The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm
JMD
37,3
258
Received 3 February 2017
Revised 30 June 2017
14 November 2017
Accepted 19 January 2018
Journal of Management
Development
Vol. 37 No. 3, 2018
pp. 258-270
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0262-1711
DOI 10.1108/JMD-01-2017-0039
Learning organizational
environment and
extra-role behaviors
The mediating role of employee engagement
Talat Islam
Institute of Business Administration, University of the Punjab,
Lahore, Pakistan, and
Jawad Tariq
Department of Sociology, Forman Christian College, Lahore, Pakistan
Abstract
Purpose – Only 13 percent of the world’s employees are engaged in their work, which has become a
challenge for the managers of today. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the mediating role
of employee engagement between perceived learning environment and extra-role behaviors.
Design/methodology/approach – This quantitative study collected data from 563 employees using a
questionnaire-based survey on a convenience basis.
Findings – The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. The results of the study show that
employees’ perception of learning environment urges them to perform beyond their formal job descriptions
(i.e. extra-role behaviors) regarding proactivity, knowledge sharing and creativity. In addition, employee
engagement performs the mediating role between learning environment and extra-role behaviors.
Research limitations/implications – The data for this study were collected at a single point of time
(cross-sectional), which limits the inferences about the causality.
Originality/value – This study is perhaps the first attempt to empirically investigate the mediating role of
employee engagement between the relationship of the learning environment and extra-role behaviors such as
knowledge sharing, proactivity and creativity.
Keywords Knowledge sharing, Creativity, Proactivity, Learning environment, Employee engagement,
Learning organizations
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Today’s modern economic atmosphere, which is characterized by technology, creativity,
continuous change and competition, has weathered the conventional perspective of the
employee performance (Eldor and Harpaz, 2016; Islam et al., 2016). This shift from classical
mode has brought new challenges such as changing the employee-organizational
relationship (Bakker et al., 2011) and encouraging the researchers operating in the field of
organizational efficiency to move the spotlight from employee proficiency to employee level
of engagement (Griffin et al., 2007). According to the statistics given by Mann and Harter
(2016), only 13 percent of the world’s employees perform their work enthusiastically
(i.e. employee engagement). Measuring employees’ level of engagement is not enough for the
organizations as there is a need to identify factors that may help managers to overcome this
issue (Mann and Harter, 2016). Therefore, the concept of employee engagement
is introduced to the employee-organizational relationship (Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2013),
which is significantly associated with employees’ emerging need of conducive opportunities
for learning in the organization (Marsick, 2009; Baruch, 2006).
The recent research on employee engagement mostly includes relational studies where
employee engagement is considered as a determinant of organizational processes
(e.g. see Kyndt et al., 2009), but few studies have attempted to find the precursors to employee
engagement (Macey and Schneider, 2008). The literature on employee effectiveness suggests that Learning
it is positively related to workplace learning environment (Rodriguez, 2008; Echols, 2007) where organizational
the latter provides a stimulating climate for learning and development (Bernsen et al., 2009). environment
A rationale for this relationship can be attributed to the competitiveness prevailing in the
organizations. Employees who experience the environment to be gratifying regarding learning
and growth feel themselves in an advantageous position to reciprocate to the organization
(Rodriguez, 2008). Furthermore, the stimulating learning environment can help employees to 259
realize their complete potential, resulting in self-fulfillment (a prerequisite to engagement).
Borrowing from Rodriguez (2008), the first objective of the present study is to see the relationship
between employees’ perceived learning environment (PLE) and employee engagement as
self-fulfillment is a prerequisite to engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002). The preceding arguments
regarding employee retention with PLE and employee engagement, respectively, suggest that a
relationship may exist between PLE and employee engagement.
The second goal of the study is to fill in the literature gap regarding the relationship
between employee engagement and its likely effects like creativity, knowledge sharing and
proactivity (Bakker and Xanthopoulou, 2013). These three effects have been referred to as
extra-role behaviors in the literature (Rothbard and Patil, 2010). Though many studies have
focused on the relationship of employee engagement with organizational efficiency
(Griffin et al., 2007) and employees’ efficiency (Marsick, 2009), there is a lack of literature on
the relationship of extra-role behaviors and employee engagement (Eldor and Harpaz, 2016).
Few studies suggest that discovering the relationship between employee engagement and
extra-role behaviors is fundamental to raise an organizations’ comparative benefit in the
market by increasing employee retention (Herman, 2005; Schaufeli et al., 2002).
The final goal of the study is to see how the mediating role of employee engagement
affects the relationship between PLE and extra-role behaviors (creativity, knowledge
sharing and proactivity). There is a deficiency of empirical literature determining to see the
relationship between PLE and extra-role behaviors. A few recent studies suggest a
hypothetical model that PLE can affect employees’ psyche to define their jobs extensively to
cope with the challenges an organization face in the market (Eldor and Harpaz, 2016). These
arguments suggest that PLE can affect employees’ proactivity, creativity and knowledge
sharing. Nevertheless, this direct relationship is affected by the mediating role of employee
engagement as the previous debate proposed an empirical and theoretical relationship
between these constructs. Furthermore, it can be argued that PLE can affect an employee
engagement in the organization which, in turn, propels them perform extra-role behaviors.

Conceptual framework and hypotheses

In this section, the relationship between PLE, employee engagement and extra-role
behaviors is reviewed for presenting conceptual framework and hypotheses formulation.
The proposed model to test the three hypotheses is presented in Figure 1.

Extra-role Behavior

Knowledge
Sharing

Learning Employee
Environment Engagement Proactivity

Creativity Figure 1.
Hypothesized model
JMD PLE and employee engagement
37,3 PLE has been conceptualized by characteristics such as knowledge transmission,
participation, shared vision, creativity and opportunities conducive to learning and
inquisition (Marsick and Watkins, 2003). Learning environment has been considered
beneficial in helping an organization to devise its competitive outlook, motivating the
employees’ to strive for completion of goals and helping the organization in its behavioral
260 adaptation to cope with up-and-coming challenges (Islam et al., 2015; Kennedy et al., 2013;
Watkins and Marsick, 1997). Few of the challenges faced by today’s organizations in
competitive market is finding ways of employee retention (Islam et al., 2013, Egan et al.,
2004) and performance ( Joo and Lim, 2009). Learning environment, in this regard, may help
employees to enhance their skills and capabilities to perform better and remain with their
organizations (Islam et al., 2016; Egan et al., 2004). However, its practical implications on job
performance and job attitudes are lacking ( Joo and Lim, 2009; Yang et al., 2004), but still
provide evidence about learning environment and employee engagement relationship.
Therefore, the present study operates in a constructionist perspective to see how employees
are attaching meanings to the environment in which they are operating and how this is
affecting their engagement in the workplace.
Employee engagement is conceptualized as a multidimensional concept involving
physical (behavior), cognitive (traits) and emotional (state) components (Kahn, 1990).
However, this study relied on Schaufeli et al.’s (2002, p. 74) conceptualization of employee
engagement as a “positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind characterized by vigor,
dedication, and absorption.” Vigor involves a readiness to put an extra effort in assigned
tasks, whereas dedication refers to an emotional and cognitive domain involving good
awareness of assigned tasks considering it motivational, significant, challenging and
inspirational. Absorption involves deep concentration to a point where an employee finds it
difficult to disengage from the task (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Employee engagement in this
regard not only increases the opportunities for learning and development, but also increases
employee retention that is favorable to the organization. Hence, there seems a probable
relationship between PLE and employee engagement as employee engagement seems like
an outcome of learning environment prevailing in the organization ( Joo and Lim, 2009).
PLE is considered as an important indicator of job resources, which has been considered
beneficial for motivating employees’ development and organizational efficiency (Demerouti
and Cropanzano, 2010).
A plethora of literature suggests a strong relationship between employee engagement
and job resources such as task variety, significance of task, supervisor support and
autonomy (Fairlie, 2011; Joo and Shim, 2010; Halbesleben, 2010; Bakker and Demerouti,
2007). PLE in this sense can result in employee engagement by providing external
motivation like the fulfillment of organizational goals and internal motivation such as
self-development and self-growth (Halbesleben, 2010). The favorable learning environment
by providing a system of feedback, discussion and attachment to the workplace can ensure
alignment of organizational goals with employees’ job (Burke et al., 2006). Furthermore, such
an environment may help an employee to consider their task significant, which can prove to
be a stimulus for attaining organizational goals through extra effort. Cropanzano and
Mitchell (2005) argue that providing a conducive climate to an employee can build their
confidence in the organization which, in turn, may result in work engagement and
commitment to the organizational goals (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Despite the strong
theoretical support for the probable relationship between PLE and employee engagement,
there is a lack of empirical research to substantiate this relationship ( for an exception see
Eldor and Harpaz, 2016). In the light of above discussion, this study hypothesizes that:

H1. There will be a positive relationship between PLE and employee engagement.
Employee engagement and extra-role behaviors Learning
The shift from traditional to the modern economic model has made the market more organizational
competitive and innovative though rapidly changing, requiring organizations to adapt for environment
survival (Griffin et al., 2007). Contemporary organizations in their quest for survival are
trying to engage competent employees ready to perform extra-role behaviors like creativity,
proactivity and knowledge sharing that can facilitate employees’ adaptation to the
contemporary organizational criterion (Griffin et al., 2007). This study proposes that 261
employee engagement at the workplace can increase these extra-role behaviors. Creativity
refers to the generation of innovative and productive ideas relevant to goods and
commodities, services and organizational practices as well as procedures (Zhou and Shalley,
2008). Proactivity involves performance that is both future-directed and self-initiated, and
seeks to alter the circumstances or oneself (Grant and Ashford, 2008). Knowledge sharing
involves an exchange of explicit and implicit information in an attempt to develop an
organizational knowledgebase (Van den Hooff and De Ridder, 2004), thereby providing it
with a competitive edge.
Studies suggest that employees’ scoring high in engagement also score high in arousal
(Langelaan et al., 2006). Engagement not only develops behaviors, but also catalyzes
creativity and proactivity (Shirom, 2010). Engagement can also trigger affective responses
like joyfulness and concentration, which have been related to creativity, exploration,
innovative information, novelty and responsive to opportunities at the workplace
(Fredrickson and Losada, 2005; Cropanzano and Wright, 2001). It can, therefore, be argued
that employee engagement activates positive sentiments fostering behaviors such as
innovation, novelty, motivation and enthusiasm. The proposed argument builds on
Fredrickson’s (2003) broaden-and-build theory that positive sentiments can increase a
person’s capital by altering his thinking and action. Keeping in view the preceding debate, it
is hypothesized that:
H2. There will be a positive relationship between employee engagement at the workplace
and extra-role behaviors, i.e., creativity, proactivity and knowledge sharing.
Employee engagement as a mediator
The preceding discussion presented PLE as a prerequisite to employee engagement
where the latter served as a precursor to extra-role behaviors. Similarly, this study
proposes that employees’ perception of the learning environment can increase their
engagement in the workplace by providing extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. This
increased engagement can result in various extra-role behaviors (such as creativity,
proactivity and knowledge sharing) as these are positively related to organizational
outcomes (Hobfoll, 2002). Employee engagement, by acting a mediator, facilitates the
relationship between PLE and extra-role behaviors. The proposed argument receives a
theoretical substantiation from the conservation-of-resource theory given by Hobfoll
(2002). The conservation-of-resource theory builds on a resource maximization model
where increase in resources leads to further resource amassing (Hobfoll, 2002).
Employees, to fulfill their esteem needs and maximize welfare, try to gain, protect and
increase organizational resources.
The resource surplus serves as a benefit to both the employer and employee in the form
of organizational efficiency and self-development, respectively (Hobfoll, 2002). For the
organization, this surplus ensures a competitive edge in the market, whereas for the
employee, this resource maximization makes certain that employees remain engaged in their
jobs to conserve significant resources needed to achieve higher goals (Gorgievski and
Hobfoll, 2008). Based on the conservation-of-resource theory, it can be argued that favorable
learning environment stressed by the provision and acquisition of resources can increase
the engagement of employees to achieve those resources, which makes them perform
JMD behaviors such as creativity, proactivity and knowledge sharing. This study, therefore,
37,3 hypothesize that:
H3. The positive relationship between PLE and extra-role behaviors (creativity, proactivity
and knowledge sharing) will be mediated by employee engagement at the workplace.

262 Method
Participants of the study
According to Islam et al. (2013), employees working in the high-tech professions are
considered as knowledge-based workers and can better demonstrate the learning
environment of their organizations. Therefore, the study collected data from four
different industries of Pakistan, i.e., textile, cement, telecommunications and banking.
The rationale for this heterogeneous sample is that extra-role behaviors are required to
promote in both manufacturing and service sectors and heterogeneous respondents can
better respond to such variables (Eldor and Harpaz, 2016). The data were collected between
January and June 2016. The study used item-response theory with the criteria of
20 respondents against each item of the questionnaire. Therefore, a total of 680
questionnaires were distributed and 563 were used in the final analysis (effective response
rate was 82.7 percent).
Of these, 34 percent of the respondents were from the banking sector, 11 percent from the
cement sector, 28 percent from the telecom sector and 27 percent were from the textile sector.
In addition, respondents were also heterogeneous regarding their demographical
characteristics such as 68 percent of the respondents were male, having around six years
of work experience with their current organization (39 percent), and total work experience of
13.34 years. Majority of the respondents were holding a 16-year degree (41 percent) and were
married (53 percent).
The data were collected using a questionnaire-based survey. First, permission was
obtained from the managers and then questionnaires were distributed among the
respondents on a convenience basis. Respondents of such industries are well literate and
they were asked in English. Respondents argued about the secrecy of their responses and
demanded that only findings of the study should be sent to the management.
The respondents were assured that their responses would be kept confidential and only
summary would be sent to the management. Moreover, to obtain the accurate information
from the respondents, managers were requested to continue their work while sitting in their
office and researchers personally collected data.

Measures
This study used adapted questionnaire to measure job engagement, PLE, creativity,
knowledge sharing and proactivity on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “1 ¼ strongly
disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree.”

PLE
The PLE was measured using seven-item shorten version of Marsick and Watkin’s (2003)
“Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire.” This scale is reliable for
self-reporting about learning climate of an organization (e.g. Islam et al., 2016; Jo and Joo,
2011). Considering the arguments of Marsick and Watkin (2003) about its unidimensionality,
this study considered it as a single-factor variable and the values of model fit regarding
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were found to be good, i.e., χ2/df ¼ 2.11, SRMR ¼ 0.026,
RMSEA ¼ 0.045, CFI ¼ 0.98 and NFI ¼ 0.97. A sample item includes, “In my institution,
whenever people state their views, they also ask what others think.”
Employee engagement Learning
Employee engagement was measured using Schaufeli et al.’s (2006) “Utrecht Work organizational
Engagement Scale,” a nine-item scale. This scale comprised of dedication, vigor and environment
absorption, which are highly correlated with each other. Therefore, the study used nine
items as a single variable (Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006; Bakker et al., 2011) and the values of
model fit regarding CFA were found as χ2/df ¼ 2.85, SRMR ¼ 0.019, RMSEA ¼ 0.057,
CFI ¼ 0.99 and NFI ¼ 0.98 after deleting two items because of high residual values 263
(Byrne, 2010). A sample item includes, “At my work, I feel I am bursting with energy.”

Knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing was measured using three-item validated scale of Van den Hooff and
Hendrix (2004). They reported the value of its internal consistency as 0.84, and a sample
item includes, “I regularly inform colleagues about what I am working on.” The values of
model fit of CFA in this study were noted as χ2/df ¼ 2.41, SRMR ¼ 0.03, RMSEA ¼ 0.053,
CFI ¼ 0.97 and NFI ¼ 0.94.

Proactivity
Employees’ proactivity was measured using a three-item scale of Griffin et al. (2007).
A sample item includes, “I initiate better ways of doing his/her core tasks.” The values of
model fit of CFA in this study were noted as χ2/df ¼ 1.93, SRMR ¼ 0.008, RMSEA ¼ 0.001,
CFI ¼ 1.00 and NFI ¼ 0.99.

Creativity
Employees’ creativity was measured using a twelve-item scale of Zhou and George (2001) as
the scale was reported to have internal consistency of 0.95. A sample item includes, “I try to
deal with creative solutions for problems.” The values of model fit of CFA in this study were
noted as χ2/df ¼ 3.14, SRMR ¼ 0.075, RMSEA ¼ 0.067, CFI ¼ 0.95 and NFI ¼ 0.94.

Control variables
Past studies have identified a relation among age, gender, qualification, employee
engagement and extra-role behaviors (Liu et al., 2011; Shalley et al., 2004). Therefore, these
variables were treated as control variables.

Results
Preliminary analysis
First, the study conducted a preliminary analysis regarding missing values, data normality,
outliers and multicollinearity as these could affect the validity of the results using AMOS
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007; Kline, 2005; Byrne, 2010). The data of the study were found to be
free from missing values, though it is a common issue in collecting data. One of the reasons for
this might be the personal attention of the researchers while collecting the data. The normality
of the data was examined using the values of skewness (±1) and kurtosis (±3), and all the
values were found to be well within limits (Byrne, 2010), whereas outliers were examined
through Mahalanobis distance, where ten responses were excluded from the study (Kline, 2005).
Multicollinearity of the data was examined following the instructions of Tabachnick and Fidell
(2007) that correlations among variables should be less than 0.85 (see Table I).
Second, the study conducted CFA for the unidimensionality. The main reason to prefer
CFA over exploratory factor analysis was that the scales used in this study were adapted
from the previous studies and were reported as valid (Hair et al., 2010). The results of the
CFA are presented in the measurement section of the study. The data were also examined
regarding the values of average variance extracted (AVE), and were calculated by dividing
JMD the sum of the square of the factor loading with the number of items. The values in Table I
37,3 show that the values of AVE range between 0.61 and 0.75, which is higher than 0.50
(Hair et al., 2010).
The values of the mean, standard deviation, correlation and Cronbach’s α are presented
in Table I. The values of the mean range between 3.64 and 3.72 and the values of standard
deviation range between 0.61 and 0.74. In addition, the values of Cronbach’s α were well
264 above the standard value of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2006). The values in the table further represent
that all the variables are positively related to each other and the values of correlation are
below 0.85 (therefore, no multicollinearity).

Structural equation modeling

The values of the model fitness of structured model represent a good fit, i.e., χ2/df ¼ 2.48,
SRMR ¼ 0.048, RMSEA ¼ 0.039, CFI ¼ 0.97 and NFI ¼ 0.96. In addition, the path coefficients
of structural model in Figure 1 represent that PLE is positively relate to employee
engagement (γ ¼ 0.59, p o 0.01, CR ¼ 15.21), knowledge sharing (γ ¼ 0.43, p o 0.01,
CR ¼ 16.24), proactivity (γ ¼ 0.29, p o0.01, CR ¼ 16.07) and creativity (γ ¼ 0.39, p o0.01,
CR ¼ 14.58). In addition, employee engagement is positively and significantly related to
knowledge sharing (γ ¼ 0.56, p o 0.01, CR ¼ 12.18), proactivity (γ ¼ 0.48, p o 0.01,
CR ¼ 11.08) and creativity (γ ¼ 0.28, p o0.01, CR ¼ 10.99). These results support H1 and
H2 (Figure 2).
The mediation analysis was examined using path coefficients. First, a path between
independent (i.e. PLE) and mediating variables (i.e. employee engagement) is examined and is
named “path a.” Second, a path between mediating (i.e. employee engagement) and the
dependent variables (i.e. knowledge sharing, proactivity and creativity) is examined and is
named “path b.” Third, the indirect path was calculated by multiplying “path a” and “path b.”
The mediation was observed by evaluating the significance of indirect path (Edwards and
Lambert, 2007). The model was examined using 5,000 bootstrap samples as suggested by

Variables Mean SD AVE α 1 2 3 4 5

1. Learning environment 3.71 0.63 0.68 0.82 1

2. Employee engagement 3.68 0.74 0.75 0.89 0.67** 1
Table I. 3. Knowledge sharing 3.64 0.74 0.71 0.79 0.48** 0.56** 1
Mean, standard 4. Proactivity 3.69 0.70 0.61 0.74 0.26** 0.30** 0.39** 1
deviation, Cronbach’s 5. Creativity 3.72 0.61 0.66 0.88 0.56** 0.52** 0.64** 0.47** 1
α and correlation Notes: AVE, average variance extracted, SD = Standard Deviation. **p o0.01

Employee 0.56** Knowledge

Engagement Sharing

0.59**
0.43** 0.48**

Learning
0.29** Proactivity
Environment
0.28**
Figure 2. 0.39**
Standardized Creativity
estimates of
hypothesized model
Note: **p<0.01
Preacher and Hayes (2004). The indirect paths of learning environment on extra-role Learning
behaviors through employee engagement were found to be statistically significant such as organizational
knowledge sharing (indirect path coefficient ¼ 0.33, po0.01), proactivity (indirect path environment
coefficient ¼ 0.28, po0.01) and creativity (indirect path coefficient ¼ 0.17, po0.01). These
results suggest that the association between learning environment and extra-role behaviors
can be explained through employee engagement (Chand, 2010), which supports H3.
265
Discussion and implications
This study aims at investigating the mediating role of employee engagement between PLE
and extra-role behaviors (i.e. knowledge sharing, proactivity and creativity). The results
identify that learning environment enhances employee engagement with their work, which
ultimately promotes sharing of knowledge, creativity and proactivity of the employees.
Learning environment endorses a sense of meaningfulness and challenges, which encourage
them to invest their cognitive, physical and emotional resources in performing
extraordinarily well. The broaden-and-build theory of Fredrickson (2003) and the
conservation-of-resource theory of Hobfoll (2002) also suggest an association among
engagement, extra-role performance and organizational resources.
The literature on employee engagement and job attitudes is clear, but its association
with work performance is inconclusive (Newman et al., 2010). The study found that
employee engagement is beneficiary for the organizations and this contributes to the
organization-employee relationship. Earlier scholars were of the view that
organization-employee relationship is more beneficiary for the organizations (Shore
et al., 2004; Coyle-Shapiro and Shore, 2007). However, emerging field of organizational
behavior suggested that organization-employee relationship is equally advantageous to
the employees (Luthans and Youssef, 2007) as they are the key assets for the organization.
In addition, in today’s era of modern technology, less attention is given to understand the
level of activities required by the employees (i.e. engagement) (Masson et al., 2008). As per
the global statistics, only 13 percent of the employees are engaged in their work
enthusiastically (Mann and Harter, 2016). Our findings on this emerging issue corroborate
its benefits for the employees and it is not only a repacking of employee-organization
relationship (Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2013).
Most of the past studies have focused on the association between job resource and
employee engagement. However, this study extended the existing literature by focusing on
learning environment of an organization. According to Rahim (2015), most of the
international organizations focus on employer-employee relationships without focusing on
“reciprocation” without which organization cannot win their employees’ engagement.
The study found that employees with the perception of learning opportunities are more
likely to engage and in turn tend to share their knowledge with colleagues to be more
creative in the workplace. According to Eldor and Harpaz (2016), learning environment
encourages employees to be creative by fostering their confidence. Therefore, encouraging
learning feedback and promoting team learning connect employees toward organizational
goals by enhancing their enthusiasm and desire to accomplish challenging goals. Particular
to the Pakistani context, empirical statistics regarding employee engagement were found to
be different as 85 percent of the banking employees were found to engage in their jobs,
whereas only 4 percent were found to be actively disengaged (Sidiqui and Maqsood, 2008).
One of the major reasons of such difference of the employee engagement is communication
between employee and employer, which strengthens this association and employees show
commitment toward their organization (Islam et al., 2015). According to the arguments of
Sidiqui and Maqsood (2008), in Pakistan, employees are well informed about their roles and
strategies that enable them to perform their duties without hesitation. In addition,
employees in Pakistan are well aware of the term “industrial relations” that strengthen their
JMD employer-employee relationship (Rahim, 2015). In general, learning climate positively
37,3 influences employee engagement. In addition, the combination of the learning environment
and employee engagement helps employees to manage their career as they focus more on
personal growth and knowledge opportunities (Lee and Bruvold, 2003). Thus, this study
empirically investigates the idea of Schaufeli and Salanova (2007) that “allowing employees
to grow via career development is a key factor in encouraging employee engagement.”
266 Although the hypotheses of this study were theoretically driven, it has practical
implications. The study suggests the human resource developers and management to
foster a learning environment. Managers, in order to create organizational vision by
encouraging employees to learn on a continuous basis, should promote a learning
environment that includes motivation, empowerment and sharing of ideas and thoughts
with coworkers. In addition, the study suggests managers to foster a learning
environment to engage their employees, as measuring employee engagement is not
sufficient to sustain. Organization on the other side may get the benefit of engaged
employees as this encourages employees to be creative, proactive and using the acquired
knowledge to accomplish organizational goals.
It is essential for the today’s leaner organizations to have more responsible and engaged
employees to accomplish their desired goals. Additionally, globalization and
decentralization make it difficult for the managers monitor their subordinate’s
performance, especially in harder areas such as creativity and proactivity (Eldor and
Harpaz, 2016; Buchner, 2007). Therefore, managers by encouraging employee engagement
may focus more on performance facilitation comparing performance management. As only
change is permanent, the manager should develop strategies to facilitate employees to deal
with the ever-changing environment. Engaged employees are proactive; therefore, when
they find themselves lacking in environment fit, they try to redesign themselves to cope
with the changing environments. Therefore, managers should foster learning climate to
have more engaged employees.
The study also suggests organizations to let their employees know about “employee
relations” rather “industrial relations.” Employees across the globe are more familiar with
the “industrial relations” rather “employee relations” which is labor oriented rather industry
oriented. Organizations must define the term employee relations from their perspective as
NASA has defined it as, “Employee relations involve the body of work concerned with
maintaining employer-employee relationships that contribute to satisfactory productivity,
motivation, and morale. Essentially, employee relations are concerned with preventing and
resolving problems involving individuals which arise out of or affect work situations.”
Similarly, Oxford University defines the term as, “Employee relations is a common title for
the industrial relations function within personnel management […] The term […] is not
confined to the study of trade unions but embraces the broad pattern of employee
management, including systems of direct communication and employee involvement that
target the individual worker.” Thus, by defining their perspective of employee relations and
letting their employees know about it, organizations may get the benefit of employee
engagement.

Limitations and future direction

Despite contributing to the existing literature on employee engagement and learning
environment, our study is not free from limitations. First, the data for this study were
collected at a single point of time (cross-sectional), which limit the inferences about the
causality. Therefore, future researchers are suggested to conduct a longitudinal study.
Second, the results of this study are limited to Pakistan that represents Asian culture; future
studies should replicate the model in western culture for its generalizability as a culture may
affect the results (Islam et al., 2015) and employee engagement is a global issue. Third, the
data of this study were self-reported, which may raise a question on common source biases. Learning
Therefore, future researchers should consider supervisors to collect data about employee’s organizational
extra-role behaviors. Finally, future researchers may extend the model by taking environment
dimensions of learning climate and incorporating variables like organizational politics and
ethical climate.

267
References
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands-resources model: state of the art”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.
Bakker, A.B. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2013), “Creativity and charisma among female leaders: the role of
resources and work engagement”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 24 No. 14, pp. 2760-2779.
Bakker, A.B., Albrecht, S.L. and Leiter, M.P. (2011), “Key questions regarding work engagement”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-28.
Baruch, Y. (2006), “Career development in organizations and beyond: balancing traditional and
contemporary viewpoints”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 125-138.
Bernsen, P., Segers, M. and Tillema, H. (2009), “Learning under pressure: learning strategies, workplace
climate, and leadership style in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Human
Resource Development and Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 358-373.
Buchner, T.W. (2007), “Performance management theory: a look from the performer’s perspective with
implications for HRD”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 59-73.
Burke, M.J., Holman, D. and Birdi, K. (2006), “A walk on the safe side: the implications of learning
theory for developing effective safety and health training”, in Hodgkinson, G.P. and Ford, J.K.
(Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Wiley, Chichester,
pp. 1-44.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Chand, M. (2010), “The impact of HRM practices on service quality, customer satisfaction and
performance in the Indian hotel industry”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 551-566.
Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M. and Shore, L.M. (2007), “The employee-organization relationship: where do we go
from here?”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 166-179.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Cropanzano, R. and Wright, T.A. (2001), “When a ‘happy’ worker is really a ‘productive’ worker:
a review and further refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis”, Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 182-199.
Demerouti, E. and Cropanzano, R. (2010), “From thought to action: employee work engagement and job
performance”, in Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Work Engagement: A Handbook of
Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, New York, NY, pp. 147-163.
Echols, M.E. (2007), “Learning’s role in talent management”, Chief Learning Officer, Vol. 6 No. 10,
pp. 36-40.
Edwards, J.R. and Lambert, L.S. (2007), “Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general
analytical framework using moderated path analysis”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 1-22.
Egan, T.M., Yang, B. and Bartlett, K. (2004), “The effects of organizational learning culture and job
satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 279-301.
JMD Eldor, L. and Harpaz, I. (2016), “A process model of employee engagement: the learning climate and its
37,3 relationship with extra-role performance behaviors”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37
No. 2, pp. 213-235.
Fairlie, P. (2011), “Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key employee outcomes:
implications for human resource development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 508-525.
268 Fredrickson, B.L. (2003), “Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations”, in Cameron, K.S.,
Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New
Discipline, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 163-175.
Fredrickson, B.L. and Losada, M.F. (2005), “Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human
flourishing”, American Psychologist, Vol. 60 No. 7, pp. 678-686.
Gorgievski, M.J. and Hobfoll, S.E. (2008), “Work can burn us out or fire us up: conservation of resources
in burnout and engagement”, in Halbesleben, J.R.B. (Ed.), Handbook of Stress and Burnout in
Health Care, Nova, Hauppauge, NY, pp. 7-22.
Grant, A.M. and Ashford, S.J. (2008), “The dynamics of proactivity at work”, Research in Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 3-34.
Griffin, M.A., Neal, A. and Parker, S.K. (2007), “A new model of work role performance: positive behavior in
uncertain and interdependent contexts”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 327-347.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: a Global
Perspective, 7th ed., Pearson, Boston, MA.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
6th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2010), “A meta-analysis of work engagement: relationships with burnout, demands,
resources and consequences”, in Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Work Engagement:
A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, New York, NY, pp. 102-117.
Hallberg, U.E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006), “ ‘Same, same’ but different? Can work engagement be
empirically separated from job involvement, and organizational, commitment?”, European
Psychologist, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 119-127.
Herman, R.E. (2005), “HR managers as employee-retention specialists”, Employment Relations Today,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 1-7.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2002), “Social and psychological resources and adaptation”, Review of General Psychology,
Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 307-324.
Islam, T., Ahmed, I. and Ahmad, U.N.U. (2015), “The influence of organizational learning culture and
perceived organizational support on employees’ affective commitment and turnover intention”,
Nankai Business Review International, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 417-431.
Islam, T., Khan, M.M. and Bukhari, F.H. (2016), “The role of organizational learning culture and
psychological empowerment in reducing turnover intention and enhancing citizenship
behavior” ”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 23 Nos 2/3, pp. 156-169.
Islam, T., Khan, S.R., Ahmad, U.N.U. and Ahmed, I. (2013), “Organizational learning culture and leader-
member exchange: the way to enhance organizational commitment and reduce turnover
intentions”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 20 Nos 4/5, pp. 322-337.
Jo, S.J. and Joo, B. (2011), “Knowledge sharing: the influences of learning organization culture,
organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Culture, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 353-364.
Joo, B. and Lim, T. (2009), “The impacts of organizational learning culture and proactive personality on
organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation: the mediating role of perceived job
complexity”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 48-60.
Joo, B.-K. and Shim, J.H. (2010), “Psychological empowerment and organizational commitment: the
moderating effect of organizational learning culture”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 425-441.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”, Learning
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724. organizational
Kennedy, F., Carroll, B. and Francoeur, J. (2013), “Mindset not skill set: evaluating in new paradigms of environment
leadership development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 10-26.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., The Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., Michielsen, M. and Moeyaert, B. (2009), “Employee retention: organisational and 269
personal perspectives”, Vocations and Learning, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 195-215.
Langelaan, S., Bakker, A.B., van Doornen, L. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006), “Burnout and work
engagement: do individual differences make a difference?”, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 40, pp. 521-532.
Lee, C.H. and Bruvold, N.T. (2003), “Creating value for employees: investing in employee development”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 981-1000.
Liu, D., Chen, X.-P. and Yao, X. (2011), “From autonomy to creativity: a multilevel investigation of the
mediating role of harmonious passion”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 294-309.
Luthans, F. and Youssef, C.M. (2007), “Emerging positive organizational behavior”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 321-349.
Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee engagement”, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-30.
Mann, A. and Harter, J. (2016), “The worldwide employee engagement crises”, available at: www.
gallup.com/businessjournal/188033/worldwide-employee-engagement-crisis.aspx (accessed
January 2017).
Marsick, V.J. (2009), “Toward a unifying framework to support informal learning theory, research and
practice”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 265-275.
Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E. (2003), “Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture:
the dimensions of learning organizations questionnaire”, Advances in Developing Human
Resources, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 132-151.
Masson, R.C., Royal, M.A., Agnew, T.G. and Fine, S. (2008), “Leveraging employee engagement: the
practical implications”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and
Practice, Vol. 1, pp. 56-59.
Newman, D.A., Joseph, D.L. and Hulin, C.L. (2010), “Job attitudes and employee engagement:
considering the attitude ‘a-factor’ ”, in Albrecht, S. (Ed.), The Handbook of Employee
Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research, and Practice, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 43-61.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 717-731.
Rahim, P. (2015), “Employee relations”, available at: www.dawn.com/news/1198893 (accessed June 21, 2017).
Rodriguez, R. (2008), “Learning’s impact on talent flow”, Chief Learning Officer, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 50-64.
Rothbard, N.P and Patil, S.V. (2011), “Being there: work engagement and positive organizational
scholarship”, in Cameron, K.S. and Spreitzer, G.M. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Positive
Organizational Scholarship, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 56-69.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Salanova, M. (2007), “Efficacy or inefficacy, that’s the question: burnout and work
engagement, and their relationships with efficacy beliefs”, Anxiety, Stress and Coping, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 177-196.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire: a cross-national study”, Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701-716.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 71-92.
JMD Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J. and Oldham, G.R. (2004), “The effects of personal and contextual characteristics
37,3 on creativity: where should we go from here?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 6,
pp. 933-958.
Shirom, A. (2010), “Feeling energetic at work: on vigor’s antecedents”, in Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P.
(Eds), Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press,
Hove, pp. 69-84.
Shore, L.M., Porter, L.W. and Zahra, S.A. (2004), “Employer-oriented strategic approaches to the
270 employee-organization relationship (EOR)”, in Coyle-Shapiro, J., Shore, L.M., Taylor, S. and
Tetrick, L.E. (Eds), The Employment Relationship: Examining Psychological and Contextual
Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 133-160.
Sidiqui, S.N. and Maqsood, A. (2008), “An exploratory study on employee engagement in the
banking sector of Pakistan: a case study of Bank Alfalah”, Journal of Independent Studies and
Research – Management and Social Sciences & Economics, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 2-5.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed., Pearson, Boston, MA.
Van den Hooff, B. and De Ridder, J.A. (2004), “Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of
organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 117-130.
Van den Hooff, B. and Hendrix, L. (2004), “Eagerness and willingness to share: the relevance of
different attitudes towards knowledge sharing”, paper presented at the Fifth European
Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, Innsbruck.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., Eldor, L. and Schohat, L.M. (2013), “Engage them to public service: conceptualization
and empirical examination of employee engagement in public administration”, American Review
of Public Administration, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 518-538.
Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. (1997), Dimensions of the Learning Organization, Partners for the
Learning Organization, Warwick, RI.
Yang, B., Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. (2004), “The construct of the learning organization:
dimensions, measurement, and validation”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 31-55.
Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2001), “When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the
expression of voice”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 682-696.
Zhou, J. and Shalley, C.E. (2008), “Expanding the scope and impact of organizational creativity
research”, in Zhou, J. and Shally, C.E. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Creativity, Lawrence
Erlbaum and Associates, New York, NY, pp. 347-368.

Further reading
Hiltrop, J.M. (1999), “The quest for the best: human resource practices to attract and retain talent”,
European Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 422-430.

Corresponding author
Talat Islam can be contacted at: talatislam@yahoo.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com