(Luận văn) key factors contributing to employee engagement, a study in ho chi minh city export processing zones and industrial parks

t to UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business ng hi ep w n lo Le Thi Hoang Lan ad ju y th yi pl n ua al va n KEY FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A study in Ho Chi Minh City Export Processing Zones and Industrial Parks ll fu oi m at nh z z ht vb k jm om l.c gm MASTER OF BUSINESS (Honours) n a Lu n va y te re Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2014 t to UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business ng hi ep w n lo Le Thi Hoang Lan ad ju y th yi pl n ua al va n KEY FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A study in Ho Chi Minh City Export Processing Zones and Industrial Parks ll fu oi m at nh z z ht vb k jm om l.c gm ID: 21110012 n a Lu n va MASTER OF BUSINESS (Honours) SUPERVISOR: Dr CAO HAO THI y te re Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2014 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT t to Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratefulness to my supervisor Dr Cao Hao Thi for ng his professional guidance, valuable support, intensive advice, continuous encouragement that hi ep he gave me during the time doing this research w Secondly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Professor Nguyen Dong Phong, n lo ad Professor Nguyen Dinh Tho, and Dr Tran Ha Minh Quan for their valuable time as the ju y th members of ISB Research Committee (IRC) All of their critical comments and suggestions yi have contributed significantly for me to complete this research pl ua al My truly thanks are also given to my ISB classmates as well as all people I know who n participated in filling the questionnaires and provided the valuable information for this study va n Last but not least, I would like to express my sincere thanks to all professors at ISB for their fu ll teaching and guidance during my last two-year master course oi m at z z February 2014 nh Le Thi Hoang Lan ht vb k jm om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re ii ABSTRACT t to This study attempts to examine key factors contributing to the engagement of employees, ng who are working in export processing zones and industrial parks in Ho Chi Minh City In hi ep details, it examines the impact of the five factors (Supervisor support, Training, Rewards and w Recognition, Working environment, and Job characteristics) on employee engagement n lo ad Based on this objective, a survey was delivered to target respondents and among five ju y th independent factors, the study explored positive effect of the four independent variables on yi employee engagement They were Supervisor support, Training, Working environment, and pl ua al Job characteristics Besides, the Multiple Linear Regression and ANOVA analysis identified n the research model of this study could explain 51% of the total variance in employee va n engagement and ANOVA testing result also showed that there was significant difference in fu ll terms of gender (between male and female) on the engagement of employees The findings oi m also figured out supervisor support factor seemingly play a crucial role on the engagement of at nh employees z z ht vb As a result, in order to achieve high employee engagement, companies in export processing jm zones and industrial parks in Ho Chi Minh City might need of paying more attention on k nurturing the relationship between employees and their supervisors, providing better training gm om also further discussed in this study l.c programs, working environment, and job design Practical and managerial implications are n a Lu n va y te re iii TABLE OF CONTENTS t to ng ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i hi ABSTRACT .ii ep TABLE OF CONTENTS iii LIST OF FIGURES v w n LIST OF TABLES vi lo LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii ad CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION y th 1.1 Research background ju yi 1.2 Research problem pl 1.3 Research objectives al ua 1.4 Research scope and research methodology n 1.5 Research contribution n va 1.6 Research structure fu CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ll 2.1 Employee engagement m oi 2.2 Key factors contributing to employee engagement at nh 2.2.1 Supervisor support 2.2.2 Training z z 2.2.3 Rewards and recognition vb ht 2.2.4 Working environment 10 jm 2.2.5 Job characteristics 10 k gm 2.3 The research model 12 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 13 om l.c 3.1 Research process 13 3.2 Measurement scale 14 3.3.1 Preliminarily qualitative research (In-dept interview) 16 n va 3.3.2 Quantitative research 16 n a Lu 3.3 Data collection methods 16 3.4.1 Population 17 3.4.2 Sample size 18 3.4.3 Sampling technique 18 y 3.4 Sampling design 17 te re 3.3.3 Main survey 17 iv 3.5 Data analysis methods 19 3.5.1 Statistical Method 19 3.5.2 Descriptive Statistic 19 t to 3.5.3 Reliability analysis 19 ng hi 3.5.4 Exploratory factor analysis 19 ep 3.5.5 Multiple regression analysis 20 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 21 w n 4.1 Sample descriptive statistics 21 lo ad 4.2 Assessing the reliability of measurement scale 23 4.3 Assessing the validity of measurement scale 25 y th 4.4 Multiple Linear Regression 28 ju yi 4.4.1 Test of assumptions 28 pl 4.4.2 Correlation analysis 29 al ua 4.4.3 Regression analysis 30 n 4.4.4 Hypotheses testing 31 va n 4.6 Discussing the research results 34 ll fu CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 37 oi m 5.1 Summary of findings 37 5.2 Managerial implications 38 nh at 5.2.1 Supervisor support 38 z 5.2.2 Job characteristics 38 z ht vb 5.2.3 Working environment and Training 38 jm 5.3 Limitations and future research direction 39 k References 41 gm APPENDICES 45 l.c Appendix A: A back-tranlated version of questionnaire 45 om Appendix B: Vietnamese-version questionnaire 47 Appendix C: English-version questionnaire 50 a Lu Appendix D: Comments from in-dept interview 53 y te re Appendix H: Testing of moderating effects – Demographics (Gender/Age) 66 n Appendix G: Testing assumptions of mutilple linear regression 61 va Appendix F: Determinant, KMO and Bartett’s Test, Sree Plot, Total Variance Explained 59 n Appendix E: Rejected item(s) in Pilot test 58 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 The proposed research model 12 t to ng Figure 3.1 Research process 14 hi ep Figure 4.1 The final research model 34 w n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al n va ll fu oi m at nh z z ht vb k jm om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re vi LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Measurement scale of employee engagement and factors contributing to employee t to ng engagement 15 hi ep Table 4.1 Summary population of data collection 21 Table 4.2 Data collection methods 22 w n lo Table 4.3 Gender, Age, Position and Working experience of respondents 22 ad Table 4.4 Result of reliability analysis 24 y th ju Table 4.5 Rotated Component Matrix 27 yi pl Table 4.6 Correlations statistics 30 al n ua Table 4.7 Model summary of multiple linear regression analysis 30 n va Table 4.8 ANOVA of multiple linear regression analysis 31 ll fu Table 4.9 Coefficients of multiple linear regression 32 m oi Table 4.10 Summary results of testing hypotheses 34 at nh z z ht vb k jm om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS t to ng hi Export Processing Zones and Industrial Parks HCMC: Ho Chi Minh City HEPZA: Ho Chi Minh City Export Processing and Industrial Zones Authority ep EPZs and IPs: EFA: Exploratory Factor Analysis w n Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin lo KMO: ad ENGAGE: y th Supervisor support ju LEAD: Employee engagement yi Training REWARD: Rewards and Recognition ENVIR: Working environment JOB: Job characteristics pl TRAIN: n ua al n va ll fu oi m at nh z z ht vb k jm om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION t to 1.1 Research background ng hi There are perceptions in which organization must invest its time and effort Employees who ep are engaged in their work, involved in their job and committed to their organizations give w n companies crucial competitive advantages—including higher productivity and lower lo ad employee turnover Thus, it is not surprising that organizations of all sizes and types have y th ju invested substantially in policies and practices that foster these perceptions However, they yi pl are different as engagement drives commitment and involvement, whereas the reverse is not al n va among employees n ua possible, commitment cannot be achieved without engagement and involvement is not exist ll fu Many researches have shown that employees who are engaged tend to explore their m oi performance better than who are not engaged Stated differently, an engaged employee is nh aware of business context, and works with colleagues to improve performance within the job at z for the benefit of the organization (Sundaray, 2011) z vb ht In addition, when employees are engaged, when they care more about their jobs, they are jm willing to exert discretionary effort (Kruse, 2012) to get the required results It means k gm engaged employees spend the voluntary effort that lies above the minimum level of effort l.c required to keep the job and is directed towards organizational goals (Lloyd, as cited in om a Lu Parrey & Bhasin, 2013) Further, work effectiveness is simultaneously higher where more n engaged employees work together It tends to higher 94% in which departments have more n y te re engaged employees are more productive, give better service to customers, and stay in their va engaged employees as shown in the report of Dale Carnegie Training (2012) That means jobs longer 52 Part 2: OTHER INFORMATION t to 1.Sex: ☐Male ☐Female 2.Age: ☐18-25 years old ☐26-35 years old ng Work experience ☐less than years ☐2-5 year ☐5-10 years ☐more than 10 years hi ep (years): ☐Staff Job position: w Other:……………………… n lo your …………………………………… y th company: of ad 5.Name ☐Workers ju Thanks you for your help yi pl n ua al n va ll fu oi m at nh z z ht vb k jm om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re 53 Appendix D: Comments from in-dept interview A English version: t to Interviewee’s comment ng Question All interviewees stated they full hi Supervisor support ep understantood the meaning of the scale My supervisor really cares about my well-being n lo My supervisor strongly considers my goals ad w My supervisor respects my opinions All interviewees stated they full y th Training ju Managers ask employees for their opinion on However, to make the question fluently, yi understantood the meaning of the scale pl training activities they suggested change objective al ua “employees” to “me”, so, the question n become “Managers ask me for my opinion va on training activities” n Learning helps me to overcome work obstacles Training is practical ll fu oi m Rewards and recognition All interviewees stated they full nh The organization has career development vb This organization has public recognition (e.g Interviewees suggest to rewrire this ht z activities z at understantood the meaning of the scale jm employee of the month) question: “This organization has k I receive a pay raise Interviewees confused “When will gm recognized the employee’s achievements” om l.c employees receive a pay raise?” Thus, they argued this question need more n receive a pay raise when I get good a Lu details and suggested changing it to “ I n va achievements in work” This organization offers promotion for employees All interviewees mentioned this question organization offers good opportunities for employee promotion” y need more information, such as “This te re 10 54 All interviewees stated they full Working environment understantood the meaning of the scale 11 Employees and managers get along in this t to organization ng hi My working life balances with my family life 13 My organization is willing to help me if I need a ep 12 Suggest change to “I receive admiration w 14 special favor n (respect) from the people I work with lo I receive respect from the people I work with ad when I have good achievement at work” y th All interviewees stated they full Job characteristics ju yi My job permits me to decide on my own on how pl 15 understantood the meaning of the scale 16 ua al to go about doing the work My job is a complete piece of work that has an n n 17 va obvious beginning and end My job requires me to many different things at fu ll work, using a variety of your skills and talents m Besides feedback from my co-workers, this job oi 18 Employee engagement All interviewees stated they full z my work at nh actually provides clues on how well I am doing z vb understantood the meaning of the scale ht 20 Sometimes I am so into my job that I lose track of a member of this organization is I am highly engaged in this organization n a Lu 22 om exhilarating for me l.c Being gm time 21 k I really “throw” myself into my job jm 19 n va In summary, all interviewees stated that they understand clearly the meaning of the questions y te re and expressed that these questions were proper to ask employees about their perception of what factors related to their engagement in EPZs and IPs context 55 Information of 10 people took participation in the in-dept interview is recorded and summarized in following table t to ng No Name of participant Age Phone contact EPZs or IPs that take account hi ep Pham Thi Thao Quyen 25 0907.318.982 Tan Tao IP Le Thanh Hiep 29 0902.403.688 Vinh Loc IP 29 0909.390.885 Tan Binh IP w Nguyen Thi Bich Hang n lo Vu Van Tien 29 0908.420.121 Linh Trung EPZ Nguyen Trong Nhan 30 0933.078.575 Hiep Phuoc IP Nguyen Tri Thanh 30 0912.549.464 Le Minh Xuan IP Nguyen Thanh Phuc 23 0122.736.3521 Saigon Hi-Tech Park Phan Huy Tu 23 0978.498.599 Tay Bac Cu Chi IP Ngo Thi Hong 26 0982.449.706 Linh Trung I EPZ 10 Nguyen Thi Dang 22 0902.602.661 Tan Thuan EPZ ad ju y th yi pl n ua al n va ll fu oi Ý kiến người vấn at Câu hỏi mở: nh Câu hỏi m B Vietnamese version: z trung thành người lao động với ht vb người lao động vối tổ chức” nào? (Tổng hợp ý kiến 10 người): z Anh/Chị hiểu khái niệm “sụ gắn bó/gắn kết jm tổ chức họ làm việc, muốn làm k việc lâu dài với tổ chức Tất đồng ý suất làm việc gm Theo Anh/Chị, người lao động có gắn kết cao với Anh/Chị có hiểu hết câu hỏi khảo sát sau không? Cấp quan tâm tới chất lượng sống Cấp lưu tâm tới mục tiêu nghề nghiệp giá trị y (như sức khỏe, niềm vui) te re n Cấp tôn trọng ý kiến công việc va n Có câu hỏi khiến Anh/Chị khó hiểu khơng rõ nghĩa vui lịng cho biết ý kiến a Lu Câu hỏi khảo sát: so với người không gắn kết om với người gắn kết? l.c tổ chức suất làm việc họ so người lao động có gắn kết cao 56 Nhà quản lý hỏi ý kiến hoạt động đào tạo Ý kiến: Đổi thành “Tơi bày tỏ ý kiến với nhà quản lý hoạt động đào tạo” t to Đào tạo giúp tơi vượt qua khó khăn gặp phải ng công việc hi ep Nội dung đào tạo doanh nghiệp thực tế Doanh nghiệp có hoạt động phát triển nghề w n nghiệp cho nhân viên ad Doanh nghiệp có biểu dương thành tích nhân ju y th viên Tôi tăng lương Ý kiến: Được tăng lương nào? Nêu yi rõ “Tôi tăng lương đạt pl thành tích tốt cơng việc” ua al 10 Doanh nghiệp tạo hội tốt cho việc thăng tiến n va nhân viên Trong tổ chức doanh nghiệp này, nhân viên lãnh n 11 ll m oi Công việc tổ chức hài hòa với Doanh nghiệp sẵn sàng hỗ trợ tơi gặp khó khăn z vb 14 z sống at nh sống gia đình tơi 13 fu đạo thân thiện với 12 Doanh nghiệp có hoạt động phát triển nghề nghiệp cho nhân viên” lo Ý kiến: Rút gọn cho dễ hiểu thành” Ý kiến: thêm “sự ngưỡng mộ” viết đạt thành tích tốt công việc thành “Tôi nhận ngưỡng mộ ht Tôi nhận tôn trọng từ người khác jm k (tôn trọng) từ đồng nghiệp đạt gm thành tích tốt cơng việc” 16 Tơi chịu trách nhiệm thực cơng việc Bản thân cơng việc tơi làm giúp tơi tự đánh giá mức độ hồn thành ngồi góp ý đồng nghiệp y 18 te re n Cơng việc tơi địi hỏi sử dụng phối hợp nhiều kĩ va 17 n hoàn chỉnh từ đầu đến cuối a Lu cơng việc om thức tiến hành, nói khác đi, tơi quyền tự chủ l.c Công việc làm cho phép tự định cách 15 57 19 Tôi yêu công việc làm tổ chức 20 Thỉnh thoảng mải mê làm việc quên thời gian 21 Tơi cảm thấy phấn khởi thành viên t to tổ chức ng Tôi sẵn sàng gắn bó với tổ chức 22 hi ep Kết luận: w Tất 10 người tham gia vấn nói họ hiểu câu hỏi đề cập khảo sát n lo ad Các câu khơng có ý kiến rõ nghĩa Tất cho biết câu hỏi phù hợp để ju y th khảo sát yếu tố tác động đến gắn bó người lao động bối cảnh Khu công yi nghiệp (KCN) Khu chế xuất (KCX) TP.HCM pl Họ tên KCN/KCX phụ trách 25 0907.318.982 KCN Tân Tạo Lê Thanh Hiệp fu Số điện thoại 29 0902.403.688 KCN Vĩnh Lộc Nguyễn Thị Bích Hằng 29 0909.390.885 KCN Tân Bình Vũ Văn Tiến 29 Nguyễn Trọng Nhân n Phạm Thị Thảo Quyên Tuổi va n STT ua al Thông tin 10 người tham gia vấn ghi nhận lại sau ll oi m KCX Linh Trung 30 0933.078.575 KCN Hiệp Phước Nguyễn Trí Thanh 30 0912.549.464 Nguyễn Thanh Phúc 23 0122.736.3521 Phan Huy Tú 23 0978.498.599 Ngô Thị Hồng 26 0982.449.706 KCX Linh Trung I 10 Nguyễn Thị Đáng 22 0902.602.661 KCX Tân Thuận at nh 0908.420.121 z z KCN Lê Minh Xuân vb Khu Công Nghệ Cao ht k jm KCN Tây Bắc Củ Chi om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re 58 Appendix E: Rejected item(s) in Pilot test t to ng Factor hi Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach’s Item Deleted if Item Deleted Item-total Alpha if Item Correlation deleted ep Scale Mean if w 5.Job characteristics: items; Alpha = 645 n lo V5.1 ad 2.025 550 477 10.9875 2.620 534 508 2.442 633 439 3.557 076 780 ju V5.3 y th V5.2 11.2250 10.8375 yi pl V5.4 11.3875 ua al n REALIABILITY ANALYSIS – SCALE (ALPHA) N of cases = 80 n va ll fu oi m at nh z z ht vb k jm om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re 59 Appendix F: Determinant, KMO and Bartett’s Test, Sree Plot, Total Variance Explained t to ng hi Correlation Matrixa ep a Determinant = 001 w n lo ad KMO and Bartlett's Test y th Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy ju yi pl Bartlett's Test of Sphericity 824 1721.772 df 210 Sig .000 n ua al Approx Chi-Square n va ll fu Sree Plot oi m at nh z z ht vb k jm om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re 60 Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Loadings t to Extraction Sums of Squared ng Total hi ep w Cumulative Variance % Total % of Cumulative Variance % Total % of Cumulative Variance % 5.631 26.816 26.816 5.631 26.816 26.816 2.472 11.770 11.770 2.026 9.649 36.465 2.026 9.649 36.465 2.362 11.247 23.018 1.787 8.508 44.972 1.787 8.508 44.972 2.204 10.494 33.512 1.657 7.891 52.863 1.657 7.891 52.863 2.171 10.339 43.851 1.331 6.338 59.201 1.331 6.338 59.201 2.166 10.312 54.163 64.112 1.031 4.911 64.112 2.089 9.948 64.112 ad lo n % of 1.031 y th 4.911 857 4.079 807 ju 68.191 yi 72.035 661 3.146 75.181 10 624 2.973 11 580 2.761 12 538 2.562 83.477 13 507 2.413 85.890 14 496 2.360 88.250 15 459 2.185 90.435 16 397 1.890 92.325 17 373 1.776 94.101 18 341 1.625 95.726 19 327 1.557 97.283 20 308 1.466 98.750 21 263 1.250 100.000 pl 3.844 ua al 78.154 n n va 80.915 ll fu oi m at nh z z ht vb k jm om l.c gm Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis n a Lu n va y te re 61 Appendix G: Testing assumptions of mutilple linear regression Assumption of a linear relationship between the predictor variables (and composite) t to ng and the dependent variable: hi ep w n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al n va ll fu oi m at nh z z ht vb k jm om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re 62 t to ng hi ep w n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al n va ll fu oi m at nh z z ht vb k jm om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re 63 t to ng hi ep w n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al n va Assumption of independence if residuals (errors): ll fu R Adjusted Durbin- of the R at Square R Square Std Error Change Statistics nh R oi Model m Model Summaryb Square F df1 df2 F Watson Sig z Change 1.57349 520 51.638 238 000 1.694 k jm om l.c gm a Predictors: (Constant), JOB, TRAIN, ENVIR, REWARD, LEAD b Dependent Variable: ENGAGE Change ht 510 Change vb 721a 520 z Estimate n a Lu Assumption of Homoscedasticity of residuals (equal error variances) n va y te re 64 t to ng hi ep w n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al va n Assumption of no multicollinearity: fu Standardized Coefficients Coefficients Sig Collinearity Statistics Tolerance at Beta t nh Std Error oi Unstandardized B z (Constant) m Model ll Coefficientsa 966 2.074 LEAD 574 067 477 8.586 TRAIN 180 073 127 -.049 048 ENVIR 150 JOB 286 039 z 2.004 VIF 653 1.532 2.475 ht 770 1.299 -.051 -1.025 306 800 1.250 053 153 2.827 005 691 1.448 065 222 4.424 000 801 1.248 vb 000 REWARD k om l.c gm a Dependent Variable: ENGAGE 014 jm n a Lu Assumption of No significant outliers or influential points n va No outliers y te re Assumption of Residuals (errors) are normally distributed 65 t to ng hi ep w n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al n va ll fu oi m at nh z z ht vb k jm om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re 66 Appendix H: Testing of moderating effects – Demographics (Gender/Age) t to Testing of moderating effect: Gender ng Group Statistics hi ep w ENGAGE Gender N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean female 141 14.6241 2.37107 19968 male 103 15.4078 1.99232 19631 n lo ad Independent Samples Test y th t-test for Equality of Means ju Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig yi pl df Sig (2tailed) Mean Diff Std Err Diff 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper n ua al t -2.724 242 n va Equal variances 3.160 077 assumed Equal variances not assumed 28767 -1.35030 -.21700 006 -.78365 28002 -1.33529 -.23202 ll fu 007 -.78365 oi m -2.799 237,233 at nh z Testing of moderating effect: Age z ht Age N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean younger (18-25) 170 15.0882 2.24488 0.17217 older (26-35) 74 14.6486 2.24177 k jm gm ENGAGE vb Group Statistics 0.26060 Sig (2tailed) Mean Diff Std Err Diff 242 161 43959 31251 -.17600 1.05518 1.407 139.183 162 43959 31234 -.17796 1.05713 y 1.407 te re 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper n 816 df va 054 t n Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed t-test for Equality of Means a Lu Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig om l.c Independent Samples Test