The Study of Employee Engagement of Manufacturing Sector in Thailand

KPH-2 2019 IJOI http://www.ijoi-online.org/

THE STUDY OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT OF MANUFACTURING SECTOR IN THAILAND

Tanakorn Chalermjirapas* Martin de Tours School of Management and Economics, Assumption University, Bangkok, Thailand *Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Assistant Professor Dr . Hla Theingi Martin de Tours School of Management and Economics, Assumption University, Bangkok, Thailand

Dr .Mayuree Aryupong Martin de Tours School of Management and Economics, Assumption University, Bangkok, Thailand

Abstract

The intention of this research is test conceptual model of the interaction between the relationships of personality traits, perceived support and employee engagement in Thailand. Accordingly, the survey was completed by 664 participants, 42% male and 58% female, the majority aged between 21 to 30 and working in factory, graduated at high school level, and earning less than or equal to 15,000 baht. This survey measured attitudes toward employee engagement, personality traits, and perceived support. The results indicated that the perceived support can moderate the relationship between personality traits and employee engagement.

Keywords: Employee Engagement, the Big Five Personality Traits, Perceived Support

Literature Review outset of the notion in management theory in the 1990s, then turning to be Employee engagement prevalent in managerial practice in the 2000s. According to the nature of en- Over the past three decades, em- gagement are the relationships between ployee engagement has been a highly organizations and employees, so the fashionable topic among management numerous researchers gave the variety academicians and practitioners as the definitions of engagement. Somehow, 125 The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Volume 12 Number 1, July 2019 KPH-2 2019 IJOI http://www.ijoi-online.org/ this paper employed the theory of work confiding; conscientiousness describes engagement or employee engagement, accountable, reliable, persevering, and due to in general, work engagement or systematized; neuroticism describes employee engagement are interchange- agitated, depressive, frightened; open- able terms (Schaufeli, 2013). The starting ness to experience describes creative, point of engagement theory was by sympathetic, prying. Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, and Bakker, (2002), who modified Perceived support Kahn’s (1990) principle. This theory was named as employee engagement, which Kreitner and Kinicki (2010) stated was defined as constructive, achieve- that social support is a great deal of per- ment, task-associated feeling of worker ceived assistance originated from social such as vigorous, dedicated, and absorp- interdependence. Some studies found tive. that these kinds of support can influence engagement, somehow it is rare in the The big five personality traits studies about perceived support with engagement, moreover the findings dis- The big five personality model is played incongruous and almost studied determined as a multi-trait personality, white collars, not blue collar in manu- since it blends many traits together facturing such as the work of Ahmadi et (Hawkins, et al., 2007). Moreover, the al. (2014), which collected 310 samples big five model was employed in numer- from the staff in top leader university of ous empirical researches to compose the Iran, the results indicated that POS had a characteristics of the whole person (Tu- positively significant impact on en- pes & Christal, 1992). According to the gagement; the paper of Ariani (2015), validity across culture and time (McCrae which gathered 191 samples from the & Costa, 1997), this instrument was employees in private firms at Yogyakarta practiced and tested in several studies city in Indonesia, the outcome showed (Lin, 2010). However, it has a few stud- that there was insignificant impact of ied the big five with engagement but the coworker relations and supervisor rela- results showed inconsistent and most tions on engagement. studied white collars, not blue collar in manufacturing such as Zaidi et al. Besides, there are a few studies (2013), who collected 399 samples from about investigating the moderating ef- the state universities at Lahore in Paki- fects of perceived support on the rela- stan and got the results that extraversion, tionship between personality traits and agreeableness, conscientiousness, and engagement as well. Hence, this study is openness had positive relations with en- interested in studying perceived support gagement, except neuroticism; Ongore at the workplace both as independent (2014), who gathered the data from the variable and moderator. This paper uses 118 staff of the Kastamonu University the definitions about perceived support in Turkey and found that only openness as follows: perceived organizational and agreeableness can predict engage- support (POS) is a level of workers’ trust ment. This paper employs the definitions that the firm appreciates their dedication of each element of the big five from and is concerned on their welfare (Rob- Robbins and Judge (2011) as following: bins and Judge, 2011); Perceived super- extraversion describes friendly, aggres- visor support (PSS) is the employees’ sive personalities; agreeableness de- perception of the level of supervisors’ scribes courteous, reciprocating, and concern about their contribution and their 126 The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Volume 12 Number 1, July 2019 KPH-2 2019 IJOI http://www.ijoi-online.org/ welfare (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988); from organizations, supervisors and co- perceived co-worker support (PCS) is workers on engaged behaviors and defined by Beehr and McGrath 1992)) as moderating impacts of perceived support coworkers’ willingness to assist each from organizations, supervisors and co- other. workers on the relations between five traits and employee engagement. Figure The aims of this study are to reveal 1. indicates the conceptual framework of the effects of personalities and support this study.

Research Hypotheses H 1a: Extraversion has a positive relation with engaged behavior. The relationship between big five personality and employee engagement Morgeson, Reider, and Campion (2005) advised that in order to obtain Brief and Weiss (2002) suggested excellent results in their work, engaged that extraverts have the tendency to have employees need teamwork. Hence be- vigor (one of the core elements of em- cause agreeable workers require team- ployee engagement). After that con- work, they are easier to engage than versely, Zellars, Hochwarter, Perrewé, workers who have less engagement. Hoffman, and Ford (2004) revealed an Wefald, Reichard, and Serrano (2011) adverse relation of extroversion and found that agreeableness can forecast the burnout (the opposite of engagement). engagement of employees in the work- Later in 2006, Rich explored that extra- place. From the outcomes of above re- version has a positive relationship with search, it triggers this paper to propose employee engagement. Accordingly, it hypothesis as follows: raises the question of whether such these events may happen to an employee in H1b: Agreeableness has a positive rela- Thailand or not, therefore the 1a hy- tion with engaged behavior. pothesis is derived as follows:

127 The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Volume 12 Number 1, July 2019 KPH-2 2019 IJOI http://www.ijoi-online.org/ Rich (2006) found that conscien- openness was found that normally, it was tiousness has a positive relationship with not related to engagement (Inceoglu & employee engagement. In the mean- Warr, 2011). In order to find out that it time, Mostert and Rothmann (2006) has the positive relationship between conducted a survey to investigate 1,794 openness and engagement or not, the participants who are African cops in hypothesis 1e was proposed as follow- southern area and the findings showed ing: that conscientiousness was one of the predictors of engagement. Then Teven H1e: Openness to experience has a posi- (2007) found that conscientiousness may tive relation with engaged behavior. have a negative correlation with burnout (the opposite of engagement). For this The relationship between perceived reason, it inspires to hypothesize as un- support and employee engagement derneath. In 1999, O’Driscoll and Randall H1c: Conscientiousness has a positive tested the role of POS on employee en- relation with engaged behavior. gagement for dairy employees in Ireland and New Zealand. The outcomes showed Langelaan, Bakker, Doornen, and that it had a significant relation of em- Schaufeli (2005) employed UWES and ployee engagement and perception of NEO-Five Factor Inventory scales to supporting from organization. This measure the big five personality traits, finding was supported by the work of found that the burned-out workers had Saks (2006), which also found that POS higher degree of neuroticism than was a critical factor which can predict non-burned-out workers and also sug- employee engagement. gested that neuroticism is an imperative Accordingly, the hypothesis 2a was pos- part of burnout, it is not only able to ited as follows: predict burnout but also significantly forecast employee engagement, more- H2a: Perceived organizational support over the findings showed that it had a has a positive relation with engaged positive relation of engaged manner and behavior. the desire for steadiness (the opposite of neurotic trait). For the reasons mentioned One of the foundations of employee above, the hypothesis 1d was proposed as engagement is a direct supervisor who is follows: trustworthy as a chief of engagement knowledge (Bates, 2004; Frank, Finne- H1d: Neuroticism has a negative relation gan, & Taylor, 2004). Good supervisors, with engaged behavior. who encourage good performance from their subordinates and concern for the Zaidi, Wajid, Zaidi, Zaidi, and Zaidi welfare of employees (Leiter & Maslach, (2013). disclosed a constructive relation 1988). Then Hakanen, Bakker, and of openness and engaged behavior. Schaufeli (2006) added supportive evi- Afterword, Ongore’s (2014) research dence for the relation of supporting from demonstrated that openness to experi- superintendents and engaged behavior by ence had positive and significant corre- commenting that a mentoring from su- lations with all sub-dimensions of en- pervisors has a positive relation to engagement, which are physical engage- gaged behavior. Accordingly, the hy- ment, emotional engagement, and cogni- pothesis 2b was hypothesized as follows: tive engagement. On the other hand, 128 The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Volume 12 Number 1, July 2019 KPH-2 2019 IJOI http://www.ijoi-online.org/ H2b: Perceived supervisor support has a outcome relationships. As the power of positive relation with engaged be- POS in moderating the relationships of havior. two aforesaid studies, it is possible to use this logic to find out the moderating ef- The results of the cross-sectional fect of perceived support on relations of research by May et al. (2004) as well as personal characteristics and employee Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) demon- engagement, which leaded to propose strated that the function of co-worker hypotheses as following: support had a constructive impact on two elements (vigorous and dedicated) of H3a: The relation between extroversion employee engagement. Moreover, in and engaged behavior is moderated some engagement literature, co-worker by perceived organizational support. support was determined as job resources, which can nurture individual develop- H3b: The relation between agreeableness ment, diminish job demands, and en- and engaged behavior is moderated courage workers to achieve corporate by perceived organizational support. objectives (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007), H3c: The relation between conscien- which leads to promote the engagement tiousness and engaged behavior is feeling in employees. Hence the hy- moderated by perceived organiza- pothesis 2c is proposed as follows: tional support.

H2c: Perceived co-worker support has a H3d: The relation between neuroticism positive relation with engaged be- and engaged behavior is moderated havior. by perceived organizational support.

The moderating effect of perceived H3e: The relation between openness to support on the relationship between the experience and engaged behavior is big five personality and employee en- moderated by perceived organiza- gagement. tional support.

Certain researchers such as Djurk- H4a: The relation between extroversion ovic, McCormack, and Casimir (2008) and engaged behavior is moderated identified the perceived assisting from by perceived supervisor support. organization as a moderator in the relation of bullying in the workplace and H4b: The relation between agreeableness turnover intention, but it is very rare for and engaged behavior is moderated organizational support to be seen as a by perceived supervisor support. moderated determinant of a relation between personal characteristics and em- H4c: The relation between conscien- ployee engagement. Moreover, POS was tiousness and engaged behavior is found that it acted as a moderator in moderated by perceived supervisor certain studies such as the research of support. Duke, Goodman, Treadway, and Breland (2009), who surveyed 338 participants H4d: The relation between neuroticism from two retail service companies. The and engaged behavior is moderated results demonstrated the moderating by perceived supervisor support. impact of acknowledged supporting from organization on workers’ minds and 129 The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Volume 12 Number 1, July 2019 KPH-2 2019 IJOI http://www.ijoi-online.org/ H4e: The relation between openness to 2014). Based on the information of the experience and engaged behavior is Thai workforce on January 2017 from moderated by perceived supervisor the national statistical institution of support. Thailand, the total employees in Thailand was 37.21 million persons, which can be H5a: The relation between extroversion separated into 13 sectors. The target and engaged behavior is moderated population of this study is employees in by perceived coworker support. manufacturing sector, which is around 6.21 million people. H5b: The relation between agreeableness and engaged behavior is moderated Research instruments/questionnaire by perceived coworker support. Employee engagement. This section H5c: The relation between conscien- employs the Utrecht Work Engagement tiousness and engaged behavior is Scale (UWES), which was improved to moderated by perceived coworker predict engagement (Schaufeli & Bak- support. ker, 2003) and comprises three composite angles of engaged behavior: vigorous, H5d: The relation between neuroticism dedicated, and absorptive. and engaged behavior is moderated by perceived coworker support. The big five personality traits. This section consists of the big five per- H5e: The relation between openness to sonality traits scale, which is consisted of experience and engaged behavior is five traits: extroverted, agreeable, con- moderated by perceived coworker scientious, neurotic, and open to experi- support. ence from the work of Dant, Weaven, and Baker (2013), which originally adapted from Goldberg (1992). Methodology Perceived support. The nine items Sampling procedures and Sample of perceived organizational support was profiles adapted from Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, and Lynch (1997) by Woo and In case of this study, since all Chelladurai (2012), six items of per- workers in Thailand were separated into ceived supervisor support was adapted 13 industrial sectors. Then this study from Anderson, Coffey, and Byerly picked one of these industrial sectors, (2002) by Woo and Chelladurai (2012), namely, manufacturing sector. After that and four items of perceived coworker three provinces were selected as the support was designed by O’Driscoll, survey areas. In the last step, the con- Brough, and Kalliath (2004), which was venience sampling, was employed to adapted from O'Driscoll (2000). distribute questionnaires to industrial estate areas in three provinces in Thai- Data Analysis land as follows: Bangkok, Samut Prakan, and Pathum Thani since the number of EFA was employed, since it is nec- workers of these three provinces ac- essary to assign elementary constructs counted for 32.1% of total workers in for a group of measured variables. So, manufacturing sector at the end of 2014 when developing scales, it should operate (National Statistical Office of Thailand, EFA first before analyzing confirmed 130 The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Volume 12 Number 1, July 2019 KPH-2 2019 IJOI http://www.ijoi-online.org/ factors (CFA) as the results at the table 1 structs together with 46 measurement to 3. variables, the α value of each variable is higher than 0.70 cut of point (Nunnally From the Table 1 to 3, all factor &Bernstein, 1994). loadings of each constructs higher than 0.50, composite reliability (CR) value of For discriminant validity (table 4), each latent variable is higher than 0.80, the results showed that each square root the mostly AVE values are above 0.50 of AVE of every construct was higher and each of them lower than its CR value, than its bivariate correlation constructs, which are indicators of convergent va- therefore this outcome displayed the lidity (Hair et al., 2010). For reliability discriminant validity of all constructs analysis, Cronbach’s alpha of 9 con- (Fornell & Larker, 1981).

131 The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Volume 12 Number 1, July 2019 KPH-2 2019 IJOI http://www.ijoi-online.org/

Hypotheses testing and got the results as follows: in the major effects, the findings depicted that The big five personality traits, per- conscientiousness ( β = 0.268, p <.01), ceived support, and employee engage- openness ( β = 0.215, p <.01), POS ( β = ment variables were introduced into the 0.236, p <.01), PSS ( β = 0.251, p <.01), confirmatory factor analysis and the re- and PCS ( β = 0.125, p <.01) are signifi- sults showed that all data fit with the cantly positive related to employee en- hypothesized measurement model ( χ2 (df gagement. On contrary, extroversion ( β = =783) = 2056.144, P < 0.001, CMIN/DF - 0.140, p <.01) and neuroticism ( β = = 2.178, RMSEA = 0.042, GFI = 0.880, -0.111, p <.01) are significantly negative IFI = 0.933, TLI = 0.926, and CFI = related to employee engagement, hence 0.933). the hypotheses H1a, H1c, H1d, H1e, H2a, H2b, and H2c are supported (as in After that structural equation mod- table 5 to 7). eling was used to test major effects and multigroup analysis was used to analyze In the multigroup analysis, it was moderating effects of perceived support proposed that perceived support (POS, 132 The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Volume 12 Number 1, July 2019 KPH-2 2019 IJOI http://www.ijoi-online.org/ PSS, PCS) would positively moderate positive relationships to engagement, on the relationship from personality traits contrary, extroversion and neuroticism and employee engagement. As the results have the negative relationships to en- from multigroup analysis, it showed that gagement. On the moderating effect re- POS significantly moderated the effects sults, POS shows the significant moder- of agreeableness (p <.01) and neuroti- ating effects on the relationships from cism (p <.1) toward employee engage- agreeableness and neuroticism to en- ment, as well as, PSS significantly mod- gagement, as well as PSS have the sig- erated the effects of extroversion (p < nificant moderating effects on the rela- .01), agreeableness (p <.05), conscien- tionships from extroversion, agreeable- tiousness (p <.01) and neuroticism (p ness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism <.01) toward employee engagement, and to engagement, and PCS have the sig- PCS significantly moderated the effects nificant moderating effects on the rela- of neuroticism (p <.1) and openness (p tionships from neurotic and openness to <.05) toward employee engagement. engagement. Therefore, the hypotheses H3b, H3d, H4a, H4b, H4c, H4d, H5d, and H5e are After hypotheses testing was done, upheld (table 6 to 8). it can summarize the results as under- neath tables Table 9 and 10). The results show that agreeableness, openness, POS, PSS, and PCS have the

133 The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Volume 12 Number 1, July 2019 KPH-2 2019 IJOI http://www.ijoi-online.org/

134 The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Volume 12 Number 1, July 2019 KPH-2 2019 IJOI http://www.ijoi-online.org/

Discussion and Conclusion can create the sense of obligation to lead employees to the greater levers of en- This paper tested the moderating gagement. effect of perceived support on the relationship between personality traits and Moreover, the outcomes of this pa- employee engagement. Consequently, per offered the starting point for re- the findings of this paper contribute to searchers to reinvestigate prior engage- engagement theory in terms of assessing ment papers in dissimilar cultural con- convergent and discriminant validity of texts by comparing different or similar all measurement items, and evaluate the results, which is benefit for further gen- moderating effect of the exchange ide- eralization, since the research was con- ology (perceived support) on the rela- ducted in eastern workers' context, that tionship between antecedents (the big were rarely made before. five) and engagement. Present research’s results extended to these interventions 135 The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Volume 12 Number 1, July 2019 KPH-2 2019 IJOI http://www.ijoi-online.org/ The knowledge gained from this chological condition and employee study can suggest some guidelines for engagement in the workplace. organizations that if organizations are Journal of Business and Manage- more cautious in evaluating their em- ment, 4(3), 34-47. ployees' personalities during recruiting times, they can create more successful Bakker, A.B., Hakanen, J., Demerouti, rates for more engaged employees by E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job concentrating on finding the individual, resources boost work engagement, who has high activated forms of agree- particularly when job demands are ableness, and openness, as well as low high. Journal of Educational Psy- activated forms of extroversion and chology, 99(2), 274-284. neuroticism. Bates, S. (2004). Getting engaged. HR In addition, research results are Magazine. useful in recommending the enhance- ment of employee engagement with Beehr, T. A., & McGrath, J. E. (1992). support from organizations to agreeable Social support, occupational stress and neurotic employees, as well as from and anxiety. Anxiety, Stress & supervisors to extrovert, agreeable, con- Coping: An International Journal, scientious, and neurotic employees, and 5(1), 7-19. from coworkers to neurotic and openness employees. Brief, A., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Or- ganizational behavior: Affect in the References workplace. Annual Review of Psy- chology, 51(1), 279-307. Ahmadi, S. A., Tavakoli, S., & Heidary, P. P. (2014). Perceived organiza- Dant, R. P., Weaven, S. K., & Baker, B. tional support and employee ena- L. (2013). Inﬂuence of personality gagement. International Journal of traits on perceived relationship Information Technology and Man- quality within a franchi- agement Studies, 1(1), 54-66. see-franchisor context. European Journal of Marketing , 47(1/2), Akhtar, R., Boustani, L., Tsivrikos, D., & 279-302. Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2015). The engageable personality: Personality Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Jonge, J. and trait EI as predictors of work D., Janssen, P. P., & Schaufeli, W. engagement. Personality and Indi- B. (2001). Burnout and engagement vidual Differences, 73, 44-49. at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian Journal Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, of Work, Environment & Health, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational 27(4), 279-286. initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work–family Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D., & conflict and job-related outcomes. Casimir, G. (2008). Workplace Journal of Management, 28(6), bullying and intention to leave: The 787–810. moderating effect of perceived organizational support. Human Re- Ariani, D. W. (2015). Relationship with source Management Journal, 18, supervisor and co-workers, psy- 405-422. 136 The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Volume 12 Number 1, July 2019 KPH-2 2019 IJOI http://www.ijoi-online.org/ Duke, A. B., Goodman, J. M., Treadway, teacher. Journal of School Psy- D. C., & Breland, J. W. (2009). chology, 43(6), 495-513. Perceived organizational support as a moderator of emotional la- Hawkins, B. A., Diniz-Filho, J. A., Bini, bor/outcomes relationships. Journal L. M., Araújo, M. B., Field, R., of Applied Social Psychology, Hortal, J., Kerr, J. T., Rahbek, C., 39(5), 1013-1034. Rodriguez, M. A., & Sanders, N. J. (2007). Metabolic theory and di- Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, versity gradients: Where do we go S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived from here? Ecology, 88(8), organizational support, discretion- 1898-1902. ary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, Huang, H., Wu, K., Wang, M., Tang, P. 82(5), 812-820. (2015). Moderating the Effect of Supervisor Support on Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Work-to-Family Conflict and Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Burnout Relationship. Studies on Perceived organizational support. Ethno-Medicine, 9(2), 263-278. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507. Inceoglu, I., & Fleck, S. (2010). En- gagement as a motivational con- Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). struct. In S. Albrecht (Ed.) The Evaluating Structural Equation handbook of employee engagement: Models with Unobservable Vari- Models, measures and practices. ables and Measurement Error. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. Inceoglu, I., & Warr, P. (2011). Person- ality and job engagement. Journal of Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R. P., & Taylor, Personnel Psychology, 10(4), C. R. (2004). The race for talent: 177–181. retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century. Human Resource Jeung, C. W. (2011). The concept of Planning, 27(3), 12-25. employee engagement: A compre- hensive review from a positive or- Gallup. (2013). State of global work- ganizational behavior perspective. place: Employee engagement in- Performance Improvement Quar- sights for business leaders world- terly, 24(2), 49–69. wide. Gallup. Washington, DC: Gallup. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological con- ditions of personal engagement and Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The develop- disengagement at work. the Acad- ment of markers for the big-five emy of Management Journal, 33(4), factor structure. Psychological As- 692-724. sessment, 4(1), 26-42. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Measuring perceived supervisory Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout organizational support. Educational and work engagement among and Psychological Measurement, 48(4), 1075–1079. 137 The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Volume 12 Number 1, July 2019 KPH-2 2019 IJOI http://www.ijoi-online.org/ Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2010). Or- Mostert, K., & Rothmann, S. (2006). ganizational behavior (9th ed.). Work-related well-being in the New York: McGrew-Hill Irwin. south african police service. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 479-491. Langelaan, S., Bakker, A. B., Doornen, doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.09.003 L. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Burnout and work engagement: Do Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. individual differences make a dif- (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ference? Personality and Individual ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Differences, 40(2006), 521-532. O'Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Work and Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (1988). The family transactions. In P. Koop- impact of interpersonal environ- man-Boyden et al., Transactions in ment on burnout and organizational the mid-life family, 1, 92-112. commitment. Journal of Organiza- Waikato, Hamilton: University of tional Behavior, 9(4):297-308. Waikato, Hamilton: Population Association of New Zealand. Lin, L. Y. (2010). The relationship of consumer personality trait, brand O'Driscoll, M. P., Brough, P., & Kalliath, personality and brand loyalty: An T. J. (2004). Work/family conflict, empirical study of toys and video psychological well-being, satisfac- game buyers. Journal of Product & tion and social Support: A longitu- Brand Management, 19(1), 4-17. dinal study in New Zealand. Equal Opportunities International, 23, Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). 36-56. The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational O'Driscoll, M. P., & Randall, D. M. Psychology, 1(1), 3-30. (1999). Perceived organisational support, satisfaction with rewards, Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The and employee job involvement and truth about burnout: How organiza- organisational commitment. Ap- tions cause personal stress and what plied psychology: An international to do about it. San Francisco: review, 48(2), 197-209. Jossey-Bass. Ongore, O. (2014). A study of relation- McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). ship between personality traits and Personality trait structure as a hu- job engagement. Procedia - Social man universal. American Psy- and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 1315 chologist, 52(5), 509-516. – 1319.

Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Cam- Pasamehmetoglu, A., Guchait, P., pion, M. A. (2005). Selecting indi- Tracey, J. B., Cunningham, C. J. L., viduals in team setting: The impor- & Lei, P. (2017). The moderating tant of social skills, personality effect of supervisor and coworker characteristics, and teamwork support for error management on knowledge. Personal Psychology, service recovery performance and 58, 583-611. helping behaviors. Journal of Ser- vice Theory and Practice, 27(1), 2-22. 138 The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Volume 12 Number 1, July 2019 KPH-2 2019 IJOI http://www.ijoi-online.org/ Rich, B. L. (2006). Job engagement: approach. Journal of Happiness Construct validation and relation- Studies, 3, 71-92. ships with job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). (Doctoral dissertation, The Univer- Commitment and employee behav- sity of Florida, FL). ior: comparison of affective commitment and continuance commit- Richardsen, A. M., Burke, R. J., & Mar- ment with perceived organizational tinussen, M. (2006). Work and support. Journal of applied psy- health outcomes among police of- chology, 78(5), 774-780. ficers: The mediating role of police cynicism and engagement. Interna- Simpson, M. R. (2009). Engagement at tional Journal of Stress Manage- work: A review of the literature . ment, 13(4), 555-574. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(7), 1012-1024. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2011). Organizational behavior(14th ed.). Soane, E., Truss, C., Alfes, K., Shantz, Boston: Pearson. A., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2012). Development and application of a Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and new measure of employee engage- consequences of employee en- ment: the ISA engagement scale. gagement. Journal of Managerial Human Resource Development In- Psychology, 21(7), 600-619. ternational, 15(5), 529-547.

Schaufeli, W.B. (2013). What is en- Teven, J. J. (2007). Teacher tempera- gagement? In C. Truss, K. Alfes, R. ment: Correlates with teacher car- Delbridge, A. Shantz, & E. Soane ing, burnout, and organizational (Eds.), Employee Engagement in outcomes. Communication Educa- Theory and Practice. London: tion, 56(3), 382-400. Routledge. Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. Recurrent personality factors based (2003). UWES:Utrecht Work En- on trait ratings. Journal of Person- gagement Scale; Preliminary Man- ality, 60(2), 225-252. ual, Occupational Health Psychol- ogy Unit, Utrecht University. Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. on employee citizenship and im- (2004). Job demands, job resources, pression management behavior. and their relationship with burnout Human Relations, 46, 1431-1440. and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Wefald, A. J., Reichard, R. J., & Serrano, Behavior, 25(3), 293-315. S. A. (2011). Fitting engagement into a nomological network: The Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gon- relationship of engagement to lead- zález-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. ership and personality. Journal of (2002). The measurement of en- Leadership & Organizational Stud- gagement and burnout: A two sam- ies, 18(4), 522-537. ple confirmatory factor analytic 139 The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Volume 12 Number 1, July 2019 KPH-2 2019 IJOI http://www.ijoi-online.org/ Witemeyer, H. A. (2013). Employee engagement construct and instrument validation (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, GA).

Woo, B., & Chelladurai, P. (2012). Dy- namics of perceived support and work attitudes: The case of fitness club employees. Human Resource Management Research, 2(1), 6-18.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker , A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. (2009). Work engagement and fi- nancial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Or- ganizational Psychology, 82(1), 183-200.

Zaidi, N. R., Wajid, R. A., Zaidi, F. B., Zaidi, G. B., & Zaidi, M. T. (2013). The big five personality traits and their relationship with work engagement among public sector university teachers of Lahore. Af- rican Journal of Business Manage- ment, 7(15), 1344-1353.

Zellars, K. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Per- rewé, P. L., Hoffman, N., & Ford, E. W. (2004). Experiencing job burnout: The roles of positive and negative traits and states. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(5), 887–911.

140 The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Volume 12 Number 1, July 2019