Thesis On Employee Engagement

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF ARTS AND LETTERS PAGE 0
THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT TO WORK

MOTIVATION AND SELF-EFFICACY OF EMPLOYEES OF
SELECTED BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
(BPO) COMPANIES IN E-COM CENTER, MOA,
PASAY CITY, PHILIPPINES
A Thesis
Submitted to
Faculty of Arts and Letters
University of Santo Tomas
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the requirements for the course
Bachelor of Arts in Behavioral Science
By
Bautista, Samantha Angelika Feil M.

Enriquez, Clarisse C.
March 2019
ABSTRACT
According to studies, employee engagement is one of the most

important factors that improve an organization. Motivated employees are
also seen as more involved in the organization, while the sense of
capability, in self-efficacy, is said to influence and employee’s
performance. This study aimed to find out if there is a significant
relationship between employee engagement and work motivation, and
employee engagement and self-efficacy. The study consists of 104
respondents from selected business process outsourcing (BPO) companies
in E-com Center, MOA, Pasay City, Philippines, using convenience
sampling technique. The respondents were asked to answer a three-part
questionnaire composed of the following foreign instruments: Utrecht
Work Engagement Scale (UWES), Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation
Scale (WEIMS), and General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSF), using a descriptive
correlational design to describe relationship among variables, and
Pearson’s r as the statistical treatment. Results show moderately high
employee engagement, high work motivation, and very high self-efficacy
among the respondents. Results also show that there is significant
relationship between employee engagement and work motivation, and
employee engagement and self-efficacy.
Keywords: Employee Engagement, Work Motivation, Self-Efficacy,

Business Process Outsourcing
Table of Contents
Title page
Abstract 1
CHAPTER I Introduction
Introduction 4
Statement of the Problem 8
Review of Related Literature and Studies 9
Significance of the Study 20
Conceptual Framework 22
Hypothesis in Conceptual Terms 23
CHAPTER II Method
Variables 25
Research Design 27
Subjects/Sampling 28
Instruments 28
Data Gathering Procedure 33
Statistical Treatment 35
CHAPTER III Results and Discussion

Results and Discussion 36
Limitations 47
Recommendations 48
CHAPTER IV Summary and Conclusions

Summary 50
Conclusions 51
REFERENCES 53
APPENDICES 59
Appendix A – Informed Consent
Appendix B – Request to Use Instruments
Appendix C – Copy of InstrumentS
Appendix D – Copy of SPSS Results
List of Figures and Tables
List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework 22
List of Tables
Table 1. Interpretation of Ultrecht Work
Engagement Scale 32
Table 2. Interpretation of Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic

Motivation Scale 32
Table 3. Interpretation of General Self Efficacy Scale 33
Table 4. Mean and Standard Deviation of Employee

Engagement Subscales. 37
Table 5. Mean and Standard Deviation of Work

Motivation Subscales 41
Table 6. Correlation of Employee Engagement and

Work Motivation 44
Table 7. Correlation of Employee Engagement and

Self-efficacy 46
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Employee engagement, a concept that has almost always been part
of an organization’s goals, is without a doubt worth aspiring for. Although
the term employee engagement has been used numerous times, there is
surprisingly no definite meaning for it. It is generally known to be an
employee’s care for his own job and the organization. It is more than an
employee’s happiness with his job but also about his willingness to
contribute to achieve the company’s goals. Employee engagement is
significantly related to an employee’s productivity, and is indeed internal.
“It is something that the employee has to offer and cannot be ‘required’
as part of the employment contract or objective setting process.” (Bridger,
E., 2014). Even with its wide extent, a lot of studies have been focused on
job performance, organizational commitment, and so on, that will be of
help on the organization, than on individual employee development.
Employee engagement can bring many benefits to the organization.
According to Gallup Employee Engagement Survey conducted in 2014,
there are three types of employees namely; Engaged, Not-engaged and
Actively Disengaged. This resulted to 31% “engaged” employees working

with full enthusiasm whereas 51% were “not engaged” and 17.5% we
considered as “actively disengaged” (Allam, Z., 2017). This statistic
remained relatively unchanged through time.
Engaged employees are considered as an asset to the company.
However, not-engaged and actively disengaged employees are considered
as threats. They are considered as threats because those who are not-
engaged just put time but not efforts and passion into their work (Gallup,
2006; in Marckwick, C. & Robertson-Smith, G., 2009). While those who
are actively disengaged tend to impair and hinder the works of those
workers who are engaged. (Gallup, 2006; in Marckwick, C. & Robertson-
Smith, G., 2009). Also nowadays, many companies are facing problems
linked to employee disengagement that affect the employees and the
organization itself. Poor sales, neglectful customer service, employee
turnover, unproductive workforce and so on are results of employee
disengagement that affects the totality of the organization’s performance.
According to Allam (2017), employee disengagement leads to uncouple or
detachments from work. This further leads to negative consequences or
demonic behavior.
With the weight of the importance of Employee Engagement
among organizations, it is essential to engage employees to improve in

the organization (Khan W. & Iqbal, Y., 2013). In the same way,
employees who have low motivation is a big threat to a company. Low
work motivation leads to poor work performance, dissatisfaction to his or
her work, and losing his or her drive to accomplish the tasks given to him
or her. With these, the company’s overall performance may also be
affected. There is a possibility that the company’s revenue will decrease
and there will be poor customer service.
While Work Motivation is said to affect work performance,
apparently self-efficacy also “plays an important role in changing and
affecting an individual’s behavior.” (Cherian, J. & Jacob, J., 2013) Self-
efficacy is generally known to be one’s self belief in himself, and his
capability in accomplishing tasks, also as defined by a distinguished
Psychologist, Albert Bandura. As of this date, many employees decreased
their self-efficacy. Due to this problem, many employees avoid difficult
tasks because they view these as threats. Also, employees believe that
they are incapable of dealing with difficult tasks. That is why instead of
giving it a try, they will just simply not do the difficult task assigned to
them. Lastly, the employees lose confidence in their ability to do
challenging and difficult tasks.

The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship of
employee engagement to work motivation and self-efficacy. Although
there had been much study on these topics, all of them measure the
effect of self-efficacy on employee engagement, or the effect of work
motivation on employee engagement, but not the other way around.
There are already studies about employee engagement and
motivation. The said studies found out that motivated employees are
more innovative and creative in nature that makes them more engaged
and involved in the organization (Farooqi, Y. & Shaheen, A., 2014). People
with a paramount degree of productivity and fulfillment have a more
devoted outlook on work (Mohrman & Cohen, 1995; in Chalofsky &
Krishna, 2009), “and are professionally committed to and engaged with
the organization.” (Chalofsky & Krishna, 2009).
According to Erdil and Yakin (2012), “investments of the self that
are reflected in engagement and self-efficacy appear to provide an
explanation for relationships with job satisfaction”. This just shows that
self-efficacy and engagement work together to achieve job satisfaction.
Employee engagement is still inconsistently defined and
conceptualized even if it already gained considerable popularity for the
past twenty years (Shuck, B. & Wollard, K., 2010). However, it is quite
distinguishable from other concepts like employee commitment,
organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction (Markos, 2010).
Also, employee engagement clearly shows a two-way exchange of effort
between employees and employers since cooperation of both parties are
required to achieve employee engagement; engagement activities from
the employers, and the responsiveness of employees.
This study is in pursuit of discovering if there is a relationship
between employee engagement and work motivation, and between
Statement of the Problem
The present study seeks to determine the relationship of employee
engagement to work motivation and self-efficacy in the workplace.
Specifically, it seeks to answer the following sub problems:
1. What is the respondents’ degree of Employee Engagement?
2. What is the respondents’ level of Work Motivation?
3. What is the respondents’ level of Self-efficacy?
4. Is there a relationship between Employee Engagement and Work
Motivation?
5. Is there a relationship between Employee Engagement and Self-
efficacy?
Review of Related Literature and Studies
This section provides reviewed related literature and studies which
have significant relevance to the topic, The Relating of Employee
Engagement on Work Motivation and Self-Efficacy of Employees of
Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) Companies in E-Com Center, MOA,
Pasay City. This consists of multiple foreign and local researches which
gave direction to the study and provided necessary information needed in
this study.
For the past years, employee engagement has always been a
management topic that is quickly absorbed in the human resource agenda
(Markwick, C. & Robertson-Smith, G., 2009). However, it remains
inconsistently defined and conceptualized even if it already gained
considerable popularity for the past twenty years (Shuck, B. & Wollard, K.,
2010). The proponents wanted to have a clearer picture and definition of
what employee engagement is. With that, the proponents came up with a
decision to conduct a study regarding this matter focusing on determining

the relationship of employee engagement to work motivation and self-
efficacy.
I. Employee Engagement and How It Began
The term employee engagement was first seen in 1990. It is stated
in Kahn’s first grounded theory of personal engagement and personal
disengagement that prompted it to be first seen in an Academy of
Management Journal article, “Psychological Conditions of Personal
Engagement and Personal Disengagement at Work” (Shuck, M. & Wollard,
K., 2009). This shows that the term employee engagement is originally
defined by Kahn as the, “harnessing of organization members’ selves to
their work roles by which they employ and express themselves physically,
cognitively, and emotionally during role performances.”(Kahn, 1990; in
Crawford, E., LePine, J. & Rich, B., 2010).
Also in 1999, the term “employee engagement” started to become
popular in the corporate world. The book titled “First Break All the Rules”
which is written by Buckingham and Coffman helped the term “employee
engagement” to become popular (Roy, D. & Siddhanta, A., 2010).
However until early 2001, the only empirical research present is Kahn’s
conceptualization of personal engagement and personal disengagement
(Shuck, M. B. & Wollard, K. K., 2009).
In 2001, Maslach proposed that employee engagement was the
positive antithesis to burnout (Shuck, M. B. & Wollard, K. K., 2009). With
this proposition, Maslach created a relationship between burnout and
employee engagement. A continuum is formed between the two variables
that correlates the negative experience of burnout and the positive
experience of engagement. In this continuum, there are three interrelated
dimensions, exhaustion–energy, cynicism–involvement, and inefficacy–
efficacy. However, the focus of the said study was on the positive
opposite of these three dimensions and labeled it as job engagement
(Leiter, M. P. & Maslach, C., 2008).
Saks in 2005 separated job engagement from organizational
engagement to form separate types of employee engagement. With that
Saks defined employee engagements as, “a distinct and unique construct
consisting of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components . . .
associated with individual role performance” (Saks, 2005; in Shuck, M. B.
& Wollard, K. K., 2009).
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in 2006
produced a publication on employee engagement and commitment as an

extension of “Effective Practice Guidelines Series” (Shuck, M. B. & Wollard,
K. K., 2009). The Effective Practice Guidelines Series are series that
combines research findings with expert opinions on how to conduct HR
practices effectively (Austin, J., 2015). This publication that SHRM created
is very significant because it marked as the entry point of companies into
the employee engagement conversion (Shuck, M. B. & Wollard, K. K.,
2009). Similarly, changes in Human Resource practices may influence
Employee Engagement. In fact, in a longitudinal study conducted locally,
results show that there are positive and significant changes and
improvements in the level of employee engagement in Human Resource
Management practices (Presbitero, A., 2016).
Lastly in 2008, the American Society for Training and Development
(ASTD) conducted a study, in association with Dale Carnegie Training,
that focused on role of learning in the employee engagement construct.
With this ASTD defined employee engagement as a contributor to
employer’s success because the employees are emotionally and mentally
invested in their work when they are engaged (Czarnowsky, 2008; in
Shuck, M. B. & Wollard, K. K., 2009).

II. Impact of Employee Engagement
Employee engagement is said to be essential to companies to have
good and successful performance. It has surfaced to be one of the
prominent impacts in the business (Lockwood, 2007; in Chalofsky &
Krishna, 2009). “A well-functioning organization is the product of its
healthy, committed and motivated employees, who can be termed as
‘engaged employees.’” (Roy & Siddhanta, 2010). Employee engagement is
considered a significant aspect during today’s competitive environment
(Farooqi & Shaheen, 2014). Employees go beyond what is expected and
required of them (Lockwood, 2007; in Chalofsky & Krishna, 2009). They
are also admired for putting in their best effort in taking chances for
growth and improvement whenever available (Farooqi & Shaheen, 2014).
At the same time, employees feel positively about themselves about their
physical and psychological well-being (Crabtree, 2005; in Chalofsky &
Krishna, 2009).
Types of Employees
According to Gallup (2016), there are three types of employees
namely: Engaged, Not-Engaged and Actively Disengaged. Engaged
employees are the ones who are passionate about their work. They
usually feel a profound connection to their company (Gallup, 2006; in

Marckwick, C. & Robertson-Smith, G., 2009). Therefore, they have natural
curiosity about the company and their place in the company. They also
work consistently at high levels with passion and commitment. With this,
they help the company to move forward and achieve its organizational
goals (Karumuri, V., 2017). Engaged employees were considered by
Levinson and Cleland as the, “backbone of good working environments
where people are industrious, ethical and accountable” (Levinson, 2007 &
Cleland, 2008, in Marckwick, C. & Robertson-Smith, G., 2009).
On the other hand, not-engaged employees feel that they are not
important to the company and they are out of place. Usually, they just put
time to their work but not their efforts and passion into it (Gallup, 2006; in
Marckwick, C. & Robertson-Smith, G., 2009). This type of employees focus
more on the task itself rather than the outputs. They don’t feel any
productive relationship with their managers and supervisors because they
feel that their work are being overlooked and their potential are not being
fully tapped (Karumuri, V., 2017).
Lastly, actively disengaged employees express that they are
unhappy with their work unlike those who are not-engaged. These
workers tend to impair and hinder the works of those workers who are
engaged. (Gallup, 2006; in Marckwick, C. & Robertson-Smith, G., 2009).

III. Work Motivation
Motivation has been considered one of the primary matters in
psychology and in an organization because “it describes the reasons that
drive actions” which helps to characterize organizational behavior (Mitchell
& Daniels, 2003; in Grant, A. M., 2008). Motivation has been generally
known as the reason behind one’s action. Webster’s dictionary also
defined motive as something that causes someone to act, the knowledge
of which has been helpful for managers to recognize which action to take
to give employees a boost (Burton, 2012; in Farooqi, Y. & Shaheen, A.,
2014). It is a powerful tool that strengthens and supports behavior and
prompts the tendency to continue (Bartol & Martin, 1998; in Dobre,
2013). It also serves as a force that allows an individual to act in the
direction of a particular goal or objective (Khanam, F. et al., 2014). In
turn, employees should be aware of what motivates them, and
organizations should likewise be responsible in helping them understand
this (Holton, 2009; in Farooqi, Y. & Shaheen, A., 2014) considering the
development resulting from it is beneficial for all.
Motivated employees are more innovative and creative in nature
that makes them more engaged and involved in the organization (Farooqi,
Y. & Shaheen, A., 2014). People with a paramount degree of productivity

and fulfillment have a more devoted outlook on work, and are committed
and engaged in the organization (Mohrman & Cohen, 1995; in Chalofsky &
Krishna, 2009).
a. Intrinsic Motivation
Motivations are typically personal and often driven by rewards.
Either way, both motivations can be personal. Intrinsic motivation differs
in a way that what personally motivates the person is the activity itself
(Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994; Gagne´ & Deci, 2005; Ryan &
Deci, 2000; in Grant, A. M., 2008) without expecting rewards, which is
contrary to extrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1993; Brief & Aldag, 1977; in
Grant, A. M., 2008). Intrinsic motivation “is indicated by individuals finding
themselves naturally drawn to tasks.” (Grant, A. M., 2008; in Ballinger, G.
A. & Rockmann, K. W., 2017) Intrinsic motivation is also notable for its
temporal focus, which is not future-focused; they are motivated with the
task itself with the goal being in the existing time. For instance, an author
is motivated to write because he or she enjoys the act of writing, and not
because of future gain resulting from writing. (Quinn, R. W., 2005; in
Grant, A. M., 2008).
b. Extrinsic motivation
Extrinsic motivation indeed has its contrariety with intrinsic
motivation. Unlike intrinsic motivation in which an individual finds personal
enjoyment in the task itself (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994;
Gagne´ & Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000; in Grant, A. M., 2008), extrinsic
motivation “refers to behaviors performed to obtain some outcome
separable from the activity itself.” (Ryan & Deci, 2000; in Niemec, C. P. &
Ryan, R. M., 2009) Extrinsic motivation resonates with either motivation
on rewards or avoiding punishment, or both (Ryan & Deci, 2000; in Meyer
& Gagne, 2008). In the organizational scope, extrinsic motivation has
been of great significance for both employee productivity and
performance since back then. Monetary rewards and incentives has
recently been a reinforcement for personnel motivation. (Locke, 1969; in
Khan & Iqbal, 2013).
IV. Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy, a concept studied under the social cognitive theory or
social learning theory, was first introduced by Albert Bandura. He then
defined self-efficacy as a person’s belief that he or she is capable of doing
a particular task successfully (Bandura, A., 1977; in Lunenburg, F., 2011).
According to Erdil and Yakin (2012), self-efficacy is a predictor to which

employees use affective behavioral strategies. Domain-specific self-
efficacy beliefs are being developed when individuals weigh their ability to
successfully adapt to new challenges. This is referred as the self-efficacy
theory (Raghuram et al., 2003; in Erdil O. & Yakin, M., 2012).
According to Loeb (2016), there are different dimensions of work-
related self-efficacy. First is the task-oriented cognitive self-efficacy
because professional works depicts one’s knowledge since it involves
solving problems and making sound judgements. Another dimension is
social self-efficacy because work is not considered as a private matter.
Instead, work is considered as an interdependent activity that forms good
portion of the social relations of people. The last dimension is emotional
self-efficacy. Emotional experiences are said to be rooted in interpersonal
transactions. Therefore, emotional self-efficacy is defined as, “individual’s
belief in his or her capability to understand and use emotional
information” (Bandura, A., 1997; in Loeb, C., 2016).
An employee’s performance, perception and motivation is
influenced by his sense of capability (Bandura, A., 1997; in Lunenburg, C.,
2011). Self-efficacy is an important antecedent of motivation because an
employee that is high in self-efficacy is said to be more optimistic and
sure about being able to achieve goals by applying their knowledge to a

specific task (Casper, et al., 2004; in Lunenburg, F., 2011). In addition,
employees with high self-efficacy, set higher goals they want to achieve
than than those who have low-self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; in Loeb, C.,
2016). Also, highly efficacious employees are better in solving difficult
problems and situations. Lastly, employees who have high self-efficacy are
presumed to use and generate resources properly and appropriately in
their work environment while dealing with difficult tasks assigned to them
(Heuven et al., 2006; in Erdil O. & Yakin, M., 2012)
Professional efficacy and energy involvement is referred to as
engagement which is the opposite of burnout (Erdil O. & Yakin, M., 2012).
According to Erdil and Yakin (2012), “investments of the self that are
reflected in engagement and self-efficacy appear to provide an
explanation for relationships with job satisfaction”. Therefore, increasing
self-efficacy is a way to outdo the negative outcome produced by having
low self-efficacy (Meritt & Schaubroeck, 1997; in Loeb, C., 2016).
V. Assessment of the Review
In the review it may be concluded that there had been substantial
and comprehensive work on the topics. The researchers gathered
substantial information that would support the present study. Some

studies mention employee engagement and work motivation as related.
Some studies also showed that self-efficacy and engagement work
together to achieve job satisfaction but did not focus on how employee
engagement is related to self-efficacy. The lack thereof, prompted the
proponents to develop a study which strives to determine the relationship
of employee engagement to work motivation and self-efficacy in the
workplace.
Significance of the Study
This study will benefit several concerned individuals, organizations,
or causes such as Companies with Employee Engagement, Employees, the
Training and Development Department, and the workplace in general.
Companies with Employee Engagement. Nowadays, most
companies have employee engagement. However, some of them do not
really know the possible extent of relationship of employee engagement to
work motivation and self-efficacy. Other companies just want to keep in
trend since “employee engagement has emerged as the most recent
‘business driver’ of organizational success (Lockwood, 2007; in Chalofsky
& Krishna, 2009). Therefore this study will give them additional knowledge
on employee engagement as related to work motivation and self-efficacy.

Companies without Employee Engagement. According to surveys,
there are still many companies that do not have employee engagement.
This study focuses on the relationship of employee engagement to work
motivation and self-efficacy. With that being said, the results of this study
might encourage them to adopt employee engagement.
Employees. It has been said that employees who are engaged in
their work feel positively about their physical and psychological well-being.
This study may be able to help employees boost their perspective about
their work, and might help simulate work motivation, or improve self-
efficacy in the workplace.
Training and Development Department. This study may be able to
help the Training and Development Department in organizations to design
more training programs that may help employees be more engaged in
their work.
Aside from the study benefitting the specific groups of people
stated above, the study also contributes to the existing knowledge about
employee engagement, work motivation, and self-efficacy in the
workplace.
Conceptual Framework
Figure. 1. A framework of the relationship of Employee
Engagement in Work Motivation and Self-Efficacy
The conceptual framework above shows the three main variables,
employee engagement, work motivation, and self-efficacy, of the study.
Furthermore, the aim of the study is to determine whether there is a
relationship between the variables. Based on the review of related
literature, the proponents hypothesized employee engagement as related
to work motivation and self-efficacy.
Employee engagement is generally known to be an employee’s care
for his own job and the organization. It is more than an employee’s
happiness with his job but also about his willingness to contribute to
achieve the company’s goals. Employee engagement is significantly
related to an employee’s productivity, and is indeed internal. “It is
something that the employee has to offer and cannot be ‘required’ as part
of the employment contract or objective setting process.” (Bridger, E.,
2014). In addition, motivation has been considered one of the primary
matters in psychology and in an organization, as “it describes the reasons
that drive actions, an understanding of motivation is central to explaining
both individual and organizational behavior.” (Mitchell & Daniels, 2003; in
Grant, A. M., 2008). Lastly, self-efficacy is defined as a person’s belief that
he or she is capable of doing a particular task successfully (Bandura, A.,
1977; in Lunenburg, F., 2011).
Hypotheses in Conceptual Terms
The study sought to determine the correlation of Employee
Engagement and Work Motivation as well as the correlation of Employee
Engagement and Self-efficacy. The following hypotheses were tested at
.01 level of significance for the correlation of employee engagement and
work motivation and .05 level of significance for the correlation of
H01: = There is no relationship between employee engagement and work
motivation.
H11 = There is a relationship between employee engagement and work
motivation.
H02= There is no relationship between employee engagement and self-
efficacy.
H12= There is a relationship between employee engagement and self-
efficacy.
CHAPTER II
METHOD
This chapter presents and includes the justifications for the
variables measured, the research design, sampling technique used and
information on acquiring subjects, instruments utilized, and the data
gathering procedure. This chapter also presents the statistical treatment,
and the ethical considerations to be used in determining the results of the
study.
Variables
This section provides a brief discussion about the three variables
namely: (1) Employee Engagement, (2) Work Motivation, and (3) Self-
Efficacy. For a more comprehensible description, scientific and operational
definitions are provided below.
Employee Engagement requires a two-way relationship between
employer and employee where in an engaged employee is acquainted
with his colleagues and the organization. It is also known as the
employee’s positive attitude towards the organization (Robinson et al.,
2004; in Markos, S. & Sridevi M., 2010). Employee Engagement is

originally defined by Kahn as the, “harnessing of organization members’
selves to their work roles by which they employ and express themselves
physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances.”(Kahn,
1990; in Crawford, E., LePine, J. & Rich, B., 2010). For this study, the
degree of Employee Engagement is reflected in the score of the
respondents using the Ultrech Work Engagement Scale (UWES).
Work Motivation encompasses a driving force within employees
wherein they strive to achieve a specific goal in order to fulfill what is
needed and expected (Osabiya, B.J., 2015). It is a powerful tool that
strengthens and supports behavior and prompts the tendency to continue
(Bartol & Martin, 1998; in Dobre, 2013). For this study, the level work
motivation is reflected in the score of the respondents using the Work
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS).
Self-Efficacy is a person’s belief that he or she is capable of doing a
particular task successfully (Bandura, A., 1977; in Lunenburg, F., 2011).
Self-efficacy is an important antecedent of motivation because an
employee that is high in self-efficacy is said to be more optimistic and
sure about being able to achieve goals by applying their knowledge to a
specific task (Casper, et al., 2004; in Lunenburg, F., 2011). For this study,
the level of self-efficacy is reflected in the score of the respondents using
the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSF).
Research Design
The researchers used the Quantitative Approach since this
approach applies statistical techniques that are more suitable to
summarize characteristics across a large number of participants. The
researchers also used the Descriptive Correlational design to describe the
relationship between variables. For this study, the relationships between
employee engagement and work motivation, employee engagement and
self-efficacy are measured to determine a regression equation which will
then be applied to regression analysis based on Pearson’s r.
Three instruments were used to comprehensively describe the
three variables. These are the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES),
Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS), and General Self-
Efficacy Scale (GSF).

Subjects/Sampling
The proponents used the convenience sampling technique. This
sampling technique was used in this study since it involves the sample
drawn from a part of the population that is close at hand.
The participants may be male or female, single or married, and
must be a regular employee working for at least six months in the
company so that they are already familiar with the company’s custom.
The researchers were not able to compute for the sample size
because they had no information regarding the population size. They just
tried to get as many respondents as they could.
Instruments
The researchers used three different instruments for this research.
The tests that were used were the following: Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale (UWES), Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS), and
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSF).
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), a scale based on Maslach
Burnout Inventory (MBI), is a 17-item self-report questionnaire developed
by Wilmar Schaufeli and Arnold Bakker in 2003. The UWES has the
response style of 0 to 6 wherein: 0 - Never, 1 - Almost Never, 2 - Rarely,

3 - Sometimes, 4 - Often, 5 - Very Often, and 6 - always. This scale
includes vigor, dedication and absorption, which are the three constituting
aspect of work engagement.
Under vigor, there are (6) six items wherein a high score means
high levels of energy and there is a willingness to invest an effort. On the
other hand, low score means easily fatigued and not persistent when
faced with challenges.
There are (5) five items under dedication that refer to deriving
sense of significance about one’s work. A high score means strongly
identified with their work and they feel proud and enthusiastic about their
work. However, low score means they are not identified with their work
because the experience is not meaningful and inspiring.
Lastly, there are (6) six items for absorption where a high score
means an employee cannot easily detach from his or her work because
he or she is happily engrossed to their work. Low score means and
employee is not immersed to his or her work. Therefore, it is easier for
him or her to leave his or her work. (Shaufeli, W. & Bakker, A., 2003).
The Utrecht Work Engagement scale considers two aspects of
reliability; internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. Internal
consistency basically measures how well the test items measure the same
thing which it claims to measure. Internal consistency may be observed
from the three-item versions, five-item versions, and the six-item versions
in the UWES when compared. The test-retest reliability is also one of the
ways that UWES ensured reliability. The test was administered twice with
a one-year interval in between, and stability was established both in short
and longer versions.
Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS), is an 18-
item measure of motivation that is theoretically grounded on Self-
Determination Theory (SDT). The scale is divided into (6) six subscales
that corresponds to the six types motivation namely intrinsic motivation,
integrated identified, introjected and external regulations and amotivation.
Each subscales contain three items. The WEIMS used Likert Scale as as
response style that ranges from 1 - does not corresponds at all to 5 -
corresponds exactly (Villeneuve, M., et al., 2009).
The Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale uses three
indexes namely work self-determination index, work self-determined and
nonself-determined motivation. Using these three indexes, results of
regression analyses support the ability of the scale to predict positive and
negative criteria in the workplace.

The scale also has adequate construct validity and internal
consistency. To check for construct validity, the authors of this scale used
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) which is an effective approach for
evaluating measurement models. This allows the researchers to test the
hypothesized factorial structure of a set of items. CFA presented a
satisfactory fit and each set of three indicators manifested mid-range-to-
high item-to-total correlations which are indications of construct validity.
With the help of the Cronbach’s alphas, the internal consistency of the six
subscales of WEIMS was assessed. Having Alpha values ranging from .64
to .83, the Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale is suggested to
have adequate reliability. Overall, these findings proved that WEIMS is
applicable in organizational settings and has reliability and validity.
The GSF or the General Self-Efficacy scale is a 10-item self-report
measure of self-efficacy. GSE uses a Likert scale from 1 (Not at all true) to
4 (Exactly true). It is scored by getting the total score of all items. The
lowest score is 10, and the highest is 40. A higher score suggests more
self-efficacy. (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995).
Since the three instruments that were used in this study are foreign
scales, the researchers conducted a pilot test to 10 respondents to ensure

that all items were understood and answered for what they intend to
measure. No addition or changes was made based on the Pilot test.
The tables below show the equivalent description of respondents’

scores:
Table 1. Interpretation Table of Ultrecht Work Engagement Scale
Range Interpretation
0 – 0.8571 Very Low Employee Engagement
0.8572 – 1.7142 Low Employee Engagement
1.7143 – 2.5713 Moderately Low Employee Engagement
2.5714 – 3.4284 Neutral Employee Engagement
3.4285 – 4.2855 Moderately High Employee Engagement
4.2856 – 5.1426 High Employee Engagement
5.1427 – 6 Very High Employee Engagement
Table 2. Interpretation Table of Ultrecht Work Extrinsic and

Intrinsic Scale
1 – 1.8571 Very Low Work Motivation
1.8572 – 2.7142 Low Work Motivation
2.7143 – 3.5713 Moderately Low Work Motivation
3.5714 – 4.4284 Neutral Work Motivation
4.4285 – 5.2855 Moderately High Work Motivation
5.2856 – 6.1426 High Work Motivation
6.1427 – 7 Very High Work Motivation
Table 3. Interpretation Table of General Self-Effiacy Scale
1 – 10.75 Very Low Self-Efficacy
10.76 – 20.51 Low Self-Efficacy
20.52 – 30.27 High Self-Efficacy
30.28 – 4 Very High Self-Efficacy
Data Gathering Procedure
The researchers of the study asked permission from the Human
Resource Manager of a Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) company to
administer three different tests namely UWES, WEIMS and GSF.
The researchers personally administered the tests to ensure
accurate and true responses from the respondents. Before asking the
respondents to answer the tests, the researchers provided them a consent
wherein they asked the respondents to sign their names. The different
tests were answered by the respondents individually that took them
approximately fifteen minutes to finish.
The administration of the tests was followed by an Analysis of the
results. The questionnaires were collected to be scored, analyzed and
interpreted based on their respective test manuals. From the data that
were gathered, the researchers found solutions to problems that were
addressed, and distinguished whether the variable, Employee

Engagement, do have a relationship with work motivation and self-
efficacy.
Ethical Considerations
The researchers ensured that all ethical principles were adhered in
pursuing this research in terms of the planning and carrying out phases.
In the conduct of this research, the researchers had been properly
reminded by various lectures about ethical implications of doing research
in different courses to uphold ethical practices.
Before proceeding with the actual implementation of the research,
the researchers ensured that permissions will be obtained from various
stakeholders. The instruments, such as UWES, WEIMS and GSF, that were
used were adopted from current scales developed by foreign researchers.
Therefore, the researchers secured an approval from respective authors
through e-mail correspondence. In order to ask for permission for their
employees to participate in this study by answering the necessary
instruments, the researchers submitted a letter of request to conduct this
study to the Human Resource Department of that private institution.
The researchers made sure that informed consents were given to
the respondents and ask them to read it and have it signed. Withdrawal
from the study anytime, despite the initial agreement, will be allowed.
Subsequently, the researchers properly oriented the respondents to
provide clarity towards the objectives of the study and with this, questions
will be entertained and answered prior the start of the data gathering.
Confidentiality were maintained by the researchers at all times. The
questionnaires answered by the respondents were safely secured by the
researchers, and none of their personal information were disclosed to
anyone other than the researches themselves, and were used exclusively
for study purposes only.
Statistical Treatment
The researchers computed for the relationship between the
variables using the Pearson’s r in SPSS. Pearson R is a correlation
coefficient that measures the linear correlation between two variables.
The scores were encoded in Microsoft Excel. The data from the
Microsoft Excel were imported to, and were organized in the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences, commonly known as SPSS for
quantitative analysis. Mean scores and standard deviations were
computed to recognize variations in the respondents’ responses.

CHAPTER III
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents all the findings extracted from the data
gathering stage. All the data are presented using a table to show the
correlation and level of significance between the three variables of this
study namely employee engagement, work motivation and self-efficacy.
This chapter also presents an extensive discussion of the results
accomplished. In line with the presentation of the research questions, the
level of Employee Engagement will be presented, then the level of work
motivation, level of self-efficacy, as well as the correlation between
variables. Overall, seventy-six (104) employees from the different BPO
companies around E-Com Center MOA, Pasay City participated in this
study.
Employee Engagement
The table below shows the mean scores and standard deviations of
the three subscales of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)
namely vigor, dedication and absorption and the overall UWES score, as
well as the interpretations of these scores.

Table 4. Mean and Standard Deviation of Employee Engagement

Subscales
UWES Subscale Mean SD Interpretation
Vigor 4.543 0.637 High
Dedication 4.910 0.657 High
Absorption 4.316 0.704 High
Overall 4.590 0.666 High
Results shows that dedication (x̅ = 4.910), compared to vigor (x̅ =
4.543) and absorption (x̅ = 4.316), is the highest determining factor of
the respondents’ degree of employee engagement. As presented by the
obtained mean scores of each subscale, the employees are highly
engaged.
The researchers used Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) to
determine the Employee Engagement level of the employees. The said
scale have three subscales namely vigor, dedication and absorption.
Vigor, as described in the manual, means having high levels of
energy, being mentally resilient while working, willing to invest effort in
one’s work and being persistent all the time even in times of hardships
and difficulties (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá & Bakker, 2001). This

subscale was assessed by six items from the whole scale which resulted to
a mean of 4.543. The mean score suggests that the employees are highly
engaged. Therefore they are working with a sense of excitement and has
more energy. The employees, having high vigor, also have the capacity to
endure work and to prolong their physical and mental effort.
On the other hand, dedication, as described in the manual, means
having a strong involvement in one’s work (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-
Romá & Bakker, 2001). Using five items from the UWES, Dedication was
assessed. It shows that the employees of the BPO companies around E-
com Center, MOA, Pasay City, have strong sense of significance from
one’s work based on the high mean score (x̅ = 4.910) obtained. Highly
dedicated employees usually feel enthusiastic and proud of their work
because they consider their work as inspiring, challenging and meaningful
(Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá & Bakker, 2001). Also, employees go
beyond what is expected and required of them because they have high
dedication (Lockwood, 2007; in Chalofsky & Krishna, 2009).
The last subscale, absorption, is described in the manual as giving
full attention to one’s work. It also means having difficulty in detaching
oneself from his or her work (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá &
Bakker, 2001). Having a moderate mean (x̅ = 4.316), suggests that the
employees are highly immersed and engrossed in their work. However, as
a consequence for the employees who are highly engaged, they have the
tendency of forgetting everything else around and feels like that the time
flies so fast.
Overall the UWES suggests that the employees around E-Com
Center, MOA in Pasay City are highly engaged based on the obtained
moderate mean score (x̅ = 4.590). The study conducted by Karumuri
regarding employee engagement states that highly engaged employees
can work with ultimate productivity without getting tired easily which
supports the result of this study having a high mean score (x̅ = 4.543) for
vigor (Karamuri, V. , 2017). Another study conducted by Gallup supports
the result of this study having a moderate mean score ( x̅ = 4.910) for
dedication. Gallup’s study states that highly engaged employees consider
themselves as an asset to the company (Gallup, 2006; in Marckwick, C. &
Robertson-Smith, G., 2009). Lastly, the study of Gallup also states that
highly engaged employees feel passionate about their work and feel a
profound connection with the company which supports the result of this
study which supports the obtained high mean for absorption
(Gallup, 2006; in Marckwick, C. & Robertson-Smith, G., 2009).

Level of Work Motivation
The researchers determined the employees’ level of Work
Motivation using the Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale
(WEIMS) which has six subscales. WEIMS has 18 items, three items per
subscale. The six subscales which are classified into two; Self-Determined
subscales, and Nonself-Determined subscales, representing the two forms
of work motivation; Work Self-Determined Motivation and Work Nonself-
Determined Motivation. There are three subscales under Self-determined
subscales namely Intrinsic Motivation, Integrated Regulation, and
Identified Regulation. Summing up the three subscales generate Work
Self-Determined Motivation. The other three subscales fall under the
Nonself-Determined subscales which are Introjected Regulation, External
regulation, and Amotivation. Summing up the three subscales generate
Work Nonself-Determined Motivation.
The next table shows the mean scores and standard deviations of
these six subscales.

Table 5. Mean and Standard Deviation of Work Motivation

Subscales
WEIMS Subscale Mean SD Interpretation
Intrinsic Motivation 5.599 0.610 High
Integrated Regulation 5.215 0.750 Moderately high
Identified Regulation 5.234 0.746 Moderately high
Introjected Regulation 5.237 0.742 Moderately high
External Regulation 5.696 0.801 High
Amotivation 4.321 0.772 Neutral
Overall 5.217 0.737 Moderately

high
Based on the results in the table above, the subscale External
Regulation has a high mean score (x̅ = 5.696) which scored the highest
among the six subscales. This means that External Regulation is the
primary factor that inspires employees to work. This suggests that
employees are motivated by rewards such as money, incentives, and
other benefits, and not because work in itself is interesting. Second to this
is Intrinsic Motivation which also has a high mean score ( x̅ = 5.599). This
suggests that an employee is motivated to work because he finds his work
“inherently interesting and satisfying” in itself (Tremblay, Blanchard,
Taylor, Pelletier, & Villeneuve, 2009).

The third-highest determining factor for motivation is the subscale
Introjected Regulation with a moderately high mean score (x̅ = 5.237).
Introjected Regulation comes out when there is an internal reason just
like in intrinsic motivation. However, internally, there is a pressuring voice
that gets work done out of fear and guilt (Tremblay, Blanchard, Taylor,
Pelletier, & Villeneuve, 2009).
Having these highest determining factors for motivation is favorable
to companies since motivation is known to be a powerful tool that
strengthens employees’ behavior. In the same way, employees should
know what motivates them (Holton, 2009; in Farooqi, Y. & Shaheen, A.,
2014)
The overall mean score (x̅ = 5.217) shows that the employees are
highly motivated. This is good for the company since having highly
motivated employees means having employees who are more creative
and innovative (Farooqi, Y. & Shaheen, A., 2014).
Level of Self-efficacy
The researchers determined the level of self-efficacy of the
employees by using the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSF). The next table
shows only the overall mean score and standard deviation of the GSF. In
order to determine the level of self-efficacy of the employee, the raw
scores were totalled. The closer the total score to forty (40) means the
higher level of self-efficacy.
Based on the results of General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSF), the
overall mean score (x̅ = 34.923) is close to 40 which means the
employees have a very high level of self-efficacy (Schwarzer & Jerusalem,
1995). It also obtained a standard deviation of .216. The GSF has no
subscales and therefore obtain a more straightforward interpretation. The
results show that there is a very high mean score of Self-Efficacy (x̅ =
34.923). The employees’ very high self-efficacy suggests that they have a
good perception and belief in themselves in carrying out a job (Bandura,
1977; in Lunenburg, F., 2011).

Correlation of Employee Engagement and Work Motivation
Table 6. Correlation of Employee Engagement and Work
Motivation
UWES Scores WEIMS Scores

UWES Pearson Correlation 1 .510**
Scores Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 104 104
WEIMS Pearson Correlation .510** 1
N 104 104
** significant @ .01
The table above shows a high correlation (r = .510) between the
two variables; Employee Engagement and Work Motivation. This shows
that the obtained r is significant at 0.01 level of significance. The table
depicts that there is a positive linear relationship between the two
variables. Therefore, there is a significant relationship between employee
engagement and work motivation.
In a study conducted by Farooqi and Shaheen in 2014, also
mentioned by Holton in his study in 2009, they found out that motivated
employees are more engaged, more involved and more devoted to work.
This affirms the results of the study that there is a significant relationship
between employee engagement and work motivation at 0.01 level of
significance, however in a study by Tremblay et. al. in 2009, they found

out that self-determined motivations produce positive work behavior and
are more committed in work, while non-self determined motivations
produced a “passive set” and employees only work minimally. The
difference between the results may be attributed to the focus on the two
types of motivation, while this study focused solely on motivation in
general, and its relationship with employee engagement. Extrinsic
motivation, or motivations through rewards, benefit, and avoiding
punishment, similarly close to non-self determined motivations, is
supported by a study of Locke in 1969, also mentioned in the study of
Khan and Iqbal in 2013. They mentioned that extrinsic motivation has
been of great significance for both employee productivity and
performance, and that monetary rewards and incentives has been a
reinforcement for personnel motivation.

Correlation of Employee Engagement and Self-Efficacy
Table 7. Correlation of Employee Engagement and Work
Motivation
UWES Scores WEIMS Scores

UWES Pearson Correlation 1 .241*
N 104 104
WEIMS Pearson Correlation .241* 1
N 104 104
*significant @ .05
The table above displays the correlation between the two variables,
employee engagement and self-efficacy. The value of the obtained r
suggests that there is a high correlation (r = .241) between the two
variables at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, there is a significant
relationship and a positive linear relationship between employee
engagement and self-efficacy.
The study conducted by Crabtee in 2005 states that engaged
employees feel positively about themselves about their physical and
psychological well-being (Crabtree, 2005; in Chalofsky & Krishna, 2009).
In addition, a study by Luthans and Peterson states that employee
engagement and self-efficacy have a positive relationship (Luthans &
Peterson, 2002; in Marckwick, C., & Robertson-Smith, G., 2009). These

studies support the result of the study that there is a significant
relationship between employee engagement and self-efficacy.
Previous study by Pati and Kumar in 2010 argues that the presence
and absence of self-efficacy determines whether the employee is
engaged. This study also added that differences in level of self-efficacy
causes the differences in engagement (Pati & Kumar, 2010). The study by
Pati and Kumar supports the result of the study that there is significant
relationship between the two variables.
Limitations
Every research undertaking comes with different factors restricting
the extent to which the outcomes of the study can be generalized. The
following are the factors that affected the research as it was conducted.
1. The study found out that employee engagement and work
motivation, and employee engagement and self-efficacy has a
positive correlation, but the study did not cover finding out which
of the two correlations are higher than the other.
2. The researchers were permitted to conduct testing in an institution,
but could not schedule a convenient time to facilitate it in their
institution, which resulted to the gathering of data in a single area,

and handed out the questionnaires to employees of different BPO
companies around E-Com Center, MOA.
3. The minimal number of local studies about employee engagement,
work motivation and self-efficacy restricting the review of related
literature to mostly foreign studies, journals and publications.
4. The respondents who expressed their confusion and lack of
understanding only after answering the instruments given which
may have caused inaccurate responses at some items.
Recommendations
The researchers provided recommendations to expound on how the
results of the study can be applied in relation to its research locale. In
addtition, after analyzing the results and considering the limitations of the
study, the researchers provided practical recommendations that could
further enhance and benefit researches about employee engagement,
work motivation and self-efficacy. Below are the following
recommendations:
1. Having found out that employee engagement and work motivation,
and employee engagement and self-efficacy has a positive
correlation, the researchers recommend that companies strengthen

existing engagement programs that are effective, and remove
those that are not to ensure the high level of engagement of
employees, thereby increasing their self-efficacy and motivation.
2. The researchers also recommend that future researchers on this
topic consider other sampling methods, and acquire a larger
sample size to enhance the generalizability of results.
3. It is more preferred if future researchers could find previous local
studies related on this topic so that results fit a more suitable
cultural context.
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
The study determined the respondents’ degree of Employee
Engagement, level of Work Motivation, and level of Self-efficacy. Results
show moderately high employee engagement, high work motivation, and
very high self-efficacy among the respondents.
The study also determined a significant relationship between
employee engagement and work motivation, and employee engagement
and self-efficacy.
The study used a Quantitative Approach and Descriptive
Correlational design to determine the relationship among the variables.
The relationship was measured by Pearson’s r, using the Statistical
Package for the Social Science (SPSS) software. A total of 104
respondents participated in the study. The researchers used convenience
sampling by handing out the questionnaires to employees of different BPO
companies around E-Com Center, MOA, Pasay City.

Employee engagement and work motivation obtained a high
correlation (r = .510) at 0.01 level of significance, while employee
engagement and self-efficacy obtained a moderately high correlation (r =
.241) at 0.05 level of significance, which shows a significant relationship
between employee engagement and work motivation, and employee
engagement and self-efficacy.
Conclusions
Based from the study made by the researchers, the results and
findings can be drawn through the following:
1. The researchers determined that employee engagement and work
motivation have a high correlation, and that employees who are
motivated tend to be more engaged in their work. The researchers
also found out that external regulation and internal motivation are
the top two primary factors that motivate an employee. This means
that employees are primarily driven by rewards, benefits, and
incentives, while also being driven by the job itself because they
are interested and involved with it.
2. Having a positive linear relationship between employee
engagement and self-efficacy, employees who are engaged and

involved in their work also believe in themselves when it comes to
carrying out tasks. Changing the employees’ engagement will also
make a difference to one’s self-efficacy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Austin, J. (2015). Leading Effective Change: A Primer for the HR
Professional. SHRM Foundation.
Ballinger, G. A., & Rockmann, K. W. (2017). Intrinsic motivation and
organizational identification among on-demand workers. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 102(9), 1305-1316. doi:10.1037/apl0000224
Bhave, D., & Gagné, M. (2010). Autonomy in the Workplace: An Essential
Ingredient to Employee Engagement and Well-Being in Every Culture.
Cross-Cultural Advancements in Positive Psychology Human Autonomy in
Cross-Cultural Context, 163-187. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9667-8_8
Bridger, E. (2014). Employee engagement. London: Kogan Page.
Chalofsky, N., & Krishna, V. (2009). Meaningfulness, commitment, and
engagement: The intersection of a deeper level of intrinsic motivation.
(Master's thesis). Sage. doi: 10.1177/1523422309333147

Erdil, O., & Yakin, M. (n.d.). Relationships Between Self-Efficacy and Work
Engagement and the Effects on Job Satisfaction: A Survey on Certified
Public Accountants. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58 , 370-
378.
Farooqi, Y., & Shaheen, A. (2014, September). Relationship among
Employee Motivation, Employee Commitment, Job Involvement, Employee
Engagement: A Case Study of University of Gujrat, Pakistan (Master's
thesis, National College of Business Administration & Economics
(NCBA&E), Pakistan Department of Management Sciences, University of
Gujrat, Pakistan, 2014). International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences
and Engineering, 5(9).
Gagnè, M., & Meyer, J. P. (2008). Employee Engagement From a Self-
Determination Theory Perspective. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 1(01), 60-62. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00010.x
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire?
Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and

productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48-58.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48
Javed, A., Khanam, F., Nasreen, S., Pirzada, S., & Shahzadi, I. (2014).
Impact of Employee Motivation on Employee Performance . European
Journal of Business and Management , 6(23).
Karumuri, V. (2017). A Theoretical Framework on Employee Engagement.
Asia Pacific Journal of Research, 1(48), 150-155.
Khan, W., & Iqbal, Y. (2013). An investigation of the relationship between
work motivation (intrinsic & extrinsic) and employee engagement. A study
on allied bank of Pakistan. (Unpublished master's thesis). Umeå School of
Business Umeå University, Sweden.
Leiter M. P., & Maslach, C. (2008). Early Predictors of Job Burnout and
Engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 498-512.

LePine, J. A., Crawford, E. R., & Rich, B. (2010). Linking Job Demands and
Resources to Employee Engagement and Burnout: A Theoretical Extension
and Meta-Analytic Test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834-848.
Loeb, C. (2016). Self-efficacy at Work: Social, Emotional and Cognitive
Dimensions (Master's thesis, Mälardalen University). Mälardalen University
Press Dissertations.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Self-Efficacy in the Workplace: Implications for
Motivation and Performance. International Journal of Management,
Business, and Administration, 14(1), 1-5.
Marckwick, C., & Robertson-Smith, G. (2009). Employee Engagement A
review of current thinking (Master's thesis, Institute for Employment
Studies, 2009). Institute for Employment Studies.
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and
relatedness in the classroom. School Field, 7(2), 133-144.
doi:10.1177/1477878509104318
Prakash Pati, Surya & Kumar, Pankaj (2010). Employee Engagement: Role
of Self-efficacy, Organizational Support & Supervisor Support. Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations, 46, 126-137.
Pepe, S. J., Farnese, M., Avalone, F., & Vecchione, M. (2010). Work Self-
Efficacy Scale and Search for Work Self-Efficacy Scale: A Validation Study
in Spanish and Italian Cultural Contexts. Revista De Psicología Del Trabajo
Y De Las Organizaciones, 26(3), 201-210.
Presbitero, A. (2016). How do changes in human resource management
practices influence employee engagement? A longitudinal study in a hotel
chain in the Philippines. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality &
Tourism, 16(1), 56-70. doi:10.1080/15332845.2016.1202061
Roy, D., & Siddhanta, A. (2010). Employee engagement - Engaging the
21st century workforce. Asian Journal of Management Research, 170-189.
Shuck, M. B., & Wollard, K. K. (2009). A historical perspective of employee
engagement: An emerging definition. In M. S. Plakhotnik, S. M. Nielsen, &
D. M. Pane (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual College ofEducation

& GSN Research Conference (pp. 133-139). Miami: Florida International
University.
Villanueve, M., Tremblay, M. A., Blanchard, C. M., Taylor, S., & Pelletier,
L. (2009). Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale: Its Value for
Organizational Psychology Research. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 41(4), 213-226.

APPENDICES
Appendix A - Informed Consent
INFORMED CONSENT
This research aims to determine whether the participant is engaged, not engaged
and actively disengaged in their company. Its purpose is to identify connections
between employee engagement, work motivation and self-efficacy of employees
in a Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) Company setting.
You will be asked to answer a set of questionnaires which you are expected to
answer completely and honestly as possible. The data for the research study will
be obtained using the instruments intended to measure the three variables. All
gathered data will not compromise your privacy and your anonymity will be
safeguarded. Furthermore, participation in this study is voluntary and you are free
to withdraw at any time.
Our study will raise awareness on the relationship of employee engagement, work
motivation, and self-efficacy, which may be helpful to the organization’s future
undertakings.
All information obtained from you will be treated with utmost confidentiality.
Only the researchers and their thesis adviser will have access to the information
and rest assured that data will be stored securely, and will be exclusively used for
study purposes. Your personal information will not be included to any
publications or reports from this study. Results of the study may be given to you
upon your request.
IF YOU AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY, FILL-UP THE

PERSONAL DATA AND KINDLY SIGN YOUR NAME BELOW THE PAGE.
PERSONAL DATA
NAME: __________________________________________________________
SURNAME, FIRST NAME MIDDLE INITIAL
AGE: ____________ GENDER: _____________
COMPANY:_______________________________________________________
PARTICIPANT’S AGREEMENT
I, ___________________________________, an employee of a BPO

company, agree to participate in the research study conducted by the researchers
from the Behavioral Science program of the Faculty of Arts and Letters,
University of Santo Tomas.
I am aware that my participation in this study is voluntary and I’m free to

withdraw my participation any time without giving any explanation. I understand
the purpose of this research and have reviewed the individual and social benefits
of this research.
I am aware that the data will be used for research purposes. I have the
right to request for a copy of their study and edit information prior to the paper’s
submission, presentation, and publication. The data gathered in this study are
safeguarded and anonymous with respect to my demographic profile.
I certify that my inquiries and questions concerning project procedures and

other matters were properly addressed. I have read the above form, and I consent
to participate in the said study.
_____________________________________ ________________
Participant’s Signature over Printed Name Date
Appendix B - Permission to use Instruments
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)
Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS)

General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE)

Appendix C - Copy of Tests
Work & Well-being Survey (UWES) ©
The following 17 statements are about how you feel at work. Please read each
statement carefully and decide if you ever feel this way about your job. If you
have never had this feeling, cross the “0” (zero) in the space after the statement. If
you have had this feeling, indicate how often you feel it by crossing the number
(from 1 to 6) that best describes how frequently you feel that way.
1. ________ At my work, I feel bursting with energy

2. ________ I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose
3. ________ Time flies when I'm working
4. ________ At my job, I feel strong and vigorous
5. ________ I am enthusiastic about my job
6. ________ When I am working, I forget everything else around me
7. ________ My job inspires me
8. ________ When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work
9. ________ I feel happy when I am working intensely
10. ________ I am proud of the work that I do
11. ________ I am immersed in my work
12. ________ I can continue working for very long periods at a time
13. ________ To me, my job is challenging
14. ________ I get carried away when I’m working
15. ________ At my job, I am very resilient, mentally
16. ________ It is difficult to detach myself from my job
17. ________ At my work I always persevere, even when things do not go well
© Schaufeli & Bakker (2003). The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale is free for
use for non-commercial scientific research. Commercial and/or non-scientific use
is prohibited, unless previous written permission is granted by the authors
Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS)

The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSF)

Appendix D - Copy of SPSS Result
Correlation of Employee Engagement and Work Motivation
Correlation of Employee Engagement and Self-Efficacy

Thesis On Employee Engagement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis On Employee Engagement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF ARTS AND LETTERS PAGE 0

THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT TO WORK

Bautista, Samantha Angelika Feil M.

According to studies, employee engagement is one of the most

Keywords: Employee Engagement, Work Motivation, Self-Efficacy,

CHAPTER III Results and Discussion

CHAPTER IV Summary and Conclusions

List of Figures and Tables

Table 2. Interpretation of Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic

Table 3. Interpretation of General Self Efficacy Scale 33

Table 4. Mean and Standard Deviation of Employee

Table 5. Mean and Standard Deviation of Work

Table 6. Correlation of Employee Engagement and

Table 7. Correlation of Employee Engagement and

Employee engagement, a concept that has almost always been part

of an organization’s goals, is without a doubt worth aspiring for. Although

surprisingly no definite meaning for it. It is generally known to be an

contribute to achieve the company’s goals. Employee engagement is

significantly related to an employee’s productivity, and is indeed internal.

as part of the employment contract or objective setting process.” (Bridger,

job performance, organizational commitment, and so on, that will be of

help on the organization, than on individual employee development.

Employee engagement can bring many benefits to the organization.

According to Gallup Employee Engagement Survey conducted in 2014,

there are three types of employees namely; Engaged, Not-engaged and

Actively Disengaged. This resulted to 31% “engaged” employees working

considered as “actively disengaged” (Allam, Z., 2017). This statistic

remained relatively unchanged through time.

Engaged employees are considered as an asset to the company.

However, not-engaged and actively disengaged employees are considered

2006; in Marckwick, C. & Robertson-Smith, G., 2009). While those who

workers who are engaged. (Gallup, 2006; in Marckwick, C. & Robertson-

linked to employee disengagement that affect the employees and the

organization itself. Poor sales, neglectful customer service, employee

turnover, unproductive workforce and so on are results of employee

disengagement that affects the totality of the organization’s performance.

According to Allam (2017), employee disengagement leads to uncouple or

detachments from work. This further leads to negative consequences or

With the weight of the importance of Employee Engagement

among organizations, it is essential to engage employees to improve in

employees who have low motivation is a big threat to a company. Low

work motivation leads to poor work performance, dissatisfaction to his or

or her. With these, the company’s overall performance may also be

affected. There is a possibility that the company’s revenue will decrease

and there will be poor customer service.

While Work Motivation is said to affect work performance,

apparently self-efficacy also “plays an important role in changing and

affecting an individual’s behavior.” (Cherian, J. & Jacob, J., 2013) Self-

efficacy is generally known to be one’s self belief in himself, and his

capability in accomplishing tasks, also as defined by a distinguished

Psychologist, Albert Bandura. As of this date, many employees decreased

their self-efficacy. Due to this problem, many employees avoid difficult

them. Lastly, the employees lose confidence in their ability to do

challenging and difficult tasks.

The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship of

employee engagement to work motivation and self-efficacy. Although

effect of self-efficacy on employee engagement, or the effect of work

motivation on employee engagement, but not the other way around.

There are already studies about employee engagement and

with a paramount degree of productivity and fulfillment have a more

devoted outlook on work (Mohrman & Cohen, 1995; in Chalofsky &

Krishna, 2009), “and are professionally committed to and engaged with

the organization.” (Chalofsky & Krishna, 2009).