A model to measure employee engagement

Abstract

The objective of this article is to develop a model to measure employee engagement. In doing so, the article firstly develops a theoretical model by identifying employee engagement constructs from the literature. Secondly, identifying measuring criteria of these constructs from the literature, and thirdly, to validate the theoretical model to measure employee engagement in South Africa. The theoretical model consists of 11 employee engagement constructs, measured by a total of 94 measuring criteria. The empirical process of validation employed data collected from 260 respondents who study towards an MBA degree at two private business schools in KwaZulu-Natal. The validation process aimed to validate the variables that measure each of the constructs by determining statistically that the sample employed is adequate, use the Bartlett test to ensure the applicability of the data for multivariate statistical analysis; to validate the measuring criteria as relevant to employee engagement, and to determine the reliability of each of the employee engagement constructs in the model. All these objectives were met. This culminated in the final result, namely an adapted empirical model to measure employee engagement in SA. The model tested statistically to be a valid and reliable model. The research is of value to management in the private and public sector, academics and researchers.

Full text

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 12, Issue 4, 2014
520
SECTION 2. Management in firms and organizations
Lailah Imandin (South Africa), Christo Bisschoff (South Africa), Christoff Botha (South Africa)
A model to measure employee engagement
Abstract
The objective of this article is to develop a model to measure employee engagement. In doing so, the article firstly
develops a theoretical model by identifying employee engagement constructs from the literature. Secondly, identifying
measuring criteria of these constructs from the literature, and thirdly, to validate the theoretical model to measure
employee engagement in South Africa. The theoretical model consists of 11 employee engagement constructs,
measured by a total of 94 measuring criteria. The empirical process of validation employed data collected from 260
respondents who study towards an MBA degree at two private business schools in KwaZulu-Natal. The validation
process aimed to validate the variables that measure each of the constructs by determining statistically that the sample
employed is adequate, use the Bartlett test to ensure the applicability of the data for multivariate statistical analysis; to
validate the measuring criteria as relevant to employee engagement, and to determine the reliability of each of the
employee engagement constructs in the model. All these objectives were met. This culminated in the final result,
namely an adapted empirical model to measure employee engagement in SA. The model tested statistically to be a
valid and reliable model. The research is of value to management in the private and public sector, academics and
researchers.
Keywords: employee engagement, validity, reliability, exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
JEL Classification: M51.
Introduction1
Employee engagement as managerial tool continues
to gain momentum in modern management
practices. However, before instilling any managerial
decision-making on the positive influences that
employee engagement can have in an organization,
it is imperative to first determine by measuring the
levels of engagement of employees within an
organization.
Measuring employee engagement within an
application setting within a structured measuring
environment requires a validated and standardized
measuring tool, or alternatively, a newly developed
measuring tool that originates from the literature.
This article deals with the measuring of employee
engagement by developing a new conceptual model.
The article develops the model on a strong literature
basis, where after the criteria and constructs are
validated statistically.
The application setting for the study is business
managers in South Africa, and more specifically,
managers in the process of post-graduate studies at
two private business schools situated in KwaZulu-
Natal (however, the respondents are not limited to
one province because they are studying at study
centers throughout South Africa).
1. Defining employee engagement
Employee engagement is gaining momentum and
popularity, acquiring international attention as it has
become an accepted belief that engaged employees
feel a connection to their work which impacts
 Lailah Imandin, Christo Bisschoff, Christoff Botha, 2014.
positively on their performance. This is supported
by Thayer (2008, p. 74) who agrees that the concept
of employee engagement is rapidly gaining
popularity, use, and importance in the workplace
and that by identifying the factors that can increase
employee engagement, employers can make strategic
adjustments within their organizations to create a
positive psychological climate for employees.
Despite the popularity of the term “employee
engagement” in the workplace, a precise definition
of the term remains elusive because of continued
research and redefinition surrounding the topic.
Describing employee engagement, however, is done
by listing the definitions and views of a number of
renowned authors such as Hughes and Rog (2008),
Crabb’s research (2011) and Shuck and Reio (2013).
Hughes and Rog (2008, p. 749) state that employee
engagement is a heightened emotional and
intellectual connection that an employee has for
his/her job, organization, manager, or co-workers
that in turn influences him/her to apply additional
discretionary effort to his/her work. Shuck and Reio
(2013, p. 1) define employee engagement as the
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral energy an
employee directs toward positive organizational
outcomes. They go on to operationally define
employee engagement as a series of psychological
states (cognitive, emotional and behavioral)
ultimately representing an intention to act that
encompasses motivation-like qualities.
Crabb’s research (2011, p. 27) defines employee
engagement as a positive attitude held by the
employee towards the organization and its values.
His research states that an engaged employee is

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 12, Issue 4, 2014
521
aware of business context, and works with
colleagues to improve performance within the job
for the benefit of the organization. The organization
must work to develop and nurture engagement,
which requires a two-way relationship between
employer and employee.
According to research conducted by Mone et al.
(2011, p. 206) employee engagement is defined as
an employees’ sense of purpose and focused energy
that is evident to others through the display of
personal initiative, adaptability, effort, and
persistence directed toward the organization’s goals.
In their research they describe employee
engagement as defined by Gebauer and Lowman
(2009 in Mone et al., 2011) as having a deep and
broad connection with the company that results in
the willingness to go above and beyond what is
expected to help the company succeed.
Johnson (2011, p. 13) refers to a definition of
employee engagement by Towers Perrin as the extra
time, brainpower, and the energy that employees put
toward their work that result in discretionary effort.
They state that employee engagement requires a
mutual contract between the organization and its
employees, where organizations have a
responsibility to train their employees and build a
meaningful workplace.
The 2012 Global Workforce study presents a new
and more robust definition of employee engagement
and focus more on the concept of Sustainable
Engagement designed for the 21st-century
workplace. In this regard, sustainable engagement
describes the intensity of employees’ connection to
their organization based on three core elements
(Towerswatson, 2012):
ƇThe extent of employees’ discretionary effort
committed to achieving work goals (being
engaged);
ƇAn environment that supports productivity in
multiple ways (being enabled); and
ƇA work experience that promotes well-being
(feeling energized).
Drawing on the various definitions of employee
engagement discussed above, it is apparent that an
important thread runs through all the definitions
described above, this being the extent of employee
discretionary effort to his/her work.
2. Problem statement
Interest in this study revolved around the notable
gap that exists regarding a validated model of
employee engagement. Popular as the topic may
seem, research regarding employee engagement thus
far has revealed that there are models supporting the
importance of employee engagement, however there
remains a shortage of research regarding a practical
and theoretical model to measure engagement.
The Corporate Leadership Council’s model of
engagement as presented by the Corporate
Executive Board (2004, p. 5) defines engagement as
the extent to which employees commit to something
or someone in their organization, how hard they
work, and how long they stay as a result of that
commitment and is an outcome-focused model of
engagement.
A conceptual model of employee engagement,
presented by Shuck et al. (2011, p. 429), reveals that
three variables, namely job fit, affective commitment,
and psychological climate, are suggested to influence
the development of employee engagement.
The research surrounding employee engagement up
to now proves informative but has focused mainly
on how organizations engage their employees.
To summarize it can be concluded that there is little
consideration of what can be done to measure
employee engagement and therefore remains a
notable gap in literature regarding what organizations
can do to measure engagement. This research thus
aims to present a validated theoretical model to
measure employee engagement in South Africa.
3. Objectives
The aim of this study is to develop a model to
measure employee engagement drawing on the
commonalities of the various definitions of
employee engagement by identifying and examining
employee engagement drivers through literature,
identifying the measuring criteria of the employee
engagement drivers and to present a validated model
of employee engagement in South Africa.
The primary objective of this article is to develop a
validated and reliable model to measure employee
engagement.
The secondary objectives are to:
Ƈdevelop a theoretical model by identifying
employee engagement constructs from the
literature;
Ƈidentify the measuring criteria of these
constructs are identified from the literature
Ƈvalidate the variables that measure each of the
employee engagement constructs;
Ƈassess the sampling adequacy of each of the
variables;
Ƈtest the applicability of the data for multivariate
statistical analysis (such as an exploratory factor
analysis);
Ƈdetermine the importance of each of the
employee engagement constructs;

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 12, Issue 4, 2014
522
Ƈtest the reliability of each of the business
success influences in the model; and to
Ƈpresent an adapted model that can be used to
measure employee engagement.
4. Literature review
A total of 11 employee engagement constructs have
been identified from the literature study. These
constructs are discussed below.
Table 1. Employee engagement constructs
Construct Researchers
1 Cognitive drivers
Shuck & Reio (2013), Mone & London (2011), Gallup (2011), Brown & Leigh (1996 in Shuck & Reio, 2013,
p. 3), Fredrickson (1998; 2001 as cited by Shuck & Reio, 2013, p. 4), Khan (2010 in Shuck & Reio, 2013,
p. 4), Collins, (2014), TBS (2011)
2 Emotional engagement Shuck & Reio (2013), Hughes & Rog (2008), Gallup (2011)
3 Behavioral engagement Shuck & Reio (2013), Johnson (2011), Shuck et al. (2011), Parkes (2011), Varnce (2006), Shroeder-
Saulnier (2014), Vance (2006)
4 Feeling valued and involved Johnson (2011), Shuck et al. (2011), Gallup (2011), Konrad (2006), Robinson et al. (2004)
5 Having an engaged leadership team Johnson (2011), Mone & London (2009), Kanaka (2012), Gallup (2011), Brunone (2013), Hewitt (2013),
Crim & Seijts (2006), Mone et al. (2011)
6 Trust and integrity Hughes & Rog (2008), Mone & London (2009), Gallup (2011), Covey (2009), Mone et al. (2011), Schroeder-
Saulnier (2010)
7 Nature of my job Hughes & Rog (2008), Kanaka (2012), Gallup (2011), Custominsight (2013)
8The connection between individual and
company performance Hughes & Rog (2008), Kanaka (2012), Mone & London (2009), Gallup (2011)
9 Career growth opportunities Hughes & Rog (2008), Mone & London (2009), Kanaka (2012), Gallup (2011)
10 Stress free environment Kanaka (2012),
A
veta Business Institute (2014)
11 Change management Kanaka (2012), (Dicke et al., 2007), Vance (2006)
4.1. Cognitive drivers. The levels of cognitive
engagement originate from an employee’s appraisal
of whether their work is meaningful, safe
(physically, emotionally, and psychologically), and
if they have sufficient levels of resources to
complete their work (Shuck & Reio, 2013, p. 4). In
this regard, Shuck & Reio (2013, pp. 3-5) lists
research (Brown & Leigh, 1996, Fredrickson, 1998;
2001 & Khan, 2010) that suggest that this
psychological interpretation of work reflects:
Ƈa level of engagement, or movement, toward
their work;
Ƈparalleling the broadening of resources as
proposed by; and that
Ƈthose who believe their work matters embrace
and engage it.
On the other hand, employees who experience
negative work circumstances (such as a negative
workplace climate or organizational culture) develop a
downward spiral of emotions resulting in a narrowing
of resources that end in feelings of loneliness,
ostracism, and burnout (Shuck and Reio; 2013, p. 5).
A negative work environment as highlighted by
Murphey (2013) will make all workers feel irritable,
anxious and defensive. This can lead to poor
productivity, a lack of motivation and morale and poor
communication.
To understand what is a negative work environment
it is important to understand what is a positive work
environment. A positive workplace environment is
filled with employees who believe they have a
purpose at their jobs, they are making a difference,
adding to the growth of the company or simply
being a valuable part of the team. A negative
environment lacks this feeling – the employees will
feel they are performing work that does not serve a
purpose. Without a sense of purpose, the motivation
to complete responsibilities with pride and
enthusiasm is hard to come by. (Murphey 2013, p. 1
in Collins, 2014)
Shuck and Reio (2013, p. 5) reasons that cognitive
engagement revolves around how employees
appraise their workplace climate, as well as the
tasks they are involved in. As an employee makes
an appraisal, they determine levels of positive or
negative affect, which in turn influences behavior.
Their study indicates that cognitively engaged
employees would answer positively to questions
such as “the work I do makes a contribution to the
organization”, “I feel safe at work”, no one will
make fun of me here”, and “I have the resources to
do my job at the level expected of me”.
In a study conducted by Shuck et al. (2011, p. 427)
employee engagement is defined as ‘an individual
employee’s cognitive, emotional and behavioral
state directed toward desired organizational
outcomes’. The study proposed that employees who
worked in jobs where the demands of a job were
congruent with interests and values (job fit) feel as
if they emotionally identify with their place of work
and would be more likely to be engaged.
Job fit is defined as the degree to which a person
feels their personality and values fit with their
current job. Researchers who study job fit suggest
that good fit provides opportunities for employees to
be involved in individually meaningful work that

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 12, Issue 4, 2014
523
affects the development of work-related attitudes.
Additionally, good fit provides the cognitive
stimulus for employees to engage in behavior
directed toward positive organizational outcomes.
For example, an employee with high levels of job fit
might agree that demands of his or her job allow
them to work within a level of emotional and
physical comfort and that his or her personal values
match those of the job role, conceptually resulting in
higher performance, discretionary effort and higher
levels of job satisfaction (TBS, 2011).
Notwithstanding, employees who experience good
fit derive a degree of meaningfulness from their
work, resulting in employees who have the
emotional and physical resources to complete their
work. Employees who experience job fit within their
work roles are more likely to perform their jobs with
enthusiasm and energy.
4.2. Emotional engagement. Emotional engagement
as identified by Shuck and Reio (2013, p. 5) revolves
around the broadening and investment of the
emotional resources employees have within their
influence. When employees are emotionally engaged
with their work, they invest personal resources such
as pride, trust, and knowledge. The investment of
such resources may seem trivial at first glance;
however, consider the work of prideful employees
who fully trust their work environment. The positive
emotions of pride and trust stem from appraisals
made about the environment during the previous
stage (such as cognitive engagement, this work is
meaningful, it is safe for me here at work, and I have
the resources to complete my tasks). Crabb (2011,
p. 31) states that the driver ‘Managing emotions’
relates to intrapersonal intelligence: the ability to be
self-aware, acknowledge and understand our own
thoughts, feelings and emotions. He goes on to say
that an individual must be able to fully focus on the
tasks that they are undertaking, rather than be
distracted by negative or irrelevant thoughts, if they
are to develop the right mindset for engagement.
Accordingly, these feelings of positive emotion
momentarily broaden an employee’s available
resources and enhance critical and creative thinking
processes often displayed during moments of
engagement. During the emotional engagement
process, feelings and beliefs an employee holds
influence and direct outward energies toward task
completion. Employees who are emotionally
engaged in their work answer affirmatively to
questions such as “I feel a strong sense of belonging
and identity with my organization” and “I am proud
to work here.” (Shuck and Reio, 2013, p. 5)
Hughes and Rog (2008, p. 749) conclude that
emotional drivers such as one’s relationship with
one’s manager and pride in one’s work had four
times greater impact on discretionary work effort
than did the rational drivers, such as pay and
benefits. Ensuring these drivers are present in the
organization has profound implications for HRM
policies and practices with respect to anyone who is
in a supervisory capacity.
As mentioned above, in a study conducted by Shuck
et al. (2011, p. 427), it may follow that an employee
who has job fit feels emotionally identified with the
place of work and would be more likely to be
engaged. This is referred to affective commitment.
Affective commitment was defined as a sense of
belonging and emotional connection with one’s job,
organization, or both (Shuck et al., 2011, p. 430).
More than any other type of commitment, affective
commitment emphasizes the emotional connection
employees have with their work and closely
parallels the emotive qualities of engagement,
including such conditions as meaningfulness and
safety, directly paralleling to seminal work by
Kahn’s (1990) conditions of engagement. Such
emotive qualities can stimulate employees to
willingly engage in behavior directed toward desired
organizational outcomes, emphasizing the emotional
fulfillment employees experience as a result of
being engaged. Emotional fulfillment is an
important component of being engaged in work and
in indicative of an engaged employee (Shuck et al.,
2011, p. 430).
4.3. Behavioral engagement. Shuck and Reio
(2013, p. 5) reason that behavioral engagement is
the most overt form of the employee engagement
process. It is often what we can see someone does.
Understood as the physical manifestation of the
cognitive and emotional engagement combination,
behavioral engagement can be understood as
increased levels of effort directed toward
organizational goals. Resultantly, behavioral
engagement can be described as the broadening of
an employee’s available resources displayed overtly.
Related to this is the “intention to turnover” as
identified as an organizational outcome associated
with the degree of employee engagement from a
study conducted by Shuck et al. (2011, p. 431). It is
referred to as an employees’ intention to engage in a
certain type of behavior, which is a powerful
predictor of that employee’s future behavior.
From this context, employee’s effort in the context
of engagement is linked to increased individual
effort. While engagement occurs one employee at a
time and is experienced uniquely through the lens of
each employee. Employees who are behaviorally
engaged answer positively to questions such as
“When I work, I really push myself beyond what is

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 12, Issue 4, 2014
524
expected of me” and “I work harder than is expected
to help my organization be successful” (Shuck &
Reio; 2013, p. 5).
As noted by Johnson (2011, p. 14) a challenge is
that engagement is derived based on how employees
feel about their work experiences. Fundamentally,
engagement is about whether an employee desires to
put forth discretionary effort. Johnson continues and
states that engaged employees exhibit the following
clear behaviors:
ƇBelief in the organization – refers to ‘sharing the
DNA’ where employees demonstrate an
extremely strong belief in the purpose, values and
work of the organization (Parkes, 2011, p. 5).
ƇDesire to improve their work – an engaged
employee is willing to put forth discretionary
effort in their work in the form of time,
brainpower and energy, above and beyond what
is considered adequate (Varnce, 2006).
ƇAn understanding of the business strategy – an
organization is aligned when all have a
commonality of purpose, a shared vision, and an
understanding of how their personal roles support
the overall strategy (Shroeder-Saulnier, 2014).
ƇThe ability to collaborate with and assist
colleagues (Sorenson, 2013, p. 1). In addition,
Harter (2013) states that: “If you're engaged,
you know what’s expected of you at work, you
feel connected to people you work with, and
you want to be there” and “You feel a part of
something significant, so you’re more likely to
want to be part of a solution, to be part of a
bigger tribe. All that has positive performance
consequences for teams and organizations”.
ƇThe willingness to demonstrate extra effort in
their work. An employee’s willingness to engage
in discretionary effort, defined as an employee’s
willingness to go above minimal job respon-
sibilities, indicates an intention to act that results
in behavior. Effort has been linked to
productivity and profit generation and is
increasingly used as leverage for HRD
interventions. Increased effort is widely believed
to be a behavioral outcome of engagement
(Shuck et al., 2011, p. 431).
ƇThe drive to continually enhance their skill set
and knowledge base – through training you help
new and current employees acquire the
knowledge and skills they need to perform their
jobs. Employees who enhance their skills
through training are more likely to engage fully
in their work, because they derive a satisfaction
from mastering new tasks (Vance, 2006, p. 13).
In summary, it is concluded that engaged employees
are those who are willing to put forth discretionary
effort in order to ensure the organization is successful.
4.4. Feeling valued and involved. Konrad (2006,
p. 1) suggests that high-involvement work practices
can develop the positive beliefs and attitudes
associated with employee engagement, and that
these practices can generate the kinds of
discretionary behaviors that lead to enhanced
performance. High involvement work practices that
provide employees with the power to make
workplace decisions, training to build their
knowledge and skills in order to make and
implement decisions effectively, information about
how their actions affect business unit performance,
and rewards for their efforts to improve
performance, can result in a win-win situation for
employees and managers.
IES research suggests that if we accept that
engagement, as many believe, is ‘one step up’ from
commitment, it is clearly in the organizations
interests to understand the drivers of engagement.
The strongest driver of all identified in their
research is a sense of feeling valued and involved
(Robinson et al., 2004, p. 1).
This view is supported by Johnson (2011, p. 15)
who states that this driver ‘feeling valued and
involved’ is the strongest driver and organizations
need to understand the voice of the employee and be
aware of employees’ needs, issues, and values.
According to Johnson (2011, p. 15) this is the
strongest driver. Organizations need to understand
the voice of the employee and be aware of
employees’ needs, issues, and values. Johnson (2011,
p. 15) in support of Robinson et al. (2004, p. 1)
identifies several key components, that contribute to
feeling valued and involved, including involvement
in decision making, ability to voice idea. Managers
listen to these views and value employees’
contributions, opportunities employees have to
develop their jobs, and the extent to which the
organization demonstrates care for its employees’
health and well-being.
The line manager clearly has a very important role
in fostering employees’ sense of involvement and
value – an observation that is completely consistent
with IES research (Robinson et al., 2004, p. 1).
4.5. Engaged leadership team. Effective leadership
is engagement. Having leaders who can help
cascade the vision and inspire others to exceptional
performance is an equally important part of making
engagement flourish in your team, your department,
and your company (Brunone, 2013, p. 1).
Hewitt’s (2011) analysis of companies with strong
financial results shows that one distinguishing
feature is the quality of their senior management. In
particular, we see that senior managers’ levels of
engagement are high and their ability to engage

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 12, Issue 4, 2014
525
others in the organization, particularly those in
middle management, is strong. And it does not stop
there: engaged managers are more likely to build
engaged teams. In short, engagement starts at top,
and without engaged senior leadership, companies
will not be able to engage the hearts and minds of
their employees.
With respect to leadership communication it is
important to be frequent and forthright, answering
the questions employees are asking. Even if the
response is “We don’t know”, employees appreciate
that their concerns are being heard. Apart from
communication as an important element in building
the perception of leader effectiveness there are other
leadership behaviors that influence employee
engagement. Leaders must show that they value
employees. Employee-focused initiatives such as
profit sharing and implementing work-life balance
initiatives are important. Employee engagement is a
direct reflection of how employees feel about their
relationship with the boss. Employees look at
whether organizations and their leader walk the talk
when they proclaim that, “Our employees are our
most valuable asset” (Crim & Seijts, 2006, p. 1).
This means that leaders:
1. Come across as more connected with employees
meaning that they:
ƇEffectively communicate the organization’s
goals and objectives;
ƇConsistently demonstrate the organization’s
values in all behaviors and actions;
ƇAppropriately balance employee interests with
those of the organization; and
ƇFill employees with excitement for the future of
the organization.
2. Are performance focused that entails:
ƇEffectively communicate the organization’s
goals and objectives;
ƇEmpower managers and employees and instill a
culture of accountability; and
ƇSet aggressive goals at all levels of the
organization.
3. Are future and development oriented and focus to:
ƇCommunicate the importance of spending time
on feedback and provide performance coaching;
ƇFill employees with excitement about the future
of the organization;
ƇEffectively communicate the skills/capa-bilities
employees must develop for future success; and
ƇInvest in long-term growth opportunities, even
during difficult times.
Mone et al. (2011, p. 207) state that managers drive
engagement when they provide ongoing feedback
and recognition to direct and improve performance
and have career-planning discussions with their
employees. This supports the theory leadership
behaviors identified by (Crim & Seijts, 2006, p. 1)
but adds that the leaders additionally influence
employee engagement.
While managers play a role in the day-to-day work
experience of their direct reports, the importance of
effective senior leadership on employee engagement
cannot be underestimated. When senior leaders are
themselves engaged, they are more likely to
positively affect the engagement of other staff.
When these senior leaders communicate frequently
and honestly, clearly charting the course for the
organization and letting employees know what is
required of them to help make the business
successful, employee engagement increases. And
when leaders actively endorse initiatives that drive
engagement, the effect is multiplied.
Employees also will stay longer and contribute more
to organizations where they have good relationships
and open dialogue with their immediate supervisors
(Johnson, 2011, p. 5).
4.6. Trust and integrity. The first job of any leader
is to inspire trust. Trust is confidence born of two
dimensions: character and competence. Character
includes your integrity, motive, and intent with
people (Covey, 2009, p. 1). Hughes and Rog (2006,
p. 749) define trust and integrity as the extent to
which the organization’s leadership is perceived to
care about employees, listens and responds to their
opinions, is trustworthy, and “walks the talk”. Mone
et al. (2011) found that having a manager employees
can trust is a primary driver of engagement.
According to Schroeder-Saulnier (2010, p. 3)
building trust through effective communications is
absolutely essential. Employees need to trust that
their leaders have the capability to make the
organization successful. To win that trust, leaders
must show that they have a plan, articulate that plan
clearly to employees, and demonstrate that that plan
is being implemented effectively. Trust is a two-way
street. Leaders must also show that they, in turn,
trust employees to help drive organizational success.
They must make employees valued partners in a
common enterprise. Employees want not only to
know what the bigger picture is, but also to feel that
they are a part of that picture.
4.7. Nature of my job. This driver, “nature of my
job” according to Hughes and Rog (2008, p. 749) is
defined as the extent of employee participation and
autonomy. Encouraging employee accountability is
key thing. (Kanaka, 2012, p. 65). Advocating the
thought of accountability ensures that people are
trusted with a job, the responsibility that comes with
the job and are expected to complete the job in
stipulated time intervals.

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 12, Issue 4, 2014
526
Research from custom insight (Custominsight, 2013)
indicates that the way to drive engagement to the
highest levels, is by empowering employees and by
making sure that all employees are held accountable
for achieving results. Moreover, these areas are
important for attracting, retaining, and motivating the
most talented employees. People who value
empowerment and accountability will be discouraged
in companies that do not promote and support these
things. By contrast, poor performers might enjoy the
safe haven of a company that does not demand
accountability. These are employees who might have
high levels of “satisfaction”, but they are likely to be
adding little or no value, and even worse,
discouraging the talented people around them.
Kanaka (2012, p. 65) goes on to say that encouraging
employee participation by encouraging employees to
participate in decision making and other
organizational tasks is an important facet every
organization needs to build. Employee participation
ensures a high degree of connectivity to the
organization and this connectivity is employee
engagement.
4.8. Connection between individual and company
performance. The engagement driver “Connection
between individual and company performance” is the
extent to which employees understand the company’s
objectives, current levels of performance, and how
best to contribute to them. (Hughes & Rog, 2008,
p. 749). Goal setting, of course, is a critical
component of performance management and research
from Mone and London (2009), who suggest that
when managers and employees set goals
collaboratively, employees become more engaged.
Kanaka (2012, p. 65) states that top management
needs to allow free flow of information, such as
industry updates, sectoral updates, quality issues,
and compliances, and employee development
updates to ensure that employee engagement is a
driver of success.
Gallup’s research (2011, p. 3) shows that many
great work places have defined the right outcomes;
they set goals for their work groups or work with
them to set their own goals. They do not just define
the job but define success on the job.
Gallup’s (2011, pp. 3-4) research also indicates that
effective workplaces provide constant clarification
of the overall mission of the organization, as well as
the ways in which each individual team member
contributes to the achievement of the mission. As
human beings we like to feel as though we belong.
Individual achievement is great, but we are likely to
stay committed longer if we feel we are part of
something bigger than ourselves.
Research by Crabb (2011, p. 32) refers to how well
the individual’s values align to the work that they do
and the values and the culture of the organization.
This is referred to as “Aligning Purpose”.
It may be concluded that where employee’s values
are aligned to the organization’s values, individual
and organizational benefits are achieved that will
ultimately lead to enhanced business performance,
employee commitment and a competitive advantage
for the organization.
4.9. Career growth opportunities. Career Growth
Opportunities refer to the extent to which employees
have opportunities for career growth and promotion
or have a clearly defined career path (Hughes &
Rog, 2008, p. 749). In keeping with this definition,
Mone and London (2009) also found that a director
predictor of employee engagement is the extent to
which employees are satisfied with their
opportunities for career progression and promotion
suggesting that employees will feel more engaged if
managers provide challenging and meaningful work
with opportunities for career advancement. Their
research also found that when managers provide
sufficient opportunities for training and support
regarding career development efforts, they help
foster employee development and drive employee
engagement.
Gallup (2011, p. 14) also indicates that great
workplaces are those in which work groups are
provided with educational opportunities that address
their development which may include formal classes
or simply finding new experiences for them to take
on. This research also defines “opportunities” as
training classes and seminars for some and for
others this might mean promotions and increased
responsibilities whilst for others this might mean
working on special projects and assignments.
4.10. Stress-free environment. A stress free
environment as identified by Kanaka (2012, p. 65)
means that employees put their best efforts (see
section 4.3) they can innovate and be creative
ensuring optimum output. Most people have found
out that when they work in a fun and relaxing
atmosphere, they can be more relaxed which means
they can be more successful. They can share their
personal ideas and experiences and in a healthy
working environment, it should be encouraged. All
employees should feel valued and appreciated. You
can start fun team-building experiences to get things
started. Commitment and involvement are also very
important factors that contribute to the success
factors of businesses and engagement within the
workplace. Lots of research studies have proved that
people will stay with a company longer if they feel
involved and needed. No one wants to work in a

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 12, Issue 4, 2014
527
stressful and rude environment. Everyone’s opinions
should be listened to and considered by others. This
will lead to a decreased rate of employee turnover,
which is definitely a goal for any business (Aveta
Business Institute, 2014).
Everyone expects a stress free environment at
workplace and tends to leave only when there are
constant disputes. No one likes to carry tensions
back home. An engaged employee does not get time
to participate in unproductive tasks instead finishes
his assignments on time and benefits the
organization.
4.11. Change management. As stated in a white
paper on Employee engagement and change
management (Dicke et al., 2007, p. 50) “The greater
an employee’s engagement, the more likely he or she
is to ‘go the extra mile’ and deliver excellent on-the-
job performance.” Therefore, if employees are
engaged during a change management initiative they
are likely to have increased “buy-in” and better
performance thus, supporting business success. The
Paper goes on to state that employee engagement is
listed as a primary function to the success of properly
implementing a change management initiative and
due to employee engagement’s close relationship to
organizational commitment, understanding organiza-
tional commitment’s relationship to change manage-
ment may provide some valuable insight.
Vance (2006, p. 1) indicates that employees who are
engaged in their work and committed to their
organizations give companies crucial competitive
advantages – including higher productivity and lower
employee turnover. Thus, it is not surprising that
organizations of all sizes and types have invested
substantially in policies and practices that foster
engagement and commitment in their workforces.
Dramatic changes in the global economy over the
past 25 years have had significant implications for
commitment and reciprocity between employers and
employees – and thus for employee engagement.
For example, increasing global competition, scarce
and costly resources, high labor costs, consumer
demands for ever-higher quality and investor
pressures for greater returns on equity have
prompted organizations to restructure themselves.
At some companies, restructuring means reductions
in staff and in layers of management.
This then relates to the white paper (Dicke et al.,
2007, p. 50) which stated that if employees are
engaged during a change management initiative they
are likely to have increased “buy-in” and better
performance thus, supporting business success.”
4.12. Theoretical model of employee engagement.
Based on the theoretical study and the identified
constructs (as per Table 1) the theoretical model of
employee engagement is presented in Figure 1.
Fig. 1. A theoretical model to measure employee engagement
5. Research methodology
5.1. Sampling procedure. The sample for this study
was drawn from two fully accredited private
business schools in KwaZulu-Natal and consists of
employees or managers in the databases of these
institutions and was restricted to 300 respondents.
More specifically, the population consists of part-
time students enrolled on a Master of Business

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 12, Issue 4, 2014
528
Administration (MBA) degree or post-graduate
business courses. The students are in full time
employment. The rationale behind the selection of
this sample is the high exposure of the respondent at
a managerial level. Since MBA students may be
viewed as the future leaders of the economy of our
country their perceptions may be deemed very
influential and informed due to their strong work
experience and educational background.
5.2. Questionnaire development. A questionnaire
were developed from the literature study and
selected employees to indicate the importance of the
11 employee engagement constructs by answering
94 measuring criteria in relation to MI and business
success. The questionnaire employed a 5-point
Likert scale to indicate the perceptions of the
respondents’ employee engagement. Although the
11 constructs depict specific components of
employee engagement, the synergetic effect when
they are interpreted together, provides a coherent
picture.
5.3. Data collection. The data collected for this
study was through a survey which according to
Shajahan (2009, p. 45) is the method of collecting
information by asking a set of formulated questions
in a predetermined sequence in a structured
questionnaire to a sample of individuals drawn so as
to be representative of a defined population.
A total of 300 questionnaires were administered
independently by the researcher to respondents for
completion at the beginning of MBA workshops at
Business Schools in KwaZulu-Natal. In order to
ensure a high response rate, respondents were
requested to complete the questionnaire at the
beginning of the workshops where the researcher
herself explained the importance and relevance of
the study before waiting for questionnaires to be
completed. A total of 260 questionnaires were
completed and 18 questionnaires were incomplete
resulting in a non-response of 22 questionnaires.
This resulted in a total response rate of 86.6%.
5.4. Data analysis. The Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences Incorporated (SPSS) Version 22
was used to analyze the data statistically. Similar
research by Chummun (2012) successfully
employed the following statistical procedures and
decision criteria:
ƇExploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Due to its
exploratory nature, factor loadings of 0.4 and
higher were considered to validate the items that
measure each of the MI’s business success
influences (Field, 2007, p. 668) (Objective 3).
ƇThe Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of
sampling adequacy was utilized to ensure that
the sample used is adequate. Field (2007,
p. 735) suggests that a KMO value of 0.6 should
be the minimum acceptable value if exploratory
factor analysis is considered (Matlab, 2010 in
Chummun, 2012). These values are regarded to
be mediocre, while more favorable values are
between 0.7 and 0.8. Values between 0.8 and
0.9 are very favorable while ultimately, values
above 0.9 are superb) (Objective 4).
ƇBartlett’s test of sphericity was used to
determine if the data are suitable to employ
multivariate statistical analysis. This study
follows advice by Field (2007, p. 724) and sets a
maximum value of 0.005. Values below 0.005
signify that the data are indeed suitable for
multivariate statistical analysis, in this case
exploratory factor analysis (Objective 5).
ƇThe variance explained by the factor analysis
serves as indicator to determine the importance
of each of the constructs to measure employee
engagement (Objective 6). Field (2007)
indicated that a variance of 60% and higher is
regarded to be a good fit to the data. This study
aims to achieve a good fit to the data, thus
aiming to achieve 60% of variance per factor.
ƇThe reliability of the employee engagement
constructs is measured with the Cronbach alpha
coefficient. Satisfactory reliability coefficients
exceed 0.70 (Field 2007, p. 668). However, a
secondary lower reliability coefficient was set at
0.58 because, according to Cortina (1993) in
Field (2007, p. 668) confirmed in his research
that when ratio and interval scales are used
(such as the Likert scale used in this
questionnaire) it does warrant a lower reliability
coefficient (Objective 7).
5.5. Statistical validation. Each employee
engagement construct is validated by calculating the
KMO values, Bartlett’s tests of shericity, the
variance explained by the specific construct in the
factor analysis and the reliability of the specific
construct. In addition, measuring criteria with factor
loadings below 0.40 are omitted from the analysis
while strong dual loading criteria are also omitted
because of their dualistic nature (Fields, 2013). This
method also determined if all the measuring criteria
loads as one factor, meaning that the criteria
measure the specific construct as one construct. In
cases where more than one factors is identified, the
sub-factors are identified and labelled as individual
sub-factors of the specific employee engagement
construct (Fields, 2013).

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 12, Issue 4, 2014
529
6. Results
The results pertaining to each of the employee
engagement constructs are discussed below. The
statistical results are summarized in Table 2.
6.1. Cognitive drivers. Only one factor was identified
by the factor analysis. The analysis further showed that
Question 3 (No one will make fun of me) does not
contribute to measuring the construct because it has a
low factor loading (Below 0.40). As a result, this
question was omitted from the analysis. All the other
questions loaded onto the factor, signifying their
validity in measuring this factor. The KMO and
Bartlett test returned favorable values while the
variance explained is satisfactory at 64.2%. The factor
has a satisfactory reliability coefficient of 0.80.
Table 2. KMO, Bartlett’s test, reliability and variance explained
Construct Sub-construct KMO Bartlett Cronbach alpha Var. expl.
Cognitive drivers *** 0.794 0.000 0.838 64.2%
Emotional engagement *** 0.926 0.000 0.944 67.1%
Behavioral engagement Employee perceptions
Employer perceptions 0.900 0.000 0.910
0.373
44.4%
20.7%
Feeling valued and involved *** 0.857 0.000 0.880 63.6%
Having an engaged leadership team *** 0.951 0.000 0.966 71.1%
Trust and Integrity *** 0.937 0.000 0.953 76.1%
Nature of my job Employment enablers
Managerial influences 0.845 0.000 0.846
0.823
34.5%
34.4%
Connection between individual and
company performance *** 0.878 0.000 0.926 66.3%
Career growth opportunities *** 0.936 0.000 0.949 71.4%
Stress-free environment *** 0.814 0.000 0.944 81.2%
Change management *** 0.880 0.000 0.960 71.3%
Note: * Unreliable (Į < 0.70); *** No sub-factors identified.
6.2. Emotional engagement. The analysis of the
construct dealing with emotional engagement
showed that two statements could be omitted from
the analysis since they both had low factor loadings
(below 0.40). These questions were 11 (I take pride
in my work) and 14 (I have the best friend at work).
All the remaining questions loaded onto the factor,
signifying their validity in measuring this factor.
The KMO and Bartlett test showed very satisfactory
values, and the factor explained a high 67% of the
variance. In addition, the factor is deemed very
reliable with an alpha coefficient of 0.944.
6.3. Behavioral engagement. The construct
behavioral engagement consists of two sub-factors.
The analysis revealed that none of the questions
could be omitted from the analysis. The two sub-
constructs are Employee perceptions (explain 44.4%
of the variance) and Employer perceptions
(explaining 20.7% of the variance). However, it is
noteworthy that Employer perceptions is not a
reliable factor (Į = 0.373). The KMO and Bartlett test
returned very acceptable values. None of the
questions were discarded because they all loaded
onto the two sub-factors, signifying their validity in
measuring these factors.
6.4. Feeling valued and involved. All items for the
construct Feeling valued and involved loaded under
one construct, which explained 63% of the overall
variance. The KMO test returned an excellent value
above 0.8 thereby indicating the sample is adequate.
The Bartlett test supported the selection of factor
analysis as analytical tool. This factor is regarded to
be reliable with an alpha coefficient of 0.880. The
analysis shows that one factor is prevalent, and that
all the questions are valid in measuring this factor.
6.5. Engaged leadership team. The factor analysis
revealed a single factor labeled Engaged leadership
team. The KMO and Bartlett tests returned
satisfactory values whilst it is worth noting the
factor is deemed to be reliable with an alpha
coefficient of 0.880. This factor explains variance of
63.6%. All the questions loaded onto the factor,
signifying their validity in measuring this factor.
6.6. Trust and integrity. Only one factor was
identified by the factor analysis. The factor is
labeled Trust and integrity. Favorable values were
returned from the KMO and Bartlett tests, indicating
the sample was adequate and data was suitable to be
employed in multivariate statistical analysis. The
factor explained a high variance of 76.1%. In
addition, the factor also returned a high Cronbach
alpha coefficient of 0.937, signifying high
reliability. All the questions loaded onto the factor,
signifying their validity in measuring this factor.
6.7. Nature of my job. Similar to the construct
Behavioral engagement, the construct Nature of my
job consists of two sub-factors namely Employment

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 12, Issue 4, 2014
530
enablers and Managerial influences. The sub-factor
Employment enablers explain 34.5% of the variance
and the sub-factor Managerial influences explain
34.4% of the variance, signifying that they are both
of equal importance to explain the construct Nature
of my job. Both sub-constructs are also deemed
reliable with Cronbach alpha coefficients of 0.846
and 0.823 for Employment enablers and Managerial
influences, respectively. Both the KMO and Bartlett
tests returned acceptable values. All the questions
loaded onto either one of the factors, signifying their
validity in measuring these factors.
6.8. Connection between individual and company
performance. One factor was extracted for the
construct Connection between individual and
company performance. The variance explained is
66.3%, and the factor has a high reliability coefficient
of 0.926. The KMO test returned an excellent value
of 0.878 while the Bartlett test revealed the data is
indeed suitable for multivariate statistical analysis.
All the questions loaded onto the factor, signifying
their validity in measuring this factor.
6.9. Carer growth opportunities. All the questions
loaded onto the construct Career growth
opportunities, signifying their validity in measuring
this factor. The factor explained a variance of
71.4%, indicating a good fit to the data (Field,
2007). The KMO test revealed an excellent value of
0.936 indicating superb sample adequacy, while the
Bartlett test was significant indicating data was is
suitable to perform a factor analysis. The reliability
of the factor is excellent with a coefficient of 0.949.
6.10. Stress-free environment. The construct Stress-
free environment revealed only one factor. All the
questions loaded onto the factor, signifying their
validity in measuring this factor. The favorable KMO
value of 0.814 indicated an adequate sample while
the Bartlett test was also suitably below the required
0.005. The factor explains a variance of 81.2% which
is regarded to be a very good fit to the data (Field,
2007). This factor is deemed very reliable with an
alpha coefficient of 0.960.
6.11. Change management. The construct Change
management explained a variance of 71.3%. It also
displays a very high reliability with an alpha
coefficient of 0.960. Both the KMO and Bartlett
tests revealed favorable results, and all the questions
loaded onto the factor. Resultantly, these questions
are deemed valid in measuring this factor.
6.12. Discarded measuring criteria. The statistical
process to validate the theoretical model identified a
total of three questions in the questionnaire that
could be omitted from the analysis. These questions
did not load onto a specific factor and had low
factor loadings (below the required 0.40 factor
loading set in this study). These non-relevant criteria
are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Deleted measuring criteria (questions) in
questionnaire
No. Measuring Criteria
3 No one will make fun of me
11 I take pride in my work
14 I have a best friend at work
7. Validated model of employee engagement
Figure 2 shows the validated model to measure
employee engagement. The statistical analysis to
validate the theoretical model shows that the original
theoretical model (see Figure 1) contains more than
just 11 constructs to measure employee engagement.
It also contains sub-constructs that pertain to some of
the constructs. These constructs and sub-constructs
are shown in Figure 2. The reliability of the
constructs and sub-constructs were also determined.
Some of sub-actors did not yielded unsatisfactory
Cronbach Alpha coefficients, meaning that they are
not reliable. In this regard Du Plessis (2010) points
out that these sub-constructs with lower reliability
coefficients are less likely to present themselves in a
repetitive study. Only one sub-construct (Employer
perceptions; Cronbach Alpha = 0.373) falls into the
low reliability category should therefore be
interpreted bearing this constraint in mind (see
Figure 2 in Appendix).
Conclusions
The following conclusions are made from this study:
ƇThe factors returned high cumulative variances
in excess of 60% which is regarded to be good
fit of the data (Chummun, 2012; Shukia, 2004).
ƇThe reliability of the data employed in this
measuring instrument is high (exceeding 0.80
with ease) for all the factors. Only one sub-
factor (Employer perceptions) has low
reliability (0.373). This sets the scene to
continue with the validation of the
questionnaire.
ƇBoth the Bartlett test of Sphericity and the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy returned high values signifying that
the sample was adequate and that the data were
suitable to perform factor analyses.
ƇThe questionnaire used is a valid research tool
and suitable to be used to measure employee
engagement in South Africa.
Summary
The primary objective of this study was to develop a
theoretical model and to validate this model
statistically to measure employee engagement amongst

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 12, Issue 4, 2014
531
managers in South Africa (see Figure 2). The study set
eight secondary objectives to achieve the primary
objective. All of them were reached. This means that
the model also resulted in a validated questionnaire to
measure employee engagement. The questionnaire
was tested and ensured that it is valid for use. The
study can, therefore, continue to measure the employee
engagement of the managers and thereafter make
recommendations to positively influence employee
engagement as managerial tool in business success.
References
1. Aveta Business Institute (2014). Six Sigma certification. Accessed at: www.sixsigmaonline.org. Date of access: 14
June 2014.
2. Brunone, C. (2013). Leadership Development vs. Employee Engagement. Accessed at: http://www.blessingwhite.com/
content/articles/enews/June2013.asp?pid=2. Date of access: 10 May 2013.
3. Chummun, B.Z. (2012). Evaluating business success in the Microinsurance industry of South Africa. (Thesis –
PhD) Potchefstroom: North-West University).
4. Collins, M. (2014). Recruitment & HR Services Group. Accessed at: www.collinsmnicholas.ie/blog/?p==660.
Date of access: 10 May 2013
5. Covey, S.M.R. (2009). How the Best leaders Build Trust. Chicago: Linkage’s Eleventh Annual Best of
Organization Development Summit. Accessed at: http://www.leadershipnow.com/ CoveyOnTrust.html. Date of
access: 17 June 2014.
6. Crabb, S. (2011). The use of coaching principles to foster employee engagement, The Coaching Psychologist, 7
(1), pp. 27-34.
7. Crim, D. & Seijts, G. (2006). What engages employees the most or, the ten Cs of employee engagement, Ivey
Business Journal, Available at: http://iveybusinessjournal.com/ topics/the-workplace/what-engages-employees-
the-most-or-the-ten-cs-of-employee-engagement. Date of access: 17 June 2014.
8. Custominsight (2013). What Drives the Most Engaged Employees? Accessed at: http://www.custominsight.com/
employee-engagement-survey/research-employee-engagement.asp, date of access: 14 June 2014.
9. Dicke, C., Holwerda, J. & Kontakos, A.M. (2007). Employee Engagement. What do we really know? What do we
need to know to take Action? Paris: CAHRS. Available at: http://www.uq.edu.au/vietnampdss/docs/July2011/
EmployeeEngagementFinal.pdf. Date of access: 17 June 2014.
10. Du Plessis, J.L. (2010). NWU Statistical Consultation Services, Potchefstroom, North-West University.
11. Field, A. (2007). Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3rd ed., London, Sage.
12. Fields, Z. (2013). A conceptual framework to measure creativity at tertiary educational level. (Thesis – PhD)
Potchefstroom: North-West University).
13. Gallup (2011). Employee Engagement: What’s your employee ratio? Washington, Gallup.
14. Harter, J. (2013). Chief scientist of workplace management and wellbeing, Washington, Gallup.
15. Hewitt, A.O.N. (2011). The multiplier effect: Insights into how senior leaders drive employee engagement higher.
Accessed at: http://www.aon.com/attachments/thought-leadership/Aon-Hewitt-White-paper_Engagement.pdf
16. Hughes, J.C. & Rog, E. (2008). Talent Management: A strategy for improving employee recruitment, retention and
engagement within hospitality organisations, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20
(7), pp. 743-757.
17. Johnson, M. (2011). Workforce Deviance and the Business Case for Employee Engagement, Journal for Quality
& Participation, 34 (2), pp. 11-16.
18. Kanaka, M.L.G. (2012). Employee Engagement: A corporate boon, 10 ways for effective engagement, Advances
in Management, 5 (2), pp. 64-65.
19. Konrad, A.M. (2006). Engaging employees through high-involvement work practices, Ivey Business Journal,
Accessed at: http://iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/the-workplace/engaging-employees-through-high-involvement-
work-practices. Date of access: 17 June 2014.
20. Mone, E., Eisinger, C., Guggenheim, K., Price, B. & Stine, C. (2011). Performance Management at the Wheel:
Driving Employee Engagement in Organisations, Journal of Business and Psychology, 26 (2), pp. 205-212.
21. Parkes, L. (2011). Employee engagement. Igniting Passion through purpose, participation and progress. (In:
California State University. Accessed at: http://www.fullerton.edu/cice/Documents/2013CEReport.pdf. Date of
Access: 1 Sep 2014).
22. Robinson, D., Perryman, S. & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement, London: Institute for
employment studies. Accessed at: http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/pubs/summary.php?id=408. Date of
access: 17 June 2014.
23. Shroeder-Saulnier, D. (2010). Employee engagement: Drive organisational effectiveness by building trust. Right
Management: A manpower company. Accessed at: http://www.right.com/ thought-leadership/e-newsletter/drive-
organizational-effectiveness-by-building-trust.pdf. Date of access: 17 June 2014.
24. Shuck, B. & Reio, G. (2013). Employee Engagement and well-being: A moderation model and implications for
practice, Journal of Leadership and Organisational Studies, 21 (1), pp. 43-58.
25. Shuck, B., Reio, G. & Rocco, S. (2011). Employee engagement: an examination of antecedent and outcome
variables, Human Resource Development International, 14 (4), pp. 427-445.

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 12, Issue 4, 2014
532
26. Shukia, P. (2004). T-Test and Factor analysis, University of Brighton. Accessed at: http://www.pauravshukla.com/
marketing/research-methods/t-test-factor-analysis.pdf. Date of access: 20 April 2011.
27. Sorenson, S. (2013). Dont Pamper employees-engage them. Accessed at: http://business-journal.
gallup.com/content/163316/don-pamper-employees-engage.aspx. Date of access: 17 June 2014
28. TBS (2011). 2011 Public service employee survey: Focus on employee engagement. Accessed at: http://www.tbs-
sct.gc.ca/pses-saff/2011/engage-mobil-eng.asp Date of access: 10 June 2013.
29. Thayer, S.E. (2008). Psychological climate and its relationship to employee engagement and organisational
citizenship behaviours. Accessed at: http://www.academia.edu/6709919/Employee_Engagement_and_Organi-
zational_Effectiveness_The_Role_of_Organizational_Citizenship_Behavior.
30. The Corporate Executive Board (2004). Driving performance and retention through employee engagement, New
York: The Corporate Leadership Council.
31. Towerswatson (2012). Global Workforce Study: Engagement at risk: driving strong performance in a volatile
global environment. Accessed at: http://www.towerswatson.com/Insights/IC-Types/Survey-Research-Results/
2012/07/2012-Towers-Watson-Global-Workforce-Study Date of access: 10 May 2013.
32. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat See TBS.
33. Vance, R.J. (2006). Employee Engagement and Commitment. New York: SHRM Foundation. Accessed at:
http://www.vancerenz.com/researchimplementation/uploads/1006employeeengagementonlinereport.pdf. Date of
access: 12 June 2014.
Appendix
Fig. 2. Validated model of employee engagement