Content uploaded by Rusdin Tahir
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rusdin Tahir on Jan 29, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE)
ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-9 Issue-2, December 2019
5148
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number: B7771129219/2019©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.B7771.129219
Abstract: One of the key elements in the operational
performance of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) is the
improvement of quality planning, human resources (HRs), and
financial management that can serve as a monitoring tool as well
as a performance driver. Herein, the research examined the extent
to which employee engagement, comprised of cognitive
engagement, emotional engagement, and behavioral engagement
could drive employee performance in Indonesian SOEs. The
research was conducted with a survey method to 429 middle
managers in 141 SOEs in Indonesia. Data were collected through
an indirect communication technique using a questionnaire and
direct communication techniques using limited interviews and
documentary studies. Data were analyzed descriptively through
weighted averages and inferentially through Structural Equation
Modelling (SEM). The results of the study show that: Employee
engagement in Indonesian SOEs was in the “good” category, but
not optimal. The performance of the SOEs managers was
measured based on the total performance scorecard (TPS).
Employee engagement (cognitive, emotional, and behavioral)
partially and simultaneously contributed positively and
significantly to the improvement of the performance of
Indonesian SOEs based on the total performance scorecard
Keywords: Company performance; employee engagement;
cognitive engagement; emotional engagement; behavior
engagement.
I. INTRODUCTION
Human Resource managers often experience
difficulties related to conflicting interests, such as those of the
agents and principals, and the high demands for talented
employees. Companies are increasingly more responsive to
the needs of employees, as they do not want to lose the best
people. Nevertheless, the issue of hijacking employees is still
often heard. Some of the causes for this is that companies that
want to excel generally choose to “buy” the best people from
outside the organization, even though they have to pay
expensive fees. Ideally, this action poses the risk of creating a
less conducive atmosphere for the career development of
employees who have served for decades at the companies.
The presence of a new generation in a work environment
with completely different characteristics from the previous
Revised Manuscript Received on December 05, 2019.
* Correspondence Author
Rusdin Tahir*, Department of Business Administration,
Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia. Email: rusdin@unpad.ac.id
Agus Nizar Vidiansyah, Ph.D Student of Business Administration,
Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia. e-mail:
vidiansyah@gmail.com
Liga Suryadana, The Postgraduate School of Tourism at NHI,
Bandung, Indonesia. Email: mliga_suryadana@yahoo.com
Cecep Ucu Rakhman, The Postgraduate School of Tourism at NHI,
Bandung, Indonesia. Email: cecep.u.r@stp-bandung.ac.id
generation already working there, or commonly called Gen Y,
necessitates changes in the paradigm of human capital
practices. Human capital practitioners must be prepared to
accept a new generation with work behaviors and styles
different from those of the previous generation. In reality,
generally, Human capital practitioners are not able to respond
to this situation well, creating the inconducive atmosphere for
the company. Ideally, the employees of the previous
generation are directed to become mentors for employees of
Generation Y.[1][2]
The condition is perpetuated by the fact that the Indonesian
Labor Law No. 13/2003 is until recently still being amended,
and although it is included in the national legislation program,
it has never been discussed by the legislative council.
Consequently, investors have difficulty to enter Indonesia,
while employers prefer to outsource workers rather than
recruiting permanent employees. Many employees have
adequate educational qualifications but are assigned positions
that are not in line with their qualifications. Furthermore,
training is still prioritized for senior employees. The lack of
balance between quality and quantity is caused by
overstaffing and poor recruitment patterns, the low
effectiveness of the career path planning system, and
inadequate reward and punishment system.[3]
II. LITERATUR REVIEW
Research conducted to 475 executives from electricity
companies in the free trade area of Malaysia revealed that
career satisfaction, career achievement, and career balance
significantly affected the quality of work-life [4][5][6][7]
[8][9]. This finding is reinforced by the results of the study of
[10][11][12][13] which shows a significant relationship
between employee engagement and decision making and
other aspects in the HRM practice under study.
The results of the study by [14] indicate that (1)
employee engagement to leading companies had an influence
on customer satisfaction, which ultimately led to the
organization’ profitability or business, and (2) there was a
strong relationship between employee engagement and
company performance and final products. Although it was
found that different organizations defined engagement
differently, there were some similarities in practices.
The characteristics of employee engagement are also
found in the quality of work-life [15][16][17]. Another study
shows that organizational citizenship behaviour had an effect
on employee engagement, which is supported by [18] who
concluded that to improve organizational citizenship
behaviour between employees and organizations, especially
government-owned companies
in Nigeria, the management
needs to set workplace policies
Employee Engagement as a Performance Driver
of State-Owned Enterprises (SOE’s)
in Indonesia
Rusdin Tahir, Agus Nizar Vidiansyah, Liga Suryadana, Cecep Ucu Rakhman
Employee Engagement as a Performance Driver of State-Owned Enterprises (SOE’s) in Indonesia
5149
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number: B7771129219/2019©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.B7771.129219
that will guarantee increased organizational support and fair
treatment of all people from the three aspects of
organizational citizenship behaviour, namely helping
behaviour, civic virtue, and sportsmanship, which will lead to
improved performance of government-owned companies in
Nigeria.
The conclusion is in line with the drivers of employee
engagement, namely: (1) Organizations: organizational
factors that can drive employee engagement are
organizational culture, vision and values adopted, and
organization brand. Justice and trust as organizational values
also have a positive impact on employee engagement,
creating a perception for employees that they have the support
from the organization; (2) Management and Leadership:
engagement is built through a process, takes a long time, and
requires a strong commitment from the leader. For this reason,
the consistency of leaders is needed in mentoring employees
in creating employee engagement. Organizational leaders are
expected to have several skills, such as communication
techniques, techniques to provide feedback, and performance
appraisal techniques [19]; [20]; [21]; and (3) Work life: the
comfort of work environment conditions becomes a driver for
employee engagement.[22][23]
Thus, efforts to provide opportunities for employees to
engage with the company are inseparable from the role of the
organization, leadership, and work environment conditions.
In this regard, the three factors are the drivers of employee
engagement.
The results of the research by [24] show six factors that
influence employee engagement with the company, namely:
(1) communication within the company, (2) working
conditions, (3) HR evaluation and development, (4) company
provisions, (5) rewards and remuneration; and (6) HR
services from the company. Meanwhile, surveys in various
countries show differences in factors that affect employee
engagement. Research by [25] on the professional service
company Hay Group found that the engagement between
offices (companies) to employees could drive employees to
be 43% more productive. The 52% drastic decrease in the
company's operating income was due to the low level of the
company’s engagement with its employees.
The overall characteristics of employee engagement are
related to the efforts made by business organizations
(companies) in general to improve employee and
organizational performance [26][11];[27]. TPS-based
company performance is a continuous discovery process
involving improvement, development, and learning, which
focuses on customers, personal and organizational goals,
passion and enjoyment, ethics and behavior, process
orientation, improvement, development, and learning
[28][29]; [30].
III. METHODOLOGIES
The research employed the Explanatory Survey Method.
Despite the explanatory nature, it is relational research
focuses on the relationships between variables. This research
attempted to find out the level of general applicability or
generalization of the results limited to the phenomena that
occur in the research site. Employee engagement was
measured through indicators that are characteristic of the
variable, operationalized into 10 statements, using an
instrument in the form of a questionnaire. Company
Performance was measured using the Total Performance
Scorecard (TPS) approach, measured through indicators that
are characteristic of this variable, operationalized into 54
statements, also using an instrument in the form of a
questionnaire. The results of this questionnaire were ordinal
data, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 for each item.
The population unit in this study was 141 SOEs, while
the observation unit was 36,619 middle managers who
worked for SOEs. Using a simple random sampling technique,
a sample size of 429 Middle Managers in all SOEs in
Indonesia was established. Based on the purpose of this study,
the middle managers were considered representative for all
Indonesian SOEs because they are decision-makers at level 1
and/or level 2 accountable to the board of directors (top
manager) and supervise lower-level managers. The middle
managers in this research served as leaders to provide
perceptions about employee engagement and performance
based on total performance scorecards (TPS) for SOEs in
Indonesia.
Data were collected through an indirect communication
technique using a questionnaire and direct communication
techniques using limited interviews and documentary studies.
The data were then analyzed descriptively through weighted
averages and inferentially through Structural Equation
Modelling (SEM), on the basis that this analysis is an
integrated approach combining Confirmatory Factor Analysis,
Structural Model, and Path Analysis.
IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Table 1. Middle Managers’ Perception Of Employee
Engagement
MANIFEST
VARIABLE
ACTUAL
SCORE
IDEAL
SCORE
(%)
NOTE
Cognitive engagement
4.035
6.435
62.70
High
Emotional engagement
6.365
10.725
59.35
Moderate
Behavioural engagement
4.048
6.435
62.91
High
TOTAL
15.693
23.595
61,23
High
Source: Primary Data, processed by the researchers, Attitude scale: Very
Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High
Figure 1. Model Of Employee Engagement
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE)
ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-9 Issue-2, December 2019
5150
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number: B7771129219/2019©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.B7771.129219
Table 2. Testing Result Of Engagement Measurement Model
Dimensions
Standar-dized Loading
Nilai t
Error Variance
Squaare
Multiple
Correlation
p-Value
NOTE
EE1EE
.617
19.948
0.619
0.381
.000
Sig.
EE2EE
.577
23.117
0.650
0.333
.000
Sig.
EE3EE
.768
18.567
0.481
0.590
.000
Sig.
Construct Reliability =.839
Variance Extracted = .761
=.05
.000
Sig.
Source: Primary Data, processed by the researchers
Table 3. Testing Result of The Company Performance Measurement model Based Total Performance Scorcard
Dimension
Standardized
Loading
Nilai t
Error Variance
Squaare
Multiple
Correla-tion
p-Value
NOTE
TPS1TPS
.855
62.967
.269
.731
.000
Sig.
TPS2TPS
.605
16.269
.634
.366
.000
Sig.
TPS3TPS
.647
15.909
.545
.455
.000
Sig.
TPS4TPS
.885
15.909
.217
.783
.000
Sig.
TPS5TPS
.850
11.033
.273
.722
.000
Sig.
TPS6TPS
.589
12.008
.653
.347
.000
Sig.
Constract Reliability
=.734
Variance Extracted = .636
=.05
.000
Sig.
Source: Primary data, processed by the author
In other words, employee engagement to SOEs was
perceived by the middle managers to be not optimal. This is
considered reasonable because there were still a number of
indicators that were included in the “moderate” category, such
as cognitive engagement, especially for indicators of
employee knowledge, and understanding of their leaders and
emotional engagement, especially on indicators of employee
commitment to the work environment. In fact, some
indicators were included in the “low” category, such as the
positive attitude of middle managers towards the organization
and their leaders (emotional engagement), and the indicators
of attraction to the work they are assigned with (behavioral
engagement).
In order to test the suitability of the company
performance variable based on the total performance
scorecard on SOEs in Indonesia formed from the dimensions,
the reliability of all indicators can be calculated using the
construct reliability and variance extracted approach. The test
results for each dimension of the latent variables of company
performance based on the total performance scorecard,
presented in Table 3, which shows that the 6 (six) dimensions
that build company performance based on total performance
scorecard on SOEs in Indonesia, shows construct reliability =
.734 with a value of variance extracted = .636. This means
that the dimension that builds company performance based on
the total performance scorecard in SOEs in Indonesia has a
poverty value of 73.4% with 63.6% variance, a chance of
being wrong 0%, with a 95% confidence level (p = .000; α=
.05).
Thus the company's performance based on the total
performance scorecard on SOEs in Indonesia influences all
observed dimensions and has been tested for meaningful
suitability.
Company Performance Variable Based on Total
Performance Scorecard (TPS) in this study consists of 6
dimensions. A description of the statistical value of the
responses of Middle Managers about what is perceived to be
the Performance of the Company Based on the Total
Performance Scorecard (TPS) for SOEs in Indonesia, can be
seen in Table 4.
Table 4. Condition of Company Performance Based Total
Performance on Total Performance Scorecard (TPS)
No. Dimension
Actual
Score
Ideal
Score
WMS
(%)
NOTE
1. Customer Focus (TPS1)
14.146
19.305
73.28
Good
2. Personal and
organizational goals
(TPS2)
8.746
12.870
67.96
Good
3. Passion and Enjoyment
(TPS3)
11.957
19.305
61.94
Good
4. Ethics and Behavior
(TPS4)
17.148
23.595
72.68
Good
5. Process Orientation
(TPS5)
1.528
2.145
71.24
Good
6. Focus on Continuous
Improvement,
Development &
Learning (TPS6)
3.068
4.290
71.52
Good
TOTAL
56.593
81.510
69.77
Good
Source: Primary data, processed by the author
Company Performance Based on Total Performance
Scorecard as a whole shows an average figure weighted
69.77% of the ideal score. This shows that the performance of
TPS-based companies in SOEs in Indonesia has been
implemented well. Furthermore, from the table above also
shows the condition of company performance based on the
total performance scorecard on SOEs in Indonesia, found in
the customer focus dimension shows the highest percentage,
reaching 73.28% of the ideal score, while the lowest
percentage is found in passion and enjoyment which only
reaches 61.94% of the ideal value. These results indicate that
the performance condition of the company based on the total
performance scorecard on SOEs in Indonesia is considered to
have run well based on the dimensions of focus on the
customer, but for the condition of desire and enjoyment as one
of the dimensions of the company's performance variables
based on the total performance scorecard on SOEs in
Indonesia, still need to be increased again.
Employee Engagement as a Performance Driver of State-Owned Enterprises (SOE’s) in Indonesia
5151
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number: B7771129219/2019©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.B7771.129219
Figure 2. Model of Total Performance scorecard
Based on the phenomena in the field and using variables
extracted from the problems investigated, a model is
developed, which is also drawn upon partial theories between
models.
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics Test
The results of overall model testing as indicated by the
goodness-of-fit statistics is summarized in Table 5.
The results of model testing yielded a big value of 2 (p =
.000;
= 0.05). However, because the CMIN to DF ratio was
still less than 2, it can be stated that the structural model was
accepted (fitted the data). Another measure of
Goodness-of-Fit-Statistics also shows that the model was still
applicable, where the RMSEA for the structural model was
0.064, smaller than the critical value of 0.8, and the Normed
Fit Index (NFI) model was 0.97, greater than the critical value
(0.90). The GFI value of the model falls in the “marginal”
category.
Table 5. Evaluation Of Goodness-Of-Fit Indices
Criteria
Result
Critical Value
Model Evaluation
2 (CMIN)
Df = 5350
3998.169
Expected to be
small
Marginal
Significance
Probability
0.0000
≥ 0.05
Marginal
CMIN/DF
1.124
≤ 2,.0
Good
RMSEA
0.0640
≤ 0.08
Good
Goodness of Fit
Index (GFI)
0.89
≥ 0.90
Marginal
Normed Fit Index
(NFI)
0.97
≥ 0.90
Good
Source: Primary data
Based on the goodness-of-fit test then, it can be
concluded that the structural model fitted the data and met the
criteria of Goodness-of-Fit.
Figure 3. Model of Employee Engagement As a
Performance Driver based Total Performance scorecard
The test results of the effect of the exogenous variable
“Employee Engagement” on the endogenous variable of
“Total Performance Scorecard”, show the following: (1) The
total performance scorecard (TPS) of the SOEs was proved to
be significantly and simultaneously influenced by employee
engagement quality with a determination coefficient of 0.622
or 62.2% (p=.000;
=.05); (2) The total performance
scorecard of the Indonesian SOEs was proven to be partially
and significantly influenced by cognitive engagement with a
determination coefficient of 0.78 or 7.8% (p=.000;
=.05);
(3) The total performance scorecard of the Indonesian SOEs
was proven to be partially and significantly influenced by
emotional engagement with a determination coefficient of
0.210 or 21% (p=.000;
=.05); and (4) The total performance
scorecard of Indonesian SOEs was proven to be partially and
significantly influenced by behavioural engagement with a
determination coefficient of 0.334 or 33.4% (p=.000;
=.05).
Thus, the hypothesis stating that employee engagement
contributes to improved company performance based on the
total performance scorecards of Indonesian SOEs was
accepted. In other words, the SOEs’ performance based on
total performance scorecard was also determined by
employee engagement. The statistical equation model is as
follow:
TPS = .279KK1 + .459KK2 + .578KK3 + .378
The results of this study are in line with those of who
Gallo (2014) concluded that the quality of work-life will
improve: (1) employees’ commitment to work and
organization, (2) employees’ pride of their work and
organization, (3) employees’ willingness to support increased
benefits and profits for their work and organization, and (4)
employees’ satisfaction with work and organization, both
emotionally and intellectually. These four things are
characteristics of employee engagement and are performance
drivers.
Nevertheless, the results of this study indicate that the
middle managers did not perceive employee engagement to
be optimal, as indicated by the following scores: Knowledge
and understanding of employees towards their leaders only
reached 51.89% of the ideal score; employee commitment to
their work environment (50.40% of the ideal score), high
negative attitude (60.37%), and low positive attitude
(38.83%) of their organization and leaders, and low interest
(38.04%) in the work done. There are still other factors
(44.79%) that have an effect on the total performance
scorecard of Indonesian SOEs besides employee engagement,
including the absence of uniformity (standard) in the
Remuneration Policy. In the annual report (2011) analysis,
even SOEs that were in the same group were found to have no
similar position analysis method and remuneration system.
The provision of remuneration (compensation), both financial
and non-financial, is not uniform, prompting employees to
move to other companies that can offer them more.
In other words, employee engagement felt by middle
managers both as managers and as employees in SOEs in
Indonesia showed good conditions, as well as company
performance based on Total Performance Scorecard for SOEs
in Indonesia, which showed
good conditions. This can be
seen from the attachment of
EE1
EE1
EE1
TPS
.279
.459
.578
.678
.682
.782
.378
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE)
ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-9 Issue-2, December 2019
5152
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number: B7771129219/2019©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.B7771.129219
codices, emotional attachment, and behavioral engagement of
middle managers in SOEs in Indonesia which are triggering
company performance either partially or simultaneously
showing positive influence, although not yet optimal but
significant enough.
In particular, the results of this study are also in line with
Robbins and Judge’s theory of organizational behaviour [3]
which states that employee engagement actually grows
because it is created and developed by individuals working in
an organization and accepted as maintained values and
handed down to each new member, which will affect their
performance and the organization in which they work.
V. CONCLUSION
In Employee engagement in Indonesian SOEs was shown
to be in “good” category, but not optimal. The
less-than-optimal engagement was perceived by the middle
managers, indicated by the following things: Low knowledge
and understanding of employees of their leaders, low
employee commitment to their work environment; negative
attitudes towards the organization and their leaders, and low
managers’ interest in the work they did.
The performance of Indonesian SOEs based on total
performance scorecard was also good, but not optimal. This
finding is understandable considering there were several
indicators included in the moderate category, such as (a)
Organizations are concerned with corporate ethics and social
responsibility, and (b) All employees are open to change
improvement and renewal. Some other indicators were
included in the low category, such as (a) Prioritising
interventions in HR (especially training), (b) empowering
employees, (c) allowing employees to make mistakes,
because employees always learn from mistakes, (d)
improving employees and their jobs, (e) helping other
employees to improve themselves and the organization, and
(f) integrating customer needs into employees’ daily
activities.
Employee engagement significantly contributes to
improving the performance of SOEs in Indonesia. In other
words, employee engagement is a performance driver, which
can be traced by observing cognitive engagement, emotional
engagement, and behavioral engagement. Managers as
employees both partially and simultaneously contribute
significantly to SOEs’ performance based on the total
performance scorecard in Indonesia.
In terms of employee engagement, some indicators were
still included in the low category, namely the positive attitude
of middle managers to the organization and their leaders on
the dimension of emotional engagement, and indicators of
their engagement with their work on the dimension of
behavioral engagement. Leaders or management team with
strong engagement with the company who can apply effective
leadership competencies are a very essential element in
employee engagement.
Leadership capability, which is considered very
important in employee engagement includes: building trust,
building a sense of confidence in employees, communicating
effectively, building a pleasant and knowledge-fulfilling work
environment, being flexible in understanding individual
needs, developing talents and training team members, driving
high-quality performance, mastering the required knowledge,
and monitoring issues related to employee engagement.
Identifying team members who are suitable for the
work team will encourage employees to stay longer and make
greater contributions to the company, especially if they have a
good relationship and are facilitated with open dialogues with
their immediate supervisors. The results of this study show
that: the performance of SOEs based on the total performance
scorecard was not optimal. Several indicators were still
included in the moderate category, such as (1) Organizations’
concern with corporate ethics and social responsibility, and
(2) All employees are open to change improvement, and
renewals. Some other indicators were included in the low
category, such as: (1) Prioritising interventions in HR
(especially through training), (2) empowering employees, (3)
allowing employees to make mistakes so that they can always
learn from mistakes, (4) improving employees themselves and
their jobs, (5) helping other employees to improve themselves
& the organization, and (6) integrating customer needs into
employees’ daily activities. Meanwhile, the highest
percentage was on the dimension of focus on the customer.
The Ministry of SOEs should review and re-examine the
Decree of the Minister of SOEs No. Kep-100/MBU/2002
dated 4 June 2002, concerning SOEs Soundness Rating that is
still appilicable to date and to include indicators that build
SOE performance based on total performance scorecards not
included in the decree. The government should also integrate
the Good Public Governance principle (GPG) in their
regulatory functions and implementing Good Corporate
Governance (GCG) in their corporate functions. Finally, the
government should make this an obligation for all SOEs.
REFERENCES
1. R. Tahir, “Keterikatan karyawan dan kontribusinya dalam
meningkatkan kinerja perusahaan,” ejournal.upi.edu, 2013.
2. R. Tahir, Rudiyanto, A. Prayitno, D. Amiruddin, and T. Rosita,
“Employee competencies and compensation strategies as company’s
strategic effort to escalate employee performance,” Int. J. Recent
Technol. Eng., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 7200–7208, 2019.
3. Y. T. R. Yuliandi, “Work Discipline, Competence, Empowerment,
Job Satisfaction, and Employee Performance,” Int. J. Recent Technol.
Eng., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 7209–7215, 2019.
4. G. Hofstede, “The Cultural Relativity of the Quality of Life Concept,”
Acad. Manag. Rev., 1984.
5. H. Avasthi and D. (Prof. V. K. Soni, “Quality of Work Life,” Indian J.
Appl. Res., 2014.
6. S. Ahmad, “Paradigms of quality of work-life,” J. Hum. Values, 2013.
7. K. M. Gallo, “Work and Quality of Life,” Psychiatr. Serv., 2014.
8. B. Shamir and I. Salomon, “Work-At-Home and the Quality of
Working Life.,” Acad. Manag. Rev., 2011.
9. R. D. Crosby, R. L. Kolotkin, and G. R. Williams, “Defining clinically
meaningful change in health-related quality of life,” J. Clin.
Epidemiol., 2003.
10. S. Sardar, “Impact of HR Practices on Employee Engagement in
Banking Sector of Pakistan,” pp. 378–390, 2011.
11. L. Sun and C. Bunchapattanasakda, “Employee Engagement: A
Literature Review,” Int. J. Hum. Resour. Stud., 2019.
12. D.-S. Wang and C.-C. Hsieh, “The effect of authentic leadership on
employee trust and employee engagement,” Soc. Behav. Personal. an
Int. J., 2013.
13. I. T. Robertson and C. L. Cooper, “Full engagement: The integration of
employee engagement and psychological well-being,” Leadersh.
Organ. Dev. J., 2010.
14. W. B. Schaufeli and A. B. Bakker, “Job demands, job resources, and
their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample
study,” J. Organ. Behav., 2004.
15. C. E. Ross and M. Van Willigen, “Education and the Subjective
Quality of Life,” J. Health Soc. Behav., 1997.
16. S. Ross, D. Evans, and M.
Webber, “How LCA studies deal
with uncertainty,” International
Journal of Life Cycle
Employee Engagement as a Performance Driver of State-Owned Enterprises (SOE’s) in Indonesia
5153
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number: B7771129219/2019©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.B7771.129219
Assessment. 2002.
17. S. D. Mathebula and E. Ross, “Realizing or Relinquishing Rights?
Homeless Youth, Their Life on the Streets and Their Knowledge and
Experience of Health and Social Services in Hillbrow, South Africa,”
Soc. Work Health Care, 2013.
18. S. Rothmann, “Employee Engagement,” in The Wiley Blackwell
Handbook of the Psychology of Positivity and Strengths-Based
Approaches at Work, 2016.
19. J. Beebe, “Basic Concepts and Techniques of Rapid Appraisal,” Hum.
Organ., 2015.
20. A. Aggarwal, G. Sundar, and M. Thakur, “Techniques of Performance
Appraisal - A Review,” Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol., 2013.
21. G. E. Roberts, “Employee performance appraisal system participation:
A technique that works,” Public Pers. Manage., 2003.
22. R. Tahir, “Kualitas Kehidupan Kerja, Perilaku Kewargaan
Organisational, Dan Keterikatan Karyawan,” J. Ilmu Manaj. Dan
Bisnis, vol. 3, no. 2, 2012.
23. Q. Ling, F. Liu, and X. Wu, “Servant Versus Authentic Leadership:
Assessing Effectiveness in China’s Hospitality Industry,” Cornell
Hosp. Q., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 53–68, 2017.
24. S. M. Kompaso and M. S. Sridevi, “Employee Engagement: The Key to
Improving Performance,” Int. J. Bus. Manag., 2010.
25. J. B. James, S. McKechnie, and J. Swanberg, “Predicting employee
engagement in an age-diverse retail workforce,” J. Organ. Behav.,
2011.
26. J. A. Gruman and A. M. Saks, “Performance management and
employee engagement,” Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev., vol. 21, no. 2, pp.
123–136, 2011.
27. J. K. Harter, F. L. Schmidt, and T. L. Hayes, “Business-unit-level
relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement,
and business outcomes: A meta-analysis,” J. Appl. Psychol., 2002.
28. H. Rampersad and S. Hussain, “Personal Balanced Scorecard,” 2014.
29. H. Rampersad, “The links between individual learning, collective
learning, and ethics,” Train. Manag. Dev. Methods, 2003.
30. K. Narasimhan, “ Personal Balanced Scorecard20071H. Rampersad.
Personal Balanced Scorecard. Tata McGraw‐Hill, 2006. 242 pp.,
ISBN: 0‐07‐060465‐7 $11.50 (soft‐back),” Meas. Bus. Excell., 2014.
AUTHORS PROFILE
Rusdin Tahir (www.rusdintahir.com), Born in
Bone, August 14, 1966, currently works as a
Lecturer and Researcher at the Department of
Business Administration, Universitas Padjadjaran
(Unpad), Bandung, Indonesia, since 1996 until now.
Born in Bone, August 14, 1966, currently works as a
Lecturer and Researcher at the Department of Business Administration,
Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia, from 1996 until now. Capable
of Organizational and Management Subjects, Human Capital Strategy,
Performance Measurement and Compensation Strategies, Organizational
Behavior, Organizational Behavior, Philosophy of Science, and Research
Methodology in the Study Program of Sustainable Tourism Postgraduate
School at the Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia, and the Master
& Doctoral Study Program of Science Business Administration Postgraduate
Program at Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia. Expert in the field
of organizational behavior and human resource strategies. Undergraduate &
Post-graduate school: Business Administration, Indonesian Education
University (1992); Master Degree in Universitas Padjadjaran (2000); Doctor
Degree in Universitas Padjadjaran (2013). Area of Interest: Management
Science and Business Administration Science. Scientific Work: The
Influence of Implementation of Quality Control Circle on The Job
Performance of Employees (1991); Human Resource Strategy Dimension &
Technology Transfer Strategy As Determinant of Corporate
Performance-based Balanced Scorecard (1999); Quality of work-life,
Organizational Citizenship, Employee engagement, total performance
scorecard (2012); Work Discipline, Competence, Empowerment, Job
Satisfaction, and Employee Performance (2019); Employee Competencies
and Compensation Strategies as Company's Strategic Effort to Escalate
Employee Performance (2019).
Born in Serang on August 4, 1968. Obtained his
Bachelor of Informatics Engineering from Gunadarma
University in 1992, Bachelor of Mathematics from the
University of Indonesia in 1993, and Masters of
Informatics Engineering from the University of
Indonesia in 2002. Appointed as President Director of
PT Krakatau Tirta Industri on 2 October 2017. Starting a career at PT
Krakatau Steel (Persero) Tbk. and has held several positions including
General Manager Security & General Affairs (2014-2017), General Manager
HC Adm & General Affairs (2012-2014), Commercial Director of PT
Krakatau Information Technology (2009-2012), Manager of Information
Systems Development ( 2008-2009), SI Compliance Planning & Control
Manager (2008), and Information Engineering Development Planning
Manager (2006-2008). Currently studying for a Doctoral Program at
Padjadjaran University (since 2018 until now).
Liga Suryadana, Ph.D. of the Postgraduate School
of Tourism at NHI Bandung, Indonesia. Born in
Bandung, May 4, 1960. He currently serves as the
Director of the Postgraduate School of Tourism at NHI
Bandung, Indonesia. Graduated in Tourism
Management Study Program, National Hotel &
Tourism Institute (NHTI) Bandung (1983); State
Administration Study Program at Bandung Institute of Administrative
Sciences (STIA) (1991), Masters in Administrative Sciences at the
University of Indonesia Postgraduate Program (1998); Doctoral Study
Program of Science Administration Postgraduate Program at Universitas
Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia (2006). Completed Tourism Management
(APO) Course in Jakarta, Indonesia (1991); Tourism Management (JICA) in
Japan (1992); Tourism Marketing (visiting Researcher / Rikkyo University
in Japan (1993); Tourism Short Course / Bournemouth University (1999).
Contributions to the world of education have written the Book of Tourism
Sociology (1998), Tourism Marketing (2000), Tourism Resource
Management (2019).
Liga Suryadana, Ph.D. of the Postgraduate School
of Tourism at NHI Bandung, Indonesia. Born in
Bandung, May 4, 1960. He currently serves as the
Director of the Postgraduate School of Tourism at NHI
Bandung, Indonesia. Graduated in Tourism
Management Study Program, National Hotel &
Tourism Institute (NHTI) Bandung (1983); State
Administration Study Program at Bandung Institute of Administrative
Sciences (STIA) (1991), Masters in Administrative Sciences at the
University of Indonesia Postgraduate Program (1998); Doctoral Study
Program of Science Administration Postgraduate Program at Universitas
Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia (2006). Completed Tourism Management
(APO) Course in Jakarta, Indonesia (1991); Tourism Management (JICA) in
Japan (1992); Tourism Marketing (visiting Researcher / Rikkyo University
in Japan (1993); Tourism Short Course / Bournemouth University (1999).
Contributions to the world of education have written the Book of Tourism
Sociology (1998), Tourism Marketing (2000), Tourism Resource
Management (2019).