Mediating Role of Employee Engagement: Job Involvement,Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment

Abstract

This study examines the mediating role of employee engagement on the relationship among job involvement and job satisfaction as independent variables and organizational commitment as the dependent variable in private life insurance companies in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Primarily, employee engagement plays a vital role in organizational performance. Therefore, this study was conducted to demonstrate how employee engagement mediates the relationship among job involvement and job satisfaction as independent variables and organizational commitment as the dependent variable. For this study, data was collected through a structured questionnaire, and 225 samples were taken. A simple random sampling method was used to collect the data, and the partial least square (PLS) method was used to analyze the data. In the study, job involvement and job satisfaction were considered to be antecedents, employee engagement was considered a mediating variable and organizational commitment was considered an outcome. It is suggested that job involvement and job satisfaction are significantly related to employee engagement. The study also revealed that job involvement and job satisfaction positively influence organizational commitment. Employee engagement was found to partially mediate the relationship between job involvement and organizational commitment, while it did not mediate the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Hence, this study proves that employee engagement plays a significant role in the organization. Therefore, organizations should concentrate on employee engagement strategies on the basis of which employees’ job involvement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment will increase.

Keywords

Social exchange theory engagement theory employee engagement job involvement job satisfaction organizational commitment

Introduction

Employee engagement is a positive psychological condition that supports individuals focusing on their careers (Kahn, 1990).¹ It enhances employee performance and job satisfaction, and leads the organization to achieve its goals (Ibrahim & Al Falasi, 2014). It supports work-life balance, high performance, teamwork and leadership (Iddagoda & Opatha, 2020). It increases the employees’ morale, commitment and motivation toward the organization (Chanana, 2021). Based on the study, it is found that there is a significant relationship between employee engagement and job performance (Ismail et al., 2019). Employee engagement has been getting significant importance over the last 10 years at the workplace. Companies are exercising the concept of employee engagement as a strategic tool because it supports the employees as well as the organization (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014). According to the Gallup research, only 13% of employees are engaged by their organization. At the workplace, employee engagement is closely related to job attitude. Job attitude consists of three important variables: job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job involvement (Newman & Harrison, 2008). Employee engagement supports all age groups in the workplace and also increases the mutual understanding between employees and employers (Motyka, 2018).

A study found that there is a good relationship between employee engagement and job satisfaction (Extremera et al., 2018). Employee engagement supports job satisfaction, job involvement and organizational commitment (Christian et al., 2011). Previous studies found that there is a good relationship between employee engagement and job attitudes at the individual level as well as the organizational level (Alarcon et al., 2010). Based on the study, it is found that there is a significant relationship between employee engagement and job performance (Bulińska-Stangrecka & Iddagoda, 2020). The productivity and efficiency of the organization increase when employees experience job satisfaction on account of their involvement in their job (Nwibere, 2014). Employees who have high job involvement and self confidence have a high job satisfaction at the workplace (Chen & Chiu, 2009). Job satisfaction increases productivity, quality, responsiveness and recognition. Based on the study, it is found that job satisfaction influences organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) (Purwanto et al., 2021).

Nowadays, organizational commitment of employees has taken centre stage in the business environment. Organizational commitment gives a lot of benefits to employees as well as the organization. The benefits include increased OCB, less absenteeism, extra efforts and performance, and reduced turnover (Chen et al., 2012). According to the study, in today’s business environment, job involvement and organizational commitment are considered important factors. Besides, many studies opine that job satisfaction influences organizational commitment (Bahjat Abdallah et al., 2017). Based on the study, it is identified that organizational commitment has a positive and significant effect on an employee’s performance (Ridwan et al., 2020). Another study has also identified that transformational leadership has a positive impact on organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Eliyana & Ma’arif, 2019). A study has also recommended that the banking and insurance sectors need to find out their employee’s job involvement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment to succeed in the business environment. At the workplace, ff the aforementioned variables are not focused on, it leads to absenteeism, poor work effort, lower organizational loyalty and higher employee turnover. Based on the study, it is found that employee engagement is the right construct to measure job involvement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Newman & Harrison, 2008). Another study found that there is a strong relationship between employee engagement and job attitudes (Newman et al., 2010).

Although, it has been two decades since the concept of employee engagement emerged, the consensus and research on it are not up to the mark (Shuck & Wollard, 2010). Therefore, the present study focuses on the relationship between job satisfaction, job involvement and organizational commitment with the support of employee engagement. Many studies have indicated that employee engagement leads to discretionary behaviour. However, a few studies had earlier linked employee engagement with organizational outcomes (Koonmee et al., 2010). Therefore, this study focuses on how employee engagement plays the mediating role of discretionary behaviours of individual employees and the expected outcome of the organization. Eventually, this research addresses the effect of job involvement and job satisfaction on organizational commitment with the help of employee engagement in private life insurance companies. Besides, the mediating effect of employee engagement on the relationship between job involvement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment is also examined.

Industry Background

The life insurance industry plays a vital role in any country’s economy. Life insurance meets the needs of the people and is also important for the country’s economic growth. This industry attracts long-term funds from customers. The same are then invested in the development of the country. Therefore, the life insurance industry plays a significant role nowadays (Kumar & Priyan, 2012). Prior to 1999, the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) dominated the Indian market. Beginning in the year 2000, after the IRDA Act in 2009, several private players entered the Indian market. In India, out of a total of 57 insurance companies, 24 are in the business of life insurance. In the life insurance sector, LIC is the sole public sector company, while the remaining are private players. The life insurance and the non-life insurance industry contributed a total premium of 74.96% and 25.06% respectively in India in 2019–2020. The Indian life insurance industry received a total premium of ₹5.73 trillion (US$81.3 billion), of which the contribution of private players’ was 33.7% in 2020. Life insurance companies issued 2.8846 billion individual policies. LIC contributed 75.9% and the remaining 24.1% was contributed by private players.

The life insurance penetration in India stands at 3.2% and the insurance density is at US$78 in the financial year 2021. The market share of life insurance grew to 49.31% in the financial year 2021. Six private life insurance companies increased their premium to 66.6% at 14.0664 billion in the first half of 2021. In the first half of the financial year 2022, the growth of the industry was 5.8%. The premium of the life insurance industry is expected to reach ₹24 trillion by the financial year 2031. When private players entered the Indian market, growth for the public sector company was sluggish. Moreover, private players slowly captured the market share and started performing well (Ansari & Fola, 2014). The private sector companies in the life insurance sector have grown from 47.97% to 48.03% in 2020. Based on the S&P global market intelligence data, in Asia-Pacific, India was the second-largest insurance technology market. Within the next three to five years, the Indian life insurance industry is expected to grow by 14%–15%. Based on the previous reviews, only a limited number of empirical studies covered life insurance companies. Most of the studies focused on financial performance, measuring efficiency and productivity and the structure of the insurance industry. No study focused on the employees’ side, which plays a predominant role in the insurance industry (Parida et al., 2017).

Insurance is a highly personalized product (Pareek et al., 2022). Moreover, buying insurance is an emotional decision. Hence, customers prefer to buy insurance from trusted companies whose employees play a vital role in selling the insurance to customers. They must be satisfied and engaged in the workplace. In the insurance sector, there are problems related to the working environment, motivation, participative decision-making, and rewards and recognition of employees. Most employees are not satisfied and are not fully engaged (Rupavathi, 2020). The Three ‘I’ frameworks ‘Inform, Involve and Invigorate’ support the employee engagement architecture. Apart from that, organizations are conducting employee surveys and giving on-time feedback through which employees are engaged at the workplace. When compared to other industries, work-life balance was a major issue in the life insurance industry. 63% of the people said work-life balance was the biggest employee engagement issue. The study revealed that 54% of the employees leave the industry for a better work life balance, even though they consider a career in the life insurance industry to be a better option.

Employee Engagement

Employee engagement is a combination of the ‘cognitive, emotional and behavioural’ aspects of an individual employee that influences the employee to connect to the job (Saks, 2006). Based on the study, it is found that employee engagement supports the well-being and organizational commitment of employees (Rasool et al., 2021). Employee engagement contributes towards increasing profit, improving productivity and performance, customer satisfaction and curbing the intention to quit (Rich et al., 2010). Employee engagement improves employees’ communication at the workplace and reduces employee turnover (Kang & Sung, 2017). Based on the Social Exchange Theory, employees who receive more support from the organization tend to reciprocate the same. Engaged employees create their resources and deliver great performance at the workplace (Bakker et al., 2011). Employee engagement has significantly improved the performance of the organization. It has a positive impact on individual and organizational performance (Sun & Bunchapattanasakda, 2019). It motivates employees to perceive the organization in a positive manner (Cook, 2012). It improves job satisfaction and employee performance by which organizational goals can be accomplished (Ibrahim & Al Falasi, 2014). It is a vital factor for an organization’s success. Moreover, through employee engagement, employees can comprehend the objective and nature of the work (Ugwu et al., 2014). Many studies recommend that employee engagement positively influences employee performance in an organization (Kim et al., 2013). The study found that employee engagement predicts organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviour and job satisfaction (Saks, 2019).

Job Involvement, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment

Job Involvement

Job involvement leads to greater job satisfaction and higher productivity at the workplace. (Varshney, 2020). The Classic Motivation Theory is a supportive theory of job involvement. The theory suggests that when employees are involved in the job, they put in more effort and can work more efficiently. In addition to that, they become productive and are ready to receive feedback from others (Cotton, 1993). Job involvement plays an imperative role in building a supportive work environment, which ultimately leads to the organization’s success. Apart from that, it integrates the goals of an individual and those of the organization (Mgedezi et al., 2014). There is a strong relationship between job involvement and organizational commitment (Ćulibrk et al., 2018a). Job involvement leads to job satisfaction on the basis of which productivity and efficiency of the organization can be increased (Nwibere, 2014). Job involvement supports employees and employers in terms of organizational loyalty and job performance. It reduces absenteeism and turnover. It is positively correlated with organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Bahjat Abdallah et al., 2017). This study revealed that there was a positive relationship between job involvement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Based on the study, it is found that job involvement directly supports organizational performance (Sriviboon & Jermsittiparsert, 2019).

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction attributes employees as loyal champions, ambassadors and advocates of their organization, and it also reduces attrition rates. When employees are satisfied at the workplace, their productivity increases, which in turn leads to the organization’s enhanced performance (Suliman & Al Kathairi, 2012). This article revealed that there is a positive and significant relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement, which means that when employees are satisfied with the job, they became highly engaged (Biswas & Bhatnagar, 2013). Based on research, there is a positive relationship between spirituality and job satisfaction (van der Walt & de Klerk, 2014). From the organization’s perspective, job satisfaction results in better performance of the employees (Smith et al., 2023). The study revealed that external factors of job satisfaction influence job satisfaction, people development and working environment (Coughlan et al., 2014). Organizations realized that the best employees are engaged employees who display loyalty and productivity, and those who are aligned with the objectives of the organization. Moreover, engaged employees are intellectually and emotionally connected to the organization (Kapoor & Meachem, 2012). Work engagement is influenced by job satisfaction factors such as ‘nature of the job, superiors’ recognition of one’s work, team spirit, cooperation among departments, comparative benefits and good administration policies’ (Abraham, 2012). The study found that job satisfaction supports employees in terms of decision-making, autonomy, team cohesion and social support, and it also reduces job stress (Penconek et al., 2021).

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment includes the organization’s values and beliefs that improve employees’ skills, knowledge and work conditions (Suharto & Hendri, 2019). Organizational commitment connects an individual to the organization for attaining the individual’s as well as the organization’s objectives (Enache et al., 2013). When an employee is committed to the organization, the organization receives substantial benefits (Furtmueller et al., 2011). At the workplace, employees can enhance organizational commitment by increasing trust and participation (Dahmardeh & Nastiezaie, 2019). Organizational commitment provides benefits such as reducing turnover, and increasing job effort and organizational citizenship behaviour (Chen et al., 2012). When employees are engaged at their workplace, their organizational commitment increases and employee turnover decreases. Organizational commitment supports employees in achieving their goals as well as improving their performance (Mehta & Mehta, 2013). Based on the study, it is found that there is a significant relationship between organizational commitment and leadership. When the leadership of the organization is good, the commitment level of the employees is also good (Eliyana & Ma’arif, 2019).

Hypotheses

Job Involvement and Employee Engagement

The study found that there is a significant relationship between job involvement and employee engagement (Rich et al., 2010). Based on the study, it is found that job involvement and employee engagement are significantly related (Arifin et al., 2019). This implies that engaged employees have high job involvement (Newman et al., 2010). The employees’ job involvement in terms of initiatives towards the betterment of the company and open communication is considered an important tool for engaging employees at the workplace. Based on the study, job involvement influences employee potential as well as employee engagement for organizational success (Gupta & Sharma, 2016). The study has identified that job involvement influences the employee engagement (Ababneh et al., 2019). There is a significant relationship between job involvement and engagement (Dalal et al., 2012). Conversely, employees with a low level of job involvement are less creative and their interests are not aligned with the objective of the organization (Hogan et al., 2013). It is observed that job involvement can predict components of work engagement with the help of organizational commitment. Recent studies have revealed that individual personal resources like ‘self-efficacy, self-esteem, and job involvement are related to work engagement’ (Scrima et al., 2014). The study found that an increase in job involvement at the workplace increases the chances of employees being engaged, which in turn enhances the performance of the organization (Riyanto et al., 2021).

Based on the reviews, the following hypothesis is formed for this study.

H₁: Job involvement has a significant relationship with employee engagement.

Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement

Based on the Social Exchange Theory, employees who receive a socio-emotional reward from their organization are satisfied with the job and dedicate themselves to the organization (Bellani et al., 2017). Based on the study, it is found that there is a positive relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement, which means that satisfied employees are highly engaged employees at the workplace (Arifin et al., 2019). The study recommended that intrinsic and extrinsic factors of job satisfaction must be focused on to improve the job satisfaction level, on the basis of which employee engagement can be increased (Tepayakul & Rinthaisong, 2018). Another study has also revealed that employee engagement and job satisfaction are significantly related (Kim-Soon & Manikayasagam, 2015). The study identified job satisfaction and employee engagement as positively correlated (Ababneh et al., 2019). Employees are satisfied in their workplace when the job is interesting, motivating and challenging, and this eventually leads to employee engagement (Biswas & Bhatnagar, 2013) Job satisfaction plays the role of an antecedent in employee engagement (Garg & Kumar, 2012). Another study also established that there is a positive association between job satisfaction and employee engagement, which can lead to good employee performance (Pongton & Suntrayuth, 2019). When employees are satisfied in the organization, their engagement level increases. Therefore, job satisfaction is an antecedent of employee engagement (Rayton & Yalabik, 2014).

Based on the reviews, the following hypothesis is formed for this study.

H₂: Job satisfaction has a significant relationship with employee engagement.

Job Involvement and Organization Commitment

There is a significant relationship between job involvement and organizational commitment, the components of which are affective and normative organizational commitment and team commitment (Singh & Gupta, 2015). The study revealed that there is a significant relationship between job involvement and organizational commitment as well as job satisfaction (Zopiatis et al., 2014). Based on the study, it is found that there is significant relationship between job involvement and organizational commitment (Ćulibrk et al., 2018). When employees are highly involved in their jobs, they are more committed and put in more effort to attain organizational objectives (Ineson et al., 2013). Job involvement significantly influences job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Bahjat Abdallah et al., 2017). In today’s environment, organizational commitment and job involvement are considered to be vital factors for organizational success (Al-Ma’ani, 2013). The result of the study revealed that job involvement influences organizational commitment (Lambert et al., 2018). Job involvement significantly influences organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour (Umiriyana et al., 2020). The study revealed that job involvement has a strong positive relationship with organizational commitment which means that employees who are involved in the job, display high levels of commitment at the workplace (Nwibere, 2014).

Based on the earlier review of literature, the following hypothesis is formed.

H₃: Job involvement has a significant relationship with organizational commitment.

Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment

The study found a significant relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. This relationship is also seen to reduce employee turnover intention (Ekhsan, 2019). The study indicated that job satisfaction is significantly related to organizational commitment (Abdallah et al., 2016). As per the study, it is found that there is a significant relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment, which means that employees who are satisfied with their jobs have high commitment levels towards the organization (Purwanto et al., 2021). The study revealed that job satisfaction and organizational commitment are significantly correlated (Ineson et al., 2013). Another study also identified that job satisfaction and organizational commitment are positively correlated (Tarigan & Ariani, 2015). When employees are satisfied, they become engaged at the workplace. In fact, it helps employees to perform better and be committed to their job as well as the organization (Deepa et al., 2014). Similarly, another study identified that there was a significant relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Nwibere, 2014). Employees who have an internal locus of control are satisfied with their jobs. As a result, they are highly committed to the organization (Srivastava, 2013). Another study observed a significant relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Pratama et al., 2022).

Based on the earlier review of literature, the following hypothesis is formed.

H₄: Job satisfaction has a significant relationship with organizational commitment.

Employee Engagement and Organizational Commitment

Employee engagement influences organizational commitment, which means that when employees are engaged, their commitment to the organization would be high (Shoko & Zinyemba, 2014). The study found that there is a significant relationship between employee engagement and organizational commitment (Sahni, 2019). The study revealed that employee engagement has a positive and significant relationship with organizational commitment. Besides, the work environment also has a significant influence on organizational commitment (Hanaysha, 2016). Employee engagement influences the trust and loyalty of employees, which is directly connected to organizational commitment (Biswas & Bhatnagar, 2013). The study revealed that there is a positive relationship between employee engagement and employee commitment as well as organizational commitment. When compared to public organizations, employees in private organizations have higher levels of commitment (Agyemang & Ofei, 2013). Another study suggested that employee engagement is significantly associated with affective and normative commitment but not associated with continuance commitment (Rameshkumar, 2020). Various studies have discussed the positive relationship between organizational commitment and employee engagement, the outcome of which is organizational commitment (Hansen et al., 2014). The study proved that there is a positive relationship between employee engagement and organizational commitment. The study indicated that when employees are highly committed at the workplace, their engagement level is certainly higher (Albdour & Altarawneh, 2014). Based on the study, it is found that employee engagement has a positive relationship with individual performance such as organizational commitment and positive behaviour (Sun & Bunchapattanasakda, 2019).

Based on the earlier review of the literature, the following hypothesis is formed.

H₅: Employee engagement has a significant relationship with organizational commitment.

Mediating Role of Employee Engagement

The more the employee engagement at the workplace, the higher their organizational commitment. Moreover, in this study, employee engagement plays a mediation role for organizational commitment (Anindita & Seda, 2018). Based on the Social Exchange Theory, some studies suggest that employee engagement is an antecedent of organizational commitment. The study recommended that employee engagement is the mediator between antecedents and consequences (Biswas & Bhatnagar, 2013). Based on the study, it is identified that employee engagement plays a mediating role between job satisfaction and employee performance (Riyanto et al., 2021). Work engagement plays a mediating role in job involvement and organizational commitment (Scrima et al., 2014). Many studies recommended that there is a significant relationship between employee engagement and organizational commitment (Hansen et al., 2014). Based on the previous literature, job satisfaction is an antecedent of employee engagement. Hence, it is understood that employee engagement plays a vital mediating role (Rayton & Yalabik, 2014). Another study identified that employee engagement plays a mediating role between psychological well-being and job performance (Çankır & Şahin, 2018). When employees are engaged, they will exhibit more positive commitment. Therefore, engagement is the mediator variable for organizational commitment (Geldenhuys et al., 2014). Some studies recommended that employee engagement is the predictor variable of organizational commitment.

Based on the earlier review of the literature, the following hypotheses are formed:

H₆: Employee engagement mediates the relationship between job involvement and organizational commitment.

H₇: Employee engagement mediates the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Methodology

The research methodology is a comprehensive plan that outlines how the research is executed. It is a ‘blueprint’ for research aimed at answering research questions. Moreover, it helps guide the research in a structured way. In this study, the research methodology focuses on the research design, questionnaire design and data collection process, descriptive statistics, variables, measures and framework of the analysis. Every part has been explained in detail for a clear understanding of the study.

Research Design

The research design of the study is descriptive and explanatory. Generally, a descriptive research design is appropriate to describe a population or phenomenon, and the explanatory part is appropriate for how or why a particular phenomenon is occurring. The study adopted a quantitative research approach to examine the mediating role of employee engagement on the relationship among job involvement and job satisfaction as independent variables and organizational commitment as the dependent variable. The study was undertaken in private life insurance companies in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Coimbatore is known as the Manchester of South India. The city is well known for businesses like textile, engineering, small- and medium-scale enterprises, and the IT industry. It is the second-largest city in Tamil Nadu in terms of contributing to the GDP. It has secured the 14th position for being the most competitive city for the criterion of business environment in India. For this study, a sample size of 225 was determined based on the G Power analysis. A simple random sampling technique was adopted. The Partial Least Square–Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) was used to analyze the data. PLS is a variance-based technique and it supports reflective and formative indicators. Moreover, it is more flexible and robust in sample size requirements and it is a widely accepted method in social science research. This method has been adopted in many studies (Chin et al., 2022).

Questionnaire Design and Collection of Data

A structured questionnaire was prepared and given to the respondents to collect the data. The data was collected in 20 branches across Coimbatore through an interview schedule. Based on the data collection, the descriptive statistics were calculated and presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Profile (n = 225).

Variables	Subgroups	Frequency	%
Dep	Sales Branch managers Operation executives Trainers	159 20 28 18	71 9 12 8
Gender	Male Female	162 63	72 28
Age	Less than 30 years 30–35 years 36–40 years >40 years	63 72 59 31	28 32 26 14

Variables of the Study

In the study, job involvement and job satisfaction were considered as antecedents, employee engagement was considered as the mediating variable and organizational commitment as an outcome.

Measures

The study included four constructs: job involvement, job satisfaction, employee engagement and organizational commitment. Based on the existing literature, measurement scales were taken for this study. The participants were asked to fill their responses on a five-point Likert scale with the anchors of (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. To measure job involvement (Kanungo, 1982), a scale consisting of six items was used. A sample item is ‘Most of my personal life goals are job oriented’. To measure job satisfaction (Cammann et al., 1979), a scale that included three items was used. A sample item is ‘All in all, I am satisfied with my job’. To measure employee engagement (Saks, 2006), a scale that consisted of two scales such as ‘job engagement and organization engagement’ containing six items each was used. A sample item of job engagement is ‘Sometimes I am so into my job that I lose track of time’ and for organizational engagement is ‘One of the most exciting things for me is getting involved with things happening in this organization’. To measure organizational commitment (Rhoades et al., 2001), an affective commitment scale that included six items was used. A sample item is, ‘I feel personally attached to my work organization’.

Framework of Analysis

The PLS-SEM was used to analyze the data. PLS is a variance-based technique that supports reflective and formative indicators. PLS-SEM is an appropriate tool for exploratory research (Chin, 2000). PLS-SEM has a two-step process. Step one examines the reliability and validity of the constructs and step two proposes a model that is assessed to support the hypotheses. This study was conducted to identify the interconnection between employee engagement and organizational commitment. Moreover, this study has a small sample size of 225, which is also one of the reasons for PLS being used. Generally, PLS handles a small set of data sizes (Bari et al., 2016). Generally, when the objective of the research is theory development and prediction, the recommended method is PLS-SEM. When the objective of the research is theory-testing and conformation, the appropriate method is Covariance Based-Structural Equation Modeling (CB-SEM). As this study aimed at theory development and prediction, the PLS-SEM was used. Moreover, the objective of the PLS–SEM is to explain variance in the dependent variables as well as to measure the data quality on measurement models (Hair et al., 2017).

Analysis and Results

Measurement Model

This study used a reliability test (Cronbach’s alpha) to measure the internal consistency among the variables measured. If Cronbach’s alpha score is higher than 0.7, it is considered acceptable for a good construct (Nunnally, 1975). The factor loadings are calculated to measure the convergent validity, composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) (Hair et al., 2010; Table 6). Factor loadings support the impact of each item and its respective construct (Table 6). A higher level of factor outer loading recommends a higher level of indicator reliability. When the factor loading is >0.70, the item must be retained (Hair et al., 2010). Factor loadings between >0.40 and <0.70 can also be retained, provided they do not have any effect on AVE and CR (Hair et al., 2014).

The AVE is the level of variance identified by a construct. The recommended AVE value must ideally be greater than 0.5 (Hair et al., 2006). In this study, for all the constructs, the AVE value is higher than 0.5, which means that it supports the construct measures in terms of construct validity. CR supports the construct indicators that contribute to the latent variable. The suggested value must be greater than 0.7 (Hair et al., 2014). Table 2 shows the recommended values of AVE, factor loadings, CR and Cronbach’s alpha. Based on these, the convergent validity is established.

Table 2.

Measurement Model.

Construct	Items	Loadings	Cronbach’s Alpha	CR	AVE	R²
Job involvement	J1	0.836	0.847	0.892	0.625	–
	J2	0.916
	J3	0.769
	J4	0.768
	J5	0.639
Job satisfaction	JS1	0.746	0.694	0.794	0.563	–
	JS2	0.749
	JS3	0.756
Employee engagement	JE1	0.618	0.920	0.932	0.533	0.621
	JE2	0.719
	JE3	0.730
	JE4	0.796
	JE5	0.583
	JE6	0.773
	JE7	0.682
	JE8	0.807
	JE9	0.796
	JE10	0.782
	JE11	0.726
	JE12	0.715
Organizational commitment	OC1	0.869	0.894	0.920	0.657	0.706
	OC2	0.858
	OC3	0.863
	OC4	0.783
	OC5	0.729
	OC6	0.751

Discriminant Validity

For this study, the discriminant validity was tested by two methods. The first method was the Fornell–Larcker method, recommended by Hair et al. (2013), and the second one was the Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) test developed by Henseler et al. (2016). The discriminant validity was measured based on the Fornell–Larcker method (Table 6). The square root of AVE is significantly higher than the correlations between the constructs with items (Henseler et al., 2016). The HTMT method was used as a strong criterion to measure the discriminant validity in a way other than the traditional approach (Fornell–Larcker method). In the HTMT method, the measured value is less than 0.85 as per the recommendations by Hair et al. (2017). The results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Discriminant Validity.

Fornell–Larcker Criterion
Construct	JI	JS	EE	OC
1. JI	0.790
2. JS	0.743	0.750
3. EE	0.707	0.722	0.730
4. OC	0.731	0.584	0.584	0.810
Note: The diagonal represents the square root value of AVE.
HTMT Criterion
Construct	JI	JS	EE	OC
1. JI
2. JS	0.789
3. EE	0.784	0.846
4. OC	0.812	0.633	0.742

Note: JI: Job involvement; JS: Job satisfaction; EE: Employee engagement; OC: Organizational commitment.

Table 4.

Structural Model Path Coefficients.

Structural Path	Path Coefficient	T Values	p Values (0.05%)	Conclusion
H₁: JI → EE	0.698	16.545	.000	Supported
H₂: JS → EE	0.144	3.071	.002	Supported
H₃: JI → OC	0.150	2.295	.022	Supported
H₄: JS → OC	0.438	6.704	.000	Supported
H₅: EE → OC	0.381	6.829	.000	Supported

Structural Model and Model Fit

This study used a five-step approach to measure the structural model. The first step is to measure the coefficient of determination (R² value); the second step is to check the structural model path coefficients; the third step is to measure whether the model has the predictive relevance Q² or not; the fourth step is to predict model accuracy by using Cohen’s Indicator (F²), and the last step is to measure the model quality fit using the Goodness of Fit (GoF) criterion.

R Square

The R² statistical measure is useful to check how the data has fitted on the regression line. In other terms, R² is the square of the correlations between the actual response values and the predicted response values. Generally, the R² value is between 0 and 1. If the measured value is high (closer to 1) it indicates that the predictive accuracy level is also high. The recommended values of R² are 0.75, 0.50 and 0.25 (Hair et al., 2013) where they denote substantial, moderate and weak levels, respectively (Table 6). In this study, it is determined that the R² value of employee engagement and organizational commitment are 0.621 and 0.706, respectively. Therefore, the model has good strength (Kumar & Punitha, 2022).

Q Square

The Stone–Geisser indicator (Q²) method was used in this study. It measures the prediction quality or accuracy of the model. The Q² outcome is stable when the value is higher than zero (Hair et al., 2014). The values of Q² of employee engagement and organizational commitment are 0.315 and 0.457, respectively (Table 6). These values denote that the model has predictive relevance. As R² and Q² results are positive, the structural model is strong and of good quality (Kumar & Punitha, 2022).

F Square

Cohen’s Indicator, F² is another indicator to predict model accuracy. It is obtained by adding and deleting model constructs one by one. The recommended values are 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35, which denote small, medium and large, respectively (Hair et al., 2014; Table 6). Also, the F² is evaluated by the ratio between the part explained and the part not explained (F² = R2/(1 – R2)). The result can be obtained by reading the commonalities through blindfolding. Based on the blindfolding result, the accuracy level of the model is fit as shown in Table 5.

Table 5.

Structural Model Accuracy Level.

Variables	F²	Accuracy Level
EE–OC	0.132	Small
JI–EE	0.489	Large
JI–OC	0.055	Small
JS–EE	0.070	Small
JS–OC	8.233	Large

Goodness of Fit

The general adjustment indicator of the model should be evaluated, for which the GoF needs to be measured. The recommended value of 0.36 is adequate for the areas of the social and behavioural sciences (Wetzels et al., 2009). Based on the calculation, the result is 0.54 (EE) and 0.78 (OC), which means that the model is fit (Table 6).

Table 6.

Model Fit Summary.

Indicators	Referential Values	Values	References
Cronbach’s alpha	AC > 0.70	JI = 0.847 JS = 0.694 EE = 0.920 OC = 0.894	Nunnally (1978)
Average variance extracted (AVE)	AVE > 0.50	JI = 0.625 JS = 0.563 EE = 0.533 OC = 0.657	Hair et al. (2005)
Composite reliability (CR)	CR > 0.7	JI = 0.892 JS = 0.794 EE = 0.932 OC = 0.920	Hair et al. (2014)
Discriminant validity	The square root of AVE (Fornell–Larcker criterion)	JI = 0.790 JS = 0.750 EE = 0.730 OC = 0.810	Henseler et al. (2016)
Evaluation of the coefficients of Pearson’s determination (R²)	Values between 0 and 1. Recommended values of R² are 0.75, 0.50 and 0.25, which denote substantial, moderate and weak, respectively	EE = 0.621 OC = 0.706	Ali and Park (2016)
Predictive quality or accuracy of the model (Q²) or Stone–Geisser indicator	Q² > 0	EE = 0.315 OC = 0.457	Ali and Park (2016)
Size of the effect (F²) or Cohen’s indicator	Values of 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 are considered as small, medium and large, respectively.	EE–OC = 0.132 JI–EE = 0.489 JI–OC = 0.055 JS–EE =0.070 JS–OC = 8.233	Hair et al. (2014)
Goodness of Fit (GoF)	GoF > 0.36 (adequate)	EE = 0.54 OC = 0.78	Wetzels et al. (2009)
Path coefficients	t > 1.96	H₁: JI ≥ EE = 16.545 H₂: JS ≥ EE = 3.071 H₃: JI ≥ OC = 2.295 H₄: JS ≥ OC = 6.704 H₅: EE ≥ OC = 6.829	Hair et al. (2014)

Note: AVE: Average variance extracted; CR: Composite reliability; JI: Job involvement; JS: Job satisfaction; EE: Employee engagement; OC: Organizational commitment

Testing of the Hypotheses

Based on the hypothesis (H₁), job involvement significantly supports employee engagement with the value of β = 0.698, t value = 16.545 and p value = .000. As the p value is less than .05 (Table 4), the hypothesis is accepted. Based on the hypothesis (H₂), job satisfaction significantly supports employee engagement with the value of β =0.144, t value = 3.071 and p value = .002. As the p value is less than .05 (Table 4), the hypothesis is accepted. Based on the hypothesis (H₃), job involvement significantly supports organizational commitment with a value of β = 0.150, t value = 2.295 and p value = .022). As the p value is less than 0.05 (Table 4), the hypothesis is accepted. According to the hypothesis (H₄), job satisfaction significantly supports organizational commitment with a value of β = 0.438, t value = 6.704 and p value = .000. As the p value is less than .05 (Table 4), the hypothesis is accepted. Based on the hypothesis (H₅), employee engagement significantly supports organizational commitment with a value of β = 0.381, t value = 6.829 and p value = 0.000. When the p value is less than .05 (Table 4), the hypothesis is accepted.

Tests for Mediation

The mediating effect of employee engagement in the relationship between job involvement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment is analyzed by the bootstrapping technique recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008). The indirect effect of JI on OC is significant (IE = 0.265 and t value = 5.842) at p < .05 (Table 4). Also, the interval confidence was different from zero (0.175, 0.357). Similarly, the indirect effect of JS on OC is significant (IE = 0.054 and t value = 3.076) at p < .05. The interval confidence was different from zero (0.021, –0.091) (Table 7). Based on the readings of Nitzl and Hirsch (2016), Variance Accounted For (VAF) is used to calculate the ratio of the indirect-to-total effect. Based on the recommendation, if the VAF value is <20%, it denotes zero mediation, >20% and <80% denote partial mediation, and >80% denotes full mediation. In this study, the VAF value of job Involvement and employee engagement is 0.41, which means 41%. Therefore, employee engagement is the partial mediator between job involvement and organizational commitment. The VAF value of job satisfaction and employee engagement is 0.12, which means 12%. Hence, employee engagement does not play a mediating role between job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Table 7.

Test of Mediation by the Bootstrapping Approach.

Hypothesis	a	b	a*b		Total Effect (c)	Percentile 95% Confidence Intervals		Method
Hypothesis	Path Coefficient	Path Coefficient	Path Coefficient	t Value	Path Coefficient	95% LL	95% UL	VAF	Bootstrapping
JI ≥ EE ≥ OC	0.698	0.381	0.265	5.842	0.415	(0.175; 0.357)		0.41	P.M
JS ≥ EE ≥ OC	0.144	0.381	0.054	3.076	0.492	(0.021; 0.091)		0.12	N.M

Notes: *p < .05.

VAF: Variance accounted for; P.M: Partial mediation; N.M: No mediation; JI: Job involvement; JS: Job satisfaction; EE: Employee engagement; OC: Organizational commitment.

Discussion

Hypothesis 1: Job involvement is significantly and positively related to employee engagement (β = 0.698, t value = 16.545, p value = .000), which indicates that H₁ is supported. As per the study by Gupta and Sharma (2016), individuals who are involved in the job are highly engaged at the workplace. This finding is also related to another study by Dalal et al. (2012), which states that when employees’ job involvement is high, their engagement level is also high.

Hypothesis 2: Job satisfaction is significantly related to employee engagement (β = 0.144, t value = 3.071, p value = .002), which confirms that H₂ is supported. The result of the study is related to that of Abraham (2012), which states that job satisfaction significantly influences employee engagement due to which the productivity of the organization can be increased. The finding of this study is also related to another study by Kim-Soon and Manikayasagam (2015), which states that the engagement level of employees who are satisfied is high.

Hypothesis 3: Job involvement is significantly and positively related to organizational commitment (β = 0.150, t value = 2.295, p value .022), which results in supporting H₃. The result of the study is aligned with the study by Bahjat Abdallah et al. (2017), which observes that individuals who have high job involvement show more organizational commitment. The finding of this study is also related to another study by Umiriyana et al. (2020) who suggest that the commitment level of employees is high when they are involved in the job.

Hypothesis 4: Job satisfaction is significantly related to organizational commitment (β = 0.438, t value = 6.704, p value = .000), thereby supporting H₄. The result of this study is related to the study by Eleswed and Mohammed (2013) according to who job satisfaction and organizational commitment are positively related. This finding is also related to another study by Deepa et al. (2014), which establishes that job satisfaction influences organizational commitment in a positive manner.

Hypothesis 5: Employee engagement significantly and positively supports organizational commitment (β = 0.381, t value = 6.829, p value = .000), therefore, H₅ is supported. The result of the study is related to a study by Geldenhuys et al. (2014) who suggest that employee engagement is significantly related to organizational commitment. This finding is also related to another study by Rina and Adventia in 2018 that there is a positive and significant relationship between employee engagement and organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 6: Based on the VAF score, the mediating construct of employee engagement shows partial mediation between job involvement and organizational commitment, which confirms that H₆ is supported.

Hypothesis 7: The present study does not show any mediation support between job satisfaction and organizational commitment, Therefore, H₇ is not supported.

The outcome of the study is associated with the Social Exchange Theory. Eventually, the study proves that employee engagement does play a mediation role between independent and dependent variables. Certainly, it improves organizational outcomes with the help of antecedents like job involvement and job satisfaction.

Conclusion

The study examined the job involvement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment of the employees by testing the mediating role of employee engagement among employees in the private life insurance companies in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.

It is proved that employee engagement plays a vital role at the workplace and it helps employees improve their job involvement, job satisfaction and commitment.

In this study, job involvement and job satisfaction are identified as being significantly related to employee engagement. Job involvement and job satisfaction are significantly related to organizational commitment. Employee engagement and organizational commitment are significantly related to each other.

With respect to mediation analysis, employee engagement partially mediates job involvement and organizational commitment. However, it does not play any role between job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Hence, the study concluded that employee engagement drives employee job involvement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment at the workplace.

Managerial Implications

This study has recommended that employee engagement plays a mediating role for independent and dependent variables of this study.

Based on H₁, job involvement is the personal resource and antecedent for employee engagement. According to the study, job involvement and employee engagement are significantly related to one another. This means that when employees have a high level of job involvement, their engagement level is high. Hence, the organization must focus on the employees’ job involvement activities on the basis of which the engagement level of the employees can also be increased.

H₂ indicates that there is a positive and significant relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement. Therefore, when employees have a high level of job satisfaction, their engagement level is also high. Generally, job satisfaction is considered a personal resource. Hence, organizations must satisfy their employees, through which engagement levels can be increased.

According to H₃, job involvement and organizational commitment are significantly related to each other. This means that the higher the job involvement, the better will be their commitment to the organization. So organizations must take initiatives regarding job involvement to increase the commitment level of the employees.

H₄ suggests that job satisfaction and organizational commitment are positively and significantly related. This indicates that satisfied employees in the organization show a high level of commitment towards the organization. Hence, organizations must concentrate on satisfying employees in the working environment, through which employees’ commitment levels can be increased.

H₅, there is a positive and significant association between employee engagement and organizational commitment, which implies that employee engagement plays a vital role in organizational commitment. So organizations must improve the engagement level of employees in the working environment by which employees’ commitment levels can be increased.

H₆, employee engagement is partially mediating job involvement and organizational commitment, which means that job involvement plays an antecedent role in employee engagement through which the goals of the organization can be achieved. Therefore, organizations must focus on job involvement activities, and their support can be enhanced by employee engagement to increase the commitment level of employees.

Through H₇, our findings suggest that employee engagement does not play any mediating role between job satisfaction and organizational commitment, which implies that organizations must concentrate on employees’ satisfaction and engagement activities so that organizational commitment can be increased. Finally, this study recommends that HR managers in the organization should focus on employees’ job involvement, job satisfaction and engagement activities. Certainly, these variables support employees’ commitment and loyalty to the organization.

Limitations and Future Research

There are some limitations in this study that may be addressed in future research. First, the study focused only on one demographical area and not the entire state or country. Therefore, a future researcher can extend the scope of work to a wider demography. Second, the study focused only on private life insurance companies. The results identified in this study may or may not apply to other industries. Hence, future studies can focus on other sectors. Third, the results have been established in the Indian context and can therefore not be generalized. Future researchers may base their study on a global perspective.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Ababneh

O. M. A.

, LeFevre

, & Bentley

(2019). Employee engagement: Development of a new measure. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 19(2), 105–134. 10.1504/IJHRDM.2019.098623

Abdallah

A. B.

, Phan

A. C.

, & Matsui

(2016). Investigating the effects of managerial and technological innovations on operational performance and customer satisfaction of manufacturing companies. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 10(2/3), 153–183. 10.1504/IJBIR.2016.074824

Abraham

(2012). Job satisfaction as an antecedent to employee engagement. SIES Journal of Management, 8(2), 27–36.

Agyemang

C. B.

, & Ofei

S. B.

(2013). Employee work engagement and organizational commitment: A comparative study of private and public sector organizations in Ghana. European Journal of Business and Innovation Research, 1(4), 20–33.

Alarcon

, Lyons

J. B.

, & Tartaglia

(2010). Understanding predictors of engagement within the Military. Military Psychology, 22(3), 301–310.

Albdour

A. A.

, & Altarawneh

I. I.

(2014). Employee engagement and organizational commitment: Evidence from Jordan. International Journal of Business, 19(2), 192–212.

Ali

, & Park

(2016). The mediating role of an innovative culture in the relationship between absorptive capacity and technical and non-technical innovation. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1669–1675.

Al-Ma’ani

A. I.

(2013). Factors affecting the organizational loyalty of workers in the Jordanian commercial banks. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(12), 878–896.

Anindita

, & Seda

A. E.

(2018). How employee engagement mediates the influence of individual factors toward organizational commitment. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 16(1), 276–283.

10.

Ansari

V. A.

, & Fola

(2014). Financial soundness and performance of life insurance companies in India. International Journal of Research, 1(8), 224–254.

11.

Arifin

, Nirwanto

, & Manan

(2019). Analysis of bullying effects on job performance using employee engagement and job satisfaction as mediation. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 9(6), 42–56.

12.

Bahjat Abdallah

, Yousef Obeidat

, Osama Aqqad

, Al Janini

, Na’el

, & Dahiyat

S. E.

(2017). An integrated model of job involvement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A structural analysis in Jordan’s banking sector. Communications and Network, 9(1), 28–53. 10.4236/cn.2017.91002

13.

Bakker

A. B.

, Albrecht

S. L.

, & Leiter

M. P.

(2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 4–28. 10.1080/1359432x.2010.485352

14.

Bari

M. W.

, Fanchen

, & Baloch

M. A.

(2016). Management practices and performance of mergers and acquisitions in Pakistan: Mediating role of psychological contract. SpringerPlus, 5, 1–16.

15.

Bedarkar

, & Pandita

(2014). A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting employee performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133, 106–115. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.174

16.

Bellani

, Ramadhani

S. R.

, & Tamar

(2017). Job satisfaction as predictor of employee engagement. In Tamar

and Waziri

(Eds), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of Asian Association of Indigenous and Cultural, Psychology (ICAAIP 2017) (15–19). Atlantis Press.

17.

Biswas

, & Bhatnagar

(2013). Mediator analysis of employee engagement: Role of perceived organizational support, PO fit, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Vikalpa, 38(1), 27–40. 10.1177/0256090920130103

18.

Bulińska-Stangrecka

, & Iddagoda

Y. A.

(2020). The relationship between inter-organizational trust and employee engagement and performance. Academy of Management, 4(1), 8–24.

19.

Cammann

, Fichman

, Jenkins

, & Klesh

(1979). The Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 71, 138.

20.

Çankır

, & Şahin

(2018). Psychological well-being and job performance: The mediating role of work engagement. Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(3), 2549–2560. https://doi:10.17218/hititsosbil.487244

21.

Chanana

(2021). Employee engagement practices during COVID-19 lockdown. Journal of Public Affairs, 21(4), 1–8. 10.1002/pa.2508

22.

Chen

C.-C.

, & Chiu

S.-F.

(2009). The mediating role of job involvement in the relationship between job characteristics and organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(4), 474–494. 10.3200/socp.149.4.474-494

23.

Chen

M. Y.-C.

, Wang

Y. S.

, & Sun

(2012). Intellectual capital and organizational commitment: Evidence from cultural creative industries in Taiwan. Personnel Review, 41(3), 321–339. 10.1108/00483481211212968

24.

Chin

(2000). Partial least squares for IS researchers: An overview and presentation of recent advances using the PLS approach. ICIS, 2000, 741–742.

25.

Chin

A. G.

, Harris

M. A.

, & Brookshire

(2022). An empirical investigation of intent to adopt mobile payment systems using a trust-based extended valence framework. Information Systems Frontiers, 24(1), 329–347.

26.

Christian

M. S.

, Garza

A. S.

, & Slaughter

J. E.

(2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136. 10.1111/J.1744-6570.2010.01203.X

27.

Cook

(2012). The essential guide to employee engagement: Better business performance through staff satisfaction (1st ed.). Kogan Page Publishers.

28.

Cotton

J. L.

(1993). Employee involvement: Methods for improving performance and work attitudes (1st ed.). Sage Publications.

29.

Coughlan

, Haarhoff

, & Moolman

(2014). External job satisfaction factors improving the overall job satisfaction of selected five-star hotel employees. South African Journal of Business Management, 45(2), 97–107. 10.4102/sajbm.v45i2.127

30.

Ćulibrk

, Delić, M., Mitrović, S., & Ćulibrk

(2018). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job involvement: The mediating role of job involvement. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(132), 1–12. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00132

31.

Dahmardeh

, & Nastiezaie

(2019). The impact of organizational trust on organizational commitment through the mediating variable of organizational participation. Public Management Researches, 12(44), 155–180.

32.

Dalal

R. S.

, Baysinger

, Brummel

B. J.

, & LeBreton

J. M.

(2012). The relative importance of employee engagement, other job attitudes, and trait affect as predictors of job performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(1), E295–E325. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01017

33.

Deepa

, Palaniswamy

, & Kuppusamy

(2014). Effect of performance appraisal system in organizational commitment, job satisfaction and productivity. Journal of Contemporary Management Research, 8(1), 72–82.

34.

Ekhsan

(2019). The influence job satisfaction and organizational commitment on employee turnover intention. Journal of Business, Management, and Accounting, 1(1), 48–54.

35.

Eleswed

, & Mohammed

(2013). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A correlational study in Bahrain. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 3(5), 44–53.

36.

Eliyana

, & Ma’arif

(2019). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment effect in the transformational leadership towards employee performance. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 25(3), 144–150. 10.1016/j.iedeen.2019.05.001

37.

Enache

M. M.

Sallán

, Simo

, & Fernandez

(2013). Organizational commitment within a contemporary career context. International Journal of Manpower, 34(8), 880–898.

38.

Extremera

, Mérida-López

, Sánchez-Álvarez

, & Quintana-Orts

(2018). How does emotional intelligence make one feel better at work? The mediational role of work engagement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9), 1–13. 10.3390/ijerph15091909

39.

Furtmueller

, van Dick

, & Wilderom

C. P. M.

(2011). On the illusion of organizational commitment among finance professionals. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 17(5/6), 255–278. 10.1108/13527591111159009

40.

Garg

, & Kumar

(2012). A study of employee engagement in pharmaceutical sector. International Journal of Research in IT and Management, 2(5), 85–98.

41.

Geldenhuys

, Taba

, & Venter

C. M.

(2014). Meaningful work, work engagement and organisational commitment. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 1–10. 10.4102/sajip.v40i1.1098

42.

Gupta

(2015). A study on employees perception towards employee engagement. Globsyn Management Journal, 9(1/2), 45–51.

43.

Gupta

, & Sharma

(2016). Exploring employee engagement: A way to better business performance. Global Business Review, 17(3), 45–63. 10.1177/0972150916631082

44.

Hair

J. F.

, Black

W. C.

, Babin

B. J.

, Anderson

R. E.

, & Tatham

R. L.

(2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Prentice-Hall.

45.

Hair

J. F.

, Black

W. C.

, Babin

B. J.

, & Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice-Hall.

46.

Hair

J. F.

, Ringle

C. M.

, & Sarstedt

(2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1–2), 1–12.

47.

Hair

J. F.

, Risher

J. J.

, Sarstedt

, & Ringle

C. M.

(2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.

48.

Hair Jr

J. F.

, Matthews

L. M.

, Matthews

R. L.

, & Sarstedt

(2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123.

49.

Hair Jr

J. F.

, Sarstedt

, Hopkins

, & Kuppelwieser

V. G.

(2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. 10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128

50.

Hanaysha

(2016). Testing the effects of employee engagement, work environment, and organizational learning on organizational commitment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 229, 289–297. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.139

51.

Hansen

, Byrne

, & Kiersch

(2014). How interpersonal leadership relates to employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(8), 953–972.

52.

Henseler

, Ringle

C. M.

, & Sarstedt

(2016). Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 405–431. 10.1108/IMR-09-2014-0304

53.

Hogan

N. L.

, Lambert

E. G.

, & Griffin

M. L.

(2013). Loyalty, love, and investments: The impact of job outcomes on the organizational commitment of correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(4), 355–375. 10.1177/0093854812469944

54.

Ibrahim

, & Al Falasi

(2014). Employee loyalty and engagement in UAE public sector. Employee Relations, 36(5), 562–582. 10.1108/er-07-2013-0098

55.

Iddagoda

Y. A.

, & Opatha

H. H. D.

. (2020). Relationships and mediating effects of employee engagement: An empirical study of managerial employees of Sri Lankan listed companies. Sage Open, 10(2), 1–22. 10.1177/2158244020915905

56.

Ineson

E. M.

, Benke

, & László

(2013). Employee loyalty in Hungarian hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 31–39. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.04.00

57.

Ismail

H. N.

, Iqbal

, & Nasr

(2019). Employee engagement and job performance in Lebanon: The mediating role of creativity. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 68(3), 506–523. 10.1108/ijppm-02-2018-0052

58.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. 10.2307/256287

59.

Kang

, & Sung

(2017). How symmetrical employee communication leads to employee engagement and positive employee communication behaviors: The mediation of employee-organization relationships. Journal of Communication Management, 21(1), 82–102. 10.1108/JCOM-04-2016-0026

60.

Kanungo

R. N.

(1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341–349. 10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.341

61.

Kapoor

, & Meachem

(2012). Employee engagement: A bond between employee and organisation. Amity Global Business Review, 7, 14–21.

62.

Kim-Soon

, & Manikayasagam

(2015). Employee engagement and job satisfaction. 1–15. 10.13140/RG.2.1.5050.6966

63.

Kim

, Kolb

J. A.

, & Kim

(2013). The relationship between work engagement and performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 12(3), 248–276. 10.1177/1534484312461635

64.

Koonmee

, Singhapakdi

, Virakul

, & Lee

D.-J.

(2010). Ethics institutionalization, quality of work life, and employee job-related outcomes: A survey of human resource managers in Thailand. Journal of Business Research, 63(1), 20–26. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.01.006

65.

Kumar

A. S. S.

, & Punitha

(2022). Mediating role of employee engagement: Perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor support and organizational citizenship behavior. JIMS8M The Journal of Indian Management & Strategy, 27(1), 38–45. 10.5958/0973-9343.2022.00005.9

66.

Kumar

M. S.

, & Priyan

J. V.

(2012). A comparative study of public and private life insurance companies in India. The Indian Journal of Commerce, 65(1), 81–87.

67.

Lambert

E. G.

, Qureshi

, Frank

, Klahm

, & Smith

(2018). Job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment and their associations with job burnout among Indian police officers: A research note. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 33(2), 85–99. 10.1007/s11896-017-9236-y

68.

Mehta

, & Mehta

N. K.

(2013). Employee engagement: A literature review. Economia. Seria Management, 16(2), 208–215.

69.

Mgedezi

, Toga

, & Mjoli

(2014). Intrinsic motivation and job involvement on employee retention: Case study—A selection of Eastern Cape Government Departments. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(20), 2119–2126. 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p2119

70.

Motyka

(2018). Employee engagement and performance: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Management and Economics, 54(3), 227–244. 10.2478/ijme-2018-0018

71.

Newman

D. A.

, & Harrison

D. A.

(2008). Been there, bottled that: Are state and behavioral work engagement new and useful construct ‘wines’? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 31–35. 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00003

72.

Newman

D. A.

, Joseph

D. L.

, & Hulin

C. L.

(2010). Job attitudes and employee engagement: Considering the attitude ‘A-factor’. In Albrecht

S. L.

(Ed), The handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research, and practice (pp. 43–61). Edward Elgar Publishing.

73.

Nitzl

, & Hirsch

(2016). The drivers of a superior’s trust formation in his subordinate: The manager–management accountant example. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 12(4), 472–503. 10.1108/JAOC-07-2015-0058

74.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1975). Psychometric theory—25 years ago and now. Educational Researcher, 4(10), 7–21. 10.3102/0013189X004010007

75.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). An overview of psychological measurement. In Benjamin

B. W.

(Ed), Clinical diagnosis of mental disorders: A handbook, (pp. 97–146). Springer.

76.

Nwibere

B. M.

(2014). Interactive relationship between job involvement, job satisfaction, organisational citizenship behaviour, and organizational commitment in Nigerian universities. International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 3(6), 321–340. 10.18488/journal.11/2014.3.6/11.6.321.340

77.

Pareek

, Dua

, & Mittal

(2022). Consumer behaviour towards social media advertising: A comparative analysis of companies in the life insurance sector in India. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 26(1), 1–19.

78.

Parida

T. K.

, Acharya

, Parida

T. K.

, & Acharya

(2017). Analysing the technical efficiency and productivity change of life insurance companies in India. The Life Insurance Industry in India: Current State and Efficiency, 33–72. 10.1007/978-981-10-2233-3_2

79.

Penconek

, Tate

, Bernardes

, Lee

, Micaroni

S. P. M.

, Balsanelli

A. P.

, de Moura

A. A.

, & Cummings

G. G.

(2021). Determinants of nurse manager job satisfaction: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 118, 103906. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.103906

80.

Pongton

, & Suntrayuth

(2019). Communication satisfaction, employee engagement, job satisfaction, and job performance in higher education institutions. Abac Journal, 39(3), 90–110.

81.

Pratama

E. N.

, Suwarni

, & Handayani

M. A.

(2022). The effect of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on turnover intention with person organization fit as moderator variable. APTISI Transactions on Management, 6(1), 74–82. 10.33050/atm.v6i1.1722

82.

Preacher

K. J.

, & Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

83.

Purwanto

, Purba

J. T.

, Bernarto

, & Sijabat

(2021). Effect of transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and organizational commitments on organizational citizenship behavior. Inovbiz: Jurnal Inovasi Bisnis, 9(1), 61–69. 10.35314/inovbiz.v9i1.1801

84.

Rameshkumar

(2020). Employee engagement as an antecedent of organizational commitment–A study on Indian seafaring officers. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 36(3), 105–112. 10.1016/j.ajsl.2019.11.003

85.

Rasool

S. F.

, Wang

, Tang

, Saeed

, & Iqbal

(2021). How toxic workplace environment effects the employee engagement: The mediating role of organizational support and employee wellbeing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 2294. 10.3390/ijerph18052294

86.

Rayton

B. A.

, & Yalabik

Z. Y.

(2014). Work engagement, psychological contract breach and job satisfaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(17), 2382–2400. 10.1080/09585192.2013.876440

87.

Rhoades

, Eisenberger

, & Armeli

(2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825–836. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825

88.

Rich

B. L.

, Lepine

J. A.

, & Crawford

E. R.

(2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635. 10.5465/amj.2010.51468988

89.

Ridwan

, Mulyani

S. R.

, & Ali

(2020). Improving employee performance through perceived organizational support, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11(12), 839–849.

90.

Riyanto

, Endri

, & Herlisha

(2021). Effect of work motivation and job satisfaction on employee performance: Mediating role of employee engagement. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19(3), 162–174. 10.21511/ppm.19(3).2021.14

91.

Rupavathi

(2020). A comparative study on employee retention strategies in banking and insurance sectors. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(4), 4434–4440.

92.

Sahni

(2019). Role of quality of work life in determining employee engagement and organizational commitment in telecom industry. International Journal for Quality Research, 13(2), 285–300. 10.24874/ijqr13.02-03

93.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. 10.1108/02683940610690169

94.

Saks

A. M.

(2019). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement revisited. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 6(1),19–38. 10.1108/joepp-06-2018-0034

95.

Scrima

, Lorito

, Parry

, & Falgares

(2014). The mediating role of work engagement on the relationship between job involvement and affective commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(15), 2159–2173. 10.1080/09585192.2013.862289

96.

Shoko

, & Zinyemba

A. Z.

(2014). Impact of employee engagement on organizational commitment in national institutions of higher learning in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, 3(9), 255–268.

97.

Shuck

, & Wollard

(2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89–110. 10.1177/1534484309353560

98.

Singh

, & Gupta

(2015). Job involvement, organizational commitment, professional commitment, and team commitment: A study of generational diversity. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 22(6), 1192–1211.

99.

Smith

K. W.

, Davis

, Malone

, & Owens-Jackson

(2023). Faculty that look like me: An examination of HBCU accounting faculty motivation and job satisfaction. Issues in Accounting Education, 38(1), 35–58. 10.2308/issues-2020-090

100.

Srivastava

(2013). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment relationship: Effect of personality variables. Vision, 17(2), 159–167. 10.1177/0972262912483529

101.

Sriviboon

, & Jermsittiparsert

(2019). Influence of human resource practices on Thai pharmaceutical firm performance with moderating role of job involvement. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 10(2), 234–243.

102.

Suharto

, & Hendri

(2019). The impact of organizational commitment on job performance. International Journal of Economics & Business Administration, 7(2), 189–206.

103.

Suliman

, & Al Kathairi

(2012). Organizational justice, commitment and performance in developing countries: The case of the UAE. Employee Relations, 35(1), 98–115. 10.1108/01425451311279438

104.

Sun

, & Bunchapattanasakda

(2019). Employee engagement: A literature review. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 9(1), 63–80. 10.5296/ijhrs.v9i1.14167

105.

Tarigan

, & Ariani

D. W.

(2015). Empirical study relations job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention. Advances in Management and Applied Economics, 5(2), 21–42.

106.

Tepayakul

, & Rinthaisong

(2018). Job satisfaction and employee engagement among human resources staff of Thai private higher education institutions. The Journal of Behavioral Science, 13(2), 68–81.

107.

Ugwu

F. O.

, Onyishi

I. E.

, & Rodríguez-Sánchez

A. M.

(2014). Linking organizational trust with employee engagement: The role of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review, 43(3), 377–400. 10.1108/pr-11-2012-0198

108.

Umiriyana

, Cahyono

L. B. E.

, Armanu

, & Puspaningrum

(2020). The relationship between organizational justice and job involvement on nurse’s organizational citizenship behavior (examining the mediating role of organizational commitment). Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen, 18(2), 211–218. 10.21776/ub.jam.2020.018.02.01

109.

Varshney

(2020). Employees’ job involvement and satisfaction in a learning organization: A study in India’s manufacturing sector. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 39(2), 51–61. 10.1002/joe.21983

110.

Walt

F. van der

, & de Klerk

J. J.

(2014). Workplace spirituality and job satisfaction. International Review of Psychiatry, 26(3), 379–389. 10.3109/09540261.2014.908826

111.

Wetzels

, Odekerken-Schröder

, & van Oppen

(2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 177–195. 10.2307/20650284

112.

Zopiatis

, Constanti

, & Theocharous

A. L.

(2014). Job involvement, commitment, satisfaction and turnover: Evidence from hotel employees in Cyprus. Tourism Management, 41, 129–140. 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.09.013