Organizational Effectiveness as aFunction of Employee Engage.docx

Organizational Effectiveness as a
Function of Employee Engagement
Aakanksha Kataria*, Renu Rastogi** arú Pooja Garg***
The paper reviews the organizational paradigms of employee
engagement in context of its
organizational outcomes and aims to unlock the relationship
between engagement and perceived
organizational effectiveness. The study was designed to
generate and test two hypothesized models
colligating between engagement and the constituents
oforganizatiorud effectiveness. The results of
structural equation modeling suggest that engagement is
significantly associated with perceived
organizational effectiveness in that it also entails a positive
impact upon the organizational
effectiveress. The results encourage organizations to consider
the potential signiftance of employee
engagement towards organization^ effectiveness and also
exemplify the role ofHR managers in
delineating the psychological fabric of the organization and
conditions for high engagement. The

paper adds useful insights while articulating that engagement is
an expedient phenomenon that
drifts organizational effectiveness.
INTRODUCTION
The notion of employee engagement has marked its critical
presence in organizational
sciences for more than over 20 years. The research on
engagement is flourishing lately
and witnessing a remarkable increase in the number of empirical
studies more frequently
than ever (Sonnetag, 2011 ; and Rurkkhum and Bartlett, 2012),
while noting its positive
linkages to several bottom line organizational outcomes for
instance, productivity, profits,
business growth, quality, customer satisfaction, employee
retention, job performance,
and low absenteeism (Buckingham and Cofifiman, 1999;
Coffinan and Gonzalez-Molina,
2002; Buchanan, 2004; Hewitt Associates LLC, 2005; Fleming
and Asplund, 2007;
Lockwood, 2007; Bakker and Bal, 2010; Demerouti and
Cropanzano, 2010;
Xanthopoulou et al, 2009; and Sundaray, 2011). In addition, it
has also been observed
that engaged employees report less absenteeism, stay with the
organization longer, and
are happier being proactive, and more productive (Harter et al,
2002; and Sonnentag,
2011). This might be due to the fact that engaged employees
being enthusiastic (Pitt-
* Research Scbolar, Department of Humanities & Social
Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee

(IITR), Roorkee. India. E-mail: [email protected]
** Professor, Department of Humanities & Social Sciences,
Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee (IITR),
Roorkee, India. E-mail: [email protected]
* * * Assistant Professor, Department of Humanities & Social
Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee
(IITR), Roorkee, India. E-mail: [email protected]
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AS A FUNCTION OF
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Catsouphes and Matz-Costa, 2008), dedicated, and
psychologically involved in their
work, are willing to invest their active physical strength and
emotional energy towards
the fulfilment of organizational goals.
Accordingly, from a practical point of view, the relevant
literature recommends
employee engagement as "an individual employee's cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral
state directed toward desired organizational outcomes" (Shuck
and WoUard, 2010).
Further, it is suggested that engagement 'goes beyond'
satisfaction or commitment and
is an enhanced state of thinking and acting that brings both
personal fulfilment and
positive contributions for the organization.
Given the primacy of employee engagement in the context of its
beguiling
consequences for organizations, engagement has increasingly
been viewed as a vital element
in elevating organizational effectiveness (Saks, 2008; Sundaray,

2011; Welch, 2011;
Cameron et ai., 2011). As observed, organizations constantly
seek ways to augment
employee engagement at work, and thereby enhance
organizational effectiveness
(Macey and Schneider, 2008; Macey et ai., 2009; Vinarski-
Peretz et ai., 2011). Despite
the increasing conceptual evidences and supports to establish
employee engagement
as a driver of organizational success and performance, empirical
evidence explicitly
signifying the association between employee engagement and
organizational
effectiveness has not been forthcoming from any side. In fact,
recent researches have
been focusing more on individual level analysis of employee
engagement and research
concerning employee engagement and its organizational
outcomes in terms of
organizational effectiveness has rarely been studied in
engagement literature. Most
studies that have examined the consequences of engagement
have focused on
engagement fiom an internal perspective by studying how
engagement affects employee
attitudes and performance (for e.g.. Rich et aï., 2010; and
Mengue et ai., 2012). Against
this backdrop, it has also been reported recently that the
relationship between individual
positive behaviors like engagement and organizational
effectiveness is yet to be
confirmed (Cameron et al, 2011).
Keeping the preceding discussion in mind, the present paper
undertakes this novel
opportunity to complement the existing literature by examining

the relationship between
employee engagement and perceived organizational
effectiveness. The study considers
employees' perceptions of the effectiveness in their
organizations. Cain (2006) affirmed
that employees are in the best position to evaluate the
effectiveness of their organizations
in meeting its often conflicting goals and mission. Many
previous studies have used the
stakeholder approach in the assessment of effectiveness while
measuring the impact of
psychological climate, employee attitudes, and behaviors on the
organizational
effectiveness (e.g., Biswas et ai., 2006). Further, the paper
synthesizes positive organizational
consequences of engagement into a more comprehensive
phenomenon known as
organizational effectiveness and attempts to explore the
functionalist perspective of
employee engagement as a potential antecedent of
organizational effectiveness.
Volume 20 ^ T No. 4
SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT
INSIGHTS FROM LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESES
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Employee engagement is a complex and dynamic process that
reflects each individual's
unique, personal relationship with work (Litten et al, 2011). The
term employee

engagement was originated in 199O's by the Gallup Research
Group (Endres and
Mancheno-Smoak, 2008; and Little and Little, 2006). Touted
positive outcomes of
employee engagement in Gallup's popular release "First, Break
All the Rules (Buckingham
and Coffman, 1999) have incorporated suhsequent desires in
organizations to maintain
a highly engaged workforce. Noteworthy implications of
employee engagement are
attrihuted to high involvement, passion and zeal in employees'
efforts to perform up to
their potential, while creating high performing organizations.
Historical roots of the term employee engagement in academic
research can he found
in the works of Kahn (1990), who has often been regarded as
the academic parent of
employee engagement movement (Welch, 2011). Using the
framework of personal
engagement, Kahn (1990) defined engagement as "the
harnessing of organizational
members' selves to their work roles; in engagement, people
employ and express themselves
physically, cognitively and emotionally during work role
performance."
Numerous definitions have heen made on engagement
thereafter, but little consensus
has heen yet reached. Of them all, the conceptualization that
shapes engagement as "a
positive fulfilling, work related state of mind characterized by
vigor, dedication, and
absorption" (Schaufeli et ai., 2002), has been more popular in
engagement literature
due to its vast validation in majority of countries. Vigor

(positive affect) is characterized
hy employees' high levels of positive energy and mental
resilience while performing the
job tasks. Engaged employees experience their work as
stimulating and to which they
devote their time and effort willingly (Bakker et ai., 2011 ).
Dedication (motivation aspect)
takes into account the perception of engaged employees in terms
of significance and
meaningfulness of work. It explicates the emotional framework
of engagement as the
extent of employees' willingness to invest considerahle time,
stronger involvement, energy
and effort in doing something meaningful with greater
enthusiasm. Absorption
(cognitive aspect) is characterized by full involvement and
engrossment of employees
in their work to the extent that one has difficulties in detaching
oneself from work.
Engaged employees are happily involved and experience their
work as engrossing and
something to which they can devote their full concentration
(Bakker et al, 2011).
Therefore, engaged employees not only contribute more but are
also more loyal and
therefore less likely to voluntarily leave the organization
(Macey and Schneider, 2008).
It has also heen reported that engaged employees perform hetter
in their jobs (Bakker
and Bal, 2010; Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2008), and high levels
of engagement lead
to positive organizational-level outcomes (Kahn, 1992; and
Bakker et d., 2008).
Volume 20 ^ g No. 4

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
In organizational context, the term employee engagement has
been described as "a
desirable condition, has an organizational purpose, and connotes
involvement,
commitment, passion, enthusiasm, focused effort, and positive
energy", (Erickson, 2005;
Macey and Schneider, 2008). This posits, engaged employees
being enthusiastic,
dedicated, and psychologically involved are more able to invest
their active physical
strength and emotional energy towards the fulfilment of
organizational goals. Employee
engagement has often been pronounced as the key to an
organization's success and
competitiveness (Grumen and Saks, 2011). Research has also
revealed that engaged
employees will be more likely to create a social context that is
conducive to the team
work, helping, voice and other significant discretionary
behaviors that can lead to
organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff et al, 2009; Christian et
al, 2011). Though
researches concerning employee engagement have suggested its
positive linkages to
profitability, business growth, financial performance, customer
satisfaction and
competitive advantage (The Gallup Organization, 2004; Saks,
2006; Harter et al,
2002; Salanova et al, 2005; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; and
Macey et al, 2009), yet
there exists a wide scope for further scholarly exploration,

growth and dialogue around
the construct of employee engagement (Shuck and Reio, 2011).
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
Researchers in organizational sciences acknowledge that the
central theme of
organizational theory pertained to organizational effectiveness
(Goodman and Pennings,
1977; Biswas, 2010) and the underlying goal of most research
on organizations is to
improve their effecdveness (Noruzi and Rahimi, 2010).
Organizational effectiveness
is a broader term encompassing multiple constituents for
measuring organizational
performance. Therefore, organizational effectiveness has been
connoted as one aspect
of organizational performance (Lee and Choi, 2003).
Organizational effectiveness is
"a company's long term ability to achieve consistently its
strategic and operational
goals" (Fallón and Brinkerhoff, 1996). Though, it has been hard
to describe what
exactly constitutes organizational effectiveness (Cameron and
Whetton, 1981; and
Rahimi and Noruzi, 2011), it has been widely accepted that
is "the extent to which an organization achieves its goals"
(Steers, 1977). Due to its
multidimensional and paradoxical character (Cameron, 1986),
an organization can be
simultaneously judged effective by one criterion and ineffective
by another. Mott (1972)
defined organizational effectiveness as "the ability of an
organization to mobilize itscentres
of power, for action, production and adaptation". In fact,

effective organizations tend to
produce better quality products and are resilient in the face of
adversities. Further,
organizational theory has also produced a variety of models
(rational goal, system resource,
internal process, and participant satisfaction) pertaining to
organizational effectiveness,
the measures of organizational effectiveness as (a) productivity;
(b) adaptability; and
(c) efficiency developed by Mott, (1972) have been found to be
the most frequently and
most widely used in various models of perceived organizational
effectiveness (Steers,
1977; Sharma and Samantara, 1995; Luthans et al, 1988).
Volume20 ^g No.4
Employee engagement in practice, an active psychological state
of employees at
work has frequently been considered pertinent in elevating
organizational outcomes.
For instance, employees' active psychological state at work is of
greater significance
when it comes to innovation, organizational performance, and
competitive advantage
(Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008). Based on the previous researches
concerning

organizational context of employee engagement, it is argued
that employee engagement
will be related to perceived organizational effectiveness in
general and as a whole as
follows (See Figure 1 and 2):
Figure 1: The Hypothesized Model (Ml)
Vigor
Dedication
Absorption
HI
Productivity
Adaptability
Flexibility
HL' Employee engagement is significantly related to perceived
organizational
effectiveness. Also, employee engagement will significantly
predict perceived
organizational effectiveness.
Hla: Employee engagement is significantly related to perceived
organizational
productivity. Also, employee engagement will significantly
predict perceived
organizational productivity.

Hlb: Employee engagement is significantly related to perceived
organizational
adaptability. Also, employee engagement will significantly
predict perceived
organizational adaptability.
Hlc: Employee engagement is significantly related to perceived
organizational
flexibility. Also, employee engagement will significantly
predict perceived
organizational flexibility.
Figure 2: The Hypothesized Model (M2)
Vigor
Dedication
Absorption
»̂ nia,.^-'''''''^
( Employee ^y.--̂ ''̂ H Jo
* A. Engagement / - - ^ *
Productivity
Adaptability
Elexibility
Volume 20 60 No. 4

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
The respondents were 304 middle level managers from IT
organizations. A covering
letter delineating the reason for the study was attached with
each questionnaire stating
about the voluntary and anonymous nature of this study.
Participants were also assured
for maintaining the confidentiality of responses. Completed
questionnaires were
returned to the researcher via mail or in-person. Of the 304
participants', a large
proportion (81%) were males, while 19% were females. The
average age of the
participants was 36.16 (SD = 6.02). The work experience profile
of the participants
varied from the minimum 5 year of experience from maximum
of 28 years and the
average work experience was 10.29 (SD = 5.72). A large portion
(63%) of the
participants was having 5 to 10 years of work experience, 23%
were having 11 to 15
years of work experience, 6% were having work experience
between 16 to 20 years,
and rest 8% were having the highest (above 20) years of work
experience. 24% were
unmarried of all the participants and the rest were married. The
sample was comprised
of management graduates (55%) and engineering graduates

(45%) and average tenure
of subjects in their present organization was 5.63 (SD = 2.33),
with a range from 3 to
14 years.
MEASURES
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Employee engagement was measured with the extensively
validated 9-item Utrecht
Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) reported by Schaufeli et al
(2006). The scale
consists of 9-items and measures three sub-dimensions of
employee engagement as
vigor, dedication, and absorption which have three items each.
i. Vigor is characterized by willingness to invest efforts while
experiencing
high levels of positive energy and mental resiliency at work
(e.g., "At my
work, I feel bursting with energy).
ii. Dedication refers to the strong involvement in one's work, a
feeling of
meaningfulness, significance, pride and challenge (e.g., "My job
inspires
me").
iii. Absorption explains one's state of being fully engrossed and
concentrated in
the work (e.g., "I get carried away when I am working").
All items relating to these three sub dimensions were measured
on a seven- point scale
ranging fi:om 0 = "Never" to 6 = "Always". Cronbach alpha (a)

for this scale was 0.92.
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
An 8-item scale developed by Mott (1972) was used to measure
various aspects of
organizational effectiveness. The scale has three sub-scales: (a)
productivity;
(b) adaptability; and (c) flexibility.
Volume 20 g j No. 4
i. Productivity deals with the quantity and quality of the product
or service,
and the efficiency with which it is delivered.
ii. Adaptability has two . ^nstituents: symbolic adaptability and
behavioral
adaptability. Symbolic adaptability refers to both anticipating
problems in
advance and developing satisfactory and timely solutions to
them in addition
to staying abreast of new technologies and methods applicable
to the activities
of the organization. Behavioral adaptability explicates prompt
and prevalent
acceptance of solutions (Mott, 1972; and Luthans et al, 1988).
iii. Flexibility has been considered as a separate and
independent index of
organizational effectiveness. It is conceptually different from
adaptability as

organizational changes that result from meeting emergencies are
usually
temporary, usually the organization returns to its pre-emergency
structure,
whereas adaptive changes are more likely to be permanent
(Mott, 1972;
and Samantara, 2004).
The scale consists of 8 items, e.g., "Thinking now of the various
things produced by
the people you know in your division, how much are they
producing? Their production
is, measured on a five-point scale ranging from 1 to 5. Each
item needed a different
adjective as its response, so the scaling of the items was
different. The Cronbach's
alpha {a) was 0.88.
DATA ANALYSIS
The Analysis of Moments Structure (AMOS 18.0) was used to
examine the structural
models. The statistical analysis included structural equation
modeling approach, a
two-stage methodology: the measurement model and the
structure model
recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). The overall
model fit was examined
using the chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic. Goodness of Fit
Index (GFI), Root Mean
Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Normed Fit Index
(NFI) and Comparative
Fit Index (CFI). RMSEA values less than 0.06 are considered
acceptable, whereas values
less than or equal to 0.05 indicate good model fit (Kline, 2005;
and Wijhe et al, 2011),

GFI, NFI, and CFI values greater than 0.90 indicate acceptable
fit model fit and values
close to 0.95 indicate good model fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999;
Kline, 2005; and Wijhe et
ai., 2011).
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, correlations of
the study variables.
The correlation matrix suggests that the relationships among
variables are in expected
direction. A moderate albeit significant relationship has been
observed between
employee engagement and organizational effectiveness on an
over-all basis with the
calculated r = 0.44 (significant at 0.01 level). This clearly
outlines that higher
engagement level of employees in organization is associated
with increased
Volume 20 ß
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
organizational effectiveness. In addition, there are positive and
significant correlations
between productivity, adaptability and the three dimensions of
employee engagement
as vigor, dedication, and absorption. Remarkably, no correlation
has heen found hetween
one constituent of organizational effectiveness, i.e., flexihility
and dedication component

of employee engagement.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Key
Variables (N-304)
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Mean
Vigor
Dedication
Absorption
Employee
Engagement
Productivity
Adaptability

Flexibility
Organizational
EfFectiveness
S.D
5.16
5.84
539
16.39
3.63
3.63
3.86
11.14
1
1.07
0.81
0.98
2.23
0.64
0.66

0.76
1.45
2
-
0.46**
039**
0.82**
0.35**
0.40**
0.13*
0.40**
3
-
0.37**
0.75**
0.20**
0.28**
0.10

0.27**
4
-
0.76**
0.27**
0.26**
0.17**
0.33**
5
-
0.36**
0.41**
0.17**
0.44**
6
-
0.36**
0.15*

0.68**
7
-
0.20**
0.73**
8
-
0.69** -
Note: *p^0.05;**p^0.01.
MEASUREMENT MODEL
The data was first analyzed for the six measurement elements
(vigor, dedication,
absorption, productivity, adaptability, and flexibility) with
AMOS confirmatory factor
analysis. All the factors were entered into the measurement
model and allowed to
correlate. A good fit of the model to the data was established
leading to a non significant
{f- (99), n = 304) 118.14, p = 0.092, as well as other fit indexes
indicated a satisfactory
degree of goodness-of-fit C/min 1.19, GFI 0.958, RMSEA
0.025, p < 0.05, CFI 0.984.
STRUCTURAL MODEL (Ml)

The results firom SEM indicate that hypothesized model (Ml) fit
the data well with
X^ (8), n = 304 = 14.22, p = 0.076 and C/min 1.77 had a value
less than 2. An
inspection of the other fit indices also met the recommended
criteria: GFI 0.984, TLI
0.971, RMSEA 0.051, p < 0.06, CFI 0.984. In combination,
these fit indices suggest a
satisfactory fit to the data (see Tahle 2). Examination of the
path coefficients for the
model explicates that the proposed paths are significant, with
standardized values ranging
fi:om 0.32 to 0.77. The results of the structural analysis provide
support for HJ. The
path from employee engagement to perceived organizational
effectiveness was 0.70 which
indicates a positive association and significant contrihution of
employee engagement
to the organizational effectiveness. This finding supports HJ.
Volume 20 63 No. 4
STRUCTURAL MODEL (M2)
Further, the results indicate that our structural model (M2) also
provides a reasonable
fit to the data (see Table 2). It was expected that employee
engagement as a whole
would be positively related to and significantly predict all the
three constituents
(productivity, adaptability, and flexibility) of organizational
effectiveness. The structural

analysis reveals that employee engagement is positively related
to every component of
organizational effectiveness. Also, employee engagement
contributes significantly to
productivity {ß = 0.53, p < 0.001), to adaptability with ß = 0.48,
p < 0.001, and
contributes to flexibility with a lowest albeit significant y0 =
0.15, p < 0.001. As a
whole, results of the analysis shows that employee engagement
is a stronger predictor
of productivity and adaptability, and significantly contributes to
the prediction of all
the three components of organizational effectiveness. Hence,
evidence was found to
support HIa, Hit», and HJc.
Table 2: Fit Indices of the Structural Path Model (Ml ), (M2)
Model
Ml
M2
X'
14.22
8.76
df
8
6
P

0.76
0.19
GFI
0.984
0.990
RMSEA
0.051
0.039
NFI
0.965
0.979
CFI
0.984
0.993
DISCUSSION
The central aim of the present study was to test the direct
pathways between employee
engagement and perceived organizational effectiveness, our
results suggest that engaged
employees perceive their organizations to be effective. We

tested two hypothesized
models to examine whether employee engagement in terms of
vigor, dedication, and
absorption qualifies a positive relationship with and contribute
significantly to the
perceived organizational effectiveness in general and as a
whole. Results of the study
put forthan argument that the criterion variable employee
engagement in terms of
vigor, dedication and absorption may have a significant impact
on the organizational
effectiveness. The findings of the study are broadly consistent
with the conceptual
evidences in previous studies (Erickson, 2005; Saks, 2008;
Maceyand Schneider, 2008;
Babcock-Roberson and Strickland, 2010; Sundaray, 2011; and
Welch, 2011) that is
when employees are engaged they are more likely to do things
that substantiate
organizational effectiveness (Saks, 2008). One possible
explanation for this contribution
may be the fact that engaged employees often experience
positive emotions (Bindland
Parker, 2010; Bakker et al., 2011). Positive emotions for
instance compassion, joy etc.
lead to the positive activities in organizations like helping
behavior, and create an
upward spiral of positive feelings (Cameron et ai., 2003).
Furthermore, when organization
members observe and experience love, compassion and other
positive emotions, they
increase their pride in organization, enjoyment of the work, and
satisfaction with the
job which are indispensable ingredients to the managerial
success and the
'organizational excellence' (Cameron et ai., 2003; and Fineman,

1996).
Volume 20 64 N,[a 4
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Further, engaged employees perform their job tasks with a sense
of deep involvement,
and full concentration which is a precondition to achieve
proficiency in one's work.
Individuals' task proficiency may lead to the outstanding
rewards for the firm's success
and that organizational effectiveness may be achieved with a
collaborative effort of engaged
and committed employees. To add even more, it has been found
that engaged employees'
heightened emotional and intellectual connection with the work
increase their tendency
to exhibit discretionary efforts at workplace (Gibbons, 2006;
and Richman et al, 2008),
which in turn, has been suggested a significant predictor of
(Organ, 1988). Additionally, effort has been linked to
productivity and profit generation
(Shuck et ai., 2011). Engaged employees are more likely to
exert extra efforts and display
citizenship behaviors such as altruism, civic-virtue,
sportsmanship, etc. (Christian et al,
2011; Schaufeli et al, 2006; and Shimazu and Schaufeli, 2009),
through which they
tend to facilitate efficient functioning and smooth running of
the organization and
thereby enabling organizations to sustain high performance and

effectiveness. Hence,
our results exemplify that engaged employees enhance
organizational effectiveness in
many ways and a number of potential mediating mechanisms
such as job performance,
organizational commitment, and OCBs may play significant role
in the relationship
between engagement and organizational effectiveness.
Collectively, in our view, these
activities, initiatives, positive attitudes and behaviors as a
consequence of engagement
may elevate organizational effectiveness.
In order to seek possible accurate explanation in extant
literature for the positive
associations between engagement and organizational
adaptability and flexibility, it is
found that engaged employees have a sense of energetic and
affective connection with
their work activities, and due to the positive emotional,
cognitive, and behavioral
fiamework, they see themselves as able to deal with the
changing demands of their jobs
(Schaufeli, et al., 2006). As discussed earlier, engaged
employees have a sense of vigorous
attitude in terms of high levels of positive energy, mental
resilience at work, and willingness
to invest their efforts in work and persistence even in the face
of difficulties (Schaufeli
et al, 2002). It follows, engaged employees' show positive
behaviors in the face of
emergency situations which may consequently enhance the
organizational flexibility
and adaptability.
Furthermore, is has been suggested that engaged employees stay

with their
organizations longer due to the high levels of investment in and
dedication to work
(Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2008) and tend to contribute to
organizational success and
profitability more effectively. As lower turnover is significantly
and directly related to
the output and efficiency of the firm as it saves the cost of
separation, vacancy, replacement
and training (Harter et aï., 2010), this could be one of the
reasons, disengaged employee
costs organizations in revenues and profitability due their
higher turnover intentions
and absenteeism (WoUard, 2011) and that engaged employees
serve the organization
more effectively.
Volume 20 ^ ^ No. 4
Thus, the investigation of variables in present study provides a
plinth for the words
that employee engagement can be a deciding factor for
(Sundaray, 2011).
IMPLICATIONS
From a practical point-of-view, promoting organizational
effectiveness can be achieved-
amongst others- by designing an HR system that incorporates
positive workplace practices.
The relationship found between engagement and organizational

effectiveness is insightful,
because based on that knowledge; attempts should be made
through selection to hire
employees predisposed to engagement. In addition, our study
signifies a call for
organizations to provide a congenial human resource
development climate in order to
create conditions for high engagement level of employees. HR
managers can play a
significant role in understanding the psychological aspects of
workplace that may
intrinsically motivate employees to invest their inclusive self in
performing job duties.
For instance, incorporating the elements of trust, integrity, and
spirituality in providing
organizational support and justice may encourage high
engagement level of employees
at work. Organizations that wish to improve employee
engagement should focus on
employees' perceptions of the support they receive ftom their
organization (May et al,
2004). More importantly, managers need to provide employees'
clarity of their work
roles that is recognized as having a direct affect on the
engagement level. Further, work
roles represent opportunities for individuals to apply themselves
behaviorally,
energetically, and expressively, in a holistic and simultaneous
fashion (Kahn, 1992;
Rich et al, 2010; and Christian et al, 2011). In addition,
employees should be
psychologically empowered to perform their work in
organizations that takes in to
account organizational efforts to provide meaning in their work,
opportunities to develop,
and increased occupational self-efficacy. Recent studies posit a

great incremental value
on employee engagement and that enforce HR managers to
design the HR system keeping
in mind employees' psychological needs and concems at
workplace that may include a
greater emphasis on job design, support from management,
development opportunities,
fair and equity at workplace, and a resourceful working
environment to motivate
employees reciprocate with high engagement level with their
and organization.
LIMITATIONS
Certain limitations should be taken into consideration while
interpreting the results of
the current research. First, the cross-sectional design of the
study inhibits to draw causal
inferences about the direction of the relationships between
study variables. The cross-
sectional nature of the data may limit the consistency of
findings over time. It would be
useful to conduct experimental and longitudinal studies in order
to establish more
certain causality of the relationship and to make more objective
and independent
assessments. Further, the use of self-report measures in the
study posit the chances of
common-method bias and that would be a hindrance to
generalize the findings in the
present study.
Volume 20 ßß No. 4

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
In future, this study could be extended to examine association
between employee
engagement and organizational effectiveness with more
objective data, particularly,
on organizational effectiveness. The self-report measure of
that captures employees' perceptions of effectiveness does not
provide a concrete and
objective assessment. Additionally, future studies may include
other indicators of
organizational effectiveness such as profitability, output, and
managerial effectiveness
to maximize the scope of measurement of the variable.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
The implications of this research could provide interest to both
practitioners and
researchers. If the results of this study hold across other
samples, managers could be
encouraged to know that an employees' engagement with their
work may influence
organizational effectiveness. Researchers should be encouraged
at the possibility of
exploring individual and organizational peculiarities that might
explain the mechanism
through which work engagement influence organizational
effectiveness. The relationship
between work engagement and organizational effectiveness may
not be straightforward
that is though employees' engagement level at work influence
firm's performance and
efficiency, this does not necessarily imply that engaged

employees will uniformly perform
in ways to benefit the organization; contextual factors are likely
to function as regulative
aspect of engagement and influence the extent to which they
augment organizational
effectiveness. To add even more, the mediating, moderating
variables that could affect
the impact of employee engagement on organizational
effectiveness can be explored
using the findings fiom current study.
CONCLUSION
The study was undertaken to examine the associations between
employee engagement
and perceived organizational effectiveness. Results have
suggested a positive and significant
contribution of employee engagement towards organizational
effectiveness. The
investigation adds to the theoretical development of the nascent
construct 'employee
engagement' with a novel contribution to establishing its
association with organizational
effectiveness. It is concluded that engaged employees being
enthusiastic about their
work, dedicated completely to find meaning in their work and
are profoundly engrossed
to put forth their positive energy and mental efforts towards the
attainment of
organizational goals.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson J C and Gerbing D W (1988), "Structural Equation
Modeling in Practice:
A Review and Recommended Two-step Approach",

Psychological Buiietin, Vol. 103,
pp.411-23.
2. Babcock-Roberson M E and Strickland O J (2010), "The
Relationship Between
Charismatic Leadership, Work Engagement, and Organizational
Citizenship
Behaviors", The journal of Psychology, Vol. 144, No. 3, pp.
313-326.
Volume20 ßl No.4
3. Bakker A B and Bal P M (2010), "Weekly Work Engagement
and Performance: A
Study Among Starting Teachers", Journal of Occupational and
Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 189-296.
4. Bakker A B and Schaufeli W B (2008), "Positive
Organizational Behavior: Engaged
Employees in Flourishing Organizations", Journal of
Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 29, pp. 147-154.
5. Bakker A B, Alhrecht S L and Leiter M P (2011), "Key
Questions Regarding
Work Engagement", European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol.
20, No. 1, pp. 4-28.
6. Bakker A B, Schaufeli W B, Leiter M P and Taris T W

(2008), "Work Engagement:
An Emerging Concept in Occupational Health Psychology",
Work and Stress, Vol.
2 No. 3, pp. 187-200.
7. Bindl U and Parker S K (2010), "Feeling Good and
Performing Well? Psychological
Engagement and Positive Behaviors at Work", in Alhrecht S
(ed.). The Handhook
of employee Engagement: Models, measures, and Practice,
Cheltenham: Edward-
Elgar puhlishing.
8. Biswas S, Giri V N and Srivastava K B L (2006), "Examining
the Role of HR
Practices in Improving Individual Performance and
Organizational Effectiveness",
Management and Labour Studies, Vol. 31, pp. 111-133.
9. Biswas S (2010), "Relationship Between Psychological
Climate and Turnover
Intentions and its Impact on Organizational Effectiveness: A
Study in Indian
Organizations", ÍÍMB Management Review. Vol. 22, pp. 102-
110.
10. Buchanan L (2004), The things they do for hve, Harward
Business Review.
11. Buckingham M and Coffhian C (1999), First, break all the
rules: What the world's
greatest managers do differently, Simon and Schuster Australia,
Sydney.
12. Cain J C (2006), "Pay for Performance Reforms and Federal
Organizational

Effectiveness", availahle at:
http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/handle/1961/3728?show=full
(accessed 3 May 2012).
13. Cameron K, Dutton J and Quinn R E (2003), Positive
Organizational scholarship:
Foundations of a New Discipline, Berrett-Koehler Puhlishers.
14. Cameron K, Mora C, Leutscher T and Calarco M (2011),
"Effects of Positive
Practices on Organizational Effectiveness", The Journal of
Applied Behavioral
Science, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 266-308.
15. Cameron K S (1986), "Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus
and Conflict in
Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness", Management
Science, Vol. 32,
No. 5, pp. 539-553.
Volume 20 ^ g No. 4
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
16. Cameron K S and Whetton D A (1981), "Perceptions of
Organizational
Effectiveness Over Organizational Life Cycles", Administrative
Science Quarterly,
Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 525-544.
17. Christian M S, Garza A S and Slaughter J E (2011), "Work
Engagement:
A Quantitative Review and Test of Its Relations with Task and

Contextual
Performance", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 89-136.
18. Cofftnan C and Gonzalez-Molina G (2002), A New Model
Great Organizations
Win Business by Engaging the Complex Emotions Of
Employees and Customers.
19. Demerouti E and Cropanzano R (2010), "From Thought to
Action: Employee
Work Engagement and Job Performance", in Bakker A B and
Leiter M P (Eds.),
Work engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and
Research, pp. 147-163, New
York: Psychology Press.
20. Endres G M and Mancheno-Smoak L (2008), "The Human
Resource Craze:
Human Performance Improvement and Employee Engagement",
Organizational
Development Joumai, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 69-78.
21. Erickson T J (2005), Testimony Submitted before the U.S.
Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions, May, 26.
22. Fallón T and Brinkerhoff R O (1996), "Framework for
Organizational
Effectiveness", paper presented at the American Society for
Training and
Development International Conference.
23. Fineman S (1996), "Emotion and Organizing", in Clegg S R,
Hardy C and Nord
W R (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Studies, London:
SAGE.

24. Fleming J H and Asplund J (2007), Human Sigma:
Managing the Employee-Customer
Encounter, New York: Gallup Press.
25. Gibbons J M (2006), "Employee Engagement: A Review of
Current Research and
its Implications", Conference Board.
26. Goodman P S and Pennings J M (1977), New Perspectives
on Organizational
Effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
27. Gruman A J and Saks A M (2011), "Performance
Management and Employee
Engagement", Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 21,
pp. 123-136.
28. Halbesleben J R B and Wheeler A R (2008), "The Relative
roles of Engagement
and Embeddedness in Predicting Job Performance and Intention
to Leave", Work
and Stress, Vol. 22, pp. 242-256.
29. Harter J K, Schmidt F L and Hayes T L (2002), "Business-
Unit Level Relationship
between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and
Business Outcomes:
A Meta-analysis", Journal of AppUed Psychology, Vol. 87, pp.
268-279.
Volume 20 ßg No. 4

30. Harter J K, Schmidt F L, Asplund J W, Killham E A and
Agrawal S (2010),
"Causal Impact of Employee Work Perceptions on the Bottom
Line of
Organizations", Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 5,
No. 4, pp. 378-389.
31. Hewitt Associates (2004), Heiî itt Associates stvidy shows
more engaged employees
drive improved business performance and return. Press Release,
May.
32. Hu L and Bentler P M (1999), "Cutoff Criteria for Fit
Indices in Covariance
Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New
Alternatives", Structural
Equation Modeling, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-55.
33. Kahn W A (1990), "Psychological Conditions of Personal
Engagement and
Disengagement at Work", Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 33, No. 4,
pp.692-724.
34. Kahn W A (1992), "To be Full There: Psychological
Presence at Work", Human
Relations, Vol. 45, pp. 321-49.
35. Kline R B (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural
Equation Modelling, 2nd ed.,
Guilford Press, New York.
36. Lee H and Choi B (2003), "Knowledge Management
Enablers, Processes, and
Organizational Performance: An Integrative View and Empirical

Examination",
Journal of Management Information System, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.
179-228.
37. Litten J Î Vaughan A G and Wildermuth C D (2011), "The
Fabric oí Engagement:
The Engagement and Personality of Managers and Professionals
in Human and
Developmental Disability Services", Journal of Social Work in
Disability and
Rehabilitation, Vol. 10, pp. 189-210.
38. Little B and Little P (2006), "Employee Engagement:
Conceptual Issues", Journal
of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Vol.
10, No. 1, pp. 111-
120.
39. Lockwood N R (2007), "Leveraging Employee Engagement
for Competitive
Advantages: HR's Strategic Role", SHRM Research Quarterly.
40. Luthans F, Welsh D H B and Taylor L (1988), "A
Descriptive Model of Managerial
Effectiveness", Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2,
pp. 148-162.
41. Macey W H, Schneider B, Barbera K M and Young S A
(2009), Employee
engagement: Tools for analysis, practice and competitive
advantage, Wiley-Blackwell
Ltd. UK.
42. Macey W H and Schneider B (2008), "The Meaning of
Employee Engagement",
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 3-30.

43. May D R, Gilson R L and Harter L M (2004), "The
Psychological Conditions of
Meaningfulness, Safety, and Availability and the Engagement of
the Human Spirit
at Work", Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 11-37.
Volume 20 IQ No. 4
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
44. Mengue B, Auh S, Fisher M and Haddad A (2012), "To be
Engaged or not to be
Engaged: The Antecedents and Consequences of Service
Journal of Business Research.
45. Mott P E (1972), The Characteristics of Effective
Organizations, Harper and Row:
New York.
46. Noruzi M R and Rahimi G R (2010), "Multiple
Intelligences: A New Look to
Organizational Effectiveness", Journal of Management
Research, Vol. 2, No. 2.
47. Organ D W (1988), Organizatiorud citizenship behavior:
The good soldier syndrome,
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
48. Podsakoff N Î Whiting S W, Podsakoff P M and Blume B D
(2009), "Individual-

and Organizational-level Consequences of Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors:
A Meta-analysis", Journai of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94, No.
1, pp. 122-141.
49. Pitt-Catsouphes M and Matz-Costa C (2008), "The Mulri-
generational Workforce:
Workplace Flexibility and Engagement", Community, Work and
Family, Vol. 11,
No. 2, pp. 215-229.
50. Rahimi G R and Noruzi M R (2011), "Can Intelligence
Improve Organizational
Effectiveness?", Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary
Research in Business,
Vol. 2, No. 10.
51. Rich B L, Lepine J A and Crawford E R (2010), "Job
Engagement: Antecedents
and Effects on Job Performance", Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 53,
pp.617-635.
52. Richman A L, Civian J T, Shannon L L, Hill E J and
Brennan R T (2008), "The
Relationship of Perceived Flexibility, Supportive Work-life
Policies and Use of
Formal Flexible Arrangements and Occasional Flexibility to
Employee Engagement
and Expected Retention", Community, work and family. Vol.
11, No. 2,
pp. 183-197.
53. Rurkkhum S and Barlett K R (2012), "The Relationship
between Employee
Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in

Thailand", Human
Resource Development Intemational, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 157-
174.
54. Saks A M (2008), "The Meaning and Bleeding of Employee
Engagement: How
Muddy is the Water?", Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 40-43.
55. Saks A M (2006), "Antecedents and Consequences of
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 600-619.
56. Salanova M, Agut S and Peiro J M (2005), "Linking
Organizational Resources
and Work Engagement to Employee Performance and Customer
Loyalty: The
Mediation of Service Climate", Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 90, No. 6,
pp. 1217-1227.
Volume 20 1-^ No. 4
57. Samantara R (2004), "Conflict Management Strategies and
Organizational
Effectiveness", Indian Joumal of industrial Relations, Vol. 39,
No. 3, pp. 298-323.
58. Schaufeli W B and Bakker A B (2004), "Job Demands, Job
Resources, and Their
Relationship with Burnout and Engagement", Journal of

Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 25, pp. 293-315.
59. Schaufeli W B, Bakker A B and Salanova M (2006), "The
Measurement of Work
Engagement with a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-national
Study", Educational
and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 66, pp. 701-716.
60. Schaufeli W B, Salanova M, Gonzalez-Roma V and Bakker
A B (2002), "The
Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample
Confirmatory Analytic
Approach", Journai of Happiness Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 71-92.
61. Sharma and Samantara (1995), "Conflict Management in an
Indian Firm", Indian
Joumal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 439-453.
62. Shimazu A and Schaufeli W B (2009), "Towards a Positive
Occupational Health
Psychology: The Case of Work Engagement", Jap J Stress Sei.,
Vol. 24, No. 3,
pp.181-187.
63. Shuck B and Reio T G (2011), "The Employee Engagement
Landscape and HRD:
How do we Link Theory and Scholarship to Current Practice?",
Advances in
Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 419-428.
64. Shuck B and Wollard K (2010), "Employee Engagement and
HRD: A Seminal
Review of the Foundations", Human Resource development
Review, Vol. 9, No. 1,
pp.89-110.

65. Sonnentag S (2011), "Research on Work Engagement is
Well and Alive", European
Joumal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1,
pp. 29-38.
66. Steers R M (1977), "Antecedents and Outcomes of
Organizational Commitment",
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 46-56.
67. Sundaray B K (2011), "Employee Engagement: A Driver of
Organizational
Effectiveness", European Journal of Business and Management,
Vol. 3, No. 8,
pp. 53-59.
68. The Gallup Organization (2004), "Engagement vs.
Satisfaction Among Hospital
Teams", available at:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/10903/engagement-vs-
satisfaction-among-hospital-teams.aspx (accessed 7 February
2011).
69. Vinarski-Peretz H and Carmeli A (2011), "Linking Care Felt
to Engagement in
Innovative Behaviors in the Workplace: The Mediating Role of
Psychological
Conditions", Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,
Vol. 5, No. 1,
pp. 43-53.
Volume 20 ^2 No. 4

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
70. Welch M (2011), "The Evolution of the Employee
Engagement Concept:
Communication Implications", Corporate Communications: An
International Journal,
Vol. 16, pp. 328-346.
71. Wijhe C, Peeters M, Schaufeli W and Hout M (2011),
"Understanding
Workaholism and Work Engagement: The Role of Mood and
Stop Rules", Career
Development International, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 254-170.
72. Wollard K K (2011), "Quiet Desperation: Another
Perspective on Employee
Engagement", Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol.
13, No. 4,
pp. 526-537.
73. Xanthopoulou D, Bakker A B, Demerouti E and Schaufeli W
B (2009), "Work
Engagement and Financial Returns: A Diary Study of the Role
of Job and Personal
Resources", Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 82,
pp. 183-200.
Volume 20 ' 7 1 No. 4
Copyright of South Asian Journal of Management is the
property of South Asian Journal of
Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a

listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

Organizational Effectiveness as aFunction of Employee Engage.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Organizational Effectiveness as aFunction of Employee Engage.docx

Similar to Organizational Effectiveness as aFunction of Employee Engage.docx (20)

More from gerardkortney

More from gerardkortney (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Organizational Effectiveness as aFunction of Employee Engage.docx