EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND RETENTION: A STUDY...
Transcript of EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND RETENTION: A STUDY...
Synopsis
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND RETENTION: A
STUDY OF SOFTWARE PROFESSIONALS
By
PRAVEEN KUMAR SHARMA
Enrolment No. : 11409526
Dr. Rajnish Kumar Misra - Supervisor
Jaypee Business School
JAYPEE INSTITUE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
(Declared Deemed to be University U/S 3 of UGC Act)
A-10, SECTOR-62, NOIDA, INDIA
November 2016
© Copyright JAYPEE INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, NOIDA
(Declared Deemed to be University U/S 3 of the UGC Act)
November 2016
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Synopsis-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. Synopsis-1
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND RETENTION: A STUDY OF SOFTWARE
PROFESSIONALS .......................................................................................................... Synopsis-3
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... Synopsis-3
1.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... Synopsis-3
1.2 SCOPE OF THIS STUDY .................................................................................. Synopsis-3
1.3 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY ......................................................................... Synopsis-4
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ Synopsis-4
2.1 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................... Synopsis-4
2.2 EMPLOYEE RETENTION ................................................................................ Synopsis-5
2.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ...................................................................... Synopsis-6
2.4 CORE SELF EVALUATION ............................................................................. Synopsis-6
2.5 JOB SATISFACTION ........................................................................................ Synopsis-7
2.6 RESEARCH GAPS ............................................................................................. Synopsis-7
2.7 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ........................................................................ Synopsis-8
2.8 HYPOTHESES IN THE STUDY ....................................................................... Synopsis-8
2.9 PROPOSED FRAMEWORK AMONG RESEARCH VARIABLES ................ Synopsis-9
RESEARCH METHDOLOGY ....................................................................................... Synopsis-9
3.1 OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS ..................................................................... Synopsis-10
3.2 DEFINE THE POPULATION .......................................................................... Synopsis-11
3.3 SAMPLING FRAME........................................................................................ Synopsis-11
3.4 SAMPLING UNIT ............................................................................................ Synopsis-11
Synopsis-2
3.5 SAMPLE DESIGN ........................................................................................... Synopsis-11
3.6 SAMPLE SIZE.................................................................................................. Synopsis-12
3.7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................. Synopsis-12
FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... Synopsis-14
4.1 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ......................................................................... Synopsis-14
4.2 EMPLOYEE RETENTION .............................................................................. Synopsis-14
4.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE .................................................................... Synopsis-14
4.4 CORE SELF-EVALUATION .......................................................................... Synopsis-15
4.5 JOB SATISFACTION ...................................................................................... Synopsis-15
4.6 TESTING OF HYPOTHESIS........................................................................... Synopsis-15
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ........................................................................... Synopsis-16
5.1 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................................... Synopsis-16
LIMITATION AND SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH.......................................... Synopsis-17
6.1 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS ....................................................................... Synopsis-18
SELECTED REFERENCES ......................................................................................... Synopsis-18
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................... Synopsis-24
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ........................................................................................... Synopsis-40
Synopsis-3
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND RETENTION: A STUDY OF
SOFTWARE PROFESSIONALS
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Globalization is omnipresent and we are living in a ―global age‖ [1]. It presents several
difficulties and challenges to existing organizations. To survive in the competitive world,
organizations need to focus on the strength of their employee to achieve competitive advantage
through emphasis on managing human resources. Employees play a key role in the organization's
success. Nowadays, many organizations are facing the problem of engaging the employees.
Various factors effect employee engagement, these are namely: employee attitudes, employee
retention, personality, organizational culture [2] [3] [4]. Various researches have demonstrated
its link with productivity, and organizational performance [5] [6]. So in this research, focus was
primarily on employee engagement in information technology (IT) industry in India. And finally,
towards development and testing of a framework on employee engagement that includes four
constructs; job satisfaction, employee retention, organizational culture and core self evaluation.
1.2 SCOPE OF THIS STUDY
The present study was conducted to develop the constructs and their relevant scales with
exclusive focus on software professionals and also to test the framework for enhancing the
engagement and retention of these professionals. The study will help the organization to know
the current levels of engagement of their employees, and will allow them to take necessary
actions to motivate them to perform better and enhance their satisfaction and intention to stay in
the organization.
Synopsis-4
1.3 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
Around the world, the concept of employee engagement has become very important during the
last decade and research from survey data shows low levels of engagement in many countries.
The employee engagement is a phenomenon in the workplace that has started attracting attention
of many researchers. Due to its significance in improving workplace performance and
profitability, much interest has been shown towards interpreting it as well as identifying its
potential effect.
Employee engagement is the level of commitment and involvement an employee has towards
their organization and its values. An engaged employee is aware of the business context and
works with colleagues to improve performance, productivity within the job for the benefit of the
organization [6] [7].
Information technology as a sector has grown considerably in past decade in India and made its
presence felt worldwide. This emerging sector has its own human resource challenge that needs
to be addressed. One among them is high attrition rate of software professionals. Though there
are number of reasons for leaving the organization, interventions to control it is difficult. Instead,
it is better to increase active engagement of employees so that they are retained in the
organization. Therefore, it became important to address this problem, and examine the factors
that affect employee engagement.
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Initially, Kahn (1990) was the first, who proposed the concept of personal engagement and ―is
described as the employing or expressing of oneself physically, cognitively, and emotionally
during the work role performance‖ [8]. May et al. (2004) examined the relationship between
determinants and indirect effect connected with three psychological conditions (safety,
availability and meaningfulness) upon engagement at work and also supported the work on
personal engagement [9].
Synopsis-5
Leiter and Maslach (2004) cf [10] , Laschinger and Finegan (2005) [11], Leiter and Laschinger
(2006) [12] ,Cho et al. (2006) [13], supported the concept of engagement and related it with
burnout. Burnout is described as a psychological syndrome seen as cynicism, inefficacy and
exhaustion, which is experienced as a reaction to chronic job stress. Engagement is
comprehended to be the direct inverse to the burnout. Burnout is characterized as cynicism (low
involvement), inefficacy (low efficacy) and exhaustion (low energy) and, whereas, the
engagement is defined as high level of involvement and high level of energy.
Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) [14], Salanova et al. (2005) [15], Hakanen et al (2005, 2006) [16]
[17], Llorens et al. (2006) [18], Richardson et al. (2006) [19], Mauno et al. (2007) [20],
Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) [21], supported the concept of engagement in terms of work
engagement. Work engagement is defined as ― positive, fulfilling, work related mind that is
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption‖ [22]. Vigor is explained by high level of
energy and mental resilience during the working hours. Dedication is strongly associated
(involved) with one’s job along with experience of feeling of enthusiasm, significance, pride,
inspiration and challenge. Absorption is portrayed by being completely connected in addition to
being happily immersed in one’s work, time passes rapidly and one feel difficulties while
separating oneself from the work.
Subsequent studies, defined employee engagement as ―individual’s involvement and satisfaction
as well as enthusiasm for work‖ [23]. This concept is supported by Harter et al. (2002) [23] ,
Cathcart et al. (2004) [24], Macey et al. (2009) [25]. Later, employee engagement is defined as
―an individual sense of purpose and focused energy, evident to others in the display personal
initiative, adaptability, effort, and persistence directed towards organizational goals‖ [25].
Furthermore, Simpson et al.(2009) [10] summarized employee engagement definition in the four
ways such as personal engagement, engagement/ burnout, work engagement and employee
engagement so there is no single and common construct to define the engagement.
2.2 EMPLOYEE RETENTION
Employee retention is a process in which employees are encouraged to remain with the
organization for the maximum period of time or until the completion of the project. Employee
Synopsis-6
retention is beneficial for the organization as well as the employee. It suggested that efforts of
employers to avoid turnover, i.e. the means of retaining knowledge workers, Cf [26]. Retention
effects system performance and organizational profit. So, now days, retaining key persons are
major issues in the organization.
2.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
The term organizational culture has been explained differently by the various researchers.
Enormous studies show that the meaning of culture has not been broadly agreed, even in the
discipline of anthropology [27]. But the use organizational culture is especially noticeable inside
literature [28]. It is usually seen that ―the literature on culture is loaded with debate –regarding
definition, methodologies, prospective and application‖ [29]. The term culture is described as
―the shared rules governing cognitive and affective aspects of members in an organization, and
means whereby they are shaped and expressed‖ [30]. So, organizational culture can be
considered as a constellation of factors that are learned through our interaction with the
environment and during our development years while working in an organization. Additionally,
organizational culture is also referred to as a set of assumptions, beliefs and values [31].
2.4 CORE SELF EVALUATION
Core self-evaluation (CSE) is a ―higher-order personality trait‖ that consists of four well-
recognized traits: self-esteem, locus of control, generalized self-efficacy, and emotional stability
vs. neuroticism [32] [33]. CSE is demonstrated in four highly correlated traits, which are self
esteem, locus of control, neuroticism /emotional stability, generalized self efficacy [34]. Here
self-esteem is described as self understanding/perception of one’s well worth, addition to value
and importance. Locus of control describes individual/personal control over life events.
Neuroticism /emotional stability describe the tendency to be secure and well adjusted.
Generalized self-efficacy describes the overall confidence to handle a variety of situations within
the available options.
The combination of these factors can be considered as positive self regard [35]. Judge and his
colleagues (2000) observed that CSE has an impact on job and life satisfaction [36]. In other
Synopsis-7
words, the framework proposed by them not only explain the positive characteristics of the
people but also indicates way these kind of positive trait affect emotions and behaviors.
2.5 JOB SATISFACTION
Satisfaction is derived from Latin words satis (enough) and facere (to perform as well as make).
Large volumes of research are available on job satisfaction (JS) in the arena of industrial
psychology and human resource management. In fact, we all seem to have an opinion on job
satisfaction. Some firmly insist that the key of job satisfaction is money; others indicate that it is
working condition; yet some assume that its employee participation. Though, it makes a lively
discussion at work, but it's difficult to understand the construct of job satisfaction.
The idea and evaluation of job satisfaction started in 1911 with the use of exploratory research
design of F. W. Taylor, where he mentioned that incentives like salary, promotion, incentive
payments could lead to job satisfaction [37].
Job satisfaction is explained from multiple perspectives by various researchers. The major
contribution was considered of Hoppock (1935) who did major work on job satisfaction prior to
1933 [38]. These researches indicated that diversity of variables influence job satisfaction. Locke
(1976) explained job satisfaction as ―pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the
appraisal of one’s job and job experiences‖ [39]. Ostroff & Kozlowski (1992) defined JS as ―a
general attitude which an employee has toward his or her job, and is directly tied to individual
needs, including challenging work, equitable rewards and a supportive work environment, and
colleagues‖ [40]. Subsequently, Balzer et al., (1997) explained job satisfaction as ―the feeling
workers has about his or her job experiences in relation to previous experiences, current
experiences, or available alternative‖[41].
2.6 RESEARCH GAPS
On the basis of review of literature, there are still scope for research in the domain of employee
engagement and retention. The following research gaps were identified:
• relationships between engagement and personality attributes.
Synopsis-8
• influence of personality attribute on satisfaction.
• organizational culture on engagement and satisfaction
• lack of integrated framework of engagement and retention.
2.7 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1. To identify the factors of employee engagement, organizational culture, job satisfaction
and employee retention.
2. To develop and adapt scale for employee engagement, job satisfaction, organizational
culture, and employee retention constructs.
• Evaluate validity and reliability for each of the constructs.
3. To examine the relationship between individual and organizational factor on employee
engagement, job satisfaction and employee retention.
4. To test the theoretical framework.
• Evaluate the direct and indirect (mediator) effect of employee engagement on
organizational culture and job satisfaction in the study.
2.8 HYPOTHESES IN THE STUDY
Hypothesis 1: Organizational culture will be positively related with employee engagement.
Hypothesis 2: Organizational culture will be positively related with job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3: Employee engagement will be positively related with job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4: Job satisfaction will be positively related with employee retention.
Hypothesis 5: Core self evaluation will be positively related with employee engagement.
Hypothesis 6: Core self evaluation will be positively related with job satisfaction.
Synopsis-9
Hypothesis 7: Employee engagement mediates the relationship between organizational culture
and job satisfaction.
2.9 PROPOSED FRAMEWORK AMONG RESEARCH VARIABLES
RESEARCH METHDOLOGY
In this research, both qualitative and quantitative aspects of research with an emphasis on cross-
sectional research design were used. The qualitative aspect was used in the initial stage to
achieve first objective. This stage was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, the literature
review yielded the list of factors for each variable (construct). On this basis, factors were
grouped for common dimensions and we prepared the checklist on the research variables i.e.
employee engagement, organizational culture, job satisfaction and employee retention. In the
second phase, industry and academic experts verified these checklists. Industry experts who were
Core Self
Evaluation
Employee
Retention
Job
Satisfaction
Employee
Engagement
Organizational
Culture
Core Self
Evaluation
Synopsis-10
included for evaluation were working as project manager or senior level HR manager in an IT
Company and academic experts were those working in management education and had published
papers on these constructs.
In the construct development approach, those factors were considered in the study that were
having more than 80% scoring and were also considered relevant by the industry experts in their
organization. This approach was applied on all the constructs i.e. employee engagement, job
satisfaction, organizational culture and employee retention construct. After short listing the
factors, measurement scale was developed / adapted by selecting statements from the existing
instruments or items from the previous studies. The resultant operational definitions are
mentioned below.
3.1 OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS
Organizational culture is the extent to which the organization is employee-oriented,
supports innovation, reviews policies, gives autonomy, and facilitates employees for open
communication.
Employee engagement is the extent to which the engaged employee is high on job
involvement, emotional attachment, positive attitude towards work and organizational
commitment.
Job satisfaction is the extent to which the person perceives positively about job security,
recognition, pay, promotion, training and supervision in the organization.
Retention is the degree to which the employee gets the career opportunity for growth,
work-life balance, appreciation and stimulation of the work they do result in intention to
stay with the organization.
Constructs Employee
engagement Job satisfaction Organizational
culture Employee
retention No. of factors
(Checklist) 17 23 21 13
No. of factors in
final study 4 6 5 4
Synopsis-11
A descriptive statistical analysis was used in the study to ascertain the demographic distribution
of respondents and their scores on each construct. Descriptive research design is typically
concerned with determining the frequency with which something occurs or the relationship
between variables (Dillon et al., 1993: 32). After finalizing the constructs and factors in the
study, we developed the initial hypothesis. Before testing the hypotheses developed in objectives
three and four, this design helped in investigating the influence of demographic variables on all
the constructs included in the study. Subsequently, the proposed framework was tested using
inferential statistics.
3.2 DEFINE THE POPULATION
a. Element: Software Professional
b. Sampling units: Working in IT Industry
c. Location: NOIDA, India
3.3 SAMPLING FRAME
The sampling frame is prepared taking into consideration data on IT companies from
NASSCOM directory.
3.4 SAMPLING UNIT
The sampling unit is the basic unit containing the elements of the target population. The
Software professionals working in IT Company in Noida were considered.
3.5 SAMPLE DESIGN
Keeping in view the rationale of the study, purposive sampling was used in the research to
achieve representativeness in the selection of companies. Firstly, the list of IT services
companies in Noida was prepared on the basis of their performance for the year 2013-14
(NASCOM, 2014). Out of these list three company categories was identified on the basis of
revenue capitalization i.e large cap, medium cap and small cap revenue. Further to draw
representative sample, each category was divided into three hierarchies (senior level, middle
level and junior level) and software professionals (respondent) selected in the ratio of 1:2:2 with
Synopsis-12
each respondent having a minimum of one year experience for participating in the survey. The
questionnaire was distributed through the HR Manager.
3.6 SAMPLE SIZE
Sample size: 464, Questionnaire-distributed: 464, Questionnaire-received: 425, Used in the
study: 410
3.7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Initially, demographic distribution was assessed through descriptive statistics, mainly through
frequency distribution and tabulation. T-test was used for comparing groups on each
demographic variable. Further One –Way ANOVA was used to compare mean value for more
than two independent groups on the demographic information. It was used where the effect of
different levels of one variable was tested on the dependent variable.
Factor analysis was utilized for different purpose: firstly, to develop the measure (scale) and it’s
associated scoring keys. Secondly, to develop theory concerning the nature of construct. And
finally, to review the relationship in the form of a more parsimonious set of factor score which
could be used in subsequent analysis [42]. Three types of analysis for scale development was
used namely, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and
structural equation modeling (SEM). Firstly, exploratory factor analysis was used to identify the
number of factors in addition to, find out the variable that associate to a specific factor [43].
Secondly, confirmatory factor analysis was used to validate the emergent factor structure through
EFA. CFA deals with measurement models on the relationship between latent variable and
observed measure [44]. And lastly, structural equation modeling technique was used, a statistical
methodology that requires a confirmatory approach (hypothesis testing) to analyze a structural
theory bearing on some phenomenon [45].
In EFA, KMO and Bartlett’s test, communalities, total variance explained, rotation component
matrix-Promax rotation solution were used for core self evaluation, employee engagement, job
satisfaction, organizational culture and employee retention construct. The value of KMO should
Synopsis-13
be greater than 0.50, Bartlett’s test should be significant at p value (.05), commonalities value
should be greater than 0.50. In this study, Promax rotation along with principal component
analysis was used with a criterion of suppressing small coefficients or factor loading at .03 and
below.
In CFA, measurement model was used as a confirmatory tool for testing the measurement theory.
In this research, CFA resulted in four factor model for core self evaluation; four factor model for
employee engagement; six factor model for job satisfaction; five factor model for organizational
culture; four factor model for employee retention were used. The criteria for goodness of fit
indices were used in this research is given in the table (see Table).
The reliability coefficient of measuring instrument shows that the scores are more or less similar
on a scale / test after ―independent administrations of the same instrument consistently yield
similar results‖ [46]. The reliability coefficient is calculated and referred as Cronbach’s Alfa
[47]. And value of cronbach’s alpha should be 0.70 and above.
The validity is described as the ability of an instrument to measure what it intends to measure.
For assessment of the validity, convergent and discriminant validity were used in this study. For
convergent validity, three criteria were used [48]: firstly composite reliability should be greater
than 0.70, secondly composite reliability be greater than average variance extracted (AVE) and
thirdly average variance extracted be greater than 0.50. Discriminant validity was evaluated on
three criteria [49]: firstly average variance extracted (AVE) be greater than maximum shared
squared variance (MSV), secondly average variance extracted be greater than average shared
squared variance (ASV) and thirdly diagonal value need to be greater than specific rows and
column for the particular corresponding value.
Second order structural equation modeling (SEM) model was used to test the hypothesis in this
study. In SEM, five constructs and twenty-three factors were used to run the model. An indirect
effect was also calculated with the help of bootstrap methods with 95% confidence interval. The
criteria for goodness of fit indices were used in this research (see Table)
Synopsis-14
Measure Threshold
Chi-square/df (CMIN/DF) < 3 Good: < 5 Sometime permissible
P-value for the model Significant P-value for measurement Model
Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (GFI) Above .90
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (AGFI) Above .90
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Above .90
Normed-Fit Index (NFI) Above .90
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) Above .90
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) Above .90
Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) <0.05Good: 0.05 - 0.10moderate: >0.10 Bad
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) <0.05Good: 0.05 - 0.10moderate: >0.10 Bad
FINDINGS
4.1 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
In employee engagement scale, the KMO value .895 and Bartlett’s test significant at p value
0.001. Four factors were identified in EFA. Factor loading and communalities criteria were met
at 0.7 and 0.5. In CFA, results were significant. Reliability, convergent and discriminant validity
met all the standard criteria. . Refer appendix A1 to A7 for stepwise result. ( APPENDIX A1-
A6)
4.2 EMPLOYEE RETENTION
In employee retention scale the KMO value .892 and Bartlett’s test significant at p value 0.001.
Four factors were explained the total variance. Factor loading for the statement was greater than
0.70 and communalities greater than 0.50. In CFA, results were significant. All the standard
criteria for reliability coefficient, convergent and discriminant validity were met. (APPENDIX
B1-B6)
4.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
In Organizational culture scale, the KMO value was 0.902 and Bartlett’s test significant at p
value 0.001. Five factors were identified in EFA. Communalities and factor loading criteria were
met. In CFA, result was significant. Reliability, convergent and discriminant validity met all the
standards. Refer appendix C1 to C6 for stepwise result. (APPENDIX C1-C6)
Synopsis-15
4.4 CORE SELF-EVALUATION
In CSE scale, the KMO value was .842 and Bartlett’s test of significance at p value 0.001. Four
factors were explained in this study. Factor loading for the statement was greater 0.70 and
communalities greater than 0.50. In CFA, values were significant. Reliability, convergent and
discriminant validity met the entire standard. Refer appendix D1 to D6 for stepwise result.
(APPENDIX D1-D6)
4.5 JOB SATISFACTION
In job satisfaction scale, the KMO value was 0.905 and Bartlett’s test significant at p value
0.001. Six factors were identified in EFA, communalities and Factor loading criteria were met. In
CFA results were significant. All the standard criteria for reliability coefficient, convergent and
discriminant validity were met. Refer appendix E1 to E6 for stepwise result. (APPENDIX E1-
E6)
4.6 TESTING OF HYPOTHESIS
Hypothesis 1: Organizational culture will be positively related with employee engagement.
Hypothesis 2: Organizational culture will be positively related with job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3: Employee engagement will be positively related with job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4: Job satisfaction will be positively related with employee retention.
Hypothesis 5: Core self evaluation will be positively related with employee engagement.
Hypothesis 6: Core self evaluation will be positively related with job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 7: Employee engagement mediates the relationship between organizational culture
and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 1 was accepted at p value 0.01. Therefore, organizational culture has positive
relationship with employee engagement. (APPENDIX F1, F2, APPENDIX G)
Synopsis-16
Hypothesis 2 was accepted at p value 0.01. So, organizational culture has positive relationship on
job satisfaction. (APPENDIX F1, F2, APPENDIX G)
Hypothesis 3 was accepted at p value 0.03. Therefore, employee engagement has positive
significant relationship with job satisfaction. (APPENDIX F1, F2, APPENDIX G)
Hypothesis 4 was accepted at p value 0.01. So, job satisfaction has significant relationship with
employee retention. (APPENDIX F1, F2, APPENDIX G)
Hypothesis 5 was accepted at p value 0.01. So core self evaluation has positive relationship with
employee engagement. (APPENDIX F1, F2, G)
Hypothesis 6 was rejected at p value 0.26. That is core self evaluation has no relationship with
job satisfaction. (APPENDIX F1, F2, APPENDIX G)
Hypothesis 7 was accepted with lower bond 0.007 and upper bond 0.114 at 95% confidence
interval. Thereby shows that employee engagement mediates the relationship between
organizational culture and job satisfaction i.e. organizational culture has an indirect effect on job
satisfaction under mediation of employee engagement. (APPENDIX H)
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
5.1 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
There were four objectives in the research with seven hypotheses to be tested.
Hypothesis 1 - There will be positive and significant relationship between organizational culture
and employee engagement of software professionals. Previous researches have also supported
the relationship between OC and EE [50] [51].
Synopsis-17
Hypothesis 2 - There will be positive and significant relationship between organizational culture
and job satisfaction of software professionals. Previous researches have also supported the
relationship between OC and JS [52] [53].
Hypothesis 3 - There will be positive and significant relationship between employee engagement
and job satisfaction of software professionals. Previous researches have also supported the
relationship between EE and JS [54] [55].
Hypothesis 4 - There will be positive and significant relationship between job satisfactions and
employee retention of software professionals. Previous researches have also supported the
relationship between EE and JS [56] [57].
Hypothesis 5 - There will be positive significant relationship between core self-evaluation and
employee engagement of software professionals. Previous researches have also supported the
relationship between CSE and EE [58] [4] [59].
Hypothesis 6 - There will be positive and significant relationship between core self-evaluation
and job satisfaction of software professionals is rejected. This is a departure from previous
researches.
Hypothesis 7 - Organizational culture has an indirect effect on job satisfaction that is this
relationship is mediated by employee engagement.
The findings typically supports the basic premise that engagement plays an important role in
perceiving culture favorably and acts as a catalyst in increasing the job satisfaction of employees.
LIMITATION AND SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The data were collected from three information technology (IT) companies in National capital
region using cross-sectional research design. Future research would be required on different IT
companies with wider sample frame in India so that the findings could be generalized across all
IT companies. Further another study on a different sector should be conducted to compare with
Synopsis-18
IT companies so that appropriate interventions can be made to improve engagement and
retention among employees.
6.1 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
The findings of this research have practical implications for software professionals and IT
companies. Those companies that are interested in implementing positive organizational culture;
high score of core self evaluation confirm the desirable outcome associated with job satisfaction
and employee retention. If the employee engagement is increased, the link between culture and
satisfaction can further be strengthened. Bringing change in culture through innovation in
workplace, autonomy, policies, communication and employee orientededness will boost the
satisfaction of employees (Herzberg – motivation – hygiene theory), and the present research
aptly supports that culture has significant impact on employee engagement and job satisfaction
that further increases employee retention and may lead to higher productivity.
SELECTED REFERENCES
[1] M. Albrow, The Global Age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. 1996.
[2] G. Martin and S. Hetrick, Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management: A
Strategic Approach to HR, Butterworth-Heinemann. 2006.
[3] S. D. Pugh and J. Dietz, ―Employee engagement at the organizational level of analysis,‖
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 44–47, 2008.
[4] O. M. Karatepe, S. Keshavarz, and S. Nejati, ―Do Core Self-Evaluations Mediate the
Effect of Coworker Support on Work Engagement? A Study of Hotel Employees in Iran,‖
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 62–71, Jan. 2010.
[5] R. Baumruk, ―Why managers are crucial to increasing engagement: Identifying steps
managers can take to engage their workforce,‖ Strategic HR Review, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 24–
27, 2006.
[6] M. Bedarkar and D. Pandita, ―A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting
Synopsis-19
employee performance,‖ Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 133, pp. 106–
115, 2014.
[7] G. Alessandri, L. Borgogni, W. B. Schaufeli, G. V. Caprara, and C. Consiglio, ―From
Positive Orientation to Job performance : The Role of Work Engagement and Self-
efficacy Beliefs,‖ Journal of Happiness Studies, 2014.
[8] W. A. Kahn, ―Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work,‖ Academy of management journal, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 692–724, 1990.
[9] D. R. May, R. L. Gilson, and L. M. Harter, ―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, no. 1, pp. 11–37, 2004.
[10] M. R. Simpson, ―Engagement at work : A review of the literature,‖ International Journal
of Nursing Studies, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 1012–1024, 2009.
[11] H. K. S. Laschinger and J. Finegan, ―Empowering nurses for work engagement and health
in hospital settings,‖ Journal of Nursing Administration, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 439–449,
2005.
[12] H. K. S. Laschinger and M. P. Leiter, ―The impact of nursing work environments on
patient safety outcomes: The mediating role of burnout engagement,‖ Journal of Nursing
Administration, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 259–267, 2006.
[13] J. Cho, H. S. Laschinger, and C. Wong, ―Workplace empowerment, work engagement and
organizational commitment of new graduate nurses,‖ Nursing Leadership, vol. 19, no. 3,
p. 43, 2006.
[14] W. B. Schaufeli and A. B. Bakker, ―Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study,‖ Journal of Organizational
Behavior, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 293–315, 2004.
[15] M. Salanova, S. Agut, and J. M. Peiró, ―Linking Organizational Resources and Work
Engagement to Employee Performance and Customer Loyalty : The Mediation of Service
Synopsis-20
Climate,‖ Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 1217–1227, 2005.
[16] J. J. Hakanen, A. B. Bakker, and E. Demerouti, ―How dentists cope with their job
demands and stay engaged: The moderating role of job resources,‖ European Journal of
Oral Sciences, vol. 113, no. 6, pp. 479–487, 2005.
[17] J. J. Hakanen, A. B. Bakker, and W. B. Schaufeli, ―Burnout and work engagement among
teachers,‖ Journal of School Psychology, vol. 43, pp. 495–513, 2006.
[18] S. Llorens, A. B. Bakker, W. Schaufeli, and M. Salanova, ―Testing the robustness of the
job demands-resources model,‖ International Journal of Stress Management, vol. 13, no.
3, p. 378, 2006.
[19] A. M. Richardsen, R. J. Burke, and M. Martinussen, ―Work and health outcomes among
police officers: The mediating role of police cynicism and engagement,‖ International
Journal of Stress Management, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 555, 2006.
[20] S. Mauno, U. Kinnunen, and M. Ruokolainen, ―Job demands and resources as antecedents
of work engagement: A longitudinal study,‖ Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 70, no.
1, pp. 149–171, 2007.
[21] D. Xanthopoulou, A. B. Bakker, E. Demerouti, and W. B. Schaufeli, ―The role of personal
resources in the job demands-resources model,‖ International journal of stress
management, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 121, 2007.
[22] W. B. Schaufeli, M. Salanova, V. González-Romá, and A. B. Bakker, ―The measurement
of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach,‖
Journal of Happiness studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 71–92, 2002.
[23] J. K. Harter, F. L. Schmidt, and T. L. Hayes, ―Business-Unit-Level Relationship Between
Employee Satisfaction , Employee Engagement , and Business Outcomes : A Meta-
Analysis,‖ Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 268–279, 2002.
[24] D. Cathcart, S. Jeska, J. Karnas, S. E. Miller, J. Pechacek, and L. Rheault, ―Span of
control matters,‖ Journal of Nursing Administration, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 395–399, 2004.
Synopsis-21
[25] W. H. Macey, B. Schneider, A. Karen M. Barbera, and S. A. Young, Employee
Engagement: Tools for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage , A John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd., Publication. 2009.
[26] M. Sutherland and W. Jordaan, ―Factors to retention of knwledge workers,‖ SA Journal
of Human Resource Management, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 55–64, 2004.
[27] R. Borofsky, Assessing cultural anthropology , McGraw-Hill New York. 1994.
[28] M. Alvesson and P.-O. Berg, Corporate culture and organizational symbolism: An
overview,New York: De Gruyter. 2002.
[29] I. Palmer and C. Hardy, Thinking about management: implications of organisational
debates for practice, London, England: Sage. 2000.
[30] G. Kunda, Engineering culture: control and commitment in a high-tech organization.
Temple University Press, Philadelphia. 1992.
[31] N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. Wilderom, and M. F. Peterson, Handbook of organizational
culture and climate. Sage. 2011.
[32] T. A. Judge and J. E. Bono, ―Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction
and job performance: A meta-analysis,‖ Journal of applied Psychology, vol. 86, no. 1, pp.
80–92, 2001.
[33] T. A. Judge, A. Erez, J. E. Bono, and C. J. Thoresen, ―The core self-evaluations scale:
Development of a measure,‖ Personnel psychology, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 303–331, 2003.
[34] T. A. Judge, A. Erez, J. E. Bono, and C. Thoreson, ―The core self-evaluations scale:
Development of a measure,‖ Personnel Psychology, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 303–332, 2003.
[35] T. a Judge, J. E. Bono, A. Erez, and E. a Locke, ―Core self-evaluations and job and life
satisfaction: the role of self-concordance and goal attainment.,‖ The Journal of applied
psychology, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 257–268, Mar. 2005.
Synopsis-22
[36] T. A. Judge, J. E. Bono, and E. A. Locke, ―Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating
role of job characteristics.,‖ Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 237–249,
2000.
[37] S. P. Robbins and T. Judge, Essentials of organizational behaviour, Prentice Hall Upper
Saddle River. 2003.
[38] V. Wickramasinghe, ―Predictors of job satisfaction among IT graduates in offshore
outsourced IT firms,‖ Personnel Review, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 413–431, 2009.
[39] E. A. Locke, ―The nature and causes of job satisfaction,‖ Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology, vol. 1, pp. 1297–1343, 1976.
[40] C. Ostroff and S. W. Kozlowski, ―Organizational socialization as a learning process: The
role of information acquisition,‖ Personnel Psychology, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 849–874, 1992.
[41] W. K. Balzer et al., ―Users’ manual for the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; 1997 Revision)
and the Job In General scales. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University,‖
1997.
[42] B. Thompson, Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and
applications. American Psychological Association. 2004.
[43] M. Sarstedt and E. Mooi, A Concise Guide to Market Research:The Process, Data, and,
Springer. 2014.
[44] T. A. Brown, Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications.
2015.
[45] B. M. Byrne, Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming.Routledge. 2013.
[46] N. Abell, D. W. Springer, and A. Kamata, Developing and validating rapid assessment
instruments . New York: Oxford University Press. 2009.
[47] L. J. Cronbach, ―Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests,‖ psychometrika, vol.
Synopsis-23
16, no. 3, pp. 297–334, 1951.
[48] C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, ―Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error,‖ Journal of marketing research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39–
50, 1981.
[49] J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson, Multivariate Data Analysis: A
Global Perspective. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. 2009.
[50] S. Taneja, S. S. Sewell, and R. Y. Odom, ―A culture of employee engagement: a strategic
perspective for global managers,‖ Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 46–56,
2015.
[51] G. Cattermole, J. Johnson, and K. Roberts, ―Employee engagement welcomes the dawn of
an empowerment culture,‖ Strategic HR Review, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 250–254, 2013.
[52] T. Lim, ―Relationships among organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and learning
organization culture in one Korean private organization,‖ Asia Pacific education review,
vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 311–320, 2010.
[53] A. Ali, A. Hosseinkhanzadeh, and T. Yeganeh, ―Investigate Relationship Between Job
Satisfaction and Organizational Culture Among Teachers,‖ Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, vol. 84, pp. 832–836, 2013.
[54] A. Walker and K. Campbell, ―Nurse Education Today Work readiness of graduate nurses
and the impact on job satisfaction , work engagement and intention to remain,‖ YNEDT,
pp. 6–11, 2013.
[55] C. M. Yeh, ―Tourism involvement, work engagement, and job satisfaction among
frontline hotel employees,‖ Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 42, no. xx, pp. 214–239,
2013.
[56] C. Lee and K. Way, ―Individual employment characteristics of hotel employees that play a
role in employee satisfaction and work retention,‖ International Journal of Hospitality
Management, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 344–353, 2010.
Synopsis-24
[57] A. Anis, Kashif-ur-Rehman, Ijaz-Ur-Rehman, M. A. Khan, and A. A. Humayoun, ―Impact
of organizational commitment on job satisfaction and employee retention in
pharmaceutical industry,‖ African Journal of Business Management, vol. 5, pp. 7316–
7324, 2011.
[58] R. Shorbaji, L. Messarra, and S. Karkoulian, ―Core-Self Evaluation: Predictor of
Employee Engagement,‖ The Business Review, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 276–283, 2011.
[59] J. J. Lee, ―Drivers of work engagement: An examination of core self-evaluations and
psychological climate among hotel employees,‖ International Journal of Hospitality
Management, vol. 44, pp. 84–98, 2015.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A1: Employee Engagement – KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .895
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 5543.992
df 136
Sig. .000
Synopsis-25
APPENDIX A2: Employee Engagement - Rotation Pattern Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4
COMMITEMENT3 .860
COMMITEMENT2 .848
COMMITEMENT4 .842
COMMITEMENT1 .837
COMMITEMENT5 .830
ATTACHMENT4 .931
ATTACHMENT1 .920
ATTACHMENT3 .910
ATTACHMENT2 .908
JINVOLVEMENT1 .913
JINVOLVEMENT4 .910
JINVOLVEMENT3 .903
JINVOLVEMENT2 .860
PATTITUDE4 .898
PATTITUDE3 .894
PATTITUDE1 .890
PATTITUDE2 .867
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
APPENDIX A3: Employee Enagagement - Reliability Statistics
N of Items Cronbach's Alpha
Commitment 5 0.899
Involvement 4 0.923
Emotional attachment 4 0.944
Positive Attitude 4 0.914
Employee Engagement 17 0.911
Synopsis-26
APPENDIX A4: Employee Engagement - CFA
APPENDIX A5: Employee Engagement - Convergent and Discriminant validity
APPENDIX A6: Employee Enagagement - Model Fit
Measure Threshold
Chi-square/df (CMIN/DF) 266.151/113=2.355
P-value for the model .000
Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (GFI) .932
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (AGFI) .908
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .972
Normed-Fit Index (NFI) .953
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) .966
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) .972
Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) .051
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) .058
CR AVE MSV ASV JINVOLVEMENTCOMMITEMENTATTACHMENTPATTITUDE
JINVOLVEMENT 0.924 0.752 0.255 0.175 0.867
COMMITEMENT0.900 0.643 0.154 0.089 0.233 0.802
ATTACHMENT 0.944 0.809 0.262 0.224 0.505 0.393 0.900
PATTITUDE 0.915 0.729 0.262 0.179 0.465 0.240 0.512 0.854
Synopsis-27
APPENDIX B1: Employee Retention - KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .892
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 4889.243
df 153
Sig. .000
APPENDIX B2: Employee Retention - Rotation Pattern Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4
APPASTIMULATION2 .890
APPASTIMULATION4 .835
APPASTIMULATION6 .820
APPASTIMULATION1 .817
APPASTIMULATION5 .804
APPASTIMULATION3 .799
COPPORTUNITIES3 .916
COPPORTUNITIES1 .881
COPPORTUNITIES2 .878
COPPORTUNITIES4 .878
WLBALANCE4 .885
WLBALANCE3 .877
WLBALANCE1 .866
WLBALANCE2 .862
INTSTAY2 .873
INTSTAY4 .865
INTSTAY1 .863
INTSTAY3 .830
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Synopsis-28
APPENDIX B3: Employee Retention - CFA
APPENDIX B4: Employee Retention - Reliability Statistics
N of Items Cronbach's Alpha
Work life Balance 4 0.902
Career opportunities 4 0.911
Appreciation and Stimulation 6 0.909
Intention to Stay 4 0.886
Employee retention 18 0.903
APPENDIX B5: Employee Retention - Convergent and Discriminant validity
CR AVE MSV ASV WLBAL APPSTI COPPUN INTST
WLBAL 0.902 0.697 0.240 0.185 0.835
APPSTI 0.910 0.627 0.153 0.122 0.372 0.792
COPPUN 0.912 0.721 0.176 0.123 0.420 0.274 0.849
INTST 0.886 0.661 0.240 0.170 0.490 0.391 0.344 0.813
Synopsis-29
APPENDIX B6: Employee Retention - Model Fit
Measure Threshold
Chi-square/df (CMIN/DF) 292.189/129=2.265
P-value for the model .000
Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (GFI) .927
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (AGFI) .903
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .966
Normed-Fit Index (NFI) .941
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) .960
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) .966
Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) .052
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) .056
APPENDIX C1: Organizational Culture - KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .902
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 6595.538
df 190
Sig. .000
Synopsis-30
APPENDIX C2: Organizational Culture - Rotation Pattern Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5
COMMUNICATION3 .917
COMMUNICATION2 .914
COMMUNICATION4 .894
COMMUNICATION1 .872
INNOVATION4 .951
INNOVATION1 .900
INNOVATION2 .880
INNOVATION3 .850
AUTONOMY3 .914
AUTONOMY1 .903
AUTONOMY4 .903
AUTONOMY2 .855
EORIENTED1 .898
EORIENTED2 .893
EORIENTED4 .878
EORIENTED3 .856
POLICIES2 .916
POLICIES1 .900
POLICIES3 .895
POLICIES4 .813
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
Synopsis-31
APPENDIX C3: Organizational Culture - CFA
APPENDIX C4: Organizational Culture - Reliability Statistics
N of Items Cronbach's Alpha
Employee-oriented 4 0.912
Open communication 4 0.923
Innovation 4 0.922
Autonomy 4 0.926
Policies 4 0.910
Organizational culture 20 0.922
APPENDIX C5: Organizational Culture - Convergent and Discriminant validity
Synopsis-32
APPENDIX C6: Organizational Culture - Model Fit
Measure Threshold
Chi-square/df (CMIN/DF) 324.299/160=2.027
P-value for the model .000
Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (GFI) .930
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (AGFI) .908
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .975
Normed-Fit Index (NFI) .952
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) .970
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) .975
Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) .057
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) .050
APPENDIX D1: Core Self Evaluation - KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .842
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 2993.604
df 66
Sig. .000
APPENDIX D2: Core Self Evaluation - Rotation Pattern Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4
CSE1 .927
CSE7 .904
CSE3 .883
CSE2 .918
CSE12 .893
CSE4 .886
CSE8 .912
CSE11 .883
CSE5 .863
CSE9 .921
CSE6 .871
CSE10 .845
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Synopsis-33
APPENDIX D3: Core Self Evaluation - CFA
APPENDIX D4: Core Self Evaluation - Reliability Statistics
N of Items Cronbach's Alpha
Self-esteem 3 .892
Neuroticism 3 .885
Generalized self-efficacy 3 .872
Locus of control 3 .862
Core self- evaluation 12 .887
APPENDIX D5: Core Self Evaluation - Convergent and Discriminant validity
CR AVE MSV ASV G_S_efficacySelf_esteemNeurotic L_O_control
G_S_efficacy 0.873 0.696 0.359 0.272 0.834
Self_esteem 0.893 0.736 0.256 0.203 0.506 0.858
Neurotic 0.886 0.721 0.200 0.165 0.447 0.376 0.849
L_O_control 0.863 0.677 0.359 0.241 0.599 0.459 0.392 0.823
Synopsis-34
APPENDIX D6: Core Self Evaluation - Model Fit
Measure Threshold
Chi-square/df (CMIN/DF) 95.683/48=1.993
P-value for the model .000
Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (GFI) .965
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (AGFI) .943
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .984
Normed-Fit Index (NFI) .968
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) .978
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) .984
Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) .036
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) .049
APPENDIX E1: Job Satisfaction - KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .905
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 7976.045
df 253
Sig. .000
APPENDIX E2: Job Satisfaction - Rotation Pattern Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
JOBSECURITY1 .947
JOBSECURITY3 .892
JOBSECURITY4 .891
JOBSECURITY2 .868
PAY3 .935
PAY2 .923
PAY4 .917
PAY1 .854
SUPERVISION3 .931
SUPERVISION4 .918
SUPERVISION2 .857
SUPERVISION1 .839
PROMOTION4 .902
PROMOTION1 .892
Synopsis-35
PROMOTION3 .883
PROMOTION2 .847
TRAINING1 .940
TRAINING3 .881
TRAINING2 .853
TRAINING4 .846
RECOGNITION3 .983
RECOGNITION2 .969
RECOGNITION1 .948
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
APPENDIX E3: Job Satisfaction – CFA
Synopsis-36
APPENDIX E4: Job Satisfaction - Reliability Statistics
N of Items Cronbach's Alpha
Pay 4 0.931
Promotion 4 0.906
Training 4 0.910
Supervision 4 0.914
Recognition 3 0.963
Job security 4 0.922
Job Satisfaction 23 0.923
APPENDIX E5: Job Satisfaction convergent and discriminant validity
APPENDIX E6: Organizational Culture - Model Fit
Measure Threshold
Chi-square/df (CMIN/DF) 387.470/215=1.802
P-value for the model .000
Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (GFI) .926
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (AGFI) .905
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .978
Normed-Fit Index (NFI) .952
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) .974
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) .978
Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) .066
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) .044
CR AVE MSV ASV TRAIN JSECURITY EPAY SUPERVI PROMOT REGN
TRAIN 0.911 0.719 0.231 0.181 0.848
JSECURITY 0.922 0.747 0.318 0.174 0.460 0.864
EPAY 0.932 0.773 0.318 0.191 0.470 0.564 0.879
SUPERVI 0.914 0.727 0.231 0.124 0.481 0.312 0.374 0.852
PROMOT 0.907 0.709 0.147 0.105 0.383 0.293 0.366 0.313 0.842
REGN 0.963 0.897 0.158 0.101 0.311 0.397 0.374 0.229 0.241 0.947
Synopsis-38
APPENDIX F2: Structural Equation model for Testing the Framework
Constructs and measures
Coefficients Standard
Error
Critical
ratios
Probabili
ty Standardized Unstandardised
Engagement <--- Evaluation 0.163 0.177 0.071 2.476 0.013
Engagement <--- Culture 0.359 0.457 0.096 4.738 ***
Satisfaction <--- Engagement 0.141 0.149 0.069 2.163 0.031
Satisfaction <--- Evaluation -0.063 -0.072 0.065 -1.108 0.268
Satisfaction <--- Culture 0.636 0.858 0.124 6.9 ***
Retention <--- Satisfaction 0.198 0.147 0.052 2.841 0.004
Core self-evaluation scale
Self.esteem <--- Evaluation 0.597 1.000 NA
Neuroticism <--- Evaluation 0.517 0.867 0.111 7.839 ***
G.S.efficacy <--- Evaluation 0.747 1.251 0.133 9.418 ***
L.O.control <--- Evaluation 0.675 1.131 0.122 9.236 ***
Organizational culture scale
Policies <--- Culture 0.506 1.000 NA
E.oriented <--- Culture 0.597 1.180 0.146 8.06 ***
Autonomy <--- Culture 0.718 1.417 0.161 8.785 ***
Innovation <--- Culture 0.691 1.365 0.158 8.655 ***
Communication <--- Culture 0.478 0.944 0.134 7.04 ***
Employee engagement scale
Attitude <--- Engagement 0.645 1.000 NA
Job.involement <---Engagement 0.610 0.947 0.104 9.11 ***
emotional <--- Engagement 0.753 1.168 0.121 9.685 ***
Org.Commitment <--- Engagement 0.393 0.610 0.095 6.44 ***
Employee retention scale
Appreciation <--- Retention 0.508 1.000 NA
C.opportunities <--- Retention 0.517 1.018 0.153 6.656 ***
Wlbalance <--- Retention 0.690 1.359 0.186 7.313 ***
I.T.stay <--- Retention 0.615 1.210 0.168 7.196 ***
Job satisfaction scale
Job.security <--- Satisfaction 0.683 1.000 NA
Pay <--- Satisfaction 0.679 0.994 0.089 11.14 ***
Supervision <--- Satisfaction 0.507 0.742 0.085 8.727 ***
Promotion <--- Satisfaction 0.475 0.696 0.085 8.232 ***
Training <--- Satisfaction 0.662 0.969 0.089 10.929 ***
Recognition <--- Satisfaction 0.477 0.698 0.085 8.259 ***
Synopsis-39
APPENDIX G: Model Fit
Measure Threshold
Chi-square/df (CMIN/DF) 426.083/223=1.911
P-value for the model .000
Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (GFI) .919
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (AGFI) .899
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .901
Normed-Fit Index (NFI) .815
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) .887
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) .902
Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) .051
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) .047
APPENDIX H: Mediation Analysis - Direct and indirect effect with 95% confidence intervals
Direct effect Estimated
effect
Lower
Bonds
Upper
Bonds
Finding
Satisfaction <--- Culture .630 .510 .736 Support
Indirect effect (mediator effect)
Satisfaction <--- Engagement <--- Culture .050 .007 .114 Support
Synopsis-40
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
International journal
• Sharma, P. K., & Misra, R. K. (2015). The employee retention scale for Indian
information technology (IT) company employees: The study of reliability. International
Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(5), 161–164.
• Sharma, P. K., Misra, R. K., & Mishra, P., ( 2017, Accepted) Job Satisfaction Scale:
Adaptation And Validation Among Indian IT (Information Technology) Employees.
Global Business Review (Sage) – Accepted for publication in GBR 18.4 (July-August
AAAA 2017) issue.
International Conference
• Sharma, P. K. (2013) "Employee Engagement Theoretical Framework" International
Conclave 2013 on Innovations in Engineering and Management Organized by BIT
Patna22-23 Feb. 2013.