Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Dissertation
Presented to the Graduate School
Colegio de San Juan de Letran
In Partial Fulfilment
Of the Requirements of the Degree
Doctor of Business Administration
RAMONCITO P. JAVIER
September 2016
1
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................. 10
RESEARCH QUESTIONS..........10
CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................. 44
CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................. 57
CHAPTER 5 .................................................................................................................. 96
CHAPTER 1
PROBLEM RATIONALE
1.1. Introduction
The intensifying war for talent makes it increasingly difficult to attract the kind
of people the organization needs (Lombos, 2014). With the global war being waged for
talent (Collins, 2011), the challenge for employers is not only to retain employees but to
engage them, as well, with every intention to encourage high performance (Bedarkar &
Pandita, 2014).
Nearly a century has passed and a new and influential generational cohort called
millennials has surfaced in the local and global workplace (Hubbard, 2013) often
criticized for their attitude towards work (Kellison, Kim & Magnusen, 2013). Millennials
are described as a generation with no work ethics, selfish, has a strong sense of
entitlement, loyal only to themselves and their profession rather than to the business, stay
for shorter employment periods and expect the fruits of success to flow to them
well, recognizing that managers are having trouble managing their young people
Members of this generation were born between 1983 and 2003 and is the largest
cohort found in the workforce that grew with maturing technology, enjoy interacting in
social media and frequently obtain information online (LaBan, 2013). Millennials are
traditional path (Stacey, 2010). A number of factors such as helicopter parents, frequent
positive feedback and reassurance, significant leaps in technology, and political and
economic turmoil has shaped this generational cohort (Thompson & Gregory, 2012).
The shift in the work values of this generational cohort appear to approach
employment in a manner different to that of their predecessors (Solnet & Kralj, 2011;
LaBan, 2013). Employers and managers, therefore, need to provide meaningful work, to
allow them to provide input, and help them feel that he is a good fit to a good team
(DeVaney, 2015).
Job satisfaction for millennials bring about new challenges in the modern
workplace (Aruna & Anitha, 2015). With job satisfaction as a strong predictor of
turnover (Hofaidhllaoui & Chhinzer, 2014; Sree Rekha & Kamalanabhan, 2010), it
their happiness and satisfaction in the workplace? Are there specific or dominant
personality traits of this generation that have a strong bearing on job satisfaction and
5
employee engagement? The output of this study expects to contribute to the emerging
body of knowledge on employee engagement and job satisfaction while taking into
and job satisfaction (Patrick, 2010; Templer, 2012; Cleare, 2013; Zhai, Willis, OShea,
Zhai & Yang, 2013; Ahmad, Ather & Hussain, 2014; Ongore, 2014) often cite the
seminal works of Barrick and Mount (1991), Judge, Heller and Mount (2002), Staw and
Cohen-Charash (2005) or that of Judge, Heller and Klinger (2008). The results of the
said studies suggested that personality traits are dispositional sources of job satisfaction.
This idea traces its roots to the Hawthorne Studies conducted in 1920 (Porter, 2012). The
Hawthorne researchers noticed that certain individuals, whom they called the chronic-
(Patrick, 2010).
exceptionally well in their jobs (Abraham, 2012). Engaged employees are not only
motivated, but they also understand the organizations business goals, the steps required
to achieve the said goals and how their contribution drive those goals (Rasli, Huam, Thoo
& Khalaf, 2012). Engaged employees contribute to the foundation line of any business
and their engagement reflects in their services to clients and customers (Andrew &
Sofian, 2012). Outwardly, engaged employees devote a lot of energy to their jobs,
6
striving as hard as they can to take initiative and get the job done (De Braine & Roodt,
2011). Inwardly, engaged employees focus a great deal of attention and concentration
on their work, sometimes becoming so absorbed, involved and interested in their tasks
that they lose track of time (Colquite, Lepine & Wesson, 2013).
putting time but not energy or attention to their work and do little beyond the minimum
effort required to complete their job (Robbins & Judge, 2009, p 115). They exhibit little
passion or creativity typically going through the motions of completing their duties and
do not see their job as a long-term association with the organization (Jauhari, Sehgal &
Sehgal, 2013).
enthusiasm for the work he does (Robbins & Judge, 2009). At present, there is no
in many disparate ways (Sahoo & Mishra, 2012). As a result, there is an absence of a
malasakit. Bayanihan involves working together and helping each other achieve a goal
or make work easier, faster and lighter. (Angeles & Llanto, 2014). According to the
7
Diedericks & Rothmann, 2013; Ozsoy & Aras, 2014; Rigg, Day & Adler, 2013) did not
characteristics of millennials and their individual motivators (Solnet & Kralj, 2011) may
build a highly positive work environment aligned to the companys goals, strategies and
qualified talent. A study by Kontoghiorghes and Frangou (2009) found that qualified
talent is highly correlated to the strategic goals of today's modern organizations such as
competitiveness.
8
Business Leaders. To understand that engagement starts at the top and management is
responsible for creating an environment that fosters growth, recognition and trust so that
their organization can experience the power of full engagement (Kaliannan & Adjovu,
2015).
Researcher. Being a part of the BPO, this study serves as an eye opener to the
personalities, behaviors and attitudes of the employees that such can be a tool in crafting
Future Researchers. The study can be further extended in the future to include either
if significant generational differences in the workplace truly exists (Solnet & Kralj,
2011). Researchers can determine the relationship between work engagement and
employee productivity and/or organizational growth (Edinger, 2012; McShane & Von
Glinow, 2013) for professions such educators, accountants, lawyers, IT workers, sales
people etc. (Needleman, Bowman, Wyte-Lake, & Dobalian, 2014; Levy, Richardson,
Lounsbury, Stewart, Gibson & Drost, 2011; Mehta, 2012; Perkowsky, 2015).
9
The study was limited to the relationship between personality traits, job
satisfaction and work engagement among workers, under the age of 35, for five`of CPI
Outsourcings clients in Metro Manila. It did not take into account the specific nature of
the job (i.e. operations, sales & marketing, IT, HR and finance) due to limited time and
financial constraints. The study did not consider the development nor determinants of
personality. Personality traits were delimited to the big five personality traits of
compare the results among the companies and the individual implications. Moreover, it
did not assess changes over time in the personality, job satisfaction and employee
engagement measures, given the limited time provided for the study.
10
CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This chapter presents the researchs review of related literature and its synthesis;
theoretical framework; research questions and hypothesis; and its conceptual framework.
personality traits, job satisfaction and employee engagement and to understand how
Pleyto, 2014). A study by Hechanova, Uy and Presbitero Jr. (2005) described the average
Filipino worker as someone who values job security, good pay and opportunities for
growth when choosing a prospective employer (as cited in Ilagan et. al. 2014).
Employers in the BPO industry attract employees with better monetary benefits
with little success (Sen Gupta & Gupta, 2008). Studies have shown that the correlation
between pay and job satisfaction virtually disappears when the individual reaches a level
reflected in the concepts of pakikisama, pakikipagkapwa and pakikiisa and may seem to
11
on their relationships with their colleagues, happiness in this area does not automatically
hypothesizing that the quality of interpersonal relationships and meaningful work are
of five broad dimensions used to describe a persons personality traits in terms of five
agreeableness and neuroticism (Colquitt, Lepine & Wesson, 2013). Personality traits are
not descriptive summaries of behavior, but rather dispositions inferred from and can
predict and account for patterns, thoughts, feelings and actions (McCrae, 2010). A
predisposition to behave, think, and feel in a relatively consistent manner over time and
creativity, divergent thinking, and political liberalism (as cited in Rich, Lepine &
12
Crawford, 2010). The behavioral tendencies associated to this trait are curiosity,
need for variety, aesthetic sensitivity, and unconventional values (McCrae, 2010;
typical behavioral tendencies associated with this trait are highly organized, persevering,
(McCrae, 2010), having more friends and spending more time in social situations than
those who are low on extraversion (Barrick, Mount & Li, 2013). The behavioral
tendencies `associated with this factor include being sociable, assertive, gregarious,
value getting along with others. They are generally considerate, friendly, trusting,
generous, forgiving, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with others
chronic negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, or depression. Individual high on this
trait are generally anxious, depressed, angry, embarrassed, emotional, worried, and
environment and emotional experiences at work (McShane & Von Glinow, 2013). Job
satisfaction is treated both a general attitude and as satisfaction with five specific
dimensions of the job: pay, the work itself, promotion opportunities, supervision and
workers attitude toward work and researchers conducted studies to correlate overall job
satisfaction, absenteeism, turnover and workplace deviance (Robbins & Judge, 2009).
A number of studies have found that job satisfaction is associated with pay,
personal growth, relationship with others and the overall working environment (Teck-
Specific studies on job satisfaction facets related to pay (Wyld, 2011; Ho, Lee &
Wu, 2009; Judge, Piccolo, Podsakoff, Shaw & Rich, 2010), promotion (Johnston & Lee,
2011; Dalal, Bashshur & Cred, 2010), benefits and rewards (Linz & Semykina 2012),
operating procedures (Rao & Chandraiah, 2012) indicate varied levels of satisfaction.
allows researchers and organizations to find out not only whether people are satisfied
with their jobs but also, more importantly, which parts of the job are related to
Herzberg where he concluded that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction were the products
of two separate factors: motivating factors (satisfiers) and hygiene factors (dissatisfiers)
security, etc.), concern the context in which the job has to be done. The theory suggests
that job dissatisfaction ensues in those cases where hygiene factors are absent from ones
work environment. Conversely, when hygiene factors are present, e.g. when workers
perceive that their pay is fair and that their working conditions are good, therefore
15
eliminating barriers to job satisfaction. However, the fulfillment of hygiene needs cannot,
A person with a high level of job satisfaction holds positive feelings about his
job, while a dissatisfied employee holds negative feelings towards it (Srivastav & Das,
2015). Satisfied employees recognize their responsibility and performs assigned duties
Mustafa, Ahmad & Ahmad, 2012). This satisfaction and commitment to work are
significant factors that determine the success of an organization in the market (Gsior,
Pay
Every so often, a new study claims to have quantified the link between money
and happiness (Nunez, 2015) However, studies that examine this relationship with ones
employer are harder to find. Since money does not seem to have a huge effect on
employees satisfaction, what other factors influence job satisfaction? Other factors
include business outlook, career opportunities, culture and values, compensation and
benefits, senior leadership and work-life balance. This might reflect learning about the
quality of work environments over time or perhaps workers become more jaded with
Nunez (2015) found out that an employees culture and values rating so much
more important for job satisfaction than compensation and work-life balance ratings,
since the latter two factors are frequently discussed in the HR world. However, on further
recognition, and transparency within the organization. One unexpected finding is that
there is a clear relationship between years of experience and happiness at work. In short,
Although salary matters for employee satisfaction, there are a variety of other
factors that employers should also be paying attention to. Employees tell us that
articulating a prosperous career path for employees, hiring a competent executive team,
and maintaining a positive culture appear to be far more important ways to ensure
satisfied employees. And although companies cannot control the impact of age on
youthful optimism and the high employer ratings that go along with it.
Fringe Benefits
satisfaction. Fringe benefits can impact job satisfaction in several ways. First, fringe
as Social Security and Philhealth are legally required and make up roughly 27% of all
Second, fringe benefits can act as substitutes for wages. Workers also view
benefits and wages as substitutes, willing to give up wages in exchange for more benefits.
Third, the substitution between wages and benefits can have a negative impact
on job satisfaction if workers find they must sacrifice wages and accept provision of a
fringe benefit they do not necessarily desire. For instance, workers spouses may already
have provision of a particular fringe benefit, so a second provision of that fringe benefit
may be viewed as wasteful and can therefore decrease job satisfaction. On the other hand,
workers may find a particular fringe benefit as essential. As a result workers may have a
feeling of job-lock to a particular employer or job if they are uncertain about the
provision of the necessary fringe benefit at a different place of work. This combination
Promotion
tricky unless there is justification that promotions will actually resolve issues pertaining
to job satisfaction. The reasons underlying job dissatisfaction vary; some employees are
18
simply bored in their current positions or they believe the company is not utilizing their
talent; other employees are dissatisfied due to overall working conditions or poor
or institutions use promotion as a reward for high productivity of their workers that
accelerate their efforts. It can be only useful way of compensation where employee gives
significant value to promotion, if not then pay or wage increment is best reward for more
exertion.
aspects of experience of work. They make up of a vital facet of mobility of labor related
to workers, most frequently having considerable increment of wages (Miceli & Mulvey,
2000). Pay satisfaction and satisfaction related to job security both are most significant
satisfaction with regard to promotion opportunities is not a major factor (Moen & Asa,
2000).
Co-workers
especially true for new employees joining a company that just want to fit in. According
19
to Shiar (2015) When you have a close friend at work, you feel a stronger connection
to the company, and youre more excited about coming into work every day. You attach
yourself to the companys purpose and collaborate better to create success for the
business. Theres a reason why one of the ten key metrics measured in the staff
Rewards
organizational cultures, underpinning core values and increasing the motivation and
commitment of employees. Furthermore, reward processes cover both financial and non-
financial rewards. There are direct financial rewards that consist of payments in the form
of wages, salaries and bonuses. There are also the indirect financial rewards, or benefits,
such as insurance plans (life, health etc.), retirement plans, sick leave etc. Finally, the
non- financial rewards consist of the satisfaction that a person receives from the job itself,
from the psychological and physical environment in which the person works (Mondy
and Noe, 2002). Furthermore, non-financial rewards deal with feelings of recognition,
are led by organizational requirements and can increase the motivation and commitment
of employees as their philosophy must recognize the vital role of the workforce and
managers. The difficulties that usually appear, according to Thorpe & Holman (2000),
skills, experience, needs. It is essential that rewards should be fairly distributed but there
When ascending the management ladder, people express their satisfaction from
their rewards as well as their benefits and emphasis on prospects and future promotions.
This creates feelings of job security and along with the possibility to be promoted and
reach a higher management level can create commitment and give job satisfaction. The
motives for that higher level are: more participation and the notion that they are
Rewards system is effective for the higher level but not for the lower level within
the organization. This conclusion is also related to the previous observation where it was
shown that the lower level of employees are not satisfied from what they receive whereas
21
in the higher level there is an acceptance on the same issue (Galanou, Georgakapoulos,
One of the many challenges for a business is to satisfy its employees in order to
cope up with the ever changing and evolving environment and to achieve success and
remain in competition. In the modern era, organizations are facing several challenges
effectiveness, productivity and job commitment of employees, the business must satisfy
If employees are not satisfied with the task assigned to them, they are not certain
about factors such as their rights, working conditions are unsafe, co-workers are not
cooperative, supervisor is not giving them respect and they are not considered in the
decision making process; resulting them to feel separate from the organization. in current
times, firms cannot afford dissatisfied employees as they will not perform up to the
standards or the expectations of their supervisor, they will be fired, resulting firms to
bear additional costs for recruiting new staff. So, it is beneficial for firms to provide
flexible working environment to employees where they feel their opinions are valued
and they are a part of the organization. Employee morale should be high as it will be
reflected in their performance because with low morale, they will make lesser efforts to
improve.
22
The working environment consists of two broader dimensions such as work and
context. Work includes all the different characteristics of the job like the way job is
carried out and completed, involving the tasks like task activities training, control on
ones own job related activities, a sense of achievement from work, variety in tasks and
the intrinsic value for a task. There is a positive link between work environment and
intrinsic aspect of the job satisfaction. The second dimension of job satisfaction known
as context comprises of the physical working conditions and the social working
conditions (Sousa-Poza & Sousa-Poza, 2000; Gazioglu & Tanselb, 2006; Skalli,
Theorists like Gordon Allport, Raymond Catell and Hans Eysenck trait or
dispositional theories state that individuals possess stable traits that significantly
some individuals are predisposed to negative affectivity while others are predisposed to
23
positive affectivity (Cleare, 2013). Staw and Cohen-Charash (2005) posited that
personality traits influence behavior in the workplace and that there is theoretical and
empirical robust explanation for job attitudes (as cited (Kacmar, Collins, Harris & Judge,
samples, the seminal work of Judge, Heller and Mount (2002) found out that four of the
undergraduate students enrolled in upper level courses at a large public university in the
United States concluded that stable personality traits (core self-evaluations) had a
positive relationship with job satisfaction and an effect mediated by perceptions of job
One study conducted in the Bahamas suggests that individuals with high trait
scores were more likely to be satisfied with their job. However, they were not necessarily
more satisfied than those with low-traits scores. Additionally, only emotional stability
and internal locus of control were positively related to all 13 job facets (Cleare, 2013).
24
that a relationship exists between the personality traits studied and job satisfaction
A study conducted on 818 urban employees from five Chinese cities reported that
only extraversion to have an effect on job satisfaction, suggesting that there could be
cultural difference in the relationships between personality traits and job satisfaction in
China and in the West (Zhai et al., 2013). A study of 354 employees in Singapore proves
Employee Engagement
Resources and its definition is often debated (McShane & Von Glinow, 2013). One study
from colleagues and supervisors, performance feedback, opportunities for learning and
development and opportunities for skill use (Bakker & Schaufel, 2008). Macey and
satisfaction with and enthusiasm for the work he does (Robbins & Judge, 2009). More
25
recent versions has defined it as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Rasli et. al, 2012) or a positive
experience in itself and defined in terms of high levels of activity, initiative, and
responsibility and has positive consequences for the organization (Bhatnagar, 2012).
to achieve high performance levels and superior business results (Sahoo & Mishra,
employee towards his or her organization and its values (Andrew & Sofian, 2012).
Employees see themselves as being part of something greater as they continue to invest
in the companys success and remain loyal to their colleagues (Feffer, 2015).
exhibits high levels of passion and creativity that contributes value to the organization
A study by Ilagan et al. (2014) of 302 Filipino workers suggests that job,
organizational, family and career related needs are driving factors of engagement among
Filipino workers. Of these identified needs, Western models does not include family.
The findings also suggest that local culture influences motivation theories and practices.
26
The results of a 2014 Gallup poll indicate that 51% of employees in the US are
disengaged, 17.5% were actively disengaged and Millennials are the least engaged
group, at 28.9% (Adkins, 2015). A disengaged workforce is costly and the losses can
add up to billions of dollars in lost productivity for a country (Gopal, 2006; Harter,
Agrawal, Sorensen, 2014). Disengaged employees passively withdraw and actively resist
the workplace as a whole (Pater & Lewis, 2012) with voluntary behavior that violates
significant organizational norms that threatens the well-being of the organization or its
advantage in turbulent times (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014). Management understands that
employees (Kaliannan & Adjovu, 2015) and an essential element of effective human
capital management that drives productivity (Binder, 2012). Employers, therefore, feel
the urgency of getting their workers engaged and are looking for the best ways to make
One acceptable way to measure engagement is Dr. Arie Shrioms Vigor Scale.
Shriom defines vigor as the positive feeling of physical strength, emotional energy, and
27
cognitive liveliness that arises in response to an individuals evaluation of the work that
they do (Simmons, 2011). Organization also showed that a personality trait called
predicted, people with a secure attachment style were more likely to experience vigor at
Vigor is a valid way to think about engagement. If your employees appear peppy,
energetic, and interested in the work they do, they are likely engaged. If this does not
describe your employees, you could certainly look for new ones, but Id recommend
starting with partnering with them to continuously improve the work that they do.
of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Vigor refers to high levels
of energy and mental resilience while working, whereas a dedicated employee is strongly
involved in his or her work, and experiences a sense of enthusiasm and significance.
Absorption refers to being happily engrossed in ones work with full concentration.
particular job or with work in general. Additionally, both concepts are regarded as fairly
stable phenomena, although the difference between the concepts has not been clearly
while job involvement focuses strictly on the psychological importance of the job in an
Most researchers agree that the concept of engagement contains the two
dimensions of vigor and dedication. However, there is also evidence that vigor and
exhaustion are not each others opposites but two separate although highly related
third constituting aspect of work engagement, even though it does not have a conceptual
opposite in the dimensions of burnout: absorption and reduced professional efficacy are
rather conceptually distinct aspects than each others direct opposites. Hence,
The sensations of people are in many respects similar when they experience work
optimal experience that is described through clear mind, merging of mind and body,
effortless concentration and focused attention, sense of complete personal control, loss
order to achieve a flow state, one should have clear goals, immediate feedback, and tasks
that are challenging enough. The level of challenges has to meet ones skills so that one
has confidence to perform the tasks. (Hakanen, 2004a, 228; Schaufeli et al., 2002, 75.)
The concepts of work engagement and flow have, however, two considerable
differences; flow is typically a more complex concept than work engagement and refers
persistent state of mind (Schaufeli et al., 2002, 75). Similarly as absorption can be
Millennials
Generation Y or the Net Generation are among the other labels given to the
generation (Atkinson, 2008) born between 1980 and early 2000 (Hubbard, 2013;
Atkinson, 2008). It is the largest and better educated generation that succeeds the
previous generation such as Gen X and the aging Baby Boomers (LaBan, 2013).
30
They are described as tech-savvy (Bannon, Ford & Meltzer, 2011); attention
but surprisingly make good team players who seek collaboration (Hulett, 2006);
approach employment in a manner different to that of their predecessors (Solnet & Kralj,
2011) and do not necessarily see their careers following a traditional path (Randall, 2010).
political contexts that are unique from previous generations (Smith & Galbraith, 2012).
For example, helicopter parents, frequent positive feedback and reassurance, significant
leaps in technology, and political and economic turmoil has shaped and influenced this
experienced a change in landscape caused by the rise and fall of job and career
opportunities, stricter quality standards and work ethics, faster work pace,
values than the generations before them, including the now-aging Baby Boomers (Miller,
Hodge, Brandt & Schneider, 2013). Employers have noted that Millennials are very open
in expressing their wants that include access to senior management, having a strong
31
mentor and wanting a career path (DeVaney, 2015). They tend to challenge new
opportunities and management decisions; strive for more work life balance and prefer
More and more research is pointing to the critical nature of relationships at work
for the Millennials satisfaction and retention. More specifically, relationships with
immediate managers may be the key to fully leveraging, motivating, and retaining
and mentoring (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). However, some companies such as Cisco,
Johnson & Johnson and General Electric are turning to reverse mentoring by asking their
tech-savvy Millennials to school older leaders on social media, mobile computing, and
the cloud leading to career development opportunities for them, as well as benefits for
workplace such as the refusal to invest in employee training for fear that it will be used
(LaBan, 2013), flexible work life balance (Kumar & Arora, 2012) and managing stress
The seminal works of Barrick and Mount (1991), Judge, Heller and Mount
(2002), Staw and Cohen-Charash (2005) has contributed to a rich and diverse history of
It was deliberate on the part of the researcher to gather studies from Europe
(Ongore, 2014; Tesdimir et. al., 2012), Asia (Templer, 2012; Quinggo, Willis, OShea
& Yuwen, 2013; Hashim, Ishar, Rashid & Masodi, 2012; Hechanova et al., 2014) and
Hechanova et al. (2014) demonstrated this and proved that, in the Philippine setting,
There is much to learn as we come to understand the values and working style of
Millennials (LaBan, 2013). Working with younger employees can be a challenge for
different work expectations and managers need to adjust to best meet their needs (Smith
The usual concepts being considered for retention of employees are job
satisfaction and personality traits. Though individuals are diverse, there are five major
personalities that were considered by the researcher in determining the possible reasons
why employees would remain in their jobs. These traits are generally categorized as the
33
Job satisfaction of employees are brought about by different variables, and these
procedures which can be part of the work environment, co-workers, nature of work and
communication. The above variables do not necessarily bring about job satisfaction in
a lump sum since they are categorized also as either intrinsic or extrinsic to the employee
Employee engagement, on the other hand, is also relatively a new field. Will
employee engagement help in the process of retaining the new breed of workers called
millennials? Factors considered for employee engagement are vigor, dedication and
absorption. Researchers can still learn a lot about the topic as well as its relationship to
other concepts such as job satisfaction or intrinsic motivation to do ones job well
(Robbins & Judge, 2009). One research attempted to measure employee engagement
using a carefully constructed Voice Climate Survey (7Ps model) at a time there were no
and agreement on this subject, the construct of employee engagement has developed a
There is a paucity for similar studies similar to this research proposal and the
researcher looks forward to more extensive avenues and relate personality traits with
work attitudes such as job satisfaction and engagement particular to that of the millennial
generation.
The theoretical framework of this study relies on the Five Factor Model of
descriptions of high and low ends of the five trait factors (called the Big Five) found in
Table 1 provide a general understanding of the five proposed dimensions (Griggs, 2012).
The five factors are universal (56 nations and 29 languages) and observed across gender
Table 1
High and Low End of the Five Trait Factors
The Big Five is the most active personality research topic since the early 1990s
and is currently the best approximation of the basic trait dimensions (Myers, 2011).
Two-Factor Theory
theory. It investigated the question What do people want from their jobs? He concluded
that the replies people gave when they felt good about their jobs were significantly
different from the replies when they felt bad (Robbins & Judge, 2009). Literature review
on the theory indicate that certain characteristics consistently relate to job satisfaction
while others to job dissatisfaction (Hyun & Oh, 2011). Hackman and Lawler (1971)
36
achievement relate to job satisfaction. On the other hand, dissatisfied employees tended
to cite extrinsic factors such as supervision, pay, company policies and working
from a job does not necessarily make the job satisfying. Herzberg proposed that his
2013).
According to Herzberg, the factors that lead to job dissatisfaction are separate
and distinct from those that lead to job dissatisfaction. Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction
are separate dimensions and not the two ends of a single dimension (Guha, 2010).
37
The purpose of this study is to find out the relationship between personality traits
and job satisfaction and to determine if the same is true for employee engagement. The
study further explored the strength of the relationship between job satisfaction and
from the findings of the research study. Specifically this study answered the following
questions:
1. What are the profiles of the respondents in terms of their following demographic
variables:
1.1. Gender;
2. What are the assessment of the respondents of their personality traits in terms of the
following variables:
2.1. Openness;
2.2. Conscientiousness;
2.3. Extraversion;
2.5. Neuroticism?
38
3. What are the assessment of the respondents on their job satisfaction in terms of the
following variables:
3.1. Pay;
3.2. Promotion;
3.3. Supervision;
3.7. Co-workers;
3.9. Communication?
4. What are the assessment of the respondents on their employee engagement in terms
4.1. Vigor;
4.3. Absorption?
personality traits in terms of the following variables when their profiles are taken as
test factors?
5.1. Openness;
5.2. Conscientiousness;
39
5.3. Extraversion;
5.5. Neuroticism?
6. Are there significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their job
satisfaction in terms of the following variables when their profiles are taken as test
factors:
6.1. Pay;
6.2. Promotion;
6.3. Supervision;
6.7. Co-workers;
6.9. Communication?
40
employee engagement in terms of the following variables when their profiles are
7.1. Vigor;
7.3. Absorption?
engagement?
engagement?
11. What strategic human resource management model can be crafted from the results
of the study?
41
2.5 Hypotheses
on their personality traits when their profiles are taken as test factors.
on their job satisfaction when their profiles are taken as test factors.
on their employee engagement when their profiles are taken as test factors.
satisfaction.
employee engagement.
engagement.
42
A conceptual model from the trait or dispositional theory using the Five Factor
depicts the model that adopts previous studies confirming personality traits as a predictor
of job satisfaction (Patrick, 2010; Templer, 2012; Cleare, 2013; Zhai et al., 2013; Ahmad
et al., 2014; Ongore, 2014) and postulates the relationship between personality traits and
employee engagement. The study would also like to investigate the relationship of job
satisfaction and employee engagement (Abraham, 2012; Diedericks & Rothmann, 2013;
Rigg et al., 2013; Ozsoy & Aras, 2014) and determine significant differences, if any,
among demographic factors such as gender, civil status, rank and length of tenure for
Figure 1
Research Paradigm
43
The independent variables are personality traits and demographic factors while
nine domains under two categories; extrinsic (pay, supervision, fringe benefits, operating
dedication and absorption. Demographic Factors are gender, civil status, rank
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
relationships among personality traits, job satisfaction levels, level of work engagement
and demographic profile of the millennial workforce in selected BPO companies. This
chapter also describes the samples of the study, the test instruments and analyze the
This study made use of the descriptive-correlational method, used empirical data
to describe the profile, personality traits, level of satisfaction and employee engagement
Correlational design was used to find the relationship between the above-stated
variables.
This study used the exploratory design to determine how the characteristics of
the millenials in terms of their profile and personality traits affect their job satisfaction
and employee engagement. An explanatory design was likewise used in order to find
out why millenials behave in their workplace in congruence with their personality traits.
This in turn became the basis for crafting a human resource model.
45
The study included participants selected from five BPO companies in Metro
Manila who agreed to participate in the survey. Two of the five companies limited their
percent of its workforce. The combined workforce of these five companies is 2,372
employees of which 1,421 met the research criteria of not more than 35 years old and
From July 1 15, the researcher sent the respondents an invitation and email link
to answer the three-part survey in exchange for a chance to win 5,000. Of the 1,421
employees who met the research criteria 23.71% (N=337) responded to the online
survey. The online survey closed on Sunday, July 24, 2016 at midnight.
The average age is 29 (SD=3.16) mostly female (74%) and single (72%).
Majority of the respondents have worked with the company for less than two years (64%)
and classified as rank & file (72%). Only 10% have continuously worked with their
The researcher used validated questionnaires that are described below. The
situations rather than an individuals ability to do the work itself. The questionnaire aims
tasks, solve problems, and relate to others. It also provides a comprehensive assessment
of other key personality traits that are likely to have a high impact on work success,
training, coaching, and advancement. The MPQ is grounded in the Big Five-Factor
model of personality. The Big 5-Factor model is currently regarded as the most valid and
strengths, weaknesses, and areas of strength. This validated, 120-item personality test
Factor" dimensions.
confidence.
for the MPQ fall within the benchmark range for psychometric test scales that is, 0.6
0.8.
Factor analysis was performed to validate the underlying five-factor model of the
questionnaire. The analysis was performed on a sample of over 550 respondents, well
over the five cases per variable guide sample size for factor analysis. Principal
components with viramax rotation was used on the MPQ primary scales. The Screen
Test of eigen values plotted against factors indicated that there were five factors in the
data.
variance and covariance. Communality values indicated that the majority of scales were
well defined by the five factors solutions. All the scales loaded on at least one factor, but
48
five of the fifteen scales are complex. If a cut of 0.45 is used (20% of variance), the
Table 2
Big-Five Factor Rotated Factor Matrix
for the MPQ fall within the benchmark range for psychometric test scales that is, 0.6
49
0.8. Nine scales have values above 0.70 and the remaining five are above 0.60 Table 8
presents information about the internal consistency reliability of each of the personality
Table 3 also gives the Standard Error of Measurement for each of the MPQ
scales. The SEM provides a statistical estimate of the likely discrepancy between a
persons obtained score and hypothetical true score. On 68 percent of occasions, the
persons true score will one SEM on either side of the obtained raw score. For the MPQ
primary scales, the SEM is equivalent to about one sten as it is with the 16PF5.
Table 3
Internal Consistency Reliabilities and SEMs for the MPQ Scales
N=493.
50
Spector (1997) developed the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) to fulfill the needs
for human services to have an instrument to measure employee satisfaction. The theory
where job satisfaction is an attitudinal reaction to an employment situation was the basis
for the JSS. The design of the JSS is rooted in both public and private service
organizations that may be either for-profit or non-profit in nature. The JSS scale is
applicable to service organizations for use in rating employee satisfaction, as past scales
did not focus on that particular category. Furthermore, the JSS scale provides a total
satisfaction score for an individual while also containing subscales that reflect distinct
The JSS is a 36 item, nine-facet scale to assess employee attitudes about the job
and aspects of the job. Four items assess each facet and a total score computed from all
items. A summated rating scale format with six choices per item ranging from "strongly
disagree" through "strongly agree" is used. Items are written in both directions, so about
half must be reverse scored. The nine facets are pay, promotion, supervision, fringe
Although the original development of the JSS was for use in human service
51
include a wide range of organization types in both private and public sector.
The development of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) includes the
Originally, the UWES included 24 items, but after psychometric evaluation, seven
unsound items were eliminated so that three scales, totaling 17 items, remained Vigor
(VI, six items), Dedication (DE, five items), and Absorption (AB, six items) scales.
Using a large international database, the current article seeks to reduce the number of
items of the UWES. The reason for shortening the UWES is for practicality. Researchers
strive to include as few items as possible for measuring a particular construct because
Table 4
UWES Scale Cronbach
Total Md Range
Vigor .83 .86 .81 - .90
Dedication .92 .92 .88 - .95
Absorption .82 .80 .70 - .88
Total .93 .94 .91 - .96
(N=2,313)
Note. The dedication scales of the UWES-15 and the UWES-17 are identical.
52
research survey. The overall value was 0.903 together with vigor (0.725), dedication
The researcher invited clients of CPI Outsourcing, who were most likely to
participate in the research. He also discussed the merits of the study with the companys
the nine prospective companies, five agreed to participate with strict conditions of
confidentiality. However, they did not oppose the publication of the actual results for as
long as study did not mention the company name and the results shared and explained to
them.
The online survey was prepared using Google Forms by CPI Outsourcings I/T
Specialist and tested with a batch of ten participants. A fresh batch of ten participants
tested the online survey form after applying the necessary improvements. The I/T
Specialist completed three test cycles before arriving to the final version. Aside from
testing for its ease of use, the approach also gave the researcher the estimated time
necessary to complete the survey. On an average, a respondent can complete the three-
part, 143-question survey in 30 minutes or less. The I/T Specialist also developed a
computer application was also developed to automate the interpretation of the results.
53
This was necessary because the research staff wanted to avoid the manual interpretation
of the Manchester Personality Questionnaire (MPQ), Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) and
the Utrecht Work Engagement Survey (UWES-17). With the anticipated volume and
limited time, manually interpreting the survey forms may compromise the results. An
randomly checked the automated results of the MPQ during the testing phase and after
receiving the results to ensure the accuracy of the interpretation. The research staff also
Simultaneously, the I/T Specialist extracted from the database the respondents
information such as email address and required demographics to prepare the email
Management System (ISMS) under ISO 27001 was applied to prevent any data breach
or leak during data extraction. Once the survey link was in place, the emails were sent in
different batches and intervals recipients mail server may interpret the email as a spam
and unlikely received by the respondent. An automated system sent gentle reminders to
the email recipients who have not answered the survey after a week upon receipt of the
invitation.
54
The researcher closely collaborated with the statistician to ensure that uploading
data to the statistical software was efficient as possible. The researcher deleted all
identifying marks or data, relative to the respondent and client, before sending it to the
statistician. The researcher sent the data from all five companies to the statistician in a
There was an attempt to use the paper and pen method for one company.
However, the researcher discarded the approach because it was too tedious to encode the
differences for personality traits, job satisfaction and employee engagement when the
employee engagement.
The results of the online survey underwent statistical analysis using IBM
SPSS Statistics V24. The I/T Specialist converted the data from the online survey
conducted from July 1-15, 2016 to an Excel spreadsheet format. The statistician analyzed
the results using IBM SPSS Statistics V24. There was no chance of missing or erroneous
data because respondent of the embedded control in the survey. The converted data were
deviation) and subjected to various statistical tests (t-test, analysis of variance, Pearson
The researcher secured written permission from Prof. Paul Spector (Job
Satisfaction Survey) and Prof. Wilmar Schaufeli (Utrecht Work Engagement Survey).
The researcher received positive responses from both authors in exchange for the results
(Appendix P).
The researcher fully explained the purpose and expectations of the study to the
participating companies. This is turn was also explained to the employees though email.
researcher promised to provide the participating companies a copy of the overall results
CHAPTER 4
This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data gathered to answer
the problem statements in Chapter 2. The results of the findings were used as the basis
for formulating a Human Resource Model. This chapter also describes the details of the
(74%) and single (72%). Majority of the respondents are rank & file employees (72%)
with two years or less (65%) experience. Nineteen and nine percent of the respondents
have worked for their companies from 2-4 years and 4-6 years respectively. Only 12%
have continuously worked with their company for more than six years. Table 5
Table 5
Frequency Distribution of Respondents According to Profile
Mean SD
Age (N=337) 29 3.16
f %
Gender
Male 87 25.82
Female 250 74.18
Civil Status
Single 242 71.81
Married 94 27.89
Separated/Annulled 1 0.30
Job Level
Manager/Supervisor 96 28.49
Rank and File 241 71.51
Length of Tenure
Less than one year 80 23.74
1 year - 2 years 138 40.95
2 years 1 day - 4 years 65 19.29
4 years 1 day to - 6 years 30 8.90
More than 6 years 39 11.57
59
There are strong indications of shorter work tenure given that the average age of
the participants is 29 and 64% have worked in their company for less than two years.
This suggests that millennials are willing to change jobs and will not likely stay with
their employer for the remainder of their work life (Devaney, 2015; Bannon, Ford &
Meltzer, 2011). The reality of involuntary job loss, job movements within or across
Big Five.
Table 6
Respondents Personality Profile
(1-3) -- (4-7) -- (8-10)
Big 5 Left-Side Right-Side Mean SD
f % f % f %
OPE Conforming Independent,
Practical 19 5.64 313 92.88 5 1.48 creative, 5.21 1.15
imaginative
CON Disorganized Well-
Careless organized
Impulsive
140 41.54 197 58.46 Dependable
7.61 1.46
Careful
EXT Reclusive Sociable
Quiet 35 10.39 242 71.81 60 17.80 Talkative 5.96 1.75
Aloof Friendly
AGR Rude Sympathetic
Ruthless 12 3.56 205 60.83 120 35.61 Polite 684 1.71
Tough minded Good-natured
NEU Calm Emotional
Secure 32 9.5 269 79.32 36 10.68 Insecure 5.53 1.76
Relaxed Nervous
n=337
60
The Manchester Personality Questionnaire was used to measure the Big Five or
personality traits (Colquitt, et al., 2013; Franic, Borsboom, Dolan & Boomsma, 2013;
neuroticism. The results of the psychometric test for an individual respondent yields a
numerical result from one to ten for each stable trait. Taking the second trait,
conscientiousness, as an example, a respondent that has a score from 1-3 (extreme left)
is described as disorganized, careless and impulsive while a score from 8-10 (extreme
Respondents that have a score from 4-7 are described as stable or neither belonging to
Table 6 indicates that a majority of the respondents fall in the middle range of
the dimensions for openness (93%), extraversion (72%), agreeableness (61%) and
neuroticism (80%). Among the five traits, 58% of the respondents fall on the extreme
side of conscientiousness indicating that the respondents are well organized, dependable
and careful with the remaining percent falling under the mid-range scale. It strongly
supports the arguments of Organ and Lingl (1995) that there is a general work-
involvement tendency leading to obtaining satisfying work rewards, both formal (e.g.
Also, 96% of the respondents fall under the middle and extreme right of
agreeableness indicating that they are generally sympathetic, polite and good natured.
These traits are necessary to the service-oriented nature of their work (Periatt,
The research question was answered using Paul Spectors 36-item, 9 facet Job
Izquierdo, et al., 2012; Ahmad, et al., 2012). The research question was answered in three
First, the nine facets (sub-scales) have four questions each answered through a
Likert scale of 1 -6 (Appendix B). The results of the scale are interpreted as (1) disagree
very much, (2) disagree moderately, (3) disagree slightly, (4) agree slightly (5) agree
modeately and (6) agree very much. Each facet has four questions for a total of 36
questions for the Job Satisfaction Survey. The negatively worded questions (2, 4, 6, 8,
10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36) were reversely scored by
subtracting the original values for the internal items from 7. The mean and standard
deviation were derived from the four questions assigned to each job satisfaction facet to
Table 7
Respondents Summary of Job Satisfaction Facets
n= 337
The respondents slightly agree with their chances of promotion, supervision, co-
workers, contingent rewards, nature of work and communication within the organization.
These results are congruent to similar studies showing that millennials expect
promotions even after a short time on the job and considered ready by older co-workers
or management (Ferri-Reed, 2012). Millennials also expect their superiors to mentor and
coach them (Ellis, 2013; Meister & Willyerd, 2010; Gregory & Levy, 2011); value
praises, small rewards and meaningful work (Smith & Galbraith, 2012) and find clear
However, they slightly disagree in terms of pay, fringe benefits and operating
procedures. Millennials look forward to better salaries before they reach the age of 30,
expect immediate rewards in order to excel in their work (Aruna & Anitha, 2015) and
believe to perform better in a less formal working environment (Thompson & Gregory,
Second, to further explore the results of the satisfacton scale, the scores of the
four questions for each job satisfaction facet was added. The sum could range from 4
(the lowest possible score since there is no zero in the scale) to a perfect 24 (6 points for
each question). A score from 4-12 indicates dissatisfaction, 12-15 ambivalent or neither
Table 8 reflects the number of respondents (f) and percentages that are fall under
Table 8
Respondents Summary of Job Satisfaction Scale per Facet
n=337
There is strong indication that the respondents neither feel satisfied nor
dissatisfied (ambivalent) with pay, promotion, fringe benefits, contingent rewards and
(50%) and the nature of work (57%). However, 48% are dissatisfied with operating
procedures.
Lastly, the scores of all nine job satisfaction facets were summed to determine
the overall satisfaction rating of the 337 respondents. The sum could range from 36 (the
lowest possible score or 1 point for all 36 questions since there is no zero in the scale) to
a perfect 216 (6 points for each of the 36 questions). A score from 36-108 indicates
65
dissatisfaction, 109-143 ambivalent or neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and satisfied for
Table 9 indicates that a majority of the respondents feel ambivalent (77%) and
Table 9
Respondents Overall Job Satisfaction Rating
f %
Dissatisfied (36 -108) 17 5.04
Ambivalent (109 - 143) 259 76.85
Satisfied (144 - 216) 61 18.10
Total 337 100.00
Mean 132.79
SD 16.45
Interpretation Ambivalent
n=337
Employee Engagement
The research question was answered using the 17-item Utrecht Work
Engagement Survey (De Bruin, Hill, Henn & Muller, 2013; LI, An Zhong, Chen,
Yuantuo Xie & Mao, 2014; Ilagan, et al., 2014). There are 17 questions (Appendix A)
assigned to the three subscales (vigor, dedication and absorption). Six questions are
assigned to vigor and absorption each and the remaining five are assigned to dedication
answered through a Likert scale of 0 -6 (Appendix C). The results of the scale are
66
interpreted as 0-Never, 1-Almost never (a few times a year or less), 2-Rarely (Once a
month or less), 3-Sometimes (A few times a month), 4-Often (Once a week), 5-Very
There are no negatively worded questions thus there is no need for reverse
scoring. The mean of the scores of the questions assigned to the subscale represents the
overall interpretation.
The research question was answered in two ways to analyze the results. First, the
mean and standard deviation of the questions assigned to each subscale was computed.
All three subscales revealed that the respondents are often engaged (once a week) with
Table 10 reflects the summary of the work engagement results per subscale:
Table 10
Respondents Overall Work Engagement Rating
Mean SD Interpretation
Vigor 4.19 0.82 Often
Dedication 4.23 0.98 Often
Absorption 4.13 0.88 Often
Overall 4.18 0.75 Often
n=337
67
And second, the scores of the subscales were categorized according to the Likert
scale of 0-6. The breakdown of the employee engagement ratings are found in Table 11.
Table 11
Respondents Work Engagement Rating Breakdown
n=337
Ninety percent of the participants collectively fall in the 4-6 scale suggesting that
the respondents are highly engaged in the workplace. It is best to use the overall
engagement score (mean) instead of the individual subscales. A study of the UWES
very little incremental predictive value in contexts such as multiple regression and path
analysis.
68
In order to arrive at the answer to the question posted, the researcher grouped the
respondents personality traits according to their demographics (gender, job level, civil
status and tenure) to determine if there were significant differences (p < .05) in their
responses.
According to Gender
The researcher performed a t-test on the five personality traits and gender (male
and female) of the 337 respondents. The results (Appendix D) are as follows:
p=0.048).
p=0.831).
(t=0.754, p=0.452).
p=0.419).
p=0.997).
69
Males scored higher in openness (n=87, m=5.41) compared with their female
to a study where there were no significant differences in openness at the level of the Big
For job level, the researcher performed a t-test on the five personality traits and
job level (manager / supervisor and rank & file) of the 337 respondents. The results
p=0.054).
(t=0.73, p=0.466).
(t=0.190, p=0.848).
p=0.013).
p=0.209).
70
compared to the rank & file counterparts (n=241, m=5.13) resulting in a mean difference
of 0.267. Previous studies indicate that leaders have optimistic views of the future and it
is not surprising that extraversion is the most likely trait related to leader emergence
(zba, 2016).
The researcher performed a t-test on the five personality traits and civil status of
the 336 respondents. Only one respondent answered with separated and taken out of
the samples so there was no need to conduct an ANOVA. The results (Appendix F) are
as follows:
p=0.0543).
(t=1.047, p=0.296).
(t=0.660, p=0.510).
2.611, p=0.009).
(t=0.282, p=0.778).
71
0.547.
For tenure, the researcher performed an F-test on the five personality traits and
tenure (less than a year, 1 year & 1 day 2 years, 2 years & 1 day 4 years, 4 years & 1
day 6 years and greater than 6 years & 1 day) of the 337 respondents. The results
p=0.0115).
p=0.062).
(t=0.513, p=0.726).
p=0.139).
p=0.989).
72
There were no significant differences for personality traits and tenure. Table 12
n=337
When grouped according to gender (Appendix D), the males scored higher in
(Appendix E) and civil status (Appendix F). There was no significant difference for
Given the results, the first null hypothesis (H01) there is no significant
differences on the assessment of the respondents on their personality traits when their
In order to arrive at the results of the question posited, the researcher grouped the
level, civil status and tenure) to determine if there were significant differences (p < .05)
in their responses.
According to Gender
The researcher performed a t-test on the nine job satisfaction facets (pay,
workers, nature of work, communication) and overall job satisfaction of the 337
p=0.001).
p=0.229).
p=0.805).
(t=0.055, p=0.956).
74
(t=1.821, p=0.069).
p=0.055).
p=0.211).
p=0.003).
10. There is a significant difference between overall job satisfaction and gender
(t=3.281, p=0.001).
The female respondents scored higher on pay (t=3.223, p=.0001), promotion (t=
3.496, p=.0001), communication (t=3.043, p=.0003) and overall job satisfaction (t 3.281,
p=.0001). The female respondents gave more importance to these facets than their male
counter-parts. This is congruent to studies where highly educated women are more
satisfied than are men with many job aspects including intellectual challenge and
contribution to society (Hersch & Xiao, 2016) as well as British women exhibiting the
same higher levels of job satisfaction than men (Mumford & Smith, 2015). But contrary
to other studies conducted in male dominated cultures such as Cyprus (Fatima, Iqbal,
Akhwand, Suleman & Ibrahim, 2015) and Pakistan (Sanera & Sadikoglu, 2016), where
For job level (managerial & supervisory, rank & file) the researcher performed a
t-test on the nine job satisfaction facets (pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits,
and overall job satisfaction of the 337 respondents. The results (Appendix I) are as
follows:
1. There is no significant difference between pay and job level (t=0.456, p=0.649).
p=0.004).
p=0.701).
4. There is no significant difference between fringe benefits and job level (t=-0.317,
p=0.752).
(t=0.547, p=0.585).
6. There is no significant difference between operating procedures and job level (t=-
0.961, p=0.337).
p=0.884).
76
8. There is no significant difference between nature of work and job level (t=1.018,
p=0.309).
p=0.557).
10. There is no significant difference between overall job satisfaction and job level
(t=0.891, p=0.373).
The results supported a study between the interaction of gender and rank that
conditions as antecedents. (Garca-Izquierdo, et al., 2012). The rank & file employees
may view promotions differently from managerial & supervisory because of the
anticipated feelings of anxiety, nervousness and stress that comes with it (Johnston &
Lee, 2013).
For civil status, the researcher performed a t-test on the five personality traits and
civil status of the 336 respondents. Only one respondent answered with separated and
taken out of the samples so there was no need to conduct an ANOVA. The results
p=0.137).
77
p=0.101).
1.417, p=0.157).
4. There is a significant difference between fringe benefits and civil status (t=-
2.126, p=0.034).
(t=-0.433, p=0.665).
(t=-1.934, p=0.054).
1.516, p=0.130).
(t=737, p=0.462).
0.614, p=0.54).
10. There is no significant difference between overall job satisfaction and civil
0.21. Single employees may feel more job satisfaction compared to their married
78
counterparts (Altinoz, Cakiroglu & Cop, 2012). Therefore marital status, not only has
According to Tenure
For tenure, the researcher performed an F-test on the five personality traits and
tenure (less than a year, 1 year & 1 day 2 years, 2 years & 1 day 4 years, 4 years & 1
day 6 years and greater than 6 years & 1 day) of the 337 respondents. The results
p=0.115).
(t=2.265, p=0.062).
(t=0.513, p=0.726).
(t=1.747, p=0.139).
(t=.907, p=0.460).
(t=.896, p=0.466).
(t=-0.703, p=0.59).
10. There is no significant difference between overall job satisfaction and length of
Table 13
T Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Demographics
n=337
and demographics therefore, the second null hypothesis (HO2) there are no significant
differences on the assessment of the respondents on their job satisfaction when their
According to Gender
dedication and absorption), overall work engagement and gender (male and female) of
p=0.00)
The results are contrary to studies where there are no significant differences in
gender (Kaliannan, & Adjovu, 2015; Mishra, Sharma & Uday, 2015).
dedication and absorption), overall work engagement and job level (managerial &
1. There is no significant difference between vigor and job level (t=-0.341, p=0.73)
82
p=0.43).
p=0.70)
(t=0.968, p=0.33)
dedication and absorption), overall work engagement and civil status of the 336
respondents. Only one respondent answered with separated and was taken out of the
samples so there was no need to conduct an ANOVA. The results (Appendix N) are as
follows:
p=0.671)
p=0.089).
p=0.274)
(t=1.286, p=0.119)
83
The results were inconsistent with a study of 188 participants in Turkey where
the married respondents scored higher on vigor (Ozsoy & Aras, 2014).
According to Tenure
For tenure, the researcher performed an F-test on the three engagement subscales
(vigor, dedication and absorption), overall work engagement and tenure (less than a year,
1 year & 1 day 2 years, 2 years & 1 day 4 years, 4 years & 1 day 6 years and greater
than 6 years & 1 day) of the 337 respondents. The results (Appendix O) are as follows:
p=0.059).
p=0.335)
(t=1.463, p=0.213)
employee tenure and employee engagement (Kaliannan, & Adjovu, 2015; LI, et al.,
2014).
84
Summary
significant differences (p < .05) in their responses. Table 14 presents the summary of
significant results.
Table 14
T Value of Employee Engagement and Demographics
Sample Mean
Gender Mean SD T-value P-value
Size Difference
Male 87 3.89 1.14
Dedication 0.48 4.00 -
Female 250 4.37 0.89
Male 87 3.74 1.06
Absorption 0.53 4.98 -
Female 250 4.27 0.77
Male 87 3.90 0.85
Overall 0.39 4.32 -
Female 250 4.29 0.68
n=337
dedication (t=4.00, p=0), absorption (t = 4.98 p=0) and overall engagement (t=4.32 p=0)
differences when grouped according to job level (Appendix M), civil status (Appendix
Given the results in relation to gender, the third null hypothesis (HO3) there is
engagement when their profiles are taken as test factors. is therefore rejected.
To answer the question on the above topic, the researcher ran a Pearson
Correlation analysis between the five personality traits and job satisfaction (nine facets
Table 15
Correlation of Job Satisfaction Facets and Personality Traits
Promotion -0.044 0.419 0.053 0.336 -0.001 0.979 0.183* 0.001 0.017 0.752
Supervision 0.06 0.273 0.073 0.18 0.103 0.058 -0.131* 0.016 0.13* 0.017
Fringe
-0.096 0.079 0.016 0.775 -0.024 0.656 0.085 0.12 -0.065 0.236
Benefits
Contingent
0.001 0.981 0.03 0.583 0.079 0.148 0.152* 0.005 -0.023 0.671
Rewards
Operating
-0.012 0.831 -0.057 0.299 -0.05 0.36 0.017 0.752 -0.092 0.091
Procedures
Co-workers 0.007 0.894 0.12* 0.027 0.1 0.065 -0.112* 0.04 0.161* 0.003
Nature of
0.105 0.054 0.051 0.355 0.108* 0.048 0.03 0.583 0.079 0.149
Work
Communica
0.026 0.628 0.136* 0.013 0.157* 0.004 0.065 0.234 0.005 0.922
tion
Overall Job
-0.013 0.806 0.091 0.095 0.083 0.128 0.092 0.093 0.034 0.531
Satisfaction
n=337
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
86
Of the five personality traits, agreeableness has the most number of correlations
with the job satisfaction facets. Pay (r=0.171, p=.002), promotion (r=0.183, p=.001) and
contingent rewards (r=0.152, p=.005) are positively correlated with agreeableness while
correlated.
McRae and Costa argued that agreeable individuals have greater motivation to
achieve interpersonal intimacy (as cited in Judge et al., 2002) and expect to be rewarded,
through pay and promotion, for their pleasing and acceptable behavior (Templer, 2012).
The opposite applies to individuals who fall on the left side of this dimension. Those that
fall on the left side of the said dimension are rude, ruthless and tough-minded. This trait
pakikisama (Ilagan, et al., 2014; Laher, 2012), leading to dissatisfaction with ones
discipline, hardworking, achievement oriented and responsible (McRae & John, 1992).
This trait and positive correlation with co-workers suggests a strong likelihood of team
Evidence shows that extraverts have more friends and are likely to find interpersonal
interactions rewarding (Judge et al.,2002) such as the highly customer centric nature of
the respondents work. It is the same trait that shows appreciation for the companys
moodiness, irritability, and sadness experience lower extrinsic (supervision and co-
workers) job satisfaction (Patrick, 2010) and reflect a negative correlation (Templer,
2012; Judge et al., 2002; Bruk-Lee, Khoury et. al., 2009). However, our results reflect a
positive correlation because of the relatively low dissatisfaction rating for supervision
(13%) and co-workers (4%). The mean response for supervision and co-workers is 4.13
and 4.19 respectively meaning that the respondents Agree Slightly with these facets.
Openness and pay (r = -0.11, p=.043) has a weak negative correlation. Other
studies have shown that openness to experience has no correlation with job satisfaction
(Ahmad et al., 2014; Templer, 2012; Judge et al., 2002; Barrick, Mount & Judge, 2001).
Given the results found in Table 15, the fourth null hypothesis There is no
therefore rejected.
88
between the five personality traits and job satisfaction (nine facets and overall). Table
Table 16
Correlation of Employee Engagement and Personality Traits
n = 337
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
correlated (r=134, p=.014). The results were surprising and inconsistent with the limited
studies relating personality traits and employee engagement (Liao, Yang, Wang, Drown
& Shi, 2013; Woods & Sofat, 2013; Zaidi, N., Wajid, Zaidi, F., Zaidi, G & Zaidi, M.,
2013). Another study by Mroz and Kaleta (2016) of 137 workers, representing different
89
bracket (20-24, 25-29 and >= 30), and conducted another correlation test at a .01 and .05
significance level. The results in Table 17 show that extraversion was positively
correlated with vigor (r=.475, p=.0019) in the 20-24 age bracket (n=24).
Table 17
Correlation of Employee Engagement and Personality Traits Ages 20-24
n = 24
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Furthermore, the 25-29 age bracket (Table 18) revealed more significant
relationships compared to the 20-24 (Table 17) and >=30 (Table 19) age brackets.
correlated with dedication (r=.169. 049), absorption (r=.178, .039) and overall
Table 18
Correlation of Employee Engagement and Personality Traits Ages 25-29
n = 135
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
91
No significant relationships for the 30 and above age bracket (n=178) were found
Table 19
Correlation of Employee Engagement and Personality Traits Ages >= 30
n = 178
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Given the results, the fifth null hypothesis (HO5) there is no significant
between the five personality traits and job satisfaction (nine facets and overall). Table
Table 20
Correlation of Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement
Vigor Dedication Absorption Overall EE
P- P- P-
R R R P-value R
value value value
Pay 0.25* 0 0.26* 0 0.24* 0 0.30* 0
Promotion 0.33* 0 0.41* 0 0.32* 0 0.42* 0
Supervision 0.21* 0 0.38* 0 0.23* 0 0.33* 0
Fringe Benefits 0.06 0.31 -0.01 0.9 0.03 0.64 0.03 0.59
Contingent Rewards 0.23* 0 0.19* 0 0.13* 0.02 0.22* 0
Operating Procedures 0.22* 0 0.32* 0 0.32* 0 0.34* 0
Co-workers 0.18* 0 0.29* 0 0.25* 0 0.29* 0
Nature of Work 0.23* 0 0.40* 0 0.31* 0 0.38* 0
Communication 0.40* 0 0.50* 0 0.39* 0 0.52* 0
Overall Job
0.42* 0 0.55* 0 0.44* 0 0.56* 0
Satisfaction
n = 337
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
satisfaction except for fringe benefits. The results supported studies that job satisfaction
provided the resources necessary in their work (Rigg, et al., 2013; Van den Broecka,
2013). The results strongly support the findings of Wefald and Downey (2009) of
engagement and demonstrate the connectivity between engagement and positive feeling
about what one is doing and how well one does it.
The researcher then sorted the results from highest to lowest correlations to
determine if either the motivating or satisfying facets had more bearing on job
satisfaction. For overall employee engagement, Table 21 shows that aside from overall
job satisfaction (r=0.56, p =0), the top three correlations are job satisfaction motivators
communication (r=0.52, p =0), promotion (r=0.42, p =0) and nature of work (r=0.38,
p =0).
94
Table 21
Correlation of Job Satisfaction and Overall Employee Engagement
n = 337
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
The results for the individual subscales consistently reflect job satisfaction
Table 22
Correlation of Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement Subscales
n = 337
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
95
While Rigg, Day and Adler (2013) concluded that engaged employees were more
satisfied with their jobs, it is not necessarily congruent with the results of this study. The
overall job satisfaction rating of the 337 respondents is ambivalent neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied as shown in Table 9 but highly engaged (Table 10) at the same time. The
respondents scored an ambivalent rating because they slightly disagree with the job
satisfaction facet satisfiers (pay, fringe benefits and operating procedures) and slightly
agree with all job satisfaction facet motivators (promotion, contingent rewards, nature of
Engagement and job satisfaction, therefore, are highly related constructs (Wefald
& Downey, 2009) and as concluded by Macey and Schneider (2008) a conceptual
Given the results, the sixth and last null hypothesis (HO6) there is no significant
CHAPTER 5
literature, millennials are very much different from employees that belong to the
generations before them such as Generation X and Baby Boomers. Millennials manifest
between personality traits and job satisfaction and to determine if the same is true for
employee engagement. The study further explored the strength of the relationship
engagement when demographic variables are taken as test factors. The research focused
the workforce, has wondered why newer generations attitudes, commitment and values
Was it a question of the work environment? Was there a need for more stringent
rules to enforce compliance? Was there a problem with their education? Was there a
need to tie them down to contracts to prevent them from leaving? Was it a question of
leadership and management skills? These, among a number of other questions, were
partially explained when the researcher stumbled upon an article in the Harvard Business
Review in 2011 about the new generation of workers called millennials titled Mentoring
Millennials (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). After reading the said eye-opening article, the
researcher has pored over countless online and printed articles and studies on the topic.
The researchers interest on the topic further grew because of the challenges of
rising attrition and alarmingly low retention rates in the BPO industry and his company
as well. Attrition rates rose, talent acquisition costs soared and employee retention were
shorter. The results brought about drastic changes in the traditional workplace, as we
know it. The serious corporate environment disappeared and transformed into
unconventional workplaces that looked more like a teenagers room or a yuppies favorite
hangout. Suddenly, this new generation of self-entitled workers owned the work
environment.
there are results to the challenges it attempts to address. However, the challenges remain.
news article in a daily broadsheet reports that it continues to rise as employees cite pay
entice workers to stay. This approach is difficult to sustain considering financial wants
are insatiable. The industry approach to retention vis--vis attrition may come in different
forms but are practically the same. Continuously hire, give them what they want, pray
that they stay and blame their lack of loyalty and values if they leave.
Eventually, the researcher suggests that the industry may need to see the problem
from another angle. Maybe attrition was not the problem but part of a new human
resource dynamics. Similar to digital marketing that never existed ten years ago. Today
it has rapidly changed the face of marketing and every year, innovations surface and new
to the body of knowledge for strategic human resource management particularly in the
a. Accept the fact that talented millennials have shorter work tenures. Make
the most out of their stay by constantly engaging them through programs that fit their
want? this research study seeks answers to the question how should leaders manage
This motivated the researcher to look deeper into the millennial mind and
determine what they are like as a person. The researcher adapted the Five Factor Model
observations and claims from popular literature. The researcher measured the stable
Herzbergs theory distinctly separates motivators and satisfiers and the researcher
The researcher used Paul Spectors Job Satisfaction Survey and the Utrecht Work
Engagement Survey to measure the nine job satisfaction facets (pay, supervision, fringe
absorption)
conclusions and directions for future studies. The study concludes with several
The average age of the respondents is 29 years old, mostly female (74%) and
single (72%). Majority of the respondents are rank & file employees (72%) with two
years or less (64%) experience. Eighteen and eight percent of the respondents have
worked for their companies from 2-4 years and 4-6 years respectively. Only 10% have
continuously worked with their company for more than six years.
101
Majority of the respondents fall in the middle range of the dimensions for
Among the five traits, 58% of the respondents fall on the extreme side of
conscientiousness indicating that the respondents are well organized, dependable and
careful with the remaining percent falling under the mid-range scale. Also, 96% of the
respondents fall under the middle and extreme right of agreeableness indicating that they
In terms of the overall response in reference to the Lickert scale, the respondents
rewards, nature of work and communication within the organization. However, they
dissatisfied (ambivalent) with pay, promotion, fringe benefits, contingent rewards and
(50%) and the nature of work (57%). However, 48% are dissatisfied with operating
procedures.
ambivalent (77%), 18% are satisfied while only 5% were dissatisfied. Overall, the
respondents feel ambivalent (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) with the jobs.
The results yielded an overall response of engaged at least once a week (Often)
for vigor, dedication, absorption and overall engagement. Ninety percent collectively fall
in the 4-6 scale suggesting that the respondents are highly engaged in the workplace.
agreeableness and neuroticism when their profiles are taken as test factors
According to Gender
with males (n=87, m=5.41) scoring higher than the female respondents (n=250, m=5.13).
and neuroticism.
103
p=0.054) with the managers & supervisors (n=96, m=5.40) scoring higher compared to
their rank & file counterparts (n=241, m=5.13). There were no significant differences for
Only one respondent answered with separated and taken out of the samples so
there was no need to conduct an ANOVA. Instead, the t-test yielded a significant
difference between extraversion and civil status (t=2.611, p=0.009) with the married
respondents scoring higher (n=95, m=6.34) than their single counterparts (n=242,
According to Tenure
Summary
The results, given the number of significant differences between job satisfaction
(scales and overall) and demographics therefore, reject the null hypothesis (H01) there
According to Gender
The female respondents scored higher on pay (t=3.223, p=.0001), promotion (t=
3.496, p=.0001), communication (t=3.043, p=.0003) and overall job satisfaction (t 3.281,
p=.0001). The female respondents gave more importance to these facets than their male
counter-parts.
Summary
The results, given the number of significant differences between job satisfaction
sub-scales and demographics therefore, reject the null hypothesis (HO2) there are no
According to Gender
Summary
The results, given the number of significant differences between job satisfaction
sub-scales and demographics therefore, reject the null hypothesis (HO3) there are no
Of the five personality traits, agreeableness has the most number of correlations
with the job satisfaction facets. Pay (r=0.171, p=.002), promotion (r=0.183, p=.001) and
contingent rewards (r=0.152, p=.005) are positively correlated with agreeableness while
correlated.
0.13, p=.017) and co-workers (r = 0.161, p=.003). Openness and pay (r = -0.11, p=.043)
Given the results the fourth null hypothesis There is no significant relationship
engagement.
Only conscientiousness was correlated with vigor (r=0.134, p=0.014) for the 337
respondents. To exhaust all possibilities, the researcher grouped the respondents in age
brackets. The results yielded the following correlations: extraversion was positively
108
correlated with vigor (r=.475, p=.0019) in the 20-24 age bracket (n=24);
correlated with dedication (r=.169, .049), absorption (r=.178, .039) and overall
engagement (r=.180, p=.037) in the 25-29 age bracket (n=135); and no significant
relationships for the 30 and above age bracket (n=178) were found.
Given the results, the fifth null hypothesis (HO5) there is no significant
All job satisfaction facets (except for fringe benefits) and overall job satisfaction
had significantly moderate to strong correlations with all employee engagement scales
Likewise, when the correlation results were arranged from highest to lowest, the
upper half is consistently composed of job satisfaction motivating facets both for overall
Given the results, the sixth and last null hypothesis (HO6) there is no significant
5.2 Conclusions
millennial employees work tenure is futile. The study indicates that the respondents
have shorter work tenures given a two-year period at the most. For the millennial,
hopping from one job to another is just as normal as channel or internet surfing given the
many choices available. Talented millennials will always look for better opportunities
available in the expanding global market. Employers lose the chance of fully utilizing
their talent and leaving them with less talented individuals who have limited options and
stick to their existing jobs. Another aspect that millennials also consider is the instability
of the present day job market. Organizational restructuring is common in the BPO
industry as a way to optimize and restructure costs. The demand for high performance
either forces non-performers to leave or increases the stress levels of star performers.
Employers and managers might want to reconsider the traditional belief where
subject of employee attrition and intention to leave always focus on ways and methods
lifetime employment has gone out the window of corporate employment since the time
the millennial employee joined the workforce. Using money, financial rewards and
promoting an environment of fun may help retain them a bit longer than usual but there
Personality traits that may match the customer service oriented nature of BPO
agreeableness (sympathetic, polite and good natured). These two traits are essential to
highly customer-centric organizations, such as the BPO industry, where the demand for
customer satisfaction, empathy and immediate problem resolution is high. The likeliness
of job dissatisfaction is therefore high if the personality fit does not match the nature of
the job. Demanding customers with abrasive behavior are stressful to deal with. It takes
a certain type of personality to address and cope with such stressful situations.
111
The study also confirmed some aspects that the millennial workforce expect in
the workplace. The results of the findings infer the following expectations in the
workplace:
promotions despite the short work tenures they have with the company. Their
work expectations.
their managers to take on a mentoring and coaching role rather than a hover-
Employers and managers may misinterpret the expectations as whimsical and not
taken seriously. However, the reality of the situation remains as millennials hop from
one job to another expecting the same workplace expectations repeatedly. Millennials
112
productivity.
To some extent, the study suggests that providing the millennial workforce with
the necessary intrinsic and extrinsic resources may make employment more meaningful
and productively engaging. Work engagement, as in the case of the BPO respondents, is
not a work phenomenon that happens outright. It cannot be isolated, analyzed and
match the nature of the job, the employees perception of job satisfaction and motivation
agreeableness and neuroticism when their profiles are taken as test factors.
The study indicates that there are gender, job level and civil status differences
differences in terms of tenure. The significant differences in gender, civil status and job
The findings clarify the nature of gender differences and understanding how men
and women differ in the ways they feel, think and behave.
The male respondents scored higher in openness suggesting that they were more
imaginative, creative and independent. However, it does not mean nor is it indicative that
males are more intelligent than women as there is a need to test this to accurately measure
the claim. Men are known to be more creative in solving complex problems using logic,
rational thinking and less emotion. The female respondents tend to be conforming
Males have a tendency to seek shortcuts as they are very much impatient when obtaining
results.
demographics as well as the overall ambivalent rating for job satisfaction over pay,
promotion, communication and fringe benefits are likely the effect or response to
While some employees may find money as their motivation, others find motivation in
as well as the varying degrees of correlations between stable personality traits with job
satisfaction and work engagement suggests that employees respond in different ways to
but not necessarily significant, degrees. An individuals search for work satisfaction and
motivation is insatiable, no matter how short or long they are with the organization. The
effects or results, however, may vary because other factors may come into play. If
organizational commitment is considered, a person may stay for longer periods whether
may seek employment with other organizations to satisfy the needs or wants that comes
meaning that regardless of civil status, job level and length of tenure, the perception of
The weak but significant relationship between stable personality traits and job
satisfaction may indicate that there may be mediating or latent variables that affect the
results. Further discovery may lead to other conclusions that may determine what
engagement.
engagement for the respondents between the ages 25-29 may indicate that engagement
is cyclical. Since personality traits are stable over time, engagement, on the other hand,
may changes because of external stimuli, and situations at certain points of a millennial
employees career. Engagement, therefore, is either strong or weak at any given time.
This finding, if taken into consideration with the previous conclusion where
significant relationships exists between personality traits and job satisfaction regardless
116
of age bracket, may indicate that a person may be engaged but not necessarily satisfied
engagement.
The findings indicate that there is a strong and significant relationship between
job satisfaction and employee engagement. The results also clearly indicate that the
strongest degree of relationships between overall employee engagement were not only
with overall job satisfaction but with the job satisfaction facets of communication,
promotion and nature of work all motivating factors. In fact, for the individual
engagement scales of vigor, dedication and absorption, the top ranking relationships
Millennials may view extrinsic (hygiene) job satisfaction facets as important but
intrinsic (motivating) facets such as promotion, contingent rewards, nature of work and
engagement.
Lastly, the findings further strengthens Herzbergs theory that satisfiers and
5.3 Recommendations
Strategic human resource management model crafted from the results of the
study.
Figure 2
Strategic Human Resource Engagement Model
The study offers a model that integrates the results of the climate survey (job
satisfaction facets and work engagement), personality traits from psychometric exams
and prevalent demographics from the employees 201 files. Employee concerns are
The objective of this model is to develop different engagement programs that fit
or appeal to the personalities and demographics of the workforce. The measurable results
retention. Positive retention refers to the approach of engaging talented individuals who
Millennials will dominate the workforce in the next decade. The workplace is
experiencing a disruption that creates new HR models and structures as it slowly replaces
traditional ones. Understanding what drives millennials will therefore help employers
and managers shape the work environment of tomorrow. Members of the HR community
Psychometricians
Traditionally, the results of psychometric exams were confidential and used only
during candidate selection. Once the employee is on-board, HR sets the psychometric
results aside without any clear intention of its use. The study offers an opportunity to
measures to:
119
a. Look for the best personality fit for the job. Analyze which personality
dimensions and facet combination match the nature of the work. Give priority to highly
conscientious and agreeable personalities. The BPO industry is highly known for its
customer and service-centric nature and certain personality traits fit not only the
challenges of the job but, surprisingly, also their reception and outlook towards job
satisfaction.
staff to they would understand how to effectively motivate and engage them.
Engagement Team
to stay in a company for shorter periods. Managers who fail to take good care of their
best millennials are most likely going to lose them in a year. The key is to make use of
the limited amount of time to tap its millennial workforces potential and fully utilize
their talents.
understanding how the workforce perceives and feels about the working environment.
120
programs. Though equally important, the results of this study indicate that millennials
gave more weight on motivating factors such as promotion, contingent rewards, nature
corporate and team goals (nature of work). If done properly, having talented employees
with longer work tenures is highly possible and achievable as well. Engagement,
therefore, contributes to positive employee retention and not the other way around.
differently to stimuli and it is important for managers to understand what makes people
tick.
demographics of the workforce when prioritizing and identifying the job satisfaction
facets to address or strengthen. Standardized or across the board HR programs may not
entirely work with millennials because they are motivated by different things. While one
employee finds motivation with money, another may find motivation in something
completely different. Managers should really need to know how to motivate each
individual.
121
Corporate Leadership
a. Engagement should come from the top and not limited to staff level
employees alone. Leaders and managers should equip themselves to understand and
effectively engage the different personality dimensions of their workforce. The older
generations of the workforce may still have difficulty understanding and accepting the
fact that they are dealing with an entirely new breed of workers brought up under
whims and wants of the millennial workforce. The key is not to retain but to engage. An
employee that finds the work engaging will go the extra mile to deliver excellent
customer service, commit themselves to their work and contribute to corporate growth.
supervising. Millennials seem to have things figured out and this attitude is dangerous in
the corporate setting if left unchecked. Guidance, constant feedback and helping
millennials see the big picture (and hopefully see the purpose and impact of what they
do) are effective coaching and mentoring techniques. This approach also strengthens the
bond between mentor and mentee, developing meaningful relationships and bridging the
Corporate Training
Corporate trainers should adopt a more strategic rather than a transactional approach to
training.
supervisors to effectively deal with and motivate personality types. Understanding the
c. Strengthen mentoring and coaching skills of corporate leadership across all levels
The weak and almost negligible correlation between personality traits and
employee engagement subscales are in question because the results are contrary to the
limited literature available. Future research should further explore the existence of latent
variables or factors that may contribute to the said findings. Culture may have affected
the results considering that the existing study used Western models. There were no
studies found for Asian culture nor the BPO environment also known to have a sub-
(both overall and individual facets) and employee engagement (overall and subscales)
are either causal or mediating. Future studies should also further attempt to investigate
if engagement and job satisfaction are not intertwining constructs that seem to affect one
another.
The study also merits investigation and further determine if a dispositional source
of employee engagement truly exists. Due to limited time, more participants in future
studies may explain the reason behind the existence of more correlations in the 25-29
age bracket.
records and limit the survey to job satisfaction and employee engagement. The MPQ, by
itself, is a 90-item questionnaire. There is a possibility that some participants may have
dropped out of the online survey out of impatience to complete the 143-item
questionnaire. This may explain why the participants are almost all highly conscientious
REFERENCES
Adkins, A. (2015). Majority of U.S. Employees Not Engaged Despite Gains in 2014.
Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/181289/majority-employees-not-
engaged-despite-gains-2014.aspx
Ahmad J., Ather M. & Hussain M. (2014). Impact of Big Five Personality Traits on
Job Performance (Organization Committment as a Mediator). Management,
Knowledge and Learning International Conference. Retrieved May 17, 2015
from http://www.toknowpress.net/ISBN/978-961-6914-09-3/papers/ML14-
597.pdf
Ahmad, W., Mustafa, Z., Ahmad, W., & Ahmad, T. (2012). Determinants
Influencing Employee Satisfaction: A Case of Government and Project Type
Organization. Pakistan Journal of Life & Social Sciences. 2012, Vol. 10 Issue
1, p42-47. 6p.
Alarcon, G. & Lyons, J. (2011). The Relationship of Engagement and Job Satisfaction
in Working Samples. The Journal of Psychology, 2011, 145(5), 463480
Altinoz, M., Cakiroglu, D. & Cop, S. (2012). The Effect of Job Satisfaction of the
Talented Employees on Organizational Commitment: A Field Research.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 58. 322 330
Andrew, O. & Sofian, S. (2012). Individual Factors and Work Outcomes of Employee
Engagement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 40, 498 508. doi:
10.1016/ j.sbspro.2012.03.222
Bakker, A.B. & Schaufel, W.B. (2008). Positive Organizational Behavior: Engaged
Employees in Flourishing Organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
Feb2008, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p147-154. 8p.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., de Boer, E. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Job demands and
job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 62 (2), 341356. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00030-1
Barrick, M. & Mount, M. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job
Performance: A Meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 126.
Barrick, M., Mount, M. & Li, N. (2013). The Theory of Purposeful Work Behavior:
The Role of Personality, Higher-Order Goals, and Job Characteristics. Academy
Of Management Review. Jan2013, Vol. 38 Issue 1, P132-153
Binder, D. (2012). Executing Engagement Strategy Creates the Real Value. People &
Strategy. 2012, Vol. 35 Issue 4 p6-7. 2p
126
Bruk-Lee, V., Khoury, H., Nixon, A., Goh, A. & Spector, P. (2009). Replicating and
Extending Past Personality / Job Satisfaction Meta-Analyses. Human
Performance. Apr-Jun2009, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p156-189
Collins, L. (2011). Talent Wars. Engineering & Technology (17509637). Jun2011, Vol.
6, Issue 5, p34-36. DOI: 10:1049/et.2011.0511
Cummings, T. & Worley C. (2009). Organizational Development and Change, 9TH Ed.,
USA, South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH
Dalal, R., Bashshur, M. & Cred, M. (2010). The Forgotten Facet: Employee
Satisfaction with Management above the Level of Immediate Supervision.
Applied Psychology: An International Review. Apr2011, Vol. 60 Issue 2, p183-
209. 27p.
Davis-Blake, A. & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a Mirage The Search for Dispositional
Effects in Organizational Research. Academy of Management Review. Jul1989,
Vol. 14 Issue 3, p385-400
De Bruin, G.P., Hill, C., Henn, C.M., & Muller, K-P. (2013). Dimensionality of the
UWES-17: An Item Response Modelling Analysis. SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 39(2), Art. #1148, 8 pages. http://
dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip. v39i2.1148
127
Demerouti, E., Mostert, K. & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A
thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 15 (3), 209222. doi: 10.1037/a0019408
Ellis, R. (2013). Reverse Mentoring: Letting Millennials Lead the Way. T+D.
Sep2013, Vol. 67 Issue 9, p13-13. 1p.
Erdheim, J., Wang, M. & Zickar, M. (2006). Linking the Big Five Personality
Constructs to Organizational Commitment. Personality & Individual
Differences. Oct2006, Vol. 41 Issue 5, p959-970
Fatima, N., Iqbal, S., Akhwand, S., Suleman, M. & Ibrahim, M. (2015). Effect of
gender differences on job satisfaction of the female employees in Pakistan.
International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 2015;
3(1): 27-33
Ferri-Reed, J. (2012). Three Ways Leaders Can Help Millennials Succeed. Journal for
Quality & Participation. Apr2012, Vol. 35 Issue 1, p18-19. 2p
Franic, S., Borsboom, D., Dolan, C., Boomsma, D. (2013). The Big Five Personality
Traits: Psychological Entities or Statistical Constructs?. Springer
Science+Business Media New York
128
French, R., Rayner C., Rees, G. & Rumbles, S. (2011). Organizational Behaviour (2ND
ed.), USA, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Galanou, E., Georgakapoulos, G., sotiropoulos, I., & Dimitris, V. (2011). The effect of
reward system on job satisfaction in an organizational chart of four hierarchical
levels: A qualitative study. International Journal of Human Sciences. Vol. 8,
Issue1, Year 2011, ISSN: 1 1303-5134.
Gazioglu, S., & Tanselb, A. (2006). Job Satisfaction in Britain: Individual and Job
Related Factors. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1163-1171.
Gregory, J. B., & Levy, P. E. (2011). Its not me, its you: A multi-level examination of
variables that impact employee coaching relationships. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice & Research, 63, 6788.
Gavatorta, S. (2012). It's a Millennial Thing. T+D. Mar2012, Vol. 66 Issue 3, p58-65.
6p. 3
Guha, A.B. (2010). Motivators and Hygiene Factors of Generation X and Generation
Y-The Test of Two-Factor Theory. Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of
Management. Sep2010, Vol. 7 Issue 2, p121-132
129
Harter, J., Agrawal, S. & Sorensen, S. (2014). Jobs Outlook Grim in Countries with
More Disengaged Workers. Gallup Poll Briefing. 10/31/2014, p3.
Hashim, N.,Ishar, N., Rashid, W. & Masodi, M. (2012). Personality Traits, Work
Family Conflict and Job Satisfaction: Items Validity using Rasch
Measurement Approach. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 65 (2012)
1013 - 1019
Hersch, J. & Xiao, J. (2016). Sex, Race, and Job Satisfaction among Highly Educated
Workers. Southern Economic Journal. Jul2016, Vol. 83 Issue 1, p1-24.
Ho, J., Lee, L. & Wu, A. (2009). How Changes in Compensation Plans Affect
Employee Performance, Recruitment, and Retention: An Empirical Study of a
Car Dealership. Contemporary Accounting Research. Spring2009, Vol. 26 Issue
1, p167-199. 33p
Huang, J.& Ryan, A. (2011). Beyond Personality Traits: A Study Of Personality States
and Situational Contingencies in Customer Service Jobs. Personnel
Psychology. Summer 2011, Vol. 64 Issue 2, p451-488.
Hubbard, J. (2013). Meet the Millennials. Finweek. August 29, 2013, p43
Hulett, K.J. (2006). They Are Here to Replace Us: Recruiting and Retaining
Millennials. Journal of Financial Planning. Nov2006 Supplement, p17-17. 1p
130
Jauhari, V., Sehgal, R. & Sehgal P. (2013). Talent Management and Employee
Engagement Insights from Infotech Enterprises, Ltd.. Journal of Services
Research. Apr-Sep2013, Vol. 13 Issue 1, p161-186. 26p
Johnston, D. & Lee, W.S. (2013). Extra Status and Extra Stress: Are Promotions Good
for Us?. Industrial & Labor Relations Review. Jan2013, Vol. 66 Issue 1, p32-
54. 23p
Judge, T., Heller, D. & Klinger, R. (2008). The Dispositional Sources of Job
Satisfaction: A Comparative Test. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 2008, 57 (3), 361372
Judge, T., Heller, D. & Mount, M. (2002). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job
Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002. Vol. 87,
No. 3, 530541 0021-9010/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.530
Judge T., Piccolo R., Podsakoff, N. Shaw, J. & Rich, B. (2010). The relationship
between pay and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the literature. Academy of
Management Perspectives. Feb2011, Vol. 25 Issue 1, p101-103. 2p. DOI:
10.5465/AMP.2011.59198457
Kacmar, K.M., Collins, B., Harris, K. & Judge, T. (2009).Core Self Evaluations and
Job Performance: The Role of the Perceived Work Environment. Journal of
Applied Psychology. Nov2009, Vol. 94 Issue 6, p1572-1580. 9p.
Kellison, T., Kim, Y.K. & Magnusen, M. (2013). The Work Attitudes of Mllenals in
Collegiate Recreational Sports. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration.
Spring2013, Vol. 31 Issue 1, p78-97.
Kumar, R. & Arora, R. (2012). Determinants of Talent Retention in the BPO Industry.
Indian Journal of Industrial Relations. Oct2012, Vol. 48 Issue 2, p259-273. 15p
Lamond D. & Spector P. (2000). Taking Stock of the Job Satisfaction Survey: Its
Validity and Reliability in a Different Time and Place. American Journal of
Community Psychology 12/2000; 13(6-6):693-713. DOI:10.1007/BF00929796
Levy, J., Richardson, J., Lounsbury, J., Stewart, D., Gibson, L. & Drost, A. (2011).
Personality Traits and Career Satisfaction of Accounting Professionals.
Individual Differences Research. Dec2011, Vol. 9 Issue 4, p238-249
LI, L, An Zhong, J., Chen, Y., Yuantuo Xie, A & Mao, S. (2014). Moderating effects
of proactive personality on factors influencing work engagement based on the
job demands-resources model. Social Behavior And Personality, 2014, 42(1), 7-
16 doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.1.7
Liao, F., Yang, L., Wang, M., Drown, D. & Shi, J. (2013). TeamMember Exchange
and Work Engagement: Does Personality Make a Difference? J Bus Psychol
Vol 28. doi:10.1007/s10869-012-9266-5
Linz, S. & Semykina, A. (2012). What Makes Workers Happy? Anticipated Rewards
and Job Satisfaction. Industrial Relations. Oct2012, Vol. 51 Issue 4, p811-844.
Lounsbury, J. W., Smith, R. M., Levy, J. J., Leong, F. T., & Gibson, L. W. (2009).
Personality Characteristics of Business Majors as Defined by the Big Five and
Narrow Personality Traits. The Journal of Education for Business, Volume 84,
Number 4, March April, pp 200205.
Magkilat, B. (2016, August 14). IT-BPM attrition rate dramatically improves. Manila
Bulletin. Retrieved from http://2016.mb.com.ph/2016/08/14/it-bpm-attrition-
rate-dramatically-improves/#lP3dCSIuprGCjPti.99
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U. & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as
antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 70 (1), 149171. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2006.09.002
133
McCrae, R. & John, O. (1992). An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its
Applications. Journal of Personality. Vol. 60, Issue 2, pages 175215, June
1992. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x
Miceli, M.P. and P.W. Mulvey. 2000. "Consequences of Satisfaction with Pay
Systems," Industrial Relations 39: 62 87.
Miller, M.B., Hodge, K.H., Brandt, A. & Schneider, E.A. (2013) The Young and
the Restless: Gen Y'ers in the Workplace! Are You Prepared? FDCC Quarterly.
Spring2013, Vol. 63 Issue 3, p226-250.
Mishra, B., Sharma, B. & Uday, B. (2015). Predictors of Employee Engagement: The
Case of an Indian PSU. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations. Jan2015, Vol.
50 Issue 3, p469-478. 10p.
Moen, Espen R. and Asa Rosen. 2005. Performance Pay and Adverse Selection,
Scandinavian Journal of Economics: 107: 279 98.
134
Mondy, R.W., Noe, R.M. & Shane R. Premeaux in collaboration with Judy Bandy
Mondy (2002), Human Resource Management, Upper Saddle River, N.J. :
Prentice Hall.
Moritz, B. (2014). How I Did It. The US Chairman of PWC on Keeping Millennials
Engaged, Harvard Business Review. Nov2014, Vol. 92 Issue 11, p41-44. 4p.
Mumford, K. & Smith, P. (2015). Peer Salaries and Gender Differences in Job
Satisfaction in the Workplace. Manchester School. Jun2015, Vol. 83 Issue 3,
p307-313.
Myers, G. (2011). Exploring Psychology (8TH ed.), USA, Worth Publishers, New York,
NY
Nekuda, J. (2012). What Millennials Want as the Job Market Gains Momentum. Chief
Learning Officer. May2012, Special section p2-3. 2p.
Nunez, Mario (2015). Does Money Buy Happiness? The Link Between Salary and
Employee Satisfaction
https://www.glassdoor.com/research/does-money-buy-happiness-the-link-
between-salary-and-employee-satisfaction/
Ongore, O. (2014). A Study of Relationship Between Personality Traits and Job
Engagement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 141 ( 2014 ) 1315
1319
zba, G.K. (2016). The Role of Personality in Leadership: Five Factor Personality
Traits and Ethical Leadership. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 235
(2016 ) 235 242
Pater, R. & Lewis, C. (2012). Strategies for Leading Engagement. Professional Safety.
May2012, Vol. 57 Issue 5, p32-35. 4p.
Periatt, J., Chakrabarty, S. &. Lemay, S. (2007). Using Personality Traits to Select
Customer-Oriented Logistics Personnel. Transportation Journal. Vol. 46, No. 1
(Winter 2007), pp. 22-37
Quick, J.C. & Nelson, D.L. (2011). Principles of Organizational Behavior, 7TH Ed. UK:
South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning, Inc.
Quinggo, Z., Willis, M., OShea, B. & Yuwen, Y. (2013). Big Five Personality Traits,
Job Satisfaction and Subjective Wellbeing in China. International Journal of
Psychology, 2013. Vol. 48, No. 6, 10991108
Randall, S. (2010). Managing the Millennials. Accounting Today, October 11-24, 2010
Rao, J.V. & Chandraiah, K. (2012). Occupational stress, mental health and coping
among information technology professionals. Indian Journal
of Occupational & Environmental Medicine. Jan-Apr2012, Vol. 16 Issue 1,
p22-26.
136
Rasli, R., Huam, HT., Thoo, AC & Khalaf, B. (2012). Employee engagement and
employee shareholding program in a multinational company in Malaysia.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 40. 209 214. doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro. 2012.03.182
Remo, A. (2016, February 25). Turnover in PH Firms on the Rise as Employees Seek
Better Pay. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved from
https://business.inquirer.net /207574/turnover-in-ph-firms-on-the-rise-as-
employees-seek-better-pay
Rich, B., Lepine, J. & Crawford, E. (2010). Job Engagement Antecedents and Effects
on Job Performance. Academy Of Management Journal. Jun2010, Vol. 53 Issue
3, P617-635
Rigg, J., Day, J. & Adler, H. (2013). An Empirical Analysis of Jamaican Hotel
Employees Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Quitting Intentions. Consortium
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 18:2, 2013, 17-33 ISSN: 1535-0568
Robbins S. & Judge T. (2009). Organization Behavior (13TH ed.), Singapore: Pearson
Education SE Asia PTE., Ltd.
Roberts, J. (2012). Motivation and the Self. In D. Knights & H. Willmott (Eds.),
Introducing Organizational Behaviour and Management (pp 50-51). UK:
South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning, Inc.
Sen Gupta, S. & Gupta, A. (2008). Vicious Circle of Attrition in the BPO Industry.
ICFAI Journal of Organizational Behavior. Apr2008, Vol. 7 Issue 2, p57-66.
Skalli, A., Theodossiou, I., & Vasileiou, E. (2008, october). Jobs as Lancaster Goods:
Facets of Job Satisfaction and Overall Job Satisfaction. The Journal of Socio-
Economics, 37(5), 19061920.
Sousa-Poza, A., & Sousa-Poza, A. (2000, May). Taking Another Look at the
Gender/Job-Satisfaction Paradox. Kyklos; International Review of Social
Science, 53(2), 135-152.
Ryckman, R.M. (2013). Theories of Personality (10TH ed.), USA, Wadsworth Cengage
Learning, Australia
Srivastav, A.K. & Das, P. (2015). A Study on Employees Attitude towards the
Organization and Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Science and
Research. Vol. 4 Issue 7, July 2015
138
Tesdimir, M. Zeki, Zaheer Asghar, Muhammad & Saeed, S. (2012). Study of the
Relationship of Personality Traits and Job Satisfaction Among Professional
Sales Representatives In The Pharmaceutical Industry In Turkey. Retrieved
January 11, 2015 from http://umt.edu.pk/icobm2012/pdf/2C-100P.pdf
Van den Broecka, A., Vansteenkisteb, M., De Wittea, H. & Lens, W. (2008).
Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and
engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress.
Vol. 22, No. 3, July- September 2008, 277_294
139
Wille, B., De Fruyt, F. & Feys, M. (2013). Big Five Traits and Intrinsic Success in the
New Career Era: A 15-Year Longitudinal Study on Employability and Work-
Family Conflict. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Jan2013, Vol.
62 Issue 1, p124-156. 33p.
Woods, S.A. & Sofat, J.A. (2013). Personality and Engagement at Work: The
Mediating Role of Psychological Meaningfulness. J Applied Psychology.
doi.org/10.1111/ jasp.12171.
Wyld, D. (2011). Does More Money Buy More Happiness on the Job? Academy of
Management Perspectives. February 1, 2011 vol. 25 no. 1101-102
Zaidi, N.R., Wajid, R.A., Zaidi, F.B., Zaidi, GB, Zaidi, M.T. (2013). The Big 5
Personality Traits and their Relationship with Work Engagement among Public
Sector University Teachers of Lahore. Afr J Bus Management. doi.
org/10.5897/AJBM12.290.
Zhai, Q., Willis, M., OShea, B., Zhai, Y. & Yang, Y. (2013). Big Five Personality
Traits, Job Satisfaction and Subjective Wellbeing in China. International
Journal of Psychology, 2013. Vol. 48, No. 6, 10991108,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.732700
140
APPENDICES
Appendix A Questionnaires
A. Demographical Profile
1. Email Address
2. Gender
( ) Male
( ) Female
3. Job Level
( ) Managerial / Supervisory
( ) Rank & File
4. How many years have you served your current company?
( ) Less than a year
( ) 1 year to 2 years
( ) 2 years and a day to 4 years
( ) 4 years and a day to 6 years
( ) More than 6 years
5. What is your civil status?
( ) Single
( ) Married
( ) Separated / Divorced
( ) Widow(er)
141
A B C D E
Never Occasionally Fairly Often Generally Always
A B C D E
Never Occasionally Fairly Often Generally Always
A B C D E
Never Occasionally Fairly Often Generally Always
Disagree moderately
PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH
Agree moderately
Agree very much
Disagree slightly
QUESTION THAT COMES CLOSEST TO
Agree slightly
REFLECTING YOUR OPINION
ABOUT IT.
11 Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Disagree moderately
Disagree very mcuh
Agree moderately
PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH QUESTION
Agree slightly
ABOUT IT.
Copyright Paul E. Spector 1994, All rights reserved.
25 I enjoy my coworkers. 1 2 3 4 5 6
26 I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6
30 I like my supervisor. 1 2 3 4 5 6
32 I don't feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be. 1 2 3 4 5 6
35 My job is enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Almost Never
REFLECTING YOUR OPINION
Very Often
Sometimes
Always
Rarely
ABOUT IT.
Never
Often
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
At my work, I feel bursting with energy.
2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose
3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time flies when I am working.
4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.
5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am enthusiastic about my job.
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
When I am working, I forget everything else around me
7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
My job inspires me.
8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work
9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I feel happy when I am working intensely.
10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am proud of the work that I do.
11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am immersed in my work.
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I can continue working for very long periods at a time
13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To me, my job is challenging.
14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I get carried away when I am working.
15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
At my job, I am very resilient, mentally.
16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
It is difficult to detach myself from my job.
17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
At my work, I always persevere, even when things do not go
well
147
2. Promotion
There is really too little chance for promotion on my job. 3.15 1.28 Disagree Slightly
Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted. 4.19 1.3 Agree Slightly
People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places. 3.49 1.13 Disagree Slightly
I am satisfied with my chances for promotion 3.67 1.3 Agree Slightly
Overall 3.63 0.8 Agree Slightly
3. Supervision
My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job. 4.79 1.16 Agree Moderately
My supervisor is unfair to me. 3.47 1.71 Disagree Slightly
My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates. 4.08 1.65 Agree Slightly
I like my supervisor. 4.17 1.43 Agree Slightly
Overall 4.13 0.94 Agree Slightly
4. Fringe Benefits
I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive. 3.15 1.37 Disagree Slightly
The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer. 3.10 1.44 Disagree Slightly
The benefit package we have is equitable. 3.14 1.23 Disagree Slightly
There are benefits we do not have which we should have. 3.18 1.44 Disagree Slightly
Overall 3.14 0.83 Disagree Slightly
5. Contingent Rewards
When I do a good job I receive the recognition for it that I should
receive. 4.04 1.29 Agree Slightly
I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. 3.74 1.36 Agree Slightly
There are few rewards for those who work here. 3.13 1.24 Disagree Slightly
I dont feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be. 3.59 1.3 Agree Slightly
Overall 3.62 0.78 Agree Slightly
148
6. Operating Procedures
Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job
difficult. 3.35 1.29 Disagree Slightly
My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red
tape. 2.75 1.24 Disagree Slightly
I have too much to do at work. 3.21 1.4 Disagree Slightly
I have too much paperwork. 3.39 1.34 Disagree Slightly
Overall 3.17 0.78 Disagree Slightly
7. Co-workers
I like the people I work with. 4.96 1.02 Agree Moderately
I find I have to work harder because of the incompetence
of people I work with. 3.20 1.54 Disagree Slightly
I enjoy my coworkers. 4.84 1.26 Agree Moderately
There is too much bickering and fighting at work. 3.76 1.38 Agree Slightly
Overall 4.19 0.72 Agree Slightly
8. Nature of Work
I sometimes feel my job is meaningless 3.87 1.57 Agree Slightly
I like doing the things I do at work. 4.28 1.18 Agree Slightly
I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. 4.64 1.09 Agree Moderately
My job is enjoyable. 4.23 1.16 Agree Slightly
Overall 4.25 0.8 Agree Slightly
9. Communication
Communications seem good within this organization. 4.17 1.4 Agree Slightly
The goals of this organization are not clear to me. 4.05 1.55 Agree Slightly
I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the
organization. 3.25 1.31 Disagree Slightly
Work assignments are not fully explained. 3.33 1.29 Disagree Slightly
Overall 3.70 0.83 Agree Slightly
149
Interpre-
Mean SD
tation
1. Vigor
At my work, I feel bursting with energy 4.42 1.3 Often
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work 4.23 1.35 Often
I can continue working for very long periods at a time 3.99 1.46 Often
At my work, I always persevere, even when things do not go well 4.24 1.35 Often
Baby Boomers People born during the demographic post World War II baby
boom between the years 1946 and 1964 and the term is used in
a cultural context. Baby boomers are associated with a rejection
or redefinition of traditional values; however, many
commentators have disputed the extent of that rejection, noting
the widespread continuity of values with older and younger
generations.
Big 5 Personality 1. In psychology, they are five broad domains or dimensions
Traits ofpersonality that are used to describe humanpersonality,
the five-factor model (FFM) The five factors are openness,
conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and
neuroticism.
Business process The delegation of one or more IT-intensive business
outsourcing processes to an external provider that, in turn, owns,
(BPO) administrates and manages the selected processes based
on defined and measurable performance metrics.
Conscientiousness. A tendency to show self-discipline and act dutifully. The typical
behavioral tendencies associated with this trait are highly
organized, persevering, hard-working, achievement-oriented,
careful and responsible (Barrick, Mount & Li, 2013; Erdheim et
al., 2006).
166
Academic Fees
Dissertation Writing 1 12,311
Pre Oral Defense 15,000
Dissertation Writing 2-3 24,722
Oral Defense 15,000 67,033
Honoraria
Statistician 6,000
Proofreader 5,000
Research Staff (HR / IT) 5,000 16,000
Meals 9,000