0
Implications of Personality Traits, Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement of Millennials: Towards Crafting a Strategic Human Resource Model
A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School Colegio de San Juan de Letran
In Partial Fulfilment Of the Requirements of the Degree Doctor of Business Administration Administration
RAMONCITO P. JAVIER
September 2016
1
Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................... ......................................... ...................................................... ..................... 3 PROBLEM RATIONALE .................................................. ......................................................................................... ....................................... 3 1.1 1.2
Introduction ..................................................... ................................................ 3 Significance of the Study Stud y .................................................. .............................. 7
CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................... ......................................... ...................................................... ................... 10 RESEARCH QUESTIONS…………...…………..……………….………....……10 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6
Review of Related Literature ............................................ ............................ 11 Synthesis of the Literature ................................................. ............................................................................. ............................ 32 Theoretical Framework ...................................................................... ................. ..................................................... ........... 34 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................ .. 37 Hypotheses ...................................................... .............................................. 41 Research Paradigm Pa radigm ........................................................................................ 42
CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................... ......................................... ...................................................... ................... 44 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ ............................... ............................................. 44 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
Research Design .............................................. .............................................. 44 Respondents and Locale of the Study ........................................................... ...................... ..................................... 45 Research Instruments ................................................................ ........... ..................................................... .................... 45 Data Gathering Procedure .......................................................... ................... 52
Statistical Tools ……………………...……………… ……………………...………………………… …………………….57 Ethical Considerations …………………………………………………….. 59
CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................... ......................................... ...................................................... ................... 57 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................... ................... 57 4.1
Results and Discussion ...................................................... ............................ 58
1
Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................... ......................................... ...................................................... ..................... 3 PROBLEM RATIONALE .................................................. ......................................................................................... ....................................... 3 1.1 1.2
Introduction ..................................................... ................................................ 3 Significance of the Study Stud y .................................................. .............................. 7
CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................... ......................................... ...................................................... ................... 10 RESEARCH QUESTIONS…………...…………..……………….………....……10 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6
Review of Related Literature ............................................ ............................ 11 Synthesis of the Literature ................................................. ............................................................................. ............................ 32 Theoretical Framework ...................................................................... ................. ..................................................... ........... 34 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................ .. 37 Hypotheses ...................................................... .............................................. 41 Research Paradigm Pa radigm ........................................................................................ 42
CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................... ......................................... ...................................................... ................... 44 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ ............................... ............................................. 44 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
Research Design .............................................. .............................................. 44 Respondents and Locale of the Study ........................................................... ...................... ..................................... 45 Research Instruments ................................................................ ........... ..................................................... .................... 45 Data Gathering Procedure .......................................................... ................... 52
Statistical Tools ……………………...……………… ……………………...………………………… …………………….57 Ethical Considerations …………………………………………………….. 59
CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................... ......................................... ...................................................... ................... 57 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................... ................... 57 4.1
Results and Discussion ...................................................... ............................ 58
2
CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................... ......................................... ...................................................... ................... 96 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 96 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Summary of Findings…………………..…...……………………..…….100 Conclusions ..................................……………………………………….109 Recommendations …………………...…………………………………..117 Directions for Future Research……………………………………..……122
REFERENCES ........................................................................................... ..................................... ...................................................... ................. 124 APPENDICES ......................................................... .................................................... 140 Appendix A – Questionnaires ............................................................................... 140 Appendix B – Job Job Satisfaction Survey Results ..................................................... 147 Appendix C – Employee Employee Engagement Survey Surve y Results ......................................... 149 Appendix D - T Value of Personality Traits and Gender ...................................... 150 Appendix E - T Value of Personality Traits and Job Level .................................. 151 Appendix F - T Value of o f Personality Traits and Civil Status ............................... 152 Appendix G - F Value of Personality Traits and Tenure ............................... ....... 153 Appendix H – T T Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales Su bscales and Gender Gende r ....................... 154 Appendix I – T T Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Job Level ..................... 155 Appendix J – T T Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Civil Status ................. 156 Appendix K – F F Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Tenure ........................ 157 Appendix L – T T Value of Employee Engagement En gagement and Gender............................. Gender ............................. 159 Appendix M – T T Value of Employee Engagement and Job Level........................ Level ........................ 160 Appendix N – T T Value of Employee Engagement and Civil Status ..................... 161 Appendix O – F F Value of Employee Engagement and Tenure ............................. 162 Appendix P – Permission Permission to Use Job Satisfaction Survey and Utrecht Work Engagement Scale Requirements ................................................ .......................................................................... ..........................162 162 Appendix Q – Definition Definition of Terms ........................................................................164 ........................................................................164 Appendix R -Timetable and Budgetary Requirement ........................................... ...........................................167 167
CURRICULUM VITAE……………………………………………………...…….. 168
3
CHAPTER 1 PROBLEM RATIONALE 1.1. Introduction
The intensifying war for talent makes it increasingly difficult to attract the kind of people the organization needs (Lombos, 2014). With the global war being waged for talent (Collins, 2011), the challenge for employers is not onl y to retain employees but to engage them, as well, with every intention to encourage high performance (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014).
Nearly a century has passed and a new and influential generational cohort called millennials has surfaced in the local and global workplace (Hubbard, 2013) often criticized f or their attitude towards work (Kellison, Kim & Magnusen, 2013). Millennials are described as a generation with no work ethics, selfish, has a strong sense of entitlement, loyal only to themselves and their profession rather than to the business, stay for shorter employment periods and expect the fruits of success to flow to them immediately (Atkinson, 2008). Organizations, therefore, have begun to pay attention as
well, recognizing that managers are having trouble managing their “young people” (Thompson & Gregory, 2012; Gavatorta, 2012; Randall, 2010).
4
Members of this generation were born between 1983 and 2003 and is the largest cohort found in the workforce that grew with maturing technology, enjoy interacting in social media and frequently obtain information online (LaBan, 2013). Millennials are well--educated, sophisticated, and do not necessarily see their careers following a traditional path (Stacey, 2010). A number of factors such as helicopter parents, frequent positive feedback and reassurance, significant leaps in technology, and political and economic turmoil has shaped this generational cohort (Thompson & Gregory, 2012).
The shift in the work values of this generational cohort appear to approach employment in a manner different to that of their predecessors (Solnet & Kralj, 2011; LaBan, 2013). Employers and managers, therefore, need to provide meaningful work, to allow them to provide input, and help them feel that he is a good fit to a good team (DeVaney, 2015).
Job satisfaction for millennials bring about new challenges in the modern workplace (Aruna & Anitha, 2015). With job satisfaction as a strong predictor of turnover (Hofaidhllaoui & Chhinzer, 2014; Sree Rekha & Kamalanabhan, 2010), it provides significant reasons for an employee to leave or stay with an organization.
What do millennials look for in a job and consider as important contributors to their happiness and satisfaction in the workplace? Are there specific or dominant personality traits of this generation that have a strong bearing on job satisfaction and
5
employee engagement? The output of this study expects to contribute to the emerging body of knowledge on employee engagement and job satisfaction while taking into
account personality or psychometric measures of the survey’s participants. Researchers who attempt to determine the relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction (Patrick, 2010; Templer, 2012; Cleare, 2013; Zhai, Willis, O’Shea, Zhai & Yang, 2013; Ahmad, Ather & Hussain, 2014; Ongore, 2014) often cite the seminal works of Barrick and Mount (1991), Judge, Heller and Mount (2002), Staw and Cohen-Charash (2005) or that of Judge, Heller and Klinger (2008). The results of the said studies suggested that personality traits are dispositional sources of job satisfaction. This idea traces its roots to the Hawthorne Studies conducted in 1920 (Porter, 2012). The Hawthorne researchers noticed that certain individuals, whom they called the ‘chronic-
kickers’, incessantly complained despite the number of interventions afforded them (Patrick, 2010).
High levels of job satisfaction lead to engaged employees who perform exceptionally well in their jobs (Abraham, 2012). Engaged employees are not only
motivated, but they also understand the organization’s business goals, the steps required to achieve the said goals and how their contribution drive those goals (Rasli, Huam, Thoo & Khalaf, 2012). Engaged employees contribute to the foundation line of any business and their engagement reflects in their services to clients and customers (Andrew & Sofian, 2012). Outwardly, engaged employees devote a lot of energy to their jobs,
6
striving as hard as they can to take initiative and get the job done (De Braine & Roodt, 2011). Inwardly, engaged employees focus a great deal of attention and concentration on their work, sometimes becoming so absorbed, involved and interested in their tasks that they lose track of time (Colquite, Lepine & Wesson, 2013).
Disengaged employees, on the other hand, have essentially “checked out” – putting time but not energy or attention to their work and do little beyond the minimum effort required to complete their job (Robbins & Judge, 2009, p 115). They exhibit little passion or creativity typically going through the motions of completing their duties and do not see their job as a long-term association with the organization (Jauhari, Sehgal & Sehgal, 2013).
Employee engagement is an individual’s involvement with, satisfaction with and enthusiasm for the work he does (Robbins & Judge, 2009). At present, there is no consistency in definition, with engagement having been operationalized and measured in many disparate ways (Sahoo & Mishra, 2012). As a result, there is an absence of a universal and unanimous definition and measurement of employee engagement (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014).
Employee engagement is very similar to the Filipino values of bayanihan and malasakit. Bayanihan involves “working together and helping each other achieve a goal or make work easier, faster and lighter .” (Angeles & Llanto, 2014). According to the
7
same study, bayanihan improves teamwork and an employee’s sense of belonging. Malasakit , on the other hand, extends beyond the definition of engagement as it
ascertains fair treatment, selfless acts and a degree of sacrifice.
1.2. Significance of the Study
Previous studies on job satisfaction and employee engagement (Abraham, 2012; Diedericks & Rothmann, 2013; Ozsoy & Aras, 2014; Rigg, Day & Adler, 2013) did not focus on millennials in a BPO setting. Further research on the generational characteristics of millennials and their individual motivators (Solnet & Kralj, 2011) may have significant contributions to the following:
Business Process Outsourcing (BPOs) Companies . Use as an eye-opener for BPOs to
build a highly positive work environment aligned to the company’s goals, strategies and financial objectives (Sahoo & Mishra, 2012).
HR Practitioners and Leaders . Develop employee engagement programs to retain
qualified talent. A study by Kontoghiorghes and Frangou (2009) found that qualified talent is highly correlated to the strategic goals of today's modern organizations such as quality performance, providing best value to the customer, innovation and competitiveness.
8
Business Leaders . To understand that engagement starts at the top and management is
responsible for creating an environment that fosters growth, recognition and trust so that their organization can experience the power of full engagement (Kaliannan & Adjovu, 2015).
Researcher.
Being a part of the BPO, this study serves as an eye opener to the
personalities, behaviors and attitudes of the employees that such can be a tool in crafting programs that can enhance job satisfaction leading to employee retention.
Future Researchers . The study can be further extended in the future to include either
or both members of other generations (Baby Boomers and Generation X) to determine if significant generational differences in the workplace truly exists (Solnet & Kralj, 2011). Researchers can determine the relationship between work engagement and employee productivity and/or organizational growth (Edinger, 2012; McShane & Von Glinow, 2013) for professions such educators, accountants, lawyers, IT workers, sales people etc. (Needleman, Bowman, Wyte-Lake, & Dobalian, 2014; Levy, Richardson, Lounsbury, Stewart, Gibson & Drost, 2011; Mehta, 2012; Perkowsky, 2015).
9
1.3 Scope, Limitations and Delimitation of the Study
The study was limited to the relationship between personality traits, job satisfaction and work engagement among workers, under the age of 35, for five`of CPI Outsourcing’s clients in Metro Manila. It did not take into account the specific nature of the job (i.e. operations, sales & marketing, IT, HR and finance) due to limited time and financial constraints. The study did not consider the development nor determinants of personality. Personality traits were delimited to the big five personality traits of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. It did not compare the results among the companies and the individual implications. Moreover, it did not assess changes over time in the personality, job satisfaction and employee engagement measures, given the limited time provided for the study.
10
CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS This chapter presents the research’s review of related literature and its synthesis; theoretical framework; research questions and hypothesis; and its conceptua l framework. The general objectives of the proposed study is to determine the relationships of personality traits, job satisfaction and employee engagement and to understand how these measures relate.
Although there are no local theories on Filipino motivation, there is a growing body of research in the Philippines’ workplace on motivation (Ilagan, Hechanova, Co & Pleyto, 2014). A study by Hechanova, Uy and Presbitero Jr. (2005) described the average Filipino worker as someone who values job security, good pay and opportunities for growth when choosing a prospective employer (as cited in Ilagan et. al. 2014).
Employers in the BPO industry attract employees with better monetary benefits with little success (Sen Gupta & Gupta, 2008). Studies have shown that the correlation between pay and job satisfaction virtually disappears when the individual reaches a level of comfortable living (Robbins & Judge, 2009; Wyld, 2011).
The Filipino workplace, in general, places special emphasis on relationships as reflected in the concepts of pakikisama, pakikipagkapwa and pakikiisa and may seem to
11
be a powerful motivator to work (Menguito, 2014). Though workers place importance on their relationships with their colleagues, happiness in this area does not automatically translate to happiness or satisfaction at work (Tiglao, 1988 as cited in Menguito, 2014) hypothesizing that the quality of interpersonal relationships and meaningful work are both important and necessary.
2.1
Review of Related Literature
Five Factor Model of Personality
The Five Factor Model of Personality or Big-Five is a widely examined theory
of five broad dimensions used to describe a person’s personality traits in terms of five basic
dimensions:
openness
to
experience,
conscientiousness,
extraversion,
agreeableness and neuroticism (Colquitt, Lepine & Wesson, 2013). Personality traits are not descriptive summaries of behavior, but rather dispositions inferred from and can predict and account for patterns, thoughts, feelings and actions (McCrae, 2010). A central assumption of the personality theory is that an individual possesses a predisposition to behave, think, and feel in a relatively consistent manner over time and across diverse situations (Wille, De Fruyt & Feys, 2013).
Judge, Heller and Mount in 1992 described openness to experience relates to creativity, divergent thinking, and political liberalism (as cited in Rich, Lepine &
12
Crawford, 2010). The behavioral tendencies associated to this trait are curiosity, foresightedness, originality, imaginativeness, broad-mindedness, intelligence, having a need for variety, aesthetic sensitivity, and unconventional values (McCrae, 2010; Erdheim, Wang & Zickar, 2006).
Conscientiousness is a tendency to show self-discipline and to act dutifully. The
typical behavioral tendencies associated with this trait are highly organized, persevering, hard-working, achievement-oriented, careful and responsible (Barrick, Mount & Li, 2013; Erdheim et al., 2006).
Extraversion refers to the predisposition to experience positive emotions
(McCrae, 2010), having more friends and spending more time in social situations than those who are low on extraversion (Barrick, Mount & Li, 2013). The behavioral tendencies `associated with this factor include being sociable, assertive, gregarious, active and talkative (Rich, Lepine & Crawford, 2010).
Individuals high on agreeableness tend to be compassionate, cooperative and value getting along with others. They are generally considerate, friendly, trusting, generous, forgiving, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with others (Erdheim et al., 2006).
13
Neuroticism refers to the individual differences in the tendency to experience
chronic negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, or depression. Individual high on this trait are generally anxious, depressed, angry, embarrassed, emotional, worried, and insecure (Barrick, Mount & Li, 2013; McCrae, 2010).
Job Satisfaction Facets
Job satisfaction is an appraisal of perceived job characteristics, work environment and emotional experiences at work (McShane & Von Glinow, 2013). Job satisfaction is treated both a general attitude and as satisfaction with five specific dimensions of the job: pay, the work itself, promotion opportunities, supervision and coworkers (Quick & Nelson, 2011).
It is also the combination of positive and negative feelings that reflect in a
worker’s attitude toward work and researchers conducted studies to correlate overall job satisfaction with job performance, organization citizenship behavior, customer satisfaction, absenteeism, turnover and workplace deviance (Robbins & Judge, 2009).
A number of studies have found that job satisfaction is associated with pay, occupational stress, empowerment, company and administrative policy, achievement, personal growth, relationship with others and the overall working environment (TeckHong & Waheed, 2011)
14
Specific studies on job satisfaction facets related to pay (Wyld, 2011; Ho, Lee & Wu, 2009; Judge, Piccolo, Podsakoff, Shaw & Rich, 2010), promotion (Johnston & Lee, 2013; García-Izquierdo, Moscoso & Ramos-Villagrasa, 2012), supervision (Yafang, 2011; Dalal, Bashshur & Credé, 2010), benefits and rewards (Linz & Semykina 2012), operating procedures (Rao & Chandraiah, 2012) indicate varied levels of satisfaction.
Measuring satisfaction with a facet approach as well as overall satisfaction, allows researchers and organizations to find out not only whether people are satisfied with their jobs but also, more importantly, which parts of the job are related to satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Lamond & Spector, 2000).
To note, the best-known popular ‘theory of job satisfaction’ is that of Friedrich Herzberg where he concluded that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction were the products of two separate factors: motivating factors (satisfiers) and hygiene factors (dissatisfiers) respectively (Roberts, 2012).
According to Herzberg’s two-factor theory hygiene factors or dissatisfiers (supervision, interpersonal relations, physical working conditions, salary, benefits, job security, etc.), concern the context in which the job has to be done. The theory suggests
that job dissatisfaction ensues in those cases where hygiene factors are absent from one’s work environment. Conversely, when hygiene factors are present, e.g. when workers perceive that their pay is fair and that their working conditions are good, therefore
15
eliminating barriers to job satisfaction. However, the fulfillment of hygiene needs cannot, in itself result in job satisfaction, but only in the reduction or elimination of dissatisfaction (French, Rayner, Rees & Rumbles, 2011).
A person with a high level of job satisfaction holds positive feelings about his job, while a dissatisfied employee holds negative feelings towards it (Srivastav & Das, 2015). Satisfied employees recognize their responsibility and performs assigned duties with commitment that significantly contributes to organizational productivity (Ahmad, Mustafa, Ahmad & Ahmad, 2012). This satisfaction and commitment to work are significant factors that determine the success of an organization in the market (Gąsior, Skowron & Sak-Skowron, 2014).
Pay
Every so often, a new study claims to have quantified the link between money
and happiness (Nunez, 2015) However, However , studies that examine this relationship with one’s employer are harder to find. Since money does not seem to have a huge effect on employee’s satisfaction, what other factors influence job satisfaction? Other factors include business outlook, career opportunities, culture and values, compensation and benefits, senior leadership and work-life balance. This might reflect learning about the quality of work environments over time or perhaps workers become more jaded with their employer as they progress throughout their career.
16
Nunez (2015) found out that an employee’s culture and values rating so much more important for job satisfaction than compensation and work-life balance ratings, since the latter two factors are frequently discussed in the HR world. However, on further
reflection an employee’s culture and values rating probably represents a combination of factors that contribute to overall well-being such as company morale, employee recognition, and transparency within the organization. One unexpected finding is that there is a clear relationship between years of experience and happiness at work. In short, older workers tend to be less satisfied.
Although salary matters for employee satisfaction, there are a variety of other factors that employers should also be paying attention to. Employees tell us that articulating a prosperous career path for employees, hiring a competent executive team, and maintaining a positive culture appear to be far more important ways to ensure satisfied employees. And although companies cannot control the impact of age on employee satisfaction, perhaps an employee wellness program can help promote youthful optimism and the high employer ratings that go along with it.
Fringe Benefits
Artz (2008) explored the advantages of fringe benefits on employee job satisfaction. Fringe benefits can impact job satisfaction in several several ways. First, fringe fringe benefits stand as an important component of worker compensation. co mpensation. Some benefits such
17
as Social Security and Philhealth are legally required and make up roughly roughly 27% of all benefit compensation. The remaining 73% of benefit compensation is comprised mostly of paid leave, insurance plans and retirement and savings plans.
Second, fringe benefits can act as substitutes for wages. Workers also view benefits and wages as substitutes, willing to give give up wages in exchange for more benefits. benefits.
Third, the substitution between wages and benefits can have a negative impact on job satisfaction if workers find they must sacrifice wages and accept provision of a
fringe benefit they do not necessarily desire. For instance, workers’ spouses may already have provision of a particular fringe benefit, so a second provision of that fringe benefit may be viewed as wasteful and can therefore the refore decrease job satisfaction. On the other hand, workers may find a particular fringe benefit as essential. As a result workers may have a feeling of job-lock to a particular employer or job if they are uncertain about the provision of the necessary fringe benefit at a different place of o f work. This combination of uncertainty and job-lock can decrease job satisfaction as well.
Promotion
“Promotion is a Shifting of employee for a job of higher significance and higher compensation” (Lazear, 2000). Promoting employees to improve job satisfaction can be tricky unless there is justification that promotions will actually resolve issues pertaining to job satisfaction. The reasons underlying job dissatisfaction vary; some employees are
18
simply bored in their current positions or they believe the company is not utilizing their talent; other employees are dissatisfied due to overall working conditions or poor relationships with their supervisors. Depending on the circumstances, promotion can be a workable solution for improving job satisfaction (Mayhew, 2017).
Promotions are an important aspect of employee’s life. Different organizations or institutions use promotion as a reward for high productivity of their workers that accelerate their efforts. It can be only useful way of compensation where emplo yee gives significant value to promotion, if not then pay or wage increment is best reward for more exertion.
A significant facet of career of an employee is promotion that affects other aspects of experience of work. They make up of a vital facet of mobility of labor related to workers, most frequently having considerable increment of wages (Miceli & Mulvey, 2000). Pay satisfaction and satisfaction related to job security both are most significant categories of job satisfaction for ascertaining give-ups regarding future , whereas satisfaction with regard to promotion opportunities is not a major factor (Moen & Asa, 2000).
Co-workers
Having friends at work is incredibly important for one’s mental well-being. It is especially true for new employees joining a company that just want to fit in. According
19
to Shiar (2015) “When you have a close friend at work, you feel a stronger connection to the company, and you’re more excited about coming into work every day. You attach yourself to the company’s purpose and collaborate better to create success for the business”. There’s a reason why one of the ten key metrics measured in the staff engagement platform is “relationships with coworkers.” Companies can monitor how coworkers affect job satisfaction, by viewing the frequency and quality of communication between teammates, without nitpicking or being too intrusive.
Rewards
Rewards management is concerned with the development of appropriate organizational cultures, underpinning core values and increasing the motivation and commitment of employees. Furthermore, reward processes cover both financial and nonfinancial rewards. There are direct financial rewards that consist of pa yments in the form of wages, salaries and bonuses. There are also the indirect financial rewards, or benefits, such as insurance plans (life, health etc.), retirement plans, sick leave etc. Finally, the non- financial rewards consist of the satisfaction that a person receives from the job itself, from the psychological and physical environment in which the person works (Mondy and Noe, 2002). Furthermore, non-financial rewards deal with feelings of recognition, achievement, responsibilities and personal growth.
20
Rewards systems also include the development of organizational cultures as they are led by organizational requirements and can increase the motivation and commitment of employees as their philosophy must recognize the vital role of the workforce and respect their needs as well.
The achievement of equity in rewards must be a major objective for the managers. The difficulties that usually appear, according to Thorpe & Holman (2000),
lie in setting an objective measurement of “differential and relativities” like efforts, skills, experience, needs. It is essential that rewards should be fairly distributed but there are not satisfactory methods to give such outcomes.
When ascending the management ladder, people express their satisfaction from their rewards as well as their benefits and emphasis on prospects and future promotions. This creates feelings of job security and along with the possibility to be promoted and reach a higher management level can create commitment and give job satisfaction. The motives for that higher level are: more participation and the notion that they are perceived as a part of the top-management team; formal or informal affirmation of the prospects; recognition of their contribution to the overall results.
Rewards system is effective for the higher level but not for the lower level within the organization. This conclusion is also related to the previous observation where it was shown that the lower level of employees are not satisfied from what the y receive whereas
21
in the higher level there is an acceptance on the same issue (Galanou, Georgakapoulos, Sotiropoulos & Dimitris, 2011).
One of the many challenges for a business is to satisfy its employees in order to cope up with the ever changing and evolving environment and to achieve success and remain in competition. In the modern era, organizations are facing several challenges due to the dynamic nature of the environment. In order to increase efficiency, effectiveness, productivity and job commitment of employees, the business must satisfy the needs of its employees by providing good working conditions.
If employees are not satisfied with the task assigned to them, they are not ce rtain about factors such as their rights, working conditions are unsafe, co-workers are not cooperative, supervisor is not giving them respect and they are not considered in the decision making process; resulting them to feel separate from the organization. in current times, firms cannot afford dissatisfied employees as they will not perform up to the standards or the expectations of their supervisor, they will be fired, resulting firms to bear additional costs for recruiting new staff. So, it is beneficial for firms to provide flexible working environment to employees where they feel their opinions are valued and they are a part of the organization. Employee morale should be high as it will be reflected in their performance because with low morale, they will make lesser efforts to improve.
22
The working environment consists of two broader dimensions such as work and context. Work includes all the different characteristics of the job like the way job is carried out and completed, involving the tasks like task activities training, control on
one’s own job related activities, a sense of achievement from work, variety in tasks and the intrinsic value for a task. There is a positive link between work environment and intrinsic aspect of the job satisfaction. The second dimension of job satisfaction known as context comprises of the physical working conditions and the social working conditions (Sousa-Poza & Sousa-Poza, 2000; Gazioglu & Tanselb, 2006; Skalli, Theodossiou, & Vasileiou, 2008).
Personality Traits as a Predictor of Job Satisfaction
Theorists like Gordon Allport, Raymond Catell and Hans Eysenck trait or dispositional theories state that individuals possess stable traits that significantly influence their affective and behavioral reactions to organizational settings (Ryckman, 2013; Griggs, 2012).
Studies investigating personality traits as a predictor of job satisfaction has a rich and diverse history having utilized disparate research designs, methodological approaches, measurement strategies and statistical analyses (Judge et al., 2 008).
Studies suggested that personality is a dispositional source of job satisfaction, as some individuals are predisposed to negative affectivity while others are predisposed to
23
positive affectivity (Cleare, 2013). Staw and Cohen-Charash (2005) posited that personality traits influence behavior in the workplace and that there is theoretical and empirical robust explanation for job attitudes (as cited (Kacmar, Collins, Harris & Judge, 2009). In a meta-analysis that included of 334 correlations from 163 independent samples, the seminal work of Judge, Heller and Mount (2002) found out that four of the Big Five traits — neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness and agreeableness - were related to job satisfaction. A similar meta-analysis of 187 studies reporting crosssectional and longitudinal relationships found that conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism is related to job satisfaction in varying degrees (Bruk-Lee, Khoury, Nixon, Goh & Spector, 2009).
Studies of smaller scale reported similar results. A study of 83 business undergraduate students enrolled in upper level courses at a large public university in the United States concluded that stable personality traits (core self-evaluations) had a positive relationship with job satisfaction and an effect mediated by perceptions of job characteristics (Srivastava & Locke, 2006).
One study conducted in the Bahamas suggests that individuals with high trait scores were more likely to be satisfied with their job. However, they were not necessarily more satisfied than those with low-traits scores. Additionally, only emotional stability and internal locus of control were positively related to all 13 job facets (Cleare, 2013).
24
Another research of pharmaceutical sales representatives in Turkey found out that a relationship exists between the personality traits studied and job satisfaction (Tesdimir, Asghar & Saeed, 2012).
A study conducted on 818 urban employees from five Chinese cities reported that only extraversion to have an effect on job satisfaction, suggesting that there could be cultural difference in the relationships between personality traits and job satisfaction in China and in the West (Zhai et al., 2013). A study of 354 employees in S ingapore proves otherwise confirming that extraversion, conscientiousness, non-neuroticism (emotional stability) and agreeableness were related to job satisfaction (Templer, 2012).
Employee Engagement
Employee engagement is a relatively new concept in the field of Human Resources and its definition is often debated (McShane & Von Glinow, 201 3). One study defines engagement as a set of motivating resources such as support and recognition from colleagues and supervisors, performance feedback, opportunities for learning and development and opportunities for skill use (Bakker & Schaufel, 2008). Macey and Schneider (2008) describes it as “a desirable condition, has an organizational purpose, and connotes involvement, commitment, passion, enthusiasm, focused effort, and
energy”. An apt summary of its definition is “an individual’s involvement with, satisfaction with and enthusiasm for the work he does” (Robbins & Judge, 2009). More
25
recent versions has defined it as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Rasli et. al, 2012) or a positive experience in itself and defined in terms of high levels of activity, initiative, and responsibility and has positive consequences for the organization (Bhatnagar, 2012).
An organization’s capacity to manage employee engagement relates to its ability to achieve high performance levels and superior business results (Sahoo & Mishra, 2012). Employee engagement builds the level of commitment and involvement of an employee towards his or her organization and its values (Andrew & Sofian, 2012). Employees see themselves as being part of something greater as they continue to invest
in the company’s success and remain loyal to their colleagues (Feffer, 2015). Engagement further leads to focused efforts, better outcomes, translates to greater innovation, positive energy and higher productivity. Engaged employees, therefore, exhibits high levels of passion and creativity that contributes value to the organization (Jauhari et al., 2013).
A study by Ilagan et al. (2014) of 302 Filipino workers suggests that job, organizational, family and career related needs are driving factors of engagement among Filipino workers. Of these identified needs, Western models does not include family. The findings also suggest that local culture influences motivation theories and practices.
26
Organizations are likely to suffer if employees are disengaged (Ramsey, 2013). The results of a 2014 Gallup poll indicate that 51% of employees in the US are disengaged, 17.5% were actively disengaged and Millennials are the least engaged group, at 28.9% (Adkins, 2015). A disengaged workforce is costly and the losses can add up to billions of dollars in lost productivity for a country (Gopal, 2006; Harter, Agrawal, Sorensen, 2014). Disengaged employees passively withdraw and a ctively resist the workplace as a whole (Pater & Lewis, 2012) with voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms that threatens the well-being of the organization or its members (Robbins & Judge, 2009).
Companies see employee engagement as a powerful source of competitive advantage in turbulent times (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014). Management understands that strategic engagement initiatives support organizational branding and reputation among employees (Kaliannan & Adjovu, 2015) and an essential element of effective human capital management that drives productivity (Binder, 2012). Employers, therefore, feel the urgency of getting their workers engaged and are looking for the best ways to make it happen (Mathis, 2013).
Employee engagement as vigor
One acceptable way to measure engagement is Dr. Arie Shriom’s Vigor Scale. Shriom defines vigor as the positive feeling of physical strength, emotional energy, and
27
cognitive liveliness that arises in response to an individual’s evaluation of the work that they do (Simmons, 2011). Organization also showed that a personality trait called attachment style was a significant predictor of vigor. Individuals are characterized as having either a secure, counterdependent, or overdependent attachment style. As predicted, people with a secure attachment style were more likely to experience vigor at work, while individuals with either a counterdependent or overdependent style experienced less vigor.
Vigor is a valid way to think about engagement. If your employees appear p eppy, energetic, and interested in the work they do, they are likely engaged. If this does not
describe your employees, you could certainly look for new ones, but I’d recommend starting with partnering with them to continuously improve the work that they do.
Employee engagement and dedication .
A dedicated employee is strongly involved in his work and experiences a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Vigor refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, whereas a dedicated employee is strongly involved in his or her work, and experiences a sense of enthusiasm and significance.
Absorption refers to being happily engrossed in one’s work with full concentration. (Bakker, Demerouti & Xanthopoulou, 2012).
28
According to Mauno, Kinnunen, and Ruokolainen (2007), dedication has conceptual similarities with job involvement: dedication is defined as a strong
psychological involvement or identification with one’s work (Schaufeli et al., 2006), whereas job involvement denotes an individual’s psychological identification with a particular job or with work in general. Additionally, both concepts are regarded as fairly stable phenomena, although the difference between the concepts has not been clearly argued. However, dedication appears to be a broader phenomenon than job involvement because dedication contains feelings of enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge, while job involvement focuses strictly on the psychological importance of the job in an
individual’s life. (Mauno et al., 2007). Employee engagement and absorption
Most researchers agree that the concept of engagement contains the two dimensions of vigor and dedication. However, there is also evidence that vigor and
exhaustion are not each other’s opposites but two separate although highly related constructs. Based on in-depth interviews, absorption was additionally included as the third constituting aspect of work engagement, even though it does not have a conceptual opposite in the dimensions of burnout: absorption and reduced professional efficacy are
rather conceptually distinct aspects than each other’s direct opposites. Hence, engagement and burnout can be considered as opposite concepts which should be measured independently and with different instruments. (Bakker, 2008).
29
The sensations of people are in many respects similar when they experience work engagement or flow. According to Csikszentmihalyi (1990, 1997), flow is a state of optimal experience that is described through clear mind, merging of mind and body, effortless concentration and focused attention, sense of complete personal control, loss of self- consciousness, distortion of temporal experience, and intrinsic enjoyment. In order to achieve a flow state, one should have clear goals, immediate feedback, and tasks that are challenging enough. The level of challenges has to meet one’s skills so that one has confidence to perform the tasks. (Hakanen, 2004a, 228; Schaufeli et al., 2002, 75.) The concepts of work engagement and flow have, however, two considerable differences; flow is typically a more complex concept than work engagement and refers to certain, short-term peak experiences,while work engagement is a more pervasive and persistent state of mind (Schaufeli et al., 2002, 75). Similarly as absorption can be associated with flow, dedication can be linked to job involvement.
Millennials
Generation Y or the Net Generation are among the other labels given to the generation (Atkinson, 2008) born between 1980 and early 2000 (Hubbard, 2013; Atkinson, 2008). It is the largest and better educated generation that succeeds the previous generation such as Gen X and the aging Baby Boomers (LaBan, 2013).
30
They are described as tech-savvy (Bannon, Ford & Meltzer, 2011); attention craving, family-centric and value work-life balance (Gavatorta, 2012); individualistic but surprisingly make good team players who seek collaboration (Hulett, 2006); approach employment in a manner different to that of their predecessors (Solnet & Kralj, 2011) and do not necessarily see their careers following a traditional path (R andall, 2010).
The Millennial generation grew up with educational, economic, social, and political contexts that are unique from previous generations (Smith & Galbraith, 2012). For example, helicopter parents, frequent positive feedback and reassurance, significant leaps in technology, and political and economic turmoil has shaped and influenced this generation. (Thompson & Gregory, 2012)
In addition the mentioned socio-cultural factors, the Filipino workplace has experienced a change in landscape caused by the rise and fall of job and career opportunities, stricter quality standards and work ethics, faster work pace, ubiquitousness of technology, new competencies, diverse employee profile and decline of union activities (Franco 2014).
Millennials arrive at the workplace with drastically different expectations and values than the generations before them, including the now-aging Baby Boomers(Miller, Hodge, Brandt & Schneider, 2013). Employers have noted that Millennials are very open in expressing their wants that include access to senior management, having a strong
31
mentor and wanting a career path (DeVaney, 2015). They tend to challenge new opportunities and management decisions; strive for more work life balance and prefer involvement in decision-making (Aruna & Anitha, 2015).
More and more research is pointing to the critical nature of relationships at work
for the Millennial’s satisfaction and retention. More specifically, relationships with immediate managers may be the key to fully leveraging, motivating, and retaining Millennials (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Ferri-Reed, 2012; Gavatorta, 2012). Traditionally, organizations appoint senior members to younger workers for coaching and mentoring (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). However, some companies such as Cisco, Johnson & Johnson and General Electric are turning to reverse mentoring by asking their tech-savvy Millennials to school older leaders on social media, mobile computing, and the cloud leading to career development opportunities for them, as well as benefits for the business (Ellis, 2013).
Management has also learned to make the necessary adjustments in the workplace such as the refusal to invest in employee training for fear that it will be used elsewhere (Nekuda, 2012), learning to effectively communicate with them digitally (LaBan, 2013), flexible work life balance (Kumar & Arora, 2012) and managing stress in the workplace (Kathirvel, 2009).
32
2.2 Synthesis of the Literature
The seminal works of Barrick and Mount (1991), Judge, Heller and Mount (2002), Staw and Cohen-Charash (2005) has contributed to a rich and diverse history of research on personality traits as a predictor of job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2008).
It was deliberate on the part of the researcher to gather studies from Europe (Ongore, 2014; Tesdimir et. al., 2012), Asia (Templer, 2012; Quinggo, Willis, O’Shea & Yuwen, 2013; Hashim, Ishar, Rashid & Masodi, 2012; Hechanova et al., 2014) and even the Bahamas (Cleare, 2013) in an attempt to transcend cultural boundaries. Hechanova et al. (2014) demonstrated this and proved that, in the Philippine setting, family needs is a work engagement driver often absent in Western studies.
There is much to learn as we come to understand the values and working style of Millennials (LaBan, 2013). Working with younger employees can be a challenge for managers and supervisors in a multigenerational workplace because Millennials have different work expectations and managers need to adjust to best meet their needs (Smith & Galbraith, 2012).
The usual concepts being considered for retention of employees are job satisfaction and personality traits. Though individuals are diverse, there are five major personalities that were considered by the researcher in determining the possible reasons why employees would remain in their jobs. These traits are generally categorized as the
33
Big Five Personality Traits that include openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.
Job satisfaction of employees are brought about by different variables, and these are pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating procedures which can be part of the work environment, co-workers, nature of work and communication. The above variables do not necessarily bring about job satisfaction in a lump sum since they are categorized also as either intrinsic or extrinsic to the employee and personality can affect the factors that bring satisfaction.
Employee engagement, on the other hand, is also relatively a new field. Will employee engagement help in the process of retaining the new breed of workers called millennials? Factors considered for employee engagement are vigor, dedication and absorption. Researchers can still learn a lot about the topic as well as its relationship to
other concepts such as job satisfaction or intrinsic motivation to do one’s job well (Robbins & Judge, 2009). One research attempted to measure employee engagement using a carefully constructed Voice Climate Survey (7Ps model) at a time there were no widely accepted measures (Langford, 2009). Despite a significant lack of understanding and agreement on this subject, the construct of employee engagement has developed a strong practitioner following.
34
There is a paucity for similar studies similar to this research proposal and the researcher looks forward to more extensive avenues and relate personality traits with work attitudes such as job satisfaction and engagement particular to that of the millennial generation.
2.3 Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of this study relies on the Five Factor Model of Personality in an attempt to understand the dominant traits of Filipino Millennials. The study also uses Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory or motivation-hygiene theory to understand the causes and consequences of job satisfaction levels.
Five Factor Model of Personality
The Five-Factor Model of Personality is a hierarchical organization of personality traits in terms of five basic dimensions: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism (McCrae, 2010). The descriptions of high and low ends of the five trait factors (called the Big Five) found in Table 1 provide a general understanding of the five proposed dimensions (Griggs, 2012). The five factors are universal (56 nations and 29 languages) and observed across gender and is applicable to Asian cultures such as the Philippines.
35
Table 1 High and Low End of the Five Trait Factors Dimension
Openness
Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism
Description of High and Low Ends High: independent, imaginative, broad interests, receptive to new ideas. Low: conforming, practical, narrow interests, closed to new ideas.
High: well-organized, dependable, careful, disciplined Low: disorganized, undependable, careless, impulsive High: sociable, talkative, friendly, adventurous Low: reclusive, quiet, aloof, cautious High: sympathetic, polite, good natured, soft-hearted Low: tough-minded, rude, irritable, ruthless High: emotional, insecure, nervous, self-pitying Low: calm, secure, relaxed, self-satisfied
Source: Griggs (2012)
The Big Five is the most active personality research topic since the early 1990s and is currently the best approximation of the basic trait dimensions (Myers, 2011).
Two-Factor Theory
Frederick Herzberg proposed the two-factor theory or motivation-hygiene theory. It investigated the question “What do people want from their jobs?” He concluded that the replies people gave when they felt good about their jobs were significantly different from the replies when they felt bad (Robbins & Judge, 2009). Literature review on the theory indicate that certain characteristics consistently relate to job satisfaction while others to job dissatisfaction (Hyun & Oh, 2011). Hackman and Lawler (1971)
36
suggest that Intrinsic factors such as advancement, recognition, responsibility and achievement relate to job satisfaction. On the other hand, dissatisfied employees tended to cite extrinsic factors such as supervision, pay, company policies and working conditions (as cited in Sinha & Trivedi, 2014).
Herzberg’s theory data suggest that the opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, as was traditionally believed. Removing dissatisfying characteristics from a job does not necessarily make the job satisfying. Herzberg proposed that his findings indicated the existence of a dual continuum. The opposite of “satisfaction” is
“no satisfaction” and the opposite of “dissatisfaction” is “no dissatisfaction” (Davis, 2013).
According to Herzberg, the factors that lead to job dissatisfaction are separate and distinct from those that lead to job dissatisfaction. Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are separate dimensions and not the two ends of a single dimension (Guha, 2010).
37
2.4 Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study is to find out the relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction and to determine if the same is true for employee engagement. The study further explored the strength of the relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement. Lastly, a strategic human resource engagement model is crafted from the findings of the research study. Specifically this study answered the following questions:
1. What are the profiles of the respondents in terms of their following demographic variables: 1.1. Gender; 1.2. Civil Status; 1.3. Rank; and 1.4. Length of tenure? 2. What are the assessment of the respondents of their personality traits in terms of the following variables: 2.1. Openness; 2.2. Conscientiousness; 2.3. Extraversion; 2.4. Agreeableness; and 2.5. Neuroticism?
38
3. What are the assessment of the respondents on their job satisfaction in terms of the following variables: 3.1. Pay; 3.2. Promotion; 3.3. Supervision; 3.4. Fringe Benefits; 3.5. Contingent Rewards; 3.6. Operating Procedures; 3.7. Co-workers; 3.8. Nature of Work; and 3.9. Communication? 4. What are the assessment of the respondents on their employee engagement in terms of the following variables: 4.1. Vigor; 4.2. Dedication; and 4.3. Absorption? 5. Are there significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their personality traits in terms of the following variables when their profiles are taken as test factors? 5.1. Openness; 5.2. Conscientiousness;
39
5.3. Extraversion; 5.4. Agreeableness; and 5.5. Neuroticism? 5.5. Neuroticism? 6. Are there significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their job satisfaction in terms of the following variables when their profiles are taken as test factors: 6.1. Pay; 6.2. Promotion; 6.3. Supervision; 6.4. Fringe Benefits; 6.5. Contingent Rewards; 6.6. Operating Procedures; 6.7. Co-workers; 6.8. Nature of Work; and 6.9. Communication?
40
7. Are there significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their employee engagement in terms of the following variables when their profiles are taken as test factors: 7.1. Vigor; 7.2. Dedication; and 7.3. Absorption? 8. Is there significant relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction? 9. Is there significant relationship between personality traits and employee engagement? 10. Is there significant relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement? 11. What strategic human resource management model can be crafted from the results of the study?
41
2.5 Hypotheses
1. Ho1 : There are no significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their personality traits when their profiles are taken as test factors. 2. Ho2 : There are no significant differences differences on the assessment of the respondents on their job satisfaction when their profiles are taken as test factors. 3. Ho3 : There are no significant differences differences as the assessment of the respondents on their employee engagement when their profiles are taken as test factors. 4. Ho4 : There is no significant relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction. 5. Ho5 :
There is no significant significant relationship relationship between personality traits traits and
employee engagement. 6. Ho6 : There is no significant significant relationship between job satisfaction satisfaction and employee engagement.
42
2.6 Research Paradigm
A conceptual model from the trait or dispositional theory using the Five Factor
Model of Personality (FFM) and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory is developed. Figure 1 depicts the model that adopts previous studies confirming personality traits as a predictor of job satisfaction (Patrick, 2010; Templer, 2012; Cleare, 2013; Zhai et al., 2013; Ahmad et al., 2014; Ongore, 2014) and postulates the relationship between personality traits and employee engagement. The study would also like to investigate the relationship of job satisfaction and employee engagement (Abraham, 2012; Diedericks & Rothmann, 2 013; Rigg et al., 2013; Ozsoy & Aras, 2014) and determine significant differences, if any, among demographic factors such as gender, civil status, rank and length of tenure for participants under 35 years old.
Figure 1 Research Paradigm
43
The independent variables are personality traits and demographic factors while the dependent variables are job satisfaction and employee engagement.
Personality Traits is determined by the following domains; openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. Job Satisfaction has nine domains under two categories; extrinsic (pay, supervision, fringe benefits, operating procedures, co-workers) and intrinsic (promotion, rewards, nature of work, communication). Employee Engagement is determined by b y the following domains; vigor, dedication and absorption. Demographic Factors are gender, civil status, rank (managerial or rank & file) and length of tenure tenu re in the organization.
The study expects to contribute to the emerging body of knowledge on job satisfaction, employee engagement while taking into account the personality or psychometric measures of millennials in a BPO environment.
44
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter explains the methodology and procedures to determine the relationships among personality traits, job satisfaction levels, level of work engagement and demographic profile of the millennial workforce in selected BPO companies. This chapter also describes the samples of the study, the test instruments and analyze the answers to the research questions.
3.1 Research Design This study made use of the descriptive-correlational method, used empirical data to describe the profile, personality traits, level of s atisfaction and employee engagement of those millennials employed in the call center industry. in dustry.
Correlational design was used to find the relationship between the above-stated variables.
This study used the exploratory design to determine how the characteristics of the millenials in terms of their profile and personality traits affect their job satisfaction and employee engagement. An explanatory design was likewise used in order to find out why millenials behave in their workplace in congruence with their personality traits. This in turn became the basis for crafting a human resource model.
45
3.2 Respondents and Locale of the Study
The study included participants selected from five BPO companies in Metro Manila who agreed to participate in the survey. Two of the five companies limited their participation to certain departments. These departments make up an estimated 30 to 40 percent of its workforce. The combined workforce of these five companies is 2,372 employees of which 1,421 met the research criteria of not more than 35 years old and regularly employed for more than six months.
From July 1 – 15, the researcher sent the respondents an invitation and email link to answer the three-part survey in exchange for a chance to win ₱ 5,000. Of the 1,421 employees who met the research criteria 23.71% (N=337) responded to the online survey. The online survey closed on Sunday, July 24, 2016 at midnight.
The average age is 29 (SD=3.16) mostly female (74%) and single (72%). Majority of the respondents have worked with the company for less than two years (64%) and classified as rank & file (72%). Only 10% have continuously worked with their company for more than six years.
3.3 Research Instruments
The researcher used validated questionnaires that are described below. The permissions from the authors were sought before its administration.
46
Manchester Personality Questionnaire (MPQ)
The Manchester Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) is a widely accepted occupational personality test questionnaire designed to assess likely behavior in work
situations rather than an individual’s ability to do the work itself. The questionnaire aims to measure, amongst several personality domains, how individuals tend to approach tasks, solve problems, and relate to others. It also provides a comprehensive assessment of other key personality traits that are likely to have a high impact on work success, regardless of occupation or rank.
The MPQ focuses on traits relevant to creative and innovative behavior. Creativity is an increasingly important factor to consider in areas such as recruitment, training, coaching, and advancement. The MPQ is grounded in the Big Five-Factor model of personality. The Big 5-Factor model is currently regarded as the m ost valid and reliable means of assessing personality.
As a result, the MPQ is a powerful tool for understanding an individual’s strengths, weaknesses, and areas of strength. This validated, 120-item personality test provides a profile on 14 primary dimensions, as well as a summary profile of the "Big 5 Factor" dimensions.
The 14 Primary Dimensions are apprehension, independence, assertiveness, openness to change, communicativeness, originality, competitiveness, perfectionism,
47
conscientiousness, rationality, decisiveness rule, consciousness, empathy and social confidence.
The “Big 5” Dimensions are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.
The reliability of personality questionnaire is assessed by looking at internal consistency reliability, a measure of the homogeneity of scale items. Coefficient alphas for the MPQ fall within the benchmark range for psychometric test scales – that is, 0.6 – 0.8.
Validity of the MPQ
Factor analysis was performed to validate the underlying five-factor model of the questionnaire. The analysis was performed on a sample of over 550 respondents, well over the five cases per variable guide sample size for factor analysis. Principal components with viramax rotation was used on the MPQ primary scales. The Screen Test of eigen values plotted against factors indicated that there were five factors in the data.
Table 2 shows loadings of scales on the factors, communalities and percents of variance and covariance. Communality values indicated that the majority of scales were well defined by the five factors solutions. All the scales loaded on at least one factor, but
48
five of the fifteen scales are complex. If a cut of 0.45 is used (20% of variance), the solution resembles simple structure.
Table 2 Big-Five Factor Rotated Factor Matrix
Scale Originality Rule Consciousness Openness to Change Assertiveness Social Confidence Empathy Communicativeness Independence Rationality Competitiveness Conscientiousness Perfectionism Decisiveness Apprehension Percent of variance Percent of covariance
C 84 83 83 67 25 09 23 42 02 38 -21 05 20 -09 20 30
15 -09 15 -03 67 79 05 -53 39 05 25 13 22 01 15 21
Ach 07 -18 00 22 18 25 01 25 50 63 63 76 34 17 14 20
E 03 16 -04 21 34 01 79 -41 -45 27 -03 -13 23 11 10 14
R 14 -03 00 12 22 -12 -02 -12 -09 02 -19 17 68 -87 10 14
Communality
76 76 72 55 70 70 68 71 62 61 54 64 71 79
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy=.77, Bartlett test of sphericity=2,397, p<.001
Reliability of the MPQ
The reliability of personality questionnaire is assessed through internal consistency reliability, a measure of the homogeneity of scale items. Coefficient alphas for the MPQ fall within the benchmark range for psychometric test scales – that is, 0.6 –
49
0.8. Nine scales have values above 0.70 and the remaining five are above 0.60 Table 8 presents information about the internal consistency reliability of each of the personality scales in Factor Version 14.
Table 3 also gives the Standard Error of Measurement for each of the MPQ scales. The SEM provides a statistical estimate of the likely discrepancy between a person’s obtained score and hypothetical true score. On 68 percent of occasions, the person’s true score will one SEM on either side of the obtained raw score. For the MPQ primary scales, the SEM is equivalent to about one sten – as it is with the 16PF5.
Table 3 Internal Consistency Reliabilities and SEMs for the MPQ Scales
Scale
Originality Rule Consciousness Openness to Change Assertiveness Social Confidence Empathy Communicativeness Independence Rationality Competitiveness Conscientiousness Perfectionism Decisiveness Apprehension N=493.
Alpha
SEM
.84 .85 .79 .74 .69 .72 .67 .69 .78 .69 .64 .72 .72 .78
1.52 1.59 1.92 1.84 1.78 1.69 1.95 1.89 1.59 2.12 2.34 1.90 1.80 1.97
50
Spector’s Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS)
Spector (1997) developed the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) to fulfill the needs for human services to have an instrument to measure employee satisfaction. The theory where job satisfaction is an attitudinal reaction to an employment situation was the basis for the JSS. The design of the JSS is rooted in both public and private service organizations that may be either for-profit or non-profit in nature. The JSS scale is applicable to service organizations for use in rating employee satisfaction, as p ast scales did not focus on that particular category. Furthermore, the JSS scale provides a total satisfaction score for an individual while also containing subscales that reflect distinct components of job satisfaction. The inclusion of subscales individually measure the unique components of job satisfaction.
The JSS is a 36 item, nine-facet scale to assess employee attitudes about the job and aspects of the job. Four items assess each facet and a total score computed from all items. A summated rating scale format with six choices per item ranging from " strongly disagree" through " strongly agree" is used. Items are written in both directions, so about
half must be reverse scored. The nine facets are pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards (performance-based rewards), operating procedures (required rules and procedures), coworkers, nature of work and communication. Although the original development of the JSS was for use in human service
51
organizations, it is applicable to all organizations. The norms provided on this website include a wide range of organization types in both private and public sector.
Utrech Work Engagement Scale
The development of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) includes the three constituting dimensions of work engagement: vigor, dedication, and absorption. Originally, the UWES included 24 items, but after psychometric evaluation, seven unsound items were eliminated so that three scales, totaling 17 items, remained Vigor (VI, six items), Dedication (DE, five items), and Absorption (AB, six items) scales. Using a large international database, the current article seeks to reduce the number of items of the UWES. The reason for shortening the UWES is for practicality. Researchers strive to include as few items as possible for measuring a particular construct because respondents should not be unnecessarily bothered. Besides, long questionnaires increase the likelihood of attrition. The Cronbach's α of the UWES-scales are as follows: Table 4 UWES Scale Cronbach α
Vigor Dedication Absorption Total
Total .83 .92 .82 .93
Md .86 .92 .80 .94
Range .81 - .90 .88 - .95 .70 - .88 .91 - .96
(N=2,313) Note. The dedication scales of the UWES-15 and the UWES-17 are identical.
52
A separate computation of Cronbach’s alpha for the 337 participants of the research survey. The overall value was 0.903 together with vigor (0.725), dedication (0.833) and absorption (0.755).
3.4 Data Gathering Procedure
The researcher invited clients of CPI Outsourcing, who were most likely to participate in the research. He also discussed the merits of the study with the company’s HR Managers / Directors that initially expressed interest to participate in the study. Of the nine prospective companies, five agreed to participate with strict conditions of confidentiality. However, they did not oppose the publication of the actual results for as long as study did not mention the company name and the results shared and explained to them.
The online survey was prepared using Google Forms by CPI Outsourcing’s I/T Specialist and tested with a batch of ten participants. A fresh batch of ten participants tested the online survey form after applying the necessary improvements. The I/T Specialist completed three test cycles before arriving to the final version. Aside from testing for its ease of use, the approach also gave the researcher the estimated time necessary to complete the survey. On an average, a respondent can complete the three part, 143-question survey in 30 minutes or less. The I/T Specialist also developed a computer application was also developed to automate the interpretation of the results.
53
This was necessary because the research staff wanted to avoid the manual interpretation of the Manchester Personality Questionnaire (MPQ), Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) and the Utrecht Work Engagement Survey (UWES-17). With the anticipated volume and limited time, manually interpreting the survey forms may compromise the results. An accredited Level A test user, authorized by the Psychological Resources Center, randomly checked the automated results of the MPQ during the testing phase and after receiving the results to ensure the accuracy of the interpretation. The research staff also did the same for the JSS and UWES-17.
Participants accomplished an online questionnaire that indicates the gender, civil status, rank (managerial or staff level) and length of tenure.
Simultaneously, the I/T Specialist extracted from the database the respondent’s information such as email address and required demographics to prepare the email invites. The necessary precautions compliant to CPI Outsourcing’s Information Security Management System (ISMS) under ISO 27001 was applied to prevent any data breach or leak during data extraction. Once the survey link was in place, the emails were sent in
different batches and intervals recipient’s mail server may interpret the email as a spam and unlikely received by the respondent. An automated system sent gentle reminders to the email recipients who have not answered the survey after a week upon receipt of the invitation.
54
The researcher closely collaborated with the statistician to ensure that u ploading data to the statistical software was efficient as possible. The researcher deleted all identifying marks or data, relative to the respondent and client, before sending it to the statistician. The researcher sent the data from all five companies to the statistician in a single batch to prevent identification.
There was an attempt to use the ‘paper and pen method” for one company. However, the researcher discarded the approach because it was too tedious to encode the 30 questionnaires. The researcher decided to discontinue the manual method to focus with the on-line approach.
3.5. Statistical Tools
Descriptive statistics was used to surface the respondent’s demographic data, percentages, mean scores and standard deviation to analyze demographics, personality traits, job satisfaction and employee engagement.
The researcher used a T-test and Analysis of Variance to determine significant differences for personality traits, job satisfaction and employee engagement when the demographic profiles are taken as a test factors.
55
Pearson Product Moment Correlation of Coefficient and T-test were used to determine significant relationships among personality traits, job satisfaction and employee engagement.
The results of the online survey underwent statistical analysis using IBM SPSS Statistics V24. The I/T Specialist converted the data from the online survey conducted from July 1-15, 2016 to an Excel spreadsheet format. The statistician analyzed the results using IBM SPSS Statistics V24. There was no chance of missing or erroneous data because respondent of the embedded control in the survey. The converted data were analyzed with descriptive statistics (frequency distribution, percentages, mean , standard deviation) and subjected to various statistical tests (t-test, analysis of variance, Pearson product moment correlation of coefficient) to address each of the study questions.
3.6. Ethical Considerations
The researcher secured written permission from Prof. Paul Spector (Job Satisfaction Survey) and Prof. Wilmar Schaufeli (Utrecht Work Engagement Survey). The researcher received positive responses from both authors in exchange for the results (Appendix P).
The researcher fully explained the purpose and expectations of the study to the participating companies. This is turn was also explained to the employees though email. Participation was purely voluntary, no harm in reputation intended, ensured complete
56
anonymity and confidentially without fear of negative consequence. Lastly, the researcher promised to provide the participating companies a copy of the overall results of the study and ensure its confidentiality.
57
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data gathered to answer the problem statements in Chapter 2. The results of the findings were used as the basis for formulating a Human Resource Model. This chapter also describes the details of the statistical tests and corresponding results.
58
4.1. Results and Discussion
4.1.1 Profile of the Respondents
The average age of the respondents (n=337) is 29 (SD=3.16), dominantly female (74%) and single (72%). Majority of the respondents are rank & file employees (72%) with two years or less (65%) experience. Nineteen and nine percent of the respondents have worked for their companies from 2-4 years and 4-6 years respectively. Only 12% have continuously worked with their company for more than six years. Table 5 summarizes the descriptive statistics of the 337 respondents: Table 5 Frequency Distribution of Respondents According to Profile Mean Age (N=337)
29
3.16 %
87 250
25.82 74.18
242 94 1
71.81 27.89 0.30
96 241
28.49 71.51
80 138 65 30 39
23.74 40.95 19.29 8.90 11.57
f Gender Male Female Civil Status Single Married Separated/Annulled Job Level Manager/Supervisor Rank and File Length of Tenure Less than one year 1 year - 2 years 2 years 1 day - 4 years 4 years 1 day to - 6 years More than 6 years
SD
59
There are strong indications of shorter work tenure given that the average age of the participants is 29 and 64% have worked in their company for less than two years. This suggests that millennials are willing to change jobs and will not likely stay with their employer for the remainder of their work life (Devaney, 2015; Bannon, Ford & Meltzer, 2011). The reality of involuntary job loss, job movements within or across organizations and career interruptions are other contributory factors to shorter employment (Wille, et al., 2013).
4.1.2 Personality Profile of Respondents
Table 6 presents the respondents predominant personality traits in relation to the Big Five. Table 6 Respondent’s Personality Profile Big 5
Left-Side
OPE
Conforming Practical
CON
EXT AGR NEU
n=337
(1-3) -f %
19
5.64
35
-- (8-10) f %
313
92.88
5
1.48
140
41.54
197
58.46
10.39 242
71.81
60
17.80
Disorganized Careless Impulsive Reclusive Quiet Aloof Rude Ruthless Tough minded Calm Secure Relaxed
(4-7) f %
12
3.56
205
60.83
120
35.61
32
9.5
269
79.32
36
10.68
Right-Side
Independent, creative, imaginative Wellorganized Dependable Careful Sociable Talkative Friendly Sympathetic Polite Good-natured Emotional Insecure Nervous
Mean
SD
5.21
1.15
7.61
1.46
5.96
1.75
684
1.71
5.53
1.76
60
The Manchester Personality Questionnaire was used to measure the Big Five or a widely examined theory of five broad dimensions used to describe a person’s personality traits (Colquitt, et al., 2013; Franic, Borsboom, Dolan & Boomsma, 2013; Laher, 2013) particularly openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. The results of the psychometric test for an individual respondent yields a numerical result from one to ten for each stable trait. Taking the second trait, conscientiousness, as an example, a respondent that has a score from 1-3 (extreme left)
is described as “disorganized, careless and impulsive” while a score from 8-10 (extreme right) is described as “well-organized, dependable and careful ” (Wille, et al., 2013). Respondents that have a score from 4-7 are described as “stable” or neither belonging to the extreme left or right.
Table 6 indicates that a majority of the respondents fall in the middle range of the dimensions for openness (93%), extraversion (72%), agreeableness (61%) and neuroticism (80%). Among the five traits, 58% of the respondents fall on the extreme side of conscientiousness indicating that the respondents are well organized, dependable and careful with the remaining percent falling under the mid-range scale. It strongly supports the arguments of Organ and Lingl (1995) that there is a general workinvolvement tendency leading to obtaining satisfying work rewards, both formal (e.g. pay,
promotions)
and
informal
(recognition,
accomplishment) (as cited in Judge, et al., 2002).
respect,
feelings
of
personal
61
Also, 96% of the respondents fall under the middle and extreme right of agreeableness indicating that they are generally sympathetic, polite and good natured. These traits are necessary to the service-oriented nature of their work (Periatt, Chakrabarty &. Lemay, 2007; Huang & Ryan, 2011).
4.1.3 Job Satisfaction of Respondents
The research question was answered using Paul Spector’s 36-item, 9 facet Job Satisfaction Survey (Belias, Koustelios, Vairaktarakis & Sdrolias, 2015; GarcíaIzquierdo, et al., 2012; Ahmad, et al., 2012). The research question was answered in three ways to analyze the results.
First, the nine facets (sub-scales) have four questions each answered through a Likert scale of 1 -6 (Appendix B). The results of the scale are interpreted as (1) disagree very much, (2) disagree moderately, (3) disagree slightly, (4) agree slightly (5) agree modeately and (6) agree very much. Each facet has four questions for a total of 36 questions for the Job Satisfaction Survey. The negatively worded questions (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36) were reversely scored by subtracting the original values for the internal items from 7. The mean and standard deviation were derived from the four questions assigned to each job satisfaction facet to answer the third research question.
62
The results were as follows: Table 7 Respondents Summary of Job Satisfaction Facets Job Satisfaction Facets Pay Promotion Supervision Fringe Benefits Contingent Rewards Operating Procedures Co-workers Nature of Work Communication
Mean 3.36 3.63 4.13 3.14 3.62 3.17 4.19 4.25 3.70
SD 0.90 0.80 0.94 0.83 0.78 0.78 0.72 0.80 0.83
Interpretation Disagree Slightly Agree Slightly Agree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Slightly Agree Slightly Agree Slightly
n= 337 The respondents slightly agree with their chances of promotion, supervision, coworkers, contingent rewards, nature of work and communication within the organization.
These results are congruent to similar studies showing that millennials expect promotions even after a short time on the job and considered ready by older co-workers or management (Ferri-Reed, 2012). Millennials also expect their superiors to mentor and coach them (Ellis, 2013; Meister & Willyerd, 2010; Gregory & Levy, 2011); value personal relationships and human connections (DeVaney, 2015); are motivated by praises, small rewards and meaningful work (Smith & Galbraith, 2012) and find clear expectations from both ends to matter in their work (Atkinson, 20 08).
63
However, they slightly disagree in terms of pay, fringe benefits and operating procedures. Millennials look forward to better salaries before they reach the age of 30, expect immediate rewards in order to excel in their work (Aruna & Anitha, 2015) and believe to perform better in a less formal working environment (Thompson & Gregory, 2012; Belias, et al., 2015)
Second, to further explore the results of the satisfacton scale, the scores of the four questions for each job satisfaction facet was added. The sum could range from 4 (the lowest possible score since there is no zero in the scale) to a perfect 24 (6 points for each question). A score from 4-12 indicates dissatisfaction, 12-15 ambivalent or neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and satisfied for scores from 16-24.
Table 8 reflects the number of respondents (f) and percentages that are fall under the dissatisfied, ambivalent and satisfied scale:
64
Table 8 Respondent’s Summary of Job Satisfaction Scale per Facet
Job Satisfaction Facet
Dissatisfied (4-12) f
Pay
Ambivalent (12-15)
%
f
%
Satisfied (16-24) f
%
122
36
150
45
65
19
Promotion
91
27
154
46
92
27
Supervision
45
13
145
43
147
44
148
44
158
47
31
9
Contingent Rewards
70
21
189
56
78
23
Operating Procedures
163
48
136
40
38
11
Co-Workers
15
4
153
45
169
50
Nature of Work
24
7
122
36
191
57
Communication
83
25
156
46
98
29
Fringe Benefits
n=337
There is strong indication that the respondent’s neither feel satisfied nor dissatisfied (ambivalent) with pay, promotion, fringe benefits, contingent rewards and communication. The respondents are satisfied with supervision (44%), co-workers (50%) and the nature of work (57%). However, 48% are dissatisfied with operating procedures.
Lastly, the scores of all nine job satisfaction facets were summed to determine the overall satisfaction rating of the 337 respondents. The sum could range from 36 (the lowest possible score or 1 point for all 36 questions since there is no zero in the scale) to a perfect 216 (6 points for each of the 36 questions). A score from 36-108 indicates
65
dissatisfaction, 109-143 ambivalent or neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and satisfied for scores from 144-216.
Table 9 indicates that a majority of the respondents feel ambivalent (77%) and only 5% were dissatisfied. Table 9 Respondents Overall Job Satisfaction Rating f
Dissatisfied (36 -108) Ambivalent (109 - 143) Satisfied (144 - 216) Total Mean SD Interpretation
% 17 5.04 259 76.85 61 18.10 337 100.00 132.79 16.45
Ambivalent
n=337
Employee Engagement
The research question was answered using the 17-item Utrecht Work Engagement Survey (De Bruin, Hill, Henn & Muller, 2013; LI, An Zhong, Chen, Yuantuo Xie & Mao, 2014; Ilagan, et al., 2014). There are 17 questions (Appendix A) assigned to the three subscales (vigor, dedication and absorption). Six questions are assigned to vigor and absorption each and the remaining five are assigned to dedication answered through a Likert scale of 0 -6 (Appendix C). The results of the scale are
66
interpreted as 0-Never, 1-Almost never (a few times a year or less), 2-Rarely (Once a month or less), 3-Sometimes (A few times a month), 4-Often (Once a week), 5-Very often (A few times a week) and 6-Always (Everyday).
There are no negatively worded questions thus there is no need for reverse scoring. The mean of the scores of the questions assigned to the subscale represents the overall interpretation.
The research question was answered in two wa ys to analyze the results. First, the mean and standard deviation of the questions assigned to each subscale was computed. All three subscales revealed that the respondents are often engaged (once a week) with an overall mean of 4.18 (SD=.75).
Table 10 reflects the summary of the work engagement results per subscale:
Table 10 Respondents Overall Work Engagement Rating
Vigor Dedication Absorption Overall n=337
Mean
SD
Interpretation
4.19 4.23 4.13 4.18
0.82 0.98 0.88 0.75
Often Often Often Often
67
And second, the scores of the subscales were categorized according to the Likert scale of 0-6. The breakdown of the employee engagement ratings are found in Table 11.
Table 11 Respondent’s Work Engagement Rating Breakdown Vigor f %
Scale
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 0 3 31 114 143 46
0.89 9.20 33.83 42.43 13.65
Dedication f %
1 0 6 40 71 167 52
Absorption f %
0.30 0 0 1.78 12 11.87 35 21.07 89 49.55 169 15.43 32
Average f %
0 0 3.56 0 10.39 33 26.41 83 50.15 184 9.50 37
9.79 24.63 54.60 10.98
Interpretation
Never Almost Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often Always
n=337
Ninety percent of the participants collectively fall in the 4-6 scale suggesting that the respondents are highly engaged in the workplace. It is best to use the overall engagement score (mean) instead of the individual subscales. A study of the UWES survey instrument by De Bruin, et al., (2013) supported a uni-dimensional interpretation over a multidimensional interpretation because the subscales is expected to demonstrate very little incremental predictive value in contexts such as multiple regression and path analysis.
68
Significant Differences on Personality Traits and Respondents’ Profile
In order to arrive at the answer to the question posted, the researcher grouped the
respondent’s personality traits according to their demographics (gender, job level, civil status and tenure) to determine if there were significant differences (p < .05) in their responses.
According to Gender
The researcher performed a t-test on the five personality traits and gender (male and female) of the 337 respondents. The results (Appendix D) are as follows: 1. There is a significant difference between openness and gender (t=1.98, p=0.048). 2. There is no significant difference between agreeableness and gender (t=0.213, p=0.831). 3. There is no significant difference between conscientiousness and gender (t=0.754, p=0.452). 4. There is no significant difference between extraversion and gender (t=-0.809, p=0.419). 5. There is no significant difference between neuroticism and gender (t=0.003, p=0.997).
69
Males scored higher in openness (n=87, m=5.41) compared with their female counterparts (n=250, m=5.13) resulting in a mean difference of 0.282. This is contrary to a study where there were no significant differences in openness at the level of the Big Five domain (Weisberg, DeYoung & Hirsh, 2011).
According to Job Level
For job level, the researcher performed a t-test on the five personality traits and job level (manager / supervisor and rank & file) of the 337 respondents. The results (Appendix E) are as follows: 1. There is no significant difference between openness and job level (t=1.94, p=0.054). 2. There is no significant difference between agreeableness and job level (t=0.73, p=0.466). 3. There is no significant difference between conscientiousness and job level (t=0.190, p=0.848). 4. There is a significant difference between extraversion and job level (t=-2.50, p=0.013). 5. There is a significant difference between neuroticism and job level (t=1.26, p=0.209).
70
The managers and supervisors (n=96) scored higher in extraversion (m=5.40) compared to the rank & file counterparts (n=241, m=5.13) resulting in a mean difference of 0.267. Previous studies indicate that leaders have optimistic views of the future and it is not surprising that extraversion is the most likely trait related to leader emergence
(Özbağ, 2016). According to Civil Status
The researcher performed a t-test on the five personality traits and civil status of the 336 respondents. Only one respondent answered with “separated” and taken out of the samples so there was no need to conduct an ANOVA. The results (Appendix F) are as follows: 1. There is no significant difference between openness and civil status (t=0.609, p=0.0543). 2. There is no significant difference between agreeableness and civil status (t=1.047, p=0.296). 3. There is no significant difference between conscientiousness and civil status (t=0.660, p=0.510). 4. There is a significant difference between extraversion and civil status (t=2.611, p=0.009). 5. There is no significant difference between neuroticism and civil status (t=0.282, p=0.778).
71
The married respondents (n=94) scored higher in extraversion (m=6.34) compared to their single counterparts (n=242, m=5.79) resulting in a mean difference of
– 0.547. According to Job Tenure
For tenure, the researcher performed an F-test on the five personality traits and tenure (less than a year, 1 year & 1 day – 2 years, 2 years & 1 day – 4 years, 4 years & 1 day – 6 years and greater than 6 years & 1 day) of the 337 respondents. The results (Appendix G) are as follows: 1. There is no significant difference between openness and tenure (f=1.874, p=0.0115). 2. There is no significant difference between agreeableness and tenu re (t=2.265, p=0.062). 3. There is no significant difference between conscientiousness and tenure (t=0.513, p=0.726). 4. There is no significant difference between extraversion and tenure (t=1.747, p=0.139). 5. There is no significant difference between neuroticism and tenure (t=0.079, p=0.989).
72
There were no significant differences for personality traits and tenure. Table 12 presents the summary of significant results. Table 12 T Value of Personality Traits and Demographics Personality Trait
Demographics
Sample Size
Mean
SD
Mean Difference
Tvalue
Pvalue
0.282
1.98
0.048
0.524
2.5
0.013
-0.547
-2.611
0.009
GENDER Openness
Extroversion
Male Female
87
5.41
1.22
250
5.13
1.12
JOB
LEVEL
Mgr / Sup
96
6.33
1.47
Rank & File
241
5.81
1.83
CIVIL Extroversion
Single Married
S TA T U S
242
5.79
1.78
94
6.34
1.56
n=337 When grouped according to gender (Appendix D), the males scored higher in openness than their female counterparts resulting in a significant difference (t = 1.98). Extraversion resulted in a significant difference when grouped according to job level (Appendix E) and civil status (Appendix F). There was no significant difference for tenure (Appendix G).
Given the results, the first null hypothesis (H0 1) “there is no significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their personality traits when their profiles are taken as test factors” is therefore rejected.
73
Significant Differences Between Job Satisfaction and Employees’
In order to arrive at the results of the question posited, the researcher grouped the
respondent’s job satisfaction subscales according to their demographics (gender, job level, civil status and tenure) to determine if there were significant differences (p < .05) in their responses.
According to Gender
The researcher performed a t-test on the nine job satisfaction facets (pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating procedures, coworkers, nature of work, communication) and overall job satisfaction of the 337 respondents. The results (Appendix H) are as follows: 1. There is a significant difference between pay and gender (t=3.223, p=0.001). 2. There is a significant difference between promotion and gender (t=3.496, p=0.001). 3. There is no significant difference between supervision and gender (t=1.206, p=0.229). 4. There is no significant difference between fringe benefits and gender (t=0.247, p=0.805). 5. There is no significant difference between contingent rewards and gender (t=0.055, p=0.956).
74
6. There is no significant difference between operating procedures and gender (t=1.821, p=0.069). 7. There is no significant difference between co-workers and gender (t=1.925, p=0.055). 8. There is no significant difference between nature of work and gender (t=1.253, p=0.211). 9. There is a significant difference between communication and gender (t=3.043, p=0.003). 10. There is a significant difference between overall job satisfaction and gender (t=3.281, p=0.001).
The female respondents scored higher on pay (t=3.223, p=.0001), promotion (t= 3.496, p=.0001), communication (t=3.043, p=.0003) and overall job satisfaction (t 3.281, p=.0001). The female respondents gave more importance to these facets than their male counter-parts. This is congruent to studies where highly educated women are more satisfied than are men with many job aspects including intellectual challenge and contribution to society (Hersch & Xiao, 2016) as well as British women exhibiting the same higher levels of job satisfaction than men (Mumford & Smith, 2015). But contrary to other studies conducted in male dominated cultures such as Cyprus (Fatima, Iqbal, Akhwand, Suleman & Ibrahim, 2015) and Pakistan (Sanera & Sadikoglu, 2016), where the males expressed more satisfaction with their jobs.
75
According to Job Level
For job level (managerial & supervisory, rank & file) the researcher pe rformed a t-test on the nine job satisfaction facets (pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating procedures, co-workers, nature of work, communication) and overall job satisfaction of the 337 respondents. The results (Appendix I) are as follows: 1. There is no significant difference between pay and job level (t=0.456, p=0.649). 2. There is a significant difference between promotion and job level (t=2.885, p=0.004). 3. There is no significant difference between supervision and job level (t=0.385, p=0.701). 4. There is no significant difference between fringe benefits and job level (t=-0.317, p=0.752). 5. There is no significant difference between contingent rewards and job level (t=0.547, p=0.585). 6. There is no significant difference between operating procedures and job level (t=0.961, p=0.337). 7. There is no significant difference between co-workers and job level (t=-0.146, p=0.884).
76
8. There is no significant difference between nature of work and job level (t=1.018, p=0.309). 9. There is no significant difference between communication and job level (t=0.588, p=0.557). 10. There is no significant difference between overall job satisfaction and job level (t=0.891, p=0.373). The results supported a study between the interaction of gender and rank that shows a significant relationship job satisfaction, demonstrating the relevance of such conditions as antecedents. (García-Izquierdo, et al., 2012). The rank & file employees may view promotions differently from managerial & supervisory because of the anticipated feelings of anxiety, nervousness and stress that comes with it (Johnston & Lee, 2013).
According to Civil Status
For civil status, the researcher performed a t-test on the five personality traits and civil status of the 336 respondents. Only one respondent answered with “separated” and taken out of the samples so there was no need to conduct an ANOVA. The results (Appendix J) are as follows: 1. There is no significant difference between pay and civil status (t=1.489, p=0.137).
77
2. There is no significant difference between promotion and civil status (t=1.643, p=0.101). 3. There is no significant difference between supervision and civil status (t=1.417, p=0.157). 4. There is a significant difference between fringe benefits and c ivil status (t=2.126, p=0.034). 5. There is no significant difference between contingent rewards and civil status (t=-0.433, p=0.665). 6. There is no significant difference between operating procedures and civil status (t=-1.934, p=0.054). 7. There is no significant difference between co-workers and civil status (t=1.516, p=0.130). 8. There is no significant difference between nature of work and civil status (t=737, p=0.462). 9. There is no significant difference between communication and civil status (t=0.614, p=0.54). 10. There is no significant difference between overall job satisfaction and civil status (t=0.208, p=0.835). The married respondents (n=94) scored higher in extraversion (m=3.30) compared to their single counterparts (n=242, m=3.09) resulting in a mean difference of 0.21. Single employees may feel more job satisfaction compared to their married
78
counterparts (Altinoz, Cakiroglu & Cop, 2012). Therefore marital status, not only has significant differences in relation to job satisfaction but also becomes a determinant as well (Kumar, 2016).
According to Tenure
For tenure, the researcher performed an F-test on the five personality traits and tenure (less than a year, 1 year & 1 day – 2 years, 2 years & 1 day – 4 years, 4 years & 1 day – 6 years and greater than 6 years & 1 day) of the 337 respondents. The results (Appendix K) are as follows: 1. There is no significant difference between pay and length of tenure (t=1.874, p=0.115). 2. There is no significant difference between promotion and length of tenure (t=2.265, p=0.062). 3. There is no significant difference between supervision and length of tenure (t=0.513, p=0.726). 4. There is no significant difference between fringe benefits and length of tenure (t=1.747, p=0.139). 5. There is no significant difference between contingent rewards and length of tenure (t=0.079, p=0.989).
79
6. There is no significant difference between operating procedures and length of tenure (t=1.078, p=0.367). 7. There is no significant difference between co-workers and length of tenure (t=.907, p=0.460). 8. There is no significant difference between nature of work and length of tenure (t=.896, p=0.466). 9. There is no significant difference between communication and length of tenure (t=-0.703, p=0.59). 10. There is no significant difference between overall job satisfaction and length of tenure (t=0.822, p=0.512).
80
Table 13 presents the summary of significant results. Table 13 T Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Demographics JSS Facet
Demographics Male
Pay
Female
Promotion Communication Overall
Promotion
Fringe Benefits
Male Female Male Female Male Female Manager R&F Single Married
Sample Size
Mean
SD
GENDER 87 3.09 0.79 250 3.45 0.92 87 3.37 0.76 250 3.71 0.80 87 3.47 0.85 250 3.78 0.80 87 127.87 17.23 250 134.50 15.85 JOB LEVEL 96 3.82 0.84 241 3.55 0.77
C IV IL S TA T U S 242 3.09 0.86 94 3.30 0.68
Mean Difference
T Value
P Value
0.358
3.223
0.001
0.343
3.496
0.001
0.309
3.043
0.003
6.62
3.281
0.001
0.276
2.885
0.004
0.211
2.126
0.034
n=337
Given the number of significant differences between job satisfaction sub-scales and demographics therefore, the second null hypothesis (HO2) “there are no significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their job satisfaction when their profiles are taken as test factors” is therefore rejected.
81
Significant differences on the Employee Engagement and Respondents’ According to Gender
The researcher performed a t-test on the three engagement subscales (vigor, dedication and absorption), overall work engagement and gender (male and female) of the 337 respondents. The results (Appendix L) are as follows: 1. There is no significant difference between vigor and gender (t=1.71, p=0.09) 2. There is a significant difference between dedication and gender (t=4.00, p=0.00). 3. There is a significant difference between absorption and gender (t=4.98, p=0.00) 4. There is a significant difference between overall engagement and gender (t=4.32, p=0.00) The results are contrary to studies where there are no significant differences in gender (Kaliannan, & Adjovu, 2015; Mishra, Sharma & Uday, 2015).
According to Job Level
The researcher performed a t-test on the three engagement subscales (vigor, dedication and absorption), overall work engagement and job level (managerial & supervisory and rank & file) of the 337 respondents.
The results (Appendix M) are as follows: 1. There is no significant difference between vigor and job level (t=-0.341, p=0.73 )
82
2. There is no significant difference between dedication and job level (t=0.784, p=0.43). 3. There is no significant difference between absorption and job level (t=1.818, p=0.70) 4. There is no significant difference between overall engagement and job level (t=0.968, p=0.33)
According to Civil Status
The researcher performed a t-test on the three engagement subscales (vigor, dedication and absorption), overall work engagement and civil status of the 336
respondents. Only one respondent answered with “separated” and was taken out of the samples so there was no need to conduct an ANOVA. The results (Appendix N) are as follows: 1. There is no significant difference between vigor and civil status (t=-0.425, p=0.671) 2. There is no significant difference between dedication and civil status (t=1.707, p=0.089). 3. There is no significant difference between absorption and civil status (t=1.905, p=0.274) 4. There is no significant difference between overall engagement and civil status (t=1.286, p=0.119)
83
The results were inconsistent with a study of 188 participants in Turkey where the married respondents scored higher on vigor (Ozsoy & Aras, 2014).
According to Tenure
For tenure, the researcher performed an F-test on the three engagement subscales (vigor, dedication and absorption), overall work engagement and tenure (less than a year, 1 year & 1 day – 2 years, 2 years & 1 day – 4 years, 4 years & 1 day – 6 years and greater than 6 years & 1 day) of the 337 respondents. The results (Appendix O) are as follows: 1. There is no significant difference between vigor and tenure (t=-1.124, p=0.345) 2. There is no significant difference between dedication and tenure (t=2.293, p=0.059). 3. There is no significant difference between absorption and tenure (t=1.145, p=0.335) 4. There is no significant difference between overall engagement and tenure (t=1.463, p=0.213) The results are contrary to a study where there is a significant difference in employee tenure and employee engagement (Kaliannan, & Adjovu, 2015; LI, et al., 2014).
84
Summary
The researcher grouped the respondent’s employee engagement sub-scales and overall engagement according to their demographics to determine if there were significant differences (p < .05) in their responses. Table 14 presents the summary of significant results. Table 14 T Value of Employee Engagement and Demographics Gender Dedication Absorption Overall
Male Female Male Female Male Female
Sample Size 87 250 87 250 87 250
Mean 3.89 4.37 3.74 4.27 3.90 4.29
SD 1.14 0.89 1.06 0.77 0.85 0.68
Mean Difference
T-value
P-value
0.48
4.00
-
0.53
4.98
-
0.39
4.32
-
n=337 When the respondents were grouped according to gender (Appendix L), dedication (t=4.00, p=0), absorption (t = 4.98 p=0) and overall engagement (t=4.32 p=0) exhibited significant differences. The female respondents exhibited higher levels of engagement as compared to their male counterparts. There were no significant differences when grouped according to job level (Appendix M), civil status (Appendix N) and length of tenure (Appendix O).
85
Given the results in relation to gender, the third null hypothesis (HO 3) “there is no significant differences as to the assessment of the respondents on their employee engagement when their profiles are taken as test factors.” is therefore rejected.
Significant Relationship between Personality Traits and Job.
To answer the question on the above topic, the researcher ran a Pearson Correlation analysis between the five personality traits and job satisfaction (nine facets and overall). Table 15 summarizes the Pearson Correlation results: Table 15 Correlation of Job Satisfaction Facets and Personality Traits Openness R
Pvalue
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
R
P-value
R
P-value
R
P-value
R
P-value
Pay
-0.11*
0.043
0.036
0.515
-0.049
0.37
0.171*
0.002
-0.04
0.469
Promotion
-0.044
0.419
0.053
0.336
-0.001
0.979
0.183*
0.001
0.017
0.752
0.06
0.273
0.073
0.18
0.103
0.058
-0.131*
0.016
0.13*
0.017
-0.096
0.079
0.016
0.775
-0.024
0.656
0.085
0.12
-0.065
0.236
0.001
0.981
0.03
0.583
0.079
0.148
0.152*
0.005
-0.023
0.671
-0.012
0.831
-0.057
0.299
-0.05
0.36
0.017
0.752
-0.092
0.091
0.007
0.894
0.12*
0.027
0.1
0.065
-0.112*
0.04
0.161*
0.003
0.105
0.054
0.051
0.355
0.108*
0.048
0.03
0.583
0.079
0.149
0.026
0.628
0.136*
0.013
0.157*
0.004
0.065
0.234
0.005
0.922
-0.013
0.806
0.091
0.095
0.083
0.128
0.092
0.093
0.034
0.531
Supervision Fringe Benefits Contingent Rewards Operating Procedures Co-workers Nature of Work Communica tion Overall Job Satisfaction
n=337 Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
86
Of the five personality traits, agreeableness has the most number of correlations with the job satisfaction facets. Pay (r=0.171, p=.002), promotion (r=0.183, p=.001) and contingent rewards (r=0.152, p=.005) are positively correlated with agreeableness while supervision (r=-0.131, p=.0016) and co-workers (r = -0.112, p=.05) are negatively correlated.
McRae and Costa argued that agreeable individuals have greater motivation to achieve interpersonal intimacy (as cited in Judge et al., 2002) and expect to be rewarded, through pay and promotion, for their pleasing and acceptable behavior (Templer, 2012). The opposite applies to individuals who fall on the left side of this dimension. Those that fall on the left side of the said dimension are rude, ruthless and tough-minded. This trait is socially unacceptable in a collectivistic society that values relationships and
“pakikisama” (Ilagan, et al., 2014; Laher, 2012), leading to dissatisfaction with one’s supervisor and co-workers.
Conscientiousness is positively correlated with co-workers (r = 0.12, p=.027) and communication (r = 0.136, p=.013). Conscientiousness is the tendency to show selfdiscipline, hardworking, achievement oriented and responsible (McRae & John, 1992). This trait and positive correlation with co-workers suggests a strong likelihood of team spirit and appreciativeness of how their respective organization communicates their goals and objectives to its workforce (Atkinson, 2008).
87
Extraversion is positively correlated with the nature of work (r = 0.108, p=.048). Evidence shows that extraverts have more friends and are likely to find interpersonal interactions rewarding (Judge et al.,2002) such as the highly customer centric nature of
the respondent’s work. It is the same trait that shows appreciation for the company’s efforts to clearly communicate with its workforce (r= .157, p= .013).
Neuroticism is positively correlated with supervision (r = 0.13, p=.017) and coworkers (r = 0.161, p=.003). Individuals with high emotional instability, anxiety, moodiness, irritability, and sadness experience lower extrinsic (supervision and coworkers) job satisfaction (Patrick, 2010) and reflect a negative correlation (Templer, 2012; Judge et al., 2002; Bruk-Lee, Khoury et. al., 2009). However, our results reflect a positive correlation because of the relatively low dissatisfaction rating for supervision (13%) and co-workers (4%). The mean response for supervision and co-workers is 4.13
and 4.19 respectively meaning that the respondents “Agree Slightly” with t hese facets. Openness and pay (r = -0.11, p=.043) has a weak negative correlation. Other studies have shown that openness to experience has no correlation with job satisfaction (Ahmad et al., 2014; Templer, 2012; Judge et al., 2002; Barrick, Mount & Judge, 2001).
Given the results found in Table 15, the fourth null hypothesis “ There is no significant relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction” (HO4) is
therefore rejected.
88
Significant Relationship Between Personality Traits and Employee Engagement
To answer the question, the researcher ran a Pearson Correlation analysis between the five personality traits and job satisfaction (nine facets and overall). Table 16 summarizes the Pearson Correlation results: Table 16 Correlation of Employee Engagement and Personality Traits
Openness Conscientiousness Extroversion Agreeableness Neuroticism
Vigor Pearson Pr value -0.008 0.877
Dedication Pearson Pr value 0.023 0.668
Absorption Pearson Pr value 0.013 0.808
Overall EE Pearson Pr value 0.013 0.815
0.092
0.09
0.099
0.069
0.066
0.224
0.103
0.058
0.134*
0.014
0.075
0.169
0.001
0.988
0.082
0.132
0.049
0.367
0.075
0.17
0.03
0.577
0.063
0.25
0.074
0.174
0.075
0.172
-0.005
0.932
0.058
0.292
n = 337 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Table 16 indicates that only conscientiousness and vigor was significantly correlated (r=134, p=.014). The results were surprising and inconsistent with the limited studies relating personality traits and employee engagement (Liao, Yang, Wang, Drown & Shi, 2013; Woods & Sofat, 2013; Zaidi, N., Wajid, Zaidi, F., Zaidi, G & Zaidi, M., 2013). Another study by Mroz and Kaleta (2016) of 137 workers, representing different
89
service industries in Poland, showed significant relationships between traits (extraversion, neuroticism, openness) and work engagement.
Because of the inconsistency, the researcher grouped the respondents by age bracket (20-24, 25-29 and >= 30), and conducted another correlation test at a .01 and .05 significance level. The results in Table 17 show that extraversion was positively correlated with vigor (r=.475, p=.0019) in the 20-24 age bracket (n=24).
Table 17 Correlation of Employee Engagement and Personality Traits Ages 20-24
VGR OPEN CONSCI EXTRA AGREE NEURO
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)
0.015 0.944 -0.195 0.360 .475 * 0.019 0.149 0.486 0.048 0.825
DED 0.148 0.491 -0.087 0.686 0.307 0.145 .412 * 0.046 0.159 0.457
ABS -0.144 0.503 -0.231 0.278 0.042 0.847 -0.113 0.599 0.000 1.000
OVERALL 0.007 0.975 -0.207 0.333 0.356 0.088 0.179 0.402 0.079 0.713
n = 24 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Furthermore, the 25-29 age bracket (Table 18) revealed more significant relationships compared to the 20-24 (Table 17) and >=30 (Table 19) age brackets. Conscientiousness is positively correlated to vigor (r=.245, p=.004), dedication
90
(r=.177, .04) and overall engagement (r=.180, p=.037). Agreeableness is positively correlated with dedication (r=.169. 049), absorption (r=.178, .039) and overall engagement (r=.180, p=.037). Table 18 Correlation of Employee Engagement and Personality Traits Ages 25-29
OPEN CONSCI EXTRA AGREE
NEURO
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)
VGR -0.083 0.338 .245** 0.004 0.064 0.463 0.145 0.093 0.165 0.056
DED 0.020 0.819 .177* 0.040 -0.029 0.735 .169* 0.049 0.166 0.055
n = 135 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
ABS OVERALL 0.011 -0.021 0.897 0.806 0.038 .180* 0.664 0.037 -0.027 0.004 0.754 0.966 * .178 .194* 0.039 0.024 0.030 0.140 0.733 0.104
91
No significant relationships for the 30 and above age bracket (n=178) were found as shown in Table 19. Table 19 Correlation of Employee Engagement and Personality Traits Ages >= 30
OPEN CONSCI EXTRA AGREE NEURO
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)
VGR 0.057 0.449 0.094 0.212 -0.033 0.661 0.035 0.646 0.005 0.947
DED 0.020 0.786 0.031 0.684 0.127 0.091 0.035 0.644 0.012 0.874
ABS OVERALL 0.040 0.047 0.598 0.535 0.003 0.048 0.967 0.524 0.079 0.078 0.297 0.302 -0.003 0.027 0.971 0.724 -0.031 -0.004 0.685 0.954
n = 178 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Given the results, the fifth null hypothesis (HO5) “there is no significant relationship between personality traits and employee engagement.” is therefore rejected.
92
Significant Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement
To answer the question, the researcher ran a Pearson Correlation analysis between the five personality traits and job satisfaction (nine facets and overall). Table 20 summarizes the Pearson Correlation results: Table 20 Correlation of Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement Vigor
Dedication PR value 0.26* 0
Absorption R
P-value
0.24*
0
Overall EE PR value 0.30* 0
Pay
0.25*
Pvalue 0
Promotion
0.33*
0
0.41*
0
0.32*
0
0.42*
0
Supervision
0.21*
0
0.38*
0
0.23*
0
0.33*
0
Fringe Benefits
0.06
0.31
-0.01
0.9
0.03
0.64
0.03
0.59
Contingent Rewards
0.23*
0
0.19*
0
0.13*
0.02
0.22*
0
Operating Procedures
0.22*
0
0.32*
0
0.32*
0
0.34*
0
Co-workers
0.18*
0
0.29*
0
0.25*
0
0.29*
0
Nature of Work
0.23*
0
0.40*
0
0.31*
0
0.38*
0
Communication
0.40*
0
0.50*
0
0.39*
0
0.52*
0
Overall Job Satisfaction
0.42*
0
0.55*
0
0.44*
0
0.56*
0
R
n = 337 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) There is a moderate relationship between employee engagement and job satisfaction except for fringe benefits. The results supported studies that job satisfaction is an antecedent to employee engagement (Abraham, 2012) because the organization has
93
provided the resources necessary in their work (Rigg, et al., 2013; Van den Broecka, Vansteenkisteb, De Wittea & Lens, 2008), developing trust among supervisorsubordinate relationships and clear communication channels (Diedericks & Rothman, 2013). The results strongly support the findings of Wefald and Downey (2009) of engagement and demonstrate the connectivity between engagement and positive feeling about what one is doing and how well one does it.
The researcher then sorted the results from highest to lowest correlations to determine if either the motivating or satisfying facets had more bearing on job satisfaction. For overall employee engagement, Table 21 shows that aside from overall job satisfaction (r=0.56, p =0), the top three correlations are job satisfaction motivators
– communication (r=0.52, p =0), promotion (r=0.42, p =0) and nature of work (r=0.38, p =0).
94
Table 21 Correlation of Job Satisfaction and Overall Employee Engagement
n = 337 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) The results for the individual subscales consistently reflect job satisfaction motivators in the upper half as shown in Table 22: Table 22 Correlation of Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement Subscales
n = 337 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
95
While Rigg, Day and Adler (2013) concluded that engaged employees were more satisfied with their jobs, it is not necessarily congruent with the results of this study. The overall job satisfaction rating of the 337 respondents is ambivalent – neither satisfied nor dissatisfied as shown in Table 9 but highly engaged (Table 10) at the same time. The
respondent’s scored an ambivalent rating because they slightly disagree with the job satisfaction facet satisfiers (pay, fringe benefits and operating procedures) and slightly agree with all job satisfaction facet motivators (promotion, contingent rewards, n ature of
work and communication) as shown in Table 7. This therefore strengthens Herzberg’s theory that satisfiers and motivators are distinct. Engagement and job satisfaction, therefore, are highly related constructs (Wefald
& Downey, 2009) and as concluded by Macey and Schneider (2008) a “conceptual overlap” (as cited in Alarcons & Lyons, 2011). Given the results, the sixth and last null hypothesis (HO6) “there is no significant relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement” is therefore rejected.
96
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Employers and managers find millennials challenging to work with as well as motivating them to perform at their best. According to observations and popular literature, millennials are very much different from employees that belong to the generations before them such as Generation X and Baby Boomers. Millennials manifest a different set of values that previous generations find difficult to understand.
The purpose of this study is to confirm previous findings of the relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction and to determine if the same is true for employee engagement. The study further explored the strength of the relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement. In addition, to determine significant differences of the respondent’s personality traits, job satisfaction and employee engagement when demographic variables are taken as test factors. The research focused on millennials, ages 19-35, working at selected BPO companies in Metro Manila.
The researcher, in his experience as an employer even before millennials joined
the workforce, has wondered why newer generation’s attitudes, commitment and values toward work has significantly changed over time.
97
Was it a question of the work environment? Was there a need for more stringent rules to enforce compliance? Was there a problem with their education? Was there a need to tie them down to contracts to prevent them from leaving? Was it a question of leadership and management skills? These, among a number of other questions, were partially explained when the researcher stumbled upon an article in the Harvard Business Review in 2011 about the new generation of workers called millennials titled Mentoring Millennials (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). After reading the said eye-opening article, the
researcher has pored over countless online and printed articles and “studies” on the topic. Some made sense while others gave very little insights.
The researcher’s interest on the topic further grew because of the challenges of rising attrition and alarmingly low retention rates in the BPO industry and his company as well. Attrition rates rose, talent acquisition costs soared and employee retention were shorter. The results brought about drastic changes in the traditional workplace, as we know it. The “serious” corporate environment disappeared and transformed into
unconventional workplaces that looked more like a teenager’s room or a yuppies favorite hangout. Suddenly, this new generation of self-entitled workers “owned” the work environment.
The researcher is an advocate of change, either slow or abrupt, for as long as there are results to the challenges it attempts to address. However, the challenges remain. Despite an improvement in employee turnover to 50% from 70% (Magkilat, 2016), a
98
news article in a daily broadsheet reports that it continues to rise as employees cite pay as the reason for leaving (Remo, 2016).
The researcher has qualms as well as objections to the use of remuneration to entice workers to stay. This approach is difficult to sustain considering financial wants are insatiable. The industry approach to retention vis-à-vis attrition may come in different forms but are practically the same. Continuously hire, give them what they want, pray that they stay and blame their lack of loyalty and values if they leave.
Eventually, the researcher suggests that the industry may need to see the problem from another angle. Maybe attrition was not the problem but part of a new human resource dynamics. Similar to digital marketing that never existed ten years ago. Today it has rapidly changed the face of marketing and every year, innovations surface and new business models and revenue streams emerge.
The researcher proposed a different perspective through this study to contribute to the body of knowledge for strategic human resource management particularly in the BPO industry. They are: a.
Accept the fact that talented millennials have shorter work tenures. Make
the most out of their stay by constantly engaging them through programs that fit their personalities and preferences. Focus on work engagement because it contributes to
99
positive retention. Positive retention is the approach of engaging talented individuals who are committed to organizational growth regardless of length of tenu re. b.
Instead of searching for answers to the question “what do millennials
want?” this research study seeks answers to the question “how should leaders manage the expectations of millennials so that it contributes to positive retention?” This motivated the researcher to look deeper into the millennial mind and determine what they are like as a person. The researcher adapted the Five Factor Model of Personality to understand the millennial mind and personality instead of assumptions, observations and claims from popular literature. The researcher measured the stable personality traits of 337 respondents with the 90-item Manchester Personality Questionnaire - a psychometric test used in industrial settings.
Furthermore, the researcher wanted to determine if significant relationships exist between
these
personality
traits
(openness,
conscientiousness,
extraversion,
agreeableness and neuroticism), job satisfaction and work engagement.
The researcher used Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory as a guide to this study. Herzberg’s theory distinctly separates motivators and satisfiers and the researcher wanted to determine how this correlates to employee engagement.
100
The researcher used Paul Spector’s Job Satisfaction Survey and the Utrecht Work Engagement Survey to measure the nine job satisfaction facets (pay, supervision, fringe benefits, operating procedures, co-workers, contingent rewards, nature of work and communication) and three work engagement subscales (vigor, dedication and absorption)
This chapter presents the summary of findings showing the summary, conclusions and directions for future studies. The study concludes with several recommendations having strategic implications based on the overall findings.
5.1 Summary of Findings
5.1.1
Profiles of the respondents in terms of the demographic variables gender,
job level, length of tenure and civil status.
The average age of the respondents is 29 years old, mostly female (74%) and single (72%). Majority of the respondents are rank & file employees (72%) with two years or less (64%) experience. Eighteen and eight percent of the respondents have worked for their companies from 2-4 years and 4-6 years respectively. Only 10% have continuously worked with their company for more than six years.
101
5.1.2
Assessment of the respondents on their personality traits in terms of
openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.
Majority of the respondents fall in the middle range of the dimensions for openness (93%), extraversion (72%), agreeableness (61%) and neuroticism (80%). Among the five traits, 58% of the respondents fall on the extreme side of conscientiousness indicating that the respondents are well organized, dependable and careful with the remaining percent falling under the mid-range scale. Also, 96% of the respondents fall under the middle and extreme right of agreeableness indicating that the y are generally sympathetic, polite and good natured.
5.1.3
Assessment of the respondents on their job satisfaction in terms of pay,
promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating procedures, co-workers, nature of work, communication and overall job satisfaction.
In terms of the overall response in reference to the Lickert scale, the respondents slightly agree with their chances of promotion, supervision, co-workers, contingent rewards, nature of work and communication within the organization. However, they slightly disagree in terms of pay, fringe benefits and operating procedures.
In terms of satisfaction scale, the respondent’s neither feel satisfied nor dissatisfied (ambivalent) with pay, promotion, fringe benefits, contingent rewards and communication. The respondents are satisfied with supervision (44%), co-workers
102
(50%) and the nature of work (57%). However, 48% are dissatisfied with operating procedures.
In terms of the overall satisfaction scale, majority of the respondents feel ambivalent (77%), 18% are satisfied while only 5% were dissatisfied. Overall, the respondents feel ambivalent (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) with the jobs.
5.1.4
Assessment of the respondents on their employee engagement in terms of
vigor, dedication, absorption and overall engagement.
The results yielded an overall response of “engaged at least once a week” (Often) for vigor, dedication, absorption and overall engagement. Ninety percent collectively fall in the 4-6 scale suggesting that the respondents are highly engaged in the workplace.
5.1.5
Significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their
personality
traits
in
terms
of
openness,
conscientiousness,
extraversion,
agreeableness and neuroticism when their profiles are taken as test factors
According to Gender
There is a significant difference between openness and gender (t=1.98, p=0.831) with males (n=87, m=5.41) scoring higher than the female respondents (n=250, m=5.13). There were no significant differences for conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.
103
According to Job Level
There is a significant difference between extraversion and job level (t=1.94, p=0.054) with the managers & supervisors (n=96, m=5.40) scoring higher compared to their rank & file counterparts (n=241, m=5.13). There were no significant differences for openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism.
According to Civil Status
Only one respondent answered with separated and taken out of the samples so there was no need to conduct an ANOVA. Instead, the t-test yielded a significant difference between extraversion and civil status (t=2.611, p=0.009) with the married respondents scoring higher (n=95, m=6.34) than their single counterparts (n=242, m=5.79). There were no significant differences for openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism.
According to Tenure
An F-test revealed that were no significant differences between the five personality traits and tenure.
104
Summary
The results, given the number of significant differences between job satisfaction (scales and overall) and demographics therefore, reject the null hypothesis (H01) “there is no significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their personality traits when their profiles are taken as test factors”.
5.1.6
Significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their job
satisfaction in terms of pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, rewards, operating procedures, co-workers, nature of work and communication when demographic profiles are taken as test factors.
According to Gender
The female respondents scored higher on pay (t=3.223, p=.0001), promotion (t= 3.496, p=.0001), communication (t=3.043, p=.0003) and overall job satisfaction (t 3.281, p=.0001). The female respondents gave more importance to these facets than their male counter-parts.
According to Job Level
Only promotion (t=2.885, p=.0004) differed significantly as the managers and supervisors gave more importance to the said facet.
105
According to Civil Status
Only fringe benefits (t=2.126, p=.0034) differed significantly.
According to Length of Tenure
There were no significant differences for length of tenure.
Summary
The results, given the number of significant differences between job satisfaction sub-scales and demographics therefore, reject the null hypothesis (HO2) “there are no significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their job satisfaction when their profiles are taken as test factors”.
5.1.7
Significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their
employee engagement in terms of vigor, dedication, absorption and overall engagement when their profiles are taken as test factors.
According to Gender
There is a significant difference between dedication (t=4.00, p=0.00), absorption (t=4.98, p=0.00) and overall engagement (t=4.32, p=0.00).
106
According to Job Level
There were no significant difference for job level.
According to Civil Status
There were no significant differences for civil status.
According to Length of Tenure
There were no significant differences for length of tenure.
Summary
The results, given the number of significant differences between job satisfaction sub-scales and demographics therefore, reject the null hypothesis (HO3) “there are no significant differences as the assessment of the respondents on their employee engagement when their profiles are taken as test factors.”
107
5.1.8
Significant relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction.
Of the five personality traits, agreeableness has the most number of correlations with the job satisfaction facets. Pay (r=0.171, p=.002), promotion (r=0.183, p=.001) and contingent rewards (r=0.152, p=.005) are positively correlated with agreeableness while supervision (r=-0.131, p=.0016) and co-workers (r = -0.112, p=.05) are negatively correlated.
Conscientiousness is positively correlated with co-workers (r = 0.12, p=.027) and communication (r = 0.136, p=.013). Extraversion is positively correlated with the nature of work (r = 0.108, p=.048). Neuroticism is positively correlated with supervision (r = 0.13, p=.017) and co-workers (r = 0.161, p=.003). Openness and pay (r = -0.11, p=.043) has a weak negative correlation.
Given the results the fourth null hypothesis “There is no significant relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction” (HO4) is therefore rejected.
5.1.9
Significant
relationship
between
personality
traits
and
employee
engagement.
Only conscientiousness was correlated with vigor (r=0.134, p=0.014) for the 337 respondents. To exhaust all possibilities, the researcher grouped the respondents in age brackets. The results yielded the following correlations: extraversion was positively
108
correlated with vigor (r=.475, p=.0019) in the 20-24 age bracket (n=24); conscientiousness is positively correlated to vigor (r=.245, p=.004), dedication (r=.177, .04) and overall engagement (r=.180, p=.037), agreeableness is positively correlated with dedication (r=.169, .049), absorption (r=.178, .039) and overall engagement (r=.180, p=.037) in the 25-29 age bracket (n=135); and no significant relationships for the 30 and above age bracket (n=178) were found.
Given the results, the fifth null hypothesis (HO5) “there is no significant relationship between personality traits and employee engagement.”, is therefore rejected.
5.1.10 Significant relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement.
All job satisfaction facets (except for fringe benefits) and overall job satisfaction had significantly moderate to strong correlations with all employee engagement scales and overall engagement.
Likewise, when the correlation results were arranged from highest to lowest, the upper half is consistently composed of job satisfaction motivating facets both for overall engagement and three individual subscales.
Given the results, the sixth and last null hypothesis (HO6) “there is no significant relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement” , is therefore rejected.
109
5.2 Conclusions
5.2.1
Profiles of the respondents in terms of the demographic variables gender,
job level, length of tenure and civil status.
As expected from the assumptions postulated in this study, attempts to prolong a
millennial employee’s work tenure is futile. The study indicates that the respondents have shorter work tenures given a two-year period at the most. For the millennial, hopping from one job to another is just as normal as channel or internet surfing given the many choices available. Talented millennials will always look for better opportunities available in the expanding global market. Employers lose the chance of fully utilizing their talent and leaving them with less talented individuals who have limited options and stick to their existing jobs. Another aspect that millennials also consider is the instability of the present day job market. Organizational restructuring is common in the BPO industry as a way to optimize and restructure costs. The demand for high performance either forces non-performers to leave or increases the stress levels of star performers. This leaves them no choice but to leave when supervision is mismanaged.
Employers and managers might want to reconsider the traditional belief where employee retention is a prerequisite to engagement and job satisfaction. Studies on the subject of employee attrition and intention to leave always focus on ways and methods to retain employees for longer periods. However, the concept of womb-to-tomb or
110
lifetime employment has gone out the window of corporate employment since the time the millennial employee joined the workforce. Using money, financial rewards and promoting an environment of fun may help retain them a bit longer than usual but there is no evidence that would stay a lifetime.
5.2.2
Assessment of the respondents on their personality traits in terms of
openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.
Personality traits that may match the customer service oriented nature of BPO companies are conscientiousness (well-organized, dependable and careful) and agreeableness (sympathetic, polite and good natured). These two traits are essential to highly customer-centric organizations, such as the BPO industry, where the demand for customer satisfaction, empathy and immediate problem resolution is high. The likeliness of job dissatisfaction is therefore high if the personality fit does not match the nature of the job. Demanding customers with abrasive behavior are stressful to deal with. It takes a certain type of personality to address and cope with such stressful situations.
111
5.2.3
Assessment of the respondents on their job satisfaction in terms of pay,
promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating procedures, co-workers, nature of work, communication and overall job satisfaction.
The study also confirmed some aspects that the millennial workforce expect in the workplace. The results of the findings infer the following expectations in the workplace: a. Millennials find compensation important and look forward to immediate promotions despite the short work tenures they have with the company. Their sense of self-entitlement may contribute to this expectation. b. Millennials respond well to praise and recognition as well as appreciate clear work expectations. c. Millennials value personal relationships among their co-workers and expect
their managers to take on a mentoring and coaching role rather than a “hover behind-your- back” management style. d. Millennials also prefer less formal working environments and expect organizations to provide the necessary resources to encourage productivity. Employers and managers may misinterpret the expectations as whimsical and not taken seriously. However, the reality of the situation remains as millennials hop from one job to another expecting the same workplace expectations repeatedly. Millennials
112
will always find it to work in an environment that is engaging and conducive to productivity.
5.2.4
Assessment of the respondents on their employee engagement in terms of
vigor, dedication, absorption and overall engagement.
To some extent, the study suggests that providing the millennial workforce with the necessary intrinsic and extrinsic resources may make employment more meaningful and productively engaging. Work engagement, as in the case of the BPO respondents, is not a work phenomenon that happens outright. It cannot be isolated, analyzed and addressed by itself. As the study suggests, it is a combination of a personality traits that
match the nature of the job, the employee’s perception of job satisfaction and motivation to make work more meaningful.
5.2.5
Significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their
personality
traits
in
terms
of
openness,
conscientiousness,
extraversion,
agreeableness and neuroticism when their profiles are taken as test factors.
The study indicates that there are gender, job level and civil status differences across personality dimensions among BPO workers. There were no significant differences in terms of tenure. The significant differences in gender, civil status and job level exists for openness and extraversion among the respondents.
113
The findings clarify the nature of gender differences and understanding how men and women differ in the ways they feel, think and behave.
The male respondents scored higher in openness suggesting that they were more imaginative, creative and independent. However, it does not mean nor is it indicative that males are more intelligent than women as there is a need to test this to accurately measure the claim. Men are known to be more creative in solving complex problems using logic, rational thinking and less emotion. The female respondents tend to be conforming – following rules and procedures as reinforced by their high levels of conscientiousness. Males have a tendency to seek shortcuts as they are very much impatient when obtaining results.
5.2.6
Significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their job
satisfaction in terms of pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, rewards, operating procedures, co-workers, nature of work and communication when their profiles are taken as test factors.
The respondent’s significant differences between job satisfaction and demographics as well as the overall ambivalent rating for job satisfaction over pay, promotion, communication and fringe benefits are likely the effect or response to uniform or standardized HR programs. Different job aspects may motivate millennials.
114
While some employees may find money as their motivation, others find motivation in something completely different.
As postulated, the significant differences for intrinsic and extrinsic preferences as well as the varying degrees of correlations between stable personality traits with job satisfaction and work engagement suggests that employees respond in different ways to HR initiatives and its implementation.
The respondents, regardless of job tenure, perceive job satisfaction in varying,
but not necessarily significant, degrees. An individual’s search for work satisfaction and motivation is insatiable, no matter how short or long they are with the organization. The effects or results, however, may vary because other factors may come into play. If organizational commitment is considered, a person may stay for longer p eriods whether there is dissatisfaction or not. If occupational commitment is considered, they person may seek employment with other organizations to satisfy the needs or wants that comes with a career path.
5.2.7
Significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their
employee engagement in terms of vigor, dedication, absorption and overall work engagement when their profiles are taken as test factors.
115
Only gender indicated significant differences with employee engagement meaning that regardless of civil status, job level and length of tenure, the perception of engagement is very much the same.
5.2.8
Significant relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction.
The weak but significant relationship between stable personality traits and job satisfaction may indicate that there may be mediating or latent variables that affect the results. Further discovery may lead to other conclusions that may determine what weakens or strengthens the results for millennials in the BPO environment.
5.2.9
Significant relationship between personality traits and employee
engagement.
The moderate to strong relationship between personality traits and work engagement for the respondents between the ages 25-29 may indicate that engagement is cyclical. Since personality traits are stable over time, engagement, on the other hand, may changes because of external stimuli, and situations at certain points of a millennial
employee’s career. Engagement, therefore, is either strong or weak at any given time. This finding, if taken into consideration with the previous conclusion where significant relationships exists between personality traits and job satisfaction regardless
116
of age bracket, may indicate that a person may be engaged but not necessarily satisfied at any given period.
5.2.10 Significant relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement.
The findings indicate that there is a strong and significant relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement. The results also clearly indicate that the strongest degree of relationships between overall employee engagement were not only with overall job satisfaction but with the job satisfaction facets of communication, promotion and nature of work – all motivating factors. In fact, for the individual engagement scales of vigor, dedication and absorption, the top ranking relationships were with motivating facets.
Millennials may view extrinsic (hygiene) job satisfaction facets as important but intrinsic (motivating) facets such as promotion, contingent rewards, nature of work and communication within the organization contribute to favorable and productive work engagement.
Lastly, the findings further strengthens Herzberg’s theory that satisfiers and motivators are distinct. The motivating satisfaction facets contribute to higher engagement levels compared to its counterpart.
117
5.3 Recommendations
Strategic human resource management model crafted from the results of the study.
Figure 2 Strategic Human Resource Engagement Model
The study offers a model that integrates the results of the climate survey (job satisfaction facets and work engagement), personality traits from psychometric exams
and prevalent demographics from the employee’s 201 files. Employee concerns are categorized either satisfiers or as motivators. These concerns are then evaluated, diagnosed and addressed distinctly.
118
The objective of this model is to develop different engagement programs that fit or appeal to the personalities and demographics of the workforce. The me asurable results are employee performance and employee growth – both contributors to positive retention. Positive retention refers to the approach of engaging talented individuals who are committed to organizational growth regardless of length of tenure. Further research is necessary to test and refine this model.
Millennials will dominate the workforce in the next decade. The workplace is experiencing a disruption that creates new HR models and structures as it slowly replaces traditional ones. Understanding what drives millennials will therefore help employers and managers shape the work environment of tomorrow. Members of the HR community may consider the following strategic recommendations:
Psychometricians
Traditionally, the results of psychometric exams were confidential and used only during candidate selection. Once the employee is on-board, HR sets the psychometric results aside without any clear intention of its use. The study offers an opportunity to rethink the way the psychometric measures are used.
Psychometricians or qualified individuals may use the results of the psychometric measures to:
119
a.
Look for the best personality fit for the job. Analyze which personality
dimensions and facet combination match the nature of the work. Give priority to highly conscientious and agreeable personalities. The BPO industry is highly known for its customer and service-centric nature and certain personality traits fit not only the challenges of the job but, surprisingly, also their reception and outlook towards job satisfaction. b.
Work with the Training Team to design programs to understand the
proper and effective approach to motivating people of different personality types. c.
Provide managers and supervisors a brief and meaningful profile of their
staff to they would understand how to effectively motivate and engage them.
Engagement Team
a.
Focus on engagement rather than retention because millennials are likely
to stay in a company for shorter periods. Managers who fail to take good care of their best millennials are most likely going to lose them in a year. The key is to make use of the limited amount of time to tap its millennial workforce’s potential and fully utilize their talents. b.
Measure job satisfaction and work engagement objectively using formal
climate surveys. Avoid implementing programs based on articles, targeted for millennials, found in popular literature or even scientific studies without first understanding how the workforce perceives and feels about the working environment.
120
c.
Differentiate satisfiers and motivators when designing engagement
programs. Though equally important, the results of this study indicate that millennials gave more weight on motivating factors such as promotion, contingent rewards, nature of the work and communication. d.
Engagement programs should focus on motivating factors such as
opportunities for promotion and talent development (career pathing), continuous performance feedback (contingent rewards), and clear communication of meaningful corporate and team goals (nature of work). If done properly, having talented employees with longer work tenures is highly possible and achievable as well. Engagement, therefore, contributes to positive employee retention and not the other way around. e.
Design and implement various engagement programs meant to appeal to
different personality dimensions of the workforce. Certain personality types respond differently to stimuli and it is important for managers to understand what makes people tick. f.
Using the same concept of multiple engagement programs, consider the
demographics of the workforce when prioritizing and identifying the job satisfaction facets to address or strengthen. Standardized or across the board HR programs may not entirely work with millennials because they are motivated by different things. While one employee finds motivation with money, another may find motivation in something completely different. Managers should really need to know how to motivate each individual.
121
Corporate Leadership
a.
Engagement should come from the top and not limited to staff level
employees alone. Leaders and managers should equip themselves to understand and effectively engage the different personality dimensions of their workforce. The older generations of the workforce may still have difficulty understanding and accepting the fact that they are dealing with an entirely new breed of workers brought up under different circumstances from their predecessors. There is a risk of not connecting properly, particularly with high achievers, if treated in the same manner. b.
Managers should understand how to address the challenges of creating a
healthy working environment that contributes to productivity rather than satisfying whims and wants of the millennial workforce. The key is not to retain but to engage. An employee that finds the work engaging will go the extra mile to deliver excellent customer service, commit themselves to their work and contribute to c orporate growth. c.
Develop a culture of mentoring and coaching rather than managing and
supervising. Millennials seem to have things figured out and this attitude is dangerous in the corporate setting if left unchecked. Guidance, constant feedback and helping millennials see the big picture (and hopefully see the purpose and impact of what they do) are effective coaching and mentoring techniques. This approach also strengthens the bond between mentor and mentee, developing meaningful relationships and bridging the gap between two polarized generations.
122
Corporate Training
a. Design training programs that increase the value of an employee’s skillset. Training is an important component to work engagement and there is need to measure
its effectiveness. Directly measure training results with an employee’s productivity (performance appraisals) instead of the number of programs conducted within a period. Corporate trainers should adopt a more strategic rather than a transactional approach to training. b. Work with psychometricians or qualified personnel in training managers and supervisors to effectively deal with and motivate personality types. Understanding the human psyche is a key ingredient to effective leadership. c. Strengthen mentoring and coaching skills of corporate leadership across all levels with the appropriate training programs.
5.4 Directions for Future Research
The weak and almost negligible correlation between personality traits and employee engagement subscales are in question because the results are contrary to the limited literature available. Future research should further explore the existence of latent variables or factors that may contribute to the said findings. Culture may have affected the results considering that the existing study used Western models. There were no studies found for Asian culture nor the BPO environment also known to have a subculture of its own.
123
It is not definitive if the multiple moderate correlation between job satisfaction (both overall and individual facets) and employee engagement (overall and subscales) are either causal or mediating. Future studies should also further attempt to investigate if engagement and job satisfaction are not intertwining constructs that seem to affect one another.
The study also merits investigation and further determine if a dispositional source of employee engagement truly exists. Due to limited time, more participants in future studies may explain the reason behind the existence of more correlations in the 25-29 age bracket.
It is highly recommended for future researchers to use existing psychometric records and limit the survey to job satisfaction and employee engagement. The MPQ, by itself, is a 90-item questionnaire. There is a possibility that some participants may have dropped out of the online survey out of impatience to complete the 143-item questionnaire. This may explain why the participants are almost all highly conscientious or had the tenacity to finish the survey.
124
REFERENCES
Abraham, S. (2012). Job Satisfaction as an Antecedent to Employee Engagement. SIES Journal of Management. September 2012, Vol. 8(2) Adkins, A. (2015). Majority of U.S. Employees Not Engaged Despite Gains in 2014. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/181289/majority-employees-notengaged-despite-gains-2014.aspx Ahmad J., Ather M. & Hussain M. (2014). Impact of Big Five Personality Traits on Job Performance (Organization Committment as a Mediator). Management, Knowledge and Learning International Conference. Retrieved May 17, 2015 from http://www.toknowpress.net/ISBN/978-961-6914-09-3/papers/ML14597.pdf Ahmad, W., Mustafa, Z., Ahmad, W., & Ahmad, T. (2012). Determinants Influencing Employee Satisfaction: A Case of Government and Project Type Organization. Pakistan Journal of Life & Social Sciences. 2012, Vol. 10 Issue 1, p42-47. 6p. Alarcon, G. & Lyons, J. (2011). The Relationship of Engagement and Job Satisfaction in Working Samples. The Journal of Psychology, 2011, 145(5), 463 – 480 Altinoz, M., Cakiroglu, D. & Cop, S. (2012). The Effect of Job Satisfaction of the Talented Employees on Organizational Commitment: A Field Research. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 58. 322 – 330 Andrew, O. & Sofian, S. (2012). Individual Factors and Work Outcomes of Employee Engagement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 40, 498 – 508. doi: 10.1016/ j.sbspro.2012.03.222 Angeles, A. & Llanto, G. (2014). Productive Work Attitudes. In M.R. Hechanova, M. Teng-Calleja & V. Villaluz (Eds.), Understanding the Filipino Worker (pp 95103). Quezon City: Ateneo De Manila University Press.
Artz, Benjamin. (2008).Fringe Benefits and Job Satisfaction www.uww.edu/documents/colleges/cobe/economics/wpapers/08_03_Artz.pdf Aruna, M. & Anitha, J. (2015). Employee Retention Enablers: Generation Y Employees. SCMS Journal of Indian Management . Jul-Sep2015, Vol. 12 Issue 3, p94-103. 10p.
125
Atkinson, P. (2008). Millennials – Researching the Application of Demographics to Build Customer Relationships and HR Strategy. Management Services. Spring2008, Vol. 52 Issue 1, p6-11 Bakker, A.B. & Schaufel, W.B. (2008). Positive Organizational Behavior: Engaged Employees in Flourishing Organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Feb2008, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p147-154. 8p. Bakker, A.,Schaufeli, W., Leiter, M. & Taris, T. (2008). Work Engagement: An Emerging Concept in Occupational Health Psychology. Work & Stress. Vol. 22, No. 3, July_September 2008, 187_200 Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., de Boer, E. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62 (2), 341 – 356. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00030-1 Bannon, S., Ford, K. & Meltzer, L. (2011). Understanding Millennials in the Workplace. CPA Journal. Nov2011, Vol. 81 Issue 11, p61-65. 5p. Barrick, M. & Mount, M. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1 – 26. Barrick, M., Mount, M. & Li, N. (2013). The Theory of Purposeful Work Behavior: The Role of Personality, Higher-Order Goals, and Job Characteristics. Academy Of Management Review. Jan2013, Vol. 38 Issue 1, P132-153 Bedarkar, M. & Pandita, D. (2014). A Study on the Drivers of Employee Engagement Impacting Employee Performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 133 (2014) 106 – 115 Belias, D., Koustelios, A., Vairaktarakis, G. & Sdrolias. L. (2015). Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction of Greek Banking Institutions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 175 (2015) 314 – 323 Bhatnagar, J. (2012). Management of Innovation: Role of Psychological Empowerment, Work Engagement and Turnover Intention in the Indian Context. International Journal of Human Resource Management. Mar2012, Vol. 23 Issue 5, p928-951. 24p. Binder, D. (2012). Executing Engagement Strategy Creates the Real Value. People & Strategy. 2012, Vol. 35 Issue 4 p6-7. 2p
126
Bruk-Lee, V., Khoury, H., Nixon, A., Goh, A. & Spector, P. (2009). Replicating and Extending Past Personality / Job Satisfaction Meta-Analyses. Human Performance. Apr-Jun2009, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p156-189 Cleare L. (2013), Personality as a Predictor of Job Satisfaction: Study of the Relationship between Personality and Job Satisfaction Amongst Workers in the Bahamas. Journal of Management Research ISSN 1941-899X 2013, Vol. 5, No. 3 Collins, L. (2011). Talent Wars. Engineering & Technology (17509637). Jun2011, Vol. 6, Issue 5, p34-36. DOI: 10:1049/et.2011.0511 Colquitt J., Lepine J. & Wesson M. (2013). Organizational Behavior – Improving Performance and Commitment in the Workplace, USA, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY Cummings, T. & Worley C. (2009). Organizational Development and Change, 9TH Ed., USA, South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH Dalal, R., Bashshur, M. & Credé, M. (2010). The Forgotten Facet: Employee Satisfaction with Management above the Level of Immediate Supervision. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Apr2011, Vol. 60 Issue 2, p183209. 27p. Davis-Blake, A. & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a Mirage – The Search for Dispositional Effects in Organizational Research. Academy of Management Review. Jul1989, Vol. 14 Issue 3, p385-400 Davis, T. (2013). A Qualitative Study of the Effects of Employee Retention on the Organization. Insights to a Changing World Journal. 2013, Vol. 2013 Issue 2, p25-112. 88p. De Braine, R. & Roodt, G. (2011). The Job Demands-Resources Model as Predictor of Work Identity and Work Engagement - A Comparative Analysis. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology. Jun2011, Vol. 37 Issue 2, p52-62. De Bruin, G.P., Hill, C., Henn, C.M., & Muller, K-P. (2013). Dimensionality of the UWES-17: An Item Response Modelling Analysis. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 39(2), Art. #1148, 8 pages. http:// dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip. v39i2.1148
127
Demerouti, E., Mostert, K. & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15 (3), 209 – 222. doi: 10.1037/a0019408 DeVaney, S. (2015). Understanding the Millennial Generation. Journal of Financial Service Professionals. Nov2015, Vol. 69 Issue 6, p11-14. Diedericks, E. & Rothmann, S. (2013). Flourishing of Information Technology Professionals: The Role of Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Psychology in Africa 2013, 23(2), 225 – 234 Edinger, S. (2012). Engagement Provides Fuel for Productivity. Financial Executive. Apr2012, Vol. 28 Issue 3, p24-27. Ellis, R. (2013). Reverse Mentoring: Letting Millennials Lead the Way. T+D. Sep2013, Vol. 67 Issue 9, p13-13. 1p. Erdheim, J., Wang, M. & Zickar, M. (2006). Linking the Big Five Personality Constructs to Organizational Commitment. Personality & Individual Differences. Oct2006, Vol. 41 Issue 5, p959-970 Fatima, N., Iqbal, S., Akhwand, S., Suleman, M. & Ibrahim, M. (2015). Effect of gender differences on job satisfaction of the female employees in Pakistan. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 2015; 3(1): 27-33 Feffer, M. (2015). What Makes a Great Employer? HR Magazine. Jun2015, Vol. 60 Issue 5, p37-44. 5p. Ferri-Reed, J. (2012). Three Ways Leaders Can Help Millennials Succeed. Journal for Quality & Participation. Apr2012, Vol. 35 Issue 1, p18-19. 2p Franco, E. (2014). Political, Economic, Environmental and Cultural Influences on Organization Behavior. In M.R. Hechanova, M. Teng-Calleja & V. Villaluz (Eds.), Understanding the Filipino Worker (pp 1-15). Quezon City: Ateneo De Manila University Press. Franic, S., Borsboom, D., Dolan, C., Boomsma, D. (2013). The Big Five Personality Traits: Psychological Entities or Statistical Constructs?. Springer Science+Business Media New York
128
French, R., Rayner C., Rees, G. & Rumbles, S. (2011). Organizational Behaviour (2 ND ed.), USA, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Galanou, E., Georgakapoulos, G., sotiropoulos, I., & Dimitris, V. (2011). The effect of reward system on job satisfaction in an organizational chart of four hierarchical levels: A qualitative study. International Journal of Human Sciences. Vol. 8, Issue1, Year 2011, ISSN: 1 1303-5134. García-Izquierdo A., Moscoso S. & Ramos-Villagrasa, P. (2012). Reaction s to the Fairness of Promotion Methods: Procedural justice and job satisfaction. International Journal of Selection & Assessment. Dec2012, Vol. 20 Issue 4, p394-403. 10p Gardner, G. (1977). Is There a Valid Test of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory? Journal of Occupational Psychology. Sep77, Vol. 50 Issue 3, p197-204. 8p.
Gąsior, M., Skowron, Ł. & Sak -Skowron, M. (2014). Multidimensional Structure of Employee Motivation - Clustering Approach. AIP Conference Proceedings. 2014, Vol. 1635 Issue 1, p748-754. DOI: 10.1063/1.4903666 Gazioglu, S., & Tanselb, A. (2006). Job Satisfaction in Britain: Individual and Job Related Factors. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1163-1171.
Gregory, J. B., & Levy, P. E. (2011). It’s not me, it’s you: A multi -level examination of variables that impact employee coaching relationships. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 63, 67 – 88. Gavatorta, S. (2012). It's a Millennial Thing. T+D. Mar2012, Vol. 66 Issue 3, p58-65. 6p. 3 Gopal, A. (2006). Worker Disengagement Continues to Cost Singapore. Gallup Management Journal Online. 5/11/2006, p1-5 Griggs R. (2012). Psychology: A Concise Introduction (3RD ed.), USA, Worth Publishers, New York, NY Guha, A.B. (2010). Motivators and Hygiene Factors of Generation X and Generation Y-The Test of Two-Factor Theory. Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of Management. Sep2010, Vol. 7 Issue 2, p121-132
129
Hakanen, J. J. , Bakker, A. B. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43 (6), 495 – 513. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001 Hansen F. (2010). Engaged and At Your Service. Workforce Management, Mar2010, Vol. 89 Issue 3, p23-27 Harter, J., Agrawal, S. & Sorensen, S. (2014). Jobs Outlook Grim in Countries with More Disengaged Workers. Gallup Poll Briefing. 10/31/2014, p3. Hashim, N.,Ishar, N., Rashid, W. & Masodi, M. (2012). Personality Traits, Work Family Conflict and Job Satisfaction: Items Validity using Rasch Measurement Approach. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 65 (2012) 1013 - 1019 Hersch, J. & Xiao, J. (2016). Sex, Race, and Job Satisfaction among Highly Educated Workers. Southern Economic Journal . Jul2016, Vol. 83 Issue 1, p1-24. Hershatter, A & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An organization and management. Journal of Business & Psychology. Jun2010, Vol. 25 Issue 2, p211-223. 13p Ho, J., Lee, L. & Wu, A. (2009). How Changes in Compensation Plans Affect Employee Performance, Recruitment, and Retention: An Empirical Study of a Car Dealership. Contemporary Accounting Research. Spring2009, Vol. 26 Issue 1, p167-199. 33p Hofaidhllaoui, M. & Chhinzer, N. (2014). The Relationship Between Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions for Knowledge Workers, Engineering Management Journal. Jun2014, Vol. 26 Issue 2, p3-9. 7p Huang, J.& Ryan, A. (2011). Beyond Personality Traits: A Study Of Personality States and Situational Contingencies in Customer Service Jobs. Personnel Psychology. Summer 2011, Vol. 64 Issue 2, p451-488. Hubbard, J. (2013). Meet the Millennials. Finweek. August 29, 2013, p43 Hulett, K.J. (2006). They Are Here to Replace Us: Recruiting and Retaining Millennials. Journal of Financial Planning. Nov2006 Supplement, p17-17. 1p
130
Hyun, S. & Oh, H. (2011). Reexamination of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation in the Korean Army Foodservice Operations. Journal of Foodservice Business Research. Apr-Jun2011, Vol. 14 Issue 2, p100-121 Ilagan JR., Hechanova R., Co T. & Pleyto V. (2014), “Bakit Ka Kumakayod?” Developing a Filipino Needs Theory of Motivation. Philippine Journal of Psychology ISSN 2244-1298 2014, Vol 47, No. 1 Jauhari, V., Sehgal, R. & Sehgal P. (2013). Talent Management and Employee Engagement – Insights from Infotech Enterprises, Ltd.. Journal of Services Research. Apr-Sep2013, Vol. 13 Issue 1, p161-186. 26p Johnston, D. & Lee, W.S. (2013). Extra Status and Extra Stress: Are Promotions Good for Us?. Industrial & Labor Relations Review. Jan2013, Vol. 66 Issue 1, p3254. 23p Judge, T., Heller, D. & Klinger, R. (2008). The Dispositional Sources of Job Satisfaction: A Comparative Test. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 2008, 57 (3), 361 – 372 Judge, T., Heller, D. & Mount, M. (2002). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002. Vol. 87, No. 3, 530 – 541 0021-9010/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.530 Judge T., Piccolo R., Podsakoff, N. Shaw, J. & Rich, B. (2010). The relationship between pay and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the literature. Academy of Management Perspectives. Feb2011, Vol. 25 Issue 1, p101-103. 2p. DOI: 10.5465/AMP.2011.59198457 Kacmar, K.M., Collins, B., Harris, K. & Judge, T. (2009).Core Self Evaluations and Job Performance: The Role of the Perceived Work Environment. Journal of Applied Psychology. Nov2009, Vol. 94 Issue 6, p1572-1580. 9p. Kaliannan, M. & Adjovu, S.M. (2015). Effective employee engagement and organizational success: a case study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 172 ( 2015 ) 161 – 168. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.350 Kathirvel, N. (2009). A Study on Stress among Employees in BPOs with Special Reference to Coimbatore. IUP Journal of Management Research. Nov2009, Vol. 8 Issue 11, p28-44. 17p
131
Kellison, T., Kim, Y.K. & Magnusen, M. (2013). The Work Attitudes of Mílleníals in Collegiate Recreational Sports. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration. Spring2013, Vol. 31 Issue 1, p78-97. Kontoghiorghes, C. & Frangou, K. (2009). The Association between Talent Retention, Antecedent Factors and Consequent Organizational Performance. SAM Advanced Management Journal (07497075). Winter2009, Vol. 74 Issue 1, p2958. 9p. Kumar, R. (2016). The Impact of Personal Variables on Job Satisfaction: A Study of Public Sector Bank Employees in India. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior . Jul2016, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p40-58. Kumar, R. & Arora, R. (2012). Determinants of Talent Retention in the BPO Industry. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations. Oct2012, Vol. 48 Issue 2, p259-273. 15p Kumar, K. & Bakhshi, A. (2010). Dispositional Predictors of Organizational Commitment. A Theoretical Review. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2010, Vol. 9 Issue 1/2, p87-9 LaBan, M. (2013). A Late Y2K Phenomenon: Responding to the Learning Preferences of Generation Y — Bridging the Digital Divide by Improving Generational Dialogue. American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Vol. 5, 596-601, July 2013 Lamond D. & Spector P. (2000). Taking Stock of the Job Satisfaction Survey: Its Validity and Reliability in a Different Time and Place. American Journal of Community Psychology 12/2000; 13(6-6):693-713. DOI:10.1007/BF00929796 Langford, P. (2009). Measuring organizational climate and employee engagement: Evidence for a 7 Ps model of work practices and outcomes. Australian Journal of Psychology. Dec2009, Vol. 61 Issue 4, p185-198 Laher, S. (2013). Understanding the Five-Factor Model and Five Factor Theory through a South African cultural lens. South African Journal of Psychology. Jun2013, Vol. 43 Issue 2, p208-221. DOI: 10.1177/0081246313483522
Lazear, Edward P. 2000. “Performance Pay and Productivity.” American Economic Review 90:1346 – 61.
132
Levy, J., Richardson, J., Lounsbury, J., Stewart, D., Gibson, L. & Drost, A. (2011). Personality Traits and Career Satisfaction of Accounting Professionals. Individual Differences Research. Dec2011, Vol. 9 Issue 4, p238-249 LI, L, An Zhong, J., Chen, Y., Yuantuo Xie, A & Mao, S. (2014). Moderating effects of proactive personality on factors influencing work engagement based on the job demands-resources model. Social Behavior And Personality, 2014, 42(1), 716 doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.1.7 Liao, F., Yang, L., Wang, M., Drown, D. & Shi, J. (2013). Team – Member Exchange and Work Engagement: Does Personality Make a Difference? J Bus Psychol Vol 28. doi:10.1007/s10869-012-9266-5 Linz, S. & Semykina, A. (2012). What Makes Workers Happy? Anticipated Rewards and Job Satisfaction. Industrial Relations. Oct2012, Vol. 51 Issue 4, p811-844. Lombos, E. (2014). Attraction and Socialization. In M.R. Hechanova, M. Teng-Calleja & V. Villaluz (Eds.), Understanding the Filipino Worker (pp 1-15). Quezon City: Ateneo De Manila University Press. Lounsbury, J. W., Smith, R. M., Levy, J. J., Leong, F. T., & Gibson, L. W. (2009). Personality Characteristics of Business Majors as Defined by the Big Five and Narrow Personality Traits. The Journal of Education for Business, Volume 84, Number 4, March – April, pp 200 – 205. Macey, W. & Schneider, B. (2008). The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Mar2008, Vol. 1 Issue 1, p3-30. 28p Magkilat, B. (2016, August 14). IT-BPM attrition rate dramatically improves. Manila Bulletin. Retrieved from http://2016.mb.com.ph/2016/08/14/it-bpm-attritionrate-dramatically-improves/#lP3dCSIuprGCjPti.99 Mathis, T. (2013). Strategies for Employee Engagement. Industry Week/IW. Nov2013, Vol. 262 Issue 11, p34-36. 3p Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U. & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70 (1), 149 – 171. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2006.09.002
133
Mayhew, Ruth. (2017). How to Improve Job Satisfaction With Promotions http://smallbusiness.chron.com/improve-job-satisfaction-promotions10286.html McCrae, R. (2010).The Place of the FFM in Personality Psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 21: 57 – 64. doi: 10.1080/10478401003648773 McCrae, R. & John, O. (1992). An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its Applications. Journal of Personality. Vol. 60, Issue 2, pages 175 – 215, June 1992. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x McCrae, R. & Costa, P. (1995). Trait Explanations in Personality Psychology. European Journal of Personality. Nov95, Vol. 9 Issue 4, p231-252 McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M. (2013). Organizational Behavior: Emerging knowledge, global reality (6TH ed.), USA, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY Mehta, S. (2012). Job Satisfaction among Teachers. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior . Apr2012, Vol. 11 Issue 2, p54-66. Meister J. & Willyerd K. (2010). Mentoring Millennials. Harvard Business Review. May 2010 Menguito, L. (2014). Motivation. In M.R. Hechanova, M. Teng-Calleja & V. Villaluz (Eds.), Understanding the Filipino Worker (pp 83-90). Quezon City: Ateneo De Manila University Press. Miceli, M.P. and P.W. Mulvey. 2000. "Consequences of Satisfaction with Pay Systems," Industrial Relations 39: 62 – 87. Miller, M.B., Hodge, K.H., Brandt, A. & Schneider, E.A. (2013) The Young and the Restless: Gen Y'ers in the Workplace! Are You Prepared? FDCC Quarterly. Spring2013, Vol. 63 Issue 3, p226-250. Mishra, B., Sharma, B. & Uday, B. (2015). Predictors of Employee Engagement: The Case of an Indian PSU. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations. Jan2015, Vol. 50 Issue 3, p469-478. 10p.
Moen, Espen R. and Asa Rosen. 2005. “Performance Pay and Adverse Selection,” Scandinavian Journal of Economics: 107: 279 – 98.
134
Mondy, R.W., Noe, R.M. & Shane R. Premeaux in collaboration with Judy Bandy Mondy (2002), “Human Resource Management”, Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice Hall. Moritz, B. (2014). How I Did It. The US Chairman of PWC on Keeping Millennials Engaged, Harvard Business Review. Nov2014, Vol. 92 Issue 11, p41-44. 4p. Mr ỏz, J. & Kaleta, K. (2016). Relationships between personality, emotional labor, work engagement and job satisfaction in service professions. International Journal of Occupational Medicine & Environmental Health. 2016, Vol. 29 Issue 5, p767-782. 16p. Mumford, K. & Smith, P. (2015). Peer Salaries and Gender Differences in Job Satisfaction in the Workplace. Manchester School . Jun2015, Vol. 83 Issue 3, p307-313. Myers, G. (2011). Exploring Psychology (8TH ed.), USA, Worth Publishers, New York, NY Needleman, J., Bowman, C., Wyte-Lake, T. & Dobalian, A. (2014). Faculty Recruitment and Engagement in Academic-Practice Partnerships. Nursing Education Perspectives. Nov/Dec2014, Vol. 35 Issue 6, p372-379 Nekuda, J. (2012). What Millennials Want as the Job Market Gains Momentum. Chief Learning Officer. May2012, Special section p2-3. 2p. Nunez, Mario (2015). Does Money Buy Happiness? The Link Between Salary and Employee Satisfaction https://www.glassdoor.com/research/does-money-buy-happiness-the-link between-salary-and-employee-satisfaction/ Ongore, O. (2014). A Study of Relationship Between Personality Traits and Job Engagement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 141 ( 2014 ) 1315 – 1319
Özbağ, G.K. (2016). The Role of Personality in Leadership: Five Factor Personality Traits and Ethical Leadership. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 (2016 ) 235 – 242 Ozsoy, E. & Aras, M. (2014). Effects of Workplace Friendship on Work Engagement, Individual Performance and Job Satisfaction. Proceedings of the Multidisciplinary Academic Conference
135
Pardee, R. (1990). Motivation Theories of Maslow, Herzberg, McGregor & McClelland. A Literature Review of Selected Theories Dealing with Job Satisfaction and Motivation. Pater, R. & Lewis, C. (2012). Strategies for Leading Engagement. Professional Safety. May2012, Vol. 57 Issue 5, p32-35. 4p. Patrick, H. (2010). Personality Traits in Relation to Job satisfaction of Management Educators. Asian Journal of Management Research, 2010. Vol. 1, No. 1. Retrieved on April 8, 2015 from http://www.ipublishing.co.in/ajmrvol1no1/EIJMRS1020.pdf Perkowsky, A. (2015). Is Optimizing Compensation Key to a Satisfied Sales Force? Hotel Business. 6/21/2015, Vol. 24 Issue 11, p36-36 Periatt, J., Chakrabarty, S. &. Lemay, S. (2007). Using Personality Traits to Select Customer-Oriented Logistics Personnel. Transportation Journal. Vol. 46, No. 1 (Winter 2007), pp. 22-37 Porter, C. (2012). The Hawthorne Effect Today. Industrial Management. May2012, Vol. 54 Issue 3, p10-15 Quick, J.C. & Nelson, D.L. (2011). Principles of Organizational Behavior, 7TH Ed. UK: South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning, Inc.
Quinggo, Z., Willis, M., O’Shea, B. & Yuwen, Y. (2013). Big Five Personality Traits, Job Satisfaction and Subjective Wellbeing in China. International Journal of Psychology, 2013. Vol. 48, No. 6, 1099 – 1108 Ramsey, R. (2013). Dealing with Disengaged Employees. Supervision. Nov2013. Vol. 74 Issue 11, p9-12 Randall, S. (2010). Managing the Millennials. Accounting Today, October 11-24, 2010 Rao, J.V. & Chandraiah, K. (2012). Occupational stress , mental health and coping among information technology professionals. Indian Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine. Jan-Apr2012, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p22-26.
136
Rasli, R., Huam, HT., Thoo, AC & Khalaf, B. (2012). Employee engagement and employee shareholding program in a multinational company in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 40. 209 – 214. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro. 2012.03.182 Remo, A. (2016, February 25). Turnover in PH Firms on the Rise as Employees Seek Better Pay. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved from https://business.inquirer.net /207574/turnover-in-ph-firms-on-the-rise-asemployees-seek-better-pay Rich, B., Lepine, J. & Crawford, E. (2010). Job Engagement Antecedents and Effects on Job Performance. Academy Of Management Journal . Jun2010, Vol. 53 Issue 3, P617-635 Rigg, J., Day, J. & Adler, H. (2013). An Empirical Analysis of Jamaican Hotel Employees’ Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Quitting Inte ntions. Consortium Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 18:2, 2013, 17-33 ISSN: 1535-0568 Robbins S. & Judge T. (2009). Organization Behavior (13TH ed.), Singapore: Pearson Education SE Asia PTE., Ltd. Roberts, J. (2012). Motivation and the Self. In D. Knights & H. Willmott (Eds.), Introducing Organizational Behaviour and Management (pp 50-51). UK: South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning, Inc. Sahoo, C. & Mishra, S. (2012). A Framework Towards Employee Engagement: The PSU Experience. ASCI Journal of Management. Sep2012, Vol. 42 Issue 1, p94112. 19p Sanera, T. & Sadikoglu, G. (2016). Gender Differences in Job Satisfaction in 5 Star Hotels of North Cyprus: Descriptive Analysis. Procedia Computer Science 102 ( 2016 ) 359 – 364 Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B. & Salanova, M. (2006a). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross national study. Educational and Psychological measurement, 66 (4), 701 – 716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzles-Rom, V. & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. The Journal of Happiness Studies, 3 (1), 71 – 92. doi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326
137
Sen Gupta, S. & Gupta, A. (2008). Vicious Circle of Attrition in the BPO Industry. ICFAI Journal of Organizational Behavior. Apr2008, Vol. 7 Issue 2, p57-66.
Shriar,
Jacob.
(2015).
“How
co-workers
affect
your
job
satisfaction”.
https://www.officevibe.com/blog/how-coworkers-affect-job-satisfaction.
Simmons, Bret L. (2011). “Work engagement as vigor”. http://www.bretlsimmons.com/2011-04/work-engagement-as-vigor / Sinha, K. & Trivedi, S. (2014). Employee Engagement with Special Reference to Herzberg Two Factor and LMX Theories - A Study of I.T Sector. SIES Journal of Management. Mar2014, Vol. 10 Issue 1, p22-35. 14p. Skalli, A., Theodossiou, I., & Vasileiou, E. (2008, october). Jobs as Lancaster Goods: Facets of Job Satisfaction and Overall Job Satisfaction. The Journal of Socio Economics, 37 (5), 1906 – 1920. Smith, S. & Galbraith, Q. (2012). Motivating Millennials: Improving Practices in Recruiting, Retaining, and Motivating Younger Library Staff. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. May 2012, Vol 38, Number 3, pages 135 – 144 Sousa-Poza, A., & Sousa-Poza, A. (2000, May). Taking Another Look at the Gender/Job-Satisfaction Paradox. Kyklos; International Review of Social Science, 53(2), 135-152. Ryckman, R.M. (2013). Theories of Personality (10TH ed.), USA, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Australia Solnet, D. & Kralj, A. (2011). Generational Differences in Work Attitudes: Evidence from the Hospitality Industry. FIU Hospitality Review. Fall2011, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p37-54. 18p. Spector, P.E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences, Thousand Oaks, CA,Sage Publications, Inc Sree Rekha, K. R. & Kamalanabhan,T.J (2010). A Three-Dimensional Analysis of Turnover Intention Among Employees of ITES/BPO Sector, South Asian Journal of Management. Jul-Sep2010, Vol. 17 Issue 3, p85-103. 19p. Srivastav, A.K. & Das, P. (2015). A Study on Employees Attitude towards the Organization and Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Science and Research. Vol. 4 Issue 7, July 2015
138
Srivastava, A. & Locke, E. (2006). Dispositional Causes of Job Satisfaction – Seeking Complexity in Job as a Mediator. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings. 2006, pS1-S6 Stacey, R. (2010). Managing the Millennials. Accounting Today. 10/11/2010, Vol. 24 Issue 13, p46-46. 3/4p. Staw, B., Cohn-Charash, Y. (2005). The Dispositional Approach to Job Satisfaction: More Than a Mirage, But Not Yet an Oasis. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/job.299 Teck-Hong, T. & Waheed, A. (2011). Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory and Job Satisfaction in the Malaysian Retail Sector - The Mediating Effect of Love of Money. Asian Academy of Management Journal. Jan2011, Vol. 16, No. 1, p73 – 94 Templer, K. (2012). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: The Importance of Agreeableness in a Tight and Collectivistic Asian Society. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 2012, 61 (1), 114 – 129. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00459.x Tesdimir, M. Zeki, Zaheer Asghar, Muhammad & Saeed, S. (2012). Study of the Relationship of Personality Traits and Job Satisfaction Among Professional Sales Representatives In The Pharmaceutical Industry In Turkey. Retrieved January 11, 2015 from http://umt.edu.pk/icobm2012/pdf/2C-100P.pdf Thompson, C. & Gregory, J. (2012). Managing Millennials: A Framework for Improving Attraction, Motivation, and Retention. Psychologist-Manager Journal (Taylor & Francis Ltd). 2012, Vol. 15 Issue 4, p237-246. 10p. DOI: 10.1080/10887156.2012.730444.
Thorpe, R. (2000), “ Reward Strategy”, in Thorpe, R. and Homan G. (eds), Strategic Reward Systems, Financial Times Prentice Hall. Van den Broecka, A., Vansteenkisteb, M., De Wittea, H. & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress. Vol. 22, No. 3, July- September 2008, 277_294
139
Wall, T. & Stephenson, G. (1970). Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of Job Attitudes: A Critical Evaluation and Some Fresh Evidence. Industrial Relations Journal. 1970, Vol. 1 Issue 3, p41-65. 25p. Wefald, A. & Downey, R. (2009). Construct Dimensionality of Engagement and its Relation with Satisfaction. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 91 – 111 Weisberg, Y., DeYoung, C. & Hirsh, J. (2011). Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in Psychology.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178 Wille, B., De Fruyt, F. & Feys, M. (2013). Big Five Traits and Intrinsic Success in the New Career Era: A 15-Year Longitudinal Study on Employability and WorkFamily Conflict. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Jan2013, Vol. 62 Issue 1, p124-156. 33p. Woods, S.A. & Sofat, J.A. (2013). Personality and Engagement at Work: The Mediating Role of Psychological Meaningfulness. J Applied Psychology. doi.org/10.1111/ jasp.12171. Wyld, D. ( 2011). Does More Money Buy More Happiness on the Job? Academy of Management Perspectives. February 1, 2011 vol. 25 no. 1101-102 Yafang T. (2011). Relationship between Organizational Culture, Leadership Behavior and Job Satisfaction. BMC Health Services Research. 2011, Vol. 11 Issue 1, p98-106. 9p. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-98 Zaidi, N.R., Wajid, R.A., Zaidi, F.B., Zaidi, GB, Zaidi, M.T. (2013). The Big 5 Personality Traits and their Relationship with Work Engagement among Public Sector University Teachers of Lahore. Afr J Bus Management . doi. org/10.5897/AJBM12.290.
Zhai, Q., Willis, M., O’Shea, B., Zhai, Y. & Yang, Y. (2013). Big Five Personality Traits, Job Satisfaction and Subjective Wellbeing in China. International Journal of Psychology, 2013. Vol. 48, No. 6, 1099 – 1108, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.732700
140
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Questionnaires
A. Demographical Profile 1. Email Address 2. Gender ( ) Male ( ) Female 3. Job Level ( ) Managerial / Supervisory ( ) Rank & File 4. How many years have you served your current company? ( ) Less than a year ( ) 1 year to 2 years ( ) 2 years and a day to 4 years ( ) 4 years and a day to 6 years ( ) More than 6 years 5. What is your civil status? ( ) Single ( ) Married ( ) Separated / Divorced ( ) Widow(er)
141
B. Manchester Personality Questionnaire A Never
B Occasionally
C Fairly Often
D Generally
1
I seem to have the same ideas as other people
2
I tend to follow the rules
3
I dislike discussing theories and concepts
4
I fail to push my own views and ideas
5
I find it hard to put people at ease
6
I forget to ask people what they think
7
I keep my personal emotions under control
8
I tend to dislike working on my own
9
I make decisions without gathering a lot of information
10
I dislike successful people
11
I find my values clash with those of my colleagues
12
I leave jobs unfinished
13
I find it hard to take decisions
14
I can handle criticism without getting defensive
15
I dislike planning ahead
16
I invent new ways of doing things
17
I am prepared to ignore rules and procedures
18
I like to let my imagination run free
19
I tend to argue my own point of view
20
I find other people support my ideas
21
I praise people for their efforts
22
I express my feelings rather thatn keep them to myself
23
I like to solve my own problems
24
I weigh up different options before taking decisions
25
I set myself challenges
26
I tend to feel a strong sense of duty
27
I set myself high standards
28
I feel in full control of things
29
I worry about what others think of me
30
I am keen to try new approaches
E Always
142
A Never
B Occasionally
C Fairly Often
D Generally
31 32 33 34 35 36
I find it hard to see how to improve things I prefer established methods to new approaches I tend to approach tasks from the usual angles I find it difficult to hold my ground against a group I find it difficult to mix in social situations I tend to ignore other people's feelings
37
I keep my personal views about people to myself
38
I work best as a member of a team
39
I take decisions without necessarily establishing the facts
40
I think a lot about the present rather than the future
41
I am apt to treat people with authority insensitively
42
I forget to check the quality of my work
43
I take decisions slowly
44
I can take unpopular decisions without any difficulty
45
I tend to be unrealistic about what I can achieve
46
I am a person who originates changes
47
I tend to challenge rules and procedures
48
I am interested in new ideas and innovations
49
I have strong views on how things should be done
50
People seem to ask for my advice
51
In a group, I acknowledge good points other people make
52
I let people know how I feel about things
53
I require a lot of personal space
54 55 56 57 58 59 60
I tend to check the logic of my thinking I need to feel I am accomplishing something People have a responsibility to work hard for society I tend to be a perfectionist in my work I take action when I see what needs to be done
I feel threatened by people who don’t like me I remain calm in difficult situations
E Always
143
A Never
B Occasionally
C Fairly Often
D Generally
61
I have to work hard to make things happen
62
I am inclined to do things in fairly conventional ways
63
I dislike tackling complex tasks
64
I hold back if I suspect people won't like what I say
65
I tend to be unsure of the impact I have on people
66
I forget to check people's views
67
I keep quiet about my ambitions
68
I enjoy working closely with people
69
I fail to predict the consequences of my actions
70
I dislike the competitive aspect of work
71
Traditions prevent progress in modern society
72
I miss deadlines
73
I dislike being in charge
74
I feel content about what I am achieving
75
I tend to boast about my achievements
76
I seem to have original ideas
77
I am apt to make things up as I go along
78
I tend to need change to stay interested
79
I am inclined to look critically at people in charge
80
I tend to take control when others are uncertain what to do
81
I apologise when I have made a mistake
82
I share my problems with other people
83
I prefer to find out things by myself
84
I approach things in a logical manner
85
I like to win
86
Attitude and respect is the way to win people's hearts
87
I work harder than the average person
88
I manage to cope with stress
89
I feel a need to please others
90
I treat people as my equal Thank you for completing the questionnaire
E Always
144
C. Job Satisfaction Survey
JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY Paul E. Spector Department of Psychology University of South Florida Copyright Paul E. Spector 1994, All rights reserved . h
ly m
u ar e
o
PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH QUESTION THAT COMES CLOSEST TO REFLECTING YOUR OPINION ABOUT IT. c
et
I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do.
2
There is really too little chance for promotion on my job.
3
My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job.
4
I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive.
5
When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive.
6
Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult.
7
I like the people I work with.
8
I sometimes feel my job is meaningless.
9
Communications seem good within this organization.
10
Raises are too few and far between.
11
Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted.
12
My supervisor is unfair to me.
13
The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer.
14
I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated.
15
My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape.
16
I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of people I work with.
17
I like doing the things I do at work.
18
The goals of this organization are not clear to me.
h
e
igl o
d
e e
yr
m
u
t
ar
g
e
e
e
i
g
h yl
d gi ls
v
h
m e
e er
s
er g as
re
as i D
v
re
as i
m
er
g
c et
t
yr
D
1
yl yl
e
D
re g
A
A
g A
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
145
h
yl m
c ar e
o
et u
PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH QUESTION THAT COMES CLOSEST TO REFLECTING YOUR OPINION
21
My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates.
22
The benefit package we have is equitable.
23
There are few rewards for those who work here.
24
I have too much to do at work.
25
I enjoy my coworkers.
26
I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization.
27
I feel a sense of pride in doing my job.
28
I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases.
29
There are benefits we do not have which we should have.
30
I like my supervisor.
31
I have too much paperwork.
32
I don't feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be.
33
I am satisfied with my chances for promotion.
34
There is too much bickering and fighting at work.
35
My job is enjoyable.
36
Work assignments are not fully explained.
g g
er
e
i
er
e
m er
er
h s
e
e er g
g as
as
m
as i
D
People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places.
e
yr
e
ls
o
D
c
yl igl
v
i
20
e
gi
d
e
m
u
t
h d
Copyright Paul E. Spector 1994, All rights reserved.
I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me.
h ar
et
t
yr
ABOUT IT.
19
yl yl
e
D
A
v er g A
g A
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
146
D. Work and Well-Being Survey (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-17)
Work & Well-Being Survey Copyright © 2003 Schaufeli & Bakker
PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH QUESTION THAT COMES CLOSEST TO REFLECTING YOUR OPINION ABOUT IT.
r e
ml
e
wl
a
v
yr
O
y
s
r
t
f
et
n mi
e
s ts
N
e
v
At my work, I feel bursting with energy.
2
I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose
3
Time flies when I am working.
4
At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.
5
I am enthusiastic about my job.
6
When I am working, I forget everything else around me
7
My job inspires me.
8
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work
9
I feel happy when I am working intensely.
10
I am proud of the work that I do.
11
I am immersed in my work.
12
I can continue working for very long periods at a time
13
To me, my job is challenging.
14
I get carried away when I am working.
15
At my job, I am very resilient, mentally.
16
It is difficult to detach myself from my job.
17
At my work, I always persevere, even when things do not go well
er
e R
S
o e e N
1
ly A
n tef m
a o
O
V
1
2
3 4
5
6 7
1
2
3 4
5
6 7
1
2
3 4
5
6 7
1
2
3 4
5
6 7
1
2
3 4
5
6 7
1
2
3 4
5
6 7
1
2
3 4
5
6 7
1
2
3 4
5
6 7
1
2
3 4
5
6 7
1
2
3 4
5
6 7
1
2
3 4
5
6 7
1
2
3 4
5
6 7
1
2
3 4
5
6 7
1
2
3 4
5
6 7
1
2
3 4
5
6 7
1
2
3 4
5
6 7
1
2
3 4
5
6 7
A
147
Appendix B – Job Satisfaction Survey Results Job Satisfaction
Mean
SD
Interpretation
I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do.
3.53
1.31
Agree Slightly
Raises are too few and far between
3.41
1.36
Disagree Slightly
I feel appreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me.
3.19
1.47
Disagree Slightly
I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases.
3.30
1.56
Disagree Slightly
Overall
3.36
0.9
Disagree Slightly
There is really too little chance for promotion on my job.
3.15
1.28
Disagree Slightly
Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted.
4.19
1.3
Agree Slightly
People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places.
3.49
1.13
Disagree Slightly
I am satisfied with my chances for promotion
3.67
1.3
Agree Slightly
Overall
3.63
0.8
Agree Slightly
My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job.
4.79
1.16
Agree Moderately
My supervisor is unfair to me.
3.47
1.71
Disagree Slightly
My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates.
4.08
1.65
Agree Slightly
I like my supervisor.
4.17
1.43
Agree Slightly
Overall
4.13
0.94
Agree Slightly
I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive.
3.15
1.37
Disagree Slightly
The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer.
3.10
1.44
Disagree Slightly
The benefit package we have is equitable.
3.14
1.23
Disagree Slightly
There are benefits we do not have which we should have.
3.18
1.44
Disagree Slightly
Overall
3.14
0.83
Disagree Slightly
When I do a good job I receive the recognition for it that I should receive.
4.04
1.29
Agree Slightly
I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated.
3.74
1.36
Agree Slightly
There are few rewards for those who work here.
3.13
1.24
Disagree Slightly
I don’t feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be.
3.59
1.3
Agree Slightly
Overall
3.62
0.78
Agree Slightly
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Pay
Promotion
Supervision
Fringe Benefits
Contingent Rewards
148
Job Satisfaction 6.
Mean
SD
Interpretation
Operating Procedures
Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult. My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape.
3.35
1.29
Disagree Slightly
2.75
1.24
Disagree Slightly
I have too much to do at work.
3.21
1.4
Disagree Slightly
I have too much paperwork.
3.39
1.34
Disagree Slightly
Overall
3.17
0.78
Disagree Slightly
7.
Co-workers
I like the people I work with. I find I have to work harder because of the incompetence of people I work with.
4.96
1.02
Agree Moderately
3.20
1.54
Disagree Slightly
I enjoy my coworkers.
4.84
1.26
Agree Moderately
There is too much bickering and fighting at work.
3.76
1.38
Agree Slightly
Overall
4.19
0.72
Agree Slightly
I sometimes feel my job is meaningless
3.87
1.57
Agree Slightly
I like doing the things I do at work.
4.28
1.18
Agree Slightly
I feel a sense of pride in doing my job.
4.64
1.09
Agree Moderately
My job is enjoyable.
4.23
1.16
Agree Slightly
Overall
4.25
0.8
Agree Slightly
Communications seem good within this organization.
4.17
1.4
Agree Slightly
The goals of this organization are not clear to me. I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization.
4.05
1.55
Agree Slightly
3.25
1.31
Disagree Slightly
Work assignments are not fully explained.
3.33
1.29
Disagree Slightly
Overall
3.70
0.83
Agree Slightly
8.
9.
Nature of Work
Communication
149
Appendix C – Employee Engagement Survey Results
Mean
SD
Interpretation
At my work, I feel bursting with energy
4.42
1.3
Often
At my job, I feel strong and vigorous
3.93
1.4
Often
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work
4.23
1.35
Often
I can continue working for very long periods at a time
3.99
1.46
Often
At my job, I am very resilient, mentally
4.33
1.16
Often
At my work, I always persevere, even when things do not go well
4.24
1.35
Often
4.19
0.82
Often
I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose
4.37
1.26
Often
I am enthusiastic about my job
3.91
1.47
Often
My job inspires me
4.02
1.47
Often
I am proud of the work that I do
4.24
1.43
Often
To me, my job is challenging
4.58
1.37
Very Often
4.23
0.98
Often
Time flies when I am working
4.29
1.39
Often
When I am working, I forget everything else around me
3.87
1.4
Often
I feel happy when I am working intensely
4.12
1.52
Often
I am immersed in my work
4.27
1.32
Often
I get carried away when I am working
4.25
1.21
Often
4
1.4
Often
4.13
0.88
Often
1. Vigor
Overall
2. Dedication
Overall
3. Absorption
It is difficult to detach myself from my job
Overall
150
Appendix D - T Value of Personality Traits and Gender
151
Appendix E - T Value of Personality Traits and Job Level
152
Appendix F - T Value of Personality Traits and Civil Status
153
Appendix G - F Value of Personality Traits and Tenure
154
Appendix H – T Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Gender
155
Appendix I – T Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Job Level
156
Appendix J – T Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Civil Status
157
Appendix K – K – F F Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Tenure
158
159
Appendix L – L – T T Value of Employee Engagement and Gender
160
Appendix M – T Value of Employee Engagement and Job Level
161
Appendix N – T Value of Employee Engagement and Civil Status
162
Appendix O – F Value of Employee Engagement and Tenure
163
Appendix P - Permission to Use Job Satisfaction Survey and Utrecht Work Engagement Scale Requirements
164
165
Appendix Q – Definition of Terms Agreeableness
The tendency of an individual
to be compassionate,
cooperative, generous, friendly, trusting, forgiving and helpful; they value getting along with others. Baby Boomers
People born during the demographic post World War II baby boom between the years 1946 and 1964 and the term is used in a cultural context. Baby boomers are associated with a rejection or
redefinition
of
traditional
values;
however,
many
commentators have disputed the extent of that rejection, noting the widespread continuity of values with older and younger generations. Big 5 Personality
In psychology, they are five broad domains or dimensions
Traits
ofpersonality that are used to describe humanpersonality, the five-factor model (FFM) The five factors are openness, conscientiousness,
extraversion,
agreeableness,
and
neuroticism. Business process
The
delegation
of
one
or
more
IT-intensive business
outsourcing
processes to an external provider that, in turn, owns,
(BPO)
administrates and manages the selected processes based on defined and measurable performance metrics.
Conscientiousness.
A tendency to show self-discipline and act dutifully. The typical behavioral tendencies associated with this trait are highly organized, persevering, hard-working, achievement-oriented, careful and responsible (Barrick, Mount & Li, 2013; Erdheim et al., 2006).
166
Employee
A workplace approach designed to ensure that employees are
Engagement
committed to their organization's goals and values, motivated to contribute to organizational success, and are able at the same time to enhance their own sense of well-being. Refers to the predisposition to experience positive emotions
Extraversion
(McCrae, 2010), The behavioral tendencies `associated with this factor include being sociable, assertive, gregarious, active and talkative (Rich, Lepine & Crawford, 2010). Five Factor Model
A hierarchical organization of personality traits in terms of five
of Personality
basic dimensions: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism (McCrae, 2010).
Generation X
The generation born after that of the baby boomers (roughly from the early 1960s to mid 1970s), often perceived to be disaffected and directionless.
Herzberg’s
Two- Herzberg’s theory data suggest that the opposite of satisfaction
Factor Theory .
is not dissatisfaction, as was traditionally believed. Removing dissatisfying characteristics from a job does not necessarily make the job satisfying. Herzberg proposed that his findings indicated the existence of a dual continuum. The opposite of
“satisfaction” is “no satisfaction” and the opposite of “dissatisfaction” is “no dissatisfaction” (Davis, 2013). Job Satisfaction
It is how content an individual is with his or her job, in other words, whether or not they like the job or individual aspects or facets of jobs, such as nature of work or supervision.
Millennials
Also known as the Millennial Generation or Generation Y. They are the demographic cohort following Generation X.
167
Researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s. Neuroticism.
The tendencies of an individual to experience chronic negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, or depression. Individual high on this trait are generally anxious, depressed, angry, embarrassed, emotional, worried, and insecure.
(Barrick,
Mount & Li, 2013; McCrae, 2010). Openness .
Relates to creativity, divergent thinking, and political liberalism. The behavioral tendencies associated to this trait are curiosity, foresightedness, originality, imaginativeness, broadmindedness, intelligence, having a need for variety, aesthetic sensitivity,
and
unconventional
values
(McCrae,
2010;
Erdheim, Wang & Zickar, 2006). Positive Retention
The approach of engaging talented individuals who are committed to contribute to organizational growth regardless of tenure. This approach is possible through deliberate efforts to enhance employee performance and growth.
168
Appendix R – Timetable and Budgetary Requirements
Year / Month (2016)
Activity
Jan - May 2016
Preparation for proposal defense
May 27, 2016
Proposal defense
June 1 -30, 2016
Preparation of online survey
July 1 -24, 2016
Data collection
July 25 – Aug 15
Interpretation of results
July 25 – October 31
Write up & revision of Chapters 4 and 5
August 29, 2016
Colloquium
November 7
Submission of first draft.
November 15
Oral defense Revision and final submission of dissertation
Academic Fees Dissertation Writing 1
12,311
Pre Oral Defense
15,000
Di ssertati on Wri ti ng 2-3
24,722
Oral Defense
15,000
67,033
Honoraria Statistician
6,000
Proofreader
5,000
Research Staff (HR / IT)
5,000
16,000
Meals
9,000
Online Survey Token
5,000
Materials Photocopying
1,200
Ink
2,520
Final Binding
1,800
Bond Paper
2,500
Estimated Budget
END OF DISSERTATION
8,020 105,053
