See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316622110

Employee Engagement-Role of Demographic Variables and Personality Factors

Article · September 2015

CITATIONS READS
0 2,366

3 authors, including:

Sunita Shukla Bhavana Adhikari

IILM Academy of Higher Learning Amity University
10 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    11 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NOT AVAILABLE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sunita Shukla on 02 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2015 65

Employee Engagement - Role of Demographic Variables

and Personality Factors
Sunita Shukla* Bhavana Adhikari** Vikas Singh***

In the fast paced current milieu, organizations worldwide are facing cut throat competition. A part of the
solution to this critical challenge is to have engaged employees who can provide edge over competitors.
Employee engagement is the extent to which employees put discretionary effort into their work, in the
form of extra time, mental ability, passion and energy. Engaged employee is self motivated and full of
enthusiasm. Fully engaged employees can provide higher productivity, higher return on investment,
higher self motivation, reliability, loyalty towards organization, reduced employee turnover and lower
absenteeism.This exploratory study examined the overall engagement level of employees and the extent to
which demographic variables such as different designations, years of work experience, qualification, age,
gender, marital status and personality among the employees under study contributed to their engagement
levels. This study was conducted amongst the employees of a leading Indian web based B2C e-commerce
company located in the National Capital Region (NCR) with a sample size of 90 respondents in 2014.
Analysis was conducted using t-tests, ANOVA and multiple regression analysis. Results indicate significant
differences in engagement scores for threedemographic variables under study i.e., gender, marital status
and experience. Female employees in the organization were more engaged to their jobs as compared to
their male counterparts. Engagement levels of married and senior employees were also found to be high.
The result of multiple regression was very encouraging as almost 25% of employee engagement can be
explained by personality of employees only.

Key Words: Employee Engagement, Demographic variable, Personality.

Introduction demographic and cultural variables influence the

An engaged employee is rewarding for the employer
as she is instrumental in creating a more positive
and happy working environment for organizations.
Engaged employees have emotional attachment
with the organization which results in higher
productivity, return on investment, retention, loyalty
and lower absenteeism.Employee engagement can
be treated as both opportunity and challenge by
the employers. Highly engaged employees can be
role models for other employees, helping build the
environment and culture that does engage greater
number of people. On the flip side, the challenge
lies with the large number of moderately engaged
employees.
These moderately engaged employees could
easily slide down towards the negative end of
the engagement scale which can cause serious
repercussions in terms of productivity and morale.
Increasing this group’s engagement level may be
the most challenging and critical task for every
employer in today’s time. Because of its increasing
importance, much research work has been done to
explore all those factors which impact employee
engagement level in the organizations. Nowadays,
organizations are facing the challenge of work
force diversity so it is imperative to explore how
development of employee engagement. This could be
of immense benefit to organizations that have global
presence. Several personality and demographic
variables have been previously studied in relation
to employee engagement; yet there are major
inconsistencies (Maslach & Leiter, 2008). Maslach &
Leiter (2008) suggested that variables such as age,
work experience, sex, and occupation type make
interpreting demographic variables in relation to
engagement a challenging task due to a lack of
research evidence
Age and work experience are related factors. As one
grows with age, his work experience also increases
in most of the cases. Because of stability and
maturity in life older people experience more job
satisfaction and engagement also. James, et al.(2007)
reported that older workers were more engaged
than younger workers when they worked with a
supportive supervisor in a supportive psychological
climate.
Usually females are found to be more composed
and responsible; hence they are more engaged in
their work. Research findings are still inconclusive
on relationship between gender and employee
engagement. Yildirim (2008) mentioned in his study

*Ph.D ,Associate Professor,IILM Academy of Higher Learning- College of Engineering and Technology, Department of Management, Greater Noida,
**Ph.D Professor and Dy. Dean (Academics), Amity University, Haryana
***Ph.D,Professor and Campus Director, Chandigarh Group of Colleges, Landran
66 Amity Global HRM Review September
of Turkish counselors that levels of engagement
did not differ significantly between males and
females. However, Avery et al. (2007) found that
women were more engaged than their male co-
workers. Varied results found by some researchers
(Schaufeli, et al. 2006; Sprang, et al. 2007) suggested
that females are at higher risk of developing stress
due to competing work culture and house hold
responsibilities and therefore, report higher levels of
burnout and consequently may report lower levels
of engagement.
Schaufeli & Salanova (2007, 2008) found inconsistent
effects due to demographic variables, and among
personality factors/traits, some evidence that
individuals high on extraversion and low on
neuroticism reported higher levels of work
engagement. It was found that occupation type and
organizational level had some effects on engagement;
managers, executives, and entrepreneurs score
relatively high on engagement while blue collar
workers, police officers, and home care staff score
relatively low on engagement. As far as marital status
is concerned, unmarried employee are less occupied
at the home front, have less responsibilities, more
time and are full of energy to spend on jobs which
leads to greater work engagement (Kong., 2009).
There has been lot of research work carried out in
the area of personality assessment and development.
Personality is a set of habits, traits, ideas and attitudes
of an individual as these are organized externally
into roles and as they internally relate to motivation,
goals and various aspects of individual’s selfhood.
The present study includes the popular “The Big
Five Personality traits” for research purpose. The Big
Five Personality traits are assumed to be fairly stable
and are thus expected to impact the way people
respond to many situations. These personality traits
were defined and discovered by several different
researchers during multiple periods of research and
were used to understand the relationship between
personality and various behaviors. Big Five model of
personality includes Neuroticism (sensitive/nervous
vs. secure/confident), Extraversion (outgoing/
energetic vs. solitary/reserved), Openness to
Experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/
cautious), Agreeableness (friendly/compassionate
vs. cold/unkind), and Conscientiousness (efficient/
organized vs. easy-going/careless) (McCrae &
Costa, 1985; and Mc Crae & John, 1992).
This study emerged from the need to manage the
employees more effectively. It is imperative to shave
an engaged workforce because it helps organisations
to reap benefits of sustainability, productivity and
increased efficacy. Thus in this study, an attempt
has been made by the researchers to find out the role
of various demographic and personality dimensions
in employee engagement in the organization under
study.
Review of Literature
Employee Engagement
Kahn (1992) argued that engagement is an
experiential state which enables organisation
members to draw deeply on their personal selves
in role performances. Engagement in a role refers to
one’s psychological presence in the role or focuses
on role activities and may be an important ingredient
for effective role performance (Kahn, 1990, 1992).
Kahn includes the expression of thoughts, feelings,
questioning, assumptions and innovating in his
definition of engagement. Kahn also mentions that
employees are emotionally and cognitively engaged
when they exactly know what is expected out of
them, have what they really need to do their work,
have ample opportunities in their work which gives
them feeling of fulfillment, have perception that they
are part of something significant with co-workers
whom they rely and trust, and have chances to
improve, develop and grow.
Employee engagement is a positive attitude held by
the employee towards the organization, awareness
of business context, willingness to work with
coworkers to improve organizational performance
(Robinson et al., 2004). Employee engagement must
be nurtured and developed by the organization
which demands mutual relationship between
employer and employees. Employees’ willingness
and ability to help the organization to get success
with discretionary efforts on continuous basis were
also defined as employee engagement by Towers
Perrin’s Global Workforce Study (2003). It was
also mentioned in the report that there are various
emotional and rational factors and work experience
which effect employee engagement.
Schaufeli & Bakker (2004) defined that engagement
is a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind
of an individual that is characterized by vigour,
dedication, and absorption. Vigour is defined by
high levels of energy and mental resilience while
working, the willingness to invest effort in work, and
also persistence in difficult situations. Dedication
means a sense of significance, enthusiasm, pride,
inspiration and challenge. The third dimension
absorption was found to be a constituting element
of engagement. Absorption means degree to
2015 Sunita Shukla* Bhavana Adhikari** Vikas Singh***
which employee is fully concentrated and happily
engrossed in his work.
Bhatnagar (2007) investigated the relationship
between talent management and levels of employee
engagement. The study indicated that high level of
employee engagement may lead to high employee
retention, but only for a limited time in the ITES
sector.
Personality
The word “personality” has been defined by
researchers and academicians in various ways. It
is often defined by many researchers as dynamic
organization within the individual of those
psychophysical systems that determine his unique
adjustments to his environment. Personality can be
defined as a composite of mental abilities including
intelligence and emotional reactivity, interests,
attitudes, genetic aspects and other individual
differences in thoughts, feelings and behavior
(Aiken, 1994, Gerber et al., 1995). Nadelson (2001)
described personality in terms of characteristics of
an individual’s behavior. He stated that personality
is not something which is visible. It is the distinctive
way that each person thinks, feels, behaves and
adapts to the various situations.
Over the years many personality instruments
and techniques were developed in an attempt to
evaluate the personality like Raymond Cattell’s
Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Eysenck’s
Theory of Personality – Three Factor Model and
Big Five Inventory based on the Five- Factor Model
of Personality. This study is based on Big Five
Model of personality. Big Five model of personality
includes Neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs.
secure/confident), Extraversion (outgoing/
energetic vs. solitary/reserved), Openness to
Experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/
cautious), Agreeableness (friendly/compassionate
vs. cold/unkind), and Conscientiousness (efficient/
organized vs. easy-going/careless) (Goldberg, 1990;
McCrae & Costa, 1985; and Mc Crae & John, 1992).
Linking Employee Engagement and Demographic
variables
Various researches indicated mixed results of
relationship between gender and employee
engagement. Some of them found that women have
higher engagement level than men (Rothbard, 1999),
some found that women have lower engagement
level than men whereas some found that there is no
difference in engagement level of men and women.
Rothbard (1999) measured relationship between
67
work engagement and gender differences in terms
of work enrichment. Gallup’s US research reported
that women tend to find more fulfillment and
satisfaction in their jobs and are more engaged than
men (Johnson, 2004) .Gallup report also observed a
difference in engagement levels of employees with
different marital status. Married employees were
found to be more engaged than those who were
unmarried. This finding suggests that a settled
personal and professional life may be one of the
reasons behind high engagement level.
A useful comparison of employee engagement
was presented in a report by Towers Perrin (2003).
The report compared engagement level between
various demographic segments, from various job
level (senior executives to salaried and hourly
non-management employees) to industry category
(non-profit organizations, high tech, heavy
manufacturing, pharmaceuticals and service sector
including insurance, hospital and finance/banking)
which found a pattern across all segments. It was
worth noting that majority of respondents were
moderately engaged and only small number of
respondents were found to be highly engaged.
Disengaged respondents were also found and this
number was slightly larger than highly engaged
respondents. However, one exception was found in
each group which is noteworthy; senior executives
were found to be more engaged than any other
group. These executives were less likely to be
disengaged. The report outruled the sole linkage
between engagement and income level. Various role
characteristics like challenge, authority, autonomy
and stimulation, access to information, resources
and growth opportunities were found to be linked
with high levels of engagement. The report also
mentioned about lowest levels of work engagement
among hourly workers, who have almost no or
least control or influence over their jobs and work
experience.
Swaminathan & Ananth (2012) found that in all
demographic characteristics of the employees, income
and experience significantly influence employee
engagement. They mentioned that, employees who
have more experience and high earnings do have
commitment and involvement towards their work
compared to others. Mohapatra & Sharma (2010)
also found work experience as a consistent predictor
of employee engagement amongst all demographic
variables like age, gender, educational qualification,
work experience and grade. Thus, it is evident from
literature survey that there is a link between the
engagement level and demographic characteristics
68 Amity Global HRM Review September
of the employees. This study was conducted to
further investigate the differential variation within
each of the demographic variables viz. designation,
years of work experience, qualification, age, gender
and marital status of the employees.
Linking Employee Engagement and Personality
Literature survey indicates that another variable
influencing employee engagement levels is the
personality of the employee. The researchers thus
investigated the impact of Big Five personality
factors on employee engagement and hence
it is imperative to also discuss here the Big
Five personality theory. The Big Five theory of
personality, as conceptualised by Costa & McCrae
(1992) includes conscientiousness, extraversion,
emotional stability (often referred as neuroticism),
openness to experience and agreeableness. Employee
engagement has been correlated with extraversion,
conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional
stability (Mostert & Rothman, 2006). Furthermore,
engaged employees are likely to be characterized
by high scores on extraversion combined with low
scores on emotional stability (Langelaan, et al. 2006).
Arora & Adhikari (2013) emphasized on the creation
of a model based on personality and engagement for
effective contribution in hiring and selection process
as well in creation and sustaining highly engaged
and committed workforce.
Proposed Study Model
Based on the above discussion and objective the
proposed study model is as shown in Fig 1.
Demographic
Variables
• Designation
• Age
• Gender
• Marital Status
• Work experience
• Qualificatio
Employee Engagement
Personality
Dimensions
•
•
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
• Agreeableness
• Neuroticism
• Openness to
experience
Figure 1: Proposed study model linking employee
engagement, demographic variables and personality
dimensions
Research Questions
This study mainly deals with employee engagement,
demographic variables and personality factors of
respondents. After assessing the available related
literatures the following research questions were
formulated to assess the effect of demographic
variables on employee engagement and impact of
personality factors on employee engagement.
1. What is the level of employee engagement among the
employees?
2. Is there a significance difference in employee engage-
ment between the demographic groups: designations,
years of work experience, qualification, age, gender
and marital status?
3. What is the impact of personality factors on employee
engagement?
Objectives of the Study
• To study the concept of employee engagement by
determining the level of employee engagement of
the employees and understanding if there exists
a significant difference in the level of employee
engagement based on various parameters like
different designations, years of work experience,
qualification, age, gender and marital status
among the employees under study.
• To study the impact of personality factors on
employee engagement.
Hypothesis of the Study
This study examines the following hypothesis:
• H01: There is no significant difference in
engagement levels of employees with different
designations.
• H02: There is no significant difference in
engagement levels of employees with different
years of experience.
• H03: There is no significant difference in
engagement levels of employees with different
qualifications.
• H04: There is no significant difference in
engagement levels of employees with different
age groups.
• H05: There is no significant difference in
engagement levelsofmale and female employees.
2015 Sunita Shukla* Bhavana Adhikari** Vikas Singh***
• H06: There is no significant difference in
engagement levelsofmarried and unmarried
employees.
Research Methodology
This empirical research was conducted through a self
administered survey amongst the employees of one
of the leading Indian web based B2C e-commerce
company located in the National Capital Region
(NCR) with a sample size of 90 respondents in the
year 2014. The rationale behind selecting a single
organization was to minimize the impact of other
variables like organization culture, general working
conditions, management policies etc on the employee
engagement. Total population of employees was 210
and 150 employees were asked to participate in the
survey. The questionnaires were handed over to
them manually. From the target sample, 90 (N= 90)
responded and returned the filled up questionnaire.
Two standard questionnaires have been used for
data collection. The independent variables were
the Big Five Personality factors as measured by
Big Five Inventory BFI (John, Donahue, & Kentle,
1991) Questionnaire. The dependent variable was
a composite engagement score as measured by the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli & Bakker,
2003). First data was analyzed through SPSS based
on mean weighted scores to assess the engagement
level of employees. To study the first objective and
various hypotheses, t-test and ANOVA were used.
To study the second objective, multiple regression
was used.
Measures
In accordance with the objective of the study, two
standard questionnaires were utilized namely:
1. Employee engagement (EE) was measured using the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) developed
by Schaufeli and Bakker (2003). The scale consists of
three subscales; absorption (e.g., “I am immersed in
my work”, “When I am working, I forget everything
else around me”), vigor (e.g., “At my job I feel strong
and vigorous”, “When I get up in the morning, I feel
like going to work”), and dedication (e.g., “My job
inspires me”, “I am enthusiastic about my job”). It is
17 item scale using 7 point Likert scale (Cronbach’s α
= 0.924) ranging from 0-6(0= Never,1= Almost Nev-
er,2= Rarely, 3=Sometimes,4= Often, 5= Very Often ,6
=Always).
2. Personality factors were measured by using the Big
Five Inventory. BFI (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991)
is an empirically tested 44-question self-reported
measure of five dimensions/traits of personality with
69
responses on a 5-point Likert scale. i.e.,(1=Disagree
Stongly,2=Disagree a little,3=Neither agree nor
disagree,4=Agree a little,5= Agree Strongly.) It pro-
vides a score for each of the Big Five personality traits
neuroticism (versus emotional stability), extraversion
(versus introversion), openness to experience (versus
closeness to experience), agreeableness (versus rude-
ness), and conscientiousness (versus non dependabil-
ity) (Cronbach’s α = 0.71 ).The measures used in the
given study had Cronbach’s α liabilities above 0.70
as recommended by Nunnally (1978)
Results and Analysis
The Engagement Level of Employees in the
Organization
The average score of employee engagement was
found to be 5.27 out of 6, which indicates the existence
of a high level of engagement for the employees in
the organizations under study. This reflects that
employees of the organization are well engaged
which is an indication of good organizational
health. This may be a result of good approach of
the employees towards their work which is actually
creating friendly environment in the organization.
Demographic Variables and Employee Engagement
To understand the existence of differential level
of employee engagement based on various
demographic parameters like different designations,
years of work experience, qualification, age, gender
and marital status among the employees under
study independent sample t- test and ANOVA test
were performed.
H01: There is no significant difference in engagement lev-
els of employees with different designations.
To begin with the differential variation in employee
engagement with respect to demographic variables,
designation was investigated. The respondents
were categorized into two designation groups
namely Executives and Non Executives. There was
no significant difference in the scores of employee
engagement levels for Executives (M= 5.31, SD
= 0.76) and Non Executives (M = 5.25, SD= 1.05)
conditions; t(88) = 0.316, p = 0.753 at 95% confidence
interval. Results clearly indicate the employees of
both designations are equally engaged with their
work.
H02: There is no significant difference in engagement lev-
els of employees with different years of experience.
A one-way ANOVA was used to test the difference
in engagement levels of employees with different
years of experience. The respondents were
70 Amity Global HRM Review September
categorized into three groups viz.1-5 years, 5-10
years and 10-15 years. Minimum experience was
found to be 1 year and maximum experience was
15 years in the organization under study. It was
found that engagement levels differed significantly
across the three categories of experiences, F (2, 87) =
3.393, p = 0.038 at 95% confidence interval. Hence,
employees with different work experience differ
significantly in the organization under study as
regards their engagement levels. Employees having
high experience are more engaged than employees
having less experience.
H03: There is no significant difference in engagement lev-
els of employees with different qualifications.
Further, one-way ANOVA was also used to
investigate the differential variation in employee
engagement level with respect to the qualification
level. The respondents were categorized into
three qualification levels viz. undergraduate level,
graduate level and postgraduate level. Mean scores
of engagement levels of employees of different
categories of qualifications are almost equal as M
(Undergraduates) = 5.1941, M (Graduates) = 5.2508,
M (Postgraduates) = 5.3603. Engagement levels did
not differ significantly across the three categories
of qualifications, F (2,87) = 0.228, p = 0.797 at 95%
confidence interval. Thus the results indicate that
employees with different qualification level are well
and equally engaged in the organization.
H04: There is no significant difference in engagement lev-
els of employees with different age groups.
Based on age respondents were categorized into
three age groups viz.20-25 years, 25-30 years and
30-35 years. Minimum experience was found to be
20 years and maximum experience was 35 years in
the organization under study. On using one-way
ANOVA it was found that engagement levels did
not differ significantly across the three categories
of experiences, F (2,87) =1.405, p = 0.251 at 95%
confidence interval i.e. employees with different
age group are equally engaged in the organization
under study.
H05: There is no significant difference in engagement lev-
els of male and female employees.
Independent sample t-test was performed to test
the difference in employee engagement levels of
male and female employees. There were 42 male
respondents and 48 female respondents. There was
a significant difference in the scores of employee
engagement levels for male employees(M = 4.97,
SD = 1.10) and female employees(M = 5.54, SD =0.64)
conditions; t(88) = –3.076, p = 0.003 at 95% confidence
interval. Female employees in the organization were
more engaged in their jobs as compared to their male
counterparts. It was observed that females were in
majority and their team leads were also females.
Probably this may be the reason of their increased
motivation, enthusiasm and hence engagement too.
H06: There is no significant difference in engagement lev-
els of married and unmarried employees.
Another demographic variable considered was
the marital status of the employees. There were 16
married respondents and 74 unmarried respondents.
Independent sample t-test indicated that there was
a significant difference in the scores of employee
engagement levels for married employees (M = 5.77,
SD = 0.50) and unmarried employees (M = 5.17, SD
=0.96) conditions; t(88) = 2.461, p = 0.016 at 95%
confidence interval. Moreover, it is evident from
the mean scores that married employees are more
engaged than unmarried employees.
Impact of personality factors on employee
engagement.
To know the impact of Big Five personality factors
on employee engagement, multiple regression
technique was applied on employee engagement
scores and personality factors scores of the
respondents, wherein the dependent variable was
employee engagement and the independent variables
were Big Five personality factors viz. Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and
Openness to Experience. Enter method was applied
in multiple regression technique.
The Table 1 in appendix shows the Regression Model
Summary. Modal 5 of Table1 displays R, R Square,
Adjusted R Square, and the standard error. R is the
multiple correlation coefficient, is the correlation
between the observed and predicted values of the
dependent variables. In the model, the R value of .497
indicates the moderate relationship between all big
five personality factors and employee engagement.
R squared value of .247 (24.7%) indicates the
proportion of variation in the dependent variable
explained by the regression model. The R square
moderate values indicate that the model fit the data
satisfactorily. Adjusted R squared value of .202
attempts to correct R squared to more closely reflect
the goodness of fit of the model in the population.
The unstandardized coefficients are the coefficients
of the estimated regression model. The t statistics
can help to determine the relative importance of
each variable in the model.
2015 Sunita Shukla* Bhavana Adhikari** Vikas Singh***
ANOVA table 2 in appendix tells that the overall
model 5 is significant as F =5.514 and p = .000. So,
the independent variables i.e. all big five personality
factors have a significant impact on the dependent
variable i.e. employee engagement. The model 5
in table 3 in appendix includes all five personality
factors as independent variables and employee
engagement as dependent variable. The following
regression equation explains the clear relationship
between the variable under study: Employee
Engagement= 0.588 + 0.116 PExtraversion+ 0.065
PAgreeableness+ 0.581 PConscientiousness+ 0.015
PNeuroticism+ 0.494 POpenness to Experience
Coefficients tell the unique effect size for the variable.
In the table 3, Independent variableconscientiousness
uniquely predicts the value of dependent variable.
Conscientiousness, β= 0.581, p= 0.006
It can be interpreted that testing for the significance
of the dimensions of personality factors reveals that
one factor namely conscientiousness significantly
contributed in explaining the variation in the
employee engagement (p<0.05). While other
remaining personality factors extraversion,
agreeableness, neuroticism and openness to
experience did not contribute significantly to the
overall model. Hence, final regression model comes
out as mentioned below:
Model
Employee Engagement = 0.588 +.0581
PConscientiousness
Table 1 in appendix indicates that for this Model, the
coefficient of determination, (R2) = .247. This implies
that 24.7% of the variation in the employee engagement
of employees is explained by their personality factors
only. This shows that if the organization really wants
to have engaged employees then their personality
profile must be given due weightage at the time of
recruitment and selection.
Conclusion
Engagement building is a never ending process
which lays its foundation for a meaningful and
emotionally enriching work experience. It is more
than making people happy and paying them more
money. It is more important than pay and benefits
are in attracting and retaining people. The employee
engagement level of the orgainsation under study
was found to be high which indicates that the
organization is able to create an enriching work
experience for their employees. Results indicate
significant differences in engagement levels for three
71
demographic variables under study like experience,
gender and marital status. This study also found
no significant difference in engagement levels for
other three demographic variables like designation,
qualification and age. Female employees in the
organization were found to be more engaged to
their jobs as compared to their male counterparts.
In the same manner, married employees were
more engaged than unmarried employees. It was
also found that employees’ having high experience
were more engaged than employees’ having less
experience. The result of multiple regression was
very encouraging and interesting as almost 25%
of employee engagement can be explained by
personality of employees only. Findings of this
study will help management decision makers to
device appropriate recruitment and selection process
so that employee engagement can be effected in
a better way. Psychometric testing can be used to
assess personality factors which have emerged as
important predictor of employee engagement. As
an added benefit, results from this study can be
used to design study in other private sector and
public sector organizations that are challenged with
employee engagement problem.
References
1. Aiken, L. R. (1994). Psychological testing and assessment.
(8th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
2. Arora, R., & Adhikari, B. (2013). Relationship between
personality factors and employee engagement. PES Business
Review, Vol. 8, Issue 1, pp10-18.
3. Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., & Wilson, D. C. (2007). Engaging
the aging workforce: The relationship between perceived
age similarity, satisfaction with coworkers, and employee
engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, pp
1542-1556.
4. Bhatnagar, J. (2007). Talent management strategy of employee
engagement in Indian ITES employees: key to retention,
Employee Relations, Vol. 29, Issue 6, pp.640 – 663.
5. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality
assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality
inventory. Psychological Assessment, Vol.4, Issue 1, pp 5-13.
6. Gerber, P. D., Nel, P. S., & Van. Dyk, P. S. (1995). Human
resource management (3rd ed.). Cape Town: Southern Book
Publishers.
7. Goldberg, L. R. (1990) An alternative “Description of
Personality” The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Dec 90, Vol. 59, Issue 6,
pp1216-1229.
8. James, J. B., Swanberg, J. E., &McKechnie, S. P. (2007).
Responsive workplaces for older w sorkers: Job quality,
flexibility and employee engagement. An Issue in Brief
#11. Chestnut Hill, MA: The Center for Aging and Work/
Workplace Flexibility at Boston College.
72 Amity Global HRM Review September
9. Johnson, M. (2004). Gallup study reveals workplace
disengagement in Thailand, The Gallup Management
Journal, 12th May. [online] Available at:http:// gmj.gallup.
com/content/ 16306/3/ Gallup-Study- Reveals-Workplace-
Disengagement in. aspx. Accessed 27th July 2007.
10. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal
engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 33, pp 692–724.
11. Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence
at work. Human Relations, Vol. 45, pp 321–349.
12. Kong,Y.(2009). A study on the job engagement of company
employees. International Journal of Psychological Studies,
Vol. 1, Issue 2, pp 65-68.
13. Langelaan, S., Bakker, A. B., Van Doornen, L. J. P., &Schaufeli,
W. B. (2004). Burnout and work engagement: Do individual
differences make a difference?. Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 40(2006), pp 521-532.
14. Mohapatra, M., & Sharma, B. R. (2010). Study of employee
engagement and its predictors in an Indian public sector
undertaking. Global Business Review, 11:2(2010): pp 281-301.
15. Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job
burnout and engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 93, pp 498-512.
16. Mc Crae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1985) Comparison of EPI
and psychotisim scales with measures of Five Facto model
of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol.
6, Issue.5, pp.587-597.
17. Mc Crae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1985) Comparison of EPI
and psychotisim scales with measures of Five Facto model
of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol.
6, Issue 5, pp.587-597.
18. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992).An Introduction to the
Five-Factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality.
Vol. 60, Issue 2, pp 175–215.
19. Mostert, K., & Rothmann, S. (2006). Work-related well-being
in the South African police service. Journal of Criminal Justice,
Vol. 34, pp 479-491.
20. Nadelson, C. C. (2001). Am I okay? Psychological testing and
what those tests mean. New York: Chelsea House Publishers.
21. Nunnally,J.C.(1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-
Hill , NY.
22. Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The Drivers of
Employee Engagement Report 408, Institute for Employment
Studies, UK
23. Rothbard, N. (1999) ‘Enriching or depleting? The dynamics
of engagement in work and family’. Dissertation Abstracts
International US: University Microfilms International, 59 (10-A).
24. Schaufeli, W. B.,Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The
measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire:
A cross-national study. Educational & Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 66, pp 701-716.
25. Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands,
job resources, and their relationship with burnout and
engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organisational
Behaviour, Vol 25, pp 293-315.
26. Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement:
an emerging psychological concept and its implications
for organizations, in Gillilalnd, S.W., Steiner, S.W. and
Skarlicki, D.P. (Eds), Managing Social and Ethical Issues in
Organizations, Information Age, Greenwich., CT, pp 135-77.
27. Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M. (2008). Enhancing work
engagement through the management of human resources, in
Na¨swall, K., Hellgren, J. and Sverke, M. (Eds). The Individual
in the Changing Working Life, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 380-402.
28. Sprang , G., Clark, J. J., & Whitt-Woosley, A. (2007).
Compassion fatigue, compassionsatisfaction, and burnout:
Factors impacting a professional’s quality of life. Journal of
Loss and Trauma, Vol. 12, pp 259-280.
29. Swaminathan J . and Ananth A. (2012). Impact Of Demographic
Factors On Employee Engagement - A Study With Reference
To Vasan Publications Private Limited,Chennai, Online at
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/39768/ MPRA Paper No.
39768, posted 2. July 2012 19:19 UTC.
30. Towers Perrin (2003). Working Today: Understanding What
Drives Employee Engagement. The 2003 Towers Perrin
Talent Report U.S Report. [Online] Available: http://www.
towersperrin.com /tp/getwebcachedoc? Webc = HRS /
USA/2003/200309/Talent_2003.pdf (June 3, 2014).
32. Yildirim, I. (2008). Relationships between burnout, sources
of social support and Socio demographic variables. Social
Behavior and Personality, Vol. 36, pp 603-616.
Appendix
Table 1: Model Summaryf
Model R R Adjusted Std. Error of the
Square R Square Estimate
1 .209a .044 .033 .89794
2 .392b .154 .134 .84952
3 .467c .218 .191 .82137
4 .467d .218 .181 .82611
5 .497e .247 .202 .81547
a. Predictors: (Constant), Personality Extraversion
b. Predictors: (Constant), Personality Extraversion, Per-
sonality Agreeableness
c. Predictors: (Constant), Personality Extraversion, Person-
ality Agreeableness, Personality Conscientiousness
d. Predictors: (Constant), Personality Extraversion, Per-
sonality Agreeableness, Personality Conscientious-
ness, Personality Neuroticism
e. Predictors: (Constant), Personality Extraversion, Per-
sonality Agreeableness, Personality Conscientious-
ness, Personality Neuroticism, Personality Openness
to experience
f. Dependent variable: EE
 2015 Sunita Shukla* Bhavana Adhikari** Vikas Singh*** 73

Table 2: ANOVAf 5 Regression 18.335 5 3.667 5.514 .000e

ANOVAf Residual 55.860 84 .665
Mo- Sum of Df Mean F Sig. Total 74.195 89
del Squares Sq.
1 Reg- 3.241 1 3.241 4.019 .048a
a. Predictors: (Constant), Personality Extraversion
ression
b. Predictors: (Constant), Personality Extraversion, Per-
Resi- 70.954 88 .806
sonality Agreeableness
dual
c. Predictors: (Constant), Personality Extraversion, Person-
Total 74.195 89
ality Agreeableness, Personality Conscientiousness
2 Regression 11.409 2 5.704 7.904 .001b
d. Predictors: (Constant), Personality Extraversion, Per-
Residual 62.786 87 .722 sonality Agreeableness, Personality Conscientious-
Total 74.195 89 ness, Personality Neuroticism
3 Regression 16.175 3 5.392 7.992 .000c e. Predictors: (Constant), Personality Extraversion, Per-
sonality Agreeableness, Personality Conscientious-
Residual 58.020 86 .675 ness, Personality Neuroticism, Personality Openness
Total 74.195 89 to experience
4 Regression 16.186 4 4.047 5.929 .000d f. Dependent variable : EE
Residual 58.008 85 .682
Total 74.195 89

Table 3: Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients T Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 3.877 .705 5.502 .000
Personality Extraversion .377 .188 .209 2.005 .048
2 (Constant) 1.988 .872 2.281 .025
Personality Extraversion .390 .178 .216 2.190 .031
Personality Agreeableness .493 .147 .332 3.364 .001
3 (Constant) 1.318 .880 1.498 .138
Personality Extraversion .250 .180 .138 1.387 .169
Personality Agreeableness .267 .165 .180 1.614 .110
Personality Conscientiousness .533 .200 .305 2.658 .009
4 (Constant) 1.245 1.045 1.192 .237
Personality Extraversion .249 .181 .138 1.376 .172
Personality Agreeableness .264 .168 .178 1.574 .119
Personality Conscientiousness .540 .209 .309 2.581 .012
Personality Neuroticism .020 .150 .013 .131 .896
5 (Constant) .588 1.094 .538 .592
Personality Extraversion .116 .193 .064 .600 .550
Personality Agreeableness .065 .199 .044 .327 .745
Personality Conscientiousness .581 .208 .332 2.795 .006
Personality Neuroticism .015 .148 .010 .101 .920
Personality Openness to experience .494 .275 .220 1.798 .076
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Engagement

View publication stats