Mediating role of workplace happiness in enhancing work engagement

Ashwini Uttamrao Shelke (Global Business School and Research Centre, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, India)
Naim Shaikh (Department of Management, Global Business School and Research Center, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, India)

Rajagiri Management Journal

ISSN: 0972-9968

Article publication date: 25 January 2023

Issue publication date: 10 August 2023

7432

Abstract

Purpose

This research seeks to explain the mediating function of workplace happiness in enhancing employee engagement through the drivers of employee engagement among the IT sector employees of India.

Design/methodology/approach

Quantitative data were acquired from 104 respondents from the Indian IT industry via an online survey utilizing Google Forms, employing a stratified random sample method. The study hypotheses were tested using PLS-SEM.

Findings

Results indicated that workplace happiness positively mediates employee engagement and drivers of employee engagement.

Research limitations/implications

The current study followed a cross-sectional analysis where establishing causality is difficult; however, there is a scope to do longitudinal study on the same phenomenon. Research data are produced through online surveys. Possible sources of bias may be selective memory, attribution and/or exaggeration. This study covers specific variables of workplace happiness and drivers of employee engagement other variables remain unaddressed, such as COVID-19-related impacts. The nature of the industry and sample size were limited.

Practical implications

This study shows that workplace happiness has a mediating effect on both drivers of employee engagement and employee engagement; as a result, organizations should consider the function of workplace happiness as a mediating factor when implementing drivers of employee engagement and employee engagement.

Social implications

On the social level, this research will help organizations to understand the drivers for employee engagement and linkages between workplace happiness and employee engagement. It hopes to create more happy workplaces and have good social impact.

Originality/value

This is the first study to look into the function of workplace happiness as a mediator between the drivers of work engagement and work engagement.

Keywords

Citation

Shelke, A.U. and Shaikh, N. (2023), "Mediating role of workplace happiness in enhancing work engagement", Rajagiri Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 238-253. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAMJ-07-2022-0110

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Ashwini Uttamrao Shelke and Naim Shaikh

License

Published in Rajagiri Management Journal. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


1. Introduction

Happiness has been argued as to be a highly cherished aim in human communities, and people desire to be happy (Diener, 2000). Happiness is a basic human emotion, and most people are content to some degree most of the time (Diener and Diener, 1996). Happiness has piqued philosophers' interest since the dawn of written history (McMahon, 2006), but it has only recently become a subject of psychological research.

Despite the recently increasing attention, the topic of employee well-being has been largely disregarded in management literature (Erdogan et al., 2012). Empirical studies on workplace happiness are still at dearth as several studies are commonly related to only job satisfaction, and most studies do not clearly show how workplace happiness influences employee engagement levels and majority of these studies are from the western literature. Despite the fact that people spend much of their time at work (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004), past research reveals that the value of workplace happiness in the modern organizations has been overlooked, with most practices focusing on the firm's productivity. This concentration overlooked one of man's most important characteristics: “Happiness”. As a result, we feel that a key research gap is the lack of attention paid to employee happiness.

This study aims to investigate the factors that influence workplace happiness and employee engagement, as well as the relationship between workplace happiness, drivers of employee engagement and employee engagement while considering workplace happiness as a mediating factor. Based on the findings of this research, a survey will be conducted on a larger sample in order to validate a theoretical model and generalize the findings. The findings of the study show that when an organization applies workplace happiness strategies, it will see a significant increase in employee engagement.

2. Literature review

While happiness has long been recognized as an important component of a person's life, few individuals have addressed workplace happiness as a factor in employee engagement, according to Albrecht (2010). This assertion underlies the study's significance, since it reveals how employee happiness has long been disregarded in the workplace.

Gulyani and Sharma (2018), in their research study, analyzed the relationship concerning “total rewards perceptions and work happiness” and the effects of total reward components on employee happiness. The study's findings demonstrated that how employees feel about their overall incentives has a big impact on how engaged and happy they are at work. The study's key finding, in the researcher's opinion, is that financial incentives had a little effect on workers' job satisfaction. An organization can learn a valuable lesson about the importance of rewards in promoting employee engagement. Increased job engagement served as the sole mediator in the correlation between perceived aggregate compensation and “work happiness”, which was closely related to workplace happiness. The study offers crucial recommendations for creating a rewards scheme that boosts worker efficiency and productivity in the developing firms' unstructured work environments.

Singh et al. (2018) investigated the relationships between organizational virtue and job performance metrics, in their study article. Their cross-sectional investigations demonstrated a favorable correlation between organizational virtuousness and task performance, labor intensity, engagement and organizational citizenship behaviors. The purpose of the study was to look into the specific roles that forgiveness, kindness and collective gratitude play in fostering positive employee outcomes. The study's findings demonstrated that work engagement is predicted by employees' perceptions of organizational virtue both directly and indirectly through happiness. Stakeholders and managers can foster organizational virtue in businesses to raise employee satisfaction and encourage a more active workforce.

Researchers Syaa and Hidayatb (2018) looked at how work engagement is impacted by perceived organizational virtue. The researchers' hypothesis, which is based on the social identity theory, is that organizational identification mediates the link between perceived organizational virtue and work engagement. The findings indicate that work engagement, organizational identity and organizational identification were strongly influenced by perceived organizational virtue. Through the study, researchers established that organizational identity fully mediated the association between perceived organizational virtue and work engagement. These results are consistent with the social identity theory, which holds that organizational identity mediates the link between perceived organizational virtue and job satisfaction. Through organizational identification, a good culture may be created that can be used to increase employee engagement.

In light of COVID-19, Mehta (2021) investigated how working from home affects employee happiness and engagement. According to the findings, exogenous factors like more diversity was predicted by WFH (work from home) freedom, WFH comfort and WFH social and psychological safety than endogenous constructs like WFH work engagement. The study's findings, which support past studies, show that work engagement is significantly impacted by autonomy. The study's findings show that people who work remotely, in this example from home, feel a sense of autonomy in their work, and that perception of work engagement is significantly impacted by independence. In order to understand how people feel about themselves, their families and themselves when working from home during COVID-19, the study also examined how people's perceptions of psychosocial safety are shaped. According to the study, WFH work involvement during COVID-19 significantly affects employee satisfaction. The path coefficient between WFH work engagement and psychological safety points to a strong correlation between the two.

Chanana (2020) the goal of the essay is to assess how various companies involved their workforces throughout the coronavirus pandemic. The document provides a summary of various employee engagement strategies. The authors came to the conclusion that these forms of employee engagement techniques boost employee morale and help them feel motivated and loyal to the company during the pandemic situation brought on by the coronavirus.

There appears to be widespread consensus that happy employees are more productive employees. Diener et al. (2008).

In their book “Wellbeing: The Five Essential Elements”, Rath et al. (2010) claim that for most people professional wellbeing is the most significant of the five elements, which include career, social, financial, physical and community wellbeing.

According to Csikszentmihalyi and Seligman (2000), positive psychology promotes robust psychological health over stress, mental illness and suffering.

According to Halvorsen (2005), a good or happy employee can deliver amazing achievements, whereas marginal employees tend to hinder the creative and advancement process by dragging out their responsibilities.

Employee engagement, fatigue and happiness in the Indian IT Sector by Indhira and Shani (2014) evaluated the primary factors promoting or inhibiting employee engagement, fatigue, and happiness in ITES personnel. According to the author, the concept of full engagement may offer a practically helpful strategy for enhancing organizational success by integrating employee engagement and psychological well-being. According to studies, both variables have a positive impact on organizational outcomes, and it is theoretically possible that their combined impact is bigger than the effects of the individual variables. This perspective is supported by some preliminary research findings, which demonstrate that the inclusion of psychological well-being, which includes happiness and exhaustion, strengthens the associations between engagement and favorable results. The idea that psychological health is crucial for creating long-term levels of employee engagement also seems to line up with theoretical predictions and prior research findings.

Workplace happiness and employee engagement are seen to be cyclical, with a rise in one leading to an increase in the other. This means that businesses should make sure their employees are satisfied, as this will enhance employee engagement.

Salimath and Kavitha (2015) in their research study, reflected upon the two concepts of employee engagement and organizational effectiveness, which are thought to have an impact on organizational performance. The study's aim was to identify the variables that had the greatest influence on the employees who participated in the survey on employee engagement. Finding out the degree of involvement that employees were experiencing was another goal of the study. A study found a significant link between organizational effectiveness and engagement.

Singh (2016) in her research article examined the numerous factors that influence employee engagement. The study examined numerous employee engagement studies. After reviewing a number of research studies, the author highlights the key factors which can influence employee engagement.

According to the arguments made by Lewis et al. (2012), an employee must acquire a particular degree of happiness before becoming engaged. These reasons are consistent with the study's findings, confirming that happiness is connected to engagement.

Rampersad (2006) stated that by assisting employees in their development, the organizations have a better possibility of improving the employee's welfare, which leads to employee engagement.

According to Gavin and Mason (2004), workplace happiness has important implication on employee productivity; a happy employee is more productive than an unhappy one. Employee happiness, they stated, is a crucial aspect of the employee that must be maintained in order to have engaged employees.

According to Hassan and Ahmed (2011), happy employees are more engaged, whereas unhappy employees are less inclined to commit to their jobs.

Employee assistance almost always leads to greater employee performance, but more importantly, increased employee engagement, according to Ali (2018).

While studies on work-related well-being and life satisfaction may be found in publications on diverse issues many of these studies fail to analyze the nature and context of employment (Erdogan et al., 2012).

Happiness in the workplace, according to Hsieh (2010), has the capacity to provide high business results while also improving the wellbeing of its people. Lyubomirsky et al. (2005).

According to the existing research, workplace happiness is a necessity for engaged employees, and employee engagement comes before workplace happiness. As a result, it is vital for organizational leaders to assess their employees' worth and design strategies to attract them to stay. Employee happiness should come first before engaging them, according to the appropriate drivers of employee engagement.

3. Theoretical framework

3.1 Workplace happiness

We have been studying a variety of factors that appear to come under the umbrella concept of happiness for a long time. Workplace happiness, job satisfaction organizational citizenship, work engagement, positive and negative emotion, thriving and vitality are just a few of the notions that belong under the wellbeing construct (Fisher, 2010). Without a doubt, the most important and widely used of these characteristics is job satisfaction.

The importance of workplace happiness cannot be overstated Page and Vella-Brodrick (2009) and Grant et al. (2007). Many concepts in organizational behavior seem to straddle various levels of happiness. Furthermore, while some characteristics of overall workplace well-being are routinely measured and well-measured, other crucial aspects of overall workplace well-being have been completely disregarded. This shows that we have a lot of room to expand our perspectives on and assessments of workplace well-being.

Happiness and wellbeing have been characterized in different ways by philosophers (Kesebir and Diener, 2008). These concepts are defined in a variety of ways, both conceptually and practically, and different authors have used the same phrases in different ways. Some operationalizations and conceptualizations are well-known, while others are newer and less well-known. The primary distinction is between hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives on wellbeing.

Subjective workplace wellbeing is a concept akin to Diener's that includes satisfaction evaluations of one's life as well as moods at work. Eudaimonic wellness is especially significant in the workplace since it encompasses growth, meaningful work and absorption (Diener and Emmons, 1984).

According to Kahneman et al., we feel happy when we have more positive emotions than negative emotions, as well as the effect of previous pleasant sentiments on current state and satisfaction (2005).

3.2 Employee engagement

According to Macey and Schneider, the term “work engagement” has gained in popularity recently, yet philosophers coin it differently (2008a, b). Kahn coined the terms “personal engagement” and “psychological presence” in the workplace (1990, 1992). The amount of real physical, mental and psychological self that individuals commit to their work, is referred to as “personal engagement” by Kahn.

According to Schaufeli et al. (2002), work engagement is a good, fulfilling, work-related state of mind typified by vigor, dedication and immersion. Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, 2002 (UWES) is the most commonly used self-reporting questionnaire to measure it. The UWES employs three scales to assess job involvement: vigor, dedication and absorption. Vigor is described by high levels of energy and mental toughness while working. Being completely engrossed in one's work and experiencing a sense of purpose can be defined as dedication. Absorption is defined as being completely absorbed and content with one's activities, with time passing fast and separation becoming impossible. “At work, I am brimming with enthusiasm”, “I find the work that I perform full of meaning and purpose”, and “When I am working, I forget everything else around me” are few items from the scale.

As per, Claypool (2017) business success is predicted to be fueled by employee engagement, which has been heralded as the next big thing. This enables committed employees to ensure their efficiency at work. Happiness has been cited as one of the factors that boost employee engagement. Employee engagement and happiness are positively associated, according to the data collected.

3.3 Drivers of work engagement

Social support from coworkers, supervisors, communication and reward has all been proven to be beneficial drivers of employee engagement in previous studies. These are the factors that influence employee engagement and can help to reduce job stress (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004, Bakker and Demerouti, 2008).

Employees' internal and extrinsic motivations are thought to be influenced by engagement drivers. They contribute to intrinsic motivation by fostering employees' growth. In the first example, job resources address basic human needs like autonomy, connectedness and competence (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Ryan and Frederick, 1997). The intrinsic motivating potential of drivers of work engagement is recognized by job characteristics theory (Hackman, 1980).

Extrinsic motivational factors may also play a part in work engagement drivers (Meijman and Mulder, 1998). It is more likely that the task accomplished and the work goal will be achieved in such an environment.

A link between drivers of engagement and work engagement has been discovered in several research studies, reinforcing these beliefs on the motivational usefulness of drivers of engagement. Hakanen et al. (2006) discovered that task authority, knowledge, supervisory support, innovative environment were all positively linked to work engagement in a sample of roughly 2000 Finnish teachers. Llorens et al. (2006) obtained conceptually comparable results in a Spanish environment. In a group of female managers and professionals at a major Turkish bank, Koyuncu et al. (2006) explored the causes and consequences of job engagement.

3.3.1 Theoretical model

Figure 1 theoretical model diagram represents constructs of the study and their relationship. It contains independent variables (IV), dependent variables (DV), mediator variables (MED) or indirect effects, as shown in the diagram below. In this model, organizational drivers act as a predictor or independent variable, workplace happiness acts as a mediator and employee engagement acts as an outcome or dependent variable.

4. Objectives and hypotheses

4.1 Objectives

Objective 1.

To identify the factors influencing the workplace happiness and employee engagement.

Objective 2.

To study the relationship of workplace happiness and employee engagement.

Objective 3.

To examine workplace happiness as a mediator between drivers of employee engagement and employee engagement.

4.2 Hypotheses

H1.

There is an insignificant relationship between workplace happiness and employee engagement.

H2.

Workplace happiness does not enact as a mediator between drivers of employee engagement and employee engagement.

5. Research methodology and design

5.1 Sample design

  1. Sample size: 104 (Ref. Krejcie and Morgan, 1970) with 95% confidence interval

  2. Sample element: HR managers, team managers and subordinates.

  3. Sampling technique: stratified random sampling

5.2 Research methodology

To test the link between exogenous (independent) and endogenous (dependent) variables, we used the Smart PLS V 3.2.7 software program.

5.3 Data collection

5.3.1 Instrument used in the study

A thorough investigation of the literature review reveals the numerous scales that have been used to conduct research on the variables mentioned. However UWES (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2003) is the most commonly used self-reporting questionnaire to measure work engagement. It includes items to assess the three types of engagement dimensions: vigor, devotion and absorption. According to the validity and reliability scores assigned to these studies, the internal consistency of all the constructs was demonstrated to be satisfactory.

The draft instrument was sent to five researchers for face and content validity testing and three academicians from human resource management domain and two practicing executives working as HR managers in IT organizations in India). This was a fully voluntary endeavor, and the experts received no compensation for their opinion. Experts were briefed about the study's aims and the reasoning for choosing specific variables. Following the expert's advice, appropriate revisions to the draft instrument were made, and it was distributed to the targeted samples after being converted into an online questionnaire.

5.4 Data analysis

5.4.1 Demographics of the sample respondents (n = 104)

The sample size for pilot study was selected keeping in mind that, it would help in presenting target population. Data were collected from 104 respondents from an Indian IT industry. Out of the total respondents, 61.04% are male and 38.96 are female respondents, out of which 89.08% fall in the age group of 21–35. 55.83% respondents reported that they are never married and 70.47% of total sample size hold bachelor's degree; 100% respondents are working as full time employees. A total of 34.49% said they are working on team leader level and 62.78% respondents are associated with an organization for 1–3 years at the reported time.

Table 1 above presents construct wise reliability and validity of the data. It can be seen that alpha is a reliability coefficient. It is a standard statistic for determining a psychometric test's internal consistency or reliability. Cronbach's alpha for most of the constructions is greater than 0.8, which is good, according to the above table. The test result confirmed that the instrument is consistent and that the data are accurate.

Figure 2 presents construct wise correlation matrix. As per the analysis of the above correlation table, dimensions are correlated and statistically significant at least 5% level.

5.4.2 Partial least square structural equation (PLS-SEM) model

PLS-SEM is one of the foremost statistical techniques that gives researchers the ability to observe variables and their relationships (Hair et al., 2017). The reason for using PLS-SEM technique is that it converges factor analysis and multiple regression and allows the researcher to benefit from using small sample sizes and generally gaining higher levels of statistical power even in case of complex models. Table 2 below presents assessment of outer loadings. Outer loadings of all indicators exceed the cross-loadings, thereby fulfilling the criteria for establishing discriminant validity.

Above tables, Table 3 and 4 presented the discriminant validity of the data set; it shows that this study's discriminant validity is established by meeting the stipulated criterion.

Tables 5 and 6 depicts R square and F square values, indicated the effect is statistically significant.

Above Figure 3 presents path co-efficient of the study variables.

The study used 2,000 bootstrap subsamples and derived t-values. The route coefficients of the direct effects for variable relationships are shown in Table 7 below.

Table 8 presents indirect effect of variable relationship.

5.4.3 Hypothesis outcome

Assuming a 5% significance level, study tested the hypotheses, the outcome is discussed below:

H1a.

There is a significant relationship between workplace happiness and employee engagement.

H2a.

Workplace happiness enacts as a mediator between drivers of employee engagement and employee engagement.

5.4.4 Findings

  1. Study identified the key factors which can influence workplace happiness and employee engagement. Intrinsic motivation, work engagement, supportive organizational experiences and unsupportive organizational experiences can have significant influence on workplace happiness. Vigor, dedication and absorption can significantly impact employee engagement.

  2. There is a significant relationship between workplace happiness and employee engagement.

  3. Study result shows that there is a positive relationship between drivers of employee engagement and workplace happiness.

  4. Drivers of Employee Engagement lead to employee engagement.

  5. Workplace happiness enacts as mediator between drivers of employee engagement and employee engagement.

Practical implication: This study shows that workplace happiness has a mediating effect on both drivers of employee engagement and employee engagement; as a result, organizations should consider the function of workplace happiness as a mediating factor when implementing drivers of employee engagement and employee engagement.

5.4.5 Research limitations

  1. Current study followed cross section analysis where establishing causality is difficult; however, there is a scope to do longitudinal study on the same phenomenon.

  2. Research data are produced through the online surveys. Possible sources of bias may be selective memory, attribution and/or exaggeration.

  3. This study covers specific variables of workplace happiness and drivers of employee engagement other variables remains unaddressed, such as COVID-19 related impacts:

  4. The nature of industry and sample size was limited.

5.4.6 Recommendations for future research

  1. Future research should focus on other HR factors to have a better understanding of this construct.

  2. Despite recently increasing attention, empirical studies on well-being at work are still lacking (Erdogan et al., 2012).

  3. Therefore there is a scope to develop a single instrument to assess all of these components.

  4. Social wellbeing at work has wide scope of research.

  5. With rare exceptions, happiness is not a term that has been extensively used in academic research.

  6. Finally, longitudinal research is proposed across organizations to examine workplace happiness interventions for promoting employee engagement.

6. Conclusions

According to the findings, there is a considerable link in workplace happiness and employee engagement, and it works as a mediator between employee engagement drivers and employee engagement. It can also significantly contribute to the literature on workplace happiness and employee engagement by establishing the relationship of drivers of employee engagement and workplace happiness and employee engagement, demonstrating that while employee engagement is important to the organization, whether or not an employee becomes engaged is determined by workplace happiness.

The establishment of a positive relationship between these three factors suggests that an organization will reap significant benefits when it implements drivers of employee engagement alongside workplace happiness practices to boost employee engagement, resulting in more engaged employees and faster growth.

Figures

Theoretical model diagram

Figure 1

Theoretical model diagram

Correlation matrix: construct wise

Figure 2

Correlation matrix: construct wise

Assessment of structural path significance in bootstrapping

Figure 3

Assessment of structural path significance in bootstrapping

Construct wise reliability and validity

αrho_AComposite reliabilityAVE
Absorptive0.7380.7450.8270.491
COMM0.9270.9310.9370.515
Dedication0.8610.8690.9000.645
POS0.8500.8570.9090.770
PSS0.9460.9480.9660.903
REW0.8910.9020.9140.575
Vigor0.6880.7030.8090.517
Work Happiness0.8530.8550.8880.533

Source(s): Ref. Reliability and validity analysis

Assessment of outer loadings

AbsorptiveCOMMDedicationPOSPSSREWVigorWork happiness
AB10.61
AB1
AB30.74
AB40.77
AB60.73
COM1 0.73
COM10 0.67
COM11 0.78
COM12
COM13 0.76
COM14 0.70
COM2 0.67
COM3 0.78
COM4 0.65
COM5 0.76
COM6 0.77
COM7 0.69
COM8 0.79
COM9 0.59
D1 0.79
D2 0.80
D3 0.83
D4 0.87
D5 0.70
IM 0.76
IM1 0.82
POS1 0.89
POS4 0.91
POS8 0.83
PSS1 0.94
PSS2 0.95
PSS3 0.96
RW1 0.72
RW3 0.71
RW4 0.66
RW5 0.78
RW6 0.88
RW7 0.84
RW8 0.59
RW9 0.84
SOE 0.70
SOE2 0.69
SOE3 0.72
SOE4 0.69
VI1 0.63
VI2 0.81
VI3 0.73
VI4 0.69
WE 0.71

Source(s): Ref. PLS-EM output

Discriminant validity

AbsorptiveCOMMDedicationPOSPSSREWVigorWork happiness
Absorptive0.701
COMM0.3230.718
Dedication0.5640.403l.803
POS0.1980.7410.3510.877
PSS0.3290.7470.4600.6160.950
REW0.2610.8340.4410.7380.6220.758
Vigor0.6320.5030.7880.4090.4300.4730.719
Work Happiness0.4270.7700.6060.6710.6650.7560.5830.730

Source(s): Ref. Data analysis

Fornell–Larcker criterion

AbsorptiveCOMMDedicationPOSPSSREWVigorWork happiness
Absorptive0.701
COMM0.3230.718
Dedication0.5640.4030.803
POS0.1980.7410.3510.877
PSS0.3290.7470.4600.6160.950
REW0.2610.8340.4410.7380.6220.758
Vigor0.6320.5030.7880.4090.4300.4730.719
Work Happiness0.4270.7700.6060.6710.6650.7560.5830.730

Source(s): Ref. Data analysis

Structural path analysis R2

R2R2 adjusted
Absorptive0.6540.652
COMM0.9180.918
Dedication0.8320.831
Drivers0.2670.264
POS0.7040.702
PSS0.6440.642
REW0.8360.836
Vigor0.8190.818
Work Happiness0.7270.724

Source(s): Ref. Data analysis

F square

DriversEmp engagement
Absorptive 1.886
COMM11.216
Dedication 4.949
Drivers 0.365
Emp Engagement
POS2.374
PSS1.807
REW5.113
Vigor 4.528
Work Happiness1.1620.241

Source(s): Ref. Data analysis

Bootstrapping estimation

Basic sampleMeanSt devt-valuesp-values2.5%97.5%
Drivers → COMM0.9580.9580.006149.3900.0000.9440.969
Drivers → POS0.8390.8390.02632.1040.0000.7850.887
Drivers → PSS0.8020.8020.03324.3130.0000.7310.858
Drivers → REW0.9150.9160.01466.8490.0000.8870.941
Drivers → Work Happiness0.6580.6610.03817.2130.0000.5870.738
Emp Engagement → Absorptive0.8080.8100.03721.8750.0000.7290.873
Emp Engagement → Dedication0.9120.9140.01371.2430.0000.8870.936
Emp Engagement → Drivers0.5170.5200.0667.7740.0000.3780.639
Emp Engagement → Vigour0.9050.9050.01274.4070.0000.8800.927
Emp Engagement → Work Happiness0.3000.2970.0525.7740.0000.1920.395

Source(s): Ref. PLSSEM analysis

Indirect effects

Basic sampleMeanSt devt-valuesp-values
Emp Engagement → Drivers → POS0.4340.4360.0587.4460.000
Emp Engagement → Drivers → REW0.4730.4760.0637.5090.000
Emp Engagement → Drivers → Work Happiness0.3400.3430.0496.9030.000
Emp Engagement → Drivers → PSS0.4150.4170.0587.1150.000
Emp Engagement → Drivers → COMM0.4950.4980.0647.7100.000

Source(s): Ref. PLSSEM analysis

A brief about submission: This research work titled “Mediating Role of Workplace Happiness in Enhancing Work Engagement” studies important aspects of human resources management like workplace happiness, employee engagement and drivers of employee engagement. This study aims to understand the factors that influence workplace happiness and employee engagement, as well as the relationship between workplace happiness, drivers of employee engagement and employee engagement while considering workplace happiness as a mediating factor. Based on the findings of this research, a survey will be conducted on a larger sample in order to validate a theoretical model and generalize the findings.

A disclaimer: The researchers declare that this is the original work of them and has not been submitted elsewhere for publication.

Submission has not received grant or fund from any institute/organization, etc. The authors do not have any conflict of interest.

References

Albrecht, S.L. (Ed.) (2010), Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice, Edward Elgar Publishing, doi: 10.4337/9781849806374.

Ali, F. (2018), “Employee assistance program: a valuable addition”, ZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Vol. 8 No. 8, pp. 135-144, ISSN 2231-5780.

Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2008), “Towards a model of work engagement”, Career Development International, Vol. 13, pp. 209-223.

Chanana, N.S. (2020), “Employee engagement practices during COVID‐19 lockdown”, Journal of Public Affairs.

Claypool, K.K. (2017), “Organizational success: how the presence of happiness in the workplace affects employee engagement that leads to organizational success”, Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Seligman, M. (2000), “Positive psychology”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 5-14.

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), “The general causality orientations scale: self-determination in personality”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 109-134.

Diener, E. (2000), “Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a national index”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 34-43, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34.

Diener, E. and Diener, C. (1996), “Most people are happy”, Psychological Science, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 181-185.

Diener, E. and Emmons, R.A. (1984), “The independence of positive and negative affect”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 5, p. 1105.

Diener, E., Kesebir, P. and Lucas, R. (2008), “Benefits of accounts of well‐being—for societies and for psychological science”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 57, pp. 37-53.

Erdogan, B., Bauer, T.N., Truxillo, D.M. and Mansfield, L.R. (2012), “Whistle while you work: a review of the life satisfaction literature”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1038-1083.

Fisher, C.D. (2010), “Happiness at work”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 384-412.

Gavin, J.H. and Mason, R.O. (2004), “The virtuous organization: the value of happiness in the workplace”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 379-392.

Grant, A.M., Christianson, M.K. and Price, R.H. (2007), “Happiness, health, or relationships? Managerial practices and employee well-being tradeoffs”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 51-63.

Gulyani, G. and Sharma, T. (2018), “Total rewards components and work happiness in new ventures, evidence-based HRM”, Evidence-Based HRM, Vol. 6 No. 12, pp. 255-271, doi: 2017.

Hackman, J.R. (1980), “Work redesign and motivation”, Professional Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, p. 445.

Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C.L., Randolph, A.B. and Chong, A.Y.L. (2017), “An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research”, Industrial Management and Data Systems.

Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006), “Burnout and work engagement among teachers”, Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 495-513.

Halvorsen, A. (2005), “Incorporating critical thinking skills development into ESL/EFL courses”.

Hassan, A. and Ahmed, F. (2011), “Authentic leadership, trust and work engagement”, International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, Vol. 6, pp. 164-170.

Hsieh, T. (2010), Delivering Happiness: A Path to Profits, Passion, and Purpose, Hachette Audio, Hachette.

Indhira, N. and Shani, N. (2014), “Employee engagement, fatigue and happiness in IT sector in India”, Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 8 No. 9, pp. 1098-1103.

Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004), “Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 14-26.

Kahn (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”, Academy of Management Journal, ProQuest, p. 692.

Kahn, W.A. (1992), “To be fully there: psychological presence at work”, Human Relations, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 321-349.

Kahneman, D., Riis, J., Huppert, F.A., Baylis, N. and Keverne, B. (2005), The Science of Well-Being, Oxford University Press, New York.

Kesebir and Diener (2008), “In pursuit of happiness: empirical answers to philosophical questions (2008)”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 3, pp. 117-125, available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1774988

Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J. and Fiksenbaum, L. (2006), “Work engagement among women managers and professionals in a Turkish bank: potential antecedents and consequences”, Equal Opportunities International.

Krejcie, R.V. and Morgan, D.W. (1970), “Determining sample size for research activities”, Educational and Psychological Measurement.

Lewis, A., Thomas, B. and Bradley, O. (2012), “Employee socialisation: a platform for employee engagement?”, International Journal of Employment Studies, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 25-59.

Llorens, S., Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W. and Salanova, M. (2006), “Testing the robustness of the job demands-resources model”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, p. 378.

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. and Diener, E. (2005), “The benefits of frequent positive affect: does happiness lead to success?”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 131 No. 6, p. 803.

Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008a), “The meaning of employee engagement”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-30.

Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008b), “Engaged in engagement: we are delighted we did it”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 76-83.

McMahon, D.M. (2006), Happiness: A History, Grove Press, Grove Press.

Mehta, P. (2021), “Work from home—work engagement amid COVID‐19 lockdown and employee happiness”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 21 No. 1.

Meijman, T.F. and Mulder, G. (1998), “Psychological aspects of workload”, in Drenth, P.J.D., Thierry, H. and de Wolff, C.J. (Eds), Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology, Psychology Press/Erlbaum, Hove, pp. 5-33.

Page, K.M. and Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2009), “The ‘what', ‘why' and ‘how' of employee well-being: a new model”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 90, pp. 441-458, doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9270-3.

Rampersad, H.K. (2006), Personal Balanced Scorecard: the Way to Individual Happiness, Personal Integrity, and Organizational Effectiveness, IAP.

Rath, T., Harter, J.K. and Harter, J. (2010), Wellbeing: the Five Essential Elements, Simon & Schuster.

Ryan, R.M. and Frederick, C. (1997), “On energy, personality, and health: subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well‐being”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 529-565.

Salimath, M.G. and Kavitha, B.R. (2015), “A study on organizational effectiveness through employee engagement with reference to selected retail outlets in Bengaluru region”, Intercontinental Journal Of Human Resource Research Review, Vol. 3 No. 10, ISSN: 2320-9704 - Online ISSN: 2347-1662 - Print Impact Factor: 0.875.

Schaufeli, W. and Bakker, A. (2003), Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Preliminary Manual, Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University, Utrecht.

Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi‐sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 293-315.

Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.

Singh, R. (2016), “Exploring the drivers of employee engagement: a literature review”, International Journal of Education and Management Studies, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 105-109, 2016.

Singh, S., David, R. and Mikkilineni, S. (2018), “Organizational virtuousness and work engagement: mediating role of happiness in India”, Advances in Developing Human Resources: ADHR, Vol. 20 No. 1 pp. 88-102, 2018, Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publ., ISSN 1523-4223, ZDB-ID 2211958-9.

Syaa, I.S. and Hidayatb, A.E. (2018), “A virtuous company makes me engage! The mediation role of organizational identification in the workplace”, Conference: Proceedings, Intervention and Applied Psychology (ICIAP 2018), doi: 10.1002/pa.2709.

Further reading

Bakker, A.B.D., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009), “Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 235-244.

Bakker, A.B. (2011), “An evidence-based model of work engagement”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 265-269.

Bakker, A.B., Shimazu, A., Demerouti, E., Shimada, K. and Kawakami, N. (2014), “Work engagement versus workaholism: a test of the spillover-crossover model”, Journal of Managerial Psychology.

Christopher, J.C. (1999), “Situating psychological well‐being: exploring the cultural roots of its theory and research”, Journal of Counseling and Development, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 141-152.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The job demands-resources model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, p. 499.

Diener, E., Sapyta, J.J. and Suh, E. (1998), “Subjective well-being is essential to well-being”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 33-37.

Egan, V., Chan, S. and Shorter, G.W. (2014), “The Dark Triad, happiness and subjective well-being”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 67, pp. 17-22.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), “Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, p. 268.

Kashdan, T.B., Biswas-Diener, R. and King, L.A. (2008), “Reconsidering happiness: the costs of distinguishing between hedonics and Eudaimonia”, The Journal of Positive Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 219-233.

MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Ahearne, M. (1998), “Some possible antecedents and consequences of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 87-98.

Mohammed, A. and Abdul, Q. (2019), “Workplace happiness and positivity: measurement, causes and consequences”, International Journal for Research in Engineering Application and Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 42-48.

Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2001), “On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and Eudaimonic well-being”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 141-166.

Ryff, C.D. and Singer, B.H. (2008), “Know thyself and become what you are: a Eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 13-39.

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Sage Publications, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701-716, doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471.

Shibli, N. and Salman, A. (2020), “Happiness and wellbeing Co-existence in organizations”.

Storm, K. and Rothmann, S. (2003), “A psychometric analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in the South African police service”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 62-70.

Weimann, J., Knabe, A. and Schob, R. (2015), Measuring Happiness: the Economics of Well-Being, MIT Press.

Zelenski, J.M., Murphy, S.A. and Jenkins, D.A. (2008), “The happy-productive worker thesis revisited”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 521-537.

Corresponding author

Ashwini Uttamrao Shelke can be contacted at: aashishelke@gmail.com

Related articles