Job Satisfaction as an Antecedent to Employee Engagement

Job Satisfaction as an Antecedent to Employee Engagement

Susan Abraham

Dr. Susan Abraham is Associate Professor, SCMS School of Technology and Management, Kottayam.
[email protected]

Abstract Introduction

In todays competitive environment, one way to Human resources form the knowledge asset
retain people is to have fully engaged employees. of an organisation. Along with products
A descriptive study was done to examine and services, these knowledge employees
the effect of job satisfaction on employee provide a source of competitive advantage
engagement among 30 employees of a private to the organisation. Attracting, motivating
insurance company at Cochin. A questionnaire and retaining them have been the constant
consisting of Job satisfaction subscale and endeavour of management. In this process,
Gallup 12 of Employee engagement was used an effort is made to create an environment
to collect data. Correlation results showed that that supports employees career aspiration.
Job satisfaction and Employee engagement are A meaningful job and career prospects can
related. Regression results highlighted factors provide employees a sense of satisfaction.
such as nature of the job, superiors recognition Satisfied employees create satisfied customers.
to ones work, team spirit, cooperation between In the long run, an environment is required to
departments, comparative benefits, equal and enhance the state of satisfaction to engagement.
proper administration of company policies It has been reported by researchers that engaged
contributed to a moderate state of employee employees create value to the organisation.
engagement. Independent samples t-test The two concepts studied and presented in
show that cooperation between departments this paper are Job satisfaction and Employee
varied with education. Implications of this engagement.
research point at the role of managements in
creating an environment that can sustain trust, Job satisfaction:
cooperation, and creativity for employees to Job satisfaction is defined as the extent to
keep experiencing high level of satisfaction which employees like their work. Based on
leading to engagement. perceptions, an employee develops a positive
or negative attitude towards their job and
Key words: environment. (Ellickson, M, 2002). The more
Job satisfaction, Employee engagement, Talent a persons work environment fulfills his or
strategy, Benefits, Recognition, Feedback. her needs, values or personal characteristics,
the greater the degree of job satisfaction.

27
 Susan Abraham

Job satisfaction is defined as a pleasurable study has cited that Job satisfaction as an antecedent
or positive emotional state resulting from the to employee engagement. Carl-Ann-Morgan cites
appraisal of ones job or job experiences (Locke Robinson (2004) and Penna (2007) in a study
& Henne, 1986). that both espouse a model of engagement which
incorporates job satisfaction, feeling valued at
Factors influencing job satisfaction: work, communication and training & development
According to the 2012 Employee Job Satisfaction as key influences on staff engagement and overall
Survey results published by SHRM, the factors satisfaction at work. With these findings as a basis,
that has the most influence are shown below. employee engagement has been explained below.

Exhibit 1: Factors of Job satisfaction (Source: Employee engagement:

2012 Job satisfaction survey by SHRM) According to Kahn (1990), employee engagement
Rank Factor is the harnessing of organization members
1 Job security (63%) selves to their work roles; in engagement, people
Opportunities to use skills and employ and express themselves physically,
2
abilities (62%) cognitively and emotionally during role
3 Organisations financial stability (55%) performances. For psychological engagement,
Relationship with immediate superior the two major dimensions are emotional and
3
(55%) cognitive engagement. Emotional engagement
4 Compensation/pay (54%) means having good relations with superiors and
Communication between employees peers and experiencing empathy for others. Those
5
and senior management (53%) who are cognitively engaged are well aware of
5 Benefits (53%) their mission and role in their work environment.
5 The work itself (53%) According to Kahn (1990), an employee can
6 Autonomy and independence (52%) experience engagement on any one of the
Managements recognition of dimensions at a point of time. This definition
7
employee job performance (49%) indicates that job satisfaction is related to the
Feeling safe in the work environment cognitive aspect of employee engagement.
8
(48%) Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) defines
9 Overall corporate culture (46%) employee engagement as the individuals
Flexibility to balance life and work involvement and satisfaction with as well as
10
issue (38%) enthusiasm for work.
10 Relationship with co-workers (38%) Employee engagement is defined as the
The relationship between job satisfaction with degree to which workers feel job satisfaction and
employee engagement has been researched. an emotional connection to the success of their
Maylett and Riboldi (2008) have stated in their business, resulting in improved productivity,
White paper that job satisfaction is a component innovation and retention.
in making an employee feel engaged. The other Engaged employees are dedicated to their
two components of employee engagement are role, will stay in the organisation for a long time,
motivation and effectiveness. Tiwari (2011) in a more productive, give better customer service

28 SIES Journal of Management, September 2012, Vol. 8(2)

 Job Satisfaction as an Antecedent to Employee Engagement

and in turn create greater profit in private sector A study of the table reveals that the conditions of
organisations (Gallup, 2005). They take pride in employee engagement are related to the factors
their work and will put in extra time to get a task influencing job satisfaction in an organisation.
completed to a good standard, not for financial
gain but out of a personal sense of commitment Need for the study
known as discretionary effort (Frank et al, 2004). In the present competitive world, an employees
To further explain the association of Job level of engagement and his quality of work are
satisfaction with employee engagement, the results important to growth. So managers are always
of 2012 Employee Job satisfaction and Engagement concerned with identifying ways to boost morale,
published by SHRM showing the conditions for increase productivity and gain competitive
Employee engagement is listed in the table below. advantage. To support this view, Towers Perrin has
found that companies with engaged employees
Exhibit 2: Satisfaction with conditions of boosted operating income by 19%. Watson Wyatt
employee engagement (Source: 2012 Employee reported that companies with highly engaged
job satisfaction and engagement by SHRM) employees experienced 26% higher employee
Rank Satisfaction with conditions of productivity, lower turnover risk, greater ability
engagement to attract top talent, and 13% higher total returns
1 Relationship with coworkers (76%) to shareholders over the last five years.
1 The work itself (76%) In the light of the above findings the
2 Opportunities to use skills and management of the Private Insurance Company
abilities (74%) (the study organization) wanted to know the
3 Relationship with immediate superior
level of satisfaction among their employees
(73%)
and the extent of engagement among them so
4 Contribution of work to organisations
business goals (71%) that further improvements could be made to the
5 Meaningfulness of job (69%) existing HR activities.
5 Autonomy and independence (69%)
6 Variety of work (68%) Objectives of the study
7 Organisations financial stability (63%) 1. To study the impact of job satisfaction on
8 Overall corporate culture (60%) employee engagement among employees in
9 Management recognition of employee the company.
job performance (57%) 2. To know whether the job satisfaction factors
10 Job specific training (55%) differs with education of employees.
11 Organisations commitment to
professional development (54%) Methodology
11 Communication between employees
and senior management (54%) The present study to know the impact of job
12 Organisations commitment to CSR (49%) satisfaction factors on employee engagement
12 Networking (49%) was done in a Private Insurance company
13 Career development opportunities (48%)
located in Cochin. The population for the study
14 Career advancement opportunities (42%)
was 120 employees. For the purpose of the study

29
 Susan Abraham

30 employees were selected using systematic i. a career path that offers opportunities for
sampling technique. A questionnaire was advancement,
prepared with 25 statements on job satisfaction ii. fair pay and benefits,
and Gallup 12 statements on employee iii. the perception that organisation offers good
engagement. The reliability (Alpha score) of value to customers, and
job satisfaction scale was found to be 0.76 and iv. a satisfactory work environment, defined
the employee engagement scale as 0.763. This by a reasonable workload, good relations
questionnaire was used to collect primary data with immediate supervisor, effective
from 30 respondents through a survey. The internal communication, good relationship
data collected was subjected to correlation and with colleagues, and smooth functioning
regression analysis to satisfy the first objective organisational dynamics.
of the study. An independent samples t-test was It concluded that job satisfaction and
used to satisfy the second objective of the study. compensation are two such important parameters
Based on the results suitable suggestions are that are the key drivers of employee engagement
given to improve employee engagement levels. in an organisation.
BlessingWhite (2011) have reported the
Limitations engagement levels in India during the year 2010.
According to the report 37% of the employees in
The time allotted to conduct the study was India are engaged. Engagement levels in India vary
seven days and hence a larger sample could not across organizations, organization size, gender,
be selected. workplace structure and functions. Younger
Certain factors such as Work environment and employees were less engaged as compared to older
organisation culture were not considered for and married employees. Employees in healthcare
this study. and chemicals had maximum engagement levels
and least in banking and financial services. Among
Literature review the drivers of engagement, Indian managers
identified three factors of job satisfaction such
The relationship between Job satisfaction as career development opportunities and training
and employee engagement have been studied (28%), more opportunities to do what one does
and reported by many researchers. It has best (21%) and more challenging work (15%) as
been explained that Job satisfaction can be an the most important contributors.
antecedent and a consequence of employee Rana and Chhabra (2011) have cited in their
engagement. An attempt is made here to highlight article that Hewitt signaled a shift in focus from
a few of the studies to support the present study. measuring employee satisfaction to measuring
Garg and Kumar (2012) have reported in employee engagement. The change was based
their research paper that Job satisfaction is an on the belief that measuring satisfaction did not
important driver of Employee engagement. necessarily lead to finding ways to motivate and
Their research was concerned with measuring retain employees. In this context, job satisfaction
employee engagement levels based on certain has been termed a passive state and engagement
parameters such as an active state.

30 SIES Journal of Management, September 2012, Vol. 8(2)

 Job Satisfaction as an Antecedent to Employee Engagement

The Towers Perrin (2003) study of Data Analysis

engagement identified both emotions and
nationality as core components. They found that Correlation and regression analysis has been
emotional factors are linked to an individuals used to find the impact of job satisfaction on
personal satisfaction and the sense of inspiration employee engagement.
and affirmation they get from their work and
from being part of their organization. Table 1: Table showing mean score of the Job
In a study (Avery, D.R., Mckay, P.F., and satisfaction and Employee engagement of the
Wilson, D. C., 2007), the interplay between respondents
satisfaction with older co-worker and employee Variables Mean score
engagement was analysed. Results showed Job satisfaction 4.01
that satisfaction with ones co-workers related Employee engagement 3.97
significantly to engagement. Source: Primary data
Harter et al (2002) conducted a meta-analysis
of studies previously conducted by the Gallup According to the above Table 1, Job
Organisation. The study examined aggregated satisfaction among the respondents of the study
employee job satisfaction sentiments and was found to high (mean score = 4.01). But the
employee engagement, with the latter variable employee engagement level was found to be
referring to individuals involvement with as moderate with the mean score of 3.97. This shows
well as enthusiasm for work. Based on 7939 that the respondents with high Job satisfaction
business units in 36 organisations, the results may not be fully engaged in the organisation.
showed positive and substantive correlation To study the relationship between job
between employee satisfaction, engagement satisfaction and employee engagement,
and business unit outcomes of productivity, correlation analysis was done and the results
profit, employee turnover, employee accidents are given below.
and customer satisfaction Correlation analysis:
Many studies aimed at identifying what Table 2: Table showing correlation between
contributes to satisfaction have revealed that Job satisfaction and Employee engagement
situational context (eg. Supervisory support) as
a cause of satisfaction and has argued that high Job Employee
performance work practices and a positive satisfaction engagement
working climate foster employee satisfaction Job
1.000 0.601**
(Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Wright, Dunford & satisfaction
Snell, 2001) Employee
0.601** 1.000
engagement
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
(2-tailed)
Source: Primary data

The above Table 2 indicates that Job Satisfaction

31
 Susan Abraham

is related with employee engagement with R the targets of performance. The respondents
value of 0.601 (p< 0.01). This means that there were satisfied that these incentives were on par
is 60.1% relationship between job satisfaction with that offered by competitor companies in
and employee engagement. the region.
In order to know the impact of factors of Job Fair treatment by the management invokes
satisfaction that have an influence on employee trust from the employees. Sound company
engagement, regression analysis was done and policies and their proper implementation
the results are given below. provided confidence to the respondents that
they would not be discriminated. This was
Regression analysis: found in the form of extent of impact of 23% on
employee engagement (Beta = 0.479, p < 0.05)
Table 3: Table showing Regression between Annual performance feedback had an impact
Factors of Job satisfaction and Employee of 22.4% on employee engagement (Beta =
engagement 0.473, p < 0.05). From the respondents it was
Dependent variable: Employee engagement understood that achievable performance targets
Independent R2 Beta t Sig F Sig are fixed and their performance is regularly
variable reviewed by the superior who gives feedback
Like the job 0.211 0.459 2.735 0.011 7.481 0.011
and continuous guidance. This has given them
Benefits 0.305 0.552 3.501 0.002 12.259 0.002
Cooperation 0.159 0.399 2.302 0.029 5.298 0.029 a sense of satisfaction and assurance of growth
opportunities in the future.
Team 0.157 0.396 2.284 0.030 5.215 0.030
The job itself has been a source of satisfaction
Company 0.230 0.479 2.888 0.007 8.343 0.007
for the employees. The job content is so designed
policies
Recognition 0.159 0.399 2.301 0.029 5.295 0.029 to provide challenge to the employees which
for motivate them to utilize the existing talent to the
performance maximum. The respondents have indicated that
Annual 0.224 0.473 2.844 0.008 8.086 0.008
they like the job they do and this had an impact
performance
feedback of 21.1% on employee engagement (Beta =
0.459, p < 0.05).
Source: Primary data Cooperation at work from other departments
makes the employees efforts towards goal
The above Table 3 shows that certain factors achievement more rewarding. The respondents
of job satisfaction have had an impact on opined that coworkers support was always
employee engagement. available during crisis situations. Supportive
The most important factor was the benefits co-workers had helped them in developing a
offered to employees (Beta = 0.552, p < 0.05) feeling of belongingness to the organisation.
that had an impact of 30.5% on employee This factor of co-operation has an impact of
engagement. In their compensation package, 15.9% on employee engagement (Beta = 0.399,
the respondents had a sizeable percentage as p < 0.05).
financial incentives associated with performance Similarly, the factor recognition from
targets. The amount was commensurate with superior had an impact of 15.9% on employee

32 SIES Journal of Management, September 2012, Vol. 8(2)

 Job Satisfaction as an Antecedent to Employee Engagement

engagement (Beta = 0.399, p < 0.05). According p < 0.05). The nature of the respondents job is
to the respondents, superiors have shown trust such that they work individually most of the
on the employees potential. They provide time. Whenever a team is formed, every team
timely feedback and appreciation for having member contributes to team goals. Peer support
achieved the targets in time. Many respondents has contributed to employee satisfaction.
have been recipients of rewards for exceptional The other factors such as training, long term
performance. welfare and salary had no influence on employee
Teamwork among peers has had an impact of engagement in the present study.
15.7% on employee engagement (Beta = 0.396,

Independent samples t-test:

Education as a variable influencing Job satisfaction has not been reported so far in previous research
on Employee Engagement. As per the requirements of the study, an Independent samples t-test was
done to find out if factors of Job satisfaction differed with education of respondents.

Table 4: Table showing Mean values of Job satisfaction factors

Factors of Job satisfaction Education N Mean Std. Std. Error
Deviation Mean
Like the job Graduate 18 4.0556 0.5393 0.1271
Post Graduate 11 4.0000 0.7746 0.2335
Benefits Graduate 18 3.8889 0.8324 0.1962
Post Graduate 11 4.4545 0.5222 0.1575
Cooperation Graduate 18 3.6667 0.7670 0.1808
Post Graduate 11 4.6344 0.5045 0.1521
Team Graduate 18 3.9444 0.6391 0.1506
Post Graduate 11 4.0909 0.7006 0.2113
Company policies Graduate 18 3.7222 0.7519 0.1772
Post Graduate 11 3.9091 0.7006 0.2113
Recognition for performance Graduate 18 3.7222 0.8264 0.1948
Post Graduate 11 3.6364 0.8090 0.2439
Annual performance Graduate 18 3.6111 0.8498 0.2003
feedback Post Graduate 11 3.8182 1.0757 0.3252
Source: Primary data

33
 Susan Abraham

Table 5: Table showing Independent Samples t-test for Factors of Job satisfaction
Levenes Test for
t-test for Equality of Means
equality of Variances
Factors of Job satisfaction
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-tailed)
Like the job Equal 1.666 0.208 0.228 27 0.821
Unequal 0.2.9 15.977 0.837
Benefits Equal 0.421 0.522 -2.017 27 0.054
Unequal -2.249 26.947 0.033
Cooperation Equal 1.680 0.206 -3.717 27 0.001
Unequal -4.104 26.776 0.000
Team Equal 0.179 0.676 -0.578 27 0.568
Unequal -0.564 19.752 0.579
Company policies Equal 0.314 0.580 -0.666 27 0.511
Unequal -0.678 22.479 0.505
Recognition for Equal 0.027 0.871 0.274 27 0.786
performance Unequal 0.275 21.643 0.786
Annual performance Equal 0.194 0.663 -0.575 27 0.570
feedback Unequal -0.542 17.540 0.595
Source: Primary data
The above Table 5 shows the results of Implication:
the Independent samples t-test on variance in The study revealed that there exist high level of
job satisfaction factors with education of the job satisfaction and moderate level of employee
respondents. The p value of Levenes Test shows engagement. Job satisfaction has a moderate
that the two variances did not differ significantly. impact on employee engagement in the Private
The p values of the t test of all the job satisfaction Insurance company studied. The results
factors except Cooperation are more than 0.05. reinforced the need for the presence of supportive
The mean values of the respondents for each of the superiors who would recognize and guide their
job satisfaction factors did not differ significantly. juniors at workplace. Company policies that
From the table it can be concluded that there is no are well written and implemented without bias
difference between the graduates and postgraduates is an important element in enhancing employee
in job satisfaction factors. In the case of the factor engagement. A challenging job which can utilize
Cooperation, the p value of the t test is less than the unused potential of the employees can
0.05. This means that the mean value of graduates provide a sense of satisfaction to the employees
(M = 3.6667) (Table 4) differs significantly from the that will lead to employee engagement.
mean value of post graduates (M = 4.6364) (Table
4). This difference is attributed to the positions Suggestions:
occupied by these respondents. An observation The study revealed that training, welfare and
into this aspect revealed that senior managers in salary had no impact on employee engagement.
various departments were postgraduates who were The company management has to give importance
not often approached by the junior executives who to employee development and employee well
were graduates. being so that job satisfaction can be improved.

34 SIES Journal of Management, September 2012, Vol. 8(2)

 Job Satisfaction as an Antecedent to Employee Engagement

Since majority of the employees are in the References

middle age group, they may be facing problems
of career plateau. At this point, short-term yyAvery, D.R., McKay, P.F. & Wilson, D.C.
training programmes to enhance the skill level, (2007). Engaging the aging workforce:
new work methods can help these employees The relationship between perceived age
feel encouraged to continue in their work. similarity, satisfaction with co-workers, and
The basic pay can be revised based on the employee engagement. Journal of Applied
complexity of the jobs in the current scenario. Psychology, 92, pp. 1542-1556
This can provide a sense of pride to the employees yyBowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004).
that their job is of importance to the organisation. Understanding HRM-firm performance
The management can survey the industry to know linkages: The role of strength of the HR
the prevailing rates for all grades of employees. system. Academy of Management Review,
In addition to the above, two-way 29, pp. 203-221.
communication can be encouraged between the yyCarl-Ann-Morgan, White Paper:
superiors and junior employees through regular Understanding and Developing Your (People)
meetings. This can iron out misunderstandings Assets. http://www.b2binternational.com/
in the workplace. These meetings can also help publications/white-papers/employee-
clarify core values and goals of the organisation. satisfaction/
The superiors can use performance feedback yyDecisionWise Inc, Whitepaper: The
sessions to appreciate the achievements of Three Essential Components of Employee
their subordinates to boost their feeling of Engagement, Maylett, Tracy M., and
engagement. It will also help in strengthening Riboldi, Juan M., (2008)..
the relationship between the superior and the yyEllickson, M. (2002). Determinants of job
subordinate during work. satisfaction of municipal employees. Public
Personnel Management, 31(3), pp. 343-
Conclusion 358.
yyFrank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P. and Taylor, C.R.
Job satisfaction is an antecedent to employee (2004) The race for talent: retaining and
engagement. Engaged employees perform engaging workers in the 21st century, Human
exceptionally well in their job. The present Resource Planning, 27(3), pp. 12-25.
study revealed that factors such as job, benefits, yyGallup (2005) Employee engagement
recognition, cooperation, fair treatment, index survey, Gallup Management Journal
sound company policies, team spirit and http:suite101.com/article/what-is-an-engaged-
performance management system can enhance employee-a214893#1xzz20NoBcpwi
job satisfaction in employees which will lead to yyGarg, Anshul, and Kumar, Vinod.,(2012),
employee engagement. The present engagement A study of employee engagement in
levels can be maintained and enhanced when pharmaceutical sector, International Journal
the management takes care of employee of Research in IT and Management, 2(5),
participation in developmental activities and pp. 85 98.
monetary benefits. yyHarter, James K., Schmidt, Frank L. &

35
 Susan Abraham

Hayes, Theodore L. (2002), Business- yyTiwari, Shashi, (2011), Employee

unit-level Relationship between Employee Engagement - The Key to Organizational
Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Success, ICOQM 10, June 28 -30, pp. 311
Business Outcomes: A Meta-analysis, Journal 328.
of Applied Psychology. 87(2), pp. 268-79. yyTowers Perrin (2003), Talent Report: New
yyKahn, W. A. (1990), An Exercise of Realities in Todays Workforce. http://
Authority, Organizational Behavior www.towersperrin.com/tp/showhtml.
Teaching Review, 4 (2), pp. 28-42 jsp?url=global/service-areas/research-and-
yyLocke, E.A. & D. Henne (1986). Work surveys/employee-research/ee-engagement.
motivation theories. In C.L. Cooper & I. htmandcountry=global
Robertson (Eds.) International review of yyWright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell,
industrial and organizational psychology,. S. A. (2001). Human resources and the
London: Wiley. pp. 1-35 resource-based view of the firm. Journal of
yyRana, Neeti, Dr. and Chhabra, Neeti Leekha, Management, 18, pp. 295-320.
(2011), Employee Engagement: A primer for yyhttp://www.blessingwhite.com/content/
strategic human resource management, Asian reports/blessingwhite_2011_ee_report.pdf
Journal of Research in Business, Economics yyh t t p : / / w w w . b u s i n e s s w e e k . c o m /
and Management, 1(2), pp. 16 27. b w d a i l y / d n fl a s h / c o n t e n t / m a y 2 0 0 9 /
yyStrategic Human Resource Management, db2009058_952910.htm
UK, Employee Job satisfaction and
engagement survey 2012,

36 SIES Journal of Management, September 2012, Vol. 8(2)

Copyright of SIES Journal of Management is the property of SIES College of Management Studies 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.