Employee_Engagement_and_Organizational_Survival
Employee_Engagement_and_Organizational_Survival
Employee_Engagement_and_Organizational_Survival
net/publication/347954443
CITATIONS READS
3 1,706
2 authors, including:
Christopher Biriowu
Rivers State University of Science and Technology
19 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Christopher Biriowu on 08 June 2022.
79 www.wjir.org
Employee Engagement and Organizational Survival
(Torrington, Hall, Taylor and Atkinson, 2014). It was Conceptual Framework of Employee Engagement and
observed that during economic downturn, that engaged Organizational Survival
employees were instrumental in achieving competitive edge
and subsequent survival or success of business organization
(Richman, 2006). In the present-day work environment,
employee engagement has evolved as perhaps the best
challenge in the light of complexities and serves as strict
guidelines in many organizations (Mishra, Boynton and
Mishra, 2014).The process by which we expect engagement
to happen needs to be fully understood so that managers can
adopt strategies or manage other contextual issues to enable
full employee engagement.
As observed by Pepra-Mensah and Kyeremeh (2018), it
is not easy to drive and encourage high levels of engagement
among employees in organization.The responsibility lies on
the organization and their managers to adopt appropriate
strategies that will encourage engagement. Organizational
characteristics such as culture can influence it, as well as lead
to organizational survival. Scholars posit that culture is one of
the approaches to drive engagement among employees
(Namrita and Yoginder, 2017; Alarcon, Lyons and Tartaglia,
2010). Culture is the way of life of people and affects the way
individuals think, feel, act and behave in anorganization. Fig 1: Conceptual Framework of Employee
Therefore, an organization with positive and strong culture Engagement and Organizational Survival.
can control the behaviour of a highly motivated and dedicated Source: Conceptualized by the Researcher, 2020.
employee while a negative and weak culture will affect the
employee negatively (Pepra-Mensah and Kyeremeh, 2018). Theoretical Framework of Employee Engagement and
Hence, employee engagement is the result of a OrganizationalSurvival
well-established organizational culture (Denison, 2010 cited Social exchange theory and organizational justice are the
in Pepra-Mensah and Kyeremeh, 2018).Despite the theories linking both variables.
conceptualization of employee engagement by Kahn (1990),
there is paucity of both theoretical and empirical literature on II. SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
the influence of employee engagement on organizational This theory postulates that social behavior is the result of
survival. Against this backdrop, this paper critically reviewed an exchange process (Blau, 1964). According to social
the concept of employee engagement and organizational exchange theory, when employees receive value through
survival. To achieve its objectives, teamwork, participation empowerment, training, and participation, the employees will
and empowerment were the dimensions of employee feelsense of belonging and in return will reciprocate the
engagement while innovativeness, adaptability and situation gesture or repay the organization by being engaged
awareness were the measures of organizational survival. It physically, emotionally and cognitively. The employees will
will also, review somedefinitions;identify some of the become motivated to perform their job as well as bring in
drivers, outcomes and measurements of employee creative ideas and innovativeness to turn the fortune of the
engagementas well as the theoretical framework linking the business around. Additionally, engaged employees are basis
two variables. of creative performance, and this will attract more talented
individuals to the organization. When talented individuals are
attracted they will become a source of competitive edge for
the organization, hence an asset, not a liability like
disengaged employee. Employee engagement is based on
giving and giving more, with the belief that the gesture will
be reciprocated. Consequently, when they are empowered to
take decision concerning them, they will become more
committed to the success of the organization.
80 www.wjir.org
https://doi.org/10.31871/WJIR.9.5.3 World Journal of Innovative Research (WJIR)
ISSN: 2454-8236, Volume-9, Issue-5, November 2020 Pages 79-92
key elements are commitment and discretionary effort. Saks aspect centers on the physical vitalities exerted by individuals
(2006) argued that employee engagement is linked with a to achieve their roles. The cognitive concerns the belief of the
sustainable workload, feelings of choice and control, employees‟ about the organization, the leaders and working
appropriate recognition and reward, a supportive work conditions. The emotional aspect concerns the feelings
community, fairness and justice, and meaningful and valued employees‟ have about each of the factors and its effects,
work. An atmosphere of fairness tries to make the employees‟ which could lead to positive or negative attitudes towards
place of work better. When an organization treats its theorganization and its leaders. This implies that engagement
employees well, in return they will be dedicated to their job entails psychological and physical presence of employees
and become physically and emotional committed to the when carrying out tasks in an organization.Similarly,
organization. According to Frank, Finnegan and Taylor Schaufeli, Salanova, González‐Romá and Bakker (2002:74)
(2004), employee engagement drives employee‟s aspiration describe employee engagement “as a positive, fulfilling,
and willingness to give discretionary efforts in their jobs. work‐related state of mind that is characterized by vigor,
When an employee‟s give discretionary efforts in their job, dedication, and absorption”.Vigor is described by high levels
they will work above their job demands to ensure the of energy and mental resilience, dedication depicts feelings of
organization achieves its goals. Consequently, when an importance, passion, inspiration, pride and challenges while
organization achieves its predetermined goals, the absorption involves being dedicated and occupied with the
organization has been able to adapt to changes in the job and not thinking of quitting the job.
environment as well as competitive edge.
According to Abraham (2012), employee engagement is
III. EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT the degree to which the employees are satisfied with their job.
The development originated from the studies conducted in In the same vein, Mone and London (2010) see employee
the 1920s on morale or a group‟s enthusiasm to achieve engagement as asituation where employees feel involved,
organizational goals, and used by the US Army scholars committed, passionate, empowered and these feelings are
during World War II to forecast unity of effort and attitudinal exhibited in the work behavior. By implication, employee
battle, in order to get prepared before they confront their engagement is the level of commitment and participation an
opponent (Siddhanta and Roy, 2010).Conversely,Torrington employee displays towards the organization. Also, Markos
et al. (2014) averred that employee engagement is credited to and Sridevi (2010) advanced that employee engagement has
the work of Khan (1990), who postulated the first grounded positive influence on organizational performance. They
theory concerningpersonal engagement and disengagement at further opined that when employees are more engaged,
workplace.Thus, it was after this conceptualization, that theorganization performs better and, thus has a positive
employee engagement came into limelight. With respect to its impact on performance outcomes such as productivity,
definition and measurement, there has been divergence profitability, employee retention, safety and customer loyalty.
ofviews among scholars and practitioners. It has been defined From the above definitions, we can deduce two elements of
differently by scholars and practitioners. Torrington et employee engagement as commitment and discretionary
al.(2014) observed the lack of clear, precise, concise and effort.Thus, this paper adopts the definition of employee
widely agreed definition of engagement. This they attributed engagement by Mone and London (2010), and from where
partly to the sheer number of different ways in which the verb thedimensions (teamwork, participation and empowerment)
„to engage‟ is defined in dictionaries and commonly used in were derived.
everyday speech.
Moreover, the lack of agreed definition is a limitation for Equally, there is a decrease in employee engagement, as
researchers to reach a better understanding of how to measure well as heightened disengagement among employees today.
it. Thus, employee engagement has been defined and Notwithstanding the numerous research and coupled with the
measured differently by researchers and consultants, huge number of surveys that organizations can utilize in
however, the meaning sound like other constructs like measuring it, engagement has relatively remained unchanged.
organizational citizenship behaviour and organizational Gallup (2006) identified three levels of engagement : (i)
commitment (Robinson, Perryman and Hayday, 2004). engaged employees who are those that are full of vitality and
Consequently, researchers, practitioners and reviewers do enthusiastic about their job ;(ii) not engaged employees who
not use the same components to describe employee are investing their effort and approaching their work with
engagement.Thus, there is no universally agreed definition little vitality or enthusiasm, yet not meddling with others;(iii)
and measurement, but has common elements such as: energy, disengaged employees and involve those individuals who are
involvement and an inclination to contribute to miserable about their work, and who effectively mumble and
organizational success (Bakker, Albrecht and Leiter, gripe about their job and the organization, as well as subvert
2011).Employee engagement is defined as “the harnessing of what their engaged colleagues are attempting to
organization members‟ selves to their work roles; in accomplish.According to Reilly (2014), thesurvey conducted
engagement, people employ and express themselves by Gallup showed that only 13% of the global employees
physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role were engaged. However, the recent report of Gallup on the
performances”(Kahn, 1990: 694). This is an condition of the worldwide workforce, granting that the
all-encompassing definition that has three aspects of outcomes improved for Hopkins University in the 2018
engagement: physical, cognitive and emotional.The physical survey, employee engagement is still not impressive. The
81 www.wjir.org
Employee Engagement and Organizational Survival
report of the most recent condition of the worldwide working unfriendly activity. Employee engagement consists of
environment shows that 85% of employees are not engrossed cognitive, emotional and behaviourial components, and
or effectively disengaged at the workplace. Specifically, measurement of employee engagement should generally
Gallup stated that 18% are effectively detached at work, contain questions that focus on these three components.
while 67% are not locked in at all and they don‟t have any Therefore, questions on cognitive component
intention of leaving the organization (HR Exchange Network, evaluateemployee‟s beliefs about the organization, its
2018). This implies that organization will record low rates of leaders, and the prevalent culture in that organization.The
employee turnover but have high level of disengagement. emotional questions measure employee‟s feelings about the
organization and their work. Such questions will include their
Drivers of Employee Engagement satisfaction on the job, recognition and rewards received from
the organization among others. The behavioural questions
Employee engagement drivers are those factors that assess the amount of effort employees are willing to apply as
facilitate job satisfaction.They are those things that when well as their readiness to exhibit extra-role behaviours and
present in an organization, can make employees to go beyond commitment to remain in the organization.From the
their job demand and ensure the organization survives. From perspective of AIHR Analytics (2019), there are challenges
the review of extant literature, scholars have advanced encountered in measuring of employee engagement. They
several drivers of engagement, but below are the eight factors identified lack of unified definition as the biggest challenge.
that we deduce from the extant literature that can drive Consequently, they identified three ways to measure
engagement. Effective leadership affects employee employee engagement as (i) by an employee engagement
engagement. A leader has a role to play in driving employee survey provider; (ii) the organization; and (iii) hybrid
engagement. According to Reilly (2014), leaders and approach in which annual engagement is measured by the
supervisors ought to inspire employee participation by survey provider while pulse engagement is measured by the
identifying the obstructions to engagement as well as company throughout the year.The service provider is the
appreciate any solutions emanating from the employees in method that is traditionally used by many organizations, and
order to effect positive change. is estimated each a couple of years. The provider deals with
Thus, Fig 2 below highlights the major drivers of the coordination and the software while the outcomes of the
engagement and when implemented by managers will cause study are conveyed to the organization. Gallup and Mercer
the employees to be dedicated and work towards attaining are the renowned survey providers. These approaches have
goals and organizational survival. merits and demerits, the demerits range from costly to time
consuming; while the hybrid approach involves analytics and
The Drivers of Employee Engagement has been used by many companies for over two decades
(AIHR Analytics, 2019).
82 www.wjir.org
https://doi.org/10.31871/WJIR.9.5.3 World Journal of Innovative Research (WJIR)
ISSN: 2454-8236, Volume-9, Issue-5, November 2020 Pages 79-92
5 Performance/Behaviour(in-role Retention
behaviour and extra-role behaviour)
83 www.wjir.org
Employee Engagement and Organizational Survival
decisionmaking, as well as the removal of any boundaries towards a common and valued goal/objective/mission”
between an employee and top management. Studies (Salas, Dickinson, Converse and Tannenbaum, 1992: 4).
conducted by scholars showed that empowerment has various Marks, Mathieu and Zaccaro (2000) defined teamwork as
outcomes on organization, such as: achievement of success, individuals who work interdependently towards achieving a
employee performance, job satisfaction (Meyerson and common goal.Teamwork is the adaptive, dynamic, and
Dewettinck, 2012; Raza, Mahmood, Owais and Raza, 2015). intermittent process that comprises the thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors among team members in their interaction towards
Teamwork:In today‟s business environment, it is only few attaining a common goal (Salas et al., 2014). Burke, Wilson
employees that can perform their job without the support and and Salas (2003) posit that to achieve effectiveness among
input of others. Thus, when employees have the support and teams, they must successfully perform both task work and
cooperation of their colleagues, they will share innovative teamwork. Task work entails the completion of specific tasks
ideas, accomplish more tasks,and proffer creative solutions to by team members in order to achieve team goals. Mathieu,
complex problems experienced in their organization. Ancona Maynard, Rapp and Gilson (2008) averred that effective
and Caldwell (1992) opined that organization depend on teamwork entails the sharing of knowledge, coordinating
teams for the development of innovative products and behaviours, and trusting one another, if these are not feasible,
services. Teamwork plays an important role in the they will fail. This implies that both task work and team work
accomplishment of tasks in organization, and aids in reducing are crucial for team to perform successfully and the
organizational hierarchy and increases the involvement of effectiveness of one assists the other.Salas et al. (2014) after
employees.Teams are needed in all organizations, be it reviewing some research on teamworkdeveloped a heuristic
hospital, oil rigs, military, flight decks and in all other guideline known as “critical considerations.” These nine
organizations that functions on a daily basis (Salas, Shuffler, critical considerations start with the letter C and is adapted
Thayer, Bedwell and Lazzara, 2014). but with some modification with respect to the meanings and
references.
Teams are “distinguishable set of two or more people who
interact, dynamically, interdependently, and adaptively
Table 2: The 9 Critical Considerations of Teamwork
Cooperation These are behaviourial action that Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp & Gilson
drives teamwork and include: attitudes, (2008).
beliefs, and feelings of the team
members.
Communication The process whereby information are Connaughton & Daly, 2004; LePine,
disseminated to members of a team. The piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu & Saul
feedback will form and recreates the (2008).
attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions of
the team.
84 www.wjir.org
https://doi.org/10.31871/WJIR.9.5.3 World Journal of Innovative Research (WJIR)
ISSN: 2454-8236, Volume-9, Issue-5, November 2020 Pages 79-92
Composition This entails the competence of a good Humphrey, Morgeson, & Mannor
team such the expertise, abilities, and (2009).
mindsets, as well as the effect of
diversity in achieving success in the
team.
Culture The way of life of the people that Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt & Jonsen
determines how individual think, feel, (2010).
and perform their tasks, and visible in
their values, beliefs, norms, and artifacts.
85 www.wjir.org
Employee Engagement and Organizational Survival
86 www.wjir.org
https://doi.org/10.31871/WJIR.9.5.3 World Journal of Innovative Research (WJIR)
ISSN: 2454-8236, Volume-9, Issue-5, November 2020 Pages 79-92
degree of innovation, creativity and flexibility that the workforces are bound to get the best out of them, which will
organization promotes or tolerates(Pollock,2016). constantly generate innovative ideas and sense of duty that
Situation Awareness: The challenges of a new class of will definitely affect the execution of task. On the other hand,
technology stimulated interest in the area of situation Ongori and Shunda (2008) assert that with the advent of
awareness in the mid-1980‟s, and is required for the effective globalization, it is imperative for organization to empower
performance of tasks by individuals (Endsley and their employees in order to keep abreast of changes, as well as
Garland,2000).Situation awareness involves the ability of an adapt adequately to the macro-environment.
organization to monitor what is going on around the
environment where they carry out their business, as well as Additionally, the outcome of their study revealed that
understanding the value of such information to them in the employee empowerment is indispensable in helping
present circumstances and later on (Endsley, Bolte and Jones, organizations to respond quickly to any environmental
2003). Situational awareness is usually applied in operational changes, as well as reduction in employee turnover
situations, as it was initially linked with the military where intentions.Sharma and Kaur (2011) examined workplace
pilots are required to understand, absorb and take action on empowerment and organizational effectiveness in the Indian
large volumes of information in order to perform their roles banking sector adopting competing value framework model.
effectively (Endsley, 1995). Its importance cannot be The finding of the study showed that employees of the public
overemphasized, as it empowers the organization to know sector banks perceive themselves to be more empowered than
how its environment and the individuals in it impact their the private sector employees. Consequently, empowerment
activities. Moreover, Turner (1976) states that creating makes employees to be motivated and passionate in making
awareness and understanding of the situation as well as its use of their unique competencies and creativity in ensuring
potential consequences could prevent the accumulation of the survival of organization. Moreover, studies showed that
unobserved events. empowerment has various outcomes on organization such as:
achievement of success, employee performance, job
Employee Engagement and Organizational Survival satisfaction (Meyerson and Dewettinck, 2012; Raza,
Though there is paucity of researches conducted on Mahmood, Owais and Raza, 2015).
employee engagementand organizational survival.
Management literature shows that employee engagement has Participation and Organizational Survival
organizational outcomes on employee performance, job Participation is a process by which employees are involved
satisfaction, organizational effectiveness, organizational in the organizational decision making in their workplace. The
success, profitability, competitive advantage, productivity, employees not just act on order but take part in decisions
innovation, retention, as well as dynamic work results, and affecting their job.Employee participation in decision making
these lead to sustainability and survival of an about their job is considered as part of a high- involvement
organization(Hartnell, Ou and Kinicki, 2011; Markos and work processes, which aimed at enhancing the degree of
Sridevi ,2010 ; Lee and Yu, 2004).Consequently, without exercising discretion and acceptance of responsibility (Boxall
committed and dedicated employees, an organization cannot and Mackay, 2014).They further posit that higher
achieve competitive advantage.When these organizational involvement is a fundamental factor that predicts higher job
outcomes are achieved through engaged employees, the satisfaction and improved work–life balance.According to
organization is said to have achieved survival. Davis and Newstrom (1977), participation entails mental and
emotional involvement of people that result to outcomes for
Falola, Salau, Olokundun, Oyafunke-Omoniyi, Ayodotun, both employees and the organization. For the employees, it
Ibidunni and Oludayo (2018) carried out a study on leads to self-esteem and less stress, whilethe organization
employees‟ intrapreneurial engagement initiatives and its achieves higher output and better quality service.In the view
influence on organizationalsurvival. The study showed that of Azadehdel, Chegini and Delshad (2013), employee
fostering employees‟ intrapreneurial engagement has positive participation brings about job competencies and job
significant implications on organizational survival. This autonomy, and is closely associated with quality service and
submits that employees‟ empowerment, involvement, job satisfaction. Furthermore, it aids in the enhancement of
autonomy, relationships and reward system have significant employee skills, provides effective services, stimulates
effects on organizational survival.Thus, employee information sharing, problem solving, as well as the
engagement predicts organizational survival. generation of new ideas for employees.
Empowerment and Organizational Survival According to Irawanto (2015), the ability of any
According to Ghosh (2013), empowerment is depicted as organizations to involve employees in the decision making
the degree of freedom and accountability given to employees process, will enhance their creative thought.When employees
in taking decisions about their job without referring or getting are allowed to take decision in an organization, they feel
approval from their supervisor.Employee empowerment aids valued, secured and communicates freely with their peers
infostering innovationand remains one of the strategies that without limits and formal courses of action. This spurs them
organizations use to drive innovative idea that nurture creati- to go beyond and above the job demands to ensure that the
ve capabilities (Lee, Hwang and Choi, 2012). Elnaga and organization achieve its goals.Erengwa, Nwuche and
Imran (2014) opined that organizations that engage its Anyanwu (2017) carried out a study on employee
87 www.wjir.org
Employee Engagement and Organizational Survival
participation and organizational survival in selected culture serves as the bridge in bringing these individuals with
manufacturing firms in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The result of different values, perception, ambition and principles together.
their findings revealed that team work and information Organizational culture could be positive or negative.
sharing have impact on organizational innovation and Organizations with a positive culture reward their employees,
adaptability in the manufacturing firms that were studied. The and create a conductive environment where employees
study concluded that employee participation has a significant develop, grow and operate at their full potential (Robbins and
relationship with organizational survival. Therefore, human Judge 2012). Thus, culture of an organization affects the way
element is continuously regarded as one of the factors the employees behave, think, act, feel and perform their
affecting the survival, as well as the great asset for any assigned roles, and involves the combination of values,
organization to achieve its goals. beliefs and norms (Schein, 2011).Culture is very paramount
in the survival of every organization. Therefore, the ability of
organization to foster creativity and innovation depends on
Teamwork and Organizational Survival organizational culture. From the perspective of Nair and
Teamwork plays an important role in the accomplishment Gopal (2011), an organization that nurture innovation and
of tasks, aids in reducing organizational hierarchy and culture, must gradually provide facilities, incentives,
increases the involvement of employees.Thus, when conducive work environment coupled with effective
employees have the support and cooperation of their leadership. Effective leadership influences followers‟ ability
colleagues, they will share innovative ideas, accomplish more to generate new ideas and have passion in what they do.
tasks, and proffer creative solutions to complex problems Hofstede (2003) describes culture as values and
experienced in their organization. According to Ancona and applications of an organization which differentiates it from
Caldwell (1992), organization relies on teams for the others. Accordingly, Gong, Huang and Farh (2009) assert that
development of innovative products and services, as well as the ability of the followers or subordinates to be innovative is
to achieve survival.Harvey, Novicevic and Garrison (2004) based on the leader‟s exhibition of empathy, consideration,
opined that for an organization to survive in a competitive and support, which help them to work efficiently and
global environment is contingent on its capability to manage effectively. This corroborates with the view of Alarcon,
dynamic and adaptive teams. This is necessitated because Lyons and Tartaglia (2010). They posit that engagement of
teamwork entails cooperative environment where two or the workforce is appraised at an individual level taking into
more people work together to achieve common goals by cognizance that individual commitment levels are affected by
sharing knowledge and skills. From the perspective of the organization‟s leadership and culture among different
Castka, Bamber, Sharp and Belohoubek (2001), effective elements. Organizational culture is very unique to an
teamwork enhances productivity, efficiency, creativity and organization, hence, regarded as the lifeblood of any
performance, as well as employee satisfaction. organization.A supportive culture spurs employees to be
innovative and work towards the achievement of
Reasoning in the same line of thought, Burke, Stagl, Salas, organizational goals (Van Allen, 2013).
Pierce and Kendall (2006) posit that adaptation to According to Sok, Blomme and Tromp (2014), employees
unanticipated events can be managed by teams. This is that work in an organization with supportive culture enjoy
because team members work cooperatively and dynamically, work-life balance, experience reduction in negative
as such have variety of capacities, experiences and networks work-home spill overs. Furthermore, the organization
to depend on when change occurs in organization. They provides flexible work home arrangements, which lead to the
further posit that team learning, team innovation and team attraction and retaining of high quality employees. Thus,
performance management are related, and thus have effect on organizational culture is the most essential variable that
team adaptation. The study by Hoegel and Gemuende (2001) influences the organizational performance and subsequently
revealed that teamwork quality has strong relationship with survival.Organizational culture has positive outcomes on
the personal success (job satisfaction and learning) of team innovation capability (Yesil and Kaya, 2012), product
members. Moreover, Fay, Shipton, West and Patterson innovation (Valencia, Valle and Jiménez, 2010), and
(2015) investigated teamwork and organizational innovation corporate performance (Oparanma, 2010). Yesil and Kaya
with HRM context playing a moderating role. Their finding (2012) carried out a study on the role of organizational culture
submitted that the extensive utilization of teamwork, leads to on innovation capability. Their result indicated that
higher level of organizational innovation, and thus, is adhocracy culture dimension positively affects innovation
dependent on production teams, as well as the general nature capability of the firms. Also, study carried out by Oparanma
of the HRM frameworks that exist in the companies. (2010) showed that organizational culture has positive effect
on performance.
88 www.wjir.org
https://doi.org/10.31871/WJIR.9.5.3 World Journal of Innovative Research (WJIR)
ISSN: 2454-8236, Volume-9, Issue-5, November 2020 Pages 79-92
[4] AIHR Analytics (2009). Measuring employee engagement the right [24] Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng,
way. Retrieved on 21st November, 2019 from K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25
https://www.analyticsinhr.com/blog/measuring-employee-engagement years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied
/ Psychology, 86 (3), 425 – 445.
[5] Akhigbe, O. J & Ohiria, S. I. (2017). Workforce diversity and [25] Connaughton, S. L., & Daly, J. A. (2004). Identification with leader: A
organizational survival of private hospitals in Nigeria, IOSR Journal of comparison of perceptions of identification among geographically
Business and Management, 19(7), 34-41. dispersed and co-located teams. Corporate Communication: An
International Journal, 9(2), 89–103.
[6] Alarcon, G., Lyons, J. B. & Tartaglia, F. (2010). Understanding
predictors of engagement within the military. Military Psychology, [26] Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., &
22(1), 301-310. Jennings, K. R. (1988). Employee participation: Diverse forms and
different outcomes. Academy of Management review, 13(1), 8-22.
[7] Albercht, S. L., Bakker, A. B., Gruman, J. A., Macey, W. H., & Saks,
A. M. (2015). Employee engagement, human resource management [27] Daft, R. L. (2001). Organization theory and design (7th ed.). Florence
practices and competitive advantage: An integrated approach. Journal KY, United States: South-Western College Publishing.
of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 2(1), 7–35.
89 www.wjir.org
Employee Engagement and Organizational Survival
[28] Davis, K., & Newstrom, J. W. (1997). Human behaviour at work: [48] Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2010). A meta‐analysis of work engagement:
Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. Relationships with burnout, demands, resources and consequences, in
Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Work Engagement: A Handbook
[29] DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive of Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, New York, NY,
underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of 102‐117.
Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32–53.
[49] Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture
[30] Denison, D. (2007). Denison consulting model. An Hunkong: Arbor and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the
Zurich Shanghai Press. competing values framework's theoretical suppositions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96(4), 677-694.
[31] Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational
effectiveness. New York: John Wiley & Sons. [50] Harvey, M., Novicevic, M., & Garrison, G. (2004). Challenges to
staffing global virtual teams. Human Resource Management Review
[32] Ellonen, R., Blomqvist, K. & Puumalainen, K. (2008). The role of trust 14(3), 275-294.
in organizational innovativeness. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 11(2), 160-181. [51] Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowski, B. (2004). Managing distance
by interdependence: Goal setting, task interdependence, and
[33] Elnaga, A. A., & Imran, A. (2014). The impact of employee team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of Work and
empowerment on job satisfaction: Theoretical study. American Journal Organizational Psychology. 13(1), 1–28.
of Research Communication, 2(1), 13–26.
[34] Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in [52] Hoegel, M., &Gemuende, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the
dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32-64. success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical
evidence. Organization Science 12(4), 435-449.
[35] Endsley, M. R., & Garland, D. J. (2000). Theoretical underpinnings of [53] Hofstede, G. (2003).Cultures and organizations: Intercultural
situation awareness: A critical review on situation awareness analysis cooperation and Its Importance for survival: Software of the Mind.
and measurement. Mahwah, New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum London-UK: Profile Books Ltd.
Associates.
[36] Endsley, M. R., Bolte, B. & Jones, D. G. (2003). Designing for [54] HR Exchange Network (2018). Employee engagement on the rise:
situation awareness: An approach to human-centered design. London: Gallup survey shows increase from 2015. Retrieved on 22nd November,
Taylor & Francis Design. 2019 from
https://www.hrexchangenetwork.com/employee-engagement/articles/e
[37] Erengwa, K. N., Nwuche, C. A., & Anyanwu, S. C. (2017). Employee mployee-engagement-on-the-rise-gallup-survey
participation and organizational survival in selected manufacturing
firms in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. International Journal of Advanced [55] Huber, G. P. (2011). Organizations: Theory, design, future. In S.
Academic Research, Social & Management Sciences3(3), 1-10. Zedek (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational
[38] Falola, H.O., Salau, O. P., Olokundun, M. O., Oyafunke-Omoniyi, C. psychology (p.V1). Washington, DC: American Psychological
O., Ayodotun, S., Ibidunni, A. S. & Oludayo, O. A.(2018). Association.
Employees‟ intrapreneurial engagement initiatives and its influence on
organizational survival. Business: Theory and Practice, 19(1), 9–16. [56] Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. (2004). Innovativeness:
Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial
[39] Fay, D., Shipton, H., West, M. A., & Patterson, M. (2015). Teamwork Marketing Management, 33(5), 429–38.
and organizational innovation: The moderating role of the HRM
context. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(2), 261-277. [57] Humphrey, S. E., Morgeson, F. P., & Mannor, M. J. (2009).Developing
a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of
[40] Fleming, R. S. (2012). Ensuring organizational resilience in times of team performance. Journal of Applied Physiology, 94(1), 48–61.
crisis. Journal of Global Business, 6 (1), 31-34.
[58] Hunjra, A. I., Ul Haq, N., Akbar, S. W., & Yousaf, M. (2011). Impact
[41] Frank, F., Finnegan, R. & Taylor, C. (2004). The race for talent: of employee empowerment on job satisfaction: an empirical analysis of
Retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century. Human Resource Pakistani service industry. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary
Planning, 27 (3), 12 – 26. Research in Business, 2(11), 680-685.
[42] Gallup (2006). Gallup study: Engaged employees inspire company [59] Irawanto, D. W. (2015). Employee participation in decision-making:
innovation: national survey finds that passionate workers are most Evidence from a state-owned.Management, 20(1), 159-172.
likely to drive organizations forwardʹ. Retrieved on 22nd
November,2019 from [60] Jaja, S. A., Gabriel, J. M. O., & Wobodo, C. C. (2019). Organizational
https://www.gallup.com/topic/all_gbj_headlines.aspx isomorphism: The quest for survival. Noble International Journal of
Business and Management Research, 3(5), 86- 94.
[43] Ghosh, A. K. (2013). Employee empowerment: A strategic tool to [61] Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement
obtain sustainable competitive advantage. International Journal of and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4),
Management, 30 (3), 95–107. 692‐724.
[44] Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning
orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The [62] Kazimoto, P. (2016). Employee engagement and organizational
mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of performance of retails enterprises. American Journal of Industrial and
management Journal, 52(4), 765-778. Business Management, 2 6(1), 516-525.
[45] Gross, B. (1968).Organizations and their managing. New York: The [63] Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction:
free Press. Lessons for management leadership. Public Administration Review, 62
(2), 231-241.
[46] Guest, D.E. (2014). Employee engagement: A skeptical analysis, [64] Kortmann, S., Gelhard, C., Zimmermann, C., & Piller, F. (2014).
Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Linking strategic flexibility and operational efficiency: The mediating
1(1), 141‐156. role of ambidextrous operational capabilities. Journal of Operations
Management, 32(1), 475–490.
[47] Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory ofteam coaching.
Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 269–287. [65] Laila, U., Iqbal, S., & Rasheed, M. (2019). Abusive supervision and
workplace deviance: The moderating role of power distance. Pakistan
Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 13(2), 334-357.
90 www.wjir.org
https://doi.org/10.31871/WJIR.9.5.3 World Journal of Innovative Research (WJIR)
ISSN: 2454-8236, Volume-9, Issue-5, November 2020 Pages 79-92
[66] Lee (2006). Management succession planning and corporate survival in [84] Noah, Y. (2008). A study of worker participation in management
Nigeria: A study of banks in Port Harcourt. European Journal of decision making within selected establishments in Lagos, Nigeria.
Business and Management, 7(27), 153- 176. Journal of Social Science, 17 (1), 31-39.
[67] Lee, S. M., Hwang, T., & Choi, D. (2012). Open innovation in the [85] Olughor, R.J. & Oke, M. A. (2014). The relationship between
public sector of leading countries. Management Decision, 50 (1), organizational survival and employee mental ability. International
147–162.Lee, S. K. J., & Yu, K. (2004). Corporate culture and Journal of Business and Social Science, 5, 6(1), 205-212.
organizational performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(4),
340 359. [86] Ongori, H., & Shunda, J. P.W (2008). Managing behind the scenes:
Employee empowerment. The International Journal of Applied
[68] LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. Economics and finance, 2(2), 84- 94.
R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a [87] Oparanma, A.O. (2010).The organizational culture and corporate perf
multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness ormance in Nigeria.
criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273–307. International Journal of African Studies, 3(2), 34-40.
[69] Lumpkin, G.T. & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial [88] Osborne, S., & Hammoud, M. (2017). Effective employee engagement
orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of in the workplace. International Journal of Applied Management and
Management Review, 21(1), 135-172. Technology, 16, (1), 50–67.
[70] Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K.M. & Young, S.A. (2009). [89] Pastor, J. (1996). Empowerment: What it is and what it is not.
Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive Empowerment in Organizations, 4( 2), 5-7. Retrieved on 21st
advantage. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley‐Blackwell, Malden, WA. November, 2019 from
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/096848996101
[71] Manu, F.A. (1992). Innovation orientation, environment and 18028/full/html
performance: A comparison of U.S. and European markets. Journal of
International Business Studies, 23(2), 333–359. [90] Pepra-Mensah, J., & Kyeremeh, E. A. (2018). Organizational culture:
A catalyst for employee engagement in the Ghanaian public sector.
[72] Markides, C. (1998). Strategic innovation in established firms. In M. Global Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(3), 11-28.
Mazzucatto (Ed.), A reader: Strategy for business. England: Sage
Publications Ltd. [91] Pillay, E. & Singh, S. (2014). The Impact of employee engagement on
organizational performance: A case of an insurance brokerage
[73] Markos, S., & Sridevi, M.S. (2010) Employee engagement: The key to company in Gauteng. IOSR Journal of Business and Management,
improving performance. International journal of business and 20(6), 66-76.
management, 5(12), 89-96.
[92] Pollock, K. (2016). Resilient organization or mock bureaucracy: Is your
[74] Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). Performance organization “crisis-prepared” or “crisis-prone”. Emergency planning
implications of leader briefings and team interaction training for team college occasional papers new series number 16, March
adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2016.Retrieved on 28th March, 2019 from
85(6), 971–986. https://www.epcresilience.com/EPC/media/MediaLibrary/Knowledge
%20Hub%20Documents/J%20Thinkpieces/Occ16-Paper-Resilient-or-
[75] Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. L. (2008). Team Mock.
effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a
glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476. [93] Raza, H., Mahmood, J., Owais, M., & Raza, A. (2015). Impact of
employee empowerment on job satisfaction of employees in corporate
[76] Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2006). Creating a firm-level dynamic banking sector employees of Pakistan. Journal of Applied
capability through capitalizing on market orientation and Environmental and Biological Sciences, 5(2), 1-7.
innovativeness. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 34(1),
63-73. [94] Reilly, R. (2014). Five ways to improve employee engagement now.
Retrieved on 22nd November, 2019 from
[77] Meyerson, G., & Dewettinck, B. (2012). Effect of empowerment on https://www.gallup.com/workplace/231581/five-ways-improve-emplo
employees performance. Advanced Research in Economic and yee-engagement.aspx
Management Sciences, 2(1), 40-46.
[95] Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can
[78] Mishra, K., Boynton, L., & Mishra, A. (2014). Driving employee you create it? Workspan, 49(1), 36-39.
engagement: The expanded role of internal communications.
International Journal of Business Communication, 51(2) 183–202. [96] Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2012). Essentials of organizational behavior
(11th ed.) Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Pearson Prentice Hall.
[79] Mitchell, T. R. (1973). Motivation and participation: [97] Robinson, D., Perryman,S., & Hayday, S. (2004).
Integration.Academy of management Journal, 16(1), 670–679. Thedriversofemployeeengagement- Institute for employment studies,
Brighton. Retrieved on 22nd November, 2019 from
[80] Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2010). Employee engagement: Through https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/system/files/resources/files/40
effective performance management. A practical guide for managers. 8.pdf
New York : Routledge Press.
[98] Saif, N. I., & Saleh, A. S. (2013). Psychological empowerment and job
satisfaction in Jordanian hospitals. International Journal of
[81] Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in Humanities and Social Science, 3(16), 250-257.
teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures
and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5–39. [99] Saks, A. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee
engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21 (7), 600 – 619.
[82] Nair, K., & Gopal, R. (2011). Advocating different paradigms:
Relevance of workplace creativity. SIES Journal of Management, 7(2), [100] Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I.
142-150. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training.
In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and
[83] Namrita, K. & Yoginder, S.V. (2017). Organizational culture and performance (3–29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
employee engagement: An Interrelationship study in hospitality
industry of Himachal Pradesh. International Journal of Human [101] Salas, E., Shuffler, M., Thayer, A. Bedwell, W. & Lazzara, H. E.
Resource Management and Research, 7(3), 13-22. (2014). Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations:
91 www.wjir.org
Employee Engagement and Organizational Survival
[105] Sharma, M., & Kaur, G. (2011). Workplace empowerment and orga-
nizational effectiveness: An empirical investigation of Indian banking
sector. Academy of Banking Studies Journal, 10 (2), 105-120.
[106] Sheppard, J. P. (1993). Organizational survival and corporate level
diversification. Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions, 6(1),
113-132.
[110] Sok, J., Blomme, R., & Tromp, D. (2014). Positive and negative
spillover from work to home: The role of organizational culture and
supportive arrangements. British Journal of Management, 25(3),
456-472.
[111] Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010).
Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of
research on multicultural workgroups. Journal of International
Business Studies, 41, 690–709.
[112] Torrington, D., Hall, L., Taylor, S., & Atkinson, C. (2014). Human
resource Management (9th ed.). London: Pearson Education Limited.
[115] Valencia, J.C.N., Valle, R.S., & Jiménez, D.J. (2010). Organizational
culture as determinant of product innovation. European Journal of
Innovation Management, 13(4), 466-480.
[116] Vroom, V. H. (1974). Decision-making and the leadership process.
Journal of Contemporary Business, 3 (4), 47-64.
[117] Wang, C. L. & Ahmed, P.K. (2004). The development and validation
of the organizational innovativeness construct using confirmatory
factor analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4),
303-313.
92 www.wjir.org
View publication stats
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: