Personality and Psychological Conditions in Relation to Job Engagement among Municipal Workers in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa By TATENDA SHALEEN MHLANGA A Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF COMMERCE IN INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOLOGY In the Faculty of MANAGEMENT AND COMMERCE Of the University of Fort Hare Republic of South Africa Supervisor: Prof TQ Mjoli April 2019 i DECLARATION I, the undersigned Tatenda Shaleen Mhlanga (Student No. 200705969), hereby declare that the thesis is my own original work and that it has not been submitted, and will not be presented, at any other University for a similar or any other degree award. Work from literature was written with citation of the relevant authors. Signature: Date: 01/04/2019 ii DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my family who have been a constant source of support and encouragement during the challenges of graduate school and life. I am truly thankful for having you in my life. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the following who have helped me along this academic journey;  My supervisor Prof T.Q. Mjoli for his scholarly advice, guidance, constructive criticism and positive reinforcement throughout the process of this study I am grateful for his guidance and the opportunities he has afforded me.  I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the employees of the Eastern Cape District Municipalities who provided the data used to prepare this research. Without their support, this study would not have been possible.  Govan Mbeki Research and Development Centre (University of Fort Hare), thank you for financing my research and providing me with access to better research facilities.  I would like to thank my friends and family for their continued support and encouragement. There are a few, however, that cannot go unmentioned, I would specifically like to recognize Dr S Chamisa, Millicent Charamba and Tawanda Zingwe. To my family, the Marange and Mhlanga families, thank you for listening to my problems and providing perspective. The Department of Industrial Psychology staff members im grateful for your assistance and support. I would not be who am I today without you all.  Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Chioneso Marange. You have been continually supportive through the whole processes. You are the best statistician I know and thank you for helping me with my data analysis. To my baby girl Ashlene, I acknowledge that it was not always easy sacrificing your play times and holidays while I was busy with my studies. Thanks to the both of you for your infinite love and support during trying times. iv ABSTRACT The efficiency of the public service delivery depends on the performance of the public employees. Due to high protest in the Eastern Cape due to poor service delivery, it is crucial to understand if the employees are engaged in doing their work. Although researchers have discovered many of the beneficial and positive consequences of job engagement, little is known about the multitude of antecedent factors that lead to employee engagement such as personality. The motivation of this study is to examine the relationship between the big five personality traits (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism) and job engagement (physical, cognitive and emotional engagement) among municipal employees working in the six district municipalities of the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. The study also looked at psychological conditions (availability, meaningfulness and safety) as a moderating factor between personality and job engagement. This contributes to the theoretical and conceptual knowledge of how job engagement can be enhanced through the hiring employees with certain personality traits and enhancing meaningfulness, safety and availability of psychological resources in the workplace. Survey questionnaires were used to collect data. Inferential analysis from SPSS was carried out to understand the relationship between the study variables. An overall model of the study was also identified through which showed the relationship on the study variables. The study findings show that openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness had a positive relationship with job engagement while neuroticism has a negative relationship with job engagement. All psychological conditions had a positive correlation with job engagement and when combined with the big five personality traits they added more variance in job engagement. The results validate aspects of Kahn’s personal engagement model. v The study recommends managers to switch from an intervention-based focus to a selection-based focus as municipalities can maximize their resources by being able to better predict job success early in the selection process as opposed to trying to maximize performance on a continual basis through interventions. In addition, management practitioners should regularly measure and track employee engagement for the effectiveness of strategic efforts to increase employee engagement to be monitored and evaluated. Key words: agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, job engagement, Kahn’s personal engagement model, municipalities, neuroticism, openness to experience and psychological conditions, vi TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................. i DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xv LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xvi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................... xix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ............................... 1 1.1 Introduction and Background of the Study ............................................................................... 1 1.2 Problem Statement .................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................................. 8 1.4 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 9 1.5 Hypotheses .............................................................................................................................. 12 1.6 Delimitation of the Study ........................................................................................................ 14 1.6.1 Geographical Demarcation ............................................................................................... 14 1.6.2 Units of Analysis .............................................................................................................. 14 1.6.3 Time Frame ...................................................................................................................... 14 vii 1.6.4 Demarcation of Concepts ................................................................................................. 14 1.7 Definitions of Terms ........................................................................................................... 14 1.8 Outline of the Research ........................................................................................................... 16 CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................... 19 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 19 2.2 Theories of Job Engagement ................................................................................................... 19 2.2.1 Kahn’s (1990) theory of engagement ............................................................................... 19 2.2.2 Social Exchange Theory................................................................................................... 21 2.2.3 Self Determination Theory (SDT).................................................................................... 23 2.2.4 The Job Demand Resources Model .................................................................................. 24 2.2.5 Broaden and Build Theory ............................................................................................... 26 2.3.1 Allport's Trait Theory ....................................................................................................... 30 2.3.2 Raymond Cattell Personality theory ................................................................................ 31 2.3.3 Eysenck’s Personality Theory .......................................................................................... 33 2.3.4 Five Factor Model ............................................................................................................ 34 2.4 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 37 CHAPTER 3: PERSONALITY .................................................................................................... 38 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 38 3.2 South Africa view on Personality Tests .................................................................................. 38 3.3 History and Development of Trait Theory .............................................................................. 39 viii 3.4 Personality Defined ................................................................................................................. 41 3.5 Big Five Personality Traits ..................................................................................................... 45 3.5.1 Emotional Stability- Neuroticism .................................................................................... 50 3.5.2 Extraversion- Introversion................................................................................................ 53 3.5.3 Openness to experience- Closeness to experience ........................................................... 55 3.5.4 Agreeableness- Rudeness. ................................................................................................ 58 3.5.5 Conscientiousness- Undependability ............................................................................... 60 3.6 Demographics and Personality ............................................................................................... 62 3.6.1 Gender .............................................................................................................................. 62 3.6.2 Age ................................................................................................................................... 65 3.6.3 Race .................................................................................................................................. 66 3.6.4 Educational qualifications ................................................................................................ 67 3.6.5 Work experience .............................................................................................................. 67 3.6.6 Job positions ..................................................................................................................... 67 3.7 Measuring Personality ............................................................................................................ 68 3.7.1 The NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R) .................................................... 68 3.7.2 Goldberg International Pool ............................................................................................. 68 3.7.3 The Basic Traits Inventory (BTI) ..................................................................................... 69 3.7.4 Big Five Inventory ........................................................................................................... 69 3.8 Limitations of the Big Five Personality .................................................................................. 69 ix 3.9 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 71 CHAPTER 4: JOB ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................................... 72 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 72 4.2 Job Engagement in South Africa ............................................................................................ 73 4.3 The emergence of job engagement ......................................................................................... 76 4.4 Job engagement ....................................................................................................................... 77 4.5 Job disengagement .................................................................................................................. 93 4.6 Kahn’s three dimensions of engagement ................................................................................ 94 4.6.1 Physical engagement ........................................................................................................ 94 4.6.2 Emotional engagement ..................................................................................................... 95 4.6.3 Cognitive engagement ...................................................................................................... 97 4.7 Kahn three psychological dimensions .................................................................................... 98 4.7.1 Psychological Meaningfulness ....................................................................................... 101 4.7.2 Psychological Safety ...................................................................................................... 103 4.7.3 Psychological Availability ............................................................................................. 105 4.8 Antecedents of Engagement ................................................................................................. 106 4.8.1 Organisational and Leadership Antecedents .................................................................. 106 4.8.2 Job Antecedents of Engagement .................................................................................... 109 4.8.3 Personal antecedents of engagement .............................................................................. 110 4.9 Work Engagement and Other Constructs ............................................................................. 111 x 4.10 Significance of Work Engagement ..................................................................................... 113 4.11 Factors Shaping Employee Engagement ............................................................................ 115 4.11.1 Occupational Factors .................................................................................................... 115 4.11.2 Organisational Factors.................................................................................................. 116 4.11.3 Psychological Factors ................................................................................................... 116 4.12 Barriers to engagement ....................................................................................................... 116 4.13 Demographics and Work Engagement ............................................................................... 117 4.13.1 Gender .......................................................................................................................... 117 4.13.2 Ethnicity ....................................................................................................................... 119 4.13.3 Marital Status ............................................................................................................... 120 4.13.4 Tenure........................................................................................................................... 120 4.13.5 Age ............................................................................................................................... 121 4.13.6 Educational Qualifications ............................................................................................... 122 4.13.7 Job Position ...................................................................................................................... 123 4.14 Measuring job engagement ................................................................................................. 123 4.15 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 127 CHAPTER 5: EMPIRICAL LITERATURE .............................................................................. 128 5.1 Personality and Job Engagement .......................................................................................... 128 5.2 Research gap ......................................................................................................................... 134 5.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 139 xi CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 140 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 140 6.2 Research Methodology ......................................................................................................... 140 6.3 Research Design.................................................................................................................... 140 6.4 Population ............................................................................................................................. 142 6.5 Sample and Sampling Method .............................................................................................. 142 6.6 Research Instrument.............................................................................................................. 144 6.6.1 Section 1: Demographical and Occupational information ............................................. 144 6.6.2 Section 2: International Personality Item Pool ............................................................... 144 6.6.3 Section 3: Job Engagement Scale................................................................................... 146 6.6.4 Section 4: Psychological Conditions .............................................................................. 148 6.7 Data Collection Procedures................................................................................................... 151 6.8 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 151 6.9 Ethical considerations ........................................................................................................... 157 6.10 Demographical and Occupational Information ................................................................... 158 6.10.1 Gender .......................................................................................................................... 160 6.10.2 Race .............................................................................................................................. 160 6.10.3 Age ............................................................................................................................... 161 6.10.4 Marital Status ............................................................................................................... 162 6.10.5 Educational Qualifications ........................................................................................... 162 xii 6.10.6 Occupational Level ...................................................................................................... 163 6.10.7 Tenure........................................................................................................................... 164 6.10.8 Job Status...................................................................................................................... 165 6.10.9 District Municipalities .................................................................................................. 165 6.11 Summary of Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................................... 166 6.12 Coefficient Alpha of Study Questionnaire .......................................................................... 167 6.11 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 168 CHAPTER 7: DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 170 7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 170 7.2 Hypothesis Testing................................................................................................................ 171 7.2.1 The relationship between the big five personality traits and job engagement ............... 171 7.2.2 The relationship between psychological conditions and job engagement ..................... 182 7.2.3 The relationship between the big five personality and psychological conditions .......... 189 7.2.4 Combination of personality traits and job engagement .................................................. 190 7.2.5 Combination of psychological conditions and job engagement .................................... 194 7.2.5 Personality traits/psychological conditions/job engagement ......................................... 197 7.3 Personality traits, psychological conditions, job engagement and demographics ................ 200 7.3.1 Demographic Differences on Personality Traits ............................................................ 200 7.3.2 Demographic Differences on Job Engagement .............................................................. 203 7.3.4 Demographic Differences on Psychological Conditions ............................................... 206 xiii 7.4 The study model of the relationship between the big five personality traits and job engagement..................................................................................................................................................... 208 7.8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 210 CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 211 8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 211 8.2 Discussion of results ............................................................................................................. 211 8.2.1 The relationship between the big five personality traits and job engagement ............... 211 8.2.2 The relationship between psychological conditions and job engagement ..................... 215 8.2.3 The relationship between the big five personality traits and psychological conditions . 219 8.2.4 Combination of personality traits and job engagement .................................................. 221 8.2.5 Combination of psychological conditions and job engagement .................................... 222 8.2.6 Personality traits/psychological conditions/ job engagement ........................................ 223 8.3 Demographics and study variables ....................................................................................... 224 8.3.1 Demographic Differences in Personality Traits ............................................................. 224 8.3.2 Demographic Differences on Job Engagement .............................................................. 226 8.3.3 Demographic Differences on Psychological Conditions ............................................... 229 8.4 Theoretical implications........................................................................................................ 231 8.5 Practical implication ............................................................................................................. 233 8.6 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 235 8.7 Future Research .................................................................................................................... 237 xiv 8.8 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 238 8.9 Chapter Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 239 8.9 Study Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 240 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 245 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 331 Appendix 1: Ethical Clearance University of Fort Hare ............................................................. 331 Appendix 2: Letter of permission OR Tambo District Municipality ......................................... 333 Appendix 3: Letter of permission Alfred Nzo District Municipality ......................................... 334 Appendix 5: Letter of permission Sarah Baartman District Municipality .................................. 335 Appendix 5: Letter of permission Amathole District Municipality ............................................ 336 Appendix 6: Letter of permission Joe Gqabi District Municipality ........................................... 337 Appendix 7: Letter of permission Chris Hani District Municipality .......................................... 338 Appendix 8: Research questionnaire .......................................................................................... 339 Appendix 9: Output of Inferential Statistics ............................................................................... 346 Appendix 10: Editor’s Declaration ............................................................................................. 355 xv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Distribution of Respondents by Gender ...................................................................... 160 Figure 2. Distribution of Respondents by Race .......................................................................... 161 Figure 3. Distribution of Respondents by Age ........................................................................... 161 Figure 4. Distribution of Respondents by Marital Status ........................................................... 162 Figure 5. Distribution of Respondents by Educational Qualifications ....................................... 163 Figure 6. Distribution of Respondents by Occupational Level................................................... 163 Figure 7. Distribution of Respondents by Tenure ....................................................................... 164 Figure 8. Distribution of Respondents by Job Status .................................................................. 165 Figure 9. Distribution of Respondents by District Municipalities .............................................. 166 Figure 10. A conceptual integrated study model ........................................................................ 209 xvi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Personality Theories ....................................................................................................... 28 Table 2: Definitions of Personality ............................................................................................... 41 Table 3: The Big Five Personality Traits ...................................................................................... 49 Table 4: Job engagement definitions ............................................................................................ 82 Table 5: Dimensions of psychological conditions ........................................................................ 98 Table 6: Descriptive Statistics for Demographical Variables ..................................................... 158 Table 7: Summary of Descriptive Statistics................................................................................ 167 Table 8: Reliability Analysis ...................................................................................................... 168 Table 9: Pearson product-moment correlations (r) and significance probabilities (p) for relations of Personality Traits to Job Engagement .................................................................................... 172 Table 10: Pearson product-moment correlations (r) and significance probabilities (p) for relations of Personality Traits to Job Engagement dimensions ................................................................. 172 Table 11: Simple Linear Regression Model Fit and Summary for Agreeableness on Job Engagement................................................................................................................................. 174 Table 12: Parameter Estimates for Agreeableness on Job Engagement. .................................... 175 Table 13: Simple Linear Regression Model Fit and Summary for Conscientiousness on Job Engagement................................................................................................................................. 175 Table 14: Parameter Estimates for Conscientiousness on Job Engagement. .............................. 176 Table 15: Simple Linear Regression Model Fit and Summary for Openness on Job Engagement...................................................................................................................................................... 177 Table 16: Parameter Estimates for Openness on Job Engagement. ............................................ 178 xvii Table 17: Simple Linear Regression Model Fit and Summary for Extraversion on Job Engagement...................................................................................................................................................... 179 Table 18: Parameter Estimates for Extraversion on Job Engagement. ....................................... 179 Table 19: Simple Linear Regression Model Fit and Summary for Neuroticism on Job Engagement...................................................................................................................................................... 180 Table 20: Parameter Estimates for Neuroticism on Job Engagement. ........................................ 181 Table 21: Summary of the personality traits and job engagement hypotheses results ............... 181 Table 22: Pearson product-moment correlations (r) and significance probabilities (P) for relations of Psychological Conditions to Job Engagement ........................................................................ 182 Table 23: Pearson product-moment correlations (r) and significance probabilities (P) for relations of Psychological Conditions to Job Engagement dimensions .................................................... 183 Table 24: Simple Linear Regression Model Fit and Summary for Meaningfulness on Job Engagement................................................................................................................................. 184 Table 25: Parameter Estimates for Meaningfulness on Job Engagement. .................................. 185 Table 26: Simple Linear Regression Model Fit and Summary for Psychological availability on Job Engagement................................................................................................................................. 186 Table 27: Parameter Estimates for Psychological availability on Job Engagement. .................. 186 Table 28: Simple Linear Regression Model Fit and Summary for Psychological Safety on Job Engagement................................................................................................................................. 187 Table 29: Parameter Estimates for Psychological Safety on Job Engagement. .......................... 188 Table 30: Summary of the psychological conditions and job engagement hypotheses results .. 188 Table 31: Pearson product-moment correlations (r) and significance probabilities (p) for relations of Personality Traits to Psychological Conditions ...................................................................... 189 xviii Table 32: Parameter Estimates for the Stepwise Regression of Personality Traits and Job Engagement................................................................................................................................. 193 Table 33: Model Summary ......................................................................................................... 193 Table 34: Excluded Variables ..................................................................................................... 194 Table 35: Parameter Estimates for the Stepwise Regression of Job Conditions and Job Engagement..................................................................................................................................................... 196 Table 36: Model Summary ......................................................................................................... 197 Table 37: A summary of hierarchical multiple regression analyses testing job conditions and personality traits constructs in the prediction of job engagement............................................... 198 Table 38: Summary of the hierarchical regression results .......................................................... 199 Table 39: Statistically Mean Differences of Personality Traits and Demographics. .................. 202 Table 40: Mean Differences of Personality Traits and Demographics. ...................................... 203 Table 41: Mean Differences of Job Engagement and Demographics. ........................................ 204 Table 42: Statistically Mean Differences of Job Engagement and Demographics ..................... 204 Table 43: Statistically Mean Differences of Personality Traits and Demographics ................... 206 Table 44: Mean Differences of Psychological Conditions and Demographics .......................... 207 xix LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS UWES Utrechtt Work Engagement Scale JSE Job Engagement Scale IPIP International Personality Item Pool PSC Psychological Conditions Scale SET Social Exchange Theory SDT Self Determination Theory JDR Model Job Demands-Resources Model FFM Five Factor Model PDT Public Display Technologies OCB Organisational citizenship behaviour 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 1.1 Introduction and Background of the Study The efficiency of the public service delivery depends on the performance of the public employees. Due to high protest in the Eastern Cape due to poor service delivery, it is crucial to understand if the employees are engaged in doing their work. Although researchers have discovered many of the beneficial and positive consequences of job engagement, little is known about the multitude of antecedent factors that lead to employee engagement such as personality. The motivation of this study was to examine the relationship between the big five personality traits (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism) and job engagement (physical, cognitive and emotional engagement) among municipal employees working in the six district municipalities of the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. The study also looked at psychological conditions (availability, meaningfulness and safety) as a moderating factor between personality and job engagement. This contributes to the theoretical and conceptual knowledge of how job engagement can be enhanced through the hiring employees with certain personality traits and enhancing meaningfulness, safety and availability of psychological resources in the workplace. Now more than ever, organisations are looking for ways to tap into the ever-changing world of work (under-utilized capacities and talent of individuals). The desire to maximize human capital is not a new concept; the methods used are changing to reflect the important role employee engagement plays in the workplace. Employee engagement has been considered as the hottest topic to be incorporated within the human resource management agenda if organisations are to outmaneuver its competitive advantages. According to Chen and Nadkarni (2017) due to intensive 2 global competition and the need for organizations to better utilize human resources to achieve successes. Nienaber and Martins (2016) conceive competitive advantage as the hallmark of rigorous strategy. Therefore, for organisations to successfully increase their competitive advantage, they need to develop strategies to attract, motivate and retain a highly skilled, flexible and adaptive workforce. Despite the popularity of the concepts within the organisational setting, research studies on individual and organisations effects of such practices are not well integrated. Job engagement can be defined as a “positive, energized state of mind that stems from both a cognitive and an emotional investment of personal energy that is focused on transforming a work task, a team goal, and/or an organisation outcome into a meaningful business objective” (Fitzpatrick, 2017, p. 7). Employee engagement was defined as the level of commitment and contribution an employee put forward to the organisation (Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees & Gatenby, 2010). When employees are engaged they go past the call of duty to accomplish their task excellently (Baldoni, 2013) for the success of the organisation goals (Dulagil, 2012). Nowadays, practitioners and academics have shown to be putting more attention on job engagement (Kim, Kolb & Kim, 2013; Kuntz & Roberts, 2014; Farndale & Murrer, 2015; Eldor & Harpaz, 2016; Zhong, Wayne & Liden, 2016; Bailey, Madden, Alfes, & Fletcher, 2017). Employee engagement had been found to be important in the academic world of industrial-organisational psychology as it is linked to desirable results such as high performance, productivity, profitability and good wellbeing (Werner, 2014). Bersin (2015) asserts that engagement will likely become central to everything human resource does in the future, however, increasing job engagement in a sustainable way has remained a challenge regardless of years of exploration (Rothmann, 2017). This importance stimulates the necessity to understand why other 3 employees are engaged in their tasks, leading to further investigation of the process that triggers engagement. Though job engagement is an old and widely researched concept, its conception as defined by Kahn (1990) is relatively new in behavioural research and has not been widely researched. To Kahn (1990) job engagement involves the binding of employees to their task by expressing themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally when performing their roles. The study focused on Kahn’s definition of job engagement as little research has been done on it. This applies especially when using the instrument developed by Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010), which specifically measures engagement as demarcated by Kahn (1990). This scale measures job engagement in three dimensions which are emotional, cognitive and physical. An employee who has high levels of these three dimensions will have a high engagement level (Kahn, 1990). Further studies on the Kahn’s (1990) engagement concept are necessary as they differ from the previous engagement scales which has roots in the burnout literature which Schaufeli, Salanova, González-romá and Bakker (2002) later confirmed that job engagement is not relatively the exact opposite of burnout. Henceforth, it is a necessity that this concept and its connection to personality be examined in the projected research. The majority of research has focused on employee engagement as a predictor of work and organisational outcomes or on organisational and work factors that influence job engagement leaving out some factors which affect job engagement indirectly (Bakar, 2013; Men, 2015). The role of individual differences has been fragmented and limited hence the focus of personality in this study. Personality is believed to predict some work behaviours which might not be foreseen by psychological capability, job facts, work setting (Barrick & Mount, 2005) or Demographical information (Mount, Witt & Barrick, 2000). 4 The American Psychological Association describes personality as individual differences in terms of how people think, feel and behave (American Psychology Association, 2017). It incorporates an individual’s relatively constant feelings, opinions and behavioural patterns. Every person has an inimitable disposition that separates them from other individuals and understanding someone’s personality provides evidence on the manner in which an individual is expected to behave in different circumstances (Alanoud & Amir, 2016). This study will focus on the Big Five personality traits which are conscientiousness, openness, agreeableness, extraversion and neuroticism (Goldberg, 1992). Given that job engagement is linked with discernible personality features as well as with certain job characteristics, it is imperative to consider their possible mode of combination. The study looked at psychological condition as the moderating factor on the relationship between personality and job engagement. Although it is theoretically admissible to propose links between the Big Five traits and job engagement, it does not inevitably follow that those trait-state relations are direct. Rather, it may be that there are intermediary states that, in part, explain the links which in this study are the psychological conditions. Kahn (1990) conceptualised engagement as an individual extension through the psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability to a work role. He identified meaningfulness as a sense of return on investment of self in role performance; safety which is an individual’s perceived skill to express themselves without dreading adverse penalties and availability which is the readiness to engage in the demands placed on them. These psychological conditions affect personal engagement and disengagement at work (Kahn & Heaphy 2014 According to Inceoglu and Warr (2012), little research has surveyed the correlation between all five dimensions of personality and job engagement. Most theoretical deliberations and empirical 5 researches have focused mainly on examining job engagement as a response to job characteristics such as autonomy, demands and conflicts (Shirom, 2010). As it contributes to the theoretical foundation of the concept, it is vital to understand predisposition characteristics and their association with job engagement. Noesgaard (2016) in his doctoral thesis suggests that individual differences should occupy more space in the work engagement literature and should not be underestimated. Zaidi, Wajid, Zaidi, Zaidi and Zaidi (2013), confirmed that personality has a role in the engagement procedure as individuals go into the office with their personal set of personality characteristics. As a result, the purpose of this study is to explore the connection between the personality and job engagement amongst municipal workers. Such knowledge might assist in improving job engagement among employees. Municipalities’ workers are faced with low job engagement and this has affected service delivery which is crucial to the sustainability of citizens. Crabtree (2013) found that only 13% of the employees were engaged globally while 4% to 15% were engaged in South Africa. The efficiency of service delivery depends on the public employee performance. The Eastern Cape Province has been receiving too much attention because of its poor service delivery as they are failing to deliver public services (Municipal IQ, 2014). Manala (2010) claims that the problems that hinder or interrupts service delivery are due to the lack of commitment to helping others and the apparently inflated longing for self-glorification. Lavigna (2015) emphasizes that public organisations differ from private organisations in important ways and that some of these differences can present barriers to work engagement. More specifically, antecedents of work engagement such as autonomy, transparency, and feedback may be less evident in public organisations (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011). Hence, there is a need for more study in the public sectors. 6 1.2 Problem Statement Employee engagement has become the topmost challenge for majority of the organizations in the world (Arora & Adhikari, 2013). Many studies have investigated the importance of employee engagement in the business scenario and showed that a fully engaged workforce is more efficient, delivers high levels of customer satisfaction, attains higher productivity levels and ensures lower turnover rates, which all translate into improved overall performance (Simmons, 2010). In today‘s world of cut-throat competition, an engaged employee can give an organization competitive advantage, it is important to bring in right type of employee for the organization. Employees who demonstrate separation or disengagement in work, their work practices and performance turn out to be low and they don’t demonstrate any exertion or perform well (Imam, 2014). Disengaged employees are more disposed towards the withdrawal of cognizance and enthusiastic connection towards their obligation and work practices (Luthans & Peterson, 2002). Schwartz (2012) indicates that organisations with low employee engagement actually lose 33% of their annual decline in operating income as compared to an 11% annual decline in earnings growth. In addition, organisations with high employee engagement estimate an increase of 19% of their operating income and 28% annual growth in earnings. These organisations tend to have lower employee turnover, higher productivity, higher total shareholder returns and better financial performance (Baumruk, 2006). Undoubtedly, disengaged employees are a liability to the organisation and hardly challenge the status quo, while engaged employees exhibit emotional job attachment, unreserved commitment, increased productivity, high job passion, and in most cases, they go extra miles (Shuck et al., 2011). 7 The demand for staff that show initiative, are motivated to outspread their energies outside the boundaries of the job description, and are dynamically engaged are the characteristics of what is sought after in the 21st-century workplace (Leiter & Bakker, 2010). Employee engagement has been identified as a significant contributor to positive organisational outcomes (Medlin & Green, 2009; Gilbert, 2011; LaMotte, 2015; Devi, 2017) and considered to be the most influential factor to measure an organisation’s vigour and orientation towards superior performance. Therefore, job engagement is crucial to the survival of organisations as noted by Juan (2010) who indicates that when employee engagement is not effectively managed, firms lose between 5%-15% of sales revenue. As a result, most researchers have attempted to explain why some employees are less engaged than others. The preponderance has primarily focused on identifying characteristics of the work environment that influence or contribute to job engagement. Less research (Inceoglu & Warr, 2012) has focused on identifying the individual characteristics inherent in employees that promote job engagement. Therefore, the study goal is to address the problem of why some employees are more engaged than others by focusing on the personality of the employees. In addition, another problem is that much of the contemporary literature focuses on the private sector (Jansriboot, 2016; Woods & Sofat, 2013; Ziapour & Kianipour, 2015). Where causality and construct relationships are informed by financial data and more readily available performance metrics. Hence there is a need to focus more studies on the public sector. Also, a considerable number of engagement studies were conducted abroad and a few in Africa especially South Africa. Therefore, there is a necessity to identify and understand the main aspects that prompt employee engagement within the public sector, and by extension, might contribute to enhanced organisational effectiveness. Recommendations to investigate potential moderators of the theory have been made (Shuck & Reio, 2014; Vigoda-Gadot, Eldor & Schhohat, 2012). Although 8 strategies for increasing engagement are available in the popular press and management publications, they might not conform to rigorous, evidence-based academic standards. Trustworthy data and information are critical since the work of government employees affects citizens’ lives through a variety of essential functions such as social services, healthcare, utilities, and law enforcement. According to the Public Display Technologies 2014 State of Employee Engagement survey among public workers, it was found that almost one in five works feels disinterested, less engaged in their work (Public Display Technologies Report, 2014). Municipalities are often accused of failing to deliver public services that they are supposed to deliver (Manala, 2010). Municipalities have faced many challenges including poor service delivery, insolvency and delays in project implementation (Gatamah, 2005). This has led to a lack of trust and confidence by the public (Njiru, 2008). Such challenges are attributed to poor employee engagement (Smitds, Pruyn & Van Riel, 2001; Edwards & Peccei, 2007). According to Deloitte Consulting (2014), a study that was conducted in Africa on employee engagement and retention 85% of the respondents indicated that this was a matter that needs to be dealt with urgency while 29% were simply not ready to face the issue. 63% of the respondents from South Africa regarded employee engagement as the second most imperative challenge for South Africa. In addition, Crabtree (2013) states that in South Africa, only 9% of workers are engaged. It therefore, seems appropriate to conduct a study of job engagement among municipal employees as the alleged lack of service delivery may be largely due to a lack of job engagement among these employees. 1.3 Objectives of the Study The study seeks to attain the subsequent objectives: 9  To examine how the Big Five personality traits relate to the three components of job engagement.  To augment knowledge relating to both personality and job engagement, and the connection between the two.  Seeks to determine how work engagement and personality varies with respect to demographical variables.  To examine how Kahn’s three psychological conditions, relate to personality and job engagement  Recommend possible interventions and recommendations that can be proposed to address the problem identified to municipalities.  Develop a theoretical framework of strategies to enhance employee engagement in organisations. 1.4 Significance of the Study Recently there has been an increasing attention of researchers in investigating the relationship between personality and work engagement. Disengaged and engaged employees are likely to differ in their personality characteristics. Few models of potential personality as contributors to job engagement have, however, been published (Inceoglu & Warr, 2012) with fewer studies done in African countries such as South Africa. Most of the studies have been done in the USA, hence forthcoming studies should focus on other countries where not much is known about levels of engagement (Kular, Gatenby, Rees, Soane & Truss, 2008). For example, it is yet to be determined which factors are significant or not to job engagement within the big five taxonomies. The results 10 of this research will add to existing literature on the correlation between personality and job engagement, especially in the African setting. There is potentially much to be gained from studying the correlation between personality type and job engagement. The question remains as to why employees, when working under comparable conditions display signs of job engagement whereas others display a few or no signs of job engagement (Wilson, 2009). Individual factors such as personality traits have been minimally investigated in relation with job engagement while organisational factors have been researched thoroughly (Saks & Gruman, 2014). According to Rothmann and Joubert (2007), it is crucial to recognize that both organisational and individual aspects are continually inducing engagement, hence additional enquiry is required to identify individual components of engagement (Kahn, 1990; Rich, 2006). As such, attention on individual characteristics such as personality will add value to the present study on job engagement especially to municipalities as they are facing problems of low engagement which impacts the socio-economic development of citizens. In terms of theoretical significance, the study will provide for the lack of research on positive organisational behaviour as earlier research has mostly been focused on negative outcomes such as stress and burnout (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Most of the job engagement studies are based on the job-demands resources model and the use of the Utrechtt Work Engagement Scale (UWES) (Saks & Gruman, 2014). The model and the scale have been found to have some limitations which question the usefulness of the literature in understanding job engagement (Saks & Gruman, 2014) hence the need to look at Kahn’s (1990) engagement theory. No prominent instrument has been developed to measure Kahn’s (1990) three dimensions of engagement until May, Gilson and Harter (2004) scale leaving a 14-year gap between the concept’s 11 invention and its adeptness to be verified. This provides for a substantial knowledge gap that might explain the conflicts concerning the universal theory and definition of job engagement. Notwithstanding the presence of other job engagement theories different from Kahn’s, most literature support for Kahn’s theory (May et al., 2004; Rich et al., 2010). Another scale was developed by Rich et al. (2010) to measure engagement based on Kahn’s model called the Job Engagement Scale (JSE). Further research is required such as this study to make use of these instruments to assess Kahn’s model to gain in-depth knowledge of the theory which might lead to a unanimously acknowledged theory and engagement characterization in social disciplines. Today’s organisation environments and work context are fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty, not stability. As a result, an organisation needs employees who can sustain their engagement by turning ambiguity into an opportunity (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2011). Therefore, the practical implications of the study for practitioners is to provide evidence for selecting new employee with the positive psychological capacity to successfully manage their engagement in a rapidly changing environment. Recruitment of people with certain personality traits for jobs in organisations should take precedence over the recruitment of people with dissimilar personality traits (Sekiguchi & Huber, 2011). This will address popular writings suggesting employers hire engaged employees (Wright, 2012; Guest, 2014). According to Thomas and Scroggins (2006), personality assessment are lawfully and justly comprehensive selection instrument that an organisation can use to determine whether a candidate will be able to accomplish the task effectively. It is highly beneficial to choose the right people with the right characteristics and values to your team. Selection of the right players can benefit from the natural formation of engagement. Too often employers concentrate mostly on education, experience, and skills while 12 hiring, but in reality, candidate’s characteristics and behaviours are the factors that determine their success in an organisation (Kelleher, 2014). In addition, the study outcomes can be useful for the working relationship as a good fit between the work and employee will contribute to employee achievement thereby success to the organisation. Employees should be mindful of which jobs are more fitting for them to avoid negative outcomes such as stress, pain and unhappiness. Organisations on the other hand, can be affected also by the inconvenient match of job and employee by not achieving positive outcomes such as efficiency, productivity and social economic development. 1.5 Hypotheses The subsequent hypotheses will be examined: Hypothesis 1 H0: There is no significant correlation between the big five personality traits and job engagement H1: There is a significant correlation between the big five personality traits and job engagement Hypothesis 2 H0: There is no significant correlation between psychological conditions and job engagement. H2: There is a significant correlation psychological conditions and job engagement. Hypothesis 3 H0: There is no significant correlation between the big five personality traits and psychological conditions 13 H3: There is a significant correlation between the big five personality traits and psychological conditions Hypothesis 4 H0: A combination of any two or more personality traits will not explain a higher proportion of variance in job engagement than any one personality traits separately. H4: A combination of any two or more personality traits will explain a higher proportion of variance in job engagement than any one personality traits separately. Hypothesis 5 H0: A combination of any two or more psychological conditions will not will explain a higher proportion of variance in job engagement than any one psychological conditions separately. H5: A combination of any two or more psychological conditions will explain a higher proportion of variance in job engagement than any one psychological conditions separately. Hypothesis 6 H0: Psychological conditions do not add unique variance in predicting job engagement above and beyond that which is predicted by the personality traits. H6: Psychological conditions add unique variance in predicting job engagement above and beyond that which is predicted by the personality traits. 14 1.6 Delimitation of the Study 1.6.1 Geographical Demarcation The projected study was done in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Other provinces in the country were excluded. 1.6.2 Units of Analysis The units of analysis were the municipal public services employees in the Eastern Cape Province. The proposed study focused on municipal public services’ employees not on all public service employees. 1.6.3 Time Frame The study was conducted within a period of three years. In 2016, the student completed chapter one, two and three. Chapter four and five was completed in 2017. Chapter six, seven and eight was completed in 2018. 1.6.4 Demarcation of Concepts All the facets of the Big Five personality concept, neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to experience were studied. All three components of job engagement as defined by Kahn (1990) were studied which are cognitive, physical and emotional engagement. Kahn’s psychological conditions which are safety, availability and meaningfulness were studied also. 1.7 Definitions of Terms Personality- individual variances in distinctive patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving” (APA, 2017). For the purposes of the present study, personality is calculated and scored using the 50-item 15 International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) (Goldberg, Johnson, Eber, Hogan, Ashton, Cloninger & Gough, 2006). Openness to experience- has been explained as the extent to which an individual needs distinctiveness, change and diversity by Brandstatter and Opp (2014). This study measured and scored openness to experience using by the 50-item (IPIP) (Goldberg et al., 2006). Conscientiousness- involves being mindful of those around you, from friends and family to (Melchers, Li, Haas, Reuter, Bischoff & Montag, 2016) colleagues and even strangers. Conscientiousness in this study was measured by the 50-item (IPIP) (Goldberg et al., 2006). Extraversion- It is characterized by being socially involved, enjoying spending time with others and respectful of tradition and authority (Zhang, 2006). Extraversion was measured by 10 items from the 50-item (IPIP) (Goldberg et al., 2006). Agreeableness- Agreeable people are more likely to be modest, trusting and sympathetic (Fazeli, 2012). Agreeableness for this study was measured by the 50-item (IPIP) (Goldberg et al., 2006). Neuroticism- is said to be generally connected to an individuals’ emotional unsteadiness which frequently produces negativities (Ashton, 2013). Neuroticism was measured by the 50-item (IPIP) (Goldberg et al., 2006). Job engagement- is a powerful connection between an individual and their job where one can show themselves emotionally, physically and cognitively while performing tasks (Kahn, 1990). Job engagement will be measured by the JES (Rich et al, 2010). Cognitive engagement- is the intense attention an individual’s put towards achieving their task with no disruptions (Rothbard, 2001). It is measured by the JES (Rich et al., 2010). 16 Emotional engagement- is an intense link between an individual’s true feelings, opinions, and moods within the job itself (Kahn, 1990). It is measured by the JES (Rich et al., 2010). Physical engagement- is when an employee exerts physical energies to achieve a task from stupor to energetic participation (Rich, 2006). This study’s physical engagement was tested by the JES (Rich et al., 2010). Psychological availability- refers to ‘the sense of having the physical, emotional or psychological resources to engage at a particular moment’ (Kahn 1990, p. 714). Its measured by the Psychological Conditions Scale (PCS) (May et al., 2004). Psychological safety- is defined as ‘feeling able to show and employ one’s self without fear of adverse consequences to self-image, status, or career’ (Kahn 1990, p. 708). Its measured by measured by the PCS (May et al., 2004). Psychological meaningfulness- is how an individual perceives a return on investment of one’s self in a currency of physical, emotional and cognitive energy (Kahn, 1990, p. 703). Psychological meaningfulness was measured by the PCS (May et al., 2004). 1.8 Outline of the Research Chapter 1: Introduction and Background of the Study Chapter 1 provided background information of the research about the setback which led to the study. It consisted of the research problem, objectives, hypotheses, significance of the study and the definitions of main notions. Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 17 Chapter 2 provides the subsequent theories of the self-sufficient variable (personality) and the dependent variable (job engagement) that are hypothesized in the projected research. Chapter 3: Personality Chapter 3 provides a comprehensive literature evaluation of personality with special reference to the Big Five personality traits. The chapter further discuss the relationship between personality and demographics, measuring instruments for personality and limitations of the big five personality traits. Chapter 4: Job Engagement This chapter provides the literature review concerning job engagement focusing on its three components which are physical, cognitive and emotional engagement. The chapter discusses job disengagement, psychological conditions, antecedents of job engagement, barriers to engagement, demographics and job engagement, job engagement measurements and factors shaping job engagement. Chapter 5: Empirical Literature This chapter focused on the relationship between job engagement and personality and identify research gaps. Chapter 6: Research Methodology and Design The chapter provided the description of the research methodology. The research techniques, methods and sampling processes were discussed in this chapter. Statistical analyses and ethical 18 considerations were also conversed. It additionally provides the descriptive statistics and reliability of the study constructs Chapter 7: Data Analysis and Research Results This chapter mainly focused on the clarification and analysis of the study outcomes by means of quantitative analysis. The results were illustrated in tables and graphs where it is pertinent. Chapter 8: Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations This chapter conversed the outcomes relating to hypotheses and preceding literature. This chapter provided also conclusions and recommendations for the future research and professional/managerial practice. The limitations of the study were also provided. 19 CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Introduction The subsequent theories emphasize the relations between the self-sufficient variable (personality) and the dependent variable (job engagement) that are hypothesized in the projected research. 2.2 Theories of Job Engagement 2.2.1 Kahn’s (1990) theory of engagement Kahn’s (1990) employee engagement theory is grounded in role theory with the view that the process of engagement involves individuals expressing themselves in their job tasks in a way that is consistent with their true selves or in the case of disengagement, withdrawing and defending their selves from their work role. Individuals usually bring or eradicate themselves from task behaviours or performances. According to Kahn’s (1990) theory, the engagement/disengagement is fuelled by employee’s evaluations of three primary psychological conditions; meaningfulness, safety and availability which are influenced by numerous critical aspects within the work setting. According to Kahn (1990, p.703) “psychological meaningfulness is a feeling that one receives in return on investment of one’s self in a currency of physical, emotional and cognitive energy”. It deals with perceived benefits an individual will attain after working towards achieving a task. When an employee perceives their work to be meaningful they feel useful and valued. Meaningfulness is influenced by job tasks, roles or positions, work interactions and self-confidence. According to Kahn (1990) psychological safety is when one can freely express themselves at the workplace with no fear of adverse consequences to their positions. When there is an ultimate 20 connection between an employee and their job engagement is enhanced through honest expressions. Employees can now express themselves without fear of being punished by supervisors, colleagues, or clients. Therefore, interpersonal relationships, management styles, group dynamics, and organisational norms can affect an individual’s feeling of safety (Kahn, 1992). According to Kahn (1990) psychological availability is when an individual has the physical, psychological and emotional resources needed to perform the job. Accessibility is an apparent measure of the availability of assets for the fulfillment of work errands. At the point when individuals' physical and enthusiastic drives are drained, when they feel uncertain of their resources to perform their jobs, or when individual lives are basically excessively challenging, individuals tend to disengage. Therefore, psychological availability is influenced by the employee’s evaluation of physical, cognitive, emotional resources and the level of self-confidence in his or her ability as well as external influences that consumes employee resources. In summation, when the job task is important, the organisational environment is secure, and sufficient resources are accessible, employees have a tendency to illustrate dynamic, full exhibitions to their work tasks (Kahn, 1990) through physical, cognitive, and emotional engagement. The cognitive facet of job engagement is concerned about how employees perceive the organisation, management and the working environments. The emotional feature focus on how workers feel about each of the three aspects and their standpoint on the organisation and its management. Physical engagement can be noted through the exertion of energy towards achieving a task. 21 Appropriately, Kahn’s main aim was to distinguish those mental components that were powerfully sufficient to outlive the extent of individual variances (Kahn, 1992). Afterward, be that as it may, Kahn recommended that person differences might still matter to as they might influence an individual’s dispositions to either engage or disengage (Kahn, 1992). Therefore, Kahn suggested that the investigation of personal aspects associated with engagement may be a critical subject for future inquiring. In this manner, individual differences can be followed back to individuals having different personality characteristics which makes their conduct contrast even when they are in the same work environment. People whose characteristics and necessities partner the demands of the situation will be able to engage themselves at work (Kahn, 1990). Hence this study focused on the individual difference which are the big five personality traits and job engagement amongst municipal workers. 2.2.2 Social Exchange Theory The social exchange theory (SET), has been used as a theoretical basis for rationalising employee engagement (Saks, 2006; Bailey et al., 2017). It conceptualizes human relations (Avanzi, Fraccaroli, Sarchielli, Ullrich & van Dick, 2014; Silva & Caetano, 2014) and the formation of social association which empowers the employees to accomplish job prospects and employment. Based on SET, a reciprocal relationship could be found owing to the succession of exchanges between two parties in a state of reciprocating interdependence. Social exchanges allude to exchanges or connections between at least two parties, for example, the relationships amongst workers and their organisation that include unspecified future commitments through a reciprocal process of trading assets for which some future reimbursement or return is anticipated for the positive contribution made (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Cropanzano, Anthony, Daniels, Hall, 2017). 22 The theory implies that shared commitment is created through progressive relations between entities under conditions of shared interdependence (Saks, 2006). A fundamental rule of SET is that relations progress overtime into loyal and reciprocated assurances if the parties stand by the rules of exchange (Jose & Mampilly, 2012). The commonly concurred rules include the trust of two parties that both parties will honour their commitment to the exchange procedure (Wang & Hsieh, 2013). However, when one party fails to honor the commitment, the trust between the two parties will be broken and the cost of the relationship becomes too high which might lead one of the parties to withdraw. According to Saks (2006), the level of engagement of an employee may depend on the extent to which they feel obligated to repay to the organisation which can be done through their engagement levels. Employees consider the resources they get from their organisation when deciding to engage. Schaufeli (2013) affirms that as soon as employees obtain resources from their employers such as wages, acknowledgement, and development prospects they will likely respond by repaying the organisation through engagement (Saks, 2006). Schaufeli (2006) suggested that when the organisation does not deliver on the resources employees will probably withdraw. Therefore, job engagement is associated with a worker’s proficiency, organisational, economic and socioeconomic supplies. Therefore, this theory is applicable to the study because when employees are pleased with their jobs and the rewards they get from the organisation they become more engaged. When the job meets all the Kahn’s (1990) psychological conditions which are availability, safety and meaningfulness job engagement is experienced. In terms of personality when an individual 23 employee’s personality and values link with what is being offered by the organisation job engagement can occur. 2.2.3 Self Determination Theory (SDT) It is a macro philosophy of human inspiration and personality that bothers people's inalienable development inclinations and intrinsic mental needs. SDT’s descriptions are focused on the inner level thus using human insights, thoughts, sentiments, and needs as prognosticators of regulatory, behavioural, developmental, and experiential outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 2000). It focuses on what motivates an individual to make a choice without external influence or interference which make some people develop stronger needs than others thereby creating individual differences. However, optimal human functioning reflects that people are vibrant, full of energy and enthusiastic about life and its possibilities while others are apathetic, indifferent, isolated and disengaged with no energy and passion for life. According to SDT, these individuals have unmet needs for capability, self-sufficiency, and kinship. Disengagement and engagement are linked to SDT in that an employee’s behavioural status is the main inspiration to exhibit conduct at a professional and individual level. The emotional state of an individual is connected to motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Once employees start to pull back and cover up their personalities, thoughts and sentiments they become disconnected and distrustful ensuing in an unfavourable impact on job execution (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Therefore, this theory is applicable to the study as SDT focuses on the psychological level of employees which include their emotion, personality and cognitions which affect how they behave at work by being engaged or disengaged. When individuals are independently propelled, they act with a full sense of readiness and volition, entirely underwriting that which they are doing since 24 they discover it either curiously and pleasant, or steady with their profoundly held, coordinates values. Barrick, Mount and Li (2013) examined the Five-factor Model of personality which pronounces that employee behaviours are affected by traits such as neuroticism, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness and extraversion. They contend that these traits allow rise to one or more essential motivational strivings such as communion or status. When the characteristics of a person’s work are in line with these motivational strivings, that individual will experience a mental state of skilled meaningfulness which can lead to engagement (Barrick et al., 2013). 2.2.4 The Job Demand Resources Model This model was established by Demerouti, Bakker, De Jonge, Janssen and Schaufeli (2001) and it adopts that job engagement results from innately motivating nature of job resources and demands. Job resources are those work aspects that are useful in accomplishing work objectives, decrease job demands, or invigourate individual development and advancement such as performance feedback and social sustenance from contemporaries. Job demands are job features that demand continuous psychological exertion or abilities such as work pressure and emotional demands. According to the model, when employees are presented with a demanding workplace characterized by increasing workload and stress, the provision of additional resources can serve as mitigation to the stress-related effects on the employee (Bakker & Demerouti, 2016). The job demands-resources model suggests that when employees are granted increased resources, they are more prone to be engaged (Bailey et al., 2017). Job resources boost intrinsic and extrinsic incentives driving to advanced engagement (Tuckey, Bakker, & Dollard, 2012; Saks & Gruman, 2014). Fulfilling individual desires such as individual growth and individual advancement are part of a worker’s intrinsic incentive linked to job supplies (Ouweneel, Le Blanc, Schaufeli & van Wijhe, 2012). Saks and Gruman (2014) estimated that an irrefutable association between job resources 25 and engagement. Subsequent to carrying out a literature assessment, De Beer, Pienaar and Rothmann (2013) construed that by engaging South Africans and giving them ample supplies led to enhanced effectiveness and loyalty. According to the JD-R Model, resources invigourate workers, inspiring their tenacity and making them concentrate on their energies thus fostering engagement (Schaufeli, 2013). Shuck, Rose and Bergman (2015) found that workers with amounts of independence and capability conveyed higher levels of engagement. Job demands have been recognized as the strongest predictor of burnout dimension of exhaustion and cynicism (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2007). This has been reinforced by the suggestion that workforces with extreme job demands and inadequate resources are expected to undergo burnout thereby experiencing a decrease in engagement respectively (Hakanen, Bakker & Schaufeli, 2006). Guest (2014) on the other hand argued on the use of the JD-R model to envisage engagement levels as he believed that personality aspects predisposed some individuals to different engagement levels. Likewise, Saks and Gruman (2014) also agreed that the model provided a limited technique in clarifying job engagement because of its application as a context that categorises job demands and resources. The JDR model is applicable to the study as the study is looking at the relationship between psychological condition (meaningfulness, safety and availability) and job engagement. An assumption of the JD‐R model is that two underlying processes influence the development of job strain and motivation. The first process is job strain which can be explained by poorly defined job or work overload would exhaust employees’ mental and physical resources thereby affecting their psychological availability which in turn affect job engagement. The motivation function of job 26 resources in either fostering the growth and development of employees which can be achieved by offering employees meaningful work, making them feel safe and having the physical, emotional and psychological recourses essential to accomplish a task at that moment. The theory states that the employees who do not have the resources, which might be the psychological condition, to meet job demands might experience exhaustion which is a component of job burnout. On the other hand, if employees have enough resources to meet their job demands, they will have increased employee engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2012). 2.2.5 Broaden and Build Theory Fredrickson (2004) developed the Broaden and Build (B&B) theory which adopts that optimistic feelings permits individuals to expand their individual assets (Simbula & Guglielmi, 2013). This method involves a positive repetitive winding prompting more positive feelings which will lead to the progression of individual resources and intellectual growth (Simbula & Guglielmi, 2013). The unremitting expansion of work experiences leads to personal resources development (Botha & Mostert, 2014). Consequently, employees feeling optimistic sentiments are likely to display increased performance because of their wiliness to grasp novel encounters (Bakker, Demerouti & Brummelhius, 2012). Researchers observed that positive feelings resulted in enhanced engagement (Ouweneel et al., 2012; Shantz, Alfes, Truss, & Soane, 2013) and advent of improvement possibilities, fulfillment of goals and establishment and accretion of resources (Culbertson, Mills & Fullagar, 2012; Lu, Wang, Lu, Du & Bakker, 2014). Positive feelings such as happiness and commitment can develop an individual’s concept-action repertoires and construct their personal resources by increasing their opinions and actions ensuring higher overall performance (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). Because 27 engagement is related to positive feelings, engaged individuals tend to perform than disengaged individuals (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). This theory is applicable to the study because it enlightens the mechanisms following positive emotions in people’s minds and bodies. Fredrickson (1998) recommended that when positive feelings are utilised, people have more prominent ability to expand and upgrade subjective capacity, and participate in more liberal and adaptable reactions to a huge number of boosts, along with both the constructive and contrary spectrum. This theory is also applicable to the study as it states that events in the work environment result in emotional reactions of employees and that these reactions have an effect on employees’ dispositional levels of affect. Employees may react to different events in the work environment differently which may be due to their different personality traits that affects how the evaluate situations. On the other hand this theory also helps to explain the relationship between job engagement and psychological conditions as emotional reactions cause employees to evaluate their work and, in turn, the employees’ expectations regarding their working day are influenced (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Positive expectations of employees regarding their capabilities to control and achieve their work-related goals result in more involvement at work which is influence by psychological meaningfulness, safety and availability conditions. 2.3 Theories of Personality In the literature applicable to the personality research, there are some personality theories which have been considered as the important theories which are the psychodynamic theory, humanistic theories, behaviouristic or learning theories, cognitive theories, occupational oriented theories, biological and trait theories. Amongst all the above cited seven theories, trait theory is viewed as 28 one of the most propensity theory leading to certain behaviours. Traits determine individual’s discrepancies that lead to the development of a regular pattern of emotions, views and actions (Myers, 1998). For the present research, however, big five personality theory (Five Factor Model or FFM”) was deemed suitable grounded on its relevance to the subject matter. FFM has also been considered to be highly acknowledged and widely recognized personality model. Table 2.1 shows the list of personality theories. Table 1: Personality Theories Theory Main assumption Theorist Psychodynamic theory It stresses on an individual’s experience of conflict between inner drives, unconscious motivations, previous events and society customs Adler; Sullivan & Horney; Lacan & Hilmann; Freud; Jung; Klein; Ferenzi; Ericson. Behaviouristic or learning theories Personality is characterized by responses, opportunities and opinions, as learned and rewarded in the numerous forms of settings in which individuals function Hull; Tolman; Skinner; Dollard & Miller; Bandura; Mischel; Rotter; Darwin; Pavlov; Watson; Thorndike 29 Humanistic, phenomenological, existential approach Individual focused, the individual identity and self-respect are best comprehended by their specific presence and one of a kind affair of the real world and the endeavoring toward self-realization. Rogers; Maslow; Frankl; Buhler & May; Allport; Kelly Trait theories Human conduct is portrayed by continuing and constant patterns of conduct depicted as dimensions, traits, aspects and categories. Goldberg; Costa & McCrae; Hough; Allport; Catell; Eysenck & Wiggins Cognitive theories Individuals are cogent and form their own particular personality and destiny by using cognitive powers to produce and modify cognitive concepts and processes. Wertheimer; Koffka; Kohler; Heider; Lewin; Miller; Neisser; Kelly; Piaget; Mishel; Cantor Occupational orientated theories The idea of person-environment-fit states that for optimal occupational Holland; Dawis & Lofquist; Super & Ginzberg; Ketz de Vries; Miller 30 performance, employee characteristics must be compatible with work environment characteristics. Biological perspectives Individual conduct is primarily determined by biological procedures and evolutionary past. Sheldon & Kretschmer; Eysenck; Cattell; Gray; Cloninger; Zuckerman Source: Adapted from Bergh and Theron (2003) Trait theories is an approach to learning human characteristics that differentiates and gauges how much certain personality traits-for example, anxiety, nervousness, receptiveness to new things-exist from person to another. Trait theory has been criticised but its biggest strength is that it’s understandable and straightforward. The personality trait theory varies from other personality approaches in that, though most theories signify efforts at better understanding personality development, trait theorists concentrate little on the development and more on foreseeing behaviours in each situation. The following are the main four trait theories which started with Allport’s 4,000 traits, Raymond Cattell 16 traits, Eysenck’s three up to the big five personality traits. 2.3.1 Allport's Trait Theory Allport's personality theory accentuates the distinctiveness of the person and the inner perceptive and inspiration that impact insights, disposition, propensities, aptitudes, states of mind, and characteristics. Allport (1937) accepts that personality is naturally decided at birth and molded by 31 an individual's environmental encounters. Allport viewed personality as a dynamic and emerging inner part of an individual that encompasses of intellectual and physical facets (Crowne, 2007). Allport systematized personalities into a pyramid of three stages which are cardinal, central and secondary traits. Cardinal personality governs and outlines an individual's conduct such as Mother Theresa’s altruism. Cardinal traits are influential, but limited individuals have characters ruled by one trait as they generally have several traits. Allport regarded individuals as having an arrangement of qualities that differed in degrees of essentialness and all-inclusive statement (Cervone & Pervin, 2008). Just a couple of individuals had cardinal characteristics and the larger part had a blend of a couple of a few central traits and close to twelve secondary characters (Allport, 1961). Central traits, second in the pyramid, are overall features found in varying degrees in everyone for example, devotion, thoughtfulness, sociability, outgoingness, slyness or grumpiness which shapes behaviour. Secondary traits, last/bottom on the pyramid, are not very as self-evident or reliable as central characteristics. Though are abundant they only appear under explicit situations and they incorporate inclinations and states of mind. They clarify why an individual at times displays certain behaviours unlike their normal practices. For example, a sociable individual grows livid when someone attempts make them laugh. This study might explain why one employee encounter engagement whereas others don't while working within the same environment. 2.3.2 Raymond Cattell Personality theory Allport’s theories endured as a powerful personality theory, but 4,000 traits were cumbersome and unpractical for applications, which led Raymond Cattell to bubble it down to something more practical. As a research assistant to Charles Spearman who established factor analysis which 32 involved putting together appearing factors in sets of data, Cattell was able to reduce Allport’s cumbersome traits (Catell, 1945). Cattell thought it’s essential to sample an extensive variety of variables to have a complete perception of personality. The initial information was life data, which comprised of gathering date from a person's normal daily life behaviours. Experimental information involves determining responses to uniform experimental conditions, and survey information encompassed gathering data based on self-examination by an individual on their emotional state and behaviours. Catell at first used Allport and Odbert’s traits register and cut them down by combining identical words and then factor-analyzing them to 40 clusters of surface traits (Catell, 1965; Crowne, 2007; Cervone & Pervin, 2008). Cattell conducted factor analysis and produced 16 facets of personality traits which are abstractedness, warmth, apprehension, openness to change, perfectionism, privateness, intelligence, rule-consciousness, emotional stability, liveliness, vigilance, tension, sensitivity, social boldness, self-reliance and dominance. According to Cattell (1965), everyone’s foremost tendencies and personalities are decided by the extent to which each trait is present. Regardless of reducing Allport's list of traits, Cattell's 16 personality factors have still been reprimanded for being vast. However, this approach resulted in the establishment of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaires (16PF), which is broadly used in the scientific, educational and work-related settings. This approach also contributed to the development of the FFM. 33 2.3.3 Eysenck’s Personality Theory From Cattell’s list Eysenck (1947) recognized 3 personality dimensions which are extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism. Amid 1940s Eysenck while working at a psychiatric hospital he made an initial assessment of each patient prior to their mental disorder was identified. He accumulated a list of questions about their behaviour and implemented them to 700 soldiers under neurotic disorders treatment (Eysenck, 1947). He discovered that the soldiers’ responses appeared to relate to each other, signifying diverse personality traits. He named them the first order personality traits. Eysenck (1947) discovered that the soldiers’ behaviour might be embodied by two dimensions, introversion/extroversion and neuroticism/ stability, which are the second-order traits. Extraverts are carefree, optimistic and sociable and as a result can become bored without difficulty while introverts are aloof, plan their activities and deal with their feelings. Neurotics are usually stressed, grumpy and find it hard to calm down once distressed while stable individuals are emotionally tranquil and unruffled. He later added on another dimension of psychoticism/socialization where individuals high on psychoticism tend to be independent intellects, emotionless, unconventional, impetuous, inconsiderate and aggressive. Individuals high on socialization typically have high impulse management and are selfless, compassionate, supportive, and traditional. Numerous personality instruments, counting the Eysenck Personality Inventory, to measure the three-factor model, have been developed and utilised as a part of various applications such as smoking, sexuality and delinquency. It is however utilised to a lesser extent in the occupational background (Bergh & Theron, 2003). The crucial quality of Eysenck's model he made his approach 34 more quantifiable however he has been censured for being excessively limited which subsequently lead to the advancement of the five-factor model. 2.3.4 Five Factor Model FFM developed by Lewis Goldberg is an appealing model of use within the personality literature and research as it integrates an extensive collection of personality variables to a common language and framework for personality researchers. It also provides a comprehensive overview of the factors that are made up of individual differences. It utilizes a global description of personality along with the individual five factors which provide a wealth of information that is not too overwhelming or too brief (McCrae & John, 1992). Based on these reasons and the vast empirical support and validation of the FFM, it emerges as a strong model in which to study individuals’ personality characteristics. The Big Five/FFM is of relevance as it was developed to represent as much of the variability in individuals’ personalities as possible, using only a small set of trait dimensions. Many personality psychologists agree that its five domains capture the most important, basic individual differences in personality traits and that many alternative trait models can be conceptualized in terms of the Big Five/FFM structure. The Big Five Model demonstrates that the human personality comprises of five reasonably self-determining dimensions which gives a significant and complete taxonomy for reviewing the individual’s dissimilarities, and provide the actual core in the human nature due to the dissimilarities (McCrae & Costa, 1987). McCrae and Costa (2008) postulate that the five factors as defined by the FFM form the highest level of the personality hierarchy. The validity of the FFM has been well established in predicting deviant behaviors and other work related outcomes like job performance and career success (Witt 2002). 35 Resulting from the prior experiential effort made by Cattell (1943), the Big Five Model illustrates that personality encompasses of five rationally self-determining measurements which gives a substantial and whole classification for assessing the individual’s differences and offer the authentic principal in the human nature owing to the differences. The five orthogonal personality factors which the Five Factor Model focused on are stability, extraversion, and openness to experience, conscientiousness and agreeableness (Howard & Howard, 2001). Openness to familiarity is associated with qualities such as an ability to imagine and curiosity. The facets of openness to experience include aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, fantasy, and values. High openness individuals are usually very artistic and amenable to new concepts and events. Individuals low on openness to experience are usually conservative though and their range of interests are typically narrower and they tend to be more down to earth. Neuroticism (the opposite of stability) characterizes individuals as depressed and anxious. The six facets of neuroticism include depression, self-conscientiousness, impulsiveness, vulnerability anxiety and angry hostility. Individuals high on neuroticism tend to experience negative feelings very strongly and have trouble curbing these feelings when they arise. Low scorers on neuroticism are characteristically more constant in their experience of emotions, calmer and tranquility in the midst of pressure and have a tendency to easy back to outrage. They for the most part, trust their ability to deal with unpleasant circumstances and do not disguise cumbersome social circumstances. Extraversion describes someone as being sociable and talkative. The six facets of extraversion consist of warmth, activity, excitement seeking, gregariousness, assertiveness, and positive emotions. High extraversion scorers like it better when surrounded by people, being in the 36 limelight and recurrently participate in thrill-seeking behaviours. Low scorers on extraversion are more withdrawn or modest in nature. Agreeable individuals are usually cooperative, cheerful, and supportive. Individuals who are agreeable tend to be more straightforward and tolerant by nature. The six facets of agreeableness are straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modest, tender-mindedness. Agreeable individuals tend to look for the best in every person they encounter and hold loyalty with an uppermost standard. People scoring low on agreeableness tend to be extra distrustful of the motivations of the people they come across. They are quite pessimistic and cynical about the world around them, and they are prepared to use obsequiousness or shrewdness to gain favor from others. Conscientiousness is expressed as being trustworthy, loyal, hardworking, and achievement-oriented. Conscientiousness has six facets which include dutifulness, achievement striving, deliberation, competency, order, and self-discipline. High conscientiousness scorers are usually reliable, hardworking, trust the organisation profoundly and make use of systematic tactics to accomplish their goals. People low on conscientiousness are extremely impulsive, easy-going and shy away from plans and concrete strategies. Individual personality characteristics such as emotional stability and conscientiousness have surfaced as constant and strong predictors of a variety of sentimental reactions and behavioural outcomes unfolding to a job and/or workplace (Kumar & Bakhshi, 2010; Sutherland, De Bruin & Crous, 2007). Therefore, it can be argued that people behave in different ways because of their diverse personality behaviours which later affect their behaviours. For example, two workers 37 working in a similar setting might have diverse levels of engagement which can be attributed to their diverse personality qualities. This theory is the main theory of the study for personality and has been interpreted into numerous dialects and applied in several cultures, ensuing investigations that not only affirms its rationality as a personality theory but also confirms its rationality worldwide. Thus, it will be used for the study to understand how people with different personality types behave differently in the same situations which will lead to job engagement or disengagement. 2.4 Conclusion In summation, this chapter provided the theoretical framework of the study variables. The theories helped to get a further inside on the concept of job engagement and personality. The next chapter will discuss the big five personality traits. 38 CHAPTER 3: PERSONALITY 3.1 Introduction According to the American Psychological Association personality are comprises of an individual’s relatively constant feelings, thoughts, and behavioural patterns (APA, 2017). Choudhry and Zafar (2017), pointed out that personality traits signify the most significant qualities that mold the social landscape of individuals. This study will focus on the big five personality traits which are extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness (Gurven, von Rueden, Massenkoff, Kaplan, & Vie, 2013). They are the utmost satisfactory personality assessment (Gurven et al., 2013). Studying personality is unending within an employee’s conduct and outlook to envisage authentic behavioural intents (Sahi & Mahajan, 2014). 3.2 South Africa view on Personality Tests In South Africa, while psychological tests have been utilised, the change from apartheid to a comprehensive independent regime in 1994 has driven the need to develop advanced recruitment processes. The practice of psychological tests in South Africa for employment use such as for selection and recruitment still has mixed sentiments as some acknowledged the process whilst others are still sceptical (Nzama, De Beer & Visser, 2008). After South Africa gained its democracy certain legislation were passed such as the Labour Relations Act of (1995) (LRA) and the Employment Equity Act of (1998) (EEA). The former Act duty-bound organisations to have precise unbiassed standards by which interviewees for a job are assessed while the latter Act forbids personality tests until proven to be valid, consistent, impartially and unprejudiced towards some employees. 39 Preceding to the introduction of South African labour Acts, organisations hired employees they wanted without using any criteria for applicants’ appointment (Nzama et al., 2008). According to Mauer (2000) observed that before the introduction of EEA, personality assessment was entirely prohibited, nevertheless, the Labour Committee was convinced to adjust it than bar it totally. Through these acts development of psychological tests in South Africa has been put under the limelight, mainly its relation to the cultural relevance and application (Van de Vijver & Rothmann, 2004). In 2014 the EEA amendment became effective which allowed all evaluation tools used when choosing the right candidate for the job to be permitted by the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) (Employment Equity Act of 2013). This allowed every company which used psychometric assessments as their selection criteria must certify that their assessments are permitted by HPCSA. The continuous trials for individuals in charge of staffing are on the technique of choosing the finest applicants for the job position (Urbina, 2004). Psychometrics assessments are accredited with assisting the organisation in the selection, placement and human capital processes (Van der Merwe, 2002). Personality test utilization when choosing a job candidate has extremely increased in South Africa as shown by many studies done in this regard (Rothmann & Coetzer, 2003; Van Der Linde, 2005; Forbes, 2006; Visser & Viviers, 2010; Blignaut, 2011; Davis, 2013). 3.3 History and Development of Trait Theory Trait theory was developed in three phases with the first phase being the early trait theories with Allport and Odbert (1936) as core contributors. The second phase was the discovery of the big five personality traits with Fiske (1949), Tupes and Christal (1961), Norman (1963) and Goldberg 40 (1990) as core contributors. The last phase involved the further advancement of the big five by Costa and McCrae (1992a). Allport and Odbert (1936) were amongst the first psychologists to conduct personality studies by means of the lexical method. Allport (1937) articulated personality psychology as the study of an individual and defined personality as “the dynamic organisation within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustment to his environment” (Allport, 1937, p. 26), which later changed to “characteristic behaviour and thought” (Allport, 1961, p. 82). Allport and Odbert (1936) used an English dictionary to assemble words that may perhaps be utilised to recognize the conduct of an individual from another. The words come to 17 953 one word descriptor term which was divided into main groups with 4504 traits each. Cattell (1943) narrowed down the 4 504 terms to 171 descriptors using the factor analysis and with the use of correlation analysis, he lessened them to 60 terms. Further by means of factor analysis with semantic and trial clustering Cattell (1943) reduced them up to 35 bipolar traits (Ewen, 2010). These 35 bipolar traits were later reduced to his 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire (Cattell, Eber & Tatsuoka, 1970). In the second phase of realizing the Big Five personality traits, Fiske (1949) created 22 basic characters from Cattell’s (1947) 35 bipolar traits through self-ratings, peer assessments and specialists’ scores. From the 22 terms identified, Tupes and Christal (1961) through association matrices found 5 strong recurring factors that lead to the foundation of the big five traits that sum-ups various personality features (John & Srivastava, 1999). Norman (1963) like Fiske also used Cattell’s 35 terms and came up with firstly 2800 one word descriptors followed by 1431 items, 75 items until he sorted them into the big five traits (Norman, 1967). Same with Goldberg (1990) he 41 reached the same conclusion of having big five traits when he used Norman’s (1967) 75 items though he found 1710 traits adjectives at first. On the third stage, investigators carried out a meta-analysis of numerous personality lists (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson & Rothstein, 1991; Salgado, 1997; Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007; Clarke & Robertson, 2008; Prinzie, Stams, Dekovic, Reijntjes & Belsky, 2009; Pace & Brannick, 2010). They all agreed on the practicability and validity of the FFM to be used as a test for personality hence the development of numerous personality instruments. 3.4 Personality Defined Personality is a confounded and multi-faceted phenomenon and though it has numerous definitions no common consent has been achieved concerning personality definition. While the contentions on the definition of personality might never end it can be regarded from two standpoints, the human nature and individual variances (Grobler, 2014). The table below shows the various definitions that have been put forward in trying to understand personality. Table 2: Definitions of Personality Author(s) Personality definition Morton Prince (1929) Personality includes the biological innate characters, instincts, inclinations, appetites and instincts of the individual. 42 Allport (1937, p. 26) Personality is the dynamic collection inside a person’s psychophysical system that regulate how an individual adjustment to the environment. Catell (1950b, p. 2) Personality is that which provide forecast of what an individual will do in every situation. Eysenck (1959) Personality is the constant and lasting aspects of a person’s character nature, interact and physique which governs how one adjust to the environment. Munn (1961) Personality may be defined as " the most characteristic integration of an individual structure, modes of behaviour, interest attitudes and abilities and aptitudes, especially from the point of adjustment in social situations". Guilford (1967) Personality is the unique patterns of traits. A trait is a relatively enduring characteristic in behaviour and though which differentiate one individual from another. Maddi (1968) Personality are features and inclinations that establish those commonalties and variances. Mischel (1986) Personality refers to the distinctive patterns of behaviours that characterize everyone’s adaptation to the situations in life. 43 Buskist and Gerbing, (1990) Personality are behaviours patterns and thinking dominant across time and situations that separate one individual from another. Carver and Scheier (2000) Personality is the psychophysical structures that generate an individual’s character. Robbins (2001) Personality is how individual reacts to and interacts with others. Assael (2002, p. 124) Personality are characteristics that reflect steady, lasting behaviour pattern. Funder (2004, p. 5) Personality involves a person’s forms of thought, feeling and behaviours combined with the psychological structures behind those patterns. Ryckman (2004) Personality refers to an organized established individual aspect that influences one’s cognitions, motivations, and behaviour. Larsen and Buss (2005) Personality are the individual’s inner characters and mechanisms organised and relatively enduring that influence interactions. Pervin, Cervone & John (2005, p. 6) Personality refers an individual characteristic that account for constant patterns of feelings, thinking, and behaving 44 McAdams (2006, p. 2): Personality involves an individual’s whole perception and attention, cognition and memory. Mayer (2007) Personality are individual evolving system that characterizes the communal action of that person’s key psychological patterns. Blythe (2008, p. 73) Personality is the gathering of one’s features that make an individual different and regulates how that person respond to environment. Barenbaum & Winter, (2008) Personality is a person’s exclusive and constant patterns of traits and associated behavioural tendencies Kotler and Keller (2009, p. 197) Personality are human psychological traits leading to constant and lasting responses to environment. Schiffman and Kanuk (2010, p. 136) Personality are innermost characteristics that govern and replicate how an individual respond to environment Solomon (2011, p. 240) Personality is a person’s only psychological attribute which constantly impacts how one responds to the environment 45 Ryckman (2012, p. 4) Personality is a set of features possessed by an individual which have an impact on their thoughts, inspirations, and conduct in countless circumstances Revelle (2013) Personality is the lucid pattern of affect, thought, and needs that lead to behaviour. Ewen (2014, p. 4) Personality are the unchanging features inside an individual that explains constant patterns of behaviour. Oxford Dictionary (2015) Personality is the grouping of qualities that form a person’s distinguishing character. Schultz and Schultz (2016) Personality is the exclusive, steady core and peripheral characteristics of an individual’s charisma that impact conduct. APA (2017) Personality is the individual pattern variances of rational, emotions, and behaving 3.5 Big Five Personality Traits Personality articulate human behaviour which shape how an individual response and interact in numerous live events and adjust to the environment (Morris, 2000). Personality is defined as person’s attitude which influences their passion, inspiration, mental and keenness of the mind to 46 respond in a specific manner (Homa, Hackathorn, Brown, Garczynski, Solomon, Tennial, Sanborn & Gurung, 2013). Each personality trait shows a person’s individuality, capability and variances in accomplishing personal objectives, improving performance and society adaptation (Homa et al., 2013). Personality might be understood from two perspectives, ideographic or nomothetic paradigm (Grobler, 2014). Ideographic perspective is focused on personality as an individual and how circumstantial variable affects how people behave. The nomothetic paradigm deals with individual discrepancies characters (Chamorro- Premuzic, 2007) or the human mind common law (Dumont, 2010). The trait approach accentuates on the concrete, emotional personality features, which leads to trait philosophers to regard personality as the continuous and unalterable character to reason, sense and perform, irrespective of the circumstances (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2014). The FFM is easy and straightforward to comprehend and it helps to work out the significance of personality and individual success on an international level (Rita, 2000). The five-factor model has been utilised across cultures (McCrae & John, 1992). The FFM has been highly praised due to its applicability throughout different cultures when attempting to measure personality from individuals of varied upbringings (Cervone & Pervin, 2008). The traits have been verified to be applicable in the South African settings (Taylor, 2008). It is imperative to take note that big five traits are constant. Big five personality trait research information (Costa & McCrae, 1993; McCrae, Costa, Ostendorf, Angleitner, Hrebickova, Sanz et al., 2000) proposed that traits fluctuates to some extent amongst 20 and 30-year-old but is astonishingly constant 30 years of age. Secondly, big five personality traits are unbiased as they 47 are well-suited for everyday circumstances (McCrae et al., 2000, p. 175). Thirdly, big five personalities are quasi-normally dispersed (McCrae, 2006). Fourthly, the big five traits can be linked to the cultural backgrounds. Albeit personality is expected to be genetic (McCrae et al., 2000) however, cultural customs can impact how individual personality traits are developed. Lastly, personality and work accomplishment are possibly linked. Despite the fact that individual personality does not guarantee job accomplishment, some traits offer the vigour required for the advancement of definite work capabilities (Howard & Howard, 2001b). The Big Five traits are utmost imperative for the attainment of a abstract, hypothetical understanding of the big five traits, gaining knowledge on how diverse trait are connected and how different study outcomes are linked to each other. Since personality plays such a substantial part in a person’s understanding of the world and clarifies a lot of human behaviour (Bergh & Theron 2003; Pervin & Cervone, 2010) it is vital to comprehend the different personality types and understand why certain individuals act contrarily in parallel situations and work settings. Everyone has a unique personality that separates one from another, and understanding an individual’s personality can give inklings on how that individual is likely to act and feel in a variety of circumstances (Alanoud & Amir, 2016.) Individuals act in different ways in similar situations and evaluate situations in a different way based on their distinguishing prospects, values, preceding experiences and disposition (Ahangar, 2010). It is a behaviour which distinguishes people (Beer & Brooks, 2011) and offers insight on whether an individual will perform specific work in contrast to others (Sackett, Gruys & Ellingson, 2002). 48 In studying personality some scholars have been able to extract some of its features that personality is cohesive and self-serving (Blythe, 2008); unique and shows individual variances (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2010); consistent (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2010; Gharibpoor & Amiri, 2012); multiply expressed and can change (Franzoi, 2002; Schiffman & Kanuk, 2010). Numerous researches have studied the link between traits and numerous work behaviours. Investigators discovered that the big five traits are correlated with proactive (King, George, & Hebl, 2005) and counterproductive behaviours (Lee, Ashton, & Shin, 2005; Mount, Ilies, Johnson, 2006). For instance, King et al. (2005) found that conscientiousness collaborated with agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability interrelated to proactive behaviours thereby increasing helping behaviours such as job engagement. Several organisational environments and variables have been studied when examining job engagement and according to Zaidi et al. (2013) personality traits plays a role in job engagement. Personality traits have not been extensively explored in studies concerning job engagement of municipal workers. Having this knowledge is advantageous to the organisation as personality assessments improve hiring decisions (Hogan, 2005). Hence, in the present thesis, the big five personality traits which could influence work behaviours were selected and administered to partakers. The knowledge obtained could be valuable to organisations for selection, training, placement and career development. This study focused on the big five traits shown in Table 3.2 below. 49 Table 3: The Big Five Personality Traits Trait Trait scales Trait facets Characteristics of the high scorer Characteristics of the low scorer Extraversion (E) Assesses quantity and intensity of interpersonal interaction, activity level, need for stimulation and capacity for joy. Warmth Gregariousness Assertiveness Activity Excitement-seeking Positive emotions Sociable, active, talkative, person-oriented, optimistic, fun-loving, affectionate Reserved, sober, not exuberant, aloof, task-oriented, retiring, quiet Agreeableness (A) Soft-hearted, good-natured, gullible, supportive, lenient, naive, candid Trust Compliance Altruism Straightforwardness Modesty Tender-mindedness Soft-hearted, good-natured, gullible, supportive, forgiving, gullible, straightforward Cynical, rude, suspicious, unhelpful, vengeful, ruthless, irritable, manipulative Conscientiousness (C) Assesses the individual’s persistence and motivation. Contrasts reliable, demanding individuals with those Competence Order Dutifulness Achievement-striving Self-discipline Ordered, consistent, hard-working, self-disciplined, prompt, honorable, immaculate, determined, tenacious Aimless, unreliable, lazy, careless, lax, negligent, weak-willed, hedonistic 50 who are careless and disordered. Deliberation Neuroticism (N) Assesses adjustment versus Emotional instability, recognizes individuals susceptible to to mental anguish, impractical ideas, undue longings and dysfunctional coping responses Anxiety Hostility Depression Self-consciousness Impulsiveness Vulnerability Worrying, nervous, emotional, insecure, inadequate, hypochondriacally Calm, relaxed, unemotional, hardy, secure, self-satisfied. Openness (O) Assesses pre-emptive seeking and enjoyment of experience, open-mindedness for and eagerness of the unfamiliar. Fantasy Aesthetics Feelings Actions Ideas Values Curious, broad interests, creative, original imaginative, not traditional conventional, unartistic, unanalytical Source: Costa and McCrae, cited in Cervone and Pervin (2008) 3.5.1 Emotional Stability- Neuroticism According to Taylor & De Bruin (2006) neuroticism refers to an individual’s emotional stability and the overall predisposition to experience adverse effect to the environment. Neuroticism signifies a how individuals differ in modification and emotional stability. They tend to undergo 51 negative feelings, impetuosity, despair and apprehension. (Zhao & Seibert, 2006) and have a tendency of being easily distressed and are delicate to disparagement. They frequently experience feelings of guilt, grief, fruitlessness, anxiety and tautness, and are passionately unpredictable (Maltby, Day & Macaskill, 2010; Taylor & De Bruin, 2006; Millon, Million, Meagher, Grossman & Ramnath, 2012) and are effortlessly angered and insecure (Lebowitz, 2016a). Neuroticism traits facets such include anxiety, anger, despair, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and helplessness. Individual scoring high on neuroticism generally experiences compulsive unease, anguish, and other negative displays (Fischer & Boer, 2014; Curtis, Windsor, & Soubelet, 2015; Paulus, Vanwoerden, Norton & Sharp, 2016). It is a probable aspect in emotional and personality disorders, backing up Eysenck’s position that psychoticism, extraversion, and neuroticism conquered the personality traits (Barlow, Sauer-Zavala, Carl, Bullis, & Ellard, 2014). Individuals with high neuroticism are usually unhappy, nervous, insecure, and unbalanced versus emotional stability that typifies individuals as being controlled, self-assured, and steady (McCrae & John, 1992). Individuals very lofty in neuroticism experience a handful of struggles at their workplaces such as having difficulties creating and keeping relations and they are less likely to go to other people for counselling and friendship. In contrast, individuals low in neuroticism have a propensity to have positive moods regularly than negative attitudes. They have a tendency to become more devoted to their corporations and much more satisfied with their jobs (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000). Neurotic individuals have propensities to evade circumstances that involve a high level of control, social ability and trust as they have a tendency to have a negative perception towards day to day occasions (Driskell, Goodwin, Salas & O’Shea, 2006; Smillie, Yeo, Furnham & Jackson, 2006). 52 Individuals with low levels of emotional stability have a habit being self-protective and guarded, experience negative perception of themselves, stress over others' evaluations of them, and have a tendency to form endless, internal, world provenances on negative things (Barrick et al., 2013; Robbins & Judge, 2015). Emotionally stable individuals are more assured, calm, and skilled in handling demanding situations (Bruck & Allen, 2003; Kandler, 2012). They are more settled and sure rather than on edge and shaky (eSilva & Laher, 2012; Metzer, De Bruin & Adams, 2014). Emotional constancy is utmost unequivocally associated with lifetime fulfillment, work fulfillment and lower feelings of anxiety. Neurotic people somewhat put themselves in circumstances that produce some antagonistic effects (Judge et al., 2002) such as disengagement, impractical reasoning (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007), and less quest for new employment self-adequacy. Since neurotic people have a habit of harping on antagonistic things (Bono & Judge, 2004), they might regard impartial occasions as challenging (Duffy, Shaw, Scott, & Tepper, 2006), and are inclined to temperament outrage (Watson, Clark & Harkness, 1994), experiencing inferior welfare, more tension (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006), additional exhaustion, and meager relationship fulfillment with connections (White, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 2004). Neurotic individuals usually consider any type of feedback as a risk that produces apprehension and excessively intense stimuli (Smither, London & Richmond, 2005). For example, if the feedback is negative it increases their anxiety which leads to having fewer chances to study new skills, express originality in their tasks and make their own choices during their vocation. Whilst neuroticism if often associated with poor connotations, some of the facets are critical for people to have in reasonable quantities, such as being susceptible, impetuous and insecure. At the 53 same time having excessive high scores in these 3 facets have undesirable consequences, they do signify a significant share of normal human behaviour. For instance, to be self-aware indicates one owns cognizance that is vital for networking with other people at home and at the workplace. 3.5.2 Extraversion- Introversion Even though individuals are recognized almost 2500 years ago as ranging at a certain level on behavioural scopes resembling extraversion, it was not until Jung (Jung, 1921/1971) that the terms extraversion and introversion were recognized as popular psychology terminology. Jung (1921) believed that introverts fixate more on their personal internal world whereas extraverts employ their vigour outwardly in the world surrounding them. Extraversion trait refers to people who are usually confident and to pursue social relationships as well as to revel in optimistic sentiments (Curtis et al., 2015; Metzer et al., 2014; Parks-Leduc, Feldman & Bardi, 2014). According to Watson, Stasik, Ellickson-Larew and Stanton (2015) positive emotionality, sociability, boldness and experience seeking are the underlying extraversion facets. Individuals high in extraversion are often the life of a party and seek out opportunities for social interaction. They feel comfortable around others, outgoing, friendly, talkative, confident and they are susceptible to action rather than observing (Lebowitz, 2016a). Extraverts are usually searching for social attention and spending most of their time among other people entertaining (Kandler, 2012; Smillie et al. 2015). People who have low extraversion ratings are usually people of few words, quiet, thoughtful, keep to themselves and thoughtful (McCrae & John, 1992). Being an extrovert is a good quality for leaders’ success in organisation due to their being assertive (Zopiatis & Constanti, 2012). Extroverts are friendly, chatty, assured, active (Srivatava, 2013; Zopiatis & Constanti, 2012; Smillie, DeYoung & Hall, 2015) and are fond of competition 54 (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Consiglio, Picconi & Zimbardo, 2003). Introverts are not necessarily unfriendly but are rather more reserved and self-sufficient (Costa & Widiger, 1994). It characterizes a comfort level with being in the company of others as contradicted to being more comfortable when being alone as would be the case for somebody who is more introverted (Rushdi, 2014). Extraverts are also committed to being rash, talkative, and unconstrained (McCrae & Allik, 2012). Extraversion personality is regarded as a product of variances in people’s nervous and physical mechanisms (Ashton, 2013). Contrary to introverts, extravert individuals respond more efficiently. People of that kind often make use of their work situation to symbolize a vital aspect of their lives that permits them to achieve their goals and demonstrate their capacities (Hurley, 1998). Smithikrai (2007) discovers a positive correlation between job success and extraversion, particularly in jobs that need interpersonal contact. Extraverts tend to be happy, have a rich social life, are satisfied with their relationship, and choose jobs which have a social component (Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006). Being high on the extraversion trait is valuable especially to individuals who work in sales and management works were persuading people is an important aspect of the job (Barrick, Mount & Judge, 2001; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Additionally, extraverts endeavor to acquire ranks and rewards at work which will intensify their performance (Barrick, Stewart & Piotrowski, 2002). Individuals with high extroversion scores they usually need social relations and consideration (Fischer & Boer, 2014). Robbins and Judge (2015) state that extraverts are normally better off in their jobs and at home. They have a tendency to do well at work when it requires close dealings with other people leading to higher job satisfaction and performance. Wihler, Meurs, Momm, John, 55 and Blickle (2017) discovered that individuals high on extraversion and conscientiousness when equated to the overall populace interrelated with job performance. Outgoing individuals regulate emotions by looking for socio-emotional care and exhibiting less emotional inconsistency (Kokkonen & Pulkkinen, 2001), and makes use of adaptive emotional guideline tactics (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010). At the workplace therefore, extroverts are likely to be seen as reliable by others due to their sociability hence they will experience pleasing relations with other people which makes on the job experience enjoyable. Likewise, it has been proposed that as they accomplish higher social coordination, outgoing people encounter more embeddedness in the association (Zimmerman, 2008). Therefore, from the above, it can be noted that extraverts strive to obtain recognition and status as this will help them in their social networking. If they are recognized by their peers it increases their social levels as they feel important and valued in the organisation. Hence, extraverts tend to have more friends, seek interpersonal interactions and employ more time in social settings than do introverts as they find it more rewarding. 3.5.3 Openness to experience- Closeness to experience High in openness to experience individuals are usually individuals who love learning, likes fine arts, participates in an artistic profession, and enjoys meeting new people (Lebowitz, 2016a). Openness to experience is when individuals are inclined to be artistic and inquisitive (Curtis et al., 2015; Metzer et al., 2014). A person with low in openness prefer repetitive over diversity and favours a reduced amount of abstract arts and entertainment. As indicated by Costa and McCrae (1992), openness to experience comprises the tendency to fantasize, know about one's feelings, a fondness for originality, affect ability to craftsmanship and 56 excellence, intellectual inquisitiveness and tend to be generous in principles. Openness to experience manifests as inventiveness, innovativeness, interest, and stylish gratefulness and infers a readiness to embrace novel and eccentric mindsets and carrying on. Within the FFM structure it is conceptualized along six facets which are actions, ideas, fantasy, aesthetics, feelings and values (eSilva & Laher, 2012; Judge et al., 2013). They enjoy travelling, having different interests, various occupational interests and companions who share comparable tastes. Individuals high in openness are often creative, knowledgeable and open-minded, systematic, insightful, and have divergent thinking (Kerr & McKay, 2013). They are anticipated to be more discerning, smart, reasonable and analytical (McCrae & Sutin, 2009; Judge & Zapata, 2015), and tend to grasp and comprehend unversed facts (Watanabe, Tareq & Kanazawa, 2011). Openness is used to describe an individual’s breadth, depth, originality and complexity of his or her experiences and mental perceptions (Costa, & Widiger, 2002; Mcabee & Oswald, 2013). People with lofty levels of openness to experience are expected to be immersed to accomplish because this trait gives room for employees to discern new conditions and ideas, and add a contribution to their personal ideas regarding organisational effectiveness. Those who are at a low level of openness are likely to steer clear of carrying out their jobs, deciding on upholding the status quo in their performance. Individuals low in openness to experience tend to value clear, unambiguous ethical conventions and rules describing how the world ought to function (Sibley, Harding, Perry, Asbrock, & Duckett 2010). People high in openness appear to flourish in circumstances that need adaptability and mastering new things. They are deeply galvanized to find out new talents, and they excel in training situations (Barrick & Mount, 1991) as they are inquisitive and relish increasing additional learning. They 57 have an additional advantage once they join a new workplace attributable to their open-mindedness they can quickly adjust to the new job (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller 2000). Open individuals are extremely flexible to change which is essential in jobs that experience unanticipated changes (LePine, 2003). This may be because open people are satisfied with jobs that allow them to be innovative and acquire new skills (Furnham, Petrides, Tsaousis, Pappas & Garrod, 2005). This may be applied in the case of the public sector which experience changes due to the market and inflation rates, hence the need for open employees to be creative and be open-minded to change. Individuals open to experience are believed to use humour when they are stressed and tend to consider traumatic conditions as less threatening (Bakker, van Emmerik, & Euwema, 2006). High openness might prompt job proficiency as a result of work that allows employees to satisfy their curiousness, discover new things, and develop genuine interests in their jobs. The possible disadvantage of being high in openness is that they can easily get bored or exasperated with monotonous. One can argue that the degree to which open employees are satisfied depends on the job itself. If the jobs involve routine work they will be easily bored as their jobs do not allow them to be innovative and creative. High openness is significant in jobs that need originality and adaptability such as marketing or research occupations. Nevertheless, some occupations reward repetitive work, and a person low in openness may find these jobs more rewarding as creativity is not needed or desired. Individuals with closeness to experience are usually realistic, emotionally shallow and down to earth. They do things in the way they are accustomed to and they are not inquisitive and they do 58 not contest old principles (Onraet, Van Hiel, Roets & Cornelis, 2011; Shane, Cherkas, Spector & Nicolaou, 2010). 3.5.4 Agreeableness- Rudeness. People high in agreeableness are usually treasured, respected, and they are sensitive to other people’s needs. They are compassionate, affectionate, sympathetic to strangers’ predicaments and have few opponents (Lebowitz, 2016a). Agreeable individuals are kind, sympathetic and tender (Fazeli, 2012) and are associated with unselfishness, and prosocial conduct (Gerber, Huber, Doherty, Dowling, Raso & Ha, 2011; Gerlach, Herpertz & Loeber, 2015; Curtis et al., 2015). Individuals scoring low in agreeableness are viewed by others as untrustworthy because they are usually uncaring, impolite, ill-tempered, aggressive, and cynical. Granted not all individuals who with low scoring in agreeableness are harsh however they will probably leave others with an insincere fuzzy sensation. Agreeableness is an estimation of how likely somebody is collaborating with other people, based on both correspondence and the person’s demeanour (Bradley, Baur, Banford, & Postlethwaite, 2013). Agreeableness is perfect with the inspirational perspectives and practices designed to help others (Bjǿrkelo, Einarsen & Matthiesen, 2010; Parks-Leduc et al., 2014). Agreeableness sub facets included trust, uprightness, altruism, acquiescence, humility, and tender-mindedness or compassion (Matsumoto & Juang, 2012). The level of agreeableness in an individual is one of the primary determinants of how they will associate with others and the extent to which they regard relationship (Myers, Sen & Alexandrov, 2010). They are perfect for starting and sustaining a relationship as they place a high value on the relationship. They tend to encounter a reduced number of disputes, whereas low agreeable 59 individuals are less lenient which makes them not go along easily with other people (Bono, Boles, Judge & Lauver,2002). Agreeable employees consider personal relations meticulously, such they offer a lot of productive responses to clients and to their work. Considering their tendency, they are useful and they need others to flourish hence they are gentle when they are dealing with others. Agreeableness, openness and extraversion traits can predict of work behaviour, but only on explicit tasks (Barrick & Mount, 2005) such as an agreeableness individual will thrive in a job which emphasized interpersonal relationships (Barrick et al.,2001; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Employees with high agreeableness are usually helpful and pardoning, rule followers, and act with all respect to surpass. Therefore, agreeableness offers an effective predictor of standards that relate to clients (Mount et al., 2006), as they thoughtful of another individual’s wellbeing (Ashton & Lee, 2001). The value of consumer services as an esteemed attribute of employees appears seemingly to increase in the future, seeing the numerous internal clients that contemporary staff should assist, such as marketing and sales divisions, as well as the drive towards an ever-increasing incorporation of labor with other company roles (Lounsbury, Moffitt, Gibson, Drost & Stevens, 2007). Two systems may become possibly the most important factors in how agreeableness individuals adapt to feelings in relational circumstances: they experience and display compassionate sentiments and they try to control feelings that have rapport consequences (Tobin, Graziano, Vanman & Tassinary, 2000). At the workplace, agreeable employees can regulate sentiments to uphold pleasant relations, they may endorse a welcoming atmosphere, encourage group cohesiveness, and appreciate other people’s thoughtfulness, bringing about their being acknowledged as imperative and reliable organisational employees. 60 People scoring low in agreeableness are unlikely to exhibit positive behaviours. Disagreeable individuals are known to refrain from their jobs unpredictably, possibly in reaction to an argument with a boss or a co-worker (Zimmerman, 2008). They aspire ruthlessly to their own self-intrigue interests while showing negligible worries about whether these interests may impact or strife with another person's prosperity (Sibley et al., 2010). These individuals view the world as a rivalry where money is power and winning is everything. They also have an inclination to unbending thinking and behaviour; they experience difficulty adjusting and shifting their practices (Little, Lecci & Watkinson, 1992). Individuals low in agreeableness therefore, tend to value power, display signs of prejudice and are sensitive to circumstances that may cause rivalry. Individuals high in agreeableness, on the other hand, are tender-minded and usually less ruthless in competitive circumstances when attempting to attain self-interest goals (Sibley et al., 2010). Disagreeable individuals are self-centered and are generally indifferent towards other people’s welfare hence they are not likely to extend themselves for other people (Rushdi, 2014). Occasionally their cynicism about other people’s motives impales them to be mistrustful, antagonistic and uncooperative. 3.5.5 Conscientiousness- Undependability Conscientiousness refers to the level of effectiveness and competence within an individual with which he/she schedules, monitors, and perform tasks (Taylor & De Bruin, 2006). It incorporates a person's level of self-restraint, dutifulness, determination, carefulness, and desire for success (Maltby et al., 2010; Taylor & De Bruin, 2006). Barrick and Mount (2005) clarified that conscientiousness was symbolic of loyalty, accountable and having a will to follow guidelines which beneficially affected most jobs. 61 Conscientiousness has sub-facets of tidiness, industriousness, gracefulness, sanitation, and planfulness (Roberts, Lejuez, Krueger, Richards, & Hill, 2014). Bakker, Demerouti, and Lieke (2012) discovered that high conscientiousness employees were associated with high levels of job engagement and continuous education. Lin, Ma, Wang, and Wang (2015) also discovered that conscientiousness is associated with high performance even in a stressful situation that can be viewed as challenging. Conscientiousness is a dimension most closely linked to an individual’s will to achieve and is often perceived as performance-related (Poropat, 2009; Mcabee & Oswald, 2013). Conscientiousness has been described as an impulse control factor that aids in task and goal-oriented behaviours such as self-efficacy, organisation, competence, self-discipline, deliberation, prioritizing tasks, following rules and thinking before acting (Costa & Widiger, 2002; John, Naumann & Soto, 2008; Mcabee & Oswald, 2013; Trapmann, Hell, Hirn & Schuler, 2007). Conscientiousness makes individuals to have socially impulse management that assists employees to accomplish their jobs effortlessly (Costantini, Richetin, Borsboom, Fried, Rhemtulla & Perugini, 2015). High conscientiousness people are usually regarded by other people as being reliable, accountable and trustworthy (Alarcon, Eschleman & Bowling, 2009). Generally, conscientiousness is positively related to religiosity, risk aversion, satisfaction with the family, and success at work (Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006). Employees high in conscientiousness can manipulate stressors as less dramatic. Individuals high in conscientiousness prompt more positive reactions from their managers than individuals with low conscientiousness (Alarcon et al., 2009). Conscientiousness unvaryingly envisages just how high an individual’s performance is across a numerous of professions and careers (Barrick, & Mount, 1991). This may be so because even in 62 different jobs employees must be organized and goal oriented when performing their task, which leads to career success, job engagement and job satisfaction. Conscientiousness is a most wanted trait by recruiters and they tend to flourish in interviews (Dunn, Mount, Barrick, & Ones, 1995). Once appointed, conscientious individuals not only will they do well, but they are keen to perform which will lead to less turnover and nonattendance (Judge, & Ilies, 2002). Conscientious people are usually successful in learning institution and in their vocation, surpass in management roles, and to relentlessly follow their objectives with resolve and foresight (Lebowitz, 2016a). Although conscientiousness is task-based, it accentuates objective accomplishment. An individual employee identifies the significance of achieving an objective and exhausts fiery, tolerant, and untiring endeavours (Burch & Anderson, 2004) to acquire fulfilment from accomplishing the task efficiently. Low conscientiousness rather proposes the employee attempts to meet only immediate demands and not give attention to future results, lacks an understanding of objectives, wrongly observes instructions (Arthur & Doverspike, 2001) or standards required and performs their duties inadequately (Wallace & Vodanovich, 2003). Employees low in conscientiousness are therefore disorganized, untrustworthy and less reliable. 3.6 Demographics and Personality This section focuses on demographics and their relationship with the big five personality traits. 3.6.1 Gender Many researchers found a different relationship between gender and personality traits. In a study conducted by Mueller and Plug (2006) found that openness and emotional stability are correlated to male while female personnel are associated with conscientiousness and openness. It was noted that agreeableness or resentment differed between men and women. 63 According to Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae (2001) in their study female employees indicated high levels of neuroticism, agreeableness and openness to experience while male employees indicated high levels of assertiveness and openness to ideas. As women are generally considered to be nurturing they are expected to score high on agreeableness personality trait (Larsen & Buss, 2008). In a study by Costa et al. (2001) in terms of extraversion, men recorded high on excitement seeking whereas scored high on warmth facet. Studies on gender differences and conscientiousness are infrequent however, Feingold (1994) found in seven studies that female employees scored marginally high than men in conscientiousness. Women scored higher than men in neuroticism (Costa et al., 2001; Lynn & Martin, 1997; Ross & Van Willigen, 1996). More recent studies report that females score higher on agreeableness and conscientiousness than men (Rahafar, Castellana, Randler & Antunez, 2017). In the same vein, Bajwa et al. (2017) confirm that the difference between males and females, in terms of the impact of different personality traits on cognitive adaptability, is mainly about two personality traits which are extraversion and neuroticism. According to Kajonius (2018) a self-rated personalities of men and women differ more in more gender-equal countries, according to recent research from the University of Gothenburg, University West and the University of Skövde. A sample of over 130,000 people from 22 different countries filled in a validated big five personality test. Countries with very high levels of gender equality, such as Sweden and Norway, showed differences in personality between the sexes that were around twice as large as countries with substantially lower levels of gender equality, such as China and Malaysia. Furthermore, women generally rated themselves as more worried 64 (neuroticism), social (extraversion), inquisitive (openness), caring (agreeableness) and responsible (conscientiousness) than men, and these relative differences were larger in gender equal countries. Hyde (2014) reviewed extant studies of gender differences in personality across a wide variety of psychological traits and concluded moderate to large gender differences are consistently observed in agreeableness, sensation seeking, physical aggression and interests in things versus people. Smaller, but still persistent, gender differences in personality were found for measures of negative affectivity, conscientiousness, gregariousness, reward sensitivity and self‐esteem (Zell, Krizan, & Teeter, 2015). Most research looking into the links between gender and personality have found small to moderately‐sized gender differences. In terms of the personality traits known as the Big Five, men tend to score lower than women in neuroticism and agreeableness, and to a lesser degree, certain facets of extraversion and openness to experience (De Bolle et al., 2015; Weisberg, DeYoung, & Hirsh, 2011). As mentioned by Bajwa, Schahazad and Aslam (2017) “not much research is available on establishing relationships of personality and gender differences” and consensus about which personality traits characterize women entrepreneurs is lacking. Some researchers highlight that women are more agreeable than men (Antoncic, 2013; Lehmann, Denissen, Allemand & Penke 2013), score high on neuroticism (Lehmann et al., 2013; Weisberg, Deyoung & Hirsh, 2011), are more extraverted (Weisberg et al., 2011), and more open to experience (Envick & Langford, 2003). However, men have been found to be more conscientious than women (Envick & Langford, 2003) and more open to experience (Antoncic, 2013). 65 3.6.2 Age Studies have connected openness to experience to in-depth intellectual capacity and data which improved with age (Schretlen, van der Hulst, Pearlson, & Gordon, 2010). Hence high openness individuals enjoy acquiring novel information and skills which certainly strengthens as one age because of the more encounters they experience and learn from. Another study by the researcher (Mhlanga, 2012) found that extraversion was high in 18 to 24-year-old and low in 45+year old employees. A recent study conducted by Magan, Mehta, Sarvottam, Yadav and Pandey (2014) found that though traits might vary with age it is gender-dependent. Helson, Jones and Kwan (2002) believed that personality changes are most noticeable after 30 years of age. There is a good deal of evidence that personality remains relatively stable across the adult life span (Costa & McCrae, 1998; Roberts & Del Vecchio, 2000). Longitudinal work has shown increases in extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness, and decreases in neuroticism across the adult life span (Cramer, 2003). Others have found that extraversion is stable (Mroczek & Spiro, 2003) or declines with age (Mottus, Johnson, & Deary, 2011). Further, the work of Roberts and Del Vecchio (2000) has shown that personality becomes more stable with age and is by and large stabilized by age 50. Personality is less likely to change in later life except in extreme conditions such as major life events or disease. Largely consistent with previous research con-ducted on Western populations, American data showed that Neuroticism and Extraversion declined across the life span, Agreeableness increased across the life span, and Conscientiousness increased until middle age before declining in late life (Lucas & Donnellan, 2011). 66 Costa and McCrae (2006) found a modest change from the age of 45 years and older. They concluded that extraversion and neuroticism decline, whereas agreeableness and conscientiousness increase with age while openness first increases and then decreases. In their study, they used the three age-arrays of (1) early career with age 21-35, (2) midcareer with age 36-49, and (3) late career with age 50 and over, building on the three career stages of (1) trial stage, (2) stabilization stage, and (3) maintenance stage. 3.6.3 Race A South African study by Valchev, Nel, Van de Vijver, Meiring, De Bruin and Rothmann (2013) found that black people were linked to social-relational metaphors, specific trait pointers, and shared values, whereas white people were more linked to individual advancement and abstract philosophies, and Indians had an interim pattern. Another study on race and personality was done by Heuchert, Parker, Stumpf and Myburgh (2000) on South African college pupils found that personality traits were comparable for the diverse race clusters. They found that black people scored lower in openness than White and Indians, while White people had high scores on extraversion and agreeableness. Black South African students scored high on neuroticism however they scored low on extraversion and agreeableness than their white counterparts (Zhang & Akande, 2002). In addition, a study by the researcher (Mhlanga, 2012) found a noteworthy difference between neuroticism in the Black and Asian races however it was low. An investigation by Allik and McCrae (2004) studied traits over 36 cultures and found Black South Africans were low on extraversion and openness to experience, and high in agreeableness. 67 Therefore, some studies have confirmed that personality varies within and across cultures (Costa et al., 2001; McCrae & Terracciano, 2005; Schmitt et al., 2008). On the other hand, no changes in personality and ethnic clusters were found amongst UK dental scholars (Belsi, Gallagher & Asimakopoulou, 2011). 3.6.4 Educational qualifications A study by the researcher (Mhlanga, 2012) found a significant difference in openness, where it was high in employees with bachelor’s degrees and in employees with certificates; conscientiousness trait was high amongst employees with honours degrees and employees with certificates and employees high on extraversion had certificates while those with bachelors had low extraversion. 3.6.5 Work experience A study by the researcher (Mhlanga, 2012) found a significant difference on work experience and openness where it was high among employees who have worked between 11-15years and low for employees who have been going to work for more than 20 years. In addition, employees who had worked for more than 20 years had high neuroticism ratings while those who have worked for 11-15 years had low neuroticism scores. 3.6.6 Job positions In a study conducted by Burke (1996) found that male and female employees occupying higher senior executive positions reported higher levels of engagement and different personality were found on different job levels and types. 68 3.7 Measuring Personality 3.7.1 The NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R) Then NEO-PI was developed to calculate extraversion, neuroticism and openness to experience constructed based on the 16PF (Costa & McCrae, 1976) and later expanded to measure the big five (NEO PI-R). The NEO PI-R comprises of two hundred and forty items that incorporate six facet scales for each trait. Facets scales provides a thorough discrepancy between individuals with similar extensive personality trait, but vary as far as how each factor is articulated (Costa & McCrae, 1992b). The use of the NEO PI-R differs across settings and are demonstrated to be valuable in educational, clinical, health and vocational frameworks (Weiner & Greene, 2008). 3.7.2 Goldberg International Pool Costa and McCrae’s (1985, 1992) agreed that NEO and revised NEO personality inventories are the utmost inclusive Big-Five personality traits measure. Nevertheless, the size and fee associated with the personality test have been challenging for numerous surveys. The problem was dealt with by Goldberg, (1990, 1992) who established 100 item indicators and later a 50 item to be utilised as a substitute for NEO personality inventory. Each trait is measured by 10 or 20 items on a 5-point Likert scale. The scale is accessible and can be attained instantaneously on the Internet. Not like other questionnaires obtained from the Internet, the scoring keys are promptly accessible also. The instrument is free, easily accessible and has so far been interpreted into over 25 dialects (Goldberg et al., 2006). It enables investigators to rearrange, rephrase or make an interpretation of items into other dialects without requiring authorization from the creator. 69 3.7.3 The Basic Traits Inventory (BTI) The Basic Traits Inventory (BTI) was developed by Taylor and de Bruin (2006). It was developed in South African as a measuring tool for personality traits, the big five traits. A multiethnic sample of 6 112 partakers generated outcomes consistent with a steady factor load design (Taylor, 2008). It is a fruitful example of a universal trait model being fused in the South African framework (Taylor, 2008). 3.7.4 Big Five Inventory The Big Five Inventory (John et al.,1991) was developed to measure the five subscales of personality. It contains 44-items on a 5-point Likert scale and was found to be reliable (John, Naumann & Soto, 2008). Rammstedt and John’s (2007) found the instrument had convergent validity through its self-report and peer report associations 3.8 Limitations of the Big Five Personality The following are the critiques on the Big Five and Five-Factor concept. Firstly, the theoretical restrictions as it does not deliver a comprehensive theory (Block, 1995; 2001; Eysenck, 1997; McAdams, 1992; Pervin, 1994). According to Goldberg (1993) the big five traits were not envisioned to be a theory of personality but to justify the structural relationship between the traits. The big five theories did not focus on grouping traits or understanding different traits within an individual hence it is considered superfluous from the ideographic point of view (Epstein, 2010). Secondly, the factor analysis limitations as the big five traits were empirically developed hence not theoretical. Block (1995; 2001) voiced his apprehensions concerning the technique and use of factor analysis as it should not be used alone in understanding personality evaluation concepts. Though he noted the inadequacy of the use of factor analysis Block did not offer any substitute 70 approaches. He was supported by Meehl (1992) who also agreed that no statistical techniques should be used as a mechanical fact producer. Thirdly the quantity of factors restriction which alludes to the number of variables required to sufficiently depict personality is another disputed matter. There are many instruments which have been developed to measure different dimensions of personality from the three personality facets by Eysenck (1990), 16 factors by Cattell (Cattell et al., 1970) or the big five traits by Goldberg (1990). Fourthly wholeness of the trait taxonomy as it does not include middle classifications such as confidence, neatness, originality chatty and promptness (John et al., 1991). It can then be argued that the big five do not give specific descriptions of an individual life (Costa & McCrae, 1992a). However, McCrae (2010, p. 59) later stated that the FFM “does not purport to be a comprehensive taxonomy of individual differences, but only of dispositions, that is, personality traits”. The fifth limitation is the big five limits in foreseeing life results. It does not satisfactorily foresee significant life consequences as there is more to personality than just traits (McAdams, 1992). However, Venter (2006) to conducted a study on youngsters’ adolescence misconduct and academic performance and found that the Big Five can be utilised to comprehend and anticipate huge life results (Venter, 2006). The sixth limitation was that the Big Five traits are resultant of natural language as the lexical approach used the dictionary to identify traits. Block (1995) contended that the lexical approach as it does not guarantee a comprehensive set of personality-descriptive terms however he did not offer another substitute. Therefore, as much as they are limitations to the big five traits most of the criticism were addressed and the critics did not offer alternatives. The big five remains strong and widely accepted in the 71 research of personality. Big Five personality traits are extensively acknowledged measurement of personality differences and remained verified to be valid to over fifty cultures across six continents. 3.9 Conclusion The chapter summaries the various descriptions and approaches of personality which are rather lasting individual aspects that establish traits that are exceptional and vary in behaviours. It also focused on the demographics that might affect an individual’s personality. The chapter completes with a discussion of some obtainable measurement instruments for the personality traits and its limitations. The next chapter will discuss the construct job engagement. 72 CHAPTER 4: JOB ENGAGEMENT 4.1 Introduction The field of organisational and industrial psychology has experienced a gradual change away from a negative focus studies of stress, dissatisfaction, uncertainty and burnout (Pillay, 2008) to a more positive focus studies of job satisfaction, organisational commitment, motivation, optimal functioning, happiness (Storm & Rothmann, 2003) and work engagement. This has brought more attention from the early pathogenic standard (Mitonga-Monga, 2010) to a holistic paradigm (Rothmann, 2007) of studying and understanding behaviour. Job engagement is a condition of being emotionally and rationally involved in jobs which inspire workers to perform satisfactory (Habraken, 2013, p. 12). Employees are considered a vital resource in any organisation and with the increase in talent war, there is a need for an organisation to safeguard that apart from enticing the finest talent they can preserve these gifted employees. However, being able to retain employees is still not sufficient as one may have the finest capacity but might not be zealous about their jobs (Kamau & Sma, 2016). Pandita and Bedarkar (2004) noted that one of the hardest difficulties confronting human resources department and business leaders of numerous organisations was to guarantee that when employees go work each day they do not only come physically but mentally and emotionally equipped. This implies that an organisation must guarantee that their employees are engaged so that they are able to contribute emphatically towards accomplishing organisational objectives. Hence the main aim of the study to understand the reason why other employees are engaged and others are not while working in the same environment. 73 The world of work is constantly changing hence organisations need to maximize the contributions of their workers by ensuring that employees are emotionally and cognitively dedicated to their job and the organisation (Rothmann & Rothmann, 2010). There is an emerging and on-going focus on employees being engaged in their organisations (AbuKhalifeh & Som, 2013). Organisations are now realizing that it is important to have engaged employees if the organisation is to survive in the competitive world of work (Coetzee & De Villiers, 2010). According to Iddagoda, Opatha and Gunawardana (2016) employee engagement is a seldom comprehended notion, despite the fact that it is well known in the managing spheres. Saks and Gruman (2014) have additionally concocted a comparable view that in spite of the fact that there are substantial research studies and journals on job engagement, uncertain parts or vagueness continue unrequited. The following section will discuss job engagement in South Africa. 4.2 Job Engagement in South Africa Governments are the primary provider of services for the poor in developing countries hence the need for engaged employees who are naturally inspired to accomplish their mandate of service delivery. Eldor and Vigoda-Gadot (2013, pp. 10-11) asked an essential inquiry of why engagement is so crucial in the public sector and resolved that more than ever before, public service managers agree that employees have a critical effect on an organisation’s efficiency. At a period when public service organisations are anticipated to deliver effective and superior provisions in an economy of constant budget reduction, they should learn to accomplish more with less. Therefore, they need engaged employees who are proactive and accountable to accomplish the anticipated performance measures. 74 Current research on engagement in South Africa for the most part is focused on engagement in the private sector; insignificant research on engagement is conducted in government establishments. This discrepancy might be linked to cost associated with conducting employee engagement studies. In addition, government authorities may not yet understand the worth of engaged employees and there may be a deficiency on specific calculating instruments to measure employee engagement in government establishments. Be that as it may, there is a need for job engagement in the South African public sector as according to Mafini and Dlodlo (2014), the South African public service has been said to be ineffective and unproductive in terms of achieving its main objective which is to ensure quality service delivery. This appears differently in relation to the private sector which is prominent for its outstanding provisions. The service delivery protests that have befallen at local government level in South Africa during the most recent couple of years are which is a clear sign that citizens are demanding that municipalities become more efficient and start fulfilling their constitutional mandate (Olivier, 2015). A study conducted by Olivier (2015) in the South African government demonstrated that amid the period 1 January to 3 April 2014 alone, 48 noteworthy service delivery protests were carried out against local governments occurring roughly every second day. Gauteng and the Eastern Cape remained the utmost protest-ridden provinces in 2014, with the Eastern Cape a little ahead as of the end of March 2014. According to Leibbrandt and Botha (2014), the incapability to perform effectively was one of the key difficulties in local government in South Africa now. Internationally, job engagement levels are low with only 13 per cent of employees’ international are actively engaged. In the United Kingdom (UK), only 33 per cent of employees is actively engaged. This equates to 20 million workers who are not delivering to their full potential, and 64 per cent of these believe that they could offer their employers more if given the chance. The 75 estimated cost of the low level of engagement is $64.8 billion per year. In the United States, the picture is similar as 30 per cent of workers are actively engaged, and it is estimated that staff turnover due to employee disgruntlement and disengagement costs the US $11 billion per year (Aon Hewett, 2015). South Africa’s job engagement levels are lower than the worldwide average, sitting at 9 per cent. To enhance engagement levels senior managers need to facilitate investigations and follow up the results so that workers will know the effects of their effort which leads to benefits for both employees and organisations. An investigation directed by Gallup Group and also by Martins and Nienaber (South African Board for People Practises, 2014) on a South African sample demonstrated that 46% of the employees were not engaged and 45% were actively disengaged (45%). Results from Public Display Technologies’ (PDT) 2015 State of Employee Engagement in South Africa study propose a developing detachment amid administration and personnel structures. The report was substantiated with Fin24, which was distributed over 1 100 people from various of occupational areas such as banking, mining, retail and government. The report shows a decrease of engagement since the publication of PDT’s 2014 report, with at least 42 out of every 100 employees not driven to contribute to achieving organisational goals (PTD, 2015). The Gallup study (Mann & Harter, 2016) done in South Africa delivered disturbing discoveries of having only nine per cent energetically engaged employees. Of the 91 per cent not engaged individuals, 45 per cent were disengaged implying extremely negative about their job which might spread to their colleagues. Gallup’s study uncovered that less than 20 per cent of South Africans believed their ideas were valued by the organisation hence this place much room for development and enhancement of engagement approaches. 76 Given the above conditions, it creates the impression that an emphasis that a focus on employee engagement can enhance service delivery and employee fulfilment in government institutes in South Africa. As conversed earlier the South African public service has been associated with incompetence and ineptness in delivering and guaranteeing excellence service delivery (Olivier, 2015). As verified by Maclead and Clarke (2009), engaged employees have a special bond to their tasks and are inspired to offer the best for the organisation to flourish which in turn benefits the individuals. The contribution of this exploration will thus be to authenticate an employee engagement questionnaire that can be utilised with trust in government organisations to evaluate employee engagement and recommend approaches to increase job engagement of the numerous Demographical groups to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in South Africa. 4.3 The emergence of job engagement According to Kahn (1990) engagement tied to Goffman’s (1961) role behaviour theory which believed that individual behaviours as moulded by the “demands and rules of others” (Biddle & Thomas, 1966, p. 4). Afterwards, Kahn (1990) recommended that an individual can track their roles by attaching themselves to their roles. This prompted Kahn’s description of engagement which is the “harnessing of organisation members’ selves to their work roles” (Kahn, 1990, p. 694). At first, Maslach and Leiter (1997) looked at job engagement as the parallel spectrum of job burnout. When an individual scored low on the burnout scale it showed a high engagement level. According to Maslach and Leiter (1997) individuals who experienced fatigue and skepticism had burnout while those who experience vigour and effectiveness would be experiencing job 77 engagement. Therefore, employee engagement is the positive spectrum while burnout is the negative spectrum (Storm & Rothmann, 2003). Continuous investigation on burnout prompted the unequivocal inquiry of why different people respond positively to work strains while others do not experience burnout. This in the long run, drove researchers to inquire about the factors that influence employees to engage more at work. This lead to the development of the second different approach where job engagement dimensional make-up is supposedly different and separate from burnout. Job engagement and burnout were separated and measured using different instruments 4.4 Job engagement Carasco-Saul, Kim, and Kim (2015) assumed that investigators frequently make use of the terms employee engagement, personal, role, work and job engagement interchangeably. Most investigators frequently use the terms work engagement and employee engagement as one thing (Kaliannan & Adjovu, 2015; Kim et al., 2013). Kanten and Sadullah (2012) decided later on that job engagement caused employees to be engaged which leads to the implementation of goals that aligned with organisational goals Engagement is not limited to a one-time encounter, but through a lot of recurrent, determined and positive job-related cognitive cognizance. An engaged employee would exhibit the passion associated with optimistic vigour, assurance and versatility; and discovering personal meaning, grasp experiences and feel an enthusiastic expressive devotion towards work (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Job engagement signifies optimum functioning, good health, welfare and favourable performance to the individual worker (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). Employee engagement consequently includes a scope of human practices and states of mind such as inspiration, 78 commitment, job fulfilment, a feeling of alliance with organisational objectives, and a longing to work hard to accomplish these objectives (Australian Public Service-APS, 2010). Engaged employees are energetic, mentally robust, and they are devoted to working. They enjoy challenges faced at the workplace and sometimes find it hard to separate themselves from daily work. They show exceptional performance and contribute towards organisational goals. Engagement mirrors the concurrent investment of cognitive, emotional and physical efforts to provide full execution of a task (Rich et al., 2010). Henceforth, employees who are engaged are physically engaged with their undertakings, cognitively aware and emotionally linked to others when executing their task (Eldor & Harpaz, 2015). On the contrary, disengaged employees are defensive and dissociate themselves from work roles and customer hence poor performance. An examination by Alfes et al. (2010) has given additional clearness to what employee engagement implies as well as how it can be accomplished. Their employee engagement model states that for one to achieve a complete state of engagement organisations must provide for their employees and employees have to recognize and devote themselves with engagement drivers. These drivers include having meaningful work, individual voice and correspondence from the administration (Alfes et al., 2010). Building on Kahn’s (1990) conceptual framework and the disagreement around engagement definition, Macey and Schneider (2008) reasoned and proposed that employee engagement comprises clearly identifiable multidimensions constructs-trait, state and behavioural engagement. Trait engagement primarily relates to the personality attributes of an individual that explains one’s views on life and work. State engagement involves an individual’s passion and energy towards an 79 organisation; and finally, behavioural engagement is a state in which an employee’s behaviours support organisational effectiveness. According to Anitha (2014) employee engagement is an obligation and contribution of an employee that impacts on the organisational principles. Arrowsmith and Parker (2013) pointed out that engaged employees are usually job satisfied as they can attach some sense of meaning and fulfilment to what they do. This suggests that employee engagement is fundamental to identifying an innovative and stimulating workplace (McCunn & Gifford, 2012). Also in the view of Thompson, Lemmon and Walter (2015) employee engagement results in an organisation realizing perceptible developments in productivity, whereas costs related to employee replacement plunges. Furthermore, Brunnetto, Shacklock, Teo and Farr-Wharton, (2014, p. 234) defined engagement as an emotive contribution of personnel and determined state of mind that leads employees to willingly perform their duties. Brunnetto et al.’s (2014) emotional engagement idea is in accordance with Kahn’s (1990) psychological dimension of engagement. The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM, 2014) describes engagement as a work environment state where employees’ views, work practices and how they assess colleagues are considered crucial. Many definitions exist in the literature on employee engagement. The common elements propose that engagement is a necessary state that has both attitudinal and behavioural segments such as organisational purpose, involvement, organisational commitment, energy, eagerness, intensive determination, and vigour (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Scholastic meanings focused more on engagement outcomes, the psychological state and the reciprocal valuable relationship between employer and employee. For example, Hallberg and Schaufeli (2006) described engagement as being totally stimulated with vigour and being completely devoted to work. 80 Consultancy‐based models described engagement as an emotional state and they considered the organisation part of empowering it. Engagement comes through having a clear line between employees and organisational performance for employees to comprehend their input as well as having a culture that inspires and heeds to employees. For instance, Roffey Park Institute described engagement as something employees look for which suggesting employees need motivating and meaningful jobs which contribute to their overall contentment. Organisations have a big advantage when their employees are dedicated, inspired and going above and beyond call of duty (Roffey Park Institute, 2008). All other sources describe engagement to some extent by the organisational outcomes associated with it and as something offered by the employee which is valuable to the organisation. They for the most part, concur that engaged employees feel attached to the organisation and they devote themselves to their task and organisation. Shuck (2010) identified four approaches to defining engagement after searching all relevant HRM, psychology, and management databases. The first approach is the needs-satisfying approach based on Kahn (1990) who abstracted engagement as an individual's ideal identity in task performances. The second approach is the burnout-antithesis approach ingrained in the health psychology profession which understands job engagement as the positive opposite of burnout. The third approach is the satisfaction-engagement approach based on the Gallup Organisation which described engagement as a person’s contribution, fulfilment and eagerness for work (Harter, Schmidt and Hayes., 2002). The last approach is the multidimensional approach founded on Saks (2006) who described employee engagement as a separate and exceptional concept comprising of cognitive, emotional, and behavioural dimensions that are allied with distinct task performance. 81 Welch (2011) reinforced Shuck (2010) study through his exploratory investigation of the previous literature of the employee engagement concept in the pre-wave era, wave 1, wave 2 and wave 3 time periods. In the pre-wave era (pre-1990) engagement was defined as when the normal needs of employees to participate at their workplace and performing work beyond what is expected of them through innovations and harmonizing with colleagues (Katz & Kahn 1966). Wave 1 (1990-1999) defines job engagement as particular engagement which compromises of meaningfulness, safety and availability (Kahn, 1990). Wave 2 (2000-2005) was based on the definition of employee engagement by Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter (2001) as the opposite of burnout which is fatigue, skepticism and incapability. Engaged employees were defined as individuals brimming with vitality, committed and active. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) described engagement as a positive, fulfilling, job-related frame of cognizance that was comprised by strength, captivation and devotion. They described employee engagement in terms of absorption being the cognitive feature, dedication as an emotional feature and vigour as a physical feature of employee engagement. In wave 3 (2006-2010) Truss, Soane, Edwards, Wisdom, Croll and Burnett (2006) clarified employee engagement into three dimensions. Emotional engagement, the first dimension focuses on how an individual is emotionally involved in their task. The second dimension is cognitive engagement which is focused on putting your everything while working. The third dimension is physical engagement which is focused on how an individual is prepared to go above and beyond what is expected of them (Kahn 1990). Saks and Gruman (2014) identified numerous apprehensions about the employee engagement concept which include it not having one acknowledged definition, one agreed instrument and one 82 acknowledged theory. Some academics query the idea that employee engagement as a distinct construct (Swarnalatha & Prasanna, 2013) as it overlaps with other constructs such as organisation commitment and job involvement (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014). Swarnalatha and Prasanna (2013) called attention to that there is no precise synonymous between meanings for employee engagement and interrelated concepts, backing up the view that engagement is a construct distinctively. In every one of the definitions, numerous areas of uniformity and contradiction can be recognized. First, when an individual is engaged it is an individual choice, not the organisation. Second, in numerous definitions, diverse categories of engagement can be recognized which are cognitive engagement, emotional engagement and behavioural engagement. Third, employee engagement is established and often measured behaviourally as it has no physical properties (Kahn, 1990; Macey & Schneider, 2008). Lastly, employee engagement is about versatile behaviours decisively fixated on achieving or surpassing organisational results. Table 4.1 below shows some of the definitions of job engagement. Table 4: Job engagement definitions Author(s) Definition Contribution Research Type Measure Participant Kahn (1990) The harnessing of organisational members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during role Kahn is considered the first who provided the early academic framework of employee engagement. He defined employee engagement as a unique concept by introducing the physical, Empirical Untitled tool (14 item scale), In-depth interviews and observation 16 summer camp counselors/USA and 16 employees of an architecture firm/USA 83 performances” (Kahn, 1990, p. 649). cognitive and emotional engagement and the 3 psychological conditions (meaningfulness, safety, availability). Maslach and Leiter (1997) “Engagement is an energetic state in which one is dedicated to excellent performance of work and confident of one’s effectiveness (Maslach and Leiter, 1997, p. 209) Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter (2001) conceptualized employee engagement as a positive antithesis of burnout. They introduced the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-GS) as a measurement tool of engagement Conceptual Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-GS) Rothbard (2001) Engagement is defined as the psychological presence and it consists of two main components: Attention and Absorption. “Attention refers to the cognitive availability and the amount of time on spends thinking about a role. Absorption means being engrossed in a role and refers to the intensity of one’s focus on a role “(Rothbard, 2001, p. 656) The study introduced an engagement model that addresses individual’s engagement in work and family roles Empirical Untitled tool: a 9-item scale Survey sent to 1310 employees at a large public university 790 returned (60% response rate) 84 Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker (2002) Engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work related state of mind that is characterized by vigour, dedication and absorption. Vigour is characterized by high energy levels; dedication is a sense of significance, and absorption is being fully concentrated with work (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74) Schaufeli et al. (2002) considered absorption as a distinct element of engagement and it is not the direct opposite of reduce efficacy of burnout. Empirical Utrechtt Work Engagement Scale (UWES) 314 students elected for the University of Castell ‘on/Spain and 619 employees selected form 12 public and private organisation /Spain Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) “Employee engagement refers to the individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work.” (Harter et al., 2002, p. 269) Harter et al. (2002) refereed engagement to two well-known constructs: involvement and satisfaction. Empirical Gallup Workplace Audit (GWA) 198 514 respondents selected from 7939 business units across multiple fields. Robinson, Perryman and Hayday (2004) “A positive attitude held by the employee toward the organisation and its value. An engaged employee is aware of the business context, works with colleagues to improve performance within the job for the benefit of the organisation. The Robinson et al. (2004) defined engagement as the positive attitude resulting from the interaction between the employees and their organisation and its values. Empirical 12 item scale that measures the 12 engagement statements of Institute Employment Studies (IES) 10024 respondents selected from 14 organisations within the National Health Services/UK 85 organisation must work to nurture, maintain and grow engagement, which requires a two-way relationship between the employer and employee” (Robinson et al., 2004, p. 3) Saks (2006) “A distinct and unique construct that consists of cognitive, emotional and behavioural components that are associated with individual role performance” (Saks, 2006, p. 602) Saks (2006) introduced an inclusive definition of employee engagement derived from previous literature (Kahn, 1990) that is developed from cognitive, emotional and behavioural components. He presented the SET model of engagement and provided the first unambiguous study to link employee engagement drivers and consequences. Also he differentiates engagement and organisational engagement Empirical Untitled tool: a 5-item scale to measure jo engagement and a 6 item scale to measure organisational engagement. 102 employees selected form various jobs and organisations in Toronto/Canada. Czarnowsky (2008) Engaged employees ate those who are mentally and emotionally invested in their It is the first major study on employee engagement published by the American Empirical Untitled tool: a survey of 19 items was 776 responses were received from human resource 86 work and in contributing to their employer’s success (Czarnowsky, 2008, p. 9) Society for Training and Development (ASTD) emailed to the target respondents. 14 multiple items were used to measure engagement and 5 items participant demographics professionals and learning executives represented various global organisations and industrial fields Macey and Schneider (2008) Trait engagement refers to the inclination or orientation to experience the world from a vintage point (p. 5). State engagement is considered as the second facet of engagement that leads to behavioural engagement. It encompasses attitudinal constructs of involvement, satisfaction and empowerment, and organisational commitment (pp. 5-6). Behavioural engagement is described as adaptive behaviours proposed to aid in achieving organisational goals, Macey and Schneider (2008) were the first who drew parallels from the previous concepts and research and defined each as a distinct facet that contributes to one another in the engagement construct. They theorized engagement as a multidimensional construct comprising of three distinct but interrelated constructs: trait, state and behaviour Conceptual ------ --------- 87 whether to preserve and defend the status quo in response to actual or projected threats or to change or encourage change in response to definite or expected event (p. 6). Newman and Harrison (2008) Employee engagement is just the higher order construct reflected by job satisfaction, orgnaisational commitment and involvement and it triggers the co-variation amid withdrawal, organisational citizenship, and job performance. Newman and Harrison (2008) defined engagement as a higher order behaviour (E Factor) were individuals invest their energy and time into their work roles. Conceptual ----- ------- Zigarmi, Nimon, Houson, Witt and Diehl (2009) Employee work passion is an person’s tenacious, emotionally positive, meaning based, state of well-being stemming from reoccurring cognitive and affective appraisal of various job and organisational situations that result with inconsistent productive work purposes and behaviours Zigarmi et al. (2009) advocated the term work passion to replace the term engagement since the latter was widely associated with the previous academic studies of organisational commitment, organisational citizenship behaviour, involvement, burnout and organisational behaviour. Conceptual ------ --------- 88 (Zigarmi et al., 2009, p. 310). They contended that work passion is more inclusive than engagement to be linked with affective, cognitive and behavioural dimensions resulting from assessment literature review and the social cognitive theory. Shuck and Wollard (2010) Engagement is an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional and behavioural state focused towards anticipated organisational outcomes (Shuck and Wollard, 2010, p. 103) Shuck and Wollard (2010) emphasized the original idea of Kahn (1990) that engagement has three distinct but applicable levels: cognitive, emotional and behavioural states. Conceptual ---- -------- Kantse (2011) Engagement refers to an individual’s cognitive capacity to be active and strong at work as well as tenacious in hard times Kantse (2011). Kantse (2011) claimed that engagement and commitment are separate concepts. They counterpart each other and they define diverse types of positive attitudes of employees towards their work and organisation. Emperical Utretch Work Engagement (UWS) 435 participants chosen from 4 hospitals and 14 health care centers in Northern Finland Christian, Garza and Engagement is described as a fairly lasting state of mind referring to the concurrent Christian et al. (2011) claimed that engagement interrelated with other attitudinal concepts Quantitative literature ------- --------- 89 Slaughter (2011) investment of personal efforts in the experience or work performance” (Christian et al., 20011, p. 95) but it is still different since is it associated with task explicit motivation. That clarifies its solid relation with task and contextual performance. Shuck, Rocco and Albomoz (2011) Engagement is defined as an all-inclusive experience alleged and then construed through individual lens of each individual based on experience, foundations and views of their framework” (Shucks et al., 2011, p. 316) Shuck et al. (2010) defined engagement from an employees’ viewpoints. They contended that engagement is an outcome of the interaction between the environment and person. Empirical Document investigation, semi structured interviews, and observations The partakers were derived from a large multinational service corporation situated in Miami-Dade County, Florida/USA Shanmugam and Krishnaveni (2012) Engagement refers to the degree of one’s allegiance of self-in-role towards one’s corporation and the additional determination put in, to assist in achieving its goals (Shanmugam and Krishnaveni, 2012, p. 190) Engaged employees are aware and link their role performance with achievement of the organisational objectives Conceptual ------ --------- Soane, Truss, Alfes, Shantz, Rees, and Gatenby (2012) Drawing on Kahn’s (1990) psychological conditions, the authors presented three facets of engagement. Intellectual engagement is theorized as the extent to which one is intellectually Social engagement was made known to as a new facet of engagement construct. Empirical 9-item ISA engagement scale. A cross sectional study was conducted on two samples in UK: 278 from a manufacturing organisation and 683 90 engrossed in work, affective engagement refers to the extent to which an individual experiences a state of positive affect relating to an individual’s task and social engagement is the extent to which one is socially related within the working environment and shared common values with colleagues (Soane et al., 2012, p. 532) from a retail organisation. Witemeyer, Ellen, and Straub (2013) Engagement is defined as an attitude towards one’s work in one’s organisation, comprising feelings of vigour, dedication and absorption: cognitive appraisals of psychological empowerment; and inspiration to act, both within the role and extra role in the service of the organisation’s goals (Witemeyer et al., 2013, p. 1) In addition to Schaufeli et al.’s (2002) three components of engagement (vigour, absorption and dedication) the authors proposed empowerment and citizenship motivation as new components of the engagement construct. Empirical 39 item self-report instrument 2342 employee from private educational organisations/USA 91 Fearon, McLaughlin and Morris (2013) Engagement is promoted by efficacy and organisational interactions. The social cognitive theory SCT) clarifies the mechanism of how engagement can be established from individual, group and organisational perceptions. Conceptual ---- ------- Ababneh (2015) A multidimensional construct that refers to the passionate, inspired, energetic, enthusiastic, persistent, focused and emotionally positive individuals who harness their personal attributes along with their cognitive and affective evaluation of job and organisational situations, to direct their task performance towards accomplishing organisational aims (Ababneh, 2015, p. 42). Identified the shared theoretical themes, patterns and commonalities from the past definitions. Using the NVino qualitative data software he identified certain commonalities and construct dimensions to develop a working definition of job engagement Empirical Postal survey: 27 item job engagement scale 449 respondents comprising of working individual despite their age, occupation, experience and location Nienaber & Martins 2015: “Employee engagement refers to ‘engaged employees’ at both the individual and organisational level, who are fully absorbed by and enthusiastic about Nienaber and Martins (2015) developed the Employee Engagement Instrument (EEI) concurrently at the individual and organisational Emperical An electronic Survey: 73-item Employee Engagement Instrument 4125 respondents from different various industries occupying different roles in South Africa. 92 their work, and so take positive action to further the organisation’s reputation and interests” (Nienaber & Martins, 2015, p. 5). level, for a diverse, multicultural context (South Africa) (EEI) Saari, Melin, Balabanova, & Efendiev, 2017 Work engagement refers to employees’ relationship with their work and the strength of this relationship Examines the work engagement and its antecedents in two countries: Finland and Russia revealing that opportunity to learn new skills at work is the strongest predictor of work engagement in both countries. Empirical -------------------- 780 private sector employees in Russia working full-time and with permanent Contracts; and 2,641 in Finland According to Kumar and Sia (2012), there are shifting degrees of engagement comprising of engaged, unengaged, and disengaged. Engaged employees enthusiastic about their organisation and work extremely hard toward accomplishing organisational objectives (Anitha, 2014; Kumar & Sia, 2012; Albrecht, 2012). normally inquisitive about their organisation and their own worthy in it (Choo, Mat & Al-Omari, 2013) and work at unswervingly high levels and uses their capacities and qualities each day at the workplace (Anitha, 2014). On the other hand, keep on going to work and, notwithstanding being miserable at work, they are not interested in the organisation (Anitha, 2014; Kumar & Sia, 2012). They need to be instructed to make sure they can do it and say they have completed (De Lange, Gesthuizen & Wolbers, 2014). They focus on completing tasks more than accomplishing an outcome. Unengaged employees tend 93 to feel their work are being discounted, and their potential is not recognized and utilised (Susi & Jawaharrani, 2010). Employee disengagement is observed to be a worldwide phenomenon affecting firms. It is believed that only thirteen percent of employees around the globe are engaged (Gallup, 2013). The authors cite a statistic indicating that actively disengaged employees outnumber their counterparts, three to one. In South Africa, 46 percent of employees are disengaged whereas a further 45 percent are actively disengaged (Gallup, 2013). Only nine percent of the respondents surveyed were actively engaged. 4.5 Job disengagement Withdrawn representatives effectively show their misery at work regularly to the impairment of their workmates and the organisation (Anitha, 2014; Kumar & Sia, 2012). These are employees who are constantly against almost everything (Bakker, Demerouti & Sanz-Vergel, 2014) and are miserable at work and occupied with showcasing their misery. They spread seeds of unconstructiveness at every single chance they get (Deery, 2008). The basic reason for disengagement imperative since employees’ disengagement may be a legitimized reaction to uncalled for working conditions or requests (Valentin, 2014). Hence, managers need to comprehend the reason for disengagement if they mean to address the issue as opposed to the side effect. Engagement transpires when one is emotionally associated to others which imply employees who know what is anticipated from them, who form solid relations with colleagues and supervisors, and who encounter significance in their work (Konrad, 2006). Disengaged employees, on the other hand, detach themselves from work tasks and pull back psychologically and emotionally (Cohen, 94 2008); show poor execution and task performances become easy, programmed or machinelike (Blessing White, 2010). It is consequently significant for an organisation to evaluate engagement levels of engagement with the goal that they can take essential intervention to enhance employee morale and efficiency. 4.6 Kahn’s three dimensions of engagement According to Kahn (1990) engagement is defined as a state in which individuals express their complete self physically, cognitively, and emotionally in their tasks. He identified three dimensions of job engagement which are physical engagement, cognitive engagement, and emotional engagement. 4.6.1 Physical engagement Physical engagement can be described as the employees’ behaviours and actions demonstrating vigour and a sense of extra effort in the work that they conduct (Macey & Schneider, 2008). When an employee is physically engaged with their organisation they tend to work more intensely and with a great deal of effort to complete the task at hand. Therefore, it is mainly concerned about the physical energies employed by employees to in performing their tasks (Kular et al., 2008). For example, one of Kahn’s (1990, p. 702) study participants, a base camp counsellor conveyed just resting around instead of doing her responsibilities. Another partaker, an architect, refrained himself physically from the job by allocating his task to co-workers. Rich (2006) gave a summary of physical engagement according to the Kahn’s concept of job engagement as the force attempt on another person’s job or a way of channelling one’s physical efforts toward the accomplishment of a specific undertaking. An individual’s physical engagement is in this manner somewhat reliant on the psychological and physical necessities of the task. Kahn 95 (1999) proposed that physical vigour can be assigned to a variety of different events, including on-job, off-job, and self-directive actions. At the point when people are engaged in their job, physical energies are coordinated at the achievement of the task. Engagement can be achieved through devotion and absorption. Attention alludes to the sum of time the employee utilizes to contemplate about their tasks and absorption means employees being engrossed in their role from a work standpoint. An employee’s readiness to take part in an unrestricted effort shows that the employee is eager to act which will bring about definite behaviour being displayed and shows the employee’s engagement level (Lloyd, 2008). Bakker, Albrecht, Leitner (2011) felt that being absorbed and energized by one’s work is a key feature of engagement. 4.6.2 Emotional engagement According to Shuck and Reio (2013, p. 5), emotional engagement revolves around the increase and investment of the emotional resources employees have under their influence. At the point when employees are emotionally engaged in their jobs, they contribute their individual assets such as pride, conviction, and information. Emotional connection an employee feels toward the organisation tends to influence conduct and the level of exertion in business related exercises. The more engagement an employee is with the organisation the more exertion they set forth (Business Dictionary, 2015). Rich (2006) gave a summary of emotional engagement according to Kahn’s (1990) concept as a positive sentimental respond to an individual’s job. Emotional engagement transpires when employees feel that their organisation is providing essential support and when they are eager to contribute their own resources at work (Shuck, Twyford, Reio & Shuck, 2014). In choosing 96 whether to invest themselves emotionally at work it will depend on the employees’ work environment perceptions and on their cognitive appraisals outcomes (Shuck et al., 2014). Wilson (2004) said sentiments interface us with our truths and offer internal feedback on how we are performing, what we need, and what we might do next. An individual always looks for their current positioning in the organisation to generate these feelings which create an engaged culture. It includes the passionate bond one feels towards one's work environment (Shuck & Reio, 2011) which leads to employee loyalty and commitment (Rhoades, Eisenberger & Armeli, 2001). Emotional engagement concerns the convictions and sentiments held by those people who are intellectually connected with, maybe deciding how these convictions and emotions are framed, impacted and coordinated towards an outward show of exertion (Shuck & Reio, 2011). When employees are emotionally connected to their job they tend to feel enthusiastic, proud, interested and positive about their job. Emotional engagement is a strapping correlation between a person’s feelings, beliefs, and their job (Kahn, 1990) which leads which prompts sentiments of enthusiasm and superiority (Rich, 2006). Emotional engagement is the inverse of skepticism segment of burnout in this sense (Maslach, 2003). For example, an emotionally disengaged camp advocate stated being “bland, superficial, talking in flat, unemotional tones” (Kahn, 1990, p. 702). Emotional factors prompt a feeling of individual fulfilment, and the motivation and assertion got from the work and being part of the organisation. This could originate from having a solid feeling of individual achievement in the task they perform. Robinson et al. (2004) emphasized the significance of feeling esteemed and included as the key driver of engagement. Various elements have varying impact on the feeling of employee and understanding these elements is crucial for 97 the organisation as emotional absence leads to emotional disconnection from other people (Kahn, 1990). Various authors had different opinions on how emotional engagement can be attained. Penna (2007) is of the view that engagement comes through fulfilment which comes through being esteemed, appreciated and having a feeling of belongingness to the organisation. Lucas, Lupton and Mathieson (2006) gave importance to the employee voice, the capability of the employee to contribute to organisational decisions. Lawler and Worley (2006) felt high involvement work exercise to be effective through providing employees with power and liberty to control their destiny. According to Beardwell and Claydon (2007) said that engagement comes through employee involvement which is about utilizing the ideas of the employees and safeguarding their commitment by allowing them to contribute and share openly. 4.6.3 Cognitive engagement Kahn’s (1990) initial conceptualisation of cognitive engagement was acquired from an employee’s resolve as to whether they believed their work was meaningful and safe, and in addition whether the essential resources are accessible to finish their work (Shuck & Reio, 2011). Shuck and Reio (2013, p. 5) motives that cognitive engagement revolves around how employees assess their work environment as well as the responsibilities they are associated with. As an employee makes an assessment they to decide levels of positive or negative effect which impacts conduct. According to Robinson (2006) employees ranks and make sense of events and situations using their own exceptional individual frame of reference based on their personality, life encounters, knowledge, prospects and desires. When employees are cognitively engaged in their job, they tend to be focused, pay attention, concentrate and be absorbed in the work they are busy with. 98 Rich (2006) gave a summary of cognitive engagement according to Kahn’s (1990) concept as consideration of an assimilation in an individual’s job. According to Kular et al. (2008), the cognitive facet of job engagement alarms worker’s attitude towards the organisation, its directors and working circumstances. Rothbard (2001) viewed engaged employees as extremely focused on their task at hand and ignore rival distracters. On the other hand, cognitive disengagement simply means the absence of concentration towards one’s job (Rich, 2006, p. 13). Interview information from Kahn’s (1990) research offered intriguing cases of the difference between cognitive engagement and disengagement. For example, while a psychologically cautious (Kahn, 1990, pp. 700-702) scuba-diver at a summer camp w were distinctly mindful of the divers under his duty, a disengaged senior designer at an architectural firm adopted a programmed, automatic approach marked by not scrutinizing others' choices. Cognitive engagement is concerned on how much attentiveness employees put in their responsibilities; emotional engagement is how absorbed in their work emotional and behavioural engagement is how employees are willing to work beyond their responsibilities and doing more than what is asked from them (Kahn, 1990). 4.7 Kahn three psychological dimensions Table 5: Dimensions of psychological conditions Dimensions Meaningfulness Safety Availability Definition An individual’s sense of return of investment in role performance Is a sense of being able to show oneself without fear of negative consequences Possessing the physical, emotional, and psychological resources 99 to self-image, rank, or vocation essential for accomplishing tasks. Experimental components Feeling valuable, appreciated, being able to give or receive in the workplace Feel situations are reliable, safe and expectable, and clear in terms of behavioural consequences Feel proficient of driving physical, intellectual, and emotional effort into task performance Types of influence Work practices that produce incentives or disincentives for self-investment Elements of socials system that create circumstances that are foreseeable, uniformity and non-threatening Individual disruptions that can disrupt task performance Influences Tasks: job involving more or less challenge, variety, creativity, autonomy and clear delineation of procedures and goals. Roles: formal positions that offer more or less attractive identities through fit with a Interpersonal relationships: ongoing relationships that offer more or less support, trust, openness, flexibility and lack of threat Group and intergroup dynamics: informal often unconscious role that leaves more or less room to safely express various parts of self, shaped by Physical energies: existing levels of physical resources available for investment into role performance Insecurity: levels of confidence in own abilities and status, self-conscientious and ambivalence about fit with social systems that leave more or less room for 100 preferred self-image, status and influence. Work interactions: interpersonal interactions with promotion of self-respect, self-appreciation, and the presence of personal and professional elements. dynamics within and between groups in the organisation Management style and process: leader behaviours that show more or less support, resilience, consistency, trust and competence. Organisational norms: communal system expectations about member behaviour and emotions that leave more or less room for investments of self during role performance investments of self in role performances. Outside life: issues in people’s outside lives that leave them more or less available for investment of self during role performances Adaption of Kahn (1990, p. 705) Kahn’s (1990) contemplated how individuals' encounters of themselves and their work setting impacted on personal engagement and disengagement. He contended that individuals pose three principal inquiries in every part circumstance: a) How meaningful is it for me to bring myself to this performance? b) How safe is it to do? c) How available am I to do such? 101 As indicated by Kahn (1990), these three psychological conditions which are meaningfulness, safety, and availability affect employees’ engagement as employees can only encounter behavioural engagement at the workplace after every one of the three conditions (Rana, Ardichvili & Tkachenko, 2014; Saks & Gruman, 2014; Shuck & Reio, 2014). 4.7.1 Psychological Meaningfulness The possibility that people have an innate need to lead a work life that they consider meaningful was first presented by classic humanistic psychologists and motivation philosophers (Alderfer, 1972; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959; Maslow 1943, 1954, 1971; McClelland, 1965; McGregor, 1960; Rogers, 1959, 1961). Maslow (1971), was one of the classic motivation theorists, expressed that people who don't trust their work to be profound and meaningful they will not work up to their expert potential. Meaningfulness implies feelings of being worthwhile, valuable and having usefulness and feelings that they are appreciated (Kahn & Heaphy, 2014, p. 83). Vuori, San and Kira (2012) on the other hand defined work meaningfulness as a subjective state which comes about from having a high level of positivity in the entities that an individual associated with work. Kahn defines meaningfulness as the optimistic “sense of return on investment of self in the role of performance” (Kahn, 1990, p. 705). He defines psychological meaningfulness as a feeling an individual experience in return for the psychological, cognitive and emotional energy they have devoted to carrying out their responsibilities. The employees experience meaningfulness when they feel valued, appreciated and not underestimated, and that their work is imperative and worth. Scholars before and after Kahn (1990) have talked about the experience of psychological meaningfulness within one’s job as an essential and compelling that influences employee 102 behaviour (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; May, 2003; Cartwright & Holmes, 2006; Chalofsky & Krishna, 2009; Martela, 2010). As indicated by Dimitrov's study (2012), generating a meaningfulness of work lessens turnover, builds work fulfilment and enables the organisation to set up an upper hand through client dependability. In addition, Vuori et al., (2012) while dissecting literature in their exploration paper found an association between psychological meaningfulness as a positive factor such as motivation, contentment, mental and physical well-being and organisational commitment. Employee engagement is basic for, and a vital component for organisations success. Earlier research has discovered that people look for more meaning in their everyday work than they do in their own lives (Mishra, Boynton & Mishra, 2014; Ugwu, Onyishi & Rodríguez-Sánchez, 2014). Therefore, supervisors should endeavour to make work significant, for example, by finding out and trying to determine any challenges that employees confront (Biswas, Varma & Ramaswami, 2013). An organisation can be able to enhance employees’ sense of work meaningfulness by designing working environments that enable individuals to discover meaning in their work (Schwartz, 2015). In other words, concentrating on meaningful work inspires employees to contemplate meaningful work as a profitable work outcome. Recent studies (Geldenhuys, Laba & Venter, 2014; May et al., 2004; Rich et al., 2010; Rothmann & Rothmann, 2010) have reinforced the role of a meaningful work setting in experiences of psychological meaningfulness and work engagement. According to Kahn (1990), meaningfulness is affected by having stimulating and diverse tasks; having a good congruence between an individual personality and task characteristics and positive work relations increase meaningfulness. Individuals who have more satisfying interpersonal 103 connections with their colleagues experience greater meaning in their work. People will tend to experience a sense of meaningfulness if they are treated with reverence, dignity and gratitude for their contributions. May et al. (2004) found that if employees are treated with pride, respect and appreciation for their performance in the organisation, they will probably be motivated to acquire the feeling of meaningfulness. Schwartz (2012) argued that when employees feel appreciated it inspires them to give their best and makes employees feel safe. 4.7.2 Psychological Safety Safety was defined as the capability to demonstrate one’s self “without fear or negative consequences to self-image, status or career” (Kahn, 1990, p. 705). The expected, constant and clear circumstances at work influence employees feel more secure in their activities which likewise improves the probability of engagement. Kahn (1990) states that safety is influenced by social system elements that generate nonthreatening, expectable, and constant social circumstances in which employees can engage. An atmosphere that encourages open correspondence, supportive and trusting interpersonal affairs which influence employees to feel as though they belong will boost feelings of psychological safety. Kahn (1992) found that interpersonal relationships, general gathering and intergroup progression, management styles, and organisational norms influences an individual’s feelings of safety. Since engagement signifies the ultimate connection between an individual and their job, the truthful expression of an employee is a key engagement factor. Lyu (2016) proposed psychological safety is a crucial factor of the workplace and suggested that individuals have a basic psychological necessity for safety. Employees are probably not going to transparently if they dread such honesty will be rebuffed by managers, colleagues, or clients. At the point when workers feel safe, they can be consistent with themselves since they don't expect that others will ridicule them (Rothmann & 104 Welsh, 2013; Truss, Shantz, Soane, Alfes & Delbridge, 2013). In this way, when employees perceive psychological safety they are more averse to be distracted by negative feelings, for example, a fear which comes from agonizing over controlling impression of supervisors and associates. Psychological safety diminishes diversions and enables an employee to use his or her vitality towards being devoted and attentive to job tasks (Rothbard & Patil, 2012, p. 63). Edmondson (2004) depicted safety as an employee’s view of the results of relational dangers in the workplace. She additionally disclosed that it refers to the underestimated convictions of how others would react if an individual puts themselves at stake by making an inquiry, revealing a misstep, looking for input, or notwithstanding proposing another thought. Individuals inquire as to whether they are probably going to be humiliated, reprimanded, or harmed by others in the event that they do as such. A safe work environment is one in which individuals do not trust that they will get adverse responses in the event that they put themselves on the line, whereas an unsafe environment is one in which they believe that they will be criticized. According to Kahn and Heaphy (2014) holding environments characterised by leaders and co-worker who are accessible and who show respect and empathy contribute strongly to psychological safety hence working relationships at work is crucial in fostering engagement. Work relationships influence individuals' encounters of the reasons for their work, increase their feeling of having a place and invigorate them. Moreover, people characterize the setting in which they can feel protected or perilous to express themselves and endure or weaken restrictions crucial to sustain availability at work (Kahn & Heaphy, 2014). Kahn’s (1990) qualitative study demonstrated that there are four factors that straightforwardly impact psychological safety. Firstly, employees feel more secure when there is trust and shared 105 profound respect between colleagues improving their relational relations. Secondly the group and intergroup dynamic which involves various unacknowledged characters or oblivious parts which individuals suspected to also be prejudiced psychological safety. Thirdly managers ought to be sympathetic and flexible to enhance psychological safety. Lastly, organisational norms affect psychological safety as employees who have maintained the usually appropriate conduct of working will feel more secure than people who strayed outside those protective limits. 4.7.3 Psychological Availability Kahn characterized availability as the feeling of having the physical, emotional and psychological recourses essential to accomplish a task at that moment (Kahn, 1990). Availability of resources refers to individuals' capacity and eagerness to engage, given the requests put on them by their regular work and individual lives (Kahn, 1990). Having resources accessible indicates that individuals are better prepared to deal with day by day diversions and are more likely to be keen to perform their job. Kahn (1990) acknowledged physical vitality, emotional vitality, individual security, and outside lives as the four diversions that can diminish an individual’s availability to engage. It indicates how employees do their work amidst distractions and their engagement is influenced by the nature of the relationships that the employees create in the workplace and the maintaining thereof (Kahn & Heaphy, 2014, p. 89). As indicated by Kahn (1990), employees’ availability is related with individual disruptions that engross individuals to different degrees and leave them with extra or fewer resources with which to participate in accomplishing task performances. The minute an individual’s physical and emotional energies are worn-out they feel doubtful on their own capability to perform their job or when personal lives are basically excessively demanding individuals tend people tend to disengage. 106 Although psychological availability has the minimal amount of empirical support, there is a considerable research concerning individuals’ availability of resources and how it might influence work execution and engagement. Research with respect to psychological availability is firmly correlated to studies regarding the significance of recuperation from work, accomplishing a harmony amongst work and family demands, and being able to engage in stress managing approaches (Eden, 2001; Frone, 2003). The findings gathered from Kahn’s studies indicated that four types of distractions influenced psychological availability which is the depletion of physical and emotional energy, individual insecurity and employees’ outside work environment. In summation, employees bring physical, emotional and cognitive resources to accomplish their work assignments. Diverse occupations have distinctive demands, a few jobs are more physically difficult than others which require diverse levels of vitality, adaptability and quality to address these physical difficulties (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). Certain work can be emotionally challenging, for instance in the service sector and this can be overpowering on the off chance that one does not have these resources to cope with the work demands (Sutton, 1991). The same is true for cognitive resources and some jobs necessitate more cognitive data processing that some individuals can deal with (May, et al., 2004). 4.8 Antecedents of Engagement The following are the three categories of engagement antecedents which are organisational and leadership management antecedents, job antecedents and personal antecedents. 4.8.1 Organisational and Leadership Antecedents Organisational antecedents of engagement comprise of perceived organisational support (Saks, 2006), procedural fairness (Saks, 2006), rewards and acknowledgement (Koyuncu, Burke, & 107 Fiksenbaum, 2006), co-worker relationships (Bakker et al., 2006; Kahn, 1990), closeness amongst individual and organisational principles (Kahn, 1990; Rich, 2006), talent attainment chances (Towers Perrin, 2008), and management style (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Nembhard, 2006). Perceived organisational support Perceived organisational support is focused on how employee views of organisational care and how the organisation support their efforts (Saks, 2006). Saks (2006) suggested that perceived organisational support generates in employees a sense of responsibility – the employee feels that they must reciprocate the support they are given by the organisation when performing their task and does so in the form of engagement. Procedural justice According to Saks (2006), procedural justice refers to the alleged impartiality of the ways and procedures utilised to determine the quantity and circulation of resources. When employees are certain that their organisation is impartial, they may be equally impartial when performing their task. Organisational rewards and recognition processes The existence of organisational rewards and acknowledgement procedures influences the assumed meaningfulness of the job (Saks, 2006). Acknowledgement matters since it enables employees to perceive the worth of their effort in the organisation (Kahn, 1990) and aids as external instigators and offer employees with a sense of return on investment (Saks, 2006). 108 Co-worker relations Helpful and cooperative colleagues’ relationships encourage engagement (Schaufeli, Taris, & van Rhenen, 2008). Remarkably, engagement seems to be infectious as the engagement of an individual team member is expected to certainly influence the engagement of their colleagues (Schaufeli, Bakker & Salanova, 2006). Proximity between individual and organisational values A sense of analogy between an individual’s image and their work role increases engagement therefore, the level of closeness between individual and organisational principles is crucial (Kahn, 1990; Koyuncu et al., 2006; May et al., 2004). Such closeness or fit between principles could influence both meaningfulness as employee’s job attaches to their opinion of themselves and safety as employees may securely express their values at work (Kahn, 1990). Skill acquisition opportunities In a professional workplace that has stopped supporting long-term employment (Welbourne, 2007) opportunities to increase an individual’s skills are valuable. The Towers-Perrin world-wide survey on engagement (2008) recommended that employees perceive the connection between increased skills and more pay and therefore they put an enormous premium on having the chances to learn and build their skills. Leadership Supervisory backing impacts engagement by enhancing a sense of safety (Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004) and expanding the accessibility of resources (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). In addition, scholars on management authenticity found that some leadership features such as honesty (Avolio 109 et al., 2004) and comprehensiveness (Nembhard, 2006) positively influence employee engagement. In summary, the engaging organisation ought to be caring, impartial, offering adequate rewards, encouraging and supporting collective work relations, and inspires training and development chances. Every one of those variables could be present, however, and engagement may in any case not happen if the job itself is disengaging. Engaging job features will be discussed next. 4.8.2 Job Antecedents of Engagement As indicated by Erickson (2005) he lamented that employers persistently undervalue the fundamental significance of stimulating work to employees. From the job enrichment model, it can be noted that there are three critical psychological conditions which impact job motivation which are meaningfulness, individual accountability, and results in knowledge (Hackman & Oldham, 1974). Meaningfulness Meaningfulness refers to how employees perceive their job to be vital and valuable. There are three occupation related components that may affect meaningfulness which are skill variety, task uniqueness and task significance. Personal responsibility Personal responsibility refers to the level of independence the employee possesses in the way they perform their jobs in terms of methods and practices they undertake. When employees have considerable autonomy, they will view themselves as personally accountable for the 110 accomplishments and disappointments related to the job (Hackman, Oldham, Janson & Purdy, 1975). Knowledge of results Knowledge of results comes from feedback which employees gets from their supervisor on how they are performing and how they improve to achieve more effectiveness (Hackman et al., 1975, p. 59). It impacts more especially when the results are tangible, for example, when the results of the job accomplished show signs on the quality of the work. Ultimately, these environmental and occupation-related antecedents may not be adequate to yield engagement as the person involved matters. Personal engagement-related features will be addressed next. 4.8.3 Personal antecedents of engagement As indicated by Kahn (1990) individual differences matters in engagement as it impacts the tasks employees would engage or disengage in, and how employees would encounter meaningfulness, safety, and availability. Demographic features such as gender, age and race could probably relate with job engagement. Such relations could, nevertheless, have more to do with demographic-related status and group inter-similarities than with the demographic features separately. Avery, Wilson, and McCay (2007) found that job engagement was more identified with levels of satisfaction with older or younger workers than with age. Undeniably, age similarity only relates to higher engagement levels when employees also liked their same-age colleagues. With respect to race, an intriguing examination led by Jones and Harter (2005) found that individuals from various race detailed higher expectations of remaining in the organisation than individuals from the same race dyads. 111 Some previous literature supports relationships between gender and engagement. For example, an investigation led by Mauno, Kinnunen, Mäkikangas, and Nätti (2005) observed that women have a tendency to be more drawn in at work than men are. Some personality research studies show that there is a positive relationship between job engagement and extraversion and a negative relationship between engagement and need for stability (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2003, Langelaan, Bakker, Van Doornen & Schaufeli, 2004). 4.9 Work Engagement and Other Constructs Like work engagement, there are numerous present-day ideas that lead to positive relations between employees and work such as organisational commitment, organisational citizenship, job engrossment, the notion of flow, job satisfaction and the psychological contract. Organisational commitment is understood as a person’s attachment to or attitude toward an organisation and is often characterized as the same as employee engagement (Harrison & Newman, 2013). Employee engagement and organisational commitment are similar in that they both measure a level of attachment directed toward work (Harrison & Newman, 2013). However, these concepts differ from engagement focusing is on the task whereas organisational commitment focuses on employee’s loyalty to the organisation (Masvaure, Ruggunan & Maharaj, 2014). In addition, according to Masvaure et al. (2014) and Naicker (2013) organisational commitment refers to employees’ attitude to work, whereas work engagement reflects the level of attentiveness to work and work performance of employees. Additionally, Vigoda-Gadot et al., (2012) found that engagement has an additional value as equated to the old constructs of organisational commitment and job involvement. They contended that effective commitment is a feature of state engagement however not proportionate to it. 112 Another related concept is organisational citizenship behaviour which emphasizes voluntary and casual behaviours that encourage socialization in the organisation. The contrast between employee engagement and OCB is that employee engagement focuses more formal part execution activities, which are not voluntary and not extra-role, while OCB identifies with the voluntary (Saks, 2006) and casual expectations to help far beyond what is normal from them (Robinson et al., 2004). Then again, Schohat and Vigoda- Gadot (2010) contended that job engagement resembles OCB as employees offer voluntary behaviour in response to the organisational situations such as infrastructure, management and resources. Job involvement is also linked to job engagement but more precisely to the involvement facets. Engagement is like job involvement in that engagement involves a cognitive or psychological aspect. Like job involvement, the more engaged an employee becomes, the more the employee will desire to psychologically identify with their position. Job involvement is distinguishable from the engagement because of the solely psychological aspect that is seen between the individual and their assigned jobs. In an engagement, the psychological relationship can be observed on the task level of day to day duties; while in job involvement, the psychological relationship can be seen on the broader role level in terms of how a person relates to their given title or position within the organisation. In addition, Rich (2006) argues that involvement precedes the physical use of exertion that describes engagement. In any case, Macey and Schneider (2008) later proposed that job involvement is but one dimension of the psychological state of engagement. The notion of flow is another construct which is characterized as the comprehensive vibe that individuals feel when they act with total involvement (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). It is claimed that an individual’s experience flow requires no external rewards or objectives to inspire them, as the job itself provides continuous difficulties. In any case, flow is mainly the individual’s cognitive 113 contribution to their work temporarily, but engagement indicates a longer-term and more all-encompassing involvement in work assignments (Kahn, 1990; Holbeche & Springett, 2003). In addition, another related construct is job satisfaction which is the pleasant emotional state (Locke, 1969, p. 10) that comes from the employee’s positive assessment of their job. Several authors (Blizzard, 2004; Frese, 2008; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Rich, 2006) concurred that job satisfaction and engagement are not the same concepts since job satisfaction is a form of employee welfare while job engagement is a mixture of the readiness to work and the ability to work (Bakker, 2011; Bakker et al., 2011). Researchers contend that the contrast between job satisfaction and work engagement lies in the detail that job satisfaction states only the emotional attitude an employee has towards their tasks rather than the physical, cognitive, and emotional investment an employee uses while performing their job (Rich et al., 2010). In terms of a psychological contract, from multiple points of view engagement seems to be similar to the psychological contract as both portray a two-way employer-employee affiliation, both have a cognitive and emotional component and both have raised doubt as a measurable construct (Garrow, 2009). The differences also arise wherein engagement employees go past a simple contract. 4.10 Significance of Work Engagement Rich et al., (2010) proposed that job engagement is an important determinant of individual and organisational performance outcomes. Work engagement is associated not only with desirable organisational outcomes (Halbesleben, 2010) such as increased job satisfaction, organisational commitment and motivation but also with the well-being of employees (Chughtai & Buckley, 2008; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schiffrin, 2016). Job engagement has additionally been 114 connected to employee inventiveness and preparedness to study (Sonnentag, 2003), a practical job method (Salanova, Agut & Piero, 2005) and organisation-based self-worth (Mauno, Kinnunen & Ruokolainen, 2007). Bakker (2011) highlighted four reasons as to why engaged employees outperform disengaged employees. Firstly, engaged employees cope with stress better thereby experience a healthy lifestyle and focusing all their energy, skills and knowledge on their work. Secondly, they frequently experience positive feelings such as contentment, enthusiasm and appreciation which helps engaged personnel to focus on working on their personal resources (Fredisckson, 2001). Thirdly, they find a way to generate their particular job and personal resources. Lastly, engaged employees tend to spread their engagement to their colleagues (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009), which in turn ensures that team-work is effective and efficient. The capacity of engaged employees to adjust and proactively ensure the interests of their organisations (Macey & Schneider, 2008) may enable organisations to stay focused and achieve their objectives. Along these lines, organisations require engaged employees that are keen to go above and beyond to meet market pressures and keep running proficiently under any circumstances (Masson, Royal, Agnew & Fine, 2008). Employee engagement and morale have an immediate relationship to consumer loyalty, especially in the service industry (Griffith 2001; Ivar Rossberg, Melle, Opjordsmoen & Friis, 2008). These principals likewise remain true in the public and third sector (Tucker 2004). Engagement is not limited to humanistic factors because it can also provide commercial benefits. Some of the benefits of having high levels of job engagement are higher earnings per employee, return on assets, sales progress, performance, and reduced nonattendance (Banks, 2006; Harter et 115 al., 2002; JRA, 2007; Salanova et al., 2005). Other additional benefits of employee engagement are reduced employee turnover, decreased cost, lesser cost of purchased goods, and improved superiority control (Harter et al., 2002; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Banks, 2006; JRA, 2007). Lastly, job engagement is valuable to workers themselves as illustrated by Schaufeli et al. (2002) as the experience of work engagement in itself is a positive ordeal as it brings their complete dependable characters in the workplace, and feeling an inherently inspiring interest in it (Kahn, 1992). The inspired experience of the self-authentic prompts the experience of positive emotions which can eventually have a positive impact on the employee’s performance as well as their physical welfare. For instance, studies have discovered that those that show high scores on job engagement measures tend to experience good physical and psychological health (Demerouti et al., 2001; Rothbard, 2001). 4.11 Factors Shaping Employee Engagement There are numerous factors which are offered in the literature as possible mediators of engagement. To investigate a portion of these mediating factors further, they will be examined in terms of occupational, organisational, and psychological factors. 4.11.1 Occupational Factors According to Robinson et al. (2004), they found that there were contrasts in job engagement based on the employee’s occupation. The role of a profession was additionally found to affect job engagement by Chaudhary, Rangnekar and Barua (2012) who found that employees in specialized roles had an increased level of commitment than those in non-specialized roles. 116 4.11.2 Organisational Factors The role of the organisation in employee engagement is articulated clearly by Robinson et al. (2004) who found that an engaged employee knows about the business setting and works with colleagues to enhance job performance for the advantage of the organisation. The organisation must work to sustain, keep up and develop job engagement, which requires a reciprocal relationship between employer and employee. On the chance that the organisation can accomplish this connection with their employee, it is comprehended that the employee will regularly have a positive mental state of mind in regard to their job and the organisation which lead to engagement and enhanced performance (Robinson et al., 2004). Other organisation factors include culture, line managers, recruitment, organisational values and support, job resources, participation and voice. 4.11.3 Psychological Factors Kahn (1990), Cook (2008), Ditchburn (2009), and Maslach et al. (2001) believed that something lies further at the focal point of engagement that only a comprehension of in the event that you apply exertion, you will get the related reward. Kahn (1990) proposes that one acts differently and shows diverse self-imagery based on the situation that they find themselves in. This adds quality to the point of view that engagement is a psychological state of mind as one needs to have a reason to act in a manner whether it be emotional, cognitively, or physically. 4.12 Barriers to engagement While a large portion of literature focuses on engagement drivers there is also an increasing emphasis on recognizing those components that will repress an employee’s capability to engage. Key aspects include bureaucracy and heavy workload substantial workload which seriously 117 impedes the capability of the organisation to engage its employees as well as being overworked as both increment worker vulnerability to pressure (Lockwood, 2007). On an engagement summit led by Purcell in 2009 he suggested 6 key factors that limit engagement which is job insecurity; unfairness especially on rewards and pay systems); jobs which are repetitive work and with short cycle time; extremely traumatic jobs with no flexibility or independence; poor management conduct and harassment; and working for lengthy periods of time without break in between. Other academics (Beech & Akerson, 2003 cited in Pech & Slade, 2006; Blessing White, 2008a) found that absence of trust particularly management trust may be an antecedent to disengagement in an organisation. Disengagement might also be influenced by a person's availability at work. The lesser the availability, the lesser the job engagement level experienced. May et al. (2004) discovered proof to propose that time spent on exercises outside work anticipated lower availability scores as they just have such an extensive amount themselves that they can dedicate to their different life parts. This accentuation on constrained resources is upheld by evidence that day‐level engagement and proactive conduct are connected to the degree to which employees have recouped, amid recreation time, from their previous day’s work (Sonnentag, 2003). 4.13 Demographics and Work Engagement 4.13.1 Gender Researchers have regularly considered gender as a conceivable prescient factor in job engagement levels for human services workforces. Sprang, Clark and Whitt-Woosley (2007), discovered in their study that female employees had a greater risk of suffering from burnout than their male counterparts. Similar results have been noted in engagement studies (Schaufeli et al., 2006) where 118 men scored marginally higher on the three engagement facets than did women who were under the study. Likewise, Van Wanrooy, Brewley, Bryson, Forth, Freeth, Stokes and Wood (2013) found that women scored higher than men on both components (Van Wanrooy et al., 2013, p. 130). Women also scored higher than men across each of the elements of engagement they examined; intellectual engagement, effective engagement and social engagement (Alfes et al., 2010, p. 21). In a study conducted by Gallup’s US research found that women have a tendency to find extra fulfilment in their occupations and they were also more engaged than men are (Johnson 2004). In the study by Robinson, Hooker and Hayday (2007) females were to some extent more engaged than males. Similarly, Coetzee & De Villiers (2010) also found that female employees appear to experience a substantial higher level of overall job engagement. Other studies however, found men to be more engaged than women. Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) detailed that men scored fundamentally higher than women on every one of the engagement facets which are vigour, dedication and absorption. In a study done by Burke and El-Kot (2010) among supervisors and specialists in Egypt, men and single employees reported higher levels of job engagement. Similar results were found also by Kapoor and Anthony (2013) were male employees of a manufacturing company had fairly high engagement levels as compared to the female employees in the same sector. On the other hand, Cifre, Salonova and Rodríguez-Sánchez (2011) have found no difference between engagement levels among various gender or age groups. Gorter, Te Brake, Hoogstraten and Eijkman (2008) found no substantial gender variances in the mean scores of dentists. In addition, Sonnentag (2003) showed that gender as a control variable does influence employee engagement. 119 A recent study by Garg (2014) explored individual parameters such as gender, age, and educational experience with respect to employee engagement in India. A structured questionnaire was used in this quantitative research design. Employees in top-, middle-, and lower-level jobs participated in this study (400 participants total) within a variety of industries. The researcher found that no significant differences existed with respect to employee engagement and gender. Thus, there seems to be an inconsistency in research regarding gender as an influencing variable of work engagement. 4.13.2 Ethnicity While studies regarding race and job engagement are scarce, the South African history around ethnic differences shows that ethnicity remains an applicable variable to be studied. In a research done concerning job engagement among student nurses, no differences were noticed in relation to race (Salamonson, Andrew, & Everett, 2009). Another additional study which was focusing on engagement perceptions among healthcare organisations found no substantial relations between job engagement and ethnicity (Bakken & Holzemer, 2000). Nevertheless, Robinson et al. (2004) in their study found that the minority ethnic employees had higher engagement levels than their White co-workers while Black, Chinese and Asian employees had higher scores than those in Mixed and White groups. These discoveries show the significance of exogenous components in impacting job engagement. In their other study by Robinson, et al.’s (2007) found that ethnic minority groups revealed a little higher engagement levels than their white colleagues. Moreover, an investigation by Jones and Harter (2005) found that at low levels of job engagement, individuals from various racial groups had lower inclination to stay with the organisation than individuals from the same racial group. 120 4.13.3 Marital Status According to Bennett (2005) marital status is a critical factor in understanding job engagement. Johnson (2004) found that wedded workers have a tendency to have a more elevated amount of engagement than the individuals who are single. This proposes that married employees have come to a point where they are more settled in both their own and occupational lives. Another distinction identified related to gender is that female supervisors tend to have a higher percentage of actively disengaged employees than male supervisors do (Johnson, 2004). 4.13.4 Tenure The amount of work experience is an important factor that has been investigated for its connection with job engagement. Research indicates that engagement levels decrease when the length of service is high until 20 years or more are reached (Robinson, 2007). Similarly, employees who have less tenure seem to display increased engagement levels, job satisfaction and occupational success (Stumpf, Tymon, & Van Dam, 2013). The results are consistent with Yildirim (2008) who found that employees who have just started working scored higher on measures of engagement. In a different study by Schwartz, Gaugain, Nacher, de Daruvar and Kanehisa (2007) they experimented on 1,200 social workers to see whether social work clinicians decrease in expectation or display expanded burnout through the span of their professions. They found that engagement levels appeared to decrease with increasing service years. Coffman and Gonzalez-Molina (2002) in their investigation found that general labourers begin off invigorated and engaged with their occupations however, tend to drop off in as little as half year, and essentially decrease in engagement following ten years of employment. 121 In a longitudinal study by De Lange, De Witte, Notelaers (2008) they found that employees with longer length of services tend to show a reduction in job engagement inside a similar workplace, recommending a requirement for suitable intercession to manage work engagement. Therefore, the more tenure the less engaged they seem to become (Ferguson, 2007; Truss, Soane, Edwards, Wisdom, Croll & Burnett, 2006) hence the need to consistently propel the comprehension of job engagement. As indicated by the job-demand-resource model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), it is believed these engaged employees would have amassed much social, physical and organisational resources which positively affected job engagement. Workers with more years of experience would have had more opportunity to amass these fundamental resources than employees with lower years of experience which acts as an inspiration to continue to stay engaged. Despite what might be expected, Albdour and Altarawneh (2014) have discovered no critical difference between tenure and job engagement. 4.13.5 Age Age has been identified to be related to engagement in a couple of studies (James, Mckechnie & Swanberg, 2011; Avery et al., 2007), yet there are still very little studies done in the area. Schaufeli et al. (2006) proposed that work engagement is marginally higher among older workers however these distinctions are small. Again, this pattern is reflected in the index of job-related contentment and enthusiasm created by Van Wanrooy et al. (2013) which shows that younger employees and older workers score higher on engagement (Van Wanrooy et al., 2013). However, this contrasts with the findings of Alfes et al. (2010) who argued that under 25s were less engaged across the three dimensions they looked at (Alfes et al., 2010, p. 21). 122 Coetzee and De Villiers (2010) have found that there is a substantial difference between age groups and job engagement (26 years and older scored significantly higher on employee engagement). Similarly, research indicates that work engagement may increase with age (Goštautaitė & Bučiūnienė, 2015; Reio Jr. & Sanders-Reio, 2011; Robinson et al., 2007)) because employees obtain more job-specific knowledge and enhance their interpersonal proficiencies with clients and colleagues over time, which can further contribute to increased job engagement levels (Goštautaitė & Bučiūnienė, 2015). On the other hand, in another study on engagement among student nurses, no significant differences were found in connection to age (Salamonson et al., 2009). Additionally, a study concentrated on the views of engagement in health care found no noteworthy associations with age (Bakken & Holzemer, 2000). James et al. (2011) by dissecting the reactions of the 6047 employees in the retail segment additionally found that age does not significantly affect the level of employee engagement. No statistically noteworthy variances were found in the job engagement of academics of various age groups (Barkhuizen & Rothmann, 2006). 4.13.6 Educational Qualifications Gilbert (2001) proposed that exceedingly qualified employees have a tendency to be more invested in their work with the end goal that it turns out to be all the more mentally focal henceforth making it troublesome for them to withdraw themselves from the job needing to be done. Barkhuizen and Rothmann (2006) likewise recognised that teachers are altogether more committed to their work than senior instructors and more consumed in their work than junior and senior lecturers. 123 This opinion is not reinforced by Schaufeli et al. (2006) who found that different educational qualification categories such as diploma, bachelor, master and doctorate degree of employees do not play a significant part in envisaging overall employee engagement levels. In addition, engagement did not seem to differ systematically among educational qualification categories (Swatee, 2009). 4.13.7 Job Position Research indicates that managers generally have higher engagement levels, and individuals who interact directly with customers also tend to have relatively high levels of engagement (Robinson, 2007). On the other hand, employees providing back‐room support are likely to experience lower levels of engagement (Robinson, 2007). Thus, it seems that management may have higher levels of engagement as opposed to lower job levels. Therefore, engagement decreases further down the organisational hierarchy and usually senior managers and executives are not likely to be aware of the level of discontent amongst more junior employees. Sales and service employees, who typically interact with customers, tend to be least engaged. Therefore, demographic factors ought to be taken into account when examining individual features that may actually impact job engagement. 4.14 Measuring job engagement One of the greatest documented measures was developed by The Gallup organisation named the Gallup Workplace Audit (GWA). The instrument’s 12 items were established from researches done on job motivation, fulfilment, groups efficiency and managerial practices (Gallup, 2013; Harter et al., 2002). It was intended to quantify two classes of survey items which are the matters within the management control and employee attitudinal consequences. Although broadly used by 124 specialists and consultancy companies a few analysts (Macey and Schneider, 2008; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2010) have criticized GWA expressing that it is a contemporary fulfilment measure portraying the environmental situations that are expected to signify engagement rather than calculating engagement itself. Towers Perrin an expert firm built up an overview of engagement asserting that it quantifies benchmarks of engagement and recognize its precursors (Towers Perrin, 2013). The survey was created from an investigation attempted among 40 000 employees working in Northern America and comprised on 9 things surveying people's fulfillment with their overall work experience in the organisation, motivation and organisation citizenship. Price Waterhouse Coopers (2007) developed a 6-item measurement based on their description of job engagement as the desire that employees have by performing above what is expected of them to accomplish business goals. The measurement was established to measure six features seen to describe engaged employees which are advocacy, commitment, discretion effort, pride, achievement and alignment. Further information about the reliability and validity of the survey has not been publicly available. Development Dimensions International (DDI) presented a 20-item engagement survey (Wellins, Bernthal & Phelps, 2005) assessing individual perceptions of alignment effort with approach, empowerment, collaboration and partnership, plans growth, support and acknowledgement, gratification and devotion. It is like the GWA which reflects the satisfaction-engagement approach which adds to vagueness revolving around the uniqueness of employee engagement from other well recognized attitudinal concepts (Albrecht, 2010; Saks & Gruman, 2014). This instrument is 125 focused more on organisational circumstances expected to develop engagement rather than estimating engagement levels within the employee. In peer-reviewed theoretical literature one of the earliest measurement tools for job engagement is the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS) developed by Maslach and Leiter (1997). The scale was initially intended to quantify burnout and comprised of 22 things evaluating three subscales of burnout which are exhaustion, cynicism and professional efficiency. However, employee engagement was well defined as the positive dimension which is a direct opposite of burnout (Maslach & Leiter, 1997) hence was measured within the comprehensive burnout settings where low scores in the three facets suggest engagement. Numerous researchers contended against computing engagement as the contrary post of burnout as absorption ought not to be considered as the direct opposite of diminished efficacy and people who do not feel exhausted may not experience energy (Bakker et al., 2011; Schaufeli et al., 2002). A standout amongst the most broadly utilised instruments that measures job engagement is the Utretcht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) developed and authenticated by investigators from Holland and Spain (Schaufeli et al., 2002) The instrument was grounded on Maslach Burnout Inventory yet with consideration of absorption as a separate component of engagement, not as a direct opposite of burnout reduced efficacy. The original 17 item UWES measures the work engagement dimensions of vigour, absorption and dedication (Goliath-Yarde & Roodt, 2011; Seppälä, Mauno, Feldt, Hakanen, Kinnunen & Tolvanen, 2009; Viljevac, Cooper-Thomas & Saks, 2012). The measure has been found to have suitable psychometric properties (Goliath-Yarde & Roodt, 2011; Rothmann, Jorgensen & Hill, 2011; Schaufeli et al., 2006) and is a popular instrument used widely in work engagement research (Bakker et al., 2011; Simpson, 2009). 126 Derived from the first UWES, Schaufeli et al., (2006) introduced a smaller version named the UWES-9, with 9 questions measuring vigour, absorption and dedication. Mills, Culbertson and Fullgar (2012) analysed the UWES by inspecting the factor structure, reliability, construct validation of two measures and found that the UWES-9 version was valid, reliable and measured the three-factor dimensions of engagement superior to the first 17 item version. While the majority of the scales are grounded in Kahn’s (1990) employee engagement theory, just three of the scales (May et al., 2004; Sak, 2006; Rich et al., 2010) measure Kahn’s (1990) physical, cognitive, and emotional engagement facets (Saks & Gruman, 2014). May et al. (2004) introduced the May Engagement Scale (MES) grounded on physical, cognitive, and emotional subscales which mirror Kahn’s (1990) three features of psychological engagement. The items are like those of UWES. The scale consists of 17 items and seeks to measure physical, cognitive and emotional engagement (Olivier & Rothmann, 2007; Rothmann & Hamukang’andu, 2013; Van Zyl, Deacon, Rothmann, 2010; Viljevac et al., 2012). Likewise, Saks (2006) introduced job engagement measure that is connected to a conceptualization of engagement as being the psychological presence in a job and organisational activities which comes from Kahn’s psychological engagement. The instrument comprised of 5 item scales to measure job engagement and 6 item scales to measure organisational engagement. Rich et al. (2010) altered different things from a few measures to build up a measure of 18 item that matches with Kahn’s psychological engagement facets. The physical engagement was measured by using Brown and Leigh’s (1996) work intensity scale. Russell and Barrett’s (1999) measure of core affect was utilised to measure the emotional subscale. The cognitive subscale was 127 estimated by adjusting Rothbard’s (2001) measure to evaluate the degree to which employees feel absorbed and captivated while executing their assignments. Soane et al. (2012) introduced the Intellectual Social Affective (ISA) engagement instrument based on Kahn’s (1990) theorizing while also considering new reviews and deliberations in the engagement field (Shuck, 2011; Bakker et al., 2011; Parker and Griffin, 2011). From an early set of 21 items, a final 9-item scale was authenticated by means of 683 employees from a retail company in the UK and was found to be reliable with a coefficient alpha of =.91. Respectively Stumpf et al. (2013) introduced the 14 items engagement scale that measured two engagement facets: behavioural and felt engagement. The coefficient alpha for the anticipated subscale were 0.92 for behavioural engagement and 0.80 for felt engagement. The creators guaranteed that the instrument was developed to mirror Macey and Schneider’s (2008) suggestions of engagement. Be that as it may, the items content unsuccessful represented the state and trait dimensions of Macey and Schneider’s (2008) propositions. 4.15 Conclusion The chapter outlines the definitions and approaches to job engagement. The chapter discussed the three dimensions of job engagement which are physical engagement, cognitive engagement, and emotional engagement. In addition, three psychological conditions identified by Kahn which are meaningfulness, availability and safety were discussed. The chapter also included the relationship between job engagement and other constructs and demographics, the significance of job engagement, barriers affecting job engagement, factors shaping job engagement and measurements of engagement. The next chapter will discuss the conceptual literature on the relationship between job engagement and personality. 128 CHAPTER 5: EMPIRICAL LITERATURE 5.1 Personality and Job Engagement Inceoglu and Warr (2012) conducted a study in personality and job engagement using a sample of 714 respondents from several countries with the largest numbers from Australia, India, UK and USA. Using a six-item job engagement scale and Occupational Personality questionnaire they found that engagement was a primary function of personality factors and subfactors such as emotional stability, extraversion and conscientiousness. These results are similar to the study done by Ongore (2014) using the Five Factor Personality Scale and Rich’s (2006) job engagement scale on Kastamou university academics and administrative personnel. He found that extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness and agreeableness were positively correlated with physical, emotional and cognitive engagement. Similarly, in their current assessment of the literature on the connection between individual features and job engagement, Mäkikangas et al. (2013) presented that of all the Big Five dimensions, extroversion, emotional stability and conscientiousness remained constantly correlated to higher job engagement. In an investigation done by Woods and Sofat (2013) they studied the relationship between the big five personality traits with job engagement mediated by the positive condition of psychological meaningfulness. In a sample of 238 UK employed grownups, they found that assertiveness and industriousness facets were the most solid precursors of job engagement and that both displayed direct and indirect effects interceded by psychological meaningfulness. Neuroticism exhibited a minor indirect correlation with job engagement which again interceded by psychological meaningfulness. 129 In terms of emotional stability/neuroticism, research demonstrates that employees scoring high in emotional stability have a more prominent possibility of experiencing job engagement than employees low in emotional stability (O’Neill, Hambley & Chatellier, 2014; Reinke & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2014; Woods & Sofat, 2013). Employees showing emotional stability trait will find it simple to stay optimistic and impartial on the job. They find it less demanding and more characteristic to put terrible past encounters and pay attention to their present performance positively (O’Neill et al., 2014; Reinke & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2014; Woods & Sofat, 2013). In terms of conscientiousness, recent studies have reported similar findings that individuals who are inclined to be hard-working, reliable, self-disciplined, and optimistic are able to translate their work engagement into increased individual job performance (Bakker et al., 2012). Therefore, it was determined that employees who are high in conscientiousness have a solid organisational skills and have a solid awareness of other's expectations and are more than answerable to put liveliness in to their work, feel a robust sense of expert efficacy and are most likely to complete the job (Steger, Litman-Ovadia, Miller, Menger & Rothmann, 2013). Li, Gao, Shen and Liu (2014) found that high levels of extraversion and emotional stability were frequently found to be connected with job engagement indicators. These discoveries demonstrate that personality does impact job engagement (O’Neill et al., 2014; Reinke & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2014; Woods & Sofat, 2013; Wefald, Reichard & Serrano, 2011). The possible explanation is that extroverted people are energetic naturally, passionate and achievement oriented (Milfont & Sibley, 2012). These characteristics rationally bind to the physical and emotional mechanism of job engagement. In addition, extraverts’ sociability and correlation construction abilities can positively impact on all three psychological circumstances of job engagement which are meaningfulness, security and the availability of resources. 130 Pocnet, Antonietti, Massoudi, Györkös, Becker, de Bruin and Rossier (2015) explored the links between personality traits, demographic characteristics and work engagement using a sample consisted of 618 persons working in Switzerland. Work engagement was negatively associated with neuroticism and positively associated with the other four personality dimensions using the NEO-FFI and UWES questionnaires. Similar, Handa and Gulati (2014) explored the relationship between extraversion and conscientiousness personality and employee engagement amongst 333 frontline personnel in the organized retail industry in India using Utrechtt work engagement scale and Big Five Personality scale. The study showed that there is a positive relationship between extraversion and conscientiousness personality traits and employee engagement. In a cross-sectional research done by Kartono, Hilmiana and Muizu (2017) on 233 employees from the Rural Banks in West Java Indonesia showed that personality significantly influences employee engagement of vigour, dedication and absorption. This study is similar to the study done by Ziapour and Kianipour (2015) who used the Utrechtt Staff Engagement scale (vigour, absorption and dedication) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory on 322 nurses of public hospitals in Kermanshah. They found that there were important connections between the two dimensions of personality traits which are neuroticism and extraversion and job engagement while the outcomes of multiple regression analysis revealed that dutifulness and agreeableness were good predictors for job engagement. It can be noted that the above literature is mainly from international studies not done in South Africa. Most of the studies done in South Africa mainly focused on one variable not both personality and job engagement. A few studies were done on personality and job engagement which could be accessed through the South African National ETD portal and online journals. 131 In 2011, Moodley did a study on personality and job engagement in a Marketing and Corporate Affairs division within a large South African financial institution using the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI) to measure 9 personality traits and the Utrechtt Work Engagement Scale (UWES) to measure work engagement in terms of vigour, dedication and absorption. In contrast to the literature findings, no significant relations were found between personality and work engagement. These results are inconsistent with a study done by De Villiers (2015) who investigated whether certain personality characteristics are related to job engagement or job burnout among frontline waitrons at a franchise in the Western Cape, South Africa using the 60 item HEXACO-PI-R questionnaire to measure 6 personality dimensions and (UWES) for engagement. The study results show that extraversion, emotional stability, honest humility, conscientiousness and agreeableness had a significant impact on job engagement. In a study done by Moshoeu (2017) he focused on personality and work balance as determinants of employee engagement among management staff in a web-based survey in the various industries in South Africa. She investigated relationships between personality traits adapted by Martins (2000) and utilised Schaufeli et al. (2002) Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) which consists of three interrelated dimensions: vigour, dedication and absorption. The results revealed significant relationships between the variables such as agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional stability which significantly and positively predicted employee engagement. Another study was done by Cilliers and Mostert (2018) on study demands, study resources and the role of personality characteristics in predicting the engagement of 512 first-year university students at North West University, South Africa. Study demands and resources was measured by an adapted version of the questionnaire on the experience and assessment of work, the Utrechtt Work Engagement Scale-Student Survey (Schaufeli et al. 2002) was used to measure student engagement 132 and personality (extraversion, conscientiousness, neuroticism) was measured by the South African Personality Inventory (SAPI) (Fetvadjiev, Meiring, van de Vijver, Nel & Hill, 2015). All the study demands and resources showed a statistically significant relationship with student engagement while personality characteristics and student engagement had a strong relationship. According to Chen and Nadkarni (2017) employees’ dispositions may yield different interpretations and appraisals of the same contextual factors. For example, one employee may be more engaged in his or her work after receiving negative feedback from customers because he or she regards it as a challenge. The employee perceives meaningfulness because the job provides an opportunity to improve interpersonal skills. Whereas another employee may react to the same kind of negative feedback in job disengagement because this person perceives lower psychological safety, since the negative comments reduce his or her self-image. Psychological meaningfulness has long been recognized as an important factor in the workplace (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). When employees feel their work is meaningful, they are most likely to be engaged. On the contrary, lack of meaningfulness of ones’ work will result in alienation from one’s work and cynicism (Cartwright & Holmes, 2006). Employees who are psychologically available should be more willing and ready to invest their physical, cognitive, and emotional resources in to their work roles. Employees who experience less psychological availability should bring in lower levels of selves into work because they believe their physical, cognitive, or emotional energy is not sufficient. Employees who experience psychological safety within their work place are able to adapt to changes more adequately and provide innovative solutions to guide the organisation forward (Ashauer & Macan, 2013). 133 In another cross-sectional study, Olivier and Rothmann (2007) demonstrated that the three psychological conditions were significant predictors of job engagement, with meaningfulness being the strongest predictor. Chen, Zhang, and Vogel (2011) found that experienced meaningfulness had the largest (positive) effect on work engagement in comparison to safety and availability. Although it is theoretically justifiable to propose links between traits such as the Big Five and states such as work engagement, it does not automatically follow that those trait-state relations are direct. Rather, it may be that there are intermediary states that, in part, explain the links. Positive psychological states are considered to be important antecedents of engagement (May, Gilson & Harter, 2004), and it is possible that such positive states mediate, in part, the relations of traits and engagement. Psychological meaningfulness was shown to partially mediate the relationships of extraversion and conscientiousness with engagement (Woods & Sofat, 2013). The relationship between Extraversion and engagement may be mediated by psychological meaningfulness because the extent to which someone is energetic and ambitious in their approach to work is likely be associated with success, and other positive outcomes at work, in turn associated with a sense that one’s effort is worthwhile, important or valuable. Psychological meaningfulness may mediate the relationship from consciousness to engagement as highly industrious people tend to be hard-working, achievement motivated and self-disciplined, and so may assign importance and value to work activities, and therefore feel more engaged. 134 5.2 Research gap In the study conducted by the Deloitte (2014) as part of the Global Human Capital Trends 2014, the survey participants rated employee engagement and retentions as the second most important aspects that need to be given priority in South African organisations. In another study conducted by Public Display Technologies (2015), among a sample of 1100 participants in a variety of sectors in South Africa, approximately 84% of the survey participants believe that their work performance and motivation would improve if the workplace engaged more effectively with employees. The research study intends to extend the current literature on employee engagement in municipalities in South Africa, by empirically investigating the impact of personality traits (agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness, resourcefulness and emotional stability) on employee engagement (physical, cognitive and emotional engagement). This might be the first study to the researcher’s knowledge that attempts to investigate the relationship between personality traits (measured by the 50-item International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) by Goldberg et al., 2006) and employee engagement (measured by the job engagement scale developed by Rich et al. (2010) among municipal workers the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. As a research field, employee engagement has seen remarkable growth in the recent era (Bakker, 2011; Jin & McDonald, 2016; Macey and Schneider, 2008; Rich et al., 2010) yet, in assessing the body of research related to employee engagement, Wood, Kim and Khan (2016) determined that the field of study is still relatively young. Despite growth in the exploration of the subject, the body of research related to employee engagement still lacks depth, breadth, and adequate explanatory theory (Bailey et al., 2017; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Shuck & Wollard, 2010). Wollard and Shuck (2011) noted a general lack of validation studies within the employee 135 engagement body of research and specifically suggested a need for quantitative testing of antecedents to employee engagement across a variety of organisational sectors and settings. By adding both breadth and depth to the field, this research study is positioned to contribute to the body of work in employee engagement research. In addition, Iddagoda and Opatha (2017) identified seven gaps in their paper “identifying the research gap in employee engagement”. This study will help address for the third gap they identified which was that there are no theoretical arguments which indicate linkage or relationship between employee engagement and personal characteristics. It reveals that the impact of the personal character on employee engagement has neither been theoretically argued nor empirically tested. Fewer studies have focused on dispositional personality traits as predictors of work engagement. While personal resources are related to individual’s psychological state of development (Bakker et al., 2011), traits are described as having a more stable nature, framed like categorical description of human patterns but nevertheless are an evolving pattern of characteristic adaptations (e.g., competencies), and personal life narratives (McAdams and Pals, 2006). These traits can be relevant as workers with different personalities may differentially modify their motivational processes (Goldberg, 1992) and employees which have different traits tend to be motivated by different triggers (Bandura, 2001). In terms of measuring instruments, most of the studies done in South Africa have not used Goldberg’s personality questionnaire. Therefore, this study will add to the existing literature and assess the applicability of the questionnaire in the South African context. In terms of employee engagement, most studies use the UWES questionnaire and focus on absorption, vigour and 136 dedication. Their definitions of job engagement are mainly based on the burnout approach. On the other hand, this study focused on Kahn’s view on job engagement and three dimensions of physical, emotional and cognitive engagement. The study further looked at the psychological conditions identified by Kahn (1990) which include psychological meaningfulness, safety and availability. The research on the dispositional antecedents of engagement is unclear about the influences of personality traits. Therefore, this study addresses this gap, and the main contribution is the test of a theoretical model linking traits of the Big Five model of personality, work engagement and demographics, examining the mediating role of psychological meaningfulness, safety and availability. A further look at the big five personality sub-dimensions will also provide new literature on personality and its impact on job engagement in South Africa. According to Woods and Sofat (2013), future studies could use more detailed measures of personality that enable a more in-depth examination of which facets of personality are key for engagement. In addition, according to Akhtar, Boustani, Tsivrikos and Chamorro-Premuzic (2015), future analyses should also examine the relationships between its different dimensions and personality to detect potential differences. Most research done on job engagement and personality have recommended that researches need to be done with other samples for further studies to compare the results (Ongore, 2014; Arora & Adhikari, 2013; De Villiers, 2015; Hale, 2016). According to Santos et al., (2015) future studies should consider other traits such as big five as well job characteristics which can affect work engagement. In addition, most researches have been conducted in private sectors hence the need to have more research on public government sector to make it more generalizable. Further private and government sectors could be compared to find whether personality effects employee 137 engagement differently between the private and public sectors (Amir et al., 2014). Jin and McDonald (2016) suggested that employee engagement in the government public sectors is a topic that remains under-researched. The operation of public sector enterprise is different than that of the private sector (Seidle, Fernandez, S., & Perry, 2016). This study adds to the scholarly research by providing results related to employee engagement, personality and psychological conditions within an under-researched sector. In his doctoral study, Moshoeu (2017) focused on personality and work balance as determinants of employee engagement among management staff. He recommended that a further study on the study variables and to include lower level employees which this study did. He also recommended having a larger sample from a single organisation as well as in terms of gender, generational cohort, functional job level, economic sector, educational qualifications, tenure, parental status and marital status, to achieve representative and generalized research findings. The study focused on the impact of demographics on the study variables among the municipalities in the Eastern Cape. Moshoeu’s (2017) study also focused on employees in management positions and recommended employees of the lower level to be included as adhered in the current study. Most of the participants were at the management level and, to a certain degree, older people (those born between 1946 and 1964) that have different work values from the general employees. In addition, Bakker and Albrecht (2018) recommended that there is a need for future research on employee engagement refine and develop current knowledge. Future research, for example, could usefully be devoted to systematically understanding what influences engagement in specific demographic groups (e.g. people with disabilities; millennials; older workers), across specific industry sectors (private, public, non-profit), and in differing occupations. Identifying the most salient job demands and resources specific to demographics, occupations and industry sectors will 138 enable framing the most ecologically valid interventions that therefore have the most likely chance of being effective. Furthermore, Shaban (2018) in his study on personality and job engagement on 2 ministries are (MOCA and MOMP) in Egypt he recommended future research study is needed to address the impact of personality on employee engagement of the employees in the public sector. More researchers need to be done with other samples for further studies to compare the results. On the other hand, the study will also focus on the Kahn’s three psychological conditions of job engagement which are psychological meaningfulness, safety and availability (Kahn, 1990). According to Asiwe (2014), researchers could hardly find any literature on South African studies that included psychological safety. Most of the studies have focused on work engagement and the mediational effect of psychological meaningfulness and availability (Olivier & Rothmann 2007; Rothmann & Buys, 2011; Rothmann & Joubert 2007; Rothmann & Rothmann 2010; Rothmann & Welsh, 2013; Chikoko, Buitendach & Kanengoni, 2014). This study will focus on all three psychological conditions. Therefore, researchers know very little about the relationship between employee engagement and psychological safety (Bailey et al., 2017; Lyu, 2016, Zehr, 2017), and the literature is even more scant relative to results associated with the public workers in South Africa. In addition, Frazier, Fainshmidt, Klinger, Pezeshkan and Vracheva (2017) identified the examination of employee engagement as an antecedent of psychological safety with “both having the ability to influence each other positively” (p. 148) as an important area for future research with relevance to researchers from both communities. 139 5.3 Conclusion This chapter focused on the relationship between job engagement and personality. It looks at recent literature on the relationship between the variables and identifies the research gap. The following chapter will focus on the research methodology of the study. 140 CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 6.1 Introduction The present chapter describes the research methodology that was followed to carry out this study. The selection of the sample, the procedure and measures used for data collection, statistical analyses and ethical considerations are also discussed. The chapter further provided the descriptive statistics relating to the sample of the study and reliability of the study constructs. 6.2 Research Methodology Mohammad (2013) defines research methodology as an outline of steps on how, where and when information is to be collected and analysed while Babbie (2010), defines research methodology as measures taken in constructing logical interpretations or getting information or proof as a fraction of a study scheme. Research methodology encompasses the research design, population, sampling, measuring tool, data gathering and data analysis. 6.3 Research Design Research design “provides the overall structure for the procedures that the research is going to follow” as explained by Leedy and Ormrod (2013, p. 74). Nieuwenhuis (2012, p. 70) on the other hand defines research design as “a plan or strategy which moves from the underlying philosophical assumptions to specifying the selection of respondents, the data gathering techniques to be used and the data analysis to be done”. A research design encompasses the methodology and procedures employed to conduct scientific research (Creswell, 2012). The design of a study therefore, defines the study type, research 141 questions, hypotheses, independent and dependent variables, and if applicable, data collection methods and a statistical analysis plan (Small, 2011). In the present research, the quantitative survey research design was used which is based on seeking the objective truth of whether there is a relationship that is scientific in nature (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013, p. 29). Maree and Pietersen (2012, p. 145) describe quantitative research as “a process that is systematic and objective in its ways of using numerical data from only a selected subgroup of the population to generalise the findings to the universe that is being studied”. The quantitative method is well-suited for the examination of relationships between variables (Joyner, Rouse, & Glatthorn, 2013) and was, therefore, determined to be suitable for this study. A quantitative correlational study is appropriate when the researcher wishes to predict the value of a variable based on levels of other variables or combinations thereof (Burns & Burns, 2013; Joyner et al., 2013) and multiple regression analysis techniques can be leveraged to determine if statistically significant relationships between the variables exist (Burns & Burns, 2013). The research design in this study seeks to develop descriptive and inferential data about a relationship based on existing conditions and associations between variables, therefore the research can be considered non-experimental (Swanson & Holton, 2005). Non-experimental methods are used for describing data and examining relationships and they allow for the measurement of variables (Picardi & Masick, 2014). One of the non-experimental research methods is survey research (Muijs, 2011) which is a method of collecting data in a consistent way to assess thought, opinions and feelings about a certain topic (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister & Jeanne, 2011). Survey research has the advantage that relationships between 142 variables can be studied and survey research can also describe a situation at a point in time (Botha, 2010; Fowler, 2009). Survey research methods include self-report measures such as questionnaires (Fowler, 2009; Muijs, 2011) by means of which data can be collected from a representative sample of a population (Picardi & Masick, 2014). Survey research is used to collect large amounts of data in a more cost-effective and time-effective manner than when other methods such as observation or face-to-face interviews are used (Fowler, 2009; Muijs, 2011). Respondents tend to be honest when answering the survey questions because they remain anonymous, which is not the case with telephonic or face-to-face interviews (Fowler, 2009; Muijs, 2011). 6.4 Population A population is an area from which the required information which provides answers for the study is obtained (Kumar, 2011; Ormrod & Leedy, 2010). The population can be described as the whole group of things, events or people that the researcher is researching (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013, p. 397). In this research, the study population comprises all the municipal workers from six district municipalities in the Province of Eastern Cape, which are, Alfred Nzo District Municipality, Cacadu District Municipality, Chris Hani District Municipality, Amathole District Municipality, Joe Gqabi District Municipality and O.R. Tambo District Municipality. The total population size for all the six district municipalities is approximately 29 000 public service employees. 6.5 Sample and Sampling Method Based on the total number of the targeted population, it would not be feasible to study the entire group. In addition, evidence from various studies supports that a portion of the population known 143 as a sample be selected to participate in the study (Babbie, 2014). A sample can be defined as a group of respondents who have been carefully selected to represent the population (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler, 2011). A sample is a subset of the population being studied (Richardson, 2005), that included the process of selecting a few (samples) from a bigger group (the sampling population) to become the basis for estimating or predicting a fact, situation or outcome regarding the bigger group (Kumar, 1996). In this study probability sampling was used which is according to Leedy and Ormrod (2013, p. 207) a sampling technique where every part of the population has the potential to be represented in the sample and that the sample is chosen from the overall population by random selection. The probability sampling enables the evaluation of the sampling error (Churchill & Brown, 2007). Simple random sampling was used to select individuals in the selected six district municipalities. The sample was selected using a simple random sampling method which ensured equal chances of research participants to be selected (Sarantakos, 2005). This sampling method was used to ensure the representativeness of the sample selected from the total population (Terre Blanche, Durrheim, & Painter, 2006). A record of all municipal employees was requested from the human resources department and the employees were assigned numbers which were used to select the research participants. After the allocation of numbers, research participants were randomly selected using table of random numbers and employee’s assigned number for research selection. Calculations of the sample size were done with the use of Raosoft sample size calculator. Based on this instrument, a sample of 380 will accordingly be used to obtain a 50% response distribution, 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence level. In this study, 403 respondents answered and returned the questionnaire. 144 6.6 Research Instrument In line with the chosen non-experimental quantitative research design, questionnaires that were used in this study consisted of closed-ended questions. A questionnaire is suitable for collecting large amounts of data within a short period of time (Ivankova, Creswell & Clark, 2012). Having closed questions makes it easier to answer because the respondents choose from the options presented to them (Muijs, 2011) and do not have to take more time explaining their responses. Data needed to achieve the research objectives were collected by means of questionnaires and it contained three different sections as discussed below. 6.6.1 Section 1: Demographical and Occupational information The questionnaire elicited the study respondents’ demographic and professional statistics. A Demographical and occupational data questionnaire petitioning for information on respondents’ race, gender, marital status, age, tenure, occupational level and educational level was be collected (Jordaan, 2007). This Demographical information added a layer of basic detail to the responses obtained (Picardi & Masick, 2014). 6.6.2 Section 2: International Personality Item Pool The personality traits: neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience and extraversion was measured using the 50-item International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) (Goldberg et al., 2006). The items in the instrument were created by Goldberg (2015e) and are based on his previous work on the Big Five model of personality (Goldberg, 1981, 1990, 1992). In addition to its high validity and reliability, this scale has proved to be very popular for a variety of reasons (Goldberg et al., 2006). The scale is available and can be obtained instantly on the 145 Internet and its scoring keys are readily available as well. The cost of this instrument is free making it accessible to anyone and it has so far been translated into over 25 languages (Goldberg et al., 2006). Another advantage the IPIP has over other measurements is that it allows researchers to reorder, reword or translate the items into other languages without requiring permission from the author. Every single trait was measured by 10 items on a 5-point Likert-type object with subsequent values of (1) - very inaccurate; (2)- moderately inaccurate; (3)- neither inaccurate nor accurate; (4)-moderately accurate; (5)- very accurate. Reliability The IPIP has good internal consistency and relates strongly to major dimensions of personality assessed by the NEO-FFI and EPQ-R (Gow, Whiteman, Pattie & Deary, 2005). The traits were found to have the following alpha coefficients: conscientiousness (.79); extraversion (.87); agreeableness (.82); openness to experience (.84); neuroticism (.86) (Goldberg et al., 2006). Validity Lim and Ployhart (2006) examined the construct validity of the IPIP by comparing it to the NEO-FFI and found that the scale presents a good fit for the five-factor model in line with Goldberg (1999). Additionally, their study found strong support for the convergent and discriminant validity of the IPIP and evidence that it can be interchangeable with the NEO-FFI. In addition, the 50-item IPIP Five Factor Markers has been demonstrated to have above average correlations with the commercially available NEO five-factor inventory (Costa, 1996; McCrae & Costa, 2004, 2007) with correlations ranging from 0.46 to 0.48 (Goldberg et al., 2006). 146 Another support for the IPIP comes from Guenole and Chernyshenko (2005) who examined the dimensionality, bias and criterion validity of the scale in a New Zealand based study. The internal consistency and concurrent validation of the IPIP Big-Five factor markers have now been validated in the U.S. (Goldberg et al., 2005), Scotland (Gow et al., 2005), New Zealand (Guenole & Chernyshenko, 2005), Croatia (Mlačić & Goldberg, 2007). They found good construct and criterion validity for the IPIP, as well as little evidence of measurement bias. Convergent validity has been demonstrated for the 50-item IPIP Five Factor scale by comparing its results with several well-researched commercially available instruments designed to measure the same hypothesized underlying five constructs of personality. The instruments included the Big Five Inventory (Zheng, Goldberg, Zheng, Zhao, Tang & Liu, 2008), and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Maples, Guan, Carter, & Miller, 2014). 6.6.3 Section 3: Job Engagement Scale Rich and colleagues (2010) developed and published a measure, the 18-item job engagement scale (JES), based on Kahn’s conceptualization. Items for this scale are based on research related to the three dimensions. For example, Rich et al. (2010) drew upon Brown and Leigh’s (1996) research on work intensity and effort, which showed that employees who work hard exhibit higher levels of performance. For constructing questions for the cognitive and emotional subscales, Rich et al. (2010) respectively drew upon the work of Rothbard’s (2001) measure of attention and absorption, and Russell and Barrett’s (1999) work on generalized affect encompassing feeling good and having energy. 147 Employees were requested to show the level to which they are engaged with their jobs on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree (1) to “strongly agree” (5). Sample items include: “I work with intensity on my job” (physical), “I am enthusiastic about my job” (emotional), and “At work, my mind focuses on my job” (cognitive). Rich et al.’s (2010) first examination of their scale, using a sample of 84 full-time employees, revealed high inter-correlations among the sub-scales (r= .63 to .74), which they suggested supported the concept of an overall job engagement score. Subsequent modification of items and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on a field sample of 180 employees at an assisted-living healthcare facility, revealed support for a three dimension model of physical, cognitive, and emotional, with engagement as a higher-order factor (Rich et al., 2010). The scale was selected due to its strong reliability and its ability to measure all the three components of engagement, namely the physical, emotional, and cognitive aspects, through easily understandable items. Reliability The scale has a Cronbach alpha of α = 0.82, according to its developers (Rich et al., 2010). The internal consistency coefficient for the physical engagement dimension (PE) was α = 0.91, for emotional engagement (EE) it was α = 0.94, and for the cognitive engagement (CE) dimension it was α = 0.95 when the sub-dimensions of the scale were investigated (Ongore, 2013). Shuck, Ghosh, Zigarmi and Nimon (2013) found an internal consistency reliability estimates for each subscale as the following: α = 0.94 for cognitive engagement, α = 0.93 for emotional engagement, and α = 0.90 for physical engagement. The combined scale reliability estimate was 0.96 (Shuck, Ghosh, Zigarmi & Nimon, 2013, p. 178). 148 Validity Using a sample of 245 full-time firefighters, Rich and colleagues (2010) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis and obtained further construct validity evidence for the second-order with three first-order factors structure of their measure. To obtain discriminant validity evidence they examined how job engagement related to a variety of constructs such as perceived support, job involvement, core self-evaluations and intrinsic motivation. To obtain predictive validity evidence, the authors obtained supervisory ratings of organisational citizenship behaviour and task performance. Their results, using structural equation modelling, supported their hypothesized relationships - engagement was positively related to support and core self-evaluations, as well as OCBs and task performance, and engagement was appropriately distinct from job satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and job involvement. In addition, Ongore (2013) also investigated the validity and reliability of the JES Turkish Form (JESTR) and found it valid and reliable. 6.6.4 Section 4: Psychological Conditions This section measures the three psychological conditions identified by Kahn (1990) which are meaningfulness, safety and availability. 6.6.4.1 Psychological Meaningfulness Psychological meaningfulness was measured using a scale that was compiled by May et al. (2004). It consists of six items that were drawn from Spreitzer (1995) and May (2003) and assesses the degree of meaning that individuals perceive in their work-related activities. The items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). 149 A higher score on this scale reflected more meaning in one’s job. All items are positively worded and examples of some of them are as follows: ‘My job activities are personally meaningful to me’ and ‘I feel that the work I do on my job is valuable.’ 6.6.4.2 Psychological Safety A 3-item scale created by May et al. (2004) was used to measure psychological safety which measured psychological perceptions of safety, not workplace safety behaviours. The measure was created based on Kahn’s (1990) work and assesses whether individuals feel comfortable being themselves and expressing their opinions at work, as well as whether they perceive a threatening environment at work. Two out of the three items were negatively worded and needed to be reverse-coded before a mean score was calculated for this construct. Examples of items found on this scale are ‘I’m not afraid to be myself at work’ and ‘there is a threatening environment at work’. Items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). 6.6.4.3 Psychological Availability Psychological availability was also measured using a scale created by May et al. (2004) based on Kahn’s (1990) work. This scale contains five items that measure the confidence that individuals have regarding their ability to be physically, cognitively, and emotionally available for work. Similarly, to the other scales for psychological conditions, items on this scale were scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). All scale items were positively worded prior to calculating a mean availability score. A higher score on this scale reflected that an individual was more psychologically available to perform his/her job. Example items include ‘I am confident in my ability to handle competing demands at work’ and ‘I am confident in my ability to display the appropriate emotions at work.’ 150 According to May et al. (2004), all the above three psychological conditions can be used as a total score in practical applications, however it also advised that the three separate conditions can be measured separately. Reliability Reliability was established with a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of α = 0.77 for psychological meaningfulness, α = 0.71 for psychological safety and 0.85 for psychological availability by May et al. (2004, p. 21). Olivier and Rothmann (2007) used this scale in their study three years later and reported an even higher coefficient of α = 0.92. For safety, when the scale was first used, May et al. (2004) achieved an alpha coefficient of α = 0.71. Recently, Chen, Zhang, and Vogel (2011) reported an alpha coefficient of α = 0.70 for this scale. The alpha coefficient of this scale was (α = 0.74) from Vinarski-Peretz and Carmeli (2011) and (α = 0.71) from Olivier & Rothmann (2007). In terms of availability measure, authors of this scale reported an alpha coefficient of α = 0.85 (May et al., 2004), as did Olivier and Rothmann when they used the scale a few years later in their study (2007). The alpha coefficient of this scale was (α = 0.90) from Vinarski-Peretz and Carmeli (2011). Validity Baumann (2011) showed evidence for the construct validity of the psychological conditions scale in a sample of mine employees in Namibia. The reliability and subsequent validity of these measures were reinforced in another study by Olivier and Rothmann (2007). In their study, the 151 data were derived from an oil company located in Africa which provided a unique context for engagement research. 6.7 Data Collection Procedures Data collection technique or tool in research is defined as “a specific mechanism or strategy the researcher uses to collect, manipulate or interpret data” (Leedy and Ormrod, 2013, p. 7). The questionnaire was used to collect data from the identified research sample which was chosen from the research population. Questionnaires together with blank envelopes were given to the respondents. Questionnaires included a cover page with instructions to the participants and information on the assessments and the research. The consent form was also included in the questionnaire and which participants were requested to sign. Participants were given one week to complete and return the completed questionnaires to the human resources department. The researcher collected the completed questionnaires on a weekly basis to monitor participants’ response. 6.8 Data Analysis After the collection of all completed questionnaires, an analysis and interpretation of the research findings were done. Data was analysed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 20). In line with the quantitative approach, statistical analyses comprising descriptive statistics, such as the mean, standard deviation and correlations, was conducted. Descriptive statistics are conventionally used to analyse raw data by indicating the number of participants in a study, the minimum and maximum scores, means and standard deviations (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2007). Both inferential and descriptive statistics were conducted as noted below: 152 Reliability Bhattacherjee (2012) defined reliability as the degree to which the measure of a construct is consistent or dependable. It is the most important psychometric indicator used to determine the usefulness and the accuracy of the instruments (Von der Ohe, 2014) and whether the results are repeatable (Bryman, 2010). In this current study, the reliability of instruments was determined by calculating the internal consistency reliability on the basis that it is the extent to which all the items within the single instrument yield similar results. By convention, a reliability coefficient of 0.70 or higher is widely accepted, implying that the higher the coefficient, the more reliable the instrument is (Nunnaly & Bernsein, 1994). Bless, Higson-Smith and Sithole (2013, p. 222) emphasize that researchers evaluate the measures they use and a measurement strategy is reliable if its application yields consistent results time after time. Validity Assessing the validity and reliability of measuring instruments is integral to validating an instrument’s usefulness (Alumran, Hou and Hurst, 2012, p. 230). Validity refers to how well a measurement strategy validates what it intends to measure (Adler and Clark, 2011, p. 148). In this study, the content and face validity of the instrument were ascertained through pilot testing of the questionnaire with a sample of 25 municipality employees. This procedure was conducted to validate the content of the questionnaire in terms of relevance, wording, accuracy and practicality. In addition, the questionnaire was also reviewed by a statistician and the researcher’s supervisor who are experts in the field of organisational behaviour. Face validity was established in a process 153 where the researcher as an expert in the field of the study examined the questionnaire and concluded it measures the attributes of interest, just on the face of it. Descriptive Statistics According to Pietersen and Maree (2012, p. 183) the analysis of quantitative data often starts with descriptive statistics. Pietersen and Maree (2012, p. 183) describe descriptive statistics as “a collective name for a number of statistical methods that are used to organize and summaries data in a meaningful way”. Descriptive statistics was used to describe the demographical and occupational information of the study participants. Some measures that are commonly used to describe a data set are measures of central tendency and measures of variability or dispersion. Measures of central tendency include the mean, median and mode, while measures of variability include the standard deviation or variance, the minimum and maximum values of the variables, kurtosis and skewness. The mean provides an arithmetic average on a set of values and the intended mean is used to compute the score averages that are obtained in the different dimensions of the instruments. The standard deviation is perceived as the square root of the variance that measures the average of the deviations of each score from the mean and gives an approximate picture of the average distance of each number in a set from the center value (Cooper & Schindler, 2014). Skewness on the other hand, refers to a measure of the distribution’s deviation from symmetry while kurtosis measures distribution’s peakedness or flatness in relation to a normal distribution (Cooper & Schindler, 2014). Inferential Statistics 154 Inferential statistics analysis is mainly concerned with testing the hypothesis (Leedy & Ormord, 2010). Cooper and Schindler (2014) describe inferential statistics as the application of inductive reasoning because it allows a researcher to make a claim based on empirical evidence to draw conclusions about the population. Several statistical tests are warranted in the inferential statistics, namely, canonical correlation analysis, standard multiple regression analysis, structural equation modelling, hierarchical moderated regression analyses and test for significant mean differences. Prior to computing the inferential statistics, it was essential to take into cognisance several assumptions underlying the multivariate procedures and tests for significant mean differences such as outliers, homoscedasticity, and auto-correlation of errors which were met in this study hence suggesting a robust sample Correlation Pearson’s correlation values are useful in determining the degree to which two variables are associated (Burns & Burns, 2013; Laerd Statistics, 2015; Hamid 2014). The results are tabulated in the correlation matrix where the relationships of the variables are shown regarding its orientation (positive or negative), strength and significance (Du Plessis, 2010). The correlation coefficient varies from -1 to 1. A correlation coefficient of near -1 or 1 indicates that a high negative correlation or a high positive correlation, respectively, exists between two variables (Tang, Xiong, Zhao & Zang, 2003, p. 99). Effect size was used to decide on the practical significance of the findings (Botha, 2010; Muijs, 2011; Struwig & Stead, 2010). The practical significance of correlation coefficients is set, with r ≥ 0.30 representing a medium effect size (Ferreira, 2009) and r ≥ 0.50 representing a large effect size (Botha, 2010). 155 r = 0.10: small effect; r = 0.30: medium effect; r = 0.50: large effect. Level of Statistical Significance Statistical significance is the likelihood that a relationship between two or more variables is caused by something other than chance. Statistical significance refers to the probability that the observed results could have occurred randomly provided there are is no true underlying effect (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005; Welman, Kruger & Mitchell, 2005). Statistical hypothesis testing is used to determine whether the result of a data set is statistically significant. The significance level is the criterion mostly used for rejecting the null hypothesis (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). The null hypothesis is rejected based on a comparison of the empirical results with a critical value associated with the significance level, and it will be rejected if the results exceed the associated critical value (Welman et al., 2005). This test provides a p-value, representing the probability that random chance could explain the result. In general, a p-value of 5% or lower is considered to be statistically significant. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used when research involves three or more levels of a single independent variable or more than three variables (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999). In this study, the independent variables are the five personality types and the dependent variable job engagement with psychological conditions as the moderating factor. The null hypothesis for ANOVA is that the 156 mean (average value of the dependent variable) is the same for all groups. The alternative or research hypothesis is that the average is not the same for all groups. The ANOVA is appropriate to test for significant differences between means by comparing variances. The appropriateness of using these techniques is that it allows the calculation of many means such as personality types and if necessary the incorporation of more than one independent variable such as work engagement and its three dimensions (Sekaran, 1992). Regression The study used multiple and hierarchical regression. Multiple regression analysis is one of the most commonly used multivariate statistical techniques and is used to build models for predicting scores on one variable (dependent variable) from several other variables (independent variables) (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson, 2010). Through multiple regression, the researcher was able to determine if statistically significant relationships between the variables exist (Burns & Burns, 2013; Hair et al., 2010). The r-squared (R2) values aim to indicate how well a set of independent variables explains the dependent variable and it measures the direction and size of the effect of each variable on a dependent variable. The adjusted R² ≤ 0.12 (small practical effect size), R² ≥ 0.13 ≤ 0.25 (moderate practical effect size), R² ≥ 0.26 (large practical effect size) were considered when interpreting the magnitude of the practical significance of the results (Cohen, 1992). Hierarchical regression is a multiple regression method that allows the researcher to enter variables in a series of steps based on a priori decisions grounded in theoretical rationale (Field, 2009). 157 6.9 Ethical considerations Ethics is concerned with what is considered acceptable in human behaviour (Naidoo, 2014) what is wrong or right, good or bad in human conduct to achieve goals and objectives. Permission to carry out the research was obtained from the municipality’s manager and University’s Research Ethics Committee. Common ethical research requirements on anonymity, independent work, storage and plagiarism were also observed (Creswell, 2014). Informed Consent The researcher ensured that all participants were informed wholly of what the study is all about and they were requested to concur willingly to partake in the research. Consent must be voluntary and informed (Creswell, 2013). They were informed in a non-technical way and given a clear explanation as to what the study is all about and how it affects them (Creswell, 2013). The researcher was available to answer any questions participants have about the research being conducted, at any time. Privacy and Confidentiality The privacy of the partakers was adhered to as research partakers were not identified and the information put together was dealt with confidentially. As recommended by Babbie and Mouton (2011), the researcher ensured that no harm occurred to the participants, and kept and treated all the research information as confidential. The research participants were required to return their completed questionnaires in sealed envelopes to ensure confidentiality. The researcher did not withhold information to betray participants or give them misleading information. Respect for the Autonomy and Dignity of People 158 The participants were treated with respect and dignity, irrespective of their age, race, gender or status. According to Nicholson (2011), respect for the dignity of persons and a focus on moral rights should be given priority when dealing with ethical challenges. Lastly, proper acknowledgement of other people’s work contributions was made where the researcher used their work. The researcher was responsible for protecting the welfare and integrity of research participants and the whole study. 6.10 Demographical and Occupational Information The purpose of this subsection is mainly to provide and present the Demographical and occupational information of the respondents which entail the gender, race, age, marital status, educational qualification, occupational level, duration on the job and job status of respondents as recorded in Section A of the research questionnaire. A descriptive approach was used to describe the demographic variables of the study as shown in Table 6.1 below. Table 6: Descriptive Statistics for Demographical Variables Variable Levels df f Valid % Gender Male 1 210 52.1 Female 193 47.9 Ethnicity Black African 5 302 74.9 White 34 8.4 Coloured 43 10.7 Indian 18 4.5 Asian 3 0.7 159 Other 3 0.7 Age Below 21 years 5 40 9.9 21 to 30 years 112 27.8 31 to 40 years 136 33.7 41 to 50 years 68 16.9 51 to 60 years 34 8.4 61 and above years 13 3.2 Marital Status Single 4 179 44.4 Married 146 36.2 Divorced 40 9.9 Separated 18 4.5 Widowed 20 5.0 Educational Qualification Matric 5 61 15.1 Certificate 67 16.6 Diploma 107 26.6 Degree 97 24.1 Post graduate 46 11.4 Other 25 6.2 Occupational Level Level 1 to 5 2 151 37.5 Level 6 to 10 192 47.6 Level 11 to 15 60 14.9 Tenure Less than 1 year 3 42 10.4 1 to 5 years 174 43.2 6 to 10 years 114 28.3 Above 10 years 73 18.1 Job status Permanent 1 279 69.2 Temporary 124 30.8 Municipalities Alfred Nzo 5 73 18.1 Chris Hani 69 17.1 Joe Gqabi 75 18.6 OR Tambo 60 14.9 Sarah Baartman 62 15.4 Amathole 64 15.9 N = 403 The next section is a graphical presentation and description of the descriptive statistics of the Demographical information. 160 6.10.1 Gender Figure 1. Distribution of Respondents by Gender Figure 1 illustrate the categories of gender of the participants of the study. The bar graph show that 52.1% of the respondents (n = 210) were male while 47.9% (n = 193) were female. 6.10.2 Race Figure 2 below illustrates the race distribution of the study respondents. It shows that 74.9% (n = 302) of participants were Black African, 10.7% (n = 43) were Colored, 8.4% (n = 34) were White and 4.5% (n = 18) of participants were Indian. Both Asians and other races all have 0.7% (n = 3) of the total number of the respondents. Male52%Female48%GENDERMaleFemale161 Figure 2 . Distribution of Respondents by Race 6.10.3 Age Figure 3 . Distribution of Respondents by Age 01020304050607080BLACK AFRICANWHITE COLOURED INDIAN ASIAN OTHER74,9%8,4% 10,7%4,5%0,7% 0,7%RACE05101520253035BELOW 21 YEARS21 TO 30 YEARS31 TO 40 YEARS41 TO 50 YEARS51 TO 60 YEARS61 AND ABOVE9,9%27,8%33,7%16,9%8,4%3,2%AGE162 Figure 3 shows that most of the respondents (33.7%, n = 136) are in the age group of 31 to 40 years, 27.8% (n = 112) of the respondents are in the age group of 21 to 30 years, while 16.9% (n = 68) are between the ages of 41 to 50 years. Only forty respondents (9.9%) fall in the age category of below 21 years, 34 respondents (8.4%) fall in the 51 to 60 year age category and only thirteen respondents (3.2%) are in the 61 and above years. 6.10.4 Marital Status Figure 4. Distribution of Respondents by Marital Status Figure 4 illustrates the marital status of the study participants. Of the total participants 44.4% (179) were single, 36.2% (146) were married, 9.9% (40) were divorced, 4.5% (18) were separated and only 5% (20) were widowed. 6.10.5 Educational Qualifications Figure 5 below illustrates the categories of highest educational qualification held by the respondents. It shows that 26.6% (n = 107) of the participants hold a Diploma, 24.1% (n = 107) had a Degree, 16.6% (n = 67) and had a Certificate, 15.1% (n = 61) had Matric and 11.4% (n = 051015202530354045SINGLE MARRIED DIVORCED SEPARATED WIDOWED44,4%36,2%9,9%4,5% 5%MARITAL STATUS163 46) had a Postgraduate certificate. The respondents on the “Other” category (6.2%; n = 25) hold senior school certificates. Figure 5. Distribution of Respondents by Educational Qualifications 6.10.6 Occupational Level Figure 6. Distribution of Respondents by Occupational Level 0 5 10 15 20 25 30MATRICCERTIFICATEDIPLOMADEGREEPOSTGRADUATEOTHER15,1%16,6%26,6%24,1%11,4%6,2%EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS39%46%15%OCCUPATIONAL LEVELLevel 1 to 5Level 6 to 10Level 11 to 15164 Figure 6 illustrates the categories of occupational levels held by the respondents. It shows that 47.6% (n = 192) of the participants worked on Level 6 to 10, 37.5% (n = 151) work on Level 1 to 5 while 14.9% (n = 60) of the respondents work in Level 11 to 15. 6.10.7 Tenure Figure 7. Distribution of Respondents by Tenure Figure 7 illustrates the period of employment in the present positions of the respondents. The graph show that 43.2% (n = 174) of the participants have worked for 1 to 5 years, 28.3% (n = 114) worked for 6 to 10 years, 18.1% (n = 73) worked for above 10 years and only 10.4% (n = 42) were in their present job for less than a year. This demonstrates the employment longevity of participants which resonates with the occupational levels. 051015202530354045LESS THAN A YEAR 1 TO 5 YEARS 6 TO 10 YEARS ABOVE 10 YEARS10,4%43,2%28,3%18,1%TENURE165 6.10.8 Job Status Figure 8. Distribution of Respondents by Job Status Figure 8 illustrates the categories of work status of the participants of the study. Of the total participants, 69.2% (279) were under permanent employment and only 26.6% of participants (n = 107) were employed temporarily. 6.10.9 District Municipalities Figure 9 illustrates the categories of the district municipalities the participants worked under. Of the total participants 18.6% (n = 75) works at Joe Gqabi district municipality, 18.1% (n = 73) works at Alfred Nzo district municipality, 17.15 (n = 69) works at Chris Hani district municipality,15.9% (n = 64) works at Amathole district municipality, 15.4% (n = 62) works at Sarah Baartman district municipality and 14.9% (n = 60) works at OR Tambo district municipality. 69%31%JOB STATUSPermanentTemporary166 Figure 9. Distribution of Respondents by District Municipalities 6.11 Summary of Descriptive Statistics Table 7 shows the summary of the descriptive statistics of the study. Data is displayed in terms of the total number of respondents, minimum, maximum, mean scores, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis of the data set from the sample. It shows the mean levels of the main variables which are job engagement (mean = 4.0670; SD = 0.68680); conscientiousness (mean = 5.4390; SD = 0.96496); agreeableness (mean = 4.6576; SD = 1.34722); openness (mean = 5.6531; SD = 1.18786); and extraversion (mean = 5.6514; SD = 1.22332); were all high for the study sample. Only neuroticism (mean = 3.3203; SD = 0.30586) and all psychological conditions (mean = 3.1700; SD = 0.54715) were moderately high which shows that the respondents somewhat agreed with the measuring items of the variables. 02468101214161820ALFRED NZO CHRIS HANI JOE GQABI OR TAMBO SARAH BAARTMANAMATHOLE18,1%17,1%18,6%14,9%15,4% 15,9%DISTRICT MUNICIPALITIES167 Table 7: Summary of Descriptive Statistics N Min Max Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Statistic SE Statistic SE Job Engagement 403 1.06 5.00 4.0670 0.68680 -0.788 0.122 0.984 0.243 Physical 403 1.00 5.00 4.1117 0.73203 -0.839 0.122 0.751 0.243 Emotional 403 1.00 5.00 4.0583 0.80352 -0.845 0.122 0.567 0.243 Cognitive 403 1.00 5.00 4.0310 0.77948 -0.788 0.122 0.618 0.243 Conscientiousness 403 2.57 7.00 5.4390 0.96496 -0.568 0.122 -0.480 0.243 Extraversion 403 1.00 7.00 5.6514 1.22332 -1.102 0.122 0.824 0.243 Agreeableness 403 1.00 7.00 4.6576 1.34722 0.157 0.122 -0.922 0.243 Openness 403 1.80 7.00 5.6531 1.18786 -0.922 0.122 0.426 0.243 Neuroticism 403 2.40 4.38 3.3203 0.30586 0.280 0.122 -0.034 0.243 Psy-Conditions 403 1.30 5.00 3.1700 0.54715 0.300 0.122 1.242 0.243 Meaningfulness 403 2.20 5.00 3.5772 0.53506 0.288 0.122 -0.373 0.243 Safety 403 1.90 5.00 3.4323 0.50030 -0.081 0.122 -0.096 0.243 Availability 403 2.20 5.00 3.5727 0.57233 0.032 0.122 -0.538 0.243 Valid N (list wise) 403 1.00 4.50 2.8494 0.70412 -0.356 0.122 -0.334 0.243 6.12 Coefficient Alpha of Study Questionnaire The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the Job Engagement Scale (JES), International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) and the Kahn Job Engagement Conditions are α = 0.932, α = 0.707 and α = 0.862 respectively. This means that the measuring scales are reliable. For the subscales of each of the questionnaires, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are shown in Table 8. 168 Table 8: Reliability Analysis Variable/s Valid N Items Used Cronbach’s α Personality 403 50 0.707** Extraversion 403 10 0.704** Conscientiousness 403 10 0.735** Openness 403 10 0.761** Agreeableness 403 10 0.779** Neuroticism 403 10 0.734** Job Engagement 403 18 0.932** Emotional 403 6 0.863** Physical 403 6 0.833** Cognitive 403 6 0.874** Psychological Conditions 403 15 0.862** Meaningfulness 403 7 0.895** Safety 403 3 0.755** Availability 403 5 0.865** **Significantly acceptable reliability The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are above the 0.70 level hence this shows that the study constructs are reliable. 6.11 Conclusion This chapter focused on the research design of the study which helps alleviate confusion and helps the researcher to focus on the appropriate body of methods to be used in conducting the overall research. The research design explained processes involved in the collection of data, including the population, how respondents were identified, sampling procedures followed, and the data collection method used and highlight how the data was analysed. The instruments for data collection were also described as well as their reliabilities. The ethical considerations of the study were also discussed. The chapter further provided the descriptive statistics relating to the sample 169 of the study and the study questionnaire reliability. The next chapter will focus on the results of hypothesis testing. 170 CHAPTER 7: DATA ANALYSIS 7.1 Introduction The previous chapter entailed the board of research methods that were employed by the researcher to collect the relevant data and the present chapter describes the data analysis. SPSS version 24 was used for analysis. Tests were carried out at either 1% or 5% level of significance. A descriptive analysis was used to describe the study’s demographic features. A One-way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) with post-hoc Tukey HSD (Honestly Significant Difference) test was opted for comparing mean differences of the demographic features on the theoretical constructs. A correlational analysis coupled with a simple linear regression analysis was utilised to determine whether personality traits and job conditions exert a significant effect on job engagement. To identify the predictor variable/s (personality traits and job conditions) that adds unique variance in predicting job engagement a stepwise multiple linear regression model was used. Multiple linear regression models were used to test the moderating effect of job conditions variables on the relationship between personality traits and job engagement by assessing the interaction effects. Tests for normality were done using the normal plots of the standardized residuals. Accessing these plots, it was found that the points of the expected against the observed cumulative probabilities were lying on the line, hence the normality assumption for linear regression modelling was satisfied. Also, assumptions dealing with outliers, homoscedasticity, and auto-correlation of errors were met suggesting a robust sample. 171 7.2 Hypothesis Testing 7.2.1 The relationship between the big five personality traits and job engagement H0: There is no significant correlation between the big five personality traits and job engagement H1: There is a significant correlation between the big five personality traits and job engagement First, it was necessary to check whether there was a linear relationship in the data which allowed for a linear regression analysis. To achieve this the Pearson's Bivariate Correlation coefficient (one-tailed test) was used. Tables 9 below shows the Pearson product-moment correlations (r) and significance probabilities for relations of the main theoretical constructs of the study that were considered in for the hypotheses. The big five personality traits are extraversion, neuroticism, openness, conscientiousness and agreeableness and their relationship with job engagement. For the linear relations between personality traits and job engagement, the results suggest that job engagement had moderate positive significant linear relationships with agreeableness (r = 0.389; p = <0.0001), conscientiousness (r = 0.402; p = <0.0001) and openness (r = 0.351; p = <0.0001). Extraversion had a weak positive significant linear relationship with job engagement (r = 0.119; p = 0.009) whilst neuroticism had a weak negative significant linear relationship with job engagement (r = -0.122; p = 0.007). We therefore reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. 172 Table 9: Pearson product-moment correlations (r) and significance probabilities (p) for relations of Personality Traits to Job Engagement Personality Traits r p Agreeableness 0.389 <0.0001** Conscientiousness 0.402 <0.0001** Openness 0.351 <0.0001** Extraversion 0.119 0.009** Neuroticism -0.122 0.007** ** Correlation is remarkable when the significant level is 0.01(One-tailed test). When the relationship between the big five personality traits and the three separate components of job engagement (i.e. physical, emotional and cognitive) is tested for each one separately, all components were significantly related to job engagement. The results of the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient are shown in Table 10 below. Conscientiousness, openness, extraversion and agreeableness were significantly positively related to all three job engagement dimensions. Neuroticism was negatively correlated with physical and emotional engagement, however, the study finds no significant correlation between neuroticism and cognitive engagement (r = -0.085; p = 0.059). Table 10: Pearson product-moment correlations (r) and significance probabilities (p) for relations of Personality Traits to Job Engagement dimensions Personality Traits Physical engagement Emotional engagement Cognitive engagement Openness Pearson Correlation 0.318** 0.298** 0.302** Sig. (1-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 358 362 353 Conscientiousness Pearson Correlation 0.392** 0.366** 0.348** Sig. (1-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 345 352 342 Extraversion Pearson Correlation 0.152** 0.139** 0.191** Sig. (1-tailed) 0.002 0.004 0.000 N 364 369 362 Agreeableness Pearson Correlation 0.323** 0.316** 0.285** Sig. (1-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 361 366 361 173 Neuroticism Pearson Correlation -0.097* -0.133** -0.085 Sig. (1-tailed) 0.036 0.007 0.059 N 342 346 341 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). 7.2.1.1 Hypothesis testing Using Simple Linear Regression Models The correlational analysis results above show that there exist statistically significant correlations between the personality traits and job engagement. It is also imperative to use simple linear regression models to test these hypothesized frameworks. For evaluating these models, the enter method was utilised. Durbin-Watson test for auto-correlation was used and to test the assumption of homoscedasticity and normality of residuals special plots (Q-Q plots) were used. Results of the simple linear regression models are presented below. Agreeableness personality trait and job engagement This section looks at the relationship between agreeableness and job engagement using simple linear regression models to add more on the results found above from the Pearson's Bivariate Correlation coefficient. Therefore, this section will constitute the following hypothesis: H1a0: Agreeableness will not exert a positive effect on Job Engagement H1a1: Agreeableness will exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. To determine whether agreeableness trait exerts a positive effect on job engagement, a simple linear regression model was examined. Agreeableness was modelled as an explanatory/independent variable and this resulted in a significant model (F = 71.531; p = <0.0001). The model fit and model summary statistics are presented in Table 11. In this model, agreeableness explained a significant amount of the variance in job engagement (R2 = 174 0.151; R2 Adjusted = 0.149). The Durbin-Watson d = 1.619, is between the two critical values of 1.5 < d < 2.5 and therefore we can assume that there is no first order linear auto-correlation in our linear regression data. Table 11: Simple Linear Regression Model Fit and Summary for Agreeableness on Job Engagement. *Significant fit. Note: Dependent Variable: Job Engagement; Predictors: (Constant), Agreeableness Table 12 shows that the unstandardized parameter estimates of the resultant model both the constant term (β0 = 2.281; t = 10.678; p = <0.0001) and the main effect of agreeableness trait (β1 = 0.499; t = 8.458; p = <0.0001) are all statistically significant. Since our β1 coefficient is positive and significant, thus there is sufficient evidence at 5% level of significance to conclude that agreeableness does exert a positive effect on job engagement. We therefore reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. Thus, the resultant unstandardized regression equation is: Job Engagement = 2.281 + 0.499* Agreeableness + residual  Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F Regression 1 28.705 28.705 71.531 0.000* Residual 401 160.918 0.401 Total 402 189.623 Model Summary Observations 401 R (Est. Standard Error) 0.389(0.63348) ) R2 (Adjusted R2) 0.151(0.149) F Change (Sig. F Change) 71.532(0.000) Durbin-Watson Test - Test for auto-correlation 1.619 175 Table 12: Parameter Estimates for Agreeableness on Job Engagement. Dependent Variable: Job Engagement Conscientiousness personality trait and job engagement This section looks at the relationship between conscientiousness and job engagement using simple linear regression models and will constitute the following hypothesis: H1b0: Conscientiousness will not exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. H1b1: Conscientiousness will exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. Conscientiousness trait was modelled as an independent variable on job engagement to determine if there exists any statistically significant positive effect on job engagement. Table 13 below shows the simple linear regression model summary and overall fit statistics. We find that the adjusted R² of our model is 0.162 that means that the linear regression explains only 16.2% of the variance in the dependent variable. The resultant model revealed a significant fit (F = 77.254; p = <0.0001). The test for auto-correlation shows that there is no first order linear auto-correlation in our data (d = 1.672). Table 13: Simple Linear Regression Model Fit and Summary for Conscientiousness on Job Engagement. Parameter Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig B Std Error B Constant 2.281 0.214 10.678 0.000* Agreeableness 0.499 0.059 0.389 8.458 0.000* Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F Regression 1 30.631 30.631 77.254 0.000* Residual 401 158.993 0.396 Total 402 189.623 176 *Significant fit. Note: Dependent Variable: Job Engagement; Predictors: (Constant), Conscientiousness The unstandardized parameter estimates in Table 14 below reveals that conscientiousness trait has a statistically significant positive effect on job engagement (β1 = 0.482; t = 8.789; p = <0.0001). Thus at 5% level of significance it can be concluded that conscientiousness trait exerts a positive effect on job engagement. We therefore reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. The resultant model is; Job Engagement = 2.344 + 0.482* Conscientiousness + residual  Table 14: Parameter Estimates for Conscientiousness on Job Engagement. Dependent Variable: Job Engagement Openness to experience personality trait and job engagement This section looks at the relationship between openness and job engagement using simple linear regression models and will constitute the following hypothesis: H1c0: Openness will not exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. H1c1: Openness will exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. Model Summary Observations 401 R (Est. Standard Error) 0.402 (0.62967) ) R2 (Adjusted R2) 0.162(0.159) F Change (Sig. F Change) 77.254(0.000) Durbin-Watson Test - Test for auto-correlation 1.672 Parameter Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig B Std Error B Constant 2.344 0.199 11.806 0.000* Conscientiousness 0.482 0.055 0.402 8.789 0.000* 177 To determine whether openness to experience trait exerts a positive effect on job engagement, a simple linear regression model was examined. The model fit statistics in Table 15 below shows that the resultant model was significant (F = 56.303; p = <0.0001). Also in the same table is the model summary statistics which reveals that openness to experience trait explains 12.3% of the variation in job engagement (R2 = 0.123; Adjusted R2 = 0.121). We assumed that there is no auto-correlation in our linear regression data since the Durbin-Watson test gave a statistic which is between the two critical values of 1.5 < d < 2.5 (d = 1.614). Table 15: Simple Linear Regression Model Fit and Summary for Openness on Job Engagement. *Significant fit. Note: Dependent Variable: Job Engagement; Predictors: (Constant), Openness The unstandardized parameter estimates (Table 16 below) show that both the constant term and openness to experience trait have a statistically significant effect on job engagement. The regression coefficients are β0 = 2.414 (p = <0.0001) and β1 = 0.482 (p = <0.0001), respectively. Since our main effect is positive and statistically significant we can conclude that openness exerts a positive effect on job engagement. We therefore reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. Thus, the resultant unstandardized regression equation is: Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F Regression 1 23.346 23.346 56.303 0.000* Residual 401 166.277 0.415 Total 402 189.623 Model Summary Observations 401 R (Est. Standard Error) 0.351 (0.64394) ) R2 (Adjusted R2) 0.123(0.121) F Change (Sig. F Change) 56.303(0.000) Durbin-Watson Test - Test for auto-correlation 1.614 178 Job Engagement = 2.414 + 0.482* Openness + residual  Table 16: Parameter Estimates for Openness on Job Engagement. Dependent Variable: Job Engagement Extraversion Personality traits and Job Engagement This section looks at the relationship between extraversion and job engagement using simple linear regression models and will constitute the following hypothesis: H1d0: Extraversion will not exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. H1d1: Extraversion will exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. To determine whether extraversion trait exerts a positive effect on job engagement, a simple linear regression model was examined. Extraversion was modelled as an explanatory/independent variable and this resulted in a significant model (F = 5.728; p = 0.017). The model fit and model summary statistics are presented in Table 17. In this model, extraversion explained a small amount of the variance in job engagement (R2 = 0.014, R2 Adjusted = 0.012). The Durbin-Watson d = 1.497, is between the two critical values of 1.5 < d < 2.5 and therefore we can assume that there is no first order linear auto-correlation in our linear regression data. Parameter Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig B Std Error B Constant 2.414 0.223 10.841 0.000* Openness 0.482 0.064 0.351 7.504 0.000* 179 Table 17: Simple Linear Regression Model Fit and Summary for Extraversion on Job Engagement. *Significant fit. Note: Dependent Variable: Job Engagement; Predictors: (Constant), Extraversion Table 18 below shows that the parameter estimates of the resultant model both the constant term (β0 = 3.595; t = 17.955; p = <0.0001) and the main effect of extraversion trait (β1 = 0.149; t = 2.393; p = 0.017) are all statistically significant. Since our β1 coefficient is positive and significant, thus there is sufficient evidence at 5% level of significance to conclude that extraversion does exert a positive effect on job engagement. We therefore reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. Thus, the resultant unstandardized regression equation is: Job Engagement = 3.595 + 0.149* Extraversion + residual  Table 18: Parameter Estimates for Extraversion on Job Engagement. Dependent Variable: Job Engagement Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F Regression 1 2.671 2.671 5.728 0.017* Residual 401 186.953 0.466 Total 402 189.623 Model Summary Observations 401 R (Est. Standard Error) 0.119(0.68280) ) R2 (Adjusted R2) 0.014(0.012) F Change (Sig. F Change) 5.728(0.017) Durbin-Watson Test - Test for auto-correlation 1.497 Parameter Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig B Std Error B Constant 3.595 0.200 17.955 0.000* Extraversion 0.149 0.062 0.119 2.393 0.017* 180 Neuroticism Personality Trait and Job Engagement This section looks at the relationship between neuroticism and job engagement using simple linear regression models and will constitute the following hypothesis: H1e0: Neuroticism will not exert a negative effect on Job Engagement. H1e1: Neuroticism will exert a negative effect on Job Engagement. To determine whether neuroticism trait exerts a negative effect on job engagement, a simple linear regression model was examined. The model fit statistics in Table 19 below shows that the resultant model was significant (F = 6.107; p = 0.014). Also in the same table is the model summary statistics which reveals that neuroticism trait explains only 1.5% of the variation in job engagement (R2 = 0.015; Adjusted R2 = 0.013). We assumed that there is no auto-correlation in our linear regression data since the Durbin-Watson test gave a statistic which is between the two critical values of 1.5 < d < 2.5 (d = 1.513). Table 19: Simple Linear Regression Model Fit and Summary for Neuroticism on Job Engagement. Significant fit. Note: Dependent Variable: Job Engagement; Predictors: (Constant), Neuroticism Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F Regression 1 2.845 2.845 6.107 0.014* Residual 401 186.778 0.466 Total 402 189.623 Model Summary Observations 401 R (Est. Standard Error) 0.122 (0.68248) ) R2 (Adjusted R2) 0.015(0.013) F Change (Sig. F Change) 6.107(0.014) Durbin-Watson Test - Test for auto-correlation 1.513 181 Parameter estimates (Table 20 below) show that both the constant term and neuroticism has a statistically significant effect on job engagement. The regression coefficients are β0 = 4.407 (p = <0.0001; β1 = -.119; p = 0.014), respectively. Since our main effect is negative and statistically significant we can conclude that neuroticism exerts a negative effect on job engagement. We therefore reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. Thus, the resultant unstandardized regression equation is: Job Engagement = 4.407 - 0.119* Neuroticism + residual  Table 20: Parameter Estimates for Neuroticism on Job Engagement. Dependent Variable: Job Engagement The summary of the hypotheses is presented below; Table 21: Summary of the personality traits and job engagement hypotheses results Parameter Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig B Std Error B Constant 4.407 0.142 31.064 0.000* Neuroticism -0.119 0.048 -0.122 -2.471 0.014* Description (Null Hypothesis) Test Statistic P-value Decision H1a Agreeableness will not exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. β1 = 0.499 0.000 Reject H1b Conscientiousness will not exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. β1 = 0.482 0.000 Reject H1c Openness will not exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. β1 = 0.482 0.000 Reject H1d Extraversion will not exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. β1 = 0.149 0.017 Reject 182 Alpha = 0.05 (reject the Null Hypothesis when P-value < Alpha) 7.2.2 The relationship between psychological conditions and job engagement H0: There is no significant correlation between psychological conditions and job engagement. H2: There is a significant correlation psychological conditions and job engagement. First it was necessary to check whether there was a linear relationship in the data which allowed for a linear regression analysis through the use of the Pearson's Bivariate Correlation coefficient (one-tailed test). Tables 22 below shows the Pearson product-moment correlations (r) and significance probabilities for relations of the psychological conditions and job engagement In terms of the linear relationships between psychological conditions to job engagement, the results suggest that job engagement had a positive significant correlation to meaningfulness (r = 0.571; p = <0.0001) and availability (r = 0.525; p = <0.0001). However, on the other hand safety had a positive significant but somewhat weak correlation to job engagement (r = 0.257; p = <0.0001). Table 22: Pearson product-moment correlations (r) and significance probabilities (P) for relations of Psychological Conditions to Job Engagement Job Engagement Conditions r p Meaningfulness 0.571 <0.0001** Safety 0.257 <0.0001** Availability 0.525 <0.0001** ** Correlation is remarkable when the significant level is 0.01(One-tailed test). When the relationship between the three psychological conditions (meaningfulness, availability and safety) and the three separate components of job engagement (i.e. physical, emotional and H1e Neuroticism will not exert a negative effect on Job Engagement. β1 = -0.119 0.014 Reject 183 cognitive) is tested for each one separately, all components were significantly related to job engagement. The results of the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient are shown on Table 23 below. Table 23: Pearson product-moment correlations (r) and significance probabilities (P) for relations of Psychological Conditions to Job Engagement dimensions Psychological conditions Meaningfulness Safety Availability Job engagement Pearson Correlation 0.618** 0.571** 0.257** 0.525** Sig. (1-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 403 403 403 403 Physical Pearson Correlation 0.546** 0.506** 0.237** 0.456** Sig. (1-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 403 403 403 403 Emotional Pearson Correlation 0.550** 0.507** 0.257** 0.449** Sig. (1-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 403 403 403 403 Cognitive Pearson Correlation 0.555** 0.512** 0.191** 0.498** Sig. (1-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 403 403 403 403 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). 7.2.2.1 Hypothesis testing Using Simple Linear Regression Models The correlational analysis results above show that there exist statistically significant correlations between the psychological conditions and job engagement. It is also imperative to use simple linear regression models to test these hypothesized frameworks. For evaluating these models, the enter method was utilised. Durbin-Watson test for auto-correlation was used and to test the assumption of homoscedasticity and normality of residuals special plots (Q-Q plots) were used. Results of the simple linear regression models are presented below. 184 Psychological meaningfulness and job engagement This section looks at the relationship between psychological meaningfulness and job engagement using simple linear regression models to add more on the results found above from the Pearson's Bivariate Correlation coefficient. Therefore, this section will constitute the following hypothesis: H2a0: Psychological meaningfulness will not exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. H2a1: Psychological meaningfulness will exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. To determine whether psychological meaningfulness exerts a positive effect on job engagement, a simple linear regression model was examined. Psychological meaningfulness was modelled as an explanatory/independent variable and this resulted in a significant model (F = 194.380; p = <0.0001). The model fit and model summary statistics are presented in Table 24 In this model, psychological meaningfulness explained a significant amount of the variance in job engagement (R2 = 0.326, R2 Adjusted = 0.325). The Durbin-Watson d = 1.743, is between the two critical values of 1.5 < d < 2.5 and therefore we can assume that there is no first order linear auto-correlation in our linear regression data. Table 24: Simple Linear Regression Model Fit and Summary for Meaningfulness on Job Engagement. Significant fit. Note: Dependent Variable: Job Engagement; Predictors: (Constant), Meaningfulness Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F Regression 1 61.908 61.908 194.380 0.000* Residual 401 127.715 0.318 Total 402 189.623 Model Summary Observations 401 R (Est. Standard Error) 0.571 (0.56435) ) R2 (Adjusted R2) 0.326(0.325) F Change (Sig. F Change) 194.380(0.000) Durbin-Watson Test - Test for auto-correlation 1.743 185 Table 25 below shows that the parameter estimates of the resultant model both the constant term (β0 = 2.254; t = 16.944; p = <0.0001) and the main effect of psychological meaningfulness (β1 = 0.321; t = 13.942; p = <0.0001) are all statistically significant. Since our β1 coefficient is positive and significant, thus there is sufficient evidence at 5% level of significance to conclude that psychological meaningfulness does exert a positive effect on job engagement. We therefore reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. Thus, the resultant unstandardized regression equation is: Job Engagement = 2.254 + 0.321* Meaningfulness + residual  Table 25: Parameter Estimates for Meaningfulness on Job Engagement. Dependent Variable: Job Engagement Psychological availability and job engagement This section looks at the relationship between psychological availability and job engagement using simple linear regression models and will constitute the following hypothesis: H2b0: Psychological Availability will not exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. H2b1: Psychological Availability will exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. Psychological availability was modelled as an independent variable on job engagement to determine if there exists any statistically significant positive effect on job engagement. Table 26 below shows the simple linear regression model summary and overall fit statistics. We find that Parameter Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig B Std Error B Constant 2.254 0.133 16.944 0.000* Meaningfulness 0.321 0.023 0.571 13.942 0.000* 186 the adjusted R² of our model is 0.276 that means that the linear regression explains only 27.6% of the variance in the dependent variable. The resultant model revealed a significant fit (F = 152.929; p = <0.0001). The test for auto-correlation shows that there is no first order linear auto-correlation in our data (d = 1.854). Table 26: Simple Linear Regression Model Fit and Summary for Psychological availability on Job Engagement. Significant fit. Note: Dependent Variable: Job Engagement; Predictors: (Constant), Availability The parameter estimates in Table 27 below reveals that psychological availability has a statistically significant positive effect on job engagement (β1 = 0.304; t = 12.366; p = <0.0001). Thus at 5% level of significance it can be concluded that psychological availability exerts a positive effect on job engagement. The resultant unstandardized model is; Job Engagement = 2.350 + 0.304* Availability + residual  Table 27: Parameter Estimates for Psychological availability on Job Engagement. Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F Regression 1 52.351 52.351 152.929 0.000* Residual 401 137.272 0.342 Total 402 189.623 Model Summary Observations 401 R (Est. Standard Error) 0.525 (0.58508) ) R2 (Adjusted R2) 0.276(0.274) F Change (Sig. F Change) 152.929(0.000) Durbin-Watson Test - Test for auto-correlation 1.854 Parameter Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig B Std Error B 187 Dependent Variable: Job Engagement Psychological safety and job engagement This section looks at the relationship between psychological safety and job engagement using simple linear regression models and will constitute the following hypothesis: H2c0: Psychological Safety will not exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. H2c1: Psychological Safety will exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. Psychological safety was modelled as an independent variable on job engagement to determine if there exists any statistically significant positive effect on job engagement. Table 28 below shows the simple linear regression model summary and overall fit statistics. We find that the adjusted R² of our model is 0.066 that means that the linear regression explains only 6.6% of the variance in the dependent variable. The resultant model revealed a significant fit (F = 28.337; p = <0.0001). The test for auto-correlation shows that there is no first order linear auto-correlation in our data (d = 1.569). Table 28: Simple Linear Regression Model Fit and Summary for Psychological Safety on Job Engagement. Constant 2.350 .142 16.558 0.000* Availability 0.304 0.025 .525 12.366 0.000* Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F Regression 1 12.516 12.516 28.337 0.000* Residual 401 177.108 0.442 Total 402 189.623 Model Summary Observations 401 R (Est. Standard Error) 0.257(0.66458) ) R2 (Adjusted R2) 0.066(0.064) F Change (Sig. F Change) 28.337(0.000) 188 Significant fit. Note: Dependent Variable: Job Engagement; Predictors: (Constant), Safety The parameter estimates in Table 29 below reveals that psychological safety has a statistically significant positive effect on job engagement (β1 = 0.131; t = 5.323; p = <0.0001). Thus at 5% level of significance it can be concluded that psychological safety exerts a positive effect on job engagement. The resultant model is; Job Engagement = 2.350 + 0.304* Safety + residual  Table 29: Parameter Estimates for Psychological Safety on Job Engagement. Dependent Variable: Job Engagement The summary of the hypotheses is presented below; Table 30: Summary of the psychological conditions and job engagement hypotheses results Alpha = 0.05 (reject the Null Hypothesis when P-value < Alpha) Durbin-Watson Test - Test for auto-correlation 1.569 Parameter Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig B Std Error B Constant 3.457 0.119 28.983 0.000* Safety 0.131 0.025 0.257 5.323 0.000* Description (Null Hypothesis) Test Statistic P-value Decision H2a Meaningfulness will not exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. β1 = 0.321 0.000 Reject H2b Availability will not exert a positive effect on Job Engagement. β1 = 0.304 0.000 Reject H2c Safety will not exert a negative effect on Job Engagement. β1 = 0.131 0.000 Reject 189 7.2.3 The relationship between the big five personality and psychological conditions H0: There is no significant correlation between the big five personality traits and psychological conditions H3: There is a significant correlation between the big five personality traits and psychological conditions This section focuses on the relationship between personality and psychological conditions to understand how individuals differ in the way they experience psychological conditions. Therefore, to determine whether there is a statistically significant correlation between the big five personality traits and psychological conditions the Pearson's Bivariate Correlation coefficient was used. The results are shown on the Table 31 below. Table 31: Pearson product-moment correlations (r) and significance probabilities (p) for relations of Personality Traits to Psychological Conditions Psychological conditions Meaningfulness Safety Availability Openness Pearson Correlation 0.457** 0.446** 0.153** 0.384** Sig. (1-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 N 403 403 403 403 Conscientiousness Pearson Correlation 0.503** 0.390** 0.373** 0.409** Sig. (1-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 403 403 403 403 Extraversion Pearson Correlation 0.147** 0.142** 0.089 0.100* Sig. (1-tailed) 0.003 0.004 0.076 0.045 N 403 403 403 403 Agreeableness Pearson Correlation 0.493** 0.378** 0.352** 0.414** Sig. (1-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 403 403 403 403 Neuroticism Pearson Correlation -0.300** -0.116* -0.473** -0.217** Sig. (1-tailed) 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.000 N 403 403 403 403 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). 190 Table 31 shows there is a significant positive correlation between openness and psychological conditions (r = 0.457; p = <0.0001). When the relationship between openness to experience and the three separate components of psychological conditions (meaningfulness, safety and availability) is tested for each one separately, all components were significantly positively related to openness. Similarly, conscientiousness is significantly positive correlated with psychological conditions (r = 0.503; p = <0.0001) and the three separate components of psychological conditions. Extraversion was found to be significantly positively correlated to psychological conditions (r = 0.147; p = <0.0001) similarly agreeableness was found to be significantly positively correlated with psychological conditions (r = 0.493; p = <0.0001). Extraversion, agreeableness with the three separate components of psychological conditions were found to be positively related to extraversion and agreeableness. On other hand, neuroticism was significantly negatively correlated to psychological conditions (r = -0.300; p = <0.0001). When the relationship between neuroticism and the three separate psychological conditions is tested for each one separately, all components were significantly negatively related to neuroticism. Therefore, there is a significantly negative correlation between neuroticism and psychological conditions. The correlations are significant at p < 0.000, which means that there is a less than 1% chance of a correlation of this magnitude to occur by chance. We therefore reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. 7.2.4 Combination of personality traits and job engagement H0: A combination of any two or more personality traits will not explain a higher proportion of variance in job engagement than any one personality traits separately. 191 H4: A combination of any two or more personality traits will explain a higher proportion of variance in job engagement than any one personality traits separately. In order to identify the predictor variable/s (Personality Traits) that adds unique variance in predicting job enagement a Post Hoc Analysis using stepwise multiple linear regression model was used and yeilded three significant models. Table 32 below shows that the first significant model was the one with conscientiousness as a predictor variable on job engagement (F = 77.254; df = 1; p = <0.0001). The unstandardized β coefficients in Table 32 show that conscientiousness has a significant positive effect on job engagement (β1 = 0.482; t = 8.789; p = <0.0001). From Table 32 below, the R2 = 0.162 (F Change = 77.254; Sig. F Change = <0.0001) shows that adding conscientiousness significantly increases the variance explained by the model. Thus, using the stepwise regression approach conscientiousness is the first personality trait that adds unique variance in predicting job engagement. The resulting unstandardized model yields: Job Engagement = 2.344 + 0.482* Conscientiousness + residual () The second significant variable that was added to the model was agreeableness which yielded a significant model (F = 48.396; df = 2; p = <0.0001). The collinearity diagnostics in Table 32 shows that multi-collinearity does not exist in this 2nd regression model (Tol > 0.1 (or VIF < 10 for all variables). Parameter estimates show that both conscientiousness and agreeableness have a significantly positive effect on job engagement and the unstandardized regression coefficients are β1 = 0.315 (p = <0.0001) and β2 = 0.295 (p = <0.0001), respectively. From Table 33 below, the R2 = 0.033 (F Change = 16.544; Sig. F Change = <0.0001) shows that adding agreeableness to conscientiousness significantly increases the variance explained by the model. Thus, using the stepwise regression approach both agreeableness and conscientiousness adds unique variance (R2 192 = 0.195, Adjusted R2 = 0.191) in predicting job engagement. Thus, the unstandardized regression equation of job engagement is: Job Engagement = 1.887+ 0.315* Conscientiousness + 0.295* Agreeableness + residual () Openness was the last significant variable to be added to the regression model. This yielded a significant linear regression model (F = 34.507; p = <0.0001). Durbin-Watson test for auto-correlation (d = 1.666) is between the two critical values of 1.5 < d < 2.5; therefore, we can assume that there is no first order linear auto-correlation in our multiple linear regression data. In Table 32, the variance inflation factor (VIF) of each independent variable is between 0.556 and 1.798. According to the standard of statistical tests, a variance inflation factor (VIF) less than 10 and Tolerance greater than 0.1 indicated that collinearity does not exist among variables. The unstandardized parameter estimates in Table 34 show that all the predictor variables, conscientiousness (β1 = 0.266; t = 3.768; p = <0.0001), agreeableness (β2 = 0.232; t = 3.025; p = 0.003) and openness (β3 = 0.182; t = 2.369; p = 0.018) have a positively significant effect on job engagement. From Table 7.25 below, the R2 = 0.011 (F Change = 5.613; Sig. F Change = 0.018) shows that adding openness to agreeableness and conscientiousness significantly increases the variance explained by the model. Thus, using the stepwise regression approach conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness adds unique variance (R2 = 0.206, Adjusted R2 = 0.200) in predicting job engagement in their respective order. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. The resulting final model yields: Job Engagement = 1.661 + 0.266* Conscientiousness + 0.232* Agreeableness + 0.182* Openness + residual () 193 Table 32: Parameter Estimates for the Stepwise Regression of Personality Traits and Job Engagement Model/Parameter Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients T Sig. Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Beta Tol VIF 1 (Constant) 2.344 0.199 11.806 0.000 Conscientiousness 0.482 0.055 0.402 8.789 0.000 1.000 1.000 2 (Constant) 1.887 0.225 8.394 0.000 Conscientiousness 0.315 0.068 0.262 4.646 0.000 0.631 1.584 Agreeableness 0.295 0.072 0.230 4.067 0.000 0.631 1.584 3 (Constant) 1.661 0.243 6.832 0.000 Conscientiousness 0.266 0.071 0.221 3.768 0.000 0.576 1.735 Agreeableness 0.232 0.077 0.181 3.025 0.003 0.556 1.798 Openness 0.182 0.077 0.133 2.369 0.018 0.632 1.581 Note; Dependent Variable: Job Engagement *Significant effect. Table 33: Model Summary Model R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics Durbin-Watson R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 0.162 0.159 0.62967 0.162 77.254 1 401 0.000 2 0.195 0.191 0.61781 0.033 16.544 1 400 0.000 3 0.206 0.200 0.61428 0.011 5.613 1 399 0.018 1.666 1. Predictors: (Constant), Conscientiousness 2. Predictors: (Constant), Conscientiousness, Agreeableness 3. Predictors: (Constant), Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Openness Dependent Variable: Job Engagement 194 Extraversion and Neuroticism were all non-significant and were excluded from the model (see Table 34 below). Table 34: Excluded Variables Model Beta T Sig. Partial Correlation Collinearity Statistics Tolerance VIF Minimum Tolerance 3 Extraversion -0.037 -0.751 0.453 -0.038 0.840 1.190 0.523 Neuroticism 0.056 1.138 0.256 0.057 0.824 1.213 0.532 Note; Dependent Variable: Job Engagement 7.2.5 Combination of psychological conditions and job engagement H0: A combination of any two or more psychological conditions will not will explain a higher proportion of variance in job engagement than any one psychological conditions separately. H5: A combination of any two or more psychological conditions will explain a higher proportion of variance in job engagement than any one psychological conditions separately. In order to identify the predictor variable/s for job conditions that adds unique variance in predicting job enagement a stepwise multiple linear regression model was used and yeilded three significant models. Table 35 below shows that the first significant model was the one with meaningfulness as a predictor variable on job engagement (F = 194.380; df = 1; p = <0.0001). The unstandardized β coefficients in Table 35 show that meaningfulness has a significant positive effect on job engagement (β1 = 0.321; t = 13.942; p = <0.0001). From summary Table 35 below, R2 = 0.326 (F = 194.380; Sig. F = <0.0001) shows that adding meaningfulness significantly increases the variance explained by the model. Thus, using the stepwise regression approach meaningfulness is the first personality trait that adds unique variance (32.6%) in predicting job engagement. The resulting unstandardized model yields: 195 Job Engagement = 2.254 + 0.321* Meaningfulness + residual () The second significant model had the variable availability added to meaningfulness which yielded a statistically significant model (F = 123.425; df = 2; p = <0.0001). The collinearity diagnostics in Table 36 shows that multi-collinearity does not exist in this 2nd regression model (Tol > 0.1 or VIF < 10 for all variables). The unstandardized parameter estimates show that both meaningfulness and availability have a significantly positive effect on job engagement and the unstandardized regression coefficients are β1 = 0.225 (p = <0.0001) and β2 = 0.168 (p = <0.0001), respectively. The summary table below show that the R2 = 0.055 (F = 35.666; Sig. F = <0.0001), thus, adding availability to meaningfulness significantly increases the variance explained by the model. Using the stepwise regression approach both meaningfulness and availability adds unique variance (R2 = 0.382, Adjusted R2 = 0.379) in predicting job engagement. Thus, the unstandardized regression equation of job engagement is: Job Engagement = 1.846 + 0.225* Meaningfulness + 0.168* Availability + residual () Safety was the last significant variable to be added to the regression model. This yielded a significant linear regression model (F = 85.305; df = 3; p = <0.0001). Durbin-Watson test for auto-correlation (d = 1.882) is between the two critical values of 1.5 < d < 2.5; therefore, we can assume that there is no first order linear auto-correlation in our multiple linear regression data. In Table 36, the variance inflation factor (VIF) of each independent variable is between 0.6310and 1.585. According to the standard of statistical tests, a variance inflation factor (VIF) less than 10 and Tolerance greater than 0.1 indicated that collinearity does not exist among variables. The unstandardized parameter estimates in Table 36 how that all the predictor variables, 196 meaningfulness (β1 = 0.027; t = 8.144; p = <0.0001), availability (β2 = 0.028; t = 5.422; p = <0.0001) and safety (β3 = 0.021; t = 2.447; p = 0.015) have a positive significant effect on job engagement. From Table 7.28 below, the R2 = 0.009 (F = 5.986; Sig. F = 0.015) shows that adding safety to meaningfulness and availability significantly increases the variance explained by the model. Thus, using the stepwise regression approach meaningfulness, availability and safety adds unique variance (R2 = 0.391, Adjusted R2 = 0.386) in predicting job engagement in their respective order. We reject the null hypothesis and accepted the alternative hypothesis. They were no excluded variables. The resulting final model yields: Job Engagement = 1.661 + 0.266* Conscientiousness + 0.232* Agreeableness + 0.182* Openness + residual () Table 35: Parameter Estimates for the Stepwise Regression of Job Conditions and Job Engagement Model/Parameter Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients T Sig. Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Beta Tol VIF 1 (Constant) 2.254 0.199 11.806 0.000 Meaningfulness 0.321 0.055 0.402 8.789 0.000 1.000 1.000 2 (Constant) 1.846 0.225 8.394 0.000 Meaningfulness 0.225 0.068 0.262 4.646 0.000 0.656 1.525 Availability 0.168 0.072 0.230 4.067 0.000 0.656 1.525 3 (Constant) 1.709 0.243 6.832 0.000 Meaningfulness 0.221 0.071 0.221 3.768 0.000 0.653 1.531 Availability 0.154 0.077 0.181 3.025 0.003 0.631 1.585 Safety 0.051 0.077 0.133 2.369 0.018 0.920 1.088 197 Note; Dependent Variable: Job Engagement *Significant effect. Table 36: Model Summary Model R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics Durbin-Watson R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 0.326 0.325 0.56435 0.326 194.380 1 401 0.000 2 0.382 0.379 0.54143 0.055 35.666 1 400 0.000 3 0.391 0.386 0.53809 0.009 5.986 1 399 0.015 1.882 1. Predictors: (Constant), Meaningfulness 2. Predictors: (Constant), Meaningfulness, Availability 3. Predictors: (Constant), Meaningfulness, Availability, Safety Dependent Variable: Job Engagement 7.2.5 Personality traits/psychological conditions/job engagement H0: Psychological conditions do not add unique variance in predicting job engagement above and beyond that which is predicted by the personality traits. H6: Psychological conditions add unique variance in predicting job engagement above and beyond that which is predicted by the personality traits. To examine if the job conditions constructs add unique variance in predicting job engagement above and beyond that which is predicted by the personality traits, hierarchical multiple regression models, were used. The predicting variables of personality that is conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, openness and neuroticism were added as explanatory variables first. The individual job conditions constructs were then later added to the model. A stepwise procedure was utilised as a method of variable selection. At each stage, an additional explanatory variable was added to the model, and the change in R2 was noted. A hypothesis test using the F-test was 198 done to test whether the change in R2 is significant after addition of each of the job conditions constructs to the personality traits. Table 37: A summary of hierarchical multiple regression analyses testing job conditions and personality traits constructs in the prediction of job engagement. Variable Job Engagement F Adjusted R2 R2 R2 df2 Sig. F aPersonality Traits 21.046 0.200 0.210 0.210 397 <0.0001* bMeaningfulness 105.016 0.366 0.375 0.166 396 <0.0001* cAvailability 74.558 0.325 0.335 0.125 396 <0.0001* dSafety 8.047 0.214 0.225 0.016 396 0.005* *Significant change in the amount of variation of dependent variable being explained by the predictors. a. Predictors: (Constant), Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness b. Predictors: (Constant), Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Meaningfulness c. Predictors: (Constant), Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Availability d. Predictors: (Constant), Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Safety Table 37 above shows that the personality traits explain 21.0% of the variation in the dependent variables (R2 = 0.210). Combined with meaningfulness, the resultant model accounted for a total of 37.5% of the variation in job engagement. Thus, this model adds significant variation to the first model. This means adding meaningfulness to personality traits as independent variables on job engagement results in a significant increase in the amount of variation explained by the model (∆R2 = 0.166; ∆F = 105.016; Sig ∆F = <0.0001). Availability also added a significant unique variance in predicting job engagement above and beyond, which is predicted by the personality traits variables among the employees. Thus, a total of 33.5% of the variation in job engagement is explained by the model. Thus, adding availability to personality traits, as an independent variable 199 on job engagement, results in a significant increase in the amount of variation explained by the model (∆R2 = 0.125; ∆F = 74.558; Sig ∆F = <0.0001). Lastly, combined with safety, the resultant model accounted for a total of 22.5% of the variation in job engagement. Thus, this model adds significant variation to the model which have personality traits as the only predictor variables. This means adding safety to personality traits as independent variables on job engagement results in a significant increase in the amount of variation explained by the model (∆R2 = 0.016; ∆F = 8.047; Sig ∆F = 0.005). Since all the job conditions constructs significantly add unique variance in predicting job engagement above and beyond that which is predicted by the personality traits hence we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that job condition constructs add unique variance in predicting job engagement above and beyond that which is predicted by the personality traits. Table 38: Summary of the hierarchical regression results Alpha = 0.05 (reject the Null Hypothesis when P-value < Alpha) Description (Null Hypothesis) Test Statistic P-value Decision H6a1 Meaningfulness does not add unique variance in predicting job engagement above and beyond that which is predicted by the personality traits. ∆F = 105.016 0.000 Reject H6a2 Availability does not add unique variance in predicting job engagement above and beyond that which is predicted by the personality traits. ∆F = 74.558 0.000 Reject H6a3 Safety does not add unique variance in predicting job engagement above and beyond that which is predicted by the personality traits. ∆F = 8.047 0.005 Reject 200 7.3 Personality traits, psychological conditions, job engagement and demographics The following section deals with the mean differences found in the demographics for study variables. All graphical presentation of the results are shown in Appendix 9. 7.3.1 Demographic Differences on Personality Traits It was also imperative to test for Demographical differences on personality within our sample. Table 39 below shows results of a One-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey HSD test for comparing mean differences of ordinal categorical demographic variables (i.e. municipality, qualifications and occupational level) on personality traits (neuroticism, agreeableness, extraversion, openness, conscientiousness). In terms of extraversion, the results, shows that statistically significant differences only exist on occupational level (F = 6.832; p = 0.001). The Tukey post hoc test (in Table 40) shows that employees in level 11 to 15 (mean = 3.4033, n = 60) have higher significantly levels of extraversion than those from level 6 to 10 (mean = 3.1115; n = 192). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, municipalities, race, level of education and tenure did not show any significant difference on the mean levels of extraversion trait. In terms of conscientiousness, results show that significant differences only exist on educational qualifications (F = 18.998; p = <0.0001) and municipalities (F = 7.356; p = <0.0001). The Tukey post hoc test (in Table 40) shows that employees who had a post graduate educational qualification have significantly higher levels of conscientiousness than who had other qualifications (mean = 3.1120, n = 25) or matric (mean = 3.3836, n = 61). The results also show that employees who worked at OR Tambo District Municipality experienced high levels of conscientiousness (mean = 3.8717; n = 60) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 3.0932; 201 n = 73) Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, occupational level, race and tenure did not show any significant difference on the mean levels of conscientiousness trait. The results show that agreeableness traits showed significant differences with educational qualifications (F = 18.998; p = <0.0001), occupational level (F = 3.327; p = 0.037) and municipalities (F = 7.356; p = <0.0001). Table 40 shows that employees who worked at OR District Municipality experienced more high levels of agreeableness (mean = 3.8000; n = 60) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 3.1548; n = 73). The results also show that those who worked in occupational level 11 to 15 (mean = 3.783; n = 60) experience high levels of agreeableness than those working in lower levels. In addition, employees who had a post graduate educational qualification experienced more agreeableness (mean = 3.9065; n = 46) than those who had other qualifications (mean = 3.0840; n = 25). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, race and tenure did not show any significant difference on the mean levels of conscientiousness trait. Openness to experience showed significant differences with educational qualifications (F = 10.752; p = 0.002) and municipalities (F = 10.886; p = <0.0001). Table 7.32 shows that employees who worked at OR District Municipality experienced higher levels of openness (mean = 3.5850; n = 60) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 3.1178; n = 73). The results also show that employees who had a post graduate educational qualification (mean = 3.7500, n = 46) have significantly higher levels of openness than who had other qualifications (mean = 3.2320, n = 25). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, occupational level, race and tenure did not show any significant difference on the mean levels of openness to experience trait. 202 Lastly neuroticism showed significant differences with educational qualifications (F = 3.997; p = 0.002) and municipalities (F = 10.752; p = <0.0001). Table 40 shows that employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality experienced higher levels of neuroticism (mean = 3.2384; n = 73) than employees who worked at Chris Hani District Municipality (mean = 2.5188; n = 69). The results also show that employees who had other educational qualification (mean = 3.2600, n = 25) have significantly higher levels of neuroticism than who had a degree qualifications (mean = 2.7124, n = 97). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, occupational level, race and tenure did not show any significant difference on the mean levels of neuroticism trait. Table 39: Statistically Mean Differences of Personality Traits and Demographics. Anova-F(Sig) implies ANOVA analysis and shows whether there is a statistically significant difference between the group means. Source MUNICIPALITY QUALIFICATIONS OCCUPATIONAL LEVEL DF F Value Pr>F DF F Value Pr>F DF F Value Pr>F Extraversion 5 0.693 0.629 5 1.197 0.310 2 6.832 0.001** Conscientiousness 5 18.998 0.000** 5 7.356 0.000** 2 1.057 0.349** Agreeableness 5 15.265 0.000** 5 9.801 0.000** 2 3.327 0.037 Openness 5 10.886 0.000** 5 6.467 0.000** 2 1.406 0.246 Neuroticism 5 10.752 0.000** 5 3.997 0.002** 2 2.996 0.051 203 Table 40: Mean Differences of Personality Traits and Demographics. Variable MeanTukey HSD(n) Extraversion Conscientiousness Agreeableness Openness Neuroticism Municipality: Alfred Nzo (73) 3.14251 (73) 3.09321 (73) 3.15481 (73) 3.11781 (73) 3.23844 Chris Hani (69) 3.17251 (69) 3.54492 (69) 3.54932 (69) 3.31301,2 (69) 2.51881 Joe Gqabi (75) 3.12131 (75) 3.74532,3 (75) 3.69072,3 (75) 3.56803 (75) 2.74271,2,3 OR Tambo (60) 3.26831 (60) 3.87173 (60) 3.80003 (60) 3.58503 (60) 2.66171,2 Sarah Baartman (62) 3.20971 (62) 3.54522, (62) 3.59352,3 (62) 3.50812,3 (62) 3.03553,4 Amathole (64) 3.12501 (64) 3.69382,3 (64) 3.73132,3 (64) 3.54382,3 (64) 2.88282,3 Qualification: Matric (61) 3.10981 (61) 3.38361,2 (61) 3.42462 (61) 3.26071 (61) 3.06391,2 Certificate (67) 3.11941 (67) 3.62092,3 (67) 3.60002 (67) 3.41341 (67) 2.82841 Diploma (107)3.15701 (107) 3.67102,3 (107) 3.60282 (107) 3.46261 (107) 2.81591 Degree (97) 3.21961 (97) 3.55882,3 (97) 3.60002 (97) 3.42061 (97) 2.71241 Post graduate (46) 3.30651 (46) 3.80433 (46) 3.90653 (46) 3.75003 (46) 2.73911 Other (25) 3.06401 (25) 3.11201 (25) 3.08401 (25) 3.23201 (25) 3.26002 Occupational level: Level 1 to 5 (151)3.15171 (151)3.55301 (151)3.56291 (151) 3.39061 (151) 2.95701 Level 6 to 10 (192) 3.11151 (192) 3.55731 (192) 3.53801 (192) 3.39061 (192) 2.79841 Level 11 to 15 (60) 3.40332 (60) 3.67172 (60) 3.73832 (60) 3.49831 (60) 2.74171 MeanHSD implies mean and a Tukey post hoc test for the ordinal categorical variable on the respective theoretical construct, showing the grouping of the variable where (1) and (2) represents statistically different groups. 7.3.2 Demographic Differences on Job Engagement It was also imperative to test for Demographical differences on job engagement within our sample. Table 41 below shows results of a One-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey HSD test for comparing mean differences of ordinal categorical demographic variables (i.e. municipality, qualification) on job engagement (physical, emotional, cognitive). 204 Table 41: Mean Differences of Job Engagement and Demographics. Variable MeanTukey HSD(n) Job engagement Physical Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement Municipality: Alfred Nzo (73) 3.57611 (73) 3.55251 (73) 3.57081 (73) 3.60501 Chris Hani (69) 4.22622,3 (69) 4.27782 (69) 4.20052,3 (69) 4.20052,3 Joe Gqabi (75) 4.04962,3 (75) 4.12442 (75) 4.09782,3 (75) 3.92671,2 OR Tambo (60) 4.35563 (60) 4.32502 (60) 4.39443 (60) 4.34723 Sarah Baartman (62) 4.03322 (62) 4.13712 (62) 4.01342 (62) 3.94891,2 Amathole (64) 4.23782,3 (64) 4.33072 (64) 4.14322,3 (64) 4.23962,3 Qualification: Matric (61) 3.87251,2 (61) 3.84431,2 (61) 3.95081,2 (61) 3.82241,2 Certificate (67) 4.16002 (67) 4.21392 (64) 4.15892 (67) 4.14682 Diploma (107)4.14542 (107) 4.23682 (107) 4.08882 (107) 4.11062 Degree (97) 4.09682 (97) 4.13232 (97) 4.09452 (97) 4.06362 Post graduate (46) 4.19082 (46) 4.23192 (46) 4.21012 (46) 4.13042 Other (25) 3.61331 (25) 3.65331 (25) 3.60671 (25) 3.58001 MeanHSD implies mean and a Tukey post hoc test for the ordinal categorical variable on the respective theoretical construct, showing the grouping of the variable where (1) and (2) represents statistically different groups. Table 42: Statistically Mean Differences of Job Engagement and Demographics Anova-F(Sig) implies ANOVA analysis and shows whether there is a statistically significant difference between the group means. Job engagement had statistically significant differences on level of education (F = 4.179; p = 0.001) and municipalities (F = 12.785; p = <0.0001). The Tukey post hoc test (in Table 41) shows that employees who had a certificate qualification (mean = 4.1600, n = 67) have significantly higher Source MUNICIPALITY QUALIFICATIONS DF F Value Pr>F DF F Value Pr>F Job engagement 5 12.785 0.000** 5 4.179 0.001** Physical 5 13.137 0.000** 5 4.972 0.000** Emotional 5 8.926 0.000** 5 2.311 0.043** Cognitive 5 9.153 0.000** 5 3.345 0.006** 205 levels of job engagement than who had other qualifications (mean = 3.6133, n = 25). It also shows that employees who worked at Amathole District Municipality experienced higher levels job engagement (mean = 4.2378; n = 64) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 3.5761; n = 73). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, race and tenure did not show any significant difference on the mean levels of job engagement. When looking at the dimensions of job engagement separately, physical engagement had statistically significant differences on level of education (F = 4.972; p = <0.0001) and municipalities (F = 13.137; p = <0.0001). Table 41 shows that employees who had a Diploma qualification (mean = 4.2368, n = 107) have significantly higher levels of physical engagement than who had other qualifications (mean = 3.6533, n = 25). It also shows that employees who worked at Amathole District Municipality had higher levels physical engagement (mean = 4.3307; n = 64) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 3.5525; n = 73). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, race and tenure did not show any significant difference on the mean levels of physical engagement. In terms of emotional engagement, results show statistically significant differences on level of education (F = 2.311; p = 0.043) and municipalities (F = 8.926; p = <0.0001). Table 41 shows that employees who had a post graduate qualification (mean = 4.2101, n = 46) have significantly higher levels of emotional engagement than who had other qualifications (mean = 3.6067, n = 25). It also shows that employees who worked at OR District Municipality had higher levels of emotional engagement (mean = 4.3944; n = 60) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 3.5708; n = 73). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, race and tenure did not show any significant difference on the mean levels of emotional engagement. 206 Lastly cognitive engagement showed significant differences with educational qualifications (F = 3.345; p = 0.006) and municipalities (F = 9.153; p = <0.0001). Table 41 shows that employees who had a certificate qualification (mean = 4.1468, n = 67) have significantly higher levels of cognitive engagement than those who had other qualifications (mean = 3.5800, n = 25). It also shows that employees who worked at OR District Municipality had higher levels of cognitive engagement (mean = 4.3472; n = 60) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 3.6050; n = 73). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, race and tenure did not show any significant difference on the mean levels of cognitive engagement. 7.3.4 Demographic Differences on Psychological Conditions It was also imperative to test for Demographical differences on psychological conditions within our sample. Table 43 below shows results of a One-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey HSD test for comparing mean differences of ordinal categorical demographic variables (i.e. municipality, qualifications and occupational level) on psychological conditions (meaningfulness, safety and availability). Table 43: Statistically Mean Differences of Personality Traits and Demographics Anova-F(Sig) implies ANOVA analysis and shows whether there is a statistically significant difference between the group means. Source MUNICIPALITY QUALIFICATIONS DF F Value Pr>F DF F Value Pr>F Meaningfulness 5 7.580 0.000** 5 4.026 0.001** Safety 5 11.327 0.000** 5 3.929 0.002** Availability 5 10.995 0.000** 5 2.288 0.045** 207 Table 44: Mean Differences of Psychological Conditions and Demographics Variable MeanTukey HSD(n) Psychological meaningfulness Psychological safety Psychological availability Municipality: Alfred Nzo (73) 4.91781 (73) 3.73971 (73) 4.81371 Chris Hani (69) 5.70052 (69) 5.00482 (69) 5.89862 Joe Gqabi (75) 5.70002 (75) 5.13782 (75) 5.74672 OR Tambo (60) 5.79172 (60) 4.90002 (60) 5.97962 Sarah Baartman (62) 5.92472 (62) 4.59142 (62) 5.61612 Amathole (64) 5.98182 (64) 4.60422 (64) 5.96882 Qualification: Matric (61) 5.25681 (61) 4.37701,2 (61) 5.13601,2 Certificate (67) 5.98182 (67) 4.72642 (67) 5.79102 Diploma (107) 5.94031,2 (107) 4.67912 (107) 5.65421,2 Degree (97) 5.62201,2 (97) 4.91072 (97) 5.69281,2 Post graduate (46) 6.00722 (46) 4.84782 (46) 5.96092 Other (25) 5.09331 (25) 3.73331 (25) 5.13601 MeanHSD implies mean and a Tukey post hoc test for the ordinal categorical variable on the respective theoretical construct, showing the grouping of the variable where (1) and (2) represents statistically different groups. Psychological meaningfulness had statistically significant differences on level of education (F = 4.026; p = <0.0001) and municipalities (F = 7.580; p = <0.0001). Table 44 shows that employees who had other qualification (mean = 5.0933, n = 25) have significantly higher levels of psychological meaningfulness than who had post graduate qualifications (mean = 6.0072, n = 46). It also shows that employees who worked at Amathole District Municipality had higher levels psychological meaningfulness (mean = 5.9818; n = 64) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 4.9178; n = 73). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, race and tenure did not show any significant difference on the mean levels of physical engagement. 208 In terms of psychological safety, results show statistically significant differences on level of education (F = 3.929; p = 0.002) and municipalities (F = 11.327; p = <0.0001). Table 44 shows that employees who had a degree qualification (mean = 4.910, n = 97) have significantly higher levels of psychological safety than who had other qualifications (mean = 3.7333, n = 25). It also shows that employees who worked at Joe Gqabi District Municipality had higher levels of psychological safety (mean = 5.1378; n = 75) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 3.7397; n = 73). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, race and tenure did not show any significant difference on the mean levels of emotional engagement. Lastly psychological availability showed significant differences with educational qualifications (F = 2.288; p = 0.045) and municipalities (F = 10.995; p = <0.0001). Table 44 shows that employees who had a post graduate qualification (mean = 5.9609, n = 46) have significantly higher levels of psychological availability than those who had other qualifications (mean = 5.1360, n = 25) and matric (mean = 5.1360, n = 61). It also shows that employees who worked at OR District Municipality experienced high levels of psychological availability (mean = 5.9796; n = 73) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 4.8137; n = 73). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, race and tenure did not show any significant difference on the mean levels of cognitive engagement. 7.4 The study model of the relationship between the big five personality traits and job engagement In view of the above results and the interpretations of the statistical analysis done the study therefore confirmed and accepted the presented model of the relationship amongst the big five 209 personality traits, job engagement and psychological conditions. The confirmed model is presented in Figure 11 Figure 10. A conceptual integrated study model DIRECT EFFECT OF INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITY TRAITS ON JOB ENGAGEMENT PERSONALITY TRAITS OPENNESS AGREEABLENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS EXTRAVERSION NEUROTICISM PSYCHOLOGICAL MEANINGFULNESS PSYCHOLOGICAL AVAILABILITY PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY EMOTIONAL ENGAGEMENT COGNITIVE ENGAGEMENT PHYSICAL ENGAGEMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL JOB CONDITIONS β1 = 0.482 p = 0.000* β1=0.499 p = 0.000* β1=0.482 p = 0.000* β1=0.149 p = 0.017* β1=-0.119 p = 0.014* R2 = 0.375 ∆R2 = 0.166 ∆F = 105.0 p = 0.000* R2 0.335 ∆R2 = 0.125 ∆F = 74.55 p = 0.000* R2 = 0.225 ∆R2 = 0.016 ∆F = 8.047 p = 0.005* PERSONALITY AND PSY JOB CONDITIONS DIRECT EFFECT OF PERSONALITY ON JOB ENGAGEMENT R2 = 0.210 F = 21.046 p = 0.000* 210 The model shows that most of the personality traits had a positive effect on employee engagement. However, neuroticism negatively affects employee engagement. This shows that if you want to have the employees who are engaged in their work then their personality profile must be assessed through psychometric testing and given due weightage at the time of recruitment and selection. When combined with the psychological conditions the job engagement variance increased which shows that organisation must focus on both individual factor and organisational that affect employees to enhance job engagement. 7.8 Conclusion This chapter provides the data analysis results from inferential statistics. The associations among variables were investigated using the Pearson Product-moment Correlation coefficient. The combined and separate effects of personality traits, job engagement and psychological conditions were determined through the multiple regression analysis. The result showed significant relationship among study variables and also mean differences on the relationship between demographics and study variables. 211 CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Introduction The previous chapter focused on the analysis of the data which was collected from the field and the discussion of the results from descriptive and inferential statistical analysis. With special reference to the results discussed in the previous chapter, this chapter will focus on the conclusions, discussions, limitations, recommendations and give guidance to future research directions in related studies. 8.2 Discussion of results 8.2.1 The relationship between the big five personality traits and job engagement The hypothesis was looking at all big five personality traits, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, agreeableness and neuroticism and their relationship with job engagement. Extraversion (r = 0.191; p = 0.009), conscientiousness (r = 0.402; p = <0.0001), openness (r = 0.351; p = <0.0001) and agreeableness (r = 0.389; p = <0.0001) were found to be positively correlated with job engagement which was also supported by the linear regression analysis. These results are consistent with the person-job fit theory where employees who feel that their personality match with their job has increased job engagement that when they feel that their personality does not match their jobs. These study results are supporting the results of the studies done by Ramachandran and Pandit (2018); Shukla, Aggarwal, Adhikari and Singh (2014) and Shaban (2018) who found a positive correlation between the four personality traits and job engagement. A lot of research have found a strong link between personality and work engagement (Li and Mao 2014; Rossier, Zecca, Stauffer, Maggiori & Dauwalder, 2012; O’Neill et al., 2014; Reinke & 212 Chamorro-Premuzic, 2014; Woods & Sofat, 2013; Wefald et al., 2012; Li, Wang, Gao & You, 2017). Barrick et al., (2013) proposes that one’s personality is a key determinant of motivated behaviours when combined with and understood in the context of situational constraints and offerings, resulting in a behaviour set unique to everyone. Although all personality characteristics are important, it seems that specific personality characteristics have a stronger relationship with work engagement such as neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness and openness (Akhtar et al., 2015; Aluja, Kuhlman & Zuckerman 2010; Nilforooshan & Salimi 2016; Ongore 2014; Woods & Sofat 2013). Openness, extraversion, conscientiousness and openness were found to have a positive correlation with emotional, physical and cognitive engagement in this study. These results are consistent to the study done by Ongore (2014) on Kastamou university academics and administrative personnel and found that extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness and agreeableness were positively related to physical, emotional and cognitive engagement. Openness had a positive correlation with the overall job engagement (r = 0.351; p = <0.0001). This may be because openness to experience has become a prior personality trait because of the rapidly changing nature of current working life hence employees who adapt themselves to the changes can be more engaged in their job. This finding is consonant with that of Woods and Sofat (2013) who reported positive and a statistically significant correlation between openness to 388 experience and engagement (r = 0.28, p < 0.01) with a relatively small practical size. Openness individuals have the tendency to be imaginative and curious as opposed to being concrete-minded and narrow thinking (Laher, 2010) thereby able to stimulate the level of employee engagement 213 Conscientiousness was found to be positively correlated to job engagement (r = 0.402; p = <0.0001) and the three job engagement components. This can be explained due to the organisational skills, steadiness during hard times and a strong sense of responsibility engaged employees display while performing their roles (Wefald et al., 2011). The results are supporting the findings of other researches (Wildermuth, 2008; Bakker et al., 2012a; Steger, 2013; Kim, Park, van Tongeren & Burstyn, 2012; van Daal, Donche & De Maeyer, 2014). Conscientiousness individuals have the tendency to be habitually careful, reliable, hardworking, well energized and purposeful which makes them more engaged in their work. Similarly, Inceoglu and Warr (2012) found in a sample of 393 individuals from several countries found conscientiousness and extraversion to be strong predictors of work engagement. Consistently, Mostert and Rothmann (2006) found conscientiousness to be a predictor of engagement in a survey of 1794 South African police officers. Extraversion was found to be positively correlated to job engagement (r = 0.191; p = 0.009) and its three job engagement components. The study results corroborate previous research done by other researchers who found a positive correlation between job engagement and extraversion (Inceoglu and Warr, 2012; Ongore, 2014; Makikangas, Schaufeli, Tolvanen & Feldt, 2013; Li et al., 2014; Handa & Gulati, 2014; Sulea, van Beek, Sarbescu, Virga & Schaufeli, 2015; Zecca, Györkös, Becker, Massoudi, de Bruin & Rossier, 2015; Gulamali, 2017). This finding suggests that people who are highly assertive and sociable are most likely to work with great enthusiasm and inner drive to pursue others. An increased amount of extraversion experienced will result in an increase in job engagement as extroverts are characterised by displaying high levels of self-confidence, energy and activity (Milfont & Sibley, 2012). 214 Agreeableness was found to be positively correlated to job engagement (r = 0.389; p = <0.0001) and its three job engagement components. Similar results are also observed in the study conducted by Woods and Sofat (2013) among a sample of UK working adults and reported that agreeableness (r = 0.24, p < 0.01) was positively correlated with engagement. The positive correlation between engagement and agreeableness suggests that participants have the proclivity to care, help and cooperate with others. The results are consistent with the study results by Ongore (2014), Akhtar et al. (2015) and Mostert and Rothmann (2006) who found agreeableness as a significant predictor of job engagement. Agreeable employees can be more positive and motivated to resolve the problems and conflicts which makes them more engaged in their job because they can save their energy and flow it to their work roles. In addition, other, previous research done found a positive relationship between agreeableness and job engagement (Wildermuth, 2008; Inceoglu & Warr, 2011; Li et al., 2014). However, Lee, Ashton and De Vries (2014) indicated that there was no significant relationship between agreeableness and job engagement but this study found a positive correlation between engagement and agreeableness. Neuroticism was found to be negatively correlated to job engagement (r = -.122; p = 0.007). The study results are consistent with studies done by O’Neill et al., (2014), Reinke & Chamorro-Premuzic, (2014), Woods & Sofat (2013), Burns and Machin (2013), Li et al., (2014) and Nilforooshan and Salimi (2016) who found also a negative correlation between neuroticism and job engagement. This may be because people high in neuroticism are likely to be distracted and put more energy into worrying about personal issues that are irrelevant to the task at hand. This naturally makes them less emotionally or cognitively available to perform the job. 215 8.2.2 The relationship between psychological conditions and job engagement Job engagement was found to be positively correlated with psychological conditions (r = 0.618; p = <0.0001) and the three psychological conditions which were also supported by the linear regression analysis. When the relationship between the three components of job engagement (physical, emotional and cognitive) and the three separate components of psychological conditions (meaningfulness, safety and availability) is tested for each one separately, all components were significantly positively related to job engagement components except for cognitive engagement and safety psychological conditions. Therefore, these results show that job engagement has a significant relationship with psychological conditions thereby supporting by the job demand resource model. This theoretical framework posits that having appropriate job resources, employees can enjoy higher levels of engagement, job satisfaction and low cynicism (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Psychological meaningfulness was found to have a positive significant relationship with job engagement (r = 0.571; p = <0.0001). As predicted by the relational model (Kahn & Heaphy, 2014), job engagement was statistically significantly and positively associated with psychological meaningfulness. This is in line with the previous theory of Kahn (1990) who found that when people experience meaning in their work, they will be more engaged in their work roles. Recent studies (Janik & Rothmann,2016; Rothmann & Rothmann, 2010; Rothmann & Welsh, 2013; Wells-Lepley, 2013; Geldenhuys et al., 2014; Anitha, 2014; showed that psychological meaningfulness predicts work engagement. Therefore, this study results support the findings of Janik and Rothmann (2016) that psychological meaningfulness was the most important psychological condition that contributes to work engagement. Kahn and Heaphy (2014) pointed 216 out that psychological availability reflects one’s readiness or confidence to engage in a work role, given that individuals are also engaged in other activities. Psychological meaningfulness is thought to have an impact on work engagement through the notion that individuals have an inherent drive to find meaning in their work (Chen et al., 2011). If individuals perceive their work to be personally meaningful, they are likely to be motivated to invest more of themselves and, henceforth, become more engaged in it and vice versa. The results support the broaden and build theory which generates interest in the wider work context which broadens the potential expressions of engagement and builds cognitive resources needed for sustained engagement (Soane et al., 2013). Therefore, situations within the day where the work tasks being conducted are viewed as personally valuable will generate higher levels of engagement Researchers noted that decreased resources might not decrease public sector employee engagement, possibly because employees view their work as meaningful (van der Voet & Vermeeren, 2017). On the contrary to the study results were in contrast with studies done by Geldenhuys et al., (2014), and, Rothmann and Hamukangandu (2013) who found that psychological meaningfulness of work is not directly related to work engagement, while the calling orientation has a strong effect on engagement of employees. They suggested meaningfulness and engagement are two different aspects of people’s welfare. The study result shows there is a positive relationship between psychological availability and job engagement (r = 0.525; p = <0.0001). The results show that the presence of resources would result in higher availability and, consequently, higher work engagement and vice versa (May et al., 2004). Kahn and Heaphy (2014) pointed out that psychological availability reflects one’s readiness 217 or confidence to engage in a work role, given that individuals are also engaged in other activities. This study results are consistent with those found by Rothmann and Buys (2011) and Rothmann and Rothmann, (2010) who showed that psychological availability is significantly associated with work engagement. From the theoretical perspective, according to social exchange theory, employees become more obliged to their duties if sufficient resources are provided and the job becomes meaningful to them (Albrecht, 2013). As a reciprocate nature, the availability of the resources enables the employees to become more energized, motivated and engaged towards their job (Saks, 2006). This is important because the finding establishes that South African’s experience the constructs of psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety and work engagement similarly to other nations in which the previous research was conducted. Situations where psychological availability is high will likely be associated with high levels of engagement, since the individual will feel comfortable that they can invest themselves in their work roles without the fear of being over-depleted and in anticipation of a higher sense of wellbeing. The study results also showed that psychological safety was positively correlated with job engagement (r = 0.257; p = 000). This shows that employees who have high perceptions of psychological safety at work will be more likely to take risks and express their true selves. A psychologically safe work environment has high levels of trust between employees (Nienaber, Holtorf, Lekker & Schewe, 2015) which will allow for open communication and sharing of ideas without fear of prejudice or personal embarrassment. Framed by the tenets of social exchange theory, when the organisation provides an environment deemed by the employee to be psychologically safe, the employee will reciprocate with a willingness to engage (Rimm-Kaufman, 2016). These result supports the results found by Dollard and Bakker (2010) who found a positive 218 relationship between psychological safety and job engagement. Psychological safety also leads to engagement at work, because it affirms one’s belief that one can voice one’s opinion without any adverse consequences. In addition, the study results are consistent with the results of the study done recently by Tiwari and Lenka (2016) who studied employees who had survived corporate downsizing and examined the individual psychological safety and its relationship with employee engagement. Utilizing a review of the extant literature as a basis, Tiwari and Lenka (2016) proposed a framework with which organisations can increase levels of employee engagement through increased psychological safety. In addition to the correlations done, the results from the linear regression show that meaningfulness (r2 = 0.326) and availability (r2 = 0.276) exerted more positive effects on job engagement than psychological safety (r2 = 0.066). These results are similar to results found by Rothmann and Welsh (2013) in their study which examined engagement precursors among Namibia employees. Their results disclosed that meaningfulness (strongly) and availability (moderately) was statistically significantly connected to engagement. All the above results are consistent with the findings of May et al, (2004) through the social exchange theory that the three psychological conditions influence the degree of engagement in one’s work function, and Kahn’s report from his theory that disengagement could result when an individual finds the work meaningless. Therefore, the study results are also supporting the self-determination theory which explores motivational factors influencing human behaviour (Ryan & Deci, 2000) which may be internal or external factors that determine an individual’s level of enjoyment or meaning they derive from the task and the level at which they are engaged during 219 task completion. In this case when employees feel that their work is meaningful and the feel safe in their working environment and have the resources they need available it enhances engagement in their work. 8.2.3 The relationship between the big five personality traits and psychological conditions The hypothesis was looking at extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, agreeableness and neuroticism with psychological conditions. Extraversion (r =0.147; p = 000), conscientiousness (r = 0.503; p = 000), openness (r = 0.457; p = 000) and agreeableness (r = 0.493; p = 000) were found to be positively correlated with all three psychological conditions while neuroticism (r = -.300; p = 000) was negatively correlated with psychological conditions. The results are consistent with the findings found by Ongore (2014) who found that three of the big five personality traits (extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness) were statistically significant (p < .01) and positively correlated with three dimensions of psychological conditions (meaningfulness, availability and safety). Openness to experience was found to have a positive correlation with psychological conditions (r = 0.457; p = 000) and its three components separately. The study results are consistent with the study done by Frieder, Wang and Oh (2018) who found that individuals high in conscientious, extraversion, openness to experience perceive their work as more meaningful and as a result achieve heightened performance. The study also shows that openness to experience (r = 0.351; p = 0001) correlated with job engagement than extraversion (r = 0.119; p = 0009). The results are similar to a study conducted on a sample of 1,050 employees by Akhtar et al., (2015) who found that openness correlated with employee engagement more than extraversion. 220 Conscientiousness was found to have a positive correlation with psychological conditions (r = 0.503; p = 000) and its three components. The study results support Ongore (2014) who also found that three of the big five personality traits (extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness) were statistically significant (p < 0.01) and positively correlate with three dimensions of psychological conditions (meaningfulness, availability and safety). Extraversion was found to have a positive correlation with psychological conditions (r = 0.147; p = 003) and its three components. Extraversion was found to be positively correlated to psychology safety which may be due to the fact that extroverts are naturally characterized as being more likely to open up hence they feel comfortable and can perceive their surroundings as more psychologically safe than those that are low on extraversion. Extraverts also were found to be positively correlated with psychological availability which may be due to their inherent high level of energy hence the more physical resources to put towards doing their job. In turn, they will be more physically available than their counterparts to become engaged in their work role. Agreeableness was found to have a positive correlation with psychological conditions (r = 0.493; p = 000) and its three components. The results show that agreeableness had a positive relationship with psychological conditions. The study results are supported by Wildermuth (2010, p. 204) who argued that out employees high in agreeableness should be better able to mobilize social supports and resources to engage more directly in their job roles and organisational context. Neuroticism was found to have a negative correlation with psychological conditions (r = -.300; p = 000) and its three components. Neuroticism was found to be negatively correlated with psychological safety which may be because individuals high in neuroticism are naturally wired to perceive their environment as less safe because of their naturally high level of anxiety and 221 insecurity. Therefore, their natural inclination to be nervous, anxious would make them more apt to perceive their surroundings as unsafe to unwind in and be their true selves. 8.2.4 Combination of personality traits and job engagement The study shows the first significant model was the one with conscientiousness as a predictor variable on job engagement (F = 77.254; df = 1; p = <0.0001). The R2 = 0.162 (F Change = 77.254; Sig. F Change = <0.0001) shows that adding conscientiousness significantly increases the variance in predicting job engagement. The second significant variable that was added to the model was agreeableness which yielded a significant model (F = 48.396; df = 2; p = <0.0001). The R2 = 0.033 (F Change = 16.544; Sig. F Change = <0.0001) shows that adding agreeableness to conscientiousness significantly increases the variance explained by the model. Openness was the last significant variable to be added to the regression model. This yielded a significant linear regression model (F = 34.507; p = <0.0001). Conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness added unique variance (R2 = 0.206, Adjusted R2 = 0.200) in predicting job engagement in this study. Extraversion and Neuroticism were all non-significant and were excluded from the model. Therefore conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness accounted for 20.6% variance in job engagement. The study results are consistent with a study done by Shuckla, Aggarwal Adhikari and Singh (2014) who found that almost 24% of employee engagement was explained by the personality of the employees on its own. They also found that conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness moderately positive relationship with employee engagement while extraversion and neuroticism were having a weak relationship with employee engagement which is similar to this study results. 222 In another study by Mroz and Kaleta (2016) all the 5 traits of personality accounted for 8–15% of the variance in work engagement while Gulamali (2017) found that 27.9% of the variance of job engagement was explained by the individual traits. On the other hand, Ziapour and Kianipour (2015) found that neuroticism and agreeableness predicted 4.9% of the variance of nurses’ job engagement. The study does not support the results found by Yadav and Katiyar (2017) who found that extraversion and conscientiousness had a major impact on overall engagement and accounted for 57% change in employee engagement. This study extraversion had a weak correlation with job engagement. These results are a bit contrary as extraversion employees are most effective in jobs that require interpersonal relationships such as municipal workers. However, Moshoeu (2017) also found that extraversion did not act as significant predictors of employee engagement. 8.2.5 Combination of psychological conditions and job engagement The first significant model was the one with meaningfulness as a predictor variable on job engagement (F = 194.380; df = 1; p = <0.0001). Meaningfulness is the first psychological condition and it added a unique variance of 32.6% in predicting job engagement. The second significant model had the variable availability added to meaningfulness which yielded a statistically significant model (F = 123.425; df = 2; p = <0.0001). Meaningfulness and availability added a unique variance (R2 = 0.382, Adjusted R2 = 0.379) in predicting job engagement combined. Safety was the last significant variable to be added to the regression model. This yielded a significant linear regression model (F = 85.305; df = 3; p = <0.0001). Meaningfulness, availability and safety adds unique variance (R2 = 0.391, Adjusted R2 = 0.386) in predicting job engagement. 223 Meaningfulness is the first psychological condition and it added a unique variance of 32.6% in predicting job engagement. This shows that meaningfulness is the strongest predictor of job engagement than availability and safety psychological conditions. The study results support the results found by Oliver and Rothmann (2007) and Rothmann and Rothmann (2010) who also found meaningfulness to be the strongest predictor of engagement. This study therefore, shows that meaningfulness and availability accounted for 38.2% variance in job engagement. These results are consistent with Olivier and Rothmann (2007) who reported that meaningfulness and availability accounted for around 20% of the total variance of employee engagement. Rothmann and Rothmann (2010) found that 19.7% of the variance in employee engagement is predicted by all the psychological conditions while this study found 39.1% of the variance in employee engagement predicted by all the psychological conditions. 8.2.6 Personality traits/psychological conditions/ job engagement The study results show that all personality traits explained 21.0% of the variation in job engagement (R2 = 0.210). Combined with meaningfulness, the resultant model accounted for a total of 37.5% of the variation in job engagement. Personality when combined with psychological availability the resultant model accounted for a total of 33.5% of the variation in job engagement. Lastly, combined with safety, the resultant model accounted for a total of 22.5% of the variation in job engagement. The study therefore, shows that personality alone accounted for 21% variance in job engagement. It shows that personality influences the way employees behave in their workplace and it should not be ignored. The psychological conditions when added to personality increased more variance 224 in job engagement. Therefore, organisations should take note of their employees’ personality and the psychological conditions in the workplace to increase job engagement. 8.3 Demographics and study variables 8.3.1 Demographic Differences in Personality Traits In terms of extraversion, the results show that statistically significant differences only exist on the occupational level (F = 6.832; p = 0.001). Employees on level 11 to 15 (mean = 3.4033, n = 60) had higher significantly levels of extraversion than those from level 6 to 10 (mean = 3.1115; n = 192). This may be due to the fact that extraversion has facets such as ambition, boldness and excitement-seeking which influence employees to pursue new challenges in their jobs and puts them on jobs at higher ranked levels (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). In terms of conscientiousness, results show that significant differences only exist on educational qualifications (F = 18.998; p = <0.0001) and municipalities (F = 7.356; p = <0.0001). The results show that employees who had a post graduate educational qualification have significantly higher levels of conscientiousness than who had other qualifications (mean = 3.1120, n = 25) or matric (mean = 3.3836, n = 61). The results also show that employees who worked at OR Tambo District Municipality experienced more high levels of conscientiousness (mean = 3.8717; n = 60) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 3.0932; n = 73). In terms of educational qualification, the study results are similar to the study by Mhlanga (2012) who found conscientiousness personality trait to be high among employees with honours degrees and employees with certificates. The study results are consistent with results found by Bogg and Roberts (2013) who found conscientiousness to be related to educational qualifications. 225 The results show that agreeableness traits showed significant differences with educational qualifications (F = 18.998; p = <0.0001), occupational level (F = 3.327; p = 0.037) and municipalities (F = 7.356; p = <0.0001). Employees who worked at OR District Municipality experienced more high levels of agreeableness (mean = 3.8000; n = 60) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 3.1548; n = 73). The results also show that those who worked in occupational level 11 to 15 (mean = 3.783; n = 60) experience more level of agreeableness than those working in lower levels. In addition, employees who had a post-graduate educational qualification experienced more agreeableness (mean = 3.9065; n = 46) than those who had other qualifications (mean = 3.0840; n = 25). Openness to experience showed significant differences with educational qualifications (F = 10.752; p = 0.002) and municipalities (F = 10.886; p = <0.0001). It shows that employees who worked at OR District Municipality experienced more high levels of openness (mean = 3.5850; n = 60) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 3.1178; n = 73). The results also show that employees who had a post graduate educational qualification (mean = 3.7500, n = 46) have significantly higher levels of openness than who had other qualifications (mean = 3.2320, n = 25). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, race and tenure did not show any significant difference in the mean levels of openness to experience trait, extraversion, conscientiousness and agreeableness. In terms of race the study results support the results found by Belsi et al. (2011) who found no differences in personality traits across ethnic groups of dental students in UK. These results are inconsistent with the results found by other researchers (Mueller & Plug, 2006; Costa et al., 2001; Larsen & Buss, 2008) who found a different relationship between gender and personality traits. Other researchers also found links between age and mean-levels of the Big Five 226 (Schretlen et al., 2010; Terracciano, Abdel-Khalek, Adam, Adamovova, Ahn, Ahn, et al., 2005; Magan et al., 2014). Lastly, neuroticism showed significant differences with educational qualifications (F = 3.997; p = 0.002) and municipalities (F = 10.752; p = <0.0001). It shows that employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality experienced more high levels of neuroticism (mean = 3.2384; n = 73) than employees who worked at Chris Hani District Municipality (mean = 2.5188; n = 69). The results also show that employees who had other educational qualification (mean = 3.2600, n = 25) have significantly higher levels of neuroticism than who had a degree qualification (mean = 2.7124, n = 97). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, occupational level, race and tenure did not show any significant difference in the mean levels of neuroticism trait. 8.3.2 Demographic Differences on Job Engagement Job engagement had statistically significant differences on the level of education (F = 4.179; p = 0.001) and municipalities (F = 12.785; p = <0.0001). This shows that employees who had a certificate qualification (mean = 4.1600, n = 67) have significantly higher levels of job engagement than who had other qualifications (mean = 3.6133, n = 25). It also shows that employees who worked at Amathole District Municipality experienced more high level job engagement (mean = 4.2378; n = 64) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 3.5761; n = 73). The study results in terms of education and job engagement are consistent with the study conducted by Bell and Barkhuizen (2011) who found significant differences amongst job engagement, home language, ethnicity and educational qualification. This study showed that employees with a certificate were more engaged than employees who had diploma, degree, post-graduate and other 227 educational qualification. This is consistent with previous research by Jackson and Rothmann (2004) who found that teachers with lower qualifications were more engaged than the others. However, the results contradict the discoveries of Barkhuizen and Rothmann (2006) who found academics with a doctoral degree to be more engaged than those with a honours degree. The study results also show that there were significant differences between engagement and geographical location of employees. Employees who worked at Amathole District Municipality experienced more high levels of job engagement than employees working at Alfred Nzo District Municipality. Amathole District is found in a big town and Alfred Nzo is situated in Mount Aliyff in what is considered a rural area which might affect how employees view their work. The results are in line with Lavoie (2014) who pointed out that location of a workplace have an impact on employee engagement when he found that most employees in big cities were more engaged. In addition, Gupta, Ganguli and Ponnam (2015) are of the view that location of appointment is a very crucial factor for engaging employees. Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, race, tenure and occupational levels did not show any significant difference in the mean levels of job engagement. A study conducted by Mahboubi, Ghahramani, Mohammadi, Amani, Mousavi, Moradi and Kazemi (2015) who found no significant relationship between work engagement and education level, sex, and job units. Also, Bell and Barkhuizen (2011) and found no statistically substantial differences on job engagement according to gender, organisational level, the sum of years in the job and tenure. In addition, Alabsi and Aamer (2014) found no correlation amongst gender and age of respondents with job engagement; and Takawira (2012) found no impact of race on job engagement in a South African sample. 228 These results are not supporting the study directed by Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) who found that employees at high occupational levels are relatively more engaged than employees in lower professional levels. In addition, Martins (2016) as well as Nienaber and Martins (2014) reported that employees at the top management level were more engaged than other functional job levels. Top level employees are presumed to be able to deal with the job demands especially when they feel in control over their situations which leads to job engagement. Similarly, public sector employees with supervision tasks exhibited higher engagement than those with no supervision obligations (Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2013). Physical engagement had statistically significant differences on the level of education (F = 4.972; p = <0.0001) and municipalities (F = 13.137; p = <0.0001). It shows that employees who had a Diploma qualification (mean = 4.2368, n = 107) have significantly higher levels of physical engagement than who had other qualifications (mean = 3.6533, n = 25). It also shows that employees who worked at Amathole District Municipality experienced more high levels of physical engagement (mean = 4.3307; n = 64) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 3.5525; n = 73). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, race and tenure did not show any significant difference in the mean levels of physical engagement. The study results are not supporting results found by Fong and Ng (2012) who found age to have significantly higher scores on all three dimensions of work engagement among older Chinese employees. In addition, Acquah-Quarcoo (2016) found no differences between educational status and the physical dimension of employee engagement, as well as the duration of being in the organisation and the physical dimension of employee engagement. 229 In terms of emotional engagement, results show statistically significant differences on the level of education (F = 2.311; p = 0.043) and municipalities (F = 8.926; p = <0.0001). It shows that employees who had a post-graduate qualification (mean = 4.2101, n = 46) have significantly higher levels of emotional engagement than who had other qualifications (mean = 3.6067, n = 25). It also shows that employees who worked at OR District Municipality experienced more high levels of emotional engagement (mean = 4.3944; n = 60) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 3.5708; n = 73). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, race and tenure did not show any significant difference in the mean levels of emotional engagement. The results are consistent with the study results of Acquah-Quarcoo (2016) who found no differences between the ranks of respondents and all the dimensions of employee engagement; and Harisha and Kumar (2017) who found employees’ age not significant to physical engagement. Lastly, cognitive engagement showed significant differences with educational qualifications (F = 3.345; p = 0.006) and municipalities (F = 9.153; p = <0.0001). It shows that employees who had a certificate qualification (mean = 4.1468, n = 67) have significantly higher levels of cognitive engagement than who had other qualifications (mean = 3.5800, n = 25). It also shows that employees who worked at OR District Municipality experienced more high levels of cognitive engagement (mean = 4.3472; n = 60) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 3.6050; n = 73). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, race and tenure did not show any significant difference in the mean levels of cognitive engagement. 8.3.3 Demographic Differences on Psychological Conditions Psychological meaningfulness had statistically significant differences on the level of education (F = 4.026; p = <0.0001) and municipalities (F = 7.580; p = <0.0001). It shows that employees who 230 had other qualification (mean = 5.0933, n = 25) have significantly higher levels of psychological meaningfulness than who had post-graduate qualifications (mean = 6.0072, n = 46). It also shows that employees who worked at Amathole District Municipality experienced more high levels of psychological meaningfulness (mean = 5.9818; n = 64) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 4.9178; n = 73). It can be noted that employees with other education qualification (lower than matric/trade qualification) experienced meaningfulness in their work than those who had post graduate qualifications. The study results are contradictory to the belief that those with more education may gain a job they consider to be more psychologically meaningful which inclines to higher engagement levels. Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, race and tenure did not show any significant difference in the mean levels of physical engagement. These results are consistent with Hodson (2004) who found that race, age and gender did not have conclusive differences in terms of psychological meaningfulness (Hodson, 2004). In terms of psychological safety, results show statistically significant differences on the level of education (F = 3.929; p = 0.002) and municipalities (F = 11.327; p = <0.0001). This shows that employees who had a degree qualification (mean = 4.910, n = 97) have significantly higher levels of psychological safety than who had other qualifications (mean = 3.7333, n = 25). It also shows that employees who worked at Joe Gqabi District Municipality experienced more high levels of psychological safety (mean = 5.1378; n = 75) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 3.7397; n = 73). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, race and tenure did not show any significant difference in the mean levels of emotional engagement. 231 Lastly, psychological availability showed significant differences with educational qualifications (F = 2.288; p = 0.045) and municipalities (F = 10.995; p = <0.0001). This shows that employees who had a post-graduate qualification (mean = 5.9609, n = 46) have significantly higher levels of psychological availability than those who had other qualifications (mean = 5.1360, n = 25) and matric (mean = 5.1360, n = 61). It also shows that employees who worked at OR District Municipality experienced more high levels of psychological availability (mean = 4.8137; n = 73) than employees who worked at Alfred Nzo District Municipality (mean = 4.8137; n = 73). Race, age, gender, job status, marital status, race and tenure did not show any significant difference in the mean levels of cognitive engagement. 8.4 Theoretical implications This study carries a significant theoretical contribution to the existing literature on job engagement. This study contributes to a new framework on the relationship between job engagement, big five personality traits and psychological conditions. Relatively little prior research has examined the association between the variables using a South African sample of workers from the government municipal workers. The present research adds to this knowledge base through a quantitative report and as the findings indicated both personality and psychological conditions have a significant impact on job engagement. The study provides an empirical support to Kahn (1990) in his formative qualitative work on employee engagement he identified psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and psychological availability as necessary conditions of employee engagement. Subsequent qualitative (Shuck, Rocco, and Albornoz, 2011) and quantitative (May et al., 2004; Rich et al, 2010) research provided results in concurrence with Kahn’s (1990) findings. Wollard and Shuck 232 (2011) noted an overall lack of validation studies related to employee engagement. Therefore, the key implication of this study is the addition of depth to employee engagement theory by providing further empirical evidence in support of Kahn’s (1990) findings. The study found that there is a positive relationship between the three psychological conditions and job engagement which supports Kahn’s findings. In addition, Frazier et al. (2017) identified the potential reciprocal relationship between employee engagement and psychological safety as an important, yet unanswered, question. This study provides an initial answer, thereby addressing a gap in the literature. The study also provides an empirical support to the relational model by Kahn and Heaphy (2014) which includes psychological conditions as experienced by individuals as possible mediators between work engagement and its antecedents. According to Asiwe, Rothmann, Jorgensen and Hill (2017), the relational model of work engagement is conceptually appealing but it lacks empirical support. The key implication of this study is the addition of depth to the relationship between psychological conditions and job engagement hence theory by providing further empirical evidence in support of the relational theory. An important theoretical implication of this study is inherent in the subject matter of the research. Jin and McDonald (2016) suggested that employee engagement in the public enterprises is a topic that remains under-researched. The operation of the public enterprise is different than that of the private sector (Seidle et al., 2016). This study adds to the scholarly research by providing results related to employee engagement under-researched sector. The study also provides support for the Job Engagement Scale (Rich et al., 2010) and IPIP (Goldberg et al., 2006) as a viable and effective measure of employee engagement personality is 233 an important theoretical implication of this study. The use of these scale adds to the body of research related to the measurement of employee engagement and personality. Additionally, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge, the deployment of the Job Engagement Scale and IPIP for this study marks the first application on the municipal workers in Eastern Cape Province. The relationship between engagement and demographics are sometimes conflicting. A theoretical implication of this study was that, other than educational qualifications, none of the demographic variables was statistically significant predictors of employee engagement and psychological conditions. 8.5 Practical implication The rising level of disengaged employees can have a significant impact on an organisation’s profits, the ability to retain skilled employees, and employee citizenship (Berens, 2013). Much of the costs are attributed to disengaged employees, impacting health issues, job stress, burnout, turnover, and absenteeism (Bersin, 2014). Peretz, Levi, and Fried (2015) suggested turnover and absenteeism can increase an organisation’s costs and precipitate disciplinary issues with an unsafe working environment. The knowledge gained from the current study could help resolve such issues by providing strategies organisations can implement to improve employee engagement. Many organisations conduct personality tests as part of their HRM activities to help understand people’s traits, motivation, interests, and attitudes. This study adds to an understanding of the influences of personality on work outcomes such as job engagement, giving areas for exploration in coaching or feedback interviews based on personality assessment. Currently, personality predictors are being used to select employees for several organisational outcomes. Findings from this study offer a deeper understanding of how an organisation can 234 achieve the desired organisational goals. Organisational leaders who effectively engage employees could reduce employees’ intention to leave and improve productivity (Shuck et al., 2014). Employee engagement results in an improvement in living conditions and emotional well-being (Guest, 2014; Shuck & Reio, 2014; Trusset al., 2013). Since engagement has been shown to be related to positive organisational outcomes, specifically citizenship behaviours, organisations can now select for employees that are predisposed to become engaged by focusing on the personality predictors that affect job outcomes through engagement. In other words, hiring employees based on personality predictors related directly to job performance will induce positive organisational outcomes, but so too will hiring employees based on personality factors that relate to engagement. This enables organisations to broaden their selection criteria and increases the likelihood of finding high-performing job candidates that a stricter selection system based only on direct performance-related personality criteria may exclude. By switching from an intervention-based focus to a selection-based focus, organisations can maximize their resources by being able to better predict job success early on in the selection process as opposed to trying to maximize performance on a continual basis through interventions. The link of psychological meaningfulness to work engagement indicates that organisations should attempt to foster meaningfulness by making employees feel that their work is worthwhile and valued as well as providing employees with a sense of value returned in exchange for effort invested in the work. This shows that their work engagement level varies according to their psychological needs (Albrecht & Su, 2012). In addition, managers should also work to establish employee perceptions of safety by developing supportive, trustworthy relations with their employees. 235 An organisation should be cautious when designing jobs to minimize the cognitive, emotional and physical strain experienced by employees. Management should not overload employees with cognitive processing demands, or require them to perform extensive emotional labour in their positions without breaks, and should minimize the ergonomic job-related hazards present in their jobs. It is important that management practitioners regularly measure and track employee engagement within the workforce. In doing so, the effectiveness of strategic efforts to increase employee engagement can be monitored and evaluated. A practical implication of this study is the ease with which an instrument, such as the Job Engagement Scale (Rich et al., 2010) may be leveraged in the regular measurement of employee engagement. 8.6 Recommendations The findings of this study also have important implications for organisations and managers in terms of the design of jobs, employee selection and relations with employees. Based on the findings of this study, managers are advised to consider ways to enhance meaningfulness by ensuring effective design of jobs, selecting the proper employees for work roles and taking more time to learn about personal aspirations and desires of employees to fit them to roles that will allow self-expression. This study brings to out the importance of each of the employee engagement dimension: physical, cognitive and emotional as each one of it has some role to play in the overall organisational climate. Therefore, organisations need to specifically make provision for engaging employees at all the three levels. Physical engagement most significantly helps employees to identify with their organisations. Cognitive engagement is most significant in dealing with conflicts in the 236 organisation. Similarly, emotional engagement can be helpful to organisations for improving long-term commitment towards the organisation. In terms of availability psychological condition dimesnison, it should be supported by ensuring there is sufficient support for employees to invest in the development of their own skills and resources (cognitive, emotional and physical) to improve perceptions of psychological availability. The recruitment and selection process involves identifying potential employees, making offers of employment to them and trying to persuade them to accept those offers. While recruiting employees for desirable jobs, organisations enhance their engagement by maximizing the person-job fit and commitment. To enhance engagement organisations identify those candidates who are best-suited to the job and to organisation’s culture. By including personality characteristics such as agreeableness, extraversion, openness and conscientiousness in their selection criteria, organisations can improve the likelihood of finding high-performing job candidates that other selection systems may exclude. Therefore, this study supports a selection based approach to engagement, which could be more effective than an intervention-based one. Since employee engagement has direct outcomes to the organisation, employers should provide training for employees on employee engagement. This training should create an awareness of engagement, the relationship between employee and supervisor, and the impact of engagement on the individual and the organisation. Engagement training should also teach one how to identify whether one has the psychological conditions of safety, availability, and meaningfulness in work that Kahn (1990) outlined must work occur simultaneously for engagement to occur. Appropriate training would also help managers to understand the importance of taking action quickly and sharing with employees how their input contributed to the improvements. It is essential that 237 managers communicate via many means, including face-to-face meetings, email, and phone and through regular meetings, as good communication correlates strongly with higher levels of engagement. The organisation should focus on creating awareness in supervisors and teaching supervisors the skills they need to create an environment of psychological safety, ensure proper resources are available for employees to perform in their roles, and enable all supervisors to create environments in which their direct reports will find the work meaningful. This study explored the mediating effects of three psychological conditions on work engagement. Through increased understanding of the effects of these mediators, possible reasons for disengagement at work can be isolated. More specifically, opportunities can be identified to optimize the specific job/ personal characteristics and psychological conditions to increase and maintain engagement at the workplace 8.7 Future Research An area for future research is to study the potential effect of managerial interventions on employee engagement. There is already some existing evidence which suggests that exchange-inducing interventions can remind employees of a sense of obligation making them feel obliged to reciprocate (Ganzach, Pazy, Ohayun & Brainin, 2002). Researchers have also noted the need for more longitudinal and experimental research study designs for research on personality and employee engagement (Christian et al., 2011; Crawford, LePine & Rich, 2010; Rich et al., 2010). Personality traits can change over time as a result of external factors such as the environment of the place of employment, the experience gained within a role, and the establishment of additional skills or expertise 238 It is recommended that further studies make use of different methodologies, such as qualitative and quantitative, which could provide more in-depth insights into the relationship between personality traits and employee engagement. Therefore, additional research required to further investigate the how and why personality impacts engagement. The present quantitative study was particularly helpful in telling which personality traits impact engagement and the strength in which they impact the dependent variable. As is the nature of research, a larger sample size could contribute to a greater generalisability of the current findings. Thus, it is recommended that the study engage with more organisations across all provinces within South Africa and additionally target a wider array of organisations to ensure generalisability across different sectors. The study results also show that personality alone accounted for 21% of the variance in job engagement while psychological conditions accounted for 39.1% which means that there may be various other factors which affect employee engagement. This study leaves a scope for further research in terms of exploring other factors which may affect employee engagement. 8.8 Limitations The quantitative approach to this study has implications for the research. The self-report questionnaires for personality and job engagement can lead to linear, subjectivity and faking due to factors such as a social desirability bias. For instance, people may wish to be seen as sociable, calm, and engaged, rather than unsociable, prone to nervousness, and disengaged. Thus, social desirability bias might have artificially increased engagement scores and altered personality scores. In particular, social desirability may have reduced the variability of engagement scores. 239 Keeping the surveys anonymous and assuring participants that only group responses would be reported may have reduced but not fully eliminated this threat. In addition, the use of questionnaires as data collection tools attracts a very low response rate. Due to the busy schedules data collection took longer. Furthermore, more questionnaires than the required were also distributed to ensure an increased response rate. The use of a quantitative method allowed the researcher to address the research question and hypotheses. However, this method did not allow examination of the depth and underlying detail of why a hypothesis is supported or not supported (Mitchell & Jolley, 2001). While the study did support the relationships in the hypotheses, the study did not allow for the understanding of why these relationships exist. This study collected data within one province of South Africa, i.e. Eastern Cape, using a cross-sectional research design. This affects the generalizability of the findings to South Africa. 8.9 Chapter Conclusion This chapter presented a discussion of the findings of the study. The results showed a significant and positive relationship among extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, job engagement, meaningfulness, safety and availability. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings were also discussed. The limitations of the study were identified. Furthermore, recommendations for future research were provided. The findings of the present study provide significant insights for managers on the effect that personality traits and psychological conditions have on job engagement. It is anticipated that the practical implications of the present study will influence immensely to the advancement of human resources and offers the means to job engagement. 240 8.9 Study Conclusion Increasing work engagement in a sustainable way remains a challenge despite years of research on the topic (Rothmann, 2017). The question remains as to why employees, when working under comparable conditions display signs of job engagement whereas others display a few or no signs of job engagement. It can be contributed to personality and it cannot be ignored in the workplace especially since organisation represent a social system with many personalities interacting. Our theoretical validation is that certain behavioural and emotional styles related to personality traits will make it more likely that an individual will experience a state of engagement at the workplace. Organisations cannot change employees’ however they can capitalize on employees having certain traits that tend to facilitate a state of engagement. The results of this study add to the body of knowledge of the big five personality traits and work engagement. The study focused on personality as well as psychological conditions to ascertain if they have an impact on job engagement. It is important to acknowledge that both organisational variables and individual factors are constantly at play in influencing work engagement. The opportunity is for organisations to engage their employees more effectively by understanding their uniqueness’ and differences. The opportunities for individuals are to flourish if they find personal meaning in work, have an emotional allegiance to work or discover their greater potential in the face of work challenges. The study hypotheses have been discussed and interpreted. The results indicated that there was a moderately high significant positive correlation between personality traits (openness, conscientiousness and agreeableness) and job engagement. Extraversion had a weak positive correlation with job engagement and neuroticism had a weak significant correlation with job 241 engagement. Through linear regression agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness and extraversion exerted positive effects on job engagement while neuroticism exerted negative effects on job engagement. Openness, conscientiousness, extraversion and agreeableness had a positive correlation with job engagement dimensions (physical, cognitive and emotional engagement) while neuroticism had a negative correlation with the three dimensions. Psychological conditions (meaningfulness, availability and safety) had a positive correlation with job engagement and its three dimensions. Through linear regression psychological conditions (meaningfulness, availability and safety) were found to exert positive effects on job engagement. Openness, conscientiousness, extraversion and agreeableness had a positive correlation with psychological conditions (meaningfulness, availability and safety). A combination of personality traits (openness, conscientiousness and agreeableness) explained a higher proportion of variance in job engagement than any one personality traits separately. Extraversion and neuroticism were not included in the model as they were non-significant. Meaningfulness, availability and safety when combined explained a higher proportion of variance in job engagement. Psychological conditions explained a higher proportion of variance in job engagement than personality traits and when combined they added more variance in job engagement. Educational qualifications, occupational level and the different municipality had an impact on personality, job engagement and psychological conditions. The study therefore, contributed through these results to address the research gaps that have been mentioned in Chapter 5 of the study. The study results show that municipal employees were experiencing moderate job engagement levels. However, the finding of a more engaged workforce contradicts previous research, which emphasized that South African employees are disengaged at 242 work (PDT, 2014). On the other hand, the moderate levels of engagement can be explained by the sample experiencing more meaning from their work roles (May et al., 2004; Stone, Deci & Ryan, 2008). The research study also extended the current literature on employee engagement in municipalities in South Africa and its relation to personality. This is the first study that attempts to investigate the relationship between personality traits (measured by the 50-item International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) by Goldberg et al., 2006) and employee engagement (measured by the job engagement scale developed by Rich et al. (2010) among municipal workers the Eastern Cape province of South Africa. The study instruments were found to be reliable and applicable to the municipal workers. Therefore, this study added to the existing literature by assessing the applicability of the questionnaire in the South African context. Hence this study has also added both breadth and depth to the field of engagement and addressed the gap identified of limited research being conducted on individual factors impacting engagement in the South African context. In terms of theoretical significance, the study also provided the dearth of research on positive organisational behaviour as most of the studies focused on burnout which involved the use of the UWES scale. Most research done on job engagement and personality have recommended that researches need to be done with other samples for further studies to compare the results. Most researches have been conducted in private sectors hence the need to have more research on public government sector to make it more generalizable. Employees in the public sector can be less engaged and less devoted to their organisation than employees in the private sector (Agyemang & Ofei, 2013). This might be due to unique encounters public sector employees face such as resource shortages, political influence, and less management discretion for financial incentives (Jin & McDonald, 2016). This study therefore, added literature by using municipal workers in the public sector. 243 Another research gap was identified by Moshoeu (2017) when recommended further studies to focus on engagement levels of lower level employees which this study did. He also recommended having a larger sample from a single organisation and attention to be given to gender, generational cohort, functional job level, economic sector, educational qualifications, tenure, parental status and marital status, to achieve representative and generalized research findings. This study focused on the impact of demographics on the study variables among the municipalities in the Eastern Cape and the study found that different municipalities, educational qualification and occupational levels had an impact on personality, job engagement and psychological conditions. According to Asiwe (2014) researchers could hardly find any literature on South African studies that included psychological safety. Other researchers know very little about the relationship between employee engagement and psychological safety (Bailey et al., 2017; Lyu, 2016, Zehr, 2017), and the literature is even more scant relative to results associated with the public workers in South Africa. This study focused on psychological safety even though it had the least significant correlation with job engagement and personality than meaningfulness and availability. This study therefore, added depth and extends the present literature by quantitatively validating Kahn’s (1990) investigation connected to the role of psychological safety in employee engagement. Another research gap was on the desire of organisation’s need to maximize human capital which reflects the importance of employee engagement in the workplace. An organisation needs to develop strategies to attract, motivate and retain a highly skilled, flexible and adaptive workforce. This has been addressed by this study as it can be noted that most of the employees were experience low level of psychological safety which might affect how they will behave in the workplace. Organisations need to focus on practices such as management styles, group and intergroup 244 dynamics, interpersonal relationship and organisational norms that might affect individual psychological safety. There is global research presented concerning the connection between the demographic factors and work engagement, but little within the South African context (Bezuidenhout & Cilliers,2011; Durksen & Klassen,2012; Fong & Ng, 2012; Haley, Mostert & Els,2013). This study has provided additional literature on the impact of demographics on work engagement as it can be noted that educational qualification, occupational level and the geographical location of the employees contributed a statistically significant difference in job engagement. In closing, this study focused mainly on the relationship between personality and engagement among municipal employees. The results of the study hopefully will help the municipal managers in their recruitment, selection and placement decisions. In addition, managers should focus on both personality and psychological conditions to achieve great performance. Therefore, the study provided evidence for selecting a new employee with the positive psychological capacity to successfully manage their engagement in a rapidly changing environment. Municipal workers need to be engaged in their work as this will enhance good service delivery which will increase the socio-economic status of the citizens. So, present research concludes that if municipalities put more focus on measuring employee personality during recruitment and selection, employee engagement can be effected in a better way. 245 REFERENCES Ababneh, O.M.O. (2015). Conceptualizing and Measuring Employee Engagement, and Examining the Antecedents of Leadership Styles and Personality Attributes. Unpublished Doctoral, Auckland University of Technology AbuKhalifeh, A. N., & Som, A. P. M. (2013). The antecedents affecting employee engagement and organisational performance. Asian Social Science, 9(7), 1-6. Acquah-Quarcoo, M.A. (2016). Understanding the influence of employee engagement on organisational commitment and turnover intentions in high performing firms: evidence from selected companies in Hthe Ghana club 100. Unpublished master’s dissertation, University of Ghana. Adler, E.S., & Clark, R. (2011). An invitation of social research: How It’s done. 4th ed. U.S.A: Wardworth. Agyemang, C.B., & Ofei, S.B. (2013). Employee work engagement and organisational commitment: A comparative study in private and public-sector organisation in Ghana. European Journal of Business and Innovation Research 1(4): 20--33. Ahangar, R.G. (2010). A study of resilience in relation to personality, cognitive styles and decision-making style of management students. Afr. J. Bus. Manage., 4(6): 953-961. Akhtar, R., Boustani, L., Tsivrikos, D., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T.(2015). The engageable personality: Personality and trait EI as predictors of work engagement. Personality and Individual Differences 73: 44–49 246 Alabsi, A.M & Aamer, A.M. (2014). Employee engagement: The case of service industry in Yemen. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research. 22(7), 1014-1024 Alanoud, A., & Amir, A.E. (2016). Exploring the Relationship between Personality and Job Performance: New Approach. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 5, 43-53. Alarcon, G., Eschleman, K.J., & Bowling, N.A. (2009). Relationships between Personality Variables and Burnout: A Meta-Analysis. Work & Stress 23(3):244-63 Albdour, A.A., & Altarawneh, I.I. (2014). Employee engagement and organisational commitment: evidence from Jordan. International Journal of Business, 19 (2), pp. 193-212 Albrecht, S. L. (2010). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research, and practice. MA, Edward Elgar Publishing. Albrecht, S. L. (2012). The influence of job, team and organisational level resources on employee well-being, engagement, commitment and extra-role performance. International Journal of Manpower, 33(7), 840-853. Albrecht, S.L. (2013). Work engagement and the positive power of meaningful work in: Bakker, A. B. (eds.) Advances in positive organisational psychology, pp. 237-260, Emerald Group Publishing Limited: UK. Albrecht, S.L., & Su, M.J. (2012). Job resources and employee engagement in a Chinese context: the mediating role of job meaningfulness, felt obligation and positive mood. International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets, 4(4) pp.277-292. 247 Alderfer, C.P. (1972). Existence, relatedness and growth: Human needs in organisational settings. New York: The Free Press. Alfes, K., Truss, C., Soane, E., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2010) Creating an Engaged Workforce. London: CIPD Allik, J., & McCrae, R.R. (2004). Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns of profiles across 36 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(1), 13-28. Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt Allport, G.W. (1961). Pattern and Growth in Personality. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY. Allport, G.W., & Odbert, H.S. (1936). Trait names: A psycholexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, 211. Aluja, A., M. Kuhlman and M. Zuckerman. 2010. Development of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman-Aluja Personality Questionnaire (ZKA-PQ): A factor/facet version of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ). Journal of Personality Assessment 92(5): 416–431. Alumran, A., Hou, X., & Hurst, C. (2012). Validity and reliability of instruments designed to measure factors influencing the overuse of antibiotics. Journal of Infection and Public Health, 223-232. American Psychology Association. (2017). Personality. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/topics/personality. 248 Amir, F., Naz, F., Hafeez, S.Q., Ashqaf, A., & Dogar, Y.H. (2014). Measuring the effect of the five-factor model of personality on team performance with moderating role of employee engagement. Journal of Psychology and Behavioural Science, 2(2), pp. 221-255 Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63, 308-323. Antoncic, B. (2013), The Entrepreneur’s General Personality Traits and Technological Developments, International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 3(5), 360-365. Aon Hewit. (2015). Aon Hewitt’s Model of Employee Engagement. AON publishers Arora, R. & Adhikari, B. (2013). Relationship between Personality Factors and Employee Engagement. PES Business Review 8 (1), 10-18. Arrowsmith, J., & Parker, J. (2013). The meaning of 'employee engagement' for the values and roles of the HRM function. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), 2692-2712. Arthur, J.W., & Doverspike, D. (2001). Predicting motor vehicle crash involvement from a personality. Measure and a driving knowledge test. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 22 (1), 35-42. Ashton, M. C. (2013). Individual Differences and Personality (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality. European Journal of Personality, 353, 327–353. 249 Asiwe, D., Rothmann, S., Jorgensen, L. & Hill, C. (2017). Engagement of employees in a research organisation: A relational perspective. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences 20(1), a1534. Asiwe, D.N. (2014). The well-being of employees in a South African agricultural research organisation. Philosophiae Doctor in Industrial Psychology at the North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus Assael, H. (2002). Marketing for the University of Hartford. Mason, OH: South-Western College. Australian Public Services (APS). (2010). State of the Service Report 2009-2010, Australian Government, Canberra. Avanzi, L., Fraccaroli, F., Sarchielli, G., Ullrich, J., & van Dick, R. (2014). Staying or Leaving: A Combined Social Identity and Social Exchange Approach to Predicting Employee Turnover Intentions. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(3) 272-278 Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., & Wilson, D. C. (2007). Engaging the aging workforce: The relationship between perceived age similarity, satisfaction with coworkers, and employee engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1542-1556. Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801-823. Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Babbie, E. R. (2014). The basics of social research. Sixth edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning 250 Babbie, E., & Mouton, J. (2011). The Practice of Social Research, Oxford University Press: Cape Town Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2017). The meaning, antecedents, and outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19, 31-53. Bajwa, S. U., Shahzad, K., Aslam, H. (2017), Exploring Big Five Personality Traits and Gender as Predictors of Entrepreneurs’ Cognitive Adaptability, Journal of Modelling in Management, 12(1), 143-161 Bakar, R.A. (2013). Understanding factors influencing employee engagement; A study of the financial sector in Malaysia (unpublished doctoral thesis). School of management, RMIT University. Bakken, S., & Holzemer, W. L. (2000). Relationships between perception of engagement with health care provider and demographic characteristics, health status, and adherence to therapeutic regimen in persons with HIV/AIDs. AIDS Patient Care & STDs, 14(4), 189. Bakker, A. B, & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement, Career Development International 13(3): 209–223. Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 265–269. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands – resources model: state of the art, Journal of Managerial Psychology 22(3): 309–328. 251 Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2016). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2003). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22, 187-200 Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD-R approach. Annual Review of Organisational Psychology and Organisational Behaviour, 1, 389–411. Bakker, A. B.; Albrecht, S. L.; Leiter, M. P. (2011). Work engagement: further reflection on the state of play, European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology 20(1): 74–88. Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., & Brummelhius, L. T. (2012). Work engagement, performance, and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behviour, 80, 555-564. Bakker, A.B., & Albrecht, S. (2018). Work engagement: current trends. Career Development International, Vol. 23 Issue: 1, pp.4-11 Bakker, A.B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2009). The crossover of daily work engagement: Test of an actor–partner interdependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1562–1571. Bakker, A.B., Van Emmerik, I.J., & Euwema, M.C. (2006). Crossover of burnout and engagement in work teams. Work and Occupations, 33, 464-489. Baldoni, J. (2013). Employee engagement does more than boost productivity. Boston MA: Havard Business Publishing. 252 Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1): 1-26. Banks, J. A (2006). Improving Race Relations in Schools: From Theory and Research to Practice. Journal of Social Issues 62,13 Barenbaum, N.B., & Winter, D.G. (2008). History of modern personality theory and research. In O.P. John, R.W. Robins, & L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory & research (3rd ed., pp.3-28). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Barkhuizen, E.N., & Rothmann, S. (2006). Work engagement of academic staff in South African higher education institutions. Management Dynamics, 15(1), 38–48. Barlow, D. H., Ellard, K. K., Sauer-Zavala, S., Bullis, J. R., & Carl, J. R. (2014). The origins of neuroticism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(5), 481-496. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis. Personnel psychology, 44, 1-26. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Yes, personality matters: Moving on to more important matters. Human Performance, 18(4), 359-373. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and assessment, 9: 9-30. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. (2013). The theory of purposeful work behaviour: The role of personality, higher-order goals and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 132-153. 253 Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives, Journal of Applied Psychology 87(1): 43–51. Baumann, C. (2011). Work-life interference, psychological conditions, and work engagement at a uranium mine in Namibia. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Namibia, Windhoek Beardwell, J., & Claydon, T. (2007). Human Resource Management. A Contemporary Approach. 5th ed. Harlow, Prentice Hall Bedarkar, M., & Pandita, D. (2014). A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting employee performance. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences,133, 106-115. Beer, A., & Brooks, C. (2011). Information quality in personality judgment: The value of personal disclosure. Journal of Research in Personality, 45 (2), pp. 175-185 Bell, E., & Barkhuizen, N. (2011). The relationship between barriers to change and the work engagement of employees in a South African property management company. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 37(1), Art. #935, 11 pages. Belsi, A., Gallagher, J., & Asimakopoulou, K. (2011). Personality profile of students entering dentistry, hygiene/therapy and dental nursing at one London dental institute. European Journal of Dental Education, 15: 80-84. Bennett, K. M. (2005). Psychological wellbeing in later life: the longitudinal effects of marriage, widowhood and marital status change. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20(3), 280-283. 254 Berens, R. (2013). The roots of employee engagement: A strategic approach. Employment Relations Today, 40, 43–49. Bergh Z. C & Theron, A. L. (2003), Psychology in the work context (2nd Ed.). Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Bersin, J. (2014). Why companies fail to engage today’s workforce: The overwhelmed employee. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin Bersin, J. (2015). Becoming irresistible: A new model for employee engagement. Deloitte Review Issue 16 Bezuidenhout, A., & Cilliers, F. (2011). Age, burnout, work engagement and sense of coherence in female academics at two South African universities. South African Journal of Labour Relations: 35(1), 11-26 Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices. Textbooks Collection. Book 3. Biddle, B. J., & Thomas, E. J. (1966). Role theory: Concepts and research. New York: Wiley. Biswas, S., Varma, A., & Ramaswami, A. (2013). Linking distributive and procedural justice to employee engagement through social exchange: a field study in India. International Journal of Human Resource Management,24(8), pp. 1570-1587. Bjǿrkelo, B., Einarsen, S., & Matthiesen, S.B. (2010). Predicting proactive behaviour at work: Exploring the role of personality as an antecedent of whistleblowing behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 83(2), 371-394. 255 Bless, C., Higson-Smith, C., & Sithole, S.L. (2013). Fundamentals of social research methods: an African perspective. 5th ed. Cape Town: Juta. Blessing White (2008a; 2010). The State of Employee Engagement, Blessing White Blignaut, L. (2011). Personality as a predictor of performance for customer services centre agents in the banking industry. Pretoria: UNISA Press. Blizzard, R. (2004). Engagement vs. satisfaction among hospital teams. Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing, the Gallup Organisation, 9th March. Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215. Block, J. (2001). Millennial contrarianism: The five-factor approach to personality description 5 years later. Journal in Research in Personality, 35, 98-107. Blumberg, B., Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2011). Business research methods. London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Blythe, D. (2008). Consumer behaviour. London, United Kingdom: Thompson Bogg, T., & Roberts, B.W. (2013). The Case for Conscientiousness: Evidence and Implications for a Personality Trait Marker of Health and Longevity. Annals of Behavioural Medicine, 45, pp. 278 -288 Bono, J. E. & Judge, T. A. (2004), Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901-10. 256 Bono, J.E., Boles, T.L., Judge, T.A., & Lauver, K.J. (2002). The role of personality in task and relationship conflict. Journal of Personality, 70: 311-344. Botha, C., & Mostert, K. (2014). A structural model of job resources, organisational and individual strengths use and work engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 1-11. Botha, L.R. (2010). Indigenous knowledge as culturally-centered education in South Africa. Africa Education Review, 7, 1, 34-50 Boyle, G. J., Matthews, G., & Saklofske, D. H. (2008). Personality theories and models: An overview. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 1 Personality theories and models (pp. 1-29). Los Angeles, United States: Sage Publications. Bradley, B.H., Baur, J.E., Banford, C.G., & Postlethwaite, B.E. (2013). Team players and collective performance: How agreeableness affects team performance over time. Small Group Research, 44(6), 680-711. Brandstatter, H., & Opp, K.D. (2014). Personality Traits (“Big Five”) and the Propensity to Political Protest: Alternative Models. Political Psychology, 5,515-537. Brown, S., & Leigh, T.W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358-368 Bruck, C.S., & Allen, T.D. (2003). The relationship between big five personality traits, negative affectivity, type A behaviour and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 63, 457-472. 257 Brunetto, Y, Shacklock, K, Teo, S & Farr-Wharton, R. (2014). The impact of management on the engagement and well-being of high emotional labour employees. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 25, no. 17, pp. 2345-2363. Bryman, A. (2010). Social research methods (4th ed). New York: Oxford University Press. Burch, G.S.J., & Anderson, N. (2004) Measuring person-team fit: Development and validation of the team selection inventory. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 406 – 426. Burke, G. (1996), School Resources. Australian Economic Review, 29, 401–408. Burke, R. J., & El-Kot, G. (2010). Work engagement among managers and professionals in Egypt: Potential antecedents and consequences. African Journal of Economics and Management Studies, 1(1), 42−60. Burns, R. & Burns, R. (2013). Business research methods and statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Burns, R.A., & Machin, M.A. (2013). Employee and Workplace Well-being: A Multi-Level Analysis of Teacher Personality and Organisational Climate in Norwegian Teachers from Rural, Urban and City Schools, Scandinavian. Journal of Educational Research, 57:3, 309-324 Business dictionary. (2015). Employee engagement. Retrieved from: http://www.businessdictionary.com Buskist, W., & Gerbing, D. (1990). Psychology. Boundaries and Frontiers. London: Foresman and company. 258 Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Perugini, M. (1993). The Big Five questionnaire: A new questionnaire to assess the Five Factor Model. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 281-288. Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, Consiglio, C., Picconi, L., & Zimbardo, P.G. (2003). Personalities of politicians and voters: Unique and synergistic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 849-856. Carasco-Saul, M., Kim, W., & Kim, T. (2015). Leadership and employee engagement: Proposing research agendas through a review of literature. Human Resource Development Review, 14, 38-63 Cartwright, S., & Holmes, N. (2006). The meaning of work: the challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 199–208. Carver, C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 679-704. Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (2000). Perspectives on personality (4th Edition). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(4), 476-506 Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors. Psychometrika, 12, 197-220 Cattell, R.B. (1945). Psychological measurement: normative, impassive, interactive. Psychological Review, 51:292–303. 259 Cattell, R.B. (1946). The description and measurement of personality. Yonkers, NY: World Book. Cattell, R.B. (1950b). Personality. New York: McGraw Hill. Cattell, R.B. (1965). A biometrics invited paper. factor analysis: An introduction to essentials. The purpose and underlying models. Biometrics, 21(1):190–215 Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.W. & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, IL: IPAT. Certo, S. T., & Certo, S. C. (2005). Spotlight on entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 48, 271–274. Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. (2010). Personality. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A. (2008). Personality: Theory and research (10th ed.). NJ: John Wiley. Chalofsky, N., & Krishna, V. (2009). Meaningfulness, commitment, and engagement: the intersection of a deeper level of intrinsic motivation. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(2), 189–203. Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2007). Personality and individual differences. Oxford: Blackwell. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2014). Personality and intellectual competence. Psychology Press. Chaudhary, R., Rangnekar, S., & Barua, M. K. (2012). HRD climate, occupational self-efficacy and work engagement: A study from India. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 15, 86-105. Chen, J., & Nadkarni, S. (2017). It’s about Time! CEOs’ Temporal Dispositions, Temporal Leadership, and Corporate Entrepreneurship. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(1), 31–66. 260 Chen, Z., Zhang, X., & Vogel, D. (2011). Exploring the underlying process between conflict and knowledge sharing: A work-engagement perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(5): 1005-1033. Chikoko, G. L., Buitendach, J. H., & Kanengoni, H. (2014). The psychological conditions that predict work engagement among tertiary education employees. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 24(6), 469–474. Choo, L. S., Mat, N., & Al-Omari, M. (2013). Organisational Practices and employee engagement: a case of Malaysia electronics manufacturing firms. Business Strategy Series, 14(1), 3-10. Choudhry, R. M., & Zafar, B. (2017). Effects of skills, motivation, and personality traits on the competency of masons. International Journal of Sustainable Real Estate and Construction Economics, 1(1), 16-30. Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., & Slaughter, J.E. (2011) Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89-136. Chughtai, A. A., & Buckley, F. (2008). Work engagement and its relationship with state and trait trust: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Behavioural and Applied Management, 47-71. Churchill, G.A., & Brown, T.J. (2007). Basic Marketing Research. 6th Ed. Ohio, USA: Thomson South-Western. Cifre, E., Salanova, M., & Rodriguez-Sanchez, A. M. (2011). Dancing between theory and practice: Enhancing work engagement through work stress intervention. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 21(3), 269–286 261 Cilliers, J.R., & Mostert, K. (2018). Study demands, study resources and the role of personality characteristics in predicting the engagement of first-year university students. South African Journal of Higher Education, 32(1), 49-70 Clarke, S., & Robertson, I. (2008). An examination of the role of personality in work accidents using meta-analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 94-108. Cloninger, C.R., Przybeck, T.R., Svrakic, D.M. & Wetzel, R.D. (1994). The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI): A guide to its development and use. St. Louis, MO: Author. Coetzee, M., & De Villiers, M. (2010). Source of job stress, work engagement and career orientations of employees in a South African financial institution. Southern Business Review, 14(1), 27-58. Coetzee, S. C., & Cilliers, F. (2001). Psychofortology: explaining coping behaviour in organisations. The Industrial/Organisational Psychologist, 38(4), 62-68. Coffman, C., & Gonzalez- Molina, G. (2002). Follow This Path: How the World’s Greatest Organisations Drive Growth by Unleashing Human Potential. New York: Warner Books Cohen, J. (1992). Things I have learned (so far). In A.E Kazdin (Ed) Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (pp 315-333). Washington DC: America Psychological Association. Cohen, J. (2008). Commitment Before and After: An Evaluation and Reconceptualization of Organisational Commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 17,336–354 Columbine, N. (2010). Engaging employees is critical to business sustainability. Management Today, 28(1), 40-41. 262 Connolly, J.J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The Role of Affectivity in Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 265-281 Connor-Smith, J.K. & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1080-1107. Cook, V. (2008). The essential guide to employee engagement: Better business through satisfaction. Kegan publishers London Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2014). Business research methods (12th ed). New York: McGraw Hill. Costa, J.R. (1996). Towards a new generation of personality theories. The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives 51 Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Stability and change in personality assessment: The revised Davis, M. L. (1975). Mastery test proficiency requirements affect mastery test performance. In J. M. Johnston (Ed.), Behavioural Research and Technology in Higher Education. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PIR) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. (1993). Ego development and trait models of personality. Psychological Inquiry, 4(1), 20-23. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory, Psychology Assessment Resources. Odessa, Florida, USA 263 Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (2002). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (2nd Ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Costa, P., Terracciano, A., & McCrae., R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81: 322-331. Costa, P.T. Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1976). Age differences in personality structure: a cluster analytic approach. Journal of Gerontology, 3, 564-70. Costa, P.T., & Widiger, T.A. (1994). Introduction: Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. In Costa, P.T., & Widiger, T.A. (Eds). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (pp. 3-14). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Costa, P.T., Jr., McCrae, R.R., Martin, T.A., Oryol, V.E., Senin, I.G., Rukavishnikov, A.A., Shimonaka, Y., Nakazato, K., Gondo, Y., Takayama, M., Allik, J., Kallasmaa, T., & Realo, A. (2000). Personality development from adolescence through adulthood: Further cross-cultural comparisons of age differences. In V. J. Molfese, & D. Molfese (Eds.), Temperament and personality development across the life span (pp. 235–252). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Costantini, G., Richetin, J., Borsboom, D., Fried, E. I., Rhemtulla, M., & Perugini, M. (2015). Development of Indirect Measures of Conscientiousness: Combining a Facets Approach and Network Analysis. European Journal of Personality, 548-567. Crabtree, S. (2013), “Worldwide, 13% of employees are engaged at work. Retrieved from: www.gallup.com/poll/165269/worldwide/ 264 Cramer, P. (2003). Personality change in later adulthood is predicted by defence mechanism use in early adulthood, Journal of Research in Personality, 37, pg. 76-104 Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & 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, 834-848 Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Third edition. Washington DC: Sage Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review, Journal of Management 31(6): 874–900. Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 479-516 Crowne, D.P. (2007). Personality theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 265 Culbertson, S.S., Mills, M.J., & Fullagar, C.J. (2012). Work engagement and work-family facilitation: Making homes happier through positive affective spill over. Human Relations 65(9): 1155–1177, Curtis, R. G., Windsor, T. D., & Soubelet, A. (2015). The relationship between Big-5 personality traits and cognitive ability in older adults: A review. Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition, 22(1), 42-71. Czarnowsky, M. (2008). Learning's role in employee engagement: An ASTD research study. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development. Davis, R.J. (2013). The validation of a psychological battery for the selection of customer service agents in a South African commercial airline company. Pretoria: UNISA Press. De Beer, L.T., Pienaar, J., & Rothmann Jr., S. (2013). Investigating the reversed causality of engagement and burnout in job demands-resources theory. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 39(1), Art. #1055, 9 pages. De Bolle, M., De Fruyt, F., McCrae, R. R., Löckenhoff, C. E., Costa, P. T., Aguilar‐Vafaie, M. E., … Terracciano, A. ( 2015). The emergence of sex differences in personality traits in early adolescence: A cross‐sectional, cross‐cultural study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 171– 185. De Lange, A. H., De Witte, H., & Notelaers, G. (2008). Should I stay or should I go? Examining longitudinal relations among job resources and work engagement for stayers versus movers. Work & Stress, 22(3), 201-223. 266 De Lange, M., Gesthuizen, M., & Wolbers, M. H. (2014). Consequences of flexible employment at labour market entry for early career development in the Netherlands. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 35(3), 413-434 De Villiers, C. (2015). The relationships between emotional labour, the HEXACO personality traits, work engagement and burnout in the hospitality industry. Master of Commerce (Industrial Psychology) at Stellenbosch University. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum. Deery, M. (2008). Talent management, work-life balance and retention strategies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(7), 792-806. Deloitte Consulting. (2014). The Global Human Capital Trends Report. South Africa: Deloitte Development LLC. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., De Jonge, J., Janssen, P. P. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and contact. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 27, 279–286. Devi, S. (2017). Impact of talent management on organisational performance: role of employee engagement. International Journal of Management Studies ISSN(Print) 2249-0302 ISSN (Online)2231-2528 DeYoung, C.G. (2014). Openness/Intellect: A dimension of personality reflecting cognitive exploration. In M. L. Cooper and R. J. Larsen (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Personality processes and individual differences (Vol 4, pp. 369–399). Washington. 267 DeYoung, C.G., Grazioplene, R.G., & Peterson, J.B. (2012). From madness to genius: The openness/intellect trait domain as a paradoxical simplex. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 63–78. Dimitrov, D. (2012). Sources of meaningfulness in the workplace: a study in the US hospitality sector. European Journal of Training and Development, 36 (2/3), 351 – 371. Ditchburn, G. (2009). The business benefits of employee engagement [online]. Leicester: The British Psychology Society. Dollard, M. F., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 83, 579-599. Driskell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & O’Shea, P. G. (2006). What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 249–271. Du Plessis, L. (2010). Customer relationship management and its influence on customer loyalty at Liberty Life in South Africa, University of Johannesburg. Duffy, M.K., Shaw, J.D., Scott, K.L., & Tepper, B.J. (2006). The moderating roles of self-esteem and neuroticism in the relationship between group and individual undermining behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1066-1077. Dulagil, A. (2012). The relationship of employee engagement and wellbeing to organisational and student outcomes. SBS HDR Student Conference. Paper 1 (pp. 1-12). University of Wollongong. Retrieved from: http://ro.uow.edu.au/sbshdr/2012/papers/1. 268 Dumont, F. (2010). A history of personality psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Dunn, W.S., Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R. & Ones, D.S. (1995). Relative importance of personality and general mental ability in managers’ judgements of applicant qualifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 500-509. Durksen, T.L., & Klassen, R.M. (2012). Pre-service teachers ‘weekly commitment and engagement during a final training placement: A longitudinal mixed methods study. Educational and Child Psychology, 29,32-46. Eden, D. (2001). Vacations and other respites: Studying stress on an off the job. In C.L. Cooper, & I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organisational psychology. New York: Wiley. Edmondson, A. C. (2004). Psychological safety, trust and learning in organisations: A group-level lens. In R.M. Kramer & K.S. Cook (eds.), Trust and distrust in organisations: Dilemmas and approaches, (pp. 239–271), New York: Russel Sage Foundation. Edwards, M. R., & Peccei, R. (2007). Organisational identification: Development and testing of a conceptually grounded measure. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, (16)1, pp 25–57 Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Schaller, M., & Miller, P. A. (1989). Sympathy and personal distress: Development, gender differences, and interrelations of indexes. New Directions for Child Development, 44, 107- 126. 269 Eldor, L., & Harpaz, I. (2015). A process model of employee engagement: The learning climate and its relationship with extra-role performance behaviours. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 37, 213-235 Eldor, L., & Harpaz, I. (2016). A process model of employee engagement: The learning climate and its relationship with extra-role performance behaviours. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 37(2), 213-235. Eldor, L., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2013). Engaged to public service: strategies for enhancing employees’ engagement in government agencies. Retrieved from: pmpc.haifa.ac.il Employment Equity Amendment Act, No 47 (2013). Government Gazette, 583 (37238). Cape Town. 16 January 2014. Envick, B. R., Langford, M. (2003). The Big-Five Personality Model: Comparing Male and Female Entrepreneurs, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(1-2), 1-10 Epstein, S. (2010). The Big Five model: Grandiose ideas about surface traits as the foundation of a general theory of personality. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 34-39. Erickson, T. (2005). Testimony to the senate committee on health education, labor, and pensions: U.S. Senate. eSilva, L. B., & Laher, S. (2012). Exploring the utility of the NEO-PI-R in a sample of South African university students. Ife PsychologIA, 20(1), 19-48. Ewen, R.B. (2010). An introduction to theories of personality (7th ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 270 Ewen, R.B. (2014). An introduction to theories of personality (7th Ed). New York: Psychology Press. Eysenck, C.W. (1947). Dimensions of personality. New York, NY: Praeger. Eysenck, H. J. (1959). Maudsley Personality Inventory. London: University of London Press. Eysenck, H. J. (1970). The structure of human personality (3rd Ed.). London, England: Methuen. Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 244-276). New York: Guilford Press. Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Personality and experimental psychology: The unification of psychology and the possibility of a paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1224-1237. Eysenck, H.J. (1992). A reply to Costa and McCrae. P or A and C - the role of theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(8), 867-868. Farndale, E. and Murrer, I. (2015) Job Resources and Employee Engagement: A Cross-national Study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30, 610-626. Fazeli, S.H. (2012). The influence of personality traits on the use of memory English language learning strategies. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 5(7), 3041-3046. Fearon, C., McLaughlin, H., & Morris, L. (2013). Conceptualizing work engagement: An individual, collective and organisational efficacy perspective. European Journal of Training and Development, 37, 244-256. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 429-456. 271 Ferguson, A. (2007). Employee engagement: does it exist, and if so, how does it relate to performance, other constructs and individual differences? Retrieved from: http://www.lifethatworks.com/Employee-Engagement.prn.pdf Ferreira, N. (2009). The relationship between psychological career resources and organisational commitment. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria. Fetvadjiev, V. H., D., Meiring., F. J., van de Vijver, J. A., Nel & C. Hill. (2015). The South African Personality Inventory (SAPI): A culture-informed instrument for the country’s main ethnocultural groups. Psychological Assessment 27(3): 827. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage. Fischer, R., & Boer, D. (2014). Motivational basis of personality traits: A meta-analysis of value-personality correlations. Journal of Personality 85(5), 491-510. Fiske, D.W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329-344. Fitzpatrick, S. (2017). From Employee Engagement to Employee Experience: Helping Employees ‘Own’ Engagement. NHRMA 2017 Conference The Ever-Change Waters of HR Fong, T.C., & Ng, S. (2012). Measuring engagement at work: Validation of the Chinese version of the Utrechtt Work Engagement Scale. International Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 19(3), 391–397. Forbes, A. (2006). The predictive validity of the occupational personality questionnaire (OPQ 32i) in assessing competence in the workplace. Cape Town: University of Cape Town 272 Fowler, F. J. (2009). Applied Social Research Methods: Survey research methods (4th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Franzoi, S. (2002). Psychology: A journey of discovery. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog. Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300-319. Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1367-1377. Fredrickson, B.L., & Losada, M.F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678-686. Frese, M. (2008). The changing nature of work. In N. Chmiel (Ed.), An introduction to work and organisational psychology (pp. 397–414). Oxford: Blackwell. Frieder, R.E., Wang, G., & Oh, I.S. (2018). Linking job-relevant personality traits, transformational leadership, and job performance via perceived meaningfulness at work: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(3), 324-333 Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC, USA: American Funder, D. C. (2004). The Personality puzzle (3rd Ed.). New York: Norton. 273 Furnham, A., Petrides, K. V., Tsaousis, I., Pappas, K., & Garrod, D. (2005). A Cross-Cultural Investigation into the Relationships between Personality Traits and Work Values. The Journal of Psychology,139(1), 5-32. Galton, F. (1884). Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review, 179-185. Ganzach, Y., Pazy, A., Ohayun, Y., & Brainin, E. (2002). Social exchange and organisational commitment: Decision-making training for job choice as an alternative to the Realistic Job Preview. Personnel Psychology,55, 613–637. Garg, N. (2014). Employee engagement and individual differences. Management Studies and Economic Systems, 1(1), 41-50. Garrow, V. (2009). OD: past, present and future. Institute for Employment Studies. London Gatamah, K. (2005) Launching Corporate Governance in Kenya with an Emphasis on Kenya, Centre for International Private Enterprise, Washington DC Geldenhuys, M., Laba, K., & Venter, C. M. (2014). Meaningful work, work engagement and organisational commitment. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 40(1), 1–10. Gerber, A.S., Huber, G.A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C.M., Raso, C., & Ha, S.E. (2011). Personality traits and participation in political processes. The Journal of Politics, 73(3), 692-706. Gerlach, G., Herpertz, S., & Loeber, S. (2015). Personality traits and obesity: a systematic review. Obes. Rev,16:32–63 274 Gharibpoor, M., & Amiri, F. (2012). The relationship between personality traits and virtual-web based service brand personality: SEM method in Goggle context. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research. 2(5), 4469-4476 Gilbert, J. (2011). The Millennials: A new generation of employees, a new set of engagement policies. Ivey Business Journal: Improving the Practice of Management, September-October 1-3. Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. Goldberg, L. (2015e). Possible questionnaire format for administering the 50-item set of IPIP Big-Five factor markers. Retrieved from http://ipip.ori.org/New_IPIP-50-item-scale.htm Goldberg, L. R. (1990) An alternative description of personality: The Big Five Structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216 – 1229. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26-42. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H.G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96. 275 Goldberg, L.R. (1981). Language and Individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In Review of Personality and Social Psychology, ed. L. Wheeler, 2, 141-65. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Goldberg, L.R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Goliath-Yarde, L., & Roodt, G. (2011). Differential item functioning of the UWES-17 in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1),11 pages Gorter, R.C., Te Brake, H.J., Hoogstraten, J., Eijkman, M.A. (2008). Positive engagement and job resources in dental practice. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 36: 47-54. Goštautaitė, B., & Bučiūnienė, I. (2015). Age, work engagement and individual work performance: the influence of work design. Doctoral dissertation, ISM University of Management and Economics. Government Gazette. (1995). Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. Cape Town: South African Government. Government Gazette. (1998). Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998. Cape Town: South African Government. Gow, A. J., Whiteman, M. C., Pattie, A., & Deary, I. J. (2005). Goldberg’s IPIP Big-Five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Personality and Individual Differences 39: 317–329. 276 Gravetter, F. & Wallnau, L. (2007). Statistics for the behavioural sciences. 7th Ed. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth. Griffith, J. (2001). Do satisfied employees satisfy customers? Support-services staff morale and satisfaction among public school administrators, students, and parents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 31(8), 1627-1658. Grobler, S. (2014). The impact of language on personality assessment with the Basic Traits Inventory. (Doctoral dissertation). University of South Africa Guenole, N., & Chernyshenko, O. (2005). The suitability of Goldberg’s Big-Five IPIP personality markers in New Zealand: A dimensionality, bias, and criterion validity evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Psychology 34:86–96. Guest, A. H. (2014). Labanotation: the system of analyzing and recording movement. Routledge. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gulamali, D.I. (2017). Relationship between personality and work engagement: the role of individual traits and international experience. Unpublished Master Thesis. Management with Specialization in Strategic Marketing at Universidade Católica Portuguesa Gupta, M., Ganguli, S., & Ponnam, A. (2015). Factors Affecting Employee Engagement in India: A Study on Offshoring of Financial Services. The Qualitative Report 20 (4), 498-515. Gurven, M., von Rueden, C., Massenkoff, M., Kaplan, H., & Vie, M. L. (2013). How universal is the big five? Testing the five-factor model of personality variation among forager-farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 354–70. 277 Habraken, M.M.P. (2013). Establishing employee engagement within a Dutch hotel. MSc Thesis, University of Twente, Netherlands. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1974). The job diagnostic survey: An instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G. R., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. (1975). A new strategy for job enrichment. California Management Review, 17, 57-71 Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education International. Hakanen, J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers, The Journal of School Psychology 43(6): 495–513. Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In A.B. Bakker (ed.) Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. (pp. 102-117). New York: Psychology Press. Hale, R. (2016). Towards a better understanding of employee engagement: factors that explain employee engagement. Doctoral Thesis: Capella University Haley, L., Mostert, K., & Els, C. (2013). Burnout and work engagement for different age groups: Examining group-level differences and predictors. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 23(2), 283–295. 278 Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Same but different? can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organisational commitment? European Psychologist 11(2): 119–127. Hamid, Z. (2014). Stress management and its impact on the work performance of educators in Swaziland. Potchefstroom: North-West University. (Thesis -PhD) Handa, M., & Gulati, A. (2014). Employee Engagement Does Individual Personality Matter. Journal of Management Research 14, 1; pp. 57–67 Harisha, I., & Kumar, K.S. (2017). A study of employee engagement of employees working in the private organisation of Warangal. International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research, 4(12) pp.1052-1055 Harrison, D. A., & Newman, D. A. (2013). Been there, bottled that: are state and behavioural work engagement new and useful construct ‘wines’? Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 1(1): 31-35. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279. Helson, R., Jones, C., & Kwan, V.S.Y. (2002). Personality change over 40 years of adulthood: Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of two longitudinal samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 752–766 Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B., & de Raad, B. (1999). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI). Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 307-325. 279 Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B., & de Raad, B. (2002). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory: Assessing the Big Five by means of brief and concrete statements. In B. de Raad and M. Perugini (Eds.) Big five assessments. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Heuchert, J.W.P., Parker, W.D., Stumpf, H., & Myburgh, C.P.H. (2000). The five-factor model of personality in South African College Students. American Behavioural Scientist, 44, 112-125. Hjelle, L.A., & Ziegler, D.J. (1976). Personality theories: Basic assumptions, research and applications. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hodson, R. (2004). Organisational trustworthiness: Findings from the population of organisational ethnographies. Organisational science, 15(4), 432-445 Hogan, R. (2005). In defense of personality measurement: New wine for old whiners. Human Performance, 18, 331-341. Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51(5), 469-477. Holbeche, L., & Springett, N. (2003). In Search of Meaning in the Workplace. Horsham, Roffey Park. Homa, N., Hackathorn, J., Brown, C., Garczynski, A., Solomon, E., Tennial, R, Sanborn, U., & Gurung, R.A.R. (2013). How consistent are introductory psychology course syllabi? Examining objectives and content. Teaching of psychology, 40, 169-174. 280 Howard, P. J., & Howard, J. M. (2001). The owner's manual for personality at work. Austin, TX: Bard Press. Howard, P. J., & Howard, J. M. (2001b). The Work Place Big Five Profile. Charlotte, NC: Centacs. Hurley, J.R. (1998). Agency and Communion as Related to ‘Big-Five’ Self-Representations and Subsequent Behaviour in Small Groups. The Journal of Psychology, 132 (3), 337-351 Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and Job Performance: The Big Five Revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879. Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373– 398. Iddagoda, A., & Opatha, HHDNP. (2017). Identified Research Gaps in Employee Engagement. International Business Research. 10(02):63-73. Iddagoda, A., Opatha, H.H.D.N.P., & Gunawardana, K.D. (2016). Towards a Conceptualization and an Operationalization of the Construct of Employee Engagement. International Business Research, Vol 9, No 2. Imam, Abeer. (2014). Impact of Employee Engagement in Retaining Employees Through Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment and Moderating Effect of Job Stress: A Corporate Banking Sector Study of Pakistan. 4. 1-15. Inceoglu, I., & Warr, P. (2012). Personality and Job Engagement. Journal of Psychology pp.1-9. Ivankova, N.V., Creswell, J.W., Clark, V.L. P. (2012). Foundations and approaches to mixed methods research. In Maree, K. (Ed.), First Steps in Research, First Edition, (pp. 262-286) Pretoria: Van Schaik. 281 Ivar Rossberg, J., Melle, I., Opjordsmoen, S., & Friis, S (2008). The relationship between staff members’ working conditions and patient’s perceptions or the treatment environment. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 54(5), 437-446. Jackson, L.T.B., & Rothmann, S. (2004). An adapted model of burnout for teachers in South Africa James, J. B., Mckechnie, S., & Swanberg, J. (2011) Predicting employee engagement in an age-diverse retail workforce. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 32, 173-196. Janik, M., & Rothmann, S. (2016). Work engagement of secondary school educators in Namibia: The effects of the relational context and psychological conditions. Journal of Psychology in Africa 26(4), 316–325. Jin, M.H., & McDonald, B. (2016). Understanding employee engagement in the public sector: the role of immediate supervisor, perceived organisational support, and learning opportunities. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(8), pp. 881 - 897 John, O. P. (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In D. M. Buss and N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 261-271). New York: Springer-Verlag. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory--Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research. John, O.P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L.A Pervin & O.P John. (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. (Vol. 2, pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford Press. 282 John, O.P., Naumann, L.P., & Soto, C.J. (2008). Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Conceptual Issues. In O.P. John, R.W. Robins, & L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114-158). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Johnson, M. (2004). The new rules of engagement: life-work balance and employee commitment. CIPD Publishing. Jones, J. R., & Harter, J. K. (2005). Race effects on the employee engagement-turnover intention relationship. Journal of Leadership & Organisational Studies, 11, 78-88. Jordaan, Y. (2007). Information privacy issues: implications for direct marketing. International Retail and Marketing Review, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 42 – 53 Jose, G., & Mampilly, S. R. (2012). Satisfaction with HR practices and employee engagement: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Economics and Behavioural Studies, 4(7), 423-430. Joyner, R., Rouse, W., & Glatthorn, A. (2013). Writing the winning thesis or dissertation: A step-by-step guide. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. JRA. (2007). Employee Engagement: Driving Employee Performance, JRA, Auckland. Juan, A. B. (2010) Job demands and job resources. Burnout and engagement a Multi-sample study, Journal ofOrganisational Behaviour, 7(25), 293-315. Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2015). The person-situation debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the big five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1149-1170. 283 Judge, T.A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a meta-analytic review, Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4): 747–807. Judge, T.A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, I.D. (2011). Implications of core self-evaluations for a changing organisational context. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 331-341. Judge, T.A., Heller, D., & Mount, M.K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530-541 Jung, C. G. (1921/1971/1990). Psychological Types. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press Kahn, W. A. & Heaphy, E. D. (2014). Relational context of personal engagement at work. In C. Truss, R., Delbridge, K., Alfes, A., Shantz & E. Soane (eds.), Employee engagement in theory and practice, pp. 82–96, Routledge, New York. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724. Kahn, W. A. (1992) To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45, 321-349. Kajonius, P. (2018). Personality differences between the sexes are largest in the most gender equal countries. Retrieved from: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-personality-differences-sexes-largest-gender.html Kaliannan, M., & Adjovu, S. (2015). Effective employee engagement and organisational success: A case study. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Science, 172, 161-168 284 Kamau, O., & Sma, M. (2016). A critical review of literature on employee engagement concept. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences Vol. 6, No. 3 Kandler, C. (2012). Nature and nurture in personality development: The case of neuroticism and extraversion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 290-296. Kanten, S., & Sadullah, O. (2012). An empirical research on relationship quality of work life and work engagement. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 63, 260-266. Kantse, O. (2011). Work engagement, work commitment and their association with well-being in health care. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 25(4). 754-781. Kapoor, N., & Anthony, K. (2013). Rethinking empirical approaches to racial segregation. The Sociological Review 61(3): 440–459. Kartono, Hilmiana and Muizu. (2017). The influence of personality on employee engagement and emotional intelligence (an empirical study on employees of rural banks in West Java, Indonesia). South East Asia Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, Vol. 12, Issue 2 Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1966). The Social Psychology of Organisations. Wiley, New York, NY. Kelleher, B. (2014). Employee Engagement for Dummies. New Jersey. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Kerr, B. A., McKay, R. (2013). Searching for tomorrow’s innovators: Profiling creative adolescents. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 21-32. Kim, H., Park, C.G., van Tongeren, M., & Burstyn, I. (2012). Estimation methods with ordered exposure subject to measurement error and missingness in semi-ecological design. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 12:135 285 Kim, W., Kolb, J. A., & Kim, T. (2013). The relationship between work engagement and performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 12 (3), 248 – 276. King, E.B., George, J. M., & Hebl, M.R. (2005). Linking personality to helping behaviours at work: An interactional perspective. Journal of Personality, 73(3), 585-608. Kokkonen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Examination of the paths between personality, current mood, its evaluation, and emotion regulation. European Journal of Personality, 15(2), 83-104. Konrad, A.M. (2006). Engaging employees through high-involvement work practices, Ivey Business Journal, 15, 1-6 Kotler, P. & Keller, K.L. 2009. Marketing management. 13th ed. New Jersey: Pearson. Koyuncu, M., Burke, R., & Fiksenbaum, L. (2006). Work engagement among women managers and professionals in a turkish bank: Potential antecedents and consequences. Equal Opportunities International, 25(4), 299-310. Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E., & Truss, K. (2008). Employee Engagement: A Literature Review. Working Paper Series, No. 19, London, Kingston Business School, Kingston University. Kumar, K., & Bakhshi, A. (2010). The five-factor model of personality and organisational commitment: Is there any relationship? Humanity and Social Science Journal,5(1), 25-34 Kumar, R. (1996). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. 5th Edition. Sage, New Delhi 286 Kumar, R. (2011). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. 3rd Edition. Sage, New Delhi. Kumar, R., & Sia, S. (2012). Employee engagement: Explicating the contribution of the work environment. Management and Labour Studies, 37, 31-43. Kuntz, J., & Roberts, R. (2014). Engagement and identification: an investigation of social and organisational predictors in an HR offshoring context. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal, 7 (3), 253-274. Laerd Statistics (2015). Hierarchical multiple regression using SPSS Statistics. Statistical tutorials and software guides. Retrieved from https://statistics.laerd.com/ Laher, S., (2010). Using exploratory factor analysis in personality research: Best-practice recommendations. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 36(1), Art. #873, 7 pages LaMotte, S. (2015). Employee Engagement Depends on What Happens Outside of the Office. Harvard Business Review. Langelaan, S., Bakker, A. B., Van Doornen, L. J. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2004). Burnout and work engagement: Do individual differences make a difference? Personality and Individual Differences, 40(2006), 521-532. Larsen, R.J., & Buss, D.M. (2008). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature. Boston: McGraw Hill. Lavigna, B. (2015). Commentary: Public service motivation and employee engagement. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 732-733. 287 Lavoie, A. (2014). Does the Company's Location Affect Employee Engagement? Retrieved from: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/237553 Lawler, E., & Worley, C.G. (2006). Winning support for organisational change: Designing employee reward systems that keep on working. Ivey Business Journal, March/April Lebowitz, S. (2016a). The ‘Big 5’ personality traits could predict who will and won’t become a leader. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/big-five-personality-traits-predict-leadership-2016-12 Lee, K., Ashton, M. C. & De Vries, R. E., (2014). The HEXACO honesty-humility, agreeableness, and emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 18 (2), pp. 139-152. Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & Shin, K. (2005). Personality correlates of workplace anti-social behaviour. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(1), 81-98. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: planning and design (8th ed.). New York: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2013). Practical research planning and design (10th Ed). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Lehmann, R., Denissen, J. J., Allemand, M., Penke, L. (2013), Age and Gender Differences in Motivational Manifestations of the Big Five From Age 16 to 60, Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 365-383 288 Leibbrandt, J. H., & Botha, C. J. (2014). Leadership and management as an enabler for strategy execution in municipalities in South Africa. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5(20):329-339. Leiter, M. P., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Work engagement: An introduction. In A. B. Bakker and M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and practice (pp. 1-9). London and New York: Psychology Press. LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members' cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 27-39. Li, J. H., Gao, P., Shen, X. Y., & Liu, X. (2014). A process model of emotional labor of nursing: Case study of two Chinese public hospitals. International Journal of Public Administration, 37(10), 695-707. Li, L., & Mao, S. (2014). Moderating effects of proactive personality on factors influencing work engagement based on the job demands-resources model. Social Behaviour and Personality: An International Journal 42(1): 7–15 Li, M., Wang, Z., Gao, J., & You, X. (2017). Proactive personality and job satisfaction: The mediating effects of self-efficacy and work engagement in teachers. Current Psychology, 36(1), 48–55 Lim, B., & Ployhart, R.E. (2006). Assessing the Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Goldberg’s International Personality Item Pool: A Multi-Trait Multimethod Examination. Organisational Research Methods, 9 ,1, pp. 29-54 289 Lin, W., Ma, J., Wang, L., & Wang, M. (2015). A double‐edged sword: The moderating role of conscientiousness in the relationships between work stressors, psychological strain, and job performance. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 36(1), 94-111. Little, B.R., Lecci, L., & Watkinson, B. (1992). Personality and personal projects: Linking Big Five and PAC units of analysis. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 501-525. Lloyd, R. (2008). Discretionary effort and the performance domain. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Organisational Psychology 1: 22–34. Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 4, 309-336. Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR's Strategic Role. HR Magazine, 52(3), 1-11. Lopes, A., Roodt, G., & Mauer, R. (2001). The predictive validity of the Apil-B in a financial institution. South Africa Journal of Industrial Psychology, 27(1), 57-61. Lounsbury, J. W., Moffitt, L., Gibson, L. W., Drost, A. W., & Stevens, M. (2007). An investigation of personality traits in relation to job and career satisfaction of information technology professionals. Journal of Information Technology 22:2, pp 174183 Lu, C.Q., Wang, H.J., Lu, J.J., Du, D.Y., & Bakker, A.B. (2014). Does work engagement increase person-job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 84(2), 142–152. 290 Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2011). Personality development across the life span: Longitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 847–861 Lucas, R., Lupton, B. & Mathieson, H. (2006). Human Resource Management in an international context. London, CIPD. Lynn, R., & Martin, T. (1997). Gender differences in extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism in 37 countries. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 369-373. Lyu, X. (2016). Effect of organisational justice on work engagement with psychological safety as a mediator: Evidence from China. Social Behaviour and Personality: An international journal, 44, 1359-1370. Macey, W.H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 1, 3–30 Maclead, D., & Clarke, N. (2009). Engaging for success: enhancing performance through employee engagement. A report to Government. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Crown Maddi, S. R. (1968). Meaning, novelty, and affect: Comments on Zajonc's paper. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 28-29. Mafini, C., & Dlodlo, N. (2014). The relationship between extrinsic motivation, job satisfaction and life satisfaction amongst employees in a public organisation. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 40(1): Art. #1166, 13 pages 291 Magan, D., Mehta, M., Sarvottam, K., Yadav, R.J., & Pandey, R.M. (2014). Age and gender might influence big five factors of personality: a preliminary report in Indian population. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol; 58(4): 381–388 Mahboubi, M., Ghahramani, F., Mohammadi, M., Amani, N., Mousavi,S.R., Moradi, F., & Kazemi, M. (2015). Evaluation of work engagement and its determinants in kermanshah hospitals staff in 2013. Global Journal of Health Science, 7(2), 170. Makikangas, A., Schaufeli, W., Tolvanen, A., & Feldt, T. (2013). Engaged managers are not workaholics: Evidence from a longitudinal person-centered analysis. Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology 29 (2013) 135-143. Maltby, J., Day, L., & Macaskill, A. (2010). Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence. Pearson, Essex. Manala, M.J. (2010). A better life for all, a reality or a pipe-dream? A black theology intervention in conditions of poor service delivery in the democratic South Africa. International Journal of Bible, Religion and Theology in Southern Africa, 105, 519-531. Mann, A., & Harter, J. (2016). The Worldwide Employee Engagement Crisis. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com Maples, J. L., Guan, L., Carter, N. T., & Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of the International Personality Item Pool representation of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and development of a 120-item IPIP-based measure of the five-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 1070-1084. Maree, K., & Pietersen, J. (2012). Sampling. In Maree, K. (Ed.), First Steps in Research, First Edition, (pp. 172-180). Pretoria: Van Schaik. 292 Martela, F. (2010). Meaningful work. An integrative model based on the human need for meaningfulness. Retrieved from http://www.frankmartela.fi. Martins, N. (2000). Developing a trust model for assisting management during change. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 26(3), 27-31 Maslach, C. & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organisations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass. Maslach, C. (2003). Job Burnout: New directions in research and intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 189-192. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout, Annual Review of Psychology 52(1):397–422. Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd Ed). New York: Harper and Row. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396. Maslow, A. H. (1954). A theory of Human motivation, Psychological Review. Maslow, A.H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Penguin. Masson, R. C., Royal, M. A., Agnew, T. G., & Fine, S. (2008) Leveraging employee engagement: The practical implications. Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 1(1), 56-59. Masvaure, P., Ruggunan, S., & Maharaj, A. (2014). Work engagement, intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction among employees of a Diamond Mining Company in Zimbabwe. Journal of Economic and Behavioural Studies, 6, 488-499. 293 Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2012). Culture and Psychology. Cengage Learning, United States. Mauer, K.F. (2000). Some perspectives on CPA and IRIS research in South Africa. Paper presented at the Spring School Conference, Maccauvlei, South Africa. Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: a longitudinal studyʹ, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 70, 149–171 Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Mäkikangas, A., & Nätti, J. (2005). Psychological consequences of fixed-term employment and perceived job insecurity among health care staff. European Journal of Work & Organisational Psychology, 14(3), 209-237. May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work, Journal of Occupational & Organisational Psychology 77(1): 11–37. May, D.R. (2003). Fostering the human spirit at work: Toward an understanding of the influences on employees’ experienced meaningfulness at work. Unpublished manuscript. Mayer, J. D. (2007). Personality: A systems approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Mcabee, S., & Oswald, F. (2013). The criterion-related validity of personality measures for predicting GPA: A meta-analytic validity competition. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 532-544. McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60, 329-361. 294 McAdams, D.P. (1997). Conceptual history of Personality psychology. In Hogan, R., Johnson, J. and Briggs, S. (Eds.). Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 3-29). San Diego: Academic Press. McAdams, D.P. (2006). The Person: A new introduction to personality psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons McAdams, D.P., & Pals, J.L. (2006). A new Big Five: fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 204-217. McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20, 321-333. McClure, E. B. (2000). A meta-analytic review of sex differences in facial expression processing and their development in infants, children, and adolescents. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 424-453. McCrae, R. (2006). Psychopathology from the perspective of the five-factor model. In S. Strack (Ed.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (pp. 53-64). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008). The Five Factor Theory of personality. In O. P. McCrae, R. R., & Allik, J. (2012). The Five-Factor Model of Personality across Cultures. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90. 295 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36: 587-596. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2007). Brief versions of the NEO-PI-3. Journal of Individual Differences, 28: 116-128. McCrae, R.R. & John, O.P. (1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality. 60(2), 175-215. McCrae, R.R. (1992). The Five-Factor Model: Issues and applications. Journal of Personality (Special issue), 60(2). McCrae, R.R. (2010). The Place of the FFM in Personality Psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 21: 57–64, 2010 McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. Jr. (1987). Validation of the Five-Factor Model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52, 17-40. McCrae, R.R., & Sutin, A.R. (2009). Openness to Experience. In M.R. Leary and R.H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behaviour (pp. 257-273). New York: Guilford. McCrae, R.R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: aggregate personality traits. Journal of personality and social psychology, 89: 407-425. McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., Jr., Hrebickova, M., Urbánek, T., Martin, T. A., Oryol, V. E., et al. (2004). Age differences in personality traits across cultures: Self-report and observer perspectives. European Journal of Personality, 18,143–157. 296 McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebickova, M., Sanz, J., et al. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,78, 173–186. McCunn L. J., Gifford R. (2012). Do green offices affect employee engagement and environmental attitudes? Architectural Science Review, 55, 128-134. McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. McGraw-Hill. Medlin, B., & Green, K.W. (2009). Enhancing performance through goal setting, engagement, and optimism. Industrial management & data systems, (109)(7), pp943-956 Meehl, P.E. (1992). Factors and taxa, traits and types, differences of degree and differences of kind. Journal of Personality, 60, 117-174. Melchers, M.C., Li, M., Haas, B.W., Reuter, M., Bischoff, L., Montag, C. (2016). Similar personality patterns are associated with empathy in four different countries. Frontiers in psychology 7, 290 Men, L.R. (2015). Employee engagement in relation to employee-organisation relationship and internal reputation: effects of leadership and communication. Public Relations Journal, 9 (2),11-22. Metzer, S.A., De Bruin, G.P., & Adams, B.G. (2014). Examining the construct validity of the Basic Traits Inventory and the Ten-Item Personality Inventory in 497 the South African context. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 1005-1014. Meyer, J. P., & Gagné, M. (2008). Employee engagement from a self-determination theory perspective. Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 1:60–62. 297 Mhlanga, T.S. (2012). An investigation into the relationship between certain personality traits and job satisfaction. a case of selected bank employees in the eastern cape province. Unpublished Master Thesis: University of Fort Hare. Milfont, T.L., & Sibley, C.G. (2012). The big five personality traits and environmental engagement: Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of Environmental Psychology 32: 187–195. Millon, T., Millon, C.M., Meagher, S.E., Grossman, S.D., & Ramnath, R. (2012). Personality disorders in modern life. John Wiley & Sons. Mills, M. J., Culbertson, S. S., & Fullagar, C. J. (2012). Conceptualizing and measuring engagement: an analysis of the Utrechtt Work Engagement Scale. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(3), 519-545. Mischel, W. (1986). Introduction to Personality, 4th Edition. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York Mishra, K., Boynton, L., & Mishra, A. (2014). Driving employee engagement: the expanded role of internal communications. Journal of Business Communication, 51(2), pp. 183-202. Mitchell, M., & Jolley, J. (2001). Research design explain 4th Edition. USA: Harcourt College Publishers. Mitonga-Monga, J. M. (2010). The relationship between leadership style, employee participation and positive psychology functioning in a manufacturing company in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Masters dissertation). University of South Africa, Pretoria. 298 Mlačić, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). An analysis of a cross-cultural personality inventory: The IPIP Big-Five factor markers in Croatia. Journal of Personality Assessment 88:168–177. Mohammad, M.J. (2013). Practical guidelines for conducting research - summarizing good research practice in line with the DCED standard. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org Moodley, S.N. (2011). Personality and work engagement in a financial institution. Unpublished Master Thesis: University of South Africa Morris, M.G. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: implications for a changing work force. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 375-403 Moshoeu, A.N. (2017). A model of personality traits and work-life balance as determinants of employee engagement. Phd in Literature and Philosophy. Unpublished. University of South Africa Mostert, K., & Rothmann, S. (2006). Work-related well-being in the South African police service. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 479-491. Mottus, R., Johnson, W., & Deary, I.J. (2011). Personality traits in old age: Measurement and rank order stability and some mean-level change. Psychology and Aging. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0023690 Mount, M. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Incremental validity of empirically keyed biodata scales over GMA and Five Factor Personality constructs. Personnel Psychology, 53, 299–323. 299 Mount, M.K., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviours: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 591-622. Mroczek, D.K., & Spiro, A. (2007). Personality change influences mortality in older men, Psychological Science, 18, pg. 371-376 Mroz, J., & Kaleta, K. (2016). Relationships between personality, emotional labor, work engagement and job satisfaction in service professions. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 2016;29(5):767 – 782 Mueller, G., & Plug, E. (2006). Estimating the Effects of Personality on Male and Female Earnings. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 3–22. Muijs, D. (2011). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage publications. Municipal IQ. (2014). 2014 protest tally high, but with decline evident in March, Press Release, Retrieved from: www.municipaliq.co.za/publications/press/201404031028356463.docx Munn, N. L. (1961). Psychology; the fundamentals of human adjustment (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Myers, I.B. (1998). Introduction to TYPE. 6th Edition. USA: CPP, Inc. Myers, S. D., Sen, S., & Alexandrov, A. (2010). The Moderating Effect of Personality Traits On Attitudes Toward Advertisements: A Contingency Framework. Management & Marketing Challenges for Knowledge Society, 3-20. 300 Naicker, T. (2013). The effect of knowledge sharing on employee engagement (Masters mini-dissertation). University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg. Naidoo, P. (2014). The relationship between organisational culture and work engagement. Unpublished Master’s Thesis: University of South Africa. Nembhard, G. (2006). Principles and strategies for reconstruction: Models of African American community-based cooperative economic development. Harvard Journal of Africa American Public Policy, 12, 39-55 Newman, D. A., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Been there, bottled that: Are state and behavioural work engagement new and useful construct “wines”? Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 1(1), 31-35. Nicholson, I. R. (2011). New technology, old issues. Demonstrating the relevance of the Canadian code of ethics for psychologists to the ever sharper cutting edge of technology. Canadian Psychology, 52(3), 215-224. Nienaber, A. I., Holtorf, V., Lekker, J., & Schewe, G. (2015). A climate of psychological safety enhances the success of front end teams. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19(2) Nienaber, H., & Martins, N. (2014). An employee engagement instrument and framework building on existing research. MJSS 5(20):485-496. Nienaber, H., & Martins, N. (2015). Validating a scale measuring engagement in a South African context. Journal of Contemporary Management, 12:401-424 Nienaber, H., & Martins, N. (2016). Employee engagement in a South African context. Randburg: KR Publishing. 301 Nieuwenhuis, J. (2012). Qualitative research designs and data gathering techniques. In Maree, K. (Ed.), First Steps in Research, First Edition, (pp. 70-92) Pretoria: Van Schaik. Nilforooshan, P., & Salimi, S. (2016). Career adaptability as a mediator between personality and career engagement. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 94: 1–10. Njiru, E. (2008). The role of State corporations in a development state: The Kenyan experience. 30th AAPAM Annual Roundtable Conference, Accra, Ghana 6th-10th October 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.unpal.un.org/introdoc/groups/public. Noesgaard, M.S. (2016). Work engagement among caregivers: Exploring the interplay between the individual and their context. PHD Dissertation: Department of Management Aarhus University Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583. Norman, W.T. (1967). 2,800 personality trait descriptors: Normative operating characteristics for a university population. Department of Psychology, University of Michigan. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd edn.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Nzama, L., De Beer, M., & Visser, D. (2008). Predicting work performance through selection interview ratings and psychological assessment. South Africa Journal of Industrial Psychology, 34(3), 39-47. O’Neill, T. A., Hambley, L. A., & Chatellier, G. S. (2014). Cyberslacking, engagement, and personality in distributed work environments. Computers in Human Behaviour, 40(2), 152-160. 302 Olivier, A. L., & Rothmann, S. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of work engagement in a multinational oil company. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 33(3), 49–56. Olivier, B. (2015). The development and validation of an assessment framework for measuring the organisational effectiveness of a metropolitan. Lavigna Ongore, O. (2013). Job engagement scale Turkish form's validity and reliability study. Kastamonu University. Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 2 (1) (2013), pp. 50-60 Ongore, O. (2014). A study of relationship between personality traits and job engagement, Procedia –Social and Behavioural Sciences 141: 1315–1319. Onraet, E., Van Hiel, A., Roets, A., & Cornelis, I. (2011). The closed mind: Experience and cognition aspects of openness to experience and need for closure as psychological bases for right-wing attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 184-197. Organ, D.W., & McFall, J.B. 2004. Personality and citizenship behaviour in organisations. In B. Schneider & D. B. Smith (Eds.), Personality and organisations: 291–314. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Ormrod, J.E., & Leedy, P. D. (2010). Practical research, planning and design. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P., Schaufeli, W. B., & Van Wijhe, C. (2012). Good morning, good day: A diary study on positive emotions, hope, and work engagement. Human Relations ,65,1129-1154. Oxford University Press. (2015). Personality - definition of personality in English from the Oxford dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com 303 Ozer, D.J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421. Pace, V.L., & Brannick, M.T. (2010). How similar are personality scales of the “same” construct? A meta-analytic investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(7), 669-676. Pandita, D., & Bedarkar. M. (2004). A study on drivers of engagement impacting employee performance. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 133, 106-115. Parker, S. K., & Griffin, M. A. (2011). Understanding active psychological states: Embedding engagement in a wider nomological net and closer attention to performance. European Journal of Work Organisational Psychology, 20,60–67. Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2014). Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 3-29. Paulus, D. J., Vanwoerden, S., Norton, P. J., & Sharp, C. (2016). From neuroticism to anxiety: Examining unique contributions of three transdiagnostic vulnerability factors. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 38-43. Pech, R., & Slade, B. (2006). Employee disengagement: is there evidence of a growing problem? Handbook of Business Strategy, 21–25. Penna. (2007). Meaning at work (Pfeffer & Veiga): Putting people first for organisational success. The Academy of Management Executive. Peretz, H., Levi, A., & Fried, Y. (2015). Organisational Diversity Programs across Cultures: Effects on Absenteeism, Turnover, Performance and Innovation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 26(6), 875-903. 304 Pervin, L. (1994). A critical analysis of current trait theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5(2), 103-113. Pervin, L.A., Cervone, D., & John, O.P. (2005). Personality: Theory and Research (9th Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Picardi, C.A., & Masick, K.D. (2014). Research Methods: Designing and Conducting Research with a Real-World Focus. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pietersen, J., & Maree, K. (2012). Standardization of a questionnaire’, in Maree, K. (Ed.), First Steps in Research, First Edition, (pp. 215-222). Pretoria: Van Schaik. Pillay, K. (2008). Sense of coherence, work engagement and organisational commitment within an automotive development institution. Unpublished Master’s Thesis: University of South Africa, Pretoria Pocnet, C., Antonietti, J.-P., Massoudi, K., Györkös, C., Becker, J., de Bruin, G. P., & Rossier, J. (2015). Influence of individual characteristics on work engagement and job stress in a sample of national and foreign workers in Switzerland. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 74(1), 17-27. Poisat, P. (2006). A critical analysis of organisational strategies for employee engagement. (Doctoral dissertation, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University). Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011) Public management reform: a comparative analysis: NPM, governance and the Neo-Weberian State, 3rd Ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press Poropat, A. (2009). A Meta-analysis of The Five-factor Model of Personality and Academic Performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322-338. 305 Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in work and working. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organisational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 309–327). San Francisco: Berrett- Koehler Publishers. Price Waterhouse Coopers. (2007). Managing tomorrow’s people. The future of work to 2020. Price Waterhouse Coopers Prince, M. (1929). Clinical and Experimental studies in Personality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Sci-Art. Prinzie, P., Stams, G.J.J.M., Dekovic, M., Reijntjes, A.H.A. & Belsky, J. (2009). The relations between parents’ Big Five personality factors and parenting: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 351-362. Public Display Technologies (PDT). (2015). State of Employee Engagement in South Africa survey Public Display Technologies Report. (2014). South Africa’s 1st “State of Employee Engagement” survey reveals management and communication failures. Retrieved from: https://www.pdtsa.co.za/ Purcell, J. (2009). Maintaining employee engagement in difficult times. Employee Engagement Summit 2009 Rahafar, A., Castellana, I., Randler, C., Antunez, J. M. (2017), Conscientiousness but not Agreeableness Mediates Females’ Tendency Toward Being a Morning Person, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 58(3), 249-253. 306 Ramachandran, A., & Pandit, A. (2018). Correlation between employee engagement and personality traits of five factor model. NCRD’s Business Review: e-Journal, Volume 3, Issue 1 (Jan-Dec 2018) Rammstedt, B, & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10- item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203-212. Ramsay, L.J., Taylor, N., de Bruin, G.P. & Meiring, D. (2008). The Big Five personality factors at work: A South African validation study. In Deller, J. (Ed.). Research contributions to personality at work. Munich, Germany: Rainer Hampp Verlag. Rana, S., Ardichvili, A., & Tkachenko, O. (2014) A theoretical model of the antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26, 249-266. Ras, J. (2006). Policing the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan: Practical remarks from a South African perspective. Pakistan Journal of Criminology, 2(1): 107-122 Reinke, K., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). When email use gets out of control: Understanding the relationship between personality and email overload and their impact on burnout and work engagement. Computers in Human Behaviour, 36(3), 502-509. Reio, T. G. Jr., & Sanders-Reio, J. (2011). Thinking About Workplace Engagement: Does Supervisor and Coworker Incivility Really Matter? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4) 462 –478 Revelle, W. (2013). Procedures for personality and psychological research: R package Version 1.3.2. Retrieved from http://personalityproject. 307 Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organisation: the contribution of perceived organisational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825-36. Rich, B. L. (2006). Job engagement: Construct validation and relationships with job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation. Unpublished Doctoral, University of Florida. Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A. & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, pp. 617-635. Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: Sage. Rimm-Kaufman, S.E. (2016). Applications of psychological safety to developmental science: Reflections and recommendations for next steps. Research in Human Development, 13(1), 84–89. Rita E. McKenzie. (2000). Psychological Characteristics of Pre-service Elementary Teachers:Five Factor Model, Vocational Personality Characteristics, and Efficacy. Bell & Howell Information dan Learning Company Robbins, S.P. (2001). Organisational behaviour (9th ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall. Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2015). Organisational Behaviour (16th ed). New York: Pearson Education. Roberts, B.W., & Del Vecchio, W.F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies, Psychological Bulletin, 126, pg. 3-25 308 Roberts, B.W., Lejuez, C., Krueger, R.F., Richards, J.M., & Hill, P.L. (2014). What is conscientiousness and how can it be assessed? Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1315. Robinson, D. (2007). Engagement is marriage of various factors at work. Thought Leaders Robinson, D., Hooker, H., & Hayday, S. (2007). Engagement: The Continuing Story, Institute for Employment Studies Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies. Robinson, J. (2006). A Caterpillar Dealer Unearths Employee Engagement. Gallup Management Journal, Vol. 8, Issue. 10, pp. 1-3. Roffey Park Institute (2008). Retrieved from: www.roffeypark.com/SiteCollection Rogers, C. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of science (Vol. 3, pp. 184-256). New York: McGraw-Hill. Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Ross, C.E., & Willigen, M.V. (1996). Gender, Parenthood, and Anger. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58,572–84. Rossier, J., Zecca, G., Stauffer, S.D., Maggiori, C & Dauwalder, J.P. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale in a French-speaking Swiss sample: Psychometric properties and relationships to personality and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 80 (3): 734–743 309 Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655–684 Rothbard, N.P., & Patil, S.V. (2012). Being there: Work engagement and positive organisational scholarship. In K.S. Cameron & G.M. Spreitzer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organisational scholarship, pp. 56–68, Oxford University Press, New York Rothmann, S. & Buys, C. (2011). Job demands and resources, psychological conditions, religious coping and work engagement of reformed church ministers. Journal of Psychology in Africa 21(2), 173–185. Rothmann, S. (2007). Manual for managed wellness care. SA: Afriforte (PTY) Ltd. Rothmann, S. (2017). Employee engagement. In L. G. Oades, M. Steger, A. Delle-Fave & Passmore, J. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of positivity and strengths-based approaches at work, (pp. 317–341), Wiley, Chichester. Rothmann, S., & Coetzer, E.P. (2003). The big five personality dimensions and job performance. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(1), 68-74. Rothmann, S., & Hamukang'andu, L. (2013). Callings, work role fit, psychological meaningfulness and work engagement among teachers in Zambia. South African Journal of Education, 33(2), 1-16. Rothmann, S., & Joubert, J. H. M. (2007). Job demands, job resources, burnout and work engagement of management staff at a platinum mine in the North-West Province. South African Journal of Business Management, 38(3), 49–61. 310 Rothmann, S., & Rothmann, S. (2010). Factors associated with employee engagement in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1-12. Rothmann, S., & Welsh, C. (2013). Employee engagement: the role of psychological conditions. Management Dynamics 23(1): 14–25. Rothmann, S., Jorgensen, L., & Hill, C. (2011). Coping and work engagement in selected South African organisations. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1), 11 pages Rushdi, N.J. (2014). Impact of psychological influences on investment behaviour of salaried investors in India. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis: University of Lucknow (India). Russell J. A., & Barrett L. F. (1999). Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other things called emotion: dissecting the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 805–819. Ryan, R. M., & Deci E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. Ryckman, R. (2012). Theories of Personality. (10th Edition). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning Ryckman, R. M. (2004). Theories of Personality (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas/Wadsworth. SA Board for People Practices. (2014). Fact Sheet 2014/1: Employing First -Time Job Market Entrants. SABPP, Johannesburg Saari, T., Melin, H., Balabanova, E., Efendiev, A. (2017). The job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: Comparative research on Finland and Russia", Baltic Journal of Management, 12 (2), pp.240-254, 311 Sackett, P.R., Gruys, M.L., & Ellingson, J.E. (2002). Ability-personality interactions when predicting job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 545-556 Sahi, G. K., & Mahajan, R. (2014). Employees’ Organisational Commitment and Its Impact on Their Actual Turnover Behaviour through Behavioural Intentions. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 26(4), 621-646 Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology 21(7): 600–619. Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014) What do we really know about employee engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 155-182. Salamonson, Y., Andrew, S., & Everett, B. (2009). Academic engagement and disengagement as predictors of performance in pathophysiology among nursing students. Contemporary Nurse: A Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession, 32(1-2), 123-132. Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organisational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Psychology, 90, 1217–1222. Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five-factor model of personality and job performance in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30-43. Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). The balance of give and take: Toward a social exchange model of burnout. International Review of Social Psychology, 19, 87–131. 312 Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Utrechtt work engagement scale. Utrechtt, The Netherlands: Utrechtt University. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study, Journal of Organisational Behaviour 25(3): 293–315. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In A. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.) Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 10-24). New York: Psychology Press. Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications for organisations. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716 Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-roma, V. & Bakker, A. B. (2002) The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, pp. 71-92. Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout and engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 173–203. Schaufeli, W.B. (2013). What is engagement? In C. Truss, K. Alfes, R. Delbridge, A. Shantz, & E. Soane (Eds.), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. 313 Schiffman, L.G., & Kanuk, L.L. (2010). Consumer behaviour (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Schiffman, L.G., & Kanuk, L.L. (2010). Consumer behaviour (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Schiffrin, H. (2016). Foreword. In H. Nienaber & N. Martins (Eds.), Employee engagement in a South African context (pp. xi–xiii). Randburg: KR Publishing Schmitt, D.P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of personality and social psychology, 94: 168-182. Schneider, B., & Smith, D.B. (2004). Personality and organisational culture. In B. Schneider & D. B. Smith (Eds.), Personality and organisations (pp.347–370). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Schohat, L.M., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2010). Employee engagement: Theoretical framework and suggestions for empirical exploration. In Albrecht S. (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement (pp. 98-107). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Schretlen, D. J., Van Der Hulst, E. J., Pearlson, G. D., & Gordon, B. (2010). A neuropsychological study of personality: Trait openness in relation to intelligence, fluency, and executive functioning. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32(10), 1068-1073 Schultz, D.P., & Schultz, S.E. (2016). Theories of personality (11th Edition). Cengage Learning. Schwartz, B., 2015, Why we work? London. Simon and Schuster. 314 Schwartz, J.M., Gaugain, C., Nacher, J.C., de Daruvar, A., & Kanehisa, M. (2007). Observing metabolic functions at the genome scale. Genome Biol 8(6): R123 Schwartz, S.H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture,2,1–20. Seibert, S.E., & Kraimer, M.L. (2001). The five-factor model of personality and career success. Journal Vocational Behaviour 58: 1–21. Seidle, B., Fernandez, S., & Perry, J. (2016). Do leadership training and development make a difference in the public sector? A panel study. Public Administration Review, 76(4), 603-613. Sekaran, U. (1992). Research Methods for Business – A skill building approach. (2nd Ed). United States of America: John Wiley & Sons, Inc Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach. 6th Edition, Wiley, New York. Sekiguchi, T. & Huber, V. (2011). The use of person-organisation fit and person-job fit information in making selection decisions, Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 116,203-216 Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., & Tolvanen, A. (2009). The construct validity of the Utrechtt Work Engagement Scale: Multi sample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 459-481. Shaban, S. (2018). Predicting big- five personality traits relation with employees' engagement in public sector in Egypt. International Journal of Business and Management Review 6(1), pp. 33-43 315 Shackleton, V., & Newell, S. (1991). Management Selection: A Comparative Survey of methods used in top British and French Companies. Journal of Occupational Psychology 64, 23-36 Shane, S., Cherkas, L., Spector, T.D., & Nicolaou, N. (2010). Genetics, the big five, and the tendency to be self-employed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1154-1162. Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., & Soane, E. (2013). The role of employee engagement in the relationship between job design and task performance, citizenship, and deviant behaviours. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 2608-2627 Shanumugam, P., & Krishnaveni, R. (2012) Employee Engagement: An Introspection into its conceptualization. International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research, 1(9), 186-194 Shaughnessy, J.J., Zechmeister, E.B., & Zechmeister, J.S. (2011). Research Methods in Psychology. 9th Edition. McGraw-Hill: New York Shirom, A. (2010). Feeling energetic at work: On vigour’s antecedents. In A. B. Bakker and M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and practice (pp. 69-84). London and New York: Psychology Press. Shuck, B., & Reio, G. (2013). Employee Engagement and well-being: A moderation model and implications for practice. Journal of Leadership and Organisational Studies, 21 (1), 43-58. Shuck, B., & Reio, T. (2011). The employee engagement landscape and HRD: How do we link theory and scholarship to current practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 419-428. 316 Shuck, B., & Reio, T. (2014). Employee engagement and well-being: A moderation model and implications for practice. Journal of Leadership & Organisational Studies, 21(1), 43-58. Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010) Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 89-110. Shuck, B., Ghosh, R., Zigarmi, D., & Nimon, K. (2013). The jingle jangle of employee engagement: Further exploration of the emerging construct & implications for workplace learning and performance. Human Resource Development Review, 12, 11–35. Shuck, B., Rose, K., & Bergman, M. (2015). Inside the spiral of dysfunction: The personal consequences of working for a dysfunctional leader. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development. 27(4), 51-58. Shuck, B., Twyford, D., Reio, T. W. Jr., & Shuck, A. (2014). Human resource development practices and employee engagement: Examining the connection with employee turnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 5, 239-270. Shuck, M., Rocco, T., & Albornoz, C. (2011). Exploring employee engagement from the employee perspective: implications for HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(4), 300-325. Shuck, M.B. (2010). Employee engagement: An examination of antecedent and outcome variables (Doctoral dissertation; FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations, Paper 235). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/235 Shuckla, S., Aggarwal, P., Adhikari, B., & Singh, V. (2014). Relationship between Employee Engagement and Big Five Personality Factors: A study of online B2C e-commerce company. International Journal of Indian Management & Strategy 19(3) ISSN: 0973-9335 317 Shukla, S., Aggarwal, P., Adhikari, B., & Singh, V. (2014). Relationship between employee engagement and big five personality factors: a study of online B2C e-commerce company. The Journal of Indian Management and Strategy, 19(3), 26-34 Sibley, C., Harding, J., Perry, R., Asbrock, F., & Duckett, J. (2010). Personality and prejudice: Extension of the HEXACO personality model. European Journal of Personality, 24(2), 516-533. Silva, M.R., & Caetano, A. (2014). Organisational justice: what changes, what remains the same? Journal of Organisational Change Management, 27(1), pp.23-40. Simbula, S. & Guglielmi, D. (2013). I am engaged, I feel good, and I go the extra-mile: Reciprocal relationships between work engagement and consequences. Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology 29, 117-125 Simms, L. J. (2007). The Big Seven model of personality and its relevance to personality pathology. Journal of Personality, 75, 65-94. Simpson, M. R. (2009). Engagement at work: A review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(7), 1012-1024. Small, M.L. (2011). How to Conduct a Mixed Methods Study: Recent Trends in a Rapidly Growing Literature. Sociology 37(1): 57. Smidts, A., Pruyn, A.T.H., & Van Riel, C.B.M. (2001) The Impact of Employee Communication and Perceived External Prestige on Organisational Identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1051-1062. Smillie, L.D., DeYoung, C.G., & Hall, P.J. (2015). Clarifying the Relation Between Extraversion and Positive Affect. Journal of Personality., 564-574. 318 Smillie, L.D., Yeo, G.B., Furnham, A.F., & Jackson, C.J. (2006). Benefits of All Work and No Play: The Relationship Between Neuroticism and Performance as a Function of Resource Allocation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 139-155. Smither, J.W., London, M., & Richmond, K.R. (2005). The Relationship between Leaders' Personality and their Reactions to and Use of Multisource Feedback: A Longitudinal Study. Group & Organisation Management, 30(2), 181-210 Smithikrai, C. (2007). Personality traits and job success: an investigation in that sample. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 15(1): 134–138. Soane, E., Truss, C., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2012) Development and application of a new measure of employee engagement: the ISA Engagement Scale. Human Resource Development International, 15, 529-547. Society for Human Resource Management. (2014). SHRM/ACT survey findings: Job analysis activities. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today Solomon, M.R. (2011). Consumer behaviour: buying, having, and being (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behaviour: anew look at the interface between non‐work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 518–528 Spangler, W., House, R., & Palrecha, R. (2004). Personality and leadership. In B. Schneider & D.B. Smith (Eds.), Personality and organisations (pp. 251-290). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum. 319 Sprang, G., Clark, J. J., & Whitt-Woosley, A. (2007). Compassion Fatigue, Compassion Satisfaction, and Burnout: Factors impacting a Professional’s Quality of Life. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 12 (3), pp. 259-280. Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the work place: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465. Srivatava, S. (2013). Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment Relationship: Effect of Personality Variables. The Journal of Business Perspective 17 (2), 159-167 Steele-Johnson, D., & Leas, K. (2013), Importance of race, gender, and personality in predicting academic performance. J Appl Soc Psychol, 43: 1736–1744. Steger, M., Litman-Ovadia, H., Miller, M., Menger, L., & Rothmann, s. (2013). Engaging in Work Even When It Is Meaningless: Positive Affective Disposition and Meaningful Work Interact in Relation to Work Engagement. Journal of Career Assessment, 21(2), 348-361. Stone, D.N., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Beyond Talk: Creating Anonymous Motivation Through Self-Determination Theory. Journal of General Management, 34, 75-91. Storm, K., & Rothmann, S. (2003). The relationship between burnout, personality traits and coping strategies in a corporate pharmaceuticamasl group. South African journal of industrial psychology, 29(4):35-42. Struwig, F.W., & Stead, G. B. (2010). Planning, designing and reporting research. South Africa, SA: Pearson Education South Africa Stumpf, S.A., Tymon, W.G. Jr & van Dam, N.H.M. (2013). Felt and behavioural engagement in workgroups of professionals. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 255-264. 320 Sulea, C., van Beek, I., Sarbescu, P., Virga, D., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Engagement, boredom, and burnout among students: Basic need satisfaction matters more than personality traits. Learning and Individual Differences 42: 132–138. Susi, S., & Jawaharrani, K. (2010). Work-Life Balance: The key driver of employee engagement. Asian Journal of Management Research, ISSN 2229 –3795. Sutherland, R., De Bruin, G.P. & Crous, F. (2007). The relationship between conscientiousness, empowerment and performance. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(2), 60-67. Sutton, R.I. (1991). Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: The case of the bill collectors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 245–268. Swanson, R.A., & Holton, E.F. (2005). Research in organisations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (3rd Ed). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Swarnalatha, C., & Prasanna, T.S. (2013). Employee engagement: A theoretical approach. International Journal of Human Resource, 3, (1), pp 7 –16. Swatee, S. (2009). Impact of Organisational Culture and Communication on Employee Engagement. Unpublished doctoral thesis, SNDT University. Takawira, N. (2012). Job embeddedness, work engagement and turnover intention of staff in a higher education institution. Unpublished master’s dissertation, University of South Africa, Pretoria. Tang, Y.R., Xiong, Y., Zhao, H.P., & Zang, S.Q. (2003). Studies of five microelement contents in human serum, hair, and fingernails correlated with aged hypertension and coronary heart disease. Biol Trace Elem Res ;92(2):97-104 321 Taylor, N. (2004). The construction of a South African five-factor personality questionnaire. Master’s Dissertation. Johannesburg: Rand Afrikaans University. Taylor, N. (2008). Construct, item, and response bias across cultures in personality measurement. Doctoral Thesis. Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg. Taylor, N., & De Bruin, G.P. (2006). Basic Traits Inventory: Technical manual. Johannesburg: Jopie van Rooyen & Partners. Terracciano, A., Abdel-Khalek, A.M., Adam, N., Adamovova, L., Ahn, C.K, Ahn, H.N., et al. (2005). National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49 cultures. Science, 310, 96–100. Terre Blanche, M., Durrheim, K., & Painter, D. (2006). Research in practice (2nd ed.). Cape Town: UCT Press. Terre-Blanche, M., & Durrheim, K. (1999). Research in practice: Applied methods for social sciences. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press. Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742. The Gallup Organisation. (2013). State of the global workplace: Employee engagement insights for business leaders worldwide. Washington DC: Gallup Inc. Retrieved May 11, 2015 Thomas, S. L. & Scroggins, W. A. (2006). Psychological testing in personnel selection: Contemporary issues in cognitive ability and personality testing. The Journal of Business Inquiry: Research, Education, and Application, 5, 28-38. 322 Thompson, K., Lemmon, G. & Walter, T. (2015). Employee Engagement and Positive Psychological Capital. Organisational Dynamics, 44(3), pp.185-195. Tiwari, B., & Lenka, U. (2016). Building psychological safety for employee engagement in post-recession", Development and Learning in Organisations. An International Journal, 30(1), pp.19-22 Tobin, M., Graziano, W.G., Vanman, E.J., & Tassinary, L.G. (2000). Personality, Emotional Experience and efforts to control emotions. Journal of Personality & social Psychology, 79,656-669 Towers Perrin. (2008). Closing the Engagement Gap: A Road Map for Driving Superior Business Performance. Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study 2007-2008 Trapman, S., Hell, B., Hirn, J.W., & Schuler, H. (2007). Meta-analysis of the relationship between the Big Five and academic success at university. Journal of Psychology, 215 (2), 132-151. Tredoux, C., & Durrheim, K. (Eds.). (2013). Numbers, Hypotheses, and Conclusions: A course in statistics for the social sciences. (2nd Ed). Cape Town: UCT Press. Trull, T.J. (2012). The Five- Factor Model of Personality Disorder and DSM-5. Journal of Personality, 1697-1720. Truss, C., Shantz, A., Soane, E., Alfes, K., & Delbridge, R. (2013). Employee engagement, organisational performance and individual well-being: exploring the evidence, developing the theory. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), 2657-2669. Truss, K., Soane, E. C., Edwards, C., Wisdom, K., Croll, A., & Burnett, J. (2006). Working Life: Employee Attitudes and Engagement 2006. Research Report, Wimbledon: CIPD. 323 Tucker, A. (2004). The role in reflexive trust in modernizing public administrations. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(1), 53-74 Tuckey, M. R., Bakker, A. B., & Dollard, M. F. (2012). Empowering leaders optimize working conditions for engagement: A multilevel study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(1), 15-27. Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R.E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (Tech. Rep. Nos. 61-67). Lackland, TX: US Air Force Aeronautical Systems Division. Ugwu, O., Onyishi, E., & Rodríguez-Sánchez, M. (2014). Linking organisational trust with employee engagement: the role of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review, 43(3), pp. 377-400. Urbina, S. (2004). Essentials of psychological testing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Valchev, V.H., Nel, J.A., Van de Vijver, F.J.R., Meiring, D., De Bruin, G.P., & Rothmann, S. (2013). Similarities and differences in implicit personality concepts across Ethnocultural groups in South Africa. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 44 (3), 365-388 Valentin, C. (2014). The extra mile deconstructed: A critical and discourse perspective on employee engagement and HRD. Human Resource Development International, 17, 1-16. van Daal, T., Donche, V., & De Maeyer, S. (2014). The impact of personality, goal orientation and self-efficacy on participation of high school teachers in learning activities in the workplace. Vocations and Learning, 7(1), 21-40 Van de Vijver, A.J.R., & Rothmann, S. (2004). Assessment in multicultural groups: The South African case. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30(4), 1-7. 324 Van der Linde, E. (2005). The relationship between personality traits and work performance of call centre agents. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa. Van der Merwe, R.P. (2002). Psychometrics testing and human resources management. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28(2), 77-86. Van der Voet, J., & Vermeeren, B. (2017). Change Management in Hard Times: Can Change Management Mitigate the Negative Relationship between Cutbacks and the Organisational Commitment and Work Engagement of Public Sector Employees? American Review of Public Administration 47 (2): 230-252 Van Wanrooy, B., Brewley, H., Bryson, A., Forth, J., Freeth, S., Stokes, L., & Wood, S. (2013). Employment Relations in the Shadow of Recession – First Findings from the 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Study. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Van Zyl, E.N., Deacon, E., & Rothmann, S. (2010). Towards happiness: Experiences of work-role fit meaningfulness and work engagement of industrial/organisational psychologists in South Africa. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36 (1), 1-10. Venter, A. (2006). The relationship between the Big Five personality traits and emotional intelligence competencies among employees in a Durban-based medical aid administrator. (Unpublished Master’s dissertation). University of KwaZulu-Natal (Westville Campus). Vigoda-Gadot, E., Eldor, L., & Schhohat, L. M. (2012). Engage them to public service: Conceptualization and empirical examination of employee engagement in public administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(5), 518-538. 325 Viljevac, A., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Saks, A. M. (2012). An investigation into the validity of two measure of work engagement. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 23(17): 2642–3709. Vinarski-Peretz, H., & Carmeli, A. (2011). Linking care felt to engagement in innovative behaviours in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological conditions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 43-53. Visser, D., & Viviers, R. (2010). Construct equivalence of the OPQ32n for black and white people in South Africa. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(1), 1-17. Von der Ohe, H. (2014). An exploratory study on organisational trust relationships. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). University of South Africa. Vuori, T., San, E., & Kira, M. (2012). Meaningfulness‐making at work. Qualitative Research in Organisations and Management: An International Journal, 7(2), .231 – 248. Wallace, J.C. & Vodanovich, S.J. (2003). Can accidents and industrial mishaps be predicted? Investigating workplace performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 503-514. Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and Outcomes of Proactivity in the Socialization Process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 373-385. Wang, D., & Hsieh, C. (2013). The effect of authentic leadership on employee trust and employee engagement. Social Behaviour & Personality: An International Journal, 41, 613-624. Watanabe, S., Tareq, M., & Kanazawa, Y. (2011). When openness to experience and conscientiousness affect continuous learning: A mediating role of intrinsic motivation and a moderating role of occupation. Japanese Psychological Research, 1–14. 326 Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Harkness, A.R. (1994). Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(1), 18-31. Watson, D., Stasik, S. M., Ellickson-Larew, S., & Stanton, K. (2015). Extraversion and psychopathology: A facet-level analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(2), 432. Wefald, A. J., Reichard, R. J., & Serrano, S. A. (2011). Fitting Engagement into a Nomological Network the Relationship of Engagement to Leadership and Personality. Journal of Leadership & Organisational Studies, 18(4), 522-537. Weiner, I. B., & Greene, R. L. (2008). Handbook of personality assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. (W&G). Weisberg, Y. J., DeYoung, C. G., & Hirsh, J. B. (2011). Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1– 11. Weisberg, Y. J., Deyoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B. (2011), Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of Big Five, Frontiers in Psychology, 2(178), 1-11. Welbourne, T. M. (2007). Employee engagement: Beyond the fad and into the executive suite. Leader to Leader, 2007(44), 45-51. Welch, M. (2011). The evolution of the employee engagement concept: Communication implications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 328-346. Wellins, R.S., Bernthal, P., & Phelps, M. (2005) Employee Engagement: The Key to Realizing Competitive Advantage. Development Dimensions International,1-30. 327 Wells-Lepley, M. (2013, Spring). Kentucky’s older workers: Benefits of these valuable employees. KY SHRM Magazine, p. 24 Welman, C., Kruger, F., & Mitchell, B. (2005). Research methodology. South Africa, SA: Oxford University Press. Werner, A. (2014). Motivation. In Nel PS & Werner A (9th Eds). Human resource management. pp. 264-288. Cape Town: Oxford University Press White, J. K., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big five personality variables and relationship constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(7), 1519-1530 Wihler, A., Meurs, J.A., Momm, T.D., John, J., & Blickle, G. (2017). Conscientiousness, extraversion, and field sales performance: Combining narrow personality, social skill, emotional stability, and nonlinearity. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 291-296. Wildermuth, C. (2008). Engaged to serve: The relationship between employee engagement and the personality of human services professionals and paraprofessionals. USA: Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bowling Green State University Wildermuth, C. M. (2010). The personal side of engagement: The influence of personality factors. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement. Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 197-208). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Wilson, F. (2004). Organisational Behaviour and Work, A Critical Introduction (2nd Ed). Oxford, Oxford University Press. Wilson, K. (2009). A survey of employee engagement. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy: Faculty of Graduate School. University of Missouri-Columbia. 328 Winstead, B. A., Derlega, V. J., & Unger, R. K. (1999). Sex and gender. In V. J. Derlega, B. A. Winstead, & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Nelson-Hall series in psychology. Personality: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 257-281). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Witemeyer, H., Ellen, P., & Straub, D. (2013). Validating a Practice-Informed Definition of Employee Engagement. In Third Annual International Conference on Engaged Management Scholarship, Atlanta, Georgia Wollard, K. K., & Shuck, B. (2011). Antecedents to Employee Engagement: A Structured Review of the Literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 429-446. Wood, J., Kim, W., & Khan, G. F. (2016). Work engagement in organisations: a social network analysis of the domain. Scientometrics,109(1), 317-336 Woods, S. A & Sofat, J.A. (2013). Personality and engagement at work: the mediating role of psychological meaningfulness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43,11, pp. 2203-221 Wright, C. (2012). Getting serious about employee engagement in 2012! Power Engineering 116(4), C3 Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14,121–141. Yadav, A., & Katiyar, D. (2017). Workforce diversity and individual differences: implications for employee engagement. Indian Journal of Commerce & Management Studies, 8(3), pp.7-15 Yildirim, I. (2008). Relationships between burnout, sources of social support and sociodemographic variables. Social Behaviour and Personality, 36, 603-616. 329 Zaidi, N. R., Wajid, R. A., Zaidi, F. B., Zaidi, G. B., & Zaidi, M.T. (2013). The big five personality traits and their relationship with work engagement among public sector university teachers of Lahore. African Journal of Business Management, 7(15), 1344-1353. Zecca, G., Györkös, C., Becker, J., Massoudi, K., de Bruin, G.P., & Rossier, J. (2015). Validation of the French Utrechtt Work Engagement Scale and its relationship with personality traits and impulsivity. European Review of Applied Psychology 65(1): 19–28. Zehr, S.L. (2017). Safe to be Engaged or Engaged to be Safe? A Quantitative Examination of the Relationship Between Employee Engagement and Psychological Safety Within the Federal Workforce. PHD thesis, Sullivan University. Zell, E., Krizan, Z., & Teeter, S. R. (2015). Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis. American Psychologist, 70, 10– 20. Zhang, L.F. (2006). Thinking styles and the big five personality traits revisited. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 117-1187 Zhang, L.F., & Akande, A. (2002). What relates to the big five among South African university students? IFE Psychlog 1A: An international journal, 10, 49-74. Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Entrepreneurial Status: A Meta-Analytical Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 259–271. Zheng, L., Goldberg, L., Zheng, Y., Zhao, Y., Tang, Y., & Liu, L. (2008). Reliability and concurrent validation of the IPIP Big-Five factor markers in China: Consistencies in factor structure between Internet-obtained heterosexual and homosexual samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(7), 649-654. 330 Zhong, L., Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (2016). Job engagement, perceived organisational support, high‐performance human resource practices, and cultural value orientations: A cross‐level investigation. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 37(6), 823-844. Ziapour, A., Kianipour, N. (2015). A study of the relationship between characteristic traits and Employee Engagement (A case study of nurses across Kermanshah, Iran in 2015). Journal of Medicine and Life Vol. 8,3, pp.134-140 Zigarmi, D., Nimon, K., Houson, D., Witt, D., & Diehl, J. (2009). Beyond Engagement: Toward a Framework and Operational Definition for Employee Work Passion. Human Resource Development Review, 8(3), 300-326. Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals' turnover decisions: A Meta-Analytic Path Model. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 309-348 Zopiatis, A., & Constanti, P. (2012). Extraversion, openness and conscientiousness: The route to transformational leadership in the hotel industry. Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 33(1), 86-104 Zopiatis, A., & Constanti, P. (2012). Extraversion, openness and conscientiousness: The route to transformational leadership in the hotel industry. Leadership & Organisation Development Journal 33 (1), 86-104 331 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Ethical Clearance University of Fort Hare 332 333 Appendix 2: Letter of permission OR Tambo District Municipality 334 Appendix 3: Letter of permission Alfred Nzo District Municipality 335 Appendix 5: Letter of permission Sarah Baartman District Municipality 336 Appendix 5: Letter of permission Amathole District Municipality 337 Appendix 6: Letter of permission Joe Gqabi District Municipality 338 Appendix 7: Letter of permission Chris Hani District Municipality 339 Appendix 8: Research questionnaire DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE My name is Tatenda Shaleen Mhlanga. I am a Doctoral full-time student in the Department of Industrial Psychology, Faculty of Management and Commerce, at the University of Fort Hare. I am investigating personality traits in relation to job engagement among municipal workers in the Eastern Cape province, South Africa. The research is done as part of the Doctoral degree requirements in Industrial Psychology. The research is done strictly for academic purposes only. The information solicited will be kept confidential and anonymity is assured. You are cordially requested to complete the questions that follow. SECTION A (DEMOGRAPHIC AND OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION) Please mark with an (X) where appropriate 1. Age Less than 21years 21-30 years 31-40 years 41-50 years 51-60years 61years and above 2. Gender Male Female 340 3. Marital status Single Married Divorced Separated Widowed 4. Educational Qualifications Matric Certificate Diploma Degree Postgraduate Other 5. Duration on the job Less than a year 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years Above 10 years 6. What is your job status. Permanent Temporary 7. Race Black African White Coloured Indian Asian Other 8. Occupational level Level 1-5 Level 6-10 Level 11-15 341 SECTION B: JOB ENGAGEMENT SCALE. Instructions Below are a number of statements that may or may not apply to you. Mark with an X in the box to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 1. I work with intensity on my job. 2. I exert my full effort to my job. 3. I devote a lot of energy to my job 4. I try my hardest to perform well on my job 5. I strive as hard as I can to complete my job. 6. I exert a lot of energy on my job 7. I am enthusiastic about my job 8. I feel energetic about my job. 9. I am interested in my job. 10. I am proud of my job. 11. I feel positive about my job. 12. I am excited about my job. 13. At work, my mind is focused on my job. 14. At work, I pay a lot of attention to my job. 15. At work, I concentrate on my job. 342 16. At work, I focus a great deal of attention on my job 17. At work, I am absorbed in my job 18. At work, I devote a lot of attention to my job SECTION C: PERSONALITY SCALE. Instructions Below are a number of statements that may or may not apply to you. Mark with an X in the box to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. 1 = Very inaccurate, 2 = Moderately inaccurate, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Moderately accurate, 5 = Very accurate ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 1. I am the life of the party. 2. I am interested in people. 3. I have a rich vocabulary. 4. I am always prepared. 5. I am easily disturbed. 6. I don't mind being the centre of attention 7. I sympathize with others' feelings 8. I have a vivid imagination. 9. I pay attention to details 10. I change my mood a lot. 343 11. I feel comfortable around people. 12. I have a soft heart 13. I have excellent ideas 14. I get chores done right away 15. I get irritated easily 16. I start conversations 17. I take time out for others. 18. I am quick to understand things. 19. I like order. 20. I get stressed out easily. 21. I talk to a lot of different people at parties. 22. I feel others' emotions. 23. I use difficult words. 24. I follow a schedule 25. I get upset easily 26. I don't talk a lot. 27. I make people feel at ease. 28. I spend time reflecting on things 29. I am exacting in my work 30. I have frequent mood swings 31. I keep in the background. 32. I am not really interested in others 33. I am full of ideas 344 34. I leave my belongings around 35. I often feel blue 36. I have little to say 37. I insult people 38. I am not interested in abstractions 39. I make a mess of things 40. I worry about things. 41. I don't like to draw attention to myself 42. I am not interested in other people's problems 43. I do not have a good imagination 44. I often forget to put things back in their proper place 45. I am relaxed most of the time 46. I am quiet around strangers 47. I feel little concern for others. 48. I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. 49. I shirk my duties 50. I seldom feel blue. SECTION D: KAHN’S JOB ENGAGEMENT CONDITIONS Instructions Below are a number of statements that may or may not apply to you. Mark with an X in the box to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. 345 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat disagree, 4 = Neither agree or disagree, 5 = Somewhat agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly agree. ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. The work I do on this job is very important to me. 2. My job activities are personally meaningful to me. 3. The work I do on this job is worthwhile. 4. My job activities are significant to me. 5. The work I do on this job is meaningful to me. 6. I feel that the work I do on my job is valuable. 7. I’m not afraid to be myself at work. 8. I am afraid to express my opinions at work. 9. There is a threatening environment at work. 10. I am confident in my ability to handle competing demands at work. 11. I am confident in my ability to deal with problems that come up at work. 12. I am confident in my ability to think clearly at work. 13. I am confident in my ability to display the appropriate emotions at work. 14. I am confident that I can handle the physical demands at work. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION 346 Appendix 9: Output of Inferential Statistics Big five personality traits, municipalities, educational qualifications and occupational level Municipalities and big five personalities 347 Qualifications and the big five traits 348 Occupational level and the big five traits 349 Job engagement, municipalities, educational qualifications and occupational level Occupational level and job engagement 350 Educational qualaifications and job engagement 351 Municipalities and job engagement 352 Psychological conditions, municipalities, educational qualifications and occupational level Municipalities and psychological conditions 353 Educational qualifications and psychological conditions 354 Occupational level and psychological conditions 355 Appendix 10: Editor’s Declaration Silicon Gates Block B 1005B Silicon Oasis Dubai, EAU 31 January 2019 To whom it may concern I hereby confirm that I have proof read and edited the following PhD Thesis using Windows Tracking System to reflect my comments and suggested corrections for the student to action: Personality and Psychological Conditions in Relation to Job Engagement among Municipal Workers in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa By Tatenda Shaleen Mhlanga The research content nor the author’s intentions were not altered in any way during the editing process. Although, the greatest care was taken in the editing of this document, the final responsibility for the product rests with the author. Regards Dr Eunice Tihisa PhD Education Mobile: +971 569069717 Email: eunietihisa@gmail.com

Personality type and motivation in a South African Private Bank

Abstract

Extracted data

Personality type and motivation in a South African Private Bank

Abstract

Extracted data

Related items

Related items