Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 2016, 6, 516-525
Published Online April 2016 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ajibm
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2016.64047
How to cite this paper: Kazimoto, P. (2016) Employee Engagement and Organizational Performance of Retails Enterprises.
American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 6, 516-525. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2016.64047
Employee Engagement and Organizational
Performance of Retails Enterprises
Paluku Kazimoto
Faculty of Business and Administration, Asia-Pacific International University, Muaklek, Thailand
Received 25 March 2016; accepted 20 April 2016; published 26 April 2016
Copyright © 2016 by author and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract
In many countries, employee’s engagement has emerged as a potential factor for organizational
performance. Many practitioners of human resource management have poorly understood mea-
surement of employee motivation for activities and more precisely its commitment. This study
analyzes factors on employee engagement and performance from selected retailing business en-
terprises in Wobulenzi-Luweero City, Uganda. A questionnaire was administered to 120 selected
respondents, using purposive sampling technique. Measurement was done with the use of de-
scriptive and inferential statistic approaches to consider responses from respondents and make
decision accordingly. The study focused on measuring the employee engagement in relation with
the organizational performance focusing on non-financial factors. The findings show that the de-
gree of retail employee engagement and the level of job satisfaction were very high in retailing
enterprises in Wabulenzi-Luwero city. However, it was observed that in retailing organizations,
employees were found it difficult to make equilibrium of work experience and house life with
their employment. This study shows that despite the association between employee engagement
and job satisfaction, there is no relationship between employee engagement and job assignment,
which is an important key factor for organization performance. The results reveal that job as-
signment is critical for engaging employees to ensure organizations’ longevity and profitability.
Keywords
Employee Engagement, Retail Enterprises, Organizational Performance
1. Introduction
Employee engagement has been perceived as a motivational factor towards organization’s objectives achieve-
ment. The good environment that is offered to the worker enables him to offer the best that the organization
needs for its achievement of goals and objectives [1].
P. Kazimoto
517
Studies indicate that there is no single description regarding engagement of an employee. There is no general
accepted approach to describe the terminology of employee engagement [2]. Employee engagement is characte-
rized by the presence of workers at work place, fulfillment of its responsibility, leadership relationship with
workers and leadership consideration of workers as focal point for organizational performance.
Lumina (2014) argued that employees were engaging in complex transactions that were structured in such a
manner in order to misrepresent the financial performance of the organization. There are many aspects of life
and not only services that characterize employee engagement.
Diversity of organizations intensifies problems of work place that hinder organization performance. Studies
show that individual employee’s problems can be of personal ability to work, supervision issues of leadership
and personal trauma to cope with the workload. Organizations tended to consider financial aspects of employee
to achieve organizational goals. There is potential and opportunity for organization that consider both financial
and non-financial factor for their performance [3]. Regardless the size of the organization and its type, objec-
tives from nonfinancial factors could be benefit to the organizational performance. In Addition, the report indi-
cated that measuring employee engagement could help the organization understand what it needs to build or-
ganization performance.
Managers and other financial workers put their emphasis on financial factors to achieve organization perfor-
mance dealing with earnings and accounting returns, calculating financial benefits from project operations [4].
They put little emphasis on employee engagement and satisfaction, which are nonfinancial factors that are im-
portant to bring long-term organization performance. Hromei [5] indicated that the human related issues were
neglected, while it is now a well known aspect that employees’ satisfaction will translate into a higher financial
performance, through creativity and dedication to the organization’s goals. However, the study concluded that
managers faced problems to enhance organization performance due to lack of knowledge and ability to consider
non financial factors that were based on human capital which was the balance for work environment, organiza-
tion performance for long run goals.
Employee engagement [6] [7] has benefit effect on quality services and its employment contentment. It is
very challenging to choose organization performance measures. Aspired by the above theories, this researcher
investigated and analyzed on the non-financial factors as measurement to find out the association between em-
ployee engagement and organizational performance of retail enterprises in Uganda.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Employee Engagement
Studies show [2] stated that the beginning of an employee engagement is at the fist of his appointment to the or-
ganization’s services. It is a responsibility of leaders to motivate workers commitment and engagement for job
performance [8]. In contrast, other authors [9] stated that engagement is for both managers and workers and are
responsible to achieve organizational goals and objectives.
“Engagement with the Organization measures how engaged employees are with the organization as a whole,
and by extension, how they feel about senior management. This factor has to do with confidence in organizational
leadership as well as trust, fairness, values, and respect-i.e. how people like to be treated by others, both at work
and outside of work” [10].
Two factors were distinguished for employee engagement: “Employee Satisfaction (which is the level of con-
tentment or happiness a person assigns to: a) attributes of their job/position, b) their organization, and c) the
general or overall way they feel about their employment) and Employee Commitment(that implies how the pride
people feel for their organization as well as the degree to which they: a) intend to remain with the organization,
b) desire to serve or to perform at high levels, c) positively recommend their organization to others, and d) strive
to improve the organization’s results) [11].
It was [12] reported that the good time to identify the best-engaged employees is at the time of their recruit-
ment. Employee attitude and enthusiasm to work hard are positive experience that will longer for their good
performance. For some [13] employees are affected by different factors, which need special attention from the
leadership such as employee turnover than focusing only on organization benefits.
Openness behavior has been proved as one of the important elements that motivate employee engagement re-
gardless of their skills and knowledge. Thus management needs to pay more attention on this factor while de-
signing jobs and services for their workers [12]. While for some authors [14] reveal that preparation for respon-
P. Kazimoto
518
sible employees will help organizations to create positive background to advance employee abilities and aptitude
to gain competitive advantage for organizational goals engagement.
Albrecht [15] recommended that organizations should encourage and keep employees well-being, which is
one of the factors that contribute to their performance and commitment to achieve organizational goals. He ar-
gued that when employee provided with open and supportive clear autonomy to his background and career de-
velopment will ensure engagement to his jobs clearly aligned with organizational goals. Others indicated, “The
various drivers of work engagement and the incremental benefits accrued to organizations due to effective
commitment practices are clearly interpreted” [6].
It was proved that “workplace well-being (WWB) has been defined as “a holistic approach to creating high
performance organizations through establishing the right conditions to generate high levels of employee en-
gagement. This approach assumes that achieving high levels of organizational performance depends on em-
ployees who are strongly committed to achieving the goals of the organization, and who show this through their
actions. This behavioural objective is influenced in turn by levels of employee satisfaction, and by supportive,
respectful and healthy work environments. WWB is connected to physical health and wellness but primarily
emphasizes the social and psychological dimensions of three inter-related elements – workplace, workforce, and
the work people do [11].
Providing positive response to employees is another factor that is important to motivate employee engage-
ment and commitment in organization. However, it was revealed in the same study “appropriate rewards and
incentives to reinforce employees’ desired behavior are other promising job resources and that “employee
growth and opportunity for advancement is another significant job resource [16].
“Employers can set themselves up for continued success by focusing on the key Engagement Drivers that
make a positive impact on their workforce and thus keep their employees engaged. The companies that have a
highly engaged workforce have risen to the challenge. They proactively respond to the environment, competi-
tion, and changing workforce needs. They evolve, but stay true to the values that made them successful and are
well positioned for continued success [17].
Andrew & Sofian emphasized that “engagement should be a win-win state of affairs, where vastly engaged
employees will resiliently identify with the success of their organization and win fulfillment from their contribu-
tions. And that knowledge of employee engagement is one of the pioneering work in advocating that employee
engagement should be examined by distinguishing between job engagement and organization engagement” [18].
2.2. Organization Performance
Studies indicated [12] that solution to employee engagement for enterprises performance is to provide employee
with opening to share their ideas and feelings. Also that managers and leaders are to accommodate employees
concerns to maintain organization performance [19].
Employee attitude is a positive factor for their engagement to organization performance. The recognition of
employee attitude is an important element for competition to contribute to organization profitability [13]. Others
reported that employee engagement and organization performance, there is a need to share with them and dem-
onstrate ideas for strategic plan of the organization [19].
The concept of employee attitude described by authors [20] indicated that employee engagement involves
task performance that is based on activity approaches and dispositional of the worker himself. “You can measure
a lot of things that have nothing to do with performance and that don’t help a company implement a system that
allows managers to create change [21]”.
Serenson [21] emphasized, “It’s great when companies try to improve employee engagement and even better
when they measure it. Measurement is the first step companies must take before they can implement meaningful
actions to improve engagement. But if they don’t measure the right things in the right way, those actions won’t
matter and they won’t have a measurable impact on business outcomes or the bottom line. Concentrating on em-
ployee engagement can help companies withstand, and possibly even thrive, in tough economic times”.
Others considered that well performing employees are considered with high motivation and values to ensure
positive outcome in their organization [22]. In addition [23] [24] consideration of well being of employees is an
acknowledgement to his contribution for organization performance. Markos and Sridevi [2], also confirm that
engagement is a double side of sharing information between managers and employees and find out the weak-
nesses of employee that needs attention. Consideration of top management to employees’ satisfaction is a lead
towards organization performance.
P. Kazimoto
519
Evidences show that there is relation between employee engagement and organization performance, whereby,
the better the employee is engaged and committed, the better the performance of the organization. Employee
engagement influence positively the non-attendance, continuation, advancement, facilitate client’s services and
encouragement to staff towards organization performance [1] [25].
Managers and other financial put their emphasis on financial factors to achieve organization performance
dealing with earnings and accounting returns, calculating financial benefits from project operations. They put
little emphasis on employee engagement and satisfaction, which are nonfinancial factors that are important to
bring long-term organization performance [4]. Hromei [5] indicated that the human related issues were neg-
lected, while it is now a well known aspect that employees’ satisfaction will translate into a higher financial
performance, through their creativity and dedication the organization’s goals. However, the study concluded that
managers face problems to enhance organization performance due to lack of knowledge and ability to consider
non financial factors that are based on human capital which is the balance for work environment, organization
performance for long run goals.
Researchers reveal that there is no particular best way of organization performance appropriate to all em-
ployee situations. In order to be efficient, the implementation of internal organization decisions should connect
with the demands of external environment and people needs [26]. “The good news is that many organizations
are making a start through a variety of innovative management approaches. Staffing and benefits solutions are
being used to address employee attraction and retention. Better knowledge management systems are being
created to stem the exodus of information. Training and development is gearing up to build new skills and
knowledge. Marketing and branding are being used to build a positive image, and so on. All of this is needed.
But none of this is going to be enough if employees do not see public organizations as good, satisfying places
that they want to join, stay with, and contribute to in ways that help achieve organizational goals [11].
On the other hand others argued that there have been “ a growing recognition of the role that employees ac-
tively play in shaping and influencing their environment and with a proactive personalities that are most likely to
craft their own jobs, by mobilizing their own resources and setting their own challenges to work on their own
engagement in turn to predict other ratings of organization’s performance” [27]. Giving workers a fair degree of
responsibility enhance their senses of creativity to organizational problems; that could result from formal recog-
nition programs put in place to reward top performers with considerable amount of autonomy, where many de-
cisions could be made on the individual team level versus at headquarters [28].
Many studies reveal that mediation between employee and manager is one of the key factors to improve or-
ganization performance. Par example, in the UK [29] “both mutual gains (positive mediation) and counteracting
(inconsistent mediation) theses are relevant for understanding the impact of involvement-centered Human Re-
source Management on job satisfaction and organizational performance” [30].
Employee engagement is another factor proved to be attached to organizational performance outcomes. With
dedication and happiness, employees at their workplace ensure that their organization attain a remarkable and
visible competitive advantage. Workers with higher engagement to their organizations increase their retention
and reduce staff turnover and absenteeism. Further, organization result will be accountable on productivity, cus-
tomer satisfaction, saving costs, and profitability level will increase [14].
However, it was found that “measuring employee satisfaction and making changes to increase employee sa-
tisfaction will not necessarily lead to increased performance. In fact, the conditions that make many employees
"satisfied" with their jobs are likely to frustrate high performing employees. Top performers want to be challenged
and to challenge the status quo. They embrace change, seek out ways to improve, and want all employees to be
held accountable for delivering results. By contrast, low performing employees often cling to the status quo, resist
change, and avoid accountability whenever possible [10] [31].
“The organizations that improve engagement during challenging times focus on a number of factors that dif-
ferentiate them in the marketplace. These factors include focusing on long-term strategies, demanding measura-
ble actions, involving all stakeholders, understanding key employee segments, and broadening the range of as-
sessment tools and analytics. Employee expectations and company responsiveness to internal and external envi-
ronmental changes have a lot to do with showing improvements, even when the market overall is showing a de-
cline [17].
3. Methodology
This study analyzes the factors of employee engagement and performance of selected retailing business enter-
P. Kazimoto
520
prises in Wobulenzi-Luweero City, Uganda. This study’s purpose was to explore and find out the relationship
between employee engagements and organizational performance based on non-financial factors.
3.1. Research Design
The study applied descriptive and correlational research design. “Research design expresses both the structure of
the research problem, the frame work, organization or configuration of the relationships among variables of a
study and the plan of investigation used to obtain empirical evidence on those relationships” [32]. Categories of
responses provided by participants using nominal scale measured on the percentage considering the following
scale: none at all commitment, little commitment, moderate commitment, committed and very committed for
employee engagement; satisfactory and non satisfactory for the organization performance factors.
3.2. Targeted Population and Sample Size
This study focused on the employees in the 20 retails organizations selected in Wabulenzi sub-county in Luwero
district in Uganda. Among activities performed by those organizations, there were retail of second hands spare
parts for machines, mini-supermarket, retail of varieties of clothes and other items, food staff, guesthouses, and
petrol stations. Participants were selected using purposive sampling technique. Those who participated in this
study were 120. Using convenience-sampling methods 6 individuals were selected from each organization. With
job assignment scheduled on different time, it was not easy to get employees to conduct the study. The result
shows that 60% (72) of the respondents were male and 40% (48) of them were female. Majority (64%) of res-
pondents were aged between 26 - 30 years old, 16% were between 31 - 35 years old, 10% were between 41 - 45
years, 8% were between 36 - 40 years old and only 2% of respondents were above 46 years old.
3.3. Data Collection and Instrument
The study used a structured questionnaire that was filled up by the participants from selected retail organizations.
The questionnaire had two sections that were categorized as follows: first section was based on the questions re-
lated to employee engagement parameters and second section focused on questions related to organization per-
formance. For employee engagement, answers were filled using none at all, little commitment, moderate com-
mitment, committed, very committed for scale measurement for data coding. And for organizational perfor-
mance the answers were satisfactory and non-satisfactory. To make it easy for the respondents, the researcher
converted the nominal multiple choice rating of answers into choice based on numbers: 1 = not at all committed,
2 = little commitment, 3 = moderate, 4 = Committed and 5 = very committed, and 1 = Not satisfactory and 2 =
Satisfactory.
3.4. Data Analysis
Responses from participants were encoded and analyzed by the help of SPSS for easier information interpreta-
tion. Percentage from frequencies was described to understand the views of participants on the employee en-
gagement and organization performance. Person correlation was applied for testing hypothesis.
4. Results
4.1. Employee Engagement
Findings in Table 1 show that 40.2% of the respondents were very committed to control their job, 29.2% of
them were committed and only 12.5 % of responses indicated moderate of commitment of employee. More than
one fourth (35.8%) of responses show very high commitment on the availability of tools and resources, 29.2%
of them committed and 15.5% moderate commitment. For recognition for performance, more than half (50.8%)
of responses showed moderate commitment, 24.2% committed, and only 5% very committed. For provision of
fair rewards for work, responses indicated that 31.7% were moderate commitment, 25% with little commitment,
10.8% with very little commitment, 10% of them committed, and only 5% of responses indicated very commit-
ted for the provision of fair rewards for work. The next investigation on employee engagement regarding recog-
nition of ideas and suggestions shows that 39.2% responses indicated moderate commitment, 21.7% indicated
committed and 16.7% responses indicated very commitment of employee engagement for the recognition of
P. Kazimoto
521
Table 1. Employee engagement.
Engagement parameters 5 4 3 2 1
Control over the Job 40.8 29.2 12.5 5 0.8
Availability of tools and resources 35.8 29.2 15.8 0.8 0
Recognition for performance 5 24.2 50.8 2.5 0.8
Provision of fair rewards for work 5.8 10 31.7 25 10.8
Recognition of ideas and suggestions 16.7 21.7 39.2 0 0
Importance to the individuals needs 6.7 17.5 41.7 16.7 2.5
Employee commitment for his activities 15.8 29.2 25.8 9.2 2.5
Refer to a friend or colleague 12.5 34.2 34.2 4.2 0
Image of the company in the Industry sector 23.3 19.2 37.5 4.2 0
Image of the company in the community 28.3 37.5 12.5 4.2 0
5 = Very committed, 4 = committed, 3 = moderate, 2 little commitment and 1 = none at al.
ideas and suggestions in their organization. On the importance to individuals needs, 41.7% responses showed
moderate commitment, 17.6% showed committed, 16.7 % showed little commitment and only 6.7& with very
commitment to importance of individuals in their organization. Regarding employee commitment for their activ-
ities, responses show that 29.2% were committed, 25.8% moderate commitment, 15.8% very committed and
only 9.2% with little commitment. Refer to friend or colleague, responses show that 34.2% were respectively
committed and with moderated commitment, and 12.5% very committed. To image of the company in the in-
dustry sector, 37.5% show moderate commitment, 23.3 very committed and 19.2% committed. To the image of
company in the community 37.5% of responses indicated committed, 28.3% very committed and only 12.5%
with moderate commitment.
4.2. Organizational Performance
Result in Table 2 shows that 62.5% of responses from questionnaire indicated that work assignment was not sa-
tisfactory for the organization performance and only 37.5% of them indicated satisfactory for the organization
performance regarding work assignment. On the side of relationship with peers and colleagues, 60% of res-
ponses showed no satisfactory with organization performance and only 40% were satisfactory. Regarding work
stress, more than half (53.3%) of the respondents indicated not satisfactory with the organization performance
and only 46.7 were satisfactory. Whereby, more than half (50.8%) of the respondents stated that balance of work
and the lives of employees were satisfactory with the organization performance and only 49.2 were not satisfac-
tory. It was also observed that more than half (62.5%) of the respondents showed satisfactory for job perfor-
mance in relation to the organization performance and only 37.5% were not satisfied.
4.3. Relationship between Employee Engagement and Organizational Performance
Results in Table 3 indicate the relationship between employee engagement and organization performance. It is
observed that that made our there is very significant position relationship with employee commitment for activi-
ties (r = 0.486, p = 0), between image of the company in the industry sector (r = 0.477, p = 0), between provision
of fair rewards for work (r = 0.403, p = 0), between job satisfaction and availability of tools and resources in the
organizations (r = 0.326, p = 0.001), very significant negative relationship between recognition of ideas and
suggestions (r = −0.647, p = 0) but negative, with importance to the individuals needs (r = −0.543, p = 0) but
negative, between image of the company in the community (r = −0.391, p = 0) but negative, and significant pos-
itive relationship between job satisfaction and refer to friends or colleagues (r = 0.242, p = 0.14). Very statistical
significant and positive relationship were found between work life balance and provision of fair rewards for
work (r = 0.287, p = 0.004) and a negative significant relationship (r = −0.233, p = 0.019) with work stress and
provision of fair rewards for work. Between relationship and image of the company in the community there is a
P. Kazimoto
522
Table 2. Organization performance.
Male Female Frequency Percent
Work Assignment organization Satisfactory 23 22 45 37.5
Not satisfactory 49 26 75 62.5
Relationship with peers or colleagues organization Satisfactory 23 25 48 40
Not satisfactory 49 23 72 60
Work related stress organization Satisfactory 30 26 56 46.7
Not satisfactory 42 22 64 53.3
Work life balance organization Satisfactory 37 22 59 49.2
Not satisfactory 35 26 61 50.8
Job satisfaction organization Satisfactory 60 15 75 62.5
Not satisfactory 12 33 45 37.5
Table 3. Relationship between employee engagement and organizational performance.
Work assignment
organization Relationship with
peers organization Work related
stress organization
Work life balance
organization Job satisfaction
organization
Availability of
tools and resources 0.326**
Provision of fair
rewards for work 0.227* 0.287** 0.403**
Recognition of
ideas and suggestions −0.647**
Importance to the
individuals needs −0.543**
Employee commitment
for his activities 0.486**
Refer to a friend
or colleague −0.323** −0.233* 0.242*
Image of the company
in the Industry sector 0.477**
Image of the company
in the community 0.238* 0.290** −0.391**
**Correlation is very significant, *correlation is significant.
very significant relationship of r = 0.290 and p = 0.004, between relationship with peers or colleagues and refer
to a friend or colleague there is a very significant relationship (r = −0323, p = 0.001) but negative. There is sig-
nificant statistical relationship between work assignment and provision of fair rewards with r = 0.227 and value
of 0.023, and lastly there is statistical relationship between work assignment and image of the company in the
community (r = 0.238, p = 0.018).
5. Discussion
The results from Table 1 draw the attention on the employee engagement. It is evidenced from the study that
most of the employees were very committed to control their job, committed on the availability of tools and re-
sources, committed on their activities performance and to the image of company in the community. The study
reveals also that employees were moderate commitment for recognition for presentation of reasonable returns
for effort made, to the acknowledgment of opinions and propositions, individuals needs, to reference to friend or
colleague, to the image of the company in the industry sector. This commitment was supposed to generate the
outcome from the employee engagement to the activities and organizational goal. In relation to these findings
P. Kazimoto
523
some authors from their study concluded that “high levels of employee engagement might lead to improved em-
ployee commitment and involvement towards respective jobs and thus creating a motivated” [9], workforce that
will work together to achieve the common goals of the organization. Somehow not clear others [2] on their side
indicated “to have engaged people in the organizations depends on engaged leadership. Likely to justify the
commitment of the participants with that of their leaders”. Many [8] agreed on the same with the view that “en-
gagement can invariably be a “win-win” scenario for both employees and employers within the wider organiza-
tional context forefronts the ideological divide, power relationships and contextual constraints experienced in
“doing” engagement and being engaged”. Participants believed that commitment was the only to survive in the
organization even if the outcome was not fair to the organization.
Results in Table 2 that reveal that the level of organization performance. More than half of participants re-
ported that there was no satisfactory performance for work assignment, for relationship with peers and col-
leagues, for work stress, and only organization performance could be satisfactory when it comes to balance with
the lives of employees. This reveals that the performance of the retail organizations in Wabulenzi is not satis-
factory. Only when it comes to personal interest, employees are committed. The organization while aiming to
achieve its goals the work becomes stressful, work assigned not fulfilled. Only way the participants could satisfy
on the performance of their organization was to remain loyal to the company industry image and balance their
lives, no risk for the sick of organizations. Purcell (2012) study supports only the last findings on the balance
work and lives of employee, stating that employee engagement is worth pursuing as a means of improving
working lives and company performance, which is contradicting the performance of the organization in terms of
work assignment and work stress that are not satisfactory from the above results. The results agreed on the fact
[13] that an organization should in this way “recognize employees more than any other variables, as powerful
contributors to its competitive position”.
On other hand another study [2] contrasts the findings, rather indicates that organizations should “develop a
strong performance management system which holds managers and employees accountable for the behavior
they bring to the workplace, place focus on top-performing employees to reduce their turnover and maintain or
increase business performance”.
Results from Table 3 reveal the relationship between employee engagement and organization performance.
Although it seems to be clear that some factors are correlated, there is no evidence showing clearly that the rela-
tionship is leading to the outcome. Job satisfaction being the only factor correlated with other, this shows that
employees need employment to survive not for organization performance. There is no relationship from work
assigned which is the key factor for organization performance. Other studies show that “the relationship between
employee engagement and organizational outcomes would be stronger if better measures are used. Thus, organ-
izations need to understand how different employees are affected by different factors of engagement and focus
on those, in order to achieve the strategic outcomes as well as to improve overall effectiveness [13]”. Authors
[12] agreed on the same view that “there is discretionary behavior theory that has been revealed to be an impor-
tant element that is correlated with engagement. However, significant majority finds that their skills are not fully
utilized in the workplace and opportunities to engage in discretionary behavior are denied. This again suggests
that “management need to pay more attention to job design, creating more opportunity for people to contribute”.
6. Conclusions
The findings from this study reveal that employee commitment for activities and image of the company in the
industry sector, provision of fair rewards for work, job satisfaction and availability of tools and resources in the
organizations have strong and significant relationship. There is a very significant positive relationship between
work life balance and provision of fair rewards for work, between relationship and image of the company in the
community. The results show that there is very significant negative relationship of job description and recogni-
tion of ideas/suggestions, importance to the individuals’ needs and the image of the company in the community.
Also results show that job description has significant relationship with peers or colleagues and refer to a friend
or colleague. It is reflected from the results that there is significant positive relationship between job satisfac-
tions and refer to friends or colleagues. There is significant relationship between work assignment and provision
of fair rewards and image of the company in the community. Finally results indicate that there is negative sig-
nificant relationship between work stress and refer to a friend or colleague.
This study shows that despite the correlation between employee engagement and job satisfaction; employee
P. Kazimoto
524
engagement and job assignment that are the most important key factors for organization performance are not
correlated. The results reveal that job assignment is critical for engaging employees to ensure organizations’
longevity and profitability.
However, the analysis was limited on the analysis of the non-financial factors for organization performance,
which were calculated based on such as ratios in different ways of measuring performance focusing on financial
factors. From the study it is recommended that:
Managers need to consider the staff and their job assignment to reduce stress and increase factors of motiva-
tion for employee engagement
Enterprises management seems to ignore non-financial factors to achieve its goals.
There is a need to establish control mechanisms that involve financial factors and non-financial factors in
measuring performance for longevity of enterprises.
References
[1] Macleod, D. and Clarke, N. (2012) The Evidence: Employee Engagement Task Force: Nailing the Evidence. Engage
for Success, London.
[2] Markos, S. and Sridevi, M. (2010) Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance. International Journal
of Business and Management, 5, 89-96.
[3] Questica (2015) The Importance of Measuring Non-Financial Factors.
http://www.questica.com/budgeting-tips-and-tricks/the-importance-of-measuring-nonfinancial-factors/
[4] Akter, K. (2011) The Role of Non-Financial Factors in Measuring Organizational Performance. Proceedings of Inter-
national Conference on Business Management, 8, 245.
[5] Hromei, A. (2014) Non-Financial Factors That Influence the Success of a Merger Transaction. Economic and Man-
agement, Vol., 504-511.
[6] Bwire, J.M., Ssekabuko, J. and Lwanga, F. (2014) Employee Motivation, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Per-
formance in Uganda’s Oil Sector. Global Advanced Research Journal of Management and Business Studies, 3, 35-324.
[7] Marie, A.A., Ibrahim, M. and Al Naseer, A.D. (2014) Effect of Financial and Non-Financial Performance Measures on
Customers perceptions of Service at Islamic Banks in UAE. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 6, 201-
214. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v6n10p201
[8] Truss, C., Shantz, A., Soane, E., Alfes, K. and Delbrige, R. (2013) Employee Engagement, Organizational Perform-
ance and Individual Well-Being: Evidence, Developing the Theory. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 24, 2657-2669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.798921
[9] Metha, D. and Metha, N. (2013) Employee Engagement: A Literature Review. Economic Seria Management, 16, 208-
215.
[10] Custom Insight (2016) What Is Employee Engagement?
www.custominsight.com/employee-engagement-survey/what-is-employee-engagement.asp
[11] Schmidt, F. and Marson, B. (2012) Institute for Citizen-Centred Service.
http://www.iccs-isac.org/library/2012/06/PSSF_APSSF_Employee_engagement.pdf
[12] Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E. and Truss, K. (2008) Employee Engagement: A Literature Review. King-
ston University, Kingston.
[13] Shamila, V.J. (2013) Employee Engagement—An Approach to Organizational Excellence. International Journal of
Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research, 2, 111-117.
[14] Nawaz, S., Hassan, M., Hassan, S., Shukat, S. and Asadullah, A.M. (2014) Impact of Employee Training and Empow-
erment on Employee Creativity through Employee Engagement: Empirical Evidence From Manufacturing Sector of
Pakistan. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 19, 593-601.
[15] Albrecht, S.L. (2012) The Influence of Job, Team and Organizational Level Resources on Employee Well-Being, En-
gagement, Commitment and Extra-Role Performance: Test of a Model. International Journal of Manpower, Special
Issue Theme: Changing Work Environments and Employee Wellbeing, 33, 840-853.
[16] Siddiqi, M. (2015) Work Engagement and Job Crafting of Service Employee Influencing Customer Outcomes. The
Journal for Decision Makers, 40, 277-292.
[17] Hewitt, A. (2011) Trends in Global Employee Engagement. Consulting Talent & Organization, Chicago.
[18] Andrew, O.C. and Sofian, S. (2012) Individual Factors and Work Outcomes of Employee Engagement. Procedia-So-
cial and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 498-508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.222
P. Kazimoto
525
[19] Business & Talenet Aligned (2012).
http://www.rightmanagement.it/it/thought-leadership/research/employee-engagement-maximizing-organizationalperfro
mance.pdf
[20] Dalal, R.S., Baysinger, M., Brummel, B.J. and LeBreton, J.M. (2012) The Relative Importance of Employee Engage-
ment, Other Job Attitudes and Trait Affect as Predictors of Job Performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42,
E295-E325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01017.x
[21] Sorenson, S. (2013) Business Journal. www.gallup.com
www.gallup.com:www.gallup.com/businessjournal
[22] Abrahma, S. (2012) Development of Employee Engagement Programme on the Basis of Employee Satisfaction Survey.
Journal of Economic Development, Management, Information Technology, Finance and Marketing, 4, 27-37.
[23] Ram, P. and Prabhakar, V. (2011) The Role of Employee Engagement in Work-Related Outcomes. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Research in Business, 1, 47-61.
[24] Purcell, J. (2012) The Limits and Possibilities of Employee Engagement. Industrial Relations Research Unit, Univer-
sity of Warwick, Coventry.
[25] Insync Surveys Pty Ltd. (n.d.) The Impact of Employee Engagement on Performance.
http://www.insyncsurvey.com.eu/media/92145/impact_of_Employee_on_performance.pdf
[26] Soylu, A. (2008) Structural Contigency Theory in, Population-Ecology Theory out. The Journal of Human Resource
and Adult Learning, 4, 13-20.
[27] Bakker, A.B. and Tims, M. and Derks, D. (2012) Proactive Personality and Job Performance: The Role of Job Crafting
and Work Engagement. Human Relations, 65, 1359-1378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726712453471
[28] Review, H.B. (2013) The Impact of Employee Engagement on Performance. Harvard Business School Publishing,
Boston.
[29] Wood, S., Veldhoven, M.V., Croon, M. and de Menezes, M.L. (2012) Enriched Job Design High Involvement Man-
agement and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Roles of Job Satisfaction and Well-Being. Human Relations,
1-27.
[30] Tak, I. (2014) Misleading the Financial Situation Users by Frauds. CCI3 Economy and Management, 547-556.
[31] Markos, S. and Sandhya Sridevi, M. (2010) Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance. International
Journal of Business and Management, 5, 89-96.
[32] Cooper, D. and Schinder, P. (2014) Business Research Methods. 12th Edition, International Edition, McGraw-Hill,
Singapore.
