employee engagement and retention: a study of … · synopsis-4 1.3 rationale of the study around...

Synopsis

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND RETENTION: A

STUDY OF SOFTWARE PROFESSIONALS

By

PRAVEEN KUMAR SHARMA

Enrolment No. : 11409526

Dr. Rajnish Kumar Misra - Supervisor

Jaypee Business School

JAYPEE INSTITUE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Declared Deemed to be University U/S 3 of UGC Act)

A-10, SECTOR-62, NOIDA, INDIA

November 2016

© Copyright JAYPEE INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, NOIDA

(Declared Deemed to be University U/S 3 of the UGC Act)

November 2016

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Synopsis-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. Synopsis-1

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND RETENTION: A STUDY OF SOFTWARE

PROFESSIONALS .......................................................................................................... Synopsis-3

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... Synopsis-3

1.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... Synopsis-3

1.2 SCOPE OF THIS STUDY .................................................................................. Synopsis-3

1.3 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY ......................................................................... Synopsis-4

LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ Synopsis-4

2.1 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................... Synopsis-4

2.2 EMPLOYEE RETENTION ................................................................................ Synopsis-5

2.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ...................................................................... Synopsis-6

2.4 CORE SELF EVALUATION ............................................................................. Synopsis-6

2.5 JOB SATISFACTION ........................................................................................ Synopsis-7

2.6 RESEARCH GAPS ............................................................................................. Synopsis-7

2.7 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ........................................................................ Synopsis-8

2.8 HYPOTHESES IN THE STUDY ....................................................................... Synopsis-8

2.9 PROPOSED FRAMEWORK AMONG RESEARCH VARIABLES ................ Synopsis-9

RESEARCH METHDOLOGY ....................................................................................... Synopsis-9

3.1 OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS ..................................................................... Synopsis-10

3.2 DEFINE THE POPULATION .......................................................................... Synopsis-11

3.3 SAMPLING FRAME........................................................................................ Synopsis-11

3.4 SAMPLING UNIT ............................................................................................ Synopsis-11

Synopsis-2

3.5 SAMPLE DESIGN ........................................................................................... Synopsis-11

3.6 SAMPLE SIZE.................................................................................................. Synopsis-12

3.7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................. Synopsis-12

FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... Synopsis-14

4.1 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ......................................................................... Synopsis-14

4.2 EMPLOYEE RETENTION .............................................................................. Synopsis-14

4.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE .................................................................... Synopsis-14

4.4 CORE SELF-EVALUATION .......................................................................... Synopsis-15

4.5 JOB SATISFACTION ...................................................................................... Synopsis-15

4.6 TESTING OF HYPOTHESIS........................................................................... Synopsis-15

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ........................................................................... Synopsis-16

5.1 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................................... Synopsis-16

LIMITATION AND SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH.......................................... Synopsis-17

6.1 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS ....................................................................... Synopsis-18

SELECTED REFERENCES ......................................................................................... Synopsis-18

APPENDIX .................................................................................................................... Synopsis-24

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ........................................................................................... Synopsis-40

Synopsis-3

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND RETENTION: A STUDY OF

SOFTWARE PROFESSIONALS

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Globalization is omnipresent and we are living in a ―global age‖ [1]. It presents several

difficulties and challenges to existing organizations. To survive in the competitive world,

organizations need to focus on the strength of their employee to achieve competitive advantage

through emphasis on managing human resources. Employees play a key role in the organization's

success. Nowadays, many organizations are facing the problem of engaging the employees.

Various factors effect employee engagement, these are namely: employee attitudes, employee

retention, personality, organizational culture [2] [3] [4]. Various researches have demonstrated

its link with productivity, and organizational performance [5] [6]. So in this research, focus was

primarily on employee engagement in information technology (IT) industry in India. And finally,

towards development and testing of a framework on employee engagement that includes four

constructs; job satisfaction, employee retention, organizational culture and core self evaluation.

1.2 SCOPE OF THIS STUDY

The present study was conducted to develop the constructs and their relevant scales with

exclusive focus on software professionals and also to test the framework for enhancing the

engagement and retention of these professionals. The study will help the organization to know

the current levels of engagement of their employees, and will allow them to take necessary

actions to motivate them to perform better and enhance their satisfaction and intention to stay in

the organization.

Synopsis-4

1.3 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

Around the world, the concept of employee engagement has become very important during the

last decade and research from survey data shows low levels of engagement in many countries.

The employee engagement is a phenomenon in the workplace that has started attracting attention

of many researchers. Due to its significance in improving workplace performance and

profitability, much interest has been shown towards interpreting it as well as identifying its

potential effect.

Employee engagement is the level of commitment and involvement an employee has towards

their organization and its values. An engaged employee is aware of the business context and

works with colleagues to improve performance, productivity within the job for the benefit of the

organization [6] [7].

Information technology as a sector has grown considerably in past decade in India and made its

presence felt worldwide. This emerging sector has its own human resource challenge that needs

to be addressed. One among them is high attrition rate of software professionals. Though there

are number of reasons for leaving the organization, interventions to control it is difficult. Instead,

it is better to increase active engagement of employees so that they are retained in the

organization. Therefore, it became important to address this problem, and examine the factors

that affect employee engagement.

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

Initially, Kahn (1990) was the first, who proposed the concept of personal engagement and ―is

described as the employing or expressing of oneself physically, cognitively, and emotionally

during the work role performance‖ [8]. May et al. (2004) examined the relationship between

determinants and indirect effect connected with three psychological conditions (safety,

availability and meaningfulness) upon engagement at work and also supported the work on

personal engagement [9].

Synopsis-5

Leiter and Maslach (2004) cf [10] , Laschinger and Finegan (2005) [11], Leiter and Laschinger

(2006) [12] ,Cho et al. (2006) [13], supported the concept of engagement and related it with

burnout. Burnout is described as a psychological syndrome seen as cynicism, inefficacy and

exhaustion, which is experienced as a reaction to chronic job stress. Engagement is

comprehended to be the direct inverse to the burnout. Burnout is characterized as cynicism (low

involvement), inefficacy (low efficacy) and exhaustion (low energy) and, whereas, the

engagement is defined as high level of involvement and high level of energy.

Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) [14], Salanova et al. (2005) [15], Hakanen et al (2005, 2006) [16]

[17], Llorens et al. (2006) [18], Richardson et al. (2006) [19], Mauno et al. (2007) [20],

Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) [21], supported the concept of engagement in terms of work

engagement. Work engagement is defined as ― positive, fulfilling, work related mind that is

characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption‖ [22]. Vigor is explained by high level of

energy and mental resilience during the working hours. Dedication is strongly associated

(involved) with one’s job along with experience of feeling of enthusiasm, significance, pride,

inspiration and challenge. Absorption is portrayed by being completely connected in addition to

being happily immersed in one’s work, time passes rapidly and one feel difficulties while

separating oneself from the work.

Subsequent studies, defined employee engagement as ―individual’s involvement and satisfaction

as well as enthusiasm for work‖ [23]. This concept is supported by Harter et al. (2002) [23] ,

Cathcart et al. (2004) [24], Macey et al. (2009) [25]. Later, employee engagement is defined as

―an individual sense of purpose and focused energy, evident to others in the display personal

initiative, adaptability, effort, and persistence directed towards organizational goals‖ [25].

Furthermore, Simpson et al.(2009) [10] summarized employee engagement definition in the four

ways such as personal engagement, engagement/ burnout, work engagement and employee

engagement so there is no single and common construct to define the engagement.

2.2 EMPLOYEE RETENTION

Employee retention is a process in which employees are encouraged to remain with the

organization for the maximum period of time or until the completion of the project. Employee

Synopsis-6

retention is beneficial for the organization as well as the employee. It suggested that efforts of

employers to avoid turnover, i.e. the means of retaining knowledge workers, Cf [26]. Retention

effects system performance and organizational profit. So, now days, retaining key persons are

major issues in the organization.

2.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

The term organizational culture has been explained differently by the various researchers.

Enormous studies show that the meaning of culture has not been broadly agreed, even in the

discipline of anthropology [27]. But the use organizational culture is especially noticeable inside

literature [28]. It is usually seen that ―the literature on culture is loaded with debate –regarding

definition, methodologies, prospective and application‖ [29]. The term culture is described as

―the shared rules governing cognitive and affective aspects of members in an organization, and

means whereby they are shaped and expressed‖ [30]. So, organizational culture can be

considered as a constellation of factors that are learned through our interaction with the

environment and during our development years while working in an organization. Additionally,

organizational culture is also referred to as a set of assumptions, beliefs and values [31].

2.4 CORE SELF EVALUATION

Core self-evaluation (CSE) is a ―higher-order personality trait‖ that consists of four well-

recognized traits: self-esteem, locus of control, generalized self-efficacy, and emotional stability

vs. neuroticism [32] [33]. CSE is demonstrated in four highly correlated traits, which are self

esteem, locus of control, neuroticism /emotional stability, generalized self efficacy [34]. Here

self-esteem is described as self understanding/perception of one’s well worth, addition to value

and importance. Locus of control describes individual/personal control over life events.

Neuroticism /emotional stability describe the tendency to be secure and well adjusted.

Generalized self-efficacy describes the overall confidence to handle a variety of situations within

the available options.

The combination of these factors can be considered as positive self regard [35]. Judge and his

colleagues (2000) observed that CSE has an impact on job and life satisfaction [36]. In other

Synopsis-7

words, the framework proposed by them not only explain the positive characteristics of the

people but also indicates way these kind of positive trait affect emotions and behaviors.

2.5 JOB SATISFACTION

Satisfaction is derived from Latin words satis (enough) and facere (to perform as well as make).

Large volumes of research are available on job satisfaction (JS) in the arena of industrial

psychology and human resource management. In fact, we all seem to have an opinion on job

satisfaction. Some firmly insist that the key of job satisfaction is money; others indicate that it is

working condition; yet some assume that its employee participation. Though, it makes a lively

discussion at work, but it's difficult to understand the construct of job satisfaction.

The idea and evaluation of job satisfaction started in 1911 with the use of exploratory research

design of F. W. Taylor, where he mentioned that incentives like salary, promotion, incentive

payments could lead to job satisfaction [37].

Job satisfaction is explained from multiple perspectives by various researchers. The major

contribution was considered of Hoppock (1935) who did major work on job satisfaction prior to

1933 [38]. These researches indicated that diversity of variables influence job satisfaction. Locke

(1976) explained job satisfaction as ―pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the

appraisal of one’s job and job experiences‖ [39]. Ostroff & Kozlowski (1992) defined JS as ―a

general attitude which an employee has toward his or her job, and is directly tied to individual

needs, including challenging work, equitable rewards and a supportive work environment, and

colleagues‖ [40]. Subsequently, Balzer et al., (1997) explained job satisfaction as ―the feeling

workers has about his or her job experiences in relation to previous experiences, current

experiences, or available alternative‖[41].

2.6 RESEARCH GAPS

On the basis of review of literature, there are still scope for research in the domain of employee

engagement and retention. The following research gaps were identified:

• relationships between engagement and personality attributes.

Synopsis-8

• influence of personality attribute on satisfaction.

• organizational culture on engagement and satisfaction

• lack of integrated framework of engagement and retention.

2.7 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To identify the factors of employee engagement, organizational culture, job satisfaction

and employee retention.

2. To develop and adapt scale for employee engagement, job satisfaction, organizational

culture, and employee retention constructs.

• Evaluate validity and reliability for each of the constructs.

3. To examine the relationship between individual and organizational factor on employee

engagement, job satisfaction and employee retention.

4. To test the theoretical framework.

• Evaluate the direct and indirect (mediator) effect of employee engagement on

organizational culture and job satisfaction in the study.

2.8 HYPOTHESES IN THE STUDY

Hypothesis 1: Organizational culture will be positively related with employee engagement.

Hypothesis 2: Organizational culture will be positively related with job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3: Employee engagement will be positively related with job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4: Job satisfaction will be positively related with employee retention.

Hypothesis 5: Core self evaluation will be positively related with employee engagement.

Hypothesis 6: Core self evaluation will be positively related with job satisfaction.

Synopsis-9

Hypothesis 7: Employee engagement mediates the relationship between organizational culture

and job satisfaction.

2.9 PROPOSED FRAMEWORK AMONG RESEARCH VARIABLES

RESEARCH METHDOLOGY

In this research, both qualitative and quantitative aspects of research with an emphasis on cross-

sectional research design were used. The qualitative aspect was used in the initial stage to

achieve first objective. This stage was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, the literature

review yielded the list of factors for each variable (construct). On this basis, factors were

grouped for common dimensions and we prepared the checklist on the research variables i.e.

employee engagement, organizational culture, job satisfaction and employee retention. In the

second phase, industry and academic experts verified these checklists. Industry experts who were

Core Self

Evaluation

Employee

Retention

Job

Satisfaction

Employee

Engagement

Organizational

Culture

Core Self

Evaluation

Synopsis-10

included for evaluation were working as project manager or senior level HR manager in an IT

Company and academic experts were those working in management education and had published

papers on these constructs.

In the construct development approach, those factors were considered in the study that were

having more than 80% scoring and were also considered relevant by the industry experts in their

organization. This approach was applied on all the constructs i.e. employee engagement, job

satisfaction, organizational culture and employee retention construct. After short listing the

factors, measurement scale was developed / adapted by selecting statements from the existing

instruments or items from the previous studies. The resultant operational definitions are

mentioned below.

3.1 OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS

Organizational culture is the extent to which the organization is employee-oriented,

supports innovation, reviews policies, gives autonomy, and facilitates employees for open

communication.

Employee engagement is the extent to which the engaged employee is high on job

involvement, emotional attachment, positive attitude towards work and organizational

commitment.

Job satisfaction is the extent to which the person perceives positively about job security,

recognition, pay, promotion, training and supervision in the organization.

Retention is the degree to which the employee gets the career opportunity for growth,

work-life balance, appreciation and stimulation of the work they do result in intention to

stay with the organization.

Constructs Employee

engagement Job satisfaction Organizational

culture Employee

retention No. of factors

(Checklist) 17 23 21 13

No. of factors in

final study 4 6 5 4

Synopsis-11

A descriptive statistical analysis was used in the study to ascertain the demographic distribution

of respondents and their scores on each construct. Descriptive research design is typically

concerned with determining the frequency with which something occurs or the relationship

between variables (Dillon et al., 1993: 32). After finalizing the constructs and factors in the

study, we developed the initial hypothesis. Before testing the hypotheses developed in objectives

three and four, this design helped in investigating the influence of demographic variables on all

the constructs included in the study. Subsequently, the proposed framework was tested using

inferential statistics.

3.2 DEFINE THE POPULATION

a. Element: Software Professional

b. Sampling units: Working in IT Industry

c. Location: NOIDA, India

3.3 SAMPLING FRAME

The sampling frame is prepared taking into consideration data on IT companies from

NASSCOM directory.

3.4 SAMPLING UNIT

The sampling unit is the basic unit containing the elements of the target population. The

Software professionals working in IT Company in Noida were considered.

3.5 SAMPLE DESIGN

Keeping in view the rationale of the study, purposive sampling was used in the research to

achieve representativeness in the selection of companies. Firstly, the list of IT services

companies in Noida was prepared on the basis of their performance for the year 2013-14

(NASCOM, 2014). Out of these list three company categories was identified on the basis of

revenue capitalization i.e large cap, medium cap and small cap revenue. Further to draw

representative sample, each category was divided into three hierarchies (senior level, middle

level and junior level) and software professionals (respondent) selected in the ratio of 1:2:2 with

Synopsis-12

each respondent having a minimum of one year experience for participating in the survey. The

questionnaire was distributed through the HR Manager.

3.6 SAMPLE SIZE

Sample size: 464, Questionnaire-distributed: 464, Questionnaire-received: 425, Used in the

study: 410

3.7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Initially, demographic distribution was assessed through descriptive statistics, mainly through

frequency distribution and tabulation. T-test was used for comparing groups on each

demographic variable. Further One –Way ANOVA was used to compare mean value for more

than two independent groups on the demographic information. It was used where the effect of

different levels of one variable was tested on the dependent variable.

Factor analysis was utilized for different purpose: firstly, to develop the measure (scale) and it’s

associated scoring keys. Secondly, to develop theory concerning the nature of construct. And

finally, to review the relationship in the form of a more parsimonious set of factor score which

could be used in subsequent analysis [42]. Three types of analysis for scale development was

used namely, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and

structural equation modeling (SEM). Firstly, exploratory factor analysis was used to identify the

number of factors in addition to, find out the variable that associate to a specific factor [43].

Secondly, confirmatory factor analysis was used to validate the emergent factor structure through

EFA. CFA deals with measurement models on the relationship between latent variable and

observed measure [44]. And lastly, structural equation modeling technique was used, a statistical

methodology that requires a confirmatory approach (hypothesis testing) to analyze a structural

theory bearing on some phenomenon [45].

In EFA, KMO and Bartlett’s test, communalities, total variance explained, rotation component

matrix-Promax rotation solution were used for core self evaluation, employee engagement, job

satisfaction, organizational culture and employee retention construct. The value of KMO should

Synopsis-13

be greater than 0.50, Bartlett’s test should be significant at p value (.05), commonalities value

should be greater than 0.50. In this study, Promax rotation along with principal component

analysis was used with a criterion of suppressing small coefficients or factor loading at .03 and

below.

In CFA, measurement model was used as a confirmatory tool for testing the measurement theory.

In this research, CFA resulted in four factor model for core self evaluation; four factor model for

employee engagement; six factor model for job satisfaction; five factor model for organizational

culture; four factor model for employee retention were used. The criteria for goodness of fit

indices were used in this research is given in the table (see Table).

The reliability coefficient of measuring instrument shows that the scores are more or less similar

on a scale / test after ―independent administrations of the same instrument consistently yield

similar results‖ [46]. The reliability coefficient is calculated and referred as Cronbach’s Alfa

[47]. And value of cronbach’s alpha should be 0.70 and above.

The validity is described as the ability of an instrument to measure what it intends to measure.

For assessment of the validity, convergent and discriminant validity were used in this study. For

convergent validity, three criteria were used [48]: firstly composite reliability should be greater

than 0.70, secondly composite reliability be greater than average variance extracted (AVE) and

thirdly average variance extracted be greater than 0.50. Discriminant validity was evaluated on

three criteria [49]: firstly average variance extracted (AVE) be greater than maximum shared

squared variance (MSV), secondly average variance extracted be greater than average shared

squared variance (ASV) and thirdly diagonal value need to be greater than specific rows and

column for the particular corresponding value.

Second order structural equation modeling (SEM) model was used to test the hypothesis in this

study. In SEM, five constructs and twenty-three factors were used to run the model. An indirect

effect was also calculated with the help of bootstrap methods with 95% confidence interval. The

criteria for goodness of fit indices were used in this research (see Table)

Synopsis-14

Measure Threshold

Chi-square/df (CMIN/DF) < 3 Good: < 5 Sometime permissible

P-value for the model Significant P-value for measurement Model

Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (GFI) Above .90

Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (AGFI) Above .90

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Above .90

Normed-Fit Index (NFI) Above .90

Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) Above .90

Incremental Fit Index (IFI) Above .90

Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) <0.05Good: 0.05 - 0.10moderate: >0.10 Bad

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) <0.05Good: 0.05 - 0.10moderate: >0.10 Bad

FINDINGS

4.1 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

In employee engagement scale, the KMO value .895 and Bartlett’s test significant at p value

0.001. Four factors were identified in EFA. Factor loading and communalities criteria were met

at 0.7 and 0.5. In CFA, results were significant. Reliability, convergent and discriminant validity

met all the standard criteria. . Refer appendix A1 to A7 for stepwise result. ( APPENDIX A1-

A6)

4.2 EMPLOYEE RETENTION

In employee retention scale the KMO value .892 and Bartlett’s test significant at p value 0.001.

Four factors were explained the total variance. Factor loading for the statement was greater than

0.70 and communalities greater than 0.50. In CFA, results were significant. All the standard

criteria for reliability coefficient, convergent and discriminant validity were met. (APPENDIX

B1-B6)

4.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

In Organizational culture scale, the KMO value was 0.902 and Bartlett’s test significant at p

value 0.001. Five factors were identified in EFA. Communalities and factor loading criteria were

met. In CFA, result was significant. Reliability, convergent and discriminant validity met all the

standards. Refer appendix C1 to C6 for stepwise result. (APPENDIX C1-C6)

Synopsis-15

4.4 CORE SELF-EVALUATION

In CSE scale, the KMO value was .842 and Bartlett’s test of significance at p value 0.001. Four

factors were explained in this study. Factor loading for the statement was greater 0.70 and

communalities greater than 0.50. In CFA, values were significant. Reliability, convergent and

discriminant validity met the entire standard. Refer appendix D1 to D6 for stepwise result.

(APPENDIX D1-D6)

4.5 JOB SATISFACTION

In job satisfaction scale, the KMO value was 0.905 and Bartlett’s test significant at p value

0.001. Six factors were identified in EFA, communalities and Factor loading criteria were met. In

CFA results were significant. All the standard criteria for reliability coefficient, convergent and

discriminant validity were met. Refer appendix E1 to E6 for stepwise result. (APPENDIX E1-

E6)

4.6 TESTING OF HYPOTHESIS

Hypothesis 1: Organizational culture will be positively related with employee engagement.

Hypothesis 2: Organizational culture will be positively related with job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3: Employee engagement will be positively related with job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4: Job satisfaction will be positively related with employee retention.

Hypothesis 5: Core self evaluation will be positively related with employee engagement.

Hypothesis 6: Core self evaluation will be positively related with job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 7: Employee engagement mediates the relationship between organizational culture

and job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1 was accepted at p value 0.01. Therefore, organizational culture has positive

relationship with employee engagement. (APPENDIX F1, F2, APPENDIX G)

Synopsis-16

Hypothesis 2 was accepted at p value 0.01. So, organizational culture has positive relationship on

job satisfaction. (APPENDIX F1, F2, APPENDIX G)

Hypothesis 3 was accepted at p value 0.03. Therefore, employee engagement has positive

significant relationship with job satisfaction. (APPENDIX F1, F2, APPENDIX G)

Hypothesis 4 was accepted at p value 0.01. So, job satisfaction has significant relationship with

employee retention. (APPENDIX F1, F2, APPENDIX G)

Hypothesis 5 was accepted at p value 0.01. So core self evaluation has positive relationship with

employee engagement. (APPENDIX F1, F2, G)

Hypothesis 6 was rejected at p value 0.26. That is core self evaluation has no relationship with

job satisfaction. (APPENDIX F1, F2, APPENDIX G)

Hypothesis 7 was accepted with lower bond 0.007 and upper bond 0.114 at 95% confidence

interval. Thereby shows that employee engagement mediates the relationship between

organizational culture and job satisfaction i.e. organizational culture has an indirect effect on job

satisfaction under mediation of employee engagement. (APPENDIX H)

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

There were four objectives in the research with seven hypotheses to be tested.

Hypothesis 1 - There will be positive and significant relationship between organizational culture

and employee engagement of software professionals. Previous researches have also supported

the relationship between OC and EE [50] [51].

Synopsis-17

Hypothesis 2 - There will be positive and significant relationship between organizational culture

and job satisfaction of software professionals. Previous researches have also supported the

relationship between OC and JS [52] [53].

Hypothesis 3 - There will be positive and significant relationship between employee engagement

and job satisfaction of software professionals. Previous researches have also supported the

relationship between EE and JS [54] [55].

Hypothesis 4 - There will be positive and significant relationship between job satisfactions and

employee retention of software professionals. Previous researches have also supported the

relationship between EE and JS [56] [57].

Hypothesis 5 - There will be positive significant relationship between core self-evaluation and

employee engagement of software professionals. Previous researches have also supported the

relationship between CSE and EE [58] [4] [59].

Hypothesis 6 - There will be positive and significant relationship between core self-evaluation

and job satisfaction of software professionals is rejected. This is a departure from previous

researches.

Hypothesis 7 - Organizational culture has an indirect effect on job satisfaction that is this

relationship is mediated by employee engagement.

The findings typically supports the basic premise that engagement plays an important role in

perceiving culture favorably and acts as a catalyst in increasing the job satisfaction of employees.

LIMITATION AND SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The data were collected from three information technology (IT) companies in National capital

region using cross-sectional research design. Future research would be required on different IT

companies with wider sample frame in India so that the findings could be generalized across all

IT companies. Further another study on a different sector should be conducted to compare with

Synopsis-18

IT companies so that appropriate interventions can be made to improve engagement and

retention among employees.

6.1 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The findings of this research have practical implications for software professionals and IT

companies. Those companies that are interested in implementing positive organizational culture;

high score of core self evaluation confirm the desirable outcome associated with job satisfaction

and employee retention. If the employee engagement is increased, the link between culture and

satisfaction can further be strengthened. Bringing change in culture through innovation in

workplace, autonomy, policies, communication and employee orientededness will boost the

satisfaction of employees (Herzberg – motivation – hygiene theory), and the present research

aptly supports that culture has significant impact on employee engagement and job satisfaction

that further increases employee retention and may lead to higher productivity.

SELECTED REFERENCES

[1] M. Albrow, The Global Age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. 1996.

[2] G. Martin and S. Hetrick, Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management: A

Strategic Approach to HR, Butterworth-Heinemann. 2006.

[3] S. D. Pugh and J. Dietz, ―Employee engagement at the organizational level of analysis,‖

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 44–47, 2008.

[4] O. M. Karatepe, S. Keshavarz, and S. Nejati, ―Do Core Self-Evaluations Mediate the

Effect of Coworker Support on Work Engagement? A Study of Hotel Employees in Iran,‖

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 62–71, Jan. 2010.

[5] R. Baumruk, ―Why managers are crucial to increasing engagement: Identifying steps

managers can take to engage their workforce,‖ Strategic HR Review, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 24–

27, 2006.

[6] M. Bedarkar and D. Pandita, ―A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting

Synopsis-19

employee performance,‖ Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 133, pp. 106–

115, 2014.

[7] G. Alessandri, L. Borgogni, W. B. Schaufeli, G. V. Caprara, and C. Consiglio, ―From

Positive Orientation to Job performance : The Role of Work Engagement and Self-

efficacy Beliefs,‖ Journal of Happiness Studies, 2014.

[8] W. A. Kahn, ―Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work,‖ Academy of management journal, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 692–724, 1990.

[9] D. R. May, R. L. Gilson, and L. M. Harter, ―The psychological conditions of

meaningfulness , safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work,‖

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 11–37, 2004.

[10] M. R. Simpson, ―Engagement at work : A review of the literature,‖ International Journal

of Nursing Studies, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 1012–1024, 2009.

[11] H. K. S. Laschinger and J. Finegan, ―Empowering nurses for work engagement and health

in hospital settings,‖ Journal of Nursing Administration, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 439–449,

2005.

[12] H. K. S. Laschinger and M. P. Leiter, ―The impact of nursing work environments on

patient safety outcomes: The mediating role of burnout engagement,‖ Journal of Nursing

Administration, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 259–267, 2006.

[13] J. Cho, H. S. Laschinger, and C. Wong, ―Workplace empowerment, work engagement and

organizational commitment of new graduate nurses,‖ Nursing Leadership, vol. 19, no. 3,

p. 43, 2006.

[14] W. B. Schaufeli and A. B. Bakker, ―Job demands, job resources, and their relationship

with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study,‖ Journal of Organizational

Behavior, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 293–315, 2004.

[15] M. Salanova, S. Agut, and J. M. Peiró, ―Linking Organizational Resources and Work

Engagement to Employee Performance and Customer Loyalty : The Mediation of Service

Synopsis-20

Climate,‖ Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 1217–1227, 2005.

[16] J. J. Hakanen, A. B. Bakker, and E. Demerouti, ―How dentists cope with their job

demands and stay engaged: The moderating role of job resources,‖ European Journal of

Oral Sciences, vol. 113, no. 6, pp. 479–487, 2005.

[17] J. J. Hakanen, A. B. Bakker, and W. B. Schaufeli, ―Burnout and work engagement among

teachers,‖ Journal of School Psychology, vol. 43, pp. 495–513, 2006.

[18] S. Llorens, A. B. Bakker, W. Schaufeli, and M. Salanova, ―Testing the robustness of the

job demands-resources model,‖ International Journal of Stress Management, vol. 13, no.

3, p. 378, 2006.

[19] A. M. Richardsen, R. J. Burke, and M. Martinussen, ―Work and health outcomes among

police officers: The mediating role of police cynicism and engagement,‖ International

Journal of Stress Management, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 555, 2006.

[20] S. Mauno, U. Kinnunen, and M. Ruokolainen, ―Job demands and resources as antecedents

of work engagement: A longitudinal study,‖ Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 70, no.

1, pp. 149–171, 2007.

[21] D. Xanthopoulou, A. B. Bakker, E. Demerouti, and W. B. Schaufeli, ―The role of personal

resources in the job demands-resources model,‖ International journal of stress

management, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 121, 2007.

[22] W. B. Schaufeli, M. Salanova, V. González-Romá, and A. B. Bakker, ―The measurement

of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach,‖

Journal of Happiness studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 71–92, 2002.

[23] J. K. Harter, F. L. Schmidt, and T. L. Hayes, ―Business-Unit-Level Relationship Between

Employee Satisfaction , Employee Engagement , and Business Outcomes : A Meta-

Analysis,‖ Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 268–279, 2002.

[24] D. Cathcart, S. Jeska, J. Karnas, S. E. Miller, J. Pechacek, and L. Rheault, ―Span of

control matters,‖ Journal of Nursing Administration, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 395–399, 2004.

Synopsis-21

[25] W. H. Macey, B. Schneider, A. Karen M. Barbera, and S. A. Young, Employee

Engagement: Tools for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage , A John Wiley &

Sons, Ltd., Publication. 2009.

[26] M. Sutherland and W. Jordaan, ―Factors to retention of knwledge workers,‖ SA Journal

of Human Resource Management, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 55–64, 2004.

[27] R. Borofsky, Assessing cultural anthropology , McGraw-Hill New York. 1994.

[28] M. Alvesson and P.-O. Berg, Corporate culture and organizational symbolism: An

overview,New York: De Gruyter. 2002.

[29] I. Palmer and C. Hardy, Thinking about management: implications of organisational

debates for practice, London, England: Sage. 2000.

[30] G. Kunda, Engineering culture: control and commitment in a high-tech organization.

Temple University Press, Philadelphia. 1992.

[31] N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. Wilderom, and M. F. Peterson, Handbook of organizational

culture and climate. Sage. 2011.

[32] T. A. Judge and J. E. Bono, ―Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem,

generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction

and job performance: A meta-analysis,‖ Journal of applied Psychology, vol. 86, no. 1, pp.

80–92, 2001.

[33] T. A. Judge, A. Erez, J. E. Bono, and C. J. Thoresen, ―The core self-evaluations scale:

Development of a measure,‖ Personnel psychology, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 303–331, 2003.

[34] T. A. Judge, A. Erez, J. E. Bono, and C. Thoreson, ―The core self-evaluations scale:

Development of a measure,‖ Personnel Psychology, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 303–332, 2003.

[35] T. a Judge, J. E. Bono, A. Erez, and E. a Locke, ―Core self-evaluations and job and life

satisfaction: the role of self-concordance and goal attainment.,‖ The Journal of applied

psychology, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 257–268, Mar. 2005.

Synopsis-22

[36] T. A. Judge, J. E. Bono, and E. A. Locke, ―Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating

role of job characteristics.,‖ Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 237–249,

2000.

[37] S. P. Robbins and T. Judge, Essentials of organizational behaviour, Prentice Hall Upper

Saddle River. 2003.

[38] V. Wickramasinghe, ―Predictors of job satisfaction among IT graduates in offshore

outsourced IT firms,‖ Personnel Review, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 413–431, 2009.

[39] E. A. Locke, ―The nature and causes of job satisfaction,‖ Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology, vol. 1, pp. 1297–1343, 1976.

[40] C. Ostroff and S. W. Kozlowski, ―Organizational socialization as a learning process: The

role of information acquisition,‖ Personnel Psychology, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 849–874, 1992.

[41] W. K. Balzer et al., ―Users’ manual for the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; 1997 Revision)

and the Job In General scales. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University,‖

1997.

[42] B. Thompson, Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and

applications. American Psychological Association. 2004.

[43] M. Sarstedt and E. Mooi, A Concise Guide to Market Research:The Process, Data, and,

Springer. 2014.

[44] T. A. Brown, Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications.

2015.

[45] B. M. Byrne, Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and

programming.Routledge. 2013.

[46] N. Abell, D. W. Springer, and A. Kamata, Developing and validating rapid assessment

instruments . New York: Oxford University Press. 2009.

[47] L. J. Cronbach, ―Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests,‖ psychometrika, vol.

Synopsis-23

16, no. 3, pp. 297–334, 1951.

[48] C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, ―Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable

variables and measurement error,‖ Journal of marketing research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39–

50, 1981.

[49] J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson, Multivariate Data Analysis: A

Global Perspective. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. 2009.

[50] S. Taneja, S. S. Sewell, and R. Y. Odom, ―A culture of employee engagement: a strategic

perspective for global managers,‖ Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 46–56,

2015.

[51] G. Cattermole, J. Johnson, and K. Roberts, ―Employee engagement welcomes the dawn of

an empowerment culture,‖ Strategic HR Review, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 250–254, 2013.

[52] T. Lim, ―Relationships among organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and learning

organization culture in one Korean private organization,‖ Asia Pacific education review,

vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 311–320, 2010.

[53] A. Ali, A. Hosseinkhanzadeh, and T. Yeganeh, ―Investigate Relationship Between Job

Satisfaction and Organizational Culture Among Teachers,‖ Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences, vol. 84, pp. 832–836, 2013.

[54] A. Walker and K. Campbell, ―Nurse Education Today Work readiness of graduate nurses

and the impact on job satisfaction , work engagement and intention to remain,‖ YNEDT,

pp. 6–11, 2013.

[55] C. M. Yeh, ―Tourism involvement, work engagement, and job satisfaction among

frontline hotel employees,‖ Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 42, no. xx, pp. 214–239,

2013.

[56] C. Lee and K. Way, ―Individual employment characteristics of hotel employees that play a

role in employee satisfaction and work retention,‖ International Journal of Hospitality

Management, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 344–353, 2010.

Synopsis-24

[57] A. Anis, Kashif-ur-Rehman, Ijaz-Ur-Rehman, M. A. Khan, and A. A. Humayoun, ―Impact

of organizational commitment on job satisfaction and employee retention in

pharmaceutical industry,‖ African Journal of Business Management, vol. 5, pp. 7316–

7324, 2011.

[58] R. Shorbaji, L. Messarra, and S. Karkoulian, ―Core-Self Evaluation: Predictor of

Employee Engagement,‖ The Business Review, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 276–283, 2011.

[59] J. J. Lee, ―Drivers of work engagement: An examination of core self-evaluations and

psychological climate among hotel employees,‖ International Journal of Hospitality

Management, vol. 44, pp. 84–98, 2015.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A1: Employee Engagement – KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .895

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 5543.992

df 136

Sig. .000

Synopsis-25

APPENDIX A2: Employee Engagement - Rotation Pattern Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4

COMMITEMENT3 .860

COMMITEMENT2 .848

COMMITEMENT4 .842

COMMITEMENT1 .837

COMMITEMENT5 .830

ATTACHMENT4 .931

ATTACHMENT1 .920

ATTACHMENT3 .910

ATTACHMENT2 .908

JINVOLVEMENT1 .913

JINVOLVEMENT4 .910

JINVOLVEMENT3 .903

JINVOLVEMENT2 .860

PATTITUDE4 .898

PATTITUDE3 .894

PATTITUDE1 .890

PATTITUDE2 .867

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.a

a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

APPENDIX A3: Employee Enagagement - Reliability Statistics

N of Items Cronbach's Alpha

Commitment 5 0.899

Involvement 4 0.923

Emotional attachment 4 0.944

Positive Attitude 4 0.914

Employee Engagement 17 0.911

Synopsis-26

APPENDIX A4: Employee Engagement - CFA

APPENDIX A5: Employee Engagement - Convergent and Discriminant validity

APPENDIX A6: Employee Enagagement - Model Fit

Measure Threshold

Chi-square/df (CMIN/DF) 266.151/113=2.355

P-value for the model .000

Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (GFI) .932

Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Statistic (AGFI) .908

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .972

Normed-Fit Index (NFI) .953

Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) .966

Incremental Fit Index (IFI) .972

Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) .051

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) .058

CR AVE MSV ASV JINVOLVEMENTCOMMITEMENTATTACHMENTPATTITUDE

JINVOLVEMENT 0.924 0.752 0.255 0.175 0.867

COMMITEMENT0.900 0.643 0.154 0.089 0.233 0.802

ATTACHMENT 0.944 0.809 0.262 0.224 0.505 0.393 0.900

PATTITUDE 0.915 0.729 0.262 0.179 0.465 0.240 0.512 0.854

Synopsis-27

APPENDIX B1: Employee Retention - KMO and Bartlett's Test




df 153

Sig. .000

APPENDIX B2: Employee Retention - Rotation Pattern Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4

APPASTIMULATION2 .890






COPPORTUNITIES3 .916




WLBALANCE4 .885

WLBALANCE3 .877

WLBALANCE1 .866

WLBALANCE2 .862

INTSTAY2 .873

INTSTAY4 .865

INTSTAY1 .863

INTSTAY3 .830




Synopsis-28

APPENDIX B3: Employee Retention - CFA

APPENDIX B4: Employee Retention - Reliability Statistics


Work life Balance 4 0.902

Career opportunities 4 0.911

Appreciation and Stimulation 6 0.909

Intention to Stay 4 0.886

Employee retention 18 0.903

APPENDIX B5: Employee Retention - Convergent and Discriminant validity

CR AVE MSV ASV WLBAL APPSTI COPPUN INTST

WLBAL 0.902 0.697 0.240 0.185 0.835

APPSTI 0.910 0.627 0.153 0.122 0.372 0.792

COPPUN 0.912 0.721 0.176 0.123 0.420 0.274 0.849

INTST 0.886 0.661 0.240 0.170 0.490 0.391 0.344 0.813

Synopsis-29

APPENDIX B6: Employee Retention - Model Fit

Measure Threshold











APPENDIX C1: Organizational Culture - KMO and Bartlett's Test




df 190

Sig. .000

Synopsis-30

APPENDIX C2: Organizational Culture - Rotation Pattern Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5

COMMUNICATION3 .917

COMMUNICATION2 .914

COMMUNICATION4 .894

COMMUNICATION1 .872

INNOVATION4 .951

INNOVATION1 .900

INNOVATION2 .880

INNOVATION3 .850

AUTONOMY3 .914

AUTONOMY1 .903

AUTONOMY4 .903

AUTONOMY2 .855

EORIENTED1 .898

EORIENTED2 .893

EORIENTED4 .878

EORIENTED3 .856

POLICIES2 .916

POLICIES1 .900

POLICIES3 .895

POLICIES4 .813




Synopsis-31

APPENDIX C3: Organizational Culture - CFA

APPENDIX C4: Organizational Culture - Reliability Statistics


Employee-oriented 4 0.912

Open communication 4 0.923

Innovation 4 0.922

Autonomy 4 0.926

Policies 4 0.910

Organizational culture 20 0.922

APPENDIX C5: Organizational Culture - Convergent and Discriminant validity

Synopsis-32

APPENDIX C6: Organizational Culture - Model Fit

Measure Threshold











APPENDIX D1: Core Self Evaluation - KMO and Bartlett's Test




df 66

Sig. .000

APPENDIX D2: Core Self Evaluation - Rotation Pattern Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4

CSE1 .927

CSE7 .904

CSE3 .883

CSE2 .918

CSE12 .893

CSE4 .886

CSE8 .912

CSE11 .883

CSE5 .863

CSE9 .921

CSE6 .871

CSE10 .845




Synopsis-33

APPENDIX D3: Core Self Evaluation - CFA

APPENDIX D4: Core Self Evaluation - Reliability Statistics


Self-esteem 3 .892

Neuroticism 3 .885

Generalized self-efficacy 3 .872

Locus of control 3 .862

Core self- evaluation 12 .887

APPENDIX D5: Core Self Evaluation - Convergent and Discriminant validity

CR AVE MSV ASV G_S_efficacySelf_esteemNeurotic L_O_control

G_S_efficacy 0.873 0.696 0.359 0.272 0.834

Self_esteem 0.893 0.736 0.256 0.203 0.506 0.858

Neurotic 0.886 0.721 0.200 0.165 0.447 0.376 0.849

L_O_control 0.863 0.677 0.359 0.241 0.599 0.459 0.392 0.823

Synopsis-34

APPENDIX D6: Core Self Evaluation - Model Fit

Measure Threshold











APPENDIX E1: Job Satisfaction - KMO and Bartlett's Test




df 253

Sig. .000

APPENDIX E2: Job Satisfaction - Rotation Pattern Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6

JOBSECURITY1 .947

JOBSECURITY3 .892

JOBSECURITY4 .891

JOBSECURITY2 .868

PAY3 .935

PAY2 .923

PAY4 .917

PAY1 .854

SUPERVISION3 .931

SUPERVISION4 .918

SUPERVISION2 .857

SUPERVISION1 .839

PROMOTION4 .902

PROMOTION1 .892

Synopsis-35

PROMOTION3 .883

PROMOTION2 .847

TRAINING1 .940

TRAINING3 .881

TRAINING2 .853

TRAINING4 .846

RECOGNITION3 .983

RECOGNITION2 .969

RECOGNITION1 .948




APPENDIX E3: Job Satisfaction – CFA

Synopsis-36

APPENDIX E4: Job Satisfaction - Reliability Statistics


Pay 4 0.931

Promotion 4 0.906

Training 4 0.910

Supervision 4 0.914

Recognition 3 0.963

Job security 4 0.922

Job Satisfaction 23 0.923

APPENDIX E5: Job Satisfaction convergent and discriminant validity

APPENDIX E6: Organizational Culture - Model Fit

Measure Threshold











CR AVE MSV ASV TRAIN JSECURITY EPAY SUPERVI PROMOT REGN

TRAIN 0.911 0.719 0.231 0.181 0.848

JSECURITY 0.922 0.747 0.318 0.174 0.460 0.864

EPAY 0.932 0.773 0.318 0.191 0.470 0.564 0.879

SUPERVI 0.914 0.727 0.231 0.124 0.481 0.312 0.374 0.852

PROMOT 0.907 0.709 0.147 0.105 0.383 0.293 0.366 0.313 0.842

REGN 0.963 0.897 0.158 0.101 0.311 0.397 0.374 0.229 0.241 0.947

Synopsis-37

APPENDIX F1: Conceptual Model

Synopsis-38

APPENDIX F2: Structural Equation model for Testing the Framework

Constructs and measures

Coefficients Standard

Error

Critical

ratios

Probabili

ty Standardized Unstandardised

Engagement <--- Evaluation 0.163 0.177 0.071 2.476 0.013

Engagement <--- Culture 0.359 0.457 0.096 4.738 ***

Satisfaction <--- Engagement 0.141 0.149 0.069 2.163 0.031

Satisfaction <--- Evaluation -0.063 -0.072 0.065 -1.108 0.268

Satisfaction <--- Culture 0.636 0.858 0.124 6.9 ***

Retention <--- Satisfaction 0.198 0.147 0.052 2.841 0.004

Core self-evaluation scale

Self.esteem <--- Evaluation 0.597 1.000 NA

Neuroticism <--- Evaluation 0.517 0.867 0.111 7.839 ***

G.S.efficacy <--- Evaluation 0.747 1.251 0.133 9.418 ***

L.O.control <--- Evaluation 0.675 1.131 0.122 9.236 ***

Organizational culture scale

Policies <--- Culture 0.506 1.000 NA

E.oriented <--- Culture 0.597 1.180 0.146 8.06 ***

Autonomy <--- Culture 0.718 1.417 0.161 8.785 ***

Innovation <--- Culture 0.691 1.365 0.158 8.655 ***

Communication <--- Culture 0.478 0.944 0.134 7.04 ***

Employee engagement scale

Attitude <--- Engagement 0.645 1.000 NA

Job.involement <---Engagement 0.610 0.947 0.104 9.11 ***

emotional <--- Engagement 0.753 1.168 0.121 9.685 ***

Org.Commitment <--- Engagement 0.393 0.610 0.095 6.44 ***

Employee retention scale

Appreciation <--- Retention 0.508 1.000 NA

C.opportunities <--- Retention 0.517 1.018 0.153 6.656 ***

Wlbalance <--- Retention 0.690 1.359 0.186 7.313 ***

I.T.stay <--- Retention 0.615 1.210 0.168 7.196 ***

Job satisfaction scale

Job.security <--- Satisfaction 0.683 1.000 NA

Pay <--- Satisfaction 0.679 0.994 0.089 11.14 ***

Supervision <--- Satisfaction 0.507 0.742 0.085 8.727 ***

Promotion <--- Satisfaction 0.475 0.696 0.085 8.232 ***

Training <--- Satisfaction 0.662 0.969 0.089 10.929 ***

Recognition <--- Satisfaction 0.477 0.698 0.085 8.259 ***

Synopsis-39

APPENDIX G: Model Fit

Measure Threshold











APPENDIX H: Mediation Analysis - Direct and indirect effect with 95% confidence intervals

Direct effect Estimated

effect

Lower

Bonds

Upper

Bonds

Finding

Satisfaction <--- Culture .630 .510 .736 Support

Indirect effect (mediator effect)

Satisfaction <--- Engagement <--- Culture .050 .007 .114 Support

Synopsis-40

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

International journal

• Sharma, P. K., & Misra, R. K. (2015). The employee retention scale for Indian

information technology (IT) company employees: The study of reliability. International

Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(5), 161–164.

• Sharma, P. K., Misra, R. K., & Mishra, P., ( 2017, Accepted) Job Satisfaction Scale:

Adaptation And Validation Among Indian IT (Information Technology) Employees.

Global Business Review (Sage) – Accepted for publication in GBR 18.4 (July-August

AAAA 2017) issue.

International Conference

• Sharma, P. K. (2013) "Employee Engagement Theoretical Framework" International

Conclave 2013 on Innovations in Engineering and Management Organized by BIT

Patna22-23 Feb. 2013.

employee engagement and retention: a study of … · synopsis-4 1.3 rationale of the study around...

Documents