summary - university of surreyepubs.surrey.ac.uk/850421/1/thesis - ms m mehrganra… · web...
TRANSCRIPT
When Employee Engagement is shared: An Examination
of Engagement Crossover Effects between Co-workers
By
Mojdeh Mehrganrad
Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Surrey Business School
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
University of Surrey
Supervisors: Prof. Stephen Woods
Prof. Geoff Thomas
Mojdeh Mehrganrad, 2018
1
Declaration of Originality
This thesis and the work to which it refers are the results of my own efforts.
Any ideas, data, images or text resulting from the work of others (whether
published or unpublished) are fully identified as such within the work and
attributed to their originator in the text, bibliography or in footnotes. This thesis
has not been submitted in whole or part for any other academic degree or
professional qualification. I agree that the University of Surrey has the right to
submit my work to the plagiarism detection service TurnitinUK for originality
checks. Whether or not drafts have been so-assessed, the university reserves the
right to require an electronic version of the final document (as submitted) for
assessment as above.
Name & Signature: Mojdeh Mehrganrad
Date:
2
Summary
This thesis reports on research into employee engagement and
engagement crossover in the workplace. Employee engagement is “a
positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterised by
vigour, dedication, and absorption”, (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). When
engaged, employees employ their hand, head, and heart to excel in their
performance. On the other hand, engagement crossover is an inter-
individual, dyadic process where certain functional and affective aspects
of the work context, quantify the transfer of engagement from one
employee to his or her co-workers.
The research commenced with a general proposition that engagement
can crossover from one employee to his/her co-worker in the workplace.
However, the thesis postulated that there are functional and affective
aspects of the work context, such as task and outcome interdependence,
and workplace friendship, which create a specific condition for
engagement crossover in the workplace. To investigate these propositions
two research questions and five hypotheses were raised: “To what extent
does employee engagement crossover from one employee to his/her co-
worker in the workplace?” Relatedly, “what are the potential factors that
determine the extent of this crossover?”
To empirically test the research hypotheses, two independent studies
were conducted. Study 1 (N=528) forms the first phase of this research
3
and investigated engagement crossover among employees working in five
different sectors. To build further on the first phase of the research, Study
2 (N=250) was conducted among employees of the petrochemical sector
of the Iranian gas and oil industry. While the findings of each study were
identical and replicated in the next one, each phase evolved from the
previous one until the research matured into a comprehensive test of
engagement crossover.
Failure of previous studies to give compelling evidence for engagement
crossover in the workplace provided a good opportunity for the thesis to
contribute to employee engagement and crossover literature. Hence, two
lines of research from crossover and engagement were brought together
to justify engagement crossover in the workplace. The findings of both
studies were confirmatory of the research questions. The thesis
established that employee engagement can crossover from one employee
to his/her co-worker, even after the spurious variance from demographic
variables such as age, gender, hours spent with co-workers, tenure, and
education levels, individual differences such as affect and personality (Big
Five) and employees’ shared stimuli such as job demands and resources
and job characteristics were controlled in the model.
The findings of the thesis developed new insights into crossover
literature. Firstly, the thesis provided an empirical test of the empathy
process in the two studies and showed that neither empathic concern nor
perspective taking strengthen engagement crossover between two
interdependent employees. These findings are novel and contribute to
crossover research by empirically proving that Westman’s (2001)
proposition for the direct transfer of positive psychological states via 4
empathy cannot be substantiated to the crossover of employee
engagement in the workplace.
The thesis further contributed to crossover research by extending
Westman’s (2001) initial model to the workplace and identifying specific
indirect mechanisms of engagement crossover through the functional and
affective role of task and outcome interdependence and workplace
friendship. Thus, the objective of the thesis were met. Finally, the main
theoretical contribution of the thesis is the engagement crossover model,
which is underpinned by social interdependence theory (not role theory).
Not only did the proposed model empirically test the three mechanisms of
crossover concurrently in two independent studies, but also, it identified
specific indirect mechanisms for the crossover of employee engagement in
the workplace. Therefore, the proposed engagement crossover model
addressed the shortcomings of the previous research and provided a
thorough test of the crossover process in the workplace.
The thesis also contributes to practice with implications for managers
and leaders being discussed in the conclusion chapter. Principles and
techniques were suggested for group designs and workplace relationships
as a means of enhancing employee engagement, well-being, and work
performance.
5
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to many people for their help and support during my Ph.D.
journey.
Thank you to Professor Stephen Woods for your supervision and
guidance and to Professor Geoff Thomas for your support and depth of
insight.
My sincere thanks to the research respondents who willingly
participated in my study and have remained welcoming and interested
throughout the different phases of research. My particular thanks also go
to the CEO of the gas and oil company, in which the research project was
conducted on, Mr. Payam Rafie, for facilitating links to all staff and for his
enthusiasm in this research.
Many family and friends have encouraged and supported me, especially
with me not being around as much as I would have liked. Thanks to my
mother and late father who believed that I could do this, even when I
didn't.
A special thank you to Dr. Alireza Khorakian, for reading drafts,
discussing progress, supporting me, and showing interest in my work.
I am also grateful to the following people who contributed directly to the
research activities:
Nandita Fahad Sam zargham Zeineb Cox
Lara Carminati Constanze Eib
6
Publications & PresentationsPeer-review
M. Mehrganrad, S.A Woods & G. Thomas (2018). Workplace friendship:
the affective outcome and the underlying mechanism of interdependence.
Accepted for presentation Institute of Work Psychology International (IWP),
Sheffield, UK.
M. Mehrganrad, S.A Woods & G. Thomas (2018). Engagement crossover
in the workplace. Accepted for presentation in 34th European Group for
Organisational Studies Colloquium (EGOS), Tallinn, Estonia.
M. Mehrganrad, S.A Woods & G. Thomas (2017). A Conceptual Model of
Engagement Contagion: a fresh look from social comparison theory. Paper
presented at European Association of Work and Organisational Psychology
(EAWOP), Dublin, Ireland.
M. Mehrganrad, S.A Woods & G. Thomas (2017). Is Employee
Engagement Contagious? Paper presented at University of Surrey Festival
of Research Conference, Guildford, UK.
M. Mehrganrad, S.A Woods & G. Thomas (2016). Is Employee
Engagement Contagious? Poster presented at University of Surrey PGR
Conference, Guildford, UK.
7
M. Mehrganrad, S.A Woods & G. Thomas (2015). What is Employee
Engagement? Poster presented at University of Surrey PGR Conference,
Guildford, UK.
E. Nasserinejad, M. Mehrganrad & Z. Mohammadzade (2014). Exploring
the moderating role of relational leadership on the relationship between
supervisor communication competence and employee satisfaction.
International Journal of Current Life Science. Vol.4 (6), pp.2543-2548.
M. Mehrganrad & A. Shirazi (2012). Women Entrepreneurship in Iran.
Proceedings of 2nd Annual International Conference on Innovation and
Entrepreneurship (IE 2012), Singapore.
A. Shirazi, M. GolestaniNia, M. Mehrganrad, M.A. Naghdali (2012).
Examining Job Characteristics Model in an Oriental Culture. International
Journal of Business and Management Research, Vol. 5 (I).
8
Contents List
Summary...........................................................................................................................................3
Acknowledgements...........................................................................................................................6
Publications & Presentations Peer-review........................................................................................7
Tables List........................................................................................................................................15
Figures List.......................................................................................................................................17
Chapter One....................................................................................................................................18
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................18
1.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................18
1.2 Research Motivation and Focus................................................................................................19
1.3 Rationale for the Research........................................................................................................21
1.4 Contributions.............................................................................................................................24
1.4.1 Contribution to the Theory.............................................................................................25
1.4.2 Contribution to Practice..................................................................................................26
9
1.5 Thesis Structure.........................................................................................................................26
1.6 Research Background................................................................................................................28
1.6.1 Employee Engagement...................................................................................................28
1.6.2 Crossover Theory............................................................................................................30
1.6.3 Relational Work Design: Task and Outcome Interdependence.......................................32
1.6.4 Workplace Friendship.....................................................................................................34
1.7 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................36
Chapter Two Literature Review.......................................................................................................38
2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................38
2.2 Overview of Theory and Research in Employee Engagement...................................................39
2.2.1 Employee Engagement Definitions– Multiplicity of Perspectives...................................39
2.2.2 Psychological Conditions.................................................................................................43
2.2.2.1 Psychological Meaningfulness.................................................................................44
2.2.2.2 Psychological Safety.................................................................................................46
2.2.2.3 Psychological Availability.........................................................................................48
2.2.3 Antecedents and Outcomes of Employee Engagement..................................................49
2.2.3.1 Organisational Factors.............................................................................................49
2.2.3.2 Work Design Factors................................................................................................51
2.2.3.3 Individual Factors.....................................................................................................53
2.2.3.4 Outcomes of Employee Engagement.......................................................................54
2.2.4 A New Construct or Just an Old Wine in a New Bottle?..................................................56
2.2.5 Disengagement...............................................................................................................59
2.2.6 Theory Development......................................................................................................62
10
2.2.7 A Critique of the Research in Employee Engagement.....................................................64
2.3 Overview of Theoretical Developments in Crossover Research and Potential Improvement
through Engagement Crossover Model...........................................................................................66
2.3.1 Historical Development of Crossover Research from Work-Family Interface to Crossover
Theory......................................................................................................................................66
2.3.2 The Crossover Theory.....................................................................................................69
2.3.2.1 Empathy Processes..................................................................................................70
2.3.2.2 Common Stressors...................................................................................................75
2.3.3 Indirect Processes...........................................................................................................78
2.3.4 A Critique of Crossover Research and Potential Improvement through Engagement
Crossover Model......................................................................................................................82
2.4 Overview of Theory and Research in Work Design Literature, and the Rise of Relational
Perspectives....................................................................................................................................92
2.4.1 Redesigning Work Design Theories: A Relational Perspectives Approach......................95
2.4.1.1 Task Interdependence.............................................................................................97
2.4.1.2 Outcome Interdependence...................................................................................101
2.5 Overview of Theory and Research in Workplace Friendship...................................................106
2.5.1 Historical Development of Work Relationships Research from Positive Work
Relationships to Workplace Friendship.................................................................................106
2.5.2 Workplace Friendship...................................................................................................110
2.5.3 Workplace Friendship Development.............................................................................112
2.5.4 Function of Workplace Friendship................................................................................115
2.6 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................118
Chapter Three Research Overview, Theoretical Framework and Research Hypotheses..............12111
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................121
3.2 Overview of the Thesis, Theoretical Framework, and Research Hypotheses..........................122
3.3 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................137
Chapter Four Research Methodology...........................................................................................139
4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................139
4.2 Research Philosophy: The Paradigm........................................................................................139
4.2.1 Research Ontology........................................................................................................140
4.2.2 Research Epistemology.................................................................................................141
4.3 Research Approach..................................................................................................................142
4.4 Research Design......................................................................................................................143
4.5 Research Strategy....................................................................................................................144
4.6 Research Quality.....................................................................................................................145
4.6.1 Reliability......................................................................................................................146
4.6.2 Validity..........................................................................................................................147
4.6.2.1 Construct Validity..................................................................................................147
4.6.2.2 Internal Validity.....................................................................................................148
4.6.2.3 External Validity.....................................................................................................149
4.7 Ethical Considerations.............................................................................................................149
4.8 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................151
Chapter Five Research Findings....................................................................................................152
5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................152
5.2 Phase 1: Study 1......................................................................................................................152
5.2.1 Method.........................................................................................................................153
12
5.2.1.1 Sample and Procedures.........................................................................................153
5.2.1.2 Measures...............................................................................................................155
5.2.1.3 Control Variables...................................................................................................157
5.2.2 Analytical Strategy........................................................................................................159
5.2.3 Results..........................................................................................................................159
5.2.3.1 Test of Hypotheses................................................................................................162
5.2.4 Discussion.....................................................................................................................171
5.3 Phase 2: Study 2......................................................................................................................174
5.3.1 Method.........................................................................................................................175
5.3.1.1 Sample and Procedures.........................................................................................175
5.3.1.2 Measures...............................................................................................................175
5.3.1.3 Control Variables...................................................................................................178
5.3.2 Analytical Strategy........................................................................................................180
5.3.3 Results..........................................................................................................................181
5.3.3.1 Test of Hypotheses................................................................................................183
5.3.4 Discussion.....................................................................................................................191
5.4 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................193
Chapter Six Discussion..................................................................................................................194
6.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................194
6.2 Does Employee Engagement Crossover in the Workplace?....................................................196
6.2.1 Hypotheses 1 and 2: Employee Engagement Is Not an Emotion..................................199
6.2.2 Hypothesis 3: The Functional Factors...........................................................................204
6.2.3 Hypothesis 4: The Affective Factor...............................................................................206
13
6.3 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................210
Chapter Seven Thesis Conclusion.................................................................................................212
7.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................212
7.2 Implications of Research Findings...........................................................................................213
7.2.1 Contribution to Theory.................................................................................................213
7.2.2 Contribution to Practice................................................................................................215
7.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research.......................................................217
7.4 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................220
References.....................................................................................................................................222
Appendix One The Participant Information Sheet.........................................................................248
Appendix Two The Consent Form..................................................................................................254
Appendix Three Study 1 Questionnaire........................................................................................256
Appendix Four Study 2 Questionnaire...........................................................................................268
Appendix Five Pick-a-point and Johnson-Neyman tests, Study 1..................................................296
Appendix Six Pick-a-point tests for 2 moderators, 2-way Interactions Study 1.............................299
Appendix Seven Pick-a-point and Johnson-Neyman tests, Study 2...............................................300
Appendix Eight Pick-a-point tests for 2 moderators, 2-way Interactions Study 2..........................303
Appendix Nine Research Skills and Training..................................................................................304
14
Tables List
2.1 The Organisational, Job and Individual Antecedents of Employee
Engagement…………….….56
4.1 Key Research Distinctions between Positivism and
Interpretivism……………………….......…...140
4.2 Key Principles of Quality of
Research………………………………………………………………………………143
5.1 Measurement Model Tests Study
1………………………………………………………………………..………158
5.2 Descriptive Statistics, Correlations of the Research Variables, Study
1…………………………….159
5.3 Regression Results for Bootstrap Coefficients of perceived co-worker
engagement on employee engagement, Study
1…………………………………………………………………………………………162
5.4 Regression Results for Estimated Coefficients with the Moderator
Empathic Concern and Perceived Co-worker Engagement on Employee
Engagement, Study 1………….…………………..163
5.5 Regression Results for Estimated Coefficients with the Moderator
Perspective Taking and Perceived Co-worker Engagement on Employee
Engagement, Study 1……………………………….165
5.6 Regression Results for Estimated Coefficients with the Moderator Task
and Outcome interdependence and Perceived Co-worker Engagement on
Employee Engagement, Study 1…………....
15
………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………….166
5.7 Regression Results for Estimated Coefficients with the Moderator
Workplace Friendship and Perceived Co-worker Engagement on Employee
Engagement, Study 1…………….……...….169
5.8 2 Moderators, 2-Way Interactions Study
1……………………………………………………………………170
5.9 Measurement Model Tests Study
2………………………………………………………….………..…………181
5.10 Descriptive Statistics, Correlations of the Research Variables, Study
2……….…………….…..182
5.11 Regression Results for Bootstrap Coefficients of perceived co-worker
engagement on employee engagement, Study
2………………………………………………….……………………………………….183
5.12 Regression Results for Estimated Coefficients with the Moderator
Empathic Concern and Perceived Co-worker Engagement on Employee
Engagement, Study 2.……………………………. 184
5.13 Regression Results for Estimated Coefficients with the Moderator
Perspective Taking and Perceived Co-worker Engagement on Employee
Engagement, Study 2……………………….………186
5.14 Regression Results for Estimated Coefficients with the Moderator
Task and Outcome Interdependence and Perceived Co-worker
Engagement on Employee Engagement, Study
2
......................................................................................................................
............................18716
5.15 Regression Results for Estimated Coefficients with the Moderator
Workplace Friendship and Perceived Co-worker Engagement on Employee
Engagement, Study 2…………………….….190
5.16 2 moderators, 2-way Interactions, Study
2……………………………………………………………………191
17
Figures List
1.1 Research
Journey…………………………………………………………………………………………
………….……….20
3.1 Engagement Crossover
Model………………………………………………………………………………..
……..136
5.1 Study 1, the interaction of perceived co-worker engagement and
empathic concern on employee
engagement……………………………………………………………………………
……….……….....163
5.2 Study 1, the interaction of perceived co-worker engagement and
perspective taking on employee engagement………….
……………………………………………………………………………………..164
5.3 Study 1, the interaction of perceived co-worker engagement and task
and outcome interdependence on employee
engagement…………………………………………………………………165
5.4 Study 1, interaction perceived co-worker engagement and workplace
friendship on employee engagement………….
…………………………………………………………..…………………………168
5.5 Study 1, 2 moderators, 2-way Interactions of perceived co-worker
engagement, and interdependence of employee engagement at low
workplace friendship (Left), and high workplace friendship (Right)
…………………………………………………………………………………………171
18
5.6 Study 2, interaction perceived co-worker engagement and empathic
concern on employee
engagement……………………………………………………………………………
………………………………...…185
5.7 Study 2, interaction perceived co-worker engagement and perspective
taking on employee
engagement……………………………………………………………………………
………..………………….………186
5.8 Study 2, interaction perceived co-worker engagement and task and
outcome interdependence on employee
engagement…………………………………………………….…….……187
5.9 Study 2, interaction perceived co-worker engagement and workplace
friendship on employee
engagement……………………………………………………………………………
…..………….……190
6.1 Engagement crossover model, Study
1……………………………………………………………………………195
6.2 Engagement crossover model, Study
2………………………………………………………………………….196
Chapter One
Introduction
“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” Socrates
19
1.1 Introduction
This thesis presents research into employee engagement and
engagement crossover. Whilst previous studies argued that employee
engagement can crossover, either from the spouse to his or her partner, or
from team members to individuals (Bakker, Emmerik, & Euwema, 2006;
Brough, Muller, Westman, 2018; Westman, Emmerik, Etzion, & Chen,
2009), this brief body of literature justified the crossover process based on
the empathy and/or the emotional contagion processes without empirically
testing these mechanisms (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009; Bakker et al.,
2006; Ten Brummelhuis, Haar, Roche, 2014). This has limited our
understanding of the mechanisms (the why) and the boundary conditions
(the how) of engagement crossover in the workplace.
This thesis advances a proposition that employee engagement is not
entirely individual, but rather it is a shared experience; however, the
design of the tasks (task and outcome interdependence), and workplace
relationships (workplace friendship), determine the extent to which
employees affect one another’s engagement experiences at work. The
findings of the thesis add to our understanding of employee engagement
by investigating the boundary conditions of engagement crossover in the
workplace. A positivist, deductive research design supported an
explanatory approach in investigating the research questions. Two
independent studies were carried out, and as the research progressed, the
findings revealed new insights into the concept of engagement crossover.
Knowledge gained from this research may inform leaders and managers
about the social dynamics and relationships within the work environment
20
and the way they affect employees’ attitudes and behaviours. A number of
practical implications are identified that leaders and managers may apply
to boost employees’ work environments and facilitate productivity and
engagement among employees, especially in work groups.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a rationale for conducting this
research and to establish the importance of the thesis in contributing to
the current knowledge of the discipline. To further this aim, research
motivation, focus, and relevance are presented in the following sections.
The chapter continues with an explanation of the theoretical and practical
contributions of the research. The structure of the thesis is then described
and finally, the chapter ends with a summary of the research background.
1.2 Research Motivation and Focus
Currently, research in the field of employee engagement tends to focus
on organisational, job description or individual factors, which predict and
reinforce employee engagement in organisations. Whilst there is plenty of
evidence for the beneficial effects of employee engagement from
organisational and individual perspectives (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter,
2011; Crawford, Rich, & Lepine, 2010), much of the recent literature does
not take into account the interpersonal effects of employee engagement
(Rich et al., 2010; Saks & Gruman, 2014; Wollard & Shuck 2011). The
author, being a management student, was interested to know whether
other employees can benefit from working with more engaged co-workers.
That is, whether engaged employees could influence their co-worker’s
engagement levels under certain working conditions. Since an
21
organisation’s performance is the end result of the employees’ collective
effort, it is conceivable to argue that employee engagement is not entirely
an individual experience, but rather employees can affect one another’s
attitudes, behaviours, and work performances. Current empirical research
into engagement crossover is very limited, and there seem to be potential
theoretical issues in this very brief body of literature (Bakker &
Xanthopoulou, 2009; Bakker et al., 2006; Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2014).
This created an opportunity for the thesis to contribute to the body of
knowledge about engagement crossover.
The literature on employee engagement is rigorous enough to build a
research project and identify gaps in the knowledge relating to employee
engagement. Therefore, two research questions are raised: “To what
extent does employee engagement crossover from one employee to
his/her co-worker in the workplace?” Relatedly, “what are the potential
factors that determine the extent of this crossover?” Figure 1.1 shows the
steps taken in the research program.
Figure 1.1. Research Journey
22
1.3 Rationale for the Research
Historically, research into employee engagement (EE)1 has gained
popularity among researchers and practitioners along with the ‘Positive
Movement’ and ‘Positive Organisational Behaviour’ momentum and its
emphasis on enhancing human strength, optimal functioning, and positive
experiences at work, rather than focusing on merely negative
psychological states, (Cole, Walter, Bedeian, & O’ Boyle, 2012). Recent
developments in the field have shown the need for more rigorous
investigations into employee engagement as numerous studies have
revealed that this creates a competitive advantage for organisations (Rich
et al., 2010; Saks & Gruman, 2014; Wollard & Shuck, 2011). These studies
have conclusively shown that a higher level of employee engagement is
significantly related to higher job satisfaction, task performance,
organisational citizenship behaviours, productivity, discretionary efforts,
affective and continuing commitment, higher stakeholder returns,
customer satisfaction, reduced absenteeism, and turnover intentions (Rich
et al., 2010; Saks & Gruman, 2014; Wollard & Shuck, 2011).
In addition, reports about employee engagement convincingly highlight
that employees’ engagement levels are decreasing in both developed and
developing economies worldwide (Saks, 2006; Saks & Gruman, 2014).
These reports show that almost half of American employees are either not
fully engaged or disengaged, which costs the United States between $250
and $300 billion a year. Disengaged employees are also reported to affect
organisations in British, German, Australian, and Asian economies (Saks, 1 Employee engagement
23
2006; Saks & Gruman, 2014). Many organisations in the UK, such as the
National Health Service (NHS), SELEX Galileo (an electronic company), the
UK’s Civil Aviation Authority, Capital One (a global credit card lender), BT,
and the University of Greenwich, have been developing initiatives to
enhance employee engagement among their employees (Saks & Gruman,
2014; Wollard & Shuck, 2011).
There are two main streams of research into employee engagement;
namely, by practitioners and academic research. While practitioners are
more concerned with the practical side of employee engagement and its
outcomes for organisations, such as improved profit and productivity,
academics are more focused on defining the concept, its measurement, its
antecedents, and outcomes, at the micro-level (Saks, 2006; Wollard &
Shuck, 2011; Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011).
A critical review of the literature on both practitioners and academic
research revealed that there is relatively little literature published on the
interpersonal effects of employee engagement in the workplace. Earlier
contributions have mainly focused on investigating the antecedents and
outcomes of employee engagement for organisations, (Christian, et al.,
2011; Rich et al., 2010; Saks & Gruman, 2014; Wollard & Shuck, 2011).
Further developments in the field have highlighted the importance of
engagement for employees’ health and well-being, life satisfaction, and
work-life balance, (Cole et al., 2012; Crawford et al., 2010). These studies
argued that being engaged at work is not only an advantage for the
employees’ organisations, but it can also improve other aspects of
employees’ lives, such as their well-being and life satisfaction, (Cole et al.,
2012; Crawford et al., 2010). Clearly, the existing literature does not take 24
into account the interpersonal effects of employee engagement. It is in
this context that a renewed investigation of employee engagement is
stimulated.
Enquiries into the interpersonal effects of employee engagement led the
author to explore many diverse areas, including the literature on emotion,
personality, work-life balance, crossover research, and interpersonal
perception. Finally, the literature on work-family interface and emotion,
which abounds with examples of interpersonal interactions and emotional
transfer, lent support to the claim that employees can affect one another’s
engagement levels in the workplace.
Further, an in-depth review of work-family interface and crossover
literature revealed that although there is ample evidence to support the
view that negative and positive experiences such as stress, strain,
burnout, and engagement crossover from one person to another, there is
relatively little research into engagement crossover in the workplace,
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2009; Brough et al., 2018; Ten Brummelhuis et al.,
2014; Westman, 2001, 2009, 2017). Thus, insufficient research into the
interpersonal effects of employee engagement and engagement crossover
in work-family interface, crossover and employee engagement literature,
provided an excellent opportunity for the research to build on and
contribute to our understanding of employee engagement.
Informed by research into organisational behaviour, this thesis is about
the interpersonal effects of employee engagement. The core assumption
of the thesis is that employee engagement is not entirely individual, but
rather it is a shared experience. This means that employees can affect
their co-workers’ experiences of engagement; however, this shared 25
experience is determined by the design of the tasks (task and outcome
interdependence), and employees’ relationships and attachment with one
another (workplace friendship).
This concept is therefore embedded within the positive organisational
behaviour as the broader academic field of inquiry while gaining insight
and credit from work-family interface and crossover research. Whilst in the
former body of literature, the emphasis is on human strength, virtues,
happiness, excellence, resiliency, thriving, and optimal functioning,
(Donaldson & KO, 2010), the latter enquires into the crossover of negative
and positive experiences in the work-family domains, (Westman, 2001,
2009). Hence, the thesis brings these lines of research together and
investigates the engagement crossover process in the workplace.
The main purpose of the thesis is to contribute to employee
engagement literature and crossover research. Firstly, Schaufeli’s (2002)
definition of employee engagement is adopted because engagement is
conceptualised as a positive affective state, which is relatively malleable
and open to development, compared to other more stable job attitudes
such as job satisfaction, job involvement, and job commitment. Indeed, it
is the state-like nature of employee engagement, which supports
engagement crossover in the workplace.
Secondly, the research is informed by and expands Westman’s (2001)
crossover model to the workplace. Thirdly, the thesis proposes the
engagement crossover as a more comprehensive model for explaining the
engagement crossover process in the workplace, which does not have the
theoretical limitations of Westman’s (2001) model.
26
Therefore, this research is different from previous studies in
engagement literature because rather than merely looking for ways to
increase engagement among individuals or testing the relationships
between employee engagement and its outcomes, it takes an
interpersonal approach, and enquires into the interpersonal effects of
employee engagement. The research question is therefore highly
important and practical. Its investigation makes a significant contribution
by filling a notable research gap in employee engagement literature and
crossover research.
1.4 Contributions
The research contributions are summarised in the following sections and
discussed in more detail in Chapter Three.
1.4.1 Contribution to the Theory
This thesis contributes to conceptual and empirical perspectives of
employee engagement crossover in the workplace. Firstly, the thesis
proposes a theoretical model of engagement crossover in the workplace,
which is underpinned by social interdependence theory. This is the main
contribution of the thesis to crossover research, because not only does the
proposed model empirically test the direct, indirect and the common
stressors mechanisms of crossover concurrently in two independent
studies, but also, it identifies specific indirect mechanisms for the
crossover of employee engagement in the workplace.
27
Additionally, whilst a brief body of research argues that engagement
crossover happens due to the empathy and/or the emotional contagion
processes (Bakker et al., 2006, 2009; Brough et al., 2018; Westman,
Bakker, Roziner, & Sonnentag, 2011), the thesis argues that engagement
crossover is not simply an emotional process; thus, justifying engagement
crossover based on the empathy and/or the emotional contagion
processes, which explain the direct crossover of negative and positive
emotions, is rather simplistic and fallacious. Failure of previous studies to
provide empirical evidence for the direct process of empathy lend further
support for this argument (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009; Bakker et al.,
2006; Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2014). The thesis contributes to crossover
research by empirically proving that Westman’s (2001) proposition for the
direct transfer of positive psychological states via empathy cannot be
substantiated to the crossover of employee engagement in the workplace.
Further, identification of task and outcome interdependence and
workplace friendship as indirect mechanisms of engagement crossover is
new and further contributes to crossover research by extending
Westman’s (2001) initial model to the workplace.
Moreover, following Westman’s (2001) crossover model and to factor
out the common stressors effect , the spurious variance from demographic
variables such as age, gender, hours spent with co-workers, tenure, and
education levels, individual differences such as affect and personality (Big
Five) and employees’ shared stimuli such as job demands and resources
and job characteristics are added in the analysis. This way, the thesis
addresses the shortcomings of the previous research and provides a
thorough test of the crossover process in the workplace.28
1.4.2 Contribution to Practice
The insight gained from this research may be applied to inform leaders
and managers about employees’ engagement experiences, the social
dynamics and work relationships in the work environment, which affect
employees’ attitudes and behaviours. Accordingly, the research suggests
a number of principles and techniques, acknowledging the importance of
work design and work relationships as key factors in the crossover process
in the workplace, which managers and leaders may use to increase
employee engagement, productivity, and efficiency, particularly, in work
groups.
1.5 Thesis Structure
Chapter One has discussed the focus of the thesis, and the rationale and
importance of the investigation into employee engagement literature, with
this section summarising the structure. The definition of employee
engagement and crossover theory, which has been applied as an
underlying theory in previous crossover research, is briefly discussed in
section 1.6. Consistent with the focus of this chapter, a brief definition of
relational work design and workplace friendship is provided.
Building on the contextual discussion from this chapter, Chapter Two
provides an in-depth literature review of the relevant concepts which has
drawn insight from previous research and current thinking in the extant
literature. Having considered the interplay of several factors in the
engagement crossover process, task and outcome interdependence, and
29
workplace friendship is proposed as functional and affective factors
respectively, which create boundary conditions for engagement crossover
in the workplace. Chapter Two concludes with a summary of the key
concepts from which a theoretical model is derived and explained in
Chapter Three.
Building on the literature discussed in Chapter Two, Chapter Three
provides an overview of the thesis and develops arguments about key
factors in the engagement crossover process, but also how they inter-
relate to build a theoretical model of the thesis. A set of hypotheses are
presented which directly address the research questions and guide the
proceeding empirical chapters.
Chapter Four presents the methodological and philosophical orientation
of the thesis. Since the purpose of the thesis is to investigate engagement
crossover, a positivist approach was chosen. Hence, the research is
objectivist and explanatory in nature and aims to explain the mechanisms
and the boundary conditions under which engagement crossover occurs.
The chapter then goes on to describe the research design and strategy.
A quantitative approach using a survey questionnaire enabled the
researcher to identify causal relationships in two independent studies. The
chapter discusses the sampling techniques and methods for data
collection, including an explanation of how the research evolved in two
phases. Finally, both research ethics and access are discussed.
A detailed summary of the findings from an analysis of the two studies
is provided in Chapter Five. The insights gained from conducting each
study are explained, showing how the research evolved and how each
study’s limitation was addressed in the next phase. The evidence is 30
presented to support the claim that engagement crossover occurs due to
functional and affective factors and not the empathy or the emotional
contagious processes. The findings of the two studies will be further
expanded upon in the discussion chapter.
In Chapter Six, insights gained from the findings of the two studies are
integrated with the literature to support the argument about the
engagement crossover process in the workplace. Evidence from the
findings and a critique of the previous research is presented to support the
claim that engagement crossover is not simply an emotional process, but
rather other factors (such as functional and affective) are at play in
engagement crossover in the workplace. The discussion centres on the
claim that the engagement crossover model presented in the thesis is a
more comprehensive model of well-being crossover in the workplace. This,
in turn, raises questions concerning the implications of this model in the
workplace, which are addressed in the concluding chapter.
Chapter Seven focuses primarily on the implications of the findings both
in theory and practice. Techniques and principles are suggested which
may be applied by leaders and managers to facilitate a work context that
enhances employees’ well-being. A discussion of the limitations of the
research and recommendations for future investigations conclude Chapter
Seven and the thesis.
31
1.6 Research Background
1.6.1 Employee Engagement
Employee engagement is currently a topic of great interest to
academics, organisations, and management researchers (Saks & Gruman,
2014). The established body of literature on employee engagement has
developed an understanding of the concept within the field of
organisational behaviour, and positive organisational behaviour (POB) as
well as positive organisational scholarship (POS) (Saks & Gruman, 2014).
There are several definitions of employee engagement in the academic
literature; however, two widely cited definitions of employee engagement
are from Kahn (1990) and Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, and
Bakker (2002), (Saks & Gruman, 2014). Whilst distinct from each other,
these two definitions have some similarities and overlaps (Saks & Gruman,
2014).
The first definition of employee engagement in academic literature is
from Kahn (1990) who defined employee engagement as, “the harnessing
of organisation members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement,
people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and
emotionally during role performances”, (Kahn, 1990, p. 694). In the
engagement, individuals bring all aspects of themselves—cognitive,
emotional, and physical—to their role performance. Thus, to be fully
engaged means, “individuals display their full selves within the roles they
are performing” (Kahn, 1990, p. 700). Personal disengagement, on the
other hand, refers to “the uncoupling of selves from work roles; in
disengagement, people withdraw and defend themselves physically,
32
cognitively, or emotionally during role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p.
694). When individuals are disengaged, they decouple themselves from
their work roles (Kahn, 1990).
The second influential definition of employee engagement is that of
Schaufeli et al. (2002). They define engagement as “a positive, fulfilling,
work-related state of mind that is characterised by vigour, dedication, and
absorption”, (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). Vigour involves high levels of
energy and mental resilience during work; dedication refers to being
strongly involved in one’s work and experiencing a sense of significance,
enthusiasm, and challenge; and absorption refers to being fully
concentrated and engrossed in one’s work. According to Schaufeli et al.
(2002), “engaged employees have high levels of energy and are
enthusiastic about their work”, and they “are often fully immersed in their
work so that time flies”, (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008, p. 210).
Clearly, there is a consensus between these two conceptualisations of
employee engagement. Firstly, in both definitions, employee engagement
was conceptualised as a motivational state, which serves organisational
purposes (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks & Gruman, 2014). This means
that whilst employee engagement is an internal psychological experience
which cannot be forced or mandated, contextual factors can affect
employees’ motivation to psychologically connect with work, its context,
and other people.
Secondly, in both definitions, employee engagement is conceptualised
as an attitude such as involvement, commitment, passion, enthusiasm,
focused effort, and energy, which has behavioural outcomes (Macey &
Schneider, 2008). Whilst Kahn’s (1990) conceptualisation emphasises the 33
notion of personal agency and the concept of self, (Cole, et al., 2012),
being the extent to which individuals bring their true selves into role
performance (Kahn, 1990), Schaufeli’s et al. (2002) definition emphasises
the state-like nature of engagement and conceptualises it as a state of
engagement, which is relatively malleable and open to development,
(Schaufeli’s et al., 2002).
This research is aligned with Kahn (1990) and Schaufeli’s et al. (2002)
definition of employee engagement. Hence, the thesis propounds the view
that whilst employee engagement is a positive attitude at work, it is a
shared experience and not purely an individual one. The thesis advances a
proposition that functional and affective factors (task and outcome
interdependence, and workplace friendship, respectively) can affect
employees’ motivations to psychologically bring their true “self” into role
performance. This point will be further expanded upon in Chapter Two.
The next section provides a summary of crossover research.
1.6.2 Crossover Theory
The historical development of crossover research from the work-family
interface to crossover theory is provided in Chapter Two. In this section, a
summary of crossover theory, which is a widely accepted and frequently
used theory in crossover research, is given.
Crossover Theory is an integration of work-family interface and job-
stress models with an inter-individual and dyadic focus which explains how
and why a person’s emotions, feelings, and experiences, whether positive
or negative, transfer to another person, (Brough et al., 2018; Westman,
34
2001). The core assumption is that negative experiences such as stress,
anxiety, and depression, generates similar reactions in other people with
whom a person interacts on a regular basis, (Westman, 2001). This means
that when an individual experiences stress in the workplace, not only does
this stress carry over to his or her home and affect his or her functioning
at home, but it may also increase his or her spouse’s stress levels.
Similarly, a spouse’s experienced stress at home may crossover to co-
workers in the workplace (Brough et al., 2018).
According to Westman (2001), there are three main psychological
mechanisms for crossover, (Westman, 2001). The first mechanism is the
empathy, which is a direct transmission of well-being between partners.
The second mechanism suggests that crossover could be merely the effect
of common stressors or shared events, which are spurious and should be
taken as “third variables”, (Westman, 2002). Finally, Westman (2002)
argues that crossover may be the result of an indirect interaction process
or mediating and moderating mechanisms such as social support or
undermining behaviours. Clearly, Westman’s (2001) crossover model is a
comprehensive model, which incorporates the antecedents of stress and
strain, explains the underlying psychological mechanisms of the crossover
process, and the personal attributes as possible moderators resulting in
behavioural, psychological, and physical outcomes.
A considerable amount of literature has been published on the crossover
of the unwell-being (such as stress and burnout) and negative emotions
between two intimate partners, (Westman & Chen, 2017); however, there
has been relatively little literature published on the crossover of positive
emotions and well-being in the work-family domain, (Bakker, Emmerik, & 35
Euwema, 2006; Bakker et al., 2009; Demerouti et al., 2005). Recent
developments in crossover research have shown the need for more
investigations into the crossover process of well-being, positive emotions,
and experiences in the work-family domain and workplace (Brough et al.,
2018; Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2014; Westman & Chen, 2017).
Whilst investigating the crossover of negative and positive experiences
in the work-family domain is not within the scope of this thesis, two
identified issues have stimulated inquiries into the well-being crossover
processes (employee engagement) in the workplace in this research. First,
the crossover research to date has tended to focus on the investigation of
negative experiences and emotions in the workplace. There are relatively
few published literature about the crossover of positive emotions and
experiences in the workplace (Brough et al., 2018; Ten Brummelhuis et al.,
2014; Westman & Chen, 2017). Second, a theoretical issue has dominated
this brief body of literature, which has limited our understanding of the
mechanisms of the crossover process in the workplace.
A brief background of work design and work relationships literature is
provided in the following sections.
1.6.3 Relational Work Design: Task and Outcome Interdependence
As was discussed in section 1.6.1, employee engagement is an internal
psychological experience at work, which cannot be forced or mandated;
however, there are several contextual factors, which can affect this inner
experience (Kahn, 1990). This section briefly explains why relational work
designs (task and outcome interdependence), are identified as functional
factors, which create a boundary condition for engagement crossover. The 36
detailed explanation and review of the literature are provided in Chapter
Two.
One of the most elaborated and widely accepted theories of work design
is Oldham and Hackman's (1976, 1980) job design theory. Oldham and
Hackman (1976, 1980) proposed five core job characteristics: skill variety,
task identity, task significance, autonomy, and job feedback, which are
determinants of three psychological states of experienced
meaningfulness, experienced responsibility, and knowledge of results. The
three psychological states, in turn, result in positive psychological and
behavioural outcomes (Oldham & Hackman, 1980).
Whilst many scholars have assumed that the work design theory
presents a clear picture of psychological and behavioural effects of job
design (Grant & Parker, 2009), a global shift from a manufacturing
economy to a knowledge and service economy in the twenty-first century
has urged scholars to redesign theories of job design (Grant & Parker,
2009). Therefore, two perspectives, which map onto these critical features
of the twenty-first century, are developed: relational perspectives and
proactive perspectives. Since the central aim of the thesis is to investigate
the interpersonal effects of employee engagement, relational perspectives
of work design are deemed relevant and consistent with the purpose of
the thesis. Chapter Two sets out an in-depth review of these work design
theories.
Adopting a relational perspective, task interdependence is defined as
“the degree to which employees rely on each other for the exchange of
information, resources, and tools to complete their jobs” (Van der Vegt &
Van de Vliert, 2000, p. 635). 37
On the other hand, outcome interdependence is defined as “the degree
to which group members are presented with group feedbacks and goals”
(Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2000, p. 635). Group goals represent group
missions and purposes, which are measured as the collective level of
performance achieved by all members of a group. Group feedback is the
actual group status presented to group members comparable to reference
standards (Van der Vegt & Molleman, 2007).
An in-depth review of work design and interdependence literature
recognised task and outcome interdependence as social characteristics of
the work environment that can affect employees’ psychological and
behavioural outcomes (Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2000; Van der Vegt &
Molleman, 2007). This thesis argues that when there are task and outcome
interdependence, employees enter the crossover process and affect each
other’s attitudes and behaviours.
On the one hand, the nature and structure of tasks in task
interdependence accentuate the need to be dependent on or related to
one’s co-worker to complete the job. It also prompts employees’
responsibility for their own as well as others’ outcomes. Thus, employees
feel that not only are they giving to others and to their job, but also, they
are able to receive rewards in the form of self-worth and dignity. The
feelings of worthwhileness and felt responsibility for others’ outcomes are
in line with Kahn’s (1990) psychological meaningfulness and predicts
employee engagement.
On the other hand, perceived collective goals and rewards in outcome
interdependence encourage the collaborative behaviour. Together, task
and outcome interdependence create a social context in which employees 38
enter the crossover process and affect one another’s attitudes and
behaviours. Thus, not only does an employee’s own engagement level
increase, but co-workers will also increase their engagement level to
maximally facilitate and minimally hinder one another’s mutual,
interdependent performance (Kiggundu, 1981).
On these grounds, the thesis argues that task and outcome
interdependences are functional factors and can strengthen engagement
crossovers in the work context.
Further support for the functional role of task and outcome
interdependence in engagement crossover is given in Chapter Two. The
following section gives a summary of workplace friendship as an affective
factor, which moderates engagement crossover in the workplace.
1.6.4 Workplace Friendship
The importance of positive interpersonal relationships at work is
highlighted in positive work relationships literature (Colbert et al., 2016).
According to this body of literature, work relationships are a “source of
enrichment, vitality, and learning that helps individuals, groups, and
organisations grow, thrive, and flourish” (Ragin & Dutton, 2007, p: 3). One
such positive work relationship which goes beyond the traditional task
assistance and career advice is workplace friendship (Tse, Spears &
Ashkanasy, 2008). This section briefly explains why workplace friendship is
identified as an affective factor, which may create a boundary condition
for engagement crossover. A detailed explanation and review of the
literature are given in Chapter Two.
39
Workplace friendship manifests an interpersonal relationship, which
goes beyond the traditional co-worker relationships and role expectancies.
It is a unique, voluntary relationship with a personalistic bond, which
facilitates personal growth, thriving, and flourishing (Colbert, et al., 2016;
Sias, 2005, 2008). In workplace friendship, individuals are willing to reveal
central aspects of their self, are involved in a voluntary interdependence,
and become more responsive to one another’s needs and feelings (Colbert
et al., 2016).
Clearly, workplace friendship has personal, socio-emotional,
organisational, and work-related benefits (Colbert, et al., 2016; Sias, 2005,
2008). From an individual perspective, workplace friendship is a source of
instrumental and emotional support, providing opportunities for
employees’ career development and results in higher quality
communications and broader information exchange. From the
organisational perspective, workplace friendship can enhance employees’
commitment and morale and reduce turnover (Sias, 2005, 2008).
Additionally, previous studies have indicated that workplace friendship is
positively related to job satisfaction, job performance, life satisfaction,
positive emotions at work, and the perception of meaningful work (Colbert,
et al., 2016; Sias, 2005, 2008).
Further, an in-depth review of positive work relationships literature
recognises workplace friendship as another social characteristic of the
work context, which can affect employees’ psychological and behavioural
outcomes (Colbert, et al., 2016; Sias, 2005, 2008). Work relationships
have also been identified as affective factors, which can affect
engagement crossover. This thesis argues that employees, who are 40
constantly working in an interdependent work context, where they need to
interact with their peer co-workers and exchange tools, information, and
resources to complete their job, are exposed to their co-worker’s feelings,
attitudes, and behaviours. The frequency of interactions paired with
shared goals and rewards brings employees closer to one another.
Employees may feel that they are similar or “in the same boat” because
they need to rely on each other to complete their jobs and are mutually
responsible for the achievement of their goals.
Perceived similarity along with exposure, interaction, and proximity to
other co-workers facilitates workplace friendship (Sias, 2005, 2008; Tse,
Spears & Ashkanasy, 2008). Once co-workers have developed this close
affective bond with one another, they can enter the crossover process and
affect one another’s feelings, attitudes, and behaviours.
Chapter Two presents an in-depth review of positive work relationships
and discusses how the perception of workplace friendship encourages
employees to engage in higher quality work relationships.
1.7 Conclusion
Chapter One has described the relevance, importance, and purpose of
this thesis. The research journey is summarised, explaining how
enthusiasm and curiosity about the interpersonal effects of employee
engagement stimulated an in-depth investigation into the field of
employee engagement.
A brief background of the research is provided, highlighting the fact that
despite decades of research in employee engagement literature, insights
41
into the interpersonal effects of employee engagement are limited. Whilst
research has shown that engagement is beneficial for both organisations
and individuals (Rich et al., 2010; Christian et al., 2011), there are still
fundamental gaps in our understanding of the interpersonal effects of
employee engagement.
Having addressed the fact that the existing literature in crossover
research has mainly focused on the crossover of negative emotions and
experiences in the work-family domain (Bakker & Demerouti, 2009), it
became clear that further investigation to examine the crossover process
of well-being among employees is needed (Bakker, Emmerik, & Euwema,
2006; Brough et al., 2018). Employee engagement in general and
engagement crossover in particular, therefore forms the focus of the
thesis.
The thesis aims to contribute to the understanding of the interpersonal
effects of employee engagement and the engagement crossover process
in the workplace. Two research questions are designed to investigate the
engagement crossover process and its boundary conditions in the
workplace.
Building on Westman’s (2001) crossover model yet elaborating on, and
improving upon, much of the previous contributions in crossover research,
the thesis proposes that functional and affective factors (task and outcome
interdependence, and workplace friendship respectively), play key roles in
the engagement crossover process in the workplace. A theoretical
framework is proposed which will be further discussed in Chapter Three.
The next chapter develops from an in-depth literature review of
employee engagement and crossover research, into an exploration of the 42
relational work design and work relationships literature, as it becomes
clear that task and outcome interdependence and workplace friendship
are functional and affective factors, which create boundary conditions for
engagement crossover.
43
Chapter TwoLiterature Review
“Literature is strewn with the wreckage of men who have minded beyond reason the opinions of others”.
Virginia Woolf
2.1 Introduction
Research motivation, importance, and purpose are established in
Chapter One. It is noted that despite decades of research into employee
engagement, insights into the interpersonal effects of employee
engagement, and how engaged employees affect their co-workers while
simultaneously improving their work performance, are limited. Whilst
research has highlighted that engaged employees benefit their
organisations (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Rich et al., 2010), there
are still fundamental gaps in our understanding of the interpersonal
effects of employee engagement.
The research started with an in-depth and broad exploration of
employee engagement literature. The initial review of the literature led to
several diverse areas, including literature on crossover, personality, work-
life balance, and interpersonal perception, in addition to those more
clearly centred on employee engagement dynamics.
This chapter summarises the relevant theories, concepts, and ideas,
which set in, place the foundation for the thesis. This chapter, therefore,
develops on the discussion about the multidisciplinary perspectives of
employee engagement, discusses the psychological conditions of
44
employee engagement, and explores the theories, which have been
applied in the previous research. Whilst remaining generally in the work
domain throughout the thesis, a discussion of work-family interface and
crossover research is included.
Further, in the chapter, a discussion of work design literature is
presented. Having narrowed the scope of the discussion to renewed
approaches to work redesign, an overview of relational work design is
provided. Central to the research theme, a discussion of work relationships
and an overview of research in workplace friendship is given.
Chapter Three integrates these literature and presents a theoretical
framework of the thesis. It introduces an engagement crossover model,
which explains the key concepts and shows how they inter-relate, as a
synthesis of the literature.
2.2 Overview of Theory and Research in Employee Engagement
2.2.1 Employee Engagement Definitions– Multiplicity of Perspectives
This section examines the multifaceted conceptualisations and
perspectives of employee engagement. While there are several definitions
of employee engagement in academic literature, mapping the
development of the definitions and theories of employee engagement is a
critical step in gaining a profound understanding of employee
engagement. The following sections address this point by providing an
overview of the development of this field.
Scholars conceptualised employee engagement in a number of different
perspectives. Some associated employee engagement with the ‘need
45
satisfying’ approach and the investment of self at work (Kahn, 1990; Rich
et al., 2010; Shuck, 2010). Others viewed employee engagement as the
opposite of burnout (Maslach et al., 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Alternative interpretations considered employee engagement as a
multidimensional construct (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006). Thus,
considering these perspectives, researchers have defined employee
engagement differently.
Nevertheless, one of the very early perspectives of employee
engagement is Kahn’s ‘Need Satisfying Approach’. Drawing from Hackman
and Oldham’s (1980) job-design theory, Kahn (1990) described personal
engagement in his qualitative study as a physical, emotional, and
cognitive expression of self at work during role performance. He
considered employee engagement as a discretionary effort, which can
only be exercised when work conditions are psychologically favourable
(Kahn, 1990).
On the other hand, Kahn (1990) described disengagement as
uncoupling or withdrawing and defending the self physically, emotionally,
and cognitively during work performance. Kahn (1990) combined Hackman
and Oldham’s (1980) job-design theory with interpersonal, group, and
organisational factors that elevate or undermine employees’ motivations
and perceptions of meaningfulness at work. He convincingly demonstrated
that it is the individual’s psychological experiences at work that makes
employees engaged or disengaged. According to Kahn (1990), there are
three psychological conditions namely, meaningfulness, safety, and
availability, which are crucial to the degree to which people engage at
46
work. Elaborated discussions of these psychological conditions are given in
section 2.2.2.
Although Kahn (1990) proposed that individual, interpersonal, group,
inter-group, and organisational factors play a significant role in providing
psychological conditions of engagement, one question arises of whether
engaged employees who are working in a similar work condition as those
less engaged or disengaged ones affect their co-worker’s engagement
level.
The second approach comes from Maslach’s (2001) ‘burnout-
engagement model’. Maslach (2008) defined engagement as “an
energetic state of involvement with personality fulfilling activities that
enhance one’s sense of professional efficacy” (Maslach, 2008, p. 498).
Maslach positioned engagement dimensions of energy, involvement, and
efficacy as the opposite of burnout dimensions: exhaustion, cynicism, and
inefficacy (Maslach et al., 2001).
Under current perspectives, Schaufeli (2002) defined employee
engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, affective-motivational work-related
state of mind that is characterised by vigour, dedication, and absorption”
(Schaufeli, et al., 2002, p. 74). While vigour refers to high levels of energy
and mental resiliency, dedication is conceptualised as a sense of
significance, enthusiasm, and challenge during role performance, and
absorption is being fully concentrated at work. Thus, engaged employees
are enthusiastic, have high levels of identification with their work, and are
energetic at work (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008). According to
Schaufeli et al. (2002), rather than being a transient, momentary state,
engagement is “a more persistent and pervasive affective cognitive state 47
that is not focused on any object, event, individual, or behaviour”
(Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74).
The third approach towards employee engagement is called the
‘Multidimensional Approach’. According to this approach, employee
engagement is considered as a moderator of the relationship between
current stressors and future psychological and physical health. Saks
(2006) defined employee engagement as “a distinct and unique construct
consisting of cognitive, emotional, and behavioural components associated
with individual role performance” (Saks, 2006, p. 602).
Saks’s (2006) framework clearly demonstrated that employees who
have physical, emotional, and psychological resources available to
complete their tasks are more absorbed and engaged at work. This
definition is also in agreement with Kahn (1990), Schaufeli et al., (2002)
and Harter’s et al. (2002) conceptualisations.
Along similar lines, Rich et al. (2010) have provided evidence for the
cognitive, emotional, and behavioural aspects of employee engagement.
Further evidence about the three states of employee engagement
(cognitive, emotional, and behavioural) may lie in the findings of Macey
and Schneider’s (2008) study, which extended Saks’s (2006) model and
suggested that job characteristics, leadership, and personality, were
related to the development of employee engagement.
Clearly, the extant literature does not provide a universally agreed
definition of employee engagement (Bakker et al., 2011; Maslach, 2011;
Rayton, 2012; Zigaemi et al., 2007); however, the aim of the thesis is not
to present a unified definition of this concept, but rather the focus of the
thesis is on the conceptual space of employee engagement. Thus, the 48
thesis takes a middle-ground position and conceptualises employee
engagement as comprising of motivational dimensions: an
energetic/activation facet, a self-involvement facet, and attitudinal
dimensions, including a cognitive facet and an affective facet (Bakker,
Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011).
Whilst it has been argued that engagement is a discretionary
willingness, a personal experience, which cannot be forced or mandated,
this thesis propound the view that employee engagement is not purely
individual, but rather it is a shared experience which does not occur in
isolation. The social dynamics among individuals as well as the larger
institutional dynamics are part of an individual’s experience of
engagement. There is ample evidence in collegial relationship research for
social contagion, highlighting the fact that peer co-workers affect one
another’s reactions to their shared work context and influence each
other’s attitudes and behaviours (Bakker & Demerouti, 2009; Bakker, Van
Emmerik & Euwema, 2006). Thus, it is conceivable to argue that
employees can affect one another’s engagement levels.
Further, whilst several studies have conceptualised employee
engagement as a trait: a stable positive attitude towards life, which is
difficult to change (Britt, Castro & Adler, 2005; Mauno, Kinnunen &
Ruokolainen, 2007), others have conceptualised it as a state, which is
malleable and open to development and change (Macey & Schneider,
2008; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). To investigate the interpersonal effects
of employee engagement, this thesis adopts Schaufeli’s et al., (2002)
conceptualisation of employee engagement, because his definition
encapsulates employees’ work experiences; a stimulating and energetic 49
state in which employees invest time and effort willingly (vigour
component), with significant and meaningful work (dedication
component), and a state of full concentration (absorption component)
(Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011).
This definition of employee engagement, unlike other researcher’s
definitions, conceptualises this as an experience of engagement, which is
relatively malleable and open to development, rather than an innate trait
(Schaufeli et al., 2002). Moreover, Schaufeli’s et al., (2002) assumptions,
unlike other researchers’ assumptions, highlighted the motivational and
the attitudinal dimension of employee engagement. On these grounds,
Schaufeli’s et al., (2002) definition of employee engagement is considered
relevant and valid to fulfil the purpose of the thesis.
Relevant to the discussion of employee engagement is Kahn’s (1990)
three psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability.
Later research, which was developed based on Kahn’s (1990)
conceptualisation (Bakker, 2006; May et al., 2004; Rich et al., 2010;
Schaufeli et al., 2004; Schaufeli & Shuck et al., 2010), have investigated
individual, job, and organisational factors that increase and maintain these
three psychological conditions. An extended discussion of these
psychological conditions is provided in the following sections.
2.2.2 Psychological Conditions
Built on the motivation and job design theory, Kahn (1990) proposed
that individuals’ psychological experiences at work influence the degree to
which employees bring in or leave out their preferred “self” to work. Kahn
(1990) associated these conditions with Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) 50
psychological states and identified three psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety, and availability.
2.2.2.1 Psychological Meaningfulness
According to Kahn (1990), psychological meaningfulness is an
individual’s feeling of a return of investment of their self in the form of
physical, cognitive, or emotional energy. Only when individuals feel
worthwhile, useful, and valuable, do they experience a sense of meaning
in their work. This feeling of meaningfulness is driven from task and role
characteristics, which can affect individuals’ attitudes and behaviours
(Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Kahn, 1990). In his research on two separate
samples, being employees of a summer camp and an architectural firm,
Kahn (1990) identified three factors, which influence psychological
meaningfulness. These three factors are also comparable to Oldham and
Hackman’s (1980) core job dimension.
2.2.2.1.1 Task Characteristics
The first factor, which is also of interest in this thesis, is task
characteristics. Works that are more challenging, clearly described, varied,
creative, and autonomous, prompt psychological meaningfulness and lead
to more engagement. Likewise, Oldham and Hackman (1980) identified
skill variety, task identity, and task significance as determinants of
psychological meaningfulness.
Skill variety is the extent to which a person uses a range of different
skills and talents to carry out his or her task. When an employee feels that
he or she needs to draw upon several skills, they will find the job 51
personally meaningful, even if it is not of great importance (Kahn, 1990).
Task identity is the degree to which a job requires employees to complete
a piece of work from the beginning to the end, with visible outcomes. An
employee may find the work more meaningful when they are responsible
for the completion of a whole piece rather than just a small part of the
work.
Task significance is the degree to which a job affects the lives of others
inside or outside of the organisation. When an employee knows that the
outcome of his work may have a significant effect on other people’s well-
being, he or she will experience more meaning in what he or does.
According to Oldham and Hackman (1980), when these factors (skill
variety, task identity, and task significance) are incorporated in the design
of work, they act as internal motivators and increase employees’
psychological meaningfulness. Experienced meaningfulness at work leads
to beneficial personal and organisational outcomes. Numerous studies
have shown that there is a significant positive relationship between task
characteristics, psychological meaningfulness, and employee engagement
(Christian et al., 2011; Kahn, 1990; Shirazi & Mehrganrad et al., 2012). For
example, in a meta-analysis, Christian et al., (2011) found that task
variety and task significance influence employees’ experiences of
meaningfulness and the resulting employee engagement.
2.2.2.1.2 Role Characteristics
Role characteristics can also prompt psychological meaningfulness.
Roles that carry identity and status induce a sense of power and what that
power brings for people (Kahn, 1990). When employees occupy important 52
positions in their organisations and their role allows them to have an
influence on other people’s lives either external or internal, they feel
valuable, important, and needed which prompts psychological
meaningfulness in their work (Kahn, 1990).
2.2.2.1.3 Work Interactions
Psychological meaningfulness can also be experienced through
interpersonal, rewarding work interactions with colleagues and clients
(Kahn, 1990). Meaningful interactions in the workplace promote dignity,
self-appreciation, and worthwhileness. People generally exhibit positive
attitudes and behaviours when they perceive meaning in their job (Kahn,
1990). Work conditions such as group works and group-based activities, or
interdependent tasks, necessitate interactions among group members to
achieve their work objectives (Kahn, 1990). Such work arrangements
prompt a sense of worthwhileness and meaning, which eventually leads to
positive outcomes such as discretionary efforts, organisational citizenship
behaviour, and employee engagement (Kahn, 1990).
2.2.2.2 Psychological Safety
The ability to express and employ one’s self without the fear of negative
consequences is termed as a psychological safety by Kahn (1990, p.708).
According to Kahn (1990), situations which are perceived as threatening,
unclear, unpredictable, or inconsistent decrease personal engagement.
Factors which can influence psychological safety are:
53
2.2.2.2.1 Interpersonal Relationships
Supportive and trusting relationships allow people to try to fail without
the fear of consequences (Kahn, 1990). In an open, supportive, and
respectful work environment, employees have more control over their
jobs. Criticisms are perceived as constructive and employees feel safe to
express their full “self” at work (Kahn, 1990).
In a comparative study, May et al., (2004) emphasised supervisors’ and
co-workers’ roles in creating a safe and trustful environment at work. They
demonstrated that rewarding co-workers, encouraging supportive
supervisory relationships and perceived organisational support, were
positive predictors of psychological safety, while adherence to co-worker
norms and self-consciousness were negative predictors (May et al., 2004).
While previous studies have investigated the role of supervisory
support, perceived organisational support, and co-worker’s relationships in
enhancing engagement, workplace friendship as an indicator of
psychological safety have never been studied before. This thesis argues
that when employees perceive one another as friends rather than mere
role occupants, they feel safe, valued, and trusted and engage more with
tasks. The instrumental and emotional support which employees receive in
the form of friendship creates a safe environment for them to experiment
and get engaged with tasks. Further on in this chapter, is a brief
discussion of this concept and its relationship with employee engagement.
2.2.2.2.2 Group and Intergroup Dynamics
Group dynamics are defined by members’ conscious and unconscious
roles and the degree of safety in which their roles promote (Kahn, 1990). 54
People unconsciously occupy informal roles within their group, which
reflect their authority, competitiveness, and status within the group. Some
of these implicit roles are safer than the others, so depending on what role
people cast into, they experience more or less psychological safety for
them to either bring in or leave out their “self” (Kahn, 1990).
2.2.2.2.3 Management Style and Process
Managerial practices and styles which do not allow employees to have
some control over their job indicate a lack of trust. In such an
environment, employees feel unsafe to express their “self” (Kahn, 1990).
Managers can reinforce positive behaviour, such as employee
engagement, by creating a supportive, resilient, clarifying environment in
organisations. Investigating managerial processes and style are not in the
scope of this thesis, so the discussion is limited to this section only.
2.2.2.2.4 Organisational Norms
Organisational norms are shared expectations about appropriate ways
of working and behaving in organisations. Employees who adhere to these
norms feel safer and are engaged, compared to those who stay outside
the accepted boundaries of working and behaviour (Kahn, 1990).
2.2.2.3 Psychological Availability
Psychological availability is the degree to which employees possess
physical, emotional or psychological resources to personally engage at
work. The variety and level of work and non-work demands, determine the
55
extent to which an employee brings in or withdraws from work (Kahn,
1990). Factors affecting psychological availability are: physical energy
(levels of physical energy, strength, and readiness); emotional energy
(certain levels of emotionality to employ and express their self in tasks
requiring emotional labour); insecurity (lack of self-confidence and
heightened self-consciousness as well as value congruence which
corresponds to how safe employees feel about their work and their status);
and outside life (the potential of people’s outside lives to withhold them
psychologically from role performance).
While Kahn’s (1990) psychological meaningfulness points out the
importance of job characteristics in influencing people’s engagement or
disengagement at work, psychological safety and availability highlight the
importance of interpersonal and personal roles in predicting employee
engagement or disengagement at work. Of interest for the current
research, is the interpersonal aspects of employee engagement and
Kahn’s (1990) findings lend support to this approach. Nevertheless,
several studies, which are developed from Kahn’s (1990) research, have
investigated the interplay of numerous individual job and organisational
factors in predicting employee engagement; however, the interpersonal
effects of employee engagement need further investigation. Whilst the
purpose of the thesis is not to investigate the antecedents and outcomes
of employee engagement, an understanding of the drivers and
consequences of employee engagement can build a deeper understanding
and insight into the interpersonal effects of employee engagement. The
following sections provide a summary of the antecedents and outcomes of
employee engagement. 56
2.2.3 Antecedents and Outcomes of Employee Engagement
To reiterate, the literature on employee engagement abounds with
research, which has mainly focused on the organisational, job or individual
predictors and consequences of employee engagement (Christian et al.,
2011; Rich et al., 2010; Saks & Gruman, 2014). Whilst there is plenty of
evidence for the beneficial effects of employee engagement from
organisational and individual perspectives (Christian et al., 2011; Rich et
al., 2010; Saks & Gruman, 2014), much of the recent literature does not
take into account the interpersonal effects of employee engagement (Rich
et al., 2010; Saks & Gruman, 2014; Wollard & Shuck, 2011). It is in this
context that inquiries into the interpersonal effects of employee
engagement are stimulated within the thesis.
An in-depth review of the literature on employee engagement has
recognised three factors, which play central roles in predicting,
encouraging, and enhancing employee engagement in the workplace:
organisational factors, work design factors, and individual factors.
2.2.3.1 Organisational Factors
Organisational predictors of employee engagement are those contextual
factors, constructs, strategies, and conditions within organisations, which
create an environment that encourages, maintains, and reinforces
employee engagement. A considerable amount of literature has
highlighted the role of organisational factors in predicting employee
engagement. These studies, which are mainly underpinned by the JD-R
theory, have classified the organisational and job factors under job 57
resources and demands; however, to avoid lengthy, discursive discussions,
this section briefly lists the organisational predictors of employee
engagement, without classifying them into job demands or resources. A
detailed discussion of the JD-R theory and job demands and resources are
reserved for section 2.2.6.
In a structural review of employee engagement literature, Wollard and
Shuck (2011) have identified several studies, which empirically tested the
role of managers in creating a supportive climate for the development of
employee engagement in organisations (Kroth & Keeler, 2009; Plakhotnik,
Rocco, & Roberts, 2011, as cited in Wollard & Shuck, 2011). There is also
evidence for the role of managers’ self-efficacy (Arakawa & Greenberg,
2007), and their non-defensive approach (Shuck, Rocco, & Albornoz, 2011)
in the development of employee engagement in the organisations.
Several studies have emphasised the importance of a supportive,
authentic, positive organisational climate to enhance the conditions of
engagement (Dollard & Bakker, 2010; Shuck & Herd, 2011). For example,
Ulrich and Ulrich’s (2010) study demonstrated that contextual factors at
work could positively motivate employees to engage, whilst negative
environments can frustrate the opportunities for engagement
development (Ulrich & Ulrich, 2010). Additionally, research has shown that
perceived organisational and supervisor support (Saks, 2006), positive
leadership attributes such as relationship-orientation (Pickard, 2009;
Tamkin et al., 2010, as cited in Wollard & Shuck, 2011), authenticity (de
Vita, 2007, as cited in Wollard & Shuck, 2011), affective commitment, and
psychological climate (Shuck, Reio, & Rocco, 2011) are positive predictors
of employee engagement (Wollard & Shuck, 2011). 58
Further, research has demonstrated that other organisational
constructs, strategies, and conditions, such as suppressed political
activities (Holbeche & Springett, 2004), clear, unique, and communicated
strategies (Markides, 2006), distributive and procedural justice (Saks,
2006), integrity, openness and transparency (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-
Metcalfe, 2008), removal of bureaucracy (Zhang & Bartol, 2010),
opportunities for learning (Czarnowsky, 2008) and talent management
systems (Hughes & Rog, 2008) are fundamental to the development of
employee engagement (refer to Wollard & Shuck, 2011).
Lastly, hygiene factors such as fair pay, working conditions, security,
and low levels of trust with the leader, have shown to enhance employee
engagement (Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008; Shuck, et al., 2011).
Along similar lines of argument, the thesis advances the proposition that
employee engagement is not purely an individual experience, rather co-
workers and the social dynamics of work context can affect employees’
shared experiences of engagement. Therefore, informed by the integral
role of organisational, job, and individual factors in predicting,
encouraging, and maintaining employee engagement, the thesis is mainly
interested in the interpersonal effects of employee engagement and the
employees’ role in facilitating and enhancing engagement amongst their
co-workers.
Having briefly summarised the role of contextual factors in developing
employee engagement, the next section discusses the effects of work
design factors, which are already known, to enhance employee
engagement.
59
2.2.3.2 Work Design Factors
Work design factors are those characteristics of the job and the tasks,
which are incorporated in the design of the work and can affect
employees’ engagement experiences at work. As was discussed in 2.2.2.1,
work designs, which are more challenging, clearly described, varied,
creative, and autonomous, prompt psychological meaningfulness and lead
to employee engagement (Kahn, 1990). This is based on the assumption
that individuals have a “need” to grow and develop and the work context
affects the degree to which these needs are fulfilled; thus, work should be
designed to satisfy and motivate individuals (Parker, et al., 2001, p. 3).
According to Oldham and Hackman’s (1980) ‘Job Characteristics Model’,
jobs which are characterised by high levels of task variety, task identity,
and task significance, act as internal motivators and affect the three
critical psychological states of experienced meaningfulness, experienced
responsibility, and knowledge of results. Whilst skill variety, task identity,
and task significance are related to experienced meaningfulness,
autonomy is related to experienced responsibilities for work outcomes and
job feedback is related to knowledge of results. These psychological states
are positively related to employees’ psychological and behavioural
outcomes such as intrinsic motivation, job satisfaction, job performance,
and reduced absenteeism and turnover (Fried et al, 2008).
A considerable amount of literature has supported the positive
relationship between work design factors (the design of the tasks and
jobs) and behavioural outcomes such as performance, turnover and
absenteeism, job satisfaction, internal work motivation, stress, and
employee engagement and burnout (Grant & Parker, 2009). For example, 60
in a meta-analysis, Christian et al., (2011) found that task variety and task
significance influenced employees’ experiences of meaningfulness and the
resulting employee engagement.
Further, research has also demonstrated that other work design factors
such as job fit (Shuck, et al., 2011), job resources (autonomy, performance
feedback, and social support) (Bakker, et al., 2008), work conditions, job
complexity (Christian et al., 2011), and job enrichment (May et al., 2004)
are positively related to employee engagement.
Given previous research has emphasised the role of individual factors
(individual differences, personality, and affects) on employee engagement,
the next section gives a brief summary of these individual factors as the
antecedents of employee engagement.
2.2.3.3 Individual Factors
Individual predictors of employee engagement include factors such as
individual differences, personality, and employees’ experiences and
perceptions of their work environment, which are directly related to
individual employees and are determining factors in the development of
employee engagement.
The literature on employee engagement has recognised these individual
factors as personal resources and extended them to the JD-R model
(Salanova et al., 2007; Salanova, et al., 2011). The importance of personal
resources in predicting employee engagement has been established to be
above and beyond job demands and resources (Salanova et al., 2007;
Salanova, et al., 2011).
61
In addition, several studies have provided evidence of engaged
employees’ personal characteristics. It has been demonstrated that
engaged employees tend to be self-efficacious (Llorens & Schaufeli, 2014),
optimistic (Arakawa & Greenberg, 2007), resilient (Luthans, Avolio, Avey &
Norman, 2007), extrovert and open to experiences (Iceoglu & Waar,
2011), socially proactive and emotionally stable (Inceoglu & Waar, 2011).
Further, several studies have investigated the relationship between
personality (Big Five), affects (positive and negative), and employee
engagement. Personality traits (Big Five) consists of five dimensions of
extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and
openness to experiences (Kim et al. 2009). Whilst extraversion implies an
energetic, sociable, active, assertive, and positive trait, agreeableness
characterises traits such as altruism, tender-mindedness, trust, and
modesty (Kim et al. 2009). Conscientiousness includes traits such as
organisation, thoroughness, and reliability, whereas, neuroticism is
characterised by nervousness, moodiness, and temperamentality. Finally,
openness to experiences includes traits such as imagination, curiosity, and
creativity (Kim et al. 2009).
Numerous studies have provided evidence that low levels of neuroticism
and high levels of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and
openness to experience predict employee engagement (Halbesleben,
Harvey, & Bolino, 2009; Inceoglu & Warr, 2011; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004;
Welfard, Reichard & Serrano, 2011).
Yet another individual factor, which can predict employee engagement,
is affect (positive and negative). Whilst positive affect (PA) is a person’s
state of enthusiasm, action, and alertness (Watson et al., 1988), negative 62
affect (NA) is a state of distress that includes a variety of adverse mood
states, including anger, contempt, disgust, fear, and nervousness (Watson
et al., 1988). Previous studies have found that PA is significantly related to
employee engagement, and employees’ well-being and health (Christian,
Garza, & slaughter, 2011; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli,
2009), whereas NA is significantly related to distress and burnout (Little,
Simmons, & Nelson, 2007).
2.2.3.4 Outcomes of Employee Engagement
There is plenty of evidence in employee engagement literature about
the positive outcome and consequences of employee engagement. These
studies have conclusively demonstrated that higher levels of employee
engagement are significantly related to higher job satisfaction, task
performance, organisational citizenship behaviours, productivity,
discretionary effort, affective and continuance commitment, higher
stakeholder returns, customer satisfaction, reduced absenteeism, and
turnover intentions (Rich et al., 2010; Saks & Gruman, 2014; Wollard &
Shuck, 2011).
For example, Harter et al. (2002) reported that employee engagement is
positively related to important business performance outcomes such as
customer satisfaction, loyalty, profitability, and productivity (Harter et al.,
2002). Research has also shown that high levels of employee engagement
tend to improve work performance in terms of creativity, enhanced self-
efficacy, positive emotions, good health, and to avoid burnout and
workaholism (Bakkar & Demerouti, 2008).
63
Further developments in the field have highlighted the importance of
engagement for employees’ health and well-being, life satisfaction, and
work-life balance (Cole et al., 2012; Crawford et al., 2010). These studies
argued that being engaged at work is not only an advantage for the
employees’ organisations, but it can also improve other aspects of
employees’ lives, such as their well-being and life satisfaction (Cole et al.,
2012; Crawford et al., 2010).
Since the main purpose of the thesis is to provide a thorough test of
engagement crossover in the workplace, and is informed by the central
role of organisational, job, and individual factors in predicting,
encouraging, and maintaining employee engagement; the thesis includes
some of these factors (task characteristics, job demands, the big-five, and
positive and negative affects) as control variables in the analysis. Chapter
Five provides for further discussion on this point. Table 2.1 gives a
snapshot of organisational, job, and individual predictors of employee
engagement.
64
Table 2.1. The Organisational, Job and Individual Antecedents of Employee Engagement
Individual Antecedents Organisational and Job Antecedents
Coping styleCuriosityEmployee motivationEmployee/work/family statusHigher levels of corporate
citizenship*Involvement in meaningful
work*Link individual and
organisational goals*OptimismSelf-esteem, self-efficacy*Work/life balance*Core self-evaluation*Value Congruence*Extraversion*Agreeableness*Conscientiousness*Neuroticism*Openness to experience*
Authentic corporate culture*Clear expectations*Corporate social
responsibility*Feedback*Hygiene factorsJob characteristics*Job controlJob fit*LeadershipLevel of task challenge*Manager expectations*Manager self-efficacy*Opportunities for learningPerception of workplace
safety*Positive workplace climate*Rewards*Supportive organisational
culture*Talent management
*Denotes antecedents with empirical evidence
2.2.4 A New Construct or Just an Old Wine in a New Bottle?
Employee engagement is a new concept with some overlaps with other
well-established constructs of job involvement, job satisfaction,
organisational commitment, and flow (Christian, et al., 2011; Rich et al.,
2010; Shuck, Gosh, Zigarmi, & Nimon, 2013). Whilst employee
engagement lacks a clear conceptualisation, there are some agreements
in conceptualising it as a distinct construct from other job attitudes
(Christian et al., 2011; Rich et al., 2010; Shuck et al, 2013). Indeed,
explaining the differences between employee engagement and other
attitudes (job involvement, job satisfaction, organisational commitment,
and flow) may be helpful in conceptualising employee engagement;
therefore, this section discusses how employee engagement is different
from other job attitudes.
65
While many researchers highlighted that there are many similarities
between employee engagement and job involvement, others argued that
the two constructs are distinct, yet potentially related to one another
(Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Salanova, Aguit, & Peioro, 2005).
Among the similarities between employee engagement and job,
involvement is the tendency to share some antecedents such as self-
esteem, supervisory support, and feedback. They also lead to similar
organisational outcomes such as performance and employee turnover
(Wollard & Shuck, 2011). On the other hand, while some scholars argued
that job involvement is a cognitive judgment, an attitude, and a self-image
about the job itself (May et al., 2004; Saks, 2006), others argued that
employee engagement is a broader, more inclusive construct, a
psychological connection consisting of energy and enthusiasm, which has
behavioural implications (Christian et al., 2011; Kahn, 1990; Rich et al.,
2010).
Further, employee engagement represents psychological well-being
(Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006) which is negatively related to health problems
(burnout symptoms such as sleep disturbances and depression) and role
perceptions (workload and role conflict), whereas job involvement seems
to be unrelated to role perceptions, mental or physical health outcomes
(Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006).
With respect to the distinction between job satisfaction and employee
engagement, several researchers have defined employee engagement as
a satisfaction-related concept (Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2002; Wagner &
Harter, 2006), suggesting that engagement and satisfaction share similar
nomological linkages. In contrast, while engagement is conceptualised as 66
an in-the-moment expression of cognitive, emotional, and behavioural
energies directed towards organisation outcomes (state-like), satisfaction
measures are a more general, global, and static expression of the overall
work-related attitude (trait-like) with different cognitive, emotional, and
behavioural outcomes (Macey et al., 2008).
Like job satisfaction, organisational commitment is conceptualised as a
person’s attachment or attitude towards an organisation, which is
relatively stable over time (Kahn, 1990; Saks, 2006); employee
engagement, on the other hand, is a state, not an attitude (Saks, 2006).
Moreover, employee engagement is a multidimensional construct, which is
conceptualised as a cognitive, emotional, and physical investment of self
at work (Rich et al., 2010; Shuck & Rocco, 2011). Thus, it is thought that
organisational commitment is a facet of engagement because it does not
represent the entirety of the engagement concept (Rich et al., 2010; Saks,
2006; Shuck & Rocco, 2011).
One of the job attitudes, which have the most overlap with employee
engagement, is flow. They are both multifaceted constructs with affective,
cognitive, and motivational aspects (Warr, 1987). They have similar
antecedents: job resources such as autonomy, social support, supervisory
coaching, and feedback are most likely to predict both employee
engagement and flow at work (Demerouti, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2005).
However, flow is a short-term peak experience, whereas engagement is
more long lasting and durable.
Overall, as employee engagement is evolving in the scholarly literature,
it is expected and understandable that widespread confusion remains
around its distinction and overlaps with other well-established constructs 67
of job involvement, job satisfaction, organisational commitment and flow
(Christian, et al., 2011; Rich et al., 2010; Shuck et al., 2013). Whilst
employee engagement may share similar conceptual space and overlaps
with these well-established job attitudes, there are some agreements in
conceptualising it as a distinct construct (Christian, et al., 2011; Rich et al.,
2010; Shuck et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the purpose of the thesis is not to
examine employee engagement conceptually, but rather the focus of the
thesis is on the conceptual space of employee engagement and its
interpersonal effects. Therefore, the thesis takes a middle-ground position
and conceptualises employee engagement as a distinct construct, which
may have some similarity and overlaps with other job attitudes. In line
with the purpose of the thesis, employee engagement is conceptualised as
a positive state, which “connotes involvement, commitment, passion,
enthusiasm, focused effort, and energy; with both attitudinal and
behavioural components” (Macy & Schneider, 2008, p. 4). Employee
engagement is considered relatively malleable and open to development
compared to other more stable job attitudes. Hence, the thesis seeks to
elicit the conceptual space of employee engagement (the interpersonal
effects of employee engagement), rather than the nomothetic insights.
Yet another way to clarify the employee engagement’s definition is to
distinguish it from disengagement and burnout. This point will be further
expanded upon in the following section.
2.2.5 Disengagement
Closely related to employee engagement, yet not clearly defined, is the
concept of “disengagement”. A review of the literature about 68
disengagement revealed that there is no clear distinction between
disengagement, employee engagement, and burnout. While some scholars
conceptualised disengagement as the opposite of engagement (Dean &
Jolly, 2012; Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004), others believe that it is a sub-
dimension of burnout (Demerouti et al., 2010; Maslach et al., 2001).
Whilst Kahn (1990) emphasised that disengagement is a psychological
withdrawal of self from work (the opposite of engagement), Schaufeli and
Bakker (2004) considered disengagement as a sub-division of burnout.
Somewhere in between is Towers Perrin’s (2003) definition, which defined
disengagement as: “a state of non-engagement rather than an act of
withdrawal from work” (Towers Perrin, 2003, p.2).
Other scholars have defined disengagement as more of a behavioural
experience rather than an internal psychological state. For example,
Hirschfeld and Field (2000) positioned disengagement in relation to
alienation. O'Brien and Toms (2008) associated disengagement with a lack
of involvement in an activity. In education studies, Dean and Jolly (2012)
noted that behavioural disengagement was students’ rejection of learning
opportunities. The following discussion provides a review of the literature
about disengagement as an internal psychological and behavioural
experience.
Distinguished from personal engagement, Kahn (1990, p694) defined
personal disengagement as the degree to “which people leave out their
personal selves during work role performance”. Whilst Kahn (1990)
contended that in engagement, employees employ and express their
preferred self, disengagement occurs when they withdraw or defend their
preferred self from role performance. Clearly, Kahn (1990) conceptualised 69
disengagement as an internal psychological experience, which is the
opposite end of the continuum to engagement. However, one can argue
that by defining disengagement as the “degree” to which people engage
at work, Kahn (1990) failed to distinguish between low engagement and
disengagement.
In the earliest empirical test of Kahn’s (1990) study, May et al. (2004)
developed some further explanations based on the three psychological
conditions of engagement and concluded that disengagement is the
opposite of engagement. Recent investigations also assumed that
engagement and disengagement are converses, for example, Dean and
Jolly (2012), explored students’ experiences of engagement and
disengagement and concluded that engagement and disengagement are
two ends of a continuum.
As was discussed in section 2.2.1, Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) argued
that employee engagement and burnout are conceptually distinct rather
than direct opposites (Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012). However, it appears
that there is less clarity in the distinction between disengagement and
burnout. Demerouti et al. (2010) found evidence that burnout is the
opposite of engagement; thus, she considered disengagement as a sub-
division of burnout.
This view is contrary to Hakanen and Schaufeli’s (2012) view. Building
on Schaufeli and Bakker's (2004) proposition, Hakanen and Schaufeli
(2012) suggested that burnout and engagement are distinct constructs
because factors, which decrease burnout, are different from those, which
enhance engagement. Interestingly, Hakanen and Schaufeli (2012) did not
include the construct of disengagement in their discussion and this may 70
indicate the lack of sufficient evidence that burnout and disengagement
are the same constructs.
Conceptual space of disengagement is indeed confounded by the
definition of employee engagement and whether it is conceptualised as
the opposite of or distinct construct from burnout. Whilst Kahn (1990) and
May et al. (2004) considered disengagement as the opposite of
engagement, Demerouti et al. (2010) positioned burnout as the opposite
of engagement. Nevertheless, disengagement continues to lack a clear
definition and an agreed understanding.
Describing who engaged employees are, could be a starting point to
distinguish engaged employees from disengaged or burnout ones. In the
engagement literature, engaged employees are characterised as
individuals who create their own job and personal resources, and who are
fully attentive and focussed. They are highly extraverted, cheerful, and
sociable who often experience positive emotions such as happiness, joy,
and enthusiasm. They perform better than non-engaged employees and
can transfer their engagement to others (Purcell, 2014).
On the contrary, non-engaged employees were reported to “sleep walk
through their workday, putting time – but not energy or passion – into their
work” (Purcell, 2014, p. 243). Yet, disengaged employees are not happy at
work and are cognitivelly, emotionally, and physically withdrawn from
work performance (Kahn, 1990).
Burnout employees were shown to be exhausted, cynical, and
depersonalised from their job. These employees are depleted of their
emotional and physical resources and feel incompetent and unproductive
at work (Maslach et al., 2001).71
Although disengagement is not the main focus of the thesis, the thesis
adopted Kahn’s (1990) view of disengagement as the opposite of
engagement. In doing so, the crossover of engagement is tested from
engaged employees to their co-worker and the possible crossover of
disengagement is controlled in the analysis.
2.2.6 Theory Development
The existing models and theories of employee engagement in
mainstream literature stem from two areas of research; namely, Kahn’s
theory of personal engagement and disengagement, and Maslach’s
burnout and well-being theory (Maslach & Leiter, 1997). The first theory
was developed in Kahn’s (1990) ethnographic study. In his study, Kahn
(1990) interviewed summer camp counsellors and members of an
architecture firm about their personal experiences of engagement and
disengagement at work. Kahn (1990) proposed that people bring in or
leave out their preferred “self” at work when they experience a sense of
meaning in what they do, they feel safe to make mistakes and are
physically and emotionally available. He indicated that several jobs, roles,
and organisational factors prompt these psychological conditions. Detailed
discussions of these conditions are given in section 2.2.2. Informed by
Kahn’s (1990) theory of personal engagement and disengagement, this
research attempts to investigate the interpersonal effects of employee
engagement and the extent to which employees affect their co-worker
engagement level.
The second theory of employee engagement has its roots in burnout
literature. Maslach (2001, p. 417) tentatively claimed that burnout and
engagement are “favourable and unfavourable scores” on the Maslach 72
Burnout Inventory (MBI). However, the available evidence in the literature
suggests that employee engagement is not an antipode of burnout, but an
independent construct (Schaufeli et al., 2006; Shirom, 2003). For instance,
Schaufeli et al., (2002) found that work factors affect engagement and
burnout in different ways. Whilst job demands such as work pressure,
physical, and emotional demands predict burnout, engagement is
predicted by job resources (Schaufeli et al., 2009). Therefore, he
emphasised that employee engagement is distinct from burnout and
should be measured on a separate scale rather than MBI.
The third, highly referenced theory of employee engagement, is the Job
Demand-Resources (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), which is
informed by burnout literature. The JD-R model divided the working
conditions into two categories: job demands and job resources. Job
demands are physical, psychological, social, or organisational features of a
job, which has physiological and/or psychological costs for employees due
to the required physical, mental and/or psychological efforts. Jobs, which
are characterised by high levels of physiological and/or psychological
demands, lead to burnout (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli et al.,
2009).
On the other hand, job resources, refer to those physical, psychological,
social or organisational features of a job that reduce job demands,
stimulate personal growth and development, and facilitate goal
achievement.
The basic tenants of the JD-R model are that job demands and resources
influence employee engagement and burnout through two processes.
Firstly, through the activation of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational 73
processes, job resources can satisfy basic psychological needs of growth,
learning and development which eventually leads to positive attitudes,
well-being, higher levels of engagement and lower levels of burnout
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007); and extrinsically as job resources enable
employees to achieve their work goals, and reduce the effects of job
demands on employees’ strain and burnout (Bakker, Brummelhuis, Prins,
& Heijden, 2011; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Secondly, while job resources help individuals deal with job demands,
higher levels of job demand deplete individuals’ energy and increase
stress, which can eventually lead to disengagement, burnout, and health
problems (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Despite many well-grounded criticisms to the JD-R model (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007; Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Bakker et al., 2011;
Hackanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006), many researchers to this day use
this theory as an underpinning theory to explain the relationships between
employee engagement, antecedents, and outcomes. In a recent study,
Bakker, Veldhoven, and Xanthopoulou (2010) provided convincing
evidence for the application of JD-R as a framework to explain conditions,
which influence positive work behaviours. They examined the combination
of different job demands and resources to predict positive work attitudes
such as task enjoyment and organisational commitment.
Informed by the JD-R theory and the motivating role of job resources
and demands, the thesis’s primary interest was to partition the variance of
employee engagement into the job, the work context, and work
relationships to investigate engagement crossover in the workplace.
Building on previous research, the thesis adopts Schaufeli’s et al., (2002) 74
conceptualisation of employee engagement. Being informed about the
lack of consensus in theory and definition of employee engagement
(Shuck et al., 2013), the main purpose of the thesis is not to provide a
unified definition and/or a theory of employee engagement, but rather the
thesis’s main focus is on the interpersonal effects of this and whether
engagement can crossover from one employee to his or her co-worker.
The following section concludes the discussion on employee engagement
and provides a critical appraisal of the concept.
2.2.7 A Critique of the Research in Employee Engagement
The critical review of employee engagement literature highlighted that
there are still inconsistencies in the definition and theory of employee
engagement (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011; Rich et al., 2010; Shuck,
2010; Shuck et al., 2013). This inconsistency is due to conceptualising
employee engagement according to different perspectives. From the
association of employee engagement with internal psychological states of
self-investment at work, (Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010; Shuck, 2010), to
conceptualising it as the opposite of burnout (Maslach et al., 2001;
Schaufeli et al., 2002), or a multidimensional construct (Macey &
Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006), researchers defined employee engagement
differently.
A review of the literature also revealed that a lack of agreed
understanding and clarity of definition is more pronounced in
disengagement (Demerouti et al., 2010; Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004).
Whilst some scholars considered disengagement as the opposite of
engagement, others positioned it as a sub-division of burnout (Demerouti 75
et al., 2010; Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004). Hence, there are
inconsistencies in operationalisation and measurement of disengagement.
Regardless of the multiplicity of definitions and theories, the existing
literature has conceptualised employee engagement as an internal
psychological experience, which cannot be forced, but a type of job-
related behaviour, which can be encouraged and reinforced by job or
organisational factors (Cole et al., 2012; Crawford et al., 2010). Therefore,
a considerable amount of literature has been published on the outcomes
and benefits of employee engagement for organisations, employees’
health and well-being, life satisfaction, and work-life balance, mainly
underpinned by the JD-R theory (Cole et al., 2012; Crawford et al., 2010;
Saks, 2006). In spite of being well referenced, several scholars are critical
of the JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008;
Bakker et al., 2011; Hackanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006). Firstly, they
argued that the JD-R model is a descriptive model, not an explanatory one.
The JD-R theory only categorises working conditions into job demands and
resources, which lead to certain outcomes; however, it does not explain
the underlying psychological mechanisms, which lead to certain
behavioural outcomes.
In addition, the JD-R model is very broad; it does not incorporate a
specific set of job demands, job resources, and personal resources. On the
one hand, being broad means the JD-R model is flexible and can be used in
many different contexts, but on the other hand, it limits its generalisability
(Crawford et al., 2010).
Whilst investigating antecedents and outcomes of employee
engagement continues to be a significant scholarly pursuit (Christian et al, 76
2012), there has been relatively limited empirical research about the
interpersonal effects of employee engagement. Therefore, employees’
roles in facilitating or enhancing engagement among their co-workers
have rarely been the focus of academic research (Bakker, et al., 2006).
Recent queries in this field have led to the renewed interest in the
crossover of engagement from employees to their partners at home in
work-family interface studies (Bakker et al., 2011; Chen & Powell, 2012;
Culbertson, Mills, & Fullagar, 2012; Rothbard, 2001); however, very few
studies have examined the crossover of engagement from one employee
to another (Bakker et al., 2006; Bakker, Demerouti, Shimazu, Shimada, &
Kawakami, 2011; Bakker and Xanthopoulou, 2009).
Recent changes in the work environment, such as the popularity of work
groups and group activities, implies that work becomes interdependent
and employees need to work together as a unit rather than individuals.
They need to constantly interact with each other and they are exposed to
one another’s emotions, feelings, and attitudes. It is in this context that a
renewed interest in engagement crossover is stimulated. The following
section reviews the literature relating to the crossover research.
2.3 Overview of Theoretical Developments in Crossover Research
and Potential Improvement through Engagement Crossover Model
2.3.1 Historical Development of Crossover Research from Work-Family Interface
to Crossover Theory
Fundamental changes in the structure of work and family roles, such as
an increase in the number of working mothers and the prevalence of adult
77
dual-earner families, stimulated research into the linkage between the
work-family domains and debunked the myth that work and family
domains were independent (Westman, 2001). A large body of research in
work-family interface highlighted that the interdependence of the work
and family domain is an important issue for organisations, families, and
society, which has implications for individuals’ well-being (Rothbard,
2001).
Whilst earlier research developed models to describe the mechanisms
that link work and family domains, later contributions focused on
balancing these boundaries with the implications of multiple roles for
people’s well-being, and the positive and negative aspects of work-family
interdependence (Powell & Greenhause, 2006; Rothbard, 2001).
Several mechanisms such as spill-over, compensation, and
segmentation were identified which describe processes that link work and
family domains (Rothbard, 2001). In the spill-over model, experiences in
one domain carry over to another domain for the same individual (from
home to work or work to home). For example, fatigue or stress
experienced at work is displayed at home and hinders family role
fulfilment (Rothbard, 2001). In the segmentation model, an individual
actively chooses to maintain a boundary between work and family, which
could be viewed as a coping mechanism to deal with stress from both
domains. A linkage between work and life also occurs through
compensation. It happens when a person relocates importance, time, and
attention from a dissatisfying domain and increases involvement in the
other domains in order to gain rewards and satisfaction (Rothbard, 2001).
78
Until recently, work-family literature was dominated by research about
negative interdependencies, negative spill-over or work-family conflicts
(WFC). The core assumption is that job stressors and/or family stressors
depleted people’s psychological and physiological resources, and induced
negative emotions, stresses, and strains. These experiences spill-over
from work to home, or vice versa, and inhibit people’s functioning and
impair their well-being (Fiksenbaum, 2013; Karatepe, 2013, 2014).
Conversely, proponents of work-family enrichment (WFE) suggested that
engagement in multiple roles in two domains of work and family brings
resources and benefits to individuals which leads to gratification, higher
self-esteem, and positive emotional responses rather than strain and
stress (Rothbard, 2001).
Although work-family models have been criticised by many scholars for
lacking adequate conceptualisation, failing to capture casual relationships,
and the processes that link work and home domains (Westman, 2001), a
large body of research captured the interdependency of these two
systems (Westman, 2001). The growing body of research in work-family
interface focused on individual level outcomes of work-family
interdependencies and how negative or positive experiences in one
domain can spill-over to the other domain and influence the focal person’s
emotions, health, and well-being (Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007;
Rothbard, 2001). However, these studies have been criticised for
neglecting to incorporate the dynamics, interpersonal and social system
perspectives in their investigation.
Consequently, crossover researchers challenged previous studies and
posited that the two systems of work-life are interconnected, and the 79
components within these systems are interrelated and affect each other
(Westman, 2001). They argued that not only was stress and strain
experienced by one domain spill-over to another domain hindering role
fulfilment in that domain but that stress and strain can also cross over to
the focal person’s spouse and leave her or him stressed at home or work.
Hence, investigating the interrelationship between a focal person and their
role senders in the work-life domain was called for by crossover
researchers (Westman, 2001).
However, earlier studies in crossover research only provided partial
evidence for the crossover process. Most crossover studies were
unidirectional and have examined the crossover of negative experiences
from one partner (mainly from husbands to their wives) and considered
wives as passive recipients of stress or strain. Further, these studies did
not control the effects of the wives’ jobs and life stresses on the crossover
process. What appears to be the direct crossover of stress or strain from
husbands to wives could be the effects of the wives’ jobs or family stresses
and not necessarily the crossover process (Westman, 2001).
A few bidirectional studies that investigated the crossover process
controlling for the effects of spouses’ jobs and life stresses, failed to
explain how one’s stress and strain affected their spouse’s stress and
strain. Hence, crossover literature lacks a systematic theoretical and
empirical approach to explain the underlying mechanisms of the crossover
process.
Westman’s (2001) conceptual model addressed these gaps in the
literature and distinguished between common stressors affecting both
partners (job and life events), interpersonal variables as possible 80
mediating processes, and personal attributes as possible moderators of
this process. Westman’s (2001) model indicated a complex causal
relationship which starts at individual levels and then extends to dyad
levels with psychological, physical, and behavioural outcomes (Westman,
2001). The next section gives a detailed explanation of the crossover
model.
2.3.2 The Crossover Theory
Anchored in the role theory (Kahn et al., 1964), Westman (2001)
introduced Crossover Theory as an integration of work-family interface and
job-stress models with an inter-individual and dyadic focus which explains
how and why stress and strain transmit between closely related
individuals (Westman, 2001; Brough et al., 2018). The core assumption is
that negative experiences such as stress, anxiety, and depression
generate similar reactions in other people with whom a person interacts
on a regular basis (Westman, 2001). That is, stress experienced by
individuals in the workplace not only spills over to their home, but it may
also increase their spouse’s stress, or the spouse’s experienced stress at
home may crossover to co-workers in the workplace (Brough et al., 2018).
Wetman’s crossover model (2001) advances the previous approaches in
crossover research by adding the inter-individual, dyadic analysis to these
studies (Bakker, Westman, Emmerik, 2009). Therefore, Westman’s (2001)
crossover model is a comprehensive model, which incorporates the
antecedents of stress and strain, explains the underlying psychological
mechanisms of the crossover process, and the personal attributes as
possible moderators resulting in behavioural, psychological, and physical 81
outcomes. Recently Brough, Muller, and Westman (2018) advanced the
crossover process model and included a final step of dyadic outcomes of
the crossover process to their model (Brough, Muller, & Westman, 2018).
The following sections provide an extended discussion of Westman’s
(2001) crossover model.
2.3.2.1 Empathy Processes
Westman (2001, 2006) proposed three main psychological mechanisms
for crossover. The first mechanism was empathy, which is a direct
transmission of well-being between closely related partners. This direct
transfer of mood and emotion may occur in a conscious cognitive process
of “tuning in” to other’s emotions (Westman, 2001, 2006); such as sharing
another person’s emotional state, or distress. Accordingly, stress and
strain in one partner provokes an empathic reaction in the other partner
and increases their stress or strain. Social learning theory supports this
reasoning and explains this direct process as a conscious transmission of
information (Bandura, 1969; Stotland, 1969).
While earlier scholars conceptualised empathy as a unidimensional
construct defined as interpersonal communication, which is purely
emotional (Lazarus, 1991; Stracevic & Piontek, 1997), more recent
researchers believe that empathy is a multidimensional construct and may
best be measured considering both emotional and cognitive aspects
(Westman, 2001, 2002). Based on this multidimensional characteristic of
empathy, Davis (1983) developed an Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI).
IRI consists of four subscales, which measure different aspects of
empathy. The subscales are perspective taking, empathic concern, 82
fantasy, and the personal distress scale. However, only two of these scales
(perspective taking and empathic concern) are of interest for the current
research. The two other measures are fantasy, “respondents’ tendencies
to transpose themselves imaginatively into feelings and actions of
fictitious characters in books, movies, and plays”, and personal distress,
“feelings of personal anxiety and unease in tense interpersonal settings”
(Davis, 1983, p. 114). These two measures are not included in the
investigation of the crossover process in Westman’s (2001) crossover
model, nor in this thesis because previous studies did not find convincing
evidence for the relationship between fantasy and measures of
interpersonal functioning such as social relationships (Davis, 1983).
Therefore, only a very brief definition is given in this section. However,
further on there is a more detailed discussion of empathic concern and
perspective taking.
Taken a multidimensional approach, Westman (2006) defined and
operationalised empathy with two subscales of empathic concern and
perspective taking. The emotional component of empathy is empathic
concern, “an individual’s tendency to experience feelings of warmth,
compassion, and concern for others” (Bakker et al., 2009, p. 223). In the
empathy process, it is assumed that individuals are affected by each
other’s expressed emotions; this happens especially when one is
responsive to another person’s emotions (Bakker, 2006, 2009).
Accordingly, one’s partner experiences stress and strain because she
shows an empathetic reaction to her spouse’s psychological state (Bakker
et al., 2009). This is because individuals tend to empathically identify with
83
those they are closely related and thus come to experience and share
their feelings (Bakker et al., 2009).
On the other hand, the cognitive aspect of empathy is called
perspective taking which is “the spontaneous tendency of a person to
adopt the psychological perspective of other people” (Bakker et al., 2009,
p. 224). An individual who has this characteristic can anticipate other
people’s behaviour and reactions, therefore facilitating a smoother and
more rewarding interpersonal relationship (Davis, 1983). People who are
high on perspective taking are more sensitive to other’s expressions of
emotions and can psychologically place themselves in their circumstances
(Bakker et al., 2009). By adopting a psychological perspective of others,
these individuals experience other person’s negative and positive
emotions (Bakker et al., 2009). Previous studies, particularly in marital
research (Bakker et al., 2009; Bakker, LeBlanc, & Schaufeli, 2005; Bakker,
Shimazu, Demerouti, Shimada, & Kawamaki, 2011; Demerouti, Bakker, &
Schaufeli, 2005; Westman, Etzion, & Chen, 2009), have supported this
reasoning and found empirical evidence that partners who are inclined to
adopt their spouse’s view point are strongly influenced by their spouse’s
feelings and emotions.
Although initially studies have mainly focused on investigating the role
of empathy on the crossover of negative experiences such as anxiety
(Westman, Etzion, & Horovitz, 2004), burnout (e.g., Bakker & Shaufeli,
2000), depression (Howe, Levy, & Caplan, 2004), work-family conflict
(Westman & Etzion, 2005), Westman (2002, 2013) suggested extending
the crossover research to include crossover of positive experiences and
feelings from a person to his or her partner through empathy (Westman, 84
2002, 2013). Recently, Westman, Shadach and Keinan (2013) in an
experimental study established that state empathy, which is defined as
“tuning into” others’ emotion at specific points in time, quantifies the
crossover of positive emotions in the same way as it does with negative
emotions (Westman, Shadach, & Keinan, 2013).
Several studies have investigated the role of empathy process in the
crossover of positive experiences and feelings between couples (Bakker et
al., 2009; Bakker, LeBlanc, & Schaufeli, 2005; Bakker, Shimazu,
Demerouti, Shimada, & Kawamaki, 2011; Demerouti, Bakker, & Schaufeli,
2005; Westman, Etzion, & Chen, 2009). Demerouti et al., (2005)
demonstrated that men’s life satisfaction crosses over to their wives
through a direct mechanism of empathy. Bakker, LeBlanc, et al. (2005)
found evidence for the crossover of engagement (vigour and dedication)
between intimate partners. Similar results were reported by Westman et
al. (2009) in a study of business travellers and their partners. They found
that travellers’ vigour crossover to their spouses.
Along similar lines of research, in a study about the engagement
crossover between dual-earner partners, Bakker et al. (2009) hypothesised
that women who are engaged at work and talk enthusiastically about it at
home can influence their partner’s work engagement, particularly when
their partners were able to adopt to the psychological perspective of their
wives (perspective taking) and could relate to them emotionally (empathic
concern). Whilst their findings could only support the moderating effect of
perspective taking, they could not find evidence for the moderating effect
of empathic concerns. Thus, they argued that empathic concern may be
the active psychological mechanism that is more likely to moderate the 85
crossover of negative emotions such as strain or stress (Bakker et al.,
2009). Later, Bakker et al. (2011) replicated this study and found similar
results in a sample of Japanese couples.
Although most of these studies were cross-sectional and unidirectional
in nature and were based on self-reported measures, with an exception of
Bakker et al. (2011) and Westman et al. (2013), they provided preliminary
support for the direct transmission of well-being via empathy between
closely related partners. The literature has yet to establish whether the
same process applies to the crossover of well-being from an employee to
his/her co-worker in the workplace.
So far, there are a few studies (to the author’s knowledge) on the
crossover of employee engagement via empathy process in the workplace.
For example, Bakker et al. (2006) examined the crossover of collective
burnout and engagement among Dutch officers. Although Bakker et al.
(2006) proposed that attitudinal components (cynicism and lack of efficacy
as opposed to dedication) transferred through the conscious cognitive
processes of “tuning in” to other’s emotions (the empathy process), they
failed to incorporate the two aspects of empathy (perspective taking and
empathic concern) into their analysis. Therefore, they only assumed that
team members’ engagement crossed over to individual members through
empathy.
This is important because whether scholars examine the crossover of
positive/negative experiences through the direct empathic crossover,
Westman (2002) argued that they should incorporate the measures of
empathy (empathic concern and perspective taking) in their analysis. This
86
will support the empathy mechanism and rule out the possibility that other
factors are affecting the crossover process (Westman, 2002, 2006).
Recently, Westman, Shadach, and Keinan (2013) have established the
role of state empathy in the crossover process. They defined state
empathy as the extent to which individuals experience other people’s
emotion at specific points in time. Westman et al. (2013) have
manipulated crossover process by creating negative (i.e. distressed) and
positive (i.e. happy) conditions for 62 female army trainees, who were
participating in a training course in Israel. They hypothesised that
individuals with higher state empathy are more susceptible to others’
emotion; therefore, they are more likely to enter the crossover process
(Westman et al., 2013). They found that crossover of positive emotion
such as positive affect was stronger among participants with high state
empathy in happy condition rather than a distressed condition. They
explained that participants with higher state empathy in happy condition
might have felt greater empathy with the target person, which allowed
them to be more receptive to the target’s positive emotions. They found
no significant interaction effects for negative emotions. Thus, the
hypothesis was partially supported.
Although Westman’s et al. (2013) study is the only study to date to
provide experimental evidence for the moderating effect of state empathy
in the crossover process, it has some limitations. Firstly, participants’
positive and negative affect have not been measured before and after the
exposure to the target person. Having baseline measures not only
increase the validity of the results, but also assess the crossover process
more precisely. 87
Second, given that all of the participants were female (aged 18-19) and
were recruited from a human resources training course, one may argue
that they might have some inclinations towards interpersonal sensitivity
and thus have higher than average empathy. This limits the
generalisability of Westman’s et al. (2013) results. Although the limitations
of this study can be improved in a more rigorous study design, Westman’s
et al. (2013) study can provide valid evidence for the role of state
empathy in the crossover of positive emotions and mood. Further
investigation is yet needed to establish the role of empathy in the
crossover of employee engagement, which is different from discrete
positive emotions such as happiness/distress as in Westman’s et al. (2013)
study.
Taken from the discussion above, lack of empirical evidence about the
role of empathy process in the crossover of well-being in the workplace
motivated the current thesis to uncover the direct process of employee
engagement crossover between co-workers in the workplace. To this aim
two hypothesis (hypothesis 2 and 3) are set to test the moderating effects
of empathic concern and perspective taking in the crossover of employee
engagement from one employee to his/her co-worker. Re-examining the
empathy process provides a good opportunity for the thesis to contribute
to crossover research by addressing the shortcomings of the previous
studies (e.g. Bakker et al., 2006; Westman et al., 2013) as well as
empirically proving that Westman (2002) proposition for the direct
transmission of emotions and psychological states via empathy cannot be
substantiated for the crossover of employee engagement in the
workplace. 88
2.3.2.2 Common Stressors
The second mechanism suggests that crossover could be merely the
effect of common stressors or shared events, which are spurious and
should be taken as “third variables” (Westman, 2006). According to
Westman and Etzion (1995), common stressors such as family events,
family financial strain, and job-related stress such as strain, work load, and
job demands affect the crossover process by increasing strain, depression
or demands in both partners (Westman, 2006). They found that common
stressors influence the coping strategies and interaction processes
between two interacting partners (Westman, Keinan, Roziner, &
Benyamini, 2008). The underlying rational is that stressful stimuli in the
environment either at home or work may exhaust the partner’s coping
capabilities, leaving him/her more vulnerable to strain (Westman et al.
2008). Therefore, the spouse’s experienced strain and stress might be due
to the effect of common stressors, which lowered his/her coping strategies
and not the crossover process (Westman et al. 2008).
In a longitudinal study on a sample of 2108 couples, Westman et al.
(2008) established that perceived financial strains (Low income) are
positively related to poor perceived health in both spouses. The finding of
this study strongly highlights that common stressors affect the crossover
process directly and indirectly (via social undermining as in this research)
(Westman et al., 2008). Although Westman (2008) suggested that the
effect of common stressors such as stressful family circumstances or job
stressors should be taken into account when examining the crossover
process, majority of studies in crossover research failed to control for the 89
effects of these spurious variables (Bakker, Demerouti, Shimazu, &
Kawakami, 2011; Bakker & Demerouti, 2009; Westman, Etzion, & Chen,
2009). Most of these studies were unidirectional and have examined the
crossover of negative/positive experiences from one partner (mainly from
husbands to their wives) and considered wives as passive recipients of
stress or strain without taking into account the effects of the wives’ jobs
and life stressors on the crossover process (Bakker et al., 2011; Bakker &
Demerouti, 2009; Westman et al., 2009). Therefore, the findings of these
studies should be interpreted in the light of this shortcoming.
Nevertheless, what is assumed to be the crossover of negative/positive
emotions and experiences from husbands to wives may have been the
effects of the wives’ jobs or family stressors in which these studies failed
to take into account (Bakker et al., 2011; Bakker et al., 2009; Westman et
al., 2009). A recent example is Bakker’s et al. (2011) study on the
crossover of work engagement among Japanese couples. Bakker et al.
(2011) reported that a husband’s work engagement crosses over to their
spouse’s, particularly when their partners have high levels of perspective
taking. Although they conducted the research among dual-earners
couples, they did not include work and family-related stressors in their
analysis. Therefore, it is not clear whether the increase in wives’ work
engagement is entirely due to the empathy process as they claimed or it
could simply be the result of wives’ increased job/family satisfaction,
resources and/or demands (Bakker et al., 2011). Given that previous
studies found significantly positive relationship between job/family
satisfaction, job resources and demands (Christian, Garza, & slaughter,
2011; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2009), it is 90
conceivable to argue that the crossover effect, which Bakker et al. (2011)
reported in their study, is inflated.
In addition, Westman (2001) added personal attributes to the crossover
model. Although previous studies have investigated the effects of
demographic characteristics on the crossover process, they mostly
investigated the effects of age, gender, life stage, and number of children,
without providing a strong conceptual link or clear causal relationship
(Bakker et al., 2011; Westman & Etzion, 2005; Westman et al., 2013;
Westman et al., 2008; Westman, 2001). Brough, Muller, and Westman
(2018) argued that there are several mechanisms that concurrently
explain the crossover process; thus, personal attributes such as control,
the big-five, personality types, negative affectivity, and workaholism can
have a direct and indirect effect on stress and strain crossover and should
be controlled in crossover studies (Brough et al., 2018). Neglecting to
incorporate these variables results in spurious effects and overestimating
the crossover effects (Brough et al., 2018).
In order to thoroughly factor out the possibility that common stressors
or shared events do not contribute to the increase in employee
engagement, in this thesis, not only are demographic characteristics such
as age, gender, hours spent with co-workers, tenure, and education levels
and individual differences such as affect and personality (Big Five) added
to the model, but also employees’ shared stimuli such as job demands and
resources and job characteristics are added to the analysis. Previous
studies have also reported that these variables affect employee
engagement (Christian, Garza, & slaughter, 2011; Xanthopoulou, Bakker,
Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2009). This way, the thesis rules out the 91
alternative hypothesis that the increase in employee’s engagement level
is by the virtue of shared working environment and shared job
characteristics and not the crossover process.
2.3.2.3 Indirect Processes
Finally, Westman (2006) argued that crossover may be due to an
indirect interaction process, or psychological mediating mechanism
including coping mechanisms and social interaction processes such as
social support or undermining behaviours (Westman, 2006).
Numerous studies in the work-family literature suggested that one
partner’s coping strategies (whether they use a problem-focused strategy
or emotion-focused strategy) affect their partner’s well-being (Bakker,
Westman, & Emmerik, 2009). There are two main directions of the
relationships between one’s coping and the partner’s well-being in
crossover literature (Bakker et al., 2009). Many scholars believe that
active, prosocial coping strategies are negatively related to a partner’s
depression, demonstrating that these coping strategies may have long-
term enhancing crossover effects (Bakker et al., 2009). Others argued that
partner’s strain might determine their spouse’s coping strategies (Burke et
al., 1980 & Kahn et al., 1985). The underlying rationale is that one
partner’s strain or stress may exhaust their partner’s coping capabilities,
leaving the partner more vulnerable to strain (Bakker et al., 2009).
Although these two main views, of whether depression affects the
partner’s coping strategies or whether types of coping strategies
strengthen the crossover process, are not contradictory, they need further
92
longitudinal investigations to detect changes in coping strategies and their
crossover effects over time.
Similarly, research showed that lack of social support or social
undermining (expressing negative affect or criticism) are signs of stress or
strain in partners which can affect the crossover process, through either
depleting a partner’s resources or increasing negative interpersonal
relationships (Westman et al., 2008). In the literature, social undermining
is referred to as “social hindrance, social conflict, and negative social
support” (Westman, 2001, p. 735). There are two views on whether
depression precedes conflictual interactions and social undermining or
that conflictual interactions cause depression. Investigating this recursive
relationship of social undermining was called for by Westman (2001). In
two studies, Bakker et al. (2008, 2009) argued that a partner’s job
demands spill-over to home causing work-family conflict. This conflict
increases negative interactions or social undermining between partners. In
turn, social undermining depletes one’s partner’s resources, increases
home demands and impairs the partner’s well-being. Thus, Bakker et al.
(2008, 2009) found that job demands first spill-over from work to home
and then crossover to one’s partner through social undermining (Bakker et
al. 2008, 2009).
Likewise, Ten Brummelhuis, Haar, and Roche (2014) tested the spill
over-crossover model in a longitudinal study. They examined the affective
(crossover through empathy) and behavioural (crossover through the
indirect process of diminished/enhanced support) crossover from leaders
to their followers. They explained that leader’s FWC at Time 1 leads to
their burnout four weeks later (Time 2) and their burnout crossed over to 93
their followers five weeks after Time 1 due to leader’s lack of support.
They have reported similar findings for the leader’s work engagement.
Their findings highlighted the importance of social support as the indirect
mechanism in the crossover process.
Previous studies also found that there is a vicious circle between
providing social support for one’s partner and being depleted of one’s own
resources, both by providing support and by empathetically feeling their
pain; and demanding support from one’s partner who is unable to provide
support, leaving them feeling anxious or guilty (Westman et al., 2008;
Westman et al., 2004) .
The indirect interaction process has also been examined in several
studies. In a study among teachers, Bakker and Schaufeli (2000) found
that frequency of exposure to burnout colleague increases the probability
of burnout among teachers (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2000). Similar findings
were observed by Bakker, Schaufeli, Sixma, and Bosveld (2001) among
general practitioners. They found that practitioners who were more
susceptible to others’ negative emotions (e.g. fear, anxiety, depressed
mood, and worry), were more vulnerable to catch their patients’ negative
emotions (Bakker et al., 2001).
In another study, Bakker, Wetman, and Schaufeli (2007) examined how
similarity in status and profession quantifies the crossover of burnout from
soldiers to the group (Bakker et al., 2007). They found that soldiers, who
were exposed to other burnout colleagues, are susceptible to their
colleague negative emotions (i.e. burnout), particularly when they were
similar in status and rank.
94
Recently, in a longitudinal study, Westman, Bakker, Roziner, and
Sonnentag (2011) examined the moderating effect of team cohesiveness
and colleagues’ social support on the crossover of job demands and
emotional exhaustion. They found that over time job demands and
emotional exhaustion crossover from teams to individuals only in teams
characterised by high levels of cohesiveness and social support. These
findings are counterintuitive because cohesiveness and social support are
perceived as job resources and facilitate positive, intense interactions
among team members, which may buffer stress and strain (Kidwell,
Mossholder, & Bennett, 1997).
Thus far only empathy, frequency of exposure, similarity, team cohesion
and social support have been detected as moderators in the crossover
process (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2000; Bakker, Schaufeli, Sixma, & Bosveld,
2001; Bakker, Wetman, & Schaufeli, 2007; Westman, Bakker, Roziner, &
Sonnentag, 2011), Brough et al. (2018) called for more investigation on
the boundary conditions of the crossover process. This thesis attempts to
extend Westman’s (2001) crossover model to the workplace; therefore,
following Westman’s (2001) initial crossover model, the indirect processes
are examined by adding two work-related factors (i.e. task and outcome
interdependence and workplace friendship) as potential moderators in the
model. These moderators are identified as functional and affective factors,
which create boundary conditions for engagement crossover from one
employee to his/her co-worker in the workplace. Examining the
moderating effects of task and outcome interdependence and workplace
friendship is novel and provides an opportunity for the thesis to contribute
95
to crossover research by extending Westman’s (2001) crossover model to
the workplace and uncovering the boundary conditions of this process.
Overall, although work-family literature mainly focuses on the spill-over
of positive and negative emotions and experiences either from work to
home or home to work, lack of research about the crossover of positive
experiences from one person to their partner was noteworthy. Westman’s
(2001) crossover model was developed to provide a strong conceptual
model, enabling scholars to make causal links between factors affecting
the crossover process. However, research developed based on the
crossover model have mainly focused on investigating the transfer of
negative experiences or unwell-being between two intimate partners in a
work-family interface (Brough et al., 2018); as such, relatively little
evidence for crossover of positive and negative experiences in the
workplace exists in the literature (Bakker et al., 2006; Bakker et al., 2009;
Brough et al., 2018; Ten Brummelhuis, et al., 2014; Westman et al., 2011).
The next section provides a critical review of previous studies in crossover
literature and identifies areas of improvement in previous contributions.
2.3.3 A Critique of Crossover Research and Potential Improvement through
Engagement Crossover Model
The previous section gave a historical account of the work-family
interface, highlighting the development of work-family interface research
into the crossover. Firstly, the section described the concerns of the earlier
studies, about the links between work and family domains, which shifted
to further investigations on balancing work-home boundaries, and the
96
implications of multiple roles for individuals’ well-being (Powell &
Greenhause, 2006; Rothbard, 2001). Secondly, it gave an account of the
growing body of research which was developed to focus on negative and
positive spill-overs of emotions and experiences and formed two large
bodies of literature in WFC and WFE (Ford et al., 2007; Rothbard, 2001).
Whilst these studies were criticised for focusing only on individual level
effects of positive and negative spill-overs and neglecting the dynamics,
interpersonal, and social system perspectives in their investigations, the
crossover model was proposed to address these issues and provide a
strong conceptual and causal link for the crossover process. The section
then ended with the explanation of Westman’s (2001) crossover model.
Three mechanisms of the crossover process namely, the direct process of
empathy, common stressors, and the indirect process were discussed.
Refer to section 2.3.2 for more explanation.
This section takes a closer look at the studies, which adopted
Westman’s (2001) crossover model and investigated the crossover
process in the work domain. It highlights the shortcomings of this brief
body of research and suggests a potential improvement to the crossover
model.
A considerable amount of literature has been published on the transfer
of negative experiences or unwell-being between intimate partners in the
work-family interface (Bakker et al., 2011; Westman, 2001; Westman &
Bakker, 2008). Whilst some studies found strong evidence for
unidirectional crossovers of job stressors from husbands to their spouses,
others have examined the bidirectional process but could only detect the
unidirectional effects of crossover. As a result, there is strong evidence for 97
the crossover of negative emotions, such as anxiety (Westman et al.,
2004), burnout (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2000), depression (Howe, Levy, &
Caplan, 2004), and work-family conflict (Westman & Etzion, 2004) in
crossover literature.
Only a few studies have investigated the crossover of positive
psychological states such as marital satisfaction (Demerouti et al., 2005),
flow at work (Bakker, 2005) and work engagement (Bakker et al., 2011;
Bakker et al., 2009; Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2014; Westman et al., 2009)
in work-family literature. Nevertheless, in the recent development of the
crossover model, Brough et al. (2018) proposed that in the same way that
stress and strain spill-over from home to work or work to home and cross
over to one’s spouse, positive experiences may also spill-over to work or
home and cross over to partners or colleagues and improve their well-
being (Brough et al. (2018); Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2014). Therefore,
Brough et al. (2018) suggested to use The Crossover Process Model as a
useful starting point for future research and called for a further
investigation on the specific mechanisms of positive crossover process in
the workplace (Brough et al., 2018). Investigating the crossover of
negative and positive experiences in the family domain is not within the
scope of this thesis; therefore, the following review is focused on the
studies, which examined the crossover of negative and positive
experiences in the workplace.
As was discussed in the previous section, Westman’s (2001) crossover
model is based on role theory; therefore, it allowed researchers to broaden
the scope of research from the work-family interface to work environment
(Bakker et al., 2009). The conceptualisation of this unit of study was also 98
broadened from individuals to dyads and work teams (Bakker et al., 2009).
This reasoning is also consistent with Moos’ (1984) theory that people are
part of a bigger social system, they can affect and be affected by each
other’s mental health during their work interactions. Individuals working in
work groups share the same working environment and they are constantly
interacting with each other and are exposed to one another’s moods,
emotions, and feelings. Whether the source of these feelings is in family or
workplace, they can still enter the crossover processes (Westman, 2001;
Westman & Etzion, 1999).
Indeed, one of the first studies that investigated the crossover process
in the workplace was Westman and Etzion’s (1999) study. Although this
study was conducted before Westman’s (2001) crossover model, it
provided strong evidence for the crossover of well-being in the workplace.
The main goal of this study was to investigate whether the crossover
process in the workplace operate in the same way as it does in a family.
The second aim of this research was to identify the underlying
mechanisms of the crossover process.
Important findings emerged in this study. Firstly, Westman and Etzion
(1999) demonstrated that crossover in the work domain was mainly the
result of job-induced tension; hence employees who shared the same
environment entered the crossover process and affected each other’s well-
being. Employees’ expressed that the strain produced a “ping pong”
dynamic and triggered similar reactions in other employees working in the
same environment (Westman & Etzion, 1999, p. 277). Secondly, they
showed that crossover occurred indirectly through the mediating role of
social undermining behaviour, meaning that, lack of support or perceived 99
social undermining from principals, predicted the strain and burnout
among teachers (Westman & Etzion, 1999).
Although Westman and Etzion’s (1999) study was the first empirical
investigation for the crossover of well-being in the workplace, it had
several shortcomings, which were addressed in Westman’s next study,
Westman’s (2001) crossover model. For example, Westman and Etzion’s
(1999) study failed to incorporate other factors such as personal
differences, job demands, and resources, working hours, family situations
and family stressors in their model. These factors could have been
controlled in the crossover of strain and/or burnout from participles to
teachers and vice-a-versa. Additionally, their study could have provided
more compelling evidence had the crossover of job-induced stress and
strain been tested among employees of the same job level (i.e. among
teachers) rather than from managers to subordinates. Indeed, principals
have different roles at schools with different job demands and resources,
which are not necessarily the same as teachers’ job demands and
resources. If these spurious effects (job demands and resources) are not
taken into consideration, the cause of the crossover cannot be attributed
to the direct or indirect processes.
Having addressed the shortcomings of her previous study, Westman
(2001) proposed a comprehensive model of crossover and distinguished
the common stressors affecting the crossover process both in work and in
the family domain. The model incorporated interpersonal variables such as
coping strategies, social support, and lack of social support as possible
mediating processes and personal attributes as possible moderators. This
model moved from an individual level to a dyadic level of analysis to 100
facilitate the investigation of specific interactions between people and
provide stronger evidence for the crossover process.
Westman (2001) suggested that a thorough test of crossover requires
an investigation of the three mechanisms (i.e. direct, indirect and common
stressors) simultaneously. Despite this, most of the studies, which were
developed after Westman (2001), did not provide a strong empirical
evidence for these mechanisms in the workplace.
Firstly, these studies have mainly examined the crossover of negative
experiences such as job demands and emotional exhaustion (Westman et
al., 2011; Wirtz, Rigotti, Otto, & Loeb, 2017) and burnout (Bakker et al.,
2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007, 2009) in the workplace with an
exception of Bakker’s et al. (2006) and Wirtz et al. (2017), which examined
the crossover of burnout and work engagement. This could in part be
because negative emotions and experiences are proved to be more
contagious than positive emotions (Westman, 2001, 2018). In addition,
previous studies in the work-family interface found strong evidence for the
crossover of unwell-being between intimate partners (Bakker & Schaufeli,
2000; Bakker et al., 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007; Westman et al., 2008).
Secondly, it is unclear how the three mechanisms of the crossover
process as suggested in Westman’s (2001) conceptual model were tested
in these studies. For instance, Bakker et al. (2006) examined the crossover
of collective burnout and engagement among Dutch officers. Although
Bakker et al. (2006) proposed that attitudinal components (cynicism and
lack of efficacy as opposed to dedication) transferred through the
conscious cognitive processes of “tuning in” to other’s emotions (the
empathy process), they failed to incorporate the two aspects of empathy 101
(perspective taking and empathic concern) into their analysis. Therefore,
they only assumed that team members’ engagement crossed over to
individual members through empathy (Bakker et al., 2006).
Similarly, in a series of independent studies, Bakker and his colleagues
(2000, 2001, 2007, 2009, and 2011), reported the crossover of burnout
among employees of various occupations (e.g., nurses, teachers, officers,
and general practitioners) via the indirect processes only. They found that
susceptibility to other’s emotions (Bakker et al., 2001), frequency of
interactions (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2000), similarity with the source (Bakker
et al., 2007) and team cohesiveness and colleagues’ social support
(Bakker et al., 2011) moderated burnout crossover process in the
workplace. Clearly, Bakker’s studies provided strong evidence for the
indirect processes of burnout crossover in the workplace; however, they
failed to provide empirical evidence for the empathy and common
stressors, which occur concurrently in the crossover process.
Finally, most of these studies are cross-sectional and unidirectional in
nature and were based on self-reported measures, with an exception of
Westman et al. (2011), this has limited our understanding of the inherent
details of the crossover process, such as the extent, intensity, causality
and the duration of crossover.
In contrast, whilst recent development in crossover research has led to
renewed interest in the crossover of positive psychological states (Brough
et al., 2018), relatively little evidence for the crossover of well-being
(employee engagement) in the workplace exists in crossover research.
As discussed earlier, Bakker et al. (2006) examined the crossover of
collective burnout and engagement among Dutch officers. Bakker et al., 102
(2006) specified two ways for the crossover of team burnout and
engagement to individual members; namely, emotional contagion and
empathy. They found that after controlling for the effect of common
stressors in the workplace, affective components of burnout (exhaustion)
and engagement (vigour and absorption) crossed over through the
unconscious processes of emotional contagion, while attitudinal
components (cynicism and lack of efficacy as opposed to dedication),
transferred through conscious cognitive processes of “tuning in” to other’s
emotions (Bakker et al., 2006).
Nevertheless, Bakker’s et al. (2006) study has a number of limitations.
Firstly, they reported that team engagement and burnout transferred to
individual team members through a direct process of empathy. However,
Bakker et al. (2006) failed to add measures of empathy (empathic concern
and perspective taking) in their analysis, and therefore, their claim for the
effect of empathy on the crossover of burnout and engagement is
questionable. Simply controlling for the effects of common stressors (job
demands and resources) in their study did not provide compelling
evidence for the empathy process. This reasoning is also consistent with
Westman’s (2001) suggestion of adding measures of empathy (empathic
concern and perspective taking) in order to “attribute crossover to a direct
crossover effect of empathy and rule out the possibility that some other
processes are operating” (Westman, 2001, p. 730).
Secondly, they claimed that affective components of burnout
(exhaustion) and engagement (vigour and absorption) crossed over
through unconscious processes of emotional contagion. Emotion literature
defined the non-conscious process of emotional contagion as “the 103
tendency to automatically mimic and synchronise facial expressions,
vocalisations, postures, and movements with those of another person and,
consequently, to converge emotionally” (Hatfield et al., 1994, p. 5).
Several researchers have found that individuals tend to mimic each
other’s rudimentary emotional expressions upon their observations
(Hatfield et al., 1994). When individuals mimic each other’s non-verbal
behaviours, they experience the emotion itself (Barsade, 2002).
Although there is ample evidence in emotion literature stating that
emotional mimicry is enough for an emotional contagion to happen
(Hatfield et al., 1993; Van Kleef, Van den Berg, & Heerdink, 2015), the
thesis argues that justifying the crossover of employee engagement based
on the non-conscious process of emotional contagion is rather simplistic
and fallacious. Employee engagement is a long-term enduring state rather
than just a momentary expression of emotion. It is a state of “self”
involvement at work, which cannot be forced or mandated (Kahn, 1990;
Macey et al., 2008). On these grounds, the thesis argues that employee
engagement is not an emotion, thus the non-conscious process of
emotional contagion cannot be applied to explain the engagement
crossover process.
Along similar lines of argument in engagement literature, there is rarely
any anecdotal or empirical evidence that engaged employees have certain
observable facial expressions, vocalisations, postures, and movements
that can be mimicked by others. Consequently, Bakker et al. (2006) only
assumed that affective components of engagement (vigour and
absorption) crossed over through the unconscious processes of emotional
104
contagion; in fact, they failed to provide any empirical evidence for their
claim.
In another study, Bakker and Xanthopoulou (2009) examined the
crossover of daily work engagement from one employee to his/her
colleague via the moderating effect of frequency of communications. They
found that engagement crosses over from one employee to his or her
colleague when employees communicate frequently with one another on a
daily basis (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009). Although bidirectional and
diary research design were clear advantages of this study, Bakker and
Xanthopoulou (2009) did not provide evidence for the three mechanisms
of crossover in their study. Similar to Bakker et al. (2006) study, they did
not empirically tested the empathy process (i.e. empathic concern and
perspective taking) and only assumed that daily work engagement
crossed over directly via empathy. Second, apart from extraversion and
age, they failed to control for the effects of common stressors such as job
demands, resources, personality differences and other shared work-
related characteristics, which could have contributed to the increase in
employee’s engagement level. Therefore, they only established the
indirect transfer of daily work engagement between employees through
the moderating effect of frequency of communication.
Recently, Wirtz, Rigotti, Otto and Loeb (2017) examined the crossover of
emotional exhaustion and work engagement from followers to leaders in a
longitudinal study. Leaders’ emotional self-efficacy was also tested as an
indirect moderating mechanism in the crossover process. They found that
after controlling for the effects of leader’s gender, autonomy, workload,
and work engagement at time 1, followers work engagement crossed over 105
to leaders eight months later. They justified this crossover based on job
demands-resources theory and explained that followers’ work engagement
acted as a social resource for leaders, and resulted in higher levels of
leader work engagement over time.
Wirtz et al. (2017) study is different from the previous studies in the
crossover research. Unlike previous research, Wirtz et al. (2017) did not
follow Westman’s (2001) model to test the direct, indirect or common
stressors in crossover process. Since they could not find significant
interaction effects between leader’s emotional self-efficacy and the
crossover of work engagement, they concluded that work engagement
crosses over through a direct contagion process. This claim is, however,
only an assumption because they did not provide any empirical evidence
for the contagion process.
Whilst Brough et al. (2018) described the crossover as a complex,
interchangeable and multifaceted process and suggested that examining
the three crossover mechanisms (i.e. direct, indirect and common
stressors) concurrently will give a clear picture of crossover process, the
review of crossover literature identified several shortcomings in the
existing body of research on crossover of negative/positive experiences
and psychological states in the workplace. Firstly, most of these studies
have failed to provide empirical evidence for the direct, indirect processes
and common stressors concurrently. When testing the direct crossover
process, they either failed to add measures of empathy (i.e. empathic
concern and perspective taking) into their model (Bakker & Xanthopoulou,
2009; Bakker et al., 2006; Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2014), or used other
measures such as emotional self-efficacy to test the direct crossover 106
(Wirtz et al., 2017); therefore, they only assumed that the direct crossover
process occurs via empathy.
Second, these research overlooked the effects of common stressors or
shared events in their analysis; thus, they overestimated the crossover
effects (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009; Bakker et al., 2011; Brough et al.,
2018; Westman & Etzion, 2005; Westman et al., 2013; Westman et al.,
2008). Finally, to this date, previous studies could only detect the role of
frequency of exposure (Bakker & Schaufeli 2000), similarity (Bakker at al.,
2001; Westman & Schaufeli, 2007), team cohesion and social support
(Westman et al., 2011) and leader’s supportive behaviour (Ten
Brummelhuis et al., 2014) as indirect mechanisms in the crossover
process. Nevertheless, Brough et al. (2018) have called for investigating
the specific mechanisms of positive crossover process.
The thesis is set out to contribute to the body of knowledge on
crossover research by extending Westman’s (2001) crossover model to
workplace; therefore, two research questions are raised which formed the
central theme of the thesis: “To what extent does employee engagement
crossover from one employee to his/her co-worker in the workplace?”
Additionally, to uncover the indirect mechanisms of engagement crossover
in the workplace, the second research question is raised, which
investigates the potential factors that determine the extent of this
crossover. Hence, the first research question and hypothesis 1 are raised
to advance the thesis proposition that while employee engagement is a
personal experience, which cannot be forced or mandated, it can
crossover from one employee to his/her co-worker in the workplace.
107
However, the thesis argues that engagement crossover cannot be
explained through the emotional contagion or the empathy processes. To
refute previous studies’ claim, hypothesis 2 and 3 are raised to test the
direct process of engagement crossover via empathy. To thoroughly test
the empathy process, two measures of empathic concerns and perspective
taking are added to the analysis.
Moreover, following Westman’s (2001) crossover model and to factor
out the common stressors effect , the spurious variance from demographic
variables such as age, gender, hours spent with co-workers, tenure, and
education levels, individual differences such as affect and personality (Big
Five) and employees’ shared stimuli such as job demands and resources
and job characteristics are added in the analysis. These variables are
added to the engagement crossover model as control variables.
Finally, hypothesis 4 and 5 are raised to test the indirect processes by
adding two work-related factors (i.e. task and outcome interdependence
and workplace friendship) as potential moderators in the model. These
moderators are identified as functional and affective factors, which create
boundary conditions for engagement crossover from one employee to
his/her co-worker in the workplace. Examining the moderating effects of
task and outcome interdependence and workplace friendship is novel and
provides an opportunity for the thesis to contribute to crossover research
by extending Westman’s (2001) crossover model to the workplace and
uncovering the boundary conditions of this process. Further explanation of
these hypotheses is given in Chapter 3.
108
2.4 Overview of Theory and Research in Work Design Literature,
and the Rise of Relational Perspectives
The twenty-first century was marked by major changes in the work
context with a dramatic growth in knowledge-based operations and the
use of technology at work (such as computers and the virtual workplace)
compared with the more traditional working arrangements, prevalence of
group-based activities, and autonomous teams, which characterises the
current work environment by interdependence and uncertainty (Grant &
Parker, 2009).
Moreover, the abovementioned changes, as well as the global shift from
a manufacturing economy to a knowledge and service economy, has
changed the meaning and role of job characteristics. Hence, scholars were
urged to redesign theories of work that best matched with the new
demands of the work environment (Grant & Parker, 2009).
Indeed, these changes suggest that the definition and measurement of
the Job Characteristics Model (JCM) by Oldham and Hackman (1980), which
is one of the most widely referenced and applied theories of job design,
should change according to the new work environment. For instance, a
shift from the traditional know-how to the new competency-based
approaches in the twenty-first century means that employees who
traditionally experienced meaningfulness at work through skill variety,
now gain meaning through contributing to their job, their team, and
organisation (Grant & Parker, 2009).
Secondly, working in knowledge-based environments requires
employees to interact with others on long-term, complex projects, often
109
with no clear and identifiable outcomes. Thus, employees experience a
different type of task identity and meaningfulness, which are not clearly
defined by current JCM definitions and measurements (Grant & Parker,
2009).
Thirdly, in terms of task significance, whilst advances in technology such
as the possibility to work remotely and virtual workplaces, have reduced
employees’ opportunities to interact with their co-workers and observe the
impact of their work, task significance remains important, especially in the
service industry (Grant & Parker, 2009).
Compared with traditional work contexts where goals and procedures
were formally established, in high-tech organisations employees are more
autonomous and have more control over their work, meaning that, in
order to perform successfully, employees have the discretion to specify
their own goals and procedures (Grant & Parker, 2009).
On the other hand, the prevalence of electronic performance monitoring
devices created a challenge for organisations to balance the rather
excessive feedback to timelier and effective feedback processes (Grant &
Parker, 2009).
Overall, today’s work environment is characterised by a supportive
culture that encourages reliance on others, competence-based skills,
experimentations and failures, innovation and risk taking, and long-term
probabilistic outcomes (Grant & Parker, 2009). These dramatic changes in
the work context suggest that JCM only includes a subset of job
characteristics; thus, in order to describe and explain the new work
environment, JCM should be expanded and include additional job
characteristics (Fried, et al., 2008). 110
Overtime, scholars have tested JCM, its dimensionality and objectivity of
core job characteristics, and presented elaborated models of work design
which defined jobs not only based on core task characteristics as JCM
suggested but also based on knowledge and physical characteristics
(Grant & Parker, 2009). Therefore, job complexity, information processing,
problem solving, specialisation, and physical aspects of work conditions,
such as ergonomics and physical demands, were added to JCM (Grant &
Parker, 2009). One example is Parker’s et al. (2001) ‘Elaborated Job
Characteristics Model’. This model extended JCM and incorporated a wider
range of job characteristics, which can affect a wider set of outcomes,
such as safety and creativity. The model provided evidence for individual
and organisational mechanisms as moderators of these relationships
(Grant & Parker, 2009).
Along similar lines, uncertainty and interdependence, which
characterises the modern work environment, urged scholars to propose
new theoretical perspectives for work design theories, which can describe
and explain the twenty-first century work environment (Grant & Parker,
2009). Two perspectives that map onto these critical features of the
twenty-first century are relational perspectives and proactive
perspectives.
Whilst proactive perspectives capture the uncertainty and dynamics of
the work context and mainly focus on the structure of roles, jobs, and
tasks to facilitate employees’ initiatives, relational perspectives emphasise
the social embeddedness of work roles and accentuate the role of
interpersonal interaction and interdependence in work.
111
As was discussed earlier in this chapter, the central aim of the thesis is
to investigate the interpersonal effects of employee engagement; thus,
relational perspectives of work design are more relevant and consistent
with the purpose of the thesis. The following sections provide an in-depth
review of work design theories from relational perspectives.
2.4.1 Redesigning Work Design Theories: A Relational Perspectives Approach
As was discussed in the previous section, recent changes in work
environments, such as the introduction of matrix and network
organisations, a growth in group-work projects, and advances in
technology, have modified the social structure of organisations. The social
context of work refers to the interpersonal interactions and relationships,
which are embedded in employees’ jobs, roles, and tasks, and plays a
critical role in shaping employees’ experiences and behaviours (Grant &
Parker, 2009).
Although earlier work design researchers highlighted the importance of
the social structure of works, interactions, and interdependence in the
workplace, they did not incorporate relational perspectives into theories of
work design. Examples of this earlier research are The Tavistock Institute’s
studies, which investigated the social structure of work (Trist & Bamforth,
1951). Organisational psychologists (Katz & Kahn, 1966) revealed linkages
between social interaction and actors’ interdependence in organisations.
Among job design researchers, Kiggundu (1981) elaborated on the work
design theory and developed the concept of task interdependence,
emphasising that interdependence can be embedded in job designs (Grant
& Parker, 2009).
112
Nevertheless, a renewed interest in relational perspectives towards
work design has been stimulated by striking changes in the twenty-first
century work environment (Grant & Parker, 2009). Whilst traditional work
design theories argued that the design of jobs and the structure of tasks
played an important role in employees’ intrinsic motivations (Oldham &
Hackman, 1980), relational work design perspectives emphasised the
critical role of social context of work in shaping employees’ experiences
and behaviours and underscored the importance of interpersonal
interactions and interdependence in today’s work environment (Grant &
Parker, 2009). According to these perspectives, jobs, tasks, and roles
influence employees’ interpersonal interactions and the degree of
interdependence (Grant & Parker, 2009).
The driving force behind this renewed interest in the relational work
design approach was Morgeson and Humphrey’s (2006) research program.
Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) developed a comprehensive measure,
which included five social characteristics: social support, interaction
outside the organisation, initiated interdependence, perceived
interdependence, and feedback from others (Grant & Parker, 2009).
Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) defined social support as the degree of
emotional and instrumental assistance that employees receive from
supervisors and co-workers (Karasek, 1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990 as
cited in Grant & Parker, 2009). Interaction outside the organisation was
defined as employees’ communications with people beyond the
boundaries of the organisation, such as distributors, suppliers, clients, or
customers (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Task interdependence was
defined as the degree to which employees rely on each other to complete 113
their task. Whilst in initiated interdependence work flows from the focal
employee to others, in received interdependence the focal employee’s job
is affected by others jobs (Kiggundu, 1981, 1983; Wageman, 2001 as cited
in Grant & Parker, 2009). Finally, feedback from others was defined as the
degree to which supervisors, co-workers, customers, clients, or others
provide information about employees’ performance (Hackman & Lawler,
1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1980 as cited in Grant & Parker, 2009).
Further, in a meta-analysis Humphrey et al. (2007) examined the
predictive validity of these social characteristics and assessed their
relationship with attitudinal outcomes. Results of the analysis showed that
after controlling for motivational task characteristics and knowledge
characteristics, social characteristics explained significant amounts of
variance in employees’ attitudes (24% in turnover intentions, 40% in
organisational commitment, 17% in job satisfaction, and 9% in subjective
performance).
Along these lines of arguments, the thesis argued that social
characteristics of work (interdependence and work relationships) played a
central role in the crossover of attitudes and behaviours (engagement in
this case) in the workplace. Among Morgeson and Humphrey’s (2006) five
social characteristics, the thesis identified interdependence (task and
outcome interdependence) and social support (workplace friendship) as
elements of the work contexts, which may affect the crossover process.
More specifically, the thesis argues that when there are task and outcome
interdependence among employees, and when employees are attached
with one another as friends rather than mere co-workers, they can enter
the crossover process and affect one another’s attitudes and behaviours. 114
Thus, this thesis posits that task and outcome interdependence and
workplace friendship; create a social system and boundary conditions for
engagement crossover in the workplace. The next section expands on the
concept of task interdependence as the social characteristics and the
functional factor of the workplace. Further discussions on the role of work
relationships in engagement crossovers are reserved for section 2.5.
2.4.1.1 Task Interdependence
The concept of task interdependence is rooted in Thompson’s (1967)
distinction between pooled, sequential, and reciprocal interdependence
(Grant & Parker, 2009). According to this typology, pooled
interdependence was defined by members’ interdependence without
direct interactions. On the other hand, sequential interdependence was
concerned with the sequence of workflow from one person to the other
and reciprocal interdependence was concerned with the direction of
interdependence, where both parties relied on each other to complete a
task (Grant & Parker, 2009).
Whilst Thompson (1967) provided a typology of interdependence based
on a type and level of interdependence, the central question of whether
task interdependence had psychological and behavioural outcomes
remained unanswered in this typology. Hence, later researchers provided
different conceptualisations of task interdependence that highlighted the
relationship between task interdependence and psychological and
behavioural outcomes.
For example, Kiggundu (1981) differentiated between initiated and
received interdependence and argued that task interdependence had
motivational potentials and different types of task interdependence 115
(initiated or received), were related to different psychological and
behavioural outcomes. Kiggundu (1981) defined initiated interdependence
as: “the degree to which work flows from the focal employee to others”,
whereas, received interdependence happens when others facilitate the
focal person’s job (Grant & Parker, 2009, p. 13).
Kiggundu (1981) argued that whilst initiated interdependence leads to
experienced responsibility for other’s work outcomes in the focal person,
received interdependence is associated with reduced motivation and felt
responsibility, which leads to negative outcomes such as low productivity,
refusal to take responsibility, and absenteeism and turnover (Grant &
Parker, 2009; Van der Vegt, & Van de Vliert, 2002).
Building on Thompson’s (1967) typology and Kiggundu’s (1981)
argument, Pearce and Gregersen (1991), in a study among hospital
employees, demonstrated that reciprocal task interdependence, which
occurs when employees both initiate and receive interdependence, leads
to higher levels of experienced responsibility and motivates extra-role
helping and citizenship behaviours (Grant & Parker, 2009). Later research
also confirmed Pearce and Gregersen’s (1991) findings and highlighted
that employees perceive reciprocal interdependence as more beneficial
and invest more trust and engage in helping behaviour (Van der Vegt, &
Molleman, 2007).
Furthermore, in group design literature, task interdependence is defined
as the essence of the group (Lewin, 1948), the underlying reason and the
defining characteristic for group formation (Lewin, 1948; Van der Vegt,
Vliert, 2000). Group design literature revealed that in the work contexts
characterised by reciprocal task interdependence, there is frequent 116
interaction among employees. Employees rely on each other for the
exchange of information, resources, or actual work to complete their job
(Van der Vegt, & Van de Vliert, 2000; Van der Vegt, & Molleman, 2007).
The proximity and frequent exchange of information, tools, and means
enhances employees’ promotive interactions, which eventually leads to
group effectiveness (Johnson & Johnson, 2005; Van der Vegt, & Van de
Vliert, 2000).
Adopting a relational perspective and building on group design
literature, in this thesis, task interdependence is conceptualised and
measured as a reciprocal interdependence. Since the thesis propounds the
view that social context of work, the design of tasks, and jobs influence
employees’ attitudes and behaviours, task interdependence is identified
as the functional factor, which can create a boundary condition for
engagement crossover in the workplace. There are three main arguments
that can be advanced to support this claim.
Firstly, the nature and structure of tasks, in task interdependence
accentuates the need to be dependent on or related to one’s co-workers to
complete the job. Such an interdependence fuels the feeling of being
worthwhile, useful, and valuable because employees feel that not only are
they giving to others and to their job, but also, they are needed and
valuable. This feeling of worthwhileness is in line with Kahn’s (1990)
psychological meaningfulness. Thus, the thesis argues that task
interdependence increases feelings of worthwhileness, dignity and self-
worth, which in turn leads to employee engagement.
Secondly, when employees rely on each other for the exchange of
information, resources and tools, they constantly interact with each other. 117
The proximity and frequent exchange of information, tools, and means
heightens promotive interactions (Johnson & Johnson, 2005; Van der Vegt,
& Vliert, 2000).
Thirdly, on the one hand, constant interaction and proximity increases
the perception of either similarities or contrasts among co-workers (Ang,
Van Dyne, & Begley, 2003), but on the other hand, task interdependence
increases experienced responsibility for other’s outcomes and positive
cathexis, so upon observing contrast in their co-workers’ levels of
performance and/or engagement, employees become motivated to invest
psychological energy into their co-workers and exert extra role helping
and discretionary behaviour (Grant & Parker, 2009; Johnson & Johnson,
2005).
Based on these reasonings, it is conceivable to argue that task
interdependence is the functional factor and can strengthen engagement
crossover in the work contexts. That is, proximity and promotive
interactions accentuated by high task interdependence create a social
context in which employees can affect one another’s attitude and
behaviours and enter the crossover process. On the one hand, employees’
own engagement levels increase due to experienced meaningfulness,
dignity and self-worth. On the other hand, they will experience a high
sense of responsibility for their co-worker’s work outcomes. Hence, a
psychological state of experienced meaningfulness, along with felt
responsibility for other’s work outcomes from both employees working on
an interdependent task, strengthens engagement crossover. This is
because of the expectations that co-workers will increase their
118
engagement level to maximally facilitate and minimally hinder their
mutual, interdependent task performance (Kiggundu, 1981).
Although several studies have shown that task interdependence is
positively related to supportive behaviours such as organisational
citizenship behaviour and helping behaviour (Aube & Roussea, 2005; Lin,
2010), and positive job and organisational outcomes such as team
satisfaction and team commitment (Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2000),
there is evidence that task interdependence can also have detrimental
effects (Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2000, 2002 and 2003).
This view rests on the assumption that interdependence can lead to
inhibiting behaviours rather than supportive ones. Employees who work on
interdependent tasks constantly rely on each other for the exchange of
tools, knowledge, and information. This interdependence creates a
situation where some members may exploit their power and inhibit other
members’ performance by not providing tools, materials or information.
Withholding or delaying resource transaction results in “process loss” and
negative affective responses among group members (Van der Vegt, &
Vliert, 2000).
To address this issue, group design research showed that considerable
levels of outcome interdependence in groups could mitigate the
detrimental effect of task interdependence (Van der Vegt, & Vliert, 2000).
It is argued that outcome interdependence attenuates “process loss” by
stimulating the development of cooperative behaviour among group
members (Van der Vegt, & Vliert, 2000).
In line with group design research and to address the detrimental
effects of task interdependence, outcome interdependence is added to the 119
engagement crossover model. The next section will further expand upon
this concept.
2.4.1.2 Outcome Interdependence
The concept of outcome interdependence is a prominent feature of
research on group goal setting and group design literature (Deutsch,
1949; Van der Vegt, & Van de Vliert, 2002). In group design literature,
outcome interdependence is defined as: “the degree to which group
members are presented with group feedback and goals” (Van der Vegt &
Van de Vliert, 2000, p. 635). Group goals represent group missions and
purposes, which are measured as collective levels of performance
achieved by all members of a group. Group feedback is an actual group
status presented to group members comparable to reference standards
(Van der Vegt, & Molleman, 2007).
This definition is in line with Deutsch’s (1949) interdependence theory.
According to Deutsch (1949), there are two types of outcome
interdependence: cooperative and competitive contexts. Whilst in
cooperative contexts employees perceive goals as mutually inclusive and
collective and receive joint rewards and feedbacks, in competitive
contexts employees’ goals and rewards are mutually exclusive (Van der
Vegt, & Van de Vliert, 2002). Thus, in competitive contexts, one
employees’ goal or reward achievement is considered to inhibit other
employees’ goal achievement (Van der Vegt, & Van de Vliert, 2002).
The consensus view among several studies which have examined
Deutsch’s (1949) interdependence theory seems to be that outcome
interdependence in cooperative contexts is associated with collaborative 120
and supportive behaviour, felt responsibility, intrinsic motivation, and
psychological health and well-being (Van der Vegt, & Van de Vliert, 2002).
These studies argued that cooperative contexts are superior to
competitive ones. When there is high outcome interdependence in
cooperative contexts, group members benefit from collective success and
therefore may not engage in the counterproductive behaviours, such as
withholding or delaying resources (Van der Vegt, & Molleman, 2007).
Hence, the available evidence in group design literature seems to suggest
that a considerable level of outcome interdependence in cooperative
contexts may mitigate the detrimental effects of high task
interdependence.
A considerable amount of literature has been published on the
relationship between outcome interdependence and group performance in
goal setting literature, which lent more support for the positive effects of
outcome interdependence (Van der Vegt, & Van de Vliert, 2002). These
studies established that when group goals are paired with group feedback,
they have a positive impact on employees’ attitudes, performance levels,
cooperative behaviours and morale (Van der Vegt, & Van de Vliert, 2002).
In particular, in most of these studies, the observed positive results were
detected under the condition of high task interdependence. Hence, high
outcomes can attenuate the detrimental effects of high task
interdependence (Van der Vegt, & Van de Vliert, 2002).
Furthermore, there is evidence in the literature suggesting that whilst
task and outcome interdependence are mutually independent constructs,
they can exist in isolation; their effects on group processes, group
performances and employees’ behaviours and attitudes strongly depend 121
on their configurations. Several laboratory experiments (Saavedra et al.,
1993), and field studies (Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2000, 2001, and
2003) have shown that congruent combinations of task and outcome
interdependences such as low-low and high-high, interact differently from
incongruent combinations such as low-high or high-low.
In a field study, Van der Vegt and Van de Vliert (2000) investigated
patterns of intragroup interdependence and team members’ affective
responses (job and team satisfaction and commitment). They found that
groups characterised by both high task and outcome interdependence
(high-high) reported higher job and team satisfaction and commitment
than groups with high-low or low-high configurations (Van der Vegt & Van
de Vliert, 2000).
A comparative study by Van der Vegt and Van de Vliert (2003) found
that informational dissimilarity (operationalised as: “the differences
between a focal employee and his/her fellow team member in education
and functional specialisation”), is highly context-dependent, and its
relationship with organisational citizenship behaviour and team
identification differs for different configurations of task and outcome
interdependence (Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2003, p. 715).
The findings demonstrated that under incongruent configurations of
task and outcome interdependence (low-high), team members exploit
their co-workers and benefit from other’s efforts. The result showed that
higher levels of informational dissimilarity triggered interpersonal bias and
distrust, which eventually reduced team identification and OCB (Van der
Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2003). Indeed, this study lent further support to the
122
theoretical notion that different configurations of task and outcome
interdependence interact differently (Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2003).
Taken from group design and goal setting literature, outcome
interdependence is added to the engagement crossover model to mitigate
the detrimental effects of task interdependence. As was discussed earlier
in this section, there is evidence in group design literature that when
employees work on interdependent tasks, they constantly rely on one
another for the exchange of tools, knowledge, and information. This
interdependence creates a situation where some employees may exploit
their power and inhibit other’s performance by not providing tools,
materials or information. Withholding or delaying resource transaction
results in “process loss” and negative affective responses (Van der Vegt, &
Vliert, 2000).
In contrast, the literature on group design and goal setting abounds with
examples, which demonstrates that considerable levels of outcome
interdependence can mitigate the process losses associated with high task
interdependence. Previous studies showed that when goals and feedback
are structured in a way that reflects collective performance, this creates
positive interdependence among individuals, which encourages promotive
interaction. Therefore, employees who work on highly interdependent
tasks benefit from collective success and therefore may not engage in
counterproductive behaviour such as withholding or delaying resources
(Van der Vegt, & Molleman, 2007).
Whilst outcome interdependence has been studied most prominently at
the group level, it can also be conceptualised at an individual level.
Outcome interdependence at an individual level is the degree to which 123
individual employees perceive their work situation, as predominantly
cooperative or competitive (Van der Vegt, & Vliert, 2000). Numerous
studies have revealed that outcome interdependence at an individual level
is also positively related to collaborative behaviour, co-worker satisfaction,
experienced responsibility and well-being (Van der Vegt, & Vliert, 2000).
In this research, outcome interdependence is identified as the functional
factor and operationalised at an individual level in cooperative contexts. In
line with the interdependence literature, outcome interdependence is
hypothesised to mitigate detrimental effects of task interdependence in
congruent configurations (high-high). Hence, this thesis’ core premise is
that under high task and outcome interdependence (high-high),
employees enter the crossover process and affect each other’s attitudes
and behaviours. Employees who work under high task and outcome
interdependence rely on each other for means, information, and tools to
complete their job and achieve their mutual goals. Felt responsibility for
other’s outcomes, experienced meaningfulness and self-worth in task
interdependence, as well as perceived collective goals and rewards
heighten collaborative and supportive behaviour.
More specifically, upon perceiving their co-worker as being highly
engaged at work, employees choose to either remain the same, become
more engaged or disengage with the task. High task interdependence
paired with high outcome interdependence promotes cooperation to
achieve collective success, resulting in increased engagement (Van der
Vegt, & Vliert, 2000). Based on these reasonings, the thesis posits that
task and outcome interdependence is the functional factors, which create
boundary conditions for engagement crossover. The higher the level of 124
task and outcome interdependence, the stronger the crossover of
engagement.
Further, the thesis argues that employee engagement is not entirely
individual, but rather it is a shared experience; therefore, the co-workers
and the social dynamics of the work contexts can affect employees’
attitudes and behaviours. This thesis argues that apart from the functional
role of task and outcome interdependence (frequent, promotive
interactions, and proximity), when employees are attached with one
another as friends rather than mere co-workers, they can enter the
crossover process and affect one another’s attitudes and behaviours. This
argument is in line with Morgeson and Humphrey’s (2006) taxonomy, and
their emphasis on the critical role of social context of work in shaping
employees’ experiences and behaviours in today’s work environment
(Grant & Parker, 2009). Moreover, individuals’ inclinations of social needs
i.e. the need for affiliation (McClelland’s (2003) Need Theory), the need of
belongingness (Maslow’s (1954) Hierarchy of Needs Theory), and the need
for relatedness (Ryan and Deci’s (2000) Self-determination Theory), lend
further support to the thesis argument that workplace friendship is an
affective factor and can affect the crossover process in the workplace.
The following sections discuss the role of workplace relationships as
another social characteristic of the work context, which can affect the
crossover process in the workplace. Like previous sections of this chapter,
an overview of the theory and research in work relationships literature is
provided. An in-depth review of work relationships literature identified
workplace friendship as a type of social support, which plays a key role in
125
well-being crossover; however, the current understanding of this concept
is very limited.
2.5 Overview of Theory and Research in Workplace Friendship
2.5.1 Historical Development of Work Relationships Research from Positive Work
Relationships to Workplace Friendship
Numerous studies have highlighted the importance of relationships in
organisations stating that they are the essence of living systems and the
basis of organisations (Dutton, & Ragins, 2017; Sias, 2008). Workplace
relationships refer to unique interpersonal relationships among employees
of all levels and statuses, including supervisor-subordinate relationships,
peer co-worker relationships, and customer relationships (Dutton, &
Ragins, 2017; Sias, 2008).
Whilst earlier research has tended to focus on specific types of work
relationships such as a mentoring relationship (Colbert et al., 2016), and
leader-follower or supervisor-subordinate relationship (e.g., Graen & Uhl-
Bien, 1995), recent developments in the field have shown the need for
more investigation on positive, mutually beneficial, high-quality peer co-
worker relationships (Colbert et al., 2016).
Recent developments in work relationship literature distinguish between
three primary types of peer co-worker relationships (Kram & Isabella,
1985; Kirby & Krone, 2002; Sias & Cahill, 1998; Sias, 2005, 2008). An
information peer relationship is characterised by low levels of self-
disclosure, trust and intimacy, whereas a collegial peer relationship is a
type of relationship, which is characterised by moderate levels of self-
126
disclosure, trust, intimacy, emotional support, and friendship (Kram &
Isabella, 1985; Kirby & Krone, 2002; Sias & Cahill, 1998; Sias, 2005, 2008).
Finally, a special peer relationship is marked by high levels of emotional
support, personal and career feedback, self-disclosure, trust, intimacy, and
friendship (Kram & Isabella, 1985; Kirby & Krone, 2002; Sias & Cahill,
1998; Sias, 2005, 2008).
In addition, these recent developments have led to a renewed interest
in the implications of peer co-worker relationships for individuals involved
in these relationships, as well as groups and organisations in which these
relationships develop. Numerous studies have argued that work
relationships can be sources of enrichment, vitality, and learning, helping
individuals, groups, and organisations grow, thrive, and flourish (Colbert et
al., 2016). Alternatively, they can be sources of exploitation, depletion,
and dysfunction (Dutton, & Ragins, 2017; Sias, 2008). Indeed, positive,
high-quality work relationships such as a special peer relationship, which is
characterised by high levels of emotional support, personal and career
feedback, trust, and intimacy have positive implications for individuals and
can be sources of life satisfaction, personal development, growth, and
friendship (Colbert et al., 2016).
Early investigations into the implications of work relationships can be
traced back to social support and mentoring literature. This large body of
literature adopted the dominant theoretical paradigm of the social
exchange theory to explain the role of work relationships, their impact and
implications for individuals (Blau, 1964; Homan, 1974 as cited in Dutton,
and Ragins, 2017). According to the social exchange theory, relationships
are a means of exchanging resources to gain power and/or utility (Dutton, 127
& Ragins, 2017). Therefore, the main focus of the earlier investigations in
mentoring literature was on how the exchange of resources help
individuals cope with adversity (Colbert et al., 2016; Stroebe & Stroebe,
1996).
Having adopted a social exchange theory paradigm, these studies
overlooked the role of work relationships in facilitating individuals’ growth
and development in the absence of adversity and limited their scope and
focus on the instrumental and emotional supports these relationships
provided. Nevertheless, these studies have been criticised for assuming
that resources are scarce and fixed; therefore, neglecting the role of
positive work relationships in generating new resources for individuals’
growth and development (Dutton, & Ragins, 2017).
The recent development of work relationship theories took a different
approach and shifted their focus from deficiencies and adversities to a
state of abundance (Dutton, & Ragins, 2017). This new field of inquiry -
positive work relationships, which is built on positive psychology (Seligman
& Csikzentmihalyi, 2000), positive organisational behaviour (Luthans,
2002; Luthans & Yousef, 2004), and positive sociology (Baker, Cross, &
Wooten, 2003) argues that work relationships are central to individuals’
life satisfaction and may go beyond the mere exchange of resources,
instrumental, and emotional support. Thus, they assume that in the
absence of adversity, relationships are sources of life satisfaction, personal
development, growth, and friendship (Colbert et al., 2016).
Positive work relationships exist within the context of organisations, with
work and careers inside and outside an organisation’s boundaries (Dutton,
& Ragins, 2017). These relationships are not limited to face-to-face 128
interactions and may include virtual relationships, mentoring relationships,
and relationships among employees of a common profession, organisation,
or community (Dutton, & Ragins, 2017). However, certain patterns of
relationships are believed to be more generative, enriching, and
enhancing than others (Dutton, & Ragins, 2017).
A recent theory, which lent support to the positive work relationship
approach, is Feeney and Collins’ (2015) Thriving through Relationships
Theory (Colbert et al., 2016). This theory has its root in the attachment
theory (Bowlby, 1988) and proposes that relationships are functional, not
only in times of adversity but also provides opportunities for personal
growth and development (Colbert et al., 2016). The main assumption of
this theory is that work relationships serve a broader range of functions,
which go beyond the traditionally believed task assistant, emotional
support, and career development (Colbert et al., 2016).
Further, in a series of qualitative and quantitative studies, Colbert et al.,
(2016) developed a taxonomy of relationship functions with a clear focus
on the role of work relationships on employee flourishing (Colbert et al.,
2016). They defined employee flourishing as situations where employees
have high levels of well-being and are fully functional. They
operationalised employee flourishing through factors, which promoted
meaningful work, life satisfaction, and positive emotions at work (Colbert
et al., 2016). Consistent with Feeney and Collins (2015), they found that
work relationships not only provided the traditional task assistance, career
development and social support, but they also facilitated personal growth,
opportunities to give to others, and workplace friendship (Colbert et al.,
2016). 129
Clearly, Colbert et al., (2016) has extended work relationships literature
and developed a theory, which demonstrates specific relationship
functions with their outcomes (Colbert et al., 2016). Whilst they argued
that task assistance, emotional support, and career development were
associated with job satisfaction, they stated that personal growth,
opportunities to give to others, and workplace friendship predicted
employees flourishing (Colbert et al., 2016). More specifically, they
demonstrated that personal growth predicted life satisfaction, whereas
giving to others most strongly predicts meaningful work, and workplace
friendship predicts positive emotions at work (Colbert et al., 2016).
In line with the earlier studies, which have provided evidence for the
quality of interpersonal interactions in terms of trust, loyalty, respect, and
mutuality, and because this thesis propounds the view that the social
context of work, and work relationships influence employees’ shared
experiences of engagement (interpersonal effects of employee
engagement), this thesis focuses on positive work relationships that are
“mutually beneficial and generative” (Colbert et al., 2016, p. 1201). One
such positive work relationship, which goes beyond the mere task
assistance and career advice is workplace friendship (Tse, Spears, &
Ashkanasy, 2008). This concept will be expanded upon in the following
section.
2.5.2 Workplace Friendship
In defining workplace friendship, Wright (1984) states that a “workplace
friendship is a feeling of affective bonding enabling group members to
experience relational meanings in their interpersonal relationships” (Tse, 130
Spears, & Ashkanasy, 2008, p. 197). It is a relationship that involves
voluntary or unconstrained interaction, which goes beyond the mere role
of responsibility in organisations.
Workplace friendship manifests a type of relationship, which goes
beyond typical co-worker relationships and role expectancies. In such a
relationship, individuals are willing to reveal the central aspect of their
self, involve in a voluntary interdependence, and become more responsive
to one another’s needs and feelings (Colbert et al., 2016).
The second definition of workplace friendship can be found in Winstead,
Derlega, Montgomery, & Pilkington’s (1995) study. They defined workplace
friendship according to two factors: a unique and irreplaceable mutual
concern and interest between partners, and a voluntary interdependence
and instrumental support between interacting partners in the absence of
role constraints or pressures (Winstead, Derlega, Montgomery, &
Pilkington, 1995).
Yet, another definition of workplace friendship comes from Berman et al.
(2002). Berman et al. (2002) defined workplace friendship as an
interpersonal relationship that “involves mutual commitment, trust, and
shared values or interests between people at work, in a way that goes
beyond mere acquaintance but that excludes romance” (Berman et al.,
2002, p.217.
Taken from these definitions, workplace friendship is distinguishable
from other types of work relationships. Firstly, workplace friendship
reflects an affective bonding, which employees develop towards each
other over time. This affective bonding goes beyond trust and reflects a
strong sense of attachment, rapport, and a desire to stay together and 131
extends beyond the work context (Berman et al., 2002). Workplace
friendship is therefore distinct from information and collegial peer
relationships not only in terms of frequency of interaction and the quality
of communication but also in terms of the level of trust and affective
attachment (Beal et al., 2003; Kirby & Krone, 2002; Sias, 2005, 2008).
The second characteristic, which marks workplace friendship from other
peer work relationships, is the personalistic focus. This means that in
workplace friendship, individuals go beyond their role responsibility in
organisations and view their friends as a “whole person rather than a mere
role occupant” (Wright, 1984, p. 199). Along these lines, collegial and
special peer relationships seem to share more personalistic characteristics
with workplace friendship, whereas an information peer relationship is
constrained by work-related roles and boundaries (Kirby & Krone, 2002;
Kram & Isabella, 1985; Sias & Cahill, 1998; Sias, 2005, 2008).
Thirdly, workplace friendship is characterised by voluntariness which is
“an ongoing human association voluntarily developed and privately
negotiated” (Rawlins, 1992, p.9). This characteristic of workplace
friendship distinguishes it from other compulsory work relationships such
as supervisor-subordinate relationships. Unlike supervisor-subordinate
relationships, workplace friendship develops by choice and not by work
compulsions (Sias, 2005, 2008). Therefore, friends voluntarily stay longer
and spend extra time to help their co-worker regardless of their role
expectancies in the organisation.
Clearly, in workplace friendship, employees develop strong affective
bonds with each other and engage in cooperative, supportive interactions,
which are not defined or restrained within the organisational rules and role 132
expectations; rather it is entirely voluntary and unconstrained by
organisational boundaries. Therefore, unlike other types of relationships
(supervisor-subordinate, information and collegial peer relationships),
friends engage in discretionary efforts and are willing to spend extra time
helping their co-worker at work to satisfy their existential needs for
relatedness, belongingness and affiliations (Maslow, 1954; McClelland,
2003; Ryan and Deci, 2000).
Indeed, workplace friendship is a dynamic phenomenon and its nature
and functions vary over time; thus, investigating its developmental
process is necessary for a deeper understanding of this phenomenon
(Sias, 2005, 2008). The following sections discuss this developmental
process in more detail.
2.5.3 Workplace Friendship Development
Workplace friendship is a dynamic phenomenon, which can develop
among all types of occupations and people at any hierarchical level (Sias,
2005, 2008). The literature on workplace friendship demonstrates that
individual and contextual factors affect friendship development in the
workplace. Whilst individual factors are concerned with the people, their
attitudes, values, and interests in the relationship, contextual factors are
derived from the context in which people and their relationships are
embedded (Sias, 2005, 2008). Perceived similarities in attitudes, values,
interests, and personality are among the individual factors of physical
proximity, shared tasks, technology, life events (marriage, divorce,
illness), organisational climate and culture are among contextual factors
which play key roles in friendship development (Sias, 2005, 2008). 133
One of the most influential individual factors in friendship development
in the workplace is similarity (Sias & Cahill, 1998; Sias, 2005, 2008). Apart
from the similarity in an organisational status, the similarity in occupation,
attitudes, values, and interests are shown to have a profound impact on
friendship development in the workplace (Sias & Cahill, 1998; Sias, 2005,
2008). A considerable amount of literature has been published on the
effects of individual factors (similarities in organisational status,
occupation, attitudes, values, and interests) and workplace friendship
development (Mao, 2006; Sias & Cahill, 1998; Sias, 2005, 2008). As an
example, Mao (2006) investigated the effects of an organisational
hierarchical level on employees’ friendship development. The findings of
this study highlight that workplace friendship can help employees climb
the organisational hierarchical levels; however, those occupying the higher
organisational status were reported to have lower inclinations to develop
workplace friendship (Mao, 2006). Indeed, Mao’s (2006) findings
emphasise the fact that workplace friendship is more likely to develop
among employees of similar organisational status and levels (Mao, 2006).
The demographic similarity is also another individual factor, which can
affect friendship development in the workplace. Employees can be
attracted to their co-workers because of demographic similarities such as
age, gender, and ethnicity (Sias & Cahill, 1998; Sias, 2005, 2008). A
number of studies have demonstrated that women, compared to men, are
more likely to develop trusting and close relationships with their co-
workers (Sias, Cahill, 1997; Sias, 2008; Sias, Smith & Avdeyeva, 2003).
Whilst people, their attitudes, values, and interests are major
denominators of friendship development, the contextual factors and the 134
content of the work also play an integral role in friendship development in
the workplace. Several studies have indicated that physical proximity
plays an important role in friendship development (Sias & Cahil, 1998;
Sias, 2005, 2008). These studies have revealed that exposure to other
employees and frequent interactions with co-workers, facilitates positive
evaluations of other peers and increases the likelihood of friendship
development (Sias, 2005, 2008).
Moreover, cooperative and shared tasks have been reported to impact
friendship development in a number of studies (Hodson, 1996; Sias &
Cahill, 1998; Shah, 1998). These studies have conclusively shown that
working on interdependent tasks requires employees’ participation and
interaction, which facilitates the development of friendship (Hodson, 1996;
Sias & Cahill, 1998; Shah, 1998).
Finally, among other contextual factors, which are shown to affect
friendship development in the workplace, yet not within the scope of this
thesis, are computer-mediated communication technologies (e-mails and
social networks) (Sias, 2005, 2008), supervisor’s unfair behaviour (Odden
& Sias, 1997; Sias, 2005, 2008), organisational culture and climate (Sias,
2005, 2008), and life events (such as marital problems, or health issues)
(Sias, 2005, 2008).
Overall, a considerable amount of literature has been published on the
dynamics of workplace friendship development and the effect of individual
and contextual factors on this process (Sias, Smith & Avdeyeva, 2003;
Sias, 2005, 2008). Although these factors are not exhaustive to the
abovementioned ones, this thesis focuses on those individual and
contextual factors which facilitate the development of affective bonding 135
among employees in the workplace. Therefore, in line with the purpose of
the thesis, similarity in organisational status, occupation and
demographics, as well as physical proximity and interdependent tasks are
identified as individual and contextual factors, which play a key role in
friendship development in the workplace.
Clearly, not all of the work relationships pass the collegial peer
relationship stage, because reaching and maintaining close friendships
needs lots of investment in time and effort (Sias, 2008). In the workplace,
co-workers generally provide work-related information such as information
about the job, task, and/or organisation (Morrison & Nolan, 2009).
Interactions are limited to work-related affairs and there is a limited level
of trust and self-closure. At this stage employees neither develop, nor
consider each other as friends. (Morrison & Nolan, 2009). As relationships
evolve and employees become friends, they spend a considerable amount
of time outside the organisations. Interactions and information exchanges
increase and relationships become less constrained to formal role
expectancies. The level of trust, self-disclosure, and self-expression
increase as employees create affective bonds with each other (Morrison &
Nolan, 2009). Indeed, this stage of work relationship (workplace
friendship) and its potential implications and functions, is of particular
importance to, and supports the main argument of this thesis, for the
affective role of workplace friendship in the crossover of engagement in
the workplace. The following section provides a summary of the
implications and functions of workplace friendship.
136
2.5.4 Function of Workplace Friendship
As an affective, voluntary attachment with a personalistic focus,
workplace friendship has several implications and benefits for individuals
and organisations (Sias, 2008). Most importantly, workplace friendship
improves the quality of work by creating a social system, which
emphasises interactions, open communication and supportive behaviour
(Berman, West, & Richer, 2002).
Whilst previous research has suggested that employees’ affective
attachment with each other is not entirely necessary for high levels of
performance, more recent meta-analysis provides evidence for the
positive effects of workplace friendship, particularly when the work context
is interdependent (Beal et al., 2003; Berman et al., 2002; Colbert et al.,
2016). These studies have demonstrated that in interdependent work
contexts, employees develop closer relationships with each other over
time (Beal et al., 2003; Berman et al., 2002; Colbert et al., 2016). Over
time, employees engage in extensive information exchanges, their
communication becomes broader, they develop friendships and their
relationships becomes less constrained to formal role expectancies (Beal
et al., 2003; Berman et al., 2002; Sias, 2008).
There is also ample evidence in social support and mentoring literature
for the benefits of workplace friendship in providing instrumental
emotional support and career advice (Colbert et al., 2016). Evidence from
the meta-analysis studies, and social support and mentoring literature,
demonstrate that workplace friendship provides social support and
resources for employees to accomplish their tasks and improve their work
performance (Beal et al., 2003; Berman et al., 2002; Colbert et al., 2016).137
On the other hand, as was discussed in section 2.5.1, recent
developments in the field of positive workplace relationships have shown
that workplace friendship is a source of employee’s personal
developments thriving and flourishing (Colbert et al., 2016). Previous
studies have highlighted that employees who receive instrumental and
emotional support from their co-workers exercise positive behaviour at
work. These studies have demonstrated that social support in the form of
workplace friendship is positively related to job satisfaction, job
performance, life satisfaction, positive emotions at work, and perception of
meaningful work. It is also noted that workplace friendship is negatively
related to turnover intention and negative emotion (Colbert et al., 2016).
Hence, workplace friendship is a voluntary felt obligation, a sense of
uniqueness, and an affective attachment with other peer co-workers,
which is beneficial for employees and their organisations (Colbert et al.,
2016; Sias, 2008; Wright 1988). An in-depth review of positive work
relationship literature has identified workplace friendship as an affective
factor, which may affect engagement crossover in the workplace. Thus,
this thesis argues that employees who are constantly working in an
interdependent work context, where they need to interact with their peer
co-workers and exchange tools, information, and resources to complete
their job, are exposed to their co-worker’s feelings, attitudes, and
behaviours. The frequency of interactions paired with shared goals and
rewards bring employees closer to each other. Employees may feel that
they are similar or “in the same boat”, as they need to rely on each other
to complete their job and are accountable towards goal achievements.
Perceived similarity along with exposure, interaction, and proximity to 138
other co-workers facilitate workplace friendship. Once co-workers develop
this close bond with one another, they can enter the crossover process
and affect each other’s feeling, attitudes, and behaviours.
There are two main arguments that can be advanced to support the
affective role of workplace friendship in the crossover process in the
workplace. Firstly, the thesis argues that the nature of the tasks in task
interdependence and the structure of the goals in outcome
interdependence (mutual goals) create a social system, which draws
employees closer together as friends (Johnson & Johnson, 2005; Van der
Vegt, & Vliert, 2000). This means that, when employees rely on each other
for the exchange of information, resources, and tools (task
interdependence), they constantly interact with each other. The frequent
exchange of information widens the communication boundaries and over
time, work relationships become less constrained to the formal role
expectancies (Sias, 2008; Van der Vegt, & Vliert, 2000).
On the other hand, employees develop closer ties with each other
because they share mutual goals and receive collective feedback
(outcome interdependence). Since an individual’s success is only achieved
through collective success (outcome interdependence), employees engage
in cooperative and discretionary behaviour (Sias, 2008; Van der Vegt, &
Vliert, 2000). They voluntarily spend extra time and help their co-worker,
regardless of their role expectancies. Likewise, employees who receive
instrumental and emotional support develop stronger bonds with their co-
workers and become friends.
Finally, workplace friendship provides a sense of identity, oneness, an
affective and cognitive bonding among employees (Karanika-Murray et al., 139
2014). Employees feel that they are similar or “in the same boat” as they
need to rely on each other to complete their job and are accountable
towards goals achievement. Hence, workplace friendship creates a social
context in which employees can affect one another’s attitudes and
behaviours and enter the crossover process. The stronger the employee’s
attachment to one another (higher workplace friendship), the more they
affect and get affected by their co-worker’s attitudes and behaviours.
Chapter Three provides an overview of the research, the theoretical
model, and the research hypothesis.
2.6 Conclusion
This chapter developed the discussions from Chapter One. In this
chapter, employee engagement was investigated from multiple
perspectives. Employee engagement was defined as the employees’
degree of energy, concentration, and dedication in which three
psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability are its
prerequisite (Kahn, 1990; Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Whilst some scholars have provided evidence that employee
engagement is distinct and different from other well-established
constructs such as job involvement, job satisfaction, organisational
commitment, and flow (Christian et al., 2011; Rich et al., 2010), others
have challenged this view and argued that employee engagement is only
an overlap of these constructs (Zigarmi, Nimon, Houson, Witt, & Diehl,
2011). The novelty and the contribution of employee engagement from
other job attitudes are portrayed.
140
Further in the chapter, a historical account of employee engagement
theory development was discussed, followed by a critique of the research
in this field. Whilst understanding that antecedents and outcomes of
employee engagement continue to be a significant scholarly pursuit
(Christian et al, 2012), research into the interpersonal effect of employee
engagement is noted as severely lacking (Bakker et al., 2009), including,
in particular, research into engagement crossover (Bakker et al., 2006,
2009). This discussion points to the possibility of contributing to the
engagement literature by bringing the two lines of literature (literature on
employee engagement and crossover research) together and investigating
engagement crossover in the workplace.
An historical development of crossover research is given earlier in this
chapter. The chapter explained how crossover research is developed from
the earlier contributions in work-family interface models. Two situations of
spill-over and crossover are distinguished and discussed in detail
(Westman, 2001). Further, a critique of the research in work-family models
recognised shortcomings of previous contributions in the work-family
interfaces, such as lack of adequate conceptualisation and failure to
capture causal relationships and processes, which link work and home
together (Westman, 2001).
In addition, the critical review of crossover literature has revealed that
there is a considerable amount of literature on the crossover of negative
and positive emotions between intimate partners (Bakker, Emmerik &
Euwema, 2006; Westman & Vinokur, 1998; Westman, 2001, 2002);
however, there has been relatively little academic enquiry into the
crossover of well-being in the workplace (Bakker et al., 2009, 2006). This 141
thesis discusses and challenges this short body of literature for failing to
provide compelling evidence for the well-being crossover processes in the
workplace (Bakker et al., 2009, 2006). Clearly, the shortcomings of the
previous studies have provided an excellent opportunity for the thesis to
contribute to the deeper understanding of the engagement crossover
process in the workplace.
To identify work-related factors, which affect the engagement crossover
process, work design and work relationships literature were reviewed.
Relational perspective to the work design theory is adopted and
parameters, which contribute to and characterise social context of the
workplace, namely, task and outcome interdependence, and workplace
friendship are identified (Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2000; Van der
Vegt, & Molleman, 2007).
Likewise, positive work relationships are explored through a discussion
of factors, which affect interpersonal relationships, with a particular focus
on workplace friendship, its developmental process and its function (Sias,
2008; Tse, Spears, & Ashkanasy, 2008).
Chapter Two ended with the identification of task and outcome
interdependence and workplace friendship as functional and affective
factors, which can affect engagement crossover in the workplace.
Secondary to the main focus of this thesis, but still within the scope of this
research, task and outcome interdependence are identified as contextual
factors, which can affect workplace friendship formation and development
(Colbert et al., 2016). The affective outcome of interdependence in the
form of workplace friendship has emerged through an in-depth review of
142
the work design literature and is recognised as an area in which the thesis
can contribute to.
Insights into the boundary conditions of engagement crossover through
the functional and affective factors are established. An overview of the
research, the theoretical framework, and the research hypotheses are
discussed in Chapter Three.
Chapter Three Research Overview, Theoretical
Framework and Research Hypotheses
“Assumptions should never be the basis of any understanding.”Steven Redhead
143
3.1 Introduction
In chapters one and two, the background of research is presented. The
historical development and critical review of the employee engagement
literature, crossover research, work design and work relationships are
discussed. It is noted how existing gaps in the literature provide an
excellent opportunity for this thesis to contribute to these fields,
particularly to the literature on employee engagement and crossover
research.
Chapter Three integrates the literature on employee engagement,
crossover research, work design, and work relationships and presents the
theoretical framework of the thesis. It presents the engagement crossover
model, which explains the key concepts and shows how they inter-relate,
as a synthesis of the literature. From the theoretical framework, five
research hypotheses are set out which guide the proceeding empirical
chapters. This chapter is therefore pivotal because it provides an overview
of the research.
The following section provides an overview of this thesis and discusses
how the concepts identified in the literature inter-relate to form the
theoretical framework of the thesis. Research hypotheses are then
presented later in the section.
144
3.2 Overview of the Thesis, Theoretical Framework, and Research Hypotheses
This section provides the theoretical framework of the thesis. As
previously mentioned, the purpose of this thesis is to investigate
engagement crossover in the workplace. This research links literature on
employee engagement, crossover, work design, and work relationships
and contributes to the extant literature by extrapolating the boundary
conditions of engagement crossover. The central concepts in relation to
employee engagement, crossover, work design, and workplace friendship,
and how they relate, are presented in the theoretical model later in this
chapter – refer to Figure 3.1 at the end of this chapter.
An in-depth review of the literature on employee engagement revealed
that despite decades of research in this field, there are still inconsistencies
in its definitions and theories. An informed investigation of the literature
showed that the inconsistencies are due to conceptualising employee
engagement according to different perspectives.
Many scholars associated employee engagement with internal
psychological states of self-investment at work (e.g. Kahn, 1990; Rich et
al., 2010; Shuck, 2010); others conceptualised it as the opposite of
burnout (Maslach et al., 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2002), but yet many
scholars argued that employee engagement is a multidimensional
construct with attitudinal, cognitive and behavioural dimensions (e.g.
Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006). In considering these perspectives,
researchers clearly defined employee engagement differently.
However, the purpose of this thesis is not to provide a unified definition
and/or a universal theory of employee engagement, but rather the main 145
focus of the thesis is on the interpersonal effects of employee engagement
and whether employee engagement can crossover from one employee to
his or her co-workers.
The thesis adopts Schaufeli’s et al., (2002) conceptualisation of
employee engagement since this definition encapsulates employees’ work
experiences: a stimulating and energetic state in which employees invest
time and effort willingly (vigour component); a significant and meaningful
work experience (dedication component); and a state of full concentration
(absorption component) (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011). This definition
of employee engagement, unlike other researchers’ definitions,
conceptualises it as an experience of engagement, which is relatively
malleable and open to development rather than an innate trait (Schaufeli
et al., 2002).
Moreover, insights gained from the literature revealed that employees’
psychological experience (psychological meaningfulness, safety, and
availability) at work influence the degree to which employees bring in or
leave out their preferred “self” during role performance (Kahn, 1990). It is
also discussed that the interplay of several works, job, and organisational
factors prompt these psychological conditions (Kahn, 1990). Hence, there
is plenty of evidence for the beneficial effects of employee engagement
from organisational and individual perspectives (Christian et al., 2011;
Crawford et al., 2010); however, much of the recent literature does not
take into account the interpersonal effects of employee engagement (Rich
et al., 2010; Saks & Gruman, 2014; Wollard & Shuck 2011). Besides,
current empirical research into engagement crossover is very limited, and
there seem to be potential theoretical issues in this very brief body of 146
literature (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009; Bakker et al., 2006; Ten
Brummelhuis et al., 2014). This created an opportunity for the thesis to
contribute to the body of knowledge about engagement crossover.
On these grounds, the thesis argues that although engagement is a
discretionary willingness and a personal experience, which cannot be
forced or mandated, it is not entirely individual, but rather it is a shared
experience. However, multiple factors in the work context and the social
dynamics among individuals can affect employees’ experiences of
engagement. Hence, this thesis is mainly interested in the interpersonal
effects of employee engagement and the employees’ role in facilitating
and enhancing engagement among their co-workers. To this aim, two
research questions are raised, which formed the central theme of the
thesis: “To what extent does employee engagement crossover from one
employee to his/her co-worker in the workplace?” Relatedly, “what are the
potential factors that determine the extent of this crossover?” From this
two research questions, five hypotheses are raised to test the three
mechanisms (direct, indirect and common stressors) of the crossover
process.
To investigate the interpersonal effects of employee engagement,
insight and credit are gained from the literature on crossover research. A
review of the literature revealed that most of the studies have mainly
examined the crossover of unwell-being and negative experiences such as
anxiety (Westman, Etzion, & Horovitz, 2004), burnout (e.g., Bakker &
Shaufeli, 2000), depression (Howe, Levy, & Caplan, 2004), work-family
conflict (Westman & Etzion, 2005), in work-family interface. Relatively
147
little evidence for the crossover of positive emotions and well-being
(employee engagement) in the workplace exists in crossover research.
Whilst this could be partly because negative emotions and experiences
are proved to be more contagious than positive emotions (Bakker &
Schaufeli, 2000; Bakker et al., 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007; Westman,
2001; Westman et al., 2008), this thesis argues that role theory, which has
been applied as an underpinning theory in crossover research, may not be
a “sound basis” to explain the crossover of positive emotions,
experiences, and well-being, particularly when one attempts to explain the
crossover process in the workplace.
As previously discussed in section 2.3.2, role theory has its root in job-
stress models. Drawn from depletion arguments, the core assumption is
that ‘roles’ have a set of expectations applied to the incumbent “within
and beyond the organisational boundaries” (Westman, 2001, p. 719).
When individuals have multiple roles, fulfilling the expectations of these
roles can result in role conflict, role overload, and role ambiguity. This is
because people have fixed amounts of psychological and physiological
resources to invest in roles (Halbesleben & Bolino, 2009; Karatepe, 2013;
Powell & Greenhause, 2006). Perceived role conflict invokes stress and
emotional drain, which can spill over from work to home or vice versa and
cross over to others in these domains, inhibit people’s functioning, and
impair their well-being (Fiksenbaum, 2013; Karatepe, 2013, 2014).
However, proponents of enrichment perspective argue that engagement
in multiple roles in the domains of work and family brings resources and
benefits to individuals, which leads to gratification, higher self-esteem,
and positive emotional responses, rather than strain and stress (Rothbard, 148
2001). Thus, it is conceivable to argue that in the absence of role conflict
and stress, positive emotions and experiences cross over through different
processes. On these grounds, this thesis argues that role theory may not
be a sound basis to explain well-being crossover processes in the
workplace, therefore the thesis proposes Social Interdependence Theory
as an underlying theory for explaining the mechanisms of well-being
crossover processes in the workplace.
The social interdependence theory was developed from the principals of
Gestalt psychology (1900). According to Kurt Lewin (1935),
interdependence among group members makes a group a “dynamic
whole”. Therefore, “a change in the state of any member, changes the
state of other members” (Johnson & Johnson, 2005, p.3). Deutsch (1962)
extended this notion and conceptualised two types of social
interdependence: positive and negative. Social interdependence occurs
when one employee’s outcome is affected by other’s actions as well as
their own actions (outcome interdependence). Whilst positive social
interdependence occurs when employees’ actions promote, facilitate, and
achieve mutual goals, negative social interdependence happens when
individuals hinder the achievement of mutual goals. Thus, the social
interdependence theory’s basic premise posits that the structure of goals
determines employees’ interaction patterns and their outcomes (Johnson
& Johnson, 2005).
In addition, positive interdependence prompts three psychological
processes of substitutability, positive cathexis, and inducibility, which
promote cooperative interactions. When individuals substitute one
person’s actions for another person, they go through the psychological 149
process of substitutability; however, if they invest positive psychological
energy into them, they experience positive cathexis. Finally, the
psychological process of inducibility occurs when individuals influence
others and are open to being influenced by them (Johnson & Johnson,
2005). Deutsch (1962) argued that these three psychological processes
occur when there is a positive social interdependence (Johnson & Johnson,
2005).
Moreover, positive interdependence creates “responsibility forces” and
motivates individuals to satisfy peer norms by taking responsibility for
their actions (Johnson & Johnson, 2005, p. 5). This means that, when
employees’ outcomes are related to their own and their co-worker’s
actions, employees feel responsible not only for their own outcomes but
also for group outcomes, therefore they will encourage and facilitate
achievement of mutual goals (Johnson & Johnson, 2005; Van der Vegt, &
Vliert, 2000).
Further, earlier contributions did not provide convincing evidence for the
crossover of well-being in the workplace. As an example, this thesis has
discussed and challenged Bakker’s et al. (2006) study, which examined
the crossover of collective burnout and engagement among Dutch officers.
As was discussed in Chapter Two, Bakker et al., (2006) specified two ways
for the crossover of team burnout and engagement to individual members,
namely, the emotional contagion and the empathy. They found that after
controlling for the effect of common stressors in the workplace, affective
components of burnout (exhaustion) and engagement (vigour and
absorption) crossed over through the unconscious process of emotional
contagion, while attitudinal components (cynicism and lack of efficacy as 150
opposed to dedication), transferred through the conscious cognitive
processes of “tuning in” to other’s emotions (Bakker et al., 2006).
Clearly, Bakker’s et al. (2006) study has several limitations. Firstly, they
have reported that team engagement and burnout transferred to
individual team members through the direct process of empathy.
However, Bakker et al. (2006) failed to add measures of empathy
(empathic concern and perspective taking) in their analysis, and therefore,
their claim for the effect of empathy on the crossover of
burnout/engagement is questionable. The thesis argues that simply
controlling for the effects of common stressors (job demands and
resources, in their study) does not provide compelling evidence for the
empathy process. This reasoning is also consistent with Westman’s (2001)
suggestion that to “attribute crossover to the direct effect of empathy and
to rule out the possibility that some other processes are operating”,
measures of empathy (empathic concern and perspective taking) should
be added into the analysis (Westman, 2001, p. 730).
Secondly, they claimed that affective components of burnout
(exhaustion) and engagement (vigour and absorption) crossed over
through the unconscious process of emotional contagion. Although there is
ample evidence in emotion literature stating that emotional mimicry is
enough for an emotional contagion to happen (Hatfield et al., 1993; Van
Kleef, Van den Berg, & Heerdink, 2015), the thesis argues that justifying
crossover of employee engagement based on the non-conscious process
of emotional contagion is rather simplistic and fallacious. Employee
engagement is a long-term enduring state rather than just a momentary
expression of emotion. It is a state of “self” involvement at work, which 151
cannot be forced or mandated (Kahn, 1990; Macey et al., 2008), therefore
the non-conscious process of emotional contagion cannot explain the
engagement crossover process.
Along similar lines of argument, in employee engagement literature,
there is rarely any anecdotal or empirical evidence showing that engaged
employees have certain observable facial expressions, vocalisations,
postures, and movements, which can be mimicked by others.
Consequently, Bakker et al. (2006) only assumed that affective
components of engagement (vigour and absorption) crossed over through
the unconscious process of emotional contagion. In fact, they have failed
to provide any empirical evidence, such as observations of employees’
behaviour, for their claim.
Further, in the recent development of Westman’s (2001) crossover
model, Brough et al. (2018) described the crossover as a complex,
interchangeable and multifaceted process and suggested that the
concurrent examination of the three crossover mechanisms (i.e. direct,
indirect and common stressors) will provide a thorough test of crossover
process. The critical review of crossover literature has also identified
several shortcomings in the existing body of research on the crossover of
negative/positive psychological states in the workplace. Firstly, previous
studies have failed to provide empirical evidence for the direct, indirect
processes and common stressors concurrently. When testing the direct
crossover process, they either failed to add measures of empathy (i.e.
empathic concern and perspective taking) into their model (Bakker &
Xanthopoulou, 2009; Bakker et al., 2006; Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2014),
or used other measures such as emotional self-efficacy to test the direct 152
crossover (Wirtz et al., 2017); therefore, they only assumed that the direct
crossover process occurred via empathy.
Second, the majority of these researches has overlooked the effects of
common stressors or shared events. Thus, the crossover effects detected
in these studies may have been overestimated (Bakker & Xanthopoulou,
2009; Bakker et al., 2011; Brough et al., 2018; Westman & Etzion, 2005;
Westman et al., 2013; Westman et al., 2008). Finally, to this date, only the
indirect mechanisms of frequency of exposure (Bakker & Schaufeli 2000),
similarity (Bakker at al., 2001; Westman & Schaufeli, 2007), team
cohesion and social support (Westman et al., 2011) and leader’s
supportive behaviour (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2014) were detected in the
crossover process. Consequently, Brough et al. (2018) suggested that
future research should investigate the specific mechanisms of positive
crossover process.
The thesis advances the proposition that while employee engagement is
a personal experience, which cannot be forced or mandated, it can
crossover from one employee to his/her co-worker in the workplace.
Therefore, the thesis sets out to contribute to the body of knowledge on
crossover research by extending Westman’s (2001) crossover model to
the workplace; therefore, the first research question is raised: “To what
extent does employee engagement crossover from one employee to
his/her co-worker in the workplace?" From this research question,
hypothesis 1 is raised:
Hypothesis 1: Perceived co-worker engagement is positively related to
employee engagement (crossover).
153
As previously discussed in Chapter Two, in section 2.3.2.1, the direct
transfer of negative and positive emotions and experiences may occur in
the conscious cognitive process of empathy, which is defined as “tuning
in” to other’s emotions (Westman, 2001, 2006); such as sharing another
person’s emotional state, or distress. In the empathy process, it is
assumed that individuals are affected by each other’s expressed
emotions; this happens especially when one places himself in another
person’s circumstances (Bakker, 2006, 2009).
Whilst previous researches concluded that engagement crossover
happens due to the empathy and/or the emotional contagion processes
(Bakker et al., 2006, 2009; Brough et al., 2018; Westman et al., 2011), the
thesis challenges these studies and argues that engagement crossover is
not simply an emotional process; thus, justifying engagement crossover
based on the empathy and/or the emotional contagion processes is rather
simplistic and fallacious. To empirically establish this argument,
hypothesis 2 and 3 are raised to test the direct transfer of engagement via
empathy:
Hypothesis 2: Perceived co-worker engagement affects the
employee’s own engagement level (crossover). However, empathic
concern moderates the crossover of engagement. Such that, engagement
crossover is stronger for employees with higher levels of empathic
concern.
Hypothesis 3: Perceived co-worker engagement affects the
employee’s own engagement level (crossover). However, perspective
taking moderates the crossover of engagement. Such that, engagement
154
crossover is stronger for employees with higher levels of perspective
taking.
Secondly, since this thesis propounds the view that the social context of
work and the design of tasks and jobs, influence employees’ attitudes and
behaviours, task interdependence is identified as the functional factor,
which may create boundary conditions for engagement crossover in the
workplace. There are three main arguments, which can be advanced to
support this view.
Firstly, the nature and structure of tasks, in task interdependence
accentuates the need to be dependent on or related to one’s co-workers to
complete the job. Therefore, employees feel that not only are they
dependent on others to complete their jobs, but also, their co-workers
need them and rely on them which makes them feel worthwhile, useful,
and valuable. This feeling of worthwhileness is in line with Kahn’s (1990)
psychological meaningfulness. Thus, this thesis argues that task
interdependence increases feelings of worthwhileness, dignity, and self-
worth, which in turn leads to employee engagement.
Secondly, constant interaction and proximity increase the perception
of either similarities or contrasts among co-workers (Ang, Van Dyne, &
Begley, 2003), but on the other hand, task interdependence increases
experienced responsibility for other’s outcomes (Grant & Parker, 2009).
Therefore, upon observing contrast in their co-worker’s levels of
performance and/or engagement, employees become to exert extra role-
helping and discretionary behaviour and assist their co-workers in their
task accomplishment (Grant & Parker, 2009; Johnson & Johnson, 2005).
155
Thirdly, and in line with the social interdependence theory (Deutsch,
1949; Johnson & Johnson, 2005), task interdependence creates a positive
social interdependence among employees. It activates the psychological
processes of substitutability, positive cathexis, and inducibility, which
heightens promotive interactions (Johnson & Johnson, 2005; Van der Vegt,
& Vliert, 2000). Therefore, perceived dissimilarity in co-workers
encourages the employee to engage in more effective exchanges of
needed resources. He or she may feel responsible towards their co-
worker’s actions so the employee influences and facilitates their co-
workers’ efforts (Johnson & Johnson, 2005).
Based on these reasonings, it is conceivable to argue that task
interdependence is the functional factor and may strengthen engagement
crossover in the workplace. This means that task interdependence creates
a social context in which employees enter the crossover process and can
affect one another’s attitudes and behaviours. Whilst employees’ own
engagement levels increase due to the experienced meaningfulness,
dignity, and self-worth, the psychological process of substitutability,
positive cathexis, and inducibility, as well as felt responsibility for co-
worker’s work outcomes, motivates employees to influence and facilitate
their co-workers’ efforts (Johnson & Johnson, 2005; Van der Vegt, & Vliert,
2000). This is because of the expectations that co-workers will increase
their engagement levels to maximally facilitate and minimally hinder their
mutual, interdependent task performance (Kiggundu, 1981).
Numerous studies have identified task interdependence as a moderator
of other important relationships in interdependence literature (Grant &
Parker, 2009). In communication studies, for example, task 156
interdependence was shown to reverse the impact of communication
styles on status judgements (Fragale, 2006). It was demonstrated that in
interdependent groups, a higher status was granted to those members
who used powerless speech such as hesitation, hedges, and disclaimers
which were a communal expression of warmth (Grant & Parker, 2009).
Moreover, in group literature, the moderating effects of task
interdependence on group performance has been highlighted by several
studies (Aube & Rousseau, 2005; Bachrach, Powell, Bendoly, & Richey,
2006; Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003). Results of meta-analysis
studies have revealed that task interdependence strengthens cohesion,
interpersonal helping, goal commitment and group performance (Aube &
Rousseau, 2005; Bachrach, Powell, Bendoly, & Richey, 2006; Beal, Cohen,
Burke, & McLendon, 2003).
Although several studies have shown that task interdependence is
positively related to supportive behaviours, such as organisational
citizenship behaviour and helping behaviour (Aube & Roussea, 2005; Lin,
2010), and positive job and organisational outcomes, such as team
satisfaction and team commitment (Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2000),
there is evidence that task interdependence can also have detrimental
effects (Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2000, 2002 and 2003).
This view rests on the assumption that interdependence can lead to
inhibiting behaviours rather than supportive ones (Van der Vegt, & Vliert,
2000). Employees who work on interdependent tasks constantly rely on
each other for the exchange of tools, knowledge, and information. This
interdependence creates a situation where some members may exploit
their power and inhibit other members’ performance by not providing 157
tools, materials or information. Withholding or delaying resource
transactions results in “process loss” and negative affective responses
among group members (Van der Vegt, & Vliert, 2000).
To address this issue, group design research demonstrated that
considerable levels of outcome interdependence in groups could mitigate
the detrimental effect of task interdependence (Van der Vegt, & Vliert,
2000). It is argued that outcome interdependence attenuates “process
loss” by stimulating the development of cooperative behaviour among
group members (Van der Vegt, & Vliert, 2000).
This reasoning is also in line with the social interdependence theory,
which posits that outcome interdependence creates positive social
interdependence and increases collaborative and supportive behaviours
(Johnson & Johnson, 2005; Van der Vegt, & Van de Vliert, 2002). Therefore,
employees who work in highly interdependent work contexts (high task
and outcome interdependence) benefit from collective success and may
not engage in counterproductive behaviour such as withholding or
delaying transactions of the resources (Van der Vegt, & Molleman, 2007).
The literature on group goal setting and group design have provided
ample evidence for the impact of outcome interdependence on group
functioning and effectiveness (Van der Vegt, & Molleman, 2002, 2007).
These studies have demonstrated that under conditions of high task
interdependence, high outcome interdependence produces positive
results, such as internal motivation, job satisfaction, job commitment,
team satisfaction, and team commitment (Van der Vegt, & Molleman,
2000, 2002, 2007). To address the detrimental effects of task
interdependence, outcome interdependence is added to the model. 158
To answer the second research question and to test the indirect
mechanism of crossover, hypothesis 4 is raised:
Hypothesis 4: Task and outcome interdependence moderates the
crossover of engagement; such that, engagement crossover is stronger
when there is higher (than lower) task and outcome interdependence
between two employees.
Further, the literature on positive work relationships has highlighted that
workplace interactions and relationships can be sources of personal
development, growth, and friendship when there is no adversity (Colbert
et al., 2016). Positive work relationships, which go beyond mere task and
instrumental support, provide a sense of identity, oneness, affective, and
cognitive bonding amongst employees (Karanika-Murray et al., 2014). This
feeling facilitates a range of desirable attitudes and behaviours which
reinforces a willingness to perform better and to engage with work
(employee engagement, in this case) (Karanika-Murray et al., 2014). One
such positive work relationship, which goes beyond mere task and
emotional support, is workplace friendship. Thus, an informed review of
positive work relationships literature identified workplace friendship as the
affective factor, which may affect engagement crossover.
Wright (1984) defined workplace friendship as “a feeling of affective
bonding enabling group members to experience relational meanings in
their interpersonal relationships” (Tse, Spears, & Ashkanasy, 2008, p.
197). Workplace friendship manifests a type of relationship, which goes
beyond typical co-worker relationships and role expectancies. In this kind
of relationship, individuals are willing to reveal the central aspect of their
self and be involved in a voluntary interdependence and become more 159
responsive to one another’s needs and feelings (Colbert et al., 2016). They
can also enter crossover processes and affect one another’s feelings and
attitudes. Revisit section 2.5.3 and 2.5.4 for more explanations on this
concept.
In addition, workplace friendship creates psychological safety (Kahn,
1990), which is a feeling of security, to engage one’s preferred self without
a fear of negative consequences. According to Kahn (1990), secure and
trusting interpersonal relationships prompt psychological safety, which
lead to employee engagement at work (Kahn, 1990). Thus, when
employees perceive their co-workers as their friends rather than mere role
occupants, they feel supported and trusted and engage in cooperative
behaviours; therefore, they maximise their efforts and increase their
engagement in the tasks.
This reasoning is also in line with the social interdependence theory
(Johnson & Johnson, 2005). According to this theory, positive
interdependence activates the psychological processes of cathexis and
inducibility, which prompt cooperative behaviour. Employees become
motivated to invest energy in their co-workers. An affective bonding forms
among employees and they develop a friendship with one another. Once
employees perceive their co-workers as their friends, they can enter the
crossover process and influence and facilitate their friends’ effort to
complete the tasks and achieve the mutual goals.
Further, the literature on positive work relationships has established
that in collegial relationships, for example, there is a potential for social
contagion (Bakker et al., 2005). That is peer co-workers affecting one
another’s reaction to their shared work context and can influence each 160
other’s performance levels (Bakker, Van Emmerik & Euwema, 2006;
Bakker & Demerouti, 2009). In line with these arguments, this thesis
argues that engaged employees can affect their co-worker engagement
level when they are perceived as friends. The thesis posits that the higher
the perception of workplace friendship amongst employees, the stronger
the crossover of engagement is.
A considerable amount of literature has been published on the positive
effects of workplace friendship on organisational outcomes such as job
satisfaction, job performance, life satisfaction, positive emotions at work,
and perception of meaningful work (Colbert et al., 2016; Lin, 2010; Tse,
Spears, & Ashkanasy, 2008); however, there has been relatively little
literature published on the moderating effect of workplace friendship
which provides an opportunity for this research to contribute to workplace
friendship literature. Therefore, hypothesis 5 is raised to test the indirect
mechanism of crossover:
Hypothesis 5: Workplace friendship moderates the crossover of
engagement; such that, engagement crossover is stronger when
employees perceive their co-workers as their friends.
Finally, following Westman’s (2001) crossover model and to rule out the
possibility that any observed differences in employee engagement are due
to affect (positive and negative) and personality (Big Five), these variables
alongside other confounding variables such as age, gender, hours spent
with a co-worker, tenure, and education levels are controlled in the model.
Overall, lack of convincing evidence and the shortcomings in research
about engagement crossover in the workplace provides an opportunity for
161
this thesis to contribute to the literature on crossover and employee
engagement. Therefore, a theoretical model of engagement crossover and
the five research hypotheses are proposed and tested in two independent
studies, which forms the overall research project. This thesis argues that
the engagement crossover model, shown at Figure 3.1, which is
underpinned by the social interdependence theory (and not role theory),
provides a thorough test of the engagement crossover process in the
workplace by testing the direct, indirect and common stressors processes
concurrently.
In line with the social interdependence theory, this thesis argues that
task interdependence paired with outcome interdependence creates
positive social interdependence. Employees realise that they can only
benefit from collective success. Being by mutual benefits, employees act
in a trusting and trustworthy manner. They exchange resources,
information, and materials more efficiently, provide assistance, help to one
another, and facilitate each other’s efforts.
On the other hand, promotive interaction and mutual goals increase the
quality of work relationships (Sias, 2008; Van der Vegt, & Vliert, 2000).
Employees may feel that they are similar or “in the same boat” as they
need to rely on each other to complete their job and are accountable
towards the achievement of mutual goals. Perceived similarity, exposure,
and promotive interaction encourage high-quality work relationship such
as workplace friendship. Once co-workers develop the close bond with one
another, they can enter the crossover process and affect one another’s
feeling, attitudes, and behaviours (Johnson & Johnson, 2005; Van der Vegt,
& Vliert, 2000). Thus, this thesis argues that high task and outcome 162
interdependence and workplace friendship create a social context in which
employees enter the crossover process and may affect one another’s
attitudes and behaviours.
In line with the social interdependence theory, the thesis proposes the
engagement crossover model (Figure 3.1) which provides a thorough test
of the engagement crossover process in the workplace. Firstly, although
the thesis argues that employee engagement is not an emotion or mood
which can be transferred through the empathy process, to refute previous
studies (e.g. Bakker et al., (2006) study) and to have a thorough test of
engagement crossover, the moderating effects of empathic concern and
perspective taking are tested between two employees working in an
interdependent work context.
The engagement crossover model, which is the synthesis of the
literature (Figure 3.1), and the resulting five hypotheses have emerged in
this thesis and informed the methodology approach of the research.
Chapter Four explains how the research evolved in two independent
studies as the findings revealed new insights into the concept of
engagement crossover.
3.3 Conclusion
Chapter Three has provided the overview of the thesis and developed
arguments about the key factors in the engagement crossover process.
The thesis argues that previous studies on the well-being crossover failed
to provide convincing evidence for the crossover processes in the
163
workplace. Potential moderating factors are identified from the review of
the literature, which leads to the integrative theoretical framework.
A theoretical position is therefore set out, which underpinned the
proposed model of the thesis and explained how the concepts inter-
related. A set of hypotheses are presented which directly address the two
research questions and guide the proceeding empirical chapters.
Chapter Three clearly summarised the main arguments of this thesis.
Firstly, unlike previous studies, the main purpose of the thesis is to
investigate engagement crossover between co-workers working in
interdependent work contexts and not between intimate couples.
Secondly, the thesis provides more compelling evidence for the
engagement crossover in the workplace by linking employee engagement
literature with the literature on work design and work relationships.
Thirdly, the engagement crossover model, which is underpinned by the
social interdependence theory, extends crossover literature by providing a
thorough test of the engagement crossover process and its boundary
conditions in the workplace.
164
Control Variables
Gender, Age, Education level, Tenure, Organisation position,
Big-FiveAffect, Job resources
& demands
Figure 3.1. Engagement Crossover Model
Chapter Four Research Methodology
“After all, the ultimate goal of all research is not objectivity, but truth”.Helen Deutsch
4.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the methodological and philosophical orientation
of the thesis, which guided the proceeding empirical chapter. A realist, the 165
Workplace friendship
H1
H2H4
Employee engagement
H3
Empathic concern
Task & outcomeInterdependencePerspective
taking
H5
positivist approach is adopted, which best serves the explanatory,
deductive nature of the research. The chapter continues with a discussion
of the quality and ethical issues, with an emphasis on the research
integrity. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion of the research
design and strategy.
The research techniques and procedures, such as the research design,
the sampling techniques, and methods for data collection will be further
discussed in Chapter Five.
4.2 Research Philosophy: The Paradigm
The nature of knowledge and its development is referred to as research
philosophy (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). This section begins with a
discussion of the interlinked nature of ontology (nature of reality),
epistemology (acceptable knowledge), and axiology (the set of “basic
beliefs” and values that represent the views of the researcher) (Saunders
et al., 2012, p. 137).
A paradigm is a fundamental set of beliefs, principles, or worldviews, an
underpinning perspective to explore research questions and phenomena
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). To ensure that the choice of methodology,
methods, and data analysis are consistent and congruent with the
research question and objectives, it is very important to clarify the
paradigm early in the research process (Bryman, 2008). “Questions of the
method are secondary to questions of paradigm, which we define as the
basic belief system or worldview that guides the investigator, not only in
choices of the method but in ontologically and epistemologically
166
fundamental way” (Christians, 2005, p 158). Further, Saunders, Lewis and
Thornhill (2012) emphasised the importance of adopting a philosophical
viewpoint that is suited to answer the research questions and can
underpin methodological choice, research strategies and the method to
produce high quality research.
There is not a universally agreed paradigm in social science (Saunders
et al., 2012), therefore, different paradigms could have been pursued in
this research. This section discusses the ontological and epistemological
philosophy, which underpins the methodology of the thesis. To justify the
paradigm adopted in the thesis, alternative paradigms, which could have
been adopted for the research, but are not, is discussed.
4.2.1 Research Ontology
Ontology is often about the assumptions and views of the researcher on
the nature of reality (Bryman & Bell, 2011; Grix, 2010; Saunders et al.,
2012). Ontology can influence both the researcher’s methodological
choice as well as their research questions. Two aspects of ontology have
been identified in the literature. Whilst “objectivism” asserts that social
entities and reality exist external and independent of social actors,
“subjectivism” maintains that the perceptions and actions of social actors
construct social phenomena (Bryman & Bell, 2011; Grix, 2010; Saunders et
al., 2012). The latter view is mainly concerned with understanding the
meanings that social actors attach to their actions, motives, and intentions
(Bryman & Bell, 2011; Grix, 2010; Saunders et al., 2012). The former
posits that organisations have a reality, which is external to individuals;
167
therefore, individuals conform to organisations’ requirements and follow
standardised procedures (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
Depending on whether a researcher considers reality a subjective or an
objective phenomenon, his or her ontological view falls under “realism” or
“relativism” respectively (Gill & Johnson, 2010). Whilst realists believe in
external, objective, and observable truths, relativists advocate the social
construction of people's reality (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005), and the impact of
human phenomena (Bhaskar & Lawson, 1998).
Since the thesis focuses on the boundary conditions (the interaction of
objects and the dynamics that affect these interactions) of engagement
crossover and their causal relationships, a realist perspective is congruent
with the focus of this research. Although this thesis does not deny the
complex internal dynamics of an individual’s internal conceptions or
perspectives, investigation of how reality and meaning are constructed
internally is not within the scope of the thesis.
4.2.2 Research Epistemology
Epistemology is a justification of what is acceptable knowledge (Gray,
2013; Grix, 2010; Saunders et al, 2012). There are various classifications
for the way researchers study reality. Consistent with the realist ontology,
the objectivist’s view is that the meaning exists within objects, irrespective
of human consciousness, underpins “positivism” epistemology (Crotty,
1998).
Introduced by eighteenth century psychologists such as Comte (1798-
1857), positivism, derived from the term “posit”, meaning, “what can be
known”, or “fact”. Positivist is a “resource researcher”, a natural scientist 168
who believes research is value free and independent of the researcher. A
positivist researcher searches for causal relationships through direct
observation and measurement, to create law-like generalisations (Bhaskar,
2008; Saunders et al., 2012).
At the other end of the continuum are Interpretivists, who are critical of
the positivists and believe that reality is not external, objective, or
tangible, which can be tested through direct observations; but rather they
consider reality as the internal psychological experience of social actors
(Bryman & Bell, 2011; Grix, 2010; Saunders et al., 2012).
Whilst there are few qualitative reports about employees’ inner
experiences of engagement in literature, developing insights into
employees’ psychological experiences is not within the scope of this
research, rather, this thesis seeks to establish the causal relationships and
the objective factors, which create boundary conditions for engagement
crossover in the workplace. Therefore, a positivist approach is adopted.
Table 4.1 presents the key distinctions between positivism and
interpretivism.
Table 4.1. Key Research Distinctions between Positivism and Interpretivism
Positivism Interpretivism
External perspective Internal perspectiveObjective, tangible reality Subjective, socially
created reality Logical, causal relationships Individual experienceFactual truth, law-like
generalisations Socially constructed truth
Measurement of objects Interpretation of meanings
169
4.3 Research Approach
There are three main forms of reasoning in research approaches:
deductive, abductive, and inductive. The deductive reasoning “occurs
when the conclusion is derived logically from a set of premises” (Saunders
et al., 2012, p. 143). This indicates that the deductive approach is
concerned with testing the hypotheses and explaining the causal
relationships that exist between variables and concepts. On the other
hand, inductive reasoning sets out from a specific situation towards the
formation of a conceptual framework (Gray, 2013). In contrast,
“abductive” reasoning involves continuous movement between the
empirical world, theory, and analysis (Dubois & Gadde, 2002; Saunders et
al., 2012). During the abductive process the research issues, analytical
framework, and theory development are continuously re-oriented. As
Dubois and Gadde (2002, p.554) note, “going back and forth from one
type of activity to another and between empirical observations and theory,
enables the researcher to expand his understanding of both theory and
empirical phenomenon”.
Given that this research seeks to investigate the engagement crossover
and its boundary conditions in the workplace, the deductive approach is
deemed suitable. Firstly, a deductive approach enables the researcher to
test causal relationships regarding employee engagement and the
underling factors in engagement crossover process in the workplace
(Saunders et al., 2012); and secondly, by making sense of the primary
data through surveys, this research aims to expand an existing theory
which forms the theoretical contribution of this thesis. 170
4.4 Research Design
The following sections give detailed explanations of the research design,
including the appropriate research strategies to collect data and factors to
ensure research quality.
The key stage of the research process is a research design, which is
concerned with the overall plan of how to answer the research questions
(Grix, 2010; Saunders et al., 2012). Whether the researcher uses a mono
method or multi methods, the research design is often linked to the
researcher’s philosophical assumptions, the nature of the investigation,
the methodological approach, and research strategies. This section
discusses the overall research design of the thesis.
Two major traditions in social science are quantitative and qualitative
research designs. First, “positivism”, which is the philosophical standpoint
of quantitative research designs, views the world as an objective reality
that can be objectively measured rather than subjectively interpreted.
Thus, positivists tend to be realists in ontology and objectivist in
epistemology, which gives priority to law-like generalisations by looking
for regularities and causal relationships in observable data (Bryman & Bell,
2011; Grix, 2010; Saunders et al., 2012). Second, qualitative research
design considers reality to be multiple, dynamic and socially constructed
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In contrast to positivism, qualitative researchers
are concerned with how social actors understand and interpret reality.
Thus, they are interpretivist and subjectivists in the ontology.
171
Thus, the design of the research depends critically on the philosophical
paradigm a researcher adopts and the state of the theory at the time of
the research (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). Research in the field of
employee engagement, which has a clear theoretical underpinning, would
benefit from a quantitative, explanatory, theory-testing, deductive
approach. Consistent with the philosophical position, this thesis focuses on
quantitative data and the generalisability of the findings.
As it is central to provide the empirical basis for the research, the
following sections discuss the methodological approach and research
strategy of the thesis.
4.5 Research Strategy
According to Denzin and Lincoln (2005), research design is the
methodological link between research philosophy and the choice of data
collection and data analysis methods, which is guided by, research
questions and objectives.
Research in management and psychology often involves a number of
quantitative techniques. These can include experiments, surveys, and
archival research (Saunders et al., 2012). Congruent to research
philosophy, the explanatory nature of the deductive approach is to collect
quantitative data to explain the causal relationships; the survey strategy
uses online questionnaires, which was deemed appropriate and was the
approach chosen in this present research project.
To implement this research strategy, it is important to consider an
appropriate timeframe through which access can be gained and data
172
collected. Various factors were considered such as the favourable opinion
of the University’s Research Ethics committee; agreements from the
intended respondents; funding limitations of doctoral research; and fitting
the questionnaire schedules around the good will of the respondents. A
detailed explanation of the techniques and procedures for collecting the
data and the analysis of the two studies is given in the following chapter.
4.6 Research Quality
Guba and Lincoln (2005) emphasised that to produce high quality
research, a researcher should adhere to the principles, rules or processes
of a particular philosophy or methodology, which is based on a clear
paradigm. Depending on the adopted paradigm, the quality of the
research is judged based on different criteria. Table 4.2 illustrates the
quality principles associated with positivism and interpretivism paradigm.
Table 4.2. Key Principles of Quality of ResearchPositivism Interpreti
vismValidity Credibility Reliability Dependabil
ity Generalisab
ilityTransferabi
lity Objectivity Confirmabi
lity
Appropriate criteria for positivist research, as shown in Table 4.2,
includes objectivity in data collection, to ensure that accurate
measurement produce reliable, factual, and generalisable information.
Therefore, to ensure high quality research the key positivist’s criteria, as
173
shown in Table 4.2, are employed as a general framework. The application
of each of these criteria is summarised in the following sections.
4.6.1 Reliability
The second key criterion of research quality is reliability. Reliability of
research refers to the methodological rigour applied in data collection and
the analytic procedures to ensure consistency in the findings so that the
research can be replicated by a different researcher or repeated on
another occasion (Saunders et al., 2012). To ensure that the reliability of
the research is guaranteed prior to statistical analysis, a researcher can
think clearly through the research and try to minimise common threats to
reliability, such as error or bias on the part of either the researcher or the
participant. Tailoring the time and place to collect data around
respondents’ preferences can minimise participant error and bias by
minimising factors that adversely affect respondents’ performance and
false responses. Additionally, a researcher can minimise researcher error
and bias by remaining objective and independent of the research
throughout data collection and analysis (Saunders et al., 2012).
In this thesis, the online-questionnaire will be sent to the respondents’
email address. The questionnaire is mobile-friendly, so respondents can
answer the questions in their own time and from the comfort of their
homes. By tailoring the time and place of collecting data around
respondents’ preferences, the performance errors will be minimised.
Additionally, in order to minimise set responses and common method
bias, and to reduce artificial covariation between variables, the online-
questionnaire is designed following Podsakoff’s (2003) procedural 174
remedies (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2003). Firstly, Qualtrics is programmed
to randomise questions for each respondent; thus, questions are
presented in different orders for different respondents. Secondly, to
minimise false responses, different response formats for predictor and
criterion variables are used (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012).
Finally, to assess the internal consistency of the scales, Cronbach's
Alpha will be calculated for each scale using SPSS version 24. Any scales
with higher than .75 Cronbach's Alpha represents a good internal
consistency (Saunders, et al., 2012). Refer to sections 5.2.1.2 and 5.3.1.2
for the results of Cronbach's Alpha test in Study 1 and 2, respectively.
4.6.2 Validity
Although reliability is necessary to ensure good quality research, it is
not sufficient. Measures should be taken to ensure research is valid. Set
out below is a brief discussion of the various types of validity given.
4.6.2.1 Construct Validity
Of particular importance in social sciences, psychology, psychometrics,
and language studies are construct validity. Construct validity refers to the
appropriateness of inferences about whether a test measures the intended
construct. This means that items of the questionnaires are measuring the
underlying construct of interest (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008). There are
statistical methods to evaluate construct validity. The thesis will assess
construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis test using MPlus
software version Four. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a statistical
technique which allows the researcher to assess construct validity by 175
testing the hypothesis that a relationship exists between observed
variables and their underlying latent constructs. First, a saturated model,
in which all of the items load on only one factor (simple structure), will be
tested and the model fit will be compared with the alternative models. In
CFA, the model fit is derived from comparing the covariances among the
items to the correlations expected by the model being tested. The model
fit will be assessed primarily with Chi-square (χ2), in which lower values
indicate better fit. The root-mean square error of approximation (RMSEA),
in which lower values indicate better fit (< .06). Standardized root mean
square residual (SRMR), in which lower values indicate better fit (< .08),
and Comparative Fit Index, in which higher value indicate better fit (>.95).
All of these fit indices are less affected than other indices by sample size
and model complexity. A detailed explanation of the procedures
undertaken to ensure internal validity is provided in Chapter Five.
4.6.2.2 Internal Validity
Internal validity, which is analogous to credibility in qualitative research,
is the extent to which the measurement tool (questionnaires in this case)
is measuring what is intended to be measured.
Content validity and criterion-related validity are two types of internal
validity. Content validity refers to the appropriateness of the questions in
the questionnaires in terms of their clarity, relevance, and adequacy
(Bloomberg et al., 2008). Content validity can be achieved by asking a
panel of scholars who have expertise in the field to assess whether each
measurement question is clear, relevant, and adequately measuring the
construct (Bloomberg et al., 2008). Concerns regarding whether measures 176
can make accurate predictions or not fall under criterion-related validity
sometimes referred to as predictive validity. In quantitative research
internal validity, in particular, criterion-related validity can be achieved
through a statistical analysis to establish that a set of questions are
associated with their outcomes.
In order to assess the internal validity (face, content and criterion-
related validity), a copy of the research online-questionnaire will be sent to
two lecturers and three PhD students in the People and Organisation
Department of the University of Surrey. As experts in the field of
organisational behaviour, they will assess the questionnaire to make sure
that the questions measure the constructs adequately and the
questionnaire is clear, relevant and accurate.
4.6.2.3 External Validity
External validity is concerned with the generalisability of the study to
other contexts or settings. It is analogous to transferability in qualitative
research and relates to the applicability of research findings to other
settings (Bloomberg et al., 2008; Saunders et al., 2012). One way to
achieve external validity is to choose a sample, which is representative of
the population. In addition, it is necessary to replicate the study in other
contexts to be able to establish statistical generalisability (Bloomberg et
al., 2008; Saunders et al., 2012).
To ensure that the thesis findings are generalizable to other settings,
Study 1 will be replicated in another setting; therefore, Study 2 will be
conducted among employees of a gas and oil company in Iran. Moreover,
177
in both studies, a simple random sampling technique will be performed to
ensure that the research samples are representative of the population.
4.7 Ethical Considerations
Whilst ethics or moral behaviour is important in social science research,
ethical codes of conduct are not universally agreed upon. However, as
Tisdale (2004) emphasises, researchers have the power to harm because
they are closely related to the phenomena being researched (people).
Therefore, the design and implementation of research should ensure high
standards of moral behaviour.
Since this research involves human participants (employees), research
ethics are taken into consideration. This is guided by the University of
Surrey’s Code of Ethics. The researcher sought the ethical committee’s
favourable opinion prior to conducting the surveys. As a result, as stated
above, participant information sheets, risk assessments, and consent
forms were provided to the committee.
In addition, a participant information sheet and consent forms, as
presented in Appendices One and Two, were designed to ensure
respondents made an informed decision about their participation. The
participant information sheet highlights the purpose of the research study,
how the study is to be conducted, possible risks, and the benefits of taking
part. The consent forms, on the other hand, emphasises the voluntary
contribution of the respondents and how to best ensure their anonymity.
The next issue to address is regarding negotiating access such as
difficulties in gaining access, the sensitivity of the topic, and amongst
178
others, perceptions about the credibility of the researcher, which can
threaten the feasibility of the research.
There are three levels of access: traditional access involving face-to-
face interactions, telephone interviews, postal questionnaires, and data
archives; internet-mediated access such as web emails; and a hybrid
access combining both elements. However, when negotiating access, the
researcher should consider two important factors namely, feasibility which
means the practicality of negotiating access, and sufficiency, which
involves the extent of access needed (Bryman & Bell, 2011; Saunders, et
al., 2012).
As noted by Saunders, et al., (2012, p.219) “access is important to gain
personal entry and develop cognitive access”. The thesis adopted a
quantitative research strategy in two survey designs. Thus, physical and
cognitive access was considered fit for the research.
Physical and cognitive access is gained through direct interactions and a
close relationship with key managers and employees within the
petrochemical sector of Iran’s gas and oil industry, which was chosen as
the research sample for Study 2. As noted by Saunders et al., (2012, p.
219), “we are more likely to gain access when we are able to use existing
contacts”.
4.8 Conclusion
The thesis is designed based on methodological principles that suited
the philosophical stance and would most effectively answer the research
questions, which is about engagement crossover and its boundary
179
conditions in the workplace, as presented in the two research questions:
“To what extent does employee engagement crossover from one
employee to his/her co-worker in the workplace?” Relatedly, “what are the
potential factors that determine the extent of this crossover?”
The research is set in a realist’s ontological paradigm, recognising
reality as objective and external upon which the epistemological position
is adopted and characterised by an external, objective, and positivist
paradigm. A quantitative, positivist theoretical perspective formed the
basis for the thesis. Given that research into employee engagement has a
clear theoretical underpinning, an analytic deductive approach is adopted.
Further, consideration is taken into account to ensure that the research
design establishes and maintains the highest quality and ethical
standards.
Chapter Five discusses the research activities and techniques and shows
how the two studies develop to provide a comprehensive test of
engagement crossover in the workplace.
180
Chapter Five Research Findings
“To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.”
Albert Einstein
5.1 Introduction
Chapter Five is divided into two main parts and discusses the
research techniques and procedures, which guided the research project.
The research project comprised of two phases: firstly, phase one, a
quantitative survey-based investigation (Study 1), which was conducted
among employees in various occupations within six industries in
England. Secondly, phase two, a more extensive investigation (Study 2),
has replicated Study 1 and has provided further support for the thesis
argument about the interpersonal effects of employee engagement and
the boundary conditions of the crossover process in the workplace.
Chapter Five summarises the research techniques and procedures in
the two studies. Data collection, sampling methods, the recruitment
procedures and sample sizes are discussed later in the chapter. A
summary of the findings is provided, primarily to support the
developmental processes of the research, while a general discussion of
the thesis is reserved for Chapter Six.
181
5.2 Phase 1: Study 1
The thesis advances a novel proposition, the interpersonal effects of
employee engagement; however, there is little empirical evidence in the
literature, which can support the hypotheses and the theoretical model of
this thesis. Therefore, an initial test of the relationships and the research
hypotheses can help the researcher develop a good understanding of the
concept (engagement crossover) as well as save time and effort to change
the direction of the thesis, in case the results were not confirmatory of the
thesis’s proposition.
Secondly, because gaining physical and cognitive access in the UK
companies was not feasible within the time frame of the thesis in the first
phase, to ensure the feasibility and sufficiency of the research (Bryman &
Bell, 2011; Saunders, et al., 2012), access was gained through an online
data collection service called Prolific. Prolific not only gives access to a
pool of employees from a wide variety of organisations and occupations,
but it is also a very quick tool to access reliable data in the preliminary
stages of the research (Peer, Brandimarte, Samat, & Acquisti, 2017). The
following sections provide a detailed explanation of the techniques and
procedures of the first phase of the research project.
5.2.1 Method
5.2.1.1 Sample and Procedures
To conduct the first study, respondents were drawn from Prolific
(https://www.prolific.ac), an online data collection service, which links
researchers with a diverse group of adult research participants. This
182
database has been used in prior studies and data collected through this
medium is proved to be reliable and valid (Callan, Kim, Gheorghiu, &
Matthew, 2016; Damer, Webb, & Crisp, 2018; Marreiros, Tonin,
Vlassopoulos, & Schraefel, 2017; Palan, Schitter, 2017; Peer, Brandimarte,
Samat, & Acquisti, 2017; Simmonds, Woods, & Spence, 2018).
Prolific enables the researcher to collect tailored, high quality data by
filtering respondents into a survey pool according to researchers’ specific
selection criteria (Peer, Brandimarte, Samat, & Acquisti, 2017). The total
size of the participant pool in Prolific was 73083, from which only 1000
were eligible to take part in this study. The selection criteria for
participants in this project were individuals who were: (a) employed either
full-time or part-time; (b) have a co-worker, with whom they work on
mutual tasks and spend most of their working hours with, and (c) living
and working in England. Participants were screened out of the survey if
they did not meet the selection criteria. In particular, selection criteria (b)
is the key for the participant when they rate their co-worker. In addition, in
the questionnaire, there are peer-reported questions for which the focal
participant was instructed to answer the questions about one of their co-
workers with whom they work on mutual tasks and spend most of their
working hours with.
Focal participants received an online-questionnaire via
https://login.qualtrics.com. Upon the completion of the questionnaire,
participants were paid £5.00 as compensation for their time and effort. A
total of 528 participants completed the online-questionnaire, which
resulted in a response rate of 53%.
183
To minimise set responses and common method bias, and to reduce
artificial covariation between variables, the online-questionnaire was
designed following Podsakoff’s (2003) procedural remedies (Podsakoff &
MacKenzie, 2003). Firstly, Qualtrics was programmed to randomise
questions for each respondent; thus, questions were presented in different
orders for different respondents. Secondly, to reduce respondents’ efforts
to maintain a cognitive consistency in their responses, different response
formats for predictor and criterion variables were used. This created
proximal and psychological separation (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &
Podsakoff, 2012).
Of the 528 respondents, (58%) were female, and (42%) were male;
(75%) were in full-time employment and (25%) were part-time. With
regard to education, (9.3%) had a high school diploma, (20.8%) had some
college degree, (36%) had a bachelor’s degree, and (20%) had a
professional degree and (13.9%) had a postgraduate degree. A wide range
of occupations was reported from sales assistants to researchers from six
industry types: service providers (25%), business & trading (24.2%),
health sector (5.1%), non-profit corporates (6.3%), governmental (9.5%)
and charity (4.5%), other jobs (25.4%). All participants signed the consent
form prior to their inclusion in the study.
5.2.1.2 Measures
The self-reported questionnaire included previously validated scales.
Refer to Appendix Three for Study 1 questionnaire.
184
5.2.1.2.1 Independent Variables
5.2.1.2.1.1 Perceived co-worker engagement
It was assessed with the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES,
Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). The three subscales of vigour, absorption, and
dedication (three items each) were used to assess perceived co-worker
engagement. Because the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES,
Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) is a self-reported measure of employee
engagement, to assess perceived co-worker engagement; the wording of
the items have been slightly changed. Therefore, the word “I” has been
replaced with “my co-worker”. Sample items include: vigour assessed with
three-items, including, “at work, my co-worker feels bursting with energy”
(α = .83). Absorption was assessed with three-items, including, “He/she is
immersed in his/her work” (α = .86). Dedication was measured with three-
items, including, “He/she is enthusiastic about his/her job” (α = .89). A
seven-point response format (0 = never, 6 = always) was used for this
scale. The second-order scale showed a better Cronbach’s Alpha and was
used in the analysis (α = .92). All items were direct-scored and the score
for each subscale was determined by averaging the values of the items.
5.2.1.2.1.2 Empathy (Empathic Concern and Perspective Taking)
The two sub-scales from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis,
1980) were used to assess empathy. The empathic concern sub-scale
(seven items) measures the extent to which employees feel warmth,
compassion, and concern for their co-worker. The scale includes items 185
such as: “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate
than me” (α = .79). The perspective taking sub-scale measures the extent
to which employees adopt to the psychological perspective of their co-
worker (seven items). An example item from this scale is “I sometimes try
to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their
perspective” (α = .81). For both scales, a five-point Likert scale ranging
from (1) “Strongly disagree” to (5) “Strongly agree” was used.
5.2.1.2.1.3 Task and outcome Interdependence
Task and outcome interdependence was assessed with a combination of
the two scales of task interdependence (two-item) and outcome
interdependence (six-item) adopted from Van der Vegt and Molleman
(2007). A sample item for task interdependence is, “How dependent are
you on your co-worker for materials, means, information, etc. to carry out
your work adequately?” (α = .70). A range of (1) “not dependent” to (7)
“fully dependent” was used.
Sample items of outcome interdependence are: "We receive feedback
about our performance", "We are collectively held accountable for our
performance", (α = .75). A five-point Likert scale ranging from (1)
“Strongly disagree” to (5) “Strongly agree” was used.
Given the combined scale of task and outcome interdependence had a
better Cronbach’s Alpha than each of the separate scales (α = .80), and
the fit of the measurement model improved significantly when the two
variables loaded on one factor in the confirmatory factor analysis (CFI =
0.93, RMSEA= 0.04, SRMR = 0.04), the combined scale of task and
outcome interdependence was used in the analysis. There is evidence in 186
group design and interdependence literature that task and outcome
interdependence have been combined to assess interdependence in both
individual and group levels (Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996; Campion,
Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Wageman, 1995).
5.2.1.2.1.4 Workplace Friendship
Six items developed by Nielsen et al. (2000) were used to measure the
prevalence of workplace friendship as perceived by employees. Sample
items included, "I have formed strong friendships at work", "I socialise with
co-workers outside of the workplace," and "I do not feel that my co-worker
is a true friend." (α =.83). The response format was a five-point Likert
scale ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree”.
5.2.1.2.2 Dependent Variable
5.2.1.2.2.1 Employee engagement
It was assessed with the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES,
Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). The three subscales of vigour, absorption and
dedication (three items each) were used to assess employee engagement.
Vigour was assessed with three-items, including “At my job, I feel bursting
with energy” (α = .84). Absorption was assessed with three-items, “I am
immersed in my work” (α = .82). Dedication was measured with three-
items, “I am enthusiastic about my job” (α = .74). A seven-point response
format (0 = never, 6 = always) was used for this scale. The second-order
scale showed a better Cronbach’s Alpha and was used in the analysis (α
= .89). All items were direct-scored and the score for each subscale was
determined by averaging the values of the items. 187
5.2.1.3 Control Variables
To thoroughly factor out spurious variances and to partition variances in
engagement crossover to its respective factors, other confounding
variables such as age, gender, hours spent with co-workers, tenure, and
education levels were controlled in the model. Additionally, given previous
studies have found moderate to strong relationships between affect,
personality (Big Five) and employee engagement (Christian, Garza, &
slaughter, 2011; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2009), the
effects of these variables were also controlled in the analysis.
5.2.1.3.1 Personality (Big-Five)
The short 15 item big-five Inventory (BFI–S) developed by Gerlitz and
Schupp (2005) was used to measure personality. The personality scale
included measures for extraversion (α =.82), agreeableness (α =.57),
conscientious (α =.63), neuroticism (α =.78), openness to experience (α
=.64). The response format for all of the sub-scales was a five-point Likert
scale ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree”.
5.2.1.3.2 Positive and Negative Affect
Positive affect (PA) reflects the extent to which a person feels
enthusiastic, active, and alert and was measured with a single-item,
including positive emotions and states such as happiness, cheer,
enthusiasm, and joy from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Negative affect (NA), which is
a general dimension of subjective distress and unpleasant mood states,
was measured with a single-item, including negative emotions and states 188
such as anger, hostility, irritation, and frustration from the Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson et al., 1988). For both PA and
NA, respondents were asked to indicate if they felt various emotions on a
five-point Likert-type scale from (1) “to a very little extent” to (5) “to a
very great extent”. Refer to Appendix Three for the full text questionnaire
of this study.
5.2.2 Analytical Strategy
As discussed in the previous chapter, it is necessary to assess the
reliability and validity of measurement instruments to achieve high quality
research. Accordingly, steps were taken to ensure that the online-
questionnaires were reliable and valid. Firstly, to assess internal validity
(face, content and criterion-related validity) a copy of the online-
questionnaire was sent to two lecturers and three PhD students in the
Organisational Behaviour department.
Secondly, to assess construct validity, the measurement model was
validated statistically through confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) is a statistical technique, which allows the researcher
to assess construct validity by testing the hypothesis that a relationship
exists between observed variables and their underlying latent constructs.
Table 5.1 shows the results of CFA tests. Chi-square, χ2 lower values
indicate better fit. RMSEA, lower values indicate better fit (< .06). SRMR,
lower values indicate better fit (< .08). Comparative Fit Index, a higher
value indicates better fit (>.95).
As shown in Table 5.1, Model 2, in which task and outcome
interdependence were loaded on one factor, resulted in a better fit (CFI 189
= .93, RMSEA= .04, SRMR = .04) compared to the alternative models.
Thus, discriminant validity of measures for these variables is ensured.
Finally, to assess the internal consistency of the scales, Cronbach's
Alpha is calculated for each scale. All of the scales reported higher
than .75 Cronbach's Alpha, which represents a good internal consistency
(Saunders, et al., 2012).
5.2.3 Results
This section illustrates the results of Study 1. Firstly, Table 5.1 shows
the construct validity or the results of the confirmatory factor analysis
tests, followed by the descriptive statistics, and the correlations in Table
5.2. The results of hypotheses testing are given in Section 5.2.3.1.
Table 5. 1. Measurement Model Tests Study 1
CFA Study 1 Chi-2 df CFI
RMSEA
SRMR
Model 1: (7-factor) Baseline measurement model
1165.1
605
.92
.05 .05
Model 2: (6-factor) Task & outcome interdependence
1095.0
536
.93
.04 .04
Model 3: (6-factor) Empathic concern & perspective taking
1169.11
541
.90
.04 .04
Model 4: (5-factor) Empathic concern & perspective taking, task & outcome interdependence
1382.2
610
.88
.04 .05
As shown in Table 5.1, four models were tested. Model 2, in which task
and outcome interdependence were loaded on one factor, resulted in a
better fit (CFI = .93, RMSEA= .04, SRMR = .04) compared to the
alternative models; thus, this model was used in the analysis. The worst fit
was detected in Model 4, in which task and outcome interdependence and
190
empathic concern and perspective taking were loaded on one factor (CFI =
.88, RMSEA= .04, SRMR = .05).
191
Table 5.2. Descriptive Statistics, Correlations of the Research Variables, Study 1
Variables Mean
(SD)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1. Gender .58 .49 12. Age
6.116.07 -.01 1
3. Education 4.44
1.41 .04 -.05 1
4. Dyad tenure3.20
1.92 .02
.45**
.12** 1
5. Dyad hours5.18
2.15 -.05 .04 .00 .06 1
6. Positive affect3.60 .82 .01 -.05 -.06 .05
.01 1
7. Negative affect1.16 .62 .05 .05 .00 .05
.01
.26** 1
8. Extraversion3.24 .79 .07 -.03 .06 .01
.08 .11* .00 1
9. Agreeableness3.89 .71 .01 .03 -.08 .02
.06 .10*
-.13* .01 1
10. Conscientious4.06 .64 .08
.12** .00 .04
.02 .06 -.07
.12**
.19** 1
11. Neuroticism3.49 .75 .11* .00 -.01
-.04
.04 .07 -.04
-.17* -.04 -.09 1
12. Openness to experience 3.74 .72 -.04 -.10 .07 .00
.03
.11** -.03
.21**
.16**
.19** .03 1
13. Perceived co-worker engagement 4.85 .93 .05 .03 -.01 .05
.03
.36**
-.11* .04
.18**
.19** .10*
.09** 1
14. Empathic concern3.72 .66
.16** -.02 .01 .03
.03 .08 .02 .07
.40**
.15** .11*
.22**
.14** 1
15. Perspective taking3.60 .58 .08 .00 .05 .04
.01 .04 .00 .08*
.45**
.20**
-.14*
.23**
.12**
.46** 1
16. Task and outcome 4.03 .57 .00 .05 -.02 .03 .0 .19* .05 .09 .13* .10* .00 .16* .34* .15* .11* 1
192
interdependence 0 * * * * * *17. Workplace friendship
4.16 .68 .07 .02 -.01 .10*
.05
.39**
.14**
.09* .16**
.18**
.18**
.25**
.48**
.22**
.11**
.25**
1
18. Employee engagement
4.58 0.91
0 .04 .02 0 .08
.21**
-.01 .17**
.13**
.35**
-.05 .22**
.47**
.11* .17**
.30**
.33**
1
Note. p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
193
5.2.3.1 Test of Hypotheses
To test hypothesis 1, 2, 3 and 4, the SPSS macro (MODMED), developed
by Preacher et al. (2007), was used. The MODMED procedure provides
results in multiple steps. The first step examined the impact of the
independent variable (perceived co-worker engagement), the moderator
variables (empathic concern, perspective taking, task and outcome
interdependence, and workplace friendship), and their interaction on
employee engagement.
5.2.3.1.1 Test of Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 states that perceived co-worker engagement is positively
related to employee engagement (crossover). The results of the multiple
regression analysis showed that perceived co-worker engagement was
significantly positively related to employee engagement (F (14, 513) =
18.134, p<.05, β=.40, p<.05, CI [.319, .477] with R2 of .33). Therefore,
hypothesis one was supported. This means that engagement crossed over
from one employee to his/her co-worker in this sample. Table 5.3 shows
the result of multiple regression analysis.
Table 5.3. Regression Results for Bootstrap Coefficients of perceived co-worker engagement on employee engagement, Study 1
Predictors B SE P-value
95% CI
Constant .811
.43
.06 [-.015, 1.580]
Gender -.04
.07
.58 [-.184, .101]
Age .01 .02
.55 [-.036, .069]
Education level .01 .02
.55 [-.033, .073]
Dyad tenure -.01
.02
.40 [-.060, .026]
Dyad hours .02 .01
.10 [-.008, .063]
194
Positive affect .20 .04
.00 [.110, .310]
Negative affect .09 .06
.11 [-.035, .241]
Extraversion .08 .04
.07 [-.008, .181]
Agreeableness .05 .05
.30 [-.055, .168]
Conscientious .42 .06
.00 [.293, .559]
Neuroticism -.03
.04
.48 [-.118, .055]
Openness to experience .16 .05
.00 [.035, .271]
Perceived co-worker engagement (PCE)
.40 .03
.00 [.319, .477]
R2 .331
.00
∆ R2 .134
.00
5.2.3.1.1.2 Test of Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 states that empathic concern moderates the crossover of
engagement from an employee to his or her co-worker, such that
engagement crossover is stronger for employees with higher levels of
empathic concern. However, the result of this interaction was not
significant (β=.02, p=.62), meaning that adding the interaction term to
the model did not result in significant∆ R2 (∆R2=.03% p=.62 ); therefore,
hypothesis 2 was not supported. Table 5.4 and Figure 5.1 displays the
interaction of empathic concern on the relationship between perceived co-
worker engagement and employee engagement.
Table 5.4. Regression Results for Estimated Coefficients with the Moderator Empathic Concern and Perceived Co-worker Engagement on Employee Engagement, Study 1
Predictors B SE
P-value
95% CI
Constant 1.9960
.58 .00 [.8474,3.1447]
Gender -.06 .07 .41 [-.2041,.0841]
Age .01 .02 .55 [-.0336, .0629]
Education level .01 .02 .61 [-.0367, .06195
22]Dyad tenure -.01 .01 .33 [-.0542,.01
83]Dyad hours .03 .01 .09 [-.0046, .05
90]Positive affect .08 .04 .09 [-.0125,.17
94]Negative affect .10 .05 .09 [-.0154, .21
74]Extraversion -.01 .05 .84 [-.1125, .09
22]Agreeableness .06 .09 .48 [-.1188,.24
91]Conscientious .36 .06 .00 [.2397, .48
29]Neuroticism -.07 .04 .09 [-.1620, .01
39]Openness to experience .16 .05 .00 [.0550, .27
32]Empathic concern (EC) -.00 .05 .91 [-.1214, .10
93]Perceived co-worker engagement (PCE)
.39 .04 .00 [.3037, .4734]
EC x PCE .02 .05 .62 [-.0858, .1421]
R2 .311 .00∆ R2 (due to the interaction of EC x PCE)
.0003
.62
Figure 5.1. Study 1, the interaction of perceived co-worker engagement and empathic concern on employee engagement.
196
5.2.3.1.3 Test of Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3 states that perspective taking moderates the crossover of
engagement from an employee to his or her co-worker, such that
engagement crossover is stronger for employees with higher levels of
perspective taking. A similar result was found for the moderation effect of
perspective taking and perceived co-worker engagement on employee
engagement (β=.09, p=.18), ∆ R2 was not significant(∆R2=.24 % p=.18 ); thus,
hypothesis 3 was not supported. Table 5.5 and Figure 5.2 displays the
interaction of perspective taking on the relationship between perceived
co-worker engagement and employee engagement.
Table 5.5. Regression Results for Estimated Coefficients with the Moderator Perspective Taking and Perceived Co-worker Engagement on Employee Engagement, Study 1
Predictors
B
SE
P-value
95% CI
Constant 2.0556
.57 .0004
[.9203, 3.1908]
Gender -.06 .07 .39 [-.2044, .0799]
Age .01 .02 .53 [-.0366, .0649]
Education level .01 .02 .61 [-.0366, .0622]
Dyad tenure -.01 .01 .31 [-.0548, .0175]
Dyad hours .02 .01 .09 [-.0046, .0587]
Positive affect .08 .04 .07 [-.0087, .1820]
Negative affect .10 .05 .07 [-.0110, .2207]
Extraversion -.01 .05 .83 [-.1125, .0872]
197
Agreeableness .04 .09 .59 [-.1329, .2320]
Conscientious .35 .06 .00 [.2306, .4778]Neuroticism -.06 .04 .12 [-.1567, .0186
]Openness to experience .16 .05 .00 [.0550, .2693]Perspective taking (PT) .02 .04 .68 [.3069, .4764]Perceived co-worker engagement (PCE)
.39 .04 .00 [.3069,.4764]
PT x PCE .09 .06 .18 [-.0442, .2295]
R2 .313 .00∆ R2 (due to the interaction of PT x PCE)
.002 .18
Figure 5.2. Study 1, the interaction of perceived co-worker engagement and perspective taking on employee engagement.
5.2.3.1.4 Test of Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 4 stated that task and outcome interdependence strengthen
the crossover of engagement from one employee to his or her co-worker
and the interaction term was significant (β=.16, p<.05), ∆ R2was also
significant(∆R2=.65 % p<.05 ), providing support for hypothesis 4. Table 5.6
and Figure 5.3 displays the interaction of task and outcome
198
interdependence on the relationship between perceived co-worker
engagement and employee engagement.
Table 5.6. Regression Results for Estimated Coefficients with the Moderator Task and Outcome Interdependence and Perceived Co-worker Engagement on Employee
Engagement, Study 1Predict
ors B
SE
P-value
95% CI
Constant 2.0953
.54 .00 [1.0183,3.1724]
Gender -.04 .06 .56 [-.1770, .0970]Age .01 .02 .53 [-.0366, .0578]Education level .01 .02 .49 [-.0320, .0656]Dyad tenure -.00 .01 .69 [-.0423, .0282]Dyad hours .02 .01 .07 [-.0031, .0595]Positive affect .07 .04 .12 [-.0213, .1686]Negative affect .07 .05 .22 [-.0433, .1875]Extraversion -.01 .05 .80 [-.1125, .0796]Agreeableness .06 .08 .46 [-.1089, .2399]Conscientious .35 .06 .00 [.2381, .4784]Neuroticism -.06 .04 .13 [-.1510, .0197]Openness to experience .12 .05 .01 [.0232, .2334]Task and outcome interdependence (INT)
.15 .07 .02 [.0181, .2951]
Perceived co-worker engagement (PCE)
.35 .04 .00 [.2673, .4442]
INT x PCE .16 .07 .02 [.0181, .2951]R2 .338 .00∆ R2 (due to the interaction of INT x PCE)
.006 .02
199
Figure 5.3. Study 1, the interaction of perceived co-worker engagement and task and outcome interdependence on employee engagement.
Furthermore, the moderation of task and outcome interdependence
were probed the following Preacher et al. (2007) and Hayes (2015), the
pick-a-point approach, by estimating and applying an inferential test of
conditional effects of X on Y at different values of moderator, depending
on the chosen value of the moderator at mean, one standard deviation
below and above means. Thus, 95% CI of conditional direct effect of X on Y
at one SD below and above task and outcome interdependence, indicated
that the direct effect of perceived co-worker engagement on employee
engagement was significant at mean, one standard deviation below and
above mean; however, the direct effect of perceived co-worker
engagement on employee engagement was at its strongest at one
standard deviation above the mean of task and outcome interdependence
(b= .44, p< .05, CI [.3227, .5584]). Refer to Appendix Five for the results
of pick-a-point of Study 1.
Given that probing the relationship between independent and
dependent variables at different values of the moderator provides the
researcher with a better understanding of how the relationship changes
across the moderator, the Johnson-Neyman test is provided to give further
information. The Johnson-Neyman procedure is used to identify the
point(s) along with a continuous moderator where the relationship
between the independent variable and the outcome variable transition(s)
becomes statistically significant to nonsignificant or vice versa at 25
percentile, 50 percentile, 75 percentile and 100 percentile of the
moderator. The results of Johnson-Neyman test for the interaction of task 200
and outcome interdependence showed that the direct effect of perceived
co-worker engagement on employee engagement was significant at any
values of the moderator above -1.1361 (Value: -1.1361, β= .17, SE= .09,
t=1.9646, p=.05, CI[.0000,.3557]. Below this significant zone, the
interaction term was not significant. Refer to Appendix Five for the results
of Johnson-Neyman tests of Study 1.
5.2.3.1.5 Test of Hypothesis 5
Hypothesis 5 states that workplace friendship moderates the crossover
of engagement from an employee to his or her co-worker, such that
engagement crossover is stronger for employees with higher levels of
workplace friendship. The results of the interaction of workplace friendship
were also significant. The interaction of workplace friendship and
perceived co-worker engagement on employee engagement was
significantly positive (β=.19, p<.05), and ∆ R2 was also significant
(∆R2=1.23 % p<.05 ), providing support for hypothesis 5. Inferences about
conditional direct effect of X on Y at one SD below and above workplace
friendship showed that the direct effect of perceived co-worker
engagement on employee engagement was significant at all of the values
of the moderator at mean, one SD below and above the mean; however,
the direct effect of perceived co-worker engagement on employee
engagement was at its strongest at one standard deviation above
workplace friendship (b= .47, p< .05, CI [.3601, .5874]). Table 5.7 and
Figure 5.4 displays the interaction of workplace friendship on the
relationship between perceived co-worker engagement and employee
engagement.
201
The results of Johnson-Neyman test for the interaction of workplace
friendship showed that the direct effect of perceived co-worker
engagement on employee engagement was significant at all of the values
of the moderator above -1.0840 (Value: -1.0840, β= .15, SE=.07,
t=1.9646, p=.05, CI[.0000,.3092]). Below this significant zone, the
interaction term was not significant. Revisit Appendix Five for the results
of pick-a-point and the Johnson-Neyman tests.
Table 5.7. Regression Results for Estimated Coefficients with the Moderator Workplace Friendship and Perceived Co-worker Engagement on Employee Engagement, Study 1
Predictors B SE P-value 95% CI
Constant 2.4412 .57 .00 [1.3284,3.5541]
Gender -.06 .07 .36 [-.2057, .0757]
Age .01 .02 .53 [-.0366, .0649]
Education level .00 .02 .73 [-.0407, .0578]
Dyad tenure -.02 .01 .18 [-.0592, .0117]
Dyad hours .02 .01 .11 [-.0060, .0571]
Positive affect .03 .05 .53 [-.0689, .1316]
Negative affect .09 .05 .11 [-.0218, .2025]
Extraversion -.01 .05 .85 [-.1125, .0963]
Agreeableness .06 .09 .48 [-.1160, .2449]
Conscientious .34 .06 .00 [.2203, .4628]Neuroticism -.09 .04 .03 [-.1766,
-.0082]Openness to experience .14 .05 .00 [.0371, .2442]Workplace friendship (WF) .19 .07 .01 [.0392, .3399]Perceived co-worker engagement (PCE)
.37 .04 .00 [.2778, .4488]
WF x PCE .19 .06 .00 [.0696,.3155]
202
Predictors B SE P-value 95% CI
R2 .329 .00∆ R2 (due to interaction of WF x PCE)
.012 .00
Figure 5.4. Study 1, interaction perceived co-worker engagement and workplace friendship on employee engagement.
2 moderators, 2-way Interactions: Table 5.8 shows the results of the
2 moderators, 2-way Interactions of perceived employee engagement *
task and outcome interdependence * workplace friendship in this study.
95% bootstrap CI for the interaction reached clear significance for 1SD
below and above the mean for each of the moderators. In conclusion, both
task and outcome interdependence and workplace friendship
strengthened the crossover of engagement. The crossover of engagement
was slightly stronger when there was higher workplace friendship (+1 SD)
and lower task and outcome interdependence (-1 SD) (b=.37, p<.05, CI
[.2211, .5136]), than when there was lower workplace friendship (-1SD)
203
and higher interdependence (+1SD) (b=.29, p<.05, CI [.1547, .3763]).
However, engagement crossover was at its strongest when both task and
outcome interdependence and workplace friendship were high (+1SD)
(b=.51, p<.05, CI [.3841, .6448]. Table 5.8 and Figure 5.5 display the 2
moderators, 2-way Interactions. See Appendix Six for 2 moderators, 2-way
Interactions of Study 1.
Table 5.8. 2 moderators, 2-way Interactions, Study 1 B
SE (BOOT) P-value
95% CI
Constant 2.4770 .55 .00 [1.3983,3.5556]
Gender -.04 .07
.56 [-.1789, .0976]
Age .01 .02
.53 [-.0366, .0649]
Education level .01 .02 .62 [-.0365, .0610]
Dyad tenure -.01 .01 .08 [-.0481, .0214]
Dyad hours .02 .01 .08 [-.0365, .0610]
Positive affect .02 .05 .60 [-.0730, .1245]
Negative affect .06 .05 .28 [-.0510, .1734]
Extraversion -.01 .05 .85 [-.1125, .0963]
Agreeableness .06 .08 .44 [-.1064, .2440]
Conscientious .34 .06 .00 [.2194, .4610]Neuroticism -.08 .04 .05 [-.1646, .0015
]Openness to experience .10 .05 .04 [.0055, .2128]Task and outcome interdependence (INT)
.25 .06 .00 [.1281, .3810]
Perceived co-worker engagement (PCE)
.33 .04
.00 [.2433, .4218]
Workplace friendship (WF) .16 .07
.02 [.0192, .3168]
INT x PCE .13 .07
.07 .05
[.0040, .2758]
WF x PCE .19 .06
.06 .00
[.0647,.3130]
R-square increase due to interaction(s):R2 .355 .00 INT x PCE .004 .05 WF x PCE .011 .00Both .0187 .00
Conditional indirect effects of X on Y at values of the moderatorsInterdependence Workplace Effe 95% CI
204
friendship ct-1SD (-.5415) .0000 .26 [.1418,.376
3]Mean (.000) .0000 .33 [.2472,.401
5]+1SD (.5415) .0000 .40 [.2892, .52
30]
Interdependence Workplace friendship
Effect
95% CI
.0000 -1SD (-.5736)
.23 [.1119,.03366]
.0000 Mean (.0000)
.33 [.2433,.4218]
.0000 +1SD (.6079)
.44 [.3249,.5569]
Figure 5.5 Study 1, 2 moderators, 2-way Interactions of perceived co-worker engagement, and interdependence on employee engagement at low workplace friendship
(Left), and high workplace friendship (Right).
5.2.4 Discussion
This study represents the first phase of the thesis in which a set of
hypotheses about engagement crossover and its boundary conditions
were tested for a sample of employees recruited through Prolific. Overall,
the results showed general support for three out of five hypotheses
leading to some important findings.
205
Firstly, to test the direct transfer of engagement between co-workers
and in line with crossover theory, empathy measures (empathic concern
and perspective taking) were hypothesised to accentuate engagement
crossover. Moderation analysis clearly showed that engagement crossed
over from co-workers to employees; however, neither empathic concern
nor perspective taking showed any significant interaction effects. This
means that empathic concern and perspective taking did not strengthen
the crossover of engagement. This result is consistent with, and supports,
this thesis argument that engagement crossover is not simply an
emotional process but rather other factors (functional and affective) affect
the crossover process in the workplace.
There are possible explanations for this result and one in particular,
which is consistent with the argument put forward in this thesis, is that
employee engagement is not an emotion, therefore engagement
crossover does not occur through the direct process of empathy or
emotional contagion.
As was discussed in Chapter Two, employee engagement is an inner
psychological experience. Whilst this psychological experience cannot be
forced or directed, evidence from earlier research showed that individual,
job, and organisational factors can motivate individuals to become
engaged at work. Whether feeling the warmth, compassion or concern for
one’s co-worker (empathic concern) or adopting to their psychological
perspective (perspective taking) can motivate employees to bring in and
invest their “self” at work, is tentative and needs investigation.
In contrast, this thesis argues that other factors, which are more directly
related to the job, the work contexts, and work relationships, affect the 206
crossover of feelings, attitudes, and behaviours rather than emotional and
cognitive responsivity (empathic concern and perspective taking).
The second interesting finding of this study, which sheds more light on
the view that work-related factors affect engagement crossover, is the
evidence that task and outcome interdependence and workplace
friendship significantly strengthened engagement crossover from one
employee to his or her co-worker. In this sample, employees were more
affected by their co-worker’s engagement when they were working on
interdependent tasks with mutual goals and feedback, and when they
perceived their co-worker as their friend. These findings are in line with
the previous research in work relationships and the interdependence
literature (Fairfield, Wagner, & Victory, 2004; Lin, 2010; Van der Vegt,
Emans, & Van De Vliert, 1998). This point will be further expanded upon in
Chapter Six.
To rule out the possibility that any observed differences in employee
engagement are due to affect (positive and negative) and personality (Big
Five), these variables alongside other confounding variables such as age,
gender, hours spent with co-worker, tenure, and education level are
controlled in the analysis. When controlled for demographic variables such
as age, gender, hours spent with co-worker, tenure and education level,
results showed that they did not have any significant effect on the
crossover process. Neither positive affect nor negative affect had any
significant effect on engagement crossover. Among the big-five
personality traits, only consciousness and openness had a significant
effect on all the interaction terms with consciousness having a stronger
effect. 207
The results of moderation analysis revealed that task and outcome
interdependence and workplace friendship strengthened the crossover of
engagement, whereas empathic concern and perspective taking did not
have any significant moderating effect on the engagement crossover
process.
Overall, as the first stage of the research project, the findings of this
study were generally consistent with the thesis expectations. Like most of
the research in social science, this study can further be developed to
address some of its limitations. Firstly, the sample was drawn from Prolific
(https://www.prolific.ac); therefore, employees from various professions
and organisational positions participated which made it quite a
heterogeneous sample. Whilst this could be considered as an advantage,
enabling the researcher to generalise the findings to various organisations
and occupations, there were concerns about whether the participants
were representative of their respective company or sector.
Secondly, although measures were used to control for the effects of
possible confounding variables such as age, gender, hours spent with co-
worker, tenure, level of education, affect (positive and negative), and
personality (Big Five), measures to control employees’ job demands and
resources and their task characteristics were not included in Study 1.
Given that previous studies have found significant association between job
demands and resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker et al., 2011),
task characteristics and organisational positions (Christian et al., 2011)
and employee engagement, to partition the engagement crossover
variance to its respective observed factors, these variables should be
taken into consideration. 208
This is an important issue to consider because one could argue that the
observed variance in employees’ level of engagement (engagement
crossover) was due to other confounding factors such as job demands and
resources, task characteristics and organisational positions, which were
not controlled for in Study 1.
Therefore, Study 2 set out to address these issues through an empirical
replication from a sample of 250 employees all working in the same
positions in the petrochemical sector of Iran’s gas and oil industry. To
partition the engagement crossover variance to its respective, observable
factors, and to provide a thorough test of engagement crossover in the
workplace in Study 2, job demands and resources, task characteristics,
and organisational positions were extended in the model. A detailed
explanation of the second phase of the research (Study 2) is given in the
following section.
5.3 Phase 2: Study 2
In line with the main purpose of this thesis, providing a thorough test of
engagement crossover in the workplace, the second phase of the research
(Study 2) was designed more rigorously. Study 2, which is an empirical
replication of Study 1, was conducted on a sample of 250 employees all
working in the same positions in the petrochemical sector of Iran’s gas and
oil industry. Measures of task characteristics (task variety, task
significance, and task identity), job demands (work pressure) and
organisational positions were added to the on-line questionnaire. However,
Study 2’s on-line questionnaire was lengthy, so to avoid hasty, delayed,
209
and careless responses, measures of job resources were not included in
the questionnaire. Instead, the extent to which employees receive equal
job resources is assured through contacts with the employees’ immediate
managers. The following sections provide explanations of the procedures
and techniques used in this study.
5.3.1 Method
5.3.1.1 Sample and Procedures
The participants were 250 employees working in the petrochemical
sector of Iran’s gas and oil industry. Online-questionnaires were
distributed among full-time and part-time employees all working in the
same organisational position. Similar to Study 1, in the questionnaire,
instructions were given to the focal participant to answer the peer-
reported questions about one of their co-workers with whom they work on
mutual tasks and spend most of their working hours with. From the 527
employees working in this company, 250 completed questionnaires were
collected, resulting in a response rate of 47%.
From 250 respondents, (84%) were male, and only (16%) were female;
(94%) were in full-time employment and only (6%) were part-time. With
regard to education, (5.6%) had a high school diploma, (36%) had a
bachelor’s degree, and (20%) had a professional degree. The highest
education level was a college degree at (38.4%).
5.3.1.2 Measures
To maintain all the other conditions as equal as possible across both
samples, all respondents answered the same self-reported online-210
questionnaires as in Study 1. Thus, previously validated scales of
employee engagement, workplace friendship, task interdependence,
outcome interdependence, empathic concern and perspective taking
measured the research constructs.
5.3.1.2.1 Independent Variables
Following the same procedures as in Study 1, Perceived co-worker
engagement was assessed with the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
(UWES, Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), and was amended to assess perceived
co-worker engagement. The three subscales of vigour (α = .77),
absorption (α = .76), and dedication (α = .77) (three items each) was used
to assess perceived co-worker engagement. A seven-point response
format (0 = never, 6 = always) was used for this scale. The second-order
scale showed a better Cronbach’s Alpha and was used in the analysis (α
= .87). All items were direct-scored and the score for each subscale was
determined by averaging the values of the items.
5.3.1.2.1.1 Empathy (Empathic Concern and Perspective Taking)
The two sub-scales from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis,
1980) were used to assess empathy. The empathic concern sub-scale (also
seven items) (α = .70) and perspective taking sub-scale (seven items) (α
= .65) were used. For both scales, a five-point Likert scale ranging from
(1) “Strongly disagree” to (5) “Strongly agree” was used.
211
5.3.1.2.1.2 Task and outcome Interdependence
Following the same procedures as in Study 1, task and outcome
interdependence was assessed with a combination of the two scales of
task interdependence (two-item) (α = .65). A range of (1) “not dependent”
to (7) “fully dependent” was used.
Outcome interdependence (six-item) adopted from Van der Vegt and
Molleman (2007) (α = .87). A five-point Likert scale ranging from (1)
“Strongly disagree” to (5) “Strongly agree” was used.
Given the combined scale of task and outcome interdependence had a
better Cronbach’s Alpha than each of the separate scales (α = .92), and
the fit of the measurement model improved significantly when the two
variables loaded on one factor in the confirmatory factor analysis (CFI =
0.94, RMSEA= 0.04, SRMR = 0.05), the combined scale of task and
outcome interdependence was used in the analysis.
5.3.1.2.1.3 Workplace Friendship
Six items developed by Nielsen et al. (2000) were used to measure the
prevalence of workplace friendship as perceived by employees (α =.92).
The response format was a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1)
“strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree”.
5.3.1.2.2 Dependent Variable
5.3.1.2.2.1 Employee engagement
It was assessed with the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES,
Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). The three subscales of vigour (α = .73),
absorption (α = .75) and dedication (α = .78) (three items each) was used 212
to assess employee engagement. A seven-point response format (0 =
never, 6 = always) was used for this scale. The second-order scale showed
a better Cronbach’s Alpha and was used in the analysis (α = .87). All items
were direct-scored and the score for each subscale was determined by
averaging the values of the items. Refer to Appendix Four for Study 2
questionnaire.
All measures were translated from English into Farsi using mixed-
technique translation procedures outlined by Saunders et al. (2012). To
follow the mixed technique, firstly, the English questionnaire was
translated into Farsi by two independent translators (both translators are
Farsi native speakers and very fluent in English). Then, the Farsi version
was translated back into English by the same two independent translators
(the back technique). Following that, the two newly translated
questionnaires (translated from Farsi to English) were compared with the
original English translation. Between the two translated questionnaires,
the one which was lexically and grammatically closer to the source
questionnaire (the original English version) was chosen. This shows that
the Farsi translation was the best match to the source questionnaire.
Mixed techniques ensured that the source questionnaire was the best
match for the final translated questionnaire lexically, idiomatically, and
grammatically (Saunders et al., 2012).
5.3.1.3 Control Variables
Like Study 1, a set of control variables (age, gender, dyad tenure, dyad
hours, and level of education) were tested in this study. Similarly, affect
(positive and negative), and personality (Big Five) were controlled to rule 213
out their spurious effect on engagement crossover. To have more a
rigorous design and given previous studies have found moderate to strong
relationships between job demands and job characteristics and employee
engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker et al., 2011; Christian,
Garza, & slaughter, 2011), these measures were also included in the
analysis.
5.3.1.3.1 Personality (Big-Five)
The short 15 item big-five Inventory (BFI–S) developed by Gerlitz and
Schupp (2005) was used to measure personality. The personality scale
included measures for extraversion (α =.62), agreeableness (α =.67),
conscientious (α =.77), neuroticism (α =.63), openness to experience (α
=.64). The response format for all of the sub-scales was a five-point Likert
scale ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree”.
5.3.1.3.2 Positive and Negative Affect
Similar to Study 1, the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)
(Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was used to assess positive and
negative affect. For both PA and NA, a five-point Likert-type scale from (1)
“to a very little extent” to (5) “to a very great extent”.
5.3.1.3.3 Task Characteristics
Three subscales from Morgeson and Humphrey’s (2006) Work Design
Questionnaire (WDQ) was used to assess task characteristics. Task variety
refers to the degree to which a job requires employees to perform a wide
214
range of tasks (3-item). An example item from this scale is “The job
requires the performance of a wide range of tasks” (α = .77).
Task significance is the degree to which a job affects the lives of others
inside or outside of the organisation. Task significance was assessed with
three-items, including “The work performed on the job has a significant
impact on people outside the organisation” (α = .75).
Task identity is the degree to which a job requires employees to
complete a piece of work from the beginning to the end with visible
outcomes. Task identity was assessed with three-items, including “The job
involves completing a piece of work that has an obvious beginning and
end” (α = .75). A five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) “Strongly
disagree” to (5) “Strongly agree” was used for all of these three subscales.
All items were direct-scored and the score for each subscale was
determined by averaging the values of the items.
5.3.1.3.4 Job Demands
Among job demands scales, work pressure was used, which is based on
a Dutch version (Furda, 1995) of Karasek’s (1998) job content instrument.
The scale includes three items that refer to quantitative, demanding
aspects of the job, for example, time pressure and working hard. A sample
item is as follows: “Do you have to work very fast?” (α = .75). Items are
scored on a 5-point scale, ranging from (1) “never” to (5) “always”. Revisit
Appendix Four for the full text questionnaire of this study.
215
5.3.2 Analytical Strategy
Results of a confirmatory analysis are shown in Table 5.9. According to
the table, Model 2, in which task and outcome interdependence were
loaded on one factor, resulted in a better fit (CFI =.94, RMSEA=.04, SRMR
=.05) compared to the alternative models. Thus, discriminant validity of
measures for these variables is ensured. The worst fit was detected in
Model 4, in which task and outcome interdependence and empathic
concern and perspective taking were loaded on one factor (CFI = .80,
RMSEA= .07, SRMR = .06).
216
Table 5.9. Measurement Model Tests Study 2CFA Study 2 Chi-2 df CF
IRMSEA
SRMR
Model 1: (7-factor) Baseline measurement model
974.2 530
.87 .06 .06
Model 2: (6-factor) Task & outcome interdependence
321.513
211
0.94
.04 .05
Model 3: (6-factor) Empathic concern & perspective taking
395.634
215
0.92
.05 .05
Model 4: (5-factor) Empathic concern & perspective taking, task & outcome interdependence
1387.1
611
.80 .07 .06
5.3.3 Results
Descriptive statistics, correlations between the study variables and
reliabilities are presented in Table 5.10.
217
Table 5.10. Descriptive Statistics, Correlations of the Research Variables, Study 2
Variables Mean
(SD)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
1. Gender 1.84 .37 12. Age
3.921.16 .08 1
3. Education 3.25 .75
.16* .01 1
4. Dyad tenure 6.35 4.0 .11
.27**
-.14 1
5. Dyad hours4.82
2.32 .09
-.12*
-.08 -.10 1
6. Positive affect 3.13
1.22 .01
-.27*
-.08 -.03
-.01 1
7. Negative affect 1.86
1.16
-.08 -.03
-.10 -.07
-.01
.24** 1
8. Extraversion 3.71 .40 .08 -.03
-.08 -.11
-.08 -.04 .09 1
9. Agreeableness 3.29 .43 .08 -.08
-.05 -.03 .03 .07 .10 .15* 1
10. Conscientious 3.47 .26 .02 -.09
-.13 .05
.15* -.06 .02
.17** .16* 1
11. Neuroticism 2.73 .74
-.02 .04
.14* -.11
-.04 .02 .11 -.01 .02 -.04 1
12. Openness to experience 3.35 .54 .04 .06
-.08 -.07 .02 -.08 .05
.26** .09
.17** .08 1
13. Task variety 3.20 .70
.15*
.33**
-.05 .11 .03
-.23* .01 -.01 .10 .02 .00 -.01 1
14. Task Identity 3.55 .56
-.13 -.05
-.10 -.04
-.08 -.01 .02
.19** .05 .11 -.10
.46**
.43** 1
15. Task significance 3.39 .56
-.14
-.26* .03 -.17
-.08
.26** .01 .15* .16* .07
.23** .11
-.39*
-.20** 1
16. Job demand 3.50 .46 .06 -.02
-.10 .04 .06 -.06 .03 .14*
.17**
.18**
-.13* .10 .05
.35**
.21** 1
17. Perceivedco-worker engagement 3.64 .58
-.03
-.13* .00 -.07 .05 .05 .09 .01 .06 .10 -.05 .06 .06
.17**
.25**
.35** 1
18. Empathic concern 3.86 .36 .05 .06
-.10 .12 .04 -.07
-.16* .10
.17** .06 -.02 .00 -.06 .05 .12 .16* .05 1
19. Perspective taking 3.46 .32 .06 .04
-.22* .11 .08 -.02
-.08 .15* .14*
.16**
-.21** .14* .00 .14*
.20**
.23** .12
.31** 1
20. Task & outcome interdepende
3.30 .73 .01 -.09 -.03
-.13* .04 .14* .05 .12 .08 -.03 .07 .03 .09 .12 .10 .09 .36**
-.05 .11 1
218
nce21. Workplace friendship 3.19 .86 .03 -.09
-.05 -.14* .04 .15* .07 .12 .10 -.04 .05 .04 .08 .12* .10 .10
.35** -.04 .10
.99** 1
22. Employee engagement 3.67 .56
-.13* -.05 .03 -.05
-.01 -.10 .00
.19**
.21** .16*
-.15*
.17** .09
.37** .08
.43**
.33**
.23**
.19**
.25**
.24** 1
Note. p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
219
5.3.3.1 Test of Hypotheses
The same procedures are taken to test the five hypotheses in Study 2.
The results of moderation analysis revealed identical results for both
studies.
5.3.3.1.1 Test of Hypothesis 1
Identical to the first study, the results of the linear regression analysis
showed that perceived co-worker engagement was significantly positively
related to employee engagement (F (19, 230) = 6.590, p<.05, β=.40,
p<.05, CI [.319, .477], with R2 of .35). Therefore, hypothesis one was
supported. This means that engagement crossed over from one employee
to his/her co-worker in this sample. Table 5.11 shows the result of this
analysis.
Table 5.11. Regression Results for Bootstrap Coefficients of perceived co-worker engagement on employee engagement, Study 2
Predictors B SE P-value
95% CI
Constant .808
.68
.24 [-.502, 2.123]
Gender -.19
.08
.02 [-.364, -.036]
Age -.02
.03
.43 [-.113, .043]
Education level .08 .04
.06 [-.004, .162]
Dyad tenure -.01
.00
.87 [-.016, .015]
Dyad hours -.00
.01
.61 [-.035, .020]
Positive affect -.02
.02
.31 [-.078, .031]
Negative affect -.00
.03
.83 [-.068, .051]
Extraversion .13 .09
.15 [-.059, .315]
Agreeableness .18 .09
.06 [-.010, .357]
Conscientious .08 .1 .56 [-.210, .37220
4 2]Neuroticism -.0
7.04
.14 [-.118, .055]
Openness to experience .01 .08
.86 [-.148, .181]
Task variety .03 .06
.60 [-.108, .165]
Task identity .24 .09
.01 [.055, .436]
Task significance -.04
.09
.61 [-.219, .135]
Job demand .36 .10
.00 [.179, .604]
Perceived co-worker engagement (PCE)
.20 .07
.00 [.046, .327]
R2 .352
.00
∆ R2 .030
.00
5.3.3.1.2 Test of Hypothesis 2
Similar to the first study, the interaction effect of empathic concern on
employee engagement was not significant (β= .11, p=.54), meaning that
adding interaction terms to the model did not result in a significant
∆ R2(∆ R2=.012 % , p=.54 ); therefore, hypothesis 2 was not supported. Table
5.12 and Figure 5.6 displays the interaction of empathic concern on the
relationship between perceived co-worker engagement and employee
engagement.
Table 5.12. Regression Results for Estimated Coefficients with the Moderator Empathic Concern and Perceived Co-worker Engagement on Employee Engagement, Study 2Predictors B SE P-value 95% CI
Constant 2.1390 .70 .00 [.7497,3.5284]
Gender -.22 .09 .02
[-.4134, -0281]
Age -.01 .04 .60
[-.0927, .0544]
Education level .04 .04 [-.0480, .13221
.35 37]Dyad tenure -.00 .00
.29 [-.0274, .0084]
Dyad hours -.00 .01 .86
[-.0367,.0306]
Positive affect -.07 .03 .04
[-.1335,-0015]
Negative affect -.02 .03 .53
[-.0919,.0481]
Extraversion .21 .09 .02
[.0257, .4119]
Agreeableness .14 .10 .18
[-.0637, .3307]
Conscientious .16 .18 .36
[-.1976, .5331]
Neuroticism -.13 .05 .01
[-.2373, -0267]
Openness to experience
.07 .07
.30 [-.0746, .2343]
Task variety .02 .06 .72
[-.1133, .1620]
Task identity .34 .08 .00
[.1745, .5097]
Task significance -.07 .08 .40
[-.2286, .0934]
Job demand .30 .10 .00
[.1108, .4955]
Empathic concern (EC) .26 .10 .02 [.0389, .4694]
Perceived co-worker engagement (PCE)
.32 .07 .00 [.1855, .4564]
EC x PCE .11 .18 .54 [-.2546, .4795]
R2 .281 .00 ∆ R2(due to the interaction of EC x PCE)
.001 .54
Figure 5.6. Study 2, interaction perceived co-worker engagement and empathic concern on employee engagement.
222
5.3.3.1.3 Test of Hypothesis 3
Similar results were found for the moderation effect of perspective
taking and perceived co-worker engagement on employee engagement
(β=.35, p=.08) ∆ R2 was not significant(∆R2=1.0 % p= .08 ); thus hypothesis 3
was not supported. Table 5.13 and Figure 5.7 displays the interaction of
perspective taking on the relationship between perceived co-worker
engagement and employee engagement.
Table 5.13. Regression Results for Estimated Coefficients with the Moderator Perspective Taking and Perceived Co-worker Engagement on Employee Engagement,
Study 2Predictors B SE
P- value 95% CI
Constant 2.1028
.71
.00
[.6903,3.5153]
Gender -.23 .09
.01
[-.4234,-0402]
Age -.01 .04
.78
[-.0968, .0730]
Education level .04 .04
.33 [-.0462, .1345]
Dyad tenure -.01 .00
.24
[-.0289, .0073]
Dyad hours -.00 .01
.95
[-.0351, .0330]
Positive affect -.06 .0 .0 [-.1326, .00223
Predictors B SE P- value
95% CI
3 5 10]Negative affect -.02 .0
3 .37
[-.0945, .0358]
Extraversion .21 .09
.02
[.0260, .4055]
Agreeableness .16 .09
.09
[-.0304, .3610]
Conscientious .16 .18
.38
[-.2061, .5282]
Neuroticism -.12 .05
.02
[-.2397,.0197]
Openness to experience
.06 .07
.40
[-.0848, .2111]
Task variety .01 .06
.87
[-.1247, .1454]
Task identity .32 .08
.00
[.1480, .4948]
Task significance -.06 .08
.43
[-.2234, .0967]
Job demand .33 .10
.00
[.1332, .5283]
Perspective taking (PT)
.17 .14
.21
[-.1048, .4585]
Perceived co-worker engagement (PCE)
.32 .07
.00
[.1800, .4498]
PT x PCE .35 .20
.08 [-.0516,.7584]
R2 .280∆ R2 (due to the interaction of PT x PCE)
.010 .08
Figure 5.7. Study 2, interaction perceived co-worker engagement and perspective taking on employee engagement.
224
5.3.3.1.4 Test of Hypothesis 4
Regarding the interaction of task and outcome interdependence; both
studies showed significant results (β=.18 p<.05;∆ R2=1.5 % , p<05¿,
providing support for hypothesis 4. Table 5.14 and Figure 5.8 displays the
interaction of task and outcome interdependence on the relationship
between perceived co-worker engagement and employee engagement.
The scatterplot of this interaction is provided in Appendix Seven.
Table 5.14. Regression Results for Estimated Coefficients with the Moderator Task and Outcome Interdependence and Perceived Co-worker Engagement on Employee
Engagement, Study 2
Predictors B SE P-value
95% CI
Constant 1.9481
.69
.00
[.5848,3.3115]
Gender -.21 .09
.01
[-.3946,-0361]
Age -.00 .04
.98
[-.0846, .0823]
Education level .02 .04
.57
[-.0694, .1238]
Dyad tenure -.00 .00
.46
[-.0251, .0116]
Dyad hours -.00 .01
.89
[-.0355, .0310]
Positive affect -.07 .03
.01
[-.1419,-0141]
Negative affect -.02 .03
.38
[-.0926, .0356]
Extraversion .20 .09
.03
[.0155, .3997]
Agreeableness .17 .09
.07
[-.0148, .3698]
Conscientious .16 .18
.35
[-.1889, .5230]
Neuroticism -.13 .05
.01
[-.2442,-0331]
Openness to experience .08 .07
.25
[-.0552, .2234]
Task variety .03 .06
.49
[-.0972, .1633]
Task identity .34 .08
.00
[.1798, .5158]
Task significance -.06 .08
.39
[-.2303, .0915]
Job demand .33 .1 .0 [.1384, .534225
0 0 0]Task and outcome Interdependence (INT)
.07 .05
.04
[.0473, .1877]
Perceived co-worker engagement (PCE)
.28 .07
.00
[.1267,.4376]
INT x PCE .18 .08
.03
[.0216,.3370]
R2 .284 .00
∆ R2(due to the interaction of INT x PCE)
.015 .03
Figure 5.8. Study 2, interaction perceived co-worker engagement and task and outcome interdependence on employee engagement.
Furthermore, as in Study 1, the moderation of task and outcome
interdependence was probed the following Preacher et al. (2007) and
Hayes (2015), the pick-a-point approach, by estimating and applying an
inferential test of conditional effects of X on Y at different values of
moderator, depending on the chosen value of the moderator at mean, one
standard deviation below and above means. Thus, 95% CI of conditional
direct effect of X on Y at one SD below and above task and outcome
interdependence indicated that while the direct effect of perceived co-
worker engagement on employee engagement was significant at mean
level and one standard deviation above it, this relationship was at its
226
strongest when there were higher task and outcome interdependence (+1
SD) (b= .41, p< .05, CI [.2633, .5610]). Figure 5.8 displays the interaction
of task and outcome interdependence on the relationship between
perceived co-worker engagement and employee engagement.
The results of Johnson-Neyman test for the interaction of task and
outcome interdependence showed that the direct effect of perceived co-
worker engagement on employee engagement was significant at all of the
values of the moderator above -.4675 (Value: -.4675, β= .20, SE=.10,
t=1.9702, p=.05, CI[.0000,.3966]. Below this significant zone, the
interaction term was not significant. Refer to Appendix Seven for the
results of pick-a-point and the Johnson-Neyman tests of Study 2.
5.3.3.1.5 Test of Hypothesis 5
Like Study 1, workplace friendship significantly moderated the
relationship between perceived co-worker engagement and employee
engagement in Study 2 (β=.15, p<.05;∆ R2=1.5% p<.05), providing support
for hypothesis 5. Inferences about conditional direct effect of X on Y at one
SD below and above workplace friendship showed that the direct effect of
perceived co-worker engagement on employee engagement was
significant only at mean and one standard deviation above the mean;
however, this relationship was at its strongest when there was higher
workplace friendship (+1SD) (b= .43, p< .05, CI [.2760, .5728]). Table
5.15 and Figure 5.9 displays the interaction of workplace friendship on the
relationship between perceived co-worker engagement and employee
engagement. The results are consistent in both studies.
227
The results of Johnson-Neyman test for the interaction of workplace
friendship showed that the direct effect of perceived co-worker
engagement on employee engagement was significant at all of the values
of the moderator above -.5870 (Value: -.5870, β= .20, SE=.10, t=1.9702,
p=.05, CI[.0000,.4037]). Below this significant zone, the interaction term
was not significant. Revisit to Appendix Seven for the results of pick-a-
point and the Johnson-Neyman tests.
Table 5.15. Regression Results for Estimated Coefficients with the Moderator Workplace Friendship and Perceived Co-worker Engagement on Employee Engagement, Study 2
Predictors B SE P-value
95% CI
Constant 1.9444
.69
.00
[.5807,3.3081]
Gender -.21 .09
.01
[-.3942,-0373]
Age -.00 .04
.98
[-.0847, .0830]
Education level .02 .04
.58
[-.0700, .1236]
Dyad tenure -.00 .00
.45
[-.0255, .0114]
Dyad hours -.00 .01
.89
[-.0357, .0311]
Positive affect -.07 .03
.02
[-.1396,-0177]
Negative affect -.02 .03
.36
[-.0941, .0348]
Extraversion .21 .09
.03
[.0203, .4043]
Agreeableness .17 .09
.07
[-.0163, .3711]
Conscientious .16 .18
.35
[-.1903, .5264]
Neuroticism -.13 .05
.01
[-.2429,-0316]
Openness to experience .08 .07
.26
[-.0607, .2219]
Task variety .02 .0 .4 [-.0834, .13228
5 9 90]Task identity .31 .0
7.00
[.1703, .4629]
Task significance -.04 .07
.50
[-.1909, .0939]
Job demand .31 .08
.00
[.1449, .4785]
Workplace friendship (WF)
.04 .05
.38
[.0549, .1429]
Perceived co-worker engagement (PCE)
.29 .07
.00
[.1379,.4464]
WF x PCE .15 .06
.03
[.0178,.2899]
R2 .281 .00
∆ R2(due to the interaction of WF x PCE)
.015 .03
Figure 5.9. Study 2, interaction perceived co-worker engagement and workplace friendship on employee engagement.
2 moderators, 2-way Interactions: Table 5.16 shows the results of
the 2 moderators, 2-way Interactions of perceived employee engagement*
task and outcome interdependence * workplace friendship. Unlike Study 1,
the 2 moderators, 2-way Interactions of perceived employee engagement*
task and outcome interdependence * workplace friendship was not
significant. Although each of the moderators had a significant effect on the
crossover of engagement separately in the previous tests (i.e. H 4 and 229
H5), adding 2 moderators, 2-way Interactions to the model did not result in
a significant∆ R2 (∆R2=06 % p=.38 ). This is because the sample size in Study 2
(N=250) was much smaller than Study 1 (N=528); therefore, adding extra
paths to the model resulted in under identified models and insignificant
relationships (Hayes, 2015; Preacher et al., 2007). Refer to Appendix Eight
2 moderators, 2-way Interactions of Study 2.
Table 5.16. 2 moderators, 2-way Interactions, Study 2B SE(BOOT)
P-value95% CI
Constant 3.7460
1.4977 .01
[.7959, 6.6961]
Task and outcome interdependence (INT) x Perceived co-worker engagement (PCE)
.22 .57 .68
[-.8957, 1.3519]
Workplace friendship (WF) x Perceived co-worker engagement (PCE)
-.10 .48 .82
[-1.0670, .8516]
R-square increase due to interaction(s):R2 .135
.00INT x PCE .000 .
68WF x PCE .000 .
82Both .006 .
38
5.3.4 Discussion
Study 2 replicates the results of Study 1. As was mentioned in section
5.2.4, in the second phase of the research (Study 2), data was collected
from employees of the petrochemical sector of Iran’s gas and oil industry.
This has addressed concerns about the representativeness of the sample.
In addition, measures of task characteristics (task variety, task
significance, and task identity), job demands (work pressure), and
organisational positions were added in Study 2’s on-line questionnaire. To
avoid hasty, delayed and careless responses, measures of job resources 230
were not included in the questionnaire. However, contacts with the
employees’ immediate managers ensured that all of the participants had
access to equal job resources.
When controlled for demographic variables such as age, gender, hours
spent with co-worker, tenure, level of education, and positive affect and
negative affect, results showed that only gender and positive affect had
significant effects on the crossover process. Among the big-five
personality traits, only extraversion and neuroticism had significant effects
on all the interaction terms. Additionally, in all the of interaction terms,
task identity and job demand had significant effects on the crossover
process.
Findings in Study 2 were consistent with the findings of Study 1. Firstly,
the results indicated that engagement crossed over from employees to
their co-workers after controlling for the effects of affect (positive and
negative), personality (Big Five), job resources and demands, and task
characteristics.
Consistent with Study 1, neither empathic concern nor perspective
taking showed any significant interaction effects. This means that
empathic concern and perspective taking did not strengthen the crossover
of engagement. These results were consistent with and supported the
thesis argument that engagement crossover is not an emotional process.
Moreover, task and outcome interdependence and workplace friendship
showed a significant interaction effect on engagement crossover.
Consistent with Study 1, engagement crossed over from employees to
their co-workers when there were higher tasks and outcome
interdependence and when employees perceived their co-worker as their 231
friend, who provided instrumental and emotional support. Further
discussion about these results is given in Chapter Six.
Overall, Study 2 was consistent with and replicated the findings of Study
1. Functional (task and outcome interdependence) and affective factors
(workplace friendship) have proved to strengthen the crossover of
engagement, whereas emotional factors (empathic concern and
perspective taking) did not have any significant moderating effect on the
crossover process.
5.4 Conclusion
Chapter Five discussed the research techniques and procedures in
Studies 1 and 2, which guided the research project. The research project
comprised of two phases: firstly, phase one was a quantitative survey-
based investigation (Study 1) conducted among employees in various
occupations within six industries in England. Secondly, a more extensive
investigation (Study 2), replicated Study 1 and has provided further
support for this thesis’s argument about the interpersonal effects of
employee engagement and the boundary conditions of the crossover
process in the workplace.
Chapter Five summarised data collection, sampling methods, the
recruitment procedures and sample sizes of the two studies. A short
discussion of the findings was given, primarily to support the
developmental processes of the research, while an extended discussion is
reserved for Chapter Six.
232
Chapter Six Discussion
“A mind that is stretched to a new idea never returns to its original dimension”.Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
6.1 Introduction
The research started with an ideological view that, employee
engagement is not entirely individual; rather it is a shared experience.
Therefore, contrary to the widely held belief that only organisational, job,
and/or individual factors predict and reinforce employee engagement in
organisations (Saks & Gruman, 2014), this thesis advanced the proposition
that employee engagement is interpersonal and co-workers can affect
each other’s engagement levels. Available evidence in the literature about
the beneficial effects of employee engagement (Rich et al., 2010; Saks &
Gruman, 2014), lack of investigation into the interpersonal effects of
employee engagement, and shortcomings of the earlier research on
engagement crossover processes in the workplace, provided the focus for
this research and scope for a contribution to the literature. Therefore, two
233
research questions were raised: “To what extent does employee
engagement crossover from one employee to his/her co-worker in the
workplace?” Relatedly, “what are the potential factors that determine the
extent of this crossover?”
The research project was conducted in two phases: Studies 1 and 2.
Study 1, which constituted the first stage of research, was conducted
among 528 employees from a wide range of occupations in six industries:
service providers (25%), business and trading (24.2%), NHS (5.1%), non-
profit corporates (6.3%), governmental (9.5%) and charity corporates
(4.5%). Study 2, was an empirical replication from a sample of 250
employees all working in the same positions in the petrochemical sector of
Iran’s gas and oil industry. Revisit Chapter Five for a detailed explanation
of the research methods and techniques.
This chapter discusses the findings reported in two empirical studies,
which composes the thesis. It also integrates the findings with the
literature, primarily presented, but not restricted to, Chapters One and
Two.
The discussion is structured around the five hypotheses, which emerged
from the two research questions set out in Chapter Three. For each
hypothesis, relevant findings are discussed in relation to the wider theory
and earlier contributions. This is followed by a conclusion, which integrates
the discussion. Research implications, limitations, and direction for further
research are presented in the final chapter of this thesis. Figure 6.1 and
6.2 show the engagement crossover model, which has been tested in
Study 1 and 2.
234
Figure 6.1 Engagement Crossover Model, Study 1.
Figure 6.2 Engagement Crossover Model, Study 2.
235
6.2 Does Employee Engagement Crossover in the Workplace?
6.2.1 Hypothesis 1: Employee Engagement Crosses over from One Employee to his/her
Co-worker
As noted in Chapter Two, there is not a universally agreed definition of
employee engagement in the literature (Bakker et al., 2011; Maslach,
2011; Rayton, 2014; Zigarmi et al., 2009). Whilst this multiplicity of
definitions provides an opportunity for a distinct research focus, a broad
initial understanding of the concept was appropriate for this research,
which was explanatory and designed to elicit the conceptual space of
employee engagement, rather than nomothetic insights.
To reiterate, the purpose of this thesis was not to provide a universally
agreed definition and theory of employee engagement, but rather the
main focus of the thesis was on the interpersonal effects of employee
engagement and whether it can crossover from one employee to his or her
co-workers. Hence, the thesis does not present a distinct definition of
employee engagement, but rather it gives a picture of the richness of this
concept.
Kahn (1990) and Schaufeli’s et al. (2002) early working definitions
offered a sufficiently broad guide to investigating the engagement
crossover in the workplace. However, to explain the crossover of
engagement, the thesis dispensed with Schaufeli’s et al. (2002)
conceptualisation of employee engagement as a guiding focus. Indeed,
this definition encapsulates employees’ work experiences: a stimulating
and energetic state in which employees invest time and effort willingly
(vigour component), significant and meaningful work (dedication
236
component), and a state of full concentration (absorption component)
(Bakker et al., 2010). Clearly, this definition conceptualises employee
engagement as a work experience, which is relatively malleable and open
to development rather than an inherent trait. Hence, the thesis adopted
Schaufeli’s et al. (2002) definition to explain and justify the crossover of
engagement.
Further, as noted in Chapters One and Two, Kahn (1990) highlighted
that employees’ psychological experiences (psychological meaningfulness,
safety, and availability) at work, influence the degree to which employees
bring in or leave out their preferred “self” during role performance (Kahn,
1990). Kahn (1990) emphasised that the interplay of several works, job,
and organisational factors prompt psychological meaningfulness, safety,
and availability at work (Kahn, 1990). The thesis adopted this definition as
a guide to investigating the boundary conditions of engagement crossover
and argued that although employee engagement is a discretionary
willingness and a personal experience, which cannot be forced or
mandated, multiple factors in the work context and the social dynamics
among individuals can affect employees’ experience of engagement.
Therefore, under certain working conditions, employees can affect the
degree to which their co-workers engage with the work.
Hypothesis 1 was set to answer the first research question of the thesis,
“To what extent does employee engagement crossover from one
employee to his/her co-worker in the workplace?” Hypothesis 1 stated that
perceived co-worker engagement is positively related to employee
engagement (crossover). This means that employees who work with more
engaged co-worker increase their engagement at work. The results of 237
multiple regression analysis showed that hypothesis 1 was supported in
both studies. As can be seen in Table 5.3 in Study 1, and Table 5.11 in
Study 2, the relationship between perceived co-worker’s engagement and
employee engagement was significantly positive.
Interestingly, this relationship remained significantly positive even after
other confounding variables such as affect (positive and negative),
personality (Big Five), in Study 1, and job demands, and resources and
task characteristics (task variety, task significance, and task identity), in
Study 2, were controlled in the model. This means that in both studies,
even after controlling for the effects of individual and work-related
variables, employees who perceived their co-worker as highly engaged at
work, entered the crossover process and increased their own engagement
level.
As discussed in Chapter Two, investigating antecedents and outcomes
of employee engagement continue to be a significant scholarly pursuit
(Christian et al, 2012); however, there has been relatively limited
empirical research about the interpersonal effects of employee
engagement. Therefore, employees’ roles in facilitating or enhancing
engagement among their co-workers have rarely been the focus of
academic research (Bakker, et al., 2006).
On the other hand, recent changes in work environment, such as the
popularity of work groups and group activities, implies that work becomes
more interdependent and employees need to work together as a unit
rather than individuals. They need to constantly interact with each other
and they are exposed to one another’s emotions, feelings, and attitudes
(Van der Vegt, & Molleman, 2000, 2002, 2007). In such work contexts, 238
employees enter the crossover process and affect one another’s feelings,
emotions and well-being (Westman & Chen, 2017).
Confirming much of the previous studies in crossover research (Bakker
& Xanthopoulou, 2009; Bakker et al., 2011; Brough et al., 2018; Westman
& Etzion, 2005; Westman et al., 2013; Westman et al., 2008; Westman et
al., 2011; Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2014), this finding highlights the fact
that although employee engagement is a discretionary willingness, a
personal experience, which cannot be forced or mandated, it is not purely
individual, but rather it is a shared experience which does not occur in
isolation. Consequently, the first research question and hypothesis 1 are
proved to be affirmative. However, unlike previous contributions in
crossover research, the thesis does not explain engagement crossover
through the empathy or emotional contagion process. Conversely, the
thesis argued that under certain conditions employees can enter the
crossover process and affect one another’s engagement at work. Thus, the
thesis set an objective to identify these conditions. To this aim, four
hypotheses were tested. The following sections discuss the findings of
these hypotheses.
6.2.2 Hypotheses 2 and 3: Employee Engagement Is Not an Emotion
Hypotheses 2 and 3 stated that higher (rather than lower) levels of
empathic concern and perspective taking strengthens the crossover of
engagement in the workplace. This means that those employees who have
higher levels of empathic concern and perspective taking are more likely
to be affected by their co-worker’s engagement levels and increase their
own engagement with the tasks. This is because of their capacity to take 239
the perspective of others and their ability to “tune into” their co-worker’s
emotions.
Moreover, hypotheses 2 and 3 were raised to challenge previous
contributions in crossover research for their ungrounded claim for the
crossover of employee engagement through the empathy and the
emotional contagion processes (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009; Bakker et
al., 2006; Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2014; Wirtz, Rigotti, Otto, & Loeb,
2017). As discussed in section 2.3.3, previous studies failed to provide
empirical evidence for the empathy and emotional contagion processes
(Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009; Bakker et al., 2006; Ten Brummelhuis et
al., 2014; Wirtz et al., 2017). They either did not add measures of empathy
(i.e. empathic concern and perspective taking) into their model (Bakker &
Xanthopoulou, 2009; Bakker et al., 2006; Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2014;
Wirtz et al., 2017), or used other measures such as emotional self-efficacy
(Wirtz et al., 2017) to test the direct crossover mechanism. As for the
unconscious process of emotional contagion, these studies did not provide
any empirical test of employees’ verbal and non-verbal behaviour.
Therefore, they only assumed that the direct crossover process occurred
via the empathy or the emotional contagion processes.
The thesis empirically re-examined the empathy process in the
crossover of engagement, by testing hypotheses 2 and 3 in Study 1 and 2.
The findings reported in Chapter Five indicate that in both studies
hypotheses 2 and 3 were rejected. As can be seen in Table 5.4 and 5.5 in
Study 1, and Table 5.12, 5.13 in Study 2, whilst the relationship between
perceived co-worker engagement and employee engagement remained
significant (Study 1: β= .39, p < .05; Study 2: β= .32, p < .05), adding the 240
interaction terms of empathic concern and perspective taking did not
strengthen the relationship. This means that, in both studies, the evidence
did not definitely support the claim that the empathy process moderated
engagement crossover between two interdependent co-workers.
As previously discussed in Chapter Two, section 2.3.2.1, empathy is
defined as “tuning into” other people’s emotions (Westman, 2001, 2006);
such as sharing another person’s emotional state or distress. In the
empathy process, individuals are affected by each other’s expressed
emotions; this happens especially when one places himself in another
person’s circumstances (Bakker, 2006, 2009).
In addition, empathy is conceptualised as a stable trait or general
ability, such as an ability to psychologically and emotionally perceive and
feel other people’s emotions and feelings. It is assumed that some
individuals have greater cognitive and emotional capacity to react to other
people’s emotions and take their perspectives (or “tune into” other’s
emotions) (Parker & Axtell, 2001; Westman, Shadach, & Kenian, 2013).
Taking a dispositional approach towards empathy, in both studies in this
research, although employees scored high on the empathy scale (the
mean level of empathic concern and perspective taking was high, refer to
Table 5.2 (Study 1) and Table 5.8 (Study 2), adding the interaction terms
of empathic concern and perspective taking did not strengthen the
crossover of engagement. This means that although employees with high
levels of empathy may have cognitively taken the perspective of their co-
worker and perceived him or her as more engaged, and although they
may have understood and accepted (showed empathy) their co-worker,
they were not sufficiently motivated to increase their own engagement 241
levels. Thus, in this research, high levels of empathy did not strengthen
the crossover of engagement.
Further, whilst research showed that people with higher “dispositional
empathy” engage in more cooperative, OCB, and helping behaviours
(Parker & Axtell, 2001, Wetman et al., 2013), the results of the moderation
tests do not provide confirming evidence that the empathy enhances
interpersonal relationships.
The current literature on work-family interface abounds with examples
of studies, which tested the role of empathy in the crossover of negative
and positive emotions, experiences, and well-being. On the basis of the
evidence currently available in work-family interface and marital research
(Bakker et al., 2009; Bakker, LeBlanc, & Schaufeli, 2005; Bakker, Shimazu,
Demerouti, Shimada, & Kawamaki, 2011; Demerouti, Bakker, & Schaufeli,
2005; Westman, Etzion, & Chen, 2009, Westman et al., 2013), one
possible explanation for the results of this research is that perhaps in more
intimate relationships, such as married couples, partners’ empathy can
quantify the crossover processes, whereas workplace situations specify
different kinds of relationships (work-related relationships), which are
different from closely related individuals; therefore work-related factors,
rather than the empathy process, may affect the crossover processes in
the workplace.
Evidence supporting this explanation may lie in the findings of Bakker et
al. (2009), who investigated the role of empathy in engagement crossover
between intimate partners. Bakker et al. (2009) hypothesised that women
who are engaged at work and talk enthusiastically about it at home can
influence their partner’s work engagement. This is particularly true when 242
their partners were able to adapt to the psychological perspective of their
wives (perspective taking) and could relate to them emotionally (empathic
concern).
Bakker’s et al. (2009) findings could only support the moderating effect
of perspective taking; however, they could not find any significant
evidence for the moderating effect of empathic concerns. Thus, they
concluded that empathic concern might be the active psychological
mechanism which is more likely to moderate the crossover of negative
emotions such as strain or stress (Bakker et al., 2009).
Yet, further evidence confirming the findings of hypotheses 2 and 3 and
supporting the argument put forward in this thesis about the role of job-
related factors in the crossover processes in the workplace, may lie in the
findings of Westman and Etzion (1999), who conducted the first
systematic study of the crossover process in the workplace (Westman &
Etzion, 1999). As was discussed in Chapter Two, this study was conducted
to investigate whether the crossover process in the workplace operates in
the same way as it does in the family. Although Westman and Etzion’s
(1999) study focused on the crossover of unwell-being in the workplace,
important findings emerged in this study, which can support the findings
of this thesis. Westman and Etzion (1999) found that employees, who
shared the same environment and expressed their strain in the workplace,
triggered similar reactions in their co-workers (Westman & Etzion, 1999, p.
277). Therefore, Westman and Etzion (1999) concluded that factors, which
affect the crossover processes in the work domain, are different from
those that affect the crossover processes in the family. More specifically,
243
Westman and Etzion (1999) demonstrated that job-induced tensions
mainly affected the crossover process in the work domain.
Nevertheless, the main argument of the thesis is that employee
engagement is not a negative arousal such as strain, anxiety, and burnout
which is triggered by stress, neither is it a discrete emotion such as
happiness, enthusiasm, and joy which can be mimicked by others. In
contrast, the thesis argued that employee engagement is a long-term
enduring state rather than just a momentary expression of emotion. It is a
state of “self” involvement at work, which cannot be forced or mandated
(Kahn, 1990; Macey et al., 2008), therefore the empathy and the non-
conscious process of emotional contagion cannot explain the engagement
crossover process.
Along similar lines of argument, in engagement literature, there is rarely
any anecdotal or empirical evidence that engaged employees have certain
observable facial expressions, vocalisations, postures, or movements that
can be mimicked by others. Consequently, Bakker et al. (2006) only
assumed that affective components of engagement (vigour and
absorption) crossed over through the unconscious processes of emotional
contagion; in fact, they have failed to provide any empirical evidence
(such as observations of employees’ behaviour) for their claim.
Moreover, the consistent findings of the two studies lend further support
to the thesis argument that Westman’s (2001) crossover model, which is
underpinned by role theory, may not be a sound basis to explain the
crossover of positive emotions, experiences, and well-being in the
workplace.
244
As previously discussed in section 2.3.2, the role theory has its root in
job-stress models. The core assumption of the theory is drawn from the
depletion perspective and has a very narrow view towards people. It
assumes that people have fixed amounts of psychological and
physiological resources to invest in roles; thus, when assigned to multiple
roles, people experience stress and strain (Halbesleben & Bolino, 2009;
Karatepe, 2013; Powell & Greenhause, 2006; Westman, 2001). This thesis
argued that Westman’s (2001) crossover model, which is underpinned by
role theory, provides a strong grounding to explain and justify the
crossover of negative experiences, emotions, and unwell-being (burnout).
However, in the absence of role conflict and stress, positive emotions,
experiences, and well-being (employee engagement) cross over through
different processes. The following sections further discuss the results of
hypotheses 4 and 5, which were designed to test the indirect mechanisms
of engagement crossover in the workplace.
6.2.3 Hypothesis 4: The Functional Factors
Hypothesis 4 was raised to test an indirect mechanism of engagement
crossover in the workplace. Hypothesis 4 stated that task and outcome
interdependence moderate the crossover of engagement from one
employee to his or her co-worker. This means that work-related factors,
such as the nature of the tasks (task interdependence) and the structure
of the goals (outcome interdependence) create a condition in which
employees can affect each other’s attitudes and behaviours and they can
enter the crossover process. Therefore, task and outcome
245
interdependence are functional factors and intensify the engagement
crossover process in the workplace.
As expected, in both studies, hypothesis 4 was supported. As can be
seen in Table 5.6 in Study 1, and Table 5.14 in Study 2, the relationship
between perceived co-worker’s engagement and employee engagement
strengthened significantly after adding the interaction terms of task and
outcome interdependence. Interestingly, task and outcome
interdependence significantly increased the crossover of engagement
even after other confounding variables (affect (positive and negative)
personality (Big Five), job demands, and resources and task characteristics
(task variety, task significance, and task identity) were controlled in Study
2. This means that in both studies, employees who were working on highly
interdependent tasks entered the crossover process and affected each
other’s engagement levels.
Indeed, the results of the pick-a-point tests (Hayes, 2015; Preacher et
al., 2007) lend further support to the argument that task and outcome
interdependence are functional factors and create boundary conditions for
engagement crossover in the workplace. According to the pick-a-point
tests, the relationships between perceived co-worker engagement and
employee engagement was stronger at higher, rather than lower levels of
task and outcome interdependence. Refer to Appendices Five and Six for
the pick-a-point table and the scatterplot of the interactions.
One explanation for this finding is that employees who worked in a
highly interdependent work context noticed that their outcome was
affected by their own as well as their co-worker’s outcome. Thus,
employees realised that they can only benefit from collective success. The 246
responsibility forces motivated them to satisfy peer norms by taking the
responsibility for their own and their co-worker’s actions; therefore, they
promoted and facilitated mutual goal achievement. Clearly, the result of
pick-a-point tests highlights the fact that task and outcome
interdependence created a positive social interdependence among
employees, which in turn promoted cooperative interactions.
Social interdependence theory also confirms this reasoning and
highlights that high task and outcome interdependence creates positive
social interdependence. Being motivated by mutual benefits, employees
feel responsible for co-worker’s outcomes and will act in a trusting and
trustworthy manner. They will exchange resources, information, and
materials more efficiently and will provide assistance and help each other
and facilitate one another’s efforts (Johnson & Johnson, 2005; Van der
Vegt, & Vliert, 2000).
Further evidence supporting this finding may lie in the previous studies
on interdependence and group design literature. In a series of studies, Van
der Vegt and Molleman (2000, 2002, 2007) found that high task
interdependence paired with outcome interdependence have positive
impacts on employees’ attitudes and behaviours. They have demonstrated
that such a work context attenuates the detrimental effects of high task
interdependence (such as withholding or delaying resources) and
increases employees internal motivation to cooperate and achieve
collective success, which in turns increases job satisfaction, job
commitment, team satisfaction, and team commitment (Van der Vegt, &
Molleman, 2000, 2002, 2007).
247
Further, the results of meta-analysis studies confirm this finding and
highlight that task and outcome interdependence strengthen cohesion,
interpersonal helping, goal commitment, and group performance (Aube &
Rousseau, 2005; Bachrach, Powell, Bendoly, & Richey, 2006; Bachrach,
Powell, Collins, & Richey, 2006; Humphrey et al., 2007).
Along these lines of arguments, the thesis argued that social
characteristics of work (interdependence and social support, in this case)
play central roles in the crossover of attitudes and behaviour (i.e.
engagement in this case) in the workplace.
Confirming much of the previous studies in interdependence and group
design literature, this finding suggests that task and outcome
interdependence heighten interactions among co-workers, increase open
communication and concern for other employee’s outcomes and create a
climate for cooperation and mutual help (Fairfield, Wagner, & Victory,
2004; Lin, 2010; Van der Vegt, Emans, & Van de Vliert, 1998). Thus, task
and outcome interdependence are functional factors and create a social
context in which employees enter the crossover process and affect one
another’s attitudes and behaviours.
6.2.4 Hypothesis 5: The Affective Factor
Hypothesis 5 was also raised to test an indirect mechanism of
engagement crossover in the workplace. Hypothesis 5 stated that
workplace friendship moderates the crossover of engagement from one
employee to his or her co-worker. This means that as work relationships
become stronger and employees perceive their co-worker as their friend,
248
they enter the crossover processes and can affect one another’s
engagement levels.
Consistent in both studies, hypothesis 5 was supported. As can be seen
in Table 5.7 in Study 1, and Table 5.15 in Study 2, the relationship
between perceived co-worker engagement and employee engagement
significantly strengthened after adding the interaction term of workplace
friendship. This means that engagement crossover was stronger when
employees perceived their co-worker as their friend.
Interestingly, workplace friendship significantly increased the crossover
of engagement even after other confounding variables (affect (positive
and negative), personality (Big Five), job demands, resources, and task
characteristics (task variety, task significance, and task identity) were
controlled in Study 2. This means that, in both studies, employees who
perceived their co-worker as their friend, benefited from their co-workers’
instrumental and emotional supports, therefore, they got affected by their
co-worker’s engagement and increased their own engagement with the
tasks.
Indeed, the results of the pick-a-point tests (Hayes, 2015; Preacher et
al., 2007) lend further support to the argument that workplace friendship
is the affective factor and creates a boundary condition for engagement
crossover in the workplace. According to the results of the pick-a-point
tests, the relationship between perceived co-worker engagement and
employee engagement became stronger as the level of workplace
friendship increased between the two employees.
Further evidence comes from the results of the 2 moderators, 2-way
Interactions test in Study 1. A closer look at the 2 moderators, 2-way 249
Interactions test in Study 1 (Appendix Six) reveals an important finding.
According to this test, when there were high workplace friendship and low
task and outcome interdependence (high-low combination), the
engagement crossover was slightly stronger than when there were low
workplace friendship and high task and outcome interdependence (low-
high combination). Yet, when both workplace friendship and task and
outcome interdependence were high (high-high combination), the
engagement crossover was the strongest. See Appendix Six for the 2
moderators, 2-way Interactions table and the scatterplot of the
interactions in Study 1.
This finding is probably the most important finding of the thesis and
confirms the thesis’ argument about the interpersonal effects of employee
engagement. This finding demonstrates that employee engagement can
crossover from one employee to his or her co-worker; however, workplace
friendship qualifies this process more significantly in the workplace. This
means that when employees perceive their co-workers as their friends
rather than mere role occupants, they feel supported and trusted and
engage in cooperative behaviours, even though the work context does not
imply high interdependence.
This finding highlights the fact that positive work relationships and
social support are stronger motivators for employees to engage than
instrumental and functional factors. A closer look at the evolution of the
motivational theory since the early twentieth century confirms this finding
and highlights the increasing emphasis on the integrated, people-focused
work contexts. Although the “Human Relations Movement” (Mayo, 1930),
have established the importance of human dynamics over the contextual 250
factors in motivating individuals to engage, recent perspectives on
motivation and engagement have emphasised the importance of
interpersonal relationships in creating the motivation to engage in work
activities. Along similar lines, Kahn (1990) emphasised the role of open,
supportive, and trusting relationships in predicting and facilitating
employee engagement (Kahn, 1990).
The importance of social characteristics of work has also been
highlighted in recent studies. In a meta-analysis Humphrey et al. (2007)
examined the relationship between the social characteristics of work and
employees’ attitudinal outcomes. The results of the analysis showed that
there were significant associations between the social characteristics of
work (such as social support, interaction outside the organisation and
interdependence) and employees’ attitudes, above and beyond the
contextual factors (such as motivational tasks and knowledge
characteristics) (Humphrey et al., 2007).
Further evidence supporting the affective role of workplace friendship
comes from previous research into positive workplace relationships
(Colbert et al., 2016; Morrison & Nolan, 2009; Sias, 2008; Tse, Spears, &
Ashkanasy, 2008). For instance, Colbert’s et al (2016) taxonomy of
relationship functions highlights the role of workplace friendship in
predicting employees flourishing. Colbert et al (2016) found that
workplace friendship not only provides the traditional task assistance and
career development, it can also facilitate social support, personal growth,
and positive emotions at work (Colbert et al., 2016).
Comparable results were obtained by Tse, Spears, and Ashkanasy
(2008) and Lin (2010) who found that workplace friendship creates a social 251
system, which positively affects work attitudes and behaviours. These
studies have established that workplace friendship facilitates high quality
team member exchange and task effectiveness (Lin, 2010; Tse, Spears, &
Ashkanasy, 2008).
Clearly, workplace friendship provides a sense of identity, oneness,
affective and cognitive bonding among employees (Karanika-Murray et al.,
2014). This feeling facilitates a range of desirable attitudes and
behaviours, which reinforces a willingness to perform better and to engage
with the work (employee engagement, in this case) (Karanika-Murray et
al., 2014).
Unlike Study 1, 2 moderators, 2-way Interactions of task and outcome
interdependence and workplace friendship was not significant in Study 2.
Although each of the moderators had a significant effect on the crossover
of engagement separately, adding the three-way interaction to the model
did not result in a significant R-square change. This is because the sample
size in Study 2 (N=250) was much smaller than Study 1 (N=528);
therefore, adding extra paths to the model resulted in an under-identified
model and insignificant relationships (Hayes, 2015; Preacher et al., 2007).
Revisit Table 5.16 for the results of 2 moderators, 2-way Interactions test
in Study 2.
6.3 Conclusion
In this discussion, findings from the analysis of data in two empirical
studies and the review of literature were combined in order to answer the
research questions and test the five emerging hypotheses. Each
252
hypothesis was explained in turn with reference to the research findings
and their fit and consistency with theory as well as previously published
contributions in the literature. The findings of the thesis have resulted in
contributions to theory and practice, which are summarised in Chapter
Seven.
In summarising, this discussion has outlined the findings of the two
studies, which confirm much of the previous findings and contribute to our
understanding of employee engagement. The evidence is presented to
establish that employee engagement can crossover from an employee to
his or her co-worker in the workplace (Hypothesis 1).
An important finding to emerge in this research is that employee
engagement is not an emotion or a mood, which can be transferred to
others through the empathy and/or the emotional contagion, processes
(Hypotheses 2 and 3).
A second consistent finding was that work-related factors such as the
design of the tasks, the structure of the goals (task and outcome
interdependence) and work relationships (workplace friendship) create a
social system and boundary conditions for the crossover of employee
engagement in the workplace (Hypotheses 4 and 5). Therefore, the
engagement crossover model, which is underpinned by the social
interdependence theory, is shown to explain the engagement crossover
process in the workplace.
Having established the model of engagement crossover and its
boundary conditions in the workplace, the final chapter discusses the
theoretical and practical implications of the research. A discussion of the
253
limitations of the thesis and recommendations for future research
conclude Chapter Seven and this thesis.
Chapter Seven Thesis Conclusion
“This chapter concludes four years of my research Odyssey and opens a Grand Tour to my academic life”. Mojdeh Mehrgan
254
7.1 Introduction
To reiterate, an in-depth literature review recognised that there are
relatively limited academic enquiries into the interpersonal effects of
employee engagement and engagement crossover in the workplace. This
has provided an opportunity for this thesis to fill the void in the literature.
The thesis adopted a realist, positivist approach to extend an existing
theory, Westman’s (2001) crossover theory, to the workplace. Although
the thesis does not deny the complex internal dynamics of an individual’s
internal conceptions or perspectives, developing insights into employees’
psychological experiences was not within the scope of this research.
Therefore, the relativist, interpretivist paradigm is excluded from this
research.
The thesis adopted a deductive, explanatory approach to extract
patterns of relationships in the engagement crossover process in the
workplace that may, after taking accounts of contextual and individual
differences, be generalised to contexts other than the research
organisation. A systematic approach was followed to ensure that the
research process was consistent and coherent.
This chapter brings the research study to a conclusion by discussing the
limitations, the theoretical and practical implications, and potential
applications of the reported findings. This is followed by a discussion of
recommendations for future research.
255
7.2 Implications of Research Findings
The following sections summarise the contributions of this thesis and
discuss the potential theoretical and practical implications of the thesis.
7.2.1 Contribution to Theory
Studies reported in the thesis (Studies 1 and 2) have theoretical and
practical implications. The thesis advanced the proposition that while
employee engagement is a personal experience, which cannot be forced
or mandated, it can crossover from one employee to his/her co-worker in
the workplace. To this aim, the first research question and hypothesis 1
were raised, which formed the central theme of the thesis: ““To what
extent does employee engagement crossover from one employee to
his/her co-worker in the workplace?” (Hypothesis 1). The findings of
Studies 1 and 2 have shown that even after the effects of demographic
variables, personality (Big Five), affect (positive and negative), job
resources and demands (work pressure), and task characteristics (task
variety, task significance, and task identity) were controlled in the
analysis, employee engagement crossed over from employees to their co-
workers in an interdependent work context. These findings supported the
argument in the thesis that whilst employee engagement is a
discretionary willingness and a personal experience (Kahn, 1990; Macey et
al., 2008), it is not entirely individual, but rather it is a shared experience.
One of the important theoretical contributions of the thesis is that it
provides an empirical evidence for the direct, indirect processes and
common stressors concurrently. The five hypotheses were raised to test
256
these mechanisms and address the limitations in the existing body of
research in crossover literature. The thesis provided an empirical test of
the empathy process in the two studies and showed that neither empathic
concern nor perspective taking strengthen engagement crossover
between two interdependent employees. These findings are novel and
contribute to crossover research by empirically proving that Westman’s
(2001) proposition for the direct transfer of positive psychological states
via empathy cannot be substantiated to the crossover of employee
engagement in the workplace. Failure of previous studies to provide
empirical evidence for the direct process of empathy further support this
argument (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009; Bakker et al., 2006; Ten
Brummelhuis et al., 2014).
Yet another contribution of the thesis is the identification of task and
outcome interdependence and workplace friendship as indirect
mechanisms of engagement crossover in the workplace. Review of
crossover literature recognised that, to date, only frequency of exposure
(Bakker & Schaufeli, 2000), similarity (Bakker, et al., 2001; Bakker, et al.,
2007), team cohesion and social support (Westman et al., 2011) and
Leader’s supportive behaviour (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2014; Wetman &
Chen, 2017) have been detected as moderators in the crossover process.
The boundary effects of task and outcome interdependence and workplace
friendship were empirically tested in the two studies. The results were
confirmatory of the argument and developed a deeper understanding of
the interpersonal effects of employee engagement. Clearly, these findings
are new and further contribute to crossover research by extending
257
Westman’s (2001) initial model to the workplace and uncovering the
indirect mechanisms of engagement crossover process.
Finally, disparate strands of literature linking employee engagement,
crossover, work design, and workplace relationships have been
synthesised, empirically tested and developed into the theoretical model
of engagement crossover (refer to Chapter Three), which may, after taking
account of contextual and organisational factors, be generalised to
contexts other than the research organisation. This is the main
contribution of the thesis to crossover research, because not only did the
proposed model empirically test the three mechanisms of crossover
concurrently in two independent studies but also, it identified specific
indirect mechanisms for the crossover of employee engagement in the
workplace.
7.2.2 Contribution to Practice
The insight gained from this research may be applied to inform leaders
and managers about factors affecting employees’ engagement
experiences, the social dynamics, work design and work relationships, and
the extent to which they affect employees’ attitudes and behaviours.
Having acknowledged the importance of work design and work
relationships as key factors in the engagement crossover process in the
workplace, the thesis suggests a number of principles and techniques
which managers and leaders may apply to facilitate, encourage, and
maintain employee engagement in organisations.
The insight gained from the findings of the thesis (the interpersonal
effects of employee engagement and the role of work design and work 258
relationships in the engagement crossover process), would help managers
and leaders to recognise and focus on the key factors, which can improve
employees’ engagement experiences in the workplace. The proposed
principles and techniques emphasise the link between work design and
work relationships and the well-being crossover process in a practical
context. These techniques can also help managers and leaders have a
better understanding of their staff, their needs, factors affecting their
motivations, and engagement at work. The following subsection
summarises these principles and techniques.
1. Creating A Supportive Climate Through Workplace Friendship
As discussed in section 6.2.3, one of the important findings of this thesis
was that workplace friendship significantly quantifies employee
engagement crossover from one employee to his or her co-worker in the
workplace. This means that when employees perceive their co-workers as
their friends rather than mere role occupants, they feel supported and
trusted and engage in cooperative behaviour.
Whilst some organisations may discourage workplace friendship,
because they believe that it will lead to office romances, decrease
productivity, office gossip, and conflicts of interest (Berman et al., 2002;
Morrison & Noland, 2007), the thesis highlights the importance of
workplace friendship in creating a supportive climate and a social system,
which helps encourage, maintain, and enhance employee engagement in
the organisation. In light of the findings of the thesis, one way to create
the supportive climate in organisations is through workplace friendship.
The thesis recommends some techniques, which managers and leaders 259
may apply to create a supportive, cooperative, and friendly environment in
the workplace.
One technique is that companies directly try to foster friendships among
employees. This can be achieved by creating an environment in which
employees spend more hours together at work. Having on-site amenities
and activities such as cafes, in-site gym, childcare facilities, nurseries,
kid’s playground, on-site hair salon, barbershops, and sports facilities can
encourage employees to spend more time together and discover their
shared interests. Successful companies such as Google, Facebook, and
Apple have pioneered these techniques and are reported to be the most
desirable places to work due to their friendly environment.
Managers and leaders can play an integral role in creating a positive
work climate where employees have the opportunity to meet new co-
workers and develop friendships. One technique is to support relationship
building and networking through company-sponsored programs or events
such as Christmas dinners, retirement parties, and new arrival parties and
so on. Additionally, the creation of affiliation groups can bring similar
employees together and provide them with the opportunity to get to know
one another and develop new friendships.
7.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research
This section identifies key strengths and limitations of the thesis. In light
of the limitations of the research, the thesis gives recommendations for
future research.
260
One potential strength of the thesis is that the proposed theoretical
model and the research hypotheses were tested in two studies; each study
built on and developed from the previous one until the research matured
to provide a comprehensive test of engagement crossover in the
workplace. Firstly, Study 1 was not limited to one organisation or an
industry, the sample demographics consisted of: 132 employees amongst
service providers, 128 business and trading, and 250 employees in the
NHS, non-profit corporates, and governmental and charity organisations
based in England, which may enable the researcher, after taking accounts
of the contextual and individual differences, to generalise the findings to
various organisations and occupations.
On the other hand, Study 2 replicated Study 1. Study 2 was conducted
on a sample of 250 employees of a petrochemical company in Iran’s gas
and oil industry. To thoroughly factor out spurious variances, and to
partition variances in engagement crossover to its respective factors,
extra measures were added to the research design such as employees’
organisational positions, job resources and demands (work pressure), and
task characteristics (task variety, task significance, and task identity).
Therefore, Study 2 had a more rigorous design and addressed the issues
identified in Study 1. Revisit section 5.2.4 for further discussion on this
point.
Secondly, the results of Study 2 were identical with those of Study 1.
Therefore, together, Studies 1 and 2 provided compelling evidence that
employee engagement is not an emotion or a mood; thus, work-related
factors such as task and outcome interdependence and workplace
friendship play functional and affective roles in the engagement crossover 261
process in the workplace, rather than the empathy and the emotional
contagious processes.
Despite having a rigorous research design, some limitations in this thesis
need to be acknowledged. The first limitation concerns the cross-sectional
nature of the research, which does not allow the researcher to determine
causality or confirm the direction of the relationships. To investigate the
causality and the direction of the relationships in the crossover processes,
a longitudinal or repeated diary measure is needed. Secondly, the
research provided a unidirectional test of engagement crossover in the
workplace. Clearly, a more comprehensive test of engagement crossover
between employees and their co-workers necessitates a bi-directional test
of this process. A bi-directional test provides an opportunity to test the
reciprocity of engagement crossover among employees and gives a clear
picture of the direction of the crossover.
Informed by the limitations of the research, this thesis gives some
recommendations for future research. Research reported in the thesis
examined the engagement crossover process in the workplace. The
research identified that relational work designs and positive work
relationships create boundary conditions for the engagement crossover
process. Nevertheless, more research is required to develop a deeper
understanding of the factors and mechanisms involved in well-being
crossover processes in the workplace.
For example, to investigate the social context of the work and its effect
on the engagement crossover process, the thesis adopted the relational
perspective towards work design; however, among the five identified
social characteristics of the work context (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006), 262
the thesis focused on the functional role of task and outcome
interdependence on the engagement crossover process. Future research
may examine the effects of other relational work design factors such as
interaction outside the organisation and/or feedback from others. Future
research may also adopt a proactive perspective towards work design and
investigate the effect of autonomy, accountability, and routinisation on the
well-being crossover processes in the workplace.
Moreover, the thesis examined the process of engagement crossover
among co-workers working in an interdependent work context.
Nevertheless, different processes may affect engagement crossover in
independent work contexts. Future research may examine the crossover
processes in less interdependent or independent work contexts. Likewise,
future research is needed to develop a deeper insight into the crossover
processes among employees at different organisational levels, such as
crossover of engagement from supervisors to subordinates, or from
subordinates to supervisors.
In terms of the methodology, causality and the direction of the
engagement crossover process have not been claimed in the current
research due to the unidirectional test of engagement crossover. Future
research may adopt a longitudinal bidirectional dyadic research design
such as longitudinal latent growth curve analysis or multilevel dyadic
analysis and establish the reciprocal and casual relationships in well-being
crossover processes.
The thesis has also revealed that workplace friendship has the affective
role in strengthening the engagement crossover process in the workplace;
however, the study of workplace friendship is relatively new and holds 263
many opportunities for future research. Future research may build on the
findings of the thesis and investigate other potential favourable outcomes
of workplace friendship, such as its effect on turnover, performance,
productivity, and reduced absenteeism.
In addition, there are still many opportunities to examine different
moderators of the relationship between workplace friendship and the
outcomes of this research (employee engagement). For example, the
relationship between interdependence (task and outcome
interdependence), workplace friendship and employee engagement may
be moderated by a variety of other variables, such as empathy,
personality, and leader-member exchange.
Future research may also examine how workplace friendship is
perceived differently in other cultures. For example, would workplace
friendship be perceived more favourably in a collectivist culture than in an
individualistic culture? Could this possibly result in different organisational
outcomes? For managers, who are interested in knowing how to develop a
positive social climate that fosters positive relationships, further research
may examine how the physical environment, the organisational structure,
and the job design influences workplace friendship.
Finally, although the thesis mainly focused on the positive outcome of
workplace friendship, negative outcomes, such as workplace distractions,
sexual harassment, prosocial unethical behaviour, and conflicts of interest
may relate to workplace friendship. More research is needed to examine
whether a workplace friendship is a double-edged sword.
264
7.4 Conclusion
This thesis sought insights from the literature on employee
engagement, crossover, work design, and work relationships to investigate
the crossover of employee engagement and its boundary conditions in the
workplace. The thesis recognised that a theoretical issue has dominated
the brief body of research on engagement crossover, which resulted in a
lack of deep understanding of the engagement crossover processes in the
workplace. The thesis addressed this theoretical issue and identified task
and outcome interdependence and workplace friendship as the functional
and affective factors, which affect engagement crossover process in the
workplace. See section 3.2 for further discussions on this point.
Chapter Three presented an engagement crossover model, which is a
synthesis of the literature and explains the key concepts and shows how
they inter-relate. The theoretical model and the five research hypotheses
were tested in two independent studies. The findings of Studies 1 and 2
were identical and confirmatory of the thesis argument.
Chapter Six discussed and outlined the findings of the thesis. The thesis
confirmed much of the previous studies and contributed to our
understanding of employee engagement and the engagement crossover
process in the workplace. The important finding that emerged from the
thesis revealed that employee engagement can crossover from one
employee to his/her co-worker in the workplace. However, this crossover is
not simply an emotional process which can be transferred to others
through the empathy and/or the emotional contagion processes, rather
the thesis established that work-related factors such as design of the
265
tasks, the structure of the goals (task and outcome interdependence) and
work relationships (workplace friendship) create a social system and
boundary conditions for the crossover of employee engagement in the
workplace. Hence, these findings are significant and add to the body of
knowledge about employee engagement.
Chapter Seven focused primarily on the implications of the findings both
in theory and practice. It was discussed that this thesis contributes to the
conceptual and empirical perspectives of employee engagement crossover
in the workplace. The engagement crossover model provides a thorough
test of the engagement crossover process in the workplace. Techniques
and principles are suggested, which may be applied by leaders and
managers to encourage, maintain, and enhances employee engagement
and performance. A discussion of the limitations of the research and
recommendations for future research concluded Chapter Seven and the
thesis.
References
Alimo-Metcalfe, B., Alban-Metcalfe, J., Bradley, M., Mariathasan, J., &
Samele, C. (2008). The impact of engaging leadership on performance,
attitudes to work and wellbeing at work: A longitudinal study. Journal
of Health Organization and Management, 22(6), 586-598.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Begley, T. M. (2003). The employment
relationships of foreign workers versus local employees: A field study
266
of organizational justice, job satisfaction, performance, and OCB.
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 24(5), 561-583.
Arakawa, D., & Greenberg, M. (2007). Optimistic managers and their
influence on productivity and employee engagement in a technology
organization: Implications for coaching psychologists. International
Coaching Psychology Review, 2(1), 78-89.
Aubé, C., & Rousseau, V. (2005). Team goal commitment and team
effectiveness: The role of task interdependence and supportive
behaviours. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(3),
189.
Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Bendoly, E., & Richey, R. G. (2006).
Organizational citizenship behaviour and performance evaluations:
Exploring the impact of task interdependence. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(1), 193-201.
Bakker, A., Gierveld, J., & Van Rijswijk, K. (2006). Success factors among
female school principals in primary teaching: A study on burnout, work
engagement, and performance. Right Management Consultants,
Diemen, the Netherlands.
Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., Xanthopoulou, D., & Schaufeli, W. (2007). How
job and personal resources influence work engagement and financial
turnover: A diary study in a Greek fast-food company. International
Journal of Stress Management, 14, 121-141.
267
Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 265-269.
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Sixma, H. and Bosveld, W. (2001). Burnout
contagion among general practitioners. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 20 (1), pp. 82-98.
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2000). Burnout contagion processes
among teachers.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2289–2308.
Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions
regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 4-28.
Bakker, A. B., & Bal, M. P. (2010). Weekly work engagement and
performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 83(1), 189-206.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work
engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209-223.
Bakker, A. B., Emmerik, H. V., & Euwema, M. C. (2006). Crossover of
burnout and engagement in work teams. Work and occupations, 33(4),
464-489.
Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job
performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Human
Relations, 65(10), 1359-1378. 268
Bakker, A. B., Van Veldhoven, M., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2010). Beyond the
demand-control model. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(1), 3–16.
Bakker, A. B. (2014). Daily fluctuations in work engagement: An overview
and current directions. European Psychologist, 19(4), 227-236.
Bakker, A. B., Shimazu, A., Demerouti, E., Shimada, S., & Kawamaki, N.
(2011). Crossover of work engagement among Japanese couples:
Perspective taking by both partners. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 16, 112–125.
Bakker, A. B., LeBlanc, P. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Burnout contagion
among nurses who work at intensive care units. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 51, 276–287.
Bakker, A. B., Shimazu, A., Demerouti, E., Shimada, K., & Kawakami, N.
(2014). Work engagement versus workaholism: A test of the spillover-
crossover model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(1), 63-80.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B., & Xanthopoulou, D.,
(2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal
resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational
Behaviour, 74(3), 235-244.
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008).
Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three
different kinds of employee Well‐being? Applied Psychology, 57(2),
173-203.
269
Bakker, A. B., Westman, M., Hetty van Emmerik, I., Westman, M., Etzion,
D., & Chen, S. (2009). Crossover of positive experiences from business
travellers to their spouses. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(3),
269-284.
Bakker, A. B., Westman, M., & Hetty van Emmerik, I. (2009).
Advancements in crossover theory. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 24(3), 206-219.
Bakker, A.B., Westman, M., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2007). Crossover of burnout:
An experimental design. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 16, 220_239.
Bakker, A. B., Lieke, L., Prins, J. T., & van der Heijden, Frank MMA. (2011).
Applying the job demands–resources model to the work–home
interface: A study among medical residents and their partners. Journal
of Vocational Behaviour, 79(1), 170-180.
Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., & LaGanke, J. S.
(2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision
making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, 87(1), 156-179.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behaviour modification. Oxford, England:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its
influence on group behaviour. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4),
644-675. 270
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion
and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct
relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989.
Berman, E. M., West, J. P., & Richter Jr, M. N. (2002). Workplace relations:
Friendship patterns and consequences (according to managers). Public
Administration Review, 62(2), 217-230.
Bhaskar, R. & Lawson, T. (1998). Introduction: Basic Texts and
Developments. Critical Realism; Essential Readings. M. Archer, R.
Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson & A. Norrie. London, Routledge.
Bhaskar, R. (2008). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. Routledge.
Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2008). Completing qualitative research: A
roadmap from beginning to end. Sage Publications.
Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). Employee satisfaction with
performance appraisals and appraisers: The role of perceived appraisal
use. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(3), 283.
Britt, T. W., Castro, C. A., & Adler, A. B. (2005). Self-engagement,
stressors, and health: A longitudinal study. Personality & Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31(11), 1475-1486.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. Oxford, Oxford University
Press.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Ethics in business research. Business
Research Methods. Oxford, Oxford University Press.271
Brough, P., Muller, W., & Westman, M. (2018). Work, stress, and
relationships: The crossover process model. Australian Journal of
Psychology.
Callan, M.J., Kim, H., Gheorghiu, A.I., & Matthews, W.J. (2016). The
interrelations between social class, personal relative deprivation, and
prosociality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8 (6), 660–
669.
Campion, M.A., Papper, E.A. & Medsker, G.J. (1996). Relations between
team characteristics and effectiveness: a replication and extension.
Personnel Psychology, 49, 429-452.
Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J. & Higgs, C.A. (1993). Relations between work
group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing
effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.
Chen, Z., & Powell, G. N. (2012). No pain, no gain? A resource-based model
of work-to-family enrichment and conflict. Journal of Vocational
Behaviour, 81(1), 89-98.
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 Psychology, 64(1), 89-136.
Christians, C. G. (2005). Ethics and Politics in Qualitative Research. The
Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln.
London, Sage Publications: 139-164.
272
Colbert, A. E., Bono, J. E., & Purvanova, R. K. (2016). Flourishing via
workplace relationships: Moving beyond instrumental
support. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1199-1223.
Cole, M. S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A. G., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2012). Job burnout
and employee engagement: A meta-analytic examination of construct
proliferation. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1550-1581.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Sage
Publications.
Crawford, E. R., Rich, B. L., & Lepine, J. A. (2010). Job engagement:
Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635.
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research. London, Sage
Publications.
Culbertson, S. S., Mills, M. J., & Fullagar, C. J. (2012). Work engagement
and work-family facilitation: Making homes happier through positive
affective spill-over. Human Relations, 65(9), 1155-1177.
Czarnowsky, M. (2008). Learning’s role in employee engagement: An ASTD
research Study. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training &
Development.
Damer, E., Webb, T. L., & Crisp, R. J. (2018). Diversity Helps the
Uninterested: Exposure to Counter-stereotypes Promotes Cognitive
273
Reflection for People Low (But not High) in Need for Cognition.
Retrieved from psyarxiv.com/3b65k.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence
for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 44(1), 113-126.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and
practice of qualitative research.
Dean, K. L. & Jolly, J. P. (2012). Student Identity, Disengagement, and
Learning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11 (2),
228-243.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The
job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(3), 499.
Demerouti, E., Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009).
Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources,
and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 74(3), 235-
244.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). The crossover of
burnout and work engagement among working couples. Human
Relations, 58(5), 661-689.
274
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Spillover and
crossover of exhaustion and life satisfaction among dual-earner
parents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 266–289.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of co-operation and competition. Human
Relations, 2(2), 129-152.
Dollard, M. F., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a
precursor to conducive work environments, psychological health
problems, and employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83, 579-599.
Donaldson, S. I., & Ko, I. (2010). Positive organizational psychology,
behavior, and scholarship: A review of the emerging literature and
evidence base. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(3), 177-191.
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. (2002). Systematic combining: an abductive
approach to case research. Journal of business research, 55(7), 553-
560.
Dutton, J. E., & Ragins, B. R. (2017). Exploring positive relationships at
work: Building a theoretical and research foundation. Psychology
Press.
Edmondson, A. C. & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological Fit in
Management Field Research. Academy of Management Review,
32(4), 1155-1179.
275
Fairfield, K. D., Wagner, R. F., & Victory, J. (2004). Whose side are you on?
Interdependence and its consequences in management of healthcare
delivery. Journal of Healthcare Management, 49(1), 17.
Fiksenbaum, L., Burke, R. J., Koyuncu, M., & Tekin, Y. (2013). Antecedents
and consequences of work engagement among frontline employees in
Turkish hotels. Journal of Transnational Management, 18(3), 191-203.
Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family
satisfaction and conflict: a meta-analysis of cross-domain relations.
Journal of applied psychology, 92(1), 57.
Fragale, A. R. (2006). The power of powerless speech: The effects of
speech style and task interdependence on status conferral.
Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 243-
261.
Fried, Y., Levi, A. S., & Laurence, G. (2008). Motivation and job design in
the new world of work. In the oxford handbook of personnel
psychology.
Gerlitz, J. Y., & Schupp, J. (2005). Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten
persoenlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP. DIW Research Notes, 4, 2005.
Gill, J., & Johnson, P. (2010). Research Methods for Managers (4 th edn).
London: Sage Publication.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). 7 redesigning work design theories:
The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of
Management Annals, 3(1), 317-375. 276
Gray, D. E. (2013). Doing research in the real world. Sage Publications.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies:
A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review,
31(1), 72-92.
Grix, J. (2010). The foundations of research. Palgrave Macmillan.
Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and
employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2),
123-136.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic Controversies,
Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences. The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. London, Sage
Publications: 191-215.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of
work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Performance, 16(2), 250-279.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign (Vol. 72). Reading:
Addison-Wesley.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work
engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6),
495-513.
Hakanen, J. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Do burnout and work engagement
predict depressive symptoms and life satisfaction? A three-wave 277
seven-year prospective study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 141(2–3),
415-424.
Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same" but different? Can
work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and
organizational commitment? European Psychologist, 11(2), 119.
Halbesleben, J. R., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A
conservation of resources views of the relationship between work
engagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(6), 1452.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level
relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement,
and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 268.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2003). Well-being in the
workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the
Gallup studies. Flourishing: Positive Psychology and the Life Well-
Lived, 2, 205-224.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional
contagion. Cambridge University Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation.
Multivariate Behavioural Research, 50(1), 1-22.
278
Hirschfeld, R. R. & Field, H. S. (2000). Work Centrality and Work Alienation:
Distinct Aspects of a General Commitment to Work. Journal of
Organisational Behaviour 21, 789-800.
Holbeche, L., & Springett, N. (2004). In search of meaning at work. Roffey
Park Institute, Horsham.
Howe, G., Levy, M. and Caplan, R. (2004). Job loss and depressive
symptoms in couples: common stressors, stress transmission, or
relationship disruption? Journal of Family Psychology, 18 (4), pp. 639-
50.
Hughes, J., & Rog, E. (2008). Talent management: A strategy for improving
employee recruitment, retention and engagement within hospitality
organizations. Human Resource Management International Digest,
16(7), 12.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating
motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-
analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332.
Inceoglu, I., & Warr, P. (2011). Personality and job engagement. Journal of
Personnel Psychology, 10(4), 177-181.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New developments in social
interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
Monographs, 131(4), 285-358.
279
Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-
724.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work.
Human Relations, 45(4), 321-349.
Kahn, W. A. (2010). 2 the essence of engagement: Lessons from the field.
Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research
and Practice, 20.
Karanika-Murray, M. & Biron, C. (2014). Process evaluation for
organizational stress and well-being interventions: Implications for
theory, method, and practice. International Journal of Stress
Management, 21(1), 85.
Karatepe, O. M., & Demir, E. (2014). Linking core self-evaluations and work
engagement to work-family facilitation: A study in the hotel industry.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(2),
307-323.
Karatepe, O. M. (2013). High-performance work practices and hotel
employee performance: The mediation of work
engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32(0),
132-140.
Kidwell, R.E., Mossholder, K.W. and Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and
organizational citizenship behaviour: a multilevel analysis using work
groups and individuals. Journal of Management, 23 (6), pp. 775-93.280
Kiggundu, M. N. (1981). Task interdependence and the theory of job
design. Academy of Management Review, 6(3), 499-508.
Kim, H. J., Shin, K. H., & Swanger, N. (2009). Burnout and engagement: A
comparative analysis using the Big-Five personality dimensions.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 96–104.
Kirby, E. L., & Krone, K. J. (2002). The policy exists but you can’t really use
it: Communication and the structuration of work–family policies.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 50–77.
Lin, C. (2010). Learning task effectiveness and social interdependence
through the mediating mechanisms of sharing and helping: A survey of
online knowledge workers. Group & Organization Management, 35(3),
299-328.
Little, L. M., Simmons, B. L., & Nelson, D. L. (2007). Health among leaders:
Positive and negative affect, engagement and burnout, forgiveness
and revenge. Journal of Management Studies, 44(2), 243-260.
Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2007). Does a
positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement
exist? Computers in Human Behaviour, 23(1), 825-841.
Llorens, S., Salanova, M., Del Líbano, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2014).
Engaged, workaholic, Burned‐Out or just 9‐to‐5? Toward a typology of
employee Well‐being. Stress and Health, 30(1), 71-81.
281
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive
psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance
and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 541-572.
Luthans, F., Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. B. (2008). The mediating
role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate—
employee performance relationship. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 29(2), 219-238.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational
theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46(8), 819-834.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee
engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.
Mao, H. (2006). The relationship between organizational level and
workplace friendship. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 17(10), 1819-1833.
Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 19-25.
Marreiros, H., Tonin, M., Vlassopoulos, M., & Schraefel, M.C. (2017). Now
that you mention it: A survey experiment on information, inattention
and online privacy. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,
140, 1–17.
282
Maslach, C. (2011). Engagement research: Some thoughts from a burnout
perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
20(1), 47-52.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and
engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 498.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual
Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397-422.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and
resources as antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 70(1), 149-171.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological
conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the
engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11-37.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire
(WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for
assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(6), 1321.
Morrison, R. L., & Nolan, T. (2009). I get by with a little help from my
friends… at work. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences
Online, 4(1), 41-54.
283
Morrison, R., Nolan, T. (2007). Too much of a good thing? Difficulties with
workplace friendships. University of Auckland Business, 9, 33-41.
Nielsen, I. K., Jex, S. M., & Adams, G. A. (2000). Development and
validation of scores on a two-dimensional workplace friendship scale.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(4), 628-643.
O'Brien, H. L. & Toms, E. G. (2008). What is User Engagement? A
Conceptual Framework for Defining User Engagement with Technology.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 59(6), 938-955.
Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2017). Prolific. ac —A subject pool for online
experiments. Journal of Behavioural and Experimental Finance, 17, 22-
27.
Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the
Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioural research.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153-163.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of
the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of
method bias in social science research and recommendations on how
to control it. Annual review of psychology, 63, 539-569.
284
Powell, G. N., & Greenhause, J. H. (2006). Is the opposite of positive
negative? Untangling the complex relationship between work-family
enrichment and conflict. Career Development International, 11(7), 650-
659.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated
mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions.
Multivariate Behavioural Research, 42(1), 185-227.
Purcell, J. (2014). Disengaging from engagement. Human Resource
Management Journal, 24(3), 241-254.
Ragins, B. R., & Button, J. E. (2007). Positive Relationships at Work: An
Introduction and Invitation. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), LEA's
organization and management series. Exploring positive relationships
at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 3-25).
Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Rayton, B. A., & Yalabik, Z. Y. (2014). Work engagement, psychological
contract breach and job satisfaction. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 25(17), 2382-2400.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement:
Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 53(3), 617-635.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of
engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46(4), 655-684. 285
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee
engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about
employee engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly,
25(2), 155-182.
Salanova, M., Cifre, E., Llorens, S., Martínez, I., Lorente, L., Cooper, C., et
al. (2011). Psychosocial risks and positive factors among construction
workers. Occupational Health and Safety: Psychological and
Behavioural Aspects of Risk, 295-320.
Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). A cross-national study of work
engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive
behaviour. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
19(1), 116-131.
Salanova, M. Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A., (2007). Does a
positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement
exist? Computers in Human Behaviour, 23(1), 825-841.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational
resources and work engagement to employee performance and
customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(6), 1217.
Saunders, M. N., Lewis, P. P. & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for
business students, 5/e Pearson Education India.
286
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and
their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study.
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25(3), 293-315.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement
of work engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002).
The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample
confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies,
3(1), 71-92.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the job
demands-resources model: Implications for improving work and health.
Bridging occupational, organizational and public health (pp. 43-68)
Springer.
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism,
burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different
kinds of employee Well‐being? Applied Psychology, 57(2), 173-203.
Shirom, A. (2003). Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigour and
the study of positive affect in organizations. Research in Occupational
Stress and Well-being, 3, 135-164.
Shirazi, A., GolestaniNia, M., Mehrganrad, M., Naghdali, M.A. (2012).
Examining Job Characteristics Model in an Oriental Culture.
287
International Journal of Business and Management Research, 5(I), 42-
50.
Shuck, B. (2011). Integrative literature review: Four emerging perspectives
of employee engagement: An integrative literature review. Human
Resource Development Review, 10(3), 304-328.
Shuck, B., Ghosh, R., Zigarmi, D., & Nimon, K. (2013). The jingle jangle of
employee engagement further exploration of the emerging construct
and implications for workplace learning and performance. Human
Resource Development Review, 12(1), 11-35.
Shuck, B., Reio Jr, T. G., & Rocco, T. S. (2011). Employee engagement: An
examination of antecedent and outcome variables. Human Resource
Development International, 14(4), 427-445.
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A
seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development
Review, 9(1), 89-110.
Shuck, M. B., Rocco, T. S., & Albornoz, C. A. (2011). Exploring employee
engagement from the employee perspective: Implications for HRD.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(4), 300-325.
Sias, P. M. (2008). Organizing relationships: Traditional and emerging
perspectives on workplace relationships. Sage Publication.
Sias, P. M. (2005). Workplace relationship quality and employee
information experiences. Communication Studies, 56(4), 375-395.
288
Simmonds, G., Woods, A.T., Spence, C. (2018). Show me the goods:
Assessing the effectiveness of transparent packaging vs. product
imagery on product evaluation. Food Quality and Preference, 63, 18–
27.
Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory Investigations of Empathy. Advances in
experimental social psychology, 4, 271-314.
Starcevic, V., & Piontek, C. M. (1997). Emphathic understanding revisited:
Conceptualization, controversies, and limitations. American Journal of
Psychotherapy, 51(3), 317.
Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Haar, J. M., & Roche, M. (2014). Does family life
help to be a better leader? A closer look at crossover processes from
leaders to followers. Personnel Psychology, 67(4), 917-949.
Tse, H. H. M., Lam, C. K., Lawrence, S. A., & Huang, X. (2013). When my
supervisor dislikes you more than me: The effect of dissimilarity in
leader–member exchange on co-worker’s interpersonal emotion and
perceived help. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 974-988.
Tse, H. H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2008). The role of affect in vertical and
lateral exchange relationships in teams. 499-511.
Tisdale, K. (2004). Being Vulnerable and Being Ethical with I in Research.
Foundations for Research. K. Demarrais & S. D. Lapan. London,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
289
Perrin, T. (2003). Working today: Understanding what drives employee
engagement. The 2003 Towers Perrin Talent Report, 2.
Van Kleef, G. A., van den Berg, H., & Heerdink, M. W. (2015). The
persuasive power of emotions: Effects of emotional expressions on
attitude formation and change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4),
1124.
Van der Vegt, Gerben S, & Molleman, E. (2007). The relationships among
asymmetry in task dependence, perceived helping behaviour, and
trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1625.
Van Der Vegt, Gerben S, Van De Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. (2003).
Informational dissimilarity and organizational citizenship behaviour:
The role of intrateam interdependence and team identification.
Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 715-727.
Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van De Vliert, E. (2000). Team members’
affective responses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job
complexity. Journal of Management, 26(4), 633-655.
Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van De Vliert, E. (1998). Motivating effects
of task and outcome interdependence in work teams. Group &
Organization Management, 23(2), 124-143.
Van der Vegt, Jacobus JW, & Van der Ven, H. (2002). Space–time
discontinuous galerkin finite element method with dynamic grid motion
for inviscid compressible flows: I. general formulation. Journal of
Computational Physics, 182(2), 546-585.290
Wagner, R., & Harter, J. K. (2006). 12: The elements of great
managing Gallup Press.
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145-80.
Warr, P. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health. Oxford
University Press.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation
of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS
scales. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(6), 1063.
Wefald, A. J., Reichard, R. J., & Serrano, S. A. (2011). Fitting engagement
into a nomological network the relationship of engagement to
leadership and personality. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 18(4), 522-537.
Westman, M. (2001). Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations, 54(6),
717-751.
Westman, M., Keinan, G., Roziner, I., & Benyamini, Y. (2008). The
crossover of perceived health between spouses. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 13(2), 168.
Westman, M. & Etzion, D., (1999). Vacation and the crossover of strain
between spouses: Stopping the vicious cycle. Tel Aviv University,
Faculty of Management, the Leon Recanati Graduate School of
Business Administration.
291
Westman, M., Etzion, D., & Danon, E. (2001). Job insecurity and crossover
of burnout in married couples. Journal of Organizational Behaviour,
22(5), 467-481.
Westman, M., Etzion, D., & Horovitz, S. (2004). The toll of unemployment
does not stop with the unemployed. Human Relations, 57, 823–844.
Westman, M., Shadach, E., & Keinan, G. (2013). The crossover of positive
and negative emotions: The role of state empathy. International
Journal of Stress Management, 20(2), 116.
Westman, M. and Etzion, D. (2005). The crossover of work-family conflict
from one spouse to the other. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35
(9), pp. 1936-57.
Westman, M., Etzion, D., & Gortler, E. (2004). The work-family interface
and burnout. International Journal of Stress Management, 11(4), 413.
Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (1995). Crossover of stress, strain and
resources from one spouse to another. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 16(2), 169-181.
Westman, M., & Vinokur, A. D. (1998). Unravelling the relationship of
distress levels within couples: Common stressors, empathic reactions,
or crossover via social interaction? Human Relations, 51(2), 137-156.
Westman, M., Bakker, A. B., Hetty van Emmerik, I., Westman, M., Etzion,
D., & Chen, S. (2009). Crossover of positive experiences from business
292
travellers to their spouses. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(3),
269-284.
Westman, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2008). Crossover of burnout among health
care professionals. Health Care, 24(3), 1-16.
Westman, M., Hetty van Emmerik, I., Bakker, A. B., Etzion, D., & Chen, S.
(2009). Crossover of positive experiences from business travellers to
their spouses. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(3), 269-284.
Westman, M. (2002). Crossover of stress and strain in the family and in the
workplace. In Perrewe, P.L. & Ganster, D.C. (Eds), Research in
Occupational Stress and Well-being, 2, JAI Press/Elsevier Science,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 143-81.
Westman, M. (2013). Crossover of positive states and experiences. Stress
and Health, 29(4), 263-265.
Westman, M., & Chen, S. (2017). Crossover of burnout and engagement
from manageres to followers. 2017).the Handbook of Stress and
Health: A Guide to Research and Practice.John Wiley & Sons.Cap, 14,
236-248.
Westman, M., Bakker, A. B., Roziner, I., & Sonnentag, S. (2011). Crossover
of job demands and emotional exhaustion within teams: A longitudinal
multilevel study. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 24(5), 561-577.
Westman, M. (2006). Crossover of stress and strain in the work-family
context. In F. Jones, R. J. Burke, & M. Westman (Eds.), Work-life
293
balance: A psychological perspective (pp. 163-184). New York, NY, US:
Psychology Press.
Westman, M., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). Crossover of
burnout: An experimental design. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 16(2), 220-239.
Winstead, B. A., Derlega, V. J., Montgomery, M. J., & Pilkington, C. (1995).
The quality of friendships at work and job satisfaction. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 12(2), 199-215.
Wirtz, N., Rigotti, T., Otto, K., & Loeb, C. (2017). What about the leader?
Crossover of emotional exhaustion and work engagement from
followers to leaders. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(1),
86.
Wollard, K. K., & Shuck, B. (2011). Antecedents to employee engagement:
A structured review of the literature. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 13(4), 429-446.
Woods, S. A., & Sofat, J. A. (2013). Personality and engagement at work:
The mediating role of psychological meaningfulness. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 43(11), 2203-2210.
Wright, P. H. (1984). Self-referent motivation and the intrinsic quality of
friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1(1), 115-130.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009).
Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources,
294
and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 74(3), 235-
244.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and
employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment,
intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of
Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128.
Zigarmi, D., Nimon, K., Houson, D., Witt, D., & Diehl, J. (2009). Beyond
engagement: Toward a framework and operational definition for
employee work passion. Human Resource Development Review, 8(3),
300-326.
Zigarmi, D., Houson, D., Nimon, K., Witt, D., & Diehl, J. (2011). The work
cognition inventory: Initial evidence of construct validity. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 22(1), 7-35.
295
Appendix OneThe Participant Information Sheet
Employee Engagement
Introduction
My name is Mojdeh Mehrganrad and I am currently undertaking a Ph.D.
study at Business School, University of Surrey, UK. I would like to invite
you to take part in this research project. Before you decide you need to
understand why the research is being carried out and what your role is in
this research. Please take time to read the following information carefully
and do not hesitate to contact me if you require further clarifications. My
contact details:
Name: Mojdeh Mehrganrad
Email: [email protected]
What is the purpose of the study?
This study examines employees’ engagement in the workplace.
Engaged employees are those who are committed to their job and
organisations; are satisfied with their work, happier and healthier people
compared to less engaged or disengaged employees. Hence, this study 296
looks at mechanisms through which employee engagement can be
enhanced.
Why have I been invited to take part in the study?
I am investigating employee engagement specifically among work
groups and teams. You have been invited to take part in this study
because you are 18 years or older and are currently working as a member
of a work group for Company X.
Do I have to take part?
No, you do not have to participate. Your participation is entirely
voluntarily. If you decide not to take part or withdraw from your
participation at any stages of the study, there will be no adverse
consequences in terms of your employment at Company X.
You can withdraw your participation at any time. You can request for
your data to be withdrawn until 01/03/2017 (before the analysis) without
giving a reason and without prejudice.
If you withdraw from the study, all identifiable data collected would be
withdrawn from the study. No further data would be collected or any other
research procedures would be carried out on or in relation to you.
What will my involvement require?
If you agree to take part, we will then ask you to sign a consent form.
Also, you will be given this information sheet as well as a copy of your
signed consent form. If you agree to take part, I will send the online survey
link to your email address. All the instructions are provided in the survey. 297
You will be asked to rate your own work experiences, your relationship
with your colleagues at the workplace as well as rating your colleagues’
work experiences at work. Similarly, your colleagues will be invited to
participate in the survey and rate you, their work relationship with you as
well as their own work experiences at the workplace. Thus, by agreeing to
participate in this study, you are also agreeing for other participants (your
colleagues) to rate you. Your responses will be kept strictly confidential,
neither your company nor your colleagues will have access to your
responses. Additionally, we advise participants not to discuss their ratings
with each other. The research will last for approximately six months but
your involvement would be only ten minutes.
What will I have to do?
If you would like to take part please, please email me at
[email protected]. To secure the confidentiality of your
responses, an anonymous survey link will be sent to your email address.
All of your responses will be redirected to the researcher automatically
once you have completed the online survey. Each participant will receive a
unique survey link.
What will happen to the data that I provide?
Research data are stored securely for at least 10 years following their
last access and project data (related to the administration of the project,
e.g. your consent form) for at least 6 years in line with the University of
Surrey policies.
298
Personal data will be handled in accordance with the Data Protection Act
(1998).
With your consent, to make the most of your participation and support
efficient advancements in science, any anonymised data may be used for
future research. However, anonymised data will not be shared with
external bodies. We cannot tell you at this moment in time what this
research will entail or what analyses will be carried out but we can assure
you that all appropriate legal, ethical and other approvals will be in place.
For practical reasons, your consent will not be sought again. Your data will
not be used for any other purposes such as commercial or advertisements.
What are the possible disadvantages or risks of taking part?
There are no known risks or disadvantages from taking part, as I strive
to protect your confidentiality. Your responses and ratings will not be
disclosed to and/or shared with your colleagues. Also, to ensure
confidentiality between colleagues, information on ratings assigned to
each participant by their colleagues will be kept confidential and will not
be shared between them. In addition, Company X does not have any
involvement in the present research. A lay summary of the result of the
study will be provided to the company on their request. Individual’s
information (i.e. your names and responses to the questionnaire) will not
be disclosed to any of your colleagues or any of the managers at any
branches of Company X. Participants are encouraged not to discuss their
responses and ratings with each other inside or outside the workplace.
Should you have any concerns about the way your responses are dealt
with during and after the course of this study, please do not hesitate to 299
contact Mojdeh Mehrganrad, at [email protected] in the first
instance or my principle supervisor Professor Stephen Woods, e-mail: s.a.
woods @surrey.ac.uk.
There is also a helpline contact number provided if participants
experience distress during the course of this study. The UK’s leading
authority on workplace stress helpline: 0800 091 0308.
What are the possible benefits of taking part?
Your participation may contribute to a further understanding of the
subject of engagement in the field of organisational behaviour.
What happens when the research study stops?
The results of this study will be published in academic and conference
papers. If you are interested about the findings of this study, you can
contact me on my e-mail and I will present you with a lay summary of the
findings, which will become available at the end of the study, due to be
completed in 2018.
What if there is a problem?
Any complaint or concern about any aspect of the way you have been
dealt with during the course of the study will be addressed; please contact
Mojdeh Mehrganrad, at [email protected] in the first instance
or my principle supervisor Professor Stephen Woods, e-mail: s.a. woods
@surrey.ac.uk. You may also contact the Head of School: Dr. Andy adcroft,
Office Tel: 01483 68 2007 9. Email: [email protected].
Will my taking part in the study be kept confidential?300
Yes. Your details will be held in complete confidence and we will follow
the ethical and legal practice in relation to all study procedures. Personal
data will be handled in accordance with the UK Data Protection Act 1998
so that unauthorised individuals will not have access to them. Your
responses and ratings will not be disclosed to and/or shared with your
colleagues. Also, to ensure confidentiality between colleagues, we request
that respondents do not discuss or share their ratings with each other. In
addition, Company X does not have any involvement in the present
research. A lay summary of the result of the study will be provided to the
company on their request. Individual’s information (i.e. your names and
responses to the questionnaire) will not be disclosed to any of your
colleagues or any of the managers at any branches of Company X. Data
will be accessed, processed and securely destroyed by Mojdeh
Mehrganrad and Professor Stephen Woods. In order to check that this
research is carried out in line with the law and good research practice,
monitoring and auditing can be carried out by independent authorised
individuals. Data collected during the study may be looked at by
authorised individuals from the University of Surrey, where it is relevant to
your taking part in this research.
You will not be identified in any reports/publications resulting from this
research and those reading them will not know who has contributed to it.
301
Full contact details of researcher and supervisor
Contact details Researcher
Supervisor Co-supervisors
Mojdeh Mehrganrad University of Surrey Guildford Surrey GU2 7XH Email: [email protected] Room no: 70 MS 03
Prof. Stephen Woods
Email: s.a. woods @surrey.ac.uk Phone: Work: 01483686731 Room no: 43 MS 03
Prof. Geoff Thomas
Email:Geoff. Thomas @ surrey.ac.uk Phone: Work: 01483689754 Room no: 04 MS 03
Who is organising and funding the research?
This research is organised by the University of Surrey and funded by the
researcher.
Who has reviewed the project?
This study has been reviewed by and received a favourable ethical
opinion from the University of Surrey Ethics Committee.
Thank you for taking the time to read this Information Sheet.
302
Appendix TwoThe Consent Form
Employee Engagement
Please initial each box
o I have read and understood the Information Sheet provided (version
3, 13/12/2016). I have been given a full explanation by the
investigators of the nature, purpose, location and likely duration of
the study, and of what I will be expected to do.
o I have understood that my participation in this study is entirely
voluntarily.
o I have been given the opportunity to ask questions on all aspects of
the study and have understood the advice and information given as
a result.
o I agree to comply with the requirements of the study as outlined to
me to the best of my abilities.
o I agree for my anonymised data to be used for this study and any
future research.
o I understand that all project data will be held for at least 6 years and
all research data for at least 10 years in accordance with University
policy and that my personal data is held and processed in the
strictest confidence, and in accordance with the UK Data Protection
Act (1998).
303
o I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time
without needing to justify my decision, without prejudice and without
my work being affected.
o I understand that I can request for my data to be withdrawn until
01/03/2017 and that following my request all personal data already
collected from me will be destroyed; however, I allow the
researchers to use the anonymous data already collected.
o I confirm that I have read and understood the above and freely
consent to participate in this study. Please specify if you agree or
disagree with the statements above, by agreeing, you will actually
agree to voluntarily participate in this study.
o Agree
o Disagree
304
Appendix Three Study 1 Questionnaire
Q.1. The following questions are about your relationship with your
colleagues at work. Please read the question carefully and rate your
colleague accordingly.
Yes
(1)
No
(2)
Do you have a colleague whom you spend most of
your time at work with? o oDo you work very closely on a specific project or a
task with this colleague? o o
Q2. What is your gender?
o Male 305
o Female
Q3. How old are you?
o 18-22
o 23-27
o 8-32
o 33-37
o 38-42
o 43-47
o Older than 47
Q4. How long do you know this colleague for?
o less than one year
o 1-2 years
o 3-4 years
o 5-6 years
o 7-8 years
o 9-10
o More than 10 years
Q 5. On average, how much time do you spend with each other during a
working week?
o 1-5 hours
o 6-10 hours
o 11-15 hours
o 16-20 hours
o 21-25 hours
o 26-30 hours 306
o More than 30 hours
Q 6. What type of company do you work for?
o Service providers
o Business and trading
o NHS
o Non-profit corporate
o Governmental corporate
o Charity
o Other
Q 7. What position do you hold in this company?
Q 8. How long is it that you are working for this company?
(Months/Year)?
Q 9. On average, how many hours per week do you work?
o 1-5 hours
o 6-10 hours
o 11-15 hours
o 16-20 hours
o 21-25 hours
o 26-30 hours
o More than 30 hours
Q 10. What is your employment status?
o Part-time
o Full-time
307
Q 11. What level of education have you completed?
o Less than high school
o High school graduate
o Some college
o 2 year degree
o 4 year degree
o Professional degree
o Master degree
o Doctorate
Q 12. Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to
you. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that
statement.
I see myself as someone who.....
308
Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither agree nor disagree (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly agree (5)
is talkative o o o o o
does a thorough job o o o o ois sometimes somewhat rude to others
o o o o o
is original, comes up with new ideas o o o o o
worries a lot o o o o o
has a forgiving nature o o o o o
tends to be lazy o o o o o
is outgoing, sociable o o o o o
values artistic experiences o o o o o
gets nervous easily o o o o odoes things effectively and efficiently
o o o o o
is reserved o o o o o
309
is considerate and kind to others o o o o o
has an active imagination o o o o o
is relaxed, handles stress well o o o o o
Q13. The following 9 statements are about how you feel at work. Please
read each statement carefully and decide if you ever feel this way about
your job. If you have never had this feeling, check “Never” in the space
after the statement. If you have had this feeling, indicate how frequently
you feel that way.
310
Never (1)
Almost never (2)
Rarely (3)
Sometimes (4)
Often (5)
Very often (6)
Always (7)
At work, I feel bursting with energy.
o o o o o o oWhen I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.
o o o o o o o
At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.
o o o o o o oI am enthusiastic about my job.
o o o o o o o
My job inspires me.
o o o o o o oI am proud of the work that I do.
o o o o o o oI feel happy when I am working intensely.
o o o o o o oI am immersed in my work.
o o o o o o oI get carried away during work.
o o o o o o o
Q14. Please read each statement carefully and decide if you agree or
disagree with each statement.311
Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither agree nor disagree (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly agree (5)
Before criticising somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place.
o o o o oIf I'm sure I'm right about something, I don't waste much time listening to other people's arguments.
o o o o o
I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective.
o o o o o
I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both.
o o o o oI sometimes find it difficult to see things from the "other guy's" point of view.
o o o o oI try to look at every body's side of a disagreement before I make a decision.
o o o o oWhen I'm upset at someone, I usually try to "put myself in his shoes" for a while.
o o o o o
312
Q15. Please read each statement carefully and decide if you agree or
disagree with each statement.
Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither agree nor disagree (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly agree (5)
When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective toward them.
o o o o o
When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don't feel very much pity for them.
o o o o o
I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.
o o o o oI would describe myself as a pretty soft- hearted person.
o o o o oSometimes I don't feel sorry for other people when they are having problems.
o o o o oOther people's misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal
o o o o oI am often quite touched by things that I see happen.
o o o o o
313
Q16. The following 9 statements are about how you think your colleague
feels at work during a week. If he/she has never shown this
feeling/behaviour, choose an appropriate option (never-always) in the
space in front of their names. If he/she has shown this feeling/behaviour,
indicate how frequently he/she feels/behaves that way at work.
314
Never (1)
Almost never (2)
Rarely (3)
Sometimes (4)
Often (5)
very often (6)
Always (7)
At work, she/he feels bursting in energy.
o o o o o o oShe/he can continue working for very long periods at a time.
o o o o o o o
At work, she/he feels strong and vigorous.
o o o o o o oShe/he is enthusiastic about her/his job.
o o o o o o oHer/his job inspires her/him.
o o o o o o oShe/he is proud of the work that she/he does.
o o o o o o oShe/he feels happy when she/he is working intensely.
o o o o o o o
She/he is immersed in her/his work.
o o o o o o oShe/he gets carried away during work.
o o o o o o o
Q17. Please read each statement carefully, on a scale of 1= not
dependent at all, to 7= fully dependent, indicate the degree to which you
and your colleague are dependent to one another to do your jobs.
315
1= Not dependent at all
2
3
4
5
6
7= fully dependent (7)
How dependent are you on her/him for material, means, and information in order to carry out your work adequately?
o oooooo
How dependent is she/he on You for material, means, and information in order to carry out your work adequately?
o oooooo
Q18. Think about your performance and your colleague's performance
in the last two weeks and answer the following questions.
1= He/she is much worse than me
2= He/she is worse than me
3= He/she is the same as me
4= He/she is better than me
5= He/she is better than me
How do you compare your performance with your colleague?
o o o o o
Q19. Think about your performance and your colleague's performance
and assess your future performance expectations by answering the
following question.
Extremely unlikely
Moderately unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Moderately likely
Extremely likely
How likely is it that you will perform like him/her?
o o o o o
316
Q20. Following questions are about your working conditions when you
are working with this colleague. If you have never felt that way when
working with him/her, check “Never” in the space after the statement.
Otherwise, indicate how frequently you both work under such conditions.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
We have a number of explicitly goals we have to achieve together.
o o o o oWe receive regular feedback about our functioning.
o o o o oWe are collectively held accountable for our performance.
o o o o oWe are informed about the goals we should attain together.
o o o o oWe regularly receive information about what is expected of us.
o o o o oWe have several clear targets we have to attain together.
o o o o o
Q21. Indicate the extent to which you experience the following emotions
when you interact with or are around this person. Indicate your answers on
a scale of 1 = to a very small extent to 5 = to a very large extent.
317
To a very little extent (1)
To a little extent (2)
To some extent (3)
To a great extent (4)
To a very great extent (5)
I feel positive emotions such as happiness, joy, cheer, and excitement when I interact with or around this person.
o o o o o
I feel negative emotions such as anger, hostility, irritation, and frustration when I interact with or around this person.
o o o o o
Q22. The following 6 statements are about your relationship with
your colleague at work. Please read each statement carefully and decide if
you agree or disagree with each statement.
318
Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither agree nor disagree (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly agree (5)
I have formed a strong friendship with my colleague at work.
o o o o oI socialise with my colleague outside of the workplace.
o o o o oI can confide in my colleague at work. o o o o oI feel I can trust my colleague a great deal.
o o o o oBeing able to see my colleague is one reason why I look forward to my job.
o o o o oI do not feel that my colleague is a true friend.
o o o o o
Appendix FourStudy 2 Questionnaire
(English Version)
Q.1. The following questions are about your relationship with your
colleagues at work. Please read the question carefully and rate your
colleague accordingly.
319
Yes
(1)
No
(2)
Do you have a colleague whom you spend most of
your time at work with? o oDo you work very closely on a specific project or a
task with this colleague? o o
Q2. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
Q3. How old are you?
o 18-22
o 23-27
o 8-32
o 33-37
o 38-42
o 43-47
o Older than 47
Q4. How long do you know this colleague for?
o less than one year
o 1-2 years
o 3-4 years
o 5-6 years
o 7-8 years
320
o 9-10
o More than 10 years
Q 5. On average, how much time do you spend with each other during a
working week?
o 1-5 hours
o 6-10 hours
o 11-15 hours
o 16-20 hours
o 21-25 hours
o 26-30 hours
o More than 30 hours
Q 6. What type of company do you work for?
o Service providers
o Business and trading
o NHS
o Non-profit corporate
o Governmental corporate
o Charity
o Other
Q 7. What position do you hold in this company?
Q 8. How long is it that you are working for this company?
(Months/Year)?
Q 9. On average, how many hours per week do you work?
321
o 1-5 hours
o 6-10 hours
o 11-15 hours
o 16-20 hours
o 21-25 hours
o 26-30 hours
o More than 30 hours
Q 10. What is your employment status?
o Part-time
o Full-time
Q 11. What level of education have you completed?
o Less than high school
o High school graduate
o Some college
o 2 year degree
o 4 year degree
o Professional degree
o Master degree
o Doctorate
Q 12. Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to
you. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that
statement.
I see myself as someone who.....
322
Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither agree nor disagree (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly agree (5)
is talkative o o o o o
does a thorough job o o o o ois sometimes somewhat rude to others
o o o o ois original, comes up with new ideas o o o o o
worries a lot o o o o ohas a forgiving nature o o o o o
tends to be lazy o o o o o
is outgoing, sociable o o o o ovalues artistic experiences o o o o ogets nervous easily o o o o odoes things effectively and efficiently
o o o o o
is reserved o o o o ois considerate and kind to others o o o o o
323
has an active imagination o o o o o
is relaxed, handles stress well o o o o o
Q13. The following 9 statements are about how you feel at work. Please
read each statement carefully and decide if you ever feel this way about
your job. If you have never had this feeling, check “Never” in the space
after the statement. If you have had this feeling, indicate how frequently
you feel that way.
324
Never (1)
Almost never (2)
Rarely (3)
Sometimes (4)
Often (5)
Very often (6)
Always (7)
At work, I feel bursting with energy.
o o o o o o oWhen I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.
o o o o o o o
At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.
o o o o o o oI am enthusiastic about my job.
o o o o o o o
My job inspires me.
o o o o o o oI am proud of the work that I do.
o o o o o o oI feel happy when I am working intensely.
o o o o o o oI am immersed in my work.
o o o o o o oI get carried away during work.
o o o o o o o
Q14. Please read each statement carefully and decide if you agree or
disagree with each statement.325
Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither agree nor disagree (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly agree (5)
Before criticising somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place.
o o o o oIf I'm sure I'm right about something, I don't waste much time listening to other people's arguments.
o o o o o
I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective.
o o o o o
I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both.
o o o o oI sometimes find it difficult to see things from the "other guy's" point of view.
o o o o oI try to look at every body's side of a disagreement before I make a decision.
o o o o oWhen I'm upset at someone, I usually try to "put myself in his shoes" for a while.
o o o o o
326
Q15. Please read each statement carefully and decide if you agree or
disagree with each statement.
Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither agree nor disagree (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly agree (5)
When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective toward them.
o o o o o
When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don't feel very much pity for them.
o o o o o
I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.
o o o o oI would describe myself as a pretty soft- hearted person.
o o o o oSometimes I don't feel sorry for other people when they are having problems.
o o o o oOther people's misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal
o o o o oI am often quite touched by things that I see happen.
o o o o o
327
Q16. The following 9 statements are about how you think your colleague
feels at work during a week. If he/she has never shown this
feeling/behaviour, choose an appropriate option (never-always) in the
space in front of their names. If he/she has shown this feeling/behaviour,
indicate how frequently he/she feels/behaves that way at work.
328
Never (1)
Almost never (2)
Rarely (3)
Sometimes (4)
Often (5)
very often (6)
Always (7)
At work, she/he feels bursting in energy.
o o o o o o oShe/he can continue working for very long periods at a time.
o o o o o o o
At work, she/he feels strong and vigorous.
o o o o o o oShe/he is enthusiastic about her/his job.
o o o o o o oHer/his job inspires her/him.
o o o o o o oShe/he is proud of the work that she/he does.
o o o o o o oShe/he feels happy when she/he is working intensely.
o o o o o o o
She/he is immersed in her/his work.
o o o o o o oShe/he gets carried away during work.
o o o o o o o
Q17. Please read each statement carefully, on a scale of 1= not
dependent at all, to 7= fully dependent, indicate the degree to which you
and your colleague are dependent to one another to do your jobs.
329
1= Not dependent at all
2
3
4
5
6
7= fully dependent (7)
How dependent are you on her/him for material, means, and information in order to carry out your work adequately?
o oooooo
How dependent is she/he on You for material, means, and information in order to carry out your work adequately?
o oooooo
Q18. Think about your performance and your colleague's performance
in the last two weeks and answer the following questions.
1= He/she is much worse than me
2= He/she is worse than me
3= He/she is the same as me
4= He/she is better than me
5= He/she is better than me
How do you compare your performance with your colleague?
o o o o o
Q19. Think about your performance and your colleague's performance
and assess your future performance expectations by answering the
following question.
Extremely unlikely
Moderately unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Moderately likely
Extremely likely
How likely is it that you will perform like him/her?
o o o o o
330
Q20. Following questions are about your working conditions when you
are working with this colleague. If you have never felt that way when
working with him/her, check “Never” in the space after the statement.
Otherwise, indicate how frequently you both work under such conditions.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
We have a number of explicitly goals we have to achieve together.
o o o o oWe receive regular feedback about our functioning.
o o o o oWe are collectively held accountable for our performance.
o o o o oWe are informed about the goals we should attain together.
o o o o oWe regularly receive information about what is expected of us.
o o o o oWe have several clear targets we have to attain together.
o o o o o
Q21. Indicate the extent to which you experience the following emotions
when you interact with or are around this person. Indicate your answers on
a scale of 1 = to a very small extent to 5 = to a very large extent.
331
To a very little extent (1)
To a little extent (2)
To some extent (3)
To a great extent (4)
To a very great extent (5)
I feel positive emotions such as happiness, joy, cheer, and excitement when I interact with or around this person.
o o o o o
I feel negative emotions such as anger, hostility, irritation, and frustration when I interact with or around this person.
o o o o o
Q22. The following 6 statements are about your relationship with
your colleague at work. Please read each statement carefully and decide if
you agree or disagree with each statement.
332
Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither agree nor disagree (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly agree (5)
I have formed a strong friendship with my colleague at work.
o o o o oI socialise with my colleague outside of the workplace.
o o o o oI can confide in my colleague at work. o o o o oI feel I can trust my colleague a great deal.
o o o o oBeing able to see my colleague is one reason why I look forward to my job.
o o o o oI do not feel that my colleague is a true friend.
o o o o o
Q23. The following 3 statements are about how you feel at work during
a week. If you have never shown this feeling/behaviour, choose an
appropriate option (never-always).
333
Never (1)
Almost never (2)
Rarely (3)
Sometimes (4)
Often (5)
I have to work fast. o o o o oI have to work hard.I have enough time to complete my task. o o o o o
Q24. The following 9 statements are about the way your tasks are
designed. Please read each statement carefully and decide if you agree or
disagree with each statement.
Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither agree nor disagree (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly agree (5)
The job requires the performance of a wide range of tasks.
o o o o oThe job involves doing a number of different things.
o o o o oThe job requires the performance of a wide range of tasks.
o o o o oThe work performed on the job has a significant impact on people outside the organization.
o o o o o
The job itself is very significant and important in the broader scheme of things.
o o o o o
The results of my work are likely to significantly affectthe lives of other
o o o o o
334
people.The job provides me the chance to completely finish the pieces of work I begin.
o o o o oThe job allows me to complete the work I start.
o o o o oThe job involves completing a piece of work that has an obvious beginning and end.
o o o o o
335
Study 2 Questionnaire(Farsi Version)
کارکنان به دلبستگی کار
گرامی پاسخگوی
هدف با دانشگاهی پژوهش يك انجام راستای در حاضر پرسشنامه ی ، احترام و سالم با
. مجموعه این سواالت است شده طراحی کارکنان کار به دلبستگی بر موثر عوامل بررسی
. ضمن می کند توصیف را کارتان به شما نگرش چگونگی که است شده طراحی گونه ای به
با است خواهشمند پرسشنامه، این به پاسخگویی بابت شما همکاری از قدردانی و تشکر
. نزد صرفا و محرمانه پرسشنامه این اطالعات کلیه ی دهید پاسخ آن به کامل صداقت
شد خواهد استفاده تحقیقات انجام برای و بوده محقق
را خود وقت بیشتر که دارید همکاری خود کار محل در کاری آیا وضائف انجام صرف او با
؟ کنید می
o بلی
o خیر
؟ کنید می همکاری ای پروژه روی بر او با آیا
o بلی336
o خیر
( ماه ) و سال شناسید؟ می را او که است وقت چند
گذرانید؟ می او با را ساعت چند هفته در
o ۱- ۵ ساعتo ۶- ۱۰ ساعتo ۱۱- ۱۵ ساعتo ۱۶- ۲۰ ساعتo ۲۱- ۲۵ ساعتo ۲۶ - ۳۰ساعت
o از ساعت ۳۰بیشتر
شناختی جمعیت های ویژگی
دهید پاسخ خودتان مورد در زیر سواالت به لطفا
جنسیت
o زن
o مرد
o سن
o ۲۲-۱۸سال o ۲۳- ۲۷ سالo ۲۸- ۳۲ سالo ۳۳- ۳۷ سالo ۳۸- ۴۲ سالo ۴۳- ۴۷ سال
o از سال ۴۷بیشتر
o تحصیالت سطح
o دیپلمo کاردانی
o کارشناسیo ارشد کارشناسی
o دکتری
337
شغلی سمت
می کنید؟ کار هفته در ساعت چند
o ۱- ۵ ساعت
o ۶- ۱۰ ساعت
o ۱۱- ۱۵ ساعت
o ۱۶- ۲۰ ساعت
o ۲۱- ۲۵ ساعت
o ساعت۲۶-۳۰
o از ساعت ۳۰بیشتر
؟ هستید کار به مشغول آن در که سازمانی نوع
o دولتیo غیردولتی
( ما ) و سال کار سابقه ی
استخدامی؟ نوع
o وقت پارهo وقت تمام
کنید انتخاب را گزینه بهترین و خوانده دقت به را زیر جمالت لطفا
فردی ................................................................... من
338
کامال( مخالفم
1)
مخالفم(2)
نه مخالفم، نه(3موافقم )
موافق(4م )
کامالموافق(5م )
صحبت خوش o o o o o
اجتماعی o o o o o
درونگرا o o o o o
تکراری شخصیت دارای o o o o o
خجالتی o o o o o
پرانرژی o o o o o
دیگران به اوقات گاهیمی کنم بی احترامی o o o o o
بخشنده o o o o o
مهربان o o o o o
جو عیب o o o o o
به نسبت طرف بی و مفیددیگران o o o o o
کند می نزاع دیگران با o o o o o
می انجام کامل را کارمدهم o o o o o
339
تنبل o o o o oنحوه به را ام وظایف
دهم می انجام احسنت o o o o o
دقت بی o o o o o
اعتماد قابل o o o o o
شوم می پریشان راحتی o به o o o o
نگران o o o o o
شوم می زودعصبانی o o o o o
خونسرد o o o o o
افسرده o o o o o
عبوس o o o o o
دارم جدیدی ایده های o o o o o
هنر به عالقمند o o o o o
خیالپرداز o o o o oکنجکاو o o o o o
340
کنید انتخاب را گزینه بهترین و خوانده دقت به را زیر جمالت لطفا
341
کامالمخالفم )
1)
مخالف(2م )
مخالفم نهموافقم نه
(3)
موافق(4م )
کامال موافقم
(5)
های ازمهارت استفاده نیازمند شغلم
است باالیی سطح پیچیدهo o o o o
نیست تکراری و ساده شغلم o o o o oای گسترده طیف عملکرد نیازبه شغلم
دارد ازوظایفo o o o o
تاثیرزیادی افراد برزندگی کارم نتایج
دارد o o o o o
دیگربسیاربا مشاغل به نسبت شغلم
است اهمیتo o o o o
خارج برافراد تاثیرزیادی شغلم
دارد سازمانo o o o o
می که شده تنظیم ای گونه به شغلم
تا ازآغاز ازکاررا کاملی بخش توانم
دهم انجام پایان
o o o o o
تا دهد می من به را فرصت این شغلم
به کامال را ام کرده آغاز که های بخش
برسانم پایان
o o o o o
تا دهد می من به را فرصت این شغلم
درانجام شخصی قضاوت و ازابتکار
کنم کاراستفاده
o o o o o
برای مالحظهای قابل فرصت o شغلم o o o o342
من به کارم درانجام وآزادی استقالل
دهد می
تا دهد می من به را فرصت این شغلم
بگیرم تصمیم کار انجام روش درموردo o o o o
هستند بسیارساده وظایفم o o o o oیک فقط که است آن مستلزم شغلم
دهم انجام زمان یک در را فعالیت کاریاo o o o o
هیچ که است مسائلی حل شامل کارم
ندارند وواضح صحیح پاسخo o o o o
دارد خالقیت به نیاز کارم o o o o oمشکالتی با برخورد شامل اغلب کارم
نشده مواجه آن با ازاین پیش که است
ام
o o o o o
حل راه یا ها ایده نیازمند کارم
مشکالت های برای فرد به منحصر
است
o o o o o
343
کامال( مخالفم
1)
مخالف(2م )
نهنه مخالفم،(3موافقم )
موافق(4م )
کامالمواف(5قم )
مورد کسی ببینم اگراو از گرفته قرار ظلم
کنم می حمایتo o o o o
که کسانی برایبرخورد انها با غیرعادالنه
نمی دلسوزی شود، میکنم
o o o o oکم افراد به نسبت
همدردی احساس شانسکنم می
o o o o oهستم قلبی خوش فرد o o o o oبرای اوقات گاهیمشکل دچار که افرادی
نمی متاسف شوند میشوم
o o o o oمن در دیگران بدبختی
گذارد نمی تاثیری o o o o oمن در اطرافم مسائل
گذارند می تاثیر o o o o o
کنید انتخاب را گزینه بهترین و خوانده دقت به را زیر جمالت لطفا
344
کامال
( مخالفم
1)
مخالف
(2م )
مخالفم، نه
( موافقم نه
3)
موافق
(4م )
کامالموافق
(5م )
کنم انتقاد کسی از اینکه از قبل
آنها جای را خودم کنم می سعی
بگذارم o o o o o
است من با حق باشم مطمئن اگر
با کردن بحث صرف را وقتم
کنم نمی دیگرانo o o o o
سعی دوستانم بهتر شناخت برای
آنها دیدگاه از را مسائل کنم می
ببینم o o o o o
تمامی گیری تصمیم از قبل
می نظر در را مخالف نظرات
گیرم o o o o o
هر مختلف جوانب کنم می سعی
نظر در امکان حد تا را مسئله
بگیرم o o o o o
می باشد کاریتان محیط در شما تجربه و احساسات نوع بیانگر زیر به . جمالت را جمالت لطفا
کنید انتخاب را گزینه بهترین و خوانده دقت
345
هرگز )1)
بندرت(2)
اغلب(3)
تقریبا(4همیشه )
همیشه(5)
انرژی از سرشار کار، انجام حین درهستم o o o o o
کار سر به رفتن برای صبح روز هردارم اشتیاق o o o o o
هستم قوی کارم، محل در o o o o o
عالقمندم شغلم به o o o o o
دهد می جدیدی ایده های من به o شغلم o o o o
افتخار می دهم انجام که کاری بهمی کنم o o o o o
می کنم کار به سختی که هنگامیمی کنم شادمانی احساس o o o o o
هستم کارم سرگرم بسیار o o o o o
که هستم ور غوطه کارم در آنچنانکنم نمی احساس را زمان گذر o o o o o
....... کنیم می کار هم با که هنگامی
346
کامال( مخالفم
1)
مخالف(2م )
مخالفم نه( موافقم نه
3)
موافق(4م )
کامال( موافقم
5)
باید که داریم مشترکی کاری اهدافبرسیم ها آن به o o o o o
کاریمان عملکرد درباره منظم بطورگیریم می بازخورد مدیر از o o o o o
باید ً مشترکا که را اهدافی سازمانمی مشخص برایمان برسیم آن به
کندo o o o o
انتظارات مورد در الزم اطالعاتدریافت منظم طور به را سازمان
کنیم میo o o o o
باید که داریم مشخص هدف چندینبرسیم آنها به o o o o o
. دقت به را جمالت لطفا باشد می همکارتان با شما ارتباط کیفیت مورد در زیر جمالت
کنید انتخاب را مناسب جواب و خوانده
347
کامال( مخالفم
1)
مخالف(2م )
نه مخالفم نه(3موافقم )
موافق(4م )
کامال( موافقم
5)
در همکار با صمیمانه ای رابطهدارم کار محل o o o o o
نیزبا کاری ساعت از خارجمی کنم معاشرت همکارم o o o o o
نیست من صمیمی دوست o او o o o oمن به کارها انجام در همکارم
کند می کمک o o o o oمرا باشم داشته سوالی اگر
کند می راهنمایی o o o o oدر دارد تمایل اوهمیشه
کند کمکم کارهایم o o o o o
کنید انتخاب را مناسب جواب و خوانده دقت به را جمالت لطفا
کامال مستقل
(1)
مستق(2ل )
وابسته نهمستقل نه
(3)
وابست(4ه )
کامال( وابسته
5)
و ابزار، اطالعات، به اندازه چه تاانجام برای همکارتان جانب از مواد
دارید احتیاج خود کارo o o o o
به همکارتان اندازه چه تاشما جانب از مواد و ابزار، اطالعات،
دارد احتیاج کارش انجام برایo o o o o
می کنید؟ ارزیابی چگونه همکارتان به نسبت را خود کارایی
348
o است بدتر بسیار من از اش کاراییo است بدتر من از اش کاراییo است برابر من با اش کاراییo است من از بهتر اش کاراییo است من از بهتر بسیار اش کارایی
؟ است چقدر باشید، داشته همکارتان مشابه عملکردی آینده در که این احتمال
o بسیارکمo کمo زیاد نه کم نهo زیادo زیاد بسیار
) ( دارم لذت و هیجان، شادی، نظیر مثبتی احساسات همکارم با کار هنگام بهo کمی بسیار حد تاo کمی حد تاo زیاد نه کم نهo زیادی حد تاo بسیارزیادی حد تا
) ( دارم نفرت و خصومت خشم، نظیر منفی احساسات همکارم با کار هنگام به
o کمی بسیار حد تاo کمی حد تاo زیاد نه کم نهo زیادی حد تاo بسیارزیادی حد تا
کنید انتخاب را مناسب جواب و خوانده دقت به را جمالت لطفا
349
( هرگز 1)
( بندرت 2)
( اغلب 3)
تقریبا(4همیشه )
همیشه(5)
کنید کار سرعت با باید آیا o o o o o
کنید کار سختی به باید آیا o o o o o
کار انجام برای الزم زمان آیادارید خود o o o o o
کنید انتخاب را مناسب جواب و خوانده دقت به را جمالت لطفا
350
کامالمخالف
(1م )(2مخالفم ) نه مخالفم نه
(3موافقم ) (4موافقم ) موافقم کامال(5)
نیازمند شغلمازمهارت استفاده
سطح پیچیده هایاست باالیی
o o o o o
و ساده شغلمنیست تکراری
o o o o oعملکرد نیازبه شغلم
ای گسترده طیفدارد ازوظایف
o o o o oبرزندگی کارم نتایج
دارد تاثیرزیادی افرادo o o o o
به نسبت شغلمدیگربسیاربا مشاغل
است اهمیتo o o o o
تاثیرزیادی شغلمخارج برافراد
دارد سازمانo o o o o
ای گونه به شغلممی که شده تنظیم
کاملی بخش توانمپایان تا ازآغاز ازکاررا
دهم انجام
o o o o o
را فرصت این شغلمتا دهد می من بهآغاز که های بخش
به کامال را ام کردهبرسانم پایان
o o o o o
را فرصت این شغلمتا دهد می من به
قضاوت و ازابتکاردرانجام شخصی
کنم کاراستفاده
o o o o o
قابل فرصت شغلمبرای مالحظهای
وآزادی استقاللمن به کارم درانجام
دهد می
o o o o o
را فرصت این شغلمتا دهد می من o به o o o o
351
انجام روش درموردبگیرم تصمیم کار
بسیارساده وظایفمهستند
o o o o oآن مستلزم شغلمیک فقط که است
در را فعالیت کاریادهم انجام زمان یک
o o o o oحل شامل کارم
که است مسائلیصحیح پاسخ هیچ
ندارند وواضحo o o o o
خالقیت به نیاز کارمدارد
o o o o oشامل اغلب کارممشکالتی با برخورد
ازاین پیش که استام نشده مواجه آن با
o o o o oها ایده نیازمند کارم
حل راه یافرد های به منحصر
است مشکالت برای
o o o o o
352
Appendix FivePick-a-point and Johnson-Neyman tests, Study 1
The results of pick-a-point and Johnson-Neyman tests for task and outcome interdependence, Study 1.
Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the moderator(s):
IND Effect se t p LLCI ULCI -.5415 .2710 .0580 4.6698 .0000 .1570 .3850 .0000 .3558 .0450 7.9023 .0000 .2673 .4442 .5415 .4406 .0600 7.3426 .0000 .3227 .5584
Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean.Values for dichotomous moderators are the two values of the moderator.
********************* JOHNSON-NEYMAN TECHNIQUE **************************
Moderator value(s) defining Johnson-Neyman significance region(s) Value % below % above -1.1361 2.0833 97.9167Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the moderator (M) IND Effect se t p LLCI ULCI -1.3443 .1453 .1035 1.4031 .1612 -.0581 .3486 -1.2068 .1668 .0949 1.7577 .0794 -.0196 .3532 -1.1361 .1779 .0905 1.9646 .0500 .0000 .3557 -1.0693 .1883 .0865 2.1777 .0299 .0184 .3582 -.9318 .2098 .0784 2.6779 .0076 .0559 .3638 -.7943 .2314 .0706 3.2752 .0011 .0926 .3702 -.6568 .2529 .0635 3.9844 .0001 .1282 .3776 -.5193 .2744 .0571 4.8102 .0000 .1624 .3865
353
-.3818 .2960 .0517 5.7289 .0000 .1945 .3975 -.2443 .3175 .0477 6.6627 .0000 .2239 .4111 -.1068 .3390 .0454 7.4688 .0000 .2499 .4282 .0307 .3606 .0451 7.9868 .0000 .2719 .4493 .1682 .3821 .0469 8.1399 .0000 .2899 .4743 .3057 .4036 .0506 7.9825 .0000 .3043 .5030 .4432 .4252 .0557 7.6387 .0000 .3158 .5345 .5807 .4467 .0619 7.2208 .0000 .3252 .5682 .7182 .4682 .0689 6.7982 .0000 .3329 .6035 .8557 .4898 .0765 6.4041 .0000 .3395 .6400 .9932 .5113 .0845 6.0504 .0000 .3453 .6773 1.1307 .5328 .0929 5.7383 .0000 .3504 .7152 1.2682 .5544 .1014 5.4649 .0000 .3551 .7536 1.4057 .5759 .1102 5.2254 .0000 .3594 .7924
The results of pick-a-point and Johnson-Neyman tests for workplace friendship, Study 1.
354
Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the moderator(s):
Friend Effect se t p LLCI ULCI
-.5736 .2529 .0550 4.5988 .0000 .1448 .3609
.0000 .3633 .0435 8.3434 .0000 .2778 .4488 .5736 .4737 .0578 8.1913 .0000 .3601 .5874
Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean.Values for dichotomous moderators are the two values of the moderator.
********************* JOHNSON-NEYMAN TECHNIQUE **************************
Moderator value(s) defining Johnson-Neyman significance region(s)
Value % below % above -1.0840 3.4091 96.5909Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the moderator (M) Friend Effect se t p LLCI ULCI -1.6836 .0391 .1119 .3499 .7266 -.1807 .2590 -1.5586 .0632 .1047 .6036 .5464 -.1425 .2690 -1.4336 .0873 .0977 .8936 .3719 -.1046 .2792 -1.3086 .1114 .0907 1.2272 .2203 -.0669 .2896 -1.1836 .1354 .0840 1.6130 .1074 -.0295 .3004 -1.0840 .1546 .0787 1.9646 .0500 .0000 .3092 -1.0586 .1595 .0774 2.0613 .0398 .0075 .3115 -.9336 .1836 .0710 2.5839 .0100 .0440 .3231 -.8086 .2076 .0650 3.1927 .0015 .0799 .3354 -.6836 .2317 .0594 3.8975 .0001 .1149 .3485 -.5586 .2558 .0544 4.7002 .0000 .1489 .3627 -.4336 .2798 .0501 5.5848 .0000 .1814 .3783 -.3086 .3039 .0467
355
6.5052 .0000 .2121 .3957 -.1836 .3280 .0445 7.3769 .0000 .2406 .4153 -.0586 .3520 .0435 8.0909 .0000 .2665 .4375 .0664 .3761 .0440 8.5566 .0000 .2897 .4624 .1914 .4002 .0458 8.7465 .0000 .3103 .4900 .3164 .4242 .0488 8.7018 .0000 .3285 .5200 .4414 .4483 .0528 8.4984 .0000 .3447 .5519 .5664 .4724 .0575 8.2092 .0000 .3593 .5854 .6914 .4964 .0629 7.8873 .0000 .3728 .6201 .8164 .5205 .0688 7.5646 .0000 .3853 .6557
356
Appendix SixPick-a-point tests for 2 moderators, 2-way Interactions Study 1
Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the moderator(s):
Friend IND Effect se t p LLCI ULCI -.5736 -.5415 .1507 .0649 2.3232 .0206 .0233 .2781 -.5736 .0000 .2243 .0572 3.9205 .0001 .1119 .3366 -.5736 .5415 .2978 .0729 4.0870 .0001 .1547 .4410 .0000 -.5415 .2590 .0597 4.3404 .0000 .1418 .3763 .0000 .0000 .3326 .0454 7.3205 .0000 .2433 .4218 .0000 .5415 .4061 .0595 6.8257 .0000 .2892 .5230 .5736 -.5415 .3673 .0745 4.9335 .0000 .2211 .5136 .5736 .0000 .4409 .0590 7.4683 .0000 .3249 .5569 .5736 .5415 .5145 .0663 7.7556 .0000 .3841 .6448
Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean.Values for dichotomous moderators are the two values of the moderator.
357
Appendix SevenPick-a-point and Johnson-Neyman tests, Study 2
The results of pick-a-point and Johnson-Neyman tests for task and outcome interdependence, Study 2.
Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the moderator(s):
IND Effect se t p LLCI ULCI
-.7252 .1521 .1161 1.3100 .1915 -.0767 .3809 .0000 .2821 .0789 3.5752 .0004 .1267 .4376 .7252 .4121 .0756 5.4542 .0000 .2633 .5610
Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean.Values for dichotomous moderators are the two values of the moderator.
********************* JOHNSON-NEYMAN TECHNIQUE **************************
Moderator value(s) defining Johnson-Neyman significance region(s)
Value % below % above-.4675 32.0000 68.0000
Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the 358
moderator (M)IND Effect se t p
LLCI ULCI-1.2980 .0494 .1548 .3191 .7499
-.2556 .3545-1.1480 .0763 .1443 .5288 .5974
-.2080 .3606-.9980 .1032 .1340 .7701 .4420 -.1608
.3672-.8480 .1301 .1240 1.0491 .2952
-.1142 .3744-.6980 .1570 .1144 1.3722 .1713
-.0684 .3824-.5480 .1839 .1053 1.7463 .0821
-.0236 .3913-.4675 .1983 .1007
1.9702 .0500 .0000 .3966-.3980 .2108 .0968
2.1769 .0305 .0200 .4015-.2480 .2377 .0892
2.6655 .0082 .0620 .4133-.0980 .2646 .0825
3.2050 .0015 .1019 .4272.0520 .2914 .0772 3.7734 .0002 .1393
.4436.2020 .3183 .0735 4.3297 .0000 .1735
.4632.3520 .3452 .0717 4.8180 .0000 .2041
.4864.5020 .3721 .0718 5.1848 .0000 .2307
.5135.6520 .3990 .0739 5.4018 .0000 .2535
.5445.8020 .4259 .0778 5.4758 .0000 .2727
.5791.9520 .4528 .0833 5.4387 .0000 .2888
.61681.1020 .4797 .0900
5.3295 .0000 .3024 .65701.2520 .5066 .0978
5.1812 .0000 .3140 .69921.4020 .5335 .1063
5.0172 .0000 .3240 .74301.5520 .5604 .1155
4.8516 .0000 .3328 .78791.7020 .5873 .1252
4.6922 .0000 .3407 .8338
359
The results of pick-a-point and Johnson-Neyman tests for workplace friendship, Study 2.
Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the moderator(s):
Friend Effect se t p LLCI ULCI -.8599 .1598 .1168 1.3685 .1725 -.0703 .3900 .0000 .2921 .0783 3.7308 .0002 .1379 .4464 .8599 .4244 .0753 5.6342 .0000 .2760 .5728
Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean.Values for dichotomous moderators are the two values of the moderator.
********************* JOHNSON-NEYMAN TECHNIQUE **************************
Moderator value(s) defining Johnson-Neyman significance region(s) Value % below % above -.5870 30.4000 69.6000Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the moderator (M) Friend Effect se t p LLCI ULCI -1.5856 .0482 .1596 .3020 .7629 -.2662 .3626
360
-1.4156 .0743 .1492 .4984 .6186 -.2195 .3682 -1.2456 .1005 .1389 .7234 .4702 -.1732 .3742 -1.0756 .1267 .1290 .9820 .3271 -.1274 .3808 -.9056 .1528 .1193 1.2806 .2016 -.0823 .3879 -.7356 .1790 .1101 1.6256 .1054 -.0379 .3959 -.5870 .2018 .1024 1.9702 .0500 .0000 .4037 -.5656 .2051 .1014 2.0233 .0442 .0054 .4049 -.3956 .2313 .0933 2.4780 .0139 .0474 .4152 -.2256 .2574 .0861 2.9886 .0031 .0877 .4271 -.0556 .2836 .0800 3.5437 .0005 .1259 .4412 .1144 .3097 .0753 4.1157 .0001 .1615 .4580 .2844 .3359 .0721 4.6582 .0000 .1938 .4780 .4544 .3620 .0708 5.1145 .0000 .2226 .5015 .6244 .3882 .0714 5.4368 .0000 .2475 .5289 .7944 .4144 .0739 5.6069 .0000 .2688 .5599 .9644 .4405 .0781 5.6401 .0000 .2866 .5944 1.1344 .4667 .0838 5.5720 .0000 .3017 .6317 1.3044 .4928 .0906 5.4407 .0000 .3144 .6713 1.4744 .5190 .0983 5.2774 .0000 .3252 .7127 1.6444 .5451 .1068 5.1029 .0000 .3347 .7556 1.8144 .5713 .1159 4.9297 .0000 .3430 .7996
361
Appendix EightPick-a-point tests for 2 moderators, 2-way Interactions Study 2
Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the moderator(s):
Friend IND Effect se t p LLCI ULCI 2.3257 2.5728 .1895 .0862 2.1987 .0288 .0197 .3593 2.3257 3.2980 .3550 .4214 .8424 .4004 -.4750 1.1849 2.3257 4.0232 .5204 .8307 .6265 .5316 -1.1158 2.1566 3.1856 2.5728 .0969 .4211 .2302 .8182 -.7325 .9264 3.1856 3.2980 .2624 .0624 4.2018 .0000 .1394 .3854 3.1856 4.0232 .4278 .4157 1.0290 .3045
362
-.3911 1.2467 4.0455 2.5728 .0043 .8355 .0052 .9959 -1.6413 1.6500 4.0455 3.2980 .1698 .4255 .3990 .6903 -.6683 1.0078 4.0455 4.0232 .3352 .0802 4.1799 .0000 .1772 .4932
Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean.Values for dichotomous moderators are the two values of the moderator.
Appendix NineResearch Skills and Training
The table below presents the training courses and programmes that I have
attended from the start of my program from April 2014 until April 1st, 2018.
Date Workshop Name
14/05/2014 FBEL Confirmation Report Writing 1
14/05/2014 Time and Project Management363
19/05/2014 FBEL Confirmation Report Writing 2
22/05/2014 PhD Confirmation Process
23/05/2014 Find It!
23/05/2014 Cultural Perspective on Handling Criticism and Feedback
30/05/2014 RefWorks and RefAware
30/05/2014 Intellectual Property
4/06/2014 Six Month and Annual Reviews
13/06/2014 Engaging with your Literature
23/06/2014 Getting Published 1
26/06/2014 CORE Writing Skills 1: Writing Coherently
3/07/2014 Dealing with Data
15/07/2014 Welcome to your PhD
15/09/2014 Balancing your Life as a Researcher
18/03/2015 Poster Presentations
25/03/2015 Conducting and Crafting Qualitative Research Overview
22/04/2015 P & O Thinking Space
30/04/2015 FBEL Thesis Writing Introductions
5/05/2015 P&O Thinking Space
7/05/2015 FBEL Thesis Writing: Discussion and Conclusion
13/05/2015 P & O Thinking Space
14/05/2015 FBEL Confirmation Report Writing 1-Writing a Successful Confirmation Report
21/05/2015 FBEL Confirmation Report Writing 2-Literature Review and Methodology Chapters
10/06/2015 P & O Thinking Space
16/06/2015 FBEL Confirmation Report Writing Seminar-Editing your Draft
18/06/2015 Academic Writing: Writing a Conference Abstract
7/07/2015 Writing a Literature Review
20/10/2015 Predicting Leadership Derailment Behaviors
06/11/2015 Applying for Ethical Review FASS
06/11/2015 Essentials of Ethics FASS
2/12/2015 Royal Holloway workshops on about scale development
21/12/2015 Royal Holloway workshops on about scale development 2364
13/01/2016 Writing a Conference Abstract
09/03/2016 Statistics Multiple Linear Regression
16/03/2016 Statistics General Linear Model
23/03/2016 Statistics Experiments
13/04/2016 Statistics Drop In
22/05/2016-25/05/2016 An advanced training workshop in East Anglia University
16/06/2016 Thesis Writing 1 FASS
23/06/2016 Thesis Writing 2 FASS
30/06/2016 Thesis Writing 3 FASS
17/05/2017 Attended a Multilevel Analysis using SPSS at EAWOP Workshop Dublin
2/10/2017-9/10/2017
9/10/2017
A 3-day Experimental Methods workshop
20/11/2017-22/11/2017 A 3-day Meta-Analysis workshop
13/04/2018 The Viva Examination
365