carlsonschool.umn.edu · web viewbehavior and by extension, affect the likelihood of career...

RUNNING HEAD: Engagement in Six Asia-Pacific Countries and the U.S.

The Influence of Engagement and Self-directed Learning on Job Performance for Managers in Six

Asian Countries and the U.S.

Dr. Kenneth R. Bartlett

Dr. Louis N. Quast

Mr. Dennis W. Paetzel

Ms. Pimsiri Aroonsri

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

1


Abstract

This study examined behavioral rating of managerial engagement behaviors, self-development behaviors,

and job performance, examining relationships among these variables among samples of managers from six Asian

countries (China, Japan, India, South Korea, Thailand, and Singapore) and the United States. We found engagement

to be a strong predictor of job performance in all countries examined. The relationship between self-development

and job-performance, while statistically significant, was smaller across the board, and very small in China, Japan,

and India. Examination of the relationship between the combined scale of engagement plus self-development had

greater predictive utility for job-performance in all countries. In the combined analysis, the engagement scale

accounted for the majority of the variance in job-performance.

2


This study is an international expansion of a preliminary study presented at the 2017

AHRD International Research Conference in the Americas entitled: “The Influence of

Engagement and Self-Directed Learning on Job Performance for Managers” (Bartlett, et al.,

2017). The current study extends this prior work with the adoption of a different methodological

approach, and looked for the presence of patterns among respondents in six Asian countries:

China, India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand, comparing those with the patterns

observed in the United States sample.

International HRD research has a long history of using the concept of culture to measure

country-level effects and explain variance in behavior (Kuchinke, 1999). Culture has been

defined as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group

or category of people from others” (Hofstede, 2001, p.9). One of the most popular frameworks

for research on international culture is Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions:

Individualism/Collectivism, Power Distance, Masculinity/Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance,

and Long-term Orientation When a set of distinctive assumptions, values, and norms are shared

among individuals in an organization, through social interactions, members will try to act in

congruence with such norms in order to remain in good standing in the group (Tajfel & Turner,

1986). From this social psychological point of view, it is possible that the act of giving and

receiving feedback among a group of employees is affected by potential fear of rejection from

other group members as well as a longing for acceptance. Further, the relationships among

supervisory feedback and key organizational variables may be different across different cultural

contexts.

In an organizational context, feedback is a collection of reflective information on various

aspects of individual and group performance. For individuals, feedback may shape future

3


behavior and by extension, affect the likelihood of career advancement (or avoidance of

derailment). Norms which members of a group hold are likely to shape what observers perceive

to be important and satisfactory in rating managerial behaviors on a feedback measure (Kowske

& Anthony, 2007). In line with the argument about cultural influences on feedback, Shipper,

Hoffman, and Rotondo (2007) suggested two reasons why 360 feedback instruments are likely to

be impacted by culture. First, they noted the unequal share of values and assumptions by all

cultures which are fundamental to the nature of the feedback process to give and receive

information. Second, they noted the potential for interaction between 360 feedback and

consequent outcomes (e.g. reaction, cognition, behavior, results) and several of Hofstede

(2001)’s cultural constructs (e.g. uncertainty avoidance, power distance, individualism,

masculinity) may play a role in the utility of such feedback systems. Therefore, it may be risky

to assume similar interpretation of 360 feedback in different cultures.

International research often identifies variation in work related behaviors with difference

between cultures (Clark et al., 2016). Using the GLOBE study (House, Hanges, Javidan,

Dorfman, and Gupta, 2004) as an example, countries in the Confucian cluster, while similar to

each other, maybe very different from countries in the Anglo cluster. For example, Bartlett,

Lawler, Bae, Chen, and Wan (2002) found that HRD practices among large multinational

organizations differed substantially when comparing patterns typically seen in Western countries

with patterns observed in Asia.

There are additional cultural nuances that should not be overlooked when examining the

interaction of cultural influence on feedback instruments. Even among countries that are

clustered together in the GLOBE study (House, et al., 2004), meaningful differences do exist

(Clark et al., 2016). Further, although power distance and individualism-collectivism originated

4


as constructs that distinguish people across cultures (e.g., Hofstede, 2001), more recent research

has argued there is substantial within-culture variation in value orientations arising from

regional, ethnic, religious, and generational differences (Hofstede, 2001; Kirkman, Lowe, &

Gibson, 2006). This has prompted a growing number of researchers to examine power distance

and individualism-collectivism as individual-differences constructs that vary within a single

culture (e.g., Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Farh, Hackett, & Liang, 2007; Ilies, Wagner, & Morgeson,

2007; Kirkman, Chen, Farh, & Chen, 2009; Ng & Van Dyne, 2001; Triandis, Bontempo,

Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988)

It is important to recognize that national culture plays an important role in the way

organizations within that culture operate. Taneja, Sewell, and Odom (2015) stated that some

organizations with at least 60% of workers overseas are confronted with keeping their employees

engaged and, at the same time, dealing with a changing business and educating their employees

on cultural differences and performance management. Yet, studies that examine engagement

among several countries and with comparison to the U.S. are limited. This study aims to

contribute to the understanding of employee engagement in Asia.

Engagement

Debate on the definition of engagement has continued without a single agreed-upon

definition for engagement (Saks & Gruman, 2014). Many scholars have focused to establish the

conceptual boundaries and construct uniqueness of engagement compared to other similar and

related concepts including job involvement, organizational commitment, and organizational

citizenship behavior (Meyer, 2017; Meyer & Gagnè, 2008; Saks, 2006). Shuck and Rocco

(2010) defined employee engagement as it relates to the field of human resource development

(HRD) as the “cognitive, emotional, and behavioral energy an employee directs toward positive

5


organizational outcomes” (p. 103). Shuck and Rocco (2014) wrote that HRD is interested in

engagement because it is at the intersection of improving performance and a person’s

experiences at work. They went on to say that HRD can “not only look at how much

performance can be leveraged, but also, how performance can be leveraged through experiences

that enhance the meaning of work (Shuck & Rocco, 2014, p.118).”

Shuck (2011) identified four approaches to exploring the relationship between HRD and

engagement: “Kahn’s (1990) need-satisfying approach, Maslach et al.’s (2001) burnout-

antithesis approach, Harter et al.’s (2002) satisfaction-engagement approach, and Sak’s (2006)

multidimensional approach” (p 316-317). Much of the HRD literature on engagement has

pursued one or more of those four approaches. Interest in employee engagement has greatly

increased since the first study by Kahn (1990) with Bailey, Madden, Alfes, and Fletcher (2017)

noting that there are over three-quarters of a million studies on the topic. However, the

proliferation of research from academic and scholar-practitioners has occurred as the levels of

engagement in organizations has shown a global decline (Saks, 2017).

Employee engagement has grown in relevance and importance for international

organizations (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006) with greater attention directed towards the

study of engagement in an ever-broader range of countries. Selected examples of the diversity of

countries used in recent employee engagement research has included: Malaysia (Ahmed, Majid,

& Zin, 2016), France (Zecca, Györkös, Becker, Massoudi, de Bruin, & Rossier, 2015), Finland

(Harju, Hakanen, & Schaufeli, 2016), India (Biswas, Varma, & Ramaswami, 2013), Sierra Leone

(Vallières, McAuliffe, Hyland, Galligan, & Ghee, 2017), Jordan (Banihani & Syed, 2017),

Thailand (Rurkkhum & Bartlett, 2012) and Japan (Eguchi, Shimazu, Bakker, Tims, Kamiyama,

Hara, ... & Kawakami, 2016). Yet, in cross-cultural studies the findings of links between

6


engagement with key antecedent and outcome variables have not always produced expected and

hypothesized differences. This is especially notable in the case for studies in Asia (Hu,

Schaufeli, Taris, Hessen, Hakanen, Salanova, & Shimazu, 2014) where cultural difference in

work values often do not fully explain the findings. This highlights the need for additional

research in this region, especially multi-national cross-country studies.

The research evidence indicates a number of positive outcomes to individuals and

organizations from higher levels of engagement. Summarizing Madden and Bailey (2017),

engagement is positively linked to employee life and job satisfaction, physical and psychological

health, and level of organizational commitment. Further, engagement contributes to higher

levels of task performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, collaboration, creativity, and

reduced turnover. In addition, collective measures of organizational engagement are also

positively related to firm performance (Saks, 2017). In the proposal of a theoretical model

linking engagement to three major domains of employees’ lives – work, personal life and

community, Eldor (2016) suggested “work engagement forms a multi-faceted contribution: a

competitive advantage for organizations, a promoter of employee well-being in the extra work

realm of life, and community involvement” (p. 324).

A recent development in the literature is the classification of the ways organizations can

drive engagement. Bakker (2017) identified strategic or top-down and proactive or bottom-up

approaches. Strategic approaches to engagement highlight the role and research evidence that

human resource management and HRD practices combined with senior and line-management

transformational leadership behaviors facilitate higher levels of employee engagement.

Whereas, proactive approaches reflect organizational recognition and encouragement for

employees to alter their work environment and foster ways of thinking in order to generate

7


higher levels of their own engagement. These proactive approaches include: self-management,

job crafting, utilization of a strength, and mobilizing ego resources. Bakker concludes by noting

that “employee work engagement is most likely in organizations with a clear HR strategy, in

which leaders provide resources for their employees, and in which employees engage in daily

proactive behaviors” (p. 67)

The shift to identification of observable behavioral measures of engagement provides an

extension to the majority of early work focused on affective and cognitive aspects of

engagement. Shuck and Wollard (2010) identified specific behaviors related to high-levels of

employee engagement. Others have proposed models of felt engagement and behavioral

engagement (Stumpf, Tymon, & van Dam, 2013). This supports the conceptualization of

engagement as a multi-factorial behavioral, attitudinal, and affective individual differences

variable (Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees, & Gatenby, 2013; Macey & Schneider, 2008; May, Gilson

& Hartner, 2004; Rich et al., 2010). The behavioral approach suggests that high levels of

engagement might drive specific patterns of behavior consistent with the definition of

engagement, and that the levels of engagement in an individual might be identified by observing

and measuring such behaviors as an indication of the underlying psychological and emotional

state (Bartlett, Quast, Wohkittel, Center, & Chung, 2012).

Using this approach, Bartlett et al. (2012) identified eight behaviors among those

measured in the multisource feedback instrument used in this study, that were consistent with

Shuck and Wollard’s (2010) findings. Using behaviors to estimate underlying levels of

engagement varies from other studies in two ways. First, it examines behaviors displayed by

employees in an organizational setting instead of measuring perceived attitude or cognitive state.

Second, it uses the supervisor’s ratings of these observed behaviors. There is little research

8


available that examined the links between behavioral measures of engagement and formal and

informal HRD activities inside an organization.

Self-Development

Formal training and development programs have been the dominant approach to learning

and skill enhancement efforts for organizations (Noe, Clarke, & Klein, 2014; Tannenbaum,

Beard, McNall, & Salas, 2010). However, radical economic, social, and cultural changes in the

labor market in recent years have highlighted the vital role of learning processes in individual

career development and organizational performance (Manuti, Pastore, Scardigno, Giancaspro, &

Morciano, 2015). Further, organizations now rely to a greater extent on different forms of

informal learning (Birdi et al., 1997; Noe, Wilk, Mullen, & Wanek, 1997; Tannenbaum et al.,

2010). As noted by Cerasoli, Alliger, Donsbach, Mathieu, Tannenbaum, and Orvis (2016),

research over the past twenty years has shown a growing consensus that 70% to 90% of

organizational learning occurs not through formal training but informally, on-the-job, and in an

ongoing manner. Historically, self-development informal learning activities have been passively

advocated but not actively initiated, encouraged, or supported by organization feedback and

training systems characterized by traditional HR functions. Shuck, Rocco, and Albornoz (2010)

observed patterns of employees who sought out new opportunities for learning and growth, and

who tried to find new ways to challenge themselves. These efforts included attempting to find

such development opportunities by switching organizations, a costly pattern to the current

employer. While there continues to be interest in self-directed learning methods and outcomes

(London & Mone, 1999), the relationship of informal learning to employee engagement has been

largely overlooked.

9


Brockett and Hiemestra (1991, p. 24) defined self-directed learning as “a process in

which a learner assumes primary responsibility for planning, implementing and evaluating the

learning process”. Self-development occurs when an individual realizes that there is a need to

take control of their own development (Antonacopoulou, 2000). For a variety of reasons, there is

little literature on self-development and its links to HRD (Candy, 1991; Gerstner, 1992; Hamlin

& Stewart, 2011; Merriam, 2001). As noted by Boyce, Zaccaro and Wisecarver, (2010), little

research has examined the characteristics associated with individuals who actively initiate self-

development activities to enhance leadership skills. Their study of junior-military leaders found

self-development was higher in individuals with work and career growth orientations related to

mastery at work. Somewhat surprisingly, their findings found that organizational support

reduced the relationship between motivation and skill in self-development with reported levels of

self-development activities. The extent to which these finding would be found in non-military

organizational contexts is unknown.

Reichard and Johnson (2011) proposed a model of leader self-development that linked

organizational level constructs such as human resources practices with group level norms,

supervisor style, and social networks with the individual leader self-development process. This

approach suggests that further research is needed to understand the drivers of self-development

for leaders and how this relates to desired organizational outcomes, such as engagement, and if

differences among selected Asian countries and the U.S. exist.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between among engagement,

self-development, and job performance in managers working in six selected Asian countries and

the U.S. A secondary purpose of this study was to examine differences and/or similarities

10


observed among the six Asian countries included in this study and compare those results

observed in the U.S.

Research question 1a: What is the relationship between engagement and job performance

among managers in six Asian countries and the U.S.?

Research question 1b: What is the relationship between self-development and job

performance among managers in six Asian countries and the U.S.?

Research question 1c: When examined together, what is the relationship between

engagement, self-development, and job performance among managers in six Asian countries and

the U.S.?

Research question 2a: What differences, if any, can be observed in the relationships

between engagement and job performance when comparing results between each of six Asian

countries and the U.S.?

Research question 2b: What differences, if any, can be observed in the relationships

between self-development and job performance when comparing results between each of six

Asian countries and the U.S.?

Research question 2c: What differences, if any, can be observed in the relationships

between engagement, self-development and job performance when examined together, when

comparing results between each of six Asian countries and the U.S.?

Methods

The data used for this study were drawn from an international archival database of ratings

on The PROFILOR for Managers (PDI Ninth House, 2004), a multisource feedback rating tool

consisting of 135 behavioral items. All participants were managers, and this study used ratings

provided by the direct supervisor of the manager being profiled, typically a senior or executive-

11


level leader. The ratings were done on a five-point Likert-type response scale, ranging from not

at all (1) to a very great extent (5). From the database of 25 plus countries, six Asia-Pacific

countries with sufficient sample size were selected. Before listwise deletion totals: 1,904

managers from China; 768 managers from India; 4,150 managers from Japan; 381 managers

from South Korea; 392 managers from Singapore; 221 managers from Thailand; and 42,941

managers from the United States. After listwise deletion totals: 1,756 managers from China; 702

managers from India; 4,119 managers from Japan; 333 managers from South Korea; 357

managers from Singapore; 195 managers from Thailand; and 38,878 managers from the United

States. Results from each country were examined and compared to each other and to results

from the United States. All participants provided electronic consent allowing their data to be

anonymously aggregated. Studies have examined supervisors’ observations of managerial

behaviors associated with transformational leadership and engagement (Breevaart, Bakker,

Demerouti, & Derks, 2016); however, there are few studies that have directly examined the

supervisors’ ratings of subordinate managers’ engagement behaviors directly.

Each variable used in this study was developed based on existing theory and literature,

and some had been used in earlier research. Bartlett et al. (2012) developed and utilized the

employee engagement scale that was used in this study. The employee engagement scale was

created by an expert panel, made up of subject matter experts holding advanced degrees in HRD,

that identified seven behavioral items from the PROFILOR® instrument that described behaviors

associated with high levels of employee engagement consistent with behaviors identified in other

studies (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Saks, 2006). Sample items include: Lives up to

commitments; readily puts in extra time and effort; persists in the face of obstacles; drives hard

on the right issues; and displays a high-energy level. Scale reliabilities were computed for the

12


scales in each of the countries involved (α = U.S. 0.87, China 0.88, India 0.85, Japan 0.90, South

Korea 0.86, Singapore 0.88, and Thailand 0.86).

A six-item scale was created for self-development to measure the degree to which

supervisors observe their subordinate managers actively participating in self-directed learning

behaviors. Scale reliabilities by country α = U.S. 0.79, China 0.82, India 0.79, Japan 0.82, South

Korea 0.84, Singapore 0.79, and Thailand 0.84. The 6-item scale identifies the extent to which

supervisors observe their subordinate managers pursuing self-development, seeking feedback to

enhance performance, and staying informed of new developments in their industry. These

behaviors have been previously observed in connection with higher levels of individual self-

development (London & Smither, 1999; Orvis & Leffler, 2011). The job performance scale

utilized four items rated using a 5-point Likert-type scale (α = U.S. 0.87, China 0.87, India 0.85,

Japan 0.86, South Korea 0.86, Singapore 0.88, and Thailand 0.86) of the supervisor’s ratings for

the following behaviors: the quality, on-time completion, and overall level of accomplishment

for their subordinate manager.

Informed by a previous study utilizing similar scales, the three scales in this study were

examined to determine if any items were loading on multiple scales (Tkachenko, Quast, Song, &

Jang, 2016). Upon completing the analysis, a total of three items were removed from the original

scales based on higher levels of cross loading. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were

completed on each scale to ensure model fit on the U.S. sample. This is the same process that

was completed in the previously referenced conference submission at AHRD Americas 2017

(Bartlett et al, 2017). The fit of each scale judged based on the criteria put forth by Hu and

Bentler (1999).

13


After confirming adequate fit using CFA, a series of regression analyses were performed.

Performance was predicted by 1) Engagement only, 2) Self-Development only, and 3) both

Engagement and Self-Development together. Each model included each of the six Asian

countries as indicator variables, with U.S. as the reference country. Additionally, and key to

investigating country differences on the prediction of performance, we investigated interactions

between the country indicators and the predictors. A significant interaction therefore indicated

that the relationship between that predictor (e.g. Engagement) and Performance was different in

that country than it was in the U.S. We also ran an overall F test of change for each model

investigating whether there was evidence that any of the country interaction variables were

statistically significantly different from 0.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to test the validity of the employee

engagement, self-development, and job performance scales. The CFA analysis showed that there

was adequate model fit for all of the variables in all six Asian countries and the U.S. In the U.S.

sample, we found a strong relationship (α = .86) between engagement and performance. We did

not find significant differences in the relationship between engagement and performance in any

of the six Asian countries examined.

The relationship between self-development and performance, while highly statistically

significant, was less strong than the relationship between engagement and performance. In

addition, unlike engagement, there was a significant difference in the relationship of self-

development and performance in China, Japan, and to lesser extent South Korea when compared

to the relationship in the U.S. It appears self-development is a weaker predictor of performance

than engagement. In addition, the relationship observed in China, Japan, and to a lesser extend

14


South Korea, was significantly weaker than the relationship observed in the U.S. and the other

three Asian countries.

Engagement was a strong positive predictor of meaningful changes in performance. Self-

development was found to be a weaker, although still, positive predictor of performance. While

both in combination form a strong predictor of job performance, it is important to note that most

of the variance in performance is associated with engagement, and less of the variance in

performance is contributed by self-development. Using the combined scale predictor of

performance, among the six Asian countries examined, there are significant differences in the

relationship in China, Japan, and to a lesser extent India. The remaining Asian countries show

results that appear consistent with the results observed in the U.S.

Discussion and Limitations

This study contributes to the stream of research about engagement at work, in particular

by offering solid measures of the relationship between engagement behaviors and job

performance. This represents an extension to existing international studies on the links between

employee engagement, HRD, and performance. Few past studies have attempted to document

the impact of engagement on objective measures of job performance. Furthermore, this study

documented the usefulness of a behavioral measure of engagement in the six Asian countries

examined, and showed a strong positive relationship between engagement and job performance

in all of the Asian countries examined in this study

More puzzling for HRD professionals is the relationship between self-development and

job performance, particularly in the Asian samples. Self-development has been a construct

actively explored by other researchers, and our findings here contribute to that research. The

15


puzzling part is the weak and inconsistent predictive relationship between self-develop and job

performance, particularly in several of the Asian countries. We found a strong, consistent,

positive relationship between engagement behaviors and job performance. That relationship was

clear in each country examined. By contrast, we have found a statistically significant relationship

between self-development and performance, but it is substantially smaller than the relationship

between engagement and performance. In addition, the relationship between self-development

and performance was not consistent across the six Asian countries selected for this study.

Further research is needed on self-development behaviors in Asia. It is possible that self-

development behaviors as described in the U.S. are culturally inappropriate in other contexts.

Additional research will be required to identify the range of HRD activities in these countries,

which may yield a clearer understanding of the contributions organization-provided and self-

directed learning activities.

With regards to the combined effect of the two constructs, engagement and self-

development, on performance, the relationship in the U.S. sample was highly significant, and it

was a strong predictor of performance. It is important to note that this pattern was not observed

consistently in the six Asian countries in this study. Specifically, the relationship was noticeably

weaker in China, Japan, and to a lesser extent, India. As noted, further study of the behaviors

characteristic of self-development in the context of these and other Asian countries will be

necessary to get at a possible explanation of why this was the case.

In the analysis of the combined predictor constructs, examining their relationship to job

performance, engagement accounts for the majority of the variance in performance while self-

development accounts for a much smaller share of the variance, and in China, Japan, and India

almost none. It is possible that the behaviors associated with the self-development scale used in

16


this study, which showed moderate predictive utility for performance in the U.S. (a more

individualistic culture), may be viewed differently in more collectivist Asian cultures. Additional

emic research on self-directed development specific to each of the countries examined in this

study (and others not examined here) may provide information useful to guiding practice around

encourage self-directed learning for HRD professionals working in each of these cultures.

The combination of engagement and self-development behaviors as a more robust

predictor of job performance did not withstand scrutiny in several Asian countries, as compared

to that combination analyzed in the U.S. As described in this study, the relationship between

engagement, self-development and performance is dominated by engagement, with self-

development providing a statistically significant but weaker prediction of job performance in the

U.S. and almost no predictive utility in several Asian countries. Future research studies will be

needed to fully understand this relationship, in particular the country-by-country differences.

There are multiple implications from this research for practitioners. As shown in this

study, engagement has a strong association with performance. HRD practitioners may do well to

pursue enhanced engagement as a way to support performance improvements. Based on this

research, self-development does have a small predictive utility for job performance, but it may be

best for practitioners to not lead with self-development as the main option to support

performance improvements.

This study used exclusively behavioral items to constitute all of the scales under

consideration. This approach was unlike virtually all prior studies on the subject of employee

engagement, with the exception of earlier contributions by this research team (Bartlett et al.,

2012: Bartlett et al., 2017). The study used archival 360-degree feedback data gathered from

mid- to large- size private-sector, mostly multinational, organizations. These organizations

17


contracted with Western consultants to use 360 instruments as part of larger scale development

interventions. No attempt is made to generalize the results from this study to other types of

organizations (e.g. small organizations, not for profit, government etc.) or to generalize the

results to countries that were not part of the seven included in this study.

18


References

19


20


Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.,

Publishers.

Cerasoli, C. P., Alliger, G. M., Donsbach, J. S., Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Orvis, K.

A. (2016) Antecedents and outcomes of informal learning behaviors: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Business and Psychology, 1-28.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Chan, K.-Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and

leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 481-

498.

Clark, J. M., Quast, L. N., Jang, S., Wohkittel, J., Center, B., Edwards, K., & Bovornusvakool,

W. (2016). GLOBE study culture clusters: Can they be found in Importance ratings of

managerial competencies? European Journal of Training and Development, 535-553.

doi:10.1108/EJTD-03-2016-0016

Eldor, L. (2016). Work engagement: Toward a general theoretical enriching model. Human

Resource Development Review, 15(3), 317-339.

Eguchi, H., Shimazu, A., Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., Kamiyama, K., Hara, Y., … & Kawakami, N.

(2016). Validation of the Japanese version of the job crafting scale. Journal of

Occupational Health 58(3), 231-240.

Farh, J.-L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of

perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing

the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management, 50(3), 715-

729.

21


Gerstner, L. S. (1992) What's in a name? The language of self-directed learning. In Long, H. B.,

& Associates, Self-directed learning: Application and research (pp. 73-96). Norman,

OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education,

University of Oklahoma.

Hamlin, B., & Stewart, J. (2011). What is HRD? A definitional review and synthesis of the HRD

domain. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(3), 199-220.Hezlett, S. A. (2016).

Enhancing experience-driven leadership development. Advances in Developing Human

Resources, 18(3), 369-389.

Harju, L. K., Hakanen, J. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2016). Can job crafting reduce job boredom and

increase work engagement? A three-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 95, 11-20.

Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing, values, behaviours, institutions, and

organizations across nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W. & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,

leadership, and organizations: The Globe Study of 62 societies. Sage Publications,

Thousand Oaks, CA.

Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A

Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W., Taris, T. W., Hessen, D. J., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M., & Shimazu, A.

(2014). "East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet" Work

engagement and workaholism across Eastern and Western cultures. Procedia: Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 6-24.

22


Huang, Y., Ma, Z., & Meng, Y. (2017). High-performance work systems and employee

engagement: Empirical evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,

1-19. doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12140

Farh, J.-L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of

perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing

the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management, 50(3), 715-

729.

Illies, R., Wagner, D. T., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Explaining affective linkage in teams:

Individual differences in susceptibility to contagion and individualism-collectivism.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1140-1148. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1140

Kahn, W. A. (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of culture's

consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values

framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285-320.

Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J.-L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power

distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level,

cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management, 52(4), 744-764.

Kowske, B. J., & Anthony, K. (2007). Towards defining leadership competence around the

world: What mid-level managers need to know in twelve countries. Human Resource

Development International, 10(1), 21-41.

23


Kuchinke, K. P. (1999). Leadership and culture: Work‐related values and leadership styles

among one company's US and German telecommunication employees. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 10(2), 135-154.

London, M., & Mone, E. M. (1999). Continuous learning. In D. Ilgen & E. Palukos (Eds.), The

changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development

(pp. 119-153). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

London, M., & Smither, J.W. (1999) Empowered self-development and continuous learning.

Human Resource Management, 3-15. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-

050X(199921)38:1<3::AID-HRM2>3.0.CO;2-M

Macey, W. H. & Schneider, B. (2008) The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.

Madden, A., & Bailey, C. (2017) Engagement: Where has all the 'power' gone? Organizational

Dynamics, 46(2), 113-119.

Manuti, A., Pastore, S., Scardigno, A. F., & Giancaspro, M. L. (2015). Formal and informal

learning in the workplace: A research review. International Journal of Training and

Development, 19(1), 1-17. doi:10.1111/ijtd.12044

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.

Occupational and Organizational Pschology, 77(1), 11-37.

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory.

New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3-13.

Meyer, J.P., & Gagnè, M. (2008) Employee engagement from a self-determination theory

perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1(1), 60-62.

24


Meyer, J. P. (2017). Has engagement had its day: Whats next and does it matter?

Organizational Dynamics, 46(2), 87-95.

Ng, K. Y., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Individualism-Collectivism as a boundary condition for

effectiveness of minority influence in decision making. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 84(2), 198-225. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2927

Noe, R. A., Wilk, S. L., Mullen, E. J., & Wanek, J. E. (1997). Employee development: Construct

validation issues. In J. Ford, S. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas, & M. Teachout (Eds.),

Improving Training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 153-189). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Noe, R. A., Clarke, A. D., & Klein, H. J. (2014). Learning in the twenty-first-century workplace.

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 245-

275.

Orvis, K. A., & Leffler, G. P. (2011). Individual and contextual factors: An interactionist

approach to understanding employee self-development. Personality and Individual

Differences, 51(2), 172-177.

PDI Ninth House (2004). PROFILOR® for Managers. Minneapolis, MN: PDI Ninth House.

Reichard, R. J., & Johnson, S. K. (2011). Leader self-development as organizational strategy.

The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 33-42.

Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects

on job performance. Academy of Management, 53(3), 617-635.

doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988

Rurkkhum, S., & Bartlett, K. R. (2012). The relationship between employee engagement and

organizational citizenship behaviour in Thailand. Human Resource Development

25


International, 15(2), 157-174. doi:10.1080/13678868.2012.664693

Saks, A. (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(2), 155-182.

Saks, A. M. (2017). Translating employee engagement research into practice. Organizational

Dynamics, 46(2), 76-86.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M (2006). The measurement of work engagement

with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 66(4), 701-716.

Shipper, F., Hoffman, R. C., & Rotondo, D. M. (2007). Does the 360 feedback process create

actionable knowledge equally across cultures? Academy of Management Learning &

Education,6(1), 33-50.

Shuck, B. & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the

foundations. Human Resources Development Review, 9(1), 89-110.

Shuck, B., Rocco, T. S., Albornoz, C. A. (2010) Exploring employee engagement from the

employee perspective: Implications for HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training

35(4), 300-325.

Shuck, B. (2011). Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: An integrative literature

review. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), 304-328.

Shuck, B. & Rocco, T. (2014). Human resource development and employee engagement. In C.

Truss, R. Delbridge, K. Alfes, A. Shantz, & E. Soane, (Eds.). Employee engagement in

theory and practice. New York: Routledge, pp. 116-130.

26


Stumpf, S. A., Tymon, W. G. Jr., & van Dam, N. H. M. (2013). Felt and behavioral enagement in

workgroups of professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 255-264.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter group behavior in S

Worchel & WG Austin (Eds), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson.

Taneja, S., Sewell, S. S., & Odom, R. Y. (2015). A culture of employee engagement: A strategic

perspective for global managers. Journal of Business Strategy, 46-56. doi:10.1108/JBS-

06-2014-0062

Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., McNall, L. A., & Salas, E. (2010). Informal learning and

development in organizations. In S. Kozlowski & E. Salas, Learning, training and

development in organizations (pp. 303-332). New York, NY: Routledge.

Tkachenko, O., Quast, L., Song, W., & Yang, S. (2016). Courage in the workplace: The effects

of managerial level and gender on the relationship between behavioral courage and job

performance. From the proceedings of the 2016 Midwest Academy of Management

Conference, Fargo, North Dakota.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and

collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of

personality and social psychology, 54(2), 323.

Vallières, F., McAuliffe, E., Hyland, P., Galligan, M., & Ghee, A. (2017). Measuring work

engagement among community health workers in Sierra Leone: validating the Utrecht

Work Engagement Scale. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones,

33(1), 41-46.

27


Zecca, G., Györkös, C., Becker, J., Massoudi, K., de Bruin, G. P., & Rossier, J. (2015).

Validation of the French Utrecht Work Engagement Scale and its relationship with

personality traits and impulsivity. Revue Européenne de Psychologie

Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 19-28.

28

carlsonschool.umn.edu · web viewbehavior and by extension, affect the likelihood of career...

Documents