THESIS Psychological Meaningfulness and Work Engag PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/333557140
THESIS Psychological Meaningfulness and Work Engagement of Filipino

Millennials
Thesis · December 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30451.89123
CITATIONS READS
0 684
4 authors, including:
Mark Kristian Viernes Blando

De La Salle University
4 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Psychological Meaningfulness and Work Engagement of Filipino Millennials View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mark Kristian Viernes Blando on 02 June 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running head: PSYCHOLOGICAL MEANINGFULNESS AND WORK ENGAGEMENT i
OF FILIPINO MILLENNIALS
Psychological Meaningfulness and Work Engagement for Filipino Millennials
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of the
Department of Psychology
College of Liberal Arts
De La Salle University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the
Degree in Bachelor of Arts
Major in Psychology
By
Blando, Mark Kristian V.

Bernardo, Stephanie Estella G.
Lim, Kathrine Angela O.
Lim, Lizette P.
December 13, 2017

Running head: PSYCHOLOGICAL MEANINGFULNESS AND WORK ENGAGEMENT ii
Acknowledgement
The researchers would like to express their deepest gratitude to De La Salle

University for the opportunities given to them. Being in the university helped them hone
themselves into becoming the achievers that they are today. The researchers would also
like to thank Ms. Jaymee Pantaleon for guiding the researchers during their Thesis 1 and
Dr. Lloyd Espiritu for his mentoring for the second part of their Thesis journey. Lastly, the
researchers would like to thank their friends and families for their cast iron support for the
duration of their Thesis period.
Running head: PSYCHOLOGICAL MEANINGFULNESS AND WORK ENGAGEMENT iii
Abstract
This study investigates on the experience of psychological

meaningfulness and work engagement of Filipino millennials
in the workplace. Specifically, to what extent do millennials
experience both psychological meaningfulness and work
engagement and the relationship of both. psychological
meaningfulness is measured by three indicators namely,
recognition, challenge, and perceived meaningfulness of
contribution (Brown and Leigh, 1996). While, work
engagement is also measured by three indicators namely,
vigor, absorption, and dedication (Salanova et al, 2002). With
regards to our participants, the millennials are divided into 2
groups, older millennials who were born in 1981-1989 and
younger millennials who were born in 1990-1997 (Pew
Research Center, 2015). In this study, the researchers found
out millennials, especially the older millennials, crave
psychological meaningfulness in the workplace which will
result to work engagement; having the contribution as the
strongest predictor in work engagement. These findings can
be beneficial to a lot especially to human resources
practitioners, employers, developmental psychology, etc.
Keywords: millennials-psychological meaningfulness-work
engagement
Running head: PSYCHOLOGICAL MEANINGFULNESS AND WORK ENGAGEMENT iv
Table of Contents
Page
Title Page i
Acknowledgment ii
Abstract iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Background of the Study 1
Review of Related Literature 3
Millennials 3
Psychological Meaningfulness (PM) 7
Work Engagement (WE) 10
Relationship between PM and WE 13
Synthesis 14
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework 15
Statement of the Problem 17
Hypotheses 16
Definition of Terms 18
Significance of the Study 19
Scope and Delimitation 21
Chapter 2: Methodology 22
Research Design 22
Population and Sample 22
Sampling Design 23
Instruments 23
Data Gathering 24
Data Preparation 25
Data Analysis 25
Methodological Limitations 25
Ethical Considerations 26
Chapter 3: Results 28
Demographic Information 28
Main findings 30
Running head: PSYCHOLOGICAL MEANINGFULNESS AND WORK ENGAGEMENT v
Chapter 4: Discussion 29
Psychological meaningfulness for Millennials 33
Work Engagement for Millennials 34
Psychological Meaningfulness and Work Engagement 38
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 40

Summary 40
Conclusions 42
Recommendations 43
References 47
Appendix:
Consent form 53
Study scales 55
Other findings 58
Running head: PSYCHOLOGICAL MEANINGFULNESS AND WORK ENGAGEMENT vi
List of Tables
Page
Table 1. Frequency Distribution of the Sample Population 26
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Psychological 27
Meaningfulness
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Work Engagement 28

Table 4. Correlation for Psychological Meaningfulness and
Work Engagement 29
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework 16

Running head: PSYCHOLOGICAL MEANINGFULNESS AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 1
OF FILIPINO MILLENIALS
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background of the Study
More than half of the people in the world will spend a third of their adult lives
working (WHO, 1995). Many strive hard to find jobs and do well enough in it to suit their
needs. For some, work is a means to an end: it allows people to provide for themselves and
their family, to attain material or monetary rewards, and even achieve financial stability so
that they can live a comfortable life. For others, work can also be an end in itself: work can
provide individuals with a sense of worth and purpose through opportunities for personal
and professional self-improvement, or ways to contribute meaningfully to society.
For millennials, self-improvement is vastly important – opportunity for progression
was noted in a research study by PWC as a top reason for an employer to be appealing
(2011, p. 10). Millennials are the largest generation in the workforce, and they are
persistent in seeking out great opportunities to grow and rise up the ladder – even if that
means leaving one job for another (Fromm, 2015). Millennials are motivated to work by
the thought of being able to make a difference, by getting the chance to learn and grow
(Cecilia, 2016). It could be said that they are career makers because they are concerned
with occupational advancement. A survey was conducted by Philippine Daily Inquirer on
what Filipino Millennials were looking for in a job and most of the answers yielded were
about self-improvement, that they wanted a workplace that had a good culture, a place
where they can learn and bring out their full potentials (Mamuyac, 2016). It is essential for
them to be in an organization that allows them to grow and learn new things. However,
once they feel that they have learned everything there is to learn, they leave. Millennials are
widely known for being ―job hoppers‖, meaning, they keep on switching from one job to
the other and most of the time only lasting a few months before they switch again. The
consistent switching is powered by the absence of self-improvement fueled by training and
coaching the company provides, meaning to say, they no longer feel that they are learning
anything new and as a result they leave the company and apply to other organizations to
gain new experiences. It is important for them to find reason in what they do. According to
Philippine Daily Inquirer’s survey, ―62 percent of Filipino millennials say their leadership
skills are not being fully developed in their current organization while 61 percent feel that
they are being overlooked for potential leadership positions‖ (Dumlao, 2016). If they feel
that they are being underutilized and undervalued by their organization, these millennial
employees would feel dissatisfied with their jobs which can result to them being
disengaged in their work. Nearly 70% of millennials were disengaged at work, according to
Gallup (2016). Being engaged in one’s work is important because it is what drives the
behaviors of the employees, whether they would exhibit organizationally fit behaviors or be
a slacker who delivers half-baked outputs. The success of a company is not solely
determined by its profits but also by the performance of its employees. Organizations need
to ensure that the work environment ensues work engagement so that the employees can
find motivation to perform well, not solely for the wellbeing of the individual but for the
organization as well.
Given that millennials will comprise majority of the global workforce by the year
2025 and a third of the Philippine nation is already comprised of millennials, it is important
to gain a better understanding of what they value as a generation (EY, 2015, p.1; de la
Cruz, 2015). Millennials are known to be purpose-driven individuals and strive to find
meaning in what they do, to be engaged in one’s work is to find meaning and purpose in it;
however, meaning and purpose is not the same for everyone and there are factors that can
influence search and acquisition of it. Thus, this study aimed to understand how much
Filipino millennials find meaning in their work, how engaged they are because of work,
and the relationship between psychological meaningfulness and work engagement.
Review of Related Literature
Millennials. The generation known as Millennials are comprised of those born in
the years 1981 to 1997 (Pew Research Center, 2015). In a report written by the Human
Resources Professionals Association or HRPA, millennials were said to be one of the most
misunderstood generations, when in reality, they want the same things as other generational
cohorts. Millennials are often viewed negatively because of the generational differences
which lead to misunderstanding and conflicts in the workplace (Dubé, 2017; Pew Research
Center, 2015). However, as the millennial generation is rapidly growing in the workforce,
there is a need to understand who the millennials are and how this generation can make an
impact through their respective jobs.
Older and Younger Millennials. In order to understand their characteristics, the
millennial generation may further be divided into two - the older millennials who are aged
28 to 36 and the younger millennials who are aged 20 to 27 (Pew Research Center, 2015).
The two major events that may separate these two generational subcohorts are the financial
crisis of 2008 and the rapid advancement of technology (Singal, 2017). Before the hit of the
2008 financial crisis, older millennials were already of age and either graduating from
college or working on their careers; this led them to be more traditional and realistic, as
well as financially-conscious. They tend to be more collaborative in order to get the job
done, and tend to seek meaning in ther jobs as well as the idealistic work-life balance.
Younger millennials on the other hand came of age after the 2008 Financial Crisis, having
only been students when it hit. They thus tend to be more idealistic and optimistic, but also
more practical, more attracted to industries with steady work and more willing to work
overtime. They also have a higher preference for environmental spending and spending for
others, placing less importance on material possessions (BridgeWorks, 2017; Hammer,
2015; Mang & Piper, 2012; Singal, 2017).
Characteristics. Although older and younger millennials may have some
differences, there are five pre-dominant themes common to all millennials: work-life
balance, good pay and benefits, opportunities for advancement, meaningful work
experiences, and nurturing work environment (Ng, Schweitzer & Lyons, 2010; Debevec,
Schewe, Madden & Diamond 2013). Millennials are also known to have high levels of self-
confidence, self-reliance, and self-esteem; thus, these may be the reasons as to why they
have high expectations of recognition or approval from their employers which led to the
name, ―Trophy Generation‖. They expect not only positive feedback but also negative
feedback so that they are more motivated to improve themselves; in comparison, older
generations understood praise as not being yelled at by their superiors (Ozcelik, 2015;
Meier, Austin and Crocker, 2010; Twenge and Campbell, 2008). They are also said to be
job-hoppers or uncommitted to their work since they value workplace relationship rather
than their organizations. For example, when a manager leaves the firm, his/her subordinates
will follow him/her to the next workplace (Ng, Schweitzer and Lyons, 2010). Another
reason is that they have seen their parents sacrifice themselves in their works for no direct
or immediate benefits and even got laid-off, hence they are skeptical of long-term
commitments (Kaifi, et.al., 2012). Furthermore, they are also not intimidated or impressed
with job titles and authority figures or superiors thus, in successful managing, employers
should raise or treat the millennials the way that their parents raised them (Tolbize, 2008)
In addition, millennials have high expectations when it comes to promotion or pay
and advancement. They expect to be promoted as quickly as possible with minimal effort
because of their contributions to the organization since the requirement for promotion or
raise have nothing to do with job performance (i.e. requirement of working 1 year in the
organization) and they expect their superiors to adapt new practices and leave the
traditional practices behind (Twenge and Campbell, 2008; Ozcelik, 2015; Meier, Austin
and Crocker, 2010; Ng, Schweitzer and Lyons, 2010). A good way to keep them satisfied is
through pay and advancements like, raising their salary by 1% three times a year rather
than increasing the salary by 3.5% at the end of the year. However, according to a study,
majority of the millennials do have some realistic expectations when it comes to initial pay
and first job because of economic realities. They also understand that their first job would
not be able to fulfill or satisfy their wants and needs, specifically psychological
meaningfulness (Ng, Schweitzer & Lyons, 2010).
Moreover, millennials crave meaningful and fulfilling work more than lucrative
paychecks - ―Work should not just be a way to make money but to provide a rich and
fulfilling experience‖ (Ozcelik, 2015; Tolbize, 2008; Bursch, 2014; Twenge and Campbell,
2008; Bano, Vyas and Gupta, 2015). It is also mentioned that millennials can not be happy
without seeing or feeling the significance of their work (i.e. working aimlessly does not
motivate them while, having a sense of purpose motivates them). Therefore, they prefer an
enjoyable, satisfying, and meaningful work rather than well-paid or career oriented work.
An example is that in the book, Quaterlife Crisis— a young woman wanted to quit her
dream job because it was not fulfilling. They also seek new opportunities, better benefits or
small perks (e.g. lunch out, free movie theater, etc), self-development, skills improvement,
challenging and meaningful work or assignments to stay motivated, learn, and be engaged
in their work rather than life-long employment (Ozcelik, 2015; Bursch, 2014; Meier,
Austin and Crocker, 2010; Twenge and Campbell, 2008; Huyler, et.al., n.d.). Moreover, it
is said in a study that vigor positively influences employee retention though it is the
millennials who have a higher tendency to leave the organization once there’s a lack of
vigor and deterioration of mental health. When their sense of significance, enthusiasm, and
challenge in their work is lost, their intention of leaving increases whereas, the job is
fulfilling and meaningful, the more that they are engaged and willing to stay (Park and
Gursoy, n.d.).
Psychological meaningfulness. Meaningfulness manifests in the meaning of work
and the psychological meaning of one's job (van Zyl, Deacon & Rothman, 2010). The
meaning of work is simply the general level of significance of one's work to his or her life.
It is finding meaning in the subjective experience of one's work. This general level of
importance of one's work has are three distinct dimensions: viewing work as a job, work as
a career, or work as a calling. To view one's work as a job is to be merely concerned with
the material or monetary rewards obtained. In other words, you work to live. On the other
hand, to view one's work as a career denotes that meaning is defined by the occupational
advancement the individual obtains. It manifests from the perceived power, influence and
higher social status they gain. Individuals who view their work as a career are found to be
happier than those who view their work as a job, but less so than those who view their work
as a calling. Viewing one's work as a calling implies that one feels that his or her life
purpose is to do work-related tasks. That he or she is born to work. These people acquire
fulfillment in doing work-related activities, rather than receiving monetary or material
rewards (work as a job) or career advancement (work as a career) (van Zyl, Deacon &
Rothman, 2010).
Psychological meaningfulness is one's value of a work goal or purpose. It refers to
"feeling that one is receiving a return on investments of one’s self in a currency of physical,
cognitive, or emotional energy‖ (Kahn, 1990; Jacobs, 2013). It is a state of mind in the
workplace that would ensue work motivation leading to a better job performance. Work
engagement is influenced by the meaning that employees attach to their job. Employees
who found meaning in their work tend to perform better and are more engaged in their
work. In contrast, those who don't find meaning in their work tend to become 'alienated' or
disengaged from one's work (Aktouf, 1992; May, Gilson & Harter, 2004). Individuals play
different roles in their everyday lives, hence, their "self-in-roles" are carried out in varying
degrees and are constructed according to the role they play (Kahn, 1990). They alter their
demeanors in order to match with the task behaviors that their role in work demands.
Personal Engagement refers to "the simultaneous employment and expression of a person's
"preferred self" in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, personal
presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional), and active, full role performances" (Kahn,
1990). Meaning to say, expressing one's preferred self-in-role allows the individual to fully
express his thoughts, feelings, and values freely in his work. It is also possible to
Personally Disengage, in which the individual withdraws himself from his preferred self to
reduce physical, emotional, and cognitive presence. When personal disengagement occurs,
individuals become robotic and would hide their true identity and mask their thoughts and
feelings in performing their roles (Kahn, 1990).
Indicators of psychological meaningfulness. According to Kahn (1990), the
presence of recognition from the organization, perceived meaningfulness of one’s
contributions, and challenge that the work can bring are all indicators of psychological
meaningfulness.
Recognition is the belief that one’s efforts are recognized by the organization
thereby resulting to perceived meaningfulness (Brown & Leigh, 1996). It is when an
employee feels appreciated or valued by the organization when their accomplishments and
hard work are acknowledged. This recognition would lead them to be encouraged and more
involved in their work.
Perceived meaningfulness of contribution is one’s perception of how their work has
a significant impact on the organization at large, which enables them to identify with their
work role. It is the feeling that one’s work or contributions positively affect the
organization (Brown & Leigh, 1996). It is when an employee feels that they contribute to
the organization’s progress or development that they experience perceived meaningfulness.

Challenge is when an employee feels the need to use their emotional, physical, and
cognitive resources in their work in order for them to have personal growth within the
organization (Brown & Leigh, 1996). The employee must feel that their work requires them
to exert more effort and be creative and resourceful in performing tasks assigned to them.
Only then will they be able to feel challenged and have some sense of personal growth.
Work engagement. As defined by Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker (2002),
work engagement is a ―positive, fulfilling, affective-motivational state of work-related
well-being‖ comprised of three components: vigor, dedication, and absorption. This is
similar to Kahn’s (1990) original conceptualization of personal engagement - people who
are engaged physically, cognitively, and emotionally to certain outputs harness themselves
positively in relation to their role. Work engagement focuses on the psychological state a
person has in relation to one’s work, unlike the conception of employee engagement which
tends to factor in the relationship of an employee with his or her organization; this allows
for work engagement to avoid overlapping with similar concepts such as organizational
commitment and extra-role behavior and enables it to be properly measured and researched
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010; Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008). Work engagement is
also distinct from other concepts such as flow, workaholism, and burnout (Schaufeli &
Bakker, 2010 Bakker et. al, 208; Mäkikangas et al, 2013).
Indicators of work engagement. The experience of vigor, absorption, and
dedication in relation to one’s work are all indications of one’s work engagement. The
presence of all three indicators is requisite in order to distinguish the person’s experience as
work engagement.
Vigor is the behavioral-energetic component of work engagement, entails positive,
intense energy, effort, and persistence directed towards work. This is what allows an
individual to keep up even when work gets hectic. It is considered the opposite of
exhaustion, a dimension of burnout. Unlike an engaged individual who exhibits high
energy, a burned-out individual is less resilient to the stress that one’s work entails.
Dedication is the emotional component, involves a strong sense of involvement
with the work that one does as characterized by feelings of enthusiasm, inspiration, pride,
and challenge. On the opposite end is cynicism, another dimension of burnout (Schaufeli &
Bakker, 2010). An engaged individual views his or her work positively and tends to
identify with it, whereas a burned out individual may see it as a burdensome task.
Absorption is the cognitive component, is the person’s experience of full
concentration and enjoyable engrossment in work, which may lead one to prioritize his or
her work above all other things. This is likened to the experience of flow, which entails
bursts of high productivity related to what one enjoys doing and reluctance to leave it;
however, work engagement is a longer lasting state. Additionally, while a high level of
absorption is involved in both work engagement and workaholism, these two do not co-
occur in an individual and are thus noted to be empirically distinct (Bakker et. al, 2008;
Mäkikangas, Schaufeli, Tolvanen, & Feldt, 2013). A workaholic may feel compelled to
keep working because they have to, while an engaged individual experiences absorption
because they are actually interested in their work.
Effects of work engagement. In the past years, study about work engagement in
the field of industrial psychology has been prevalent. The studies are not only about the
definition or the conceptual framework of work engagement, but previous studies in work
engagement also examined the effects of work engagement to an individual. Most of the
studies the researchers have read suggest that work engagement can both affect employees’
performance, subjective well-being, and can lessen the risk of getting burnout.
Previous study of effects of work engagement in burnout (Gutib et al., 2016;
Schaufeli et al.,2002) suggested that engagement can help employees protect themselves
from burnout. Work engagement helps them to deal with work related stress (Schaufeli et
al., 2002). The relationship between burnout and work engagement in previous study was
negative, which means that employees who scored high in burnout scored low in work
engagement. This means that if an employee is highly engaged with his work then the
possibility of getting mentally and physically exhausted is low (Schaufeli and Bakker,
2004). It was later supported by another study about work happiness as a function of
enduring burnout and work engagement (Bakker and Oerlemans, 2016), it was found out
that employees who experience high work engagement in their job are happier compared to
employees who experience low work engagement. Bakker and Oerlemans (2016), added
that employees who are happier can satisfy their own basic Psychological needs thus, the
risk of getting burnout is lessened.
Another study about the effects of work engagement (De Neve, 2017) noted that an
employee who has been actively and highly engaged with his work will be more assume
difficult tasks, will be more committed to advancing or promoting the company’s interests,
and it was also noted that actively engaged employees are more satisfied with their job and
more likely to have a positive affect compared to disengaged employees.
It was also noted by some researchers that work engagement has a connection with
employees’ job performance (Rich, Lepine, and Crawford, 2010). They argued that
engagement reflects human agency, thus work engagement can produce outcomes that are
beneficial to both company and employee, like productivity, efficiency, and quality. In
addition, it was noted that employees who are highly engaged in their work or job are more
productive, they are not only physically energetic, they are also cognitively vigilant and
emotionally connected to their work. Compared to the employees who are not highly
engaged in their work showed a robotic, passive, and detached in their work (Rich, Lepine,
and Crawford, 2010; Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Kahn, 1990).
Relationship between psychological meaningfulness and work engagement.
Alongside the psychological conditions of safety and availability, Kahn (1990) first
identified psychological meaningfulness as a potential antecedent of engagement. Several
studies have since explored the relationship of psychological meaningfulness and work
engagement (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004; Olivier & Rothmann, 2007; Woods & Sofat,
2013; Geldenhuys, Laba & Venter, 2014). Results from a survey of 415 employees from
Gauteng, South Africa showed that psychological meaningfulness and work engagement
were linked, with work engagement influencing the relationship between psychological
meaningfulness and positive organizational commitment (Geldenhuys et. al, 2014). Woods
and Sofat (2013) also found that psychological meaningfulness mediated the work
engagement of industrious and assertive individuals. Another study showed that job
enrichment and work role fit affected psychological meaningfulness, which in turn,
influenced work engagement (May et. al, 2004). Finding meaning in one’s work was still
found to strongly predict work engagement, and mediate its relationship with work role fit
(Olivier & Rothmann, 2007). To further explain this, individuals always strive to feel that
meaningfulness in work that they do, to feel that they are doing the things that they do for a
purpose. In the world of work, meaningfulness is influenced tasks that is challenging; a
task or work that varies and a work that will allow humans whatever skills or resources
they have (Saks 2006; Kahn 1992). Experiencing a challenging work leads to a sense of
meaningfulness and meaningfulness leads to engagement at work (Saks 2006). When
someone also do a task or job and felt useful and valuable he and it was recognized by the
organization where he/she belongs to, the likelihood an employee will be more engaged in
his/her work is higher (Saks 2006; Kahn 1991). This is because when the organization give
recognition and rewards to their employees, their employees will feel obliged to get more
engaged with their work to further improve their job performance.

Synthesis
The millennial generation or the generation born between the years of 1981-1997
(Pew Research Center 2015) is a trending subject research in different fields of social
sciences for the past years. But most of us did not know that millennials are also composed
of two groups; the younger millennials or those who were born between the years of 1990-
1997, and older Millennials or those who were born between the years of 1981-1989
(PwRC 2015).
Millennials, are often also misunderstood for being lazy, entitled, and complacent
with regards to work attitudes. This notion manifested from the performance of millennial
employees in the workplace. They appear to easily get bored or lose interest in their work,
which prompts them to quit their jobs after only a few months or so. The fact is that
millennials look for challenge, they want some sense of significance in their work or the
sense of contribution to the company, and in return they also want the organization to give
them feedback or recognition. Surprisingly, these factors were the indicators identified in
the study conducted by Brown and Leigh (1996). Psychological meaningfulness was also
identified as the strongest predictor of work engagement (May et al 2004), which means
when they experience meaningfulness in what they do, they become more absorbed,
vigorous, and dedicated at work. These factors (absorption, vigor, and dedication) are the
three indicators of Work Engagement (Salanova et al 2002).

Although, there are several studies about millennials at workplace, psychological
meaningfulness, and work engagement have been published, there are still lack of study
about the psychological meaningfulness and work engagement of millennials most
especially in the Philippines; a local study about these variables that can prove or disprove
global trends. In line with this, the researchers think that this study is and relevant to the
Filipino workplace in general.
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1. Conceptual framework showing that psychological meaningfulness

predicts work engagement amongst Filipino millennials.
The conceptual framework presented defines the population group of the study,
which are Filipino millennials who were born between the period of 1981-1997 (ages 21-36
years old). The researchers based this age group on their study of literature (Park &
Gursoy, nd; Meier, Austin, and Crocker, 2010; Samina, Kriti, & Robini, 2015). The
millennials will also be divided into two groups based on Pew Research Center (2015);
younger millennials who were born in the period of 1990-1997, and older millennials who
were born in the period of 1981-1989.

The psychological meaningfulness in this study will be measured by three
indicators; (1) perceived meaningfulness of contribution (2) Challenge, and (3) recognition
(Brown and Leigh, 1996). While work engagement will be measured using the three
indicators; (1) vigor, (2) absorption, and (3) dedication (Salanova et al, 2002). In previous
studies, psychological meaningfulness was positively and significantly correlated to work
engagement (May et al 2004; Kahn 1990). This is supported by a study of Olivier et al
(2007) they claimed that meaning in one’s work leads will make one engage in his/her
work. Thus, a person who experience meaningfulness at work by making making
meaningful contributions, facing challenging yet meaningful work, and being recognized
by their organization more engaged to his/her work
However, these findings are based on Western literatures, there are no available
studies about the relationship between the two variables - psychological meaningfulness
and work engagement in the Philippines. Thus, the researchers have decided to make a
study in Filipino Millennial employees about Psychological Meaningfulness and Work
Engagement relationship.
Statement of the Problem
This study aims to understand psychological meaningfulness and work engagement for the
Filipino millennial. As such, the researchers intend to address the following research
questions:
1. To what extent do millennials experience psychological meaningfulness?
2. To what extent do millennials experience work engagement?
3. What is the relationship between psychological meaningfulness and work
engagement?
Definition of Terms
Millennials. Millennials are people who are born in the year 1981 and 1997. For
the purpose of this study, all people born within these years are considered as millennials;
subclassifications of older millennials (those born in the years 1981 to 1989) and younger
millennials (those born in the years 1990 to 1997) will be used in order to compare their
levels of psychological meaningfulness and work engagement.
Psychological meaningfulness. Psychological meaningfulness is conceptually
defined as ―the value of a work goal or purpose‖ (Kahn, 1990). This was measured through
the Psychological Meaningfulness subscale taken from the Psychological Climate Scale.
Participants rated their work in terms of how meaningful it is to their life.
Work engagement. Work engagement is conceptually defined as the ―positive,
fulfilling, affective-motivational state of work-related well-being‖ comprised of three
components: vigor, dedication, and absorption (Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker,
2002). It is the psychological state a person has in relation to one’s work. This was
measured using the Utretcht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). The participants rate how
often they feel a certain way at work on a 7-point likert scale.

Significance of the Study
Given the good effects of both Psychological Meaningfulness and work
engagement in the literatures mentioned in the study and review of the related literature and
with the millennials taking over and majority of the workforce in different companies and
industries. The researchers think that this study will be relevant and will benefit not only
the millennials themselves, and the industries concerned, but also the different fields of
Psychology.
Millennials. This study will give them more understanding about themselves. The
study of psychological meaningfulness and work engagement will give them idea of what
are their strengths and weaknesses are, their purpose and meaning in life, and anything
connected with them finding the real essence of their job and how they can further improve
their skills to remain competent. As also mentioned in the effects of work engagement and
psychological meaningfulness, this study will also help them to find ways on how they can
remain engage in their works, understand why they are not happy with their job, and will
give them the importance of finding the right work or job that are in line with their skills
and talents.
Human resource practitioners. This study will have a big impact or effect to
Human Resource Industry. First, the focus of this study is about the millennials in
workplace, and as noted millennials has now many of the work force. Thus, this study will
give them ideas on how to handle millennials at work and how to properly address the
needs and demands of millennials. Lastly, Studying the benefits and effects of work
engagement and psychological meaningfulness can help them to identify different ways on
how to make their employees more engaged, productive, efficient, competent, and
enhancing the strengths of these employees that can help the success of their company.
Developmental psychology. Developmental psychology is a field in psychology
which uses scientific studies on how and why human beings change over the course of their
life. The subjects in this study are millennials or also known as the generation y. This study
can contribute in the field of developmental psychology by supporting or debunking
previous studies regarding the millennials.
Application of Positive Psychology in Industrial Psychology. The researchers
believe that this study will contribute to Industrial Psychology, a branch of Psychology that
focuses on workplace, environment, organizations, and their employees. This study of
Psychological Meaningfulness and Work Engagement in millennials can help people to
understand their strengths, purpose, and meaning in their workplace. Based on the literature
promoting these two concepts can help not only the individuals to thrive but also the
company. Which is also an indication that positive Psychology can be applied to the field
of Industrial Psychology. To just add, Positive Psychology is also an emerging field in
Psychology, and the main objective of Positive Psychology is the strengths of people that
helps individuals and communities to thrive. The foundation of this field is the belief that
people want to lead meaningful and fulfilling lives. In this study, thriving will be studied in
individual and industrial level.
Scope and Delimitation
The study focused on the concept of psychological meaningfulness and work
engagement. The study began on the first week of June and ended on the last week of
November. The target population are the Filipino millennials in the Philippines; however,
the study was conducted only amongst participants who were currently working in Metro
Manila at the time of the study in order to control for cultural differences. The population’s
age group was within the range of 21 to 36 years old to cover the span of the Millennial
generation. The scores of the older millennials or those born in 1981 to 1989 were
compared with that of the younger millennials or those born in 1990 to 1997 in order to
gain a better understanding of the possible similarities and differences that these
generational cohorts may have.
The study failed to account for the number of years the participant has been
working in their position or company given that the focus was on the generation of
millennials; it also does not cover a specific industry.

Chapter 2
Methodology
Research Design
This study made use of a quantitative research design involving existing scales with
established psychometric properties to measure the desired variables, namely psychological
meaningfulness and work engagement. Correlational and linear analyses were used in order
to understand the relationship between the two variables and their indicators.
Population and sample
The participants were comprised of Filipino nationals who were currently working
in the area of Metro Manila, Philippines at the time of the study and are considered to be
part of the millennial generation, i.e. those born during the years 1981 to 1997 and are 20 to
36 years old (mean 25.190 years, SD = 3.929) at the time the study was conducted (Pew
Research Center, 2015). A total of 462 valid responses from participants were gathered,
with 348 females and 116 males. The jobs participants could be classified under six
categories: clerical workers, managers, professionals, service and sales workers,
technicians and associate professionals, and self-employed.
Sampling Design
The sampling design used was convenience sampling. Due to time constraints and
limited resources like a database for workers, the researchers opted for a convenient type of
sampling in order to reach a wider demographics by disseminating an online survey. The

researchers limited their participants to those born between the years 1981 to 1997, and are
working in Metro Manila.
Research Instruments
The questionnaire administered to the participants were divided into three parts.
The first part contained the informed consent and the demographics questionnaire including
name, age, company, position, email, contact number. The second part contained the scale
for Psychological Meaningfulness which is The Psychological Meaningfulness subscale
taken from the Psychological Climate Scale (2004) . The third part contained the scale for
Work Engagement which is the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES 2004). The two
scales were both established and widely-used scales that measured the desired construct.
Demographic profile sheet. The Demographics profile sheet was used to collect
statistical data of the population, which includes the participant's’ age, sex, year of birth,
and position. The profile sheet was used to ensure that the participants fit the required
participant criteria and analyze their data according to their differences.
Psychological meaningfulness subscale. The psychological meaningfulness
subscale (α = .903) was taken from the Psychological Climate Scale developed by Brown
and Leigh (2004) which was based of Kahn’s conceptualization of psychological
meaningfulness. It is a self-report 7 point likert scale on to what extent they agree with the
statement in each item. The scale assesses the 3 indicators; (a) recognition, (b) perceived
meaningfulness of contribution, and (c) challenge. It has consistent cronbach’s alpha or
correlation coefficients of .798 which means a high level of reliability. The higher the score
is, the more they experience meaningfulness.
Utretcht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). Utretcht Work Engagement Scale
(UWES) is a scale developed by Schaufeli and Bakker (2004), this scale was made to
measure work engagement of an individual. It is a self-report 7 point likert scale on level of
frequency. These assesses the three main components of work engagement; (a) vigor (b)
absorption and (c) dedication. Higher score in this scale indicates higher level of work
engagement. It has consistent cronbach’s alpha or correlation coefficients of .86 which
means a high level of reliability (Scheufeli and Bakker, 2003).
Data Gathering
The researchers used convenient sampling for the data gathering due to time
constraints. The two scales, demographic questions, and clause for informed consent were
included in an online survey form which was distributed through e-mail, private messaging,
and online postings on various social media sites. A physical form of the survey was also
distributed to various eligible participants. Data retrieved from both electronic and physical
responses were all included in a spreadsheet.

Data Preparation
The data spreadsheet was first scrutinized for missing or invalid entries; as a result,
only 462 responses were left from 474 total respondents. Some demographic variables such
as year of birth and job positions were later reclassified into age group (i.e. old millennials,
born 1981 to 1989, and young millennials, born 1990 to 1997) and job category (i.e.
Managers, Professionals, Technicians and Associate Professionals, Services and Sales
Workers, Clerical Support Workers, and Self-Employed). The score for each subscale and
overall scale were computed based on their corresponding manuals and studies.
Data Analysis
The researchers tabulated the demographic information of all of the respondents,
specifically the year they were born, position in the company, and sex. Scores of the
respondents were computed through Excel based on the scale manual and corresponding
studies. In the first analysis, a linear regression was done by the researchers to identify if
there is a relationship between the two main variables, the psychological meaningfulness
(PM) and work engagement (WE). In the second analysis, a correlational test was done by
the researchers to identify how strong is the relationship between the two main variables.
Methodological Limitations
Online Data Gathering. The quantitative data gathering was done online to make
it more available to more respondents. However, the validity and reliability of the results
maybe compromised. Online surveys may lead to different confounding variables;
participants can randomly answer the scales without the researchers monitoring the test
administration, the different types and sizes of the computers also affect the results. As a
solution to this the researchers put random questions in between valid questions, this
helped the researchers detect if the participant is taking the test seriously.
Uneven distribution of population. The population of this study was unevenly
distributed with Older Millennials at N=104 while Younger Millennials is at N=358. Also,
the the number of participants per Job Category was unevenly distributed with Tech and
Associate as the highest at N=138, alongside Clerical at N=113.
Dual format of data gathering. Aside from using an online survey form, the
researchers also had forms printed out to disseminate to respondents in different companies
to efficiently gather respondents. This may have an effect on the testing conditions of the
participants as the environment was not controlled.
Ethical Considerations
Informed consent. The participants was informed of the purpose of the project and
the procedures conducted. They were given an informed consent form which contains the
tasks they need to do, what the research is for and how their answers will be utilized.
Voluntary participation. The participants have the right to refuse to participate in
the study, whether it had begun or not. If the subject feels uncomfortable with the
investigation to be conducted, the researchers will stop and the participant is free to leave
any time he or she wants.
Confidentiality and anonymity. The participants were given the right to choose to
include or not to include hi/her name in the forms that he/she answered.the participant
request his or her name to not be made known, the researchers had concealed the identity of
the participants who wished to be anonymous. The same goes for some information that
they wish to not be made known.
Incentives. Participants who fit the requirements and completed the survey were
entered in a raffle for Php 500 gift vouchers. Five winners were selected through an online
randomizers.
Chapter 3
Results
In this chapter, the sample’s demographic information and statistical analyses of all
data gathered is presented in response to each research question. For the first and second
questions, the extent to which Filipino millennials experience psychological
meaningfulness (PM) and work engagement (WE) were tackled. The third question
addressed the hypothesized relationship between PM and WE. Subsequent analyses of the
data in terms of age group and job categories were also discussed, as some significant
differences were also determined.
Demographic Information
A total of 474 respondents were able to answer the scales; however, some had
missing responses or did not meet the requirements for participation, leaving only 462
responses valid for data analyses. As shown in Table 1 there were more female
respondents compared to male respondents. All respondents were of the ages 20 to 36
years old (M = 25.190 years, SD = 3.929); however, majority (77.49%) of the respondents
were young millennials aged 20 to 27 years (M = 23.397 years, SD = 1.962) as opposed to
22.51% who were old millennials aged 28 to 36 years old (M = 31.365, SD = 2.462).
Technicians and associate professionals (N = 139) and clerical workers (N = 113) made up
more than half of the sample populations’ job categories; managers and professionals
followed after with roughly 18% stake each, and least covered were service and sales
workers and those self-employed. A further look at the jobs the surveyed millennials
engaged in revealed that majority or 88.41% of young millennials were employed as
technicians and associate professionals (N = 122), while the most common job for the
older millennials at 36.54% was as a manager (N = 38).
Table 1.
Frequency Distribution of the Sample Population
Variables Frequency Percentage
Sex Males 116 25.11%
Females 346 74.89%
Age Groups Older Millennials 104 22.51%
Younger Millennials 358 77.49%
Job Categories Clerical Workers 113 24.46%
Managers 85 18.40%
Professionals 84 18.18%
Self-Employed 2 0.43%
Services and Sales Workers 39 8.44%
Technicians and Associate Professionals 139 30.09%

Main Findings
Psychological Meaningfulness. As can be seen in Table 2, the overall mean score
for Psychological Meaningfulness (PM) is 5.36 (SD=0.869); with the highest possible
score of 7, indicating that respondents agree that their jobs have meaning. A further look at
the means across the indicators of PM show that contribution (C) was the highest amongst
the three (Mean=5.72, SD=1.089). Recognition (R) had the lowest mean score
(Mean=4.82, SD=1.086), which indicates that participants somewhat agreed that they were
given ample recognition for the work that they do.
Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics for Psychological Meaningfulness
Variables Mean Standard Deviation
Psychological Meaningfulness
5.357 0.870
Recognition
4.815 1.087
Challenge
5.450 1.270
Contribution
5.716 1.090
Note: N = 462
Work Engagement. Based on the norms established for the UWES-17 (Schaufeli,
2004), WE is shown in Table 3 to be average in its overall score (M = 4.241, SD = 0.967)
and across its subscales of Vigor (V; M = 4.17, SD = 1.036), Dedication (D; Mean = 4.53,
SD = 1.103), and Absorption (A; Mean = 4.07, SD = 1.007). D was the highest amongst the
three indicators.
Table 3.
Descriptive statistics for work Enagement
Variables Mean Standard Deviation
Work Engagement 4.241 0.968
Vigor 4.169 1.037
Dedication 4.532 1.104
Absorption 4.071 1.008
Note: N = 462
Table 4.
Correlation between psychological meaningfulness and work engagement
R
Variable t p Beta df R
Square
Intercept -0.252 0.801 -0.837 460 0.5179 0.72

Psychological
22.228 .001* 1.513 460
Meaningfulness
Psychological meaningfulness and work engagement. The third research
question sought to understand the relationship between PM and WE. The Pearson’s
correlation test revealed that PM and WE have a strong and positive relationship (R =
0.720, p = 0.001 < 0.01). Results of a subsequent linear regression analysis showed that
Psychological Meaningfulness is indeed a significant predictor of Work Engagement (sig.
0.001 < 0.05, df= 460, t stat = 22.228). It was also noted that 51.79% of the variances were
explained by this model (R = 51.79%) and that for every 0.802 increase in Psychological
2
Meaningfulness, a 1.0 increase in Work Engagement can be expected.

Chapter 4
Discussion
This study was conducted with the aim of better understanding Filipino millennials’
experience of psychological meaningfulness and work engagement as well as the
relationship of the two constructs mentioned. The results showed that Filipino millennials
experienced average levels of both psychological meaningfulness and work engagement,
and that psychological meaningfulness predicted work engagement. These, along with
additional findings, will be discussed as follows.
Psychological meaningfulness for millennials. Results showed that overall, Filipino
millennials somewhat agree that their work is meaningful. That is, they receive recognition
from their coworkers and superiors, view it as having challenge, and feel that their
contributions matter. It is possible that the millennials surveyed only somewhat agree
because while they believe their contributions are significant in the organization’s progress
and growth, they do not receive as much recognition for these contributions from people at
work. This inequality may have affected their experience of psychological meaningfulness
because as said by Kahn (1990), the experience of psychological meaningfulness is to feel
that one is receiving a return on investments of one’s self in a currency of physical,
cognitive, or emotional energy; hence, recognition is perceived as a reward for the
contributions that were put forth. Their results came out as average because they don’t
receive much recognition, therefore, they didn’t experience much meaningfulness. The
reason for this may be because of hindrances to meaningfulness which are being taken for
granted (most experienced), unfairness, feeling of isolation, and better judgment overridden
- opinions and experiences were disregarded. In other words, anything that tampers
recognition of their competence and perceived impact, interpersonal connectedness, and
self-concordance (Lee, 2017). In addition, providing successful feedback relied on the
leader's ability to convey respect, sensitivity, relevance, specific explanations, and visual
examples since millennials value recognition because they perceive as a help for them to fit
in and advance in their organization (Cerf, 2017)
Work engagement for millennials. Findings also showed that the surveyed Filipino
millennials experience average levels of work engagement. This means that they often
experience vigor, absorption, and dedication while working. In line with the findings
above, surveyed Filipino Millennials only experience an average level of work engagement
because they only somewhat agree that they find meaning with their work, to support this,
previous study suggest that employees who found meaning in their work tend to perform
better and are more engaged in their work (Aktouf, 1992; May, Gilson & Harter, 2004). A
study found that levels of work engagement tended to be lower in Eastern countries which
may be because they are more collectivistic (Hu et. al, 2014). This may explain why the
work engagement was average. Additionally, age is a factor affecting the work engagement
of millennials. The older the employee, the more engaged they are. Older employees tend
to be more engaged than young employees. This finding is consistent with the main
findings in the UWES scale (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).

Older millennials experience more psychological meaningfulness and work
engagement than younger millennials. While millennials have many similarities within
their generation, the theorized split between older and younger millennials is evidenced in
some differing factors. As noted early on, there are two major differences: older millennials
were more realistic and financially-conscious, and they seek meaning in their work as well
as work-life balance On the other hand, younger millennials were more practical, sought
out steady work and overtime (BridgeWorks, 2017; Hammer, 2015; Mang & Piper, 2012;
Singal, 2017). However, it is possible that this is not just a generational difference but also
a matter of one’s circumstances and difference in developmental stage such as emerging
adulthood.
Emerging adulthood (roughly 18-25 years old) is a concept coined to explain a
phase between adolescence and adulthood in which the individual is in a period of self-
exploration prior to transitioning into adulthood (Arnett, 2010). It was said to be a ―self-
focused age‖ wherein people in this phase explore possibilities and find out who they really
are and what they want to be, hence, this is period of instability for individuals in this phase
(Arnett, 2010). There are five distinguishing factors of emerging adulthood namely: (1) age
of identity exploration, (2) age of instability, (3) most self-focused age of life, (4) age of
feeling in-between or in-transition, and (5) age of possibilities (Arnett, 2015; Benzon et al.,
2017).
In this study, 82.96% or 297 out of 358 young millennials are in the emerging
adulthood stage (aged 18 to 25 years old), which could explain why they have significantly
lower scores than older millennials. They are more unstable with regards to their work and
have the tendency to go ―job hopping‖, or move from one job to another at short time
intervals. Emerging adulthood is a period of time wherein people in this phase are still
trying to develop their skills which accordingly leads to them being on a constant search for
self-improvement and personal growth. Once they feel that they are no longer learning
anything from their work, they quit their jobs and find a new and more challenging work to
further improve themselves. Emerging adulthood is also the age of instability; hence it can
be said that younger millennials still do not know what they want. This explains why they
do not experience meaningfulness as much as older millennials do. Since what they are
doing is not, for certain, what they wish to pursue, they do not find meaning in the work
that they are in, thus, having low work engagement.
In addition, younger millennial is the age group that has just started out or entered
the workforce, hence they have a realistic view with regards to work. As aforementioned,
psychological meaningfulness manifests from the meaning of work and the psychological
meaning of one’s job (van Zyl, Deacon & Rothman, 2010). The meaning of work is simply
the general level of significance of one's work to his or her life, which has three distinct
dimensions: viewing work as a job, work as a career, or work as a calling. Since younger
millennials are just starting out, it can be said that they view their work as a job rather than
a career or a calling, which entails that there more are concerned with the monetary
rewards they get from their work. Because of economic realities, they have realistic
expectations with regards to salary and their first job. They understand that their first job
would not be able to fulfill or satisfy their wants and needs, specifically psychological
meaningfulness (Ng, Schweitzer & Lyons, 2010).
Older millennials, on the other hand, are already past the emerging adulthood stage
with the age range of 28 to 36 years old. Hence, it could be said that they are more stable
compared to younger millennials. They have gained more experience with working since
they have been in the workforce longer than younger millennials have. Another possible
explanation for this is that older millennials may be experiencing work-role fit better than
younger millennials do. Work-role fit is the perceived fit between a person’s self-concept
and work-roles (Rothmann & Hamukang’Andu, 2013). It is when a person’s work role is
aligned with the individual’s values and beliefs that they experience work-role fit. Van Zyl,
1Deacon, and Rothmann (2010) found that work-role fit predicts psychological
meaningfulness. The multiple regression analysis results revealed that 79% of the variance
in psychological meaningfulness was predicted by work-role fit. This means that if an
individual’s work enables them to express themselves fully, the experience of
psychological meaningfulness follows. The same can be said about older millennials. Older
millennials are accustomed to the notion that studying hard would land them a job. This
could mean that they value hard work and perseverance. With a stable goal of simply
getting a job, older millennials are able to express their values and beliefs fully, thus
ensuing the experience of work-role fit. Younger millennials, on the other hand, having a
hard time facing the worst job market, thus, they are accustomed to be more idealistic in
finding jobs that suits them well and that they will be happy about (Smith & Aaker, 2013).
High levels of work-role fit leads to the experience of psychological meaningfulness
leading to work engagement.
Psychological meaningfulness and work engagement are strongly correlated. The
results of this study showed that psychological meaningfulness and work engagement have
a positive, direct, and strong relationship. This is aligned with the results of previous
studies, such as those presented in Chapter 2. Several studies have linked psychological
meaningfulness and work engagement together since Kahn (1990) first identified it along
with safety and availability as a potential antecedents of work engagement; it was later
found to be the strongest predictor of work engagement in comparison to psychological
safety and psychological availability (May et. al, 2004) Other studies have found
psychological meaningfulness to mediate work engagement's relationship with positive
organizational commitment (Geldenhuys et. al, 2014) or work-role fit (Olivier &
Rothmann, 2007).
Psychological meaningfulness as a predictor of work engagement implies that an
individual will be more engaged or involved in his work if he experiences psychological
meaningfulness. Millennials want meaning, they want to have a sense of purpose in what
they are doing. Millennials are motivated to work by the thought of being able to make a
difference, by being given the chance to improve themselves (Cecilia, 2016). If they see
that their contributions help in the growth of the organization, if they feel that their efforts
are recognized and valued, and if they are given tasks that require them to utilize their
skills, they will feel a sense of meaningfulness in their work, thus, perceiving themselves as
a valuable member of the organization. With this, the employees will exhibit
organizationally fit behaviors and execute better performance.

Chapter 5
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
Summary
This study investigated on the experience of psychological meaningfulness and
work engagement of Filipino millennials in the workplace. The millennial generation
consists of those people who were born within the age range of 1981 to 1987, and is
divided into two age groups namely the older millennials and the younger millennials.
Psychological meaningfulness is the general significance of work to a person’s life (Kahn,
1990). It is simply the value of an individual’s work to his or her life. It was said that
psychological meaningfulness ensues work engagement. Work engagement is simply a
―positive, fulfilling, affective-motivational state of work-related well-being‖ comprised of
three components: vigor, dedication, and absorption (Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker,
2002). There have been studies made that showed psychological meaningfulness is an
antecedent of work engagement. This study intended to examine the connection and the
relationship of psychological meaningfulness and work engagement with regards to
millennials with the following research questions:
1. To what extent do millennials experience psychological meaningfulness?
2. To what extent do millennials experience work engagement?

3. What is the relationship between psychological meaningfulness and work
engagement?
The millennials were divided into two age groups: (a) Younger Millennials, who were born
in the period of 1990-1997, and (b) Older Millennials who were born in the period of 1981-
1989 (Pew Research Center, 2015). The Psychological Meaningfulness in this study was
measured by three indicators; (1) Perceived Meaningfulness of Contribution (2) Challenge,
and (3) Recognition (Brown and Leigh, 1996). While Work Engagement was be measured
using the three indicators; (1) Vigor, (2) Absorption, and (3) Dedication (Salanova et al,
2002). There have were not much research about these variables in the Philippines as most
of the studies found were Western literature, hence, the researchers wanted to conduct this
study on the relationship of psychological meaningfulness and work engagement.
The researchers used a two scales along with a demographics questionnaire as
instruments for the study. The two scales were the Psychological Meaningfulness subscale
taken from the Psychological Climate Scale and the Utretcht Work Engagement Scale
(UWES), in which both these scales are 7-point likert scales. Survey forms were
disseminated in both online and printed forms. The study made use of various statistical
analyses such as correlation and linear regression in order to analyze the data gathered. The
tests revealed there is indeed a relationship between the two variables; it was seen that
psychological meaningfulness predicts work engagement.

Conclusions
Overall, the Millennial generation in general, craves for meaning in their
workplace- when we say meaningful work it means that the employee can contribute
significant output and input at work, he/she is also recognized by the organization and co-
workers, and he/she should be challenged by the tasks wherein he/she can use her skills and
talents and other resources. This sense of meaning will lead to a more vigorous, dedicated,
and absorbed employee. In short, finding meaning in one’s work and job will lead to work
engagement for Filipino Millennials.
The researchers also found out that Psychological Meaningfulness and Work
Engagement is a process wherein the longer you are working the higher both will be like
how the results show that the older millennials are more inclined than the younger
millennials. Since older millennials have already explored their possibilities of what they
want to be after years of working. They are also more stable because they have already
experienced work role fit which means a person's work role is aligned with individual's
values and beliefs (Rothmann & Hamukang' Andu, 2013). While the younger millennials
just started going in the workforce so they have a realistic view when it comes to work
because of the economic realities. Hence, they have realistic expectations with regards to
their salary and first job. They also understand that their first job would not be able to
fulfill or satisfy their want and needs (Ng, Schweitzer & Lyons, 2010). They are also
unstable since just starting to explore their possibilities and find out who they are and what
they want so their psychological meaningfulness might be lower than older millennials so
they also job hop in order to enhance their skills for self improvement and personal growth.
Hence, to achieve psychological meaningfulness, employers or human resources
should give them challenging tasks or works to work on so they will have experience, will
be able to learn, and will be able to use their skills and what they learn. They can also given
opportunities to work on tasks that will have a significant impact on the organization. Then
be recognized for their hard work, contribution and their ability. For example, giving them
promotion or giving recognition through "employee of the month" which will make them
more engaged with work. Engagement in work can be seen through the increase in their
vigor - energy -, dedication - sense of involvement-, and absorption - full concentration and
enjoyable engrossment. Employers can also make the workplace an environment for
encouragements and fun - once in awhile - to lighten up their mood and motivate them.
Lastly, know yourself, find a job that interests you while also having your skills in line with
the job and what you have learned to become competent.
Recommendations
Although this study were able to find significant results and proved the hypothesis
was right. The researchers, still admit that there are some factors that still needs to be
improved for the next studies about the Psychological Meaningfulness and Work
Engagement of FIlipino Millennials. Here are the recommendations that the researchers
prepared for the future researchers of this topic.
Methodological Considerations
A more established scale. Studies have shown that psychological meaningfulness
predicts work engagement despite the methodological limitations of the study. Hence,
researchers recommend to look for more established psychological meaningfulness scale
since the psychological subscale taken from the Psychological Climate Scale by Brown
leigh (2004) had no specific instructions as to how the scoring should be.
Standardizing the tests. to control the extraneous variables such as using solely pen
and paper or solely online instead of dual format of data gathering.
Balanced samples. Lastly, balancing out the sample size of the female and male,
the young and old, and the job categories are needed to further determine which kind of the
jobs does the millennial find meaningful and engaging which is helpful for industries to
further improve job performance and lessen the risk of burnout (Rich, Lepine & Crawford,
2010; Bakker & Oerlemans 2016).
Future Research
Consider other variables. There might be more variables to consider that can
predict work engagement and variables to mediate psychological meaningfulness to work
engagement for Filipino Millennials.

Cohort comparison. In order to identity more millennials characteristics at
workplace, the researchers think that including other cohort (EG. Generation X, Baby
boomers, etc.) to the study population will be helpful in identifying distinct traits of
millennials.
Local studies. The researchers recommend further research or studies on work
engagement and psychological meaningfulness and millennials in the Filipino context
because this study was based in foregone studies due to the lack of local studies in the said
variables.
Qualitative study. Since this study was purely quantitative, the researchers think it
would be best to also do a qualitative study, to know what is Psychological Meaningfulness
and Work Engagement for Filipino Millennials and also to establish more the real
relationship between Psychological Meaningfulness and Work Engagement for Filipino
Millennials. This is also to test the findings of this research if Psychological
Meaningfulness is indeed a predictor of Work Engagement.
Practical Uses
Career counselling. This study can be a help for guidance counsellor to include
Psychological Meaningfulness to their talks and sessions, to advice to their clients and to
encourage them to find a Work where they think they can contribute, recognized, and
challenge. This can help the future Millennials workers to decide on what path or work
they should take wherein they will experience a sense of meaning and purpose.
Human resource practitioners. This study will benefit a lot in understanding how it
is to deal with millennials in the workplace specifically knowing what makes them engaged
and find meaning in what they are doing which can be done through a qualitative research.
This can also help them to develop a program in their organization wherein they can help
their employees gain more meaning at work and be more engaged at work.
Developmental psychologists. They can further research about the millennials to
know more about the different characteristics evident between young millennials and old
millennials since there are not enough studies about the distinction between characteristics
of these two age groups.

References
Akhtar R., Boustani L., Tsuvivrikos D., Chamorro-Pzeumic T., (2014) The
Engageable personality; Personality and trait EI as predictors of work engagement.
Retrieved from: from: http://doi.org/10/10.1017/j.paid.2014.08.40
Adkins, A. (2016). U.S. Employee Engagement Reaches New High in March. Gallup
Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/poll/190622/employee-engagement
-reaches-new-high-march.aspx%20pic%20in%20fb
Attridge, M. (2009). Measuring and Managing Employee Work Engagement: A Review of
the Research and Business Literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health,
24(4), 383-398. doi:10.1080/15555240903188398
Adkins, A. (2016). U.S. Employee Engagement Reaches New High in March. Gallup.
Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/poll/190622/employee-engagement
-reaches-new-high-march.aspx%20pic%20in%20fb
Attridge, M. (2009). Measuring and Managing Employee Work Engagement: A Review of
the Research and Business Literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health,
24(4), 383-398. doi:10.1080/15555240903188398
Austin, S. F., Crocker, M., & Meier, J. (2010). Generation Y in the Workforce: Managerial
Challenges. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning,6(1).
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement:
emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3),
187-200.
Bakker, A., & Schaufeli, W., (2004, December). UWES: Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
(Preliminary Manual) [PDF].
Bakker, A., Demerouti, E.(2007). The job demands-resource model; Sate of the art.
Journal of managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-238.
Bakker, A. B. (2011). An Evidence-Based Model of Work Engagement.

Institute of Psychology, Department of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Woudestein, P. 12-47.
BridgeWorks. (2017). Millennial 101. Retrieved from
http://www.generations.com/2017/01/27/millennial-101/
Bursch, D., & Kelly, K. (2014). Managing the multigenerational workplace. University of
North Carolina Executive Department.
Bano, S., Vyas, K., & Gupta, R. (2015). Perceived organisational support and work
engagement: A cross generational study. Journal of Psychosocial Research, 10(2),
357-364.
Cecilia, E. O. (2016, June 04). Getting the best out of the Millennials. Retrieved July 14,
from: http://business.inquirer.net/210831/getting-the-best-out-of-the-millennials
De Neve, J. E., & Ward, G. W. (2017). Happiness at work. Said Business School.
Debevec, K., Schewe, C. D., Madden, T. J., & Diamond, W. D. (2013). Are todays
Millennials splintering into a new generational cohort? Maybe! Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 12(1), 20-31. doi:10.1002/cb.1400
De la Cruz, G. (2016). What you need to know about millennials in the PH workforce.
Rappler. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/147883-
what-you-need-know-about-filipino-millennials-workforce
Dubé, D. (2017). Millennials in the workplace: Why they’re not entirely to blame for
everything. Global News. Retrieved from
https://globalnews.ca/news/3349180/millennials-in-the-workplace-
why-theyre-not-entirely-to-blame-for-everything/
Dimayuga, P. J. (2016). Filipino Millennial Employee Decoded [Infographic]. Retrieved
from https://manilarecruitment.com/manila-recruitment-articles-advice/filipino-
millennial-employees-decoded-infographic/
Dumlao-Abadilla, D. (2016, January 29). 40% of Pinoy millennials may quit jobs in 2
years. Retrieved July 14, 2017, from http://business.inquirer.net/206328/40-of-pinoy-
millennials-may-quit-jobs-in-2-years#ixzz4AcFTQmzH
Ernst and Young. (2015). Global Generations: A Global Study on Work-Life Challenges
Across Generations. Retrieved from http://www.ey.com/us/en/about-us/our-people-
and-culture/ey-work-life-challenges-across-generations-global-study
Freelancing. (2016). [Infographics] 2016 Annual Freelancer Report. Retrieved from
http://www.freelancing.ph/infographics-2016-freelancer-annual-report/
Fromm, J. (2016, March 15). Millennials In The Workplace: They Don't Need Trophies
But They Want Reinforcement. Retrieved July 14, 2017, from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefffromm/2015/11/06/millennials-in-the-workplace-
they-dont-need-trophies-but-they-want-reinforcement/#fef4d3753f69
Guzman, A. B., Largo, E., Mandap, L., & Muñoz, V. M. (2014). The Mediating Effect of
Happiness on the Job Satisfaction of Aging Filipino Workers: A Structural Equation
Model (SEM). Educational Gerontology,40(10), 767-782.

doi:10.1080/03601277.2014.882108.
Gutib, J., San Juan, E., Soriaga, J., Vergara L. (2016) Work Engagement and Psychological
Flexibility as Predictors of Filipino Mental Health Professionals’ Compassion
Fatigue, Compassion Satisfaction, and Burnout. Retrieved from: DLSU Libraries
Thesis Col. UG, 12F, 9-22.
Huyler, D., Pierre, Y., Ding, W., & Norelus, A. (n.d.). Millennials in the Workplace:
Positioning Companies for Future Success
Halbesleben , J., Harvey J., Bolino, M., (2009) Too engaged? A conversion of sources view
of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1452-1465.
Hammer.E.E (2015). Shifts in Calling: An Emphasis on Calling for Millennials. American
Journal of Management, 15 (4), 22-25. Retrieved from
http://m.www.na-businesspress.com/AJM/HammerEE_Web15_4_.pdf
Howe, Neil; Strauss, William (1991). Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584
2069. New York: William Morrow & Company. ISBN 978-0-688-11912-6.
Ilagan, J., Hechanova, M., Co, T., Pleyto., V. (2014) ―Bakit Ka Kumakayod?‖ Developing
a Filipino Needs Theory of Motivationl. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 2014
(1), 117-143.
Jacobs, H. (2013). An Examination of Psychological Meaningfulness, Safety, and
Availability as the Underlying Mechanisms linking Job Features and Personal
Characteristics to Work Engagement. FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Retrieved July, 2017.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement And
Disengagement At Work. Academy of Management Journal,33(4), 692-724.
doi:10.2307/256287
Kaifi, B. A., Nafei, W. A., Khanfar, N. M., & Kaifi, M. M. (2010). A Multi-Generational
Workforce: Managing and Understanding Millennials. International Journal of
Business and Management,7(24). doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v7n24p88
Laureta, I. (2016). Where are millennials at?!. Manila Bulletin. Retrieved from
http://newsbits.mb.com.ph/2016/12/04/where-the-millennials-at/
Mäkikangas, A., Schaufeli, W., Tolvanen, A., & Feldt, T. (2013). Engaged managers are
not workaholics: Evidence from a longitudinal person centered analysis. Revista De
Psicología Del Trabajo y De Las Organizaciones, 29(3), 135.
Hammer.E.E (2015). Shifts in Calling: An Emphasis on Calling for Millennials. American
Journal of Management, 15 (4), 22-25. Retrieved from
http://m.www.na-businesspress.com/AJM/HammerEE_Web15_4_.pdf
Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W., Taris, T. W., Hessen, D. J., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M., & Shimazu,
A. (2014). " East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet" Work
engagement and workaholism across Eastern and Western cultures. Procedia: Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 6-24.
Management Strategies. (2017). The Future Is Now: Trends In Human Resources.
Retrieved from http://www.mgtstrat-asia.com/blog/the-future-is-now-trends-in-
human-resources/
Mamuyac, R. H. (2016, April 17). What do Millennials look for in a job? Retrieved July
14, 2017, fromhttp:// business.inquirer.net/209541/
what-do-millennials-look-for-in-a-job#ixzz4AcFvd3mH
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at
work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,77(1), 11-37.
doi:10.1348/096317904322915892
Moore, K. (2014, October 03). Millennials Work For Purpose, Not Paycheck. Retrieved
July 14, 2017, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/karlmoore/2014/10/02
/millennials-work-for-purpose-not-paycheck/#37229f126a51
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ):
developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and
the nature of work. Journal of applied psychology, 91(6), 1321.
Ng, E.S.W., Schweitzer, L. & Lyons, S.T. (2010). New Generation, Great Expectations: A
Field Study of the Millennial Generation. Journal of Business and
Psychology,25(2), 281. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4
Ozcelik, G. (2015). Engagement and Retention of the Millennial Generation in the
Workplace through Internal Branding. International Journal of Business and
Management,10(3). doi:10.5539/ijbm.v10n3p99.
Park, J., & Gursoy, D. (2011). Generation effect on the relationship between work
engagement, satisfaction, and turnover intention among US hotel employees.
Washington State University.
Pew Research Center. (2015). Most Millennials Resist the 'Millennial' Label. Retrieved
from http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/03/most-millennials-resist-the-
millennial-label/
Rothmann, S., & Hamukang'andu, L. (2013). Callings, work role fit, psychological
meaningfulness and work engagement among teachers in Zambia. South African
Journal of Education, 33(2), 1-16.
Sahadi, J. (2015). Where do millennials want to work? Not at corporations. CNN.
Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/12/pf/millennials-
work/index.html?iid=HP_River
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of

managerial psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A. (2004) Jobs demands, Job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Retrieved from: Journal
of Organizational Behavior 25, 293-315 (2004).
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). UWES–Utrecht work engagement scale: test
manual.Unpublished Manuscript: Department of Psychology, Utrecht University.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement:
Bringing clarity to the concept. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory
and research, 10-24.
Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., Gonzales Roma, V., Bakker A., (2002) The Measurement
of Engamanet and Burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach.
Retrieved from: Journal of Happiness 3: Pp. 71-92, 2002.
Singal, J. (2017). Are you an Old Millennial or a Young Millennial?. CNN. Retrieved from
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/01/health/young-old-millennial-partner/index.html
Sonnentag S. (2003) Recovery, Work Engagement, and Proactive Behavior: A New
look Between Nonwork and Work. Retrieved from: First publ. in: Journal of
Applied Psychology 88 (2003), 3, pp. 518-528
Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and
meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322-337.
Tolbize, A. (2008). Generational differences in the workplace. Retrieved from

http://rtc.umn.edu/docs/2_18_Gen_diff_workplace.pdf
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, S. M. (2008). Generational differences in psychological traits
and their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology,23(8), 862-
877. doi:10.1108/02683940810904367
Van Zyl, L. E., Deacon, E., & Rothmann, S. (2010). Towards happiness: Experiences of
work-role fit, meaningfulness and work engagement of industrial/organisational
psychologists in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(1), 1-10.

Veal, AJ (2004) Definitions of Leisure and Recreation. Retrieved from; Australian
Journal of Leisure and Recreation, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1992, pp. 44-48, 52.
World Health Organization (1995). Global strategy on occupational health for all: the way
to health at work. Report prepared for the Second Meeting of the WHO
Collaborating Centres in Occupational Health held October 11-14, 2014 in Beijing,
China.
APPENDIX A
INVITATION. INFORMED CONSENT, AND DEMOGRAPHICS
A. INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE:
Dear Ma’am/Sir,
Hello we are AB Psychology students of De La Salle University and currently doing our
thesis. This research study is about the Psychological Meaningfulness and Work
Engagement among Filipino Millennials.
To be able to answer this survey you should be a Filipino Millennial who is currently
working in the Philippines. This form would at least take 6 minutes of your time, and
should you choose to participate in this study, please read the following terms and
conditions for your guidance.
Your rights as a participant:
1. All of your responses will be saved in an excel sheet that can only be accessed by the
researchers and their mentor. Your responses will not be published or used in any public
research accounts or studies. All the data and information provided here are will be kept
confidential.
2.   The researchers and their mentor have no intentions of tracing your identity to further
emphasize and establish the nature of anonymity.
3.   If you feel any kind of discomfort and do not want to proceed with the study, you are
free to stop and leave if you wish to during the testing and the researchers cannot stop you
from doing so.
4.    If you wish to see the results of this study, you are entitled to have a feedback from the
researchers, you can contact the researchers through email or sms. Should you have
concerns or questions, feel free to contact us through any of contact details provided below.
Sincerely,
__________________________ ______________________
Stephanie Estelle Bernardo Kathrine Angela Lim
09164518833 09167870495
Stephanie.e.bernardo@gmail.com Kathrine_lim@dlsu.edu.ph
______________________ ______________________
Mark Kristian Blando Lizette Lim
09260527782 09778568154
Mark_kristian_blando@dlsu.edu.ph Lizette_lim@dlsu.edu.ph
B. CONSENT FORM
I have read the foregoing information of the invitation and have had the opportunity
to ask questions about the study, which were answered by the researchers to my
satisfaction.
I volunteer to participate in this research knowing also that I can withdraw at any
time without providing a reason nor will I be questioned for my withdrawal.
My name and any other information that could be used to identify me will remain
anonymous. The researchers will keep all data confidential for your protection, and only
the researchers will have access to your personal information.
Procedures on confidentiality have been clearly explained to me, and I understand
that this is for academic purposes only. My responses are not to be published or used in any
reports, publications and other research outputs.
____________________________________
Signature of Participant/Date
C. DEMOGRAPHICS
Gender:
( ) Male
( ) Female
( ) Others; ________
Birth date: ________
Position: ______________________________________________
Contact #: ____________
Email: ____________________
APPENDIX B
STUDY SCALES
A. Psychological Meaningfulness subscale taken from Psychological Climate Scale
Please read each item carefully and consider how well it describes your current
organizational environment. Kindly select the number corresponding to how you strongly
feel, with 1 as ―Strongly Disagree‖ to 7 as ―Strongly Agree‖.
NEITHER
STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE AGREE STRONGLY
RECOGNITION DISAGREE
DISAGREE
SOMEWHAT NOR
AGREE
SOMEWHAT AGREE
DISAGREE
1. I rarely feel my
work is taken for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
granted.
2. My superiors
generally
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
appreciate the way
I do my job.
3. The
organization
recognizes the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
significance of the
contributions I
make.
NEITHER
STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE AGREE STRONGLY
CHALLENGE DISAGREE
DISAGREE
SOMEWHAT NOR
AGREE
SOMEWHAT AGREE
DISAGREE
1.My job is very

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
challenging.
2. It takes all my
resources to
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
achieve my work
objectives.
NEITHER
STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE SOMEWHAT STRONGLY
CONTRIBUTION DISAGREE
DISAGREE
SOMEWHAT NOR AGREE
AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
1. I feel very
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
useful in my job.
2. Doing my job
well really makes a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
difference.
3. I feel like a key
member of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
organization.
4. The work I do is
very valuable to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
the organization.
B . Utretch Work Engagement Scale
The following 17 statements are about how you feel at work. Please read each statement
carefully and decide if you ever feel this way about your job. Kindly encircle the number
corresponding to how often you felt this way, with 0 as ―Never‖ and 6 as ―Always‖.
Almost Some Very
Never Rarely Often Always
Never times Often
1. At my work, I feel bursting with

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
energy* (VI1)
2.I find the work that I do full of
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
meaning and purpose (DE1)
3. Time flies when I'm working
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(AB1)
4. At my job, I feel strong and
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
vigorous (VI2)*
5. I am enthusiastic about my job
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(DE2)*
6. When I am working, I forget
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
everything else around me (AB2)
7. My job inspires me (DE3)* 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
8. When I get up in the morning, I

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
feel like going to work (VI3)*
9. I feel happy when I am working
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
intensely (AB3)*
10. I am proud on the work that I

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
do (DE4)*
11. I am immersed in my work
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(AB4)*
12. I can continue working for very
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
long periods at a time (VI4)
13. To me, my job is challenging
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(DE5)
14. I get carried away when I’m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
working (AB5)*
15. At my job, I am very resilient,
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
mentally (VI5)
16. It is difficult to detach myself
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
from my job (AB6)
17. At my work I always
persevere, even when things do 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
not go well (VI6)
Appendix C
Other Findings
Psychological Meaningfulness Indicators and Work Engagement Indicators. A
further look at the relationships of PM and WE’s indicators was warranted due to the
significant correlations betweeen their indicators which can be seen in Table 4. The
correlations between WE's indicators are understandably high, while for PM's indicators,
Challenge (Ch) and Recognition (R) seem to have the lowest across all indicator
relationships. The strongest correlations between PM and WE indicators were of
Contribution (Co) and Vigor (V; r = 0.652), Dedication (D; r = 0.644), and Absorption (A;
r = 0.539)
Table 4
Correlation between Indicators of Psychological Meaningfulness and Indicators of Work
Engagement
V D A R Ch Co
Vigor (V) -
Dedication (D) .831** -
Absorption (A) .764** .758** -
Recognition (R) .486** .444** .438** -
Challenge (Ch) .362** .507** .391** .180** -
Contribution (Co) .652** .644** .539** .508** .350** -
Note: ** correlation is significant at p<.05 (one-tailed)

Subsequent multiple regression analyses were conducted in order to understand the
strength and direction of these relationships.; In Table 5, one can see that all indicators of
PM predict the indicators of WE at varying levels. Co is again the highest predictor of V
(B= .492, df= 461, t= 11.964, sig.= 0.0001), D (B= .452, t= 11.492, df= 461, sig= .0001),
and A (B= .346, t= 7.673, df= 461, sig= .0001). D also appears to be the one most strongly
predicted by Co, Ch (B= .321, t= 9.324, df= 461, sig= .0001), and R (B= .157, t= 4.185,
df= 461, sig= .0001).
Table 5.
Multiple Regressional Analyses on Indicators of Psychological Meaningfulness for
Indicators of Work Engagement
Beta t Sig. Df p Rsquared
Vigor 461 0.513 0.478
Recognition 0.209 5.329 0.0001***
Challenge 0.152 4.22 0.0001***
Contribution 0.492 11.964 0.0001***
Dedication 461 0.097 0.523
Recognition 0.157 4.185 0.0001***
Challenge 0.321 9.324 0.0001***
Contribution 0.452 11.49 0.0001***

Absorption 461 0.263 0.373
Recognition 0.221 5.141 0.001**
Challenge 0.23 5.819 0.001**
Contribution 0.346 7.673 0.001**
Note: **sig. at p < 0.01, ***sig. at p <0.001
Aside from the results answering the aforementioned research questions, initial analyses of
the data also showed that there may be differences in the PM and WE of Filipino
millennials in terms of age group as well as job categories. These are discussed as follows.
Older Millennials and Younger Millennials. The relationship of PM and WE
were also considered in terms of the older millennials (OM; aged 28 to 36 years old) and
younger millennials (YM; aged 20 to 27 years old); one-way ANOVA was then conducted
to see if the means were significantly different. Table 6 shows that OM appear to have
significantly higher means compared to YM across PM (p = 0.001), WE (p = 0.001), and
all of their respective indicators as they are significant at p > 0.01. However, R ( p = 0.019)
and Ch (p = 0.034) were significant only at p > 0.05.

Table 6.
Mean, SD, and P-Values of Psychological Meaningfulness and Work Engagement For
Older and Younger Millennials
Variables Mean Standard Deviation Sig.
Older Younger Older Younger
Psychological
5.681 5.263 0.751 0.880 0.001**
Meaningfulness
Recognition 5.035 4.751 1.002 1.104 0.019*
Challenge 5.683 5.383 1.209 1.281 0.034*
Contribution 6.163 5.586 0.903 1.106 0.001**
4.564 4.147 0.877 0.974 0.001**

Work Engagement
Vigor 4.514 4.068 1.018 1.022 0.001**
Dedication 4.887 4.429 0.858 1.147 0.001**
Absorption 4.345 3.992 0.977 1.004 0.002**
Note: *sig. at p<0.05, **sig. at p<0.01; Old Millennials, N = 104; Young Millennials, N =
358
PM and WE for Older Millennials. A linear regression analysis was again
conducted to understand how much PM predicts WE for OM. Results show that this
relationship is still consistent in OM (p = 0.001 > 0.01, df = 103, t-stat = 9.25) although the
model explains 45.6% of the variance in WE (R2 = 0.456), as opposed to the overall
relationship of PM at WE explaining 51.8% of the variance.
PM and WE for Younger Millennials. Another linear regression analysis was
conducted for the YM, revealing a similar result (p = 0.001 < 0.01, df = 357, t-stat =
19.311), although this time the model explained 51.4% of the variances (R2 = 0.514). It
seems that the relationship between PM and WE may be stronger in YM than in OM.
Job Categories. Table 7 below summarizes the descriptive statistics of PM and WE
and their indicators across job categories; at a glance, the manager has the highest mean
scores for PM and its indicators, across all other job categories. Similarly, its scores for WE
and its indicators are amongst the highest, but the differences in the means are not as high.
Table 7.
Descriptive Statistics of Psychological Meaningfulness and Work Engagement across Jobs
Job Categories PM WE
R Ch Co Total V D A Total
Clerical Workers Mean 4.746 5.354 5.688 5.300 4.162 4.504 4.093 4.238
(N = 113) SD 1.096 1.307 1.028 0.814 0.919 1.090 0.967 0.900
Managers Mean 5.165 5.759 6.238 5.774 4.500 4.856 4.286 4.529
(N = 85) SD 0.970 1.216 0.822 0.737 0.986 0.980 0.899 0.868
Professionals Mean 4.813 5.327 5.682 5.313 4.093 4.483 3.988 4.171
(N = 84) SD 1.037 1.350 0.919 0.772 1.019 1.065 0.963 0.934
Self-Employed Mean 3.833 5.250 5.625 4.944 4.167 4.400 4.000 4.176
(N = 2) SD 1.179 0.354 1.237 0.864 1.414 1.414 0.943 1.248
Services and Sales

Mean 4.752 4.910 5.378 5.066 4.235 4.585 3.936 4.232
Workers
(N = 39) SD 0.874 1.404 1.333 0.891 1.036 1.116 1.174 1.017
Technicians and
Mean 4.698 5.572 5.540 5.267 3.990 4.365 4.002 4.105
Associate Professionals
(N = 138) SD 1.195 1.138 1.212 0.966 1.129 1.181 1.075 1.060
Total Mean 4.818 5.451 5.717 5.358 4.167 4.530 4.069 4.239
(N = 461) SD 1.087 1.271 1.091 0.870 1.037 1.105 1.008 0.968

An overall significant difference was found in Psychological Meaningfulness across
job categories (mean = 5.38, F = 4.950, p = 0.0001), thus a Tukey HSD post-hoc analysis
was conducted (see Table 8). The only job category that was significantly higher in
Psychological Meaningfulness was of managers (mean = 5.774), in comparison to
professionals (mean = 5.313), clerical workers (mean = 5.300), technicians and associate
professionals (mean = 5.267), and services and sales workers (mean = 5.066). For WE
however, there was no significant difference seen for the different job categories (df = 461,
mean = 4.167, F-stat =3.343, p = 0.06 > 0.05).
Table 8.
Tukey HSD Post-Hoc Analysis of Psychological Meaningfulness across Job Categories
Variables Mean N m p c ta ss se
Manager (m) 5.774 85 - - - - - -

- -
Professional (p) 5.313 39 0.006** - - -
- -
Clerical (c) 5.300 83 0.002** 1.000 - -
Tech and Associate

(ta) 5.267 113 0.001** 0.999 1.000 - - -
Services and Sales

(ss) 5.066 138 0.001** 0.660 0.672 0782 - -
Self-Employed (se) 4.994 2 0.748 0.748 0.992 0.999 1.00 -

Note: ** sig. at p < 0.01
PM & WE for Managers. Given that managers were the only job category that had
any significant difference from the others, a linear regressiona analysis was conducted to
determine the strength of PM and WE’s relationship for Managers. Findings were
consistent with other results; PM significantly predicted WE for millennial managers (sig.
0.001 < 0.01, df = 83, t-stat = 10.310), and 56.5% of variances were explained by this
model (R2 = 0.565).
View publication stats

THESIS Psychological Meaningfulness and Work Engag PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

THESIS Psychological Meaningfulness and Work Engag PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

THESIS Psychological Meaningfulness and Work Engagement of Filipino

Thesis · December 2017

Mark Kristian Viernes Blando

Psychological Meaningfulness and Work Engagement of Filipino Millennials View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychological Meaningfulness and Work Engagement for Filipino Millennials

Blando, Mark Kristian V.

December 13, 2017

The researchers would like to express their deepest gratitude to De La Salle

This study investigates on the experience of psychological

Keywords: millennials-psychological meaningfulness-work

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 40

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Work Engagement 28

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework 16

and professional self-improvement, or ways to contribute meaningfully to society.

For millennials, self-improvement is vastly important – opportunity for progression

with occupational advancement. A survey was conducted by Philippine Daily Inquirer on

consistent switching is powered by the absence of self-improvement fueled by training and

and the relationship between psychological meaningfulness and work engagement.

Review of Related Literature

Millennials. The generation known as Millennials are comprised of those born in

impact through their respective jobs.

Older and Younger Millennials. In order to understand their characteristics, the

others, placing less importance on material possessions (BridgeWorks, 2017; Hammer,

2015; Mang & Piper, 2012; Singal, 2017).

Characteristics. Although older and younger millennials may have some

In addition, millennials have high expectations when it comes to promotion or pay

meaningfulness (Ng, Schweitzer & Lyons, 2010).

Psychological meaningfulness. Meaningfulness manifests in the meaning of work

fulfillment in doing work-related activities, rather than receiving monetary or material

Psychological meaningfulness is one's value of a work goal or purpose. It refers to

Personal Engagement refers to "the simultaneous employment and expression of a person's

feelings in performing their roles (Kahn, 1990).

Indicators of psychological meaningfulness. According to Kahn (1990), the

presence of recognition from the organization, perceived meaningfulness of one’s

thereby resulting to perceived meaningfulness (Brown & Leigh, 1996). It is when an

involved in their work.

Perceived meaningfulness of contribution is one’s perception of how their work has

the organization’s progress or development that they experience perceived meaningfulness.

Work engagement. As defined by Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker (2002),

work engagement is a ―positive, fulfilling, affective-motivational state of work-related

well-being‖ comprised of three components: vigor, dedication, and absorption. This is

similar to Kahn’s (1990) original conceptualization of personal engagement - people who

Bakker, 2010 Bakker et. al, 208; Mäkikangas et al, 2013).

Indicators of work engagement. The experience of vigor, absorption, and

Vigor is the behavioral-energetic component of work engagement, entails positive,

exhaustion, a dimension of burnout. Unlike an engaged individual who exhibits high

Dedication is the emotional component, involves a strong sense of involvement

Absorption is the cognitive component, is the person’s experience of full

because they are actually interested in their work.

Previous study of effects of work engagement in burnout (Gutib et al., 2016;

risk of getting burnout is lessened.

more likely to have a positive affect compared to disengaged employees.

and Crawford, 2010; Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Kahn, 1990).

Relationship between psychological meaningfulness and work engagement.

identified psychological meaningfulness as a potential antecedent of engagement. Several

purpose. In the world of work, meaningfulness is influenced tasks that is challenging; a

meaningfulness and meaningfulness leads to engagement at work (Saks 2006). When

engaged with their work to further improve their job performance.

three indicators of Work Engagement (Salanova et al 2002).

Although, there are several studies about millennials at workplace, psychological

about the psychological meaningfulness and work engagement of millennials most