Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2018

De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

June 20 to 22, 2018

Employee Engagement and Job Satisfaction at Company A

Michelle Ang1*, and Joy Rabo1
1Accountancy Department, De La Salle University
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Abstract: Various studies have been conducted to determine factors associated with job
satisfaction. Some of these studies have shown that there is a significant positive
relationship between employee engagement and job satisfaction. This study seeks to
determine the relationship between employee engagement and job satisfaction using survey
methodology which includes one construct for employee engagement and four constructs for
job satisfaction, namely, career development, compensation and benefits, relationship with
management, and work environment. Based on a sample of 309 employee-respondents at
Company A and the results of Spearman’s correlation analysis, all four areas of job
satisfaction showed positive relationships with employee engagement at 1% significance
level. Thus, this study confirms that there is a statistically-significant relationship between
employee engagement and job satisfaction. Recommendations to Company A and future
researchers are also provided.

Key Words: employee engagement; job satisfaction

1. INTRODUCTION and structural equation modelling results of 260

public sector construction employees’ responses
revealed that compensation, specifically gratuity and
Various studies have been conducted to
pension, have a high impact on job satisfaction
determine factors and elements associated with job
(Chinyio, Suresh, & Salisu, 2018).
satisfaction. Ozturkoglu, Saygili, and Ozturkoglu
In its 2014 employee job satisfaction and
(2016) identified six factors affecting job satisfaction
engagement survey which made use of a five-point
of Turkish workers: human resource policies, safety,
scale, the Society for Human Resource Management
ergonomics, air quality, thermal comfort and
(SHRM), one of the globally-recognized societies for
disturbing equipment, with ergonomics having the
human resource professionals, found a direct
most impact.
relationship between employee engagement and job
Using hierarchical, mixed-effects ordered
satisfaction wherein a decrease in job satisfaction
logistic regression to analyze results of self-
would decrease employee engagement (Society for
administered questionnaire to 1,224 care aides from
Human Resource Management, 2014).
30 long term care homes in three Western Canadian
SHRM views employee engagement as an
provinces, it was found that organizational factors
important aspect of productivity which affects firm
associated with increased care aide job satisfaction
performance and organizational success. Kahn’s
include the following: leadership, culture, social
(1990) theory of engagement states that personal
capital, organizational slack-staff, organizational
engagement is influenced by psychological
slack-space, and organizational slack-time
meaningfulness, psychological safety, and
(Chamberlain, Hoben, Squires, & Estabrooks, 2016).
psychological availability. Job Demands–Resources
At Jigawa State of Nigeria, the descriptive statistics
(JD-R) model states working conditions can be
 Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2018
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
June 20 to 22, 2018

In other studies, demographic variables were

categorized into either job demand or job resources, included in determining the relationship between
the combination of which predicts employees’ employee engagement and job satisfaction. Madan
engagement and burnout (Bakker & Demerouti, and Srivastava (2015) found that demographic
2007). Other studies have similarly noted the link variables such as gender, age, tenure with the
between employee engagement and increased organization, and marital status do not have a
productivity in terms of its impact on absenteeism statistically significant impact on employee
level, employee turnover, and employee attitudes engagement and job satisfaction based on results of
(Madan & Srivastava, 2015). ANOVA, t-tests, and regression analyses. Vorina et
Aside from the SHRM, other studies have al. (2017) used gender as demographic variable and
found a significant positive relationship between found no significant difference between employee
employee engagement and job satisfaction. Cheema, engagement and gender and between job satisfaction
Akram, and Javed (2015) found a significant and gender. Thus, this study did not include
relationship between employees’ engagement and demographic variables.
satisfaction in 22 restaurants in Pakistan. A All these previous studies made use of
statistically significant relationship between questionnaires to gather data, while most studies
employee engagement and job satisfaction was also collected data from different companies in one or
found based on 149 respondents working in Serbia’s several industries. This present study also utilized
tourism sector (Vujičić, Jovičić, Lalić, Gagić, & survey methodology method but collected data from a
Cvejanov, 2015) and based on 88 manager- single company referred to as Company A, a local
respondents working in India’s banking sector retail chain with more than 300 stores in the
(Madan & Srivastava, 2015). At a private firm in Philippines which started in 1999 and envisioned by
India, the correlation and regression analyses results the owner as a provider of affordable merchandise to
of 101 employees’ responses showed that employees lower social classes.
are highly engaged and satisfied (Valliappan & Although most studies have been done in
Preethi, 2015). Asia, there have been no published studies to date
Using self-administered questionnaire to that have focused on a firm or industry in the
multinational companies in Pakistan’s corporate Philippines. Moreover, there has been little to no
sector, it was found that employee engagement has published literature concluding that employee
significant positive association with employee engagement and job satisfaction are not related in a
satisfaction and suggested that employee satisfaction statistically significant positive way. SHRM (2015)
is one of the outcomes of employee engagement found that employee engagement may not
(Iqbal, Sabbir, Zameer, Khan, & Sandhu, 2017). necessarily be associated with job satisfaction since
Based on ANOVA tests and linear regression results, the former is “tied to employees’ connection and
Vorina, Simonič, and Vlasova (2017) found that commitment to their work and their particular
employee engagement and job satisfaction has a organization” (p.8). Yalabik, Rayton, and Rapti
significant positive relationship with a p-value of (2017) found that job satisfaction, particularly with
0.000 based on results of 594 respondents employed work environment, is negatively related to employee
in public and non-public sector in Slovenia. engagement but also concluded that job satisfaction
In some studies, job satisfaction and is a driver of employee engagement. Thus, this study
employee engagement were treated as mediating aims to determine if there is a statistically
variables. The 2015 study of Sattar, Ahmad, and significant relationship between employee
Hassan, which made use of linear and multiple engagement and job satisfaction at Company A.
regressions to analyze results of self-administered
questionnaire to 181 employees in three leading 2. METHODOLOGY
banks in Pakistan, found that employee engagement
partially mediates human resource practices and
employee satisfaction. Lee and Ok (2016) found that 2.1 Variables Used
a direct association between employee engagement
and job satisfaction existed when mediated by leader- Employee engagement refers to the
member exchange, and that job satisfaction acted as emotional connection an employee has to the firm
a mediating variable between employee engagement and its goals which thereby affects the employee’s
and organizational commitment. level of effort put into the work. The Institute of
 Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2018
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
June 20 to 22, 2018

work, and treatment at work); and Work

Employment Studies (2003, as cited in Madan & environment (WORKENV) has 11 items (challenging
Srivastava, 2015) defined employee engagement as and interesting work, working relationships with co-
an optimistic outlook that employees have towards workers, support to provide service, support to
their organization and its values. Schaufeli, Bakker, balance work and personal life, ideal working
and Salanova (2006) interchanged the terms environment, workload, physical workplace
employee engagement and work engagement to mean conditions, safety in work environment, adequacy of
a positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind which noise control, availability of ethical options, and
is the exact opposite of burnout. opportunities for cross-cultural awareness).
This study adopted Salanova, Agut, and All of these items were part of a larger-scale
Peiro’s (2005) shortened employee engagement questionnaire which were administered to the
statements based on the 17-item Utrecht Work employees of Company A and used a five-point scale
Engagement Scale developed by Schaufeli and where “1” is “strongly disagree” and “5” is “strongly
Bakker in 2003 which classified employee agree” to ask respondents on the extent of their
engagement into three dimensions, namely: vigor, agreement on statements related to employee
dedication, and absorption. After running the engagement and job satisfaction. Table 1 showed
reliability test during the pilot testing of the that since the Cronbach’s alpha on all constructs
questionnaire, this study was left with two were above 0.70, then the survey instrument is
dimensions each of vigor (energy to go to work and considered appropriate. Taken as a whole, job
energy at work), dedication (inspiration to do best satisfaction showed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.929
and work absorption), and absorption (feeling happy based on 25 items.
when intensely working and pride in work). Thus,
all six items were treated as one construct known as Table 1. Results of reliability analysis
employee engagement (ENGAGE). Construct Cronbach’s Alpha No. of items
Job satisfaction refers to a particular Employee Engagement
employee’s perception and evaluation of work based (ENGAGE) 0.849 6
on his/her needs, values, and expectations. It is Career Development
defined by Porter (1962, as cited in Rayton & (CAREER) 0.749 3
Yalabik, 2014) as the degree to which employee Compensation and
perceives job needs as being fulfilled. Benefits (PAY) 0.783 3
This study made use of the items in the Relationship with
employee engagement and satisfaction survey Management(RELMGT) 0.866 8
instrument of the Government of the Northwest Work Environment
Territories (2015), and further classified these items (WORKENV) 0.857 11
into areas of job satisfaction identified by the SHRM.
Thus, after conducting reliability procedure on the
pilot testing of the questionnaire, job satisfaction was
categorized into four constructs with a total of 25 2.2 Research Procedures
items. These constructs are career development,
compensation and benefits, relationship with A total of 400 employee engagement and
management, and work environment. satisfaction questionnaires were sent to Company A.
Career development (CAREER) has three Disregarding unreturned and incomplete
items (innovation in work, opportunities for personal questionnaires, the final sample size used in the
growth, opportunities for career growth); study was 309 (77.25%). Of this number, 113
Compensation and benefits (PAY) has three items (36.57%) were female respondents. Data were
(availability of benefits, adequacy of individual and collected at the principal office of Company A from
team reward programs, performance-to-pay ratio); May to June 2017. Following proper research
Relationship with management (RELMGT) has eight procedures, the respondents’ anonymity and
items (confidence in firm leadership, quality of confidentiality of respondents’ answers were
supervision, communication from superior to staff, emphasized in the questionnaire. This study
timeliness of feedback, recognition for work, assumes that answers from employee-respondents
participation in decision-making, autonomy in doing are reflective of their perception at time survey was
conducted and that their answers are reliable.
 Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2018
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
June 20 to 22, 2018

Interestingly, all items in the correlation

Since majority of previous studies used analysis showed a p-value of 0.000. This is similar to
correlation and regression in analyzing data, this the findings of Vorina et al. (2017) which also showed
study first tested the assumptions for Pearson’s p-values of 0.000. This means that all job
correlation but the data was later determined to be satisfaction areas are significantly positively
non-normal since some constructs showed less than correlated with employee engagement. Thus, an
0.005 value for the Shapiro-Wilk’s test. With the increase in employee satisfaction with career
appropriate level of data measurement and presence development, compensation and benefits,
of monotonic relationship, Spearman’s rank-order relationship with management, and work
correlation was used in this study to test relationship environment means an increase in employee
between employee engagement and job satisfaction engagement. Stated differently, a decrease in any
constructs. areas of job satisfaction means a decrease in
employee engagement.
This finding is consistent with Kahn’s theory
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION of engagement wherein the level of engagement is
influenced by three psychological conditions:
Presented in Tables 2 to 3 are outputs from
meaningfulness (RELMGT), safety (RELMGT and
SPSS 17.0. Table 2 shows the minimum, maximum,
WORKENV), and availability (PAY and
mean, and standard deviation for all construct, while
WORKENV). The results of this study also confirm
Table 3 shows Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients
the JD-R model wherein high job resources
for the constructs.
(CAREER, PAY, RELMGT and WORKENV) would
lead to an increased work engagement. This is also
Table 2. Descriptive statistics
similar to the findings of previous studies (Cheema et
Standard
al., 2015; Iqbal et al., 2017; Madan & Srivastava,
Construct Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
2015; Valliappan & Preethi, 2015; Vorina et al.,
ENGAGE 1.3 5.0 3.481 0.6343 2017; Vujičić et al., 2015; Yalabik et al., 2017).
Yalabik et al. (2017) found that employees
CAREER 1.0 5.0 3.163 0.7476 who are satisfied with relationship with
management, particularly on the aspect of
PAY 1.0 5.0 2.732 0.7694 communication, are engaged in their work. Of the
four areas, Yalabik et al. found work environment,
RELMGT 1.3 5.0 3.188 0.5859 particularly on challenging and interesting work, as
the primary driver of employee engagement. Lu, Lu,
WORKENV 1.6 4.8 3.227 0.5156 Gursoy, and Neale (2016) found that employee
engagement significantly leads to job satisfaction but
was cautious in suggesting that an effective solution
Table 3. Correlation analysis to increase job satisfaction is through increasing
EN- REL- WORK employee engagement.
Construct GAGE CAREER PAY MGT -ENV With regards correlation values and
ENGAGE 1.000 assuming 0.00 to 0.19 is interpreted as “very weak”,
0.20 to 0.39 as “weak”, 0.40 to 0.59 as “moderate”,
CAREER 0.643** 1.000 0.60 t0 0.79 as “strong”, and 0.80 to 1.0 as “very
strong”, it can be seen from Table 3 that employee
PAY 0.332** 0.557** 1.000 engagement and pay has a weak positive
relationship, while employee engagement and career
RELMGT 0.506** 0.620** 0.508** 1.000 development has a strong positive relationship.
WORK- Relationship with management and work
ENV 0.575** 0.559** 0.477** 0.656** 1.000 environment both registered moderate positive
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2- relationships with employee engagement.
tailed). In the 2015 report of SHRM, the top three
employee engagement conditions were relationship
with co-workers and opportunities to use skills both
 Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2018
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
June 20 to 22, 2018

in time or over longer periods of time may also be

at 77%, and meaningfulness of work at 76%. These done.
three represent three different areas of job
satisfaction which are relationship with
management, career development, and work 5. REFERENCES
environment. Compensation and benefits, although
viewed as very important, was not a top contributor Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job
for employee engagement, which implies that Demands-Resources model: State of the art.
employees value culture and wants to feel valued Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328.
(SHRM, 2015). This is similar to the findings of this
study wherein compensation and benefits have a Chamberlain, S.A., Hoben, M., Squires, J.E., &
weak relationship with employee engagement. This Estabrooks, C.A. (2016). Individual and
can further be explained by the fact that majority of organizational predictors of health care aide job
Company A’s employees are agency-based satisfaction in long term care. BMC Health
contractual staff who are usually paid the minimum Services Research, 16(1), 577-603.
wage. Nevertheless, they are still motivated to go to
work every day to receive compensation. Cheema, S., Akram, A., & Javed, F. (2015). Employee
engagement and visionary leadership: Impact on
4. CONCLUSIONS customer and employee satisfaction. Journal of
Business Studies Quarterly, 7(2), 139-148.
The results of this study showed that there
is a significant positive relationship between Chinyio, E., Suresh, S., & Salisu, J.B. (2018) The
employee engagement and the different areas of job impacts of monetary rewards on public sector
satisfaction, namely: career development, employees in construction: A case of Jigawa state
compensation and benefits, relationship with in Nigeria. Journal of Engineering, Design and
management, and work environment. This is similar Technology, 16(1), 125-142.
to previous studies which unanimously showed that
employee engagement and job satisfaction are Government of the Northwest Territories Bureau of
positively related. Thus, an increase in employee Statistics (2015, March). Employee engagement
satisfaction is expected for an increase in employee and satisfaction survey & human resources
engagement. Alternatively, a decrease in job client satisfaction survey. Retrieved from
satisfaction also means a decrease in employee hr.govt.nt.ca/files/default/files/2014_eess_report.
engagement, although the former does not pdf.
necessarily cause the latter.
For Company A, it is advised that Iqbal, J., Shabbir, M.S., Zameer, H., Khan, I.A., &
management exercise caution in revising career Sandhu, M.A. (2017). Antecedents and
development policies, compensation packages, consequences of employee engagement: Evidence
relationships within firm, and work environment from corporate sector of Pakistan. Paradigms: A
conditions because these elements of job satisfaction Research Journal of commerce, Economics, and
have positive associations with levels of employee Social Sciences, 11(1), 78-86.
engagement.
For future researchers, it is suggested that Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of
they look into the impact of employee engagement on personal engagement and disengagement at
employee satisfaction or vice-versa. In addition, the work. Academy of Management Journal, 33,
introduction of mediating variables such as 692–724.
demographic variables may be considered. The use
of other statistical tools such as hierarchical Lee, J.H & Ok, C.H. (2016). Hotel employee work
regression analysis is also recommended. Finally, engagement and its consequences. Journal of
the use of different sector or a comparison of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 25(2), 1-
companies in a particular sector at a particular point 34.
 Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2018
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
June 20 to 22, 2018

Society for Human Resource Management (2015).

Employee job satisfaction and engagement:
Revitalizing a changing workforce. Retrieved
from www.shrm.org.
Lu, L., Lu, A.C.C., Gursoy, D., & Neale, N.R. (2016).
Work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover Valliappan, M., & Preethi, R.V.S. (2015).
intentions: A comparison between supervisors Relationship between employees engagement
and line-level employees. International Journal and satisfaction at ideal fastener India private
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(4), limited. International Journal of Economic
737-761. Research, 12(2), 399-404.

Madan, P., & Srivastava, S. (2015, April-June). Vorina, A., Simonič, M., & Vlasova, M. (2017). An
Employee engagement, job satisfaction & analysis of the relationship between job
demographic relationship: An empirical study of satisfaction and employee engagement.
private sector bank managers. FIIB Business Economic Themes, 55(2), 243-262.
Review, 4(2), 53-62.
Vujičić, D., Jovičić, A., Lalić, D., Gagić, S., &
Ozturkoglu, O., Saygili, E.E., & Ozturkoglu, Y. (2016) Cvejanov, A. (2015). The relation between job
A manufacturing-oriented model for evaluating insecurity, job satisfaction and organizational
the satisfaction of workers - Evidence from commitment among employees in the tourism
Turkey. International Journal of Industrial sector in Novi Sad. Economic and Industrial
Ergonomics, 54, 73-82. Democracy, 36(4), 633-652.

Rayton, B.A., & Yalabik, Z.Y. (2014). Work Yalabik, Z.Y., Rayton, B.A., & Rapti, A. (2017).
engagement, psychological contract breach and Facets of job satisfaction and work engagement.
job satisfaction. The International Journal of Evidence-based HRM: A Global Forum for
Human Resource Management, 25(17), 2382- Empirical Scholarship, 5(3), 248-265.
2400.

Sattar, T., Ahmad, K., & Hassan, S.M. (2015). Role of

human resource practices in employee
performance and job satisfaction with mediating
effect of employee engagement. Pakistan
Economic and Social Review, 53(1), 81-96.

Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiro, J.M. (2005). Linking

organizational resources and work engagement
to employee performance and customer loyalty:
The mediation of service climate. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217-1227.

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Salanova, M. (2006).

The measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire: A cross-sectional study.
Educational and Psychological Measurement,
66(4), 701-716.

Society for Human Resource Management (2014).

Employee engagement: The newest research and
trends. Workplace Visions, 2, 1-5.