Organizational Effectiveness as a Function of Employee Engagement Aakanksha Kataria*, Renu Rastogi** arú Pooja Garg*** The paper reviews the organizational paradigms of employee engagement in context of its organizational outcomes and aims to unlock the relationship between engagement and perceived organizational effectiveness. The study was designed to generate and test two hypothesized models colligating between engagement and the constituents oforganizatiorud effectiveness. The results of structural equation modeling suggest that engagement is significantly associated with perceived organizational effectiveness in that it also entails a positive impact upon the organizational effectiver\ess. The results encourage organizations to consider the potential signiftance of employee engagement towards organization^ effectiveness and also exemplify the role ofHR managers in delineating the psychological fabric of the organization and conditions for high engagement. The paper adds useful insights while articulating that engagement is an expedient phenomenon that drifts organizational effectiveness. INTRODUCTION The notion of employee engagement has marked its critical presence in organizational sciences for more than over 20 years. The research on engagement is flourishing lately and witnessing a remarkable increase in the number of empirical studies more frequently than ever (Sonnetag, 2011 ; and Rurkkhum and Bartlett, 2012), while noting its positive linkages to several bottom line organizational outcomes for instance, productivity, profits, business growth, quality, customer satisfaction, employee retention, job performance, and low absenteeism (Buckingham and Cofifiman, 1999; Coffinan and Gonzalez-Molina, 2002; Buchanan, 2004; Hewitt Associates LLC, 2005; Fleming and Asplund, 2007; Lockwood, 2007; Bakker and Bal, 2010; Demerouti and Cropanzano, 2010; Xanthopoulou et al, 2009; and Sundaray, 2011). In addition, it has also been observed that engaged employees report less absenteeism, stay with the organization longer, and are happier being proactive, and more productive (Harter et al, 2002; and Sonnentag, 2011). This might be due to the fact that engaged employees being enthusiastic (Pitt* ** Research Scbolar, Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee (IITR), Roorkee. India. E-mail: aks2530@gmail.com Professor, Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee (IITR), Roorkee, India. E-mail: renurfhs@iitr.emet.in * * * Assistant Professor, Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee (IITR), Roorkee, India. E-mail: gargpdhs@gmail.com ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AS A FUNCTION OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT Catsouphes and Matz-Costa, 2008), dedicated, and psychologically involved in their work, are willing to invest their active physical strength and emotional energy towards the fulfilment of organizational goals. Accordingly, from a practical point of view, the relevant literature recommends employee engagement as "an individual employee's cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state directed toward desired organizational outcomes" (Shuck and WoUard, 2010). Further, it is suggested that engagement 'goes beyond' satisfaction or commitment and is an enhanced state of thinking and acting that brings both personal fulfilment and positive contributions for the organization. Given the primacy of employee engagement in the context of its beguiling consequences for organizations, engagement has increasingly been viewed as a vital element in elevating organizational effectiveness (Saks, 2008; Sundaray, 2011; Welch, 2011; Cameron et ai., 2011). As observed, organizations constantly seek ways to augment employee engagement at work, and thereby enhance organizational effectiveness (Macey and Schneider, 2008; Macey et ai., 2009; Vinarski-Peretz et ai., 2011). Despite the increasing conceptual evidences and supports to establish employee engagement as a driver of organizational success and performance, empirical evidence explicitly signifying the association between employee engagement and organizational effectiveness has not been forthcoming from any side. In fact, recent researches have been focusing more on individual level analysis of employee engagement and research concerning employee engagement and its organizational outcomes in terms of organizational effectiveness has rarely been studied in engagement literature. Most studies that have examined the consequences of engagement have focused on engagement fiom an internal perspective by studying how engagement affects employee attitudes and performance (for e.g.. Rich et aï., 2010; and Mengue et ai., 2012). Against this backdrop, it has also been reported recently that the relationship between individual positive behaviors like engagement and organizational effectiveness is yet to be confirmed (Cameron et al, 2011). Keeping the preceding discussion in mind, the present paper undertakes this novel opportunity to complement the existing literature by examining the relationship between employee engagement and perceived organizational effectiveness. The study considers employees' perceptions of the effectiveness in their organizations. Cain (2006) affirmed that employees are in the best position to evaluate the effectiveness of their organizations in meeting its often conflicting goals and mission. Many previous studies have used the stakeholder approach in the assessment of effectiveness while measuring the impact of psychological climate, employee attitudes, and behaviors on the organizational effectiveness (e.g., Biswas et ai., 2006). Further, the paper synthesizes positive organizational consequences of engagement into a more comprehensive phenomenon known as organizational effectiveness and attempts to explore the functionalist perspective of employee engagement as a potential antecedent of organizational effectiveness. Volume 20 ^ T No. 4 SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INSIGHTS FROM LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESES EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT Employee engagement is a complex and dynamic process that reflects each individual's unique, personal relationship with work (Litten et al, 2011). The term employee engagement was originated in 199O's by the Gallup Research Group (Endres and Mancheno-Smoak, 2008; and Little and Little, 2006). Touted positive outcomes of employee engagement in Gallup's popular release "First, Break All the Rules (Buckingham and Coffman, 1999) have incorporated suhsequent desires in organizations to maintain a highly engaged workforce. Noteworthy implications of employee engagement are attrihuted to high involvement, passion and zeal in employees' efforts to perform up to their potential, while creating high performing organizations. Historical roots of the term employee engagement in academic research can he found in the works of Kahn (1990), who has often been regarded as the academic parent of employee engagement movement (Welch, 2011). Using the framework of personal engagement, Kahn (1990) defined engagement as "the harnessing of organizational members' selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during work role performance." Numerous definitions have heen made on engagement thereafter, but little consensus has heen yet reached. Of them all, the conceptualization that shapes engagement as "a positive fulfilling, work related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption" (Schaufeli et ai., 2002), has been more popular in engagement literature due to its vast validation in majority of countries. Vigor (positive affect) is characterized hy employees' high levels of positive energy and mental resilience while performing the job tasks. Engaged employees experience their work as stimulating and to which they devote their time and effort willingly (Bakker et ai., 2011 ). Dedication (motivation aspect) takes into account the perception of engaged employees in terms of significance and meaningfulness of work. It explicates the emotional framework of engagement as the extent of employees' willingness to invest considerahle time, stronger involvement, energy and effort in doing something meaningful with greater enthusiasm. Absorption (cognitive aspect) is characterized by full involvement and engrossment of employees in their work to the extent that one has difficulties in detaching oneself from work. Engaged employees are happily involved and experience their work as engrossing and something to which they can devote their full concentration (Bakker et al, 2011). Therefore, engaged employees not only contribute more but are also more loyal and therefore less likely to voluntarily leave the organization (Macey and Schneider, 2008). It has also heen reported that engaged employees perform hetter in their jobs (Bakker and Bal, 2010; Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2008), and high levels of engagement lead to positive organizational-level outcomes (Kahn, 1992; and Bakker et d., 2008). Volume 20 ^ g No. 4 ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AS A FUNCTION OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT In organizational context, the term employee engagement has been described as "a desirable condition, has an organizational purpose, and connotes involvement, commitment, passion, enthusiasm, focused effort, and positive energy", (Erickson, 2005; Macey and Schneider, 2008). This posits, engaged employees being enthusiastic, dedicated, and psychologically involved are more able to invest their active physical strength and emotional energy towards the fulfilment of organizational goals. Employee engagement has often been pronounced as the key to an organization's success and competitiveness (Grumen and Saks, 2011). Research has also revealed that engaged employees will be more likely to create a social context that is conducive to the team work, helping, voice and other significant discretionary behaviors that can lead to organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff et al, 2009; Christian et al, 2011). Though researches concerning employee engagement have suggested its positive linkages to profitability, business growth, financial performance, customer satisfaction and competitive advantage (The Gallup Organization, 2004; Saks, 2006; Harter et al, 2002; Salanova et al, 2005; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; and Macey et al, 2009), yet there exists a wide scope for further scholarly exploration, growth and dialogue around the construct of employee engagement (Shuck and Reio, 2011). ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS Researchers in organizational sciences acknowledge that the central theme of organizational theory pertained to organizational effectiveness (Goodman and Pennings, 1977; Biswas, 2010) and the underlying goal of most research on organizations is to improve their effecdveness (Noruzi and Rahimi, 2010). Organizational effectiveness is a broader term encompassing multiple constituents for measuring organizational performance. Therefore, organizational effectiveness has been connoted as one aspect of organizational performance (Lee and Choi, 2003). Organizational effectiveness is "a company's long term ability to achieve consistently its strategic and operational goals" (Fallón and Brinkerhoff, 1996). Though, it has been hard to describe what exactly constitutes organizational effectiveness (Cameron and Whetton, 1981; and Rahimi and Noruzi, 2011), it has been widely accepted that organizational effectiveness is "the extent to which an organization achieves its goals" (Steers, 1977). Due to its multidimensional and paradoxical character (Cameron, 1986), an organization can be simultaneously judged effective by one criterion and ineffective by another. Mott (1972) defined organizational effectiveness as "the ability of an organization to mobilize itscentres of power, for action, production and adaptation". In fact, effective organizations tend to produce better quality products and are resilient in the face of adversities. Further, organizational theory has also produced a variety of models (rational goal, system resource, internal process, and participant satisfaction) pertaining to organizational effectiveness, the measures of organizational effectiveness as (a) productivity; (b) adaptability; and (c) efficiency developed by Mott, (1972) have been found to be the most frequently and most widely used in various models of perceived organizational effectiveness (Steers, 1977; Sharma and Samantara, 1995; Luthans et al, 1988). Volume20 ^g No.4 SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT Employee engagement in practice, an active psychological state of employees at work has frequently been considered pertinent in elevating organizational outcomes. For instance, employees' active psychological state at work is of greater significance when it comes to innovation, organizational performance, and competitive advantage (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008). Based on the previous researches concerning organizational context of employee engagement, it is argued that employee engagement will be related to perceived organizational effectiveness in general and as a whole as follows (See Figure 1 and 2): Figure 1: The Hypothesized Model (Ml) Productivity Vigor HI Dedication Adaptability Flexibility Absorption HL' Employee engagement is significantly related to perceived organizational effectiveness. Also, employee engagement will significantly predict perceived organizational effectiveness. Hla: Employee engagement is significantly related to perceived organizational productivity. Also, employee engagement will significantly predict perceived organizational productivity. Hlb: Employee engagement is significantly related to perceived organizational adaptability. Also, employee engagement will significantly predict perceived organizational adaptability. Hlc: Employee engagement is significantly related to perceived organizational flexibility. Also, employee engagement will significantly predict perceived organizational flexibility. Figure 2: The Hypothesized Model (M2) Vigor Productivity »^ nia,.^-'''''''^ \( Dedication * Employee ^y.--^''^ A. Engagement / - - ^ Absorption H Jo * Adaptability Elexibility Volume 20 60 No. 4 ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AS A FUNCTION OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT METHOD PARTICIPANTS The respondents were 304 middle level managers from IT organizations. A covering letter delineating the reason for the study was attached with each questionnaire stating about the voluntary and anonymous nature of this study. Participants were also assured for maintaining the confidentiality of responses. Completed questionnaires were returned to the researcher via mail or in-person. Of the 304 participants', a large proportion (81%) were males, while 19% were females. The average age of the participants was 36.16 (SD = 6.02). The work experience profile of the participants varied from the minimum 5 year of experience from maximum of 28 years and the average work experience was 10.29 (SD = 5.72). A large portion (63%) of the participants was having 5 to 10 years of work experience, 23% were having 11 to 15 years of work experience, 6% were having work experience between 16 to 20 years, and rest 8% were having the highest (above 20) years of work experience. 24% were unmarried of all the participants and the rest were married. The sample was comprised of management graduates (55%) and engineering graduates (45%) and average tenure of subjects in their present organization was 5.63 (SD = 2.33), with a range from 3 to 14 years. MEASURES EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT Employee engagement was measured with the extensively validated 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) reported by Schaufeli et al (2006). The scale consists of 9-items and measures three sub-dimensions of employee engagement as vigor, dedication, and absorption which have three items each. i. Vigor is characterized by willingness to invest efforts while experiencing high levels of positive energy and mental resiliency at work (e.g., "At my work, I feel bursting with energy). ii. Dedication refers to the strong involvement in one's work, a feeling of meaningfulness, significance, pride and challenge (e.g., "My job inspires me"). iii. Absorption explains one's state of being fully engrossed and concentrated in the work (e.g., "I get carried away when I am working"). All items relating to these three sub dimensions were measured on a seven- point scale rangingfi:om0 = "Never" to 6 = "Always". Cronbach alpha (a) for this scale was 0.92. ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS An 8-item scale developed by Mott (1972) was used to measure various aspects of organizational effectiveness. The scale has three sub-scales: (a) productivity; (b) adaptability; and (c) flexibility. Volume 20 g j No. 4 SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT i. Productivity deals with the quantity and quality of the product or service, and the efficiency with which it is delivered. ii. Adaptability has two . ^nstituents: symbolic adaptability and behavioral adaptability. Symbolic adaptability refers to both anticipating problems in advance and developing satisfactory and timely solutions to them in addition to staying abreast of new technologies and methods applicable to the activities of the organization. Behavioral adaptability explicates prompt and prevalent acceptance of solutions (Mott, 1972; and Luthans et al, 1988). iii. Flexibility has been considered as a separate and independent index of organizational effectiveness. It is conceptually different from adaptability as organizational changes that result from meeting emergencies are usually temporary, usually the organization returns to its pre-emergency structure, whereas adaptive changes are more likely to be permanent (Mott, 1972; and Samantara, 2004). The scale consists of 8 items, e.g., "Thinking now of the various things produced by the people you know in your division, how much are they producing? Their production is, measured on a five-point scale ranging from 1 to 5. Each item needed a different adjective as its response, so the scaling of the items was different. The Cronbach's alpha {a) was 0.88. DATA ANALYSIS The Analysis of Moments Structure (AMOS 18.0) was used to examine the structural models. The statistical analysis included structural equation modeling approach, a two-stage methodology: the measurement model and the structure model recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). The overall model fit was examined using the chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic. Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Normed Fit Index (NFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI). RMSEA values less than 0.06 are considered acceptable, whereas values less than or equal to 0.05 indicate good model fit (Kline, 2005; and Wijhe et al, 2011), GFI, NFI, and CFI values greater than 0.90 indicate acceptable fit model fit and values close to 0.95 indicate good model fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005; and Wijhe et ai., 2011). RESULTS Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, correlations of the study variables. The correlation matrix suggests that the relationships among variables are in expected direction. A moderate albeit significant relationship has been observed between employee engagement and organizational effectiveness on an over-all basis with the calculated r = 0.44 (significant at 0.01 level). This clearly outlines that higher engagement level of employees in organization is associated with increased Volume 20 ß ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AS A FUNCTION OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT organizational effectiveness. In addition, there are positive and significant correlations between productivity, adaptability and the three dimensions of employee engagement as vigor, dedication, and absorption. Remarkably, no correlation has heen found hetween one constituent of organizational effectiveness, i.e.,flexihilityand dedication component of employee engagement. Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Key Variables (N-304) Mean S.D 1 2 I. Vigor 5.16 1.07 - 2. Dedication 5.84 0.81 0.46** - 3. Absorption 539 0.98 039** 0.37** - 4. Employee Engagement 16.39 2.23 0.82** 0.75** 0.76** - 5. Productivity 3.63 0.64 0.35** 0.20** 0.27** 0.36** - 6. Adaptability 3.63 0.66 0.40** 0.28** 0.26** 0.41** 0.36** - 7. Flexibility 3.86 0.76 0.13* 0.10 0.17** 0.17** 0.15* 0.20** - 8. Organizational EfFectiveness 11.14 1.45 0.40** 0.27** 0.33** 0.44** 0.68** 0.73** 0.69** 4 3 5 6 7 8 - Note: *p^0.05;**p^0.01. MEASUREMENT MODEL The data was first analyzed for the six measurement elements (vigor, dedication, absorption, productivity, adaptability, and flexibility) with AMOS confirmatory factor analysis. All the factors were entered into the measurement model and allowed to correlate. A goodfitof the model to the data was established leading to a non significant {f- (99), n = 304) 118.14, p = 0.092, as well as other fit indexes indicated a satisfactory degree of goodness-of-fit C/min 1.19, GFI 0.958, RMSEA 0.025, p < 0.05, CFI 0.984. STRUCTURAL MODEL (Ml) The results firom SEM indicate that hypothesized model (Ml) fit the data well with X^ (8), n = 304 = 14.22, p = 0.076 and C/min 1.77 had a value less than 2. An inspection of the other fit indices also met the recommended criteria: GFI 0.984, TLI 0.971, RMSEA 0.051, p < 0.06, CFI 0.984. In combination, these fit indices suggest a satisfactory fit to the data (see Tahle 2). Examination of the path coefficients for the model explicates that the proposed paths are significant, with standardized values ranging fi:om 0.32 to 0.77. The results of the structural analysis provide support for HJ. The path from employee engagement to perceived organizational effectiveness was 0.70 which indicates a positive association and significant contrihution of employee engagement to the organizational effectiveness. This finding supports HJ. Volume 20 63 No. 4 SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STRUCTURAL MODEL (M2) Further, the results indicate that our structural model (M2) also provides a reasonable fit to the data (see Table 2). It was expected that employee engagement as a whole would be positively related to and significantly predict all the three constituents (productivity, adaptability, andflexibility)of organizational effectiveness. The structural analysis reveals that employee engagement is positively related to every component of organizational effectiveness. Also, employee engagement contributes significantly to productivity {ß = 0.53, p < 0.001), to adaptability with ß = 0.48, p < 0.001, and contributes to flexibility with a lowest albeit significant y0 = 0.15, p < 0.001. As a whole, results of the analysis shows that employee engagement is a stronger predictor of productivity and adaptability, and significantly contributes to the prediction of all the three components of organizational effectiveness. Hence, evidence was found to support HIa, Hit», and HJc. Table 2: Fit Indices of the Structural Path Model (Ml ), (M2) Model Ml M2 X' df P GFI RMSEA NFI CFI 14.22 8 6 0.76 0.984 0.051 0.965 0.984 0.19 0.990 0.039 0.979 0.993 8.76 DISCUSSION The central aim of the present study was to test the direct pathways between employee engagement and perceived organizational effectiveness, our results suggest that engaged employees perceive their organizations to be effective. We tested two hypothesized models to examine whether employee engagement in terms of vigor, dedication, and absorption qualifies a positive relationship with and contribute significantly to the perceived organizational effectiveness in general and as a whole. Results of the study put forthan argument that the criterion variable employee engagement in terms of vigor, dedication and absorption may have a significant impact on the organizational effectiveness. The findings of the study are broadly consistent with the conceptual evidences in previous studies (Erickson, 2005; Saks, 2008; Maceyand Schneider, 2008; Babcock-Roberson and Strickland, 2010; Sundaray, 2011; and Welch, 2011) that is when employees are engaged they are more likely to do things that substantiate organizational effectiveness (Saks, 2008). One possible explanation for this contribution may be the fact that engaged employees often experience positive emotions (Bindland Parker, 2010; Bakker et al., 2011). Positive emotions for instance compassion, joy etc. lead to the positive activities in organizations like helping behavior, and create an upward spiral of positive feelings (Cameron et ai., 2003). Furthermore, when organization members observe and experience love, compassion and other positive emotions, they increase their pride in organization, enjoyment of the work, and satisfaction with the job which are indispensable ingredients to the managerial success and the 'organizational excellence' (Cameron et ai., 2003; and Fineman, 1996). Volume 20 64 N,[a 4 ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AS A FUNCTION OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT Further, engaged employees perform their job tasks with a sense of deep involvement, and full concentration which is a precondition to achieve proficiency in one's work. Individuals' task proficiency may lead to the outstanding rewards for the firm's success and that organizational effectiveness may be achieved with a collaborative effort of engaged and committed employees. To add even more, it has been found that engaged employees' heightened emotional and intellectual connection with the work increase their tendency to exhibit discretionary efforts at workplace (Gibbons, 2006; and Richman et al, 2008), which in turn, has been suggested a significant predictor of organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1988). Additionally, effort has been linked to productivity and profit generation (Shuck et ai., 2011). Engaged employees are more likely to exert extra efforts and display citizenship behaviors such as altruism, civic-virtue, sportsmanship, etc. (Christian et al, 2011; Schaufeli et al, 2006; and Shimazu and Schaufeli, 2009), through which they tend to facilitate efficient functioning and smooth running of the organization and thereby enabling organizations to sustain high performance and effectiveness. Hence, our results exemplify that engaged employees enhance organizational effectiveness in many ways and a number of potential mediating mechanisms such as job performance, organizational commitment, and OCBs may play significant role in the relationship between engagement and organizational effectiveness. Collectively, in our view, these activities, initiatives, positive attitudes and behaviors as a consequence of engagement may elevate organizational effectiveness. In order to seek possible accurate explanation in extant literature for the positive associations between engagement and organizational adaptability and flexibility, it is found that engaged employees have a sense of energetic and affective connection with their work activities, and due to the positive emotional, cognitive, and behavioral fiamework, they see themselves as able to deal with the changing demands of their jobs (Schaufeli, et al., 2006). As discussed earlier, engaged employees have a sense of vigorous attitude in terms of high levels of positive energy, mental resilience at work, and willingness to invest their efforts in work and persistence even in the face of difficulties (Schaufeli et al, 2002). It follows, engaged employees' show positive behaviors in the face of emergency situations which may consequently enhance the organizational flexibility and adaptability. Furthermore, is has been suggested that engaged employees stay with their organizations longer due to the high levels of investment in and dedication to work (Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2008) and tend to contribute to organizational success and profitability more effectively. As lower turnover is significantly and directly related to the output and efficiency of the firm as it saves the cost of separation, vacancy, replacement and training (Harter et aï., 2010), this could be one of the reasons, disengaged employee costs organizations in revenues and profitability due their higher turnover intentions and absenteeism (WoUard, 2011) and that engaged employees serve the organization more effectively. Volume 20 ^ ^ No. 4 SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT Thus, the investigation of variables in present study provides a plinth for the words that employee engagement can be a deciding factor for organizational effectiveness (Sundaray, 2011). IMPLICATIONS From a practical point-of-view, promoting organizational effectiveness can be achievedamongst others- by designing an HR system that incorporates positive workplace practices. The relationship found between engagement and organizational effectiveness is insightful, because based on that knowledge; attempts should be made through selection to hire employees predisposed to engagement. In addition, our study signifies a call for organizations to provide a congenial human resource development climate in order to create conditions for high engagement level of employees. HR managers can play a significant role in understanding the psychological aspects of workplace that may intrinsically motivate employees to invest their inclusive self in performing job duties. For instance, incorporating the elements of trust, integrity, and spirituality in providing organizational support and justice may encourage high engagement level of employees at work. Organizations that wish to improve employee engagement should focus on employees' perceptions of the support they receive ftom their organization (May et al, 2004). More importantly, managers need to provide employees' clarity of their work roles that is recognized as having a direct affect on the engagement level. Further, work roles represent opportunities for individuals to apply themselves behaviorally, energetically, and expressively, in a holistic and simultaneous fashion (Kahn, 1992; Rich et al, 2010; and Christian et al, 2011). In addition, employees should be psychologically empowered to perform their work in organizations that takes in to account organizational efforts to provide meaning in their work, opportunities to develop, and increased occupational self-efficacy. Recent studies posit a great incremental value on employee engagement and that enforce HR managers to design the HR system keeping in mind employees' psychological needs and concems at workplace that may include a greater emphasis on job design, support from management, development opportunities, fair and equity at workplace, and a resourceful working environment to motivate employees reciprocate with high engagement level with their and organization. LIMITATIONS Certain limitations should be taken into consideration while interpreting the results of the current research. First, the cross-sectional design of the study inhibits to draw causal inferences about the direction of the relationships between study variables. The crosssectional nature of the data may limit the consistency of findings over time. It would be useful to conduct experimental and longitudinal studies in order to establish more certain causality of the relationship and to make more objective and independent assessments. Further, the use of self-report measures in the study posit the chances of common-method bias and that would be a hindrance to generalize the findings in the present study. Volume 20 ßß No. 4 ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AS A FUNCTION OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT In future, this study could be extended to examine association between employee engagement and organizational effectiveness with more objective data, particularly, on organizational effectiveness. The self-report measure of organizational effectiveness that captures employees' perceptions of effectiveness does not provide a concrete and objective assessment. Additionally, future studies may include other indicators of organizational effectiveness such as profitability, output, and managerial effectiveness to maximize the scope of measurement of the variable. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The implications of this research could provide interest to both practitioners and researchers. If the results of this study hold across other samples, managers could be encouraged to know that an employees' engagement with their work may influence organizational effectiveness. Researchers should be encouraged at the possibility of exploring individual and organizational peculiarities that might explain the mechanism through which work engagement influence organizational effectiveness. The relationship between work engagement and organizational effectiveness may not be straightforward that is though employees' engagement level at work influence firm's performance and efficiency, this does not necessarily imply that engaged employees will uniformly perform in ways to benefit the organization; contextual factors are likely to function as regulative aspect of engagement and influence the extent to which they augment organizational effectiveness. To add even more, the mediating, moderating variables that could affect the impact of employee engagement on organizational effectiveness can be explored using the findings fiom current study. CONCLUSION The study was undertaken to examine the associations between employee engagement and perceived organizational effectiveness. Results have suggested a positive and significant contribution of employee engagement towards organizational effectiveness. The investigation adds to the theoretical development of the nascent construct 'employee engagement' with a novel contribution to establishing its association with organizational effectiveness. It is concluded that engaged employees being enthusiastic about their work, dedicated completely to find meaning in their work and are profoundly engrossed to put forth their positive energy and mental efforts towards the attainment of organizational goals. REFERENCES 1. Anderson J C and Gerbing D W (1988), "Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-step Approach", Psychological Buiietin, Vol. 103, pp.411-23. 2. Babcock-Roberson M E and Strickland O J (2010), "The Relationship Between Charismatic Leadership, Work Engagement, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors", The journal of Psychology, Vol. 144, No. 3, pp. 313-326. Volume20 ßl No.4 SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT 3. Bakker A B and Bal P M (2010), "Weekly Work Engagement and Performance: A Study Among Starting Teachers", Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 189-296. 4. Bakker A B and Schaufeli W B (2008), "Positive Organizational Behavior: Engaged Employees in Flourishing Organizations", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29, pp. 147-154. 5. Bakker A B, Alhrecht S L and Leiter M P (2011), "Key Questions Regarding Work Engagement", European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 4-28. 6. Bakker A B, Schaufeli W B, Leiter M P and Taris T W (2008), "Work Engagement: An Emerging Concept in Occupational Health Psychology", Work and Stress, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 187-200. 7. Bindl U and Parker S K (2010), "Feeling Good and Performing Well? Psychological Engagement and Positive Behaviors at Work", in Alhrecht S (ed.). The Handhook of employee Engagement: Models, measures, and Practice, Cheltenham: EdwardElgar puhlishing. 8. Biswas S, Giri V N and Srivastava K B L (2006), "Examining the Role of HR Practices in Improving Individual Performance and Organizational Effectiveness", Management and Labour Studies, Vol. 31, pp. 111-133. 9. Biswas S (2010), "Relationship Between Psychological Climate and Turnover Intentions and its Impact on Organizational Effectiveness: A Study in Indian Organizations", ÍÍMB Management Review. Vol. 22, pp. 102-110. 10. Buchanan L (2004), The things they do for hve, Harward Business Review. 11. Buckingham M and Coffhian C (1999), First, break all the rules: What the world's greatest managers do differently, Simon and Schuster Australia, Sydney. 12. Cain J C (2006), "Pay for Performance Reforms and Federal Organizational Effectiveness", availahle at: http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/handle/1961/3728?show=full (accessed 3 May 2012). 13. Cameron K, Dutton J and Quinn R E (2003), Positive Organizational scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, Berrett-Koehler Puhlishers. 14. Cameron K, Mora C, Leutscher T and Calarco M (2011), "Effects of Positive Practices on Organizational Effectiveness", The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 266-308. 15. Cameron K S (1986), "Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus and Conflict in Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness", Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 539-553. Volume 20 ^ g No. 4 ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AS A FUNCTION OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT 16. Cameron K S and Whetton D A (1981), "Perceptions of Organizational Effectiveness Over Organizational Life Cycles", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 525-544. 17. Christian M S, Garza A S and Slaughter J E (2011), "Work Engagement: A Quantitative Review and Test of Its Relations with Task and Contextual Performance", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 89-136. 18. Cofftnan C and Gonzalez-Molina G (2002), A New Model Great Organizations Win Business by Engaging the Complex Emotions Of Employees and Customers. 19. Demerouti E and Cropanzano R (2010), "From Thought to Action: Employee Work Engagement and Job Performance", in Bakker A B and Leiter M P (Eds.), Work engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, pp. 147-163, New York: Psychology Press. 20. Endres G M and Mancheno-Smoak L (2008), "The Human Resource Craze: Human Performance Improvement and Employee Engagement", Organizational Development Joumai, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 69-78. 21. Erickson T J (2005), Testimony Submitted before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, May, 26. 22. Fallón T and Brinkerhoff R O (1996), "Framework for Organizational Effectiveness", paper presented at the American Society for Training and Development International Conference. 23. Fineman S (1996), "Emotion and Organizing", in Clegg S R, Hardy C and Nord W R (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Studies, London: SAGE. 24. Fleming J H and Asplund J (2007), Human Sigma: Managing the Employee-Customer Encounter, New York: Gallup Press. 25. Gibbons J M (2006), "Employee Engagement: A Review of Current Research and its Implications", Conference Board. 26. Goodman P S and Pennings J M (1977), New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 27. Gruman A J and Saks A M (2011), "Performance Management and Employee Engagement", Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 21, pp. 123-136. 28. Halbesleben J R B and Wheeler A R (2008), "The Relative roles of Engagement and Embeddedness in Predicting Job Performance and Intention to Leave", Work and Stress, Vol. 22, pp. 242-256. 29. Harter J K, Schmidt F L and Hayes T L (2002), "Business-Unit Level Relationship between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta-analysis", Journal of AppUed Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 268-279. Volume 20 ßg No. 4 SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT 30. Harter J K, Schmidt F L, Asplund J W, Killham E A and Agrawal S (2010), "Causal Impact of Employee Work Perceptions on the Bottom Line of Organizations", Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 378-389. 31. Hewitt Associates (2004), Heii^itt Associates stvidy shows more engaged employees drive improved business performance and return. Press Release, May. 32. Hu L and Bentler P M (1999), "Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives", Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-55. 33. Kahn W A (1990), "Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.692-724. 34. Kahn W A (1992), "To be Full There: Psychological Presence at Work", Human Relations, Vol. 45, pp. 321-49. 35. Kline R B (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, 2nd ed., Guilford Press, New York. 36. Lee H and Choi B (2003), "Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and Organizational Performance: An Integrative View and Empirical Examination", Journal of Management Information System, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 179-228. 37. Litten J I^ Vaughan A G and Wildermuth C D (2011), "The Fabric oí Engagement: The Engagement and Personality of Managers and Professionals in Human and Developmental Disability Services", Journal of Social Work in Disability and Rehabilitation, Vol. 10, pp. 189-210. 38. Little B and Little P (2006), "Employee Engagement: Conceptual Issues", Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 111120. 39. Lockwood N R (2007), "Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantages: HR's Strategic Role", SHRM Research Quarterly. 40. Luthans F, Welsh D H B and Taylor L (1988), "A Descriptive Model of Managerial Effectiveness", Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 148-162. 41. Macey W H, Schneider B, Barbera K M and Young S A (2009), Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice and competitive advantage, Wiley-Blackwell Ltd. UK. 42. Macey W H and Schneider B (2008), "The Meaning of Employee Engagement", Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 3-30. 43. May D R, Gilson R L and Harter L M (2004), "The Psychological Conditions of Meaningfulness, Safety, and Availability and the Engagement of the Human Spirit at Work", Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 11-37. Volume 20 IQ No. 4 ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AS A FUNCTION OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT 44. Mengue B, Auh S, Fisher M and Haddad A (2012), "To be Engaged or not to be Engaged: The Antecedents and Consequences of Service Employee Engagement", Journal of Business Research. 45. Mott P E (1972), The Characteristics of Effective Organizations, Harper and Row: New York. 46. Noruzi M R and Rahimi G R (2010), "Multiple Intelligences: A New Look to Organizational Effectiveness", Journal of Management Research, Vol. 2, No. 2. 47. Organ D W (1988), Organizatiorud citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. 48. Podsakoff N I^ Whiting S W, Podsakoff P M and Blume B D (2009), "Individualand Organizational-level Consequences of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Meta-analysis", Journai of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 122-141. 49. Pitt-Catsouphes M and Matz-Costa C (2008), "The Mulri-generational Workforce: Workplace Flexibility and Engagement", Community, Work and Family, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 215-229. 50. Rahimi G R and Noruzi M R (2011), "Can Intelligence Improve Organizational Effectiveness?", Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, Vol. 2, No. 10. 51. Rich B L, Lepine J A and Crawford E R (2010), "Job Engagement: Antecedents and Effects on Job Performance", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53, pp.617-635. 52. Richman A L, Civian J T, Shannon L L, Hill E J and Brennan R T (2008), "The Relationship of Perceived Flexibility, Supportive Work-life Policies and Use of Formal Flexible Arrangements and Occasional Flexibility to Employee Engagement and Expected Retention", Community, work and family. Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 183-197. 53. Rurkkhum S and Barlett K R (2012), "The Relationship between Employee Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Thailand", Human Resource Development Intemational, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 157-174. 54. Saks A M (2008), "The Meaning and Bleeding of Employee Engagement: How Muddy is the Water?", Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 40-43. 55. Saks A M (2006), "Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 600-619. 56. Salanova M, Agut S and Peiro J M (2005), "Linking Organizational Resources and Work Engagement to Employee Performance and Customer Loyalty: The Mediation of Service Climate", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 6, pp. 1217-1227. Volume 20 1-^ No. 4 SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT 57. Samantara R (2004), "Conflict Management Strategies and Organizational Effectiveness", Indian Joumal of industrial Relations, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 298-323. 58. Schaufeli W B and Bakker A B (2004), "Job Demands, Job Resources, and Their Relationship with Burnout and Engagement", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 293-315. 59. Schaufeli W B, Bakker A B and Salanova M (2006), "The Measurement of Work Engagement with a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-national Study", Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 66, pp. 701-716. 60. Schaufeli W B, Salanova M, Gonzalez-Roma V and Bakker A B (2002), "The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Analytic Approach", Journai of Happiness Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 71-92. 61. Sharma and Samantara (1995), "Conflict Management in an Indian Firm", Indian Joumal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 439-453. 62. Shimazu A and Schaufeli W B (2009), "Towards a Positive Occupational Health Psychology: The Case of Work Engagement", Jap J Stress Sei., Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.181-187. 63. Shuck B and Reio T G (2011), "The Employee Engagement Landscape and HRD: How do we Link Theory and Scholarship to Current Practice?", Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 419-428. 64. Shuck B and Wollard K (2010), "Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the Foundations", Human Resource development Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.89-110. 65. Sonnentag S (2011), "Research on Work Engagement is Well and Alive", European Joumal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 29-38. 66. Steers RM (1977), "Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 46-56. 67. Sundaray B K (2011), "Employee Engagement: A Driver of Organizational Effectiveness", European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 3, No. 8, pp. 53-59. 68. The Gallup Organization (2004), "Engagement vs. Satisfaction Among Hospital Teams", available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/10903/engagement-vssatisfaction-among-hospital-teams.aspx (accessed 7 February 2011). 69. Vinarski-Peretz H and Carmeli A (2011), "Linking Care Felt to Engagement in Innovative Behaviors in the Workplace: The Mediating Role of Psychological Conditions", Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 43-53. Volume 20 ^2 No. 4 ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AS A FUNCTION OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT 70. Welch M (2011), "The Evolution of the Employee Engagement Concept: Communication Implications", Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 328-346. 71. Wijhe C, Peeters M, Schaufeli W and Hout M (2011), "Understanding Workaholism and Work Engagement: The Role of Mood and Stop Rules", Career Development International, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 254-170. 72. Wollard K K (2011), "Quiet Desperation: Another Perspective on Employee Engagement", Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 526-537. 73. Xanthopoulou D, Bakker A B, Demerouti E and Schaufeli W B (2009), "Work Engagement and Financial Returns: A Diary Study of the Role of Job and Personal Resources", Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 183-200. Volume 20 '71 No. 4 Copyright of South Asian Journal of Management is the property of South Asian Journal of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Purchase answer to see full attachment