Original Article

Analyzing the effect of Employee Engagement on job performance in Isfahan Gas Company

Sayyed Mohsen Allameha*, Ali Shaemi Barzokib, Sharareh Ghazinour Naeinic

Sayyed Ahmad Khodaeid and Mahmoud Abolghasemiane

aAssistant professor, Management Department, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. bAssistant professor, Management Department, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. cMaster student of Management, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. dIndustrial Advisor, Isfahan Gas Company. eIndustrial Advisor, Isfahan Gas Company.

Abstract

In today’s competitive world employees with engagement can interact with their job and have desirable job performance. Since improvement of employees’ job performance is the key of efficiency in all levels of organization, investigation of variables leading to the improvement of job performance is of great importance. Thus the purpose of the present research is to analyze the effect of employee engagement on job performance of employees in Gas Company in Isfahan. This is an applied research in respect to its purpose and correlational descriptive survey research in respect to its methodology. Sample population of this study consisted all the employees with degree of diploma or higher degrees of education in Gas Company in Isfahan in 1393 among whom 100 employees were selected randomly. The instrument of data collection was consisted of two questionnaires. In order to collect the views of respondents in regards to the variable of employee engagement the questionnaire of Towers Perrin (2003) was used and for collecting the views of respondents regarding job performance, the researcher’s questionnaire was used. The results indicated that employee engagement has a positive and meaningful effect on job performance and its value is 0.811.

Keywords: Employee Engagement; Job Performance; Contextual Performance; Task Performance.

Copyright © 2014 by IJOMAInternational Journal of Management Academy (2014), 2 (4): 20-26Received: November 2014Accepted: December 2014

* Corresponding author: E-mail: dr_allameh@yahoo.com

Introduction

Organizations’ environment today, is a dynamic and constantly changing environment. Today᾽s organizations are looking for ways to gain competitive advantage and surpass their competitors. Achieve competitive advantage has led human resources within the organization as a strategic competitive factor, more than any organization to be noticed. Today organizations

are looking to attract and retain employees who can best fulfill their duties and roles and contribute to the efficiency of the organization. In this regard, employees who have an appropriate level of Employee Engagement can have a good job performance and help to their efficiency of the organization. According to the report published by Organization Gallup, only a third (33 percent) of US personnel had Employee Engagement in their jobs and two-thirds of them were without Employee Engagement or it was very low (Organization Gallup, 2010). Employee Engagement to a job function and has parallels

concept has been explained in several ways. Kahn was the first person who raised the theory of Employee Engagement for the first time and founded underpinning of this concept (Baltes, Zhdanova & Parker, 2009; Kim, Shin & Swanger, 2009; Shuck & Wollard, 2010) According to Kahn (1990), Engagement, is a degree of physical and emotional violence in a role. In fact it means that how an individual will interact with a job As well as with other employees and colleagues have a close relationship in the workplace (Ferrer, 2005). Employees who have a high level of Engagement, reveals this feature And in doing tasks have much mental and physical Engagement and have a high regard in the work and tasks and make an emotional connection with their jobs. Engagement in applied meaning as psychological characteristics such as: Cognition and emotion and behavior, including the motivational cases are applied Concepts such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment are separate from them (Shuck, Ghosh, Zigarmi & Nimon, 2013). In general, factors and indicators of Engagement significantly is associated with positive aspects of employee behavior and psychological concepts such as organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment (Robertson & Cooper, 2010). However there are many agreements on a variety of indicators including Engagement, But still ambiguity in the definition of these variables can be seen and measured. Robinson et al (2004), offered a definition of the structure the following “employees’ positive attitude to the organization and organizational values. A person has Engagement awareness of their profession and always thinks to improve their and other colleagues’ performance.” In general, factors and indicators of Engagement are significantly associated with positive aspects of employee behavior and psychological concepts such as organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment (Robertson & Cooper, 2010). Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter (2001), considered Engagement as opposed to job burnout and the three dimensions of job erosion. According to them job erosion dimensions are: 1 fatigue at work 2-neglect of the physical and psychological needs 3 - feeling of emptiness and futility. So the low scores on the three dimensions of job erosion can specify a

with the Structures such as job engagement, intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction (Rich, Lepin & Crawford, 2010). Employees who have a high level of engagement - are more subjective, high individual creativity and initiative in their jobs as a result, higher promoting innovation in the entire organization (Hakanen, Perhoniemi & Toppinen-Tanner 2008). Research by Morgan (2004) on 50,000 employees in 59 global organizations to recognize and identify the most effective stimulus on Employee Engagement and to identify best practices in the field, showed that stimulus Engagement affect on creation of emotional and rational commitment and this commitment of also affects on employees’ job performance. Morgan was able to show that increased Employee Engagement can lead to improved 20% of performance and reduce 87% of employees’ desertion. Job performance has been and is an important issue in organizations and industries and due to the importance of the definition of performance should be usable and useful for all strategies and organizational interventions. Job performance includes both vital and important results and behaviors in which contributes in the process of achieving results. Job performance is defined as organizational values and behaviors of employees in different positions and times. Purpose of the organizational value, is estimation that the organization have done from activities and services to its employees, Such as job function or a good working relationship with other employees (Borman et al., 2003). Performance as expected overall values of the organization has defined separate pieces of behavior that a person does during a specified period of time (Motowidlo, 2003). Borman &Motowidlo (1993) divided Job performance into two dimensions, namely: Task performance and performance. The content of the task performance varies in different job situations, While the content of Contextual performance in different situations are similar and it can be predicted on the basis of personality.

literature ReviewEmployee EngagementEmployee Engagement is a broad concept

and in the last two decades has been provided many different definitions in this regard and this

Analyzing the effect of Employee Engagement on job performance in Isfahan Gas Company

21

Allameh SM et al. / IJOMA (2014), 2 (4): 20-26

22

three-dimensional, three features of Engagement. These three characteristics are: 1. Energy at work 2. Enthusiasm and desire to work 3- the effectiveness in work (Maslach et al., 2001). So employees, who have high Engagement, can establish a positive relationship with job-related activities and high enthusiasm and passion in their duties and somehow can control the needs and demands of the job (Gonzalez, Schaufeli, Baker & Lloret, 2006).

Job PerformanceJob performance has always been an

important issue in organizations and industries. Because of this importance the definition of performance is presented, it should be useable and useful for all strategies and organizational interventions. Researchers have offered various definitions of job performance. Rogelberg (2007), has defined the performance of activities that are normally part of the job and the individual activities and must do it. Performance can be considered as expected overall value of organization from the individual behavior pieces is defined which a person offers over a specified period of time (Motowidlo, 2003). Campbell (1990) also, has defined job performance as person᾽s under the control behavior that affect the organization᾽s goals (Zheng., Kan,, Wen & Dan, 2008).

Task PerformanceTask performance is defined as skill by which

the person performs activities that he is officially responsible for doing them and distinguish a job from other jobs (Christian, Garza & Slaughter, 2011). Task performance includes different behaviors. One type of behaviors includes activities that directly converts raw materials into products and services, Such as selling goods in retail, launching devices in a workshop, teaching in schools or perform a surgery in a hospital (Zheng et al., 2008). Task performance applies to those activities that the technical expertise related to the job, and recognized as part of the job (Chien, Lawler & Uen, 2010).

Contextual PerformanceThe second part of the performance is

Contextual Performance and includes activities

that the person do in order to support social environment of the organization and includes behaviors through impact on psychological and social context, on effectiveness of the organization is effective (Cichy, Cha & Kim, 2009). This type of behaviors is not exclusive to a particular job but it is considered an integral part of every job. The Contextual performance has the potential to be a key structure. Although the task performance has traditionally attracted more attention than Contextual performance but researchers have proven that the Contextual Performance causes competitive advantage of the organization and support organizational objectives and thereby contribute in the overall performance (Witt, Kacmar, Carlson & Zivnuska, 2002).

Research HistoryWagner and Harter (2006), found in

the research that employees with higher Engagement, as much as 12 to 34 percent, will bring greater customer satisfaction and on average 80 thousand to 120 thousand dollars per month will increase sales. So there is closely relationship between Engagement and job performance. In addition, employees who do not communicate with their job, and they have poor performance, it causes that others not do their tasks as deserve, in other words, these people also cause poor performance from co-workers (Dahlqvist & Matsson, 2013). Gorgievski, Baker and Schaufeli (2010), conducted a study on 1,900 employees of the Netherlands. The questionnaire related to the study had been placed for a year and a half on the website of Psychology journal in the Netherlands and visitors were asked to complete questions about Engagement and job performance. In this study job performance was divided into two dimensions. One part of the questions related to job performance structures determining the task performance and the other determining the contextual performance. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling and analysis results showed that employee Engagement had positive effects on the task performance This hypothesis was significant in less than 0.001 and it was equal to the amount (β = 0.39). Also on this research positive relationship between

Analyzing the effect of Employee Engagement on job performance in Isfahan Gas Company

23

Engagement on contextual performance at the level of less than 0.001 became known significant and its amount was determined equal to (β = 0.24).

Conceptual model of research and research hypotheses

H1: employees Engagement impact significantly on job performance.

H2: employees Engagement impact significantly on contextual performance.

H3: employees Engagement impact significantly on task performance.

Research MethodologyThis study is Practical purpose and

Descriptive - survey method of data collection. The population consisted of 640 employees of Gas Company in Isfahan, which 100 of them were selected by simple random sampling. A questionnaire was used to collect data. In relation to Engagement variable Towers Perrin questionnaire (2003) was used. Researcher questionnaire was used for job performance variable. For data analysis Spss21 is used. To test hypotheses of research Partial Least Squares and Smart PLS 2.0 software was used. Likert five participants (1-Strongly Disagree .... to 5- Strongly agree) responded to the questions. Cronbach᾽s alpha was used to assess the reliability of the questionnaire that its entire amount was 0.81. Cronbach᾽s alpha coefficients

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Conceptual Model 5. Research Methodology This study is Practical purpose and Descriptive - survey method of data collection. The population consisted of 640 employees of Gas Company in Isfahan, which 100 of them were selected by simple random sampling. A questionnaire was used to collect data. In relation to Engagement variable Towers Perrin questionnaire (2003) was used. Researcher questionnaire was used for job performance variable. For data analysis Spss21 is used. To test hypotheses of research Partial Least Squares and Smart PLS 2.0 software was used. Likert five participants (1-Strongly Disagree .... to 5- Strongly agree) responded to the questions. Cronbach's alpha was used to assess the reliability of the questionnaire that its entire amount was 0.81. Cronbach's alpha coefficients for each of the questionnaire are presented separately in Table 1. Convergent validity was used to check the validity. 6. Findings According to the results obtained from the PLS algorithm Cronbach's alpha values of all Objective variables are shown in Table 1, are Greater than 0.7 the result of model reliability is approved. The minimum amount of the average variance extracted (AVE) equal to 5.0 confirms the existence of convergent validity (Fornell & Larker, 1981). The results in Table 1 confirm the convergent validity of the model. Since the values AVE column or the average variance

H3

H1

H2

Employee Engagement

Job Performance

Contextual Performance

Task Performance

Figure 1. Conceptual Model.

Figure 2. Structural Model.

extractedits distribsoftware the hypothe levelsignificanof p <0.impact o<0.001 isThe final

***p<0.0 7. Concl The resuperformaGorgievsprocess owhich emrecommecompanyorganizatrewards a

d in Table 1 bution. The and can alsthesis of thel of p <0.00ntly on job p001 is appr

on engagemes approved; l results of th

001

usions

ults show a ance and emski et al.(201of engaging mployees areended: In ordy managemetional leaderand prepare

is larger tharesults that

o be seen ine study is sh01 is approvperformanceroved. As a ent. HypotheSo engagem

he analysis a

Figure

positive immployee ta10) study ,Athe emotione more assoder to increa

ent put invesrship at the favorable co

an 0.5 This mt were obtain Table 2, anown. So hyp

ved. As a ree. Hypothesis

result, conesis 3 with ment has a sare shown in

e 2: structura

mpact of engask performAs well as enns and mindsciated withase the levelstment on mtop of their

ontext in ord

means that ained throughnd the beta vpothesis 1 wesult employs 2 with valu

ntextual perfvalues (β =

significant ann Figure 2.

al Model

gagement onmance, These

ngagement ds of the staffdo their worl of enthusiamotivational r priorities Wder to provid

any structurh the algorivalues statist

with values (yees Engageues (β = 0.19formance ha

= 0.228) andnd positive

n job perfoe results a

does not meafs, but it meark and their

asm and carefactors of n

With the bende their self-m

re cover morithm automatically signifβ = 0.811) aement impac92) and (t = as a positived (t = 7.84) impact on ta

ormance andare parallel an engagingans creating r duties moreeer interest enatural and nefit of empmotivation.

re than needatic driver ificant for eaand (t = 11.7ct positively6.28) at the

e and signifat the levelask perform

d also contewith result

g managers iconditions u

e enthusiastiemployees owelding int

ployees of na

ded of n the

ach of 76) at y and level

ficant l of p

mance.

extual ts of in the under ically

of gas ternal atural

***p<0.001

Allameh SM et al. / IJOMA (2014), 2 (4): 20-26

24

for each of the questionnaire are presented separately in Table 1. Convergent validity was used to check the validity.

FindingsAccording to the results obtained from the

PLS algorithm Cronbach᾽s alpha values of all Objective variables are shown in Table 1, are Greater than 0.7 the result of model reliability is approved. The minimum amount of the average variance extracted (AVE) equal to 5.0 confirms the existence of convergent validity (Fornell & Larker, 1981). The results in Table 1 confirm the convergent validity of the model. Since the values AVE column or the average variance extracted in Table 1 is larger than 0.5 This means that any structure cover more than needed of its distribution. The results that were obtained through the algorithm automatic driver in the software and can also be seen in Table 2, and the beta values statistically significant for each of the hypothesis of the study is shown. So hypothesis 1 with values (β = 0.811) and (t = 11.76) at the level of p <0.001 is approved. As a result employees Engagement impact

positively and significantly on job performance. Hypothesis 2 with values (β = 0.192) and (t = 6.28) at the level of p <0.001 is approved. As a result, contextual performance has a positive and significant impact on engagement. Hypothesis 3 with values (β = 0.228) and (t = 7.84) at the level of p <0.001 is approved; So engagement has a significant and positive impact on task performance. The final results of the analysis are shown in Figure 2.

Conclusions

The results show a positive impact of engagement on job performance and also contextual performance and employee task performance, These results are parallel with results of Gorgievski et al.(2010) study, As well as engagement does not mean engaging managers in the process of engaging the emotions and minds of the staffs, but it means creating conditions under which employees are more associated with do their work and their duties more enthusiastically recommended: In order to increase the level of enthusiasm and career

Table1. Reliability and convergent validity.

Construct Cronbach’s alpha Composite Reliability AVE Item Factor LoadingEmployee Engagement 0.930 0.941 0.642

EE1 0.773

EE2 0.817

EE3 0.816

EE4 0.821

EE5 0.823

EE6 0.832

EE7 0.820

EE8 0.789

EE9 0.815

Contextual Performance 0.817 0.804 0.621

CP1 0.798

CP2 0.742

CP3 0.804

Task Performance 0.710 0.718 0.510

TP1 0.681

TP2 0.724

TP3 0.711

Analyzing the effect of Employee Engagement on job performance in Isfahan Gas Company

25

interest employees of gas company management put investment on motivational factors of natural and welding internal organizational leadership at the top of their priorities With the benefit of employees of natural rewards and prepare favorable context in order to provide their self-motivation.

References

• Baltes, B. B., Zhdanova, L. S., & Parker, C. P. 2009. Psychological climate: A comparison of organizational and individual level referents. Human Relations, 62(5): 669-700.

• Borman, W. C, Hedge, J. W., Ferstl, K. L., Kaufman, J. D., Farmer, W. L., & Bearden, R. M. 2003. Current directions and issues in personnel selection and classification. Research in personnel and human resources management, 22: 287-355.

• Borman, W.C.,&Motowidlo,J.S. 1993.Expanding the criterion domain to include elements contextual performance .In N.Schmitt &W.C.,Borman(Eds). Personnel Selection in organizations, 71-98.Scan Francisco,CA:Jossey Buss.

• Chien, M. S, Lawler, J. S, & Uen, J. F. 2010. Performance-based pay, procedural justice and job performance for R&D professionals: evidence from the Taiwanese high-tech sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(12): 2234-2248.

• Christian, M. S, Garza, A. S, & Slaughter, J. E. 2011. Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1): 89-136.

• Cichy, R. F., Cha, J., & Kim, S. 2009. The relationship between organizational commitment and contextual performance among private club leaders. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1): 53-62.

• Dahlqvist, A., & Matsson, A. 2013. The impact of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards on employees’ motivation–A. Management, 3: 1-16.

• Ferrer, J. 2005. Employee engagement: Is it organizational commitment renamed? Unpublished working paper, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from http://eprints.vu.edu.au/123/1/wp8_2005_ferrer.pdf

• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural

equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 39–50.

• González-Romá, V., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Lloret, S. 2006. Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1): 165-174.

• Gorgievski, M. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. 2010. Work engagement and workaholism: comparing the self-employed and salaried employees. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1): 83-96.

• Hakanen, J. J, Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. 2008. Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1): 78-91.

• Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and

• disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4): 692-724.

• Kim, H. J., Shin, K. H., & Swanger, N. 2009. Burnout and engagement: A comparative analysis using the Big Five personality dimensions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1): 96-104.

• Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. 2001. Job burnout. Annual review of psychology, 52(1): 397-422.

• Morgan, L. 2004. Driving performance and retention through employee engagement. Retrieved from http://www.lloydmorgan.com/PDF/Driving%20 Performance%20and%20Retentio n%20Through%20 Employee%20 Engagement .pdf

• Motowidlo, J.S. 2003. Job performance .Handbook of psychology . Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12 :39-55.

• Organization, Gallup. 2010. Employee engagement: What’s your engagement ratio? Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization.

• Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A, & Crawford, E. R. 2010. Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3): 617-635.

• Robertson, I. T, & Cooper, C. L. 2010. Full engagement: the integration of employee engagement and psychological well-being. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(4): 324-336.

• Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. 2004. The drivers of employee engagement (White Paper 408). Retrieved from http://www.employment-studies.

Table 2. Results of Hypotheses Testing.

Hypotheses ( β) t-value Result

H1: Employee Engagement Job Performance 0.811*** 11.76 Supported

H2: Employee Engagement Contextual Performance 0.192*** 6.280 Supported

H3: Employee Engagement Task Performance 0.228*** 7.84 Supported

***p<0.001

Allameh SM et al. / IJOMA (2014), 2 (4): 20-26

26

co.uk: http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/pubs/summary.php?id=408

• Rogelberg, S.G. 2007. Encyclopeidia of industrial and Organizational Psychologya. London. New Dehly.

• Shuck, B., Ghosh, R., Zigarmi, D., & Nimon, K. 2013. The Jingle Jangle of Employee Engagement Further Exploration of the Emerging Construct and Implications for Workplace Learning and Performance. Human Resource Development Review, 12(1): 11-35.

• Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. 2010. Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1): 89-110.

• Towers Perrin. 2003.Working today: Understanding what drives employee engagement. Retrieved from

• h t t p : / / w w w . t o w e r s p e r r i n . c o m / t p /getwebcachedoc?webc=hrs/usa/2003/200309/tale

• nt_2003.pdf• Wagner, R., & Harter, J. K. (2006). 12: The great

elements of managing. Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization.

• Witt, L. A, Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S, & Zivnuska, S. 2002. Interactive effects of personality and organizational politics on contextual performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(8):911-926.

• Zheng-Xue, L., Kan, S., Wen-Dong, L., & Dan-Min, M. 2008. Construct of job performance: Evidence from Chinese military soldiers. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11(3): 222-231.