ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMERCE

Effect of Engagement on Employees’ Job Performance: Empirical

evidences from KAKI Plc.

By

Kiros Beyene, ID: GSR (8916/12)

A thesis presented to the Department of Business Leadership in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for Masters of Arts Degree in Business
Leadership

Advisor: Adane Atara (Ph.D)

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

June 2021
 Declaration

I, the undersigned, hereby declare that the work contained in this thesis is my own
original work and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted at any
university for a degree.

Signature: ______________________________ Date: _________________________

i
 Addis Ababa University school of Graduates

Statement of certification

This is to certify that the thesis prepared by Kiros Beyene, entitled: “Effect of
Engagement on Employees’ Job Performance: Empirical evidences from KAKI Plc”,
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in
Business leadership complies with the regulations of the University and meets the
accepted standards with respect to originality and quality.

Signed by the examining committee:

Examiner: _________________________Signature: ____________Date: ________

Examiner: _________________________Signature: ____________Date: ________

Advisor: __________________________ Signature: ____________Date: ________

Advisor: __________________________ Signature: ____________Date: ________

Chair of Department or Graduate program Coordinator

ii
 ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of employees’ engagement on job
performance of employees of KAKI Plc. Conceptually, it is bound to the effects of engagement
dimensions, namely employees’ commitment, involvement and loyalty. The study is based on a
quantitative approach. Descriptive and explanatory research designs were adopted to determine
and interpret the relationship between the variables. Sample participants were selected based on
a probabilistic procedure, which involved simple random sampling and stratified sampling
techniques. Data were collected based on a questionnaire survey technique. The data analysis
involved Pearson correlation and multiple regression methods to determine the relationship
between the variables and to predict the variance on job performance of employees from changes
on engagement practices. The analysis result showed that there exists a moderate positive
relationship between the variables. In addition, a regression model was derived that can predict
up to 53% variance on the job performance based on engagement practices. The study has
practical implications for organizational managers. In order to realize the benefits of employees’
engagement, there has to be a situation where employees feel that they are being supported by the
Company. Mangers should take care of their employees. It was also implied that employee
engagement needs to be supported by policy and strategy of the company. The importance of
training and communication was also highlighted for facilitating effective implementation of
employees’ engagement practices.

Key words: Employee engagement, employee involvement, Employee loyalty, and job
performance.

iii
 Acknowledgement

My deepest thanks go to my advisor Dr. Adane Atara for his guidance during the process
with attention and care. He has taken a pain to go through the project and make necessary
corrections as and when required. I, also express my deep sense of gratitude to the
Management team of KAKI Plc for their kind cooperation and support for the successful
completion of the project.

iv
 Contents
Chapter one: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Background of “the Company” ............................................................................................. 3
1.3. Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 5
1.4. Research Question ................................................................................................................ 7
1.5. Research Objectives .............................................................................................................. 8
1.6. Significance of the Study ....................................................................................................... 9
1.7. Scope of the Study ................................................................................................................ 9
1.8. Limitation of the Study ....................................................................................................... 10
1.9. Definitions of Terms ............................................................................................................ 10
1.10. Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 12
Chapter two: Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 13
2.1. Employee Engagement ....................................................................................................... 13
2.1.1. Employee Commitment ................................................................................................... 15
2.1.2. Employee Loyalty ............................................................................................................. 17
2.1.3. Employee Involvement .................................................................................................... 19
2.1.4. Job Performance .............................................................................................................. 21
2.1.5. Employee Engagement and Job Performance Relationship ............................................ 23
2.2. Empirical Review ................................................................................................................. 27
2.3. Conceptual framework ....................................................................................................... 30
Chapter three: Research Methodology ......................................................................................... 33
3.1. Research Approach ............................................................................................................. 33
3.2. Research Design .................................................................................................................. 33
3.3. Sampling Design .................................................................................................................. 34
3.4. Sampling Technique ............................................................................................................ 36
3.5. Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 36
3.6. Data Analysis Methods ....................................................................................................... 37
3.7. Validity and Reliability......................................................................................................... 38
3.8. Ethical Considerations......................................................................................................... 41
Chapter four: Results and Discussion ............................................................................................ 42
4.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 42
4.2. Response rate and demographic data ................................................................................ 42

v
 4.3. Normality test ..................................................................................................................... 44
4.4. Results or findings ............................................................................................................... 47
4.4.1. Correlation between Variables ........................................................................................ 48
4.4.2. Prediction of Engagement on Employees’ Job Performance ........................................... 50
4.5. Interpretation and Discussion ............................................................................................. 55
Chapter five: Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation .......................................................... 60
5.1. Summary ............................................................................................................................. 60
5.2. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 61
5.3. Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 63

vi
List of tables
Table-1: Constructs’ Cronbach alpha test result ……………………………… 42
Table-2: Demographic profile of respondents ………………………………... 44
Table-3: Descriptive statistics ………………………………………………… 45
Table-4: Tests of Normality …………………………………………………... 45
Table-5: Correlation statistics between the constructs of the study …………... 48
Table-6: Regression model fit ………………………………………………… 49
Table-7: ANOVA for model fit ……………………………………………….. 50
Table-8: Regression coefficients for the model ………………………………. 51
Table-9: Prediction model specification ……………………………………… 53
Table-10: Hypotheses test result ……………………………………………… 53

vii
 Chapter one: Introduction

1.1. Introduction

It has become almost obvious that employees are viewed by many organizations

as the best resources which facilitate them to compete productively in today’s dynamic

business environment. Armstrong (2006), claimed that employees are the most valued

assets of an organization who individually and collectively contribute to the successful

implementation of the goals and objectives of the organization.

Marciano (2010, cited in Ali, Obeidat & Masa’ deh 2018) argued that in today’s

business environment, employees’ requirements go beyond the basic salary, which led

organizations and employers to shift focus on understanding the true essence of the

employee engagement practices. Employees, in the present circumstance, do expect to be

engaged in the organizational work processes in ways that allow them to contribute and

affect the business matters of the organization (ibid).

But then, what is employee engagement? What is it all about? According to

Marciano (2010) employee engagement is about being committed and loyal to the

mission, goals and objectives of the organization. Furthermore, Marciano argued that “if

someone is truly committed to a certain course or thing, then motivation becomes a lot

less relevant – he/she is in it for the long haul”. Similarly, Albrecht (2010) based on

analysis of various definitions, described employee engagement as a positive work-

related psychological state, which is characterized by a genuine enthusiasm to contribute

to organizational success. More specifically, Garber (2007) defined employee

1
engagement in terms of commitment, loyalty, involvement and ownership of the

organization.

A longitudinal survey conducted for two decades on employee engagement by

Sorenson & Garman (2013, cited in Garlick III, n.d.) showed that engaged employees

were highly dedicated to the organization, and they happened to show a passion and drive

in their job performance. In contrast, those employees who were less engaged lack such a

drive and passion for the work they do. Furthermore, employees who were fully

disengaged were found to be not only unhappy but tend to discourage other employees in

the organization.

According to Marciano (2010), engagement is about the extent to which

employees are committed, dedicated, and loyal to not only the organization, but also to

their supervisors, work, and colleagues. In general, engaged employees tend to act as

though they have ownership in the business and do everything, which contributes to the

attainment of the goals and objectives of the organization (ibid.). As a result, as

confirmed by several research studies, employee engagement practices positively affect

organizational performance in many ways. Marciano (2010) have identified a number of

benefits of high engagement practices such as increased productivity and profitability,

higher quality work, improved efficiency, low turnover, reduced absenteeism, less theft

and fraud, higher employee satisfaction, etc.

The challenge facing organizations is that employees are not engaged to the level

required. Many business organizations pay little attention to employee engagement

practices. Several organizations don’t have the policy of employee engagement and

2
consequently, they suffer a worsening relationship with their employees. For instance, a

study conducted by Federman (2009) on certain organizations found that only 11 to 29

percent of employees were fully engaged. The company under study (KAKI Plc.), which

will be referred to hereafter as “the company” is not different. Many employees who have

been approached to explain their views about the level of employee engagement have

said that there is low level of employee engagement practice in the company. However,

there is no clear evidence regarding the effect of employee engagement on the job

performance of employees of the Company.

The above situation supports the purpose of this research project, which is to

describe and explain the effect of employee engagement on the job performance of

employees of KAKI plc.

1.2. Background of “the Company”

KAKI Plc was initially set up as a single business entity in 1997 operating in

import, export, and freight transport activities, being organized as a sole proprietorship

business organization. Since its establishment, the company has been in a state of

continuous growth and expansion with a diversified business portfolio. Currently, the

company provides a wide range of product mix to the local and international markets. It

is actively engaged in import and sales of commercial vehicles; and export of agricultural

products including coffee, sesame, cereals, and other oil seeds to the international

markets. The company is also engaged in Semi-Knock-Down (SKD) assembly of ISUZU

vehicles, manufacturing of cargo bodies, after sales services, weighbridge, and sesame

and cereal cleaning services, and dry cargo transport services.

3
 Ever since its establishment, “the company” has been growing fairly fast. It has

fairly a good track record of achieving its planned revenue and profit objectives. As noted

above, it has expanded its business beyond freight transport to include new businesses

such as importing and selling ISUZE vehicles, and exporting oil seeds and pulses to the

international market. Consequently, this has helped the company to increase its sales

turnover and sales revenue persistently.

“The company” is headed by a General Manager, being supported by a Managing

Director who oversees the operations of the functional departments. The detailed

hierarchy of the company comprises the following departments: (1) Car Assembly &

Metal Fabrication department, (2) After Sales department, (3) Administration & Finance

department, (4) Business Operations department, and (5) Procurement & Supply chain

department. Moreover, there are various special service units that are responsible to assist

and be directly accountable to the General Manager. These are: (1) Internal Audit

service, (2) Strategic Planning & Business Development unit, (3) IT service unit, (4)

Legal services, and (5) Program Management office.

The organizational structure of the company shows three levels of managerial

hierarchy. These are: (1) Top-level managers, which include the General Manager and

the Managing Director, who are responsible for setting strategies and organizational

goals, (2) Middle-level managers, which include all department managers, which are

engaged in executing the strategies, goals and objectives, and (3) Lower-level Managers,

which include Division heads, which are responsible for running the various work units

in the company.

4
 The current manpower strength of the company stands at 342 employees. Almost

all employee are permanent. The staff include various types of professionals such as

accountants, human resource professionals, procurement & supply people, mechanics,

engineers etc. “The company” mainly bases its business operations in Addis Ababa. It

has also branch offices in Alemgena, Humera and Mekelle areas. “The company” has a

good reputation for paying taxes on time and for creating job opportunities for the local

community in which it operates.

1.3. Statement of the Problem

According to McShane & Glinow (2010), employee engagement has become a

burning topic among executives, managers, human resource professionals and

consultants. Its popularity and acceptance has been growing due to the fact that it is

perceived to have a direct positive influence on job performance of employees. Also, the

authors have related employees’ engagement to the four cornerstones of employees’

workplace behaviors indicated by the MARS model: Motivation, Ability, Role

perception, and Situational factors. Moreover, the authors claimed that organizations that

fully recognize the benefits of employee engagement go to the extent of having a formal

engagement improvement programs and instituting employee engagement departments.

Similarly, Cook (2008) said that engaged employees offer their best to the organization,

and that they will be enthusiastic to give a continued discretionary effort to aid their

organization succeed.

5
 Employee engagement creates passion and energy among employees and thus

plays a crucial role in the course of attaining organizational goals and objectives (Smith

& Markwick 2009). As engaged employees work with passion and try to advance their

organization forward; the disengaged employees are not happy and thus put no energy or

passion into their work, and even they tend to demoralize what their engaged co-workers

achieve (ibid.)

Contrary to the apparent popularity of employee engagement, “the company”

under study doesn’t seem to paying adequate attention to engaging its employees in the

business matters. Based on the researcher’s own personal observation and according to

the preliminary assessment of the opinions of several employees of “the company”, it is

fair to state that employees are not fully engaged in matters that affect their respective job

and in the business processes of as a whole. Apparently, this situation is creating some

level of unhappiness among the employees, which is considered by this research study as

a legitimate concern.

Besides, research studies undertaken on employees’ engagement especially by

masters’ students of Addis Ababa University School of Commerce appear to be more

focusing on the drivers of employees’ engagement rather than on the effect of employees’

engagement on job performance. For instance, Daniel G/Selassie (2017), Masresha

Tezera (2018), Segenet Niguse (2018), Yitagesu Tachilble (2019), and Tirework Lemma

(2019) have undertaken a research to examine impact of different HR practices on

employees’ engagement. Jemal Abuna Umer (2017) has conducted a research study to

investigate effect of employees’ engagement on job performance. He defined job

6
performance (the dependent variable) in terms of traits such as emotional intelligence, in-

role and extra-role job performances. He also, defined employees’ engagement (the

independent variable) in terms of dimensions, namely vigor, dedication, and absorption.

It can be seen from the above, most of the research studies focused on

investigating drivers of employees’ engagement. But, relatively little empirical work has

been done on the effect of employees’ engagement on job performance. Hence, research

studies on the relationship between engagement and job performance seems to be

inconclusive.

To address the practical and empirical research gaps indicated above, more

research that will focus on effects of employees’ engagement on job performance is

necessary. More empirical data are needed so organizational leaders/managers and

human resource professionals can better understand employees’ engagement and thus use

it to develop necessary managerial interventions, alternative strategies and policies that

will foster employees’ engagement practices in the context of business organizations.

1.4. Research Question

As mentioned above, the research project is intended to describe and explain

employees’ engagement related attitudes, behaviors and practices; and how such

situations affect job performance of employee of “the company” under study. The

following research questions were formulated to guide this research study.

7
Main Research Question

 What is the effect of employees’ engagement on the job performance of

employees of KAKI plc?

Sub Research Questions

 What is the effect of employees’ commitment on the job performance of

employees of KAKI plc?

i. What is the effect of employees’ involvement on the job performance of

employees of KAKI Plc?

ii. What is the effect of employees’ loyalty on the job performance of employees of

KAKI Plc?

1.5. Research Objectives

The General objective

The general objective of the research project was to examine the effect of

employees’ engagement practices on the job performance of employees of KAKI Plc.

Specific objectives

i. To examine the effect of employees’ commitment on the job performance of

employees of KAKI Plc.

ii. To examine the effect of employees’ involvement on the job performance of

employees of KAKI Plc.

iii. To examine the effect of employees’ loyalty on the job performance of employees

of KAKI Plc.

8
 1.6. Significance of the Study

This research project attempted to explore and describe effect of employees’

engagement on the job performance of employees of “the company”. Thus, the study has

shaded some light on how employee engagement practices could help organizations to

ensure better management of their human resources and thereby achieving their business

goals and objectives in a much more efficient and effective manner.

Besides, one can argue that the modern human resource management (employee

engagement included), is still at its infant stage in less developed countries like Ethiopia.

From personal observation of the researcher, many business organizations in Ethiopia

don’t regard their people as valuable assets. Employees are almost regarded and treated

the same way as the other production factors. It is, therefore, hoped that this research

project could help at least in arousing researchers and human resource managers or

practitioners to take interest on the topic of employees’ engagement.

1.7. Scope of the Study

This research project aims at describing and examining implementation of

employee engagement and its results in terms of improving job performance of

employees and thereby enhancing organizational performance in the case of KAKI Plc.

The study was conducted based on analyses of empirical data to evaluate the effect of

employees’ engagement on job performance of employees of KAKI Plc. As such the

scope of the research study is categorized in the following three sections.

9
  Conceptual scope: theoretically and conceptually, the study is delimited to test the

effect of three dimensions of employees’ engagement on job performance.

Therefore, conceptually this study is bound to the effect of employees’

commitment, involvement, and loyalty on employee’s job performance. Other

dimensions of employees’ engagement are outside the scope of this study.

 Sampling scope: This study has focused only on the management and employees

of KAKI Plc as its target population and sample frame. However, employees

whose experience in KAKI Plc is less than 6 months are not included in the study.

 Geographic scope: This study is delimited to the management and employees

who are based in Addis Ababa. Members who are based outside Addis Ababa are

out of the scope of the study.

1.8. Limitation of the Study

Provided that the research project was conducted on a single Company, it is

narrow in scope, which means it did focus on just a single company and consequently, its

findings may not be statistically generalizable to other companies having different

situations and contexts.

1.9. Definitions of Terms

The major or key concepts and constructs involved in this study include

employees’ engagement, employees’ commitment, employees’ involvement, employees’

loyalty and employees’ job performance. For the purpose of this study, definition for

each such term is provided as follows.

10
Employee Engagement is personified by the passion and energy employees have to give

their best to the organization. It is all about the willingness and ability of employees to

give sustained discretionary effort to help their organization succeed (Cook 2008).

Employee Commitment: Commitment means the degree to which individuals associate

themselves with the job, the responsibilities and the organizational objectives. Engaged

employees are those who are fascinated by their work and committed to face every

challenge to attain their goals. They are dependable and highly productive and therefore,

are accountable for all what they do (Sharmila (2013).

Employee Loyalty. For engaged employees, loyalty goes beyond just staying for a

paycheck or other benefits that accompany employment with the organization. They

exceed what is required and expected of them by the organization because they want to,

not because they have to (Garber 2007).

Employee Involvement is a participative process that uses employees’ input to increase

their commitment to the organization’s success. The logic is that if we engage workers in

decisions that affect them and increase their autonomy and control over their work lives,

they will become more motivated, more committed to the organization, more productive,

and more satisfied with their jobs (Robinns & Judge 2013).

Job Performance. As an outcome of employee engagement, job performance is defined

in terms of behaviors such as effort, extra-role, advocacy, overall job satisfaction and

11
long tenure. Effort is defined as exerting a lot energy on core tasks. Extra-role involves

going beyond the requirement of their job, such as taking initiatives to solve problems or

offering help to co-workers before being asked for it. Advocacy refers to promoting the

organization when interacting with people external to the organization (Albrecht 2010).

1.10. Organization of the Study

The research paper has five chapters. Chapter one includes subtopics including:

introduction, Company background, research problem statement, research questions,

research objectives, significant of the study, scope of the study, limitation of the study,

and definition of terms. Chapter two presents review of literature report covering

theoretical, conceptual and empirical review. Chapter three deals with the research

methodology, which discusses research approach, research design, sampling design,

sampling techniques, sources of data collection, data analysis methods, validity and

reliability, and ethical considerations. Chapter four includes data presentation, data

interpretation and discussions on the results and findings of the study. Chapter five

presents summary of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

12
 Chapter two: Literature Review

2.1. Employee Engagement

Kahn (1990, cited in Albrecht 2010) was the first to theorize about work related

engagement. He described engaged employees as being fully physically, cognitively and

emotionally connected with their work roles. Macriano (2010) conceptualized employee

engagement as employee commitment, dedication and loyalty to one’s organization,

supervisor, work, and colleagues. He further argued that when employees are truly

committed, motivation becomes a lot less relevant, they will be in it for the long haul.

Macey et al. (2009) described employee engagement as an individual’s sense of

purpose and focused energy, apparent to others in the display of personal initiative,

adaptability, effort, and persistence directed toward organizational goals. They further

argued that engagement is the psychic kick of immersion, striving, absorption, focus, and

involvement. Furthermore, they said engagement is not only psychic energy felt and

sensed by employees, but it is observable in behavior (ibid.). Other authors such as

Gebauer & Lowman (2009, cited in Akther & Uddin 2016) described employee

engagement as having a deep and broad connection with the company that results in the

willingness to go above and beyond what is expected of them to help the organization

succeed.

Schaufeli et al. (2002, cited in Albrecht 2010) defined engagement as a positive,

fulfilling, and a work related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and

absorption. They further argue that engagement is a more persistent and pervasive

affective and cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual,

13
or behavior. Similarly, Smith & Markwick (2009) argue that engaged employees feel a

sense of attachment towards their organizations, investing themselves not only in their

role, but in the organization as a whole. They also empathized that engaged employee

think and work proactively, expand their own thinking about what is necessary and are

not tied to a job description, find ways to expand their own skills and personal

development, persist even when confronted with obstacles, adapt to changes when the

circumstances require.

Garber (2007) focused on the specific ingredients of employee engagement and

suggesting that it can be measured or explained in terms of the degree of commitment,

loyalty, involvement and sense of ownership employees have for their organization.

Likewise, Federman (2009) characterized engaged employees by such characteristics as

confidence, growth and development, innovation, commitment, ownership, creativeness

and resourcefulness.

Mecey et al., (2009) identified four key features of engagement behavior, namely

persistence, proactivity, role expansion, and adaptability. They further said that such

behaviors are important features of engaged employees, all of which in the aggregate

predict job performance above and beyond typical or normal expectations. Most

importantly, the authors argue that engagement is not just more performance, but

performance that is persistent, adaptable, and self-initiated, and/or involves taking on new

responsibilities. In the nutshell, employee engagement encompass ingredients including

the degree to which employees fully occupy themselves in their work, as well as the

strength of their commitment to the organization (Vance 2006).

14
 Content-wise the theories and concepts of employee engagement discussed above

are not different things. All discussed the same thing about employees’ engagement by

using different terms or words. All explain that engaged employees are committed, loyal

and show a positive work related psychological state, which lead them to take care about

their role and the performance of the organization at large.

2.1.1. Employee Commitment

According to McShane & Glinow (2010), there are two type of organizational

commitments: (1) affective commitment, and (2) continuance commitment. They defined

affective organizational commitment as the employee’s emotional attachment to,

identification with, and involvement in a particular organization. It is based on an

emotional attachment or feelings of loyalty to the organization. Employee with this kind

of commitment have higher work motivation and organizational citizenship, as well as

higher job performance (ibid). Similarly, Robinns & Judge (2013) supported the idea that

committed employees identify themselves with the organization and its goals, and tend to

remain members of the organization.

Furthermore, Robinns & Judge reported that most research findings showed that

employees’ emotional attachment to an organization and belief in its values have been

considered to be the gold standards for employees’ commitment. They further said that

even if employees are not currently happy with their work, they are willing to make

sacrifices for the organization if they are committed enough.

15
 For employees to be committed enough to their job, the organization needs to

establish a context in which employees feel that they are supported, their contribution

valued, rewards are fair, their voice is heard, and the organization cares about their well-

being (McShane & Glinow 2010). The importance of a perceived organization support

for creating engaged and committed employees has also been emphatically stated by

Marciano (2010). He said that the more employees feel valued, appreciated and

respected, the greater their level of commitment for the organization. He further argued

that people want to work for honest organizations that treat them with consideration,

fairness and respect, and such organizations are rewarded by the performance of their

committed employees.

On the other hand, McShane & Glinow (2010) explained that continuance

organizational commitment depends on a calculative attachment, which means employees

have high continuance commitment when they do not particularly identify with the

organization, but feel bound to remain there because it would be too costly for them to

quit. In other words, employees choose to stay because the calculated (typically financial)

value of staying is higher than the value of working somewhere else (ibid.).

Most recently, Colquiti, Lepile, & Wesson (2015) described organizational

commitment as the desire of employees to remain as members of the organization.

Moreover, the authors argue that employees who are not committed to their organizations

involve in a withdrawal behavior, which involve actions that employees perform to avoid

the work conditions, and eventually tend to quit the organization.

16
 Employees who have a sense of affective commitment identify with the

organization, accept goals and values of the organization, and are more willing to employ

extra effort on behalf of the organization, and they tend to view organizational

membership as important to their sense of self (ibid.).

This research study takes the concept of affective organizational commitment as it

appears to be relevant to analyzing the relationship between the research variables.

Committed and loyal employees are less likely to quit their jobs, show less tardiness and

absenteeism and could have better job performance and by extension could positively

influence the performance of the company.

2.1.2. Employee Loyalty

Hirschman (1970, cited in Jansson & Wiklund 2019) was one among the first who

established a theory on loyalty. He conceptualized loyal employee as having a special

attachment to the organization, and cares and go to the great lengths before even

considering any benefit in return from the organization. Likewise, Ladd (1987, cited in

Jansson & Wiklund 2019) described the concept loyalty as an unreserved devotion to an

organization, and its goals and objectives. Guillon & Cezanne, (2014, cited in (Jansson &

Wiklund 2019) argued that loyal employees are characterized through trust,

identification, participation, and attachment to the organization. This implies that if

employees are loyal then they will increase their effort and performance willingly, or

without being controlled by their supervisors. Loyal employees are able to manage their

own behavior or practices in order to realize expected performance targets and outcomes.

17
 According to Garber (2007), employees’ loyalty goes further than just staying for

salary and benefits that relate to their employment with the organization. Engaged

employees are loyal to the organization and thus they surpass what is required and

expected of them by the organization. This line of argument is supported by Sharmila

(2013). The author said that “the best part of employees’ loyalty is that they need less

focus and attention of managers to perform their task as they themselves feel accountable

for their job responsibility and results accomplished”.

Employees’ loyalty towards an organization is the most important factor that

determines the job performance of employees and by extension that of the organization.

Also, it is one of the key components that measures the compatibility between employees

and the organization. If such compatibility increases, the organization will achieve a lot

of its goals and objectives (Garber 2007). Employees with loyalty towards the

organization are committed and have a sense of ownership and emotional attachment to

the organization (Satynda 2015).

Employee loyalty, according to Iqbal, Zakariya & Lodhi (2015) involves a kind of

faithfulness and sincerity to the organization. However, they have also argued that

employees and organizations have reciprocal responsibilities and mutual obligations to

each other. As employees are expected to be loyal to the organization; managers need to

take care of their employees for loyalty to express itself in terms of attitude and action

(ibid.) This means that each is required to strive to understand and respect the interest of

the other.

18
 However, there is one important caveat, regarding the concept of employees’

loyalty. The term employee loyalty should not imply that employees should passively

respond to organizational situations to maintain public support while privately hoping for

a different course of action (Colquiti, Lepile & Wesson 2015). This means that, employee

loyalty is not about a blind obedience, or unthinking devotion or even length of tenure for

that matter (ibid.). According to this perspective, when employee have to say no to their

managers and supervisors, they have to say it openly and boldly. In fact, as it is discussed

in the foregoing, loyal employees are characterized by being true to themselves and able

to express their voice freely.

2.1.3. Employee Involvement

The concept of employee involvement is steadily becoming important for almost

every organization. Employees’ involvement is a mechanism used to ensure participation

of employees to support an organization to accomplish its goals and missions and also to

achieve its objectives by providing their efforts in problem solving and decision making

processes (Saeed 2016). According to Northouse (2004, cited in Wainaina, Iravo, &

Waititu 2014), employees’ involvement in decision making is rooted in the “theory of

Y”, which suggests that employees are essentially interested in performing well at work

and will be more attached and committed to their job provided that their supervisors and

managers value their contribution. Grazier (1989, cited in Ricardo & Vera 2001)

described involvement as the process of involving employees in the thinking processes

and recognizing that decisions of an organization can be made better by soliciting ideas

and inputs of those who may be affected by the decision.

19
 Similarly, Purcell et al. (2003, cited in Mehth, 2013) highlighted that employees’

engagement is only important if there is a more genuine sharing of responsibility between

the Management and employees over issues of material. They also argued that

involvement in decision making processes need to be viewed as an important factor,

demonstrating the crux of employees’ involvement. According to Garber (2007),

involved employees do additional things, make extra effort, and become psychologically

and intellectually involved in assisting the organization without expectation of additional

compensation in return.

Involving employees could mean different things to different organizations and

people. However, for today’s workers to be successful, there are a few crucial employee

involvement concepts appear to be accepted by all. These are delegation, participative

management, work teams, goal setting, and employees training and the empowering of

employees (DeCenzo, Robbins, & Verrhulst 2013).

Similarly, one Institute of Employee Studies (cited in Akther & Uddin 2016) has

established that the main components of employees’ engagement include: involvement in

decision-making, freedom to voice ideas, feeling enabled to perform well, having

prospects to develop the job, and feeling the organization is concerned for employees’

health and well-being. This perspective implies that employees’ involvement present

itself in many different ways and at different levels, which managers and supervisors

need to recognize when interacting with their subordinates.

20
 Armstrong (2006) viewed employees’ involvement as an approach, which views

employees as organizational partners whose interests are respected and who have a voice

on matters that concern them. Armstrong, further argued that employees’ involvement

should aim at creating an environment in which a continuing dialogue between Managers

and members takes place in order to define expectations and share information on the

organization’s mission, values and objectives. This implies that employees’ involvement

can establish mutual understanding of what needs to be done and a framework for

managing and developing people to ensure that they will help in accomplishing the

desired goals and objectives.

As previously noted, McShane & Glinow (2010) underscored that employee

involvement increases affective commitment by strengthening the employee’s social

identity with the organization. Employees sense that they are part of the organization

when they contribute in decisions that guide the organization’s future. Employees’

participation also builds loyalty because giving employees the power to involve in

decision making processes is a demonstration of the company’s trust in its employees

(ibid.)

2.1.4. Job Performance

Several studies observed that employee engagement initially results in superior

employee performance, and thereby leading to enhanced organizational performance

(Tower Perrin, 2006 & Gallup, 2006, cited in Bedakar & Pendita 2014). Engagement

may lead to mindfulness, intrinsic motivation, resourcefulness, truthfulness, non-

defensive communication, ethical behavior, increased effort and overall a more

21
productive and happy employees, all of which are important factors determining the

success of an organizational goals and objectives (Robertson-Smith & Markwick 2009,

cited in Bedakar & Pendita 2014).

Similarly, Anitha (2014) underscored that employee job performance can indicate

the financial or non-financial outcomes that have a direct connection with the

performance of the organization and its success. As discussed in the forgoing, a number

of studies show that an important way to enhance employee performance is to focus on

fostering employees’ engagement. Macey & Schneider (2008, cited in Anitha 2014) also

suggested that the presence of high levels of employee engagement enhances job

performance, organizational citizenship behavior, productivity, discretionary effort,

affective commitment, positive psychological climate, and customer service orientation.

According to William (2009) engaged employees can spend more time on

executing core or strategic tasks instead of doing re-work and fire-fighting, they are

innovative; and are more likely to be recognized, communicated, and pursued. The author

further said that engaged employees incline to see their role in a more expansive and

encompassing way, stepping outside of their role to help their colleagues complete a task

or fix someone else’s problem and more generally to support the organization achieve its

goals and objectives.

The behavioral assistances of engaged employees can also go beyond the

activities within the organization. As previously mentioned Albrecht (2010) stated that

22
engaged employees are more likely to act as advocates for the organization when

interacting with people external to the organization. Such advocacy behaviors can, for

example, focus on recommending the organization to prospective customers as a

trustworthy partner to do business with, or recommending the organization to potential

job candidates as a great place to work for (ibid.).

Another related perspective provided by Hewitt Associates (2004, cited Bedakar

& Pendita 2014) is that engaged employees tend to be emotionally and intellectually

committed to the organization, as measured by three principal behaviors: Employees

speak positively about the organization to others inside and out, they display an intense

desire to be a member of the organization, and employees exercise added effort and

engage in behaviors that contribute to the success of organization. Albrechet (2010)

described the outcomes of employees’ engagement by equally weighted mixture of four

elements: pride, satisfaction, advocacy and retention. The rationale according to the

author, is straight forward: an engaged employees have pride in and are happy with the

organization as a place of work, and they advocate for, and tend to remain with

organization.

2.1.5. Employee Engagement and Job Performance Relationship

Employees’ engagement is a predictor dimension of employees’ performance,

encompassing application of intelligence and added efforts of employees, and their

motivation and commitment, which can lead to the realization of organizational

objectives (Manoj & Sabu 2020). Engaged employees value the organizational culture,

respect the employee–employer relationship, perform well in their work roles and are

23
loyal to the organization (Griffin et al. 2007, cited in Manoj & Sabu 2020). Employees’

committed efforts contribute to foster organizational growth and expansion. As engaged

employees are fully psychologically present, they exert maximum efforts in their tasks

(Bernthal 2004, cited in Manoj & Sabu 2020).

Giving employees the opportunity to be part of the thriving organization not only

increases their engagement and commitment, but also helps them develop skills and

capabilities (Gee & Hanwell 2014). All other things being equal, increased organizational

commitment, skills and capabilities of employees could improve employees’ job

performance. Engaged employees are aware of the business environment, and work with

colleagues to improve job performance for the advantage of the organization (MacLead

& Clarke 2009). Besides, the level of engagement matters because employee engagement

can associate with the job performance (ibid.).

One of the factors that differentiates employees’ engagement is employee

commitment, which implies how the pride people feel for their organization as well as the

degree to which they intend to remain with the organization, desire to serve or to perform

at high levels, and strive to increase the organization’s results (Kozimoto 2016).

Employees who are engaged in their work and committed to their organizations could be

regarded as a source of competitive advantages, which could result in higher productivity,

lower turnover, and less absenteeism (Kimutai 2015). In general, Vance (2006, cited in

Kimutai 2015) concluded that engagement and commitment can possibly translate into

numerous valuable business results for an organization.

24
 The second component factor of engagement is employees’ involvement, which

implies sharing of responsibilities between employees and Managers of an organization.

Based on the foregoing discussion, engaged and committed employees can carry out their

jobs efficiently by their own, with no or little supervision for the good of the

organization. Caves & Porter (1977, cited in Amah & Ahiazu 2013), stated that strategic

group membership and associated collective behaviors are the primary sources of long-

lasting differences in firm profitability and organizational effectiveness. The words

“group membership” and “associated collective behavior” imply employees’ involvement

or participation and a sense of ownership and responsibility, which are resulted from

employees’ involvement practices.

Amah & Ahiazu (2013) further argued that employees who work with a sense of

ownership and responsibility tend to be committed and work with greater quality and

improve their performance and by extension that of the wider organization. Like-wise,

Bullock & Scontrino-Powell (n.d., cited in Saeed 2016) claimed that employees’

involvement supports an organization to realize its aims and missions and also achieve its

objectives by providing their efforts in the problem solving and the decision making

processes.

In view of the forgoing, involved employees help an organization by applying

responsibly their own ideas, expertise and efforts towards achieving its mission and

objectives. Employees’ involvement creates a sense of ownership and responsibility. It

can ensure employees’ participation in decision making and its implementations, which

all will have a positive impact on the organizational performance.

25
 Employees’ loyalty is the third dimension of engagement, which on its part is

believed to have a significant impact on job performance. As claimed by Mahalingan &

Suresh (2018), loyal employees are keen to the success of their organization and believe

that being an employee of the organization is in their best interest rather than something it

is imposed on them. Besides, the authors said that employees who are loyal to their

organization tend to remain with the organization. Points emphasized in these statements

include devotion to the success of the organization and desire to stay in the organization

for a long time, both of which impact directly the job performance and success of the

organization.

Employees’ loyalty towards an organization is the most important factor that

determines the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization through improved

performance of employees (Satynda 2015). Employees with loyalty towards the

organization are committed and show a high sense of belongingness towards the

organization, which leads them to feel and accept the organizational goals and values as

their own. Such employees have psychological attachment to and identify themselves

with the organization (ibid.).

It can be seen from the forgoing, that employees’ engagement can create

employees who will be loyal towards their organization, who work with the sense of

belongingness and interest, devotion and commitment to the success of the organization.

Besides, loyal employees tend to have psychological attachment and tend remain working

in the organization. Obviously, such qualities of employees will be the most important

factors, determining the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization.

26
 2.2. Empirical Review

Organizations with higher engagement levels tend to have lower employee

turnover, higher productivity, higher total shareholder returns and better financial

performance (Baumruk 2006, cited in Smith & Markwick 2009). A research study by

Towers Perrin (2007, cited in Smith & Markwick 2009), revealed that organizations with

the highest percentage of engaged employees performed well and increased their

operating income by 19 percent and their earnings per share by 28 percent year-to-year.

A global survey carried out in 2006, which included data collected from opinion

surveys of over 664,000 employees from over 50 companies around the world, compared

the financial performance of organizations with a highly-engaged workforce to

organizations with a less-engaged workforce over a 12 month period. The results of such

survey indicated that a nearly 52 percent gap in the performance improvement between

companies with highly-engaged employees versus companies whose employees had low

engagement scores. Companies with high levels of employees’ engagement improved

19.2 percent in their operating income, while companies with low levels of employees’

engagement declined by 32.7 percent over the time period in which the study was

conducted (MacLead & Clarke 2009).

Another study by the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), which measured

effectiveness of federal agencies to achieve their goal, revealed that agencies with the

most-engaged employees scored an average of 65 (out of 100) while those agencies with

the least-engaged employees received a score of 37 on the program. Hence, agencies with

the most-engaged employees were twice as successful in meeting their goals (Marciano

27
2010). Likewise, Towers Watson’s 2008–2009 Work USA reported that highly engaged

workers are 26 percent more productive than disengaged employees (ibid.).

The Towers Watson studied fifty global companies over a one-year period. The

findings was that, companies with high employees’ engagement scores showed a 28

percent growth in earnings per share and 19 percent increase in operating income. In

contrast, companies with the lowest levels of employees’ engagement scores saw an 11

percent drop in earnings per share and 32 percent drop in operating income. Similarly,

Gallup’s research revealed that companies with higher engagement practices reported

earnings per share 2.6 times higher than organizations with below-average engagement

scores. The Towers Watson reported that companies with highly engaged employees

earned 13 percent greater total returns for shareholders over a five-year period than

companies with less engaged employees (Marciano 2010).

Robinson et al. (2007, cited in Smith & Markwick 2009) claimed that the best

performing employees tended to be those with the highest engagement scores; and in

2000 and 2002, Harter & colleagues meta-analysis of 7,939 business units in 36

companies found a strong association between employee engagement and performance,

which include customer satisfaction, productivity, profit and turnover. This led them to

conclude that increasing engagement and building environment that support it can

increase the likelihood of business successes.

Another research study by a consulting firm called DDI found a strong

relationship between employees’ engagement and job performance. Their study finding

28
revealed that employees’ engagement positively affects productivity, profitability

efficiency, and customer satisfaction (Marciano (2010). In the same way, one company

assisted by a consulting firm invested more resources to improve employees’ engagement

by 3 percent was able to increase its revenue by 3 percent and achieved an $11 million

positive shift to their business bottom line (Federman 2009).

Likewise, Kazimoto (2016) claimed that “evidences show that there is a

relationship between employees’ engagement and organization performance whereby, the

better the employee is engaged and committed, the better the performance of the

organization will be”. Employees’ engagement influences positively the attendance,

continuance, advancement, facilitate client’s services and encouragement to staff towards

organizational performance. Marciano (201) stressed the strong relationship between

employees’ engagement and job performance and consequently provided a list of

required employees’ performances that appear to be the result of employee engagement.

Such improved employees’ performance include: increased productivity, and

profitability, enhanced quality of work, improved efficiency, lower employee turnover,

reduced absenteeism, improved job satisfaction and less mal-practices such as theft and

fraud.

It can be seen from the foregoing that despite slight contextual differences, almost

all research studies revealed that there is direct and strong positive relationship between

engagement and employees’ job performance. Engagement could influence employees to

be more committed and dedicated to the success of the organization. Engaged employees

are more involved in taking responsibility, and they tend to be more loyal towards the

29
organization. All these factors are important in determining the success of the

organization.

2.3. Conceptual framework

Saeed (2016) conceptualized employee involvement, which is one of the key

dimensions of engagement as a variable explaining organizational outcomes. Robinson et

al., (n.d., cited in Diogenes 2017) depicted a relationship between employees’

engagement and behavioral patterns such as identification with the organization, seeing

the bigger picture event at personal cost, going beyond the requirements of the job, being

positive about the job and the organization, believing in the organization, looking for

opportunities to improve organizational performance, working actively to make things

happen, treat others with respect and helping colleagues to perform more effectively.

Similarly, Wash (1999, cited in Sahoo & Mishra 2012) claimed that “engaged

employees are involved, committed, and careful about their organization and willing to

extend their effort and go extra mile to help the organization achieve its goals and

objectives’. Also, the authors relate engagement practices, to employees’ job satisfaction,

organizational commitment, low intention to quit, and organizational citizenship

behavior. A conceptual model, which was developed by Dajani & Ahmed (2015)

considered employee engagement as a predicator of job performance and organizational

commitment, which are both crucial for organizational effectiveness and success.

Employees’ engagement is viewed by many researchers as a predictor of job

performance, its impact presented itself through productivity, employee retention rates,

30
and advocacy of the organization to build its external image (Sharmila 2013).

Employees’ engagement is considered as a key driver for job performance and

organizational success.

The discussions above highlighted that employees’ engagement is related to some

sort of desired employees’ behaviors, which in turn can be related to organizational

performance outcomes. Several researchers use this framework for conducting study on

the topic in question.

Research framework: The variables of this research study are employees’ engagement –

commitment, involvement, and loyalty (independent variable), and employees’ job

performance (dependent variable).

The framework below illustrates the relationship between the variables.

Employee
commitment (EC)

H (+)

Employee H (+) Job Performance (JP)

Involvement (EI)

H (+)
Employee Loyalty
(EL)

Fig-1: Research framework.

Sources: Based on synthesis of the concepts and ideas discussed above.

31
 Based on the literature review and the research questions, the following hypothesis
have been formulated for testing the anticipated relationships between the research
variables.

H1: Employees’ commitment has a positive and significant effect on the Job performance

of employees of KAKI Plc.

H1: Employees’ Involvement has a positive and significant effect on the Job performance

of employees of KAKI Plc.

H1: Employees’ loyalty has a positive and significant effect on the Job performance of

employees of KAKI Plc.

32
 Chapter three: Research Methodology

3.1. Research Approach

This research project is deductive in nature which tries to test the employees’

engagement model in the case of KAKI Plc. The study is principally quantitative, which

tests the relationship between employees’ engagement and employees’ job performance.

Since there is an established framework of employees’ engagement in the literature, a

quantitative study is appropriate. Besides, as the study tests the relationship between

employees’ engagement and employees’ job performance, a quantitative study is

considered appropriate. Related to this, the study tests three hypotheses and thereby

confirm or reject those hypotheses which makes a quantitative research approach

appropriate for this study.

Empirical data regarding attitudes, and behaviors with regard to employee

engagement were collected and analyzed to examine the effect of employees’

engagement on the job performance of employees of the company under study.

3.2. Research Design

The purpose of this study is to describe and explain the effect of engagement

experience on employees’ job performance in the case of KAKI Plc. As such the research

study was based on a descriptive and explanatory designs, which according to Kothari

(2004), could help to interpret and determine the relationship and the predication between

the variables, i.e., employees’ engagement (the independent variable) and employees’ Job

performance (dependent variable).

33
 3.3. Sampling Design

According to the company report of 2021, currently the total number of

employees of “the company” stands at 342. As mentioned in the preceding, the scope of

the study focuses on employees who have more than six months work experience in

KAKI Plc. Besides, employees who are based outside Addis Ababa are not included in

the study. There are 66 employees whose work experience is 6 months or less, and 37

employees who work outside Addis Ababa. Therefore, the sampling frame, from which

the sample size was drawn equals 239.

Furthermore, it is obvious that employees of the company comprises Managerial

and Non-managerial staff. In the case of this company, Division heads, Department

managers, Managing director and the General Manager are considered as Managerial

staff, which are 24 in number. The remaining 215 are Non-manager Employees.

The size of a sample should neither be excessively large, nor too small. Rather, it

should be optimum. An optimum sample is one which meets the requirements of

efficiency, representativeness, reliability and flexibility (Kothari 2004). The sampling

should also be done in ways that fulfil the desired precision or acceptable confidence

level of the estimate (ibid.). As this research project involves more than two variables of

interest, the decision on the sample size needs to take in to account all factors that are

related to such numerous variables (Sekaran 2003). In order to meet such requirements, a

formula, which was developed by Krejcie & Morgan (1970) was used to determine the

sample size for the study.

34
Formula for determining sample size:

𝒙𝟐 𝑵𝑷(𝟏 − 𝑷)
𝑺= 𝟐
𝒅 (𝑵 − 𝟏) + 𝑿𝟐 𝑷(𝟏 − 𝑷)
Where,

S = Required sample size

X2 = table value of Chi square for 1 df at the desired confidence level (3.841)
N = Population size
P = Population proportion (assumed to be 0.5, since this would provide maximum
sample size
d = df of accuracy expressed as a proportion

By using the formula above, the sample size was calculated as follows.

3.841 ∗ 239 ∗ 0.5(1 − 0.5)

𝑺=
0.052 (239 − 1) + 3.841 ∗ 0.5(1 − 0.5)

229.49975
𝑺 = = 147.83 ≈ 𝟏𝟒𝟖
1.5525

As noted above, the population from which the sample was drawn doesn’t constitute

a homogenous group, and thus a stratified sampling techniques was used in order to

obtain a representative sample (Kathari (2004). To that effect, the target population was

divided into Managerial and Non-managerial groups, and then a proportional sample size

was drawn from each group or stratum based on a simple random sampling technique to

ensure a proportional allocation of the sample participants to the two groups. Based on

35
proportional allocation method, samples were drawn from each group of employees as

follows.

Total sample size, S = 148 (see sample computation above).

 Sample size proportion for the Managerial group: S1 = 148 * (24/239) = 15

 Sample size proportion for the Non-managerial group: S2 = 148 * (215/239) = 133

 Total sample size, S = S1 + S2 = 15 +133 = 148

3.4. Sampling Technique

As this research study intends to draw a conclusion that is supposed to be

applicable on the target population, a probabilistic approach was used to select the

required samples from each stratum i.e., Managerial and the Non-managerial staffs. Such

a sampling technique could give every employee an equal chance of inclusion in the

sample. To this effect, samples were selected by using a random sampling method in

which each names of members of the target population (sampling frame) was given a

code number, and then these numbers were placed in a container, mixed them thoroughly,

and then the code numbers representing the names were drawn by a randomly picked

person (Bluman 2012).

3.5. Data Collection

A primary data source was used to collect the desired data. The primary data was

collected primarily from members (both Managers and Non-managers) of the company.

Data collection instrument used was a questionnaires technique. The data collected

mainly focuses on the perception of participants on the effect of employees’ engagement

on job performance of employees of KAKI Plc.

36
 As mentioned above, the research instrument used for collecting the data (primary

data) was based on survey questions. The method of data collection process was based on

a face-to-face or a personal interaction with the participants. As part of the questionnaire

administration processes, some people were selected and trained on how to distribute and

collect the questionnaires from those participants. In addition, the participants were

informed about the purpose of the study, the procedures on how to respond or fill the

questionnaires and the deadline for completing the questionnaires in order to speed-up the

data collection processes.

3.6. Data Analysis Methods

Once the data collection process was completed, then it was processed and

analyzed with a view to test the research hypothesis and obtain answers to the research

questions. To achieve this objective, the data were summarized so as to get a condensed

picture by using descriptive statistics methods such as tables, distributions, averages, and

percentages. The data analysis processes involved statistical computations such as

correlation analysis to measure the correlation between the variables – engagement and

employees’ job performance. For this study, the degree of the relationship between the

variables was measured based on Pearson’s coefficient of correlation method (Kothori

2004).

The Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) is a measure of the

degree of association between variables. It takes a value between –1 and 1. A value of r

near to 1 indicates strong positive association, whereas a value of r near to –1 indicates a

strong negative linear association. A value of r = ± indicates that the two variables are

perfectly correlated, i.e., all the points are on a straight line (Adams et al., 2007). In

37
addition data analysis was carried out using the multiple regression technique to identify

the level of predication made by the predictor variables on employees’ job performance

and thereby to test the hypotheses of the study.

The Model specification used for this study (Admas et al. 2007):

Y = a + b1x1 + b2x2 + b3x3 + e

Where,
y = Employees’ Job performance
b1 = the beta value of employees’ commitment

x1 = employees’ commitment

b2 = the beta value of employees’ involvement

x2 = employees’ involvement

b3 = the beta value of employees’ loyalty

x3 = employees’ loyalty

a = y – intercept (constant term)

e = the model’s error (residual)

3.7. Validity and Reliability

In order to increase external validity, the sample was drawn just from the defined

target population according to the sampling procedures discussed above. Moreover,

training was given to those who distributed the questionnaires to make sure that they

could be able to collect the required data from the sampled participants. There was also a

close follow up by the researcher to monitor and ensure that the required data was

collected from the sample participants. Also a pilot survey was administered to verify the

accuracy and clarity of the questionnaire.

38
 In order to increase the internal validity, a conscious effort was made to avoid any

kind of temptation on the part of the researcher to present conclusions that are based on

personal beliefs that cannot be supported by the data collected. To ensure reliability and

consistency of the questionnaire, a reliability test was carried out using a Cronbach alpha

statistical method (Sekaran 2003). For this study initially a 29 questions questionnaire

was developed to determine the effect of engagement on job performance of employees.

The survey questionnaire consists of three parts. The first part deals with demographic

profiles of the respondents. The second part covers items related to the “engagement

dimensions, and the third part covers items related to the Employees’ job performance.

The survey questions were on the 5-Likert Scale with responses ranging from

“Strongly disagree” to “Strongly disagree”. A pilot study was conducted to test the

reliability and clarity of the survey questions. The pre-testing of the survey questions was

performed based on responses collected from a predetermined sample size of 35

participants, which is acceptable according to Machin et al. (2018) who suggested a

single number of 30 sample size as a flat rule of thumb for every situation.

A Cronbach alpha test result showed an overall reliability with an alpha level of

0.885, which is above the minimum threshold of 0.7 (Kline 1999, cited in Field 2009).

The alpha level for each construct was also found above 0.7 except for “employees’

commitment” (.544). Based on the feedback obtained from the pilot test, survey questions

relating to the “employees’ commitment” were modified and one more question was

added to ensure a complete measurement.

39
 After having made the necessary modifications on the survey questions, the

questionnaires were distributed to all the sample respondents for collecting the required

data. A Cronbach alpha test was carried out for the second time based on the full scale

responses of the respondents. This time, the alpha level showed a significant

improvement on both the overall reliability and at the individual dimension/construct

level. The overall Cronbach alpha level increased to 0.918, and each individual construct

including the “employee commitment” construct scored a higher alpha level. Table-1

below summarizes the reliability test results.

Table-1: Construct’s Cronbach alpha test result

Overall Reliability Statistics

Cronbach’s alpha N of Items

.918 30

S.No. Dimension/construct Cronbach alpha N of items

1 Employee commitment .808 8

2 Employee Involvement .843 7

3 Employee Loyalty .757 7

4 Job performance .723 8

Source: SPSS (ver. 23) output on reliability test of research instruments

40
 3.8. Ethical Considerations

The study was guided by ethical standards to make it free from any kind of bias

that will lead to subjective and unfounded findings and conclusions. To begin with, the

sample was drawn from the target population. A strict follow up was made by the

researcher to make sure that data were collected from the sampled participants. The study

participants were explained about the purpose of the study; and that their participation

depends on only their free will. They were notified that the survey was developed to be

anonymous, and the researcher would have no way of connecting the information to them

personally. They were also guaranteed that the information they provided would be kept

confidential and analyzed only at a group level. Moreover, every material used in this

study was properly acknowledged by way of properly citing the authors of those

materials.

41
 Chapter four: Results and Discussion

4.1. Introduction

In order to conduct the planned data analysis, data were collected from the sample

participants, and then the data collected were cleaned and entered into SPPS ver. 23 to

make them ready for analysis. The output of the data analysis that will be covered in this

chapter include mainly response return rate, demographic profile information, normality

test of data, results and findings, and interpretation and discussion on the study findings.

Detail discussion on each of such sub-topics is presented as next.

4.2. Response rate and demographic data

As mentioned above, a research instrument was developed and distributed to the

participants for collecting the required data. The questionnaire includes three parts. Parts-

I deals with demographic profiles such as gender, age, educational level, status of

employees, and work experience. Part-II and Part-III focused on questions relating to the

study variables. A total of 35 questions are included in the research instrument, out of

which 30 questions deal with the research variables or constructs, and the remaining 5

questions deal with the demographic profile of the respondents.

A total of 148 questionnaires were distributed, and 129 responses were collected,

out of which 6 response were found to be incomplete. Therefore, 123 valid response were

collected, resulting in a response return rate of 83%, which is relatively a high response

rate according to Creswell (2012) who wrote that “many research studies in leading

educational journals do report a response rate of 50% or better”.

42
 The demographic profile of the participants in Table-2 below shows male

participants constitute a great proportion of the entire sample size, constituting 74% of all

the respondents. Participants within the age group of 35 years or less constitute more than

62% of the total number of respondents. Respondents whose age is 50 years or above are

13% of the total respondents. Education wise, 30.9 % of the respondents are 12th grade

complete or below, 26.8% are Diploma holders or equivalent, 39% are BA or BSc

graduates, and those having MA or MSc degree make up 3.3% of the whole respondents.

Majority of the respondents are Non-managers, constituting 87.8% of the total

number of respondents. Non-managers, (according to the policy and organizational

structure of the company) are employees who assume job positions that are organized

below the division level. The percentage of Managers participating in this study is 12.2%

of the total sample size. 51.2% of the respondents have served the company between 6

months and 3 years, 28.5% of them have stayed in the company between 4 and 7 years,

11.4% of them have served the company between 8 and 11 years, and the remaining 11

(8.9%) have worked in the company for 12 years and above.

From the demographic profile analysis above, the composition of the respondents

includes all type of employees of the company. Every subgroup of employees of the

company including male and female employees, Managers and Non-manager employees,

senior and junior employees, the highly educated and the less educated employees etc.

were fairly represented in the study. Such a fair representation of all type of employees of

the company would help the study to be unbiased and objective.

43
Table-2: Demographic profile of respondents

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Male 91 74.0 74.0 74.0
Sex Female 32 26.0 26.0 100.0
Total 123 100.0 100.0
Valid 25 or less 30 24.4 24.4 24.4
26 - 35 46 37.4 37.4 61.8
Age group 36 - 49 31 25.2 25.2 87.0
50 and above 16 13.0 13.0 100.0
Total 123 100.0 100.0
Valid Below high school 28 22.8 22.8 22.8
High school complete 10 8.1 8.1 30.9
Diploma 33 26.8 26.8 57.7
Education BA degree 48 39.0 39.0 96.7
MA/MSc or above 4 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 123 100.0 100.0
Valid Non-manager 108 87.8 87.8 87.8
Status Manager 15 12.2 12.2 100.0
Total 123 100.0 100.0
Valid 6 months - 3 years 63 51.2 51.2 51.2
4 - 7 years 35 28.5 28.5 79.7
Experience
8 -11 years 14 11.4 11.4 91.1
in KAKI
12 years and above 11 8.9 8.9 100.0
Total 123 100.0 100.0

Source: SPSS (ver. 23) output on demographic profiles of respondents

4.3. Normality test

Normality test is important in research that is based on regression or general

linear models (2009). Multiple linear regression assumes particularly that the dependent

variable should be normally distributed around the prediction line (Cronk 2020). This

assumes that the variables are related to each other linearly. For testing the normality of

the scores that relate to the dependent variable (Employees’ Job performance), the

following numerical and visual outputs were investigated. These are: Skewness and

Kurtosis z-values, which should be somewhere in the range between +/- 1.96); the

Shapiro-Wilk test value, which should be above 0.05; and normal Q-Q plot, which should

44
visually indicate that the data are approximately normally distributed around the

prediction line (Liofgren 2021).

Table-3: Descriptive statistics

Descriptives
Statistic Std. Error

JP Mean 3.8079 .04864

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 3.7116

Mean Upper Bound 3.9042

5% Trimmed Mean 3.8198

Median 3.8750

Variance .291

Std. Deviation .53950

Minimum 2.00

Maximum 4.88

Range 2.88

Interquartile Range .75

Skewness -.369 .218

Kurtosis .096 .433

Source: Own survey (2021).

From the descriptive statistics Table-3 above, the skewness and Kurtosis z-values

are -0.169 and 0.22 respectively, both of which are within +/-1.96. Although, it is a little

negatively skewed, but still it indicates a normal distribution of the data. The z-values

were found by dividing the Skewness and Kurtosis values by their respective Std. Errors

(Liofgren 2021).

45
Table-4: Tests of Normality
Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

JP .086 123 .025 .982 123 .091

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Source: Own survey (2021)

Shapiro-Wilk test normality result (Table-4) above, showed that a p-value of

(.091), which is greater than 0.05, indicating that the data are approximately normally

distributed (Field 2009).

Figure-2: Normal Q-Q plot

Source: Own Survey (2021)

46
 Based on the visual inspection of the normal Q-Q plot (Figure-2) above, it can be

observed that the data are normally distributed along the prediction line, indicating that

there is approximately normal distribution of the data (Field 2009).

All the normality test results showed that approximately the data is normally

distributed around the prediction line, and thus it is safe to conduct the intended

correlation and multivariate regression analysis.

4.4. Results or findings

As discussed in chapter three that covered the methodology of the study, this

research project is based on a quantitative approach, which attempts to test the

relationship between employees’ engagement and the job performance of employees of

the company under study. This is supported by the fact that (1) there is an established

framework with regard to the relationship between employees’ engagement and

employee’s performance, (2) the study attempts to measure the effect of employee

engagement on job performance of employees, and (3) the study involves hypotheses

testing and thereby answering the general and specific research questions. Therefore, the

dimensions of employees’ engagement, namely employee commitment, employees’

involvement and employees’ loyalty were used as the independent variable (as a set) to

study their predication level on employees’ job performance, which is the dependent

variable.

47
 In order to obtain a useful meaning from the data collected through the survey

questions and thereby to determine the relationship between the variables, the data were

analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) version 23. A Pearson

correlation analysis was conducted to measure the degree and direction of the association

between the variables. Also, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to study the

predication level of the independent variable (Employees’ engagement) on employees’

performance as well as to test the hypotheses and determine the beta weight of

coefficients of each of the independent variables.

4.4.1. Correlation between Variables

As can be seen in Table-5 below, a Pearson correlation analysis was performed to

determine the association between the independent and the dependent variables. The

correlation coefficient was calculated for the relationship between Commitment and Job

performance. A moderate positive correlation was found (r =.63, p < .001), indicating a

significant linear relationship between the two variables (Marczyk, DeMatteo, &

Festinger 2005).

Similarly, the correlation coefficient calculated for the relationship between

Involvement and Job performance was found (r =.60, p < .001), showing a moderate and

significant linear relationship between the two variables. The correlation coefficient

computed for the relationship between Loyalty and Job performance was found (r =.64, p

< .001), indicating a moderate and significant linear relationship between the two

variables.

48
Table-5: Correlation statistics between the constructs of the study.
Correlations
JP EC EI EL

Pearson Correlation JP 1.000 .631 .597 .639

EC .631 1.000 .510 .725

EI .597 .510 1.000 .563

EL .639 .725 .563 1.000

Sig. (1-tailed) JP . .000 .000 .000
EC .000 . .000 .000
EI .000 .000 . .000
EL .000 .000 .000 .
N JP 123 123 123 123

EC 123 123 123 123

EI 123 123 123 123

EL 123 123 123 123

Source: SPSS (ver. 23) output

The correlation analysis between each dimension of the employees’ engagement

(independent variable), and the employees’ job performance (the dependent variable)

suggested that there is a moderate and positive linear association between the variables.

This means that changes in employee engagement (independent variable) will influence

the employees’ job performance to show changes with the degree and direction indicated

by the correlation coefficients calculated for each pair of the variables.

Another issue that need to be checked at this stage is whether multicollinearity

exits between two or more of the predictor variables. As can be seen from the correlation

matrix (Table-5) above, the correlation coefficient between the predicator variables fall

within the range (r= 0.51 to 0.72, p < .001), indicating no perfect or high correlation

between the predictor variables (Field, 2009). This suggests that each independent

49
variable can uniquely contribute the variance on the employees’ job performance

(dependent variable).

4.4.2. Prediction of Engagement on Employees’ Job Performance

A multiple regression analysis was performed to learn more about the relationship

between the independent variable (employees’ engagement) and the dependent variable

(employees’ job performance). This part of the analysis is specifically interested in

developing a model that can be used to predict the value of the employees’ Job

performance based on the values of the employees’ engagement and thereby testing the

hypotheses to answer the research questions of the study. With this objective in a mind,

the multiple regression analysis was conducted using SPSS ver. 23. Outputs of the

multiple analysis is presented in the pages that follow.

Table-6: Regression Model summary

Model Summary

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

1 .727a .529 .517 .37500

a. Predictors: (Constant), EL, EI, EC

Source: SPSS (ver. 23) out put

The model summary (Table-6) presents multiple R, R-square, and adjusted R-

square for the regression model. As can be seen from the model summary table, R-square

was found (R2 =0.53), which indicates that 53 percent of the variance on the dependent

variable (employee’s job performance) can be explained by the regression model, which

50
is highly statistically significant. According to Heiman (1998, cited in Anitha 2014)

proportions of variance above 25 percent are considered substantial.

According to Field (2009) the adjusted R-square (0.52) indicates the loss of

predictive power of the regression model. It explains how much the variance on the

dependent variable would be accounted for, if the model had been derived from the target

population. This implies, the smaller the difference between these two values (the R2 &

the adjusted R-square) the better for explaining the variance on the outcome variable.

Table-7: ANOVA for model fit

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 18.774 3 6.258 44.502 .000b

Residual 16.735 119 .141

Total 35.509 122

a. Dependent Variable: JP
b. Predictors: (Constant), EL, EI, EC

Source: SPSS (ver. 23) out put

The ANOVA (Table-7) shows that the overall regression model is fit to predict

the variance on the dependent variable (employees’ job performance) based on the values

of the independent variable (employees’ engagement). It was found (F (3, 119) = 44.50, p

< .001), R2 = 0.53. The ANOVA results indicate that the regression model can be fit

enough for making a good degree of predictions about the independent variable.

51
Table-8: Regression coefficients for the model

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients Collinearity Statistics

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 1.388 .221 6.274 .000

EC .249 .081 .287 3.088 .003 .459 2.179

EI .208 .053 .304 3.934 .000 .661 1.512

EL .219 .082 .260 2.687 .008 .424 2.358

a. Dependent Variable: JP

Source: SPSS (ver. 23) out put

The Coefficients Table-8 above, showed the constant or intercept value and

regression coefficients or b-values for each independent variable. The constant value was

found to be 1.39, which will be the predicted value of the employees’ job performance

(dependent variable) if the values for each the independent variable is zero. As shown in

the coefficient table, the coefficient of each independent variable was found as follows:

employees’ commitment was found (.25, p = .003), employees’ involvement (.21, p <

.001), and employees’ loyalty (.22, p = .008).

The direction of influence for all the independent variables is positive, indicating

that when the values of the coefficients increase so do the dependent variable. For every

unit increase in each of the independent variable, the model predicates an increase by the

amount of the coefficient value. For instance, if the employees’ commitment increase by

one unit, then the employees’ job performance will increase by 0.25, which is the

52
coefficient of the employees’ commitment variable, holding the effects of the other

variables constant.

The Beta values or the standardized coefficients in the coefficient table (Table-8)

above indicate the relative influence of the independent variables (George & Mallery

2016). As can be seen from the Coefficient table, employees’ involvement has the

greatest effect on employees’ job performance (β=0.30), followed by employees’

commitment (β=0.29) and then employees’ loyalty (β= 0.26).

In the coefficient table (Table-8) the variance inflation factor (VIF) and Tolerance

statistics are indicated in order to measure the collinearity of the data. As can be seen

from the table, all the VIF values are below 10, and all the tolerance statistics values are

above 0.2, which shows no collinearity within the data and/or the predictor variables

(Field 2009).

Based on the constant value and the regression coefficients of the multiple

regression model, the following regression equation or model can be created for

determining the predicated values of the employees’ job performance (dependent

variable) based on changes on the independent variable.

Table-9: Predication Model specification

1.39 + 0.25 x Employees’ Commitment + 0.21 x

Employees’ Job Performances = Employees’ Involvement + 0.22 x Employees’
Loyalty
Source: Own survey (2021)

53
 It can be seen from the above analysis that employees’ job performance is

significantly and positively affected by all the dimensions of the employees’ engagement

practices. As mentioned above, up to 53 percent of the variance in employees’ Job

performance can be attributed to the employees’ engagement dimensions, which are:

employees’ commitment, employees’ involvement and employees’ loyalty.

From the results of the coefficients table above, each of the predictor variable

positively influences the outcome variable. The direction of influence is positive and the

effect size of each independent variable are: 0.25 for employee’s commitment, 0.21 for

employees’ involvement, and 0.22 for employees’ loyalty. Based on the multiple

regression results discussed above the following decisions can be made about the

hypotheses of this research study.

Table-10: Hypotheses testing

Hypotheses Decision
Employees’ commitment has a positive and significant effect
H1 on the job performance of employees of KAKI Plc. Supported at α ≤ .05
Employee’s involvement has a positive and significant effect
Supported at α ≤ .05
H1 on the job performance of employees of KAKI Plc.
Employees’ loyalty has a positive and significant effect on
Supported at α ≤ .05
H1 the job performance of employees of KAKI Plc.
Source: Own survey (2021).

The hypotheses test result also answers both the general and the specific research

questions of the research study. This means, that employees’ engagement and each of its

dimensions positively and significantly affects the job performance of employees of the

company.

54
 4.5. Interpretation and Discussion

Overall the regression analysis results showed that employees’ engagement

practice can significantly influence job performance of employees. The R-square =0.53

signifies that the employees’ engagement practices can increase job performance of

employee by about 53 percent, which is substantially high. Hence, it can be concluded

that employees’ engagement positively influences job performance. This finding is in line

with many research study findings.

A research study conducted by Towers (2007, cited in Smith & Markwick 2009)

found that organizations engaging their employees performed better than those who don’t

engage their employees. MacLead & Clarke (2009) observed that nearly a 52 percent of

performance improvement was influenced by engagement practices. A study by

Macriano (2010) found out that engaged employees outperformed those who were not

engaged. Robinson et.al (2007 cited in Smith & Markwick 2009) concluded that best

performing employees were found in organizations with the highest engagement

practices. Federman (2009) & Kazimoto (2016), both provided evidence that there was a

strong relationship between engagement and job performance.

From the discussion above, organizations should find a way to engage their

employees so as to effectively utilize their workforce. Schaufeil et.ai. (2007, cited in

Albrecht 2010) argued that engaged employee are characterized by vigor, absorption,

persistence. Smith & Markwick (2009) described engaged employees as having a sense

of attachment towards the organization, and are thoughtful and working proactively.

Federman (2009) considered engaged employees as confident, committed, and

55
resourceful. All the characteristics of engaged employees discussed above can determine

the performance of employees.

Hence, it is not uncommon to see several organizations investing deliberately on

employees’ engagement. Employees who are engaged enough are assumed to be

committed to their organizations, which give companies a crucial competitive

advantages, which could be demonstrated by higher productivity and lower employee

turnover (Vance 2006). This implies that organization should create a work environment

that foster engagement so as to effectively utilize their human resources.

Each dimension/construct of the employee engagement variable, which was

studied for its effect on job performance of employees was found to have a positive and

significant correlation with the job performance of employees. Correlation coefficient

between employees’ commitment and job performance was found (0.63, p < .001),

correlation coefficient between employees’ involvement and job performance was found

(0.60, p < .001), and correlation coefficient between employees’ loyalty and job

performance was found (0.64, p < .001), all of which indicting a positive and significant

relationship between all the three pairs of constructs.

More importantly, the multiple regression analysis resulted in positive b-values or

coefficients of the independent variables, signifying that each independent variable

uniquely contributes to the variance on the dependent variable, that is, the job

performance of employees. The calculated b-values found for employees’ commitment,

employees’ involvement, and employees’ loyalty are 0.25, p = .003), 0.21, p < .001), and

0.22, p =.008) respectively. Each b-values showed clearly the direction and significance

of the relationship between the three pairs of variables. The direction is positive and the

56
effect level of each of the independent variable is indicated by the amount of the b-

values.

The findings of the study above, are supported by both theories and empirical

research studies. McShane & Glinow (2010) argued that committed employees have

emotional attachment and identify themselves with the organization, which result in high

motivation and thereby better job performance. Similarly, Robinns & Judje (2013) said

that committed employees identify themselves with the organization and tend to remain

as members of the organization, and show readiness to make sacrifice for the

organization. Colquite, Lepile & Wesson (2015) support the idea that committed

employees show the desire to stay working for the organization, and are willing to exert

extra effort to help the organization achieve its goals and objectives.

For employees to become committed to the organization and its goals and

objectives, the organization has to create a work environment where employees perceive

that they are being supported by the organization. McShane & Glinow (2010) suggested

that organizations need to create a context in which employees feel supported, their

contribution valued, their voice heard etc. so as to create a committed workforce. In other

words, organizations need to be perceived by their employees as caring, understanding

and appreciating for them to be able to increase the commitment level of their employees

(ibid.).

The findings regarding the influence of employees’ loyalty on job performance of

employees is supported by previous research study findings. Hirschman (1970, cited in

Jansson & Wiklund 2009) claim that loyal employees care for the organization and go

extra length to the organization without expecting in return any benefits whatsoever.

57
Lodd (1987, cited in Jansson & Wiklund 2009) characterized loyal employees in one

word, that is, they show a wholeheartedly devotion to the organization.

Similarly, Guillon & Cezann (2014, cited in Jansson & Wiklund 2009) said that

loyal employees can be characterized by high trust, participation, assuming

responsibility, increased effort, willing to perform without being controlled. Gaber (2007)

said that loyal employees stay in the organization not just for consideration of payment

and other benefits. In addition, he argued that loyal employees perform beyond what is

expected of them. Sharmila (2013) explained that loyal employees feel accountable for

their job, they show a sense of belongingness and ownership for the organization they

work for.

These research findings suggest that employee loyalty has a direct positive effect

on job performance of employees, which goes in line with the findings of this research

study. However, for employees to be loyal towards the organization, there has to be a

situation where employees perceive that they are supported by the organization.

According to Zakariya & Lodhi (2015), employees and the organization should show a

reciprocal responsibility and mutual commitment to each other. This means that

employees are expected to be loyal to the organization, and organizations need to take

care of their employees.

In a similar manner, the findings regarding the influence of employees’

involvement on job performance was supported by the previously conducted research

studies. Grazier (1989, cited in Ricard & Vera 2001) underscored that employees’

involvement ensures participation of employees in the decision making processes, which

enhances the chance of making quality decisions, which in turn could lead to better job

58
performance. Purcell et.al. (2003, cited in Mehth 2013) relates employee involvement

with sharing of responsibilities between employees and the management team. This

implies empowerment of employees, which affects performance of employees.

Gaber (2007) argued that involved employees are intellectually and emotionally

involved and exert much more effort in supporting the organization achieve its goals and

objectives. McShane & Glinow (2010) stated that employees’ involvement could increase

affective commitment and strengthens social identity with the organization. Therefore,

increasing employees’ involvement could positively affect various aspects of the work

life of employees, which ultimately could result in a better performance of employees of

the organization.

However, similar to the other dimensions of employees’ engagement,

involvement happens by design and deliberate action of the organization. Purcell et al.

(2003, cited in Mehth 2013) said that employees’ involvement can only be possible

through a genuine sharing of responsibilities. The organization should understand the

benefits of employees’ involvement and be willing to empower its employees. DeCenzo,

Robbins & Verhulst (2013) underscored the importance of employees’ involvement

techniques, which include delegation, participatory management, team work, training etc.

Armstrong (2006) argued that employees need to be considered as partners, whose

interests are recognized and respected, and who can voice on matters that affect their job.

Furthermore, he argued that there has to be a context that encourages a continuous

dialogue between managers and employees.

59
 Chapter five: Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation

5.1. Summary

The primary data was collected through distributing a survey questions

questionnaire. Out of the total number of 148 participants 123 (83%) responded to the

questionnaires. Analysis result on the demographic profile showed a fair representation of

all types and groups of employees of the company. A reliability test was carried out to

check the internal consistency of the data collected and found an alpha level = 0.92,

indicating substantial reliably of the data. Three types of normality tests (Skewness and

Kurtosis, Shapiro-Wilk, and Q-Q plot test) were conducted and test results showed that

the data are approximately normally distributed.

According to the results of the multiple regression analysis result, the overall

regression model was significant, F (3,119) = 44.5 < .001), with an R2 of 0.53, indicating

that up to 53% of the variance in the job performance of employees (dependent variable)

can be accounted for by the employees’ engagement practices (independent variance). In

addition, the positive coefficient values (b-values) of each of the three independent

variables showed a positive and significant relationship between the three pairs of the

variable.

Hypotheses of the study were tested based on the regression model and the b-

values of the independent variables. The results are summarized as under.

60
 Hypothesis Decision
Employees’ commitment has a positive and significant
H1 Supported at α ≤ .05
effect on the Job performance of employees of KAKI Plc.
Employee’s involvement has a positive and significant
H1 Supported at α ≤ .05
effect on the Job performance of Employees of KAKI Plc.
Employees’ loyalty has a positive and significant effect
H1 Supported at α ≤ .05
on the Job performance of employees of KAKI Plc.

5.2. Conclusion

The research study involved analysis on empirical data for KAKI Plc, and

investigated the influence of employees’ engagement on job performance of employees.

The study showed that there is a strong relationship between engagement and job

performance. It was found that employees’ engagement practices can significantly and

positively influence performance of employees.

A substantial proportion (53%) of variance on job performance was found to be

explainable by employees’ engagement practices. As noted previously, the job

performance of employees can be explained in terms of increased productivity, improved

customer services, increased efficiency, less turnover rate, less absenteeism, enhanced

quality decision making etc., which all are important for improving the job performance

of employees. This implies that highly engaged employees can be productive, efficient,

make quality decisions, emphasize on better customer service, inclined to remain

working for the organization and by doing so helping the organization achieve its goals

and objectives.

61
 The study also investigated the influence of each of the three dimensions of the

employees’ engagement variable – employees’ commitment, employees’ involvement,

and employees’ loyalty. The result showed that each are important predicators of job

performance of employees. However, according the study result, the greatest influence

on job performance comes from employees’ involvement (β=0.3) followed by

employees’ commitment (β=0.29) and then employees’ loyalty (β=0.26). This result

cloud be taken as a basis to decide on which dimension of the employees’ engagement to

emphasize more.

Also, the study findings do answer and address the research questions of the

study. The findings fairly showed that job performance of employees is basically

affected by the employees’ engagement and by each of its dimensions identified for this

study.

The findings of the study are based on empirical data. The company and its

employees were investigated for their opinions, attitudes and behavers with regard to

engagement and as well as its influence on job performance of employees. The

established framework that is found in the literature is validated based on the empirical

data analysis results. The theories and perspectives of employees’ engagement could

work in the context of the company under study. The study results offers evidence about

the importance of engagement for improving job performance of employees.

62
 However, the study is relatively narrow in scope. It focused on just describing and

explaining effect of engagement on job performance in the context of a single business

organization, which could make it less generalizable to other companies having different

situations. In addition to that, it didn’t exhaustively investigate all the employees’

engagement dimensions or aspects. Moreover, the data were collected based on a single

data collection technique, that is, questionnaire and thus the data were not cross-

examined and checked based on other sources of data collection techniques. These

limitations might have affected the study findings.

5.3. Recommendations

In this section recommendations of the study are discussed. The recommendations

are based on the study conclusions. First, recommendations for actions are discussed and

then discussions on recommendations focusing for further study will follow.

Recommendations for actions: the study concluded that engaged employees are

more committed, involved and loyal towards the organization they work for. In one word

engaged employees are productive and performing better. However, as noted previously,

for employees to become fully engaged they need to be supported by the organization.

Therefore, to maintain and continuously improve employees’ engagement practices the

following recommendations are suggested.

 There has to be a policy and strategy for engaging employees, whereby

employees can be engaged throughout their stay in the organization. Employees’

engagement must be viewed as one important strategy to effectively utilize human

resources of the company.

63
  Related to the above, there has to be more focused organization-wide approach to

systematically implement and improve employees’ engagement practices in the

company.

 Providing a company-wide training programs for all levels of supervision and

management to create awareness about the importance of engagement, the

challenges and barriers of engagement, and the ways and methods for overcoming

those impediments.

 The company need to create an environment where employees can feel that they

are being supported by the organization in all aspects their work-life.

Recommendations for further study: the following recommendations are

suggested based on the scope and research method of the study.

 As previously mentioned, the study took a single company to investigate

effects of engagement on employees’ job performance. Besides, the data

were collected based on questionnaire technique only. It wasn’t

supplemented by additional data collection techniques. This limitation

could open up an opportunity for further research in the future that might

study two or more companies with increased use of data collections

techniques.

64
 This study was limited to investigating effect of commitment, involvement

and loyalty dimensions of employees’ engagement on job performance of

employees. Other aspects of employees’ engagement were outside the

scope of the study. Hence, future research endeavors could focus on

investigating effect of employees’ engagement on job performance in

greater depth that include more dimensions of employee’ engagement.

65
References

Adams J. et al. (2007). Research methods for business and social science students. New

Delhi: SAGE. P. 196

Akther S. & Uddin K. (2016). Employee engagement: An empirical study on Telecom

Industry in Bangladesh. Journal of HRM [Online] Vol. 6(1). Pp. 15-22. Available
at DOI: 10.5923/j.hrmr.20160601.03. Accessed: 19 April 2021.
Albrecht L. (2010). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research
and practice. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. p.5, p.40, p.352
Ali M. Obeidat B. and Masa’deh R (2018). The Effect of Employee Engagement on
Organizational Performance via the Mediating role of Job Satisfaction: The case
of IT Employees in Jordan Banking Sector. Journal of Modern applied science
[Online] Vol. 12(6). Available at www.researchgate.net. Accessed: 06 April 2021.
Amah A. & Ahiazu (2013. Employee involvement and organizational effectiveness:
Journal of Management Development. [Online] Vol.32 (7). Available at:
www.researchgate/publication/233379250employee. Accessed:22 April 2021.
Field A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications.
Anitha J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee
performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
[Online] Vol. 63 (3). Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2013-
0008.Accessed: 10 May 2021.
Armstrong M. (2006). Strategic Human Resource Management. 3rd ed. London and
Philadelphia: KOGAN PAGE, P.3, p.42
Bedakar M. & Pendita D. (2014). A study on the drivers of employee engagement
impacting employee performance. Procedia. [Online] Available at
www.sciencedirect.com. Accessed: 12 May 2021
Bluman G. (2012). Elementary Statistics: a step by step approach. 8th ed. New York:
McGraw Hill. P.10
Colquiti A. Lepile A., & Wesson J. (2015). Organization Behavior: Improving
performance and commitment in the workplace. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill
Education. Pp.64-67.

66
Cook S. (2008). The essential guide to employee engagement: Better business
performance through staff satisfaction. London and Philadelphia: KOGAN
PAGE. p.13
Creswell W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating.
Quantitative and Qualitative research. 4th ed. US: Pearson Education Inc.
Cronk C. (2020). How to use SPSS: A step by step Guide to analysis and interpretation.
11th Ed. New York & London: Routledge.
Dajani Z. & Ahmed M. (2015). The Impact of employee engagement on job performance
and organizational commitment. Journal of Business & Management Science.
[Online] Vol. 3(5). Pp.138-147. Available at http://pubs.sciepub.com/jbms/3/5/1.
Accessed: 24 April 2021.
Daniel G/Selassie (2017). Impact of HR role on employee engagement. Master. Addis
Ababa school of college.
DeCenzo A. Robbins A. & Verhulst L. (2013). Fundamentals of Human Resource
Management. 11th ed. US: Wiley & Sons. P.20
Diogene R. (2017). Effects of employee engagement on organizational performance:
Case of African Evangelistic Enterprise. Master. University of Rwanda: College
of Business and Economics.
Federman B. (2009). Employee engagement: A roadmap for creating profits, optimizing
performance & increasing loyalty. San Francisco: Wiley & Sons. p.3, p.206,
p.246
Garber (2007). 50 activities for employee engagement. US & Canada: HRD Press. p.6
Garlick III E. Running head: Literature review of employee engagement. [Online]
https://www.coursehero.com/file/66920150/engagement. Accessed: 06 April
2021.
Gee I. & Hanwell M. (2014). The workplace community. A guide to releasing Human
Potential and engaging employees. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. P. 3
George D. & Mallery P. (2016). IBM Statistic 23. Step by Step: A simple Guide and
reference. 14th ed. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

67
Iqbal A. Zakariya B. & Lodhi R (2015). Employee Loyalty and organization
commitment. Global Journal of Human Resource Management. [Online] Vol 3(1).
Available at www.ea.Journals.org. Accessed: 10 May 2021.
Jansson S. & Wiklund F. (2019). Employee loyalty and the factors affecting it. Master’s
thesis. [Online] Available at www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva.pdf. Accessed:
05 May 2021.
Jemal Abuna’s Umer (2017). Effects of employee engagement on job performance.
Master’s thesis. Addis Ababa school of college.
Kazimoto P. (2016). Employee Engagement and Organizational Performance of Retail
Enterprises. Journal of Industrial and Business Management. [Online] Vol. (6).
Pp. 516-525. Available at www.scirp.org/journal/ajibmhttp. Accessed: 21 April
2021.
Kimutai A. (2015). Effect of reward on employee engagement & commitment at rift
valley bottlers Company. Journal of Human Resource & Business Administration.
[Online] Vol. 1(5). Pp. 36-54. Available at www.iajournals.org/articles/iajhrba.
Accessed: 21 April 2021.
Kothari R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and techniques. 2nd Ed. New Delhi:
New Age International. P. 56.
Krejcie V. & Morgan W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Journal
of educational and measurement. [Online] Vol 30 (3). Available at
www.kenpro.org/sample-size-determination. Accessed: 19 April 2021.
Liofgren K. (2021). Normality Test using SPSS: How to check whether data are normally
distributed. [Online]. Available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiedOyglLn0.
Accessed: 11 June 2021.
Machin et al. (2018). Pilot study sample size rules of thumb. [Online] Available at
https://ncss-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content Accessed: 07 June 2021
MacLead D. & Clarke N. (2009). Engaging for Success: enhancing performance through
employee engagement (ioe.ac.uk). Accessed: 21 April 2021.

68
Mahalingan S. & Suresh M. (2018). The impact of employee loyalty towards
organizational culture on organizational performance. Journal of scientific
research & development. [Online] Vol. 2(6). Available at www.ijtsrd.com.
Accessed: 23 April 2021.
Marciano L. (2010). Carrot and Sticks Don’t work: Build a culture of employee
engagement with principles of respect. US: McGraw-Hill publishing. Pp. 40-52.
Marczyk G. DeMatteo D. & Festinger D (2005). Essentials of Research design and
methodology. Canada: John Wiley Inc.
Masresha Tezera (2018). Impact of drivers on employee engagement. Master’s thesis.
Addis Ababa school of college.
McShane L. & Glinow V. (2010). Organizational Behavior: Emerging Knowledge and
practice for the real world. 5th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill., Pp. 112- 113, p.132
Mehta D. & Methta K. (2013). Employee Engagement: A literature review. [Online]
Available at: www. management.ase.ro/reveconomia/2013-2/1.pdf. Accessed: 19
April 2021.
Ricardo J. & Vera C. (2001). The correlation of employee involvement and turnover.
Masters. [Online]. Available at www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis.verar.pdf.
Accessed: 05 May 2021.
Robinns P. & Judge A. (2013). Organizational behavior. 15th ed. US: Prentice Hall. P.251
Saeed I. (2016). Employee Involvement & organizational effectiveness. Journal of
Academic research. [Online] Vol.3 (1). Available at www.pollsterpub.com.
Accessed: 23 April 2021
Sahoo C.K. & Mishra S. (2012). A framework towards employee engagement: The PSU
experience. Journal of management [Online] Vol. 42(1): pp. 92-110. Available at:
www.researchgate.net/publication/336058635. Accessed: 23 April 2021.
Satynda (2015). Employee loyalty and the organization. [Online] Available at:
www.ispatguru.com/employees-loyalty-and-the-organization. Accessed: 23 April
2021.
Segenet Niguse (2018). Factors affecting employee engagement. Master’s thesis. Addis
Ababa school of college.

69
Sekaran U. (2003). Research methods for Business: A skill building approach. 4th ed.
Southern Illinois: John Wiley & Sons. P.295. P.323.
Sharmila V. (2013). Employee engagement - an approach to organizational excellence.
Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research. [Online]. Vol 2(5).
Available at indianresearchjournals.com. Accessed: 23 April 2021.
Smith R. & Markwick (2009). Employee engagement: A review of current thinking.
Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies. Pp. 5-24
Tirework Lemma (2019). Factors affecting employee engagement. Master’s thesis. Addis
Ababa school of college.
Vance J. (2006). Employee engagement: A guide to understanding, measuring, and
creating engagement in your organization. US: SHRM foundation. P.2
Wainaina L. Iravo M. & Waititu A (2014). Effect of employee participation in decision
making on the Organizational commitment. International Journal of Advanced
Research in Management and Social Sciences. [Online] Vol 3(12). Available at
www.garph.co.uk. Accessed: 24 April 2021.
William et al. (2009). Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice and
competitive advantage. USA & UK: A John Wiley & Sons. Pp. 31-32
Yitagesu Tachibela (2019). Effects of HRM practices on employee engagement. Master’s
thesis. Addis Ababa school of college.

70
Appendix

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMERCE GRADUATE

PROGRAM IN BUSINESS LEADERSHIP

Dear Participant,

I am conducting a research on “The effect of employees’ engagement on employee job

performance: Empirical evidences from KAKI Plc”. This research is conducted in partial
fulfillment of the Master Degree in Business Leadership. The survey is intended to study the
effect of employees’ engagement on employees’ job performance of KAKI Plc.

Please note that the survey is developed to be anonymous and I, the researcher, will have no way
of connecting the information to you personally. If you choose to participate in this survey it will
not take more than 30 minutes of your time. The researcher will keep any individual information
provided herein confidential, not to let it out of his possession, and to analyze the feedback
received only at a group level.

It will be a great contribution if you may complete all the items covered in the questionnaire since
your opinion is of utmost importance. I thank you in advance for sharing your valuable
experience and time in completing the questionnaire. If you agree to participate in the survey, you
may proceed to the next page.

Kind regards,

Kiros Beyene

71
Part I: Demographic details

1. Sex: □ Male □ Female

2. Age group: □Under 25 □26 to 35 □36 to 49 □50 and above
3. Education level:
□ Below High school □ High school complete □ Technic or College
Diploma
□ BA Degree □ MA/MSc or above
4. Employment status: □ Below division □ Division and above
5. Work experience at KAKI:
□6 month - 3 Years □ 4 – 7 Years □ 8- 11 Years □12 Years and above

Part II: Employees engagement dimensions

This part of the questionnaire covers items related to employees’ engagement
dimensions. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements by circling the number that best represents your opinion.
1 indicates strongly disagree (SDA), 2 indicates disagree, (DA), 3 indicates neutral (N),
4 indicates agree (A), and 5 indicates strongly agree (SA).

Employees Commitment SDA DA N A SA

1 Employees are proud to be part of this organization. 1 2 3 4 5
2 Employees tell their friends that this is a good organization to 1 2 3 4 5
work for.
3 Employees would accept any job assignment in order to keep 1 2 3 4 5
working for this organization.
4 Employees understand how their job contributes to the 1 2 3 4 5
organization’s goals and objectives.
5 Employees are willing to make extra effort to help the 1 2 3 4 5
organization.
6 Employees really feel as if this organization’s problems are 1 2 3 4 5
their own.
7 Employees would be happy to spend the rest of their career in 1 2 3 4 5
this organization.
8 Employees are committed to the company goals and 1 2 3 4 5
objectives, and its ultimate success.

72
Employee Involvement SDA DA N A SA
1 Supervisors coach their subordinates’ to develop their skills 1 2 3 4 5
and become more successful.
2 Supervisors delegate their subordinates as much decision 1 2 3 4 5
making power as possible.
3 Employees’ receive continued training to expand their job 1 2 3 4 5
related knowledge and skills.
4 Employees are encouraged to take informed risks. 1 2 3 4 5
5 Managers listen and act on employees’ views and 1 2 3 4 5
suggestions.
6 Employees have a say in the decision making processes. 1 2 3 4 5
7 Employees internalize and own the goals and objectives of 1 2 3 4 5
the organization.

Employee Loyalty SDA DA N A SA

1 Employees stay working for the company not just for salary 1 2 3 4 5
and benefits.
2 Employees consistently exceed what is expected of them by 1 2 3 4 5
the company, not because they have to, but they want to.
3 Employees feel as if the company is their own and do their 1 2 3 4 5
job with that spirit.
4 Employees feel that their values are very much similar with 1 2 3 4 5
the values of the organization.
5 Employees express their opinions, even when they know 1 2 3 4 5
they could be resisted, because they want the organization
to be better tomorrow.
6 After a decision is made, employees get behind that 1 2 3 4 5
decision even if they privately disagree.
7 Employees put the organization’s interest ahead of their 1 2 3 4 5
own.

73
Part III: Employee Job Performance
This part of the questionnaire covers items related to employee job performance
dimensions. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements by circling the number that best represents your opinion.
1 indicates strongly disagree (SDA), 2 indicates disagree (DA), 3 indicates neutral (N),
4 indicates agree (A), and 5 indicates strongly agree (SA).

Job Performance SDA DA N A SA

1 Employees enjoy providing the best service to customers. 1 2 3 4 5
2 Employees are satisfied with their job. 1 2 3 4 5
3 Employees take their job seriously and perform as expected 1 2 3 4 5
most days.
4 Employee shows initiative to support colleagues when 1 2 3 4 5
needed.
5 Employees are willing to take on extra responsibilities 1 2 3 4 5
6 Employee turnover is not serious problem at this company. 1 2 3 4 5
7 Employees’ absenteeism and tardiness appear to be 1 2 3 4 5
insignificant at this company
8 Employees appear to be brand representatives and act to 1 2 3 4 5
further the reputation and interest of the company.

74