Do Job Autonomy Influence Employee Engagement? Examining the Mediating Role of Employee Voice in the Indian Service Sector

Abstract

Employee engagement is crucial to an organization’s growth. The current study investigates the link between job autonomy, employee voice, and employee engagement among employees working in the Indian service sector industry using the job demands–resources model. It also considers the significance of employee voice as a mediating construct between job autonomy and employee engagement relationship. A structured equation modelling technique was applied to check the model on 180 employees working in the Indian service sector. Results indicate that employee voice partially mediates the relationship between job autonomy and employee engagement. Indeed, this study contributes to the field of theory, by researching and establishing the relationship between job autonomy and employee engagement, along with the mediating effects of employee voice between them. Furthermore, this article will give practitioners a comprehensive understanding of the significance of job autonomy and employee voice in increasing the engagement level of employees. Present study findings also show HR practitioners and managers, how offering autonomy and establishing opportunities for people to speak their opinions in the company can improve an organization’s effectiveness.

Keywords

Job autonomy employee voice employee engagement India job demands–resources model

Introduction

Employee engagement has been among the prominent pressing problems for leaders and managers for the previous decades, and it is certain to continue in the foreseeable future. As the organization’s most valuable task is to engage its people, therefore it is critical to investigate the many drivers that boost employee engagement¹ and it is indeed, and will always be a key competitive advantage for every company. Concerning this, Gallup, a pioneering company that has been tracking employee engagement internationally since 2000, has declared a global employee engagement crisis, alleging that participation levels have barely increased over time, with just 20% of the global workforce engaged.² Despite the fact that both scholars and practitioners are paying more attention to employee engagement, there is still a lack of knowledge of the factors that influence an employee’s engagement with their present employer. According to studies, employees that are engaged in their job perform better in organizations.³ Research has defined work engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterized by vigour, dedication, and absorption.”⁴ Employees that are highly engaged yield greater performance and display positive and constructive work behaviours such as higher commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour.^{5, 6} Along with this, employee engagement has been shown to increase productivity, profitability, and employee satisfaction.^7–9 Low levels of employee engagement, on the other hand, result in billions of dollars in losses.¹⁰ However, concerning the significance of employee engagement for both employee and the organizational performance, the majority of study has focused on finding characteristics that might improve employee engagement.^11–13 Indeed, it is still uncertain, why, how, or under what circumstances job characteristics, namely job autonomy and proactive work behaviour like voice can influence employee engagement. Although some previous studies have examined the impact of job autonomy on employee voice and engagement¹⁴ as per the author’s apprehension, it is the first study of its kind that examines the mediating impact of employee voice between job autonomy and employee engagement relationship in the context of Indian service sector employees.

According to previous studies, employees exhibit good work behaviour such as greater engagement when they have a feeling of autonomy and flexibility to influence decision-making in their work environment.^{14, 15} Notably, job autonomy and employee voice have been found to be major predictors of employee engagement by researchers.¹⁶ Employees’ engagement level will be more heightened if they consider their work environment as one in which they can communicate their thoughts, ideas, and concerns. Despite the fact that multiple academicians have looked into various antecedents of employee engagement, there is still a lack of understanding on how to improve it from the perspective of psychological aspects at work.¹⁴ As a result, it is critical to comprehend how these aspects influence employee engagement. Undoubtedly, the job demands–resources (JD-R) model confers a theoretical paradigm for examining the factors that influence employee engagement. Thus, this study claims that job autonomy and employee voice are the primary drivers of employee engagement, based on the JD-R model.

Previous study has found that people having more autonomy in the workplace can effectively solve problems in the workplace via their own actions, hence they are more inclined to propose solutions to work-related difficulties.^{14, 17} This is especially true in the Indian service industry, which is experiencing rapid expansion and relies heavily on key people to succeed. As a result, giving employees autonomy and the opportunity to speak up is vital to enhance the innovative work behavior¹⁸ and retaining the highly productive staff in the industry.

Specifically, this study intends to make a dual contribution to the above-mentioned research gap. The first purpose of this research article is to add to the body of knowledge of human resource management literature by examining the effect of job autonomy on employee voice (potential mediator) which further affects employees’ engagement level towards the organization. Second, the current research is the first of its type to explore job autonomy, employee voice, and employee engagement altogether in the context of the Indian service sector. Our approach to investigate these novel relationships is consistent with the JD-R model, which states that employees are motivated to demonstrate positive attitudes such as higher engagement within the workplace when they believe their employer gives them significant autonomy and freedom to express their opinions.^{16, 19} The parts that follow give a full overview of hypothesis creation, data collection procedure, and findings, interpretation, and discussion. Finally, the study’s implications, limitations, and future scope are discussed.

Theoretical Framework

Job Demands–Resources Model

The JD-R model strengthens our literature review by providing theoretical justification to the present study’ research model and posits that “job resources, such as physical, psychological, social, or job characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance, job autonomy)” are related to proactive behaviour like voice, which influences employee engagement.²⁰ Notably, among the numerous job characteristics, the present study focuses on job autonomy because prominent job characteristics like task variety and feedback are well-studied in the prevailing literature concerning their prominent role in affecting employee engagement.²¹ However, as per the authors’ apprehension, the effect of job autonomy on employees’ engagement has not been studied to a greater extent, thus requiring further attention.²² Moreover, the underlying mediating mechanism through which job autonomy affects employee engagement still needs exploration, as no prior study has checked the mediating role of employee voice in this relationship.^{22, 23} Moreover, previous studies that applied the JD-R model argued that job autonomy, as one of the job resources that provides a person with a particular amount of flexibility,²⁴ has been proven to affect employee proactive work behaviour (Employee voice) and subsequent engagement.^25–27 Furthermore, previous research has shown that when employees have greater flexibility at work and are able to customize their job in such a manner that empower them to execute their task in the best possible manner, they are more likely to engage in pro-organizational extra-role actions outside of their official work responsibilities (employee voice).²⁸ As a result, these employees are more likely to be engaged in their work.

Job Autonomy and Employee Voice

Hackman and Oldham²⁹ explored five job resources to make jobs enjoyable for workers such as autonomy, skill diversity, task identity, task importance, and feedback from the workplace. Among these, job autonomy is defined as “the degree to which the job gives independence, autonomy, flexibility, and choice in organizing work and selecting acceptable techniques to execute the job.” Further, according to research, employees feel psychologically safe and motivated when they believe their actions are fully based on their own free will and choice.³⁰ According to previous research, job autonomy improves employee satisfaction, well-being, employee performance, and organizational commitment^30–32 and also reduces stress and burnout.³² In addition, past research has linked job autonomy to good work outcomes such as employee engagement²¹ and voice.²³ Recent research using the JD-R model explored that giving employees higher autonomy in deciding how they can perform their job have more recognition in the organization and are more likely to exhibit prominent extra-role behaviours like voice behaviour, in which employees articulate more productive and meaningful ideas and problems outside of their responsibilities and tasks in the organization.^{33, 34} Individuals with high job autonomy are given the impression that they may work independently and make their judgments without fear of censure or reprisal from their employers. As a result, they are more likely to involve themselves in challenging behaviour such as voice.^{23, 35, 36} Therefore, on the basis of the literature review, it is hypothesized that:

H₁: Job autonomy is positively associated with employee voice.

Job Autonomy and Employee Engagement

Employee engagement is defined as a “positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind marked by vigour, dedication, and absorption.”⁴ Simultaneously, it is also defined as a “persistent and pervasive affective cognitive state, that is independent of any given individual, event, or behaviour, making it more solid and comprehensive in nature.” Further, employee engagement has the potential to heighten the commitment, motivation, passion, and positive behaviour of employees that further contribute to improved performance.^{5, 6, 37} The previous studies identified a few engagement drivers that might aid in the identification of measures that would assist, engage and retain employees, such as promoting employee voice and supporting job autonomy.^{6, 22} Moreover, the JD-R model explored job autonomy as one of the job resources inside an organization that can also promote employees’ engagement.²⁵ Notably, employee autonomy gives them a sense of control over their work, allows them to get deeply immersed in it, and allows them to respond to changing workplace needs by modifying the order in which their activities are completed. All of these would improve employee engagement to complete their job tasks.³⁸ Concerning this, the research has explored that employees’ overall engagement enhances when they have the flexibility to make the best judgment, choose the best methods and procedures, and schedule their work and tasks.^{36, 38, 39} Therefore, on the basis of the literature review, it is hypothesized that:

H₂: Job autonomy is positively associated with employee engagement.

Employee Voice and Employee Engagement

The exit-voice-loyalty-neglect (EVLN) paradigm⁴⁰ first included voice as one of four possible reactions to work dissatisfaction. Since Hirschman⁴⁰ first described the voice as “any attempt at all to change, rather than to escape from, an objectionable state of affairs,” it has been expanded to incorporate any mechanism, structure, or practice that allows employees to voice their opinions or influence work tasks and decision-making processes of the organization to which they belong.⁴¹ Through direct procedures, we focus on employee voice at the individual level. According to JD-R theory, employees will be able to put up more effort and are more involved in their job if they perceive that the organization provides them with important resources, such as chances to participate in decision-making processes that can benefit them. Indeed, employee voice has been linked to a number of desirable employee behaviours, including work satisfaction,⁴² organizational commitment,⁴³ and a low turnover intention.⁴⁴ Various models have been created to investigate the antecedents of employee engagement, but despite its importance, employee voice has been mainly overlooked.^{6, 45} With a few exceptions, previous research examining the relationship between employee voice and employee engagement has shown that a lack of job resources, such as decision-making involvement, is linked to disengagement.⁴⁶ According to recent research, employees who feel appreciated and are involved in organizational affairs by being asked their comments, ideas, and perspectives are more likely to be engaged.⁴⁷ Admittedly, employee voice is found to be positively linked with engagement.⁴⁸ According to Conway et al.⁴⁹ the employee voice mechanism served as a job resource, boosting engagement. Therefore, based on the literature review, it is hypothesized that:

H₃: Employee voice is positively associated with employee engagement

Employee Voice as Mediator

Important advances have been done to uncover antecedents of employee engagement, notably in the JD-R model developed by Bakker et al.²⁰ The JD-R model highlights job resources that help employees in achieving their goals, including job autonomy, involvement in decision-making, along with support, team atmosphere, and the job itself prognosticate employee engagement.⁴⁶ Here, job autonomy is defined as one of the job resources that give employees a certain degree of freedom²⁴ and fosters a belief that the organization provides them with vital resources, like opportunities to get engaged in decision-making practices that can benefit them which further increases their level of engagement.^25–27 As per the theory, employee voice as a work resource also acts as a mediator between job autonomy and employee engagement.²⁵ According to JD-R theory, employees will be able to put in more effort and be more involved in their job if they believe the organization gives them useful resources like considerable autonomy and an extent of control over their job. Such autonomy provides them more chances to be actively involved in decision-making practices, which benefits them and increases their involvement. Although, various models have been created to investigate the antecedents of employee engagement, despite its importance,⁴⁵ employee voice has been mainly neglected. Therefore, based on the literature review, it is hypothesized that:

H₄: Employee voice act as a mediator between job autonomy and employee engagement

Figure 1.

Source: The authors.

Methodology

The present data were collected from several service organizations in India. The Indian service is one of the prominent sectors of the Indian economy, having the highest contribution to GDP, drawing the greatest foreign investment, and producing a considerable number of jobs.⁵⁰ The services sector accounted for 54% of the total gross value added in FY21 (www.ibef.org/industry/services.aspx). By 2024, it hopes to address the demand for additional human resources by skilling and re-skilling more than 100,000 people through the Skill India initiative (www.ibef.org/industry/services.aspx). Along with significant prospects, the Indian service industry faces a slew of obstacles, including fierce competition, technological advancements, workforce diversity, and staff retention. Over the last decade, India’s service industry has aided the country’s transition from a rural to a knowledge-based economy.⁵ As a result, the main aim of this research is to examine the underlying determinants of employee engagement as well as their relative linkages in the Indian service sector. Concerning this, information was gathered from employees working in the leading organizations of the IT sector in the northern and southern regions of the country (Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, IM, and TCS), banking sector (HDFC, ICICI, AXIS, and Kotak Mahindra) and insurance sector (HDFC life insurance, ICICI prudential life insurance, Kotak life insurance, Bajaj life insurance, and Tata AIA life insurance), telecommunications (Airtel, JIO, and Idea cellular), finance, accounting and auditing firms (KPMG, Deloitte, PWC, and EY) and hospitality sector (Oberoi, Taj Hotels, Hyatt, JW Marriot, and Raffles Hotels and Resorts) in India.

G*power software is one of the free software used to figure out the sample size and helps researchers in identifying the appropriate sample size for a study. Moreover, the G*power has the advantage of allowing researchers to plan genuine sample sizes on the basis of their study design, like the minimum sample size required for conducting regression analysis with two predictor variables.⁵¹ Thus, relying on the effectiveness of this software, the sample size was determined. With the α of 0.05,⁵² the effect size of 0.15,⁵³ and two predictors, the estimated sample size suggested was 88 (see Figure 2). This effect size (f²) was chosen based on the Cohen⁵³ criteria, suggesting the 0.15 effective size to be a medium effect size. As a result, a sample size of around 400 people was sought for the objectives of this study. A structured questionnaire was used for collecting data through both online and offline modes. The convenience sampling method was deployed in this investigation because when the population is big and the researcher’s resources, time, and personnel are limited, this sampling strategy is utilized.⁵⁴ The researcher contacted the human resource departments of the companies from which the information was gathered. An invitation to participate in the study was also given to the HR manager but received no favourable response. Because corporations do not allow amateur researchers to conduct formal surveys, all of the replies were gathered in person and through online mode.

Figure 2.

Source: The authors.

After making a list of top companies in the Indian service sector, located in different parts of India; the questionnaires were sent to 400 employees (taking a sample of 10 from each organization) and a total of 220 responses were received in due course of time fetching a response rate of 55%. Of these 220 responses, 180 were usable so the remaining were discarded due to incomplete or missing information. The data for this study were collected throughout a single time period. Researchers minimized the drawbacks of a longitudinal study, such as lengthier time periods and subject loss over time, by choosing a cross-section of a population. Rather than examining one group over time, employees were studied simultaneously.⁵⁵

Out of 180 respondents, 76.1% were male and 23.9% were female. Moreover, 47.8% were post-graduate, 43.9% were graduates and the remaining 8.3% were professional degree holders. In terms of age group, 73.9% of employees were between 24 and 30 years of age group and 26.1% were between 31 and 50 years of age group. Furthermore, in terms of work experience ranging from 1 to 20 years, 96.1% were having below 10 years of work experience and 3.9% were having 10–20 years of work experience in the Indian service sector.

Measures

The research tools used in this study were self-structured questionnaire that was created based on a literature review and a scale that the researchers had already produced. The advantage of creating a self-structured questionnaire is that the statements entirely meet the study’s needs and aims. The instruments employed were evaluated for content validity “the degree to which a theory takes into consideration all components of a situation.”⁵⁶ The instruments’ reliability was also confirmed during the pilot testing.

The 5-point Likert scale was used to measure all the constructs in the research model as it is viewed as the easiest to use and the best way to maintain scale reliability when respondents are short on time. The 5-point Likert scale is favoured because it is less ambiguous, has higher reliabilities, increases response rate and quality, and decreases frustration.⁵⁷ The following are established and reliable scales that have been used to collect the responses:

Job Autonomy

To assess employees’ Job Autonomy, Breaugh⁵⁸ nine items scale was used, which uses three facets to measure job autonomy such as schedule autonomy, work autonomy and method autonomy. A sample item was “My job permits me to decide on my own how to go about doing the work.”

Employee Engagement

Schaufeli et al.⁵⁹ nine-item scale was used to measure employee engagement which incorporates a three-factor model that encompasses vigour, dedication, and absorption. In practical, researchers should explore utilizing the overall nine-item score as a measure of job engagement rather than generating three independent scores for Vigour, Dedication, and Absorption.⁵⁹ Sample statement for Vigour was “At my work, I feel bursting with energy.” Sample statement for Dedication was “I am enthusiastic about my job” and “My job inspires me.” Sample statement for Absorption was “Time flies when I am working” and “I feel happy when I am working intensely.”

Employee Voice

The current study followed the guidelines of Liang and Farh,⁶⁰ who deemed voice measurements to be both promotive and prohibitive. Majority of the scale items matched as far as possible one of three promotive voice criteria is concerned: (1) proposed innovative ideas or initiatives, (2) saw potential for employee and organizations improvement, and (3) possessed a forward-thinking attitude. For prohibitive voice, it must have (1) an issue emphasis, (2) focus attention towards damaging or undesirable job-related components, or (3) transmit a past- or present- orientated mindset. Based on the foregoing reasoning, the author explored using the Liang⁶⁰ scale to assess employee voice, having promotive voice and prohibitive voice (5 items each) dimensions of employee voice. Sample statement for the “promotive voice” was “I proactively suggest new projects which are beneficial to my organization.” The sample statement for the “prohibitive voice” was “I dare to voice out opinions on things that might affect the efficiency of my organization, even if that would embarrass others.”

Data Analysis

In the present study, data were analysed using SPSS 21.0, AMOS 21.0, and PROCESS MACRO to investigate the mediation effect. To begin with, reliability analysis was conducted to determine the scales’ reliability. Second, the concept reliability and validity were investigated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Third, Harman’s single factor test was used to assess for common method bias (CMB). Fourth, SEM was used to evaluate the connection between the constructs with the aid of AMOS 21, and finally, PROCESS MACRO was utilized to do mediation analysis.

Results

Table 1 exhibits the result of mean, standard deviation, and correlation coefficient values among the constructs. From the results of the correlation analysis, it is observed that independent variables, namely job autonomy (r = 0.55, p < .05) and employee voice (r = 0.53, p < .05) are significantly correlated with employee engagement. This correlation result suggests that individuals having autonomy in workplace and freedom in taking decisions report higher levels of engagement.

Table 1.

Descriptive Analysis and Correlation Values

		Mean	SD	1	2	3
1.	Job autonomy	3.60	.80	1
2.	Employee voice	3.98	.69	.51**	1
3.	Employee engagement	3.95	.76	.55**	.53**	1

Source: The authors.

Notes: N = 180.

**p < .001.

Common Method Bias

The data were collected from the respondents using a self-reported questionnaire. As a result, the possibility of CMB may exist. Concerning this, in the current work, both procedural and statistical techniques were applied to manage the CMB. All respondents were encouraged not to discuss their responses with other respondents while filling out the questionnaire as a procedural approach. Furthermore, Harman’s single factor was employed to study the CMB as a statistical technique. Principle component analysis was used, in which all of the construct’s items were imported into a single factor with an un-rotated factor solution. The findings of the research show that a single element has a variance of 29.95%, confirming the lack of CMB.⁶¹

Reliability and Validity Analysis

In the present study, before investigating the inter-relationships of the components in the structural equation modelling (SEM), CFA was used to test the measurement model’s reliability and validity. The results of CFA show that values of all factor loadings are significant (p < .01), values of all standardized factor loadings are also higher than.65, and in addition to this, values of all correlation coefficients across all latent factors used in this study are also less than 1.0.⁶² Furthermore, in CFA, a three-factor model was selected, and findings show that present study research model has good model fitness. χ² = 417.74; df = 347; χ²/df = 1.20, TLI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97 and RMSEA = 0.03.

Reliability and internal consistency were determined by utilizing Cronbach’s alpha assessment.⁶³ The Cronbach’s alpha is a statistic with a range of 0 to 1 that is based on a pairwise correlation between items. A Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.6 to 0.7 is considered the bare minimum for reliability, and it should exceed 0.7 for a decent level of reliability.⁶⁴ The Cronbach’s alpha for job autonomy is .90, for employee voice, it is .90, and for employee engagement, it is .91. All of the constructs in the current model have a considerable level of reliability. As a result, all the above-mentioned constructs can be employed in SEM research.

The construct’s composite reliability (CR) can be used to examine the construct’s reliability and convergent validity. It gives a more precise assessment of the construct’s overall consistency, hardness, and similarity.⁶² As demonstrated in Table 2, the CR value of all the constructs is greater than.70, indicating appropriate internal consistency across all latent variables investigated for the present study.⁶² Convergent validity reflects the amount of convergence or disagreement of the constructs. Standardized factor loadings of the constructs can be used to assess them. All of the factor loadings are greater than.60, which is greater than the.50 threshold limit.⁶² This indicates that all of the items are significant representations of the construct, indicating convergent validity.

The discriminant validity reflects how different a concept is from other constructs in the measuring model.⁶² It is determined when the individual constructs’ AVE values are larger than the shared variances between the constructs,⁶⁵ and the discriminant validity of the constructs is determined based on the present study results. AVE, as shown in Table 2, is greater than the cutoff value of.50, and the square root of AVE is also greater than that of the correlation value among every construct in the current study’s research model, as displayed in Table 2, indicating that the measurement model suffices the requirements of discriminant validity.

Table 2.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

	CR	AVE	MSV	JA	EV	EE
Job autonomy	0.90	0.51	0.35	0.72
Employee voice	0.91	0.51	0.34	0.51	0.71**
Employee engagement	0.91	0.54	0.36	0.55	0.53**	0.74**

Source: The authors.

Notes: The diagonal value represents the square root of AVE values.

CR = Composite reliability, AVE = Average variance extracted, MSV = Marginal shared variance, JA = Job autonomy, EV = Employee voice, EE = Employee engagement.

**p < .001; value indicates the significant correlation value.

Furthermore, the variance inflation factor (VIF) is employed to investigate the problem of multicollinearity. The study’s findings reveal that the VIF value is 1.36, which is well below the threshold value of 10,⁶² confirming the measurement model’s lowest collinearity.

Hypothesis Testing

In the next step, the construct’s inter-relationships are evaluated. The study’s findings reveal that the suggested model has significant model fitness, as all the values are above the threshold limit (χ² = 4117.74), (df = 347, p < .05), 2/df = 1.20, CFI = .97, TLI = .97, IFI = .97, RMR = .05, RMSEA = .03 as shown in Table 3. The study’s findings (β = 0.49, p < .001) validate the study’s hypothesis, H₁, that there is a positive association between job autonomy and employee voice. Similarly, the study’s H₂ predicts a positive association between job autonomy and employees’ engagement (β = 0.36, p < .001). Likewise, H₃ proposes a favourable association between employee voice and employee engagement, which is validated by the study’s findings (β = 0.33, p < .001), which is also supported by the findings.

Table 3.

Hypothesis Results

Effect	Hypotheses	(β)	T-statistics	P-values	Results
H ₁	JA→EV	0.49**	8.05	.00	Supported
H ₂	JA→EE	0.36**	5.43	.00	Supported
H ₃	EV→EE	0.33**	4.85	.00	Supported

Source: The authors.

Notes: JA = Job autonomy, EV = Employee voice, EE = Employee engagement.

**p < .001; value indicates the significant beta (b) value.

Mediation Effects

In the current measurement model, the mediation effect is investigated using a process macro (Model 4). For this investigation, a bootstrap of 5000 samples was employed. Results of mediation analysis show that employee voice partially intervenes between job autonomy and employee engagement (see Table 4). Because the direct relationship between job autonomy and employee engagement is strong, and the indirect impact is minor in comparison to the direct relationship, partial mediation is verified in this study. Furthermore, neither the lower nor the higher confidence intervals included zero, indicating that the indirect impact is substantial.⁶⁶ As a result, H₄ is also supported.

Table 4.

Mediation Analysis (H₄)

Effect	Paths	β	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Indirect	x × y	0.17**	.08	.28
Direct	Z	0.36**	.23	.49
Total	z + x × y	0.52**	.40	.64

Source: The authors.

Note: **p < .001; value indicates the significant beta (b) value.

Discussion

Employee engagement, linked with numerous favourable outcomes¹³ is attracting researchers’ attention and they are continuously striving to explore and validate the factors crucial for enhancing the engagement levels of employees. Though, researchers found that providing autonomy to employees enhances their engagement, the mechanism through which the employees’ perception regarding the autonomy provided to them is still missing.²² Thus, with an underlying aim to explore the mediating mechanism between job autonomy and employee engagement relationship, this study investigated the mediating role of employee voice in the aforesaid relationship. Concerning this, several hypotheses were framed using the JD-R framework. As a result of the research, the following conclusions may be drawn:

First, a high level of job autonomy suggests to individuals that they can conduct their own work without supervision, which increases their likelihood of engaging in challenging behaviours.¹⁴ These results support the H₁. In other words, these results support Dedahanov et al.²³ claims that when employees have a higher level of autonomy in the workplace then they can solve the problems more effectively and also take an active part in solving work-related problems with their constructive suggestions as compared to employees having low autonomy. Furthermore, job autonomy allowed individuals to make their judgments without fear of being reprimanded or retaliated against by their superiors. Notably, the employees are more actively involved in pro-organizational extra-role activities such as employee voice when they have more flexibility at work and can customize their job in various ways that empower them to perform in the best possible manner.^{14, 23}

Second, the findings revealed that job autonomy boosts employee engagement, thus, supporting H₂, which indicates that when people have power regarding the context of their work, they may feel confident in their capacity to do their tasks well. This conclusion is in line with the existing research by Alagarsamy et al.,³⁹ who claimed that giving employees more autonomy promotes employee engagement.

Third, the research demonstrated that giving employees a voice improves employee engagement thus supporting the H₃. In other words, these results support Rees et al.⁴⁸ claims that employees see independence in the workplace and organizational affairs as a result of opportunities to speak up, which leads to intrinsic motivation. This inherent motivation manifests itself in their work and organization as vigour, absorption, and devotion. As a result, it is advised that employee voice be seen as a significant strategy for today’s worker engagement.

Lastly, employee voice, as hypothesized, mediates between the job autonomy and employee engagement relationship. Thus, supports H₄. Although the relationship between job autonomy and employee engagement^{67, 68} and between employee voice and employee engagement⁴⁸ is well established in the previous literature, this is the first study as per the knowledge of the author which has examined the mediating role of employee voice between job autonomy and employee engagement. Indeed, individuals will have greater confidence to question the status quo by constructively raising their voices when they have a certain degree of control over the context of their job, which will increase their engagement. Job autonomy provides employees with the experience and self-confidence to voice out and express their concerns on issues that may influence the effective functioning of the organization, even if doing so might humiliate others.¹⁴ As a result of this, employees will be able to put in more effort and be more engaged in their jobs.

Expanding research on employee engagement aids in the development of our knowledge in this area and support future studies in this field. Following this, we discuss how the current study findings influence theory and practice in the subsequent sections.

Theoretical Implications

The findings of this research significantly contribute to the present literature in three important ways. First, the JD-R model was used to support the relationship between job autonomy, voice behaviours (both promotional and prohibitive), and work engagement so it contributes towards that model. Second, the present research reveals that job autonomy as one of the prominent job resources that can directly and indirectly improve employee engagement through employee voice. Job autonomy has long been recognized as among the most essential job design elements in terms of meeting human psychological needs and has been demonstrated to affect employees’ performance in both in-role and extra-role (employee voice) behaviours and employee engagement.^69–71

According to the current study, job autonomy is linked to greater in-role as well as extra-role employee performance (employee voice in the present study). Findings of the present study also indicate that employee voice can increase work engagement, implying that employee voice is an essential tool for determining the reason, why job autonomy is related to employee engagement. As a result, relying on previous studies and theory derived from the JD-R model the current study enhances researchers’ knowledge by examining how, why, and under what conditions employee engagement is connected to job autonomy and employee voice. Derived from previous research, our findings imply that job autonomy, as one of the job resources, is proximally associated to employee voice and distantly to employee engagement. Furthermore, this study provides a better understanding of the importance of employee voice in mediating the relationship between job autonomy and employee engagement. In addition to this, we have also addressed Chamberlin et al.⁷² need for more research into the many types of voice behaviours (promotive and prohibitive voice) in order to broaden the field of voice research.

Managerial Implications

There are three key practical implications of the present study. First, the current study findings propose that job autonomy benefits employee engagement indirectly, implying that HR practitioners should contemplate job autonomy as a critical job-related need that influences employee extra-role performance (e.g., employee voice behaviours) and subsequent employee engagement. Based on our findings, we believe that by offering adequate autonomy or authority at work (freedom to make decisions), managers may be able to encourage employee voice behaviours and engagement. Employees must be empowered with greater responsibility, training for expanded tasks, and increased participation in strategic decisions. Employees may also be encouraged and instructed to indulge in customizing their jobs so that they can focus on modifying aspects of their work and interpersonal relationships to fit their particular preferences. Furthermore, employee positions and duties might be explicitly tied to the organization’s wider goal and purpose to develop knowledge of the “greater picture.”

Second, the findings show that an employee’s voice behaviour is a prominent factor in the relationship between job autonomy and employee engagement. Employee voice behaviours, in particular, are highlighted as a significant tool for boosting employee engagement. Therefore, practitioners should focus on fostering employee voice habits in order to improve employee engagement. For example, if a corporate culture encourages voice behaviour, even if a new work effort fails, then employees embrace failures and try again without fear of being judged or losing their jobs. Furthermore, supervisors as leaders could try exhibiting inclusion and openness to employees’ novel ideas, technology, and products, as well as recognizing employees’ self-initiation efforts to raise their sense of job autonomy and voice behaviour in the organization. All this in turn enhances employee engagement.

Lastly, this work adds to the employee engagement literature in general by providing theoretical coherence to current engagement studies. While remuneration and perks alone are sufficient to keep employees, the solution rests in recognizing the underlying aspects that lead to improved employee engagement. Furthermore, to boost employee engagement, companies should create the right conditions for job autonomy and encourage people to speak up. Managers and HR practitioners should treat employees with respect at all times and try to make them feel recognized. Employee engagement may be augmented by establishing an open, transparent two-way communications network. Empowering and allowing workers to communicate with a diverse group of researchers (reference groups) and industrial experts can contribute to the development of a creative mindset. This is an important aspect in boosting their vocal behaviour, and management should promote it. Furthermore, empowering employees by soliciting and incorporating their views and ideas into operational decision-making processes, adopting their proposals, and praising their efforts would make them feel more connected and engaged. Consequently, this research may aid HRM practitioners in maintaining a strong engagement strategy by increasing job autonomy and employee voice in the workplace.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Despite the fact that our findings add to the engagement literature in a variety of ways, the current study contains a number of flaws that should be explored by the future researchers. To begin with, all factors were assessed using self-reported questionnaires, which may raise worries about CMB. Even though efforts have been made to remove CMB, it cannot be totally avoided. So, future studies in this field should draw on a variety of sources. Second, we only collected data over a short period of time; future studies should focus on longitudinal research to better prevent CMB. Third, while the study’s sample size is modest, subsequent research may be conducted with a larger sample size and data obtained from a wider geographic region. Finally, this research was conducted on Indian service sector employees. Consequently, the findings of this study’s generalizability to other contexts or environments may be restricted. In this regard, a replication of this study in diverse settings (e.g., the manufacturing sector) would be beneficial to establish the validity and generalizability of the current findings in different situations.

Furthermore, there is a vast amount of research that can be done to predict job autonomy, employee voice, and employee engagement using demographic parameters such as gender, age, level of employment, education level, and type of business. Thus, it is advised that further study be done on the linkages between autonomy, voice, and employee engagement moderated by demographic characteristics. Also, the outcomes of the study might be generalized to large sample size and cross-national research.

Conclusion

The current study adds to the existing literature on employee engagement by examining the mediating mechanism of employee voice in the link between job autonomy and employee engagement. Despite the fact that employee voice has long been acknowledged as a crucial variable in the workplace,¹² empirical research on employee voice as a mediating mechanism accounting for the impact of job autonomy on employee engagement have been limited. Findings of the study explored that job autonomy has a direct as well as an indirect relationship with employee engagement through employee voice. Findings of the present study also indicated that employee voice can increase work engagement, implying that employee voice is an essential tool for determining the reason, why job autonomy is related to employee engagement. As a result, suitably boosting employees’ job autonomy can be a successful intervention for improving voice behaviours and thereby increasing employee engagement. The current study is likely to provide a springboard for more empirical research in this fascinating and hard area of “organization behaviour,” as well as promote future research on the variety of antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement.

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

Jose

, Mampilly

. Psychological empowerment as a predictor of employee engagement: An empirical attestation. Glob Bus Rev. 2014; 15(1):93–104. 10.1177/0972150913515589

Harter

. U.S. Employee engagement rises following wild 2020. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/330017/employee-engagement-rises-following-wild-2020.aspx

Bailey

, Madden

, Alfes

, . The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. Int J Manag Rev. 2017; 19(1):31–53. 10.1111/ijmr.12077

Schaufeli

, Salanova

, Gonzalez-roma

, . The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Happiness Stud. 2002; 3:71–92. 10.1023/A:1015630930326

Jena

, Bhattacharyya

, Pradhan

. Employee engagement and affective organizational commitment: Mediating role of employee voice among Indian service sector employees. Vis. 2017; 21(4):356–366. 10.1177/0972262917733170

Jha

, Potnuru

RKG

, Sareen

, . Employee voice, engagement and organizational effectiveness: A mediated model. Eur J Train Dev. 2019; 43(7/8):699–718. 10.1108/EJTD-10-2018-0097

Mulki

, Locander

, Marshall

, . Workplace isolation, salesperson commitment, and job performance. J Pers Sell & Sales Manag. 2008; 28(1):67–78. 10.2753/PSS0885-3134280105

Saks

, Gruman

. What do we really know about employee engagement? Hum Resour Dev Q. 2014; 25(2):155–182. 10.1002/hrdq.21187

Shaffer

, Harrison

, Gilley

, . Struggling for balance amid turbulence on international assignments: Work–family conflict, support and commitment. J Manag. 2001; 27(1):99–121. 10.1177/014920630102700106

10.

Albrecht

, Bakker

, Gruman

, . Employee engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage: An integrated approach. J Organ Eff: People Perform. 2015; 2(1):7–35. 10.1108/JOEPP-08-2014-0042

11.

LePine

, Van Dyne

. Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. J Appl Psychol. 2001; 86(2):326. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.326

12.

Morrison

. Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. The Acad Manag Ann. 2011; 5(1):373–412. 10.1108/JMP-02-2020-0077

13.

Saks

. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement revisited. J Organ Eff: People Perform. 2019; 6(1):19–38. 10.1108/JOEPP-06-2018-0034

14.

Kao

, Hsu

, Thomas

, . Motivating employees to speak up: Linking job autonomy, PO fit, and employee voice behaviors through work engagement. Curr Psychol. 2021; 1–15. 10.1007/s12144-020-01222-0

15.

Alfes

, Shantz

, Truss

, . The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: A moderated mediation model. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2013; 24(2):330–351. 10.1080/09585192.2012.679950

16.

Saks

. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J Manag Psychol. 2006; 21(7):600–619. 10.1108/02683940610690169

17.

Wilkinson

, Fay

. New times for employee voice? Hum Resour Manag. 2011; 50(1):65–74. 10.1002/hrm.20411

18.

Lee

, Choi

, Kang

. How leaders’ positive feedback influences employees’ innovative behavior: The mediating role of voice behavior and job autonomy. Sustainability. 2021; 13(4), 1901.

19.

Dysvik

, Kuvaas

. Perceived job autonomy and turnover intention: The moderating role of perceived supervisor support. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2013; 22(5):563–573. 10.1080/1359432X.2012.667215

20.

Demerouti

, Bakker

, Nachreiner

, . The job demands–resources model of burnout. J Appl Psychol. 2001; 86(3):499. 10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.499

21.

Albrecht

, Green

, Marty

. Meaningful Work, Job Resources, and Employee Engagement. Sustain. 2021; 13(7):1–14. 10.3390/su13074045

22.

Gebregiorgis

, Xuefeng

. Exploring the relationship between Job autonomy and employee engagement in turbulent times: The role of autonomous motivation. Int J Res Bus Soc Sci. 2021; 10(2):134–152. 10.20525/ijrbs.v10i2.1066

23.

Dedahanov

, Rhee

, Gapurjanova

. Job autonomy and employee voice: Is work-related self-efficacy a missing link? Manag Decis. 2019; 57(9):2401–2413. 10.1108/MD-06-2017-0607

24.

Langfred

. Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. J Manag. 2005; 31(4):513–529. 10.1177/0149206304272190

25.

Bakker

, Demerouti

. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. J Manag Psychol. 2007; 22(3):309–328. 10.1108/02683940710733115

26.

Mauno

, Kinnunen

, Ruokolainen

. Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. J Vocat Behav. 2007; 70(1):149–171. 10.1016/j.jvb.2006.09.002

27.

Shantz

, Alfes

, Truss

, . The role of employee engagement in the relationship between job design and task performance, citizenship and deviant behaviours. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2013; 24(13):2608–2627. 10.1080/09585192.2012.744334

28.

Zhang

, Chen

. Developmental leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating effects of self-determination, supervisor identification, and organizational identification. Leadersh Q. 2013; 24(4):534–543. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.03.007

29.

Hackman

, Oldham

. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1976; 16(2):250–279. 10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7

30.

Jung

. Organisational goal ambiguity and performance: Conceptualization, measurement, and relationships. Int Public Manag J. 2011; 14(2):193–217. 10.1080/10967494.2011.589760

31.

Dai

, Akey-Torku

. The influence of managerial psychology on job satisfaction among healthcare employees in Ghana. Healthcare. 2020; 8(3):1–17. 10.3390/healthcare8030262

32.

Humphrey

, Nahrgang

, Morgeson

. Integrating motivational, social and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. J Appl Psychol. 2007; 92(5):1332–1356. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332

33.

, Feldman

. Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. J Organ Behav. 2012; 33(2):216–234. 10.1002/job.754

34.

Dyne

, Ang

, Botero

. Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. J Manag Stud. 2003; 40(6):1359–1392. 10.1111/1467-6486.00384

35.

Lam

, Mayer

. When do employees speak up for their customers? A model of voice in a customer service context. Pers Psychol. 2014; 67(3):637–666. 10.1111/peps.12050

36.

Permata

, Mangundjaya

. The role of work engagement in the relationship of job autonomy and proactive work behavior for organizational sustainability. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing; 2021. pp. 12–55.

37.

Sandhya

, Sulphey

. Influence of empowerment, psychological contract and employee engagement on voluntary turnover intentions. Int J Product Perform Manag. 2020; 70(2):325–349. 10.1108/IJPPM-04-2019-0189

38.

De Spiegelaere

, Van Gyes

, Van Hootegem

. Not all autonomy is the same. Different dimensions of job autonomy and their relation to work engagement & innovative work behavior. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind. 2016; 26(4):515–527. 10.1002/hfm.20666

39.

Alagarsamy

, Mehrolia

, Aranha

. The mediating effect of employee engagement: How employee psychological empowerment impacts the employee satisfaction? A study of Maldivian Tourism Sector. Glob Bus Rev. 2020; 1–19. 10.1177/0972150920915315

40.

Hirschman

. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Vol. 25. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1970.

41.

Lavelle

, Gunnigle

, McDonnell

. Patterning employee voice in multinational companies. Hum Relat. 2010; 63(3):395–418. 10.1177/0018726709348935

42.

Holland

, Pyman

, Cooper

, . Employee voice and job satisfaction in Australia: The centrality of direct voice. Hum Resour Manag. 2011; 50(1):95–111. 10.1002/hrm.20406

43.

Farndale

, Van Ruiten

, Kelliher

, . The influence of perceived employee voice on organizational commitment: An exchange perspective. Hum Resour Manag. 2011; 50(1):113–129. 10.1002/hrm.20404

44.

Prince

, Rao

. Voice behavior of Indian IT employees: A moderated mediation model. Int J Organ Anal. 2020; 28(6):1255–1271. 10.1108/IJOA-11-2019-1926

45.

Guest

. Voice and employee engagement. In: Johnstone

and Ackers

, editors, Finding a voice at work? New perspectives on employment relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 44–66.

46.

Schaufeli

, Bakker

. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. J Organ Behav: Int J Ind, Occup Organ Psychol Behav. 2004; 25(3):293–315. 10.1002/job.248s

47.

Reissner

, Pagan

. Generating employee engagement in a public–private partnership: Management communication activities and employee experiences. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2013; 24(14):2741–2759. 10.1080/09585192.2013.765497

48.

Rees

, Alfes

, Gatenby

. Employee voice and engagement: Connections and consequences. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2013; 24(14):2780–2798. 10.1080/09585192.248

49.

Conway

, Fu

, Monks

, . Demands or resources? The relationship between HR practices, employee engagement, and emotional exhaustion within a hybrid model of employment relations. Hum Resour Manag. 2016; 55(5):901–917. 10.1002/hrm.21691

50.

Srivastava

, Pradhan

, Singh

, Madan

. Consequences of abusive supervision on Indian service sector professionals: A PLS-SEM-based approach. Int J Conft Manag (2022). 10.1108/IJCMA-07-2021-0112

51.

Yenipinar

, Şeyma

KOÇ

, Canga

, . Determining sample size in logistic regression with G-Power. BSJ Eng and Sci. 2019; 2(1):16–22. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/bsengineering/issue/42084/469688

52.

Faul

, Erdfelder

, Lang

, Buchner

. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007; 39(2):175–191.

53.

Cohen

. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988.

54.

Etikan

, Musa

, Alkassi

. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Am J Theor Appl Stat. 2016; 5(1):1–4. 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

55.

Busk

. Cross-sectional design. Encyclopedia Stat in Behav Sci. 2005; 1:453–454 10.1002/0470013192.bsa157

56.

Lawshe

. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975; 28(4):563–575. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x

57.

Russo

, Tomei

, Serra

, Mello

. differences in the use of 5 or 7-point Likert scale: An application in food safety culture. EURAM 2020 Conference on THE BUSINESS OF NOW: The future starts here, Dubin, Ireland, 4–6 December 2020.

58.

Breaugh

. The measurement of work autonomy. Hum Relations. 1985; 38(6):551–570. 10.1177/001872678503800604

59.

Schaufeli

, Bakker

, Salanova

. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educ and Psychol Meas. 2006; 66(4):701–716. 10.1177/0013164405282471

60.

Liang

, Farh

. Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Acad Manag J. 2012; 55(1):71–92. 10.5465/amj.2010.0176

61.

Podsakoff

, MacKenzie

, Lee

, . Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003; 88(5):879–903. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

62.

Hair

, Black

, Babin

, . Multivariate data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall Pearson Education, 2006.

63.

Streiner

. Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess. 2003; 80(1):99–103. 10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18

64.

Taber

. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res Sci Educ. 2018; 48(6):1273–1296. 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

65.

Fornell

, Larcker

. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981; 18(1):39–50.

66.

Zhao

, Lynch Jr

, Chen

. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. J Consum Res. 2010; 37(2):197–206. 10.1086/651257

67.

Agarwal

, Gupta

. Relationships between job characteristics, work engagement, conscientiousness and managers’ turnover intentions: A moderated-mediation analysis. Pers Rev. 2018; 47(2):353–377.

68.

Zhang

, Jex

, Peng

, Wang

. Exploring the effects of job autonomy on engagement and creativity: The moderating role of performance pressure and learning goal orientation. J Bus Psychol. 2017; 32, 235–251.

69.

De Cooman

, Stynen

, Van den

Broeck A

, . How job characteristics relate to need satisfaction and autonomous motivation: Implications for work effort. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2013; 43(6):1342–1352. 10.1111/jasp.12143

70.

Morgeson

, Delaney-Klinger

, Hemingway

. The importance of job autonomy, cognitive ability, and job-related skill for predicting role breadth and job performance. J Appl Psychol. 2005; 90(2):399–406. 10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.399

71.

Schaufeli

, Bakker

, Van Rhenen

. How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. J Organ Behav: Int J Ind, Occup Organ Psychol Behav. 2009; 30(7):893–917. 10.1002/job.595

72.

Chamberlin

, Newton

, Lepine

. A meta-analysis of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms: Identification of key associations, distinctions, and future research directions. Pers Psychol. 2017; 70(1):11–71. 10.1111/peps.12185