0

Implications of Personality Traits, Job Satisfaction and Employee

Engagement of Millennials: Towards Crafting a Strategic Human
Resource Model

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

PROBLEM RATIONALE ......................................................................................... 3

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Significance of the Study ................................................................................ 7

CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................. 10

RESEARCH QUESTIONS..........10

2.1 Review of Related Literature ........................................................................ 11

2.2 Synthesis of the Literature ............................................................................. 32
2.3 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................. 34
2.4 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................. 37
2.5 Hypotheses .................................................................................................... 41
2.6 Research Paradigm ........................................................................................ 42

CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................. 44

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 44

3.1 Research Design ............................................................................................ 44
3.2 Respondents and Locale of the Study ........................................................... 45
3.3 Research Instruments .................................................................................... 45
3.4 Data Gathering Procedure ............................................................................. 52
3.5 Statistical Tools ....57
3.6 Ethical Considerations .. 59

CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................. 57

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................. 57

4.1 Results and Discussion .................................................................................. 58
 2

CHAPTER 5 .................................................................................................................. 96

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 96

5.1 Summary of Findings........100
5.2 Conclusions ...................................109
5.3 Recommendations .....117
5.4 Directions for Future Research..122

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 124

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 140

Appendix A Questionnaires ............................................................................... 140

Appendix B Job Satisfaction Survey Results ..................................................... 147
Appendix C Employee Engagement Survey Results ......................................... 149
Appendix D - T Value of Personality Traits and Gender ...................................... 150
Appendix E - T Value of Personality Traits and Job Level .................................. 151
Appendix F - T Value of Personality Traits and Civil Status ............................... 152
Appendix G - F Value of Personality Traits and Tenure ...................................... 153
Appendix H T Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Gender ....................... 154
Appendix I T Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Job Level ..................... 155
Appendix J T Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Civil Status ................. 156
Appendix K F Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Tenure ........................ 157
Appendix L T Value of Employee Engagement and Gender............................. 159
Appendix M T Value of Employee Engagement and Job Level........................ 160
Appendix N T Value of Employee Engagement and Civil Status ..................... 161
Appendix O F Value of Employee Engagement and Tenure ............................. 162
Appendix P Permission to Use Job Satisfaction Survey and Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale Requirements .......................................................................... 162
Appendix Q Definition of Terms ........................................................................ 164
Appendix R -Timetable and Budgetary Requirement ........................................... 167

CURRICULUM VITAE..... 168

 3

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

immediately (Atkinson, 2008). Organizations, therefore, have begun to pay attention as

well, recognizing that managers are having trouble managing their young people

(Thompson & Gregory, 2012; Gavatorta, 2012; Randall, 2010).

 4

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

well--educated, sophisticated, and do not necessarily see their careers following a

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

provides significant reasons for an employee to leave or stay with an organization.

What do millennials look for in a job and consider as important contributors to

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

account personality or psychometric measures of the surveys participants.

Researchers who attempt to determine the relationship between personality traits

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-

kickers, incessantly complained despite the number of interventions afforded them

(Patrick, 2010).

High levels of job satisfaction lead to engaged employees who perform

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).

Disengaged employees, on the other hand, have essentially checked out

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).

Employee engagement is an individuals involvement with, satisfaction with and

enthusiasm for the work he does (Robbins & Judge, 2009). At present, there is no

consistency in definition, with engagement having been operationalized and measured

in many disparate ways (Sahoo & Mishra, 2012). As a result, there is an absence of a

universal and unanimous definition and measurement of employee engagement

(Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014).

Employee engagement is very similar to the Filipino values of bayanihan and

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

same study, bayanihan improves teamwork and an employees sense of belonging.

Malasakit, on the other hand, extends beyond the definition of engagement as it

ascertains fair treatment, selfless acts and a degree of sacrifice.

1.2. Significance of the Study

Previous studies on job satisfaction and employee engagement (Abraham, 2012;

Diedericks & Rothmann, 2013; Ozsoy & Aras, 2014; Rigg, Day & Adler, 2013) did not

focus on millennials in a BPO setting. Further research on the generational

characteristics of millennials and their individual motivators (Solnet & Kralj, 2011) may

have significant contributions to the following:

Business Process Outsourcing (BPOs) Companies. Use as an eye-opener for BPOs to

build a highly positive work environment aligned to the companys goals, strategies and

financial objectives (Sahoo & Mishra, 2012).

HR Practitioners and Leaders. Develop employee engagement programs to retain

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

quality performance, providing best value to the customer, innovation and

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

programs that can enhance job satisfaction leading to employee retention.

Future Researchers. The study can be further extended in the future to include either

or both members of other generations (Baby Boomers and Generation X) to determine

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

1.3 Scope, Limitations and Delimitation of the Study

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

openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. It did not

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.

The general objectives of the proposed study is to determine the relationships of

personality traits, job satisfaction and employee engagement and to understand how

these measures relate.

Although there are no local theories on Filipino motivation, there is a growing

body of research in the Philippines workplace on motivation (Ilagan, Hechanova, Co &

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

of comfortable living (Robbins & Judge, 2009; Wyld, 2011).

The Filipino workplace, in general, places special emphasis on relationships as

reflected in the concepts of pakikisama, pakikipagkapwa and pakikiisa and may seem to
 11

be a powerful motivator to work (Menguito, 2014). Though workers place importance

on their relationships with their colleagues, happiness in this area does not automatically

translate to happiness or satisfaction at work (Tiglao, 1988 as cited in Menguito, 2014)

hypothesizing that the quality of interpersonal relationships and meaningful work are

both important and necessary.

2.1 Review of Related Literature

Five Factor Model of Personality

The Five Factor Model of Personality or Big-Five is a widely examined theory

of five broad dimensions used to describe a persons personality traits in terms of five

basic dimensions: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion,

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

central assumption of the personality theory is that an individual possesses a

predisposition to behave, think, and feel in a relatively consistent manner over time and

across diverse situations (Wille, De Fruyt & Feys, 2013).

Judge, Heller and Mount in 1992 described openness to experience relates to

creativity, divergent thinking, and political liberalism (as cited in Rich, Lepine &
 12

Crawford, 2010). The behavioral tendencies associated to this trait are curiosity,

foresightedness, originality, imaginativeness, broad-mindedness, intelligence, having a

need for variety, aesthetic sensitivity, and unconventional values (McCrae, 2010;

Erdheim, Wang & Zickar, 2006).

Conscientiousness is a tendency to show self-discipline and to 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).

Extraversion refers to the predisposition to experience positive emotions

(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,

active and talkative (Rich, Lepine & Crawford, 2010).

Individuals high on agreeableness tend to be compassionate, cooperative and

value getting along with others. They are generally considerate, friendly, trusting,

generous, forgiving, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with others

(Erdheim et al., 2006).

 13

Neuroticism refers to the individual differences in the tendency to experience

chronic negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, or depression. Individual high on this

trait are generally anxious, depressed, angry, embarrassed, emotional, worried, and

insecure (Barrick, Mount & Li, 2013; McCrae, 2010).

Job Satisfaction Facets

Job satisfaction is an appraisal of perceived job characteristics, work

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

coworkers (Quick & Nelson, 2011).

It is also the combination of positive and negative feelings that reflect in a

workers attitude toward work and researchers conducted studies to correlate overall job

satisfaction with job performance, organization citizenship behavior, customer

satisfaction, absenteeism, turnover and workplace deviance (Robbins & Judge, 2009).

A number of studies have found that job satisfaction is associated with pay,

occupational stress, empowerment, company and administrative policy, achievement,

personal growth, relationship with others and the overall working environment (Teck-

Hong & Waheed, 2011)

 14

Specific studies on job satisfaction facets related to pay (Wyld, 2011; Ho, Lee &

Wu, 2009; Judge, Piccolo, Podsakoff, Shaw & Rich, 2010), promotion (Johnston & Lee,

2013; Garca-Izquierdo, Moscoso & Ramos-Villagrasa, 2012), supervision (Yafang,

2011; Dalal, Bashshur & Cred, 2010), benefits and rewards (Linz & Semykina 2012),

operating procedures (Rao & Chandraiah, 2012) indicate varied levels of satisfaction.

Measuring satisfaction with a facet approach as well as overall 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

satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Lamond & Spector, 2000).

To note, the best-known popular theory of job satisfaction is that of Friedrich

Herzberg where he concluded that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction were the products

of two separate factors: motivating factors (satisfiers) and hygiene factors (dissatisfiers)

respectively (Roberts, 2012).

According to Herzbergs two-factor theory hygiene factors or dissatisfiers

(supervision, interpersonal relations, physical working conditions, salary, benefits, job

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,

in itself result in job satisfaction, but only in the reduction or elimination of

dissatisfaction (French, Rayner, Rees & Rumbles, 2011).

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

with commitment that significantly contributes to organizational productivity (Ahmad,

Mustafa, Ahmad & Ahmad, 2012). This satisfaction and commitment to work are

significant factors that determine the success of an organization in the market (Gsior,

Skowron & Sak-Skowron, 2014).

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

their employer as they progress throughout their career.

 16

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

reflection an employees culture and values rating probably represents a combination of

factors that contribute to overall well-being such as company morale, employee

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,

older workers tend to be less satisfied.

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

employee satisfaction, perhaps an employee wellness program can help promote

youthful optimism and the high employer ratings that go along with it.

Fringe Benefits

Artz (2008) explored the advantages of fringe benefits on employee job

satisfaction. Fringe benefits can impact job satisfaction in several ways. First, fringe

benefits stand as an important component of worker compensation. Some benefits such

 17

as Social Security and Philhealth are legally required and make up roughly 27% of all

benefit compensation. The remaining 73% of benefit compensation is comprised mostly

of paid leave, insurance plans and retirement and savings plans.

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

of uncertainty and job-lock can decrease job satisfaction as well.

Promotion

Promotion is a Shifting of employee for a job of higher significance and higher

compensation (Lazear, 2000). Promoting employees to improve job satisfaction can be

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

relationships with their supervisors. Depending on the circumstances, promotion can be

a workable solution for improving job satisfaction (Mayhew, 2017).

Promotions are an important aspect of employees life. Different organizations

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.

A significant facet of career of an employee is promotion that affects other

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

categories of job satisfaction for ascertaining give-ups regarding future , whereas

satisfaction with regard to promotion opportunities is not a major factor (Moen & Asa,

2000).

Co-workers

Having friends at work is incredibly important for ones mental well-being. It is

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

engagement platform is relationships with coworkers. Companies can monitor how

coworkers affect job satisfaction, by viewing the frequency and quality of

communication between teammates, without nitpicking or being too intrusive.

Rewards

Rewards management is concerned with the development of appropriate

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,

achievement, responsibilities and personal growth.

 20

Rewards systems also include the development of organizational cultures as they

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

respect their needs as well.

The achievement of equity in rewards must be a major objective for the

managers. The difficulties that usually appear, according to Thorpe & Holman (2000),

lie in setting an objective measurement of differential and relativities like efforts,

skills, experience, needs. It is essential that rewards should be fairly distributed but there

are not satisfactory methods to give such outcomes.

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

perceived as a part of the top-management team; formal or informal affirmation of the

prospects; recognition of their contribution to the overall results.

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,

Sotiropoulos & Dimitris, 2011).

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

due to the dynamic nature of the environment. In order to increase efficiency,

effectiveness, productivity and job commitment of employees, the business must satisfy

the needs of its employees by providing good working conditions.

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,

Theodossiou, & Vasileiou, 2008).

Personality Traits as a Predictor of Job Satisfaction

Theorists like Gordon Allport, Raymond Catell and Hans Eysenck trait or

dispositional theories state that individuals possess stable traits that significantly

influence their affective and behavioral reactions to organizational settings (Ryckman,

2013; Griggs, 2012).

Studies investigating personality traits as a predictor of job satisfaction has a rich

and diverse history having utilized disparate research designs, methodological

approaches, measurement strategies and statistical analyses (Judge et al., 2008).

Studies suggested that personality is a dispositional source of job satisfaction, as

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,

2009). In a meta-analysis that included of 334 correlations from 163 independent

samples, the seminal work of Judge, Heller and Mount (2002) found out that four of the

Big Five traitsneuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness and agreeableness - were

related to job satisfaction. A similar meta-analysis of 187 studies reporting cross-

sectional and longitudinal relationships found that conscientiousness, extraversion,

agreeableness and neuroticism is related to job satisfaction in varying degrees (Bruk-Lee,

Khoury, Nixon, Goh & Spector, 2009).

Studies of smaller scale reported similar results. A study of 83 business

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

characteristics (Srivastava & Locke, 2006).

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

Another research of pharmaceutical sales representatives in Turkey found out

that a relationship exists between the personality traits studied and job satisfaction

(Tesdimir, Asghar & Saeed, 2012).

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

otherwise confirming that extraversion, conscientiousness, non-neuroticism (emotional

stability) and agreeableness were related to job satisfaction (Templer, 2012).

Employee Engagement

Employee engagement is a relatively new concept in the field of Human

Resources and its definition is often debated (McShane & Von Glinow, 2013). One study

defines engagement as a set of motivating resources such as support and recognition

from colleagues and supervisors, performance feedback, opportunities for learning and

development and opportunities for skill use (Bakker & Schaufel, 2008). Macey and

Schneider (2008) describes it as a desirable condition, has an organizational purpose,

and connotes involvement, commitment, passion, enthusiasm, focused effort, and

energy. An apt summary of its definition is an individuals involvement with,

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).

An organizations capacity to manage employee engagement relates to its ability

to achieve high performance levels and superior business results (Sahoo & Mishra,

2012). Employee engagement builds the level of commitment and involvement of an

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).

Engagement further leads to focused efforts, better outcomes, translates to greater

innovation, positive energy and higher productivity. Engaged employees, therefore,

exhibits high levels of passion and creativity that contributes value to the organization

(Jauhari et al., 2013).

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

Organizations are likely to suffer if employees are disengaged (Ramsey, 2013).

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

members (Robbins & Judge, 2009).

Companies see employee engagement as a powerful source of competitive

advantage in turbulent times (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014). Management understands that

strategic engagement initiatives support organizational branding and reputation among

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

it happen (Mathis, 2013).

Employee engagement as vigor

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

attachment style was a significant predictor of vigor. Individuals are characterized as

having either a secure, counterdependent, or overdependent attachment style. As

predicted, people with a secure attachment style were more likely to experience vigor at

work, while individuals with either a counterdependent or overdependent style

experienced less vigor.

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.

Employee engagement and dedication.

A dedicated employee is strongly involved in his work and experiences a sense

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.

(Bakker, Demerouti & Xanthopoulou, 2012).

 28

According to Mauno, Kinnunen, and Ruokolainen (2007), dedication has

conceptual similarities with job involvement: dedication is defined as a strong

psychological involvement or identification with ones work (Schaufeli et al., 2006),

whereas job involvement denotes an individuals psychological identification with a

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

argued. However, dedication appears to be a broader phenomenon than job involvement

because dedication contains feelings of enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge,

while job involvement focuses strictly on the psychological importance of the job in an

individuals life. (Mauno et al., 2007).

Employee engagement and absorption

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

constructs. Based on in-depth interviews, absorption was additionally included as the

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,

engagement and burnout can be considered as opposite concepts which should be

measured independently and with different instruments. (Bakker, 2008).

 29

The sensations of people are in many respects similar when they experience work

engagement or flow. According to Csikszentmihalyi (1990, 1997), flow is a state of

optimal experience that is described through clear mind, merging of mind and body,

effortless concentration and focused attention, sense of complete personal control, loss

of self- consciousness, distortion of temporal experience, and intrinsic enjoyment. In

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

to certain, short-term peak experiences,while work engagement is a more pervasive and

persistent state of mind (Schaufeli et al., 2002, 75). Similarly as absorption can be

associated with flow, dedication can be linked to job involvement.

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

craving, family-centric and value work-life balance (Gavatorta, 2012); individualistic

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).

The Millennial generation grew up with educational, economic, social, and

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

generation. (Thompson & Gregory, 2012)

In addition the mentioned socio-cultural factors, the Filipino workplace has

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,

ubiquitousness of technology, new competencies, diverse employee profile and decline

of union activities (Franco 2014).

Millennials arrive at the workplace with drastically different expectations and

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

involvement in decision-making (Aruna & Anitha, 2015).

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

Millennials (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Ferri-Reed, 2012; Gavatorta, 2012).

Traditionally, organizations appoint senior members to younger workers for coaching

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

the business (Ellis, 2013).

Management has also learned to make the necessary adjustments in the

workplace such as the refusal to invest in employee training for fear that it will be used

elsewhere (Nekuda, 2012), learning to effectively communicate with them digitally

(LaBan, 2013), flexible work life balance (Kumar & Arora, 2012) and managing stress

in the workplace (Kathirvel, 2009).

 32

2.2 Synthesis of the Literature

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

research on personality traits as a predictor of job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2008).

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

even the Bahamas (Cleare, 2013) in an attempt to transcend cultural boundaries.

Hechanova et al. (2014) demonstrated this and proved that, in the Philippine setting,

family needs is a work engagement driver often absent in Western studies.

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

managers and supervisors in a multigenerational workplace because Millennials have

different work expectations and managers need to adjust to best meet their needs (Smith

& Galbraith, 2012).

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

Big Five Personality Traits that include openness, conscientiousness, extraversion,

agreeableness and neuroticism.

Job satisfaction of employees are brought about by different variables, and these

are pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating

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

and personality can affect the factors that bring satisfaction.

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

widely accepted measures (Langford, 2009). Despite a significant lack of understanding

and agreement on this subject, the construct of employee engagement has developed a

strong practitioner following.

 34

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.

2.3 Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this study relies on the Five Factor Model of

Personality in an attempt to understand the dominant traits of Filipino Millennials. The

study also uses Herzbergs Two Factor Theory or motivation-hygiene theory to

understand the causes and consequences of job satisfaction levels.

Five Factor Model of Personality

The Five-Factor Model of Personality is a hierarchical organization of

personality traits in terms of five basic dimensions: openness to experience,

conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism (McCrae, 2010). The

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

and is applicable to Asian cultures such as the Philippines.

 35

Table 1
High and Low End of the Five Trait Factors

Dimension Description of High and Low Ends

High: independent, imaginative, broad interests, receptive to
new ideas.
Openness
Low: conforming, practical, narrow interests, closed to new
ideas.
High: well-organized, dependable, careful, disciplined
Conscientiousness
Low: disorganized, undependable, careless, impulsive
High: sociable, talkative, friendly, adventurous
Extraversion
Low: reclusive, quiet, aloof, cautious
High: sympathetic, polite, good natured, soft-hearted
Agreeableness
Low: tough-minded, rude, irritable, ruthless
High: emotional, insecure, nervous, self-pitying
Neuroticism
Low: calm, secure, relaxed, self-satisfied

Source: Griggs (2012)

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

Frederick Herzberg proposed the two-factor theory or motivation-hygiene

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

suggest that Intrinsic factors such as advancement, recognition, responsibility and

achievement relate to job satisfaction. On the other hand, dissatisfied employees tended

to cite extrinsic factors such as supervision, pay, company policies and working

conditions (as cited in Sinha & Trivedi, 2014).

Herzbergs theory data suggest that the opposite of satisfaction is not

dissatisfaction, as was traditionally believed. Removing dissatisfying characteristics

from a job does not necessarily make the job satisfying. Herzberg proposed that his

findings indicated the existence of a dual continuum. The opposite of satisfaction is

no satisfaction and the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction (Davis,

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

2.4 Statement of the Problem

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

employee engagement. Lastly, a strategic human resource engagement model is crafted

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;

1.2. Civil Status;

1.3. Rank; and

1.4. Length of tenure?

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;

2.4. Agreeableness; and

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;

3.4. Fringe Benefits;

3.5. Contingent Rewards;

3.6. Operating Procedures;

3.7. Co-workers;

3.8. Nature of Work; and

3.9. Communication?

4. What are the assessment of the respondents on their employee engagement in terms

of the following variables:

4.1. Vigor;

4.2. Dedication; and

4.3. Absorption?

5. Are there significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their

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;

5.4. Agreeableness; and

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;

6.4. Fringe Benefits;

6.5. Contingent Rewards;

6.6. Operating Procedures;

6.7. Co-workers;

6.8. Nature of Work; and

6.9. Communication?
 40

7. Are there significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their

employee engagement in terms of the following variables when their profiles are

taken as test factors:

7.1. Vigor;

7.2. Dedication; and

7.3. Absorption?

8. Is there significant relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction?

9. Is there significant relationship between personality traits and employee

engagement?

10. Is there significant relationship between job satisfaction and employee

engagement?

11. What strategic human resource management model can be crafted from the results

of the study?
 41

2.5 Hypotheses

1. Ho1 : There are no significant differences on the assessment of the respondents

on their personality traits when their profiles are taken as test factors.

2. Ho2 : There are no significant differences on the assessment of the respondents

on their job satisfaction when their profiles are taken as test factors.

3. Ho3 : There are no significant differences as the assessment of the respondents

on their employee engagement when their profiles are taken as test factors.

4. Ho4 : There is no significant relationship between personality traits and job

satisfaction.

5. Ho5 : There is no significant relationship between personality traits and

employee engagement.

6. Ho6 : There is no significant relationship between job satisfaction and employee

engagement.
 42

2.6 Research Paradigm

A conceptual model from the trait or dispositional theory using the Five Factor

Model of Personality (FFM) and Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory is developed. Figure 1

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

participants under 35 years old.

Figure 1
Research Paradigm
 43

The independent variables are personality traits and demographic factors while

the dependent variables are job satisfaction and employee engagement.

Personality Traits is determined by the following domains; openness,

conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. Job Satisfaction has

nine domains under two categories; extrinsic (pay, supervision, fringe benefits, operating

procedures, co-workers) and intrinsic (promotion, rewards, nature of work,

communication). Employee Engagement is determined by the following domains; vigor,

dedication and absorption. Demographic Factors are gender, civil status, rank

(managerial or rank & file) and length of tenure in the organization.

The study expects to contribute to the emerging body of knowledge on job

satisfaction, employee engagement while taking into account the personality or

psychometric measures of millennials in a BPO environment.

 44

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter explains the methodology and procedures to determine the

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

answers to the research questions.

3.1 Research Design

This study made use of the descriptive-correlational method, used empirical data

to describe the profile, personality traits, level of satisfaction and employee engagement

of those millennials employed in the call center industry.

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

3.2 Respondents and Locale of the Study

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

participation to certain departments. These departments make up an estimated 30 to 40

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

regularly employed for more than six months.

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

company for more than six years.

3.3 Research Instruments

The researcher used validated questionnaires that are described below. The

permissions from the authors were sought before its administration.

 46

Manchester Personality Questionnaire (MPQ)

The Manchester Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) is a widely accepted

occupational personality test questionnaire designed to assess likely behavior in work

situations rather than an individuals ability to do the work itself. The questionnaire aims

to measure, amongst several personality domains, how individuals tend to approach

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,

regardless of occupation or rank.

The MPQ focuses on traits relevant to creative and innovative behavior.

Creativity is an increasingly important factor to consider in areas such as recruitment,

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

reliable means of assessing personality.

As a result, the MPQ is a powerful tool for understanding an individuals

strengths, weaknesses, and areas of strength. This validated, 120-item personality test

provides a profile on 14 primary dimensions, as well as a summary profile of the "Big 5

Factor" dimensions.

The 14 Primary Dimensions are apprehension, independence, assertiveness,

openness to change, communicativeness, originality, competitiveness, perfectionism,

 47

conscientiousness, rationality, decisiveness rule, consciousness, empathy and social

confidence.

The Big 5 Dimensions are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion,

agreeableness and neuroticism.

The reliability of personality questionnaire is assessed by looking at internal

consistency reliability, a measure of the homogeneity of scale items. Coefficient alphas

for the MPQ fall within the benchmark range for psychometric test scales that is, 0.6

0.8.

Validity of the MPQ

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.

Table 2 shows loadings of scales on the factors, communalities and percents of

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

solution resembles simple structure.

Table 2
Big-Five Factor Rotated Factor Matrix

Scale C Ach E R Communality

Originality 84 15 07 03 14
Rule Consciousness 83 -09 -18 16 -03
Openness to Change 83 15 00 -04 00 76
Assertiveness 67 -03 22 21 12 76
Social Confidence 25 67 18 34 22 72
Empathy 09 79 25 01 -12 55
Communicativeness 23 05 01 79 -02 70
Independence 42 -53 25 -41 -12 70
Rationality 02 39 50 -45 -09 68
Competitiveness 38 05 63 27 02 71
Conscientiousness -21 25 63 -03 -19 62
Perfectionism 05 13 76 -13 17 61
Decisiveness 20 22 34 23 68 54
Apprehension -09 01 17 11 -87 64
Percent of variance 20 15 14 10 10 71
Percent of covariance 30 21 20 14 14 79

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy=.77,

Bartlett test of sphericity=2,397,
p<.001

Reliability of the MPQ

The reliability of personality questionnaire is assessed through internal

consistency reliability, a measure of the homogeneity of scale items. Coefficient alphas

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

scales in Factor Version 14.

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

Scale Alpha SEM

Originality .84 1.52

Rule Consciousness .85 1.59
Openness to Change .79 1.92
Assertiveness .74 1.84
Social Confidence .69 1.78
Empathy .72 1.69
Communicativeness .67 1.95
Independence .69 1.89
Rationality .78 1.59
Competitiveness .69 2.12
Conscientiousness .64 2.34
Perfectionism .72 1.90
Decisiveness .72 1.80
Apprehension .78 1.97

N=493.
 50

Spectors Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS)

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

components of job satisfaction. The inclusion of subscales individually measure the

unique components of job satisfaction.

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

benefits, contingent rewards (performance-based rewards), operating procedures

(required rules and procedures), coworkers, nature of work and communication.

Although the original development of the JSS was for use in human service
 51

organizations, it is applicable to all organizations. The norms provided on this website

include a wide range of organization types in both private and public sector.

Utrech Work Engagement Scale

The development of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) includes the

three constituting dimensions of work engagement: vigor, dedication, and absorption.

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

respondents should not be unnecessarily bothered. Besides, long questionnaires increase

the likelihood of attrition. The Cronbach's of the UWES-scales are as follows:

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

A separate computation of Cronbachs alpha for the 337 participants of the

research survey. The overall value was 0.903 together with vigor (0.725), dedication

(0.833) and absorption (0.755).

3.4 Data Gathering Procedure

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

HR Managers / Directors that initially expressed interest to participate in the study. Of

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

accredited Level A test user, authorized by the Psychological Resources Center,

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

did the same for the JSS and UWES-17.

Participants accomplished an online questionnaire that indicates the gender, civil

status, rank (managerial or staff level) and length of tenure.

Simultaneously, the I/T Specialist extracted from the database the respondents

information such as email address and required demographics to prepare the email

invites. The necessary precautions compliant to CPI Outsourcings Information Security

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

single batch to prevent identification.

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

30 questionnaires. The researcher decided to discontinue the manual method to focus

with the on-line approach.

3.5. Statistical Tools

Descriptive statistics was used to surface the respondents demographic data,

percentages, mean scores and standard deviation to analyze demographics, personality

traits, job satisfaction and employee engagement.

The researcher used a T-test and Analysis of Variance to determine significant

differences for personality traits, job satisfaction and employee engagement when the

demographic profiles are taken as a test factors.

 55

Pearson Product Moment Correlation of Coefficient and T-test were used to

determine significant relationships among personality traits, job satisfaction and

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

analyzed with descriptive statistics (frequency distribution, percentages, mean, standard

deviation) and subjected to various statistical tests (t-test, analysis of variance, Pearson

product moment correlation of coefficient) to address each of the study questions.

3.6. Ethical Considerations

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.

Participation was purely voluntary, no harm in reputation intended, ensured complete

 56

anonymity and confidentially without fear of negative consequence. Lastly, the

researcher promised to provide the participating companies a copy of the overall results

of the study and ensure its confidentiality.

 57

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

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

statistical tests and corresponding results.

 58

4.1. Results and Discussion

4.1.1 Profile of the Respondents

The average age of the respondents (n=337) is 29 (SD=3.16), dominantly female

(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

summarizes the descriptive statistics of the 337 respondents:

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

organizations and career interruptions are other contributory factors to shorter

employment (Wille, et al., 2013).

4.1.2 Personality Profile of Respondents

Table 6 presents the respondents predominant personality traits in relation to the

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

a widely examined theory of five broad dimensions used to describe a persons

personality traits (Colquitt, et al., 2013; Franic, Borsboom, Dolan & Boomsma, 2013;

Laher, 2013) particularly openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and

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

right) is described as well-organized, dependable and careful (Wille, et al., 2013).

Respondents that have a score from 4-7 are described as stable or neither belonging to

the extreme left or right.

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.

pay, promotions) and informal (recognition, respect, feelings of personal

accomplishment) (as cited in Judge, et al., 2002).

 61

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,

Chakrabarty &. Lemay, 2007; Huang & Ryan, 2011).

4.1.3 Job Satisfaction of Respondents

The research question was answered using Paul Spectors 36-item, 9 facet Job

Satisfaction Survey (Belias, Koustelios, Vairaktarakis & Sdrolias, 2015; Garca-

Izquierdo, et al., 2012; Ahmad, et al., 2012). The research question was answered in three

ways to analyze the results.

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

answer the third research question.

 62

The results were as follows:

Table 7
Respondents Summary of Job Satisfaction Facets

Job Satisfaction Facets Mean SD Interpretation

Pay 3.36 0.90 Disagree Slightly
Promotion 3.63 0.80 Agree Slightly
Supervision 4.13 0.94 Agree Slightly
Fringe Benefits 3.14 0.83 Disagree Slightly
Contingent Rewards 3.62 0.78 Agree Slightly
Operating Procedures 3.17 0.78 Disagree Slightly
Co-workers 4.19 0.72 Agree Slightly
Nature of Work 4.25 0.80 Agree Slightly
Communication 3.70 0.83 Agree Slightly

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

personal relationships and human connections (DeVaney, 2015); are motivated by

praises, small rewards and meaningful work (Smith & Galbraith, 2012) and find clear

expectations from both ends to matter in their work (Atkinson, 2008).

 63

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,

2012; Belias, et al., 2015)

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

satisfied nor dissatisfied and satisfied for scores from 16-24.

Table 8 reflects the number of respondents (f) and percentages that are fall under

the dissatisfied, ambivalent and satisfied scale:

 64

Table 8
Respondents Summary of Job Satisfaction Scale per Facet

Dissatisfied Ambivalent Satisfied

Job Satisfaction Facet (4-12) (12-15) (16-24)
f % f % f %
Pay 122 36 150 45 65 19
Promotion 91 27 154 46 92 27
Supervision 45 13 145 43 147 44
Fringe Benefits 148 44 158 47 31 9
Contingent Rewards 70 21 189 56 78 23
Operating Procedures 163 48 136 40 38 11
Co-Workers 15 4 153 45 169 50
Nature of Work 24 7 122 36 191 57
Communication 83 25 156 46 98 29

n=337

There is strong indication that the respondents neither feel satisfied nor

dissatisfied (ambivalent) with pay, promotion, fringe benefits, contingent rewards and

communication. The respondents are satisfied with supervision (44%), co-workers

(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

scores from 144-216.

Table 9 indicates that a majority of the respondents feel ambivalent (77%) and

only 5% were dissatisfied.

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

often (A few times a week) and 6-Always (Everyday).

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

an overall mean of 4.18 (SD=.75).

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

Vigor Dedication Absorption Average

Scale Interpretation
f % f % f % f %
0 0 - 1 0.30 0 - 0 - Never
1 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Almost Never
2 3 0.89 6 1.78 12 3.56 0 - Rarely
3 31 9.20 40 11.87 35 10.39 33 9.79 Sometimes
4 114 33.83 71 21.07 89 26.41 83 24.63 Often
5 143 42.43 167 49.55 169 50.15 184 54.60 Very Often
6 46 13.65 52 15.43 32 9.50 37 10.98 Always

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

survey instrument by De Bruin, et al., (2013) supported a uni-dimensional interpretation

over a multidimensional interpretation because the subscales is expected to demonstrate

very little incremental predictive value in contexts such as multiple regression and path

analysis.
 68

Significant Differences on Personality Traits and Respondents Profile

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:

1. There is a significant difference between openness and gender (t=1.98,

p=0.048).

2. There is no significant difference between agreeableness and gender (t=0.213,

p=0.831).

3. There is no significant difference between conscientiousness and gender

(t=0.754, p=0.452).

4. There is no significant difference between extraversion and gender (t=-0.809,

p=0.419).

5. There is no significant difference between neuroticism and gender (t=0.003,

p=0.997).
 69

Males scored higher in openness (n=87, m=5.41) compared with their female

counterparts (n=250, m=5.13) resulting in a mean difference of 0.282. This is contrary

to a study where there were no significant differences in openness at the level of the Big

Five domain (Weisberg, DeYoung & Hirsh, 2011).

According to Job Level

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

(Appendix E) are as follows:

1. There is no significant difference between openness and job level (t=1.94,

p=0.054).

2. There is no significant difference between agreeableness and job level

(t=0.73, p=0.466).

3. There is no significant difference between conscientiousness and job level

(t=0.190, p=0.848).

4. There is a significant difference between extraversion and job level (t=-2.50,

p=0.013).

5. There is a significant difference between neuroticism and job level (t=1.26,

p=0.209).
 70

The managers and supervisors (n=96) scored higher in extraversion (m=5.40)

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).

According to 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 (Appendix F) are

as follows:

1. There is no significant difference between openness and civil status (t=0.609,

p=0.0543).

2. There is no significant difference between agreeableness and civil status

(t=1.047, p=0.296).

3. There is no significant difference between conscientiousness and civil status

(t=0.660, p=0.510).

4. There is a significant difference between extraversion and civil status (t=-

2.611, p=0.009).

5. There is no significant difference between neuroticism and civil status

(t=0.282, p=0.778).
 71

The married respondents (n=94) scored higher in extraversion (m=6.34)

compared to their single counterparts (n=242, m=5.79) resulting in a mean difference of

0.547.

According to Job 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

(Appendix G) are as follows:

1. There is no significant difference between openness and tenure (f=1.874,

p=0.0115).

2. There is no significant difference between agreeableness and tenure (t=2.265,

p=0.062).

3. There is no significant difference between conscientiousness and tenure

(t=0.513, p=0.726).

4. There is no significant difference between extraversion and tenure (t=1.747,

p=0.139).

5. There is no significant difference between neuroticism and tenure (t=0.079,

p=0.989).
 72

There were no significant differences for personality traits and tenure. Table 12

presents the summary of significant results.

Table 12
T Value of Personality Traits and Demographics

Personality Demogra- Sample Mean T- P-

Mean SD Difference
Trait phics Size value value
GENDER
Male 87 5.41 1.22
Openness 0.282 1.98 0.048
Female 250 5.13 1.12
JOB LEVEL
Mgr / Sup 96 6.33 1.47
Extroversion 0.524 2.5 0.013
Rank & File 241 5.81 1.83
CIVIL STATUS
Single 242 5.79 1.78
Extroversion -0.547 -2.611 0.009
Married 94 6.34 1.56

n=337

When grouped according to gender (Appendix D), the males scored higher in

openness than their female counterparts resulting in a significant difference (t = 1.98).

Extraversion resulted in a significant difference when grouped according to job level

(Appendix E) and civil status (Appendix F). There was no significant difference for

tenure (Appendix G).

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

profiles are taken as test factors is therefore rejected.

 73

Significant Differences Between Job Satisfaction and Employees

In order to arrive at the results of the question posited, the researcher grouped the

respondents job satisfaction subscales 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 nine job satisfaction facets (pay,

promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating procedures, co-

workers, nature of work, communication) and overall job satisfaction of the 337

respondents. The results (Appendix H) are as follows:

1. There is a significant difference between pay and gender (t=3.223, p=0.001).

2. There is a significant difference between promotion and gender (t=3.496,

p=0.001).

3. There is no significant difference between supervision and gender (t=1.206,

p=0.229).

4. There is no significant difference between fringe benefits and gender (t=0.247,

p=0.805).

5. There is no significant difference between contingent rewards and gender

(t=0.055, p=0.956).
 74

6. There is no significant difference between operating procedures and gender

(t=1.821, p=0.069).

7. There is no significant difference between co-workers and gender (t=1.925,

p=0.055).

8. There is no significant difference between nature of work and gender (t=1.253,

p=0.211).

9. There is a significant difference between communication and gender (t=3.043,

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

the males expressed more satisfaction with their jobs.

 75

According to Job Level

For job level (managerial & supervisory, rank & file) the researcher performed a

t-test on the nine job satisfaction facets (pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits,

contingent rewards, operating procedures, co-workers, nature of work, communication)

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).

2. There is a significant difference between promotion and job level (t=2.885,

p=0.004).

3. There is no significant difference between supervision and job level (t=0.385,

p=0.701).

4. There is no significant difference between fringe benefits and job level (t=-0.317,

p=0.752).

5. There is no significant difference between contingent rewards and job level

(t=0.547, p=0.585).

6. There is no significant difference between operating procedures and job level (t=-

0.961, p=0.337).

7. There is no significant difference between co-workers and job level (t=-0.146,

p=0.884).
 76

8. There is no significant difference between nature of work and job level (t=1.018,

p=0.309).

9. There is no significant difference between communication and job level (t=0.588,

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

shows a significant relationship job satisfaction, demonstrating the relevance of such

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).

According to Civil Status

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

(Appendix J) are as follows:

1. There is no significant difference between pay and civil status (t=1.489,

p=0.137).
 77

2. There is no significant difference between promotion and civil status (t=1.643,

p=0.101).

3. There is no significant difference between supervision and civil status (t=-

1.417, p=0.157).

4. There is a significant difference between fringe benefits and civil status (t=-

2.126, p=0.034).

5. There is no significant difference between contingent rewards and civil status

(t=-0.433, p=0.665).

6. There is no significant difference between operating procedures and civil status

(t=-1.934, p=0.054).

7. There is no significant difference between co-workers and civil status (t=-

1.516, p=0.130).

8. There is no significant difference between nature of work and civil status

(t=737, p=0.462).

9. There is no significant difference between communication and civil status (t=-

0.614, p=0.54).

10. There is no significant difference between overall job satisfaction and civil

status (t=0.208, p=0.835).

The married respondents (n=94) scored higher in extraversion (m=3.30)

compared to their single counterparts (n=242, m=3.09) resulting in a mean difference of

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

significant differences in relation to job satisfaction but also becomes a determinant as

well (Kumar, 2016).

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

(Appendix K) are as follows:

1. There is no significant difference between pay and length of tenure (t=1.874,

p=0.115).

2. There is no significant difference between promotion and length of tenure

(t=2.265, p=0.062).

3. There is no significant difference between supervision and length of tenure

(t=0.513, p=0.726).

4. There is no significant difference between fringe benefits and length of tenure

(t=1.747, p=0.139).

5. There is no significant difference between contingent rewards and length of

tenure (t=0.079, p=0.989).

 79

6. There is no significant difference between operating procedures and length of

tenure (t=1.078, p=0.367).

7. There is no significant difference between co-workers and length of tenure

(t=.907, p=0.460).

8. There is no significant difference between nature of work and length of tenure

(t=.896, p=0.466).

9. There is no significant difference between communication and length of tenure

(t=-0.703, p=0.59).

10. There is no significant difference between overall job satisfaction and length of

tenure (t=0.822, p=0.512).

 80

Table 13 presents the summary of significant results.

Table 13
T Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Demographics

Demo- Sample Mean T P

JSS Facet Mean SD Difference Value Value
graphics Size
GENDER
Male 87 3.09 0.79
Pay 0.358 3.223 0.001
Female 250 3.45 0.92
Male 87 3.37 0.76
Promotion 0.343 3.496 0.001
Female 250 3.71 0.80
Commu- Male 87 3.47 0.85
0.309 3.043 0.003
nication Female 250 3.78 0.80
Male 87 127.87 17.23
Overall 6.62 3.281 0.001
Female 250 134.50 15.85
JOB LEVEL
Manager 96 3.82 0.84
Promotion 0.276 2.885 0.004
R&F 241 3.55 0.77
CIVIL STATUS
Fringe Single 242 3.09 0.86
0.211 2.126 0.034
Benefits Married 94 3.30 0.68

n=337

Given the number of significant differences between job satisfaction sub-scales

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

profiles are taken as test factors is therefore rejected.

 81

Significant differences on the Employee Engagement and Respondents

According to Gender

The researcher performed a t-test on the three engagement subscales (vigor,

dedication and absorption), overall work engagement and gender (male and female) of

the 337 respondents. The results (Appendix L) are as follows:

1. There is no significant difference between vigor and gender (t=1.71, p=0.09)

2. There is a significant difference between dedication and gender (t=4.00, p=0.00).

3. There is a significant difference between absorption and gender (t=4.98, p=0.00)

4. There is a significant difference between overall engagement and gender (t=4.32,

p=0.00)

The results are contrary to studies where there are no significant differences in

gender (Kaliannan, & Adjovu, 2015; Mishra, Sharma & Uday, 2015).

According to Job Level

The researcher performed a t-test on the three engagement subscales (vigor,

dedication and absorption), overall work engagement and job level (managerial &

supervisory and rank & file) of the 337 respondents.

The results (Appendix M) are as follows:

1. There is no significant difference between vigor and job level (t=-0.341, p=0.73)
 82

2. There is no significant difference between dedication and job level (t=0.784,

p=0.43).

3. There is no significant difference between absorption and job level (t=1.818,

p=0.70)

4. There is no significant difference between overall engagement and job level

(t=0.968, p=0.33)

According to Civil Status

The researcher performed a t-test on the three engagement subscales (vigor,

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:

1. There is no significant difference between vigor and civil status (t=-0.425,

p=0.671)

2. There is no significant difference between dedication and civil status (t=1.707,

p=0.089).

3. There is no significant difference between absorption and civil status (t=1.905,

p=0.274)

4. There is no significant difference between overall engagement and civil status

(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:

1. There is no significant difference between vigor and tenure (t=-1.124, p=0.345)

2. There is no significant difference between dedication and tenure (t=2.293,

p=0.059).

3. There is no significant difference between absorption and tenure (t=1.145,

p=0.335)

4. There is no significant difference between overall engagement and tenure

(t=1.463, p=0.213)

The results are contrary to a study where there is a significant difference in

employee tenure and employee engagement (Kaliannan, & Adjovu, 2015; LI, et al.,

2014).
 84

Summary

The researcher grouped the respondents employee engagement sub-scales and

overall engagement according to their demographics to determine if there were

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

When the respondents were grouped according to gender (Appendix L),

dedication (t=4.00, p=0), absorption (t = 4.98 p=0) and overall engagement (t=4.32 p=0)

exhibited significant differences. The female respondents exhibited higher levels of

engagement as compared to their male counterparts. There were no significant

differences when grouped according to job level (Appendix M), civil status (Appendix

N) and length of tenure (Appendix O).

 85

Given the results in relation to gender, the third null hypothesis (HO3) there is

no significant differences as to the assessment of the respondents on their employee

engagement when their profiles are taken as test factors. is therefore rejected.

Significant Relationship between Personality Traits and Job.

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

and overall). Table 15 summarizes the Pearson Correlation results:

Table 15
Correlation of Job Satisfaction Facets and Personality Traits

Openness Conscientiousness Extroversion Agreeableness Neuroticism

P-
R R P-value R P-value R P-value R P-value
value
Pay -0.11* 0.043 0.036 0.515 -0.049 0.37 0.171* 0.002 -0.04 0.469

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

supervision (r=-0.131, p=.0016) and co-workers (r = -0.112, p=.05) are negatively

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

is socially unacceptable in a collectivistic society that values relationships and

pakikisama (Ilagan, et al., 2014; Laher, 2012), leading to dissatisfaction with ones

supervisor and co-workers.

Conscientiousness is positively correlated with co-workers (r = 0.12, p=.027) and

communication (r = 0.136, p=.013). Conscientiousness is the tendency to show self-

discipline, hardworking, achievement oriented and responsible (McRae & John, 1992).

This trait and positive correlation with co-workers suggests a strong likelihood of team

spirit and appreciativeness of how their respective organization communicates their

goals and objectives to its workforce (Atkinson, 2008).

 87

Extraversion is positively correlated with the nature of work (r = 0.108, p=.048).

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

efforts to clearly communicate with its workforce (r= .157, p= .013).

Neuroticism is positively correlated with supervision (r = 0.13, p=.017) and co-

workers (r = 0.161, p=.003). Individuals with high emotional instability, anxiety,

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

significant relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction (HO4) is

therefore rejected.
 88

Significant Relationship Between Personality Traits and Employee Engagement

To answer the question, the researcher ran a Pearson Correlation analysis

between the five personality traits and job satisfaction (nine facets and overall). Table

16 summarizes the Pearson Correlation results:

Table 16
Correlation of Employee Engagement and Personality Traits

Vigor Dedication Absorption Overall EE

Pearson P- Pearson P- Pearson P- Pearson P-
r value r value r value r value
Openness -0.008 0.877 0.023 0.668 0.013 0.808 0.013 0.815
Conscien-
tiousness
0.092 0.09 0.099 0.069 0.066 0.224 0.103 0.058
Extroversion 0.134* 0.014 0.075 0.169 0.001 0.988 0.082 0.132
Agreeable-
ness
0.049 0.367 0.075 0.17 0.03 0.577 0.063 0.25
Neuroticism 0.074 0.174 0.075 0.172 -0.005 0.932 0.058 0.292

n = 337
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Table 16 indicates that only conscientiousness and vigor was significantly

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

service industries in Poland, showed significant relationships between traits

(extraversion, neuroticism, openness) and work engagement.

Because of the inconsistency, the researcher grouped the respondents by age

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

VGR DED ABS OVERALL

Pearson Correlation 0.015 0.148 -0.144 0.007
OPEN
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.944 0.491 0.503 0.975
Pearson Correlation -0.195 -0.087 -0.231 -0.207
CONSCI
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.360 0.686 0.278 0.333
Pearson Correlation .475 * 0.307 0.042 0.356
EXTRA
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.019 0.145 0.847 0.088
Pearson Correlation 0.149 .412 * -0.113 0.179
AGREE
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.486 0.046 0.599 0.402
Pearson Correlation 0.048 0.159 0.000 0.079
NEURO
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.825 0.457 1.000 0.713

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.

Conscientiousness is positively correlated to vigor (r=.245, p=.004), dedication

 90

(r=.177, .04) and overall engagement (r=.180, p=.037). Agreeableness is positively

correlated with dedication (r=.169. 049), absorption (r=.178, .039) and overall

engagement (r=.180, p=.037).

Table 18
Correlation of Employee Engagement and Personality Traits Ages 25-29

VGR DED ABS OVERALL

Pearson Correlation -0.083 0.020 0.011 -0.021
OPEN
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.338 0.819 0.897 0.806
Pearson Correlation .245** .177* 0.038 .180*
CONSCI
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.004 0.040 0.664 0.037
Pearson Correlation 0.064 -0.029 -0.027 0.004
EXTRA
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.463 0.735 0.754 0.966
Pearson Correlation 0.145 .169* .178 *
.194*
AGREE
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.093 0.049 0.039 0.024
Pearson Correlation 0.165 0.166 0.030 0.140
NEURO
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.056 0.055 0.733 0.104

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

as shown in Table 19.

Table 19
Correlation of Employee Engagement and Personality Traits Ages >= 30

VGR DED ABS OVERALL

Pearson Correlation 0.057 0.020 0.040 0.047
OPEN
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.449 0.786 0.598 0.535
Pearson Correlation 0.094 0.031 0.003 0.048
CONSCI
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.212 0.684 0.967 0.524
Pearson Correlation -0.033 0.127 0.079 0.078
EXTRA
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.661 0.091 0.297 0.302
Pearson Correlation 0.035 0.035 -0.003 0.027
AGREE
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.646 0.644 0.971 0.724
Pearson Correlation 0.005 0.012 -0.031 -0.004
NEURO
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.947 0.874 0.685 0.954

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

relationship between personality traits and employee engagement. is therefore rejected.

 92

Significant Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement

To answer the question, the researcher ran a Pearson Correlation analysis

between the five personality traits and job satisfaction (nine facets and overall). Table

20 summarizes the Pearson Correlation results:

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)

There is a moderate relationship between employee engagement and job

satisfaction except for fringe benefits. The results supported studies that job satisfaction

is an antecedent to employee engagement (Abraham, 2012) because the organization has

 93

provided the resources necessary in their work (Rigg, et al., 2013; Van den Broecka,

Vansteenkisteb, De Wittea & Lens, 2008), developing trust among supervisor-

subordinate relationships and clear communication channels (Diedericks & Rothman,

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

motivators in the upper half as shown in Table 22:

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

work and communication) as shown in Table 7. This therefore strengthens Herzbergs

theory that satisfiers and motivators are distinct.

Engagement and job satisfaction, therefore, are highly related constructs (Wefald

& Downey, 2009) and as concluded by Macey and Schneider (2008) a conceptual

overlap (as cited in Alarcons & Lyons, 2011).

Given the results, the sixth and last null hypothesis (HO6) there is no significant

relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement is therefore rejected.

 96

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Employers and managers find millennials challenging to work with as well as

motivating them to perform at their best. According to observations and popular

literature, millennials are very much different from employees that belong to the

generations before them such as Generation X and Baby Boomers. Millennials manifest

a different set of values that previous generations find difficult to understand.

The purpose of this study is to confirm previous findings of 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 employee engagement. In addition, to determine significant

differences of the respondents personality traits, job satisfaction and employee

engagement when demographic variables are taken as test factors. The research focused

on millennials, ages 19-35, working at selected BPO companies in Metro Manila.

The researcher, in his experience as an employer even before millennials joined

the workforce, has wondered why newer generations attitudes, commitment and values

toward work has significantly changed over time.

 97

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.

Some made sense while others gave very little insights.

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.

The researcher is an advocate of change, either slow or abrupt, for as long as

there are results to the challenges it attempts to address. However, the challenges remain.

Despite an improvement in employee turnover to 50% from 70% (Magkilat, 2016), a

 98

news article in a daily broadsheet reports that it continues to rise as employees cite pay

as the reason for leaving (Remo, 2016).

The researcher has qualms as well as objections to the use of remuneration to

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

business models and revenue streams emerge.

The researcher proposed a different perspective through this study to contribute

to the body of knowledge for strategic human resource management particularly in the

BPO industry. They are:

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

personalities and preferences. Focus on work engagement because it contributes to

 99

positive retention. Positive retention is the approach of engaging talented individuals

who are committed to organizational growth regardless of length of tenure.

b. Instead of searching for answers to the question what do millennials

want? this research study seeks answers to the question how should leaders manage

the expectations of millennials so that it contributes to positive retention?

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

of Personality to understand the millennial mind and personality instead of assumptions,

observations and claims from popular literature. The researcher measured the stable

personality traits of 337 respondents with the 90-item Manchester Personality

Questionnaire - a psychometric test used in industrial settings.

Furthermore, the researcher wanted to determine if significant relationships exist

between these personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion,

agreeableness and neuroticism), job satisfaction and work engagement.

The researcher used Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory as a guide to this study.

Herzbergs theory distinctly separates motivators and satisfiers and the researcher

wanted to determine how this correlates to employee engagement.

 100

The researcher used Paul Spectors Job Satisfaction Survey and the Utrecht Work

Engagement Survey to measure the nine job satisfaction facets (pay, supervision, fringe

benefits, operating procedures, co-workers, contingent rewards, nature of work and

communication) and three work engagement subscales (vigor, dedication and

absorption)

This chapter presents the summary of findings showing the summary,

conclusions and directions for future studies. The study concludes with several

recommendations having strategic implications based on the overall findings.

5.1 Summary of Findings

5.1.1 Profiles of the respondents in terms of the demographic variables gender,

job level, length of tenure and civil status.

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

5.1.2 Assessment of the respondents on their personality traits in terms of

openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.

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. Also, 96% of the

respondents fall under the middle and extreme right of agreeableness indicating that they

are generally sympathetic, polite and good natured.

5.1.3 Assessment of the respondents on their job satisfaction in terms of pay,

promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating procedures,

co-workers, nature of work, communication and overall job satisfaction.

In terms of the overall response in reference to the Lickert scale, the respondents

slightly agree with their chances of promotion, supervision, co-workers, contingent

rewards, nature of work and communication within the organization. However, they

slightly disagree in terms of pay, fringe benefits and operating procedures.

In terms of satisfaction scale, the respondents neither feel satisfied nor

dissatisfied (ambivalent) with pay, promotion, fringe benefits, contingent rewards and

communication. The respondents are satisfied with supervision (44%), co-workers

 102

(50%) and the nature of work (57%). However, 48% are dissatisfied with operating

procedures.

In terms of the overall satisfaction scale, majority of the respondents feel

ambivalent (77%), 18% are satisfied while only 5% were dissatisfied. Overall, the

respondents feel ambivalent (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) with the jobs.

5.1.4 Assessment of the respondents on their employee engagement in terms of

vigor, dedication, absorption and overall engagement.

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.

5.1.5 Significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their

personality traits in terms of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion,

agreeableness and neuroticism when their profiles are taken as test factors

According to Gender

There is a significant difference between openness and gender (t=1.98, p=0.831)

with males (n=87, m=5.41) scoring higher than the female respondents (n=250, m=5.13).

There were no significant differences for conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness

and neuroticism.
 103

According to Job Level

There is a significant difference between extraversion and job level (t=1.94,

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

openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism.

According to Civil Status

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,

m=5.79). There were no significant differences for openness, conscientiousness,

agreeableness and neuroticism.

According to Tenure

An F-test revealed that were no significant differences between the five

personality traits and tenure.

 104

Summary

The results, given the number of significant differences between job satisfaction

(scales and overall) and demographics therefore, reject the null hypothesis (H01) there

is no significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their personality

traits when their profiles are taken as test factors.

5.1.6 Significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their job

satisfaction in terms of pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, rewards,

operating procedures, co-workers, nature of work and communication when

demographic profiles are taken as test factors.

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.

According to Job Level

Only promotion (t=2.885, p=.0004) differed significantly as the managers and

supervisors gave more importance to the said facet.

 105

According to Civil Status

Only fringe benefits (t=2.126, p=.0034) differed significantly.

According to Length of Tenure

There were no significant differences for length of tenure.

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

significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their job satisfaction

when their profiles are taken as test factors.

5.1.7 Significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their

employee engagement in terms of vigor, dedication, absorption and overall

engagement when their profiles are taken as test factors.

According to Gender

There is a significant difference between dedication (t=4.00, p=0.00), absorption

(t=4.98, p=0.00) and overall engagement (t=4.32, p=0.00).

 106

According to Job Level

There were no significant difference for job level.

According to Civil Status

There were no significant differences for civil status.

According to Length of Tenure

There were no significant differences for length of tenure.

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

significant differences as the assessment of the respondents on their employee

engagement when their profiles are taken as test factors.

 107

5.1.8 Significant relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction.

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

supervision (r=-0.131, p=.0016) and co-workers (r = -0.112, p=.05) are negatively

correlated.

Conscientiousness is positively correlated with co-workers (r = 0.12, p=.027) and

communication (r = 0.136, p=.013). Extraversion is positively correlated with the nature

of work (r = 0.108, p=.048). Neuroticism is positively correlated with supervision (r =

0.13, p=.017) and co-workers (r = 0.161, p=.003). Openness and pay (r = -0.11, p=.043)

has a weak negative correlation.

Given the results the fourth null hypothesis There is no significant relationship

between personality traits and job satisfaction (HO4) is therefore rejected.

5.1.9 Significant relationship between personality traits and employee

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);

conscientiousness is positively correlated to vigor (r=.245, p=.004), dedication

(r=.177, .04) and overall engagement (r=.180, p=.037), agreeableness is positively

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

relationship between personality traits and employee engagement., is therefore rejected.

5.1.10 Significant relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement.

All job satisfaction facets (except for fringe benefits) and overall job satisfaction

had significantly moderate to strong correlations with all employee engagement scales

and overall engagement.

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

engagement and three individual subscales.

Given the results, the sixth and last null hypothesis (HO6) there is no significant

relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement, is therefore rejected.

 109

5.2 Conclusions

5.2.1 Profiles of the respondents in terms of the demographic variables gender,

job level, length of tenure and civil status.

As expected from the assumptions postulated in this study, attempts to prolong a

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.

This leaves them no choice but to leave when supervision is mismanaged.

Employers and managers might want to reconsider the traditional belief where

employee retention is a prerequisite to engagement and job satisfaction. Studies on the

subject of employee attrition and intention to leave always focus on ways and methods

to retain employees for longer periods. However, the concept of womb-to-tomb or

 110

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

is no evidence that would stay a lifetime.

5.2.2 Assessment of the respondents on their personality traits in terms of

openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.

Personality traits that may match the customer service oriented nature of BPO

companies are conscientiousness (well-organized, dependable and careful) and

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

5.2.3 Assessment of the respondents on their job satisfaction in terms of pay,

promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating procedures,

co-workers, nature of work, communication and overall job satisfaction.

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:

a. Millennials find compensation important and look forward to immediate

promotions despite the short work tenures they have with the company. Their

sense of self-entitlement may contribute to this expectation.

b. Millennials respond well to praise and recognition as well as appreciate clear

work expectations.

c. Millennials value personal relationships among their co-workers and expect

their managers to take on a mentoring and coaching role rather than a hover-

behind-your-back management style.

d. Millennials also prefer less formal working environments and expect

organizations to provide the necessary resources to encourage productivity.

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

will always find it to work in an environment that is engaging and conducive to

productivity.

5.2.4 Assessment of the respondents on their employee engagement in terms of

vigor, dedication, absorption and overall engagement.

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

addressed by itself. As the study suggests, it is a combination of a personality traits that

match the nature of the job, the employees perception of job satisfaction and motivation

to make work more meaningful.

5.2.5 Significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their

personality traits in terms of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion,

agreeableness and neuroticism when their profiles are taken as test factors.

The study indicates that there are gender, job level and civil status differences

across personality dimensions among BPO workers. There were no significant

differences in terms of tenure. The significant differences in gender, civil status and job

level exists for openness and extraversion among the respondents.

 113

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

following rules and procedures as reinforced by their high levels of conscientiousness.

Males have a tendency to seek shortcuts as they are very much impatient when obtaining

results.

5.2.6 Significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their job

satisfaction in terms of pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, rewards,

operating procedures, co-workers, nature of work and communication when their

profiles are taken as test factors.

The respondents significant differences between job satisfaction and

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

uniform or standardized HR programs. Different job aspects may motivate millennials.

 114

While some employees may find money as their motivation, others find motivation in

something completely different.

As postulated, the significant differences for intrinsic and extrinsic preferences

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

HR initiatives and its implementation.

The respondents, regardless of job tenure, perceive job satisfaction in varying,

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

there is dissatisfaction or not. If occupational commitment is considered, they person

may seek employment with other organizations to satisfy the needs or wants that comes

with a career path.

5.2.7 Significant differences on the assessment of the respondents on their

employee engagement in terms of vigor, dedication, absorption and overall work

engagement when their profiles are taken as test factors.

 115

Only gender indicated significant differences with employee engagement

meaning that regardless of civil status, job level and length of tenure, the perception of

engagement is very much the same.

5.2.8 Significant relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction.

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

weakens or strengthens the results for millennials in the BPO environment.

5.2.9 Significant relationship between personality traits and employee

engagement.

The moderate to strong relationship between personality traits and work

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

at any given period.

5.2.10 Significant relationship between job satisfaction and employee

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

were with motivating facets.

Millennials may view extrinsic (hygiene) job satisfaction facets as important but

intrinsic (motivating) facets such as promotion, contingent rewards, nature of work and

communication within the organization contribute to favorable and productive work

engagement.

Lastly, the findings further strengthens Herzbergs theory that satisfiers and

motivators are distinct. The motivating satisfaction facets contribute to higher

engagement levels compared to its counterpart.

 117

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

categorized either satisfiers or as motivators. These concerns are then evaluated,

diagnosed and addressed distinctly.

 118

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

are employee performance and employee growth both contributors to positive

retention. Positive retention refers to the approach of engaging talented individuals who

are committed to organizational growth regardless of length of tenure. Further research

is necessary to test and refine this model.

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

may consider the following strategic recommendations:

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

rethink the way the psychometric measures are used.

Psychometricians or qualified individuals may use the results of the psychometric

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.

b. Work with the Training Team to design programs to understand the

proper and effective approach to motivating people of different personality types.

c. Provide managers and supervisors a brief and meaningful profile of their

staff to they would understand how to effectively motivate and engage them.

Engagement Team

a. Focus on engagement rather than retention because millennials are likely

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.

b. Measure job satisfaction and work engagement objectively using formal

climate surveys. Avoid implementing programs based on articles, targeted for

millennials, found in popular literature or even scientific studies without first

understanding how the workforce perceives and feels about the working environment.
 120

c. Differentiate satisfiers and motivators when designing engagement

programs. Though equally important, the results of this study indicate that millennials

gave more weight on motivating factors such as promotion, contingent rewards, nature

of the work and communication.

d. Engagement programs should focus on motivating factors such as

opportunities for promotion and talent development (career pathing), continuous

performance feedback (contingent rewards), and clear communication of meaningful

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.

e. Design and implement various engagement programs meant to appeal to

different personality dimensions of the workforce. Certain personality types respond

differently to stimuli and it is important for managers to understand what makes people

tick.

f. Using the same concept of multiple engagement programs, consider the

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

different circumstances from their predecessors. There is a risk of not connecting

properly, particularly with high achievers, if treated in the same manner.

b. Managers should understand how to address the challenges of creating a

healthy working environment that contributes to productivity rather than satisfying

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.

c. Develop a culture of mentoring and coaching rather than managing and

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

gap between two polarized generations.

 122

Corporate Training

a. Design training programs that increase the value of an employees skillset.

Training is an important component to work engagement and there is need to measure

its effectiveness. Directly measure training results with an employees productivity

(performance appraisals) instead of the number of programs conducted within a period.

Corporate trainers should adopt a more strategic rather than a transactional approach to

training.

b. Work with psychometricians or qualified personnel in training managers and

supervisors to effectively deal with and motivate personality types. Understanding the

human psyche is a key ingredient to effective leadership.

c. Strengthen mentoring and coaching skills of corporate leadership across all levels

with the appropriate training programs.

5.4 Directions for Future Research

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-

culture of its own.

 123

It is not definitive if the multiple moderate correlation between job satisfaction

(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.

It is highly recommended for future researchers to use existing psychometric

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

or had the tenacity to finish the survey.

 124

REFERENCES

Abraham, S. (2012). Job Satisfaction as an Antecedent to Employee Engagement. SIES

Journal of Management. September 2012, Vol. 8(2)

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

Angeles, A. & Llanto, G. (2014). Productive Work Attitudes. In M.R. Hechanova, M.

Teng-Calleja & V. Villaluz (Eds.), Understanding the Filipino Worker (pp 95-
103). Quezon City: Ateneo De Manila University Press.

Artz, Benjamin. (2008).Fringe Benefits and Job Satisfaction

www.uww.edu/documents/colleges/cobe/economics/wpapers/08_03_Artz.pdf

Aruna, M. & Anitha, J. (2015). Employee Retention Enablers: Generation Y

Employees. SCMS Journal of Indian Management. Jul-Sep2015, Vol. 12 Issue
3, p94-103. 10p.
 125

Atkinson, P. (2008). Millennials Researching the Application of Demographics to

Build Customer Relationships and HR Strategy. Management Services.
Spring2008, Vol. 52 Issue 1, p6-11

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.,Schaufeli, W., Leiter, M. & Taris, T. (2008). Work Engagement: An

Emerging Concept in Occupational Health Psychology. Work & Stress. Vol. 22,
No. 3, July_September 2008, 187_200

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

Bannon, S., Ford, K. & Meltzer, L. (2011). Understanding Millennials in

the Workplace. CPA Journal. Nov2011, Vol. 81 Issue 11, p61-65. 5p.

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

Bedarkar, M. & Pandita, D. (2014). A Study on the Drivers of Employee Engagement

Impacting Employee Performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
133 (2014) 106 115

Belias, D., Koustelios, A., Vairaktarakis, G. & Sdrolias. L. (2015). Organizational

Culture and Job Satisfaction of Greek Banking Institutions. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences 175 (2015) 314 323

Bhatnagar, J. (2012). Management of Innovation: Role of Psychological

Empowerment, Work Engagement and Turnover Intention in the Indian
Context. International Journal of Human Resource Management. Mar2012,
Vol. 23 Issue 5, p928-951. 24p.

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

Cleare L. (2013), Personality as a Predictor of Job Satisfaction: Study of the

Relationship between Personality and Job Satisfaction Amongst Workers in the
Bahamas. Journal of Management Research ISSN 1941-899X 2013, Vol. 5, No.
3

Collins, L. (2011). Talent Wars. Engineering & Technology (17509637). Jun2011, Vol.
6, Issue 5, p34-36. DOI: 10:1049/et.2011.0511

Colquitt J., Lepine J. & Wesson M. (2013). Organizational Behavior Improving

Performance and Commitment in the Workplace, USA, McGraw-Hill/Irwin,
New York, NY

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

Davis, T. (2013). A Qualitative Study of the Effects of Employee Retention on the

Organization. Insights to a Changing World Journal. 2013, Vol. 2013 Issue 2,
p25-112. 88p.

De Braine, R. & Roodt, G. (2011). The Job Demands-Resources Model as Predictor of

Work Identity and Work Engagement - A Comparative Analysis. South African
Journal of Industrial Psychology. Jun2011, Vol. 37 Issue 2, p52-62.

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

DeVaney, S. (2015). Understanding the Millennial Generation. Journal of Financial

Service Professionals. Nov2015, Vol. 69 Issue 6, p11-14.

Diedericks, E. & Rothmann, S. (2013). Flourishing of Information Technology

Professionals: The Role of Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction. Journal of
Psychology in Africa 2013, 23(2), 225234

Edinger, S. (2012). Engagement Provides Fuel for Productivity. Financial Executive.

Apr2012, Vol. 28 Issue 3, p24-27.

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

Feffer, M. (2015). What Makes a Great Employer? HR Magazine. Jun2015, Vol. 60

Issue 5, p37-44. 5p.

Ferri-Reed, J. (2012). Three Ways Leaders Can Help Millennials Succeed. Journal for
Quality & Participation. Apr2012, Vol. 35 Issue 1, p18-19. 2p

Franco, E. (2014). Political, Economic, Environmental and Cultural Influences on

Organization Behavior. In M.R. Hechanova, M. Teng-Calleja & V. Villaluz
(Eds.), Understanding the Filipino Worker (pp 1-15). Quezon City: Ateneo De
Manila University Press.

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.

Garca-Izquierdo A., Moscoso S. & Ramos-Villagrasa, P. (2012). Reactions to the

Fairness of Promotion Methods: Procedural justice and job satisfaction.
International Journal of Selection & Assessment. Dec2012, Vol. 20 Issue 4,
p394-403. 10p

Gardner, G. (1977). Is There a Valid Test of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory? Journal

of Occupational Psychology. Sep77, Vol. 50 Issue 3, p197-204. 8p.

Gsior, M., Skowron, . & Sak-Skowron, M. (2014). Multidimensional Structure of

Employee Motivation - Clustering Approach. AIP Conference Proceedings.
2014, Vol. 1635 Issue 1, p748-754. DOI: 10.1063/1.4903666

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

Gopal, A. (2006). Worker Disengagement Continues to Cost Singapore. Gallup

Management Journal Online. 5/11/2006, p1-5

Griggs R. (2012). Psychology: A Concise Introduction (3RD ed.), USA, Worth

Publishers, New York, NY

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

Hakanen, J. J. , Bakker, A. B. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and engagement

among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43 (6), 495513. doi:
10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001

Hansen F. (2010). Engaged and At Your Service. Workforce Management, Mar2010,

Vol. 89 Issue 3, p23-27

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.

Hershatter, A & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An

organization and management. Journal of Business & Psychology. Jun2010,
Vol. 25 Issue 2, p211-223. 13p

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

Hofaidhllaoui, M. & Chhinzer, N. (2014). The Relationship Between Satisfaction and

Turnover Intentions for Knowledge Workers, Engineering Management
Journal. Jun2014, Vol. 26 Issue 2, p3-9. 7p

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

Hyun, S. & Oh, H. (2011). Reexamination of Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory of

Motivation in the Korean Army Foodservice Operations. Journal of
Foodservice Business Research. Apr-Jun2011, Vol. 14 Issue 2, p100-121

Ilagan JR., Hechanova R., Co T. & Pleyto V. (2014), Bakit Ka Kumakayod? -

Developing a Filipino Needs Theory of Motivation. Philippine Journal of
Psychology ISSN 2244-1298 2014, Vol 47, No. 1

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.

Kaliannan, M. & Adjovu, S.M. (2015). Effective employee engagement and

organizational success: a case study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 172 ( 2015 ) 161 168. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.350

Kathirvel, N. (2009). A Study on Stress among Employees in BPOs with Special

Reference to Coimbatore. IUP Journal of Management Research. Nov2009,
Vol. 8 Issue 11, p28-44. 17p
 131

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.

Kontoghiorghes, C. & Frangou, K. (2009). The Association between Talent Retention,

Antecedent Factors and Consequent Organizational Performance. SAM
Advanced Management Journal (07497075). Winter2009, Vol. 74 Issue 1, p29-
58. 9p.

Kumar, R. (2016). The Impact of Personal Variables on Job Satisfaction: A Study of

Public Sector Bank Employees in India. IUP Journal of Organizational
Behavior. Jul2016, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p40-58.

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

Kumar, K. & Bakhshi, A. (2010). Dispositional Predictors of Organizational

Commitment. A Theoretical Review. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior.
2010, Vol. 9 Issue 1/2, p87-9

LaBan, M. (2013). A Late Y2K Phenomenon: Responding to the Learning Preferences

of Generation YBridging the Digital Divide by Improving Generational
Dialogue. American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Vol. 5,
596-601, July 2013

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

Langford, P. (2009). Measuring organizational climate and employee engagement:

Evidence for a 7 Ps model of work practices and outcomes. Australian Journal
of Psychology. Dec2009, Vol. 61 Issue 4, p185-198

Laher, S. (2013). Understanding the Five-Factor Model and Five

Factor Theory through a South African cultural lens. South African Journal of
Psychology. Jun2013, Vol. 43 Issue 2, p208-221. DOI:
10.1177/0081246313483522

Lazear, Edward P. 2000. Performance Pay and Productivity. American Economic

Review 90:1346 61.
 132

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.

Lombos, E. (2014). Attraction and Socialization. In M.R. Hechanova, M. Teng-Calleja

& V. Villaluz (Eds.), Understanding the Filipino Worker (pp 1-15). Quezon
City: Ateneo De Manila University Press.

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.

Macey, W. & Schneider, B. (2008). The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial

and Organizational Psychology. Mar2008, Vol. 1 Issue 1, p3-30. 28p

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

Mathis, T. (2013). Strategies for Employee Engagement. Industry Week/IW. Nov2013,

Vol. 262 Issue 11, p34-36. 3p

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

Mayhew, Ruth. (2017). How to Improve Job Satisfaction With Promotions

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/improve-job-satisfaction-promotions-
10286.html

McCrae, R. (2010).The Place of the FFM in Personality Psychology. Psychological

Inquiry, 21: 5764. doi: 10.1080/10478401003648773

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

McCrae, R. & Costa, P. (1995). Trait Explanations in Personality Psychology.

European Journal of Personality. Nov95, Vol. 9 Issue 4, p231-252

McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M. (2013). Organizational Behavior: Emerging

knowledge, global reality (6TH ed.), USA, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY

Mehta, S. (2012). Job Satisfaction among Teachers. IUP Journal of Organizational

Behavior. Apr2012, Vol. 11 Issue 2, p54-66.

Meister J. & Willyerd K. (2010). Mentoring Millennials. Harvard Business Review.

May 2010

Menguito, L. (2014). Motivation. In M.R. Hechanova, M. Teng-Calleja & V. Villaluz

(Eds.), Understanding the Filipino Worker (pp 83-90). Quezon City: Ateneo De
Manila University Press.

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.

Mrz, J. & Kaleta, K. (2016). Relationships between personality, emotional labor,

work engagement and job satisfaction in service professions. International
Journal of Occupational Medicine & Environmental Health. 2016, Vol. 29 Issue
5, p767-782. 16p.

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

Needleman, J., Bowman, C., Wyte-Lake, T. & Dobalian, A. (2014). Faculty

Recruitment and Engagement in Academic-Practice Partnerships. Nursing
Education Perspectives. Nov/Dec2014, Vol. 35 Issue 6, p372-379

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

Ozsoy, E. & Aras, M. (2014). Effects of Workplace Friendship on Work Engagement,

Individual Performance and Job Satisfaction. Proceedings of the
Multidisciplinary Academic Conference
 135

Pardee, R. (1990). Motivation Theories of Maslow, Herzberg, McGregor &

McClelland. A Literature Review of Selected Theories Dealing with Job
Satisfaction and Motivation.

Pater, R. & Lewis, C. (2012). Strategies for Leading Engagement. Professional Safety.
May2012, Vol. 57 Issue 5, p32-35. 4p.

Patrick, H. (2010). Personality Traits in Relation to Job satisfaction of Management

Educators. Asian Journal of Management Research, 2010. Vol. 1, No. 1.
Retrieved on April 8, 2015 from
http://www.ipublishing.co.in/ajmrvol1no1/EIJMRS1020.pdf

Perkowsky, A. (2015). Is Optimizing Compensation Key to a Satisfied Sales Force?

Hotel Business. 6/21/2015, Vol. 24 Issue 11, p36-36

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

Porter, C. (2012). The Hawthorne Effect Today. Industrial Management. May2012,

Vol. 54 Issue 3, p10-15

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

Ramsey, R. (2013). Dealing with Disengaged Employees. Supervision. Nov2013. Vol.

74 Issue 11, p9-12

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.

Sahoo, C. & Mishra, S. (2012). A Framework Towards Employee Engagement: The

PSU Experience. ASCI Journal of Management. Sep2012, Vol. 42 Issue 1, p94-
112. 19p

Sanera, T. & Sadikoglu, G. (2016). Gender Differences in Job Satisfaction in 5 Star

Hotels of North Cyprus: Descriptive Analysis. Procedia Computer Science 102
( 2016 ) 359 364

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B. & Salanova, M. (2006a). The measurement of work

engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross national study. Educational and
Psychological measurement, 66 (4), 701716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzales-Roma, V. & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The

measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor
analytic approach. The Journal of Happiness Studies, 3 (1), 7192. doi:
10.1023/A:1015630930326
 137

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.

Shriar, Jacob. (2015). How co-workers affect your job satisfaction.

https://www.officevibe.com/blog/how-coworkers-affect-job-satisfaction.
Simmons, Bret L. (2011). Work engagement as vigor.
http://www.bretlsimmons.com/2011-04/work-engagement-as-vigor/

Sinha, K. & Trivedi, S. (2014). Employee Engagement with Special Reference to

Herzberg Two Factor and LMX Theories - A Study of I.T Sector. SIES Journal
of Management. Mar2014, Vol. 10 Issue 1, p22-35. 14p.

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.

Smith, S. & Galbraith, Q. (2012). Motivating Millennials: Improving Practices in

Recruiting, Retaining, and Motivating Younger Library Staff. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship. May 2012, Vol 38, Number 3, pages 135144

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

Solnet, D. & Kralj, A. (2011). Generational Differences in Work Attitudes: Evidence

from the Hospitality Industry. FIU Hospitality Review. Fall2011, Vol. 29 Issue
2, p37-54. 18p.

Spector, P.E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and

consequences, Thousand Oaks, CA,Sage Publications, Inc

Sree Rekha, K. R. & Kamalanabhan,T.J (2010). A Three-Dimensional Analysis of

Turnover Intention Among Employees of ITES/BPO Sector, South Asian
Journal of Management. Jul-Sep2010, Vol. 17 Issue 3, p85-103. 19p.

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

Srivastava, A. & Locke, E. (2006). Dispositional Causes of Job Satisfaction Seeking

Complexity in Job as a Mediator. Academy of Management Annual Meeting
Proceedings. 2006, pS1-S6

Stacey, R. (2010). Managing the Millennials. Accounting Today. 10/11/2010, Vol. 24

Issue 13, p46-46. 3/4p.

Staw, B., Cohn-Charash, Y. (2005). The Dispositional Approach to Job Satisfaction:

More Than a Mirage, But Not Yet an Oasis. Journal of Organizational
Behavior. Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/job.299

Teck-Hong, T. & Waheed, A. (2011). Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory and Job

Satisfaction in the Malaysian Retail Sector - The Mediating Effect of Love of
Money. Asian Academy of Management Journal. Jan2011, Vol. 16, No. 1, p73
94

Templer, K. (2012). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: The

Importance of Agreeableness in a Tight and Collectivistic Asian Society.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 2012, 61 (1), 114129. DOI:
10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00459.x

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

Thompson, C. & Gregory, J. (2012). Managing Millennials: A Framework for

Improving Attraction, Motivation, and Retention. Psychologist-Manager
Journal (Taylor & Francis Ltd). 2012, Vol. 15 Issue 4, p237-246. 10p. DOI:
10.1080/10887156.2012.730444.

Thorpe, R. (2000), Reward Strategy, in Thorpe, R. and Homan G. (eds), Strategic

Reward Systems, Financial Times Prentice Hall.

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

Wall, T. & Stephenson, G. (1970). Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of Job Attitudes: A

Critical Evaluation and Some Fresh Evidence. Industrial Relations Journal.
1970, Vol. 1 Issue 3, p41-65. 25p.

Wefald, A. & Downey, R. (2009). Construct Dimensionality of Engagement and its

Relation with Satisfaction. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 91111

Weisberg, Y., DeYoung, C. & Hirsh, J. (2011). Gender Differences in Personality

across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in
Psychology.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178

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

Yafang T. (2011). Relationship between Organizational Culture, Leadership Behavior

and Job Satisfaction. BMC Health Services Research. 2011, Vol. 11 Issue 1,
p98-106. 9p. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-98

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

B. Manchester Personality Questionnaire

A B C D E
Never Occasionally Fairly Often Generally Always

1 I seem to have the same ideas as other people

2 I tend to follow the rules
3 I dislike discussing theories and concepts
4 I fail to push my own views and ideas
5 I find it hard to put people at ease
6 I forget to ask people what they think
7 I keep my personal emotions under control
8 I tend to dislike working on my own
9 I make decisions without gathering a lot of information
10 I dislike successful people
11 I find my values clash with those of my colleagues
12 I leave jobs unfinished
13 I find it hard to take decisions
14 I can handle criticism without getting defensive
15 I dislike planning ahead
16 I invent new ways of doing things
17 I am prepared to ignore rules and procedures
18 I like to let my imagination run free
19 I tend to argue my own point of view
20 I find other people support my ideas
21 I praise people for their efforts
22 I express my feelings rather thatn keep them to myself
23 I like to solve my own problems
24 I weigh up different options before taking decisions
25 I set myself challenges
26 I tend to feel a strong sense of duty
27 I set myself high standards
28 I feel in full control of things
29 I worry about what others think of me
30 I am keen to try new approaches
 142

A B C D E
Never Occasionally Fairly Often Generally Always

31 I find it hard to see how to improve things

32 I prefer established methods to new approaches
33 I tend to approach tasks from the usual angles
34 I find it difficult to hold my ground against a group
35 I find it difficult to mix in social situations
36 I tend to ignore other people's feelings
37 I keep my personal views about people to myself
38 I work best as a member of a team
39 I take decisions without necessarily establishing the facts
40 I think a lot about the present rather than the future
41 I am apt to treat people with authority insensitively
42 I forget to check the quality of my work
43 I take decisions slowly
44 I can take unpopular decisions without any difficulty
45 I tend to be unrealistic about what I can achieve
46 I am a person who originates changes
47 I tend to challenge rules and procedures
48 I am interested in new ideas and innovations
49 I have strong views on how things should be done
50 People seem to ask for my advice
51 In a group, I acknowledge good points other people make
52 I let people know how I feel about things
53 I require a lot of personal space
54 I tend to check the logic of my thinking
55 I need to feel I am accomplishing something
56 People have a responsibility to work hard for society
57 I tend to be a perfectionist in my work
58 I take action when I see what needs to be done
59 I feel threatened by people who dont like me
60 I remain calm in difficult situations
 143

A B C D E
Never Occasionally Fairly Often Generally Always

61 I have to work hard to make things happen

62 I am inclined to do things in fairly conventional ways
63 I dislike tackling complex tasks
64 I hold back if I suspect people won't like what I say
65 I tend to be unsure of the impact I have on people
66 I forget to check people's views
67 I keep quiet about my ambitions
68 I enjoy working closely with people
69 I fail to predict the consequences of my actions
70 I dislike the competitive aspect of work
71 Traditions prevent progress in modern society
72 I miss deadlines
73 I dislike being in charge
74 I feel content about what I am achieving
75 I tend to boast about my achievements
76 I seem to have original ideas
77 I am apt to make things up as I go along
78 I tend to need change to stay interested
79 I am inclined to look critically at people in charge
80 I tend to take control when others are uncertain what to do
81 I apologise when I have made a mistake
82 I share my problems with other people
83 I prefer to find out things by myself
84 I approach things in a logical manner
85 I like to win
86 Attitude and respect is the way to win people's hearts
87 I work harder than the average person
88 I manage to cope with stress
89 I feel a need to please others
90 I treat people as my equal
Thank you for completing the questionnaire
 144

C. Job Satisfaction Survey

JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY

Paul E. Spector
Department of Psychology
University of South Florida
Copyright Paul E. Spector 1994, All rights reserved.

Disagree moderately
PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH

Disagree very much

Agree moderately
Agree very much
Disagree slightly
QUESTION THAT COMES CLOSEST TO

Agree slightly
REFLECTING YOUR OPINION
ABOUT IT.

1 I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do. 1 2 3 4 5 6

2 There is really too little chance for promotion on my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6

3 My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job. 1 2 3 4 5 6

4 I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive. 1 2 3 4 5 6

5 When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should 1 2 3 4 5 6

receive.
6 Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult. 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 I like the people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 6

8 I sometimes feel my job is meaningless. 1 2 3 4 5 6

9 Communications seem good within this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6

10 Raises are too few and far between. 1 2 3 4 5 6

11 Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted. 1 2 3 4 5 6

12 My supervisor is unfair to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6

13 The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer. 1 2 3 4 5 6

14 I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. 1 2 3 4 5 6

15 My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape. 1 2 3 4 5 6

16 I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of 1 2 3 4 5 6

people I work with.
17 I like doing the things I do at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6

18 The goals of this organization are not clear to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6

 145

Disagree moderately
Disagree very mcuh

Agree moderately
PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH QUESTION

Agree very much

Disagree slightly
THAT COMES CLOSEST TO REFLECTING YOUR OPINION

Agree slightly
ABOUT IT.
Copyright Paul E. Spector 1994, All rights reserved.

19 I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they 1 2 3 4 5 6

pay me.

20 People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places. 1 2 3 4 5 6

21 My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates. 1 2 3 4 5 6

22 The benefit package we have is equitable. 1 2 3 4 5 6

23 There are few rewards for those who work here. 1 2 3 4 5 6

24 I have too much to do at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6

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

27 I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6

28 I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases. 1 2 3 4 5 6

29 There are benefits we do not have which we should have. 1 2 3 4 5 6

30 I like my supervisor. 1 2 3 4 5 6

31 I have too much paperwork. 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

33 I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. 1 2 3 4 5 6

34 There is too much bickering and fighting at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6

35 My job is enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5 6

36 Work assignments are not fully explained. 1 2 3 4 5 6

 146

D. Work and Well-Being Survey (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-17)

Work & Well-Being Survey

Copyright 2003 Schaufeli & Bakker

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH

QUESTION THAT COMES CLOSEST TO

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

Appendix B Job Satisfaction Survey Results

Job Satisfaction Mean SD Interpretation

1. Pay
I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do. 3.53 1.31 Agree Slightly
Raises are too few and far between 3.41 1.36 Disagree Slightly
I feel appreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me. 3.19 1.47 Disagree Slightly
I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases. 3.30 1.56 Disagree Slightly
Overall 3.36 0.9 Disagree Slightly

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

Job Satisfaction Mean SD Interpretation

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

Appendix C Employee Engagement Survey Results

Interpre-
Mean SD
tation
1. Vigor
At my work, I feel bursting with energy 4.42 1.3 Often

At my job, I feel strong and vigorous 3.93 1.4 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 job, I am very resilient, mentally 4.33 1.16 Often

At my work, I always persevere, even when things do not go well 4.24 1.35 Often

Overall 4.19 0.82 Often

2. Dedication
I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose 4.37 1.26 Often

I am enthusiastic about my job 3.91 1.47 Often

My job inspires me 4.02 1.47 Often

I am proud of the work that I do 4.24 1.43 Often

To me, my job is challenging 4.58 1.37 Very Often

Overall 4.23 0.98 Often

3. Absorption
Time flies when I am working 4.29 1.39 Often

When I am working, I forget everything else around me 3.87 1.4 Often

I feel happy when I am working intensely 4.12 1.52 Often

I am immersed in my work 4.27 1.32 Often

I get carried away when I am working 4.25 1.21 Often

It is difficult to detach myself from my job 4 1.4 Often

Overall 4.13 0.88 Often

 150

Appendix D - T Value of Personality Traits and Gender

 151

Appendix E - T Value of Personality Traits and Job Level

 152

Appendix F - T Value of Personality Traits and Civil Status

 153

Appendix G - F Value of Personality Traits and Tenure

 154

Appendix H T Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Gender

 155

Appendix I T Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Job Level

 156

Appendix J T Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Civil Status

 157

Appendix K F Value of Job Satisfaction Subscales and Tenure

158
 159

Appendix L T Value of Employee Engagement and Gender

 160

Appendix M T Value of Employee Engagement and Job Level

 161

Appendix N T Value of Employee Engagement and Civil Status

 162

Appendix O F Value of Employee Engagement and Tenure

 163

Appendix P - Permission to Use Job Satisfaction Survey and Utrecht Work

Engagement Scale Requirements
164
 165

Appendix Q Definition of Terms

Agreeableness The tendency of an individual to be compassionate,

cooperative, generous, friendly, trusting, forgiving and helpful;
they value getting along with others.

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

Employee 2. A workplace approach designed to ensure that employees are

Engagement committed to their organization's goals and values, motivated to
contribute to organizational success, and are able at the same
time to enhance their own sense of well-being.
Extraversion Refers to the predisposition to experience positive emotions
(McCrae, 2010), The behavioral tendencies `associated with
this factor include being sociable, assertive, gregarious, active
and talkative (Rich, Lepine & Crawford, 2010).
Five Factor Model A hierarchical organization of personality traits in terms of five
of Personality basic dimensions: openness to experience, conscientiousness,
extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism (McCrae, 2010).
Generation X 1. The generation born after that of the baby boomers (roughly
from the early 1960s to mid 1970s), often perceived to be
disaffected and directionless.
Herzbergs Two- Herzbergs theory data suggest that the opposite of satisfaction
Factor Theory. is not dissatisfaction, as was traditionally believed. Removing
dissatisfying characteristics from a job does not necessarily
make the job satisfying. Herzberg proposed that his findings
indicated the existence of a dual continuum. The opposite of
satisfaction is no satisfaction and the opposite of
dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction (Davis, 2013).
Job Satisfaction It is how content an individual is with his or her job, in other
words, whether or not they like the job or individual aspects or
facets of jobs, such as nature of work or supervision.
Millennials Also known as the Millennial Generation or Generation Y.
They are the demographic cohort following Generation X.
 167

Researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the

early 1980s to the early 2000s.
Neuroticism. The tendencies of an individual to experience chronic negative
emotions, such as anger, anxiety, or depression. Individual high
on this trait are generally anxious, depressed, angry,
embarrassed, emotional, worried, and insecure. (Barrick,
Mount & Li, 2013; McCrae, 2010).
Openness. Relates to creativity, divergent thinking, and political
liberalism. The behavioral tendencies associated to this trait are
curiosity, foresightedness, originality, imaginativeness, broad-
mindedness, intelligence, having a need for variety, aesthetic
sensitivity, and unconventional values (McCrae, 2010;
Erdheim, Wang & Zickar, 2006).

Positive Retention The approach of engaging talented individuals who are

committed to contribute to organizational growth regardless of
tenure. This approach is possible through deliberate efforts to
enhance employee performance and growth.
 168

Appendix R Timetable and Budgetary Requirements

Year / Month Activity

(2016)
Jan - May 2016 Preparation for proposal defense
May 27, 2016 Proposal defense
June 1 -30, 2016 Preparation of online survey
July 1 -24, 2016 Data collection
July 25 Aug 15 Interpretation of results
July 25 October 31 Write up & revision of Chapters 4 and 5
August 29, 2016 Colloquium
November 7 Submission of first draft.
November 15 Oral defense
Revision and final submission of dissertation

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

Online Survey Token 5,000

Materials
Photocopying 1,200
Ink 2,520
Final Binding 1,800
Bond Paper 2,500 8,020
Estimated Budget 105,053
END OF DISSERTATION
169