SA Journal of Human Resource Management

ISSN: (Online) 2071-078X, (Print) 1683-7584

Page 1 of 8 Original Research

Critical analysis of drivers of employee engagement

and their impact on job performance

Author: Orientation: This study examines the impact of drivers of employee engagement on job
Mohammed Al-Haziazi1
performance and investigates the relationship between employee engagement and job
Affiliation: performance.
1
Arab Open University,
Muscat, Oman
Research purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess how various factors, such as job
characteristics, organisational support, support from superiors, rewards, recognition, and
Corresponding author: organisational justice, influence employee engagement and subsequently affect job
Mohammed Al-Haziazi, performance.
alhaziazi@aou.edu.om
Motivation for the study: The researcher is motivated by the need to understand the drivers
Dates:
of employee engagement and their implications for job performance in organisations,
Received: 14 Apr. 2024
Accepted: 09 July 2024 particularly in the context of the Sultanate of Oman.
Published: 30 Aug. 2024
Research approach/design and method: The study was conducted based on a closed-ended
How to cite this article: questionnaire across various industries in the Sultanate of Oman, focusing on three levels
Al-Haziazi, M. (2024). of management: junior, middle, and senior. Non-probability convenience sampling was
Critical analysis of drivers utilised. The study employed models of drivers leading to employee engagement and
of employee engagement
and their impact on job assessed their impact on job performance.
performance. SA Journal
Main findings: The study reveals that drivers of employee engagement significantly affect
of Human Resource
Management/SA Tydskrif vir job performance across all levels of management. Job characteristics and rewards and
Menslikehulpbronbestuur, recognition emerged as strong predictors of job performance.
22(0), a2633. https://doi.
org/10.4102/sajhrm.v22i0.2633 Practical/managerial implications: Organisations are encouraged to prioritise the
development and nurturing of employee engagement, fostering a two-way relationship
Copyright: between employers and employees. Engaged employees contribute to higher retention
© 2024. The Author.
Licensee: AOSIS. This work rates, increased productivity, profitability, growth, and customer satisfaction.
is licensed under the
Contribution/value-add: This study provides valuable insights into the relationship between
Creative Commons
Attribution License. employee engagement and job performance in the Sultanate of Oman, offering guidance
for the development of effective employee engagement strategies aimed at improving
organisational outcomes.

Keywords: employee engagement; job performance; productivity; relationship; rewards.

Introduction
Orientation
In today’s competitive business environment, organisations recognise the fact that their most
valuable asset is their workforce. The strategic management of human resources has emerged
as a key differentiator, enabling companies to adapt, innovate, and excel (Barney & Wright,
1998). As markets become increasingly complex, investing in employee engagement is crucial
for sustaining high performance and achieving long-term success (Alam et al., 2023; Barreiro &
Treglown, 2020; Saks, 2006). Human resources bring a competitive advantage by contributing
knowledge, skills, and capabilities to an organisation (Hafiza et al., 2011). Employee engagement
is an important predictor of job performance (Christian et al., 2011). Engaged employees are
more likely to contribute to a high-performance organisation (Mishra et al., 2014). Organisations
constantly seek solutions to motivate their employees to be more engaged in their work
(Cole et al., 2012). Engaged employees are more efficient and productive, add to the top line,
Read online: and are more likely to stay with the company (Dabke & Patole, 2014). Engagement refers to the
Scan this QR extent of emotional and intellectual dedication an employee demonstrates towards their
code with your
smart phone or organisation and its achievements. Engaged employees are inclined to speak favourably
mobile device about the organisation, exhibit greater retention rates, and contribute to its daily effectiveness
to read online.
(Mishra et al., 2014). Their profound commitment to their employers precipitates significant

http://www.sajhrm.co.za Open Access

 Page 2 of 8 Original Research

enhancements in business outcomes, such as decreased researchers in organisational studies and professionals in
absenteeism, turnover, shrinkage, safety incidents, and the field concerning how to improve employee engagement,
product defects. which is believed to influence organisational performance
and outcomes (Harter et al., 2002). Therefore, the purpose of
Employee engagement is continuous and highly specific this study is to assess the impact of employee engagement
to each organisation (Gupta & Sharma, 2016). Mohapatra factors on job performance, investigate the relationship
and Sharma (2010) believed that an organisation and its between employee engagement and job performance,
staff have a synergetic bond in which they depend on each and suggest practices to improve employee engagement in
other to achieve their desires. Engagement must then be the Sultanate of Oman.
an ongoing process rather than an individual event.
Employee engagement can also contribute to organisational
Conceptual model and literature review
success. Having satisfied employees who perform well,
are in the right jobs, and are present and committed helps Many researchers have tried to identify drivers of
foster engagement (Bin & Shmailan, 2015). employee engagement and developed models to draw
implications for managers. In this study, the author
Employee engagement and performance outcomes are has developed a conceptual model consisting of job
interconnected; heightened levels of employee engagement characteristics, organisational support, rewards and
correspond to increased feelings of belongingness, recognition, and organisational justice, all of which lead
enthusiasm, passion, and work knowledge. Consequently, to employee engagement and contribute to job performance
this fosters improved employer–employee relations, (see Figure 1).
resulting in reduced confusion, fewer conflicts, decreased
absenteeism, lower turnover rates, and enhanced role Gallup characterises employee engagement as the active
comprehension. This role of knowledge increases participation in and passion for one’s work (Markos &
effectiveness and efficiency and leads employees to take Sridevi, 2010; Turner & Turner, 2020). Employee engagement
up extra work or duties to further the organisation’s entails a favourable disposition exhibited by the employee
performance and reputation, expediting its process of towards the organisation and its principles. A fully engaged
advancement (Tanwar, 2017). employee comprehends the business environment and
collaborates with peers to enhance job efficacy for the
Research purpose organisation’s advancement. Fostering engagement demands
According to Shuck and Wollard (2010), employee concerted efforts from the organisation, necessitating a two-way
engagement is an ‘emergent working condition and a relationship between employers and employees (Robinson
positive cognitive, emotional and behavioural state directed et al. 2004).
toward organisational outcomes’. Studies on employee
engagement have become important in recent academic The connection between employee engagement and
research because organisations face challenges in improving important business results is considerable. Studies have
the performance and productivity of employees from revealed a positive link between employee engagement
different generations (Douglas & Roberts, 2020). This and organisational performance outcomes (Markos &
situation poses a significant challenge for both academic Sridevi, 2010).

Job Organisaonal Superior Rewards and Organisaonal

characteriscs support support recognion jusce

Employee engagement

Job performance

FIGURE 1: Drivers of employees’ engagement and contribution to job performance.

http://www.sajhrm.co.za Open Access

 Page 3 of 8 Original Research

Job characteristics are regarded as the ‘system factors’ more directive approach in decision-making processes
that can impact employees’ behavioural outcomes (He et al., 2014). Organisational justice refers to an
(Williams, 2002). This is because of the influence of job employee’s perceptions of their organisation’s policies
attractiveness on the level of effort that employees are and procedures (Loi et al., 2012). According to research by
willing to invest in their job responsibilities (Johari & Brebels et al. (2011), fairness in the workplace is a
Yahya, 2016). Empirical evidence (Christen et al. 2006; significant factor that encourages cooperative behaviour
Grant, 2008; Wood et al., 2012) has demonstrated a and improves job performance. Conversely, as noted
significant and direct influence of job characteristics on by Skarlicki et al. (2008), a perceived lack of fairness
job performance. can result in harmful and unethical behaviours like
retaliation.
According to Organisational Support Theory, employees
develop overall perceptions concerning the extent to which Research design
their organisations furnish sufficient resources and appreciate
them as individuals, encompassing the probability of the Research approach
organisation rewarding their performance and assisting This research was conducted within various industries in
them during difficult circumstances (Cullen et al., 2014). A the Sultanate of Oman. Data collection, processing, and
positive perception of the support employees receive from analysis were carried out from April 2023 to June 2023.
an organisation contributes to beneficial outcomes for both Primary and secondary data are used in this research.
the employees and the organisation itself. Additionally, The primary data were collected through a closed-ended
organisational support is associated with increased levels of questionnaire, and the secondary data were obtained
job satisfaction and enhanced performance. It increases through relevant literature.
performance in standard work-related activities, helps surpass
the predetermined standards, and increases organisational Research method
identification significantly (Köse, 2016; Turunç & Çelik,
2010). The primary method utilised in this study was a closed-
ended questionnaire. This questionnaire focused on
Research has shown that frontline supervision plays a evaluating several drivers of employee engagement,
pivotal role in fostering employee engagement, underscoring including job characteristics, organisational support,
the significance of proficient communication and managerial support from superiors, rewards and recognition, and
support (Mishra et al., 2014). Sparrowe and Liden (2005) organisational justice. Respondents were asked to rate
acknowledged the fact that the quality of the relationship their agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert
between supervisors and subordinates correlates with scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
engagement. Similarly, Brunetto et al. (2013) proposed that agree). The questionnaire included 35 statements, and it
the supervisor–subordinate relationship affects teamwork was pretested. Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.839,
quality, which in turn positively influences engagement meeting the reliability condition.
levels.
Sample definition and selection
Hafiza et al. (2011) found that reward systems increase The study’s sample was drawn from several sectors in
employee satisfaction, which directly influences performance. Oman, including oil, gas, and energy; manufacturing;
According to San et al. (2012), if an organisation fails to retail; education; information technology; construction;
reward employees, employee performance will decrease; banking and insurance; and services. The focus was on
furthermore, an efficient reward system can be a good employees across three management levels: junior,
motivator, but an inefficient reward system demotivates middle, and senior. Using a non-probability convenience
employees and causes low productivity, internal conflicts, sampling method, participants were selected based
absenteeism, high turnover, a lack of commitment and on accessibility and willingness to partake in the study.
loyalty, lateness, and grievances. Therefore, organisations This approach was deemed appropriate given the
must develop strategic reward systems to retain exploratory nature of the research and the aim to capture
competent employees and maintain a competitive advantage diverse perspectives across industries.
(Edirisooriya, 2014). Ajila and Abiola (2004) concluded
that reward systems increase employee performance by Research procedure
enhancing skills, knowledge, and abilities to achieve The research procedure commenced with the researcher
organisational objectives. providing a detailed explanation of the study’s
purpose prior to data collection, ensuring transparency
Conversely, the impact of organisational justice may be and ethical compliance. Ethical clearance was obtained
contingent upon cultural context and could have a from the Arab Open University, Oman, adhering to all
diminished role in fostering employee engagement stipulated ethical requirements, including confidentiality
within Eastern cultures, where leaders tend to adopt a assurances.

http://www.sajhrm.co.za Open Access

 Page 4 of 8 Original Research

Subsequently, a validity test was conducted involving Multivariate test on management levels and
academicians, practitioners, and an English proofreading drivers of employee engagement
expert to assess the appropriateness of formulated
H0: T
 here is no significant difference in the drivers of
objectives and statements. Following this, a reliability
employee engagement between management levels.
test was performed on the questionnaire, which consisted
of 35 statements, resulting in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.839,
One can infer from Table 1 that the test yielded a significant
meeting reliability standards. As this falls within the
result (Wilk’s A = 0.934, F [10, 228] = 2.791, p = 0.001). A separate
range from 0.60 to 0.90, one might suggest that all the
ANOVA was conducted for each dependent variable, with
scales met the reliability condition (Hair et al., 1998).
each ANOVA evaluated at an alpha level of 0.05.
The questionnaire was then distributed directly to the
targeted population encompassing the oil, gas, and Table 2 shows that a significant difference was found
energy; manufacturing; retail; education; information in organisational support between management levels:
technology; construction; banking and insurance; and F (2,118) = 1.425, p = 0.045.
service sectors of the Sultanate of Oman, with data
collection and analysis conducted using SPSS software. The estimated marginal means across management levels
Out of 151 initial samples, 133 were deemed valid after reveal distinct values for key factors impacting employee
excluding instances of missing or duplicate information. engagement. For organisational support, middle management
demonstrates the highest mean score of 19.8889, followed
Furthermore, rigorous evaluation led to the identification by senior management with 19.1556 and junior management
and removal of 12 erroneous samples, resulting in a final with 19.5517. Similarly, middle management leads in
dataset of 121 samples for subsequent analysis and supervisor support with a mean of 20.0862, while senior
hypothesis testing. Throughout the process, meticulous management follows with 19.1111 and junior management
attention was paid to maintain accuracy and integrity in with 20.4444. In rewards and recognition, middle
data collection and analysis procedures. management scores the highest (17.5345), followed by
senior management (16.5556) and junior management
Statistical analysis (16.5000). Lastly, for organisational justice, middle
The study conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis management achieves the highest mean score (18.8448),
to derive insights from the collected data. Descriptive with senior management at 17.9333 and junior management
statistics summarised the variables, while inferential at 18.7778. These findings underscore the substantial
techniques such as ANOVA, Chi-square tests, Pearson influence of management levels on various aspects of
correlation analysis, and multiple regression were employee engagement, suggesting a partial rejection of the
employed to explore relationships and test hypotheses. null hypothesis (H0).
This rigorous analysis facilitated the identification of
patterns and predictive factors related to employee TABLE 1: Multivariate tests‡ on management levels and drivers of employee
engagement.
engagement and job performance, enabling evidence- Effect Measure Value F† Hypothesis df Error df Sig. §
based recommendations for enhancing engagement Management Wilks’ 0.934 2.791 10.000 228.000 0.000
practices in Oman. levels Lambda
df, degree of freedom; Sig., Significance.

Survey results
†, Exact statistic.
‡, Design: Intercept + Management Levels.
§, Computed using alpha = 0.05.
The demographic analysis provided insights into the
respondents’ composition based on gender, age, management TABLE 2: Tests of between-subjects effects on management levels and drivers of
level, and type of organisation, accompanied by their employee engagement.
corresponding frequencies and percentages. Notably, 64% of Source Dependent Type III sum of df Mean F Sig.
variable squares square
respondents identified as male, whereas 36% were female. Management Job characteristics 7.966 2 3.983 0.325 0.723
Age-wise, 10% were under 25 years old, representing recent levels
Organisational 59.296 2 19.648 1.425 0.045
graduates, while 45% fell within the 26–40 years old age support
range, and 35% were aged between 41 years and 55 years. Supervisor support 33.517 2 16.759 0.913 0.332
Rewards and 29.925 2 14.962 0.551 0.578
Moreover, 10% of respondents were above 55 years old. recognition
Organisational 22.733 2 11.367 0.647 0.525
In terms of management hierarchy, 15% held lower-level justice
Error Job characteristics 1446.034 118 12.255 - -
positions, 48% occupied middle-management roles, and
Organisational 2454.952 118 20.805 - -
37% were part of upper management. The distribution support
across various organisational sectors indicated 17.2% Supervisor support 1777.458 118 15.063 - -
in oil, gas, and energy and 26.4% in education, with Rewards and 3206.042 118 27.170 - -
recognition
the remaining percentages dispersed across sectors such
Organisational 2071.515 118 17.555 - -
as manufacturing, retail, construction, banking and justice
insurance, information technology, and service. df, degree of freedom; Sig., Significance.

http://www.sajhrm.co.za Open Access

 Page 5 of 8 Original Research

Association between management levels and Association between employee engagement

employee engagement levels (H1) levels and job performance levels (H3)
A Chi-square analysis was carried out to find the A Chi-square analysis was carried out to find the significant
significant association between management levels and association between employee engagement levels and job
employee engagement levels: performance levels:
H0: 
There is no significant association between management H0: 
There is no significant association between employee
levels and employee engagement levels. engagement levels and job performance levels.

H1: 
There is a significant association between management H3: 
There is a significant association between employee
levels and employee engagement levels. engagement levels and job performance levels.

Table 3 shows a significant association between management Table 5 shows a significant association between employee
levels and employee engagement levels at 5%. Hence, engagement levels and job performance levels at 5%. Hence,
the null hypothesis is rejected. The table shows that the null hypothesis is rejected. The table shows that high
employee engagement is high for middle management. employee engagement levels result in high job performance
levels.
Relationship between drivers of employee
engagement and employee engagement Relationship between employee engagement
levels (H2) levels and job performance levels (H4)
Pearson correlation analysis was carried out to find the Pearson correlation analysis was carried out to find
relationship between drivers of employee engagement the relationship between employee engagement levels
and employee engagement levels: and job performance levels:
H0: 
There is no significant relationship between employee
H0: T
 here is no significant relationship between drivers of
engagement levels and job performance levels.
employee engagement and employee engagement levels.
H4: 
There is a significant relationship between employee
H2: 
There is a significant relationship between drivers of
engagement levels and job performance levels.
employee engagement and employee engagement levels.

The analysis indicates a significant relationship between

Table 4 shows a significant relationship between drivers of
employee engagement levels and job performance
employee engagement and employee engagement levels
levels, with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.295 and a
at 1%. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected. The table shows
that all drivers of employee engagement are positive and
TABLE 5: Association between employee engagement levels and job performance
highly correlated with employee engagement levels. levels.
Employee engagement Job performance level Total
TABLE 3: Association between management levels and employee engagement level
Low High
levels.
Low
Management levels Employee engagement levels Total
n 19.0 5.0 24.0
Low High
% 45.0 6.0 20.0
Junior
High
n 7 11 18 n 23.0 74.0 97.0
% 29.0 11.0 15.0 % 55.0 94.0 80.0
Middle
Total (n) 42.0 79.0 121.0
n 11 47 58
Note: Statistical inference: χ2 = 12.43**; df = 1.
% 46.0 48.0 48.0 df, degree of freedom.
Senior **, 5% Significance level.
n 6 39 45
% 25.0 40.0 37.0 TABLE 6: Multiple regression for job performance based on drivers of employee
Total (n) 24 97 121 engagement.
Independent factors Unstandardised Standardised p
Note: Statistical inference: χ2 = 11.08**; df = 2.
coefficients coefficients
df, degree of freedom.
B Standard error Beta T
**, 5% Significance level.
(Constant) 33.083 3.658 - 9.044 0.000
TABLE 4: Relationship between drivers of employee engagement and employee Job characteristics 0.486 0.257 0.248 2.889 0.041*
engagement levels. Organisational 0.168 0.222 0.113 0.755 0.452
Drivers of employee Employee engagement levels (R) Statistical inference support
engagement
N p Supervisor support 0.118 0.173 0.067 0.682 0.496
Job characteristics 0.528 121 0.001 Rewards and 0.533 0.170 0.406 3.140 0.002**
recognition
Organisational support 0.497 121 0.001
Organisational justice 0.028 0.239 0.017 0.118 0.906
Supervisor support 0.482 121 0.001
Note: Statistical inference: R = 0.534; R2 = 0.385; adjusted R2 = 0.354. F = 9.182**; df = 5.115.
Rewards and recognition 0.512 121 0.001
df, degree of freedom.
Organisational justice 0.459 121 0.001 **, Significance at 0.01 level; *, Significance at 0.05 level.

http://www.sajhrm.co.za Open Access

 Page 6 of 8 Original Research

p-value of 0.001. This suggests a positive correlation Practical implications

between employee engagement and job performance,
This research has several practical implications. Firstly, the
leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis.
findings suggest that managers should be aware of the positive
impact of various drivers of employee engagement. Secondly,
Impact of drivers of employee engagement on this study further enhances our comprehension of the
job performance (H5) significance accorded by top management to their responsibility
Multiple regression was used to predict the impact of drivers in preserving and enhancing a firm’s reputation (Chetty &
of employee engagement on job performance. Table 6 Price, 2024). Employee engagement should not be a one-time
displays the unstandardised regression coefficient (B), the exercise, but it should instead be integrated into the company
unstandardised standard error of regression coefficients culture (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014). Prior research has shown
(SE B), the standardised regression coefficient (β), R2, and that organisations that invest in employees are viewed as
F for changes in R2. better employers by external audiences (Gill, 2010). This study
emphasises the roles that job characteristics, organisational
Table 6 shows that the drivers of employee engagement support, support from superiors, rewards and recognition,
together explain 38.5% of the variation in job performance. organisational justice, and employee engagement play in job
The adjusted R2 (0.35) for the overall study on the five performance. By incorporating both subjective and objective
factors shown in Table 6 suggests a moderate effect on job measures of job performance, our findings suggest that
performance. The F value (9.182; degree of freedom [df] 5.115) organisations benefit from a holistic approach to performance
is significant, which indicates that the model fits well. The assessment. This includes leveraging objective metrics
table shows that job characteristics and rewards and alongside employee self-assessments and peer reviews to
capture a complete picture of job performance.
recognition significantly impact job performance. The
independent variable with a higher level of β has a stronger
Organisations characterised by high levels of employee
impact on the dependent variable. This study’s results reveal
engagement experience enhanced employee retention because
that rewards and recognition (β = 0.406, p < 0.01) are the most
of decreased turnover rates and reduced intentions to leave
influential factors impacting on job performance, followed
the company. Moreover, they exhibit heightened levels of
by job characteristics (β = 0.248, p < 0.05); both show
productivity, profitability, growth, and customer satisfaction.
significant and positive influences. The Standardised
Conversely, enterprises with disengaged employees
Coefficients Beta column gives the coefficients of significant
encounter inefficiencies, talent attrition, diminished employee
independent variables in the regression equation Y = 0.248
commitment, and elevated absenteeism. They demonstrate
(Job Characteristics) + 0.406 (Rewards and Recognition).
diminished customer orientation, reduced productivity, and
lower operating and net profit margins (Markos & Sridevi,
This suggests that Job Characteristics and Rewards and
2010). Robertson-Smith and Markwick (2009) underscored
Recognition are significant predictors and play significant the role of engagement in allowing employees to invest
roles in job performance. themselves in their work and fostering a sense of self-efficacy.
Research suggests that engaged employees may experience
Discussion improved health and harbour positive attitudes towards their
work and the organisation. Additionally, engaged employees
Outline of the results
demonstrate superior task performance with fewer errors
The results reveal a significant effect of the drivers of employee compared to their disengaged counterparts (Gonring, 2008).
engagement across the levels of management. Employee
engagement was measured and found to be highest in middle Organisations are encouraged to adopt ‘radical
management. Pearson correlation analysis was carried out to transparency’, prioritising communication with employees
find the relationship between drivers of employee engagement as a fundamental practice. By disseminating information
and employee engagement levels. The findings show that all widely, companies foster a sense of inclusion among
drivers of employee engagement are positively and highly employees and cultivate a shared commitment to the
correlated with employee engagement levels. Multiple organisation’s mission. This engenders a foundation of trust
regression was performed for job performance based on between the organisation and its employees, thereby
drivers of employee engagement. This comprehensive promoting employee engagement (Mishra et al., 2014).
approach highlights that all drivers of employee engagement Additionally, top management should ensure that
are positively and significantly correlated with both subjective employees have access to necessary resources, provide
and objective performance measures. adequate training to enhance their competencies, implement
reward systems, cultivate a unique corporate culture that
The results underscore the importance of addressing values diligence and preserves success narratives, and
specific drivers of engagement, such as job characteristics establish robust performance management mechanisms.
and recognition and reward systems, to enhance
organisational performance. These findings emphasise the
need for tailored engagement strategies across different Limitations and recommendations
management levels to maximise employee engagement The study has some limitations. Firstly, this research employed
and ultimately improve job performance. convenience sampling to accomplish its objectives. Therefore,

http://www.sajhrm.co.za Open Access

 Page 7 of 8 Original Research

the limitations associated with convenience sampling apply to Author’s contributions

this study. Secondly, the sample size is another limitation, as it
M.A.-H. contributed to the conceptualisation, design, and
is insufficient to represent all industries.
implementation of the research, analysis of the results, and
writing of the article.
To foster engagement, companies are advised to practise
transparency, starting with open communication with
employees. Providing resources, training, establishing reward Ethical considerations
mechanisms, fostering a corporate culture that values hard Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from
work, and developing a robust performance management the Arab Open University Ethical Research Committee
system are essential strategies for top management. (no. 105/23).
Organisations in the Sultanate of Oman must develop effective
employee engagement strategies that include value-added Funding information
activities to generate future improvement in job performance.
This research did not receive funding from any public,
This study significantly advances the field of organisational commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
behaviour by identifying key drivers of employee
engagement and assessing their impact on job performance Data availability
across management levels. Through rigorous statistical The data supporting the findings of this study are available
analysis, it provides empirical evidence supporting from the corresponding author, M.A-H., upon reasonable
the theoretical link between employee engagement and request.
organisational outcomes, such as productivity and
profitability. The study enriches theoretical understanding
by emphasising the importance of integrating employee
Disclaimer
engagement into organisational culture, highlighting its The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of
role as a fundamental aspect of organisational functioning. the author and are the product of professional research. It
Additionally, it offers practical insights for managers, does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of
bridging the gap between theory and practice and guiding any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the
the development of effective engagement strategies. By publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results,
identifying areas for future research, the study contributes findings, and content.
to ongoing discourse, paving the way for further empirical
investigations and theoretical development in this field. References
Alam, J., Mendelson, M., Ibn Boamah, M., & Gauthier, M. (2023). Exploring the
Conclusion antecedents of employee engagement. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 31(6), 2017–2030. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2020-2433
Ajila, C., & Abiola, A. (2004). Influence of rewards on work performance in an
The purpose of this study was to assess the impact organization. Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/​
of employee engagement factors on job performance, 09718923.2004.11892397

investigate the relationship between employee engagement Barney, J.B., & Wright, P.M. (1998). On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human
resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management:
and job performance, and suggest practices to improve Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University
of Michigan and in Alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management,
employee engagement in the Sultanate of Oman. 37(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199821)37:1%3C31::AID-
HRM4%3E3.0.CO;2-W
Barreiro, C.A., & Treglown, L. (2020). What makes an engaged employee? A facet-
The analysis of the data involved the utilisation of various level approach to trait emotional intelligence as a predictor of employee
engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 159, 109892. https://doi.
statistical tools, revealing a significant impact of employee org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109892
engagement drivers across management levels. Particularly, Bedarkar, M., & Pandita, D. (2014). A study on the drivers of employee engagement
engagement was found to be highest among middle impacting employee performance. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences,
133, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.174
management. Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to Bin, A.S., & Shmailan, A. (2015). The relationship between job satisfaction, job
ascertain the relationship between these drivers and performance and employee engagement: An explorative study. Issues in Business
Management and Economics, 4(1), 1–8.
engagement levels, indicating a positive and highly correlated Brebels, L., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijke, M. (2011). Using self-definition to predict
association. Additionally, multiple regression was performed the influence of procedural justice on organizational-, interpersonal-, and job/
task-oriented citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 40(3), 731–763.
to assess job performance based on engagement drivers, with https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410605
results highlighting the significant predictive roles of job Brunetto, Y., Xerri, M., Shriberg, A., Farr-Wharton, R., Shacklock, K., Newman, S., &
Dienger, J. (2013). The impact of workplace relationships on engagement, well-
characteristics and rewards and recognition. being, commitment and turnover for nurses in Australia and the USA. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 69(12), 2786–2799. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12165

Acknowledgements
Chetty, K., & Price, G. (2024). Ubuntu leadership as a predictor of employee
engagement: A South African study. SA Journal of Human Resource Management,
22(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v22i0.2462
Competing interests Christen, M., Iyer, G., & Soberman, D. (2006), Job satisfaction, job performance, and
effort: A re-examination using agency theory. Journal of Marketing, 70(1),
The author declares that he has no financial or personal 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.1.137.qxd
relationships that may have inappropriately influenced him Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., & Slaughter, J.E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel
in writing this article. Psychology, 64(1), 89–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x

http://www.sajhrm.co.za Open Access

 Page 8 of 8 Original Research

Cole, M.S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A.G., & O’Boyle, E.H. (2012). Job burnout and employee Markos, S., & Sridevi, M.S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving
engagement: A meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation. Journal of performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89.
Management, 38(5), 1550–1581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415252 https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n12p89
Cullen, K.L., Edwards, B.D., Casper, W.C., & Gue, K.R. (2014). Employees’ adaptability Mohapatra, M., & Sharma, B.R. (2010). Study of employee engagement and its
and perceptions of change-related uncertainty: Implications for perceived predictors in an Indian public sector undertaking. Global Business Review, 11(2),
organizational support, job satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Business and 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/097215091001100210
Psychology, 29, 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9312-y
Mishra, K., Boynton, L., & Mishra, A. (2014). Driving employee engagement: The
Dabke, D., & Patole, S. (2014). Predicting employee engagement: Role of expanded role of internal communications. Journal of Business Communication,
perceived organizational support and perceived support from superiors.
Tactful Management Research Journal, 3(1), 1–8. 51(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525399

Douglas, S., & Roberts, R. (2020). Employee age and the impact on work engagement. Robinson, S.L., Wang, W., & Kiewitz, C. (2014). Coworkers behaving badly: The impact
Strategic HR Review, 19(5), 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-05-2020-0049 of coworker deviant behavior upon individual employees. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 123–143. https://
Edirisooriya, W.A. (2014). The impact of rewards on employee performance: With doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091225
special reference to ElectriCo. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/323747331_The_Impact_of_Reward_on_Employee_Performance_ Robertson-Smith, G., & Markwick, C. (2009). Employee engagement: A review of
with_Special_Reference_to_ElectriCo current thinking. Institute for Employment Studies.
Gill, R. (2010). Employer of choice: Using computers to enhance employee Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.
engagement in Australia. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 29(3), Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. https://doi.
44–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.20318 org/10.1108/02683940610690169
Gonring, M.P. (2008). Customer loyalty and employee engagement: An San, O.T., Theen, Y.M., & Heng, T.B. (2012). The reward strategy and performance
alignment for value. Journal of Business Strategy, 29(4), 29–40. https://doi. measurement (evidence from Malaysian insurance companies). International
org/10.1108/02756660810887060 Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 2(1), 211–223.
Grant, A.M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review
relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89–110.
93(1), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108 https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309353560
Gupta, N., & Sharma, V. (2016). Exploring employee engagement—A way to better
business performance. Global Business Review, 17(3_suppl), 45S–63S. https://doi. Skarlicki, D.P., Van Jaarsveld, D.D., & Walker, D.D. (2008). Getting even for
org/10.1177/0972150916631082 customer mistreatment: The role of moral identity in the relationship between
customer interpersonal injustice and employee sabotage. Journal of Applied
Hafiza, N.S., Shah, S.S., Jamsheed, H., & Zaman, K. (2011). Relationship between Psychology, 93, 1335–1347. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012704
rewards and employee’s motivation in the non-profit organizations of Pakistan.
Business Intelligence Journal, 4(2), 327–334. Sparrowe, T., & Liden, C. (2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader-member
exchange and social network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly,
Hair, J.F., Tatham, R.L., Anderson, R.E., &Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis 50(4), 505–535. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.50.4.505
(4th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Tanwar, A. (2017). Impact of employee engagement on performance. International
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., & Hayes, T.L. (2002). Business-unit level relationship Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science, 3(5), 239845.
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: https://doi.org/10.24001/ijaems.3.5.16
A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268 Turner, P., & Turner, P. (2020). What is employee engagement? In P. Turner (Ed.),
He, H., Zhu, W., & Zheng, X. (2014). Procedural justice and employee engagement: Employee engagement in contemporary organizations: Maintaining high
Roles of organizational identification and moral identity centrality. Journal productivity and sustained competitiveness (pp. 27–56). Palgrave Macmillan.
of Business Ethics, 122(4), 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1774-3 Turunç, Ö., & Çelik, M. (2010). Effect of perceived organizational value on work-
Johari, J., & Yahya, K.K. (2016). Job characteristics, work involvement, and job family/family-work conflicts, organizational identification and the intention to
performance of public servants. European Journal of Training and Development, resign: A study in defense sector. Atatürk University Journal of Social Sciences
40(7), 554–575. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-07-2015-0051 Institute, 14(1), 209–232.
Köse, A. (2016). The relationship between work engagement behavior and perceived Williams, R.S. (2002), Managing employee performance: Design and implementation
organizational support and organizational climate. Journal of Education and in organizations. Thompson Learning.
Practice, 7(27), 42–52.
Wood, S., Van Veldhoven, M., Croon, M., & De Menezes, L.M. (2012). Enriched job
Loi, R., Lam, L.W., & Chan, K.W. (2012). Coping with job insecurity: The role of design, high involvement management and organizational performance: The
procedural justice, ethical leadership and power distance orientation. Journal of mediating roles of job satisfaction and well-being. Human Relations, 65(4),
Business Ethics, 108(1), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1095-3 419–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711432476

http://www.sajhrm.co.za Open Access

 © 2024. This work is published under
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding
the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance
with the terms of the License.