The Influence of Organisational Support, Advancement,

Meaningfulness and Psychological Safety on Employee Engagement in a

Petrochemical Organisation

DINKO HERMAN BOIKANYO*, MELISSA NAIDOO

Department of Business Management,

University of Johannesburg,

Cnr Kingsway & University Roads, Auckland Park, Johannesburg, 2092,

SOUTH AFRICA

*Corresponding Author

Abstract: - By fostering employee engagement, organisations can achieve a range of benefits, including

retaining top talent, increasing productivity and safety, improving customer satisfaction and retention, and

achieving better financial results such as revenue growth and total shareholder return. This study aimed to

investigate the impact of factors such as organisational support, advancement opportunities, meaningful work,

and psychological safety on employee engagement among engineers in a petrochemical company, highlighting

the crucial role of work engagement in ensuring sustainable performance.

A quantitative research approach was utilized to collect data by surveying 84 engineers through

questionnaires, using judgmental sampling in one of the organisation's regional operating hubs. Descriptive,

reliability and inferential statistics were utilized to examine the relationship between employee engagement,

meaningfulness, and psychological safety. According to the descriptive statistics, the respondents had ample

growth opportunities, including a high degree of variety, learning opportunities, and job independence.

Advancement was also provided in terms of good salaries, although some respondents indicated that they

lacked financial rewards, promotions, and training opportunities. Most respondents indicated a positive level of

psychological safety, stating that they could be themselves at work and express their opinions. However, their

level of engagement was average, and some differences based on demographic information were observed.

According to the study, there was a notable and affirmative correlation between employee engagement,

organisational support, psychological safety, and meaningful work. As a result, the study suggests that

enhancing employee engagement levels, not just among engineers but other employees as well can lead to an

increase in productivity and overall performance. The study provides recommendations on how to achieve this

goal.

Key-Words: - Advancement, Meaningfulness, Organisational Support, Employee Engagement, Work

Engagement, Psychological Safety,

Received: November 12, 2022. Revised: April 21, 2023. Accepted: May 9, 2023. Published: May 19, 2023.

1 Introduction and Background

This research focuses on exploring the impact of

organizational support, advancement,

meaningfulness, and psychological safety on the

engagement levels of engineers employed by a

South African multinational petrochemical

organization. Employee engagement, as defined by

[25], refers to an employee's positive attitude

towards their organization and its values. Engaged

employees tend to have a sense of belonging, are

committed to the organization, work hard, and have

no desire to leave for another job. Conversely,

disengaged employees create a gap between their

efforts and organizational effectiveness, negatively

impacting an organization's financial performance,

[28].

In today's highly competitive business

environment, employee engagement is a critical

driver of an organization's success, [8]. [18] defines

employee engagement as the level of commitment

an employee has to an organization, resulting in

increased effort and length of employment.

According to [10], highly committed employees

exhibit 57% more discretionary effort and perform

20% better, with an 87% increase in retention

probability. However, recent research, [28] indicates

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.98

Dinko Herman Boikanyo, Melissa Naidoo

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

1100

Volume 20, 2023

that employee engagement has been on the decline,

leading to increased employee disengagement.

An internal survey conducted within a South

African petrochemical organization's operational

unit revealed a decrease in the engagement levels of

a diverse group of engineers. This study was

conducted one year before the current research.

These engineers have unique career and

developmental needs and growth paths compared to

other business functions, emphasizing the

importance of understanding the factors that

influence their engagement levels, including

organizational support, advancement,

meaningfulness, and psychological safety. Previous

studies by [16], [28] have demonstrated that work

meaningfulness and organizational support and

career growth play crucial roles in driving employee

engagement. The importance of psychological

safety in today's workplace was confirmed by [13],

making it necessary to investigate its influence on

employee engagement as well.

2 Literature Review

2.1 Employee Engagement as a Construct

[15] is widely recognized by scholars as being the

first to define engagement in academic literature. In

his work, he defines engagement as the expression

of a person's "preferred self" in task behaviors that

promote connections to work and to others, through

personal presence (physical, cognitive, and

emotional) and active, full-role performances.

Additionally, he asserts that engagement involves

the harnessing of an individual's self to their work

role, wherein they employ and express themselves

physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role

performances.

[23] notes that other academics, such as, [31],

[19], have offered similar definitions of

engagement. [31] describe engagement as a positive,

fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterized

by vigor, dedication, and absorption. [19]

conceptualize engagement through three main

dimensions: trait, state, and behavioral engagement.

They posit that organizational and work conditions

can enable engagement, with state engagement

relating to the workplace and job and the positive

feelings and self-identity experienced by the

individual, behavioral engagement referring to

adaptive behavior supporting organizational

effectiveness, and trait engagement stemming from

various personal attributes leading to energetic and

positive work experiences that go beyond what is

required to achieve organizational results. Trait

engagement is directly influenced by state

engagement and indirectly related to behavioral

engagement.

[26] summarize engagement as having three

main dimensions: physical involvement and positive

state, mental alertness and involvement, and

emotional commitment to the job.

[2] conducted an intensive literature review to

examine the various definitions of engagement.

Using qualitative analysis software, they identified

and analyzed different definitions of employee

engagement and arrived at a comprehensive

definition. They defined engagement as a

multidimensional construct that involves passionate,

inspired, energetic, enthusiastic, persistent, focused,

and emotionally positive individuals who utilize

their personal attributes and cognitive and affective

evaluations of job and organizational situations to

direct their task performance toward achieving

organizational objectives. This study adopted

Ababneh's definition as it encompasses all key

engagement themes found in the literature

2.1.1 The Importance of Employee Engagement

[21] propose three distinct employee behaviors that

can enhance organizational performance.

The first behavior is "Say," which involves

employees speaking positively about the

organization.

The second behavior is "Stay," which refers to an

employee's strong desire to remain with the

organization despite other opportunities.

The third behavior is "Strive," which entails an

employee applying effort and initiative to achieve

job and business success.

According to research conducted by [1], high-

performing organizations view employee

engagement as a crucial element for success. The

study also finds a significant correlation between an

organization's financial performance and higher

levels of employee engagement. In addition, Aon

Hewitt's engagement model incorporates "say, stay,

and strive" approach, [21], as certain engagement

drivers within an organization can lead to these

three engagement outcomes. These engagement

outcomes can result in a range of effects such as

talent retention, employee wellness, improved

productivity and safety, increased customer

satisfaction and retention, as well as financial

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.98

Dinko Herman Boikanyo, Melissa Naidoo

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

1101

Volume 20, 2023

outcomes such as revenue growth and improved

total.

2.1.2 Factors of Employee Engagement

Research by [15] identified three psychological

factors that are linked to employee engagement or

disengagement, namely meaningfulness, safety, and

availability. Meaningfulness pertains to deriving

value from investing oneself in a role, safety relates

to feeling secure enough to perform in the role, and

availability refers to having the necessary resources

to perform in the role.

In a study conducted by [22] within an insurance

organization, the impact of these three

psychological conditions on employee engagement

was investigated. The findings revealed that all three

conditions had a positive correlation with employee

engagement.

Improved capacity to achieve organizational

goals and objectives is closely linked to the

meaningfulness of work for employees.

Meaningfulness of work is defined as the positive

and significant impact that a job has on an

individual's life and the satisfaction they derive from

it, [16]. Specifically, [16] suggest that increased

meaningfulness of work leads to positive work-

related outcomes. Employees who find work

meaningful possess the ability to adapt to the

organization's desires. According to [20], employees

who experience meaningfulness of work exhibit

greater well-being, namely employee engagement

and affective commitment. They consider their work

important, place a higher value on work, and feel

obligated to stay with the organization for a long

time.

While psychological safety was introduced to

organizational science half a century ago, [32], it is

only recently that empirical work on the subject has

flourished. The research by [12] has generally

demonstrated that psychological safety allows

employees to feel safe at work and to grow, learn,

contribute, and perform effectively in a rapidly

changing world. A central theme in psychological

safety research is that it enables willing

contributions of ideas and actions to a shared

enterprise. For instance, psychological safety helps

explain why employees share information and

knowledge, [33], offer suggestions for

organizational improvements [17], and take

initiative to develop new products and services, [3].

In [27], a framework outlining the antecedents to

engagement and their impact on employee

engagement is presented. These antecedents include

job factors, perceived organizational support,

reward and acknowledgment, distributive and

procedural justice, and perceived supervisor

support.

The model by [27] assessed the influence of

these antecedents on job and organizational

engagement, which refer to the work role and the

role as a member of the organization. The study

revealed that several of the tested factors influence

both job and organizational engagement.

[2] discovered that transformational leadership

style and certain personality traits, such as positivity

and conscientiousness, were significantly associated

with employee engagement. Similarly, [9] found

that the transformational leadership style contributes

to daily employee engagement through the factors

of autonomy and contingent reward.

The Conference Board (2006) conducted a meta-

analysis of 12 research studies to identify the drivers

of employee engagement. They found eight

common drivers, which can be grouped into two

categories: organizational factors and job factors.

The five organizational factors are:

 Trust and Integrity: This refers to how

employees perceive management's concern for

their well-being, their ability to listen and

follow through, and how they demonstrate the

organization's goals and values.

 Career Growth Opportunities: This refers to the

opportunities available for future career growth

and promotion within the organization.

 Line of Sight between Individual and

Organizational Performance: This refers to how

aware employees are of the organization's

performance and how their individual

contributions affect this performance.

 Pride about the Organization: This refers to the

level of self-esteem an individual derives from

working for and being associated with the

organization.

 Co-workers/Team Members: This speaks to the

influence of colleagues on individual

engagement.

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.98

Dinko Herman Boikanyo, Melissa Naidoo

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

1102

Volume 20, 2023

The three job factors are:

 Nature of the Job: This refers to the level of

stimulation an employee experiences from their

job and whether they have decision-making

authority and autonomy.

 Employee Development: This refers to the

extent to which an employee feels that the

organization makes an effort to develop their

skills.

 Personal Relationship with One's Manager: This

refers to the extent to which an employee values

the relationship with their manager

[11] developed the Job Demand-Resources (JD-

R) model, which categorizes job characteristics into

job resources and job demands. Job resources refer

to physical, psychological, social, or organizational

aspects of the job that assist in achieving work

goals, reduce job demands, and stimulate personal

growth. Job demands refer to the features of a job

that require sustained physical, mental, and/or

psychological effort from an employee resulting in

physiological and/or psychological costs. The JD-R

model assumes that job characteristics can be

defined according to these categories, and job

resources lead to higher motivation and less

burnout, which increases employee engagement,

whereas job demands result in stress, energy

depletion, and disengagement.

According to [28], engagement drivers can be

classified into job resources, job demands, and

processes. Job resources strongly relate to employee

engagement and can arise from the organization

through elements such as remuneration and career

opportunities, social relationships with managers

and team members, role clarity, and decision-

making authority. In contrast, job demands that

negatively relate to employee engagement include

overload, role conflict and ambiguity, time pressure,

organizational politics, and administrative burdens.

Processes such as trust, justice, and psychological

contract fulfilment are also positively linked to

employee engagement, [28].

[4] suggested that job resources can mitigate the

impact of job demands on strain and burnout, which

can lead to disengagement. Overall, the JD-R model

and the drivers of employee engagement help

organizations understand how to manage job

demands and resources effectively to increase

employee engagement and reduce burnout.

2.1.3 Measuring Employee Engagement

The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) is a

commonly used tool for measuring engagement, [7],

[28], which assesses three dimensions of

engagement: vigor, dedication, and absorption, [31]

A shorter version of the UWES with only nine items

are also available, [30]. The UWES has been

validated in several countries, including The

Netherlands, South Africa, China, and Spain, [5],

[29], [34], [31]. However, some scholars have

expressed concerns about the construct validity of

the UWES and its potential overlap with other

constructs such as job satisfaction and

organizational commitment, [2], [27], [28]. A study

conducted by [28] even found weak support for the

three-factor structure of the UWES.

[2] devised a tool to measure the components of

his definition of employee engagement. This 20-

item measure was subjected to reliability and

discriminant validity testing, which yielded positive

results. The engagement measurement scale created

from Ababneh's study was fashioned from several

existing engagement scales and included additional

items created by the author to account for the

emotional, cognitive, and behavioural dimensions of

employee engagement. The scale evaluates factors

such as employees' positive emotions and activation

towards their jobs, as well as their discretionary

effort, which gauges the level of effort exerted by

employees in response to performance-related

activities and challenges faced by the organization.

The "absorption" factor measures the level of

attention employees show during task performance,

while "identification" assesses the degree to which

employees are aware of their role in accomplishing

organizational goals. Meanwhile, "task

performance" measures employees' focus on daily

tasks, while "discretionary effort" is applied to the

achievement of organizational objectives and

challenges. The study's research hypotheses are

provided below

2.2 Research Hypotheses

The following research hypotheses were formulated

for this study:

H1: A statistically significant positive

relationship exists between organisational support

and employee engagement.

H2: A statistically significant positive

relationship exists between advancement and

employee engagement.

H3: A statistically significant positive

relationship exists between meaningfulness and

employee engagement.

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.98

Dinko Herman Boikanyo, Melissa Naidoo

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

1103

Volume 20, 2023

H4: A statistically significant positive

relationship exists between psychological safety and

employee engagement.

3 Problem Formulation

The petrochemical organization investigated in this

study conducted an internal analysis within one of

its operational units, which revealed a decrease in

employee engagement among a diverse group of

engineers, with a considerable number of them

scoring low on the engagement scale. The literature

suggests a correlation between high levels of

employee engagement and enhanced organizational

performance, [1]. Therefore, since boosting

engagement levels among this group of highly

skilled employees could benefit the organization, it

is crucial to identify the factors that affect their

engagement within this operational unit. The

research objectives for this study are presented

below.

4 Objectives

The objectives of the study will comprise both

primary and secondary objectives.

4.1 Primary Objective

The main aim of this research is to examine how

organisational support, advancement,

meaningfulness, and psychological safety impact the

employee engagement of engineers working in the

operational unit.

4.2 Secondary Objectives

 Empirically assess the level of employee

engagement among engineers.

 Investigate the relationship between employee

engagement and advancement.

 Investigate the relationship between employee

engagement and organizational support.

 Investigate the relationship between employee

engagement and meaningfulness.

 Investigate the relationship between employee

engagement and psychological safety.

 Provide practical recommendations and suggest

directions for future research.

The following section outlines the research design

for this study.

5 Research Methodology

A mono-method quantitative research design was

employed for this study, where data was collected

through a questionnaire. The survey research

strategy was chosen as it enables the collection of a

large amount of data from a sizable population.

For this study, non-probability sampling was

utilized to select participants to complete the

questionnaire. Judgemental sampling was employed

to select engineers from the chemical, mechanical,

electrical, and instrument engineering disciplines

who perform technical work within the specific

operational unit under study. The target sample size

for this study was approximately 167 engineers. The

20-item employee engagement scale developed by

[2] was used to measure employee engagement.

The measurement tool used in this study was a

20-item scale that assesses various factors related to

employee engagement, such as emotions and

activation, discretionary effort, absorption, task

performance, and identification. Participants were

asked to rate the items on a five-point Likert scale

ranging from ‘never to always’. In addition, a

second questionnaire was used to measure two

psychological conditions, namely meaningfulness

and psychological safety, based on a study by [22].

The assessment of advancement and organizational

support was based on a portion of the JDRS

questionnaire developed by [14].

The statistical analysis of the quantitative data

collected in this study was conducted using the

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)

program. Descriptive statistics were employed to

define and compare the variables in terms of their

central tendency and dispersion, with mean and

standard deviation analysis used for this purpose.

Furthermore, multiple regression analysis was

conducted to explore the relationships between

employee engagement and the engagement factors

that were tested.

To ensure the reliability of the measurement

instrument, internal consistency was assessed.

Cronbach’s alpha index was used to calculate the

internal consistency. This index ranges from 0 to 1,

with a coefficient of 0.7 or higher considered a good

reliability coefficient, [24]. In this study, 84

responses were received from the initial sample

frame of 167, resulting in a response rate of 50.3%.

To maintain the internal validity of the

questionnaire, the findings were compared to other

research in the same area. Content validity was

maintained by defining the research through the

literature review on the subject. Content validity

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.98

Dinko Herman Boikanyo, Melissa Naidoo

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

1104

Volume 20, 2023

refers to the measurement tool’s ability to cover the

investigative questions guiding the research, [6].

Criterion-related validity was achieved through

statistical analysis of the data and comparison to

similar validated measures that deal with the same

construct. This ensures that the measurement

instrument used in this study was valid and reliable.

6 Findings and Discussion

6.1 Descriptive Statistics

The data collected on age was divided into five age

groups. The results showed that the majority of

participants were under the age of 41, with 40.5% of

respondents falling into the 31-40 age group and

29.8% in the 20-30 age group. The third largest age

group was 41-50 years at 17.9%, whilst 8.3% were

in the 51-60 age group and 3.6% were 61 years old

or older.

In terms of length of employment, the majority

of respondents (38.1%) had been employed for 4-10

years. The second highest percentage (33.3%) had

been employed for 11-20 years, while 17.9% had

been employed for more than 20 years. Only 10.7%

had been employed for 0-3 years.

Regarding education level, the majority of

respondents were highly educated with 50% holding

a degree and 31% holding a postgraduate degree.

15.5% of respondents had a diploma and only 3.6%

had a matric qualification.

6.1.1 Level of Employee Engagement

The objective of empirically assessing the level of

employee engagement of the engineers was met by

utilizing the 20-item engagement scale that consists

of five factors developed by [2].

The following were observed:

 Firstly, the overall employee engagement level

of the group was found to be slightly above

average with a mean score of 3.646, based on a

5-point Likert scale. The engagement scale

comprises five dimensions including positive

emotions and activation, discretionary effort,

absorption, identification, and task performance.

 The positive emotions and activation dimension

measures factors such as passion, enthusiasm,

positive affect, energy, inspiration,

meaningfulness, pride, and attention. The

overall score for this dimension was slightly

above average, with a mean score of 3.524. The

items related to pride, passion, and enthusiasm

received more positive scores (mean>3.5),

whereas the scores were lower for items related

to positive affect, inspiration, meaningfulness,

and energy.

 Discretionary effort refers to employees'

willingness to go beyond their job requirements

in responding to performance-related activities

and adapting to perceived threats or challenges

facing the organization. The overall score for

this dimension was positive, with a mean score

of 4.167, indicating a high level of discretionary

effort within the group.

 The absorption dimension examines the extent

to which individuals are immersed in their work

and how attentive they are while performing

tasks. The mean score for this dimension was

average at 3.095.

 The identification dimension assesses

employees' awareness of their roles' purpose in

the organization and how organizational goals

are achieved as a result. The mean score for this

factor was slightly above average at 3.503.

Responses to this factor varied, and the majority

of respondents felt that they understood how

their roles relate to the organization's goals and

objectives. However, only 23.5% of respondents

felt that the organization inspires the very best

in them in terms of job performance regularly,

and just over half (51.2%) of the respondents

regularly speak highly of the organization to

friends.

 Finally, the task performance factor evaluates

respondents' focus on regular tasks while

achieving organizational goals and solving

challenges. The mean score for this factor was

4.256, indicating a high level of task

performance in this group. This particular factor

had the least variance, with the majority of

responses being positive. According to [2], an

engaged employee should not ignore daily tasks

while achieving organizational goals and

solving challenges.

After conducting a comparative analysis, the

study identified several differences in engagement

scores between different groups, including:

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.98

Dinko Herman Boikanyo, Melissa Naidoo

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

1105

Volume 20, 2023

 Female respondents had a higher engagement

level than male respondents according to the

descriptive results, but there was no statistically

significant difference between the two groups.

 The 41-50 age group showed a statistically

significant difference in engagement level

compared to the less engaged 20-30 age group.

The descriptive results suggested that the 31-40

age group had a higher engagement score than

the 20-30 age group, although this difference

was not statistically significant.

 There were no significant differences in

engagement based on the duration of

employment.

 There were no statistically significant

differences in engagement between the different

qualification levels, but the descriptive statistics

indicated that employees with diplomas had a

higher engagement score than those with a

degree or postgraduate qualification.

6.1.2 Organisational Support

The concept of Organisational Support pertains to

how employees perceive their relationship with

colleagues and superiors, communication and

information flow, and clarity of their roles, [26] The

respondents in this study had mixed perceptions of

organisational support. On the one hand, they felt

that they had the freedom to carry out their work

tasks and that their job allowed for independent

thought and action. On the other hand, only 56% of

the participants believed that their job provided

them with opportunities for personal growth and

development.

6.1.3 Advancement

The factor of Advancement in this study pertains to

how employees perceive training and career

prospects, as well as their remuneration, [26]. The

findings indicate that a large majority (87%) of

respondents felt satisfied with their salaries, with

84% indicating that they can comfortably sustain

themselves with their pay. However, the majority

(58%) felt that they cannot advance financially, with

90% stating that they do not have any promotion

opportunities at their job. Moreover, 63% of the

respondents believed that there are insufficient

training opportunities available.

6.1.4 Meaningfulness

Meaningfulness refers to the extent to which work

activities are perceived as meaningful by the

respondents. The descriptive statistics show that the

majority of the participants found their work to be

meaningful, as evidenced by the positive mean score

of 3.701 for this factor.

6.1.5 Psychological Safety

Psychological safety pertains to an employee's

capacity to freely express their opinions and be

authentic at work. According to the descriptive

statistics, a significant number of respondents (74%)

did not feel fearful of being themselves at work, and

57% of them were comfortable expressing their

opinions. However, 47% of respondents indicated

that they do not feel safe in their work environment.

The mean score for this factor was above average at

3.524.

6.2 Reliability Statistics

The subsequent segment displays the reliability

statistics of the measurement scales.

The reliability of the engagement scale's

subscales was evaluated and all five factors showed

acceptable Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients, which

exceeded the recommended value of 0.7. The

corrected item-total correlation was also satisfactory

for all scale items.

The Cronbach’s Alpha for the organisational

support subscale was 0.717, while for the

advancement subscale, it was 0.706.

The meaningfulness scale exhibited an

acceptable Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.920, and all items

reported a corrected item-total correlation above 0.3.

However, the psychological safety scale's reliability

statistics reported a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.60,

which is lower than the recommended value of 0.7.

Nevertheless, [24] notes that shorter scales with 10

items or less often have lower Cronbach values,

even as low as 0.5. In such cases, the mean inter-

item correlation is also a useful indicator, with an

optimal range of 0.2-0.4. The mean inter-item

correlation for this scale is within the recommended

range at 0.339, and the individual corrected item-

total correlation for all items is above 0.3, indicating

good reliability.

6.3 Inferential Statistics

The correlation analysis revealed that the Pearson

coefficients for organisational support and

meaningfulness were both well above the

recommended 0.3 threshold, at 0.561 and 0.820

respectively. Psychological safety, on the other

hand, had a smaller relationship with a coefficient

value of 0.257. The correlation between

advancement and engagement was weak, with a

coefficient of 0.041.

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.98

Dinko Herman Boikanyo, Melissa Naidoo

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

1106

Volume 20, 2023

The model's R-squared value was found to be

acceptable at 0.731, and all tolerances were above

0.1, indicating that there was no issue with multi-

collinearity. Outliers were deemed not to be

problematic, as the maximum Mahalanobis distance

value of 11.823 was lower than the critical value of

18.47 for four independent variables, [24]. The

normal probability plot displayed a reasonably

straight line, indicating no significant deviations

from normality. Moreover, the scatterplot did not

reveal any discernible pattern. These findings

suggest that the fundamental assumptions of the

model were valid.

The results revealed that Meaningfulness and

Organisational Support had a significant positive

correlation with engagement, while Psychological

Safety had a small positive correlation with

engagement. On the other hand, Advancement had a

weak negative correlation with engagement, with a

significance value of 0.049, which is close to the

cut-off point of 0.05 for significance.

The job resource Organisational Support

showed a strong positive correlation with employee

engagement, which supports previous research

work, [26]. Furthermore, the strong positive

correlation between Meaningfulness and

engagement aligns with the findings of [22].

The results indicated a weaker but still positive

correlation between Psychological Safety and

employee engagement compared to Meaningfulness.

This finding is in line with previous research by [22]

who also found a positive relationship between

Psychological Safety and employee engagement.

However, the job resource of Advancement

showed a weak negative correlation with employee

engagement, which is not consistent with the theory

that job resources are positively associated with

employee engagement, [11], [26]. This finding may

not be relevant, given that the significance value for

this factor was close to the cut-off point and the

sample size was small.

7 Recommendations

The literature suggests that there is a strong

relationship between employee engagement and

organizational performance. When employees are

engaged, they can contribute significantly to

operational, financial, customer-focused, and talent

retention outcomes for the organization.

However, collaborating and working together

can be challenging as it involves managing

interpersonal dynamics, particularly when it comes

to admitting ignorance or uncertainty, expressing

opinions or concerns, or being different. These

interpersonal threats can be powerful and can hinder

organizational learning. To encourage employees to

feel comfortable sharing their ideas or asking

questions without fear of ridicule or punishment,

managers must create a climate of psychological

safety. Without this safety, effective collaboration

becomes less likely, particularly in situations that

involve uncertainty and complexity.

Creating an interpersonal climate of safety is

just one ingredient required for learning and

performance. Other essential components such as

strategy, vision, goals, and supportive leadership

must also be in place to enable learning and

performance.

Collaboration between employees and

organizations is essential in enhancing the

meaningfulness of work in an employee's life. When

an employee perceives a high level of meaning in

their work, they gain confidence in their abilities

and strive for self-actualization. This, in turn, leads

to high levels of employee engagement and low

levels of psychological withdrawal behavior. When

employees are focused on maximizing the

meaningfulness of their work, organizations should

provide them with challenging tasks, feedback

mechanisms, and avenues for sharing work-related

suggestions. By doing so, both the organization and

the employee can benefit.

8 Conclusions

The sample group's overall level of employee

engagement is higher than average, as reflected in

their mean engagement score of 3.64 on a five-point

Likert scale. However, there were variations in

responses across the engagement scale's five sub-

factors, namely positive emotions and activation,

discretionary effort, absorption, identification, and

task performance. The sample group displayed a

high level of discretionary effort, suggesting that

employees are willing to go the extra mile in

responding to performance-related activities and can

cope with any perceived threats or challenges facing

the organization. Additionally, the group exhibited

high levels of task performance, indicating that daily

tasks are accomplished while also completing

organizational goals and solving challenges.

Positive emotions and activation had an overall

above-average score of 3.52. The respondents

expressed pride, passion, and enthusiasm for their

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.98

Dinko Herman Boikanyo, Melissa Naidoo

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

1107

Volume 20, 2023

work, but meaningfulness, energy at work,

inspiration, and positive affect were average among

the sample group. Absorption in the sample group

was found to be average, with a mean score of 3.09,

indicating that individuals may not be fully engaged

at work and perhaps not as attentive as they could be

while performing tasks. Identification within the

group was slightly above average, with many

respondents understanding how their role relates to

the organization's goals and objectives. However,

only a small portion of employees feel that the

organization inspires the very best in them in terms

of job performance regularly, and slightly over half

of respondents regularly speak highly of this

organization to friends.

The respondents also indicated that their work

offers meaning, and psychological safety scored

positively for the most part, with the majority of

respondents indicating that they can express their

opinions and are not afraid to be themselves at

work. Less than half of the respondents felt that

there was a threatening environment at work.

References:

[1] Aon Hewitt. (2017). Trends in global

employee engagement. Available at:

http://www.aon.com. Accessed 18 July 2017.

[2] Ababneh, O.M.A. (2015). Conceptualizing

and measuring employee engagement, and

examining the antecedents of leadership styles

and personality attributes. Doctoral

dissertation, Auckland University of

Technology.

[3] Baer M, Frese M. (2003). Innovation is not

enough: climates for initiative and

psychological safety, process innovations, and

firm performance, Journal of Organizational

Behaviour. Vol.24, No.1, pp.45–68

[4] 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.

[5] Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2008).

Towards a model of work engagement.

Career Development International, Vol.13,

No.3, pp.209-223.

[6] Blumberg, B.F., Cooper, D.R. and Schindler,

P.S. (2008). Business research methods 2nd

ed. McGraw-Hill Education.

[7] Boikanyo, D.H. (2012). An exploration of the

effect of employee engagement on

performance in the petrochemical industry.

Masters dissertation, North-West University,

South Africa.

[8] Boikanyo, D.H. and Heyns, M.M. (2019). The

effect of work engagement on total quality

management practices in a petrochemical

organisation. South African Journal of

Economic and Management Sciences, Vol.22,

No.1.

[9] Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J.,

Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K. and Espevik, R.

(2014). Daily transactional and

transformational leadership and daily

employee engagement. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

Vol.87, No.1, pp.138-157.

[10] Corporate Leadership Council. (2004).

Driving performance and retention through

employee engagement. Washington, DC:

Corporate executive board. Available at:

https://www.usc.edu Accessed: 30 August

2016.

[11] Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F.,

& Schaufeli,demero W.B. (2001). The job

demands resources model of burnout. Journal

of Applied Psychology, Vol,86, No.3, pp.499–

512.

[12] Edmondson A.C. and Lei, Z. (2014).

Psychological safety: The history,

renaissance, and future of an interpersonal

construct. Annual Review of Organizational

Psychology and Organizational Behavior,

Vol.1, pp.23–43.

[13] Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L.,

Pezeshkan, A. and Vracheva, V. (2017).

Psychological safety: A meta‐analytic review

and extension. Personnel Psychology, Vol.70,

No.1, pp.113-165.

[14] Jackson, L. & Rothmann, S. (2005). Work-

related well-being of educators in a district of

the North-West Province. General.

Perspectives in Education, Vol.23, No.1,

pp.107-122.

[15] Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions

of personal engagement and disengagement at

work. Academy of Management Journal,

Vol.33, No.4, pp.692-724.

[16] Kaur, P. & Mittal, A. (2020). Meaningfulness

of work and employee Engagement: The role

of affective commitment. Available at:

https://openpsychologyjournal.com/VOLUM

E/13/PAGE/115/FULLTEXT/. Accessed: 18

February 2021

[17] Liang J, Farh CIC, Farh JL. (2012).

Psychological antecedents of promotive and

prohibitive voice: a two-waveexamination.

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.98

Dinko Herman Boikanyo, Melissa Naidoo

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

1108

Volume 20, 2023

Academy of Management Journal, Vol.55,

pp.71–92.

[18] Lockwood, N.R. (2007). Leveraging

employee engagement for competitive

advantage. Alexandria, VA: Society for

Human Resource Management.

[19] Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008). The

meaning of employee engagement. Industrial

and Organizational Psychology, Vol.1, No.1,

pp.3-30.

[20] Madelyn, G, Karolina, L and Cornelia, V.

(2014). Meaningful work, work engagement,

and organizational commitment. SA Journal

of Industrial Psychology, Vol.40, No.1,

pp.1098-1108.

[21] Markos, S. and Sridevi, M.S. (2010).

Employee engagement: The key to improving

performance. International Journal of

Business and Management, Vol.5, No.12,

pp.89.

[22] May, D.R., Gilson, R.L., and Harter, L.M.

(2004). The psychological conditions of

meaningfulness, safety and availability, and

the engagement of the human spirit at work.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, Vol.77, No.1, pp.11-37

[23] Meyer, J.P. (2017). Has engagement had its

day. What’s next and does it matter?

Organizational Dynamics, Vol.46, No.2,

pp.87-95.

[24] Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Manual. 4th

ed. Maidenhead:Open University

Press/McGraw-Hill.

[25] Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S.

(2004). The drivers of employment

engagement. Brighton, Institute for

Employment Studies, UK: Report, 408.

[26] Rothmann, S. and Rothmann, Jr, S. (2010).

Factors associated with employee engagement

in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial

Psychology, Vol.36, No.2, pp.1-12.

[27] Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and

consequences of employee engagement.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol.21,

No.7, pp.600-619.

[28] Saks, A.M. (2017). Translating employee

engagement research into practice.

Organizational Dynamics, Vol.46, No.2,

pp.76-86.

[29] Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2003).

Utrecht work engagement scale: Preliminary

manual. Occupational Health Psychology

Unit, Utrecht University, Utrecht. (Online).

Available at: http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/

Accessed: 6 October 2016.

[30] Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. 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.

[31] Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-

Roma´, V. and Bakker, A. B. (2002). The

measurement of engagement and burnout and:

A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of

Happiness Studies, Vol.3, pp.71–92.

[32] Schein. EH, Bennis. W. (1965). Personal and

Organizational Change Through Group

Methods. New York: Wiley

[33] Siemsen, E. Roth, A.V., Balasubramanian, S.

and Anand G. (2009). The influence of

psychologicalsafety and confidencein

knowledge on employee knowledge sharing.

Manufacturing and Service Operations

Management. Vol.11, No.3, pp.429–47

[34] Yi-Wen, Z. & Yi-Qun, C. (2005). The

Chinese version of the Utrecht Work

Engagement Scale: An examination of

reliability and validity. Chinese Journal of

Clinical Psychology, Vol.13, pp.268-70.

Contribution of Individual Authors to the

Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting

Policy)

-Melissa Naidoo wrote the original manuscripts as a

student.

-Dr. Dinko Herman Boikanyo assisted with the

writing, did the editing and all the corrections.

Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a

Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself

The publishing fees are provided by the

University of Johannesburg

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)

This article is published under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

_US

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.98

Dinko Herman Boikanyo, Melissa Naidoo

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

1109

Volume 20, 2023