See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314759577

Employee Engagement and Organizational Commitment: Evidence from

Jordan

Article  in  International Journal of Business · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

172 13,240

2 authors, including:

Altarawneh Ikhlas
Al-Hussein Bin Talal University
23 PUBLICATIONS   525 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Leadership Styles of Jordanian Women Leaders In the Public and Private Sectors View project

‫ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻣﻤﺎرﺳﺎت اﻹدارة اﻟﺨﻀﺮاء ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷداء اﻟﺒﻴﺌﻲ اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺒﻨﻚ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ اﻹﺳﻼﻣﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ‬View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Altarawneh Ikhlas on 12 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 19(2), 2014 ISSN: 1083-4346

Employee Engagement and Organizational

Commitment: Evidence from Jordan

Ali Abbaas Albdour1 and Ikhlas I. Altarawneh2

1
Assistant Professor, College of Business and Administration, Princess Nora Bint
Abdul Rahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
[email protected], [email protected]
2
Corresponding author, Associate Professor, College of Business and Economics
Al-Hussein Bin Talal University, P.O box 99, Ma'an, Jordan
[email protected], [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between the two
measurements of employee engagement (job engagement and organizational
engagement) and organizational commitment measured by three key measurements
which are: affective (emotional) commitment; continuance (maintenance) commitment;
and normative commitment, that is in the context of Jordanian banking sector. This
study uses a non-probability sampling technique specifically of quota and convenience
sampling. A survey self-administrated questionnaire was distributed on a sample of 336
frontline employees of banks in Jordan. Our findings show that frontline employees
who have high job engagement and organizational engagement will have high level of
affective commitment and normative commitment. On the other hand, high employees’
job engagement can meaningfully affect employees’ continuance commitment. This
study has made significant contributions to the knowledge academically and practically.
It is expected to extend the knowledge of the relationship between employee
engagement and organizational commitment, also through examining the impact of
various measurements of employees and organizational engagement and commitment
in Jordan as one of the developing countries. Explicitly, this study fills the gap in the
literature of employees' engagement and commitment and their impact on
organizational overall performance.

JEC Classifications: M1, M12

Keywords: employee engagement ； organizational commitment; banking sector;

Jordan
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 19(2), 2014 193

I. INTRODUCTION

Employee engagement and employee-organizational commitments are critical

organizational requirements as organizations face globalization and recovering from the
global recession. Engagements at work, employee and organizational commitment have
been areas of interest among many researchers and they have received huge
recognitions among scholars and studies. Many researchers in their studies support the
relationship between organizational performance and employees' engagement, for
example, Simpson (2009) and Andrew and Sofian (2012).
However, according to Saks (2006) most of what has been found about
employee engagement was found in practitioner journals; it has its basis in practice
rather than theoretical and empirical research. Consequently, there is real need for more
studies on employee engagement literature (Saks 2006). In additional, several studies in
western developed economies show that there is a affirmative relationship between
employee engagement and affective emotional commitment (Richardsen et al., 2006;
Llorens et al., 2006; Hakanen et al., 2006; Saks, 2006; Demerouti et al., 2001; Maslach
et al., 2001; Brown and Leigh, 1996), but none has looked at engagement’s impact on
the two other measurements of commitment: continuance and normative. Moreover, to
date researchers have not yet studied the relationship between employee engagement
and organizational commitment in the banking sector in Jordan. Furthermore, very few
commitment studies were conducted in Jordan. Supporting this argument, Suliman and
Iles (2000) argue that research in commitment in Arab literature has been somewhat
ignored.
Hence, this study is critical for the following reasons. First, this study contributes
to the literature by examining the relationship between two measurements of employee
engagement and three measurements of organizational commitment. Second, this study
is considered one of the very few researches that examined employee engagement using
two dimensions namely job engagement and organisational engagement. Previous
research has focused primarily on work commitment such as Richardsen et al. (2006),
Llorens et al. (2006), Hakanen et al. (2006), and Demerouti et al. (2001). Moreover,
only one study was found that studied the two measurements of employee engagement:
job engagement and organizational engagement according to Sake (2006).
Therefore, this study expands the awareness of the impact of employee
engagement on organizational commitment among frontline employees. It also
concentrates on one of the issues that are characterized as required to be researched
particularly in the emerging economies. Therefore, this study is expected to contribute
to the current literature, and especially in the Jordanian context, where there is a
desperate need for such a research to be conducted (Albdour and Atarawneh, 2012).
The paper is structured as follows. First the literature on the relationship between
employee engagement and organizational commitment were reviewed and presented.
Second, a discussion of the research methodology procedures and issues is provided.
Third, the quantitative results of the survey's questionnaire are followed. Finally, the
discussions of the findings in addition to the study conclusions, recommendations and
limitations are presented.
194 Albdour and Altarawneh

II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THE STUDY HYPOTHESES

A. Employee Engagement and Organizational Commitment

Employee engagement has gained much popularity and the knowledge is required by
many stakeholders related to the employees and organizations. More recently,
employee engagement has generated significant interest among HR professionals as
several researchers claim engagement has a positive relationship with customer
satisfaction, productivity, profit, employees' retention (Coffman and Gonzalez-Molina,
2002; Buckingham and Coffman, 1999) and organisational success and profit
(Richman, 2006; Baumruk, 2004). Harter et al. (2002) argue that employee engagement
is important for 'meaningful business results and performance in many organizations'.
Saks (2006) conceptualizes employee engagement based on Maslach et al. (2001)
model. Saks (2006) defines employee engagement as the extent to which an individual
is attentive and absorbed in the performance of his/her roles (pp: 600-619). He
discerned between two types of employee engagement: job engagement and
organizational engagement. Job engagement refers to the extent to which an individual
is actually fascinated in the performance of his/her own individual job role (pp: 600-
619). Meanwhile, organizational engagement reflects “the extent to which an individual
is psychologically present as a member of an organization” (pp: 600-619).
In additional, over the past two decades, the concept of organisational
commitment has generated great attention. Mathieu and Zajac (1990) attested that the
organizational commitment concept receives a great deal of empirical studies where
both contain an outcome and antecedent. The surge in interest and attention on
organizational commitment literature was pursuant to the idea that this concept is a
significant part of an employee’s psychological conditions because employees, who
experience high organizational commitment, are theorized to display much positive
workplace behavior, such as high job performance, and citizenship activities, which
will definitely benefit the organization. Organizational commitment is defined as “the
relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular
organization and can be characterized by a strong belief in and acceptance of the
organization’s goals and values, willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the
organization and a strong desire to maintain membership of the organization”
(Mowday, Porter, and steer, 1982, p, 27).
In this study, organization commitment includes three kinds: affective
commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. Meyer and Allen,
(1991, p.67) define these three sorts of commitment as following: the affective
commitment refers to “the employee's emotional attachment to, identification with, and
involvement in the organization”. Continuance commitment: “the awareness of the
costs associated with leaving the organization”. Finally, normative commitment
represents a perceived obligation to remain in the organization (Meyer et al., 2002). It
refers to commitment based on a sense of obligation to the organization and employees
with a strong normative commitment remain because they feel they ought to do so.
Regarding to the impacts of employee engagement on organizational
commitment, Schaufeli and Salanova (2007) studied work engagement and found that
when engagement level increases the level of organizational commitment increases as
well and, moreover, enhances job satisfaction, higher performance and reveals a greater
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 19(2), 2014 195

demonstration of personal ideas, higher attendance and lower turnover rates, improved
health and security, proactive behavior and learning motivation. Likewise, Saks (2006)
conducted an important study among 102 employees working in a variety of jobs and
organizations in Canada to test a model of the antecedents and consequences of a job
engagement and organizational engagement based. The study found that employee
engagement represents a mediating role in the relationship between the precursor (job
characteristics, perceived organization support, perceived supervisor support, rewards
and recognition, procedural justice, and distributive justice) and consequences of
engagement (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intention to quit, and
organizational citizenship and behavior). Moreover, Brown and Leigh (1996)
concluded that an environment perceived as psychologically safe and meaningful by
employees usually leads to increase job involvement and commitment of time and
energy into the work of the organization. In addition, they found that psychological
climate has been linked to the cognitive and affective states of job satisfaction,
commitment, and motivation. Hakanen et al. (2008) set out to test the motivational and
health impairment processes as proposed in the Job Demands-Resources (JDR) model,
and to examine the extent home resources and home demands may influence both
processes over a certain period. The study found that job resources impact on future
work engagement ultimately leads to organizational commitment, as compared to job
demands which foretell burnout within a certain period that eventually lead to predicted
prediction of future depression.
Additional evidences also were found in the literature concerning the influences
of employee engagement and organizational commitment, since engagement
conceptualized as the opposite of (Maslach et al., 2001; Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2006).
For example, Maslach et al. (2001) seek to provide a serious analysis of the past 25
years of literature on job burnout. The analysis revealed six areas of work-life that may
either lead to engagement: workload, control, rewards and recognition, community and
social support, perceived fairness, and values. They found that a sustainable workload,
feelings of choice and control, appropriate recognition and reward, a supportive work
community, fairness and justice, and meaningful and valued work can contribute
positively to work engagement. Furthermore, they concluded that engagement is
mediating the six work-life factors and various work outcomes such as performance
commitment, satisfaction, and job tenure.
Similarly, Hakanen et al. (2006) investigated the ability of being exhausted to
mediate the relationship between job stress and sick health, and also to examine the
mediating role of engagement on the relationship between job resources and
organizational commitment. They found that burnout mediated the effect of high job
demands on ill health while work engagement mediated the effects of job resources on
organizational commitment. Correspondingly, Llorens et al. (2006) examined the
mediating role of burnout and engagement on the relationship between job resource and
job demands and organizational commitment among two convenience samples of
Spanish and Dutch employees. The result showed that burnout is fully mediating the
relationship between job demands and commitment in the Dutch sample and plays a
partial mediating role in the Spanish sample. Moreover, instead of a full mediator,
engagement is a partial mediator in the relationship between job resources and
organizational commitment.
196 Albdour and Altarawneh

B. Hypotheses Development − Employee Engagement and Organizational

Commitment

Several studies indicated that there is a positive relationship between employee

engagement and affective commitment (e.g., Richardsen et al., 2006; Llorens et al.,
2006; Hakanen et al., 2006; Saks, 2006; Demerouti et al., 2001; Maslach et al., 2001;
Brown and Leigh, 1996), but none has looked at engagement’s impact on the other two
components of organizational commitment (continuance commitment and normative
commitment). Saks (2006, pp: 600-619) described employee engagement as “the degree
which an individual is attentive and absorbed in the performance of their roles.” Saks
(2006) categorizes employee engagement into job engagement and organizational
engagement. Although there are two categories of engagement, with one relating to the
job and the other relating to the organization, all questionnaires in these two categories
solicit the degree of immersion of an employee into his job and organization arising
from the employee’s personal devotion towards the job and organization. The
questionnaires would presume this devotion as not coming from threats or risks such as
“no outside jobs are readily available” nor “losing their investments in the bank.” On
the other hand, Meyer and Allen (1991) define continuance commitment as the
consciousness of the costs linked to leaving the organization.” Therefore, it can be
argued that a higher level of immersion (or devotion) of employee engagement would
be related to lower levels of awareness of the costs related to leaving the organization
(continuance commitment).Taking this to the extreme, it would mean a higher level of
devotion would create a much diminished level of awareness of costs related to leaving
the organization. As such, it is logic to hypothesize a negative relationship between
employee engagement and continuance commitment. In contrast, the employee who has
a positive and pleasing work-related status of mind is likely to report positive attitudes
towards working in the organization, and demonstrate greater affective commitment
and normative commitment. Hence, it is expected that employee engagement will
positively affect affective commitment and normative commitment and negatively
affect continuance commitment. Therefore, this study hypothesizes that:
There is a significant relationship between employee engagement and
organizational commitment.
H1: Job engagement will be positively related to affective commitment.
H2: Job engagement will be negatively related to continuance commitment.
H3: Job engagement will be positively related to normative commitment.
H4: Organizational engagement will be positively related to affective commitment.
H5: Organizational engagement will be negatively related to continuance commitment.
H6: Organizational engagement will be positively related to normative commitment.

C. Method − Population and Sample

The population of this study consists of all frontline employees within the banking
sector in Jordan; the total number of banks operating in Jordan is 23 banks in the end of
2009 as shown in the Table 1. According to the information obtained from the human
resources managements of these banks, the total number of frontline employees was
2393. The justifications for targeting the frontline employees in this study are: first, in
the service industry, production and consumption of the service are taking place at the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 19(2), 2014 197

same time. Therefore, frontline employees play a critical role to improve customers’
loyalty and profitability (Rust et al., 1996). Second, frontline employees practice higher
levels of emotional tiredness than do other employees in other service organizations
(Boles et al., 1997).
This study utilizes a non-probability sampling method namely quota and
convenience sampling. The justification behind using the quota and convenience
sampling method is due to the confidentiality policies in the banking sector. This
confidentiality prevented the researcher from acquiring the data of the employees’
names, addresses and contact numbers. The questionnaires were personally
administered and collected from 336 frontline employees in the banking sector in
Jordan. According to Sekaran (2003, p. 295), if the population of the current study is
more than 2000, the ratio of the sample size should be around 322 respondents. Thus,
the sample size for the current study was 336 employees' participants (Sekaran, 2003, p.
295). Roscoe (1975) stated that for most studies, a sample size between 30 and 500
would be sufficient.

Table 1
The distribution of frontline employees within banking sector in Jordan

Number Bank’s Name Number of Frontline

Employees employee
Jordanian conventional banks
1 Arab Bank 2892 330
2 Jordan Kuwait Bank 750 156
3 Bank of Jordan 1294 188
4 Jordan Ahli Bank 1250 184
5 Cairo Amman Bank 1389 204
The Housing Bank for Trade and 1802 384
6
Finance
7 Arab Jordan Investment Bank 375 36
8 Jordan Commercial Bank 465 100
9 Jordan Investment and Finance Bank 247 32
10 Arab Bank Corporate (ABC) Bank 398 56
11 Union Bank Corp 404 76
12 Societe General Bank – Jordan 226 72
13 Capital Bank 281 30
Jordanian Islamic banks
1 Jordan Islamic Bank 1611 224
2 Islamic Arab Bank 333 66
Foreign banks
1 HSBC Bank Middle East 393 20
2 National Bank of Kuwait 60 11
3 Bank Audi 146 54
4 Standard Chartered 265 63
5 Citi Bank 68 18
6 Rafidain Bank 31 9
7 Egyptian Arab Land Bank 260 51
8 BLOM Bank 125 29
Total 15065 2393
198 Albdour and Altarawneh

D. Measures − Organizational Commitment

Allen and Meyer’s (1990) instrument was used with their permission to measure the
three dimensions of organizational commitment: namely, affective commitment,
continuance commitment, and normative commitment. The three-component
commitment scale was viewed as the prevailing conceptualization of organizational
commitment (Bergman, 2006). The affective commitment scale consists of eight items.
Each subject was asked to indicate the extent to which he/she agree with statements,
such as ‘I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization'
and ‘I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside of it’. The continuance
commitment scale consists of eight items. Each subject was asked to indicate the extent
to which he/she agree with statements such as ‘It would not be too costly for me to
leave my organization now' and ‘I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving
this organization’. The normative commitment scale consists of eight items. Each
subject was asked to indicate the extent to which he/she agree with statements such as
‘One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organizations that I believe that
loyalty is important and therefore, feel a sense of moral obligation to remain’.

E. Employee Engagement

The two dimensions of employee engagement (job engagement and organizational

engagement) were measured using Saks’ (2006) instrument with his permission. The
job engagement scale consists of five items, each subject was requested to indicate the
extent to which he/she agreed with statements, such as ‘I really “throw” myself into my
job’ and ‘sometimes I am so into my job that I lose track of time’. The organizational
engagement scale consists of six items. Each subject were requested to indicate the
extent to which he/she agreed with statements such as ‘Being a member of this
organization is very captivating’ and ‘Being a member of this organization makes me
come “alive.”

III. REULTS
A. Response Rate

Table 2 below displays the response to the survey for this study. There were 336 sets of
questionnaires distributed to the frontline employees within the banking sector in
Jordan, of which 300 were returned for a response rate of 89.6 percent. However, only
294 questionnaires or 87.5 percent were properly completed and eventually collated for
the study. Sekaran (2000) agrees with Roscoe (1975) that for most studies, a sample
size between 30 and 500 would be sufficient.

B. Respondent’s and Bank’s Profile

Tables 3 and 4 show the profile of the sample banks and the respondents. The
respondents comprised of 294 frontline employees within Jordan’s banking sector. Of
these, 74.5% worked in conventional banks, 18.7% in Jordanian Islamic banks and
6.8% in foreign banks. Males within the banking sector in Jordan constitute 68.0% and
females constitute 32.0% of the total employees. In addition, 19.0% were aged less than
25 years, 36.1% between 25–30 years, 30.3% between 31–40 years, 13.3% between 41–
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 19(2), 2014 199

Table 2
Distributions of questionnaires

Items Number
Questionnaires distributed 336
Total response 300
Unusable response 6
Usable response 294
Total response rate 89.6%
usable response rate 87.5%

Table 3
Profile of the sample banks

Bank’s profile Categories Frequency Percent %

Jordanian conventional banks 219 74.5
Bank Type Jordanian Islamic banks 55 18.7
Foreign banks 20 6.8

Table 4
Profile of the respondents

Respondent’s profile Categories Frequency Percent %

Less than 25 years 56 19.0
25–30 years 106 36.1
Age 31–40 years 89 30.3
41–50 years 39 13.3
More than 51 years 4 1.4
Married 180 61.2
Marital Status
Single 114 38.8
Male 200 68.0
Gender
Female 94 32.0
5 years or less 140 47.6
6–10 years 59 20.1
Organisational
11–15 years 35 11.9
Tenure
16–20 years 47 16.0
More than 20 years 13 4.4
High school 12 4.1
College 53 18.0
Educational Level Bachelor degree 193 65.6
High diploma 10 3.4
Master degree or higher 26 8.8

50 years, and 1.4% of the respondents were aged 51 or above. More than half of the
respondents or 61.2% were married while another 38.8% were single. Of the study
subjects, 47.6 per cent had worked in their banks for five years or less, 20.1 per cent
between 6 and 10 years, 11.9 per cent between 11 and 15 years, 16.0 per cent between
16 and 20 years and the organizational tenures of 4.4 per cent of the sample were 20
years and above. A total of 12 employees was educated to high school level, 53 were
200 Albdour and Altarawneh

found to be college affiliated, 193 were holding a bachelor degree, indeed 10

employees were high diploma, and 26 employees were master degree holders or above.

C. Reliability Analysis

Table 5 provides the values of Cronbach’s alpha for all the variables. It appears from
the table that the values of Cronbach’s alpha range between 0.82 and 0.90 (Nunnally,
1978). These values well exceed the minimum value of 0.70. Thus, it can be concluded
that the measures have an acceptable level of reliability.

Table 5
Reliability of scales and Cronbach’s alpha of study variables

Variable Scales Items Retained Cronbach alpha

Job engagement JE 5 0.89
Organisational engagement OE 6 0.90
Affective commitment AC 8 0.82
Continuance commitment CC 7 0.84
Normative commitment NC 7 0.85

D. Means and Standard Deviations of Study Variables

In this study, the 5–point Likert scale was used to indicate the level of responses to all
items (1= Strongly agree to 5 strongly disagree). The mean values of all variables were
further categorized into three levels that are low, moderate and high level of responses,
Mean values of less than 2.00 was categorized as “low”; mean values between 2.00 and
less than 3.50 was categorized as “moderate”; while mean values of 3.5 or higher was
categorized as “high” level of responses, whereas standard deviation measures the
dispersion of a set of data from its mean. Here, it is noted that the more spread out the
data was, the higher the deviation value would be. Standard deviation is calculated as
the square root of variance (Sekaran, 2003: 389). Moreover, a t-test and one-way
ANOVA were conducted to test if there are any significant differences between the
study variables, namely employee engagement and organizational commitment and
demographic variables, which are: age, gender, marital status, education level,
organisational tenure and bank type.

E. Descriptive Statistics of Employee Engagement

Table 6 manifests the mean and standard deviations for the two employee engagement
dimensions. The table reveals that job engagement is higher among frontline employees
within the banking sector in Jordan than organizational engagement with (mean= 3.94,
std. Deviation= 0.79744) and (mean = 3.58, std. deviation = 0.89129) respectively. On
average, frontline employees have a high engagement within the banking sector in
Jordan (mean= 3.76, std. deviation= 0.844265).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 19(2), 2014 201

Table 6
Descriptive statistics of employee engagement

Mean Std. Deviation

Job engagement 3.9429 .79744
Organisational engagement 3.5810 .89129
Average 3.76195 0.844265

Table 7
t-test on employee engagement by marital status and gender

JE OE
M SD t-value M SD t-value
Marital Married .77292 .05761 1.034 .87273 .06505 .729
Status Single .83457 .07816 . .92171 .08633
Gender Male .75592 .05345 2.472 .87412 .06181 3.000
Female .86004 .08871 .89049 .09185

Table 8
One-way ANOVA on employee engagement by bank type, age, organizational tenure
and education level

JE OE
M SD F/t value M SD F/t value
Conventional 3.9193 .84182 3.6115 .86611
Bank
Islamic 3.9273 .55693 1.300 3.3851 .94940 1.986
Type
Foreign 4.2200 .85569 3.7830 .97784
<25 years 3.7143 .83458 3.5091 .91403
25–30 4.0264 .80526 3.6367 .84031
Ages 31–40 3.9236 .79115 1.793 3.4345 1.00261 1.727
41–50 4.0872 .72518 3.8374 .68981
>51 years 3.9500 .34157 3.8725 .48016
<5 years 3.8929 .81476 3.5892 .87231
6–10 4.0034 .87454 3.5849 .97304
Org.
11–15 3.8229 .73207 .818 3.4857 .96463 .539
Tenure
16–20 4.0553 .72676 3.5353 .87054
>20 years 4.1231 .65084 3.8969 .56681
High school 4.0000 .62085 3.6258 .70288
College 3.7434 .88002 3.4781 .91424
Bachelor
Ed. 4.0104 .77668 3.6510 .87220
degree 1.343 1.183
Level
High diploma 3.9400 .77201 3.2330 1.01248
Master degree
3.8231 .83009 3.3842 .99649
or higher

Tables 7 and 8 display the descriptive statistics of employee engagement by

demographic profile, the t-test was conducted on employee engagement by gender and
marital status while the one-way ANOVA was carried out on employee engagement by
bank type, age, organizational tenure and education level. In general, there is no
202 Albdour and Altarawneh

significant mean difference on employee engagement across the sample profile (gender,
bank type, age, marital status, organizational tenure and education level).

F. Descriptive Statistics of Organizational Commitment

Table 9 shows the mean and standard deviations for the three organizational
commitment dimensions under study which are affective commitment, normative
commitment and continuance commitment. The table indicates that affective
commitment is the highest among frontline employees within the banking sector in
Jordan (mean= 3.45, std. Deviation= 0.61398) followed closely by the normative
commitment (mean= 3.34, std. deviation= 0.81637). The lowest type of organizational
commitment among the employees is continuance commitment (mean= 2.67, std.
deviation= 0.82844). On average, frontline employees have the moderate commitment
within the banking sector in Jordan (mean= 3.15, std. deviation= 0.75293).

Table 9
Descriptive statistics of OC

OC dimensions Mean Std. Deviation

Affective commitment 3.4497 .61398
Continuance commitment 2.6702 .82844
Normative commitment 3.3415 .81637
Average 3.1538 0.75293

Table 10
t-test on organizational commitment by marital status and gender

AC CC NC
M SD t-value M SD t-value M SD t-value
Marital Married 3.40 .585 -1.69 2.63 .820 -1.14 3.34 .776 -0.039
Status Single 3.523 .654 2.74 .841 3.34 .871
*
Gender Male 3.48 .630 1.150 2.62 .823 -1.66 3.43 .848 2.583
Female 3.39 .578 2.79 .832 3.16 .718
*
significant at 5% level

Tables 10 and 11 display the descriptive statistics of organizational commitment

by demographic profile. The t-test was conducted on organizational commitment by
gender and marital status, one-way ANOVA on organizational commitment by bank
type, age, organizational tenure and education level. The results suggest that there is no
significant statistical difference in all the three organizational commitment dimensions
across the sample profile (age, marital status, organizational tenure and education level)
and there is a significant difference between bank types regarding affective
commitment. A close inspection of affective commitment across bank types indicates
that affective commitment is higher among employees in foreign banks than
conventional and Islamic banks. Moreover, the results in Table 9 reveal a significant
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 19(2), 2014 203

difference in the extent of normative commitment according to the participants’ gender.

Male employees have a higher normative commitment than female employees.

G. Correlation Analysis

Table 12 provides descriptive statistics and correlations for all study variables. As
predicted, job engagement was positively related to affective commitment (r = .436, p,
0.01) and normative commitment (r = .532, p, 0.01), and negatively related to
continuance commitment (r = -.144, p, 0.05), thus, supporting hypotheses H1, H2 and
H3. Organizational engagement is similarly positively related to affective commitment
(r = .456, p, 0.01) and normative commitment (r = .695, p, 0.01), supporting hypotheses
H4 and H6, and negatively related but not significantly correlated to continuance
commitment (r = -.044, p> 0.05), as such failing to support hypothesis HE. All
correlations were at the moderate level and none of them is considered high (0, 70 or
above). Therefore, multicollinearity does not remain a dire problem in this study.

Table 11
One-way ANOVA on organizational commitment by bank type, age, organizational
tenure and education level

AC CC NC
M SD F/t value M SD F/t value M SD F/t value
Conventional 3.492 .6131 2.672 .8321 3.381 .7955
Bank
Islamic 3.247 .5754 3.821* 2.715 .7541 .374 3.140 .8672 2.163
Type
Foreign 3.546 .6404 2.528 .9981 3.460 .8537
<25 years 3.393 .6541 2.811 .8460 3.200 .8000
25–30 3.544 .6476 2.647 .8887 3.395 .7820
Ages 31–40 3.364 .6044 1.215 2.638 .7680 .603 3.266 .8371 1.465
41–50 3.461 .4584 2.588 .7928 3.533 .8588
>51 years 3.563 .5543 2.858 .6716 3.700 .8756
<5 years 3.459 .6328 2.756 .8467 3.264 .8016
6–10 3.487 .7732 2.548 .8143 3.514 .8247
Org.
11–15 3.406 .4346 .230 2.706 .8022 .935 3.391 .7789 1.013
Tenure
16–20 3.442 .4967 2.575 .8175 3.326 .8378
>20 years 3.330 .4074 2.551 .8053 3.323 .9532
High school 3.595 .6442 2.633 .8055 3.075 1.133
College 3.347 .5532 2.798 .8038 3.109 .8729
Bachelor 2.314
3.482 .6408 2.632 .8470 3.442 .7695
degree 1.219 .521
Ed.
High
Level 3.164 .6032 2.572 .8810 3.280 .8613
diploma
Master
degree or 3.459 .4914 2.753 .7530 3.219 .7777
higher
*
significant at 5% level
204 Albdour and Altarawneh

Table 12
Descriptive statistics and correlation between variables

Descriptive Statistics Correlations

Mean Std. Dev JE OE AC CC NC

JE 3.9429 .79744 1

OE 3.5810 .89129 .525** 1

AC 3.4497 .61398 .436** .456** 1
*
CC 2.6702 .82844 -.144 -.044 -.041 1
NC 3.3415 .81637 .532** .695** .468** -.045 1
**
. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*.
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Note: JE (job engagement), OE (organisational engagement), AC (affective commitment), CC (continuance
commitment), NC (normative commitment

H. Multiple Regression Analysis − The Relationship between Employee

Engagement and Organizational Commitment

The main hypothesis predicted that the employee engagement dimensions are positively
related to affective commitment and normative commitment and negatively related to
continuance commitment. A two-step regression analysis was performed for each
dependent variable, entering the controls in the first step and the employee engagement
dimensions in the second. The first regression analysis was carried out to determine the
relationship between the two dimensions of employee engagement and affective
commitment. The results of the regression analysis for affective commitment are
provided in Table 13. The R square value indicated that 29.3% of variance in affective
commitment can be explained by the controls and the two dimensions of employee
engagement (R2 = 0.293; F=23.787; p<0.01). The regression results in Table 13 also
showed that job engagement (β = 0.290, p< .01) and OE (β = 0.305, p< .01) are
significant determinants for affective commitment. This supports hypotheses H1 and
H4. Based on the beta values, OE (β = 0.305) seemed to have the strongest effect on
affective commitment followed by job engagement (β = 0.290, p< .01).
The second regression analysis was run to determine the relationship between the
two dimensions of employee engagement and continuance commitment. The results of
the regression analyses for continuance commitment are summarized in Table 14. Table
14 revealed that the two dimensions of employee engagement and the control variables
can collectively explain 3.1% of the variance found in continuance commitment
(R2=.031; F=1.840; p>0.01). A closer look at the individual variables show that job
engagement has negative and significant association with continuance commitment
with (β = -0.162, p< .05). This result provided support for hypothesis H2. Contrary to
expectation, there was no significant relationship between organizational engagement
and continuance commitment (β = 0.062, p> .05). Consequently, hypothesis H5 was not
supported.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 19(2), 2014 205

Table 13
MRA: The relationship between employee engagement and affective commitment

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Remark

Beta t-test Sig VIF Beta t-test Sig VIF

Step 1: Control –V

Con_Bank -.031 -.316 .752 2.94 .042 .496 .621 2.97

Islam_Bank -.20* -2.05 .041 2.96 -.094 -1.09 .275 3.09

Gender -.100 -1.71 .088 1.03 .000 -.002 .999 1.07

Step 2: Employee Engagement

JE .290** 4.955 .000 1.39 Supported

OE .305 **
5.150 .000 1.42 Supported
2
R .036 .293
Adjusted R2 .026 .281
F Value 3.647 23.787
Sig. F .013 .000
Note: Con_bank (conventional bank) Islam_bank (Islamic bank), JE (job engagement), OE (organisational
engagement), *p<0.05, ** p<0.01

Table 14
MRA: The relationship between employee engagement and continuance commitment
Variable Step 1 Step 2 Remark
Beta t-test Sig VIF Beta t-test Sig VIF
Step 1: Control –V
Con_Bank .045 .453 .651 2.94 .023 .232 .817 2.97
Islam_Bank .079 .790 .430 2.96 .064 .641 .522 3.01
Gender .103 1.745 .082 1.03 .091 1.524 .129 1.07
Step 2: Employee Engagement

JE -.162* -2.36 .019 1.40 Supported

OE .062 .892 .373 1.43 Not Supported
R2 .012 .031
2
Adjusted R .002 .014
F Value 1.157 1.840
Sig. F .327 .105
Note: Con_bank (conventional bank) Islam_bank (Islamic bank), JE (job engagement), OE (organisational
engagement), *p<0.05, ** p<0.01
206 Albdour and Altarawneh

The third regression analysis was performed to determine the relationship

between the two dimensions of employee engagement and normative commitment. The
results of the regression analyses for normative commitment are provided in Table 15.
The R square value indicated that 58% of variance in normative commitment can be
explained by the controls and the two dimensions of employee engagement (R2 = 0.585;
F=80.229; p<0.01). The regression results in Table 15 also showed that job engagement
(β = 0.221, p< .01) and organizational engagement (β = 0.602, p< .01) are significant
determinants for normative commitment. This supports hypotheses H3 and H6. Based
on the beta values, OE (β = 0.608) seemed to have the strongest effect on normative
commitment, followed by job engagement (β = 0.221). Therefore, it can be concluded
that the main hypothesis is partially supported.

Table 15
MRA: The relationship between employee engagement and normative commitment

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Remark

Beta t-test Sig VIF Beta t-test Sig VIF
Step 1: Control –V
Con_Bank -.036 -.362 .718 2.93 .049 .744 .457 2.96
Islam_Bank -.199 -2.022 .044 2.95 -.042 -.633 .527 3.00
Gender -.20* -3.489 .001 1.03 -.056 -1.41 .160 1.07
Step 2: Employee Engagement
JE .211* 4.589 .000 1.44 Supported
OE .608 *
13.15 .000 1.47 Supported
2
R .059 .585
Adjusted R2 .049 .578
F Value 6.013 80.229
Sig. F .001 .000
Note: Con_bank (conventional bank) Islam_bank (Islamic bank), JE (job engagement), OE (organisational
engagement), *p<0.05, ** p<0.01

I. Discussions

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of employee engagement on
organisational commitment in emerging economies, focusing specifically on the
frontline employees within the banking sector in Jordan. By so doing, we sought to
extend the current body of knowledge on the association between employee
engagement and organisational commitment in emerging economies. The main research
question deals with the influence of the two dimensions of employee engagement, that
is, job engagement and organizational engagement, on the three dimensions of
organizational commitment (affective commitment, continuance commitment, and
normative commitment). The influence of employee engagement on affective
commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment will be discussed
separately. The results of this study show that the impact of employee engagement on
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 19(2), 2014 207

normative commitment was stronger than on the impact of affective commitment and
continuance commitment. This means that employee engagement could predict
employees’ normative commitment greater than the prediction by affective
commitment and continuance commitment.

J. Employee Engagement and Affective Commitment

The regression analysis reveals that affective commitment can be predicted by job
engagement. This study is similar to previous studies where work engagement was
found to be an important determinant of affective commitment (Hakanen et al., 2006;
Llorens et al., 2006; Saks, 2006). This result suggests that a higher job engagement will
result in a higher affective commitment. A plausible explanation for this result is that
the employee who has a positive and fulfilling work-related state of mind (Schaufeli
and Bakker, 2004) is likely to report positive attitudes towards working in the bank and
exhibit greater affective commitment. The results of this study also indicate that
organizational commitment has a positive and significant relationship with affective
commitment. These results suggest that employees who reported higher levels of
organizational engagement will also report greater affective commitment. The possible
justification for this result would be that the confirmation that engagement is an
individual-level construct, and any positive business results would have to impact
individual-level outcomes first (Saks, 2006). Therefore, when employees hold a
positive attitude and attachment towards their organization, they show high levels of
affective commitment. The finding of the study lends further credence to the fact that
engaged employees are more likely to have a greater attachment to their organization
(Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004).

K. Employee Engagement and Continuance Commitment

The results of the study show a significant and negative relationship between job
engagement and continuance commitment. Conversely, when employees’ job
engagement increases, their continuance commitment decreases and vice versa. This
may be due to the fact that employees who show a high level of energy and
psychological resilience when performing their jobs (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008)
would more likely report low level of continuance commitment. Contrary to what was
hypothesized about organizational engagement as having a negative association with
continuance commitment, a positive and non-significant association between these two
variables was obtained instead. Separately, the findings also indicate that organizational
engagement does not explain the continuance commitment. This might be explained by
the fact that continuance commitment refers to “awareness of the costs associated with
leaving the organization” (Meyer and Allen, 1991, p. 67). Allen and Meyer (1990)
found that the two significant variables affecting the level of continuance commitment
are the availability of alternatives and the costs related to leaving the organization, such
as forgoing day care benefits and abandoning the home. Conversely, Saks, (2006)
defended organizational engagement as the extent at which an individual is
psychologically present as a member of an organization. Kahn (1990) argued that
engagement or disengagement at organization could be affected by three psychological
conditions, in particular meaningfulness, safety, and availability. Hence, an employee’s
208 Albdour and Altarawneh

decision to stay on the bank depends on the economic factors rather than psychological
conditions. Therefore, frontline employees may perceive economic factors such as
salary, benefits, job opportunities elsewhere, or even convenient location, familiarity
with people are more important than psychological conditions in their decision to stay
or leave the bank. However, more research is required to shed light on the unexpected
result that organizational engagement does not relate negatively to continuance
commitment.

L. Employee Engagement and Normative Commitment

The results of this study indicate that job engagement has a strong relationship with the
normative commitment. Hence, the Jordanian bank employees, who have high levels of
job engagement, will be likely to have high degrees of normative commitment. A likely
explanation of this finding is that employees who are physically, cognitively, and
emotionally involved in role performance would feel obliged to remain in the
organization. This result is similar to that of Saks (2006) who found employees with
higher job engagement are more possible to have higher level of confidence and a high
quality relationship with their employers. This is accompanied by a show of employees’
positive attitudes expressed in the form of greater normative commitment. Moreover,
the results of this study show that organizational engagement has a positive relationship
with the normative commitment. This result means that employees who have a high
organizational engagement will be higher on normative commitment. The strong
correlation observed between organizational engagement and normative commitment is
likely due to the fact that organizational engagement is the extent to which an
individual is psychologically present as a member of an organization (Saks, 2006).
Therefore, when employees feel exhilarated and captivated as a member of the bank,
they may report high normative commitment. Another possible explanation could be
that any exchange between two parties requires two transactions, where something has
to be given and in return something has to be obtained in return (Blau, 1964). Thus,
when employees report high organizational engagement, they may feel obliged to
respond to the bank with a greater normative commitment. This finding is consistent
with Robinson et al.’s (2004) finding that argues that engagement is a two way
relationship between employee and organization.

M. Implications

This study has added to knowledge by examining the relationship between employee
engagement and organizational commitment SET (Blau, 1964) theories that pursuant to
receiving economic and socio emotional resources from the organization, the
employees would respond with a positive attitude and behavior. This study has
provided empirical evidence to support the theory, when it shows that employees
feeling more engaged in their job and organization would report high levels of affective
commitment and normative commitment. These results are in line with that of
Robinson et al. (2004) who described the engagement as a two-way relationship
between the employer and employee. Second, the representation of employee
engagement by two dimensions (job engagement and organizational engagement) can
be considered as a major contribution. Previous studies focused mainly on work
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 19(2), 2014 209

engagement (e.g., Brown and Leigh, 1996; Demerouti et al., 2001; Hakanen et al.,
2006; Llorens et al., 2006; Richardsen et al., 2006), whereas only one study has
distinguished job engagement from organizational engagement (Saks, 2006). The result
of the present study has provided empirical evidence to support the distinct constructs
of job engagement and organizational engagement by Saks (2006). Third, several
studies (e.g., Brown and Leigh, 1996; Demerouti et al., 2001; Hakanen et al., 2006;
Llorens et al., 2006; Maslach et al., 2001; Richardsen et al., 2006; Saks, 2006) in
western developed economies have indicated that there is a positive relationship
between employee engagement and affective commitment, but none has looked at the
impact of the two dimensions of employee engagement on the two other components of
organizational commitment (continuance commitment and normative commitment).
This study contributes to the employee engagement literatures by studying the
relationship between the two measurements of employee engagement and the three
measurements of organizational commitment. The empirical results of this study have
revealed that the two measurements of employee engagement are positively and
significantly related to the two measurements of organizational commitment namely
affective commitment and normative commitment, but are not significantly related to
continuance commitment.

N. Limitations and Future Research

Although this research has made several contributions to the knowledge, it has several
limitations as follow. The first limitation of this research is related to its research
design. This study was based on a cross-sectional design, which measures the variables
at a single point in time. Therefore, any changes in the variables under study over time
including employee engagement and organizational commitment were not covered in
the study. Hence, the relationships between employee engagement and organizational
commitment can be interpreted only as associations rather than causal relationships.
The second limitation is the generalization of the results. Since the sample was selected
based on a nonprobability sampling method, quota, and convenience sampling, the
sample may not be totally representative of the population. In addition, the study has
excluded individuals outside the banking sector and also outside the boundaries of
Jordan. Hence, the generalizability of the results is restricted. Future research could be
conducted to address the limitations outlined above. First, this study only concentrated
on frontline employees within the banking sector in Jordan. Future research could
extend the investigation to different sectors and countries to obtain a wider
generalization of the study. In-depth interviews with employees would be helpful,
especially because employee engagement and organizational commitment may vary
according sectors and countries. Future studies can also be tailored to investigate the
effects of employee engagement and organizational commitment, using multiple
respondents in a given organization. Future research could also reexamine the
conceptual model used in this study with a larger sample size so that the outcomes can
be generalized to a larger population. For the purpose of causality, it would be
interesting to replicate this study in a longitudinal design, so that it could be determined
if employee engagement and organizational commitment are conditions and
relationships that are likely to be sustained. Another future direction is to investigate
210 Albdour and Altarawneh

other factors that might influence the level of employee engagement and organizational
commitment towards banks, such as trust and perceived organisational support.

REFERENCES

Allen, N.J., and J.P., Meyer, 1990, “The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective,
Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization,” Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.
Simpson, R.M., 2009, “Engagement at Work: A Review of the Literature,”
International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1012–1024.
Andrew, C.O., and S. Sofian, 2012, “Individual Factors and Work Outcomes of
Employee,” Proceedings - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 498-508.
Albdour, A.A., I. Altarawneh, 2012, “Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee
Engagement in Jordan,” International Journal of Business and Management IJBM,
7-16.
Bakker, A.B., and E. Demerouti, 2008, “Towards a Model of Work Engagement,”
Career Development International, 13, 209-223.
Baumruk, R., 2004, “The Missing Link: The Role of Employee Engagement in
Business Success,” Workspan, 47, 48-52.
Bergman, M., 2006, “The Relationship between Affective and Normative Commitment:
Review and Research Agenda,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 645–
663.
Blau, P.M., 1964, Exchange and Power in Social Life. NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Boles, J.S., M.W. Johnston, and J.F. Hair, Jr., 1997, “Role Stress, Work-family Conflict
and Emotional Exhaustion: Inter-relationships and Effects on Some Work-related
Consequences,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 17(1), 17-28.
Brown, S.P., and T.W., Leigh, 1996, “A Lew look at Psychological Climate and Its
Relationship to Job Involvement, Effort, and Performance,” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 358-368.
Buckingham, M., and C., Coffman, 1999, First, Break All the Rules: What the World’s
Greatest Manager Do Differently. New York, NY: Simon and Shuster.
Coffman, C., and G., Gonzalez-Molina, 2002, Follow this Path: How the World’s
Greatest Organizations Drive Growth By Unleashing Human Potential. New York,
NY: Warner Books, Inc.
Demerouti, E., A.B. Bakker, F. Nachreiner, and W.B. Schaufeli, 2001, “The Job
Demands-resources Model of Burnout,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-
512.
Gonzalez-Roma, V., W.B. Schaufeli, A.B. Bakker, and S. Lloret, 2006, “Burnout and
Work Engagement: Independent Factors or Opposite Poles?” Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 68, 165–174.
Hakanen J., A.B. Bakker, and W.B. Schaufeli, 2006, “Burnout and Work Engagement
among Teachers,” Journal of School Psychology, 43 495–513.
Hakanen, J., W.B. Schaufeli, and K. Ahola, 2008, “The Job Demands-Resources
Model: A Three Year Cross-lagged Study of Burnout, Depression, Commitment,
and Work Engagement,” Work and Stress, 22, 224-241.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 19(2), 2014 211

Harter, J.K., F.L. Schmidt, and T.L. Hayes, 2002, “Business-unit-level Relationship
between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes:
A Meta-analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268.
Kahn, W.A., 1990, “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and
Disengagement at work,” Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
Llorens, S., A.B. Bakker, W.B. Schaufeli, and M., Salanova, 2006, “Testing the
Robustness of The Job Demands-resources Model,” International Journal of Stress
Management, 13, 378-391.
Maslach, C., W.B. Schaufelli, and M.P. Leiter, 2001, “Job Burnout,” Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397-422.
Mathieu, J.E., and D.M. Zajac, 1990, “A Review and Meta-analysis of the Antecedents,
Correlates, and Consequences of Organizational Commitment,” Psychological
Bulletin, 108, 171-194.
Meyer, J.P., and N.J. Allen, 1991, “A Three-component Conceptualization of
Organizational Commitment,” Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Meyer, J.P., D.J. Stanley, L. Herscovitch, and L. Topolnytsky, 2002, “Affective,
Continuance and Normative Commitment to The Organization: A Meta- analysis
of Antecedent, Correlates, and Consequences,” Journal of Vocational Behavior,
61, 20-52.
Mowday, R.T., L.W. Porter, and R.M. Steers, 1982, Employee-Organization Linkages:
The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Nunnally, J., 1978, Psychometric Theory, 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
Richardsen, A.M., R.J. Burke, and M. Martinussen, 2006, “Work and Health Outcomes
among Police Officers: The Mediating Role of Police Cynicism and Engagement,”
International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 555-574.
Richman, A., 2006, “Everyone Wants an Engaged Workforce How Can You Create
It?” Workspan, 49, 36-9.
Robinson, D., S. Perryman, and S. Hayday, 2004, The Drivers of Employee
Engagement. Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton.
Roscoe, J.T., 1975, Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd
edition. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Rust, R.T., G.L. Stewart, H. Miller, and D., Pielack, 1996, “The Satisfaction and
Retention of Frontline Employees: A Customer Satisfaction Measurement
Approach,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7(5), 62–80.
Saks, A.M., 2006, “Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement,” Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-19.
Schaufeli, W.B., and M. Salanova, 2007, “Work Engagement: An Emerging
Psychological Concept and Its Implications for Organizations,” in S.W. Gilliland,
D.D. Steiner, and D.P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in Social Issues in Management:
Managing Social and Ethical Issues in Organizations. Vol. 5, Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishers.
Schaufeli, W.B., and A.B. Bakker, 2004, “Job Demands, Job Resources and Their
Relationship with Burnout and Engagement: A Multi-sample Study,” Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315.
Sekaran, U., 2000, Research Methods for Business. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
 212 Albdour and Altarawneh

Sekaran, U., 2003, Research Methods for Business – A Skill Building Approach. 4th Ed.
USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Suliman, A.M., and P.A., Iles, 2000, “Is Continuance Commitment Beneficial to
Organizations? Commitment–Performance Relationship: A New Look.” Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 15(5), 407 – 422.

View publication stats