lisensi ini mengizinkan setiap orang untuk menggubah ...kc.umn.ac.id/6479/8/lampiran.pdf93 lampiran...

Team project ©2017 Dony Pratidana S. Hum | Bima Agus Setyawan S. IIP

Hak cipta dan penggunaan kembali:

Lisensi ini mengizinkan setiap orang untuk menggubah, memperbaiki, dan membuat ciptaan turunan bukan untuk kepentingan komersial, selama anda mencantumkan nama penulis dan melisensikan ciptaan turunan dengan syarat yang serupa dengan ciptaan asli.

Copyright and reuse:

This license lets you remix, tweak, and build upon work non-commercially, as long as you credit the origin creator and license it on your new creations under the identical terms.

93

LAMPIRAN

DATA MAINTEST

DATA UJI VALIDITAS DAN RELIABILITAS

MEASUREMENT MODEL

STRUCTURAL MODEL

Analisa Pengaruh Perceived..., Yemima Christia Tewal, FB UMN, 2018

94

UJI HIPOTESIS

NILAI P-VALUE


95

UJI HIPOTESIS

NILAI STANDARD COEFFICIENT


96

STRUCTURAL MODEL (GOODNESS OF FIT)


97

DATA PRETEST

DATA UJI VALIDITAS DAN RELIABILITAS

“PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT”


98

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT


99

AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT


100

EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE


101

In-depth Interview

Tempat : Kantor PT XYZ

Narasumber : Karyawan Divisi IT

Interviewer : Yemima Tewal (Peneliti)

A = Peneliti

B = Narasumber

A : Hai Kak, apakah saya boleh minta waktunya sebentar untuk bertanya?

B : Iya boleh

A : Saya saat ini sedang menyusun skripsi, kemudian objek penelitian saya adalah perusahaan

ini. Jadi saya ingin menanyakan beberapa hal terkait penelitian saya,, saya harap kakak tidak

keberatan menjadi narasumber saya

B : Bisa kok

A : Kalau tidak salah beberapa minggu lalu kakak ingin mengadakan training untuk staff IT

ya? Saya hanya ingin konfirmasi aja sih siapa tahu salah informasi

B : Oh iya, betul tapi masih on progress sih ini. Masih menunggu persetujuan dulu

A : Belum jadi dilaksanakan ya? Lama juga ya kak menunggu persetujuannya

B : Iya saya juga bingung, tapi ya hanya bisa menunggu Sudah 2 minggu sepertinya belum

ada kabar apa-apa

A : Begitu ya kak. Baik kalau begitu, saya hanya ingin konfirmasi saja sih. Soalnya perlu

untuk penelitian saya.


102

B : Oh gitu. Oke semoga sukses ya

A : Terima kasih waktunya kak

In-depth Interview


Narasumber : Karyawan Divisi IT


A = Peneliti

B = Narasumber


B : Iya. Apa yang bisa dibantu ya




B : Oh boleh aja kok

A : Bagaimana tanggapan kakak selama bekerja di perusahaan sampai saat ini?

B : Dalam hal apa dulu nih. Secara umum sih baik-baik aja. Lingkungan kerja juga enak

karena teman-teman ramah semua

A : Kakak sudah berapa lama bekerja di perusahaan ini?


103

B : 1 tahun sepertinya kalau tidak salah ingat

A : Nah setelah bekerja selama 1 tahun ini kira-kira ada gak hal-hal yang membuat terasa

kurang atau perlu diperbaiki?

B : Sebenarnya dari awal bekerja disini saya tidak merasa kurang ya. Fasilitas juga cukuplah,

programmer yang penting ada laptop, wifi yang kencang seharusnya sudah cukup menunjang.

Tapi mungkin beberapa bulan terakhir ini saya merasa kurang nyaman dengan tempat kerja

ya

A : Tempat kerja maksudnya seperti apa kak?

B : Yah seperti yang kamu lihat lah kondisi kerja divisi IT saat ini, harus menempati ruangan

meeting entah sampai kapan bisa punya ruangan tersendiri yang luas, nyaman. Dulu kan

spesial anak IT pake 1 ruko sendiri. Sekarang jadi 1 ruang meeting yang sempit rasanya

langsung terasa.

A : Kira-kira menurut kakak dengan ruang kerja yang tidak nyaman berdampak gak sih untuk

kinerja kakak dan teman-teman?

B : Pastinya berdampak dong. Teman-teman jadi tidak betah berlama-lama dalam ruangan,

jadi lebih sering ke rooftop untuk cari udara segar katanya. Termasuk saya juga salah satunya

yang tidak betah dalam ruangan.

A : Sangat disayangkan waktu yang terbuang untuk bekerja ya kak

B : Iya betul sekali

A : Baik kak kalau begitu, saya hanya ingin bertanya itu saja. Terima kasih banyak ya

waktunya

B : Oke sama-sama


104

In-depth Interview


Narasumber : Karyawan Divisi Finance&Accounting


A = Peneliti

B = Narasumber


B : Boleh. Mau tanya soal apa ya




B : Silahkan, selama tidak membahayakan ya

A : Bagaimana tanggapan kakak selama bekerja di perusahaan sampai saat ini? Apakah

sesuai dengan ekspektasi kakak, misalnya dalam hal dukungan perusahaan untuk pekerjaan

kakak sendiri?

B : Yah kita semua karyawan pasti punya ekspektasi yang tinggi dong untuk setiap

perusahaan dimana kita bekerja, dan pasti ada yang tidak sesuai ekspektasi kita. Tapi sejauh

ini saya merasa cukup aja sih

A : Kakak sudah berapa lama bekerja disini?

B : Kira-kira 1 tahun lebih ya kalau gak salah


105

A : Lumayan ya. Kalau begitu dari hampir 1 tahun lebih ini mungkin ada kendala yang kakak

alami terkait pekerjaan?

B : Sebenarnya hal-hal kecil saja sih, contohnya seperti kalau ingin cuti kita kan pasti

sebelumnya harus cari tahu dulu sisa cuti kita berapa. Nah kadang kalau mau bertanya soal

sisa cuti, kadang suka lama responnya. Padahal kita kan butuh supaya bisa susun rencana,

apalagi kalau ingin berlibur bersama keluarga

A : Menurut kakak sendiri dari kendala-kendala yang ada jadi menghambat kinerja kakak?

B : Ada sih. Kadang jadi suka gak mood kalau sudah begitu, akhirnya jadi gak konsentrasi

kerjaannya

A : Lalu ada hal lain lagi gak kak? Mungkin dari fasilitas kerja. Menurut kakak apakah sudah

cukup memadai?

B : Kalau fasilitas kayaknya sudah cukup sih. Soalnya mungkin karena divisi F&A tidak

terlalu membutuhkan banyak fasilitas jadi tidak terlalu rasa kurangnya

A : Oh sudah cukup ya. Oke kak kalau begitu, terima kasih atas waktu dan informasinya


106

In-depth Interview


Narasumber : Karyawan Divisi Operation


A = Peneliti

B = Narasumber


B : Oh boleh dong




B : Oh gitu, oke gapapa kok

A : Bagaimana tanggapan kakak selama bekerja di perusahaan sampai saat ini? Apakah

sesuai dengan ekspektasi kakak, misalnya dalam hal dukungan perusahaan untuk pekerjaan

kakak sendiri?

B : Wah gimana ya, banyak sebenarnya kalau mau ikuti ekspektasi saya

A : Tidak apa-apa kak saya hanya ingin tahu kok, soalnya berkaitan dengan penelitian saya

B : Banyak. Pertama soal BPJS, kalau dibandingkan perusahaan lain kan sekarang semua

perusahaan sudah memfasilitasi karyawan dengan BPJS. Tapi herannya sampai sekarang

perusahaan ini belum ada tuh fasilitas BPJS


107

A : Kakak sudah bekerja berapa lama disini?

B : 2 tahun kurang lebih ya

A : Lama juga ya. Tapi memang dari awal tidak ada pembahasan soal BPJS ya kak?

B : Iya gak ada sampai sekarang ini. Padahal itu kan penting ya untuk kita

A : Selain itu ada apa lagi kak yang menurut kakak kurang di perusahaan ini?

B : Selain itu jenjang karirnya juga kurang, saya udah lumayan lama tapi tetap disini aja

posisinya. Jadi rasa kurang berkembang aja disini. Terus menurutku kurang banget kegiatan-

kegiatan seru dikantor seperti yang banyak karyawan lain usulin, outing gitu kan seru.

Karyawan bisa lebih kompak, tidak seperti sekarang masih keliatan perbedaannya

A : Oh gitu ya kak. Menurut kakak, dari kekurangan-kekurangan diatas jadi berdampak sama

kinerja kakak gak?

B : Mungkin kalau kinerja ya paling kurang kompak aja rasanya. Tapi kalau begini terus saya

pengen sih pindah perusahaan kalau ada yang panggil

A : Oh kakak sudah punya pemikiran untuk resign? Bahaya dong

B : Yah masih menunggu saat yang tepat sih. Sambil tunggu panggilan dari perusahaan lain

kalau ada dan punya kesempatan baik kenapa enggak ya kan

A : Iya sih. Betul juga. Oke kak saya hanya ingin menanyakan itu saja rasanya cukup. Terima

kasih banyak atas waktunya

B : Oke senang bisa bantu


108

In-depth Interview


Narasumber : Karyawan Divisi Operation


A = Peneliti

B = Narasumber


B : Iya boleh




B : Oke gak apa-apa

A : Bagaimana tanggapan kakak selama bekerja di perusahaan sampai saat ini? Misalnya

dalam hal dukungan perusahaan untuk pekerjaan kakak sendiri?

B : Kalau dukungan perusahaan aku tidak terlalu mempermasalahkan sih. Selama

pekerjaanku dilengkapi fasilitas yang mendukung

A : Mungkin soal opini atau pendapat kakak yang pernah diajukan ke perusahaan, bagaimana

tanggapan dari perusahaan sendiri?

B : Kalau pendapat kurang diterima yah wajar aja ya mungkin karena kita posisinya kurang

penting. Sudah biasa


109

A : Wah setiap posisi dalam perusahaan punya peran penting sih kak. Kalau harapan kakak

sendiri untuk kantor seperti apa?

B : Harapan saya ya lebih bonding satu sama lain, antar divisi saling kenal tidak seperti

sekarang divisi ops seperti kurang diperhatikan

A : Maksudnya kurang diperhatikan dalam hal apa? Menurut kakak apakah hal ini berdampak

bagi karyawan divisi Ops yang lainnya?

B : Contohnya kan setiap minggu ada pembagian minuman gratis ya dikulkas. Nah kita divisi

ops paling sering kehabisan. Apalagi kita kan enggan untuk naik ke lantai 4 mengambil

minuman. Jadi biasanya kita keatas sudah kehabisan minuman, mungkin karena kelamaan

jadi tidak kebagian. Kita jadi merasa kurang diperhatikan kalo seperti ini

A : Saya sendiri juga kadang tidak kebagian sih kak. Semoga saja kedepannya jumlah stok

ditambah ya, atau mungkin karyawan jadi lebih peka ingat orang lain

B : Iya betul, semoga saja

A : Oke deh kak kalau begitu. Hanya itu saja yang ingin saya tanyakan. Terima kasih atas

waktu dan kesediaannya

B : Oke sama-sama


South Asian Journal of Business StudiesEnhancing Organizational Commitment and Employee Performance through Employee Engagement: AnEmpirical CheckOwais Nazir Jamid Ul Islam

Article information:To cite this document:Owais Nazir Jamid Ul Islam , (2017)," Enhancing Organizational Commitment and Employee Performance throughEmployee Engagement: An Empirical Check ", South Asian Journal of Business Studies, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. -Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-04-2016-0036

Downloaded on: 24 January 2017, At: 18:06 (PT)References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected]

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:173272 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Pleasevisit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-04-2016-0036

1

Enhancing organizational commitment and employee performance through employee

engagement: an empirical check

1. Introduction

In India, the number of higher educational institutions is briskly growing to keep pace with the

rising demand for advanced studies (KPMG, 2015). However, these institutions are facing a

fierce competition from the foreign universities due to the era of globalization wherein going

abroad for higher education has become affordable for many Indians. As a result, the

educational institutions are facing the challenge of keeping academics engaged so that they can

efficiently perform a bigger role (Gupta et al., 2015). Due to the acute shortage of faculty

members in central (40%) as well as in state universities (35%) (KPMG, 2015), almost 6.8 lakh

Indian students spend about $ 6-7 billion on studies abroad every year (ASSOCHAM, 2015). In

order to deal with such a shortage of faculty and competitive environment, the higher

educational institutions are searching for new ways to attract and retain faculties. Researchers

claim that the solution lies in the concept of employee engagement as it believes that

motivation is not restricted to monetary benefits only (Gupta et al., 2015).

The term engagement was first introduced in the late 1990s, and found considerable

popularity in business press. Engagement as a research topic has been of great interest to

scholars across discipline wherein different terms such as customer engagement (Islam and

Rahman, 2016; Islam and Rahman, 2016a; Islam and Rahman, 2016b), civic engagement

(Jennings and Stoker, 2004; Mondak et al., 2010), social engagement (Achterberg et al. 2003;

Huo et al., 2009), and employee engagement (Karatepe and Demir, 2014; Saks, 2006) have

been used to express it. In organizational behavior, most of the research about employee

engagement has been a work of consulting and survey houses, focusing mostly on highlighting

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


2

benefits such as sales growth (Gallup, 2007), less quality errors (Gallup, 2004) and financial

performance (Towers, 2003).

Although numerous researchers have taken an interest in exploring employee

engagement and have identified a significant relationship between employee engagement and

its outcomes (Saks, 2006; Sonnentag, 2003; Cole et al., 2012). However, studies on employee

engagement specifically within higher education are limited (Daniel, 2016). This lack of studies

can be counter-productive to organizations that rely a lot on their employee service,

specifically, the labor intensive education sector.

In response to this research gap, this paper investigates and empirically validates the

relationship of employee engagement with other constructs such as affective commitment,

employee performance, and perceived organizational support in Indian higher educational

context. This paper proposes perceived organizational support as an antecedent to employee

engagement, whereas affective commitment and employee performance are proposed as the

consequences of employee engagement; it also theorizes a direct relationship of perceived

organization support with affective commitment and employee performance as well as an

indirect relationship of perceived organizational support with affective commitment and

employee performance through the mediation of employee engagement. In order to eliminate

any possible effect of a variable external to the proposed model, this study takes employee

position (faculty or non-faculty) as a control variable.

Research related to employee engagement in higher education is limited (Daniels, 2016).

Earlier studies in this context have focused on faculty and administrator job satisfaction (Smerek

and Peterson, 2007), staff morale (Rosser, 2004), and faculty turnover and intention to leave

(Johnsrud et al., 2000). These related studies advocate a lack of engagement within academia.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


3

The engagement of academic faculty is considered to have a great impact on student success and

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

Therefore, the psychological integration of employees toward their work needs to be studied

within higher education settings (Raina and Khatri, 2015). In the context of Indian higher

education, a lack of existence and focus on such studies compounds multiple problems. In India,

there is an increased level of absenteeism and turnover intention in the academic profession

which depicts their disengaged state (Raina and Khatri, 2015). The Associated Chambers of

Commerce and Industry of India, reports 160 business-schools are struggling to survive

(ASSOCHAM, 2013). Moreover, 94 Business schools have already requested closure to the All

India Council for Technical Education (Chhapia, 2013).

If any institution aims at competitive excellence, a focus on its academic staff is crucial

(Simmons, 2002). Academic staffs are a very important source of competitive edge, because

replacing their skills or experience may not always be possible (Bowen and Ford, 2002;

Simmons, 2002). In other words, survival of higher educational institutes and any quality

intellectual contributions are not possible without a highly engaged staff (Pienaar, 2005). Due to

their unique nature, higher educational institutions are expected to be a depository of the most

specialized and skilled intellectuals. Educational institutes depend more on the commitment and

engagement of their academic staff than other organizations. (Oshagbemi, 2000). Moreover, the

psychological contract amongst knowledgeable employees has shifted to one’s career and growth

instead of job security and loyalty, making employees very prone to leave organizations in

search of better career options. Retention of human capital is crucial for organizations whose

financial sustainability and survival is dependent on scarce human skills (Pienaar and Bester,

2008). In this context, attracting and retaining engaged academic staff in the education sector is a

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


4

critical driver for success (Shuck and Wollard, 2010). The impression that a job in an educational

setting is less attractive may have far-reaching negative consequences for higher education and

society as a whole. Therefore, it is imperative to identify and address the antecedents of

employees’ affective commitment and engagement in such settings.

The next section of this paper provides a brief literature review of the constructs considered

for the current study, followed by the development of research model and related hypothesis.

Empirical examination is presented in section thereafter. The paper concludes by presenting the

discussion and conclusion.

2. Literature review

In the following section, this paper presents the literature describing the hypothesized

relationships among various variables of this study.

2.1 Employee engagement and perceived organizational support

Employees are an important source of competitive gains (Bowen and Ford, 2002) because

customer perception about any business entity develops through interaction with its employees

(Husin et al., 2012). Employee engagement, therefore, is in hot pursuit in the recent literature

(Lee and Ok, 2016). Various terms have been used to express employee engagement, such as

‘personnel engagement’ (Kahn, 1990), ‘employee engagement’ (Macey and Schneider, 2008),

and ‘work engagement’ (Bakker and Demeroutti, 2008).

A plethora of definitions have been given for employee engagement. Most of these

definitions consider employee engagement as an emotional and intellectual involvement of

employees for their organization (Richman, 2006). Kahn (1990) has defined personal

engagement as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in

engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


5

during role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p.694). Schaufeli et al. (2002) have defined engagement

“as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and

absorption.” Moreover, engagement is also detailed further as “a more persistent and pervasive

affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or

behavior” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p.74).

Employee engagement can be understood by understanding its sources. The Job-Demand

and Resources or the JD-R model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008) works in line with this

perspective. The model suggests that “job resources” and “social support” play an important part

in engaging employees. This is because job resources and social support enhance intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation amongst employees which, in turn, results in more engaged employees.

Within this context, perceived organizational support is suggested as an important “job resource”

(Eisenberger et al., 2001).

Eisenberger et al. (1986) define perceived organizational support as the extent to which

an employer cares about his/her employees’ well-being and values their contributions. Perceived

organizational support improves employees’ productive contributions with the help of evaluative

feedback and results in more engaged employees (Eisenberger et al., 2001). However, such

studies examining the relationship between perceived organizational support and employee

engagement are scarce (Stinglhamber and Caesens, 2014). Employees with low perceived

organizational support are more skeptical. Contrarily, when perceived organizational support is

high, employees find their work environment more acceptable and show more involvement to

work (Kurtessis et al., 2015). Therefore, we hypothesize;

H1: Perceived organizational support is positively related to employee engagement.

2.2 Employee engagement and affective commitment

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


6

Scholars from different theoretical perspectives have been attracted to frequently study

organizational commitment (Macedo et al., 2016; Steers, 1977). Organizational commitment is

considered as the crucial organizational issue faced by managers (Lo et al., 2010; Reade and Lee,

2012). Organizational commitment is the degree to which an employee is willing to exert energy

and feel pride for being with the organization (Mowday et al., 1979). In other words, an

individual's identification (Mowday et al., 1979) and regard (Powell and Meyer, 2004) for his

organization is organizational commitment. Three forms of organizational commitment are

described by literature: affective commitment, normative commitment, and calculative

commitment (Thomsen et al., 2016). Following Mowday et al.’s (1979) conceptualization,

organizational commitment in this study is taken as affective commitment that comprises of

employees’ personal attachment to, involvement in, and identification with the employing

organization. Affective commitment has gained less attention in educational context than in other

fields of research (Chan et al., 2008). Affective commitment has been associated with favorable

employee behaviour, such as being less likely to quit their job and putting an extra effort into

their work (Meyer et al., 2002)

Social exchange theory (SET) proposes that when two parties fulfill the rules of

exchange, a social relationship built on mutual trust and commitment will be created

(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Employees who strongly identify with their organization carry

their job duties better than those who merely work because of contractual obligations (Lee et al.,

2010; Malhotra et al., 2013). Committed individuals excel on parameters such as customer

contentment and long lasting relationships (Angle and Perry, 1981; Boshoff and Allen, 2000).

When employees are engaged, they are more likely to be committed (Schaufeli and

Bakker, 2004). There is a dearth of academic literature regarding employee engagement-

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


7

organizational support relationship in the education services context .However, educational

institutes depend more on the commitment and engagement of their academic staff than other

organizations (Rowley, 1996). Moreover, in the context of other services such as nursing (Cho et

al, 2006), and dentists (Hakanen et al. 2008), affective commitment has been found to be a

positive outcome of employee engagement. Therefore, we hypothesize;

H2: Employee engagement is positively related to employees’ affective commitment.

2.3 Employee engagement and employee performance

Performance management as a management device is important to maintain harmony and instill

organizational progress (Kamoche, 2001). Better management of employee performance is

imperative to enhance organizational performance and effectiveness (Stanton and Nankervis,

2011; Stanton and Pham, 2014). Employee engagement enhances employee performance (Leiter

and Bakker, 2010; Macey and Schneider, 2008; Rich et al., 2010). Engaged employees exhibit a

wide range of productive behaviors that enhance synergetic team efforts towards organizational

goals (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Bakker et al., 2006). These synergetic efforts lead to

enhanced employee performances (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008; Bakker et al., 2008). The reason

behind these efforts and performance is the ability of engaged employees to transfer their

feelings throughout the organization (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Mullen and Copper, 1994;

Bakker, 2009). Once workers react to goals as a group, their productivity increases (Van

Knippenberg, 2000).

Research suggests that highly engaged employees not only pursue their role-related

objectives, but are also cognitively and emotionally connected to their efforts (Ashforth and

Humphrey, 1995). Engaged employees work cooperatively with their team mates, take

responsibility of their tasks, and try to contribute fully o the organizational goals and objectives

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


8

(Baumruk, 2004; Gibbons, 2006; Miles, 2001). Engaged employees focus more fully on their

work than disengaged employees (Rich et al., 2010). Engagement is suggested to have a strong

impact on job performance (Rich et al., 2010; Saks, 2006; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004).

Therefore, we hypothesize;

H3: Employee engagement is positively related to employee performance.

In addition to the above discussed relationships, this paper also examines the direct relationship

of perceived organizational support with employees’ affective commitment and employee

performance.

2.4 Perceived organizational support and employee performance

Perceived organizational support is seen as an important construct for comprehending job-related

attitudes/behaviors of employees and for discerning the relationship between employees and

workplace (Cheung and Law, 2008; Chew and Wong, 2008; Shen et al., 2014). Researchers

hypothesize that perceived organizational support is related to work-related outcomes such as

charge taking (Burnett et al., 2015) and increased performance (Eisenberger et al., 1986).

However, some researchers reported inconsistent results and found that perceived organizational

support was unrelated to job performance (Muse and Stamper, 2007). However, what is

consistently reported is that perceived organizational support is a “socio-emotional resource”

(Cobb, 1976; Cohen and Wills, 1985). Socio-emotional needs such as care and approval are

positively met by perceived organizational support (Eisenberger et al., 1986). In that case, social

exchange theorists argue that when socio-emotional needs are met, it creates the norm of

reciprocity, amongst people (Rousseau and Parks, 1993; Shore and Shore, 1995). Violation of

this norm creates discomfort (Greenberg, 1980). People show greater effort in work and

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


9

commitment towards the organization in return for its socio-emotional support and avoid any

discomfort (Rousseau and Parks, 1993; Shore and Shore, 1995).

In fact, within organizational context, the obligation to repay is very strong in people

with strong socio-emotional needs (Blau, 1964; Buss, 1983; Crowne and Marlow, 1964; Hill,

1987, Martin, 1984). We, thus, hypothesize perceived organizational support due to reciprocity

effects on employees, results in improved employee performance. Therefore;

H4: Perceived organizational support is positively related to employee performance.

2.5 Perceived organizational support and affective commitment

Employees tend to ascribe human-like traits to organizations and evaluate the benefits that result

by associating themselves with an organization. This is referred to as perceived organizational

support in literature (Eisenberger et al., 1986); and if employees perceive this organizational

support to be an outcome of internal organizational processes, they develop attachment and

commitment towards the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Meyer and Allen, 1991).

Moreover, this commitment is governed by the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960); in which,

as a result of perceived organizational support, employees want to repay to the organization. In

other words, employees perceive organizational support as a social exchange process and try to

offer the organization something in return (Eisenberger et al., 2001). Therefore, perceived

organizational support and organizational commitment though empirically different are

correlated (Bishop et al., 2005).

Organizational commitment (affective in this study) implies employees’ attitude towards

the organization whereas perceived organizational support signifies employees’ perceptions

about the organization's attitude towards them (Shore and Tetrick, 1991). Both are, therefore,

strongly related to each other. In fact, employees who perceive less organizational support from

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


10

their organization show less affective commitment (Garg and Dhar, 2014). Perceived

organizational support is, therefore, an influential antecedent of affective commitment (Kurtessis

et al., 2015; Rhoades et al., 2001) and in fact one of its causes. Thus, we hypothesize:

H5: Perceived organizational support is positively related to affective commitment.

In addition to the above discussed relationships, literature also concedes the mediating influence

of employee engagement on the relationships between job resources and organizational

commitment (Hakanen et al., 2006), job resource and job demands (Llorens et al., 2006),

Perceived organizational support and organizational commitment (Saks, 2006), and co-worker

support and employee performance (Gupta et al., 2015). This study acknowledges that employee

performance and commitment based on organizational support will be inefficient unless the

organizational support provides impetus for higher levels of employee engagement. When

employees perceive higher organizational support, their engagement level will be high (Gupta et

al., 2015). As a result, they may perform better and accomplish the tasks given to them with

higher level of commitment.

According to the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), in a social relation, when

exchanges take place, people act as social beings and bank on a comparative reward (what they

receive) and cost (what they give) analysis related to the exchange. The theory further entails an

undefined obligation, wherein employees are motivated to reciprocate the favor done by the

organization so as to balance the relationship. The favors done to the employees may include

affective commitment and organizational trust (Lee and OK, 2016). This suggests that

employees with high level of engagement, which stems from organizational support, tend to

reciprocate with increased affective commitment and performance (Saks, 2006; Schaufeli and

Bakker, 2004). Grounded on social exchange theory, it is argued that there is an integral

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


11

relationship between perceived organization support, commitment and employee performance.

Therefore, this study proposes employee engagement to be a mediator between perceived

organization support, affective commitment and employee performance. Hence, the following

hypotheses:

H6 (a): Employee engagement mediates the relationship between Perceived organizational

support and employee performance

H6 (b): Employee engagement mediates the relationship between Perceived organizational

support and affective commitment

3. Methodology

3.1 Sample

To test the theorized relationships, a questionnaire survey of 600 employees from various

(government as well as private) higher educational institutes of Delhi, NCR region of India was

conducted. Out of 600 distributed questionnaires, 410 completely filled in questionnaires were

returned back. The respondents of this study were the employees from different departments

working at different positions like administrative staff, faculty, sports staff and IT engineers.

The sample comprised of 290 (70.73%) male and 120 (29.26%) female respondents.

Table 1 presents the biographical profile (including age groups, marital status, education,

designation and experience) of the respondents.

“Insert Table 1 around here”

3.2 Measures

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


12

All the constructs of this study have valid scales available in the literature. Therefore, this study

adapted already validated scales to measure the constructs. Employee engagement was measured

using Schaufeli and Bakker’s (2004) 9-item Utrecht Work and Engagement Scale (UWES-9),

affective commitment was assessed through a 6-item scale by Meyer et al. (1993), perceived

organizational support was measured using 5 items from a shortened version of the Survey of

Perceived Organisational Support (Eisenberger et al., 1986). The shortened version of the SPOS

has been used by various studies (e.g., Wayne et al., 1997; Wong et al., 2015); and employee

performance was measured using a 4-item performance scale by Jansson and Yperen (2004). The

job performance scale was used in reference to the participants’ self-reports. On a 7-point Likert

scale, responses ranged from “Strongly agree=1” to “Strongly disagree=7”.

3.3 Analysis

A preliminary data analysis was conducted first; wherein the accuracy of data, outliers,

normality, missing values, and multi-collinearity of all the variables were checked. Next,

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 20 was run to check the psychometric

characteristics of the scales used by testing the convergent and discriminant validity. Finally,

structural equation modeling was used to test the proposed model and assess the proposed

relationships between the constructs of this study.

Table 2 presents the factor loadings, Cronbach α, composite reliability (CR) and average

variance extracted (AVE) of the constructs. Items after expert suggestions and with weak factor

loadings (less than 0.5) were deleted. Loadings of the final items were greater than 0.6, thereby,

fulfilled the convergent validity criteria (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). The Cronbach α values for all

constructs were acceptable (>.7). The CR should be greater than 0.70 (Fornell and Larcker,

1981); in this study, it ranged from 0.81 to 0.90, hence, acceptable. The AVE of the constructs

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


13

ranged from 0.58 to 0.62 i,e., greater than the accepted value of .50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

The level of common method variance was also examined by Harman’s single-factor test

(Podsakoff et al., 2003) which depicted that common method bias was not a threat to our study.


Discriminant validity that “assesses the degree to which measures of different concepts

are distinct” (Bagozzi 1994, 20); is assessed in our study by comparing the squared root of the

AVEs of each construct with its corresponding correlations (Fornell & Larcker, 1981. As shown

in Table 3, the squared root of the AVEs of each variable is higher than the inter construct

correlations, indicating an acceptable validity.


3.4 Structural model

To assess the model fit, estimates include the χ2 (chi-square) statistic, the goodness of fit index

(GFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and

normed fit index (NFI). Joreskog and Sorborm (1989) suggest acceptable values to be > 0.9 for

the GFI, and the NFI; Hu and Bentler (1999) suggest the value to be < 0.95 for the CFI. The

RMSEA values less than 0.08 indicate an acceptable range (Browne and Cudeck, 1993).

“Insert Figure 1 around here”

This study tested two models to examine the proposed relationships (direct and indirect).

In the first model, as shown in Figure 1, the dotted lines indicate that employee engagement fully

mediates the influence of perceived organizational support on affective commitment and

employee performance. In the second model, the direct as well as indirect effects of perceived

organizational support on affective commitment and employee performance were checked. The

(full and partial) mediation results of the model are shown in Table 4. The first (full mediation)

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


14

model showed a good overall fit on all indices (CMIN χ2=465.67, p< 0.05, df =125, χ2/df=3.72,

RMSEA=0.076, CFI=0.91, NFI=0.90, and GFI=0.91). The second (partial mediation) model

presented a better overall fit than the prior model (CMIN χ2=480.50, p< 0.05, df =136,

χ2/df=3.53, NFI=0.93, RMSEA=0.064, CFI=0.94, and GFI=0.93). Therefore, the second (partial

mediation) model was superior to the full mediation model as it explained a better goodness of

fit.

The results verify that perceived organizational support positively influences employee

performance (H4: Path coefficient 0.38) and affective commitment (H5: Path coefficient 0.39).

The positive relationship between perceived organizational support and employee engagement is

also supported by the results (H1: Path coefficients 0.37 through full mediation and 0.42 through

partial mediation). The results further support the positive influence of employee engagement on

employee performance (H2: Path coefficients 0.41 through full mediation and 0.54 through

partial mediation) and affective commitment (H3: Path coefficients 0.39 through full mediation

and 0.48 through partial mediation). The overall results confirm that employee engagement

partially mediates the relationship of perceived organizational support with employee

performance and affective commitment, thereby, supporting H6 (a) and H6 (b).


To check if the results vary across faculty and non-faculty staff, this study conducted

multi-group analysis in AMOS 20. The entire sample was split in two groups: faculty (n=195)

and non-faculty (n=215). The independent model estimation for each group exhibited a good fit:

for faculty, χ2= 395.32, df= 147, χ2/df= 2.68, NFI= 0.92; CFI= 0.93, GFI=0.91, RMSEA=

0.061; for non-faculty, χ2= 298.88, df= 118, χ2/df= 2.53, NFI= 0.93; CFI= 0.91, GFI=0.91,

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


15

RMSEA= 0.059. The structural multi-group again demonstrated a good model fit: CMIN

χ2=420.55, p< 0.05, df =166, χ2/df=2.53, NFI=0.92, RMSEA=0.062, CFI=0.91, and GFI=0.90.

“Insert Table 5 here”

Table 5 presents the results of the relationship effects across faculty and non-faculty samples. As

evident from the results, the relationship between perceived organizational support and employee

engagement is significantly positive for both the sample groups (faculty: β= 0.41, t= 4.03, p<

0.01; non-faculty: β= 0.39, t= 3.33, p< 0.01). The significant positive effect of employee

engagement on affective commitment does not vary across the sample groups (faculty: β= 0.36,

t= 3.42, p< 0.01; non-faculty: β= 0.38, t= 3.59, p< 0.01). Similarly, the significant positive effect

of employee engagement on employee performance remains invariant across the two sample

groups (faculty: β= 0.26, t= 2.53, p< 0.01; non-faculty: β= 0.25, t= 2.47, p< 0.01). The

significant positive effect of perceived organizational support on employee performance is

uniform for both the faculty and non-faculty sample groups (faculty: β= 0.30, t= 3.16, p< 0.01;

non-faculty: β= 0.28, t= 2.19, p< 0.01). Finally, a significant positive relationship was found

between rewards and customer engagement for both the sample groups (faculty: β= 0.22, t= 2.18,

p< 0.01; non-faculty: β= 0.24, t= 2.44, p< 0.01). These results hold almost the same pattern

across two sample sets.

4. Discussion and implications

Literature on organizational relationships emphasizes on the key role of employee

engagement in strengthening the organizational work environment and improving the outcomes.

The main motive of this study was to examine the effect of perceived organizational support on

employee engagement, and the effect of employee engagement on affective commitment and

employee performance in the context of higher educational establishments. A model was framed

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


16

to describe the relationships under study. The results revealed that employee engagement

positively influences employee performance and affective commitment. Results further revealed

a direct as well as an indirect (mediated by employee engagement) relationship of perceived

organizational support with employee performance and affective commitment. Therefore,

perceived organizational support affects employee engagement positively and employee

engagement in turn shows a positive effect on affective commitment and employee performance.

Grounded on social exchange theory, this study advocates that employees who perceive greater

organizational support are more likely to repay this favor of perceived organizational support

through higher levels of engagement, commitment and performance. The results support

previous studies on employee engagement (Rich et al., 2010; Saks, 2006). The analysis of faculty

and non-faculty sample group results suggest in order to enhance employee performance and

affective commitment, organizations need to provide support to their employees irrespective of

their managerial positions and adopt new approaches to make employee engagement central to

their organizations.

A report reveals that Indian employees are more engaged than their global counterparts.

The report further shows that 46% of the Indian workforce stands engaged whereas the global

average for the same is 34% (Deodhar, 2014). While these numbers do present a relatively good

picture in India, the fact remains that 54% of the Indian workforce is somewhat disengaged with

their job. This makes it quite clear that today, organizations must take creative initiatives to boost

engagement. Furthermore, studies on the Indian higher education context and engagement are

almost absent. Hence, this study is an important contribution to organizational behavior in

general and the Indian higher education environment in particular. The centrality of employee

engagement is decisive to the success of higher education in India. Employee engagement is

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


17

imperative to most effectively achieving the overall purpose of higher educational institutions,

which is focused on the knowledge enterprise. The role of seniors and institutes in such scenario

becomes even more important, especially in India, where traditionally the hierarchical work

system is looked upon with great importance (Varma et al., 2005). In India, socio-emotional

needs such as support and care are expected from seniors; hence, the level of engagement and

commitment towards the organization depends strongly on perceived organizational support

(Garg and Dhar, 2014).

Considering the context of this study, it is evident that organizations showing concern

towards perceived organizational support can create a sense of duty among employees who

reciprocate with higher levels of work engagement. Higher level of perceived organizational

support is expected to lead to favorable attitudinal and behavioral consequences that repay

positively to benefit the organization (Pazy and Ganzach, 2009). In academics, employees need

to be engaged. Thus, educational organizations in India that aim to develop a committed

workforce with higher levels of performance through employee engagement need to focus on

employees’ perception of the support they experience from their organization. Organizations

need to launch programs that address employees’ needs and concerns (e.g., focus groups, surveys

and suggestion programs) and also need to demonstrate care and support (e.g. regular meetings,

flexible work arrangements).

To have a continuous cycle of teaching and research excellence in a higher institution, a

focus on retaining recruited and developed staff is crucial. Since it is difficult to replace the

knowledge, skills and experience of the academic staff, evidently, the retention of such a staff

should be a strategic priority (Simmons, 2002). Without a well-qualified, engaged and committed

staff, no academic institution can really ensure sustainability and quality contributions over a

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


18

long period of time (Robyn and Preez, 2013). The managing bodies of educational institutions

need to understand that employee engagement is an on-going and a long-term process that

demands continued interactions over time in order to generate obligations and a state of

reciprocal interdependence (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Communicating and actively

demonstrating, appreciating employees and caring about their welfare is a good strategy to start

with. Educational organizations should ideally make such actions an integral part of their

management and leadership, because the significance of employee engagement in educational

institutes arguably resonates well beyond the individual workplace. A healthy educational

institute with highly engaged and committed workforce has positive implications for the society

at large. This study is expected to broaden the scant literature on engagement in the context of

Indian higher education and be fruitful for academic practitioners as well as researchers.

Conclusion and future research directions

The study contributes to existing employee engagement literature by developing and

validating a research model that describes employee engagement, its antecedents and

consequences in Indian higher educational establishments. This study can be helpful to the

managing body of such higher educational institutes while framing strategies to develop a

competent and committed workforce that is well engaged with the organization and provides a

competitive advantage. Indian higher educational organizations should always be looking for

various ways through which engaged employees will sense a close connection with their

organization. Positive outcomes in the shape of improved commitment and performance should

provide enough encouragement to initiate relevant action.

Certain limitations are acknowledged by this study. This study examined only few

variables, future research may extend the number of variables in our model. Additional variables

such as reward and recognition, job satisfaction etc. can also be taken into account for future

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


19

research. In our study, sample size of some departments is more as compared to other

departments; results may differ with a proportionate sample size. Future research can also

conduct the study on a large sample size using many institutes so as to generalize the findings.

One of such limitations is the scope of this study which is limited to Delhi-NCR region only.

This work is limited to the Indian context; a cross cultural study may be conducted so as to see if

any variations occur in other cultural settings. A comparative study among the employees of

government and private institutes as well as among faculty and support staff is also suggested.

Finally, the relationships proposed in this study could be tested using moderators such as gender,

income, or age.

References

Achterberg, W., Pot, A. M., Kerkstra, A., Ooms, M., Muller, M. and Ribbe, M. (2003), “The effect of depression on social engagement in newly admitted Dutch nursing home residents”, The Gerontologist, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 213-218.

Angle, H. L. and Perry, J. L. (1981), “An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 1-14.

Ashforth, B. E. and Humphrey, R. H. (1995), “Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal”, Human Relations, Vol. 48, pp. 97–125.

ASSOCHAM (2013), “B-schools increasingly loosing shine in India”, available at: www.assocham.org/prels/shownews-archive.php?id¼3877, accessed in February, 2016. ASSOCHAM (2016), “Lack of quality higher education, limited seats forcing 6.8 lakh students to study abroad: ASSOCHAM study”, Retrieved from http://assocham.org/newsdetail.php?id=5042 on October, 2016. Bakker, A. B. and Demerouti, E. (2008), “Towards a model of work engagement”, Career Development International, Vol.13 No. 3, pp. 209-223.

Bakker, A. B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008), “Positive organizational behavior: engaged employees in flourishing organizations”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 147-154. Bakker, A. B. (2009), “Building Engagement in the Workplace”, in Burke, R.J. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), “The Peak Performing Organization”, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 50-72.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F13620430810870476


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.515

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4324%2F9780203971611.ch3

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Fgeront%2F43.2.213

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Fgeront%2F43.2.213

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2392596



20

Bakker, A. B., Emmerik, H. and Euwema, M.C. (2006), “Crossover of burnout and engagement in work teams”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 464-489. Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. and Taris, T.W. (2008), “Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology”, Work & Stress, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp.187-200. Baumruk, R. (2004), “The missing link: The role of employee engagement in business success”, Workspan, Vol. 47, pp. 48-52.

Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York. Bowen, J. and Ford, R. C. (2002), “Managing service organizations: Does having a “thing” make a difference?”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 28 No. 3 , pp. 447-469. Burnett, M. F., Chiaburu, D. S., Shapiro, D. L. and Li, N. (2015), “Revisiting how and when perceived organizational support enhances taking charge an inverted U-shaped perspective”, Journal of Management, Vol. 41 No. 7, 1805-1826. Chan, W.-Y., Lau, S., Nie, Y., Lim, S. and Hogan, D. (2008), “Organizational and personal predictors of teacher commitment: The mediating role of teacher efficacy and identification with school”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 597-630. Cheung, M. F. and Law, M. C. (2008), “Relationships of organizational justice and organizational identification: The mediating effects of perceived organizational support in Hong Kong”, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 213-231. Chew, Y. T. and Wong, S. K. (2008), “Effects of career mentoring experience and perceived organizational support on employee commitment and intentions to leave: A study among hotel workers in Malaysia”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 692-700. Chhapia, H. (2013), “More B-schools closing than new ones opening”, TNN, available at: http:// articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-01/news/40306621_1_engineeringcollegesmca-college-aicte/, accessed on February, 2016. Cho, J., Laschinger, H. K. S. and Wong, C. (2006), “Workplace empowerment, work engagement and organizational commitment of new graduate nurses”, Nursing Leadership–Academy of Canadian Executive Nurses, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 43–60.

Cole, M. S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A. G. and O’Boyle, E. H. (2012), “Job burnout and employee engagement a meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1550-1581. Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31, pp. 874-900.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)








http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.12927%2Fcjnl.2006.18368

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.12927%2Fcjnl.2006.18368


21

Daniels, J.R. (2016), “An exploratory comparative case study of employee engagement in Christian higher education”, Christian Higher Education, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 126-139.

Deodhar, S. (2014), “Employee engagement – India tops the Charts, but that’s not the full story”, available at http://sapience.net/employee-engagement-india-tops-the-charts-but-that-s-not-the-full-story/ Dhar, R. (2012), “Employees' perception of organizational support: a qualitative investigation in the Indian IT industry”, WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 211-222. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D. and Rhoades, L. (2001), “Reciprocation of perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No.1, pp. 42-51. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-507. Gallup. (2004), International manufacturing firm: Employee engagement, Princeton,NJ: Author. Gallup. (2007), Financial services company: Employee and customer engagement, Princeton, NJ: Author Gibbons, J. (2006), “Employee engagement: A review of current research and its implications”, Conference Board, Retrieved from http://www.conference-board.org, accessed on March, 2016 González-Rico, P., Carvalho, V.S., Chambel, M.J. and Guerrero, E. (2016), “Be well at work, be well outside work: a study with university workers”, Studies in Higher Education, pp. 1-11. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2016.1212326.

Gupta, M., Acharya, A. and Gupta, R. (2015), “Impact of Work Engagement on Performance in Indian Higher Education System”, Review of European Studies, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 192-201.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. Anderson, R. E. and Tatham, R. L. (2010), Multivariate Data

Analysis, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hakanen J., Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006), “Burnout and Work Engagement among Teachers,” Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 495-513.

Hakanen, J.J., Schaufeli, W.B. and Ahola, K. (2008), “The job demands–resources model: A three–year cross–lagged study of burnout depression, commitment, and work engagement”, Work and Stress, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 224–241. Huo, Y. J., Binning, K. R. and Molina, L. E. (2010), “Testing an integrative model of respect: Implications for social engagement and well-being”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 200-212.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F15363759.2016.1165155


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5539%2Fres.v7n3p192

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jsp.2005.11.001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.86.1.42





22

Husin, S., Chelladurai, P. and Musa, G. (2012), “HRM practices, organizational citizenship behaviors, and perceived service quality in golf courses”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 143-158. Islam, J. and Rahman, Z. (2016), “Examining the effects of brand love and brand image on customer engagement: An empirical study of fashion apparel brands”, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 45-59.

Islam, J. and Rahman, Z. (2016a), “Linking customer engagement to trust and word of mouth on Facebook brand communities: An empirical study”, Journal of Internet Commerce, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 40-58.

Islam, J. and Rahman, Z. (2016b), “The transpiring journey of customer engagement research in marketing: A systematic review of the past decade”, Management Decision, Vol. 54 No. 8, pp. 2008- 2034.

Jennings, M.K. and Stoker, L. (2004), ‘‘Social Trust and Civic Engagement across Time and Generations,’’ Acta Politica, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 342-379.

Johnsrud, L.K., Heck, R.H. and Rosser, V.J. (2000), “Morale matters: Midlevel administrators and their intent to leave”, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 34-59.

Kahn, W. A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 692-724.

Kamoche, K. (2001). “Human Resources in Vietnam: The Global Challenge.” Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 652– 668.

Karatepe, O.M. and Olugbade, O.A. (2009), “The effects of job and personal resources on hotel employees’ work engagement”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp.504-512. Karatepe, O. M. and Demir, E. (2014), “Linking core self-evaluations and work engagement to work–family facilitation”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 26, pp. 307–323. KPMG. (2015), Indian higher education: Shifting the paradigm. https://www.kpmg.com/IN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/BBG-Education.pdf, accessed on October, 2016. Kurtessis, J.N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M.T., Buffardi, L.C., Stewart, K.A. and Adis, C.S. (2015), “Perceived organizational support a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory”, Journal of management, doi: 10.1177/0149206315575554 Lee, J. and Ok, C.M. (2016), “Hotel employee work engagement and its consequences”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp.133-166.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)



http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FIJCHM-01-2013-0008



http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FMD-01-2016-0028

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1057%2Fpalgrave.ap.5500077





http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Ftie.1019

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Ftie.1019

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ijhm.2009.02.003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1123%2Fjsm.26.2.143

23

Lee, O. F., Tan, J. A. and Javalgi, R. (2010), “Goal orientation and organizational commitment: Individual difference predictors of job performance”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 18 No.1, pp.129-150. Leiter, M. P. and Bakker, A. B. (2010), Work engagement: Introduction. Work engagement: A

handbook of essential theory and research, pp. 1-9. Llorens, S., Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “Testing the Robustness of The Job Demands-resources Model,” International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 378-391. Lo, M. C., Ramayah, T., Min, H. W. and Songan, P. (2010), “The relationship between leadership styles and organizational commitment in Malaysia: role of leader–member exchange”, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 16 No. 1-2, pp. 79-103.

Macedo, I. M., Pinho, J. C. and Silva, A. M. (2016), “Revisiting the link between mission statements and organizational performance in the non-profit sector: The mediating effect of organizational commitment”, European Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 36-46.

Macey, W. H. and Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee engagement”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 3-30.

Malhotra, N., Mavondo, F., Mukherjee, A. and Hooley, G. (2013), “Service quality of frontline

employees: a profile deviation analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 9, pp. 1338-

1344.

Meyer, P. J. and Allen, J. N. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol.1 No.1, pp. 61-89.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J. and Smith, C. A. (1993), “Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 538-551.

Miles, R. H. (2001), “Beyond the age of Dilbert: Accelerating corporate transformations by rapidly engaging all employees”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 29, pp. 313-321

Mondak, J.J., Matthew V.H., Damary Canache, M.A. and Anderson, M.R. (2010), ‘‘Personality and Civic Engagement: An Integrative Framework for the Study of Trait Effects on Political Behavior,’’ American Political Science Review, Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 85-110.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M. and Porter, L. X. (1979), “The measurement of organizational commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 224-247.

Muse, L. and Stamper, C. (2007), “Perceived organizational support: evidence for a mediated association with work performance”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 517-535.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.emj.2015.10.003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1754-9434.2007.0002.x

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1754-9434.2007.0002.x

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jbusres.2012.02.034

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F1053-4822%2891%2990011-Z





http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0090-2616%2801%2900036-5


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1017%2FS0003055409990359


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0001-8791%2879%2990072-1

24

Mullen, B. and Copper, C. (1994), “The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 210-227.

Pazy, A. and Ganzach, Y. (2009), “Pay contingency and the effects of perceived organizational and supervisor support on performance and commitment”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 1007-1025.

Powell, D. M. and Meyer, J. P. (2004), “Side-bet theory and the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior”, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 157-177.

Pienaar, J.W. (2005), “Career dilemmas of academics within a changing South African Higher

Education Institution”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the Free State,

Bloemfontein, South Africa

Pienaar, C. and Bester, C. (2008), “The retention of academics in the early career phase”, SA

Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 32-41.

Raina, K. and Khatri, P. (2015), “Faculty engagement in higher education: Prospects and areas of research”, On the Horizon, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 285-308.

Reade, C. and Lee, H. J. (2012), “Organizational commitment in time of war: Assessing the impact and attenuation of employee sensitivity to ethno-political conflict”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 85-101.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), “Affective commitment to the organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 825-836.

Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E. R. (2010), “Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635.

Richman, A. (2006), “Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it?”, Workspan, Vol. 49, pp. 36-9.

Robyn, A. and Du Preez, R. (2013), “Intention to quit amongst Generation Y academics in

higher education”. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 1.

Rosser, V.J. (2004), “A national study on midlevel leaders in higher education: The unsung professionals in the academy”, Higher Education, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 317-337.

Saks, M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of

Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 600-619.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.intman.2011.09.002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.intman.2011.09.002


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAMJ.2010.51468988



http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4102%2Fsajip.v39i1.1106

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0001-8791%2803%2900050-2

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1023%2FB%3AHIGH.0000035543.58672.52



http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FOTH-03-2015-0011

25

Schaufeli, W. B. and Bakker, A. B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 293–315.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A. B. (2002), “The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach” Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 71-92.

Shen, Y., Jackson, T., Ding, C., Yuan, D., Zhao, L., Dou, Y. and Zhang, Q. (2014), “Linking perceived organizational support with employee work outcomes in a Chinese context: Organizational identification as a mediator”. European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 406-412.

Shuck, B. and Wollard, K. (2010), “Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the

foundations”, Human Resources Development Review, Vol. 9, pp. 89-110.

Simmons, J. (2002), “An expert witness perspective on performance appraisal in universities and

colleges”, Employee Relations, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 86–100.

Smerek, R. E. and Peterson, M. (2007), “Examining Herzberg’s theory: Improving job satisfaction among non-academic employees at a university”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 48 No.1, pp. 229–250. Stanton, P. and A. Nankervis. (2011). “Linking Strategic HRM, Performance Management and Organisational Effectiveness: Perceptions of Managers in Singapore”, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 67-84. Stanton, P. and Pham, H. T. (2014), “Managing employee performance in an emerging economy: perceptions of Vietnamese managers”, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 269-285. Steers, R. M. (1977), “Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 46-56. Sonnentag, S. (2003), “Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between non work and work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 518–528. Thomsen, M., Karsten, S. and Oort, F. J. (2016), “Distance in schools: the influence of psychological and structural distance from management on teachers’ trust in management, organisational commitment, and organisational citizenship behaviour”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, pp. 1-19. Towers P. (2003), Working today: Understanding what drives employee engagement, Towers Perrin: Stamford CT. Van Knippenberg, D. (2000), “Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 357-371.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)



http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1023%2FA%3A1015630930326

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1023%2FA%3A1015630930326

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.emj.2013.08.004


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1464-0597.00020






http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.248

26

Varma, A., Srinivas, E. S. and Stroh, L. K. (2005), “A comparative study of the impact of leader member exchange in US and Indian samples”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 84-95. Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997), “Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 82-111.

Wong, Y. T., Wong, Y. W. and Wong, C. S. (2015), “An integrative model of turnover intention: Antecedents and their effects on employee performance in Chinese joint ventures”, Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 71-90.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)




http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FJCHRM-06-2014-0015

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FJCHRM-06-2014-0015

1

Tables: Table-1: Biographical profile of respondents

Variable Frequency Percentage

Age (Years)

<25

25-30

31-35

36-40

41-45

≥46

Marital status

Married

Unmarried

Education

Undergraduate

Master’s

Ph.D.

Designation

Administrative staff

Faculty

Sports staff

IT engineers

Years of experience

<1

1-3

3-5

>5

N

58

90

94

103

42

23

257

153

162

206

42

137

195

33

45

80

152

133

45

410

14.14

21.95

22.93

25.13

10.25

5.60

62.68

37.32

39.52

50.24

10.24

33.42

47.57

8.044

10.97

19.52

37.07

32.44

10.97

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


2

Table 2: Reliability and validity of the constructs

Construct Items Factor loadings Cronbach α Composite

reliability

AVE

Employee

engagement

Affective

commitment

Employee

performance

Perceived

organizational

support

EE1

EE2

EE 3

EE 4

EE 5

EE 6

EE 7

EE 8

EE9

AC1

AC 2

AC 3

AC 4

AC 5

AC6

EP1

EP 2

EP 3

EP 4

POS1

POS2

POS3

POS4

POS5

0.72

0.70

0.73

0.76

0.71

0.68

0.71

0.70

0.75

0.76

0.69

0.70

0.66

0.75

0.67

0.68

0.72

0.77

0.71

0.81

0.77

0.74

0.69

0.68

0.82

0.85

0.84

0.87

0.90

0.85

0.81

0.85

0.62

0.61

0.58

0.62

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


3

Table 3: Descriptive statistics and correlations

Variable Mean S.D. EE AC EP POS Squared root

of AVE

(EE)

(AC)

(EP)

(POS)

4.67

4.54

4.09

4.20

1.14

1.12

1.10

1.11

-

0.41*

0.48 *

0.39*

-

0.42*

0.40*

-

0.49*

-

0.787

0.781

0.761

0.787

(Note: EE depicts employee engagement, AOC depicts affective organizational commitment, EP

depicts employee performance and POS depicts Perceived organizational support. *Correlation

significance at 0.01 level; N=410)

Table-4: Structural model analyses results for (full and partial) mediation models

Hypothesis

Number

Relationship Full mediation Partial mediation

Standardized path

coefficient

t-values Standardized path

coefficient

t-values

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

POS-EE

EE-AC

EE-OP

POS-EP

POS-AC

0.37

0.41

0.39

4.24

5.43

3.76

0.42

0.54

0.48

0.38

0.39

3.91

4.04

3.17

4.02

2.71

Model fit statistics

χ2

df

χ2/df

CFI

NFI

GFI

RMSEA

465.67

125

3.72

0.91

0.90

0.91

0.076

480.50

136

3.53

0.94

0.93

0.93

0.064

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)


4

Table 5: Results across faculty and non-faculty samples

Hypothesized relationships Faculty Non-faculty

β t-values β t-values

POS-EE

EE-AC

EE-EP

POS-EP

POS-AC

0.41

0.36

0.26

0.30

0.22

4.03

3.42

2.53

3.16

2.18

0.39

0.38

0.25

0.28

0.24

3.33

3.59

2.47

2.19

2.44

Figure-1

.

direct effect

indirect effect

Figure-1: Research model (* shows the path estimates and ** shows the t-values)

Perceived

organizational

support

Employee

engagement

Affective

commitment

Employee

performance

0.42*(3.91**) 0.54*(4.04**)

0.48*(3.17**)

0.38*(4.02**)

0.39*(2.71**)

R2=0.47

R2=0.41

R2=0.52

R2=0.587

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 18:

06 2

4 Ja

nuar

y 20

17 (

PT)
