Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal

Vol. 10, No. 3 (2018, Special Issue)

The Influence of Leadership Style, Personality

Attributes and Employee Communication on
Employee Engagement
Zuliawati Mohamed Saad *
College of Business Management and Accounting, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Malaysia
Email: Zuliawati@uniten.edu.my

Suhaimi Sudin
College of Business Management and Accounting, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Malaysia

Norlina Shamsuddin
Grid Management Department, Tenaga Nasional Berhad, Malaysia

* Corresponding Author

Abstract
Purpose: This study is to further explore the relationship between leadership styles, personality
attributes and employee communication towards employee engagement. Furthermore, it aim to
identify the relationship of employee’s position/role in the company as well as tenure/length of
services towards employee engagement.
Design/methodology/approach: In this cross-sectional correlational field study, data gathered
from 111 executives of a public utility company in Malaysia through an online survey, consists
of 72 items and comprised of five sections. Data analysis was conducted in two stages. Firstly,
checking for data entry includes validity and reliability of variables, identification outliners and
normality of the data. Secondly, testing of hypotheses using correlations analysis, step-wise
linear regression analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Findings: This study found that all the variables; leadership styles, personality attributes,
communication, are significantly and positively correlated to employee engagement. It also
found that leadership styles affect employee engagement the least among the three independent
variables. Employee engagement is found highest among the top management and highest
among the employees who stay longer with the organization.
Research limitations/implications: This research used cross sectional data whereby the data
were only taken once during the research. It is suggested that a longitudinal research is
undertaken in the future for the purpose of generalization and concrete results. Moreover the
findings offer evidence for further research to explore similar relationship in different research
setting.
Practical implications: This study will be beneficial in identifying factors influencing employee
engagement, hence identifying suitable HRM program in sustaining the highly engaged
employees, providing insight on what makes employee both physically and psychologically
happy at work and able to contribute to the achievement of increased productivity and
profitability of the company. Moreover, the results may provide inputs to organizations in
determining the personality attributes in shaping the right kind workforce to create a strong
adaptive culture. It also indicate which aspects of the employee communication satisfaction place

743
 Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 3 (2018, Special Issue)

greater important than the rest of the communication dimensions. Further, this may provide
guidance to the Management on monitoring and improving the organization’s communication
policies, channels and continuous employee feedbacks.
Originality/value: The research emphasizes the growing importance and need for representation
of the concept of employee engagement. The research is unique in respect to the comprehensive
model that is developed and validated.

Keywords: Employee Engagement, Leadership Style, Personality Attributes, Employee

Communication

Introduction
In the era of globalization, disruptive technologies and emergence of fourth industrial revolution,
many companies are undergoing organization transformation to sustain and remain competitive
in the market. In the process, highly engaged employee could be the most valuable asset for
organization to manage change more effectively. Effective employee engagement is seen as a
tool for organization to gain competitive edge over rival companies (Anita, 2014) and
organization going through changes should therefore involve their workforce as much as
possible. Gallup Management study (2012) found that engaged employee are deeply committed
to their employer, leading to key improvement in business outcomes, including reduction in
absenteeism, turnover, shrinkage, safety incidents and product defects. Previous studies proven
that various factors can contribute to the increased level of employee engagement in organization
and this supported with the findings of Robinson et al. (2004) that the key behaviors which are
found to be associated with employee engagement include effective leadership, two way
communication, high level of internal cooperation, a focus employee development, a
commitment to employee wellbeing and clear, accessible human resource policies and practices
to which managers at all level were committed. Thus, together with the strong leadership and
high committed employees can the led organization fulfills their visions and achieve greater
financial success. Due to limited studies on the variables affecting employee engagement in
energy sector especially at local front, there are needs to clearly understand these variables and
how they influence employee engagement especially in the utility industry.

Literature Review
Employee Engagement
Earlier study by Kahn (1990) defined engagement in term of a psychological state as ‘the
harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ
and express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during role performances. Others
have defined employee engagement as emotional and intellectual commitment to the
organization (Baumruk 2004; Richman 2006 ; Shaw 2005), the amount of discretionary effort
exhibited by employee in their job (Frank et al., 2004) or simply passion for work which
encompassed the three dimensions of engagement discussed by Kahn (Truss et al., 2006).
However, Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker’s (2002) definition of a positive,
fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption has
become the commonly used one.

744
 Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 3 (2018, Special Issue)

Leadership Styles
In earlier study, leadership can be defined as the particular act in which a leader engages during
the course of directing and coordinating the work of his group members (Fiedler, 1967). Several
studies have examined the relationship between leadership and engagement but only a few have
attempted to study the linkage between multidimensional construct of transformational and
transactional leadership and employee engagement. Thus, Iqbal et al. (2012) in their studies
found that transformational and transactional leadership were widely studied in order to identify
the best possible way for leaders to interact with their followers. According to Burn (1978),
transactional leaders motivate their followers by exchanging rewards for the services rendered.
While transactional leader inspires followers to deliver as expected, transformational leader
motivates and inspires followers to do more than originally expected. Avolio et al. (1999)
similarly defined transformational leaders as having charisma and influence to motivate
followers to go beyond expectation at work. Zhu et al. (2009) found a significant positive and
direct relationship between transformational leadership and engagement. Breevart et al. (2014) in
their investigation found that leaders who display more transformational behaviour are more
effective than transactional leaders which will enhance employee’s willingness to engage.

Personality Attributes
Engagement levels have also been linked to individual attitudes and traits (trait engagement).
Over the years, several personality traits have been studied to discover which types of people are
more likely to be highly engage at workplace. Initially the relationship between engagement and
personality might seems dubious given that engagement is define as `state’ (Wefald et al., 2011).
According to Macey and Schneider (2008) employees with proactive personality, autotelic
personality, positive affect personality and conscientiousness are more likely to be highly
engaged by tending to experience work positively, actively and adaptively. According to Big
Five personality trait model or also known as NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), normal
personality can be characterized in terms of the following five broad factors; Extraversion,
Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness to experience. However based on
the comprehensive study by Kim et al. (2009) on Big Five personality traits found that only
conscientiousness was significantly related to engagement, whereas neuroticism and extraversion
were not. More research are being done to study personality traits and its influence on employee
engagement. Makikangas et al. (2013) in their study found that conscientious and extraversion
personality were both associated with high levels of engagement. Further research by Handa and
Gulati (2014) amongst frontline personnel in retail industry in India also indicated that there is a
positive relationship between conscientious and extraversion personality and engagement. For
the purpose of this research, two traits of Big Five personality are being examined based on the
past studies which are conscientious and extraversion. Conscientiousness can be characterized by
individuals who are hardworking, ambitious, confident and resourceful. Extraversion is
characterized by dominance, self-confidence, activism and adventure seeking, exhibition of
positive emotion, high tendency and intensity of inter-personal interactions and a high need for
stimuli. Extravert tends to be optimistic and can re-evaluate problems positively (Costa and
McCrea, 1992) because they focus on the positive aspect of their experiences. Those individuals
high in the personality of Extraversion will report higher levels of vigor and absorption in work.
In addition to five factor personality dimensions, the third trait to be assessed in this study is
positive affect. Although positive affect is not a facet of big five personality dimensions, it is
considered a trait (Macey and Schneider, 2008) and part of person’s personality.

745
 Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 3 (2018, Special Issue)

Employee Communication
According to Saks (2006), employee engagement which internal communication promotes is
“the degree to which an individual is attentive and absorbed in the performance and their roles
(job engagement)”. According to Tkalac et al. (2012), internal communication which often
perceived as a synonym for intra-organizational communication, is quite often equated with
employee communication. In this study, internal communication is used interchangeably with
employee communication. Many scholars have highlighted the positive influence of internal
communication on employee engagement (Choong, 2007; Welch and Jackson 2007) and the
basis of successfully engaging employees in an organization (Gill, 2011). When employees feel
their contribution matters to the organization, they will express their satisfaction in term of
increase in productivity and profitability (Gallup, 2012) and provide excellence services to
customers as well as stakeholders.

Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development

The main purpose of this study is to examine a research framework that can enhance the
understanding of the variables on employee engagement based on Kahn (1990), Sak (2006) and
Social Exchange Theory of the theoretical underpinning. A theoretical framework has been
established and is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework

Leadership
Styles

Personality Employee
Attributes Engagement

Employee
Communication

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework

Based on the theoretical framework and the research questions, the hypotheses developed for this
study are;
H1: There is a significance relationship between leadership styles and employee engagement.
H2: There is a significance relationship between personality attributes and employee
engagement.
H3: There is a significance relationship between employee communication and employee
engagement.
H4: Leadership styles, personality attributes and employee communication are significantly
predict the overall employee engagement.
H5: There is a significance difference among position/role in the company and employee
engagement.
H6: There is a significance difference among tenure/length of service (and employee
engagement.

746
 Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 3 (2018, Special Issue)

Method
This study employed a cross-sectional quantitative methodology. To test the proposed research
framework and hypotheses, data was collected using an online survey with non-probability
sampling method. A single large organization with more than 30,000 employees was chosen.
Based on the company’s Integrated Annual Report 2017, the number of executives was 5,653
(including senior and top management). However for the purpose of this study, the focus is on
the executives at the Corporate level mainly departments from Non-Core Businesses. The
purpose is to gauge employee engagement level from executives’ perspectives in view of the
changes of business landscape in the energy industry and continuous transformation initiatives
introduced in the organization. The target group consist of executives and mostly are located in
Klang Valley are considered in close proximity of the company headquarters and this group
would have immediate access to information on organizations transformation initiatives and
enjoy the first hand news and latest updates of changes in policy and issues related to energy
industry. The questionnaire consists of 72 items and comprised of five sections; Section A -
Leadership Styles; Section B - Personality Attributes; Section C - Communication; Section D -
Employee Engagement; and Section E - Employee Demography. For measuring leadership
styles, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) developed by Avolio and Bass (1995) is
used to capture responses on both the transactional and transformational styles. Personality
Attributes factor is measured using NEO-Five Factor Inventory (Costa and McCrae, 1992), Big
Five Personality (Conscientious and Extraversion) and Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS) (Watson et al., 1988). Employee communication use Communication Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ) developed by Downs and Hazen (1977). For employee engagement
measurement, UWES-17 by Schaufeli, Bakker, Gonzalez-Roma and Salanova (2002) items form
is used. Data analysis was conducted in two stages. Firstly, checking for data entry includes
validity and reliability of variables, identification outliners and normality of the data. Secondly,
testing of hypotheses using correlations analysis, step-wise linear regression analysis and
analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Findings
This study analysed the reliability of composite variables and the result is presented in Table 1.
Hair et al. (2009) suggested that usual lower limit for Cronbach’s alpha is 0.70 and it may
decrease to 0.60 in the exploratory study, while Malhotra (2010) suggested that Cronbach’s
alpha value of 0.6 or less generally indicates unsatisfactory internal consistency reliability. This
study found that the Cronbach’s alpha of all the variables are 0.80 or above.

Table 1: Number of Items and Cronbach’s Alpha for All Variables

Cronbach’s Std.
Dimensions No of Items Mean
Alpha (α) Deviation
Leadership Styles 9 0.900 32.9459 4.06501
Personality Attributes 15 0.898 56.6126 6.42038
Employee Communication 25 0.920 89.1892 10.53351
Employee Engagement 17 0.915 62.0901 7.96418
To test Hypotheses 1 to 3, a Pearson product-moment correlation was employed to assess the
relationship between independent variables (leadership styles, personality attributes and
employee communication) and employee engagement as depend variable. Table 2 shows the

747
 Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 3 (2018, Special Issue)

details of this analysis. Significant correlations are flagged with asterisks (**). It shows that, all
dependent variables are significantly and positively correlated to the dependent variable at
p=0.01 level. The strength of relationships between independent variables and dependent
variable are 39.4% for leadership styles, 49.8% for personality attributes and 46.1% for
employee communication. Therefore, Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3 are accepted.

Table 2: Correlations Analysis for All Variables

Construct Personality Employee Leadership
Attributes Communication Styles
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Conscientious
.646*
2 Extraversion *

Positive .519* .641*

3 * *
Affect
Communication
4 .134 .149 .108
Climate
Supervisory .590*
5 .175 .104 .151 *
Communication
Horizontal .267* .284* .375* .739* .546*
6 * * * * *
Communication
Org. .437* .394* .466*
7 .068 .012 .103 * * *
Perspective
Personal * .325* .384* .513* .550* .417*
8 .163 .200 * * * * *
Feedback
Subordinate .258* .304* .490* .519* .621* .390* .509*
9 .189* * * * * * * *
Com.
Leadership .301* .298* .427* .272* .537* .380* .318* .414*
10 * * * * * * .114 * *
Styles
Personality .812* .885* .870* .367* .278* .299* .407*
11 * * * .150 .166 * .074 * * *
Attributes
Employee .286* .811* .792* .844* .643* .710* .785* .454* .285*
12 .215* .220* * * * * * * * * *
Communication
Employee .401* .452* .425* .284* .338* .430* .360* .342* .403* .394* .498* .461*
13 * * * * * * * * * * * *
Engagement

To test Hypothesis 4, this study employed a Stepwise linear regression analysis, a method of
regressing multiple variables while simultaneously removing those that are not important. The
results is displayed in Table 3. A stepwise linear regression analysis was conducted to determine
if employee engagement can be predicted from leadership style, personality attributes and
employee communication (independent variables). The Model Summary which gives details of
the overall correlation between the variables left in the models and the dependent variable. R

748
 Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 3 (2018, Special Issue)

Square (the coefficient of determination) tells us the proportion of the variance in the dependent
variable (employee engagement) that can be explained by variation in the independent variables
(leadership style, personality attributes and employee communication). Thus, with model 2
below, some 35.9% of the variation in employee engagement can be explained by differences in
leadership style, personality attributes and employee communication.
A significant regression equation was found for Model 1 (F(1,109) = 35.907, p <.000), with an
R2 of 0.248 and Model 2 (F (2,108) = 30.24 p <.000), with an R2 of 0.359. It is concluded that
based on Model 2, this study predicted;
Employee Engagement = 11.059 + 0.495 (Personality Attributes) + 0.293 (Employee Comm.)
There will be an increase of 0.495 and 0.293 of employee engagement for every one unit
increased in personality attributes and employee communication respectively. With Coefficient
value less than 0.05, Personality Attributes and Employee Communication were significant
predictors of Employee Engagement. Therefore Hypotheses 4 is accepted.

Table 3a: Stepwise Linear Regression Results

R Adjusted Std. Error of
Model R F Sig.
Square R Square the Estimate
1 0.498a 0.248 0.241 6.93894 35.907 0.000a
b
2 0.599 0.359 0.347 6.43522 30.24 0.000b

Table 3b: Stepwise Linear Regression Results - Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 27.133 5.871 4.622 0.000
1
Personality Attributes 0.617 0.103 0.498 5.992 0.000
(Constant) 11.059 6.591 1.678 0.096
2 Personality Attributes 0.495 0.100 0.399 4.962 0.000
Employee Communication 0.293 0.068 0.348 4.328 0.000

For Hypotheses 5 and 6, analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique is employed to determine

whether there are any significant differences between the means of three or more groups.

Table 4: Results of ANOVA of Positions in the Company

Groups N Mean Std. Deviation F Sig.
Executives 65 59.7538 7.71369 7.604 0.001
Manager 27 65.1111 6.17896
Senior Manager and above 19 65.7895 8.54777
Total 111 62.0901 7.96418

For Hypothesis 5, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare employee engagement among
three (3) categories of positions in the company employee (Executive, Manager and Senior
Manager and above). Table 4 shows that there was a statistically significant difference between

749
 Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 3 (2018, Special Issue)

groups as determined by one-way ANOVA (F(2,108) = 7.604, p = .001) at .05 level of

significant.
A Tukey post hoc test revealed that there are statistically significant differences in employee
engagement between Executive and Manager (p = 0.007) and Executive and Senior Manager and
above (p = 0.007). However, there was no difference between Manager and Senior Manager and
above (p = 0.951). These results show that employee engagement among Senior Manager and
above is higher as compare to Executive and Manager. Therefore Hypotheses 5 is accepted.

Table 5: Results of ANOVA of Tenure

Std.
Groups N Mean F Sig.
Deviation
Less than 5 years 34 59.3235 7.96477 3.468 0.019
5 to 10 years 22 61.1364 7.39559
11 to 19 years 30 62.9667 8.58822
20 years and above 25 65.6400 6.38279
Total 111 62.0901 7.96418

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare employee engagement among four categories of
tenure in the company (four (4) groups of employees who have been working for Less than 5
years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 19 years and 20 years and above). There was a statistically significant
difference between groups as determined by one-way ANOVA (F(3,107) = 3.468, p = .019) at
.05 level of significant, as shown in Table 5. A Tukey post hoc test revealed that there is a
statistically significant difference in employee engagement between employee who has been
working Less than 5 years and employee who has been working for 20 years and above (p =
0.013). However, there were no differences between group of employee who has been working
Less than 5 years and employee who has been working for 5 to 10 years (p = 0.826), less than 5
years and employees who have been working for 11 to 19 years (p = 0.240), employee who has
been working for 5 to 10 years and employee who has been working for 11 to 19 years (p =
.832), employee who has been working for 5 to 10 years and employee who has been working
for 20 years and above (p =.195) and employee who has been working for 11 to 19 years and
employee who has been working for 20 years and above (p = .577). These results show that
employee engagement for employee who has been working for 20 years and above is higher as
compared with employee who has been working for the company Less than 5 years, 5 to 10
years, 11 to 19 years. Therefore Hypotheses 6 is accepted.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study found that leadership styles, personality attributes and employee communication are
significantly correlated to employee engagement. This is in accordance with the findings of past
studies that leadership (Suharti and Suliyanto, 2012; Seyal and Abd. Rahman, 2014; Hayati,
2014), personality attributes (Handa and Gulati, 2014; Makikangas et al., 2013; Wefald et al.,
2011; Macey and Schneider, 2008) and employee communication (Tkalac and Poloski, 2017;
Karanges et al., 2015; Ruck and Welch, 2012) have positive association with employee
engagement. This study also found that personality attributes affects more than employee
communication and leadership styles. Furthermore, this study found that the higher positions of
the employees are more engaged than the lower position employees. It is also shows that the
longer the duration of employees stay with the company the more engaged they become. These

750
 Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 3 (2018, Special Issue)

findings reiterate the previous research findings as discussed in the literature reviews. This
finding was in accordance with Robinson et al. (2007) finding which highlighted that there are
associations between role and engagement levels, whereby senior managers and manager have
the highest engagement levels out of the role groups. Similarly this finding is supported by
Balain and Sparrow (2009) that engagement levels co-vary with biographical factors such as
gender, work related factors and where they sit in the organization. Surprisingly leadership styles
is not one of the most significant predictor of the employee engagement in this study. This is
contradict with previous literature review and studies that support leadership is the primary
driver of employee engagement. During this increasing challenging times, leadership role is
crucial in bringing the people together to support the organization’s mission and visions. Thus,
the way forward is for management to pay more attention and emphasis on the leadership issues
at all levels. This findings offer evidence for further research to explore this relationship in
different research setting. From theoretical point of view, this study contributes to further
strengthen our understanding of antecedences of employee engagement. This study also enriches
evidences in the research of employee engagement in making generalization in the similar
context such as in energy utility company at local front. As for practical contribution, this study
will be beneficial to the organization and human resource department particularly in identifying
factors influencing employee engagement. The findings from the study may affirm the
organization on identifying HRM program in sustaining the highly engaged employees,
providing insight on what makes employee both physically and psychologically happy at work
and able to contribute to the achievement of increased productivity and profitability of the
company. The results from this research may provide inputs to organizations in determining the
Personality Attributes in shaping the right kind workforce to create a strong adaptive culture. The
finding of the study indicates which aspects of the employee communication satisfaction place
greater important than the rest of the communication dimensions. Further, this may provide
guidance to the Management on monitoring and improving the organization’s communication
policies, channels and continuous employee feedbacks.

Limitation
This research only used cross sectional data which means the data were only taken once during
the research. It is suggested that a longitudinal research is undertaken in the future for more
accurate and concrete results. The findings for this research could not be generalized for the
whole population in energy industry in Malaysia because it was conducted in a specific and
selected environment and in this case one utility company. Besides, this study only investigate a
few independent variables and there could be other significant predictors or variables that
contribute to higher employee engagement such as rewards and recognitions, job autonomy and
goal setting from the past studies.

References
Anita, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee
performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
63(3), 308-323.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1995). Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Mind
Garden. Palo Alto CA: Consulting Psychological Press
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B. M. and Jung, D.I (1999). Reexamining the components of transformational
leadership and transactional leadership using multifactor leadership questionnaire.

751
 Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 3 (2018, Special Issue)

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 441-162.

doi:10.1348/096317999166789
Balain, S. and Sparrow, P. (2009). Engaged to perform: A new perspective on employee
engagement: Executive Summary. Lancaster University Management School
Baumruk, R. (2004). The missing link: the role of employee engagement in business success.
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. and Espevik, R. (2014). Daily
transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 138-157. doi: 10.1111/joop.12041
Burn, J.M. (1978). Leadership. Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Choong, M. (2007).The role of internal communication and training in infusing corporate values
and delivering brand promise: Singapore Airlines’ Experience. Corporate Reputation
Review, 10, 202-212.
Costa, P. T. and McCrea, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R Professional manual. Revised Neo Personality
Inventory (NEO-PIR) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Downs, C. W. and Hazen, M. D. (1977). A factor analytic study of communication satisfaction.
Journal of Business Communication, 14(3), 63-73.
Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R. P. and Taylor, C. R. (2004). The race for talent: Retaining and
engaging workers in the 21st Century. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12-25.
Gallup. (2012). Employee engagement. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/consulting/52/
employee engagement.aspx
Gill, R. (2011). Corporate Storytelling as an effective internal public relation strategy.
International Business Management. 3(1), 17-25. doi
:10.3968/j.ibm.1923842820110301.107
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. and R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. 7th (ed.)
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Handa, M. and Gulati, A. (2014) Employee engagement: Does individual personality matter.
Journal of Management Research, 14(1), 57-67.
Iqbal, J., Inayat, S., Ijaz, M. and Zahid, A. (2012). Leadership styles: Identifying approaches and
dimensions of leaders. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business,
4(3), 641-659.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Kim, H. J., Shin, K. H. and Swanger, N. (2009) Burnout and engagement: A comparative
analysis using the big five personality dimensions. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28(1), 96-104. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.06.001.
Macey, W. H. and Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1, 3-30. doi:1754-9426/08
Makikangas, A., Feldt, T., Kinnunen,U. and Mauno, S. (2013). Does personality matter?
Research on individual differences in occupational well-being. In A. B. Bakker (Ed.),
Advances in Positive Organizational Psychology, 107-143. doi:10.1108/S2046-
410X(2013) 0000001008
Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing research: An applied orientation. 6th (ed.) Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

752
 Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 3 (2018, Special Issue)

McBain, R. (2007). The practice of engagement: research into current employee engagement
practice. Strategic HR review, 6(6), 124-136.
Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it? Workspan.
49, 36-39.
Robinson, D., Perryman S. and Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement.
Retrieved from www.employment-studies.co.uk
Sak, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619. doi:10.1108/002683940610690169
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A. B., (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic
approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71-92. doi:10.1023/AA;1015630930326
Shaw, K. (2005). An engagement strategy process for communicators. Strategic Communication
Management, 9(3), 26-29.
Suharti, L. and Suliyanto, D. (2012). The effect of organizational culture and leadership style
toward employee engagement and their impacts toward employee loyalty. World Review
of Business Research, 2(5), 128-139.
Tkalac Vercic, A., Poloski Vokic, N. and Sriramesh, K. (2012). Internal communication:
definition, parameters and the future. Public Relation Review, 38(2), 223-230.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A. and Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. doi:10.1037/002203514.54.6.1063
Wefald, A. J., Reichard, R.J. and Serrano, S.A. (2011) Fitting engagement into nomological
network: The relationship of engagement to leadership and personality. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18 (4), 522-527.
doi:10.1177/1548051811404890
Welch, M. and Jackson, P. R. (2007). Rethinking internal communication: A stakeholder
approach. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12(2), 177-198.
Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J. and Walumba, F. O. (2009). Moderating role of follower characteristics
with transformational leadership on follower worker engagement. Group and
Organisation Management, 34(5), 590-619.

753
Copyright of Global Business & Management Research is the property of Global Business &
Management Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.