent variable. It is also shown in the table that t-stat
value is -5.50 which is greater than the suggested value (+-1.96). This result shows
that there is a significant and negative relationship between employee‟s work
engagement and absenteeism. It means that when organization keeps its employees
engaged in work, employee work with great enthusiasm. In such situation
employee invest their time and efforts in the achievement of organizational goals
which may decrease absenteeism ratio.
85
4.3. Moderation Result
4.3.1. Relationship between Employee’s Work Engagement and Behavioral
Outcomes with Moderator Team Work Effectiveness
Table 21(a)
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.6 .4 18.7 44.2 3.00 246.00 .000
Outcome: BO
Table 21(a) illustrates model summary for moderation results. It shows R,
R2, F, and p values. It is shown in the result of this table that R
2 value is 0.4 which
shows that our independent variable (employee‟s work engagement) explains 40%
variation in the study dependent variable (behavioral outcomes). F-statistic value is
44.2. F value and p value (less than 0.05) tells about model fitness.
Table 21(b)
Coefficients
Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
Constant 54.7 .3 175.2 .000 54.1 55.3
TWE 1.2 .1 8.9 .000 1.0 1.5
EWE -.1 .0 -1.6 .1 -.3 .0
int_1 .1 .0 2.6 .000 .00 .2
Table 21(b) shows result of employee‟s work engagement and behavioral
outcome with moderating effect of team work effectiveness. As shown in the
table, interaction effect has significant p value. Result shows that employee‟s work
engagement is insignificantly related to behavioral outcomes. The last row shows
86
the interaction result of the moderating variable team work effectiveness. In this
table p value is the most important value. It is assumed that if p value is significant,
it indicates that moderating variable significantly moderate dependent and
independent variable relationship. The above table indicates that p value is 0.00
which is less than .05 and it is significant at 95% level of confidence. Based on the
results of the above table, team work effectiveness significantly moderates the
relationship between employee‟s work engagement and behavioral outcomes.
4.3.2. Relationship between Employee Work Engagement and Absenteeism with
Moderator Team Work Effectiveness
Table 22(a)
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.3 .2 5.3 34.6 3.00 246.00 .00
Outcome: AB
Table 22(a) illustrates model summary for moderation result. It shows R,
R2, F, and p values. It is indicated in the table that R
2 value is 0.2 which shows that
our independent variable (employee‟s work engagement) explains 20 percent
variance in our dependent variable (Absenteeism). Table shows that F value is
34.6; it means that model is fit. Generally, it is assumed that if F value is high it
shows good model fitness.
87
Table 22(b)
Coefficients
Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
Constant 13.7 .1 98.5 .000 13.4 14.0
TWE .0 .1 -.3 .8 -.1 .1
EWE .0 .0 .3 .3 -.1 .0
int_1 .0 .0 -.7 .5 .0 .0
Table 22(b) shows result of employee‟s work engagement and absenteeism
with moderating effect of team work effectiveness. The value of interaction effect
is highlighted in the last row of the table. Result shows that employee‟s work
engagement is positively and insignificantly related. The last row shows the
interaction result of the moderating variable of team work effectiveness. The most
important value in this interaction row is the value of p which shows interaction
significance. It is assumed that if p value is significant, it indicates that moderating
variable significantly moderate the dependent and independent variable
relationship. The above table indicates that p value is 0.5 which is greater than 0.05
and it is insignificant at 95% level of confidence. It is clear from the result that
team work effectiveness does not significantly moderate relationship between
employee‟s work engagement and absenteeism. A possible explanation for such
findings as that whether teamwork is at greater level or lower level does not have
any effect on the colleague absenteeism.
88
4.3.3. Relationship between Employee Work Engagement and Deviant Behavior
with Moderator Team Work Effectiveness
Table 23(a)
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.5 .4 11.8 55.4 3.00 246.00 .000
Outcome: DB
Table 23(a) illustrates model summary for moderation result of employee‟s
work engagement and deviant behavior. It shows value of R, R2, F, and p. It is
shown in the result of this table that R2 value is 0.4 which shows that our
independent variable (employee‟s work engagement) explains 40 percent variance
in our dependent variable (deviant behavior). In this table, F-statistic value is 55.4.
F value tells about model fitness. Generally, it is believed that high value of F
shows high model fitness.
Table 23(b)
Coefficients
Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
Constant 42.2 .2 179.1 .000 41.7 42.7
TWE .1 .1 1.0 .3 -.1 .3
EWE .0 .1 .4 .7 -.1 .2
int_1 .0 .0 -.7 .5 -.1 .0
Table 23(b) shows result of employee‟s work engagement and deviant
behavior with moderating effect of team work effectiveness. In this table, most
important and significant result is the result of the last (int_1) row. Interaction
89
effect is highlighted in the last row of the table. Result shows that employee‟s work
engagement is insignificantly related with deviant behavior. The last row shows
the interaction result of the moderating variable of team work effectiveness. The
most important value in this interaction row is the value of p which shows
interaction significance. In case where interaction effect p value is less than 0.05, it
shows significance. In such condition, we can say that the moderating variable
moderates the significant association between dependent and independent
variables. From the above table, the p value of interaction effect is insignificant. It
is clear from the result that team work effectiveness does not significantly
moderates the relationship between employee‟s work engagement and deviant
behavior. A possible explanation for such findings as that whether teamwork is at
greater level or lower level does not have any effect on the colleague dividend
behavior.
4.3.4. Relationship between Employee Work Engagement and Turnover
Intention with Moderator team work Effectiveness
Table 24(a)
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.6 .6 .9 145.5 3.00 241.00 .000
Outcome: TI
Table 24(a) illustrates model summary for moderation result of employee‟s
work engagement and turnover intention. It shows the values of the R, R2, F, and p.
It is reflected in the table that R2 value is 0.6 which shows that our independent
variable (employee‟s work engagement) explains 60 percent variance in our
90
dependent variable (turnover intention). In this table, F-statistic value is 145.5. F
value tells about model fitness. It is generally believed that if F value is greater
than 5, it indicates that model is fit. Model fitness is also indicated from p value. If
p value is less than .05 it also shows model fitness.
Table 24(b)
Coefficients
Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
Constant 13.0 .1 190.8 .000 12.8 13.1
TWE .4 .0 15.3 .000 .3 .3
EWE -.1 .0 -4.0 .000 -.1 .0
int_1 .0 . 0 .1 .9 .0 .0
Table 24(b) shows result of employee‟s work engagement and turnover
intention with moderating effect of team work effectiveness. In this table, most
important and significant result is the result of the last (int_1) row. Result shows
that employee‟s work engagement is significantly related turnover intention. The
last row shows the interaction result of the moderating variable of team work
effectiveness. If the p value of interaction term (int_1) is less than 0.05, it shows
that teamwork effectiveness moderates the relationship between the study
variables. The interaction term p value is higher than 0.05. It is clear from the
result that team work effectiveness does not moderate relationship between
employee work engagement and turnover intention.
91
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
5.1. Summary
This chapter illustrates a detailed discussion regarding the results and findings
of the current research study. The current research study was undertaken in banking
sector of Pakistan for the purpose to find out significant relationship between
employee‟s work engagement and behavioral outcomes with moderating role of team
work effectiveness. Survey questionnaire was used for data collection. Three levels of
managers were selected as sample of the population. These managers were branch
managers, lower level managers and operational managers. In this research study,
employee‟s work engagement was treated as independent variable. Behavioral
outcomes were treated as dependent variable. Behavioral outcome was further divided
into three sub-dimensions. These sub-dimensions of behavioral outcomes were
turnover intention, deviant behavior, and absenteeism.
An important objective of the current research study was to determine
significant relationship between employee‟s work engagement and behavioral
outcomes. Work engagement plays vital role in employee‟s performance and
enhances organizational performance. Engaged workers are emotionally stable and
they have strong decision power. Another important objective of this research study
was to investigate significant relationship between employee‟s work engagement and
turnover intention. Work engagement has direct effect on turnover intention. Another
important aim and objective of this study was to demarcate significant relationship
between deviant behavior and work engagement. In the existence of deviant behavior,
92
the performance of organization cannot be improved. Deviant behavior has sound
effect on employee‟s performance and organization‟s productivity. It was also aimed
to find out significant relationship between employee‟s work engagement and
absenteeism. In the current research study, banks were selected from public sector,
private sector and international banking sector. It was aimed to determine significant
differences between public banks managers, private banks managers and international
banks managers based on employee‟s work engagement. It was also aimed to verify
moderating role of team work effectiveness in the relationship between employee‟s
work engagement and behavioral outcomes.
The current study is descriptive in nature and questionnaire was the main tool
for data collection. Survey questionnaire was used for assessing responses of the
respondents. In this research study, three variables were used. These variables were
employee‟s work engagement, behavioral outcomes and team work effectiveness.
Employee‟s work engagement was treated as independent variable. Behavioral
outcome was used as dependent variable and team work effectiveness was used as
moderating variable. To collect data, an adapted and standardized questionnaire was
used. One questionnaire was used to assess employee‟s work engagement. The second
questionnaire was about behavioral outcomes and the third questionnaire was to
assess responses of the managers regarding team work effectiveness.
Employee‟s work engagement questionnaire was developed by Schaufeli,
Bakker, and Salanova, (2006). Employee‟s work engagement questionnaire had nine
items. This questionnaire was used by different researchers in different context. These
research studies show that this scale of employee‟s work engagement has high degree
of internal consistency and test re-test reliability. It has also high degree of
93
discriminant, convergent and construct validity. Employee‟s work engagement scale
measures three dimensions of work engagement. These dimensions are absorption,
dedication and vigor. 5-point rating scale was used to assess responses of the
respondents. The subscale was combined to measure the overall level of work
engagement.
The second questionnaire was about behavioral outcomes. Behavioral
outcome was further divided into three sub-facets. These sub-facets were turnover
intention, deviant behavior, and absenteeism. Different researchers had used different
scales or research questionnaire to assess turnover intention. For the current research
study, to assess turnover intention of the respondents, Borroff and Lewin (1997)
developed assessment scale was used. This questionnaire has four items and it has
0.80 reliability. Five-point Likert scale was used to measure responses of the
respondents. Deviant behavior questionnaire was developed by Benett and Robinson
(2000). It has 12 items that measure deviant behavior of the respondents. Five-point
Likert scale was used to assess responses of the respondents. Team work effectiveness
questionnaire was developed by Sterling and Selenick (1998). This questionnaire
consisted of 11 items. Five-point Likert scale was used to measure responses of the
respondents.
Respondents of this research study comprised of managers from banking
sector from Pakistan. The sampling frame of the current study was six banks
operating in major cities of K.P.K. Two public sector banks, two international sector
banks and two private sector banks operating in Pakistan were selected. NBP and
BoK were selected from public sector banks. Askari Bank and Allied Bank were
selected from private sector. Standard Charted Bank and Bank Al-Flah were selected
94
from international sector Banks. It was not possible to get data from all these banks in
Pakistan. So, six cities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where the branches of these banks
were operating were selected due to time constraint and limited financial resources.
These cities were Peshawar, Nowshera, Mardan, Swat, Harripur, and Abbotabad.
Researcher selected these cities because these were easily approachable and can be
managed.
All level of managers was selected as sample of the study. A total 270
questionnaires were delivered to these managers. Researcher personally visited all
branches and personally delivered the questionnaire to the managers. Two hundred
and fifty-seven (257) questionnaires were collected back from the respondents. The
ratio of the return of questionnaire was 95.18. In these 257 questionnaires, 11
questionnaires were not properly answered or marked, so, these were not included in
final data analysis. Only 246 questionnaires were selected for data analysis. Among
these 246 respondents, 91 mangers were selected from National Bank of Pakistan, 52
managers were selected from Bank of Khyber. From Allied Bank, 78 mangers were
selected as sample of the study. 18 managers were selected from Askari Bank. From
Standard Charted Bank, 08 respondents were selected, and 23 managers were selected
from Bank Al-Filah. From public sector banks (NBP and BoK) 143 managers were
selected. From private banks (Allied and Askari) 96 managers were selected and from
international banks (Standard Charted and Bank Al-Falah) 31 managers were
selected. These managers included all level of managers. Stratified sampling
technique was used for sample selection.
Three variables were used in this research study. Employee‟s work
engagement was used as independent variable. Behavioral outcome was used as
95
dependent variable and team work effectiveness was used as moderating variable. The
current research study was conducted in two parts; because adopted and standardized
questionnaires were used for data collection. In the first part of research study, pilot
study was conducted to check reliability of the research instruments. Although these
questionnaires were previously used by different researchers in different context, but
these were being used here in Pakistan for first time, so it was necessary to check its
reliability. To conduct pilot study for the current research study 20 managers were
selected from different banks. These managers and banks were not included in the
final sample of the study.
After receiving all questionnaires back, SPSS V-20 software was used to
check reliability of the research instruments. Chronbach Alpha Coefficient was used
to determine reliability of the research instrument. Reliability of employee‟s work
engagement was 0.88. Reliability of behavioral outcomes was checked through
Chronbach Alpha Coefficient ant it was found 0.79. Turnover intention reliability was
0.81, reliability of deviant behavior was 0.75 and reliability of absenteeism was 0.83.
It was found that these values were lies in the acceptable range, so all the three
questionnaires were reliable. After conducting pilot study, questionnaires were
delivered to the respondents. SPSS 20 software was used for data analysis.
5.2. Findings
The current research study was designed to test a theoretical model and to
verify a series of null hypotheses. These null hypotheses were developed to study
relationship between employee‟s work engagement and behavioral outcomes with
moderating role of team work effectiveness. In the current research study, employee‟s
work engagement was treated as independent variable. Behavioral outcome was used
96
as dependent variable while team work effectiveness was used as moderating variable.
Work engagement is considered a motivational–psychological state which has three
dimensions. These dimensions are described as dedication, vigor and absorption. High
work engagement has been linked to improve in-role performance and increased
extra-role behavior. High work engagement also reduces turnover behavior and
intention to quit. This study examined whether work engagement is an outcome of
affective commitment and job satisfaction of the employees. Work engagement has
been perceived as a motivational factor that stimulates attainment of organizational
goals and objectives. Environment of the organization also play effective role in
employee‟s job performance. Good and friendly environment in the organization
enables workers to offer their best efforts to achieve organizational goals. Findings of
the current research study supported major null hypotheses. This section deals with
the results and findings obtained from data analysis.
97
5.2.1. Findings Related to Independent and Dependent Variables
Employee‟s work engagement was used as independent variable
Behavioral outcome was treated as dependent variable. Team work
effectiveness was treated as moderating variable.
There was significant and negative relationship between employee‟s work
engagement and behavioral outcomes. It means that engaged workers show no
or little sign of deviant behavior.
There was significant and negative relationship between employee‟s work
engagement and turnover intention. It means that workers engaged in their
work show no inclination towards turnover intention.
It was also found that there was a significant and negative relationship
between employee‟s work engagement and absenteeism. If work engagement
increases, absenteeism will decrease.
5.2.2. Findings Related to Demographic Features of the Managers
It was found from the result that there was huge gender wise difference in the
sample. It was found that out of 246 respondents, 189 (77%) were male
respondents and 57 (23%) were female respondents.
The overall result declared that maximum managers were above 40 years of
age. 72 (29 %) managers had 41-50 years age and 55 (23 %) were between 51-
60 years.
It was found that maximum managers had experience between 11 to 20 years.
Result show that 91 (37%) managers had 11-15 year experience and 84 (34%)
managers had 16-20 year experience. It was found that only 13 (5%) managers
had 1-5 year experience.
98
It was found that maximum managers were highly qualified. Result declared
that 136 (56%) managers MA/MSc/MBA qualification and 40 (16%)
managers had MS/MPhil qualification.
5.2.3. Findings Related to Employee’s Work Engagement
It was found that managers of public sector banks were more engaged in their
work as compared to private sector managers and international sector
managers.
It was declared in the result that there was difference in responses regarding
work engagement based on designation of managers. It was determined that
branch managers were more engaged in their work as compared to operational
managers and lower level managers.
Difference was also found in gender regarding employee‟s work engagement.
Result explored that female managers were more engaged in their work as
compared to male managers.
Managers having high qualification were more engaged in their work as
compared to managers having low qualification.
It was also declared in the result that highly experienced managers were more
engaged in their work as compared to managers having less experience.
Result also illustrated that elder managers were less engaged in their work as
compared to managers having younger managers.
99
5.2.4. Findings Related to Turnover Intentions
It was determined that public sector banks managers had more disposition of
turnover intention than private sector banks managers and international sector
banks managers. International sector banks managers were less inclined
towards turnover intention.
Differences were also found according to the designation of managers
regarding turnover intention. It was found that lower level managers were
more prone to turnover intention as compared to branch managers and
operational managers.
Result showed that there were differences according to gender regarding
turnover intention. It was found that male managers were more inclined
towards turnover intention as compared to female managers.
It was found that highly qualified managers were more inclined towards
turnover intention as compared to managers having lower qualification. It may
be that highly qualified person can find other opportunities in the market. That
is why they were more inclined towards turnover intention.
It was found that managers having less experience had more disposition
towards turnover intention as compared to highly experienced managers.
Difference was also found in the responses of managers according to their age
regarding turnover intention. It was determined in the result that younger
managers were more prone to turnover intention. Young people are energetic,
they accept challenges and they are regularly in search of new opportunities.
That is why they showed more inclination towards turnover intention.
100
5.2.5. Findings Related to Deviant Behavior
It was found that managers of public sector banks were more prone to deviant
behavior as compared to private sector bank and international bank sector.
Result declared that international banks managers were less inclined towards
deviant behavior. Reason may be that international organization take great
care of employee and provide different facilities to employees. That is why
they showed less inclination towards deviant behavior.
Differences were observed in the responses of managers according to their
designation. It was found that lower level managers had more inclination
towards deviant behavior while operational managers had less inclination
towards deviant behavior.
Result of the current research study found that male managers were more
inclined towards deviant behavior as compared to female managers.
Result showed that managers having high qualification had more disposition
of deviant behavior as compared to managers having lower qualification.
Result declared that respondents having inter qualification were less inclined
towards deviant behavior.
Differences were found in the responses of managers according to their length
of experience regarding deviant behavior. It was concluded from the analysis
of data that managers having 1-5 years experience were more prone to deviant
behavior. Managers having 21 years or more experience were also more prone
to deviant behavior.
101
There were remarkable differences in the responses of managers according to
their age regarding deviant behavior. It was found that younger managers were
more prone to deviant behavior as compared to elder managers.
5.2.6. Findings Related to Absenteeism
It was found that public banks managers were more inclined towards
absenteeism as compared to private sector managers and international banks
managers. In public banks managers are permanently appointed. They have
job security and that is why they were more inclined towards absenteeism.
Result declared that there were differences in the responses of respondents
according to their designation regarding absenteeism. Result showed that
lower level managers had more disposition towards absenteeism as compared
to branch managers and operational managers.
It was declared that female managers had more disposition towards
absenteeism as compared to male managers. Reason may be that female have
different problem in performing jobs. That is why they showed more
inclination towards absenteeism.
It was found from the result that managers having Bachelor qualification were
more inclined towards absenteeism as compared to managers having other
qualification.
Differences were found in the responses of respondents according to their
length of experience regarding absenteeism. It was found that managers
having less experience were more prone towards absenteeism as compared to
managers having high experience.
102
It was determined that younger managers were more inclined towards
absenteeism as compared to elder mangers.
5.2.7. Findings Related to Team Work Effectiveness
It was found that international banks managers showed more team work
effectiveness than public banks managers and private bank managers.
There were differences in the responses of managers according to their
designation regarding team work effectiveness. It was calculated that lower
level managers were more effective in team work than branch managers and
middle managers.
It was also found from the result that female managers were more effective in
team work as compared to male managers.
Result declared that there were differences in the responses of managers
according to their qualification regarding team work effectiveness. It was
found that managers having high qualification were more effective in team
work as compared to managers having lower qualification.
Result illustrated that managers having less qualification were more effective
in team work as compared to managers having high qualification.
It was also calculated from the result that younger managers showed high
degree of team work effectiveness as compared to elder managers.
103
5.3. Findings Related to Null Hypotheses
This current research study was descriptive and correctional in nature.
Quantitative data was used to find out results. The current study was designed to
verify a theoretical model and test a series of null hypotheses. For this study 13 major
null hypotheses were formulated. Results of these hypotheses are illustrated as under.
Hypothesis Ho1 was formulated which states that there is no significant
relationship between employee‟s work engagement and behavioral outcomes.
Employee‟s work engagement was used as independent variable and
behavioral outcomes was used as dependent variable. Regression analysis was
applied to find out significant relationship between independent and dependent
variables. It was found that there was significant and negative relationship
between employee‟s work engagement and behavioral outcome. Hence our
null hypothesis Ho1 was rejected at 95% confidence level. It means that work
engagement has direct relation with behavioral out comes. Engaged employee
work with great interest and zeal. Engaged worker less inclined towards
deviant behavior.
Null hypothesis Ho2 was formulated to check out significant relationship
between employee‟s work engagement and turnover intention. Regression
analysis was used to find out significant relationship between work
engagement and turnover intention. It was found that there was significant
relationship between employee‟s work engagement ant turn over intention.
Hence our null hypothesis Ho2 was rejected at 95% confidence level. It means
that employees who are engaged in their work have little issue of turnover
intention.
104
Null hypothesis Ho3 was formulated to determine significant relationship
between employee‟s work engagement and deviant behavior. Regression
analysis was used to find out result. Result showed that there was significant
and negative relationship between employee work engagement and deviant
behavior. Hence Hypothesis Ho3 was rejected at 0.05% confidences level.
Negative relationship between work engagement and deviant behavior shows
that if one increases the other decreases. It means that engaged workers shows
no issue of deviant behavior
Null hypothesis Ho4 was formulated to find out significant
relationship between employee work engagement and absenteeism. Here
employee work engagement was used as dependent variable and
absenteeism work as dependent variable. It was found that there was
significant negative relationship between employee work engagement and
absenteeism. Hence our null hypothesis Ho4 which states that there is no
significant relationship between employee work engagement and
absenteeism is rejected at 95% confidence level. It means that when
organization keep employees engaged in work, employee work with great
enthusiasm. In such situation employee invest their time and efforts in the
achievement of organizational goals. Hence there is no sign of absenteeism
among employees.
Null hypothesis Ho5 was formulated to determine moderating effect
of team work effectiveness in the relationship between employee‟s work
engagement and behavioral outcomes. It was found that team work
effectiveness significantly moderate relationship between employee‟s work
105
engagement and behavioral outcomes. It means that group effectiveness
plays significant role in organizational outcomes.
Null hypothesis Ho6 was designed to study moderating effect of team
work effectiveness in the relationship between employee‟s work
engagement and turnover intention. It was concluded from the results that
team work effectiveness does not significantly moderate relationship
between employee‟s work engagement and turnover intention.
Null hypothesis Ho7 was formulated to find out whether team work
effectiveness significantly moderate relationship between employee‟s work
engagement and deviant behavior. It was found that there was insignificant
interaction of team work effectiveness in the relationship between
employee‟s work engagement and deviant behavior. It was concluded from
the results that team work effectiveness does not moderator relationship
between employee work engagement and deviant behavior.
Null hypothesis Ho8 was formulated to find out moderating effect of
team work effectiveness in the relationship between employee‟s work
engagement and absenteeism. It was found that team work effectiveness
does not significantly moderate relationship between employee‟s work
engagement and absenteeism.
106
Table 25
Link among Objectives, Null Hypotheses and Findings
Objectives Null Hypotheses Findings
To find out significant
relationship between employee‟s
engagement and behavioral
outcomes
Employee work
engagement is
negatively and
insignificantly related
with behavioral
outcomes.
Null hypothesis Ho1
was rejected. There
was significant
relationship between
employee‟s work
engagement and
behavioral outcomes
To investigate the relationship
between employee‟s work
engagement and turnover
intentions
Employee work
engagement is
negatively and
insignificantly related
with turnover intention.
Null hypothesis Ho2
was rejected. There
was significant and
negative relationship
between employee‟s
work engagement and
turnover intention
To determine the relationship
between employee‟s work
engagement and deviant behavior
Employee work
engagement is
negatively and
insignificantly related
with deviant behavior.
Null hypothesis Ho3
was rejected. There
was significant and
negative relationship
between employee‟s
work engagement and
107
deviant behavior
To analyze the relationship
between employee‟s work
engagement and absenteeism
Employee work
engagement is
negatively and
insignificantly related
with absenteeism.
Null hypothesis Ho4
was rejected. There
was significant and
negative relationship
between employee‟s
work engagement and
absenteeism
To verify the moderating effect of
teamwork effectiveness on the
relationship between employee‟s
work engagement and behavioral
outcomes
Teamwork
effectiveness does not
significantly moderate
relationship between
employee‟s work
engagement and
behavioral outcomes
Null hypothesis Ho5
was rejected. Team
work effectiveness
moderates the
relationship between
employee work
engagement and
behavioral outcomes
To find out moderating effect of
team work effectiveness on the
relationship between employee‟s
work engagement and turnover
intention
Teamwork
effectiveness does not
significantly moderate
relationship between
employee‟s work
engagement and
turnover intention
Null hypothesis Ho6
was accepted. Team
work effectiveness
does not moderate the
relationship between
employee‟s work
engagement and
108
turnover intention
To illustrate moderating effect of
team work effectiveness on the
relationship between employee‟s
work engagement and deviant
behavior
Teamwork
effectiveness does not
significantly moderate
the relationship
between employee‟s
work engagement and
deviant behavior
Null hypothesis Ho7
was accepted. It was
found that team work
effectiveness does not
moderate relationship
between employee‟s
work engagement and
deviant behavior.
To determine moderating effect
of team work effectiveness on the
relationship between employee‟s
work engagement and
absenteeism
Teamwork
effectiveness does not
significantly moderate
relationship between
employee‟s work
engagement and
absenteeism
Null hypothesis Ho8
was accepted. Team
work effectiveness
does not moderate
relationship between
employee work
engagement and
absenteeism
109
5.4. Conclusion
This research study was conducted in the banking sector of Pakistan. The
purpose of the current study was to find out the relationship between employee‟s
work engagement and behavioral outcomes. It was also aimed to study moderating
effects of teamwork effectiveness in the relationship between employee‟s work
engagement and behavioral out comes. This study is descriptive and correlational in
nature. Survey questionnaire was used for data collection. Total 246 managers of
different levels from six different banks were selected as sample of the study. Based
on the major findings as discussed in chapter four, the following conclusion was
drawn.
A significant relationship was found between employee‟s work engagement
and behavioral outcomes. It declares that work engagement plays significant role in
behavioral outcomes. Work engagement has been perceived as a motivational factor
that stimulates attainment of organizational goals and objectives. It showed that work
engagement has positive relationship with innovative behavior of the individuals.
Innovative behavior means the novel and creative ideas of individuals while
performing different task in the organization. Individuals, who were highly engrossed
or engaged in task completion, were more likely to have innovative behaviors. Such
individuals come with new and novel ideas. High level of work engagement broadens
individual‟s state of mind and they show creative and innovative behavior in work
place environment. Those employees who are engrossed in work have positive
attitude in work place environment. Such positive attitude encourages innovative and
creative behavior in the organization. Organizational citizenship behaviors mean the
enthusiastic behavior of individuals or employees that he shows in performing task
and such behaviors are not recognized and rewarded by the organization. Such
110
behaviors play vital role in enhancing organizational function. Engaged workers or
individuals have the capability and competency to achieve organizational and
professional goals in most effective way. Such employees have confidence to show
extra-role performance.
It was found from the result of this study that there was significant and
negative relationship between employee‟s work engagement and turnover intention.
Turnover intention has significant relation in employee work engagement and
employee performance. Work engagement is negatively correlated with turnover
intention of employees. The turnover intention of employees means the extent to
which an employee has the plan to leave or quit the organization. Turnover intention
has negative effects on organizational performance and organizational productivity. It
also even threatens the survival of organization. In the presence of loyal and trusted
relation, an employee refrain from behaving deviant behaviors and is likely to remain
in the organization and employees try their best to maintain the quality of mutual
relationship with the employer. Engaged employees have invested efforts and energy
in organization and they find it difficult to quit the organization. Engaged workers do
not take risk in changing job because it is risky investment of time and effort. Work
engagement has negative relation with turnover intention. Turnover intention is the
negative outcome of work engagement. Engaged employees often have greater and
strong attachment to the organization and have lower inclination to quit the
organization. Engaged workers feel a sense of belonging to the organization and they
seldom express thoughts of leaving the organization.
It was found from the results of this study that there was significant and
negative relationship between employee‟s work engagement and absenteeism.
111
Absenteeism negatively affects performance of the organization. Absenteeism also
affects degree of organizational commitment of the employees. Absenteeism shows
less commitment of the employees. Absenteeism refers to stay outside the
organization during working hours or do not come to work place. Absenteeism has
negative effect on the performance of the employee and as a result it negatively
affects organizational outcomes. Organizations where the ratio of employee‟s
absenteeism is high, fails in accomplishing organizational goals. Employee
engagement is considered as the resources that have direct and significant relation to
the presence of employee at work place. Engaged employees shows deep and strong
commitment to employer and it results in the improvement of business productivity.
Strong commitment to the employer also reduces turnover intention and reduction in
absenteeism.
It was found that there was significant and negative relationship between
deviant behavior and employee work engagement. Engaged workers are less inclined
towards deviant behavior. Deviant behavior negatively affects organizational
performance. These behaviors have different consequences to the organization and
also to the individuals. To maintain an ideal case of workplace in organization, these
behaviors of different individuals coincide with norms of the organization but
sometimes work behaviors range outside the norms of the organization. Workers or
individuals either lack motivation to conform to normative expectations of the social
content or become motivated to violate those expectations. This situation results in
deviant behavior at work place. Deviant behaviors affect the performance and well-
being of organization to large extent. It has negative effects on organizational
outcomes. Deviant behaviors have two basic characteristics. First these are not
112
mentioned and declared by formal job definition. Secondly these behaviors violate
organizational norms.
It was found that team work effectiveness significantly moderate relationship
between employee‟s work engagement and behavioral outcomes. Effective teamwork
can produce remarkable results in all fields of life. Teamwork is defined as a
cooperative process in the organization that allows and helps ordinary people of the
organization to accomplish extraordinary results. Effective team work can achieve
organizational goals in most effective way. An important aspect of teamwork is
effective leadership. Effective leadership can change the route of success of the
organization. It means that it is the responsibility of effective leader to create and
maintain positive working environment in the organization. Effective leader motivates
and inspire team members to get involved in creating positive work environment in
the organization. A good team leader focuses on his responsibilities and on team work
effectiveness. Effective teamwork relies on effective communication between team
members. Effective communication is the essential characteristic of effective
teamwork. Through effective communication, members of a team exchange their
ideas and articulate their feelings, express their plans and understand each other‟s
viewpoints. Effective team work also means to have clear-cut roles and there is no
ambiguity of roles in effective teamwork. It is essential for smooth running of the
organization that each member of the organization knows what role he has to play,
what is the responsibility of each individual in organization. Effective teamwork is
about creating procedures for conflict resolution.
It was found that there was significant difference between public banks
managers and private banks managers regarding turnover intention. It was found that
113
public banks managers were more inclined towards turnover intention as compared to
private banks managers. In today‟s competitive era every individual tries for high
salary and other facilities. Private organization give lucrative salaries to its employees
as compared to public organization. That is why employees of public banks were
found to have more disposition than private banks mangers.
This study also explored that there were significant differences between public
banks managers and private banks managers regarding deviant behavior. Public banks
managers were more inclined towards deviant behaviors as compared to private banks
managers. Engaged workers are less inclined towards deviant behavior. Deviant
behavior negatively affects organizational performance. These behaviors have
different consequences to the organization and also to the individuals. To maintain an
ideal case of workplace place in organization, these behaviors of different individuals
coincide with norms of the organization but some time work behaviors range outside
norms of the organization. Workers or individuals either lack motivation to conform
to normative expectations of the social content or become motivated to violate those
expectations.
5.5. Discussion
Teamwork has got immense importance in smooth running and functioning of
organizations. This has been reported in different research studies that positive
relation exists between team-based working and the quality of services and products
offered by organization. This can promote performance of the organization and can
improve the satisfaction level of those making up the team. It increases capacity for
achieving different types of performance which becomes possible as a result of
interaction among team members of the organization. Over the past years, the concept
114
of work engagement has captured the attention of academic researchers, government
agencies and business practitioners. They are interested in understanding the concept
of the term itself as well as its causes and consequences. Different researchers agree
on the point that work engagement of employees is worth exploring because of its
immense effects on employee‟s performance (Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012; Saks,
2006).
Work engagement is considered a motivational–psychological state which has
three dimensions. These dimensions are described as dedication, vigor and absorption.
High work engagement has been linked to improve in-role performance and increased
extra-role behavior (Demerouti Xanthropoulou, Bakker & Schaufeli. 2009). High
work engagement also reduces turnover behavior and intention to quit. The beginning
of employee work engagement is the first step of his appointment to the services of
organization. It is the responsibility of the supervisor to motivate employees in order
to enhance worker‟s engagement for job performance and commitment to
organization. According to (Sims, Salas & Burke, 2005) two factors were
distinguished for worker‟s engagement. These factors were indicated as employee‟s
job satisfaction and employee‟s commitment (Wollard & Shuck, 2011).
The current research study was designed to study significant relationship
between employee‟s work engagement and behavioral outcomes. It was also aimed to
study moderating role of team work effectiveness in the relationship between
employee‟s work engagement and behavioral outcomes. It was found that there was
significant relationship between employee‟s work engagements and behavioral
outcomes. The result of current research study is consistent with the study of Kular et
al., (2008). They found that find solution to issue of work engagement in order to
115
enhance organizational performance. It provides workers or employees an open
approach to share their idea and feeling in order to improve organizational
performance. It is essential for mangers or supervisors to take keen interest in the
needs and problems of the employees. The managers should accommodate the
concern of the employees to maintain smooth running of the organization and
improve and enhance organizational productivity. They also found that employee‟s
attitudes play significant role in developing sustainable relationship between
employees and employer. It works as positive factor for employee engagement to
increase organizational performance. The results of this study are also in line with the
study of Abrahma (2012). In a research study, he found that highly engaged
employees are considered with high motivational aspect. Such employees are ensured
to accomplish positive outcomes in the organization. This also confirmed that work
management works as a double side sharing information between employees and
managers.
An important aim of this research study was to find out significant relationship
between employee‟s work engagement and turnover intention. It was concluded from
the results that there was significant and negative relationship between work
engagement and turnover intention. Negative relationship between variables shows
that if work engagement is high, turnover intention will be low and vice versa. It
means that turn over intention directly affects work engagement. Work engagement is
negatively correlated with turnover intention of employees. The turnover intention of
employee means the extent to which an employee has the plan to leave or quit the
organization. Turnover intention has negative effects on organizational performance
and organizational productivity. It also even threatens the survival of organization. In
the presence of loyal and trusted relation, an employee refrains from deviant behavior
116
and is likely to remain in the organization and employee tries their best to maintain
the quality of mutual relationship with the employer. The results of this study are
consistent with results of the study conducted by Smyth, Zhai and Li (2009). They
concluded that turnover intention has positive and significant implication for an
organization. High ratio of turnover in organization results in loss of potential, skills,
knowledge and human capitals. Results of this study are also in line with the result of
Bothma and Roodt (2013). They found negative relationship between work
engagement and turnover intention. They declared that employees with low degree of
work engagement have high disposition towards turnover intention. It may result in
loss of human capital and skilled person in the organization. Results of this study are
also in line with the result of Sonja and Stander (2014). They took a cross-sectional
survey study. They found significant and negative correlation between work
engagement and turnover intention. It was concluded that empowerment behavior of
the leader, empowerment behavior and work engagement predicted high variance in
the turnover intention. It was also found that work engagement was a significant
predictor of turnover intention.
Another important aim of this study was to determine significant relationship
between work engagement and deviant behavior. It was found that there was
significant and negative relationship between work engagement and deviant behavior.
Engaged workers are less inclined towards deviant behavior. Deviant behavior
negatively affects organizational performance. These behaviors have different
consequences to the organization and also to the individuals. To maintain an ideal
case of workplace in organization, these behaviors of different individuals coincide
with norms of the organization. But sometimes work behaviors range outside norms
of the organization. Workers or individuals either lack motivation to conform to
117
normative expectations of the social content or become motivated to violate those
expectations. This situation results in deviant behavior at work place.
Results of this study are consistent with results of Ariani (2013). He found that
there was significant and negative relationship between employee work engagement
and organizational citizenship behavior. A negative relationship was also found
between employee‟s work engagement and counterproductive work behavior.
Organizational citizenship behaviors are referred to individual‟s behaviors which are
discretionary and not recognized by the formal reward system of the organization.
When employees are engaged in work place, their way of behaving in the
organization increases and it promotes organizational outcomes. According to
Bhatnagar and Biswas (2010), organizational citizenship behavior plays significant
and important role in smooth functioning of the organization. It also improves
employee‟s performance to great extent. One possible explanation for why
employee‟s work engagement is related to organizational citizenship behavior, based
upon the explanation of social exchange theory and principles of the mutual
exchange. Rich et al., (2010) stated that employees might perform organizational
citizenship behavior in work place because these behaviors consist of an emotional
component which attach employee to the organization. Research studies show that
employees who remained highly engaged at work place have an inclination to be
engaged in responsible and constructive organizational citizenship behavior (Kong,
2009). To maintain an ideal case of workplace place in organization, these behaviors
of different individuals coincide with norms of the organization. But sometimes work
behaviors range outside norms of the organization. Workers or individuals either lack
motivation to conform to normative expectations of the social content or become
118
motivated to violate those expectations. This situation results in deviant behavior at
work place.
Another important aim of this research study was to determine significant
relationship between absenteeism and work engagement. It was found that there was
significant and negative relationship between employee‟s work engagement and
absenteeism. Engaged workers seldom remain absent from job. Less engaged workers
have the opportunity to remain absent from work at work time. Absenteeism has
negative effect on the performance of the employee and as a result it negatively
affects organizational outcomes. In organization where the ratio of employee‟s
absenteeism is high, organization fails in accomplishing organizational goals.
According to (Agarwal, Datta, Black-Beard & Bhargava, 2012), the cost of
absenteeism has been increasing in different business units around the world. It has
severely affected even the emerging economy around the world. Employee‟s
engagement is considered as the resources that have direct and significant relation to
the presence of employee at work place. According to Saks (2006), engaged
individuals have different resources such as physical resources, cognitive resources
and emotional resources, therefore engaged employees remain happy and absorbed in
their job. Result of this study is in line with the study of Soane et al., (2013). They
conducted a research study in UK in 625 service sector‟s employees. It was found in
this research study that employee engagement has low correlation with absenteeism.
It was aimed to find out the moderating effect of team work effectiveness in
the relationship between employee work engagement and behavioral outcomes. It was
found that team work effectiveness significantly moderates the relationship between
employee‟s work engagement and behavioral outcomes. Effective teamwork can
119
produce remarkable result in all fields of life. Teamwork is defined as a cooperative
process in the organization that allows and helps ordinary people of the organization
to accomplish extraordinary results. Effective team work can achieve organizational
goals in most effective way. An important aspect of teamwork is effective leadership.
Effective leadership can change the route of success of the organization (Burke,
Stagel, Salas, Pierce, & Kendall, 2006). Effective leader motivates and inspire team
members to get involved in creating positive work environment in the organization. A
good team leader focuses on his responsibilities and on team work effectiveness.
Effective teamwork relies on effective communication among team members.
Effective communication is the essential characteristic of effective teamwork.
Through effective communication, members of a team exchange their ideas and
articulate their feelings, express their plans and understand each other viewpoints
(Luca & Tarricone, 2001). It is essential for smooth running of organization that each
member of the organization know what role he has to play, what is the responsibility
of each individual in organization. Effective teamwork is about developing
procedures for conflict resolution. Conflict is inevitable in organization, no matter
how good team may be (Marks, Mathieu & Zaccaro, 2001).
120
5.6. Recommendations
This study was aimed to find out significant relationship between employee‟s
work engagement and behavioral outcomes. It was also aimed to determine
moderating effect of team work effectiveness in the relationship between employee‟s
work engagement and behavioral outcomes. This study was undertaken in banking
sector of Pakistan. It was descriptive and co-relational in nature. It was designed to
verify a theoretical model and test a series of null hypothesis. Survey technique was
used for data collection. After findings, conclusions and discussion following
recommendations were made.
1. A significant relationship was found between work engagement and
behavioral outcomes. It is recommended that special and periodical training
program should be arranged for managers. These training should emphasis on
developing effective relationship in the organization.
2. Significant relationship was found between employee‟s work engagement and
turnover intention. Turnover intention in public banks was high than private
and international banks. Public organizations should facilitate its employees in
order to reduce disposition towards turnover intention.
3. It was found that absenteeism ratio was high in public banks as compared to
private and international banks. Public sector banks have job security and that
is why absenteeism was high. Promotion should be on the base on
performance report.
4. It was found that team work effectiveness significantly moderate relationship
between work engagement and behavioral out comes. If employees work as a
group, they can easily achieve organizational goals. Special and periodical
121
seminars should be arranged emphasizing on relationship building and group
importance.
5. It is suggested that public banks should give some special incentives to
discourage turnover intention and absenteeism in the organization.
5.7. Suggestions for Future Research Work
The present study finds out the relationship between work engagement and
behavioral outcomes in the banking sector of Pakistan. Thus, in future; researchers
may explore the relationship between work engagement and other possible
organization related resources like organization commitment and job performance.
The study was conducted in banking sector of Pakistan. In future, researchers may
extend similar study in different organizations and diverse culture for generalizability
of results. In this study, we used teamwork effectiveness as a possible moderator
between work engagement and behavioral outcomes. Researchers may explore other
possible moderators like coworker support and supervisor support on the relationship
between employee‟s work engagement and behavioral outcomes. The sample of the
current research is relatively small i.e. 246. Future researchers may take a large
sample to further elaborate the phenomenon. Lastly, this study was conducted in
Pakistan, researchers in future may replicate the same study in other cultures.
122
References
Abrahma, S. (2012). Development of Employee Engagement Programme on the Basis
of Employee Satisfaction Survey. Journal of Economic Development,
Management, Information Technology, Finance and Marketing, 4, 27-37.
Adams, J. W. (2011). Examination of inter-relationships between psychological
contract, careerist orientation, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Doctoral dissertation. City University. London.
Agarwal, U. A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S., & Bhargava, S. (2012). Linking LMX,
innovative work behavior and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work
engagement. Career Development International, 17(3), 208-230.
Airila, A., Hakanen, J., Punakallio, A., Lusa, S., & Luukkonen, R. (2012). Is work
engagement related to work ability beyond working conditions and lifestyle
factors? International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health,
85(8), 915–925.
Albrecht commitment and turnover intentions in community health service workers:
Test of a model. Leadership in Health Services, 24(3), 228-237.
Albrecht, S. L. (2012). The influence of job, team and organizational level resources
on employee well-being, engagement, commitment and extra role
performance: Test of a model. International Journal of Manpower, 33 (7),
840-853.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, C. A. (2007). Likert scales and data analyses. Quality
Progress, 40(7),64-65.
Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008; Balain S, Sparrow P (2009), Engaged to Perform:
A new perspective on employee engagement: Executive Summary, Lancaster
University Management School
123
Baker. T. L. (1994). Doing Social Research (2nd
Edn). New York. McGraw-Hill inc.
Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 265–269.
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., &Leiter, M. P. (2010). Where to go from here: Integration and future
research on work engagement. Work engagement: A handbook of essential
theory and research, 181-196.
Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands–resources
model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management,
43(1), 83–104.
Barsade, S. (2002), “The ripple effect: emotional contagion and its influence on group
behavior”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47, pp. 644-77.
Bates S (2004), ʹGetting engagedʹ, HR Magazine, 49(2), 44–51
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace
deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349–360.
Bhatnagar J (2007), ʹTalent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian
ITES employees: key to retentionʹ, Employment Relations, 29(6), 640‐663
Bhatnagar, J., & Biswas, S. (2010). Predictors and Outcomes of Employee
Engagement: Implications of the Resource-Based View Perspective. The
Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(2), 273-288.
124
Bindl, U., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and
change-oriented action inorganizations (Vol. 2, pp. 567-598). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
Boroff, K. E., & Lewin, D. (1997). Loyalty, voice, and intent to exit a union firm: A
conceptual and empirical analysis. Industrial & Labor Relations Review,
51(1), 50–63.
Bothma, C.F.C., & Roodt, G. (2013). The validation of the turnover intention scale.SA
Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(1), 507−519.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. L. (2006).
Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1189-1207.
Cagle, J.A.B. and Baucus, M.S. (2006), “Case Studies of Ethics Scandals: Effects on
Ethical Perceptions of Finance Students”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 64,
pp. 213-229.
Caplan, G. (1974). Support systems and community mental health: Lectures on
concept development. New York, NY: Behavioral Publications.
Cartwright, S. and Holmes, N. (2006). “The Meaning Work: The challenge of
regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism”. Human Resource
Management Review. Vol. 16, pp. 199-208.
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., & Slaughter, J.E. (2011). Work Engagement: A
Quantitative Review a Test of Its Relations with Task and Contextual
Performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89-136.
Civil Service (2008), Introducing Engagement: Understanding the concept and
practice of employee engagement,
125
Cleland A, Mitchinson W, Townend A (2008), Engagement, Assertiveness and
Business Performance – A New Perspective, Ixia Consultancy Ltd
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An
interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
De Vaus. D. A. (1993). Surveys in Social Research (3rd
ed). London: UCL Press
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.
Demerouti, Xanthopoulou, D., Baker, A.B., Heuven, E., E., and Schaufeli, W.B.
(2008), „Working in the Sky: A Diary Study on Work Engagement Among
Flight Attendants,‟ Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 4, 345–
356.
Everton, W.J., Jolton, J.A. and Mastrangelo, P.M. (2007), “Be nice and fair or else:
understanding reasons for employees‟ deviant behaviors”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 117-131.
Fairlie, P. (2011). Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key employee
outcomes: Implications for human resource development. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 508–525.
Farndale, E., Van Ruiten, J., Kelliher, C. and Hope-Hailey, V. (2011) „The influence
of perceived employee voice on organizational commitment: an exchange
perspective‟. Human Resource Management 50(1):113-29.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
Francis, H. and Reddington, M. (2012) „Employer branding and organizational
effectiveness‟ in H. Francis, L. Holbeche and M Reddington (eds) People and
Organizational
126
Gallup (2006), ʹGallup study: engaged employees inspire company innovation:
national survey finds that passionate workers are most likely to drive
organizations forwardʹ, The Gallup Management Journal,
Galperin, B. L. (2012). Exploring the nomological network of workplace deviance:
Developing and validating a measure of constructive deviance. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 42(12), 2988-3025.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G., & Airasian, P. W. (2009). Educational research: Competencies
for analysis and interpretation. Upper Saddle Back, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Gibson, C.B., Porath C.L., Benson, G.S., & Lawler, E.E. (2007). What results when
firms implement practices: The differential relationship between specific
practices, firm financial performance, customer service, and quality. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92, 1467-1480.
Graen GB (2008), ʹEnriched engagement through assistance to systems‟ change: a
proposalʹ, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 74–75
Gujarati, D. N. (2012). Basic econometrics. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
Hakanen, J. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Do burnout and work engagement predict
depressive symptoms and life satisfaction? A three-wave seven-year
prospective study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 141(2), 415–424.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work
engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 495-513.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships
with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P.
Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research
(pp. 102–117). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
127
Hall, M. and Purcell, J. (2012) Consultation at Work: Regulation and Practice.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hansen, A., Byrne, Z., & Kiersch, C. (2014). How interpersonal leadership relates to
employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(8), 953-972.
Harter JK, Schmidt FL, Hayes TL (2002), ʹBusiness‐unit‐level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-
analysis ʹ, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the
stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 50(3), 337–421.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of
General Psychology, 6(4), 307–324.
James. A. D & Ogbona. G. I. (2013). Transformational Leadership Theories:
Evidence in Literature. International Journal of Management and Business
Research, Vol, 2 Issue 2
John. P. (2012). The Limits and Possibilities of Employee Engagement. Industrial
Relation Research Unit, university of Warwick.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Karatepe, O. M., Beirami, E., Bouzari, M., & Safavi, H. P. (2014). Does work
engagement mediate the effects of challenge on job outcomes? Evidence from
the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 14-
22.
Karatepe, O. M., Beirami, E., Bouzari, M., & Safavi, H. P. (2014). Does work
engagement mediate the effects of challenge stressors on job outcomes?
128
Evidence from the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 36, 14-22.
Kelloway, E. K., Francis, L., Prosser, M., & Cameron, J. E. (2010).
Counterproductive work behavior as protest. Human Resource Management
Review, 20(1), 18-25.
Kelloway, E. K., Loughlin, C., Barling, J., & Nault, A. (2002). Self-Reported
Counterproductive Behaviours and Organizational Citizenship Behaviours:
Separate but Related Constructs. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 10(1-2), 143-151.
Kong, Y. (2009). A Study on the Job Engagement of Company Employees.
International Journal of Psychological Studies, 1(2), 65-68.
Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E. and Truss, K. (2008) Employee
Engagement: A Literature Review. Kingston University, Kingston
Lancaster. G, Dodd. S & Williamson. P. (2004). Design and Analysis of Pilot Studies:
Recommendation for Good Practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical
Practice, 10(2).
Leung, A.S.M. (2008), “Matching Ethical Work Climate to In-role and Extra-Role
Behaviors in a Collectivist Work Setting”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 79,
pp. 43-55.
Levinson E (2007a), Developing High Employee Engagement Makes Good Business
Sense,
Liao, H., Joshi, A. and Chuang, A. (2004), “Sticking out like a Sore Thumb:
Employee Dissimilarity and Deviance at Work”, Personnel Psychology, Vol.
57, pp. 969-1000.
129
Lockwood, N.R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive
advantage: HR‟s strategic role (SHRM Research Quarterly Report).
Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.
Luca, J., & Oliver, R. (2001). Developing Generic Skills through On-line Courses.
Paper presented at the Ed- Media 2001, Tampere, Finland.
Luca, J., & Oliver, R. (2001). Developing Generic Skills through On-line Courses.
Paper presented at the Ed- Media 2001, Tampere, Finland.
Luthans F, Peterson SJ (2002), ʹEmployee engagement and manager self‐ efficacy:
implications for managerial effectiveness and developmentʹ, Journal of
Management Development, 21(5), 376–387
Macey W. H, Schneider B (2008b), ʹEngaged in engagement: we are delighted we did
itʹ, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 76–83
Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. (2009). Employee
engagement: Tools for analysis practice, and competitive advantage. John
Wiley & Sons.
Mauno S, Kinnunen U, Ruokolainen M (2007), ʹJob demands and resources as
antecedents of work engagement: a longitudinal studyʹ, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 70, 149–171
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,
2004, 11-37.
McClurg, L.A. and Butler, D.S. (2006), “Workplace Theft: A Proposed Model and
Research Agenda”, Southern Business Review, Vol. 31, pp. 25-34.
130
Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of
precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology,
63(4), 408–414.
Murphy, S. M., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Erdogan, B. (2003). Understanding
social loafing: The role of justice perceptions and exchange relationships.
Human Relations, 56(1), 61-84.
O‟Neill, T. A., & Hastings, S. E. (2011). Explaining workplace deviance behavior
with more than just the “Big Five”. Personality and Individual Differences,
50(2), 268-273.
Örücü, E., &Yıldız, H. (2014). İşyerindekişisel internet veteknolojikullanımı:
Sanalkaytarma. Ege Academic Review, 14(1). 99-114.
Parker, S., & Griffi n, M. (2011). Understanding active psychological states:
Embedding engagement in a wider nomological net and closer attention to
performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
20(1), 60–67.
Pech R, Slade B (2006), ʹEmployee disengagement: is there evidence of a growing
problem? ʹHandbook of Business Strategy, 21–25
Polit. D.F, Beck. C.T & Hungler. B. P. (2001). Essential of Nursing Research;
Methods, Appraisal and Utilization. (5th
ed.) Pheladelphia: Linppincott.
Ramsey, R. D. (2006). " Presenteeism": a new problem in the workplace. Supervision,
67(8), 14.
Reade, C. (2001). Antecedents of organizational identification in multinational
corporation: Fostering Psychological Attachment to the local subsidiary and
the global organization. International journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 12 No 8.
131
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.
Robbins, D. L., & Galperin, B. L. (2010). Constructive deviance: striving toward
organizational change in healthcare. Journal of Management and Marketing
Research, 5, 1-11.
Robbins, P. S., & Judge, A. T. (2013). Organizational Behavior (15th Ed.). New
Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Robinson D (2007), Employee Engagement; Opinion Paper OP11, Institute for
Employment Studies.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors:
A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–
572.
Roche, W., Teague, P., Coughlan, A. and Fahy, M. (2011) Human Resources in the
Recession: Managing and Representing People at Work in Ireland. Dublin:
The Stationery Office.
Rothbard NP (2001), ʹEnriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work
and family rolesʹ, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655–684
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and
work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the
mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217.
132
Salas, E., Rosen, M.A., Burke, C.S., & Goodwin, G.F. (2009). The wisdom of collectives in
organizations: An update of the teamwork competencies. New York: Psychology
Press.
Saunders, M. N., Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2011). Research
methods for business students. Pearson Education India Schaufeli,
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006a). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Education and
Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006b). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job
demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness
absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 893–917.
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and
work engagement: three of a kind or three different kinds of employee
wellbeing? Applied Psychology, 57(2), 173-203.
Seijts GH, Crim D (2006), ʹWhat engages employees the most or, the ten C‟s of
employee engagementʹ, Ivey Business Journal Online.
Sekaran, U. (2013). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach',
John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, P 293.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building
Approach 6Th edition, Jhon Wiley and Sons.
Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., &
Schaufeli, W. (2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement
133
Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies,
10(4), 459–481.
Shantz, A., Alfes, K., & Latham, G. P. (2016). The buffering effect of perceived
organizational support on the relationship between work engagement and
behavioral outcomes. Human Resource Management.
Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., & Soane, E. C. (2013). The role of employee
engagement in the relationship between job design and task performance,
citizenship and deviant behaviours. International Journal of Human Resource
Management (early view online), 24(13), 2608–2627.
Sims, D.E., Salas, E., & Burke, C.S. (2005). Promoting effective team performance through
training. In S.A. Wheelan (Ed.), The Handbook of Group Research and Practice (pp.
407-425). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Slåtten, T., & Mehmetoglu, M. (2011). Antecedents and effects of engaged frontline
employees: A study from the hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality:
An International Journal, 21(1), 88-107.
Smith. R. G & Mark. C. (2009). Employee Engagement: A Review of Current
Thinking. Institute of Employment Studies.
Smyth, R., Zhai, Q., & Li, X. (2009). Determinants of turnover intentions among
Chinese off farm migrants. Econ Change Restruct, 42, 189-209.
Soane, E., Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2013). The
Association of Meaningfulness, Well? Being, and Engagement with
Absenteeism: A Moderated Mediation Model. Human Resource Management,
52(3), 441-456.
134
Sonja. K, & Stander. M. W. (2014). Leadership Empowerment Behavior, Work
Engagement and Turnover Intention: The Role of Psychological
Empowerment. Journal of Positive Management. Vol, 5. No, 3
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2010). Theorizing about the deviant citizen: An attributional
explanation of the interplay of organizational citizenship and
counterproductive work behavior. Human Resource Management Review,
20(2), 132-143.
Suff P, Reilly P (2008), Going the Extra Mile: The Relationship Between Reward and
Employee Engagement, HR Network Paper MP79, Institute for Employment
Studies (HR Network members only)
Sulea, C., Virga, D., Maricutoiu, L. P., Schaufeli, W., Dumitru, C. Z., & Sava, F. A.
(2012). Work engagement as mediator between job characteristics and positive
and negative extra-role behaviors. Career Development International, 17(3),
188–207.
Sy, T., Cote, S. and Saavedra, R. (2005), “The contagious leader: impact of leader‟s
effect on group member affect and group processes”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 295-305.
Taipale, S., Selander, K., Anttila, T., and Natti, J. (2011), „Work Engagement in Eight
European Countries: The Role of Job Demands, Autonomy, and Social
Support,‟ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 31, 7–8, 486–
504.
Towers Perrin (2006), Ten Steps to Creating an Engaged Workforce: Key European
Findings, Towers Perrin HR Services
Truss, K., and Soane, E. (2010), „Engaging the „Pole Vaulters‟ on Your Staff,‟
Harvard Business Review, March, p. 24.
135
Vadera, A. K., Pratt, M. G., & Mishra, P. (2013). Constructive deviance in
organizations integrating and moving forward. Journal of Management,
XX(XXXX), 1-56.
W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293–315
Wollard, K. K., & Shuck, B. (2011). Antecedents to employee engagement a
structured review of the Literature. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 13(4), 429- 446.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009b). Work
engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and
personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
82, 183–200.
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.
Zopiatis, A., Constanti, P., & Theocharous, A. L. (2014). Job involvement,
commitment, satisfaction and turnover: Evidence from hotel employees in
Cyprus. Tourism Management, 41, 129-140.
Zyglidopoulos, S.C. and Fleming, P.J. (2008), “Ethical Distance in Corrupt Firms:
How Do Innocent Bystanders Become Guilty Perpetrators?”, Journal of
Business Ethics, 78, 265-274.
136
Appendix
Research Instrument
1) Organization
(1) Public (2) Private (3) International
2) Management Level
(1) Branch (2) Operational (3) Lover Level
3) Gender
(1) Male (2) Female
4) Experience
(1) 1 -5 years (2) 6 – 10 years (3) 11- 15 years (4) 16-20 years (5)
21 and above
5) Education
(1) Matric (2) FA/FSc (3) BA/ BSc (4) MA/MS (5) MPhil/ PhD
Code Statement
Nev
er
Som
e
tim
e
N
Most
ly
Alw
ays
Employee Work Engagement
WEI1 I focus hard on my work
WEI2 I concentrate on my work
WEI3 I pay a lot of attention to my work
WES4 I share the same work values as my colleagues
WES I share the same work goals as my colleagues
WES I share the same work attitudes as my
colleagues
WEA7 I feel positive about my work
137
WEA8 I feel energetic in my work
WEA9 I am enthusiastic in my work
Turnover Intentions
TI1 During the next year, I will probably look for
a new job outside my current employer
TI2 I am seriously considering quitting my current
employer for an alternative employer
TI3 I would seriously consider leaving for slightly
better position elsewhere
TI4 I would seriously consider leaving my job for
a position where I could earn more
Deviant Behavior
DB1 Taken property from work without permission
DB2 Spent too much time fantasizing or
daydreaming instead of working
DB3 Falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more
money than you spent on business expenses
DB4 Taken an additional or longer break than is
acceptable at your workplace
DB Come in late to work without permission
DB Littered your work environment
DB7 Neglected to follow your boss's instructions
DB8 Intentionally worked slower than you could
have worked
DB9 Discussed confidential company information
with an unauthorized person
DB10 Used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on
the job
DB11 Put little effort into your work
DB12 Dragged out work in order to get overtime
Absenteeism
A1 In my organization the employees get leave
when the required
A2 In our organization the process of applying
leave through supervisor is time consuming
A3 In our organization employees take leave for
their personal problems
138
A4 In our organization employees get leave
because of bed working condition
A5 In our organization co-worker facilitate each
other and adjust their leave schedule
Teamwork Effectiveness
TE1
Team members put the interests and priorities
of the organization or unit ahead of the
interests and priorities of their respective jobs
or functions
TE2
Team members obtain and use all the needed
information and assistance from others when
solving problems or making decisions
TE3 The team is organized and structured suitably
for the tasks it has to perform
TE4 Team problem solving processes and methods
are appropriate and effective
TE5 Team decision making processes and methods
are appropriate and effective
TE6
Team members participate meaningfully in
higher-level decisions affecting their jobs or
functions
TE7
Team members receive the guidance and
resources they need from the team manager to
do their jobs
TE8 Team members express their opinions
honestly and openly to each other
TE9 Team members make good use of the time
they spend together
TE10 Every team member knows what the other
team members expect from him or her
TE11 Conflict between or among team members is
handled promptly and effectively
