IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ON ORGANIZATION

CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR
Anusha Sridhar
Post Graduate Student, SSN School of Management, SSN Engineering College,
Kalavakkam, Chennai.

Dr. T. Thiruvenkadam
Associate Professor, SSN School of Management, SSN Engineering College
Kalavakkam, Chennai. E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract
This article is commissioned to study the level of Engagement in a construction organization located in Chennai, India and
its impact on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. It is highly important to know the level of Engagement in an
Organization and act upon the results for growth of the Organization. Engagement is often related to productivity and
Turnover. But less importance is given to the Behavioural impact of Employee Engagement. Therefore this study focuses on
the impact of Employee Engagement on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. A sample of 194 Respondents were chosen
from the total Population using simple random sampling. Statistical tools like Regression and Correlation were used and
Percentage Analysis was done. It was found that Employee Engagement has a very significant impact on Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour.
Key words: Employee Engagement, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

1. Introduction full attention (Bakker et al., 2010, 2011). Therefore,

An "engaged employee" is one who is fully absorbed by engagement is inferred as a positive experience in itself
and enthusiastic about their work and so takes positive which has positive consequences for the organizations
action to further the organization's reputation and (Bhatnagar, 2012) in terms of high commitment, less
interests. Engaged employees believe that they can make employee turnover, less absenteeism, higher task
a difference in the organizations they work for. proficiency, higher productivity, and as a result,
Confidence in both themselves and others on the increased performance of the organization. Organization
knowledge, skills, and abilities –– is a powerful predictor Citizenship Behaviour means the range of cooperative
of behaviour and subsequent performance. Engaged behaviours that are positive, intended, non-obligatory,
employees would make a big difference if organizations and goes beyond the set requirements of a job. These are
by creating positive psychological climate, job behaviours that are not directly related to the main task
resources, good organizational support, and working activities but are significant because they support the
conditions to inspire them to give their best and go extra- organizational, social, and psychological context that
mile to enhance the the organization’s overall serves as the critical catalyst for tasks to be
performance. In addition, employees do better when they accomplished.
experience optimistic practices at work place for
instance, provided with opportunities to develop their 2. Need and Objective of the Study
career, being treated with respect, adequate reward and Employee Engagement is an important indicator of
recognition for high performance etc. Actually, Organizational success. Engaged employees work with
employees’ positive feelings about their work passion and feel a profound connection to the company
experiences may exceed global attitudes of commitment whereas an Actively Disengaged employees aren’t just
or job satisfaction. The involvement of engaged unhappy but act out their unhappiness. Therefore it is
employees will be very high and experience their work as highly essential to know if an Organization has an
interesting and something to which they can devote their Engaged workforce. Engagement is often related to

BVIMSR’s Journal of Management Research 147 Vol. 6 Issue - 2 : October : 2014

 IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ON ORGANIZATION CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR

productivity, profitability etc. However little is known He says in reality work system drives Engagement. He
about the behavioural impact of Engagement. Therefore defines the five levers as: Competent Managers,
this study is focussed on finding the impact of Employee Contextual Goals, Objective Metrics, Resources and
Engagement on Organization Citizenship Behaviour. autonomy. Gubman (2004) used his article to call for
acknowledgement of “passion”, a hard-wired personality
3. Review of Literature characteristic that multiplies the effects of engagement
and serves as a contagion or others’ enthusiasm. He
There are plenty of studies were found in the literature on
indicates that, since passion is a personality characteristic
the topic employee engagement and Organisational
and therefore cannot be taught, it should be used for
Citizenship Behaviour. The selective reviews given
selecting new employees and in promotion decisions.
below explore the key constructs under investigation in
Gubman’s definition of employee engagement is “a
this study. Kahn and William (1990) provided the first
heightened personal connection with the organization
formal definition of employee engagement. He defines
that goes beyond satisfaction.”
employee engagement as “the harnessing of organization
members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, The following studies will explain the relationship
people employ and express themselves physically, between employee engagement and Organisational
cognitively, and emotionally during role performances”. behaviour. Ed Snape and Tom Redman (2010) examined
Employee engagement deals with the employees’ beliefs the relationship between HRM practices, conceptualized
about the working conditions, the leaders and about the at the workplace level, and individual employee attitudes
organisation. The emotional aspect looks at how and behaviour. The focus was on two possible
employees feel about each of those three factors and explanations for the relationship: social exchange and
whether they have positive or negative attitudes toward job influence/employee discretion. The paper suggests
the leaders and the organisation. The physical aspect of that there is a positive impact of HRM practices on
employee engagement concerns the physical energies organizational citizenship behaviour, through an effect
exerted by individuals to carry out their roles. Therefore, on perceived job influence/discretion. It was also found
according to Kahn (1990), engagement means to be that no such effect for perceived organizational support.
psychologically as well as physically present when These findings provide support for a job influence and
occupying and performing an organisational role. In a opportunity explanation of HRM effects on employee
recent study by Bates (2004) gave an overview of major attitudes and behaviour. Kataria et al., (2012) suggests
thinking and recent research on the topic of employee that organizations, apart from task proficiency are
engagement. This article provides a discussion of major becoming increasingly reliant on employees'
social trends that affect employee engagement, and the discretionary efforts at workplace. This paper intends to
impact of engagement on company performance, and explore employee engagement and OCB literatures to
suggests some management and communications investigate the interrelationships between employee
strategies for encouraging and enhancing employee engagement, OCB, and organizational effectiveness.
engagement. The tacit definition of employee Findings in this paper indicate that employee
engagement that the article uses is the emotional engagement has potential to drive OCB. Engaged
connection between the employee and his/her job, his/her employees also have the greatest potential to augment
manager, and the organization, driven by such factors as organizational effectiveness through their higher levels
the opportunities for personal and professional growth, of OCB. This study suggests that value-based
and trust in senior leaders, a personal relationship with organizations through their HR architecture should adopt
his/her manager, and ride in the reputation of his/her high performance HR practices to sustain high levels of
company. Supporting this argument, Michael Cardus employee engagement, since the psychological
(2013) says that managers are often mistaken that mechanism of engagement drives OCB by which an
psychology or personality is what affects Engagement. organization achieves effectiveness. In a recent study by

BVIMSR’s Journal of Management Research 148 Vol. 6 Issue - 2 : October : 2014

IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ON ORGANIZATION CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR

Rurkkhum and Bartlett (2012) examined the relationship respondents, 194 respondents replied with filled up
between employee engagement and OCB with the use of questionnaire and the response rate was 77%. The
employee perceptions of HRD practices as moderators: demographic profile of the respondents is given below:
organizational support, access to training and Table No: 1. Demographic Profile of Respondents
development opportunities, support for training and
S. No. Demographic Frequency Percentage
development opportunities, benefits of training, and Profile
formal career management support. The results did not I Age
find support for the predicted moderating effect as 1 <20 years 22 11
expected, the study revealed the findings of a positive 2 20-29 years 114 59
relationship between employee engagement and 3 30-39 years 40 21
4 >40 years 18 9
discretionary employee behaviours that go beyond
Total 194 100
formal job requirement. This is considered an important
II Experience (in years) in the Company
finding given that employee engagement is a new 1 Less than 1 year 68 35
concept of increasing interest in Thailand. Reichheld 2 1-5 years 104 54
(2001) identified six major principles for creating high 3 More than 5 years 22 11
levels of loyalty among employees. These principles Total 194 100
include: Preach what you practice, Play to win-win, Be III Cadre
Composition
choosy, Keep it simple, Reward the right results, and
1 Senior Executives 24 12
Listen hard, talk straight. While this article is focused on 2 Managers & 58 30
employee engagement’s ancillary topic of employee Executives
loyalty, Reichheld explores the behaviours that managers 3 Supervisors 50 26
can exhibit to build trust and integrity with their 4 Permanent 46 24
employees, which has been shown to be a significant Employees
5 Temporary 16 8
driver of engagement.
employees &
Previous studies have found a relationship between Trainees
employee engagement and OCB. Most of these studies Total 194 100
were done in western counties and a very small is known Source: Primary Data
of this potential relationship in other Acian counties such The above table indicates the demographic profile of the
as India. Also, given the rapidly changing employment respondents. Out of 194 respondents 59 percent are
and workplace management practices in many between 20 to 29 years of age, 21 percent are between 30
international business settings, it is important to further to 39 years, 11 percent are below 20 years (most of them
confirm the linkages between employee engagement and are trainees) and 9 percent are above 40 years. 54 percent
OCB. Thus, the first hypothesis of the study was: of respondents are having one to five years experience,
35 percent are having less than one year experience and
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between
11 percent are having more than 5 years experience in the
employee engagement and OCB. company. In the total respondents, 12 percent are senior
executives, 30 percent are managers and executives, 26
4. Research Methodology percent are supervisors, 24 percent are permanent
employees and 8 percent are temporary employees and
The study is descriptive in nature. The data have been trainees.
collected using structured questionnaire administered to
the various Cadres of Employees working in a Major
4.1 Research Instrument
Construction Company Head-Quarters located in
Chennai. Total of 250 respondents were selected from the Structured Questionnaire was used as the Research
list of employees and the questionnaires were mailed to Instrument. A five point Likert Scale was employed.
them individually with a covering letter. Out of 250 The Questionnaire consists of two Parts. Part-A contains

BVIMSR’s Journal of Management Research 149 Vol. 6 Issue - 2 : October : 2014

 IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ON ORGANIZATION CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR

Questions pertaining to Organization Citizenship 4.2.2. Scale Reliability: OCB

Behaviour. The Following important Dimensions of Table No: 3. Reliability Statistics For Organization
Employee Engagement are taken for the study: Citizenship Behaviour
Recognition, Opportunity for growth, Organisation’s
Leadership and Planning, Work Life Balance, Work Cronbach's
N of Items
Nature, Job Role Management Support and Working Alpha
Environment. 0.895 6
Source: Primary Data
Part-B contains Questions for measuring Employee From Table 3 that The Cronbach’s Alpha Value for
Engagement. The Following important Dimensions of Organization Citizenship Behaviour is found to be 0.895
Organization Citizenship Behaviour are used in the (>0.7). This shows that the scale has high reliability.
study: Altruism, Conscientiousness, Civic Virtue, Statistical tools like Percentage Analysis, Multiple
Regression and Bi-Variate Correlation were used to
Courtesy and Sportsmanship. Pilot study was done on a
analyse the data.
Sample of 40 Respondents to check the Reliability of the
Scale. Both the Employee Engagement and Organization
5. Results and Discussions
Citizenship Behaviour Scale were tested for reliability.
The Cronbach’s Alpha value which is an indicator of 5.1. Bi-Variate Correlation: Employee Engagement
Reliability of the scale was determined using Statistical The value of the Sig. for all the Dimensions and
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software. The results Employee Engagement is 0. Therefore it is found that all
the Dimensions (Recognition, Growth, Org. Leadership,
are given below:
Work Life Balance, Work Nature, Job Role, Mgmt.
Support and Work Environment have a significant
4.1.1. Scale Reliability: Employee Engagement impact of Employee Engagement. Opportunity to Grow
Table No: 2. Reliability Statistics for Employee has the highest
Engagement Correlation with Employee Engagement (0.943)
followed by Work Environment (0.920), Job Role
Cronbach's (0.979) and Organization Leadership (0.819), Work Life
N of Items Balance has the lowest Correlation with Employee
Alpha
Engagement (0.262). It is also found the Cadre and
0.934 8 Employee Engagement are negatively Correlated
(0.388)
Source: Primary Data
From the above Table, The Cronbach’s Alpha Value for 5.2. Multiple Regression Analysis: Employee
Employee Engagement is found to be 0.934 (>0.7). Engagement
This shows that the scale has high reliability. Table No: 4. Multiple Regression (EE) : ANOVA table

Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.

Squares
b
Regression 282486.673 8 35310.834 3049.388 .000
1 Residual 2142.234 185 11.580
Total 284628.907 193

The table shows that the independent variables statistically significantly predict the dependent variable. P<0.05

BVIMSR’s Journal of Management Research 150 Vol. 6 Issue - 2 : October : 2014

IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ON ORGANIZATION CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR

Table No: 5. Multiple Regression(EE) : Model Summary Table

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .996a 0.992 0.992 3.40289

R^2= 0.992 i.e 99.2% of the variation in Employee Engagement can be explained by the factors.

Table No: 6. Multiple regression (EE): Coefficients Table

Unstandardized Standardized 95.0% Confidence
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B
Model t Sig.
Std. Lower Upper
B Beta
Error Bound Bound

(Constant)
5.441 1.158 4.697 0 3.156 7.726
Recognition
5.207 0.466 0.178 11.168 0 4.287 6.127
Opportunity for
Growth 5.068 0.596 0.195 8.51 0 3.893 6.243
Organizational
Leadership 3.529 0.388 0.118 9.1 0 2.764 4.294
Work Life
Balance 2.184 0.487 0.032 4.481 0 1.222 3.146
Work Nature
4.156 0.496 0.143 8.375 0 3.177 5.135
Job Role
3.132 0.453 0.108 6.909 0 2.238 4.027
Management
Support 4.762 0.457 0.148 10.423 0 3.861 5.664
Work
Environment 4.635 0.497 0.174 9.334 0 3.655 5.614
The Regression Equation is Therefore, there is a significant relationship between the
Employee Engagement = (5.207*Recognition) + (5.068 Independent Variables (Recognition, Growth,
* Growth) + (3.529 * Org. Leadership) + (2.184 * Work Organization Leadership, Work Life Balance, Work
Life Balance) + (4.156 * Work Nature) + (3.132 * Job Nature, Job Role, Management Support and Work
Role) + (4.762 * Mgmt. Support) + (4.63 * Work Environment) and Dependent variable (Employee
Environment). Engagement).

BVIMSR’s Journal of Management Research 151 Vol. 6 Issue - 2 : October : 2014

 IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ON ORGANIZATION CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR

5.3. Contribution by Individual Dimensions to OCB 5.4. Percentage Analysis: Impact of Employee
Table No: 7. Contribution of different Dimensions Engagement on OCB
to OCB Table No: 8. Relationship between Employee
Engagement and OCB
S.NO Dimension Percentage
S. Employee Low Moderate High
Total
1 Altruism 21.59% No Engagement OCB OCB OCB
1 Disengagement 49 24 27 100
2 Conscientiousness 25.41%
2 Moderate 0 58 42 100
3 Civic Virtue 16.42% Engagement
4 Courtesy 20.90% 3 High 8 18 75 100
Engagement
5 Sportsmanship 15.68%
Out of 194 respondents 49 % of the Disengaged
Conscientiousness (25.41 %) and Altruism (21.59) are
Employees have low OCB. Only 27 %of the Disengaged
found to be the major contributors to OCB,
Employees have high OCB. It is also found that OCB is
Sportsmanship contributes the least (15.48%) to
as high as 75% for Highly Engaged Employees. Only 8%
Engagement.
of the Highly Engaged Employees have low OCB.

5.6. Bi-Variate Correlation: Employee Engagement & OCB

Table No: 9. Bi-variate Correlation between Employee Engagement & OCB
Org. Work Life Work Job Mgmt. Work
OCB Recognition Growth EE
Leadership Balance Nature Role Support Environment
**
Pearson 1 .451 .487** .477** .194** .498** .446** .451** .468** .506**
Correlation
OCB
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .007 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194
Pearson .451** 1 .898** .759** .147* .780** .797** .839** .833** .870**
Correlation
Recognition Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .040 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194
** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Pearson .487 .898 1 .839 .263 .881 .866 .861 .909 .943**
Correlation
Growth
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194
Pearson .477** .759** .839** 1 .074 .794** .747** .709** .828** .819**
Org. Correlation
Leadership Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .303 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194
** * **
Pearson .194 .147 .263 .074 1 .238** .227** .251** .213** .262**
Work Life Correlation
Balance Sig. (2-tailed) .007 .040 .000 .303 .001 .001 .000 .003 .000
N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194
** ** ** **
Pearson .498 .780 .881 .794 .238** 1 .880** .834** .886** .909**
Correlation
Work Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000
Nature
N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194

BVIMSR’s Journal of Management Research 152 Vol. 6 Issue - 2 : October : 2014

IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ON ORGANIZATION CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR

Pearson .446** .797** .866** .747** .227** .880** 1 .801** .884** .879**
Correlation
Job Role Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194
** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Pearson .451 .839 .861 .709 .251 .834 .801 1 .827 .884**
Mgmt. Correlation
Support Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194
Pearson .468** .833** .909** .828** .213** .886** .884** .827** 1 .920**
Work Correlation
Environment Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194
Pearson ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1
.506 .870 .943 .819 .262 .909 .879 .884 .920
Employee Correlation
Engagement Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194

The value of the Sig. for all the Dimensions and OCB is 0. on the basis of theoretical evidences and support from the
Therefore it is found that all the Dimensions of Employee literature review, the outcomes of the present study
Engagement have a significant impact on Organization reinforce the relationship between employee
Citizenship Behavior. The Persons Correlation for engagement and OCB.
Employee Engagement and OCB is .506, which proves
that Employee Engagement has a positive impact on 7. Conclusion
OCB. It is also found that Nature of Work, Opportunity
The research paper examined Employee Engagement
for Growth and Organizational Leadership has high
and its impact on Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
Correlation with OCB.
The study reveals that there is a very significant
relationship between Employee Engagement and
6. Discussions Organization Citizenship Behavior. Although OCB may
Organisations massively focusing on attracting and not be able to directly impact business outcomes, this
retaining the highly productive employees should focus type of highly-valued workplace behaviours can
on improving the Engagement level of the Employees. facilitate organizational performance through the impact
Only an “engaged employee” will put extra effort to on organizational culture and individual productivity.
improve the organisational performance, not only by Therefore Employee Engagement not only has
improving his own performance, rather, by focusing also Quantitative benefits by highly valued Organisational
on the overall development of the organisation. Only the Citizenship Behaviour. The study strongly recommends
organisations having more number of employees with that organizations can develop OCB by focussing on
OCB can excel in its performance and also can develop Employee Engagement. The present paper analyzes only
and retain competitive advantage over other firms. In the the connection between Employee Engagement and
present study, literature review was conducted to explore Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. In future, this
the factors contributing to Employee Engagement and study could also be extended to examine the other
OCB. Bates (2004) supports the argument that there will organisational factors such as Motivation,
be an impact of engagement on company performance. Organisational Structure, Culture, Leadership Style,
Studies such as Kataria et al., (2012) as well indicate that Power and Politics etc to study OCB. The study also can
employee engagement has potential to drive OCB. Thus, be extended to interlink the individual factors such as

BVIMSR’s Journal of Management Research 153 Vol. 6 Issue - 2 : October : 2014

 IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ON ORGANIZATION CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR

personality, perception, attitude, values and satisfaction 8. Kahn, William A. (1990), “Psychological
to study Employee Engagement and OCB. Pragmatic Conditions of Personal Engagement and
study of employee engagement would help to understand Disengagement at Work” The Academy of
the best ways to improve the fit between the job and the Management Journal. Vol. 33 Issue 4, p692-724.
performer and also to enhance the organisational 9. Kataria, Aakanksha; Garg, Pooja; Rastogi, Renu.
performance and productivity. (2012-13), “Employee Engagement and
Organizational Effectiveness: The Role of
References O rg a n i z a t i o n a l C i t i z e n s h i p B e h a v i o r ”
1. Bakker, Arnold B.; Albrecht, Simon L.; Leiter, International Journal of Business Insights &
Michael P. (2011), “Work engagement: Transformation. Oct2012-Mar2013, Vol. 6 Issue 1,
Further reflections on the state of play”, European p102-113.
Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology. 10. Kreitner, R. & A. Kiniki, (2004), Organizational
Feb2011, Vol. 20 Issue 1, p74-88. Behavior 5e. New York, NY: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
2. Bakker, Dollard, Maureen F.; Arnold B. (2010), 11. Michael Cardus (2013), “The Five levers of
“Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor t o Employee Engagement”, The Journal of Quality
conducive work environments, psychological and Participation. Jul2013, Vol. 36 Issue 2, p28-31.
health problems, and employee engagement” 12. Nancy R. Lockwood, SPHR, GPHR, M.A. (2007),
Journal of Occupational & Organizational “Leveraging Employee Engagement for
Psychology. Sep2010, Vol. 83 Issue 3, p579-599. Competitive Advantage” SHRM Research
3. Bates, S. (2004). “Getting Engaged,” HR Quarterly.
Magazine, Society for Human Resource 13. Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, & W.H.
Management, Vol. 49, No. 2, February, pp. 44-51. Bommer (1996), “Transformational leader
4. Bhatnagar, Jyotsna. (2012), “Management of behaviors and substitutes for leadership as
innovation: role of psychological empowerment, determinants of employee satisfactions,
work engagement and turnover intention in the commitment, trust and organizational citizenship
Indian context”, International Journal of Human behaviours”, Journal of Management, 22 (2), 259-
Resource Management. Mar2012, Vol. 23 Issue 5, 98.
p928-951. 14. Rurkkhum, S and K.R. Bartlett, (2012), “The
5. Ed Snape and Tom Redman (2010), “HRM relationship between employee engagement and
Practices, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in
and performance: A Multi-Level Analysis” Journal Thailand” Human Resource International, 15(2);
of Management Studies 47:7. Vol. 47 Issue 7, 157-174.
p1219-1247. 15. Reichheld, F. (2001), “Lead for Loyalty”, Harvard
6. Fleming, J.H., C. Coffman & J.K. Harter (2005), Business Review, July-Aug. pp. 76-84.
“Manage your human Sigma”, Harvard
Business Review, 83 (7), 106-115.
7. Gubman, E. (2004), “From Engagement to
Passion for Work: The Search for the Missing
Person,” Human Resources Planning, The Human
Resource Planning Society, Vol. 27.3, September.
Vol. 27 Issue 3, p42-46.

BVIMSR’s Journal of Management Research 154 Vol. 6 Issue - 2 : October : 2014

IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ON ORGANIZATION CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR

Table No: 3. Bivariate Correlation for Employee Engagement

Org. Work
Experienc e Recog- Work Life Work Mgmt.
Age Cadre Growth Leadershi Job Role Environment EE
nition Balance Nature Support
p
Pearson ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
1 .565 -.479 .275 .331 .235 .129 .310 .329 .387 .363 .315
Correlation
Age Sig. (2- tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .073 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194

Pearson ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.565 1 -.437 .379 .470 .300 .259 .434 .452 .488 .446 .463
Correlation
Experience
Sig. (2- tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194

Pearson ** ** ** ** * * ** ** ** ** **
-.479 -.437 1 -.330 -.383 -.144 -.158 -.382 -.374 -.454 -.341 -.388
Correlation
Cadre
Sig. (2- tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .045 .027 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194

Pearson ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** **
.275 .379 -.330 1 .898 .759 .147 .780 .839 .797 .833 .870
Correlation
Recognition
Sig. (2- tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .040 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194

Pearson ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.331 .470 -.383 .898 1 .839 .263 .881 .861 .866 .909 .943
Correlation
Growth
Sig. (2- tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194

Pearson ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.235 .300 -.144 .759 .839 1 .074 .794 .709 .747 .828 .819
Correlation
Org.Leade
rship Sig. (2- tailed)
.001 .000 .045 .000 .000 .303 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194

Pearson ** * * ** ** ** ** ** **
.129 .259 -.158 .147 .263 .074 1 .238 .251 .227 .213 .262
Correlation
WorkLifeB
alance Sig. (2- tailed)
.073 .000 .027 .040 .000 .303 .001 .000 .001 .003 .000

N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194

Pearson ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.310 .434 -.382 .780 .881 .794 .238 1 .834 .880 .886 .909
Correlation
WorkNature
Sig. (2- tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194

Pearson ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.329 .452 -.374 .839 .861 .709 .251 .834 1 .801 .827 .884
Correlation
Mgmt.Sup
port Sig. (2- tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194

Pearson ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.387 .488 -.454 .797 .866 .747 .227 .880 .801 1 .884 .879
Correlation
JobRole
Sig. (2- tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194

Pearson ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.363 .446 -.341 .833 .909 .828 .213 .886 .827 .884 1 .920
Correlation
WorkEnvir
onment Sig. (2- tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194

Pearson
.315 ** .463 ** -.388 ** .870 ** .943 ** .819 ** .262 ** .909 ** .884 ** .879 ** .920 ** 1
Correlation
EE
Sig. (2- tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194

Source: Primary Data

qqq

BVIMSR’s Journal of Management Research 155 Vol. 6 Issue - 2 : October : 2014