HO CHI MINH UNIVERSITY OF BANKING

SAIGON ISB
FINAL EXAM
Module: RESEARCH METHODS
Programme: International Bachelor
Due Date: 23h59m - November 29 2023 Code: RM-001

Student: NGO LE NHI Student ID: 110321220136 Class: IBP21-D01-02

MARK SUPERVISORS NO.

By number By word
Supervisor 1:

Supervisor 2:

Students choose a topic on business administration (BA) to write an essay for final
exam. It will be contained all sections of a research proposal.

Note:
- Do not choose topics that are not related to BA (e.g., finance, banking, law...);
- All contents (excluding cover, lists of..., appendixs...) do not exceed 15 pages;
- Present citations and references according to Havard (Bolton) standard;
- Check your essay on Turnitin (below 20%) before submitting it to LMS;
- Your file name according to syntax: Full_Name-Student ID.docx.

[Font: Time New Roman, size 12; Space: 1.5; and Page margins: Top (2.5 cm), Bottom (2.5 cm), Right (2.5 cm), Left (2.5 cm)]

1
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HO CHI MINH UNIVERSITY OF BANKING
…………………………….

RESEARCH PROPOSAL
Subject: Research Method

TOPIC: Examining the Principal

Causes of Employee Engagement

Instruction : Dr. Nguyen Duy Thanh

Class : IBP21D01-02

Student name : Ngô Lệ Nhi - 110321220136

Ho Chi Minh, 29/11/2023

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction.............................................................................................................

2. Literature review.....................................................................................................

2.1. Literature review...............................................................................................

2.2. Research model.................................................................................................

2.3. Hypotheses........................................................................................................

3. Methodology...........................................................................................................

3.1. Research process................................................................................................

3.2. Research methods..............................................................................................

References...................................................................................................................

1. Introduction:

Employee engagement has rapidly gained prominence as a pivotal driver of organizational

success, competitiveness, and financial performance (Gruman and Saks, 2011). Highly
engaged employees exhibit heightened dedication towards advancing organizational goals,
often going above and beyond formal expectations in their roles (Macey and Schneider,
2008). However, recent surveys reveal concerning declines in engagement, with Gallup
(2021) indicating only 33% of U.S. workers are engaged. This points to an urgent need to
examine the key influences shaping engagement.

Foundational theories have informed our understanding, including Kahn's (1990) model
examining psychological conditions influencing engagement, and Hackman and Oldham's
(1976) Job Characteristics Theory highlighting motivating work attributes. Researchers have
since built upon these theories to further unpack engagement's nomological network. For
instance, Saks (2006) differentiated antecedents into job and organization engagement, while

3
Christian et al. (2011) proposed a more expansive multi-level perspective. Schaufeli et al.
(2002) also conceived a unique operationalization grounded in energy, dedication, and
absorption.

Yet significant gaps remain in delineating engagement's boundaries from related constructs
like job satisfaction and commitment (Macey and Schneider, 2008; Saks and Gruman, 2014).
Theorization also requires clarification on contextual factors and individual differences
moderating observed engagement patterns (Barrick et al., 2013). Finally, limited guidelines
exist for practitioners to enhance engagement through evidence-based policies and initiatives
(Knight et al., 2017).

This study aims to address these gaps by: (a) clearly delineating engagement from adjoining
concepts, (b) proposing an integrative multi-level framework delineating key drivers, (c)
testing hypothesized relationships using robust methodology, and (d) deriving practical
recommendations for enhancing engagement drawing from the empirical results and extant
scientific literature. Findings will synthesize disparate streams to advance scholarly
understanding while providing practitioners actionable and impactful strategies grounded in
rigorous research.

2. Literature review:

2.1. Literature review:

Employee engagement has rapidly emerged as an vital concept in organizational research and
practice (Saks and Gruman, 2014). Initial theories established engagement's theoretical
foundations. Kahn (1990) conceived of engagement as the harnessing of one’s complete self
in fulfilling organizational roles, underscoring meaningful, safe and available psychological
conditions as key drivers. Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) Job Characteristics Model also
highlighted motivating work attributes that elicit positive personal and work outcomes.

Extensive research has since built upon these formative conceptualizations. Contemporary
perspectives define engagement as a fulfilling, positive work-related mindset characterized
by vigor, dedication, enthusiasm, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002; Macey and
Schneider, 2008). Yet the precise meaning and conceptual boundaries between employee

4
engagement, job satisfaction, involvement, commitment and related constructs requires
further delineation (Macey and Schneider, 2008; Saks and Gruman, 2014).

Nonetheless, meta-analytic evidence affirms engagement’s beneficial organizational impacts,

including enhancing task and contextual performance (Christian et al., 2011). Gallup (2021)
estimates highly engaged business units have 21% higher profitability. Antecedents have also
been extensively studied, with organizational support, inclusive leadership, job
characteristics, rewards, work-life balance and psychological capital positively predicting
engagement (Anitha, 2014; Bailey et al., 2017).

But perspectives argue employee engagement forms via a two-way partnership between
employees and employers (Eldor and Vigoda-Gadot, 2017). Organizations providing
adequate resources empower employees to fully immerse themselves in roles. Indeed, the
complexity of the engagement-performance relationship is increasingly apparent. Job
demands and resources interact in shaping work engagement and subsequently performance
(Bakker and Albrecht, 2018). Integrative frameworks are thus needed clarifying multi-level
drivers while delineating potential emotion-related, workload and meaningfulness-based
boundary conditions (Bailey et al., 2017).

In summary, employee engagement scholarship has rapidly advanced through successive

waves of theorization and empirical research. While foundational understandings have
formed, significant opportunities remain to integrate dispersed perspectives, improve
construct conceptualization, identify contextual contingencies, and derive actionable practices
for elevating engagement based on robust and holistic platforms (Knight et al., 2017).

2.2.Research model:

Dependent Variable:
Employee Engagement: Defined as a positive, fulfilling work-related psychological state
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Independent Variables:
Organizational Support: Encompasses perceived organizational support, inclusive leadership,
respect, care for employee well-being and growth (Saks, 2006; Eldor and Vigoda-Gadot,
2017).

5
Job Resources: Includes job autonomy, skill variety, task significance, feedback, and
development opportunities (Demerouti et al., 2001).

Workplace Relationships: Captures perceived manager and co-worker support, workplace

belongingness and conflict (Chughtai and Buckley, 2008).

Control Variables:

Gender, Age, Education Level, Tenure, Job Level

2.3.Hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Organizational support has a positive relationship with employee

engagement.

Prior research shows perceptions of organizational support fosters a reciprocal obligation

motivating employees to emotionally invest in their roles (Saks, 2006; Social Exchange
Theory, Cropanzano amd Mitchell, 2005). Supportive environments also indicate the

6
organization values and cares for employees, fulfilling socioemotional needs that further
enhance engagement (SELT, Eisenberger et al., 1986).

Hypothesis 2: Job resources are positively associated with employee engagement.

The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al., 2001) theorizes job resources
like autonomy, feedback and development opportunities motivate engagement by fulfilling
basic needs and achieving work goals. Empirical tests affirm this (Crawford et al., 2010).
Resources may also buffer demands, further enabling engagement.

Hypothesis 3: Positive workplace relationships increase employee engagement.

Interpersonal relationships generate a sense of connectedness, belonging and perceived

support critical for engagement (Kahn, 1990; Lawrence et al., 2019). Workplace friendships
also provide affective resources to persist through challenges (Nielsen et al., 2017).
Conflictual ties however diminish engagement.

Hypothesis 4: Different demographic factors affect employee engagement in different

ways.

3. Research Methodology:
3.1. Research process:

7
3.2. Research methods:

This study intends to clarify two separate stages, each utilizing a particular methodological
strategy to highlight the key components of work engagement. For formal analysis, a
qualitative method will be used in the first stage and a quantitative method in the second. A
draft scale is first implemented in the preliminary stage, drawing on pertinent literature and
the theoretical underpinnings of the Work Engagement Theory (Kahn, 1990). There will
thereafter be a conversation with seasoned professionals in the employee engagement space.
The altered scale, which serves as a measurement scale, is then used to assist the official
research. To evaluate the degree of indicators, this study uses a 5-point Likert scale
questionnaire with the following levels: (1) strongly disagree — (2) disagree — (3) neutral —
(4) agree — (5) strongly agree. For instance, the measuring scale of this study included a total
of 128 valid samples that were obtained from 16 indicators.

The survey uses convenient sampling to gather data, and Google Forms will be used to send
online questions to respondents. The study focuses in particular on dedicated employees in
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, who are eager to participate psychologically in their work. The
study must also be run through the Cronbach's alpha and EFA process in order to evaluate the
validity and reliability of the data and guarantee its representativeness. In the survey content
development and implementation, the regression testing method, with the assistance of IBM
software such as AMOS and SPSS, is employed for the statistical measuring process to gain a
comprehensive understanding of how various factors impact dependent variables and
contribute to the conclusion of how these variables mutually affect each other. Finally, the
ANOVA testing method plays a significant role in identifying and addressing errors,
omissions, and oversights.

References:

Barrick, M.R., Thurgood, G.R., Smith, T.A. and Courtright, S.H. (2013) 'Collective
organizational engagement: Linking motivational antecedents, strategic implementation, and
firm performance', Academy of Management journal, 58(1), pp. 111-135.

8
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011) 'Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance', Personnel Psychology,
64(1), pp. 89-136.

Gallup (2021) State of the Global Workplace 2021 Report. Gallup Press.

Gruman, J.A. and Saks, A.M. (2011) 'Performance management and employee engagement',
Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), pp. 123-136.

Kahn, W.A. (1990) 'Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work', Academy of management journal, 33(4), pp. 692-724.

Knight, C., Patterson, M. and Dawson, J. (2017) 'Building work engagement: A systematic
review and meta‐analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions',
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(6), pp. 792-812.

Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008) 'The meaning of employee engagement', Industrial
and organizational Psychology, 1(1), pp. 3-30.

Saks, A.M. (2006) 'Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement', Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 21(7), pp. 600-619.

Saks, A.M. and Gruman, J.A. (2014) 'What do we really know about employee engagement?',
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), pp. 155-182.

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, 3(1), pp. 71-92.

Anitha, J. (2014) 'Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee

performance', International journal of productivity and performance management, 63(3), p.
308.

9
Bakker, A.B. and Albrecht, S. (2018) 'Work engagement: current trends', Career
Development International, 23(1), pp. 4-11.

Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K. and Fletcher, L. (2017) 'The meaning, antecedents and
outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis', International Journal of
Management Reviews, 19(1), pp. 31-53.

Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011) 'Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance', Personnel Psychology,
64(1), pp. 89-136.

Eldor, L. and Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2017) 'The nature of employee engagement: Rethinking the
employee–organization relationship', The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 28(3), pp. 526-552.

Gallup (2021) State of the Global Workplace 2021 Report. Gallup Press.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976) 'Motivation through the design of work: Test of a
theory', Organizational behavior and human performance, 16(2), pp. 250-279.

Knight, C., Patterson, M. and Dawson, J. (2017) 'Building work engagement: A systematic
review and meta‐analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions',
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(6), pp. 792-812.

Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008) 'The meaning of employee engagement', Industrial
and organizational Psychology, 1(1), pp. 3-30.

Saks, A.M. and Gruman, J.A. (2014) 'What do we really know about employee engagement?',
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), pp. 155-182.

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, 3(1), pp. 71-92.

10
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, 3(1), pp. 71-92.

Saks, A.M. (2006) 'Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement', Journal of

managerial psychology, 21(7), pp. 600-619.

Eldor, L. and Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2017) 'The nature of employee engagement: Rethinking the
employee–organization relationship', The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 28(3), pp. 526-552.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001) 'The job demands-
resources model of burnout', Journal of Applied psychology, 86(3), pp. 499-512.

Chughtai, A.A. and Buckley, F. (2008) 'Work engagement and its relationship with state and
trait trust: A conceptual analysis', Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management, pp. 47-
71.

Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005) 'Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary

review', Journal of management, 31(6), pp. 874-900.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986) 'Perceived organizational
support', Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), pp. 500–507.

Saks, A.M. (2006) 'Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement', Journal of

managerial psychology, 21(7), pp. 600-619.

Crawford, E.R., LePine, J.A. and Rich, B.L. (2010) 'Linking job demands and resources to
employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test', Journal of
applied psychology, 95(5), pp. 834-848.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001) 'The job demands-
resources model of burnout', Journal of Applied psychology, 86(3), pp. 499-512.

11
Kahn, W.A. (1990) 'Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work', Academy of management journal, 33(4), pp. 692-724.

Lawrence, P.R., Paunova, M. and Cacioppe, R. (2019) 'Bridging identity theory and practice:
Managing workforce diversity for business results', Human Resource Management
International Digest, 27(3), pp. 32-36.

Nielsen, I.K., Jex, S.M. and Adams, G.A. (2017) 'Friends at work? Workplace friendship and
employee well-being', in The role of friendship in psychological adjustment, Springer, Cham,
pp. 177-198.

Kahn, W.A. (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), pp. 692-724.

12