Development of a measure of employee engagement.
Pati, Surya Prakash
Introduction
The concept of employee engagement, despite receiving increased
attention lately (e.g. Pati & Kumar, 2010; 2011a; Joshi & Sodhi,
2011) continues to remain as "one of the greatest challenges facing
organizations in this decade and beyond" (Frank et al., 2004), as
deepening disengagement amongst employees (Bates, 2004) becomes more
explicit. These disengaged employees exhibit a passionless and
uninterested attitude towards their work thereby bringing about a
damaging impact on self, peer and organizational performance.
Researchers have contended that organizations are unable to develop
an engaged workforce and reap its promising benefits owing to the
conceptual ambiguity surrounding the same (Macey & Schneider, 2008;
Pati & Kumar, 2011b). Typically the construct of engagement has been
confused with related organizational constructs (Hallberg &
Schaufeli, 2006; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Pati & Kumar, 2011b)
thereby leading to erroneous assessments and interventions. Further,
till date only three academically grounded theories, viz. the Role
Theory Approach (Kahn, 1990), the Burnout Approach (Maslach &
Leiter, 1997; Schaufeli et al., 2002) and the Social Exchange Theory
Approach (Saks, 2006) have tried to provide a theoretical anchor to the
construct as well as develop validated measures for its assessment.
However they are limited by their inadequacy in explaining the variation
of engagement levels of employees across multiple tasks (Pati &
Kumar 2011b). Moreover the extant theories conceptualize engagement as
an attitude whose assessment is susceptible to social desirability bias
(Green & Rao, 1971). Attitude scales have also been criticized for
their inability to predict behaviour (Morrow, Jackson & Disch,
2006). Therefore, instruments that capture engagement as a behavioural
construct are necessary for not only they provide a relatively objective
measure of the construct, but also contribute towards setting a
benchmark for positive workplace behaviour. Finally, the limited
availability of validated measures of engagement and the maximal usage
of the measure constructed by Schaufeli et al (2002) heralds the warning
by Cook and Campbell (1976) on the potential construct
under-representation. Thus, there is a need for development of multiple
measures of the engagement construct to facilitate triangulation (Cook
& Campbell, 1976) as well as high construct validity (Messick,
1995).
A Behavioural Characterization of Engagement
In order to account for the above mentioned limitations in the
literature on employee engagement, Pati and Kumar (2011b)
re-characterized engagement as "expressed empowerment pertaining to
a role". Taking a behavioral perspective of engagement as well as
employing a qualitative methodology, they argued that only
psychologically enabled employees can be engaged which in turn manifests
as Passionate Task Performance (PTP) and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior (OCB). Each of the above concepts is discussed below:
Passionate Task Performance (PTP): Pati and Kumar (2011b) defined
passionate task performance (PTP) as investment of discretionary effort
in one's assigned task in order to bring out a different as well as
self and organizationally beneficial outcome against scripted task
performance. They delineated discretionary effort as investment of extra
time, brainpower and energy (Towers-Perrin, 2003), in not just
generating more of the usual (Macey & Schneider, 2008), but bringing
about something different and beneficial. They argued that PTP is a
tangible manifestation of "perceived meaningfulness" (Kahn,
1990) as well as "vigour" dimension of Schaufeli et al.
(2002).
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB): Although Saks (2006)
had excluded OCB as a possible dimension of engagement on grounds of it
being extra-role and voluntary behaviour, Pati and Kumar (2011b) argued
for its inclusion as a dimension of engagement in recognition towards
its significant contribution in lubricating the social machinery that
facilitates the exhibition of discretionary behaviour or PTP. Further,
on the basis of evidence from literature that demonstrated the
transferability (or crossing over) of engagement form one individual to
another (e.g. Bakker et al., 2005), they asserted the importance of
every employee being engaged as well as the onus on every individual
irrespective of hierarchy to create an organizational culture conducive
to engagement. Additionally, based on the findings of Vey and Campbell
(2004), that certain forms of OCB (conscientiousness and courtesy) were
more likely to be considered as in-role behaviours, they emphasized that
creation of an 'engaging' organizational atmosphere
constitutes an important part of everyone's in-role performance and
OCB is the primary medium to bring this about.
Some general assumptions on the above characterization of
engagement by Pati and Kumar (2011b) must be made explicit at this
juncture. First, engagement is a continuous variable. People can be
viewed more or less engaged, rather than engaged or not engaged. Second,
as each of the two dimensions of PTP and OCB are considered to be
conceptually distinct, engagement is considered as a positive additive
function of these dimensions. Third, the construct of engagement
elaborated in this study is not a global one encompassed across
different life situations, but rather it is specific to the domain of
work, the contrast synonymous with the contrast of the organization
based self esteem (Pierce et al., 1989) from that of global self esteem.
Measure Development Process
Anchored on the conceptual platform provided by Pati and Kumar
(2011b), the construction of the scale was initiated as detailed by the
De Vellis's (1991) procedure for scale development. The major steps
are elaborated as follows:
Item generation: In this stage the intention was to generate a
large pool of items for possible inclusion in the scale. In the present
formulation, as employee engagement is envisaged as a multidimensional
construct, items that tap both the dimensions of PTP and OCB needed to
be included. Although there is a substantial quantity of research
available on OCB, however most of the items of PTP have to be written up
anew owing to lack of empirical precedent. Thus, based on our
understanding of the explanation of PTP provided by Pati and Kumar
(2011b), 45 items for the same were generated employing brain storming
techniques.
Proceeding further, the literature revealed that the conceptual
span of OCB is extensive and seven types of workplace behaviours have
been identified that can be characterized as OCB, namely, helping
behavior, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, organizational
compliance, individual initiative, civic virtue and self development
(Podsakoff et al., 2000). On critical comparison and evaluation of each
of the above categories of OCB with that of the definition of engagement
provided by Pati and Kumar (2011b), i.e. "expressed
empowerment", we argue that only helping behavior, individual
initiative and civic virtue are to be considered for incorporation as
dimensions of employee engagement. Hence items were adapted accordingly
from Moorman and Blakely (1992) for both the sub-constructs of helping
behavior and individual initiative. For civic virtue, the items were
adapted from Organ (1988). Thus, 15 items (5 for each of the
subconstruct) were selected to assess the construct of OCB.
Expert Review
The 60 items were then evaluated by a panel consisting of one
faculty member and three doctoral students. The faculty member,
conversant with the content area of engagement, was requested to review
each item in terms of its relevance to the domain of engagement. This
initial screening resulted in a reduced list of 32 items (21 items for
PTP and 10 items for OCB, of which 3 items belonged to civic virtue, 3
items belonged to individual initiative and 4 items belonged to helping
behavior), which were further taken forward for evaluation. The doctoral
student reviewers were then provided with the definition and description
of PTP and OCB developed for this research and asked to judge each item
with regard to (a) the relevance to the above constructs as defined (b)
conceptual clarity (c) sentence clarity (d) conciseness, and (e) social
desirability. Each item was ranked on all the above dimensions, and a
mean rank was calculated by averaging the ranking of all the three
reviewers. For PTP, the highest ranking 5 items were selected to be
included in the final list while the highest ranking 3 items were
selected for each of the constructs of helping behavior, individual
initiative and civic virtue. Thus, the final version of engagement
instrument used for the study consisted of 14 self-report items to be
scored on a 5 point Likert continuum (1--Strongly Disagree, 5--Strongly
Agree).
The basis for our decision to employ a self report is primarily
guided by the inclusion of OCB as a dimension of employee engagement.
Although there exists a debate in literature on the suitability of self
report versus supervisor report for assessing OCB, we adhere to the self
report mechanism for we remain with the argument of scholars that
superiors may only observe OCB that is performed in their presence thus
resulting in an unfair appraisal of the same thereby leading to low
scores (e.g. Moorman, 1991; Ehrhart, 2004). Moreover Schnake (1991)
noted that supervisor ratings might be biased due to halo effect, memory
distortion and selective memory since citizenship behavior is so
difficult to observe. Further, since supervisor ratings are from a
single rater, they are likely to be less reliable and valid (Ehrhart,
2004). More importantly, since engagement is argued to be influenced by
perceived meaningfulness of the task (Kahn, 1990), the use of self
report is more appropriate, for meaningfulness is an internal
construction of employees.
Inclusion of Validation Items
To check for social desirability bias, the 5-item Brief Social
Desirability Scale (BSDS) developed by Haghighat (2007) was included.
Further the 17-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) (Schaufeli et
al., 2002) and 22-item Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) (Maslach &
Jackson, 1986) were included for possible tests of construct validity.
The employee engagement scale developed here was expected to positively
correlate with the UWES, for both the scales are supposedly measuring
the same construct and negatively with MBI since engagement has been
argued to be positive antithesis of burnout (Maslach & Lieter,
1997).
Procedure & Sample
Respondents were drawn from three different organizations across
industries comprising power (1 organization) and information technology
(2 organizations) based on purposive sampling. The participants, after
being assured confidentiality of their individual responses, were
administered a survey instrument that consisted of items related to the
instruments of UWES, MBI, BSDS and our 14-item scale of employee
engagement. In total 278 usable employee surveys were returned.
Respondents were fairly evenly distributed across organizations and
industrial sectors. While 38% of the respondents in the resultant sample
originated from the power sector, the rest were from information
technology. The employees in unison, averaged 34.3 years in age [S.D. =
6.3] and 4.2 years in work experience [S. D. = 5.4]. All of them had a
college degree with 34% possessing a Master's degree. Females
comprised 52% of the total respondents.
Analysis & Findings
Principal component analysis, employing varimax rotation, was
carried out on the 14 items of the engagement instrument with no
restrictions on the number of factors, resulting in two factors. A total
of 6 out of 9 original items, corresponding to the dimensions of
individual initiative and helping behavior exhibited solitary loading on
one single factor which we christened as organization citizenship
behavior (OCB)[eigen value: 2.78]. While two items of civic virtue
loaded on PTP, one item had very low factor loading thereby advocating
the removal of civic virtue in entirety from further analysis in the
interest of brevity and subscale purity. Similarly a total of 3 out of 5
original items conceptualized to represent the dimension of passionate
task performance (PTP) [eigen value: 1.74], loaded on a single factor.
The final list of retained items, explaining 59% of the variance, is
presented in Table 1 with their respective factor loadings. The Cronbach
Alpha values, representing the reliability of the subscales, were
calculated to be 0.660 for PTP and 0.757 for OCB respectively, the
values being above the specified limit of 0.6 as suggested by Sekaran
(1992).
Next, item analyses were conducted for each factor to further
purify the scales (Table 2). Following the procedure suggested by
Bearden et al. (2001), items were retained if (1)the item-to-total
correlation was above 0.35, (2)inter-item correlation above 0.20, and
(3)a factor loading above 0.50, given that they have face validity with
regard to the appropriate dimension. In accordance with the above
guidelines, the items OCB 3 and OCB 4 were dropped from the instrument.
However in the interest of subscale reliability as well as considering
the higher factor loadings (Table 1), OCB 1 and OCB 2 were retained in
the instrument. Finally, a 7-item instrument was carried further for a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
The two subscales obtained from the initial factor analysis and
their 7 indicators were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis. It
must be mentioned here that although chi square test is the most common
method to assess goodness of fit for a model, yet it is highly
handicapped by its strong dependence on the sample size. Therefore, many
researchers (e.g. Hoe, 2008) vouch for the examination of the ratio of
the chi square to the degree of freedom for the model. A ratio less than
3 is often accepted as a good fit. The bi-factor model of the construct
was contrasted with a mono-factor model (with all 7 items loading on a
single factor) as well as an absolute null model (with no relationships
among the 7 items). The results, of various fit indices, depicted in
Table 3 supports the acceptance of the bi-factor conceptualization of
engagement over the mono-factor and the null models. The Cronbach Alpha
values were determined to be 0.660 and 0.771 for PTP and OCB
respectively. Fig. 1 portrays the dimensions of PTP and OCB with their
corresponding items.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Preliminary Validity Assessment
The preliminary validity assessment of the developed employee
engagement scale was done by conducting a bi-variate correlation of the
same with UWES (Schaufeli et al., 2002) and MBI (Maslach and Jackson,
1986) respectively. As a test of convergent validity, the subscales of
UWES must positively correlate with the new instrument; similarly the
subscales of MBI must be negatively related with the same. As can be
observed from Table 4, the correlations are in the expected directions,
thereby providing encouraging evidence for convergent validity. It may
also be noticed from Table 4 that the new instrument has no significant
correlations with the social desirability scale (BSDS). However, the
result is inconclusive due to low reliability of the BSDS instrument.
Discriminant validity at the subscale level can be assessed by
examining the relationships among the subscales of the new scale and
that of UWES. Since Pati and Kumar (2011b) characterize PTP as a
tangible manifestation of the "vigor" dimension of Schaufeli
et al. (2002), a positive correlation must exist between the two. On the
other hand OCB does not have any strict parallel in the scale developed
by Schaufeli et al. (2002). It can be observed in Table 5, that the
relationship of "vigor" with "PTP" is not only
positive but stronger than its relationship with "OCB". The
results support the contention that the subscales PTP and OCB are
sufficiently distinct conceptually and empirically.
Discussion
This research operationalized the construct of employee engagement
as defined by Pati and Kumar (2011b). The study modeled employee
engagement to be an additive function of PTP and OCB and brought forth a
7-item instrument to assess the same. Although acceptable evidence was
presented towards adjudging the validity of the developed instrument, it
must be borne in mind that these validity assessments are preliminary in
nature to the extent that these are based on correlations of the new
scale with another established scale measuring the same construct or a
different scale in the same domain (MBI). Thus, future research must
attempt to extort further evidence of validity based on relationships
between the new scale and relevant organizational variables. Further
identification and empirical examination of different antecedents and
consequences for each of the subscales must be done to generate decisive
evidence for discriminant validity. Moreover, inconclusive result on the
potential social desirability independence of the new scale was
obtained, which calls for a re-examination of the instrument in order to
raise the confidence on its application and results. Additionally,
engagement being a victim of conceptual chaos, and more so in the
practitioner's literature (Pati & Kumar, 2011b), construct
validation must explore the potential independence of this instrument
from the instruments of other theoretically related constructs like
organizational commitment, job involvement, workholism etc. Finally the
degree of empowerment shall differ across the organizational hierarchy
(Menon, 2001) as well as national cultures (Hui, Au & Fock, 2004).
Consequently a related variation in degree of engagement can be
expected. The factor structure elucidated in this study must be thus
examined for its stability across national cultures and hierarchical
levels.
Acknowledgement
The author is thankful to Ms. Shipa Priya for assisting him in his
survey for this study.
References
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2005),
"Crossover of Burnout and Engagement among Working Couples",
Human Relations, 58 (5),661-89.
Bates, S. (2004), "Getting Engaged", HR Magazine, 49(2),
44-51.
Bearden, W.O., Hardesty, D.M. & Rose, R.L. (2001),
"Consumer Self-Confidence: Refinements in Conceptualization and
Measurement", Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 121-34.
Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1976), "The Design and
Conduct of Quasi-Experiments and True Experiments in Field
Settings", in Dunnette M. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally: Chicago, IL.
De Vellis, R. F. (1991), Scale Development: Theory and
Applications. Sage: Newbury Park, C.A.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004), "Leadership and Procedural Justice
Climate as Antecedents of Unit-level Organizational Citizenship
Behavior", Personnel Psychology, 57, 61-94.
Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R. P. & Taylor, C. R. (2004), "The
Race for Talent: Retaining and Engaging Workers in the 21st
Century", Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12-25.
Green, P. E. & Rao, V. R. (1971), "Conjoint Measurement
for Quantifying Judgmental Data", Journal of Marketing Research,
8,355-63.
Haghighat, R. (2007), "The Development of the Brief Social
Desirability Scale (BSDS)", Europe's Journal of Psychology
(http:// www.ejop.org), 3(4)[retrieved on 14.05.2010]
Hallberg, U. E. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006), "Same but
Different? Can Work Engagement Be Discriminated from Job Involvement and
Organizational Commitment?" European Psychologist, 11(2), 119-27.
Hoe, S. L. (2008), "Issues and Procedures in Adopting
Structural Equation Modeling Technique", Journal of Applied
Quantitative Methods, 3(1), 76-83.
Hui, M. K., Au, K. & Fock, H. (2004), "Empowerment Effects
Across Cultures", Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1),
46-60.
Joshi, R. J. & Sodhi, J. S. (2011), "Drivers of Employee
Engagement in Indian Organizations", Indian Journal of Industrial
Relations, 47(1), 162-82.
Kahn, W. (1990), "Psychological Conditions of Personal
Engagement and Disengagement at Work", Academy of Management
Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Macey, H. M. & Schneider, B. (2008), "The Meaning of
Employee Engagement", Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1,
3-30.
Maslach, C. & Jackson, S. E. (1986), Maslach Burnout Inventory
Manual, Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA.
Maslach, C. & Leiter, M. P. (1997),"The Truth about
Burnout: How Organizations Cause Personal Stress and What to Do about
It", in
Shirey, M. R. (2006), Stress and Coping in Nurse Managers: Two
Decades of Research, Nursing Economics, 24(4), 193-203.
Menon, S. T. (2001),"Employee Empowerment: an Integrated
Psychological Approach", Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 50(1),153-80.
Messick, S. (1995), "Validity of Psychological Assessment:
Validation of Inferences from Persons' Responses and Performances
as Scientific Enquiry into Score Meaning", American Psychologist,
50(9), 741-49.
Moorman, R. H. & Blakely, G. L. (1992), "A Preliminary
Report on a New Measure of Organizational Citizenship Behavior", in
Moorman, R. H. & Blakely, G. L.
(1995),"Individualism-Collectivism as an Individual Difference
Predictor of Organizational Citizenship Behavior", Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-42.
Moorman, R. H. (1991), Relationship between Organizational Justice
and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Do Fairness Perceptions
Influence Employee Citizenship?" Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
845-55.
Morrow, J. R. (Jr.), Jackson, A. W., Disch, J. G. & Mood, D. P.
(2006), Measurement and Evaluation in Human Performance (3rd ed.), Human
Kinetics: Champaign, IL
Organ, D. W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behaviour,
Lexington Books: Lexington, M. A.
Pati, S. P. & Kumar, P. (2010), "Employee Engagement: Role
of Self Efficacy, Organizational Support and Supervisor Support",
Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(1), 126-137.
Pati, S. P. & Kumar, P. (2011a), "Influencing Employee
Attitudes through HR Practices: an Exploratory Study in Indian IT
Sector", International Journal of Indian Culture and Business
Management, 3(6), 607-22.
Pati S. P. & Kumar P. (2011b), "Work Engagement: a
Rethink", Indian Journal of Indus trial Relations, 47(2), 264-76.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L. & Dunham, R. B.
(1989), "Organization-Based Self-Esteem: Construct Definition,
Measurement and Validation", Academy of Management Journal, 32(3),
622-48.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B. & Bachrach, D.
G. (2000), "Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review
of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future
Research", Journal of Management, 26, 513-63.
Saks, A. M. (2006), "Antecedents and Consequences of Employee
Engagement", Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 60019.
Sekaran, U. (1992), Research Methods for Business, John Wiley &
Sons: New York, NY
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W. & Van Rhenen, W. (2008),
"Workaholism, Burnout and Engagement: Three of a Kind or Three
Different Kinds of Employee Well Being", Applied Psychology, an
International Review, 57, 173-203.
Schnake, M. (1991), "Organizational Citizenship: a Review,
Proposed Model and Research Agenda", Human Relations, 44(7),
735-59.
Towers-Perrin, (2003), "Working Today: Understanding what
Drives Employee Engagement", in Macey, H. M. & Schneider, B.
(2008), "The Meaning of Employee Engagement", Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1, 3-30.
Vey, M. A. & Campbell, J. P. (2004), "In-Role or
Extra-Role Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Which Are We
Measuring?" Human Performance, 17(1), 119-35.
Surya Prakash Pati is Visiting Assistant Professor, Indian
Institute of Management Kozhikode.
Email:sppati@gmail.com
Table 1 Principal Component Analysis Results for Employee
Engagement Input
Item Factor 1 Factor 2
OCB 1: I frequently suggest 0.853 0.191
coworkers on how the
group can improve
OCB 2: I voluntarily help new 0.783 0.188
employees settle into
their jobs
OCB 3: I encourage others to
try new and more effective 0.754 -.226
ways of doing their job
OCB 4: I volunteer to complete 0.690 0.295
extra task
OCB 5: For issues that may have
serious consequences, I 0.656 0.283
express my opinions
honestly even when others
may disagree
OCB 6: I show genuine concern
and courtesy towards 0.626 0.273
coworkers, even in most
trying business or
personal situations
PTP I: I give my all to my job 0.104 0.853
PTP 2: I push myself really hard 0.136 0.786
to meet any challenge in
job performance
PTP 3: I exert a lot of energy 0.109 0.579
in performing my job
Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability &
Inter-correlation
Items Mean 1 2 3
(Std. Dev)
1. PTP 1 3.86 (0.95)
2. PTP 2 3.79 (1.11) .518 **
3. PTP 3 3.98 (0.98) .240 ** .395 **
4. OCB 5 4.19 (0.83) .210 ** .200 ** .167 *
5. OCB 6 4.10 (0.78) .270 ** .279 ** .306 **
6. OCB 1 3.95 (0.95) .230 ** .128 .192 *
7. OCB 2 3.92 (0.94) .073 .118 .156 *
8. OCB 3 3.82 (1.02) -.014 .007 .182 *
9. OCB 4 3.92 (1.02) -.071 -.153 * .127
10. Total
Engagement 27.81 (4.12) .592 ** .634 ** .572 **
Items 4 5 6
1. PTP 1
2. PTP 2
3. PTP 3
4. OCB 5
5. OCB 6 .446 **
6. OCB 1 .467 ** .454 **
7. OCB 2 .547 ** .456 ** .464 **
8. OCB 3 .348 ** .344 ** .318 **
9. OCB 4 .375 ** .436 ** .536 **
10. Total
Engagement .660 ** .698 ** .650 **
Items 7 8 9
1. PTP 1
2. PTP 2
3. PTP 3
4. OCB 5
5. OCB 6
6. OCB 1
7. OCB 2
8. OCB 3 .508 **
9. OCB 4 .521 ** .645 **
10. Total
Engagement .617 ** .366 ** .372 **
Note: Items' wordings are available in Table 1;
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01
Table 3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Employee Engagement
Instrument: Model Fit Indices
Model Fit Acceptable Bi-factor Mono-factor Null model
Indices values of model output model output output
(Hoe, 2008) indices
(7-item (7-item (7-item
instrument) instrument) instrument)
Chi sq./df < 3 1.753 7.759 11.471
CFI 0.9-1 0.967 0.677 0.641
GFI 0.9-1 0.968 0.692 0.600
AGFI 0.9-1 0.929 0.662 0.467
RMSEA < 0.08 0.052 0.156 0.278
Note: Chi sq: Chi square; df: degrees of freedom; CFI: Comparative
fit index; GFI: Goodness of fit index; AGFI: Adjusted goodness
of fit index; RMSEA: Root mean square error of approximation
Table 4 Correlations of UWES & MBI Subscales With
Employee Engagement Instrument
UWES
(Schaufeli et al. 2002)
[Alpha = 0.791]
Vigour Dedic Absorbation
Employee
Engagement 0.463 ** 0.586 ** 0.445 **
MBI
(Maslach and Jackson, 1986)
[Alpha = 0.745]
Exhaution Cynicismstion * Professional
Efficacy
Employee
Engagement -0.135 -0.034 -0.336 **
BSDS
(Hagighat, 2007)
[Alpha = 0.592]
Employee
Engagement 0.113
* Reverse scored; Note: ** p < 0.05
Table 5 Preliminary Discriminant Validity of Employee
Engagement Instrument
Dimensions of UWES
Vigour Dedication Absorption
Passionate Task Performance (PTP) 0.469 ** 0.451 ** 0.375 **
Organization Citizenship 0.296 ** 0.498 ** 0.350 **
Behaviour (OCB)
Note: ** p < 0.05
