Abstract
Organizations have long been concerned on how management can facilitate Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and employee engagement (EE) which can result in higher performance and productivity. This study attempted to test the mediating role of demographic attributes on the relationship between employee engagement and organizational citizenship behavior in the context of local enterprises in Dhaka city, Bangladesh. The authors administered 524 participants along with on employee engagement scale (5 factors) and organizational citizenship scale (5 factors). After the validation of the model only 3 factors from OCB and 4 factors from EE have been retained. The study finally reveals the Employee Engagement (EE) has a positively significant impact on OCB. However, in mediating effect the demographic attributes (Experience) partially mediates the relationship on OCB factors but do not mediate on EE. Rest of the mediating effect of gender and age were not supported the hypothesis.
Keywords: Organizational citizenship,behavior,Employee engagement,Demographic attributes,SEM,Dhaka city,Bangladesh.
Received: 10 October 2019 / Revised:19 November 2019 / Accepted:23 December 2019/ Published: 28 January 2020
1. INTRODUCTION
Organizational Citizenship Behavior is considered as the concrete constructive and cooperative additional role-playing gesture, which are not obligatory neither directly compensated by the organization (Organ, 1988). In other words it is Individual behavior that is discretionary and explicitly not included in the reward system. In short it is such an organizational behavior that goes beyond normal job responsibility and it extends formal requirements. Employee Engagement is believed to be a concept, which represents the vigorous allocation of individual resources towards the task associated with job role (Christian et al., 2011). According to Kahn (1990) engagement is the simultaneous employment and appearance of an individual’s preference in work behaviors which promote relations to task and to others, individual presence and full performance. On the base of this perspective of Kahn, employee engagement is a positive attitude obtained by the employee towards the organization along with its objectivity and value. Employee engagement refers the relationships to positive attitudes, to minimize burnout and to maximize levels of performance at the personal, plant and organizational levels (Harter et al., 2002; Jones and Harter, 2005; Bakker et al., 2006; Sanchez and McCauley, 2006; Langford, 2009; Alarcon et al., 2010).
Engagement is known to be the feeling of responsibility and commitment of higher levels of job performance both for job requirement along with discretionary effort (Britt, 2003; Crawford et al., 2010; Christian et al., 2011). Thus engagement is concluded as a positive experience that has positive consequences for the institutions (Bhatnagar, 2012).
Kahn (1990) have identified that those employees who are highly engaged in their work roles not only concentrate on physical effort for role related goals, but also cognitively vigilant and emotionally related to the endeavor (Kahn, 1990) which is also known as organizational citizenship behavior. Similarly Rurkkhum and Bartlett (2012) have showed a positive interaction between employee engagement and organizational citizenship based on Thai organizational culture (Rurkkhum and Bartlett, 2012). Similarly Kataria et al. (2012) also manifest that apart from task proficiency organizations are significantly reliant on employee’s discretionary efforts. This study focused on relations between employee engagement, OCB and organizational effectiveness and it revealed that engagement has potentials to develop OCB. So a research question can be drawn from the above discussion as,
RQ1. In case of Bangladeshi organizational culture; does Employee Engagement has a significant impact on Organizational Citizenship Behavior?
There is reliable, positive age–satisfaction relationship evidence available among US samples (Doering et al., 1983; Kacmar and Ferris, 1989). Moreover Organ and Konovsky (1989) also suggest age to be relatively irrelevant to altruism, which is an indicator of organizational citizenship behavior (Organ and Konovsky, 1989). On the contrary, Saks (2006) has found age and educational level have concrete and significant impact on organizational commitment which is also an indicator of organizational citizenship behavior. Younger and older workers may diverge in their orientations toward themselves, others and work. These alterations may pursue to various salient drives for OCB among younger and older employees (Kanungo and Conger, 1993). Nonetheless there is a lack of evidence in conducting any study based on studying the impact of other demographic traits like gender and experience on OCB. Based on the discussion another question can be raised as follows,
RQ2. In case of Bangladeshi organizational culture; does demographic attributes have any positive mediating role in the relationship of employee engagement and organizational citizenship behavior.
The majority of existing studies on the relationship between employee engagement and Organizational citizenship behavior have been conducted on developed countries, especially based on European context with minimum empirically knowledge about the impact of how demographic traits such as age, gender and experience mediates employee engagement on organizational citizenship behavior in developing and under developed settings. Choosing Bangladesh as the research context is being considered as the perfect choice as the economy of the country is developing and so does the perceptions of employees’. So the study has been set up the above issues as its research gap and therefore the focus of this study is to explore the relation between employee engagement and its impact on behavioral traits in developing discretionary job performance, which is identified as organizational citizenship behavior, in an underdeveloped country like Bangladesh. Moreover, it can be assumed that the findings from this study will contribute in the theory development and in practice considerably.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS
A broad range of literature has been analyzed to design this study and to construct the conceptual framework. The sections below literature integrated to the key constructs under investigation in this study.
2.1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior
OCB defines that attitude which goes beyond formal job requirements and obviously it is not obligatory as the employees can decide whether to practice it and if yes to what extent (Organ, 1988). In accordance with Organ (1988) employees can perform OCB through five different ways: (i) Altruism, means behavior belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being organization. (ii) Conscientiousness refers the behavioral quality that extends required expectations. (iii) Sportsmanship, defines the behavior that can tolerate inconvenient circumstances without any formal or informal complaints. (iv) Courtesy refers to the behavioral traits that assist to avert problems well in advance. (v) Civic Virtue means the behavior involving participations in overall organizational issues (Organ, 1988). Niehoff and Moorman (1993) have explained OCB as the attitude which does not exist in job description of an employee. Similarly Graham (1994) argued that the topic of OCB have concreted from civic citizenship research from beliefs, political influence and social virtue. However civic citizenship was described as the possible community related behaviors and personal living.
Figure-1. Conceptual framework for OCB.
Source:Organ (1988).
Employees affianced in OCB are usually more favorable in the workplace and managers feel much safer with the OCB employees. Therefore the productivity reflects the commitment of the employees (Organ, 1988).
2.2. Employee Engagement
There are quite a few research conducted into the construct of employee engagement in academic along with business consulting, but yet there seems to be marginal consensus in published literature including the explanation antecedents, implementation and consequences (Macey and Schneider, 2008). Moreover some researchers have questioned about the existence of such construct or it only presents a fad, driven usually by consultants (Macey and Schneider, 2008). To date, there is no one generally accepted definition for the term engagement. Employee engagement can be defined as a workplace approach developed to make sure that employees are committed to their work place regulations, goals and values, motivated enough to participate in organizational success and are ready to increase their sense of well-being along with Konald (2010). Perrin (2003) explained the definition ‘engagement’ refers enthusiasm and capability to assist their company succeeds, basically by providing discretionary attempt on a sustainable basis.” Engagement is influenced by several factors, which consists both emotional and rational facts in relation to work and the whole work experience. Similarly Gallup organization explained employee engagement as the association with and enthusiasm in work. Again Gallup was cited by Dernovsek (2008) who described employee engagement as a positive emotional affection and commitment towards duty from the employees’ point of view.
Konald (2010) have explained more core fundamental context about employee engagement. According to him employee engagement is the attachment of three facts as emotional, behavioral and cognitive. He revealed that emotional factor is decided on how the employees feel about surroundings including colleges, leaders and organization (Konald, 2010). At the same time behavioral is decided on the performance and cognitive is on organization along with culture (Konald, 2010). Kahn (1990) viewed as employee engagement as the harnessing of company personalities with their responsibilities and recognition, as engaged people involve and relate themselves manually, emotionally and cognitively. Similarly on different context employee engagement has been classified as emotional and intellectual commitment for the workplace (Richman, 2006). Truss et al. (2006) emphasized on passion to describe employee engagement. It is simply passion for work or a psychological approach that encompass the dimensions of engagement.
Figure-2. Conceptual framework for employee engagement.
Source: Literarture analysis.
Participation or empowerment is considered as a leading factor in employee engagement. If the employees are subject to participate in decision making process, they will be highly motivated along will having engagement with the company objectivity (Basbous, 2011). Leaders of the highly engaged organization believe in decentralization of power and ensure a challenging environment by providing ample opportunity to participate and nurture their development (Sundaray, 2011). Opportunity for growth or career development opportunity is an effective indicator for employee engagement as it assists and motivates the employee to retain within the organization. If the organization can provide adequate opportunities to employees to achieve their goals it ensures engagement among them (Vazirani, 2007). The study conducted by Swarnalatha and Prasanna (2012) have revealed that employees who enlarge their expertise through training and development are likely to be more engaged that those who don’t have that opportunity to growth (Swarnalatha and Prasanna, 2012).
Mutunga (2009) revealed that appropriate leadership is significant for smooth performance of the organization. A proper leadership and management policy assists in developing employee engagement through aligning employees with the corporate value and objectivity (Mortimer, 2010). Moreover fair and anti-favoritism attitude is important for determining the attitude of engagement. The policy of equal treatment attracts employees to be more engaged (Bhatla, 2011). In accordance with the study conducted by Saks (2006) showed that the level of engagement among employees largely depend on the resources and facilities that they can utilize within their working condition. The implication of proper working condition is thus another prime indicator of employee engagement (Saks, 2006).
2.3. OCB and Employee Engagement
Previously employee engagement has been examined as a probable predictor in numerous OCB studies (Bennett and Robinson, 2000; Rich et al., 2010). Explanation for the reasons why employee engagement relates to OCB may be based on social exchange theory and the fundamental of reciprocity. Employees may develop OCB as it integrates an emotional component. Employees who are high in engagement have a tendency to engage in constructive and responsible behavior at work. (i.e. OCB) (Bennett and Robinson, 2000). Snape and Redman (2010) revealed the relationship between HRM practices, conceptualized at the workplace level, and individual employee behavior. The study suggests that there is a positive influence of HRM practices on organizational citizenship behavior by the effect on perceived job discretion. Similarly Kataria et al. (2012) also manifest that apart from task proficiency organizations are significantly reliant on employee’s discretionary efforts. The study focused on relations between employee engagement, OCB and organizational effectiveness and it revealed that engagement has potentials to develop OCB. Another study based on Thailand by Rurkkhum and Bartlett (2012) examined the relation between employee engagement and OCB through employee perceptions of HRD (Human Resource development) practices as moderators. The findings of the study revealed a positive relation between employee engagement and discretionary employee attitudes, which goes beyond normal job requirements. Moreover, Ariani (2012) also conducted a study to examine the interrelations between employee engagement, OCB and counterproductive work behavior. The results manifest a positive relation between employee engagement and OCB while a negative relation between OCB and CWB (Ariani, 2012). Previous studies have found a positive relationship between employee engagement and OCB. Bennett and Robinson (2000); Rich et al. (2010); Snape and Redman (2010); Ariani (2012) and among those many are conducted on Western countries in a highly developed economy with very limited attention for developing economies like Bangladesh. Therefore very little is known of the potential relationship between employee engagement and OCB in south Asian countries such as Bangladesh where HR practices and employee perceptions are still developing. Therefore a hypothesis can be drawn from above discussions as follows:
Hypothesis 1. Employee Engagement has a significant impact on Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
Also, given the massive changing employment and workplace management practices in many emerging economies such as Bangladesh it is significant to examine and confirm whether engaged employees are developing OCB or not.
2.4. Demographic Attributes and OCB
Although it is believed that one of the most significant predictors of OCB is job satisfaction (Organ, 1988) and there is a measurable and reliable positive age-satisfaction connection (Kacmar and Ferris, 1989) but it revealed that age to be completely irrelevant in developing altruism which is an indicator of OCB (Organ and Konovsky, 1989). On the other hand life-career stage models (Hall, 1976; Levinson et al., 1978) argued that the early years (20-34) are years of establishment and settlement; later part (35-45) are time of a stronger sense of self activity about life and work. Moreover empirical evidence also revealed that older workers are likely to have lower needs for achievement and higher needs for affiliation than do younger (Doering et al., 1983). Similarly Kegan (1982) study identified different stages of adult development revealed that older adults tend to work in terms of internal procedure in consulting mutual and moral obligations while younger individuals prefer to communicate their needs with others in a relatively transactional manner (Kanungo and Conger, 1993). In accordance with there is a positive relationship between altruistic OCB and moral judgment for older employees while in terms of younger employees, trust in management and organizational commitment has a positive impact on OCB.
As the previous studies about demographic attributes and OCB was conducted based on altruistic attitude and was based on developed infrastructural economy, and most of the studies focused on establishing demographic influence on developing employee engagement and OCB, the focus of this study was to identify the mediating role of demographic attributes (age, gender, experience) between EE and OCB in a relatively competitive working environment in a developing economy such as Bangladesh. Therefore, there is scarcity of evidence on how demographic attributes (age, gender, experience) mediates the relationship between employee engagement and organizational citizenship behavior. Furthermore, this study also attempted to investigate the impact of more demographic attributes (gender and work experience) on the relationship between EE and OCB as well. . Literature regarding any linkage of these demographic attributes on the relationship between EE and OCB shows very few indications which lead to the following hypothesizes:
Hypothesis 2 (I). Demographic attribute (Age) is positively mediating the relationship of employee engagement and organizational citizenship behavior.
Hypothesis 2 (II). Demographic attribute (Duration of Job experience) has positively mediating the relationship of employee engagement and organizational citizenship behavior.
Hypothesis 2 (III). Demographic attribute (Gender difference) has positively mediating the relationship of employee engagement and organizational citizenship behavior.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Sample and Procedure
This study uses self-administered questionnaires which have been distributed to collect individual data from the respondents. As the population size is unknown (unavailability of employment data storage) to the researchers. So the questions have surveyed among the 524 respondents based on non-probability convenient sampling approach. The survey took approximately twelve weeks. Finally, based on the suitability of responding data, the ultimate sample has been consisted of 300 employees (with response rate 57.25 %) of different firms in Bangladesh (located in Dhaka zone). Among the 300 respondents, 128 were found as female and 172 were found as male. For confidentiality reasons the names of the 7 firms and respondents have been anonymized.
3.2. Research Instrument
The study was conducted through structured questionnaire as research instrument. The questionnaire involves three parts. Part A contains questions concerning Organizational citizenship behavior by following significant dimensions such as Altruism, Conscientiousness, Civic Virtue, Courtesy and Sportsmanship. Part B contains questions for measuring employee engagement by following some significant dimensions such as Recognition, Participation, Growth opportunity, Management policy and leadership and Supportive working condition. Both employee engagement and organizational citizenship behavior scale were tested for reliability. Part C contains questions concerning demographic information (gender, age, and years of job experience).
3.3. Data Processing
Five point Likert scale was used (ranging from 1 to 5; where 1 denotes strongly disagree and 5 denotes strongly agree) to develop score of each indicator. Under each indicator specific set of questions were asked to the respondents and on the basis of response of the respondents all the scores from those questions were summed up to develop the indicator. To confirm construct validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used. EFA was executed using principal component analysis and the Varimax rotation method. To examine whether the data collected were appropriate for factor analysis, both the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were used (Hair et al., 2010). CFA was used to measure the content validity along with the construct validity of the model.
3.4. Measurements
To conduct quantitative analysis this study attempted to consider five factors of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) proposed by Organ (1988) which are Altruism, Courtesy, Civic Virtue, Sportsmanship and Generalized Compliance. On the contrary, to assess employee engagement this study considered another five factors which are Working Environment, Management policy and Leadership, Opportunity for Growth, Recognition, and Participation (Kahn, 1990; Saks, 2006; Mutunga, 2009; Mortimer, 2010; Basbous, 2011; Bhatla, 2011; Sundaray, 2011; Swarnalatha and Prasanna, 2012).
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) factors were measured through the 23 items under five variables: Altruism, Civic Virtue and Sportsmanship Courtesy and Generalized Compliance. To assess employee engagement a set 27 items were considered; under five variables: Participation, Recognition, Opportunity for Growth, Working Environment and management policy and leadership. However, after the reliability of the data only three factors (14 items) of OCB and four factors (17 items) have been retained from EFA analysis. Finally, the mediating variable has been considered as age, gender, and experience. The final construct measures are presented in Table 1.
Table-1. Measurement items.
Item Number |
Item Descriptions |
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) |
|
A1 |
Altruism |
A2 |
|
A3 |
|
A4 |
|
A5 |
|
A6 |
|
A7 |
|
A8 |
|
CV1 |
Civic Virtue |
CV2 |
|
CV3 |
|
S1 |
Sportsmanship |
S2 |
|
S3 |
|
Employee Engagement (EE) |
|
P1 |
Participation |
P2 |
|
P3 |
|
P4 |
|
P5 |
|
P6 |
|
R1 |
Recognition |
R2 |
|
R3 |
|
R4 |
|
R5 |
|
ML1 |
Management & Leadership |
ML2 |
|
ML3 |
|
G1 |
Opportunity for Growth |
G2 |
|
G3 |
|
| Age | |
| Gender | |
| Experience | |
4. ANALYSIS AND MODEL VALIDITY
4.1. Demographic Analysis of the Data
The demographic attributes of the respondents are depicting in Table 2.The table contains the gender ratio, age ranges of the respondents, and the years of job experience throughout their whole career.
Gender. From the Table 2., it has been observed that majority of the employees are Male (n=172, 57.33%) from the total sample, whereas the female respondent represents (n=128, 42.67%). So, it can be said that male participants are larger than female participants for this particular study.
Age. From the aboveTable 2 represents that the age group (20-30) constitutes the larger amount of respondents (n=87, 29%), where age group (31-40) has (n=83, 27.67%). Similarly age group (41-50) got (n=23, 7.67%), age group (51-60) has (n=67, 22.34%) and age group (61-above) has (n=40, 13.34%) which indicates that younger employees aging from (20-40) constitutes the larger amount among the respondents with 56.67% where older respondents aging from (41-above) consists 43%.
Table-2. Demographic attributes of the respondents.
| Demographic characteristics | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 172 | 57.33 |
| Female | 128 | 42.67 |
| Total | n = 300 | 100 |
| Age Group | ||
| 20-30 | 87 | 29 |
| 31-40 | 83 | 27.67 |
| 41-50 | 23 | 7.67 |
| 51-60 | 67 | 22.34 |
| 61-Above | 40 | 13.34 |
| Total | n = 300 | 100 |
| Job Experience | ||
| 1-2 years | 93 | 31 |
| 3-5 years | 38 | 13.67 |
| 6-10 years | 43 | 14.34 |
| 11-15 years | 57 | 19 |
| 16 or more years | 69 | 23 |
| Total | n = 300 | 100 |
Job experience. Table 2also reveals that the with respondents who have (1-10) years of experience constitute 58%(31+13.67+14.34) where respondents who have (11 and more) years of experience constitute 42% (19+23).
4.2. Measurement Model’s Validity and Reliability
To confirm the reliability of the measurement scales, Cronbach’s α tests were conducted for each scale. The Cronbach’s α coefficients for every scale exceeded 0.70, which demonstrates adequate internal consistency (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). The final construct items are shown in Table 3.
EFA results. To measure and construct the model study first run an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). EFA was executed using principal component analysis through Varimax rotation. To examine whether the data collected were appropriate for factor analysis, both the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were used (Hair et al., 2010). Bartlett’s test of sphericity (with a value of χ2 = 2204.909, df = 91, p < .001) and KMO statistic calculated as .886. If the KMO values are laying between 0.8 and 1 the result can indicate the sampling adequacy (Stephanie, 2016). So, the KMO and Bartlett’s results confirm that factor analysis is suitable. The KMO statistics of all the constructs exceeded 0.50, and Bartlett’s test revealed significant statistics for all the scales (p < 0.05). The study initially picked up ten factors (five for OCB and five for EE) to measure the model. However, after the EFA analysis, three factors from OCB (named Altruism, civic virtue, and sportsmanship) have been retained with the factor loadings of larger than 0.50 and the Eigen values of three OCB factors are larger than one (consecutively as 5.992; 1.258; and 1.083). On the other hand out of the five EE factors only four factors (named participation, recognition, management & leadership, and opportunity for growth) have been retained including the factor loading of larger than and the Eigen values of four EE factors are larger than one (consecutively as 5.501; 1.829; 1.392 and 1.064). CFA result. Based on these EFA results, a CFA was performed. The findings revealed a good fit: Chi-square to degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF) = 2.135; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.852; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.903; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.062. Moreover, following the guidelines of Hair et al. (2010) composite reliability (CR) was examined to measure internal consistency reliability.
Table-3. Summary of EFA & CFA results and its validity.
| Factors | EFA |
CFA |
Cronbach’s alpha |
Mean |
St. Dev |
Ave |
CR |
|
| Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) | A1 | 0.723 |
0.622 |
.871 |
3.880 |
1.4209 |
0.473
|
0.863
|
| A2 | 0.673 |
0.674 |
4.060 |
1.1016 |
||||
| A3 | 0.666 |
0.662 |
3.873 |
1.2942 |
||||
| A4 | 0.649 |
0.504 |
3.579 |
1.4937 |
||||
| A5 | 0.636 |
0.751 |
3.977 |
1.1598 |
||||
| A6 | 0.621 |
0.679 |
3.977 |
1.2912 |
||||
| A7 | 0.600 |
0.796 |
4.164 |
1.1513 |
||||
| A8 | 0.590 |
0.770 |
4.060 |
1.1513 |
||||
| CV1 | 0.840 |
0.981 |
.822 |
3.870 |
1.2769 |
0.7121 |
0.867 |
|
| CV2 | 0.834 |
0.982 |
3.849 |
1.2956 |
||||
| CV3 | 0.703 |
0.458 |
3.522 |
1.39 |
||||
| S1 | 0.758 |
0.410 |
.944 |
4.000 |
1.2261 |
0.2183 |
0.682 |
|
| S2 | 0.528 |
0.618 |
4.077 |
1.2251 |
||||
| S3 | 0.522 |
0.324 |
3.970 |
1.2353 |
||||
| Employee Engagement (EE) | P1 | 0.799 |
0.931 |
.845 |
4.191 |
1.1383 |
0.531
|
0.855
|
| P2 | 0.762 |
0.920 |
4.154 |
1.1395 |
||||
| P3 | 0.686 |
0.592 |
3.866 |
1.3090 |
||||
| P4 | 0.613 |
0.645 |
3.980 |
1.3435 |
||||
| P5 | 0.606 |
0.676 |
3.950 |
1.3034 |
||||
| P6 | 0.602 |
0.498 |
3.746 |
1.5002 |
||||
| R1 | 0.666 |
0.464 |
.981 |
2.749 |
1.6201 |
0.30539
|
0.702 |
|
| R2 | 0.614 |
0.607 |
2.783 |
1.5810 |
||||
| R3 | 0.560 |
0.790 |
2.742 |
1.5749 |
||||
| R4 | 0.513 |
0.432 |
2.742 |
1.6253 |
||||
| R5 | 0.507 |
0.364 |
2.746 |
1.6736 |
||||
| ML1 | 0.755 |
0.538 |
.990 |
3.946 |
1.2864 |
0.39993 |
0.727 |
|
| ML2 | 0.722 |
0.704 |
3.930 |
1.2947 |
||||
| ML3 | 0.714 |
0.644 |
3.933 |
1.3116 |
||||
| G1 | 0.789 |
0.337 |
.944 |
3.886 |
1.2903 |
0.29777 |
0.669 |
|
| G2 | 0.720 |
0.686 |
4.117 |
1.1453 |
||||
| G3 | 0.553 |
0.556 |
4.074 |
1.1905 |
||||
*Notes: CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.
For each of the constructs, the CR value exceeded 0.60, confirming that the measurement model has internal consistent reliability. Further, convergent validity was assessed using the average variance extracted (AVE). However, each construct was found to have an AVE value below 0.50 (except the civic virtue), which represents poor convergent validity (Byrne, 2010; Hair et al., 2010).
5. RESULTS
Structural equation modelling (SEM) using SPSS Amos (v, 20) was used to test the research hypotheses. The first step was to test the direct effect of EE factors on OCB (H1) without including the mediating variable. The estimate of the standardized regression weight (beta value) from EE factors to OCB was positive and significant (β = 0.973, P < 0.01); consequently, H1 was supported. This result supports the previous outcomes from (Bennett and Robinson, 2000; Rich et al., 2010; Snape and Redman, 2010; Ariani, 2012; Kataria et al., 2012; Rurkkhum and Bartlett, 2012).
Figure-3. Summary of the Hypotheses (H1; H2; H2(I); and H2(II)) results.
To test the other hypotheses and the mediating effect, the mediation analysis approaches of Baron and Kenny (1986) and Hayes and Scharkow (2013) were adopted. The revealing results depicts as, experience partially mediates the relationship on OCB factors but do not mediate on EE. Rest of the mediating effect of gender and age were not supported the hypothesis.
6. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTION
The study tried to find out the impact of demographic characteristics and Employee engagement on Organizational citizenship behavior. The study found positive impact of all the indicators of employee engagement on organizational citizenship behavior. This might be because of the fact that engaged employees undergo a high level of connectivity with their work assignments. Engaged employees might execute additional role behavior as they are able to ‘free up’ resources by completing respective objectives efficiently which is facilitating them to pursue tasks that are not necessarily part of their job descriptions or in other words discretionary in nature. Moreover, engaged employees’ covers the fundamental dimensions of intrinsic motivation, which assures purpose oriented attitudes and behaviors. It has also found that gender doesn’t play a significant role on employee engagement but age and experience does. On the contrary the results of this study also indicate that experience does impact on OCB which means those who are early at his/her career have better possibility of developing organizational citizenship behavior than those who are late in their career in Bangladeshi job sectors. Therefore, in case of age, the results of this study support the findings of the work conducted by Organ and Konovsky (1989) wherein it differs with the work conducted.
The result of this study has some practical implications. As a key force of economical development, Bangladeshi organizations should pay more attention on HRM practices that facilitates employee engagement to assist Organizational Citizenship Behavior among their employees. Another significant implication is that job experience does mediate employee engagement on OCB. This finding widens new scope for future research. Firms in Bangladesh can take a leap from this outcome and can create an atmosphere where employees can participate in decision making, get recognition for his/her contribution and can thrive in a convenient environment to develop organizational citizenship behavior. The current study has also number of limitations that suggest areas for future research directions. To start with this research employed convenience sampling to answer the research questions. For further research random sampling can be recommended to enlarge the generalization of the finding of the research. In this research only age, gender and experience are taken to measure the impact of demographic attributes wherein it is suggested to consider more attributes such as race, religion, culture etc.
Funding: This study received no specific financial support. |
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. |
Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. |
REFERENCES
Alarcon, G., J.B. Lyons and F. Tartaglia, 2010. Understanding predictors of engagement within the military. Military Psychology, 22(3): 301–310.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2010.492695 .
Ariani, D.W., 2012. The relationship between employee engagement, organizational citizenship behavior, and counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Business Administration, 4(2): 177-188.
Bakker, A.B., H.v. Emmerik and M.C. Euwema, 2006. Crossover of burnout and engagement in work teams. Work and Occupations, 33(4): 464-489.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888406291310 .
Baron, R.M. and D.A. Kenny, 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173-1182.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 .
Basbous, O.K., 2011. Antecedents of employee engagement. Master’s Thesis, University Sains.
Bennett, R.J. and S.L. Robinson, 2000. Development of measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2): 349-360.
Bhatla, N., 2011. To study the employee engagement practices and its effect on employee performance with special reference to ICICI and HDFC Bank in Lucknow. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 2(8): 1-7.
Bhatnagar, J., 2012. Management of innovation: Role of psychological empowerment, work engagement and turnover intention in the indian context. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(5): 928-951.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.651313 .
Britt, T.W., 2003. Aspects of identity predict engagement in work under adverse conditions. Self and Identity, 2(1): 31-45.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309022 .
Byrne, B.M., 2010. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. New Jersey.
Christian, M.S., A.S. Garza and J.E. Slaughter, 2011. Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1): 89-136.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x .
Crawford, E.R., J.A. LePine and B.L. Rich, 2010. Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5): 834-848.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019364 .
Dernovsek, D., 2008. Creating highly engaged and committed employee starts at the top and ends at the bottom line. Credit Union Magazine, 66(2): 677-708.
Doering, M., S.R. Rhodes and M. Schuster, 1983. The aging worker. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Graham, J.W., 1994. Organizational citizenship informed by political theory. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 19: 98–188.
Hair, J.F., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, R.E. Anderson and R.L. Tatham, 2010. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hall, D.T., 1976. Breaking career routines: Midcareer choice and identity development. In R. A. Katzell (Series Ed.) &D. T. Hall (Vol. Ed.), Career development in organiza- tions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bas. pp: 120-159.
Harter, J.K., F.L. Schmidt and T.L. Hayes, 2002. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2): 268-279.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268 .
Hayes, A.F. and M. Scharkow, 2013. The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter? Psychological Science, 24(10): 1918-1927.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613480187 .
Jones, J.R. and J.K. Harter, 2005. Race effects on the employee engagement-turnover intention relationship. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(2): 78-88.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190501100208 .
Kacmar, K.M. and G.R. Ferris, 1989. Theoretical and methodological considerations in the age-job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2): 201-207.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.2.201 .
Kahn, W.A., 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement of work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4): 692-724.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/256287 .
Kanungo, R.N. and J.A. Conger, 1993. Promoting altruism as a corporate goal. Academy of Management Perspectives, 7(3): 37-48.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1993.9411302345 .
Kataria, A., P. Garg and R. Rastogi, 2012. Employee engagement and organizational effectiveness: The role of organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Business Insights & Transformation, 6(1): 102-113.
Kegan, R., 1982. The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Konald, A.M., 2010. Engaging employees through high-involvement work practices. Ivey Business Journal: 1-6.
Langford, P.H., 2009. Measuring organizational climate and employee commitment: Evidence for a 7Ps of work practices and outcomes. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61(4): 185–198.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530802579481 .
Levinson, D.J., C.N. Darrow, E.B. Klein, M.H. Levinson and B. McKee, 1978. The seasonsofaman’s lve. New York: Ballantine Books.
Macey, W.H. and B. Schneider, 2008. The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and organizational Psychology, 1(1): 3-30.
Mortimer, D., 2010. Employee engagement: 5 factors that matter to employees. Journal of Management Studies, 47(7): 1219-1247.
Mutunga, C.N., 2009. Factors that contribute to the level of employee engagement in the telecommunication industry in Kenya: A case study of Zain Kenya. (Master’s Thesis, University of Nairobi.
Niehoff, B.P. and R.H. Moorman, 1993. Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3): 527-556.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/256591 .
Nunnally, J.C. and I.H. Bernstein, 1994. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Organ, D.W., 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D.W. and M. Konovsky, 1989. Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1): 157-164.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.157 .
Perrin, T., 2003. Working Today: Understanding What Drives Employee Engagement the 2003 Towers Perrin Talent Report U.S Report. Available from http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc? Webc=HRS /USA/2003/200309/Talent_2003.pdf [Accessed October 30, 2008].
Rich, B.L., J.A. Lepine and E.R. Crawford, 2010. Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3): 617-635.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988 .
Richman, A., 2006. Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it. Workspan, 49(1): 36-39.
Rurkkhum, S. and K.R. Bartlett, 2012. The relationship between employee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour in Thailand. Human Resource Development International, 15(2): 157-174.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2012.664693 .
Saks, A.M., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7): 600-619.
Sanchez, P. and D. McCauley, 2006. Measuring and managing engagement in a cross-cultural workforce: New insights for global companies. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 26(1): 41-50.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.20120 .
Snape, E. and T. Redman, 2010. Hrm practices, organizational citizenship behaviour, and performance: A multi-level analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 47(7): 1219-1247.
Stephanie, 2016. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Test for Sampling Adequacy. Available from https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/kaiser-meyer-olkin/ .
Sundaray, B.K., 2011. Employee engagement: A driver of organizational effectiveness. European Journal of Business and Management, 3(8): 53-59.
Swarnalatha, C. and T.S. Prasanna, 2012. Employee engagement: A review of literature. Indian Journal of Research, 1(11): 113-116.
Truss, C., E. Soane, C. Edwards, K. Wisdom, A. Croll and J. Burnett, 2006. Working life: Employee attitudes and engagement 2006. London: CIPD.
Vazirani, N., 2007. Employee engagement:. Working paper series (WPS05), SIES college of management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 25: 201-207.
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), International Journal of Management and Sustainability shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. |